Page images
[ocr errors]

relationship. Those moneys are very difficult to identify and monitor if we are talking about moneys being used just for Indian communities.

Many education programs in the Office of Education provide Federal support because of education disadvantagement on the part of this segment of our population. While this is also a national problem among Indians, the Federal involvement in special programs for Indians is based on a long history of treaty and legislative action which provide the legal and moral base for Federal support.

Because there is a multitude of Federal educational programs for which Indians are eligible, many different reporting clauses and reporting requirements are involved. It is, therefore, extremely difficult to coordinate these programs to insure the effective utilization of Federal resources.

For example, we have different rules and regulations for the programs in the Office of Education as well as limits on how to apply them. In the Bureau of Indian Affairs, you have primarily one set.

Additionally, the Indian community, as it was pointed out in the previous testimony, is widely diverse in its cultural makeup and its educational goals and objectives.

Finally, Indians are served by different educational systems aside from public schools. There is the Federal school system under the Bureau of Indian Affairs; the Indian-controlled tribal schools, of which we fund 22 or 23; and then we have the church or private schools that Indians attend and have been created for the Indians specifically.

Because of these problems, we have begun several efforts in an attempt to bring order to the problem of effective utilization of Federal funds, to provide quality education to Indians.

Included in these efforts are a grant-by-grant analysis of USOE programs providing funding for Indians in order to determine the magnitude of the funding and reporting problems. Under this effort we have identified or run into some problems that I might just mention.

First, the targeting problems; second, the data reporting problems; third, the lack of a standardization of estimating procedures for identifying amounts of money.

We hope and believe that these efforts will result in significant improvement in the effectiveness of the Federal programs to meet the needs of Indian education.

As you pointed out, the testimony is very large, and it would take several hours to read. I am sure that you've had an opportunity to go through parts of it, and we will be glad to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you very much, Dr. Demmert. Without objection, your prepared statement and attachments thereto will be made part of the record.

I would like to discuss with you for a little the Indian Education Act and its implementation. First of all, will you refresh my recollection on the requirements made by the Congress 2 years ago on restructuring of the Indian education proposal of the administration and the Office of Education.

Would you refresh my recollection as to what we required by that law as far as administrative positions and personnel?

Dr. DEMMERT. The law authorized the creation of a new bureau, called the Office of Indian Education, to be headed by a Deputy

Commissioner for Indian Education, appointed by the Commissioner of Education in the U.S. Office of Education, Department of HEW, from a list of nominees submitted by the National Advisory Council, a 15-member advisory council appointed by the President of the United States, again from a list of nominees submitted by members of the Indian communities, tribes, and organizations.

In the first funding cycle, there were

Mr. MEEDS. Let us not talk about funding for a minute. I want to know what was authorized.

Dr. DEMMERT. A Deputy Commissioner.

Mr. MEEDS. That is all?

Dr. DEMMERT. Also 50 positions.

Mr. MEEDS. Was there any requirement under the authorization for positions that are GS grades and things like that?

Dr. DEMMERT. One deputy, GS-18.

Mr. MEEDS. That is all?

Dr. DEMMERT. That is all.

Mr. MEEDS. How did the Office of Education proceed to carry out that very broad mandate, and when?

Dr. DEMMERT. As you will recall, during the original drafting of the legislation, the official position of the administration was not to support the special office of Indian education for the Department.

Once that legislation was signed into law, the Commissioner of Education pulled together a planning team to lay the base for implementation of the law, if money were appropriated.

Money was appropriated during the first year, and obligated. During that first year of implementation, there were approximately five people brought into what was to become the Office of Indian Education.

The second year, or the first funding cycle, 50 positions were authorized at that time. At that time, we began to bring people into the Bureau-We began to bring people in both from inside Indian communities and outside Indian communities for the staffing of the Bureau.

It took about a year to bring the number up to 30, and we are now, hopefully, going to have a full staff by September.

Mr. MEEDS. When you say "full staff," is that 50 positions?

Dr. DEMMERT. Yes; 50 positions, and the reason that we have not fully staffed during this period is that a deputy was not appointed until January of this past year, and the key positions, the division directors, had to be hired as well as the divisions created.

Mr. MEEDS. Could you give us a breakdown of the Office of Indian Education within the Office of Education?

Dr. DEMMERT. Structurally, the Deputy, the planning officer and an executive officer and staff. Under the Deputy, we have two divisions: The Division for Special Projects and Discretionary Grants, and the Division for the Formula Grants under the part A, local Education Assistance.

Under each of those divisions, we have two branches for a total of four. It is those positions that have not yet been filled.

Mr. MEEDS. My recollection may not be correct, but the funds which were first appropriated, I think in fiscal year 1973, for the Bureau of Indian Education, those amounts were rescinded. Can you account for that?

Dr. DEMMERT. I think that a request was made to have the moneys rescinded.

Mr. MEEDS. It was not rescinded?

Dr. DEMMERT. It was not rescinded.

Mr. MEEDS. When was the first expenditure made for personnel and for carrying out the mandate of the Congress, do you know that? It was not until 1974, was it?

Dr. DEMMERT. I would have to double check on that, but if my recollection is correct, personnel funds came from two different offices in fiscal year 1973. We had a staff office, the Office of Special Concerns, headed by Helen Scheirbeck, under Assistant Commissioner Dick Hays. We also had a line office, which I headed, under Deputy Commissioner Don Davies. At the time the legislation was passed and signed into law, Helen's office and my office worked together to begin to lay a planning base for the Office of Indian Education. Our salaries, that year, came from our respective commissioners.

In fiscal year 1974, after we were transferred to the new Office of Indian Education, Labor-HEW appropriations were used for our salaries. In fiscal year 1975, title IV had its own program administration money.

I think that this is probably accurate. In fiscal year 1974 HEW Labor appropriations were used for our salary. In fiscal year 1975 title IV had its own program administration money.

Mr. MEEDS. In any event, it is a rather sad commentary that you who are the Deputy Commissioner for Indian Education, the position mandated in 1972, were not appointed until January 1975, were you?

Dr. DEMMERT. That is correct.

Mr. MEEDS. I think that this is a very sad commentary on how seriously the Administration took the Congress' mandate to do something about Indian education. I am not blaming you because it is certainly not your fault. But I think the record ought to reflect certainly my displeasure and the displeasure of anyone who looks seriously at the matter.

Dr. DEMMERT. There are a couple of comments that I might like to reflect. Our planning officer had some comments on the budget restraints.

Mr. JACOBSON. Sir, I think the first year of our program, which was fiscal year 1973, our program budget was appropriated by the Congress and there was an attempt by the Administration to impound those funds, which was later resolved by law suit.

However, in fiscal year 1974, because of a Senate oversight, our administrative budget was never appropriated, and the money to run the Office of Indian Education in the second program year was, in essence, borrowed from the Commissioner of Education's S. & E. budget. This included such things as salaries and expenses, planning evaluation money, and all the necessary funds simply to run the office.

So, I think the problem that you were referring to was that because of a Senate oversight, we never got an administrative budget. But we were allowed to award grants.

Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Pressler. Mr. PRESSLER. I have another markup in another committee but there are a couple of questions that I would like to ask, if I could.

On page 2 of your testimony, you state that two of the goals for the Indian Education Act were funding to meet the special educational needs of Indians, and the maximization of the degree of local Indian community involvement.

Given the limited number of programs funded in fiscal year 1975 with the $25 million appropriation, and an estimated 1,500 to be funded in fiscal year 1976, how do you characterize the progress made to date in meeting those two goals, if you have some examples. Dr. DEMMERT. Did you say that it was on page 2?


Dr. DEMMERT. I think I understand your question properly and let me, for my own sake, attempt to clarify what that was.

The question, as I understood it, was whether or not as a result of $25 million appropriated, and 1,500 schools being funded, whether or not we could meet the kinds of needs of the Indian community as expressed in other testimony.

That is a very difficult question to answer, but let me try to point out the strategy we have used, working with the money that we have had.

In the first instance, not all 1,500 schools that applied were funded. We funded around 854 the second year, and about 850 this year. So in 1974, we had about $111 per student. This year, in 1975, we will be spending about $90 per student. That amount of money has enabled us to do several things, I think. Our second annual report supports this.

In the first instance, we are attempting to create a better working relationship between the Indian community, the public schools, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to give Indian parents an opportunity to impact the programs that their children attend, or participate in. We are doing this in part, because it is our belief that the affective kinds of things are very important, and in many cases need to be resolved before the academic skills will begin to improve.

Over the first 3 years, our efforts will be to evaluate whether or not these kinds of affective or subjective things have improved. In the next 3 years, we will be making an effort to measure academic gains to see whether or not we are beginning to have an impact.

Mr. PRESSLER. On the definition of who an Indian is, it is much broader in this act than that of the BIA. Would you explain the definition as used by your office, and have you encountered difficulties with the LEA's because of the broader definition in this act and the interpretation by your office?

Dr. DEMMERT. The definition of an Indian under title IV is much broader than the definition used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I think, in part, the reason for that was that when the Senate Subcommittee on Indian Education conducted their hearings throughout the country, it was found that there were a substantial number of Indians not receiving educational benefits from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

As a result of that, about a year was spent in pulling together that short paragraph to make sure that Indians from other parts of the country, the east coast, for example, who for the most part had not received service or benefits, were able to participate.

Mr. PRESSLER. What definition does your office use for a description of an Indian?

Dr. DEMMERT. We use the one in the law. Let me read it and then attempt to explain it. For the purpose of this title, Indian means any


individual who (1) is a member of a tribe, band or other organized group of Indians, including those tribes bands or groups terminated since 1940, and those recognized now or in the future by the States in which they reside; or who is a descendant in the first or second degree of any such member; or (2) is considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for any purpose; or (3) is an Eskimo or Aleut, or other Alaskan native; or (4) is determined to be an Indian under regulations promulgated by the Commissioner after consultation with the national advisory council, which regulations will further define the term "Indian."

The regulations to-date have not further defined it.

Mr. PRESSLER. Do I have time for one further question?
Mr. MEEDS. Please proceed.

Mr. PRESSLER. In your testimony to the Appropriations Committee you mentioned that the majority of Indians who attend schools are low taxpayers with low concentration of services and a high cost of ancillary services such as transportation.

Will you elaborate on this in relation to the Indian Education Act funding as well as the title IV programs. At that time you said that there was no serious overlap because of the fact that it was less than the average per capita expenditure per pupil, and the norm was $1,000 for schools receiving ORE and OE programs. Do you have any comments on that?

Dr. DEMMERT. Let me check back and see.

This information resulted from a study by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of Education, pointing out that in 15 of the districts which we surveyed we had a substantial number of schools in rural areas that were below either State or National averages in per pupil expenditure. As a result of that, when we talked about money for the Indian community from Public Law 874, title I, title VII setasides, the Johnson-O'Malley Act and title IV, the need was such that the moneys that Johnson-O'Malley provided and title IV provided, for example, were used for different services even though they could be used for the same kinds of services.

So while legislatively there might be some overlap, programmatically there was very little, if any, overlap.

Mr. PRESSLER. Just one final question.

Ten percent of part A money is to fund Indian control programs. Can you give examples of programs that are currently funded out of that 10 percent, and where most of them are?

Dr. DEMMERT. All of them are on or near reservations. I will have Herb check and see if we have a breakdown by State.

Mr. PRESSLER. We could put that in the record later.

[Part A, non-LEA, title IV, Indian Education Act follows:]

« PreviousContinue »