Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Rural Alaska Policy into the 21st Century 2000
URAL ALASKA POLICY INTO THE 21ST CENTURY "locally conceived and driven strategies" ALASKA STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL A NEW RURAL ALASKA POLICY AGENDA BASED UPON LOCALLY CONCEIVED AND DRIVEN STRATEGIES As new technologies change our understanding of place, culture-based relationships and recurrent local, regional, state and national events, our humanity is tested to the breaking point....community seems more precious and more necessary than ever before. AS ALASKA APPROACHES THE 21st CENTURY The issues before us, and discussed at the ALASKA - 2000 - SEEDS Rural Alaska Public Forums Conference and Policy Advisory Symposium will challenge us to recall our cultural traditions, and our past practices and theories in community development, to reflect upon our successes and failures, and then to rededicate ourselves to the heart of the matter COMMUNITY IS AT ITS MOST BASIC AND STRONGEST WHEN WORKING TOGETHER + ALASKA - 2000 - SEEDS: RURAL ALASKA PUBLIC FORUMS CONFERENCE AND POLICY ADVISORY SYMPOSIUM + STATE Edgar Blatchford, Chair yy John Sandor Paul Fuhs FEDERAL Re. > Frank D. Cox, Vice-Chair Karen O. Lee MUNICIPALITIES Rick Shilanski (alternate) Marvin Yoder Donald Long TRIBAL GOVERNMENT Freddie Christiansen Jerry L. Woods ARDORS Donna Tollman Stan Steadman REGIONAL CORPORATION Willie Hensley James LaBelle REGIONAL NON-PROFIT Al Ketzler, Jr. Derenty Tabios PRIVATE BUSINESS Jim Stevens Wayne Carpenter VILLAGE CORPORATION Charles W. Totemoff Michael Harper FINANCIAL Don Farris Ben Barrera EDUCATION Irene Adrayan Larry Dickerson AT LARGE Ann Campbell Jeanine Kennedy EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR “Charles J. "Chuck" Akers STAFF SUPPORT Dr. Tony Nakazawa Jim Sinnett Bert Tarrant Helen Vik Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Community and Rural Development 333 West 4th Avenue Suite 220 Anchorage, Ak. 99501 National Rural Development Initiative " 4th Ave. Suite 301 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2341 (907) 269-4606 FAX (907) 269-4539 & is Dear Reader: I am pleased to introduce this Rural Alaska Policy Review for the Second Annual Meeting of the Alaska State Rural Development Council. This volume is the first of what I hope will become an annual publication of the most current reports and assessments being compiled on rural Alaska. Given the number of assessments and studies that have been performed on rural Alaska, this compilation is not exhaustive; but it does provide a good basis to begin discussion. With this publication, we have attempted to bring to you a selection of key reports from State and federal agencies, Native profit and non-profit corporations, the private sector, and other organiza- tions. We have included executive summaries of their assessments, their conclusions, and their policy and action recommendations. I would also like to thank the hundred score of Alaskans who have been hard at work over many months and in some cases, years, in the public hearings, discussions and field work that have gone into the reports and assessments which are highlighted in the Review. It is my hope that you will use the Review as a basis for policy issue discussion during the Rural Development Council Policy Symposium and Conference. For your convenience, the Review has been organized to correspond to the day-by-day organization of the conference. It is our firm belief that if the communities in rural Alaska are to be economically healthy, many resources must be consolidated to meet various needs. This publication and the conference it serves offer a singular opportunity to begin this vital effort. Sincerely, $2,. (LAMY Edgar Blatchford Chairman of the Executive Committee Alaska State Rural Development Council ALASKA STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Rural Alaska Policy Review ALASKA -2000- SEEDS RURAL ALASKA POLICY CONFERENCE & SYMPOSIUM "locally conceived and driven strategies" Time: MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY March 14 March 15 March 16 March 17 March 18 7:00 am ENERGY & HOUSING EDUCATION, CAREER COMMUNITY& ENTERPRISE & Registration & VOCATIONAL SOCIAL SERVICE ECONOMIC Opens ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES 8:00 Opening Plenary Session & Summary Reports ed ASRDC Executive Committee Elections 9:00 r *Rural Energy /Bulk Fuel | *Rural Sanitation *Alaska Education Systems | *Children & Families *Rural Economic 10:00 N | *Rural Bulk Fuel *Environmental Quality |*Rural Career Opportunity | *Rural Subsistence Development Initiatives E | *Rural Housing - Hazardous / Toxic *Job Training Programs *Alaska Health 2000 *Critical Barriers 11:00 7 *RAPIDS Waste / Landfill *AmeriCorps Program *Rural Justice *Innovative Responses 11:45 am Guest Speaker Guest Speaker Guest Speaker Guest Speaker Guest Speaker NOON Emil Notti John Sandor Edgar Blatchford Governor Walter J. Hickel Rosita Worl LUNCH SETTING THE TAKING WORKING Puanani Burgess Ann Campbell 1:15 pm VISION ACTION TODAY TOGETHER MODELS FOR TOMORROW POLICIES FORTOMORROW 2:00 q Rural Alaska Policy Rural Alaska Policy Rural Alaska Policy Rural Alaska Policy Rural Alaska Policy N Energy & Housing Environmental Quality Education & Community & Enterprise & : Transport.&Commun. & Sanitation Vocational Training Social Services Economic Development 5:00 S | Statements & Resolutions | Statements & Resolutions | Statements & Resolutions | Statements & Resolutions |Statements & Resolutions VILLAGE ALASKA ROUNDTABLE FORUMS - LIVE DAILY BROADCAST - RURAL ALASKA TELEVISION NETWORK 7:00 PM | I | Moderated By: Gary Fife | Anchor Host: Jeanie Greene "Heartbeat Alaska" Monday - Friday - 7 PM to 8 PM Produced By: Laura Bliss-Spann Aired over all 8:00 PM Final Rural Alaska Policy reports and issue discussion. RATNET STATIONS Viewer and Listener call in time for comments and questions to guest panelists and selected APRN RADIO STATIONS RURAL ALASKA POLICY CONFERENCE HOSTS - Alaska State Rural Development Council - - University of Alaska Anchorage School of Business - - Department of Community & Regional Affairs - - Rural Alaska Community Action Program - - Commission on Rural Alaska Village Economies & Needs - - Alaska Community Service Commission - AmeriCorp - + ALASKA - 2000 - SEEDS: RURAL ALASKA PUBLIC FORUMS CONFERENCE AND POLICY ADVISORY SYMPOSIUM «© Rural Alaska Policy Review ¢ KAYUTKUTULLUNI OEPGHALLEQ ° "helping each other work together"' St. Lawrence Island Yupik Savoonga and Gambell, Alaska—John Waghiyi Jr. ¢ WOOSH EEN YEI JIDANEI ¢ "working together" Tlingit language, Southeast, Alaska—Nora Dauenhauer e ILAKLUTA CALILUTA ° "Working Together" Cupik language, Chevak, Alaska—Teresa Pingayak. * ALASKA - 2000 - SEEDS: RURAL ALASKA PUBLIC FORUMS CONFERENCE AND POLICY ADVISORY SYMPOSIUM + Rural Alaska Policy Review ROSTER OF ALASKA STATE BOARDS & COMMISSIONS BAR ASSOCIATION BARBERS AND HAIRDRESSERS .. BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES . BROADCASTING COMMISSION .. CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS 7 CLEMENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ...........c:sescsessessees CLINICAL SOCLAL WORK EXAMINERS .. COASTAL POLICY COTNCID 1. seccsssccsscssosstessssaeseseete CODE REVISION COMMISSION ....... COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY .. COMMERCIAL FISHING/AGRICULTURE BANK COMPENSATION COMMISSION ........:ssessssssseeeeeeseeee CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES COMMISSION ...... DENTAL EXAMINERS ...........0.55 DISABILITIES/SPECIAL EDUCATION .. DISPENSING OPTICIANS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/SEXUAL ASSAULT ......... EDUCATION ......cscscsseseseeeeseeeseseseeee EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION EMPLOYMENT OF PEOPLE W/DISABILIIES .. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ADVISORY .. EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL TRUSTEES ... FEDERAL AREAS ... FISHERIES FISHERMEN'S FUND ADVISORY & APPEALS ........ FOSTER CARE REVIEW PANEL ..........::c:csseeseeeseseee HISTORICAL RECORDS ADVISORY HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION .. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION HUMAN RIGHTS HUMANITIES FORUM .. nosall INDEPENDENT LIVING COUNCIL .........:ccssesessseeeseee INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT/EXPORT INTERSTATE OIL AND GAS COMPACT JOB TRAINING COUNCIL.........:.ccccesesessseesseeesnes JUDICIAL CONDUCT ..... JUDICIAL COUNCIL ..... JUVENILEJUSTICE/FAMILY SERVICES LABOR RELATIONS AGENCY ... LIBRARIES ADVISORY LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION MARINE PILOTS ......... MARINE RESEARCH .. ai MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY .............+5 MEDICAID RATE ADVISORY COMMISSION MEDICAL BOARD ........cccssscsseeseseseeseseeseeeeee MENTAL HEALTH BOARD .........ccsessessessesseseeeseees MIDWIVES MINERALS COMMISSION MUNICIPAL BOND BANK NATIVES, JOINT FEDRAL-STATE . NORTH PACIFIC ANADROMOUS FISH ... NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT. NORTH PACIFIC/BERING SEA FISHERIES ... NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS .. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION ....... OLDER ALASKANS COMMISSION .......c:ccessseessees OPTOMETRY ........:cscsscssesesesesesesseseeseseees OUTDOOR RECREATION AND TRAILS .........ecceeeseees PACIFIC SALMON COMMISSION PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES PAROLE BOARD .........cccscesesseseeseseeseeeeseeee PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ... PERMANENT FUND .... PERSONNEL BOARD .. ot PHARMACY BOARD ..........cscscssesessetesteeseeeeenee PHYSICAL / OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY PIONEERS' HOMES ADVISORY POLICE STANDARDS COUNCIL .... POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL TEACHING PRACTICES PSYCHOLOGIST/PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT BOARD ....... PUBLIC OFFICES COMMISSION PWS OIL SPILL RECOVERY INSTITUTE . RAILROAD CORPORATION RAVEN COMMISSION REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS. REAL ESTATE COMMISSION .. REAPPORTIONMENT BOARD ........... RECREATION RIVERS ADVISORY REHABILITATION AD UNCIL... ROYALTY OIL ANDGAS DEVELOPMENT RURAL ALASKA TV NETWORK (RATNET). SAFETY ADVISORY COUNCIL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION . SEAFOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE ... SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION STORAGE TANK ASSISTANCE ...... STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION .. SUBSISTENCE RESOURCE COMMISSIONS TEACHERS' RETIREMENT BOARD TELECOMMUNICATIONS..... TOURISM COORDINATING COMMITTEE ........... For More Information Contact: Office of The Governor Boards and Commissions P.O. Box 11001 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0001 (907) 465-3500 * ALASKA - 2000 - SEEDS: RURAL ALASKA PUBLIC FORUMS CONFERENCE AND POLICY ADVISORY SYMPOSIUM + Rural Alaska Policy Review Meee sa Ben a Reece oy Oey Rural Alaska Policy Review ON ALASKA STATE RURAL AMERICA RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OVERVIEW: FEDERAL - STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE Towards a Comprehensive Alaska Rural Economic Development Strategy. 1 Alaska State Rural Development Council - Membership Categories... Report on National - State Rural Development Initiative Understanding the Tribal Context for Development. The Circle of Development and Indigenous People... Reinventing Rural America - ''The New Governance The Northwest Policy Report. 29 PARTI: RURAL ALASKA INFRASTRUCTURE: ENERGY, HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS Rural Energy - Utility Briefing: Division of Energy.... 32 37 44 48 Governor's Bulk Fuel Task Force - Preliminary Report on Bulk Fue Alaska Comprehensive Housing Assessment SUrvey.........-s-cssssseseeseeses Rural Alaska Project Identification & Delivery System: Progress Report. Development of A Statewide Telecommunications Network: Visions of Alaska's Future...... 50 PART II: RURAL ALASKA SANITATION & ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Rural Alaska Sanitation Initiative - Task Force and Federal Field Work Group................. 54 D.C. Meeting on Rural Alaska Sanitation. 57 "Commitment to Alaskans" - A Blue Print For Solving Alaska's Sanitation Needs. 59 PART III: RURAL ALASKA EDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING ALASKA 2000 - "An Education Initiative. 64 Earning, Learning, and Living. 68 Alaska State Vocational Technical Education - Statewide Needs Assessment... 72 Corporation for National and Community Service - The AmeriCorp Program... 73 Alaska Job Training Council. SII Iiae 80 ~SALASKA - 2000 - SEEDS: RURAL ALASKA PUBLIC FORUMS CONFERENCE AND POLICY ADVISORY SYMPOSIUM + Rural Alaska Policy Review Rural Alaska Policy Review Contents DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY STATE OF ALASKA & REGIONAL AFFAIRS OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR PART IV: RURAL ALASKA COMMUNITY - SUBSISTENCE, JUSTICE, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, HEALTH, AND LOCAL GOVERNANCE Alaska Natives Commission - Task Force Summary Reports... 82 * Correcting Corrections *Physical Health *Education *Traditional Economies *Well-Being *Restoring Authority Governor's Local Autonomy Task Force - Preliminary Report... 88 Resolving Disputes Locally: Alternatives for Rural Alaska 90 Partnership for Community Problem Solving. 96 Village 2000..........ssesssesessssssssesssesessseseeseeeeeen 98 Rural Alaska Community Action Program.. 104 Village Participation Conference - Achieving Community Goals. 106 Alaska Head Start...........0. ee 110 The Values of Reform: Work and Responsi 114 Child Care Program: Executive Repott...........+++ 117 Health Resources & Access: Task Force Final Report. 118 The Story of One & The Voice of Many 111 Arctic Issues Digest.........s.0000 seeeeeeesnees 112 The Politics of Self-Determination: Subsistence and Alaska Natives 124 Can Alaska Natives Have A More Effective Voice. 130 Alaska Federation of Natives: Subsistence............... 139 What Subsistence Is ..Where It Happens.....Who Participates... 140 Subsistence on Federal Public Lands: Four Management Alternatives. 144 PART V: RURAL ALASKA ECONOMIES AND ENTERPRISES The Governor's Commission on Rural AlaskaVillage Economies and Needs. 152 Alaska's Economy 1993 - 2020: a ISER Research SummarJ.......s.ssssssseeseses 155 The Role of the State in Rural Economic Development.............++ 156 Working Together for Community Development In Rural Alaska. Division of Economic Development - Current Projects List........... Tourism and Rural America. ARDORS - Statewide Priorities. The CDQ - Community Development Quota - Program.. ARDOR - Shaping Alaska's FUtUre............ssccscssssssssesssssesssesessseseseeen Alaska Municipal League - Executive Summary / Policy Statements Listing. Banking Arrives in Alaska's Bush Villages..............++« Alaska Federation of Natives: Goals for the 1990's.... 160 172 174 165 176 181 . 187 . 189 191 PART VI - Volume II RURAL ALASKA POLICY - BACKGROUND PAPERS has CONTENTS INTRODUCTION IL. PURPOSE I. BACKGROUND Ill. THE CHALLENGE A. Financing B. Education and Training Cc. Economic Development D. Infrastructure E. Housing F. Health G. Communication IV. ORGANIZATION A. Leadership and Organization B. Technical Assistance and Funding Process V. METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION Under two 1990 Congressional mandates, a new focus on economic development in rural America was created. Some of these mandates, the President's Initiative on Rural Economic Development, was created to advise the federal government concerning rural development policy needs and to provide guidance in setting a national policy agenda for rural economic develop- ment. This Initiative will, within three years, establish and fully implement Rural Development Councils (RDCs) in each state as key communication links with the Initiative. The second Congressional mandate was adoption of Public Law 101-624 which Wife RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW Q wayyy ; - Re. cgheard TOWARDS COMPREHENSIVE ALASKA RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY provides a coordinating mechanism similar to that initiated by the President. This new law requires, as a prerequisite for eligibility to receive certain federal rural economic development funds, the establishment of State Rural Economic Development Review Panels. Both the Presidential Rural Development Councils and the Congres- sionally mandated Panels require that a rural development prioritization system be in place and both call for state and federal partnerships. There is, therefore, two-fold need fora development information protocol which unites all participants in a process resulting in a coordinated rural economic develop- ment strategy which ensures that com- munities are included in the — structuring of this effort to the greatest extent possible. Rural Alaska Policy Review In separate action, Governor Walter J. Hickel, in his January 22, 1991, State of the State Address, said: "Alaska has much to offer the nation and the world--oil, gas, coal, minerals, t imber and fish, tourism, sport hunting and fishing, and the spiritual uplift that comes from just experiencing the country. It is our right to care for and wisely use these resources we own in common. In so doing we will create the jobs that will produce the work that will help resolve our social and family problems. And we will project an image to the world of a society that understands its ownership obligations--is a true steward of its natural inheritance." Governor Hickel has directed the State to redouble its efforts to help communities develop clear visions of their future, including stronger local governments, stronger local economies, and fiscal accountability. Developing an economic base for community stability is one of the greatest challenges in rural Alaska. A major part of this effort will be the involvement by all participants in the creation of a Comprehensive Alaska Rural Economic Development Strategy. Creating a statewide Comprehensive Alaska Rural Economic Development Strategy will require a coordinated and unified approach to gathering and disseminating information, providing technical assistance, and obtaining funding support for rural development in Alaska while incorporating local participation to the maximum extent possible. Establishing a sound process for agency communications with rural communities is seen as a fundamental requirement for a strategic planning process that addresses rural concerns. There are many circumstances which hinder and prevent economic enhancement. One major barrier is the lack of coordination and communication among the federal and state agencies that have primary roles in encouraging and supplementing community development goals. This paper proposes a communication mechanism which assigns maximum decision making, participation and response to local and State priorities. A system for guiding agency information, resources, and fund allocations will begin with the establishment of local development committees. These local committees in turn interface with regional development organizations which work with a statewide rural economic development focus group in developing a comprehensive approach to development, and the focus group will work with a Federal/State organization which interfaces with the respective federally mandated organizations. Formalizing a federal-state economic development network will require organization, a common communication system, commitment, and cooperation. The State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs and Department of Commerce and Economic Development have existing local community and regional networks established which are the framework for organizing the proposed plan. Commitment by federal, state, and local authorities to cooperate in completion of the development of the plan will be the key to success. The draft of this "Strategy" document was developed by such a network of cooperating public agencies. The ARDOR. Alaska Regional Development Organizations. PURPOSE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ALASKA RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY A. The Need for Coordination Rural communities in Alaska are having great difficulty in developing or stabilizing an economic base for their cash needs. Barriers of immediate concern are a lack of infrastructure, limited technical knowledge, a scarcity of money, and the remoteness from basic markets for most communities. Success at removing these barriers is impeded by the lack of effective coordination among the many agencies that have primary roles in meeting the needs of rural Alaska communities. Funding and technical resources are managed by a number of agencies and efforts at planning and coordination among them is limited at best. Add to this the interagency mix of roles and responsibilities, the numerous local and regional organizations involved in development matters, and the complexity of coordination becomes staggering. Rural Alaska Policy Review Often, more than one local organization will be involved in some phase of reaching project implementation, along with various participating state and federal agencies. Ittakes —_spe- cial insight and expertise to focus upon the proper contact person. B. The Need for a Focusing Strategy: Allocation Communities must be focused in order to provide a consensus on their needs and priorities; state and federal agencies must be focused to respond to those priorities with greater efficiency and effectiveness. Currently, rural development agencies find themselves responding to the needs of rural Alaska in one of two ways, neither of which is acceptable. In one approach, some agencies try to be a source of assistance to all requesting communities. Alternatively, some respond only to those with whom they have had close contact. In the first case, resources available for individual projects are spread too thin; in the second case, only a privileged few receive assistance. Furthermore, because agencies are not participating in a statewide rural develop- ment strategy process, planning is conducted by individual agencies, based upon their mission, and their assessment and understanding of community needs. Fundamental changes must occur in the way agencies conduct their economic development business in Alaska. These changes must maximize rural community input and guide multi-agency resources to respond to short and long term issues and fulfill or meet identified statewide goals. Federal and State agencies along with rural organi- zations must work together to develop a statewide rural development system . This system is what we refer to as the "focus mechanism." The "focus mechanism" is nothing less than a process in which all participants are brought together in a synergistic relationship to resolve the issues of communi- cation and allocation. The focus mechanism addresses the following: *how local communities and villages will present their vision of their needs and opportunities; *how agencies will hear and respond to local priorities; *how existing programs relate so that these needs and priorities are made a part of their daily routine; and *how development priorities factor into legislative or other funding options that are not a part of the focus system. Our overall purpose in creating a focus mechanism is threefold: *to ensure that the "consumers" of services - - local rural communities and individuals -- are a part of the decision-making process; *to establish the Governor's approved process through which the State of Alaska may access support programs under the new congres- sionally established Rural Development Adminis- tration and the President's Initiative on Rural Development; and *to provide a structure for statewide rural economic strategy planning. Thus the mission of this mechanism is to provide a locally-initiated process of focusing technology, funding, and other resources to complete projects which meet local economic development goals. Il. BACKGROUND Historically, many rural communities in Alaska depended upon a subsistence lifestyle. There were few technological needs and even fewer problems in those communities. The lifestyle was not dependent upon a cash economy, and jobs were not looked upon as a necessity. Today's rural community is increasingly a mix of cash and subsistence economies. As the younger, post-ANCSA generation enters the workforce, they must compete for the handful of jobs available in rural Alaska. Jobs are scarce in most rural communities and unemployment runs as high as 80 percent with most employment being seasonal. A report by the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs entitled National Program Inadequacies and Needs to Better Serve Rural and Native Alaska, dated March 25,1966, stated: "Recent years have brought many new agencies and programs to Alaska with more tools, personnel, and other resources for development. Programs are specifically aimed toward the elimination of depressed areas, poverty, unem 3 Rural Alaska Policy Review ployment and underemployment, and unequal economic opportunity, all characteristic of rural Alaska. The need in Alaska is to direct these programs toward the characteristics they were designed to eliminate and integrate them efficiently and effectively with ongoing programs." The Alaska Federation of Natives Report on the Status of Alaska Natives: A Call for Action, dated January, 1989, found: "The absence of jobs in the cash economy is a chronic problem in rural communities where unemployment rates far outstrip the state and national averages ... For two decades the federal and state governments invested substantial amounts of money in rural Alaska, building houses, water and sewer systems, airstrips, electrical systems, and other infrastructure. Government also made capital investments in community schools intended, in part, to improve the quality of the rural workforce... Despite investment in infrastructure and education, in most Native communities, the increase in self-sustaining economic growth has been minimal . . . [Additionally,] the cost of maintaining and operating the infrastructure built with federal and state money is beyond the means of most communities and the Native families who live in them..." In Alaska, the continuing need is for jobs and economic stability in the more than 200 rural communities. "Every effort to take advantage of limited opportunities for private economic development should be encouraged, and Native access to employment opportunities expanded . Policies and initiatives that target economically realistic improvements in the physical quality of community life and do not undermine options for residents who want to pursue economic opportunities away from their home communities are needed." [AFN-1989] In a report presented in February, 1991, by the Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), entitled, Alaska's Economic Challenge: The Level of Distress, the following statements addressed the concerns of rural Alaska: "One of the most serious economic challenges facing Alaska is in rural Alaska. Location, transportation, lack of markets, climate, work force, and culture factors limit the rural areas in developing any type of economic development base. Unfortunately, the fact remains that conditions in the rural areas are not getting better. The economic prosperity of the recent pipeline construction era has had little lasting effect on many rural areas. They continue as before with high unemployment and low median incomes. State and federal dispute over regulation of subsistence, boycotts on the fur industry, international socioeconomics, and dozens of road blocks face rural Alaska. The population continues to struggle with limited resources trying to find a degree of stability. The sad fact is that social problems of drugs, alcoholism, and disease are increasing. If state and federal involvement and assistance are not available, the gap with the rest of the state and nation will only widen as the state moves into-the twenty-first century. Without the aid and assistance of both federal and state programs, there will be little private sector development over the next few years. There is little chance the cycle of poverty will be broken without this additional support and other outside beneficial influences." The areas of rural development concern identified in a study conducted by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture echoed Alaska's concerns. The general categories are: *rural education and training, *rural economic development, *rural infrastructure, and *rural health care. 4 Rural Alaska Policy Review It is our belief, however, that an additional area which demands focused attention as well as a systematic approach towards improvement here in Alaska, is communications with rural communities. If a sound process for agency communica- tions with rural communities is established first, the result will be a far more productive effort addressing other areas of concern. Il. THE CHALLENGE A. RURAL FINANCING BARRIERS (CAPITAL CONSTRAINTS) Common rural Alaska financing mechanisms are debt (credit), equity, and grants: i. Access to Debt Capital, Lack of: With the oil price decline in the mid 80's a significant capital constriction occurred in Alaska's banking institutions which had speculated in urban real estate. These banks were faced with declining book values, while cash became pinched as deal flow declined and secondary markets dried up. The result was an unprecedented series of bank failures and consoli- dations. This has ushered in an era of withdrawal by banks from commercial lending. The rural commercial portfolios have been good per- formers, but despite this fact, rural lending by Alaskan banks, coupled with the traumas of the mid 80's has resulted in a paucity of private development capital in rural Alaska. While there is some evidence of change due to the presence of new rural loan programs through the state and the onset of stronger Community Reinvestment Act regulations last year, access to debt capital remains a problem in rural Alaska. 2. Equity, Lack of: The private invested capital base in Alaska runs only a few percent of G.S.P. per annum, which indicates that a major source of investment capital in Alaska is public. Only recently has the State of Alaska structured a venture capital facility. There currently are no Small Business Investment Corporations, Minority Small Business Investment Corpora- tions, Business Investment and Development Corporations or other of the equity facilities found in the public capital environ- ment. Rural Village Corporations, which are potential sources of investment capital, are prudently constrained from direct investments. There is a need for a new approach as to underwrit- ing financing risks such as rate of return gaps. 3. Public Invested Capital Base, Lack of: DCRA's Rural Economic Development Initiative (REDI) staff has estimated that capitalization needs in rural Alaska over the next ten years will be $2.2 billion needs for capital projects (infrastructure), $400 million for Economic Development, and $150 million for Planning and Technical Assistance. The Grand Total of estimated development needs in rural Alaska through the year 2000 comes to $2.725 billion. This stands in contrast to an estimated ten-year total of $554 million for rural Alaska, based on recent spending, leaving a gap of $2.2 billion. B. RURAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING BARRIERS The distances between rural communities in Alaska and the lack of roads make it difficult to provide a well rounded educational opportunity to all of the youth of Alaska. Youth that have remained in the remote villages for their educational training through high school find it difficult to communicate due to differences in educational experiences and in the lan- guage. Moreover, the curriculum often does not relate to the tural environment of Alaska and local students find it difficult to learn things that they have no opportunity to experience or to participate . For those students not tracked into college, the curriculum often times does not prepare youth to make a successful transition from school to work. Rural schools graduate students with low basic skills in reading, math, and communications and little relevant work maturity skills. Young people are generally not made aware of career opportunities and options and the prerequisite skills and training necessary to enter and succeed in those occupations. It is important that curriculum be well founded in the fields of natural resources and agriculture. This is especially true for the cooperative education programs offered by the University system. Rural Alaska Policy Review C. RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS We are in a world market and most rural communi- ties lack knowledge of and access to global markets and do not have the ability to perform market analysis. Communities may not know what is available to them or be aware of product demand or diversity. They tend to focus on traditional products and markets for fish and logs. Value-added opportunity is a vaguely understood concept which is rarely realized. In spite of the many current efforts providing assistance to rural development in the State, there remains a lack of communication and cooperation among the various contributing agencies which local communities regard as “turf battles." This perception frustrates communities and harms agency credibility. The federal goal of "No Net Loss of Wetlands" is a distinct problem in most rural areas, as many communities are located on river bottoms which invariably include wetlands within the boundaries of proposed industrial development. Most rural areas in Alaska are remote from markets, processors, labor sources, and money institutions. Most depositors must use banks outside their community; consequently their money does not remain in the community for local benefit. Resource development planning which would help Alaska gain access to many of the funding assistance sources seems to stall, become obsolete before completion, or fail because of lack of commitment of resources. For example, a State Stewardship Plan, a State Forest Resource Plan, a Mat-Su Valley Plan, and many others have not been completed. Alaskans' many lifestyles are based upon a greater freedom than that experienced in other states. Experience in resource development has historically centered on consumptive uses of timber, oil, coal, and fish. There are mixed feelings about expansion of consumptive uses in other areas of Alaska. Reaching consensus on development is difficult, and often small, well organized self-interest groups and groups representing environmental interests are able to stop clans for resource development. There is a local distrust of development. Develop- ment is viewed as a threat to the rural lifestyle. There is also fear that other resource values will be lost if some are developed. Distribution of many federal funds is based upon political power. The political power base for Alaska is small, and the demands for attention many. Government regulations, federal and state, lack flexibility to address the specific needs of local areas. Some restrictions and/or requirements preclude even considering communities for some programs. D. RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE BARRIERS Most rural areas have few roads which go beyond the developed boundaries of the communities. It is difficult to develop interest in locations remote from primary energy sources. The cost of doing business or constructing facilities is very high even compared toAnchorage. Therefore, profit margins are much narrower and the business risks much higher. Sanitation and water systems are either lacking or rudimentary. Alternatives are very expensive and cannot be funded by communities which have unemployment as high as 80 percent. E. RURAL HOUSING BARRIERS HUD probably supplies over 85 percent of the houses currently being constructed in rural Alaska. The HUD regulations now covering these construction projects do not recognize the uniqueness of the Alaska environment. As aresult, most of these houses are uneconomical to livein and deteriorate quickly. Local material is not used in construction and most of the labor is from outside the local area. . 6 Rural Alaska Policy Review F. RURAL HEALTH BARRIERS Populations are so low in most rural communities and dependency on welfare payments so high that medical facilities, doctors, or in some cases, RN's, cannot be supported. Emergency health patients must be flown out to medical facilities. Weather often makes the trip hazardous at best, and a matter of life and death in some situations. Safe drinking water is not available in many remote villages. Neither are sanitation facilities. What exists is simply a chamber pot (honey bucket) in each bedroom. Disposal is into a community collection tank for later disposal at some remote location, over the bank, or into the river. G. COMMUNICATIONS BARRIERS There is a lack of comprehensive, long range, rural development planning for Alaska. There are pieces of long range plans for specific interests, but the necessary coordination is not evident. Too often, not all potential participants were contacted, and therefore, the partnerships were incomplete. Furthermore, there is a lack of agreement or understanding between urban factions and rural factions. Most issues end up a we/they adversarial confrontation, with little win/win opportunity or outcomes. There is a lack of good interagency communi- cation. Each appears to operate in a vacuum, leaving partners standing in the wings, and too often the issues become turf battles. Government agency credibility in rural Alaska is poor. Past performance has done little to change this percep- tion among the public affected by agency decisions. There are many unresolved conflicts between management philosophy, policy, and needs of adjacent landowners/property managers. There seems to be no forum short of going to court to arbitrate or cooperatively work out solutions. Rural communities have so many problems facing them, so little money to work with, and have done without for so long, that it is difficult for the various agencies with rural development programs to identify and set priorities on those projects with which the communities want assistance. IV. ORGANIZATION A. Leadership and Coordination for Rural Development A successful Comprehensive Alaska Rural Development Strategy will require leadership and direction from the local community. The proposed network will provide a mechanism to accomplish this objective. The following sections detail the stages and interface necessary to create a truly focused strategy: Stage 1- LOCAL The communities are the cornerstone of this process. The communities provide the priorities for economic development projects; the consensus and needs identification as well as the actual project implementation. Leadership must begin at the local community level for any rural economic development strategy to be effective. There must be an understanding by federal and state agencies of the complexity of the various leadership roles which exist in Alaska's rural communities. This role may be shared by many, and determining priorities is difficult at best. Clearly, it is important that the local voices be heard in unison and a committee focusing on rural development issues must be established (or recognized where it already exists) within the community. Therefore, participating communities will be encouraged to establish a committee formed of the IRA, corporation, city, and other locally interested parties that will be involved in development projects. For the purpose of this strategy we will call these committees Local Develop- ment Committees or LDCs. The function of these LDCs will be to stimulate and promote local development interest and activity by establishing need through data collection, by setting local development goals and priorities, by coordinating local project proposals and assisting in project implementation, by being the source of information flowing outward, and by participating through the regional development organizations. Stage 2 - REGIONAL The Alaska Regional Development Organizations (ARDORs) are regional organizations established by the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development to assist and strengthen regional economies. ARDORS will serve as the repository for informa- tion flowing from the local committees and as the primary interface to the Statewide Rural Economic Focus Groups (REF). They will develop regional information data banks, develop region-wide strategies, and recommend regional priorities. ARDORs are made up of representatives from local communities such as Native entities, local officials, private enterprise, education institutions, and others within its boundary. The ARDORs, together with the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA), would: *assist local communities organize local committees, *stimulate rural economic development, *provide focusing for regional priorities, and *make recommendations to the Statewide Rural Economic Focus Groups for statewide focusing of priorities. The ARDORs will also be the storehouse for information on rural development programs, technical assistance availability, and other pertinent information. The communication network will have each ARDOR acting as a hub of informational flows within their defined regions. Stage 3 - STATEWIDE The Statewide Rural Economic Focus Group (REF) will be created to review, evaluate, rank, and prioritize development plans of local and regional areas. The REF will be composed of 45 members, ten from the rural regional profit corporations, ten from the rural regional nonprofit organizations, 15 from the ARDORs, and ten from state- federal agencies. Approved strategies and recommended priority projects would be transmitted to the State Coordinator through an executive committee of seven selected from the REF's membership. With the primary objective of assuring common goals, it is envisioned that the full group would meet biannually, while the Executive Committee, made up of four (4) agencies and three (3) community representatives, would meet more frequently. Stage 4- FEDERAL Finally, the State and Federal Review Panel (Panel) would develop a focused strategy based upon results of interaction with the REF. The Panel, through the State Coordinator, will fulfill the duties detailed in PL101-624, Subtitle B, Chapter 3, Section 366(b). The Panel is required to advise the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the desirability of funding applications for funding from designated rural development programs and, in developing such advice, the Panel would have the following duties: *Review rural development plans of local areas, *Evaluate area plans and applications for assistance, *Review and rank applications for assistance under designated rural development programs from areas with accepted area plans, *Priority ranking for projects addressing health emergencies, *Priority based on need, *Transmit list of ranked applications * Availability of list of ranked applications and, *Establishment and review of written policy and criteria for evaluation and ranking applications. The Panel wouldbe composed of not more than 16 voting and four non-voting members as detailed in PL101-624, Subtitle B, Chapter 3, Section 366(c). The Panel would establish annual targets for the allocation of resources for each program year. Agencies will be encouraged to adjust their annual planning and program- ming to meet those targets. Agencies will be encouraged to incorporate grant criteria and prioritize staff time to meet those targets and goals. Special programs, grant offerings, and initiatives among Panel members will be encouraged. B. Technical Assistance and Funding Processes: The processes of developing a focusing network among the agencies and within the local communities differ. Both are equally important, and both are discussed here to assure clear understanding of the interrelationships which will be developed among agencies and communities. Some agencies are principally funding agencies; others provide technical assistance, while still others provide 8 both funding and technical assistance. The relationships developed between these agencies and the various communities differ as a function of the type of resource provided. Those agencies which are funding sources only (like ANA and EDA) may choose to depend upon the proposed communication network in providing their services. Agencies offering technical assistance (like DCRA and DCED) will continue to have direct lines of communication, but will use the network to help guide the course of their overall economic development objectives and to help focus individual department efforts. Although the technical assistance process may be an individual depart- ment activity, the protocol and contacts will be within the system There are opportunities and even a fundamental need to coordinate delivery of technical assistance. Many communities need considerable assistance to even define their priorities or reach the proposal stage. The first and often most difficult step is for communities to become aware of available technical assistance. This can be accomplished through the proposed communication network. V. METHODOLOGY A federal-state-local network is needed to assist federal and state agencies in focusing their resources and to improve the competiveness of Alaskans in the contest for scarce resource development dollars. It provides a means whereby federal, state, regional and local entities can work towards common goals of carrying on their respective roles and responsibilities in rural Alaska. Providing the coordination for developing and implementing this focus mechanism is one of the most challenging opportunities existing today in Alaska. The effort will require organization, a common and understood communication system, commitment and cooperation for the concept to work. The State of Alaska, the Alaska State Rural Develop- ment Council, the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) and Department of Commerce and Economic Development are assisting in the building of basic organization and communication networks at the local and regional levels, and it seems prudent to build upon these tural economic development initiative efforts.....particularly those which are based upon: "locally conceived and driven strategies'' Rural Alaska Policy Review ALASKA STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUMMARY OF FULL COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP ASRDC Current Membership Membership Categories By Category Federal Agencies 20 State Departments/A gencles 20 ARDORs 15 ANCSA Regional Corporations 12 ANCSA Regional Non-Profit Corps. 12 Tribal Governrnents 12 Private Businesses 12 ANCSA Village Corporations 12 Financial Institutions 12 Local Governments 12 Educational Representatives 10 At Large Organizations/Agencies 10 Total ASRDC Members - 1993 159 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Membership Category # of Reps Federal Agencies State Departments/Agencies ARDORs ANCSA Regional Corporations ANCSA Regional Non-Profit Corps. Tribal Governments Private Businesses ANCSA Village Corporations Financial Institutions Local Governments Educational Representatives At Large Organizations/Agencies NNNNNNNNNNNWN iJ co Total Executive Committee Members ASRDC ELECTIONS: At the Annual ASRDC Rural Alaska Policy Conference, each membership category holds a caucus to select one (1) representative to the ASRDC Executive Committee. No more than one member may be selected from each agency / department / organization listed in each category. Nominations may be submitted by mail or at the time of the Annual ASRDC Conference. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON MEMBERSHIP Contact: Chuck Akers, Executive Director 333 West. 4th Ave. Suite 301 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2341 (907) 269-4606 FAX: (907) 269-4539 al 7 9 Rural Alaska Policy Review A Report on National - State Rural Development Initiative Executive Summary In January 1990, President George Bush announced a six-point initiative to address the unique needs and problems of the nation's rural areas. A centerpiece of the initiative was the establishment of state rural development councils (SRDCs). These councils are designed to bring together the resources of the federal government, states, localities, tribal governments, and the private sector. While the concept of intergovernmental collaboration to support rural development is not new, the SRDC program is unique because there is no predetermined method by which each council must create or implement the partnership. To support the mission and activities of SRDCs, the National Governors’ Association (NGA) examined eight past and current rural initiatives to glean information about obstacles to and opportunities for collaborative partnerships. NGA then brought together public officials and private sector representatives who had been involved in these programs to focus on the most valuable lessons from their experiences. The eight rural initiatives from which information was drawn reflect a mix of state and federal initiatives. Some were established through legislation, some by executive order, and some through administrative fiat. They include: ° the Appalachian Regional Commission; . the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop ment/U.S. Department of Agriculture rural demon- strations in four states; . Idaho's Rural Development Council; ° Maine's Rural Development Committee; . Montana's rural medical assistance facilities; . Oklahoma's Rural Enterprise Team; . South Dakota's Agricultural Processing and Export Loan Program; and ° Wisconsin's Rural Development Coordinating Council. While each of these rural initiatives had different policy and program objectives, each involved cooperative planning and program implementation by state and federal officials, and in some instances, private sector participants. The Rationale for Collaboration The problems affecting the vitality of rural communities are complex, and contributing factors cross traditional geographical and organizational boundaries. Realistic strategies to address these factors lie beyond the mission and resources of any one agency, department, or even level of government. While there is growing recognition that complex problems like rural development are resistant to single program approaches, public resources devoted to rural communities are fragmented and widely dispersed, with hundreds of separate authorities and varying regulations at all levels of government. Additionally, numerous philanthropic founda- tions, non-profit organizations, and segments of the business community are involved daily in activities that impact rural communities. In an era of fiscal constraint, it behooves public and private sector officials to ensure that all available resources are employed efficiently. Facing complex problems with little, if any, new money requires creativity and innovation. Creativity and innovation increase through inclusive processes. Consequently, collaborative partnerships that bring together both human and financial resources represent the most successful means of achieving rural development goals. Obstacles to Intergovernmental Collaboration The participants in these programs identified several obstacles to intergovernmental collaboration that must be overcome for these types of efforts to be successful. BUREAUCRATIC INERTIA. Most state, federal, and local government operations are based on many years of doing business in a certain manner. Ingrained policies and administrative procedures do not change overnight. INFLEXIBLE REGULATIONS. Most state and federal regulations are drafted with the assumption that a single set of rules can address all situations. 10—- a SS RR a SR Rural Alaska Policy Review Concerns about political changes and shifts in policy priorities. All too often in the past, initiatives to promote collaboration and innovation have been short- circuited by changes in federal or state administrations or by shifting policy priorities. PACE OF CHANGE. Both program administra- tors and program clientele often become frustrated due to the time lag that occurs following the identification of innovative ways to address issues and their implementation. PERSONALITIES. No organizational structure or set of operating procedures can overcome the obstacles imposed when individuals place program control or personal agendas before the mutual objectives of the partnership. Ingredients for a Successful Partnership Based on their experience, the participants in these rural initiatives believed they had achieved certain levels of success using the following strategies. DEMONSTRATING PERSONAL LEADERSHIP. A senior state or federal official must demonstrate personal com- mitment to bringing together diverse interests. ENSURING A FLEXIBLE POLICY ENVIROMNENT. Senior officials in state and/or federal government should encourage program administrators to take risks and try new approaches. FOCUSING ON OUTCOMES. Work should not be distributed along traditional lines of program responsibility but on who has the resources and can best achieve the desired outcome. Conclusion Supporting mutual objectives. Program officials must recognize that individual agencies have mandated objectives. The partners should ask how the partnership can support each participating agency's objectives, and how in turn these objectives can support the overall rural develop- ment goal. . Taking advantage of existing networks and resources. New collaborative efforts should not ignore past or current rural programs and organizations. These entities represent additional resources that may be essential to the initiative's success. . Creating a sense of ownership by all the partners. It is important that each partner be involved in the process from the beginning. If the partners participate in the design of the initiative, they will have a stake in its eventual success. . Achieving early, tangible successes. Even if the initial "victories" through the partnership are small, it is important for the participants to believe that the time and effort they are contributing is making a difference. As demonstrated by the eight case studies, real benefits accrue when state, federal, local, and private sector participants collaborate on rural development issues. However, there is no easy way to institutionalize or formalize the kind of coordination needed to seize opportunities that lie outside the boundaries of "business as usual." As the nation's understanding of the com- plexities of rural issues increases, so do the opportunities for interagency and intergovern- mental collaboration. What makes collaboration work is a group of committed individuals with a clear mission and objectives. Their chances of success increase when organizational and political cultures enable public servants to take risks and approach problems with initiative and creativity. 11 Rural Alaska Policy Review 12 Research and Analysis The purpose of the Research and Analysis (R&A) section is to provide research, analysis and general technical support for the Department of Community and Regional Affairs' operations. Major recent and projected activities include: Dy =— A DCRA Community Database ......... has been developed which Research and provides a wide range of community-based information and data zualyais for planning, policy making and technical assistance decisions. The database resides on a micro-computer platform and information users may request “standard” comprehensive community profiles or specialized queries which focus on specific community data. Information is available in either hardcopy or computer diskette format. The R&A section developed a database of ongoing and planned capital projects undertaken by all State and federal agencies. This database was developed to support the efforts of the RAPIDS program (Rural Alaska Project Identification and Delivery System) which is designed to enhance and protect the enormous State and federal capital investment in rural Alaskan communities. In 1990, the Legislature created a new fish tax sharing program which will annually provide about one million dollars to be shared among municipalities that can demonstrate impacts from the fishing industry. R&A developed the program procedures, formulas and regulations for the new program which has just completed its first funding cycle. The R&A section explores and promotes the introduction of new office place technology that can help DCRA provide services more efficiently. In the last year, database and/or computer models have been developed and implemented to support many of the department’s programs. Projects in Progress R&A is completing an updated study of the revenue and expenditure situation of smaller communities in rural Alaska. A previous study examined municipal finances from 1985 to 1989. The new study will examine the years from 1990 to 1992. The R&A section will produce a rural Alaska oriented publication based on the results of the 1990 U.S. Census that have recently become available. The publication would provide information for each rural community and make comparisons between the 1970, 1980, and 1990 census figures to demonstrate trends in rural Alaska. FOR MORE INFORMATION Contact: Michael Cushing, Juneau, 465-4814 Department of Community & Regional Affairs Municipal and Regional Assistance Division RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW 4 Preface Any public sector effort which undertakes a comprehensive rural development program will be successful only if all principal groups that have a stake in rural America are involved. The social- economic diversity of both the rural population and of our rural institutions has to be part of the rural development equation. The stakeholders for the State Rural Development Councils (SRDCs) have always been described as five collaborative partners composed of the State, Federal, local, and Tribal govern- ments. and the private sector (community-based organizations, profit and nonprofit groups). Each one of these partners has their own needs and special interests. Sherry Salway Black's paper, "First Step Toward Partnerships in Indian Country: Understanding the Tribal Context for Development," provides insight into the needs and interests of the American Indians and Alaska Native. This paper is the first in an occasional series from the National Initiative Office, is in two parts: (1) the presentation given during the Kah-Nee-Ta conference (October 14, 1992); and (2) a discussion of the circle of development and indigenous peoples. Good ideas. good reading. W. Robert Lovan NIRA Staff Director New Governance Discussion Paper No. 1, published July, 1993, by the National Rural Economic Development Institute, 427 Lorch St., Madison, WI 53706. Ph: 608/262-9479; fax: 608/265-2853. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Agreement No. 43-3AEN-3-80018. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or the Alaska State Rural Development Council. - STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE First Step Toward Partnership in Indian Country: Understanding the Tribal Context for Development' Sherry Salway Black First Nalions Development Institute Just as rural people proudly talk of their differences, I have the unenviable task of talking generally about a varied and unique group of people: American Indians and Alaska Native, the indigenous people of the United States. To begin to understand the tribal context for development, first I'd like to share the contextual framework of my remarks. ¢ Who are American Indian & Alaska Native people? ¢ What is our history? ¢ Where are tribes/American Indians today? ¢ Where are tribes going in the future? ¢ What does this mean for rural development and possible partnerships? Who are American Indian people? Notwithstanding the current press with Columbus movies, and other media and fashion and interior design areas, we remain a mystery to the general public. We are seen by other people either romantically or with discrimination; or we are not seen at all, invisible to the thoughts of politics, and economic mainstreams of the public. As of the 1990 census, we number almost 2 million, or less than 1% of the U.S. population, yet we constitute over 50% of the cultural diversity in this country representing 7) 13 Rural Alaska Policy Review (|S === rests SS 580 tribes and communities and speak over 200 languages. Federally-recognized tribes are located in all but 16 states with most of those remaining 16 home to state-recognized tribes. Of the total American Indian population almost 40% live on reservations or Indian lands. Presented at the National Initiative on Rural America Leadership Conference held at Kah-Nee-Ta Resort, Warm Springs, Oregon, October 14, 1992. Sherry Salway Black and First Nations Development Institute, 1992 We have maintained our tribal identities and much of our traditional cultures and have survived 500 years of forced removal, exploitation, assimilation and acculturation. Tribes and cultures vary widely in size, location, history, and traditions. We are the fastest growing minority with a birth rate almost double that of the general population and are younger than the general population with a median age of 23 years versus 30. Unfortunately, by current measurements and standards, we are the fastest growing underclass. Those living on reservations face unemployment rates nationally of 52%. The rates on many reseNations exceed 80%. Of the 48% employed only about 1/4 or 12% earn over $7,000 a year. Ten percent of the nation's general population is at or below the poverty level of $14,000. Since only 12% of the American Indian population earn more than $7,000 per year, this means that the Indian poverty rate is almost an inversion of that of the general population. Yet, ironically, this same poor one percent of the population collectively own five percent of the land (excluding Alaska), which includes: ° 15% nationwide and 11% worldwide of the low sulfur surface-minable coal; * nearly 40% of the privately-held uranium; * 4% of the oil and natural gas produced annually; ¢ 5.3 million acres of commercial forest producing 38 million board feet of lumber annually; and ¢ substantial quantities of oil-shale and geothermal power. What is our history? A closer look at American Indians and their histories reveals reasons why this dichotomy exists—a population rich in land and other natural resources which usually would define wealth and prosperity yet who are suffering from extreme poverty and all the companion social ills. Since first contact with western society, American Indian tribes have been expected to subsume their cultures and lifestyles to those of western society. This duality of cultures has created internal conflict both on an individual level and tribal level. It has wreaked havoc on a once healthy people. Placement on reservations. abrupt changes in life- styles, destruction of traditional methods of existence and resources. introduction to new values and concepts such as individual accumulation of wealth and land ownership have all contributed to a sense of confusion and powerlessness permeating Indian life. Add to this, the total lack of control of any and all aspects of life (American Indians are the wards of the federal government) and the result is an oppressed and disenfranchised people. Throughout the 1900s, the federal government through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has controlled American Indian land, resources and people. Federal policies and programs ran the gamut from attempts to make Indians into farmers and ranchers; educating children in distant boarding schools removed from the culture and submersed in western knowledge and religion; granting citizenship in their own land; job training programs whose only goal was to force Indian people from reservations into the cities where jobs existed; termination policies denying the very existence of tribes to the more modern attempts of moving large industry onto the reservations. Many of today's issues have their roots in history 150 years ago from the treaties and executive orders which ended warfare (the issues of tribal sovereignty and jurisdic- tion); the Allotment Acts of the late 1800s which fragmented and decimated the tribal land base, causing a loss of 90 million acres from 1887 to 1934, and a dramatic breakdown in culture; the Indian reorganization act, which gave tribes Western models of government rather than continuing indigenous leadership models; the termination era which ended federal recognition and again decimated the land base and culture; to the Reagan years when federal programs and dollars were dramatically reduced. It is interesting to note that, in the 1900s, the policy related to Indian Affairs shows a relationship to the economic situation of the country at large. Seemingly positive policy and legislation was enacted when the country at large was experiencing depressions or recessions and more negative when the economy was in boom periods. I have no answer as to why. Where does this history put us today? Today's issues are tribal sovereignty and the trust 14 relationship with the federal government; jurisdiction over reservation land; control and development of resources; healing the people physically, mentally and spiritually; and assuring the future of the tribe. A list of other critical issues include taxation, water rights, environmental issues, gaming, health care and delivery, education, economic development, religious free- dom, to name a few. For people who cannot understand the history and current issues and situations of tribes, I use the recent example of what happened, and is happening, in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. People revolted against a centrally-planned and controlled economy and lifestyle. Tribes are doing the same—only it has not been as dramatic and over such a short time period. They are throwing off the cloak of a centrally-planned existence under the federal government and taking control of their own lives—being a self-determined people. What are the barriers to becoming self-determined? What are the principles? Through our work for the past 12 years, we have identified eight historical problems with reservation development. Using these as the starting point for reserva- tion development, we have drawn principles of development, which must be recognized and included in the development process. The principles are: 1. The Bureau of Indian Affairs dominates reservation life. Tribal leaders must wrest control and exercise their ability to set priorities and plan for development across the spectrum of reservation concerns. 24 Without real economic development, tribal leaders will never have the material resources to design and implement strategies and programs which they determine will meet community needs. Strategies for attaining lasting economic development must stimulate economic producti- vity in a way that demonstrates a diminishing of the dependence cycle. 3. Isolated physically and psychologically, having little extended contacts beyond federal agencies set up to regulate and administer programs for them, tribes and conventional developers perceive a virtual void in oppor- tunities, resources and economic activities; therefore networking, leveraging, and mobilization skills lie dormant. Development models must establish the process for learning to creatively recognize untapped resources, networking to increase and innovate opportunities, and negoti- — Rural Alaska Policy Review resources. 4. The perceived lack of opportunities compounded by the federal government's "take it or leave it" array of ill-conceived development initiatives leave tribal leaders with no options, and therefore, no experience in analyzing benefits to costs, exploring alternatives, assessing risks and problem-solving. All of these are pre-requisite skills for leadership. The process of developing analytical abilities must be on-going and integral to the development process, fitted to the existing levels of decision-making and incrementally building the expertise. 5. In large part, the federal agencies’ legacy of failure has been projected onto the Indian people so that a "no-win syndrome" permeates the attitudes and actions of the reservation population, contributing to high levels of unemployment, alcohol and substance abuse, and a passive dependent "welfare mentality." To develop leaders in this environment, the process must achieve some recognizable gains and objectives early on, and these accomplishments can be extended as people begin to believe in change and succeed- ing again. Development processes must also include self- esteem counseling, peer support and techniques in dysfunc- tional and addictive behavioral modification. 6. An extension of the federal agencies’ legacy of failure is a set of policies, regulation, and practices that deny tribes practical participation, meaningful involve- ment, or any avenues of redress. Leaving only one course of action—passivity—tribes can either resist passively or become equally passive recipients. Learning to become proactive and build active leadership requires a process of continual self-help requirements. Internally this includes organizing and re-organizing human resources, legitimizing existing skills, and incorporating indigenous knowledge and etiology. Externally, the process must systematically empower the reservation in all aspects of its relationships with surrounding economies and regional and national interests. 7. In effect, tribes have been trapped by a highly insulated and paternal, monolithic system that operates in isolation of other federal and state agencies. The paternalistic bureaucracy overshadows and discourages contacts, communications, and equal partnerships between the tribes and the outside world. Developing indigenous leadership requires a process that reveals the larger picture, exposing common and mutual causes, affiliated and associated interests, and instills a deeper understanding along with a practical utilization of movements, trends, and changes advantageous for Indians. lS Rural Alaska Policy Review 8. Finally, poor quality of education compounded by inferior sources of information have resulted in a labor pool that lacks in technical skills and techno- logical infrastructure which would allow the design and creation of alternative economic enterprise models fitted to culture and community values. The learning and development process must transfer technical expertise and technology in a manner that provides for the emergence and evolution of culturally-appropriate business models that fit extended family structures and indigenous systems of knowledge. These fundamental principles guide much of what is happening today with tribes. Many of the problems are the same in rural communi- ties as well as other poor and disenfranchised communities— lack of access to capital, inadequate infrastructure, excess of imports over exports, lack of control and ability to effect policy, inadequate information, and a short time frame for development. Tribes are taking control of their own resources as evidenced by trust fund issue, land consolidation and acquisition plans, integrated asset and resource management, human development programs, growth of tribal and reservation institutions, rebirth of spirituality, rekindling of indigenous knowledge and traditional tribal values, strengthening leadership and government, growth of private sector and non-profit sector, focus on local, reservation or community-based decision-making. Where are tribes going in the future? Tribes are reintegrating a holistic model of develop- ment for their people. Traditionally, the tribal world view is one that is circular and integrated, incorporating all aspects of life rather than the Western model of fragmentation. Development cannot occur for only a select few, but must be for all of the people. Tribes had a long term view—"they plan with an understanding of the effects of today's actions on the seventh generation." They want to assure a better future for their children and their children's children. This long term view and vision of the future can be seen in the fact that tribes will always be here; they are tied to the land and typically a specific physical location; they are tied to each other. "You may leave the physical location but you always return." That long term view can be demonstrated by an excerpt of the Confederated Tribes of 16 oT the Umatilla Reservation's vision statement. It is set 50 years into the future: "The date is June 30th in the year 2040 A.D. The place is the Umatilla Indian Reservation in northeast Oregon. At this place, the Umatilla Tribes—the Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla—have firmly established the Tribes’ perpetual homeland. . . the New Nation as it is referred. The Tribes’ organization has communicated to its membership, far and wide, that this place—Nicht-Yow-Way —will be guarded and cared for as a reserved homeland for them and their descendants. "The actions taken by the Umatilla Tribes almost half a century ago have enabled the Tribes as a whole, as well as individual Tribal members, to flourish economically, socially, environmentally, politically, financially, and culturally. "The Umatilla Tribes now own land holdings in huge, economically viable blocks. While the Tribes' initial negotiating strategy was to ‘cooperate rather than legislate’ and consequently joined forces with other federal, state and local authorities to wrest control over these tracts, the sophistication of the Corporate Tribal organization is such that the Tribes now both directly manage the land leases, as well as actively participate in business ventures on these holdings. "Because of the tremendous wealth generated by the Tribes' assets, efforts and ingenuity, the Tribes have been able to maintain the relatively tax-free environment on the Reservation for both businesses and individuals. By the same token, the tribes have been able to sufficiently fund long neglected programs and projects, causing a re-generating, entrepreneurial economic environment that has been heralded as a model for other Indian reservations, communities, states, and even countries, to emulate. "However, the Tribes, collectively and individually, hold one value as private sanctuary—their cultural beliefs. While the Tribes are eager to share the richness of their accomplishments and resources, individual beliefs are a closely guarded matter and not open to examination, nor exploitation. It is important to note though that the tribes allow, and even encourage, an equally rich diversity of beliefs and customs. It is not uncommon for an individual Tribe member to participate in traditional and Christian ceremonies on the same day. "While the tribes 50 years ago wrestled with tremendously difficult issues that seem almost trivial today, the tribes of today must deal with equally difficult issues evaluating where we have been and where we are going. It seems as though the classical planning process never ends. It is heartening that we seem to now have the Rural Alaska Policy Review adequate tools to ensure the Tribes' on-going existence and success. It is as important now, as it was then." What does this mean for rural development and possible partnerships? Following are some key parameters to think about in possible future partnerships. You cannot have a better partner than a tribe in the sense that tribes will always be there. They are tied to the land in more than a physical sense—in a cultural and spiritual sense. They will not be as some businesses which follow the lowest cost and bottom line around the world. Tribes and Indian people recognize and plan for the long term and development for a people or a community takes a long time. The business and economic model superimposed on tribes and rural communities is based on short term profits and maximizing returns. The urban industrial model has not been successful on reservations and in rural areas. Management and control of the ventures are distant from the community and do not elicit "ownership" in the local communities. Development does not just mean "economics." A more holistic and integrated view and process of develop- ment is needed on reservations and in rural communities. Tribes' views recognize this interconnectedness. Health, education, social programs must be integrated. This can also mean for a region. Identifying regional resources, including the resources of the reservation, can help in a development strategy. Tribes are seeking new models which demonstrate their world view and offer a challenge for a better life for all of their people. Many tribes today are developing integrated asset and resource management strategies that incorporate their traditional values. They are also looking at ways in which they can become a larger player in the regional economy. Health care delivery is but one mechanism. Tribes may have the ability to integrate rural people into their health care delivery systems. Because tribes have a voice and relationship with the federal government through an existing defined system, rural people can link with tribes in a variety of new partner- ships. This can serve to help bring focus on the rural issues which may not have the same avenues of redress. Limited resources can also have additional leverage power in tribal tural partnerships. Trust must be built. Tribes have a long-standing relationship with the federal government and are making tentative steps to become more involved with state and local governments and communities. The process for developing these partnerships may be just as critical in understanding each other and building trust as the project's success. These are just a few of the parameters. There are many exciting and innovative examples of tribal and rural and other partnerships which have benefited both communities. We share many of the same problems as rural communities and need to learn from each other and work together for a better future. The potential for mutual benefit is limitless. The Circle of Development and Indigenous Peoples Sherry Salway Black First Nations Development Institute Falmouth, Virginia An abbreviated version of this article appeared on pp. 27-29, Equal Means, Summer 1992, published by Ms. Foundation for Women, Berkeley, Calif. The Wall Street Journal ran a story recently describing the resurgence of the Mexican economy. The reason it caught my attention was that one of the leading indicators of the new successful economic development and resulting growth in income and purchasing power was the increasing number of sushi bars in Mexico City. Sushi bars. And we have been struggling to develop new ways to measure economic change that incorporates environmental and social costs. Sushi bars—the answer was right in front of our faces, our mouths actually, all the time. Of course, I say this "tongue-in-cheek" but the story is true. And, unfortunately, it is because this story is true that we are all working in the field of economic justice. An economic system that uses the number of sushi bars as a measure of successful development and improved well- being of people is in need of an overhaul of its basic value system, as well as its entire theoretical framework. Changing the system Someone important once said, "Admitting that you have a problem is the first step in solving it." There is a development problem, in this country and in the world. Women and minorities have been saying it for years, we know the results, up close and personal. The people in power who own and control the assets required for develop- 17 Rural Alaska Policy Review ment do not have the problem, now that's the issue. Yet, there are efforts to change the field of economics to consider the environment as more than an externality, to incorporate sustain ability and cultural relevance into development and to develop new ways to measure the changes and improvements based on a more humane value system. Indigenous world view Where do indigenous people fit within development? What can we offer toward a change and betterment of the system? There is a fundamental belief common to many of the indigenous tribal people of North America, and probably the world, that we have survived 500 years because there is traditional knowledge we still must share which is critically important to the survival of the world. We have had this knowledge all along but in the mad rush to take our material resources and to christianize our souls, the early immigrants to this county overlooked, misunderstood, or de-valued our fundamental beliefs, values and understanding of the world. Much has been written recently about the indigenous people of the Americas, our contributions to the world and our traditional knowledge. The reasons for this new found recognition are important—the quincentennial, the need for a cultural identity in the melting pot of America, the social changes relating to multicultural diversity and political correctness and, I think, most importantly, the search for a missing element in people's lives—spirituality —and the search for answers. The indigenous understanding has its base in spirituality, a recognition of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all living things. A holistic and balanced view of the world. Intrinsic to this view is that the earth is alive and is the Mother, and that human beings are but one part of nature and not dominant over it. In his book, In The Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations, Jerry Mander charts the differences between technological people and native people in environment, economics, religion and philosophy, architecture, politics and sociocultural demographics. Not only are technological and native people different or opposites in their approach of life, but they are in total contradiction. Economic and development implications Is there a practical application of the indigenous understanding to the problems of development? For a dozen years, First Nations Development Institute has worked with American Indian tribes and people to develop sustainable models that incorporate traditional knowledge and values. Because, as Mr. Mander recognizes, our vision is in contradiction with technological peoples, the indigenous people of the United States have much to offer in the lessons of development, as well as survival. Indigenous people are the original "systems theorists," viewing the world as holistic and interdependent, rather than categorical, separate and linear. It is because Western thinking separates economics and the surrounding environment and fails to recognize the relationships that the world is in such dire straits. At first glance, Indian reservations portray a "legacy of failure." In almost 300 reservations and 200 Alaska Native villages. the unemployment rate averages at 60% with some as high as 95% and not one has a healthy indigenous private sector operating within the community. And this is after $2.4 billion a year has been directed, throughout the 1980s, toward the economic development of reservations. In our work we do not view this as failure but rather a rejection of the inherent values within the economic system. Because the current economic system does not recognize our values, nor does it have the ability to measure success by our terms and definition of success, we will never be successful by current economic values. First Nations' effort to develop impact measurement and assessment tools incorporating social costs started two years ago as we celebrated a decade of work. Research indicated that the "state-of-the-art" in evaluating economic development programs had little to do with social change, social or environmental costs or specific cultural difference but rather focused on what could be definitively quantified. Measurements of "successful" economic develop- ment included the number of jobs created, number of businesses started, and increases in employment and incomes. While these measurements are valid in a narrow definition of development, they completely ignore other important cultural, personal and spiritual aspects of life, allow little opportunity to incorporate the participants’ definitions of success and fail to include all of the costs associated with economic growth. 18 Rural Alaska Policy Review First Nations also researched other newly developing types of measurements of social status, social costs and change such as the work in Quality of Life Indicators, Social and Environmental Auditing, and quantify- ing the unpaid work of women, much of this being done in Third World countries. While this second group of measure- ments provided a more holistic structure, we still felt that some elements were missing. The completion of the frame- work was drawn from our own work and most importantly, the culture and value systems of the tribes with whom we were working. American Indian people have complex social systems which guided every aspect of their lives prior to contact with Westerners. In our work over the past decade, we found that many of the values, traditional knowledge, and methods of (re)distribution of wealth are still in operation. valid and critically important to the continued well-being of the tribes. These factors include a fundamental basis in spirituality, a recognition that people exist within and are tied to their environment, tribal people have different understandings about asset and wealth and what constitutes leadership. Combining established indicators, contemporary barriers and issues facing tribes, the traditional world view, principles of development and our own work resulted in the framework we call the "Elements of Development" depicted in the illustration on the following page. As First Nations' work evolves, we begin to see the broader implications of the "Elements." Not only can tribes develop their own indicators and measurements of success and progress for each vector and axis, but the development principles inherent in the "Elements" provide a framework to guide decision making in reservation development. In reviewing this framework, it is important to keep in mind some basic assumptions. The first is that this view of development goes beyond economics, it is the develop- ment of a people. Development that focuses on one quadrant of the circle, say economics, and ignores other aspects of human existence, will never provide the balance necessary to improve the quality of life for all and this will never work for native people. Balance is a necessary component of native understanding of the world. The second assumption is that development comes from within, it cannot be done to people or for people but must come from people. In First Nations' role as an intermediary, this is a critical understanding. The "elements" are therefore, only a guide, or framework, which can be used by individuals and groups to develop their own measures and indicators of success and accomplishment. A first step in empowerment is recognizing that your values, belief system and traditional knowledge are valid and important. The Elements of Development The two main axes of the circle of development represent major significant relationships. Starting with the control of ASSETS, we can view the inherent barriers to indigenous development, traditional mechanisms and potential measurements. Today American Indian tribes and people are seeking control of their assets, their land base, natural resources and financial capital. Without that control, long term develop- ment cannot occur. The principle of control of assets is appli- cable to any social and economic program for disenfranchised people. If you do not control assets, you do not have the ability to create wealth from them, and your life is always in someone else's control. For individuals, assets can be land, a house, a savings account, an education and job skills, traditional rights to hunt and fish in particular areas, businesses, trust funds and access to credit. For a community, reservation, or tribe, assets can be programs, land, indigenous institutions, environmental quality, trust funds, tribal hunting and fishing rights, access to credit, and natural and human resources. At the national level, for tribes, assets are trust funds, federal programs, their own indigenous institutions and tribal sovereignty. In the traditional systems, assets and wealth were distributed through the KINSHIP network. Kinship, extended families, were the basis for circulation of goods and services. Individual accumulation of material goods was not valued in traditional societies and in fact, leadership principles involved sharing your wealth with your family, kinship network and tribe. Western models of distribution and federal programs designed to acculturate tribes have been superimposed on the traditional kinship systems, deteriorating their effectiveness. But in many tribes and communities, a complex kinship system continues to serve as the basis of tribal life, the creation and circulation of assets, and the method by which generations share the culture and its values. The barriers to continued and effective use of the kinship systems as a method of control and creation of assets include the Allotment Act of 1887 which introduced the private property ownership concept to native peoples and 100 years later continues to wreak havoc on the ability of the tribes and individuals to use the land and its resources effectively and protect it for future generation. The government welfare systems, superimposed on a complex and existing system of giving, sharing and reciprocity have far reaching effects on the breakdown of the kinship system. Today on the reservation, subsistence activities involving barter and trade can best be tracked through the kinship systems. Traditional redistribution mechanisms such 19 Rural Alaska Policy Review as "giveaways" and “potlatches" continue to flourish in extended families. Basic services such as child care, car repair, and personal grooming needs are met within the household and extended families. Recognition of these existing kinship systems and their role in an economic redistribution system can be a first step in a development strategy. An example of how this may work is that some tribes are revising the subsistence hunting and fishing codes to once again use the traditional kinship systems for distribution of resources to family members. The relationship between control of ASSETS and KINSHIP connects the individual, the community, and the tribe to their local resources. Measurements of self-employ- ment can be developed which recognize a family unit meeting local needs with local resources. Intra and inter-tribal trade can be developed to reinforce the larger family of tribal peoples’ development. Within the control and distribution of assets, you have people. To have a strong community and economy you must have people, or human capital, who have a strong sense of PERSONAL EFFICACY, a sense of confidence in their ability. A judgment we often hear about the poverty and lack of economic development on reservations is that the people have no work ethic, they lack a competitive nature, and are self-effacing. Traditionally, the importance of, and value placed on, individual achievements and accomplishments was critical to the very existence of the tribe, resulting in a respect for others that was misinterpreted to be self-effacement and non-competitiveness. Native American children were taught from an early age to "think for yourself and act for others." That could be a better starting point to developing entrepre- neurs. What does differ within traditional tribal societies is the end goal of personal accomplishments. In Western society, individual achievements are strictly for the good of the individual. In a tribal sense, individual achievements are viewed in their benefit to the extended family and to the tribe. Individual roles and responsibilities are taught by the families and defined from an early age. Child raising teachings stress the importance of building confidence, risk taking, innovation and experience. This is necessary because traditional societies are not staid but they are continually improving, not for growth but for improved efficiency—how to do it better. Indicators of improvements in personal efficacy on an individual level can be self-esteem, ability to problem- solve, positive outlook, and increased knowledge and skills. On a community level, indicators can be improved tribal leadership, community cooperation, the formation of associations, teamwork, follow-up and reliability. On a national level, indicators of success can be the sense that "we can do it," that we have a pride and joy in our people and our achievements. SPIRITUALITY is the most difficult element to describe. It is from spirituality that you gain your sense of vision, your sense of yourself and your meaning within the community, and within the larger universe. From that vision you gain an ability to see choices, where do you go, what do you do with your life, does what you do have meaning to you and the larger community? Included within this value system is understanding, tolerance, respect for the earth and all living things, dignity, future orientation, and an ability to see a place for indigenous people and our contributions within that future. Spirituality is a sense of inner-directedness, a basic value system, a cosmology of sorts. How do you build spirituality into a development framework and, ever harder, how do you measure it? For indigenous people, a return to or rebirth of traditional values and beliefs, a resurgence in ceremonial activities, a sense that "healing" of our souls must take place. On an individual level, indicators and measurements of spirituality can include instilling traditional teachings in the children, learning the language, practicing the values, creating visions for the future, and recognizing and maintaining a balance in life. For the community and tribe, spirituality can be measured by tribal institutions including cultural programs traditional methods and teachings which both empower and develop people. Tribes are returning to traditional natural resource management techniques which had gone by the wayside and are now being recognized as effective and valid. Using the elements of development The circle represents a complete balanced diagram of the elements of development. Where do we go from here? First Nations is working with tribes and other native groups in the application of the "elements of development." We can already see its relevance to the Lakota Fund, a community-developed and controlled micro enterprise loan program on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. People who never had access to credit now do and are creating other assets and earning income which is tied to extended families. 20 ee paral Aleks Policy Review The borrowers experience a growth in self-esteem and reliability, and their ability to solve problems indivi- dually and collectively has improved. They are more produc- tive and have choices, where none existed before. And critical to development, they can see a vision of themselves as successful. The elements can also be used in economic decision making to incorporate ALL of the costs and benefits associated with a particular strategy. For example, as an increasing number of tribes turn to gaming to earn revenue, they are finding that tribal members enrolled in various higher education programs are returning home to work at casinos, forsaking an education for immediate returns. There is a long term cost to the future of the tribe. This must be factored into decision-making, recognized as a cost and the consequences of the action considered. What about the future? I am, at the same time, scared and encouraged about the future. Scared, because like the example of using sushi bars as measures of success, people, including indigenous people, can become worshippers to the false idols of materialism and consumerism, believing them to be the ultimate goal—only much later to recognize that something fundamentally valuable has been lost. We have too many examples in tribes and on reserva- tions, where economic growth, per capita payments, capitalism and consumerism result in short term gains at the expense of long term development and our future genera- tions. I am encouraged because there is a rebirth of spirituality among indigenous people, an effort to recapture and live the basic values of the traditional culture and to use these to make more effective decisions about development and how to measure success within our own culture. One example is the refusal of tribes and Indian people to be lulled by the prospect of millions of dollars in revenue and employment being offered by waste disposal companies to use reservations as the country s dumping grounds. The work being done in the area of environmental economics will provide the tools for tribes to analyze the true costs of these types of economic ventures. I am also encouraged by the growing awareness of the problems the existing economic system creates for women, for indigenous people, for the environment. Iam encouraged by efforts to change the systems and measures of success. I see the indigenous worldview providing the framework for that change and believe the legends and stories of the Grandfathers were true—it is truly our destiny to share our knowledge with the world. Office of the State Assessor The office of the State Assessor was established primarily to: * Advise and assist municipalities on assessment and taxation issues including the preparation of educational materials. * Develop the annual full value determination. * Administer the Senior Citizen and Disabled Veteran Office of the State Assessor Property Tax Exemption Program and the Senior Citizen and Disabled Veteran Property Tax Equivalency Program. * Monitor municipal assessment and taxation practices and procedures. The Office of the State Assessor completed these duties, as well as: * Compiled and published Alaska Taxable. * Estimated taxable property values for proposed municipal incorporations. * Estimated values for government-owned property for cities undergoing dissolution. * Instructed three week-long educational training classes in Anchorage and Juneau. Contact: Steve Van Sant, Anchorage, 269-4500 Department of Community & Regional Affairs Municipal and Regional Assistance Division REINVENTING RURAL AMERICA: "THE NEW GOVERNANCE" Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Planning Association Chicago, Illinois - May 4, 1993 J. Norman Reid andW. Robert Lovan The authors are Director and Associate Director, respectively, Strategy Development Staff, Rural Development Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and have been active in the National Initiative since its inception. Lovan is responsible for managing the Rural Development Initiative. For more detail about the origins of the Initiative and the formation of the Councils, see Hill (1992). USDA (1989). In January 1990, a press conference was held announcing what came to be known as the Presidential Initiative on Rural America. A key element of the initiative was the formation of State Rural Development Councils (SRDCs). This announcement was intended by its authors as a way to implement development strategies to help rural America. At the same time, it set the stage for a revolution in American governance The announcement of the Initiative followed several months' examination of the Federal government's rural development programs, and what needed to be done to improve their impact. It was much influenced by the earlier report of a USDA Task Force, A Hard Look at USDA's Rural Development Programs, whose recommendations contained the seeds for the development of the Presidential Initiative. 22 ——— = — — = Three years after this quiet beginning, the National Initiative on Rural America is an example of what can be achieved through a modest invest- ment, coupled with determined action to bring about a new way of conducting the public's business. With the emphasis of the Clinton Administration on reinventing government, the opportunity to usher in a significant, if gentle, revolution in the public sector appears promising. A New Way of Thinking, A New Way of Acting That the initiative would contain the seeds of a revolutionary movement was not at all apparent at its beginning. Initially conceived as a way to coordinate among Federal rural development programs, the Initiative called for councils at both the Federal and state levels that included all interests, not just economic development agencies; later, as the councils themselves developed experience in working together, it evolved into its current, broadly-conceived scope. The initiative's founders hoped from the beginning that it would contribute to two major objectives. First, comprehensive rural develop- ment solutions were sought that would include all dimensions touching rural community futures. Second, actions needed to be strategically focused on the underlying constraints on future develop- ment, rather than symptomatic events. It was recognized that these objectives could not be achieved if the initiative produced councils that behaved like the many commissions and councils that preceded it. Instead, it would be necessary to bring a wide range of participants to the table, including some who do not normally see themselves as belonging there, or who--for a variety of reasons--are normally excluded. And, it would be necessary to focus their actions in strategically meaningful ways. ann sR E Rural Alaska Policy Review For these reasons, as the initiative took shape, it began to depart from traditional govern- ment practices in significant ways. Among the principles that have guided its development are these: *All major stakeholders in rural develop- ment must be participants. These include, in addition to the Federal government, states, local governments, tribal governments, and especially the private and non-profit sectors. *Participants are instructed to establish a process for dialogue among stakeholders. All must be able to participate on equal terms, with none dominating the process. *Flexibility and local responsibility are by- words of the process. Each state council is free to establish its own organization, operating proce- dures, and goals, so long as they do not violate the basic principles of equality of participation. *Collaborative partnerships among partici- pating organizations are emphasized and encour- aged. Significant attention is given to under- standing the resources of other organizations and to establishing effective cohesion among them. ‘ Ron Ferguson and DeWitt John speak; about "movements" that lead from identified needs to results. Movements first require strategies, then policies, programs, and--finally--products that produce results. In his terminology, rural development is the move- ment, the National Initiative on Rural America is the strategy for promoting it, policies will provide the "how" for accomplishing the movement, programs become the "what" for carving out policies, and products are the outcomes that realize the objectives of the movement. Ferguson and John. The process is to continue only so long as it is effective. No permanent structures are created, and continua- tion of the initiative--as well as responsibility for funding it--is left in the hands of its participants. Empowering local problem-solving is emphasized. State councils are encouraged to tackle interagency problems on their own authority. Within the limits of their authority, Federal participants are expected to be entrepre- neurial in meeting state and local needs. Only in the few cases that issues cannot be resolved at the state level are they to be passed to the Federal level. A strategic approach to long-term development is essential. Councils are encouraged to lay the groundwork for long-term investments, and only undertake short-term projects that contribute to fundamental, long-term goals. Experimentation is viewed as essential to creativity. Because the initiative is seen as a new way of doing business, state councils were started on a pilot basis. Experimentation with new actions and methods is on-going. An environment that encourages information- based, learning-oriented action is critical to achieving both creativity and adaptability in the face of modem social challenges. Creating "learning organizations" is a watchword for the initiative. One of the earliest decisions was to establish state councils in a phased way, following an initial trial of the concept in "pilot states." Shortly thereafter, councils were formed in eight states. A year later, the experiment was extended to all remaining states and territories. Currently, councils have been formed in 36 additional states, and another 12 have expressed their intent to do so. Not a Choice, But a Necessity Several factors lay behind the move toward the Initiative and the philosophy of governing it has come to represent. First, systematic changes have occurred in the rural economic base, and the factors that drive it. Over several decades, the rural economy has become increasingly less dependent on traditional natural resource industries. During the 1970's and 1980's, the proportion of rural workers employed directly in these industries has fallen steadily . In some cases, rural communities have found new industries to supplement or replace dwindling employment in natural resources. In others, the economy has simply shrunk. The challenges posed by this transformation in the rural economic base have been exacerbated by growing competition within the global marketplace, where newly- strengthened participants--often in the third world--are able to underprice rural areas, further weakening their ability to prosper. Changes in industrial practice, especially the pattern of out-sourcing and just-in-time processing, have weakened the competitive position of some industries whose rural locations place them far from suppliers and customers. The original pilot states were Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington. More extended discussion is provided in Reid (1991) 23 Rural Alaska Policy Review As a result, rural Americans have seen their incomes fall in relation to the rest of America They have seen slow job growth occur, especially in the better-paying occupations. They have seen the gap widen between the wages their industries offer, and those that can be found in the cities. And many of them--especially the more highly educated--have simply moved away. The simple fact is that these changes require a turn away from traditional rural policies, which have focused on maintaining stability and growth within natural resource industries and on assuring minimal services in communities where limited scale economies make them more costly and difficult to provide. Given the changed nature of rural needs, public policies today must be strategically focused on clearly and appropriately defined goals. Second, it has become increasingly clear that the future viability of rural communities depends on numerous aspects of social and economic life, not merely those few (mainly, infrastructure development and business finance) that have dominated rural policy in the past. Stated in the simplest terms, there are no "silver bullets." Develop- ment stems from parallel advances in the competitiveness of industries and the skills of workers, from the quality and quantity of service and amenities, the skill and diligence of community leaders, from the availability of capital, and from democratic institutions that are able to produce a meaningful consensus on goals and means. The requirement for comprehensive rural develop- ment solutions places very special demands on public institutions, calling for coherence of action that spans the individual jurisdictions of separate departments and levels of government. The problems are too big for any single agency, for any single level of government, or even for government by itself, to solve. Third, both policymakers and the public-at-large are more aware than ever that existing governmental institutions and procedures are ill-suited to meet challenges such as these. Government has seldom shown a talent for strategic action, and often prefers policies that, if they do not offer all things to all people, at least attempt to provide many things to many people. Bureaucratic government remains what it was designed to be--government by specialization that lacks the interest, or the capacity, to operate cooperatively. More often than not, government has a clearer idea of the resources it employs than the results it achieves. It is little wonder that the public today is so distrustful of the capacity of public institutions to deliver the goods. Together, these factors militate for a new approach to governing, one that is strategic in orientation, comprehen- sive in scope, and conducted in new ways. The simple fact is that such a new approach to government can no longer be thought of as merely an expedient way of achieving these objectives. Given the unsuitability of existing govern- mental institutions and procedures to the kinds of leadership needed to meet rural America's challenges, there really is no alternative to the current search for new structures and new ways of operating that are capable of meeting those challenges. We believe they lead to what we have come to call the "New Governance." *Some of government's inadequacies are described in Osborne and Gaebler. Principles of the New Governance America has heard much about "reinventing government" in recent weeks, with its emphasis on improved flexibility and enhanced efficiency. The New Governance bears many similarities to the principles laid down by Osborne and Gaebler and seeks many of the same ends. Still, there are important ways in which the New Govern- ance goes beyond reinvention, both in its objectives and in its methods. The New Governance is a policy action system for managing change and resolving complex and dynamic public policy issues. It constitutes a framework for managing policy issues that assists stakeholders to achieve a broader impact on the issues they share by reaching beyond narrowly drawn objectives to address more fundamental, underlying concerns. Not only does it provide a framework for improving program efficiency, but it helps to enhance situational effectiveness. As an inter-govemmental process, it builds the institutional capacity to address diversity at many levels--substate, state, multi-state, and national. As implemented in the National Initiative, the New Governance operates as a facilitated, interactive process of discovery to understand existing conditions, and a process of joint problem solving that taps into the creativity and resources of all stakeholders. To function effectively, it is a process that requires willingness to adjust on the part of stakeholders, as well as willingness to make use of resources (defined in broad terms) available from other organizations. 24 Rural Alaska Policy Review Because of its situational character, in which it is modified to fit each circumstance, it is easier to state principles that characterize the New Governance than it is to draw a precise definition of it. The New Governance is characterized by the following behaviors: *Engaging and enabling others through participatory and consensus-building activities, rather than directing or announcing. *Activity that is mission and vision-driven, rather than program-driven. *Creating opportunities (proactive), rather than reacting to problems that get out of hand. *Acting entrepreneurially with flexible authority to achieve missions through innovation and experimentation, rather than acting in a centralized, hierarchical manner. *Serving citizens as customers, rather than special interests as clients. *Measuring success by results achieved, not inputs applied. Accountability is achieved through a process that involves policy-makers, founders, front-line managers, and customers. *Investing resources for long-term benefits, rather than spending for short-term payoffs. *Forming horizontal alliances and collaborating with stakeholders (public and private) to achieve common goals, rather than acting hierarchically to impose uniformity. Based on our experience thus far under the National Initiative, the New Governance can be helpful in a number of situations, including the following: *When multiple organizations have responsibility over all or only part of a problem. *When a problem is narrowly-defined in the missions of many program, but a better understanding indicates that some factors-are outside the control of any one agency. *When problems cross geographical or political boundaries. *When resources are declining, or limited, and public organizations can benefit from coordinating resources to accomplish their own missions. *When program criteria do not reflect the reality they were intended to address either because of changed conditions or an institutional inability to be flexible to address a diverse range of conditions. *When problems require public-private collabora- tion. To better understand the New Governance, it is helpful to draw a more specific contrast between its characteristics and those of government on the bureaucratic model which is more familiar to us all. The listing below summarizes those differences. It is clear that the New Governance is a new way of thinking about the nature of public leadership that involves heavy doses of collaboration among organiza- tions, either vertically among levels of government, horizon- tally among those within a single level or regional jurisdiction, and at the borders of the public-private distinction. While much progress has been made in defining it and bringing it into operation, many issues remain. Characteristics of the ''New Governance" Contact with citizens Goals Problem definition Behavior Citizens Measuring success Spending Organizational linkages Engage, enable Mission, value-driven Proactive: create opportunities Decentralized, entrepreneurial, flexible Customers: government is customer-centered Results achieved Long-term investments Horizontal alliances, collaboration with stakeholders Frontiers of Public Leadership Inventing a new means of exercising public leader- ship is no different than any other form of invention. It is part inspiration, and part experimentation. As with any experiment involving complex processes, this one faces the need to overcome numerous problems. Many of these are yet to be solved. Among the challenges that face the initiative-- and the issues they raise for the New Governance--are these. Strategic Focus vs. Organizational Independence At the heart of the initiative are two principles that-- if taken to their extremes--are inconsistent. On the one hand, the initiative seeks to foster a strategic approach to policy that is intended to channel actions in consistent and some what single-minded directions. Taken to its farthest extent, this implies admitting certain kinds of programs and actions that support an agreed-upon strategy; it also implies omitting others that are not. On the other hand, the initiative 25 Rural Alaska Policy Review seeks to preserve the integrity of the goals and contributions of participating organizations and takes special pains to respect them. Clearly, this principle would result in chaos should each participant insist on going in separate ways. The challenge for the initiative is to find ways to articulate the contributions of its participants in ways that channel them toward strategically important objectives. Surviving Transitions Revitalizing the public sector cannot be a short-term effort. Today's problems and challenges are but the fore- runners of future problems that, if different in content, are nonetheless similar in origin. Providing leadership in a society that is as organizationally complex as ours requires the ability to link the contributions of many participants in effective ways. More important, it requires the ability to maintain those linkages over time, and to adapt them as changing conditions require. One of the predictable changes in government is the regularity with which administrations change. On cycles that vary from two to four to eight years, governments at all levels experience changes in power as one team leaves and another enters. With changes in power come inevitable changes in policy and approach. The challenge for the initiative is to develop means to assure the survival of the basic processes of collaboration and strategic focus in the face of changes in the cast of characters at the Federal and state levels of government, even while the specifics of program content at either level can be expected to undergo possibly even radical redirection each time such a shift in power occurs. Preserving the Spirit of Voluntarism Voluntarism is at the heart of the initiative. Bringing together representatives of different agencies, and different levels of government and the private sector, requires a fundamental willingness on the part of the participants to share their time, talents, and organizational resources in a collective activity. There probably is no alternative to voluntarism in such an enterprise. The range of issues and interests involved from any single level of government is simply too broad to combine through reorganization. And in any event, no reorganization can address the need for dialogue both inter-governmentally and with non-governmental entities. The need for willing and active contributions by partners raises fundamental questions that must be addressed if the initiative, and similar cooperative ventures, are not merely to survive, but to thrive. One .elates to the processes that must be employed to keep an essentially voluntary process operating. Another relates to the incentives that must be provided to keep participants at the table. Fostering True Collaboration The essence of the New Governance is the accom- plishment of public purposes through partnerships. These require, in effect, the willingness of separate agencies to subordinate fundamental organizational imperatives-- namely, their "turf''--for the purpose of achieving broader goals. Such an outcome flies squarely in the face of bureaucratic tradition. Separate identities and visible products are fundamental to agency survival in the battle for funding in a competitive political environment. How, then, do you stimulate within agencies the desire to collaborate? Even more to the point, how can such partner- ships be developed into true collaborations that address fundamental issues crossing organizational boundaries, and rise above the merely superficial? Equally troublesome is how such a collaborative process, once begun, can be perpetuated and extended. One of the fundamentals of public life is the quest for power and political control by individuals with personal ambition and groups with issue agendas to fulfill. Troublesome at any stage of a venture such as the National Initiative, these issues will become both more meaningful and more difficult to resolve as the Initiative delves more deeply into meaningful questions involving real issues of policy. Building in a Knowledge Bias As the complexity of social and economic problems rises, the need for carefully-planned, strategic action also rises. One of the principal requirements of a strategic approach to public policy issues is information and knowledge--about current conditions and recent trends, about the elements that make up the systems affecting policy and the relationships among them, and about the impacts of public actions, both past and proposed, in addressing identified problems. Still, much government policy is based on far less than sound knowledge. Not only is needed information frequently lacking, but when it is not, it is badly understood and poorly explained. Furthermore, some policy processes have a bias toward decision by hunch and by political interests. Nowhere is this more true than in the field of rural development. The key question for the New 26 Rural Alaska Policy Review Governance, then, is what is required to create a decision process than is knowledge driven, not interest driven, and that is inspired by missions and goals, not institutional imperatives and program-orientations? Managing Organizational Boundaries Working in a world in which responsibilities are separated by jurisdictional boundaries continually raises the familiar "turf" questions. It is only an expression of human nature that agencies and levels of government should jealously guard their opportunities, their means, and their perquisites. The challenge for collaborative government is how to meld the potentials of separated institutions in ways that build on individual strengths to produce collective triumphs. Organizational behavior is deeply rooted in imperatives of political life and human nature. In the end, collaborative government will get nowhere by running counter to it. To succeed, we must look for ways to operate while respecting those realities, what Don Kettl refers to as "boundary spanning." Several basic tenets of the National Initiative are intended to address those imperatives. One is to allow individual agencies to take credit for the work they conduct, whether through individual efforts or by contributions to collaborative activities. Another is to subordinate the ego involvement of sponsoring agencies. For example, although the Department of Agriculture has provided both a supportive home and substantial funding to the Initiative, it was recognized early on that other departments would balk at making significant commitments of real resources to an effort that was working to the primary credit of another department. As a result, steps were taken to assure that real leadership for the initiative was shared among agencies, with Agriculture consciously limiting its visibility and subordinating its role to promote the common good. These steps were enormously helpful in getting the Initiative off the ground and creating an environment that encouraged real collaboration among partners who were initially wary of each other and unwilling to offer real resources to an effort in which they saw little organizational payoff. However, they leave unanswered some major challenges that must be faced as the Initiative evolves. At the present, the Initiative's role is creating and maintaining an information based learning environment and cooperating on strategic project implementation. If it is to rise to meet the challenges that confront rural America, it must ultimately face up to the more difficult task of bringing strategic focus to the combined efforts of individual departments and agencies. Inevitably, such a focus implies favoring some activities at the expense of others, and could result in significant organizational changes. How such a shift in focus should be led, and how conflicts can be managed so that the base of collaborative good will that has been established can be enhanced, rather than destroyed, is a challenge that remains to be solved. Using Technology to Advantage One of the hallmarks of the modem era is the explosive technological change that has opened new potentials and outmoded old practices. New technologies are enablers of many new things; some of them are useful, some are merely interesting. Transportation improvements allow face-to-face meetings with people who previously could only correspond, and permit on-site inspection of innovations that in early decades might have been appreciated only in words and pictures. Communications technology opens the door to broad-based and instantaneous exchange of in-depth information. Advances in user-friendly computing power offer the potential to manipulate the exploding range of information to meet unique local needs and circumstances. Of themselves, however, these technological advances are but the raw material of the new governance. Until they are creatively applied to the challenges of managing in organizational complex environments, their potential will remain untapped. The challenge for new governance is how to shape these evolving tools to better support the needs of a government that seeks to be farther- seeing and more responsive. It has been said before, and it remains true, that for lack of knowledge, we are drowning in a sea of information. We have not yet captured the benefits of these newer technologies to enhance the collaborative experience. Until we do so, they will hang like exotic tools on the workbench of the would-be craftsman, interesting to look at, but functionally useless. Targeting Effective Outcomes As Osborne and Gaebler have observed, govern- ment is better able to manage its inputs--the budgets and personnel that make up its go-power--than its outputs. This, too, is an old story. We have been reminded for years about the need to develop appropriate measures of outputs, and about the need to weigh them--and not inputs--in evaluating the performance of public agencies. It is advice that has 27 Rural Alaska Policy Review NATIONAL sO. INITIATIVE ae ON py RURAL AMERICA Federal, state, local, tribal governments, and private sector collaborating The Federal Partners Office of the President The Departments of: Agriculture Commerce Defense Education Health and Human Services Housing and Urban Development Interior Labor Transportation Treasury Veterans Affairs Applachian Regional Commission Environmental Protection Agency National Endowment for the Arts Small Business Administration Tennessee Valley Authority National Governor's Association National Association of Development Organizations National Association of Regional Councils National Association of Towns and Townships National League of Cities National Association of Counties American Bankers Association Independent Bankers Association of America NATIONAL INITIATIVE OFFICE (202) 690-2394 been largely ignored. Our failure to measure the impact of governmental actions, and to use those measures in assessing the success of alternative strategies, is not merely a failure of will; it reflects the miserable state of public policy research." The simple fact is that conceptualizing and capturing in datum form the outcomes of public policies and programs is one of the most difficult challenges facing the research community. It is also one of the most important. Government, like all institutions, responds to incentives. Partly because they are easy to measure, partly because they are at the heart of the decisional process, government marches to the tune of resource allocations--the size of its budget, the cap on its employment, the limits on the ways its resources can be used. To change the performance of public institutions, changes in incentives are necessary. But neither Congress nor administrations can specify clear goals in terms of outcomes, or hold agencies’ feet to the fire, without first having a clear concept of what those outcomes ought to be and a way of counting up at review time the extent to which they were reached. It is not clear to us just how this pattern can be changed. The inputs-orientation of bureaucracy is deeply rooted in basic organizational behavior. But it is clear that without first having a clear understanding of what we wish to achieve, we will never be able to shift the focus. Thus, even without knowing how we will accomplish the remaining necessary steps, we must begin with increasing the emphasis we place on understanding public policy goals and how to measure them. Conclusions No ready answers exist to these questions. Probe each of them deeply and they will be seen to be unanswered challenges. The key is to keep a focus on them, and treat them objectively and experimentally. This approach reflects a fundamental tenet of the new governance--the belief in the essential creativity of people, and their ability--when they understand a problem clearly and acknowledge their responsibility for the solution--to succeed. 28 ca University of Washington Northwest Policy Center and U.S. Bancorp., Mitchell, John and Sommer, Paul, "1994 Northwest Portrait." 1993 in Review and Prospects for 1994 The Nation The half speed economic upturn that began in March 1991 continued in 1993, but production and employment gains trailed the nation's experience in other postwar rebounds. The pace of employment growth improved in 1993 with the nation finally regaining pre-recession levels in the spring. An instant replay of 1992 would seem to describe 1993 with stronger growth in the second half. Early in 1993, a slowdown in consumer spending growth, a rapid decline in military spending, overseas reces- sion, and a fading of hurricane induced reconstruction dropped the growth rate from 5.7 percent in 1992's fourth quarter to 0.8 percent in the first quarter of 1993. The pace picked up by the third quarter to 2.7 percent. The long decline in interest rates has helped to boost housing, to strengthen consumer balance sheets, and to increase the pace of employment and income gains. Business invest- ment has remained strong. Slow expansion is expected to continue in 1994 with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate between 2.5 and 3 percent. Some of the drags on U.S. performance will continue, including declines in defense and the burden, albeit lessening, of empty office space. Leading indicators for other western economies have turned up and suggest stronger global performance in 1994, which will help the U.S. trade sector. The 1993 tax program will help hold down the growth rate in 1994 with the mix of fiscal policies imposed. The Administration is betting on low interest rates to offset some of the tax package's contractionary impact on the system. the slow growth, global excess capacity, and moderate wage increases combined with productivity gains should keep inflation rates down at a level not seen since the 1960s. In this environment, pressures on interest rates are likely to be subdued in 1994. Short rates may start to rise by the spring of 1994, resulting in a flattening in the yield curve. there is a good chance that 1994 will not be an exciting year in the money and capital markets. Atthis writing the North American Free Trade Agree- ment (NAFTA) has been approved. The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) continues RURAL ALASKA POLIC Q é 2000 é aA Pee. ! ! ea The Northwest Policy Report tottering along with a 1993 year-end deadline, amid disarray inn Europe and a full plate of issues in the United States. The Northwest, with its heavy international orienta- tion, has an undeniable interest in a continuation of the half century U.S. policy of working toward reduced trade barriers. Seattle hosted the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in November. The health care conundrum has now moved onto the national stage with the American Health Security Act proposal. From a policy perspective, 1994 promises to bea year fraught with danger and hope. The Northwest Nineteen ninety-two was another year of relative strength in the region, but by the summer of 1993, slowing was evident in Idaho, Montana and Washington. Only Idaho remained in the top quartile of annual employment growth. Regional fortunes change and the Northwest is not an exception. Powerful forces are coursing through the Northwest altering performance. During 1992, all the states in the region experienced rising employment and income with Idaho repeating as the state with the highest employment growth rate in the nation. Only Alaska experienced a decline in its rate of employment growth. Population growth in each state was well above the national average as migration to the region continued. Personal income rose at or above the national rate in all states with the exception of Montana, where a drop in farm income constrained personal income growth. In Washington, the aerospace contraction, along with the continued downsizing of forest products, and weakness in the metals sector were working through the economy and curtailing growth. Seattle was experiencing seasonally ad- justed declines in wage and salary employment by the second quarter of 1993. Idaho had slowed from the torrid pace of 1992, as year over year growth rates fell to 2.4 percent in September. Alaskaemployment growth was 2.1 percent amidst weak prices for pulp, salmon and metals but strength in construction and trade. In Montana, year over year employment growth rates had fallen from over 4 percent in 1992 to 2 percent in September 1993. After a flat second quarter, Oregon had year over year employment gains in September of 1.9 percent. The region was no longer at the top of the charts. 29 Rural Alaska Policy Review During 1993, federal policy had a direct impact on the region. The Clinton Administration's forest policy took shape, threatening to shrink the industry further in areas dependent on federal timber. The Base Closure and Realignment Commis- sion passed over major bases in the region and kept the Everett Homeport in Washington on track. The U.S. Interior Department announced plans to raise grazing fees and to change the administrative procedures for public rangeland. Petitions were filed for placing additional fish runs on the Endangered Species List, and a draft recovery plan was issued in October for Columbia-Snake River salmon runs already listed. U.S. Commerce Department decision on the allocation of fish quotas pitted Washington processors against shorebased processors in Oregon and Alaska. Ques- tions about public lands and resources have not, and will not go away. Within the region, tax policy questions loomed large in Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Voters in Montana and Oregon rejected sales tax measures while Washington voters approved a spending limitation for state government. Oregon and Washington proceeded with the development of health plans, that at least in Oregon's case, face an uncertain future in light of the Administration's health care proposal. Bonneville Power Administration customers faced a 16 percent rate hike in October. Oregon's Trojan Nuclear Power Plant was closed and new power generation facilities began to move from the drawing boards. There will be no shortage of policy issues as the region moves through 1994. ALASKA During 1992, Alaska experienced its fifth con- secutive year of employment growth after the 1986-87 bust. Wage and salary employment growth was 1.8 percent, or 4,400, down from the 2.0 percent in 1991, but still well above the nation's performance. Employment growth was broadbased in the service producing indus- tries including trade, services (medical, legal, business, hotels, etc.), government, and transportation. The trade sector saw several "big box" retailers open late in 1992, including Costco and Eagle Hardware in Anchor- age and a Pace Warehouse in Fairbanks. Mining employment declined by nearly 11 percent in 1992, as the oil and gas sector cut back. The closure of the Anchorage Times dealt a blow to the printing and publishing sector. Declines in forest products continued as employment fell from 2,600 in 1991 to 2,400 in 1992. Seafood processing, which accounts for more than half of the state's manufacturing employment, continued to expand. Personal income in 1992 rose at a 6.2 percent rate, slightly above the national gain. cn RE Through mid-1993, Alaskaemployment continued to increase, but at a rate below that of last year. September wage and salary employment was 2.1 percent ahead of the same period in 1992. Gains in construction employment accounted for a quarter of the total 5,500 gain inemployment. Additional retail expansion projects are underway, as well as hospital construction. Residential building permits through September were up 51 percent in the state. Other strong sectors included trade and services. The oil and gas industry was rebounding with the construction of the GHX-2 gas injection facility at Prudhoe Bay and hopes for additional activity in Cook Inlet, where ARCO is working to develop the Sunfish Field. Exploration is continuing on the North Slope but drilling revealed too small a field to justify development at Kuvlum. Elsewhere, the Green's Creek Mine shut down in April. Low pulp prices resulted in the indefinite closure of Ketchikan Pulp Company's mill. In 1994, Alaska will remain in a slow growth mode. There is no upward pressure on world oil prices and metals prices are moribund. Mining exploration will continue as will construction of gas handling facilities. The retail explosion is likely to subside after several years of rapid expansion. State capital spending was expected to surge from a $650 million settlement with British Petroleum. The military downsizing, which the nation is currently going through, will result in cutbacks in 1994 at Fort Richardson in Anchorage and Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks. Defense spending is a higher fraction of Alaska's gross state product than any other state in the nation, 7.6 percent in 1992. Employment growth near 1.5 percent is probably in the cards, with personal income growth of 5 percent in 1994. Alaska's lands are controlled primarily by federal policy. In late July 1993, the state filed a suit seeking $29 billion from the federal government for violating terms of the Statehood Act. The Act gave the state 90 percent of the revenues from mineral leasing on federal lands, but since the Act was passed, almost half of the federal lands have been withdrawn from possible mineral leasing. The dilemma was best summarized in the Aug. 28-Sept. 3, 1993 issue of The Economist when the editors said, "With only natural resources to sustain it, Alaska must be allowed to use them. But, as the guardian of some of the last truly wild places in the world, it also most recognize its role as steward." FOR MORE INFORMATION: University of Washington Institute for Public Policy and Management Nortwest Policy Center Mail Stop DC-14 Seattle, Washington 98195 (206) 543-7900 - FAX: (206) 543-1096 30 Rural Alaska Policy Review RURAL ALASKA _ INFRASTRUCTURE ENERGY BULK FUEL HOUSING NSPORTATION COMMUNICATION ——— 7 iz PARTI Rural Alaska Policy Review Financial Management Assistance The division continues to focus much of its effort on providing Financial Management| @SSistance by establishing and maintaining basic financial Assistance management systems. We believe that accurate financial budgeting, monitoring and reporting is a critical element of a local government's ability to deliver public services. These skills and abilities are made all the more critical by the sharply reduced revenues that most smaller cities are receiving. This strong focus on financial management has had positive results. While many communities continue to struggle financially, their financial status tends to remain constant with fewer crisis. Also, the number of communities having financial problems with the Internal Revenue Service has been significantly reduced. Contact any Regional Office. Department of Community & Regional Affairs Municipal and Regional Assistance Division ae ST EN, PEI REE EO A EISEN EE Community Planning Program The three main components are: Local Government Planning Assistance. This includes relocation planning, preparing community profiles, and conducting Planning Commision training workshops. Community Planning Program Alaska Coastal Management Program. For FY94, the division awarded and administered grants to 30 coastal districts (municipalities and coastal resource service areas) totaling $1.1 million. Generally, large boroughs received $35,000 each to support local staff activities; smaller boroughs received $23,000 each. National Flood Insurance Program. The division serves as the State coordinating agency for the NFIP, a federal program that provides over $179 million in flood and erosion insurance coverage to individuals, businesses and renters in 22 Alaska communities. The insurance is only available if a municipality regulates development in areas subject to flooding and joins the NFIP. Contact: Nelda Warkentin, Anchorage, 269-4500 Department of Community & Regional Affairs Municipal and Regional Assistance Division 31 On How AEA Will Transfer Responsibilities to DCRA and AIDEA Legislation, adopted in the last session, mandated a "fast-track" dismantling of AEA, and the transfer of authority and responsibilities to other existing public service agencies. On July 7, a briefing was held by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Alaska Industrial Development andExport Authority (AIDEA). and the Department of Community andRegional Affairs (DCRA) to explain how AEA would transfer responsibilities to DCRA and AIDEA. After introductory remarks by Ron Garzini. Executive Director of AEA. regarding the general time tables for transition. there were brief introductions and statements by Mr. Riley Snell. AIDEA: Mr. Edgar Blatchford. Commissioner of DCRA: and the Director of the Division of Energy at DCRA. The DCRA, Division of Energy Director is responsible for all rural programs. assembling staff, and coordinating and directing the overall program. The Director heads the division that rural utilities will deal with directly regarding PCE, capital projects and programs, emergency response, technical training, circuit rider program, operation of small interties and waste heat systems, as well as rural construction assistance. Mr. Brent Petrie of AEA gave an overview of AEA functions and obligations. Various staff members gave short presentations on planning and project development, facility operations and engineering, Bradley Lake construction, rural programs, accounting and administration. After lunch. the group broke up into sub-groups. TheDirector of the Division of Energy at DCRA, met with AEA staff, rural power plant managers ARECA and RAPA to discuss priorities and concerns of the rural managers, production efficiency standards, PCE, circuit rider maintenance program, and other rural support programs. The DCRA Division of Energy goals are to see the tural power plants operated as efficiently as possible in a business-like manner and become more independent of direct control and assistance. The new DCRA division will be looking for ways to assist utilities do a better job of managing their resources and lowering the costs of producing electricity for the benefit of their consumers. The DOE Director listened to ideas and suggestions from the group and participated in discussions on ways the rural powers could best benefit from assistance from the Division of Energy at DCRA. UTILITY BRIEFING Accountability and individual responsibility will receive greater emphasis as each component of the rural energy programs is established at DCRA. RAPA board and membership were encouraged to contribute their suggestions as new. better ways of serving the electric consumer in rural Alaska are sought. All will be looking at improving utility management capability and also ways to help lower utility fuel costs. MAJOR PROVISIONS OF LEGISLATION This information is from the AEA Utility Briefing Handout This is dismemberment not consolidation legislation. More difficult task than the AHFC/ASHA/ DCRA housing merger which consolidated rather than dismembered programs. . Rural programs of the Energy Authority are transferred to Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) by 12/31/93. DCRA will also assume the administration of all AEA's loan funds. as amended by Ch 18/SLA 93. . Energy Authority continues to exist as a public corporation. Power to construct and acquire projects is eliminated. The AIDEA Board will serve as the AEA Board as of 8/11/93. . $90 million appropriated to Dept. of Administra- tion for payment as grants for Railbelt interties. ° $35 million apprpriated to DCRA for zero interest, 50-year loan for construction of Sutton-Glennallen intertie. The 525 million appropriation is contingent on completion of a feasibility study satisfactory to DCRA. 32 Rural Alaska Policy Review . $20 million appropriated to DCRA for 3%. 1 5-year loan for construction of Tyee-Swan intertie. In addition. approximately $4 is appropriated to DOA as a grant for the Tyee-Swan Intertie. ° Intertie construction costs are expected to exceed the appropriated amounts. AIDEA is authorized to issue revenue bonds for up to $120 million for the Railbelt interties. $25 million for Sutton-Glennallen. and $40 million for Tyee-Swan. . $66.9 million is appropriated to a Power Cost Equalization and Rural Electric Capitalization Fund (PCE/ RECF). 3 % of the PCE/RECF fund balance is available for rural electric projectgrants. This fund accumulates interest earnings, but other future contributions to the fund or expenditures from the fund will require appropriation. ° $5 million is appropriated to DCRA for payment as a grant for the Tazimina hydro project. Since estimated project costs exceed $10 million. supplemental financing will be needed but is not addressed. . Two or more utilities authorized to form "joint action groups." Additional legislation likely; required. SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS Chapters 18 and 19, SLA 1993 Functions/programs Transferred to DCRA I. Power Project Fund (loan program for energy projects) A. $35 million loan for Sutton-Glennallen intertie— DCRA to determine whether feasibility study and plan of finance are satisfactory. B. $20 million loan for Tyee-Swan intertie. Cc. $3 million loan for completion of Seward-Lawing Transmission line. Dz Sources of funds for other future loans: (SS SR SSS SR 1. 20% of Four Dam Pool debt repayments (about $2 million per year). 2. Loan repayments for all existing Power Project Fund loans (also about $2 million per year). 3. Does not include repayments of Sutton-Glenn- allen and Tyee-Swan loans—these go back; to Railbelt Energy Fund. II. Power Cost Equalization and Rural Electric Capitalization Fund A. PCE administrative functions formerly conducted by AEA are transferred to DCRA. APUC continues to set PCE rates for regulated utilities. DCRA to set rates for unregulated utilities. but may contract with APUC to continue doing this as well. B. Funds available include: 1. $66.9 million appropriation. 2. Future interest earnings on the fund balance. 3. 40% of Four Dam Pool debt repayments (about $4 million per year). 4. Future appropriations—legislative intent that minimum funding of PCE over 20 years will be $17 million per year. Cc. Rural utility grants (75% state. 25% local match) are allowed for up to 3% of PCE/REC Fund balance. This amounts to about $2 million in first year. expected to decline thereafter. III. Southeast Energy Fund A. Available for use by Tyee-Swan intertie participating utilities. B. Funded by 40% of Four Dam Pool debt repayments (about $4 million per year). Cc. FY 94 fund receipts appropriated as a grant to Ketchikan for Tyee-Swan. 33 Rural Alaska Policy Review IV. Note on Use of Four Dam Pool Debt Repayments A percentage of Four Dam Pool debt repayments is intended for use in each of the programs above: Power Project Fund 20% (about $2 million per year) PCE/REC Fund 40% (about S4 million per year) Southeast Energy Fund 40% (about 54 million per year) However, these intended uses of four Dam Pool debt repayments are not automatic—they must be appropri- ated each year. Electrical Service Extension Fund V. FY 94 funding is 5500.000 VI. Bulk Fuel Revolving Loan Fund About 50 loans per year—total annual loan amount about $2 million. VII. Rural Electrification Revolving Loan Fund Current balance available about $100.000. No recent activity in this program. VIII. Loan Committee Established A. Seven members (3 from Administration. 4 public). B. All loans, except bulk; fuel loans and loans specifi- cally appropriated by Legislature. submitted to Committee. Committee must approve any loans submitted to it for over $500.000. IX. Named Recipient Grant for Tazimina $5 million appropriated to DCRA to administer as named recipient" grant to Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton Electric Cooperative for Tazimina hydro project. X. Federal Biomass Program Federal Funds and program function to DCRA. XI. Rural Capital Project and Programs Based on provision that AEA rural programs go to DCRA. FY 94 capital appropriations to be transferred include the following: Rural Power System Upgrades $2,000,000 Bulk Fuel System Upgrades $2,000,000 Emergency Bulk Fuel Repairs $1,000,000 and Spill Prevention Rural Operation. Technical and $1,300,000 Emergency Assistance Electric System Life, Health, and $ 730,000 Safety Improvements Statewide Electric and Power $ 500,000 Project Development Alternative and applied Energy $ 500,000 Technology Development Rural Utilities. Regionalization, | $ 270,000 Consolidation. and Bus. Mgmt. In addition to these programs and several smaller FY 94 appropriations, there are about 150 rural capital projects of varying scope that are presently active. XII. Circuit Rider Maintenance Program Direct and contract rural maintenance assistance goes to DCRA under provision that AEA rural programs are transferred. 34 Rural Alaska Policy Review XIII. Directive on Contracting With Private Sector DCRA is instructed to carry out its new duties by contracting with appropriate entities in the private sector to the maximum extent feasible. Functions/Programs to Remain with AEA I. AEA power to acquire, plan, design,. and construct projects has been eliminated. A. AEA may or may not have the power to acquire the Snettisham hydro project under the transitional language of the Act. An attorney general s opinion on this matter has been requested. B. Although AEA no longer has the power to conduct feasibility studies, studies in progress can be completed under the transitional language of the Act. II. The power to finance, operate, and maintain projects remains with AEA. A. Because AEA cannot own additional projects (with the possible exception of Snettisham). the power to finance appears to apply only to third-party (i.e. '"pass-through") fi- nancing. or refinancing of existing AEA debt. B. Regarding operations and maintenance. AEA is in- structed to contract with utilities or others to the maximum extent feasible. Ill. New Board of Directors The Act provides that the Board of the Alasl;a Indus- trial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) will also serve as the Board of AEA. GENERAL POLICY OBJECTIVES DCRA Rural Program Goals: ° Continue delivery of services and projects with minimal disruption. . Move Rural Programs to DCRA by December 31, 1993. Actions planned and underway using prior year and FY94 capital funds to be implemented by AEA as planned for the 1994 field season. . Move general fund loan and grant programs to DCRA by 12/31/93. . Maximize contracting for services for construction, operations. and maintenance. . Contract out most of circuit rider functions in FY94. Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) - Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) Goals: . Minimize staffing to ultimately serve only a fiduciary or financing holder role. ° Contract with professional utilities for other services. ° Will require a new owner/operator relationship to shift more administrative responsibility to utilities may require operations staffing at AIDEA beyond 12/31/93 if utilities cannot agree). . Will require modification of existing operator contracts. This information is from the, AEA/DCRA Utility Briefing Handout, July 7,1993 35 Rural Alaska Policy Review Rural Alaska Power Association 1992-1993 Board of Directors Ben Frank, President Dept. of Municipal Services North Slope Borough, P.O. Box 69 Barrow, AK 99723 Fax 852-0341 ph. 852-0340 William Igkurak, Ist V.P. Kwig Power Company P.O. Box 30 Kwigilligok, AK 99622 Fax: 588-8429 ph. 588-8626 Rick Blodgett, 2nd V.P. Teller Power Company P.O. Box 532 Teller, AK 99778 Fax: 642-3451 ph. 642-3261 Don Eller, Treasuer Tanana Power Company P.O. Box 873809 Wasilla, AK 99778 Fax 373 5599 ph. 373-5585 Gary Butcher Nome Joint Utilities P.O. Box 70 Nome, AK 99762 Fax: 443-3028 ph. 443-5288 Margaret DeMandel Aniak Light and Power P.O. Box 129 Aniak, AK 99557 Fax: 657-4334 ph 675-4334 Richard Levitt Gustavus Electric Company P.O. Box 102 Gustavus, AK 99826 Fax: 697-2355 ph. 697-2299 Robert Enoch Tuntutuliak Community Services General Delivery Tuntutuliak, AK 99680 Fax: 256-2441 ph.256-2529 Gary Kessinger Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative, Inc. P.O. Box 40 Red Devil, AK 99656 Fax: 447-3231 ph. 447-3230 Linda Dianne Rabb Executive Director, RAPA P.O. Box 100214 Anchorage, AK 99510 Fax: 345-5878 ph. 345-5771 Brooks Chandler, Atty. Hicks, Boyd, Chandler & Falconer Suite 200 825 West 8th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99510 Fax: 274-3698 ph. 272-8401 RAPA Rural Alaska Power Association P.O. Box 100214 Anchorage, AK 99510 Fax: 345-5878 ph. 345-5771 Rural Utility Business Advisor (RUBA) Program Rural Utility Business Advisor Through the RUBA program, financial and management assistance and training related to water and waste water utilities is provided to communities. The program is funded partially by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA), Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and consists of Rural Utility Business Advisors stationed in Bethel and Anchorage and a contract employee in St. Mary’s. Rural Utility Business Advisors provide assistance to selected communities, primarily in Western Alaska. These Rural Utility Business Advisors are supported by Local Government Specialists from MRAD regional offices and by the Special Projects Section in Anchorage. The Special Projects Section and Regional Office Local Government Specialists also provide management assistance to other communities around the State plus they conduct four to five regional utility management training sessions around the State every year. Typically these sessions last two or three days and address training on a range of issues including business management; planning; maintenance and operation management; and, DEC and EPA regulations. Contact: Michael Black, Anchorage, 269-4500 Department of Community & Regional Affairs Municipal and Regional Assistance Division 36 Rural Alaska Policy Review STATE CLEANS UP 47 RURAL TANK FARMS WALTER. HICKEL, GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 112100 Juneau, Alaska 99811-2100 Jan. 26, 1994 Repairs have been made to 47 bulk fuel storage facilities throughout rural Alaska to correct violations of federal pollution laws, the Rural Bulk Fuel Task Force said today. In February 1993, the U.S. Coast Guard issued suspension orders to numerous rural bulk fuel facility owners for non-compliance with regulations. At a subsequent meeting with Gov. Walter J. Hickel, Admiral Roger Rufe, Jr., commanding officer of the 1 7th Coast Guard District, granted a one-year moratorium allowing the state to respond to the problem. A task force working group was assembled and planning began immediately to address rural storage issues, said Edgar Blatchford, commissioner of the Depart- ment of Community and Regional Affairs and chairman of the task force. Blatchford said most rural communities have between one and 15 separate farms often located near homes, schools and areas where children play. In general, these tank farm facilities were constructed without proper siting or engineering and without regard to codes and regula- tions, or industry standards, he said. Due to lack of proper maintenance, facilities have been allowed to deteriorate to the point where they pose a formidable threat to public safety and the environment, said Blatchford. “Through an aggressive repair effort during this past summer, repairs were made to 47 facilities, correcting code violations and effectively reducing the threat to public health and safety in these communities," he said. Work was completed in the following communities: Buckland, Golovin, Noorvik, Selawik, Shishmaref, Wales, Emmonak, Hooper Bay, Hughes, Scammon Bay, Akiachak, Ahak, Kipnuk, Tulusak, Tununak, Naknek and Togiak. In some communities, entire tanks were replaced after years of neglect, said Blatchford. In others, pipelines and valves were repaired and replaced. Repairs totaled nearly $3 million. The department has requested additional funding in the proposed Fiscal Year '95 capital budget," Blatchford said. "We've got a lot more work ahead of us." The task force today issued policy recommenda- tions on the rural bulk fuel storage issue. The report provides direction, gleaned from a series of work sessions throughout Alaska, for regulations, education and training, construction, design, renovation and funding sources associated with bulk fuel storage. Copies of the report are available from depart- ment offices. GOVERNOR APPOINTS BULK FUEL TASK FORCE Barrow--Governor Walter J. Hickel announced at a meeting of North and Northwest Mayors his appointments to an expanded task force to review the problem of bulk fuel storage in the bush. The Rural Bulk Fuel Task Force was formed in March of last year as a cabinet level group to look into ways to repair or replace fuel storage facilities in rural areas to bring them into compliance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations. The task force will be expanded to 12 members. "We have made good progress on this problem over the last ten months," Hickel said. "We have succeeded in bringing 47 facilities throughout western Alaska up to standard. Much remains to be done, however, and we believe by bringing together a group representing the range of users, we can be more effective." The following were appointed to the task force: Walter Sampson of Kotzebue, representing NANA Regional Corp. Charles Walls, Anchorage, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Nova Blazej, Bethel, Association of Village Council Presidents Cindy Thomas, Fairbanks, Tanana Chiefs Conference Don Stultz, Nome, Crowley Maritime Richard Ried, Unalakleet, Bering Strait School District Marie Becker, Nikiski, Environmental Solutions 37 SESE Rural Alaska Policy Review They join the state and federal agency members of the working group, who are Department of Community and Regional Affairs Commissioner Edgar Blatchford, who serves as chair, Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner John Sander; Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Shelby Stastny; U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Roger T. Ruff, Jr.; and Department of Education Commissioner Jerry Covey. The bulk fuel task force was brought together by Governor Hickel in March 1993, after, he obtained a oneyear moratorium from Admiral Ruff, Commander of the Seventeenth U.S. Coast Guard -District, on enforcing its environmental regulations governing tank farms. The Coast Guard had sent notices to local officials in more than 70 villages warning them that they were at risk of having their facilities shut down because of code violations. OVERVIEW Bulk fuel storage throughout rural Alaska is finally being seriously addressed after decades of neglect. Over the last 40 years, prudent fuel storage planning and facility management practices have been widely ignored. Consequent- ly, communities, as well as the state and federal governments, now face. the daunting task of making thousands of repairs; constructing scores of new, safe facilities; in conjunction with establishing compliance incentives and providing financial resources necessary for community or private improvements. Following notification by the Coast Guard of "intention to suspend operations," Governor Hickel requested and received a moratorium allowing operations to continue for a one year grace period, conditional upon "an immediate and aggressive" effort by the state to bring about facility compliance. Upon receiving this reprieve, Governor Hickel assembled the Bulk Fuel Task Force working group, chaired by Commissioner Edgar Blatchford, to address the issue and develop preliminary recommenda- tions. After meeting with the Coast Guard to review the fuel storage issues, the Task Force working group held regional bulk fuel workshops throughout rural Alaska listening to hundreds of concerned facility owners, residents, and community officials, as well as private sector specialists involved in fuel storage, fuel transfer, insurance, engineering and design, environmental mitigation, and related legal issues. On July 28, the Task Force sponsored a summit meeting attended by Governor Hickel and Admiral Rufe of the Coast Guard. Throughout the process, common themes resurfaced. The input from all meetings provided the basis for this report. Each focus area has a host of items pertaining to the general subject heading. Numerous reports have been prepared over recent years testifying to the need for improvement. The last three legislatures have budgeted for assessments as well as "emergency repairs." The time has come for an overall strategy to begin a systematic, long term approach to resolve the enormous task of repair, improvement, new construction and, of course, remediation. Failure to take action now threatens the public health and safety of our rural residents. There is the immediate threat of facility shutdown in communities dependent upon adequate winter supplies of stored fuel. There is threat of disaster from leakage, fire, and explosion. There is a threat to overall community health and safety from storage sites located in close proximity to water sources, houses, schools, utility plants and other community facilities. The remoteness of these communities from resources needed to contain a spill, or fight a facility disaster, compounds the potential tragedy of any incident. Experience in hazardous material storage and handling clearly proves the value of prevention, and preven- tion is the overriding focus as the working group now prepares its preliminary recommendations. Although a total solution is costly, ignoring the issue can only result in far greater social, environmental, and financial costs. A sustained commitment to resolve this issue by state and federal agencies, providing for community and private sector participation, will yield desired results without imposing undue demands upon staff, budgets, industry, or rural residents. Again, the working group has emphasized a reasoned response, incorporating numerous participating agencies and resources. Governor Hickel clearly stressed innovation and creativity in his directions to the Task Force working group. Any solution will require concerted efforts to improve facility design and alternative energy usage to eventually reduce fuel dependency, thereby decreasing reliance on petroleum products. Such improvements would directly reduce overall bulk fuel storage capacity requirements. This report does not attempt to resolve the entire rural fuel issue. The magnitude of the problem is certain to require a dedicated effort by rural communities, state and federal agencies and the ever-important private sector for at least the next decade. In order to maintain the public aware- 38 Rural Alaska Policy Review ness and stewardship necessary for directing the coordinated effort required, the Task Force working group has recom- mended formal appointment ofa standing Bulk Fuel Task Force comprised of agency, public and private participants. The appointment of a continuing Task Force will ensure continued progress toward these desired goals. Continued cooperation of the Coast Guard and other federal agencies is also essential and appreciated. The support of the Alaska State Legislature and Alaska's congressional delegation is equally critical. And, above all else, close working relations and continued commitment from rural communities, local residents, and the private sector are an absolute must. Cooperation by all parties will provide the necessary impetus for the Task Force recommendations to be implemented, the fuel storage issue adequately addressed, and the related public health and safety concerns mitigated. COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC AWARENESS Issues: ¢ The public needs to be educated on the seriousness of bulk fuel storage, the hazards of fuel products, the public health and safety issues related to bulk fuel storage and the need for professional management. * The public and private sectors need to continue in their participatory roles in addressing bulk fuel storage issues. ¢ Recipients of state or federal bulk fuel facility improvements or new construction funding need to insure granting or lending agency of facility compliance and prove a commitment to facility maintenance and operator training. Recommended Action: 1, Extend the mission of the Bulk Fuel Task Force. 2. Formally appoint public and private members to the task force. 3. Continue to advocate on behalf of the task force efforts from the Governor's Office through media releases, use of the RATNET system as well as in policy or public addresses. 4. Encourage and support local or regional efforts to address bulk fuel issues and resolve localized problems. 5. Recognize and encourage efforts to incorporate bulk fuel storage as an overall utility management issue. 6. Implement public service announcements alerting the public to the seriousness of bulk fuel storage to public health and welfare. Develop and implement elementary, high school, and adult curricula to address prevention, environ- mental and public safety issues relating to bulk fuel storage. 7. Communicate rural bulk fuel concerns to urban residents as well as urban legislators. 8. Produce informational video for increasing public understanding of bulk fuel issues. REGULATORY AND POLITICAL PROCESS Issues: * The existing federal regulations governing bulk fuel storage are far too complicated for Alaska's unique envi- ronment. ¢ Federal regulatory adoption process ignores rural Alaska needs, and little effort is made by agencies to solicit tural Alaska input. ¢ Existing bulk fuel grant programs are dormant. Programs need review and proper funding support. ¢ Facility operators would benefit from coordinated state-federal response. * Private operators lack access to adequate funding assistance. * State and federal funding should be released only if recipient agrees to conditional arrangements for manage- ment and operator training programs. ¢ Lack of awareness and understanding of the rural fuel storage issue at governmental policy levels. Recommended Action: 1. Coordinate agency efforts, through OMB, to develop sustainable funding mechanisms. 2. Request the congressional delegation to draft and insert federal funding authorization language in an appropri- ate legislative measure to enable receipt of federal funding. Request federal funding to address the bulk fuel needs in rural Alaska. 39 Rural Alaska Policy Review 3. Work with the Rural Development Council (RDC), relevant federal agencies and the Division of Govern- mental Coordination to coordinate a response to regulatory issues, namely: * regulation standardization and simplification; * improved public involvement in regulation adoption; * coordinate regulatory oversight responsibilities. The Task Force should report back to the Governors' Office no later than April 15,1 994, with action to date. 4. DCRA should continue efforts to coordinate all energy-related programs within the new Division of Energy. 5. DCRA should prepare legislation updating current statutory authority with the Division of Energy to expand lending programs to include private sector, for profit borrowing for bulk fuel improvements. 6. State agencies with funding authority for bulk fuel projects, or any capital budget appropriations for new bulk fuel facility construction, should require commitments from recipients or borrowers to ensure proper construction and continued facility maintenance, training programs, and utility management as a condition of funding. EDUCATION AND TRAINING Issues: ¢ Facility operators require improved training for safe operations. * Regulatory agencies are vague with respect to appropriate or approved curricula for facility operators. ¢ Community education process is critical to proper elevation of facility operator status within the community. * Operator certification would enable facility owners to recruit and retain qualified personnel and diminish likelihood of operator error. ¢ Bulk fuel facility management is not currently recognized as a critical community utility management function. Recommended Action: 1. Direct appropriate agencies to incorporate training funds within their budget components. 2. Coordinate through the [Alaska State] Rural Development Council (RDC) to incorporate education and training requirements into federal agency operations within Alaska. 3. Develop coordinated training programs and appropriate budgets for establishment and continuation of proper operator training. Tie release of stateorfederal — fund- ing to commitment by borrower or grantee to employ appropriately trained personnel. 4. Elevate personnel classification for bulk fuel facility operators within the Department of Labor targeted industry listings. Resulting upgrade of "targeted employment sector" will enable state funding for appropriate training under the State Training and Employment Program (STEP). 5. Develop training videos and manuals and host field workshops for ongoing and refresher training programs. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE EMERGENCY RESPONSE Issues: ¢ Rural communities with non-compliant bulk fuel facilities require immediate assistance in order to meet minimal Coast Guard regulatory requirements. ¢ Funding for emergency repairs is limited and subject to annual appropriations by the legislature. ¢ Private facilities are not generally eligible for exist- ing state funding for emergency repairs, yet private facilities need access to funding assistance. * Technical assistance is required prior to commit- ment of financial assistance for major repairs or new construction. ¢ Community commitment to continued maintenance is often lacking even after repairs are made. Recommended Action: 1. Channel any state or federal appropriations targeted to bulk fuel improvements through the Division of Energy (DCRA), in order to ensure coordination of response efforts throughout rural Alaska. 2. Continue emphasis within the Division of Energy to address emergency repairs and technical assistance. 40 Rural Alaska Policy Review 3. Direct the Division of Energy (DCRA) to prioritize facility repairs response based upon need, and on the expressed and proven commitment of facility owner and community. 4. Expand existing loan programs to incorporate privatebusiness enterprise facilities as eligible borrowers. CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN AND RENOVATION Issues: * Rural Alaska communities are plagued with numerous very small bulk fuel storage facilities within a single town. * Neighboring communities, often connected by road, have separate fuel storage facilities. ¢ Facilities are often located and constructed without regard to future growth needs; consequently, population growth or new housing construction is forced around the facility, increasing public health risk. ¢ Permitting requirements are cumbersome and costly for new fuel facility design and construction. ¢ Facilities in rural Alaska receive little regulatory oversight and are often built by inexperienced or unqualified individuals or firms, resulting in poor installations. * Little effort has been made at developing alterna- tive energy resources; consequently, fuel storage demands have risen considerably in rural communities. * New facility construction is now permitted without dismantling or removal of an existing fuel storage facility with its attendant hazard to public health and safety. ¢ Land ownership in rural communities is compli- cated, and suitable lands for new fuel storage facility siting limited. Recommended Action: 1. Encourage the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation (ASTF) to fund: Assessment of practical alternative new technology for electrical energy generation suitable for rural Alaskan communities; Development of cost effective soil remediation projects for contaminated sites in rural Alaskan communities. At least one member of the Bulk Fuel Task Force will be assigned to work with ASTF officials while developing this project, reporting periodically to the full Task Force. ASTF will coordinate their efforts in selecting specifics and developing recommendations with staff in the Division of Energy (DCRA). Upon completion of their report, ASTF will provide recommendations no later than August 1, 1994. State agencies will analyze and determine practical implementation of the recommendations prior to submission of FY96 budget requests. 2. Request University of Alaska participation in development and application of arctic remediation technolo- gies, innovative designs and construction methods that cost effectively address renovations and new facilities. 3. Direct all state agencies, and encourage federal agencies to include fuel storage requirements as a component of construction planning for all projects in rural communities. 4. Encourage consolidation of fuel storage facilities through conditional funding requirements and public out- reach efforts. 5. State and federal projects should be required to plan adequately for projected population and fuel consump- tion growth prior to funding new fuel storage construction projects. Ensure adequate land set-aside for designated fuel storage facility in a location safely removed from residential areas. 6. Coordinate permitting requirements for fuel storage facilities, thereby assisting facility owners in their attempts to improve storage conditions. 7.Condition funding awards upon proof of planning and commitment to a demonstrated facility management program before commencing construction or remediation. New construction planning should address public protection from, and dismantling of, existing fuel storage facilities. 8. Require, if necessary, resolution of 14 (c)(3) land transfers, thereby enabling rural communities to adequately plan and situate new fuel storage facilities. DCRA budget requests should include appropriate staffing to facilitate pend- ing 1 4(c) (3) land transfers . FINANCE Issues: ¢ The Rural Alaska Bulk Fuel Assessment Program, Summary Report and Recommendations, March 1992, prepared by the Alaska Energy Authority, the Noncrude Facility Survey, January 1992, and the Small Noncrude Oil Terminal Report, Task One: Facility Identification and 41 a Rural Alaska Policy Review Inventory, November 1992, prepared for the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, are testimony to the extreme costs related to repairs, improvements, new construction and remediation for Alaska's many rural bulk fuel storage facilities. Preliminary estimates range from between $155.0 M to $200.0 M for facility improve- ments, and another $200.0 M for remediation! * Access to funding for communities is extremely limited and practically nonexistent for small "for-profit" private sector operators. * Funding that is available has few conditions attached for ensuring long range commitment by grantee or borrower for proper construction or continued facility maintenance or operator training programs. ¢ Remediation costs are often extraordinary. Existing funding programs require neither planning nor commitment to necessary facility clean up. Consequently, public health and safety are under continual threat. ¢ There is little access to federal funding, even when federal agencies acknowledge previous ownership of non-compliant facilities. The state receives no direct federal funding at this time for coordinated resolution of fuel storage problems. Although the legislature has supported assessment and emergency repairs through the appropriation process, there has been no comprehensive approach or systematic appropriation for addressing issues over the long term. * The enormous task of fuel facility improvement, new construction and remediation requires a measured, systematic approach, enabling communities as well as private facility owners to address their particular facility with appropriate planning and commitment to training and maintenance. Recommended Action: 1. Direct OMB and DCRA to coordinate in prepara- tion of FY95 operating and capital budget to adequately address the rural bulk fuel funding needs, providing for both community and private business enterprise access. 2. Direct Legislative Liaison Office, OMB, DCRA, DEC and the Department of Law to assess the oil spill mitigation account and determine the viability of a statutory adjustment to the program to allow for rural bulk fuel storage improvements, construction or dismantling of old sites. 3. Draft letter of request to the congressional delegationrequesting federal funding for Alaska's rural bulk fuel storage issues. First priority is required authorization language, then adequate annual funding. 4. Request the Board of Directors of the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) to address rural bulk fuel storage tank issues and consider establishment of a loan fund within their operations, or providing source funding to the Division of Energy (DCRA) Power Project Fund (PPF). Such a loan program would enable private businessenterprises access to necessary con- struction funding. 5. Direct OMB and relevant agencies, including the Departments of Revenue and Law, to assess the viability of identifying specific funding sources for the rural bulk fuel storage program. Consideration should be directed at annual turn-back receipts from funds such as: Municipal Bond Bank Fuel Tax collection receipts Oil Tax Settlement receipts Alternate Energy Revolving Loan Fund Residential Energy Conservation Loan Fund Storage Tank Assistance Fund and any other appropriate funding source 6. Draft a letter to federal agencies engaging in rural construction activity to request all planning activity require an assessment of the desired project's impact on the rural community's fuel storage needs. In addition, all federal agencies should be strongly encouraged to work closely with the Division of Energy (DCRA) prior to proceeding with construction activity, in order to coordinate overall utility impacts on the community. 7. Continue to advocate for the rural bulk fuel storage improvement initiative through policy adoption, television and radio addresses, state of the state and state of the budget addresses, support of appropriate legislation and agency budget requests. 8. Encourage the University of Alaska and the board of directors of the Alaska Science and Technology Fund (ASTF) to actively participate in the solution of these, and other, rural issues. 9. DCRA should prepare legislation to enable private business enterprises to access loan funds through the Power Project Fund (PPF) authorized within the Division of Energy. 10. Division of Energy (DCRA) should request ad- equate operating budget funding for the rural bulk fuel storage issue as well as making available resources through the Power Project Fund (PPF) and the Community Bulk Fuel Grant Program. 12. Division of Energy (DCRA) should adequately address the continuing funding needs of the Rural Bulk Fuel Task Force. Estimated costs are not expected to be greater than $30,000. 42 Rural Alaska Policy Review 13. Department of Public Safety (DPS) should review operations of the state Fire Marshal's office. Options should include adopting a more cooperative, "user friendly," approach in development of workable solutions for fuel storage facilities, reductions in plan review fees, and increased participation in interagency work group efforts to resolve fuel storage issues. 14. Department of Education should review opera- tions of the Rural Education Attendance Area (REM) school districts for commitment of available funds to address their bulk fuel storage facilities, and to assess the feasibility of consolidat- ing with new facility construction as opposed to maintaining separate facilities. TASK FORCE WORK GROUP MEMBERS DEPT. OF COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS Edgar Blatchford, Commissioner Bruce Geraghty, Deputy Commissioner John M. Walsh, Special Assistant Robert K. Walsh, Director, MRAD Midge Clouse, MRAD Sharon Harris, MRAD Billie Harvey, MRAD Joanne Erskine, DCRD DIVISION OF ENERGY, DCRA Herv Hensley, Director, DOE Dennis Meiners, Special Assistant, DOE Brian Gray, Project Engineer, DOE DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION John A. Sandor, Commissioner Mike Conway, Director, DSPR Mike Mansker, Manager, Industry Preparedness Program Cathy Gitkov, DSPR Edwin "Bud" Bruneau, Environmental Engineer AIDEA Sue White, Economic Development Specialist U.S. COAST GUARD Admiral Roger T. Ruff, Jr., Commander, 1 7th District Captain Max Miller, Commander, Marine Safety Office Lt. Jerry Wilson, Marine Safety Office ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Carl Lautenberger, Environmental Protection Specialist Don Marson, Contingency Planning Specialist Scott Smith, Technical Assistance Team GENERAL PUBLIC The hundreds of local residents who traveled, at their own expense, to the regional workshops and the Bulk Fuel Summit in Anchorage to express their concerns, volunteer their time and provide the direction to compile this report. MUNICIPAL & REGIONAL ASSISTANCE DIVISION Department of Community & Regional Affairs The Municipal and Regional Assistance Division provides a broad range of programs and assistance designed to help local governments fulfill their functions. The division works with all the State’s munici- palities but emphasizes services to the communities least able to help themselves. Office of the Director 333 West 4th Ave., Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: 269-4500 Fax: 269-4539 Southcentral Regional Office 333 West 4th Ave., Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: 269-4500 Fax: 269-4539 Bethel Regional Office P.O. Box 348 Bethel, AK 99559 Phone: 543-3475 Fax: 543-4152 Dillingham Regional Office P.O. Box 790 Dillingham, AK 99576 Phone: 842-5135 Fax: 842-5140 Northern Regional Office 209 Forty Mile Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99701 Phone: 452-7126 Fax: 451-7251 Kotzebue Regional Office P.O. Box 350 Kotzebue, AK 99752 Phone: 442-3696 Fax: 442-2402 Southeast Regional Office P.O. Box 112100 Juneau, AK 99811 Phone: 465-4814 Fax: 465-2948 Nome Regional Office P.O. Box 1068 Nome, AK 99762 Phone: 443-5457 Fax: 443-2409 43 COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA ANNUAL UPDATE FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1994 December, 1993 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Planning and Program Development Department Introduction The National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 mandated that every state develop a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, or CHAS, to address in depth a broad range of housing issues. The 1990 Act's requirements are implement- ed by federal regulations at 24 CFR Part 91, which specify the form and content of the strategy. The CHAS replaces the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) associated with the Community Develop- ment Block Grant program, and the Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan (CHAP). A CHAS is required of all states participat- ing in federal housing and community development programs, including the HOME program, and homeless assistance programs as authorized by the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Alaska's CHAS is prepared and maintained by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). AHFC is the state's comprehensive, statewide housing agency, operating not only housing finance pro- continured on page 45 BIA Housing Improvement Program Alaska Federation of Natives: In 1991, the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs' Housing Needs Assessment Study identified the need for 16,867 housing units to resolve shortages, cramped and deteriorated conditions and other unmet needs for low-income and Native households. The study estimated the cost of such housing at $2.2 billion. It also determined that an additional 18,000 units required an average of 320 square feet each of added space to relieve overcrowding at a cost of $280 million. This increased the total need to 27,684 units at a total cost of $3.622 billion. In contrast to this tremendous need, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has targeted the Housing Improvement Program for potential elimination in order to fund the President's economic initiatives in fiscal year 1995. The Housing Improvement Program is vital for improving the condition of Native housing throughout Alaska, and the major problem is not the program itself but its historic under- funding. In one typical region, HIP funding represents barely more than $8,000 for a whole village's needs. The entire Alaska Area received only $3.1 million in FY 1993. The methodology developed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for distribution of HIP funds appropriated by Congress is not published in the Federal Register and does not reflect tribal consultation. Existingregulations simply state that "the general distribu tion of HIP funds among tribes is based on aconsistent, valid, and certified inventory of tribal housing needs." 25 C.F.R. 256.3(c). AFN and other Native organizations have recommended that the methodology for developing the national inventory of tribal housing needs should be overhauled in close consultation with Indian tribes from all regions of the country. The prioritization of housing needs throughout the country and the subsequent distribution of funds should reflect unique factors such as remoteness, climatic conditions and cost of living. ———— 44 Rural Alaska Policy Review grams, but also public housing, energy efficiency, and rural housing programs throughout _ the state. Other state agencies participating in the develop- ment of the CHAS are the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and the Alaska Departmentof | Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA). Metropolitan cities (as defined by the U.S. Census) receiving entitlement grants of Community Development Block Grant funds must also prepare a separate CHAS. Anchorage is Alaska's only metropolitan city. Because the Municipality of Anchorage must prepare a separate plan, the State CHAS addresses need and goals for the balance of the state, outside the Municipality of Anchorage. The Municipality's separate CHAS is incorporated by reference into the State plan. This means that the housing assistance activities of State government taking place in the Municipality of Anchorage, will conform to the priorities and policies of the Municipality as set forth in its CHAS. The required focus of the CHAS is federally funded housing programs, exclusive of Indian hous- ing. However, in Alaska, Indian housing constitutes a large portion of the state's total assisted housing resource. To present a more accurate description of the entire resource, the CHAS identifies Indian hous- ing resources, as well as the housing activities and resources of the state which are not the result of federal funding. A five-year CHAS covering federal fiscal years 1992-1996 was published in February 1992. The first annual update was published in March, 1993. This is the second annual update of the plan. The purpose of the annual update is to evaluate the continued relevance of the priorities established in the five-year plan, update any statistical and economic information that may have changed over the year, and identify actions which the state will take over the coming year to further attainment of the five-year goals. 45 The seven five-year priorities are: 1. Very low income households should re- ceive first priority in the allocation of any new Federal or State funding for housing. 2. Commitment of State resources to provide matching funds for Federal housing and supportive services grants, including HOME, to leverage the greatest amount of non-State resources possible. 3. New construction of rental housing in rural communities at a scale of 4-6 units per project". Design of these projects should apply appropriate arctic engineering technology, and energy-efficient construction techniques, and should be in harmony with the scale and spirit of the communities in which they are located. 4. Continue to upgrade the quality of existing housing through weatherization and rehabilitation, whenever economically feasible. Seek additional financial resources to expand current levels of activ- ity. 5. Aggressively seek operating funds as well as capital funding for services and facilities serving the homeless. 6. New construction of rental and mutual housing in urban communities, in developments which encourage resident participation, and practice economic integration. These developments should use quality construction and design techniques, in- cluding energy-efficiency measures, design which promotes a sense of community, and integrated sup- portive services. 7. Low and moderate income home owner- ship programs and initiatives of regional housing authorities, AHFC's Public Housing Division, and non-profit organizations should be expanded as re- sources permit. AHFC's tax exempt first-time home buyer program, as well as the Rural Housing Division's home ownership programs should be maintained, and expanded as the market demands. Rural Alaska Policy Review This annual update contains an expanded and revised profile of economic conditions and demographic factors present in the state affecting the supply of and demand for affordable housing. Some of this information is derived from 1990 U.S. Census data that have become available since the preparation of the five-year plan. Other information is the result of recent research in housing economics and homelessness. This ex- panded profile should be of interest to those engaged in devel- oping affordable housing, serving the homeless or other special needs populations, and those who wish to frame community responses to the need for affordable housing. Summary of CHAS Development Process This second annual update was developed with the assistance of a wide range of individuals and organizations representing the interests of low and moderate income Alas- kans, the homeless, and Alaskans with special needs. Early in the CHAS process, AHFC staff consulted with its Special Needs Advisory Committee (SNAC) concerning emerging issues and needs affecting the homeless, seniors, Alaska Na- tives, and persons with disabilities, including AIDS and sub- stance abuse related problems. The SNAC is an ongoing com- mittee comprised of individuals and organizations serving Alaskans with special needs. It meets periodically to advise the Corporation about special housing needs, and to assist in designing programming to meet those needs. In addition to the SNAC, AHFC staff consulted di- rectly with the Older Alaskans Commission, the Alaska Mental Health Board, theAlaska Division of Vocational Rehabilita- tion, the Alaska Division of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, the Alaska Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, the Alaska Division of Family Health, the Alaska Division of Epidemiology, the Alaska Division of Family and Youth Services, the Alaska Coalition for Housing and the Homeless, regional (Indian) housing authorities, the Alaskan ARDORS Assistance Association, the Anchorage Field Office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other federal agencies including the Farmers Home Admin- istration and Department of Veterans Affairs. Adequately addressing the diversity of Alaska's so- cial, economic and geographic landscapes requires going out into the field and learning firsthand from the people who live and work there. AHFC staff traveled to nine communities during the development of the annual update to hold a series of community meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to 1) determine the continued validity of the seven CHAS priorities from the five-year plan; 2) identify local housing issues and needs; 3) learn the views and opinions of local residents about how state government should respond to those issues and needs; and 4) identify potential partnerships within the communities. To publicize the meetings, display advertisements were run in local newspapers, announcements made on radio stations, and personal telephone calls were placed to key organizations and individuals in each community. In addition, live radio interviews with AHFC staff were broadcast in three communities. A list of the communities visited, the dates notices of the meetings were published and the papers in which they were published appears in Appendix A. A statewide public hearing was held on the Legislative Teleconference Network on December 14,1993 from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm. This network is employed by the Alaska Legislature to obtain public input and testimony in the legislative process and is familiar and accessible to most Alaskans. Legislative Information Offices serve most communities throughout the state and are accessible to persons with disabilities. The adver- tisement for the statewide public hearing is also included in Appendix A. Based on a combination of public input from the community meetings, current economic and demographic in- formation, and projected funding levels, specific activities and programs were identified in response to each of the seven CHAS priorities. Together, these activities and programs con- stitute the state's Investment Plan for the coming year. Draft copies of the annual update were mailed directly to over 1,200 individuals, organizations, and local govern- ments. Many of those on the CHAS mailing list have previously participated in the development of the five-year plan and the 1993 annual update. All persons attending community meet- ings around the state automatically received copies of the draft. The draft of the 1994 Annual Update was published for public comment on November 29,1993 and made available through Legislative Information Offices and AHFC field of- fices throughout the state . Notice of the Plan's availability was made through print media covering the entire state. The public comment period expired December 29,1993. A summary of written comments received during the comment period appears as Appendix B. Uniquely Alaskan Considerations. Rental housing is very scarce in rural communities, at any price. Vacancy rates from the 1990 census are misleading, due to the small number of rental units factored in, or vacant units erroneously identified as rentals. In most urban areas of Alaska, housing types and construction techniques closely resemble those employed in other cold or marine climates of the lower 48 states. Founda- tions may be specially engineered to withstand cold soils or permafrost conditions, and special insulation may be added, but the housing is largely stick-built. In rural areas, however, this is not the case. In extreme Arctic environments, housing must be 46 Rural Alaska Policy Review built on deeply-driven pilings, or even on floating foundations. No permanent sidewalks exist, but rather informal floating boardwalks that move with the heaving ground as it alterna- tively freezes and thaws on the surface. Most villages lack complete water and sewer systems. Conventional water and sewer technology is not suited to Arctic applications; alternative technologies are expensive to install and the cost to maintain is often beyond the means of small communities with limited cash economies. It is not unusual in rural Alaska for homes to have indoor "honey buckets", and to lack piped water. Water may be trucked to each unit and stored in a tank, or it may be hauled to the home from a centralized community "washeteria" station. Waste is either picked up at the street, or is hauled by the householder to a central sewage lagoon. Alaska's marine climates present different but equally difficult challenges. Again, small communities may lack typi- cal water and sewer service, and use of septic systems is often limited by presence of bedrock inches below the surface or by boggy muskeg soils. Pilings are frequently used for founda- tions. Extremely wet and windy conditions challenge paint, roofing and siding material, and make it difficult to keep homes free of mildew. Conditions in both extremes require a different defini- tion of "substandard" than is commonly employed in the lower 48 states. For purposes of this discussion, "substandard housing is housing which cannot achieve and maintain an indoor winter temperature of 70 degrees, or which allows for excessive infiltration of the elements. This is the general definition used in the rural housing study conducted by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Another definition, devel- oped by the Alaska Housing Market Council, is even more descriptive of the differences between rural and urban ideas of substandard. The Market Council defined substandard housing as a unit that: 1) is dilapidated and does not provide safe and adequate shelter and endangers the health, safety, or well being of its occupants; 2) has plumbing that does not conform to the typical community standards of the areas in which it is located; 3) does not have adequate or safe electrical service if electricity is available in the community and there is access to it; 4) cannot maintain an indoor air temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit; or 5) has less than 600 square feet of living space with 200 square feet per resident. Were this expanded definition of substandard to be applied, a greater number of units would be so classified. Unfortunately, no comprehensive survey of housing conditions has been made using this expanded definition. Therefore, the rural housing study definition is used here, despite its recognized limitations, Alaska is a young state, with |e ES SSS SES SSS SSR eR Sa SS SS SSS most of its population gain occurring the past twenty years. Most of the housing in its urban areas is similarly young, although most communities retain some historic housing units. Housing quality in Alaska may be less a function of age than of type of construction, which makes it difficult to use census data as a reliable indicator of housing quality. In remote areas of the state, housing which is not built through govern- ment programs is generally owner-built. The quality and ap- pearance of these indigenous units reflects the materials avail- able and the preferences of the individuals who erected them. Typical building materials include packing crates, shipping containers, logs, and sod as well as more conventional materials such as lumber, plywood, and aluminum siding In rural hub communities and even in some urban areas, examples of this type of housing persist, side-by-side with conventional hous- ing. Private market mechanisms do not function properly in rural Alaska, where construction costs are exceedingly high, transportation of materials difficult and costly, and availability of developers and skilled builders is limited. A further restric- tion on market activity is the type of units which must be built in rural areas to respond to the rigors of extreme weather conditions and hostile physical environments. Financing is difficult to obtain for these housing units because the loans cannot readily be sold to secondary market investors. Additionally, volatile local and regional economies discourage housing investment, even in urban areas which have better access to construction materials, skilled builders and financing sources, and where a more conventional housing product can be built. Housing prices in rural Alaska tend to run counter to convention, which holds that where there is less money in the economy, housing is less costly. In rural Alaska, the cash economy is limited. Yet, due to high transportation costs, the basic necessities for living including groceries, fuel and hous- ing are expensive. This is complicated by the fact that most rural households’ income is sporadic or seasonal. Remote communi- ties generally do not have local banks, so conventional modes of saving and establishing credit are not available. The cash amount rural households pay for housing is lower than that paid by urban households, according to the rural housing study. This is due in large part to the significant role played by the state and federal governments in developing and subsidizing housing in rural Alaska. In Alaska's small rural communities, the primary housing need is for new construction to address the housing shortage, and to replace severely deteriorated units. Most of the dwellings requiring replacement are individually owned. Ac- 47 cording to the rural housing study, costs to build new ownership units in rural Alaska start at $135,000 for a 1,200 squarefoot, energy-efficient unit, built to Arctic standards, exclusive of land. Rental construction costs are similarly high. In the face of such housing shortages and challenges to new construc- tion, it is important to expand and preserve existing housing whenever possible. Additions are needed to enlarge 18,000 existing units to relieve overcrowding at an estimated cost of approximately $15,000 per unit, according to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. At least 50,000 homes in Alaska are in need of weath- erization assistance to increase their energy efficiency and insulation qualities. The average spent by DCRA in 1990 for weatherization was $2,800 per unit. Many of these homes are also good candidates for more comprehensive rehabilitation, however the ability of many low-income homeowners to repay are habilitation loan is minimal. This situation is true not only for rural homeowners, but also for owners of older homes in more urban areas. Rural Alaska Project Identification and Delivery System RAPIDS (RAPIDS) RAPIDS is... _ se A multi-agency effort to improve Rural Alaska Project effectiveness of Identification and infrastructure Delivery System investments in rural Alaska communities. Started in January 1993. Participants State: Coordinated by DCRA. Investing agencies include ADEC, DOT/PF, ADF&G, Commerce, Education, DNR, DMVA, DCRA, OMB, and AIDEA. Federal (or Federally Funded): Indian Health Service, Corps of Engineers, Housing and Urban Development (Indian Housing), and regional housing authorities. RAPIDS Approach * Increase local involvement in project planning and design. * — Support joint community and agency efforts to prepare a local development strategy to guide selection and design of projects. * — Build projects which can be maintained with the resources which State and local governments can realistically provide. * — Increase coordination among State, federal and other agencies to avoid funding and scheduling problems and incomplete efforts to address community needs. Contact: Ike Waits, Anchorage, 269-4500 = Rural Alaska Policy Review Rural Alaska Project Identification and Delivery System (RAPIDS) PROGRESS REPORT. In January, 1993, Commissioners on the Rural Development Subcabinet agreed to the goal of improving the success of State investments in rural community projects. The RAPIDS approach to achieving this goal includes: ° Improving coordination among State agencies and between State and federal agencies to eliminate duplication as well as gaps in project funding and timing; and ° Increasing involvement of local officials in the iden- tification of community needs and selection, design and con- struction of community facilities. During this year, the multi-agency RAPIDS Develop- ment Team focused on improving interagency coordination. We plan to tackle increasing local planning and involvement during the next year. Our progress and plans are presented in the attached RAPIDS Progress Report. Special thanks are due the Commissioners and agency directors whose staff formed the core RAPIDS Development Team. This team included representatives from the Depart- ments of Commerce and Economic Development, Education, Environmental Conservation and Transportation and Public Facilities, and from the Office of Management and Budget, Alaska Industrial Development Authority and former Alaska Energy Authority. When needed, other agencies responded to the Team's request for information or participation. Initial RAPIDS efforts have focused on pilot community projects to refine and demonstrate appli- cation of RAPIDS concepts. However, significant improvements in the success of investments in rural community facilities will be achieved only if the RAPIDS concepts become "the way we do business" rather than the way we approach investments in a few communities. The Departments of Environmental Conservation and Transportation and Public Facilities deserve recognition for their efforts to coordinate sanitation related improvements as a “way of doing business" and not just in the RAPIDS pilot communities. Our progress indicates we can make the changes necessary to improve the success of investments in Alaska's rural communities. Our challenge is to continue this effort. oO 48 5 pe RS Rural Alaska Policy Review ===, ——_—_—_—_————————————_——————— CRD Mission Statement “Working Together for Alaska Community and Rural Development” The principle mission of DCRA’s Division of Community and Rural Development (CRD) is to assure the highest quality provision of a diversity of human resource and economic development opportunities for Alaskans through an integrated and comprehensive delivery of programs that promote and result in self-reliant and healthy individuals and communities. PRIORITIZED CRD GOALS Goal 1. Be the conduit for the delivery and coordination of assets which promote economic and human resource development in Alaskan communities. Goal 2. Provide and coordinate support services for community self-sufficiency. Goal 3. Promote the creation of self-sustaining jobs for Alaskans. Goal 4. Provide and coordinate the resources and support for Alaska workforce development. Goal 5. Provide resources and support for rural entrepreneurship. Approved: I/RDIF ne ioeceset / Gy Ce per fess ; Grants LA SDA Assistance 49 — = —— —— === Rural Alaska Policy Review Some 75 representatives of state agencies, local school districts, the University of Alaska and private companies convened in Juneau on March 29-30,1993 to discuss how Alaska telecommunica- tions could serve Alaskans more efficiently and how services could be enhanced. The Statewide Telecommunications Forum, "Visions for Alaska's Future," was sponsored by the Governor's Telecommunications Information Council. The group discussed: ¢ The compelling need for improved coordination of government and private sector telecommunications; * Uses of new "compression" technology to build a coordinated and efficient telecommunications network for Alaska from what is now a group of separate and potentially duplicative services; and * Potential ways a coordinated telecommunications network could better serve Alaskans in such areas as education, economic development, public health, emergency services, radio and television at less cost than presently achievable. * The state should, as soon as possible, initiate a planning effort for development of a coordinated, statewide telecommunications network. * A statewide network should be operating within 3 years. "Equitable access" for all Alaskans must be a key concept in planning a statewide network. ¢ The proposal for building a coordinated network must be built on a solid base of information about what Alaskans want and how much it will cost. * Regional interests, such as those served by the Distance Delivery Consortium in Western Alaska, must be considered in developing a network. * Alaska's telecommunications history, experiences in other states and experiences in other countries, particularly Canada, must be reviewed. ¢A "flexible and dynamic" infrastructure is important for success of a new network. * The new network must be a "private/public" opera- tion that brings the strengths of both sectors to the partnership. ¢ The Telecommunications Information Council should pursue funding for development of a plan. ¢ Project staff should be hired to coordinate and develop the plan. * The state should pursue federal appropriations for planning and establishment of a new network. "VISIONS FOR ALASKA'S FUTURE" The Governor's Telecommunications Information Council ¢ The planning process should include: 1.) A comprehensive, functional inventory of tele- communications hardware in Alaska and how it is used to provide services by government agencies and the private sector. 2.) A comprehensive assessment of the needs and potential demand for telecommunications services in Alaska, including, but not limited to, the areas of distance delivery of education, public radio and television, public health, emer- gency services and public safety, the Alaska Court System, delivery of state government information, video-conferencing by the Alaska Legislature and state agencies, retail and manu- facturing businesses in all regions of the state and professional development organizations. 3.) An assessment of private sector telecommunica- tions services in Alaska, such as those provided by Alascom, GCI and other companies, and what will be available in the future. 4.) A review of coordinated telecommunications ef- forts in other states and Canada to review successes and failures and to avoid "reinventing the wheel ' in Alaska. 5.) A review of Alaska's telecommunications history, its successes and failures. 6.) Development of "interoperability standards" to ensure that existing and new telecommunications programs are capable of integration with a statewide network. 7.) A review of the potential impact of a statewide telecommunications network on the public switch network, such as local telephone companies and the rates they charge to local customers. 8.) Recommendations for administration, operation, and technical deployment of the network. The Governor's Telecommunications Information Council invited representatives of state agencies, school dis- tricts, the University of Alaska, private businesses and non- profit organizations to attend a conference in Juneau on March 29-30, 1993 that focused on the future of telecommunications in Alaska. The goal of the conference, "Visions of Alaska's Future," was to gather users and potential users of audio and _ 50 ‘ Rural Alaska Policy Review — = = — video telecommunications services in one place for discussions on how Alaska's technological infrastructure could be made more efficient and how it could be enhanced. Of particular interest was the potential for using new “compression technology" to build an integrated, statewide telecommunications network from what is now a group of separate and potentially duplicative services. The group dis- cussed how a coordinated network could better serve Alaskans in such areas as education, economic development, public health, emergency services and radio and television at less cost than is presently achievable. About 75 representatives of various state agencies and private businesses attended the conference and participated in both small-group and general discussions. The conference attendees met in small groups to help define the major state policy issues affecting such a network, the potential users and uses of a network and the technical issues that must be resolved in order for a statewide network to become reality. They met as a large group to discuss goals and recommendations for estab- lishment of a statewide network. The group reached a consensus on goals, core prin- ciples and recommendations to be forwarded to the Telecom- munications Information Council on establishment of a state- wide network. They are outlined in Ws report. Two nationally recognized experts in the field of telecommunications planning, Richard Hezel and Heather Hudson, addressed the conference and helped facilitate discus- sions. Hezel is publisher of Planningfor Educational Telecom- munications: A State by State Report, and president of Hezel Associates, specializing in telecommunications planning, me- dia evaluation and distance education policy. Hudson, co- author of Electronic Byways: State Policiesfor Rural Develop- ment through Telecommunications, is director of the Telecom- munications Management and Policy Program atthe University of San Francisco's McLaren School of Business. The conference attendees were given an assessment of audio and video telecommunications programs offered by state agencies and the University of Alaska. The assessment focused on the types of services, and the costs, offered by the state Department of Education, the University of Alaska, local school districts, Public Radio, Public Television and the Rural Alaska Television Network. The representatives who attended the Statewide Tele- communications Forum reached a consensus on goals and principles that should guide the Telecommunications Informa- tion Council and other policy makers in building an integrated, statewide telecommunications network. The goals and core principles were recommended by small groups that focused on state policy issues, users and potential users of the network and technical issues that need resolving in order to accomplish the task. Conference attendees meeting as a large group determined which goals and core principles represented a consensus of the entire group. Those consensus goals and core principles are the following: - ¢ The state should, as soon as possible, initiate a planning effort for development of a coordi- nated, statewide telecommunications network. It was generally accepted by the conference attendees that Alaska needs an integrated system that would use new technology to provide more efficient and enhanced services. New "compression technology" will, in the next few years, greatly enhance the amount of audio and video that can be transmitted on a single band-width. It will enable a statewide, integrated network to transmit tremendous amounts of informa- tion at areasonable cost. The state of Alaska, in partnership with private sector telecommunications service providers, must capi- talize on the flexibility and efficiency that the new technology will offer and begin planning an information "superhighway" that would incorporate current users and eliminate potential duplication of services. ¢ A statewide network should be operating within 3 years. Conference attendees agreed that creation of a state- wide network with the capacity for interactive, real-time com- munication of video, audio and data transmissions could and should be achieved within three years. New technology is expected to be available well before then. It is in the state's best interests to immediately begin building an efficient system that is capable of meeting the broad spectrum of needs. "Equitable access" for all Alaskans is key to the success of a statewide telecommunications network. The concept of "equitable access" was among the most often repeated phrases of the conference. All Alaskans - rural and urban, young and old, rich and poor - must have access to the potential services that a superhighway of information could offer. A thorough job of assessing demand and potential for the network will do much to keep the concept of equitable access at the forefront of the planning process. * The proposal for building a coordinated network must be built on a solid base of information about what Alaskans want and how much it will cost. The process must include an assessment of demand for uses of the system, a cost-benefit analysis on how a network can build efflciencies into government and private sector opera- tions, and policy analyses. Planning must determine how an efficient telecommunications system can improve Alaska's development, educational opportunities, health and safety, and access to news and information. 51 Rural Alaska Policy Review ¢ Regional interests, such as those served by the Distance Delivery Consortium in Western Alaska, must be considered in developing a network. The planning and design of a statewide network is an important function of state government. The importance of regional organizations and activity cannot be overlooked. Be- cause of the disparity of interests in the different corners of our state, it is recommended that regional organizations play a key role in assessment activities. ¢ Alaska's telecommunications history, experiences in other states and experiences in other countries, particularly Canada, must be reviewed. Alaska must not "reinvent the wheel" in its effort to improve its telecommunications system. A review of our state's successes and failures and an assessment of successes and failures in other locales will help provide a basis for sound decisions. ¢ A "flexible and dynamic" infrastructure is important for success of a new network. It is important that the new network be capable of servicing as many kinds of demands and programs as necessary. The infrastructure must therefore be flexible and built to incor- porate a wide diversity of potential services. Standards must be developed to ensure that the various programs and services are compatible. ¢ The new network must be a "private/public" operation that brings the strengths of both sectors to the partnership. Private telecommunications businesses must be con- sulted on the services they are capable of providing and how they could support and use a statewide network. The state should not build a system that duplicates what the private sector can provide. The state must also be mindful of how a statewide network could affect private utilities, such as local telephone companies, and the prices they charge their customers. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Doug Samimi Moore, Executive Director, Alaska Public Broadcasting Commission, DOA, P.O. Box 110223 M/S 0223, Juneau, AK, 99811 0223, Phone: 907 465 2846 Alaska Public Broadcasting Commission (APBC) DESCRIPTION: 9 members appointed by Governor: without re- gard to political affiliation, and with consideration to representation from such fields as higher education, elementary and secondary education, communica- tions, commercial broadcasting, public health, public works, labor, commerce, and the professions. FUNCTION: Encourages and supervises development of inte- grated state public broadcasting system; coordinates all public broadcasting stations; recommends grant funding. Annually updates long term plan for development of public broadcasting stations and systems to Governor and Legislature. Membership Roster BROADCASTING COMMISSION Member - Vacant Public/Restricted Patricia Branson - Public/Restricted P.O. Box 3888 Kodiak, AK 99615 Sharon Gaiptman - Public/Restricted P.O. Box 20385 Juneau, AK 99802 L. Alan LeMaster - Public/Restricted P.O. Box 222 Gakona, AK 99586 Lloyd V. Morris - Public/Restricted -- Chair P.O. Box 110541 Anchorage, AK 99511 Gary Oines - Public/Restricted 2414 HPR Sitka, AK 99835 B. G. Olson - Public/Restricted P.O. Box 80870 Fairbanks, AK 99708 Steven R. Strait - Public/Restricted 2500 Dou~las Drive Anchora~e, AK 99503 Hope Turpin - Public/Restricted 822 Overlook Place Anchorage, AK 99501 TRANSPORTATION An Executive Summary of the State Transportation Needs and Priorities Report is available from the department of Transportation and Public Facilities. The Report was not available in time for this publication DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898 Office of Strategic Management, Planning & Policy (907) 465-3906 52 RURAL ALASKA IN TRUCTURE _ SANITATION & SAFE WATER ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY LANDFILLS PART II Rural Alaska Policy Review Financial Assistance to Municipalities Financial assistance to municipalities includes State Revenue Sharing, Municipal Assistance, National Forest Receipts, and Shared Fisheries Business Tax Program. Financial Assistance to Municipalities State Revenue Sharing The State Revenue Sharing Program includes two components: * Municipal Tax Resource Equalization rewards municipalities for local fiscal effort. This account also provides for a minimum entitlement for municipalities of $25,000 with a geographic location adjustment. * State Aid for Miscellaneous Services provides money for public roads, ice roads, hospitals, health facilities, unincorporated communities and volunteer fire departments. Municipal Assistance The Municipal Assistance program replaced the Gross Business Receipts Program in 1979. An appropriation to this program, above the level necessary to fund the base amounts, is distributed on a per capita basis. Funds appropriated in excess of the base amounts are designed to provide property tax relief. National Forest Receipts The Department distributes National Forest Receipts under the authority of a 1908 federal law, 16 USC 500, and under AS 41.15.180. This is essentially a revenue sharing program, where 25% of the income earned from activities within the national forest is distributed to boroughs and cities within the national forest. Federal and state law requires that national forest income be expended only for the benefit of public schools and public roads. In FY94, the Department distributed over $1.8 million to nine boroughs, seventeen cities, four Regional Education Attendance Areas (REAA) and the Metlakatla reservation. Boroughs have been eligible to receive these funds since statehood. Cities, REAAs and Metlakatla became entitled as the result of HB 54, adopted during the 1991 legislative session. Shared Fisheries Business Tax Program This new program provides for an annual sharing of fish tax collected outside of municipal boundaries to municipalities that can demonstrate they suffered significant effects from fisheries business activities. The first distribution of funding occurred in FY94 and amounted to approximately $675,000. Contact: Bill Rolfzen or Peter Freer, Juneau, 465-4814 Department of Community & Regional Affairs Municipal and Regional Assistance Division 53 ; = Executive Summary The Federal Field Work Group has examined carefully the status of water and waste water facilities in rural Alaska, the programs currently in place to deliver such services to rural Alaskan villages, and the problems which are impeding the delivery of those services to all communities within a reasonable time frame. The Work Group has reached the following major conclusions: Serious sanitation problems exist in all areas of rural Alaska and these problems pose significant public health risks to rural Alaskan villagers, most of whom are Alaska Natives. These problems are not at present on a schedule to be solved in a time frame that is acceptable to the State, the Alaska Native Community, or the Work Group The Alaska Area Native Health Service (AANHS) and the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (Village Safe Water have very good programs in place which have provided sanitation services to approximately 50 percent of rural Alaska communities and have worked on these issues with most villages. Certain areas, however, have particularly serious problems due to geography, economics, and lack of strong community governing structures. In these communities current programs are not adequate to solve the problems, even over the long term and with increased funding for facility construction. In the communities with particular problems, delivery of acceptable systems is seriously impeded by the small community size and poor economic conditions. That is, economies of scale in sanitation facility construction cannot be realized and the communities are too cash short to bear the costs of the systems that they want. Existing programs need additional resources (staff and funding for planning design, and construction) in order to deliver improved sanitary facilities and services to "average" communities in a reasonable time frame, i.e. within the next ten years. Existing programs, even with additional resources, will not be able to address the need in villages with the greatest problems. New programs or changes to existing programs will be required in order to meet their needs. The problem of communities without governmental structures sufficiently well developed to plan, manage and \ 2000 | OS i RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW Q Ree : Rural Alaska Sanitation Initiative Federal Field Work Group support sanitation facilities will not be solved without the active involvement and participation of the Alaska Native Community including regional organizations, village populations, and village governmental structures. The other high priority problem that the Work Group identified is the fact that there are Federal and State funds available to support design and construction of facilities, but no (or virtually no) funds to support operation and maintenance (O&M). The lack of funding for O&M effectively precludes any solution in some rural Alaska villages because they are too small to take advantage of economies of scale in facility operations (i.e., have high O&M costs) and have very weak economies (i.e., can't afford to pay high fees for sanitation services). The Work Group has determined that the problems of Alaska rural sanitation cannot be solved in a reasonable time frame (i.e. within ten years) unless additional resources are applied to the problem. Further, the Work Group believes that the problems in certain areas and villages in Alaska cannot be solved in any time frame unless a funding mechanism for O&M is developed and the problem of village capability is addressed effectively. The report of the Work Group provides additional detail defining these issues and problems and specific recom- mendations to begin to resolve them. These cover not only O&M and village capability but a range of related issues including cooperation between Federal and State agencies and the Alaska Native Community, rural utility roads, housing, and others. 54 Rural Alaska Policy Review The Work Group regards these recommen- dations as advisory to Agency Headquarters staff and to Congress. We look forward to working with all those parties and with the Alaska Native Community to take the steps necessary to build our recommendations into an improved and strength- ened system for the delivery of water and waste water facilities to the thousands of rural Alaskans whose need for these services is urgent. Alaska Rural Sanitation Strategy Seven underlying principals of the Alaska Rural Sanitation Strategy. 1. There are no quick fix solutions. This is a 10- 20 year strategy. 2. A coordinated, comprehensive, multi-disci- plinary approach is essential. 3. Technology and capital funding alone will not address the problem. Competent operators, ad- equate user fees, environmental health education and the support of a well managed community govern- ment are equally vital. 4. Facilities must meet the unique demographic, economic, and climatic conditions of each village. Alternatives to complex and expensive piped sys- tems will be necessary in many areas. 5: Addressing the sanitation problems in rural Alaska will require a joint federal, State, and local partnership with an increased commitment by all involved. 6. A single influx of a large sum of federal or State capital funding could be counter productive. Increased funding levels are needed but should be made at a reasonable rates and only to communities that will be able to manage completed facilities. 7. Community planning, operator and utility management training and assistance must keep pace with capital expenditures. Alaska Sanitation Task Force Forty-five individuals with expertise in a variety of disciplines participated in the Alaska Sanitation Task Force. . Direct Grants * Operator Training * Corporations ¢ Education Their goal: Develop a strategy for improving sanitation conditions in rural Alaska. Due to the complexity and number of issues related to rural sanitation needs, twelve working groups were formed. Each was assigned specific issues to review and analyze. They were responsible for developing Alaska's Rural Sanitation Strategy. The Task Force consisted of the following working groups: . Financing . Research & Development - Housing . Subsidies ¢ Enforcement - Joint Utilities * Utility Management . Utility Roads Task Force membership included representatives from: Alaska Energy Authority . Alaska Housing Authority . Alaska Housing & Finance Corporation Alaska Native Health Board ¢ Alaska Village Council Presidents ¢ Bureau of Indian Affairs * Dept. of Administration . Dept. of Commerce & Economic Dev. ¢ Dept. of Community & Regional Affairs + Dept. of Defense * Dept. of Education ¢ Dept. of Environmental Conservation . Dept. of Transportation & Public Facilities . North & Northwest Arctic Mayors Conference. ¢ Housing & Urban Development . Health & Human Services . Kuskokwim Corporation ¢ Alaska State Legislature * Lower Kuskokwim School District . NANA Corporation * Office of Management & Budget . Public Health Service * Small Business Development Center . Tanana Chiefs Conference * University of Alaska . Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation ¢ Environmental Protection Agency 55 Rural Alaska Policy Review The Rural Sanitation Strategy was developed by the Task Force over a six-month period. It has been reviewed and endorsed by the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Alaska Municipal League, the Rural Community Action Program, and the Governor's Rural Development Subcabinet. (State of) Alaska Sanitation Task Force The Alaska Sanitation Task Force developed over 60 recommendations for improving rural sanitation conditions and detailed over 100 specific steps necessary to implement the sanitation strategy. The following are examples of major Task Force recommendations: ¢ Promote increased federal participation and increased coordination and cooperation between federal and State agencies in addressing rural sanitation problems. ¢ Expand the Remote Maintenance Worker and Rural Utility Business Advisor programs to provide coverage throughout village Alaska. *Construct boardwalks or gravel roads in communities where water and sewer haul systems are the most practical and feasible alternative. ¢ Develop and institute an environmental health education program for rural schools and communities. ¢ Increase operator training efforts. ¢ Ensure water delivery and storage are provided for each home. * Provide village residents with practical methods for removing sewage wastes from their homes. ¢ Research and develop new water and sewer technologies which are adaptable to the unique climatic, demographic, and economic conditions in rural Alaska. ¢ Require minimum design standards for homes constructed in rural villages. ¢ Break the cycle of unpredictable State and federal funding - stabilize sanitation funding at increased levels. ALASKA STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL PARTICIPATING PARTNERSHIP AGENCIES FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS / AGENCIES U.S. Forest Service Administration for Native Americans Bureau of Indian Affairs Economic Development Administration Farmers Home Adrninistration Small Business Administration USDA- Soil Conservation Service Department of Transportation Department of Energy Rural Electrification Administration Department of Justice Housing and Urban Development Bureau of Land Management Department of Health & Human Services-Public Health Service Corps of Engineering Department of Education Environment Protection Agency Department of Labor Rural Development Administration National Park Service USS. Fish & Wildlife Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service Corporation for National & Community Service STATE DEPARTMENTS / AGENCIES Administration Commerce & Economic Development Community & Regional Affairs Corrections Education Environmental Conservation Fish and Game Health & Social Services Labor Public Safety Military & Veterans Affairs Natural Resources Revenue Transportation & Public Affairs 56 Rural Alaska Policy Review D.C. MEETING ON RURAL ALASKA SANITATION *Excerpts from presentations made at the: . The document which you have in front of you builds upon the work of the Alaska Sanitation Task Force. It outlines steps which federal agencies can take-to assist the State in tackling the critical sanitation problems in rural Alaska villages. ° You will note throughout this report listings of recent accomplishments by several federal agencies. The efforts of these agencies are indeed impressive and are a positive first step. ° But much remains to be done. As pointed out by the Alaska Sanitation Task Force,-there are no quick fix solutions. What is needed is an on- going, long-term partner-ship between the State, federal agencies and Alaska Native villages. - It is my hope that today's meeting will solidify the federal government's commitment to this partnership. ° Since the focus of the Field Workgroup Report is on the role of federal agencies in providing improved sanitation in rural Alaska. progress by the State of Alaska in this endeavor is not included. ° It is important that this group understand the State's resolve to improve these conditions. We are not asking the federal government to take on this responsibility alone. I believe a short recap of the State's recent accomplishments will demonstrate our commitment to address this critical and long-stand- ing problem. At the Governor's request, the Alaska Sanitation Task Force was formed in January of 1992. Forty-five individuals representing 22 federal, State, and Native organizations participated in the Task Force. Over a six month period. they reviewed the many complex issues related to village water and sewer problems and developed a compre- hensive strategy for tackling these problems. The task force's report was widely distri- buted for input. The Alaska Federation of Natives. the Alaska Municipal League,: and the Rural Community Action Program passed resolutions supporting the task force's, findings. A Status Report Capital funding through the Alaska Village Safe Water (VSW) program has averaged over $25 million the last three years. The State funds nine Remote Maintenance Workers (RMWs) who presently serve 126 villages. RMWs provide maintenance assistance and hands-on training to village operators and safeguard the State and . federal governments’ investment in rural sanitation facilities. Two Rural Utility Business Advisor positions were established this year to provide hands-on assistance and one- on-one training for rural clerks and administrators in basic utility management such as bookkeeping, collection of user fees, establishing user fee ordinances, rate structures, budgeting, etc.. This new program was developed at the recommendation of the Alaska Sanitation Task Force. The number of regionalized classroom training opportunities in rural hub communities in sanitation utility management and operation increased. An Operator Training Coalition was formed this year to coordinate training efforts with the Public Health Service, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Department of Environmental Conservation, Regional Health organizations, and private trainers. A demonstration project to determine the feasibility of State/local O&M incentive-cost sharing is underway in the Northwest Arctic. Through this project, the State matches community contributions to sanitation utility operation costs on a dollar for dollar basis. Funds are awarded under the condition that certain performance standards are met such as employing trained operators, passing user fee ordinances, collecting user fees, adequately accounting for system revenues and expenditures, and budgeting for future operation and maintenance costs. Funding through this years capital budget will be needed to complete this demonstration project. 57 nn Sn Rural Alaska Policy Review In an effort to coordinate activities, stretch funding, and avoid duplication of effort, the State promoted a unifica- tion of priority systems. For- the first time ever, PHS. RDA, DOTPF, and the EPA have agreed to coordinate their priority systems with DEC's Village Safe Water program. The Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs developed and implemented the Rural Alaska Project Identification and Development System (RAPIDS) to identify and plan projects with villages. The[Alaska State] Rural Development Council and DCRA are currently working to develop capital project priorities and schedules in seven villages. $3.2 million in ISTEA funding has been earmarked by the DOTPF for utility roads in rural AK. Four of these projects are currently under construction. DEC and the University of Alaska sponsored two rural Alaska sanitation Technology seminars in Anchorage. The seminar was an important forum for the exchange of research and development information relating ~o alternative rural sanitation technology. Through the work of the Governor, the Sanitation Task Force and DEC, Senator Stevens recently secured a $15 million appropriation through the Farmer's Home Admin- istration specifically for rural Alaska water and sewer projects. The allocation must and will be matched on a dollar for dollar basis with State funding. Projects funded with this appropriation will be managed by the State's VSW program. In addition to the VSW capital budget, the State operating budget for the Village Safe Water program and Operations Assistance averaged $2.9 million over the last two years. A total of $3.358.800 is included for these activities in the Governor's Operating budget for the upcoming year. This funding is used for planning, design, and management/administration of village water and sewerage projects as well as operator training and technical assistance. These figures only reflect positions which work exclusively on rural village sanitation conditions. If the cost of positions which work indirectly - or only periodically on this issue such as DCRA local government specialists and the Municipal and Regional Assistance program, these figures would be substantially higher. ° This level of commitment to improving the water and sewerage conditions in rural Alaska is unprecedented. This is reflected not only in the State's budget over the last three years, but also in a recognition of the complexity of this important issue and a willingness to dedicate time. energy, and resources toward developing and implementing a comprehensive approach to addressing it. ° Capital dollars and physical projects are not the sole cure to rural sanitation problems. Rather, adequate training, enhanced village capability, operation and maintenance assistance, and support from a strong local government are just as vital. Among the more important issues which I hope we will discuss today are: ° Operation and Maintenance- Assistance both indirect and direct) * Training for village operators, managers, and clerks - An incentive program for village personnel respon sible for the management and operation of sanitation facilities. * Technical & financial administration assistance (RMWs & RUBAs) - Direct subsidies ° Regulatory issues and problems = BLM and Native Allotments = Surface Water Treatment Rule = Development of General Permits . Housing and utility roads : Increased funding through Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act Re-authorizations ‘ Waste water Indian Set-Aside increased from .5 to 1.5% . Establishment of a Drinking Water Indian Set-Aside program * Portion of each Set-Aside allocated to Alaska = Flexibility to use a % of each Set-Aside for management and training ° The role various federal agencies such as RDA, EPA, HUD, BIA, PHS, and BLM will play in the sanitation plan It is the hope of the Rural Sanitation Workgroup that the communities, State and each of the federal agencies work together as long- term partners to address each of these important components of the rural Alaska sanitation strategy. Pos Rural Alaska Policy Review Commitment to Alaskans Solving Today's Sanitation Problems While Planning for the 21st Century Prepared by The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation John Sandor, Commissioner Walter J. Hickel, Governor Introduction "A Commitment to Alaskans" is a working document meant to lay the foundation for a more refined plan in the future. As such, the Department would like to solicit public and agency input regarding information contained in this draft as well as any additional information or ideas which could of assistance in this planning effort. Additionally, an Interagency Task Force is being formed to act as a catalyst for advancing and refining the goals, strategies and objectives outlined on the following pages. If you are interested in participating in one of the Task Force's working groups, please let us know. Please address all comments/ideas to: John Sandor, Commissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: 465-5050 FAX:465-5070 As Alaska looks to the future and a growing population, it is essential that we strive to provide sanitation services which protect the public health of our residents and provide a foundation for economic development opportunities. It is the goal of this Administration that no Alaskan be deprived of the quality of life afforded by the provision of water, sewerage, and solid waste services. OVERVIEW Without adequate water, sewerage, and solid waste facilities, the vitality of Alaska's communities is hampered, public health threatened, and opportunities for economic development severely restricted. As the State looks towards the twenty-first century, it is critical that we commit to an efficient, well planned approach to providing these public services to all Alaska. This document offers a strategy for formulating a systematic approach to addressing the water, sewerage, and solid waste needs of Alaska's communities. It presents recommendations for maximizing the efficiency of current sanitation systems and optimizing future capital project investments. As a long-term management proposal, goals are outlined and action strategies presented for review. This is a working policy document meant to lay the foundation for a more refined implementation plan. A BLUE PRINT FOR SOLVING ALASKA'S SANITATION NEEDS 59 Rural Alaska Policy Review FUNDAMENTAL GOAL: It is the goal of this administration that no Alaskan be deprived of the quality of life afforded by the provision of adequate water, sewerage, and solid waste services. STRATEGY: To achieve this goal, a five point manage- ment strategy is recommended. * Develop a Comprehensive Interagency Approach to Problem Solving. * Adhere to a Stable Six Year Funding Commitment. * Six Year Capitalization of the Alaska Clean Water Fund. ¢ Promote a Solid State/Federal Community Partnership. ¢ Enhance the State's "Insurance Policy" Programs (Training & Technical Assistance). TIME FRAME: If the recommendations outlined in this plan are effectively implemented, water, sewerage, and solid waste services will be provided in every Alaskan community by the year 2010. Intermediate steps may be required to achieve the final level of service. Due to the distinct demographic and economic conditions as well as the diverse sanitation needs of Alaska's urban and rural communities, two separate plans for implementing the State's overall sanitation management strategy are required. The first plan, outlined on pages ** through **, is a strategy for addressing the sanitation needs of the State's urban communities. The second plan, which begins on page **> presents recommendations for solving the water, sewerage, and solid waste problems in rural areas. These plans are intended to stand alone and may, therefore, contain some redundancy. Under each plan, management goals are presented followed by action strategies for goal advancement. GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR SOLVING THE SANITATION NEEDS OF RURAL ALASKA Providing Adequate Sanitation Services is Crucial to the Vitality, Public Health, and Economic Growth of Rural Alaska. As Alaska looks to the future and a growing popula- tion, it is essential that we strive to provide services which protect the public health of our rural residents and lay a foundation for economic development opportunities. Adequate water, sewerage, and solid waste services are cornerstones to realizing these goals. As the twenty-first century nears, citizens in over half of the State's rural communities do not have piped water or flush toilets. Over ninety percent of the sewerage facilities in rural Alaska have been assessed by the federal government as inad- equate. State and federal agencies have estimated the costs of providing acceptable sanitation facilities in every rural commu- nity to be $1.2 to $1.3 billion. These are startling statistics and they highlight the magnitude of the problem. PUBLIC HEALTH Without adequate water and sewerage facilities, per- sonal hygiene is difficult, if not impossible. The lack of facili- ties to properly dispose of human waste, combined with insuf- ficient quantities of safe water often result in threats to public health. Village residents experience a number of waterborne and communicable diseases which could be avoided if means to support improved personal hygiene and safe drinking water were available. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The provision of acceptable sanitation services is often a prerequisite to economic development and growth. However, many villages lack these basic facilities. Numerous rural communities, for example, are unable to attract the sea- food processing industry because their water and sewerage facilities do not meet standards required to support the industry. 60 Rural Alaska Policy Review Likewise, the full potential of the tourism business may not be DEVELOPMENT realized in rural Alaska since even the most seasoned traveler would prefer to visit an area where safe drinking water and flush toilets are available and refuse is consolidated out of sight. Another example of an economic development opportunity which demands sanita- tion infrastructure is port development. To attract shoreline businesses, not only do our ports and harbors need adequate docks and breakwaters, but adequate water and sewer are also critical. Under MARPOL, coastal communities must also provide solid waste facilities in order to engage in marine commerce, yet adequate facilities are not available in many of our more promising rural ports. QUALITY OF LIFE One of the indicators often used to measure the quality of life in a community is the public service infrastruc- ture provided to residents. Carrying a sloshing bucket of human waste to pitch in a pond or hauling water from a watering point would not be acceptable to the vast majority of Americans, yet many rural Alaskans contend with these hardships daily. Providing water, sewerage, and solid waste services to every community by the year 2010 will allow all Alaskans to experience the quality of life taken for granted throughout the rest of the nation and much of the world. CURRENT SANITATION CONDITIONS Considerable progress has been made in constructing water, sewerage, and solid waste systems in rural areas, however, much remains to be done. Currently, approxi- mately 40 percent of the State's rural communities provide piped water to residents’ homes and only 37 percent have flush toilets. WASTE WATER Sewage disposal methods in 63 percent of the State's villages are substandard to flushing toilets. Fourteen percent of the State's rural communities operate a sewage haul system. This basic collection/disposal service consists of residents hand hauling filled honey buckets to mobile dumpsters located throughout the community. The dumpsters are then hitched to a vehicle and hauled to a lagoon or pond for disposal. Forty-nine percent of Alaska's villages have service levels which are frequently compared to those in third world nations. These methods consist of pit privies and individual honey bucket haul. With the individual honey bucket haul method, a bucket serves as a toilet. Plastic garbage bags are used as a liner for the bucket. As the bucket fills, residents lift the plastic bag and its contents out of the bucket and hand carry the bag to a bunker, lagoon, tundra pond, landfill or, too frequently, undesignated dumping are as located within the residential area. WATER Water systems in rural Alaska vary greatly in complexity and service level. Approximately 40 percent of Alaska's villages provide residents with piped water, 30 percent own and operate a community washeteria; and 20 percent operate year round watering points which may vary from several spigots located throughout the village to a single building from which potable water is dispensed and hand carried by residents to their homes. In the remaining 10 percent, a community water system is not in place and water is collected individually by residents either from individual wells (7%) or from ice, streams, creeks, or by rain catch- ment (3%). A CALL TO ACTION. After twenty years of trying to address the sanitation needs of rural Alaska, it is clear there are no quick fix solutions. The problem is multifaceted. First, our current selection process for determining which projects will receive grant assistance is short-sighted. Too often the State's annual sanitation funding plan is thrown together during the closing days of the legislative session based upon political criteria rather than need. A long term, stable funding approach has not been available. Second, it has become clear that technology alone will not address the water, sewerage, and solid waste needs in rural Alaska. Competent operators, adequate user fees, proper accounting, and the support of a well managed community government are equally vital components to solving sanitation problems. Third, demographic, economic, and climatic conditions make sanitation system construction and opera- tion in rural Alaska among the most expensive and techni- cally challenging in the world. Yet little research has been conducted to develop alternatives to expensive and complex piped systems capable of providing an equal level of service. Finally, a long term strategic approach to solving rural sanitation needs has never been formulated. Rather, planning has been limited to a one year period and has been based solely upon the outcome of the State capital budget process. This process has proven ineffective. 61 Rural Alaska Policy Review As the first step toward addressing these and other related issues and instituting a more unified approach to solving the sanitation problems of rural Alaska, the Depart- ment recommends the formation of an Interagency Task Force. This group would act as the catalyst for advancing and refining the goals, strategies and objectives outlined on the following pages. STATE BUDGET PLAN As a vital step toward meeting the administration's ultimate goal of providing piped water and flush toilets in every Alaskan community, the Department proposes a preliminary six year capital budget plan. Provide washeterias and sewage haul systems in 48 of the State's 48 villages which now have Level I Drinking Water Systems (watering points or individual haul from non-treated sources). Estimated Cost: $72 million Required capital funding per year (for 6 years): $12 million Improve solid waste systems in 36 of the State's 210 villages to meet required EPA solid waste standards. Estimated Cost: $18 million Required capital funding per year (for 6 years): $ 3 million Upgrade piped systems in 12 of the State's 210 villages to comply with the new federal Surface Water Treatment Rule and effluent standards. Estimated Cost: $42 million Required capital funding per year (for 6 years): $ 7 million TOTAL COST PER YEAR (for 6 years): $22 million This preliminary six year budget plan will be further refined based upon the recommendations of the Interagency Task force, the availability of federal funding, and the success of innovative technologies as an alternative to conventional piped systems. Implementing this budget plan will require a change to the State's current criteria system for prioritizing projects as well as a commitment by the State legislature to allocate capital funds in accordance with the plan. Further, a decision to provide water and waste water services to all rural residents will require that the issue of State subsidies be addressed. GOAL: The following goals have been identified as cornerstones to addressing the sanitation problems of rural Alaska: Provide adequate water, sewerage, and solid waste services in every Alaskan community. Improve public health and quality of life. Optimize State and federal funding. Provide infrastructure vital to economic develop- ment. Increase facility operation, maintenance, and management capabilities. The Department recommends the following six Action Strategies as solid practical steps toward achieving these goals: Form an interagency Task Force. Commit to a State/Federal/Community Partnership. Stabilize funding for rural sanitation projects. Assist communities increase operation and maintenance capabilities. Investigate and promote new technology. Develop a systematic approach to addressing needs. As the first step toward addressing these and other related issues and instituting a more unified approach to solving the sanitation problems of rural Alaska, the Department recommends the formation of an Interagency Task Force. This group would act as the catalyst for advancing and refining the goals, strategies, and objectives outlined throughout this plan. During the first year of the proposed plan, the recommendations of the Interagency Task Force will be developed. These recommendations will be integrated into the State's implementation strategy during the balance of the planning period. 62 RURAL ALASKA EDUCATION & VOCATION ALASKA 2000 EDUCATION Wiles. ge) Aircrsnion CATIONAL PART III Rural Alaska Policy Review —_ — ALASKA JOB TRAINING State of Alaska Dept of Community & Regional Affairs Job Training Partnership Office Anthony Nakazawa, Director 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage,Alaska 99501-2341 (907) 269-4651 TTY/TDD (Relay) (800) 770-8973 Anchorage/Mat-Su Borough Consortium Service Delivery Area LynnTaylor, Director Municipality of Anchorage Career Development & Training P.O. Box 196650 (825 L Street) Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 (907) 343-6560 TTY/TDD (907) 343-4749 Human Resource Company 1075 Check Street, #105 Wasilla, Alaska 99645 (907) 373-5872 TTY/TDD (Relay) (800) 770-8973 Fairbanks JTPA David Dear., Executive Director Fairbanks Private Industry Council 500 First Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 (907) 456-5189 TTY/TDD (Relay) (800) 770-8973 Alaska Statewide Service Delivery Area State of Alaska Department of Community & Regional Affairs Community and Rural Development Division Mark Mickelson, Program Coordinator (907) 46S-4891 TTY/TDD (Relay) (800) 770-8973 Region I 150 Third Street Juneau, Alaska 99801-1291 (907) 465-5548 TTY/TDD (Relay) (800) 770-8973 Region IV B & C Complex. Room 210 P.O. Box 348 Bethel, Alaska 99559 (907) 543-2875 TTY/TDD (Relay) (800) 770-8973 Region II 209 Forty Mile Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-3110 (907) 456-1505 TTY/TDD (Relay) (800) 770-8973 Region III Old Federal Building, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 41 Nome, Alaska 99762 (907) 443-2274 TTY/TDD (Relay) (800) 770-8973 Region V 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2341 (907) 269-4592 TTY/TDD (Relay) (800) 770-8973 Job Training Partnership Act JTPA Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs are designed to help economically eligible and long-term unemployed people to receive training and secure good jobs. Programs are carried out under the guidance of Private Industry Councils made up of business and community leaders from throughout the state. A variety of training activities and services is offered, including classroom training and on-the- job training. "A Partnership Putting Alaskans to Work" in cooperation with the Department of Community and Regional Affairs 63 = 7 Published by the Alaska Department of Education 801 W. Tenth Street Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1894 For more information call 465-2821. * MOVING AHEAD The Alaska 2000 Education Initiative (AK2K), an ambitious program to restructure schools for the benefit of young Alaskans, is moving forward on several fronts. Alaskans are working to develop implemen- tation strategies for 38 recommendations that emerged from the AK2K citizen committees. The State Board of Education and the Department of Education have already implemented several of the recommendations. Four AK2K bills went before the 1993 state legislature for consideration. Two passed with amendments; two will be taken up again in January, 1994, This report to Alaskans on AK2K is dedicated to the hundreds of citizens, professional educators and lay people alike, who participated in the committee meetings and public hearings that molded this bold initiative. * WHAT IS ALASKA 2000? Alaska 2000, AK2K for short, is a plan of action to restructure our public education system. It is not a philosophy, a political platform or another study. AK2K seeks to marshal the support of the public to make our schools everything they should be the best in the world. ¢ WHY AK2K? The world is undergoing profound techno- logical change unparalleled since the onset of the industrial revolution. Our country’s future depends on our ability to compete in a world of high technol- ogy—in communications, computers, bio-technol- ogy, and similar areas. Our present education system served well during the industrial age. It produced the managers e ALASKA 2000 A STATUS REPORT and workers who carried the United States to unrivaled productive capacity. It provided individu- als with skills needed for gainful employment in the industrial workplace. But industrial jobs are shrinking as the technological revolution unfolds. THE TEN AK2K COMMITTEES * Choice & Incentives +» Early Childhood * Facilities + Finance + Laws & Regulations + Quality of Workforce ¢ Shared Decisions / Self-Renewal + Student Outcomes & Assessment ¢ System Accountability » Technology The technological revolution requires new skills and a new kind of education for a new kind of workplace. Today’s graduates can no longer look forward to one career in a job that stays essentially the same. They may have three or four different careers in their lifetime, each requiring retraining as the rapid pace of innovation proceeds. This is true not only for the college-bound, but also for those who enter the job market immediately after high school. All students need to attain high skill levels and a positive attitude toward life-long learning. The changing world created a crisis in education. Other countries have already responded to this crisis and are outpacing students from the United States— including Alaska—in science and math achievement. We face a crisis not only for our nation and our state, but for our students, the ones who need to be prepared to assume jobs and take leadership positions in the new technological workplace. AK2K is Alaska’s first step at the state level toward meeting the challenges of the 21st Century. Rural Alaska Policy Review ¢e HISTORY AK2K AK2Kwas conceived in June of 1991 when Governor Walter J. Hickel told his newly appointed education commissioner, Jerry Covey, to develop a plan to improve Alaska’s schools. Gov. Hickel had heard many citizens demand change in the educational system during his gubernatorial campaign. Covey’s approach, AK2K, was endorsed by the StateBoard of Education. The Board appointed a committee of 21 prominent Alaskans to identify the important issues ineducation today. Later ten committees, comprising more than 100 other Alaskans, worked on action plans and recommendations to resolve these issues. Their recom- mendations are the heart of AK2K. The AK2K committees presented nearly 100 recommendations to the State Board of Education. The Board sifted through these and advanced those that would have the greatest and best effect on our schools and our young people. Following regional meetings, teleconferences, newspaper and radio advertising and the statewide Education Summit from August through October, 1992, the State Board of Education conferred with Gov. Hickel and began a campaign to implement 38 recommendations. The campaign is proceeding simultaneously on four fronts: the Legislature, the State Board of Education, the Department of Education, and various ad hoc committees appointed to develop more detailed proposals for implementation. * COMMITTEES The work being done in these committees is at the very center of the AK2K process. Committees are meeting to develop world-class student performance standards in English, mathematics, and science by this fall. Later, other committees will recommend standards in seven additional subject areas and devise measures for student performance relative to the standards. The Department, in conjunction with a consulting firm, will convene a group of citizens to make recommenda- tions concerning expanded educational opportunities for students at small rural high schools. Another committee will craft a technical preparation initiative for students not bound for college, and another will address early childhood education. Committees are now, or soon will be, working on implementation strategies for 13 other AK2K recommenda- tions. e LEGISLATION In January, the Governor introduced four bills to implement many of the Alaska 2000 recommendations: 1. School Facilities Funding Reform. This aims to create a new method of funding school construction that requires a local match based on ability to pay. The bill also creates a separate grant program to fund major school maintenance. 2. School Facilities Appropriation. This is the vehicle to fund a backlog of school construction projects on the Department of Education’s list of statewide projects. 3. School Finance Reform. Among other things, this bill will create the Alaska School Price Index, which is designed to distribute education resources more equitably among Alaska’s school districts. 4. Educational Reform. This bill addresses five areas of school reform: * creating a research and development mechanism for schools to develop creative new programs * mandating advisory school boards in city and borough school districts * beginning a pilot project for charter schools * tenure reform * lengthening the school year from 180 to 200 days by the year 2000. The first two measures passed the legislature with modifications. They will reform the state’s financing of school construction and fund a backlog of $425 million in school construction projects statewide. The legislature also provided $520,000 for research and development projects for school districts through the Fund for the Improvement of School Performance. The legislature will address the remaining AK2K legislative package in January, 1994. ¢ REGULATION The State Board of Education has also been moving forward with regulations to implement some AK2K recommendations. The Board has adopted a regulation that establishes statewide "Goals for Education.” The goals envision a school system that graduates world-class students who have demonstrated communication skills, logical thinking, creativity, vocational and technical skills, citizenship, health and fitness, and responsibility. The proposal echoes the AK2K recommendation defining a public education as 65 Rural Alaska Policy Review including a working knowledge of English, math, science, geography, history, skills for a healthy life, government, fine arts, technology, and world languages. The goals also envision a system of education that will empower the public to participate in local educational planning. The Board adopted another AK2K proposal that defines a process for school districts to obtain waivers from regulations in order to experiment with innovative programs aimed at improving student achievement. ¢ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION The Alaska Department of Education has addressed several AK2K recommendations through changes in administrative procedures. By working with the Department of Law, the Department of Education quickly effected one AK2K recommendation: to speed up the filing of regulations that have been adopted by the State Board of Education. By improving communications between the Education Commissioner’s Office, its attorneys, and the Department of Law regulations attorneys, filing new regulations is faster and more efficient. It is now less likely that regulations will languish at any of these three points during the regulatory process. The time for public participation remains unchanged. The Department is developing a three-year plan for reviewing all state regulations, as recommended by the AK2K committees and directed by the State Board. The State Board and Department will continue to work for implementation of the remaining AK2K recommendations. Some recommendations will require changes in regulations or additional legislative action. ¢ TOWARD THE FUTURE What a year ago was only a vision of a better school system is now becoming areality. Thanks to Alaskan educators and Alaskans from all backgrounds, the prospect for world- class schools and world-class graduates is within reach. The labor to reach the goals of AK2K is not over, and all of us must keep watch that the promise of AK2K is fulfilled. We have a very good start. If we continue to build on that start, we will succeed. ¢e ALASKA 2000 OBJECTIVES ¢ SETTING OUR SIGHTS ° State Goals. Adopt the following vision for an Alaska public education: Alaskans envision a public school system controlled by the public that will graduate world class students who will communicate effectively, think logically and critically, discover and nurture their own creative talents, possess essential vocational and techno- logical skills, be responsible citizens, be committed to their own health and fitness, and accept personal responsibility for sustaining themselves economically. * EMPOWERING PARENTS e Charter Schools. Implement a three-year pilot program authorizing charter schools. (Charter schools operate under a contract between teachers, parents and local school boards to expand educational choice. An appeal procedure would be built into the program.) * School Choice. Make existing public school choice programs available to all Alaska students by encouraging student transfers between school districts, boarding home arrangements, and a choice of correspon- dence schools. * Choice of Postsecondary Courses. Enable high school students to attend appropriate postsecondary classes as part of their high school program. « Advisory Boards. Establish advisory boards or committees for each school in Alaska. ¢ Encouraging Parental Responsibility. Conduct a public information campaign reminding parents of their responsibility for their children’s welfare. * IMPROVING STUDENT PERFORMANCE ° Performance Standards. Develop high perfor- mance standards for students and assessment methods in the following ten subject areas: English, math, science, geography, history, skills for a healthy life, government and citizenship, fine arts, technological competence, and world languages. * Student Testing. Measure student achievement of academic standards at three benchmark levels: ages 810; ages 12-14; and ages 16-18. Measures will be tied to standards. * Certificates of Mastery. Issue state “Certificates of Mastery” to students who reach the standards of the third benchmark. ¢ Increased Student Contact Time. Require a minimum of 180 days of student contact annually exclusive of staff inservice days and approved school closures. Increase student contact days to 200 by the year 2000. e Thirteen-Year Funding. Fund students for 13 years of education through the age of 19, including tuition reimbursement for college credits. ¢ Early Childhood Education. In recognition that improved academic achievement for all students lies in strong early childhood education and strong parental support, the State Board will encourage all communities in Alaska, in concert with their schools, to form broadbased coalitions to develop a plan to assure that children enter school ready to learn, and to structure primary school programs so that children receive a solid base upon which to build success in school and in later life. 66 Rural Alaska Policy Review * KEEPING KIDS IN SCHOOL ¢ School Conservation Corps. Create a School Conservation Corps, combining public service work with school work. ¢ Vocational Programs. Encourage school districts to establish business-supported vocational programs that will prepare students to successfully enter the workforce or attend a postsecondary school. * Rural School Options. Assess the need and feasibility for building additional residential high schools and adding dormitories at existing high schools. * REMOVING BARRIERS TO INNOVATION AND EXCELLENCE ¢ Reporting Student Contact Time. Allow school districts to report student contact time in hours instead of days. * Regulation Review. Review Alaska education regulations every three years. ° Waivers from Regulations. Establish waivers for state education regulations so that school districts can use innovative approaches to improve student achievement. ¢ Swift Filing of Regulations. Establish shorter timelines for regulation approval following the public comment period. Leave time for thorough public review. ¢ RAISING STANDARDS FOR EDUCATORS ¢ Educator Training Standards. Adopt state standards for educator training institutions requiring: (1) earlier and more responsible field experience for prospective educators; (2) education skill tests for applicants before admission to teacher or administrator programs. ¢ Additional Certification Requirements. Add the following state certification requirements for new educators: (1 ) a satisfactory score on an educator assessment test (for example, the National Teacher Exam), and (2) one year of satisfactory teaching experience or one year of successful internship under a master teacher prior to receiving a Type A certificate. * Knowledge of Technology. Require competency in educational technology for initial teacher certification and certification renewal. ° Technology Training. Provide statewide training and support in educational technology for teachers. ° Master Teachers. Establish a master teacher certificate endorsement. * IMPROVING INSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATION Staff Evaluation. Revise certificated staff evalua- tion process to include parent and student comments, training for evaluators, and an independent audit of the evaluation process every three years. ° Educator Tenure. Amend the Alaska educator tenure law as follows: (1) application for tenure may be made after two years of service in a school district under a regular teaching certificate; (2) evaluations and recommendations must be presented with application; (3) local tenure review board must approve the application, subject to final approval by the local school board; (4) unsuccessful applicants may reapply annually. ¢ Research and Development. Provide funding to support research and development including grants for effective student incentive programs. * Telecommunications Network. Combine existing networks to create a statewide educational telecommunic- ations network, accessible to all schools, that will support audio, video, and data. ¢ Telecommunications Reporting System. Implement a statewide administrative telecommunications reporting system. e MAKING DOLLARS COUNT ° Sharing Costs. Each school district should pay a portion of the cost of education. * School Price Index. Develop an Alaska school price index to provide funding equity to the diverse geographical regions of the state. * Financial Standards. Adopt state standards for financial reporting by school districts. * KEEPING SCHOOLS SAFE AND MODERN * Capital Funding Priorities. Fund the following priorities on the state’s school construction list: Priority 1 (Health/Life/Safety) and Priority 3 (Protection of Structures) to clear a backlog exceeding $100 million. * New Schools and Classrooms. Fund the following priority on the state’s school construction list: Priority 2 (Unhoused Students), which will cost $100 million annually in addition to a backlog of $250 million. ° Sharing Capital Costs. Change state capital projects funding from 100% grants to state and local sharing on a sliding scale, based on a community’s ability to pay. * School Construction Standards. Adopt state standards for school construction including space, quality of materials, costs, and standards to make possible the most effective use of current and anticipated information. (For example, telecommunications access for all classrooms.) ¢ Funding Major Maintenance. Provide annual set-aside for Major Maintenance of $20-$40 million annually. (Major Maintenance is a proposed new category of funding that combines the current Priority 3, Protection of Structures, and Priority 4, Code Upgrades.) * Preventive Maintenance. Require school districts to demonstrate ongoing preventive maintenance as a condition for state funding of Major Maintenance. 67 RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW, In response to your request [for] informa- tion regarding locally conceived and driven strategies for education which would have an effect on economic development. The recent increased use of technology in the workplace, be it a rural or urban setting, is resulting in the need for our young adults to have an increased level of math, science, written communication, technology, and employability skills. Many of our high school graduates are now lacking adequate skills in these areas to qualify for and keep technology based jobs. Most studies indicate 80% of the jobs available to our young adults require more than a high school degree and less than a four year college degree. Yet, about 25% of our high school students do not graduate. About a third of high school graduates go on to college, and of those, less than half graduate within six years. We need to prepare the majority of our Alaska youth for jobs that require an under- standing of technology. One approach to accomplishing this task is implementing Tech Prep programs that emphasize applied academics and include a planned sequence of study for grades 11-12 in high school and continue with postsecondary skill training and/or studies that lead to job placement. The following concept paper describes Tech Prep programs that have been endorsed by the Alaska State Board of Education. If you would like more information regard- ing the program, please contact Ed Obie, education administrator, Division of Educational Program Support, at 465-8726. Sincerely, Jerry Covey, Commissioner Department of Education Earning, Learning, and Living A NATIONAL DEFINITION Traditionally, Tech Prep (Technical Preparation) is a course of study that: *integrates college preparatory course work with a rigorous technical education concentration. *is a planned sequence of courses, both academic and technical, that begins at the 9th grade or earlier and is articulated with a post- secondary experience leading to an associate degree. *prepares students for a lifetime of learning. *provides preparation for advanced educa- tion such as a four year baccalaureate degree. *prepares the students with the skills and competencies necessary to meet employers' performance standards. *prepares students not only for entry- level jobs, but also for career advancement. ALASKA DEFINITION OF TECH PREP Because of the variety and sizes of the different Alaska communities, the diverse cultural makeup of the student populations, size of the state, limited post-secondary resources and autonomy of the fifty four school districts, Tech Prep in Alaska will necessarily need to be a unique variation of the traditionally accepted model.. 68 Rural Alaska Policy Review Tech Prep in Alaska will need to be unique in design to provide: COOPERATION among K- 12 schools, the Univer- sity of Alaska Statewide System, Private Post-secondary technical Schools, business, labor and the various communities to develop CURRICULUMS, eacademic(math, science, communications), technical, and ready-for-work slkills that are APPLIED, INTEGRATED, AND RELEVANT which provide: ARTICULATION between High Schools and post secondary schools and embodies a competency-based, technical curriculum, designed jointly by business/labor and secondary schools which teaches essential competencies without duplication or repetition and provides: A COHERENT SEQUENCE OF COURSES AND EXPERIENCES WITH ELEVATED STANDARDS designed to provide Alaska's high school graduates with TECHNICAL AND ACADEMIC COMPETENCE leading toward the goal of SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION from school to work or further learning . Tech Prep Concept Paper for Alaska Alaska is engaged in a major educational reform movement (Alaska 2000) aimed at providing continuity of learning and quality educational opportunities for all students. Tech Prep, a significant element of this movement focused at the secondary education level, provides meaningful career preparation for the majority of high school students who do not see baccalaureate degree programs as a near-term goal. Tech Prep programs challenge students and effectively prepare them to live and work in a highly technological society. These programs will provide the type of work force our nation needs to compete in a global economy. Within educational reform, educators, business leaders and parents are the ones who facilitate systemic change. Business and industry, as weu as couege faculty and administrators must be included in planning, implementa- tion and evaluation. The planning will involve sustained, documented and measurable outcomes. A successful technical program promises to upgrade front line workers, improve the productive capacity of entry level workers and provide quality education for all students. With cooperation, participation and commitment from educational establishments, business, parents, and students, the program will serve as an agent of positive change. Tech Prep focuses on the transition from school to work as well as from school to school. Combining secondary and post secondary education programs through a formal articulation agreement, Tech Prep provides students with a non-duplicated sequence of courses and learning experiences leading to an associate degree (a entry to apprenticeship) in any of a number of technical and service career. After completion of a strong academic and technical program in high school, Tech Prep students should be equally well prepared to (1) continue their technical education to acquire a certificate or an associate degree, (2) enter full-time apprenticeship programs in their chosen fields, or (3)pursue bacalaurate degrees at four- year colleges. Why is Tech Prep needed? At a time when Alaskan employers are demanding high performance in the workplace, “more than half our young people leave school without the knowledge or foundation required to find and hold a job", according to a 1991 report from the U.S. Department of Labor. As verified in a 1990 statewide survey of Alaskan employers by Alaska's Youth Ready for Work, today's workplace requires advanced technical skills and an ability to understand completely theory and processes in rapidly changing and emerging technologies. Most jobs that offer growth, challenge, and earning potential require a positive work ethic and a working knowledge of math, science, technical principles, and information / comrnunication skills. Students, well educated in a rigorous applied academics curriculum and possessing technical skills, can increase their knowledge of principles, concepts, and technologies to practical applications in a variety of technical jobs/ What is Tech Prep? Tech Prep is a course of study beginning in high school and continuing through appropriate post secondary technical education. The program parallels the college prep course of study and presents an alternative to minimum-requirement diplomas which too many Alaska high school students prefer to pursue. The Tech Prep program integrates academic and ~ subjects, placing heavy emphasis on articulation from secondary to post-secondary education. 69 a ee ee MT Rural Alaska Policy Review Articulation between high school and postseconary education (including apprenticeships) embodies a competency-based curriculum, designed jointly by business / labor and secondary/post secondary schools, which teaches essential competencies without unnecessary duplication or repetition. The advanced competencies required to complete an associate degree or certificate at the post secondary level in a chosen career field build on a strong academic and technical foundation at the secondary level. The curricula currently being designed for Tech Prep will prepare better educated workers with advanced skills and the ability to transfer skills as technology changes. Who benefits from Tech Prep programs? A world-class work force will enable U.S. businesses to compete effectively in the world market. Cooperation at different levels of education will eliminate program duplication and provide greater efficiency in the develop- ment of human resources in our nation. . Students enrolled in the program are the big winners in Tech Prep. Even more imporlant, they develop the competence and confidence to succeed in a fast-changing, high-tech society. . Employers benefit from the availability of better educated worker. The skilled worker shortages should be alleviated as Tech Prep prograrms become widely operational across the state. . High schools benefit from implementing Tech Prep programs because more students have a reason to complete their education. Student m~e will improve as more engage in purposeful and substantial education programs. . Post secondary institutions can raise the level of their programs to provide advanced skills because students will be become prepared for college-level courses. Spending less time and fewer resources on remedial or fundamental education programs, post secondary schools will be able to spend more time and less resources on increasingly sophisticated technical programs, enabling students to move through instruction without unnecessary delay and additional costs. What characteristics do successful programs manifest? A primary goal of Tech Prep focuses on learning outcomes achieved through multiple learning environments and teaching strategies. These strategies would involve secondary and post secondary institutions, business and labor, and government. Major features basic to the develop- ment of Tech Prep programs include: Elevated K-12 Curriculum. The success of a Tech Prep program is enhanced by K-12 curriculum emphasizng Applied Math, Science, and Communications, and Work Readiness Skills A strong K-12 curriculum includes technology skills training and career exploration and counseling. Applied Academics. The Tech Prep curriculum runs parallel to the college prep program in high schools, presenting a rigorous body of knowledge in a contecptual setting and relating it to personal or social situations relevant to the workplace. Applied academics in such areas as mathematics, science, and communications form a strong academic foundation which will enable students to understand complex technologies and new skill requirements in work environments. The program tolerates no "watered down" courses but maintains the same academic integrity as the college prep curriculum, expanding occupational education to include academic development. Applied courses address fundarnental principles of productivity, teamwork, and reliability needed in the workplace. Inclusion of applied academics in the Tech Prep curriculum provides the opportunity to build a solid foundation in fundamental courses in the early part of the high school program and to introduce the concepts of technology on that strong base Partnerships. Employers, labor representatives, parents, and community organizations have equal repre- sentation with secondary and post secondary sectors on Tech Prep councils or steering committees, during program planning, implementation, and evaluation. The business and labor comrnunity identifies student outcomes required for future as well as current jobs; reviews curricula and course content for job relevance; and participates with educators to provide workbased learning experiences, such as job- shadowing, mentoring, cooperative learning, apprenticeships, internships, etc. Comprehensive and intensive partnerships are developed and maintained between academic and occupational technical education, secondary and post secondary education, education and business/labor, and education and state/local government. "Articulation" Articulation is a process of learning two or more educational systems to help students make a smooth transition from one level to another without experiencing delay, duplication of courses, or loss of credit. Educators from elementary, secondary, post secondary, labor and industry, work together to design and deliver curricula with a continuity, it facilitates ready progress from one level to the next. Identifying competencies to be mastered by students helps make instruction seamless and reduces concerns about who teaches what where. 70 Rural Alaska Policy Review: (| <== sees Career Exploration and Counseling. Career awareness activities are essential for promoting, preparing and recruiting students for Tech Prep. This function involves a comprehensive, coordinated and integrated career counseling network of facilities, programs, and elementary, middle school, junior high, secondary and post secondary counseling professionals. The Alaska School Counseling Program and the Alaska Career Information System (AKCIS) are excellent examples of tools to promote career awareness and Tech Prep. To increase informed carefull choices, programs in career awareness, career exploration, and career educational planning beginning at the elementary school level and continuing throughout the educational experience. The effort includes familiarizing students with many different occupational options, providing information on what is required to be successful in the positions, and allowing students to discover and explore their own intrests and aptitudes. Associate and- Baccalaureate Degree Potential. The fundamental courses prepare students thoroughly and proficiently for a variety of options after graduation from high school. Students may enter a technical degree program at a post secondary institution, secure a baccalareate degree from a four-year college, or enter the work force well prepared for an entry-level position in a chosen field, retaining the option to reenter occupational training later. | The Tech Prep curriculum includes a series of exit - reentry points, each of which leads to a specific but progres- sively greater opportunity Elevated Post secondary Curriculum. Students entering college from a Tech Prep course of study in high school will be prepared to master advanced courses, thus decreasing the need for developmental courses at post secondary. Eyaluation. The effectiveness of Tech Prep in Alaska will be periodically assessed. The success of Alaska Tech Prep will be determined by: (1) job placement and retention in technological specialties, (2) employer satisfaction, (3) transitioning into advanced training, (4) smooth curriculum articulation from secondary to post secondary, (5) student satisfaction with the instructional program (6) successful completion of Tech Prep curriculum Bridge Programs. This program provides the essential elements contained in high school Tech Prep programs. A "bridge program" allows post secondary schools to maintain or even raise the level of their course content to provide increasingly advanced competencies. Post secondary Education in Alaska is defined as University of Alaska, private schools and colleges, state and private technical schools and apprenticeship programs. It may be several years before significant numbers of students will be graduating from secondary Tech Prep programs. Eighty percent of the people who will make up Alaska's work force in the year 2010 - are already adults. Recent high school graduates as well as older adults in the community who desire to acquire associate degrees - the deferred degree in many fields in the future - may need preliminary academic asslstance Post secondary institutions may offer a bridge program , including academic foundation courses and some technical courses necessary to succeed in associate degree programs. Alaska's Tech Prep program promises to upgrade front-line workers, improve the capacity of entry-level workers and provide quality education for all students. With the cooperation, participation and commitment from educational establishments, business leaders, parents and students, the program will serve as an agent of positive change. ALASKA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Patricia Norheim, Chair June Nelson, 1st Vice-Chair Robert Walp, 2nd Vice-Chair Don Fancher John Hotzfield Stowell Johnstone Judy Norton Dr. Roger 0. Jarvis, Military Advisory Member Raren Meehan, Student Advisory Member Commissioner of Education Jerry Covey 71 Rural Alaska Policy Review Executive Summary The Alaska Department of Education is required to conduct a statewide needs assessment of Vocational Education programs to determine priorities for the FY 9~96 State Plan covered under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990. The following is an executive summary of the needs assessment results. Information from the survey will be used by the State to prioritize: * The relative academic, occupational, training, and retraining needs of secondary, adult and post secondary populations. ¢ Program funding to meet the needs of secondary, adult and post secondary populations. The following groups and organizations were surveyed: Secondary Vocational Education Directors, Public and Private Post Secondary Institutions, Alaska's Youth Ready for Work Committee Members, Private Industry Council Members, Department of Labor Employ-ment Security Counselors, and The Job Training Partneship Act Education Coordinating Committee. The response rate for secondary vocational education directors was 65%. The post secondary response rate was 56%, making a combined return rate for Perkins Act grant recipients of 62%. The return rate for all other populations was 44%. The overall survey response rate was 52%. Needs Assessment Major Findings * Workplace ethics followed by employability skills and technical knowledge necessary for a specific occupation were selected to be the most important components needed in an approved vocational/technical program. Most of the respondents selected employment seeking skills as their number one priority when asked to prioritize a list of work place competencies representing skills required for finding and keeping a job. Occupational skill training and appropriate workplace behavior ranked as second and third priorities. Secondary school districts respondents believed that high school graduates entering post secondary vocational education programs in Alaska have almost STATEWIDE NEEDS ASSESSMENT for ALASKA STATE VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL EDUCATION for the FY '95 96 STATE PLAN Funded under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990 NOVEMBER 1993 Prepared for the DIVISION OF EDUCATION PROGRAM SUPPORT, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION always received career counseling in high school that helped them determine which training program would best fit their ability and interest. Post secondary respondents believe this almost never happened. The local vocational advisory council was considered to be the number one source of information used to assure that programs were consistent with labor market demands. Secondary and post secondary education respondents believed that high school vocational education programs offered in their community almost always provided vocational education students basic work habits and life skills concepts. However, private employers and training institutions viewed public secondary and post secondary institutions as not providing vocational education students with adequate basic work habit and life skills training. In addition, private employers and training institutions indicated post secondary vocational programs offered in Alaska did not adequately teach work readiness skills as a basic part of the curriculum. * Respondents noted a significant difference of opinion concerning the skills required for finding and keeping a job. The post secondary respondents rated occupational skill training as a critical need, while secondary education respondents rated it a high priority. * Teacher training and/or inservice was rated as the top priority activity to improve vocational training for special populations. Curriculum or job modification was identified as the most critical activity to improve the employment success for special populations. 72 NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 — Before an enthusiastic crowd of service, education, and congressional leaders, President Clinton signed into law the National and Community Service Trust Act to engage Americans in meeting critical needs through direct community-based service. Promising that national service will “strengthen the cords that bind us together as a people,” the President created AmeriCorps, a new program which will allow in its first year 20,000 young people to earn education benefits in exchange for grass-roots community service. With the enactment of this legislation, the nation will have the opportunity to marshal its best resources— Americans of all ages and backgrounds— to meet the challenge of rebuilding America through service. The national service initiative was launched in the President’s Inaugural Address, when he challenged “anew generation of young Americans to a season of service.” In March, on the anniversary of the founding of the Peace Corps, the President unveiled his plan for national service and challenged the nation’s youth to answer his call “to change America for ever and for the better.” In May, the President proposed the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, legislation to strengthen and expand service and educational opportunities for all Americans. The President also initiated a pilot program, the Summer of Service, which engaged 1,500 young people in meeting the critical needs of children through sixteen programs across the country. By the end of the summer, the legislat- ion creating the new Corporation for National and Community Service and AmeriCorps had passed with broad bipartisan support. The new law focuses national service efforts on the most crtical issues facing communities across the nation, bringing energy and commitment to address education, human, public safety, and environmental needs. The Act also creates a new administrative entity to coordinate AmeriCorps, as well as existing community service programs involving children, college students, adults, and seniors. In the best sense of reinventing govern- ment, the new Corporation for National and Community Service will feature a bipartisan board of directors, and an entrepreneurial, non-civil service management team and workforce. At the bill signing, the President expressed his hope that “national service will remain throughout the life of America not a series of promises, but a series of challenges, across all the generations and all walks of life to help push to rebuild our troubled but wonderful land.” GOVERNOR HICKEL Establishes the ALASKA COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Governor Walter J. Hickel approved the submission of the state's application to establish an Alaska Community Service Commission. The Governor expects to appoint 15 members to the Commission in early March, 1994. The commission will meet in mid-March to begin development of the multi-year State Strategy Plan for Community Services. A State Strategy Plan - Development Workshop is planned for March 16, 17, and 18, 1994, on the University of Alaska Anchorage campus, School of Business facilities. The Department of Community and Regional Affairs has been designated the state lead agency and will house and provide support to the ACSC Office. Information can be obtained by calling (907) 269-4611. 73 a Rural Alaska Policy Review The Corporation for National and Community Service October 1993 A Summary The President’s national service program, as set forth in the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, offers new resources for solving some of America’s most intractable problems. The Act establishes a definition of national service that is clear but broad. National service marshals the country’s best resources—its citizens—to address the most urgent issues facing communities across the nation: education, human services, public safety, and the environ- ment. It develops public-spirited, effective citizens by instilling an ethic of civic responsibility, and it does so without displacing or duplicating the functions of existing workers or volunteers. While the focus is on young adults, national service will include Americans of all ages and backgrounds, reuniting citizens and building national unity, community by community. The centerpiece of the President’s initiative is a new program offering opportunities for Americans to serve their country and earn education awards in return. Rather than creating a monolithic federal program, the initiative, known as AmeriCorps, builds upon the strong network of existing national service programs of not-for-profit organizations and states by supporting locally driven projects that meet high national standards of performance. AmeriCorps supports both full-time and part-time service. Participants receive a limited wage while serving and a post-service award of $4,725 for a full year of service (half that amount for part-time service) to be used for past or present education expenses. National service programs will be administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service, which combines two existing independent federal agencies, the Commission on National and Community Service and ACTION. The Corporation will function as a clearinghouse of information and technical expertise for service initiatives nationwide and as a service “venture capitalist,” providing funding on a competitive basis for state and national service programs. In addition to AmeriCorps, the Corporation will enhance service-learning programs in K-12 schools and higher education institutions and programs which utilize the talents of older Americans. The National and Community Service Trust Act requires that every state create a bipartisan state commission for national service. The state commissions will be responsible for selecting most state programs. AmeriCorps programs can be runby not-for-profit organizations or partnerships, institutions of higher learning, local governments, school or police districts, states, Indian tribes, or federal agencies. Together with the Corporation, the state commissions will assist programs in recruiting participants, disseminating information about service opportunities, and providing technical assistance to communities organizing service programs. Corporation funding encourages programs that address critical national priorities and the urgent needs of local communities. Of the AmeriCorps funds to be distributed by the Corporation this year, $60 million will be allocated to states that submit plans approved by the Corporation by a population-based formula; at least $60 million of the funds will be awarded to state programs on a competitive basis; $1.8 million will be set aside for certain United States territories and possessions; $1.8 will be set aside for Indian tribes; and the remaining $57 million in. funds will be allocated directly by the Corporation to a range of national, multi-state, and innovative national service programs. The Corporation for National and Community Service was launched on October 1,1993. The projected grants process will begin with the publication of draft regulations and applications in January 1994. Programs selected for funding will be announced in spring and summer of the same year. The first AmeriCorps participants will be serving in communities across the nation by June In its first year of operation, the Corporation will enable up to 20,000 service participants to make an intense, long-term commit- ment to serving their country. In addition to the tens of thousandsof Americans who will participate in AmeriCorps over the next three years, millions more—school-age youth and older,—will be contributing to their country by supporting national and community service. MISSION: The Corporation for National and Community Service will engage Americans of all ages and backgrounds in community-based service. This service will address the nation’s education, human, public safety, and environmental needs to achieve direct results. In doing so, the Corporation will foster civic responsibility, strengthen the cords that bind us together as a people, and provide educational opportunity for those who make a substantial commitment to service. For more information write to: The Corporation for National and Community Service, 11110 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, D.C. 20525 74 Rural Alaska Policy Review A User’s Guide What is the Corporation for National and Community Service? The Corporation is a new federal entity created by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993. In conjunction with the White House Office of National Service, the Corporation combines the Commission on National and Community Service and ACTION, the federal domestic volunteer agency. What kinds of national and community service programs will the Corporation support? The programs of both the Commission and ACTION will be enhanced by the new Corporation. The Corporation will continue to support innovative programs in higher education, ServeAmerica and service-learning, the Civilian Community Corps and programs currently funded by ACTION, including VISTA and the National Senior Volunteer Corps. Current grantees, the youth corps and national service demonstration models, and subtitles of the National and Community Service Act, may continue to receive funding from the new Corporation. The Corporation will also adminis- ter AmeriCorps. What is AmeriCorps? AmeriCorps is the President’s initiative to achieve direct results in addressing the nation’s critical education, human, public safety, and environmental needs at the community level. The program provides meaningful opportu- nities for Americans of all ages and backgrounds to serve their country in organized efforts, fostering citizen responsibility, building community, and providing educational opportunity for those who make a substantial commitment to service. What kinds of service does AmeriCorps support? The Corporation will support programs that directly address needs in the areas of education, human, public safety, and the environment through service that provides a direct benefit to the community in which it is performed. National service programs must also have an impact on their participants, developing public-spirited, effective citizens with the skills needed for lifelong contributions to solving the pressing problems facing our communities and our nation. National service participants may not displace existing workers nor duplicate their functions. What kinds of organizations will be eligible to participate in AmeriCorps ? The National and Community Service Trust Act encourages grant applications from a wide range of programs—those that engage a handful of volunteers or multi-state networks of service organizations. Programs may be run by not-for-profit organizations, by local, state, and federal government entities, by Indian tribes, by institutions of higher education, by local school and police districts, and by partnerships among any of the above. Programs may not provide direct benefits to businesses, labor unions, or partisan political organizations. They may not use assistance to support religious activities or to engage participants in lobbying activities. What types of programs are eligible for AmeriCorps grants? Programs eligible for grants include a wide variety of community corps, youth corps, specialized service programs focusing on a specific community need, individual placement programs, campus based service programs, programs that train and place service-learning coordinators in schools or team leaders in corps programs, intergenerational programs, national service entrepreneurship programs, professional corps, and the like. What are the Corporation’s criteria for selecting AmeriCorps programs? The Corporation will develop and publish specific funding criteria in January 1994. Generally, national service programs must directly address the education, human, environment, and public safety needs of the community; must not duplicate or displace existing workers, must ensure that participants receive the proper training and support; and must show that they will apply measurable performance goals to their programs. How will funds be allocated? Of the funds that the Corporation allocates for AmeriCorps in fiscal year 1994, approximately $60 million will be allocated to states that submit plans approved by the 75 Rural Alaska Policy Review Corporation according to a population-based formula, and up to $60 million will be awarded on a competitive basis. $1.8 rnillion will be set aside for Indian tribes, and another $1.8 million will fund programs in United States territories and possessions. The remaining $56.7 million in funds will be allocated directly by the Corporation. Additional funds will be used for training and technical assistance or competitively distributed as matching “challenge” grants. What form will AmeriCorps grants take? There willl be non-renewable planning grants for a period of up to one year and renewable operating grants for up to three years. What funds will the Corporation supply for AmeriCorps? What non- Corporation funds must programs supply? Programs are encouraged to raise private funds. These matching requirements must be viewed as floors not ceilings. The Corporation will pay for 85 percent of stipends up to the VISTA subsistence allowance (roughly minimum wage), 85 percent of health care costs, 75 percent of other operating costs, 100 percent of a child care allowance, and the education award. Therefore, programs will pay at least 15 percent of stipends, 15 percent of health care, and 25 percent of other operating costs. Programs that pay stipends above the VISTA level must supply all funds in excess of that amount. How will states be included in the AmeriCorps program ? Every state wishing to participate in national service initiatives must establish a commission on national and community service or a comparable entity for which the Corporation will provide partial funding. Governors will appoint members to the bipartisan commissions, which will include young people involved in service, educators, representatives of national service programs, older American volunteer programs, labor, and business as well as other experts in the field. States will draft three-year plans outlining their service proposals, which will be updated annually. During the first year of implementation, the governor may designate a transitional entity to perform the functions of the state commission for twenty-seven months after the date of the Act’s enactment. Will organizations receive AmeriCorps funds through a state commission or directly from the Corporation? In general, local organizations will work with state commissions. National nonprofit, multi-state programs and professional corps programs may receive funds directly from the Corporation. Who is eligible to serve in AmeriCorps? Citizens and legal resident aliens aged seventeen years or older—sixteen in the case of programs targeted for out-of-school youths—may serve in AmeriCorps before, during, or after post-secondary education. In general, participants must be high school graduates or agree to achieve their GED prior to receiving education awards. While there is a focus on young people, the Corporation will encourage participationby Americans of all ages, genders, incomes, races, regions, and religions and include individuals with disabilities. How will AmeriCorps participants be selected ? Programs approved by the Corporation or a state commission will select service participants on a non-discrimi- natory and non-political basis. To ensure that knowledge of programs is widely available, the Corporation will develop national and state recruiting information systems . There will also be a national pool from which programs may draw potential participants. How will AmeriCorps participants be compensated? Participants will receive a stipend during their term of service. Full-time participants not otherwise covered will receive basic health insurance and may receive a child care allowance if they need it to participate. For one year of full- time or two years of part-time service in a designated national service program, participants will also receive $4,725 as an education award and repayment of any interest on student loans during their service. These awards may be used to pay for higher education or for vocational training: Awards must be used within seven years of completion of service. For those participants who have outstanding loan obligations for qualified educational activities, the postservice educational awards may be paid directly to the lender. 76 Rural Alaska Policy Review How long is a term of service under AmeriCorps ? The program requires a commitment intensive in hours but limited in years. Participants can perform a 1,700 hour full-time term over nine months to a year, or a part- time term of 900 hours over one to two years (or one to three years in the case of full-time college students). When will the Corporation for National and Community Service begin processing applications for AmeriCorps programs? The Corporation will be launched in October 1993. Regulations and appointments will be formalized during the remainder of the calendar year. The projected grant process will begin in early 1994, with programs selected for funding announced as early as the spring and summer of 1994. Across the United States, national service is solving urgent problems, but it can, and must, do more. It can help most by undertaking those activities that have a maximum impact upon the nation’s communities. To concentrate national efforts and create direct and demonstrable results, Congress instructed the Corpora- tion to establish national priorities. When programs demon- strate that they really can get things done, they enhance their value to their own communities and strengthen the nation’s confidence in the ability of service to affect positive change. A list of the issue areas national service will address and the national priorities within those areas set by the Corporation is provided below. To clarify the distinction between “issue” and “national priority”: education is the issue area in which the Corporation has chosen school readiness and school success as priorities. Please note that these may change to address other needs in years to come. Unless id lling 7 io otherwi programs applying for state competitive funds or national direct funds must address one or more of the national priority areas in order to receive funding. The separate application materials give you the correct guidance on this please follow them carefully. The national priorities were selected after extensive discussions with professionals who have found practical solutions to our most pressing problems in these areas and who have some experience in enriching their work through the powerful tool of service. Community needs hardly every arise in separated categories problems are connected to other problems, needs to other needs. The Corporation greatly encourages program planners to see the links between the issues, to work across divisions, and to strive to address needs in thoughtful and collaborative ways. THE FOUR ISSUE AREAS ARE: Education Human Needs Public Safety Environment The Corporation’s Priorities are: IN EDUCATION School Readiness: furthering early childhood development School Success: improving the educational achievement of school-age children IN PUBLIC SAFETY Crime Prevention: reducing the incidence of violence Crime Control: improving criminal justice services, law enforcement, and victim services IN HUMAN NEEDS Health: providing independent living assistance and homeand community-based health care Home: rebuilding neighborhoods and helping people who are homeless IN ENVIRONMENT Neighborhood Environment: reducing community environmental hazards Natural Environment: conserving, restoring, and sustaining natural habitats 77 Rural Alaska Policy Review SEASONS OF SERVICE “I challenge a new generation of young Americans to a season of service. . . There is so much to be done — enough, indeed, for millions of others who are still young in spirit to give of themselves in service, too. “ President Bill Clinton, Inaugural Address The President’s national service legislation created the new Corporation for National and Community Service. Formed in conjunction with the White House Office of National Service, built upon the foundation of the former Commission on National and Community Service and ACTION, and incorporating the new Civilian Community Corps, the Corporation is positioned to revitalize service in every region and community across the country. The Corporation supports a range of national and community service programs, providing opportunities for participants to serve full-time and part-time, as volunteers or as stipended participants, and as individuals or as a part of a team. From our youngest citizens engaged in service-learning activities in grades K-12, to our older Americans assisting those in need in their communities, the Corporation provides “seasons of service” for all Americans. e AmeriCorps is the President’s national service vision of directly and demonstrably addressing the nation’s education, human, public safety, and environmental needs at the community level. AmeriCorps offers opportunities for Americans age 17 or older to make a substantial commitment to serve their country and to eam education awards for college or vocational training in return. Up to 20,000 Americans of all backgrounds will serve full-time or parttime in the program’s first year, beginning in the fall of 1994. ¢ Civilian Community Corps. Included in AmeriCorps will be the more than 1,000 young people serving in the new Civilian Community Corps. The CCC is a national residential service option in which participants are housed and trained together on military bases and deployed as teams to community service sites. The CCC combines the best of our military tradition with the best practices of local community service corps, providing participants with opportunities to solve real community needs while developing their own leadership skills and receiving invaluable training for future careers. ¢ Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) will also be an important component of AmeriCorps. VISTA is a full-time, year-long program for men and women age 18 and older who commit themselves to increasing the capability of low-income people to improve the conditions of their own lives. VISTA volunteers serve in rural or urban areas or on Indian reservations, sharing their skills and experience in fields such as employment training, literacy, shelter for the homeless, and neighborhood revitalization. Approximately 3,500 VISTA volunteers are currently serving, joining more than 100,000 alumni who have previously served their country through VISTA. ° Learn and Serve America programs are school- based, and integrate service into daily academic life. Service- learning is a method by which young people learn and develop through active participation in service experiences that meet community needs, and foster a lifetime commitment to service. ° The K-12 Program supports school and commu- nity-based organizations that engage school-aged youth in service. Over 275,000 students in all fifty states participate in service activities which are integrated into their curri- culum, providing structured time for service and time for the students to think, talk, or write about their service experiences. ¢ Higher Education Innovation Programs engage college students in meeting pressing community needs. Higher education projects support high-quality community service and service-learning initiatives at colleges and univer- sities across the nation. Some are student-run; some are faculty-led; many are integrated with academic study. As essential parts of the college experience, these efforts will create a new generation of leaders committed to service. ¢ National Senior Volunteer Corpsutilizes the skills, talents, and experience of older Americans in addressing urgent issues facing the nation. Together these programs involve over 470,000 volunteers who serve in 1,223 local projects and devote an annual total of over 111 million hours of service to their local communities. ¢ The Foster Grandparent Program offers low- income persons age 60 and over the opportunity to serve one- on-one with children and young people who have special needs, including teen parents, boarder babies and those who are abused and neglected. Over 23,000 Foster Grandparents serve twenty hours a week in volunteer stations such as hospitals, public schools, day care centers and correctional institutions. ¢ The Senior Companion Program volunteers are low-income men and women age 60 and over. Senior Companions provide individualized support and assistance to other adults, primarily the homebound elderly. Their services help the homebound achieve and maintain their highest level of independent living. Approximately 13,000 Senior Companions provide disability assistance, home management assistance, and social and recreational companionship to approximately 32,000 individuals each year. ¢ The Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) is a network of 430,000 Americans, age 55 and up, who perform a wide range of volunteer services that meet real community needs and effectively use their skills, interests, and experience. RSVP is the Corporation’s largest service program, providing communities with volunteers diverse in experience, interest, income, and education, and ready to take on the challenges facing the country. 78 Rural Alaska Policy Review Executive Summary for the Governor's Coordination and Special Services Plan ALASKA JOB TRAINING COUNCIL July 1,1992 through June 30,1994 The Governor's Coordination and Special Services Plan (GCSSP) guides the implementation of the federally funded Job Training Partnership Act programs for Alaska. This plan has been prepared during a period in which potentially great change in Alaska's approach to job training and workforce development is being considered. Changes are pending or have been proposed at the national and state levels--at the local level change is a way of life! Nationally we have the enhanced prospect of amendments to the Job Training Partnership Act; the Act that, formany, seems to be the beginning and the end of the workforce development woes of the nation. We also have the Nontraditional Employment for Women Act, the Defense Conversion Adjustment Act, the Clean Air Employment Transition Assistance programs, and assorted initiatives and soon-to-be legislation. At the state level the State Training and Employment Program has been re-authorized. Also being considered is a State Human Resource Development Policy to help guide coordinated human resource investment decisions. The Alaska Job Training Council has recommended the GCSSP's Challenges, Goals and Coordinating Criteria after a solid process ofpublic-private-sector and agency involvement and public review. The Private Industry Councils have been responsive to the coordination criteria as evidenced in the quality of their Job Training and Substrate Plans. The Governor's Coordination and Special Services Plan has provided guidance to the job training and workforce development system that anticipates the perceived intent of the pending amendments to the Job Training Partnership Acct. It is felt that direction has been given to move resources to those with the greatest barriers to self sufficiency and, in particular, to those youth who are at-risk of not being able to make a successful transition to the world of work or to continued education or training. This Governor's Coordination and Special Services Plan is prepared with the multiple and varied needs of the readers in mind. Members of the AJTC and the PICs will want to be able to understand the intent of this plan. The readers at the U.S. Department of Labor will want assurances that the JTPA programs operated in Alaska are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The agencies effected by this plan will want to know what their responsibilities are. The Alaska Job Training Council and the various agencies with whom they work are all deeply concerned with the ability of Alaska and America to remain economically competitive in the world on the eve of the 21st century. With the submittal of this Governor's Coordination and Special Services Plan we rededicate ourselves to the critical task of providing the assistance and leadership necessary to move our state and nation forward. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR COPIES OF GOVERNOR'S PLAN CONTACT: Alaska Job Training Council c/o Job Training Partnership Office Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 (907) 269-4500 79 Rural Alaska Policy Review Labor Market Assessment: Labor Market Assessment: Fairbanks, Dillingham, Bethel, Nome, Kotzebue, Interior Region, University of Alaska Fairbanks, College of Rural Alaska, May 1993 SUMMARY Preparing workers for the Alaskan labor force is an integral part of the mission of the Rural Colleges of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. This labor market assessment of Fairbanks and Interior Alaska, Dillingham, Bethel, Nome and Kotzebue was conducted as a means of evaluating current and future course offerings. The goal of the study was to answer three questions. They were: 1. What kinds of job skills are most difficult to find in prospective entry-level employees? 2. What kinds of businesses and industries will produce the most new jobs over the next five years? 3. What role should the local campuses of the UAF play in meeting these needs? In Fairbanks, 25 business leaders participated in roundtable discussions and the business community provided information through a mailed survey. Information on the rural campuses was gathered through telephone interviews with business and government leaders. A list of those who provided information through telephone interviews and as roundtable participants is included at the end of the report. A brief summary of the information gathered follows. Fairbanks 1. What kinds of job skills are most difficult to find in prospective employees? Forty-seven percent of the survey respondents re- ported that they are finding it difficult to find applicants for entry-level positions with the training or education they need. Business people were most concerned about the lack of basic skills and work habits they are seeing in job applicants. The need for these skills generally outweighed the need for specific vocational, technical or educational skills. The exception to this was the lack of job applicants with computer skills, both basic and advanced. 2. What kinds of businesses and industries will produce the most new jobs over the next five years? Businesses and industries expected to grow over the next five years are tourism, services (especially health ser- vices), retail trade, mining and construction. 3. What role should the local campuses of the UAF play in meeting these needs? Roundtable participants and survey respondents sug- gested that the Tanana Valley Campus increase involvement with employers, develop a more flexible class schedule to accommodate people who work full-time during the week, schedule more computer and accounting classes, and develop courses in tourism, sales and health care. Dillingham, Bethel, Nome, Kotzebue and Interior Region 1. What kinds of job skills are most difficult to find in prospective employees? The most frequently mentioned skills were basic skills and work habits, health care education and experience, computer skills and administrative or management skills. People with the technical and management skills needed in the fisheries are also difficult to find in Bethel and Dillingham. 2. What kinds of businesses and industries will produce the most new jobs over the next five years? Fisheries, through the Community Development Quota (CDQ) program are expected to provide many new jobs and economic benefits to villages in Dillingham, Bethel and Nome regions. Jobs in health care will continue to increase in all four regions, with government and tourism also expected to grow. 3. What role should the local campuses of the UAF play in meeting those needs? Almost everyone interviewed in Dillingham, Bethel and Nome want the rural campuses to become involved in training workers for the CDQ fishery. Those needing training now are being sent to the Alaska Vocational and Education Center (AVTEC) in Seward but those interviewed believe there will be sufficient demand to set up training programs in the regional centers. There also is a need for seafood manage- ment and marketing courses. Health care is a major industry in the rural areas and many suggested that the rural campuses offer at least the introductory or core courses needed for local people to become nurses, therapists, laboratory technicians, etc. Most of the people hired for these positions are from outside the regions and many noted that a long-term goal is to train and hire more local people. Another frequent recommendation was for the rural campuses to work more closely with the school districts to help prepare students for postsecondary education or training. Activities included traveling to the villages to talk to students about course selection, degree offerings and financial aid. Itis interesting to note that the people interviewed in Bethel, Dillingham and Nome more often cited the need for vocational/technical training, especially related to the CDQ fishery. In Kotzebue, where there is a technical training center, interviewees were generally satisfied with the course 80 Rural Alaska Policy Review RURAL ALASKA COMMUNITY RURAL JUSTICE CHILDREN & FAMILIES HEALTH Se = PART IVa Rural Alaska Policy Review 81 Special Projects The Special Projects section serves to coordinate training development and delivery, development of technical assistance publications, and distribution of materials produced by the Special division to local governments and other client organizations. Projects Some of the activities and accomplishments are as follows: In cooperation with Alaska Municipal League and University of Alaska’s Cooperative Extension Service, produced the 1994 Alaska Local Government Calendar. This document attempts to identify local government training sessions, important dates for local government adminis- trators, and other dates of general interest to local governments. Developed training materials and facilitated a Statewide Utility Management Workshop in October 1993. Assisted in the development of training materials for the Municipal Lands Trustee (MLT) ANCSA 14(c) and Land Management training workshops. Technical assistance publications were produced, including: - 1993 revisions to Title 29.... Municipal Government. - FY94 City Budget Manual The following technical assistance materials will also be produced in FY94: 1994 Community Borough Map. Update and print the Model Financial Record Keeping System document. Update and print the 1994 Payroll Handbook For Small Communities. FY95 City Budget Manual. Contact: Michael Black, Anchorage, 269-4500 Department of Community & Regional Affairs Municipal and Regional Assistance Division RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW Empowering Villages, Localizing Law Enforcement I. Alaska Natives Commission, 1993, Justice and C orrections, Governance Task Force: Frank Pagano, chairman; Edgar Paul Boyko, Father Norman Elliott, Ella Anagick, Bart Garber and Paul Tony. The Situation: Alaska Natives and other Native Americans are over-represented in Alaska's prison system, according to the finding of the Alaska Natives Commission's Governance Task Force. The Task Force surveyed the entire system, reviewed extensive data and received testimony from a multitude of citizens, including Native inmates in most of Alaska's correctional facilities. It was decided that the data must be viewed with three fundamental values and influences of Native culture in mind: The three key ethics are: . Truth telling and full disclosure. Natives generally "fess up" when asked about an offense. . Non-interference. Rather than telling some- one what to do, an Elder will tell a story about someone else who, when faced with a problem similar to the listener's, took certain actions. . Non-confrontation. An esteemed individual is one who avoids conflict and does not judge others. The data surveyed indicate that Natives are commit- ting some specific types of offenses proportionately far in excess of their numbers. In looking at information from the State of Alaska, the Commission found that as of April 1993, Alaska Natives made up just over 32 percent of the state's incarcerated population, despite the fact that Alaska Natives represent 16 percent of the overall population and only 13.5 percent of the prison-age population in the state. But the data also show differences in the types of crimes for which Natives are being incarcerated. Within the misdemeanants, for example, 43 percent are Native; among sex offenders, 39 percent are Native; and among probation and parole revocations, 41 percent are Native. Data reported for 1990 showed that half of those convicted of second degree murder were Native. For some other crimes, however, the representation of Natives was lower: among drug offenders, for example, only 8 percent were Native. 9 Correcting Corrections Although plea bargaining has been banned in Alaska for 16 years, "charge bargaining" exists, and it has been hypothesized that the disproportionatenumber of Alaska Natives convicted and incarcerated may be in part due to their more readily admitting to a lowered charge, which may in turn be related to the mediating cultural ethic of avoiding confrontation. The Task Force recommendations that address these problems speak to the need for dramatically increasing support for families in crisis and for teaching young people appropriate parenting skills before they start a family. The recommendations also relate to the fundamental high prevalence of alcohol abuse among the Native population and the fact that until that essential, underlying behavioral disability is overcome, the situation will remain largely unchanged. The Task Force also addressed issues related to local control and aimed at establishing village-based communal powers and dispute resolution authorities, irrespective of the tribal nature of the solution. A few of the answers: Among the recommendations offered by the Task Force are: . The State of Alaska should immediately convene a task force composed of all the major Alaska Native groups who are involved in the judicial system to devise a structure of parameters within which village court systems can be empowered by the state. . The Department of Corrections should review all cases of Natives now incarcerated for violation of probation or parole and release back to home villages any who are not dangerous, establish a means for probation and parole in the home village, eliminate the requirement that rural Natives on probation and parole remain in a city, and report on changes and their impact to the Alaska Judicial Council. . Village Public Safety Officers should receive more professional training, be paid more, be authorized to enforce local ordinances and make arrests, be issued a distinctive uniform, have the option of carrying a non- lethal weapon and be sought out as the first source of recruitment for State Trooper positions. . The Department of Corrections should greatly increase opportunities for substance abuse counseling. 82 Rural Alaska Policy Review - Physical Health - Problems must be solved on a community-wide basis. Il. Alaska Natives Commission, 1993, Physical Health, Health Task Force:: James Sebesta, chairman; Edgar Paul Boyko, Beverly Masek, Martin Moore, Ethel Lund, Dr. Robert Rowen, Roseann Turner. A Cautionary Note: Solutions to the health problems of Alaska Natives lie not simply in health care but more generally in empowerment and involvement of Alaska Native communities in the design, implementation and control of their own programs -- subsistence, governance, education, employment, economic, social and health -- that will enable them to regain control of their collective futures. Only by means of re-establishing local control and empowering local decision-making can the responsibility for ensuring healthy lifestyles be regained by the community. Only through this process can the individual and the family be reached in any meaningful way. The Situation: By all accounts, the state of health of Alaska Natives is poor as, if not worse than, any other group in the United States. The Alaska Natives Commission's Health Task Force reviewed the history of Alaska Native health and health care, highlighting the involvement of the Indian Health Service in the provision of health care for Alaska's Native people and the highly successful Community Health Aide Program. The Task Force studied a wide range of health problems, beginning with the environmental health issues related to poor or non-existent water and sewer systems in a large number of Alaska Native villages. Also studied were such issues as infant mortality, cancer, diabetes, sexually transmitted disease (including HIV and AIDS), nutrition, FAS/FAE and alcohol and drug abuse, to name just a few. In general, the Task Force found that there has been a shift in morbidity and mortality statistics away from infectious diseases toward increased behavioral problems (see accompa- nying issue paper on Alcohol and Social Dysfunction). Part of this has resulted from the insidious effects of a shift in emphasis from self-responsibility to a control imposed by powerful others. Some of the problems currently facing Alaska Natives include: ° Although more than $1.3 billion has been spent building water and sewer systems in rural Alaska, many villages have only rudimentary water and sewer systems. For many years, Alaska Natives experienced can- cer rates that were well below the rest of the nation, but that situation has clearly changed. ° From 1985 to 1989, the rate of diabetes for Alaska Natives rose from 15.7 to 18.2 per 1,000 population; and, tuberculosis is far from eradicated, even though the fright- ening statistics from 40 to 50 years ago are no longer prevalent. The current ill physical health combined with the lack of mental well-being on the part of many Alaska Natives, combined with sometimes unsanitary living conditions and poor physical health practices and poor nutrition could cause HIV/AIDS to be the next big epidemic to strike the Alaska Native population. Some of the Answers: ° Emphasis of the Native health care system must be on primary prevention and early detection. Specific- ally, resource allocation methods used by the Indian Health Service should be adjusted to weigh the prevention of disease and behavioral health problems more heavily than the provision of secondary and tertiary care. . A comprehensive, coordinated data system must be established that unifies all health and social service information concerning Alaska Natives; the data system should be enhanced by periodic statewide health needs assessments and health status determinations. ° The Indian Health Service should pursue the new contracting option, ''Compacting," under Title III of P.L. 100-472 and assist in the decentralization of the Area Office functions and funds as a result of compacting which also enables tribal contractors to meet local needs rather than following strict categorical funding. ° The recommendations previously made by the Alaska Sanitation Task Force regarding rural water and sewer projects should be implemented, including, most importantly, the involvement of communities in planning, installation and maintenance. 7 Aggressive health education curricula targeting HIV and AIDS must be deployed in all school districts; additional community-oriented campaigns should aim at the general public. ° Cancer screening and early diagnosis oppor- tunities should be greatly enhanced, as should efforts to eliminate tobacco use among Alaska Natives and health education programs to increase the awareness of Natives regarding other high-risk behaviors leading to cancer. 83 Rural Alaska Policy Review Ill. Alaska Natives Commission, 1993, Education Task Force, Dr. Walter A. Soboleff, co-chair; Sam Towarak, co- chair; Beverly Masek, Ray Barnhart, Sally Kookesh, Nettie Peratovich, Mike Williams. A Cautionary Note: The most thoughtfully designed education system, most up-to-date school facilities, best trained and carefully selected teachers, brilliantly conceived and executed curricula and unimpeachable inten- tions will not by themselves significantly improve the educational situation of Alaska Native students. The environ- ment in which many young Alaska Natives find themselves must be rid of alcohol and drug abuse, dysfunctional families and poverty. Without this change, the education system cannot do all that it might. Ironically, improved education is part of the solution to these problems and must begin immediately if Alaska Natives are to survive as a distinct culture and with the fulfilling lives to which all Americans are entitled. The Situation: Alaska's education system must become much moresensitive to Alaska Native cultural heritage and trad- itional life ways, while at the same time preparing students for village as well as urban life. That's a key finding of the Alaska Natives Commission's Education Task Force, which has completed its work on the problems with Native education and has suggested solutions. The report documents problems within the current system, especially the fact that many Native students are not performing well in school as their non- Native counterparts. Test scores, while not always an accurate measure, show this to be the case. Further research has shown, however, that in many cases lower test scores are actually the result of inadequate preparation offered by their schools. For example, 53 percent of all Alaska students had taken second year algebra, compared to only 11 percent of Alaska Native students. Forty- eight percent of all Alaska students had taken chemistry, compared to 8 percent of Alaska Native students. Another problem noted by the report is the large number of Native students who leave school before gradua- tion. Only about 67 percent of Alaska Native students complete high school, compared to a total overall statewide completion rate of 75 percent. The report summarizes current needs, including: ° Model curricula and alternative delivery modes must be developed that will prepare Native students to function in Western society, while acquiring a clearer understanding of their cultures. EDUCATION The ideal school system teaches Native students, respects their culture, draws in parents. ° Native students should be prepared to live in either rural or urban settings. . Knowledgeable teachers who respect Native cultures should be hired. . Standards should be developed for both teachers and students that accommodate and are sensitive to local community needs. . The Native community must take a more active role in education so that parents and community leaders feel "ownership" in the educational system. ° Obsolete Bureau of Indian Affairs facilities that never met state codes and standards must be replaced. Native arts, including fine arts and music, must be included as sources of ongoing recreation. A few of the answers: Anumber of recommendations are offered to meet the needs, ranging from wide-ranging changes in the current system to specific changes in current state and federal law. Among them are: . Ensure a three-component K-12 education system for Alaska Natives that includes schooling within the students' home villages, distance education delivery that effectively redresses the limitations inherent in small rural schools, and the alternative of regional academic and vocational schools for students who want to take advantage of them. ° Establish total local control of schools. . Establish model curricula that meet the needs of Alaska Native students. . Recruit and train educational staff, including local Native professionals, to meet the special needs of Alaska Native students. . Enact legislation establishing teacher certificates that distinguish between qualifications for teaching in rural schools and qualifications for teaching in metro- politan schools. . Allow Alaska Native language, culture and vocational experts to attain certification as classroom teachers once their competence as teachers has been documented. 84 Rural Alaska Policy Review TRADITIONAL ECONOMIES Subsistence nurtures the spirit and the body; keeps cultures alive and healthy. IV. Alaska Native Commission, 1993, Subsistence, Eco- nomic Task Force: Morris Thompson, chairman; Johne Binkley, Martin B. Moore, Larry Merculieff, John Shively. The Situation: One of the fundamental reasons why subsistence is such a difficult issue in contemporary Alaska politics is that it is really about Alaska Natives, according to a report on subsistence by the Alaska Natives Commission Economic Task Force. While many non-Native Alaskans, particularly those residing in rural areas, harvest and use fish and game resources, research shows that those communities that most seriously practice subsistence as an economic livelihood are Native villages. Despite the fact that Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act -- the centerpiece of federal subsistence policy in Alaska ---gave preference on the public lands to the taking of fish and game by rural Alaskans, there can be no doubt that the primary congressional motive behind its enactment was the protection of Native people and their communities. "Subsistence" refers to the hunting, fishing and gathering activities which traditionally constituted the economic base of life for Alaska's Native people and which continue to flourish in many areas of the state today. Historically, subsistence activities were conducted in seasonal cycles by small, semi-nomadic communities and kinship groups within recognized territories. Subsistence utilized traditional, small-scale technologies for harvesting and preservation of foods and distributed the resulting production through networks of communal sharing and barter. Most Native villages now have what researchers describe as "mixed" economies, in which small to moderate amounts of cash are provided at different times of the year by limited resources. In fact, many non-Native observers, includ- ing policy-makers, perceive modern subsistence as nothing more than a cultural antique, an increasingly ineffective hold over from previous times that will inevitably disappear as market economies take over. The truth is that subsistence is much more than the consolation prize that village people are left with in the absence of jobs. It is its own economic sector, highly prized by its practitioners and fully co-existing with cash-economic activi- ties. The vast majority of village residents choose to prac- tice subsistence, even if they have access to good cash incomes, and research has failed to establish any cash cutoff point at which individuals or households stop harvesting fish and game. Subsistence hunting and fishing are now under concerted political assault by powerful, organized interests which compete with villages for the limited public resources that governments must allocate. The fight over subsistence in Alaska comes in cycles of legislative and judicial activity. But it never goes away because the competing human groups are a permanent fact of life in Alaska. Some of the answers: Note: Failing any action on recommendations being made by the Task Force, many in the Native community might urge Congress to consider enacting legislation that would preempt the Alaska Constitution under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They would seek the imposition of a federal subsistence preference on all lands and waters in Alaska. Among the recommendations of the Task Force Are: ° During any period of dual management, the Congress and the federal agencies should take all appropriate legislative and administrative action to maximize the geographical scope of federal jurisdiction. At a minimum, this should include all public lands, including all marine and navigable waters (by admini- strative and/or judicial action); all conveyed ANCSA fee lands (by congressional action)l and all selected-but- unconveyed state and ANCSA lands (by congressional action). . Defending ANILCA: Congress should maintain and defend the existing rural preference in ANILCA as the minimum acceptable level of subsistence protection in federal law. . Improving ANELCA: Congress should conduct ongoing oversight of Title VIII implementation to monitor the status of subsistence law in Alaska and the performance of the state government and federal agencies. . Local control: During any period of federal management in any Alaskan jurisdiction, the federal agencies should fully implement existing provisions of U.S. law requiring the operation of regional subsistence advisory councils and the options of contracting with communities and regional entities for co-management agreements. 85 Rural Alaska Policy Review V. Alaska Natives Commission, 1993, Village & Family Well- being, Social/Cultural Task Force: John Schaeffer Jr., chairman; Norman Elliott, James Sebesta, Harold Napoleon, Liz Sunnyboy. A Cautionary Note: Much has been written about the relationship of dependency that has been created for Alaska Natives by governmental policies and programs of the past century. though many, if not most, of the social and cultural problems that Natives face today are not of their making, the consequences of those problems certainly belong to Alaska Natives today. If significant improvements are to be made with respect to overall Alaska Natives’ well-being, the Native community must take "ownership" of the problems and assume responsibility for the solutions. The Situation: By most measures, many Alaska Native villages and families are greatly lacking in mental and emotional well- being, with disharmony touching Native lives and family structures with increasing and widespread frequency. The evidence is found in the "numbers" that compelled the Congress to impanel the Alaska Natives Commission. These include the well-documented cases of alcohol abuse, domestic violence including child abuse, and homicide and suicide within Native villages and families. Other indicators of this lack of well-being include the continuing poor physical and mental health of many Native people. And, most tragic of all, is the fact that Native children are not learning in school and that they, themselves, are abusing alcohol and other chemicals at alarming rates. If one theme can be identified as having emerged during the course of the Commission's work, it is Alaska Natives’ loss of control of, and responsibility for, their econo- mies, their governing institutions, their systems for social order and, in many cases, their families and themselves as individuals. The result is that entire generations of village residents have lived in a relationship of control by others and of dependency on public services and subsidy. The Commission's Social/Cultural Task Force has determined that many of the causes for today's upheaval in Alaska Native communities and families can be found in their history: specifically, Alaska Natives' experiences since contact with Europeans, and in the cultural, social, political and economic climate created for them by both federal and state governments. Further, the Task Force holds that at the core of the problems are unhealed psychological and spiritual wounds and unresolved grief brought on by a century-long history of deaths by epidemics and cultural and political deprivation at others' hands. Some of the more tragic consequences include the erosion of Native languages -- in which are couched the full cultural understanding -- and the erosion of cultural value systems. Many Alaska Native villages at this time might be looked at as families that have fallen apart -- families so WELL-BEING Healing Wounds, restrengthening families, empowering communities non-functional that others have had to step in and run the family, where the parents are no longer parenting and where children are listening to someone else. Alaska Natives, in tremendous numbers, have lost hold of their communities, their cultural identities and, perhaps most importantly, their children's lives. Some of the answers: A number of recommendations are offered to address the problems faced by Native families and communi- ties, ranging from community-designed and community- based healing programs, to greater legal and enforcement capabilities for villages. Among them are: ° The priority for federal and state social service and behavioral health programs must be given to village designed and village-controlled systems; such systems must be aimed at strengthening -- rather than diminishing -- local leadership, and family and community roles and responsi- bilities. ° The federal government must, through contract to Native organizations and Native village govern ments, provide for adequate funding and technical assistance to enable Alaska Native IRA and Traditional Councils to reassume responsibility for the total health and welfare of their people. . All federal and state initiatives that address Native alcohol abuse and treatment must be designed at the local level, have a minimum of programmatic controls allowing for wide ranges of local treatment options, and must, at a minimum, include: family-oriented treatment approaches; and adequate follow-up treatment and support. ° Overall, the federal and state governments must implement policies that give maximum local powers and jurisdiction to tribes and tribal courts in the areas of alcohol importation and control, community and domestic matters, and law enforcement. . With the financial backing of the federal and state governments, Alaska Native villages and organizations should design community and family healing and restrength- ening projects to address unresolved grief and to bring families and villages together as well-functioning social and cultural units. . The federal and state governments, working with Alaska Native organizations, should establish an "Alaska Native Heritage Fund" for purposes of promoting Native languages and culture within individual communities and schools. 86 Rural Alaska Policy Review Restoring authority and building leadership VI. Alaska Natives Commission, 1993, Native Self Governance. A Cautionary Note: No system of local governance can or will be effective unless the overall well-being of the villages -- their families and their individual members -- is improved. As long as villages and families continue in relative states of social "dysfunction" and disarray, and as long as the economic means are not available for Alaska Natives to take care of themselves and their own through productive means, the chances of meaningful self-governance taking holds as a way of life will continue to be severely compromised. The Situation: Alaska Native tribes and tribal organizations not only legitimize the special relationship Alaska Natives have with the United States, but also help define the social and political status of Alaska Native communities throughout Alaska. Yet, despite the importance of Alaska Native tribes, over time they have been the object of neglectful policies, controversy and conflict. This is a central finding of the Alaska Natives Commission. Rather than recognizing the political and social status of village-based tribes, the Commission found, the state gov- ernment and, to a degree, the federal government have both attempted to replace traditional village governments with Western institutions and values. These policies have resulted in universal feelings of frustration and resentment in the Native community. The social, economic and political conditions in village Alaska offer the best evidence that current federal and state policies on local community governance are not working for most of rural Alaska and need to be changed. Federal power over Native affairs is founded upon the historical relationship between the federal government and Native people governed by tribes with retained powers of self-government. The acceptance of this government to government relationship colors other aspects of the relation- ship between Alaska Natives and the federal government which extend to the protection of Native lands and resources, and provision of human services and the protection of subsistence values. Some of the key findings of the Alaska Native Commission regarding Alaska Native Self-Government include: . Federal Policy: Federal policy and initiatives regarding Alaska Natives has shifted, as elsewhere in the United States, to emphasize self-determination over self-gov- ernment. . State Policy: The State of Alaska claims that tribes do not exist as a matter of law and that Alaska Natives enjoy no powers of self-governance beyond those available under state law; thus, State and Native relations are not marked by mutual respect and parity in political rights. ° Native Views: Natives have always maintained self- government as a component of self-determination, though Native views on tribal governments and Native self-gover- nance are not uniform. However, Natives generally agree that the state and federal governments should leave more room for Natives to live their lives and govern their communities as they see fit while understanding the political interests that will need to be balanced. Natives are mature residents of the nation and state, but they also occupy their own cultural and political commu- nities. | Native communities and their tribal governments -- as distinct partners with the state and federal governments -- must be entrusted with the social and political decisions that are critical to their survival. Some of the answers: The Commission has arrived at a number of recom- mendations to address the problem of Alaska Natives’ legal and political disadvantage in relation to other governments. These recommendations range from tribal recognition to development of tribal court systems. ° The Congress and the Executive Branch should take clear and unambiguous positions on a number of issues pertaining to tribal status of Alaska Natives, including but not limited to the following areas: Tribal Status - A bona fide list of Alaska Native governments must be published in the Federal Register. Indian Country - The DOI Solicitor's opinion must be withdrawn and the federal government's position on the jurisdictional status of Native lands in Alaska clarified. ° The federal and state governments should target financial resources towards, and maximize the effectiveness of funding for, tribal government/village leadership development, as well as development of workable tribal court and _ law enforcement systems in village Alaska, by optimizing opportunities for local and regional strategies for financing Native governments. ° Authority: The state and federal governments should create all possible opportunities for Native communi- ties to demonstrate their respective capacities to regulate members (particularly in the areas of alcohol regulation, village social and family matters, and law enforcement). . The State of Alaska should, through Executive Order or legislative enactment, recognize the existence of Native tribes in Alaska to clear obstructions to successful implemen- tation of policies and programs affecting predominantly Native areas of the state. ° All federal and state programs and funds that address the social and economic situation of predominantly Native areas of the state should, where appropriate, be contracted to Native-controlled regional, sub-regional and village institutions as a matter of policy. 87 RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW May 10, 1993 To: Hon. Edgar Blatchford, chair Local Autonomy Task Force Gary I. Amendola Assistant Attorney General From: Re: Recommendations of the Governor's Local Autonomy Task Force On April 15 and 16, 1993, the Governor's Local Autonomy Task Force (the Task force) met in Anchorage for its fourth two-day meeting (1). At this meeting, the Task Force focused on finalizing its recommendations to the Governor. They are as follows: 1. Alaska Native Affairs Commission: The State should establish an Alaska Native Affairs Commission. The Commission would make recommenda- tions to the Governor on policy issues facing Alaska Natives in both rural and urban Alaska. The Commission would be staffed by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. The Commission should have access to day-to-day policy making at the cabinet level (2). 2. Service Areas in Unorganized Boroughs The Governor should propose legislation to authorize the formation of service areas in the unorganized borough. In order for a service area to be created, there must be approval by a majority of voters within the proposed service area and a majority of voters of each community within the proposed service area (3). The Task Force recommends that the Department of Law and other involved agencies explore whether service areas should have the authority to issue revenue bonds for capital projects. 3. Incentives For Formation of Service Areas There should be a review of incentives that are available for communities to form service areas, boroughs, or other regional service delivery organizations. To the extent that disincentives to the formation of service areas, boroughs, or other regional service delivery organizations exist, they should be eliminated. Governor's Local Autonomy Task Force 4. Public Purpose Agreements Authority The Governor should propose the amendment of existing statutes to expressly allow cities and boroughs to enter into agreements (that further a public purpose) with IRA and traditional councils. The Task Force believes that such power is implicit in existing law but that affirmation of that authority is appropriate. 5. Local Revenue Authority There should be a review of ways to increase the ability of local governments to generate revenue locally. For example, there should be no restrictions on taxes that the people wish to impose upon themselves (expand local taxing authority). 6. Provision of Technical Assistance and Training The Governor should support adequate funding to the Department of Community and Regional Affairs for the provision of technical and training assistance to local governments. This training and technical assistance should be specifically targeted at promoting the stability, service delivery capacity and accountability of local governments. The Governor should also support adequate funding for existing programs that allow for grants to communities and regions to explore local government formation options and adopt a policy of encouraging regions and communities to explore all local service delivery options. 7. Local Community Determination of Governmental Entity The State should develop uniform criteria for determining which local government entity (in the absence of a state chartered local government) that the state will deal with in any specific community and require all state 88 Rural Alaska Policy Review agencies, to the extent practicable, to deal with that entity. An important part of the criteria should require every effort of the local community to identify and agree on which local government it should be. 8. Equitable Revenue Sharing Based Upon Services Provided The State should develop a more equitable funding formula for the Revenue Sharing and Municipal Assistance programs. Such formulas should be based principally on the services provided, and not on the structure of the local government providing the service. In addition, the Governor should recommend the amendment of existing statutes so that cities choosing to consolidate or merge with boroughs are not financially or otherwise penalized by the State. 9. Regional Resource Development Authorities The Governor should recommend that the statutes providing for the establishment of Regional Resource Development Authorities be reactivated by removing the deadline for creating them currently existing in AS 30.13.010. (1) In between the February and April meetings, the Task Force held a teleconference to further discuss its proposed recommendations. (2) In 1967, the legislature created a Rural Affairs Commission in the Office of the Governor (AS 44.19.101 -- 44.19.105). We understand the commission has not existed for some time, and does not currently exist. It may be appropriate to amend AS 44.19.101 -- 44.19.105 to provide for the establish- ment of an Alaska Native Affairs Commission. (3) It may be appropriate to use Regional Resource Development Authorities (AS 30.13.010 et seq.) as a model for legislation to authorize the creation of service areas. Local Boundary Commission The Local Boundary Commission (LBC) acts onpetitions for municipal incorporation, annexation, detachment, dissolution, merger and consolidation. The LBC was created under Alaska’s Constitution to ensure that arguments for and against municipal boundary proposals would be analyzed objectively, taking areawide and statewide needs into consider- ation. The LBC consists of five members. One member is appointed from each of Alaska’s four judicial districts and the fifth member is appointed at-large. Members of the LBC serve without compensation. Procedures used by the LBC are designed to securethe reasonable, timely and inexpensive determination of municipal boundary proposals. These procedures includeextensive public notice and opportunity for comment, thorough study, public informational meetings, public hearings, a decisional meeting of the LBC and opportunity for reconsidera- tion. DCRA/MRAD provides staff support to the Commission. During 1993, the LBC held 20 meetings. Annexations were effected in Cordova, Palmer, Hoonah, Haines (2 annexa-tions), Fairbanks, Seldovia, Soldotna and Thorne Bay. In addition, the LBC approved, subject to review by the 1994 Legislature, annexations for Seldovia (2 annexations) and King Cove. Contact: Dan Bockhorst, Anchorage, 269-4500 Department of Community & Regional Affairs Municipal and Regional Affairs Division 89 RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW Authors: Teresa W. Carns Susanne Di Pietro Staft Attomey Joan F, Connors Project Evaluator Project Director Alaska Judical Council Chairman, Ex Officio Jay A. Rabinowitz Chief Justice Supreme Court Attorney Members Mark E. Ashburn Daniel L. Callahan Thomas G. Nave Non-Attorney Members Jim A. Arnesen David A. Dapcevich Leona Okakok Judicial Council staff William T. Cotton, Executive Director Teresa W. Carns, Senior Staff Associate Susanne Di Pietro, Staff Attorney Joan F. Connors, Project Evaluator Josefa M. Zywna, Fiscal officer Peggy J. Skeers, Administrative Assistant 1029 West Third Avenue, Suite 201 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1917 (907) 279-2526 FAX (907) 276-5046 Acknowledgments The Alaska Judicial Council would like to express its appreciation to the many persons who contributed to this project. Thanks go first and foremost to the people of Minto, members of the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, and to PACT's members. Their assistance made this project possible. Special thanks to those whose friendship made travel and work in Sitka, Minto and Barrow a pleasure. Over one hundred people gave generously of their time and thoughts in interviews for this report. The Council thanks them along with the readers who offered many and varied comments on the first draft of this report. The Judicial Council is required by the state's constitution (Article 4, § 9) to conduct stu and report to the legislature on improving the administration of justice. RESOLVING DISPUTES LOCALLY: Alternatives for Rural Alaska The advisory committee members, Judge Michael Jeffery, Judge Douglas Luna, and Professor Gary Copus, assisted the staff with the project design and final report, providing helpful insights. Finally, we thank the State Justice Institute and its staff for their encouragement and support for this work. PACT P.O. Box 749 Barrow, AK 99723 (907) 852-7228 Minto Tribal Court P.O. Box 26 Minto, AK 99758 (907) 798-7112 Sitka Tribal Court P.O. Box 904 Sitka, AK 99835 (907) 747-3207 Executive Summary Rural Alaskan communities have developed methods of resolving disputes locally that may benefit the state's justice system as well as the communities’ residents. The Alaska Judicial Council has evaluated a conciliation organization in Barrow (PACT), the Minto 90 Rural Alaska Policy Review Tribal Court and the Sitka Tribal Court to describe and assess these organizations and the approaches they have taken to rural justice in Alaska. The Council found that the largely volunteer organizations functioned with varying degrees of effectiveness, depending upon the strength of their case referral systems, and the level of community commitment to supporting the organization and resolving disputes through it. Recommendations included continued cooperation among local organizations and state courts and agencies, increased mutual education between tribal court and state court judges, and increased voluntary development of local organizations in other communities to resolve disputes. The Executive Surnmary includes an overall description of the evaluation project, brief descriptions of each of the three organizations evaluated, and the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Judicial Council. The report itself includes chapters on the cultural and justice system setting for each community, a brief summary of rural justice needs and alternative dispute resolution in Alaska, the legal context for the functioning of the tribal courts, and detailed evaluations of each organization. A chapter comparing the three organizations, a discussion of interactions with state courts, and a chapter on the conditions needed to replicate the work done by these organizations in other communities complete the report. Appendices to the main report include a more thorough discussion of the evaluation methods, a list of references used in the report, and a memo summarizing the recommendations made at rural justice conferences and the outcomes of those recommendations. A. Purposes and Structure of the Evaluation The Alaska Judicial Council set rural justice issues as a top priority for its staff in 1987.- The Council proposed that the State Justice Institute fund an evaluation of three organizations in rural communities that provided alternative means of resolving disputes. The purpose of the evaluation was to conduct a neutral review that would benefit the local organizations, as well as state courts and agencies and other communities. Local organizations would benefit because their limited resources would not otherwise permit them to obtain an independent review of their work State courts and other agencies would gain by having a neutral view of the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of the organiza- tions that would enable the state courts to increase their involvement with local communities. Other communities, both within and outside of Alaska, would benefit from an understanding of the qualities re ST RY SLR and conditions needed to replicate effective local means of resolving disputes. Criteria for evaluating organizations included a history of continuous functioning for at least two years, access to written case records, some level of interaction with state courts (or indication that the organization's work had an effect on the work of the state courts), and willingness of the organization's personnel to collaborate in the evaluation. The diversity of rural organizations is embodied in the three evaluated: *three of Alaska's five main Native groups are represented (Inupiat in Barrow, Athabascan in Minto and Tlingit in Sitka); *three of the state's five major geographical areas (Barrow on the North Slope, Minto in the Interior and Sitka in Southeast); * three very different organizational structures (panels of volunteer conciliators in Barrow, a panel of elected judges in Minto and a single appointed judge in Sitka); and *three major groupings of case types (small claims and civil disputes in Barrow, civil regulatory/quasi- criminal in Minto, and children's cases in Sitka). The evaluation relied on various methods of collecting information to provide e a comprehensive picture of the organizations and the contexts (legal and cultural) in which they act. Methods sensitive to cultural differences and small databases were selected including extensive interviews with the decision-makers/conciliators in each organization, other volunteers associated with the organization's work, and state court judges, regional Native non-profit corporation staff, and others familiar with the organizations’ activities. Each of the organizations gave the evaluators access to their case files; although limited in numbers, these were a rich source of information. Secondary sources, case law, analyses of Indian law, and data from state court case files and state Department of Public Safety files provided the basis for analysis of data from the interviews and organizations' case files. Of critical importance to the accuracy and completeness of the report was the draft report review process. Over one hundred and twenty-five copies of the draft report were sent out for review, to organization volunteers, decision-makers/conciliators, all persons interviewed for the report, academicians, attorneys specializing in Indian law, and the project's Advisory Committee" The Project Evaluator returned to each community for several days to go over the report personally with the people interviewed to check for accuracy and completeness of the description of the organization. This 91 Rural Alaska Policy Review thorough review process was an intrinsic part of the evalua- tion and helps firmly to validate the findings and conclu- sions drawn from the information gathered about the organizations. B. Summary Descriptions of the Organizations Evaluated 1. MINTO TRIBAL COURT ¢ The court was established in about 1940 with Bureau of Indian Affairs assistance. It was unused during the 1970s, then re-established in 1985. * The court was re-established to serve as a govern- mental entity, and to "help" the village by resolving local problems in a traditional Athabascan manner. ¢ Five judges are popularly elected to serve staggered three-year terms without payment. Members of the Advisory Committee who assisted in the evaluation design and report revision were Judge Michael Jeffery (Alaska Superior Court, Barrow), Judge Douglas Luna (Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska), and Dr. Galy Copus (Professor, Political Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks). ¢ The court holds regular hearings. Typically, only the Village Public Safety Officer, parties, and witnesses attend hearings, although the defendant may ask for an open hearing. The court maintains strict confidentiality of proceedings and case files. ¢ Part of each hearing is devoted to "counseling" parties. Judges use this opportunity to speak of community values, to warn those who are misbehaving of the consequences of their actions, to praise good role models, and to offer practical solutions to problems. ¢ The court applies the Minto Code of Village Regulations. The Code contains substantive provisions regulating liquor (Minto is a dry community), weapons, vehicle safety, minor and dependent children, animal control, and sanitation. ¢ The court's caseload is split between 84% civil regulatory actions (enforcement of local ordinances) and 16% children's matters. Over 50% of the court's civil regulatory cases are alcohol-related. Defendants commonly plead guilty or no contest. ¢ The most common sanctions imposed include fines and community work service. The court also may order counseling, rehabilitation, and restitution. * Children's cases may come to the court through notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), or upon petition of family members, e.g., for approval of traditional adoptions. In the past, the court has called before it parents who appeared to be neglecting their children. The court also has assisted in negotiating child custody agreements. * Parties have a right of appeal to the Minto Village Council. ¢ Apparently as a result of the Minto Tribal Court's activity, almost no local criminal cases are prosecuted in state court. 2. SITKA TRIBAL COURT ¢ The Sitka Tribal Court was first established in 1981 to hear children's cases under ICWA and traditional Tlingit law. The court is an arm of the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, which is organized under the Indian Reorganization Act. ¢ The court has had one judge, appointed by the tribal council, since its inception. The judge has received only token compensation. ¢ The court has held a handful of formal hearings. Generally, court activity is conducted informally with the judge functioning as a mediator-negotiator. ¢ The court operates under a Code of Civil Procedure and Children's Code. The court asserts personal jurisdiction, under traditional Tlingit law, over children born to female clan members regardless of their state of residence. ¢ The tribal Children's Code mandates that the court cooperate with the State Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) and others to coordinate functions in the best interest of Indian children and their families. Coopera- tion is a hallmark of tribal-DFYS relations. ¢ Aside from three civil actions which involved internal tribal politics, the court's entire caseload has been comprised of children's cases. The court receives referrals from attorneys, notice under ICWA from the state courts and DFYS, and from other states. A number of cases come from the tribal social service agency and from self-referrals. * Typical cases include guardianships and tribal child in need of aid matters. The court has also intervened in ICWA proceedings in Alaska and elsewhere, and success- fully won transfer of some actions to tribal court. Recently the court has assisted in negotiating child custody and 92 Rural Alaska Policy Review visitation questions. * Parties have a right of appeal to the Sitka Tribal Council. PACT a ¢ PACT is a community conciliation organization in Barrow. Its name is an acronym for the Tagalog (Filipino), Inupiat (Eskimo), and English words for "come together." The group has been active since 1989. * Broadly, PACT's goal is to promote harmony in the community. Activities designed to meet this goal include offering free conciliation for Barrow residents, educating the community about conciliation, and promoting community responsibility for conflict prevention and resolution. PACT also provides technical assistance to other Alaska communities interested in conciliation. * PACT is an independent group with no institu- tional ties to any power structure in Barrow. The group believes its independence gives it credibility and flexibility. * PACT is organized as a nonprofit corporation. Its only requirement for membership is that one be "ready, willing and able to participate as much as possible in PACT activities." Members have responsibility for carrying out tasks they volunteer to complete. * PACT applies no substantive law. Disputants craft their own solutions. The process emphasizes consensus. ¢ PACTs dispute resolution process begins with intake and screening. All disputants must personally request services. If a case is deemed inappropriate for PACT, referrals are made. Sometimes a PACT member trained in dispute resolution helps the disputants resolve their disagreement without resort to the panel process. If early resolution is not possible, the parties are referred for a panel session. These generally take up to four hours and provide the disputants an opportunity to talk about the facts of their disagreement and their feelings about the problem in a structured, safe, and non-judgmental atmosphere. ¢ Resolutions vary depending upon the unique circumstances of the case. Except in instances where the parties have agreed to a payment schedule and written out the details, case resolutions are typically memorialized by a handshake. Afterwards, a PACT member follows up to assure that the resolution is holding. Disputants may ask to have the panel reconvene if they want to further negotiate an issue. ¢ PACT's guidelines specifically exclude the following types of disputes: child abuse or neglect, foster care, child in need of aid, domestic violence, probate, disputes being processed by another agency, or cases in court. The group does agree to hear such matters as landlord-tenant problems, noise or pet complaints between neighbors, property damage, vandalism, unpaid bills, and workplace or school problems. PACI has handled a large number of small claims-type actions and landlord-tenant disputes. C. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations The purpose of this project was to describe and evaluate three organizations in rural Alaska, other than the state court system, that resolve disputes. After reviewing all of the case files from the Minto and Sitka tribal courts and the Barrow PACT conciliation organization, comparing those case files with similar cases in the state courts, interviewing nearly 100 attorneys, judges, decision- makers, conciliators, and other persons interested in the organizations, reviewing Native law and current alternative dispute resolution processes, and assessing a wide range of other information about each organization, the Judicial Council makes the following findings. Findings Rural Alaskans in Barrow, Minto and Sitka have found ways to solve their disputes locally. They have adapted three methods of dispute resolution to their unique circumstances. Barrow's PACT blends the urban, apolitical Community Boards and the rural Indian Peace- makers in the Arctic environment. Sitka's tribal court harmonizes federal, state, and traditional Tlingit law in its decisions and process. The Minto Tribal Court embodies Athabascan justice, modern and ancient. These three organizations indicate that many Alaska communities could create equally unique and effective dispute resolution organizations. The evaluation found that the organizations shared the following characteristics. Excellance on Volunteer Effort. Each organization was founded by individuals strongly committed to an idea, whether the idea was a vision of community harmony or well-being, or of collective responsibility. This initial commitment has translated over the years into a willingness to work long hours, for little or no pay. However, this reliance on volunteer support has left all three organizations susceptible, in varying degrees, to burnout and turnover among decision-makers/conciliators and support staff. Absence of Outside Fund/ing. None of the three organizations relies on outside funding sources; in fact, noneof the three has any significant material support PACT owns an answering machine, Minto owns 93 a A Rural Alaska Policy Review case files alone, and Sitka owns only a file cabinet. That these organizations have accomplished so much with so little is testimony to the integrity of the ideas that inspired them and the commitment necessary to bring those ideas to life. Community Support and Acceptance. Each organization has been continuously active in varying degrees, for a number of years. This continuity is tied to broad-based community support and acceptance. In Minto, every member of the village had the opportunity to assist in drafting village ordinances. Public participation in law- making has given the tribal court heightened credibility and visibility within the community. In Minto and Sitka, community support and awareness of the courts work serves to attract participants and to be a factor in their compliance with the courts’ decisions. In a few instances, non-Native members of the community voluntarily used or cooperated with the tribal courts in the resolution of children's and family matters, and in civil regulatory cases. Community support is also key in Barrow, since PACT hears cases only when both disputants consent. State and Governmental Agency Support and Acceptance. Each of the organizations interacts with one or more state or other governmental agencies. The Sitka tribal court works with the state's social workers and the state courts. Minto relies heavily on the VPSO program that is funded through the state Depar- tment of Public Safety. PACT, in Barrow, interacts least routinely with state agencies, but the state court does distribute information about PACT to everyone inquiring about small claims litigation. Referral Systems. A strong system for referring cases to the organization is critical to its effective- ness, judging by the experiences of these three organizations. The strongest and most reliable referral sources are those tied to governmental structures, such as the VPSO in Minto and the Sitka tribal and state social workers. The tribal courts also draw on ICWA referrals, and referrals from state agencies. PACT lacks a consistent referral source, and has the smallest caseload of the three organizations. Case Screening. Decision-makers / concilia- tors select the cases they will take and reject those that do not meet criteria they set. PACT formally expresses these criteria in writing. The Sitka Tribal Court judge screens cases based on past experience, and the Minto Tribal Court relies on discussions among its members about which cases to accept or reject. As a practical matter (given the unsettled legal status of tribal courts in Alaska), the Minto and Sitka tribal courts attempt to avoid cases that might directly challenge their authority or jurisdiction. PACT's case screening focuses more on the organization's philoso- phical beliefs about the types of cases appropriate for conciliation than on concerns about challenges to its jurisdiction. Caseload Characteristics. The three organizations differ in the types of cases that they hear. Minto's tribal court attempts to police the community, not so much to punish offenders as to "help" villagers solve problems. The court also handles some traditional adoptions in addition to the civil regulatory cases that make up the bulk of its work. The Sitka Tribal Court's cases consist almost entirely of child custody proceedings, some of which are involuntary proceedings under ICWA and some of which are guardianships. A few have been formally transferred to the tribal court from state or county courts in other states. PACT handles mostly civil matters such as landlord-tenant matters and small business cases. PACI, to date, has not handled any aiminal or domestic matters. Importance of Dispute Resolution Style. Participants in each organization believed strongly that the opportunity to resolve disputes in a certain way (e.g., with equal participation, in a conciliatory manner, or in "the traditional Athabascan way") was one of the most important reasons for, and benefits of, an alternative dispute resolution process. Separation of Tribal Court Activities from Sovereignty Issues. Tribal courts were able to handle many types of disputes satisfactorily without resolution of sovereignty issues. Rather surprisingly, the presence of those unsettled issues did not interfere signifi- cantly with the tribal courts' ability to resolve disputes productively. Cultural Cohesiveness. The three organiza- tions studied differ in the degree of cultural cohesiveness within their communities and their participants. Sitka's tribal court operates in the fourth-largest Alaska community and serves not only Tlingit, but also other Alaska Natives and Indians from other states. Indian's predominates among Sitka Tribal Court disputants, although some are non-Indians related through marriage or joint parenthood to Indian disputants. In Minto, participants are more alike, ethnically and culturally, than they are different. In contrast to these two, PACT offers conciliation services in Barrow to a wide range of cultures. Cultural or ethnic cohesiveness of the community may be helpful, but does not appear to be at all necessary. 2. Concluslons Effective Dispute Resolution. Each of the organizations has demonstrated the ability to effectively and 94 Rural Alaska Policy Review fairly resolve disputes within its community to the satisfac- tion of the great majority of participants, and it seems, to the satisfaction of parties whose cases were handled by the organization. They also have operated continuously for a substantial period of time. Interaction with State Courts. The organizations interact with state courts to varying degrees; each has demonstrated the potential for increased interaction to the benefit of the state courts. Interaction with Other State Agencies. The organizations interact with other state agencies to varying degrees. In particular, DFYS social workers and VPSOs are important sources of case referrals for the tribal courts. In general, these interactions appear to be beneficial for all parties. For example, the Minto Tribal Court appears to ease the workload of state prosecutors. Characteristics. The characteristics of effective tural dispute resolution organizations, based on this evaluation, appear to include committed volunteers to run the organization; voluntary acceptance by disputants of the organization's resolution of disputes whether through conciliation methods or other techniques; one or more reliable sources of case referrals; and acceptance, at least informally, by state courts and governmental agencies of the organization's activities. Resources Needed. Remarkably few resources were needed for the operation of each organization. Increased resources would permit better training of decision-makers/ conciliators, less turnover and burnout among decision makers/conciliators, and more effective service to the communities, among other benefits. However, the organizations' fiscal resources were not the most important aspect of their operations. Resolution of Sovereignty Issues. In the long run, the tribal courts’ ability to work with the state courts and other agencies will be improved by the resolution of sovereignty issues because the ambiguity of those issues will not act as a barrier to cooperation on the resolution of cases. Use of Tribal Courts by Non-Natives. Non-Natives voluntarily used or cooperated with tribal courts in the resolution of children's and family matters, and civil regulatory cases. This indicates that the tribal courts can serve citizens of all races in the state in their capacity as local dispute resolution organizations. Wide Range of Disputes Resolved. All three organizations evaluated appeared to have the potential to handle a very wide range of dispute types that are presently filed in state courts, including typical civil matters, family and children's matters (this was less dearly demonstrated in the case of PACT), and quasi criminal matters. They also were able to deal with personal disputes that nor mally would not be handled by the state courts. Homogeneity of Community. Homogeneity of a community's - population did not appear to be related to the ability of the organization to resolve disputes. Replication. To the extent that other communities can replicate the conditions that appear to be essential (i.e., committed volunteers, strong referral sources, willingness of community members to submit their disputes to the particular process chosen), they should be able to establish local organizations to resolve disputes within the community. Effective local organizations will serve somewhat different needs in each community and it is not recommended that a community attempt to duplicate exactly any one of the three organizations evaluated. 3. Recommendations Cooperative attitude towards legitimate work of tribal courts. Issues of Native sovereignty and the authority of tribal courts have been in dispute in Alaska for many years and will likely continue to be so. The Judicial Council takes no position on the resolution of these issues, which are beyond the scope of this study. None of the following recommendations should be taken as supporting or opposing Native sovereignty or the authority of tribal courts to compel compliance with their proceedings or orders. They should, however, be taken as supporting a cooperative attitude on the part of the State and the Tribes toward the legitimate work of tribal courts. To the extent that local communities voluntarily submit to the authority of dispute resolution organizations, the State has every reason to support this effort, including cooperation with organizations identified as tribal courts. Further discussion of remaining Issues In the ICWA state-tribal agreement. The Judicial Council recommends that in an attempt to foster cooperation between the state and its Native population, the Department of Health and Social Services considers beginning discussions on the issues that were reserved for subsequent negotiation in thel1989 ICWA State-Tribal Agreement. Those issues were tribal courts, jurisdiction, and state funding for social services and for children placed in foster homes by a tribe. Included in negotiations on state funding of social services should be discussion of a tribal guardian ad litem program modeled after the state's. Continued voluntary cooperation among rural dispute resolution organizations and state 95 Rural Alaska Policy Review personnel. The Judicial Council recommends that state agencies and employees continue to cooperate voluntarily with rural organizations to further local justice in both civil and criminal matters, in order to meet the legitimate expecta- tions of rural communities for justice in their communities. Increased voluntary development of local alternative dispute resolution organizations. In interested communities. The Judicial Council supports greater development of voluntary local dispute resolution organizations in interested communities. The State does not provide law enforcement and prosecution services to all villages for minor criminal matters, and it is appropriate for village governments to assert control over these matters and to seek local solutions. The Council recommends that the Department of Public Safety establish clear policy encouraging the referral by Troopers and VPSOs of appropriate criminal matters to local dispute resolution organizations, including tribal courts. The Department also should include discussions of local dispute resolution options in VPSO training. Continued mutual education between state and tribal courts. The Judicial Council recommends that the state and tribal court judges make continuing efforts to communicate with each other. Current effort at mutual education include the Tribal/State Court Working Group, composed of ten lawyers and judges who work with state and tribal courts in Alaska. A second important step toward mutual understanding was the half- day tribal court session at the 1992 Alaska Judges Conference. The Judicial Council recognizes the very important steps these activities represent and praises the coordinators of and participants at this year's judicial conference for their efforts at opening communication between state and tribal court judges. Also welcome are other efforts by the tribal courts to invite state court judges and court personnel to visit their locations (Metlakatla, for example, recently invited the Chief Justice and state court judges in its area to visit). Further discussions should take place in a series of meetings at which work groups organized by both state and regional levels conduct research and carry out specific taauthors THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY PARTNERSHIP for COMMUNITY PROBLEM SOLVING The Alaska State Troopers are responsible for state- wide search and rescue and the XXma; of the Alaska State Troopers' response, coordination and oversight involves searches inrural Alaska. The Alaska State Troopers also respond to rural communities in need of public safety assistance on a routine basis. Troopers support smaller village police departments and municipal police departments with complex investigations and other assistance as requested from these departments. In addition, the Alaska State Troopers are responsible for technical public safety support and training to 124 Village Public Safety Officers located strategically statewide through- out in nonprofit native regional corporations. The Department of Public Safety, through the Division of Alaska State Troopers, contracts with the 10 native nonprofit corporations who directly administer the Village Public Safety Officer Program. From a criminal enforcement standpoint, the primary complaints of major concerns responded to by the Alaska State Troopers are alcohol abuse and importation complaints, drug distribution and use, violent crimes and sexual assaults. When necessary members of the statewide Criminal Investigation Bureau based in Anchorage do respond to the rural areas to assist the field troopers in investigations as needed. UAE: ALASKA ISSUES Community Problem Solving 7 Tribal Courts * Child Sexual Abuse: - ref. CIB Sex Crime Report - most cases occur in rural Alaska and experts in this field have been placed in rural AST * Alcohol and drug enforcement * VPSO training * VPSO Program: - Legislative recognition, turnover, training 96 @ Doyouandyourcaregiver © Isthere room for curiosity, agree onhowtoraise children? imagination, andfun? @ Canyoudropinanytime? © Isitsafe and healthy? For more valuable free information about the right care for your child: Call 1-800-764-WHOO (1-800-764-9466) | | | | | | | | | | | | DOES YOUR CHILD CARE FIT YOUR FAMILY'S NEEDS? | | | | | | | | | | | | | Part One Introduction Alaska faces a number of challenges as we enter the new decade—the probability of rapidly declining revenues, an urgent need to diversify our economy and a new awareness of the necessity to preserve our environment. However, that the most important and pressing issue of the coming decade is the "Rural Problem." The Anchorage Daily News won a Pulitzer Prize for portraying rural Alaska as a place besieged by alcoholism, suicide, violence and hopelessness. Subsequent reports by t he Alaska Federation of Natives and Calista Corporation provided confirmation of this picture. The rural status quo, portrayed in these three reports is simply unacceptable. Alaska has lived with those reports from AFN, from Calista, and from the Anchorage Daily News for two years. We read them, and we reread them, and we just can't live with them. It's unacceptable. It's unaccep- table to rural Alaskans, and it's unacceptable to all Alaskans. There are three major reasons why the rural Alaskan problem should be unacceptable to all Alaskans. FIRSTLY, it's a huge fiscal issue that affects us all. If we don't do something to change this situation, we are going to see mind-boggling expenditures on social services over the next decade to try to deal with this situation. We haven't seen anything yet in terms of new prisons, police- men and social service programs compared to what's going to happen if the bridge of rural communities is not rebuilt. SECONDLY, its a cultural issue. If village Alaska were to dry up and blow away, the state, the country, in fact, the World would be losing a priceless cultural resource. At a time when human society is becoming more and more standardized, we can't afford to give up our cultural diversity. Can we imagine an Alaska without our rich, cultural diversity. So we've got a cultural reason, all of us, of all races, to work to maintain the diversity of our state. FINALLY, we have a moral reason to assist rural Alaskans. It's fundamental in the Alaskan spirit to pull together and help our neighbors during rough times. Our neighbors in rural Alaska are hurting right now. And they're hurting a lot. We have been wrestling to pull the messages of these three publications into one clear vision in my mind of what's going on in rural Alaska and where village Alaska is 2000 going to be in ten years as we enter a new century. The purpose of this series of articles is to present the picture of rural Alaska and suggest some avenues of hope about how can we begin to constructively deal with these enormous problems. The fundamental challenge facing people in rural Alaska, primarily Native people, is the transition from the past to the future. The rate of change in rural Alaska over the last several decades has been tremendous. Many people in rural Alaska are simply not making the adjustment. They are not able to bridge the gap between the past and the future, and they are falling prey to the kind of social problems that have been documented in those three reports. Traditionally, the village community served as the bridge that supported people in their efforts to cope with challenge and change in their lives and in their culture. The central tragedy of what's going on is that, in many cases, that bridge of community has simply been strained to the breaking point. People are falling though the cracks of this broken bridge As Alaskans, we can respond to this situation in essentially two different ways. One way is to focus on the individual people who are falling through the cracks. We can try to build a safety net to catch single individuals who are subject to the despair that leads to alcoholism or violent behavior—a safety net consisting of more social programs, more jails, more policemen, more counselors, and more substance abuse experts. This kind of solution is doomed to failure. Especially in these times of declining revenues, we cannot rely on "Big Government" to solve the problems. Even if we could afford it, experience has clearly demonstrated that the paternalistic approach of "solutions" from above tends to create a relationship of deepening dependency rather than self-sufficiency. The other approach to the problems of village Alaska is to help rebuild the underlying community support system which traditionally helped people cope with change. We need to help people rebuild their communities so they can once again solve their problems locally as they move from the past to the future. Rural Alaska, where strong communities provide the bridge between the past and the future. In my vision, 98 Rural Alaska Policy Review there are four planks that provide the basic structure for this community bridge. First, is the plank of local government. Second is the plank of proper physical infrastructure—properly designed and built facilities and utilities. The third plank is good education—relevant education. The final plank is a strong, diverse local economy, because it is hard to have any sort of a community without an economic base. The next four articles in this series called Village 2000 will focus in turn on each of these planks in turn, outlining the key issues and providing examples of how "local heroes" are beginning to address each of these issues successfully. Village 2000—Part Two LOCAL GOVERNMENT Introductory Note: The strain of rapid changes over the past several decades has resulted in gaping holes in the fabric of community life in rural Alaska. The community institutions which traditionally have supported individuals cope with change have broken down or withered. As a result, we have seen many Alaskans turn to alcohol, violence and suicide in despair. A solution is to repair and strengthen the underlying community support systems. I envision this community system as a "bridge" between the past and the future made up of four basic planks: local government, appropriate infra- structure, relevant education and local economy. In this, the second of five articles, I focus on the plank of local government. Local governments will face two major threats in the 90's: one is financial; the other is structural. This article examines these two issues and how some communities are dealing with them. There is a financial crisis in many communities throughout rural Alaska. A major reason for this crisis is that less money is going into local governments at a time when demands for local government services are increasing. Over the last five years, The Legislature has cut State financial aid to local governments has been cut by 35%, or $50 million. During this same period, the State operating budget has actually grown by S percent. One relentlessly increasing expense which local governments are facing is the operation and maintenance cost of all those "giveaway" capital projects that communi- ties got during the heyday of the oil boom. Many of these projects were over built and technologically inappropriate for the village setting. What never really got figured out was how people in the bush were going to be able to afford to maintain the resulting public facilities. No matter how willing local governments may be to increase taxes and user fees, there simply isn't enough cash in many communities to pay for additional operating and maintenance costs. Also, as social problems increase, local residents expect local government to provide the solutions. Local leaders hear, "Do something about the kids in trouble. Do something about the drugs. Do something about public safety problems." Local governments are facing a tremendous crunch that's getting worse every year. While no municipality has yet gone bankrupt, there are clear warning signs in the recent outbreak of cases of rural communities in trouble with the IRS. DCRA has negotiated with the IRS on behalf of 45 different communities with tax payment problems. Declining revenues are revealing the fragile financial condition of many smaller local governments—conditions which were masked by the earlier abundance of state and federal dollars. The solution to these financial difficulties is not simply to return to higher levels of state funding for local governments, even if that were possible. What we need is a new financial model for operating local government—a model founded on local commitment to improved administrative skills and realistic expectations of local service provision. The community of Shageluk, in the Y-K Delta region, is one example of a community which has taken control of its financial situation. When Shageluk contacted my department two years ago, the City had become inactive to the point that it didn't even submit the paperwork to receive state revenue sharing funds. The City owed substantial back payments to both the IRS and the Alaska Department of Labor. 99 Rural Alaska Policy Review The people of Shageluk decided to turn this situation around. Based on this strong local commitment, DCRA staff were able to help the community train new city staff, reconstruct its financial accounting and filing system, and negotiate with the IRS to clarify the city's tax burden. Shageluk is now free of debt, its city council is revived and the City has hired and trained a local person to be the city administrator. A second major issue of local government in rural Alaska is structural. The problem is the proliferation of city and tribal corporate councils and a host of other boards, committees and organizations, each of which lays claim to some aspect, often overlapping aspects, of local govern- ance. The resulting conflict, confusion and duplication of effort is overwhelming community leadership resources and diluting community energies. There is a credibility crisis in local governance. One of the symptoms of this crisis is the emergent sovereignty movement. Akiachak, a community located about 50 miles up river from Bethel, is an example of how one community responded to the proliferation of local organizations. Several years ago, the people of Akiachak decided to eliminate all but one local institution, the traditional tribal council, and put their combined energies into that one local entity. One institution they chose to eliminate was the second-class City of Akiachak. No Alaskan community had ever before chosen to return to an unincorporated status. This precedent setting process was anything but smooth. Nevertheless, after working with the State for six years, Akiachak recently became the first municipal government in Alaska to dissolve. By all reports, things seem to be working pretty well in the new simplified version of Akiachak. There are other communities considering this same option. However, every community is different and Akiachak's solution may not work elsewhere. It's still too early to say whether this solution is even the right one for Akiachak in the long run. But I think that what Akiachak has done is one response to the problem of local governance structures that aren't working. So, if we're going to fix the plank of local govern- ment, we have to work on local government finance, and also we have to take another look at the structure of local government in Rural Alaska. In the next part in this series, we'll review the need for appropriate infrastructure in the village setting. Village 2000 - Part Three INFRASTRUCTURE Introductory Note: The strain of rapid changes over the past several decades has resulted in gaping holes in the fabric of community life in rural Alaska. The community institutions which traditionally have supported individuals cope with change have broken down or withered. As a result, we have seen many Alaskans turn to alcohol, violence and suicide in despair. A solution is to repair and strengthen the under- lying community support systems. Envision this community system as a "bridge" between the past and the future made up of four basic planks: local government, appropriate infrastructure, relevant education and local economy. In this, the third of five articles, the issued discussion will focus on the plank of appropriate infrastructure. "Infrastructure," the buzzword of the 80's, was heard every time a politician wanted to build a road, dock, airport, community building or utility in his or her district. On the surface it sounded good - to bring to rural villages many of the modern necessities and conveniences found in larger cities. As it turned out, too often what was built was poorly designed, too big or too complex for the small villages it was supposed to serve, and too expensive to maintain. Thanks to the state's oil-fueled largesse of the past decade, villages across Alaska now have central community halls, washeterias, fire halls, health clinics and the like. All good things to be sure, but we're finding that too often the buildings and their systems are so complex that local people cannot maintain them. We have facilities so big that they're going to have to be mothballed because they cost too much for the local communities to maintain without subsidy from the state - and with the prospect of declining revenues, the state can't afford to keep dishing out money. Substantial state and federal funds were spent in the past two decades to bring modern water and sewer systems to rural Alaska. In the rush to replace the honey bucket, engineers sometimes failed to design systems that would last in Alaska's climate at a price local communities could afford. In Kotzebue, recently in a past winter, the water and sewer system froze for the third time since 1984. The state came through with emergency funds to repair the damage this time. Even if the state could afford to come up with the money year after year, Kotzebue residents 100 Rural Alaska Policy Review expect toilets that work. A permanent fix is estimated to cost $5 million to $8 million. Nor can we expect Kotzebue to come up with necessary funds on its own. Although Kotzebue is a relatively large rural Alaska community with 3,700 residents, its economic stability assured by the cash-paying jobs at the nearby Red Dog mine, it does not have the ability to carry the debt service needed for the repairs. One has to ask whether flush toilets are really needed in all rural villages. Alternatives such as composting toilets could prove more effective in some locations. The Department of Environmental Conservation had been working with Alas-Cans, Inc., of Healy to develop regulations that would allow the use of their Alaskan-made composting toilets. They may not be the answer for communities as large as Kotzebue, but smaller towns - such as the five Northwest Arctic Borough villages that also experienced water and sewer system freezing this winter - might benefit. In our haste to provide the most modern techno- logy for rural Alaskans, we forgot about the need to main- tain and repair the facilities. The complex technology works well in urban communities where trained service technicians are close by and plentiful. But when something breaks in rural Alaska, an expensive airline ticket is often required before a mechanic can even begin to work. With that in mind several years ago, Elim residents had the foresight to design and build a community building they could maintain and afford. Rejecting the prepackaged building plans offered by several suppliers, the community designed and built its own structure to meet its needs and abilities. Incorporating easy, energy efficient features such as a basement and thick, super insulated walls, it is inexpensive to operate. Except for the certified electri- cian hired to do the wiring, all the workers on the project were local residents. They built it so they know how to fix it when things go wrong. The problem of meeting the maintenance and operating costs of the infrastructure built during Alaska's oil-rich days are not restricted to rural Alaska we need to look no farther than Anchorage's Performing Arts Center and Ben Boeke Ice Arena. One requires a million dollar annual subsidy from the city to operate, while the other needs millions of dollars in repairs to remain usable. Nor are the problems confined to public buildings. Much of the housing stock in rural Alaska is in deplorable shape - even after nearly two decades of federal and state programs to bring decent housing to the bush. Unfortunately, much of what we built was the wrong stuff. A letter to the editor of the Tundra Drums told of the ae RR RS RS ES A AR ES SER ASRS RS problems that the letter writer and many of his friends are facing with relatively new publicly funded homes. "The floors are cracking, buckling, peeling, and rotting; the nails are starting to show and coming loose. The windows are rotting black, always wet or icy, or drafty - that makes some rooms warmer than others and others colder than others, that leaves the ceiling - some leak, around stove pipes, or other places and cracks are seen in some, or some toilets don't flush proper like a toilet should." A survey showed that in some communities people are spending up to 37 percent of all their personal income on fuel - over a third of everything they make goes into the furnace. Compare that to Anchorage where 2 or 3 percent of an individual's personal income is needed to pay for energy costs. The fact that we have energy inefficient housing in the Bush is simply making many rural residents economic slaves to their stove. Energy efficient housing is essential to the develop- ment of self-sufficient rural communities. We have the technology now to drastically reduce home heating costs. Techniques and standards developed by the Alaska Crafts- man Home Program have resulted in homes that cost 60 to 80 percent less to heat than conventionally constructed homes. This summer that technology will be used on a wide scale with the construction of 13 super insulated homes in Golovin. The federal department of Housing and Urban Development is cooperating with the state to try to improve the standards. Houses built to the ACHP standards cost moreto build, but they pay off with sharply lower operating costs. Unless steps are taken soon to correct these problems the future economic viability of both local governments and individual families in rural Alaska is threatened. Our goal is self-sufficiency - of families and of communities. The state can't erect a safety net for each individual, but it can help communities build bridges to a strong, healthy future. Village 2000 - Part Four EDUCATION Introductory Note: The strain of rapid changes over the past several decades has resulted in gaping holes in the fabric of community life in rural Alaska. The community institutions which traditionally have supported individuals cope with change have broken down or withered. As a result, we have seen many Alaskans turn to alcohol, violence and suicide in despair. A solution is to repair and strengthen the underlying 101 |S a a a SR RE Se ae a Senne eee Rural Alaska Policy Review community support systems. I envision this community system as a "bridge" between the past and the future made up of four basic planks: local government, appropriate infrastruc- ture, relevant education and local economy. In this, the fourth of five articles, the issue discussion focus is on the plank of relevant education. Just as their parents, young people in rural Alaska today face tough challenges. The culture of their ancestors often seems at odds with the pressures of today's society. Too often it's been presented as a choice of living in one culture or the other. Surely we have come a long way since the days of the early missionary schools or the era of Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding schools, in which native students were prohibited from speaking the language of their parents or were discouraged from practicing their customs. Alaska took the bold step of constructing hundreds of village high schools following the landmark "Molly Hootch" decision in the 70's in order to create an education system that melds the best of both cultures. Unfortunately recent surveys show that too many of Alaska's rural youth are having trouble competing in today's society. Iowa tests were administered in every school in the state, to 4th, 6th and 8th graders. As a whole, the state did fairly well. We scored at about the SSth percentile, about 5 points above the national average. But in rural Alaska we have school districts where the average score is as low as the third percentile - they scored below 97 percent of all students in the entire country. One must ask what's going to happen to those students, what kind of future are they going to have? Realize test scores do not tell the complete story, but they do give us useful insights. The bottom line is; we must find a way to meld the cultures. Give the young the education they need to exist in tomorrow's changing world while preserving the culture of their ancestors. In 1984, the students at Gambell's Apangalook High School stunned educators when they won the national Future Problem Solving Competition. They showed that their traditional Yupik lifestyle did not preclude them from competing with or surpassing their urban peers. The students still participated in their subsis- tence-hunting responsibilities before and after school. George Guthridge, the school's coach in the contest, has kept in contact with his winning teams - there were more than one - since the competition. Some members have gone on to college, a couple plan to teach. Others have chosen to remain in the village and pursue a subsistence lifestyle. The point is; they have the tools to do both. Early start programs like Head Start have proven invaluable in providing children firm foundations on which to build educational achievement and healthy, productive lives. Head Start has proven effective in preventing school dropouts, teen pregnancy and crime. Economic and social researchers estimate that every dollar spent on Head Start programs saves seven dollars in future special education, public assistance, incarceration and other social services spending. Not only does Head Start teach 3- and 4-year-olds skills they can use throughout their lives, it teaches their parents how to be good parents. The parents can learn management, administrative and organizational skills, too. A number of other challenges face Alaska's education system in the coming decade, many center on funding. As state revenues decline and the maintenance and operating costs of several hundred aging rural schools increase, the state will have to make some tough decisions. If they involve closing or consolidating some schools, as some suggest, these decisions will have major impacts on local communities. For instance, some schools provide electricity, water, sewer and other services to their communities. If the school is closed, how will the absence of those services affect the community? In some rural communities, the school is the major employer. Could the village survive without it? We can increase the efficiency of some districts. For instance, recent experience with newly formed boroughs has shown they can substantially reduce education administrative costs, freeing up funds that can be used to further the education of students. In 1987, the Aleutians East Borough was formed, consolidating three school districts and reducing administration costs by about $300,000. Relevant education is the key not just for the next ten years - but the years leading beyond the next century. A relevant education is what it takes to build strong communities including a healthy local economy. In the next of this series a review of what else is needed to rebuild the plank of our local economies. Village 2000—Part Five LOCAL ECONOMIES Introductory Note: The strain of rapid changes over the past several decades has resulted in gaping holes in the fabric of community life in rural Alaska. The community institutions which traditionally have supported individuals cope with change have broken down or withered. As a result, we have seen many Alaskans turn to alcohol, violence and suicide in despair. 102 Rural Alaska Policy Review A solution is to repair and strengthen the underlying community support systems. I envision this community system as a "bridge" between the past and the future made up of four basic planks: local government, appropriate infrastructure, relevant education and local economy. In this, the last of five articles, the issue discussion focuses on the plank of the local economy. The local economy is perhaps the most important plank in the "bridge" of the community support system. A community without economic means of support will soon cease to exist. Unless things change, some communities in rural Alaska will be facing this kind of extinction. One of the biggest challenges we face in the rural Alaskan economy is that two-thirds of all earned incomes in the region is related to government spending. This income comes from jobs with the school districts and local, state and federal governments. Considering the shaky state of projected state oil revenues and federal funding levels, government revenue is not a very good basis for a rural economy going into the ‘90's. We have got to look at some way to diversify the economic base of rural Alaska over the next decade or we're going to be in deep trouble. What are the alternatives to those government paychecks? Well, the first alternative—one that is really the economic foundation of rural Alaska—is subsistence. Subsistence activities have been the core of the rural Alaskan economy since earliest times. Subsistence is the economic cornerstone that allows villages to survive in many cases. It's also rural Alaska's cultural base. We need to keep this in mind during the current round of debate on subsistence. However, today the traditional economic base cannot work unless people have cash. Subsistence activities have increasingly come to rely on modern equipment which must be purchased. In today's world, the village economy is a mixed economy with mutually dependent elements of subsistence and cash economies. In the article River Trip which appeared this in "We Alaskans", Jim Magdanz described the interdependency of these economic systems. "The best (cash) jobs pay well, are seasonal and don't conflict with important subsistence activities. Typically one or two members of a village family work while others hunt, fish, process food and care for children. Paychecks are used to buy outboard motors, snowmobiles, fuel oil, freezers, clothes, gasoline—the supplies and equipment of production. The people who work may not be available to help harvest or process food, but the equipment and supplies they buy make the rest of the family more efficient. On the whole, it is a very successful economic strategy." Up to now, the cash needed to support subsistence and other village household needs has mostly come from ea SS SS PS SSS RS A AUST DORR SIDER REESE government paychecks or welfare checks. A lot of people around the state wring their hands and say there is no viable basis for a cash economy in rural Alaska. That's ridiculous. There are real opportunities out there. The real economic challenge of the 90's will be to diversify the rural economic base by promoting private sector activities. What's limiting us is a lack of imagination and supportive public policy. Probably the single biggest economic opportunity for rural Alaska in the near term will be in the area of fisheries. Changes in state fisheries policies could radically increase economic opportunities in rural communities which are now basically destitute. Policies could be changed to provide higher catch allocations to these communities. Also, there is significant untapped potential for increasing the value added to local fisheries through local processing. One example of the kind of opportunity is the remote fish processing plant that Sydney Huntington has developed on the middle Yukon. Using a startup economic development grant from my department, Sydney is developed a prototype cold-cure fish processing plant. The project serves as a model for establishing additional remote plants along the Yukon over the next ten years. This plant will create local jobs, explore quality control requirements of remote processing, provide a teaching facility for transferring remote processing information to others, and pioneer the regulatory obstacles to selling salmon processed in remote communities. Dealing with regulatory obstacles is another major problem for economic development in rural Alaska. Success in business in rural Alaska, requires both highly developed entrepreneurial skills and a sophisticated under- standing of government regulations and policies. Even non-resource based businesses like air transport, communica- tions and power generation require a tremendous amount of bureaucratic and political savvy. Clearly, some regulations are necessary to protect the public health and the public trust. However, all too often regulations have been developed on the basis of urban business and market concerns. Rural entrepreneurs end up having to comply with regulations which make little or no sense in the rural setting. An important step in diversifying the rural economy is the development of a regulatory structure that reflects the realities of small businesses in remote locations. We also need to help rural entrepreneurs educate themselves about how to deal effectively with the regulatory morass. From the Papers of: Mary Rutherford 103 RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW GENERAL OVERVIEW Agency Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc. has been in existence since 1965. It is estab- lished in the State of Alaska as a non-profit corporation with a 501 (c) 3 tax exempt status. During the past 28 years, RurAL CAP has initiated, operated, spun-off, developed and main- tained many programs, projects and organizations. Project Grass Roots, Community Enterprise Development Corporation, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Anchorage Head Start (Kids' Corps), Internship Program for Alaska, Alaska Village Alcohol Information League, Alaska Native Training Institute, Native Allotment Association, Rural Energy Enterprises, and nine of the existing regional Native non-profits were originally started and spun-off from RurAL CAP. RurAL CAP has the distinction of starting the national program, "Weatherization." As a statewide agency RurAL CAP provides support to the homeless far from the urban setting. Rural communities are feeling the pressure of the times from the onslaught of substance abuse, seasonal migrant workers, housing shortages and overcrowding. Additionally, the extended Native families contribute to the undercount of the homeless. Two and three genera- tions of families living under one roof places a substantial strain on families already over- burdened with lack of work, poor health, and insuf- ficient water and sanitation. HOMELESS SERVICES The face of the homeless is different from those we see in the lower forty-eight. The nature of the problem is vastly different and difficult to stratify by specific informa- tion. However because of the Public Law 100-77, Title VII, subtitle D, Emergency Community Services Homeless Grant RurAL CAP provides supportive services in villages and hub communities throughout the state. RurAL CAP subcontracts with Breadline in Fairbanks which offers over 150 meals to people twice a day; Rural Alaska Community Action Program Tundra Women's Coalition in Bethel providing shelter to women and children; Women in Safe Homes in Ketchikan supporting women, who as a result of domestic violence find themselves homeless; Bean's Cafe in Anchorage provides food and referral assistance for the needy; Covenant House serves youth in crisis by providing shelter twenty four hours a day 7 days a week. All five agencies are recipients of funding on a yearly basis. WEATHERIZATION RurAL CAP' s Weatherization has been adminis- tering the remainder of the funds for families who are in need of assistance. In the past year in the village of Savoonga, a family had their home burn down. Weatherization staff assisted by installing new floors, ceiling, walls, insulation, door, and windows. Because of the expertise of the supervisors and local hire, the costs were kept to a minimal amount. Elderly, handicapped and families with small children are the prime recipients of these funds without which help would not be available to them. ENERGY In 1987 RurAL CAP began the Rural Energy Enterprises, Inc.(REE). As a wholly-owned subsidiary of RurAL CAP, REE is a wholesale distributor for advanced, energy efficient and money saving products for rural Alaskans. One of the products is the Toyostove space heaters. It is a fuel efficient heating system. Rural residents are saving a total of $300-$500 per year on fuel costs. This year's sales of this product have grossed almost two million dollars and are expected to go higher by the end of the year. REE has created jobs in isolated villages across the State. With the need for product dealerships, the numbers of individual dealers continue to increase. Toyotomi has intro- duced new models this year: the Laser 56 and 73. Continuous growth challenges the REE staff to learn and educate their dealers about new features and service requirements to ensure that they are as reliable as the old Toyostove. The introductions of the energy saving products has been a success. Through the continued efforts to promote 104 Rural Alaska Policy Review economic development in remote areas of the State, this enterprise has provided not only jobs but a cost effective resource to assist people heating their homes. Over one-half of the 210 villages in rural Alaska have no flush toilet or running water. Approximately 70 villages have utility systems, but the majority get their water from village wells where it is transported home in plastic containers. The water can easily become contaminated with the crude methods of maintaining the resource. A report by the Department of Energy Conservation states that it would cost up to $50 million for the next two decades to upgrade village systems. Due to the harshness of the weather and environment, rural residents feel that if change does not occur they will be losing their basic rights; survival. In 1992 RurAL CAP entered into a contract with a Native conservation group in Southeast to assist them in monitoring water quality regulation affecting their salmon spawning streams and educating subsistence users about the water quality in their area. It is groups such as this that RurAL CAP assists in taking action on their own behalf to work for the betterment of their community. Through the information they gained in this study, they were able to inform the Governor's office of their plight. HEAD START The operation of the Head Start program was conceived and instituted over 27 years ago under the umbrella of RurAL CAP organization. The well earned reputation of providing quality early childhood education and services is a direct result of the RurAL CAP's Board and staff working together to support their mission of empowerment and self sufficiency. There are Head Start Programs serving over 1,000 children in twenty two sites in four regions of the State - Northwest, Southeast, Yukon-Kuskokwim, and Southcentral. Maintaining the cultural integrity of each of these diverse populations has been a challenge in which individual needs are prioritized. Head Start has been the vehicle in which self esteem is fostered and nourished. The belief that parents are the primary teachers of their children helps engender in them their role as caretakers and the reasons to build stronger families. A healthy family can help create visions for a healthier community. There is an increasing number of Alaskan Native people who live below the poverty level and with the unemployment rates averaging 75% in most villages, RurAL CAP has pooled its resources to develop a project that will provide income to Native artists and craftsmen in rural areas. Through the consultation of a well known catalog designer and merchandiser, RurAL CAP is in the production of "Aurora" a direct mail catalog. The purpose of the catalog is to reduce the cases and conditions of poverty in rural Alaska. It is anticipated through this endeavor that Alaskan made products will be sold not only in the contiguous states, but in foreign countries throughout the world. Additional information on the agency and its programs is provided through the enclosed RurAL CAP brochure, plus a more personal glimpse of the agency is found in the attached 1992 Annual Report. Organization RurAL CAP is overseen by a 21 member Board of Directors representing the major poverty areas of Alaska. The Board maintains a mixture of target area, public ‘sector and private sector representatives plus associate non-voting members. Regular meetings of the Board occur quarterly with Executive Committee meetings interspersed. A list of the Board of Directors is found in the appendix of this proposal packet. Currently, the agency is led by the Executive Director with administrative oversight of business management, accounting, data processing, purchasing and secretarial support staff. Programs are organized by departments, each headed by a department manager or director. RurAL CAP employs approximately 200 persons, 65% of whom are villagers throughout Alaska. Finances RurAL CAP operates on an annual budget. Agency funds fluctuate with the variation in fiscal years. The actual annual revenue average is between $8.4 million and $8.8 million. Funding is received mainly from federal government, state government, with some foundation and public sector monies. A great amount of support is generated through volunteer work and in-kind contributions from the communities being served. Continuation grants, demonstration projects, supplemental funds, new grants, and contracts are actively sought on an on-going basis. Fund raising occurs on a programmatic level and new sources of revenues and methods of generating revenue are a regular part of agency planning. An annual independent audit is conducted by a private firm. The audit meets both federal single audit and state single audit requirements. The current audit was conducted by Peat, Marwick and Associates. The corporate year is October I through September 30. Use of CSBG Fund CSBG funds remain one of the most versatile sources which allows RurAL CAP to meet its mission 105 Rural Alaska Policy Review statement of "promoting maximum participation by village people in the elimination of the causes and conditions of poverty." While many funding sources have narrow restrictions on the scope of services, CSBG funds can be used to respond to the most pressing and unmet needs of people in poverty. Over the past years, RurAL CAP has used CSBG funds for alcohol and other drug abuse prevention. In this area, RurAL CAP used CSBG funds to demonstrate that Native people could best help Native people through a holistic community development model based on the premise that development must come from within and that it must go hand-in-hand with personal responsibility and development. Creative demonstration projects designed to inform rural people about the advantages of energy conservation as a way to save money have been developed by RurAL CAP. Other creative and innovative strategies developed by RurAL CAP to empower and attack poverty and poverty thinking at its roots have included: energy regional contracts, systems development, training, local control strategies, citizen and village participation conference, alcohol rural provider conference based in villages, intern- ships, child development, Anchorage Older Persons Action Group, Subsistence, Anchorage Head Start, Fairbanks Head Start, Berger Committee Hearings, AFN-1991 education, resource mobilization, energy conservation strategies, child care program and urban as well as rural emergency food and shelter. Scope of Proposed Services During FY 1995, RurAL CAP proposes to use CSBG funds in seven major component or project areas: Child Development, Planning and Research, Village Participation Conference, Subsistence and Natural Resource Protection, Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention; the Southeast Alcohol Prevention Project; and training for Head Start parents. The CSBG provides core funding for all except the Child Development portion. CSBG provides coordinated funding for training of Head Start parents and village staff which do not exceed 5 % of the total CSBG funds. The use of CSBG funds for these areas was deter- mined by utilizing three avenues of information regarding the unmet needs of people living in poverty. The first avenue is the people themselves through their expression of issues and concerns at the Village Participation Conference. The second is the Board of Directors, especially target area representa- tives, through their discussion and presentation of unmet needs in the poverty areas of the state which they represent. The third is the RurAL CAP staff, through their direct work with communities and individuals in need of service and support, as well as needs assessments done by projects on- going in villages. Areas which need to be addressed are brought to the attention of the Board of Directors. VILLAGE PARTICIPATION CONFERENCE 1993 ACHIEVING COMMUNITY GOALS BY MAXIMIZING EXISTING RESOURCE'S What? The Village Participation Conference (VPC) is a forum for village leaders from throughout Alaska to meet and discuss important rural and Alaska Native issues. Who? Leaders from Alaska's villages, state legislators, and guest speakers from all over the state attend the VPC. Since people from every corner of rural Alaska attend, it is possible for villagers from well over a thousand miles apart to meet in Juneau for the VPC. Organization of the VPC is done by a group of villagers elected at the end of the prior years conference, which makes the VPC aconference designed by villagers for villagers. People meet at the VPC for one week near the end of February every year. The conference provides an opportunity for rural residents to share information, discuss issues of common concern, learn about the legislative process, and develop solutions for village problems. In 1973, the first Citizens Participation Conference (CPC) was held to bring the problems of low income residents to a forum where they could be discussed. While many issues affecting rural Alaskans were discussed at CPC's, it 106 Rural Alaska Policy Review became apparent that villages have their own unique problems that needed addressing. So, after almost ten years of CPC's, RurAL CAP decided to organize a conference targeted towards the problems unique to rural Alaska. This was the beginning of the annual Village Participation Conference (VPC) held in Juneau. One problem facing villagers in remote Alaska is inaccessibility to the decision making process in the state and national governments. Costs associated with traveling such great distances in a cash short region make visiting the legisla- ture unreasonable. As a result, many decisions that affect villages greatly were (and still are) made without adequate input from the people affected by those decisions. By holding the VPC in Juneau, participants (whose attendance is sponsored by RurAL CAP, or come on their own) are able to meet with their representatives during the legislative session. This helps to facilitate a face-to-face communication link needed between legislators who represent areas that are sometimes the size of small countries, and the villagers who live there. In addition, the process associated with western decision making is something that not intuitive and needs to be learned. Villagers can better understand the process used by the people in Juneau and Washington D.C. by using that process them- selves. Each conference is planned with the involvement of at least seven village residents who are elected at the end of the prior year's VPC to assist the staff of RurAL CAP. Every year, the VPC Planners select the annual conference theme, select the speakers to be invited to address that theme and approves a process for addressing issues of concern to participants. The agenda of issues to be addressed, however, comes from a general forum held the night the VPC begins, wherein the people present offer their concerns about local, regional and statewide problems. RurAL CAP sponsors the attendance of a certain number of participants by paying for their travel and expenses. An informational letter and application form is sent several months prior to the VPC to over 200 village traditional, IRA and city councils. Local and regional native corporations are also encouraged to sponsor VPC participants. Participants are chosen on the basis of balanced geo- graphic representation. Attention is also given to providing as many villages as possible with the chance to participate regu- larly—with a fair number of previous attendees included to help orientate the newcomers to the conference. At the conference, work is carried out by dividing the general assembly into a number of "working groups," each of which decides the most important issues facing village commu- nities in Alaska and drafts them into resolution form. After all the resolutions have been submitted, the general assembly votes on amendments, dissolution's, or adoptions of the resolutions. THE 1993 VPC The 1993 VPC began Monday night, February 22 with an orientation meeting at Centennial Hall in Juneau. At this time, participants divided into ten working groups, which would meet daily for the rest of the conference. Following the introductions, an issue forum made it known what people wanted to discuss. At this forum, over forty separate issues were presented for discussion by the people in attendance. These issues became the basis for deliberation by the participants and the topics of the speeches for the rest of the week. A deadline of 3 :00 P.M. . Thursday was set for individual working groups to hammer the issues they felt were most important into workable resolutions. These draft resolu- tions were processed by the RurAL CAP staff, and were ready for voting Friday morning. The voting process took several hours, and many resolutions were changed, adopted, or dis- carded. At this point, a VPC resolutions committee took over, each resolution. RurAL CAP staff members kept track of all the revisions and changes made during the final stage of this process and compiled the final drafts of the resolutions. While most of the week was dominated by presenta- tions or working within the individual groups, other worth while activities took place. Tuesday, at the "Vision Seekers - Wisdom Keepers" forum, elders and young people met to speak of the relationship between their generations. Also on Tuesday, a group of legal experts held a panel on the Solicitor's Opinion on the status of Alaska Native Tribes. Ermalee Hickle hosted tea at the Governor's Mansion Wednesday, and ANS hosted a potluck Thursday evening. The VPC resolutions are the culmination of a years worth of thought and a weeks worth of work. These resolutions represent issues at the forefront of Alaskan villagers minds. However, the process with which they are derived may be as important as the resolutions themselves. After a weeks worth of discussion, new ideas, problems and solutions are represented by the resolutions. Since the resolutions represent the decisions made by across section of villagers representing the many geographical regions of Alaska, it is important for these decisions to be known by the appropriate leaders and decision makers. So after the conference, the resolutions are distributed to state legisla- tors, government officials, villagers and others concerned about important issues facing rural Alaska. Thus the resolutions help bridge a gap in communication, which otherwise would be difficult to fill. 107 Rural Alaska Policy Review EDUCATIONAL ISSUES That the 1993 VPC urge the Department of Educa- tion to implement an elementary grade Alcohol and Drug Program. That the YKSD school office should be located within the YKSD school district. That the 1993 VPC endorse APU video tape efforts and encourage our elders to participate when a grant is obtained. That the 1993 VPC hereby urges the Alaska legisla- tors to support the funds for youth programs and teen centers in every Alaskan village. That the 1993 VPC hereby urges Alaskan society and specifically the media to support the positive portrayal of Native culture and eliminate negative stereotyping. That the number of students required to keep a school functioning does not have to increase to keep the school open. That a review or amendment to the Alaska Compiled School Law on teacher tenure to extend the time to acquire tenure to five years. By the 1993 VPC to urge the U.S. Congressional Delegation to recalculate the formula to adjust to the higher cost of living, expansion, quality improvements, program improvements, training and technical assistance in Alaska. The 1993 VPC thereby demand the government and legislature to pass a law with full funding to have cultural awareness and Alaska Native language in our schools. That the 1993 VPC hereby urges the Alaska state legislature to change the priority of state funding to include funding survival camps across Alaska. By the 1993 VPC hereby urges the indigenous people throughout Alaska to convey support to the Alaska state legislators to preserve the Alaska native language. (Support for Senate Bill NO. 1) The 1993 VPC urges the state of Alaska to use KANA language computer format statewide. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT That the 1993 VPC hereby urges the state legislature to pass a bill to build or upgrade these (Community & head start) buildings. That the state of Alaska provide Emmonak residents with power equalization cost. That the legislature pass a bill that will provide money for the project. (A bridge to tie Nondalton, Iliamna & Newhalen together) Approving capital improvement projects for the City of Emmonak. That the 1993 VPC strongly urges the state of Alaska and federal government to adequately fund these projects. (Certain road construction improvements) That the VPC insists that the state of Alaska place these improvements on airstrips in rural Alaska as a very high priority since the money will be available in the Department of Transportation. By the 1993 VPC that the state appropriate funds to establish an aggressive program of grants and low interest loans to develop locally determined job and economic development programs; and that the program include funding for training and technical assistance for local people. That the 1993 VPC hereby urges the legislature to pass a bill to resolve this problem. (BIA construction of housing for the elderly) WATER & SEWER / HEALTH ISSUES That the 1993 VPC urges the Governor and state legislature include these (water/sewer-dump / landfill facilities and access roads) projects as priority in the use of the $640 million tax settlement. That the 1993 VPC hereby urges the Governor and the legislature to support a bill to obtain a sanitation vehicle for the City of Hooper Bay. That if the state of Alaska continues to ignore this problem (Inadequate drinking water and sewage disposal) we urge RurAL CAP to contact the national news media to document the Third World Conditions that exist in one of the richest states in America. That Tenakee Springs would like to request more frequent and necessary visits by the statehealth nurse or funding for a part-time nurse aide. That the 1993 VPC hereby urges the Governor, Alaska legislature, Alaska congressional delegation to appropriate adequate funding to bush and rural communities for safe water and sewer programs and set in place a five year plan to bring all villages up to healthy standards. 108 Rural Alaska Policy Review The 1993 VPC thereby urges the Governor or | egislature adopt and fund a plan to provide and develop accessible landfill site and garbage hauling equipment. SAFETY ISSUES That the 1993 VPC strongly urges the state of Alaska and federal government to adequately fund these projects. (Channel Buoys for Kwigillingok) That the 1993 VPC urges the commitment of the state Department of Transportation to resolve the problem in Ninilchik specifically and focus resources on rural transportation safety improvements in generally. OTHER ISSUES That the 1993 VPC be dedicated to the memory of Matthew Iya and Walter Charley. That the community of Tenakee Springs requests funding for needed renovation and repair of trails. The state legislature review the existing laws concerning bootlegging and enact stronger legislation if necessary. To assure the law governing the Alaska longevity bonus program will not be discontinued. That the 1993 VPC strongly urges the Governor and state legislature to look at rural communities on a whole rather than by subject. That the 1993 VPC hereby urges the Alaska state administration and the federal government to appoint at least one native person living in one of the affected communities to serve on the Exxon Valdez Board of Trustees. By the 1993 VPC that the state legislature amend the Local Option Law to require that the local option remain in effect for no less than three years. SUBSISTENCE ISSUES By the 1993 VPC hereby urges the state of Alaska to put the rural preference issue on subsis- tence to the state ballot. That the Governor appoint a task force to resolve this wanton waste of the seas' resources and present legislation to petition the U.S. Government to see that this terrible waste is stopped. Regional Offices The Municipal & Regional Assistance Division provides services out of seven regional Regional Offices Nome, Fairbanks Kotzebue Dillingham, Bethel offices located in the Anchorage following regional centers: Anchorage Kotzebue Bethel Juneau Dillingham Nome Fairbanks These offices are a key component in delivering the technical assistance and program services described elsewhere in this document. Staff in these offices are constantly traveling to communities to work with local government staff and elected officials to help them deliver local public services. Their priorities for the last several years have been: Financial Management Assistance. * — Public Utility Business Management Assistance. * — Local Government Assistance including: - Ordinance development and codification. - Conducting elections. - Personnel practices. - Tax assessment and collection. - Title 4 (Alcohol) local option laws. - Land management and planning. On site technical assistance continues to prove itself as the most effective means of delivering training and technical assistance to local government officials. The division’s regional office staff continue to provide training and assistance on local government administration and other local government issues. Examples of assistance include: Newly elected officials training. Local elections assistance including Title 4, alcohol control elections. * — Technical advice on ordinance writing & codification. Office and time management advice for administrators and clerks. * — Training on parliamentary procedures. * Installing and using computerized financial management systems. Regional office staff also assist other program staff, such as the Rural Utility Business Advisor (RUBA) program, in delivering training and technical assistance. Last year the regional office staff conducted or assisted in the presentation of over 10 regional workshops to some 150 local govern- ment officials. Since many regional office staff are bi-lingual and all are quite familiar with the local government staff of the communities they work with, they are often asked to play a liaison role not only between DCRA program staff but also between community residents and project managers or staff of other State and federal departments as well. 109 Rural Alaska Policy Review Head Start is a comprehensive community development program that provides for low income young children and their families through: * Grants to 11 grantees across the state; * Comprehensive services to over 2,500 children and families in 79 communities; * Local hire of low income parents as teachers, aides, cooks, program administrators that provides them with career opportunities and course work through the state university system that can lead to an A.A. and B.A. degree, CDA (Child Development Associate Certificate). *Management information system.. ChildPlus 111 for collection of planning informa- tion from Head Starts statewide; *Monitoring of Head Start programs in partnership with Region X and the American Indian Program Branch from Washington, D.C. These week long monitorings review grantee's compliance in all Head Start performance standards; *Alaska Interagency Committee on Young Children, representing DCRA, DOE, HSS, DPS, DEC. The committee meets quarterly in the Governor's Conference Room; *Head Start Health Improvement Initiative that has published a draft of standards of practice for dentists working with young children (particularly in rural Alaska), educational materials for parents and providers, WIC, Infant Learning Public Health Nurses. Mental health information based on a family wellness model that will be used by providers and communities. Some of this project will be incorporated into national health service delivery systems; ALASKA HEAD START Community & Rural Development Division- Department of Community & Regional Affairs FY93 REPORT Head Start State Collaboration grant which: -publishes a statewide newsletter - Alaska's Children -facilitated a MOA for services to young children with disabilities in conjunction with DOE, HSS, DCRA -facilitated the first collaborative work plan for the Interagency Committee on Young Children -will publish a directory of services for young children in departments throughout state government -supported the establishment of the Alaska Head Start Association that includes families, friends staff and will be part of the national Head Start network -produced two Head Start spots for televi- sion, with the Governor's Media Center on "Parents as Teachers" and "Dental Health" -Plans for Head Start in Alaska with the Head Start Directors and Region X and American Indian Program Branch, Head Start Association for a continuum of services for low income young children and their families that supports self sufficiency -provides transition planning for Head Start families into public school -reviews state department data systems on services to low income young children in the state 110 Rural Alaska Policy Review Alaska Head Start Program FY 93 Alaska Head Start State Collaboration Project *Kayutkutlluni Oepghalleg - Working Together Marilyn Webb, Alaska Head Start State Collaboration Project Director The Alaska Head Start State Collaboration grant is starting its second year of "helping each other work together." The grant comes through the governor's office to the Depart- ment of Community and Regional Affairs, State Head Start Office, Juneau, Alaska. The five year $500,00 grant was awarded to the State by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. State match funds for the grant are 20%. The Project's goals are: * to support/facilitate working on statewide commu- nity, family based models of prevention, using Head Start comprehensive services as a model; *to be a statewide contact and resource onacontinuum of comprehensive services to low income young children and families throughout Alaska; * to establish and support collaborative agreements and working relationships between agency and department programs; and * to network with and link state departments and federal agencies who have programs for young children. Where the project is now... The Alaska Head Start Health Improvement Initiative on dental health and family wellness will be a primary collabo- ration task. The efforts to promote appropriate, cultural family centered services to Head Start has broad ranging implications for use throughout the state. The project continues to collabo- rate with Indian Health Services, dentists, WIC, Infant Learn- ing, preschools, and child care programs through meetings and conferences. Information on nutrition, getting ready for the dentist, curriculum activities for classroom and home have been piloted. Family centered standards of care for dentists treating Head Start aged children has been approved by the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry and the Alaska Dental Associa- tion. The Health Training and Technical Assistance Project's final meeting was held in September The T/TA working group reviewed the goals and accomplishments for this three year project and began assessments for the continuation of T/TA through the new Head Start TASK training centers. A final report for the project will be published in January. The Alaska Interdepartmental Committee on Young Children has produced a two year collaborative work plan. This work plan represents the priorities for young children in the State Departments of Community and Regional Affairs, Educa- tion, Health and Social Services, Environmental Conservation and Public Safety. The Committee meets quarterly and its members are the "experts" in early care, education, and health in these departments. The collaboration project will publish the first state department Directory of Services for Young Children in conjunction with this committee. This year a statewide memorandum of agreement between three major state departments; Community and Re- gional Affairs, Health and Social Services, and Education will be signed by commissioners. This MOA is a model for services for Head Start children with disabilities in Alaska. Local Head Start Programs can use this for the facilitation for local plans. The MOA includes and recognizes child care as part of this continuum. As these services are expedited for Head Start children, other state children's programs may replicate the process. Two "Head Start Minutes" were produced as televi- sion media spots by the collaboration project and the Governor's media center. The subjects are dental health and parents as the child's first teacher. Alaska now has a brand new Head Start Association that will have it's first statewide meeting in January, 1994. Ron Herndon, President of the National Head Start Association, Alaska's First Lady and Honorary Chair of Alaska Head Start, parents, staff andfriends of Head Start will attend. Advisory committees and conferences have given the collaboration project the opportunity to participate statewide in planning for and linking services for our children and families. We sit on the advisory committee for the state's Health and Social Services Children's Health Plan; the Protocol Commit- tee for Maternal and Child Health, Public Health Nursing; the University of Alaska's full inclusion project; the Child Care 111 Rural Alaska Policy Review Task Force; the Head Start Directors' Association; the Alaska Training and Technical Assistance Support Center; and have been a resource for Healthy Alaskans 2000. Alaska's Children is the quarterly collaboration newsletter. The publication reports Interdepartmental news, special projects, collaboration issues, events, profiles of child advocates . . . It is a statewide publication concerning collaborative issues and advocacy for young children. In a remote state like Alaska, which is twice the sized of Texas, Alaska's Children has become a welcome forum for many ECE professionals. What's Next in *woosh een yei jidanei (working together) The basket maker in a remote Alaskan village plans her weaving carefully. She must take into account the purpose, the continuity of design, conservation of materials, the market, the strength of execution. So for us, the collaborative challenges unfold and must be woven into the fabric of our state's service. As we work to meet our objectives, new ones present them- selves. We will move into transition programming possibili- ties with Chapter 1 and migrant education. Our resource guide on children's services will help define collaborative priorities statewide, the Alaska Head Start Association will provide advocacy for the state's programs during expansion and change. Our health focus looks at partnerships with EPSDT as a begin- ning place for exploring better services for Head Start. The collaboration project has been a "lightning rod" for young children's issues. We are capturing the state history of advocacy for young children over the last 20 years through a "time line" so we can move on without losing the valuable work done by a variety of public, private, state and federal resources for children in Alaska. The State's technology and information systems on children's programs and services need to be reviewed, inte- grated for utilization of planners and managers. The challenge is *ilakluta caliluta (working together) for the future. It will continue to be an opportunity for meeting our goals and objectives, be open to revision and change, to know when to refer, when to facilitate and to remain objective and non-partisan while working in the political, ever changing state bureaucracy. On September 10, 1997, our headline should proclaim that the successful Alaska Head Start State Collaboration Project has improved services to young children in Alaska. It will have been accomplished through system reform supported through *woosh een yei jidanei. Alaska Head Start Association In June of 1992, training and technical assistance was presented to a group of people with a vision to create an Alaska Head Start Association. By-laws, policies and procedures, budgets, and dues schedules were drafted by this dedicated group; and on February 19, 1993, during a state wide teleconference, the Alaska Head Start Association became a reality. The purpose of the Alaska Head Start Association is to support the Alaska Head Start community, to advocate for children and families, and to provide training and professional develop- ment opportunities. Representatives of various members of the Association will meet periodically to plan and carry out activities for the target groups, i.e., parents, staff and directors; and to promote Association activities. The Association is organized as a non-profit organization for charitable, educational and literary purposes. Guidance for the Association will be provided by an Executive Board and six standing committees. The Board will consist of nine elected members~ of which at least 3 will be program parents, 2 program directors, 2 program staff and 2 friends. Board members will be elected at the Association annual meeting. The standing committees will include: Planning and Development, Communication, Networking, Training, Election and Membership, and By-Laws. An annual meeting of the membership will be held in January of each year. Regular meetings of the membership will be held at times and places designated by the member- ship. Teleconference and telecommunications will be utilized to provide a broader participation in Association meetings. The Association will consist of directors, staff, parents and friends affiliated with Alaska Head Start programs The Association will be supported by dues paid annually by members of the Association. Individuals who wish to support the Alaska Head Start Association are encouraged to join. Dues for "friends" of Head Start are $20.00. The Alaska Head Start Association now joins a nationwide network of Head Start organizations: The National Indian Head Start Directors' Association and the National Head Start Association. These powerful organizations repre- sent local, state and regional interests through the formula- tion and promotion of a nationwide policy agenda and advocacy agenda. These agendas address legislative and policy issues and other areas of concern within the Head Start programs. 112 a SS RS 2 SSS ET A A A Rural Alaska Policy Review Key issues that are included in national agendas include: >sovereignty > Jurisdiction >Eligibility >Full Funding >Training and Technical Assistance >Service Expansion >Construction >Costs of Operation >20% Match >Administrative Costs >Full day/full year >Wages/Benefits/quality set aside >Prenatal to age three programs THE ALASKA HEAD START HEALTH IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE The Alaska Head Start Health Improvement Initiative (AHSHII) has been created in response to government willingness to focus service improvement resources on the Head Start population in Alaska. AHSHII is the administrative and organizational umbrella for three interrelated projects now underway to improve the health of preschool children in Alaska Head Start programs. These projects are: The Family Wellness Needs Assessment, The Health Start Dental Project and the Technical Assistance and Training Project. We now know more about how to prevent and treat children's health problems than is reflected in the care available to preschoolers in Alaska Head Start programs. With greater emphasis on meeting the health care needs of children and mothers, new government prevention efforts bolster the health of Alaskan infants and toddlers. However, the scarce health care resources available to the 1800 preschool children in Alaska Head Start programs remain primarily focused on solving acute or emergency health problems. For maximum benefit, early health care investments for children zero to three years should be maintained through the preschool years. Finding solutions that will have lasting impacts requires a multi-dimensional view. Quick fixes to improve health care do not work. Existing family and system strengths must be harnessed to a collaborative problem solving process. Strategies that improve health care access, increase the numbers of qualified health care providers, and reduce the fragmented condition of the health care system in ways that Head Start families find most useful and acceptable must be identified and activated. Each of the ASHII projects is designed to build new strategies to improve our children's health. With a philosophy of family and community empowerment, Head Start is ideally suited to play a pivotal role in improving the health of preschool children in Alaska, but coordinated planning among government systems is needed so scarce health resources target those children who need them most. Alaska must invest in the future through emphasizing prevention for its youngest citizens. The Family Wellness Needs Assessment The goals of the Family Wellness project is to describe the home environments of Alaska Head Start children, the impact of that environment on their behavior and activities, as well as resources that could be created or enhanced to build resilient (or protective) factors that would reduce stress in the child's environment. The project was carried out in partnership with the Alaska Native Health Service and the Alaska Head Start Program. The project design includes three interconnected tiers of information. Tier One was designed to outline the facts of life which can influence the capacity of Head Start families to protect and nurture their children. This work, completed in 1 991, outlined requirements for further study. Tier Two gathered information about the environ- ment surrounding the Head Start child; specifically informa- tion concerning his or her family and community. Tier Three gathered data about the individual children's behavior which could then be examined in the context of the family and community information. The needs assessment for Tiers Two and Three were designed over a 18 month period and identified both areas of risk and protective factors. Interview questions posed to parents explored such areas as caregivers for the child, the stresses in the child's life, and both the stressful components and the supportive factors that are present in the parent's and/or primary caregiver's life. The advisory committee chose to use kinship mapping (family trees and genograms) as the method for identifying family members and members of extended support systems. Findings from the completed needs assessment show that not all of the 2,529 children participating in Alaska Head Start programs currently exhibit overt effects as a result of exposure to multiple risk factors in their early years. These risks are known to multiply and compound over the childhood years. The result of these risks may not be identified until the children reach adolescence and become part of the daunting Alaska suicide statistics for older adolescents and young adults. For this reason, Head Start realizes that it is imperative to begin efforts to offset these risks in very early childhood. 113 = Rural Alaska Policy Review We know from the literature that many children at risk will have resilience to over- come risk factors even if there are two or more present in their lives. We also know some strategies to reduce the risks and to enhance known protective factors. The challenge for the Alaskan Head Start system and all other children's advocates in Alaska is to build on the existing knowledge of ways to reduce the negative impact of these risk factors while simultaneously building on the natural strengths and resilience of these children and their environment. Head Start needs to promote resiliency as the central goal for the children and families it serves, so that young children are positively supported in their long-term development. This will require a thoughtful marriage of the knowledge of the risks posed to children and families with the knowledge that the enhancement of protective qualities promotes this very resilience. Where risk factors, protective factors, and Head Start intersect, collective wisdom must be applied to identify how best to use or enhance existing resources to support Alaska Head Start programs in meeting the goal of family wellness. For further information: Sally Mead, AHSHII, Project Director, Prevention Associates, (907) 272~925. CLINTON ADMINISTRATION WELFARE REFORM STRATEGIES THE VALUES OF REFORM: WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY The vision of welfare reform is simple and powerful: we must refocus the system of economic support from welfare to work; we must reinforce traditional values of work, family, opportunity, and responsibility. Five fundamental steps are needed: Promote Parental Responsibility and Prevent Teen Pregnancy If we are going to end long-term welfare dependency, we must start doing everything we can to prevent people from going onto welfare in the flrst place. Teen pregnancy is an enduring tragedy. The poverty rate in families headed by an unmarried mother is currently 63 percent. Make Work Pay Work is at the heart of the entire reform effort. That requires supporting working families and ensuring that a wel- fare recipient is economically better off by taking a job. Provide Access to Education and Training, Impose Time Limits, and Expect Work The Family Support Act provided a new vision of mutual responsibility and work. Government has a responsibil- ity to provide access to the education and training that people need. Recipients are exPected to take advantage of these opportunitles and move into work. Each recipient will sign a social contract that spells out their obligations and what the government will do in return. At the end of two years, people still on welfare who can work but cannot find a job in the private sector will be offered work in community service. Enforce Child Support Our current system of child support enforcement is heavily bureaucratic and legalistic. The child support enforce- 114 Rural Alaska Policy Review ment system must stronoyly convev the message that both parents are responsible for supportlng their children. Govern- ment can assist parents but cannot be a substitute for them in meeting those responsibillties. Through universal paternity establishment and improved child support enforcement, we send an unambiguous signal that both parents share the respon- sibility of supportIng their children. Reinvent Government Assistance A major problem with the current welfare system is its enormous complexity. It consists of multiple programs with different rules and requirements that confuse and frustrate recipients and caseworkers alike, which makes it an unneces- sarily inefficient system. This plan would simplify and stream- line rules and requirements across programs. A NEW BEGINNING Transforming the social welfare system to one fo- cused on work and responsibility will not be easy. There will be setbacks, but we must not be deterred from making the bold and decisive actions needed to create a system that reinforces basic values. DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FY95 WELFARE REFORM BENEFIT PAYMENT REDUCTION Benefit reductions effected 10/1/93 continue Benefit reductions from suspension of 1/1/94 COLA continue FY95 savings total $16.9 million from HB67 reductions JOBS INITIATIVES Increase JOBS program to meet federal 20% mandate up from 15%; serve 2,592 clients up from 1,705 Increase JOBS program to serve increased AFDC caseload Serve 50% of AFDC Unemployed Parent households High School Comple- tion for Teen and Young AFDC parents Coordinate with Native JOBS grantees Establish incentives in DCRA Community Development Grants for hiring JOBS clients Community Ser- vice Work Experience Expanded Job Sampling work experi- ence Expand remedial adult education Local eligibility office initiatives CASELOAD CONTAINMENT Rigorous application and Eligibility Determination process to maintain accuracy and prevent ineligibles from getting benefits Monthly reporting by client and review by caseworker Maintain AFDC payment accuracy at 96%, 2% above federally required 94%. Each percent is $1.4 million. Early Fraud Detection Post-certification fraud investigation and repayment Prosecution and conviction for criminal fraud JOB Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program Self- sufficiency initiatives in Eligibility offices AFDC SELF-SUFFICIENCY INITIATIVES Ketchikan Pilot Project: Job search and job readiness services for AFDC applicants; self-support component in AFDC application process AFDC payment "Gap" from ratable reduc- tion Increased Child Support collections Participate in Ameri- can Public Welfare Association Program Simplification and Welfare Reform proposal development Support National Governor's Association initiative on "Rethinking Welfare" Participate in Clinton Administration Welfare Reform plan- ning CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT * Increased AFDC client child support collection by CSED ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION SYSTEM (EIS) ENHANCEMENT Fixes for worker productivity improvement Work orders for case accuracy Automate JOBS child care and supportive services payments Data collection to evaluate self-sufficiency initiatives INITIATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION Multi-Department involvement in program enhance- ments to reduce welfare dependency Coordinate with Eco- nomic Development agencies Focus on role of Child Support in Welfare Reform and reducing dependency Client education on job search, child care, job readiness Multi-media informational materials for clients Adult Basic Education and Literacy ser- vices for non-JOBS AFDC clients Target AFDC clients with child support collections for JOBS INTERAGENCY COORDINATION * DH&SS/Division of Public Assistance JOBS: pro- vides training, education; Prepares clients for work Helps clients with job search, placement, counseling Monitors child care programs Coordinates efforts between agencies Labor/Employment Security - Partner in JOBS - Job search, job placement, vocational counseling Education/Education Program Support - Teen Parent High School completion projects Technical and vocational training Remedial adult education Adult Basic Education and Literacy services * Revenue/Child Support Division Child Support col- lection for AFDC clients Increased child support leads to self- sufficiency and saves AFDC dollars Community & Regional Affairs/Community & Ru- ral Development - Job Training Partnership Act - Youth em- ployment programs - Child Care programs - Rural economic development and job creation Alaska Native Organizations - DH&SS coordinates for referrals to JOBS and to provide child care - Grantees operate JOBS program for Alaskan Natives 115 Rural Alaska Policy Review FRIENDS OF HEAD START DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS Marilyn Webb, Brent Cappell P. 0. Box 1 12100 Juneau, AK 99811-2100 465-4861 (Marilyn) 465-4862(Brent) FAX: 465-321 2 AMERICAN INDIAN PROGRAM BRANCH Lee Fields, Rm. 2231 Don Wyatt, Rm. 2232 Head Start, Rm. # (2231 or 2232) Mary Switzer Bdg Wash., D. C. 20201 w: 202-205-8437(Lee) FAX: 202-205-6721 REGION X Ken Snyder, Gloree Davis Region X WS RX-32 2201 6th Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 w: 206-61 5-2557 FAX: 206-61 5-2574 RESOURCE ACCESS PROJECT Cari Olmstead P. 0. Box 1491 Portland,OR 97207 w: 1-800-547-8887 x4815 PUBLIC HEALTH Elfrida Nord P. 0. Box H Juneau,AK 99811 w: 465-31 50 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES Karen Pearson Section of Family Health P. 0. Box H-06 Juneau,AK 99811 w: 274-7626 FAX: 277-6184 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Kathi Wineman, Jan Smith, Jean Alter 801 W 10th Street, Suite 200 Juneau,AK 99801-1894 Kathi: w 465-8706 Jan: w465-8703 Jean: w465-2842 FAX: 465-2989 Technical Assistance Support Center Alaska Satellite Director, Sally Mead Coordinator, Bonnie Kittredge Staff, Bonny Headley, Michele Flynn 101 East 9th, Suite 10B Anchorage, AK 99501 w: 272-6925 FAX: 272-6946 INDIAN HEAD START DIRECTOR ASSOCIATION Linda Kills Crow, President Osage Nation of Oklahoma Osage Agency Campus Pawhuska, OK 74056 w: (918)287-1 246 FAX: (91 8)287-4320 Ms. Lare' 1805 Bunker Street Anchorage, AK 99503 w: 786-1nl FAX: 786-1 749Jane Atuk Early Interven- tion-Infant Learning 1231 Gambell Anchorage, AK 99501 w: 274-2542 FAX: 274-1 384 ALASKA HEAD START DIRECTORS' ASSOCIATION President: Sarah Kuenzli President-Elect: Lisa Dolchok Secretary: Jackie Tagaban Treasurer: Charlie Johanson ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS Helen Morris, Director P. 0. Box 21 9 Bethel, AK 99559 w: 543-31 57 FAX: 543-5590 BRISTOL BAY NATIVE ASSOCIATION Valerie Larson, Director P. 0. Box 31 0 Dillingham, AK 99576 w: 842-4059/1-800-478-5257 h: 842-5017 FAX: 842-4106 CENTRAL COUNCIL OFTLINGIT & HAIDA INDIAN TRIBES OF ALASKA JackieTagaban, Director 320 W Willoughby Avenue, Suite 300 Juneau, AK 99801 w: 586-1432/1-800-478-1432 FAX: 586-8970 h: 789-6946 CHUGIAK CHILDREN'S SERVICES Charlie Johanson, Director P. 0. Box 670233 Chugiak, AK 99567 w: 688-601 1 FAX: 688-601 3 FAIRBANKS NATIVE ASSOCIATION Russ Christensen, Director 201 First Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99701 w: 456-4989 FAX: 456-531 1 KAWERAK Jo Putman, Director P. 0. Box 948 Nome, AK 99762 w: 443-5294, 5142, 2503 FAX: 443-5570 h: 443-5560 KIDS' CORPS. INC. Sandi Haynes, Director 3710 E. 20th, Suite #2 Anchorage, AK 99508 w: 272-01 33 h: 6949325 FAX: 272-031 2 METLAKATLA INDIAN COMMUNITY Theo Mclntyre, Director P. 0. Box 8 Metlakatla, AK 99926 w: 886-51 51 FAX: 886-7997 RESOURCE CENTER FOR PARENTS & CHILDREN Eileen Cummings, Program Manager 1401 Kellum Street Fairbanks, AK 99701 (907) 456-2866 FAX: 451-81 25 RURALCAP Roseann Turner, Acting Director Head Start Program Manager P. 0. Box 200908 Anchorage, AK 99520 w: 279-251 1/1-800478-7227 FAX: 279-6343/1-800-478-6343 Parent-Child Program Sharon Trish, Manager P. 0. Box 925 Bethel, AK 99559 w: 543-3401, 3341 FAX: 543-4434 h: 543-3161 SOUTHCENTRAL FOUNDATION Lisa Dolchok, Director 670 W. Fireweed Lane Anchorage, AK 99503 w: 276-3343 FAX: 265-5925 TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE Sarah Kuenzli, Director 122 First Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99701 w: 452-8251 X3172, 1-800-478-6822 FAX: 459-3850 h: 488-4537 UPPER TANANA PARENT-CHILD PROGRAM Pam Gingue, Director P. 0. Box 459 Tok, AK 99780 w: 883- 51 59 FAX: 883-51 60 116 Rural Alaska Policy Review CHILD CARE PROGRAM Dear Reader: I am pleased to introduce this year's FY93 annual report on the child care programs within the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Community and Rural Development. It is our firm belief that if a community is to be economically healthy, many resources must be consolidated to meet various individual needs. The programs in our depart- ment all contribute to this goal. In particular, the division programs all concentrate on local economic development. A community that considers child care an important part of its service structure demonstrates concern for its citizens and will have potential for growth. Documented evidence shows that parents secure in the quality, dependability, and affordability of their child's care are among the most productive of employees. Family access to the various child care programs adds vital support to the foundation upon which local economic development is based. These programs include parent assistance in paying for child care; caregiver assistance in providing quality care; and counselling, training and education for parents, caregivers, and the general public about all aspects of child care, from the broadest national issues to the concerns of an individual family seeking outside child care for the first time. From necessity, the national child care profession has grown rapidly and is far from its origins in ‘baby-sitting’. This report depicts the state's response to the changing needs of Alaska's families, employers, and small businesses. Our support and concern for the very youngest of our citizens helps provide a base for this state's healthy future. I am proud to share it with you. Sincerely Edgar Blatchford Commissioner The Department administers statewide child care programs. They are the child care subsidy programs for low income parents, grants to child care providers, and resource and referral programs which include provider training. A major accomplishment during this fiscal year was the success of the collaboration efforts that Child Care Programs staff, local grantees, and advocates made on a statewide basis. Sixteen Alaskan Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) grantees, of which the Department is one, met in Anchorage on Nov 12, 1992, to discuss non-duplication of effort and to maximize the limited federal funds available. The activities undertaken statewide by the various grantees were diverse. As a result, we were able to share resources and establish contacts that have since borne fruit as enhanced services to parents. An example of this is a parent education video produced by the Cook Inlet Tribal Council and provided to us for reproduction and distribution. The Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, regional staff, informed us that we were one of only two states nationwide that are actually coordinating and collaborating among CCDBG grantees. This collaboration proves valuable when local grantees experience wait lists for the child care subsidy programs. Other CCDBG grantees have already shiftedresources in order to fund eligible families from our programs, thereby freeing funds for new families to participate. During our Child Care Subsidy Programs Local Administrators Conference, and Resource and Referral and Resource Development Grantee meetings in April 1993, an afternoon was designated as a forum for collaborative discussion with a number of other agencies’ staff to discuss how their programs and initiatives interrelated with others in the field. It was a well received forum. Expansion to a full day was requested by the majority of participants, and is being planned for future years. An extensive federal monitor of the CCDBG programs occurred in May 1993. A team of five reviewed state office records, local administrators’ program implemen- tation in rural and urban settings, parents satisfaction, and provider participation. The federal representatives were particularly impressed by three elements of the program: 1) parents view the child care programs as "economic development", not "welfare programs" since these funds enable parents to become or maintain self-sufficiency; 2) all programs are consistent in policy and imple- mentation both in urban and rural areas; and, 3) a seamless net of service has truly been woven. This year we increased quality care consumer education activities. Two television spots and a brochure were produced using the theme "child care --it’s a growing concern". The cover and pictures throughout this report are of the four brothers portrayed in one of the quality care televi- sion spots. The coming year will bring a new campaign directed specifically at low to moderate income parents. Many of these parents use legally exempt care and must themselves monitor quality. We look forward to increased public awareness from the statewide collaboration and consumer education activities in FY94. 117 Rural Alaska Policy Review HEALTH RESOURCES & ACCESS The State of Alaska Health Resources and Access Task Force Final Report to the Governor& Legislature January 1993 This synopsis present's the Alaska Health Resources and Access Task Force recommendations for improving the financing and delivery of health care in the State of Alaska. The Task Force believes fundamental changes must be made to the current structure of the state's health care system. The proposed comprehensive strategy is designed to: 1. Bring runaway health care costs under control and make health care affordable for all Alaskans. 2. Move to a unified health care financing system that will provide financial access to needed care for all Alaskans and eliminate the concerns and fears that many Alaskans have with the current health insurance system. 3. Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the current health care delivery system by increasing the availability and coordination of health services throughout the state. 4. Improve the health status of Alaskans by ensuring adequate support for vital public health activities and emphasizing the importance of healthy lifestyles and access to preventive care. 5. Make improvements in the way in which medical malpractice disputes are resolved. The Task force recognizes that its recommended solutions may be considered controversial for two reasons: First, The strategy includes a number of concepts or terms that may be unfamiliar to, or misunderstood by, the Alaskan public. Second, because the strategy calls for significant changes in the way in which the health care system operates, there may be certain individuals or groups that may feel threatened by the reforms and seek to paint an unrealistic picture of their implications. Cost containment recommendations: 1. The Task Force recommends the establishment of a state- wide health care expenditure limit that would bring increases in health care spending in Alaska down to acceptable levels. 2.. The Task Force supports the passage of legislation to establish a single administrative entity to oversee the State's health care cost containment and access initiatives. 3. The Task Force supports expanding the State's authority to review and approve or disapprove rates filed by health insurers. RECOMMENDATIONS: 4. The Task Force recommends the enactment of legislation establishing regulatory reform measures in the small group health insurance market. 5. The Task Force recommends that the State of Alaska require insurers to move toward community rating in establishing premiums in the small group insurance market. 6. The Task Force recommends the establishment of State-sponsored health insurance pooling arrangements. 7. The Task Force recommends the passage of legislation providing for publicly-subsidized coverage of uninsured low-income pregnant women and children who are not eligible for Medicaid. 8. The Task Force recommends the enactment of legislation establishing a single payer health care financing system to provide universal health care coverage for all Alaskans. Public health/service delivery system recommendations: 9. The Task Force recommends that the State of Alaska develop initiatives to attract and retain qualified health care professionals in medically underserved areas of the state. 10. The Task Force supports the development of more flexible facility licensure standards. 11. The Task Force recommends the strengthening and expansion of the State's Certificate of Need program. 12. The Task Force recommends that adequate resources be devoted to maintaining a strong public health infrastructure in Alaska. Medical liability recommendations: 13. The Task Force recommends reducing the statute of limitations for birth-related injuries from current law to the eighth birthday of the child. 14. The Task Force recommends that the State's existing pre-trial screening process for medical malpractice suits be replaced with a court ordered non-binding arbitration process. 15. The Task Force recommends that the Legislature adjust the level of pre-judgment interest charged in medical malpractice cases from 10.5 percent to the prevailing interest rate. 118 Rural Alaska Policy Review RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW NOTE PAGES 119 Rural Alaska Policy Review RURAL ALASKA COMMUNITY SUBSISTENCE PART IVb Rural Alaska Policy Review The Story of One... Walker’s Camp Lily Walker Last August Lily Walker of Nome took time from berry picking to write the following description of the annual cycle of hunting, fishing, gathering, and preserving that she and her husband, Francis, followed for many years. The description is similar to a story that she wrote 10 years ago in a creative writing short course at an Alaska Homemakers conference in Anchorage. Lily and Francis are Inupiat Eskimo elders, and during the past decade, they have pursued a modified version of their traditional subsistence cycle, often in the company of one or more of their children or grandchildren. Originally from Point Hope, Lily was sent to the government-operated White Mountain industrial school on the Seward Peninsula in 1928, when she was 13. She met Francis in White Mountain, his home village, and they were married there in 1933. Twenty years later, the Walkers moved to Nome, where they finished raising their five children. Their oldest daughter, who lives in California, spent three weeks with them last summer, picking salmonberries and blueberries nearly every day. “All we need to do next is pick a few cranberries and blackberries,” Lily wrote in a letter accompanying her article. “He [Francis] talks of going trapping for a few squirrels, | hope. We’d have to go to the hills for those.” Lily was a member of the Mother’s Club in Nome, an Alaska Extension Homemakers club, for some 30 years. She’s always ready to share a good recipe, such as the one with which she concludes her article. Our campis located east of Nome, down the coast. At the north side of the camp is a lagoon, and on the south side is the ocean. In the spring, we usually go to camp with the car as far as the road is open. Then we take our snow machine and grub from in back of the car and use the snow machine to get down to our camp. In order to have fresh seal oil, we have to go there to hunt. Francis goes out seal hunting in the later part of May. We cut up the seal and put the blubber in a five- gallon bucket to render it, then cut the meat and pack it in cooking sizes, enough for two. The house has two rooms, a bed, dresser, table and chairs, a wood-burning cook stove and wood-burning drum heater, a gas washing machine, a brown bear rug, and other things. On the south side of the house is a small hothouse, 10-by-20 feet. We did some planting for a few years, and it was doing so good. I do have some rhubarb in there now. Francis built us a little cold storage room, 10-by-10 feet, where I keep our seal oil, berries, and other things. There is also a fish rack, and we keep our drying fish and meat under it so they are protected from rain and hot sun. Francis used to commercial fish. He took good care of the fish, and I cut and dried whatever he couldn’t sell. You have to take good care of fish when you are drying them in order to have good dried fish. We sent some to our children who are living in other states. We also canned a few fish for our use. This year we caught some fish in the ocean, and we dried and canned them. We passed some around to people who couldn’t catch fish for themselves. When it’s time to look for berries, we are hardly ever at home. We pick salmonberries, then blueberries, then later, cranberries and blackberries. When the moose season is open, we go hunting. We get our things ready, see that the motors are in good running order, and do some baking for our grub. Then we put the boat on ahomemade trailer and off we go with the car to ariver, and then launch the boat and head upriver to look for moose. When we catch a moose, we pack it to the boat and cool it. Then we are ready to go back home to cut the moose into cooking-size pieces and make mooseburger. That’s lots of work, but it’s worth it. We never waste the game we catch. We take care of them and freeze them for later use. Francis cuts them into roasts, steaks, stew meat, and briskets to cook with beans, and he may dry some of the meat. Then we are all set for the winter to come. We have good country. We grew up eating fresh fish or meat, and we are still like that. As soon as the rivers freeze, we go fishing for tomcods. They are good skinned and deep-fried in fat. We freeze some to eat with our greens, which are in seal oil in gallon jars. We also freeze some crab meat, and cook some to make into sandwich filling. This we do when our ocean freezes up. You can’t go hungry in our country as long as you have boats or snow machines. We used to have a dog team when we were younger. Then we are ready to stay home and watch TV. My recipe for seal meat stew: Some seal meat, enough for a meal, onions, potatoes and rice, salt and pepper to taste. We’ ve tried burgers made out of seal meat, too. Yummy. 121 RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIE' 1898 “We have been living here a long time. Our anscestors used to live here and had possession of different creeks and different places. Since white men came to this country, things have changed. They take things away from us for the purpose of enriching themselves. There are lots of things here which white men make money out of. There is lots of gold in this country. We do not know anything about mining. White men can mine. We do not want them to interfere with us. We make our living by trapping and fishing and hunting, and white men take all these places away from us; they constantly interfere with us.” —Remarks by Chief Koogh-see of Hoonah, from the transcript of a meeting between Governor John Green Brady of Alaska and a group of Tlingit chiefs in Juneau, December 14, 1898, as edited by Ted C. Hinckley in “The Canoe Rocks— We do Not know What Will Become of Us,” The Western Historical Quarterly, 1(3):275. The meeting was held to address a crisis created by the Klondike Gold Rush for Tlingit Indians in the region from Juneau to Skagway, which was flooded by gold seekers. 1915 “When the United States purchased Alaska from Russia we heard that we were in somebody’s hands who would do us good... When the United States purchased the land the Government left us to live by ourselves, and did not interfere, and I hope that the Government will not do anything to hurt us as we are the natives of the country. They left us alone before and we hope they will do so now.” —Remarks by Chief Alexander Williams of Fort Gibbon, Alaska, during a meeting of the Tanana chiefs and Judge James Wickersham, Alaska's delegate to Congress, July 5-6, 1915, in Fairbanks, as cited by Stanton H. Patty in “A Conference with the Tanana Chiefs,” Alaska Journal, Spring 1971:9. Wickersham called the meeting to inform the chiefs that the federal government planned to build a rairoad in their area that would attract hordes of newcomers who would take up good lands under the Homestead Act. 1972 “Native Americans are proud. They do not ask for special treatment from the Federal Government. But, nonetheless, they, too, have the right to be left alone, to follow their traditional way of life. It is the way of life I seek to protect in this bill.” —Remarks by Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, in explaining the Native exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (118 Cong. Rec. 25,258 [1972]), as cited by David Case in “Subsistence and Self-Determination: Can Alaska Natives Have a More ‘Effective Voice’”? University of Colorado Law Review, 60(4): 1014. The Voice of Many On a Way of Life and the Right to Be Let Alone 1990 “When outsiders ask Kuskokwim Eskimos how their culture can be strengthened, they commonly say that this goal can be achieved if they are left alone.” Excerpt from Bashful No Longer: An Alaska Eskimo Ethnohistory, 1778-1988, by Wendell H. Oswalt, University of Oklahoma Press (1990), 190. 1990 What is the younger generation going to do if the state puts a stop to subsistence? All Alaska [Native] people live off the ground [i.e. on subsistence foods] and we want it to stay like that.... We’ve lived our whole lives here and we don’t disturb anything. We want to keep it [subsistence] the way it is and we don’t want to get bothered. We don’t want it for us, but for the younger generation. They’re the ones that will be suffering.” —Comments by an Alutiig elder in Perryville on the decision by the Alaska Supreme Court in the McDowell case, which declared the state law granting a rural subsistence preference to be unconstitutional, as quoted in “Fish and Wildlife Harvest and Use in Five Alaska Peninsula Communi- ties, 1989,” a soon to be published technical paper of the Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The elder volunteered the remarks during an interview conducted to understand how subsistence harvests in his village had changed after the Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 24, 1989. He also said he resented that following the spill, “people came in and tried to tell us what to do.” 122 Rural Alaska Policy Review Arctic Issues Digest From the Foreword The existence of many Alaska Natives and their villages are keenly dependent on a village economy and culture built on the local hunting, fishing, and gathering of food and reinforced by values of kinship, reciprocity, and mutuality. Uses of subsistence resources are also vital to the livelihood of many non-Native Alaskans. Currently, the state and federal governments are developing separate subsistence policies—the state for subsistence management on state and private lands in Alaska, and the federal for subsistence management on federal public lands in Alaska. Since December of 1989, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled Alaska’s eleven-year-old subsistence law unconstitutional, there has been a continual need for current information on developments relating to subsis- tence. Recently, that need was emphasized at an October 3 public forum on Alaska Native issues at the University of Alaska Anchorage, which was sponsored by Native Student Services and the Political Science Student Associa- tion. Panelists, including statewide media representa- tives, pointed to a lack of continually disseminated back- ground information on developments related to subsistence and noted that even those with significant stakes in subsis- tence find it difficult to stay abreast of the complex, rapidly developing issues. To help fill the information gap on subsistence issues, the first edition of Arctic Issues Digest features articles on aspects of subsistence that are of concern to all Alaskans. Policies currently being developed by the State of Alaska and the federal government are of vital concern in many Alaska communities. For that reason, the Coopera- tive Extension Service, in cooperation with the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, initiated a project to compile and disseminate information about the conflicts and policies currently surrounding subsistence in Alaska. The result is Arctic Issues Digest, an occasional publication of the University of Alaska, through which information about events and issues of considerable significance in Alaska and other arctic regions can be discussed and disseminated. We are pleased to make this timely and important information available to you. Irvin W. Skelton, Acting Director Cooperative Extension Service University of Alaska Fairbanks Douglas A. Segar, Director Arctic Environmental Information& Data Center University of Alaska Anchorage 123 Introduction The first edition of Arctic Issues Digest, a new publica- tion of the Alaska Cooperative Extension Service, focuses on current subsistence issues of concern to all Alaskans. As one of the articles in this edition notes, research by the Subsis- tence Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has shown that subsistence activities such as the production and sharing of food integrates families, communities, and regions and supports the cultural and social systems and values of rural communities. In recognition of the vital importance of subsistence as a way of life for many Alaskans, and as an issue of signific- ance to all Alaskans, the first edition of Arctic Issues Digest features articles dealing with the conflicts and public policies surrounding subsistence, with subsistence management regimes, and with the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on 15 Alutiiq villages. In addition, Lily Walker, an Inupiat elder, describes the seasonal subsistence cycle that she and her husband, Francis, have followed for many years at their camp near Nome. Lily has been a member of an Alaska Extension Homemakers club for more than thirty years. In the process of planning and developing this publica- tion, we sought and received the advice and assistance of many persons. We wish to thank the following individuals for providing us with background information on subsistence issuesin Alaska, and withideasforandcommentson proposed content for the publication: Helen Chase, Esther Combs, and Leroy Bingham of the Cook Inlet Tribal Council; Gary Oskoloff; Paul Theodore; Robert Price; David Case; David Maas; Jim Fall; Mary Ann Katt; Julie Riley; Keith Bayha; Rod Kuhn; Kathleen Morse; and Herv Hensley. We especially thank Frank Barry and Elaine Abrahamof Minority Student Services/Native Student ServicesUniver- sity of Alaska Anchorage, for their unfailing support, encouragement, and guidance throughout the development of this publication. We are grateful to the staff of the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Anchorage, particularly Patricia McMillan for content review and helpful suggestions, and Wanda Seamster for designing the cover and page templates for the publication. We also wish to thank Ellie Evans and Ray RaLonde for translating word processing disks containing the articlesfor this publication. Anthony Nakazawa Community Development and Home Economics Program - Cooperative Extension Service Rural Alaska Policy Review “We are of the same opinion with the people of the United States; you consider yourselves as independent people; we, as the original inhabitants of this country, and sovereigns of the soil, look upon ourselves as equally independent and free as any other nations or nations.”—Joseph Brant, Mohawk chief, April 21, 1794 The movement for self-determination by Alaska Natives is essentially a struggle for power and indepen- dence; for the right to manage their land and resources, to make their own decisions, and to develop their com- munities. Native leaders have therefore sought recogni- tion of their dominion over the land; they have worked to redevelop their governments and administer their af- fairs; and they have fought for protection of their subsis- tence way of life. The issues that surround the subsistence contro- versy are very telling. They offer insight into the rela- tions between those at the highest level of influence and those at the margins, the difficulty of building strong local governments, and the friction between a large industrial economy and a democratic society. The essay that follows will consider first the structure of power in the United States; then the place of local governments and, lastly, the obstacles to self-determination within a market system. Structure of Power in the United States The American political process may be viewed as having a center where proposals are offered, agendas are established, and policy decisions are made. Here one finds the committees and subcommittees of Congress, the upper echelons of the bureaucracy, key lobbyists, corporate boards, military councils, and the federal judi- ciary. All are institutions controlled by a few people with substantial wealth, status, and prestige. According to one study they:. . . control over one half of the nation’s industrial assets; one half of all assets in utilities; over one half of all U.S. banking assets; over three quarters of all insurance assets; and they direct Wall Street’s largest investment firms. They control the television networks, the influential news agencies, and the major newspaper chains. They control nearly 40 percent of all the assets of private foundations and two thirds of all private university endowments. They direct the nation’s largest and best-known New York and Wash- ington law firms as well as the nation’s major civic and cultural organizations. They occupy key federal gov- ernmental positions in the executive, legislative, and The Politics of Self- Determination: Subsistence and Alaska Natives David C. Maas judicial branches. And they occupy all the top command positions in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines (Dye 1990, 12-13). Those at the bottom or the periphery of society have little influence or power. It is true that individuals are free to elect better representatives, to form organiza- tions to advance their interests, and to join political parties to promote their programs and their candidates. Few, however, are part of the system of politically active groups, a system that favors commercial and financial interests. Elections have become theatrical exercises increasingly manipulated by public relations firms and campaign specialists. Political parties, at best, mobilize large and sometimes exclusive sectors of the population; at worst, they are used as instruments to further the careers of ambitious elites. As one historian commented on the formation of first national party in the United States: In 1828 Martin Van Buren, . . . recreated the New York-Virginia alliance of 1800 and joined with Andrew Jackson, the leading candidate of 1824, to capture the presidency, thereby creating the first national party organization, the Van Buren-Jackson national (North-South) Democratic party. Van Buren achieved his national alliance, and overcame prob- lems of sectionalism, by supporting slavery as vig- orously as any southern planter, or, rather slave trader could wish, thus taking the only road open to northern politicians with national ambitions, given the sectionalism of the South (Shapiro 1976, 13). The implications of this conceptualization of power are that changes in American society, be they adminis- trative, political, cultural, or economic, will reinforce the dominant position of those at the center, and be detrimental to those at the periphery. The 1971 Alaska 124 Rural Alaska Policy Review Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), well illus- trates this proposition. In one sense, ANCSA was a unique legislative compromise, because unlike previ- ous, pat federal-Indian agreements, no reservations were established, public administration entanglements were minimized, private ownership was recognized, and un- usually large amounts of money and land were exchanged. In a more general sense, however, the Alaska settle- ment is well within the tradition of American politics and economic practice. Faced with the failure of past Indian policies and the need for the exploitation of Alaska’s oil fields, lawmakers acted within the only frame of refer- ence they understood—American capitalism. Legisla- tors insisted that Natives be integrated into the national economy. That is why ANCSA provides for regional and village corporations, stock ownership, fee title, and all the other appendages of a western market economy. While ANCSA allotted a modicum of land to private corporations and a small sum of money to individual Natives, it was a financial and environmental bonanza for others. For example, the settlement cleared the path for construction of the oil pipeline. It permitted the Interior Department to withdraw utility and transporta- tion corridors across public lands and to prohibit state and village selections on these lands. By 1988 the oil and gas industries had gained profits in excess of $52 billion from North Slope oil development. ANCSA served the interests of environmental groups, in that Section 17(d) (2) authorized the Secretary of Interior to withdraw 80 million acres of land to be studied for possible additions to the systems of National Parks, National Wildlife Ref- uges, National Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Forests. Section 17(d) (2) of ANCSA led to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980. As aresult of ANILCA, 70 percent of all wilder- ness lands in the United States are in Alaska.. ANCSA also satisfied the demands of state representatives in that lands that had been patented prior to the date that ANCSA became law were not subject to Native selection; land grants were set aside for municipalities; and officials were permitted to acquire the remainder of the state’s entitlement under the Alaska Statehood Act. In addition, by 1986 the state had collected more than $26 billion in royalties and taxes from the development of the North Slope oil fields. In contrast, Alaska Natives lost 375 million acres of land and more than 2,000 miles of coastal waters. Native governments were not mentioned in ANCSA, and their authority was weakened. Aboriginal lands were criss- crossed by artificial boundaries; 13 regional and 200 village corporations were added to an already over- whelming number of state, federal, and traditional orga- a RSE SECS RA A ARR A nizations; and most importantly, 44 million acres of land was separated from tribal ownership. Implicit in ANCSA was an assumption that Natives would be drawn away from a communal subsistence orientation and assimi- lated into the American mainstream, into a system based on private ownership, individualism, a theoretically com- petitive market, limited government, and popular pas- sivity. While village land could be used for subsistence, this was only a transitional measure in the inexorable march toward a modern life-style. There was no need for embedded rights to hunt and fish, so they were elimi- nated. The legal system has little impact on the structure of power described above. American constitutionalism in- sists on the equality of all individuals before the law and forbids discrimination and unequal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from “deny(ing) to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” (Section I) The Alaska Constitution says the “Laws and Regulations governing the use of natural resources shall apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulations.” Nevertheless, while laws may be applied equally, they are developed unequally; thus, the judiciary rules that exclusive access to a resource is unlawful, yet commercial enterprises take 95 percent of the total harvest of fish and game in Alaska (Fall 1990, 81). Subsistence users take only 4 percent of the total harvest (Fall 1990, 81), and they generally take less than 1 percent of the salmon harvest (Wolfe 1990, 4). Courts defend the equal rights of individuals, yet refuse to address the political and socio- economic circumstances which insure that groups and individuals will be unequal; they have had little effect on a decision-making process dominated by those with wealth and status. The centralization of power in the United States also widens the gap between the way people live and the regimes which govern them. Increasingly, the actions of the national legislature and executive are irrelevant to the way people actually live. Congress, for example, recognized subsistence in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), but it has done nothing to further the health and prosperity of subsis- tence economies. In 1990 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), issued new guidelines that prohibited hunting caribou on snowmachines, imposed individual bag limits, and required harvest tickets for each animal killed. These restrictions may be useful in regulating sport hunting, but they are nonsensical in a subsistence economy. As the Arctic Regional Fish and Game Coun- cil argued: “... placing limits on the amount of game 125 Rural Alaska Policy Review that hunters can take individually ignores the fact that some hunters provide game for large numbers of people and also ignores the fact that snowmachines are the prime mode of transportation by caribou hunters in the North.” (Anchorage Daily News, October 18, 1990). Dilemmas of Local Governments Local governments in the United States are weak and dependent institutions. They lack the resources, the jurisdic- tion, and the collective will to solve society’s most pressing problems. They rely on the states and the federal government for much of their revenue. They are usually municipal corpo- rations with no intrinsic rights. State governments may take away their powers, modify their responsibilities, or mandate particular actions, all without their consent. One study suggested: “. . . by comparison with national politics local politics is most limited. There are crucial kinds of public policies that local governments simply cannot execute. They cannot make war or peace; they cannot issue passports or forbid outsiders from entering their territory; they cannot issue currency; and they cannot control imports or erect tariff walls” (Peterson 1981, 4). Unlike other local institutions, tribes do have an inherent right of self-government which Felix Cohen has called “. . . the most basic principle of all Indian law . . . the principle that those powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe are not, in general, delegated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sover- eignty which has never been extinguished” (1975, 122). Therefore, tribes may form their own governments, deter- mine their own membership, administer their own resources, regulate their property, adjudicate their own disputes, and so on. Under the current policy of self-determination, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human Services are authorized to provide grants for the “. . . strengthening and improvement of tribal government, to improve the capacity of atribal organization to enter into a contract, to acquire land, and to develop health facilities or services.” (U.S. Code, Title 25, 450h, page 1367). Despite the legal and statutory support for tribal self- determination, the powers of tribes are significantly restricted in practice. First, they are subject to the plenary or full power of Congress. Thus, Native rights to hunt and fish were taken away by the ANCSA in 1971. These rights were partially restored in the ANILCA, which established a preference for tural subsistence: “‘. . . the taking on public lands of fish and wildlife for non-wasteful subsistence uses shall be accorded priority over the taking on such lands of fish and wildlife for other purposes.” (16 United States Code, 3114). Congress, then, unilaterally decides what rights to recognize and what tights to discard. A second restriction on tribal influence lies in the legislative language of federal laws that pertain to Na- tive Americans and Alaska Natives, all of which contain a retention clause which gives ultimate authority to the Secretary of the Interior. Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act is typical of such clauses: Any Indian tribe or tribes, residing on the same reservation, shall have the right to organize for its common welfare, and may adopt an appropriate constitution and bylaws, which shall become effec- tive when ratified by a majority vote of the adult members of the tribe, or of the adult Indians residing on such reservation, as the case may be, at a special election authorized and called by the Secretary of the Interior under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe (The Indian Reorganization Act, Public Law No. 383, 73rd Congress. Section 16). (Emphasis added.) Even the cooperative management agreement between the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration con- tains a clause that the federal government may withdraw the authority of the AEWC if it fails to carry out its responsibilities. Contrasting perceptions often surroundpolicies that supposedly support self-determination. For ex- ample, tribal leaders see self-determination as an oppor- tunity to organize their own institutions, control their land, defend their communities, and provide the services to which they are entitled. The views of federal officials in regard to the federal policy of self-determination for Native Americans tend to differ markedly from those of tribal leaders. To a former Commission of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for instance, self-determination meant: The new program will turn over to tribal government, as rapidly as possible, a maximum amount of administration for Indian affairs. Mini- mum control will be retained in Washington; policy will be set here, but administration of that policy will be in the hands of tribal representatives or Bureau superintendents (Forbes 1981, 120). Such paternalism is evident in the new Federal Sub- sistence Board created in 1990 to manage subsistence hunting and fishing on federal public lands in Alaska. It is composed of the Alaska directors of the FWS, the National Parks Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and a chairman appointed by the Interior Secretary. The board sets regulations for subsistence on federal lands, decides what resources are protected, and 126 Rural Alaska Policy Review determines which villages are eligible for subsis- tence hunting. If villages are dissatisfied with a deci- sion by the board, they may, as did five villages on the Kuskokwim River area, appeal to the courts for permis- sion to hunt (Anchorage Daily News, March 28, 1991). There are also the disadvantages of incorporation into a large administrative system. Because of legisla- tion like the Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act, the Indian Financing Act, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and the Indian Child Welfare Act, the influence of tribal governments has grown. However, they are subject to institutional con- trol. As one observer explains: The increases in Indian political power and politi- cal access have been concentrated almost wholly in tribal governments. Indians have been encouraged to play an expanded role in Indian/white relations, but only through already established institutional structures (Cornell 1988, 205). Another difficulty facing tribal governments is the fragmentation of governmental responsibility in vil- lages. ANILCA, for example, provides for rural partici- pation in community and regional advisory councils which have authority to review proposed regulations, express opinions about subsistence, and make policy recommendations, thereby creating one more organiza- tion in areas which already have too many. Rural Alaska currently is “governed” by federal and state authorities, regional boroughs and nonprofit asso- ciations, and 11 forms of local government which in- clude first and second class cities, Indian Reorganiza- tion Act and traditional tribal councils, village and regional corporations, educational boards, and coastal resource councils. Such fragmentation leads to a lack of control and coordination, poor planning, popular confu- sion, disinterest, and irresponsibility. A final problem that confronts all local govern- ments is the lack of financial resources. There are particularly effected by inflation, rising costs, a shrink- ing proportion of lands to tax, popular resistance to increased taxes, and a decrease in federal aid. Villages in rural Alaska are even more vulnerable. They are largely dependent on state and national funds for em- ployment, income, services, and organizational devel- opment. “ A recent study concluded: . . State and federal governments can be regarded as the financiers of local government. In effect more than half of all local em- ployment depends upon intragovernmental revenues from federal and state governments” (Institute of Social and Economic Research 1988, 42). Conclusion: Markets and Self- Determination In Politics, Aristotle makes an important distinction between the production of material goods for household use and production for gain and exchange. Subsistence economies were independent and self-sufficient house- hold economies. Fishing streams, hunting grounds, berry patches, beaches, and the sea provided the substance and nourishment for a complete life. There were incidences of hunger and starvation, as a result of which people would either move or die. Nevertheless, these societies sustained themselves for thousands of years with little or no external assistance or interference. Economic inde- pendence did not imply isolation. Among coastal and interior Inupiat, for example, there was considerable interdependence. “Each focus had its own special prod- ucts, much in demand by the other. Pokes of sea mammal oil were traded for caribou skins; meaning that food and fuel from the coasts were brought inland while caribou skins for clothing and bedding were required on the coastal side” (Spencer 1984, 282). While there were many alliances for trade, marriage, or war, each village, band, or clan was politically au- tonomous. Decisions about residency, ceremony, move- ment, trade, and war were made locally. Although the structure of authority might vary from village to village, all were responsible for the protection of their territo- ries, the control of their behavior, the resolution of disputes, and the vitality of their economies. Self- determination was constrained only by nature. Market economies are very different from subsis- tence economies. Markets are places for individuals to pursue their own interests, to compare values, and buy or sell what they can afford. In the market system, indi- viduals produce not only for survival and domestic con- tentment but for the domestic or international market, to make profit. In traditional society, man was the aim of production; in the modern world “... production is the aim of man and wealth the aim of production” (Marx 1964, 45). The inception of the capitalist market structure has far-reaching political consequences. First, there is a change in dimension; local aboriginal economies are merged with more universal economies, which have different requirements. Ownership and production are separated; individuals no longer own what they produce. They either sell their labor to those who have accumu- lated wealth or capital, or they are left unemployed and dependent on a niggardly social welfare system. They therefore cannot decide how valuable resources will be distributed or what will be produced. While market economies are more productive than subsistence economies, they also lead to greater in- 127 Rural Alaska Policy Review equalities. In 1960 the difference between the incomes of the lower fifth of the United States population and the upper fifth was $14,745; in 1985 it was $40,000. Five percent of the people own 50 percent of all the wealth in the United States; 40 percent owe more than they own. These economic inequalities lead to the inequalities of power discussed above. The American economic sys- tem, then, like the American political system, is central- ized and responsive to those with position, status, and wealth. Given the political economy of the United States, is village self-determination possible? The controversy over subsistence would suggest a negative reply. Impor- tant decisions about management, resource develop- ment, regulations, and so on, are made in Washington, in Seattle, and in Anchorage—not in rural Alaska. Perhaps, though, in the effort to gain political independence and economic self-sufficiency, Alaska Natives will discover a more permissive and democratic order. Perhaps in their struggle for self-determination, there is a lesson for all of us. David Maas is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Alaska Anchorage. He has taught a wide variety of courses in politics and government, and has con- ducted research in Alaska, Australia, Ecuador, and Peru. Maas has written numerous articles and book chapters on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, federalism, Indian self- determination, village government planning, rural Alaska, economic development, and land policy. He earned a PhD degree from the University of Colorado. References Cohen, Felix H. 1975 Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press. Cornell, Steven 1988 The Return of the Native. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Dye, Thomas 1990 Who's Running America? Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Sth ed. Forbes, Jack. 1981 Native Americans and Nixon. Los Angeles: Ameri- can Indians Studies Center. Institute of Social and Economic Research 1988 Alaska Natives at Risk.. Anchorage: Univ. of Alaska. Marx, Karl 1964 Precapitalist Economic Formations. New York: International Publishers. Peterson, Paul 1981 City Limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Shapiro, H.R. 1976 The Bureaucratic State. New York: Samizdat Press. Spencer, Robert 1984 "North American Eskimo; Intro- duction" in Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. V. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Land Management Program The Land Management Program’s mission is to help rural communities effectively deal with current land issues and to prevent future land management problems. Land Management Program We resolve land title issues which hinder economic and community development in both the private and public sectors. The following are specific components of the program: * — ANCSA 14(c) Planning. Help municipali- ties, unincorporated villages and Native village corporations complete the ANCSA 14(c) planning and map of boundaries process. * Municipal Land Trustee (MLT) Duties. Carry out the Department’s statutory trust responsibilities to unincorporated ANCSA villages. * — Site Control Activities. Protect state and local government investment in buildings and facilities by assuring proper owner- ship interests for publicly funded projects. * Municipal Land Entitlement. Review municipal land entitlements and recom- mend approval or disapproval. * LandManagementAssistance and Train- ing to Communities. The ANCSA 14(c) planning effort is the highest priority activity in the Land Management Program at this time. Many villages are now at the point of addressing and completing the 14(c) process. Contact: Rick Elliott, Anchorage, 269-4500 128 Rural Alaska Policy Review ALASKA NATIVE YOUTH VIEWS ON THE FUTURE by Kenan Green, SEARCH The only way the Alaskan Natives in Alaska are going to accomplish anything is to be heard. We Alaskan Natives need to organize ourselves and address the problems we have today. Not a bunch of surveys or studies done on us will help, just a waste of time and money. We have been studied for years and have gone nowhere. We, Alaskan Natives need to start looking at our future for the next generation. Alcoholism, drugs, and diseases will always be our enemies. We need to get stronger, learn to fight these problems. I see in the future of Alaska fishing, hunting will be controlled by urban politicians. We, Alaska Natives, have to learn other ways to take care of our families. We cannot relay on anyone to help us but ourselves. We have to teach our youth a whole new way of life. The way the Alaskan Natives have lived will be part of the past, and soon will be in history books. We have to come up with a plan by ourselves. A lot of people have moved up to Alaska. They will take and take from the state of Alaska and will leave nothing. That nothing we will have to live with. We have come a long ways from the 70's, but we need to go further. We need to stick together now, not divided. I love Alaska! This is my home, I will never leave. Let's help each other with our problems and make Alaska a better place to live for Alaska Natives 129 RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW Subsistence and Self-Determination: Can Alaska Natives Have a More “Effective Voice?” The following is a revised and updated version of an article by David Case that originally was published in the University of Colorado Law Review in 1989 (Vol. 60, No. 4, pages 1009-1035). I. Introduction A. Subsistence and Self- Determination: The Concepts and Policies To many people the term “subsistence” connotes the bare eking out of an existence, a marginal and generally miserable way of life. That is not, however, the standard dictionary definition of the term, ' nor is it the way in which the word is used in Alaska. There “subsistence” has come to stand for a class of hunting and fishing rights that, under federal and state laws, enjoy a legal preference superior to competing sports, commer- cial, and personal use rights.’ For Alaska Natives, “subsistence” became a political and cultural rallying cry some years before it became a law. The term is a foreign one to many Natives, because it is used by non- Natives to capsulize what is for Natives an entire way of life. Thus, subsistence has come to symbolize unique hunting and fishing rights as well as the complex web of cultural practices, social relationships, and economic rewards associated with those rights.’ In Alaska, the term has come to stand for the traditional Alaska Native way of life. Accordingly, the ability of Alaskan Natives to maintain subsistence as a way of life is a measure of their ability to achieve self-determination. Without subsis- tence, the way Alaska Natives live would inevitably be defined by standards external to their own cultural values. As wage employment and the accumulation of wealth compete with Native values associated with hunting, gathering, and sharing, the evolution of Native cultures will tend to be determined by forces outside those cultures rather than “self-determined” David S. Case from within. Forestalling that possibility by promoting self- determination is the official policy of the federal government. The federal government’s self-determination policy is perhaps best stated in President Nixon’s July 8, 1970, special message to Congress on Indian affairs. There he urged and subsequently proposed legislation to build federal Indian policies “on the capacities and insights of the Indian people.”* “The time has come,” he said, “to break decisively with the past and to create the conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian deci- sions.”° The new policy was followed by a host of legislative enactments,° of which the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 is the centerpiece.’ The specific congressional findings enacted as part of the Self- Determination Act concluded in part that: (1) the prolonged Federal domination of Indian service programs . . . has denied to the Indian people an effective voice in the planning and implementation of programs for the benefit of Indians which are responsive to the true needs of Indian communities; and (2) the Indian people will never surrender their desire to control their relationships both among them- selves and with non-Indian governments, organizations and persons.* Thus, American domestic policy and law acknowledge that Native Americans should have an “effective voice” in developing and operating programs that benefit Native com- munities.’ Under the Self-Determination Act, the policy is manifested in, inter alia, requirements that the Secretaries of the Interior and Health and Human Services contract with “Indian tribe[s]” or “tribal organization[s]” for the provision of Native services and programs."° These self-determination era statutes'! have all been specifically applied to the Alaska Native villages and corporations “defined in or established” under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).'” 130 Rural Alaska Policy Review pe a CS SSE SS PIES RS RA SSR SESS SERS SESS The purpose of this article is to consider the extent to which three regulatory regimes—the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,!? the Marine Mammal Protection Act,'* and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission'*—afford Alaska Natives an “effective voice” in the planning and implementa- tion of programs that protect or promote subsistence hunting and fishing by Natives and, consequently, the extent to which they serve the federal policy of self-determination.'* This article does not discuss the extent to which the exercise of tribal authority in Alaska might also lead to a more effective voice over Native hunting and fishing.’ Rather, it examines the opportunities under each of the three subject regimes for “comanagement” of wildlife,'* and the extent to which each regime furthers the goal of self-determination. Comanagement of wildlife has been documented in nu- merous instances in both Canadaand Alaska." Incomanagement regimes, “public authorities share power with indigenous user groups” as a means of resolving conflicts between what have been characterized as “state” and “indigenous” systems of wildlife management.” The conflicts between the two systems are perhaps cultural as much as anything else. The state system relies on the results of scientific research to develop written rules administered by government bureau- cracies. Within the bureaucracy the people who do the research and develop and enforce the regulations are organizationally segregated from each other.”! By contrast, in the indigenous system, research and management of the resource are organi- cally connected to the act of harvesting, and enforcement is largely a matter of adherence to community values.” The research and information gaps between the two systems are greatest when it comes to respecting the validity of each other’s knowledge and understanding their alternative approaches to regulation and enforcement.”* The thesis presented here is that the extent to which comanagement regimes bridge these gaps is ameasure of whether these regimes afford Natives an “effective voice” in wildlife management. B. The Dilemma of Regulating Subsistence Alaskan Native fishing and hunting has, until relatively recently, been governed solely by indigenous systems of un- written customs, beliefs, and practices that, as a practical matter, ensured the survival of families and villages.* These unwritten rules were generally effective from a conservation standpoint. Moreover, and equally important, they dovetailed with the complex web of social, cultural, and economic aspects of Alaska Native societies. The more recent, formal regulations of the state and national governments often have the effect (perhaps unintended) of tearing this web of relationships.** The effect is perhaps unintended because, from the standpoint of those doing the regulating, the intent is not to infringe on subsistence practices but to protect wild, renewable resources by imposing bag limits, seasons, and other scientifically “rou- tine” methods. The problem is that these artificial limitations often clash with the natural hunting and fishing practices of Native people, who generally perceive such limits as unneces- sary. For a variety of reasons, it became politically necessary to afford Alaska Natives (and non-Natives) a preference for the subsistence taking of fish and game.”* In 1980, this led to the enactment of Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).”” Moreover, in 1972 (less than a year after the enactment of ANCSA), Congress had enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).”* This act imposed a nearly absolute moratorium on the taking of marine mam- mals,” but allowed a broad and virtually unregulated exemp- tion for Alaska Natives who took marine mammals in a nonwasteful manner for “subsistence purposes” or for the manufacture and sale of Native handicrafts.” Any regulation of subsistence generally has an adverse effect on subsistence practices and culture, but the ban on aboriginal hunting of the bowhead whale is perhaps the most extreme example of the adverse effect regulation can have onan indigenous system of subsistence management. In 1977, appar- ently acting in the belief that the bowhead whale population was nearing extinction, the International Whaling Commission (IWC), unilaterally and with no advance notice to the affected Alaska Natives, ordered a complete ban on all hunting of the bowhead whale.*! Within a few weeks, the Alaska Natives (principally Inupiat residing on the North Slope) established their own whaling commission, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). They mounted an effective political and scientific campaign to obtain relief from the ban and are now active participants in the study and management of the bowhead whale as well as the development and enforcement of whaling regulations.” ANILCA, the MMPA and the AEWC present three con- trasting subsistence comanagement regimes. In thefollowing discussion, I will examine these regimes with a view to deter- mining the extent to which each provides Alaska Natives with an “effective voice” in research and management of subsis- tence resources and the regulatory control of those who harvest these resources. I will also attempt to define the features of each regime that frustrate or facilitate its effectiveness in serving that purpose. 131 Rural Alaska Policy Review II. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) A. The Federal Law Alaska Native aboriginal hunting and fishing rights were extinguished as a matter of federal law in 1971 with the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).™ Of course, the cultural, social, and economic activities associated with the extinguished rights did not cease, but subsistence users dominated by sport and commercial interests. Moreover, funding for much of the activity of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game came from license fees paid by sport andwere thereafter at a political and economic disadvantage when it came to asserting their interests in the state regulatory system. For one thing, the Alaska state boards of fish and game were commercial users of the resources. As a result, rural Native people had little economic or political influence on the Alaskan fish and game regulatory process.*° Although ANCSA formally extinguished aboriginal hunt- ing and fishing rights in Alaska, it was clear from the Joint Senate and House Conference Committee Report accompany- ing the Act that Congress intended the State of Alaska and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to make provision for Native subsistence.** By 1980, however, it had become obvious that neither the State nor the Secretary was going to take any significant action. The result was the enactment of Title VIII of ANILCA.” Title VIII was intended to be a comprehensive approach to the political and economic problems that plagued the state’s subsistence fish and game policies. By the time the issue got to Congress it was also no longer exclusively a Native issue. Natives were not the only people who lived off the land in rural Alaska, and the state argued that it could not enforce an exclusive “Native” preference on state land without violating the state constitutional provision against racial discrimina- tion.** In what was to prove an ironic political compromise, Congress established a preference for “subsistence uses” of “wild renewable resources” by “rural Alaska residents.”*? The congressional “Findings” of the Act state the legal justification for federal protection of both Native subsistence “culture” and non-Native subsistence “society.”“° ANILCA’s administrative scheme requires the state to provide for the subsistence uses of rural Alaskan residents with a priority for those uses and a system of local advisory committees and at least six regional advisory councils.*! Title VIII also restricted the authority of the Alaska fish and game boards to make policy contrary to the recommendations of the regional advisory councils with re- spect to subsistence uses.” Typical of “cooperative” American federalism, Title VIII did not compel the State of Alaska to do anything, but it made the state an offer it couldn’t refuse. The law Congress enacted provided “rural Alaska residents” a subsistence preference only on “public lands” —defined elsewhere in ANILCA to be federal “ands, waters and interests therein.*? ANILCA did not require the state to adopt a subsistence preference or establish advisory councils and committees for regulation of fish and game on state or even Native lands. But the price of not doing so was that the state would not be able to regulate fish and game on the more than one-half of the lands in the state still in federal ownership. Alaska had one year to establish a subsistence preference and committee/council structure for state and private lands identical to those required under ANILCA for federal public lands. If the state did that, then the Interior Secretary could not set up a competing system to regulate public lands, and state regulatory authority would encompass all public lands (except parks and park monuments).*° B. State Implementation and Frustration Prior to 1980, the state already had enacted legislation establishing a subsistence preference.“ After ANILCA be- came law, the state Department of Fish and Game adopted regulations establishing a “rural resident” subsistence prefer- ence as required under ANILCA.* It also went about the task of setting up the necessary advisory committees and councils throughout the state. Then in 1985, the Alaska Supreme Court held that the state subsistence statute on which the Department of Fish and Game had based its “rural resident” subsistence preference regulations did not limit subsistence fishing and hunting to rural residents.* Since the federal law required that the preference be limited to rural residents, the state (by the decision of its own supreme court) appeared to be in violation of federal law. Faced with the prospect of federal takeover of fish and game manage- ment on more than half the land in the state, Alaska passed a 132 Rural Alaska Policy Review new law.” The new statute did limit the subsistence preference to residents “domiciled in a rural area of the state," but in 1989 the State Supreme Court held in McDowell v. Collinsworth that the state “rural resident” preference was unconstitutional under equal access to resource clauses of the state constitution.*! Ironically, in McDowell the state’ s Supreme Court rejected the very “rural resident” compromise which the state had insisted was necessary for the ANILCA subsistence preference to pass Alaska constitutional muster. The court held that the automatic inclusion of all rural residents and exclusion of everyone else from the preference in the state law implementing ANILCA was inconsistent with provisions of Article VIII of the state constitution guaranteeing equal access to fish and game. The full scope of the decision is still to be litigated, but the immediate effect was a flurry of failed legislative activity followed by a federal takeover of subsistence fish and game management on federal lands. This left the state with respon- sibility for subsistence fish and game management on state and private (including Native) lands. The McDowell decision was handed down in December 1989, one month prior to the convening of the Alaska Legisla- ture in January 1990. Elements of the legislature mounted an effort to push a constitutional amendment before the voters to preserve the rural preference. However, the legislators could not garner the votes to propose the amendment. The result was that on July 1, 1990 the federal government announced the resumption of federal management of subsistence on federal lands in Alaska.** On federal lands, rural residency is the standard for applying the subsistence preference, while the standard under state law is uncertain and still evolving. C. Other Recent Litigation Prior to McDowell, most of the subsistence litigation was brought in federal court, because section 807 of ANILCA granted federal court jurisdiction to hear complaints brought by “{IJocal residents, other persons and organizations aggrieved by a failure of the state” to provide for the subsistence priority. Consistently, the failure of the state fish and game boards to accord a true subsistence preference was struck down. The state has not fared any better after McDowell, even though the battle has now shifted to state courts. Prior to McDowell and faced with the possibility of losing statewide fish and game jurisdiction following the Madison decision,™ the state amended its subsistence statute to apply only torural residents. The new statute also defined “rural area” to mean “a community or area of the state in which the noncommercial, customary, and traditional use of fish or game for personal or family consumption is a principal characteristic of the economy of the community or area."** The new definition was challenged by Natives residing on the Kenai Peninsula, in Kenaitze Indian Tribe v. Alaska.® The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that even though its economy was “no longer dominated by subsistence and barter,” the Kenai Peninsula was nevertheless “rural” under the ordinary meaning of the term.*” The court also concluded that the state, in trying to define “rural,” was simply trying to find a way to “take away what Congress has given, adopting a creative redefinition of the word rural, or redefinition whose transparent purpose is to protect commercial and sport fishing interests.”°* The state fared no better when it tried to impose seasons and bag limits on subsistence moose and caribou hunters in remote Lime Village. Lime Village had applied to the board of game through the appropriate regional advisory council to adopt regulations permitting village residents to hunt moose and caribou without any season or bag limits. The board found that residents customarily harvested moose and caribou on an “opportunistic” basis throughout the year and that, “‘the moose populations were stable and that the caribou population in the area was at a high level and growing.’” The board relaxed the seasons and somewhat increased the bag limits, but did not eliminate them. Dissatisfied, village residents appealed the board’s decision to federal court. Noting the role that sharing of the harvest plays in subsis- tence hunting, the court in Bobby v. State held that the board of game must take into account the fact one hunter may take animals for use by many people.*' As to seasons, the court found: The subsistence hunter who is without meat during aclosed season or who has with his family consumed a fixed bag limit will go hungry unless some other game or fish are available and in season. Hunger knows nothing of seasons, nor is it satisfied for long after one’s bag limit has been consumed.” The court went on to caution the state: “If bag limits and seasons are imposed on subsistence hunting, there must be substantial evidence in the record that such restrictions are not inconsistent with customary and traditional uses of the game in question.” The state courts have faced and similarly resolved the same issues in the two years following McDowell. Although no case has yet been reviewed by the state Supreme Court, the lower state trial courts have reached consistent results in at least four cases.™ In general, there appear to be two main issues emerging in the courts: (1) who is entitled to the subsistence preference in the absence of the “rural resident” criteria and (2) whether in implementing the state subsistence preference the boards of fish and game must consider the effect of regulation on the methods 133 Rural Alaska Policy Review and means of subsistence or only the amount of resources harvested. After the McDowell decision, the boards of fish and game were first confronted with the question of who now qualified for the subsistence preference. The McDowell decision suggested that residents might be eligible for subsistence who were able to satisfy a “classification scheme employing individual char- acteristics.” However, on October 28, 1990, acting on the advice of the Alaska Department of Law, the joint boards of fish and game announced as its policy that: “all Alaskans are now eligible for subsistence.” The policy has resulted in regulations which arguably treat subsistence users the same as sportsmen. The boards of fish and game have also been advised that the state law requirement that subsistence hunters be afforded a “reasonable opportunity to satisfy subsistence uses”®” means only a reasonable opportunity to obtain a sufficient amount of subsistence food. This has resulted in regulations which admit- tedly do not take into account the effect the regulation may have on subsistence methods, means, and values. The lower courts have responded by requiring subsistence regulations to use the “least intrusive” means available to fulfill the legitimate man- agement goals of “conservation, development and utilization” of fish and game resources. D. “Effective Voice’ or Regulatory Muzzle? McDowell caused bifurcation of what was already a com- plex regulatory scheme, and the continuing litigation, policy pronouncements and proposed legislation do not seem likely to simplify the issues very soon. The ANILCA subsistence preference is the product of a rather unwieldy compromise between the partial recovery of the Native hunting and fishing rights, extinguished under ANCSA,” and the attempt to main- tain centralized regulatory authority over fish and game by the State of Alaska. The post-McDowell transfer of authority to federal man- agement reportedly has resulted in some tentative approaches to federal comanagement with Native nonprofit organizations. There is no evidence of similar efforts on the state side, and it remains to be seen if the present confusion will generate opportunities for comanagement under either the state or fed- eral systems. Ill. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) A. Purpose of the Law and Its Effect on Subsistence The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA),” as pres- ently implemented, appears to offer a greater opportunity for Native comanagement and self-determination than is currently afforded by the confused ANILCA regime. The MMPA was enacted in 1972 in response to widespread concern that marine mammals”! were being hunted to extinction or (in the case of dolphins and porpoises) wantonly killed in the course of com- mercial fishing operations.” Congress declared an indefinite and near absolute morato- rium on the taking or importing of all marine mammals or their parts in or into the United States. However, the Act exempts Alaska Natives from the general prohibition, essentially grant- ing them an exclusive right to take marine mammals, so long as it “is not accomplished in a wasteful manner,” for any “subsis- tence purpose” or to create “authentic Native” handicrafts or clothing.” Finally, the Act prohibits all state regulation of marine mammal hunting, unless the state meets certain federal requirements relating generally to the maintenance of healthy marine mammal populations.” Although intended primarily as a conservation measure, the immediate effect of the MMPA from the Native perspective was the substantial deregulation of Native marine mammal subsistence hunting. Native taking can be regulated under the Act, but only on a species-by-species basis in the event the particular species ever becomes “‘depleted.””> Otherwise, the federal government can require Natives to mark, tag, and report marine mammals taken under the exemption even if there is no “depletion.””® Recently, however, agency enforcement has sought to narrow the definition of what constitutes “authentic Native” handicrafts to those specific types of items Alaska Natives were making in 1972, when the MMPA was enacted.” Native groups have successfully challenged these measures in the courts.” 134 Rural Alaska Policy Review That the relative lack of regulation under the MMPA has been advantageous to the Natives is evidenced by Native resistance to the State of Alaska’s attempts to reassume juris- diction over walrus and other marine mammals. In the late 1970s, the state petitioned for the return of walrus management. Included in its proposed regulations were provisions that had the effect of prohibiting Native walrus hunting in certain areas, including the coastal region near the southwestern Alaskan community of Togiak. When the Department of the Interior issued regulations” purporting to transfer walrus jurisdiction to the state, the people of Togiak filed a lawsuit. The Togiak residents contended that the MMPA’s Native exemption preempts any state regulation of Native marine mammal hunting and that the federal regulations were therefore invalid. The court agreed and denied the government’s motion to dismiss, in part because it found the Native exemption to be an exercise of federal authority in the field of Indian affairs and an outgrowth of the federal government’s unique responsibili- ties toward Native Americans. The court held: These various responsibilities impose fiduciary duties upon the United States, including the duties so to regulate as to protect the subsistence resources of Indian communities and to preserve such communities as distinct cultural entities against interference by the States. It is presumably to implement these various powers and duties that Con- gress adopted the Native exemption from the general moratorium established by the MMPA, and an abandon- ment of those responsibilities should not be lightly pre- sumed.*! B. Regulation Today: Natives Assert a Policy-Making Role Following the Togiak lawsuit, the federal government withdrew its regulations, and the state abandoned its plans to assume jurisdiction over walrus and other marine mammals. Congress amended the law in 1981, however, to permit the state to reassume marine mammal jurisdiction so long as it provided marine mammal subsistence protection for “rural Alaska resi- dents.”* After extensive hearings throughout the state and in the face of concerted Native opposition, the state has, for the time being, abandoned further efforts to assume jurisdiction over marine mammals. Given the McDowell decision, it seems unlikely that the state will reassume marine mammal jurisdiction soon so long as the “rural resident” preference is a feature of the federal law and unconstitutional under state law. The 1979 federal court decision in People of Togiak v. United States had the overall effect of stymieing any effective a sR SORRUNNRE SECE TSEESEE ESSE ESE a state or federal regulation of marine mammal hunting—state regulation was not politically possible and federal regulation was underfunded.™ Prior to the decision in Togiak, but perhaps due to the conflict over state regulation of walrus, Alaska Natives had formed the Eskimo Walrus Commission “to repre- sent the walrus hunting villages and to aid State and Federal agencies in their attempts to develop a suitable walrus manage- ment plan.”*5 In 1979, the Eskimo Walrus Commission proposed that a “cooperative management agreement” be established between it and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service initially declined to enter into such an agreement until better census data and data on the overall health of the walrus herds were avail- able.*° Such an agreement was finally concluded among the Service, the Walrus Commission and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 1987.*’ All parties to the agreement confirm that the Fish and Wildlife Service is “the agency with legal responsibility for the management of the Pacific Walrus.** The general thrust of the agreement is that both the Walrus Commis- sion and the state will cooperate with the Fish and Wildlife Service in studying the walrus and educating Native hunters about the value and necessity of their compliance with appli- cable statutes, laws, regulations, and agreements.”*? Meanwhile, the Marine Mammal Commission, charged with overall implementation of the MMPA, has moved ahead with efforts to implement the Act, “including provisions for the protection of the Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts whose liveli- hood may be adversely affected by actions taken [under the Act].”*° Its efforts have included the creation of seven working groups composed in part of scientists and representatives of Native and non-Native coastal communities as well as environ- mental interests and state and federal agencies. In years past the Marine Mammal Commission has also funded the Eskimo Walrus Commission to set up a monitoring system for the Native harvest.*! The Alaska Eskimo Walrus Commission exercises no rule- making or enforcement authority. Nonetheless, the Commis- sion does have potential influence on the regulatory process. It meets regularly with representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service and presented testimony at the 1988 hearings on the successful reauthorization of the MMPA for an additional five years.” Moreover, the Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service are engaged in ongoing discussions regarding the development of a joint walrus management plan. It is possible that these activities eventually may produce some sort of joint federal-Native regulations of marine mammals.” The Eskimo Walrus Commission appears to have been a direct response to the threatened state regulation of walrus hunting. Whether the Eskimo Walrus Commission will ever assume a more active regulatory role is also undetermined, but 135 Rural Alaska Policy Review the example of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, discussed below, provides a useful model of what is possible. IV. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission A. Culture, Economy, and the Bowhead Whale Called “ahgvik” in Inupiaq, the bowhead whale is a genu- ine leviathan, up to sixty feet long and weighing one-half to one ton per foot of length. It is the basis of the social and cultural existence of the North Slope coastal Inupiat people and the centerpiece of the Inupiat subsistence economy.” The prepara- tions for spring and fall whaling extend throughout the year in a continuous cycle that includes the hunting of bearded seal (ugruk) in the spring and summer for its skins, which are used to cover the skin boats (umiags) used in whaling.” Spring is also the time of the whaling festival (nalukatak), hosted by the successful whaling captains and their crews. During this time and again at Thanksgiving and Christmas, the meat and blubber (maktak) of the whale are shared with the entire village.” Beyond its significance to these specific events, bowhead whaling is the single most important activity in North Slope coastal Inupiat culture, knitting together extended families and even people outside the family in a whole system of collective and cooperative economic and social relationships. The whal- ing captain and his crew of six to twenty-five people are the primary socioeconomic unit.” Each captain’ s family also plays an important supporting role, with some members being em- ployed in the local cash economy to support the captain’s whaling preparations." The activities of the entire whaling fleet in each village are often coordinated through a village association of whaling captains,'°! which may have been the model for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). B. Origin of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission The AEWC was born out of a crisis. The bowhead whale has been totally protected from commercial whaling for more than forty years under the terms of two successive international conventions.' Moreover, in 1970 the species was designated as “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act;' in 1977 it was determined to be “depleted” under the MMPA.'™ Also in 1977 the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the entity charged with implementing the current whaling conven- tion, imposed a total ban on all bowhead whaling. Ifthe ban had been enforced successfully it would have terminated, suddenly and catastrophically, Inupiat cultural practices that had evolved over millennia. Within weeks the AEWC came into existence, solely in response to the whaling ban. The AEWC was established by a resolution of the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, a region-wide tribe organized under the federal Indian Reorganization Act.'° Subsequently the AEWC was reorganized as a nonprofit corporation under the laws of Alaska.'!° Following the 1977 ban, the newly formed AEWC mounted a court challenge to compel the United States government to prevent the ban from taking effect.!°’ The court held that it had no jurisdiction to compel the government to take any action in the field of foreign affairs. The AEWC then turned to direct political pressure on the federal government and the IWC to lift the ban, with some success.'° The IWC relented from an outright ban and in 1978 established a Native quota of twelve whales taken or eighteen struck, an allotment later enlarged to fourteen taken or twenty struck and increased at every subsequent IWC meeting. The effects on the Inupiat of the ban followed by the limited quota ranged from reduced food supplies to restrictions in the number of crews participating in the hunt and a consequent reduction in the social and economic interaction of the people who would normally participate in whaling.''° From the standpoint of cultural adaptation, however, perhaps the most significant development arising from the bowhead crisis was the consoli- dation of the AEWC itself. C. Organization and Function of the AEWC The AEWC is composed of ten commissioners, one elected from each of the ten village whaling associations.'' Voting membership in the AEWC is limited to registered whaling captains and co-captains resident in any of the ten whaling villages. The structure thus preserves the traditional leadership role of the umialik, although any member of a whaling crew in the ten villages can become a non-voting member.'!? On March 4, 1981, the AEWC adopted its own bowhead whale manage- ment plan. In the same year it entered into a cooperative agreement with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- istration (NOAA) for the cooperative enforcement of the IWC quotas and to assist NOAA in inspecting and reporting on the bowhead whale harvest. 136 Rural Alaska Policy Review The overall effect of the AEWC Management Plan and the AEWC/NOAA Cooperative Agreement was to interpose the AEWC between the village whaling captains and the represen- tatives of the federal government responsible for enforcing the international whaling convention and the MMPA.' The AEWC allocates the annual whaling quota among its member villages, resolves disputes between whaling captains, and im- poses sanctions on its members who violate the terms of the quota.'* Politically, the AEWC represents the interests of the whaling villages at the annual meetings of the IWC, which in 1982 established separate management principles and proce- dures to govern Native subsistence whaling.''* The IWC also has established a standing subcommittee to review Native!’ subsistence whaling to advise the IWC in much the same way the IWC’s scientific committee does on biological matters." These political developments are positive in that they afford the AEWC a truly “effective voice” in the international political process and carve out a separate status for Native whaling to be taken into account in decisions relating to the conservation of the bowhead whale. Continuously since the 1977 ban, the AEWC has participated in the deliberations of the IWC as part of the official American delegation. It is probably the first time since before the American Revolution that Native Americans have been direct participants in international nego- tiations affecting their rights.'* D. The AEWC and the North Slope Borough—Jointly Raising an “Effective Voice” It is questionable that the AEWC would have been so effective had it not been for the political backing and financial support of the North Slope Borough. The borough has estab- lished an active Department of Wildlife Management, whose chief project is the scientific study of the bowhead whale." In addition, the borough sponsors a series of biennial conferences on the biology of the bowhead whale, which are attended by scientists from all over the world.'”° The borough also sponsors The Arctic Science Prize, awarded every two years to “‘distin- guished scientists who have made significant contributions to man’s understanding of natural processes in the Arctic.”!2! To advise it on scientific matters, the borough has formed its own Science Advisory Committee. Established in 1981 to advise the AEWC, the Science Advisory Committee became the borough’s advisory commit- tee in 1982. It is composed of twenty-five scientists and academics, mainly from the University of Alaska, who are available to review research proposals submitted to the borough for funding as well as to provide the borough with an unbiased review of state, federal, and private studies related to develop- ment and other technical matters of interest to the borough. The borough’s active involvement in and support of science have put it in a position to master the information gap that is often the difference between influence and lack of influence on develop- mental change.'? Nowhere has this been more important than with respect to ee ES SESS SS SSE A SR ERS SS the scientific data regarding the population of the bowhead whale. The original reason for the 1977 ban was a determina- tion that the bowhead population had dropped dramatically.'?* The borough has pioneered new acoustic census techniques that, in conjunction with other methods, have yielded a current reliable estimate of about 4,400 whales.'* Reliable scientific data are also important to the political efforts of the AEWC in national and international forums. Finally, the borough also provides substantial direct funding to the AEWC to support its preparation for and attendance at the annual meetings of the IWC at locations around the world.'*5 The AEWC is emerging as an example of successful adaptation and modification of Native cultural andsocial prac- tices in the face of a significant challenge to their existence. The very structure of the AEWC incorporates the role of the umialik as a traditional leader. The AEWC has been used effectively to assert that leadership in both the national and international arenas. The result, on the political front, is genuine comanagement of the resource and the graduakreversal of what might otherwise have been a cultural catastrophe. The borough and the AEWC quickly grasped that science was their ally in the struggle to maintain the Inupiat culture, and have readily called on this alliance to serve that purpose.'° Both science and politics, however, are expensive. The North Slope Borough’s political, scientific, and economic support have, no doubt, been essential to the success of the AEWC. Without them, the AEWC would not likely have been able to attend the international meetings of the IWC, much less influence its technical debates and policy decisions. V. When Is Co- management a More “Effective Voice?” Each of the three regimes I have described is an example of comanagement of wildlife resources.!?” Comanagement arises out of the conflicts between what have been characterized as the “indigenous” and “state” systems of wildlife management and the potential solutions to those conflicts offered by a manage- ment regime “in which public authorities share power with indigenous user groups.”'?* I have suggested that the extent to which comanagement amounts to a more effective voice for Natives depends on the extent to which a particular comanagement regime bridges the gaps between the state and 137 a A RR ER TT Rural Alaska Policy Review indigenous systems of wildlife management.'” The gaps in understanding between the participants in the two systems are predominantly cultural, but can be capsulized as the differences that arise between bureaucratic and organic forms of organization. Bureaucracies rely on people with specialized skills working in a hierarchy. In “state” fish and wildlife management systems, biologists do research, which is used by rule makers to promulgate regulations, which are enforced by yet other officials. In contrast, organic forms of organization rely on participants who have roughly the same types of skills and participate equally in all activities, in the absence of any readily identifiable hierarchy. In “indigenous” systems of fish and wildlife management, the harvesters are also the ones who have the greatest level of knowledge about the resources they harvest. The rules based on that knowledge are in reality community values, which are enforced only because they are generally accepted as correct. The researchers, rule makers, and enforcement officers of the state system are often perceived by the participants in the indigenous system as being out of touch with reality as the indigenous participants know it. In the north, this perception has often been correct.'*° It is not surprising that Native people want to find ways in which they can more effectively influence state systems of wildlife management. To the extent that comanagement regimes allow Natives to influence research, tule making, and enforcement, they afford Natives a more “effective voice”! in fish and wildlife management. Ofthe three regulatory regimes considered here, the AEWC has had the most success in asserting an “effective voice” in planning, implementing, and enforcing a workable subsistence policy controlled by the people most affected by it. The state/ ANILCA regime suffers from too much influence by unpredict- able judicial determinations, a complicated and ultimately distant regulatory process, and relatively underfunded local initiatives, as the post-McDowell developments amply demon- strate. But neither ANILCA nor the state subsistence regime offers Natives any certain role in either research or enforce- ment. At best, they afford local users of subsistence resources only an enhanced consultative role when it comes to rule making. That is the regime’s biggest and, ultimately, debilitat- ing flaw. In contrast, the advantage of the MMPA is that it favors little regulation by the state. In fact, it has led to substantial deregulation of Native taking of marine mammals for subsis- tence purposes. As aresult, Native subsistence practices are left theoretically undisturbed, except in those rare instances when regulatory intervention is truly necessary for conservation purposes. Compared to the AEWC, however, the Alaska Walrus Commission currently plays a lesser role in research, rule making, and enforcement of marine mammal subsistence policy. Moreover, the current agreement with Fish and Wildlife Service offers little more than a vague assurance of cooperation inresearch and education, both of which appear directed toward promoting research sponsored by the state system and educat- ing Native users to follow Fish and Wildlife Service regula- tions.'* This is perhaps due to the absence of a current crisis requiring active participation and a relative lack of funding even if there were a need.'? In effect, then, both ANILCA and the MMPA allow for individual self-determination only by default. That is, both these regimes are federally created or mandated systems that encourage minimal regulation of subsistence hunting and fish- ing. In the absence of regulation, individual subsistence users (Natives in the case of the MMPA and God knows who in the case of ANILCA) are free to determine for themselves when, where, and how much they will hunt and fish. While this does not amount to an “effective voice” in subsistence fish and game management, it does reduce the potential for conflict between the state and indigenous systems of wildlife management by reducing the opportunity for regulation by the State.'* Of the three regimes examined here, the AEWC currently affords Natives the most “effective voice” in the management of subsistence resources. Ironically, considering that self- determination is a federal policy, this is due hardly at all to the implementation of any federal law. Rather, it has been the result of the ability of the North Slope coastal Inupiat to perceive the leverage points in an international policy-making and regula- tory regime and to apply pressure to them. The role played by the North Slope Borough in this process has been crucial. By funding sustained scientific research, political action, and liti- gation, the borough has enabled the AEWC to be heard in the national and international forums where the fate of the bowhead whale would no doubt otherwise have been decided without the wisdom of the Inupiat. David Case is a 1974 graduate of the University of Wash- ington School of Law. He has practiced law for 17 years in Alaska. During that time, he has worked for the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Alaska Native Foundation, as an attorney for the Interior Department in the Alaska Regional Solicitor’s Office, and as an Associate Professor of Political Science and Alaska Native Studies at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He is in private practice with an Anchorage law firm, emphasizing representation of Alaska Native corpora- tions, tribes, and municipal governments. His publications include Twenty-Four Ordinances For the Enforcement of Local Laws Under the Alaska “Village” Council (Alaska Federation of Natives); The Special Relationship of Alaska Natives to the Federal Government, Alaska Native Foundation, 1978); Alaska Natives and American Laws (University of Alaska Press, 1984); “Listen to the Canary: A Reply to Professor Branson” (Alaska Law Review, 4:209 [1987]); and “Subsistence and Self-Deter- mination: Can Alaska Natives Have a More ‘Effective Voice’”’? University of Colorado Law Review, 60(4):1009 [1989]). 4 138 Rural Alaska Policy Review Alaska Federation of Natives SUBSISTENCE During the past four years, no political issue has been more important to the statewide Native community than subsistence. AFN and other organizations have spent a lot of time and effort promoting our goal of an appropriate subsistence preference in both federal and state laws. We have done this because we know that, without legal protection against overwhelming competition from urban hunters and fishermen, village subsistence harvests will inevitably decline. And without subsistence, our most traditional communities cannot survive. If you look at it that way, the subsistence issue is not really about fish and game. It is about people - their families and communities. It is about us. So, as we continue to work in an abstract world of statutes, regulations and lawsuits, we must never forget the real world of subsistence and how it works in modern Alaska. While no one needs to tell us about the real world of subsistence, it nevertheless is well documented. Scientific research and data can greatly enhance understanding and cooperation between traditional Native and Western cultures. Consider the following facts: I. Studies by the Subsistence Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game have surveyed wild food harvests in dozens of Alaskan communities, from large cities to tiny villages. In the smallest, most rural, most Native communities, virtually all the meat, fish and poultry on the dinner table comes from subsistence. And it is meat, fish and poultry that are the mainstay of the total village diet. So, while our people depend on the cash economy to buy certain foods and other household items, the large majority of what they feed their families comes from local lands and waters. 2. If these subsistence resources - or the legal right to harvest them - were somehow taken away, they could never be replaced by imported substitutes. Neither the village, the state nor the federal government has that kind of money. So the result would be gradual economic catastrophe: the deterioration and eventual disappearance, through outmigration, of many of our most traditional communities . 3. Subsistence harvests are smallest in Alaska's large urban areas (e.g., Anchorage, Fairbanks, Mat-Su and Juneau, which take only about 30 pounds of wild foods per person per year). But annual per capita harvests increase sharply, to a range of 100-300 pounds, in the small communities of the Railbelt, the highway system and Southeast Alaska. They become even higher among the non- road-connected villages and towns in the southern areas of the bush (e.g., Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, Kodiak and the Alaska Peninsula). And they are highest - in some villages reaching above 1,000 pounds per person per-year - among the villages of the remote Interior and the northern and western coasts of the state. 4. Subsistence is rural: the farther out you go from Alaska’ s big cities, the greater the dependence on fish and game and the larger the harvests. Subsistence is remote: rural communities that are connected to cities by roads, by the Alaska Railroad or (in Southeast) by the Marine Highway system do practice a good deal of subsistence - but not as much as those areas that have no such transportation connections. Subsistence is not about wealth: the lower a community’ s average cash income, the more it tends to depend on fish and game for food. Subsistence is predominantly Native: villages that have not experienced much non-Native in-migration produce far more subsistence output than do heavily-impacted communities in cities and along the high- way system). 5. More than any other subsistence product, fish feeds the bush. In every region, except the few Arctic coastal villages that depend primarily on marine mammals and caribou, fishing (especially for five species of salmon) produces more total protein than do all forms of hunting combined. Coastal villages from the Arctic to Southeast depend to varying degrees on marine mammals, whereas Interior communities rely on land mammals and birds. But fish are taken everywhere, and they account for almost 60% of statewide subsistence production each year. 6. Subsistence households in modern Alaska use a wide range of animal and plant species during a typical year of seasonal harvests. (This is only partly because of personal food preferences. It also provides alternatives if certain species are not as plentiful as needed in some years.) Many non-Native, urban Alaskans feel that they are part of the subsistence economy and culture if they put a few salmon or continued on page 143 139 Rural Alaska Policy Review McKie Campbell Among the fifty states, only Alaska has a significant proportion of the population who live, for the most part, off the land. Because subsistence is important to Alaska, both the U.S. Congress and previous Alaska Legislatures have passed laws giving a preference to subsistence over other consumptive uses of the same resources. The spirit of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conserva- tion Act (ANILCA) and of previous state subsistence laws is that of protecting subsistence uses and users. While most people agree with this intent, many have problems with the mechanism used: discrimination among Alaskans based only on where they live. The law’s lack of definitions has caused severe, ongoing problems. These difficulties have led to continuous political controversy since ANILCA’s enactment. In 1989 in a lawsuit brought by a group of urban Alaskans, McDowell v. Collinsworth , the Alaska Supreme Court held that discrimination among Alaskans based on a rural/urban split was so arbitrary that it violated the state’s equal protection clause. In McDowell and subsequent decisions, the courts have indicated that it would be permissible to differentiate among Alaskans based on individual criteria. After the McDowell decision, Alaska found itself in a Catch-22, with federal law requiring something the Alaska Constitution says the state cannot do. Because ANILCA re- quires the federal government to manage for subsistence on federal lands within Alaska, Alaskans are faced with dual management of fish and game. There are two extreme approaches to solving this problem, neither of which Governor Hickel supports. One of these is simply to amend Alaska’s constitution to comply with ANILCA by creating a special exception to the equal protection and common use clauses. The other is to sue to strike down Title VIII of ANILCA. The governor has rejected both of these extremes for similar reasons. The outcome of each course is uncertain; each would require a lengthy process for resolution; and, in the meantime, either course would bitterly divide the state. While dual management is a very real and troublesome problem, the greater day-to-day management problems have been caused by the state’s own crippled subsistence law. The chances of fixing the state’s subsistence law while pursuing either a constitu- tional amendment or a lawsuit would be nil. A lawsuit to strike down Title VIII, based either on federal equal protection grounds or on grounds that Title VIII violates our'statehood compact, could take years to work its way through the courts and still might not produce a result. If the state were Proposed State Legislation Defines What Subsistence Is Where It Happens Who Participates to lose a lawsuit based on statehood compact grounds, it could be adversely affected in a wide range of other issues relating to the federal government. If the state were to win such a lawsuit, it still would be confronted with the problem of how to manage and protect subsistence. Unfortunately, many people have become conditioned to equating a constitutional amendment with subsistence and to viewing any other proposed solution as anti-subsistence. Such mental blinders can make it very difficult to craft a solution that protects subsistence while addressing some of the real problems that have developed. A constitutional amendment that simply complies with ANILCA without fixing the problems doesn’t work for several reasons. Such an approach will not remove subsistence as a source of major statewide controversy. The controversy is not about the law’s intent; rather, itis about the federally mandated, straight rural/urban mechanism, and about ongoing problems caused by undefined terms. In the long run, the worst thing that could happen to rural Alaska would be to continue with a law that a large group of urban residents view as unfair. It is in the interests of rural residents to have a subsistence law that is generally viewed as fair, and which, at the same time, protects subsistence rights. Since the passage of ANILCA in December of 1980, there have been multiple lawsuits every year by groups on every side of the issue. Most of these lawsuits have been due not to disagreement with ANILCA’s intent, but to its lack of defini- tions. We can identify problems with ANILCA, not because we are any smarter than the many people who labored to pass that law, but simply because, after a decade of living with the law, we have learned which parts work well and which parts, or gaps, cause repeated trouble. Toamend Alaska’s Constitution without fixing these prob- lems would subject us to a host of issues which have developed in court cases in recent years. Some examples are Kenaitze Indian Tribe v. Alaska, a federal court case that declared the Kenai Peninsula “rural;” another case that has seriously blurred 140 Rural Alaska Policy Review the distinction between commercial fishing and subsis- tence (in which a federal judge held that a $10,000 sale of herring roe to the Japanese was clearly within the limits of “customary trade”); and current cases which argue, based on the clear statutory preference for subsistence over other con- sumptive uses, that judges should apply the subsistence prefer- ence as they apply the Endangered Species Act, restricting or eliminating all downstream or marine consumptive uses where any amount of fish from an upstream subsistence use are part of the mixed stock, if there is any shortage of the upstream subsistence stock. The last glaring problem with a constitutional amendment is: it won’t pass. To take effect, a constitutional amendment proposal would have to be approved by two-thirds of both the Alaska House and Senate, and then by a majority of voters in the next general election. The governor strongly believes that the proposal would not pass in the general election, even if the legislature were to pass it. I have yet to find, even among the strongest proponents of a constitutional amendment, anyone who is able to show me where the votes are in the legislature to pass aconstitutional amendment proposal. The combination of legislators who are disturbed by either the rural/urban mecha- nism or the problems associated with undefined terms, or both, form a very solid block. When! discuss this issue with advocates of aconstitutional amendment, they often respond, “Well, we will wait until things get so bad, the public will be forced to pass a constitu- tional amendment.” That’s irresponsible public policy; our fish and game management problems will get worse with inaction, and there is no guarantee the result will be a constitutional amendment. The only guarantee is that we will all lose in the meantime. Governor Hickel is committed to resolving this problem while protecting subsistence. On Monday, January 13, 1992, the governor introduced legislation designed to resolve subsistence on all state and private lands and all waters in Alaska. We released our effort to craft a solution four months before the start of the session to engage people across the state in the effort to solve this problem. We don’t mind a bit when people criticize the plan, as long as they also offer practical alternatives to fix the problems. In developing our proposal, we had extensive discussions with people and groups on all sides of the subsistence issue and from all parts of the state. There was very little disagreement over a preference for subsistence uses but sharp division over how to implement that preference. An area of general agree- ment, however, has been that subsistence is a way of life. It is not something that can be defined just by where you live, or by how much money you make, or what race you are, but rather by how you live. We drafted the legislation based upon the concept of subsistence as a way of life. The proposal honors the spirit of a ANILCA, but benefits from the decade of experience in work- ing with that law. We have placed great emphasis on how the new statute will actually work and be in compliance with both the Alaska and United States constitutions. Extensive time was spent with resource users throughout the state and with the Alaska Departments of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and Law. The proposed statute has been designed for species protection, to function with a minimum of disruption for users, for ease of administration by the Boards of Fisheries and Game, for man- agement by the ADF&G, enforceability by the Department of Public Safety, and defensibility in court. The governor is committed to an eventual resolution of subsistence management on federal lands within Alaska. The new law will not, by itself, resolve the issue of federal game management on federal lands. Such resolution ultimately will require change beyond what is possible in a state statute; it will require a unified will among all Alaskans. We hope that after people live with the new law, they will find it not only clearly protects subsistence, but that it is easier to deal with than the federal government’s system. If Native Alaskans decide to take the initiative to amend ANILCA to allow the state to comply with federal law without violating the Alaska Constitution, we would like to work with them and all Alaskans. It is explicitly clear, however, that ANILCA will not be amended over the objections of Native Alaskans or any other major group of Alaskans. A capsule description of the draft legislation follows. We urge anyone who is interested in the proposed legislation to obtain a full copy of it and its sectional analysis from any branch of the governor’ s office or from a local Legislative Information Office. There is not a single word or line in this draft that is cast in stone. We want better improvements or alternatives. We seek your participation in solving this complex problem. The draft we have developed has three main parts. It rests on a foundation of sustained yield, and clearly provides a preference for subsistence. The main parts are described below. The foundation. The draft clearly establishes that protection of the resource is the bottom line under all circumstances. The Boards of Fish and Game will make allocations only if a surplus exists that can be harvested consistent with sustained yield. Definitions of sustained yield and other pertinent terms are part of the legisla- tion. The preference. The legislation provides a clear preference for subsistence over other consumptive uses. The Boards of Fish and Game use a combination of restrictions on other consumptive uses to ensure a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses at all levels. This entire section is very similar to existing law. 141 Rural Alaska Policy Review First leg—What Subsistence Is. The draft legislation defines subsistence as the taking and use of wild fish and game as part of a way of life. The use of individual criteria, as indicated by the courts, is the single biggest change from the status quo. We believe, however, the situation is such that the very large majority of rural residents would qualify, and the very large majority of urban residents would not. The definition uses five criteria based on the customary and traditional criteria in existing regulations plus an additional criterion based on pounds of wild fish and game consumed. Subsistence is defined in the following excerpt from the draft legislation. “Subsistence means the taking and use of wild fish or game, as set forth by statute and regulations, by a resident for whom subsistence is and has been a principal character- istic of his or her way of life for three of the last five years, as evidenced by the applicant showing a consistent and continuous pattern of taking and use: (A) that is characterized by efficiency and economy of effort, cost, and transportation, (B) of wild fish and game which are near, or accessible in an efficient and economical manner, from the user’s residence, (C) which includes reliance for subsistence purposes upon a wide diversity of the wild renewable resources, (D) which provides substantial economic, cultural, social, or nutritional elements of the subsistence user’ s life, (E) which employs knowledge of fishing and hunting skills, values, and lore handed down from generation to generation, and (F) as evidenced by the consumption by each subsis- tence user of 200 pounds or more of wild fish and/or game per year, which were harvested under hunting, or sport or personal use fishing, or subsistence regulations. Previous state subsistence legislation has included the adjectives “customary and traditional” (C&T) to define subsis- tence. The Boards of Fish and Game then used a series of criteria to define the meaning of customary and traditional. This draft legislation does not use the term customary and tradi- tional; rather, it directly uses the old C&T criteria, modified to apply to a way of life rather than to a use, to define subsistence. Under ANILCA or existing state law, a person can move to Alaska and immediately become an eligible subsistence user. In almost every group with which we met while assembling this draft, some persons indicated they wanted an extended resi- dency requirement for subsistence users. We felt we could not require a residency longer than one year without running afoul of the U.S. Constitution. The definition of subsistence, how- ever, requires a pattern of living, as evidenced by compliance with the six criteria for three of the last five years. The multi- year requirement is included because subsistence is a way of life; a person does not wake up in the morning and decide that he or she is now a subsistence user, nor does one suddenly become a subsistence user, or cease to be one, by moving across a line on a map. Compliance with the six criteria for three of the previous five years was selected as long enough to demonstrate that a person is truly living a subsistence way of life, but not so long as make it unfairly difficult to qualify, or to create a defacto closed class. The legislation uses the criterion of three out of five years, rather than a flat three, because there are circum- stances, such as military service, going away to school, an extended hospital stay, or a out-of-state job, which may cause a temporary break in a subsistence user’s way of life. In such circumstances, it would not make sense to require that the person requalify. We are exploring exceptions, such as those used for applicants for Permanent Fund dividends, to see if they would work better than the two-year exemption. While the requirement that subsistence is and has been a principle characteristic of an applicant’s way of life is not a defacto three-year residency requirement, nor is that its pur- pose, the number of people who could qualify who have resided in the state less than three years would be very small. Only if a person truly had lived a subsistence way of life in another state, and could prove it, would he or she be eligible to do so in Alaska, after establishing one year of residency in the state. Paragraph (F) of this subsection requires evidence of the consumption by each subsistence use applicant of 200 pounds ormore of wild fish and/or game per year, which were harvested under hunting regulations, sport or personal use fishing regula- tions, or subsistence regulations in each of three of the past five years. In the effort to define subsistence as a way of life, the old C&T criteria were very useful, but subjective. In exploring for more objective criteria, possibilities eventually were narrowed down to the actual amount of wild fish and game consumed as the single most reliable indicator of whether or not a person is living a subsistence way of life. The Subsistence Division of ADF&G has done extensive research on pounds of consumption of various wild resources. Research findings have revealed that the average yearly per capita consumption of wild meat, fish, and fowl by subsistence users in Alaska is 350 pounds. In contrast, in the U.S. western states, the average yearly per capita consumption of meat, fish, and fowl from all sources is 222 pounds. The difference in quantities consumed is primarily because alternate protein sources such as milk and dairy products are not as readily available in rural Alaska as in western states. The 200-pound consumption criterion was selected in an effort to provide an effective filter that would include subsistence users, but not large numbers of nonusers of subsistence. We are actively conducting research to determine whether this number needs to be lower. The definition of subsistence is used to determine who can participate (second leg), and where subsistence taking and use could occur (third leg). 142 Rural Alaska Policy Review AFN - SUBSISTENCE continued from page 139 one moose in the freezer each year. That is the nutritional byproduct of sport or personal use takings. Real subsistence involves all kinds of local species. 7. Modern village economies are combinations of cash and subsistence, although available sources of cash income are extremely limited (e.g., a few full-time village jobs; some seasonal employment in commercial fishing, trapping, construction, firefighting, etc; and various forms of government support payments). Efficient subsistence harvesting requires cash - to buy the manufactured equipment and supplies necessary to take large amounts of fish and game. In general, village people don't choose exclusively between one economic sector and the other. They do their best to combine cash and subsistence incomes, depending on what is available each year. What lies at the heart of the current subsistence debate is nothing less than the economic wellbeing and social stability of rural Alaska, particularly of Native communities. There was a time in the state's history when human populations were so small that virtually everyone could hunt and fish without governmental interference. But there are now too many people competing for too few animals, and government must allocate limited public resources in conformity with economic and social goals. The Congress did so in 1980; and with all its deficiencies, Title VIII of ANILCA at least recognizes the larger historical question and provides some degree of subsistence protection for the bush - a fact that sharply distinguishes it from all state laws and regulations since McDowell. The next time someone you know questions the need for laws that give a preference to subsis- tence, refer that person to the professional research produced by the state's Subsistence Division over the past decade. It's all there - the careful statistical description of a real subsistence world that stands above all the political maneuvering and legal jargon. It shows us that bush Alaska cannot survive in the long run without the legal protection of its food base - and that the economic and social consequences of its failure would be devastating to the entire state. That is what is at stake, and the numbers don't lie. continued from page 142: Campbell Second leg—Who May Participate. To harvest a subsistence resource would require a subsis- tence license which would supplant the current hunting license, harvest tickets, fishing permits, etc., currently required for subsistence use. We chose this method in an effort to reduce paperwork for subsistence users, to improve reporting, and to help management. The draft provides for transferability of bag limits within families or by persons who are over 60 years of age, or who have a physical disability. To be eligible for subsistence, a person would have to sign a statement on the license certifying that he or she is an Alaska resident who is living and has been living a subsistence way of life for three of the past five years, characterized by each of the six patterns set forth in the definition of subsistence. Licenses would not be required of persons under 16 or over 60 years of age, or of family members who help a head of household subsistence fish. The cost of licenses would be a negligible change from existing fees. As a general rule, licenses would be required only of those who already are required to have them. Third leg—Where Subsistence Taking and Use Happens. The Boards of Fish and Game would delineate areas of the state where subsistence is no longer a principle characteristic of the area. The fish and game in those areas could be harvested under hunting or sport, personal use, or commercial fishing regulations. Resources in these areas would not be subject to harvesting under subsistence regulations. In the rest of the state, based on the definition of subsis- tence, fish and game taken under subsistence regulations would be required to be used in the subsistence use area in which it was taken, except for noncommercial customary trade, barter, or sharing. The restriction on use would include a prohibition against removal of any parts of the animal, including hides or horns. Subsistence Use Areas would generally be based on the Game Management SubUnit (GMSU) in which the fish or game was harvested and the contiguous subunits. The boards would be charged with establishing different boundaries if a GMSU-based area is too small and interferes with traditional patterns of harvest or is too large to be consistent with the efficient and economical nature of subsistence. As I said earlier, the governor is committed to the protec- tion of subsistence and to resolving the current problems with which we are faced. We ask your help in this effort. McKie Campbell is a Special Assistant to Governor Walter J. Hickel, and is working on subsistence. His background includes 10 years as a legislative staff member, during which he focused on natural resources issues. As staff to the Senate Resources Committee, he helped draft the state’s 1986 subsistence law, and he was active in the 1990 regular and special sessions of the Alaska Legislature, during which subsistence issues were debated. 143 Rural Alaska Policy Review Subsistence on Federal Public Lands in Alaska: Some Economic Impacts of Four Management Alternatives Anthony Nakazawa and George Goldman! This article presents some of the potential economic impacts of alternative proposals for the federal management of subsistence resources in Alaska. The four management alternatives form the core of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for subsistence management on federal public lands in Alaska. The DEIS, released in October 1991, was developed, in part, from information gathered through a public involvement process that included scoping meetings conducted by interagency teams from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS), and Bureau of Land Manage- ment (BLM). The teams held public scoping meetings in 56 Alaska communities and in Seattle and Washington, D.C., in the fall of 1990 to identify issues deserving analysis in the DEIS. The FWS has been designated lead agency for the federal subsistence management program. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) also is involved in the program. The DEIS was prepared by an interagency subsistence office staff which was established in August of 1990. Following a period of public comment on the DEIS, the final Environment Impact Statement (EIS) is scheduled to be published. Following a period of public comment on the EIS, permanent federal subsistence management regulations for public lands in Alaska will be published. The economic model used for the analyses of economic impacts of the four subsistence management alternatives in the DEIS is called IMpact analysis for PLANning (IMPLAN). 'In addition to information from the DEIS, this article includes information contained in a report, The Economic Impact of the Management of Subsistence Resources on Federal Lands in Alaska: An IMPLAN Application, which was submitted to the USDA Forest Service in September 1991 as background material for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on subsis- tence management for public lands in Alaska. The report was prepared by Anthony Nakazawa, Cooperative Extension Service (CES),University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF); George Goldman, (CES), University of California Berkeley, and Herv Hensley. Craig Wiese of the Marine Advisory Program, UAF, assisted with the IMPLAN model used for this analysis, and Marguerite Stetson developed information on average costs per pound of red meat by region for the CES Food Cost Survey. IMPLAN was designed by the USFS for use in creating input-output models for every county or group of counties in the United States. In the DEIS, the unavailability of reliable expenditure and revenue information for the sport and subsistence harvests of fish and game limited the application of the IMPLAN model to the impacts associated with estimated federal budget and employment decisions. The four management alternatives propose three different total numbers of eligible subsistence users in 1991—142,410, 220,438, and 257,331—depending on the criteria used to determine a community’s rural status. To place these various population figures in perspective, it is important to note that subsistence users currently take a very small proportion of the total harvest of fish and game in Alaska. Research by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Division of Subsistence has revealed that in 1985, commercial users took 95 percent of the total harvest; subsistence users, 4 percent; and sport hunters and fishermen, 1 percent (Fall 1990, 81). On a statewide basis, fish comprise by far the largest proportion of the subsistence take. In the 1980s, for example, the composition of the subsistence harvest was 59 percent fish; 18 percent game; 15 percent marine mammals; and 8 percent foods such as marine invertebrates, birds, and wild plants (Fall 1990, 81). Although fish comprise a large percentage of the statewide subsistence harvest, the subsistence salmon take generally amounts to less than 1 percent of the total Alaska salmon harvest, according to Robert J. Wolfe, research director for the Division of Subsis- tence, who provided the following statistics in the Winter 1990 edition of Alaska Marine Resource Quarterly. For instance, in the Bristol Bay Area, the mean commercial salmon harvest between 1985-88 was 19.6 million fish annually, compared with an annual subsistence harvest of about 187,000 fish by Bristol Bay communities (representing 1.0 percent of the catch). In the Southeast region, the difference is even greater. Only in the Yukon River drainage (35.3 percent of the catch) and the Kuskokwim River drainage (12.9 percent of the catch), does subsistence begin approaching the commercial harvest. Nevertheless, while these subsis- 144 Rural Alaska Policy Review tence salmon harvests are modest compared with commercial harvests, salmon represents the single most important subsistence food product in rural Alaska... (1990, 4). The types and quantities of subsistence foods rural Alaskans eat vary from region to region. For example, fish comprise a smaller portion of the diet in extreme coastal arctic areas, where caribou, seal, whale, and walrus are major subsistence resources (Wolfe 1989, 17). The consumption of non-commercial fish and game resources ranges from 96 pounds per capita on the Kenai Peninsula to 1,067 pounds per capita in the northwest Arctic region of Alaska (Wolfe and Walker 1987, 61). Social and cultural values associated with subsistence use in Alaska, which are not included in the following analysis of some of the economic impacts of the four DEIS management alternatives, are discussed in detail in the DEIS. It is important to note in this article that in addition to supplying dietary staples for rural families, subsistence products are used for sharing (with the elderly, the disabled, and others who are unable to harvest for themselves); for clothing (such as mitts, parkas, and mukluks); as food for dog teams (particularly dried fish); as home goods (such as sealskin pokes for food storage, and baskets and mats made of wild grasses); as fuel (wood for home heating and for smoking and preserving fish and meat); for construction (of log houses, sleds, fish racks, and many other items from a variety of wood); for arts and crafts (made from ivory, grass, wood, skins, and furs); for ceremonial occasions (funeral potlatches, marriages, other cultural events); and for customary trade and exchange through traditional trade networks (Wolfe, 1989, 16-17). Studies by the Division of Subsistence have documented evidence that subsistence activities such as the production and sharing of food integrates families, communities, and regions and supports the cultural and social systems and values of rural communi- ties (Fall 1990, 80). Finally, assigning a dollar value to subsistence foods for the purposes of this analysis does not imply the existence of a subsistence economy separate from that of a cash economy. Findings of research by the Division of Subsis- tence have shown that subsistence hunting, fishing, and gather- ing in rural communities are part of a “mixed, subsistence- market economy” (Wolfe and Walker 1987, 68). Baseline data from Division of Subsistence studies of 122 Alaska communities also have revealed that in the 1980s ...subsistence hunting and fishing were central activities in rural Alaska communities undertaken by family groups using small-scale, efficient technologies such as gill nets, fishwheels, small skiffs and motors, and snowmachines. Each family’s subsistence production was supported and supplemented by cash employment. Earnings were invested in subsistence technologies. Employment tended to be seasonal and sporadic, and cash incomes were generally lower than those of urbanized areas (Fall 1990, 80). Subsistence Management Alternatives The focus of each of the four subsistence management alternatives in the DEIS is summarized as follows in Table 1: Alternative 1. Minimal change from the State subsistence management program. Alternative 2. Alternative 3. Alternative 4. Independent agency management. Local involvement. Flexible program responsive to regions. Eligible Subsistence Users and the Non-Commercial Harvest To estimate the cash equivalent value of the non- commercial harvest of land animals associated with the implementation of each alternative (as shown in Table 2), the following relationship was used: V=RxPxC Where: V = Cash Equivalent Value of the Non-Commercial Harvest R = Rural Population/Eligible Subsistence Users by Region P = Pounds Per Capita Consumption of Land Animals C = Cost Per Pound of Red Meat by Region The cash equivalent value of the estimated non- commercial harvest associated with the various manage- ment alternatives may be thought of as income-in-kind (i.e., what a person would have to buy with cash if restricted from hunting). The utilization of the imputed income-in-kind associated with the non-commercial harvest of subsistence resources is useful for comparative purposes among the various alternatives. Also, it should be noted that the above relationship deals with the consumption of land animals; while anadromous fish represent a significant portion of the harvest of subsistence resources from state lands, the opposite is the case on federal'lands. Anadromous fish are harvested primarily from navigable streams and marine waters to which ANILCA does not apply (USFWS 1991). 145 Rural Alaska Policy Review Impacts of Federal Government Programs and Employment To estimate the likely economic impacts of the management regulations associated with the federal govern- ment program and employment impacts that are represented by Alternatives 1 through 4, the initial economic change resulting from each alternative was quantified in dollar terms. This initial economic change represents the estimated direct impact associated with the respective alternative being discussed. For example, under Alternative 1, it is estimated that the federal agencies involved with implementing this alternative will have an annual budget of $14,200,000, of which $9,275,000 will be allocated for salaries of the Next, the direct change corresponding with the alterna- tive under consideration, along with the associated economic multiplier derived from the Alaska IMPLAN input-output model, were used to estimate the likely secondary economic impacts that would result throughout the Alaska economy. The total economic impact associated with the impacts on federal government programs and employment for Alterna- tives 1 through 4 includes both the initial economic change and the secondary, or multiplier, effects. Alternative 1 represents a minimal change from the State subsistence program that was in place prior to July 1, 1990, and it fulfills the requirements of Title VIII of ANILCA . For the purposes of this analysis, Alternative 1 is considered as the baseline. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will be analyzed in relation to their deviation from the baseline alternative. estimated 152 agency employees who will be hired. Table 1: Subsistence Management Alternatives Program Element Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Theme Minimal change from State Independent agency management Local Involvement Flexible program, responsive to Regions Federal Subsistence Board The Board would consist of 6 members: 5 Federal managers and a chair. No Board would be established; each agency would operate independently with key elements of mutual agreement. The Board would have 16 members: a chair, one State representative, 12 subsistence users and 2 “at large” members.* The Board would have 6 members: 5 Federal managers and a chair. 8 Regional liaisons would be consultants to the Board. Regional Councils The 6 State regional advisory councils would be used. Each agency would have its own region system (total up to 36) and its own Regional Councils. There would be 12 Federal Regional Councils established by subsistence use area. There would be 8 Federal Regional Councils. Local Advisory Committees State advisory committees would be used. State advisory committees would be used and/or Federal Local Advisory Committees formed as needed. Many Federal Committees would be formed as needed, potentially one per community or group of communities. State and/or Federal advisory committees would be used. Federal Local Advisory Committees could be formed as needed. Rural Determination Communities would be aggregated; then population and community characteristic tests would be applied. Determinations only would be based on population. Communities with greater than 7,000 residents would be non-rural. A 5-year waiting period would be required before any status change takes effect. Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan would be the only non-rural communities. Rural determinations would be made based on the aggregation, population, and community characteristic steps, the same as Alternative 1. Customary and Traditional Use The Board adopted the State of Alaska’s customary and traditional use determinations as of July 1, 1990. These determinations would be maintained unless changed by the Board. Information on subsistence uses would be made available to the Regional Councils in order for the councils to make recommendations on customary and traditional uses to the agencies. The Local Advisory Committees would consider information provided by the Federal agencies in making recommendations through the Regional Councils to the Board ona community's customary and traditional use of resources. Determination of customary and traditional use of subsistence resources would be made by the Board on recommendation of the Regional Councils. Regulation Process Proposals from all sources would be submitted to the Board, which would distribute them to the public, councils, and committees for comment. Recommendations by the Regional Councils would be used during the Board’s review of proposals. The Regional Councils would develop proposals and review and evaluate proposals from other sources. Recommendations from the Regional Councils would be forwarded to the appropriate agency for action. Local Advisory Committees would develop proposals and review and evaluate proposals prior to Regional Council review and Board action. Proposals by Local Advisory Committees would be presented to the Regional Councils for review, evaluation, and recommendation to the Board. The Regional Councils would develop proposals and review and evaluate proposals. Recommendations from the Regional Council would be forwarded to the Board for action. *Congressional action would be required to implement this alternative. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991. 146 Rural Alaska Policy Review Alternative 1 Eligible Subsistence Users and the Non-Commercial Harvest Under Alternatives 1 and 4, the determination of a community’s rural status is based on an aggregate of popula- tion and community characteristics (Table 1), and under this alternative the eligible subsistence users number approxi- mately 142,410 in 1991. This number is expected to increase to over 163,000 in the next 10 years. During this period, it is estimated that several of the larger rural areas will change to a non-rural status as a result of applying the rural determina- tion criteria of this alternative. As presented in the DEIS, the * value of the non-commercial harvest is estimated to increase $9,296,000 by the year 2001 (Table 2) Impacts on Federal Government Programs and Employment Direct impacts. The FWS will provide technical and administrative support and coordination among the agencies involved in implementing the federal subsistence program. Employment is expected to increase to a total of 152 federal Table 2. Comparison of the Management Alternatives* positions among the five agencies, and most of the positions are slated to be filled in Anchorage. The federal agencies involved in implementing this alternative will have an estimated annual budget of $14,200,000, of which $9,275,000 is to be used for salaries. Indirect impacts. The expenditures of the federal agencies involved with implementing this alternative are expected to have a multiplier effect on the Alaska economy of approximately $6,700,000. This multiplier effect will result in approximately 26 additional jobs, and personal income will increase by another $1,302,000 on a statewide basis. The above discussion of federal government employ- ment impacts assumes that no construction will be required to accommodate the projected changes in federal employment, and further that state government employment will not be impacted as a result of this alternative. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the majority of the employment impacts will be realized in the Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau areas. Alternative 2 Eligible Subsistence Users and the Non-Commercial Harvest As shown in Table 1, independent agency management of subsistence on federal lands is the focus of this alternative, ELIGIBLE SUBSISTENCE USERS AND THE NON-COMMERCIAL HARVEST Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Eligible Subsistence Users in 1991 1991: 142,410 220,438 257,331 142,410 and 2001 2001: 163,000 247,000 370,000 163,000 Increase in Cash Equivalent Value 1991: Base $6,723,000 $8,473,000 Same as Base of Non-Commercial Harvest of 2001: $9,296,000 $25,318,000 $27,651,000 $9,296,000 Land Animals in 1991 and 2001 over Base Impacts of Federal Government Programs and Employment Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Direct Impacts — Estimated annual | $14,200,000 $20,700,000 $18,500,000 $16,300,000 operating budget of Federal 152 employees 216 employees 184 employees 168 employees agencies, employees hired and $9,275,000 in wages and | $13,755,000 in wages $11,515,000 in wages $10,395,000 in wages personal income salaries and salaries and salaries and salaries Indirect Impacts — Secondary $6,700,000 $9,768,000 $8,730,000 $7,691,000 economic impacts in additional 26 additional jobs 36 additional jobs 31 additional jobs 28 additional jobs statewide expenditures, employment | $1,302,000 in wages and | $1,931,000 in wages and | $1,616,000 in wages and | $1,459,000 in wages and and personal income salaries salaries salaries salaries *Incurrent dollars. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991. 147 Rural Alaska Policy Review and a population of less than 7,000 residents is the sole criterion for determining a community’s rural status. The population of eligible subsistence users in the state totals 220,438 in 1991, a net gain of 78,028 subsistence users over Alternative 1. This number is expected to increase to over 247,000 in the next 10 years. Those communities under this alternative which would be rural in the near term and become non-rural in the long term are Kenai, Soldotna, Wasilla, Palmer, Moose Creek, Kodiak, and Unalaska. The DEIS estimates that the value of the subsistence harvest would increase $6,723,000 in the near term and $25,318,000 in the long term over the present condition (Table 2). Impacts of Federal Government Programs and Employment Direct impacts. Under Alternative 2, management of subsistence would require an increase in federal employment in the regional/district offices and field staffs of the FWS, NPS, BLM, USFS, and BIA. The FWS, as the designated lead agency, would continue to support a small subsistence office in Anchorage to coordinate activities of the agencies. It is estimated that the federal agencies involved with imple- menting this alternative would have an annual budget of $20,700,000 (an increase of $6,500,000 over Alternative 1). Of that amount, $13,755,000 (an increase of $4,480,000 over Alternative 1), would be used for salaries for the estimated 216 agency employees who would be hired (an increase of 64 employees compared to Alternative 1). Indirect impacts. The annual expenditures of the federal agencies involved with implementing this alternative are expected to have a multiplier effect on the Alaska economy of approximately $9,768,000 (an increase of $3,067,000 over Alternative 1). The multiplier effect will result in approximately 36 additional jobs (an increase of 11 employees over Alternative 1). On a statewide basis, personal income will increase by another $1,931,000 (an increase of $628,000 over Alternative 1). Alternative 3 Eligible Subsistence Users and the Non-Commercial Harvest As shown in Table 3, the focus of this alternative is local involvement. This alternative provides for a subsistence management structure that emphasizes the role of local advisory committees and incorporates subsistence users into the Federal Subsistence Board. The local advisory committees will enable local subsistence users to have a meaningful role in federal subsistence management. As many as 283 committees (or one per rural community) will be formed within 12 regional councils. In regard to rural community status, under Alternative 3, only the communities of Ketchikan, Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks are desig- nated as non-rural. By excluding those communities, the total number of eligible subsistence users becomes 257,331 in 1991, an increase of 114,921, as compared to Alternative 1. This number is expected to increase to over 370,000 in the next 10 years. In the DEIS, the estimated value of the non-commercial harvest over the current would be $8,473,000 in the near term and $27,651,000 in the long term (Table 2). Impacts of Federal Government Programs and Employment Direct impacts. To manage subsistence under this alternative, Federal employment will be increased in the regional/district offices and field staffs of the FSW, NPS, BLM, USFS and BIA. The FWS will continue to support a subsistence office in Anchorage to coordinate activities of the agencies. Federal employment will increase under this alternative, because the large numbers of local advisory committees and regional advisory councils will require a great deal of coordination and support from the agencies involved in the subsistence management program. Those agencies will have an estimated annual budget of $18,500,000 (an increase of $4,300,000 over Alternative 1). Of this amount, $11,515,000 (an increase of $2,240,000 over Alternative 1) will be used for salaries for the estimated 184 employees (an increase of 32 employees over Alterna- tive 1) who are be hired. Indirect impacts. The annual expenditures of the federal agencies involved with implementing this alternative are expected to have a multiplier effect on the Alaskan economy of approximately $8,730,000 (an increase of $2,029,000 over Alternative 1). This multiplier effect will result in approximately 31 additional jobs (an increase of five employees over Alternative 1). On a statewide basis, personal income will increase by another $1,616,000 (a gain of $314,000 over Alternative 1). Alternative 4 Eligible Subsistence Users and the Non-Commercial Harvest The federal management goal under this alternative will be to provide a flexible program to meet the needs of subsis- tence users and to provide regulations responsive to regional requirements. Under this alternative, as under Alternative 1, the determination of a community’s rural status is based on an aggregate of population and community characteristics, and eligible subsistence users number approximately 142,410 in 1991. This number is expected to increase to over 163,000 in the next 10 years. During this period the communities of Kodiak, Sitka, and Unalaska are predicted to lose their rural status. As presented in the DEIS, the estimated cash equivalent value of the non-commercial harvest would increase $9,296,000 over the next 10 years (Table 2). 148 Rural Alaska Policy Review Euparts OF peaera: RURAL ALASKA POLICY Government Programs and Employment REVIEW NOTES Direct impacts. Under Alternative 4, it is estimated that the federal agencies involved with implementing this alternative will have an annual budget of $16,300,000 (an increase of $2,100,000 over Alternative 1). Of that amount, $10,395,000 (an increase of $1,120,000 over Alternative 1) will be used for salaries for the estimated 168 agency employees who are to be hired (an increase of 16 employees over Alternative 1). Indirect impacts. The annual expenditures of the federal agencies involved with implementing this alternative are expected to have a multiplier effect on the Alaska economy of approximately $7,691,000 (an increase of $990,000 over Alternative 1). This multiplier effect will result in approximately 28 additional jobs (an increase of three employees over Alternative 1). On a statewide basis, personal income will increase by another $1,459,000 (an increase of $157,000 over Alternative 1). The above discussion of federal government employ- ment impacts assumes that no construction will be required to accommodate the above changes in federal employment, and further that state government employment will not be impacted as a result of this alternative. Anthony Nakazawa is Director of the Division of Community and Rural Development, Department of Community & Regional Affairs, and the former Community Development Specialist with the Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Currently, he serves as the CES Community Development and Home Economics Program Leader. In addition, he is taught acourse on the Alaskan economy for the UAF Center for Distance Education. His previous extension educational projects include the “Upper Kuskokwim Input-Output Study” and “Identifying the Purchasing Preferences of Village Households.” George Goldman is an extension economist with the University of California Cooperative Extension Service in Berkeley. Over the past 25 years, he has participated in or developed more than 50 local or regional input- output studies as part of his extension economics program. Currently, he serves on the Western Rural Development Center’s Program Advisory Board and on the Western Extension Community Development Committee. References Fall, James A. 1990 The Division of Subsistence and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game: An Overview of Its Research Program and Findings, 1980 to 1990. Arctic Anthropology, 27(2):68-91. 1991 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Usher, Peter J. 1976 Evaluating Country Food in the Northern Native Economy. Arctic, 29(2): 105-120. Wolfe, Robert J. 1989 Myths: What Have You Heard? Alaska Fish and Game, 21(6):16-19. Wolfe, Robert J. 1990 Subsistence in the 1990s: What Lies Ahead? Alaska Marine Resource Quarterly, S(1): 4-5. Wolfe, Robert J. and Robert J. Walker 1987 Subsistence Economies in Alaska; Productivity, Geography, and Development Impacts. Arctic Anthropology, 24(2):56-81. 149 RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW NOTES Rural Alaska Policy Review —— 150 RURAL ALASKA ECONOMIES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES ANCSA CORPORATIONS DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT'S Rural Alaska Policy Review DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS Municipal and Regional Assistance Division Division of Community and Rural Development Division of Energy Division of Administrative Services REGIONAL OFFICES Anchorage Dillingham 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 220 P.O. Box 790 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Dillingham, AK 99576 Phone: 269-4500 Phone: 842-5135 Fax: 269-4520 Fax: 842-5140 Bethel Fairbanks P.O. Box 348 209 Forty Mile Avenue Bethel, AK 99559-0348 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Phone: 543-3475 J Phone: 452-4468 Fax: 543-4152 =) Fax: 451-7251 P.O. Box 112100 Juneau, AK 99811-2100 Phone: 465-4814 Fax: 465-3212 Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) Edgar Blatchford ‘Ommissioner 465-4700 Governor's Commission on Rural Alaska Village Economies and Needs Governor's Bulk Fuel Task Force Governor's Local Autonomy Task Force Local Boundary Commission Alaska Job Training Council Alaska Community Service Commission Alaska Coastal Policy Council Bruce Geraghty Dept. Commissioner 465-4700 I [ Remond Henderson Bob Walsh Tony Nakazawa Herv Hensley DAS MRAD CRD Ener; 465-4708 269-4578 269-4607 269-4641 Regional Offices Anchorage Kodiak Bethel Kotzebue Dillingham Nome Fairbanks Sitka Juneau Tok 151 RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW THE GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON RURAL ALASKA VILLAGE ECONOMIES AND NEEDS INTERIM REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS For Immediate-Term Action Responses to the Arctic- Yukon-Kuskokwim River Systems Chum Salmon Fisheries Decline and Economic Disaster Declaration RAVEN Commission Recommendations to the Governor On July 14, 1993, the Governor declared an economic disaster in response to the Arctic - Yukon - Kuskokwim river systems chum salmon fisheries collapse and subsequent closure of the subsistence fisheries. By Executive Order, the Governor formed a citizens commission to develop both immediate-term and long-term recommendations. The Governor's Commission immediately undertook an extensive field assessment at the local community and regional level. Commission members visited over thirty impacted villages, attended a score of regional meetings, conferred with numerous other task groups currently engaged in various assessments of rural Alaska's needs, and conducted its first statewide public hearing. On December 11, 1993, the Governor's Commission on Rural Alaska Village Economies and Needs concluded the first Phase of the Mission assigned by the Governor. The Commission adopted recommendations for the Governor's consideration as immediate action responses to the declared disaster. On January 18, and on February 1, 1994, the RAVEN Commission met in teleconference to continue its work on short-term recommendations to Governor Walter Hickel in response to the economic disaster in the Arctic-Yukon- Kuskokwim region brought on by the failure of the chum salmon fisheries. The Governor's RAVEN Commission presents to the Governor that the inherent philosophy, of the short-term initiative recommendations herein, is to assure that the imme- diate housing, heat, fuel, food and subsistence equipment and supply needs of rural residents impacted by the disaster are met. The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommendations call upon the Governor and State to formally recognize that fisheries and subsistence are an integral part of life of many people in Alaska. Because of the natural disasters that have occurred due to the AYK chum THE RAVEN COMMISSION crash and other factors affecting fishermen and their families’ livelihoods, it is imperative that the State recognize the economic, social, and cultural importance of fisheries, and that subsistence must be recognized as an economic activity. The Governor's RAVEN Commission finds that Alaska Statutes currently do not effectively address natural resource disasters. It is the intent of the Governor's Commis- sion recommendations that the State restructure its statutes to allow consideration for natural resource disasters. The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends that the pattern of state response presented herein serve as the basis of future state response to natural resource (economic) disasters. The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommendations — call upon the Governor and State to support the enactment of a "fisheries management policy" that includes, but is not necessarily limited to the Commission's recommendations presented herein. While numbered, the initiatives recommended herein were not ranked and are presented as equal priorities for immediate action. The philosophy of short-term initiative: immediate housing, heat, fuel, foodand __ subsis- tence equipment and supply needs must be met. Recommendation No. 1: Adopted by Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor direct public assistance agencies to increase outreach efforts and communicate to affected communities through radio, newspapers and RATNET on what and where assistance is available; and, further that the Governor so direct other state agencies and request a parallel effort from federal agencies (BIA, 638 contractors). The first priority should include communities that have a direct relationship with BIA as 638 contractors (Lower Yukon). Recommendation No. 2: Adopted by Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor facilitate and encourage, e.g., the Red Cross, Salvation Army, other churches, nonprofits and other groups, to support Western and Russian Christmas celebrations in impacted villages and direct the National Guard to assist. 152 Rural Alaska Policy Review Recommendation No. 3: Adopted by Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor direct all state agencies to provide a summary report to the co-chairs of the Commission on a monthly basis, addressing their assessment of the problem, their agency's response and problems in responding to the disaster. This arrangementis to remain in effect forthe duration of the Commission. Recommendation No. 4: Adopted by Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor support the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's FY '95 - AYK fisheries initiative. The specifics of the initiative shall be worked out in consultation with the affected communities and resource management asso- ciations; and Further, The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor solicit and incorporate other monitoring, surveillance, restoration and rehabilitation initiatives identified by the affected communities and resource management associations that are necessary to restore the AYK fisheries. The initiatives should be carried out in such a manner as to maximize local participation and local employment. Further that, to the maximum extent possible, the State work with and provide funding to existing organizations to accom- plish the initiative; and Further, The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor direct that this should be the highest priority within the existing Alaska Department of Fish and Game budget and should include support for addi- tional appropriations, including other federal and scientific research funding, necessary to implement these initiatives. Recommendation No. 5: Adopted by Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor provide funding support for public (community) owned utilities in communities in the AYK area that may fail due to the loss of consumer revenue due to the chum salmon failure; and Further, The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor support and direct agen- cies to provide loans and assistance to businesses in the AYK area that have large accounts receivable due to the chum salmon fisheries collapse; and, that the Governor seek increased fund- ing and support for those agencies to increase their outreach and provide assistance to individuals and/or businesses facing existing loan and ILR.S. delinquencies; and, that the Governor direct a review of State policies and regulations which guide the provision of services and amend them to facilitate assistance to businesses and individuals. Recommendation No. 6: Adopted by Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor direct a review of state hiring policies and regulations which guide state hiring practices andamend them to facilitate and promote local hire from within rural areas; and, further, that the Governor direct appropriate state agencies, the University of Alaska, and Board of Education to identify potential jobs and implement training programs to prepare tural residents for employment opportunities. State govern- ment should seek the advice and aid of regional non-profit associations; and Further, The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor should take action, under Article 4, Section 44.33.285. "Areas Impacted by Economic Disaster." When bidding out any State funded construction projects in rural areas, include language in the bidding docu- ments which requires local hire in those projects; and, further that the Governor direct that the State job registers be opened to enable residents in the impacted area to apply for available state jobs. That for temporary and seasonal positions, local residents in rural areas shall receive preference for available positions. The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends that the pattern of state response presented herein serve as the basis of future state response to natural resource (eco- nomic) disasters. Recommendation No. 7: Adopted by Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor direct the undertaking of an evalu- ation of existing disaster statutes by the Administration and the Legislature. The Governor's RAVEN Commission proposes consideration of wording of Alaska Statute AS 26.23.900 as follows: 1. Amend Alaska Statute AS 26.23.900 (1) and add Subsection "D". a) insert after injury, "and erosion of community, region, and/or area support systems." b) Add Subsection D, Catastrophic decline, contami- nation or unavailability of a fish or wildlife resource which threatens community, region, and/or area economic, social, cultural, and traditional welfare. 2. Change Article 4 to Article 5 and insert a new Article 4 that will: a) direct state agencies to formulate a fish and wild- life disaster response plan. b) inthe event of a fish and wildlife disaster, direct the appropriate agencies to develop and implement a plan to rehabilitate and restore the affected fish or wildlife resources. Recommendation No. 8: Adopted by the Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor should direct appropriate State agencies to assess the situation statewide and provide assistance and relief for those estimated 4,000 people who have permits subject to IRS confiscation or levy utilizing those programs that serve the fishermen, e.g., Alaska Business Development Center. 153 Rural Alaska Policy Review Recommendation No. 9: Adopted by the Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor support increased funding to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fish- eries Management and Development, for specific projects including, but not limited to: 1). Stock Identification (minimum of 5 years). 2). Enhancement of AYK fisheries. 3). Restoration & rehabilitation of affected chum salmon stocks. 4). Study of Bering Sea ecosystem. Recommendation No. 10 Adopted by the Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor support the re-establishment of Regional Advisory Boards with powers to address and advise the Alaska Board of Fisheries on specific actions within their regions. Recommendation No. 11 Adopted by the Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor support funding and direct appropriate agen- cies to organize a meeting of commercial fishing user groups that impact chum salmon to discuss and recommend ways to work together. Such user groups should include, but not be limited to: 1). AYK resource management groups. 2). Area M fishermen and associations. 3). Trawl fleet operators. 4). CDQ corporations. 5). Bristol Bay fishermen and Bristol Bay fisherman associations. 6). Chignik fishermen and Chignik fisherman associations. Recommendation No. 12 Adopted by the Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor direct the Department of Fish and Game to collaborate with the federal government and representative user groups from affected areas on research, coordinating regulatory action to ensure chum salmon stocks are protected to the greatest extent possible. Recommendation No. 13 Adopted by the Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor direct State agencies to coordinate with federal agencies to provide support and to implement technical assistance to rural cottage industries to support the sale of items that support the existing rural economy, to include salmon strips prepared in traditional fashion, ivory, fur and bone handicrafts made by Native artists. Recommendation No. 14 Adopted by the Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor support the establishment of a "Statewide Fisheries Management Policy," HB 251, as introduced and amended by Representative Irene Nicholia. Recommendation No. 15 Adopted by the Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor provide for the establishment of a Statewide Fishery Resource Disaster Relief Fund that can provide for maintenance of equipment and working capital for the next harvest seasons. Recommendations adopted February 1, 1994 Recommendation No. 16 Adopted by the Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends that the Governor support increased funding to the Department of Public Safety that would provide additional field personnel and equipment to address compliance with existing fish and game laws. In the event that increased funding is not available to the Department of Public Safety, the Governor recommends shifting of available personnel to areas of greater need." Recommendation No. 17 Adopted by the Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor direct the Department of Fish and Game and request the Board of Fisheries to manage fisheries and other migratory species over the entire migratory range of species; that local, traditional and experiential knowledge should be taken into consideration and utilized in the research efforts in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska and Alaska coastal waters; “the Governor work with federal management agen- cies and foreign governments whose fishermen fish in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska and Alaska coastal waters to determine those areas most in need of restoration and rehabilitation; "that available restoration and rehabilitation resources be allocated to those fishery associations or groups in those areas most in need of assistance and capable of providing the assistance and services needed for restoration and rehabilita- tion." Recommendation No. 18 — Adopted by the Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor convene a 1994 preseason salmon summit to address the Alaska market situation." Recommendation No. 19 Adopted by the Commission The Governor's RAVEN Commission recommends: that the Governor appoint individuals from the areas impacted by the 1993 chum salmon crash to the Alaska Board of Fisher- ies." 154 Rural Alaska Policy Review ALASKA'S ECONOMY, 1993-2020 Research Summary - R.S. No. 55 October 1993 UAA‘/ Institute of Social and Economic Research Lee Gorsuch, Director 3211 Providence Drive Anchorage, AK 99508 This summary is based on Economic Projections: Alaska and the Southern Railbelt, 1993-2020, by Scott Goldsmith. The full report is available from ISER (786-7710)for $12.00. Alaska will see slower economic growth in the future, led by private industry and strongly influenced by how the state govemment adjusts to less oil revenue. Compared with a four percent annual average growth rate in jobs between 1960 and 1990, the total number of jobs probably won't change much between now and 2000 (although jobs will be added or lost in specific industries). After 2000, job growth will likely resume at a rate close to one percent annually. These are among the findings of a recent economic projection report prepared by Scott Goldsmith, professor of economics at ISER, for Chugach Electric Association and other southcentral utilities. Projecting the future of Alaska's economy is difficult. It's a volatile economy heavily influenced by fluctuations in world markets for its resources and by big, unexpected events like the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. That historical volatility is now compounded by uncertainty about how the state will deal with declining oil revenues. It's uncertain exactly how much or how fast those revenues will drop. But they will be smaller in the future than they are today, because new production won't be able to replace production lost as the enommous Prudhoe Bay field is depleted. Circulation of oil revenues through the economy largely fueled growth in recent decades, and state spending today directly and indirectly supports nearly one in three Alaska jobs. The state faces the dilemma of cutting the budget but keeping economic effects to a minimum. Estimating future growth requires making assump- tions about future state fiscal policy, oil prices and production, development in other industries, trends in the national economy, and much more. Because the projechons involve so much uncertainty, Goldsmith makes low, medium, and high projections with different assumptions and revises them annually. The mid-range projections seem the most likely today—and those are the ones mainly summarized here—but the low and high projections are also possible. ¢ Future state fiscal policies will have major effects on the economy. The projections assume that in the 1990s the state will cut spending, reduce personnel costs, reimpose a personal income tax, reduce Permanent Fund dividends, and use some Permanent Fund eamings (but not principal) to cushion the drop in oil revenues and help stabilize the economy. If the state uses a strategy like this to gradually move spending to a sustainable level, it can minimize economic effects, keep the number of jobs fairly steady through 2000, and set the stage for resumed economic growth after that. The state might of course take a different path. It could, for instance, use all its assets to maintain spending in this decade—which would create more jobs in the short term but jeopardize long-term growth. ¢ Private development rather than state spending will create the new jobs in Alaska. As the state adjusts to less oil revenue, the economy will lose jobs—but growth in private industry will gradually offset those losses and add new j obs. ¢ Among basic industries, petroleum, mining, and tourism are most likely to add jobs. Employment in petroleum will likely increase even as production falls, because the smaller oil fields now being developed will require more labor. In mining, the combination of a large base of prospects, increasing world demand, and technological advances will lead to more mineral production. However, lack of infrastructure, high construction and operating costs, and dramatic fluctuations in world metal and coal markets are likely to mean only the continued on page 158 155 For more information, contact the House Economic Task Force: Ph. 258 8166. Report of the Joint House and Senate Economlc Task Force Mini-Summit March 13, 1993 18th Alaska Legislature EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This executive summary contains recommendations to the Legislature on improving Alaska's business climate presented by the Alaskan business community to the Senate and House Economic Task Force during a public hearing held on March 13, [1993,] and through written testimony. Ninety-four people testified during the hearing and many people submitted written testimony. Their names are listed in Appendix 1 of the report document. This summary lists the specific recommendations which relate directly to the Alaska State Legislature. A summary of the testimony of each speaker and copies of written testimony along with the tapes of the hearing are on file in the offices of the Economic Task Force chairs Senator Tim Kelly and Representative Eileen Panigeo MacLean. The summary is organized into the industry sectors which were published in the agenda of the public hearing. The Economic Task Force will identify priority issues for passage during this year of the legislative session and will continue with other issues during the interim. The Economic Task Force will hold additional hearings and continue to welcome written testimony to receive Alaskans’ ideas on how to improve our economy. SMALL BUSINESS i Establish a small, focused task force to review areas where the private sector and the public sector are in competition. Privatize those services which can be done by small business. Examine competitive advantages of non-profits acting in the private sector. The Role of the State in Rural Economic Development 7 Establish a task force to conduct a complete review of existing regulations to eliminate redundancy and ineffective policy. 3: Encourage the Legislature to explore solutions to the high cost of health care insurance for employees in small businesses. 4. Support legislation to convert the Alaska Bidders Preference Program from a pre-bid to a bonus program to encourage the use of Alaska manufactured products and labor. 5. Pass HB 14 Business and Industrial Development Corporation (BIDCO) capitalization to encourage the availability of capital for small businesses. 6. Pass HB 147/SB 122 to allow employers to disclose more complete information regarding an employee's job performance without fear of liability. 7. Protect rural housing from over regulation and maintain flexibility in the rural housing guidelines in Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to take advantage of innovative technologies. 8. Support SB 112 to update uniform commercial codes to meet present business needs. 9. Pass SB 154 & HB 220 to create an economic development matching grant prograM. 10. Continue support for programs such as the UA Small Business Development Center which helps small businesses with start-up, planning and growth. 156 Rural Alaska Policy Review RURAL DEVELOPMENT 1. Support legislation to create an economic development Fant program to fund rural/urban economic development projects providing short and long term jobs and local control without state ownership. 2 Pass SB 142/HB 198 to increase financial support to the ARDOR program 3. Consolidate all state economic development programs within the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. 4. Maintain and expand the Small Business Develop- ment Center program to better serve rural Alaska 5. Establish state small business loan program for rural business start ups and working capital. 6. Recapitalize and refine the Rural Development Investment Fund loan program for developed small businesses. Ts Create Rural Tourism Council to minimize tourism benefits and opportunities to Alaskan interests. 8. Increase financial support of regional rural tourism development efforts. 9. Revise Title 38 to streamline the regulatory process to develop state natural resources. 10. Encourage the provision of reliable, steady, affort- able sources of power to rural Alaska. 11. Pass SB 124 restructuring Alaska Energy Authority. 12. Support legislation studying potential right-of- way from Fairbanks to Seward Peninsula. 13. Provide funds to maintain and improve highway and road system quality for tourism and resource development. 14. Support adequate funding for rural water and sewer systems. 15. Support legislation allowing natural game farming including moose an musk ox. 16. Reinstate state grazing ranges as "open" ranges. ST TOURISM / TRANSPORTATION 1; Increase highway marketing fullds for Division of Tourism to help promote Alaska to the "rubber tire" travelers. 2. Evaluate AVA and ATMC plans to increase highway traffic. 3. Enact SB 154/SB 220 establishing a mechanism to ensure capital for infrastructure development, particularly as it relates to transportation. 4. Develop and promote rural tourism. 5. Review existing statutes to ensure state regulations are not hampering the state's ability to attract private business. 6. Amend Title 38 to help facilitate private capital investment on infrastructure on state lands. 7. Pass SB 85/HB 115 extending the Alaska Tourism Marketing Council. 8. Work with the tourism industry to establish a long- term funding source for the industry. 9. Increase rest areas along the highway system. 10. Reduce state subsidies to parks. pass legislation to raise park fees. 1 Eliminate annual camping passes for nonresidents. 12. Provide additional tourism related signs on our roads and highway system. 13. Request the board composition of the Alaska Visitors Association (AVA) include a representative from the hunters’ association. 14. Pass HJR 10/SJR 18 to establish a dedicated transportation fund. 15. Look at the options for using ISTEA funding for construction of pioneer access roats and for the Scenic Travel Enhancement program. 157 Rural Alaska Policy Review Continued from page 155 e More jobs will be added in support industries— those that support the basic industries or provide services to Alaska households—than in basic industries. The support industries grew very rapidly in Alaska over the past 30 years, as Alaska's economy matured. That maturation process will continue, but more slowly. ¢ Population will probably grow slightly faster than employment— Averaging an annual rate slightly above one percent. As the population ages more Alaskans who choose to stay in the state will be too old for the labor force. Some existing jobs now held by non-residents will go to Alaskans. The availability of jobs will, however, largely continue to determine population growth. Under the most likely circumstances, more people will leave the state than move in, because there won't be enough new jobs to absorb all those that natural increase will add to the labor force. ° Total Alaska real income (which represents purchasing power adjusted for inflation) Will likely grow at about the same rate as population — meaning that real per capita income will not change much. Total personal income consists of wages, salaries, transfer payments, dividends, and more. Historically, almost all personal income came from wages and salaries, because most Alaskans were young working people. Many jobs were high-paying. But the average wage rate is not projected to continue to increase. Many of the new jobs will be in trade and service industries, which pay lower wages. However, non-wage income is projected to increase modestly, offsetting the loss in wage income. The increased number of older Alaskans with income from pensions and assets will generate nonwage income—but at the same time, a tighter state budget will constrain state transfer payments. Annual Review Fiscal Year 1993 Institute of Social and Economic Research This Review describes ISER's 1993 work, discussing the issues involved, the findings, and resulting publications, conferences, and other activities In fiscal 1993, the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska Anchorage continued the work it has done for 32 years: investigating Alaska public policy issues, teaching, and providing community service. Among the issues ISER looked at in the past year are: ° Factors affecting Alaska s salmon markets ° Strategies for balancing future state budgets . Social and economic effects of the proposed highway to Cordova . Alaska Native self-government and subsistence . Caribou management systems in Alaska and Canada . Choices for improving public schools . Economic value of Alaska's sport fisheries . Long-term effects of limiting entry to the sablefish and halibut flsheries . Methods for improving sanitation in rural Alaska ISER's faculty and research associates include economists, survey researchers, political scientists, and plan- ners. The institute has a total staff of 20 and is affiliated with the School of Public Affairs Lee Gorsuch, ISER's director, is also dean of the school. ISER is funded partly by the university and partly by grants and contracts with govern- ment agencies and pnvate businesses and foundations. It does grant and contract work with the stipulations that its research is independent and that its findings are public. The institute received $1.3 million in grants and contracts in fiscal 1993. 158 Rural Alaska Policy Review ISER carries out about 40 research proJects in a year Its findings are sometimes controversial, but they routinely serve as the basis for public policy discussions even among those who disagree with them ISER faculty and research associates don't always agree about which policy questions or choices to study, but all research must meet rigorous standards for methodology. The institute stands behind the integrity of the work it produces. Findings are, however, those of individuals. The institute makes its work available to all Alaskans Penodicals summarizing research findings go out on a mailing list that includes several thousand public agencies and private businesses, libraries, news organizations, and individuals Hun- dreds of books, reports, and other documents dating from 1961 are available at ISER's offices and at state libraries Faculty members and research associates routinely present their find- ings to govenmentagencies and private organizations They also organize and take part in conferences and seminars on topics ranging from state fiscal strategies to reconciling development and conservation. They make their knowledge and experience available to businesses, agencies, and individuals inside and outside Alaska The press often interviews ISER staff and reports research findings. ISER faculty teach classes in public administration, survey research, and economics They bring their knowledge of the state economy, the workings of govenment, and much more into the classroom Whenever possible student interns take part in research projects. ISER's director and faculty also sit on a variety of university committees and contribule their time to community service organizations Commercial and Sport Fisheries Alaska fisheries have become an increasing area of studyf or ISER. The commercial fisheres face changing world markets and growing catching power in the off shore fisheries. In the sport fisheries, resource managers want to learn more about the economic value of sport fishing to help them make decisions about management priorities and allocating fish stocks among users. Alaska salmon fishermen saw prices boom in the mid- 1980s, only to crash in the most recent years. In several publications, Gunnar Knapp, professor of economics at ISER, analyzed conditions in Ihe commercial salmon fisheries. He and two other fisheries economists also wrote a report on the changing Japanese salmon market. Japan is the primary buyer of Alaska's wild sockeye, the state's most valuable salmon. But farmed salmon from Chile is quickly gaining ground in Japanese markets, raising a challenge to Alaska's sockeye market. Knapp found that large harvests of wild salmon and the rapidly growing supply of farmed salmon are at least partly a A A RR ARRAS RE SE RES SSS SERRA SN to blame for low salmon prices in recent years. Figures show that the world supply of salmon in recent years was roughly double what it was in 1980, with farmed salmon increasing from just one percent of the supply to 30 percent. The world salmon market has been permanently changed by the growing year-round supply of farmed salmon. Knapp discussed his work with many Alaska fishermen's organizations, with the press, and at several fisher- ies conferences. Knapp's work was funded by the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, the Commercial Fishing and Agnculture Bank, and the Alaska Center for International Business at UAA. Knapp and research associate Teresa Hull maintain an extensive fishenes database. In Alaska's offshore fisheries, American vessels in the 1980s look over the huge groundfish harvests that had previ- ously gone to foreign vessels. But harvests leveled off in recent years, even as catching power in the ollshore fleet continued to grow. The Norlh Pacific Fishenes Management Council asked ISER to examine potential economic effects of changes it was considering in management of pollock, the mostcommon groundfish off Alaska. Terry Smith, fonnerly with ISER, and ISER economists Matthew Berman, Gunnar Knapp, and Enc Larson found, among other things, that delaying the second half of the pollock season until late summer, when the fish are heavier, would increase the yield from the pollock harvest about 2 percent from 1993 through 1995. Matthew Berman, associate professor of economics at ISER, also worked with the council staff to construct computer programming and simulation models of the North Pacific groundfish and crab fishenes. ISER hopes to continue studying offshore management policies. Recently Matthew Berman and Lee Huskey, professor of economics with UAA's School of Public Affairs, did preliminary work for an assessment of the long-term economic effects of limiting access to the sablefish and halibut fisheries. Later work could include developing an impact model to help assess the effects of different fisheries management policies. Inother fisheries work, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game asked ISER to help assess the value of sport fishing to Alaska's economy. Jack Kruse, professor of public policy, and Virgene Hanna, research associate, designed and con- ducted the first phase of a statewide survey of how much Alaskans spend for sport fishing. About 1,350 households around the state reported what they spend for fishing gear, for vehicles and fuel they use to reach fishing locations, for food and other supplies while they are out fishing, and for other expenses related to fishing. Survey data collection is continuing through late 1993. Economists Scott Goldsmith, Matthew Berman, Gunnar Knapp, and Eric Larson will use the survey results to continued on page 168 159 RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW "It is time that Alaskans rediscover the code of the North -- commitment to community -- working together so that we can all survive and prosper." --Governor Hickel, State of the State address, 1991 What is the proper role of government in the community economic development process? In most descriptions of economic development, the purpose is to foster the creation of private sector jobs and sources of new income in communities. While there are many state and federal programs, all aimed at the creation of jobs and increasing income at the local level, there has been an increasing emphasis on collaborative approaches to addressing various community development needs and issues. Among them is the President's Initiative on Rural Development under the former Bush administration, now renamed the National Rural Development Initiative.(b) This has as its primary mission to provide focus and coordination among the many federal and state agencies and programs involved with individual states’ rural development efforts. The recently enacted School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 has as its basic tenet a partnership among educators, business, and government in fashioning an ambitious coordinated effort to prepare today's students for tomorrow's job market by allowing them to learn in an environment where they are exposed to work experience via some variation of tech-prep, cooperative education, apprenticeship, or some other work experience. Collaboration is a key feature of many federal programs, for good reason. Limited resources force us to look at new and innovative solutions to recurring problems. In Alaska, the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) is charged with coordinating community and rural affairs across a state covering a land mass one fifth the size of the continental United States, with an estimated population of 585,000 (550,043 in the 1990 US Census). The role of state government in developing sustaining economies, particularly in rural areas of Alaska with its barriers of dispersed population, limited infra- structure, prohibitive construction costs, and transportation limitations, is particularly challenging. Clearly, coordina- tion and collaboration among all sources (state, federal, local and private sector) are critical to maximizing the limited Working Together for Community Economic Development in Rural Alaska By Edgar Blatchford February, 1994 Figure 1: DCRA's Community & Rural Economic Development Strategy available resources. The key to this, especially as it relates torural community economic development, is to meaning- fully involve the private sector in finding workable "public/private" partnerships. Goal: Increased Jobs and Incomes for Alaska's Communities Process: Public/Private Partnerships for Rural Development = People + Businesses + Government + Education Tools: Grants + Loans + Technical Assistance + Job Training + Access to Natural Resources The purpose of this discussion is to briefly highlight four initiatives focused on development issues in rural Alaska. These initiatives--a state job training and employment program, a major resource reallocation initiative, an initiative effort to reconfigure existing community grants and tech- nical assistance, and a business loan program -- have a common basic tenet of incorporating a strong public/private partnership approach utilizing local direction to focus collaborative job creation efforts in rural Alaska. These initiatives illustrate the “working together” partnership that Governor Hickel so aptly presented in his 1991 State of the State address. 160 Rural Alaska Policy Review NEED: INNOVATIVE TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS FOR ALASKA SITUATION Response: State Training and Employment Program (STEP) Alaska’s State Training and Employment Program (STEP) was created as a pilot project in 1989 and extended by last year's legislature, with strong support by Governor Hickel. The purpose of this program is to provide an important tool for Alaska's economic development efforts by filling in service gaps the federal job training programs are unable to address due to more restrictive program requirements. Briefly, funding for STEP comes from employee contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund which is administered in Alaska by the Alaska Department of Labor (DOL). The resulting STEP program funds, jointly administered by the DOL and the DCRA, are made available to Alaska's job training community to address Alaska-specific job training concerns.(c) Through grant awards to various training projects, STEP is charged with the following: . Prevention of future claims against unemployment benefits and reduction of employer UI costs; . Attracting new businesses to Alaska and fostering the growth of existing businesses through availability of a skilled labor force; . Promotion of local hire; and, . Easing the impacts of Alaska’s chronic economic fluctuations through training or retraining workers for new or emerging industries and technologies. Through its simplicity, STEP allows a higher degree of responsiveness to the realities of the Alaska job market, and far more flexibility than equivalent federal job training programs. Targeted employment areas, projects, services and eligibility criteria for STEP are developed in cooperation with the Alaska DOL to maximize service to those residents of rural Alaska most in need of training. Table 1 shows the recently awarded 1994 STEP program awards. These reflect a strong emphasis towards sustainable employment and the changing opportunities and challenges confronting rural Alaska--fisheries development, tourism, value-added manufacturing. An excellent example is the Older Persons Action Group award. Many of the 44 trainees to be served by OPAG's personal care attendant upgrade training are living and working in rural, remote communities. Recent changes in federal Medicare regulations allow elders to receive medical assistance in their villages rather than being forced to come to live in Anchorage or larger cities to receive needed health services. Federally funded personal care attendants are mandated to upgrade their skills. This is an excellent example of how STEP works to help bush Alaska. The federal job training programs are not able to support this type of upgrade training, whereas STEP can. The personal care attendant, living and working in the village receives an upgrade in skills as mandated by federal regulations, the elder is able to stay in the village; new dollars are brought into the village economy; and the collaborative partnership among the private sector, the Alaska DOL, DCRA, and Alaska's job training community has allowed this to happen. 161 Rural Alaska Policy Review Table 1: 1994 STEP Program Grants for Rural Alaska | Recipient 4 1 Trai D i Alaska Laborers $47,899 75 Rural residents training Training Trust Chatham Straits Seafoods $75,000 8 Salmon roe tech training (value-added manufacturing in Petersburg) Fresh Fish Company $15,000 15 Seafood custom processing (Sitka) Golden Age Fisheries/ $75,000 23 Fisheries mgt., fish processing, crew mgt. (western AK villages) Coastal Villages Fishing Coop Hospice & Homecare $22,598 20 Certified nurses aide training for southeast Alaska of Juneau communities Innovation Training and $37,381 8 Project Career Course Education Coop Northwest Arctic Boro $18,060 2 Ec. Dev. Specialist training Older Persons Action $161,000 44 Personal care attendant upgrade training (interior Alaska villages) Group (OPAG) People Count $54,540 20 Office occup., travel, tourism (Kenai) South East Regional $37,700 20 Nurses aide training (Prince of Wales and Ketchikan) Resource Center West Coast Construction $9,010 40 Const road safety training (Klawock Village Corp.) Yukon Delta Fisheries $75,000 15 Fisheries training (YK Delta villages) Dev. Association Total Awarded $628,118 290 persons to be trained Source: Kathy Brown, DCRA. (Note: New projects only, does not include carryover projects.) NEED: DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN WESTERN ALASKA VILLAGES Response: Community Development Quotas (CDQ) Rural communities in western Alaska are currently benefiting from a unique federal, state, and industry partnership developed under Governor Hickel's direction and administered as part of a collaborative effort involving several state level departments (DCRA, DCED, ADFG and Office of the Governor), the U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC). Approved in March of 1992 and implemented that fall, the Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) program allows small communities along the Bering Sea to partner with experienced fishery companies to harvest, process and market pollock groundfish. 7.5% of the allowable catch limit is reserved for the CDQ program, approximately 100,000 metric tons of fish. The 56 eligible communities, among the most underdeveloped in Alaska, incorporated into six regional associations to compete for shares of the quota. As specified in each CDQ group's development plan, reviewed by the state and approved by the Secretary of Commerce, benefits will accrue to the local communities. The plans feature profit sharing from pollock quota, quality partnerships with experienced fishery companies, immediate and long term employment opportunities, capital to pursue near-shore fisheries development activity, fishery infrastructure development, scholarship endowments, and quality employment training programs. Figure 2 displays results of interim monitoring reports showing that activities of the various CDQ groups have created more than 200 jobs, seasonal and non-seasonal, since program inception. The value of the CDQ pollock is estimated to total $80 million harvested over the '92-'95 program period, depending upon market prices for pollock products. Expansion of CDQ's to other species is dependent somewhat upon management and economic development outcomes realized by the six CDQ groups. In any case, this program which gives villages harvesting rights to valuable fishery resources will be closely monitored as to its eventual success in contributing to sustainable rural economic development. (d) 162 Rural Alaska Policy Review TELL MLL SS Figure 2: CDQ Employment and Income Information (For the period December 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993) Applicant Group Communities 92-93Quota _ Revenues to 6/30/93 Fishing Emp. Fishing Wages Aleutian Pribilof 5 18% $7,761,258 50 $162,799 Island Community Development Assn. (4 western Alaska villages and St. George Island) Bristol Bay 14 20% $4,183,513 38 $163,749 Economic Dev. Corporation (14 Bristol Bay/ southwest Alaska villages) Central Bering 1 10% $3,193,209 3 $ 24,000 Sea Fisherman’s Association (St. Paul Island) Coastal Villages 17 27% $8,340,801 30 $360,000 Fishing Coop (17 Yukon- Kuskokwim villages) Norton Sound 15 20% $6,850,011 61 $339,300 Economic Dev. Corporation (15 villages in northwest Alaska) Yukon Delta 4 5% $1,833,519 47 $300,000 Fisheries Dev. Association (4 Yukon villages) Total 56 100% $32,162,311 229 $1,349,848 Source: J.M. Walsh, Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. (Note: Fishing employment and fishing wages reflect groundfish activity only.) 163 Rural Alaska Policy Review NEED: GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVENESS TO LOCAL CONCERNS AND INITIATIVE Response: Rural Economic Development Initiative The Rural Economic Development Initiative (REDI) is an umbrella program. REDI brings together several programs and department-wide staff skill in a cooperative effort to heighten community involvement as well as tap outside resources in the creation of private sector jobs in rural Alaska. REDI embraces three financing options: CDBG (Community Development Block Grants), federally funded competitive grants; RDA (Rural Development Assistance), state funded regular competitive grants, and Mini-Grants, small state funded innovative competitive grants. REDI undergirds progress in rural communities, creating jobs, making use of locally available resources and adding value to them, producing goods now shipped in from outside, and tapping local creativity and know-how. It is up to the community to come up with the projects based on a holistic view of the community situation. The REDI program will scout for projects ideas, assess them and support their development through the various stages, including assistance in preparing applications to leverage additional sources of financing, and assisting in development of needed management skills. At the stage of selecting applications for funding, priority is given projects which create jobs by bringing in private sector dollars from outside the community or region. In 1990 the REDI program launched the Innovative Mini-Grant program to find new ways to tackle the difficult challenge of community economic development for Alaska's small and rural communities. Although these grants are small, they reward original thinking with "seed" grants to sponsoring community. Following are descriptions of some REDI projects shown in Figure 3: Tourism Development - Assisted and provided funding for one of the most promising economic develop- ment opportunities for rural Alaska communities. Tourism offers a low-impact, high return industry which utilizes local resources and skills. The Rainforest Tour of Southeast and projects in Arctic Village, Huslia, Copper Valley, Nome, Haines, Minto, Stevens Village, Saxman, Glennallen, Kake and St. Lawrence Island are examples. Commercial Greenhouses - Supported and financed development of rural commercial greenhouses and root cellars which will extend the growing season, provide longer storage capabilities, utilize waste heat from community generators for the purpose of providing employment and income from fresh vegetables sold to residents, local schools and commercial outlets. Greenhouses were assisted in Chuathbaluk and Russian Mission. Cottage Industry - Supported cottage industry in assisting with Native Arts and Crafts gift shops, home crafts industry centers, and provided a catalog wholesale supply house for arts and crafts materials to supply the growing number of both urban and rural traditional artists and craftspersons. RDA assisted projects in Dot Lake, Aniak, Shishmaref and other locations. Fur Industry - Assisted and financed fur trapping and buying which has been a traditional rural industry since the days of the Russian-American Company in Alaska. Provided marketing and training to trappers, brokers and retailers of fur processing in Alaska. Examples are the Shishmaref Tannery and Yukon-Kuskokwim Mink Festival. Meat Industry - Supported the planning and development of small, regional meat production for bulk marketing to village cooperatives, stores and individuals. Expanded on economic enterprise in beef production which will reduce the need for purchasing food outside the community. These projects are in Mekoryuk and Tanacross. Fisheries Development and Added-Value Fish Processing - Assisted and financed fish processing plants and provided marketing for the production, sale, and distribution of specialized items such as quality smoked fish strips and extruded products for urban markets and beyond. Coordinated with other organizations including BSFA, DEC, and EPA to achieve regulatory reform for small processors, reflected in a prototype plan for a "Pocket processor." Kake, Galena and Nelson Island are examples. Aquaculture - Explored and assisted the feasibility of aquatic farming and developed commercial shellfish mariculture operations in many rural communities. Produced materials for generic marketing campaign for sale of Alaska oysters for 72 aquatic farms. Examples: Yakutat, Angoon, Tatitlek, Chenega Bay and many others. Community Development - Community infrastructure to support health and safety of the community is a given for economic development. Without, this basic infrastructure, (health clinics, childcare & headstart centers, docks, tank farms, roads, water and sewer, airport improvement and safety projects, among others), significant economic development activities will be difficult. Examples are Hooper Bay, St. Mary's, Kwethluk, Thorne Bay, False Pass, and St. George Island. 164 Rural Alaska Policy Review NEED: ACCESS TO CAPITAL FOR RURAL ENTREPRENEURS Response: Rural Development Initiative Fund (RDIF) Absence of enterprise in rural Alaska is generally recognized as one of the greatest impediments to general economic stability in rural Alaska.(4) A lack of access to capital is recognized as one of the greatest constraints on entrepreneurial activities in rural Alaska. (1. In response to this need the Alaska legislature passed in 1992, with strong support by Governor Hickel, legislation to create the Rural Development Initiative Fund (RDIF). In keeping with the trend in other states (5), and best practices in development finance today which indicate a combination of innovative strategies in partnership with private lenders to address the capital gap of rural areas, Alaska developed the RDIF. RDIF is a flexible program that provides loans for working capital, equipment, renovation or construction for businesses and entrepreneurs located in rural Alaska. Working through cooperating private sector banks and the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), RDIF brings together various existing direct lending and loan guarantee programs to "fill the gap" in the loan package so loans can be made for viable ideas and rural entrepreneurs, that otherwise would not have been made by existing lending programs. RDIF finances non-traditional types of loan packages. It is not intended to finance a loan project which could normally be financed as a conventional loan by a bank. The RDIF program is primarily interested in new or expanding small manufacturers, tourism, or services that add to or have the potential to diversify a community's economy. This state initiated loan program, rather than relying solely on state employees to operate it, utilizes the offices of private banks servicing rural Alaska as the initial point of contact for loans and program information. The loan forms are in fact from the respective banks. Since its operating regulations were finalized in April of 1993, loans made under the RDIF program have resulted in a leverage ratio of state to private dollars of approximately 1:10. The program focuses on businesses located in communities of 5000 or less population. In its first 6 months the program has made awards of more than $1.2 million to 12 rural local businesses, and contributed to the creation or retention of more than 28 seasonal and full-time jobs. Its modest goal is to finance 35 to 40 good loan packages over the course of the next year. GUIDING THEMES FOR DCRA COMMUNITY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS The major characteristics of this ''working together" approach are incorporated into our goals in assisting Alaska’s communities in the rural economic development process. The basic thrust of our efforts is summarized as follows: ° Where workable, a requirement of "private/public" participation with a strong focus on the local community. The people know what's best and what is doable. . Government's role is to act as a "catalyst"; the government should not be perceived as the only player in the game. ° Economic development means jobs for local people; anything else dilutes the vitality of the community. Jobs opportunities do not help the local community if there is no match for the skills of the residents. ° The “best” social program is a job. However, the approach should be a holistic one, sensitive to cultural traditions such as subsistence hunting and fishing for villages, the family, the local community. Still, jobs alone are not sufficient. Sustainable communities need safe water, sanitation, education, quality child care and Head Start programs for young children, 165 Rural Alaska Policy Review access to employment training programs and access to quality health care services. DCRA, in fostering the rural community economic development process in Alaska, has strongly emphasized "identifying local needs and concerns" and "local participation" in order to develop programs to address identified needs. The purpose here was to briefly present what the state of Alaska is doing regarding public/private partnerships and initiate discussion on what is working and what can be done to create successful and sustainable rural community economic development efforts. The programs reviewed in this article illustrate the cooperative theme of Alaska's state government efforts in working with local communities, private businesses, regional development organizations, and individuals to create self-sustaining local jobs and income opportunities for our rural residents. Through continued successful collaborative efforts such as the ones described in this article, and numerous other initiatives, the department has achieved its initial goal of creating 1,000 jobs in rural areas. Are we done? Not by a long shot! Until these jobs, plus another 1,000 more, are sustained, until communities are fully in control of their destiny, until transportation costs are reduced to allow a healthy balanced inter-regional trade, and until the health and safety of our children and families is secured, we are not done. As a long distance runner, I know the necessity of a sustained, measured approach. It is the sustained, measured approach used in the programs here described, that will get us to the goal. References 1. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Towards a Rural Development Strategy: Needs Statement, 1992. 2. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Blue Book of Programs and Resources, State of Alaska, February 1993. 3. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs in cooperation with Mt. Edgecumbe High School Rural Students Program, Building Your Future: the CDQ Program, State of Alaska, n.d. 4. Husky, L., Import Substitution in Frontier Region, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1984. 5. Markley, D. with K. McKee, Business Finance as a Tool for Development, The Aspen Institute, 1992. 6. Office of the Governor, The First Year: A Report to the People, State of Alaska, 1992. 7. Pulver, G. and D. Dodson, Designing Development Strategies in Small Towns, The Aspen Institute, 1992. Notes (a) Edgar Blatchford is the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. He was appointed in December 1990 by Governor Walter J. Hickel. Commissioner Blatchford graduated from Alaska Pacific University with a BA in Social Sciences and he received his JD from the University of Washington. Later he continued his studies at Columbia University, receiving a MS in Journalism. A former newspaper editor/owner and native corporation executive, Commissioner Blatchford has lived and worked in Alaska all his life with the exception of brief leaves to continue his studies. An earlier version of the material presented in this article appeared in the January 1994 issue of Alaska Economic Trends. The full version here is scheduled to appear in the Winter 1994 edition of the Economic Develop- ment Review. Information regarding the projects/programs discussed in this article can be obtained by contacting: Commissioner's Office, Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 220, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2341, 907-269-4500, Fax 907-269-4520 Attn: Tony Nakazawa, Director of Community and Rural Development. (b) The Alaska State Rural Development Council is now undertaking a statewide assessment of the various programs and services available to rural Alaska. A milestone activity for the ARDC is the undertaking of a comprehensive statewide needs assessment. As most small communities are not well equipped in effective assessment, and the state will also benefit when communities are able to clarify their most urgent needs (Pulver and Dodson). The ARDC will conduct the assessment primarily by working through existing agencies and organizations. For information contact Chuck Akers, ASRDC Executive Director 269-4606. (c) Alaska’s STEP Program is funded by one tenth of one percent of employee contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. These STEP funds for FY94 will total more than $2.9 million statewide. (d) Figure 2 employment numbers and wages are preliminary estimates, and do not reflect the entire employment activity for the particular CDQ group, but only persons actually working in the ground fish industry and wages from that particular industry. All six CDQ organizations have submitted applications for the 1994/1995 pollock stock. The Secretary of Commerce will have acted on the applications by November 15, 1993. The current CDQ program will sunset December 31, 1995, unless extended. 166 Rural Alaska Policy Review DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (including Rural Development Initiative Fund activity) Arctic Village 1 Shishmaret, 1 Deering 1Huslia 1Galena Dot Lake 1 Emmonat 1Glennallen ‘1 Russian Mission Hooper Bay 1 Chuathbaluk Mekoryuk 1 Ry MoCarth; u Valdez a if 1 Tatitlek Chenega 1 Ninilchiku oS u_ Homer 1 Juneau oo aigbon isn Hoonah \) 1 Kake ° - roots ORO P False Pass & Vide Petersburg : Thorne Bay 1 nf ) & 1st. George © NG¥ehnen 1 REDI Jobs Juneau 6 u RDIF Jobs| | Ardevilage 5 Kake 24 Bethel 3 Chenega Bay 10 Mekoryuk 105 Haines 2 Chuathbaluk 3 Minto 5 Homer 6 Deering g Russian Mission 5 Hoonah 3 Dot Lake 1 St. George 40 McCarthy 3 Emmonak 4. St. Mary's 10 Ninilchik 3 False Pass 6 Saxman 14 Nome 3 Galena 10 Shishmaref 5 Petersburg 5 Glennallen 17. Tatitlek 10 Valdez 4 Hooper Bay 6 hore Bay 5 Total 32 Huslia 20 Total 326 Source: G. McDonagh and T. Peterson, DCRA. 167 Rural Alaska Policy Review Continued from page 159 help measure the economic value of sport lishing. That work will continue through 1994. Fiscal Policy A major ISER research focus in recent years has been state fiscal policy in the face of declining oil revenues. A lot is at stake: nearly one in three Alaslka jobs and as much as 40 percent of regional economic activity depend on state spending. In the first half of the 1980s, a combination of high oil pnces and high production from the Prudhoe Bay oil field (which the state owns) brought the state government billions of dollars in oil revenues. It used that money to expand and add govemment programs, fueling an economic boom. But oil revenues aren't as plentiful now, with declining production and lower oil pnces. In recent years the state has balanced its budget through spending cuts and use of reserve accounts. But it needs a long-term plan to adjust to a level of spending Alaska can sustain over the long run. And because the entire Alaska economy has come to depend so much on state spending, officials need to consider how different policies could affect the economy. Between 1989 and 1992, ISER published seven pa- pers assessing state fiscal policy. Scott Goldsmith, professor of economics, is the principal author of six of those papers. Lee Gorsuch, ISER's director, helped design the series and is a co- author. Other ISER authors include Alexandra Hill and Teresa Hull, research associates; Matthew Berman, associate profes- sor of economics, and Linda Leask, editor. The first six papers described the problem and exam- ined various aspects of state spending and revenues in the 1980s. The seventh paper, published in July 1992, outlined one possible fiscal strategy for stabilizing Alaska's govemment and economy. That was to have been the last of the series, which was paid for by a grant from ARCO Alaska. But additional grants from several Alaska businesses enabled ISER to continue the series. Tentatively, ISER plans three more papers. Work on the first began in fiscal 1993. It will be published this fall and will examine how the state's fiscal policy—including the Permanent Fund Dividend program, which puts cash in the hands of virtually all Alaskans affected income distribution in Alaska in the 1980s, and how various possible methods of balancing the budget could affect future household income. The Fiscal Policy Papers have received widespread attention and helped spark discussion and debate among govemment officials and individual Alaskans about what the state govemment should do. Not everyone agrees with Goldsmith's view of the problem or the potential solutions, but his work has played a big part in drawing attention to the issue. Goldsmith and Gorsuch have over the past several years made dozens of presentations on fiscal policy to government and private groups that range from the state legislature to the Alaska Credit Union League. Both have appeared on public service television programs. When Govemor Hickel organized an economic sum- mit in Anchorage in November 1992, the potential strategy Goldsmith outlined in Fiscal Policy Papel No. 7 served as the basis for discussion. Goldsmith and Hill developed a computer model that allowed summit participants to suggest their own budget strategies and see the effects of different policies. Gorsuch and Goldsmith also helped organize the summit and made presentations. More than 100 leaders of government and industry from around the state attended. Highway to Cordova A big ISER project over the past year was assessing the llikely social and economic effects of ahighway to Cordova. The proposed Copper River Highway has for many years created controversy in Alaska. Since the 1 960s, the state govemmenthas tried several times to build a highway to Cordova, a lishing town on Prince William Sound with a population of about 2,500. Residents of the region that would be affected are sharp]y divided in support- ing and opposing the highway. Past work was stopped by the 1964 earthquake, by opposition from conservation organiza- tions, and by shifting state priorities. The state now proposes to build the highway with federal aid, which requires preparing an Environmental Impact Statement describing the highway's potential eflects. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities contracted with ISER to assess potential social and economic effects. Gunnar Knapp, professor of economics, led the project. It involved interviewing Alaskans inside and outside the study region, collecting data on the existing social structure and economy, and assessing how a highway would change the way of life and the economy in Cordova and other communities. For the project, ISER survey researchers Jack Kruse and Virgene Hanna conducted a telephone survey of 800 Alaska households. Economists Gunnar Knapp, Steve Colt, Eric Larson, and Matthew Bemman looked at the potential economic effects of the highway, including effects on tourism, commercial fishing, resource development, and hunting and fishing. Research associates Alexandra Hill, Virgene Hanna, Teresa Hull, and Marybeth Holleman compared social and economic conditions in other coastal communities on and off the highway system and examined potential effects of a high- way on public facilities and social services in the region. Throughout the project Knapp and colleagues at ISER took care to emphasize that they were taking no position for or against the road: they were collecting data from all sources, listening to all viewpoints, and assessing potential effects. 168 Rural Alaska Policy Review ISER's findings are summarized in the draft EIS to be published later Ihis year, and detailed in a four-volume ISER technical report that will he issued when the EIS is published. Health Care Like other Amencans, Alaskans are worried about the staggering costs of health care and of health insurance. For two years ISER worked with the state's Health Resources and Access Task Force to get better information on health care costs. Health care in Alaska cost an estimated $1.6 billion in fiscal 1991. That was triple the cost of health care a decade ago; it was 50 percent more than the 1990 cost of operating Alaska's public schools; and nearly as much as the 1989 cost for military bases and personnel and equipment in Alaska. Alexandra Hill and Scott Goldsmith of ISER and the state's task force jointly developed estimates of 1991 health care costs. Figures shows estimates of who pays for health care in Alaska. Government— either as an employer or as a provider of programs for the elderly, the poor, and others—pays roughly two thirds of health care costs. The federal govemment pays the biggest single share. Individual Alaslkans pay about one- quarter. Much remains unclear about health care costs and whatis driving them. Exact figures on total health care spending in Alaska aren't available, because much goes unreported. There is no comprehensive information on employers that self- insure—that is, employers who pay all or part of their employ- ees' medical bills themselves, rather than pay insurance premi- ums. We know that per capita health care costs in Alaska are significantly above the national average, but the difference cannot be entirely explained by Alaska's higher living costs and small markets. The state task force has now been disbanded, after making recommendations to the legislature for improving Alaskans' access to health care. Several health care reform bills were introduced in the 1993 legislative session. None of those bills were enacted, but health care reform will be on the legislature's agenda again during the next session. Education Improving America's public schools has become a national priority, and ISER has consistently been involved in examining possible school reform in Alaska. ISER's director, Lee Gorsuch, has studied public edu- cation issues in Alaska for 20 years and was formerly on the Anchorage School Board. Dunng fiscal 1993, he helped design the pilot program for a small-class-size project approved by the legislature to test whether smaller classes make a significant difference in how much students learn. That project began this fallin four schools and will run for the next three years. Gorsuch also sits on the School Performance Oversight Committee and works with the commissioner of the Department of Education. That work is a follow-up to a report Gorsuch and others on the govemor's Commission on School Choice wrote in 1992, as- sessing choices Alaska had for changing its public school system. Gorsuch and research associate Teresa Hull also con- tinued ongoing work with two programs intended to bring businesses into school reform efforts. One program is Alaska's Youth: Ready for Work, which is designed to help businesses define what skills they want in young job-seekers, and to assess how those skills could be incorporated into schools. The other is the National Business Roundtable—a group of executives from 200 of the nation's largest corporations—that has a nine- point agenda for increasing academic achievement among American students. The roundtable looks at how a state's education practices and reforms compare with the roundtable's goals. Economy and Government ISER regularly monitors changes in Alas 1ka'seconomy and in state and local governments. That work in fiscal 1993 included completion of a new book on Alaska's governments and new economic projections. This past year Thomas Morehouse, professor of politi- cal science at ISER, and Gerald McBeath, professor of political science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, completed the book, Alaska's Politics and Government. It traces state and local government development from the time Alaska became a U.S. colony through the 1992 elections, looking in particular at how Alaska's unique political culture has shaped its politics. The authors describe Alaska's rapid evolution from a territory with very limited government to a wealthy state with strong state and local governments. But they also discuss why its economic stability is still threatened by volatile world markets for natural resources, and how that potential instability affects the state's government and politics. The book will be published by the University of Nebraska Press in late 1993 and is part of a series that will include a book for each state. The books will be distributed nationally and will likely be used as class texts. This is the latest of several books on Alaska's governments that Morehouse and McBeath have written or edited over the past 15 years. As part of tracking Alaska's economy, ISER econo- mist Scott Goldsmith annually prepares long-term projections of Alaska population and employment. These have become the most consistent and widely used projections in Alaska. He completed his most recent projections in August 1993, for a project funded by Chugach Electric Association and other 169 a ge RS RS LR RR RR eR EE Rural Alaska Policy Review southcentral Alaska utilities—which have a crucial interest in knowing about their future markets. Goldsmith projects that population and employment will most likely grow at an average rate of close to one percent annually through the year 2000, as Alaska moves into a period of slower growth. Less likely but still possible events could make growth slower or faster. The projections are made with the MAP computer model, which incorporates hundreds of vari- ables on the Alaska economy and a number of assumptions about future economic conditions. The model was developed nearly 20 years ago and is updated regularly to reflect changes in the structure of the Alaska economy. Teresa Hull, ISER research associate, maintains the huge database the MAP model uses. That work requires collect- ing and incorporating data on all aspects of the economy from dozens of federal, state, local, and plivate sources. Information that goes into the database ranges from personal income to gross state product. This database itself is a valuable reference source. Hull also maintains the economic indicators database. Unlike the MAP database, which is used to trace longer term trends in the economy, the indicators include information useful for monitoring month-to-month changes in economic activity. In other work, economists Matthew Bemman and Eric Larson of ISER and Bradford Tuck of the School of Public Affairs assessed the sustainability of Alaska's gross state prod- uct. Alaska Native Issues How changing social and economic conditions affect Alaska's Native people has been a research focus of ISER's since its beginnings. Thomas Morehouse, professor of political science at ISER, has for a number of years been looking at self-govern- ment issues Alaska Natives face. Recently he began examining what room {or accommodation there might be among groups that hold fundamentally opposing views about who should he entitled to subsistence rights to Alaska's fish and game. This issue has sharply divided Alaskans, and legislation and Judicial decisions have not resolved it. Federal law gives rural residents (who are primarily Alaska Natives) subsistence preference, but the Alaska Su- preme Court has ruled that the state constitution forbids using residence as the sole basis for determining subsistence eligibil- ity. The issue has been stalemated for several years, with the federal government taking over management of hunting and some fishing on its lands and the state using a combination of traditional use, residence, and other factors to determine subsis- tence preference on lands it manages. Morehouse's work, to be completed later this year, will look for possible ways to move past the stalemate. He is also examining how Alaska Natives might use intemational human rights law to advance sell- government. Matthew Berman, associate professor of economics, has begun examining the problem of high rates of violent death in Alaska. In work to be published this winter, he will use data from the 1980 and 1990 censuses to analyze trends and patterns in violent deaths. Also in fiscal 1993, Lee Gorsuch, ISER's director, and Steve Colt, research economist, began a comparative analysis of how five southeast Alaska communities that were not autho- rized to form village corporations and that received no village land under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act differed from communities that received such benefits. (Native residents of those communities did receive some cash pay- ments.) This work is for the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Community Issues Over the past year ISER began several projects involv- ing issues of concern to small Alaska communities. Last yearJack Kruse, professor of public policy, and Virgene Hanna, research associate, began work on a project comparing caribou management systems for the Western Arc- tic caribou herd in Alaska and the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq herds in Canada. The study focuses on the state management system in Alaska and on a joint provincial-territorial federal- Native system in Canada. It is examining how better data and consensus on management techniques could help reduce fluc- tuations in the size of caribou herds. In the past, caribou herds have been subject to what appear to be very sudden declines. This is an important issue for rural Alaskans who rely on caribou for food. This project will continue in 1994. After the 1989 oil spill in Prince William Sound, communities in the region formed a Regional Citizens Advi- sory Committee to help find better ways of dealing wilh any future oil spills. ISER is working with the committee to develop mitigation plans, which could include community response organizations and adoption of methods of protecting subsis- tence resources and the commercial fishing and tourism indus- tries. Jack Kruse, ISER professor of public policy, Thomas Morehouse, professor of political science, and Marybeth Holleman, research associate, last year collectecl data and worked with residents of Cordova and other communities affected by the spill. This project will continue in 1994 and will likely also include an economic analysis by Steve Colt, research economist, to provide communities with better economic baseline data. In another project, ISER's director Lee Gorsuch and research economist Steve Colt began work with the state's Rural Sanitation Task Force to help develop a plan for improving rural environmental health and sanitation in Alaska. Some villages lack safe water and sewer systems altogether, and some have systems that are inadequately maintained. This project is in- tended to improve coordination among the several federal 170 Rural Alaska Policy Review agencies with responsibility for rural sanitation and to deter- mine what is needed to bring better sanitation to Alaska's villages. This fall Gorsuch and Colt will also be writing two policy papers on rural sanitation for the Environmental Protec- tion Agency. Both the plan and the papers will be presented to the U.S. Senate. Energy Issues In fiscal 1993 ISER looked at several energy issues important to rural and low-income Alaskans. Eric Larson and Alexandra Hill, ISER research asso- ciates, led a project assessing the feasibility of Dillingham residents’ establishing a fuel cooperative—to allow them to buy fuel in bulk at a cheaper price. Research associate Teresa Hull and research economist Steve Colt also took part in the project. Establishing a cooperative would require a loan from the Alaska Energy Authority to buy a fuel storage tank. The researchers found that a cooperative could make fuel available at a lower price, but only if it could capture at least half the Dillingham market. ISER research associate Alexandra Hill also prepared an economic profile of Lime Village for the Alaska Energy Authority, to help the AEA assess the economic feasibility of building an electrical generating plant in the village, which has about a dozen households. Hill interviewed village households and collected economic data from other sources. She found that while village residents have limited incomes, they currently spend a significant share to pay for operating private generators. If they had acommunity plant, what they now spend for private generators would help pay for the community system. Last spring, research economist Steve Colt analyzed the effects of selling the City of Thome Bay's electric utility to a private utility or a non-profit cooperative. He compared costs of service, rates, and fiscal burdens to the state's Power Cost Equalization program under several options for selling the utility. For the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, ISER began investigating the success of the state's home weatheriza- tion program in reducing energy costs for low-income Alas- kans. Steve Colt, research economist, is leading that project, working with Marybeth Holleman, research associate, and Linda Brooks and Liz Talbot, student assistants. The project— which covers gas-heated houses in Anchorage, the Mat-Su Valley, and the Kenai Peninsula—involves looking at about 600 homes weatherized under the program in 1991 and 1992. Researchers interviewed residents of about 200 of the weather- ized houses and obtained gas consumption data from ENSTAR natural gas company. The analysis will be completed this fall. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE OFFICE ADDRESSES Anchorage District ... 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 118 Anchorage, AK 99508-4143 Bethel District ..........scsccecsscseesesseseessesesensenseneee Box 556 Bethel Native Corporation Building Bethel, AK 99559 Delta Junction District ..........cecseeseseeesensenee P.O. Box 349 Delta Junction, AK 99737 Fairbanks—Tanana District .............0ssseseeeee 1514 South Cushman, Room 30 Fairbanks, AK 99701-6285 Juneau District 9112 Mendenhall Mall Road Juneau, AK 99801-7112 Ketchikan District ..........scssssssesseseesesseneenceneees (OFFICE IS VACANT) 7th & Madison Ketchikan, AK 99901 Kodiak District ........scsscsecsssesssesesessensencarenseneee 202 Center Street, Suite 204 Island Insurance Building Kodiak, AK 99615 McGrath District ........-ccsecsecsesssseesereeneeneeseerenes P.O. Box 269 McGrath, AK 99627 Nome—Northwest District ..........scsesseseeseeseeee Box 400 Northwest Community College Nome, AK 99762 Palmer—Mat-Su District 809 South Chugach Street Palmer, AK 99645 Sitka District ......ceccsccscssrscvssecessvsevensocsevoesevoeses 1297 Seward Avenue Sitka, AK 99835 Soldotna—Kenai District 34820 College Drive, Suite 2 Soldotna, AK 99669 Anchorage State OFFICE ......ssesssesesssererseeseeee 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 118 Anchorage, AK 99508-4143 Anchorage State OfffCEe .......sresssserereseseeseseees Community Development Program 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 132 Anchorage, AK 99508-4143 Fairbanks State Office University of Alaska Fairbanks 279-5582 543-2591 895-4215 452-1530 586-7102 486-6369 524-3011 443-2320 745-3360 747-6065 262-5824 279-6575 276-2433 171 RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW Following are the economic development projects in which the Division of Economic Development is currently participating. The division has contributed money to some of the projects through its capital matching grant program and has allocated staff time to all of them. In most cases, the division is responding to a local development initiative. This listing i i by ARDOR regi Anchorage Economic Development Corporation *Fire Island Project feasibility and market analysis Anchorage *International Airport fish processing and transportation facility *Anchorage Entrepreneurial Center Arctic Development Council Bering Straits Economic Council *Norton Sound Hatchery *Elim minerals feasibility project *Salmonberry Shop; Nome, National Youth Entrepreneurial Project *Shishmaref Tannery Project Copper Valley Economic Development Council Interior Alaska Economic Development Council *Fort Knox Mine Passage of Space Port Authority legislation; targeting commercial aerospace firms and performing economic feasibility analysis of capital improvements to Poker Flat rocket facility with AIDEA *Ryan Lode minerals developmen * Inco Minerals project Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development District *Tyonek village bridge and Beluga off loading facility *Port Graham Hatchery Developing alternatives to tanker delivery of Alaska crude to Tesoro refinery in Kenai Kuskokwim Economic Development Council (mid. Kuskokwim. region) Lower Kuskokwim Region (ARDOR designation ending) *Akiak tourism project STATE OF DIVISION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CURRENT PROJECTS LIST *Mekoryuk reindeer processing facility *Kwethluk arts and crafts marketing program Lower Yukon Region (ARDOR designation pending) *Scammon Bay fish skin tanning project Matanuska ~ Susitna Economic Development Corporation *Point McKenzie port development *Idemitsu Wishbone Hill coal project *Susitna Forest Management Plan Guidelines and Area Plan Northwest Arctic Borough Economic Development Commission Prince William Sound Region (ARDOR designation pending) *Chenega Bay dock and marine service center *Whittier Boat Harbor expansion *Prince William Sound pinks: analysis of inland waters permit *Yakataga Area Plan (also Southeast Conference ARDOR) Southeast Conference *West Douglas Port Development, a project of Goldbelt Corporation *Sitka tour boat dock *Kake hatchery and processing plant *AJ Mine *Kensington Mine *Jualin Mine *Windy Craggy Mine; transport from British Columbia through *Haines Alaska access to Canadian projects: *Taku River, Bradfleld *Tongass Land Use Plan development; focus on market demand and supply issues *Yakataga Area Plan (also Pr. William Sound ARDOR) *Kake tourism development project 172 Rural Alaska Policy Review Southwest Alaska Municlpal Conference *King crab rehabilitation and enhancement project *Makushin Geotherman Project; Dutch Harbor Tanana Chiefs Conference (ARDOR designation pending) *8Clear Hatchery and Yukon River Initiative *Hydrocarbon Clean Coal project *Fiberglass manufacturing plant utilizing Usibelli silica *Minto regional tourism project *Upper Yukon timber development, Council of Athabaskan Tribal Governments *Menasha Interior timber project *Doyon Interior timber Project *Healy Co-Generation Project Interior-Regional Projects Ports and Transportation: *Arctic Great Circle Route utilizing Soviet ice- breakers to Europe DOT Ports and Harbors Task Force: *Analysis of economic development potential of transportation facility projects *Development of air route to Japan though Kamchatka Peninsula for export of fish and import of Japanese tourists *Development of Port Authority legislation Southcentral Alaska deep water port study: contract award and oversight *Alternative transport vessels; Hover craft and oil field service boats Fisheries: *Review of shellfish mariculture regulations *North Pacific International Fisheries Business Symposium: *Conference planning Alaska Japan Fisheries Cooperation Committee coordinating agency: *Market development workshop and technology transfer Organization of Alaska Fish Processors Association (7?) *Organization of Alaska Pavilion group exhibit at Fish Exp., Seattle 1991 *Paperwork reduction of mullet-agency reporting requirements for fish processors; *Development of unified reporting form *Participation on legislative Interim Committee on fish hatcheries *Staff support to Economic Development Funding Forum; including twenty-three participating federal, state and private funding sources Intergovernmental //Regulations: *Coastal Policy Council and participation in Coastal Management Program project reviews and District Plan development Participation in Wetlands Policy issues Forest Practices regulations; *agency/industry support Taxation of resources in place; *policy development for legislature Participation in DOT State Transportation Plan *Participation in Governor's Resources Cabinet *Participation in Rural Economic Development mini-cabinet *Organize and staff support to Alaska Regional Development Organizations (ARDOR) Program *Coordinate assistance to companies seeking permits through various regulatory agencies *Area Planning Team member: Central Southeast Plan, Yakataga Plan, Susitna Valley *Plan Cyanide regulations development and review with DEC Marketing: * Administering Made in Alaska/Buy Alaska contract * Administering Silver Hand Native Handicraft identification program * Alaska Product Preference certification and program administration *Raising private funds and financing production of videotape on Silver Hand program for cruise ship showings *Coordinate with Division of Tourism on rural Alaska tourism destination development *Alaska Public Radio Network; "Marketplace" project Information/Publications *" Alaska's Economy" annual performance report * Alaska Minerals Commission. annual recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature *Economic sector reports on Forest Products, Petroleum, Fishing, Mining, Tourism *Annual Alaska Mineral Industry Report; in cooperation with DNR *" Establishing a Business in Alaska" *Operation of BIZLINK; industrial trade leads *Operation of Business Development Information Network . *"Directory of Alaska Forest Products Manufacturers" *Permit guidelines for Alaska mining 173 Introduction Rural communities are experiencing most of thesame social and economic pressure that is haunting their urban counterparts. As communities consider alternatives for economic development, tourism is often suggested as having potential. Stories are told of how both large and small communities have struck it rich by developing an economy around travelers. The news media tell ofprojected growth and success stories of "tourism towns" and economic reports imply success is attainable. The World Travel and Tourism Council reported in a recent newsletter that tourism became the world's largest industry in 1992 and that tourism will account for 13% of the world's consumer spending in 1993. The U.S. Travel Data Center reports that tourism has become the nations second largest employer, employing 6 million Americans in 1991. This will generate an estimated $385 billion from foreign and domestic visitors in 1993 and, it will generate $83 billion in payrolls for the travel industry and an additional $42.8 billion dollars in federal, state and local tax revenue. In 1991 the service sector of which tourism is a large part, generated a $45 billion export surplus. Rural America has many historic, cultural, and natural features that may potentially attract tourists. Market studies suggest that international markets want to see the "real America," referring to rural areas and people. The potential of tourism has prompted hundreds of communities to develop an economy around the activities and needs of the traveling public. The level of development varies with each community's needs and expectations. Developing an economy around tourism may bring many benefits to a community. However, that develop- ment will have costs and liabilities as well. These costs and liabilities are associated with all industries within a community. Residents must determine if the benefits from these new industries, including tourism, will be worth the costs involved. The level of development a community pursues may be as simple as hosting a single special event/festival or it may include a comprehensive effort to become a nationally RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW "ALASKA POLICY REVIEW 4 ae Ss TOURISM AND RURAL AMERICA known tourism destination. The interest and commitment of the community and its available resources will greatly influence what type of development is practical. Should your community try to develop tourism? Some people in your community will say yes, others will say no. Some people may already be profiting from tourists. They are selling gasoline, food, lodging, souvenirs, and other goods and services. Others may say we do not want tourists because tourists take our parking spaces, cause traffic congestion and waiting lines at our restaurants and we want our town to stay as it is. The truth is all communities are changing. Some are growing and some are declining. In many situations the direction of change is the result of local leadership. Whether or not your community should try to develop tourism and what type of development would be best suited to your community, can only be determined after a careful study of community interest, specific community needs which tourism could meet, and the costs and benefits of tourism to your community. This publication will provide basic guide- lines to assist rural communities in determining if they should pursue tourism as an economic develop- ment strategy and, if they do, some things to consider when planning a tourism program suited to the interest and resources of a rural community or area. 174 Rural Alaska Policy Review 175 ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA ARDORS Homer: Association Alaska Regional Development Organizations Retreat August 13-14, 1993 Common issues relevant to ARDOR Program: SADMNPYWN YS Bee ee ee eHno SNAMNRWNP OS’ 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. rPNnPEAN Better rural Delivery by state agencies: i.e., ARDORs to CDBG and others. Health and retirement benefits. Transitions: negative perceptions. Recognition of ARDOR capabilities and coordination. Coordination of ED training. Need to show concrete results. Budget limitations (5 ARDORs under $130,000) need to expand sources of funding. Limited staffing. Politics and own development (agenda, vulnerability to special interests). Cash flow crunch up from funding. High cost of travel. Management: recruiting, training staff, growth, changing responsibilities. What is viable diversification? Board involvement and representativeness. Economic health of region affects ARDOR's health. Using 501c status to maximum. ARDOR organization structure, including RD&D. ARDOR positioning self with private sector. - help competing businesses - is competing service Alaska State Rural Development Council. Inter-modal transportation. Rural tourism. Business and financial management assistance. Financial instruments such as BIDCOs and RLFs. Technology transfer. Further identification of association goals and objectives. Program delivery requested by other state agencies. Internal conflict resolution and cooperation. ARDOR program structure and structural relationships. Selected by group as the five most important presented in order of preference: Budget limitations (5 ARDORS under $130,000) need to expand sources of funding. Need to show concrete results. Recognition of ARDOR capabilities and coordination. Rural tourism. Better rural delivery by state agencies: i.e., ARDORS to CDBG and others. INTRODUCTION A Community Development Quota (CDQ) program was implemented in 1992 that thrust participating western Alaska communities into a unique partnership with the multi- million-dollar Bering Sea groundfish industry. In contrast to their traditional subsistence and small boat commercial fisheries, western Alaska residents will now have opportunities to work on factory trawlers capable of fishing the Bering Sea year-round, in shoreside processing plants, and in related seafood industry operations. With CDQs, Bering Sea coastal communities are partners with established corporations in industrial-scale seafood production—delivering massive quantities of groundfish to consumers efficiently and at the lowest price—and will derive direct economic benefits (estimated at up to $20 million annually) from a resource located just off their shores. The CDQ program has been carefully designed to avoid the mistakes of the past. As one CDQ corporation said in its quota application, "....there are far too many monuments to good intentions scattered throughout western Alaska already." To many, CDQs represent the most viable opportunity yet for sustained economic development in western Alaska. BACKGROUND The concept of Community Development Quotas emerged in the mid-1980s as the Bering Sea groundfish fisheries—long dominated by foreign nations—finally became profitable for the domestic fishing industry. Advocates for rural Alaska wondered if the guaran- teed quota concept—based on the experiences in Greenland, New Zealand, Iceland and elsewhere—could be adapted for use in the state. If western Alaska rural communities could implement such a program, they could help diminish chronic unemployment and social problems, and share directly in the harvest of a multimillion-dollar fisheries resource. During the 1989 Congressional hearings on the reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, western Alaskans proposed an amend- ment expressly allowing the creation of CDQs. The idea, however, was dropped during Congressional negotiations. In the meantime, the Alaska-based seafood industry launched a campaign to convince the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to split groundfish allocations in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea between shorebased seafood processors and offshore factory trawlers. At its April, 1991 meeting, the council adopted a specific CDQ alternative for analysis as part of the inshore-offshore THE CDQ PROGRAM - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA - New Economic Potential for Western Alaska proposal. The final inshore-offshore management plan was approved by the council in June 1991, and included a provision that set aside 7.5 percent of the pollock quota in the Bering Sea (approximately 100,000 tons annually) for a four-year CDQ program. The CDQ provision was structured to give the Governor of Alaska the lead responsibility for recommend- ing who would receive quotas. In 1992, state and federal officials drafted CDQ criteria, procedures and regulations. Once all the administrative measures were approved, the state accepted CDQ applications from the eligible commun- ities of western Alaska, submitted through six newly formed or reorganized corporations, each with a corporate fishing partner. On Nov. 25,1992, Gov. Walter Hickel issued findings and recommendations for the amount of quota each applicant would receive for 1992 and 1993. The Secretary of Commerce approved the state's decision on Dec. 3,1992, and authorized the CDQ applicants to harvest their quotas. HOW CDQS WORK Applications for CDQs, based on 7.5 percent of the biologically harvestable Bering Sea pollock resource, are submitted on a biennial basis to the Governor of Alaska. The governor evaluates the applications and makes recommendations on the size of the quota to be awarded. The recommendations are reviewed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and are submitted for final approval to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. 176 Rural Alaska Policy Review Communities that are eligible to receive quotas must be located on or within 50 miles of the Bering Sea coast from the Bering Strait to the westernmost of the Aleutian Islands, or located on islands within the Bering Sea. The communities must meet the definition of Native villages under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Applications for a maximum 33 percent of the available CDQ pollock may be submitted by local fishing organizations from eligible communities or groups of communities, or a local economic development organiza- tion incorporated for the purpose of designing or implementing a Community Fisheries Development Plan. Applications must address the level of local employment that will be generated, the vocational and educational programs that will be created, and the schedule for moving from reliance on CDQs to self-sufficiency. Applications must also include detailed business plans to allow evaluation of the feasibility of the CDQ joint ventures. In these ventures, the corporate partners purchase the rights to the fish, hire western Alaskans to work at all levels of their operations, and guide the CDQ groups to full involvement in the groundfish industry. Because the total amount of CDQ pollock is limited, applications are evaluated in competition with each other on the basis of goals and objectives, realistic measurable milestones for determining progress, methods for developing a self-sustaining local fisheries economy, level of local employment, capital or equity generated for local fisheries investment and profit-sharing arrangements. The state requires active, not passive operations. The mere sale of quota and receipt of dividends is not considered acceptable. Western Alaska residents must fully participate in the fisheries. CDQ proceeds must be invested in fishery development programs and ventures that create jobs and promote stable local economies in western Alaska. CDQ recipients must file quarterly reports to allow the state to monitor their progress and compliance with program requirements. CDQ groups that represent more than one community must have at least one resident from each member community on their boards of directors. CDQ PROGRAM GOALS The overall goal of the CDQ program is to make substantial progress toward economic self-sufficiency for western Alaska through: . Promoting the economic well-being of local coastal communities through involvement in Bering Sea fishery resources. . Allowing western Alaska communities to diversify local economies. . Providing western Alaska community residents with new opportunities to obtain stable, long-term employment. . Allowing western Alaska residents a fair and reason- able opportunity to participate in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands fisheries which have been closed to them because of the high capital investments required. Six applicants received CDQ allocations in western Alaska A summary of each Development Association organization and program plan is provided below. ALEUTIAN PRIBILOF ISLAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION APICDA consists of the communities of Atka, False Pass, Nelson Lagoon, Nikolski, and St. George. Akutan and Unalaska participate in the training and education programs. APICDA received 18 percent of the pollock reserve set aside for CDQs. APICDA's corporate partners in harvesting the quota are the Trident Seafoods Corporation, one of Alaska's largest shorebased seafood processing companies, and Starbound Partnership, operator of a factory trawler. Both companies are 100 percent American-owned. The F/T Starbound was built in the United States. APICDA plans to: . Establish a comprehensive vocational education, job training, and employment program. ° Establish a higher education endowment fund for community residents who wish to pursue university degrees. . Participate in the funding for completion of the Zapadni Bay Harbor on St. George Island, creating a new commercial service center for the Bering Sea fisheries. Harbor completion will be coupled with the construction of a shoreside processing plant in 1993 and ancillary economic development. ° Complete engineering designs for a dock in Nelson Lagoon (to be constructed in 1994) and conduct an economic feasibility study on related economic develop- ment, all in cooperation with the Aleutians East Borough. ° Work with the False Pass Tribal Council to fund the construction in 1993 of a gear storage warehouse in False Pass. . Cooperate with the City of False Pass to extend water 177 ee A AR SS SRS BEES AE A SSP EEE A SRA RMN RS ‘ i — Rural Alaska Policy Review and sewer service to the new False Pass dock, making the facility ready for commercial activity. A vessel storage facility, repair facility, and/or seafood processing facility may be developed adjacent to the dock. ° Combine forces with the City of Atka to complete engineering designs for a dock (to be constructed in 1994) and conduct an economic feasibility study on related development, including a fuel-tank farm and shoreside processing plant construction. ° Make funds available for the purchase of fishing vessels, Individual Fishing Quotas, and other business opportu- nities. . Employment goal: 60 people in 1993. Contacts: Mark Snigaroff, Chairman APICDA P.O. Box 47307 Atka, Alaska 99547 (907) 839-2249 FAX: 829-2234 Larry Cotter Pacific Associates 116 Gold Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 (907) 586-3107 FAX: 586-1001 BRISTOL BAY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BBEDC consists of the Bristol Bay communities of Aleknagik, Clark's Point, Dillingham, Egegik, Ekuk, Manokotak, Naknek, Pilot Point, Port Heiden, Savonoski/ King Salmon, South Naknek, Togiak, Twin Hills, and Ugashik. BBEDC received 20 percent of the available CDQ pollock. BBEDC's corporate fishing partner is Oceantrawl Inc., an Alaska corporation operating three factory trawlers. BBEDC plans to: ° Implement a Community Development Plan in 1993 consisting of employment training programs, a small business development program, grants for value-added processing and marketing, and extension services to halt the regional loss of limited entry permits. ° Establish a Scholarship Endowment Fund in 1993 for students to attend universities or full-time vocational programs. . Set up a reserve to provide matching funds for infrastructure construction, and financing for the acquisition of Individual Fishing Quotas. . Establish the Alaska Seafood Investment Fund in 1993 to invest in a diversified series of Alaska seafood businesses both within and outside the Bristol Bay region. . Employment goal: 60 people year-round in Oceantraw/l, Inc. operations by 1993. Contact: H. Robin Samuelsen, Jr., Chairman BBEDC P.O. Box 1464 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 (907) 842-4370 FAX: 842-4336 CENTRAL BERING SEA FISHERMENS ASSOCIATION CBSFA represents the community of St. Paul in the Pribilof Islands. It received 10 percent of the Bering Sea CDQ pollock. Its corporate fishing partner is American Seafoods Company, Inc. CBSFA plans to: . Establish a boat loan program for the purchase and construction of vessels 32 to 125 ft. in length that are capable of participating in the multi species fisheries of the Bering Sea. . Set aside funds for infrastructure development on St. Paul Island. . Employment goal: 20-25 people in CDQ operation. Contact: Perfenia Pletnikoff, Jr., President CBSFA P.O. Box 88 St. Paul, Alaska 99660 (907) 546-2312 CBSFA 1300 W. 33rd Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 (907) 278-2312 FAX: 278-2316 178 Rural Alaska Policy Review COASTAL VILLAGES FISHING COOPERATIVE CVFC consists of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta communities of Chefornak, Chevak, Eek, Goodnews Bay, Hooper Bay, Kipnuk, Kongiganak, Kwigillingok, Mekoryuk, Newtok, Nightmute, Platinum, Quinhagak, Scammon Bay, Toksook Bay, Tuntutuliak, and Tununak. CVFC received 27 percent of the available pollock CDQ. CVFC's corporate partner is Golden Age Fisheries, owner of five factory trawlers involved in Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska fisheries. CVFC plans to: ° Purchase 50 percent equity in the 197 ft. factory trawler Browns Point with the long-term goal of owning, managing, and operating a fleet of at sea processing and harvesting vessels. . Establish a "Salmon Roe University" to train residents of the region to be salmon roe technicians. . Purchase or construct a salmon processor to operate in the lower Kuskokwim River. . Self-assess the equivalent of the State of Alaska's fisheries business tax and dedicate this money to grants for fisheries infrastructure development. . Train individuals from CVFC member villages to work at all levels of the groundfish industry—harvesting, processing, marketing, and corporate management. ° Establish a Coastal Villages Scholarship Fund for careers in the fisheries and fisheries management. . Create a financing mechanism for purchasing and repatriating salmon and herring entry permits to the region. . Create a financing mechanism for the purchase of vessels for local and near shore fisheries. . Employment goal: 51-70 people by 1993. Contact: Norman Cohen CVFC 204 North Franklin Street, #1 Juneau, Alaska 99801 (907) 586-2360 FAX: 586-2331 NORTON SOUND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NSEDC consists of the Norton Sound, Little Diomede Island, St. Lawrence Island and Seward Peninsula communities of Brevig Mission, Diomede / Inalik, Elim, Gambell, Golovin, Koyuk, Nome, St. Michael, Savoonga, Shaktoolik, Stebbins, Teller, Unalakleet, Wales, and White Mountain. NSEDC received a 20 percent share of the CDQ. NSEDC's corporate fishing partner is Glacier Fish Company, Ltd. NSEDC plans to: . Pioneer new markets for salmon and herring starting in 1993 when Glacier Fish Company will buy and market all salmon species and 1,500 tons of herring. . Provide low-interest loans starting in the spring of 1993 for the region's fishermen to purchase Norton Sound salmon and herring permits, fishing gear, and to upgrade boats. . Establish a program for training up to 80 residents of the region each year in the skills necessary to work on fishing boats and in shoreside plants, and to help them get jobs in the fishing industry. ° Award scholarships each year to residents interested in obtaining advanced education and technical school training in fisheries-related areas. ° Work with the school district to establish salmon hatchery programs in every school in the region, and hold more commercial herring and salmon fisheries workshops. . Establish a construction fund to revitalize shoreside fish processing in Unalakleet, Shaktoolik, Golovin and Moses Point, and explore building processing plants in other communities. . Purchase a fishing vessel capable of catching and processing halibut, black cod, and other species, and serving as a salmon and herring tender or processor. ° Create new fishing opportunities through regulatory changes and technical assistance, targeting halibut in St. Lawrence Island near shore water, crab in Norton Sound and elsewhere, and groundfish species such as tomcod. ° Establish a permanent endowment, providing funds after 1996 to build a regional workforce through fisheries skills training, scholarships, and employment programs. ° Employment goal: 80 people in CDQ operations. Contact: John Jemewouk, Executive Director NSEDC P.O. Box 39089 Elim, Alaska 99739 (907) 890-2248 FAX: 890-2249 179 Rural Alaska Policy Review YUKON DELTA FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION YDFDA represents the Yukon Delta communities of Alakanuk, Emmonak, Kotlik, and Sheldon Point. YDFDA received five percent of the available CDQ. YDFDA's corporate fishing partner is Golden Alaska Seafoods. YDFDA plans to: ° Establish a training program for up to 258 residents by 1995. . Develop a fleet of small catcher vessels designed to operate in local longline and/or pot fisheries. . Participate with the Emmonak Co-op and the Emmonak Tribal Council in the construction and operation of a shoreside processing and cold storage facility. . Set up a fund for purchasing salmon limited entry permits. ° Explore halibut and cod fisheries in the upper Bering Sea. : Employment goal: 50 people in CDQ operations by 1995. Contact: Edwin H. Glotfelty, Executive Director YDFDA P.O. Box 210 Emmonak, Alaska 99581 YDFDA 2415 Western Ave., Suite 415 Seattle, Washington 98121 (907) 949-1314 FAX: 949-1926 (206) 443-1565 FAX: 443-1912 FUTURE ISSUES The CDQ program, along with the inshore-offshore allocation plan, will expire in 1995. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted the initial CDQ plan as a temporary measure with the expectation that a comprehensive rationalization plan — establishing allocation systems for all fisheries under federal management—would then be ready for adoption. In the meantime, many major CDQ-related issues remain to be resolved: . Will the CDQ program prove valuable enough that its existence should be extended past 1995? . Should CDQs be implemented for crab, Pacific gray cod, rock sole, yellowfin sole, and other Bering Sea species? If so, how should these CDQs be designed? . How will the CDQs that are a part of the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) allocation system for halibut and sablefish be implemented? . Should pollock CDQs continue or should they be converted to IFQs? . Should the Magnuson Act, up for Congres- sional re authorization in 1993, be amended to include CDQs? The CDQ program brings a new group of people into the industry as major participants. The state and federal governments, as well as private industry groups, will closely monitor the CDQ program to determine if it is successful in achieving its goals. While the information and results will be debated in fishery forums for many years, no one can deny that a new set of issues will challenge the industry and that the criteria and standards for federal fisheries allocations have changed forever. This article is a reprinted from the publication produced by the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association in March, 1993 with information supplied by the State of Alaska—Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Department of Commerce and Economic Development Department of Fish and Game— the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Redevelopment Association the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation the Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, the Coastal Villages Fishing Cooperative, the Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation and the Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association Bering Sea Fishermen's Association 725 Christensen Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99501 tel: (907) 279-6519 180 Rural Alaska Policy Review ARDOR: SHAPING ALASKA'S FUTURE Alaska Regional Development Organizations Program January 1994 With an economy fueled primarily by the extraction and sale of natural resources, Alaska's economic health is too often determined by events and forces beyond our control. While state government cannot guarantee a revenue stream sufficient to meet the needs of all its constituencies, it can encourage and support efforts to develop more stable and diverse local economies. This is the underlying philosophy of the Alaska Re- gional Development Organizations, or ARDOR, program. De- signed by the Alaska Division of Economic Development and signed into law in 1988, its purpose is to facilitate economic development at the regional and local level through a network of designated public/private organizations. The program's underlying goal is the creation of private sector employment through local economic development and capacity building. It supports a "bottoms up" approach which holds that sustainable economic development is best accomplished through local determination of needs and priorities and ownership in the resulting projects. Through this program, nearly 200 represen- tatives of local political, social and economic interests, who serve on ARDOR boards of directors, are working together to lead their regions to greater economic self-sufficiency. The program's authorizing statute, AS 44.33.026, al- lows a maximum of 15 ARDORs statewide with only one organization designated within a specified region. Now, 14 ARDORs are operating and serving 96 percent of the state's population. To qualify for designation, applicant organizations must meet specific criteria that insure their broad-based public and private sector support and commit to carrying out detailed work programs that address their region's economic develop- ment issues. The program allows maximum flexibility for determining local priorities, but it requires that ARDORs retain qualified, professional staff to administer their programs and that they work with the private sector, local communities, development agencies and organizations within their regions to produce a regional economic development strategy. The ARDOR program is administered by the Division of Economic Development which reviews annual ARDOR work programs, awards matching grants to support their efforts and provides continuing technical and professional support services to help them achieve their goals. Because annual grants from the U.S. Economic Development Administration, matched by state CIP dollars, provide the funds for the state personnel and technical assistance support, all state operating budget appropriations to the program are passed directly to the ARDORs. For Fiscal Year 1994, $900,000 was appropriated to the program which allows matching grants up to $64,300 to each of the 14 ARDORs. These grants have impact far in excess of their dollar value because they are not tied to specific projects, but may be used for operating expenses and to capital- ize on emerging opportunities. Additionally, these grants leverage many times their value from private, federal and other funding sources. Recently some structural changes in the program have been implemented that improve the financial position of the ARDORs and position them for a greater role in the delivery of services to local constituencies. These changes arose from the 1993 Legislature's passage of SB142, amending the ARDOR program statute by: ° increasing the annual grant ceiling from $50,000 to $100,000 and providing for a graduated formula for calculating the required local match; . limiting the civil liability of ARDOR board members and staff; and . exempting contracts between ARDORs and state agencies from the state procurement process. This final provision has particularly significant impli- cations because it provides a mechanism for state agencies to investigate options for most cost effective delivery of programs and services throughout the state by contracting directly with local organizations. The benefits may include reduce state operating costs and bringing service delivery closer to the customers. ARDORs are well aware of the need to demonstrate productivity. While much of the emphasis in their formative years has necessarily been on organizational development, ARDORs have monitored their performance and highlights of that information can be found on following pages. A more 18] Rural Alaska Policy Review quantitative evaluation system is now being developed for integration into the Fiscal Year 95 ARDOR work programs. This is viewed not only as a way to be accountable for invest- ments in economic development, but also as a tool for improved organizational management and the rational allocation of re- sources. The ARDOR program has put in place a statewide network of organizations dedicated to the growth of sustainable local economies. While each region has its own unique chal- lenges and opportunities, there is much they can learn from one another and there are many opportunities for interregional cooperation and mentoring. The Association of Alaska ARDORs has been formed to promote this cooperative relationship and to serve as a forum for addressing issues of mutual interest. The ARDOR program typifies the nation's growing shift to regionalism. Many of the federal programs promoting this concept were created in the 1960s. But today, regionalism is viewed less as a luxury and more as a necessity as rural and metropolitan areas struggle to create jobs and build local economies. Through the ARDOR program, both state govern- ment and the ARDORs have been able to draw on the expertise and resources of national organizations such as the National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) to ad- dress issues relating to organizational management, issues analysis, program design and implementation, as well as to speak for Alaska's regional development interests at the na- tional level. Further evidence of NADO's commitment to supporting regionalism throughout the country is its recent decision to hold its 1997 annual conference in Anchorage. This event, with an estimated 800 participants, will bring national and regional leaders in economic development to Alaska for a first hand look at hour this state is meeting the challenge of empowering citizens to solve their own problems. A thumbnail sketch of each ARDOR; Anchorage Economic Development Corporation Mike E. Stone, Chairman Scott Hawkins, Executive Director The Anchorage Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) is the designated ARDOR for the Anchorage area. Since its inception in 1988, the AEDC's private sector board of directors has measured its success by direct, permanent job creation and has set ambitious job creation goals for itself each year. AEDC's job creation goal for the period 1988-1993 was 1,270 new direct jobs and 899 new indirect jobs in Anchor- age. This goal was exceeded by 46 percent by creating 1,859 direct jobs in that time period. Based on annual average wage data from the Alaska Department of Labor, this translates into an annual impact of more than $59 million. AEDC's job creation numbers do not include jobs created or retained as a result of the Buy Alaska program which AEDC co-founded and supports. Buy Alaska estimates its impact to date at more than 200 direct jobs and missions of dollars retained in Alaska's economy. In addition to direct creation, AEDC pursues initia- tives that provide incentives for future economic development and job creation. It has worked effectively with the State Legislature on several tax incentive bills. AEDC also negoti- ated an incentive "back haul" shipping rate with Sea~-Land Freight Service which has encouraged the formation and expan- sion of manufacturing in Alaska. AEDC worked with the Legislature in 1992 to modify AIDEA statutes to allow the authority to finance tourism resorts and attractions and in 1993 was successful in its request for a tourism marketing appropria- tion that is being used to increase international tourism in Alaska, particularly from Japan and Korea. This highlights only some of AEDC's projects and accomplishments. Readers are invited to contact AEDC's office for details on job creation numbers, its role in specific projects and for the 1994 work plan. Arctic Development Council Conrad Bagne, President Don Schindler, Executive Director The Arctic Development Council (ADC), the desig- nated ARDOR for the North Slope Borough region, is a cohe- sive organization with a committed membership and board of directors. ADC has emerged as the bridge between the region's various economic development organizations and the liaison to outside agencies. Among its accomplishments: . The ADC has conducted successful regional develop- ment strategy conferences in 1992 and 1993 with another planned for 1994. . The ADC has been seminal in the formation of a local Tourism Marketing Council which will be expanded to provide regionwide services. . The ADC is promoting the establishment of an Arts Marketing Council to increase income opportunities and de- velop larger markets for traditional arts and crafts produced in the region. . With support from ADC, the Barrow Cultural Center Commission has prepared a mission statement and institutional 182 Rural Alaska Policy Review goals and objectives, while examining funding options for the long-term operation of the proposed facility. ° ADC has become the primary advocate for the privatization of municipal services. This is resulting in the development of a comprehensive Workforce Development Plan designed to integrate vocational training and mentor relationships within an incubator setting, ultimately to facilitate transfer of local infrastructure operational responsibility to village entities. . ADC is organizing regional activities in preparation for participation in the Winter Cities Showcase of the Northern Intercity Conference to be held in March 1994 in Anchorage. . ADC is preparing an application for U.S. Soil Conser- vation Service designation as a Resource Conservation and Development district to bring additional technical and financial resources to bear on regional economic development efforts. Bering Strait Economic Council Stan Anderson, President Mike Rink, Executive Director The Bering Strait Economic Council (BSEC) serves 16 villages in the Bering Strait region of western Alaska. The organization is currently undergoing reorganization following nearly a year of inactivity and is restructuring its programs to more effectively meet the needs of the region. BSEC is presently involved in the development of the local fishing industry, including assisting the City of Nome with a comprehensive study that will provide the basis for their investment in infrastructure to support the rapid growth in the region's fishing industry. BSEC is assisting with the creation and startup of a local fishing cooperative that will serve the needs of fishermen regionwide by establishing stable markets for locally-harvested fish that do not now exist and have historically inhibited the local growth of this industry. These efforts will create opportunities for the single fisherman who may want to purchase a boat, all the way to business-minded individuals who will pool their capital to buy and process fish locally. The anticipated result will be 40 to 50 new jobs in the region and an annual stimulus to local economies of $1 million and more. These efforts are being coordinated with the region's CDQ (Community Development Quota) group so that maxi- mum regional benefit is realized. Additionally, BSEC is continuing to provide assis- tance to local entrepreneurs who have the desire to state new businesses but lack the expertise or experience. en ES SS SEES EE PE A RA RS NEES Copper Valley Economic Development Council Carol Neely, President Donna Tollman, Executive Director The Copper Valley Economic Development Council (CVEDC) is currently engaged in a number of projects, as stipulated in its five-year strategic plan. Workforce developmentis a priority for the region and the CVEDC continues to conduct youth and adult JTPA pro- grams directed at assisting participants attain educational ob- jectives and occupational training as well as determine long- term goals. All program participants are employed for a minimum of 100 hours in mentor-supported, vocational explo- ration worksites throughout the region. CVEDC has undertaken a highly successful program to remove junk cars from the Copper Valley region. To date, 793 cars have been crushed and 591 shipped from the region. This project supports public and private efforts to develop increased visitor industry business to the region by improving its overall appearance as well as reducing local health and safety hazards. CVEDC is working with residents and businesses of Lake Louise to develop the area as a year-round tourism destination. Generic promotional and informational brochures have been developed and cooperative advertising has been placed in print media. CVEDC is now working on signage to bring increased visitation to the area. Service gaps have also been identified that represent opportunities for local business expansion or for new business startups. CVEDC's client base has increased as technical and informational assistance is made available to help small busi- ness owners stabilize or expand their businesses and area residents realize their entrepreneurial dreams. In addition to one-on-one counseling, educational workshops are conducted with support from local banks, the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and the University of Alaska Small Business Development Center. CVEDC has been most effective in coordinating re- sources within the region. The Copper Basin Managers, repre- senting a broad spectrum of private, public, state and federal agencies now meets on a regular basis to coordinate the devel- opment and implementation of local projects. This coordina- tion of resources and manpower has enabled several projects to move ahead that singularly would not have succeeded. 183 Rural Alaska Policy Review Interior Alaska Economic Development Council Joseph Fields, President Henry Cole, Executive Director The Interior Alaska Economic Development Council (IAEDC) promotes and coordinates business development ac- tivities in the Fairbanks North Star Borough region, including North Pole, Ester, Salcha, Delta and Nenana. The IAEDC believes that a key source of economic growth is based in promoting the efforts of local citizens to realize their unique entrepreneurial dreams. To support this belief, IAEDC coordinates the delivery of services available from state and federal agencies as well as offering its own programs in small loans, capital network formation, rural and site specific tourism development and the application of Uni- versity of Alaska resources to economic development prob- lems. The proposed Alaska Pork Project is an illustration of the coordinative role this organization is playing. The project, one of the most significant economic development opportuni- ties to appear in Alaska for some time, has the potential to create more than 500 long-term jobs. Because of the special relation- ship between state government and the ARDORs and the regional capabilities of the IAEDC, this organization has been able to play a critical role in raising local funds and support for a comprehensive feasibility analysis of this proposed enter- prise. To move the project forward, the IAEDC has appeared before local government officials in the North Star Borough, the cities of North Pole, Delta and Nenana and before the Alaska Railroad board of directors. The resulting support of these organizations and others, and the leadership of the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, have insured that this project will be thoroughly and professionally examined to the benefit of all Alaskans. As state revenues decline, greater demand for eco- nomic development will necessarily be placed on local initia- tives, adding value and doing more with our natural resources. These are tasks for which the IAEDC has the commitment, the tools and the capability. Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development District James Elson, Chairman Stan Steadman, Executive Director The Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Develop- ment District (EDD) aggressively pursues job retention/cre- ation for the borough and Alaska. Since recognition as an ARDOR in 1989, the EDD has achieved national acclaim. Critical to its continued success is a partnership with the state in leveraging other public and private resources. Examples of 1993 projects include: . Shellfish Development -- In cooperation with the Kachemak Bay and Alaska shellfish growers and university researchers, successfully demonstrated that nursery culture of oysters can be done in the cold waters of Alaska, expanding the potential of this emerging industry. . Public Works -- Homer Airport improvements com- pleted, which includes funding facilitated by the EDD. Since 1989, the EDD has played a key role in packaging funding for $10 million in public works projects with the potential of 967 jobs retained and created. . International Trade -- Initiated a cooperative research project with the city of Akita, Japan to determine the commer- cial potential of Pacific sandfish harvest and processing in Alaska. Joint ventures with Russian communities also are in progress through a USIA grant. . Health Care -- Developed a plan for more efficient delivery of health care which is being refined to demonstrate local initiative in support of Alaska and federal health care reform. . Business Development -- Provided business consulta- tion and training to more than 200 individuals and businesses, cooperated with the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs to package Rural Development Initiative Fund (RDIF) business loans and established a Kenai Peninsula $280,000 revolving loan fund. . Tourism Development -- Through the Tourism Mar- keting Council established by the EDD in 1991 (currently 280 members), creatively marketed the Kenai Peninsula as a year- round visitor destination and initiated the Alaska (Cook Inlet) Volcano Interpretive Center Project. . Other -- Involvement in oil and gas, timber, commu- nity development, economic and demographic data research, resource conservation, aerospace, convention promotion and planning and related projects. Kuskokwim Economic Development Council Dennis Thomas, President Jeannie Wooderson, Executive Director The Kuskokwim Economic Development Council (KEDC) was officially recognized as the ARDOR for the middle Kuskokwim region in 1991. The organization was formed to stimulate economic development and diversity, to act as a catalyst and educator and as a liaison for the region to the 184 Rural Alaska Policy Review myriad of federal and state agencies involved in economic development. KEDC immediately developed a regional five- year strategic plan, village profiles and a regional resources directory. KEDC's annual work plan is derived from its strategic plan which identifies tourism development and the establishment of a regional arts and crafts cooperative as priorities. Last summer's failed chum salmon run, resulting in an economic disaster area declaration, emphasized even more the need for moving ahead on these and other economic diversification projects in the region. Priority projects for this year include: . developing a self-sufficiency plan for the Interior Rivers Arts and Crafts Cooperative including pursuing funding for a general manager and bookkeeper and advertising and marketing its sales promotion materials nationally and interna- tionally. There are now more than 70 members in the coopera- tive and its success will generate an additional 2 to 7 new jobs in the Co-op's management. . developed regional tourism including building the Aniak Visitor Center, implementing a regional cooperative marketing plan and providing hospitality training to area resi- dents. Directly and indirectly, more than 60 jobs are impacted within the region with the potential to create at least 30 more. . identifying and implementing economic development projects in the region utilizing support form the U.S. Economic Development Administration's disaster relief funds. The challenges are great and diverse and each small success, each job has a tremendous impact. In this region, where no roads join any of the villages and unemployment is twice the statewide average, more than 90 percent of the available jobs are supported by state and federal funding. KEDC is working to change this. Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development Council Ted Moses, Chairman Carl Berger, Executive Director The Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development Council (LKEDC) has been operating since January 1992 and serves Bethel and 26 surrounding villages in southwest main- land Alaska. During this time the LKEDC has produced a regional strategic plan for the lower Kuskokwim and Bering Coast area and a set of community economic profiles, a first time effort for many of the region's villages. LKEDC's initial efforts have been directed toward capacity building for self-governance and self-sufficiency and to establish a point of contact in each village for local planning and development activities. LKEDC's board of directors con- sists of 15 members who are experienced in business activities throughout the region and are interested and willing to work with newly-developing businesses and entrepreneurs. LKEDC held a highly successful regionwide economic devel- opment conference in October 1993 to encourage and imple- ment local business development projects and to provide the tools to begin locally-based small businesses. At this time, LKEDC is working with individuals and communities on ventures in fish processing, fur trapping, tourism development and marketing, small business startups and the preparation of proposals and applications for project funding. These tasks are undertaken with minimal state finan- cial support and liberal technical assistance from state and federal agencies. Lower Yukon Economic Development Council Larry Lujan, President Susan Anderson, Executive Director The Lower Yukon Economic Development Council (LYEDC), formed in late 1991 by the Coastal Mayors Associa- tion, has only recently been able to overcome its uneasy beginnings. Since hiring a full-time executive director in December 1993, the organization has established a meaningful presence in the region that is fueling its residents' strong desire for greater economic opportunity. The LYEDC is focused solely on diversifying the region's economy and providing the hands-on support that will allow successful business startup and operations. Already, LYEDC's executive director has traveled from her St. Mary's base to each of the region's 10 villages to work with individuals to write business plans, do feasibility studies, research costs, obtain financing, help with record keeping and business taxes and interface with government agencies. This effort has been extremely successful in aregion that has traditionally suffered because of a lack of consistently available technical assistance. LYEDCalso is working to develop several regionwide projects. Two examples are: * A local credit union. There currently are no banking or lending institutions in the region. Itis difficult for individuals to get financing or to even establish a banking history. A credit union will allow people to obtain small business loans and to have access to those basic financial services readily available elsewhere. ° A regional training facility. LYEDC is working to establish a regional training center focusing on Native arts and crafts and business education. The goal is to have village elders 185 Rural Alaska Policy Review teach master level skills to young artisans and to train them to start their own businesses. This will work in conjunction with a regional arts and crafts cooperative to market the region's products worldwide. These are locally-conceived ideas with broad-based support. They, and any other projects, will succeed only with guidance and support from local people. The ARDOR program and the LYEDC allows people to develop projects they believe in and can control. Mat-Su Resource Conservation and Development Inc. Elsie O'Bryan, President Mat-Su Resource Conservation & Development Inc. (Mat-Su RC&D), which was awarded ARDOR designation in November 1993, represents the innovative interaction of alocal board of directors, staffing support from the U.S. Soil Conser- vation Service and, now, the added resources of the ARDOR program. The organization, prior to ARDOR designation, has been extremely effective in the development and presentation of training seminars in such topics as forest practices, ground water protection and solid waste management and recycling. Additionally, Mat-SU RC&D arranged for specialized techni- cal assistance for the assessment of soils and natural resources in the area under consideration for development of a tourism facility near Knik Glacier. Recently, the Mat-SU RC&D hosed a conference of RC&D organizations from Hawaii, Guam and Washington during which a Pacific Rim RC&D Association was formed for future interaction. The organization has played a key role in coordinating the transfer of land and assets of the Big Lake Fish Hatchery from the state to the Matanuska Susitna Borough and will continue to work on the development of a long-term plan for the operation and management of the facility which will emphasize education and tourism values as well as minimal fish produc- tion. These resources and activities will remain in place as the organization develops and its expanded role as an ARDOR brings complimentary resources to further the economic devel- opment goals of the Mat-Su region. Northwest Arctic Borough Economic Development Commission Charlie Curtis, Chairman Mike Moore, Interim Director The Northwest Arctic Economic Development Com- mission (NABEDC) has learned that the establishment of businesses other than retail and service trades has not worked well when established as small, private concerns. Accordingly, the NABEDC's business development efforts are shifting to community-based, Community-owned enterprises. These are rather more difficult to develop, but ultimately are more likely to succeed in creating jobs and bringing new money into local economies. Currently a river tour business based from Kiana, a road tour based from Deering, and a bottled water plant in Amblerare receiving technical assistance. Two of these projects may be implemented within a year, while the other will take longer. Apart from its community-based efforts, the NABEDC has assisted in the formation of a local minority-owned general contracting business and the establishment and expansion of several retail businesses. Financing is always a major obstacle with loans hard to obtain even with well-documented business plans. For example, the Rural Development Initiative Fund (RDIF) has made no loans in this region. Two Community Business Practitioners are being trained and established in local villages, having now completed half of the requirements for certification as economic develop- ment professionals. Their presence greatly enhances the NABEDC's ability to work on community projects with close technical assistance. One community has now prepared its own Overall Economic Development Plan and two more are follow- ing suit. This is a positive step as the level of commitment from the community is much greater when they own their develop- ment plans. 186 ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE 1994 POLICY STATEMENTS 217 Second Street. Suite 200 * Juneau. Alaska 99801- Tel (907)586-1325. FAX (907)463-5480 On behalf of the Alaska Municipal League (AML), its Board of Directors, and its member municipalities, I am proud to present the 1994 AML Policy Statement. This Policy Statement represents the combined effort and collective best judgment of a broad spectrum of elected and appointed local officials as to desirable public policy on a range of current state, federal, and municipal issues. It is the League's primary guide for legislative and other activity. The AML Policy Statement is reviewed and updated each year. Following each legislative session, the League's Board and Legislative Committee begin again the process of examining the local government situation and identifying those issues that will be of most concern to local government in the session to come as well as matters of continuing interest. Meeting in subcommittees and small groups to study problems and coming together jointly to forge a consensus, these local leaders and others of the League's membership develop a policy proposal for consideration at the Annual Local Government Conference, held in November. After debate and consideration of the issues by conference participants, a statement of policy for the year to come is adopted. The attached document was adopted at the annual business meeting on November 12, 1993. This Policy Statement and the accompanying Resolu- tions provide the League's direction to action during the year. In their conduct of the League's service work and its legislative program, the Board and staff will look to these documents for guidance as to the desires of the membership. The Policy Statement deals broadly with municipal issues, but it does not prioritize them in specific terms for any one year. The League's Board does, however, adopt a statement of legislative priorities for each year, the Municipal Platform. The Platform is based on the Policy Statement and membership perceptions of the current relative importance of various issues. In 1994 the League's top legislative priorities (not in order) are the following: ¢ Open Meetings Act Clarification and Amendment The Alaska Municipal League supports amendment of the Open Meetings Act (AS 44.62.310) to ¢ clarify what constitutes a "meeting" * clarify who is subject to the Act * clarify provisions regarding executive sessions to provide limited decision-making authority «amend provisions governing remedies for violations of the Act to allow the courts greater flexibility ¢ Municipal Assistance and Revenue Sharing Program Funding The Alaska Municipal League supports funding for the Municipal Assistance (AS 29.60.350) and State Revenue Sharing (AS 29.60.010) programs at the FY 94 level ($39,912,100 for Municipal Assistance and $32,809,700 for Revenue Sharing) in recognition of the state's responsibility to share revenues from Alaska's commonly held resources equita- bly to benefit its citizens. The League urges the development of and will seek to achieve a balanced single program for distribu- tion of these revenues to local government; however, until a satisfactory alternative has been put into place, current funding levels for the existing programs must be maintained. * Unfunded Mandate of Senior Citizens/Disabled Veterans Property Tax The Alaska Municipal League supports elimination of the unfunded mandate imposed on municipalities by AS 29.45.030, which establishes the Senior Citizens/Disabled Veterans Property Tax Exemption Program. The League sup- ports legislation that would allow municipal governments to, by local option, grant property tax relief to senior citizens and disabled veterans by exempting or deferring taxes on all or part of the value of eligible property. * Comprehensive Transportation Plan The Alaska Municipal League supports the develop- ment of a statewide comprehensive transportation plan that combines overall state needs with regional transportation plan- ning and involves local governments in the planning process. The statewide plan should define state versus local responsibili- ties in transportation and provide a means of allocating funds to meet the responsibilities accordingly. Transportation planning should include all modes of transportation -- surface, marine, and air transport. ¢ School Construction and Maintenance Funding The Alaska Municipal League supports appropriation of adequate funding to meet the school construction and main- tenance needs of Alaska's school districts. The League supports distribution of this funding within the priority-based programs for new construction and maintenance and urges the Depart- ment of Education and the legislature to give credit for the commitment of districts to ongoing maintenance when deter- mining need. continued on Page 197 Member of the National League of Cities and the National Association of Counties 187 RURAL ALASKA POLICY REVIEW Lee Gorsuch, Director, Institute of Social and Economic Research, School of Public Affairs, University of Alaska Anchorage, February 1, 1994. In response to Rep. Eileen MacLean's request to comment on recommendations made to the House Economic Task Force. What steps could the State take to create a coherent rural development policy? The question is a complicated one. Generally, development policy reflects the steps or phases of a traditional planning model. It: . defines terms (what we mean by development). . identifies problems development is to solve. . sets clearly stated goals (what we hope to achieve and for whom). . calls for an assessment of past, present and future strengths and weaknesses and treats and opportunities. . supports developing a strategy which outlines how to go about building on strengths and capitalize on opportuni- ties and compensate for weaknesses and neutralize threats. . calls for and develops a work plan and budget (identifying who does what, when, with whom, for how much and with what result). . marshals needed resources and implements the plan. . calls for monitoring and evaluating results and modifying the plan as needed to accomplish desired goals. In a state as large and diverse as Alaska, I would focus primary attention on building the capacities of rural people and their institutions. This would help ensure that tural residents will have a meaningful voice in defining what development is wanted and influencing who will benefit from it. It would also increase the likelihood that rural people and institutions are involved in whatever the rural development process becomes. Focusing on developing the capacities of people also helps ensure that rural residents can compete with urban folks and can choose where they want to live. BUILDING PEOPLE'S CAPACITIES The principle approach to building people's capacities is through schooling, including early childhood (actually pre-pregnancy education), through post secondary COMMENT ON “™ RECOMMENDATIONS MADE TO THE HOUSE ECONOMIC TASK FORCE. education, and through adult literacy and training programs. In my view, Alaska would do well to invest more in the early years of a child's life and to ensure rural kids from small high schools have opportunities to experience the social life of a larger high school before they graduate. We would also do well to concentrate on ensuring non-college bound students, both urban and rural, have marketable skills which will support them and their future families before they exit from their schooling. STRENGTHEN THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITIES To strengthen the institutional capacities of rural areas, I would focus on conferring sufficient authority and responsibility to appropriate governmental entities at both the regional and village levels to ensure residents have a voice over and a role in matters of importance to their own welfare. This could include not only management of fish and game, the development of natural resources and some sharing of the revenues from those resources, but also the provision of basic governmental services, including education. In this regard, I would encourage universal requirements of local contributions to education and municipal assistance on an equalization basis as a condition of receiving state aid and giving all localities comparable authority to govern the delivery of local services. My focus on strengthening the capacity of people and their institutions is not to suggest that the state or rural communities should not pursue site specific natural resource developments in and near rural communities; rather it simply suggests that deciding who will have what authority and capacity to participate in such developments would be useful, if not a necessary pre-condition to creating state-rural-private rural development partnerships. 188 Rural Alaska Policy Review "BANKING ARRIVES IN ALASKA'S BUSH VILLAGES; Meeting a Unique CRA Challenge," Pita Jelley Benz, vice president, National Bank of Alaska, Community Investments, Federal Reserve Bank of San Fran- cisco, Vol. IV, No. IV, Fall 1992 Alaska, America's "last frontier," has an aura about it that tantalizes the imagination. The vastness of the state and the cultural characteristics of the Alaska Native population provide extra challenges for institutions seeking ways to meet the mandates of the Community Reinvestment Act. Yet, at National Bank of Alaska (NBA), the largest bank in the state, creative programs and acore of dedicated employees have resulted in an impressive list of accomplish- ments. One of the more unusual challenges facing Alaska's banks stems from identifying and serving the needs of the state's Native population. According to the 1990 census, Alaska Natives make up 15.6 percent of the state's population of 550,043 people. The Native population is split between 56 percent in rural Alaska and 44 percent in urban areas. Over the last 20 years, Alaska Natives have been making the transition from a subsistence lifestyle to a cash-based economy. The impetus for this was the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Act of 1971, which resolved issues of Native land claims in the new state. ANCSA established 12 (soon to be 13) regional profit-making corporations and over 200 village cor- porations which would eventually have title to 44 million acres of land and $962.5 million. Banking is a relatively new concept in rural Alaska. Non-urban communities are just beginning to build local cash- based village economies. Previously, most rural villages based their livelihoods on subsistence. This lifestyle encompasses the customary and traditional use of wild renewable resources, including making and selling handicrafts for direct personal and family consumption and for trade, barter or sharing. To reach out and meet the needs of Native Alaskans, and Alaskans of all cultures living in rural communities, NBA has embarked on a multi-faceted program of education and needs assessment One of the foundations of the bank's strategy is that community development is necessary prior to business devel- opment. In rural areas the bank strives to get members of the community to know and trust bankers as individuals. This is especially important for a customer base not used to bringing money toa financial institution for safekeeping. Only the larger rural communities have NBA branches, so extensive travel by bank employees is required for effective community outreach. Several bank employees also speak the local languages, which helps make communication easier. Another important source of the community/bank partnership is NBA's network of 25 community advisory boards. Started decades ago as a means to benefit from the wealth of local knowledge of our customers, these advisory boards meet monthly and are included in branch and bank-wide activities. Education of basic banking issues and the fundamen- tals of a cash economy is another area of focus for NBA's outreach program. The bank's Barrow branch has developed a series of 3-minute public service announcements to be aired on local public radio. The series, entitled "Money Minutes by NBA," covers various financial topics. Barrow branch person- nel also encourage customers to bring in their account state- ments to be balanced by bank staff. This has served to help customers overcome their discomfort with checking accounts and has reduced the number of bank overdrafts. Many branches also have staff that work with local schools using a "Banking in the School" program designed to teach students basic money management skills. Another full range of activities has been oriented toward businesses. One very successful component of NBA's marketing program has been to supply village stores with cardboard counter signs soliciting loans. Consumer loan appli- cations are also provided along with the name and phone number of the nearest NBA branch manager. Management of the Bethel branch developed a loan workshop which helps to demystify banking and explain the process of applying for a loan, as well as what constitutes credit worthiness. The workshop materials have been adapted suc- cessfully by several other branches with tangible results. Feed- back from customers reveals that many new lending opportuni- ties exist in rural Alaska, although people are intimidated by the loan application process. In fact, the workshops have generated a significant increase in loan applications, generally with a high approval rate. This is in large measure due to the workshop curriculum, where customers become familiar with the bank's requirements for down payments, collateral and repayment loans. 189 Rural Alaska Policy Review Raral Development /nitlative Fund Other activities have included home mortgage and tax seminars. NBA's Community Relations Department produces a quarterly newsletter, "Business Cache," intended to spark a network among small business owners in rural areas and provide banking information targeted to their needs. A Rural Small Business Round Table is also held routinely as a way for NBA to learn what assistance is available to small businesses by state and federal agencies and how the bank might fill any potential financial gaps. One project which grew out of the Round Table was a Rural Small Business Conference co- sponsored by the bank. The conference was attended by over 180 participants from rural Alaska and over 60 vendors who participated in a trade show. NBA has also developed new products in acknowl- edgment of different cultural values of our Native customers. For example, Barrow branch management developed a savings coupon program that has been implemented bank wide. The motivation behind this program is the Native culture's strong tradition of sharing; accumulation of materials wealth is not stressed. Thus, to help customers save money for home mortgage or consumer loan down payments, the Marketing Department was asked to design a special saving coupon book. Depositing a set amount of money on a monthly basis is treated more like a "bill" to be paid, prior to sharing the excess funds with family and community. The savings coupon program is an example of adapting a bank product to meet unique cultural values. Business loans for rural NBA is also keenly aware that our diverse customer base represents marketing challenges. We are sensitive to the fact that people in communities like Barrow have different needs and communication styles and perceive our advertising differently than people in urban areas such as Anchorage. In response, special advertising programs are in development for non urban communities. These campaigns will have a focus different from those designed for urban areas, again acknowl- edging the newness of a cash-based economy in much of Alaska. Limited advertisements were also run last year in the Yupik language. Maintaining a sensitivity to the cultural differences of our customers also means focusing on the attitudes of employ- ees. In recognition of this, NBA has held several cross cultural workshops for branch managers in rural areas and other key employees. The purpose of these sessions is to expose partici- pants to the culture, history and issues of rural Alaska in an effort to increase understanding about Alaska Natives and their communities. In summary, the key to effectively serving our Native and rural customers is to be active in the community, sensitive to the cultural diversity, and flexible and willing to change bank attitudes, products and services to meet the varied needs of our customers. Rural Alaska Policy Review Alaska Federation of Natives GOALS FOR THE 1990's The following mission statement and goals were adopted at the 1988 AFN Annual Convention to set the broad agenda for Native people and their organizations in this final decade of the 20th Century . With respect for our elders and ancestors, and in dedication to our children and future genera- tions, we are hereby committed to: * Protect the use, occupancy, and ownership of Native lands ¢ Promote the highest possible quality of life for Alaska Native people ¢ Promote control by Alaska Natives over their lives, commu- nities and the institutions that affect them * Preserve and strengthen Alaska Native cultures ¢ Foster an understanding of Alaska Native cultures within the larger society ¢ Secure equitable participation in the educa tional, health, social, political, and economic systems that affect Alaska Natives ¢ Promote and protect the unique, special relationship and entitlements that exist between Alaska Natives (and Native institutions) and the federal government ¢ Promote the recognition and development of Alaska Native organizations and institutions * Strengthen and promote the family unit ¢ Eliminate alcohol and drug abuse among Alaska Natives ¢ Protect all benefits and rights of ANCSA and its amendments * Secure economic employment opportunities and benefits enjoyed by the larger society ¢ Ensure the spiritual well-being and the physical, mental and emotional health of Alaska Natives ¢ Protect rights and opportunities to pursue Native subsistence activities and lifestyles ¢ Eliminate family violence, child neglect and abuse among Alaska Natives * Promote educational goals and academic achievement that provide opportunities to excel in today's society and that meet the special needs of Alaska Natives ¢ Urge Alaska Native leaders to actively participate in youth activities as role models and mentors ¢ Foster statewide unity and trust in representing the common interest of Native people. EDUCATION Education has always played an integral role in Alaska Native lives, in the form of traditional learning in the home and in the community, as well as the more-structured classroom learning. This last decade of the twentieth century is no different than any other time in our history. Several of the AFN Goals for the 1990's point specifically to promoting achievement in academic and traditional education. Others may not specifi- cally mention education, but would seem to be unattainable without factoring in quality education for Alaska Natives. For example, Alaska Natives bom after 1971, expected to take on the mantle of "protecting all benefits and rights of ANCSA and its amendments," must have the opportunity to learn in detail what ANSCA is. This past year AFN has continued its emphasis on advocating for increased awareness of Alaska Native educa- tional needs on local, state and federal levels. AFN staff followed up on fourteen educationrelated resolutions passed by delegates at the 1992 AFN Convention. Alaska Natives are concemed that cultural learning not be overshadowed by classroom leaming, that a balance is needed for us to lead happy, successful, and productive lives. This message came through loud and clear at the Native Leadership Retreat in Dillingham. Over the years parents, communities, educators and policy makers have been concerned about the disparity be- tween the academic achievements of Natives and non-Natives. We must begin to measure progress in educational attainment. We must ensure that culture, tradition and language is an integral part of the academic environment. We must have educators who are sensitive to Alaska Native needs, who have cultural awareness, respect and appreciation. Education and the Federal Government There is an enormous disparity between the academic achievements of Native and non-Native students in Alaskan schools. Although substantial progress has been made in in- creasing Native high school graduation rates, the Native drop- out rate is more than twice that of non-Natives. Native students tend to perform poorly on standardized achievement tests. (In most districts, Native high school students scored in the 20th and 30th percentiles.) Natives are significantly under-repre- sented among college graduates in the state. A unique problem in Alaska is the lack of federal resources for Native education. From the outset of civil govern- ment, the United States assumed responsibility for Native education. After Statehood, the process of transferring BIA schools to state control was initiated. By 1984, all had been transferred. Limited federal funds continue to flow to Native education in Alaska, primarily through the Johnson-O'Malley and Indian Education Act programs. Federal funds are mostly 191 Rural Alaska Policy Review used for voluntary "pull-out" programs, which take Native children out of their classrooms, often after school, to provide cultural enrichment and remediation. These programs do not necessarily reach the students in the greatest need. The absence of BIA schools does not relieve the federal government of its trust responsibilities for the education of Alaska Native students. Alaska Natives should be eligible for all sources of funding available to other Native American groups. BIA Education Task Force This year the Congress called for the formation of an Education Task Force, consisting of top level policy makers on Native education, including Ada Deer, Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, and the new Assis- tant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Schools, Depart- ment of Education. The Alaska State Commissioner of Educa- tion, Alaska Native Education Council, Alaska Association of School Boards and Alaska Federation of Natives will also participate. The Task Force will begin its work in October to determine: I) what role the Bureau should play with regard to Alaska schools and Alaska education, and 2) what other actions or sources of funding might be identified to assist or improve the education program of these schools. Since the completion of the transfer of BIA schools to the State of Alaska in 1984, Alaska has continued to experience declining federal support for Native education. Primary fund- ing for Native education flows to Alaska through the Johnson O'Malley and Indian Education Act programs. Because of disparity in funding, it is estimated that Alaska has lost over $50 million annually in education funding. AEN looks forward to participating on this new Task Force to clearly define the role of the federal government in the education of Alaska Natives. Alaska Native Education Council The 1992 Alaska Native Education Council held its annual meeting just prior to the AFN Convention last year. Much of the discussion and recommendations focused on funding concerns, Native language preservation, tribal col- leges, cross cultural issues, increasing Alaska Native teachers and administrators, equity funding in education, teacher train- ing, Native studies in the university system, and rural campuses. The ANEC and AFN have worked closely together by means of the AFN Education Committee. AFN Research Policy One of the Goals of the 90s calls for Native people to secure equitable participation in the educational, health, social, political and economic systems that atfect Alaska Natives. Rarely is the lack of Native participation more acute than in the field of science. In the name of research, great injustices have been pervaded upon the Alaska Native people through the years. From radiation left behind by Project Chariot to radioac- tive iodine pill tests performed by military doctors, to archeo- logical digs that desecrated graves and removed bodies to far- off museum storage areas, to theft of sacred art, scienti.sts and researchers have done much to breach trust and harm the ability of today's scientists to do further research. In this era of enlightened sensitivity toward the views of Native people, represented by positive actions like the Smithsonian Institution's repatriation of the remains of Alaska Natives taken earlier this century, it is clearly a fitting time to increase Native involvement in research projects now in the planning and development stages. Alaska Natives share with the scientific community an interest in learning more about the sociology, history and culture of our societies. The best scientific and ethical standards are achieved when Alaska Natives are directly involved in research conducted in our communities and in studies where the findings have an impact on Native people. At its May meeting the AFN Board of Directors adopted a research policy guideline intended for scientists planning study among Alaska Natives. The recommendation includes a set of research principles designed to increase Native participation in all phases of the research process. The AFN Research Policy Guideline was forwarded to research institutions, scientific organizations suchas the National Science Foundation, and Native organizations and villages. The University of Alaska Board of Regents, UAA, UAF and UAS administrative staff, Alaska Pacific University, and Sheldon Jackson College also received the guideline with the request that it be .shared with faculty. Community development can be seen as realizing new solutions and innovations while retaining traditional v :values. This type of development comes from within. It involves being the initiators of research, rather than the subjects of it. Native people must move forward to meet the challenges of gaining information about our own communities. We will confront the issues and create the solutions if we have the power, through research, to transform our communities. While there has been an increase in the number of Alaska Natives graduating from universities, there has not been a parallel increase in the number of Native people choosing research-oriented careers in academic settings. This brings us back to education. Education in 1994 As we have experienced in the past, Alaska Natives and education advocates must continue to play more than a watchdog role; active involvement in development of policy and programs must take place. Alaska Natives must be aggressive and develop a network among ourselves, our communities, school districts and boards, and teachers and administrators in 192 Rural Alaska Policy Review advocating for our needs. We must share responsibility and commitment to providing the best of both worlds to Alaska Native children. The themes for this year's Education Conference and AFN Annual Convention point to sharing commitment and responsibility, to be in charge of our destiny and not merely reacting to what others put on our doorstep. AEN's Education Committee comprises the following members: Trefon Angasan, Bristol Bay Native Corporation; Carole Huntington, Association of Alaska School Boards; Gordon Jackson, Tlingit & Haida Central Council; Riley Meganack, Chugach Villages Representative on AFN Board; Sharon Moore, Alaska Native Education Committee; Luanne Pelagio, Alaska Native Education Committee; and Virginia Thomas, Cook Inlet Tribal Johnson O'Malley Program. Alaska Native Lands Through the efforts of its Land Committee, Legisla- tive Committee and the Land Manager, AFN continues to address issues and activities that relate to how ANCSA and ANILCA are implemented. The AFN Land Committee is composed of land and resource managers representing regional and village corporations. The Committee meets quarterly to coordinate Native land activities and develop landrelated policy and procedures. 1993 Land Issues: ANCSA Technical Amendments: An ANCSA technical amendment package was drafted, reviewed by the Land and Legislative Committees, and forwarded to the Alaska Congressional Delegation. The proposed amendments focus on allotment, tax treatment, mining and land transfer issues. State Land Selections: The Statehood Act in 1959 granted the State 103 million acres to be selected from federal public lands in Alaska. Initially the State was given 25 years in which to select its land. An additional 10 years were provided, thus making the selection deadline January 3, 1994. The State made its final land selections on December 31, 1992. Under the selection process the State has identified approximately 30 million acres from which it will select its final 16-18 million acres of entitlement. AFN's Land Manager and Land Committee were involved in review and analysis of these final selections. ANCSA corporations’ interest lies in the fact that, although they have priority for selections over the state, 14 million acres of land which they have identified for possible selection have been top- filed by the State. As the state works on prioritizing areas for final selection it will be necessary to coordinate with ANCSA corporations to identify Native selections within the top-filed acreage that might be relinquished for State selection. The AFN Land Committee serves as the central coordinating point for this effort. AEN is further analyzing State selections to assess potential impact on subsistence resources and other Native interests. Contamination of ANCSA Lands Some of the lands the federal government transferred to Native corporations under ANCSA are reported to be con- taminated by hazardous or toxic substances. Such contamina- tion is a potential health risk to people living nearby and may do grave economic harm to the Native corporations that unwit- tingly received the contaminated lands. For early conveyances under ANCSA, screening for contamination prior to convey- ance was minimal. Today the law requires a more thorough screenings. Early ANCSA conveyances may have generated a substantial economic risk to Native corporations. To date, the federal government's failure to assume unequivocal responsi- bility leaves Native corporations at risk of the liability associ- ated with the contamination, costs of potential litigation and possible clean-up expenses. Neither the letter nor the spirit of ANCSA intended to transfer the government's legal and moral responsibility for the clean-up of land contaminated while in federal ownership. New state and federal liability laws are directed to the "chain of title," with the major focus on the current landowner, even if the current landowner was not responsible for the contamination. The "innocent landowner" defense has limited protection for Native corporations because it protects those who have diligently searched for contamination prior to conveyance of land. This was clearly impossible for Native corporations to do, given the vast amount of remote land conveyed to them and the meager financial resources they had during the period of land selections. More importantly, it is an inappropriate eco- nomic burden, given ANCSA's intent. In its briefing packet for Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, AFN outlined three steps the federal govern- ment should take: 1. Congressional legislation should unequivocally accept responsibility for contamination that existed on ANCSA lands at the time of conveyance to Native corporations. Such acceptance will give Native corporations needed comfort to deal with this issue openly, without assuming the chain of title burden. 2. After passage of such legislation, the BLM should be required to compile an inventory of conveyed contaminated sites. Native corporations that elect to do so should be allowed to exchange contaminated lands for other federal lands. 3. If a site is required to be cleaned, the BLM should be required to direct the remediation. Alternatively, if the respective Native corporation elects to do the clean-up, its costs should be reimbursed by the federal government. 193 Rural Alaska Policy Review RS 2477 "The right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." This congressional language offering to grant rights- of-way to construct highways over unreserved public lands originally appeared as Section 8 of the Mining Act of 1866 and was adopted as Revised Statute 2477 in 1873. RS 2477 was enacted during a period in hi.story when the federal government was aggressively promoting settlement of the west. Many activities, including road building, were occurring on public domain without statutory authority. Access for major transportation routes was promoted by Congress through railroad land grants and special legislation. RS 2477 was intended to address private and individual access matters. RS 2477 became a primary authority under which many exist- ing state and county highways were constructed and operated over federal lands in the western United States. RS 2477 was repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1 876. The application of RS 2477 to Alaska is far more complicated than its earlier application to western states. A liberal interpretation of the law would defeat the congressional purposes of the ANCSA and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act by providing uncontrolled access to Native lands and Conservation System Units. The applicability of RS 2477 to ANCSA lands has long been a subject of concern to Native corporations. They believe that RS 2477 does not apply to lands conveyed to them under ANCSA and that that Section 17(b) of ANCSA was intended by Congress to tully address the issue of access across private Native land to public land. Section 17(b) allows the Secretary to assess the need to reserve easements as he deter- mines to be necessary over lands conveyed to regional and village corporations. The language of RS 2477 has never been clearly defined. Its application is treated differently by various federal agencies and by the same agency from state to state. It is unclear what the terms "highways", "construction" and "public lands not reserved for public purposes" mean. There is no requirement that an RS 2477 easement be asserted within a certain time. A landowner, or adjacent land- owner, is faced with a potential cloud on title when the future application of an RS 2477 is uncertain. The situation directly impacts development and management decisions. AEN has called on Congress and the Department of the Interior to address the uncertainties of RS 2477 in law. Legislation should: I) set a time frame within which an RS 2477 can be asserted. 2) establish clear, appropriate definitions of the terms "highway", "construction" and "public lands not reserved tor public use;" 3) clarify through exemption that RS 2477 does not apply to conservation system units and ANCSA convey- ances; 4) define management authority and obligation to man- age RS 2477's; 5) ensure uniform administration by federal agencies; 6) mandate recordation requirements; 7)set standards of proof when asserting and adjudicating an RS 2477 claim; and 8) clarify the abandonment procedure. Wetlands Alaska Natives have a unique interest in the develop- ment and implementation of federal policy to protect U.S. wetlands because of its effect on their own lands and other lands in the state. Native people fought for years for the right to own and use a small percentage of their traditional lands. The Native corporations that hold title to ANCSA lands were effectively given the historic responsibility to manage the land, its associ- ated subsistence resources and the natural environment of the villages, as well as to provide for the economic selfsufficiency of their shareholders. Natives have traditionally been success- ful stewards of the land and the environment, and they recog- nize their obligation to protect the heritage that will be handed to their children and grandchildren. Unlike many areas in the Lower 48, Alaskan wetlands are abundant and healthy, due to the values and behavior of the people who live and work on the land. The United States government has become increas- ingly involved in restricting certain activities on lands owned and managed by Natives, for the purpose of protecting wet- lands. Because wetlands constitute up to 75% of all lands in the state (and an even larger percentage of the lands conveyed to Natives under ANCSA), the negative impact of such regulation on Native individuals and organizations could be overwhelm- ing. Certain developmental activities, such as road construction to remote areas, housing tor villages and the careful develop- ment of valuable mineral resources, must occur if Native communities and institutions are to thrive. If access to and use of ANCSA lands are foreclosed, the historical purposes of ANCSA will have been defeated. LEGISLATION The 35-member Board of Directors meets four times each year (February, May, Octo-ber and December). But in between, many decisions require AFN's attention - especially publicpolicy issues in Juneau and Washington, D.C. When needed. the 15-member Legislative/Litigation Committee meets to decidepolitical and judicial strategies, based on goals estab- lished by the Board and/or the Convention. During the past year, the Committee has met more than a dozen tlmes at the call of Its Chairman, Chris McNeil. While subsistence has occupied a lot of agenda time, other important policy issues have been debated. One of them is tribal sovereignty. Eight days before leaving office, outgoing Bush Administration published an Interior Department Solicitor's Opin ion on the tribal status and powers of Alaska Native villages. The Opinion, in an inaccu- 194 Rural Alaska Policy Review rate, biased analysis, did not favor the selfgoverning powers of our tribes. Since then, AFN and other organizations have worked to convince the new Secretary to take appropriate administrative and judicial actions. We expect that Interior will publish a new Federal Register list of recognized tribes in Alaska, and we have urged that the Department of Justice file briefs in pending litigation correcting the mistaken conclusions of the Opinion. Another strategy organized by the Legislative Com- mittee was the presentation of critical Native issues to the Clinton transition team during late 1992. Briefing papers and recommendations were prepared on subsistence (federal juris- diction over waters, as well as the federal-state impasse over Title VIII of ANILCA), sovereignty, migratory birds treaty negotiations, congressional reauthorization of the Marine Mam- mal Protection Act, nuclear waste mismanagement at Cape Thompson, Native health care, and national wetlands policy. The three-month service of AFN Co-Chairman Willie Hensley on the transition team in Little Rock and Washington was a great help in getting these topics considered by the new admin- istration. Other policy issues dealt with by the Legislative/ Litigation Committee this year included thenext cycle of ANCS technical Amendments (drafts of which were submitted to the Alaska Congressional Delegation in late September), design of congressional legislation protecting ANCSA corporations from hostile takeovers, village clean water and sanitation programs, Native hire in state government, a through review of subsis- tence policy options, and maintenance of the 1936 Reindeer. In addition, theLegislative/Litigation Committee has closely monitored important court cases affecting subsistence and sovereignty: * McDowell v. United States, the federal constitu- tional challenge to Title VIII of ANILCA, won by our side in District Court and now on appeal; * Katie John et al. v. United States, consolidated with State of Alaska v. Babbitt and other cases, addressing federal subsistence regulatory authority and geographical jurisdiction; * Native Village of Tyonek v. Puckett, addressing tribal author- ity to restrict access to tribal housing; * State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, consoli- dated with Native Village of Venetie v. State ot Alaska, involv- ing the validity of a tribal business tax on non-members doing business on tribal lands, as well as the inherent governmental authority of Alaska's tribes to regulate domestic relations among their own members; and ¢ Alyeska v. Kluti Kaah Native Village of Copper Center, involving tribal authority to impose a business tax on a portion of the Trans-Alaska pipeline constructed on Native lands. The fifteen members of the AFN Board's Legislative/ Litigation Committee have given many hours of their time during the past year and deserve the heartfelt appreciation of the Native Community: Chris McNeil, Chair; Dolly Garza; Willie Kasayulie; John Shively; Willie Hensley; Gordon Jackson; Morris Thompson; Oliver Leavitt; Roy Huhndorf; Trefon Angasan, Jr.; Bill Thomas; Paul Tony; Will Mayo; John Schaeffer; Myron Naneng. FEDERAL ISSUES Sovereignty One of the most critical issues now facing Alaska Natives is the assertion of their tribal rights and powers under USS. Iaw. There are two probems that cut across every attempt to exercise Native powers of tribal self-government in Alaska: tribal status and Indian country. Tribal Status: Since ANCSA was passed in 1971, the Department of the Interior has equivocated with respect to the"recognized" tribal status of Native tribes in Alaska. The Department has never asserted that Alaska Native tribes lack governmental status. Rather, it has, from time to time, refused to affirm expressly that Native villages and other tribes have been federally recognized. This equivocation has opened the door for opponents of tribal sovereignty to obtain a ruling from the Alaska Supreme Court that holds that aside from Metlakatla, there are no self- governing tribes in Alaska. (Note: former Solicitor Sansonetti rejected every one of the Alaska Supreme Court's arguments in his Opinion of January 11, 1993.) Even the more favorable Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that every tribe asserting recognized status must prove that it is the "modern day successor to an historically sovereign band of Native Americans." The Ninth Circuit's test will require over 220 federal court trials to determine tribal status. These are trials that virtually none of the affected tribes will be able to finance and that the federal courts in Alaska would not, in any event, be able to hear until well into the next century. The Alaska Federation of Natives, the Alaska Inter- Tribal Council and numerous tribes and regional Native organizations have repeatedly urged that the issue be resolved once and for all by publication of a new list of federally recognized tribes for Alaska. The BIA Juneau Area Office has worked with the Alaska Native community to develop a list of 228 federally recognized Nativetribes in Alaska for publication by the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. AFN and other Native organizations have calledon Interior to publish a new Federal Register list before any of the three cases pending in the Federal District Court for Alaska are briefed. Briefs must be filed on September 17, 1993 in Tyonek v. Puckett; on October 8, 1993 in State v. Venetie; and on December 17, 1993 in Alyeska v. Kluti Kaah. Each case involves the assertion of tribal authority over non-members. Because the process will take some time, it should begin immediately. The Federal Register list should recognize all 228 Native villages as tribal governments and for federal statutory 195 eee Sa RE SS ER RR EE TT Ryral Alaska Policy Review purposes. ANCSA corporations should also be included on a list, for federal statutory purposes only. At the AFN-sponsored Native Leadership Retreat in Dillingham, Secretary Babbitt promised to have a list out by October. Indian Countrv: Indian tribes exercise their governmental authority over land, members and non-members within "Indian country." Indian country includes reservations, allotments and "dependent Indian communities." In Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie 856 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1988), the court of appeals set out a six-part test for determining .whether Native villages in Alaska constitute Indian country. That test will be applied in at least two pending cases: Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie and Alyeska v. Kluti Kaah. Both involve tribal taxation of non members. They are set for trial commencing November 1, 1993 and January 17, 1994 respectively. Chief Federal District Court Judge Holland has entered orders asking that the United States express its views on the Indian country question in these cases. Solicitor Sansonetti's Opinion of January 11, 1993 concluded that there is no Indian country in Alaska because of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, despite the fact that there is no mention of tribal governments or Indian country in the text of ANCSA. If the United States does not file a brief rejecting Solicitor Sansonetti's analysis, the court will be left with no choice but to assume that the United States adheres to the conclusions and reasoning expressed by the Bush Administration. Secretary Babbitt said he would request the Justice Department file a brief stating the U.S. government's position on tribal powers BIA Contract Support For several years, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has struggled with the issue of fully funding contract support. As each fiscal year comes toa close, there is amad scramble to pull funds together from various sources within the BIA to meet needs that should have been anticipated and provided for through the normal appropriations process. In the past year, this issue has directly and critically impacted Alaska Native tribal contractors. The Bureau is reportedly once again performing a financial juggling act to accommodate a national $17 million contract support shortfall. To the detriment of tribes and their members, this deficit will be funded at least in part from direct service funds. But tribal contractors cannot continue to administer Bureau programs for less than 50% of what it actually costs to operate them. The failure of the Bureau to project and fully fund contract support damages tribal contracting and compacting. This undermines the policy of every national administration of the last quarter- century, including the Clinton Administration, to promote Indian and Alaska Native self-government and self- determination. Tribal contractors have yet to receive substantial portions of their FY 92 contract support funding. The Bureau has said that all FY 92 funds have been expended, and the obligation to the contractors cannot be met. Alaska's contractors are becoming extremely anxious over the possibility of similar shortages in FY 93. AEN has recommended to Interior that the Bureau of Indian Affairs should develop and issue a policy statement which establishes the full funding of tribal contract support costs as a Bureau priority. It should establish a national task force to review Bureau contract support methodologies and funding policies and to translate the policy statement into operational strategy. Indian Child Welfare Act ICWA mandates that state courts meet strict federal standards in child custody placements of tribal member children with foster care and adoptive homes. ICWA also allows tribes to intervene and fully participate in these judicial proceedings. ICWA programs provide funding for staff to advocate for Native families and tribes in child custody proceedings and other related community-based family programs. In Alaska the child abuse/ neglect rate is far above the national average, in some regions by as many as three times. Half of the children in state custody are Alaska Natives, whereas the Native population constitutes only 15% of the total population . Alaska tribal entities have consistently asserted their authority and responsibility to protect their children's right to be raised among their own people (i.e., by Native families that can offer them safe, nurturing home environments). With crucial funding support from Title Il of ICWA, tribes can enact children's codes, establish children's courts, and pursue cooperative working relationships with the Alaska Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) offices throughout the state of Alaska. In addition, tribes can enact foster care licensing ordinances and conduct training to prepare "qualified expert witnesses" to testify on behalf of Native communities in ICWA child custody proceedings. Regional and statewide ICWA conferences have been conducted which allow Native communities to share successful approaches and advocate for maximum implementation of ICWA in Alaska. The Clinton Administration is proposing to cut discretionary domestic spending by 10% in FY 1995. Elimination of some BIA programs could result from this reduction process, including off reservation ICWA grants, which have been listed by OMBas "of questionable effectiveness." In 1993, $8,786,000 in ICWA funds were reprogrammed to cover shortfalls in the BIA's boarding school operations. This is reduced existing ICWA programs to 65% of the 1992 level and meant that no new ICWA applications could be considered. Moving ICWA funds over to cover BIA school costs is a double setback for Alaska tribes, since almost no BIA education funds are spent in Alaska, and because the ICWA program is critical in a state where divorce and child abuse / neglect rates are so high. 196 Rural Alaska Policy Revigy (SSS continued from page 187 ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE These issues are discussed in greater detail in the 1994 Municipal Platform, which is available from the AML office, 907-586-1325. Thope this statement of policy will be of use to you. If you have questions or would like to discuss any of these issues in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact Kent E. Swisher, Executive Director, or other League staff at the AML office in Juneau. Sincerely, John Torgerson, President The following represents the TABLE OF CONTENTS AML 1994 POLICY STATEMENTS PART I - TAXATION AND FINANCE A. Long-Range Plan B. State Assistance in Financing Local Government ......... State-Collected, Locally Shared Taxes and Licenses Alcoholic Beverage Sales Tax Marine Fuel Taxes Raw Fish Tax Forward Funding Use of Permanent Fund Earnings for Municipal Support Regulation of Grants and Entitlements Pass-Through Funds and Grants Matching Grants C. Programs of State Revenue Sharing Appropriate Distribution of Revenues from Commonly Held Resources State Revenue Sharing Municipal Assistance Population Determination Tax-Levying Authority State-Mandated Exemptions Abandoned Motor Vehicle Fund Taxation of Property Owned by the Alaska Railroad Optional Exemptions Real Property Transaction Values Local Taxing Authority on Oil and Gas Property Taxation of Electric and Telephone Cooperatives Tax Limitations by Initiative E. Public Employees' Retirement Increases in Benefits F. Fiscal Notes / Government Mandates . . Fiscal Notes Reimbursement for Responsibilities Transferred from State G. Local Debt......... Debt Limits State Management of Local Debt H. State-Local Financial Policies and Relations ................ State Financial Policy Direct Deposit of Transfer Payments Status of Liens on Permanent Fund Dividends Liens on Property for Delinquent Municipal Payments I. State Policies Affecting Local Communities .......... Personal Income Tax Hospital and Health Facility Funding Utilization of Local Health Facilities and Support for Necessary Emergency Transportation Contracting of State Health and Social Services Child Care Adult Day Care Health Costs J. Federal Issues .........ssssssssesssssessseeseee Federal Assistance Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Revenue Sharing PILT Income Tax Law Impact K. State Pass-Through of Federal Funds Intended for Municipalities 0.0.0.0... cesses National Forest Receipts PART 11- EDUCATION A. School Support Funding for Schools Basic Educational Need Local Autonomy to Provide Funding Reduction in Force of Tenured/Non-tenured Teachers Bonded Indebtedness School Construction and Maintenance Grant Program Funding Options Bilingual Education B. Assembly /Council-School Board Roles .......... C. State Policies Affecting Local Communities ...... .. Study of Extended School Year Community Schools Early Childhood Education Funding for Libraries Funding for Museums Regional Boarding Schools for Rural Students D. State Land Management ..............sss0000 Improvement Funding Mandated Programs Compliance with Municipal Planning Construction of Rights-of-Way Compliance with Existing Roads and Rights-of-Way Land Entitlements Land Disposals Selection of Tideland E. Historic and Recreation Sites ............... Monuments and Historic Sites F. Coastal Management Local Control Agency Review of Local District Programs Coastal Leasing 197 Rural Alaska Policy Review Financial Support Federal Approval Notice and Approval G. Proof of Approval of Subdivisions . H. Shared Geographical Data ..... I. Cooperative Planning .............. J. State Policies Affecting Local Communities Recreational Opportunities Subsistence State Land Use Decisions PART V - TRANSPORTATION A. Municipal Involvement in Transportation Planning B. Surface Transportation ............s000 Costs of Railroad Crossings Local Service Roads and Trails Transfer of Maintenance Responsibility Federal Support for Transportation Projects C. Air Transportation ..........sseseseeee Transfer of Land for Municipal Airports PART III - PUBLIC SAFETY A. Financial Impact .... Detention Costs Detention Cost Equalization Contract Jails & Holding Facilities Health Care Costs Health Insurance Community Rating System Workers' Compensation for Emergency Service Personnel B. Training .. C. Prevention D. Judicial System ... E. Liability Issues Liability for Injury in Recreational Activities Civil Liability of Certain Volunteers Liability of Property Owner Liability for Failure to Take an Incapacitated Person into Custody Liability for Emergency Response outside Municipal Bound- aries Liability of Hospital for Actions of Non-Employee Liability for Workplace Safety Inspections F. State Policies Affecting Local Communities . . State Public Safety Responsibility Criminal Defense Costs Use of Modern Technology Emergency Management Fire-Fighting Equipment Substance Abuse Counseling and Prevention Domestic Violence Sexual Abuse Suicide Prevention VPSO Program Right to Keep and Bear Arms PART IV - LAND USE A. Local Options .........0s0000 Planning and Zoning State and Federal Compliance with Land Use Regulations B. Mental Health Lands Trust C. Land Selection ........... Easements Conveyance and Land Use D. Marine Transportation Jones Act Shipping Corridors Land Acquisition Marine Maintenance Municipal Boat Harbors Port and Harbor Development E. State Policies Affecting Local Communities Rights-of-Way Highway Maintenance Transportation Fund Trail Marking Railroad Duties and Responsibilities Mass Transit Airport Construction Assistance Airport Maintenance Air Service Expansion of the Alaska Marine Highway Efficiencies in Operation of Marine Highway System Economic Impact of Marine Highway System Maintenance Management System and Vessel Replacement Fund for the Alaska Marine Highway System Equal Status Basis PART V1 - UTILITIES AND ENVIRONMENT A. Utility Regulation Alaska Public Utilities Commission Acquisition Utility Relocation Costs Deregulation of Solid Waste Waste Disposal Sites B. Funding Assistance for Utilities Construction Grant Program Village Safe Water Program Needs Assessments Solid Waste Reduction Programs Public Landfills Low-Interest Revolving Loan Fund for Wastewater Treatment Projects Power Cost Equalization Leaking Underground Storage Tanks C. Energy Efficiency D. State and Federal Policies Affecting Local Communities ADEC Role in Water Quality Standards Liability for Releases of Hazardous Substances Oil Hazardous Substance Municipal Impact Assis. Program PART VII- LOCAL GOVERNMENT POWERS A. Local Autonomy .. eo Effective and Independent Local Government 198 Rural Alaska Policy Review Open Meetings Act Lobbying Anti-Trust Laws Enforcement of Municipal Ordinances Public Records Interest on Retainage Eminent Domain Local Construction Plumbing and Electrical Codes Municipal Authorities and Public Corporations B. Elections and Reapportionment .... Local Financial Disclosure Law Reregistration of Voters Qualification for School Board Members Election Date Appointment of Election Judges Reapportionment C. Public Employee Labor Relations .... Alaska Public Employees Labor Relations Act Binding Arbitration D. Tribal Council/Local Government Relations . . E. Formation and Alteration of Municipalities .......... State Policies Funding Transfer of Powers Delegation of Powers F. Community and Regional Affairs ......... G. Contracting State Services .........0+ H. State & Federal Policies Affecting Local Communities Voter Registration Recorders Office PART VIII - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT A. Authority and Incentives .......... ssenseoscesest Incentives Municipal Bond Allocation Cooperative Projects Alaska Regional Development Organizations Economic Development Matching Grants B. Impact Impact Assistance Resource Development Projects Natural Resource Development Policies C. State&Federal Policies Affecting Local Communities Recreation and Tourism Fisheries Agriculture and Timber Oil, Gas, and Mineral Resources Impact Human Resources RESOLUTIONS Regarding Cutbacks in State Programs That Affect Municipalities . . . Opposing Unfunded Federal Mandates . Opposing Unfunded State Mandates Supporting Creation of an AML Special Committee to Study the Future of Municipal Aid Programs............ Requesting Local Government Participation in Statewide Transportation Planning ... Urging Reevaluation and Change in Process for Determining Priorities for School Capital Construction Funding .. Urging All Parties of the Mental Health Land Dispute to Come to an Agreement ...........:ccccsceeeereeees Urging Passage of Legislation Related to General Maintenance Land Grant Entitlements ...............0+ Supporting Funding for the Program of Municipal Land Conveyances in the Department of Natural Resources ....... Authorizing the Selection and Conveyance of State Tide and Submerged Lands to Cities and Boroughs in Alaska ...... Supporting Elimination of the Ad Valorem Tax Limitation for Second Class Cities .... Concerning Small Single Site School District Funding .......... Requesting Governor Hickle to Continue Efforts to Implement the Recommendations of the Sanitation Task Force............ Requesting the State of Alaska Provide Assistance to Construct Tank Farms and Provide Training for Rural Communities.... Urging the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council to Consider the Continued Participation of the Shorebased Processors in the Management Plan ..............:.+0+++ Urging the Alaska Legislature to Refinance Electric Coopera- tives .. Supporting Increased Funding for Alaska Marine Highway System Operations &Construction of an Ocean-Class Vessel . Supporting Legislation to Establish the Crime of Conspiracy Supporting Legislation to Establish Juvenile Waivers for the Crime of Murder ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A Special Thank You GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON RURAL ALASKA VILLAGE ECONOMIES & NEEDS MYRON NANENG, CO-CHAIR EDGAR BLATCHFORD, CO- CHAIR SUZY ERLICH PAUL FUHS ANDREW GUY ADELHEID HERRMANN JOHN JEMEWOUK DR. JEROME KOMISAR NICK TUCKER, SR. HARRY O. WILDER ST. ROSITA WORL DR. F. THOMAS TROTTER MOXIE ALEXIE LORETTA BULLARD FRANK CHARLES DEBBIE LEE MARGARET LOWE EMIL NOTTI DAVID OSTERBACK CARL ROSIER GEORGE YASKA Rural Alaska Policy Review ALASKA STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE EDGAR BLATCHFORD, ASRDC CHAIR FRANK D. COX. ASRDC CO-CHAIR JOHN SANDOR PAUL FUHS KAREN O. LEE RICK SHILANSKI MARVIN YODER DONALD LONG TONY AZUYAK JERRY L. WOODS STAN STEADMAN WAYNE CARPENTER BEN BARRERA WILLIE HENSLEY JAMES LA BELLE IRENE ADRAYAN LARRY DICKERSON ANN CAMPBELL JEANINE KENNEDY AL KETZLER, JR. DERENTY TABIOS ALASKA - 2000 - SEEDS Public Forums Conference & Policy Advisory Symposium March 14 - 18, 1994 JIM STEVENS CHARLES W. TOTEMOFF MICHAEL HARPER DON FARRIS DONNA TOLLMAN University of Alaska Anchorage - School of Business Chuck Akers, ASRDC Executive Director Tony Nakazawa, Director DCRA /DCRD Herv Hensley, Director DCRA / DOE Jim Sinnett, Conference Planner Bert Tarrant, RAVEN Coordinator Helen Vik, RAVEN Secretary Carol Hoblitzell, DCRD Secretary Margaret Murphy, DCRD Clerk Ann Howell, UAAC&I Coordinator John Walsh, DCRA Special Assistant Sue White, AIDEA Rural Programs Mary Williams, State VISTA Leader Jeanie Greene, One Sky Productions Gary Fife, One Sky Productions Laura Bliss-Spann, Producer Eileen Mortenson, Conference Promotion Rural Alaska Community Action Program Department of Community & Regional Affairs University of Alaska Anchorage - School of Business University of Alaska Anchorage Conferences & Institutes Rural Alaska Television Network Alaska Community Service Commission - AmeriCorp wits waa NATIONAL INITIATIVE ONE” RURAL AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A FEDERAL - STATE PARTNERSHIP - RURAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE STATE OF ALASKA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS ALASKA STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (Community Enterprise Development Corporation (CEDC) is proud (0 announce our new direction and our new name: ———————————————————————— ZA NEW HORIZONS FOR RURAL ALASKA ” Street, Suite 304, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 * (907) 274-5400 * FAX (907) 263-9971 (Community Enterprise Development Corporation (CEDC) is proud (0 announce our new direction and our new name: ———————————————————————— ZA NEW HORIZONS FOR RURAL ALASKA ” Street, Suite 304, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 * (907) 274-5400 * FAX (907) 263-9971