Ke Alahou, Volume I, Number 5, 1 April 1980 — Indian Tribal Colleges Accuse U.S. Bureaucrats of Delaying $85-Million [ARTICLE]

Indian Tribal Colleges Accuse U.S. Bureaucrats of Delaying $85-Million

REPRINT from The Chronical of Higher Education 1333 New Hampshire Avenue NW Washington D.C. 20036

By Lorenzo Middleton

A recent movement among American - Indians to establish and operate their own colleges has sparked a new conflict in their bittersweet relationship with the federal government. Over the past decade, growing numbers of tribes have developed their own colleges in an attempt to stem the flow of young people frofa Indian reservations, For some, such developments are part of a broader campaign to become less dependent on the federal bureaucracy — particularly the Department of the Interipr and its Bureau of Indian Affairs. However, because they laek endowments or access to tax revenues, the colleges have fiad to rely heavily on federal suppprt for their survival. And in their efforts to increase that support, tribal leaders have found they are as dependent as ever on the gobd will of the 8.1.A. No Victory in 1978 After years of lobbying, leaders of the lndian college movement thought they had won a final victory in October, 1978, when Congress passed the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act.

"People who have lived on the reservation tend to be skeptical of federal programs," V

The new law promised to provide mōre than $85million to Indian-controlled institutions over a threeyear period. Thus far, how r ever s none of the 21 established colleges have received any assistance under the act, and for many it will be a long, uphill struggle before they do. One frustrated administrator noted that instead of assistance, the colleges had received only regu!ations, evaluations, promises, delays, and more promises. H lt's an empty bag of money, M he said. The law authorizes the bureau to make direct grants "for the operation and improvement [of the colleges] to inpure continued and expanded educatiori opportunities for Indian students." Eaeh colfege was to receive $4,000 for every fulltime student, to be spent in any way the institution saw fit. Originally, the blll authorized the appropriation of

. . . sue the government for "impounding" funds that should go to tribally controlled colleges.

$25-miīlion For fisca! 1980, $30-mlllion for fiscal 1981, and anothers3o-mniion fdTl9B2, In addition» it called for 13.2-miīlion eaeh year for u technlcal assistance" for the'colleges. Indian educators were pleased wlth thelegislation It meant the operating budgets for many of the colleges could almost be doubled. It aīso prov!ded a muchmore stab!e souree of ineome than the !ndtv!dual

program grants on whieh the colleges had been lepending for survival from year to year. Expectations Not Fulfitled In addition, there was enough money in the program to assist about 10 tribes that were in the planning stages of establishing colleges. The expectations have not been fulfilled. The first catch wasa requirement in one of the final paragrāphs of thebill*that the Secretary of the Interior

The first catch was ... ~ . a "facilities needs" study

conduct a i4 facilities needs" study to determine the condition of the colleges. After completing the study, the"R.I.A. reported to Congress that only 11 of the 21 existing colleges could meet requirements for financing in the first year of the act. As a result, that year's budget for tribally controlled colleges was cut fjorfi $25-million to $12.6-million. Only $5-million was to be provided through the new act; the rest was to eome frbm other 8.1. A. funds. The reduction in the scope of the act disappointed many of the movemenfs leaders. However, based on assurances from the bureau, a number of the colleges went ahead with budget plans that included funds they expected to receive under the program last October. Studies Delayed That was a mistake, the colleges have since b.een told v because the bureau must complete still another study before the money is released. This is a u feasibility" study," whieh is required under the act "to determine whether there is justification to encourage and maintain" a community college for a given tribe. The feasibility studies have been delayed, according to B.L A. officials, because they had trouble agreeing with the Office of Management and Budget on criteria for the study. The 0,M.8., whieh has final authority to release funs for most federal programs, turned down several proposais recommended by the bureau before approving the criteria lat? last month.

"They were counting on getting this money lasf fall, and now it's well into 19p0 and all we ean offer them is to do a study on them."

B. I. A, evaluators are now preparing to visit Indian coireges ?ha? have requested feasibility studies, They hope ?o comp!e?e the studies in ?ime to awardgrantsby April. However t the iina? guide!ines are considerably more stringent than thospproposedby thebureau» and now 8.1.A. officials predict that only six or seven colleges—those that are accredited or are candidates for accreditation -will qualify for financing. Frastrated by the maze ofbureaucratic roadblocks, a iiumber of tribes have turned to their Congressmen for help. The College of Gonado, claiming to be pn the verge of bankrupicy, receive<i a "special M grant from Ihe 8.1.A. in December after two Arizona Congressmen put pressure ou the Interior ūepahmenl» aecording to au official of the bureaji. Three other colleges t tbeybfficial said, have since M gotten their polilieal machi|ery in moiion" to ask for similar grants. * The American liulian Higher Education lion, whieh represents 10 coJleges t has recommended

"It's an empty bag of money,"

of its members do the sanxe. The association has also threatened to sue the government fpr uimpounding" funds that should go4o tribally controlled colleges. "I understand the frustration of these colleges, M _said Leroy Falling, director of postsecondary programs for the 8.1.A. "They were counting on getting this money last falL and now it's well into 1980 and all we ean offer them is to do a study onthem." Despite the expressions of symjpathy from Mr. Falling and others in the 8.1.A., many Indian college leaders blame the bureaufor the delays and disappointments Int he program. They charge that tjie bureau, whieh testified agaSnst the bill before it was passedby Congress, never wanted it to succeed. BIA 'Not an Advocate' "The 8.1.A. has not really served as an advocate for this program," charged James E. Shanley, president of Standing Rock Community Collfcge. "It has made no attempt to smooth out some of the cumbersome procedures 'and" machinery that went into the legislation. "I think there is a tendency for some people in the bureau to look at any movement that is not directly under their control as threatening to the bureau. And I think they are not working as hard as they might to

"I think there is tendency for some people in the*.bureau to look at any movement that is not directly under their control as threatening to the bureau. ..."

insure the success of the movement." Rick C. Lavis, director of the 8.1.A., disagreed: "We have every intention to pursue the implementation of the act as fast as we can. M There have been delays, Mr. Lavis admitte'd, "bui delays are not unusuāl for a prqgram like this." Mr. Fal!ing acknowledged that there were differences of opinion in the bureau on whether the program should succeed. The"tribally controlled institutions of higher education now enroll pnly 5 per cent of the country's estimated 40,000 Indian college students, However 4 a number of the bureau's higher-education programs— particularly three co]leges that it runs dire<Hly—feel threatened by the new program» Mr, Falling said. "Ouee this movement gets off the groundr Mr, Falling said, "those ,other progranis will be in the position of competing for students,° No Fondness for Qovernment However, several,ludiau educators said there was little danger that luaiii' of the nation s 297 tribes wUI rush to take advantage of the tribally contro!ledcolleges act. Most tribes will be reluctant to participate because they have been left with a bad taste for governmentsponsored programs, said Mr. Shanley of Standing Rock. "People who have lived ou the resef\ atiou teud to be skepiical of federal programs," he sald. "They follow a pattern. At the people get swamped with requests to take part in this or that program that they usuaily didn t ask for,. It makes a big splaskfor a year or so» and the people start to get theirhopes up. Then the Washington priorities change, and the ue\t thing you know, U*s gone^