The Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Bureau of Indian Affairs Reorganization, which was created in 1990 to develop goals and plans for reorganizing BIA to strengthen its administration of Indian programs, recommended that all small tribes—those with service populations of 1,500 or less—be brought up to a minimum level of TPA base funding to allow them the opportunity to develop basic self-governance capability.The task force recommended that the small tribes in the lower 48 states have available at least $160,000 in TPA base funds and that the tribes in the state of Alaska have available $200,000. BIA distributes TPA base funds primarily on the basis of historical distribution levels. BIA’s distribution of TPA base funds has been criticized over the last 20 years for, among other things, not being responsive to changes in the relative needs of the tribes. BIA’s Distribution of TPA Funds

The majority of the fiscal year 1998 TPA base funds was distributed on the basis of historical funding levels, as has been the case for decades. In contrast to the base funds, the non-base funds—used for such programs as road maintenance, housing improvement, welfare assistance, and contract support—are generally distributed according to specific program criteria that consider, in some cases, individual income. As long as it continues to use a funding distribution method that is relatively static, based largely on the initial division of funds among the tribes that was developed in the early 1970s, BIA has no assurance that its current TPA distribution is most effectively meeting the needs of the tribes. Tribes’ Own Revenues Not a Factor in Distributing TPA Base Funds

Because the tribes’ own revenues are not considered in distributing TPA base funds, rich and poor tribes alike receive them. In fact, the tribes in our analysis that reported the highest amounts of their own revenues received more in TPA base funds, in total, than did those tribes that reported the lowest amounts of their own revenues. Of the 72 tribes, 62 reported having revenues of their own, and 10 reported having no revenues or having losses. Much of this information, however, is not currently or readily available. Ultimately, however, the issues of how TPA and other federal funds are distributed and what information should be considered in that process are policy questions for the Congress and other federal decisionmakers to decide. Whether comprehensive financial reporting should be required for the tribes and how that information should be used in determining the distribution of TPA funds are policy questions for the Congress and other federal decisionmakers to address. Although TPA was nearly half of BIA’s 1998 appropriation, it represented just 10 percent of the $7.5 billion in federal funding appropriated for Indian programs in 1998. But we disagree with BIA’s characterization as “meaningless” our statement that, under the current method for distributing TPA funds, there is no assurance that the funds are effectively targeting the most pressing needs among tribes. 2. Additional copies are $2 each.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the: (1) Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) method for distributing Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) funds; and (2) other revenues available to the tribes.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) under the current method for distributing TPA funds, there is no assurance that the funds are effectively targeting the most pressing needs among the tribes; (2) currently, BIA distributes two-thirds of TPA funds, referred to as base funds, largely on the basis of historical funding levels; (3) in distributing these base funds, BIA does not take into consideration changing conditions, such as the tribes' levels of need or the tribes' own revenues from nongovernmental sources; (4) the remaining one-third of TPA funds, known as non-base funds, are used for such activities as road maintenance and housing improvement and are generally distributed on the basis of specific program criteria; (5) BIA's distribution of TPA base funds has been widely criticized over the last 20 years for, among other things, not being responsive to changes in the relative needs of the tribes; (6) furthermore, because the tribes' own revenues are not considered in the distribution of TPA base funds, the tribes with the highest revenues receive TPA base funds just as the tribes with the lowest revenues do; (7) GAO's analysis showed that each of the 6 tribes with the highest reported revenues received more TPA base funds than did each of the 16 tribes with no reported revenues or with losses; (8) in addition, 62 small tribes reported having revenues of their own yet received the same amount of TPA base funds as small tribes that reported no revenues of their own; (9) a decision about whether and in what way to redistribute TPA funds is as complex as it is controversial; (10) as long as BIA continues to distribute TPA base funds on a historical basis, it cannot be certain that the distribution accommodates the changing needs of the tribes; (11) to determine an equitable distribution among the tribes, several types of data may be considered, however, much of this information is not currently or readily available in a consistent and reliable form; (12) furthermore, questions of equity in federal financial assistance extend beyond BIA and TPA funds; (13) although TPA was nearly half of BIA's 1998 appropriation, it represented just 10 percent of the $7.5 billion in federal funding appropriated for Indian programs in 1998; and (14) ultimately, however, the issues of how TPA and other federal funds should be distributed and what information should be considered in that process are policy questions for Congress and other federal decisionmakers to address.