Limited Tribal Influence Over BLA Tribes See Their IPS In our discussions with tribal officials, many expressed the view that their involvement in and input into BIA's budget formulation through the IPS process was of little consequence. Tribal and BIA officials identified limited IPS funds, changes in the programs subject to the IPS process, unsuccessful attempts to appeal BIA budget decisions, and frequent changes in tribal leadership as factors constraining the tribes' efforts to influence decisions on the formulation of BIA's annual budget. Some BIA agency and tribal officials indicated that the number of dollars available for priority-setting by the tribes (funds associated with the IPS budget) is severely limited. As a consequence, tribes have limited flexibility in setting program priorities and funding levels in the IPS process. In some instances, the limited flexibility resulting from funding levels discourages tribes from modifying the amount of funding devoted to individual programs. In the tribes' view, funding modifications may result in the loss of necessary programs or in the funding of programs below minimal requirements. Tribal and BIA agency officials also reported that changes in those programs subject to the IPS process, including a reduction in the total number of programs, have, over the years, reduced tribes' confidence in the process. These officials reported that BIA's designation of programs as subject to the IPS process has changed over time and appears to have resulted from what they characterized as political or BIA administrative decisions. As part of the IPS process, tribes may appeal budget formulation decisions reached at the BIA agency or area offices. Such an appeal provides an additional opportunity for tribes to influence budget formulation decisions. With respect to the tribes' use of the IPS appeal process as a means to affect the budget formulation decisions, BIA officials told us that 10 appeal actions were filed during a 4-year period (budget formulations for fiscal years 1988-91) by tribes within the geographical boundaries covered by the five BIA area offices we visited. All were decided in favor of the BIA agency office, including those actions representing cases that were further appealed by the tribes to the BIA Central Office. Concerning changes in tribal leadership, BIA and tribal officials said that membership in tribal councils or governments can change as frequently as yearly. Thus, familiarity with the IPS process and experience in participating in the process are often lost as a result of tribal elections. Limited Tribal Influence Over BLA Conclusions Recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior These losses, according to tribal officials, limit the tribes' ability to effectively participate in the IPS process. In 1976 BIA characterized the IPS process as a means to pursue Indian BIA currently characterizes the process as a way to provide an opportunity for tribes to participate in developing BIA's budget at the local level. We found that tribes are concerned about their general inability to influence program and funding decisions through participation in the process. We believe that the tribes' current concern, particularly in the context of the earlier procedures and the goals set forth in the Indian self-determination act, raises questions about the purpose being served by the process and what the tribes' expectations should be regarding their involvement. We also found that budgeting decisions for certain IPS funds (those retained by area offices and those used at the agency level for executive direction and administrative services) were made by BIA, for the most part, without tribal participation. We believe this situation increases tribes' uncertainty about their role and the purpose being served by their involvement in the IPS process. We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Assistant Limited Tribal Influence Over BIA Agency Comments and BIA believes that our report reflects a basic misunderstanding of the IPS Our Evaluation process and how it works. Although it did not comment specifically on our recommendation, BIA raised concerns about (1) our discussion of the allocation of IPS program funding between its area offices and tribe/ agency operations, (2) our use of IPS "informal" guidance developed in the early years of the process to determine the extent of tribal participation in the budget formulation process, and (3) the impression left by our report that funding for ED&A is excessive. Our report generally focuses on the extent of tribal involvement in the formulation of BIA's annual budget. Clearly, BIA established the IPS process to provide the vehicle for such involvement. As noted in chapter 1, BIA characterized its budget formulation process, when established, as a means of pursuing Indian self-determination and of providing an opportunity for tribes to set priorities among programs and determine funding for them. BIA's guidance for formulating its fiscal year 1978 budget also stressed the IPS process as a way to "feed" Indian priorities into the budget. Further, table 3.1 shows specific differences between guidance provided to BIA staff doing current budget formulations and Central Office guidance for fiscal year 1978 budget formulation issued in a memorandum signed by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (now the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs). We recognize, and our report demonstrates, that current IPS guidance With regard to our discussions concerning IPS program funding, we presented BIA data on the activities receiving IPS funds at BIA's area and tribe/agency offices, including funding for ED&A. We did not assess the appropriateness of IPS funding levels. Rather, we determined what Limited Tribal Influence Over BIA portion of total IPS funding was being administered by the BIA area offices and what portion of IPS funding was being devoted to ED&A. Chapter 4 Controversy Over IPS Reflects More Fundamental Funding and Programmatic Issues Federal Assistance and Tribal Needs In our discussions with BIA and tribal officials concerning BIA's imple- Tribal and BIA officials at the locations we visited, and the responses contained in the 1989 BIA report to the Congress, consistently mentioned inadequate funding as a serious limitation on the overall administration of Indian programs, as well as a constraint on tribes' efforts to establish program priorities and funding through the IPS process. Many tribal and BIA officials reported that funding often does not meet minimum program needs. Consistent data reflecting the funding needs of tribes we visited were generally unavailable. As discussed in chapter 3, initial BIA procedures for implementing the IPS process provided for tribes to identify their funding needs when providing input to BIA on the tribes' program and funding priorities. However, this aspect of the IPS process is no longer included in BIA's current procedures. In discussing funding limitations, BIA agency and tribal officials stated that limited funding has resulted in inadequate program services and has discouraged tribes from applying for contracts to administer BIA programs. At four tribes, for example, tribal and BIA Officials told us that the law enforcement program was underfunded. The BIA agency provided law enforcement at three of these locations, and the tribe contracted this activity at the fourth. Documents prepared by BIA and tribal officials indicated that additional funding, mainly for salaries, was critically needed. According to these documents, the number of law enforcement officers at one location is the same as the number authorized in 1978, while the tribe's population has quadrupled. At another location, the law enforcement program, including requirements for a detention |