Volume IX Winter 1997-98 Number 3

Welfare reform in Indian Country:
A Crisis or an Opportunity?

by John Bushman, Director of the Division of Tribal Services

When President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, welfare reform's official title, it established the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Some social policy experts immediately began to decry its effects on our nation's families and children because of its strict time limits and work participation rate requirements.

But as I began to study this legislation, several thoughts came to mind. My first thought was that Indian families have been in a crisis since 1492. Another was that many Indian families go to bed hungry because they already live in poverty. And another was that Indian men, women, and children are suffering and dying at rates much higher than the national average because of poor nutrition, disease, alcohol, drug and domestic abuse and suicide.

I found myself asking how maintaining the cycle of dependency would help Indian people receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) take back control of their lives? Would maintaining the status quo be better than what welfare reform had to offer Indian Country?

John Bushman, Director of the Division of Tribal Services, HHS Office of Community Services

In the past several years, Congress has set a new course in its dealings with Indian tribes. Beginning with the passage of the Indian Self-Determination Act amendments, enactment of legislation making the Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project permanent, and now welfare reform, Congress has clearly demonstrated its intent to end the old way of doing business by the federal government in its dealings with Indian tribes. These bills have reconfirmed Congress' commitment to the principles of Indian self-determination and self-governance.

Welfare reform offers a rare opportunity for the federal, state, and tribal governments to reshape how each conducts business with the other. This legislation has changed the national public welfare system dramatically, including the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments in administering public assistance programs. Welfare reform has provided the opportunity for tribal governments to become full partners with the federal and state governments in the historic effort to reform welfare.

One of the basic goals of welfare reform is to enhance the control of local governments over public assistance programs. Welfare reform provides tribal governments, at their option, the opportunity to receive direct federal funding to independently design, administer, and operate public assistance programs that are important to tribal communities. Welfare reform provides an opportunity for tribal governments to reclaim and exercise sovereignty. Welfare reform provides an opportunity to break away from the status quo of dependency and paternalism. Welfare reform provides an opportunity for tribal governments to be equal partners with state and local governments. Indian tribes have been seeking this autonomy for decades.

Notwithstanding the opportunities presented to tribes by welfare reform, Indian Country will be challenged if welfare reform is to be successful in tribal communities. While the legislation provides for federal dollars to tribes who opt to administer a tribal TANF program, it does not require states to provide their historic share of funding that tribal members received under the old AFDC program. However, persuasive arguments can be made for why it's in the state's interest to continue to provide state dollars to tribes who administer a TANF program. At press time, several states had indicated they will continue to provide state funding for tribal TANF programs.

Welfare reform, at the very minimum, is about moving people from welfare rolls to payrolls. The legislation requires states, and those tribes who choose to administer TANF, to meet certain goals in finding employment for those receiving TANF assistance. These work participation requirements will pose serious challenges for tribes administering TANF programs, a problem Congress has already recognized. The legislation allows tribes to negotiate work participation rates with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that take into account the limited resources and employment opportunities available to tribal communities.

Federal, state, and tribal governments will share a common challenge because of welfare reform. The challenge will be to see that no one who is eligible and in need of services falls through the cracks because these governments could not cooperate with each other. Welfare reform will require new partnership arrangements in the spirit of cooperation, trust, and respect. It will require new ways of working with each other.

As of November 1997, nine tribes have elected to administer their own TANF programs. Some other tribes are in the process of developing TANF programs that will meet the unique circumstances of their reservations. Other tribes are taking a wait and see approach to see how their members will fare under their state TANF program.

Can welfare reform help tribal members take back control of their lives? Can welfare reform help stop Indian families from suffering and dying at alarming rates? Can welfare reform end the cycle of dependency? Can welfare reform be better than what maintaining the status quo had to offer Indian Country?

I believe it can--but only if tribal, federal, and state governments believe it can too.

John Bushman is an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa and was born and raised on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in northeastern Montana. He directs the Division of Tribal Services, which is responsible for implementing the tribal povisions of the welfare reform law for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Community Services in Washington, D.C. He received his doctor of law degree from the University of Santa Clara School of Law and formerly served as counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.