1 / 31

CSD Native Asset-Building Projects: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

CSD Native Asset-Building Projects: Lessons Learned and Future Directions. State IDA Policy Conference November 12, 2003 Sarah Hicks, MSW Research Assistant, Kathryn M. Buder Center for American Indian Studies and Center for Social Development, Washington University shicks@wustl.edu.

amora
Download Presentation

CSD Native Asset-Building Projects: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CSD Native Asset-Building Projects: Lessons Learned and Future Directions State IDA Policy Conference November 12, 2003 Sarah Hicks, MSW Research Assistant, Kathryn M. Buder Center for American Indian Studies and Center for Social Development, Washington University shicks@wustl.edu

  2. CSD Native Asset-Building Projects • CSD has two projects focused on American Indian populations. • These projects grew out of overall concern about populations that were not benefiting from IDA programs. • Because American Indian tribes are also governments, there is a unique policy solution to correct for the lack of inclusiveness of Native populations in state IDA programs.

  3. CSD Native Asset-Building Projects • In April 2003, CSD published “American Indian Tribal Communities and IDA Policy,” a review of federal and state IDA policies and their inclusiveness (or lack thereof) of Native families and American Indian tribes.

  4. Native Communities and IDA Policy • This paper explored ways that American Indians have (or have not) typically had access to IDA policy making and program development. • Authors surveyed 14 states with American Indian reservations and state IDA policies.

  5. Research Goals Goals were to assess whether: • American Indian communities in those states had access to IDA policymaking processes, • The resultant state IDA policies included American Indian tribal governments as eligible program administrators, and • State-administered IDA programs are serving American Indian people.

  6. Findings • Although previous research shows that IDA programs hold great promise to build assets in low-income American Indian communities, over 80% have not been involved in state IDA policymaking processes and are largely unserved by state IDA programs. • Most state IDA policies, over 75%, do not include American Indian tribal governments as approved IDA program sites and program administrators.

  7. Findings Table 5. IDA Policy Development Outreach to Tribes Tribes included Native Outreach in Development Participants Stateto Tribes of LegislationIdentified California No No No Colorado No No Yes Florida No No No Iowa No No No Kansas No No No Louisiana No No No Maine No No No

  8. Findings Table 5. IDA Policy Development Outreach to Tribes Tribes included Native Outreach in Development Participants Stateto Tribes of LegislationIdentified Michigan No No No Minnesota Yes No Yes Montana No No Yes New Mexico Yes Yes Yes Oklahoma No No No Oregon Yes Yes (amendment) Yes Washington Yes No No

  9. Findings Table 4. Definitions of an Eligible IDA Program Limited to Defined more broadly Defined as including 501 (c)(3) than 501 (c)(3) programs adminis- organizationsorganizationstered by tribes Colorado Arizona California Connecticut Iowa Idaho Florida Maine New Mexico Kansas Minnesota Oregon Louisiana Montana Michigan North Carolina South Carolina Oklahoma Utah Texas Washington

  10. Implications To increase tribal participation in IDA programs, a two-pronged strategy is in order: • First, tribal governments that have not taken advantage of their authority to directly receive available federal funding to develop tribal IDA programs should explore these opportunities. • On a related note, future federal policymaking should seek to ameliorate barriers to tribal IDA programs by including tribes in policy development processes.

  11. Implications • Second, state governments developing or amending IDA policies should seek to consult with tribal governments and community members during the policy making process. • The input of tribal representatives will be useful to states in structuring policies that facilitate tribal government administration of IDAs as well as increase the success of state IDA programs in reaching potential American Indian program participants.

  12. Implications • Through the inclusion of American Indian tribal governments and communities in IDA policymaking processes, IDA programs can become a useful tool in building the assets of low-income American Indians.

  13. Implications • Locate and contact tribal governments in your state: www.ncai.org/main/pages/tribal_directory/indian_nations_us.asp

  14. CSD Native Asset-Building Projects • The current CSD project steps back from IDAs to look at the context of asset-building in tribal communities and hopes to identify a range of assets that Native communities wish to build, suggest appropriate strategies to build them, and ascertain the positive asset-effects that tribes may hope to experience.

  15. Native Asset-Building Discussion • The goal is to generate Native discussion around asset-building and to identify practical asset-building approaches that Native communities can use.

  16. Project Strategy • This project attempts to “seed” the asset-building conversation in Native communities through the provision of background information and prompting questions. • The project uses a diverse Advisory Council to guide project work.

  17. Project Strategy • The project aims to develop a formal paper that will be broken into pieces useable in Native communities. • The project is characterized by lots of feedback from tribal leaders, program directors, and national Native organizations.

  18. The Questions The project focuses on answering six main questions: • How would you define assets? • What purpose do assets serve for individuals, communities, and tribes? • What categories or classifications would you use to group various types of assets?

  19. The Questions • What assets is your community interested in building? • What asset-building programs or strategies does your community currently use? • What are the potential uses and outcomes of asset-building strategies in your community?

  20. Initial Findings • Assets are “something of value” that is “defined comprehensively, according to a holistic view, and in relation to other systems.” • “Assets contribute to balance within the community and to building a healthy community.”

  21. Initial Findings Types of assets traditionally identified as worth building and developing include: • Financial holdings • Natural resources • Interpersonal resources • Human assets

  22. Initial Findings Work with Native communities has also identified other types of assets worth building : • Physical assets (physical infrastructure) • Institutional assets (institutions within a community) • Cultural assets (language, traditions) • Legal and political assets (sovereign status, tax immunity)

  23. Initial Findings • Assets are important because they improve quality of life (long-term investment), increase current and future resources, and strengthen tribal government.

  24. Initial Findings Assets can be used to: • Meet needs locally (so people won’t have to leave the reservation) • Reinforce spiritual and cultural assets • Increase security (a “Rainy Day fund” at the family level as well as the government level)

  25. Initial Findings Assets can be used to: • Transfer assets to next generation (improve quality of life) • Strengthen and leverage tribal sovereignty • Recover stripped resources

  26. Initial Findings • Early feedback indicates that rethinking the asset-building approach in tribal communities is useful. • Rather than trying to fit tribes into current policy, an examination of how Native families and tribes want to build and use assets can inform inclusive policymaking.

  27. Next Steps • The Project Advisory Council is developing case scenarios that illustrate desirable asset-building strategies. • One example focuses on the Hopi Tribe’s use of an Endowment Fund (generated from invested 638 funds) to build a local professional workforce instead of importing “experts” to the reservation.

  28. Next Steps • Another example includes the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes’ land acquisition and recovery plan, which has increased tribal land ownership from 2% to 20% and created a buffer from outside reservation development.

  29. Next Steps • In sharing these models with a wider tribal audience at two national Native meetings in the upcoming months, we hope to generate more national and local thinking and discussion about asset-building.

  30. Next Steps • The Project Advisory Council will participate in presentations at the National Congress of American Indians Annual Session (Nov. 18th in Albuquerque, NM) and at the U.S. DHHS Administration for Children and Families National Tribal Conference (Dec. 3rd and 5th in Phoenix, AZ).

  31. Next Steps • The resultant paper, case scenarios and community discussion tools will be available on CSD’s website in January 2004. • This project will culminate in identified next steps for policy development, program implementation, research, and tribal outreach.

More Related