Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Alaska Native Commission Final Report Vol 2 1994
ALASKA NATIVES COMMISSION eh fn) Final “PReport Volume II Volume Il of the Alaska Natives Commission's Final Report contains the full text of five separate studies con- ducted by the five Commission task forces. Each task force was given a distinctive charge by the Commission to study, variously, Alaska Natives issues related to: Alaska Native health, social and cultural dynamics, eco- nomics and economic development, education and governance. Many of the discussions, findings and rec- ommendations found in the task force sections of this volume are summarized in Volume | of the Commission's Final Report. In preparing these studies, the task forces went to great lengths to treat each issue as thoroughly and conclu- sively as possible. The issues were examined from a number of policy perspectives, including social, cultural and economic, in recognition of their complex, interwo- ven and inseparable nature. Forward About the Commission The Alaska Natives Commission (the Joint Federal-State Commission on Policies and Programs Affecting Alaska Natives) was created by Congress in 1990 at the urging of Alaska Native groups. The Commission's undertaking was jointly funded by the federal government and the State of Alaska. The idea of creating a high profile, authoritative commission emerged from the Alaska Federation of Natives' report on the status of Alaska Natives, A Call to Action, published in 1989. AEFN's report was precipitated, in large part, during a visit to Alaska Native villages the previous year by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii], chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. When Congress created the Commission, it was directed to conduct a comprehensive study of the social and economic status of Alaska Natives and the effectiveness of the policies and programs of the United States and of the State of Alaska that affect Alaska Natives. The Commission also was directed to conduct public hearings and to recommend specific actions to Congress and the State of Alaska that might help assure that Alaska Natives have life opportunities comparable to other Americans. The Commission was to accomplish its work while respecting Natives! unique traditions, cultures and special status as Alaska Natives. In addition, the Commission was to address the needs of Alaska Natives for self- determination, economic self-sufficiency, improved levels of educational achievement, improved health status and reduced incidence of social problems. The first meeting of the Commission was held in February 1992. Within months, staff had been hired and five task forces had been named to gather information on economics, education, governance, health, social and cultural issues. Mary Jane Fate of Fairbanks and Perry R. Eaton of Anchorage were named co-chairs of the Commission. Other Commission members included Johne Binkley of Fairbanks, Edgar Paul Boyko of Anchorage, Father Norman Elliott of Anchorage, Beverly Masek of Willow, Martin B. Moore of Emmonak, Frank Pagano of Anchorage, John W. Schaeffer, Jr., of Kotzebue, Father James A. Sebesta of St. Mary's, Walter Soboleff of Tenakee Springs, Morris Thompson of Fairbanks, and Sam Towarak of Unalakleet. Francis E. Hamilton of Ketchikan served on the Commission until her death September 28, 1992. Nine regional hearings were held by the Commission, including: Fairbanks, Bethel, Nome and Klawock in 1992; and Barrow, Dillingham, Kodiak, Kotzebue and Copper Center in 1993. In addition, statewide hearings were held during the Alaska Federation of Natives Convention October 14-17, 1992, and October 14, 1993. Task forces held special regional hearings, and among them were: Social/Cultural Task Force hearings in Ft. Yukon; Health Task Force hearings in Emmonak, Alakanuk and Hooper Bay; three separate Governance Task Force hearings in Anchorage, as well as criminal justice hearings at the Hiland Mountain/Meadow Creek Correctional Center in Eagle River and the Wildwood Correctional Center in Kenai; and, Education Task Force hearings in Sitka and Angoon, including a special session at Mt. Edgecumbe to gather testimony from students. In all, about 500 Alaskans from 82 cities and villages provided oral testimony to the Commission during the 16 months over which hearings were held. Several hundred additional people submitted written testimony for the Public Record. The Final Report The result of the Commission's two-year study is a three-volume Final Report designed as a blueprint for change regarding the way in which the federal and state governments deal with Alaska Native issues. Though the report is not all-inclusive nor entirely exhaustive, it does - within the pages of the three volumes - touch specifically on those issues in contemporary Alaska Native life that Alaska Natives, themselves, have identified as being among the most important. The Commission also published the 260-page Federal and State Catalog of Programs Affecting Alaska Natives which contains information about the multitude of governmental services available to Alaska Natives and Alaska Native tribes. The catalog is available at the Library of Congress, the National Archives in Anchorage, the Alaska State Library (Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau), and various public and university libraries throughout the state. Also available at these same repositories is the body, in verbatim transcript form, of public testimony gathered by the Commission (seven volumes total). ALASKA NATIVE Piey STCAT, FIBALT I Report of the Health Task Force Table of Contents Alaska Native Physical Health History and Structure Overview History of Alaska Native Health and Health Care Behavioral Underpinnings and Other Related Factors Changes in Public Health for Natives in the 1970s Indicators of Current Alaska Native Health Problems Environmental Health Physical and Behavioral Health Indicators A Summary of the Data Population Growth: Alaska Natives in the Year 2000 Problems in the System Confronting Hard Choices: Discussion & Recommendations A Communal Problem: A Community-oriented Response Knowledge, Attitude and Behavior: Policy Implications Recommendations Concluding Comments 12 12 20 34 35 36 39 39 42 43 50 Social and Cultural Issues and the Alcohol Crisis Introduction A Time of Transition Overarching Recommendations The Search for Social and Cultural Equity Subsistence: The Cultural Imperative Native Empowerment: Self-Governance Native Empowerment: Self-Reliance vs. Dependency Native Empowerment: Reestablishing a Functional Social Order Social Aspects of Physical Health Alaska Native Education: The Key to Future Survival Alcohol and Alaska Natives Summary Alcohol's Carnage in the Native Community Alcohol and Social Pathologies Findings and Recommendations Economic Issues and Rural Economic Development Preface Employment Options, Opportunities and a Solid Foundation of Values Unemployment Statistics Alaska Native Employment and Unemployment: An Overview Employment and ANCSA Corporations: Regional and Village 55 55 56 57 57 59 61 63 64 66 69 69 70 73 75 83 88 88 90 91 100 Community Economic Development Village Industry: Success Stories Community Development Quotas Additional Resources for Alaska Native Economic Development Other Economic Development Issues Recommendations Employment Village Businesses and "Cottage Industry" Community Development Quota (CDQ) Limited Entry Bulk Fuel Reindeer Industry Mariculture Alaska Native Education Introduction and Historical Background Western Education of Alaska Natives Prior to 1867 Western Education of Alaska Natives After 1867 Contemporary Background Current Western Education and Alaska Natives, K-12 Current Western Education and Alaska Natives, Post-Secondary Findings and Recommendations Principal Findings Recommendations Regarding Alaska Native Education 104 104 107 110 114 118 118 120 120 121 121 121 122 127 127 127 133 133 139 143 143 145 Self-Governance and Self-Determination Preface Justice, Law Enforcement and Corrections Fundamental Values and Influences Problems Related to the Legal System Issues Related to Local Control Recommendations Concluding Comments Summary of Final Recommendations (Part II) Self-Determination (P.L. 93-638) Review Historical Overview Current Contract Status Findings and Recommendations Fish, Game and Subsistence Regulatory Processes and Outcomes Regionalizing the Fish and Game Boards Limited Entry Reindeer A Myriad Issues Appendix 151 154 154 156 168 172 178 179 184 184 190 197 201 201 201 203 203 204 Contents History and Structure Overview History of Alaska Native Health and Health Care Pre-1741 Health Care Pre-1867 Health Care Post-1868 Health Care Behavioral Underpinnings and Other Related Factors Changes in Public Health for Natives in the 1970s Indicators of Current Alaska Native Health Problems Environmental Health Water and Sewer Problems in Rural Alaska Solid and Toxic Waste Produced in Villages Housing Physical and Behavioral Health Indicators Comparison of Alaska with Other IHS Areas Intentional and Unintentional Injuries and Death Health Problems Related to Sexual Practices Cancer, Diabetes and Tuberculosis Substance Abuse and Related Health Issues Childrens' Physical and Emotional Health Issues A Summary of the Data 12 12 12 14 16 20 20 20 21 23 25 28 34 Population Growth: Alaska Natives in the Year 2000 Fertility and Birth Rates Increases in the Numbers of Urban Natives Problems in the System Patient Travel System Reorientation: Secondary & Tertiary Care Federal Reserve Allocation Confronting Hard Choices: Discussion & Recommendations A Communal Problem: A Community-oriented Response Knowledge, Attitude and Behavior: Policy Implications Recommendations Endorsement of State Water and Sewer Plans Alcohol and Drug Abuse: The Family and Community Preventing Suicide & Other Self-destructive Behavior Resolving the Need for Better Data Shifting Resource Allocation toward Primary Prevention Healthy Start for Alaska Native Children Support for the Community Health Aide Program Concluding Comments 35 35 35 36 36 37 38 39 39 42 43 43 44 46 46 47 48 49 50 I. History and Structure A. Overview By all accounts, the health of Alaska Natives is as poor as, if not worse than, the health of any other group in the United States, but many of the data that would normally be used in the health sciences to substantiate that perception are lacking. Neither the Indian Health Service nor the State of Alaska has gathered or maintained acceptable health needs assessment data in any systematic fashion, and with the exception of a few research studies, the information regarding the state of health of Alaska Natives derives from workload and patient encounter data. Thus, only those who have passed a threshold of some sort and chosen to enter the health care system are counted. Untold others go uncounted. Nonetheless, even in the absence of true health status data, information available from the treatment system show the poor health of the Native people of Alaska when compared to the same kinds of data for other segments of the United States population. These morbidity and mortality figures are presented later in this study. With the sub-standard health status, however, comes the other conclusion that in general the situation has improved over the last several decades. Life expectancy for Alaska Natives has risen from 47 years in 1950 to 67 in 1980, marking a significant improvement. In 1950, numerous deaths were caused by measles, whooping cough, rheumatic fever, syphilis, typhoid, and polio; no deaths from these causes occurred from 1980 through 1989.! Both the number of Alaska Natives and the costs of maintaining the health system to serve them have also increased: the Native population of Alaska rose from 35,000 in 1950 to 85,698 in 1990.” The most recent complete-year figures show that for the 12- month period ending September 30, 1992, the amount spent by the Indian Health Service in Alaska was $222,462,237.2 To this sum must be added many state-supported services, Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements, and private third-party insurance reimbursements. The monetary aspects of Native health care are a secondary concern of this study, but they warrant considerable attention given the enhanced importance of cost containment in the medical industry and new initiatives for health care reform. The Alaska Natives Commission has chosen to focus its concerns on the areas of: a) environmental health; b) mental health and substance abuse; and, c) trends in general, physical health. These three primary topics are discussed in this section. Additionally, there are issues related to the allocation of funds, the orientation of both the Indian Health Service and the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, the need for better data, and changes in the Native lifestyle and their related health consequences. As the data show, there have been substantial swings in the kinds of health problems that Natives present to the health care system of Alaska. Whereas several decades ago the primary problems were due to infectious disease, the primary problems today are due to poor health ' Alaska Health Facts." Section of Epidemiology, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, 1992. Source: U.S. Census. *Alaska Area Profile: 1992. Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage, Alaska, 1993. 5 habits and their consequences, including the high, sad rate of suicide and accidental death. Alcohol abuse and alcoholism are also prevalent in Alaska Native society today. This study begins with a brief historical perspective of Alaska Native health and the health care system that has been established over the years to provide treatment and rehabilitative services to Alaska Natives. The many problems and issues that are caused by the rural, isolated living habits of many Alaska Natives are at times inseparable from other issues, but there are some clear cases in which Native-specific problems do occur as separate from rural Alaska problems. A case in point, "baby bottle tooth decay" is reviewed as exemplary of the underlying factors that are - or at least may be - involved in some of the new health problems facing Alaska's Native people. B. History of Alaska Native Health and Health Care 1. Pre-1741 Health Care Prior to the arrival of Europeans (later EuroAmericans) in Alaska in 1741, Alaska Natives practiced a variety of health care techniques. These varied by Native group, but held in common a close connection between spiritual and physical health. Even with the variations, health techniques practiced by Alaska Natives prior to 1741 included medicinal remedies, surgery, thermal and massage therapy, and psychological or spiritual healing. Medicinal remedies included the use of plant and animal substances administered orally or applied to wounds or perceived sites of illnesses. Surgery included amputation, bleeding, cautery, dental extraction, removal of arrows and other wounding objects, "piercing" to allow bad humors to escape, and suturing of wounds. Thermal and massage therapy included treatments for internal ailments, joint pains and skin diseases.* 2. Pre-1867 Health Care EuroAmerican health care techniques brought to Alaska with the arrival of Russians and other Westerners after 1741 included many of the same techniques being practiced by Alaska Natives. The Western system, however, was more organized and technically advanced due to Western advantages in communication and technology. That organization and advancement were initially of little use to Alaska Natives. Those qualities were far outweighed by the introduction of strange diseases to which Alaska Natives had not developed natural immunities. Respiratory illnesses, smallpox, syphilis and tuberculosis were particularly virulent killers. In the early years of the Russian presence in Alaska ships' surgeons and other medical personnel occasionally visiting the fur trading posts may have sometimes treated Alaska Natives. The Russians set up hospitals at Sitka, Kodiak, Unalaska and Atka between 1817 and 1821 although a physician was not permanently assigned to the Russian American Company's establishment in Alaska until 1820.° The first "public health" activities in Alaska probably occurred in response to a smallpox epidemic that ravaged Alaska Native settlements. In response to the epidemic, the Russian American Company inoculated some Russians and Natives in Alaska and continued the program as additional vaccine became available. A limited supply of vaccine, reluctance to “Fortuine, Robert, Chills and Fever: Health and Disease in the Early History of Alaska (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press, 1989) pp. 9, 14, 16, 20, 24. 5Fortuine, 1989, p. 116, p. 199ff. accept inoculation, and a scattered population prevented the program from being fully effective. Although the first recorded case of smallpox in Alaska was noted in 1770, it was not until the mid-1830s that the disease became rampant. When that epidemic was over, between 20 percent to 66 percent of all the Natives in southern and western Alaska had died. Many of those who were left were easy prey for other infectious diseases.® 3. Post-1867 Health Care Availability of Western medicine to Alaska Natives initially did not increase dramatically after the American purchase of Russian interests in Alaska in 1867. During the periods of Army (1867-1877) and Navy (1879-1884) administration of Alaska, service doctors in Southeast Alaska occasionally provided health care for Natives. Revenue Cutter Service medical officers on ships patrolling the Bering Sea consistently gave medical assistance when their vessels touched at Native villages in western and northern Alaska.’. Missionary medical personnel who began to arrive in Alaska in the 1870s also provided health care for Alaska Natives. The Episcopal Church opened the first of eight hospitals that treated predominately Native patients at Anvik in 1887. The Presbyterians’ Sheldon Jackson School in Sitka, serving a Native student body, established a hospital in 1892. Dr. Joseph H. Romig arrived at the Moravian mission at Bethel in 1896 and became western Alaska's first resident non-Native doctor.‘ In the early 1900s the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Education initiated efforts to improve health care for Alaska Natives. When the bureau's supply ship Boxer made supply runs in the summer it carried doctors and nurses who held clinics wherever the ship anchored. Itinerant bureau doctors and nurses traveled by dog team to provide health care in the winter.’ Congress appropriated funds in 1915 that allowed the Bureau of Education to build a 25-bed hospital for Alaska Natives at Juneau. Between 1915 and 1930 the bureau was able to open additional hospitals for Natives at Akiak, Noorvik, Unalaska and Tanana. When the Bureau of Indian Affairs took over the Bureau of Education's responsibilities in Alaska in 1931, the annual appropriation for Native health care was $168,000. The bureau operated seven hospitals and a boat. Bureau doctors were stationed at each of the hospitals and part- time contract physicians were employed at Cordova, Nome and Unalaska. Bureau nurses were stationed at 16 locations throughout Alaska.'° After World War II the Territory of Alaska appointed its first Commissioner of Health. A territorial health program followed. Mobile health units operated on roads and on The Alaska Railroad. Two ships, the Hygiene and the Health, took itinerant medical care to communities on the Aleutian Islands and to Alaska's western coast. The Yukon Health traveled up and down the Yukon River. Village chemotherapy aides were trained at this time. The territory also opened a 150-bed tuberculosis sanitorium at Seward in 1946. Despite these efforts, tuberculosis continued to ravage Alaska Natives. The annual death *Fortuine, 1989, p. 229, p. 236. 7Antonson, Joan M. and William S. Hanable, Alaska's Heritage, 2nd ed. (Anchorage: The Alaska Historical Society, 1992), p. 537. SAntonson and Hanable, 1992, p. 539. °Antonson and Hanable, 1992, p. 540. '©Antonson and Hanable, 1992, p. 540. rate from tuberculosis for Alaska Natives was 653 deaths per 100,000 at a time when the total Native population was only about 34,000.!! Faced with a Native population being decimated by tuberculosis, Congress in 1949 approved funding for a 400-bed Native hospital in Anchorage that opened in 1953. In 1955 the United States Public Health Service relieved the Bureau of Indian Affairs of its responsibility for Native health care. It created the Alaska Area Native Health Service to administer these responsibilities. Although the Juneau Native hospital closed in 1958, the Public Health Service opened new Native hospitals at Kotzebue in 1961 and Barrow in 1965. Hospitals at Bethel, Kanakanak (Dillingham), and Anchorage were renovated in the 1960s. Village health aide training continued and a radio medical network was established so that the aides could consult with doctors when needed.” Formation of regional health boards culminated in 1969 in formation of the statewide Alaska Native Health Board. This provided a channel for advice to the Alaska Native Health Service and a voice for advocacy of change in Native health programs. The most significant of those changes was what has become known as "638" contracting.’ This landmark in Alaska Native health care was reached in 1975 when the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638) enabled Native regional non- profit corporations or health corporations to manage health programs under contract. The corporations could then meld federal and state health care assistance programs By the 1980s regional non-profit or specially formed health care corporations were managing delivery of health care to Alaska Natives everywhere except in part of Barrow and in Anchorage. In Barrow, the relatively affluent eligible corporation chose to supplement the federal program rather than to manage it. In Anchorage, the statewide nature of services offered by the Alaska Native Medical Center and the technical "638" requirements for village resolutions retarded local management." C. Behavioral Underpinnings and Other Related Factors The shift in many morbidity and mortality statistics, away from infectious diseases and toward increased behavioral problems, can be attributed to some extent to issues related to Alaska Native traditions and values having to do with child rearing and the ways children are taught to behave according to acceptable Native standards. Although there are many differences between the cultural groups in Alaska, one consistent pattern emerges: in comparison to common practices used in EuroAmerican society, Native children are expected to learn from observation more than from direct instruction or intervention.’ "'Antonson and Hanable, 1992, p. 544. "Antonson and Hanable, 1992, 544-545. 'SSingyke, Robert, past Director, Alaska Area, Indian Health Service, interview, September 21, 1993. '4Singyke, September 21, 1993. 'SSee, for examples: Osgood, C. The Ethnography of the Tanaina, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937; Hippler, A.E. The Athabascans of interior Alaska: A cultural and personality perspective. American Anthropologist, 1973, 75, 1529-1541; Briggs, J.L. Never in Anger. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970; Briggs, J.L. Playwork as a tool in the socialization of an Inuit child. Arctic Medical Research, 1990, 49, 34-38; Sprott, J.E. One person's "spoiling" is another's freedom to become: Overcoming ethnocentric views about parental control. Social Science and Medicine, in press. Traditionally, a Native child was not instructed how to fish or hunt or trap as much as he or she was expected to observe carefully when parents were engaged in those activities and mimic the behavior until he/she got it right. Habits related to eating, hygiene and other health topics were to be acquired in the same way. Families tended to be close-knit for survival purposes, and there were few if any distractions for a child to prevent this learning from taking place.'* Over the years, however, with growing Western influence, the traditional ways of the Alaska Native people were increasingly distorted by Russians, missionaries, teachers and others who brought with them the very direct, controlling manners and mannerisms of the non-Native world, to the point that earlier in this century Alaska Native children were physically punished for speaking in their first tongue or exhibiting any practices that were Native (and, thus, by their inherent nature, were seen by these non-Native teachers as evil). Children no longer learned primarily from their parents, and the ways of learning also changed. Direct instruction and "following orders" replaced observation and assimilation, while other negative changes were also taking place. As the lives and lifestyles of traditional Alaska Natives were increasingly displaced, unhealthy foods, alcohol and other factors entered Alaska at an alarming rate, concomitant with loss of self-esteem and self-worth and a general sense of wondering what life was all about any more and how it could possibly improve. These rapid changes - occurring at a frightening pace to an entire "nation" of Arctic and sub-Arctic indigenous people whose lifestyles had remained relatively unchanged for thousands of years’” - produced predictable outcomes, and the health statistics show those clearly. The shift in emphasis from self-control to a control imposed by powerful others encompassed all realms of Alaska Natives' lives, from governance to health. The insidious effects of this imposition have grown to enormous proportions, as the data show, and must be reversed. As this study will document and recommend, there are ways in which both the state and federal governments can (i.e., have the authority, if not the immediate ability to) change course quickly to prevent further erosion of personal responsibility for one's health. But if changes are not immediately realized the system as it now stands will cause an even greater level of disability for the Native person, the Native family and the Native community throughout Alaska. D. Changes in Public Health for Natives in the 1970s Three important events occurred in sequence as Alaska entered the last quarter of the 20th century. The first was the passage of P.L. 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act in 1975, the second was the passage of the 1976 Indian Health Care Improvement Act,'® and the third was a less abrupt shift in public health policy toward health education and disease prevention - that is, the primary end of the continuum - rather than the emphasis on secondary and tertiary care which had historically predominated. Healthy People was published by the federal government in July 1979, ‘See, for examples: Brower, W.C. Ethnic identity and revitalization: psychocultural adaptation among the Eskimo of North Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Colorado at Boulder, 1980; Koenig, D.M. Cognitive styles of Indian, Metis, Inuit, and non-Natives of Northern Canada and Alaska and implications for education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1981, 42, 2013A. "There was, of course, Russian influence in Aleut and Alutiiq villages from the mid-1700's, but that marks the exception rather than the rule. Although there were great numbers of individuals affected at the time by the Russian invasion, so many of them died as a result of that invasion that the number of their descendants is small, compared to other Native groups in Alaska. 'SAct of September 30, 1976, 90 Stat 1400, 25 USCA 1601 et seq. 9 establishing a milestone in the growth of the public health system of the United States. The foreword, written by Secretary Joseph Califano, sets the tone: Let us make no mistake about the purpose of this, the first Surgeon General's Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Its purpose is to encourage a second public health revolution in the history of the United States. Let us make no mistake about the significance of this document. It represents an emerging consensus among scientists and the health community that the Nation's health strategy must be dramatically recast to emphasize the prevention of disease.’ Another significant change in federal policy was brought about by P.L. 93-638, which marked a distinct shift in orientation and philosophy concerning the treatment of Native American people, as illustrated by its preamble: The Congress...finds that (1) the prolonged Federal domination of Indian service programs has served to retard rather than enhance the progress of Indian people and their communities by depriving Indians of the full opportunity to develop leadership skills crucial to the realization of self- government, and 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 themselves and with non-Indian governments, organizations, and persons.”” The new approach toward serving Natives encouraged tribes to serve themselves, providing assistance in the way of grants to enable subsequent contracting of services from the federal government. Instead of the government delivering services directly, it would shift, according to the Act, to providing the money for tribes to deliver services to their members. Over the 18 years since passage of P.L. 93-638, it appears that in Alaska the change has occurred quite effectively at the governmental and administrative level, with a majority of Indian Health Service programs now administered by tribes and tribal organizations under P.L. 93-638. A distinction should be made between the self-determination movement as it relates to federal policy changes and programs brought about by P.L. 93-638, and the acceptance of "self-determination" on a personal and communal level. Both have a bearing on the success of federal health initiatives in Alaska and the current health status of Alaska Native people, even though they represent two different facets of self-determination, as a concept and a policy. There has been a significant alteration in service delivery and funding for Indian Health Service programs since 1975, with most of the Service Units in Alaska having been contracted by tribes and tribal organizations (e.g., Regional Native Health Corporations). The growth in the percentage of health dollars in Alaska controlled by Native groups is incredible, and there have been no retrocessions or failures in any of the Indian Health Service contracts to date. All in all, the implementation of P.L. 93-638 has been and continues to be a success in Alaska. "Healthy People. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979: p. vii. 2°Mdian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 USC 450. 10 But, in many respects, the third event, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, holds the most significant, long-range meaning, because it establishes the trust responsibility that the federal government has to provide health care services to Native Americans. Quoting section 3 of that Act: ...[I]t is the policy of this nation, in fulfillment of its special responsibilities and legal obligations to the American Indian people, to meet the national goal of providing the highest possible health status to Indians and provide existing Indian health services with all resources necessary to effect that policy.”’ This commitment on the part of the government was tested in a subsequent case in the South Dakota Federal District Court, which found that: The Congress in 1976 stated that the federal government had a responsibility to provide health care for Indians. Therefore, when we say that the trust responsibility requires a certain course of action, we do not refer to a relationship that exists only in the abstract, but rather to a congressionally recognized duty to provide services for a particular category of human needs. When the Congress legislates for Indians only, something more than a statutory entitlement is involved. Congress is acting upon the premise that a special relationship is involved and is acting to meet the obligations inherent in that relationship...We have, therefore, read and construed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act as a manifestation of what Congress thinks the trust responsibility requires of federal officials, with whatever funds are available, when they try to meet Indian health needs.” The Alaska Natives Commission reminds the federal government of its trust responsibility to provide ongoing health care to Alaska Natives. In these times of budget cutting to lower the national debt, the Indian Health Service and Congress must not lose sight of this fundamental and perpetual obligation to the country's indigenous people. In this context, recent discussions regarding options for health care reform have occasionally included a proposal to "force" Natives to choose between a coverage plan that would pay for 80 percent of services that they receive while permitting them to choose the provider that they receive them from or a coverage plan that would resemble the current Indian Health Service, with 100 percent coverage but more limited services. The Commission recommends that for the government to fulfill its trust responsibility, consistent with the Indian Health Care Financing Act, Native people should be enrolled simultaneously in both plans, thereby enabling them to receive health care at no cost from the Indian Health Service while having the option of obtaining higher level procedures from private hospitals according to the "80 percent" plan. ibid, 25 USCA 1602. White vs. Califano 437 F. Supp 543 (D.C. S.D. 1977) aff'd. sub nom White vs. Matthews, 420 F. Supp. 882 (D.C. $.D. 1976) aff'd., per curiam 581 F. 2d 697 (8th Cir. 1978), as quoted in Case, D.S. Alaska Natives and American Laws. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Press, 1984: pp. 259-260. ll II. Indicators of Current Alaska Native Health Problems A. Environmental Health There are several different aspects of environmental health that have been brought to the attention of the members of the Commission in hearings held around Alaska. Those that present the greatest health hazards and stand out as the most compelling problems to resolve quickly comprise the primary topics here, but there are others as well. Approximately 48 percent of the Alaska Native population resides in communities that do have running water and flush toilets, but the rest - over half - do not. This section of the study deals with the problems faced by rural Alaska Native families that must live in conditions inferior to practically any other segment of the United States’ population. 1. Water and Sewer Problems in Rural Alaska Table 1 presents data provided by the Office of Environmental Health and Engineering, Alaska Area Native Health Service, that show the current state of water and sewer systems in 192 rural Alaska villages. (Note: The number of villages in the report from the Alaska Area represents about ten fewer than the presently occupied Native villages contained in the new list of federally acknowledged tribes in Alaska.) Although more than 1.3 billion dollars have been spent building water and sewer systems in rural Alaska, a large number of villages - as can be seen - have only rudimentary water and sewer utilities. The problems related to environmental health have been brought before the state and federal governments over the years. The following quote from the testimony that Ms. Anne M. Walker, Executive Director of the Alaska Native Health Board, offered to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies in May 1993 is exemplary: The first issue I wish to bring to your attention is the deplorable sanitation conditions that exist in many Alaska Native villages. There are over 200 Native villages in Alaska, and two-thirds of them are without piped water and sewer systems. Most families do not even have outhouses due to high water tables. Sewage systems instead consist of "honey buckets" - five- gallon buckets with toilet lids on them situated inside the home or business. There is no running water to wash your hands with after you use the honey bucket - this is true even in many of our health clinics. Everyone agrees that the technology exists to solve this problem, yet our people continue to suffer not just the inconvenience of Third World sanitation conditions but the considerable health risks that accompany poor sanitation. For our people to be subjected to conditions like these in the 1990s is a disgrace, particularly in light of the federal government's trust responsibility for the health and welfare of Native Americans. a. Public Attention. A series of articles published by the Anchorage Daily News in September 1992 helped to focus the attention of the Alaska public and its legislature on the water and sewer needs of bush Alaska, but beyond rhetoric little has been accomplished as a result of the heightened awareness of the problems. The issues are complex and potential solutions are very costly. It is the conclusion of the Commission that the most obvious remedy, constructing a water and sewer system in every village, is impractical if not impossible. In some geographical areas of Alaska, the physical conditions (e.g., geography and geology) 12 Table 1(a): Water Systems in Rural Alaska” Type Number | Percent None 3 1.6 Watering Point 27 14.1 Washeteria 62 32.3 Individual Wells 23 12.0 Circulating Pipe 37 19.3 Conventional Pipe 40 20.8 simply will not permit this solution to be implemented. Villages were not located where they are with thoughts of public works, plumbing and water treatment in mind, and they were not created with any forecasting of population growth or comprehension of the size to which the community might grow in the 20th or 21st centuries. A village site that was ideal for a small, mobile community two or three hundred years ago finds itself, in 1993, inappropriate for a permanent population 10 to 20 times its original size. Where the geography or geology will not endure the installation of modern water and sewer systems, alternative solutions must be found. Where the land might withstand it but climate makes standard approaches impractical, innovative solutions will be required. The recommendations of the Commission look to address these issues. Table 1(b): Sewer Systems in Rural Alaska Type Number Percent None 1 0.5 Honey Bucket 19 9.9 Honey Bucket Haul 34 17.9 Privy 37 19.3 Vacuum Truck Haul 2 1.0 Septic Individual 21 10.9 Septic System 5 2.6 Piped Gray 71 37.0 Piped Vacuum 2 1.0 Legend: Watering Point - single community source of water available, residents haul water to homes; Washeteria - community served by washeteria as watering point; Individual Wells - homes served by individual wells with piped water; Circ. Pipe - circulating piped water system with heat add features; Conv. Pipe - conventional piped water distribution system. *Legend: Honey Bucket - hauled by individuals to disposal site; Honey Bucket Haul - taken to container then hauled to disposal site; Privy - individual privy in homes; Vac. Truck Haul - flush toilets with outside storage tanks, hauled by truck; Septic Indiv. - flush toilets with individual septic tanks and drainfields; Septic System - community septic and drainfield; Piped Gray - flush toilets drain to a community collection and treatment system; Piped Vac. - special flush toilets discharge to vacuum sewer system. 13 b. Costs. Estimates for completing the installation of safe water and sewer systems in all the villages of Alaska have reached a billion dollars, but that does not describe the total cost to the government, were it to occur. The Public Health Service has projected that the annual cost of maintaining these systems once in place would exceed $40,000,000.2> The enormous costs that the government may face were brought to the attention of the Commission by Mr. Dennis M. Taddy, an engineer on the staff of Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc.: The Indian Sanitation Facilities Act, Public Law 86-121, was enacted to "provide essential sanitation facilities" for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Today, over thirty-three years later, we are still working to provide "essential" facilities to Alaska's first people... The IHS [Indian Health Service] FY92 Sanitation Deficiency System for the State of Alaska reported 378 projects with a total cost of over $1,000,000,000. Of those projects more than five-hundred million dollars are to provide or improve potable water systems. In a typical year 10 to 15 projects will be funded. The State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Village Safe Water Program (VSW) for the same time period had approximately one hundred grant requests with a cost of over one- hundred million dollars to address sanitation facilities projects. The State of Alaska funded approximately $25,000,000 worth of projects. EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] also funded about $9,000,000 worth of projects, part of that funding was for projects in the Lower 48. EPA-funded projects were limited to waste water system improvements. Given Alaska's dwindling oil revenues and the state of the United States economy, it is unlikely that the funds needed either to install or maintain these many systems will be forthcoming. However, in the case of at least one village, a local solution has been implemented with great success. The members of the Commission visited Emmonak and were proudly shown the water and sewer systems that this village has created. The Commission feels that this single success story may offer insights for other villages in their search for safe water and sewage disposal and treatment systems. 2. Solid and Toxic Waste Produced in Villages Water and sewer problems are not the only health hazards that exist in many villages in Alaska. It is not uncommon for "dumps" in villages to have been selected solely for their convenience, and it is even more common for them to have been the receptacle for car batteries and other items containing highly toxic waste. With the tightening of environmental regulations and their legislative enforcement (e.g., the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]}], many, if not most, Alaska Native villages are now out of compliance with the new regulations. More important than the possible legal consequences (which, under RCRA, can be severe] are the dangers that these waste disposal sites and their contents pose to the residents of the villages. The extreme case of toxic waste that came to light during the Alaska Natives Commission's hearings and has attracted the attention of the press is that of Point Hope, which is adjacent to a nuclear waste disposal area, Project Chariot, that was created as an "experiment" by the Department of Defense in 1962. The federal government has recently spent $6,800,000 to remove the contaminated soil, but many of the Inupiaq residents of the *‘In a State of Disrepair. Anchorage Daily News, September 23, 1992. 14 area feel that the damage has already been done. Citing high rates of cancer and abnormalities, they contend that the radioactivity, which now (by government reports) appears to be low, was for many years beyond acceptable limits. At the heart of this issue for the Commission is the disregard that the federal and state governments had for the Inupiat of Point Hope and the other villages in the vicinity of their nuclear "experiment," and the failure of either government to provide convincing evidence that their policies have changed since that time. Prior to Project Chariot, there were multitudes of other examples of the total disregard for Alaska Natives by the Department of Defense. The most striking, of course, was the relocation of Aleuts from their homes for the ostensible reason of protecting them from the Japanese. The death and destruction that resulted finally led to a Congressional reparation act, decades late and a thousand miles short of repaying the individuals and families who lost everything at the hands not of the Japanese but of the American government. Many other examples can be offered. From the Aleutian Chain to the North Slope there are thousands of abandoned barrels and other pieces of materiel left behind by the Armed Forces, from World War II to recent years. Even now, with migrating waterfowl under several layers of protection by governmental regulation and the topic of much concern by Yupiks in Western Alaska who have been prohibited from harvesting these birds in traditional ways, Fort Richardson Army Base outside Anchorage was found to have slaughtered thousands of ducks and geese that had ingested the poisonous remains of explosives used in target practice. That target practice continues today. a. Disposal of Oil: Another Toxic Waste Problem. In 1990, the Office of Environmental Health, Public Health Service, conducted a study of 22 rural Native communities in the Anchorage Service Unit of the Indian Health Service to determine how the communities disposed of used oil from diesel generators and found that 14 (70%) were doing so improperly by open burning, dumping in the landfill, etc. Not only were these methods hazardous to the residents, but villages were in jeopardy of being out of compliance with regulations of both the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The Office then researched and recommended proper used oil disposal alternatives and shared the findings with these communities in 1990. A follow-up survey of the same communities in 1992 showed that 50 percent continued to dispose of their used oil improperly.”® Two issues are raised by this study: first is the danger that used oil poses to the health of Alaska Natives residing in these - and many other - villages. The second is the fact that even after the diesel generator operator and the village council president in each of these communities were informed of the proper way to dispose of the oil, 50 percent continued their practices unchanged. This did represent a reduction from 70 percent in 1990, but it was far from an overwhelming change in behavior on the part of either the operators or the village leaders. The question must be asked whether this finding is another example of people not assuming - or accepting - the responsibility for their own healthy futures or whether there were other overriding factors involved. The data are not sufficient to answer the question, but the Indian Health Service is encouraged to pursue both the study of the problem and the endeavor to change the practices of improper disposal in Alaska Native villages. *Leffel, J.P. Methods of used oil disposal from diesel powered electric generators in rural Alaska Native communities: A descriptive study. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health Service, Anchorage, Alaska, 1992; journal of Environmental Health, in press. 15 3. Housing Beyond the health hazards imposed by unsafe water and sewage conditions and the disposal of other types of toxic waste, problems of insufficient and inadequate housing are pervasive throughout rural Alaska. The severity of these problems varies from region to region. Testimony taken in Nome pointed to the difficulties being faced in the Bering Straits region, where the Native regional non-profit corporation, Kawerak, had recently completed an assessment of needs in the villages that it serves. Ms. Eileen Norbert reported some of the results: Currently, 47 percent of housing units in the Bering Straits Region are substandard - and this comes from our own housing inventory - of which 43 percent need repairs and 57 percent need total replacement, as opposed to the national average being 10 percent. Overcrowding is also a problem: 4.52 persons live in a Native household in this region. Thirty-six percent of single-family homes in the region have two or more families living in the home.’” Housing problems have been the topic of numerous studies over the years. One of the most comprehensive was prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs by the consulting firm CH2M Hill in 1982, "Alaskan Statewide Housing Needs Study," which in turn referred to studies and reports from many years before.”* Consistent findings reported in these many studies were repeated in a very detailed survey conducted in 1988. Some of the findings from this study are presented below.” Household size and overcrowding: The average number of members per household in rural Alaska was 3.70. In comparison, Anchorage households have an average size of 2.72. The Arctic Slope region had the highest percentage (18.7%) of households with three or more generations per house. Calista region was second with 16.4 percent and Bering Straits had 15.4 percent. Overcrowding conditions appeared to be the worst in the Calista and NANA regions. 29 percent of households in these regions had 100 or less square feet per resident. Nearly 87 percent of houses in NANA region had less than 300 square feet. 81 percent of the houses in Calista region and 72 percent of the houses in Doyon region was less than 300 square feet. In comparison, Anchorage had an average of 600 square feet per resident. Physical condition of dwellings: The highest percentage of houses rated in need of replacement by region was Ahtna with 21 percent, followed by Doyon region, 17 percent, Aleut ’Testimony of Eileen Norbert, speaking on behalf of Matthew lya, Director of Kawerak's Department of Natural Resources, appearing before the Commission a hearings held in Nome on September, 21, 1992. *See, for example, Housing the Alaska Native, published by the Alaska State Housing Authority (ASHA), 1967, and Native Housing in Alaska, also published by ASHA, 1968. 1988 Alaska Rural Housing Needs Assessment Study, Final Report. Prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs by the Rural Alaska Community Action Program, ASK* Marketing/Information Search, and Alaska Public Interest Research Group, 1988: p.3-5. 16 region, 10 percent, and NANA region, 10 percent. A total of 6,740 new houses [was determined to be needed] by consolidating the total number of homes needing immediate replacement with the total number of households with three or more generations. Doyon region alone accounted for 3,169 of the new houses needed. Significance of findings: Although conditions vary widely, the inescapable conclusion apparent from the survey results is that...rural Alaska has dramatically poor housing conditions in terms of space per resident and state of repair. Crowded multi-generational families occupying dwellings in run-down condition is far too prevalent. Based on the current costs for rural housing of $116,000 per new house..., $781,813,000 will be needed to build the estimated 6,740 houses. If 6,740 were built to provide new housing for homes needing immediate replacement and new houses for the displaced third or fourth generations, overcrowded conditions in rural Alaska would still be a problem. [In order to solve the long-term problem] the combined cost of providing new housing for homes needing replacement; third and fourth generations needing a home; and additions or new homes to alleviate overcrowding at 250 square feet or less per resident was $1,474,056,000. The costs have increased over the years, and the figures used in the 1988 study's projections were probably low to begin with. There are sizable differences in housing construction costs from one region of Alaska to another. Mr. Jim Stevens, who works for the North Slope Borough Housing Department, testified in Barrow that HUD allocations are far below what is needed to construct an adequate, energy efficient home: I would ask this Commission to recommend to Congress that the total development costs be raised to reflect the true costs of construction. As an example, currently on the North Slope, HUD allocates $142,000 per unit. The cost of developing a good house, energy efficient home, is over $160,000. If we are forced to build a home with less money, the contractors will usually skimp on insulation or foundation, or some major aspect of the home, and the people who are paying for the homes, or actually buying the homes, are paying a larger proportion of their income to heat the home. The Farmer's Home Administration, in making direct loans to people in rural areas, refuses to accept the fact that we have high construction costs. They only allow loans made directly to individuals, no more than $97,000. So that's another program that we are locked out of.*° The personal side of housing conditions was brought to the Commission's attention during numerous hearings. In Copper Center, for example, Mr. Joe Neal Hicks, representing Ahtna, Inc., explained that the houses are in poor condition not only as a result of wear and tear; rather, many are built that way: Houses are very cold. They're very poorly insulated. It's too costly to maintain or upkeep. The houses that exist right now today seem to - or serve to make the Indian people more poor than it does to enhance them. I “Testimony before the Commission, Barrow, February 24, 1993. 17 mean, that's the bottom line. I serve on the Housing Board Commission, and we are trying to address that problem. But unless federal regulations are changed, we have to abide by that. The fact stressed by Mr. Stevens in Barrow that not only a lack of money but federal policy is at the heart of much of rural Alaska's housing problems was also mentioned by Katherine McKonkey of Copper Center: One thing that the government has been really good at is setting us up for failure. We have federal regulations that govern the Native people and their rights. We have the HUD housing. They have regulations on the Native people and how they get their homes, and so many regulations that they keep throwing up in your face about how we can't do this because federal regulations state this. Well, federal regulations aren't designed to benefit us, I don't think. They hinder us more than anything. We've been dealing with our bad HUD housing situation up here since 1983. And every time we say, "Well, how about if we do this? Well, no, federal regulations, you know. You can't get around that. So we formed a task force which is the Copper River Native Association and Copper River Basin Regional Housing Authority to look at these issues and how we can change federal regulations to benefit all the problems that we have with these homes. And the only thing that really scares me about that is that the federal regulation book for HUD housing regulations is probably, what, one foot thick? Who is going to have the time to review all of those regulations? And who's going to have the time to help change those regulations? It's going to take us years, you know, and here we are, already dealing with those houses for 12 years already. Never getting ahead. The poor quality of housing construction in HUD homes was the topic of a critical review conducted in the Calista Region which led to a lawsuit by residents of Mountain Village and five other villages filed in U.S. District Court claiming that HUD and the local housing authority were negligent in the construction of 212 houses built in the 1980s. The suit contends that officials of the Association of Village Council Presidents warned HUD before many of the houses were even finished that they were substandard. Among the problems alleged in the lawsuit: defective and inadequate foundations, bad heating systems, lack of fire escapes, defective floor joists, bad ventilation systems, bad insulation, and defective windows and doors. Federal law, according to the suit, requires that...homes be "durable, safe and economical to maintain, contain such amenities as are necessary to guarantee a safe and healthy family life, be of good design and quality architecture and be energy efficient." According to James Davis, a lawyer for the Alaska Legal Services in Bethel: "Instead of safe, decent and sanitary homes that the home-buyers thought they were purchasing, (they) received defective and dangerous homes that are ill designed, poorly constructed, expensive to heat and thoroughly 18 unsuitable for persons of low income living in the arctic."*! All of the indications are that throughout rural Alaska the housing situation facing Natives is approaching a state of disaster. Not only are existing homes clearly substandard and generally in a state of disrepair, but every year will bring even further dilapidation. Programs that had at one time been able to stem some of the decline in the conditions of housing, such as the Housing Improvement Program and the Low Income Weatherization Program, have declined over the years as an inverse function of the need for them. And the future prospects for appropriations of sufficient size to ensure repair, replacement and new construction to meet the growing demands of the Alaska Native population are grim. This reality was punctuated recently in an interchange between administration officials and members of the U.S. Senate Interior Appropriations subcommittee. Officials of the Indian Health Service announced that the proposed 1995 budget includes the suspension of funding for all water and sewer improvements, saving $85 million. When asked by Senator Harry Reid, "How can we build houses without water and sewer in them?" the IHS officials responded that the Department of Housing and Urban Development was also cutting back money to build Native housing.” The position of the federal administration appears to be to do absolutely nothing to reverse the trend of deteriorating housing for Alaska Natives, much less improve housing for the future. The federal government must realize that conditions in Alaska require both more flexibility in regulation and higher levels of funding. Far greater control for developing and implementing housing plans should be placed under the authority of the locally empowered Native government where housing construction needs must be met. Federal regulations prohibiting local design and construction should be replaced. Furthermore, limits, construction standards, energy-related design criteria, and the multitude of policies and procedures that regulate construction standards in rural Alaska should be reviewed and revised by a panel composed mostly of Alaska Natives and others who have experience and expertise in arctic and sub-arctic housing construction. In addition to policy changes, however, is the unavoidable conclusion that to correct housing inadequacies and to ensure sufficient and better quality housing in the future will require large injections of money. As mentioned earlier, the estimates for meeting the need have ranged to 1.5 billion dollars, and every year those estimates will necessarily be increased by higher construction costs and more expensive repairs needed by existing housing units. Rather than taking the attitude that was recently expressed by the administration - that neither water/sewer nor housing needs would be met at all, in order to save money - the unsatisfactory human condition to which rural Alaska Native families are subjected and the trust responsibility of the federal government to improve the health, safety and well-being of the nation's Native people must be re-examined, and priorities must then be re-established to improve their housing conditions. The Commission calls upon Congress to fund a five-year program that will result in the remediation of the substandard housing for rural Alaska Natives and complete the construction of enough new housing units to eliminate at least 80 percent of the over-crowding conditions that prevail. This activity should be carried out in close coordination with the Alaska state government and with village councils, tribal organizations and Alaska Native corporations. 3!"Villagers knock HUD housing: Critics say many bush homes show construction defects." Anchorage Daily, News, February 9, 1994. "Native Services face ax." Anchorage Daily News, March 12, 1994. 19 B. Physical and Behavioral Health Indicators 1. Comparison of Alaska with Other Indian Health Service Areas The Indian Health Service is divided administratively into twelve Areas, of which the entire State of Alaska is one. In 1992, the Service published a report comparing the Areas on a number of different factors and statistics. Although some of the figures are clearly dated (from 1979, for example) they do show the health problems from which Alaska Natives suffer most, and unique issues that Alaska Natives continue to face relative to the remainder of the service population. Reviewing some of the socio-demographic data first, Alaska Natives are second highest in the percentage of their population under the age of five years: 14.5 percent versus the Aberdeen Area with 15.5 percent. At the other end of the age range, however, Alaska is at the median: 5.3 percent of the Native population is over the age of 64 years. Putting these two statistics together shows that the shift in the population is clearly to the younger ages; while the proportion of Alaska Native elders is basically average among the country's Native population (i.e., life expectancy is also about average), there will be a rapidly growing number of children if these trends continue. This projection is further substantiated by the fact that (from 1986 through 1989) Alaska ranked second in birth rate with 35.4 per 1,000 population, compared with 30.3 for the national Native rate and only 15.7 for the U.S., all races combined.** These figures combine to predict a significant acceleration in the numbers of IHS-eligible beneficiaries as the year 2000 approaches. There are other telling differences in the socio-demographic data reported by the Indian Health Service. Alaska Natives (1980 statistics] had the lowest number of median years of school completed, with only 9.3, as compared to 12.1 years for the entire Indian Health Service population and 12.5 years for the U.S. population as a whole. Similarly, Alaska Natives ranked lowest in the percent of males aged 20 to 64 years who are employed, with 48.4 percent, compared with 62.8 percent for the national Native population and 80.4 percent for the U.S. population as a whole. The figures for the same-aged females show Alaska second lowest behind Navajo Area with 41.4 percent employed, compared with 45.8 percent and 56.4 percent for the entire Indian Health Service population and U.S. population, respectively. Alaska Natives (1979 statistics) ranked the highest in median household income: $15,750 versus $11,471 for the national Native average (noting that the national average for all races combined was $16,841). However, over 25 percent of Alaska Natives were below the poverty level at that time, due to the high cost of living here.** 2. Intentional and Unintentional Injuries and Deaths There are increasing numbers of researchers and health professionals who question the distinction that is customarily made between suicide and many of the "unintentional deaths" logged into the Vital Statistics records of Alaska. There is negligible difference, they argue (with conviction), between a young Alaska Native male losing his girlfriend, getting drunk, and shooting himself in the head (recorded as a "suicide") and a young Alaska Native male losing his girlfriend, getting drunk, and going off into the night to freeze to death on his snow machine (recorded as an "unintentional death"). For this reason, the data depicting the incidence of "unintentional injury and death" must be viewed within a conceptual framework that allows the understanding that many "unintentional" deaths were actually intentional but performed in a less obviously suicidal fashion. “Regional Differences in Indian Health. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992. “ibid. 20 a. Self-Inflicted Injury Death. Mentioned earlier was the lengthening of the expected life span of Alaska Natives over the last 40 years. However, accompanying this has been the dramatic increase in intentional deaths: in 1950, the rate of intentional deaths, which includes both suicides and homicides, among Alaska Natives was 29.5 per 100,000 population, while over the period from 1980 through 1989 (the most recent data published), the rate was 77.9 per 100,000. By comparison, the rate of intentional deaths for non- Natives from 1980 through 1989 was less than one-third the Native rate: 25.8 per 100,000. Of the Native intentional death rate, 49.7 per 100,000 were suicides and 28.2 per 100,000 were homicides.*® The suicide and homicide rates among Alaska Natives have received a great deal of attention in recent years. But the solutions will not be found in the raw data that merely report the deaths. Although beset with reporting problems,** the data do show villages and regions in which there are repeatedly high rates of suicide and areas that are consistently very low or entirely without suicide. This pattern, which has also been found in other northern Native areas,*” demonstrates the non-random nature of the act and may lead to suggestions for improving "mental health" and reducing intentional injury and death. (For more information on Alaska Native suicide, please see Section Two of this volume.) b. Unintentional Injury and Death. As the intentional death rate has increased over the years, the rate of "unintentional" (i.e., truly accidental) death has declined slightly among Alaska Natives. "Accidents and adverse effects" rank first among the leading causes of death for the Alaska Area of the Indian Health Service, a characteristic that exists in five of the other 12 Areas. The mortality rate for Alaska Natives was 130.6 per 100,000, compared with 54.2 per 100,000 for White Alaskans.** Unintentional injuries and deaths among Alaska's children remain high, although the data are rather sketchy due to the lack of an injury surveillance system. Injury deaths of children under the age of 15 between 1980 and 1985 totaled 248, the highest rate in the nation. Drowning was the number one cause of unintentional deaths, at a rate of 6.8 per 100,000 children per year, also the highest in the United States. Many of these could have been prevented had the use of personal flotation devices been more widely promoted. 3. Health Problems Related to Sexual Practices a. Teenage Pregnancy. The estimated rate of pregnancies in 1985 (the most recent data available) was 81 per 1,000 Alaska Native females aged 17 and under versus 71 per 1,000 “SMiddaugh, J.P., Miller, J., Dunaway, C.E., Jenkerson, S.A., Kelly, T., Ingle, D., Perham, K., Fridley, D., Hlady, W.G., and Hendrickson, V. Causes of Death in Alaska, 1950, 1980-1989. Juneau: Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, 1991. “See, for example: Forbes, N., and Van Der Hyde, V. Suicide in Alaska 1978-1984: Updated data from State files. Juneau: Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, 1986; and Marshall, D.L., and Soule, S. Accidental deaths and suicides in Southwest Alaska: Actual vs. official numbers. Alaska Medicine, 1988, 30, 45- 52. *’See, for example: Thorslund, J. Suicide among Inuit youth in Greenland 1977-86. In Postl, B.D., Gilbert, P., Goodwill, J., Moffatt, M.E.K., O'Neil, J.D., Sarsfield, P.A., and Young, T.K. Circumpolar Health 90: Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Circumpolar Health. Winnepeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1991. “Alaska Area Program Information Summary, Division of Planning, Evaluation, and Health Statistics, Alaska Area Native Health Service, 1991. 21 females of the same age in the United States as a whole.*® The rate of births per 1,000 females aged 15 through 19 in 1988 was 111.3 for Alaska Natives, compared with 44.9 for White Alaskans and 43.7 for White females in the United States as a whole.*° A survey of rural Alaska Native school students conducted in 1989 found that almost 60 percent of all the 10th grade students questioned reported that they had had intercourse, and by the 12th grade 81 percent of the females and 68 percent of the males reported that they had had intercourse. Asked if they worried about getting pregnant or, for males, getting somebody else pregnant, 21 percent of the sexually active males and 33 percent of the sexually active females responded that they did. Yet of these same sexually active students, 22 percent reported that they or their partner do not use any form of birth control, and 19 percent of the females reported that they have become pregnant at least once. In comparisons made by the study, the statistics show that sexual activity and probability of - or actual - pregnancy are higher among Native students than among non- Native students.’ b. Sexually Transmitted Disease. A study of 1,126 Alaska Native women (average age 28.3 years) conducted between 1988 and 1990 found that 70.6 percent were positive for a present or previous sexually transmitted disease.” The number of Alaska Natives seeking treatment for gonorrhea throughout the Alaska Area Native Health Service has declined significantly over the years - from a rate of 3,829 per 100,000 population in 1979 to 624 per 100,000 in 1990, but that rate is still much higher than among non-Native Alaskans (282 per 100,000) and other U.S. citizens (221 per 100,000). c. HIV and AIDS. The Section of Epidemiology, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, has published statistics on AIDS cases diagnosed through June 30, 1993, which show the continuing increase of the disease in Alaska. As of that date, a total of 180 people had been diagnosed, 100 of whom have died; for the first six months of calendar 1993, there have been more cases of AIDS than in all of 1990.** Of the total number of AIDS cases, 14 percent are Alaska Native, which represents the approximate proportion of Natives in the state's population.** Data from state laboratories show that 57,435 Alaska residents were tested for HIV between May 1985 and June 1993. Of that number, 12,041 were Alaska Natives, 69 of whom (0.6%) tested positive. This is to be compared with 0.9 percent for Whites, 1.3 percent for Blacks, and 2.4 percent for Hispanics. The risk category “Henshaw, S.K., Kenney, A.M., Somberg, D., and Van Tort, J. Teenage Pregnancy in the United States. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1989; Healthy Children 2000. U.S. Public Health Service, 1991. “Weeks, M. Memorandum to Senator Drue Pearce: Adolescent Pregnancy in Alaska: 1989 and 1990. Legislative Research Agency, Research Request 92.065, February 11, 1992. “'The State of Adolescent Health in Alaska. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, Division of General Pediatrics and Adolescent Health, May 1990. Native-specific data are reported in a separate, untitled document produced by the National Adolescent Health Resource Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota. “Davidson, M., Schnitzer, P., Bulkow, L., Parkinson, A., Schloss, M., Fitzgerald, M.A., Knight, J., Murphy, C., Kiviat, N., Toomey, K., Reeves, W., Schmid, S., and Stamm, W. The prevalence of cervical infection with human papillomaviruses and cervical dysplasia in Alaska Native women. In press, 1993. “Alaska Area Program Information Summary. Division of Planning, Evaluation, and Health Statistics, Alaska Area Native Health Service, 1991: p. 20. “In 1993, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened the case definition of AIDS. Although the data from the State of Alaska Section of Epidemiology are reported as diagnosed in the year the person first met the revised case definition, there may still be some artifactual enhancement of the count for the first half of 1993. “Section of Epidemiology, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Bulletin No. 26, July 26, 1993. 22 with the highest percentage of positive tests was homosexual/bisexual males.“ It appears that the incidence of HIV and AIDS among Alaska Natives today is no worse than among non-Native Alaskans, based on the sample who have been tested. The Commission supports aggressive health education campaigns specific to avoiding HIV and AIDS with increased targeted programs in school districts of the state. The Commission recommends that aggressive health education campaigns specific to avoiding HIV and AIDS be initiated and that a curriculum addressing the disease be established in schools statewide. From the evidence that is available, AIDS is just beginning to spread among Alaska Natives, and there are dire predictions about the extent of that spread unless health patterns change. All educational, health and social service agencies should act now to prevent another major epidemic of a deadly disease among the Alaska Native people. The environmental conditions of Alaska Natives are more conducive to contagious disease than are the environmental conditions of most non-Natives. Furthermore, alcohol and drug abuse has been shown to affect judgment and increase the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, of which HIV is one. Thus, among Alaska Natives, substance abuse and other health problems lower resistance and further enhance the probability of the acquisition of HIV. All ages should be included in the HIV/AIDS education and prevention efforts, not just the youth. The Commission feels that educating and raising the awareness of parents, and helping them to help their children, is an essential element of a successful anti-AIDS campaign. 4. Cancer, Diabetes and Tuberculosis a. Cancer. For many years, Alaska Natives experienced cancer rates that were below the rest of the nation, but that situation has clearly changed. The following discussions highlight some of the new findings related to the increase in cancer among the Alaska Native population, based on the limited research that has been accomplished to date. Alaska Native women experience higher invasive cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates than U.S. Whites, despite a long-standing cancer screening program.*” This is apparently due to the high rate of sexually transmitted disease mentioned earlier: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is now considered to be among the most prevalent and rapidly increasing sexually transmitted diseases in the United States today. It has become strongly associated with invasive cervical cancer and the preinvasive histologic changes that herald this disease thereby permitting successful treatment...During the period 1969-1983, 83 invasive cervical cancers were diagnosed for an age adjusted rate of 28 per 100,000, 2.3 times higher than that of U.S. white women. During this interval, incidence rates increased 335 percent while rates for both U.S. whites and blacks decreased over 40 percent. The decrease is thought to be secondary to appropriate screening and treatment. Despite screening programs for Alaska Native women over the last 30 years, the mortality rate “Section of Epidemiology, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Bulletin No. 28, August 5, 1993. “Davidson, M., Builkow, L.R., Lanier, A.L. Sebbelov, A., Hawkins, I., and Jensen, H. Invasive cervical cancer preceded by negative screening and its relationship to human papillomaviruses. Paper presented at the 12th International Papillomavirus Conference, September, 1993. 23 in this population is over three times higher than U.S. whites.” All types included, cancer has become the leading cause of death in women in Alaska and the third leading cause in men. Lung cancer is the predominant cause of cancer death in both Alaska Native men and women and accounts for over 30 percent of the cancer deaths; 90 percent of lung cancer is directly attributable to smoking. The alarming increases in lung cancers that have occurred among the Alaska Native population in recent years have prompted officials of the Alaska Area Native Health Service to emphasize greater prevention activities, as can be seen in these comments of Dr. Anne Lanier: From the perspective of cancer prevention, the data clearly indicate that at least one third of new cancers and cancer deaths are tobacco related. Clearly eradication of tobacco use from this population will have the most profound effect on cancer incidence and mortality, and, of course, result in marked improvements in morbidity and mortality from nearly every other major cause of death and disability (e.g., cardiovascular and cerebral vascular disease, chronic bronchitis and emphysema, pregnancy outcome, SIDS, respiratory disease in children and adults, etc.).” The importance of health education, prevention activities and early screening must be stressed. The high incidence, of and death rate from, cervical cancer among Native women continues even though Pap smear testing has been available for many years. On the other hand, mammography for screening breast cancer has been available on a limited basis only (the four mammography units in the Alaska Area are located in Anchorage, Bethel, Nome and Sitka). Given the remote residences of much of the Alaska Native population, the costs of providing adequate access to screening - until a more mobile system is devised - have been estimated to range from $1,500,000 to $3,000,000 per year.°° Nonetheless, the Commission encourages the Alaska Native Health Service, as well as the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, to aggressively pursue new approaches to increasing screening and diagnostic capabilities while at the same time offering greatly enhanced health education and risk prevention activities for Alaska Natives. b. Diabetes. The dissolution of the Soviet Union has opened new opportunities for comparative studies of Alaska Natives and the Native people of the Chukotka Region of Russia across the Bering Straits. Most notable are recent studies of the eating habits, lifestyles, and health consequences of Siberian Yupik who had, until the erection of the Iron Curtain in 1948, been united as one group; many families separated at that time, some on St. Lawrence Island in Alaska and others on the Chukotka mainland, were re-united in the last two years. Studies by Nobmann and others at the Alaska Area Native Health Service have revealed major differences between the Russian Yupik and Alaska Yupik after fewer than 50 years of separation. One characteristic of the Alaska Yupik, compared with their Russian relatives, is the high rate of diabetes: approximately 9.7 per 1,000 population as opposed to 1.0 per **Arctic Investigations Program: Program Planning and Review FY 92. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, 1992: p.20. “Lanier, A.P. Epidemiology of Cancer in Alaska Natives. Paper presented at the "Cancer in Indian Country" conference, Rapid City, South Dakota, September, 1992. ‘°Lanier, A.P., and Mostow, E.N. Screening for cancer in remotely populated regions -- lessons from mammography and breast cancer. In Postl, B.D., et al., (Eds.) Circumpolar Health 90, op cit., pp. 464-465. 24 1,000 on the Russian side of the Straits, only 40 miles away.°! Researchers attribute these differences largely to differences in diet which, they hypothesize, is the same cause for the increases in diabetes among Alaska Natives throughout the state. Statewide rates for Alaska Natives are, in fact, higher than for the Bering Straits region. From 1985 to 1989, the rate of diabetes for Alaska Natives rose from 15.7 to 18.2 per 1,000 population.” c. Tuberculosis. In Alaska, tuberculosis is far from eradicated, even though the frightening statistics from 40 and 50 years ago are no longer prevalent. Alaska Natives still have an incidence rate of 92.2 per 100,000 population which is almost ten times higher than the USS. rate of 9.3 per 100,000. This is significantly lower than the record-breaking rates of the 1930s and 1940s (incidence of 10,280 per 100,000 and death rate of 655 per 100,000), but it is still excessive.’ Recent rates of new tuberculosis cases reported reveal that Alaska Natives recorded 60.7 per 100,000, the highest among the Indian Health Service Areas and 5.9 times higher than the U.S. rate (10.3 per 100,000). The second highest Area, Nashville, reported 43.3 new cases per 100,000 by comparison, and the Indian Health Service average is 25.7 per 100,000.* 5. Substance Abuse and Related Health Issues a. Alcohol and Drugs: General. Alcohol abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse and addiction are the topics of a separate section and will be addressed here only in passing, looking more at the costs involved in providing intervention and treatment for substance abusers. During the federal 1993 fiscal year, the Indian Health Service allocated approximately $5,670,000 in alcohol and drug abuse funds in its contracts with Alaska Native regional corporations and tribal contractors under P.L. 93-638 and P.L 99-570; in addition, the Alaska Area Native Health Service maintains a staff in its Alcohol Program Office which is also supported by federal substance abuse funds. Within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and Center for Substance Abuse Treatment both have several grants in place in Alaska, with a combined total well in excess of $1,000,000 per year. And even more program funding is derived from the state legislature's appropriations to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. During the current fiscal year, approximately $6,568,000 in state funds have been awarded to Alaska Native regional corporations and tribal substance abuse programs in Alaska, with an additional $925,000 for the Rural Human Services System which offers substance abuse and mental health services in a total of 50 Alaska Native villages. Altogether, the annual costs of offering substance abuse programs for Alaska Natives total approximately $13,163,000 without calculating in Medicaid, Medicare or other third party reimbursement for treatment. Considering the fact that there are about 60,800 Natives in Alaska 15 years ‘!'Young, T.K., Schraer, C.D., Shubnikoff, E.V, Szathmary, E.J., and Nikitin, Y.P. Prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in circumpolar indigenous populations. International Journal of Epidemiology, 1992, 21, 730-735. 52Alaska Area Report of Indian Health Service Objectives: FY 1992. Anchorage: Alaska Area Native Health Service. 3Beller, M., and Middaugh, J.P. "Surveillance for Tuberculosis in Alaska, 1986." Alaska Medicine, 1989, 31, 4- Arasa mca’, 8. “Regional Differences in Indian Health, 1992, op cit. 25 of age or older,** this amounts to a cost of about $217 per adult per year in revenues just to support substance abuse programs. Yet, with this continuing "investment," it is clear that the situation has not significantly improved. The findings of the Commission support two conclusions, both of which lead to recommendations that are presented later. First, the current treatment system is not very effective in producing "clean and sober" individuals and healthy families. Additional options must be considered and greater emphasis must be placed on primary prevention. Second, there is no strong evidence that the type of alcohol abuse that predominates among Alaska Native people is best characterized as "alcoholism" in the same sense that alcohol addiction presents itself among non-Native drinkers. The issue deserves further study. At every hearing held by the Commission and its task forces, alcohol was consistently raised as a major problem. There is a need for new, and perhaps dramatically different, approaches to be devised and implemented. The Commission is certain that only by attacking substance abuse at the family and community levels (rather than individually) will change ever occur. b. Substance Abuse: FAS and FAE. One entirely preventable impact of the use and abuse of alcohol and drugs is collectively referred to as "Alcohol Related Birth Defects" (ARBD), the two best known and documented types of which are Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and Fetal Alcohol Effects (FAE). Since the mid-1980s, the high rates of FAE and FAS among Alaska's Natives have received considerable attention from the Alaska Area Native Health Service and the State of Alaska's Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. In some parts of Alaska the statistics are staggering. In the Copper River Basin in the late 1980s, for example, it was found that the FAS rate was over 350 per 1,000 live births, which means that 35 percent of the births among the Natives of that region suffered from discernible FAS. The statewide incidence of FAS among Alaska Natives born between 1981 and 1988 averaged 4.2 per 1,000 live births*’ Programs designed to alert pregnant women to the dangers of alcohol and drug use, combined with new treatment options in Alaska, have apparently been the cause of a significant reduction in FAS among the Alaska Native population. Recent reports indicate that the rate for 1989-1990 was 2.1 per 1,000 live births, which is still over four times higher than the rate for the state as a whole, 0.5 per 1,000.5’ Thus, although gains have been made, there is much left to be accomplished, and the proposed strengthening of health education and attitudes will help accomplish the objective of eliminating FAS and FAE in the Alaska Native population. (For more information on FAS and FAE, please see Section Two of this volume.) c. Substance Abuse: Tobacco. The general shift during the 20th century from infectious disease to negative health consequences of behavior among the primary causes of morbidity and mortality for Alaska Natives has produced new targets for the health system to adiress. Among these, one of the first is lung disease due to smoking. Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of death and disease; it is a risk factor for five of the ten leading causes of death. The prevalence of smoking among Alaskan adults is 25.9 percent, and it is estimated that 38.6 percent of Alaska Native/American Indian adults smoke, compared with 25.1 percent of White adults.°* Other data report even higher Alaska Native Population 1993. Division of Planning, Evaluation, and Health Statistics, Alaska Area Native Health Service, March 1993. ‘°A Map for the Future: Alaska's Family Health Plan, 1990-1995. Juneau: Section of Maternal, Child, and Public Health; Department of Health and Social Services, March 1990. 5’Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review, 1993, 42, No. 16. “8Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review, 1993, 42, No. 12. 26 figures (as high as 60% among Native adults according to one study). The extent of the health crisis resulting from smoking and smokeless tobacco use is evident in a number of sources, one of which, published by a member of the medical staff of the Alaska Area Native Health Service, is quoted here: Excess use of cigarettes among Alaskan and Canadian children as well as adults is well documented. Some evidence is also available to show that Alaska Natives begin smoking cigarettes at an earlier age than non-Natives. Finally, data also show high rates of smokeless tobacco use among Alaska Native school children with rates approaching 50 percent in the older age group [i.e., grades 7-12]. High rates of use are occurring among Native youth despite the fact that knowledge of adverse effects exists. In a school survey [conducted by the Alaska Native Health Board] in which high rates of use were documented for both cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, nearly all children who were questioned responded that they knew tobacco products were harmful - 89 percent and 72 percent for smokeless tobacco and 99 percent and 97 percent for cigarettes. We are in the midst of an epidemic. Both lung cancer rates and tobacco use rates are excessive in the North. We do not know how long these high rates of tobacco use have been present. Since a latent period of 20 or more years may exist before the adverse effects of tobacco are fully apparent, the Northern populations may not yet have experienced the maximum adverse effects of tobacco use.” In addition to the consequences that befall the tobacco user, the new concern about second-hand smoke and its effects on children has only begun to produce data, but it is obvious even without research that with the excessively high prevalence of smoking among Alaska Natives and the large number of children who live in smoking households (i.e., the average Native household in Alaska is 3.66, compared with 2.75 for the United States as a whole) negative health consequences, including respiratory disease, will accelerate. In federal FY 1991, the last year for which data have been reported, the second most frequent reasons for pediatric (0 - 14 years) outpatient visits within the Alaska Area Native Health Service system were diseases of the respiratory system (21,457 visits) surpassed only by ear diseases (due to the prevalence of otitis media). Other consequences of tobacco use should also be considered: for example, the relationship between the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and smoking has been established, and the excessive rates of neonatal and post-neonatal deaths among Alaska Natives are discussed on the next page. d. Lack of Consistent Data. The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and the Alaska Area Native Health Service have recently combined forces to assemble a single Management Information System to collect admission data, some treatment data, and discharge data for Alaska Natives receiving substance abuse services. However, the same cannot be said for needs assessment data, which would inform both the federal and state governments about the incidence and prevalence of alcohol and drug use, and abuse, among Alaska Natives. Also missing is a method for collecting information regarding changes in alcohol and drug abuse behaviors, and information relative to perceptions of Alaska Natives Lanier, A. Tobacco use and its consequences in a northern population. Arctic Medical Research, 1990, 49, 42-48. 27 as to the ways that local and statewide programs can impact substance abuse. The last systematic effort to collect such information on a statewide basis occurred in the 1980s. Another set of data related to substance abuse among Alaska Natives measures the effectiveness of the current system to achieve its goals of reducing, if not eliminating, alcohol and drug abuse, even though many millions of dollars continue to flow through that system each year. In February 1993, the Alaska Office of the Ombudsman, responding to a complaint that had been filed about the operation of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (ADA) of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, published a report that found, among other things, that "ADA does not have a clearly articulated strategy (i.e., system of mission, goals and objectives) for reducing substance abuse" and that "ADA fails to ensure that the programs it funds are effective." One of the recommendations of the Ombudsman was that ADA should use the next planning cycle to develop outcome evaluation strategies.” Based on these and other indications that data are lacking, the Commission has determined that a high priority for change must be the immediate establishment of policies and procedures that will ensure: a) consistent gathering of needs assessment data related to the incidence and prevalence of substance abuse among Alaska Natives (and to ensure a cost effective approach among all other Alaska residents at the same time); b) routine sharing of data between the various agencies of the federal and state governments that collect information about substance abuse; and, c) the establishment of a consistent evaluation methodology assessing the performance of programs that receive funds from the state and federal governments to fight the substance abuse problems that have become endemic in Alaska Native communities. To this end, state and federal agencies must clearly define their objectives in operational terms; otherwise, as noted by the Ombudsman, there is no way to measure whether those objectives are being met. This conclusion is represented among the Commission's recommendations and applies to all future programs, particularly those instituted in response to the Commission's recommendation for a major shift in treatment approaches. That is, the entire approach to "treating" alcohol and drug abuse must shift from the secondary and tertiary emphasis that has prevailed in Alaska to one that concentrates on primary prevention, community development and empowerment programs, and highly focused activities for Alaska Native youth. 6. Childrens' Physical and Emotional Health Issues a. Infant Mortality. The Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) for Alaska Natives is consistently higher than the IMR in the United States as a whole, as Table 2 shows for the period from 1977 through 1987. The Alaska Native IMR, shown as the number of deaths per 1,000 births, is a sliding three-year average, to correct for the variability caused by the relatively small population.” Differences between Alaska Natives and White Alaskans are shown in the table. Even though there are slight improvements in the mortality rate over time (noting that these are See Kruse, J.A., and Aegerter, E. The Health of Alaskans: An Assessment of the Prevalence of Behaviors Posing Health Risks. Anchorage: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, 1983; Segal, B. Patterns of Drug Use: A Community Survey Anchorage: Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, University of Alaska, 1983; Segal, B. Drug-taking Behavior Among Alaskan Youth, 1988: A Follow-up Study. Anchorage: Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, University of Alaska, 1988. ‘Investigative Report: Ombudsman Complaint F89-0072. State of Alaska Office of the Ombudsman, Juneau; February 4, 1993. ibid, p. 25. 28 sliding five-year averages which, due to their calculation, show slower and more even changes than yearly averages would), there is an inescapable need for further progress in reducing infant mortality among Alaska Natives.© Table 2: Alaska Native Infant Mortality Rate (Deaths per 1,000) Alaska US. All Year Natives Races 1977 22 14 1979 21 13 1981 17.5 12 1983 17 11.5 1985 14.5 10.5 1987 14 10 b. Child Nutrition. Iron-deficiency anemia has long been recognized as a problem among Alaska Native children. Tests conducted between 1983 and 1985 by the Alaska Area Native Health Service showed a prevalence of anemia (defined as hemoglobin < 11 g/dl, hematocrit < 34%) ranging from 22 percent to 28 percent in children under five years of age. Subsequent surveys of school-aged Alaska Native children and adolescents have shown an anemia prevalence of 10 percent or greater, which is to be compared with rates for the United States as a whole of four percent for children three-to-five years old, three percent for children six-to eleven years old, and four percent for children aged 12-17 years old.** The causes of iron-deficiency anemia in Alaska Native children are not fully understood. The traditional Native diet is rich in iron, and the high anemia prevalence may be due to the decline in traditional foods and replacement by non-Native "junk food" which continues to become more readily available in rural Alaska and more popular among the youth. Thus the changing diet may account for both iron-deficiency anemia and diabetes. Data accumulated over the last few decades have consistently shown a positive correlation between the health of an infant and breastfeeding, and both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services have established objectives for the year 2000 to increase the prevalence of breastfeeding, especially among low-income and minority women. A statewide survey of 1,125 Alaskan mothers conducted in 1990 found consistent differences between Alaska Native mothers and White Alaskan mothers, both in the percentage who were breastfeeding upon discharge from the hospital following the birth of their child and in the length of time those who did breastfeed continued before quitting and switching to a commercial formula or milk. At hospital discharge 74.4 percent of Native women and 85.7 percent of White women breastfed their infants. Although both figures are substantially higher than the national average of 51.5 percent, the percentage of Native women was lower than that for White women in Alaska. Source for Figures 2 and 3: Bureau of Vital Statistics, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. 64 Map for the Future: Alaska's Family Health Plan, 1990-1995. op cit., p. 94. “ibid, p. 36. 29 Native women also tend to stop breastfeeding earlier than others. By the end of the third month, 70 percent of Native mothers have stopped, compared to 55 percent of White mothers.® Education and instruction of Alaska Native women (and prospective fathers] should be enhanced, beginning no later than during pre-natal care to increase the prevalence and duration of breastfeeding and thereby improve childhood health. Although there are many anecdotal accounts of the decline in Alaska Natives’ nutrition due to the introduction and adoption of Western "junk food," at least one report has shown that, in fact, the typical Alaska Native diet is nourishing. Reporting the results of 907 interviews conducted with 359 Alaska Native adults aged 21 to 60 years old, Nobmann concluded: We found the current diet of Alaska Natives to be neither totally traditional nor totally westernized. It was on the average a nourishing diet with many positive aspects which should be continued and promoted. The high intake of fish, water, margarines, poultry, and other low fat meats is desirable. Meat protein, Vitamin C, and iron intakes for men were good. Alaska Natives in the regions surveyed can feel good about their diets. Yet there were other aspects which could be improved. Intake of fruits and vegetables and whole grains could be increased. The frequent intakes of coffee, sugar, soft drinks, cured meats such as hot dogs, and canned soups could be reduced. Calcium intakes and the iron intake of women could also be improved.*” One of Nobmann's recommendations is that an ongoing diet monitoring system for Alaska Natives be established "to help measure our progress in reducing the dietary risk factors known to contribute to five of the eight leading causes of Alaska Native deaths."® Justification for the establishment of a diet monitoring system is further demonstrated by data reported in the previously mentioned survey of Native school students in rural Alaska. That survey asked students about their intake of the various food groups and disclosed that 50 percent of the Native boys and 57 percent of the girls were found to have a nutritionally inadequate diet in one or more of the food groups, and 71 percent ate "junk food" on a daily basis. Given the variability in the reports and the data, as well as the differences that exist among regions, the Commission recommends that the diet monitoring strategy should be incorporated into the comprehensive health status and health needs assessment data system proposed by the Commission. c. "Hib." A series of letters that is well known to many Alaska Natives and practically unknown in the Lower 48 is H-i-b, for "Haemophilus influenzae type B," the most common cause of meningitis and a leading cause of other invasive infections in children. It is a deadly disease: despite therapy with antibiotics, the mortality of Haemophilus influenzae type B meningitis remains high, at approximately five percent of the cases, and serious neurologic sequalae occur in as many as 25 percent of the survivors. "Hib" has been the “Alaska Ross Mothers Survey. Conducted by Ross Laboratories in coordination with the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and the Alaska Area Native Health Service, 1990. (Report available from the Department of Health and Social Services.) “’Nobmann, E.D. Dietary intakes of Alaska Native adults 1987-1988. In Postl, et al. Circumpolar Health 90 op cit., p. 738. “ibid, p. 735. “Report produced by the National Adolescent Health Resource Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, p. 13; see endnote 27, supra. 30 subject of studies by both the Indian Health Service and the National Center for Infectious Diseases' Arctic Investigations Program (AIP), which provided the following: Studies conducted by AIP have characterized the epidemiologic features of disease in Alaska Natives and defined the epidemiology of Hib disease in all population groups in the state. During 1980-1982, 287 confirmed episodes of invasive Hib disease occurred. For children under 5 years of age, the incidences for Eskimos, Indians, and non-Natives were 705, 401, and 129 cases per 100,000 population, respectively. The Native population represents only 16 percent of the population of Alaska but has 51 percent of all invasive Hib disease.” A concerted effort on the part of the Indian Health Service to immunize Alaska Native children against Hib has shown marked improvement in rates over the last three to five years, as will be discussed in the subsection on Immunization. The Commission notes with admiration those who have aggressively pursued the eradication of this disease and, with its emphasis on health promotion, encourages further anti-Hib efforts. d. Dental Disease and Related Problems. Baby bottle tooth decay (BBTD) is a specific type of preventable, rampant decay that affects very young children soon after tooth eruption. BBTD results from one or a combination of the following feeding patterns: a) prolonged bottle feeding, characterized by the use of a bottle beyond the first year of age; b) inappropriate bottle feeding, such as giving a child a bottle with milk or other sweet beverage in it when he/she is put to bed or at-will bottle feeding during waking hours; or, c] inappropriate breast feeding (e.g., at-will nursing for prolonged periods of time usually during sleeping hours). Studies conducted by the Alaska Area Native Health Service Dental Program in 1991 and 1992 have showed that the rate of BBTD among Alaska Natives exceeds 24 percent, compared with four percent for the United States population as a whole. In other words, the rate among Alaska Natives is estimated to be 480 percent that of the general population. One of the studies also found that Alaska Native children residing in villages had higher rates of dental caries than did urban Native children.) A survey of all Alaska Native children residing in Barrow and the seven villages of the North Slope Borough produced the following results: In this survey, Baby Bottle Tooth Decay (BBTD) was defined as two or more decayed (or missing due to decay) maxillary incisors. Sixty-five percent of the children in Barrow and 74 percent of the children in the villages have BBTD. This is rather shocking when one recalls that the prevalence of BBTD is only four percent in the U.S. child population.” The question these data pose for the Commission is this: Do parents and other care givers not know what to do to prevent BBTD and other dental disease in their children or, alternatively, do they know but fail to act for some other reason? The answer will suggest ways to eradicate this and other health problems. Arctic Investigations Program: Program Planning and Review, February 1993. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993: p. 18. 7Jones, D.B., Schlife, C.M., and Phipps, K.R. An oral health survey of Head Start children in Alaska: Oral health status, treatment needs, and cost of treatment. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 1992, 86-93; Jones, D.B. "Oral health status of Native Americans: Selected findings from a survey of dental patients conducted in 1991." Paper presented at the Annual Alaska Area Chiefs and Prevention Coordinators Meetings, November 2, 1992. ?Schlife, C.M., and Jones, D.B. The oral health status of the Inuit people of the North Slope of Alaska. In Postl, B.D., et al., (Eds.) Circumpolar Health 90, op cit., pp. 664-665. 31 e. Immunization. As mentioned earlier, an aggressive immunization program initiated by the Alaska Area Native Health Service several years ago has produced a significant reduction in the number of Hib cases among Alaska Native infants and children. Prior to universal Hib vaccination, there were 80 cases of Hib disease in the state of Alaska annually, and half of the cases were in Native infants. In 1992, there were only two cases of Hib. Hepatitis B immunization results are similar. For example, prior to universal Hepatitis B immunization there were 2.2 cases of symptomatic Hepatitis B infections for every 1,000 Yukon Kuskokwim Delta residents, but now the rate is less than 1.0 in 10,000. The distribution of responsibility for administering vaccinations to Alaska Natives has been shared between the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and the Alaska Area Native Health Service. In 1990, the latter conducted a study of on-time immunizations in Anchorage and the regions of Bristol Bay, Yukon-Kuskokwim and Maniilaq. The results showed "strikingly lower on-time immunization rates (within 30 days of recommended immunization) and two-year-old immunization rates" than had been assumed; it also revealed that the P.L. 93-638 contractors were providing more than half of the immunizations in most regions. A subsequent reduction in state funding for the Public Health Nursing program led to memoranda of agreement signed between five of the regional health corporations and the State of Alaska to enable Community Health Aides to administer immunizations. Table 3 shows the current immunization rates for two-year-old children in eight of the service units of the Alaska Area Native Health Service. Table 3: Immunization Rates for Two-year-olds (FY 1993) North Slope Borough 94% Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation 88% Norton Sound Health Corporation 87% Anchorage (Municipality) 86% Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation 85% Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association 80% Tanana Chiefs Conference 58 %-63% Maniilaq 45% The Alaska Area Native Health Service had set, as its objective, that at least four of eight service units would show immunization rates above 80 percent. As the table indicates, that objective has been reached. The Commission urges the Alaska Area Native Health Service to continue to set its objectives to higher rates of immunization in order that by the end of the century all Alaska Native children throughout the state will be age- appropriately immunized.” The Commission suggests several programmatic changes to help accomplish this objective. The record-keeping and data systems used by the State of Alaska and by the Indian Health Service to document and track immunizations should be combined or, at a minimum, coordinated. At the present time, there is insufficient communication between state and federal health providers, and in many regions the responsibility rests solely with the parents to retain records of which inoculation or vaccination was provided at what time by Data provided by Rosalyn Singleton, M.D., Area Immunization Coordinator, Alaska Area Native Health Service. Memorandum to Mr. G. H. Ivey, Area Director, July 23, 1993. 32 different providers. A single, automated tracking system accessible by all health providers would simplify record keeping, while not removing the responsibility for a child's care from the parents. f. Child Abuse and Neglect. The prevalence of child neglect, child abuse and child sexual abuse in Alaska is high and continues to grow. The total number of reports of harm to children, including abandonment, mental injury, sexual abuse, physical abuse and neglect, has grown steadily from 7,876 in 1989 to 11,509 in 1992. This represented a 42 percent increase in reports of sexual abuse, 59 percent increase in reports of physical abuse, and 33 percent increase in reports of neglect. Over 30 percent of the victims of these reported types of child abuse were Alaska Native, and of the total number of reported cases substantiated by the Department of Family and Youth Services, 35 percent were Native. Thus, Alaska Natives are over-represented in cases of child abuse by a factor of two-to-one: the percentage of substantiated cases of abused children is over twice what would be expected based on the overall percentage of Alaska Natives in the population. The sources of the reports of these various types of child abuse include the police, health practitioners, social service agencies, and others who are required by law to report suspected child abuse. But almost 25 percent of the cases are reported by family, friends and neighbors of the victim. Another 20 percent are reported by school staff.”* Those professionals charged with intervening in and treating cases of child abuse typically project far more instances of actual child abuse than those reported. The aforementioned adolescent health survey conducted in rural Alaska schools in 1989 revealed that 28 percent of girls in grades seven through nine and 37 percent of girls in grades 10 through 12 reported that they had been sexually abused, and 25 percent of those who were abused reported that they had never told anyone. Physical abuse follows similar patterns: 27 percent of the Native girls and 10 percent of the boys reported having been physically abused, but of that number 26 percent of the girls and 52 percent of the boys said that they had not discussed the abuse with anyone.’”° It behooves all state and federal agencies and the regional Native non-profit corporations to educate and promote awareness and the importance of disclosure and intervention. A reluctance has surfaced within some communities to expose instances of child abuse. However, the product of child abuse - and domestic violence of any sort - is the continuation of physical pain and deep-seated psychological damage from generation to generation. Another product is the large number of Native children placed in foster and adoptive homes. In 1992, over half (53 percent) of the adoptions in Alaska were Native, approximately 3.4 times the percentage of Natives in the Alaska population. Whites constitute only 23 percent of the adoptions, although the large majority of Alaska's population is White. With limited support from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Child Welfare Act has been implemented in Alaska and has assisted IRA and traditional councils to intervene in foster placements and adoptions. However, during the last year funding for Indian Child Welfare Act grants has been cut drastically and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has recently proposed that funding be terminated altogether. In Alaska, the results of such unnecessary and untimely cuts could be disastrous since without the Bureau's support there is practically no funding available at all for Indian Child Welfare Act staff to be retained. The thrust of this important program has been the development of activities that are designed The data contained in this section were reported in the Annual Report for the Division of Family and Youth Services, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, March 1993. Report of the National Adolescent Health Research Center 33 to reduce child abuse, offering training in parenting skills and working with troubled families - often intervening in cases of a parent's substance abuse - before violence erupts. The Commission strongly opposes both the present reduction in federal funding for Indian Child Welfare Act grants and any plans for the eradication of that important program. The Commission recommends that funding be reinstated to the 1993 level. Further assistance to tribes and tribal organizations in their efforts to eliminate child abuse and its consequences among Alaska Native people should be offered. The Commission recommends that all agencies handling cases of child neglect and/or child abuse share data. Roles and responsibility, especially between the Division of Family and Youth Services, the judiciary, Indian Health Service, regional health corporations and other tribal contractors, and federally recognized IRA and traditional councils need to be clarified. All agencies must renew their efforts to eliminate these tragic instances of child abuse among Alaska Natives. C. A Summary of the Data Several factors must be considered in summarizing data presented thus far. Information has been gathered from multiple sources, including small-sample research studies and extrapolations of large data bases maintained by the State of Alaska. The topics chosen for mention here were selected more for their having data available than they were as indicators of the most severe problems facing Alaska Natives. Exceptions include water- sewer issues and substance abuse, issues that stand out in any review of Alaska Native health and have repeatedly been brought to the attention of the state and federal governments. Topics of discussion are neither all inclusive nor exclusive. They have not been included here simply because they demonstrate the negative health status of Alaska Natives to the exclusion of other data that showed, for a particular indicator, that Alaska Natives had superior health. The Commission included every potential health problem for which information was available and accessible, and the only health issue that showed a lower incidence rate for Alaska Natives than for some other non-Native sub-populations in Alaska was HIV/AIDS. For that disease, the data are based only on those who have been tested and, because there is no way to factor in the variables that would lead to an Alaska Native or a non-Native receiving a test, it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the under- or over-representation of Alaska Natives among those with HIV in the Alaska population as a whole. The Commission concludes this review of health problems and health issues with one summary statement, which is that the municipal, state and federal governments need to recognize that the health system is suffering from a dearth of consistent, comprehensive health status data. Until the absence of such a data base - with continuous updates and public reports no less often than once every five years - has been remedied, the situation will remain as it is today. It is suggested that, as an integral part of the new data base and processing system, "wellness indicators" (e.g., numbers of Native youth completing high school) also be incorporated to enable positive change to be measured directly. The milieu in which the Commission makes its recommendations for a significant "overhaul" of the health care system for Alaska Natives, emphasizing health promotion and risk and disease prevention, is encompassed by the new federal administration's platform for change. Within this context, it would be an unprincipled decision on the part of governmental agencies charged with bits and pieces of the data-gathering effort not to develop a coordinated and refined statewide survey. As the Commission's findings and recommendations demonstrate, there is an urgency to the establishment of a health assessment and status data bank. 34 D. Population Growth Statistics: Alaska Natives in the Year 2000 Census data show the increases in the number of Alaska Natives in Alaska over the decades, an increase that is due to many factors. These are briefly reviewed here and establish the basis for some predictions about future increases in the Native population and their continuing migration into more urban areas of the state. 1. Fertility and Birth Rates There are wide variations in birth rates between the different regions of Alaska, but altogether the rates are high. For example, in the NANA Region, the Native birth rate is 38.4 per 1,000 compared to the state's overall rate of 21.6 per 1,000 during the period from 1988 through 1990.”° The fertility rate for Alaska Native women has increased slightly over time, while the fertility rate for White Alaskans has decreased. As would be expected, the birth rates show similar trends. In 1987, the rate for Alaska Natives was 36.0 per 1,000 population compared to 18.6 per 1,000 population for White Alaskans.” 2. Increases in the Numbers of Urban Alaska Natives Another trend warranting consideration is the migration of Alaska Natives from the rural villages to the urban centers of Alaska. Too often the public equates Alaska Native health problems and needs with rural health problems and needs. In fact, Alaska Natives residing in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau and other urban areas share most, if not all, of their rural relatives' health problems. The population changes between 1980 and 1990 show the extent of the migration mentioned above. While the Native population in some regions, such as Ahtna, grew by a minimal amount (1.4%), the Municipality of Anchorage grew by 70 percent, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough just north of Anchorage expanded by 182 percent. Many Natives move to Anchorage in search of employment opportunities that they find don't exist once they arrive. The extent of stress created by this situation, combined with the loss of a sense of community and an introduction to anti-Native sentiments and discrimination that many have never experienced before, leads to family problems and behavioral health needs that have a character somewhat different from those found in the villages. The movement of Alaska Natives from the villages to the urban areas has increased over the last several years and, because of the problems that village families encounter once they arrive, there are remarkable increases in the numbers of homeless Alaska Natives in Anchorage and other urban areas. Governments must be made aware of the physical and behavioral health needs of Natives who have chosen to relocate to the urban areas of the state. The Alaska Native Medical Center will have increased pressures placed on its service delivery systems as the population of Anchorage Natives grows. Consistent with suggestions made by other groups, the Commission recommends approaches that the Alaska Area Native Health Service should implement to ensure accessible and available primary care for urban Native residents. Strategic planning on the part of the Alaska Area Native Health Service and the Alaska Native Medical Center should incorporate the population growth in Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Source: Bureau of Vital Statistics, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. "ibid. 35 The feasibility of opening additional primary health clinics or centers both in downtown Anchorage - to coincide with the relocation of the hospital to Tudor Road in 1996 - and in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley to respond to the emerging need should be studied. Another urgent problem is the continuing substance abuse among the Anchorage Alaska Native population. The visible alcohol problem has been a target of much talk and varied strategies "to solve the problem of the Fourth Avenue Natives" that go back into earlier decades.”* Unfortunately, the focus of those early strategies were oriented towards satisfying the profit-oriented needs of downtown merchants more than it was to help the Alaska Natives. The results of those misled strategies have produced negligible results. Though somewhat less visible than a decade ago, there are too many still suffering, at the Saint Francis Center and along many avenues and alleys in Anchorage. Statistics from the Community Service Patrol consistently demonstrate the extent to which substance abuse is pervasive among the Alaska Native street population. "Blue Ribbon Commissions" and other task forces have been assembled to find solutions to the problems resulting from substance abuse among Alaska Natives in urban areas. The Alaska Area Native Health Service has contributed funds to implement different attempts to resolve the problem. Sleep-off centers have been built and detoxification programs expanded. But the problem has not been eliminated. The Commission contends that, as with programs to help improve the health status of Alaska Natives living in the rural areas of the state, programs in the urban centers must also focus on the community. To date, however, the sense of a "Native community" in Anchorage - often called Alaska's largest village - has been lacking and has hampered attempts to organize and implement such community-based ideas. Even though the Native community of Anchorage is composed of many different cultural and tribal groups compared to more homogeneous village communities, if the goals are established to benefit all Alaska Natives, it should be possible to bring the different groups together. That this has been accomplished on a statewide level (e.g., the Alaska Inter-tribal Council, the Alaska Native Health Board, etc.) validates the objective and its ultimate accomplishment. The Commission recognizes the importance of this and the influence that community development processes among the Alaska Native residents of the urban centers will have on ensuring the success of health promotion and education programs. It is therefore recommended that the state, federal and municipal governments combine their efforts and work more closely with existing Native groups, corporations and agencies to support and engender the development and recognition of Native communities within Alaska's urban areas. E. Problems in the System 1. Patient Travel Numerous pleas have been made to the federal and state governments to provide relief of some sort for Alaska Natives who reside in isolated, rural parts of the state and must travel by airplane to their nearest Indian Health Service provider for any malady that cannot be remedied by the local Community Health Aide. In January 1991, the Alaska Native Health Board published Access to Care: Crisis for Alaska Natives, which detailed the depth and breadth of the problem that Alaska Natives face when they must travel to a "hub" or to Anchorage for necessary medical care. Reporting that "the patient is the most frequent "See: Kelso, D., Hobfoll, S.E., and Peterson, W.J. A Descriptive Analysis of the Downtown Anchorage Skid Row Population. Anchorage: Center for Alcohol and Addictions Studies, University of Alaska, 1978; and Segal, B. Homelessness and Drinking: A Study of a Street Population. New York: Haworth Press, 1991. 36 source of payment for travel,"”? Access to Care projected the budget that would be needed both to ensure that rural Natives would have assistance for transportation to reach health care facilities when they were needed and to ensure that individuals would be better able to seek help early in the course of a disease than is now often the case, noting that a substantial proportion of those who were surveyed in the study had delayed seeking medical help because of lack of travel funds. As a result of Access to Care, Congress authorized increased support for travel in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, but the appropriations have not to date matched the authorization. The Commission asks Congress to respond to this great need. The Commission also notes that if the entire health care system is effectively shifted toward primary prevention and if health education programs are significantly increased, along with the much-needed empowerment of the village communities to respond to their own needs, the demands for travel money (which, almost exclusively, is required for obtaining secondary and tertiary care) will decline. Thus, the recommendation incorporates a timely response to the immediate need for patient travel and the long-range projection that the occasions requiring such travel will diminish as the health care system and tribal governance move toward enhanced empowerment and health promotion. 2. Orientation of the System toward Secondary and Tertiary Care A review of IHS 1993 program funding shows that of a total of about $114 million distributed in Alaska through P.L. 93-638 contracts, only $404,198 is dedicated to health education; this represents four-tenths of one percent of the support. Is it any wonder that there are so many obvious indications of the lack of appropriate health education and health promotion for Alaska Natives?) Changing behavior requires both sufficient knowledge about good health and an attitude steeped in the acceptance of one's responsibility for acting on that knowledge. The evidence from funding allocations alone show that IHS cannot do its part to ensure that health education is taking place. This has been brought to the attention of the Indian Health Service repeatedly. For example, the Alaska Native Health Board presented its position papers to the Indian Health Service at the tribal consultation meeting held in Sacramento in 1992 in which the board requested that "by [the year] 2002, 20 percent of funding will go towards addressing national preventable illness priorities thereby reducing the drain on the overall cost of care."*° The Commission notes that if this objective were met, it would represent a five hundredfold increase in support for health education in Alaska. The Commission strongly endorses prior recommendations that the Public Health Service augment funding and support for health education and promotion programs. Not only has the federal government been remiss in advancing health promotion programs, but the Alaska Department of Education has, it seems, failed to ensure proper health education throughout the state, permitting local school districts to decide, unilaterally, not to require health education classes for its students. The North Slope Borough offers a case in point. Recalling data reported earlier showing that 74 percent of the children of that Borough had (easily preventable) baby bottle tooth decay, which is 18.5 times higher than the rate in the Lower 48, it is remarkable that the Borough's School Board and administration have established a curriculum that permits high school students to avoid ” Access to Care: Crisis for Alaska Natives. Anchorage: Alaska Native Health Board, 1991, p. 17. ‘Position papers: National Tribal/IHS Consultation Conference, Sacramento, California, May 12-15, 1992. Anchorage: Alaska Native Health Board, p. 19. 37 the sole health education course offered by taking a Physical Education class instead. It is incumbent upon all levels of government and the entire educational system of the state to revisit the need for health education for all Alaska Natives: children, youth, adults and elders. If the health status data presented do not decry the failure of the system to inform Natives of healthy choices, promote their making those choices, and engendering a communal commitment to good health through local empowerment, then no data can. 3. Federal Resource Allocation Over the years, the Department of Health and Human Services has adopted and adapted an allocation methodology for distributing Congressional appropriations across the 12 Areas and then across the Service Units within each Area (called the Service Unit Resource Allocation Methodology, or SURAM). A number of variables have been used in these formulations with the goal of devising a fair method, but the great diversity within the Indian Health Service system, the wide range of costs incurred to deliver the same service in different locations, and many other factors render any formula vulnerable to complaint from within one sector or another, and such has been the case for Alaska. The system now in place, known as the Health Services Priority System (HSPS) is similarly flawed, and the flaws have been brought to the attention of the Indian Health Service by Alaska tribal contractors, tribal leaders and health boards for several years. Requests for the federal government to change the HSPS have been made repeatedly by the Alaska Native Health Board. In 1990, Resolution No. 29, passed unanimously by the Alaska Caucus at the National Tribal/Indian Health Service Consultation Conference held in St. Paul, Minnesota, asked that the HSPS be revised, noting that it "is primarily influenced by population, largely ignoring other more important factors which determine true need for resources in a particular IHS Area, such as the absence of non-IHS health care resources, remoteness, and accurate measures of health status."*! The request to change the current system was repeated in Resolution No. 16 the following year. Although only the first step in remedying the situation, the Indian Health Service has formed a working group to study the problem. The Commission hopes that the group will solicit input from and listen to Alaska's tribes and contractors in evaluating the HSPS and devising revisions to that system that will better acknowledge the needs of Alaska Natives and result in a shift in funding priorities toward primary prevention. The resource allocation used by the Indian Health Service is important because it drives the funding process and, thus, the programs. Only if the HSPS "rewards" successful health education and disease prevention programs with increased funding will the health care system become re-aligned toward the primary prevention end of the continuum. Twenty years ago health professionals made the same recommendations, which were invariably countered with the argument that one cannot possibly take money away from those who are sick and dying just to begin some prevention program or another. Yet had just that occurred 20 years ago, there would be far fewer sick and dying individuals today continuing to require extremely expensive forms of secondary and tertiary treatment. If only on a pilot basis in one segment of the Indian Health Service, the reformulation of funding needs to be made. The Commission offers that Alaska is the most appropriate place for a pilot project of this nature because it ties in with the other part of the changes that need to occur here which center on community development and empowerment. “Resolutions and Position Papers: National Tribal/IHS Consultation Conference, St. Paul, Minnesota, August 7-10, 1990. Anchorage: Alaska Native Health Board. 38 III. Confronting Hard Choices: Discussion & Recommendations A. A Communal Problem: A Community-oriented Response Justice Thomas Berger, who conducted many hearings in Alaska for the Alaska Native Review Commission, authored Village Journey in 1985 to report his findings of those hearings. Showing his immense compassion for and understanding of the health and behavioral health problems facing the Native people of the Arctic and sub-Arctic, Berger gave the keynote speech to the Eighth International Congress on Circumpolar Health held in Whitehorse, Yukon, in 1990. His insights, derived from visiting over 60 villages in Alaska and all of the northern villages in Canada, support and substantiate the perceptions of this Commission which visited, years later, many of the villages that Justice Berger had visited and heard the testimony of those who had also testified before him. The fact that little has changed for the better can be seen as indicting the processes of the past for their inherent shortcomings. Hopefully, this revelation will carve out a more effective means for creating change in the future. Acknowledging that there have been reductions in some infectious diseases, they have "to some extent been replaced by new ones, less deadly but nonetheless debilitating," Mr. Berger offered an insightful explanation for the sad state of the northern Natives' health and attitude: That has come about, if I may be permitted to say so, because we of European descent whose institutions have pervaded the whole earth, we decided that the Native people should adopt our religion and give up theirs. We decided they should be educated in our schools and not by their Elders and by their own people. We decided they should speak our languages and only our languages, not theirs. We decided they should learn about our history and not their own. We decided they should be integrated into our culture and that theirs should be regarded as a relic of the past. Those attitudes, sometimes well-intended, had a devastating effect on the peoples of the circumpolar region. I think I can safely say that the experience we have had here - and I've been speaking of the policies adopted by Canada - that the policies adopted by the United States are very, very similar.” Justice Berger's perceptions of both the problems and some of their root causes help frame the Commission's recommendations calling for fundamental changes in the way the state and federal governments establish policy and introduce programs to "serve" the Alaska Native people. The following segment from Justice Berger's speech sets the stage for those recommendations: The values of white people working on the frontier are often opposed to and inconsistent with the values that are imbedded in Native tradition in the villages and settlements in the north. The community life of Native people emphasizes sharing and cooperation. In the north, the Native community has a profound sense of its own permanence...The frontier that we know so well, on the other hand, encourages and indeed depends upon a footloose work force, mobile capital, and all their ideological concomitants. It is not any particular location that is important but the profitability of an area. Attachments are to reward, not to place, people, or communities. Individualism, uncertainty, and instability are part and parcel of the “Berger, T. Key Note Address. Circumpolar Health 90, op cit., p. 3. 39 frontier. It is by the expansion of the industrial system that we in metropolitan North America have thrived and prospered. But when you seek to reproduce Main Street here in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions, you affect the complex links between the Native people and their past, their culturally preferred way of life, and their individual, familial, and political self respect. We should not be surprised to learn that the economic forces that have broken these vital links caused serious disorders, frustration, confusion, and indignation. Justice Berger went on to refer to the works of physicians and psychiatrists who have, over the years, grappled with the same kinds of health issues and the same indicators of health problems that Alaska Natives are grappling with now, as evidenced by the discussions and findings in this study. And, in his review of others' work and their conclusions, we begin to see a thread, perhaps, that may lead to positive recommendations for change. Quoting Dr. Robert Evans, a professor of health economics at the University of British Columbia and Director of Population Health Programs for the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Justice Berger continued: Without looking at just disease, without looking at the medical labels that we put on all of these things, could I suggest one or two things that you might want to think about?" He [Dr. Evans] emphasized the importance of self-esteem, that it has much to do not only with mental health, but also the physical health of any community or any people. He said, "If we look at Japan today, we find rapid increases in health status. Life expectancy is increasing rapidly in Japan, and infant mortality is way below the Swedes. .. These health statistics are moving upward and that they now have an infant mortality way below the Swedes and getting better, it seems to be correlated with some kind of rapid increase in wealth, some kind of rapid sense of national coping ability, a general sense of feeling good about oneself.** The importance of "self worth" and its relationship to health emerge from these and other sources: Dr. Evans says that there is a lot of evidence to suggest it is not just a question of poor people who don't have enough to sustain life; it's a question of a gradient pattern which applies across the whole population and it's not just food - maybe it isn't food at all. It is certainly not medical care. It's not just public health in the usual sense. We're not sure what it is, but whatever it is, it seems to be pretty important. [Evans] referred to a study done in the United Kingdom of civil servants. Now these people are all sitting behind a desk in London and they're all cared for by the National Health Service. Dr. Evans asked, "What does the examination of their health status show?" And he said, "It showed that those who were administrators had better health than the people working for them, and the people working for them had better health than the people working for ibid, p. 4. “ibid, p. 5. 40 them. So you got down to the lowest grade of clerks and their health was the worst of all. I guess this means if you are in circumstances where you can't control your environment or the stress patterns come at you and you don't know how to deal with them and you don't have the means to deal with them and people beat on you all the time, that apparently is a good deal more destructive in a direct and physiological sense."**,*° Thus, the overriding condition that appears to have the greatest influence on the health of a group is its ability to control its destiny, in a broad sense. If the group is powerless - perceives itself to be powerless - not only is the mental health of its members lowered but the actual physical health declines as well. No one who travels today in the Arctic and sub-Arctic can be unaware of the social pathology that distigures northern life: family violence, alcoholism, and, most tragic of all, suicides by young people often in their early teens and twenties and usually males. I believe that these lamentable statistics are the tragic outcome of the policies that we pursued for so many years. In the midst of this pathology, social workers, nurses, doctors, and counsellors...do the best they can. The fact is, however, that the causes are not treatable by a short stay in a detoxification centre, by counselling, or by any conventional means. They stem from individual demoralization and the demoralization of whole communities. Too often in the past...the representatives of powerful social and economic institutions, the government administrators, and representatives of industry, missionaries and clergy, policemen, social workers, and teachers, supplemented by invasions of academic and commercial scientists in season, were united in their dismissal of Native languages, cultures, and traditions and in their condemnation of ways of life different from their own. Young Natives were taught to reject their own people, their own past, their own sense of identity. Young Natives were inadequately educated to enter a white, middle-class world that is in any case largely closed to them. They may feel cornered, frustrated, and hostile, and most often they have turned their violence inward against themselves. The fact is that the intrusion of large scale frontier development among Native people, without consulting them, without being concerned about them, without enabling them to participate in any meaningful and constructive way, has led to the aggravation of the cluster of social pathologies so familiar in the north. One of the causes is, I think, the loss of self-esteem, both individual and collective. It may be no exaggeration to speak of despair that has over- whelmed whole families and even whole villages. It seems to me that this “ibid, p. 6. 86In Alaska, there is evidence that one cannot eliminate food as a cause of deteriorating health, as Dr. Evans suggests. A factor that has been acknowledged to be of major influence in the deteriorating health of Alaska Natives is the radical change in diet that has occurred over the last few decades. The research findings that were presented in the last section show the negative impacts that a reduction in subsistence foods has caused. Not only have healthy protein sources been replaced by less healthy sources, but the introduction of artificial, high- sugar substances has compounded the problems. It has been estimated that in Barrow the average consumption of soda pop is seven cans per day for every man, woman, and child. The resulting acceleration of dental disease, tooth decay, and gum disease has been accompanied by high rates of childhood sickness in general and middle ear disease in particular. 41 point is integral to many of the social pathologies of northern people and the problem must be faced if we are to develop a rational social policy for the future of the north.*” Solutions to the health problems of Alaska Natives lie, then, 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 community 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 that will turn the tide of deteriorating health status among Alaska Native people. In order to accomplish this, the Commission recommends that federal policy be established that will encourage the regional non-profit corporations that now hold the P.L. 93-638 contracts to relinquish their control of those contracts and assist the villages in their respective regions to assume local control for and provision of health services. This recommendation of the Commission stems from not only the previous research mentioned here but also the testimony of many individuals who came to hearings held around the state. The consistent themes, whether addressing subsistence, health, governance, or any other aspect of Native life, were those relating to self-determination, empowerment, and control at the village level. Only by establishing a valid and enduring sense of a Native community's ability to control its resources and many other aspects of its members' lives can self-esteem be regained, which can then be shared and enjoyed - naturally and by traditional means - by all individuals and families within that community. The question is not whether this must be accomplished. It is, rather, how it can be accomplished. The Commission offers its recommendations for making systemic and systematic changes within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services - as well as many other agencies of government and Alaska Native organizations and corporations - that will re-establish local control and, thereby, improve the self-esteem of the Native people, whether they are located in isolated rural villages or living in metropolitan Anchorage. These will set the "frame" for the picture that will include changes in the educational system, a fundamental re-orientation of the health provider system toward prevention, a shift in the fund allocation used by the Indian Health Service, a recognition on the part of the State of "tribal" (local) control on the part of the state, and the need, which is both overriding and technical, for a coordinated data system that will periodically collect data related to the actual health status and health needs of the Alaska Native people. B. Knowledge, Attitude and Behavior: Policy Implications In the "science" of health programming and its evaluation, a widely accepted approach entails looking at three separate but interconnected phases in reaching individuals, families and communities in order to reduce health problems and improve health status. They are "Knowledge, Attitude and Behavior." In order to alter behavior, knowledge must be imparted and attitudes changed, after which behavioral change will likely follow. Without both appropriate information and a conducive attitude, however, it is doubtful that behavior will change - without serious external pressures or restraints. “Berger, T. Key Note Address. Circumpolar Health 90, op cit., pp. 4-5. 42 The health data that have been reviewed in the Commission's work have shown consistent unhealthy behavior on the part of many Alaska Natives, in the face of a health system that spends millions of dollars each year to improve health status and reverse the negative trends that continue to be reported throughout the Alaska Area Native Health Service. Questions have been raised in preceding pages whether the primary source of the health problems is the failure of the systems to educate Alaska Native people, the failure of Alaska Native people to act on the information that they have, or both? Any of these possible causes will explain the generally unhealthy status of Alaska Natives compared with the non-Native population of the state. For almost 30 years, research has been conducted on the extent to which individuals believe that they are "in charge" of their futures - in this case, their health - or alternatively believe that it is largely out of their hands, either because it is up to fate or because others have and will continue to take care of them. This belief in control is not dichotomous but rather, it appears, is distributed across a continuum, and it may depend to a very large extent on the way one is raised. It is the position of the Commission that programs need to be executed by the Indian Health Service and all others who are involved in improving the health status of Alaska Natives for the purpose of teaching the young that they, themselves, hold the key to their future health. Far too many Alaska Natives presently believe that they do not have control over their futures. This belief has been conditioned over many decades of well-intended public health efforts that have, by and large, promoted the message that "we will take care of you." To reverse this will take a concentrated effort that must involve village empowerment on many different levels. C. Recommendations 1. Endorsing the State of Alaska's Plans for Water and Sewer Programs The Commission endorses the recommendations that have been made by the Alaska Sanitation Task Force.’ Briefly stated, these include the following: Involving communities in the planning, design, and construction of their sanitation utilities; Eliminating honey buckets by providing waste storage under homes and building boardwalks, driveways, etc., to provide vehicle access for hauling, and improving utility roads in approximately 100 communities for handling water, sewage, and solid waste; Requiring minimum standards for in-home water use, including a minimum 200-gallon water storage tank for each home; Expanding the Remote Maintenance Worker program to ensure certified, trained operators for all sanitation systems; and, ‘Phares, E.J. Locus of Control in Personality. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1976; Deaux, E.B. Health causes and effects: Differences in perceptions of health outcomes among the youth of Kodiak Island villages. Paper presented to the Alaska Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 1987; Deaux, E.B. Health locus of control in Chukotka children. Alaska Medicine, 1992, 34, 135-139. *°4 Commitment to Alaskans, Executive Summary: Recommendation of the Alaska Sanitation Task Force, October 1992. 43 Modeling future programs after the local utility matching program established by the Northwest Arctic Borough and awarding direct grants only to those communities providing at least 10 percent of the total project costs (or equivalent in-kind services). Although priorities should be established to help those villages first that are able and willing to help themselves, there is a residual responsibility to address the needs of villages that are, at present, incapable of helping themselves (e.g., insufficient economic activity for villages to afford support). It will be incumbent upon both the state and federal governments to assess that capability carefully in order to avoid either real or perceived favoritism in the allocation of new funds to develop water and sewer utilities. The involvement of village councils and the long-term commitment of the residents to participate in the monetary support of the system should be key to approval of the development. 2. Alcohol and Drug Abuse: The Family and Community The pervasiveness of alcohol abuse, alcoholism, and drug abuse and addiction in the Alaska Native population is a contributing factor to many of the other health problems that have been reviewed. Substance abuse is both a symptom and a cause. It is a symptom of the sense of powerlessness and frustration that many Natives feel as a result of their culture and traditional way of life having been so quickly removed without being replaced with a viable alternative that protects roles and engenders pride. It is the cause, directly or indirectly, of other diseases, unintentional injury and death, and high-risk behavior. Although it is estimated that over $15 million is spent in Alaska every year for services to substance abusers, there has not been an obvious reduction in the phenomenon. It is time for IHS, the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, and others who provide funds for substance abuse prevention and treatment, to conduct an outcome evaluation of the effectiveness of current programs and, when unsuccessful approaches are found, redirect funding to fill in the gaps in the treatment system. New and different methods to reduce the incidence and prevalence of substance abuse should also be implemented. In acknowledgment of the fact that many years of study have repeatedly shown that in many instances Native drinking differs significantly from that of the chronic alcoholic - even though the entire treatment system of the State of Alaska continues to be oriented toward that type of client - the Commission asks the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and the Alaska Area Native Health Service to join together and support research into the types of binge drinking that is common among Alaska Natives and to evaluate treatment approaches attuned to the needs of that type of client. The results of the study should be disseminated for the purposes of incorporating alternative techniques into existing treatment regimens. This recommendation is not intended to deflect the attention of the government from actively pursuing family- and community-oriented alternatives as well; rather its purpose is to encourage the expansion of options to turn the tide of this enormous problem for Alaska Native people. It has become clear over the years that although the local option law has had a positive effect in some villages, in others the impact has been minimal, due either to a vacillating vote or to the continuing problem of bootlegging. The Commission feels that the most effective techniques result in the reduction of demand, and only if demand-reduction accompanies the interruption of supply will any long-lasting result be affected. Consistent with the orientation that the Commission has taken throughout its work, the emphasis in all substance abuse prevention and treatment efforts must be the community, and within the community, the family. Family-centered and family-life techniques that have been developed and implemented elsewhere have produced very positive results. Alkali Lake is 44 the most widely known, and there are other models that have been shown to be highly successful elsewhere but have not yet been adopted in Alaska. a. The Kakawis Centre. Located on Meares Island, which is a 15-minute boat ride from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, the Kakawis Family Development Centre emphasizes cultural and traditional teaching and values to Native families (eight at a time) who reside in their own apartments during their six-week stay at the Centre. As a highly successful alcohol treatment program, it deserves an in-depth study for possible adaptation in Alaska. The entire focus of the program is the family, representing the core to building a strong community. Sobriety issues are targeted early in the six-week program, followed by family healing and the development of healthy lifestyles. The intention of the staff at Kakawis is to "walk with" families in their recovery rather than playing the role of "expert helper," which has become all too common in Alaska's approach to treatment. Intrusive methods are avoided, and clients are regularly reminded that they are responsible for their own process; the program is described as being a "time out of time," during which clients and staff come together for a healing journey. Each family bring to Kakawis its own unique blend of life experiences, abilities, beliefs, strengths and aspirations. In short, the elements and processes needed to build a strong, healthy family are already there; the Kakawis staff help facilitate growth and re- establishment of strong Native values to bring - and hold - the family together. Quoting from an extensive evaluation of the Kakawis Centre: The strength of the program appears to lie in its flexibility and particularly in the strength of its counseling approach...allowing counselors to meet the needs of the people, rather than vice versa. It is not the goal of the program to change anyone, but rather to hold up a mirror from different angles so that a client has a fuller awareness and understanding of who he/she is and how he/she affects other people. The responsibility for any subsequent choices is given to the client, in much the same way that the early founders gave the responsibility for the development of Kakawis to the native leaders. The program at Kakawis supports the transfer of personal autonomy and freedom to the Native Indian peoples.” Two years ago an attempt was made to develop a family residential program in Alaska, to be modeled fundamentally in the principles proven to be successful at the Kakawis Family Development Centre. Funding, though authorized by Congress, was never actually appropriated. The Commission offers a strong recommendation to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and to the Alaska Area Native Health Service to use existing funds to support the establishment of an Alaska Native Family Development Center, monitoring and evaluating its effectiveness over time for possible expansion. The failure of the current substance abuse treatment system in Alaska to improve the lives of Natives is glaring, and there is no acceptable excuse not to explore different approaches. b. Half-way Houses and Continuum of Care. A second gap existing in the current treatment system is the insufficient number of half-way houses, the total absence of quarter-way houses, and weak aftercare opportunities, particularly to support those who have completed some form of treatment away from their home village and then returned to their previous living environment. As the state and federal funding agencies review the effectiveness of the current system, policymakers and program staff need to look toward °°The Kakawis Program: History and Current Description. Published by the Kakawis Family Development Centre, Tofino, British Columbia. 45 shifting funds to fill this gap and to provide a true continuum of care. The emphasis of the Commission's recommendations remains primary prevention and health promotion, but at the same time, for those who are in treatment now, effectiveness must be enhanced. Continuing to support the revolving doors that too many substance abuse treatment options become is not an effective use of limited funding. New strategies must be implemented. It is essential that half-way houses be established at the local level and significantly greater support for in-village aftercare be provided by both the Indian Health Service and the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. 3. Preventing Suicide and Other Self-destructive Behavior Following a study of suicide in Alaska conducted for the Alaska Senate Special Committee on Suicide Prevention in 1988, the Alaska State Legislature, at the urging of Senator Willie Hensley, appropriated funds to begin a new community-based suicide prevention program, administered by the Alaska Division of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities. Founded on the principles and practices of community development, the program has empowered a number of villages to implement projects that they have designed locally, based on their own assessment of community strengths, weaknesses, problems and visions. Starting with 48 projects in 1989, the program has grown to include 60 projects serving 63 communities in 1993. Of the original group of 48 grants, 25 (52%) programs are still functioning. There are emerging indications that these projects are in fact resulting in positive change in the communities. A recent evaluation of the program has found that village projects serve as catalysts to advance other important community-based responses to self-destructive behavior. These include the development of crisis intervention teams, establishment of support groups, and organization of local action groups. Many of the projects have also brought young people together with elders, focusing on traditional crafts and other cultural activities that lead to restrengthening Native values and building stronger communities. As a group, the communities that have implemented their own suicide prevention projects with state funding from this program have shown a 51 percent drop in suicide. The essence of the approach chosen by the state in the community-based suicide prevention program is dramatically different from other state-funded behavioral health programs which uniformly strive to put into place replications of existing community mental health centers and intermediate care facilities. Not only are communities encouraged to develop their own projects and then empowered to implement them with state funding, but the program offers community development specialists who help communities formulate their plans and express them in proposals. This minimizes competition and practically removes the instances of well-intending communities failing to receive funds due to some technical problem with their proposal. The Commission recommends that the program stand as the model for the development of additional government-supported endeavors, upholding its goal of empowering communities to design, implement and be responsible for their own creative solutions. 4. Resolving the Need for Better Data Information necessary for governments to make informed decisions about reforming the health care system for Alaska Natives and to enable future evaluations of change, including those changes recommended by the Commission, is lacking. The Commission recommends establishment of a coordinated data system integrating the efforts of IHS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State of Alaska, the Veterans Administration, Native health corporations and all other agencies involved in gathering 46 data related to the health of Alaska Natives.”! Rather than create a new office for this purpose, the duties to develop and maintain this data clearinghouse should be assigned to the Alaska Area Native Health Service's Division of Planning, Evaluation, and Health Statistics or the Office of Epidemiology within the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Alternatively, if the 1992 amendments to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act are fully implemented and new Epidemiology Centers are established in Alaska, these could consolidate data systems at the Service Unit level. The Commission recommends that funds currently spent on the diversified data gathering that now occurs be focused to support a comprehensive statewide health-needs and status- evaluation survey of Alaska Natives. The survey should include behavioral-health risk assessment information and wellness indicators to provide direction to the new health promotion and disease/risk reduction programs recommended by the Commission. The study should be designed by health statisticians and providers who are already involved in such data collection, but it should also include the input of and consultation with Alaska Native residents of both urban and rural areas to ensure meaningful results. The Commission recommends that this new system be put into place as soon as possible and that a report be published no later than October 1995 presenting the results of the statewide health-needs and status-evaluation survey of Alaska Natives. 5. Shifting Resource Allocation toward Primary Prevention As a result of the foregoing recommendation, reliable information will be available to both state and federal agencies. They can then look not only at the demands for treatment, but, more importantly, at the needs for services through the continuum of health care that includes prevention, intervention, treatment and rehabilitation. The new system will avail itself to the Alaska Area Native Health Service and to the Indian Health Service headquarters as a means to revise or replace the Health Services Priority System (HSPS). The HSPS favors those who are already sick and those who care for them, as opposed to offering incentives to those who are successful at implementing primary prevention. The use of "YPLLs" (Years of Productive Life Lost) offers a case in point. At the present time, the HSPS is weighted to reward (by increasing the proportional share of funds) Areas and Service Units that have a high YPLL, while the Areas and Service Units that have excelled at establishing health promotion, early diagnosis, intervention, and the other kinds of services resulting in a lowering of their YPLL, are effectively penalized by their funds being taken away and allocated to high-YPLL Areas and Service Units. With the implementation of the Commission's recommendations, much of the residual programmatic priority to fund the most unhealthy by taking from those who are best maintaining their health will be reversed over time. This is consistent with the finding by the Commission that educating and influencing attitudes about health are the two most important goals that government policymakers can set for the next five years. The Commission's recommended data systems and periodic health needs and status surveys should be correlated to these recommendations to shift the funding from secondary and tertiary care to primary prevention. The IHS resource allocation methodology should be tied to the data system in such a way that the prevention of disease and health problems will elicit increased funding. The present system artificially pushes the money toward the °'The Commission is aware of the fact that existing confidentiality laws and regulations present an obstacle to the integration of these different data bases. However, the Task Force strongly recommends that, except in the rare instance that the welfare of a patient would be put in jeopardy, the laws must be changed to permit sharing of information that will ultimately lead to the improvement of the health of Alaska Natives. 47 secondary and tertiary end of the continuum because the people who are at the more serious end of health disability are the costliest to care for. By adjusting the system to weigh the need for financial resources in such a way that preventing disease and behavioral health problems is more important than serving those who are already sick, it will be possible to strengthen self-determined positive health behavior without irrevocably removing funds from the treatment end of the continuum. This recommendation is coupled to the earlier request that Congress increase travel reimbursement for Alaska Natives in order to ensure that rural residents are able to heed the early signs of illness and participate in the re-oriented health system. The recommendation also depends on enhancing the capability of the Indian Health Service to make effective and timely diagnoses so that when Alaska Natives do seek help in response to early signs of illness, they will be rewarded with appropriate intervention and care in time to prevent more serious consequences. 6. Healthy Start for Alaska Native Children A program instituted in 1985 in several Hawaiian hospitals that assesses each mother at the birth of her child for the risk of child neglect and abuse, assigns those scoring high on the risk assessment tool to a group for whom home visits are offered (and, with rare exception, accepted). This program, known as the "Hawaii Model," was found to be extremely effective in practically eliminating instances of child neglect and abuse.” It has evolved into the "Healthy Start" program which is now being advanced throughout the United States by the National Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse. A modification of the Healthy Start program has recently been implemented by the North Slope Borough Department of Health and Social Services with the support of a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The modified Healthy Start program conducts the risk assessment at the time a woman first enters the health care system for pregnancy testing or any other event related to her pregnancy. At that point, women who score high on the risk assessment are encouraged to participate in the home-visitation program. With home visits continuing through the important pre-natal period, the birth of the child, and the first year of life, the consequences of substance use and abuse, poor nutrition, improper parenting, deficient hygiene, and a multitude of other possible inadequacies on the part of the parents are prevented or reversed. The approach is non- punitive in orientation and steeped in the philosophy of "gentle" teaching, a practice attuned to the culture of the region. The Healthy Start program, with modifications, will soon be implemented in Anchorage by Southcentral Foundation, the regional non-profit health corporation operating under the tribal authority of the Cook Inlet Region, Inc., with partial support from Blue Cross through the Catholic Social Services. The Commission recommends that if the evaluation of these programs reveals an improvement in the health and welfare of Alaska Native infants and children and a strengthening of the family, the Healthy Start program should be implemented statewide. Given the high rates of FAS and FAE, child neglect and abuse, and the numerous other problems reviewed previously, the failure to implement a program such as this could not be easily justified. The orientation of the Commission's recommendations have consistently aimed at primary prevention and helping families and communities learn to take control of their own health destinies. Starting this effort even Murphy, S., Orkow, B., & Nicola, R.M. Prenatal prediction of child abuse neglect: A prospective study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1985, 9, 225-235; Breakey, G., and Pratt, B. Healthy growth for Hawaii's "Healthy Start": Toward a systematic statewide approach to the prevention of child abuse and neglect. Zero to Three April, 1991. 48 before the next generation of Alaska Natives is born will help reverse the negative health status and trends that the Commission has repeatedly encountered in its work. 7. Support for the Community Health Aide Program The Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) is unique to Alaska, extending primary care to Alaska Natives living in isolated rural villages which, with rare exception, have no other local health care available. Community Health Aides (CHAs) are employed by regional Native non-profit corporations or other tribal contractors under P.L. 93-638. In many villages there is a single CHA, and that one individual is effectively on call 24 hours a day for every day that she/he is there. Medical supervision is provided by the regional health corporation or the Indian Health Service, and the duties and responsibilities of the typical CHA are diverse and demanding. The value of the CHA program to Alaska Natives is immeasurable. Quoting from Alaska Community Health Aide Program in Crisis, prepared by the Alaska Native Health Board: The CHAs have become an indispensable, important component of health care for rural Alaska Natives. They [CHAs] ensure that basic primary care services are available, accessible, continuous, acceptable to the population, and cost effective. Although little known, the CHAP is one of the most successful models of integrated primary care in the world, particularly for regions or communities that are rural and remote. The importance of this program cannot be over-estimated. In FY '87 the CHAs had 208,501 patient visits. For rural Alaska Natives the average cost of round trip transportation for a visit with the nearest physician is $175.00. Since the majority of patients exist below the federal poverty level, without the CHA many Alaska Natives would not have access to health care.”* In FY 1992, the number of Community Health Aide patient visits had increased to 263,320, representing an increase of 26.3 percent in only five years.”* The Commission asks that Congress and the Clinton Administration recognize the critically important role that Community Health Aides have in the provision of primary care in Alaska and safeguard the continued funding for this program, increasing wages over time to ensure the continuity of the program and reduce turn-over among CHAs. The Commission also asks that the State of Alaska not only continue its involvement in the program by providing training funds and other support, but also that it seek to coordinate and strengthen additional training opportunities for CHAs. At the same time, the Commission urges that CHAs consider the importance of their positions within the Native community and demonstrate healthy lifestyles. If CHAs are known to smoke or use alcohol or engage in other unhealthy behavior, they are, in effect, making a statement to the rest of the community, a statement which is, by appearance, endorsed by their regional non-profit corporation and the Indian Health Service from which the funds originate to support them. An awareness of the important role models that they offer should be an integral part of their work. Consistent with the fundamental mission of "public health," the Commission encourages all Alaska Natives - and those who work for Caldera, D. Alaska Community Health Aide Program in Crisis, Alaska Native Health Board, March 28, 1988; p. 7. Alaska Statistical Summary of Workload. Division of Planning, Evaluation, and Health Statistics, Alaska Area Native Health Service, February 16, 1993. 49 and with Alaska Natives - to strive to engage in healthy lifestyles and to demonstrate to everyone else in the statewide Alaska Native community that a return to harmony with oneself, one's family, and one's community, however large, begins with small steps and small choices. By accepting the responsibility for those choices and acting accordingly, each of us can make a change and, at the same time, instruct the younger members of our society, setting examples of healthy behavior and the positive consequences that result. D. Concluding Comments The Commission concludes this section by stressing the fundamental recommendations made in the preceding pages. First, the entire health care system for Alaska Natives must be re-oriented to emphasize primary prevention. Although it is inevitable that there will be stresses for a while, the shift to primary prevention must occur now. For too many years, health providers have acknowledged the importance of this change but avoided it because it would take funds from those who are sick. Through strategic planning for the future health care of Alaska Natives, it will be possible to strike a phased compromise with scheduled reductions, over time, in funds available for secondary and tertiary care accompanying increases in health education, health promotion, and disease and risk reduction. Second, every primary prevention program must concentrate on families and communities, not on individuals. Consistent with Alaska Native traditions and the incredible survival that the tribal groups of Alaska embody, harmony within the community is predominant. From prehistoric days, each group has had its own way of living and adjusting to its climate and harvest, but in recent years the age-old ways have fallen to more modern habits advertised on television and encouraged by non-Native residents who often have held influential positions. In order to reverse the negative trends that have begun to characterize Alaska Native health, communities must change. They must be empowered to do so free of burdensome programs that seek to do that for them. Third, the need for a comprehensive data system that gathers and maintains health status data for Alaska Natives, including a periodic statewide health needs assessment and other problem-specific components, has been stressed. This is a long acknowledged, fundamental need of the health care system for Alaska Natives. It is time now for all agencies to break down their respective barriers and begin work on building the system which should be established no later than October 1995. The importance of this recommendation is far- reaching: not only will information be available to all health providers for ensuring that services are meeting the needs of the community, but data will be readily available to measure the consequences and effectiveness of changes in the health care system as well. Many other recommendations can be found in the preceding pages. It is the hope of the Commission that readers will realize the critical nature of these recommendations and the urgency that exists in their implementation. The trends in the health status of Alaska Natives - though based on limited data - are clear, and they point to a deterioration that cannot be absorbed by this minority of Alaska's current population. To honor the integrity of the cultural groups of Alaska and to prevent the eradication of Alaska's indigenous people, all those who are involved in the provision of health care must act in a consolidated and coordinated way. The communities themselves must, of course, act as well, for it is only within the families and communities that change will ever be realized and the future secured for a healthy next generation of Alaska Native people. 50 SOCIAL e& CULTURAL ISSUES e& Gift Ado CARMI. CRISTS Report of the Social/Cultural Task Force Contents Introduction o0 A Time of Transition 55 Overarching Recommendations 56 The Search for Social and Cultural Equity 57 Subsistence: The Cultural Imperative 57 Key Findings 58 Recommendations: Alaska Native Subsistence 59 Native Empowerment: Self-Governance 59 Key Findings 60 Recommendations: Empowerment through Self-Governance 60 Native Empowerment: Self-Reliance vs. Dependency 61 Key Findings 62 Recommendations: Dependency on "Anti-Poverty" Programs 62 Native Empowerment: Reestablishing a Functional Social Order 63 Key Findings 63 Recommendations: Reestablishing a Functional Social Order 64 Social Aspects of Physical Health 64 Key Findings 65 Recommendations: Social/Cultural Aspects of Physical Health 66 Alaska Native Education: The Key to Future Survival 66 Key Findings 67 Recommendations: Alaska Native Education 68 Alcohol and Alaska Natives 69 Summary 69 The Situation: The Facts Tell the Story 69 Solutions Must be Found 70 Alcohol's Carnage in the Native Community 70 Native Deaths as a Direct Result of Alcohol Abuse 70 Native Suicides: The Alcohol Connection 71 Alcohol as a Contributing Factor in Other Deaths 72 Alcohol and Social Pathologies 73 A Partner in Crime 73 A Lifetime of Damage 73 Family/Community Life: A Breakdown of Values and Roles 74 Findings and Recommendations 75 Findings 76 Recommendations 78 I. Introduction A. A Time of Transition Alaska Natives are in a period of social, cultural, economic and political transition. By its very nature, transition means change. Native people have been undergoing this change since contact with Europeans in the mid-1700s, but the most dramatic changes have occurred in quick succession during the past century. As discussed in other sections of the Commission's three-volume report, many of the changes have been sudden and traumatic, resulting in social, cultural, political and spiritual upheaval. The changes have generally not been voluntary, and the Native people have not, by and large, been able to control either the scope or the pace of change. Consequently, Alaska Native societies have been under tremendous and ever-increasing stress. This stress permeates all aspects of their lives from the physical to the spiritual and has caused severe damage to Native cultures and societies. The end results of this constant and massive stress - the social and psychological breakdown and upheaval among Alaska's Native people - are the very issues that brought the Congress to empanel the Alaska Natives Commission. Alaska Natives, most of whom were economically, socially and culturally independent one hundred years ago, are now struggling to get by on the fringes of a society and an economy imposed on them by others; trying to survive in the land of their forebears on the leavings of a dominant society and culture. To see a reversal of today's self-destructive tendencies within Alaska Native society, there needs to be a comprehensive approach by the federal and state governments and the Alaska Native people themselves. With all - and not just some - aspects of Alaska Native society seemingly at or near the breaking point, any piecemeal attempts at reform will fail. Reforms must address all of the problems and issues facing Alaska Natives and they must be concurrent. The success or failure of one initiative hinges on the success or failure of others. Such a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach in and of itself would be a positive and long-needed departure from present governmental policymaking which is issue-specific in nature and political in approach. This section creates a broad policy agenda that weaves together the many and varied aspects of today's Alaska Native society and the interrelated issues that bear on Natives' future well-being. Many of the recommendations made are meant to compliment and add fuller substance to recommendations made elsewhere by the Commission. Also highlighted here are key areas not covered in depth in other sections - especially those related specifically to social, behavioral health and cultural issues - and specifies certain overarching strategies. The Commission recognizes that Alaska Natives' problems cannot be solved effectively nor policy issues resolved to the maximum benefit of Natives unless the Native community, itself, takes "ownership" of the many problems that face it and assumes responsibility for the solutions. 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 them. Without this clear recognition and acceptance of the facts, no amount of public policy intervention by the state and federal governments will ever effectively improve the social, economic or physical well-being of Alaska Natives. 55 B. Overarching Recommendations The Alaska Natives Commission chose a broad approach to its study of the social and economic well-being, or lack of same, of the Alaska Native population. While focusing on issues and problems of social functioning and cultural integrity, the Commission recognized the broader aspects of the total environment in which Alaska Natives live and their effects on social and cultural concerns. As such, the Commission, in addition to the more issue-specific recommendations found in other sections of the report, makes the following recommendations: Repeal the following language from Sec. 4(b) of P.L. 92-203: "and including any aboriginal hunting or fishing rights that may exist." Repeal the following language from Sec. 2(b) of P.L. 92-203: "without establishing any permanent racially defined institutions, rights, privileges, or obligations, without creating a reservation system or lengthy wardship or trusteeship, and without adding to the categories of property and institutions enjoying special tax privileges." The Congress should appropriate and specifically direct a minimum of $10 million annually ($5 million redirected from current sources and $5 million new funding) for five years for use by Alaska Native tribes to solve Alaska Native social problems in culturally relevant ways. The Congress and the State of Alaska must allow Alaska Native tribes to design their own family support (welfare) programs in lieu of programs that provide Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and other income maintenance payments to Alaska Natives; the programs to be of a "workfare" nature where family members are paid to work on needed projects and services within the village. The Congress should create a $10 million Alaska Native Heritage Trust to be administered by the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council; the funds to be granted to Alaska Native tribes for use in schools and in the community for enhancing Native languages and cultures. An Alaska Native Economic Development Trust should be created by and funded by the Congress; the principal of the trust to be used in the development of feasible, locally-initiated economic projects in predominantly Native areas of the state that create real local employment and training opportunities for rural residents. IHS, through contract with the Alaska Native Health Board and in conjunction with the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, should develop a comprehensive infectious disease prevention education strategy to address Alaska Native tribes, families and children with materials developed by and for Alaska Natives and in Native languages. The Department of Housing and Urban Development should fund an Alaska Native Housing Authority that: a) designs, manufactures and constructs houses for villages with the participation of village residents; and, b) has the long-term goal of substantially increasing rural local hire and other economic benefits to localities and regions in which major HUD construction activities are taking place. 56 II. The Search for Social and Cultural Equity By most measures, many Alaska Natives, their families and even virtually entire villages are lacking in mental and emotional well-being. Disharmony disrupts Native lives and village life with increasing and widespread frequency. The evidence is found in the "numbers" that compelled the Congress to empanel the Alaska Natives Commission. These include the well-documented cases of alcohol abuse, domestic violence (including child abuse and neglect, and child sexual abuse), and homicide and suicide among Alaska Natives. 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 ever-increasing 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 economies, their governing institutions and, in many cases, their families and themselves. 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 has determined that many of the causes for today's upheaval in Alaska Native communities and within families can be found in their often tragic experiences since contact with Europeans, and in the cultural, social, political and economic climate created for them by both federal and state governments. At the core of the problems are unhealed psychological and spiritual wounds and unresolved grief brought on by a centuries-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 and spiritual understanding - and the shattering of cultural value systems. Many Alaska Native villages at this time might be looked at as families that have fallen apart; families so unhealthy that others have had to step in and run them where the parents are no longer parenting and where children are listening to someone else. Alaska Natives, with mounting frequency, are losing hold of their communities, their cultural identities and, perhaps most importantly, their children's lives. The following sub-sections contain many recommendations addressing a variety of Native issues. While some are targeted specifically at social and cultural imperatives, the interwoven nature of all aspects of Native life cannot be ignored. It is for this reason that a holistic approach to the multitude of Native problems is outlined which envisions concurrent action on a number of different fronts. A. Subsistence: The Cultural Imperative The most fundamental reason why subsistence is such a difficult issue in contemporary Alaskan politics is that it is really about Alaska Natives and their cultures. Many non-Native Alaskans, particularly those residing in rural areas, harvest and use fish and game resources. But, the numbers are unambiguous: those who most seriously practice subsistence as a way of life are Alaska Natives. In recognition of this basic fact, Congress gave rural Alaskans a subsistence preference (i.e. Title VIII of P.L. 96-487, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act). Though Congress chose to couch the preference in terms of "rural" residents, there can be no doubt 57 that the primary congressional motive behind enactment of Title VIII was the protection of Alaska Native subsistence rights. Subsistence, from the Alaska Native perspective, is - as many non-Natives clearly understand - an economic necessity. It is an honorable and ageless way in which Native people have, and can, provide for the nutritional needs of their families. But it is also a way of life; an Alaska Native way of life. This fact transcends any economic arguments in support of subsistence. Alaska Native cultures, like most aboriginal cultures, are ancient; cultures tied directly to nature and the bounty it provides. The practices of hunting, fishing and gathering constitute a direct link between the old and the new. With its spiritual and religious underpinnings that are difficult to explain and even more difficult for non-aboriginal peoples to understand, subsistence is - quite clearly - an Alaska Native cultural imperative. Most Native villages now have what researchers describe as "mixed" economies, in which small to moderate amounts of earned cash are available on, most frequently, a seasonal basis. In fact, many non-Native observers, including policy-makers, perceive modern subsistence as nothing more than a cultural antique, an increasingly ineffective holdover from previous times that will inevitably disappear as market economics take over. In fact, research clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of village residents choose to practice subsistence, even if they have access to good wage incomes. The same research fails to establish any cash cutoff point at which Alaska Native individuals or households stop harvesting fish and game. And the testimony given repeatedly to the Commission is also quite clear: To take away subsistence from Alaska Native people is to deal the final and fatal blow to their survival as a distinct people. Like other tribes that fought for survival, Alaska's Native people do not want to disappear. They will, the record shows, continue to fight for their subsistence way of life. Having lost most of their aboriginal landholdings and other inherited rights, they seem most willing to go to great lengths and face drastic measures - including arrest and imprisonment - rather than bend to the will of those who seek to curtail or otherwise limit Natives' subsistence rights. 1. Key Findings The key social/cultural findings regarding Alaska Native subsistence practices and rights include: The subsistence issue in Alaska, regardless of the terminologies and concepts in which the issue has been couched for political reasons, is an Alaska Native issue affecting, principally, Alaska Natives and is the foundation of Alaska Native cultures - a foundation without which these ancient cultures would cease to exist; Subsistence is an economic necessity in the absence of which many Native families would become totally dependent on government handouts for survival; The vast majority of village residents choose to practice subsistence, regardless of the accessibility of cash incomes, and, Subsistence hunting and fishing remain under concerted political assault by powerful, organized interests which compete with villages for the limited 58 public resources that governments must allocate to the extent that state and federal laws and policies at times serve to criminalize the very act of feeding one's family and one's spirit. To Alaska Native people, subsistence is not just a nutritional or economic necessity; it is cultural and spiritual sustenance on which survival of their cultures depends. The record clearly shows that Alaska Natives know this inherently, and they appear willing to go to any lengths to protect their subsistence rights. This is significant for a people who gave up almost everything without a fight; a people who have suffered through indignities that would have driven other people to physical retaliation. At present, the issue of Alaska Native subsistence remains unsettled. And so long as it remains unsettled, Native people will continue to live precariously in a legal no-man's land, stuck between federal vacillation and State of Alaska hostility to their subsistence way of life. 2. Recommendations: Alaska Native Subsistence a. Congress should repeal the following language from Sec. 4(b) of P.L. 92-203 (the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) - language that serves only to confuse and distract from Alaska Natives! attempts to secure real subsistence rights. b. The Alaska State Legislature should adopt and pass on to Alaska's voters a proposed amendment to the Alaska State Constitution allowing for a rural subsistence preference consistent with federal statute. c. To the extent that the State of Alaska does not develop subsistence laws and policies consistent with Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487), the Congress should enact legislation preempting the Alaska Constitution under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution to allow for - at a minimum - a rural subsistence preference consistent with Title VIII of ANILCA. d. The Congress should amend the ANILCA Title VIII subsistence preference to include all Alaska Natives regardless of place of residence within the state. B. Native Empowerment: Self-Governance Alaska Natives are tribes indigenous to the United States, and full tribal recognition by the United States government would not only fully legitimize the special relationship Alaska Natives have with the federal government, but would also help define the social and political status of Alaska Natives and their communities throughout the state. The lack of this recognition is a central concern of the Commission. At present, rather than recognizing and working with Alaska Native tribal governments, the State of Alaska and, to a degree, the federal government, have attempted to suppress and replace them with Western institutions and values. In a throwback to periods when termination and assimilation were government policy, the State of Alaska refuses to recognize the existence of Alaska Native tribes and opposes the empowerment of their traditional and Indian Reorganization Act governments. To the State, Alaska Natives are a terminated people and therefore do not exist on the legal landscape. For its part, the federal government has attempted to walk a non-existent fine line between by bowing to the State's position of non-recognition while concurrently trying to treat Alaska Natives as it does other Native Americans. 59 Alaska Natives have seen the benefits of tribal governments and tribal judicial systems. They have recognized and attempted to live by such laws as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and other Congressional initiatives intended to benefit Alaska Natives and their tribal governments. But their efforts are continually frustrated by the State of Alaska and its agencies. After several centuries of painful experience, the federal government has determined that Native Americans are best able to govern their own lives as evidenced by the prevailing federal policies emerging over the past quarter-century. But Alaska Natives have been singled out as not falling fully under the opportunities and protections found in many of these laws. The Alaska Natives Commission has determined that termination and assimilation - tragic and failed policies that, for the most part, were long ago discarded for dealings with Native Americans in other states - are still the de facto policies of government with respect to relations with Alaska Native people. 1. Key Findings The key social/cultural findings regarding Alaska Native empowerment and self-government include: Federal and state policies regarding or affecting Alaska Natives have served to aggravate the basic psychological and spiritual "dysfunction" of Native people by acts which have tended to dispossess them of their social, cultural and political resources; Federal policies and initiatives regarding Alaska Natives have shifted, as elsewhere in the United States, to emphasize self-determination over true self-governance; 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, relations between the State of Alaska and Natives are devoid of mutual respect and parity in political rights; and, Natives have always maintained self-government as a component of self-determination, though Native views on tribal governments and Native self-governance 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. Alaska Natives are mature and capable residents of the nation and the state, but they also occupy their own cultural and political communities. Native villages and their tribal governments - as distinct partners with the state and federal governments - must be entrusted with the social and political decisions critical to Alaska Natives' future well-being and survival. The validity of Alaska Native cultural perspectives, inasmuch as they impact on social organization and governing institutions, must be recognized and afforded due respect. 2. Recommendations: Empowerment through Self-Governance a. Congress should repeal the following language from Sec. 2(b) of P.L. 92-203 (The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act): "without establishing any permanent racially defined 60 institutions, rights, privileges, or obligations, without creating a reservation system or lengthy wardship or trusteeship, and without adding to the categories of property and institutions enjoying special tax privileges." b. A bona fide list of Alaska Native governments should be published in the Federal Register; further, the previous administration's opinion regarding Native tribal government jurisdiction and powers should be withdrawn and the federal government's position on the jurisdictional status of Native lands in Alaska clarified. c. The State of Alaska should, through Executive Order or legislative enactment, recognize the existence of Native tribes in Alaska to clear obstructions to successful implementation of policies and programs affecting predominantly Native areas of the state. d. The state and federal governments should create and utilize all possible opportunities for Native tribes to demonstrate their respective capacities to regulate tribal members. e. The federal and state governments must implement policies and enact necessary statutes 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, among others. C. Native Empowerment: Self-Reliance vs. Dependency Due mainly to the lack of widespread or sustained economic opportunities, an ever- increasing number of Native villages and families have become, in many ways, virtual economic wards of the federal and state governments. What is generally viewed as a social "safety net" in contemporary American life has become more of a solid platform that, for many Alaska Natives, acts as the base from which they now live their lives. While financial assistance is necessary until the rural areas of Alaska become economically viable, the form in which the aid is given has proven to be very destructive to Native families and Native communities. Income maintenance programs - or what are commonly referred to as "welfare" programs - have completed the breakdown of healthy village and familial interdependence; a breakdown that began, in some instances among Alaska Natives, with the arrival of the Russians over two centuries ago. In the place of that social interdependence is an unhealthy dependence today on government to meet the basic survival needs of tribal and family members. There is no pride attached to this way of living. In fact, they way of life intensifies the sense of helplessness and lack of self-esteem for affected individuals and families. In some cases, it appears as if welfare programs have become an added addiction and that they are symptomatic of all that is wrong with life in today's Alaska Native villages. Native families were traditionally close knit, depending on one another for food and shelter, and for caring when they needed it. Family and community members took care of each other, they looked after each other. The health of one family was of paramount importance to the others. Families hunted together, camped together, celebrated together, were full together and went hungry together. So, while they may have been "poor" materially, they at least had each other. All too often, this is not the case anymore. Government anti-poverty programs have created a new poverty -- the poverty of the broken village family. The Commission finds that "welfare" programs must be restructured to meet a broader spectrum of needs of Alaska Natives in areas beyond the general scope of income 61 maintenance. Instead of: 1) direct payments under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program; 2) Food Stamps; 3) General Assistance under both state and federal programs; and, 4) other unearned income-substitutes to families where there are members able to work; a "workfare" program should be instituted. The benefits to the working head of household and his/her family are incalculable. Not only would it help restore pride and self-esteem to individuals and families, workfare programs could be fashioned to benefit communities by providing needed labor for, as examples, building and maintenance projects, and village planning and management. There are any number of village projects towards which workfare funds can be directed, many of them related to improving the overall cleanliness and orderliness of communities. Others relate to increasing the ability of the community to: manage and maintain village infrastructure; and, improve local government administration. By offering a viable and honorable interim solution to the need for meaningful employment in village Alaska, such a move by government would compliment various prevention and education efforts and village healing efforts proposed in other sections of this report. 1. Key Findings The key social/cultural findings with regard to Alaska Natives' growing dependency on government income-maintenance programs include: Historically, Alaska Natives were a people fully capable of meeting their own and each other's needs through close familial and communal sharing and support systems; The chronic unemployment situation in much of village Alaska together with the virtual loss of control of local resources and local decision-making processes have created widespread dependence on government aid and a sense of helplessness and hopelessness for many Alaska Natives; and, There exists a critical need to restore pride and self-esteem to individuals and communities with the Alaska Native population as a prerequisite for improving overall economic and social-well being among Alaska Natives. Alaska Natives are at risk of becoming permanently imprisoned in America's underclass, mired in both the physical and spiritual poverty that accompany such social standing. Unless serious - and what some might consider drastic - changes are made to the current system of income maintenance and support in Native communities, the overall well-being of Alaska Natives will continue to deteriorate. In the absence of near-term prospects for radically increased employment opportunities in Alaska Native villages, "welfare" programs must be redesigned to take into account: 1) the need for individuals to attain improved mental health status through the building of self-esteem and pride in productive undertakings; and, 2) the basic human resource (i.e. manpower) needs of villages. 2. Recommendations: Dependency on "Anti-Poverty" Programs a. Federal and state regulations must be changed to allow for tribal design and management of government income support and maintenance programs, most notably: Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamps, State General Assistance, and the federal General Assistance program funded under the Bureau of Indian Affairs. b. Tribal governments should be permitted to implement local "workfare" programs utilizing government transfer payment receipts that require productive, community development related employment where aid-eligible households have at least one able- 62 bodied, employable member. c. Adequate provisions for training, child care and other support services for workfare participants should be integral to tribal programs instituted under this sub-section. d. Village workfare programs should be designed to complement local community development initiatives including, but not limited to, public health imperatives (i.e. maintenance of solid waste and sewage disposal systems); local government administration; and in-school health education and substance abuse prevention programs. D. Native Empowerment: Reestablishing a Functional Social Order Understanding the present condition of many Alaska Native families and communities requires that Native people be viewed as the children and grandchildren of those who survived mass death at the hands of famine and disease, and attempts at cultural annihilation at the hands of governments and their agents. It has been hypothesized that many Alaska Natives alive today still carry the symptoms of what is now termed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; symptoms they inherited and learned from their parents and grandparents...the "survivors." One of the most dangerous and destructive inherited symptoms is the way of coping - or not coping - with life's problems on a personal, familial and communal level. Most of the survivors were orphans of one kind or another. Many were physically orphaned and thus reared in institutions, situations that compounded the mounting social and cultural discontinuities. The remainder suffered in varying degrees from the loss of not just loved ones and other tribal members but also the loss of the rich spirituality and cultural traditions at the center of their forebears' world view. It appears that the way in which survivors learned to cope was to look away from the devastation and the problems and to remain silent about their feelings, as if by not having to face the situation the problems might go away. This trait is seen today in many Alaska Native families and communities. And it cripples them. It stands in the way of healing and growth. And, just like untreated wounds, the problems fester and ultimately become disabling to individuals, families and entire communities. In discussing Native families and villages, it has to be remembered that it was not only the Native cultures that were fatally wounded by the assault of diseases and the invasion of Western life. Also wounded - and in some cases nearly destroyed - were the family and kinship systems that governed everyday life. These systems included clear delineations of relationships, responsibilities and rights of all the members of a village: grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts. Today, what is seen in village Alaska is the tattered remains of the traditional social and cultural complex overlaid with a jumble of confusing, marginally accepted Western social, governmental, educational and legal structures. 1. Key Findings The key social/cultural findings regarding Alaska Native empowerment through the reestablishment of a functional social order include: Unless the social, cultural, psychological and spiritual ailments - borne out of the history of Native people themselves - are addressed, the disorders from which they have arisen will continue; and, 63 The continuing lack of control over their own lives and their governing and social institutions, while not leading directly to social disorders, aggravates the feelings of powerlessness, hopelessness and low self-esteem among Alaska Natives. 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. If significant improvements are to be made with respect to overall Alaska Native well-being, the Native community must take "ownership" of the problems and assume responsibility for the solutions. A large body of testimony has been offered to the Alaska Natives Commission clearly indicating the readiness on the part of Alaska Natives to take ownership and responsibility for their problems. It is incumbent upon the federal and state governments to assist Alaska Natives as they strive to affect change from within. 2. Recommendations: Reestablishing a Functional Social Order a. The Congress should give back to Alaska Native tribes responsibility and control over the lives of Alaska Natives living in villages by granting them full tribal status as defined by federal Indian law and as presently enjoyed by other Native American tribes, thereby creating the framework within which Native solutions to Native problems can be developed and carried forward. b. The Congress should appropriate and specifically direct a minimum of $10 million annually ($5 million redirected from current sources and $5 million new funding) for five years for use by Alaska Native tribes to develop the capacity for reassuming responsibility for the total health and welfare of their people. c. With financial backing (as proposed in recommendation "b" above} and technical assistance, Alaska Native villages and organizations must be encouraged - through appropriate governmental policy at both the federal and state levels - to design community and family healing and strengthening projects to address unresolved grief and to bring families and villages together as well-functioning social and cultural units. d. The federal and state governments should target financial resources towards, maximizing the effectiveness of funding for tribal government/village leadership development, as well as development of functional tribal court and law enforcement systems in Alaska Native villages. e. The Bureau of Indian Affairs should reinstate funding for the Indian Child Welfare Act grants to tribes to its FY 1993 level and offer even greater assistance to tribes and tribal organizations in their efforts to eliminate child abuse and its consequences, rather than considering the termination of funding for these important programs. E. Social Aspects of Physical Health Many of the physical ailments of Native families are preventable, as they stem from living in less than sanitary conditions. The infections and disease still very prevalent in Alaska Native villages arise when people don't wash their hands and when houses are left uncleaned. They arise when people are not eating well-balanced meals, are not getting enough rest, and when there is an overconsumption of alcohol and tobacco and other chemicals. 64 When the health condition of Alaska Natives is compared, as it often has been, to that of Third World countries, the comparison applies only to the types of infections and diseases from which people suffer. The level of government expenditures on Alaska Native health (see Alaska Natives Commission Report of the Health Task Force) outstrips what most people in the world receive, and yet Alaska Natives continue to experience physical health ailments in categories that could be prevented -- even by such simple means as appropriate use of soap and water. The question is: Why are Native families not taking better physical care of themselves? Certainly, simple lack of knowledge is part of the answer. But a fact that cannot be ignored is the psychological and spiritual condition of these families. Simply stated, many Alaska Natives are depressed; people psychologically, mentally and spiritually preoccupied with troubling or unfulfilling lives. the "anomic depression" - characterized by a perceived loss of control, loneliness due to social disintegration, and a feeling of frustrated expectations - is further aggravated by poverty and by lack of economic opportunities aside from government anti-poverty assistance. Safe water supplies and appropriate means for sewage and solid waste disposal for Alaska Native villages are imperatives that cannot be overlooked. Greater efficiencies in overall health delivery must be realized, and a focus must be put on preventative health and health education. However, for governments to expend additional money on health services - including massive sewer and water public works expenditures - without also addressing the cultural, social and economic needs of Native families, will only add another layer of bandages presently wrapped around the body of Alaska Natives. 1. Key Findings Key social/cultural findings regarding Alaska Native physical health issues include: Many of the types of infections and diseases frequently experienced by Alaska Natives are altogether preventable; thus, even under the present conditions in villages, Alaska Native health could improve; For the government to redirect funds towards meaningful prevention and health education efforts now would almost certainly serve to save literally hundreds of millions of dollars in future government public health expenditures for Alaska Natives; Efforts to improve the overall physical well-being of Alaska Natives, if they are to be successful, must recognize and account for the deeper and ofttimes overlooked explanations for why Alaska Natives are not taking care of themselves: i.e. the psychological and spiritual impairment experienced by so many Alaska Natives and the feelings of hopelessness and apathy that such impairment spawns; and, Efforts to improve the overall physical well-being of Alaska Natives will not see marked positive changes unless, at that same time, the cultural, social and economic needs of Alaska Natives are adequately and appropriately addressed. Alaska Natives have demonstrated a keen ability to address various public health threats on a case-by-case basis when proper prevention and health education initiatives are made available. For instance, near eradication of the Hepatitis B virus in southwest Alaska during the 1980's is a notable example of this capability. However, it appears that the most successful efforts occur only when there is a clear and present danger. 65 In order for prevention and health education to produce long-lasting, positive health outcomes for Native people, the underlying causes of why many Alaska Natives do not - or cannot - make wise lifestyle choices must be understood and addressed. A depressed soul does not take care of its body or home; due to the suffering inside, it does not care. 2. Recommendations: Social & Cultural Aspects of Physical Health a. The Indian Health Service should contract with the Alaska Native Health Board to develop an infectious disease prevention education strategy geared directly for Alaska Native tribes, families and children, with materials developed and delivered by and for Alaska Natives in locally-understood Native languages. b. Health education strategies for Alaska Native people should not only address how to keep healthy but also why physical well-being is so important, and should provide linkages ° between physical health, cultural and spiritual health, and mental health -- especially with respect to children and their primary care givers. c. The federal and state governments should appropriate funds for village and family healing projects (see similar recommendations under separate sub-sections), developed by Natives themselves, to address cultural, spiritual and psychological depression in Alaska Native families and communities. F. Alaska Native Education: The Key to Future Survival A multitude of theories have been put forth over the past several decades as to why Alaska Native children are not learning in school. Attempting to understand why Native children are at or near the bottom of academic achievement charts continues as a topic of great concern and debate. Certainly, some of the arguments have merit, and some of the remedies that have been tried have improved various aspects of the educational system for Alaska Native children. There have been many changes in curricula. Multi-million dollar schools have been built in virtually every village in the state. Rural school districts with Native board members have been created. But the fact remains: Native children are still not learning. Having given the responsibility of their childrens' education to missionaries and territorial school teachers during the early part of this century, most Native families and villages have never reassumed that responsibility. Consequently, education is now perceived as being someone else's job. Native villages and their governments remain, if not disinterested, then certainly disengaged with respect to schools and the school systems in which their children are immersed. In order to fully understand the current situation, it must be understood that, in spite of the long history of attempted acculturation of Alaska Native peoples and tribes, Alaska Natives remain culturally different from the rest of Alaska and the United States. In other words, the ideas, methods and languages used to teach Native children are still alien and therefore still difficult for students to grasp. And while the cultural gap between Native children and their teachers has narrowed, there remains a chasm that must be bridged. Teachers, by and large, still come from places foreign to students and their families; the language of information transfer remains English; the pictures painted as the backdrop for learning are still from another world. Exacerbating the complexities of transferring information and ideas from one culture to another are the social and economic conditions of the families and villages themselves. Many children come from homes where there is chronic abuse of alcohol and a frightening 66 prevalence of domestic violence. They come from homes that have a near total dependence on government for their economic survival; homes steeped in spiritual and economic poverty where the parents and other family members are too preoccupied with their own problems to pay adequate attention to the child and how he or she is doing in school. All too often the school is a place of rest for a child who does not sleep well and does not get the nurturing she needs at home. The school, then, is a place not for learning but instead a place to temporarily escape the less than fortunate realities of home. Needless to say, such children - distracted by problems in the home - will not learn. This, without doubt, is on the short list of reasons why Alaska Native children are not learning in school -- the problems of village and home are robbing them of their most receptive and inquisitive years. . their childhoods. While government must bear some of the blame and responsibility for the inadequacy of the formal education being delivered - or not delivered - to Alaska Native children, Native villages and families are equally responsible. While many Native parents and other community members might themselves lack the formal Western educational grounding to teach the children algebra, chemistry, grammar and the like, they can certainly give active and positive support to their children and the teachers. In many instances, they also have the tools and the knowledge to teach their children the Native language, history and traditions -- they can help the children understand who they are. But in this they appear to be failing. 1. Key Findings The key social/cultural findings regarding the current state of Alaska Native education. Notwithstanding the relatively recent construction of modern school facilities in most Alaska Native communities throughout the state, these educational institutions as yet do not provide adequate cultural linkages to the communities nor social linkages to the families; In most schools in predominantly Native communities, there remains a wholly inadequate representation of Alaska Native school teachers and administrators; Native families and villages appear not to understand or fully appreciate the critical importance of education to Alaska Natives' collective survival as healthy peoples with strong cultural foundations; and, because their villages and parents do not seem to consider education important, the children are not pressed to perform at a level consistent with their inherent capabilities; and, The sometimes desperate social and economic conditions of many Native families and communities compound the above-identified problems and, if not improved, will continue to stand as barriers to Native children reaching their full academic achievement potentials. For countless centuries Alaska Native people proved themselves abundantly capable of passing on to their young ones the knowledge and skills required not only for survival, but also for the advancement of their societies and cultures. In times past, nature was the subject and principal teacher; her aides, all members of the family and tribe. Everyone - parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, elders and medicine people - had his and/or her place in teaching the children what they needed to know in order to be productive members of 67 society and in order to survive harmoniously in their world. Though Native societies and cultures have gone through transformations from the ancient ones of their forebears, Alaska Native people must continue as the primary conduits through which education of young Natives is successfully realized. There can be no other way. 2. Recommendations: Alaska Native Education a. The Congress should create a $10 million Alaska Native Heritage Trust to be administered by the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council; the funds to be granted to Alaska Native tribes for use in schools and in the community for enhancing Native languages and cultures. b. The Congress and the State of Alaska should direct resources towards implementation of a three-year, statewide campaign demonstrating to all segments of the Alaska Native population the importance of education and educational achievement to the survival and advancement of Alaska Native societies and cultures. c. The State of Alaska should, over a five-year period, dismantle the Regional Educational Attendance Area system and give the responsibility for schools to village tribal governments and their school boards in partnership with the State Department of Education; it is further recommended that tribal governments - to the extent of their capabilities - together with the Bureau of Indian Affairs be required to participate in the funding of these schools at a per capita level equalling the minimum support given schools currently operated by Alaskan municipalities. d. The State of Alaska, in partnership with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, should increase funding for the University of Alaska's X-CED program (the village teacher training and certification program) to at least four times its current level. 68 II. Alcohol and Alaska Natives In the Alaska Federation of Natives' 1989 report entitled A Call For Action, the incidence of alcohol abuse among Alaska Natives was characterized as both a "plague" and an "epidemic" every bit as threatening as other diseases that have ravaged the Alaska Native population since first contact with Westerners. Nothing in the Commission's inquiry has provided evidence disputing those characterizations. Though alcohol abuse is essentially a symptom of a much more complex set of problems within the Native community, it is, in itself, a distinct problem area that breeds an abundance of negative outcomes. There is a tremendous need to look at short- and medium-term solutions to alcohol abuse, violence, deaths and the various associated effects to individuals, families and communities. Native lives, quite literally, depend on these solutions being found. To ensure that future generations of Alaska Native people are not similarly affected, however, massive attention must be paid to the underlying economic, social, cultural and spiritual factors that cause Alaska Natives to seek refuge in alcohol and other chemicals. The creation of real economic opportunities, re-establishment of Natives' cultural integrity, and the true empowerment of individuals and Native communities are among the long-term solutions that must be forthcoming. A. Summary 1. The Situation: The Facts Tell the Story In the Alaska Federation of Natives' original report that provided the seeds for the Alaska Natives Commission work, several pronounced problem areas were identified that, together, help to demonstrate clearly the tragic consequences of a people in social and cultural peril. Among these are the widespread abuse of alcohol, the resultant violence - both physical and sexual - against and between family and community members, and violence towards self in the form of suicides and accidental deaths. As evidenced by both the statistics and the volumes of first-person testimonials given to the Commission by Natives, alcohol abuse among Alaska Natives is a culprit that, if unchecked, holds the very real potential for permanently destroying the social, cultural, physical and emotional well-being of Natives as a people. Some of the facts that help tell the story include: In fiscal year 1993, the state and federal governments spent approximately $13 million (not counting Medicaid, Medicare or other third party reimbursements) providing substance abuse programs for Alaska Natives; Between 1980 and 1989, once every 12 days an Alaska Native died from alcohol (i.e. alcohol being the primary cause of death), for a total of 305 Alaska Natives deaths attributable directly to alcohol; A majority of Native crimes for which Natives are serving jail time are alcohol related, and a majority of those crimes fall into categories deemed among the most violent: assault, sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, and murder/manslaughter; Initial findings of a special IHS/Alaska Native Health Board project which began in 1989 indicate at-risk prenatal alcohol/drug exposure among Alaska 69 Natives ranging from 14% to 78% by region in 1991; The suicide rate among Alaska Natives continues its decades-long climb, reaching nearly 69 per 100,000 population in 1989. The most profound consequence of this continuing increase during the 1980's is the death from suicide of an Alaska Native once every 10 days, on average, during the 1980s; Alaska Natives are over-represented in cases of child abuse by a factor of two-to-one with the percentage of substantiated cases of abused children being over twice what would be expected based on the overall percentage of Alaska Natives in the population. 2. Solutions Must be Found There is no way to measure the true emotional, psychological and economic toll being taken by rampant alcohol abuse and the resultant "culture of violence" within the Alaska Native community. But Alaska Natives have made it clear to the Commission that if the tide is not halted and then turned, behavioral health problems and social pathologies will continue to consume - and eventually obliterate - any hope of Alaska Natives' survival as a healthy, productive people. B. Alcohol's Carnage in the Native Community Facts do not lie: alcohol abuse among Alaska Natives equals tragedy for family and village. It is proven that alcohol abuse equals violence, imprisonment and death. It is proven that alcohol abuse in the Native family results in frightened, psychologically disordered children. Alcohol abuse leaves Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Effect and a myriad other physical and psychological symptoms in its destructive wake. The story of alcohol and Alaska Natives is a difficult and tragic one to tell. But it is one that must be told and its message clearly understood if long-term solutions to the social and economic crisis of Alaska Natives are to be found. 1. Native Deaths as a Direct Result of Alcohol Abuse Of all the data available regarding the effects of alcohol on the very lives of Alaska Natives, the least ambiguous is that which deals with deaths due directly to alcohol. In the decade of the 1980s, 305 Alaska Natives (173 males, 132 females) were killed by alcohol and drugs. Put another way, between 1980 and 1989, once every 12 days an Alaska Native died directly from alcohol intake. In contrast, during that same time period alcohol killed 478 non-Native Alaskans (341 males, 137 females). Considering that Alaska Natives made up roughly 16 percent of the state's population throughout the 1980s, the alcohol mortality rate of Natives was three and one-half times that of non-Natives (4.1/10,000 Natives, 1.2/10,000 non-Natives). A more telling, and certainly more striking, statistic regarding alcohol as a killer of Natives is the years of potential life lost (YPLL: the number of years that a person died prior to his or her 65th birthday) as a direct result of alcohol abuse. For the period 1980-1989, officials estimate that the cumulative YPLL attributable to alcohol was 6,607 among Alaska's non-Native population. An almost equal number of years (6,323) of potential life was lost in the Native community as a direct result of alcohol during that same time period, despite the fact that there are five non-Natives in Alaska for every Native. 70 2. Native Suicides: The Alcohol Connection The 2(c) Report, submitted to Congress in the mid-1970s, chronicled the rise in suicide deaths within the Alaska Native community. In that report, the authors concluded that "(t}he underlying causes for...increases in suicide undoubtedly lie in the varying cultural heritages of Native societies and the stresses of rapid social change. Suicides provide one important indicator of social stress." If such is indeed the case, then the findings of the Alaska Natives Commission suggest very strongly that social stresses for Alaska Natives, using suicide as one important variable, have increased considerably. In sheer numbers, more Alaska Natives are taking their own lives today than at any other time in history, and the rate at which suicides occur among Alaska Natives continues to rise. The problem continues to be most prevalent within the Native male population, particular those in their late teens and twenties. In one age group within the Native male population, the rate of suicide in the late 1980s had risen to some 30 times the national average. Alcohol abuse is a factor in a large majority of Alaska Native suicides: among Native suicide victims, 79% have detectable levels of blood alcohol. a. The Epidemic Grows. In a recent update to its report A Call For Action, the Alaska Federation of Natives found that suicide mortality rates for Alaska Natives increased from 42 per 100,00 population in 1981 to 58 per 100,000 population in 1986. The Alaska Natives Commission has found that the Native suicide rate continues an upward climb, reaching nearly 69 per 100,000 population in 1989. The most profound consequence of this continuing increase during the 1980s is the death from suicide of an Alaska Native once every 10 days, on average, during the decade. The steep, steady rise in the Native suicide rate during the 1980s continues an upward trend that dates back to the mid-1950s. In the quarter century between 1964 and 1989, the rate of Alaska Native suicides increased 500%. And even with the large explosion in the Alaska Native birth rate during the 1980s, the non-age adjusted crude death rate from suicide (i.e. which includes tens of thousands of Native children not at-risk for suicide), the upward trend in the Native suicide rate continued at a pace of six percent annually. b. An Affliction of the Young. In all populations, suicide is generally concentrated in the younger populations, usually from mid-adolescence through the young adult years. Among Alaska Natives, the numbers in this age range that choose to take their own lives are even more pronounced. While about one in four (26%) of non-Native suicides in Alaska are committed by 15-24 year olds, in the Native community virtually half (49%) are committed by 15-24 year olds. Correspondingly, while 30% of Native suicides occur among the population 30 years and older, 56% of non-Native suicides are by those 30 years and older. Because Alaska Natives are prone to commit suicide at younger ages, the total number of years of potential life lost (YPLL: the number of years that a person died prior to his or her 65th birthday) goes up accordingly in the Native community. During the decade of the 1980s, 13,094 years of potential life were lost within the Alaska Native community as a result of suicide deaths. In terms of potential life lost, suicide ranks number one among injury deaths for Natives. c. The Gender Gap. Though the occurrence of suicide by anyone - Native or non-Native, male or female, young or old - is always tragic, it is necessary to point out that suicide's huge death toll within Alaska's Native population continues to be concentrated among males. During the decade of the 1980s (1980-89), males accounted for 86% of Native 71 suicide victims. In the last two years of that period, 1988-89, males represented 87% of the victims. In the 1988-89 period, the suicide rate for Alaska Native females was only slightly greater than the national average (14 deaths/100,000 population versus 13/100,000). In that same time period, however, Native males died from suicide at a rate seven times the national average (91/100,000). As is the case with Alaska Native males (see following discussion), Alaska Native females in the 20-24 year old age group are most at risk for suicide. Measurements taken throughout the 1980s show that within this highest risk category, suicide rates remained fairly stable (43/100,000 in 1982-1984; and 44/100,000 in 1988-89). d. Those Most At Risk. As pointed out in previous sections, suicide within the Native community is most likely to occur among males and among those in young adulthood. In fact, and as has been pointed out in several recent studies, Native males age 20 to 24 are the most at risk for committing suicide. The Alaska Federation of Natives determined that for the period 1982-84, the suicide mortality rate in this highest risk group was 228 per 100,000 population. The Alaska Natives Commission has found that by the latter part of the decade the rate had increased by some 77%, approaching and then exceeding 400 per 100,000 population (1988: 374/100,000; 1989: 403/100,000). These rates are in excess of 30 times the national rate for the entire U.S. population. Also disturbing is the fact that during the whole of the 1980s there were more Native male suicide victims (118) aged 20 to 24 than there were non-Native male suicide victims (114) aged 20 to 24. These numbers are astounding if for no other reason than the fact that Native males comprise only 14% of this age category statewide. e. Where Native Suicides Occur. The 2(c) Report cited a 1974 study which indicated "that Natives in urban environments tend to have a greater incidence of suicide than those in rural areas." Nearly two decades later, statistics point quite clearly to a reversal of that trend with suicide now largely a "rural" problem. Nearly one-third of Alaska Natives currently live within four distinct urban areas (Anchorage/Mat-Su Valley, Fairbanks, Juneau and Ketchikan). Alaska Native suicide deaths within these urban areas, however, accounted for just 21% of the total during the 1988-1989 period. In contrast, whereas 54% of Alaska Natives live in village Alaska, two-thirds of Native suicide deaths occurred in village Alaska during that same 1988-1989 period. There is another notable reversal of demographic/geographic trends since the time the 2(c} Report was issued. As of 1974, it was established that Athabascans in interior Alaska had the highest rates of suicide, and Southern Eskimos (Yup'iks) the lowest. Of the census districts with the 10 highest rates of suicide deaths for Alaska Natives during the period 1988-1989, the three principal Yup'ik census districts (Dillingham, Wade-Hampton and Bethel) today have some of the highest rates. 3. Alcohol as a Contributing Factor in Other Deaths Emperical data relating to alcohol as a contributing, as distinct from primary, factor in Alaskan deaths can be sketchy and inconsistent, and thus not entirely reliable. This is due mainly to the fact that the State of Alaska has no clear or comprehensive procedure for 72 recording secondary causes of death. The data that does exist, however, supports the generally-held belief that alcohol is a contributor in many Native deaths, especially deaths caused by both intentional and unintentional injury (e.g. suicides, homicides and drownings). Though it is impossible using current numbers to clearly define the overall roll alcohol plays in injury deaths, it can be established that, all other factors being equal, the rate at which alcohol is an underlying or a contributing cause of injury death among Alaska Natives is nearly triple that among non-Natives. In a few specific categories, the State of Alaska in recent years has begun to accumulate more reliable data with respect to alcohol as a factor in Alaskan deaths. Overall, it is currently estimated that for Alaska, as a whole, one of every five deaths is alcohol related. About one-half of fire deaths, which occur roughly twice as often, per capita, in the Native community than the non-Native community, were attributable to alcohol in 1987. C. Alcohol and Social Pathologies 1. A Partner in Crime In other sections of this report the Commission explores in greater detail the issues of Alaska Native violence, crime and incarceration. As is shown in those discussions, alcohol is a significant factor in domestic and other interpersonal violence and in the commission of crimes in nearly all categories for which Natives are sentenced and incarcerated. At this time, limited data is available on the connection between alcohol and Alaskan crime rates in general. This data serves, however, as indication of the extent of the relationship between alcohol abuse and Native criminality. dn the area of sexual assault, for instance, 79% of those charged and sentenced were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. About three-fourths of all murders, and at least 65% of all other crimes in Alaska, were alcohol or drug related. And in rural Alaska, it is estimated that 80% of all crimes are alcohol or drug related. The Alaska Sentencing Commission, which has been studying crime and incarceration for several years on an on-going basis, said the following in its annual report issued in December 1992: "The commission finds a clear connection between the abuse of alcohol and the commission of criminal offenses in Alaska. This alcohol connection is particularly strong in rural areas, and among Alaska Natives wherever situated. It is estimated that at least 75% of offenders have problems with substance abuse, and this figure is probably even higher for Native offenders." This assessment was bolstered in hearings held by the Alaska Natives Commission in March of 1993 where 55 Native inmates from correctional institutions throughout the state testified. Nearly all inmates who were asked whether alcohol was involved in the commission of his or her crime answered in the affirmative. 2. A Lifetime of Damage Because its victims cannot speak for themselves, and because it is a damaging childhood health condition that is completely preventable but, once acquired, a permanent condition for life, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (and the related Fetal Alcohol Effect) is among the most 73 disturbing of health concerns for any population. For Alaska Natives, with an FAS rate more than double the national average, the problem is compounded and magnified. Accurate statistics are not easy to come by because diagnosis of FAS is generally difficult. An FAE condition is even harder to accurately diagnose. Additionally, it was not until the mid-1980s that the Indian Health Service began a comprehensive approach to measuring the true extent of FAS and FAE in Alaska. Somewhat reliable data are only now beginning to emerge, and though it is still too early to make sound assumptions regarding trends, current figures point to the possibility that the FAS rate among Alaska Natives slowly declined during the decade of the 1980's. Figures through 1988 suggest an Alaska Native FAS rate (5.1 per 1,000 live births cumulative 1981-1988) of roughly two and one-half times the overall FAS rate in North America (2.2 per 1,000). This means that from 1981 to 1988, one Alaska Native child with medically diagnosed FAS was born each month. Fetal Alcohol Effect, sometimes called the "hidden problem" because diagnosis is extremely difficult, should be of major concern. Though victims are not characterized by the physical attributes of those afflicted with FAS, the neurological problems and complications generally associated with FAS are also found in FAE victims. Though preliminary evidence suggests that rates of FAS might be slowly declining in the Alaska Native population, there is every reason to believe that it will remain a crucial problem for years to come. Initial findings of a special IHS/Alaska Native Health Board project which began in 1989 indicate at-risk prenatal alcohol/drug exposure among Alaska Natives ranging from 14% to 78% by region in 1991. There is no way to measure the true emotional and psychological costs paid by individuals and by society for alcohol's prenatal damage. In purely economic terms, however, it is estimated that it will cost society over $1 million per FAS child to pay for a lifetime of needed medical, special education and welfare services. 3. Family/Community Life: A Breakdown of Values and Roles Violence within Native homes and Native communities has escalated hand-in-hand with the rise in alcohol abuse. Violence towards self (suicide, alcohol-assisted accidents), violence against family members including children, and violence towards other members of society are among the hallmarks of Alaska Natives' experience with alcohol. a. Alcohol and Native Sex Offenses. Alaska Native adults make up roughly 13.5% of Alaska's prison-age population but represent about one-third of the state's inmate population. Of particular note within the Alaska Native prison population is the high percentage of sex offenders. While less than 16% of Alaska's non-Native inmate population fell into the sex offender category (sexual assault/sexual abuse of a minor) in April of 1993, over 27% of the Alaska Native inmate population was made up of those who had sexually abused either another adult or a child. Strikingly, virtually half of the Native sex crimes for which prison time is currently being served were committed against children. Well over half (53%) of Alaska Native inmates are incarcerated for crimes falling into categories deemed among the most "violent": Assault (14% of total Native inmates); Sexual Assault (14%); Sexual Abuse of a Minor (13%); and Murder/Manslaughter (12%). From testimony received at village and regional hearings of the Commission, at hearings held within prison institutions and with state and federal officials, a pattern is clear: the 74 types of crimes depicted above are crimes that, without the effects of alcohol overconsumption, an Alaska Native individual would likely not even contemplate let alone commit. b. A Breakdown in the Parenting Role. Alcohol's significant negative impacts on Native families and communities has come out quite clearly and loudly at all levels of the Commission's inquiry. The terms "dysfunctional families" and "dysfunctional communities" have been mentioned so often that they are standard for anyone - from professionals to Native elders - who seek to adequately describe how alcohol affects Native society and culture. Native parents! inability to adequately provide for the care, protection and guidance of their children is one measure of the growing affects of alcohol abuse. The Alaska Federation of Natives found that between 1984 and 1988 the number of Native children receiving protection services from the State of Alaska increased from 2,035 to 3,109. This means that in 1988, at least one in every eleven Native children was in need of and receiving child protection services. In 1992, the State Department of Health and Social Services received 11,509 CPS (Child Protection Services) reports of harm (i.e. physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse and mental injury). Of these, 30% (or about 3500) involved Alaska Native children. That number translates into a rate of alleged victims of 94 per 1,00G Native children, as compared to 55 per 1,000 children in Alaska's non-Native community and 39 per 1,000 children nationwide. Alaska Native youths are likewise overrepresented in the state's juvenile detention system. In 1992, some 41% of youths held in detention during the year, and a matching 41% held in long-term, secure treatment were Alaska Natives. Native juveniles, for comparison, make up only about 16% of Alaska's overall juvenile population. Based on juvenile offender characteristics such as sex, race and age as reported by the State of Alaska, it can be ascertained that in 1992 nearly one in every eight Native males between the ages of 14 and 17 had been in, or was currently in, juvenile detention during the year. The above figures, as troubling as they are, reflect only those juvenile offenders who, after intake, are detained in state facilities. There are actually about eight to ten times as many juveniles who are referred for intake as there are detainees. With respect to the overall category of juveniles referred to intake, the following can be stated: about 27% of all Native males between the ages of 14 and 17 were referred to the state's juvenile intake system in 1992. D. Findings and Recommendations: The Alcohol Crisis Since its introduction into their world, alcohol has been a constant source of destruction and sorrow for Alaska Natives. Experts have put forth any number of reasons as to why Alaska Natives become abusers of alcohol virtually at the same time that they become users. One theory suggests that because the chemical is new to the Alaska Native body, Natives lack the chemical and genetic capability to break alcohol down the way other races of people - with long exposure to it - can. Others believe that the answer is purely genetic: that is, many Alaska Natives are genetically predisposed to becoming addicted to alcohol whereas, in other races, those genetically predisposed have long since died out through alcohol-related deaths. Still others feel that the type of alcoholism prevalent among Alaska Natives, the so-called "binge drinking," is behavior learned from the trappers and miners and traders with whom Natives had initial contact. 75 Regardless of its physiological and psychological origins, alcoholism among Alaska Natives must be arrested and brought to remission if there is to be a livable future for this and following generations of Alaska Natives. The statistics outlined in Section II of this report, as startling as they are, paint only part of the picture. They are statistics having to do with the most serious and deadly outcomes of alcohol abuse in the Native community, and don't even begin to reflect other, more subtle effects, being visited upon Alaska Native communities, families and individuals. 1. Findings a. Alcohol as Self-Medication. Alcohol is, at its most elemental level, a form of self-medication for people suffering from depression. The Commission finds that the widespread depression for which alcohol becomes a medication in the Alaska Native context is attributable to many factors, including, but certainly not limited to, communal and personal trauma, loss of culture, and persistent rates of high unemployment. From this has grown unresolved grief, hopelessness, loneliness, and a widespread sense of poor self-esteem. Left unchecked, alcohol abuse leads ultimately to alcoholism, a disease where the body develops a dependency for the chemical. Left untreated, this disease destroys a persons' spiritual and family life, and all too often ends in maiming - both physical and psychological - and death. Many Alaska Natives, in both the villages and cities alike, are now alcoholics. Tragically, many of them are fathers, mothers, siblings, grandparents and community leaders whose alcohol-induced behaviors harm the physical and emotional development of Native children. This is of utmost concern as all evidence points to the fact that children born to alcoholics and reared in alcoholic environments tend to become alcoholics themselves. b. Alcohol's Effects on Natives' Mental and Spiritual Well-Being. Alcohol abuse and alcoholism pose the greatest threats to the mental and spiritual well-being of many Alaska Native families, especially the women and children who all too often live in fear and uncertainty and who become scarred for life from repeated exposure to domestic violence. While the statistics for domestic violence, sexual abuse and mental abuse are unacceptably high, the figures do not reflect the full extent of these alcohol driven abuses. Based on first person accounts and testimonials taken by the Commission and its Task Forces in a multitude of forums, the evidence suggests strongly that many cases of abuse go unreported and remain hidden. It is only when the abuses escalate to the point where they can no longer be hidden from social service and law enforcement agencies that reports of harm are tallied. It is therefore difficult to accurately gauge the extent of the suffering being inflicted on women, children and the elderly. There is little doubt, however, that the suffering is substantial. c. Alcohol's Effects on Natives' Physical Well-Being. Alcohol abuse poses the single greatest threat to the physical health and well-being of Alaska Native families and communities. Not only does the misuse of alcohol result in accidents that maim and kill, it is also the triggering factor in most Native homicides and suicides. Alcohol misuse among pregnant Alaska Native women, as pointed out earlier in this report, results in much higher than average rates of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effect. The physical - not to mention mental - development of the affected Native children is compromised for life. Alcoholism results in poor personal hygiene practices and unclean homes, compounding existing unsanitary conditions caused by the lack of adequate sewer and water facilities in many Native communities. It also results in the contracting and spreading of infectious 76 diseases, a situation made even more serious in this age of HIV and AIDS. d. Alcohol's Effects on the Functioning of Communities. Though the abuse of alcohol - which in some instances involves an inordinate percentage of a village's population - is not necessarily the principal cause of the social and political breakdown currently being experienced by many Native villages, it is without doubt a major contributing factor. In many Native communities there exists a general apathy with respect to involvement in local government, the law enforcement system, the schools, and the social complex that keeps a community healthy and functioning. Alcohol exacerbates this general indifference. e. Lack of Adequate and Appropriate Treatment. Attempts to treat Alaska Native alcoholism has been, at best, marginally successful. As with most alcoholism treatment approaches, those designed for Alaska Natives generally seek to treat the individual. But, even in the cases that can be pointed to as successful - i.e. where individuals have changed lifestyles and no longer use alcohol - the underlying problems have not been treated. These underlying problems, which frequently become evident only after the mask of alcoholism has been removed, generally go unacknowledged and untreated. When an individual has undergone treatment, family members usually are not offered appropriate assistance. Family members and others close to the abuser will have experienced the newly treated person only as alcoholic and will have developed patterns of life to handle the dysfunctional situation. Most often they have many serious problems of their own to deal with, especially if the alcoholism and related abusive situations have existed for extended periods of time. These family members are ofttimes as much in need of help as is the alcoholic. f. Failure of Current Regulatory and Judicial Regimes. The constant rise in alcohol-related criminality in the Native community, together with steady increases in other key indicators of social pathology directly related to alcohol abuse, is clear proof that current methods of controlling alcohol's destruction are simply not working. For over a century governments (federal, territorial and, later, the State of Alaska) have attempted policies and regulatory schemes for controlling alcohol use and abuse by Alaska Natives. Everything from outright prohibition of alcohol sales to Natives, to present-day attempts at curbing alcohol importation and use under the State's so-called "local option laws," have been tried. (Conn and Moras 1986}. No alternative, or combination of alternatives, has proven even nominally effective. The situation continues to spiral out of control. The very fact that answers have been impossible to formulate has resulted in piecemeal policy approaches, with the ultimate outcome being a series of jurisdictional disputes among governments and governmental agencies that have otherwise proven themselves incapable of effective action. Any future attempts to regulate alcohol importation and use in Alaska Native villages - as well as the enforcement, prosecutorial, and sentencing powers and resources without which such regulation is meaningless - must be premised on the fundamental belief that Alaska Natives can and should have ultimate and unquestioned control. Based on the ever-increasing numbers of Alaska Native deaths, maimings, and social and psychological disorders caused by alcohol, a continuation of historic and present approaches to the issue should be deemed unacceptable by those who genuinely care about the future well-being of Alaska Natives. 77 2. Recommendations Note: The following recommendations are supplemental to those made in the "Health" and other sections of this volume. a. Alaska Native Jurisdiction. The federal and state governments should implement policies - in the form of appropriate legislation, if needed; regulations; and operating procedures - that give maximum local powers and jurisdiction to tribes and tribal courts in the areas of alcohol importation and control, community and domestic relations, and law enforcement. If this cannot be achieved under current federal and state statutes or because of political intransigence on the part of the State of Alaska, Congress should amend Public Law 83-280 to specify all tribes in Alaska have concurrent criminal jurisdiction with the State of Alaska, similar to the jurisdiction now exercised by the Metlakatla Community Council. b. Substance Abuse Treatment for Alaska Natives. Approaches to substance abuse treatment for Alaska Natives must be reconstructed to emphasize community-based, family-oriented and culturally relevant strategies developed at the village level. Maximum discretion with respect to governmental regulation of program designs and outcomes should be fundamental to new treatment strategies. To this end, federal and state appropriations for alcohol programs in predominantly Native areas of the state, where feasible and appropriate, should bypass governmental agencies and instead be redirected as grants to Alaska Native organizations and village councils that have developed, or are developing, projects aimed at lessening alcohol abuse and its resultant Native criminality and social pathologies. c. Alternative Corrections Programs. Regional and village alternative corrections programs should be established by the State of Alaska for all but the most violent Alaska Native offenders. These locally based corrections programs should be administered and/or overseen by local Native organizations, and should contain adequate and culturally relevant alcohol treatment components. d. Early Risk Detection. Programs for early risk detection, for example the "Healthy Start" program that has proven to produce drastic reductions in child abuse, should be implemented for Alaska Natives with initial contact beginning prior to the birth of the child to also help prevent Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effect. 78 SECTION vy THREEv ECONO MIC ISSUES & RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Report of the Economics Task Force Contents Preface Employment Options, Opportunities and a Solid Foundation of Values Unemployment Statistics Alaska Native Employment and Unemployment: An Overview Unemployment Employment Opportunities Principal Causes of the Unemployment Problem Effects of High Unemployment Among Alaska Natives Employment and ANCSA Corporations: Regional and Village NANA as a Special Case: Setting Human Resource Goals Community Economic Development Village Industry: Success Stories Saxman Kodiak Island Klawock Emmonak Common Threads Interwoven in Success Community Development Quotas A Brief History of the CDQ CDQs: Accomplishments to Date The Need for Renewal 83 88 88 90 91 91 92 97 97 100 102 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 107 107 108 109 CDQs as a Model for Other Extraction Industries 110 Additional Resources for Alaska Native Economic Development 110 Reindeer 110 Mariculture 113 Ecotourism 113 Information Age Opportunities 114 Other Economic Development Issues 114 Limited Entry Permits 114 Village Fuel Businesses and Bulk Fuel Storage 117 Recommendations 118 Employment 118 Village Businesses and "Cottage Industry" 120 Community Development Quota (CDQ) 120 Limited Entry 121 Bulk Fuel 121 Reindeer Industry 121 Mariculture 122 I. Preface There is no need to present a lengthy discourse on the economic problems facing Alaska Natives since so much has already been written over the last several years. However, a brief, historical perspective will help set the stage by showing that, unfortunately, there are many more examples of problems having increased than there are of solutions having been implemented. Almost 30 years ago, in 1966, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) published a report that 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, unemployment 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.' Shortly thereafter, in 1968, another report, from the Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska, opened with the following generalizations: A great contrast exists today between the high income, moderate standard of living, and existence of reasonable opportunity of most Alaskans and the appallingly low income and standard of living and the virtual absence of opportunity for most Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts in Alaska. About four- fifths of the more than one-quarter million people of Alaska are not Alaska Natives. Most of them, living in or near urban places, lead lives very much like those of other Americans...The other one-fifth...live in widely scattered settlements, are unemployed or only seasonally employed...live in poverty... in small dilapidated or substandard houses under unsanitary conditions... are victims of disease, and their life span is much shorter than that of other Alaskans. They are not only undereducated for the modern world, but they are living where adequate education or training cannot be obtained, where there are few jobs, where little or no economic growth is taking place, and where little growth is forecast.” Time has passed, oil revenues have waxed and waned, the population of Alaska Natives has continued to grow - and unemployment along with it - while subsistence resources have become more restricted and cash needs have increased. More than two decades after the BIA report, the Alaska Federation of Natives published its report, in 1989, on the status of Alaska Natives, A Call for Action, which reiterated the earlier reports (and, for that matter, ‘National Program Inadequacies and Needs to Better Serve Rural and Native Alaska. Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, March 25, 1966. Department of the 2Arnold, R.D., et al. Alaska Natives and the Land. Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1968: p. 3. 83 dozens of other reports that had been published in the interim), noting that "despite investment in infrastructure and education, in most Native communities the increase in self-sustaining economic growth has been minimal. When Native population growth is factored into the equation, the future is even more disconcerting."’ This was followed by a report presented in 1991 by the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, entitled Alaska's Economic Challenge: The Level of Distress, which reported: 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 locks face rural Alaska. The population continues to struggle with limited resources trying to find a degree of stability. Also in 1991, the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs published a report, Towards a Comprehensive Alaska Rural Development Strategy, which outlined and discussed barriers restricting the economy of rural (Native) Alaska. These included: 1. Rural financing barriers (capital constraints) a. Lack of access to debt capital b. Lack of equity c. Lack of public invested capital base Rural education and training barriers Rural economic development barriers Rural infrastructure barriers Rural housing barriers Rural health barriers Communications barriers DONS ant) aan oe any In order to overcome these barriers, the Department recommended that leadership begin at the local, community level: "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."* In March 1992, the Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, published a series of Alaska Native Policy Papers, supported by the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, focusing on issues of Alaska Native communities. One of these, The Economy of Village Alaska, by Professor Lee Huskey, offered the beginning point for the Alaska Natives Commission and the backdrop against which the Commission's work has evolved over the last 18 months. Professor Huskey raises an interesting question early in the paper: Conventional wisdom about the economies of village Alaska presents the casual observer with a puzzle: if these economies are in such bad shape, “The AFN Report on the Status of Alaska Natives: A Call for Action. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Federation of Natives, 1989: p. 29. “Towards a Comprehensive Alaska Rural Economic Development Strategy. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, December 1991: p. 12. 84 why do the villages continue to exist and grow? Whey haven't they disappeared, like numerous small towns throughout the United States?° In explaining the persistence of Alaska villages, Professor Huskey's paper presents a comprehensive organization of the three interwoven economies of rural Alaska: subsistence, transfer and market. The interplay among the three and the multiple participation of Alaska Natives in these economies are also covered in his paper, as he notes the limitations imposed on Alaska Native villages by their small size, remoteness, and lack of economic integration, pointing to the facts that many areas do not have commercial resources and that significant shares of existing jobs are taken by non- residents. In his thesis, Professor Huskey echoes conclusions that he and Professor Thomas Morehouse, also of the Institute of Social and Economic Research, published earlier in a review of eight years of conferences and symposia on the subject of Northern and Arctic development. The key problems that have been highlighted are as follows: The prescriptions for self-sufficiency are shaped by development constraints. Three types of problems are associated with economic development in Native villages. First, economic limits are imposed by the small size and remoteness of most villages; these limit opportunities for market activity and increase the cost of living. The second set of problems is associated with dependency and control; not only are decisions affecting the local economy made outside the region, there may also be external controls on access to local resources. Third, rapid growth of population in the villages complicates the problem of economic development by increasing the required level of economic activity.° The literature has often decried the problems that Alaska Natives face in trying to adjust to the modern world of "economic development" but has offered only limited recommendations for realistic change. The issue is far from simple, nor is it singular. There are vast differences between regions of Alaska, and any one recommended solution, though potentially applicable to one or two villages in a certain region, will not apply to villages in other parts of the state. Several authors have divided Alaska into separate economic regions,’ to limit the number of variables involved. In order to keep this study from becoming an academic exercise, the Commission has chosen to seek more broadly based solutions and examples of successful ventures. In many respects, economic development, as it is generally conceived in the United States (and historically in Western European society), leads to a lessening of options for most Alaska Natives, rather than an enhancement. The essence of the inherent conflict is that "a self-sufficient economy relies on its own human and natural resources to provide for its population,"® and most economic development has reduced the ability of Alaska Native SHuskey, L. The Economy of Village Alaska. Anchorage: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, March 1992: p. 4. ’Huskey, L., and Morehouse, T.A. Development in remote regions: What do we know? Arctic, 1992, 42, 2 128-137: p.134. Internal references to two additional papers: Stabler, J., and Howe, E. Socioeconomic transformation of the native people of the Northwest Territories, 1800-2000; and Langdon, S. Commercial fisheries: implications for western Alaska development; papers presented at the Western Regional Science Association in 1990 and 1984, respectively. 7See, for example: Knapp, G. The economic outlook for rural Alaska. ISER Working Paper 88.1 Anchorage, Alaska: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, 1988. ‘Huskey, L. op. cit., p. 2. 85 villages to maintain that self-sufficiency. Whereas all Alaska Native communities at one time enjoyed self-sufficient, subsistence economies relying on their own human and natural resources to provide for their population, the introduction of non-Native lifestyles and modern technology rapidly escalated cash needs, while opportunities to earn cash failed to grow along with those needs. This led to reliance on a transfer economy, dependence on the government, and resulting negative social and psychological consequences which prevail today. Examples of some of the dramatic changes that occurred - and the impacts that they had on life in Native communities - were described by Mr. Patrick J. Madros, Sr., from Nulato, in his testimony before the Commission on June 1, 1993: The first thing we have to do is go back in history and find out where our problems started. In my old hometown of Kaltag, I can only go back to the middle '50s and early '60s when the first electrical generator was brought into Kaltag by a barge in the summer. I'll use this as a starting point of the change from my subsistence way of life to a cash based economy. In order to maintain a light bulb in your home, you had to pay a monthly electric bill in cash. That changed the way of billing and so forth - a major change in our society. Rather than pay bills once a year at the end of a season, this bill was occurring monthly. If you didn't pay it on a monthly basis, you lost your electricity. The second thing that we thought up is we became a state, and with that wedlock developed. A woman who had kids out of wedlock became eligible for assistance - I figured some three to four hundred dollars a month at that time. Three hundred times 12 is $3,600 a year tax free to a person in our society out of wedlock, and that was a lot of money, especially when the per capita at that time was $1,000 in our area. All of a sudden this person became a very rich person and the single-parent family became acceptable. It was during this era that the role of the Native male changed, and we did not realize it [then]. Instead of being the provider our culture called for, we took second place to welfare. The roles we played were not really important any more, as hunters, wood and water gatherers. We were replaced by PHS [Public Health Service], BIA [Bureau of Indian Affairs], free housing, energy assistance, food stamps and the list could just go on and on and on. The debilitating effects of this massive upheaval in the long-standing economy of Alaska Natives were dramatic, and repercussions are still felt throughout Alaska. As the overall economy evolved in Alaska, the Natives! simultaneous participation in two or three economic systems has been a material result: subsistence plus the transfer economy (in a majority of cases) with the addition of the market economy (in fewer cases) is the rule among rural Alaska Natives. Moreover, the movement from one system to another within a community and across time adds unaccountable complexities to any review of rural Native economy. In its quest for such recommendations, the Commission has chosen to focus its attention on three primary topic areas, with additional discussion of other adjunct economic development issues. The first area is employment of Alaska Natives. The second is local production of goods and other village-based Native businesses, such as fish processing cooperatives and "cottage industries." The third is the Community Development Quota 86 (CDQ), which evolved from the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act; the CDQ is reviewed both in its current fishing-industry configuration and as a potential model for providing future local economic development opportunities in other extraction industries. The Commission readily admits that these three topic areas, even with the elaborations that are included here, represent only a confined sector of the economic landscape. This study takes its place at the end of a long, historical sequence of reports, studies, commissions and recommendations that have preceded it, few of which seem to have made a significant impact on the economic welfare of Alaska's Native people. Moreover, this report emerges at a time that dire predictions about the future of Alaska's overall economy prevail and substantial modulations are transpiring at the federal level, necessitated by national deficit reduction. All of these will inevitably lead to diminishing transfer payments and government employment, which will inevitably, in turn, hit rural Alaska Natives harder than any other segment of the population. Unlike many previous reports and studies, this study of the Alaska Natives Commission should lead to policy change and the implementation of new program options, all of which will offer improvements to the economic future of Alaska Natives. Respecting the fiscal limits of both the state and federal governments, the Commission has, in its development of this study and the recommendations which it contains, constrained its urge to request more funding and more programs. Rather, it has striven to encourage the redirection of current funding and implementation of policy changes that will increase public funding only minimally, if at all. 87 II. Employment A. Options, Opportunities and a Solid Foundation of Values In the testimony that the Alaska Natives Commission received, during hearings held all around Alaska, lack of employment was often raised as a major problem facing Alaska Natives. However, there was not always consensus among presenters about ways in which employment opportunities could best be provided. Referring back to the preceding discussion about the mixture of different economies and the need for Alaska Natives to participate in two or three at the same time, the structure of a job is an important criterion for its being occupied by an Alaska Native. The following examples help reveal some of the important fundamental social and cultural aspects of employment that are too often ignored when government-subsidized work programs are initiated. They also lead to portray the differences in perspective and offer clues to potential solutions. The first was provided by Mr. Jonathan Solomon, Second Chief of the Fort Yukon Tribal Council: Economic development for Fort Yukon is hunting, trapping, and fishing. We got a project right now at Fort Yukon, the airport project...with all kind of work. Monday morning there was eight jobs opening. Not one was filled, because the kings happened to show up. When September hunting come around, you're not going to find anybody work in Fort Yukon, because this is their economic development you're talking about, their livelihood. Another view was offered by Mr. Edward Rutledge, Director of Planning and Development, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Fairbanks. Noting that it has been shown that saving existing jobs is far less costly than new ones, Mr. Rutledge related the importance of the fisheries to employment. It is ironic that his testimony preceded the "chum crash" by one full year. Probably the most significant segment of jobs at risk of loss are those that pertain to fisheries - both commercial and subsistence. The combination of high seas interception of Alaska salmon and the exploitation of mixed stock fisheries, most notably the False Pass fishery, have resulted in a drastic reduction in the wild resource available for harvest in our Interior rivers. We are the last in line to have a chance at harvesting salmon and are the first in line to suffer due to diminishing salmon populations. Salmon enhancement programs for the Yukon River, the Kuskokwim River, and the tributaries of both of these rivers will greatly enhance the economic conditions of the Interior. The value of fisheries is not limited to only the dollars earned by fishermen, crews and processors, but also includes the import substitution value of salmon products harvested and used by subsistence fishermen. Mr. Rutledge later added: I think any job expansion in rural communities basically boils down to individual people, and the skills those people have to either be self- employed or be employed in an organization, or a government, or whatever, and to create the new jobs to the expansions of whatever entity they're working for. The question of orientation, whether toward the individual or the community, begins to take on greater relevance when job creation is discussed. Reviewing the experiences resulting from one of the largest development undertakings since the pipeline, the Red Dog Mine, Mr. John Shively, NANA's Executive Vice President, discussed interactions between 88 the NANA Regional Corporation and Cominco: One of the places that we have not succeeded, we've tried with Cominco, is this idea that they should stop looking to individual workers' careers. I mean, some people will do that, but they should be more flexible in terms of offering people [jobs] that maybe only want to work their operation six months of the year, or developing a big cadre of people, let's say millwrights, they know they've got 60 or 70 in the region, and they just run people in and out, because...people aren't, in our region, into wealth accumulation, which is the basis for western economy. They're into sharing; they're into other cultural activities; and it's a strength that has never been used, to my knowledge, very well in this state in any sort of ongoing business that can keep a broader work force working. Actually, money from projects like Red Dog, I think, goes much farther in the Native community than it would in the non-Native community, because it doesn't go to the people that earn it, it goes to their immediate and extended family. The Commission brings this discussion to the forefront at this point in order to incorporate what has been called "Management by Values," a system that was developed in Hawaii by Dr. George Kanahele’ and presented at an Economic Summit organized by the Alaska Federation of Natives in 1989. The core of Management by Values and values-based economic development resides in: a) values; b) the right values; and, c) shared values. These are the responsibility of the Native community, in the sense that, as mentioned in the preceding quote from Mr. Shively, the community, as a whole, must make sure that corporations or governments intending to initiate economic development impacting a community must embrace and adhere to the community's values, while remaining flexible and adaptable. As Dr. Kanahele said in his closing remarks to the Summit, "The challenge of the 21st century will be to create a values-based politic, one in which our values provide the moorings. Continually tested against reality, debated, refined, and deepened, our values must become our beacon's casting light on the road ahead."'° An excellent example of values-based economic development "in action" occurred on St. Paul Island and was described for the Commission by Mr. Larry Merculieff, St. Paul's City Manager: In 1976, St. Paul had absolutely no economic development or businesses whatsoever, and by 1983 our economic base was wiped out to the point where we had no place to cash a check. When we were put into that situation of total desperation we had to throw out the conventional wisdom manual about economic development and start fresh. And thus far everything we've tried has worked, but it required us throwing out practically everything in terms of conventional approaches to economic development. For example, we didn't bring in any consultants because we decided that we would have to build on our strength; and so the very first thing we did is audit our strength, and the first and most important strength we acknowledged was: What are the cultural strengths?) Now, normally, when °Kanahele, G.H.S. Ku Kanaka - Standing Tall: A Search for Hawaiian Values. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 1986. ‘Economic Summit 1989: Summary Report. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Native Foundation, 1990. 89 a consultant is brought in, they usually do an audit of human resources, capital, and natural resources; but they don't do the cultural audit - what is the cultural strength? It's going to be the foundation to build on, and frequently economic development programs come and start something that doesn't work on the cultural strengths. The importance of values-based economic development and the articulation and involvement of local, Native values is a recurring theme in this study. No matter what topic is addressed or what recommendation is made, unless the foundation is firmly set in the cultural traditions and values of the Alaska Native people who are to be impacted, the likelihood that it will "work" is low. Furthermore, when projects and programs are begun that fly in the face of local Native values, more harm than good can be the expected result. B. Unemployment Statistics On several occasions, the Commission heard testimony from individuals who questioned the accuracy and validity of unemployment statistics that are published for Alaska, which often show surprisingly low unemployment in rural areas well known for their lack of employment opportunities. There is an obvious discrepancy between the government's figures and reality, as noted by Mr. Hoefferle, the Chief Executive Officer, Bristol Bay Native Association, in his testimony before the Commission in Dillingham: I suspect that you already know that unemployment figures that are quoted for Bristol Bay and rural Alaska in general are bogus numbers. They're mythical figures. They're cited at 12 percent, while we know that this rate is closer to 60 percent unemployment. The explanation was well stated by Mr. Rutledge, Tanana Chiefs Conference: The Alaska Department of Labor's official definition of unemployment, currently in place, excludes anyone who has made no attempt to find work in the previous four-week period. Most Alaska economists believe that Alaska's rural localities have proportionately more of these "discouraged workers." What is not mentioned by the Department of Labor is that in most rural, remote areas, discouraged workers do not result from those individuals not seeking work, but as a result of no work being available during much of the year. Therefore, after a period of four non-working weeks they drop out of the system and no longer register on unemployment statistics. An example makes the difference between the State of Alaska's figures and "true unemployment" obvious. In a (hypothetical) Alaska Native village of 300 there are perhaps adults who would be considered the "work force," but there are only ten paying jobs (some of which are part-time): the Community Health Aide, the Community Health Representative, the Village Public Safety Officer, the Postmistress, two school teachers, a teacher's aide, a school cook, a school janitor, and the generator maintenance person. Even if all ten jobs were held by village residents, which is unlikely since most teaching positions are taken by non-Natives who live in the village only during the school year, that would leave 70 of the 80 employable individuals unemployed, producing an unemployment statistic of 70/80 or 87.5 percent, which accurately depicts the situation. However, each of the 70 unemployed persons knows that there are only ten jobs in the village and that each of them is currently occupied. Thus, none will venture to the state's employment office to enroll as an unemployed person looking for employment unless by doing so he/she receives unemployment compensation. The handful who do fit into that latter category will 90 constitute the basis for the Department of Labor's calculations, which, as a result, may show unemployment to be 10 percent. Actual data from several villages substantiate this analysis. For example, in 1990 in Pilot Point, of the 38 individuals constituting the work force, 17 were employed, 21 were unemployed, and not one was "actively seeking employment." Whereas the actual unemployment rate was consequently 21/38 or 55.3 percent, the Department of Labor methodology would have calculated unemployment at 0.0 percent." C. Alaska Native Employment and Unemployment: An Overview The abstract term "economy" translates in human terms for individuals as jobs that provide: resources necessary to acquire food, shelter, clothing and to meet other needs; personal fulfillment and a sense of dignity to those who work in them; and contributions to the well-being of their community and society overall. As the environment in which they live has moved from a purely subsistence economy towards one that also involves the Western cash economy, many Alaska Natives - including most rural Alaska Natives - have not gained meaningful entry into that new economy. This leaves Alaska Natives unable to provide the necessities of life for themselves and their families and tears the social fabric of the communities in which they live. 1. Unemployment In 1990 Alaska Natives numbered 85,698 and constituted just over 15 percent of the state's total population. Of this number, 62 percent of Alaska Natives (about 52,000) lived in village Alaska. Isolation of Alaska Native people from the cash economy, whether they are rural or urban dwellers, is reflected in unemployment statistics. Statistics from the 1990 census show that while 8.8 percent of Alaska's total work force was unemployed in that year, 22.1 percent” of the portion of Alaska's work force comprised of Alaska Natives was unemployed. Of particular concern to the Commission are the findings relating to unemployment among Native men in the villages. While this is not meant to draw attention from the unemployment situation among Native women or Natives residing in urban areas, the overwhelming testimony offered to the Commission linking, in particular, lack of productive opportunities for Native men in the villages with behavioral health and anti- social problems, as well as death, make these statistics exceedingly urgent. For example, in one out of every eight villages, male unemployment is in excess of 50 percent. In one-third of all Native villages, male unemployment - at 32.4 percent (as calculated by the Alaska Department of Labor) is nearly quadruple the statewide average unemployment rate. As the discussion below points out, those men who do work are highly dependent on seasonal employment and on the few lower-level (e.g., custodial and maintenance) jobs available in small rural villages, and their female counterparts do not fare much better. "Based on studies conducted by the Western Alaska Fisheries Development Association. "The reader is referred to the presentation of employment calculation methods on the preceding page. The unemployment figures quoted in this section refer to those used by the Department of Labor, which underrepresent the level of true unemployment. 91 2. Employment Opportunities a. General. Looking at those Alaska Natives who are in the work force, occupations range across the employment spectrum. There are, however, concentrations of Natives in certain fields. The training programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs mainly during the 1960s, together with the many training and employment opportunities in the construction trades associated with building the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the 1970s, produced a present- day Native male work force with high concentrations in the crafts, trades and service sectors. Among the roughly 16,000 Alaska Native men in the state's civilian labor force, about 42 percent (6,645) are in these fields. Of these, nearly one-fourth (24%) are in the construction trades (including operating engineers), and an additional 14 percent are mechanics and repairers. Some 1,231 are construction laborers, and even more, 1,442, are janitors. Significantly, this translates into the fact that about one in every 11 (9.0%) of Native males in the state's civilian labor force is a janitor. Like their male counterparts, Native women are highly concentrated in a handful of job classifications within the state's civilian work force. Two broad categories in particular, administrative support occupations and service occupations, account for about 56 percent of the job classifications in which employed Native women can be found. Nearly one in three (30%) of all employed Alaska Native women works either as a secretary or clerk, and one in four (26%) works in the service sector primarily in the food preparation and custodial fields. Another 10 percent of employed Alaska Native women are in sales, and nine percent find work in the executive and administrative fields. While all Natives, both male and female, are severely under-represented in managerial and professional specialty occupations, Native women are about 60 percent more likely to be working in the management and professional fields than are Native men. In professional specialty occupations (which include teachers and higher level health practitioners, among others), Native women outnumber their male counterparts by better than two to one. Finally, with respect to the types of jobs most likely to be available in village Alaska, including the many regional centers, men find employment at a rate far lower than the rate for women. These jobs - in the schools, in the city offices, and in a handful of retail and service establishments - are likely to continue to be the only sources of full- and part-time employment in many villages for decades to come. b. Public Sector Employment. Throughout the 1980s and up to the present, governments (federal, state and local combined) accounted for about one-third of the total annual wages of the state's industries. This huge outlay of wages was some 250 percent greater than the next highest industry (services), and from the years 1980 to 1987 nearly matched the total wages paid by the mining, construction, manufacturing and retail trade sectors combined. In terms of jobs, positions within the government sector consistently account for about 30 percent of the statewide total. As pointed out by Alaska's Department of Commerce and Economic Development: "These proportions underestimate the relative importance of government employment, since more of its employees are full time and they tend to be higher-paid." It is difficult to determine the extent to which Natives hold jobs at the local government level, a sector that accounts for over 40 percent of jobs within the total government industry. However, with the ability for more centralized record keeping and certain affirmative action requirements to meet, the state and federal governments were able to 92 supply the Commission with somewhat accurate numbers regarding Native participation in their respective work forces. c. Federal Government Employment. In 1991, the federal government employed nearly 19,000 people in Alaska. A recent survey of various federal departments (current to July 1993) encompassing about 11,000 of those jobs, or 57 percent of federal positions, showed that a wide disparity exists between Alaska Natives as a percentage of the state's population and their representation in the federal work force. With two exceptions - the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA] - the federal agencies surveyed had a combined cumulative Alaska Native/American Indian employment rate of 5.6 percent. This is despite the fact that Alaska Natives make up about three times that number in the state's general population. The Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which account for about one-eighth of the total federal jobs surveyed, had significantly higher Alaska Native/American Indian hiring percentage, 90.5 percent and 83.0 percent respectively. The key difference between these two agencies and the rest of the federal agencies is that IHS and BIA have special congressionally-approved Alaska Native/American Indian hire preference provisions. But for such a special preference provision, it appears that federal agencies, on the whole, for whatever reasons are not capable of employing Alaska Natives in meaningful numbers. The Commission reminds the federal administration that in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Congress directed the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to institute Native and local preference in a number of programs related to the Conservation System Units established by the Act. None of these has been followed. The Alaska Federation of Natives brought the failure of the government to follow Congressional mandate to the attention of Secretary Babbitt during his 1993 visit to Alaska. Specifically, AEN noted the following: Because of the close relationships that Native people and their corporations have with the new Conservation System Units, and in order to address Native concerns over potential loss of economic opportunities, ANILCA provided for specific potential benefits to Natives, Native corporations and other residents of rural Alaska. Section 1306 provides that, to the extent practicable and desirable, the _ Secretary shall attempt to locate administrative sites and visitor facilities on Native lands in the vicinity of any Conservation System Unit. Section 1307 provides that the Secretary shall give preference, in the provision of visitor services, to that Native corporation that he or she determines is the most directly affected by the establishment of expansion of the respective unit. This section makes specific reference to Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) and its villages for services in the Kenai National Moose Range and Lake Clark National Park, reflecting the intent of an earlier agreement with the Secretary. Section 1308 provides that the Secretary shall establish a program under which any individual who has lived in or near a Conservation System Unit will be given preference for employment.'* 'S3Memorandum prepared by the Alaska Federation of Natives and delivered to Secretary Babbitt. 93 Expanding on that last point, the Act stipulates that: [T]he Secretary shall establish a program under which any individual who, by reason of having lived or worked in or near a conservation system unit, has special knowledge or expertise concerning the natural or cultural resources of such unit and management thereof (as determined by the Secretary) shall be considered for selection for any position without regard to - (1) any provision of the civil service laws or regulations thereunder which require minimum periods of formal training or experience, (2) any such provision which provides an employment preference to any other class of applicant in such selection, and (3) any numerical limitation on personnel otherwise applicable.’ These articles of ANILCA were designed purposefully to provide employment for the Alaska Natives who comprise the local population and who unquestionably constitute those who "have special knowledge or expertise concerning the natural or cultural resources." Since passage of ANILCA, these articles have been patently ignored by the federal government. d. State Government Employment. If the federal government's record of Alaska Native employment is much less than adequate, state government's record is dismal. Alaska Natives, since statehood, have been virtually locked out of meaningful employment in the State of Alaska's job industry. In 1992, only 4.8 percent of the State of Alaska's executive branch work force of 13,703 individuals was comprised of Alaska Natives. Table 1 shows the number and percentage of Alaska Natives holding full-time positions in key agencies whose programs and policies have significant effect on Alaska Natives and rural Alaska in general.'* As the numbers demonstrate, Alaska Natives are extremely under-represented in almost all of these agencies. Of particular note are the Departments of Law, Natural Resources, and Fish and Game. Full-time Alaska Natives in these agencies as percentages of overall departmental staffs are 3.8 percent, 2.1 percent and 1.6 percent respectively. Further, between these three important agencies there is only one Alaska Native holding a position in the "officials/administrators" classification. Of those Alaska Natives working in the State of Alaska labor force, a disproportionate share find themselves in the lower ranks of authority and earnings. This is quite evident in looking at the figures relative to those employees in the general government bargaining unit. Nearly 80 percent of all executive branch jobs fall within this unit, and Alaska Natives' representation (4.7%) in the unit matches their representation in the work force as a whole. “Public Law 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371, 16 USC 1611: Section 1308. ‘The data reported here are from the "1992 Annual Progress Report on Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action in Alaska State Government," prepared by the Alaska Department of Administration. 94 Alaska Natives are concentrated in lower paying jobs (see Table 1). Whereas 53.6 percent of Alaska Native employees in the general government unit of the executive branch are employed in these lower ranges [i.e., State Range 12 and lower), less than one-half that percentage (25.7%) of whites are in those ranges. At the other end of the spectrum, the discrepancies are even more pronounced. While only 2.1 percent of Alaska Native employees in the general government unit of the executive branch hold positions in the higher wage and policy-making ranges (State Range 20 and above), 16.8 percent of white employees are in these positions. Table 1: Numbers and Percentages of Natives Holding Full-time Positions in Departments of Alaska State Government Department Number | % of Labor Force Law 13 3.8 Education 27 5.1 Health & Social Services 97 5.3 Commerce & Economic Dev. 16 3.9 Natural Resources 13 2A Fish & Game 12 1.6 Public Safety 38 4.8 Corrections 99 7.8 Community & Regional Affairs 28 16.8 e. Capital Improvement and Housing Programs. Two problems in particular have surfaced in the Commission's work, and they have both been mentioned in testimony presented at the hearings of the Alaska Natives Commission. The first of these is a policy - or at least a standing practice - of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that appears to result in the prohibition of tribes from designing and constructing their own housing. Flowing funds through Native housing authorities, HUD groups housing construction programs in such a way that large contractors are practically assured of receiving contracts, and local laborers are cut out of the process. Mr. Mark Edward Springer, from Hooper Bay, summed up the problem well in his testimony before the Commission. HUD is...man, they're a big bureaucracy! They are critical to our survival because they're the ones who build our houses out there, through the housing authorities, and I think it's kind of a two pronged approach. You know, I think the housing authorities in some cases have kind of got to change their attitudes a little bit in terms of the provision of service. Not to mention any housing authorities by name, but when they come in and say, "Well, you know, it's not our business to be making money," or when you say, "[w]e here in Hooper Bay have got a really nice wood shop, the city has got thousands of dollars' worth of power tools - I mean, industrial grade power tools here - and we've got guys that are, you know, almost cabinet makers. How would we go about getting a contract to build breakfast nooks for the houses you're going to be building next summer?" When they get through laughing over the term "breakfast nook," they say, 95 "Oh, we can't tell our contractors what to do. The contractor can buy his stuff where we wants." So the housing authorities slough it all off onto the contractor. After it goes out to bid we see what the contractor wants to do. More often than not, the result of this process is that non-Native subcontractors and firms - in fact, frequently non-Alaskan subcontractors and firms - receive the money and employ their own people. This problem could be remedied by a restructuring of HUD's bidding and contracting policies. Regional Native corporations can become more active in contracting as well; the 1991 amendments to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and subsequent legislation automatically gave ANCSA corporations designation as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, which enables them to obtain plan sets and participate in government contracts at lower cost. It is unlikely that any ANCSA regional corporation would pursue any such contracts with HUD, however, unless the policies and regulations change. Some of those that have tried in the past have lost considerable sums of money. Another problem that often accompanies the aforementioned difficulty with HUD is that created by the Davis Bacon Act, which sets minimum wage structures for federally subsidized capital projects, including those administered through HUD. One common consequence of this is the importation of "tried and true" laborers by contractors who shy away from hiring local Alaska Natives for projects in rural Alaska. Their argument is that if they have to pay a very high wage, they do not want to risk that wage on someone who is unknown and may not be reliable. This problem can be remedied through enabling local force account construction, rather than the use of a general contractor. It can also be resolved by designating Alaska as a geographical region not covered by Davis Bacon. As the recommendations made in the final section of this study note, the Commission urges both the federal administration and Congress to act to relieve this employment problem, since it has a disproportionately large negative impact on Alaska Natives. f. Other. One significant employment opportunity that may soon be accessible to Alaska Natives derives from the need for the many land conveyances to be surveyed that are still pending from both ANCSA and the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA). Native corporation conveyances, state government conveyances, "townsites," Native allotments, and ANCSA 14(c) conveyances all need to have surveys completed before they can be finalized. Interim conveyances have been made through what is termed "protracted survey" based upon estimated boundaries drawn from existing plats and surveys. But specific, on-site, certified surveys have to be completed for the final conveyances to occur. Altogether, there are approximately 10,000 Native allotments, and only a small fraction of that number have been surveyed. Of the 200 conveyances under section 14(c) of ANCSA, only about 25 have been surveyed. At its current level of budgeting, the Bureau of Land Management estimates that there are about 30 years of surveying work left to be completed. If the Department of Interior were to increase its budget for this now, the conveyances could be completed much more quickly than they otherwise will be and, since the costs of surveying will increase over time, the overall expense would be lower than it will be if it continues to be spread out over the next several decades. Moreover, if this initiative included an emphasis on - and priority for - contracting with ANCSA corporations and other Native firms for the on-site surveying, coupled with federal job training programs, the University of Alaska, and training centers in the hubs (e.g., Kotzebue, Nome, Bethel, Kodiak, etc.), approximately 1,000 rural jobs could be generated for Alaska Natives. A second opportunity that is about to avail itself to Alaska Natives is the result of the National and Community Service Trust Act, which was signed by President Clinton in September 1993. In its first year of implementation, 1994, the program plans to enable 96 20,000 people to earn education benefits while being employed in community service jobs.'¢ As this new program is organized and implemented in Alaska, Native leaders need to become involved in the State Commission for National Service that is required to be established under the Act. Furthermore, Alaska Native regional non-profit corporations should engage in planning to ensure that Natives achieve easy access to these employment and education opportunities. Tribal councils need to develop community-service jobs for their tribal members as part of AmeriCorps. 3. Principal Causes of the Unemployment Problem There are multiple reasons that many Alaska Natives have not gained meaningful entry into the cash economy. That many in rural Alaska still rely on the subsistence economy for many of their needs is one of the most important reasons. Another is that some live in locations appropriate to a subsistence economy that have not yet become, and may never be, viable in a Western cash economy in the long term. Other Alaska Natives, for a variety of complex reasons, have not been able to acquire the skills that would make them employable in the income-producing jobs available where they live. This is coupled with in-flow to rural areas of non-residents who take many of the few jobs that are available. Calista Corporation, a regional Native corporation that has dealt with rural employment issues for over two decades in one of the most economically distressed areas of the state, pointed out in a 1993 report: During the economic boom of the 1980s, most jobs created in the villages were taken by non-residents. This pattern continues today as teachers, administrative officials, health care professionals, and government employees move to the villages to take jobs...[O]ver half the employment opportunities created by public projects in villages went to non-residents, with more than 10 percent of those jobs going to workers who were not even residents of Alaska.'” A final reason for the lack of significant Alaska Native participation in Alaska's work force is that when jobs are available and Alaska Natives have the skills to fill them, most employers have not shaped the jobs in ways that take advantage of Natives' cultural strengths and that recognize the differing life and work patterns of Alaska Natives. 4. Effects of High Unemployment Among Alaska Natives a. Poverty. The impact of the unemployment rate is seen in 1990 census statistics on "persons in poverty." Alaska Native per capita income was only 45.9 percent that of Alaska non-Natives. An estimated 21.5 percent of Alaska Native families had incomes below the officially-established "poverty" line income ($12,674 for a family of four) in contrast to 6.8 percent of all Alaskan families. The 21.5 percent of Alaska Native families living in poverty was a far higher percentage than that for whites (4.5 percent), blacks (8.8 percent), Asians and Pacific Islanders (6.0 percent) or other ethnic groups (7.0 percent). ‘6 AmeriCorps." Published by The Corporation for National and Community Service, Washington, D.C., October 1993: p. 2. Calista Corporation. "Final Recommendations for Action Submitted to the Alaska Natives Commission, January 12, 1993." p. 5. 97 These figures are even more dismal when it is realized that they are based on a nationwide determination of what constitutes inadequate income. The figures do not take into account the higher cost of living in Alaska. The Alaska Department of Labor estimates that if the higher cost of living were taken into account on a statewide basis, the overall poverty rate would be 12.5 percent with corresponding increases in Native poverty rates. Those rates would necessarily be much greater in rural areas where the cost of living is substantially higher than the 125 percent rate commonly accepted for Anchorage. b. Growth of the Transfer Economy. The lack of employment opportunities for Alaska Natives has a direct impact on the level of government transfers needed to provide a basic "safety net" for Alaska Natives. These Americans, like their counterparts throughout the state and the nation, have expectations about what "modern" life should be. These expectations, first introduced by the missionaries and school teachers and traders, have been fully adopted by the current generation of Alaska Natives. Absent the economic means to fulfill these expectations on their own, Alaska Natives have turned - knowingly in some instances and unknowingly in others - to subsidies, income maintenance programs and other components of the transfer economy to make ends meet. c. Employment and Subsistence: The Fundamental Bond. As the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development points out in a late 1980s report: Employment generated by state-financed construction projects has not proven to be permanent or self-sustaining for rural residents. Whatever the reasons for the difficulty in translating short-term government monies into long-term jobs in the villages, one consequence of high and increasing levels of unemployment is that subsistence activities, which have always been of great importance to the villages, will grow in absolute and relative importance. In turn, this has numerous implications for policies and programs.'® Though subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering by Alaska Natives is extremely important in the cultural context, it is also a large and fundamental part of the rural Alaska economy. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), following 15 years of intensive research, concluded that the non-commercial taking of wild plant and animal species for food and other domestic uses continues to produce "significant economic value" in contemporary Alaska, particularly in the rural areas of the state. For example, 45 of 98 communities surveyed by the ADF&G during the early 1980s were found to have wild food harvesting equal to or surpassing in quantity the western U.S. standard for average annual per capita purchases of meat, fish and poultry. Some 83 percent of those same 98 communities reached at least half of that western U.S. benchmark through hunting and fishing. The simple fact of the matter is quite clear as further research reveals: subsistence productivity (and activity) tends to vary inversely with community levels of cash income. The result is equally clear: as long as unemployment and the corresponding inability of rural Natives to acquire meaningful cash incomes persist, the demand for access to fish and game resources by Alaska Natives will continue to be a reality of life in Alaska. The importance of Alaska Natives' maintaining their involvement in subsistence cannot be overly stressed. As Mr. Hoefferle put it in his testimony before the Commission in Dillingham: '*Marshall, D. The Alaska Economy: Performance Report, 1987. Juneau, Alaska: Department of Commerce and Economic Development, December, 1988: p. 3. 98 Here today in our villages we have a 60 percent unemployment rate. Sixty percent! What do you think our people live on? The cost of living in Dillingham is 165 percent of the cost of living in Anchorage. The cost of a gallon of gasoline in Dillingham is $1.92...1n Nondalton it is $2.50. How do people survive with no jobs and a high cost of living? The answer is very simple, it's subsistence... Subsistence economic systems, with their emphasis on sharing, accepting the contribution of all participants and so forth, are the epitome of a supremely flexible and very conservative economic system, a system that's been honed over the millennia to adapt to changes in climate and abundance of resources and to adapt to the kinds of economic fluctuations that we're seeing in the state's economy right now. In the current state economy, in its impending impact on rural, social, and economic life, the state government should be promoting utilization of subsistence systems, not attacking them. The Commission urges the State of Alaska - and the federal government as well - to seriously consider these points. The consequences of not safeguarding Alaska Natives! continuing involvement in subsistence far outweigh the insignificant problems that may be faced in ensuring Native preference for access. Mr. Gary Moore, Economic Development Specialist for the Tanana Chiefs Conference, summarized the situation well: Coming to the conclusion that rural communities or villages endure greater economic hardships certainly comes as no surprise. However, what villages critically depend on to offset the high cost of living is the utilization of subsistence wildlife resources. Without this resource the village lifestyle would quickly perish. Bringing rural Alaska into a cash dependent economy is still fairly new, considering that Alaska Natives lived and survived solely in a subsistence way of life for thousands of years prior to the onslaught of Western civilization in this country. In the anticipated future, all change, adaptation, and evolving of the Native way of life should be controlled by Native people. This can be accomplished by maximizing their participation in proposed changes. This state and our nation, as a whole, has had a notorious history of paying little or no regard for the indigenous people's rich cultural past, prior to permanently altering their lifestyle. Let it be noted that, regardless of future economic conditions in rural communities, subsistence activities will always play a vital role in the lives and cultural practices of modern Native people... It is not uncommon to hear state and federal officials focus on the costs of economic development programs. It may be advantageous for these officials to consider the costs of not adequately funding such programs. The combination of the lack of jobs and high cost of living results in a myriad of social and behavioral problems that burden society in general, and cost the state and federal government millions of dollars each year. These funds are spent to support social, family and mental health programs, which, to some degree, are the result of low self esteem stemming from chronic unemployment.” "The quote is from written testimony submitted jointly by Mr. Gary Moore and Mr. Edward Rutledge, Tanana Chiefs Conference, for the hearing held in Fairbanks, July 18, 1992. 99 D. Employment and ANCSA Corporations: Regional and Village When ANCSA was signed into law in 1971, it erected a complicated set of new and alien systems for the Alaska Natives who had been assured by the federal government that their aboriginal claims to Alaska would be settled through the payment of money ($962,500,000) and the selection of limited land holdings (44,000,000 acres). However, rather than transferring either land title or funds to Native governmental entities, ANCSA established an intricate corporate structure, with newly created for-profit corporations receiving the settlement payment, to be held in the form of shares for each corporate "shareholder." Land was similarly conveyed to 12 regional” and over 200 village for-profit corporations, but the subsurface rights to land were retained by the regional corporations. On the other hand, opportunities afforded the village corporations initially appeared promising. They received significant capital resources (i.e., money and land) and they had access to a ready labor pool. However, they were not equipped with nor prepared to obtain quickly the managerial capability needed to bring the resources and labor together effectively. Beyond that, the sudden thrust into the for-profit, competitive Western world did not readily conform to traditional values and culturally based patterns of decision making that predominated in the villages. The "bottom-line" was not always the highest priority. Confusion rendered corporation boards easy prey for unscrupulous consultants and advisors. Among the potential benefits that an ANCSA Native village corporation can bring to its village is cash paid out in dividends, employment and capital investment/infrastructure. Of these, cash paid out in dividends has generally had the least overall impact in a village since, in most cases, villages have become conduits for cash. Because there is no significant commerce or industry in the villages, most of the cash which enters the village economy turns around and leaves it: with exception of the few foods, some fuel, and certain clothing materials provided by subsistence activities, everything else villagers need must be purchased outside. The school custodian, whose salary brings cash into the village, orders his family's clothing from a catalog and sends money out of the village to cover the cost of the purchase. The firefighter, who brings his summer's wages home, buys food at the village store - and the storekeeper buys his stock from an urban wholesaler. The examples are endless and the results are obvious: what cash does come into the villages goes out again for imported goods and services.”! Even if employment in rural Alaska is significantly increased, unless there are additional ways to keep the money thus garnered in rural Alaska, the benefits will be relatively small and more individual than communal. Import substitution would enable each dollar brought into the village to cycle longer within the local economy and provide more local jobs and income. As we speak of increasing employment options within the customary context, we also need to look toward enhancing local production of goods that can be purchased in the place of those that would otherwise be ordered out or bought from a discount warehouse in Anchorage. Mittens, hats, parkas, mukluks, snowshoes, nets, skiffs, fishing gear, and other traditional items, can be village-made, consistent with a subsistence Twelve of the ANCSA regional corporations are in Alaska; the remaining one, called the "13th region." represents Alaska Natives who, at the time of the Act's passage, were Outside. It did not receive land and does not have any operations in Alaska. *'DeMan, M. Contemporary rural Alaska and the role of the village corporations. In Cornwall, P.G., and G. McBeath (eds) Alaska's Rural Development. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Inc., 1982: p. 58. 100 lifestyle, and sold locally, recycling the limited cash resources that "regular" employment generates. An assumption that is often made, particularly by those who are not familiar with ANCSA, is that the regional corporations offer large employment opportunities for Alaska Natives. With the exception of only a few of the corporations, that is not the case, as shown by a study published by the Institute of Social and Economic Research in 1991 that reviewed the employment practices of the 12 Native regional corporations in Alaska. Table 2 shows that, all in all, there were only 306 direct, corporate positions available. Adding the joint ventures and subsidiaries raised that total to 7,416, but the corporations' ability to exercise Native preference in hiring diminishes with its direct involvement in management. Altogether, the data show that a total of 2,445 shareholders were employed by their respective regional corporations, joint ventures and subsidiaries combined.” Thus 33 percent of the employees were shareholders.” Table 2: Regional Corporation Employment for 1991 Corporation Corporate Joint Subsidiaries | Shareholders | Shareholders | Percent of Venture Total Employed | Employees Ahtna 25 250 100 375 55 14.6 Aleut 9 13 176 198 5 2.5 ASRC 53 247 2,162 2,462 827 33.6 Bering 12 0 3 15 9 60.0 Strait Bristol Bay ll 0 300 311 7 2.3 Calista NA NA NA NA NA NA Chugach 20 75 60 155 39 25.2 CIRI 66 434 722 1,222 120 9.8 Doyon 24 156 0 180 69 38.3 Koniag 7 0 0 7 4 57.1 NANA 33 1,408 609 2,050 978 47.7 Sealaska 46 0 395 441 332 75.3 Totals 306 2,583 4,527 7,416 2,445 33.0% Colt, S. Financial performance of Native regional corporations. Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions, Vol. XXVIII, No. 2. Anchorage: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, 1991. The report acknowledges that the data are incomplete and would have benefitted from adjustments that the author was not able to make: "These include (1) adjusting for part-time employment and partial ownership of joint ventures so the numbers of annual average jobs are more accurately tied to the corporations’ involvement; (2) adjusting for contracted operations such as timber cutting, which may generate substantial employment attributable to the regional corporation that owns the land; (3) adjusting for out-of-state workers." (p. 23.) This figure needs to be interpreted cautiously. First, data do not exist to show how many shareholders of the regional corporations are seeking employment or would be available to work for their corporations if they had the option. Second, shareholder employment does not equate to Native employment, since a shareholder of one regional corporation (e.g., CIRI) working for another regional corporation (e.g., NANA) would not appear in this table. 101 There are differences of opinion among the shareholders of these 12 ANCSA corporations regarding the corporate goals. As Colt noted: Some shareholders want their corporations to concentrate less on profits and more on jobs, education, and training. Others want them to be even more aggressive in going after profits and distributing dividends.” The opportunities for employment available within the village corporations are even more limited. With rare exception (e.g., Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation), village corporations have only one or two employees, although some (e.g., Cape Fox Corporation, which is discussed in a later section) have been active in contracting with other firms that do have substantial Native employment. All in all, though, the total number of jobs, part-time, full-time, and seasonal combined, in all of the ANCSA corporations, both regional and village, does not reach 8,000. With an estimated available work force? of over 54,000 Natives, there is a great and growing need for increased employment opportunities. One of the ANCSA regional corporations that did choose to set shareholder employment as a high priority is the topic of the next section. 1. NANA as a Special Case: Setting Human Resource Goals One example of a regional ANCSA corporation known for its employment of shareholders and, in other ways, holding the human factors above the drive to make profits, is the NANA Regional Corporation. Early in its development, as a substantiation of "values based economic development" (long before that term was coined) the NANA Board of Directors established its priorities in such a way that the needs of its shareholders could most effectively be met. The NANA corporation's efforts to manage the impact of social change through the human resources approach are reflected principally in three orientations: a primary goal of subsistence protection; localization of production and investment function to promote regional economic self- sufficiency; and a quasi-governmental "constituency" approach to management.”* By pursuing this management style, which was then characterized as an "empowering process,"’” NANA has, it appears, maintained its position in the forefront of ANCSA regional corporations in terms of employment of its shareholders. It has also aggressively pursued ways in which subsistence resources within its region can be protected; the Northwest Arctic Borough, working in conjunction with NANA, established permitting ordinances that limit access to Borough (and NANA) land by outsiders for the taking of game and other natural resources. NANA has also engaged in significant development in its Red Dog Mine. ibid, p. 21. *The 1990 U.S. Census found 53,867 Alaska Natives and American Indians in Alaska over the age of 16 years and therefore in the available work force. U.S. Department of Commerce Report 1990 CPH-5-3: p. 93. **Gaffney, M. The human resources approach to Native rural development: A special case. In Cornwall, P., and G. McBeath (eds) op. cit., p.141. Internal quotes from John Schaeffer, "NANA Goals and Investment Strategy." Kotzebue, Alaska: Memorandum to the NANA Board of Directors, October 20, 1980. "ibid, p. 152. 102 It is not the intent of the Commission to depreciate the work of any of the other regional corporations by highlighting NANA, for each corporation has its own priorities, agendas and achievements. Rather, NANA is presented here as an example of what a contained system can accomplish if the community which it serves and its management or government agree on priorities and direction. In terms of planning and policy development, NANA may prove to be a quintessential case in point. Building on the NANA example, one can envision an ideal ("utopian") Alaska Native village economy, in which the community, through consensus, agrees to uphold as its foremost priority a subsistence way of life. In this hypothetical village, employment and other means of bringing cash into the community are directed towards the capitalization of subsistence. Income garnered in excess of that need is banked for later communal use. Village (i.e., tribal) governmental functions are established as a means to protect subsistence resources. The community agrees - as a community - to share costs and distribute resources according to traditional, cultural patterns. In this scenario, the Native people have the benefits of enjoying a life that is more fulfilling in its social, ethical, and spiritual senses while necessarily foregoing some of the "trappings" of the modern, Western world. Budgets would be driven more by the need for new fishing gear or other items essential to subsistence harvesting than by luxuries such as Nintendo games and CD players. The empowerment process is predominant in such a community, with familial and communal cooperation being fundamental requirements of membership in the community (i.e., Native village or tribe.) Whereas this best case perspective may be unrealistic as a statewide model, it may well be practical in many small villages. In order to develop this prototype, the concept of subsistence must be understood in a broader context than it is often viewed, especially by non-Natives or those far removed from Alaska. Internationally, "subsistence" refers to those economic activities...which are relatively self-contained within a community or region, which are not conducted primarily for profit-maximization, which aim primarily for present consumption, and which are governed by traditional patterns rather than market conditions or immediate needs. A subsistence farmer, for example, is one who consumes most of what he produces, sells little in the cash market, buys few items for production and consumption, uses little non-family labor, employs noncapital demanding technology, possesses a limited standard of living, and whose decision making is dominated by family survival. Subsistence is, in this way, a system of production for both use and exchange. Its objective is not total self-sufficient nor capital formation but an endless flow of goods, services, and other products.” In such a self-contained community, individual income to capitalize subsistence could conceivably be partially derived from dividends paid by Native corporations (albeit small) and the Alaska Permanent Fund, augmented by part-time and seasonal wage-paying work, thereby diminishing, if not totally eliminating, dependence on transfer payments. Although the relative lack of employment in the village would remain, the impact of unemployment would be significantly lessened because of the concentrated use of funds to provide basic support and to capitalize subsistence activities. 28Lonner, T.D. Subsistence as an economic system in Alaska: Theoretical observations and management implications. In Langdon, $.J. Contemporary Alaska Native Economies. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc., 1986: p. 15. 103 III. Community Economic Development A. Village Industry: Success Stories In its search to find successful examples of locally generated village "business" in the sense of "cottage industry," the Commission listened carefully to all those who testified in the hearings held around the state and also sought out information from both state and federal government offices that are involved in funding or otherwise supporting such endeavors.”” Several "success stories" surfaced, although they represent a small percentage of the villages in Alaska, which number over 200. They are briefly reviewed here to provide insights into the processes that Native communities have implemented to improve their economic futures. There are certainly others, but the following illustrate different types of approaches and outcomes. They are portrayed here to help policymakers understand some of the necessary and sufficient conditions that, it seems, are critical to success. 1. Saxman A long-term success has been demonstrated by the Tlingit village of Saxman in the Southeast. Over the last seven or eight years, the Saxman tribal council, working with the city and the Economic Development Administration, has developed a highly successful tourism program at the Saxman Totem Park, which has provided employment for a number of tribal members (carvers, carpenters and others) during the construction of a traditional long house and the restoration of the poles. Employment has continued: last summer over 15,000 visitors came to Saxman, 30 to 40 full-time jobs were filled by tribal members, and the village's annual income from the program grew to $250,000. The intensity of this effort is remarkable, as Saxman often has as many as 700 tourists passing through the Totem Park every two hours at the height of the summer season. Bill Williams, President of the Cape Fox Corporation (the ANCSA village corporation for Saxman), has said, "For me, the best thing about our tourist business is what it does for our young people. Working as guides they are exposed to a lot of people. They develop speaking skills and pride in who they are. We've seen this reflected later in their improved academic performance."*° Once again, this success shows that the relationship between economy, health, wellness, and self-esteem is both integral and resolute. 2. Kodiak Island Within the last few years, the regional non-profit Native corporation serving the villages of Kodiak Island, the Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA), has organized an increasingly successful cooperative that currently supports about 25 artisans and craftspeople from several of the villages on the island. Begun by Mr. Joseph Kelley, a vocational rehabilitation administrator at KANA, the cooperative was initiated as a program to help people with disabilities, but it has evolved to promote Native art and culture, offer workshops to young people who want to learn traditional Alutiiq arts and crafts, and assist in marketing, including establishing new markets in Japan. The cooperative is also tied in with the Kodiak Island Connection Project, funded by the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs and organized by the Southwest Alaska Municipal The Commission especially thanks Mr. Jim Wiedeman and Mr. Chuck McGee, Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, and Mr. Bernhard E. Richert, Jr., Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, for their help. *"Business Cache," vol. 3, no.1. Published by the National Bank of Alaska, P.O. Box 100600, Anchorage, Alaska 99510. 104 Conference, which also functions as the Alaska Regional Development Organization (ARDOR) for the geographical area that encompasses Kodiak Island.*! The Connection Project completed a marketing study and acted as a catalyst to bring individuals together in each of the island's villages, to work on crafts and share their skills with young people. 3. Klawock Another example of a business endeavor that has come about as a result of coordination among different organizations, agencies and governments is now reaching fruition in the village of Klawock, where the Klawock Cooperative Association, with assistance from the City of Klawock, major support from the Economic Development Administration, and a 20- year advance rental payment from the Tlingit and Haida Regional Electrical Authority, has converted the vacant cannery complex into an industrial mall to include several small businesses (including S.E.A. Leather Products, owned by Klawock-Heenya, which produces salmon leather garments sewn from traditional patterns). A second Klawock project is the new herring pound fishery that produces row-on-kelp for the Japanese market. Unusually, this endeavor involved two ANCSA village corporations, Klawock-Heenya and Shaan Seet (Craig) awarding a grant to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, which had been restricted by the Board of Fish to use non-government funds for the development. The potential gross annual income for each of the 248 individuals who were given herring pound permits has been estimated at $20,000 once the business reaches a stable production level. 4. Emmonak A collaborative effort that combined the resources and dedication of the Emmonak Corporation, Emmonak Tribal Council, City Council, Emmonak Co-op, Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association and their Community Development Quota (CDQ) partner, Golden Alaska Seafoods, has led to substantial improvements in Emmonak. A barge has been renovated and, by securing an Indian Community Development Block Grant from HUD, the Emmonak Tribal Council has been able to expand the fishing co-op to other species. Additional funds for economic development in the village have been secured from the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs and the federal Economic Development Administration. The project has been in place for many years and has had a tremendous impact on the village, particularly residents involved in fishing. The incorporation of the CDQ in this endeavor and training provided to villagers makes it especially relevant as an example of a successful local collaboration. 5. Common Threads Interwoven in Success In its review of successful and upcoming village-based businesses and economic development programs, the Commission realized that there were common threads and characteristics that give clues to those who wish to explore similar projects and programs in the future. The first and most compelling characteristic is coordination of a number of different "entities" throughout the program's planning and development, including the traditional and IRA councils, municipal governments, village and regional ANCSA corporations, state agencies (e.g., the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Department of Fish and Game}, and the federal government (e.g., Economic Development Administration, Administration for Native Americans). Compared with five or ten years ago, current projects have only rarely involved the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 7 *!Some of the information contained here came from the "Business Cache," vol. 3, no. 2. 105 The second characteristic that appeared to hold in all of the successful projects that the Commission reviewed was community-based strategic planning, with emphasis on community, and an important component of that planning was the attention paid to Alaska Native values. As mentioned earlier, cultural and traditional values that uphold the strengths of the Alaska Native people must be articulated and incorporated into planning processes and planning documents in order for the outcome of that planning to be both accepted and appreciated within the community. Other factors that appear to play important roles in success include the stability of the village government, consistency of leadership, cautious utilization of resources, and commitment to making a project work, even if it requires extra effort and more volunteer time than might have been predicted. The Commission returns to the discussion about the approach that NANA has taken to ensure that values are involved in all phases of planning and implementing economic development. Quoting Mr. John Shively of NANA: I think that [cultural strength] really is critical, because...too often when we talk about economics, we talk about it from the Western standpoint. When we did Red Dog [mine], for instance, there were things that we put in there that, you know, no mining company would have ever put in, but they were at the top of our list: things like subsistence protection, rotations, assuring that we maintained political control in the region, ability for our shareholders to have access to subsistence, cultural foods at the mine, things like that. I mean, that was the head of our list; and, of course, the head of Cominco's list was how they were going to make money.” Another salient factor in the success of both small and large business enterprises involving Alaska Natives is the importance of the group rather than the individual. This was mentioned in several hearings that the Commission held and was also mentioned by Mr. Merculieff, describing experiences on St. Paul Island. One of the cultural strengths we identified here locally was our group orientation...The federal government hadn't made a profit in the commercial fur sealing operation for 19 years, and we took it over one year before it was shut down and made a net profit of a half billion, because we restructured the work operations from individual orientation to group orientation and competition, and productivity and efficiency skyrocketed. There is an intricate mix of special factors, circumstances and energy that coalesce to produce a successful village business, and there are far too many "outliers" for any scientific conclusion to be drawn or system to be constructed that would ensure that failure is always avoided. However, as more businesses are started and more information is systematically gathered regarding the involvement of local, state and federal government, ANCSA corporations, and the private sector, Natives will have access to enhanced data that will help lead them to create successful ventures. The Commission encourages existing organizations, such as the Institute of Social and Economic Research, to document "cottage industries" and other local production activities and to make relevant reference material concerning successes - and pitfalls - available to village councils, Alaska Native corporations, and individuals who are striving to improve the economic well-being of their communities. “Meeting of the Economic Task Force, Anchorage, Alaska, August 25, 1992; part of the permanent record of the Alaska Natives Commission: p. 20. Sibid, p. 21. B. Community Development Quotas 1. A Brief History of the CDQ* The concept of Community Development Quotas (CDQs) emerged in the mid-1980s as the Bering Sea groundfish fisheries, which had been dominated by foreign fishing fleets, became profitable for the domestic fishing industry. The idea of a guaranteed quota, which had previously been established in Greenland, New Zealand, Iceland, and elsewhere, was explored for implementation in Alaska. It was thought that if the coastal Native communities of western Alaska could implement such a program, they could help lessen chronic unemployment and social problems by sharing directly in the harvest of a multi- million-dollar fisheries resource. A contingent from western Alaska proposed an amendment to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, at the time of its reauthorization by Congress in 1989, that would have allowed the creation of CDQs. Unfortunately, the amendment did not succeed, and the Act was reauthorized without it. Nonetheless, 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 shore-based seafood processors and offshore factory trawlers. At its meeting in April 1991, the Council adopted a specific CDQ alternative for analysis as part of the inshore-offshore proposal. The final inshore-offshore management plan that was approved by the Council in June 1991 included a provision that set aside 7.5 percent of the pollock quota in the Bering Sea, which represents approximately 100,000 tons annually, for a four-year CDQ program. The CDQ provision was designed to give the Governor the lead responsibility for recommending who would receive quotas, a responsibility that has been delegated to the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. In 1992, state and federal officials drafted CDQ criteria, procedures, and regulations, and then solicited applications from the eligible communities of western Alaska, with eligibility determined by: a) the community meeting the definition of Native village in ANCSA; and, b) the location of the village 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. Proposals were submitted by 62 villages through six newly formed or reorganized corporations, each of which had a corporate fishing partner. The six corporations and their partners are: Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association with Trident Seafoods Corporation and Starbound Partnership; Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation with Oceantrawl, Inc.; Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association with American Seafoods Company, Inc.; Coastal Villages Fishing Cooperative with Golden Age Fisheries; Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation with Glacier Fish Company, Ltd.; Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association with Golden Alaska Seafoods. In November 1992, Governor Hickel issued findings and recommendations for the amount of quota each applicant would receive for 1992 and 1993, which were reviewed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and approved by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce on December 3, 1992. The biennial plans are based on 7.5 percent of the biologically harvestable Bering Sea pollock resources. Applications must address the level of local employment that will be created and the schedule for moving from reliance on CDQs to self-sufficiency. They must also include detailed business plans to allow the The following section is paraphrased from the publication The CDQ Program: New Economic Potential for Western Alaska, published by the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, Anchorage, Alaska. 107 feasibility of the CDQ joint ventures to be evaluated. Under these joint 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. State government requires active, not passive, operations; the mere sale of quota and receipt of dividends is not considered acceptable. Western Alaska residents must participate fully in the fisheries, and CDQ proceeds must be invested in fishery development programs and ventures that both create jobs and promote stable local economies in the participating villages. 2. CDQs: Accomplishments to Date Because this is a relatively new program, the ways in which the CDQ can benefit the 62 villages that are participating in the program are still unfolding, but it is already clear that this program is both successful and creating a positive impact in all of the communities. An example of a sweeping positive evaluation of the CDQ program appeared in the Anchorage Daily News in early January 1994: Community Development Quotas shared by western Alaskans in the form of Bering Sea pollock royalties were hailed as a resounding success. During the program's first year, all groups receiving CDQs met or exceeded their goals in terms of employment, training and investments.*° There are several other aspects of the Magnuson Act that have also had very positive impacts on coastal communities in Alaska - and it is at times difficult to separate the results of these other components from those directly attributed to the CDQ. The following description of some of these illustrates both the complexity of the changes created by the Magnuson Act and the sweeping changes that have resulted: The passage of the Magnuson Act in 1976 extended the jurisdiction of the United States over marine resources 200 miles offshore and established a priority for Americans to take the fish in those waters. This was one incentive for fishermen and processors to develop this resource - they had a subsidy in the form of reduced competition from the foreign fleet. The bridging mechanism between totally foreign harvest and processing of the fish resource and the "Americanization" of this process were joint venture operations. These were essentially contracts between American catcher boats and foreign processors whereby the American boats caught the fish and transferred them at sea to the foreign vessel. The Total Allowable Catch (TAC) was set aside for American fishermen and processors, but any of the TAC not used by this Domestic Annual Production (DAP) was usable by the Joint Venture Production (JVP) operations. In turn, any of the TAC still left was then available as the Total Allowable Level of Foreign Fishing (TALFF)...[T]he TAC very rapidly changed from being TALFF dominated to 100 percent DAP.** The data presented in the report showed that the DAP increased from 4,198 tons out of the total cod catch of 36,401 tons (11.5%) in 1983 to 67,122 tons of the total cod catch of “Welch, L. "High notes and low notes in Alaska's fisheries year." Anchorage Daily News, January 2, 1994: p. Co. **"Community Profiles Developed for the Social Impact Assessment of the Inshore/Offshore Amendment Proposal." LaJolla, California: Impact Assessment, Inc., January 25, 1991: p. 16. 108 67,122 tons (100%) in 1990. This dramatic shift from foreign to local Alaska utilization of the cod catch demonstrates one remarkable impact that the Magnuson Act has had on Alaska. The CDQ, and the additional broad opportunities that it provides, is another influential evolution of the Act that must be supported, to ensure its long-term effects. The above-referenced shift from TALFF to DAP took seven years to complete, and similar changes resulting from the CDQ program may also take a while to be fully accomplished. The Commission strongly supports the continuation of the CDQ, its codification in the Magnuson Act, and its expansion in the future to include other fisheries, to enable the coastal villages of western Alaska to realize the full potential of the program. A personal example of the rewarding consequences of the CDQ provision was brought to the attention of the Commission at its hearings in Emmonak, when Ms. Frieda R. Costley testified: Regarding economics, I wholeheartedly support the CDQ program which I feel is needed for our people. Unemployment is a depressing idea. A lot of people are on Public Assistance programs and this CDQ program is in my eyes going to lessen the unemployment rate in our village. By providing jobs for our people this may lead them to a better life instead of drinking and consuming dangerous liquids such as Lysol and Scope mouthwash. I know, before I got my job with the City of Emmonak I had no goals in life; at the time I saw alcohol as a way of beating depression. The Emmonak Tribal Council and the Yukon Delta Fish Marketing Co-op along with the CDQ program is a light on the horizon for betterment of our people, for the present and for the future. Once again, the importance and involvement of the broadly ranging concept of "economy" in the multitude of other elements of village life (e.g., social, psychological) are demonstrated by Ms. Costley. The positive effects resulting from the infusion of economic and social support and assistance created by the CDQs are only now beginning to be fully realized in Alaska, but every sign indicates that the long-term rewards will have a major impact on the coastal Native communities. 3. The Need for Renewal Unless there is some intervention in the sequence of events that is now under way, the CDQ allocation for Bering Sea pollock will expire on December 31, 1995. In order for the Community Development Quotas to continue, two important processes must be accomplished. The first is that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, which is now engaged in a comprehensive rationalization process to develop a system for the allocation of federal fisheries resources after 1995, must include the CDQs in its final comprehensive plan. The second is that when the Magnuson Act is reauthorized, the CDQs must be codified in the law. At the present time, the CDQs are allowed, but they are not an integral part of the Magnuson Act, which they must become. As the recommendations at the end of this report show, the Commission urges the administration and Congress to require the CDQ allocations, which will certainly prove to be beneficial to Alaska Natives and will stimulate increased economic activities in all 62 of the participating villages.*” 37At its annual convention in October 1993, the Alaska Federation of Natives passed Resolution 93-83, which "strongly supports the continuation of the CDQ Program, the expansion of CDQs into all Bering Sea species and fisheries, and the adoption of a CDQ amendment to the Magnuson Act that would make CDQs a permanent part of all Bering Sea fisheries allocation systems," and it further stated that "AFN supports the expansion of the CDQ Program to include all of the Native villages which have traditionally fished and are in close proximity to the Bering Sea." The Alaska Natives Commission strongly endorses that resolution as well. 109 4. Exploration of the CDQ as a Model for Other Extraction Industries The Commission sees the potential for Community Development Quotas in other extraction industries, in addition to fishing. If, for example, a percentage of the resources from timber or mining or oil were made available in the same way that the CDQ has made a percentage of the pollock fishery available, with similar planning groups and social goals, the conceptual program would be greatly magnified in terms of its scope and breadth and the number of Alaska Native villages that would ultimately benefit. C. Additional Resources for Alaska Native Economic Development 1. Reindeer As a resource, reindeer represent a unique niche for Alaska Natives, because of the exclusive right that they now have to establish and manage herds. Bringing domestic reindeer to Alaska was originally proposed to Congress by Charles Townsend of the U.S. Fish Commission in 1885. In 1891, Reverend Sheldon Jackson, a Presbyterian missionary and the U.S. General Agent for Education in Alaska, unable to obtain any federal funds to implement his ideas, raised private funding to enable him to acquire reindeer from Chukchi herders across the Bering Strait. He used the money to purchase barter goods and, sailing on the revenue cutter Bear, succeeded in bartering 16 live reindeer, which were then transported back to Amaknak Island, in the Unalaska harbor, in September 1891. To Reverend Jackson, reindeer were seen as a way to help the Alaska Native population of the area who, at that time, were suffering from a very limited resource base that had recently been further diminished by legions of non-Native miners and whalers.** Reverend Jackson's hope was: to stock Alaska with reindeer, to reclaim and make valuable millions of acres of moss-covered tundra, to introduce a large permanent and wealth- producing industry where none had previously existed, to take a barbarian people, on the verge of starvation, and lift them up to comfortable self- support and civilization.” In 1892, an additional 171 reindeer were acquired from Russia by Reverend Jackson and transferred to Point Clarence on the central western coast of Seward Peninsula, along with four Siberian reindeer herders who had agreed to accompany the reindeer and teach herding techniques to young Eskimos. Over the next decade, a total of 1,280 reindeer were imported from Siberia, but in 1902 the Russian Czar forbid further reindeer exports from Russia. By that time, however, the number of reindeer in Alaska had grown to exceed 5,000. There were problems over the years: the Chukchi and Eskimo herders did not get along due to long-standing differences between the two cultures, and in 1894 the government imported herders from Scandinavia to teach the Eskimos. The twentieth century brought dramatic changes to reindeer herding, as the ownership of herds by non-Natives advanced rapidly; the Lomen family of Nome became the largest and most influential of the non-Native reindeer owners. Over the 15 year period from 1914 through 1929, the Lomens purchased over 14,000 reindeer from the mission and other non- *‘Postell, A. Where Did the Reindeer Come From? Alaska Experience, the First Fifty Years. Portland, Oregon: Amaknak Press, 1990. “Jackson, S. Report on Introduction of Domestic Reindeer in Alaska, 1892. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 110 Native herds.*° The Lomens held a clear edge over other reindeer herders; anyone indebted to the Lomen Company stores which had extended them credit were forced to pay the store in reindeer at a value of only $2.00 per head, at a time when the Lomens were selling reindeer meat for 40 cents a pound and a sled reindeer brought as much as $150.*! Over the next few decades the reindeer numbers increased significantly; it was estimated that, by 1930, there were 640,000 reindeer in Alaska, but a drastic decline lowered that number to 250,000 by 1940. The most influential change was due, however, not to the reduction in the numbers of reindeer but rather to the Reindeer Industry Act of 1937 which was the culmination of investigations into the Lomens' operation. The Act (P.L. 75-413) stated: That a necessity for providing means of subsistence for the Eskimos and other natives of Alaska is hereby declared to exist. It is also declared to be the policy of Congress, and the purpose of this Act, to establish and maintain for the said natives of Alaska a self-sustaining economy by acquiring and organizing for and on behalf of said natives a reindeer industry or business, by encouraging and developing native activity and responsibility in all branches of the said industry or business, and by preserving the native character of the said industry or business thus established. The Act went on to authorize the Secretary of the Interior "to acquire...by purchase or other lawful means...reindeer, reindeer-range equipment, abattoirs, cold-storage plants, warehouses, and other property...for and on behalf of the Eskimos and other natives of Alaska." From the passage of the Act on, Native reindeer herding experienced several transfigurations, occurring more or less a decade at a time. During the 1940s the implementation of the Act occurred, with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) assuming the supervision of range utilization and allocation, which resulted in the formation of relatively stable herds.” Simultaneously (and presumably coincidentally) the number of reindeer in Alaska plummeted to only 25,000. During the 1950s, the markets for reindeer products were expanded by the federal government to the Lower 48. In the 1960s, the division of responsibility for governmental assistance and management was established between the BIA, BLM, and the State of Alaska, but by the end of the decade the BIA began to withdraw from involvement in the industry. Beginning in the early 1970s a new market, selling antlers in the orient, introduced significant changes in the reindeer herding business, since antlers could be harvested without slaughtering the animal. Also in the 1970s the passage of ANCSA complicated land-ownership and herd management issues, which were made even more complex by the passage of ANILCA in 1980. The last ten years have seen many new problems emerge in the reindeer industry. In 1992, the rich Oriental market for antlers quickly diminished when the Korean government ruled that reindeer antlers could not be sold as natural medicine. On Nunivak Island over- grazing of the reindeer herd evoked threats on the part of the Soil Conservation Service that the herd would be largely - if not entirely - eliminated, to which the people of Mekoryuk responded by rebuilding their slaughterhouse and gaining management of the “Stern, R.O., Arobio, E.L., Naylor, L.L., & Thomas, W.C. Eskimos, Reindeer, and Land. Fairbanks, Alaska: skims, Nemecer, ane ane. University of Alaska. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 59, 1980. “\Kerndt, G.M. History of the Alaskan Reindeer Industry and Its Problems with Land, Ownership, and Marketing. Agroborealis, 1990, 22, 22-25. “Stern, 1980, op. cit. 111 herd, a process that was assisted by the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Recently public attention and notoriety were brought upon the federal government by the gross mishandling of the reindeer situation on Hagemeister Island, which was described by the Alaska Geographic: Until winter 1992, few Alaskans had heard of, let alone visited, Hagemeister Island. But by late November, Hagemeister was a household name throughout much of the state, and had gained considerable notoriety outside Alaska, as well. A 23-mile-long island in Bristol Bay, about 19 miles from the Yupik village of Togiak, Hagemeister is the site of a reindeer-herding project that, left unmanaged, spiraled out of control with tragic consequences.** The herd of 1,057 animals was descended upon by riflemen of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who shot and killed 742 reindeer, over the strong protests of the Togiak Village Council. Dr. Don Olson, from Nome, organized a private airlift that removed another 122 reindeer, and the remaining 193 were left on the island to survive the winter as best they could.“ The history of this failure provides insights about management issues and raises several questions about the federal government's motives and abilities concerning reindeer. The Hagemeister herd originated in the mid-1960s when the BIA loaned 144 reindeer to three Yupik residents of Togiak for the purpose of developing an island herd. The BIA, BLM, and University of Alaska were supposed to provide technical assistance and conduct studies to ensure that the herd did not exceed the carrying capacity of the island, which was projected to be from 1,000 to 3,000 reindeer. However, little to nothing was actually ever done, and the herd grew without effective grazing management, furthermore, the projections of the island's carrying capacity were grossly inaccurate, as it became obvious by 1973 that the range had badly deteriorated. The government reduced the size of the herd to 450 (with far less fanfare, obviously), but the herd increased to over 800 animals within two years. It continued to grow, unabated, to 1,530 in 1990. In 1992 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service purchased the herd for $1.00 and proceeded to try to give the animals away through the BIA's reindeer loan program, with no success. This quickly led to the mass killing in November 1992. The Commission draws the attention of state and federal government agencies to this example because it epitomizes the miscarriage of administrative attempts to interact with Alaska Native tribal entities. If the federal government is going to support reindeer herding as a means to "establish and maintain for the said natives of Alaska a self-sustaining economy" that the Reindeer Act of 1937 promised, then it must engage in long-range planning and centralized management assistance. The involvement of the BLM, Soils Conservation Service, BIA, and several state government agencies has enabled all involved to disavow responsibility for such debacles as Hagemeister Island brought to the attention of Alaska and the Lower 48. The Commission submits that the appropriate role for these many governmental agencies, once they have their respective responsibilities and jurisdictions sorted out, would be in assisting Alaska Native reindeer herders to establish and promote enhanced markets for reindeer products. Rather than impairing the development of this exclusive, Native economic resource, they should work to advance it. “Sherwonit, B. Alaska's Reindeer. Alaska Geographic, 1993, 20, 94-99, p. 94. “ibid. 112 2. Mariculture Mariculture, in its many different forms, offers opportunities for cash income and requires relatively small scale infrastructure investment. In several southeast villages and at least one village in the Prince William Sound (Tatitlek), oyster farming has begun to grow to a stable, income producing business. As mentioned earlier, in Klawock the new herring pound fishery that produces row-on-kelp for the Japanese market is quickly developing, and in other parts of Alaska feasibility studies and business plans are "on the drawing board" for other iterations of this industry. To date the state legislature and administration have, in response to highly effective and powerful lobbies, steadfastly prohibited even the exploration of fin-fish farming, but even a quick and cursory review of the international fishing economy confirms that Alaska is being left behind by Scandinavian, Oriental, and now even South American countries that are farming salmon, trout and a number of other fish. Both the state and federal governments should consider the long-range economic impacts of Alaska's stance against expanding mariculture to include limited fin-fish farming. Furthermore, in reviewing means to establish that limitation, the governments should follow the lead of the Reindeer Act and institute a Native-only experimental demonstration of salmon farming in one or more Native villages. Existing shell-fish mariculture programs in villages have proven to be effective and to fit well in the subsistence lifestyle of the villagers, who are not required to work an eight- hour day for five days of every week of the year. Because the patterns of mariculture management, feeding, harvesting, etc., are so ideally suited to the subsistence-oriented Native ways, it is natural for the fin-fishing experiment to be Native owned. By establishing Native ownership, the government would also ensure a built-in limitation to growth because of the population base permitted to participate. If non-Native interests wished to participate and if the government felt that, in the long term, increased growth would be helpful to the state, a mechanism similar to the CDQ - only in the reverse - could be employed, by which Native fin-fish farmers would enter into partnerships with non-Native firms to enhance markets, transportation, etc., to further the industry. 3. Ecotourism Another market that is particularly well adapted to expansion in rural and Native Alaska is ecotourism, which has grown over the last few years and now includes small but persistent markets in all parts of the state. Requiring minimal capital investment and typically no permanent infrastructure beyond what already exists, ecotourism is ideally suited to individual Alaska Natives, village councils and ANCSA corporations. As a case in point, the National Bank of Alaska's Business Cache highlighted "Nunivak Island Experience," an ecotourism attraction operated by Mr. Abraham David. Located off the western coast of Alaska, Nunivak Island is one of the few remaining reserves for musk-ox and reindeer. By boat or snow machine, Abraham David can provide an up-close glimpse of an unspoiled habitat, little changes from the days of pre-history. He'll provide the tents, stoves and other camping equipment. You'll need to come prepared for rain, mosquitos, sun and picture-taking. Whether you are an avid bird-watcher, big-game hunting enthusiast, sport fisher-person extraordinaire, a well-conditioned hiker or nature photographer, the Nunivak Island Experience may be the answer to your recreational dream. 113 And the article is followed by a critical message that has been shaded to make it more noticeable: ALCOHOL: Importation, possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages is strictly prohibited and strongly enforced by local ordinance. Plan accordingly.*° It is obvious from the preceding that a small business venture such as Mr. David's Nunivak Island Experience is ideally suited to ecotourists who want a different kind of adventure in Alaska and to Alaska Natives with entrepreneurial goals. The Commission encourages the state and federal governments, the ARDORS, and regional corporations to assist individuals and village councils to pursue the ecotourism market through training, promotion, and the provision of other kinds of support. 4. Information Age Opportunities As "information age" systems evolve, there will be impacts on employment and lifestyles throughout the nation as a whole, but the Commission is particularly interested in those changes that will soon enable an individual in Nuiqsut, for example, to write articles and transmit them via computer and modem to a remote editorial office somewhere in the Lower 48. Likewise, tribal councils are currently able to transmit their financial and bookkeeping work to a Certified Public Account who can review, correct and transmit them back to the village office at relatively small cost. These are only two in a vast multitude of options that the "information age" will bring with it. The entire school system of Alaska, as well as all other educational and training centers, must be oriented toward preparing Alaska Natives to participate fully in this new resource. Again, as with ecotourism, this new-age trend enables entrepreneurial involvement at comparatively small capital investment and, moreover, permits engagement in the system on schedules that are typically less rigid than those required by customary 40-hour-a-week employment. The Commission encourages Alaska Native participation, governmental support for that participation, and a dedicated effort on the part of regional corporations and others to focus training in such a way that Alaska Natives will gain from the "information age." D. Other Economic Development Issues 1. Limited Entry Permits The limited entry permitting program was formulated ostensibly for the purpose of helping Alaskan fishermen protect their fishing rights and to diminish the incursion of non- resident fishing enterprises. Although devised to support an admirable cause, the limited entry program has, in the end, resulted in disaster for Alaska Natives. There are two problems related to the Limited Entry permits that the Commission will address. The first is the outcome of the permitting process itself: entire villages have lost their access to fisheries due to the permit holders' inability to compete in the increasingly costly business and their consequently deciding to sell their permits. The second is the fact that the Internal Revenue Service has launched an assault on holders of Limited Entry Permits that has impacted Alaska Native permit holders more than non-Natives. Both problems continue to have drastic effects on Alaska Native individuals and communities, and the Commission calls for immediate remediation of the dead-end limited entry system and the Internal Revenue Service's collecting those few Alaska Native permits that remain. "Business Cache," Vol. 3, No. 1: p. 7. 114 a. A Good Idea Gone Bad. From the moment the limited entry program was instituted in 1974, it was criticized by many Alaska Natives. A statewide referendum in 1976 failed to overturn the program, as have hundreds of lawsuits. A study conducted in 1979 concluded the following: Five years after the institution of limited entry, the author found a prevailing mood of bitterness and frustration among Bristol Bay residents. Some consider access to the resources an aboriginal right. Many expressed the view that the program had been originally proposed to them as a means to prevent the fishery from being taken over by "outsiders," but that it had resulted in the closure of the fishery to the residents themselves. This mood is enhanced by the apparent unresponsiveness of the [Limited Entry] Commission and the state government to their situation despite many appeals, lawsuits, hearings, and promises by political leaders. If the Alaskan limited entry system is to enhance the state's rural economy, some aspect of the program must be directed more clearly to including that segment of the society. Economic revitalization might begin with the issuance of non-transferable permits to rural residents of coastal or watershed regions with greater than, for example, five years' fishing experience. A state loan program directed specifically to rural Alaskans for the purchase of adequate vessels and gear, as well as permits, would enable rural Alaskans to achieve parity with non-local fishermen. While the change would be politically difficult at this time, the system should be based upon a non-transferable permit, so that as fishermen retired, new fishermen could enter based upon equitable criteria (for example, experience in the fishery and dependence upon it).*° Twenty-four years later, the situation has grown worse, but there are still no indications that state government will respond. The Alaska Natives Commission heard complaints about the limited entry program in all coastal areas. In Klawock, Mr. Ron Williams, representing the Grand Camp of the Alaska Native Brotherhood, testified that up to 60 percent of the limited entry permits from the Southeast now belong to people who live out of Alaska. In Dillingham, Mr. Hoefferle, Bristol Bay Native Association, added: We were told that limited entry would control the number of people that are allowed to fish in a particular fishery...it would have a conservation effect in that regard. There are more limited entry permits being fished in Bristol Bay today than there were people fishing in the Bay prior to limited entry. In the community of Ekwok, a few miles upriver from where we now sit, there were originally 20 limited entry permits. Today there are none. With each one of those permits that leaves the area, it takes with it a couple of jobs as crew shares. If this trend persists, we're going to see an economic disaster in Bristol Bay, where local people will sit on the beach and watch others fish and reap benefits from our fisheries. Something must be changed - and changed quickly - to prevent further erosion of Alaska Native ownership of limited entry permits. The Commission calls upon the State of Alaska to convene a special task force, with strong representation of Alaska Native “Koslow, A. Limited entry policy and impacts on Bristol Bay salmon fishermen. In S. Langdon (ed.) op. cit., pp. 60-61. 115 communities, to study this problem and propose ways in which the program can either be expanded to allow additional permits to be acquired or, alternatively, replaced with a program that accomplishes more effectively the program's original objective. Possible solutions would include assigning permits to Alaska Native village councils which would have the authority to transfer permits among village members but not allow any permit to leave the village. Other solutions will no doubt be discovered if the limited entry task force solicits input from the Alaska Natives who continue to be most negatively affected by the program. b. The IRS Assault on Permits. Two questions must be asked of the federal administration, specifically the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the Treasury Department. First, what is the logic of stripping fishermen who have not paid taxes of their limited entry permits, thereby eliminating the means by which they could make the money that would enable them to pay those taxes? And second, why is it that Alaska Natives are disproportionately represented among those who have had their limited entry permits "pulled" as a result of IRS activities? The problem with the IRS has grown over the last few years, with increasing numbers of Alaska Native limited entry permit holders having their permits "pulled" by the IRS for failure to pay federal income tax. Although it is clearly illogical for the federal government to take someone's ticket to income because he/she does not have the income to pay taxes, that is precisely what the IRS does. A problem that impacts Alaska Natives more than most non-Natives is the fact that the communication from the IRS to the offending individual is structured in such a way that many, if not most, Alaska Natives avoid the confrontation that they foresee is required in any interaction with the IRS. As a result, they fail to respond until it is too late for the problem to be resolved in any way other than the federal government's taking the permit, resulting in personal disaster and questionable gains on the part of the federal government. This rather odd situation was the topic of correspondence from the President of the Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank (CFAB} to the Alaska Federation of Natives, which was forwarded to the Commission. Quoting President Edward Crane: CFAB is institutionally involved in dialogue with the IRS and the Limited Entry Commission in an effort to shape the development of IRS policies which will effectively address genuine tax evasion or delinquency situations without wreaking indiscriminate havoc... [W]e see individual IRS enforcement agents aggressively pursuing their respective caseloads...[T]his aggressive pursuit seems to get translated into attacking the "easiest" and/or "most vulnerable" situations - not necessarily the most egregious violators. From what we have seen, these attacks tend to focus on rural Alaskans - in particular, on Native rural Alaskans. I'm sure that simply reflects the demographics of the fishing populations rather than any ethnic bias on the part of the IRS. Nevertheless, it does seem to be happening. We're seeing more loan applications from Native rural Alaskans that appear to be "last- ditch" efforts to resolve a hopeless situation that quite possibly could have been salvaged by a little imagination, or by a more aggressive defense, 90 days ago.*” “Letter from Edward E. Crane, President, Alaska Commerical Fishing and Agriculture Bank, Anchorage, Alaska, to Ms. Julie Kitka, Alaska Federation of Natives, February 3, 1993. 116 The Commission agrees and calls upon the Alaska Federation of Natives to convene such a group, which should include representation from the Treasury Department and the Limited Entry Commission as well. 2. Village Fuel Businesses and Bulk Fuel Storage One economic activity that has routinely occurred in many of Alaska's villages is the supply of fuel to users in the community, and the fuel business is often operated by the village corporation or private proprietors. Furthermore, fuel is obviously essential to the development of any village-based economic venture. Beyond the limitations of little (or no) infrastructure, high costs, restricted transportation access, and the many other factors that constitute barriers to economic development (as discussed in the introductory section of this Report), if fuel were not readily available, practically any sort of market economy would be prohibited. However, the fuel delivery, storage, and distribution business is beset with major problems, reflecting on both the economy and the health of Alaska Natives (see the related discussion in the Report of the Health Task Force). In February 1993, the United States Coast Guard ordered that fuel deliveries to 75 villages be stopped because the fuel tanks in those villages were leaking. At the request of the Governor's office, the Coast Guard gave a reprieve until March 1994, during which time the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs established the Bulk Fuel Task Force and completed repairs to tanks in 17 of the 75 villages**, at a cost of $3,000,000. However, the costs for completing the repairs and cleaning the contamination that has resulted from leaking tanks have been projected to range from an additional $300,000,000 to $400,000,000. Most of the tanks were built by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but they are now owned by the State of Alaska, village corporations, or the private sector. The Bureau has not offered to participate in their repair, even though in many cases they were built without proper engineering or regard to building codes, according to the Department of Community and Regional Affairs.” The impending cessation of fuel delivery would obviously prove disastrous to the residents of the villages, creating economic havoc and actually threatening survival. Although it is unlikely that the Coast Guard will enforce such a harsh response at the end of its one-year moratorium (particularly in mid-winter),°° it is inevitable that fuel storage will ultimately be prohibited unless repairs are made and existing oil pollution is mitigated. “*Work has been completed in Buckland, Golovin, Hughes, Scammon Bay, Noorvik, Selawik, Shishmaref, Wales, Emmonak, Hooper Bay, Akiachak, Akiak, Kipnuk, Tuluksak, Tununak, Naknek, and Togiak. "Deadline for repairs of fuel tanks nears." Anchorage Daily News, February 26, 1994. 59§oon after this was written, the moratorium was extended for a year, but the urgency to remedy these problems will recur in 1995. 117 IV. Recommendations The Commission offers the following recommendations, which, if implemented, will result in measurable improvements in the economic welfare of Alaska Natives. A. Employment 1. Native Preference and Federal Employment At a minimum, every agency of the federal government that is available for contracting under P.L. 93-638 should have a Native hire requirement similar to that which is in place with the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Furthermore, all federal departments with job classifications located in rural Alaska should be required to maintain Native preference in hiring to ensure that, at a minimum, the proportion of Native employees corresponds to the proportion of Natives in the population of the immediate area. As noted earlier in this report, the Commission is aware that the Department of Interior has ignored provisions of ANILCA stipulating local/Native preference in hiring, contracting, and other support. The Commission asks that Congress revisit ANILCA and establish legislative directives to the federal administration to follow the mandates of that Act; the Commission also asks that the Alaska delegation to Congress join with the Alaska Federation of Natives, ANCSA corporations, the Alaska Intertribal Council, and other Alaska Native organizations and groups to ensure that Native preference is enforced. Furthermore, the Commission urges that Alaska Native IRA and traditional councils and regional corporations contract federal programs under P.L. 93-638/100-472, in order to implement and maintain Native preference in hiring for all contracted positions to the full capacity of the law. 2. Preference for Service in the Alaska National Guard Presently, the federal personnel system does not consider service in the Alaska National Guard as "military service" and consequently deprives a large number of Alaska Native job applicants the veteran's preference that others receive. The Commission asks the federal government to change the civil service employment procedures in order that those who have served in the Alaska National Guard receive veteran's preference. 3. Application of Davis Bacon Requirements in Villages The Commission asks the federal and state governments to apply the federal Davis Bacon Act and the Alaska "Mini-Davis Bacon" effectively and rationally, following the statutory rule of the "local prevailing wage." The Alaska Department of Labor should determine through objective, statistical means what the actual local prevailing wage is in a rural area and then set that wage scale for the implementation of the Davis Bacon Act, with the objective of hiring more local, Native laborers and creating more jobs. In addition, as a means to correct the imbalance of hiring on construction projects, Alaska Native corporations should be encouraged to contract not only capital projects but all functions of these federal departments under P.L. 93-638/100-472; given the superior record Native firms have in recruiting and hiring Natives, compared with the federal government, contracting will undoubtedly result in increased employment for Alaska Natives. 118 4. Eliminate HUD Prohibitions on Local Design and Construction Provisions imposed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in Alaska have had the effect of prohibiting village-based construction of housing. They have also forced upon Alaska Natives an inefficient practice of outside contractors and non-Native laborers descending upon a village, constructing sub-standard housing, and leaving. The Commission asks both the federal administration and Congress to investigate this statewide problem and devise new procedures to eliminate it, enabling village councils, village corporations, and ANCSA regional corporations to become directly involved in housing construction with provisions in place that will both ensure substantial Native hire, improved housing, and contract stability for participating Native firms. 5. Conveyance Surveys and Employment of Alaska Natives The Commission urges the new Job Corps Training Center, all the regional non-profit corporations, and other agencies providing training to Alaska Natives to redirect programs in such a way that surveying positions that will be created by the need to complete land conveyances will be made available to trained Alaska Natives. At the same time, the Commission urges the Department of Interior to hasten the conveyance process by more appropriate budgeting of funds. The Department also needs to assist Alaska Native corporations in their pursuit of contracting cadastral surveys under P.L. 93-638 from the Department of Interior (as several regional ANCSA corporations have) in order to gain control of funding and the employment of surveyors under Native preference provisions. 6. "Information Age" Training Programs The Commission asks that the state and federal governments reorient their training programs, with support from the Job Training Partnership Training Act, to develop and implement dedicated programs to prepare young Alaska Natives to participate fully in the burgeoning "information age" market. These programs should also be integrated into Alaska's educational curricula, particularly in rural, predominantly Native schools. 7. AmeriCorps in the Villages The Commission recommends that all Alaska Native corporations and organizations aggressively pursue employment and education opportunities that might be available through the new AmeriCorps (e.g., the National Service Corps). 8. Establish a State Office of Alaska Native Recruitment Because the state government continues to demonstrate an imbalance in its recruitment and hiring practices with disproportionately few jobs going to Alaska Natives, the Commission calls for the immediate establishment of an Office of Native Recruitment within the Governor's Office to develop and implement procedures within all other departments to ensure more equitable hiring practices. Within that Office, an independent review panel should be created to review all cases in which a Native applicant is passed over in the hiring procedure to ensure that no bias, either purposeful or inadvertent, exists. Private sector companies doing business in Alaska should also recognize the need for job development and contracting opportunities designed to expand economic and employment opportunities for Alaska Natives. They do not always have to wait until the government orders them to do so. 119 B. Village Businesses and "Cottage Industry" 1. Grants for Village Economic Development The Commission asks Congress to evaluate the Administration for Native Americans and the extent to which its social and economic development strategies are actually accomplishing their goals in Alaska, for the purpose of restructuring its program if it is found that more effective means are available to affect economic growth on the part of Alaska Native villages. Furthermore, the Commission asks the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs and the Department of Commerce and Economic Development to strengthen all their programs targeting Alaska Native villages. All agencies, including HUD, should strive to eliminate unnecessarily complicated application procedures and to respect the limited staffing possessed by most Alaska Native villages. Although the Commission acknowledges that, with limited funding, all such programs must be competitive, the procedures, forms, etc., used in the application process should be specifically designed for simplicity and ease of completion. In far too many instances Alaska Native villages with excellent projects lose out in the funding battle simply because their proposals were less sophisticated than their competitors. This is particularly evident in programs which pit Alaska Native villages against large tribes in the Lower 48, which do have professional proposal writing staff. 2. Expansion of ARDOR Activities in Support of Native Business In the same light, all Alaska Regional Development Organizations (ARDORs) should review their policies and procedures and ensure that Alaska Natives are receiving their share of assistance, training and support. Although many of the ARDORs are obviously helping their Native constituents, others are far less active in Native business and economic development. The Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, which is charged with the responsibility to oversee the statewide ARDOR program, should encourage Native support and involvement. 3. Increased Support for Native Tourism and Ecotourism Existing federal and state agencies should provide specific, targeted support for Alaska Native businesses, villages and individuals who wish to participate in the growing tourism and ecotourism industries in Alaska. Support should include, but not be limited to, market development and promotion and assisting in the acquisition of capital investment by Alaska Natives individuals, village councils and Native firms that wish to become involved in this growing industry. C. Community Development Quota (CDQ) 1. Codification of CDQ in the Magnuson Act The Commission asks the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to include the CDQs in its final comprehensive rationalization plan. The Commission also recommends to Congress that, when the Magnuson Act is reauthorized, the CDQs be codified and required to continue perpetually. Furthermore, the Commission asks that the government consider raising the percentage from 7.5 percent to 15.0 percent of the pollock fishery and to expand the CDQ to other fisheries in the future. 120 2. CDQ as a Model for Other Industries The Commission also recommends that the CDQ program be expanded to include at least one other extraction industry, as a demonstration project, to be studied and further developed if its benefits resemble those that have already been realized from the CDQ for the pollock fishery. D. Limited Entry 1. Re-examination of the Limited Entry Program The Commission calls upon the State of Alaska to convene a special task force, with strong representation of Alaska Native communities, to study the problems created for Alaska Natives by the limited entry system and to propose ways in which the program can either be expanded to allow additional permits to be acquired or, alternatively, replaced with a program that accomplishes more effectively the program's original objective. The Alaska Federation of Natives should be charged with the responsibility to represent the interests of all Alaska Natives in this process and to report the outcome of the task force's work at its 1994 convention. E. Bulk Fuel 1. Establish a Standing Bulk Fuel Task Force During the moratorium that the Coast Guard has given before forcing the cessation of fuel delivery to 75 villages that have unsafe storage facilities, the State of Alaska created a Bulk Fuel Task Force which has helped organize repairs in 17 of the villages and has sought to secure funds needed for future repairs and oil spill clean-up efforts. The Commission recommends that a continuing Task Force be appointed to work on this problem.” 2. Funding for Remediation of Bulk Fuel Storage Problem If current projections are accurate, in excess of $300,000,000 will be needed to repair or replace faulty fuel storage facilities and clean up existing pollution from leaking tanks. Obviously, funding is not now available to support such a massive undertaking, and creative solutions will need to be found and implemented. The Commission encourages the continuation of a cooperative effort involving federal, state, local and private entities to resolve this problem for the scores of Alaska Native villages that are impacted. F. Reindeer Industry 1. Long Range Plan Development It is obvious from the information provided in this report that neither the federal nor state government has a long-range plan consistent with the Reindeer Act, and the first recommendation of the Commission is that such a plan must be developed, with the Reindeer Herders' Association, that will address all aspects of the reindeer industry in Alaska, including the need for cold storage and other supportive infrastructure. Foremost in this endeavor must be the stabilization of the reindeer industry, along with development *!'This echoes a recommendation previously made by the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 121 of non-Alaskan markets, to accomplish the Reindeer Industry Act's goal of "a self- sustaining economy" for Alaska Natives. 2. Governmental Support for Increased Training If there were more opportunities for young Alaska Natives to obtain training related specifically to reindeer herding, animal husbandry, product preparation, business skills, marketing, and other topics related to this industry, there is no doubt that more would become involved and the industry would grow. The Commission asks the federal and state governments to become more active in establishing such training programs, again in conjunction and collaboration with the Reindeer Herders' Association. 3. Expansion of Reindeer Markets The Commission calls upon the existing state agencies that are dedicated to developing and promoting markets for other Alaska products to invest as much energy and commitment in the development of reindeer product markets to support Alaska Natives reindeer herders. G. Mariculture 1. Support of Native Mariculture The growing shellfish mariculture industry in many Alaska Native villages should be fully supported by federal and state government agencies through increased training and redirected economic development funding. 2. Reconsideration of State Ban on Fin-Fish Farming It has become clear to the Commission that, even in the face of pressure from the fishing lobbies, the Alaska legislature should overcome its resistance to entering into the fin- fishing industry that has exploded in other parts of the world and resulted in an inescapable decline in the market for salmon caught in Alaska's waters. In order to enter this cautiously, establish a limitation on its expansion, offer income opportunities to deprived Alaska Native villages, and reverse trends that have contributed to the chum crash of 1993, the Commission calls for the immediate establishment of a demonstration project that would enable Alaska Natives (only) to initiate fish farming, to include but not be limited to salmon, trout, arctic char and other indigenous Alaska fish species. The oversight for the program should be federal, with support and technical assistance provided by the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs and the F.R.E.D. Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 122 Contents Introduction and Historical Background Western Education of Alaska Natives Prior to 1867 Western Education of Alaska Natives After 1867 Contemporary Background Current Western Education and Alaska Natives, K-12 Alaska Native Students in the 1990s Factors Contributing to Educational Success and Failure Current Western Education and Alaska Natives, Post-Secondary Findings and Recommendations Principal Findings Skills Necessary for Success Failure of the Public Education System Failure of the Social System Needs and Issues Addressing Needs and Issues Recommendations Regarding Alaska Native Education Three-component K-12 Education System Total Local Control of Schools Model Curricula for Alaska Native Students Recruitment and Training of Native Professionals Involvement of Parents and Community Subject Matter Prerequisites 127 127 127 133 133 133 135 139 143 143 143 143 143 144 144 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 Teacher Preparation for Village Schools Distinguishing Qualifications for Teaching in Village Schools Teaching Certificates in "Non-traditional" Fields Certification in Native Language and Culture Teacher Tenure Requirements Graduation Requirements Funding for Curricula Appropriate for Native Students Indian/Native Education Programs for All Native Students Upgrade and Replacement of Rural Schools 145 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 ALASKA INATIVE BIDFCICS ATION Report of the Education Task Force I. Introduction and Historical Background This support study provides baseline information for recommendations of the Commission for improving federal and state policies affecting the education of Alaska Natives. The information includes a recounting of the evolution of federal and state educational policy and programs affecting Alaska Natives, a description of the educational situation of Alaska Natives using 1990 data, a summary of concerns about that situation as revealed by hearings conducted by the Commission and its task forces, and recommendations as to how federal and state governments can improve the educational situation of Alaska Natives. A. Western Education of Alaska Natives Prior to 1867 Attempts to impose "Western" education on Alaska Natives began in 1784 when a Russian fur trader, Gregorii Shelikhov, established a trading post at Three Saints Bay on the southwest coast of Kodiak Island. After killing a large number of Alaska Natives and taking others hostage to gain a foothold on Kodiak, Shelikhov opened a school for young Natives. He taught them "the precepts of Christianity," arithmetic, and the Russian language.! Shelikhov's school for young Natives gave way to mission schools operated by the Russian Orthodox Church after its first priests arrived in Alaska in 1796. The Russian American Company, which received a monopoly to exploit Alaskan resources from the Tsar in 1799, supported the mission schools. The company also provided technical training for some Alaska Natives and Creoles (children of mixed Russian and Native parentage) in return for periods of indentured service. Russian schooling of Alaska Native children had three goals: to "Christianize" them; to "civilize" or "Westernize" them; and to make them more useful servants of the Russian American Company.” Russian American Company vocational schools in Alaska closed with the 1867 ceremonies transferring Alaska from Russian to American jurisdiction. The Russian mission schools continued after 1867 with support from the Russian government. The last of them did not close until 19163 B. Western Education of Alaska Natives After 1867 The Russian mission schools were supplemented, or in some cases supplanted, by American Protestant and Roman Catholic mission schools. A Methodist missionary began the first of them at Wrangell in 1877. A Presbyterian missionary began the second of them ‘Darnell, Frank, "Alaska's Dual Federal-State School System: A History and Descriptive Analysis," Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1970, microfilm (University Microfilms 71-396), p. 99. Darnell, pp. 99-102. ’Darnell, pp. 104-105. 127 at Sitka in 1878. Army and Navy administrators of Alaska supported them on an informal basis. Again, the schools intended to "Christianize" and "civilize" their Native students.* Although Congress in 1869 had appropriated $100,000 for education among "Indian tribes not otherwise provided for" with the expectation that some or all of the money would bespend on education of Alaska Natives, not a dollar of the money reached Alaska. About this time the government compelled the Alaska Commercial Company, which had acquired an exclusive government lease to harvest the fur seal herds of the Pribilof Islands, to operate schools for the children of St. George and St. Paul islands.° Formal government support for education of Alaska Native children began only in 1884 with passage of the Alaska Organic Act. This established the "District of Alaska." It authorized limited civil government for Alaska and directed the United States Secretary of the Interior to establish an educational system for school-age children in Alaska "without reference to race." At this time 99 percent of the school-age children in Alaska were Alaska Natives.® In 1885 the Secretary of the Interior assigned his department's Bureau of Education the responsibility for education in Alaska. The director of the Bureau of Education then appointed Sheldon Jackson, a Presbyterian missionary, as General Education for Education in Alaska. By 1895 the Bureau of Education was operating 19 grade schools in Alaska. Many were initially contract schools run by and taught by Protestant and Roman Catholic missionaries. Concern over church-state separation resulted in secularization of the schools in 1894.” The education objectives assigned to these schools were that: the children must be kept in school until they acquire what is termed a common-school education, also practical knowledge of some useful trade.... We believe in reclaiming the Natives from improvident habits and in transforming them into ambitious and self-helpful citizens.* In connection with schoolin Christianity was seen as a "powerful lever in influencin 8, Pp 8 them {Alaska Natives] to abandon their old customs..." The schools were segregated, either by intention or circumstance. In Juneau and Sitka, where there were substantial numbers of non-Native children, Native and non-Native schools operated concurrently. An attempt to consolidate the Native and non-Native schools at Juneau was foiled by local resistance. In other areas of Alaska the schools served mostly, if not all, Native children because there were few non-Native children. The schools stretched from Metlakatla at Alaska's southern tip to Gambell on St. Lawrence ‘Darnell, p. 110, p. 112. ‘Darnell, pp. 108-109. *Darnell, p. 122. Darnell, pp. 129-130, p. 142. SQuoted in Darnell, p. 132. °Superintendent of Industrial Training and Boarding School {at Sitka], 1872, quoted in Darnell, p. 131. 128 Island in the Bering Sea.'° The growing non-Native population brought to Alaska in the wake of the Klondike Gold Rush of 1898 expressed growing dissatisfaction with a school system that seemed to focus on the education of Native children. In response, Congress included in a 1900 Civil Code for Alaska authorization for incorporated towns to establish and operate schools for White children. In 1904 Congress passed the Nelson Act. The act directed the District of Alaska to assume responsibility for education of "white and colored children and children of mixed blood who live a civilized life." It further specified that the Secretary of the Interior would retain direction and control of schools for Eskimos and Indian children." Although the Russian American Company was no longer a factor in Alaska, the goal of education for Alaska Native children remained much the same as it had in the Russia era: "so that the White man can use these men for things that are useful for his civilization." Harlan Updergraff replaced Jackson as director of Native education in Alaska, working under the title of Chief of the Alaska Division, Bureau of Education.” Under Updergraff, bureau educational objectives continued to reflect assimilationist philosophy. In 1910 the bureau desired to mold the future development of Native villages and the Natives "by their guidance in all phases of life, in the schoolroom, industrial room, kitchen, bathroom, home, and herd." But for the first time the bureau recognized the unique requirements of Alaska Natives. While still grounded in assimilationist philosophy, the new objectives recognized a need to develop Native industries adapted to the region and to the Natives' abilities.’° Congress passed Alaska's Second Organic Act in 1912. This established Alaska as a territory, with a territorial legislature. Although prohibited by the act from changing existing school laws, the 1915 Territorial Legislature tried to establish a uniform school system. The legislation for this purpose excluded schools for Natives "which are now or may hereafter come under the control of the Federal Government...."'* The Solicitor of the Interior Department ruled the legislation invalid when it reached Washington. It made clear, nevertheless, the intent of the Territory not to be responsible for the education of Alaska Natives. When Congress amended the Second Organic Act to allow the Territorial Legislature to pass school laws, the 1917 Legislature restated the exclusion of Alaska Natives from the territorial school system.'* Thus 1917 gave official sanction to a mostly segregated school system in Alaska. In that year 46 territorial rural schools enrolled 1,162 pupils. The federal Bureau of Education concurrently operated 71 rural schools that enrolled 3,500 pupils. Children, mostly non- Native, in incorporated municipalities continued to be served by city-operated schools. There were exceptions. The Territorial Commissioner of Education wrote in his 1920 report: Darnell, pp. 135-136. "Darnell, p. 142, p. 15, p. 152, p. 157. Darnell, p. 171. Darnell, p. 173. ‘Darnell, pp. 174-176. 'SDarnell, pp. 176-177. 129 ..no objection is made [to attendance of Natives at Territorial Schools] where the admission of Natives does not interfere seriously with the progress of the school and where their admission does not precipitate a quarrel because of divided sentiment. In other words, the question of admission of Native children has been left very largely in the hands of the local school boards.'® Despite the intention to maintain racially segregated schools, this did not happen. Neither the territorial government nor the Bureau of Education had enough money to establish schools in each rural community. Over time duplicate schools disappeared and de facto integration occurred to the extent that small community schools occasionally included both Native and non-Native children. By the time of statehood in 1959 there would be 6,144 Native students in territorial schools and 4,300 Native students in federal schools.” Throughout the years the territorial school system, regardless of the number of Native students it served, continued to offer a Western curriculum. The federally-operated system in contrast included Native games and dances in its 1926 curriculum. Other curriculum elements for the Bureau of Education-operated schools included Health and Sanitation; Agriculture and Industry; Decencies, Safety, and Comforts of Home; Healthful Recreation and Amusements; and Basic Education and Industrial Schools. To further this curriculum the Bureau of Education established three vocational schools for Alaska Natives. The schools were at Eklutna, Kanakanka, and White Mountain.'® In 1931 the Secretary of the Interior transferred responsibility for education of Alaska Natives from the Bureau of Education to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). With appointment of John Collier as Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1934 the BIA adopted dual-purpose education for Native Americans, including Alaska Natives. Collier said when taking office: Indians whose culture, civic tradition, and inherited institutions are still strong and virile should be encouraged and helped to develop their life in their own patterns, not as segregated minorities but as noble elements in our common life. At the same time, the individual Indian is entitled to every opportunity which the nation offers to any citizen. This means that he is entitled to the fullest educational privileges, not in sequestrated institutions but in the schools and colleges which serve us all.” Congress reflected some of the concerns expressed by Collier in 1934 when it authorized financial assistance to territories and states operating public schools on tax-exempt Native- occupied lands. Practice failed to fulfill policy, however. When Alaskan officials were unable to obtain federal funding for territorial schools with mostly Native student bodies, they began to transfer the schools to the BIA. By 1939 nineteen schools had been ‘Quoted in Darnell, p. 183. "Darnell, pp. 184-185. '8Darnell, pp. 193-194. Quoted in Darnell, pp. 196-197. 130 transferred from territorial to BIA jurisdiction.” Evaluations of the era revealed that BIA schools were not meeting the federal education policy goals of (1) integrating Natives in White culture; (2) preserving Native culture. A 1935 survey concluded that the curricula in rural schools in Alaska were an "inept patchwork of various American textbooks quite unsuited to an Eskimo environment." A 1941 study reached similar conclusions: "...this academic type of curriculum is especially ill-suited to the needs of Native children, who constitute a large majority in the rural schools."”! When World War II came to Alaska in the early 1940s, Native and non-Native contact intensified throughout the territory. As a result BIA adopted a new policy for assimilation. Instead of converting entire Native groups to White culture, individual Natives would be prepared for assimilation. At the same time the Territorial Attorney General issued an opinion which stated that the Territory was obligated to provide education for Native children either in traditionally White schools or in "separate but equal" segregated schools.” At the close of World War II the Territorial Commissioner of Education proposed a single territorially-operated school system for Native and non-Natives alike. He also insisted on a common curriculum for all students. This initiative was unsuccessful. The BIA continued to operate a separate school system for Alaska Natives.” To facilitate its new policy of individual assimilation the BIA in 1947 opened a high school for Natives at the site of a World War II Naval Air Station at Sitka. Known as Mount Edgecumbe, the school took Native students from all over Alaska. It offered both academic and vocational instruction. If Mount Edgecumbe was full, Alaska Native students were sent to boarding schools operated by the BIA in other states. The bureau also operated an elementary school at Wrangell for children from communities with no school facilities at all. The philosophical emphasis of the BIA program changed from keeping Native children in their home communities to taking them out of their communities and encouraging them not to return.” In 1951 the BIA began to transfer some of the schools it had been operating to the Territory of Alaska for operation as contract schools. This process continued after Alaska became a state in 1959 and was completed in 1985.”° With statehood in 1959 came formation in 1965-1966 of a State Operated School System designed to provide centralized management of schools in rural Alaska. By the 1960s the generally agreed-upon goal of the education system was to equip Alaska Native youth to function in either Native or non-Native cultures. In 1975 the state disbanded the State Operated School System. Twenty-one regionally controlled school districts were set up to provide local control of schools. Committee School Committees supplemented regional Darnell, p. 198. 2'Darnell, pp. 201-202. Darnell, p. 204. Darnell, p. 214. Darnell, pp. 204-205. Darnell, p. 225. 131 school boards to further emphasize local participation in school management.” Federal policy also changed in the mid-1970s and placed emphasis on local control of schools. Public Law 95-561 assigned most control over BIA schools to tribal governing bodies or to school boards appointed by tribal governing bodies. These tribal entities had more control than that delegated by the State to regional school boards and Community School Committees.”” State Operated Schools, when in existence, also provided education in grades 8 through 12 at several regional high schools. Established as a result of studies in the 1960s, the regional high schools were discontinued in the 1970s. Students' inability to fit comfortably back into village life after attending the regional high schools plus appalling alcohol abuse and suicide rates in the student populations led policy-makers to reevaluate the regional high school concept.”* State-funded village high schools became a reality in the late 1970s. Taken into court by plaintiffs who argued a constitutional right to K-12 education in a student's home community, the state settled out-of-court in 1975. In the settlement the state agreed to provide a high school in every community that has an elementary school. One-hundred and ten communities out of 126 eligible chose to have a local high school. Later, ten of the 16 that originally chose not to have a local high school reversed their original decisions.” In the words of the most thorough study to date of the federal and state school systems operated in Alaska from 1867 to 1970: policy makers over the years have vacillated between attempted assimilation of the Native population into white society and protection of their cultural identify.°° That study goes on to report that throughout the history of these systems, non-Natives determined policy and developed programs "under the premise that they knew what was best for Native education."*! **Madden, Marilou with Brad Pierce and Bob Silverman, "When Money Isn't Enough: Nonfiscal Influences on Student Achievement in Remote Areas of Alaska," copy provided by Dr. Madden, p. 3. *’Madden, et al., p. 5. **Madden, et al., p. 10. * Kleinfeld, Judith S. with G.Williamson McDiarmid and David Hagstrom, Alaska's Small Rural High Schools: Are They Working? (Anchorage: Institute of Social and Economic Research, Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, University of Alaska, December 1985), p. 5. “Darnell, p. 352. *'Darnell, p. 352. 132 II. Contemporary Background A. Current Western Education and Alaska Natives, K-12 1. Alaska Native Students in the 1990s In the 1989-1990 school year, 68 percent of Alaska's K-12 students were White, 21 percent were Alaska Natives, and 11 percent were from other ethnic groups. Twenty-two of Alaska's 54 school districts had student populations of 75 percent or more Alaska Natives. Twenty-nine districts (over half) had student populations of 50 percent or more Alaska Natives.*? These percentages did not change dramatically in 1990-1991 school year when, of Alaska's 110,982 K-12 students, 24,453 or 22 percent were Alaska Natives. In some school districts up to 30 percent of Native children in elementary school are below grade level. In grades 7 through 12 the figure jumps up to over 40 percent.** Despite this failure of the school system, some students are passed from grade to grade and finally graduated without achieving academic competency. According to one Native Alaskan who testified before the Alaska Natives Commission: Education in the Bush for our students is nothing but social passing. A kid in school; he doesn't read or write well; he's passed along; he's old -- too old to be in school; he's too big; he's whatever; he disruptive; so we're not going to education him, we're going to pass him through.*° Another observer noted that many Alaska Native high school graduates can't read at the sixth grade level or do sixth grade math.*° Overall, about 30 percent of Alaskan students entering high school wind up not graduating. In urban areas, about 60 percent of Alaska Natives entering high school do not graduate while in rural areas only 12 to 15 percent do not graduate. However, the high rural graduation rate is countered by much lower than average student achievement levels.” Students in over one-third (20 of 54) of Alaska's school districts scored on average below the 22nd percentile in either reading, mathematics, or language arts at the 4th, 6th, or 8th grade. On average, Natives constituted 87 percent of the children in these districts. Nineteen of the 20 lower-performance districts had populations that were 60 to 98 percent “Alaska Department of Education, Improving School Performance - A Report to the Sixteenth Alaska Legislature, Appendix B, "Extent of the At-Risk Problem," February 1, 1990. SOffice of Data Management, Alaska Department of Education, Profiles of Alaska's Public School Districts - Fiscal Year 1991 [July 1, 1990-June 30, 1992], p. 11. “Testimonay of Eileen Norbert, former Director of Native Programs, Nome Schools, before the Alaska Native Commission, Nome, Alaska, September 21, 1992, in records of the Alaska Native Commission. Testimony of Dazee, Executive Director, Bering Strait Economic Council, Inc., before the Alaska Natives Commission at Nome, September 21, 1992, in records of the Alaska Natives Commission. “Testimony of Robert Silas, Tanana Chiefs Sub-Regional Village Liaison Officer, before the Alaska Natives Commission at Fairbanks, July 18, 1992, in records of the Alaska Native Commission. 3’ Alaska Department of Education, Improving School Performance - A Report to the Sixteenth Alaska Legislature, Appendix B, "Extent of the At-Risk Problem," February 1, 1990. 133 Native students.** The failure of the schools to adequately prepare Alaska Natives is also reflected in tests such as the American College Test (ACT) and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) taken by students preparing to graduate from high school. According to a 1989 address by a former Chancellor of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: Caucasian Alaskans had an average composite score of 20.7 [on the ACT], almost two points above the national average, American Indian groups [outside Alaska] had an average score of 14.9, while Alaska Natives had an average score of 12.2 This means that Alaska Natives had ACT scores about 40 percent, on average, lower than those of White students. As the following table shows, this inadequate preparation of Alaska Natives for pre-college testing is also confirmed by SAT results. Table 1: Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores by Ethnicity Math Verbal Total Race Average Average Average Score Score Score Alaska Natives/Native 430 370 800 Americans All Students in Alaska 476 438 914 Source: Riverside Publishing Co., Report of State Averages and Responses to Student Questionnaire, "Iowa Tests of Basic Skills," November 1990. In the instance of the ACT, and presumably the SAT, however, these statistics have been illuminated by more investigation. A 1987 questionnaire sent to students taking these tests revealed that only a small percentage of Alaska Natives taking them had studied subjects such as chemistry, American history, second year algebra. Fifty-three percent of all Alaska students had taken second year algebra versus only 11 percent of Alaska Native students. Forty-eight percent of all Alaska students had taken chemistry versus 8 percent of Alaska Native students. Sixty-seven percent of all Alaska students had taken American history versus 15 percent of Alaska Native students. These are among the studies that help students to acquire the habits of critical thinking and concepts necessary to do well on the college screening tests. Alaska Native students who reported taking these courses had ACT scores resembling those of non-Natives.”” *‘"Common Characteristics of the Twenty Lowest Achieving School Districts in Alaska," Appendix C, in Alaska Department of Education, Improving School Performance - A Report to the Sixteenth Alaska Legislature, February 1, 1990. Patrick O'Rourke, unpublished Convocation Address, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1989, quoted in Joint Committee on School Performance, New Directives in School Performance:_The Legislature as Advocate and Guarantor - Report of the Joint Committee on School Performance to the Seventeenth Alaska Legislature (Juneau: January 1991), p. 19. “Senate Special Committee on School Performance, Fifteenth Alaska Legislature, Helping Schools Succeed at Helping All Children Learn (Juneau: Alaska State Legislature, January 1989), p. 22, p. 85. 134 In addition to Alaska Native students who are short-changed by the instruction they receive, there are others who leave school prior to graduation. On a statewide basis, only about 67 percent of Alaska Native students complete high school. This compares to a total statewide completion rate of 75 percent. The drop-outs who do not complete high school suffer many adverse consequences. Generally, they are left with low academic skills, lack of employment opportunities, limited opportunities of further education or training, and high potential for development of mental and physical health and social problems.*! Surveys conducted for the 1990-1991 school year indicate that Alaska Native students leaving school before graduation did so for a variety of reasons. Of the 914 Alaska Native drop-outs interviewed for the survey, 267 (almost 30%) had been dropped either administratively or for truancy, or they had been expelled. The second largest group, about 20 percent, said that they had dropped out due to family reasons. Another 11 percent left school early due to medical reasons (including pregnancy), and 8 percent indicated they left school because they were failing academically.” 2. Factors Contributing to Educational Success and Failure Many reasons are cited for Alaska Native students! lack of academic success. The reasons include the economic situation in which many find themselves; endemic medical and social problems; the difficulty of succeeding in a system based on values of another culture and managed to a large extent by people from another culture; and, for rural Alaska Natives, limitations thought to be inherent in small schools. a. General. A recent study of lower-performance school districts found them to have these common characteristics: rural and remote; small with low pupil/teacher rations; cultural and linguistic difference [from the predominate White culture]; high rate of poverty and low per capita income; high rates of students classed as learning disabled; and, high rates of teacher turnover.** Alaska, with an area of 586,000 square miles, and its population scattered over those miles, necessarily has a number of rural and remote school districts. As a result of the Tobeluk v. Lind settlement of 1976, state school regulations require that a school district must provide local secondary education if the local school committee wants it, if the community has an elementary school, and if one or more children are available to attend secondary school. As a result, there are over 100 small rural and remote high schools in Alaska.“* “1 Alaska Department of Education, Office of Data Management, Report on Early Leaver Project Phases I and II 1989 through Fall 1990 (Juneau: Alaska Department of Education, 1991); Swisher, Karen et al., American Indian/Alaska Native Dropout Study (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1991), ERIC Document ED 354126, p. 7. “Office of Data Management, Alaska Department of Education, Alaska Statewide Early Leaver Report, School Year 1990-91 (Juneau: April 1992), p. 23. “Madden, Marilou with Brad Pierce and Bob Silverman, "When Money Isn't Enough: Nonfiscal Influences on Student Achievement in Remote Areas of Alaska," undated paper provided by Dr. Madden, p. 13. #4 AAC 05.040 cited in Kleinfeld, Judith $. with G. Williamson McDiarmid and David Hagstrom, Alaska's Small Rural High Schools (Anchorage: Institute of Social and Economic Research and Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, University of Alaska, 1985), p. 5. 135 These 100-plus small rural schools are included in 31 predominately rural school districts that serve over 19,000 students. Of these students, over 14,000 are Alaska Natives. Only seven percent of the instructional staff serving these students are themselves Alaska Natives. Another 9,500 Alaska Native students attend non-rural schools. In these schools less than two percent of the instructional staff are Alaska Natives.** In the rural schools, over 12 percent of the student population are classified as "Chapter I" pupils. This means that their educational attainment is below the level appropriate for children of their age according to regulations of the United States Department of Education. In non-rural schools, less than 4 percent of the student population are classified as "Chapter I" pupils. In rural and non-rural schools combined, Alaska Native students make up over 49 percent of "Chapter I" students. Also in the rural schools, nearly 40 percent of the students are classified as "bilingual/bicultural," as compared to less than 4 percent for students in non-rural schools.*° Nearly all rural Alaska schools recognize and attempt to accommodate the bilingual/bicultural nature of their students. Bilingual programs designed to help with English are offered in 53 percent of Alaska's small schools. Bilingual programs designed to maintain Native languages are offered in 62 percent of Alaska's small schools. Eighty percent of these schools offer instruction in community history and cultural traditions. Eighty-five percent of these schools offer instruction in local economic skills such as trapping. Eighty-nine percent offer instruction in subjects such as land claims and Native corporations that are of particular relevance to Alaska Natives.*” b. Teacher Turnover. High teacher turnover is a fact of life in Alaska's rural schools. Nationally, and also in Alaska, teacher retention in rural schools plots as a "U" shape. Rural schools tend to have some teachers with little experience, some teachers with much experience, and few teachers with a mid-range of experience.** Rural schools in Alaska have an approximate 30 percent teacher turnover rate. This means that at the end of any given school year about 500 of the 1600 teachers employed in rural Alaska leave for other jobs.” The high turnover means that teachers often do not have enough time to adjust to the schools and communities in which they find themselves and that school-community communications must begin anew each year. As a result, students in rural schools are placed at a disadvantage. Responsibility for this condition can be apportioned among institutions that train teachers, agencies that certify teachers, school administrators that “Office of Data Management, Alaska Department of Education, Profiles of Alaska's Public School Districts Fiscal Year 1991 (Juneau: Alaska Department of Education, April 1992), pp. 12-121. “Office of Data Management, Alaska Department of Education, Profiles of Alaska's Public School Districts - Fiscal Year 1991 (Juneau: Alaska Department of Education, April 1992), pp. 12-121, p. 123; Fax, "Alaska Native Participation Rates," Division of School Finance, Alaska Department of Education to Alaska Natives Commission, August 20, 1993, in files of the Alaska Natives Commission. “Judith S. Kleinfeld with G. Williamson McDiarmid and David Hagstrom, Alaska's Small Rural High Schools: Are They Working? (Fairbanks: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, 1985, p. A-6). “Strong, Doug, "Facilitating Certification and Professional Development for Small Schools," ERIC Digest: Small Schools, ED 260884, March 1985, p. 4. “Joint Committee on School Performance, New Directives in School Performance: The Legislature as Advocate and Guarantor, Executive Summary, Report of the Joint Committee on School Performance to the Seventeenth Alaska Legislature (Juneau: Alaska State Legislature, January 1991), p. 12. 136 hire teachers, and teachers themselves. Institutions that produce teachers frequently do not produce the generalists that rural schools need. They also often do not provide student teaching and internships that acquaint their students with the unique challenges and rewards of teaching in a rural, multi-cultural setting. These institutions also need to expand opportunities for professional development of teachers who are on the job in rural schools.” Agencies that certify teachers also bear some responsibility for high teacher turnover in rural areas. By not establishing different criteria for rural and metropolitan teaching certificates, they fail to alert candidates to the differing requirements of rural and metropolitan teaching and do not give school officials knowledge that they need to make good hiring decisions.’ School officials also contribute to the problem of high teacher turnover. Some turn to the institutions in which they were trained or Outside school districts in which they have worked as sources of candidates for teaching positions. In many cases, excellent newly- graduated teachers or outstanding teachers from other areas are simply not prepared for the exigencies of teaching in rural Alaska. Teachers sometimes set themselves up as agents of high teacher turnover. Some fail to understand the differing conditions of rural and metropolitan teaching. They may not have prepared themselves academically for those conditions and be frustrated once on the job by finding themselves ill-equipped for the tasks they are asked to perform.” c. Size of Student Population. Despite the seeming association between small rural schools and low-performance, specialists in rural education point out that they can offer several advantages to their students. These advantages include: low student-teacher ratios; opportunities for teachers to get to know students and their families; opportunities for teachers to significantly influence the lives of their students relative freedom from burdensome bureaucracy; and, economies of scale. The small schools are, some investigators have noted, similar to the "alternative" schools offered in non-rural areas. They offer a "personalized atmosphere, a sense of community, and individualized instruction tailored to students' academic background."* The same specialists admit that small rural schools "cannot be comprehensive. They lack the diversity of teachers, pupils, and courses as well as the extracurricular activities."" On the other hand, they point out, small rural schools have "a wealth of advantages that make Strong, Doug, "Facilitating Certification and Professional Development for Small Schools," ERIC Digest: Small Schools, ED 260884, March 1985, p. 1. Slibid, pp. 2-3. “ibid, pp. 1-2. “Kleinfeld, Judith S. with G. Williamson McDiarmid and William H. Parrett, Inventive Teaching: the Heart of the Small School (Fairbanks: College of Rural Education, University of Alaska, 1992), p. xiii. “Kleinfeld, McDiarmid, and Hagstrom, 1989, p. 29. 137 them among the most promising educational opportunities to be found anywhere."*> Thus there is some evidence that simply being rural and remote and having low teacher- student ratios are not necessarily ingredients of low performance. d. Poverty and Student Performance. Children living in poverty are one-third less likely to graduate from high school than other children,** and Alaska Natives were the largest group of the Alaska population to live in poverty. In 1989, one in every five Alaska Natives lived in poverty versus one in fifteen Alaskans generally.‘” In Alaska's rural school districts, over 47 percent of the students lived in poverty as of the 1990-1991 school year. This compares to 17 percent in non-rural schools districts. Rural districts did not, however, have significantly higher proportions of learning disabled students than did non-rural school districts (15.33% versus 12.39%).°8 School-age Alaska Native children, like Native American children throughout the United States, are "bored, burned-out, unhappy, and worried," according to a recent report. A national survey of Indian and Native youth revealed that 21 percent of the girls and 12 percent of the boys have attempted suicide, 46 percent of the girls and 56 percent of the boys have used hard liquor, and 26 percent of the girls and 9 percent of the boys have been sexually abused. Less than 50 percent of the Indian and Native youth lived with both parents.” e. The Cultural Divide. Another reason cited for Alaska Native students’ lack of academic success is a dearth of Native teachers. Native teachers, it is believed, are better able to understand "Native ways of learning" and to establish bridges between schools and the communities in which they are located. Native ways of learning are different than traditional Western ways of learning. Much of this is attributable to the high value placed on cooperation by Native culture as opposed to the high value placed on individualism by Western culture. In the words of Mr. John Active, a Yupik who spoke at a University of Alaska faculty Convocation in 1992, Native students have to become another person, an opposite of their natural selves, to succeed in a traditional American school setting. Traditional Native learning emphasizes quiet observation as opposed to the questioning and active participation emphasized by American-trained educators. The gaps that the bridges must cross are illustrated by a recent incident in a rural Alaska community. A federal official who had been in the community on non-related business for only a few hours was asked by residents of the predominately Native village to talk with the school principal. The principal needed to know, they said, that the instructor hired to teach Native language was teaching their children the wrong dialect. When the federal “Kleinfeld et al., 1992, p. xiv. “Alaska Department of Education, Improving School Performance - A Report to the Sixteenth Alaska Legislature, Appendix B, "Extent of the At-Risk Problem," February 1, 1990. *’Alaska Economic Trends, July 1992, p. 7. “Office of Data Management, Alaska Department of Education, Profiles of Alaska's Public School Districts - Fiscal Year 1991 (Juneau: Alaska Department of Education, April 1992), pp. 12-121. Whitney, David, "A Study in Despair: Native American teens ‘most devastated’ group researched in U.S.," Anchorage Daily News, p. A-1, A-10, March 25, 1992. 138 official asked why the parents did not talk with the principal themselves, the parents replied that the principal would not listen to them because they were Natives.” The cultural differences between students and teachers in Alaska's rural schools are exacerbated by a lack of Native teachers and administrators. In 1991 Alaska Natives made up less than one-tenth (9.5%) of the work force within Alaska's elementary and secondary schools. More than two-thirds of them were instructional aides based mainly in rural schools. Of the nearly 7,000 elementary and secondary teachers statewide, less than 4 percent (1990: 3.2%; 1991: 3.7%) were Alaska Natives. Out of about 250 certificated Alaska Native teachers, a total of 244 were employed as instructional staff in the 1990- 1991 school year. This included 164 in rural schools and 80 in non-rural schools. Only a small percentage of school administrators, however, were Alaska Natives. B. Current Western Education and Alaska Natives, Post-Secondary Alaska had 30,793 students enrolled in all of its colleges in 1990. The 2793 Alaska Natives enrolled in the colleges constitute 9 percent of the total in-state population enrolled in post-secondary institutions. Comprehensive figures are not available, but at least another 280 Alaska Native students were enrolled in colleges outside Alaska. Table 2: Enrollment by Ethnicity at Alaskan Colleges - 1990 % Alaska % Asian % Black % Hispanic % White % Foreign Total Natives Alaska Bible 5.4 0.0 Ll 0.0 90.3 3.2 93 College Alaska Junior 15.8 3.2 15.5 47 60.8 0.0 342 College Alaska Pacific 8.2 2.2 5.7 3.2 78.2 24 1,031 University Sheldon Jackson 27.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 68.5 0.0 308 College U of Ak - 5.2 2.8 4.3 2.5 84.0 1.2 18,383 Anchorage U of Ak - 15.5 18 24 14 75.5 3.5 7,663 Fairbanks U of Ak - 13.1 23 Ll 81.3 0.7 0.7 2,973 Southeast Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 3, 1993, p. 21. Native enrollment in post-secondary institutions does appear to be increasing. Native enrollment at the University of Alaska Anchorage is said to have increased 50 percent between 1987 and 1991. Of those Alaska Native students who do make it to college, according to one long-time Native education administrator, only about half succeed in graduating. What data are available appear to bear this out. According to a University of Alaska Anchorage study, that school's retention of Alaska Natives over a five-semester period averaged 58 percent with retention for specific semesters ranging from a low of 43.8 percent (Spring 1989) to a ‘Personal communication, anonymous National Park Service employee, August 24, 1993. 139 high of 86.5 percent (Fall 1988).°' A lack of standard data and reporting, however, make comprehensive conclusions about Alaska Native retention rates impossible to reach. According to the UAA study on student retention, of 140 Alaska Natives who enrolled in 1987 for the first time, only eight remained three years later. This 5.7 percent retention rate for Alaska Natives compared to a 10.6 percent retention rate for White students. These rates consider only students who left UAA and do not indicate whether or not they transferred to other schools or returned to UAA later. Overall, the university is said to lose about 60 percent of Native students between their freshman and sophomore years.” Table 3: Ethnicity in Population and College Enrollment in Alaska Ethnicity % of Total % of College Population Enrollment Alaska Natives/American 15.6 8.87 Indians Asian/Pacific Islanders 3.6 2.4 Blacks 4.1 3.6 Whites 75.5 81.33 Other and Unknown 1.2 1.56 Hispanics (May be Any 3.2 2.12 Race) Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, "Almanac," August 26, 1992. The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) has not conducted a study of Alaska Native dropouts. It has conducted a study of its Alaska Native graduates for a 10-year period. The study revealed that an increasing number of Alaska Natives have earned degrees at UAF over the last two decades. Most of the increase came, however, between 1989 and 1992.°% Of the total of 445 Alaska Natives who received one kind of degree or another at UAF, 107 received associate degrees. Of these two-year degrees, 72 percent were in the General Program. Other majors attracting relatively large numbers of Alaska Native graduates included Human Services Technology (8%) and Office Management and Technology (also 8%). The remaining Alaska Native graduates at the associate level majored in subjects ranging from Airframe & Powerplant to Science.” Of the total 318 Alaska Natives who received bachelors degrees at UAF between 1976 and 1992, over 40 percent majored in Education. Other majors attracting relatively large *'University of Alaska Anchorage, Office of Institutional Research, "Student Retention Study Fall 1987 through Spring 1990," March 1991. ibid. “University of Alaska Fairbanks, Office of Planning, Computing, and Information Systems, "A Comparison of Native and Non-Native Degree Recipients," Institutional Research Series No. 92-6, December 1992. “University of Alaska Fairbanks, Office of Planning, Computing, and Information Systems, "A Comparison of Native and Non-Native Degree Recipients," Institutional Research Series No. 92-6, December 1992. 140 numbers of Alaska Native graduates included Business Administration (8%), Psychology (7%), and Social Work (5%). The remaining graduates at the bachelors level majored in subjects ranging from Accounting (1 graduate) to Wildlife Management (2 graduates). During the same period 20 Alaska Natives earned masters degrees at UAF. Of these, 75 percent majored in Education. The other 25 percent majored in subjects ranging from Anthropology to Geology. No Alaska Natives earned doctoral degrees at UAF during the period of the study. Other branches of the University of Alaska and small colleges in the state have not conducted similar studies. Alaska Junior College, a two-year proprietary institution in Anchorage focusing on career-oriented courses, did review its records for 1990-1993. Out of 96 Alaska Natives enrolled in those years (about 5% of the total student population), 50 percent withdrew before graduation. Nineteen percent of the Alaska Native students enrolled during the period graduated, in contrast to 94 percent of the non-Native students enrolled in the same period.” Standard data are also not available for Alaska Native students enrolled in post-secondary schools outside Alaska. Native organizations assisting students financially could provide incidental information for the 1992-1993 school year. The Bristol Bay Native Association reported that it assisted 26 college students attending institutions outside Alaska. Out of the 26, only one dropped out and one transferred back to Alaska. Central Council, Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska, assisted 235 students. Of these, 64 students attended college in Alaska and 171 attended college outside Alaska. Of all of those students, between 41 percent (Fall 1992) and 53 percent (Winter 1993) attained Honor Roll status. Chugachmuit had 8 students enrolled outside Alaska. Their grade point averages ranged from 2.35 to 3.09. Kawerak, Inc., (in school year 1991-1992) assisted 61 students at in-state institutions and 25 at out-of-state institutions. None dropped out of school. Kotzebue IRA assisted three students in attending out-of-state colleges. Their average grade point average of 3.0 or better. Nome Eskimo Community funded six students attending post-secondary institutions outside Alaska and 14 attending post-secondary institutions inside Alaska. The six students had an average grade point average of 2.98. Tanana Chiefs Conference funded 48 college students, whose grade point averages ranged from 1.60 to 3.80. Why some Alaska Native students have difficulty in college can probably be linked to inadequate preparation in high school and to some of the same conditions that make it difficult for them to succeed in high school. One national study has noted that the overall Native American high school dropout rate is declining. This is attributed to "Parental “ibid. “ibid. ‘Letters, Margaret Langan, Registrar, Alaska Junior College, April 29, 1993, and May 6, 1993, to Alaska Natives Commission, in files of the Alaska Natives Commission. “Letters, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, May 31, 1993; Central Council, Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska, May 11, 1993; Chugachmiut, May 20, 1993; Kawerak, Inc., May 7, 1993; Kotzebue IRA, May 7, 1993; Nome Eskimo Community, May 7, 1993; Tanana Chiefs Conference, May 5, 1993, to Alaska Natives Commission, in files of the Alaska Natives Commission. 141 involvement, belief in the relevance of education, community-based curriculum, appropriate teaching styles, caring teachers and administrators, and holistic early intervention programs." The study goes on to suggest that similar qualities would increase Native American successes at the post-secondary level.” Pavel, D. Michael, "American Indians and Alaska Natives in Higher Education: Research on Participation and Graduation," ERIC Digest, ED 348197, August 1992, p. 4. 142 III. Findings and Recommendations A. Principal Findings 1. Skills Necessary for Success Children are the most important segment of any community, for each community's future lies in its children. To assure that future, the children must be given, through education, the skills that will enable them to succeed in life and the understanding that will continue the community's values. For Alaska Native children, this means that they must receive an integrated education that encompasses two sets of skills and two sets of values. The first set of skills is that necessary for the children to succeed in traditional Native lifeways. The second set of skills is that necessary for the children to succeed in Western society. The childrens' education must also integrate Native and Western values so that they are empowered in both cultures. The skills and values are inseparable, for mastery of one can not be obtained without mastery of the other. This ideal of an integrated education has not been achieved, or even accepted, in the past. Alaska Native children enter an education system developed by Western culture. In past years the system had eradication of Native culture as one of its objectives. Even after this misguided goal was abandoned, the system still proved unable to meet its own fundamental objective: education of Native children in the skills and values necessary to succeed in Western society. 2. Failure of the Public Education System This inability of the education system in its current form to meet the needs of Alaska Native children is manifested in many ways. Traditional measures of success in America's public education system include academic achievement, preparation for higher education, readiness to enter the work force, capacity for leadership, and ability to participate in a self- governing society. Ability to achieve success in these areas is distributed no differently among our children than among non-Native children. Notwithstanding their innate capacity, too many Alaska Native children consistently score lower than norm groups on standardized tests that are said to measure academic achievement, fail to graduate from high school in acceptable numbers, experience unusual difficulty in moving from high school to college work, do not have the skills potential employers expect, and are ill-equipped to participate in a self-governing society that depends upon a literate and well-informed citizenry. Despite the success of several innovative local programs, on a statewide basis the public education system now serving Alaska Native children fails to provide an education that will prepare them for life. In too many cases, the education system does not provide our children the education they need to become good citizens, productive adults, and individuals with self-respect and dignity in the communities of their choice. 3. Failure of the Social System 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 intentions will not by themselves significantly improve the educational situation of Alaska Native students. The environments in which many young Alaska Natives find themselves must be rid of alcohol and drug abuse, dysfunctional families, and 143 poverty. Parents and the community must join in the education process if the education system is to 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. 4. Needs and Issues As previously discussed, there are many reasons why the education system as a whole has not adequately served the needs of Alaska Native children. They include economic, health, and social issues as well as differences between Western and Native ways of learning (see p. 18-31 for detailed discussion). Some spring from other issues in Alaska Native life being examined by other task forces of the Alaska Natives Commission. To address needs and issues within the purview of the Education Task Force: Alaska's education system needs to design model curricula and alternative delivery modes that will prepare Native students to function in Western society while acquiring a clearer understanding of their cultural heritage and traditional lifeways; Alaska's education system needs to prepare Native students to be at home in and adapted to rural life as well as urban life; Alaska's education system needs to supply teachers knowledgeable of and with respect for Native cultures who are equipped to take advantage of Native ways of learning; Alaska's education system needs to accommodate locally-created and culturally-relevant standards for teachers and students and to assure that teachers and students meet those standards; The Native community, including parents and community leaders, needs to achieve a compelling voice in the direction of and widespread "ownership" of the educational system; Replacement of obsolete BIA facilities that never met state codes and standards is critical; Facilities built in the future should be designed so that students see the schools as an extension of their community's local culture; and, Native arts, fine arts, music (band and chorus) must be included as sources of on-going recreation. 5. Addressing Needs and Issues Federally-funded supplemental programs should include Native operation of contract programs providing early childhood education as a form of choice and contract programs providing post-secondary education (grade 13). Contract programs providing instruction to administrators, teachers and students in Native cultural behavior, heritage, and language are needed, as are Regional Education Institutes offering educational services supplemental to those available in village schools. These, too, should be operated by Natives. Tribally-Controlled Colleges providing higher education opportunities specifically aimed at nurturing the cultural, social, economic, and political aspirations of Alaska Natives are also necessary and, again, should be Native operated. 144 B. Recommendations Regarding Alaska Native Education 1. Three-component K-12 Education System Continue or take action necessary to create a three-component K-12 education system of Alaska Natives that includes: home community K-12 schooling that is the right of every American child; distance education delivery that effectively redresses the limitations inherent in small rural schools; regional academic and vocational schools that effectively redress the limitations of small rural schools that cannot be overcome by internal improvements and distance education delivery; and, vocational schools that adapt curricula to regional and local needs. 2. Total Local Control of Schools Establish total local control of schools by recasting advisory boards as policymaking boards and increasing Native administrators and teachers through affirmative hiring and alternative certification. 3. Model Curricula for Alaska Native Students Establish model curricula that meet the needs of Alaska Native students by engaging Native scholars and educators in developing: model K-12 curricula differentiated on a regional basis; model post-secondary programs that will aid Native students in the transition from high school to college or vocational education; and, model programs that will aid Native students in becoming proficient in skills necessary to continue the subsistence tradition. 4. Recruitment and Training of Native Professionals Recruit and train educational staff, including local Native professionals, to meet the special circumstances of Alaska Native students by providing: incentives to Native college students to become teachers; incentives for Native teacher aides to become certified; alternative certification avenues to encourage qualified Native professionals to enter the field of education; alternative certification avenues to establish a role in K-12 education for elders learned in Native culture, traditions, and learning styles; incentives to Native teachers to become school administrators; and, instruction in Native culture and language for all teachers and educational administrators certified in Alaska, whether rural or urban. 5. Involvement of Parents and Community Encourage Native parents and community leaders to become and stay involved with the education of Native children by: establishing on-going community relations programs that encourage parents to become active participants in the education of their children; making schools places where Native parents feel comfortable and know that their contributions are valued; and, encouraging Alaska Native leaders and elders to devote part of their effort to monitoring and improving Native education. 6. Subject Matter Prerequisites Require a major in a subject matter discipline as a prerequisite for completion of a professional teacher education program at all campuses of the University of Alaska. 145 7. Teacher Preparation for Village Schools Require teacher training programs that prepare new teachers and upgrade in-service teachers for assignment in village schools to be standard offerings of the University of Alaska system and routinely available as a means to qualify candidates for teacher certificate endorsements appropriate to a system of certification that distinguishes between competencies necessary to teach in village Alaska and traditional teaching assignments. 8. Distinguishing Qualifications for Teaching in Village Schools Enact legislation establishing teaching certificates that distinguish between qualifications for teaching in rural schools and qualifications for teaching in metropolitan schools such as qualification in multiple and varied subjects. 9. Teaching Certificates in "Non-traditional" Fields Enact legislation establishing limited teaching certificates in fields where baccalaureate degree training is not sufficiently available (such as Native languages) so long as the person to be certificated demonstrates both subject matter expertise and teaching competency. 10. Certification in Native Language and Culture Allow Alaska Native language, culture and vocational experts to attain certification as classroom teachers once their competence as teachers has been documented through the State Department of Education. 11. Teacher Tenure Requirements Amend Sec. 14.20.150(2) of the Alaska Administrative Code to extend years necessary to qualify for teacher tenure to five years, and institute remedies to decrease teacher turnover to enhance student learning and to maintain stability in school programs. 12. Gradutation Requirements Amend minimum state high school graduation requirements to require one credit in Alaska history and culture, and also include environmental education and health education as required curricula. 13. Funding for Curricula Appropriate for Native Students Enact legislation appropriating specific funding for schools serving Alaska Native children to develop and use linguistically, culturally, and developmentally appropriate curricula, and re-energize the LELARNALASKA Network to provide alternative education in rural Alaska. 14. Indian/Native Education Programs for all Native Students Amend legislation authorizing Indian/Native education programs to include funding eligibility and accessibility in all areas that includes Alaska Natives. 15. Upgrade and Replacements of Rural Schools The federal government should appropriate one-time funding of $50 million to $100 million for upgrade or replacement of former Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, and long- term planning for school construction that ensures timely replacement of obsolete plants should be instituted. 146 SELF-GOVERNANCE SELF-DETERMINATION Report of the Governance Task Force Contents Preface Justice, Law Enforcement and Corrections Fundamental Values and Influences The Ethic of Truth Telling and Full Disclosure The Ethic of Non-interference The Ethic of Non-confrontation Problems Related to the Legal System Over-representation of Natives Law Enforcement Judiciary and Corrections Probation and Parole Analysis of Problems and Probable Causes Issues Related to Local Control Village Governance Local Ordinances and Enforcement Tribal Courts, the State's View, and P.L. 83-280 "Alternative Punishment" at the Village Level Recommendations Changes in Law Enforcement Changes in Probation and Parole Concluding Comments 151 154 154 154 155 155 156 156 157 159 160 162 168 168 168 170 171 172 172 176 178 Summary of Final Recommendations (Part II) Empowerment of Village Conflict Resolution Bodies Correcting Corrections: Probation and Parole Local Law Enforcement in Rural Alaska Native Opportunities for Employment Counseling Programs within Corrections Self-Determination Self-Determination (P.L. 93-638) Review Historical Overview The Early Years The Indian Self-Determination & Education Assistance Act P.L. 100-472 and the Regulation Problem Current Contract Status Overview Bureau of Indian Affairs Governmental Problems that Need to be Addressed Findings and Recommendations Costs and Benefits of Contracting Recommendation: Re-Instate the "104(a)" Grant Program Fiscal Considerations Regional Non-profit Reorientation Fish, Game and Subsistence Regulatory Processes and Outcomes Regionalizing the Fish and Game Boards Limited Entry Reindeer A Myriad Issues 179 179 180 180 180 181 181 184 184 184 185 188 190 190 191 193 197 197 198 199 200 201 201 201 203 203 204 I. Preface The charge to which the Alaska Natives Commission responded when it was first formed in 1992 was exceedingly broad. Issues were brought forward by those who provided testimony in Commission hearings that ranged over a broad list of topics that included problems with the state and federal government, subsistence, courts, corrections, and Native regional corporations. Faced with a diversity of issues that could have taken 18 years to address, rather than only 18 months, the Commission chose a subset that, from the testimony and its own evaluation, clearly held a high priority for the Alaska Native people. This study focuses on those issues and proposes a number of recommendations that, if followed, will lead to a reduction in the problems that Alaska Natives face. A common theme in the hearings was the need for Alaska Native villages - "tribes" in the federal terminology - to regain governmental control of their own communities and to exercise authority in a number of areas, which are discussed in this study. This theme was expressed by Mr. Will Mayo, President of the Tanana Chiefs Conference, who testified at hearings held in Fairbanks in July 1992. Remarking on the 200th anniversary of Columbus' visit, Mr. Mayo pointed to the fact that Alaska Natives have lived on their homeland for perhaps 30,000 years and then added: The 500 years of relationship with the Western culture has brought, by far, the greatest changes. It is the changes that we have seen that have, I think, initiated and called for this Commission. One thing that I am grateful for is that though we know that many people left their homeland to come to our country in search of hope, success, gold, fur, oil, fish, riches, and freedom...most came for freedom. The ironic thing about it is that the people whose home this was for thousands of years uninterrupted have suffered much because of the coming. Though this impact on our land and our resources has been very detrimental in some ways, yet wise men who came together seeking independence from England sat down and said: "We need to create a nation where we can exercise freedom; where we can exercise basic human rights with dignity." And in the development of their organic document, the United States Constitution, these men chose to recognize, without question, the human rights of self-determination and of freedom and of use and occupancy of the Native people. The only thing they said was that Congress will have the power, and only Congress, to regulate commerce with the tribes. So they did not even choose to question the existence of tribes. That was not even an issue with them. I believe that many of the difficulties we have are a result of the forcing of a new way, of a new culture, of new ideas upon the Native people without their consent, without their cooperation, or even without their input. I believe that the cultural clash that occurred could have been greatly mitigated, greatly lessened in all of its negative impacts, if only succeeding generations of American immigrants, since the drafters of the Constitution, would have followed the principles of that Constitution and allowed 151 Congress to govern and regulate the relationship. Instead, what we have seen is that, as time has marched on in these 500 years, there has been a gradual - and sometimes not so gradual - continuous loss of rights, recognition of the human rights and human dignity of the Native American people. I urge you to look back to the motivations of the drafts of the Constitution of the United States to reflect on their good work...I urge you to recognize the right to self-determination, to tribal government, and recognize also the importance of the subsistence way of life to the survival of a culture of people who have every right to continue to exist in a form that they design and in a form that they control. And I think that by working together, as government to government, that the tribes, and the State of Alaska, and the United States government can work to fashion a hopeful future to assist the Native people in overcoming the social disruptions, the problems that have emerged for the last 500 years, and that there be mutual respect for the lands, the rights, and the culture. The issue of self-determination has been in the forefront of the work of the Commission, and it is represented often in the findings and recommendations that have resulted from this work. Self-determination, as a basic principle, must be viewed, however, in several different dimensions. The controversy surrounding the State's refusal to acknowledge tribal sovereignty is an important dimension, and is covered thoroughly in other volumes of the Commission's Final Report. And although sovereignty is also addressed in this portion of the Commission's study, there are many other dimensions and consequences of self-determination that are important to the future of Alaska Native people. They include the ability to resolve disputes within the tribal community; eliminating problems that revolve around "corrections" as that term applies to Alaska Native offenders; offering fair and equitable probation and parole options to Alaska Natives who reside in the bush; and responding to other needs related to governance by and for Alaska Native communities. These issues, which involve the law enforcement, judicial, and correctional aspects of self- governance are the topics of Part I of this study. Other problems and policies related to self-governance have become evident as well, not the least of which relate to contracting federal programs under P.L. 93-638 and P.L. 100- 472. Many IRA councils and traditional councils continue to struggle to maintain any semblance of government in the absence of a stable source of funds, however small, to pay for day-to-day operations. Others have chosen to exercise their limited tribal authority by proposing to contract programs that have, for many years, been contracted by their respective regional non-profit Native corporation. And questions concerning the control and relative centralization of some of those corporations were asked during Task Force and Commission hearings. These topics, which concern another dimension of self- determination, comprise Part II of this study. Finally, as Mr. Mayo noted, there is the fundamental issue of subsistence, as a way of life rather than a set of "subsistence regulations," which have now become bureaucratically instituted within both the state and federal governments. The Alaska Native people have no effective input - no voice - in the decision-making processes that are too often dominated by loud (and rich) interest groups whose objectives are diametrically opposed to the essence of a subsistence lifestyle. How best can the Alaska Native people exert self- determination within this complicated context? How can tribal and regional differences and traditions be safeguarded in the new, regulatory world of "fish and game"?) How can disasters such as that which befell the people of the Yukon River and the Kuskokwim River be avoided in the future? These questions have been brought before the Alaska Natives Commission, and they are discussed in fuller detail later. Because of the fact that 152 they also relate to the social-cultural aspects of Alaska Native life and to the economy of Alaska Natives, they are also addressed in studies of other Task Forces. Thus, their coverage in this study is comparatively slight, not by any means to symbolize their importance but rather as a result of their having been covered in greater detail elsewhere. Under ideal circumstances, the Commission would have been able to research every aspect of every issue related to self-determination and to all other governance problems and policies that impact the Alaska Native people. Time did not allow that: as mentioned in the opening paragraph, we did not have 18 years to conduct our work, only 18 months, which passed with surprising speed. Though not all inclusive, the study does highlight some of the major problems concerning some aspects of governance issues; and it offers recommendations that, in the determination of the Commission, will reduce, if not eliminate, those problems. 153 II. Justice, Law Enforcement and Corrections A. Fundamental Values and Influences There is no doubt that a process of deculturation (i.e., the elimination of traditional values and behavior without their necessarily being replaced with another set) has had its impact on Alaska Natives and that the extent of that impact varies from one region to another. The Aleut and Alutiiq people, for example, have been largely under White control for two hundred years, while there are some Yupik, Inupiat, and Athabascan villages that largely escaped White contact until well into this century. Irrespective of the varying degrees of overlay of White ways and the loss of Native ways, there are some fundamental, intrinsic values, ethics, and principles to which all Alaska Native cultural groups adhere, and some of these influence the interaction that Natives have with law enforcement, judicial, and correctional systems. To the extent that these have been articulated and can be understood, they will be briefly reviewed here. 1. The Ethic of Truth Telling and Full Disclosure Individuals testifying before the Commission and experts who have been contacted to provide insights, recommendations, and advice have often mentioned the propensity of Natives to "fess up" when asked about an offense. An enlightening example of the pervasive ethic to tell the truth and fully disclose what one has done was related by Ms. Mary Geddes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, in her testimony before the Commission in April 1993. She described an event that took place in a North Slope Village when the residents mistakenly thought a DEW Line station had been abandoned and its contents were free for the taking. After someone announced as much on the CB, about 40 people rode out to the Station on their snow machines and removed the useful items. Later, someone discovered that the Station had not been abandoned after all and announced on the village CB that everyone should take the items to the school where they were to be collected and returned to the U.S. government. When everyone did just that, they told officials that, yes, they had gone out and taken the property, after which the federal government decided to prosecute every one of them. Reviewing principles and ethics of the Eskimo, Arthur Hippler, an anthropologist, and Stephen Conn, attorney and associate professor of Law at the University of Alaska, concluded that "from aboriginal times, the Eskimo considered confession a good thing." They went on to say, "this was because the Eskimo's own good opinion of himself, as well as what he had learned to expect from his society, led him to believe he could confess almost anything without causing shock or receiving censure." Obviously, the expectation of a noncensorious reaction to telling the truth is not valid when dealing with current judicial reality. When combined with plea or charge bargaining, which seems to predominate in much of Alaska's judicial system, the Native ethic of truth telling and full disclosure will almost inevitably lead to jail time. It is not the intent of the Commission to raise this issue as a means to imply that Natives should not tell the truth. Rather, the ethic is mentioned here because of its influence on the processes and outcomes of the Western systems now in place in Alaska. 'Hippler, A.E., & Conn, S. Northern Eskimo Law Ways and Their Relationship to Contemporary Problems of "Bush Justice," Institute of Social, Economic, and Government Research Occasional Papers No. 10. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska, 1973. 154 2. The Ethic of Non-interference A second rule or ethic that was central to the conduct of Native life in traditional times and still remains influential is the avoidance of telling others what they should do with their lives. This ethic was elegantly described by Dr. Clare Brant, a Native psychiatrist, in a speech delivered in Northern Canada, which is quoted here: The Ethic of Non-interference is probably one of the oldest and one of the most pervasive of all the ethics by which we Native people live. It has been practiced for 25 or 30 thousand years, but it is not very well articulated...This principle essentially means that an Indian will never interfere in any way with the rights, privileges, and activities of another person. I'll have to expand on that and explain it by comparing it with white people and the way they operate. In every human relationship there is some element of influence, interference, or even downright compulsion. The white man is torn between two ideals. On the one hand, he believes in freedom, in minding his own business and in the right of people to make up their minds for themselves. On the other hand, he believes he should be his brother's keeper and not abstain from giving advice or even taking action when he perceives his brother making an error. Thus, at a white person's party, when someone announces that he wishes to buy a pear tree, he can usually expect someone to suggest he buy a peach tree instead. Someone will be glad, in a friendly way of course, to tell him what he should be reading, doing, talking, feeling, listening to, etc. The Indian society does not allow this. Interference in any form is forbidden, regardless of the following irresponsibility or mistakes that your brother is going to make. This principle of non-interference is all-pervasive throughout our entire culture. We are very loath to confront people. We are very loath to give advice to anyone if the person is not specifically asking for advice. To interfere or even comment on their behavior is considered rude.” Typical Native story-telling; use of frequent analogies, metaphors, and anecdotes; and the seemingly circular way of talking about issues before decisions are made are all examples of the ways in which this ethic portrays itself. Rather than telling someone what to do, an Elder will tell a story about someone else who, when faced with a problem similar to the listener's, did such and such. The listener has the opportunity to learn and to change his behavior as a result of the information contained in the story, but he does not come away feeling that he has been told what to do. Likewise, the Elder does not feel guilty of having transgressed the ethic. This manner of communication is common in tribal court proceedings as well. 3. The Ethic of Non-confrontation Alaska Natives avoid conflict and confrontation. Quoting Hippler and Conn again (and showing the close tie between the ethics of non-confrontation and non-interference): "The esteemed individual in Eskimo society was not the law giver and conflict resolver but 2Dr. Clare Brant, "Living, loving, hating families in the '80s." Address delivered at the Oshweken, Ontario, Community Hall, January 9, 1982. 155 rather the conflict avoider who did not judge the behavior of others."* Athabascans held a similar ethic.* There are three consequences of this ethic's influence on behavior. The first is the increased likelihood that a Native charged with a crime will readily admit to it rather than fight. The second is the tendency on the part of Natives to accept a lawyer's suggested plea ("charge") bargaining offer. And the third is the passivity that is often seen in Native inmates once they are incarcerated. This last has been eloquently described by Rupert Ross, an Assistant Crown Attorney in Northern Ontario, Canada, who is internationally known for his writings about Northern Natives and the justice system: Many Native people, especially youngsters, who are arrested in remote communities and removed to cells in distance centres demonstrate this learned response. A few have been observed to enter into an almost catatonic state and to remain there for days at a time, prompting any number of mis-diagnoses. Native children generally don't do what their white counterparts do. They do not try to instantly dominate their new surroundings, nor do they act up to try to draw attention to themselves... Instead, they do as they have learned to do, and retreat into positions of careful observation. We then see, in our jail reports, words like "unresponsive," "sullen," "passive," and the like. The negatives seem to pile up once again, simply because their reactions are not ours.® There are other ethics that "mediate" between the perceptions and behavior of Alaska Natives and consequently relate to their involvement in the various criminal justice and correctional systems. The Commission has chosen to illuminate only a few, in order to provide the reader some insight into broad cultural and traditional influences that can be said to predominate throughout all of the very different Alaska Native groups. Many others are more specific to one group or another, adding to the complexity of both understanding the ways in which these factors influence behavior and discovering solutions that will remedy some of the problems that have been made known to the Commission over the course of its work. The fact that these more subtle characteristics are not discussed here should not be misinterpreted to mean that they are not important. Rather, those who use this document as the starting point in making changes to the systems that will improve the state of Alaska Natives should study both the common and the individual ethics and fit program and policy changes to both. B. Problems Related to the Legal Systems 1. Over-representation of Natives There is a relative over-representation of Alaska Natives and American Indians throughout the law enforcement, judicial, and correctional systems, but there are key areas that stand out from the rest as revealing particular problems. The Commission surveyed the entire system, reviewed extensive data, and received testimony from a multitude of citizens, including Native inmates in two of Alaska's correctional facilities. The data are presented and highlighted first, followed by recommendations of the Commission concerning ways in *Hippler & Conn, op. cit. “Hippler, A.E., & Conn, S. Traditional Athabascan Law Ways and Their Relationship to Contemporary Problems of "Bush Justice" Institute of Social, Economic, and Government Research Occasional Papers, No. 7. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska, 1972. * Ross, R. A. Dancing with a Ghost: Exploring Indian Reality. Markham,Ontario, Canada: Octopus Publishing Co., 1992, p. 36. 156 which injustices and other inadequacies must be immediately addressed. Additional suggestions for demonstration programs that will test new methods of more fairly handling the legal problems of Alaska Natives who encounter these systems are also offered. In early testimony taken by the Alaska Natives Commission, there were frequent references to apparently biased processes and outcomes within the law enforcement and judicial systems, with higher conviction rates for Natives in many crimes, differences in sentencing, etc. In order to assess the situation fairly, the Commission first reviewed the arrest records, utilizing the Uniform Crime Reporting system of the Department of Public Safety. This analysis showed that even at this earliest level of contact, for some offenses the Alaska Natives and American Indians tend to be comparatively over-represented. Since this comprises the first point of contact in this multi-phased system, it will be presented first. 2. Law Enforcement As the tables presented show, in certain categories of reported crime, the number of Alaska Natives/American Indians arrested are disproportionately high. The data were collected by the Alaska Department of Public Safety's Uniform Crime Reporting system and represent the most recent data available. While reviewing these tables, it should be ket in mind that the Native population of Alaska represents approximately 16 percent of the total.’ Table 1: Race of Persons Arrested, Under the Age of 18 (Statewide Totals) Offense Natives Non-Natives % Native Rape 5 5 50.0% Aggravated Assault 31 70 30.7% Burglary 182 308 37.1% Other Assaults 51 177 22.4% Arson 3 5 37.5% Liquor 278 420 39.8% Disorderly 14 26 35.0% Curfew 20 39 33.9% All Offenses 1,267 4,291 22.8% There are other indicators of the fundamental problems that exist in the relationship between Alaska Natives and the law. For example, the data from a study conducted in 1989 showed that 24.8 percent of the inmates at Hiland Mountain Correctional Center were Native; 70.5 percent of the Native inmates there were from rural Alaska but only 40.9 percent were residing in rural Alaska at the time of their arrest; and substance abuse was involved in the crimes of 65.9 percent of the Alaska Native/American Indian inmate population there. Furthermore, only 41.9 percent of the Alaska Native/American Indian °Crime Reported in Alaska, 1991, published by the Administrative Services Division of the Alaska Department of Public Safety and available from that agency. Source: U.S. Census, 1990. 157 inmates at Hiland were employed on a full-time basis at the time of their arrest, compared with 72.3 percent of the non-Native inmate population.* Table 2: Statewide Totals: Race of Persons Arrested, Age 18 Years and Over Offense Natives Non-Natives % Native Rape 55 59 48.3% Aggravated Assault 302 491 38.1% Burglary 141 332 29.8% Other Assaults 1,124 1,911 37.0% Arson 5 5 50.0% Liquor 855 889 49.0% Disorderly 495 510 49.3% Sex Offenses 179 140 56.1% Marijuana 126 198 38.9% All Offenses 8,476 22,900 27.0% The offense problem bridges the gap between rural and urban Natives: statistics in the next two tables pertain to arrests made by the Anchorage Police Department during calendar year 1991. The reader is reminded that the Native population of Anchorage represents only 6.4 percent of the total.’ Table 3: Anchorage Arrests of Persons Under the Age of 18 Offense % Native Alcohol 42.4% Prostitution 33.3% The roots of these comparatively high rates of arrest - and, one must conclude, underlying high rates of committing these offenses - in certain criminal areas are thought to lie in events that took place in the early years of most of the perpetrators. In a survey of 5,458 students in grades 7-12, representing about half of the 55 school districts statewide, 32 percent of the females and 5 percent of the males reported having been sexually abused by the time they reached the 12th grade. The survey also found that 28 percent of the females and 11 percent of the males reported having been physically abused.'° There is further evidence of a deep-seated behavioral source of many of these offenses. The Anchorage office of the Court Appointed Special Advocate Program, which represents Source: Study conducted by Dr. Milburn Nelson, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Anchorage, Alaska. °Source: U.S. Census, 1990. ‘The State of Adolescent Health and Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services, May 1990. 158 children in danger of harm resulting from family problems reports that 51 percent of its caseload for Calendar 1991 was comprised of Natives. In concluding this section of the review, it must be said that although there may be some inappropriate arrests and biases among arresting officers, the data indicate that there is an underlying reality that Natives are committing some specific types of offenses far in excess of their numbers. In other words, there are types of criminal activities that appear to predominate within the lifestyles of Alaska Natives, whether they reside in the Bush or in urban areas. The Commission 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 fundamentally 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. Table 4: Anchorage Arrests of Persons Aged 18 and Over Offense % Native Family/Child Abuse 54.1% Disorderly Conduct 29.7% Sex Offenses 26.7% Vandalism 21.0% Drug Possession 20.9% Alcohol Offenses 18.5% Murder 18.2% 3. Judiciary and Corrections The Alaska Sentencing Commission's 1992 Annual Report showed that whereas Alaska Natives represent 16 percent of the general population of the state, their representation among the incarcerated population is more than twice that figure, at a little over 32 percent. 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 50 percent of those convicted of second degree murder were Native. For some other crimes, the representation of Natives was lower: among drug offenders, for example, only eight percent were Native. Although plea bargaining has been banned in Alaska for 16 years, "charge bargaining" exists, and it has been hypothesized that the disproportionate number 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, which was discussed earlier in this study. Confusion about and misunderstanding of the judicial system further adds to the problems. As Mr. Louie Chikoyak, an inmate at Hiland Moun- tain, offered in written testimony to the Alaska Natives Commission, when he asked other Native inmates how their court proceedings went, they usually answered, "I don't know." Another example of the tendency to "cop" to a lower charge and to be confused by the pro- ceedings was given in the testimony of Mr. Bertrand Rose from Hoonah, interviewed at Hiland Mountain, where he is now incarcerated. In response to questioning from Mr. 159 Boyko, Mr. Rose said: I felt like a lot of people that have pleaded out have been manipulated...I'm sitting there speaking with my attorney and he's telling me nothing but what I'm going to face, what's going to happen to me. And then he comes up with this magical charm, you know, what I should accept...no matter if I get on the stand and no matter what I say, that I'm going to be convicted. Of Alaska Natives who are currently incarcerated, 66.4 percent have one or more prior convictions, compared with 51.1 percent of the White inmate population. The greatest discrepancy exists between these two groups in prior felonies recorded: 35.6 percent of the Native inmates have one or more prior felony conviction, whereas only 21.0 percent of the Whites do (and 22.8 percent of the Blacks). There is a cultural and historical issue concerning incarceration that must be considered, because it may provide insights regarding solutions to some of the problems that now exist within the judicial and correctional systems and the manner in which they impact Alaska Natives. It is the fact that there is no indication that any Alaska Native group used incarceration as a means of punishment. In testimony provided to the Commission, oral histories taken over the years, and written reports going back to early Russian visits to Alaska, there are not any examples of offenders having been "locked up." There were many different types of punishment, from embarrassment in front of the Elders to banishment and execution, but there were no jails. Other evidence points to hearings and sentencing procedures, particularly among the Athabascans who, in certain cases, might deliberate a case for as long as five years.'! Nonetheless, the argument remains that incarceration is alien to Alaska Native traditions. And the fact that in the large majority of cases incarceration occurs far from the offender's family and village, practically eliminating visits and other contact with his/her community, makes it that much more difficult for the person to re-engage in a meaningful way when he/she is released. Three other issues before the Commission are alcohol's effect on Natives and subsequent criminal behavior, the frequency with which Alaska Natives experience probation and parole violations that return them to prison, and the absence of local control in dispute resolution. By implementing strategies to correct those problems, the disproportionate representation of Alaska Natives within the correctional system could be corrected to an extent. The problems that are specific to probation and parole are discussed next. 4. Probation and Parole In April, the Commission heard testimony from Ms. Teresa W. Carns, Senior Staff Associate of the Alaska Judicial Council. Summarizing, Ms. Carns reported that whereas about 32 percent of the those incarcerated in Alaska's correctional system are Natives, only 25 percent of those on probation or parole are Natives. And there is a disproportionately large percentage of Natives who are re-incarcerated due to revocation of their probation or parole. The data that Ms. Carns presented to the Commission at that hearing were from 1992 and showed that 41.8 percent of probation revocations were Native, while 42.2 percent of parole revocations were Native, surpassing slightly the percentage for Whites "'Hippler & Conn, 1972, op. cit. 160 (41.7%).'2 Given that the percentage of Natives in Alaska's general population is about 16 percent, this disparity is obviously indicative of a large problem in the correctional system. The question that must be asked is whether the probation and parole systems in Alaska discriminate against Natives, especially rural Natives. Answers to that question have come from testimony and can be substantiated by the statistics. In her testimony to the Commission in March 1993, Ms. Margi Mock, Supervisor for Statewide Appeals in the Public Defender Office, presented a strong case both for bias in the system and for changing that system. Native American people serve their sentences on the installment plan... When I have Native American clients who say to me, "I want to take the State's deal and do probation," inside I just die a little, because it doesn't work. And it doesn't work because, A, they don't understand how it works, no matter how many times it's explained, because...the system, as it's set up, doesn't make sense; so there's no reason they should understand it. And B, it doesn't work because I don't think the probation officers understand how the system works either. I would rather see my clients flat time their sentence. The current system requires that, with few exceptions, probation and parole be taken in Anchorage, Fairbanks, or some other city; options for parole to one's village are limited by the absence of probation/parole officers in those villages. Yet it has become obvious that some sort of local control should at least be tested, if not routinely established. This has been offered in testimony: the following was stated by Mr. Paul Shewfelt, an Athabascan from Ft. Yukon now serving time at Hiland Mountain. In response to Mr. Boyko's question about the possibility of handling criminal court problems at the local level, Mr. Shewfelt responded: ..basically, a community is very close-knit and do have ways of dealing with their own people. I know that any kind of parole or probation would be more realistically - have a greater chance of success by transferring the responsibilities over to their tribal or municipal governments, because it would be very hard to violate the conditions of release if that were to happen. This thought was echoed by Mr. James Simpkin, an inmate at Spring Creek: In most cases, the Native inmate that is eligible for parole or mandatory release could make it if he or she could go back to the village and live with family and friends. They could adjust better to the outside this way. By making them stay in the city and get a job, it's harder on them. We need to get in an environment we are comfortable in. Most Natives, once in their village, can most likely make it...Telling them they have to work and stay in the city is a hardship on them, before they even get a chance to make it on the outside. An example of locally based, intensive treatment that has been found to be successful by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, the Alaska Youth Initiative (AYI), was designed to provide individualized services to severely emotionally disturbed children, with the specific intent of preventing more expensive and more restrictive residential care. When an AYI child is "enrolled" in the system, a team is assembled and funds are '2" Alaska Sentencing Commission Data," distributed by the Alaska Judicial Council: Table 4, citing OBSCIS Data 2/22/92. 161 contracted through a local mental health provider to support the treatment, foster families, respite, school assistance, counselors, etc., as needed. When the services are no longer needed, the funds are eliminated, thereby avoiding continuing the costs to state government. A similar program could be attempted on a pilot basis for providing both monitoring and supportive "services" to individuals released to their villages on parole or probation. Others, however, have suggested that voluntary monitoring and support are more culturally appropriate and effective means of handling village-based probation and parole. Psychologically, one is more committed to a role if one engages in that role without remuneration, and community members who are working cooperatively to help a village resident regain his/her status and re-establish him/herself will be more inclined to embrace their task more thoughtfully if they are doing it for the good of the community as a whole rather than for a paycheck. Several options are included in the final recommendations, but the first recommendation of the Commission deals with effecting an immediate rectification of the present situation by requiring the Department of Corrections to review the records of all Native inmates who have been re-incarcerated for parole or probation violations and to release those who are not dangerous. Additional recommendations focus on alternative systems that need to be established in rural Alaska to enable inmates to be released back to their villages and to fulfill the requirements of their probation or parole while being monitored locally and supported by community efforts to keep them out of correctional facilities in the future. 5. Analysis of Problems and Probable Causes It is not the intent of the Commission to speculate about causes of the problems just discussed or to point fingers at those who administer - or have designed - any of the systems now in place. The evolution of the law enforcement, judicial, and correctional systems that exist in Alaska involves centuries of Western European thinking, and by their very nature they are neither sensitive to Native values and ethics nor responsive to Native needs. This was mentioned in the earlier discussion of Native law ways and ethics. However, the mere fact that the these systems were imposed on the indigenous people of Alaska does not justify their continuation without appropriate changes that will, at least to some extent, rectify the inadequacies and remove the biases that prevail. Probable systemic causes for some of the problems that have been reviewed in preceding sections are briefly reviewed here as a preface to the presentation of the Commission's recommendations. a. Issues Related to Racial Discrimination. It is inevitable in a state such as Alaska that there will be cases of racial discrimination attributable to individuals’ beliefs, attitudes, and personal history, albeit bigoted at times. It is also inevitable that discrimination has occurred on the part of individual employees of the state and federal systems charged with the responsibility and having the authority to carry out law enforcement, judicial, and correctional programs in Alaska. But it is beyond the realm of the Commission to attempt to eliminate biased attitudes, as lofty and honorable a goal as that would be. Rather, the Commission must speak to statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures that have been put into place and incorporate elements that discriminate against Alaska Natives. Consistent with a wide range of policies established by other states in the not too distant past to prevent minorities from gaining equal rights, some of the discriminatory aspects of the law enforcement, judiciary, and correctional systems are not immediately obvious. An example of a similar discriminatory practice in Alaska will help clarify the point: If a member of the majority were "forced" to participate in a court hearing in Bethel which is carried out in English, no one would voice a concern, but would the attorneys for the 162 defense be acquiescent if the hearing were in Yupik? Given the reverse, with a Yupik speaking Native defendant being forced to participate in an English-speaking court room, are there grounds for dismissal or any other recourse available to the defendant? Obviously, the White defendant is not troubled by having to speak his/her "native tongue" and hear only that language spoken throughout the proceedings; no complaints will be heard. Regrettably, the system - which is obviously discriminatory - does not permit any other option for the Native defendant who is not allowed to speak his/her Yupik language or hear his/her accusers, witnesses, or lawyers speak in Yupik. One important consequence of this, which was pointed out by Ms. Galen Paine, who was a Public Defender in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta for several years, is that the requirement that court proceedings be conducted in English practically eliminates the selection of Elders as jurors, because many Elders do not understand English. The court in Barrow, on the other hand, is equipped with earphones, and cases are tried bi-lingually with translation in Inupiaq and English. In Canada, federal policy requires that court proceedings be carried out in the first, Native language of the defendant unless he/she chooses otherwise. There is no reason why a similar policy cannot be implemented here. There are other examples of built-in biases and discrimination in the systems that are now in place in Alaska. Although it cannot be denied that the data appear to show that a higher rate of offenses in certain categories is at the base of the disproportionate representation of Natives in these systems, those data ar@not entirely free of bias. In parts of Alaska there is an expectation held by non-Native law enforcement officers that Natives are trouble makers, no good, drunks, etc., and that attitude cannot help but enter into their behavior when it comes to encountering Natives and handling their behavior. There are no doubt instances in which non-Natives are warned and told to go home while Natives are arrested. Although it is difficult to document such bias, it is not difficult to envision it, and in several instances complaints by those providing testimony to the Commission alluded to such events. This difference is compounded in some areas by the Native perception that infractions of state law may create a nuisance but are not offenses for which they should be arrested. As Hippler and Conn note: ...the laws for which Athabascans most often find themselves called to account - public drunkenness, petty assault, and disorderly conduct - do not have exact parallels in Athabascan society. Indians do not take these minor disorders seriously as long as they do not inconvenience anyone. To be arrested and detained for such behavior is bewildering and infuriating, especially when the consequences of the supposed bad act play little or no part in guiding the results of the criminal process.’ To return to the main point, however, it is more important to the Commission to correct statutes, regulations, and policies and to establish barriers to the continuation of practices that may be discriminatory, even if only accidentally. By clearly prohibiting their occurrence the tables can be turned, and those whose mission it is to administer these systems can do so fairly and without bias toward the Natives of Alaska. The recommendations of the Commission incorporate anti-discrimination policies and are founded in the belief that until every Alaska Native has precisely the same opportunity to enjoy true justice, the system will need to continue to be changed. b. Issues Related to Culture, Language and Traditions. Referring back briefly to the comments of Rupert Ross, the Northern Native's perspective on crime and criminal behavior is akin to accepting that an otherwise good person has made a mistake and that the community should help that person find him/herself, actualize the goodness in ‘SHippler & Conn, 1972, op. cit., p. 15. 163 him/her, and find harmony within the community. Rather than punishing an offender for being a bad person, the Native way is to guide the person toward a positive, more harmonious life within the larger Native community. Although this viewpoint is stated simplistically here, it offers a counterpoint to the Western perspective that is pervasive throughout the systems now in place in Alaska. As part of the reframing of these systems, both the state and the federal government must reconsider the important and overriding ethical and value-laden aspects of the Native traditions. Hippler and Conn, whose work was referenced earlier, point to the relatively greater compatibility of the federal system's application in Alaska in territorial days, when government agents were at least familiar with the Tribal Council's authority from working with tribes in the Lower 48. They also, however, noted some significant differences between Alaska's tribal groups in the ways that they organized themselves traditionally. For example, the community structuring or "layering" of the Inupiat was entirely different from that of the Tlingit and Haida. The Athabascans of the Interior tended more toward centralized authority, as did (for example) the Alutiiq and Aleut. While Chiefs and Second Chiefs relied on Elders Councils and others in their decision making processes, they retained final control over the destiny of offenders, and the punishment was sometimes fierce. Banishment was common. Table 5: Traditional and Transitional Legal Structures for*Alaska Native Groups Group Inupiat Yupik Aleut Athabascan Tlingit Family Bilateral Bilateral Not clear; Families/bands/ House group, Organization | extended, no extended, no village more matrilineal oldest male clans clans important than clans head, matri- family lineal clans Dispute Family, Family Family; village Family; band Clan elders; Resolution sometimes leader (maybe leader(s); leaders; umealik with elders} Chief(s) peacemaker Peacemaker No No No No Yes Property Territories Territories of Resource use Band control of Alienable defined; groups defined; | areas main- territory but not | property collective collective tained by permanent; owned by clan, ownership ownership villages; slaves Southern groups | house; debt w/in each w/in each (but none were had some slaves and war slaves group group captives) Leaders Umealik, not Eldest man or Chief of village Chief through Eldest man in inherited but men; inherited was from ability; might housegroup; might run in in some areas dominant family | run in families "nobles" in families clans Transition Councils, Trading Russians Elected Navy, etc., brought in by | companies, appointed chiefs/councils introduced teachers, etc., | churches chiefs, often introduced by councils of members appointed from traditional churches; today chiefs as judi- probably local | chiefs and families; under have both tradi- cial body; clan family heads councils, often US., little infor- | tional and structure calling on mation available | elected chiefs maintained respected today elders Source: Alaska Judicial Council 164 The failure of many Natives to understand how the court operates can also be attributed to cultural differences in the way the offender views him/herself. In traditional Athabascan law ways, for example, if someone were brought before authority figures for an offense, it was assumed by both the alleged offender and the rest of the community that the person was guilty. In other words, rather than starting a "hearing" under the presumption of innocence, it was initiated under the presumption of guilt. This adds to the confusion and misunderstandings that Athabascans - and other Alaska Natives as well - have about the Alaska judicial system. [In the Western system] the defendant has the legal right to stand mute in the proceedings and to examine the evidence of prosecution and official conduct with respect to him. This is quite different from the traditional notion of meekly confessing and accepting punishment. Since his guilt in the eyes of the authority figures in the court may seem to the defendant to be a foregone conclusion, and since he does not understand adversarial dynamics, a meaningful consideration and waiver or assertion of his rights is difficult. The Athabascan defendant probably does not expect that a verdict of innocent will be the result of the proceedings. His aim is to mollify the authority figures by agreeing with them and thus appease their anger. Effectively, this means he will waive his rights to obstruct the official inquiry. Thus, he attempts to extricate himself from the criminal process by the traditional and expedient means of agreeing with everything, waiving his rights, and assuming that whatever the judge metes out as punishment will be just. The court system's punishments appear pointlessly abstract to a defendant who expects that they will be designed to reconstruct relationships, assuage personal feelings, and re-establish his reputation in the community."* There is a prevalent misunderstanding or misconception on the part of many non-Natives that only by administering "Western justice" will there be justice, and this perspective is ultimately deleterious to the pursuit of alternative dispute resolution strategies at the village level. Moreover, the issue of imposing the prevailing law on residents of a community seems to have been blown out of proportion: with the state government focusing attention on "tribal sovereignty" and largely denying local control because of its inherently leading to more of that "sovereignty" that they wish to deny the federally recognized tribes, the fundamental issue of local dispute resolution has been put aside. The Commission acknowledges and appreciates the fact that it is a rare Alaska village that has only Native residents; yet the non-Native residents of the village are members of that community, and their voices will inevitably be heard in the establishment of any local judicial (or alternative dispute resolution) process. Although the Commission has been empowered, even by its title, to consider the Policies and Programs Affecting Alaska Natives, it cannot do so without including the non-Natives of the bush. The question that must be answered regarding the imposition of village law on the residents of the village is not whether it is "Native law" (i.e., tribal) or "non-Native law" (i.e., non-tribal) as much as it is simply village law. If a community decides to pass an ordinance banning behavior that its members find to be offensive and detrimental to its continued existence, that is its right, whether that community is Podunk, Michigan or Akhiok, Alaska. Once passed, that community should have not only the right but the legal authority to: a) enforce its ‘ibid, p. 16. 165 ordinance; b) charge those who have been found by official law enforcement officers not to be complying with the ordinance; c) bring those so charged before a court of law; and, d) impose a "sentence" that is consistent with the judicial and "correctional" systems of the village. The community should also have the right to construct alternative procedures for mediation, arbitration, and reconciliation far beyond the extent to which those avenues are accessible via the State of Alaska's judicial system. The provision given by state statute that villages can exercise the "local option," by voting for a prohibition against any alcohol at all in the village, importation and use but no sales, etc., though obviously flawed, demonstrates only one first phase of that important process of enabling villages to set their own controls. In very few communities - there are some - the later stages of the process are also in place. It is those villages, small in number, that need to offer their programs for wider distribution for the benefit of rural Alaska Natives throughout the State. It is precisely in those villages, however, that many community members are afraid to expose their way of handling justice to a larger audience, simply because their methods would probably be found to be "illegal" by the prevailing Western system and consequently banned by that system. The Commission heard testimony from individuals asking that new programs and policies be established to enable communities to devise locally relevant and appropriate means of resolving conflicts and disputes. The following was offered by Mr. Jim Christensen, Director of the Department of Public Safety for the North Slope Borough. Referring to the aforementioned study conducted by the Alaska Judicial Council and published in Connors, et al., Resolving Disputes Locally: Alternatives for Rural Alaska, 1992, Mr. Christensen said: I would like to recommend to the Commission that alternative methods of dealing with local disputes be explored... These methods of conflict resolution can assist communities where the State Justice system fails. The method of using Elders from the communities as judges to resolve issues which might otherwise be bogged down or ignored in the State Judicial System merits further analysis. This appears to me to be an excellent technique of involving respected Elders who are sensitive to the cultural issues being faced by our youth in solving some of our community problems. It is obvious that implementing local dispute resolution cannot effect a complete return to the traditional means of handling offenders and offenses in the villages. Incarceration serves three purposes, ostensibly: punishment, rehabilitation, and the protection of society from dangerous individuals. Although the first two can be met by in-village alternatives to dispute resolution, the third cannot. Traditionally, offenders found to be dangerous to a community were banished, a method that continued into recent years in some villages via the "blue ticket," issuing airplane tickets to community members who repeatedly got drunk and repeatedly ignored the Council's orders to stop drinking. In early times, however, the outcome was occasionally far more severe. Hippler and Conn note that "A chronic recidivist would be absolutely banished, and, if he returned, would do so on pain of death."'° It should be noted that in apparently all cases of banishment, that choice of punishment was inflicted only for "the most serious crimes committed by unrepentant offenders,"!° whereas now a person convicted for a first offense of a comparatively minor nature may be "banished" to a distant jail. The issue is not a simple one; in modern times, Sibid, p. 9. ibid, p. 17. 166 there are more frequent occasions in which village residents may be pleased to have someone removed. The complexity is mentioned by Connors, et al.'”: Removal of offenders from the local community may be a boon or a hardship, depending on the circumstances. At times, villages would prefer to have the offender out of the community, but under other circumstances, family members or the community may have equally compelling reasons for wishing the offender to remain. For example, if an offender has seriously harmed a villager, and especially if the offender has a history of disrupting the village, most may be happy to see the offender transported out of the community. On the other hand, if the offense was non-violent, or not directed against village residents, or if for other reasons - economic or personal - villagers regard the offender as less threatening or more desirable, they may not wish to have the offender removed. The most common local dispute resolution methods and forms of punishment traditionally utilized by Alaska Natives were more communally supportive than those imposed on the most serious or repeated offenses, and they included an element that is missing from today's system of fines and jail time. It is, most importantly, reconciliation with the community. c. Issues Related to Information and Education. Testimony and data both have shown that Alaska Natives encountering the Western judicial system often are neither aware nor apprised of the process in which they are involved. There are numerous stories of Public Defenders assigned by the court attempting to persuade a Native defendant to "cop" to a lower charge and then leaving the case to another Public Defender when the defendant resists. There are also stories, and impassioned testimony, from Native defendants who have traversed the circuitous and complex judicial process only to emerge at the other end, predictably in a correctional facility, not having the slightest idea what happened to them, what they were supposed to do, or why they are now in the fix that they are in. These examples of a system gone wrong speak to the issues of information and education about the rules, the manner in which those rules play themselves out for a Native defendant, choices that are - or legally should be - available to Native defendants, the probable outcomes of making those choices, and the ability to "fight the system" as many non- Native defendants do. When fundamental Native ethics are brought into this picture, such as the basic tendencies to avoid confrontation and to tell the truth under any circumstance, the situation is predictably hopeless for most Natives involved in the system. In order to improve the situation, there must be more Native advocates and translators available to inform and educate Natives who are in the system. Non-Native government employees and attorneys need cross-cultural training to help enlighten them about the cultural traditions of Alaska's Native people and the ways these traditions and ethics influence their behavior today. These considerations are included in the Commission's recommendations. d. Rural/Urban Influences. In concluding this section about problems and probable causes, the Commission calls to the reader's attention the acknowledgment that there are differences between rural Natives and urban Natives in Alaska and the kinds of problems that they are facing. Much of the attention of the Commission has been focused on rural issues, because those have surfaced more loudly and more often in testimony obtained during hearings, most of which were held in bush communities. As the arrest statistics '7Connors, J.F., Carns, T.W., & Di Pietro, §. Resolving Disputes Locally: Alternatives for Rural Alaska, Alaska Judicial Council, Anchorage, Alaska, August 1992: p. 28. 167 presented earlier showed, however, there are great similarities in the kinds of consequences of these problems, when it comes to offenses and arrests. Suggested solutions, such as alternative dispute resolution bodies and procedures, are not limited to rural villages. As has been found in the Lower 48 (e.g., in San Francisco), it is possible to establish alternative "community boards" that can both mediate between disputants and, in some manner, decide cases. The key to this in locations such as Anchorage and Fairbanks is to ensure that the boards or councils that are established to handle Native cases are composed of Natives from the community. Thus, there are problems of rural Alaska that concern communities that are composed primarily but not exclusively of Native members; and there are problems of urban Alaska that concern Native communities living within the municipal boundaries. As the entire village must work together to protect its residents and to establish the means to resolve disputes between its members, so must the Native community within an urban area work cooperatively to protect its members and resolve their disputes. The methods used will naturally vary according to the composition, cultural traditions, values, and ethics of the Natives who make up the community; and due to the cultural diversity of the Native community in Anchorage, a collective, multi-tribal effort will be required to achieve success there. C. Issues Related to Local Control 1. Village Governance Many issues revolving around village governance have been raised in hearings before the Alaska Natives Commission. Several individuals have spoken to the difficulties of maintaining a Tribal Council office with the absence of support that once was provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Others have spoken to the problems of trying to interface with governments of cities and boroughs, both of which are layered on top of the older, more traditional forms of government. The issues that are specific to tribal governance and interactions with the state and federal government are discussed in a separate study of the Commission. At this point, the effect that these issues have on both the problems and proposed solutions related to public safety and law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and probation and parole are the focus. There are several factors that are involved in the State's delegation of its authority to villages for the resolution of disputes, for any form of corrections, and for probation and parole (which, technically, is one aspect of corrections). These will be discussed briefly here. 2. Local Ordinances and Enforcement In a review of different local dispute resolution assemblies, the Alaska Judicial Council listed the Village Councils (i.e., IRA Councils or Traditional Councils) shown in Table 6 as having Tribal Courts and/or being active in dispute resolution. Of the 218 villages surveyed, almost half had some form of local dispute resolution process in place. Even with this relatively large number of "active councils," it is apparent from every other indicator that has been brought before the Commission that, although it appears that mechanisms are in place to resolve disputes at the village level without involving the state judicial process, they are not being used effectively. If they were, there would not be the kinds of imbalance in the data that are evident, as has been discussed earlier. The obvious probable causes of this seeming discrepancy between what could be accomplished locally and what practically is being accomplished are the state government's unwillingness to 168 confer on village councils and courts the ability to handle local cases, and the continuing confusion and conflicts over tribal sovereignty, which imbeds even more deeply the State of Alaska's conviction that any release of its authority to village-level councils is a threat to the foundation of that authority. However, there are other possible causes which may not immediately present themselves. One may be a tendency on the part of village courts and councils to accept only the most minor of offenses, which might not reach the state judicial system anyway. Another could be the uneven involvement of village residents in these courts and councils, varying with the seasons of the year, subsistence activities, the presence of council and court members in the village. There is no doubt that there are wide variations between the villages and the extent to which they are active in the judicial process. There are local and regional differences in approach, with varying degrees of mediation and arbitration. As the Alaska Judicial Council noted in its review, there is also an interaction with the Indian Child Welfare Act's implementation, with those more active in that Act consequently being more active at the court and council level. However, as imperfect or passive any of these alternatives may be in their operation, one must acknowledge that they do exist. Thus, they offer a beginning point for change, at least in half the villages in Alaska. Table 6: Tribal Courts & Council Active in Dispute Resolution Region Tribal Courts Councils Arctic Slope 3 3 NANA 2 10 Bering Straits 17 2 Calista 10 19 Bristol Bay 3 9 Aleut 0 3 Koniag 0 Doyon 8 41 CIRI 2 5 Chugach 0 3 Ahtna 2 3 Sealaska 4 1 Totals 51 101 Source: Resolving Disputes Locally: A Statewide Report & Directory, Alaska Judicial Council 1993 It is the position of the Commission that village councils, federally recognized tribes, and the state government should put their conflicts and concerns aside, designing and implementing local community dispute resolution bodies, policies, and procedures without engaging in the futile arguments over tribal sovereignty or loss of state authority. As mentioned earlier, it is essential the communities be more directly and clearly empowered to act to their own benefit in responding to certain offenses. The recommendations of the Commission speak clearly to this issue by stressing the importance of local control, whether or not that control would be considered tribal. 169 Until the State of Alaska can resolve to empower village-based groups and establish policies and procedures that determine objectively what offenses are within their "judicial" domain, the situation that now prevails and the problems that result from that system will continue unabated. 3. Tribal Courts, the State's View, and P.L. 83-280 Simply stated, Alaska does not recognize Alaska Native tribal status, with the single exception of the Metlakatla Indian Community, which resides on Alaska's only official Indian Reservation. The Executive Branch of the current administration revoked an administrative order (No. 123) of the previous administration, which had acknowledged that many Alaska Native groups could qualify for tribal recognition under federal law (but had not yet been so recognized) and pledged to treat tribal groups as "official" tribes, even if they had not yet been formally recognized by the federal government. In countering the outgoing Governor's policy, the current governor established the policy that "the State of Alaska opposes expansion of tribal governmental powers and the creation of 'Indian Country! in Alaska" (Administrative Order No. 125). Because of the controversy and disabling discussions between the many different parties that are involved in this dispute and because of several court cases that are in process that will (or may) have a bearing on a final determination of the differences between the State of Alaska and tribal groups regarding tribal sovereignty, the Commission has elected to stress the importance of local community-based solutions, rather than "tribal" or "non-tribal" solutions. This has been, and will continue to be, a theme of this study and its recommendations. In that light, the discussion will not dwell on tribal issues. But it must, to be fair, review one additional factor that is related to local dispute resolution, village courts, and village solutions to probation and parole. It is Public Law 83-280, known generally as "P.L. 280," which was amended by P.L. 85-615, the result of which was the extension of Alaska's state court civil jurisdiction to private civil causes of action involving Indians in Indian country. P.L. 280 states: Each of the states listed in the following table shall have jurisdiction over civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties which arise in the areas of Indian country listed...to the same extent that such State has jurisdiction over other civil cases of action, and those civil laws of such State that are of general application to private persons or private property shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State: Alaska...all Indian country within the State.'® Among other debates that have raged over P.L. 280 are those related to the definition of "Indian Country" in Alaska and whether or not the jurisdiction of the State is exclusive or concurrent. The controversies and court cases that have resulted from them are generally well known, even if the issues behind them may be poorly understood. The Commission must acknowledge the importance of the court cases that will no doubt have a broad impact on the recognition of tribes in Alaska and their powers, if recognized. However, for the purposes of devising changes to policies and programs that have led to the situation that is the main topic of this paper - the over-representation of Alaska Natives among many different segments of those impacted by the public safety, judicial, and correctional systems in Alaska - the Commission seeks to put aside the questions raised by P.L. 280 and the issues revolving around Indian Country. Rather, the Commission looks to '’For further explication and discussion of P.L. 280 and its ramifications, see Case, D.S. Alaska Natives and American Laws. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Press, 1984. 170 solutions aimed at establishing village-based communal powers and dispute resolution authorities, irrespective of the "tribal" nature of the solution, for if Alaska can agree to yield to reasonable public decision-making and can establish the jurisdictional boundaries necessary to establish a consistent authority within the village for resolving disputes at the village level, then the issue of "sovereignty" as a perceived threat to the state government is put aside. It is this approach that can be seen as the hallmark of many of the Commission's recommendations. 4. "Alternative Punishment" at the Village Level The time is right for the State to develop alternative punishment options both regionally and at the village level. The 1992 Annual Report to the Governor and the Alaska Legislature, published in December 1992 by the Alaska Sentencing Commission, made much the same recommendation: All branches of state government should encourage the responsible use of alternative punishments for more felons and misdemeanants. Non-prison programs such as halfway houses, drug and alcohol treatment programs, community work service, fines and forfeitures, and restitution can be used effectively to protect the public, rehabilitate and offender, and provide appropriate punishment.”” The question is not whether this should be done as much as it is how it can be done in such a way that the Alaska Native ethics and values are considered, as well as the strengthening of the community. There are two basic types of alternative punishments: the first is the "front end" punishment which is imposed by courts as a condition of probation, as part of a sentence, or in response to probation revocations. Post-incarceration alternative punishments, the second type, are used by the Alaska Department of Corrections "to promote treatment, education, restitution, reintegration into the community, or as part of parole releases and revocations."”° Given the multitude of problems revolving around both front-end and post-incarceration punishments that prevail for rural Alaska Natives, there is an urgency to develop and implement alternatives that will keep village offenders in their villages, enable reconciliation and restitution, strengthen - or at least help prevent the weakening of - community bonds, and return those offenders who must be removed (due to the nature of their crimes) to their villages more quickly. For the growing urban Native population, alternative punishments are also possible. In Anchorage, for example, misdemeanants are often required to complete community service work; if such work were directed toward the improvement of geographical areas of cities in which Native communities dwell, it would be possible to strengthen the sense of those communities, while at the same time "punishing" the offender. In a sense, community service work in a Native community offers an opportunity for both restitution and reconciliation, both of which are traditionally strong motivators for Alaska Native people. By building self-worth and assuaging guilt and shame, the individual and his/her community are improved. 91992 Annual Report to the Governor and the Alaska Legislature, Alaska Sentencing Commission, Anchorage, Alaska, p. ii. ibid, p. 3. 171 D. Recommendations 1. Changes in Law Enforcement a. Village Control and Ordinance Determination. The Commission recommends that the State of Alaska empower local Councils to pass their own ordinances, enforce local ordinances, apprehend those who fail to obey ordinances, and pass on to locally established dispute resolution or judicial bodies those who are so apprehended (see later recommendations). Although these powers are currently available to some communities, they are neither uniformly pursued nor advocated for "tribal" entities such as IRA Councils or Traditional Councils that stand alone without municipalities. b. Lessened Intervention by the State. The State of Alaska should enter into formal agreements with each "Village Court" (i.e., the Council, court, or other dispute resolution body or individual established by consensus of the village residents) to determine which infractions or which classes of infraction will be the domain of the "Village Court" and which will be the domain of the state government. The Village Public Safety Officer should enforce all village ordinances as well as state statutes. Village ordinances will be routinely handled by the "Village Court," and the "Court" will establish by means of a memorandum of agreement which other statutes and ordinances are within its domain. In other words, the "Village Court" must be empowered to handle a broad variety of cases and infractions. It should, at the same time, have the ability to refer to district court or another level of the state's judiciary cases that would normally be within its domain but for one reason or another it cannot effectively try. One must appreciate that there are times in small communities that bring opposing families and/or factions together over a conflict and that the resolution of that conflict may best be achieved outside the community. In all other cases - and the decision must rest within the community - local resolution must prevail. c. Changes in the Judicial Branch. The Commission acknowledges the complexities involved in modifying the judicial system of Alaska, since there are four tiers (i.e., the district court, superior court, court of appeals, and supreme court) with increasing powers and decreasing access to revision. The district court, at the Magistrate level, is the tier that currently impacts most rural Alaska Natives, and it is the most eligible for immediate change. Thus it must be the "target" of reform that needs to be implemented quickly throughout Alaska. However, the State of Alaska must evaluate its entire judicial system, from the district court to the supreme court, relative to its incorporation of Alaska Native law ways and ethics; it must also pursue options and alternatives to the current system, returning dispute resolution and decision making authority to Alaska Native villages and the Native communities that exist in the state's larger municipalities. d. Village Dispute Resolution Bodies and Procedures. Village Councils should be encouraged to establish dispute resolution bodies and procedures that are consistent with the predominant tradition and culture of the village, and the state and federal governments should provide training and technical assistance to further this establishment. In this regard, the Commission cautions both state and federal officials to look carefully at the kinds of dispute resolution bodies that may be possible. The current trend for some consulting firms to advocate the replication of Western-style bodies and procedures under the guise of "Tribal Courts" may not fit the type of decision-making processes that are either traditional or extant within a village or region. Alternative mechanisms should be considered, including the use of Elders Councils, Chiefs, and other local authorities. The State of Alaska must enable the development of these mechanisms and processes at the local level without bringing to the table its concerns about "tribes" and "sovereignty," for the organization and empowerment of local dispute resolution bodies and procedures will 172 encompass both Native and non-Native residents and must be endorsed by the majority of village residents, irrespective of their tribal affiliation. Erecting "sovereignty" as the reason why justice should not be carried out at the village level is a transparent defense, a fagade at best. The Commission recommends that the Tribal Court in Minto become the exemplary model for local dispute resolution bodies. The Minto Court, which has been studied and documented by the Alaska Judicial Council and others, fits within traditional systems of authority and decision making. In other parts of Alaska, both the court and its procedures would naturally have to be adapted to the local culture and traditions, but the essence of the system and the manner in which it has been able to co-exist with the state's judiciary should be replicated throughout Alaska, providing an alternative, locally controlled means to resolve disputes and engage in Native law ways that deliver true justice to community members. e. Separation of Powers: A System of Distributing Authority. Over twenty years ago, the Bush Justice Conference sponsored by the Alaska Judicial Council pondered the same issues and proposed answers to many of the same questions that have been brought before the Alaska Natives Commission. Some of the recommendations that were proposed then are very obviously still valid; had they been implemented twenty years ago, many problems that now exist might have been avoided. The Commission will re-state some of these recommendations here: We suggest that bush justice reforms will be accomplished best through broadening legal procedures to allow for an optional but formal integration of procedures best performed by the village council. Specifically, after arrests, a council-like body could determine which complaints might be best resolved informally and which should be sent to the magistrate for hearing. If such a body decided that village justice would best be served by a conviction in magistrate's court, the odium presently associated with roles of the village police and village magistrate would be relieved. Furthermore, this would allow the present informal avenue for avoidance of the legal system to be incorporated as an optional and reviewable mechanism of the formal legal system.”! The Commission echoes the recommendations of two decades ago, but it does so with a caveat. It may not be most efficacious for all villages or Native communities to empower a "council-like body" to perform the duties of a court. Rather, following traditional processes, in some Alaska Native communities a Chief alone could be so empowered; in other communities, it may take two groups to satisfy the traditional needs of the different families. The Commission does not want to gloss over the multitude of differences between the different Alaska Native groups or between the clans and bands within these groups, but it does want to state that the essence of resolving the many problems that have been created by the imposition of an alien, non-Native system in Alaska lies in the State of Alaska relinquishing its control over the judiciary to the point that reasonable local justice can prevail. That this is a unique solution that has not been attempted by other states should challenge executive, judicial, and legislative branches to blaze a new trail through the unmarked territory, in the best spirit of Alaska frontiersmanship. f. Monitoring Change. In order to determine which alternative mechanisms for establishing and enforcing local ordinances are effective and capable of being replicated, the different solutions should be monitored over time, as both their numbers and types 'Hippler & Conn, 1973, op. cit., p. 59. 173 increase. The Commission recommends that the responsibility and authority to monitor the development and implementation of these state- and federally-supported efforts be assigned to an Office of Native Judicial Advocacy, to be created in the Governor's Office, with the status of the Public Defender's Office and the Prosecutor's Office. The Office of Native Judicial Advocacy should establish an impartial review group that will not only evaluate the progress of villages throughout Alaska in their local dispute resolution activities but also report the results of the evaluation to both the state government (e.g., the Legislature, Governor, Alaska Judicial Council, Department of Public Safety, etc.) and the federal government (e.g., the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of Justice, etc.). To ensure that the recommendations of the Alaska Natives Commission are followed, the Office of Native Judicial Advocacy should report back to the President, Congress, Governor, and Alaska Legislature on the progress made at one year intervals for the next four years. g. Changes in Corrections. The essence of corrections needs to be considered by all concerned parties as the first step in creating change and enabling local alternatives to the current system. As mentioned earlier, the purposes served by corrections include punishment, rehabilitation and protection of society from dangerous individuals. To effect a change in the correctional system of Alaska that will improve the situation for Alaska Natives, both the legislative and executive branches of the state government will need to revise their perspectives regarding their conception of "corrections" and the ways in which these three purposes can be met. Punishment can, as recommended by the Alaska Sentencing Commission, be achieved through the use of alternatives to incarceration; and incarceration can be accomplished closer to "home," if appropriate means are provided regionally. Rehabilitation, many agree, is less likely to occur in a prison than out of one, and the means that have been established by the Department of Corrections fall far short of offering options for true rehabilitation, particularly when one considers the total absence of Native values and ethics and the fact that the majority of crimes for which Natives are incarcerated have been committed under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. The limited substance abuse treatment that is currently available within the correctional system appears, by all accounts, to be ineffective. Adding to the problem is the lack of half-way houses and other transitional living options that would better prepare those who must be removed from their home communities to return to those communities and engage in harmonious, constructive lives. The Indian Health Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, and the Department of Corrections must combine their resources and support the development and maintenance of half-way houses and other transitional and supportive living arrangements for Native offenders who can receive rehabilitative treatment at least regionally, if not in their own communities, and for incarcerated Natives who are in the process of returning home. These must be coordinated with treatment options within the correctional facilities, and all such programs should be developed and maintained by Native organizations, under contract to the federal and state governments. The Commission also supports the recommendation that the Alaska Sentencing Commission made to the Governor and Legislature in December 1991: The commission believes the state should develop policies which encourage judges to use intermediate sanctions for more felony offenders and misdemeanants. The intermediate sanctions may include sanctions which are considered by the courts to be equivalent of custody, such as halfway houses and inpatient treatment...” 1991 Annual Report to the Governor and the Alaska Legislature, Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Sentencing Commission, December 1991, p. 40 174 It is obvious that for intermediate sanctions such as halfway houses and inpatient treatment to be employed by the courts - or by village-based dispute resolution bodies - they must be in place. It is incumbent upon federal and state agencies to fund Native organizations to open and operate such programs throughout Alaska. h. Decentralized, "Local" Options for Corrections in the Future. Two types of local correctional options should be supported by the state and federal governments. The first was suggested by Mr. Jim Christensen, Director of the North Slope Borough Department of Public Safety in his testimony before the Alaska Natives Commission. It was to build a regional correctional facility to serve Barrow and the villages of the North Slope. Regional correctional facilities would enable those who must be incarcerated, due to the severity and/or repetitiousness of their crimes, to serve time closer to home, thereby making it easier for family and community members to maintain contact. As Mr. Christensen said, In my opinion, Alaska Natives are being warehoused in correctional institutions which are too distant from their home communities. How can offenders participate in family counseling as treatment therapy when the family and offenders are separated by over 750 miles?) How can those who are incarcerated in the current state correctional system stay in touch with their communities and loved ones and maintain their cultural identity? What do we really think the chances of successful rehabilitation of Alaska Native offenders will be after several years of no contact with their communities and extended families? Thus, if we are going to operate within the state judicial system as it now exists, then we must do a better job with rehabilitation efforts. On the North Slope, we have a need for a local regional correctional facility. This will allow for locally designed programs so inmates can be closer to their families. We can develop rehabilitation programs that would gradually reintegrate the offender - with his/her cultural identity intact - back into the community.”* : The Commission supports the efforts of local governments to establish regional correctional facilities, while noting that the trend in Alaska has been to reduce, rather than increase, the number of facilities statewide even in the face of overcrowding that is so serious that many inmates have had to be transferred Outside. However, the Commission also recognizes that an essential question has been begged in Mr. Christensen's testimony, and it is perhaps that question which reaches to the heart of the problem: as a preface to his recommendation for a local correctional facility, Mr. Christensen said, "if we are going to operate within the state judicial system as it now exists," and the Commission recommends again that we do not continue to operate within the state judicial system "as it now exists." Rather, that system needs to be disassembled, its purposes re-analyzed, and new and better methods found to achieve its goals. Some of those methods include the second local correctional option, alternative punishment, which is the next topic of this study. i. Alternative Punishment: Community Service Options. As has been stressed, removing offenders from the community and incarcerating them are alien forms of punishment for many Alaska Natives, because such responses are contradictory to Native cultural traditions, except in cases of unrepentant individuals and repetitive, extreme criminal acts. There are other options currently available to state government, and these must be further expanded. In its 1992 report to the Governor and Legislature, the Alaska Sentencing Testimony presented to the Commission, October 1992. 175 Commission opened its summary with the following: All branches of state government should encourage the responsible use of alternative punishments for more felons and misdemeanants. Non-prison programs such as halfway houses, drug and alcohol treatment programs, community work service, fines and forfeitures, and restitution can be used effectively to protect the public, rehabilitate the offender, and provide appropriate punishment. The Commission asks both the state and federal governments to develop alternative punishments that are consistent with the ethics and culture of the village or region in which they are to be implemented. These alternatives must be integrated with the alternative forms of dispute resolution that will also be implemented. In other words, the Commission is not suggesting that the judicial system merely provide alternative punishment as a replacement for incarceration in certain cases. Rather, a comprehensive new system must be developed that incorporates local, village-based dispute resolution bodies and procedures and alternative punishments based on traditional values and justice. Within this context, to ensure that the Native communities in Anchorage and Fairbanks are also included, the option of community service work should be offered routinely, with the work focused on strengthening Native communities and pursuing activities, such as helping the Elders and teaching traditional skills to children, that are consistent with Alaska Native culture. The Commission further recommends that the State of Alaska support culturally based contract rehabilitation programs for Native offenders, both youth and adult. An example to be used in developing such programs is the former Social Rehabilitation Program operated by the Maniilaq Association in Kotzebue. 2. Changes in Probation and Parole a. General. The unacceptable rate of probation and parole violations among Alaska Natives has been mentioned in earlier sections. The Commission submits that the statistics speak loudly to the unbalanced - in fact biased - policies of the state and federal systems that control the lives of Alaska Native offenders. For some, the choice to violate parole is made consciously. Mr. William Iyapana offered testimony to the Commission in March 1993 describing his plans to violate his parole: "I'm going to get out, and a month later, I'm going to violate so I can come back and do four months so I can not be under Department of Corrections anymore. That's sad, but that's a fact I have to go through, you know." His point, which was also made by others, is that it is better to spend a shorter time in prison, in Mr. Iyapana's case four months, and be done with it, than a longer time on parole. The reasons are several, but, primarily because the current system forces relocation to the cities, it has been designed to fail for Natives. Quoting from the testimony of Mr. Daniel J. Amarok, who is scheduled to be released from the Hiland Mountain Correctional Center in December 1993: Why is there not a place, other than the two geographical locations [Anchorage and Fairbanks] in which, when the time comes for release for those of us that come from the "Bush" are having to be dumped into this urban setting. Why is there not any P.O.s [Probation Officers] up at Barrow or Kotzebue, Nome, Bethel, Sitka, or any of the numerous locations from where the majority of us Native prisoners are from? What scares me the most is for me to be set loose in a city of which I am not accustomed to, let alone know, and being expected to get a job, housing, food, shelter, and the 176 likes and make it for a year's time... I am basically afraid to enter the mainstream, to be placed in this "foreign" setting, as I grew up in and lived the majority of my adult life in the small bush setting. I am also afraid I will fail... The Commission feels that it is essential that state government develop alternatives to the current system of probation, parole, and mandatory release, enabling Alaska Natives to complete their time in their home villages. However, there is an even more urgent recommendation that precedes this. It is for the Department of Corrections to conduct an immediate review of the records of all Native inmates who are currently incarcerated as a result of violations of probation or parole. If an individual is found not to be dangerous, he/she should be released. If this is accomplished swiftly, it will relieve some of the pressure on Alaska's correctional system; it will also correct some of the imbalance that has been caused by the biases in policy. While that task is being completed, revisions in those policies can be made and new program alternatives developed. b. Village-based Models. In its quest to envision village-based models that can be established as alternatives to having inmates released to Anchorage and Fairbanks only, the Commission asked the fundamental question: What is the purpose of probation and parole? Is it not to ensure the government that the individual is behaving "properly," with that term defined (loosely) as "engaging in socially acceptable behavior"? If the answer is yes, then is it not reasonable to entrust to the community to which the individual will return - and in which he/she will hopefully remain - the power to define the "socially acceptable behavior" to which the individual is expected to adhere? Consistent with the recommended decentralization of the judicial and correctional systems, the village dispute- resolution bodies should have the authority to establish monitoring and assistance teams that will supervise a parolee or probationer in the village. As mentioned earlier, these functions could be performed with financial assistance, using a contracting procedure much like the Alaska Youth Initiative, but the Commission recommends that the formation and service of a community "Probation Officer Team" be carried out on a volunteer basis by community members. c. Other Recommendations. In the analysis, considerations, and testimony taken and reviewed by the Commission, the basic issue emerges of the high rate of certain crimes committed by Alaska Natives. Although the source of the behavior must at this point be a topic of some conjecture, there is little doubt that the documented prevalence of child abuse and sexual abuse and the frequent cases of violent family dysfunction are to some extent causally involved. A case in point can be found in the testimony of Ms. Lottie Ahnupkana, who is serving a 20-year sentence for first degree murder: My main concern is helping out the Native people. They talk about drugs, alcohol abuse, and so on; that's true too. Basically where it all comes from is from the family. Before I got incarcerated, I was raised in a family that was dysfunctional, where there was drugs and alcohol, and where there's abuse... I think we should look into the villages, do some counseling into the villages, Native counseling in there. That's where all the drugs and all the alcohol, the abuse, the sexual abuse, the rape is, in the villages. I've been through that before and I ain't going through it no more, you know. And when certain individuals, Native individuals, carry so much anger inside them, they hold it for so long and so long, until they explode. 177 The Commission strongly recommends the continuation of all programs aimed at reducing these problems within Alaska Native families and, furthermore, urges the expansion and addition of new programs to achieve this goal. As the Commission was producing this study, the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued a memorandum notifying the Alaska Area Office (and other Area Offices throughout the country) that a number of programs have been listed for elimination or drastic reduction. Among these are the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) grants, which have, over the last several years, provided limited but much needed funding for village councils to develop and implement prevention programs that help save families, offer parenting skills training, and assist in re-uniting families that have, because of abuse and neglect, been dissolved. The Commission asks both the federal administration and the Congress to prevent this reduction; rather than eliminating the ICWA grant program, it should be enhanced, to support additional efforts at the local level to reverse the trends of family dysfunction, child abuse, and later criminal behavior. E. Concluding Comments The Commission cannot possibly acknowledge, individually, the many Alaska Natives - and others who work for their benefit - who have testified before hearings that have been held by the Governance Task Force, other Task Forces, and the Alaska Natives Commission as a whole, during which insights have been gained and recommendations accepted to form this study. The requirements of space and the need to be concise limits this work. Hoping that by citing some particularly relevant testimony the Commission will not offend those who are not quoted, the following is offered as evidence to the wide range of readers of this document that the ideas expressed here have their basis in the foundation of Alaska Natives who must live with the relatively contrived systems of law enforcement, the judiciary, and corrections that now predominate in Alaska. It is to their credit that they have the foresight to envision a better system; the implementation of the recommendations contained here will also rest largely on their shoulders. Gloria Simeon, Vice President of Operations, Association of Village Council Presidents: It is my feeling, my belief, that if our villages are allowed to exercise their tribal authority and form their governance on the village level by determining that the crimes and penalties of misdemeanor cases and the ability to prosecute those cases on the village level would probably impact the judicial system. I think now too often crimes are committed and people are not responsible for facing the people that they have committed the crimes against. And if our tribal leaders were able to exercise their tribal authority to administer justice, I think that that might make a difference in how the cycle can be broken, because too often people are committing the same crimes over and over. Mr. Ivan M. Ivan, State Representative for District 25, from the village of Akiak: I've seen in the two years that I've served in the State Legislature that the State should recognize all village councils and recognize them equally, whether they are municipal and/or tribal governments - traditional or IRA councils. They both perform services and work for all the people within all of these communities...When these villages are not organized as municipal governments, they don't exist, as far as the State of Alaska is concerned...If the State could recognize that they could work with these governments that are in existence in these communities - instead of treating them as if they were silent or do not exist - but work with them as partners in developing policies and invite their participation and their ideas...if the State did that, 178 it's going to involve the community and village input, and it's going to be, everyone is going to feel that they are participating in the process. The Alaska Natives Commission again states its appreciation of and respect for the many Alaska Native individuals and those who represent them who have offered testimony and other information to the Commission during the course of its fact-finding mission. The Commission's thanks are also offered to the agencies that have been established to provide some level of oversight to the systems that impact all Alaskans - and Alaska Natives in particular. These include the Alaska Judicial Council and the Alaska Sentencing Commission. The Alaska Judicial Council has been most helpful to the Commission, and special "thanks" are offered to both Ms. Teresa Carns and Ms. Susanne Di Pietro, who engaged in lengthy discussions with the writer and contributed numerous, helpful suggestions. F. Summary and Final Recommendations (Part II) In this final section of Part I, the Alaska Natives Commission presents its summary recommendations for the state and federal governments to pursue. These recommendations are stated most often as objectives to be accomplished rather than specific means by which the objectives can be met. Each recommendation addresses an imbalance that has been discussed previously and takes into consideration the Native ethics and traditions that predominate in Alaska. 1. Empowerment of Village Conflict Resolution Bodies The Commission recommends that the State of Alaska immediately convene a task force composed of representatives of the different Alaska Native groups (i.e., at a minimum, Aleut, Athabascan, Haida, Inupiaq, Tlingit, Tsimshian, and Yupik) who are involved in the judicial system and all three branches of state government to devise a structure of parameters within which village (and Native community) court systems can be empowered by the State of Alaska. These court systems will: a) be voluntary (i.e., adopted at the option of the village); b) incorporate the cultural ethics of the region; c) handle misdemeanors and petty offenses in rural areas; and, d) be consistent with the constitutional rights of Alaska citizens.* The village courts will establish procedures that are uniform within reasonable parameters but may vary from region to region based on differences in culture and tradition. The Commission notes that recent studies conducted in Alaska have revealed a great deal of disparity in both level and type of punishment recommended by different judges and consistent differences between rural and urban courts; in other words, there are already many variations in both charges and punishment between regions and communities within the state's current judicial system, and the implementation of the Commission's recommendation would not be likely to increase those differences.» Communities should be empowered to devise a system that best fits their needs, culture, values, and traditions, as long as the judicial parameters are established within a general, overall uniform framework. It will be the charge of the new Village/Community Court Task Force to devise that framework, and state government should fund the Task Force to enable it to “The Commission recognizes that for offenses which could result in incarceration, the accused has the right to a jury trial and that he or she would need to give up that right in order to choose to participate in a local conflict resolution procedure. 25See, for examples: Carns, T.W., and Kruse, J. Alaska's Plea Bargaining Ban Re-Evaluated. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Judicial Council, January 1991. 179 accomplish its objectives. Furthermore, the development of these new, alternative means should not be restricted to villages but should also be encouraged among the Alaska Native communities of the urban areas of the state, following the same principals as those noted above for the "village courts." 2. Correcting Corrections: Probation and Parole The system that has been established for the probation and parole of Alaska Native offenders from the bush is essentially unfair: it requires that the individual meet demands that are fundamentally at odds with his/her understanding of what is expected of a good citizen, and it requires relocation to an urban setting that renders the possibility of successful rehabilitation doubly difficult. For example, if a probationer stays sober, provides for his family, and engages in helpful community activities, thereby "being good" by his definition, but fails to report to his probation officer or complete other technical requirements of the probation, he will be returned to a correctional facility. The Department of Corrections should: a) review all cases of Native individuals now incarcerated who are in correctional facilities merely because of a violation of probation or parole and release back to their home villages any individuals who are not dangerous to themselves or others; b) establish a means by which probation and parole can be carried out in the home village of the offender, utilizing the cultural and social structure of the community both to support and monitor the individual, in the spirit of rehabilitation and community healing”; c) eliminate the requirement that Alaska Natives from rural areas who are on probation and parole must relocate to and remain in an urban area, thereby allowing them to return to their home villages; and, d) report all the changes made and their impact on probation/parole violation and recidivism to the Alaska Judicial Council no later than July 1994. In pursuing this course of action, the Executive Branch of the state government should review recommendations made by both the Alaska Judicial Council and the Alaska Sentencing Commission. Both bodies have, over the years, made similar recommendations, which have not been followed. 3. Local Law Enforcement in Rural Alaska The Village Public Safety Officers should: a) receive significantly more professional training in law enforcement, b) be given greater compensation for their work; c) enforce local ordinances; d) be empowered to make arrests (in addition to "citizens' arrests"); e) wear a distinctive, standard uniform throughout the state; f) have the option of carrying a non- lethal weapon (such as a nightstick or sap) or be armed, with appropriate training provided by the State Troopers; and, g) be sought out as the first source of recruitment for positions in the State Troopers when vacancies occur. The Department of Public Safety should also follow the next recommendation when recruiting and hiring Village Public Safety Officers. 4. Native Opportunities for Employment The Commission notes that throughout the law enforcement, judicial, and correctional systems the percentage of Natives employed is considerably below the percentage of Native residents. Although there are numbers of possible reasons for this imbalance, the failure of state government to recruit Natives actively for these positions stands out as being correctable. The Commission recommends the immediate establishment of an Office of *The Commission has considered the possible decision on the part of a community not to accept certain individuals back into the community under probation or parole. This should be the prerogative of the community -- as decided by the village council -- but at the same time some effort should be made to convince the community that it is their responsibility to take these individuals back and to participate in the healing process that is needed. 180 Alaska Native Recruitment within the Governor's Office to develop and implement procedures within other departments (e.g., Department of Law, Department of Public Safety, Department of Corrections, etc.) to ensure that a more aggressive campaign of recruiting Natives into all levels of positions related to law enforcement, the judiciary, and corrections be marshaled and maintained. To accompany this new recruitment effort, the Commission also recommends the immediate establishment within that office of an independent review panel that will be placed in the hiring sequence for these positions and will review all cases in which a Native applicant is passed over in the hiring procedure, to ensure that no bias, either purposeful or inadvertent, exists in the hiring procedures used, including the application processes, interviewing methods, and other techniques for selecting "the most qualified" individuals from State of Alaska employment registers. All positions from correctional attendants to public defenders and district attorneys should fall within its review domain. 5. Counseling Programs within Corrections The Commission recommends that the Department of Corrections increase the opportunities for those incarcerated in Alaska's correctional facilities to participate in substance abuse counseling and to begin that participation earlier in their stay in corrections. Furthermore, the Department should waive academic requirements for hiring Alaska Native counselors to enable more Natives who have extensive life experience and a demonstrated ability to assist in the healing and spiritual strengthening that is needed for those inmates who have substance abuse and addiction problems to be hired into counseling positions within the Department of Corrections. 6. Self-Determination During the course of the hearings held by the Commission, one recurring theme emerged - that of a prevalent perception held by Alaska Natives that they lacked the power to manage their own destinies. As a result of their perceived lack of ability to influence and shape even the most local of governmental entities to successfully respond to their needs, there is a high degree of frustration present in the villages. This frustration is heightened by the belief that earlier generations lived in coherent communities and family groups which have now disintegrated and that in these former times, Alaska Natives were in control of their lives. The sense of frustration and powerlessness inevitably leads to feelings of alienation and separation from the community. In many cases, this alienation has resulted in antisocial behavior which contributes to the already disproportionate numbers of Natives being held in penal facilities and an increase in the number of Native victims. In examining the reality, the Commission has found that notwithstanding the perception, there currently exist substantial opportunities for self-governance and the exercise of self- determination. In most rural communities, the Native population constitutes the overwhelming majority of the residents. In sheer numbers Natives are the majority of the voters and should control the election of all governmental positions in their communities. The Native community should be able to control their existing governmental entities, whether they be traditional village councils, IRA councils, state-chartered municipal governments or borough governments. It should also be able to elect all of the members of the school boards and thereby control the educational system. Through the regional non- profit corporations, the community controls the provision of federal assistance, and through the village and regional ANCSA corporations, access to the lands around the community can be controlled and limited to the Native population. 181 Thus, the problem is not that the Native community is powerless, but rather that it has the perception that it is unable to effectively manage and direct the various governmental entities in order to achieve the community's goals. In many instances this perception has become a self-fulfilling prophecy and the Native community abdicated the power that it does possess. The essential issue in the exercise of self-governance to achieve self-determination does not appear to be the lack of control, but rather the lack of the knowledge as to how to exercise the existing control to effectively manage the governmental institutions to achieve the goals of the Native community. At several times during the course of the Commission's hearings, references were made to the need to recognize the "sovereignty" of the Alaska Natives. Given the recent focus of attention first on achieving recognition of tribal status and now on defining the powers that the Alaska tribes possess, many Natives believe that "sovereignty" will solve all of the problems being faced by the Native community. The Commission did not hold hearings on the issue of sovereignty, its exercise or the nature of it limits, and thus is unable to take a definitive position on it. It does, however, appear that from the statements made by Assistant Secretary Deer at the Alaska Federation of Natives annual convention in 1993, the present federal administration has at least recognized the existence of tribes in Alaska and has asserted that: they have the same governmental status as other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their status as Indian tribes with a government-to- government relationship with the United States.”’ Unfortunately when pressed on the exact nature of these governmental powers, the Assistant Secretary referred the questioner to the attorneys. Given the lack of definition as to these powers and the opposition of the State, it seems likely that the Native community will have to await the ultimate judgment of the courts for a clear statement of their rights. This may well be a long and tedious process as the cases wind their way through to decision. Notwithstanding the outcome of the sovereignty process, the Commission is very concerned that the Native community not be misled into believing that sovereignty is the panacea to its problems of self-governance. Sovereignty is but a tool to be used to achieve self-determination through self-governance. Many of the sovereign tribes of the lower states are faced with the same problems that Alaska Natives are experiencing. Thus, merely being recognized as having sovereign powers does not guarantee the life that we all seek. It is the sincere belief of this Commission that the goal of achieving self-governance and self-determination has to be worked on simultaneously with the efforts to define the governmental powers of the tribes of Alaska. Alaska Natives cannot wait to exercise control through the institutions at hand until there is a complete definition of the powers that they may have. Alaska Native youth are being lost today through their sense of powerlessness. Unless action is taken now, it will be too late for many of the youth, irrespective of how the courts ultimately rule. It is the recommendation of the Commission that steps need to be taken now to strengthen the ability of the Native communities to exercise self-governance in order to achieve self- *’Notice. Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 202, Thursday, October 21, 1993, 54364-54369. 182 determination as fully as possible within the existing institutions. To this end, the Commission makes the following recommendations: 1. That the state and federal governments and their respective agencies give full and complete recognition to whatever governmental entity that a community has chosen, whether it be a traditional council, an IRA council or a state-chartered municipality. 2. That existing programs for assistance to local governments available through the state and federal government be reviewed and their use be monitored to determine their effectiveness in strengthening the governance skills of the community and, to the extent necessary, such programs be augmented to accomplish effective self- governance. Such programs should address: a. how to run the local institutions in a manner so as to effectively interface with the state and federal government to maximize benefits to the local community and to reflect and advance the goals of that community; b. how to manage the existing governments (including those entities that are state-chartered) to achieve the goals of and strengthen the Native community. 3. That Native organizations, such as regional non-profit corporations, the Native American Rights Fund, and similar institutions which have the financial and technical capabilities to do so, should, in addition to pressing for a resolution of the tribal governance powers, examine the existing governmental entities used by Native communities in order to identify ways in which such entities can be used more effectively to achieve the goals of the communities. The Commission believes that a multitude of opportunities with the present institutions exist to preserve and protect the values of the Native communities and to advance the goals of these communities, and that the Native community has to use every resource available to it, including these opportunities, to achieve its ultimate goal of self-governance and self-determination. 183 III. Self-Determination (P.L. 93-638) Review A. Historical Overview The history of the federal government's involvement in Alaska as the administrator and provider of services to Alaska Natives is far too extensive and detailed to be covered in depth. Only highlights relating specifically to the Commission's concern about the efficiency of the current system of contracting under P.L. 93-638/100-472 and whether that system is truly fostering "self-determination" on the part of the many Native villages in Alaska will be mentioned. Even that will receive abbreviated attention due to space limitations. 1. The Early Years Sheldon Jackson was an early missionary in Alaska who later became the first Alaska Agent for the United States Office of Education, as a result of the Organic Act of 1884. The Office of Education later became the Bureau of Education, which was largely responsible for educating Alaska Natives. Under Reverend Jackson's directorship, the Bureau expanded to include many other programs and activities, including health and community development, which remained a part of the Alaska Native program of the Bureau of Education in the following years. The system which is now massive, complex, and inclusive of a multitude of programs - and which, in the mid-1970s evolved to a process of contracting - has its origins in the early singular work of Reverend Jackson and his compassion for the indigenous people of the still new territory of Alaska. a. Reserves. After the turn of the century, the federal government created, through various Executive Orders, a total of about 150 reserves in Alaska. Unlike the Indian Reservations that were created by Congress in the Lower 48, Alaska's reserves did not offer the security and benefits to the Alaska Natives who lived on them. Like other such reserves (i.e., military reserves, petroleum reserves, etc.), they are created for a particular public purpose. It is easy to understand the public purpose behind a petroleum or military reservation. One is to conserve oil for future public use; the other supports national defense. In either case, it is not the people living on the reserve who are benefited, but the public at large. Executive order Indian reservations are sometimes characterized in the same manner. They are not created to benefit the people who reside on them so much as they are created to benefit the public at large by preventing the residents from becoming dependent on state or territorial public welfare.” The two exceptions to the reserves created by Executive Order are the Annette Island Reserve (the Metlakatla Indian Community) and Klukwan, which were established by Congressional action. Only Metlakatla remains today, as Klukwan's reservation was abolished as a result of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). However, there are still examples of Executive Order reserves; one was established for the Kake cannery, which has subsequently been acquired by the Organized Village of Kake. b. Snyder Act and the Transfer of Programs to the BIA. In 1921, Representative Snyder of New York introduced HR 7848, designed to enable the House of Representatives to regain control over Indian appropriations, but the control that the Bureau of Education held over *Case, D.S. op. cit., p. 85. 184 programs for Alaska Natives was not changed until its programs were transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1931, ten years after the Snyder Act. c. "On or Near" a Reservation: Alaska's Exception. The assumption of programs for Alaska Natives by the Bureau of Indian Affairs introduced an interesting problem. Whereas the Bureau had established a policy of limiting its programs to Indians living "on or near" a reservation, that excluded most of Alaska's Native people, and the controversy regarding the responsibilities of the Bureau to serve Alaska Natives who did not live on reservations continued for several decades. Generally, the Bureau defined its service jurisdiction as follows: The service population of the Bureau of Indian Affairs is usually defined to include, according to Title 18 of the United States Code, those Indians who (a) live on trust land under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, (b) are dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States, whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, whether within the limits of a state and (c) all Indian allotments, Indian titles of which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way, running through the same.” Determined to be "dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States," Alaska Native villages are included in the Bureau's service jurisdiction. In essence, the entire State of Alaska is considered as the equivalent of a reservation for this purpose. 2. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act The movement toward self-determination for Indians, which began during the Kennedy administration, was a reversal of earlier policies that were more subtly driven by "termination" policies. Gaining momentum during President Johnson's years in the White House,” the impetus continued into the Nixon administration and culminated in the passage by Congress late in 1974 of P.L. 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which was signed into law on January 4, 1975. a. Definitions. It is important that the distinction be maintained that Indians and Alaska Natives enjoy a special relationship with the federal government not because of a racial distinction but rather because of the obligation and trust responsibility that the federal government has to tribes. This is delineated in Section 4, "Definitions," of the Act: "Indian' means a person who is a member of an Indian tribe." b. Implementation in Alaska: The Bureau of Indian Affairs. For the Department of the Interior, the "heart" of the Act is Section 102, which describes the intent and process of contracting: (a) The Secretary of the Interior is directed, upon the request of any Indian tribe, to enter into a contract or contracts with any tribal organization of any such Indian tribe to plan, conduct, and administer programs, or portions thereof, provided for in the Act of April 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 596), as amended by this Act, any other program or portion thereof which the Secretary of the Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Department of the Interior and Related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, March 19, 1971; quoted from: ibid, p. 217. 5°See, for example, President Johnson's message to Congress dated March 6, 1968: "Special Message to the Congress on the Problems of the American Indian: 'The Forgotten American.'" 185 Interior is authorized to administer for the benefit of Indians under the Act of November 2, 1921 (42 Stat. 208), and any Act subsequent thereto: Provided, however, That the Secretary may initially decline to enter into any contract requested by an Indian tribe if he finds that: (1) the service to be rendered to the Indian beneficiaries of the particular program or function to be contracted will not be satisfactory; (2) adequate protection of trust resources is not assured, or (3) the proposed project or function to be contracted for cannot be properly completed or maintained by the proposed contract: Provided further, That in arriving at his finding, the Secretary shall consider whether the tribe or tribal organization would be deficient in performance under the contract with respect to (A) equipment, (B] bookkeeping and accounting procedures, (C} substantive knowledge of the program to be contracted for, (D) community support for the contract, (E) adequately trained personnel, or (F) other necessary components of contract performance.*' [emphasis in original] The eligible entities for contracting, termed "tribal organizations" are defined in Section 4, as is the term "Indian tribe," which is somewhat anomalous in parts of Alaska: (b) "Indian tribe" means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians; [emphasis added] (c) "Tribal organization" means the recognized governing body of any Indian tribe; any legally established organization of Indians which is controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by such governing body or which is democratically elected by the adult members of the Indian community to be served by such organization and which includes the maximum participation of Indians in all phases of its activities: Provided, That in any case where a contract is let or grant made to an organization to perform services benefitting more than one Indian tribe, the approval of each such Indian tribe shall be a prerequisite to the letting or making of such contract or grant; [emphasis in original] The specific reference in the definition of "Indian tribe" to "any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation" is noteworthy, because it established an immediate means for the regional corporations to contract for services which were to be delivered in turn:to the villages in their respective regions. By doing so, however, the Act introduced some ambiguity which continues today regarding the designation of "tribes." In Alaska, contracting under P.L. 93-638 was made more complicated by the failure on the part of the Department of the Interior to acknowledge as "tribes" many Alaska Native villages (which had been acknowledged in ANCSA) through the customary procedures previously applied to traditional councils and IRA councils. In other words, when the list of "federally recognized tribes" was published in the Federal Register, a large number of Alaska Native villages - which had functioning traditional councils - were not on it. There was not - nor has there ever been - an adequate explanation for that failure, although numerous attempts have been made in recent years to rectify the situation. Thus, in order to implement the Act and to use the definition of "tribe" without having to rely on its *125 USC 450f, with citation to 25 USC 452 and 25 USC 13, 52a. 186 previous acknowledgment of the existence of a council, constitution, and enrollment, the Department established a hierarchy for contracting programs in Alaska. The hierarchy, which is still in place, is as follows: 1) IRA Council; 2) Traditional Council; 3) ANCSA Village Corporation; and, 4) ANCSA Regional Corporation. If an IRA council seeks to contract, it has precedence over a traditional council seeking to contract to serve the same tribe, which in turn has precedence over an ANCSA village corporation. The ANCSA regional corporation serving the tribe has the "lowest priority" in the hierarchy. However, since there are no known examples of two Councils vying for a contract to serve the same tribe, and the rest of the hierarchy has not actually been used to establish precedence as much as opportunity, the system has not produced controversy as much as ease of contracting in situations that would otherwise have been more troublesome. For example, because Kodiak was not included among those designated as federally acknowledged tribes by the Department of the Interior, P.L. 93-638 grants and contracts from the Bureau of Indian Affairs on behalf of Natives of that community were passed through its village for-profit corporation, Natives of Kodiak, Inc. c. Regional Non-profit Corporations as Tribal Organizations under the Act. Because many regional non-profit corporations had been established even prior to the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, they were in place and readily eligible for contracting Bureau of Indian Affairs programs under P.L. 93-638. The following lists those non-profit regional corporations that preceded the passage of P.L. 93-638. In instances for which the original organization has been replaced by a successor (or has been renamed), the new corporation name is shown in parentheses: Arctic Slope Native Association Bering Straits Native Association (Kawerak, Inc.) Northwest Alaska Native Association (Maniilaq Association) Association of Village Council Presidents Tanana Chiefs Conference Cook Inlet Native Association (Cook Inlet Tribal Council) Bristol Bay Native Association Aleut League (Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association) Chugach Native Association (Chugachmiut, Inc.) Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska Kodiak Area Native Association Copper River Native Association In several regions, there is a separate health non-profit corporation, and these will be discussed later. d. First Contracts. The first contracts under P.L. 93-638 involved social service and employment programs that had already been contracted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs through the use of different mechanisms. The Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Cook Inlet Native Association, Tanana Chiefs Conference, and Fairbanks Native Association were the first tribal organizations to receive contracts under P.L. 93- 638. e. Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs promulgated regulations immediately after P.L. 93-638 was signed into law in 1975, and it was therefore the first to engage in the P.L. 93-638 contracting process. Section 104 of the Act established a granting mechanism that was designed to assist tribes to assess their needs and establish the capability to plan for and administer programs. Section 104(a) applied to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Section 104(b) applied to the Indian Health Service. Under Section 187 104(a), a large number of IRA and traditional councils in Alaska received small "tribal management" grants, the size of which was proportional to their tribal enrollment. For many years, these annual "104(a) grants" were the only means by which tribal governments were able to hire part-time administrators and keep their offices open. At one point there were one hundred forty-six 104(a) grants in existence in Alaska, and the Commission heard several pleas from those testifying before it that these grants, which were phased out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, be re-established. f. Indian Health Service. The Indian Health Service is administered by 12 Area Offices, of which the State of Alaska comprises one entire Area; the "Area Office" is the Alaska Area Native Health Service. Within the Alaska Area are nine Service Units, each of which, with the exception of one, is coterminous with a region as established by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. As the compiled contract information in the Appendix shows, there are many more P.L. 93- 638 contractors of Indian Health Service programs than there are non-profit regional corporations. However, the non-profit regional corporations continue to have the largest contracts and serve the largest number of Indian Health Service beneficiaries. In several regions there are two non-profit corporations, one for health programs and another for social, education, economic and employment programs. Dual non-profit corporations exist in the Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, Calista, Bering Straits, and Sealaska regions. In the remaining regions, a single regional non-profit contracts with both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, with the exception of the Arctic Slope region, for which no health arm currently exists - and the contractor of Bureau of Indian Affairs programs, the Arctic Slope Native Association, serves only a portion of the villages in the region, excluding its largest, Barrow. 3. P.L. 100-472 and the Regulation Problem a. Amendments to P.L. 93-638. Although there is no doubt that contracting under P.L. 93- 638 was popular in Alaska, and quite successful, late in the 1980s a number of frustrations that had been building throughout the country in the uneven implementation of the Act led to the drafting of a set of amendments that, among other things, put limits on the federal government's ability to decline P.L. 93-638 contract proposals and gave tribes increased powers. These amendments, which were passed by Congress and signed into law as P.L. 100-472 on October 5, 1988, required that the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services, establish one set of regulations that applied to all P.L. 93-638 contracts; prior to that time each agency had developed its own regulations, procedures, and ways of communicating, which made interacting with tribes that much more difficult. P.L. 100-472 ordered the administration to complete the new regulations within six months, at which time they were to be submitted to Congress; they were to be published no later than ten months after the Act became law, which occurred in October 1988. Now, five years later, they still have not been published, which has created considerable (and unnecessary) complications on the part of tribes wanting to contract new or expanded services. And, to add to the complication, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has established one set of "interim regulations" while the Indian Health Service has established another, in direct contradiction of the intent of the law. b. Tribal Self-governance Demonstration Project. An additional and important aspect of P.L. 100-472 is contained in Title III of the Act, The Tribal Self-governance Demonstration Project which established this "research and demonstration project" for twenty tribes, to be selected by the Secretary of the Interior. For each, the Secretary was directed to negotiate and enter into an annual written funding agreement which: 188 (1) shall authorize the tribe to plan, conduct, consolidate, and administer programs, services and functions authorized under the Act of April 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 596) as amended, and the Act of November 2, 1921 (42 Stat. 208); (2) subject to the terms of the written agreement authorized by this title, shall authorize the tribe to redesign programs, activities, functions or services and to reallocate funds for such programs, activities, functions or services; This new option, which has come to be called "compacting," establishes a much broader means of contracting for services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which resembles the state block grant that was established under the Reagan administration. Rather than having to continue service programs categorically, tribes are given the latitude to determine their own highest priority needs and to redesign and reconfigure service provision to meet those needs. In addition, the compact enables the tribes to acquire funds that would have been used by the Bureau's Agency and Area Offices in the administration, management, and oversight of the services, thereby increasing the amount of funds available in the compact. In Alaska, a consortium of southeast Alaska tribes, including the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska, Angoon, Ketchikan, Kake, Sitka, and Yakutat, was one of the first round of "tribes" included in this demonstration project. Kawerak, Inc., is also in the process of compacting, Tanana Chiefs Conference has received a planning grant for future compacting, and the Association of Village Council Presidents has submitted a letter of intent. In 1991, P.L. 102-184 extended the time for the demonstration project and expanded the number to thirty tribes. P.L. 102-184 also stated that "the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and Indian tribal governments participating in the demonstration project under this title, shall conduct a study for the purpose of determining the feasibility of extending the demonstration project under this title to the activities, programs, functions, and services of the Indian Health Service." The results of study were to be presented Congress within a year. Although no Alaska tribes or tribal organizations have as yet engaged in compacting with the Indian Health Service, at least two are in the process of planning to begin. The fact that in many of the regions the non-profit corporation that contracts with the Indian Health Service is different from the non-profit corporation that contracts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs may add complications to the establishment of multiple-department compacts. c. Problems Ahead. It appears that serious problems are just over the horizon for compacting in Alaska, if not throughout the entire Bureau of Indian Affairs. When the Juneau Area Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs began to "divvy up" the Agency and Area budgets and put pieces into the first compacts, it did not formulate a method that would prevent the funds from being distributed before all compacts were completed (in the case that all possible programs and funds that were accessible to compacting were ultimately let out under Title III agreements). Although concern has been expressed within the Bureau and among Native leaders, there does not appear to be any obvious activity taking place to correct this problem at the present time. The Commission expresses its fear that this failure to exercise prudent planning may produce hardships later for those who engage in the compacts under Title III. Furthermore, the Commission seeks reassurance from the government that sufficient safeguards will be in place to protect Alaska Natives in need of services should a compacting consortium begin to disintegrate, as is occurring with several regional non-profits at this time. 189 Rephrased as a more optimistic question, if individual villages choose to engage in their own individual compacts rather than continuing with other villages as part of a consortium - or regional - compact, are there sufficient safeguards to ensure that funding will be available to enable that to occur without detracting from services or programs? Title III of P.-L. 100-472 did state, assuringly, that: nothing in this title shall be construed to limit or reduce in any way the services, contracts or funds that any other Indian tribe or tribal organization is eligible to receive under section 102 [i.e., self-determination contracts]or any other applicable Federal law and the provisions of section 110 [i.e., ensuring the protection of tribal rights] of the Act shall be available to any tribe or Indian organization which alleges that a funding agreement is in violation of this section.” However, the Commission notes (again) that P.L. 100-472 also stated that the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services would publish combined regulations no later than August 5, 1989, and that has yet to occur, over five years later. Furthermore, the recent experience that Alaska Native contractors have had with continuing indirect shortfall, which has led to at least one suit having been filed against the Bureau of Indian Affairs, throws further doubt on the sincerity of the administration (or Congress) to uphold the letter of P.L. 100-472 and adds to the concern that the Commission has about future potential impacts that compacting may have on Alaska Natives. B. Current Contract Status 1. Overview Collectively, tribes in Alaska have proceeded farther along the path of self-determination contracting under P.L. 93-638 and P.L. 100-472 than many of the Lower 48 states, which may be due, at least in part, to the presence of existing regional non-profit corporations, established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act before the passage of P.L. 93-638. These had administrative staff in place and were more practiced at managing grants and contracts than were - or are - smaller tribal administrations, which often must survive with only a single part-time paid staff person or the volunteer efforts of the Council members themselves. Whether the placement, or positioning, of these regional corporations effectively between the federal government and individual tribes has in the end been beneficial to all Alaska Native villages is a question that must remain unanswered, and, it is apparent from the testimony heard by the Commission that the question, which is often implied if not explicitly stated, would elicit different answers in different parts of the state. It is noteworthy that the largest P.L. 93-638 contract into which the federal government has entered is between the Alaska Area Native Health Service and the Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, and the contract negotiated with the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation is not that far behind. Furthermore, throughout the Indian Health Service there are altogether 50 hospitals, of which eight are under tribal contract; five of those eight (63%) are in Alaska. There are 452 outpatient centers and clinics, of which 331 are under tribal contract, and of that number 183 (55%) are in Alaska.*? Given that Alaska is only one of 12 Areas within the Indian Health Service, that is a record of self- “PL. 100-472, Section 806. 43 ‘Regional Differences in Indian Health: 1992. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 190 determination contracting to which Alaska Natives can proudly point. The employment and economic consequences of these contracts warrant considerable attention, as do the overall amounts of government funding that flow through them into all parts of Alaska every year. As the next sub-sections show, during the most recent contract and grant periods reported to the Commission by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, the total funding levels are substantial. Approximate totals for the different categories of funding processes are shown in Table 7. It should be noted that grants from the Indian Health Service under Section 103(b) of P.L. 100-472, which are administered directly from headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, are not included here. The figures are not precise, due to the changing nature of these funding instruments over the year and the ability of contractors to carry over unspent funds from one year to the next. These should be viewed as suggestive only, not as auditable amounts. The Native regional non-profit corporations, which have the bulk of the contracted funds, are also able to pursue reimbursement for services from Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance carriers. Not surprisingly, these are available more readily to the non-profit health corporations (e.g., the Norton Sound Health Corporation) - and to those which contract with both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service - than they are to non-health corporations (e.g., Kawerak) because of the kinds of services that they provide. The income generated by these additional reimbursement alternatives have not been systematically projected for FY 1993 in the documents reviewed by the Commission, but it is known that they add significantly to the figures shown in the table above. For example, the amount projected to be recovered from Medicare and Medicaid in FY 1993 by the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation alone is over $2,500,000. Table 7: Funds Distributed to Alaska Tribes Under P.L. 93-638/100-472 in FY 1992 BIA Grants $10,562,548 BIA Contracts $20,936,676 BIA Southeast Compact $6,306,250 THS Contracts $141,624,697 Total $179,430,171 2. Bureau of Indian Affairs a. Level of Funding in Alaska vs. the Lower 48. Of the 12 Areas within the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Juneau Area (i.e., Alaska) ranks first in the total number of tribes that have been federally recognized and are eligible for direct or contracted services from the Bureau (187); Sacramento is second with 92 tribal governments. Alaska ranks third in the number of Natives to be served. But it ranks eleventh, next to the lowest, in the amount of money it receives for Operation of Indian Programs, which includes tribal services, education, natural resources, general administration, facilities management, trust responsibilities, and economic development. The per capita level of funding for the Juneau Area is only $399, compared to $1,801 for the Portland Area, which ranked first.** Furthermore, the allocation of funds to the Bureau's Central Office represents 3.75 times “Analysis of the Distribution of Bureau of Indian Affairs Operation of Indian Programs Funds. Report prepared by the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., January 8, 1992. 191 the amount Alaska receives and, when placed in ranks, is second only to Navajo. Although this obvious misalignment of funding has been brought to the attention of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the Secretary of the Interior, and Congress, there has been no apparent move to correct it. b. Distribution of Contract Funds in Alaska. The Juneau Area Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs provided the Commission with detailed listings of all grants and contracts that were awarded in FY 1992, with a year-end total amount for each, which provided an accurate portrait of the funding that flows from that federal agency to Alaska Native Village Councils and regional non-profit corporations.*° These are synopsized in Table 8 and are shown in full detail, by contract and program component, in the Appendix. Altogether, there were 30 contracts under P.L. 93-638/100-472, one of which was technically a compact (Kawerak, Inc.). Programatic and financial information relative to these contracts can be found in a series of tables in the Appendix. Table 8: BIA Grant Totals by Category BIA GRANTS FOR FY 1992 NUMBER AMOUNT Core Management 1 $14,500 Indian Child Welfare Act 95 $4,679,387 Community/Economic Development 8 $649,876 Housing Improvement 1 $28,775 Johnson O'Malley 46 $3,052,889 Planning (Sect. 103) 3 $182,500 Small Tribes (Sec. 103) 33 $475,000 Training & Technical Assistance (Sec. 103) 1 $65,000 Road Maintenance 18 $217,818 Tribal Courts 6 $87,660 Miscellaneous 10 $1,109,143 Totals 222 $10,562,548 In Indian Health Service contracts, the recurring amounts are contracted from year to year, subject to certain increases and decreases that may be passed along from Congress, headquarters, or the Area Office. Non-recurring funds include those special one-time funds that are made available in certain programs - even though those often do in fact recur from year to year - and carry-over funds that are not spent in the preceding fiscal year. For more information on Indian Health Service contracting, please see the Appendix. The overwhelming bulk of IHS funds are designated for "hospitals and clinics," which is somewhat of a "catch-all" program label that includes, for many contractors, the Community Health Aide Program and, for others, Tribal Management Support, which “The Alaska Natives Commission thanks Mr. Niles Cesar, Juneau Area Director, Mr. William A. Allen, Assistant Area Director, Administration, and Mr. Robert T. Elliott, Chief, Acquisition and Property Management, Juneau Area Office, for providing the information used in this section to the Commission at staff's request. 192 funds some of the administrative costs of the contractor. The lowest priorities are revealing, with the health education program consuming less than one tenth of one percent of the contract totals and mental health less than two tenths of one percent. With the excessive rates of suicide and other inental health problems that continue to surface among Alaska Natives, it is a wonder that so little has been contracted for mental health programs. Likewise, with the shift toward health education emerging as a major recommendation of the Alaska Natives Commission, based on every indicator that has been reviewed and that has repeatedly shown the huge need for greatly enhanced health education and health promotion programs, it is remarkable that the Indian Health Service has chosen to relegate health education to such a lowly position that for every $1.00 spent for health education $996.00 are spent for other programs that are largely responding to the failure of the Indian Health Service to provide health education. 3. Governmental Problems that Need to be Addressed a. The Indirect Shortfall. Both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service have, over the last few years, experienced a shortage in the amount of contract support funds that have been available for P.L. 93-638 contractors. This has resulted in the "indirect shortfall" problem, meaning that although a tribe or tribal organization (e.g., a regional non-profit corporation) has an indirect cost rate that has been officially approved by the federal government, it cannot collect the approved amount from the government, which inevitably leads to both financial and programmatic consequences that can be damaging to the tribe or tribal organization and actually threaten its continuing existence. The total amount of the indirect shortfall for the Bureau of Indian Affairs P.L. 93-638 contracts in Alaska for the current fiscal year has been projected to be approximately $1,600,000. This includes the shortage in not only indirect charges per se but other contract support costs as well, including the Indian Self-Determination funds that are supposed to be available to help new contractors begin their programs. The situation in the Indian Health Service is worse, with an indirect shortfall for FY 1993 totaling $3,046,459. There is a compounding set of factors at play regarding the indirect shortfall situation, and it involves the splintering of the heretofore intact regional contracts into many separate - and smaller - sub-regional contracts. The enactment of P.L. 100-472 spurred the federal government to provide more technical assistance to villages to assume their own self- determination contracts, which, more often than not in Alaska, meant removing programs from the regional corporations. As this has occurred, there have been three consequences. First, the separate contracts have required the injection of Indian Self-Determination ("start- up") funds and other contract support costs that had not been required before. Second, the tribal programs have at times developed a higher indirect cost rate, resulting from having to have an administrative staff if even only one small program (e.g., the Community Health Representative) is contracted; an obvious case in point is the Village of Ninilchik, which has an indirect cost rate of 79.5 percent. Third, when revenues have been reduced at the regional level but many fixed costs have not, there has been an increase in the percentage of regional contract funds being required for administrative overhead, and the indirect charges in the regional contracts have increased as well. It appears, then, that the removal of programs from the regional non-profit corporations has, at least so far, resulted in an overall increase in the percentage of funds budgeted for contract support and administrative costs, which, in turn, has led to an increase in the indirect shortfall from year to year. This and other aspects of the trend toward separate tribal contracting are discussed in a later section, which reviews the "dismemberment" of the regional non-profit corporations. b. Organization and Chain of Command within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. For at least the last seven years, there has been discussion within the Bureau of Indian Affairs 193 concerning the possibility of reorganization. In the mid-1980s a plan was developed that would have moved the Area office from Juneau to Anchorage and reduced the size of the Agency offices, but it was not implemented. In more recent years, a Reorganization Task Force was assembled to study possible reorganization of the entire Bureau, some of which was prompted by publicly reported findings that, in the Lower 48, the Bureau's accounting systems were so poorly organized that millions of dollars had, for all practical purposes, disappeared, and programs were not being appropriately managed. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs moved to re-centralize many program and operational authorities that had previously been delegated to the Area Offices, and a new Office of Self-governance was created to guide the implementation of the Self-governance Demonstration Project. All in all, these changes have led to a weakening of the role of the Area Director in Alaska and more day-to-day "micromanagement" from the Bureau's headquarters, which have been detrimental to Alaska's tribes and tribal organizations. c. The Indian Health Service Area Office: A Continuing Institution. The Alaska Area Native Health Service, or more simply the Area Office, was established to provide support to the Indian Health Service facilities and staff in Alaska at a time when all Indian Health Service functions were administered directly, before any P.L. 93-638 contracting had begun. At the present time, however, the Area Office provides continuing direct support only to the Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage, the Barrow Hospital, and the Ketchikan Health Center. The rest of the Area Office effort is now largely dedicated to support and monitor the programs under contract to tribes and tribal organizations; the mission of the Area Office does not include the provision of any direct health care or service. The budget for the Area Office has steadily risen over the years - for example, from $22,418,253 in FY 1988 to $31,608,170 in FY 1992, with a staff of 325 federal employees - even though (ostensibly) its role has declined as more and more functions were assumed by tribes and tribal organizations. Ironically, there are some notable oddities in the oversight of tribal programs that have also brought increased attention to the Area Office. The total amount in P.L. 93-638 contracts for health education in all of Alaska is about $405,000, but the Area budget for managing and monitoring that amount is $107,000, which evidently also pays for health education support to the remaining federal facilities. Because of questions that have been raised about the Area Office, both from within the Indian Health Service and from tribes and tribal organizations, the Alaska Area Native Health Service commissioned the Alaska Native Health Board to conduct a study to review the scope and functions of the Area Office and to make recommendations for improving its efficiency in the future. The report resulting from that study was published in May 1993.°° The study's conclusions and recommendations are generally critical of the Area Office, noting, by and large, that while consuming one-eighth of the total funding that the Alaska Area receives from the Indian Health Service, the Office duplicates many functions that are handled elsewhere and, in some of its functions, may actually retard rather than improve the functioning of contracts and direct federal facilities. The overriding recommendation is for the Office to trim back its costs and staff while enabling all of its systems to become more decentralized. During the final quarter of FY 1993 Vice President Gore's "reinventing government" movement had a significant impact on the operation of the Area Office which, in its own way, has broadened the scope of the decentralization effort. The Area and the Alaska Native Medical Center participated in a novel review of its needs, operational policies, and procedures which have to date led to a substantial increase in Area-level authority for procurement, acquisition, personnel, subcontracting, automated data processing, and “Alaska Area Native Health Service: Area Office Management Review, Final Report. Anchorage: Alaska Native Health Board, May 1993. 194 numerous other administrative programs of the Area Office. There are two anticipated outcomes of this reform. First, the efficiency of the Area Office should increase proportional to its ability to make local decisions and exercise local control over operations that had in the past required approval from the Indian Health Service Headquarters in Maryland or other offices in New Mexico. Second, as a result of this efficiency, some of the recommendations made by the Alaska Native Health Board's study may be able to be implemented more quickly than had been anticipated at the time that study was completed. It is the hope of the Commission that with limited federal funds and increasing needs for health services among Alaska Natives, it will be possible for the Alaska Area Native Health Service to move both money and staff from Area Office operations to tribal contracting and direct service. Also, as the Indian Health Service enters into compacting with tribes and tribal organizations, the funds that have been designated for Area functions will be re-aligned and contracted out, as has been the case within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. When that process reaches its culmination, only a very limited non-contractible set of duties will be retained by the federal government, at which point the Area Office should be reduced to a minimum. d. Recent Trends: The "Dismemberment" of Regional Non-Profits. Recently there has been an increase in the movement of individual IRA and traditional councils to separate themselves from their respective regional non-profit corporations and establish their own independent contracts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service (i.e., Alaska Area Native Health Service) to provide programs and services under P.L. 93- 638/100-472. This trend has, in fact, accelerated during the brief period of time the Alaska Natives Commission has been in existence. There is no doubt that these many new P.L. 93-638 contracts from Alaska Native villages are consistent with the intent of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, but they have some pragmatic consequences that need to be reviewed. First, if the current system of health care for Alaska Natives, which has been provided predominately through P.L. 93-638 contracts with regional non-profit corporations, were to be redistributed into 200-plus individual contracts, each with a single village, one could easily imagine both a loss of effectiveness, from the perspective of health care, and an increase in cost. At the present time, there are 30 contracts, of which 18 are held by regional non-profit corporations or tribal consortia (e.g., the Kenaitze Indian Tribe) and serve multiple villages. Were these 30 contracts redistributed to over 200 villages, each with its own contract and its own relationship with the Alaska Area Native Health Service, it is inevitable that the overall administrative costs required in the contracts would be greater than they are now and, the number of staff and support (e.g., travel, equipment, supplies, etc.) needed within the Alaska Area Native Health Service would be greater than it is now. Thus, from the viewpoint of considering only the costs of separate P.L. 93-638 contracts for all villages, an analysis would have to fall on the side that would conclude that it would not be the fiscally prudent path to follow.*” There is, however, another side to the question of P.L. 93-638 contracts, and that has to do with the control that local communities would have over their programs, their services, and their futures that they do not and cannot have when someone outside the village is administering programs for them. Going back to P.L. 93-638, the reason that the Indian Self-Determination Act came about was that "the prolonged Federal domination of Indian *’This hypothetical situation is raised for the sake or making a point only. As the Indian Health Service is currently structured, it would not be possible to contract many of the programs out to individual villages because the sums of money and number of personnel are too small; the programs would not be divisible, which is a criterion in P.L. 100-472 for them to be contracted. Nonetheless, there are continuing trends for some of the more readily divisible programs to be contracted to individual tribes (i.e., villages). 195 service programs has served to retard rather than enhance the progress of Indian people and their community by depriving Indians of the full opportunity to develop leadership skills crucial to the realization of self-government"** [emphasis added]. The relationship between P.L. 93-638 as a mechanism for transferring funds and administrative responsibility for the provision of programs and services that had previously been handled directly by the federal government was certainly an important element of the Act. But an equally significant goal of Congress at the time of passage of the Act was to enable each tribal government to govern its tribal members and to be empowered as a Native community, to determine its community's needs and to respond to those needs most effectively within the culture and traditions of the tribe, or, in the case of most of Alaska, the Native village. The Commission submits that through the P.L. 93-638 contracting process, as it has evolved, that most critical element, the empowerment of the Native community through self-governance, has been lost, and, furthermore, that it is the loss of that element that has led to other problems in Alaska Native communities, not the least of which is the high rate of crime and other judicial and correctional problems that have been addressed elsewhere by the Commission. In fact, many of the health problems that have been reviewed by the Alaska Natives Commission and that have led to recommendations that entail empowerment of individual villages and Native communities also relate to this very basic issue of P.L. 93-638 contracting. Too often, as village councils confront continuing frustrations trying to exercise governmental authority or to acquire a greater role in meeting the needs of their respective communities they sense the powerlessness that accompanies the realization that their tribal government has absolutely no control over the destiny of its members, which negatively impacts the individual, family, and community. Although each village council has the power to withdraw its authorizing tribal resolution, thereby removing itself from its regional corporation, the only immediate alternative - returning to the situation in which services and programs are delivered directly by the federal government - is seen as jumping from the frying pan into the fire. To acquire the program through a separate contract directly from the federal government, the council must demonstrate its administrative capability and prove that it can offer the same service or program without diminishing either its quality or quantity. These are not easy conditions for many villages to meet. Furthermore, once a contract is negotiated, the amounts of money that become available may be so small that it becomes practically impossible to meet the needs of tribal members anyway. For example, the FY 1992 contract that the Native Village of Kluti-Kaah had from the Bureau of Indian Affairs contained $74.00 for the Direct Employment Program and $23 for the Adult Education Program, to serve about 155 tribal members. The dilemma is obvious. Although it is important to control resources and bring more cash into the village, if the only way to accomplish those objectives is to be effectively saddled with having to implement categorical programs under contract to a federal agency, the demands may exceed the rewards. A solution should be available through the effective "unbundling" of program and service responsibilities from self-governance and local control. In other words, options should be made available for IRA and traditional governments in Alaska to acquire funds to support governmental functions without having to contract for services and programs, as a round-about way to gain administrative funds. It is this approach that establishes the foundation of the Commission recommendations, which are presented in the next, and final, section. Second, when village councils do decide to seek program contracts from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, both of those PL. 93-638, Section 2, "Congressional Findings." 196 federal agencies should relinquish the categorical restrictions that would then enable the villages to use their limited funds to meet their own needs, within set parameters, rather than being limited to trying to squeeze any kind of sensible direct employment program (for instance) for 155 tribal members with only $74.00 a year. C. Findings and Recommendations The Commission went to great lengths to seek the testimony of all the regional non-profit corporations in order to establish the magnitude of resources available from all government sources to each of these entities and how those resources are used for the benefit of individual Alaska Natives. It should be noted that the Commission disseminated a very detailed list of questions to all those invited to testify at its hearings well in advance of the scheduled hearing dates. Of the 17 regional non-profit P.L. 93-638 contractors that were solicited to testify, only nine did, and of those entities that did testify many failed to respond specifically to the Commission's published questions. The Commission is perplexed why this evasion of the issues existed. For the record, a complete copy of the questionnaire is included as Appendix. Because of the lack of specific response to the questionnaire, the Commission relied to a great extent on the research of staff to compile the information for this portion of its study. 1. Costs and Benefits of Contracting There are several different levels on which the costs and benefits of contracting under P.L. 93-638/100-472 must be considered. First and foremost, the implementation of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act has offered opportunities and provided broad resources to Alaska Natives, and the new compacts are extending even greater latitude to tribes and tribal organizations to meet their locally determined needs without the "micromanagement" that often characterized the early P.L. 93-638 contracts. At the second level, due to the existence of the Alaska Native regional non-profit corporations at the time P.L. 93-638 contracting began, they effectively positioned themselves between the federal government and the individual "tribes" at the village level. Since the regional non- profit corporations offered a ready conduit for contracting and were viewed as bringing money, jobs, and decision-making down to the "local level," the village councils, in all but a few instances, fully supported and encouraged the corporations to pursue contracts from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. Over the years, however, the tensions between some of the regional non-profit corporations and the villages that they serve grew, and, within the last two or three years, several of the regional non-profit corporations have begun to be disassembled. Approximately half of the villages in the Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association withdrew their health resolutions and realigned with the newly formed East Aleutian Tribe. Several villages in the Ahtna region have pulled out of the Copper River Native Association in recent months. Councils in other regions have completed feasibility studies for future separate contracting, typically with the assistance of grants from the Administration for Native Americans or the Indian Health Service Tribal Management program under Section 103(b) of P.L. 100-472, and the momentum seems to be building to further the separation of the non-profit corporations in some regions. However, in some cases the effort that has resulted at the village level, with numerous regulatory requirements, close federal monitoring, etc., was not fully anticipated. In short, some IRA and traditional councils are now revisiting the question and asking whether the gains have been worth the costs. 197 It has become evident to the Alaska Natives Commission that there is to some extent a confusion of goals and the means to achieve those goals. Tribal councils are striving to achieve self-governance and local control, in a word, empowerment. But the means by which they can reach that goal have been largely limited to acquiring contracts from the federal government which in turn require them to provide specific services in specific ways, submit reports, keep records, and engage in a large number of administrative tasks that are related to the contract but not necessarily to the pursuit of self-governance. In other words, at the village level the system has effectively reverted to micromanagement. 2. Recommendation: Re-instate the "104(a)" Grant Program The Bureau of Indian Affairs had, for several years, small grants that were available on a non-competitive basis to IRA and traditional councils of the federally acknowledged tribes and which provided a small amount of continuing support for maintaining some level of tribal administration in the villages. Although technically these were not to have been used solely for administrative support (i.e., they were "planning grants" and were supposed to be project-oriented), they were in some respects the equivalent of a small revenue sharing program, directly from the federal government to tribal governments, that resembled and paralleled the State's revenue sharing that supported - and continues to support - the administration of the city governments that co-exist in many of Alaska's villages. Subsequent to the abolishment of the 104(a) grants, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has re-directed the grant funds to three competitive programs: core management grants (of which there was only one in FY 1992 - to a regional non-profit corporation - for $14,500); planning grants (of which there were three totaling $182,500, one of which was to a regional non-profit corporation,); and, "small tribe grants," which are practically limited to village councils that have experienced some significant problem with the Bureau, such as an audit exception (of which there were 33 grants, for a total of $475,000). There is no evidence that the Bureau has evaluated the effectiveness of these programs or whether any consideration has been given to re-instating the former non-competitive 104(a) grants, now renumbered to "103(a) grants" as a result of P.L. 100-472. The Commission recommends that such an evaluation be completed by the Bureau and that, unless there is compelling evidence that would convincingly argue against it, the 103(a) grant program be re-instated to provide stable, albeit small, financial support for tribal administrations in Alaska. At the same time, the Bureau (in consultation with tribal governments) should review the cost-effectiveness of maintaining several other categorical programs in Alaska, such as agriculture and realty, to determine if funds spent there could not be better used to support tribal governance, courts, and other activities that will strengthen local empowerment. An additional asset that could be directed toward supporting tribal governments, is the annual allocation for training and technical assistance that the Area Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs receives. In previous years, these funds were designated separately in the Area budget but apparently now are contained within the administrative budget category. Nonetheless, the Commission recommends that a coordinated program of decentralized training and assistance be offered by the Bureau, supported by these funds, at the village level to accompany the re-instatement of the 103(a) grant program. Furthermore, the Administration for Native Americans, which also has a goal of strengthening tribal governments and which invests approximately $600,000 a year in pursuit of that goal in Alaska, should also direct its funding into this statewide training and technical assistance effort. Both the re-instatement of the 103(a) grants and the training and technical assistance program should be designed with specific tribal consultation with the tribes of Alaska (i.e., not groups purported to represent those tribes) in order to optimize the effectiveness of the 198 procedures that will be employed. Objectives should include: a) the establishment of a fully functioning tribal government in any Alaska Native village that chooses to participate in the new program; b) continued, stable, financial support that constitutes a "federal revenue sharing" program and does not require competitive application; and, c) assistance in developing governmental programs (e.g., tribal courts, land management, ordinances and permitting) that do not require service program contracting under P.L. 93-638 to succeed. Because of the long-range, broad benefits that these program changes will have, it would be reasonable for the Indian Health Service to participate in their funding as well. As the Bureau's use of funds in the recent competitive grant programs under Section 103({a) may not have been carefully evaluated, so too has the Section 103(b) grant program of the Indian Health Service continued without a public assessment. That competitive program has been restructured in recent years but has, in Alaska, supported such projects as major automated data processing changes and management development for the regional non-profit corporations. The Commission recommends that the Alaska Area 103(b) grant program be carefully evaluated and considered for a similar re-directing to the village level in order to strengthen and stabilize tribal governments in Alaska. To accompany this new program, the non-profit corporations should be directed - as a requirement of their contracting with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service - to increase their provision of technical assistance to village tribal governments in their respective regions. Consideration should be given to establishing a matching-grant program by which the regional non-profit corporations would distribute some of their administrative funds to tribal governments that become involved in the redesigned Section 103(a) and 103(b) grant programs. The regional non-profit corporations should also work with those tribal governments to review significant shifts in programs and services from the regional to the village level, for the purpose of developing roles and responsibilities in such a way that competition between the regions and the villages they serve be replaced by a cooperative pursuit, balancing the community and tribal empowerment needs with the realities of providing cost-effective, high quality services throughout the state. 3. Fiscal Considerations Although the costs of implementing this new approach may initially require an increase in appropriations, much of the financial support for the grants and training can be made available by re-directing current appropriations and allocations within the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services and by moving funds from the regional level to the village level within Alaska. Additionally, within a relatively brief period of time the savings in other types of administrative costs should balance out any of the initial "start-up" expenditures required. The positive consequences of the empowerment of tribal government will be realized in areas beyond those that would be considered strictly "governmental," although these will be important (e.g., establishing local dispute resolution bodies and mechanisms, enabling probation and parole at the local level, etc.). There will also be other economic, employment, education, resource management, subsistence, and psychological consequences. Furthermore, the ability of the federal agencies to enter compacting agreements and contracts with the assurance that the contracting governments will have some administrative support that is not dependent on that compact or contract will help ensure both effective service provision and a stable, accountable management of the agreements. 199 4. Regional Non-profit Reorientation In recognition of the fact that some regional non-profit corporations have acquired the bureaucratic accoutrements of the federal offices (e.g., Bureau of Indian Affairs Agencies] that they were ostensibly to replace, the Commission recommends that the federal and state departments that provide grants and contracts to the regional non-profit corporations be directed to evaluate the programs and fund utilization of the corporations for the purpose of limiting administrative costs and striving to move more of the funds, functions and services to the villages. This review should include the trends in indirect cost rates over time with a goal of maximizing administrative efficiency that would ultimately lead to a cap in allowable indirect charges, thereby to some extent relieving the indirect shortfall problem. In the same way that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service need to decentralize their functions, the regional non-profit corporations should also move money, authority, and responsibility to the villages. 1 The federal obligation to aid in this distributive process extends to the policymakers who have established that categorical funding must be carried down to the lowest level, with an Alaska tribal contractor receiving $23 a year to carry out an Adult Education Program. Consistent with the spirit of the Self-governance Demonstration Project, tribes should be able to determine their own needs, within reasonable parameters, and use their funds to meet those needs, particularly in cases that the funds attached to Bureau-determined program categories are too small to provide any benefit. The Commission acknowledges that there are large differences between the many regional non-profit corporations in Alaska and does not want to give the impression that it is being unduly critical of the corporations nor to imply that all of the corporations are experiencing the problems mentioned here: regional non-profit corporations are attempting to balance economy of scale with responsiveness to local needs. However, the testimony of some of the tribal, village representatives revealed a critical view of their regional non- profit corporation, and there is no doubt that the sense of confusion and frustration discussed earlier is pervasive in much of Alaska. Until the IRA and traditional councils of Alaska have a permanent acceptance of their authority and can truly exercise that authority through cohesive community action that empowers the village residents and enables them to shed the sense of powerlessness that has grown to dangerous levels, many problems will continue to escalate. The time has come to "revamp" the systems that have led to passive and non-functioning tribal governments and the tensions that have grown between the villages and their regional non- profit and for-profit corporations. The recommendations made here, if implemented in good faith, will help accomplish this objective. A substantial amount of the preceding also applies to regional for-profit corporations, which deserve additional study. IV. Fish, Game and Subsistence A. Regulatory Processes and Outcomes It has become clear to the members of the Commission, having listened to the complaints and pleas of Alaska Natives around the state, that neither regulatory processes nor their outcomes have respected the cultural traditions or the basic needs of Alaska's indigenous people when fish and game are concerned. Furthermore, the salmon-run disasters of 1993, which inflicted great hardship on Alaska Natives along the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers - - and were further compounded by the decision on the part of the State of Alaska to replace a subsistence way of life with a welfare-oriented hand-out of dead fish - demonstrated the incapability of either the state or federal governments to manage the fisheries of Alaska. When the "by-pass" catch is permitted to continue to kill hundreds of thousands of Alaska- bound salmon each year and when sports-fishing organizations direct their lobbies against Alaska Natives, who all in all remove relatively few fish but need those fish to survive, rather than the giants of the commercial fishing industry, then there must be change. It is the conclusion of the Commission that, although it is unquestionably the lesser of two evils, state government should manage fish and game in Alaska, not the federal government. State management should proceed according to and consistent with the current, prevailing federal laws and regulations, such as those contained in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), including rural preference for subsistence -- until such time that preference may be given to all indigenous, Native people of Alaska, irrespective of their residence. Should state government continue to resist the performance of its duty under federal laws, existing litigation to compel such compliance under the federal supremacy clause should be vigorously pressed. As vulnerable to influential lobbies as the state legislature has revealed itself to be, there is greater potential for the voice of Alaska Natives to be heard in Juneau than in Washington, D.C. However, at the same time, the Native groups that speak with a collective voice and the elected and bureaucratic groups that must hear that voice should also be organized in such a way that both access to and imposition upon the policymakers is more immediate and direct. B. Regionalizing the Fish and Game Boards An example of such a change in the organization of policymaking groups and regulatory processes that will better enable Alaska Natives to exert some influence, couched in self- determination and local governance, over the statutes and regulations that have in many respects eliminated the cultural basis of subsistence and have reduced it to the equivalent of bow-hunting for elk in the Lower 48 is the regionalization of the Alaska Boards of Fish and Game. The regulation of subsistence has, to date, totally ignored the underlying Alaska Native cultural patterns of sharing and providing for not only oneself but one's community in ways that have been passed from generation to generation for millennia. Because these traditions vary from one region to another, it is incumbent upon the State of Alaska to decentralize the authority of the current Boards, enabling locally established traditions and practices to be considered in the determination of local use patterns, seasons, and limits. The Boards' enabling statute, established in 1959, authorized the creation of advisory committees, of which there are currently 80, with membership ranging between 900 and 1,000 from year to year. Subsequently, regional fish and game councils were established pursuant to ANILCA, but, due to the absence of federal funding to support them, they 201 became inactive.* Nonetheless, state government spends over $1,500,000 annually on the local advisory committees and meetings of the Fish and Game Boards, while most indications continue to be that this system, though expensive and giving the appearance, at least, of local involvement, does not honor the local cultural traditions of the Alaska Native people. Several examples of the ways that current regulations have unnecessarily restricted subsistence harvests have been brought before the Commission. In testimony in Nome, one of the participants noted that the opportunities for fishing were so rigidly fixed that if the weather did not cooperate with the regulations, thereby prohibiting local Natives from putting their small boats out during the "opening," they were completely shut out of harvesting their food. Another participant, testifying in Dillingham, noted how the regulations forbid her, and the rest of the Elders, from taking "red fish" (i.e., salmon that have turned red at the time of spawning), which are considered a traditional delicacy among her people. A third example, from the Ahtna region, is the policy requiring that only moose with racks 50-inch or more across can be taken, a regulation that is practically discriminatory against Alaska Natives and obviously favors guides and sports -- and "trophy" -- hunters. Many more examples abound of the kinds of policies and practices that must be eliminated. The Commission recommends that the Governor and the Alaska Legislature re-configure the Fish and Game Boards to enable Alaska Natives to regain more local control over subsistence resources, harvests, and traditional uses. The federal government should also augment the authority of the ANILCA regional councils. Parameters will need to be established and maintained to prevent accidental depletion of resources in one region due to harvests in another region; but it is also obvious that a significant restructuring of the system is mandatory, based on the 1993 disasters of the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers mentioned above. The Commission further recommends that each regional board have veto power over the application of hunting and fishing regulations that would impact subsistence in their respective region, or, at the least, some avenue to apply directly to the Governor to have the policies revised. An oversight group, composed of representatives elected by the regional boards, should review policies and regulations no less often than annually to ensure that one region's regulations are not adversely affecting another region's subsistence and, as needed, to establish broad parameters in which the regional boards would operate. These recommended changes should enable local Alaska Natives to negotiate more reasonable regulations that are also more consonant with their traditional use patterns than is the case under the current circumstances. For example, instead of limiting fishing on the Seward Peninsula to a fixed beginning and ending time, a window of opportunity could be provided, with the limit set on the number of days an individual would be allowed to fish during that more extended period of time, thereby enabling those with limited resources to harvest their fish when the weather - and the government - permitted. “In August 1993, Secretary Babbitt announced the appointment of 84 individuals to 10 Regional Advisory Councils, pursuant to Title VIII of ANILCA, to "provide a bridge between people who depend on the land and its resources and federal land managers." (Department of Interior News Release, August 19, 1993.) The Councils report to the Federal Subsistence Board Chair, who is appointed by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture. The local control that the Alaska Natives Commission recommends in this report is more substantive than simply advisory as, it appears, these councils will be. 202 C. Limited Entry The problems that have been created by the limited entry permitting program have been discussed often, and there is general agreement that the issue of limited entry can be seen as a textbook case of a good idea gone bad. Over the years in far too many Alaska Native villages, the age-old passage of a work ethic and a vocation from one generation to the next has been severed, as the young grow up without any hope of having their own fishing vessel and their own independent business in the absence of a limited entry permit. Although the Commission cannot offer an easy solution to the problems that this program has created, solutions there must be, and the Commission does recommend that the State of Alaska establish a special task force, with strong representation of Alaska Native communities, to study this problem and propose ways in which the program can either be expanded to allow additional permits to be acquired or, alternatively, replaced with a program that accomplishes more effectively what the original objective of the program was while, most importantly, honoring Alaska Natives' traditions and needs. An example of such a solution which is offered for consideration is the assignment of permits to Alaska Native village councils, for use by village residents only, neither to be sold nor removed from the village if the current holder leaves. D. Reindeer The Hagemeister Island debacle, juxtaposed as counterpoint to the lingering controversy and legal threats that have surrounded the successful reindeer herding operation outside Palmer, illustrate the incapability of the government to respond reasonably to the continuing questions about reindeer management in Alaska. While requests of the Alaska Natives of Togiak were ignored and hundreds of reindeer shot and wasted on Hagemeister Island, a carefully managed and economically sound business venture involving Canadian- purchased reindeer has been ordered to liquidate because its owner is non-Native. Thus, while on the one hand destroying reindeer and turning a deaf ear to the mediating voice of Togiak Natives, the government proposes to destroy a business for the alleged reason of protecting Native interests. The irony is remarkable, yet those government agencies responsible for these two events proceed as if both actions made sense. Only a few years ago the Natives of Mekoryuk faced a similar dilemma, as their reindeer herd had grown to the size that it threatened the agriculture of Nelson Island, which led in turn to the United States Department of Agriculture's threatening to destroy the herd. In that case, however, the assistance of the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs was sought and obtained, funds were made available to complete a slaughterhouse, herd controls were imposed by the people of Mekoryuk, and the resource was not only managed but has been able to provide both food and cash income to the village. By comparing these two examples, it appears as though the Department of the Interior (and, perhaps, the Department of Agriculture) should review their policies regarding reindeer herding, offering assistance to tribes and Native groups long before a crisis situation is reached. The Commission also calls upon the Department of the Interior to look to its own responsibilities related to tribal consultation and working for and with Alaska Native villages (i.e., tribes) rather than against them. Moreover, the Commission urges all state and federal agencies to build and maintain a consultative process with local Native groups when problems such as those that occurred on Hagemeister Island arise, to ensure that a more simple, harmonious solution that is less damaging and more consistent with the needs and cultural traditions of Alaska Natives is not overlooked. 203 E. A Myriad Issues This study touches lightly on only a small number of the myriad issues that prevail regarding self-determination, tribal governance, local control, permitting, and the many statutes, policies, and rules that regulate the taking of fish and game in Alaska, and by their inherent nature impact on the subsistence lifestyles of Alaska Native people. It is the hope of the Commission that Alaska Natives will not acquiesce to either the state or federal government in the management of fish and game in Alaska and that they will strive to organize their forces to counter the lobbies that have gained such power in Congress, in the state legislature, and among the boards and policymaking agencies that now control hunting and fishing in the state. By pulling together and forming a united voice that represents Alaska Native needs, subsistence, cultural traditions, and the importance of resource management and harvesting to the future of the people -- and by voting to retain those who support Alaska Natives and remove those who do not -- it will be possible to exert greater influence over the politicians and policymakers, not only to improve the situation regarding subsistence but all aspects of self-determination and self-governance. 204 APPENDIX< ANCHORAGE CTEO1x84601 CTEO1x81001 CTEO1x80901 CTEO1x80801 CTE0O1xX80701 CTEO1T24601 Bureau of Indian Affairs Contracts FY-1992 Contracts ALASKA NATIVE FOUNDATION Tribal Operations Social Services Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Indirect Cost TOTAL ALEUTIAN/PRIBILOF ISLAND ASSOCIATION Higher Education Tribal Operations Social Services Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Indirect Cost TOTAL BRISTOL BAY NATIVE ASSOCIATION Higher Education Adult Education Tribal Operations Social Services Credit & Finance Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Realty ANILCA Natural Resources Indirect Costs TOTAL COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL Higher Education Tribal Operations Social Services Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Agriculture Indirect Costs TOTAL COPPER RIVER NATIVE ASSOCIATION Higher Education Adult Education Tribal Operations Social Services Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Other Rights Protection ANILCA Agriculture Forestry Forest Fire Mgmt. Wildlife Management Indirect Costs TOTAL KENAITZE INDIAN TRIBE Higher Education Adult Education Tribal Operations Social Services Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Agriculture Indirect Costs TOTAL $ 15,500.00 87,225.00 11,100.00 75,800.00 30,264.00 33s; 889.00 $ 98,778.00 115,588.00 141,531.00 20,494.00 136,312.00 90,641.00 $ 603,344.00 $ 326,427.00 6,214.00 261,983.00 287,700.00 35,100.00 10,274.00 211,691.00 287,673.00 161,900.00 60,300.00 352,265.00 $ 2,001,527.00 $ 239,952.00 48,495.00 160,059.00 15,711.00 222,852.00 7,500.00 81,939.00 776,508.00 $ 40,465.00 2,962.00 52,724.00 150,878.00 5,924.00 38,971.00 61,414.00 50,000.00 11,854.00 30,900.00 177,217.00 7,899.00 100,10 0 $ 721,22 0 $ 23,010.00 7,603.00 33,384.00 172,175.00 14,024.00 50,957.00 50,350.00 86,532.00 438,035.00 CTEO1T10201 CTEO1x80501 CTEO1DT80401 CTEO1T27901 CTE01T30901 CTE01xX80301 BETHEL CTEO2x81201 NATIVE VILLAGE OF KLUTI-KAAH Higher Education Adult Education Tribal Operations Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Indirect Costs TOTAL KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION Higher Education Tribal Operations Social Services Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Agriculture Indirect Costs TOTAL KODIAK TRIBAL COUNCII, Tribal Operations Indirect Costs TOTAL NATIVE VILLAGE OF LARSEN BAY Higher Education Tribal Operations Social Services Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Indirect Costs TOTAL MENTASTA TRADITIONAL VILLAGE COUNCIL Higher Education Tribal Operations Adult Voc. Trng. Indirect Costs TOTAL CHUGACHMIUT (Formerly North Pacific Rim) Higher Education Tribal Operations Social Services Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Natural Resources Chugach Regional Resource Com. Indirect Costs TOTAL ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS Higher Education Adult Education Tribal Operations Social Services Housing Program Credit & Finance Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Realty ANILCA Natural Resources Indirect Costs TOTAL $ 524.00 23.00 6,625.00 74.00 338.00 6,916.00 4,50 $ 167,388.00 71,123.00 130,053.00 10,921.00 140,003.00 200.00 133,040.00 $ 652.728.00 $ 14,165.00 1,417.00 15,582.00 $ 6,268.00 11,900.00 2,664.00 878.00 11,207.00 3,292.00 36,209.00 $ 9,552.00 6,625.00 7,764.00 11,748.00 35,689.00 $ 42,858.00 36,049.00 300,423.00 4,600.00 54,707.00 52,746.00 346,900.00 209,39 0 $ 1,047,680.00 $ 515,600.00 19,700.00 283,903.00 164,597.00 258,500.00 115,183.00 49,123.00 207,026.00 523,329.00 306,400.00 237,850.00 780,809.00 $3, 462,019.00 CTEO2xX81101 CTE02T27501 CTEO2T27601 CTEO2T4301 FAIRBANKS CTEO3X84701 CTEO3X81301 CTEO3T16201 KUSKOKWIM NATIVE ASSOC IATION Higher Education Tribal Operations Social Services Adult Voc. Trng. Realty ANILCA (Realty) ANILCA (Subsistence) Natural Resources Agriculture Indirect Costs -TOTAL KWETHLUK IRA COUNCIL Tribal Operations Social Services Credit & Finance Natural Resources Indirect Costs TOTAL KWIGILLINGOK IRA COUNCIL Tribal Operations Social Services Credit & Finance Natural Resources Indirect Costs TOTAL ORUTSARAMUIT NATIVE COUNCIL Higher Education Tribal Operations Social Services Housing Program Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Agriculture Indirect Costs TOTAL ARCTIC SLOPE NATIVE ASSOCIATION Higher Education Tribal Operations Social Services Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Realty Wildlife & Parks Indirect Costs TOTAL FAIRBANKS NATIVE ASSOCIATION Social Services Indirect Costs TOTAL NATIVE VILLAGE OF FORT YUKON Higher Education Adult Education Tribal Operations Social Services Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Realty Indirect Costs TOTAL $ 49,205.00 36,045.00 119,475.00 5,853.00 109,937.00 46,620.00 25,500.00 24,472.00 67,236.00 118,529.00 F___ 627,538.00 $ 10,000.00 11,600.00 4,600.00 9,400.00 10,460.00 46,060.00 $ 5,296.00 8,228.00 3,691.00 7,206.00 2,442.00 26,863.00 $ 122,100.00 47,846.00 85,234.00 156,000.00 10,785.00 36,100.00 13,190.00 213,100.00 3 684,355.00 $ 73,576.00 260,144.00 82,449.00 5,784.00 61,959.00 95,684.00 79,851.00 393,200.00 $ 1,052,647.00 $ 239,714.00 46,385.00 $ 286,099.00 $ 31,400.00 1,680.00 37,596.00 30,422.00 26,543.00 34,590.00 61,000.00 44,800.00 $ 269,140.00 CTE0O3xX81701 CTX03X47501 CTE03X81401 NOME CTEO4T24901 CTE04T26901 CTEO4T81501 TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE, INC. Higher Education Adult Education Tribal Operations Agriculture Extension Social Services Housing Program Credit & Finance Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Real Estate Services ANILCA Agriculture Forestry Water Resources Wildlife & Parks Indirect Costs TOTAL Tanana IRA NATIVE COUNCIL Higher Education Tribal Operations Tribal Courts Social Services Credit & Finance Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Realty Agriculture Wildlife & Parks Indirect Costs TOTAL United Crow Band, Inc. Social Services Indirect Costs TOTAL KIANA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL Higher Education Tribal Operations Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Agriculture Indirect Costs TOTAL KOTZEBUE IRA COUNCIL Higher Education Tribal Operations Social Services Housing Program Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Rights Protection Indirect Costs TOTAL MANIILAQ ASSOCIATION Higher Education Adult Education Tribal Operations Social Services Direct Employment Adult Voc. Trng. Rights Protection ANILCA ANILCA (Sub) Real Estate Services ANILCA (Realty) Agriculture Indirect Costs TOTAL $ 362,156.00 19,055.00 433,708.00 9,900.00 160,065.00 216,000.00 80,671.00 299,039.00 397,049.00 270,584.00 130,500.00 109,835.00 115,328.00 33,900.00 250,602.00 421,397.00 $_3,309,753.00 $ 34,094.00 33,675.00 10,861.00 81,871.00 7,011.00 10,968.00 16,919.00 16,786.00 7,899.00 7,899.00 47,384.00 $ 275,367.00 $ 202,447.00 31,100.00 3 233,547.00 $ 11,300.00 6,819.00 3,200.00 12,864.00 5,347.00 18,000.00 $ 57,530.00 $ 80,900.00 36,637.00 125,613.00 92,000.00 18,600.00 74,772.00 26,970.00 152,484.00 607,976.00 $ 72,400.00 77,970.00 31,112.00 175,600.00 14,600.00 58,692.00 49,739.00 93,900.00 35,483.00 196,225.00 14,401.00 55,478.00 162,847.00 = 1,038,501.00 CTEO4T35201 NOME ESKIMO COMMUNITY Higher Education $ 55,900.00 Tribal Operations 31,112.00 Social Services 85,675.00 Housing Program 233,000.00 Direct Employment 14,600.00 Adult Voc. Trng. 58,692.00 Rights Protection 21,179.00 Agriculture 24,397.00 Indirect Costs 162,040.00 TOTAL ¥ 686,58 0 CTEO4T35501 NOORVIK IRA COUNCIL Higher Education $ 16,600. Tribal Operations 9,590. Direct Employment 4,500. Adult Voc. trng. 18,090. Agriculture 7,519. Indirect Costs 14,201 TOTAL $ 70,50 0 CTEO4T429901 NATIVE VILLAGE OF SELAWIK Tribal Operations $ 10,868. Housing Program 47,000. Direct Employment 5,100. Adult Voc. Trng. 20,502. Agriculture 8,522. Indirect Costs 32,000 TOTAL $ 123,99 BIA Contracts under P.L. 93-638: Direct vs. Indirect (FY 1992) TRIBAL ENTITY TOTAL TOTAL TOTALS DIRECT INDIRECT Alaska Native Foundation $ 189,625 $ 30,264 $ 219,889 Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Assn $ 512,703 $ 90,641 $ 603,344 Arctic Slope Native Association $ 659,447 $ 393,200 $ 1,052,647 Assn of Village Council Pres. $ 2,681,211 $ 780,809 $ 3,462,020 Bristol Bay Native Association $ 1,649,262 $ 352,265 $ 2,001,527 Chugachmiut $ 838,283 $ 209,397 $ 1,047,680 Cook Inlet Tribal Council $ 694,569 $ 81,939 $ 776,508 Copper River Native Association $ 631,208 $ 100,104 $ 731,312 Fairbanks Native Association $ 239,714 $ 46,385 $ 286,099 Native Village of Fort Yukon $ 223,150 $ 44,800 $ 267,950 Kawerak, Inc. $ 1,307,466 $ 223,577 $ 1,531,043 Kenaitze Indian Tribe $ 351,503 $ 86,532 $ 438,035 Kiana Traditional Council $ 39,530 $ 18,000 $ 57,530 Native Village of Kluti-Kaah $ 7,584 $ 6,916 $ 14,500 Kodiak Area Native Association $ 519,688 $ 133,040 $ 652,728 Kodiak Tribal Council $ 14,165 $ 1,417 $ 15,582 Kotzebue IRA Council $ 455,492 $ 152,484 $ 607,976 Kuskokwim Native Association $ 484,346 $ 118,529 $ 602,875 Kwethluk IRA Council $ 35,600 $ 10,460 $ 46,060 Kwigillingok IRA Council $ 24,421 $ 2,442 $ 26,863 Native Village of Larsen Bay $ 32,917 $ 3,292 $ 36,209 Maniilaq Association $ 875,654 $ 162,847 $ 1,038,501 Mentasta Trad. Village Council $ 23,941 $ 11,748 $ 35,689 Nome Eskimo Community $ 524,555 $ 162,040 $ 686,595 Noorvik IRA Council $ 56,299 $ 14,201 $ 70,500 Orutsaramiut Native Council $ 471,255 $ 213,100 $ 684,355 Native Village of Selawik $ 91,992 $ 32,000 $ 123,992 Tanana Chiefs Conference $ 2,888,356 $ 421,397 $ 3,309,753 Tanana IRA Native Council $ 227,983 $ 47,384 $ 275,367 United Crow Band $ 202,447 $ 31,100 $ 233,547 TOTALS $ 16,954,366 $ 3,982,310 $ 20,936,676 BIA Contract Totals by Program Category Program Category Amount Social Services $ 3,087,128 Higher Education $ 2,609,151 Adult Vocational Training $ 2,112,020 Tribal Operations $ 2,063,525 Realty $ 1,660,822 Housing Improvement $ 1,187,500 ANILCA $ 952,104 Direct Employment $ 596,242 Agriculture $ 533,164 Natural Resources $ 391,974 Chugach Regional Resource Council $ 346,900 Wildlife (and Parks) $ 346,251 Credit and Finance $ 246,256 Adult Education $ 226,737 Rights Protection $ 216,486 Forest Fire Control $ 177,217 Forestry $ 146,228 Water Resources $ 33,900 Tribal Courts $ 10,861 Agriculture Extension $ 9,900 BIA Tribal Compacts in Southeast Alaska Compact BIA JOM Child | Common COMPACT Base Base Base Abuse Fund TOTALS Inititative CCTHITA $2,164,518 $944,100 $304,208 sen" $200,000 $3,612,826 Angoon $141,287 $65,600 $28,568 $21,000 -- $256,455 Kake $166,908 $83,000 $28,413 $28,700 “ $307,021 Ketchikan $522,638 $309,100 $111,028 oo-- seo $942,766 Sitka $532,747 $345,100 $124,308 sree ooo $1,002,155 Yakutat $97,194 $45,900 $15,133 $26,800 —_ $185,027 TOTALS $3,625,292 | $1,792,800 $611,658 $76,500 $200,000 $6,306,250 Indian Health Service P.L. 93-638 Contracts for FY 1991 - FY 1993 Indian Health Service P.L. 93-638 Contracts (FY 1993) TRIBAL ENTITY Total Non- Indirect Approximate Recurring Recurring Grand Total Rate Indirect Alaska Native Health Board $260,400 $0 $260,400 0.00% | — wnneeee Aleutian/Pribilof Islands $1,018,814 $736,202 $1,755,016 34.00% $445,303 Bristol Bay Area Health $12,481,140 $0 $12,481,140 20.80% $2,149,070 Chugachmiut $2,503,832 $586,120 $3,089,952 34.70% $796,001 Cook Inlet Tribal Council $154,671 $32,250 $189,921 20.70% $32,571 Copper River Native Assn $2,110,056 $577,658 $2,687,714 29.80% $617,056 Native Village of Eklutna $78,880 $500 $79,380 0.00% $0 Eastern Aleutian Tribes Inc $886,674 $104,649 $991,323 0.00% $0 Fairbanks Native Assn $389,042 $72,817 $461,859 19.50% $75,366 Kenaitze Indian Tribe $649,016 $85,335 $734,351 35.30% $191,593 Ketchikan Indian Corp $187,778 $0 $187,778 79.40% $83,108 Kodiak Area Native Assn $3,803,250 $20,202 $8,823,452 25.60% $779,302 Kuskokwim Native Assn. $12,512 $0 $12,512 24.00% $2,422 Maniilaq Association $8,193,734 $210,983 $8,404,717 24.30% $1,643,078 Metlakatla Indian Comm. $1,771,111 $49,158 $1,820,269 49.00% $598,612 Ninilchik Trad. Council $364,834 $28,754 $393,588 79.50% $174,319 North Slope Borough $2,694,311 $0 $2,694,311 17.50% $401,280 Norton Sound Health Corp $12,343,196 $206,114 $12,549,310 29.60% $2,866,200 St. George Trad. Council $137,359 $24,125 $161,484 0.00% $0 Seldovia Village Tribe $363,863 $1,284 $365,147 0.00% $0 Southcentral Foundation $2,203,533 $741,388 $2,944,921 0.00% $0 South Kachemak Inc Alcohol $264,826 $120,900 $385,726 0.00% $0 SEARHC $16,416,116 $701,569 $17,117,685 16.20% $2,386,459 Tanana Chiefs Conference $16,567,099 $2,776,330 $19,343,429 19.50% $3,142,902 Tanana IRA Council $719,217 $10,555 $729,772 25.80% $149,667 Native Village of Tyonek $187,671 $11,995 $199,666 0.00% $0 Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corp $1,443,643 $9,584 $1,453,227 0.00% $0 Valdez Native Association $138,861 $52,713 $191,574 0.00% $0 Yak-Taat Kwaan, Inc $198,009 $500 $198,509 0.00% $0 Y-K Hlth Corp $16,584,211 $1,341,379 $17,925,590 38.00% $4,936,032 TOTALS $105,127,659 $8,506,064 $113,633,723 | wzennene $21,470,343 The foregoing table shows the P.L. 93-638 contracts from the Alaska Area Native Health Service to tribal contractors in Alaska for FY 1993. Unlike the tables depicting fund allocation from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service figures show recurring and non-recurring amounts of money. Also, because the indirect charges are incorporated in each program component and are not shown as a separate cost category, as they are for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the "Indirect Cost" column is not added to the other components, nor is it precise: an average indirect cost rate has been applied to the total contract amount for each contractor, even though several corporations have more than one indirect cost rate and the average may misrepresent the actual amount. Exclusions, such as for equipment and sub-contracts, were not taken into account. Thus, the indirect costs are suggestive only. Many of the contractors have, over the years, acquired a pattern of spending that sets aside a certain amount that is designated for carry-over in order to provide a "cushion" should Congress rescind a funding appropriation; thus, the totals shown in the table do not describe the amount either actually spent during the fiscal year or the amount budgeted by the contractor to be spent. Because of access to and regular planning for carry-over funds, the annual expenditures of most - if not all - of the contractors will not reach the amounts shown in the table. To gauge the actual expenditure patterns of the contractors, one would have to review budgets and expenses over several years. The actual expenditures for all contracts during the completed years of FY 1991 and 1992 are known: for FY 1991 these totaled $122,229, 120 for tribal contractors, $52,126,479 for the operation of the Alaska Native Medical Center, and $30,079,839 for the support provided by the Alaska Area Native Health Center. The corresponding figures for FY 1992 were $141,624,697 for tribal contractors. The apparent decrease in tribal contract spending from FY 1991 and 1992 to FY 1993 is due to the inclusion in the earlier year of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, a non-P.L. 93-638 contract for Southcentral Foundation's prematernal treatment home, and some other contracts that are not part of the self-determination contracting process. With all those added, the total tribal amount for FY 1993 would be approximately $150,000,000. The table below shows the program totals with all the contracts combined, representing the funding priorities of the Indian Health Service and the Alaska Native Health Service. IHS Recurring Fund Distribution (FY 1993) Program Category Total Amount Consumer Services $260,400 Hospitals & Clinics $70,869,958 Community Health Aide $400,936 Community Health Representative $2,846,974 Alcohol $3,778,200 Contract Health Care: Medical $22,166,492 Contract Health Care: Dental $1,751,907 Environmental Health $309,849 Dentistry $960,256 Mental Health $753,731 Public Health Nursing $306,461 Health Education $404,198 Indian Self-Determination Funds $165,338 Unknown* $152,959 TOTALS $105,127,659 Alaska Area Profile FY 1992 FY 1992 ALLOCATIONS BY SUB-SUBACTIVITY, BY LOCATION A/O 9/30/92 FINAL; 06 DEC 1992 SUB-SUBACTIVITY GRAND TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL . 7 ., ALLOWANCES TRIBAL FEDERAL 2. AREA Hospitals & Clinics 143,535,593.90 96,633,404.47 46,902,189.43 4,731,644.05 HC Alcohol 137,934.00 0.00 137,934.00 137,934.00 Dental 5,110,413.00 2,835 ,366.00 2,275,047.00 843,529.00, Mental Health 2,211,500.00 1,059,298.00 1,152,202.00 fey 806,060.00 Alcoholism 7,462,000.00 6,837,241.00 624,759.00 412,639.00 Maint & Repair 0.00 0.00 « 0.00 0.00 Contr Health Care 34,378,100.00 24,329,340.00 10,048,760.00 1,585,795.00 Reimbursement 2,957,948.00 1,170,977.06 1,786,970.94 404,436.73 Sanitation 0.00 0.00 0.00... 0.00 Public Health Nrsng 465,300.00 302,098.00 163,202.00 102,478.00 Health Education 733,400.00 527,617.00 205,783.00 106,953.00 CHR 3,153,300.00 3,005,404.00 147,896.00 147,896.00 HEP-B 689,446.00 0.00 689,446.00 65,500.00 B-PIG 576,372.00 127,000.00 449,372.00 449,372.00 Direct Ops 3,195,100.00 0.00 3,195,100.00 3,039.100.00 Indian Health Manpower 159,000.00 0.00 159,000.00 159,000.00 Sub Total Regular Program 204,765,406.90 136,827,745.53 67,937,661.37 22,992,336.78 Catastrophic CHC 2,315,143.00 497,676.35 1,817,466.65 0.00 Private Insurance 1,610,230.15 0.00 1,610,230.15 0.00 Quarters 137,687.59 102,928.75 34,758.84 0.00 Medicare/Caid 4,003,041.80 358,096.00 3,644,945.80 0.00 Indirect 1,570,000.00 1,570,000.00 0.00 0.00 Sub Total Support Funds 9,636,102.54 2,528,701.10 7,107,401.44 0.00 Environ Hith Support 5,385,400.00 911,875.00 4,473,525.00 4,218,045.00 Fac Hith Support 3,585 ,600.00 0.00 3,585,600.00 1,125,287.00 Repr, Improv Maint 4,703,000.00 1,356,375.62 3,346 ,624.38 2,968,124.38 Sub Total 13,674 ,000.00 2,268,250.62 11,405,749.38 8,311,456.38 Grand Total 228,075,509.44 141,624 ,697.25 86,450,812.19 31,303,793.16 Alaska Area Profile FY 1992 ALLOCATIONS BY SUB-SUB ACTIVITY, BY LOCATION A/O 9/30/92 FINAL: 06 DEC 1992 SUB-SUB ACTIVITY HOSPITALS & CLINICS HC ALCOHOL DENTAL MENTAL HEALTH ALCOHOLISM MAINT & REPAIR CONTR HEALTH CARE REIMBURSEMENT SANITATION PUBLIC HEALTH NRSG HEALTH EDUCATION CHR HEP 8 B-PIG DIRECT OPS SUB TOTAL REG PROG CASTROPHIC CHC DEFERRED SERVICES CHC QUARTERS MEDICARE/CAID INDIRECT SUBTOTAL SUPPORT FUNDS ENVIRON HLTH SUPPORT FAC HLTH SUPPORT REPR. IMPROV MAINT SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL Metlakatla 1,168,822.50 704,441.00 25,166.00 175,320.00 428,264.00 2,000.00 5,716.00 30,555.00 1,906,284.50 0.00 11,400.00 11,400.00 1,917,684.50 Village Built Clinics 3,405,767.00 3,405,768.00 0.00 0.00 3,405,768.00 Ukpeavik Inupiat Corp. 1,696,978.00 1,230.00 1,698,208.00 3,800.00 100,000.00 103,800.00 373,675.62 373,675.62 2,175,683.62 Ninilchik 303,850.00 2,440.00 47,099.00 13,912.00 367,301.00 0.00 0.00 367,301.00 FY 1992 Eklutna 35,357.00 1,418.00 43,941.00 977.00 14,919.00 96,612.00 0.00 0.00 96,612.00 Alaska Area FY 1992 ALLOCATIONS BY SUB-SUB ACTIVITY, BY LOCATION A/O 9/30/92 FINAL: 06 DEC 1992 SUB-SUB ACTIVITY HOSPITALS & CLINICS HC ALCOHOL DENTAL MENTAL HEALTH ALCOHOLISM MAINT & REPAIR CONTR HEALTH CARE REIMBURSEMENT SANITATION PUBLIC HEALTH NRSG HEALTH EDUCATION CHR HEP 8 B-PIG DIRECT OPS SUB TOTAL REGULAR PROGRAM CASTROPHIC CHC DEFERRED SERVICES CHC QUARTERS MEDICARE/CAID INDIRECT SUBTOTAL SUPPORT FUNDS ENVIRON HLTH SUPPORT FAC HLTH SUPPORT REPR. IMPROV MAINT SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL Tyonek 99,657.00 3,295.00 55,966.00 13,055.00 26,268.00 198,241.00 0.00 0.00 198,241.00 Yakutat 162,112.00 30,648.00 192,760.00 0.00 0.00 192,760.00 Seldovia 97,513.00 1,534.00 255,678.00 31,459.00 386,184.00 0.00 0.00 386,184.00 FY 1992 Ketchikan St. George IN Community 134,655.00 179,340.52 51,667.00 7,605.00 55,966.00 77,114.00 190,621.00 315,726.52 3,715.00 0.00 3,715.00 0.00 0.00 190,621.00 319,441.52 Alaska Area FY 1992 FY 1992 ALLOCATIONS BY SUB-SUB ACTIVITY, BY LOCATION A/O 9/30/92 FINAL: 06 DEC 1992 Norton Sound Tanana Y-K Health Alaska Native SUB-SUB ACTIVITY Health Corp SEARHC Chiefs Health Corp Health Board HOSPITALS & CLINICS 6,941,173.05 14,977,943.00 10,237,465.00 23,858,744.00 200,000.00 HC ALCOHOL DENTAL 281,422.00 575,094.00 490,927.00 483,025.00 MENTAL HEALTH 83,250.00 111,421.00 134,197.00 66,769.00 ALCOHOLISM 206,243.00 1,153,612.00 1,101,253.00 695,172.00 MAINT & REPAIR CONTR HEALTH CARE 5,356,637.00 5,665,592.00 6,286,230.00 1,349,883.00 REIMBURSEMENT 237,879.00 35,161.06 37,205.00 SANITATION PUBLIC HEALTH NRSG 23,429.00 68,066.00 1,000.00 HEALTH EDUCATION 8,684.00 82,393.00 51,354.00 107,010.00 CHR 232,709.00 221,991.00 300,596.00 344,142.00 HEP 8 B-PIG DIRECT OPS SUBTOTAL REGULAR PROG 13,110,680.05 23,049,354.00 — 18,705,249.06 26,942,950.00 200,000.00 CASTROPHIC CHC 46,638.35 442,997.00 DEFERRED SERVICES CHC QUARTERS 1,230.00 97,898.75 MEDICARE/CAID 254,381.00 INDIRECT 1,570,000.00 SUBTOTAL SUPPORT FUNDS 1,230.00 46,638.35 442,997.00 1,922,279.750.00 ENVIRON HLTH SUPPORT 66,964.00 122,577.00 271,660.00 260,034.00 FAC HLTH SUPPORT REPR. IMPROV MAINT 612,250.00 12,000.00 320,550.00 SUBTOTAL 66,964.00 734,827.00 283,660.00 580,584.000.00 0.00 GRAND TOTAL 3,178,874.05 23,830,819.35 19,431,906.06 29,445 ,813.75 200,000.00 Alaska Area Profile FY 1992 ALLOCATIONS BY SUB-SUB ACTIVITY, BY LOCATION A/O 9/30/92 FINAL: 06 DEC 1992 SUB-SUB ACTIVITY HOSPITALS & CLINICS HC ALCOHOL TAL N AL HEALTH ALCOHOLISM MAINT & REPAIR CONTR HEALTH CARE PUBLIC HEALTH NRSG HEALTH EDUCATION CHR HEP 8 B-PIG DIRECT OPS SUBTOTAL REGULAR PROGRAM CASTROPHIC CHC DEFERRED SERVICES CHC QUARTERS MEDICARE/CAID INDIRECT SUBTOTAL SUPPORT FUND ENVIRON HLTH SUPPORT FAC HLTH SUPPORT REPR. IMPROV MAINT SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL Copper River 1,559,252.00 26,055.00 216,417.00 202,356.00 1,387.00 203,061.00 2,208,528.00 0.00 2,208,528.00 Kodiak 2,113,125.00 18,051.00 43,106.00 101,112.00 1,668,382.00 2,000.00 206,767.00 4,152,543.00 8,041.00 0.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 4,163,584.00 Maniilaq 9,232,118.35 169,270.00 155,694.00 157,376.00 336,657.00 32,801.00 239,433.00 2,000.00 10,325,349.35 8,041.00 57,400.00 57,400.00 10,382,749.35 North Pacific Rim 2,050,265.00 12,197.00 155,435.00 700,166.00 164,500.00 105,069.00 6,150.00 255,569.00 3,519,351.00 0.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 3,520,851.00 FY 1992 North Slope Borough 2,158,700.45 82,322.00 158,337.00 157,103.00 3,390.00 118,735.00 2,678,587.45 0.00 0.00 2,678,587.45 Alaska Area Program Information Summary 1991 ALLOCATIONS BY SUB-SUBACTIVITY, BY LOCATION 22 NOV 1991 SUB-SUBACTIVITY GRAND TOTAL ALLOWANCES Hospitals & Clinics 141,085 ,332.00 HC Alcohol 3,518,408.00 Dental 5,044,900.00 Mental Health 2,103,500.00 Alcoholism 3,161,900.00 Maint & Repair 4,077,000.00 Contr Health Care 30,903,400.00 Reimbursement 2,684,237.00 Sanitation 5,150,500.00 Public Health Nrsng 479,300.00 Health Education 705,200.00 CHR 2,744,800.00 HEP-B 720,753.83 B-PIG 491,246.17 Direct OPS 3,169,700.00 Indian Health Manpower 113,000.00 Sub Total Regular Program 206,153,177.00 Catastrophic CHC 2,162,455.00 Private Insurance 1,509,892.38 Quarters 266,330.13 Medicare/Caid 15,465,727.73 Indirect 1,024,106.00 Sub Total Support Funds 20,428,511.24 0.00 Grand Total 226,581,688.24 SUB-SUBACTIVITY ANMC Hospitals & Clinics 29,254,042.46 HC Alcohol 0.00 Dental 1,213,427.00 Mental Health 315,227.18 Alcoholism 199,000.00 Maint & Repair 499,300.00 Contr Health Care 6,432,662.00 Reimbursement 700,343.29 Sanitation 254,904.00 Public Health Nrsng 56,250.00 Health Education 94,557.00 CHR 0.00 HEP-B 576,253.83 B-PIG 0.00 Direct OPS 79,648.00 Indian Health Manpower Sub Total Regular Program 39,675,614.76 Catastrophic CHC 1,829,731.20 Private Insurance 1,297,494.25 Quarters 0.00 Medicare/Caid 9,323,638.86 Indirect Sub Total Support Funds 12,450,864.31 Grand Total 52,126,479.07 TOTAL TRIBAL 79 684,331.50 3,365,216.00 2,681,863.00 1,070,583.00 2,781,633.00 2,383,620.86 21,656,681.00 1,135,902.87 595,198.00 288,410.00 510,940.00 2,616,634.00 19,990.20 98,000.00 0.00 0.00 118,889,003.43 332,723.80 0.00 26,100.00 1,957,187.21 1,024,106.00 3,340,117.01 122,229.120.44 YKDSU 11,096,288.21 263,300.00 290,479.86 193,861.94 237,163.00 10,009.80 29,606.00 12, 120,708.81 151,502.13 207,977.00 3,613,187.48 3,972,666.61 16,093,375.42 TOTAL FEDERAL 61,401,000.50 153,192.00 2,363,037.00 1,032,917.00 380,267.00 1,693,379.14 9,246,719.00 1,548,334.13 4,555,302.00 190,890.00 194,260.00 128,166.00 700,763.63 393,246.17 3,169,700.00 113,000.00 87,264,173.57 1,829,731.20 1,509,892.38 240,230.13 13,508,540.52 0.00 17,088 ,394.23 104,352,567.80 BARROW 2,101,853.34 0.00 240,607.13 13,493.00 2,355,953.47 1,000.00 32,253.13 451,360.18 484,613.31 2,840,566.78 AREA 17,450,614.16 153,192.00 925,182.00 711,517.82 181,267.00 930,779.14 1,300,038.14 407,928.77 4,063.235.00 134,640.00 99,703.00 128,166.00 114,500.00 393,246.17 3,038,700.00 113,000.00 30,145,709.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,145,709.20 NOME 66,598.00 0.00 66,598.00 0.00 66,598.00 FY 1991 KETCHIKAN 1,431,604.33 224,428.00 6,172.00 1,223,539.00 5,593.00 8,253.00 2,899,589.33 0.00 59,896.00 120,354.00 180,250.00 3,079,839.33 Alaska Area Program SUB-SUBACTIVITY SOUTH KACHEMAK 58,704.00 42,464.00 Hospitals & Clinics HC Alcohol Dental Mental Health Alcoholism Maint & Repair Contr Health Care Reimbursement Sanitation Public Health Nursng Health Education CHR HEP-B B-PIG Direct OPS Indian Health Manpower Sub Total Regular Program 209,552.00 310,720.00 Catastrophic CHC Deferred Services CHC Quarters Medicare/Caid Indirect Sub Total Support Funds 0.00 0.00 Grand Total 310,720.00 SUB-SUBACTIVITY SOUTH CENTRAL FOUNDATION Hospitals & Clinics 680,018.25 HC Alcohol 264,065.00 Dental 43,487.00 Mental Health 103,988.00 Alcoholism 685,248.00 Maint & Repair 12,000.00 Contr Health Care 956,660.42 Reimbursement 178,000.00 Sanitation Public Health Nrsng 40,028.00 Health Education CHR 213,604.00 HEP-B B-PIG Direct OPS Indian Health Manpower Sub Total Regular Program 3,177.098.67 Catastrophic CHC Deferred Services CHC Quarters Medicare/Caid Indirect 0.00 Sub Total Support Funds 0.00 Grand Total 3,177,098.67 Information Summary FAIRBANKS KENAITZE NATIVE ASSOCNATIVE ASSOC 227,915.59 58,018.00 9,636.00 328,603.00 28,970.00 391,940.41 32,958.00 328,603.00 749,438.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 328,603.00 749,438.00 TANANA ALEUTIAN IRA PRIBILOF 680,510.01 1,686,401.94 18,101.00 87,888.00 0.00 5,582.00 19,073.00 9,923.00 182,209.17 10,000.00 62,263.05 195,172.00 178,407.00 724,116.01 2,411,414.16 0.00 14,742.00 0.00 14,742.00 724,116.01 2,426,156.16 KUSKOKWIM 12,030.00 12,030.00 0.00 12,030.00 BRISTOL BAY HEALTH CORP 11,886,840.32 114,966.00 547,924.00 224,899.00 146,852.00 333,836.00 118,523.00 16,636.70 118,633.00 60,100.00 252,230.00 184,779.00 98,000.00 14,104,219.02 683,415.69 56,093.00 739,508.69 14,843,727.71 FY 1991 EEDA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 COPPER RIVER 1,489,190.00 26,103.00 9,788.00 137,906.00 194,333.83 191,091.00 2,048,411.83 11,230.00 11,230.00 2,059,641.83 Alaska Area Program SUB-SUBACTIVITY Hospitals & Clinics HC Alcohol Dental Mental Health Alcoholism Maint & Repair Contr Health Care Reimbursement Sanitation Public Health Nrsng Health Education CHR HEP-B B-PIG Direct OPS Indian Health Manpower Sub Total Regular Program Catastrophic CHC Deferred Services CHC Quarters Medicare/Caid Indirect Sub Total Support Funds Grand Total SUB-SUBACTIVITY Hospitals & Clinics HC Alcohol Dental Mental Health Alcoholism Maint & Repair Contr Health Care Reimbursement Sanitation Public Health Nrsng Health Education CHR HEP-B B-PIG Direct OPS Indian Health Manpower Sub Total Regular Program Catastrophic CHC Deferred Services CHC Quarters Medicare/Caid Indirect Sub total Support Funds Grand Total Information Summary KODIAK 2,017,641.04 88,402.00 17,370.00 56,405.00 8,523.00 3,000.00 1,486,854.73 480.00 192,802.00 3,871,477.77 0.00 17,487.00 17,487.00 3,888,964.77 SEARHC 14,349,607.74 869,072.00 553,891.00 85,336.00 191,370.00 914,491.00 5,066,177.62 159,827.41 117,178.00 22,440.00 75,472.00 205,538.00 22,610,400.77 125,053.80 0.00 0.00 341,245.50 17,192.00 483,491.30 23,093,892.07 NORTH PACIFIC MANIILAQ 8,543,840.32 126,311.00 163,006.00 148,144.00 37,050.00 266,000.00 375,659.08 2,941.50 48,375.00 206,419.00 9,917,745.90 0.00 131,754.02 20,726.00 152,480.02 10,070,225.92 TANANA CHIEFS 9,750,521,89 862,732.00 472,821.00 140,902,00 220,291.00 12,000.00 5,707,039.00 41,032.00 251,548.00 65,198.00 77,250.00 257,416.00 17,858,750.89 207,670.00 0.00 622,120.00 29,129.00 58, 858,919.00 18,717,669.89 FY 1991 NORTH SLOPE NORTON SOUND RIM BOROUGH HEALTH CORP 1,813,443.52 2,063,476.42 6,669,267.17 73,269.00 94,242.00 134,947.00 79,275.00 271,030.00 29,221.00 0.00 92,237.00 40,629.00 96,112.00 39,518.83 1,500.00 416,883.86 700,928.78 140,777.00 5,037,421.29 215,168.26 1,562.00 59,464.00 100,644.00 5,494.00 218,564.00 121,212.00 184,444.00 3,193,367.56 2,595 ,094.42 12,912,269.15 25,697.00 39,424.00 25,697.00 0.00 39,424.00 3,219,064.56 2,595 ,094.42 12,951,693.15 YUKON KUSKOKWIM ALASKA NATIVE HEALTH CORP HEALTH BOARD 11,198,941,29 350,293.00 465,227.00 85,885.00 201,705.00 40,000.00 872,933.34 25,000.00 95,000.00 298,933.00 19,990.20 13,653,907.83 129,834.00 129,834.00 13,783,741.83 200,000.00 0.00 0.00 299,213.00 0.00 499,213.00 0.00 499,213.00 TYONEK 91,088.72 13,857.00 7,287.00 40,550.00 8,098.00 26,602.00 187,482.72 0.00 187,482.72 Alaska Area Program Information Summary SUB-SUBACTIVITY Hospitals & Clinics HC Alcohol Dental Mental Health Alcoholism Maint & Repair Contr Health Care Reimbursement Sanitation Public Health Nrsng Health Education CHR HEP-B B-PIG Direct OPS Indian Health Manpower Sub Total Regular Program Catastrophic CHC Deferred Services CHC Quarters Medicare/Caid Indirect Sub Total Support Funds Grand Total SUB-SUBACTIVITY Hospitals & Clinics HC Alcohol Dental Mental Health Alcoholism Maint & Repair Contr Health Care Reimbursement Sanitation Public Health Nrsng Health Education CHR HEP-B B-PIG Direct OPS Indian Health Manpower Sub Total Regular Program Catastrophic CHC Deferred Services CHC Quarters Medicare/Caid Indirect Sub Total Support Funds Grand Total YAKUTAT SELDOVIA 139,160.00 33,919.00 5,556.00 162,723.00 28,434.00 30,974.00 167,594.00 233,172.00 38,290.00 90,706.00 38,290.00 90,706.00 205,884.00 323,878.00 VILLAGE BUILT UKPEAGVIK CLINICS INUPIAT CORP 3,274,560.00 1,148,005.47 362,910.00 870.00 3,274,560.00 1,511,785.47 26,100.00 524,402.00 0.00 550,502.00 3,274,560.00 2,062,287.47 ST GEORGE 131,784.74 131,784.74 2,177.00 2,177.00 133,961.74 NINILCHIK 288,327.00 0.00 6,213.00 33,012.00 611.00 328,163.00 3,020.00 3,020.00 331,183.00 KETCHIKAN INDIAN COMMUNITY 93,757.42 69,049.00 10,147.00 9,923.00 182,876.42 0.00 0.00 182,876.42 EKLUTNA 33,998.00 12,293.00 5,218.00 31,899.00 876.00 13,990.00 98,274.00 0.00 98,274.00 FY 1991 METLAKATLA 1,121,381.65 59,144.00 67,832.00 25,066.00 101,787.00 11,000.00 373,472.45 5,494.00 29,856.00 1,795 ,033.10 178,652.00 3,957.00 182,609.00 1,977,642.10 Alaska Area FY 1992 ALLOCATIONS BY SUB-SUBACTIVITY, BY LOCATION A/O 9/30/92 FINAL; 06 DEC 1992 SUB-SUBACTIVITY Hospitals & Clinics HC Alcohol Dental Mental Health Alcoholism Maint & Repair Contr Health Care Reimbursement Sanitation Public Health Nrsng Health Education CHR HEP-B B-PIG Direct Ops Sub Total Regular Program Catastrophic CHC Deferred Services CHC Quarters Medicare/Caid Indirect Sub Total Support Funds Environ Hith Support Fac Hith Support Repr, Improv Maint Sub Total Grand Total COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL 152,523.00 152,523.00 0.00 0.00 152,523.00 SOUTH CENTRAL FOUNDATION 643,702.00 44,248.00 113,172.00 1,107,711.00 1,148,946.00 273,142.00 41,790.00 1,000.00 294,171.00 3,667,882.00 0.00 4,500.00 12,000.00 16,500.00 3,684,382.00 TANANA IRA 743,524.00 3,548.00 27,886.00 774,958.00 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 784,958.00 ALEUTIAN PRIBILOF IS. ASSN 1,364,673.60 8,707.00 173,404.00 94,222.00 379,740.00 134,533.00 2,155,279.60 0.00 0.00 2,155,279.60 FY 1991 BRISTOL BAY HEALTH CORP. 12,569,662.00 568,899.00 227,239.00 333,833.00 132,905.00 1,929.00 62,744.00 263,923.00 229,169.00 125,000.00 14,515,303.00 0.00 128,740.00 128,740.00 14,644,043.00 Alaska Area Program Information Summary 1991 ALLOCATIONS BY SUB-SUBACTIVITY, BY LOCATION 22 NOV 1991 SUB-SUBACTIVITY GRAND TOTAL ALLOWANCES Hospitals & Clinics 141,085,332.00 HC Alcohol 3,518,408.00 Dental 5,044,900.00 Mental Health 2,103,500.00 Alcoholism 3,161,900.00 Maint & Repair 4,077,000.00 Contr Health Care 30,903,400.00 Reimbursement 2,684 237.00 Sanitation 5,150,500.00 Public Health Nrsng 479,300.00 Health Education 705,200.00 CHR 2,744,800.00 HEP-B 720,753.83 B-PIG 491,246.17 Direct OPS 3,169,700.00 Indian Health Manpower 113,000.00 Sub Total Regular Program 206,153,177.00 Catastrophic CHC 2,162,455.00 Private Insurance 1,509,892.38 Quarters 266,330.13 Medicare/Caid 15,465,727.73 Indirect 1,024,106.00 Sub Total Support Funds 20,428,511.24 0.00 Grand Total 226,581,688.24 SUB-SUBACTIVITY ANMC Hospitals & Clinics 29,254,042.46 HC Alcohol 0.00 Dental 1,213,427.00 Mental Health 315,227.18 Alcoholism 199,000.00 Maint & Repair 499,300.00 Contr Health Care 6,432,662.00 Reimbursement 700,343.29 Sanitation 254,904.00 Public Health Nrsng 56,250.00 Health Education 94,557.00 CHR 0.00 HEP-B 576,253.83 B-PIG 0.00 Direct OPS 79,648.00 Indian Health Manpower Sub Total Regular Program 39,675 ,614.76 Catastrophic CHC 1,829,731.20 Private Insurance 1,297,494.25 Quarters 0.00 Medicare/Caid 9,323,638.86 Indirect Sub Total Support Funds 12,450,864.31 Grand Total 52,126,479.07 TOTAL TRIBAL 79,684 ,331.50 3,365,216.00 2,681,863.00 1,070,583.00 2,781,633.00 2,383,620.86 21,656,681.00 1,135,902.87 595,198.00 288,410.00 510,940.00 2,616,634.00 19,990.20 98,000.00 0.00 0.00 118,889,003.43 332,723.80 0.00 26,100.00 1,957,187.21 1,024,106.00 3,340,117.01 122,229.120.44 YKDSU 11,096,288.21 263,300.00 290,479.86 193,861.94 237,163.00 10,009.80 29,606.00 12,120,708.81 151,502.13 207,977.00 3,613,187.48 3,972,666.61 16,093,375.42 TOTAL FEDERAL 61,401,000.50 153,192.00 2,363,037.00 1,032,917.00 380,267.00 1,693,379.14 9,246,719.00 1,548,334.13 4,555,302.00 190,890.00 194,260.00 128,166.00 700,763.63 393,246.17 3,169,700.00 113,000.00 87,264,173.57 1,829,731.20 1,509,892.38 240,230.13 13,508,540.52 0.00 17,088,394.23 104,352,567.80 BARROW 2,101,853.34 0.00 240,607.13 13,493.00 2,355,953.47 1,000.00 32,253.13 451,360.18 484,613.31 2,840,566.78 AREA 17,450,614.16 153,192.00 925,182.00 711,517.82 181,267.00 930,779.14 1,300,038.14 407,928.77 4,063.235.00 134,640.00 99,703.00 128,166.00 114,500.00 393,246.17 3,038,700.00 113,000.00 30,145,709.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,145,709.20 NOME 66,598.00 0.00 66,598.00 0.00 66,598.00 FY 1991 KETCHIKAN 1,431,604.33 224,428.00 6,172.00 1,223,539.00 5,593.00 8,253.00 2,899,589.33 0.00 59,896.00 120,354.00 180,250.00 3,079,839.33 Alaska Natives Commission Questionnaire to Alaska Native Regional Non-Profits For Meeting of January 25 & 26, 1993 I. P.L. 93-638 IMPLEMENTATION: Contracting Overview A. Please provide a brief descriptive overview of the programs - including their various components - administered by your organization/agency (feel free to group services and programs under such broad categories as: education, employmenv/training, economic development, village government services). B. Using the following outline, please list all major sources of funding and dollar amounts (rounded): 1. Bureau of Indian Affairs: $ (most recent fiscal year) $ (reqests for next fiscal year) 2. Indian Health Service: $ (most recent fiscal year) $ (requests for next fiscal year) 3. Misc/other federal grants (including BIA and IHS funds, if any, outside of the general 93-638 contract as entered in 1 & 2 above): $ (most recent fiscal year) $ (requests for next fiscal year) 4. State grants: (most recent fiscal year) (request for next fiscal year) AA C. For "B3" and "B4" above, please attach a list of individual grants/contracts (and annual funding levels for each) that make up the total amounts entered. D. Program/Subject Matter Funding Allocations: To the greatest degree possible, please list rounded dollar amounts delineating the breakdown of total contract/grant funds under the broad categories (include all sources of funding), and the approximate percentage of total organizational funding that each category represents. Under each of the categories, please break out the various components - as listed - that make up the total for that category. 1. Native Education TOTAL $ % Overhead/Admin. $ Higher Ed Grants $ Adult Learning $ Other (please specify) 2. Training & Employment TOTAL $ %o Overhead/Admin. Vocational Training Employment Assistance JTPA/S YEP Other (please specify) AANA A 3. Social/Family Services TOTAL $_ % Overhead/Admin. Social Svcs. (general) Family/Youth Svcs. Indian Child Welfare Other (please specify) wn AAA nA 4. Health/Mental Health TOTAL $ % Overhead/Admin. Clinical Contract Health Health Aides Community/Environ- mental Health $ Mental Health/Sub- stance Abuse $ Other (please specify) PAD LA 5. Economic Development/Resources TOTAL §$. % Overhead/Admin. Econ. Dev. Admin. AN.A. Realty Wildlife & Parks Forestry Other (please specify)) PAAAAMHW A 6. Tribal Government Services TOTAL $ %e Credit & Finance Village Gov’t. Svcs. Tribal Court Implementation ICWA Legal Intervention Other (please specify) PAAHA A 7. Other (please specify below) TOTAL $. % II. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION During the governance task force’s session on January 25 and 26, members would like to cover several areas (in addition to a more in-depth examination of the fiscal and programmatic materials that you pre-submit as requested in the cover letter). Please take the time to review the issues and questions posed below so that we can discuss them openly and knowledgeably together. Thank you. The two main areas of discussion and some of the questions the task force would like to see answered are as follows: A. P.L. 93-638 Contracting: 1. Discuss your organization’s observations regarding its programs and the effectiveness of the services these programs deliver. 2. Discuss your areas of concern and what, in your views, is needed to improve services delivered by your organization. 3. Within your area, how is eligibility to receive services from your non-profit organization determined? Who makes those determinations? By what authority are they made? 4. Looking at the past three years, have funds for services increased or decreased, and what are major trends, if any? 5. Looking at the past three years, have client loads increased or decreased, and what are major trends, if any? B. Tribal Governance/Native Self-Determination: 1. Please describe the relationship of the non-profit entity to the tribe/tribes in the particular ANCSA region where it operates. 2. Generally speaking, what does being a tribe in Alaska mean? What powers do they have? What degree of sovereignty do they enjoy? 3. To what extent, if any, are tribes recognized in Alaska by: 1) the federal government (DOD; 2) the State of Alaska? 4. Is the issue of "bush justice" a function of your organization and, if so, what are your perceptions regarding the roll that can be played by: 1) regional non-profit organizations; and 2) individual tribal governments? 5. To what extent, if any, do tribal courts exist in your region? What powers do they generally have and what functions do they serve at this point in time? 6. How has implementation of the "Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act" and related federal legislation (including, for instance, the "Indian Child Welfare Act") either enhanced or detracted from local self-determination and local self-governance efforts? Are there ways that these federal policies can be better implemented for more effective local Native governance? 7. To what extent does the state’s municipal form of local government impede, enhance, or otherwise affect local governance initiatives where there are also local tribal governing bodies? Mike Irwin, Executive Director William Hanable Debra Jessup Florence Lauridsen Harold Napoleon Robert Singyke Debra Dubac ALASKA NAMTIVES COMMISSIO Joint Federal-State Commission on Policies and Programs Affecting Alaska Natives Anchorage, Alaska May 1994 ® Printed on recycled paper