Report on urban and rural non-reservation Indians

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Report on urban and rural non-reservation Indians
Physical Description:
Book
Creator:
United States -- American Indian Policy Review Commission. -- Task Force Eight
Publisher:
U.S. Govt. Print. Off. ( Washington )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 22411585
System ID:
AA00022457:00001

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
    Acknowledgement
        Page vii
        Page viii
    I. Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    II. Executive summary of findings and recommendations
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    III. Methodology
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    IV. Historical review
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
    V. Legal review
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
    VI. Social needs assessment
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
    VII. Exploration of alternative elective bodies
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
    Appendix A-1. Individual questionnaire--sample
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
    Appendix A-2. Organizational questionnaire--sample
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
    Appendix B-1. Directory of urban Indian and related groups and organizations
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
    Appendix B-2. Profile of the urban Indian population and services (organizational questionnaire)
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
    Appendix C-1. Indian inmate needs assessment
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
    Appendix C-2. Statement from the California Department of Housing and Community Development
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
    Appendix C-3. Letter to Al Elgin from Morris Thompson, August 2, 1976
        Page 143
        Page 144
    Back Cover
        Back Cover 1
        Back Cover 2
Full Text







[COMITEEPRINT]


REPORT ON URBAN AND RURAL
NON-RESERVATION INDIANS


URBAN AND RRL NO.N-RESERVATION
INDL4ANS


REPORT


REVIEW


ALn G. ETi-N-, POo, Chainmn
GAm M. THORPE, Sac and Fox, Member
EDWARD MOUSS, Creek-Cherokee, Member
J BLUESTONE, Hidatsa, Specialist

or the use of the American Indian Policy Review Commisson


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1976


vernentPrinting Office




































AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Senator JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota, Chairman
Congressman LLOYD MEEDS, Washington, Vice O1&.rmtm
Senator LEE METCALF, Montana JOHN BORBRIDGE, TlingWHaid
Senator MARK HATFIELD, Oregon LOUIS R. BRUCE, Mohawk-Sioux
Congressman SIDNEY R. YATES, Illnois ADA DEER, Menominee
Congressman SAM STEIGER, Arizona ADOLPH DIAL, Lumbee
JAKE WHITECROW, Quapaw-Seneca-Cayuga
ERNEST L. STEVENS, Oneida, Executive Director
KIRK, KICKINGBiRD, Kiowa, General Counsel
MAX L RICHTMAN, Professional Staff Member

(II)

























TASK FORCE EIGHT FINAL REPORT

N AND RURAL NON-RESERVATION TASK FORCE
Alfred G. Elgin, (hairmzm
Gail M. Thorpe, Member
Edward Mouss, Member
James Bluestone, T.F. Specialist
(M)



















Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013













http://archive.org/details/u rbanru r00u nit











CONTENTS


page
1 nrroduttion 1
1 E tive summary of findings and recommendations ------------- 7
II. Methodology- ..17
IV. Historical review ................ 23
V. Legalrvi~ 45
VI. Social need....e.................. .. 57
A. 58
A ...y......................................... 62
B. E2
C. o........68
.. Hat---------------------- 71
Frequently mentioned need ar.... 73
1. Leg services-------------------------------73
2. Indian opto---.........-74
3. Careforthe elderly ----------------------------- 75
4. Alcoholism counseling s-75
5. Transportati-- -75
6. Need for f s-75
7. Recommendations-------------------------- 76
F. The Indian eer-------7-
G. Rural Nonreservation --------------------------------- 79
H. Indian poverty levels and income characteristics--79
VII. Exploration of alternative elective bodies----81
VIII. Appendixes:
A-i Individual questionnaire-saple ........--85
A-2 Organizational uestionnaire-sample------------------ 91
B-I Directory of urban Indian and related groups and orga-
ni2zations------------------------------ces--r
B-2 Profile of the urban Indian population and services (or-
ganizational questionnaire)-nt_ 106
C-i Indian inmate needs aseset-----------134
0-2 Statement from the California Department of Housing
and Community Development---------------------- 137
C-3 Letter to Al Elgin from Morris Thompson, August 2, 1976. 144
(V)























I










ACKNC


to thank the manL Indian
)nt the countryo their


)esits appreciation to its two con-
wi (Kiowa) and Carol Kirk (Nay-
oization and ultimately to the final
"'hms people proved instrumental in

,ldeand express sincere apprecia-


(YU)














(


























Act
lent


iof
the


ich


the







of Government to provide Indians with maximum participation
in policy formation and program development" (sec. 2, p.. 5).
Many problems discussed in this report will also be examined in
other task force reports which, because of the overlapping nature of
this study, cut through complex subject areas-such as federal admin-
istration, education, health, alcoholism and drugs, and so forth, each
of them specifically covered by assigned mandates of Public Law
93-580. This task force has coordinated efforts with other task forces
in order to share information and opinions but primarily to avoid
unnecessary duplication of effort. We will, at times, refer to other
task force final reports for specific information that best states the
message we intend to convey.
We have conducted hearings and received testimony from urban
and rural Indians throughout the United States. We have also ex-
amined the previous studies, reports, and testimony by urban and
rural Indians. In general, our conclusions as outlined in detail in
this report will show:
That Indian people in substantial numbers came to urban areas
because of a lack of employment in addition to other social and
economic problems existing on the reservation, but have failed
to make a desirable transition because of a lack of necessary and
sufficient, continued support from the Federal Government,
coupled with the indifference and misunderstandings, by and
large, existing in the communities in which they have chosen
to live . .
That these Indian people, as a result, have become victims of a
Federal policy which denies services, if not thereby their very
existence, while at the same time substantially subsidizing and
contributing to an increase in the population of the urban multi-
racial poor ...
That as a result of their situation and without regard to the
slow and agonizing judicial process, the Federal Government
must recognize the urban and rural Indians' immediate and unde-
niable needs...
That the Federal Government must recognize the duality of
the American Indian's citizenship and there must be a federal
recognition of the trust, protection under the law, and services,
the right to which cannot be terminated on an individual basis
without specific congressional action against the entire tribe...
That the need and struggle for much needed services for the
urban and rural Indian people has created a national split be-
tween reservation and urban Indians which has been exploited
and encouraged by the executive departments for their own selfish
purposes whenever it suits them . .
That the Federal Government and the Congress must recogze
already existing legal provisions provided by Congress with
budgetary action to extend services ". . for the benefit, care
and assistance of Indians throughout the Unit Sted .. ."
A 50-year review of the historical, legal, and social developments
underlying the urban and rural nonreservation Indian people's rela-
tionship with the Federal Government and with the States and cities
in which they have come to live, has been developed by the members of
the Task Force on Urban and Rural Non-Reservation Indians. Dur-
ing those years there has been at first a gradual and then a steadily














w Jm9WUl ab


o ot


rove
z to


rura.L


re-







f erent from any other lifestylein existence in America. Basic di
ences in lifestyle and philosophy are the very reason only in
ple themselves can effect desirable change and solidify their
relation to America's other citizens. Consequently, we will quote
sively from Indian individuals' testimony from our task force h
ings. This testimony and other communications will best
bring to light the issues that confront the urban and rural n-
tion American Indians today.
The leoal portion of this report needs to do nothing more than
a clear and concise sunnary statement o already existing Fer-
Indian laws. The Congress and the American public should do no less
than recogmze these laws. The gr.t body of this law is clearly sup-
portive of the rights of both urban and rural Indians in relation t
both their individual status and their eligibility as tribal members fo
federal services. The consistent administrative alienation of these
rights, as opposed to the lawful and moral recognition of these same
rights, should also be clearly understood.
The specific issues of who is an urban Indian and a rural nonreser-
vation Indian will be addressed in the historical, legal and Indian
social needs section of this report. We intend to show that a specific
legal definition of "Who is an Indian" will most accurately describe
the rights of persons in these two categories.
. We -will also show in the legal and historical review section that
urban and rrl nonreservation Indians have been neleted too long
by the Bureau of Indian Afftirs, the Indian Health Service and er
federal agencies that work in the area. of Indian Affairs. The basic
reason'for this neglect is that there is a tremendous amount of con-
fUsion created by past administrative policy of these federal Indian
agencies and lack of coordination and sensitivity by other federal,
State, and local social service agencies. We will rely on our historical
view sections to Live these basic premises validity. The fundamena
need to study urban and rural nonreservation Indian problems stems
from the many hunian deprivations tbat the-se Indian people face due
to the ,ffec-ts of poverty ind cultural disorientation.
A clarification of individual Indian rights through federal law,
together with an analysis of its subsequent but consistent ad-ini -
tive erosion and denial by the executive branch of -Government might
very well provide the f ederally-recogni zed Indian tribes and their
mni bersi a mos. vluable service. The Indian people have n-
sisently rallied to the defense of tribes and individuals emesh in
battles for their legal rights being denied by the Federal Government.
Tribal jealousy, a constant deterrent and Obstacle to unified Indian
act ion, evaporates when- a tribe or an individual is involved in a con-
flict or aspiration that involves inalienable and traditional le al.rights.
It is somewhat mystifying. therefore, why tribes who would aggres-
sively pursue righs of treaties and federal relationships would not
also aggressively support an individual's fundamental and legal right
to be an Indian. Indian tribes must finallY recognize that an attack
on the benefits and rights of individual tribal members is an attack
on tribalism and sovereignty itself.
As an example of the more enlightened thinking about off -
tion Indians. the very recent Executive order by Governor Edmund
Brown of California recognizes the need to guarantee the rights of the






5

1,000 Indians of that State, where the majority of them
.ll into the urban and rural categories. The Executive order
ie equitable treatment of Indians and seeks to enlist the
both the State and Federal Governments in accomplishing
ive.
s tionally recognized to be a nation of
Ld racial pluralism, as an altogether fitting culmination of
inial year, should grant finally and unequivocally, a pera-
orical. and legal recognition to its original inhabitants-
eople together and permanent at last. It is a small enough
.or-what their ancestors have sacrificed. It is also too large















OF FINDINGS AND
TIONS


the Federal Govern-
the urban and rural


Sto the cities in substantial numbers because
the rons, but many of them have not
meelves sucsfly in the cities. As aresult,
ecurityeith in the city or on a rvation
xne nowhere. But the Federal Government,
programs, has been directly or indire l
,Ttion. Where it was directly responsible
ricoursaged the migrants, i has failed to pro-
with the result that many Indians have ben
als or families in the midst of the ghetto.
to increase this t notably in the
Of 1958, but t been based


iisoryof the general problem of services to
it has been evident at least since the urban
, reaiin policy has been to deny services;
ment felt that one way to reduce and then
) Indians has been to attempt to melt them

Ems to leave their homelands have donelite
Indian needs. The Government has simply
-oem one locatin to another, from the im-
1ped reevtions to the perhaps evenwos
parts of tecities. The migration has not
Economic well-being to the jority of ml-
'lgcation program, used by the Gove
ng its trust responibility, has benapartof

repesnttin an'epnergriurban








and the undeveloped reservations have resulted in the emergence of
some 500,000 non-reservation Indians whose needs are not being met
for imany reasons by existing agencies. It must decide the best way in
which a program can be established and operated to insure that these
needs are not ignored.
(d) The Government has committed itself no further than to say
that it will provide services on the basis of citizenship, thus regarding
Indians in the same lig ht as other Americans. This is perhaps the
principal attitude, itself a product of the termination era, that must
be rejected by the Government before -a successful program of -
ance to urban Indians can be established. It has shown that ui
Indians do not avail themselves of non-Indian programs and that tey
have tended to remain an invisible minority, holding less power and
receiving less in the way of assistance than their num d
warrant. In spite of the mistaken belief that urban India an
assimilated, undistinguishable group, many of them have retained
their tribal identity and the need for programs that are specifically
designed for Indians. The fact that there are identifiable goups of
Indians in the cities, groups which in many cases are unified and will-
ing to demand services from the Government on the basis of ir
Indian identity, is a phenomenon which the Government probably
never expected
(e) The definition of federal trust responsibility for nonreservation
Indians is an issue that will require congressional considerations Our
examination on the genesis of the concept of trust responsibility and
its scope with respect to nonreservation Indians will show how the
concept, plus statutory law, has been interpreted to largely exclude
nonreservation Indians from its protection and services. Such ex
sion does not follow from any careful analysis of the legal require-
inents, but rather emanates largely from the perceived practical con-
siderations and the attitude that "it has always been done that wy"
(f) Despite the confusion and conflicting notions of what the trust
responsibility is and-perhaps more importantly-its breadth of ap-
plication in terms of Government actions, there is little disagreement
today that it charges the Federal Government with a duty to protect
Indian lands and natural resources. This includes, but is not limited
to, tribal lands, trust monies, water resources, and individual Indian
lands. However. what is not so clear from court cases is whether the
trust responsibility also encompasses a duty-independent of specific
treaty provisions, agreements, or Federal statutes-to (1) provide
Government services and if so, (2) whether such a duty extends to
tribal members who live off the reservation on nontrust lands.
(g) The unique needs of nonreservation Indians have not been
totally ignored in modern legislation but much of the intent of these
acts has been circumvented either by administrative neglect or out-
right ref-usal to provide services targeted to Indians. Before the pas-
sage of the Snyder Act of 1921 there had been no specific authoriza-
tion for the appropriation and expenditure for most of the programs
which the Bureau of Indian Affairs had come to maintain for the
benefit of Indians. In the Oongress, appropriations for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs were subject to a point of order objection which
frequently resulted in cumbersome and time-consuming maneuvering
while Indian programs hung in suspense. This frustrating process was







vedhy p ge of the Snyder Act which au-
ppropriati nine broad program areas:
of Idian Affairs, under the supervision of the
e.I sha direct, supervise, and expend such
r niay from time to time appropriate, for the
d ssitance of the Indians throughout the United


lization, including education.
conservation of health.
and advancement and general admin-


1 . I


- _ _ - L 9


leau


I


operation, and maintenance of
is and for development of water


rnrovement, and repair of the
p n proj ect.
ors, supervisors, superintend-
physicians, Indian police, In-


1 of fra&e in intoxicating liquor and deleteri-

)f horse-drawn and motor-propelled passen-
for official use.
Ld nidenta expenses in connection with the
ian affairs.
ion of the act was made in December 1971 by
e Division of Indian Affairs, Department of
[er. In that written opinion to the Co "mis-
Mr. Seller stated that:
d language is abundantly clear and requires no In-
orLies the expenditure of funds for purposes within
; for the benefit of any and all Indians, of whatever
ibers of federally recognized tribes, and without
as they are within the United States . .With
3 subject to the general rule of the law that plain
uguage will be followed...
the Snyder Act will support a broader eligi-
; but it cautions the Bureau against extend-
idians without first considering other "statu-
liout first consulting with appropriate con-
parentlv, however, the Bureau never got a


77-762-76--2






10


program and general assistance benefits connected with that progr m
are extended to nonreservation Indians. Certain vocational trauun
has long been made available to off-reservation Indians. Educationa
services are similarly available under the Johnson-O'Malley program
It is true that the Court in the Ruiz case did not interpret the
Snyder Act as requiring the Bureau to provide its social servicepro-
gram benefits to all Indians. But it is equally true that the decision
interpreted the Snyder Act in broad enough terms that such an appli-
cation would be entirely permissible. It stated that:
We need not approach the issue in terms of whether Congress intended for
all Indians, regardless of residence and the degree of assimilation, to be covered
by the general assistance program. We need only ascertain the intent of Congress
with respect to those Indian claimants in the case before us.
Thus the Court chose to avoid a definitive judgment on the over-
all issue by limiting its holding that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
the duty to provide general assistance services to Indians living "on or
near the reservaton" and who maintain close economic and social ties
to the reservation and are unassimilated. Even this requirement, how-
ever, has not been implemented officially by the BIA, for the BIA
manual still limits eligibility to "on-reservation" Indians plus Okla-
homa Indians and Alaska Natives.
2. The investigating task force has reviewed its specific guidelines
adopted and extracted from Public Law 93-580, as amended, with
urban and rural nonreservation Indians throughout the United States.
Their input and opinion on the four major objectives adopted reveal
the following:
(a) On the "examination of the statutes and procedures for grant-
ing Federal recognition and extending services to Indian communities
and individuals" the basic concern was the nonrecognition of the
500,000 urban and rural nonreservation Indians' needs from the two
Indian service agencies-the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian
Health Service. Their consensus is that the Snyder Act of 1921 is the
basic authorizing legislation for Indian services and proclaims that
Congress shall appropriate monies"... for the benefit, care and assist-
ance of Indians throughout the United States." Furthermore, the over-
whelming majority of Indians in this country continue to be tribal
members regardless of where they live and regardless of whether or
not their tribe is recognized by the Federal Government. They feel
the Federal Government's oblization should extend to them as well as
their reservation brothers for there is no sound legal or policy reason
to discriminate against them.
In 1970, the Federal Government began several pilot projects
designed to fund urban Indian centers. By January 4,1975, H.R. 14449
became Public Law 93-644 in the 93d congress. The act recognized
Indian organizations in urban or rural nonreservation areas for proj-
ects that would promote the goal of economic and social self-sufficiency.
A total of 58 urban Indian centers were funded to provide coverage
to a potential service population of 140,921 off-reservation Native
Americans. The disparity brought forth has been the disproportionate
share of funds distributed to off-reservation needs as compared to res-
ervation needs. For example, DHEW's Office of Native American
Programs funding for off-reservation needs totaled $4,661,000, as com-
pared to reservation needs of approximately $25 million for fiscal year





11






12


1960. It is estimated that 800 Indians are added annually to the
Phoenix population. The same trends are reflected in cities with major
Indian populations.
Indian eligibility has continued to be an issue because the definition
of the term "Indian" controls eligibility for government funds and
services. Urban Indians suggest that the definition of who is an Indian
is a first prerequisite for sound management of programs for Indians.
In addition, testimony reflected the need for the institution of an
Indian identification card to control eligibility for urban funding.
(c) On the "exploration of the feasibility of alternative elective
bodies which could fully represent Indians at the national levels of
government to provide Indians with maximum participation in policy
formation and program development," the findings clearly indicate
that the estimated 500,000 urban and rural nonreservation Indians do
not have a voice at the national levels of government in policy forma-
tion and program development. What Indian input and opinion has
reflected, however, is a need for a total restructuring of federal admin-
istration of Indian affairs that will include them in its policy forma-
tion and program development.
The Phoenix Indian Center feels that "a federal cabinet level agency
is needed to develop urban Indian policy and programs which are
consistent with the Federal/Indian relationship. When Indian policy
and program agencies are established within other federal agencies,
a conflict of interest is built which works to the detriment of both the
Indian communities and the Federal Government's relationships with
those communities. A national office is needed which has a council of
advisers from urban Indian communities and which works through
established Indian centers. This national office should be combined
with a similar office which works directly with tribal government."
There is a tendency for most off-reservation people to identify them-
selves in the context of their tribal affiliation and the services provided
by their tribal government. Most Indian people feel and believe the
national Indian policy of today is replete with failure, has pauperized
them, and has never required their consent, say, "the consent of
the governed." Notwithstanding its failures, it is superior to State
administration mostly because state administration has always proven
to be a threat to "everything that is Indian" and is more hostile to
Indian administration than the Federal level. State administration
has fewer resources to cope with Indian problems and State programs
would be run by agencies that are in direct competition for land, water,
taxation, and other services. The conclusion is that State government
lacks jurisdiction over the lands of Indians ?nd, in some cases, over
Indians themselves because of treaties, aboriginal rights, the Federal
Constiution Commerce Clause, State enabling acts, and other agree-
ments. On the other hand, the Secretary of the Interior, however, is
more concerned for the uninhibited operation of free enterprise than
he is for the welfare of Indians and protection of their resources. Most
Tdi ans and others will continue to berate the Bureau of Indian Affairs'
failure to come up to hopes, but look to the BIA in the same way a
veteran looks to the Veterans' Administration. They cannot believe
that, the people of the United States, or Congress, will finally and irrev-
ocably violate what they regard as a sacred and perpetual trust;
that at some point in time, the American people will demand that
BIA moods and attitudes be geared to the protection of the Indians,






13


of


[aw oftheland aspe whoareof a
under the laws enacted f the special
d inheritance as such, and because of
7 of the land (Indian treaties) which
e sde--which the non-Indians do not


riIbal govern-
an and rural
on a nondis-

tion Act (88

tdthrough-


be mandated


smtoa


;an







Director of Off-Reservation Indian Affairs should be mandated un-
der the law to cause the implementation of the program service de-
livery requirements for this segment of the population; and the
recommended sum total should be. no less than $50 million.
4. The legislative mandate should continue to provide trust respon-
sibility for off-reservation Indian property owners under the juris-
diction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
5. The Assistant Director of Off-Reservation Indian Affairs, IHS,
should advocate and coordinate with Federal/State agencies the vari-
ous entitlements based upon citizenship, and for the proper effective-
ness in delivering funds and services.
6. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service
should recognize and designate a local unit of off-reservation govern-
ment as chief local service provider for Indian people in need in urban
areas.
7. The legislative mandate should require tribal governments and
local Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendents and the Indian Health
Service Unit Directors to supply services to its members regardless of
residency requirements. These specific programs should include the
economic development programs under the Self-Determination Act
under Public Law 93-638, 88 Stat. 2203, passed on January 4, 1975;
and the Indian Finance Act under Public Law 93-626, 88 Stat. '7,
passed on April 12,1974.
8. Eligibility requirements for B IA's and IlS's services vary accord-
ing to certain programs. For example, title 25 .FR 32.1 spells out
eligibility requirements for the B IA's scholarship assistance for post-
secondary education and specifically requires that nonreservation
members of federally recognized tribes can receive scholarship grants
only after the needs of reservation residents are met. Title 25 CFR
261.2, which allows assistance for nontriball Indians" under the new
BIA housing and improvement program, spells out eligibility to a
person of one-half or more degree Indian ancestry who is a descendant
of a member of a tribe that has been federally recognized by treaty
or otherwise. For uniformity of defining "Indian" and for pur-
poses of establishing an off-reservation service population base, an
Indian should be defined by respective tribal government processes
and an identification card or roll number be verified as the process
to service Indians by those administering agents of programs for
Indians. Eligibility for program services should be prioritized strictly
upon Indian needs wherever an Indian resides.
9. Off-reservation Indians recommend an overall legislative man-
date to remove the continual threat of termination of the trust to
Indian Nations. This mandate is required to formally affirm the
continuing U.S. responsibilities to preserve, protect, and guarantee
Indian rights and property. This policy should not permit the liquida-
tion of Indian lands and resources or terminate the trust relationship
with any Indian tribe, but should establish a perpetual trust relation-
ship.
10. An independent Indian agency to -manage Federal funding and
services as required to fulfil the trust responsibilities of the U.S.
Goverment to Indian Nations is required. The independent agency
would service the total 1 million Indian population needs whether
they come from: (a) members of federally recognized tribes resid-





15

he reservation; (b) tribal members wherever the
ers of all Indian tribes and communities; (d) all
merican Indians (including Alaskan Natives).
d Government preferably under the independent
7isdiction, should develop a total Indian needs -
bars to determine policy formation and program
presentation should come from : (a) members of
zed tribes residing on or near the reservation ; (b)
wherever they reside; (c) members of all Indian
unities; (d) all descendants of American Indians
in Natives).
ould mandate the Bureau of Indian Affairs to form
Reservation Advisers through a legally established
ss under that jurisdiction, to develop immediate
ni requirements that will be consistent with the need
er the $40 million appropriation for off-reservation

wouldd mandate the Indian Health Service to form a
,eservation Advisers through a legally established
m under that jurisdiction, to develop immediate
-am requirements that will be consistent with the
3 under the $50 million appropriation for off-reser-




















L YTHODOLOGT


EIGHT


,RICAN INDIAN POLICY
REVIEW COMMISSION


:VE DIRECTOR

L. STEVN



'OC LAE


URBN INDIAN
REPRESENTATIVE
ON COMMISSION

LOUIS R. ERCE


SPORT STAFF

- Jim Bluestone
- Bob Hapton (CMP)
- Dennis Yee (CM?)
- Mary Lou Eagney (CMP)






Diagram of methodology used for study


Analyze



and
Organize


First Reading


Classification

of material

into seventeen

subject areas


TO




CONGRESS


Submission of




final report


Make








Make


Comparison of
issues


DEVELOPMENT OF

COMMISSION

- FINAL REPORT


Determination

of needs using

verbatum state-

ments when

possible














rem


)grple rginscove,
ry sources of informal
and provide eom
,es of information are


(1) INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS


organizations to give
)nal hearings that we
a total of 167 urban
lata gathering efforts.
sis to the
pie encounter in their
the hearings allowed


Scontacted all known urban Indiar
prtunity to pripaein the reg
troughout the country. There w&,
a ens that we contacted in our
bution of these Indian or tio
I xtn of prolm htIda e
areas. Extensi est
irce staffto elicit frm th ion seQ
kcaraltinfn "ii'n ianr 74irl I nna


moth


nation of i'd&an organization and individual was
.d b careful siefic analysis by comp ve categoriza-
Isubiect area with each other. A precise account of these
be inthe seton "Social NeedsAsssmn.


(2) I N


focehen primary ws toobtaindataaboutthe
Dr oncrnsthat Indian individals encounter within their re-
Live regions. This information varied considerably in its sub-
ce, style, and subject areas. As expected, this data covered such
de spectrum of concerns that we needed to develop a study format
rder for us to logically and objectively examine and understand
L issue. Our study format for examining the hearing transcripts
bstimonies is summarized below:
1. Read the entire transcript to get a general feeling of the
i ues.
2. E xtract data from each testimonial using the summarizing
mnechanism developed by the staff. This tool has proven very


staff to
ral non-
esas that


the


.M Ub
broad


xlology used to gather data was to provide to all In-
ns questionnaires designed by our staff to
anizations, identify troil areas and to discover to
ian needs are met. Information from these question-
Ddeop a national directory of Indian organizations


19


keds portion of this
A studies conducted
itutes and works
uch of the historical






-20


successful in permitting us to break dow each i
tion or statement that pertained to the needs
of this study. The summarizing tool used is as follows:
Name of Witness
Subject of Testimony
Problems and Issues Defined
Conclusions and Recommendations
Task Force Review
(3) Next we organized the issues into 18 broad subject a
effort organized the data and allowed us to prioritize the
areas by occurrence of mention by the total number of wi.
These broad subject areas that we used to divide our are
listed below:
a. Employment related needs
b. Educational needs
c. Health-medical
d. Housing related needs
e. Alcoholism
f. Social services-general
g. Heritage and cultural awareness
h. Administrative needs
i. Facilities
j. Community acceptance
k. Economic development/betterment
1. Drug abuse
m. Legal related needs
n. Transportation
o. Youth-recreation
p. Day care
q. Advocacy-policymaking
r. Elderly
(4) After we organized the data, we wrote up the needs
ment on each subject area, utilizing verbatim quotes .when possible.
We then based our findings on the issues that were organized in
18 subject area.s.
(5) Finally, we developed findings and recommendations from the
needs statements.
Because of the very broad nature of this study, it was app t
that in order for this report to reflect the actual or real issues at hand,
it was necessary that careful coordination exist at all times between
us and the other task forces of the Commission. We have coordinated
our efforts with the following task forces in order to enlighten our-
selves and to avoid duplicity. Each task force with which we coordi-






21


ares is lise in thesfollown


area8


admin-
to our


res for de-
and rural


policies.
delivery


reas.
and drug


abuse


YORK CITY







22


URBAN AND RURAL NONRESERVATION TASK FORCE EIGHT SCHEDULE OF REGIONAL HEARINGS FEBRUARY 1976

Site Date Coordinator Location/Contact person Area covered


Phoenix ............... Feb. 9


Sid Beane, Phoenix Indian
School, 4025 North 2d
St, Phoenix, Ariz.


Phoenix Indian School; Arizona.
Gus Greymountain.


Los Angeles --------- Feb. 11 Lincoln Billedeaux, Indian
Centers, Inc., 1127 West
Washington Blvd., Los
Angeles, Calif.
San Francisco ------- Feb. 13 Tom Phillips, San Francisco
Indian Center, 225 Valen-
cia, San Francisco. Calif.
Seattle --------------- Feb. 17 Greg Frazier, Seattle Indian
Center, 2d and Cherry
Sts, Seattle, Wash.
Billings -------------- Feb. 19 George Hinkle, Montana
United Indian Alliance,
Post Office Box 786
Helena, Mont.
Oklahoma City ------- Mar. 2.. Mille Giago, Native Ameri-
can Center, 1214 North
Hudson, Oklahoma City,
Okla.
Omaha --------------- Mar. 5.. Eugene Crawford, Omaha
Indian Center, Indian
Association, 4436 8th
Ave., Omaha, Nebr.
Chicago -------------- Mar. 9 Nancy Dumont, Native
American Committee,
4546 North Hermitage,
Chicago, Il1.
Minneapolis.-___ Mar. 11- Ervin Sargent, Minneapolis
Reg. National American
Indian Center, 1530 East
Franklin, Minnespolis,
Minn.
New York City------ Mar. 19. Mike Bush, American In-
dian Community House,
10 East 38th St., New
York City, N.Y.
Tulsa--Apr.19.. Leon Lusty, Tulsa Indian
Youth Council, Inc., 716
South Troost, Tulsa, Okla.
Denver--Apr. 21 Gary Kodaseet, Denver In-
dian Center, 2210 East
16th St, Denver, Clo.


LAPD Auditorium, 150
North Los Angeles St.;
Mike Lange.
Glide Foundation Auditor-
ium, 330 Ellis St; Tom
Phillips.
New Federal Building, 915
2d Avenue; Greg Frazier.
Eastern Montana College;
Sybil Colliflower.

Vol-Tec Building, 4024
North Lincoln; Sammy
White.
Legislative Chambers,
Omaha Douglas Civic
Center, 1819 Farnam;
Eva Nichols.
Nancy Dumont


Southern California and
southern Nevad&

Hawaii, northern Califor-
nia, and northern Ne-
vada.
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon
and Washington.
Montana and Wyomin.


Arkansas, Louisiana, west
Oklahoma, and Texas.

Iowa, Kansas (Topeka and
Kansas City), Missouri,
and Nebraska.
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Ohio, and Wisconsin.


Minneapolis Reg. National Minnesota,
American Indian Center, Dakota.
1530 East Franklin; Ervin
Sargent.


American Indian Commun-
ity House; Barbara
Namias.


and North


Eastern States,
western States.


Southi


Leon Lusty-----------Arkansas, Kansas (Wich-
ita), and Oklahoma.
Indian Center Auditorium, Colorado, South Dakota,
1580 Gaylord Ave.; Gary and Utah.
Kodaseet.













o and whites,
the edeal overmen ha attempt t reslvetheconflict by two
ieoin di amon the white
poplaton.Theresrvtios, nvovin dfinte ribs ad oundaries,
errgts in a rther precarious way; by contrast,
thseinivdul ndan who have left the reservations, or who never
received ~ ~ reevtin asi 1aiforni), have been completely denied
the oubfulassstace nd protection ofthle Bureau of Indian Affairs.
recent tat special programs of assistance for urban
Indins avebee inroduced, as a result of the partialI recognition of
ther iffcutie ad the realization that other non-Indian programs are
inefeciv fo thm.These programs aea hopeful sign that the in-
an s may yet be overcome, and that the Govern-
met avbepnreasn~~in to asist them, as ittries toreverse
of e polcies toward the reserva-
tio tathae eslt n the emergece of 500,000 urban Indians.
Whe a artculr group of people becomes aware of the needs and

cenlythee hvebeen afwefforts to describe the history of urban
an ally the single most important part of their his-
trelocation program, which involved some 160,000 Indians.
However, no overview that conveys a feeling for the serious-
nes ofe slitbetween the Indian and bureaucratic viewpoints about
urbn Idiasand there is an accompanying absence of awareness that
the edealiovernment is itsef resposble for the turmoil and diffi-
culiesof their situation. Review of urban Indian history needs to
tak ino ccontthe ways i which F'ederal policies have splintered
Indantrie and either forced or encouraged Indians toward off -reser-
vatonsetins; t lsonedsto prove that the Government, motivated
ba, 1eir tberdoth"Iiapoblem," has withheld essential
series i an arbitrary fahon for at least 50 years since the problem
was ecogizedin the first ur~ban Indian hearings in 1928; :1the grudg-
ingwayinvhich the Government has recognized the necessity for at
leat lmied ssitace in its efforts to encourage Indians toward the
The y,onecrucialpoint ned to be
~; nd iu ian n




itshops, as baialy acmlished nothing more than a transfer of
nt are com n e ,

I US.Cogres.teati ubcite ofteCmite nIdanAfisSuvyodh
hn.


Codiios f heInias nth Uitd taes P. : erigsinSa Faniso n








After the Government had succeeded in containing Indian tribes on
reservations, the policies of neglect and assimilation were established
almost immediately. Each policy, even the neglect of the reservations,
was influential in bringing about the large number of urban Indians
today. In those instances where there was some early effort at reserva-
tion development, the Indians were converted into day laborers, work-
ing for the small empires of the local Indian agency officials and thus,
in these cases, too, there was a failure to establish a minimal economic
security for Indians on the reservation. Some of the earliest, "of-
reservation" Indians, particularly in California, fled from these en-
claves where they were kept in acute poverty to scatter among the
white population or retreat into unproductive areas that were among
the last to be settled by whites. The swiftness of the settlement of some
of the Western States, a result of the gold rush and the economic boom,
swamped the smaller tribes and led to the wheeling and dealing which
eventually caused the refusal by the Government to ratify the treaties
establishing some of the west coast reservations. The Indians had no
place to go, and in these early cases there was no choice but to wakh
the cities grow up around them. Much the same thing happened to
Indians on the east coast where inundation by white settlers and te
removal policy left only isolated groups or individual Indians behind
to encounter the growing cities. Throughout much of Indian history,
the point to be made is that no significant system of economic and
cultural protection was created to allow Indians the right to
pendence. They were coerced into a pattern of life which they did ot
choose, and their history is as much the history of their off-reservation
and urban experience as it is the continuing problem and separation of
the reservations.
To the U.S. Government, reservations were scarcely more than
fragile bubbles which could be played with to suit its own purpose
rather than places for the development of an independent culture.
Even when an Indian nation, particularly the Cherokees, tried des-
perately to preserve its own culture by imitating many of the atti-
tudes of the whites and seemed intent on establishing itself as a sover-
eign nation, the State and Federal Government combined to destroy
that possibility. In many cases, reservations were viewed by white
officials solely as detention camps, where the ways of assimilation
would be taught prior to the time of dispersal among the white pop-
ulation. The termination of several reservations and the threat of
further termination was a direct outcome of this attitude. Given this
historical desire to be rid of the possibility of the development of
strong reservation and tribal bodies, it is not surprising that t
Federal Government's policies have contributed so much to the seat-
tering of Indians throughout the population. What is particularly re-
markable about this pursuit of assimilation, however, is the never-
questioned feeling that complete assimilation is "just around the eor-
ner." Letters from agency officials in the 19th century report in optimis-
tic terms that with another few years of development, the Indian farms
would be indistinguishable from those of the whites. If there was some
truth in these statements, another policy of the Government called the
Allotment Act was sufficient to undo whatever progress had been made
toward securing an independent Indian economy. It resulted in the
eventual dispossession of untold numbers of Indians; one report esti-





25


100,000


of Oklahoma


dians are lan






26


tions, why don't they come to town?" While it is mposbleto
this as a general current of feeling, Meriam's findings that all Ii
in Los Angeles were adequately housed as of 1928 is even more
Meriam also has no objection to the living conditions of
trially housed Indians," a euphemism for the boxcars in which y
Indians working for railroads were living. In the entire of
Oregon, the investigators were able to find only four off-reservation
Indians, 50 percent of whom were indigent. The ridiculous p in
this first study of urban Indians could be multiplied, but he
important point is the leading recommendation which Meriam
from his findings. In the words of the report, no effort sho be
directed "toward building up an independent organization in
cities for aiding migrated Indians, but rather toward establ
operative relations with existing agencies which serve the popultion
as a whole." 5 The evidence on which the report claims to b this
recommendation is essentially nothing more than the assumption
assimilation which dominates the report and its interpretai of
"facts." But it is this viewpoint which prevailed over Indian attitdes
and needs and established itself as a landmark of a negative kind in
the experience of urban Indians. The subsequent migration of In
to the cities was to be a more painful experience as a direct rm of
the thinking underlying this recommendation.
By contrast, the findings of the hearings in Riverside, Calif., re-
vealed a far more convincing and far less optimistic picture. If urban
Indians in the 1970's are frustrated by the problems of pove and the
Federal/State denial of services, and the hearings of the Amen
Indian Policy Review Commission indicate that this is the case, then
some attention should be given to these first hearings. For
some of the painful stories arising from confusion about off-
tion eligibility for services have been accumulating for decades
the 1928 hearing in Riverside, Calif., before a Senate subcommittee of
the Committee on Indian Affairs. From this hearing, it evid
that the authorities and the Indians were equally mystified, but not
always equally troubled, about the jurisdictional confusion. An In-
dian could be transported to several different hospitals and a be-
fore he would be on a piece of land where he could receive emergency
medical service as an Indian. The fluctuation in the quality of services
for Indians from county to county also became apparent in the course
of the hearing. Chance took the place of policy, but, in general, their
off-reservation status left them almost totally deprived. One
summarized the situation: "On account of roaming around they
times light on a sport which is not what it should be, and they don't
get help, you see. You have lots of those cases" The problem of
poverty, virtually dismissed by the chapter in the Meriam report,
brought into focus during the hearings in an unforgettable In
retrospect, it is regrettable that the Government chose to
of its off-reservation policy on the Meriam report rather than on the
hearings. If the study of history has any power at all, it can at I
observe exactly where some of the mistakes were made ai
the awareness of how long those mistakes have been in effect.
3 Ibid. p. 721.
Ibid. p. 716.
5 Ibid. P. 669.
6Ibid. p. 465.






27


on allotment,
3iation of off-


)illon


steady
iues by


since


to cities
divides





28


the Bureau of Indian Affairs were already beginning to worry about
the difficulties that would be confronted by Indians upon returning to
their reservations after the war. Indians, too, were worried. The result
was a profound change of attitude regarding unfortunate conditions
that, had been endured for a long time on the reservations. In general,
the war precipitated a crisis in Indian affairs; it had provided employ-
ment and income as well as a broader perspective for many Indians,
particularly younger ones, and this came to a halt in 1945.
The specific event that brought the new feeling of crisis to national
attention occurred in the winter of 1947, during which the Navajos
and Hopis were confronted with the threat of starvation by terrible
blizzards. Following a major airlift, the Government reacted in the
longer term with a 10-year economic development program and a
theory of surplus Indian population on these reservations that was to
become the source of the relocation program. The extreme poverty of
the reservation combined with the disastrous winter seemed to confirm
the view that the Navajo Reservation could not support more than
35,000 people, meaning that at that time there were some 20,000
Navajos who appeared to the Federal Government to overburden res-
ervation resources. Since the Government had ignored the possibilities
of economic development on the reservation for so long, it was perhaps
inevitable that the idea of relocation would be posed as an official
solution. "Planning in Action on the Navajo-Hopi Indian Reserva-
tions," a BIA pamphlet published in 1952, made the following
comment-
Steady amelioration of the present economic conditions can be effected by a
well-fashioned program of off-reservation employment, coupled with an intensive
program of job training and procurement.'
The shift to off-reservation employment was rapid and substantial.
By 1951, over 17,000 Navajos were involved in off-reservation work
with railroads and agriculture. Permanent communities in New Mexico
and Arizona were established at varying distances from the reserva-
tion; a center was built in Gallup to encourage the migration.
The surplus Indian theory rapidly gained a wide audience. In a
1954 congressional report entitled "Survey Report on the Bureau of
Indian Affairs" the theory had become a generalization-
Most of the reservations are greatly overpopulated, and could not support the
present population at anything approaching a reasonably adequate American
standard of living. Past studies indicate that the resources of many reservations,
when fully developed, could support no more than 60 percent of the current
population, and the Indian population is increasing rapidly.'
In some instances, it appears that the Federal policy openly rejected
the idea of reservation development in order to enhance this surplus
of Indians. A particularly fine example is recorded in a law review
article by Felix Cohen-
Commissioner Myer's opposition to the rebuilding of the Papago Hospital-
the only hospital on a 2,855,000-acre reservation, which burned down in 1947-
and his closing down of small hospitals and clinics on various other reservations
probably reflect the Commissioner's belief that Indians should not be encouraged
to remain on the reservations and that better reservation health faculties would
constitute such encouragement.'
11 Bureau of Indian Affairs. "Planning in Action on the Navajo Hopi Indian Reservation."
1952. p. 32.
32 U.S. Congress. House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, "Survey Report on
the Bureau of Indian Affairs." 1954. p. 23.
Cohen. Felix. The Erosion of Indian Rights, 1950-53 : "A Case Study in Bureaucracy."
62 Yale Law Journal 348 (1953).






29






89

was primarily a response to the failure of the early ro
it was an effort to make the program more attractive, a
realization that a lack of specific, employable skils
tained Federal assistance were major obstacles to Inia
away. The report cites a lengthy Senate study made in th
which severely criticized the relocation program on b o tese
points. Describing the program as "grossly inadequate" due to
of services, it went on to observe that "there has beenin t
on the various Indian reservations, such an increase in the t
that the relocation program doesn't noticeably reduc the re-
maining on the reservations." A further problem arisin eci -
sion to deny all services to off-reservation Indians wast
centage of those who rejected their new city environment in favo
returning home. With a 30-percent or higher rate of return
the other shortcomings in the program, the Government w
compelled to seek some improvement in its strategy. Th
Training Act represented the compromise, the attempt to ad
guided program to the Indian reality that was undermining .
It is doubtful whether this new legislation made much headway
against the problems it was designed to combat; the hope that the
training would enable Indians to establish more than a
hold in the city and increase the percentage of permanent rl
when all other services were discontinued, was not entirely i .
In its favor, however, it can be said that the act establish a
of gradual concessions to the idea of federal assistance for nia off
the reservation. Even though it was offered to Idias n ba
their American citizenship rather than as part of the t -
sibility, and with the ultimate purpose of individual "term
mind, Public Law 959 can be regarded as a faorable p
Though the Government was unwilling to commit itIf in
ways to off-reservation Indians, it did devote some effort to a
remarkable whitewash of the relocation program. In the y r
Public Law 959 was passed, and for some of the same rea
inspired the act, the Committee on Interior and Insular A -
thorized a "Special Subcommittee on Indian Affairs" study enit
"The Indian Relocation and Industrial Development P
The report is so intent on making the relocation program m -
tive that it is tantamount to a bureaucratic advertisement. It c
only a few mild criticisms of the program and it a the
statistics and criteria for success without qu ion. The
place in the relocation offices in Los Angeles andCli w bri
visits to a handful of Indians apparently selectedby the BIA or the
occasion. The report does admit that "time did not permit f-
ficient homes to get a good cross-section of living conditions i e
Chicago area."19 It gives no evidence of having seriously di
the Program with Indians who have 'been invaved in it, nd -
tainly made no effort to interview any of d
they would be better off in returning to the reservation. The e
report relies on the views of those working for the relocation o or
on lengthy quotes from non-Indian employers.
1"'See: 1.S. Congress House Report of a Special Sub ittee on Indian Afairq of
the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. "Indian Relocation and Industial Develop-
mit Pro-L-rsui." 1957.
1Ibld. p. 16.





31

As could be expected, the emphasis in the report is upon assimila-
tion. Remurances are given that there are few difficulties in placing
relocatees; there are frequent examp es of the rapport between Indians
and their employers, result1n *in an impression of overriding content-
raent with the. work and tte opportunities available. This over-
hasis on assimilation made the report completely blind to whatever
problem relocated Indians might be experiencing- Would you
like to hear its theory of Indian failure? This is it: "Some of course
find city life too big, noisy, and exciting and fall by the wayside." 20
In contrast to its general outlook, the subcommittee did. incorporate
a list of some 30 recommendations provided by "Indian organization
leaders." It contained some of the most basic criticisms of the reloca-
tion program that could be made. Among them were the two following
objec ons: (1) "Staff education of city relocation officers should in-
clude truction that relocation is not intended to be a solution to the
Indian problem." (2) "The development of an economic alternative
to relocation for reservation Indians should be the governing goal
of the Bureau of Indian Affaim 11 211 The subcommittee accepted this
later suggestion and devoted the final part of its report to the need for
increased spending on reservation development. In general, however,
there -is a very obvious gap between the Indian view in its list of rec-
ommendations and the report's attitude toward relocation. The Indian
view is critical and far more concerned with the elements of coercion
and termination behind the program; the subcommittee view, as stated
in its conclusions, is- that the survey members "were pleased with the
relocation services program as they saw it in the Los Angeles and
Chicago areas. 1122 1
The Indian leaders' list is only a hint regarding the difficulties
created by the program. More than 10 years had to go by before In-
dians in off-reservation areas were given an opportunity to express
tbeir reactions to the program in detail. The forum was provided in
the hearings hold by the National Council on Indian Opportunity at
five of the major urban centerS23 and revealed how much the program,
and the results of it in terms of the Indian situation in the cities, were
a focus for controversy. When one confronts neither the reassuring
viewpoint of the BIA nor the bland'statistics, but the people them-
selves who are involved with the program, it becomes obvious how
keenly, and in some cases, bitterly alive, were the feelings about the
experience. Byand large, the numerous criticisms and difficulties fall
into three major areas: The lack of orientation -in shifting from
the reservation to the city; the ver-y low quality of the opportunities
for work; and the confusion as to where to turn for necessary services.
One of the essential failures of the program was due to the inability
to understand both the difficulty and the importance of orientation.
Where there was not a stubborn callousness about the fate of Indians
in the cities, there* was a mistaken optimism that underestimated the
barriers that Indians would encounter. Several specific points can be
identified where the process of transferral to the cities required a thor-
ough review.
90 Thid. Y). 14.
21 Thi d. 1D. IA.
23 Thid. P. 19.
23 National Council on Indian Opportunit.v. Hearings in Los An.geles, Dallas, Minneapolis-
St. Paul. San Francisco and Phoenix. 1968-0.








The first of these is the question of the quality of the s
ess. The BIA (and various documents in support of its v
maintain that there was a careful selection of candida
those who seemedverylikely to m a go of it permi
program. But this is hardly substantiated by the
NCIO hea or by the observations of indivi
only the most ited ability in English, having compi y a
grades of school, were not discouraged from the program,
hardship was an inevitability. According to a story in the Ls es
hearings, one Alaskan Native was encouraged to apply
gram, received a few months of training in automobile repair
of his 3 years of formal schooling, and did not stand a c
ing employment with any garage. After a few difficult
begged and scraped together enough money to return home.Ao
observer in San Francisco mentioned the many Navajo
accompanied their parents in the move to the city and
familiarity with English. Other Navajos who had resided
the area, themselves struggling to piece together a
what spare time they had to Introducing the children to
With this disadvantaged beginning, and with the Government
to extend any special services, many were not able to break
the cultural barriers.
Recruitment for the program was another problem. TA
contends that there was a considerable effort to p a
picture of the issues involved in urban migration. This intention,
ever, is somewhat deflected by their own manual, whice
outline for an approach designed to encourage Indians to the
reservations. Selections of photographs were biased toward
ful Indians in the cities, reflecting the better Indian ho
favorable kinds of work and the higher wages that individual
or a few families had obtained. One BIA photograph of a
younger Indians shows them standing in an agency offi l i
relocation; on a banner in large letters above their -heads are th wo
"New Horizons.25The manual stresses that the officials con
the interviews and "counsel sessions may caution Ini
alterations of life-style are to be expected, but there is no c
alarm as differences are actually negligible. There is a
of this "double-talk," which makes one doubt that there was
adequate degree of caution in the program. Commenting dir y on
recruitment, one observer said tis about the experience of
Natives -"* for some reason or another, the Bureau n it empl
meant or relocation program manages to get a substantial num of
people by going into a village, in a matter of hours 2
A crucial part of the orientation process which was nag w
counseling. The service was understaffed and one of the most
complaints about it in the hearings focused on the length of
in the counselor's office, which was usually more than 3 h No spe-
cial effort was made to find and hire Indian people whose backgr
would enable them to relate with more understanding and whom the
migrated Indians would be more likely to trust. Nor was th c l-
2'National councill on Indian Opportunity. Hearing In Los As.
25 Brophy. W. and Aberle. S. "The Indian American's Uninished Business" University of
Oklaboma. 1966. Photograph opposite page 189.
as National Council on Indian Opportunity. Hearings in Los Angeles.





33
reservation directed toward griving(r accu-


SUMIM&






34


say: "You get placed on the job, and your first job dost w o
where are you? Several thousand miles from your h and
This decision that Indians should be moved great distan
sake of work was modified by Indian attitudes. The nugr
evolved by Indians themselves have tended to take the no
from the reservation than is necessary to obtain basic work a o
ing. Urban concentrations of Indians in Minneapolis and Al
are part of a migratory pattern that includes the rese ion, s
them is a balance struck between on- and off-reservation life.
studies 30 have examined this arrangement and have conclu
ability to maintain close contact with the reservation w a
living beyond its boundaries reflects an important develop
cause to some extent it combines the social and economi f a
have been split apart by the migration to distant cities. This
ment is characteristic also of places like Rapid City, South
and Duluth, Minnesota, where Indians are able to return more
to their reservations for tribal ceremonies or for emergency mei
services that they cannot receive in the cities. Members of the Mohwk
and other New York tribes often establish themselves at som
greater distances, but they are still able to go back to the
without much difficulty if they wish. The question of distance a
variable, and it is unfortunate that the BIA adopted a y of
maximizing the distance for the sake of individual termination.
A second influence resulting from Indian feelings about the p
was reflected in a report by a task force in 1961, which
the following: "Wherever possible, increased emphasis should be
on local placement * funds for providing necessary services to
Indians being placed in communities close to the reservation s d
available just as they are for Indians being transported to dis
cities." 31 This recommendation did not seriously affect the
procedure, but it did indicate that once again the program was i
ble and out of step with what many Indians desired. This is one a
where the Government gradually accepted the Indian viewpoint, not
by modifying the program to allow shorter distances, but sl
recognizing the necessity of economic development on the reserva .
One of the worst ironies of the relocation program, following t
frequently sizeable move to "New Horizons," was the neighborhoods
and regulations to which Indians found themselves subjected. The New
Horizons in fact were some of the most formidable ghettos i the
largest cities. The housing arrangements by the BIA, excluding In-
dians even from the limited benefits of public housing, often iv
jamming an entire family into a one-rm apartment in a
with an unreasonably high rent being demanded. What is more, there
were regulations by the BIA forbidding the free movement of r
catees and threatening them with a cancellation not only of the few
basic services, but even of the training provided by the program. Here
and there, in stories of experiences among urban Indians, one catches
glimpse of the disbelief and disgust which caused some of them to exit
from the program and try some other place on their own. The practice
RNational Council on Indian Opportunity. fHeaings In Los Angeles. 58.
30 An observation in some of the studies conducted by The Training Center for Com-
munltv Programs. University of Minnesota.
1 "Report to the Secretary of the Interior by the Task Force on Indian Affairs."
July 1961, p. 17.






35


"-/1 hear-


on of social life

or objections to

a result of the


saw


ual


mization, some
a through that
rriers involved
dians were not

heir urban en-
disorientation.
ins by present-
lihbut these
[have estab-
m no -


to complete the
fl, the relocated





36


may have contributed more to the urban disorientation of Indians
than any other single factor.
All of this supposedly had a central goal-to give Indians the op-
portunity to work. Thus, it is necessary to review the Indian reactions
to the work which they obtained in the cities. This task is corn located
by the fact that the BIA gathered very few statistics regarding In-
dian employment, and records concerning the urban experiences of
those who returned to the reservation were never kept. By ignoring
the fact that at least 30 percent and perhaps upward of 50 percent
became disillusioned and returned to their reservations, the Bureau's
interpretation is automatically slanted in a direction more favorable
than the program deserves. It also ignores those who have been
caught midway between the reservation and the city, unable to find
economic security in either place and left as perpetual migrants.
One issue that caused controversy in the NCIO hearings was the
question of the quality of the vocational training. Without doubt, it
enabled some Indians to acquire the education necessary for a career.
But it offered a fairly narrow range of courses in the "service" occupa-
tions; it appears that there was a high concentration in a few areas
and quite a number of graduates were unable to find work. Some of
the problems were probably aggravated by the "minimum cost" ap-
proach. In the relocation manual, one finds the following guideline:
"The Bureau is interested primarily in the approval of courses of
training at minimum tuition costs." As a result, in spite of the regula-
tions for contracting with schools under Public Law 959, some of the
schools were not accredited. One person commented: "They are
flooding the market with these young kids who cannot find jobs be-
cause they come from vocational training schools that are not State
accredited, and they are winding up right on the streets."
One of the other factors that worked against the dependability of
the program was the loss of funds part way through the training. The
same speaker, after mentioning his efforts to aid an urban Indian girl
trying to enter college, went on to say: "Her husband had been put in
a vocation training course, sheet-metal. Anyway, they jerked him out
of this course * after 6 months, and told him that they didn't
have enough money to finish his training. They jerked him out and
got him some little job doing some menial tasks, making about $1.50
an hour." 35 This individual then quit, found work that had better
pay, and enrolled himself in another vocational course to complete
his training.
Such a story is by no means unique, and it points out another of the
Indian frustrations with the program: The problem not only of un-
employment but of underemployment. This difficulty was the almost
inevitable result of a seriously flawed program, and it could have
been avoided only by an approach that was far more aggressive and
imaginative than anything the relocation program offered. The prev-
alence of -nderemployment among Indians in the city is a fact of life
that the recent flood of sociological literature on the subject has begun
to document. During the Los Angeles hearing, one of the witnesses
cited the following statistics, taken from information provided by the
BIA itself: "The BIA for 1967 indicated that the average salary for
men who received vocational training was $2.40 an hour which is lower
5 National Council on Indian Opportunity. Hearings in San Francisco, p. 241.






37

JIoyment of $.59." 36Part of the rea-
t mnyofthe type of work which
owe litleopportunity for advane
,,icustnees were to return to the
obtin urter training and a bettr
,fforts. But some Indians did remain
nd some of the remarks in the hear-
io, after several years of work at a
g the minimum -wage. Another influ-
Lekl of oin-oritunities with regard to








I was left stranded in Barstow with a family of nine." 9 Succh a
perience was unfortunately only an introduction to the prem
countered by the larger families.
One of the almost unavoidable results of the vocational tra
was that the work for which Indians were trained iin the ce
seldom be used back on the reservations. The divergence betw
and rural occupations meant that the majority of skills acqu
the city would be irrelevant to the reservations. Supposing
Indian developed a marketable skill but still did not like the
environment, a decision to return to his tribe usually r "
sacrifice of what he had worked hard to learn. Yet this was
of conflict in which Indians found themselves. The compromise was
often to abandon a position in the city for a temporary st
and then return to the city in hope of finding another job orrs i
the earlier one. In contrast to some of the optimistic staenents
Bureau, which described the skills and new experiences that thed
illusioned relocatees brought back with them to the reservatios, the
was very little to justify this optimism. An Indian returning ho
was unlikely to have an outlet for his talents and thus would be f rc
back to an area where there was a demand for them. The differ
between the kinds of employment in the two areas tightened te bond
between the urban Indian and the city, but this was not s
that was actively desired by Indians. As reservation develpmt is
pursued, however, there may be more room for certain urban s
and the gap may be narrowed.
Another factor related to the difficulties with employmet w the
insecurity of many of the positions. Since almost no Indians had at-
tained positions of status in the cities, they were usually in marg 1
circumstances where they would be the first ones fired. One anr
observer spoke of "very insecure jobs-jobs they would lose at e
first opportunity." 4 The BIA Manual was adapted to a one-shot psy-
chology, and it lacks provisions for taking into account the precarius
quality of much of the work. In some cases, the employment obtaied
by the Bureau was restricted to a temporary basis, so that the Indian
would eventually have to drift from place to place. A glance at the
"Indian Unemployment Survey" 41 of 1961 indicates that a position
resulting from the relocation program generally did not l me
than a year, with varying lengths of time between work. But without
question, Indians in the principal relocation cities were in the most
tenuous position and there was little tlmt they could do about it.
The problem of losing employment altogether was compounded by
the critical shortage of emergency funds for those who needed a
sistance immediately. The Indian centers during the 1940's, 1950's, and
1960's were invariably short of money, and the relocation office, one
of the few other places with which the Indians were likely to be
familiar, had next to no cash in reserve. The Bureau, as part of its
coercive policy, had instituted the thoroughly unpopular policy of the
"one-way ticket," so that an Indian who could no longer .meet tie
financial demands of the city sometimes could not even get back to his
reservation without a struggle. This meant that an Indian (and his
National Council on Indian Opportunity. Hearings in San Francisco, p. 30.
UNational Council on Indian Opportunity. Hearings in Los Angeles.
U.S. Congress. House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. "Indian Unemploy-
ment Survey. Part I: Questionnaire Returns." 1963.


38





39

Sthroug the floor and never be heard

%e is in adperate economic

-ier ocasons,4hy noticed tha she
id was crminz her pockets with






40


insufficient, and there has been a slow search by Indians
for the attainment of some kind of orderly provision of ser
The first point that needsto beconsidered is the wayinwhich
question of services has been evaded, or else stated in a way that
not acceptable to Indians. As noted already, the BIA'S attitude
that services could be suspended almost completely. When it
obvious that this was unrealistic, then it was felt that In
appeal for services as American citizens. In the controversy
resulted, urban Indians have countered this with two ar (
As Indians, they are entitled to special assistance, and (2) th" pro
grams must also be special in the sense that they are administ.b
Indians. The first of these points involves legal considerations
elsewhere; the second point belongs more closely to the hcal
ground of urban Indians that is pertinent here. The NO heari"
made it very clear that Indians were extremely critical of the l of
Indians to represent their interests and needs in local cit
ments. The complex process by which contacts are
satisfactory representation is achieved in a new setting was ba
underway when the post-war situation rapidly inc
migration of Indians. For nearly 30.years since then, urban
have had to struggle not only for a minimal economic security but
for the Indian leadership that could obtain important i
reflect Indian needs. It has taken a sizeable amount of
to overcome the initial isolation and disorganization. The NOIO
hearings give an impression that urban Indians had su
establishing a few beachheads on various city boards and
the emphasis is upon the need for improvements in liaison
Indians and the city government. There is a strong feeling in the
ings that Indians do not want the leadership and the services provi
for them by white people. One staff member of the Sacramento
ment of Social Welfare testified in the Los Angeles hearings:
experience has been that Indians tend not to participate in
grams that are so often availabe--preferring Indian pro
In this respect, the goals and experiences of urban Indians are a
of the more general current of feeling that has led to the
of Indian desks in federal agencies and the policies of
determination.
While many studies could be cited 48 to prove that urban India
have needs that are at least as urgent as any other identifiable
the irony remains that their participation in service prog
tinues to be less than statistics would warrant. One individual who
testified at length on urban Indian health volunteered this observation:
"I read a report furnished to me in advance from the California Publi
Health Service that the percentage of Indian women who do not
prenatal care is something like 28 percent compared with the overall
Los Angeles area, which is something like 8 percent." The s
concluded: "The programs have to be geared especially for Indians.149
Some of the reasons for this Indian noninvolvement in programs not
designed directly for them are suggested by another observer:
47National Council on Indian Opportunity. Hearings in Los Angeles. P. 170.
48 1) Chandhuri, Joyotpaul. Urban Indians of Arizona-Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff.
Urban Institute of Government Studies, University of Arizona. 1974.
2) Native American Research Group, Institute for Scientific Analysis Native American
Families In the City. 1975.
4 Op. Cit. p. 65.





41






42


a newspaper published by the Los Angeles Indian Center, made
comment m presenting a history of the center:
By 1969, when the relocation program, termed a gross failure was
reduced, the result was a widely dispersed Indian community typified by
unemployment, severe educational deficiencies, and various other social ills ..
The growing concern for Indian problems in Los Angeles prompted the
Center to embark on a plan to meet these problems... '
The same response has been characteristic of dozens of other cities
and off-reservation areas where Indians have felt an acute
representation.
Another specific example illustrating this creative response to
tration is offered by the "Council of Three Rivers American Indian
Center" in Pittsburgh. Organized in 1970, it resulted from
between "two Native American families" about the c
eastern nonreservation Indians as... being dispersed andi
being denied native birthrights, being discriminated against... The
first newsletter, describing the incorporation of the center and its
search for funding, goes on to observe--
Although many Indians reside in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, and surround-
ing counties, there was no structure whatever for Indian advocacy, commu -
tion, protection of rights, and maintaining identity as a people."
Even the more recently established centers present an ambitiou
range of services and objectives, which they too often must su
on a "shoestring budget, relying on chance donations and voluntee
work while being hampered by frequent changes of leadership
any number of reasons, individual centers may expand or fall ap
but it is important to realize that the majority of the centers, rega
of their size or duration, are attempting to provide valuable
on an Indian basis to people who often are inadequately
through non-Indian channels. To the typical observer, detached from
Indian affairs, a particular center may appear rather accidental but the
individual centers are all part of a pattern of response that needs to
be encouraged.
Indians have come to the cities in substantial numbers because of the
acute problems of the reservations, but many of them have not
able to find security either in the city or on the reservation and they
are really at home nowhere. But the Federal Government, by its own
policies and programs, has been directly or indirectly responsible for
the migration. Where it was directly responsible through programs
that encouraged the migrants, it has failed to provide adequate asist-
ance, with the result that many Indians hve been left as isolated indi-
viduals or families in the midst of the ghettos. There have been efforts
to increase this assistance, notably in the Vocational Training Act of
1956, but these efforts have been based more on responses to an emer-
gency than on a genuine recognition either of Indian needs or rights.
As a result, services have been consistently inadequate.
In reviewing the history of the general problem of services to off-
reservation Indians, it has been evident at least since the urban hear-
ings of 1928, that the prevailing policy has been to deny services;
furthermore, the Government felt that one way to reduce and then
cancel its commitment to Indians has been to attempt to melt them
Los Angeles Indian Center. "Talking Leaf." February 1975.
"Council of Three Rivers Newsletter. VoL L, No. I.






43

3. This policy and the limited assistance esntially
r Indians to leave their homelands have done
iing, to alleviate Indian needs. The Government has
xrred the crisis from one location to another, from the
and undeveloped reservations to the perhaps even
ns of the poorest parts of the cities. The migration has
ven moderate economic well-being to the majority of
ins, and the relocation program, used by the Govern-
hod of terminating its trust responsibility, has been a
'aiingattitude that must be reviewed and rejected in
.,he way for a fairer representation and response regard-
an needs.
at in favor of providing special programs of assistance
ms oesin two directions. It can be stated on the basis
Is and on the basis of unique Indian rights. The argue -
%Is with Indian rights in off-reservation settings is
3-reat deal of legal controversy and it will undoubtedly
er of court decisions or legislation before the question
contrast, the issue of needs is immediate and undeni-
ss of how the legal argument is resolved, the Govern-
afronted by the problem of recognizing that the reloca-
adthe undeveloped reservations have resulted in the
soe600,000 nonreservation Indians whose needs are
for many reasons by existing a cies. It must decide
a which a program can be established and operated to
e needs are not ignored.
mert has committed itself no further than to say that
3 services on the basis of citizenship, thus regarding
Same light as other Americans. This is perhaps the
ude, itself a product of the termination era, that must
the Government before a successful program of as-
ian Indians can be established. It has been shown that
do not avail themselves of non-Indian programs and
tended to remain an invisible minority, holding less
oivinglessinthewayof a ncethantheir numbers
L In spite of the mistaken belief that urban Indians
latdundsi sale group, many of them have
r.1ihk1 Mnidpztiv f hP nPAA fnr nrncrrqamq tin.t~~P su'pei















LEGAL REVIEW
ai of this task force to formulate an overall
%I trust responsibility to Native Aeias
to examine indepth the various interpreta-
aced on the concept by the courts, the Federal
. many scholars and Indian
-erm was first introduced in Indian affairs in
iplicate considerably the efforts of task force
lity and Indian relationship) and others in

discussion does do, however, is to examine
concept of trust responsibility, its scope with
i Indians, and how the concept, plus statutory
d to largely exclude nonreservation Indians
I services. We will attempt to demonstrate
not follow from any careful analysis of the
rather emanates largely from the perceived
and the attitude that "it has always been

,nd nature of the trust relationship between
deral Govenent continue to be rather vge
,nn has been identified as treats, the Indian
.cts a the U.S. Constitution,'4 and U.S. Supreme
ias been variously described as rese ing" a
nt, dntv to TndinnS. thj "moral obligations of


A of






46


v. Georgia," the two Supreme Court oases which stand as a watershed
for much of the subsequent Federal case law in Indian affairs. From
these cases the terms "domestic dependent nations," "sovereignty," and
"guardianship" became major touchstones in describing Indian tribes
and their powers.
Despite the confusion and conflicting notions of what the trust
responsibility is and-perhaps more importantly-its breadth of ap-
plication in terms of Government actions, there is little disa
today that it charges the Federal Government with a duty to protect
Indian lands and natural resources. This includes but is not limited
to tribal lands,' trust monies,' water resources,'4 and individual
Indian lands.',
What is not so clear from court cases, however, is whether the t
responsibility also encompasses a duty-independent of s treaty
provisions, agreements, or federal statutes-to (1) provide Govern-
ment services and if so, (2) whether such a duty extends to tribal
members who live off the reservation on nontrust lands.
The Department of Interior apparently considers the first ques-
tion to be largely answered. For example, in U.S. Senate hearings in
1973,16 then-Assistant Secretary of Interior, John H. Kyl, stated
As you know, the U.S. Government is charged with a trust responsibility with
regard to Indians. This term is often misunderstood. It applies to resurces, not
to persons. This trusteeship is tied to the protection, preservation, and develop-
ment of tribal and individual Indian resources, such as land, water, and
hunting rights, mineral development, and timber.
(This trust responsibility is frequently compared to the duties of a te
trustee, such as the administrator of an estate. But the analogy is faulty
of a unique feature in the U.S. Indian trust responsibility; the assets of this
trust must be managed and administered with the consent of the beneficiary-
that is, the tribe or individual Indian.
Moreover, the current Bureau of Indian Affairs manual contain-
ing the mission and functions for the Office of Trust Responsibilities
sets forth the three interests of the office: (1) Rights other than civil
rights (listed as grazing, water, hunting and fishing, land claims et
cetera) ; (2) natural resources (irrigation, agriculture, forestry, et
cetera) ; and (3) financial assets (identified as management of trust
funds) .'
While no one can question that these areas are a legitimate part
of the corpus of the trust, one can rightfully question the statement
that these are the only subjects of the trust. No judicial decision, no
constitutional provision, no act of Congress, and, as far as we can
determine, no Executive order provides that the Federal trust respon-
sibility for Indians can be faithfully and completely carried out solely
by assisting in the preservation and protection of Indian lands.
Because of the importance of his land to the Indian, it is perhaps
appropriate that the Government's principal concern in executing its
U 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
2United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103 (1935).
3s Machester Band of Poro Indians v. United States 363 T. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Cal.
1973) ; Semirnole Nation v. United States, supra.
14Pyramid Lake Paitute Tribe v. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1972).
2 Naganab v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 473 (1906).
1 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affars, committee on
Indian Affairs. 93d Congress, 1st sess. on S. 1012 and S. 1339, May7and 8, 1973. P. 31.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973.
:1 1Bureau of Indian Affairs Mannual, section 1.2 (updated).
18 Lands In this sense would include the natural resources and the trust funds which
flow from the land, either in royalties and leases or judgment claims.






47


-ent to
incon-
such a





48


services concerned with land and resource management or those
founded on statute, treaty, or agreement. The only case
directly addressed the question,1 concluded, with very little e-
tion, that there is no such independent duty. That court als
however, that the trust responsibility of the Federal Governm
be founded on specific treaties, contracts or agreements, and is
not a correct reading of the law.27 Moreover, the principal t f
the opinion was limited to a discussion of the jurisdiction of the
Claims Commission.
What the court was apparently unprepared to do was to
such a duty as implied from the entire body of treaties, ag
contracts, congressional acts, representations, indeed all th
contracts between the United States and the Indian tribes. y the
duty is explicit in certain cases where services are promised by
treaty or statutory provision. But to imply a duty on the of one
contracting party is a common precedent in American j
particularly when the court recognizes unequal bargaining power -
tween the parties.28 Moreover, the courts have frequently not h
to prohibit the Government from denying social services after it
takes to provide them to a class of people
If one examines today the benefits which the American col
received from tribes, there can be no doubt that the consideration ey
received in exchange for any duty to provide services was ample. s
Nation could probably not have been born, let alone expan and en-
rich itself as it did, without the helping hand and eo us nd
grants extended by many of the indigenous Indian tribes. Snry he
provision of some measure of lasting and reasonable services im-
plied in these transactions, particularly when the bargaining p
was so one-sided. If our conscience can be "shocked" y the unfai
dealings of an automobile dealer in selling a defective car to a customer
and an implied warranty of suitability can be found in the tansac-
tion3 then surely it is not an overly dramatic step for our conscience
to be so shocked by the "dealings" between the United States and e
Indian tribes that we can imply a duty to provide services to th
Indians.
But it is the position of this task force that we should not wait or
the Federal courts to make such a finding, if indeed they ever do. Be-
cause of its plenary power in Indian affairs,"" the Congresshould
rightly clarify the Federal Government's trust responsibility. Sch
clarification should set forth the principle that the responsilty i
its broadest sense runs from a Government to a people, who are
2 Gila River Pima Maricopa Indian Community v. United States., 42T P. 4d 1194
(Ct. Cl.). eert. denied, 400 U.S. 819 (1970).
27 qep Ch.erokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831); Worcheeter v. Georgia, 3
515 (1832) ; United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886).
28 For example, the legal doctrine in product liabity cases where the Sell is
to an implied warranty of suitability is entirely a ceatre of judicial const .
MVcPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. 1050 (1916). Likewise, the doctrine ef Im
warranty of habitability in property law. See E. H. Rabin, "Fundamentals of Modern
Real Property Law." Mineola, N.Y. Foundation Press, 1974, p. 1177 and cases cted
threin.
Furthermore, in its relations with Indians, the Federal Government is more than Just
a contracting party. It has "moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust."
Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286. 296-97 (1942).
2Goldbero v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). G. Hall, Is There A Constitutional Ri to
Adequate Medical Care? American University Law School, January 1972 (unpu
manuscript).
:1 Supra. note 28.
31 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903). See Cohen, Handbook of Fe eral Indian
Law, 89-93 (1942 Ed.).





iii : i~ i iii ii ii iii. ... .. .. .. .............. .





trust reaton Rahe th raioal is to assist a pepl i~ retingliii i iiiiii

teUii Sttsini iiiimpiiii iiilie dut to prvd sevie toi Indians weiiii
delvey ysemma b del, ina byl the Cogrs-bt h gl dutyi
itiiii di~eliveriii iiisii~i~= constant Wiiitih itsi== iimirgeincii th benefiiiiiiii===iiiiiiii~i itsiii whic flowi fromi=iiiiiiiiiiii
iihi duty b c m co t a t a o li t is -not~iiiiiiiii gr t ii.........................nyiiiii im orieiiiiiiiii thaniiiiiiiiiiiii==i i
............. co p n a i n b n f t s c a e uity .............. i n s ....................
benefits~i~ i are gratuitieso toteqalfe ecpet
R!siismi ............. ii'M=iEiViiii N ...IN ====== iA N......
Itmgtb etrtdhr ha h eea rs epnib iiyrn
from.. th Fedra Govenmen to th trbe But== the iiiiibeiias an enityiii==
...................................e.... it== can e, aid that the ult m at
ben fiiar.o the trust... ii e i !in iidul ~ Iianiiii asil a membe ofii hii iiiiii i i si!iiiliiiiiiiiii!i
t r b. ......................... Ti i i i o b v ous l y ............................ ................. ...............................................
ernment acst rteta nivda nian' landfro bengaxe
by:::::::::::::: ........ te.3 I i a l true, howeveriiiiiiii~iiii~i~ii when ac inii i o r tc
a.iii tribe'siiii w ate resourcesii on theiii reservati ii iiiiiiiii i o alho g man of that i iiiii~i=ii~~iiiiii= iiiiiii = iiiii~iii 1
trb' e s a o liv eve nertersraio.Idvda n
dinicuigmoto hs i n inii ura n ohrnnrsr
tinaes eeal dniytesevsi h otx ftertia
a fi l t ::::::::::::::::::::: i==iii==ii ,i) , ,== . 'i; ii;
Probablyi few ifay eea diitaoso e iatrsi oul
disgre with" the above.. comments i remakabl te acitv most
tribs cotinu to urvie asgovenmenal ad cutura en iti i n
most::::::::::::::::::::: ==== M== Ind ins contii nu toiiii =i=i i ntaii ; i n ties..... to, the' i rji~i= ,===== re p ct v tr = ;:====,=== =ibes,~i desp==ite
th eealGvrmetsmnyatmt t icurg hs oein
.W ee h nmero isetr inresoev is we i tssg
gested that .. iii the F ederal G overn ment's trust responsibility applies to:::::: :::::: :::: :::: : :: =iiii ...... iiiii====iiii''===== =='iii =' ::::::::::::::::::
trblmebr living off the reservation as well as those on Thi s
d in resu lts:::::::: iipia rt==iii =iiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiii a lly~iiiiiiii fro n iiiiiiiiiiii theiiiiii i x ediiiiiiii th~iiiiinkiiiiiiii iiing iiiiiiiiiii~iiii p e oi n a ntii !iiiiiiniiiiiii=iIii=............................. i
.... ... ...... t h a the....... I ndii=iii.... ...i a ................ ..... ... e q u te w.... ii ....." = ......... i i th la n d a n d n.........o t h in............... ........g m o............r... ..e ,iiiiii
a d ri all ................. th. mi stakenii n ot.ii ........ i oniiii=' th a = i f ... .an=====iiiii =i~ I ian =ii~il eavesiii h.... .i siiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
resevaton t iswit a onscousundrstadin tht heis orskin
hi t r ::::::::::::i e =====iiiiiii' a n d ::::::::::: is ............ e m b a rk= i ng u p onl th r o ad............... toiiii===== a s s i m ila t io n...... A sl -p o in tedi========ii~j'I= =iiiiii ====~il ............ i iii .............. i.............=..............i............. iiiil ... ..
......... elew er .. ,====in ............ ...his report, nothin could be. farhe from real.,====ity.~IIii~
M o reii o ften i th an n oti theii i ndii iviiiiiiii id u aliiiii~~iiiiii ii~iiiiiiiii~iiiii Indiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ianiiiiiii! le v e thei reserv a tio n (if ; ] iiiii~iiiiiiiii~!iiili ii];iiiiiiilllliiiili iiii:!iiii liiiii = =
Iii n de es ihson.t leve becauseiii~i heii~iii cannot fi .in a jobthere
o ri~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii d ece nt....... h o us===:===="= i n g o r a~iii i ii~l q u a lityiiiiii iiiiii e d u c atii~i ~ liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii! iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIonii o ri a n y n u m b eriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii o fBI l o th eriii iliii~iiii liiiiiiiiii~iiiiiliill~iiiiiii
ftamn hi c iaV .......... to= .... wihaydcsont bno i







nized by the Federal Government.m The Federa Gove
ligation should extend to them as well as their reservati
for there is no sound legal or policy reason to isc
them.
No court, no general act of Congress, certainly no consttu
vision provides that the Government's special responsible
Indian people stops at the reservation gate. The ept of t
responsibility is most often applied in the context of recog
nation Indians, but several court decisions have not found
necessary to recognize the Government's duty. For example,
fit from the federal responsibility to protect trust lan
vidual Indian need not reside on a reservation; 35 he
sarily even be an enrolled member of a tribe ; 6 nor d i
difference that he is a U.S. citizen, for "citizenship is not mcompai
with tribal existence or continued guardianship." 7
If one interprets the Federal trust responsibility as emanating I
the whole of the Government dealings with the abori
on this continent-as we believe it does-rather than t
or statute, then the prevalent Federal policy in provdi ;
to Indians has little rationale other than that of expediency. H .
for example, that the Department of Interior can reco tha
Paiute-Shoshone Indians on the Fort McDermitt Resrt a
tribe and thus eligible for BIA services but that the Alab
shattas in Texas are not a tribe and not eligible? How is it that
in Colorado living on the reservation is eligible for services
he moves to Denver he isn't? In all likelihood the Government phl
a role in getting him there, or at least contributed to the conduit
which forced him there. It certainly played a significant part in d
ing his ancestors off reservations.
One of the most obvious examples of Federal action which hi
up reservations, strained tribal cohesion, and encouraged su
migration of thousands of Indians to other areas is the Genera
ment Act of 1887.38 Indeed, it is not inaccurate to say tte i
tion of the Indians was a calculated result of this legislation
destruction of the tribal relation was an avowed goal of the
the act.39 The scandalous poverty and fraudulent dispossession
dian allottees which followed the passage of the act was a predict
consequence of the measure which was repeatedly and vigoro-
opposed by apprehensive Indian le.ers.
.A particularly tellng example of this Indian opposition l
in the memorial of the Creek Nation which was presented to t (
gress as it considered an early version of the General Allotmen A
34 See, e.g., S. Haddad, I Can't Really Get Involved in Urban Indian Plems
Anytime I May Go Home, 30 NLADA Briefcase 161 (1972). U.S. Congress. ca
Policy Review Commission. Joint tsk force hearing held in Oklahoma City,
1976 (unpublished transcript).
w U.S. v. Forty-Three Gallon8 of Whiskey, 93 U.S. 188 (1876); Mott v. U,., 283
747 (1 q31 ).
47Oklahoma Tax (ommfeion v. U.S., 319 U.S. 598 (1943) ; Ex part Pero. 99 F.
(7th Cir. 1938). cert. denied. 306 U.S. 643.
S7 United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591, 598 (1915).
m 24 Stat. 388.
1 D.S. Otis, The Dawes Act and the Allotment of Indian Lands, University of Okla.
Press. Norman (1973) 10, 11.
'Congress. House of Representatives. House Misc. Doe. No. 18. 47th Congres,
sess., 58.






51


ite in the


accounts of In-


as the


of one


enator


de-






52

And to iake matters worse, close to half of the land remaining in In-
dian ownership was desert or semidesert lands.'
The General Allotment Act was, of course, just ona
long line of Federal legslation and administrative actions w
either designed to or inadvertently resulted indisp
of their lands and driving them to seek joboff thee
Oftentimes the Federal Government was the decisive infl
weakened significantly (and sometimes dissolved) 50 the tribal -
ing structures; it stood by while most of the Indians'
were wrenched from their control and the resources from the
ing lands were ravaged; it lured Indians off the reservation for
vant job training and nonexistent employment; more ofte
it refused to provide meaningful assistance in housing, education, nd
health. And as the crowning insult to those Indians who were vi
of this concerted campaign to assimilate them, the Federal oven-
ment refused and largely still refuses to recognize any overall trust
responsibility to provide services.
The unique needs of nonreservation Indians has not been totally
ignored in modern legislation 51 but much of the intent of those acts
has been circumvented either by administrative neglect or outright re-
fusal to provide services targeted to Indians.
Before the passage of the Snyder Act of 1921 there had been no
specific authorization for the appropriation and expenditure for mos
of the programs which the Bureau of Indian Affairs had co to
maintain for the benefit of Indians. In the Congress, appro
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs were subject to a point-o ob-
jection which frequently resulted in cumbersome and tim
maneuvering while Indian programs hung in suspense. This
ing process was at least partially relieved by p of the Sn
Act which authorized items of appropriations in nine broad
areas:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the Secretary of the
Interior, shall direct, supervise, and expend such moneys as from
Id.
SAlso during the 1870's the Federal Government began the Indian
system which was "designed to separate a child from his tion and a
him of his tribal lore and mores, force the complete abandonment of his native
and prepare him for never again returning to his people." U.S. Cong. Senate. Commi
Labor and Public Welfare. Indian Educatiou: A National Tragedy-A National C e
S. Rept. No. 91-501. 91st Cong. 2d sess. 12 (1969).
Some 20 years later, the Indian Commissioner stated that it was the "settled
of the Government to break up reservations, settle Indians upon their own homestead,
Incorporate them into the national life, and deal with them not as nations or t or
bands, but as individual citizens." Rept. Committee on Indian Afais, 1890 at
50 Felix Cohen described the systematical destruction of the tribal governing
and powers of the Five Civilized Tribes. F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian
427-434 (1942 Ed.).
51 For example, see. 302 of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973,
87 Stat. 839, makes nonreservation Indian groups and organization
sponsors for manpower programs.
Under the Native American Programs Act of 1974, 88 Stat 2323, the O Natve
American Programs in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has the ective
to provide direct support for self-determination programs aimed at improving the health,
education, and welfare of Native Americans both on and off reservations. ve
history of the Act suggests that Conge intended ONAP to expend the
its budget on programs for nonreservation Indians. Analysis of ONAP grantees, however,
Indicates that approximately 60 percent of its budget Is going to reservations.
Public Law 93-638, passed on Jan. 4, 1975 (88 Stat. 2203), also includes non n
Indians as eligible contractors under the provisions of the act by fining a tribal orga-
nization as any "recognized governing body of any Indian tbe" or "'any legaly es
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 .. section 4(c).
Stat. 208, 25 U.S.C. section 13.
53Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974).











re of helr







or u a gne administration
r.SoileD andrair the bulns ane,

icdang lqar and requireios norugter




atd o opr -





Xvo of Inia Afar, Depart
cat riesforthebenefitofanyand
whter or not memers offeral
rard to residence so logatheyar


ar eligihilit for Bureau sevie but








,tendnBsevcstalInis

itattorylimiatins" ,5 ad wto


Rui, 415 U.S. 199 (1974).






54


made available to off reservation kdians.5 Educational services ar
similarly available under the [ohnson-O'Mafley p
It is true that the Court in the Ruiz case did not interpretthe Sny-
der Act as re i the Bureau to provide its social service
benefitstoall Indians. But it is equallytrueth
preted the Snyder Act in broad enough terms that such an a
would be entirely permissible. It stated that:
We need not approach the issue in terms of whether Congress in all
Indians, regardless of residence and of the degree of assimilation to be
by the general assistance program. We need only ascertain the intent of
with respect to those Indian claimants in the case before usA'
Thus the Court chose to avoid a definitive judgment on the ov
issue by limiting its holding that the Bureau of Indian Affain has
the duty to provide general assistance services to Indians living "on
or near the reservation" and who maintain close economic and social
ties to the reservation and are unassimilated. 2 Even this requirement
however, has not been implemented officially by the BIA, for the B
Manual still limits eligibility to "onreservation" Indians plus 0
homa Indians and Alaskan Natives.3
TRUST RxsrOxsmiLiTy
1. Morton v. Mancari 417 U.S. 535 (1974).-Indian preference un-
der the IRA.
2. Morton v. Ruiz 415 U.S. 199 (1974).-Congress intended
under BIA general assistance program to flow to fullblood
living near the reservation who maintain close economic ties with
their tribe.
3. United States v. Mason 412 U.S. 391 (1973).-No breach fidcry
obligation occurred where U.S. acting or trustee failed to de-
mand for payment of Oklahoma State tax.
4. Gila River Pima Maricopa Indian Community v. United States
427F.2d 1194 (1970).
5 United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks 329 U.S. 40 (I946).-
Tribes may recover under the Indian Claims Act without a ye
showing that the United States ever recognized the Indian title.
6. Seminole Nation v. United States 316 U.S. 286 (1942)4-
entitlement (cash payment) dispute.
7. Tulee v. State of Washington 315 U.S. 681 (1942).-
rights (licenses and seasons) jurisdiction dispute (Y).
8. United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railway 314 U.S. 339 (1941).
U.S. land grant was subject to any existing Indian right of occupancy.
9. Shoshone Tribe v. United States 299 U.S. 476 (1937).-Action for
money damages where United States forcibly settled Ara in
portion of reservation guaranteed by treaty to the Shoshone
exclusively.
5 Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974).
OD 25 U.S.C. see. 452.
81 415 U.S. 199. 211 (19 74).
621d. at 237-238.
t 1966 Indian Affairs Manual. see., 3.4. See generally, V. Delorla, Jr., Legislative Anal"s
of the Federal Role in Indian Education, contract for Department of Health, Educion
and Welfare, 1975.






55
te8v. CreekNato 295 U.S. 103 (1935).-Damage
merro euwurey and saeof Indian land. (Action
lam. ). (

tesv.Cadelri 21 U.S. 42(1926) .-Judgments
Iare not res jd"icator
ed m
ion to or limit alienation.
v.Pn 4 .-Dispute under
aAct. Isu:Wa is the sttsof timbered lands
7niedStates 261 U.S. 219 (1923)-Possryigt
1, although oae nly on occupation with no formal

teev. Nice 241 U.S. 591 (1916) -The tribal relation is
roken up b the making of allotments under Dawes
ver Urne States jurisdiction to prohibit sale of

ztes v. Pelican 432 U.S. 442 (1914)-Dispute over
riminol jurisdiction on Colville Reservation after
r tion to white settlement.
tee V.S a231 U.S. 28 (1913)-United States ju-
ude uor traffic from Pueblo Indian lands not n-
ion of New Mexico into the Union.
1rapp 224 U.S. 665 (1912)-Congress, by its plenary
Ens, can amend or repeal a statute, but it cannot de-
[sigindividual rights of property acquired under it.

.U 224 U.S. 413 (1912)-United States has capac-
9, suit to set aside a conveyance made by an allottee
eriod of trust restriction.-Congress may extend re-
[leviation of alotted lands.
7eetern Inweetment Company 221 U.S. 286 (1911)-
r (disposition of lands by will) dispute. (Oklahoma).
v. Hitchcock 187 U.S. 553 (1903)-Dispute arising
i. The action of Congress is conclusive upon the courts
land partition even though the cession is procedurally
L provisions of previous treaty.
ratios v. Hitchcock 187 U.S. 294 (1902) -Dispute over
lease oil lands for the benefit of the Cherokee nation.
ed with the authority to... make tribal proyertv Dro-






56

25. Fellows v. Blacksmith 60 U.S. 366 (1856)-Assi of triba
land cannot forcibly enter upon it, but must await action by the U
States to remove Indians who still occupy the land.
The courts cannot go behind the print of a ratified treaty to i r
whether the tribe was properly represented by its chies.
26. Worcester v. Georgia 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
27. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 30 U.S. 1 (1831)-Ladmark de-
cision arising in context of motion to enjoin the State of Georgia from
execution of certain oppressive legislative acts.

































t tati
-.1 n 1 \


j -1 it I


Ce Vtll


M I.-RATES OF LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION
lnpercent]


Rural
Indians


shed


flea


thie


f Indians are
primarily to


Urban
Indins


U.S. toteI


of -


popula-
Indians





LI84


able persons that jobs are simply not available and that one even-
tually gives up looking? A. EMPO

TABLE 2: LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION AND TNEmrLO
BREAXDOWN-fEN
Unempzoyn t: Men
"Male Indians aged 16 and over also have an uploymt e
(11.6 percent three times higher than the U.S. total rate."
"The unemployment rate for urban males (9.4 percent)ismr
than twice the national average."
"Unemployment for urban Indian men varies from 7.1 per i
urban Oklahoma to a high of 22.5 percent in urban Washigo.
Labor force partcipati
"Indians have the lowest rate of male labor force participation
any group in the United States. Only 63 percent of men 16 yer of
age and over are in the labor force, 14 percent below the U.S.
average."
"The (labor force participation) rate for urban Indias a in-
creased by 3 percent over the past decade while the rate for rural
Indian men has increased by only 1 percent."
"It is likely that this lack of job opportunity adds momentum to
the population shift from rural to urban areas."
"The 1970 labor force participation rate for urban Indian 7
percent) is approaching the national level for all men (77 pret.

TABLE 3 LABOR FORCE PARITCIPATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT~
BREAKDOWN-WOMEN
Unemaployment: Women
"At 10.2 percent the unemployment rate for Indian women is twice
as high as for all women."
"The unemployment rates for Indian women do not differ sharply
between urban and rural areas, although the rate is slightly lower
in urban areas."
Labor force participation
"The 35-percent Indian female labor force participation rate is 6
percent lower than the national average for all women."
"The urban female labor force participation rate is 42 percent, 1
percent above the national average for women."
The figures given on the preceding pags reveal that although urban
Indian unemployment rates fall significantly beow those of rural
Indians, unemployment rates forboth far exceed national rates. (S
table 4)
Without a doubt, concerns about Indian employment reflecting these
statistics, pervade urban Indian life.
4TIbid. p. 49.
6 "A Study of Selected Soclo-Economic Characteristics of Ethnic Minorities Based on.
the 1970 Census," vol. III: American Ilians."' Offce of Special Concerns, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health, Education, an
Welfare (1974) (pp. 49-57).
Ibid., pp. 49-57.





59






60


change from native speaking or bilingual communities); c in
cultural values; and, perhaps more visibly, c..
nomically lower standard of living. That Indians move
primarily to seek employment places additional im us
adjustments. Ufamiliarity with em
processes begins a succession of obstac em
cies have few counselors familiar with India problems.
action hiring of Indian personnel within these o
minimal.
Indian persons may have difficulty completing appli
handling personal interviews and they may not be awa r
employment right.
Asoted ri sl Indians lack adequate skills. Withgrea
proportions of Indians arriving in urban areas from rural reserva-
tion communities, Indians often lack skills which limite and lo
level reservation employment opportunities cannot provide. Alth
recent tribal and Federal programs have begun to institute reservation
economic development and Indian preference hiring policies, rates of
unemployment on reservations are still staggering.
More often than not, the rural Indian arrives upon an urban Indian
scene with severely limited economic resources. His success in vying
for unskilled positions in competitive labor markets is often dependent
upon his work attitudes and personal appearance.
Cultural attitudes about competition, time and ideal working -
tions are left to play significant roles--often to the detriment of the
prospective Indian employee. (See section on non-Indian y
attitudes.)
Initial lack of funds hinders the purchase of equipment and uni
and the purchase of clothing appropriate for some types of work
(clerical, managerial, etc). Lack of funds, furthermore, inhibits o -
sion of adequate and reliable means of transportation; a r
get to and from work, bus fares, etc. Additionally, Indians
employment may not have permanent addresses or telephone n
where they may be notified about pending employment. (S e
on housing.)
Many of these problems, even if overcome, result in eplo
at particularly low levels of employment, characterized by low pay,
seasonal or unskilled labor, These factors may contribute to Indian
employment stereotypes: instability, unreliability, poor attitudes, poor
attendance, etc. Where such attitudes exist, non-Indian ,
particularly in the private sector, see no imperative to hiring of n
persons.
As testimony indicates, low paying, monotonous andu
are discouraging and may cause feelings of being trap or
10 Common questions asked on employment forms ca be particularly 41 for
tional Indian persons to answer without extensive explanation. Example follows:
Name: It is not unusual for this to change with various situations. (1) Non-I
may not be able to pronounce the name, so it is changed to one easily prono
(2) A name may not have been given cons tly to same members of a famil
result of students attending different off-reservation school systems. (3) I not
unsual for persons to simply change a name-perhaps remnants of a cultural a
about names, and so forth.
Address: Many Indians consider their real home the reservation and urban as
are merely temporary residences. With limited funds several families/persons may ie
together, and due to correspndig problems of ove nd so forth, cIn
address may be frequent.
Telephone : Cannot afford. Same problems associated with
Birthdate/age: Many reservation born persons were born ath P ar
with dates, have allowed many traditional persons in fact, to choose their own birthdate.
With the same ease, one could forget or change the date, month, or even the year.








that one has been placed in lower economic and social statu by em.
yloer o scityingenra. eraily tese problems can ocrwhr






;~~~~ ~ ~ Ohrtsi oysae th t sc edela ing s may contraiut to



tati~ny of m ny~ i n lave orkort nwitut retie to reu -
hom toattnd radtioal ere onihe w o reerion s aner tn Indian


...interview ,etc
com uniie.CrtinlXein g of talinpation oan d inraetenew or
lo a ing ur i nce
6 f.. f a i ie m p o T hH~ii~i i siii ii iiii is a c c o mpiiiiii] i li s h ed~i a t i -a d d it io n ali c o stiii ( f o r d ay iii iiiiiii~~ii iiiiii~iiii! ii iiii!iiiiii~i..
care trnprain and marinl ...fi Intemsofinrese
iiiiiiiii o fl f a m ilyii ..d...in te g..ra tio n.......d..........................................
i m m e a s u r a b le iiiiii;;iiiiiil~iiii~ i= ii~iii === iiii=. ..= =i==iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii==...





N: .... NGS
prmrlesnIdaslaerrladrsraincmui
.......... fo ra rai ddto oF drlpliisecuaigte
todi o(e itrclsma et
..... ... .. ....... .... i siliiiiiiiiiiiiliiii t h atiii i iii t h eyii li iiii r e ciiiiiiioiiiiiin o m iciiiii iiii iiiiiiiii l i! ii ii iiii iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~ ii i l i! iiiii i iiii li ii ii iiiiii iiii iii iii iiii ii i! iiiiiiiii~iiiii~iiiiii@i i@
o p o t l ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;i~~iiii~i t h e y l e a ve iiiiiiiiiiiiii il oii~i s e e k e m p l o y m e n t.iiiiiii iiiiii li~iiii 11111 1111 1111 ...........iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii~iiiiii~~iii~i iiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~! iiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiliiiiiiiii
.: R atio n al istitisti cal d ata revealsi th at all Iinidia ns i i iiiiiiii suff eri hiighiiii!!i rates iiiliil! ili .......................................iii IIIIi of I~iI
u n e m p loy m en t.iiii~=IlI!=iiiI~il!i! i! ii~=iiiili iii! !!ii!iiii! iiliiii i i!







62

B. EDUCATION

'Conflicts between Indiani people and white society readn h
,education of Indian children have been historically consi
attempts to educate or "civilize" the Indian child pia
hardship on his parents, the community he lived in andm
the child. (See historical review.)
During early periods of Indian-white contact, Indian chld
often forcefully taken from their families and delivered too -
tion schools far from their homelands. There the Indian la
a series of demoralizing experiences, his hair was cu t, his
dress taken away-and -under fear of punishment-he was p
from speaking his native language and practicing native
Among the most serious of these hardships, however, was
these events occurred outside the control of the Indian parent
the Indian child returned, he and his parent were all too o
tural strangers.
Testimony after testimony reveals that, by -far, the d. t have
greater control over the education of his child heads the lis of u
Indian educational needs.
Current statistics indicate that Indian educational a
levels are rapidly catchingup with U.S. educationleveI. (
5.) but as much of the testimony stresses, this is only a pi
significant part of many educational objectives that mu be se.
The following are basic needs identified n areas of ed:i

TABLE 5.-SCHOOLING COMPLETED, BY AGE AND SEX, FOR U.S. TOTAL; URBAN AND RURAL. IN

Percent of total population
Males Feale
IndiansI
United United
Level of schooling completed and age group States Urban Rural States Urban Rural

8 ye3rs of school or less:
16to 24---------------------------11.0 12.0 23.0 8.0 11.0 19.0
25 to 34 ------------------------------ 11.0 17.0 35.0 10.0 17.0 34.0
35to 44----------------------- 19.0 29.0 52.0 15.0 26.0 48.0
45to 64 ----------------------------------- 33.0 40.0 63.0 30.0 360 60.0
65 an d over ------------------------------- 61.0 69.0 84.0 55.0 61.0 81.0
High scho ol graduates:
16to 24 ----------------------------------- 66.0 48.0 26.0 71.0 48.0 30.0
25 to 34 ----------------------------------- 72.0 58.0 39.0 71.0 53.0 36.0
35 to 44----------------------- 61.0 45.0 25.0 63.0 460 24.0
45t 64---------------------. 46.0 37.0 19.0 9.0 9.0
65 an dover ------------------------24.0 18.0 7.0 29.0 22.0 8.0
4 or m3re years of college:
16to 24 ----------------------------6.5 1.9 1 6.1 1.4 .4
25 to 34 ----------------------------------- 19.0 8.9 3.0 12.1 5.8 1.9
35 to 44------------------------------- 17.5 7.8 2.4 8.9 5.01.
45 to 64 ---------------------------~ 10.8 5.6 2.0 7.1 4.1 1.7
65 an d over-------------------------... 3 4.1 9 1


"Urban Indians, In particular, show notable se. But the figures, w
reveal that a substantial number of Individuals Incuded in the urban hi duct 1
attainment count may well be those who migrated to commnities from r
Comparatively similar enrollment figures etween the two grops add significace touch
a theory. (See table 7.)
12 U.S. Bureau of the Census, "1970 Census of Population: Detailed Characteristics,U. Summary," PG(l)-D"j
R eports: American Indians," PC(2)-IF.
Note : This table reveals that although the percentage of educational attainment levels of urban Indians are than
those o f rural Indians, and that in lower levels of education they are catching upwi
U.S. po p ulation, the percentages of urban Indian attainment levels fall significantly behind at t
level.




















I nedshave often

,t with complicated

predetermined by
ian community.


undertnding complicated regula-


an be assured of
pariiaigith
among other Indian
oup competition for


,or must seek endorse-
program implementa-
i be of Darticular diffi-


p. 82. "The d'a between need for and availability of an ade-
ale heads of houpsehods Is a-n important Issue for Indians, partk
Increase of this type of household in their population.


-63


educa-








such programs suffer little use by Indians in urban community
deficiency further defines the need for increased oppo
area. Preschools and Head Start p
rented have provided a means to alleviate problems of
poor educational adjustment of the minority and idi
bility for such p include children of the ur
but urban Indians do not participate to the fullest
a result of costly regulation, as some testimony indi
of costly regulation, as some testimony indicates or a result ofi
for specifically Indian-oriented programs.
Nonetheless, as an HEW report states, "On the basis of th
incidence of poverty and language disability the 3- to 4-y
urban Indians qualify for programs such as Head Start, yet
percent are enrolled in any program." 14
Administrators of existing child care programs urged that in adi-
tion to the need for more adequate funding support, day care centers
might well be able to meet current needs were it psi for them to
share facilities with existing Bureau of Indian Afairs p
ticular facility needs include transportation, vehicles, and sace.
Furthermore, child care program administrators urged that Indian
children be given access to Indian Health Service fcilities
for regular dental checks and physical examinations. The
such good health measures, they stated, would no 4obt the
development of good health mainten for the child's

TABLE 6.-Enrollment in school for prescool-aged1

Population group: pe cn)
U.S. total ----------------- ------------------------------------ 13
Indian total ----------- --------------------------------------- 14
Urban total ------------ -------------------------------- 11
Rural total ------------------------------------------ 15
I U.S. Bureau of the Census, "1970 Cens of Popuatio, General i i
Characteristics, U.S. Summary," PC(l) "Detailed Characeristis..
PC(1)-D1; Subject Reports: "American Indians," PC(2)-F.
TABLE 7
Reveals that attendance in preschool-age level educational po
grams falls below that of U.S. average and notablybelow rural
average.
Among special day care needs for Indian children reported were:
(a) Additional audiovisual equipment.
(b) Speech therapy, and special education programs.
(c) Psychological services.
Among special day care program needs reports were:
(a) Increased parental involvement.
(b) Employment of Indian staff, and their subsequent uppad-
ing via formal/informal education programs in child develp-
ment, family living, day care administration, child health, and so
forth.,
14 Ibid., p. 47.

























rpe us, mock us and tell
eness pro for the
. Several...... paet notedi
[nities available on rs

nation of their cide
)f education. Teepr
g educational program-
ibyIndian hilden
ompt affirmative ato
,rative personnel. They
roles in seeking spial







munities point out that on-reservation programs lack
port functions (adequate transportation to and from
care, etc.) and have relatively high per-pupil osts that inhibi full
utilization and development of these programs.
Urban Indian adult education programs, conversely, t in a
better position to offer more comprehensive supportive servi (child
care, transportation, accessibility to facilities, instructors, and so
forth) often find themselves ineligible for much-needed BIA
for textbooks, teacher expenditures, et cetera. Existing uirban an
adult education classes are overcrowded, and are quickly 1111 with
individuals, often recent arrivals from reservation comm
desire to improve basic skills in English. As many of these studn
later return to reservations and then return back to urban are aft
periods of brief employment et cetera, urban Indian adult edcati
programs find the need for coordination with similar on-reservat
adult education programs essentiaL17 But due to current
tions of on-reservation program policies, this process
dampened.
TABLE 7.-ENROLLMENT IN SCHOOL FOR INDIANS BY AGEU
[ln percent]
Age 14-17 Ag 18-24
Population group Age 3-4 Male Female Male Fe..
U.S. total ---------.--------------------------- 13 93 92 37 27
Indiantota, ...................... 14 88 86 2 21
Urban total ------------------------------- 11 87 86 27 22
Rural total ----------------------------------- 15 88 86 25
IS U.S. Bureau of the Census, "1970 Census of Population, Goeral Social and Economic Characteristics, U
PC(1)-Cl; "Detailed Characteristics, U.S. Summary," PC(I)-I; "Subject Reports American Indians," I
Note: Comparisons of the proportions of Indian youth currently enrolled in school in urban and rural areas
a far more positive picture of educational attainments than the college graduate data .se The dataa
lend support to the theory that there is an exodus from rural areas by young Indian who have competed. r ic
education.
The rate of enrollment by Indian youth 14-17 years old is
the same in both urban and rural areas, indicatingthat in both t
areas young persons are remaining in school at the same rate. a
comparison of the years of schooling completed by young Indians lv
ing in urban and rural areas shows great disparity. If the disparity
is not due to a greater dropout rate among rural Indians-au r
enrollment figures suggest that they are not dropping out at a
rate compared to urban Indians-the imbalance could be ex ained
by the fact that those Indians living in rural areas who have coled
school have left rural areas for urban locations. By doing so, the o
all percentage of high school graduates among rural Indians decreases
and the percentage among urban Indians increases." 19
Consumer education
Without a doubt, urban Indians, particularly those migrating fom
rural Indian communities, possess limited information about gener
day-to-day urban living and this limitation contributes significantly to
17 Problems associated with this migratory pattern will be discussed In the housing
section of this report.
"Department of Health. Education, and Welfare, A Study of Selected Socio-Economic
Characteristics of Ethnic Minorities Based on the 1970 Census, vol. III, American Indians,
p. 45.














the edu-






68

That agencies addressing ensitive and me
education for Indians be developed and, whe ready y
encouraged. And, that advocacy for funding for such program
well as the compilation of data supporting the need for such program
be undertaken by such agent or agency responsible for the care and
trusteeship of Indian people.

C. HOUSING
Housing problems for Indian families and individuals
mediately upon leaving reservation and rural communi
problems are basically generated by a critical lack of adequate
in the rural communities Indians leave. (See comparison
groups in table 8; and B), a general lack of prior experience ork
edge of related domestic activities (e.g. renting, leasing, etc. which
are matters of course for most individuals Advice about ,
leasing, search and other fundamentals to relocating are nt r y
available, since most family and friends living in rural areas are also
ignorant of urban living situations. Lacking orientation and proper
preparation for finding adequate housing, each family must larn by
experience-a situation that proves to be costly and, more often than
not for the low-income families-resulting in less than adequate
living conditions.
Reports and testimonies point out that it is not unusual for Indn
families to arrive in cities with little or no funds to spend on housing.
Because of discriminatory practices of landlords large family com-
position,' low incomes and a general lack of information about housing
alternatives, Indians all too frequently find themselves in substandard
and cramped living quarters. (See table $-sanitation facilities )
TABLE 8.-HOUSING, SANITATION DATA FOR URBAN AND RURAL IDIANSU
fln perceutj
Urban Rural
United United
States Indians Stats Indians
Housing- Degree of crowding: (perso per room):
1 .-------o 92-- ... 1 #.$ $9.9 55.0
1.1to 1.0--------57 1. 14
Without water.... ........ .9 .7
Without ...6 13.6
U.S. Bureau of the Census, "1970 Census of the Population, Sct Aee ican Idns,"jU
Bureau of the Census; "1970 Census of Houssng, Detailed Housing U.S. Sumay" HG) i
Housing Characterjstics for the United States, Divisios, and States: 1970, Suppl e ryWept,
Note: Reveals that Indians have tendencies t live in overcrowded conditions both in rural and urban a
addition, there is a greater tendency for both groups to s fo h without adeuate sanitation families ,
the presence of such basic deficiencies in housing is far from toerabl for urban living.
2OTestimony states that It has not been unusual for Indians to find that upon personal
Inquiry, aU vacant units have alrady bee fHed or that rent payments turn out to be
substantially higher than originally expected once the Indin person begins negotiations
for housing.
2See tables 9 and 10.





69






70


there are high concentrations of poverty. The result is that
families are left to learn urban adjustment hi areas of high crime, r
sanitation, and cramped living conditions. The extent of ths prb
lems may cause many individuals to consider that perhaps they were
better off living in their rural community.
Without doubt, this initial period of urban living is o
confusion and dependency for Indians. In presence of few
of support, the Indian often turns to other members of s
moral and financial assistance, thus placing additional
other families in similar predicaments. Should individuals
families move in with other members of an immediate ore
ily to lower expenses, et cetera, the situation is worsened b
crowding,25 landlord harassment, and unhealthy living cos25
When all urban family support breaks down, it is no common
the Indian to return to his particular rural community, to
ture back later, after resources there, as well, become depleted-
quent migration to and from urban and rural Indian communities, a
number of urban Indian center coordinators state, has notably com-
plicated statistical gathering processes and the formation of a -
quate urban Indian needs assessment.
Indian and non-Indian agencies attempting to service the urban
Indian find it especially difficult to include this fluid population as
part of permanent population bases when seeking to justify what they
consider to be appropriate Indian shares of community chest and
foundation funds for program services to meet the needs of this
portion of the urban Indian population.
The transitory nature of a substantial portion of urban Indiap
ulations to and from reservations, and a more recently identified
to and from other urban Indian communities, are a significant char-
acteristic of a visible portion of the urban Indian community.
Without a doubt, it carries with it substantial financial and emo-
tional burdens. Perhaps even more crucial, it inhibits uni efforts
to overcome a series of related problems. Where unifying effort hav
occurred, however, and small inner-city organizations have de
Indian groups have been able to generate interest in impro
ing conditions. Utilizing various ty Of a and
some groups have begun to assess housing and identify h
problems and implement on t education programs in In
communities.
Programs which make -available housing education, ointain
rentals listings, leasing information, and advice, provide a n
first step in relieving some initial problems of housing facing ne
migrated Indian families. Such programs could be expane do in-
clude activities that provide information regarding direct sup
NOTE.-Both footnotes below are from HEW Study of Seect Sioe
teristlcs of Ethnic Minorities, vol. III, p. 75.
2 "Crowded housing, a contributory factor to poor health, Is also one of the
Indexes of poverty. Urban Inians experience moderate overcrowding at twice the
dence for the total urban population and svere overcrowding at three times the l
the total urban population. In all 19 percent of al urban Indians live In mode or
severely overcrowded housing while only 7 percent of the total urban U.S. population live
under such substandard conditions."
"Poor housing and sanitation conditions characterize the dwellings of both urban and
rural Indians. Among urban Indians, just under 1 percent of all dwellings are without
water, compared to only 0.3 percent of dwellings for the total U.S. urban population. The
incidence of urban Indian dwellings without toilets is 14 times higher than dwellings for
the total U.S. urban population.'






71


find it






72


General lack of information among the n d
about Indians living ii urban or rural nneevto omnte
often results in similar referral of Inians who aelie f
reservation for mos of th@i live, and has even includdtoecry
Generally, new Indian arrivals to urban ara areunaiarwt
existing health facilities and are uncranstowehr'hyae
eligible for such health services. These Inds are t
to go to local hospitals because of financial barriers,
wait until they have the means of visiting an Indialt a
In so doing, they risk more serious illnesses in the p
testimonies indicate Indians may t to ui
because of language barriers, limited knowledge about ava
ices, alternative methods of payment, health insurance programs,
et cetera.
Existing health care facilities in urban areas, city, State, and county,
have not worked with federal Indian health services to
assure general cooperation in services, particularly in ideni
urban Indian health needs, much less preparing a com re
approach to meeting these needs.
Without a doubt the identification of urban Indian health
needs is crucially lacking. Indian ancies interested in
services to Indians in urban communities are ending it difficult
obtain specific needs statements from existing health agencies.
Indeed, as most agencies attempting to service Indians urn
areas have learned, it has been difficult to determine
basic data as the current urban Indian population figm. (See
under "Housing" relating to problems of enumerating a h
transient population.)
Some urban Indian health agencies, often through boards .f various
health agencies and Indian people from the urban communities, have
instrumented general health education programs which, th
vehicles such as the Indian Community ealth Represen or
other combinations of paraprof essionals and outreach workers, have
succeeded in providing the urban Indian with information about
existing agencies and about basic health maintenance in areas
nutrition, prenatal and postnatal care, et cetera.
The need for additional alcoholism treatment centers cannot be
overlooked. Indian persons testifying at hearings conducted by this
task force indicate that, particularly in off-reservation border towns,
alcoholism treatment centers are far from adequate. Curren~talo
holism control methods involve little or no therapeutic series and
the problem drinker is left to face repeated incarcerations, fines, and
release with little opportunity to examine alternatives. Local gover-
ments of many off-reservation border towns limit the develop
of facilities and programs because they feel that such care m
responsibility of the Indian Health Service or feel they lack juri
diction to deal with such social problems. Again, there is lack of
adequate and specific coordination of efforts.
Pervading the many Indian health problems in urbn areas, a
well as rural areas, is the need for additional employment of Inian
personnel. and alternatively, the need to inform key personnel in
existing city, county and State facilities about Indian health problems






73


s. (See "Employment-armative action
.ndian community attitudes. See section


FINDINGS


reserva-


it, for the most part,
meeting the specific


health care of all Indians
health needs are assessed
i health service and local,
is pursued to assure ade-


of


,Y MENTIONEDNEEDAREAs


FINDINGS


mertined needs include:


1. LEGAL SEVS


-8


RCMEDTOS






74


Testimony at hearings conducted by this task force haves
the following needs:
a. Protection of civil rights;
b. Need for legal education for Indian laypersons;
e. Need for legal education for non-Indian persons serving in
State and local judicial systems, regarding clarification of juris-
dictional issues between tribal and non-Indian local go
and law-enforcement personnel.
d. Need for better community relations activities on the of
local police and law enforcement officials.
e. Need for low-cost legal services, and legal counsel.
f. Need for assurances that Indian inmates receive ad
protection of rights.27
g. Need for interpreters for native-speaking Indian defendants.
A great deal of the prejudicial treatment that Indian people face
from the law enforcement, judicial, and correctional branches of the
criminal justice system stems from many deep-rooted misconceptions
fostered by ignorance of the differences between Indian people and
other segments of the population. In order to combat this continual
cycle of racial misunderstanding, Congress must appropriate funds to
allow Indian people to educate all branches of the criminal justice
system so that in the future practices of racial discrimination will be
minimized by this effort. Congress will need to pass legislation to make
law enforcement agencies cooperate with tribes and Indian organiza-
tions to facilitate better community relations between all patieand
to actively recruit and employ Indian people to work in all levels of
servce.
2. INDIAN ADO~nION NEEDS
There is need for assurances that adopted Indian children, now con-
sidered to be ineligible for Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs services
by virtue of their adoption by non-Indian persons, or by vire of
their foster careship by non-Indian persons, or other such conditions
not of their own creation, be made eligible for BIA servies a
listed in treaty rights/obligations and other such a
tiated with their tribes, or where exact tribal lineages cannot be esab-
lished or certified due to a protection of the rights of parental con-
fidentiality, and that such children, upon providing reasonable docu-
mentation, be made elioible for services, as normally provided for, to
Indians in the locales of the child's residency.
There is need for federally-sponsored, locally- controlled group care
facilities for those Indian children eligible for, or in considering
for, adoption.
There is need for general cooperation and sha of informational
systems of all related local, State, and Federal child and youth care
agencies and responsible tribal and BIA agencies to assure maximum
care and benefit for the Indian child without parents.
There is need for development of family-seeking agencies for the
placement of homeless Indian children.
There is need to effect Federal/State laws that will make it possible
for the Indian child to learn the bloodline of his parentage -for
purposes of establishing eligibility for Indian services.
2 See app. C-1 for related material on protection of the rights of Indian Inmates.





76





76


7. RECOMMENDATIONS RE: FREQUEN-Y [NTIONED NEED ARAS
Although the extent of the needs for the above-mentioned i
widely held, we can but hope that each area will be ad
gress as relevant legislation regarding these needs reaches them. More
importantly,. an addressing of these need areas must be encouraged
within Indian communities throughout the country, among them local
Indian centers. We mention these problems togeer here to a an
understanding that these needs areas and a variety of others ar
that face Indian center coordinators and Indian organizational
istrators daily.
F. THE IiNiDwx CxN
Without doubt, Indian centers in rural nonreservation and urban
communities throughout the United States have provided a vital serv-
ice essential to an Indian clientele: personal and financial counseling,
referral and general urban/nonreservation living orientation. The
success of many agencies has been their interest in assuring that their
Indian clientele receives sensitive, flexible, and supportive counseling.
Perhaps, just as vital. has been the role Indian centers acr the
United States assume, as a matter of course that of advocate for In-
dian persons and organizations. By serving as primary comm
link between Indian people and the greater metropolitan or rural non-
reservation areas and their respective governments, Indian centers ar
often able to assure an increase in services for Indian individuals and
families.
Without a doubt, it is through the interest and concern of such orga-
nizations in assuring Indian advocacy, that this task force has been
able to receive the forum of Indian opinion and concern that it has.
The problems many Indian centers now face are numerous. Primary
attempts to see that Indians within nonreservation communities receive
their share of public programs is one major concern. Problems in as-
suring that Indians who desire to return to reservations or who hold
numerous links there receive appropriate shares of Bureau of Indian
Affairs services, is another. As the legislative summary, the historical
suimma y and other sections of this report indicate, the Bureau of In-
dian Affairs does not now offer to nonreservation Indians the same
services it has offered to Indians living on or near reservations. It has,
we hold, administratively held Indians living off reservations or with-
out the "on or near" reservation residency requirements, to be ineligible
for its services.
The result of such misinterpretation of trust responsibility has left
numerous misunderstandings, the majority of which have resulted in
severe neglect of approximately 45 percent of the Indian population.
A large portion of the testimony indicated that administrators of var-
ious off- reservation programs in health, education, employment,
services, and so forth. have found that the vast majority of non-
Indians in urban and nonreservation communities believe that all
Indians receive services from the Federal Government, and the con-
sequence has been that such arguments have been used to deny or make
difficult the acquisition of services for Indian people living off reser-
vations. Unfortunately, such arguments persist at all levels of Indian
concerns, Non-Indian prospective employers state that they see no
imperative to hiring Indian people as they are being cared for already.
Social service agtcies in cities, counties, and States deny services
























l1an commu-
information
venormious


not


process. Obtain
tions. and insti-


.177






78


(b) They provide advocacy for- Indian people and serve as A
primary communication link between local governments and In-
dian people.
(c) In response to the expressed need of their Indian coni-
munities, Indian organizations and Indian centers must pursue a
long and rrorous path of data-gathering and resource identific-
tion to obtain vital services for Indian people.
2. The data-gathering process for Indian organizations and Indian
centers, already limited in resources, is an expenditure of efforts that
takes away from vital direct servicing of urban and rural nonreserva-
tion Indians.
3. Current efforts by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet. tie
needs of fully "eligible" Indian persons living in offreservation coin-
inunities and urban areas are minimal and inadequate.

]RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the functions of Indian centers and Indian organizations
be recognized, through legislative mandate, as primary service iech-
ervicing a community of Indian persons, intertribally mixed
and operated through representative bodies, elected by Indian persons
living in communities. Such recognition should extend far enough to
enable such groups to be given direct funding from those federal
agencies who have identified the population of an Indian community
in need of supportive grants.
2. That the data-gathering functions of those nonreservation rural
and urlbant communities be nade a primary responsibility of such
agency as ma in the future be developed or such agency as currently
exists which has primary responsibility and trusteeship of all Indiah
people.
3. That such agency assume adequate, basic population identifica
tion, population description, and general needs assessment for all In-
dians, particularly nonresrevation, rural, and urban Indian popular
tions.
G. RURAL NONRESERVATION
A visible absence in the needs nt of this task fore is that
for rural nonreservation communities, particularly of offreservaion
bordertowns. Problems of these areas, it should be noted, far a
mere echoing of reservation or rural Indian community problems.
Without doubt, these areas form a front in all areas of conflict between
cultures. The very nature of their problems are so pervasive that few
agencies have actively worked toward any assessment of the tangled
interrelated problem areas. Primary studies by various state agencies
of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission have uncovered numerous prob-
lem areas, but the brunt of statistical analysis lie far in the future.
Certainly, the above-mentioned areas, because of their very nature
have been difficult areas for this task force, given its limitations, to
begin to adequately delve into. Notably, the impetus of our study has
depended to an immeasurable extent upon a basic assumption of exist-
ing urban Indian organizational systems. We have been fortunate in
being able to identify organizations (see Directory of Indian Organi-
zations-appendix A) involved in the many urban areas we have cn-





79






80


Female.--Indian women nationally have the lowest income of any
group.
Of all Indian women, 80 percent earn less than $4,000, compared to
68 percent of all U.S. women who do.
Family incomes under $4,000
Although urban Indian women have entered the labor market in
force, with virtually the same labor force participation rate in urban
areas as the U.S. total average (42 percent and 41 percent, respec-
tively), their income combined with that of Indian men is not ade-
quate to maintain one-third of all Indian families above a low-income
level.
TABLE 13 o
Indian poverty characteristis
Even with the gains that have been made over the past decade, the
economic status of the Indian continues to be far below that of the
total national population. Of all urban Indian families, one in six
has a income under $3,000. On the other hand, one in three rural
Indian families has an income under $3,000.
Twenty-six percent (80,000) of urban Indians are in poverty; of
these persons 6,300 are 65 years of age and over; 29,000 are children
under 18; and 6,500 are female heads of households. Thus 51 percent
of all urban Indians in poverty are clearly in a dependent status
(dependent children, elderly, female heads of households).
Indian individuals-In urban areas, 26 percent of all Indian indi-
viduals are in poverty, nearly twice the national proportion for pov-
erty among individuals.
Unrelated Indian individual.-Urban Indians are only 13 percent
above the national urban average in poverty.
) Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, A Study of Selected Soclo
Characteristics of Ethnic Minorities Based on the 1970 Census, vol. III, American Indians






























abne
the


T-e

Af-
ould
feel
the
r the
e not


(81)






82


ments recognize and address the many and unique issues that Indian
people encounter in their daily lives wherever they reside.
In obtaining Indian opinion on the development of a proper method
to incorporate Indian input in policy matters, this task force con-
stantly asked witnesses their thoughts on this subject during the
hearings portion of its study. To further supplement our find we
sent out letters to each Indian organization on our mailing list
them to develop position papers regarding this subject.
Task Force No. 3-Federal Administration ; Structure of
Affairs,--conducted an intertribal legislative institutions
in Washington, D.C., attended by many tribes and urban In
organizations from throughout the country. From these two efforts
we were able to develop several plans that would allow Indian tribes
and urban Indian organizations to have a direct voice into the poli7
formulation of the Federal Government concerning Indian affairs.
Before any recommendations can be made to develop structures for
Indian input, there has to be an examination into the objectives,
goals, and powers of such an alternative elective entity. The basic
finding of the workshop was that the executive branch takes ons
which preempt Indian representation in the policym akin
of the Congress, resulting in executive action without In repre-
sentation. Furthermore, it was concluded that the executive
abuses and redirects the will of Congress in spite of Indian efforts to
gain favorable legislation through the Committee hearing process. It
was finally concluded that Congress frequently enacts legislation dam-
aging to the interests of tribes because there is no means by which the
Indian voice can be formally heard in the legisla ive branch.
During the workshop held in Washington, the consensus of the
participants was that such an elective body should have the following
objectives:
1. Provide real Indian input into the budgetary process,
for legislative and executive branches. This includes pro
definition, line item control, and development of rules and regu-
lations for administration of programs. This system will provide
a door to Congress which will enable Indians to be included in the
decision process of executive program conversion.
2. Provide oversight review with regard to the activities of the
executive and legislative branches. The purpose of the review is
to identify areas where the executive branch alters the intent of
Congress and to provide a preventive maintenance system in
securing consistent Indian policy decision and execution.
3. Provide accountability of both the United States to the
tribes and of tribal representatives to their people. This process
will clearly define the responsibilities of everyone dealing wtih
Indian affairs and establish an evaluation system whereby tribes
can determine how well the General Assembly and its delegates
are performing.
4. Provide a method of protecting the inherent sovereignty of
all tribes and strengthening the vehicle for carrying out the trust
responsibility of the U.S. Government. Through this system it
will be clearly defined that no tribes will give up their sovereignty,
but will in fact be provided a method for exercising their rights
as sovereign nations.








theabveobjecives in mind this task force rconied the
n byCongessof any one of the following which would give
[ianinpt into policymaig

ELEMOS OFINDIAN CONGRSSONAL DLEGTION
direct election of two Senators and
r r vstoheHouseandSenateoftheU.S.
3p would incorporate nomination of candidates
e of tribes and popular election of
itaiv.This concept inclue establishing an ongoing general
yof tribes and an Indian staff with an eutive director who
intrfaeswith a Secretary of Indian~ Affairs-a Cabinet
ice inthe executive branch. The Secretary of Indian Affairs
e rspnsible for all Indian Affairs administration-all funds,
ce and services to Indians consolidated from the many differ-

owould form a Joint Standing Committee of Indian
which would be made up of a collective body of elected Indian
Representatives. This Joint Standing Committee of
Would have Indian Affairs budget justification as well
I ju ion over Indian Affairs issues.

UNION OF INDIAN NATIONS
i of Indian Nations would in effect serve as a "recognized"
committee of Congress.
J f Indian Nations would serve as a primary source for
which reflects the interests of a majority of tribes. Specific
ive interests would be directly placed More the Congress
action by the Union of Indian Nations unless such action is
A by the tribe or tribes concerned.
ion of an Indian board of representatives or commissioners
ted to define U.S. policy toward Indian nations and direct
a development activities and coordinate with all departments
I Government as they relate to Indian interests.

ESTABLISHMENT OF INTER-TRIBAL SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS
.1 governments have throughout their course of past relation-
,itb the Federal Government a valid claim to powers as a
government, with full jurisdiction over all civil and judicial
unl specifically changed by congressional legislation.
i tribal governments are able to enjoy the same powers as those
le government, then the tribe will be able to create "intertribal
nations that are completely outside of the States' jurisdiction;
re the tribes can best be able to define their own needs and
nn on or off Indian territory."
ig the hearing testimony conducted throughout the country,
ority of the respondents expressed their desire to have a system
alternative elected body designed so that a regional concept
w utilized that would best reflect the needs and desires of their
Regionalization of the entity could be developed that would






91A


give each tribe a fair and equal voice in all ma One
would be to use the existing regional formula now practiced
AIPRC with some modifications. Subregions made up of
other geographic arrangements could be designed such that eh
would be adequately represented. Each region would elect
from its own subregions to form a national body that would:
1. Determine who and how much Federal resources a
to meet the needs of Indian people based upon plans devel by
that region or subregion.
2. Watch all Federal and State legislation possessing enough
to veto any form of legislation that may erode or place in j
the present Indian-Federal relationship.
3. Be given enough resources to adequately meet the needs of
people wherever they reside.











APPENDIX A- 1

Location
Inevie Number
Date
Given y__________


PROFILE OF A NATIVE AMERICAN
URBAN INDIAN

Individual Questionnaire -


K OD INFORMATION


4ros (Optiona)


a)Age (b) Sex: M, F
I
4&rital Status:
Married
Sigle
Divorced
Separated ________
Widowed _____

rw Long Have You Been Living In The Area?


ner Ages

rcre Are You Originally From? (Check One And Name The Place)

_____On Or Near A Reservation; Name. .

In Or Near An Indian Community; Name

O_ other ; Name Of Cit And State

twas your primary reason for coming here?







86



9a. What is your tribe affiliation?

b. What is your spouse's tribe affiliation?

c. Are you an enrolled member of your tribe? yes no

d. Are your children enrolled members of your tribe?

yes no

e. Do you vote in your tribal elections? yes no

10.. What is your family's approximate annual income?

B. EMPLOYMENT

1. Occupation: Yours

Spouse

2a. Have you ever utilized employment service agencies?
e.
yes no

b. If yes, which one did you use?

State: Private: BIA: Other:

3a. Was the service satisfactory? yes no

b. Why




4. What other methods have you used to get employment?

Newspaper: Social gathering:

Word of mouth: Other:

5a. Are you satisfied with your present employment?

yes no

b. Would you like information on training opportunities?

c. Would you like to get information on job opportunities?

d. Are you interested in learning new skills?__







87



t are some of the problem areas you think face an Indin seeing






7. What other kinds of employment services would you like to see..avail-
able








1. Do you own your:,home? (a) Y es: No:

(b) If renting, type of housing: Apartment: House:
Trailer: Project:

2. How many people live in dwelling? Ages: Female Male








3. Are you satisfied with your present home? (a) Yes: No:

If no, why?



4. Do you plan to move in the next five years? (a) Yes: No:_ _

(b) If yes, do you plan to: Rent: Buy: Move to Reservation

(c) If moving, what area of city or bther city do you plan to reside?


5. Are you aware of available public housing? Yes No







88



61. Would you live in public houtiig If eligible? Yes .______

ii. Why?



7. Do you know what to do in buying a house? Yes No

8a. Have you cvcr had any problcrs in obtaining housing? Yes

No

b. What were the problems?








9a. Have you ever received housing assistance from any organization
(Public or Private)? Yes No

b. Which Organization?

10. How could an Indian organization help with housing? "







D. EDUCATION

Grammar School: Some College:

High School: College: Degree :

E. SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAM INFORMATION

la. Has your family ever received any typ of Financial welfare
assistance: Yes No.

b. If so, what were the programs?







89


L have you or any member t.f your linmcdi te family ever partic
I any of the types of socd;.l !,ervicc pra-rains listed below? If so
please ncate the orgarf providing 'he service.

Supplemental Food (i. e.. Food4Stamps) or Clothing Program


Spca dcation~ For i'% ndicappcel Children (Physically Or.-


Mae Start

Da Cre Center

3ob Placcment Program (After-School And Summer)
b


Youth Counseling

Big:Brother Program ,_

Adult Education

Family Counseling__

Legal Services

Boarding Schools (BIA)

Dormtory Schools (W.)

-Other

Ia. Rave you ever tried to participate in one of the programs
in question 2? Ues No

b. Did you have any probl receiving assistance. Yes



3. If yes, what were they?






90


F. INDIAN SUFRVICES


I. I-lave you ever used the services of any Indian Organization?
Yes No Explain:



20 Are you awarc of Indian organizations providing assisbnce to
Indian people? List:_ __ _



3. Do you think that Lndians have adequate health services available
In your city? (a) Yes No

(b) Explain:



4. What other kinds of services would you like to see available? List:








G. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

1. Do you have any additional comments on any of the previously
mentioned areas?






2a.IHave you participated in any programs offered by your reser-

vation in the last two years. Yes No

b.Please list the programs and services received: