[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]
Tribal circumstances present unique challenges to WtW programs. Tribes are taking on more responsibility for social services and employment programs. In doing so, they are developing new and stronger interagency relationships and working to improve the infrastructure for services to program participants. To provide the context necessary for understanding the implementation of WtW in Indian country, this chapter describes the legislative basis, funding, structure, and staffing of the tribal WtW program, as well as program participation. The next chapter discusses the services provided by tribal WtW programs and service coordination.
To reinforce the purpose of WtW grants, Congress established eligibility criteria and spending rules to ensure that the funds are used primarily for individuals who have serious disadvantages in the labor market. As originally enacted, the BBA required that WtW grantees spend at least 70 percent of their grant funds on (1) long-term TANF recipients or recipients within a year of reaching a TANF time limit, who also have two of three specified barriers to employment; or (2) noncustodial parents of children in a long-term TANF case, who themselves face two of the three specified barriers. The three problems specified in the original language of the BBA were (1) lack of a high school diploma or GED and low reading or math skills, (2) a substance abuse problem, and (3) a poor work history. The remaining grant funds (30 percent or less) could be spent on people who met less stringent criteria: TANF recipients (or noncustodial parents of TANF recipients) who have characteristics associated with long-term welfare dependence (such as being a school dropout or teenage parent), or who have a poor work history. These eligibility criteria applied to the general WtW program, as well as to tribal WtW grantees.
Special provisions of the tribal TANF, WtW, and other employment and training programs affect the implementation of tribal WtW programs. These provisions relate to the allocation and use of funds, time limits, and work activities. In amending the Social Security Act (42UCS608), Congress, recognizing the difficulty many tribes face, required both state and tribal TANF programs to disregard from the 60-month limit on TANF benefits any month during which an adult lives in Indian country where at least 50 percent of the adults are not employed.(2) In general, DHHS regulations governing tribal WtW and TANF programs are flexible, with the aim of enabling tribes to tailor their programs to meet the needs of their service populations. For example, tribal WtW grantees are allowed to spend up to 20 percent of their grant funds on administrative costs (instead of being held to the 15 percent limit that applies to nontribal WtW grantees). Tribal WtW, TANF, and/or NEW programs also have flexibility in defining the program service area, service population, and work activities, and in selecting the supportive services to be provided, such as child care and transportation assistance.Tribes can choose to provide TANF services themselves, or to obtain these services from the state(s) or from another tribe.
With the creation of the TANF block grant program, the existing JOBS programs were terminated, except for those serving the tribes. The NEW program replaced the tribal JOBS program. The NEW program provides funding for tribes and intertribal consortia to administer tribal work activities programs in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
Tribes can have additional flexibility in their use of employment and training funds. The Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-477) allows tribes, at their option, to combine the formula funds they receive for a variety of employment, training, education, and related services from federal agencies, including DOL, DHHS, Education, and BIA. Under "477," tribes develop a plan, written to meet tribally defined goals. Tribes decide which programs they will include in their 477 plans. Funding under each of the federal programs involved (e.g., JTPA, a number of BIA employment and education programs, JOBS/NEW, and the Child Care and Development Block Grant)--can go into a single budget. There is a single plan, a single annual report, and a relationship with a single federal agency, BIA. However, there are limits on the flexibility accorded to 477 programs. For some programs, such as TANF, reports are required by statute. In addition, 477 program funds must be administered in such a manner as to allow determination that funds from different federal sources are spent on activities allowable under the funding source or program. The Secretary of the affected federal agency may (or may not) waive for a 477 program any requirement, regulation, policy, or procedure mandated by the agency. Furthermore, the Secretary (of a federal department) may deny a waiver of departmental regulations and requirements for 477 programs if the Secretary determines such a waiver would be inconsistent with the purposes of PL 102-477, or inconsistent with provisions of the statute, specifically applicable to Indian programs, that authorizes the program in question.
There has been some disagreement between tribes and some federal agencies with respect to reporting and other requirements of tribal 477 programs. Federal program staff tends to favor the provision of timely and responsible accounting and reporting of activities and services provided with federal funds. Tribal 477 grantees tend to favor treating 477 funding streams like a block grant, with minimal accounting and reporting to the particular funding agencies.
As WtW grant programs were being implemented beginning in 1999, it became clear that the strict eligibility criteria and the "70-30" spending requirement were contributing to slow enrollment. In response, Congress modified the WtW legislation in 1999 as part of the FY 2000 appropriations legislation for DOL, DHHS, the U.S. Department of Education (ED), and related agencies. The amendments left in place the requirement that 70 percent of WtW funds be spent on a defined category of participants, and the "70-30" spending requirement still applies to tribal WtW programs, except for those tribes that have incorporated WtW into a 477 plan. However, to make it easier for TANF recipients and noncustodial parents to qualify for WtW services under the 70 percent category, the amendments broadened the population in two ways:
The definition of the 30 percent category was also broadened to include youths 18 to 24 years of age who received foster care prior to age 18, custodial parents (regardless of TANF status) with income below the poverty level, and TANF recipients who face other barriers to employment specified by states in consultation with the local Workforce Investment Board (WIB).(3) Other program changes were also made that expand the types of services allowed and simplify some administrative requirements: (1) allowing WtW funds to be used for preemployment vocational education and job training for up to six calendar months; (2) allowing grantees that are not WIBs to provide job readiness, placement, and postemployment services directly rather than only through contracts or vouchers; (3) streamlining reporting requirements; and (4) permitting child support enforcement agencies to share certain information on noncustodial parents with WIBs, to help the WIBs contact and recruit individuals about participation in the WtW program.
[Go to Contents]
Congress appropriated $30 million for tribal WtW programs, $15 million each for FY 1998 and FY 1999. DINAP awarded the tribal WtW grants. It received proposals from 94 tribes and consortia and funded each proposal according to a funding formula based on the percentage of adult tribal members at or below the poverty level in relation to adults at or below poverty on all reservations.
In FY 1999, the amount of tribal WtW grants ranged from $9,689 to $2,530,161. The amounts of the grants for the 10 grantees participating in this study ranged from $41,009 (Kickapoo Tribe) to $2,530, 161 (Navajo Nation) (see Table 3.1). While the amount of the award can exceed $2 million for large tribes or consortia, the WtW grants are small compared to the TANF program and to the number of unemployed tribal members. For example, the largest tribe, the Navajo Nation, has a population of approximately 235,000members residing on or near the reservation. Estimates of the number of people 18 years old or older without a paying job range from 51,478 to 112,059. The amount of WtW funds of the Navajo Nation WtW grant ($2,530,161) yields between $22.58 and $49.15 per unemployed adult on the reservation. At Tanana Chiefs Conference, one of the two tribal consortia in the study, about 6,195 people reside in the 43 Alaska Native villages that constitute the consortium. Of these 6,195 Native villagers, 3,394 are estimated to be unemployed adults. The WtW grant to Tanana Chiefs Conference ($183,074) yields about $53.94 per unemployed adult.
Grantee |
TANF Funding | FY 98 WtW Funding | FY 99 WtW Funding | NEW Funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cherokee (EBCI) |
n.a. | 137,415 | 146,459 | 90,000 |
CIMC |
n.a. | 1,159,094 | 1,177,533 | 998,592 |
Kickapoo Tribe |
n.a. | 38,607 | 41,009 | 27,264 |
The Klamath Tribes |
464,459 | 48,948 | 43,953 | 0 |
Navajo Nation |
31,171,746 | 2,294,364 | 2,530,161 | 1,752,666 |
Nez Perce Tribe |
504,990 | 49,966 | 49,966 | 51,000 |
Red Lake |
n.a. | 228,195 | 267,288 | 135,000 |
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) |
2,443,973 | 192,346 | 183,074 | 159,115 |
Three Affiliated Tribes (TAT) |
n.a. | 59,634 | 84,580 | 0 |
White Earth |
n.a. | 265,424 | 281,934 | 192,415 |
n.a. = Not applicable: grantee does not operate TANF program. |
||||
[Go to Contents]
Programs authorized under PRWORA, as well as long-standing tribal programs, provide services related to the objectives of WtW. None of the 10 grantees in the study operated its WtW program independently from other employment and training programs. Each grantee provided services funded by the WtW grant as part of an existing employment-related program and used WtW funds to enhance and expand the services provided. For small tribes (for example, Kickapoo, Nez Perce, Klamath), the WtW funding level was sufficient to pay the wages of one staff member or a portion of the wages for several staff members, with the remaining funds used to provide services (described in Chapter IV).
The use of WtW funds varied, depending on whether the tribe operated a 477 program or a tribal TANF program. The seven grantees in the study that did not operate 477 programs used WtW funds to expand or enhance employment and training services specifically for WtW-eligible participants. Tribes that operated integrated 477 programs (three study grantees) used WtW funds to expand or enhance services in accordance with the goals of their 477 plans.
Most tribes have an agency or department responsible for helping tribal members become job ready and obtain employment. Most WtW grantees provide a range of employment-related services drawing on funds from different programs such as NEW and JTPA and from child care funding sources as appropriate and allowed. Depending on the size of the tribe, one person or office may administer the WtW, NEW, and JTPA programs (for example, Kickapoo), or many employees may be stationed at a variety of sites operating the programs (for example, Navajo Nation, California Indian Manpower Consortium, Tanana Chiefs Conference).
Tribal employment and training agencies have multiple sources of funding. They include federal programs (for example, JTPA, NEW, Summer Youth Employment, WtW), state programs, and direct tribal funding. These agencies coordinate services and activities (for example, vocational education, adult education, social services, housing, substance abuse) with other tribal programs. They also coordinate services and activities with state programs, federal programs operated by states or counties (for example, unemployment insurance, TANF, food stamps), other federal programs (for example, Social Security, AmeriCorps, Job Corps), and private-sector employers and nonprofit organizations (for example, Goodwill Industries, faith-based organizations).
The place of the employment and training agency (E&T) within the tribe's organizational structure varies. For 8 of the 10 grantees in the study, the E&T agency is a component of a larger department or division (such as workforce development, human resources, employment, education, or labor). For two of the grantees (California Indian Manpower Consortium and Red Lake), the E&T agency is independent, reporting only to the head of the executive branch (tribal chairman, governor, president, chief, executive director) and to the tribal legislature (tribal council, business committee, corporation board).
Three of the grantees in the study (Nez Perce, Three Affiliated Tribes, White Earth) operate 477 programs that include WtW funding. When WtW funding is incorporated in a 477 program, there may be no distinct WtW program component; as with other 477 program funding, the WtW funds may be reprogrammed to meet the 477 program goals. Each of the three 477 programs in the study is operated under a tribal agency or department such as education, Tribal Employment Rights Office (TERO), or the tribal college.
The 477 program represents a dramatic departure from the way tribes traditionally have administered federally funded programs. Using the 477 approach, a tribe can combine funding from different federal programs without having to adhere to some of the limitations and requirements associated with specific programs or funding agencies. The tribe can define and deliver a set of integrated services in accordance with the tribe's goals and priorities. The 477 tribes in the study used service integration and case management approaches to administer unique programs. To do so, they drew on funding from WtW, NEW, vocational education, vocational rehabilitation, adult education, and other programs funded by ED, DHHS, the Department of the Interior, and DOL.(4)
While incorporating WtW, TANF, and other related programs into a 477 program has potential advantages, some problems have been encountered. The 477 approach can facilitate the development of a one-stop approach, as well as pooling of funds/resources to meet tribally determined goals. Support services, employment, training, child care, and other services or activities can be managed directly in conjunction with the TANF program. If each program is operated separately (outside 477), then the tribal units often have to implement some system of linkages, which can make service integration more difficult, although still possible. On the other hand, some problems have occurred in the release of FY 2002 NEW and CCDF funds to the 477 tribes through the BIA; in addition, some federal program administrators have raised concerns about the adequacy of 477 grantee annual reports to demonstrate that federal funds have been expended in accordance with statutory or regulatory mandates. Tribal and federal informants reported that annual 477 reports had been expanded over the years to meet some of these concerns.
The Indian and Native American Employment and Training Coalition (INAETC) offers technical assistance to tribes that want to determine the advantages and disadvantages of implementing a 477 program. INAETC works with DINAP in DOL and the BIA to obtain and distribute information to tribes pertaining to employment, training, and other welfare-related programs.
While about one-third of the tribes that operate TANF programs operate them under the 477 program, none of the tribes in this study had done so. PRWORA requires tribal TANF programs operated under a PL 102-477, like all other TANF programs, to submit TANF reports. Therefore, one advantage of program integration under 477 is not gained with regard to TANF, a factor that may contribute to some tribes' decision not to incorporate TANF in a 477 program.
Tribes in the study that participate in the 477 program were enthusiastic about it. Informants said that the 477 approach promotes Indian self-determination and self-governance, as well as service integration. These tribes had reassessed their goals and priorities with respect to education, training, and employment as part of designing and developing their 477 programs. They reported that they were better able to develop comprehensive approaches to interrelated education, employment, and training problems and conditions less fettered by the priorities, requirements, and approaches specified by separate programs and agencies.
For tribes, the TANF program dwarfs the WtW and NEW programs--a tribe's TANF grant is often more than 10 times greater than its WtW or NEW grant. Moreover, TANF is likely to continue to exist (especially in Indian country, with its high levels of unemployment), whereas WtW funding was available for only two federal funding cycles. The size and resources required to run a TANF program have deterred many tribes and tribal consortia from taking over TANF operation. However, tribal operation of TANF is also seen as a solution to difficulties in coordinating services with state TANF programs or differences in interpretation or application of state TANF rules to the tribe.
Although tribal takeover of TANF can improve service integration for tribal members, there is also a risk of at least temporary inefficiencies in program administration. Tribal takeover of TANF, combined with a tribal WtW grant, extends the range of program resources that can be provided to tribal members in a closely coordinated fashion consistent with tribal traditions and values. On the other hand, it is difficult to integrate information resources for WtW and TANF with the other tribal programs. In some cases, WtW and TANF staff develop separate information systems that are not designed with future integration in mind. This sometimes leads to incongruous results. A tribal TANF client may report a change of address to a WtW case manager, but it is not communicated to the TANF files; consequently, a TANF check may be mailed to an incorrect address. Basic information on tribal clients can be redundantly entered by several different staffs to separate systems.
In the sites examined for this study, tribal TANF and WtW programs operate out of separate agencies. Four of the grantees (Klamath, Navajo Nation, Nez Perce, and Tanana Chiefs Conference) operate a TANF program. In keeping with the intent of the WtW legislation, their WtW programs are administered through workforce agencies rather than welfare agencies, just as is true for state WtW grantees. Staff at the tribal E&T program (partially funded by the WtW grant) and TANF staff do not report to the same program manager, and at each of the four tribal TANF grantees, the TANF and E&T programs are in different departments or agencies. This separation can impede coordination and integration of the services and activities of the TANF and WtW programs. For example, at Klamath, the TANF and WtW offices are in communities more than 20 miles apart, and it is difficult for tribal members to travel from one office to the other. On the other hand, at Tanana Chiefs Conference, the WtW and TANF staffs are at least located in the same facility.
The administration of TANF and WtW programs by different tribal departments or agencies sometimes impedes welfare reform implementation efforts. For the tribes in the study, TANF tends to come under the aegis or influence of tribal social services programs, whereas WtW tends to come under the aegis of E&T or workforce development programs. While tribal officials and program managers embrace the goal of moving TANF recipients from welfare to work, it is difficult to restructure long-standing departments, programs, responsibilities, and ways of providing services. Such reorganization requires agreement among tribal members, the tribal council, and tribal administrators, as well as the expenditure of resources that are scarce for many tribes.
Program coordination presents a special challenge to tribes. In addition to internal coordination with other tribal services, tribal WtW programs must coordinate their activities with state- and county-administered programs, especially TANF. In addition, many tribes face constraints not faced by states or counties that limit service coordination (e.g., lack of economy of scale associated with small population size, challenges of enforcing child support orders of noncustodial parents residing and/or working off the reservation, and distance from state and county offices). Some tribal grantees in the study have developed promising strategies to address these constraints. These include (1) developing strategies for improved coordination with state/county TANF agencies, (2) combining program goals and funding under the 477 program, (3) coordinating with state agencies for child support enforcement, and (4) forming tribal consortia to improve operating efficiency.
Service coordination and integration have been the motivation for one-stop centers that promote a single application or intake process for multiple programs.(5) The unified intake permits application and eligibility determination for a range of services and programs funded by different federal agencies and departments, including food stamps, WtW, TANF, child support, transportation, and housing services. However, a tribal one-stop center generally cannot integrate services or programs that the tribe does not manage. Consequently, except for tribes operating TANF, none of the tribal programs in the study operated true one-stop centers. For example, if the tribe does not operate a TANF program, it cannot manage enrollment of tribal members in TANF and cannot integrate tribal services with TANF. Often, state or county one-stop centers are located far from tribal programs, making it difficult for tribal members to get to the center and for tribal staff members to coordinate with it. Service coordination is further limited because tribal staff members are often prohibited from accessing critical state or federal data needed for eligibility determination.
Several states where tribal study sites are located have addressed this disconnect between state TANF and tribal programs through co-location or outstationing of state staff at tribal programs. Alaska, Arizona, Minnesota, and North Dakota, or counties in these states, station TANF and other program staff on the reservation to serve tribal members. The state of Alaska took the innovative step of stationing state employees at the Tanana Chiefs Conference facility in Fairbanks to facilitate service coordination and provide convenient access to services. State staff at the Tanana Chiefs Conference facility also serve nontribal Alaska residents. The presence of state staff at the Tanana Chiefs Conference facility creates a one-stop center. The operation of one-stop centers serving all eligible citizens at a tribal facility improves the quality and efficiency of services provided to both tribal members and state residents. It is also a testament to cooperation and collaboration between the state and tribe.
Some state TANF programs may not provide the full complement of services to tribal members residing on reservations with high levels of unemployment. Some study informants said that state programs make little or no attempt to train and place TANF recipients who receive waivers from the 60-month lifetime limit as a result of residing on reservations where the not-working rate exceeds 50 percent. On such reservations, business and economic development are prerequisites for moving TANF recipients from welfare to work. Nevertheless, informants said that TANF, WtW, and other programs should provide skills enhancement, job training, work experience and other services to TANF recipients to help them to become ready and able to work when work becomes available.
[Go to Contents]
Tribal WtW programs attempt to respond to large needs but are modest in scale. Given the high rates of unemployment, welfare dependency, and poverty on many Indian reservations across the country, substantial numbers of tribal members on the reservations visited as part of this study were in need of WtW services to help make the transition from long-term dependency on welfare to self-sufficiency. However, the WtW programs visited as part of this study were modest in size and typically served small numbers of tribal members living both on and off the reservations.
Relative to the total populations living on or near the reservation, the proposed and actual numbers of tribal members enrolled in WtW initiatives were small. As Table 3.2 shows, the size of the reservations varied substantially, both in total tribal population and in the tribal TANF populations from which to recruit WtW participants. One site, the Navajo Nation--the largest tribe in the United States--was an outlier, with a tribal population of 234,786 living on or near the reservation. Among the other nine sites, the numbers of tribal members living on or near the reservation ranged from 34,000 (California Indian Manpower Consortium) to less than 500 (Kickapoo Tribe).
| TCC | Nez Perce | Navajo Nation | CIMC | White Earth | Kickapoo | TAT | Klamath | Cherokee | Red Lake | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimated Population |
||||||||||
Tribal Members (on or Near Reservation) |
6,195 | 16,159 | 234,786 | 34,000 | 6,491 | 478 | 5,246 | 3,748 | 6,311 | 7,974 |
Estimated TANF Population |
174 | 109 | 27,000 | 160 | 149 | 10 | 114 | 28 | 87 | 650 |
Participants |
||||||||||
WtW Participant Goal |
250 | 30 | 230 | 425 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 6 | 400 |
Goal as Percent of Members |
5% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 5% |
WtW Participants Served |
681 | 25 | 104 | 82 | NA | 32 | NA | 36 | 16 | 109 |
Served as Percent of Members |
12% | 1% | 1% | 1% | NA | 7% | NA | 1% | 1% | 1% |
Served as Percent of Goal |
272% | 83% | 45% | 19% | NA | 160% | NA | 144% | 267% | 27% |
| Note: Percentages shown as 1% are between 0% and 1%.
NA = not available. WtW is incorporated in PL 102-477 program; data not broken out for WtW program. |
||||||||||
The proposed number of TANF recipients to be served by the 10 WtW grantees included in the study sample ranged from 6 WtW-eligible individuals (Kickapoo Tribe) to 425 (California Indian Manpower Consortium). As a percentage of total tribal members, the participation goals ranged from less than one percent of tribal members living on or near the reservation (at five reservations) to five percent (at two reservations). While four sites planned to serve more than 200 participants, the other six sites planned to serve 30 or fewer individuals. These small programs all had FY 1999 WtW grants of less than $300,000.
Actual participation in WtW was also small. Participation figures for FY 1998 were available for 8 of the 10 study sites.(6) In those eight sites, the number of participants served range from 16 participants (Cherokee) to 681 participants (Tanana Chiefs Conference). Except for Tanana Chiefs Conference, the programs served fewer than 110 participants, with four of the eight sites serving fewer than 40 participants. The number of WtW participants served in six of the eight sites visited was one percent or less of the total tribal members living on or near the reservation. The numbers served as a percent of total tribal members were considerably higher at Tanana Chiefs Conference (12 percent of tribal members) and the Kickapoo Tribe (7 percent), although the total number of Kickapoo tribal members is very small. Low participation figures imply higher cost per participant than more urbanized programs, and probably reflect special circumstances such as low population density, severity of barriers to employment, and remote location.
At the time of our site visits, four of the eight sites (for which data are available on participation levels) had exceeded their participation goals. For example, Tanana Chiefs Conference and Cherokee had served more than twice the number of individuals they had originally set as their participation goals. Three sites had served less than half of their original participation goals. As discussed in the following chapter, most sites experienced at least some difficulty (and some sites experienced major difficulty) in identifying and recruiting individuals eligible for WtW (especially under the original 70 percent eligibility criteria), in certifying WtW eligibility, or in getting individuals to enroll and stay involved in program services.
[ Go to Contents ]
1. This section is adapted from Chapter I of the report also prepared as part of this evaluation: "Program Structure and Service Delivery in Eleven Welfare-to-Work Grant Programs" (Nightingale, January 2001).
2. The distinction between the unemployment and "not working" rates is important. The unemployment rate is the quotient of the number of unemployed people able to work divided by the number of employed people. The "not working" rate is the quotient of the number of unemployed people able to work plus those unemployed but not looking for work divided by the number of employed people. Thus, the "not working" rate is always equal to or greater than the unemployment rate.
3. Under WIA, tribes are authorized to participate in WIBs; however, at only one of the study sites, the Nez Perce Tribe, was the tribe actively involved with the local WIB.
4. WIA authorizes tribes to consolidate WtW funds in accordance with PL 102-477.
5. One-stops are authorized by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998.
6. WtW participant data were not reported by two of the tribes participating in the PL 102-477 program (Three Affiliated Tribes and White Earth); some participant data were reported by the Nez Perce Tribe for one year (year 1) before the tribe began to participate in the "477" program. "477" tribes are not required to report WtW participation separately.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)