Chapter 3 Limited Tribal Influence Over BIA Initial and Current The IPS process appears to result in limited tribal influence over BIA's annual IPS budget development, and tribal officials believe that their involvement in the process is inconsequential. We found that initial BIA guidance for carrying out the IPS process emphasized that IPS program budgets were to reflect, to the greatest extent possible, tribal priorities. However, current BIA guidance and procedures for implementing the process are directed at ensuring that IPS program budgets meet BIA administrative and program requirements while considering tribal priorities. Our review also showed that the extent to which tribes have participated in the IPS process varied. With regard to tribal influence, tribes contributed to the budget formulation for those IPS programs they had elected to contract with BIA. Tribes differed in the extent to which they pursued contracting-contracted IPS programs represented between 19 percent and 79 percent of BIA's fiscal year 1989 funds subject to the IPS process for the tribes we reviewed. On the other hand, we found that BIA made budgeting decisions for certain IPS funds retained by the area and agency offices, for the most part, without tribal participation. The process for involving tribes in formulating BIA'S budget dates back to the early 1970s. Our comparison of initial BIA guidance and procedures with current guidance and procedures shows a change in expected outcome associated with tribal involvement in the process. Tribal participation in developing BIA's annual budgets began with the formulation of BIA's fiscal year 1973 budget. Formal BIA guidance for tribes' participation in BIA's fiscal year 1978 budget formulation (the earliest procedures we could identify) characterized the IPS process as a tool by which (1) Indian priorities among BIA-funded programs could be reflected and (2) Indian leaders could change BIA programs to meet their needs and desires. In addition, informal BIA guidance for the fiscal year 1979 budget formulation process stated that BIA was "obligated" to facilitate, in every way possible, effective tribal involvement in the budget process. Current IPS budget formulation guidance focuses on BIA area and agency officials' ensuring that budgets fulfill essential federal program requirements while considering tribal program funding priorities at the local level. BIA Officials we talked with could not explain why the IPS guidance had changed. Limited Tribal Influence Over BLA Table 3.1: Key Aspects of BIA's Table 3.1 highlights the key aspects of BIA'S 1978 guidance and current guidance for involving tribes in the budget formulation process. As indicated in the table, the emphasis of BIA's earlier guidance appeared to be on allowing tribes to set program priorities and funding among programs according to tribal preferences. Current guidance, however, seems to emphasize developing agency budgets that meet BIA's understanding of its federal administrative and program requirements, which are generally associated with trust responsibilities. Tribal Involvement Our review of the implementation of BIA's current guidance at five tribes Four of the five tribes' participation in the IPS process differed significantly in the development of IPS budgets for fiscal years 1989-92. Tribal and BIA officials stated that, for two tribes, changes in tribal leadership Limited Tribal Influence Over BLA and political upheaval on the reservation curtailed and even prevented tribal participation in the development of the budget for some of those years. In addition, two of the five tribes attended IPS formulation meetings with the BIA agency office in some of the years, but they either did not attend or did not actively participate in other years. Representatives from two tribes stated that they now intend to participate more actively than they have in the past. We also found that the opportunity for tribal involvement differed in single- as compared to multi-tribe agency offices. In the three singletribe agencies we reviewed, tribes were generally given an opportunity to review and comment on the funding levels and priorities proposed by the BIA agency office for tribal programs carried out by the agency office. The tribes in the two multi-tribe agencies, however, were not always given an opportunity to participate in or review funding levels and program priorities established by the agency office for programs it operated. Limited Tribal Some Tribal Influence Although BIA identifies a specific portion of its budget as IPS funds, As stated in chapter 1, the Congress provided for tribes to contract with BIA to plan, conduct, and administer BIA programs (referred to as "638 contracts") as a means to further the goal of Indian self-determination. Tribes may contract with BIA to carry out BIA programs or services directed to tribes, whether or not the activity is subject to the IPS budget formulation process. According to tribal and BIA agency officials, tribes exercised the greatest degree of control over budget formulation and the subsequent use of Limited Tribal Influence Over BIA Table 3.2: Fiscal Year 1989 IPS Funds funds for those IPS programs that the tribes administer through 638 contracts. The contracting process is separate from the annual IPS process; levels of funding for the contracted programs are generally negotiated between the tribes and the BIA agency offices at the time of contract negotiations. Subsequently, contracted IPS program funding levels are included in the tribes' annual IPS base budget amounts. During the IPS process, tribes may identify their preferences for changing the priority and funding levels for all IPS programs. Table 3.2 shows fiscal year 1989 funding levels associated with IPS programs contracted by the five tribes we visited. These data indicate that contracted activities represented from 19 percent to 79 percent of the individual tribe/agency IPS budgets. This variance indicates that the five tribes have differed in their desire to contract with BIA to plan, conduct, and administer programs that BIA is authorized to administer for the benefit of Indians. Nationally, we noted that about $126 million, or about 50 percent, of the fiscal year 1989 tribe/agency IPS budgets represented contracted IPS programs. *Includes IPS funds for the Trenton, North Dakota, location of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa. Includes the agency office and eight tribes. In fiscal year 1989 the Taos Pueblo had IPS contracts totaling $422,150, or about 24 percent of the total agencywide IPS contracts and 13 percent of the tribe/ agency base budget. Includes the agency office and three tribes. In fiscal year 1989 the Pascua Yaqui tribe had IPS contracts totaling $597,700, or about 30 percent of the total agencywide IPS contracts and 22 percent of the tribe/ agency base budget. Some IPS Funds Are Not With respect to the budgets for all five BIA area offices we visited, tribal and BIA officials told us that neither the tribes nor BIA agency offices are involved in developing BIA area office IPS budgets. Table 3.3 shows the amount of IPS funds included in the fiscal year 1989 budget for each of Limited Tribal Influence Over BIA Table 3.3: Area Office Fiscal Year 1989 the area offices we reviewed. The table shows that of the total IPS funds available areawide, area offices retained between 9.4 percent and 18 percent for area office operations, averaging about 13 percent. Of these IPS funds retained, between one-third and one-half were budgeted for area office ED&A services. Table 3.4 depicts the total fiscal year 1989 IPS initial budget amounts for the tribes and BIA agencies we visited. As this table shows, between about 8 percent and 12 percent of the total agency IPS budget was allocated to BIA agency office ED&A. At each agency visited, we found that agency officials, consistent with BIA policy guidance, ensured that ED&A services were budgeted at the level they believed adequate, regardless of the tribe's priority ranking or funding suggestions. According to BIA agency officials, decisions regarding funding levels for agency ED&A are based on BIA's view that these activities fulfill BIA trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and must be adequately funded. *Includes IPS funds for the Trenton, North Dakota, location of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa. Includes the agency office and eight tribes. The fiscal year 1989 IPS budget for the Taos Pueblo was $394,500. The agency office IPS budget was about $1,587,000, including all the ED&A funds. Includes the agency office and three tribes. The fiscal year 1989 IPS budget for the Pascua Yaqui tribe was $738,500. The agency office IPS budget was about $367,000, including all the ED&A funds. |