A Second Century of Dishonor : Federal Inequities and California Tribes, ch.V


V. The Underfunding of California Indians by Federal Agencies

In our analysis of service population, we are conservatively estimating that the California Indian Service population is undercounted by at least 100 percent or is only half the "real" number. As we can see in 1973 the California Indian self-report was more than six times the BIA service population figure. Both numbers were reported in the BIA's Service Population and Labor Forces Statistics Report for 1973. Since we argue that California Indians have been systematically undercounted, we created an additional per capita statistic labeled "Real" Sacramento Per Capita. This statistic is in the column on the far right of all four BIA appropriations tables .

Funding data from the BIA were not available in directly comparable formats over the 1969-95 period, so we present four tables with internally comparable funding sources over the 1969-to-present period. The table V-2, "Sacramento BIA Allocations vs. National BIA Allocations," covers the 1969 to 1976 period. Here we calculated the per capita funding for the Sacramento area office compared with the per capita funding received by all other Indians living on or near a reservation, or in other words, the BIA reported service population. The table for the 1969-76 period suggests an erratic pattern with the California service population starting with 5,598 in 1969 and then declining and then rising to 6,230 by 1973. This erratic population figure for California is compounded by California self-reports that give much higher service population numbers for California Indians over the 1969-73 years. Such service population self-reports range from 5,192 in 1970, compared to 2,053 used by the BIA, to 36,255 in 1973, compared to 6,230 used by the BIA. The 1973 self-reported California Indian population is six times the figures used by the BIA (see table V-1).

Table V-1
California Service Population Figures

Year           Official BIA Count         Reported California Indian Count

1973                     6,230                               36,255

1972                     3,344                               42,847

1971	                 5,354                	              7,306

1969	                 5,598

1968	                 5,077	                              8,874
Source: BIA Indian Service Population and Labor Force Estimate

If we use BIA figures, then during the 1969-73 period, the service population is erratically reported, and in some years California Indians have significantly higher per capita shares of BIA funds. This occurs during 1970, 1972 and 1973. The "real" Sacramento per capita figures show that California Indians were systematically underfunded each year during the 1969-73 period.

Table V-2

Sacramento B.I.A. Allocations
vs.
National B.I.A. Allocations

Direct Appropriations1
                             Sac.    Nat'l   Sac.   All Other            "Real"         

     National    Sacramento  % of    Serv.   Serv.  Indian      Sac.      Sac.

Year Alloc.      Alloc.      Alloc.  Pop.    Pop.   Per Cap.2   Per Cap.  Per Cap.3

1969  $263,094,000   $2,005,000     .8%   456,520    5,598     $583.46     $358.16   $179.08

1970  $302,745,000   $2,472,000     .8%   477,458    2,053     $641.05   $1,204.09   $602.04

1971  $364,508,000   $3,938,000    1.1%   488,083    5,354     $758.16     $735.52   $367.76

1972  $439,685,000   $5,810,000    1.3%   533,744    3,344     $895.68   $1,737.44   $868.72

1973  $514,866,000   $9,924,000    1.9%   542,897    6,230   $1,016.23   $1,592.94   $796.47

1974  $583,838,000   $9,413,000    1.6%

1975  $691,317,000  $10,949,000    1.6%

1976  $867,601,000  $11,166,000    1.3%
  1. Prepared by Mr. William D. Oliver, former Administrative Officer to the Sacramento Area, at the request of the Sacramento Area Indian Advisory Board. (Includes allocations to Central Office.)
  2. All other Indian service population=National service population - Sacramento service population. All other Indian per capita gives the B.I.A. funding level for all non California Indians living on or near reservations.
  3. 2X reported Sacramento service population.

Table V-3, "Area Direct Operations & Tribal Priority Allocations," provides data on many of the years during the 1980s and 1995. This category of funding, representing only about one-third to one-half of BIA funding for tribal programs, shows that official BIA figures indicate that California Indians received about the same or somewhat better per capita funds. However, the "real" Sacramento per capita column shows that California Indians are underfunded by about one-third to one-half the funding level of all other BIA served Indians.

Table V-3

Area Direct Operations & Tribal Priority Allocations4
                             Sac.    Nat'l   Sac.   All Other            "Real"         

     National    Sacramento  % of    Serv.   Serv.  Indian     Sac.      Sac.

Year Alloc.      Alloc.      Alloc.  Pop.    Pop.   Per Cap.5  Per Cap.  Per Cap.6

1982   $355,620,000   $12,980,000   3.6%

1985   $272,530,900   $10,136,600   3.7%   786,019    25,263   $333.83    $401.24   $200.62

1986   $250,893,900    $8,876,500   3.5%   786,019    25,263   $307.90    $351.36   $175.68

1987   $303,549,900    $9,739,700   3.2%   861,570    27,823   $341.02    $350.06   $175.03

19887  $297,664,800   $12,117,300   4.1%   861,570    27,823   $331.43    $435.51   $217.76

19898  $287,732,800    $9,832,600   3.4%   949,075    28,815   $312.66    $341.23   $170.61

19959  $405,359,600   $15,975,700   3.9%   1,183,967  45,568   $356.08    $350.59   $175.29


4. B.I.A. Budget Documents.
5. All other Indian service population=National service population-Sacramento service population.
All other Indian per capita gives the B.I.A. funding level for all
non California Indians living on or near reservations.
6. 2X reported Sacramento service population. 
7. Tentative figure.
8. Tentative figure.
9. 1993 National and Sacramento service population statistics.

Table V-4, "Operation of Indian Programs," contains the most comprehensive budget information and is probably the best indication of relative distribution of BIA funds. This table provides data for the 1991, 1992, and 1994, and indicates that California Indians received less per capita funding than all other Indians, except in 1994. However, by proceeding with our calculation that California Indians are undercounted by a factor of 100 percent, then the "real" Sacramento per capita funding level is about one-quarter to one-half the funding level of all other Indians served by the BIA. California Indians are greatly disadvantaged by the present distribution of BIA funds. These data indicate that California Indian funding would have to be at least double the present funding levels in order to approach parity funding with all other Indians.

Table V-4

Operation of Indian Programs
      Area                     Sac.    Nat'l    Sac.   All Other          "Real"         

      Office       Sac.        % of    Serv.    Serv.  Indians     Sac.    Sac.

Year  Direct1      Alloc.      Alloc.  Pop.     Pop.   Per Cap.  Per Cap.  Per Cap.
 
1991  $1,122,356,059  $19,063,943   1.7%   1,001,441   36,511  $1,143.39   $522.1     $261.07
1992  $1,059,469,237  $27,361,163   2.6%   1,001,441   36,511  $1,069.62   $749.40    $374.70
1993	
1994  $804,933,411    $31,911,221   3.96%  1,183,967   45,568    $679.04   $700.30    $350.15

Source :  BIA Central Office and Sacramento Area Office

1. The Area Office Direct allocation includes Operation of Indians Programs
less Central Office and Central Schools Allocations.
Table V-5, "BIA, Total Obligations for Funds 31000-39009," since 1993 contains programs such as annual recurring programs, education, other recurring programs, annual non-recurring programs, central office operations, area office operations, special programs, and tribal priority allocations. Data are supplied for 1992-1995, and only those funds allocated to the area offices are considered in the table. Funds allocated to central office administration are not present in the table. This table shows California Indians doing relatively well with per capita funding rates above that of all other Indians in the years 1992, 1994, and 1995. Nevertheless, when taking into consideration the chronic undercount of California Indians, then the "real" per capita distribution of 31000-39009 funds is about 45 percent below those of other Indians served by the BIA.
Table V-5

BIA
Division of Accounting Management
Total Obligations for Funds 31000-39009

      Area                  Sac.    Nat'l   Sac.   All Other          "Real"         

      Office     Sac.       % of    Serv.   Serv.  Indians     Sac.    Sac.

Year  Direct1    Alloc.     Alloc.  Pop.    Pop.   Per Cap.  Per Cap.  Per Cap.

1992  $16,917,818   $807,479     4.8%   1,001,441  36,511   $16.09    $22.12	 $11.06
1993  $793,457,948  $25,538,384  3.2%   1,183,967  45,568   $648.60   $560.4	 $280.23
1994  $798,878,809  $31,648,200  4.0%   1,183,967  45,568   $648.02   $694.53	 $347.26
1995  $782,257,869  $31,866,425  4.1%   1,183,967  45,568   $633.79   $699.32	 $349.66

Source :  BIA Central Office

1. The Area Office Direct allocation includes all
31000-39009 funds obligated to area offices.

Although all four BIA budget tables are not quite comparable owing to changing BIA budget reporting methods, the data show a clear pattern of chronic underfunding of California Indian programs and area office support. The BIA has underfunded California Indians since the 1970s. The four tables indicate that California Indians are underfunded by the BIA at rates of 45 percent or higher. The underfunding of California Indian programs is hidden by the undercount of the California Indian service population. Correcting this undercount yields the "real" Sacramento per capita and more correctly displays the chronic underfunding of California Indians. California Indians suffer BIA funding inequities that will require increases in overall funding of about 90 percent.

Selected BIA Programs

A look at the funding levels of several BIA programs and a comparison of Sacramento area's share will provide more information about funding patterns for California Indians. The attached tables present multi-year funding data for adult vocational training and adult education both of which confirm the pattern of underfunding for California Indians. Each of the latter programs are critical to the future of California Indians and to their ability to preserve law and order and self-government. For funding inequities in law enforcement and tribal courts, general welfare, education, and administration, see sections VIII, VII, IX, and VI of this report.

Table V-6, "Adult Vocational Allocations," shows funding for adult education programs over the 1985-89 and 1991 years. Official BIA figures indicate that California Indians have been receiving adult vocational funding at a rate of nearly twice the national BIA adult vocational average. This shows that the BIA has probably targeted California as one area where adult vocational education is in significant need, and therefore intends to support California Indian adult education with above average funding levels. However, if the undercount of 100 percent is factored into the tables, the "real" Sacramento per capita adult vocational funding level is smaller than the national average in every year for which we have data, except 1986, when Sacramento's per capita allocation was $22.28, while the national average was $19.69 per person. In 1991, the national average was $16.71 per person, while the "real" Sacramento average was $12.04 per year. Although in the middle 1980s, California Indian adult vocational allocations were slightly better than the national average allocations, by the 1990s those same allocations dropped to about 25 percent below the national average allocation. California Indians, while most likely a target for higher levels of BIA funding, have suffered somewhat less funding than other Indians, when taking into account the California Indian service population undercount. Based on the last available funding figures, California Indians need an increase in funding of about 25 percent to match the BIA average per capita distribution in adult vocational training program funding.

Table V-6

Sacramento Adult Vocational Training Allocations
vs.
National B.I.A. Adult Vocational Allocations


      Nat'l       Sac.         Nat'l    Sac.   % of                       "Real"         

      A.V.        A.V.         Serv.    Serv.  Nat'l    Nat'l     Sac.     Sac.

Year  Alloc.      Alloc.       Pop.     Pop.   Alloc.   Per Cap.  Per Cap. Per Cap.

1981  $15,548,500   $1,285,000                          8.3%   
1982  $16,595,800   $1,220,700                          7.4%
1983  $15,551,600   $1,179,100                          7.6%
1984  $20,189,600   $1,183,800                          5.9%
1985  $15,474,800   $1,125,800    786,019     25,263    7.3%      $19.69     $44.56    $22.28
1986  $18,211,000   $1,039,200    786,019     25,263    5.7%      $23.17     $41.14    $20.57
1987  $17,021,900   $1,038,100    861,570     27,823    6.1%      $19.76     $37.31    $18.65
1988  $18,367,600   $  990,500    861,570     27,823    5.4%      $21.32     $35.60    $17.80
1989  $17,853,600   $1,079,100    949,075     28,815    6.0%      $18.81     $37.45    $18.72
1990  $17,422,000   $  938,000    949,075     28,815    5.4%      $18.36     $32.55    $16.28
1991  $16,732,200   $  878,900  1,001,441     36,511    5.3%      $16.71     $24.07    $12.04
1992  $18,060,000   $  858,000  1,001,441     36,511    5.3%      $18.03     $23.50    $11.75
1993  $16,796,000   $  854,000  1,183,967     45,568    5.1%      $14.17     $18.74    $ 9.37
1994  $15,547,000   $  834,000  1,183,967     45,568    5.4%      $13.13     $18.30    $ 9.15
1995  $15,597,000   $  869,000  1,183,967     45,568    5.6%      $13.17     $19.07    $ 9.54


Source = Documents from Bureau of Indian Affairs Central Office.


Table V-7, "Adult Education Allocations," bears out a mixed funding pattern. Official BIA funding levels indicate that California Indians have been singled out by the BIA for special above-average funding levels in adult education programs. For the years 1985-1989 and 1991, official BIA figures show that California Indians received higher per capita funding for adult education programs than other BIA served Indians. California Indian allocations are two to three times larger than the average adult education allocation for other areas. When we calculate in the systematic California Indian undercount, then the "real" Sacramento adult education allocations are greater than the national average in 1986, 87, 88, and 89, but less in 1985 and 1991. The last year with data indicates that in 1991 the BIA gave less emphasis to adult education programs in California, since the "real" Sacramento adult education allocation was $2.72 per person and the national average was $3.28 per person. Although more data for the 1992-95 period would be helpful at this point, the early 1990s were a period when California Indians were given less emphasis for adult education programs. The BIA may have decided to give California Indians less favored funding status in adult education programs. However, since the California Indians are undercounted, the decision to provide California with less, but still favored, funding resulted in 1991 in the underfunding of California Indian adult education programs by about 15 percent.

Table V-7

Sacramento B.I.A. Adult Education Allocations
vs.
National B.I.A. Adult Education Allocations


      Nat'l      Sac.      Nat'l    Sac.   % of                       "Real"         

      A.E.       A.E.      Serv.    Serv.  Nat'l    Nat'l     Sac.     Sac.

Year  Alloc.     Alloc.    Pop.     Pop.   Alloc.   Per Cap.  Per Cap. Per Cap.

1981  $4,784,800   $557,500                        11.7%   
1982  $4,382,700   $512,800                        11.7%
1983  $3,392,700   $241,300                         7.1%
1984  $3,416,600   $284,700                         8.3%
1985  $2,588,600   $137,600    786,019    25,263    5.3%      $3.29     $ 5.45    $2.72
1986  $3,501,000   $336,800    786,019    25,263    9.6%      $4.45     $13.33    $6.67
1987  $3,248,500   $249,600    861,570    27,823    7.7%      $3.77     $ 8.97    $4.49
1988  $3,046,400   $266,300    861,570    27,823    8.7%      $3.54     $ 9.57    $4.79
1989  $3,171,700   $254,800    949,075    28,815    8.0%      $3.34     $ 8.84    $4.42
1991  $3,288,000   $199,000  1,001,441    36,511    6.0%      $3.28     $ 5.45    $2.72


Source = Documents from Bureau of Indian Affairs Central Office.


The Indian Health Service in California

Compared with the BIA, the IHS has adopted a more inclusive definition of Indian eligibility for its programs. In fact, the IHS service population numbers approximate the "real" Sacramento area service population, since it is about double the official BIA service population figures. The 1994 and 1995 IHS service population figures, however, are significantly higher than double the latest available 1993 BIA service population estimates, again indicating that California Indians suffer significant undercounts compared to the IHS method of determining eligibility for services.

IHS has a history of underserving California Indians. In behalf of California Indians, members of Rincon Reservation sued the IHS for neglecting to provide funding levels comparable to other service areas within IHS-Department of Health & Human Services. The Rincon plaintiffs won their case and California Indians were to have a more equitable share of the IHS budget. Table V-8 shows IHS budget obligations to all areas for 1988 to 1995. For purposes of comparing area direct funding, budget obligations for the IHS headquarters, Albuquerque headquarters, and regional offices were withdrawn from the Distribution to Areas column. The IHS figures in Table V-8 represent a wide range of health services including federal health administration, tribal health administration, clinical services, contract care, preventive health, urban health, reimbursements, and Medicare collections. Clinical services include programs such as hospitals and clinics, dental services, mental health, alcoholism programs, and funds for maintenance and repair of clinical services facilities. Preventive health funding provides for programs in sanitation, public health nursing, health education, community health representatives, and immunization. The IHS also funds programs in urban health, Indian health manpower, tribal management, and funds for direct operations. Table V-8 indicates that California Indians continued to suffer systematic and chronic underfunding of health services. California Indians suffer underfunding in the range of 30-45 percent for most years. The best year for California Indians is 1995, but during that year the California IHS budget was swelled by special grants totaling $12,277,280. IHS headquarters east awarded the Hoopa Valley Compact $4,689,813, while the Southern Indian Health Council received $1,708,286, and other California tribes were awarded $5,879,181 in health care grants. Health care compacts are not part of the base funding for California tribes and are granted on an annual basis, so the base IHS funding for California is $78,509,019, instead of $90,786,299. Using the base figures, then, California Indian IHS per capita funding equals $678.96. This figure falls 29 percent short of the national IHS per capita distribution.

Despite Rincon's legal efforts to induce the IHS to distribute health funds more equitably to California Indians, the IHS continues to significantly underfund health services in California. California Indians need overall funding increases of 50 percent, or more in order to gain parity with the average funding levels enjoyed by the IHS Indian service population.


Table V-8
Indian Health Service Obligations to Areas


       Distribution                National   CA        
       to            CA            Serv.      Serv.  Nat.     CA            
       Areas1        Obligations   Pop	      Pop    Per Cap. Per Cap.
                                                          

1988	  934,111,838   37,401,527      1,038,121   80,595     899.81	464.06
1989	1,014,622,581	40,953,447	1,073,886   83,128     944.81	492.66
1990	1,160,940,435	51,319,4542 	1,102,001   85,818   1,053.48	598.00
1991	1,368,743,131	62,984,674	1,131,013   88,657   1,210.19	710.43
1992	1,411,481,820	65,696,8623 	1,160,896   91,652   1,215.86	716.80
1993	1,180,208,540	66,245,7754 	1,160,8965  91,6526  1,016.64	722.80
1994	1,577,603,767	77,975,612	1,339,678  113,465   1,177.60	687.22
1995	1,313,355,569	90,786,2997 	1,376,415  115,632     954.19	785.13

  1. The figures in this column represent the total IHS obligations to all areas less budget obligations to Headquarters, Albuquerque Headquarters and regional offices.
  2. California obligations for 1990 include $2,152,077 in grants and cooperative agreements awarded to CA Indian tribes.
  3. California obligations for 1992 include $1,455,809 in grants and cooperative agreements awarded to CA Indian tribes.
  4. California obligations for 1993 include $3,676,184 in grants and cooperative agreements awarded to CA Indian tribes.
  5. National IHS service population figures for 1993 were unavailable and so the figures for 1992 are used in the table.
  6. California HS service population figures for 1993 were unavailable and so the figures for 1992 are used in the table.
  7. California obligations for 1993 include $12,277,280 in grants and cooperative agreements awarded to CA Indian tribes.
Source : Indian Health Service, Department of Health & Human Services, Rockville, MD.


Housing and Urban Development Programs (HUD)

HUD provided funding and housing unit data on Indian housing programs for a sixteen-year period from 1980 through 1995. During this period, HUD approved a total of 42,133 housing units, and 1,909 units were in California. At this rate, California Indian tribes gained approval to build 119.3 houses per year, an average that is far below the stated needs of California Indians, most of whom believe that significant portions of their communities suffer from chronic substandard housing. Starting in 1980 through 1995, HUD Indian housing programs spent $3,423,346,445 nation-wide; California's share was $202,349,285. California Indian HUD programs averaged total funding of $12,646,830.31 per year. On average, California Indian housing programs were granted $106,008.64 per approved housing unit.

Table V-9 presents HUD Indian program funding levels for 1980 through 1995. HUD uses the BIA service population figures; according to these figures California Indian housing programs have done better than the national per capita funding rate in 15 of 16 years. The apparent overfunding of California Indian housing programs, according to official BIA figures, indicates that HUD Indian housing program officials supported a concerted effort to provide California Indians with a relatively disproportionate advantage in housing funds. This effort might reflect the knowledge and understanding that HUD officials had about the housing needs of California Indians. By shifting funds toward California, HUD officials tried to alleviate the distressful housing conditions of many California Indians living near or on reservations or rancherias.

When considering that BIA service population figures contain an undercount bias of at least 100 percent (see section III), then "real" California per capita HUD funding shares fall below national rates 11 out of 16 years. Nevertheless, in the five years that California HUD Indian housing program funding is greater than the national per capita rate, California Indian housing funding levels are often significantly larger. California Indian HUD programs were funded at greater rates than the national levels in 1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1991. Thus the concentration of higher California Indian housing funds came in the early 1980s, while "real" California per capita funding has exceeded the national average only once in the last ten years. According to "real" California per capita figures, California Indians over the past decade have been systematically underfunded in Indian housing programs.

Summary

Over the past decade, the BIA, IHS, and HUD chronically and significantly underfunded California Indian programs, when compared with Indian programs elsewhere. Although funding levels and inequities vary from year to year, restoring California Indian programs to funding levels comparable to Indians in other states will require significant funding increases. Increased BIA, IHS, and HUD funding, however, while helping to restore funding equity, will do little to rectify past years of chronic under-service. California Indians should be compensated for past years of underfunding.

Table V-9

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Indian Housing Programs
1980-1995



       HUD Total   CA         BIA     CA     HUD     CA      "Real"
Year   Reserved    Reserved   Serv.   Serv.  Per     Per     CA Per
       Funds       Funds      Pop.1    Pop.   Capita  Capita  Capita

1980	372,622,027  13,407,251    648,6832 10,121  574.43  1,324.70	662.35
1981	216,004,681   6,536,249    648,683  10,121  332.99    645.81	322.41

1982	213,011,516  13,641,770    648,683  10,121  328.38  1,347.87	673.93
1983	147,396,911  10,193,830    648,683  10,121  227.22  1,007.20	503.60
1984	156,500,639   2,529,201    648,683  10,121  241.26    249.90	124.90
1985	118,611,385  11,980,423    786,019  25,263  150.90    474.23	237.12
1986	129,362,983   8,050,493    786,019  25,263  164.58    318.67	159.33
1987	268,155,362  15,741,327    861,570  27,823  311.24    565.77	282.88
1988	232,935,363  10,609,247    861,570  27,823  270.36    381.31	190.66
1989	126,489,299   6,187,364    949,075  28,815  133.28    214.73	107.36
1990	246,969,802   9,329,780    949,075  28,815  259.93    323.78	161.89
1991	235,668,221  32,858,902  1,001,441  36,511  235.33    899.97	449.99
1992	254,809,020  11,788,554  1,001,441  36,511  254.44    322.88	161.44
1993	253,750,825   8,566,317  1,183,967  45,568  214.32    187.99	 93.99
1994	285,440,317  21,306,713  1,183,967  45,568  241.09    467.58	233.79
1995	270,190,371   19,621,86  1,183,9673 45,568  228.21    430.60	215.33

Source : U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington Office.
  1. HUD uses BIA service population figures for administering its Indian Housing programs.
  2. The BIA service population figures for 1980-84 are not available. The figures used in the column for 1980-1984 are the most recently available 1977 figures.
  3. At the time of writing this report BIA service population figures for 1995 were not available.


A Second Century of Dishonor :
TOC I II III IV VI VII
UCLA WWW Home Page

Social Sciences Division

American Indian Studies Center

For more information contact aisc@ucla.edu or (310) 825-7315
Last Updated :  Monday, September 23, 1996