welcome and introductions · web view2020-04-20 · mr. lertjuntharangool concluded his opening...

U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesAdministration for Children and Families

Annual ACF Tribal Consultation Monday, September 16, 2019

Summary Report

Summary | 2019 ACF Tribal Consultation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS...................................................................................................3ACF LEADERSHIP REMARKS.........................................................................................................3

Jeannie Hovland, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Affairs & Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans.........................................................................................3Katherine Chon, Director, Office on Trafficking in Persons.......................................................5Todd Lertjuntharangool, Regional Program Manager, Head Start..............................................6Melissa Johnson, Director, Division of Regional Operations, Office of Child Support Enforcement.................................................................................................................................7Jeannie Hovland, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans (Funding Opportunities)..............................................................................................................................8

KEY ISSUES RAISED........................................................................................................................9Whole-Family Approach.............................................................................................................9Improving TAC and Tribal Consultation..................................................................................10Poverty Guidelines and Living Wage........................................................................................10Tribal Match..............................................................................................................................10Human Trafficking....................................................................................................................10477.............................................................................................................................................13Family First Prevention Services Act........................................................................................14AFCARS....................................................................................................................................14Title IV-E...................................................................................................................................14LIHEAP.....................................................................................................................................14TANF.........................................................................................................................................14Self-Governance........................................................................................................................14CSBG.........................................................................................................................................15Head Start..................................................................................................................................15Tribal Child Support Enforcement............................................................................................17ANA Funding Opportunities.....................................................................................................20Other Comments........................................................................................................................20

2


More than 30 tribal leaders and federal partners discussed the policies and administration of several key ACF programs, and sought solutions to issues as wide-ranging as poverty, human trafficking, and the physical and technological disconnect between tribes, states, and the federal government. Budget policies including using the fair market value of donated space, non-federal share, Public Law 102-477 Program expansion, Head Start, and anti-trafficking efforts were central topics of discussion at the annual consultation, held by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) on September 16, 2019 in Temecula, California.

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONSThe Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Consultation opened with brief remarks from Jeannie Hovland, Commissioner for the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Affairs at ACF. She introduced Loni Greninger, from the Jamestown S’Klallam tribe, who served as co-facilitator. Susie Wauneka, Navajo Nation, offered an opening prayer.

ACF LEADERSHIP REMARKSJeannie Hovland, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Affairs & Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans

Ms. Hovland cited her role, by law, is to be an effective and visible advocate for Native Americans within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as well as other departments and agencies of the federal government. She noted that this consultation was being held in Indian Country, based on feedback from tribes and the ACF Tribal Advisory Committee (TAC). She encouraged tribes to continue to help get the word out about ACF programs and to provide input in developing policies and budgets, and extended thanks to the ACF TAC for its assistance. Ms. Hovland stated that ACF’s commitment to working in partnership with Tribal Nations is evidenced in its overarching efforts as well as in ACF’s program-level work. By working collaboratively, ACF leaders believe that we can all make great strides through primary prevention and economic mobility. She noted that the HHS Secretary's TAC is looking at setting one-year priorities and actions that would be most important for tribes and organizations to really address the social determinants of health and asked tribes for input on that area.

She also addressed several topical areas:

Primary Prevention: The focus on primary prevention helps ensure that resources are moved upstream using a whole family approach. The intent is to proactively connect families to services before they are in crisis.

Economic Mobility: The focus on economic mobility supports efforts to move family to self-sufficiency through work, dignity, and respect growing the capacity for parents and children to see their fullest potential through workforce, early childhood development, and integrated human services.

Native Languages: The proposed reauthorization of the Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act in June of this year brought into the opportunity for smaller communities to receive a language grant by reducing the minimum enrollment

3


in a language nest from 10 participants to 5, and in survival schools from 15 to 10. The act also extended the potential grant duration from three years to five years, which will give recipients a sustainable timeframe for developing lasting projects. That now needs to go through the United States House of Representatives. And we are hoping that it will move quickly and soon.

Economic Development: Ms. Hovland noted that ACF leadership has visited tribally owned businesses to learn how they do their work and how to best support Native communities whose efforts to become self-sufficient are hampered by a lack of economic opportunities. They are identifying tribal models that may benefit other communities such as the California Tribal TANF Coalition who shared information about one-stop-shop services that provide culturally competent, medical, dental, vision, and mental health care and other services to Native American communities.

Native Youth Leadership: In July, ANA hosted the Initiative for Leadership, Empowerment and Development (I-LEAD) grants’ second annual Native Youth Summit, with more than 100 youths participating. This event included the first-ever Intradepartmental Council on Native American Affairs (ICNAA) Youth Town Hall, which was incredibly impactful. We had representatives from ANA, OTIP, CDC, IHS, and SAMSHA listening to the youth share their vision for healthy communities.

ANA Updates: ANA has a broad and flexible mandate and it is an invaluable asset as we work with Native communities to address issues that affect health and well-being. ANA promotes self-sufficiency for Native Americans by providing discretionary grant funding for community-based projects, training and technical assistance to eligible tribes and Native organizations, and through advocacy and policy development on behalf of Native Americans.

o ANA Technical Assistance: Ms. Hovland flagged ANA’s free Project Planning and Development Training, which cover the fundamentals of performing ANA-eligible community-based project.

Consultation: To date, Ms. Hovland has attended the HHS Region 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 consultations in Wisconsin, Colorado, California, and Washington at the request of the Tribes. In June, ANA partnered with the Children's Bureau (CB) to host a Tribal Consultation on the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) to gain feedback on data elements related on the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). She has also engaged with other federal partners, including the Administration for Community Living, and recently participated in the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Interior, and the HHS Violence Against Women Tribal Consultation.

MMIW and Human Trafficking: ACF and other federal partners are working closely to bring down silos and partnerships to improve outcomes for Native Americans. She has been especially focused on partnerships that address the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW) and Human Trafficking, and ACF is strategizing on how we can strengthen vulnerable populations through education and prevention awareness. ACF is collaborating with the National Center for Urban Indian Health and IHS Urban Health Centers on improving data for Natives living in urban settings.

Ms. Hovland reminded participants that the session was being recorded, and that Tribal Leaders would be recognized to testify first.

[General comments are summarized in the Key Issues Raised section, below].

4


Katherine Chon, Director, Office on Trafficking in Persons

Ms. Chon thanked participants and noted that next year marks the 20th anniversary of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. She acknowledged that contemporary forms of human trafficking are just the most recent form of human trafficking that the country has been dealing with for generations and centuries and her goal was to work with tribes to help figure out how ACF can move this work forward, noting that there are historical lessons learned in regards to effective programs and policies.

Ms. Chon introduced herself and affirmed her commitment to working on this issue. She described having heard some of the same things every time she speaks with tribal communities such as, broadly speaking, that traffickers proactively target kids in child welfare, runaway and homeless kids, people who have experienced violence earlier in life, and individuals struggling with substance use. Ms. Chon also pointed out that Native communities are disproportionately impacted across all of these broader risk factors. She stressed the importance of consultations to OTIP, and reminded participants of the handouts available on OTIP’s work in funding local, community-based organizations, providing training and technical assistance to build the capacity of local communities, and investing more on research and data collection because these are all areas ACF has heard from tribal leaders and through consultations that are important. She shared some highlights:

Next year, pending appropriations, there will be new funding opportunities for OTIP’s domestic victims of human trafficking programs that is inclusive of Native communities.

OTIP is working on funding for prevention education to target youth and children who are at higher risk for trafficking and providing training for healthcare providers and allied social workers.

A tribal youth toolkit, jointly published by OTIP and ANA, was based on input from previous consultations, as well as other tribal and Native input.

OTIP is finalizing the pilot of SOAR for Native Communities, a training module for healthcare providers specifically working with Native communities. This module would likely be available in October, and it is free, online, and available on-demand. The current version is already available.

The national hotline last year identified more than 8,000 cases of human trafficking across the country, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

OTIP is currently in the process of asking themselves, “What can we do to strengthen outreach and networking and capacity building with Native communities?” and “How can ACF can better invest in prevention? “

ANA and others at ACF are working together on a national human trafficking prevention action plan focused not just on victim assistance, but also on prevention through collaboration. ACF is looking for federal tribal collaborations, public-private partnerships, and other types of collaborations to put into the action plan of how can we replicate and scale out what is working. If you have promising practices in your communities, we would love to learn about it. Are there things you would like to do but need additional support to bring together these collaborations?

In the proposed AFCARS regulations, due to some federal legislation, there will be data elements to collect data on human trafficking. ACF is looking for input from tribes on what has worked in the past in regards to getting community-based research and data on

5


important issues that seem very hard to solve, such as human trafficking. What can we do specifically around the intersection of Human Trafficking and Missing and Murdered Indigenous people? What can we do at the federal level and more specifically within HHS to collect the data or collaborate in collecting the data?

Ms. Chon closed by stressing that ACF is looking for tribal input and ideas on how ACF can strengthen prevention, research and data collection on how human trafficking is impacting Native communities, and how it is intersecting with suicide, substance use, MMIW issues, and many other issues that the communities around the table and across the country are facing. She highlighted that there is tremendous political will with the leadership of Commissioner Hovland and the leadership of our Assistant Secretary and many other ACF partners.

Ms. Hovland added that she has heard frequently from tribes that, while it’s important to collect the data and talk about it, but we also want action. There are things that we can be doing and things that we are doing, but we could be doing them better, and she highlighted that ACF is uniquely positioned to strengthen prevention and education.

Ms. Chon asked two basic questions around human trafficking:

1. What are promising prevention activities, such as multi-generational and family approaches to combating human trafficking? This is a commercialized form of violence, and we know from research, the earlier someone is trafficked or the earlier someone is abused, and the longer they are in, it is so hard to get out of that cycle of violence, cycle of poverty, cycle of everything that comes with it.

2. Regarding data collection, do tribes think we need data in order to act, or can we act with the information that we have because, as we have heard from previous consultations, “We need the data, to get the political will to action?” and “What is working, what are the means, how can we collaborate?”

[Trafficking-related comments are summarized in the Key Issues Raised section, below].

Todd Lertjuntharangool, Regional Program Manager, Head Start

Mr. Lertjuntharangool thanked attendees and noted he would be brief to allow more discussion. The Office of Head Start program was reauthorized by Congress most recently back in 2007 through the 2007 Head Start Act. The Office of Head Start funds Head Start and Early Head Start programs who provide services from birth up until five for the purpose of providing school readiness for children.

Mr. Lertjuntharangool noted that the Office of Head Start consists of its central office, in Washington, D.C., and 12 regional offices. Within Region 11, OHS provides funding to approximately 155 tribes or tribal entities through 184 grants (some grantees have multiple grants). He continued that, within Region 11, OHS provides services to just over 17,000 preschool-aged children, ages between three and five, and a little over 4,700 infants and toddlers, birth up to three years old. For fiscal year 2019, Region 11 is projected to fund just under $300 million to tribal programs, which includes:

Approximately $24 million for the purpose of extending service hours.

6


About $4.5 million for cost of living adjustment. Approximately $4 million for expansion or early head start expansion and childcare

partnerships.

Mr. Lertjuntharangool shared several current priorities and initiatives:

Coming up in 2020, OHS will be doing its biannual facilities assessment and submitting that to Congress. This is intended to try to capture the state of facilities within Region 11.

Focusing on supporting programs with achieving and maintaining full enrollment, which has a direct correlation to funding levels.

Addressing opioid and substance misuse, and in partnership with sister agencies, trying to target and allocate resources to this challenge. Region 11 facilitated a summit in June 2019 in Scottsdale, AZ on opioid and other substance misuse to support programs with addressing that challenge.

Strengthening relationships with public school districts and reaching out to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to support in transitioning children into kindergarten.

The American Indian and Alaskan Native Region 11 conference, which will likely occur late November or early December 2020, potentially in the Southwest. More information will be provided.

Mr. Lertjuntharangool concluded his opening remarks and solicited for testimony and questions, asking for suggestions on things OHS is doing well, things tribes want OHS to focus on and emphasize, and things OHS can be doing do to better support tribal communities. [OHS-related comments can be found in the Key Issues Raised section, below].

Melissa Johnson, Director, Division of Regional Operations, Office of Child Support Enforcement

Ms. Johnson thanked everyone for coming, and offered heartfelt apologies from Commissioner Lekan, who was not able to join. She also introduced Monica Adams, an OCSE Program Specialist and tribal specialist based in Washington, D.C. Ms. Johnson also noted that OCSE has regional staff and tribal specialists that many of tribes work with on a daily basis around budgets, amendments, technical assistance, and questions.

She noted that today’s consultation came about as a result of two letters that were sent from two different tribes to the Secretary for HHS requesting consultation about the nonfederal share amount and asking that it be reduced from 20 percent to 10 percent. Based on receipt of those requests for consultation, OCSE moved forward under our ACF Tribal Consultation Policy to get this scheduled and on the agenda.

She also noted that the topic of fair market value of rent or donated space is on the agenda today, based on a request made during one of the ANA-hosted planning calls for consultation.

The final agenda item, she noted, is around how the budgets are handled for our Tribal Child Support Programs, which is different from how states request and receive funding. She noted that OCSE has been discussing this with tribes, which have raised concerns on this issue.

7


Ms. Johnson stated that she wanted to make clear that she wasn’t here to say the tribal regulations will be reopened (that has not been decided), and that this is part of the first dialogue and conversation as to our path forward and what we need to resolve. OCSE understands that tribes have concerns and recognizes it was within in the original notice of proposed rulemaking that we would come back together to hear the concerns and impacts on the tribal community as to that 80/20 percent for the nonfederal share. This consultation is just that opportunity to start that dialogue and hear the impacts on tribal communities.

Ms. Johnson noted that some tribes have already submitted written testimony, which Commissioner Lekan has already reviewed, and added that she will have discussions with him. The path forward is not necessarily set in stone, she continued, and the discussions today may lead to the need to have further discussions and maybe bring this back at another consultation the future. It may be that no action gets taken or whether or not the regulations would get open for revision.

Regarding the nonfederal share amount, she clarified that the current nonfederal share program expenditures is 10 percent during the first three years that a tribe is comprehensive, and then after the first three years, it becomes 20 percent from there on out. During the startup period for a Tribal Child Support Program, there is no nonfederal share; it is funded 100 percent by the federal government up to $500,000. Ms. Johnson noted that OCSE recognizes that sometimes the nonfederal share amount of 20 percent can be more difficult for some tribes and reminded that the regulations provide the opportunity for waiver requests if the tribe is unable to meet the nonfederal share. She mentioned that any change to the nonfederal share amount would require OCSE to open the regulations. In addition, she noted that the current administration has required that proposals for legislative and regulatory changes should be cost-neutral, so that’s part of the consideration. She also stated that it is her understanding that the current administration wants regulations open for public comment. So, it is anticipated the regulation would have to be open and there would be comment periods rather than a directed final rule.

In reply to concerns raised in testimony, Ms. Johnson clarified that state child support programs do have a nonfederal share amount of 34 percent.

[OCSE-related comments are summarized in the Key Issues Raised section, below].

Jeannie Hovland, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans (Funding Opportunities)

Commissioner Hovland thanked the attendees for coming, and noted that this is the best participation ACF has had in several years. Ms. Hovland laid out several areas in her remarks around ANA’s funding opportunities:

The challenge that many times the tribes who need this funding the most cannot get it because they can’t afford to compete with tribes that have funding to hire grant writers. To address this, she has worked with ANA’s technical assistance teams (T/TAs) and staff to try to come up with a funding opportunity that would allow for tribes and organizations to be able to build their capacity so they can compete and to build their capacity with internal controls as well. It would be specific to what ANA is considering “growing” organizations and growing tribes, with the goal to improve capacity in general,

8


not just for managing ANA grants. The funding opportunities seek to work with applicants in proposal development after a letter of intent is submitted.

The target of the funding seeks to build capacity in staffing, governance, strategic planning, financial management, technology, infrastructure, data collection, and management. It also looks to simplify required elements to give greater competitive edge to tribes and organizations who do not have hired grant writers.

ANA is considering this to be a lower funding ceiling and a maximum of two years, considering it $200,000 versus typically $300,000, and it can be up to two years, versus typically up to three years.

TTA’s would also offer a lot of that technical assistance throughout the life of the grant.

Commissioner Hovland has been asking for consultation throughout the regions and at this session on this new proposed opportunity.

In response to a question, Ms. Hovland clarified that approximately $4 million would go to this new opportunity, which would be drawn from existing grant programs.

She also noted that under ANA’s statutes, it can fund Native nonprofits, Native organizations, and Pacific organizations. This opportunity would not change whom ANA already funds, but nonprofit recipients would have to be Native—51 percent or more on their board must be Native, by law. This can include nonprofit organizations where the members are members from different tribes.

Ms. Hovland also clarified that this is discretionary funding, where entities must compete with each other. In the fiscal year 2018, ANA was able to fund approximately 27 percent of eligible applications. Torres Martinez noted that this is sometimes a challenge when tribes are applying both individually and as part of a consortium, and sometimes there are competing interests.

Ms. Hovland also noted that, in response to many inquiries including from the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the importance of simplifying the application process and reporting. She also noted that ANA sent out a survey to its recent applicants, which received some great feedback that is being used.

[ANA funding-related comments are summarized in the Key Issues Raised section, below].

KEY ISSUES RAISEDThis section lists key issues raised throughout the consultation.

Whole-Family Approach

Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC) and the Aleutian Pribilof Island Association (APIA) both note that the cost of living in AK is much higher and that the poverty level should be adjusted to take into local and regional factors for income eligibility purposes. Santa Clara Pueblo also felt that ACF should consider a living wage instead of the poverty level.

9


Improving TAC and Tribal Consultation

Several attendees, including Tino Batt, the TAC Chair, requested more frequent in-person meetings of the ACF TAC and noted that this was an issue that was brought up during the Secretary’s TAC meeting as well. More resources should be allocated for this. One attendee suggested coordinating TAC meetings with other Advisory Councils, such as the Office of Violence Against Women.

o Ms. Hovland thanked Mr. Battand noted that ACF is looking at its budget for the fiscal year and how they might be able to start holding quarterly meetings.

Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians encouraged ACF to continue to examine ways to hold consultations, TACs, and other events out in Indian Country, and not in D.C., in order to increase participation. They also encouraged ACF to consistently share what occurs at Consultation and TAC widely, outside of only those who attended.

Poverty Guidelines and Living Wage

Many tribes listed the poverty definition guidelines as needing revisions. They would like guidelines to reflect local costs of living or otherwise reflect that the poverty guidelines are too low and leave many who need services ineligible.

Tribal Nonfederal Share Match Requirements

Representatives from CITC and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation stated that one of the greatest barriers for tribes is the match requirements because many tribes and tribal organizations do not have the unrestricted funding to match what is set forward, which prohibits tribes and tribal organizations from applying for grants that could bring meaningful opportunity into their community, or forcing tribes to cut certain programs. CITC asked ACF to think outside the box of what else and what other type of resources can be used because tribes and tribal organizations are very resourceful and creative of how they bring together opportunities and how they are in their trust partnership with the federal government.

Human Trafficking

General Feedback Mr. Mirelez (Torres Martinez) asked if and how ACF could work simultaneously on

improving both data collection and sharing while also ensuring concrete action is taken. Mr. Kills Crow (Delaware Tribe) noted that in his experience, communities are hesitant

to find out what is going on, because they worry it could be very bad. Mr. Batt recommended that OTIP serve as an umbrella/coordinator for all agencies

within HHS (not only ACF), in order to ensure HHS agencies are working in a coordinated fashion in response to this crisis.

Mr. Oyenque stated that collaboration of services is key to leveraging resources. The lack of coordination among government entities leads to a gap in social protections and causes confusion, pain, and cynicism with crime as well as law enforcement personnel.

Jurisdictional clarity is the key to effective law enforcement. Ambiguity in which government is responsible for law enforcement creates significant problems when a criminal incident arises. It can contribute to the mishandling of evidence, inflict further trauma on the victim, and thwart justice.

10


Ms. Greninger requested that ACF’s TAC be looped in on updates related to this.

Data Collection Several attendees stressed the importance of data sharing; tribes will often provide data,

but then never hear back. One recommendation was to create a centralized database to which tribes could have direct access. Mr. Batt pointed out that various agencies have data and asked if OTIP can collaborate with ANA to develop some central database, in part to help track and connect cases where something is reported to one agency or Department, and then shared with CB or others that should know.

Several tribal representatives endorsed giving tribes more ownership over data and research, specifically by making tribal entities eligible for research funding. Ms. Greninger suggested the government consider contracting with a tribal organization entity that could develop the data system; this would make tribes feel more comfortable as inputting the data because they will know it is going into the hands of somebody who is culturally responsive and competent in Indigenous ways. Another attendee lamented that government data systems frequently change.

Several attendees recommended that agencies and tribes each look at breaking down silos and do a better job at inter-jurisdictional and intergovernmental data sharing. One representative advised the government that tribes have a sovereign right not to share data.

Ms. Greninger suggested that, out of respect for sovereignty, the government agencies could give tribes the data elements they are looking at and then allow tribes to develop and administer their own surveys.

Torres Martinez highlighted that a key issue is that all the stakeholders are in silos and noted that DOJ, BIA, and IHS all have their own internal process and tracking systems. There is not an internal connection between the three to make a determination, for example, that if someone hasn’t been seen in an IHS clinic for a certain period, they may be missing. If that person presents themselves at another clinic at a different state, there’s no internal mechanism for IHS to identify this person may be missing from their community. Vice Chairman Mirelez suggested that a central reporting system, similar to how the 477 program does it, might help resolve this.

Ms. Hovland explained that DOJ has the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NaMUS), a national information clearinghouse and resource center for missing, unidentified, and unclaimed person cases across the United States. But one challenge is that when people go missing, some don’t want to be found because they have fled for a reason, such as domestic violence. Law enforcement is also limited because running away isn’t against the law, so they won’t typically track it unless they suspect foul play. She stressed that resolving this is going to take an effort between the urban settings, DOJ, the health centers, tribes, and families.

ACF is working with groups, such as the National Caucus of Native American State Legislators, to improve data collection specific to American Indian and Alaska Natives and Pacific Islanders in order to get better data.

Ms. Hovland also noted the Office on Trafficking in Persons’ National Human Trafficking Hotline (https://humantraffickinghotline.org/, 1-888-373-7888).

Promising Prevention Several tribal representatives stressed the importance of education and having candid

conversations between entities, jurisdictions, and others, as well as within community and

11

https://humantraffickinghotline.org/


within families. Many communities are hesitant to discuss the issue because they worry about the wide impact there might be, or they don’t want to accept it’s happening. One member phrased it as, “we think it will not happen to us. We think that it will not happen to our family. It is not in our community.”

Ms. O’Neill (CITC) stated that it is apparent there needs to be a lot more education and prevention with families because of how digital technology is taking this to such a different level, as youth engage in these different websites and are being preyed upon. This prevention and education should be geared not just with the vulnerable youth but also with the families, so families can be actively monitoring what is going on. Mr. Kills Crow (Delaware) added that education should also be geared towards tribal leadership, including the types of things tribes could utilize to help their people.

o Ms. Chon replied that ACF is doing a lot around prevention education, where ACF is working with curriculum developers and programming that is age-appropriate at the youth level. ACF is working to see if that could be made available at no cost to any community organization that is interested in sharing.

o She also shared that ACF has been hearing increasingly from parents, grandparents, and other family members that they are looking for more prevention resources, particularly around digital and social media recruitment and grooming techniques.

Ms. O’Neill (CITC) stated that services should be multi-disciplinary and incorporate a wide range of aspects and draw upon many stakeholders, and include family, friends, and peers.

o Ms. Chon echoed that she’s heard this as well, around how to equip families when a family member is coming back into the household with significant trauma. ACF is looking into resources for fostering resiliency at the family level.

Mr. Batt (Shoshone Bannock) expressed the importance of getting people access to SOAR.

Several attendees stressed the importance of incorporating culture, mentorship, and coming from a strengths-based approach in addressing this issue and educating community members.

Promising Practices: Torres Martinez is restarting its youth council so that they can be more involved with

youth and provide them community-based activities, while being cognizant of their online presence. He echoed that he is glad OTIP is developing curriculum for families on these difficult conversations.

Mr. Batt noted that some tribes create action teams that work together and identify the high-risk families and connect them with services.

Several indigenous communities in New Mexico have implemented community coordinated response teams which tribal courts, law enforcement, social services, and youth programs work together to enhance services and provide a holistic response to incidents of violence. Santa Clara Pueblo has a multi-tiered approach that includes policies, pre-incident research, and youth education. They also look at the underlying reasons women are leaving their homes and communities to begin with.

Riverside San Bernardino County Indian Health setup a kiosks at its major clinics, where as a part of the registration process, patients have to fill out a questionnaire on the kiosk

12


that asks behavioral health questions; if a patient responds to one of these, it will trigger someone from the behavioral health department to come and see them before they go for their appointment.

Federal, state, and tribal governments must work together through intergovernmental agreements and cross-deputation agreements, among other measures, to ensure that there are no jurisdictional gaps and misunderstanding. They also provide an opportunity for leaders to identify other areas that contribute to a lack of public safety in Indian Country, such as inadequate data and connection among incidents of gender-based violence and nearby land development projects, such as fracking and pipelines.

One community’s youth developed the slogan, “If you want this to stop happening to your daughters, stop covering for your friends.”

Santa Clara Pueblo has received direct funding- and then sub-contracted with universities to do research using the community-based participatory research model, so that the tribe owns the data. They also completed a Community Health Profile, which is where most of their data comes from since Census and state data tend not to be as accurate for them as IHS data, which tribes are more likely to use.

One attendee recommended the DOJ Tribal Access Program, which has been very inclusive of us. It allows fingerprint and identity verification databases, investigative reports, and criminal records which tribes typically don’t have access to.

PL 102-477 Policy requests

CITC requested that ACF remove the requirement for independent management of an HHS program for 1-2 years before inclusion into a 477 plan, stating that there is a requirement for three clean audits, which is already required for admission into the 477 initiative at DOI. CITC would also like ACF to think broadly in terms of what programs could be considered a supportive or related service for wrap around, whole family services geared to economic self-sufficiency.

Santa Clara Pueblo stressed the need for braiding services, similar to the 477 program, noting that, as a small tribe, being able to braid funding sources significantly cuts down on the administrative burden and allows them to put more money back into programming.

Think outside the box with 477 in promoting whole-family approach and wrap-around services. For example, in regards to Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG’s) “employment training and related services,” consider the holistic person--if people do not know (especially in Alaska) that their heating bill is going to be paid, how are they going to have a clear mind to finish their GED, to look for work, to really think about how they make a transition from welfare to work? (CITC)

Family First Prevention Services Act

CITC expressed appreciation for the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA), particularly because it creates guidance for tribes operating Title IV-E programs and asks that flexibility be extended to tribes, such as in using cultural services. It is very important for the CB to seriously consider allowing cultural adaptation of mainstream approved prevention services and programs so that Native children and caregivers can receive services that not only help them, but also do not harm them.

13


Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS)

CITC expressed concerns over AFCARS, including the process for soliciting comments from tribes, and asked CB to consider ways to get the “full voice” of tribes. AFCARS is very important in their work, and the data is essential to effectively engage with states and make decisions (further comments are in their written testimony).

Shoshone Bannock stressed that tribes are eager and waiting to see what comes from AFCARS, and asked CB to make sure those reports are distributed, highlighting that tribes need that information because states are still not being compliant.

o Ms. Hovland acknowledged that the AFCARS rulemaking process has been a long process and a very painful one. She also highlighted her commitment to working with the DOI, the Casey Family Foundation, and others to strengthen ICWA with respect to the states, at the request of ACF’s TAC. She updated that the final rule will be published in the spring of 2020.

Title IV-E

CITC thanked ACF for providing clarification related to the ability of tribes in the Title IV-E agreements, which states to seek reimbursement for costs related to legal representation of children in foster care proceedings.

LIHEAP

Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians asked for ACF to re-allocate LIHEAP dollars for instances such as emergency situations, above what LIHEAP already offers, to get some kind of reimbursement.

TANF

Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians suggested ACF develop some sort of central data system for all TANF programs where they can check to see what months have been allocated and what has not been allocated. This would help reduce duplication and avoid fraud.

Self-Governance

CITC highlighted their “one-stop-shop” approach, using 477 as a tool to do this. CITC cites their 20 years’ of experience as a 477 grantee as one of the greatest reasons for their success. They have integrated all their financial assistance programs into their employment and training model.

The Choctaw Nation echoed the importance of self-governance and the idea of making ACF a demonstration project for self-governance to go outside of the current services that tribes have through HHS.

CSBG

CITC asked to consider expanding the Community Services Block Grant’s (CSBG’s) definition of outreach, to include working with surrounding tribes to include food and advertising and other related costs.

14


Head Start

Facilities Several tribes brought up the need for facilities funding, and requested either direct

support or matching funds from OHS. o Mr. Lertjuntharangool noted that OHS will be posting a funding opportunity

announcement (FOA) in 2020. This particular FOA comes from funds that we have recaptured from programs who are under-enrolled or have relinquished their grant, and they will work to make sure tribal programs are aware of when that gets posted.

o He also suggested tribes work with OHS on facilities needs when issues arise; OHS can sometimes provide with one-time funding for health and safety needs for facilities, and in some cases it can building a full facility.

CITC stated that the requirement for an annual appraisal for use of facilities is onerous and unnecessary financial burden for programs; many, if not most of which, are in a relatively stable and low-market real estate market.

Partnerships The Delaware tribe expressed concerns over a partnership it had, where the vast majority

of students being served were non-Native. Mr. Kills Crow asked for information on who to contact at OHS when Tribes have concerns, how tribal leaders they should identify themselves to OHS staff, and if it’s standard practice for OHS to call the local OHS Program Director anytime a tribal leader contacts OHS, as it felt that OHS was going behind their back. (Mr. Lertjuntharangool suggested they speak afterwards one-on-one).

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association cited partnerships with school districts as a challenge as well, noting issues with the high cost of living, geographic isolation, and income barriers that are hindering their ability to expand programs. The lack of a waiver option caused concern and requested a lot more flexibility.

o Mr. Lertjuntharangool expressed his understanding of these challenges and recommended they continue to work with their TTA providers on this.

Performance Standards The Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation expressed concerns over the Data

Management Plan that is part of 1302.101, specifically around the lack of clarity on definitions of data “security” and the specific requirements for this, and recommended that OHS provide a list of “musts” and develop a template or chart that explains to tribes exactly what should be implemented.

o Mr. Lertjuntharangool replied that this is a difficult situation, as OHS tries not to be especially prescriptive and impose limits on programs that stifle innovation, and that a part of revising OHS standards in 2016 was to be less prescriptive and give programs a bit more flexibility.

The Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation also expressed concerns about tribal staff and OHS having a shared understanding of what the performance standards say, and they recommend that future conferences include trainings on this.

o Mr. Lertjuntharangool acknowledged this challenge and replied that OHS has recently asked materials to be reviewed to ensure they are more useful. He’s also

15


noted that they are planning the 2020 conference and will consider this as a way to make it more useful for grantees.

The Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation recommended examining the burden of achieving the 1,380 hours for Early Head Start, specifically for tribes that have seasonal activities (such as the Canoe Journey for Chehalis). Chehalis has identified this to Head Start.

o Mr. Lertjuntharangool acknowledged this and noted that tribes should be very thorough in describing these concerns in their application.

Cultural competency for CLASS and onsite reviewers. Santa Clara Pueblo requested that that the Program Performance Standards tie into CLASS and how CLASS evaluators come out. Their experience has shown that evaluators often ding them without understanding the social norms around having adults and outsiders come into the classroom. For example, students are much more reserved when an outsider comes into the room, and for this reason, the classroom activity won’t be as vibrant as normal when an evaluator comes in.

o Mr. Lertjuntharangool responded that OHS is working to recruit more Native reviewers and Native CLASS observers and encouraged tribes to continue to implement language and culture in the classroom.

Policy Development Santa Clara Pueblo thanked Mr. Lertjuntharangool and his team for their assistance and

asked for more tribal involvement in policy and rulemaking at the federal level, such as a task force or committee (in addition to consultation and TAC).

o Mr. Lertjuntharangool noted attendees should be aware of OHS’s recent notice for proposal for rulemaking around the Designation Renewal System (DRS) that is currently on the Federal Register.

Staffing Santa Clara Pueblo requested OHS provide financial support and/or professional

development to assist tribes with the recruitment, retention, and access, as many tribes must compete with local school districts and other child care providers. This support would include intertribal recruitment.

o Mr. Lertjuntharangool noted that the OHS Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge (ECLKC) website has a job center were programs can post vacancies and recruit, for free, and OHS encourages all programs to make use of that platform to post vacancies. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/job-center.

The Pueblo noted its promising practice of forming a consortium with other tribes to train educational assistants, with the help of a third-party philanthropic organization.

Cook Inlet asked for more clarity about the issue of teachers who are in the process of obtaining a Child Development Associate (CDA), and noted that in their community and with the target population, it takes a longer than the six months expected timeframe. Cook Inlet would like more latitude in using those teachers in the classroom while they are working on obtaining their CDA.

Other OHS Comments Several tribes noted significant burdens from poverty guidelines and income eligibility

for Head Start families, especially in Alaska.

16

https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/job-center


Nonfederal Match.o Cook Inlet noted that unlike state and local programs, Tribal Head Start and Early

Head Start programs do not have ready-access to nonfederal dollars and suggested that the nonfederal match waiver process be implemented as a blanket waiver for the life of the program operations for Tribal Head Start and Early Head Start programs, rather than an annual process.

Related to this, Mr. Lertjuntharangool reminded tribes that, for Head Start grants, tribes can submit waivers for a portion if they cannot meet the full match and stressed that OHS doesn’t want that to be a hindrance on their approach for applying for grants, especially for new funding.

o Colville Confederated Tribes expressed concerns over match, particularly in their need to build new facilities and asked if general funding for something like building new facilities could be used towards a future match.

Mr. Lertjuntharangool responded that he just had a call with the tribe’s OHS Director and believes they came up with a potential plan to support the tribe and possibly getting this is facility.

One tribe expressed support for OHS’s opioid prevention services. Mr. Batt asked, on behalf of TAC, if they could get more explanation around what the

issues and concerns are behind money being returned and redistributed. o Mr. Lertjuntharangool stated he would be happy to share that and out of respect

for those programs, agreed it shouldn’t be done in an open forum.

Tribal Child Support Enforcement

Tribes identified several main issues regarding OCSE, primarily around the 80/20 cost sharing and around fair market valuation of space, as well as access to enforcement tools.

Tribal Child Support Match Many tribes expressed concern about the “80/20” rule stating their belief that this is an

incorrect interpretation of the rule-making process that tribes engaged in prior to the final rule being promulgated and that the current requirement is burdensome to the program and imposes significant hardships.

All tribes present stressed that they do not wish to re-open the regulations at this time, and expressed their belief that the above change could be done without having to re-open the regulations.

Some pointed out that this match amount is often the difference in bringing on another caseworker, most of the time who are women and/or tribal members who are often themselves supporting a family.

Some tribes noted that the 20 percent match rate forces child support programs to compete with other programs supported by tribal hard dollars that also require providing a match, such as court systems, public safety, foster care, health, and natural resources.

Several representatives pointed to their programs and others that had to either be scaled down or completely shut down due to the inability to provide this match and that the administrative burden of documenting the match takes time away from providing services. One program noted that funding has declined 20 percent from FY16 to FY19 because of the match requirement.

17


Tribal leaders contrasted tribes with states, noting that although the state’s match is higher than tribes, tribes typically operate the same level of programs but with limited revenue. For some tribes with no trust land, the situation is even more severe.

Tribal leaders acknowledged that, while there is a mechanism in place under 45 CFR 309.130 to seek a waiver if they are temporarily unable to contribute to non-federal share, the problem is that many tribes do not experience these circumstances on a just temporary basis, but rather, on an annual basis there exists high rates of unemployment, poor economic conditions, little or no economic development, reduction in funding, and funds being committed to other budget items such as combating the drug epidemic. Tribes are required annually to fully document their socioeconomic problems.

o OCSE explained the waiver process, and tribes acknowledged this but noted the administrative time spent on both sides going through this process seemed a poor use of time if the match could simply be fixed.

Tribes urged OCSE for a technical amendment to the regulation to either issue an interim final rule, or alternatively, a direct final rule on this issue only. This technical amendment would be cost-effective, efficient, and uncontroversial and an easy fix for OCSE. The Port Gamble S’Klallam tribe and Puyallup Tribe drafted and submitted proposed language for a technical amendment to 309.130 in their written testimony.

Several tribes, including Lac Courte Oreilles and Stockbridge-Munsee, expressed serious concern that more time and notification was needed in order to have an effective consultation and decision-making process due to the complexity of this issue. Others commented that their understanding and concern is that this 20 percent match was not in the original law passed by Congress and that it was added to the regulations by the Office of Management and Budget later without proper consultation with the tribes.

Fair Market Valuation of Office Space Several tribes indicated their position that fair market value should be used in valuation

for office-space donated by tribes for nonfederal share and that fair market value was the standard for office space donated by a tribe to its child support program for nearly 15 years. During this time, tribes stated that no auditor, accountant, or the Office of Grants Management questioned that fair market rent was the proper way to value a contribution of space.

Tribes expressed concern that, in 2015, without consultation, notice, or an opportunity for the tribes to comment, OCSE announced that tribes could only value their donation for office space based on depreciation. There had been no statutory change or regulatory change. The result was immediate and devastating. One tribe noted that the tribe is contributing office space valued at $80,400 for the support of its program, but can only count $27,583 towards the match. For the Northern Arapaho Tribe, of an actual cost of $84,700 per year, under the PIQT-16-01 policy, for fiscal year 2020 they were able to claim less than $16,000 in their budget.

Tribal leaders expressed concern around the interpretation of the rule, stating that PIQT 16-01 offers conflicting regulations and interpretations. On one hand, the PIQT states the tribe must have an arm’s-length agreement for the rental of space; on the other hand, it states, when the tribe does own the building in which the child support agency is housed, uniform guidance at 45 CFR 75.465, allow the tribe to claim depreciation and maintenance, taxes, and insurance expenses. At least one tribe noted its struggle to figure out how to make an arm-length lease happen.

18


One tribe stated it believed the more appropriate provision will be 45 CFR Sub-Section 75.434 for the use of space. From there would seem to value would be established in 45 CFR 75.306 (i)(3) “The value of donated space cannot exceed the rental (FMV) of comparable space as established by an independent appraisal.”

Enforcement Tools Several tribes asked that all tribes should have access to the same enforcement tools that

states have, and doing so “would be a dream.” For example, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe indicated that they do not have the extra matching dollars or funds to access the Federal Parent Locator Service. The cost associated with getting an IT audit ranges from $20,000-$30,000, thereafter the cost of $3,000 per year. The model tribal system is free at the onset, but cost for maintenance ranges from $37,000 to $60,000.

They noted that their hands are further tied because money they collect from Tribal TANF assignments cannot be used to reimburse child support programs or be returned to the tribal government’s general fund.

Other OCSE-related comments A number of tribes stressed the importance of their programs; for example, the Fort

Belknap court previously only collected about $5,000 annually in child support from non-custodial parents; six years since the program began, it has now collected nearly $700,000.

One tribe stated they were glad to see ACF hold its first-ever Fatherhood Summit, and noted that “it was dynamic and encouraging…full of collaboration and brainstorming.”.

Several tribes agree with OCSE that this should mark the beginning of the conversation; one tribe noted that “one of the downsides of this formal setting…is the lack of dialogue”, but noted that this session was one of the “best meetings [she’s] ever witnessed.”

Mr. Batt (Shoshone Bannock Tribe), the ACF TAC Chair, requested that ACF provide responses to this by the end of the year.

At the end of the session, Ms. Johnson thanked the leaders for their testimony and provided some closing remarks, noting that OCSE is working hard to increase their communication and attend as many regional meetings as possible, as well as holding one-on-one discussions. She also noted that she did purposely did not reply after every comment because she wanted to hear what tribes had to say, and she felt this was more important. Ms. Johnson added that she meant no disrespect if she did not give immediate responses, especially knowing there were a lot of tribes present but with a limited amount of time.

Commissioner Hovland recapped the key points raised as:o The fair market value for tribal building lease space versus the depreciation that

came out, which was an administrative change versus legislative. o Stay at the 10 percent match, and we heard a lot about the reasoning for

justification as to how harmful it is for the 20 percent match. o Do not open the regulations; look at a technical amendment. o There should be Tribal Consultation specific to this, but allow the tribal programs

the time to talk and to be able to be prepared for it.o Tribes should have access to enforcement tools the states have.

19


o Would like to get OSCE answers by the end of the calendar year. That’s not necessarily decisions on everything, but answers and communication and some movement forward.

ANA Funding Opportunities

Several tribes noted their challenges in reporting for ANA grants, and that it is very time-intensive and the technical platform (GrantSolutions) is cumbersome. One example, from Ketchikan, was that their signing authority frequently changes, but it can take months to update this in the system. They noted that having to do a carryover budget or no-cost extension requires re-doing a lot of paperwork, and it almost like writing a whole new grant.

Other Comments

Cooperative agreements should not be used where the entity has clean audits. These are cumbersome and require too much agency approval for program operations and changes. (CITC).

Several tribes (Santa Clara Pueblo, Ho-Chunk, and Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians) asked ACF to move away from the Federal definition of the poverty level into using the definition of a living wage, considering the minimum wage, poverty wage, and the living wage. There are tribal members who are not qualified at the poverty wage, but working just enough to remain poor. These standards do not necessarily reflect the situation on the ground for tribes and suggested that ACF consider county definitions, or perhaps have tribes do some kind of certification process for what the poverty guidelines are within their nation.

The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. asked ACF to consider income guidelines for programs such as Head Start, and the cost of living in place such as Alaska, and requested flexibility.

Several tribes (Shoshone Bannock, Ho-Chunk, and Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians) advocated for more direct funding and direct service agreements, and to limit pass-through funding where it is allowable, because many times states do not share the information; in some cases, there is no requirement for states to share a certain amount or percentage of funding from the agencies. They asked for ACF to step in to provide assistance.

Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians asked for some kind of notification and reallocation process if there are unused funds from other tribes, such as those who have gaming revenues, to avoid leaving money on the table. This includes examining reallocation if dollars go unused for multiple years.

20

welcome and introductions · web view2020-04-20 · mr. lertjuntharangool concluded his opening...

Documents