1.

IV. ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

How can ANA alter its application review process as well as its application guidelines to ensure better quality proposals for status clarification?

་

From close review of ANA's FY 1981 FY 1988 status clarification grants, we conclude that ANA might obtain greater impact from its funding if it were to make changes in the application review process and with respect to the guidance provided to applicants. We recommend that the following points be considered by ANA.

It is apparent that grantees are often writing status clarification objectives which are totally unrealistic. This may occur for one of two reasons. Applicants either (1) are ignorant of the complexity and quantity of research data needed for the FAP process and, thus, are genuinely naive when developing their ANA objectives, or (2) perceive ANA as being more receptive to their applications if the objectives indicate the completion of recognition within a project period. In fact, information collected throughout this evaluation study indicates that both of these factors have applied to ANA projects in the past. The end result has been that too many proposals funded by ANA have been unrealistic in terms of anticipated outcomes for the specified grant period. In other words, many of the ANA supported status clarification objectives have gone unmet. Our analysis demonstrates that at least 34 percent of the study sample grantees fell woefully short of accomplishing their stated objectives in a given year. In fact, 12 percent of the grantees repeated the same unrealistic and unaccomplished objectives year after year. Apparently the application review process had no mechanism to detect the flaws in the objectives during the first go-around, let alone note that the same objective was being repeated and was again unmet in subsequent application cycles. Given these findings, we make the following recommendations:

0 It would be useful if ANA had individuals familiar with the FAP process review its status clarification applications.

ANA's application review process should include more rigorous assessment of the reasonableness of the applicant's projected year-end outcomes.

A determination of how realistic the objectives are cannot be made unless the review process involves individuals who are quite familiar with the steps and intricacies involved in the various status clarification routes. To approve objectives which are clearly unrealistic is as much a disservice to the grantees as to the funding agency.

In addition to improving the application review process, we also believe that:

ANA would be better served were it to provide greater guidance in its actual program announcements. Ideally, this could be most efficiently managed were ANA to publish separate program announcements in support of its Status Clarification Program.

While we realize that ANA has moved away from this approach and is now publishing only SEDS program announcements, which are general enough so as to accommodate all types of ANA program strategies, the uniqueness of activities associated with status clarification may warrant ANA's reconsideration of this approach. Were a separate status clarification program announcement published. ANA would have greater latitude in specifying the need for true research plans, i.e., plans that not only identify which steps need to be taken (be it for FAP, preparation of a court case, or pursuing legislation) but that also ensure that the steps would be logically sequenced so as to maximize good use of time and money. The program announcemen: could then be used to alert groups to the complexity of status clarification strategies and the need for developing realistic long range planning.

While ANA does require evidence of such planning in the context of, in particular, its economic development initiatives, an analogous emphasis has not been placed on status clarification applications. Similarly, while ANA does not usually fund regular SEDS applications which are focused on economic development without accompanying

justification of, for instance, labor or product market potential or some type of feasibility study, the status clarification applications appear to be reviewed with no comparable requirements of prior conceptualization. Rather, "good faith" and the basic desire for recognition as a general goal often appear to be enough to warrant ANA support. The lack of specificity with respect to how grant objectives will be accomplished was a factor in over 75 percent of the applications reviewed during this evaluation study. The dearth of substantive activity and timeline information was truly noteworthy. In cases such as these, the success of a given grantee primarily depended on whether or not the community had the foresight or capacity to approach its recognition efforts in a logical and systematic manner.

We make the following recommendation to ANA:

In addition to greater guidance contained in the actual program announcement, ANA should provide other supplemental information as part of its application package. Specifically:

(a)

(b)

a brief overview of status clarification routes, denoting specific merits and qualifications regarding each and specific steps which are implicit in pursuing each;

a brief summary of this study's analysis of the time frames involved in conducting research and completing the actual process for the various status clarification routes, particularly FAP. Currently, grantees seem to view completion of a documented petition as the culmination of status clarification research, when in fact follow-up research and compilation of additional documentation can extend several years beyond submission of a documented petition stage (25 noted throughout this report). Furthermore, the actual time from submission of a documented petition by a group to the issuing of a

(c)

finding by BAR, is usually over four years. In the one study case of a negative finding, this period was over seven years.

an outline of essential elements that should be included in each group's research plan, with discussion/guidance of the relation of those elements to the writing of a documented petition, including realistic time frames for completing each section of the petition.

We also make the following additional recommendation:

ANA should encourage more of its status clarification applicants to apply for multi-year rather than single year funding.

While we recognize

Obviously the status clarification process is a lengthy one. that most of ANA's regular SEDS funding is also directed toward projects which require more than one year of funding to reach completion, the need for follow-up funding was virtually always needed for the status clarification projects included in our study sample. It is abundantly evident from the data we have collected that most status clarification communities whose ANA support was curtailed mid-stream in the petition development stages, or in collecting supplemental documentation for response to an OD Notice. literally ceased substantive work on their status clarification efforts. The debilitating effect of this loss of momentum is considerable. Perhaps, most importantly, is the fact that a funding hiatus can frequently cause the loss of a key researcher who is then unable to return when funding is resumed. The continuity of a good researcher can iiterally, in some cases, make the difference between a successful and unsuccessful petition. Multi-year grant awards would help alleviate these problems.

2.

What type of coordination needs to occur between ANA and BAR staff?

Since over 90 percent of ANA's grantees are using the FAP route for clarifying their status as tribes, it would seem imperative that a strong and on-going coordination effort exist between ANA and BAR staff. In the late-1970's and early-1980's, this type of coordination was seen by ANA as a vital step in both formulation and execution of its Status Clarification Program strategies. Not only was the BAR staff consulted in the shaping of ANA's program philosophy, but the ANA-funded Resource Mobilization Project worked closely with individual staff members of BAR. However, this linkage and sharing of information has apparently now grown far less regular and effective. Since we are aware of a renewed interest in activating this coordination and of recent meetings which have occurred between ANA and BAR staff, we wish to reinforce the imperative nature of this effort.

As noted throughout this report, the FAP process is lengthy, complex, and definitely requires the involvement of professional experts with respect to research and, in some cases, legal interpretations of historical events. The BAR staff can and does serve as a resource for questions and points of clarification emanating from petitioning communities, particularly during preparation of the documented petition. As a result, BAR staff is cognizant of problems or concerns which petitioners are facing and can offer guidance for particular areas. For individual ANA staff, regular communication with BAR would lead to increased familiarity with (1) the overall FAP criteria. (2) the extent to which documentation is required to meet those criteria, and (3) the basic stages in the FAP review process. In turn, this increased familiarity would assist ANA staff in effectively monitoring grant implementation. Moreover, were ANA more aware of the complex research problems facing a specific community, the agency would be better able to assess the appropriateness of the project objectives which it funds. Similarly, based on information exchanges with BAR staff, ANA could then suggest to grantees realistic and valuable revisions in objective statements which could result in a greater impact of ANA funding.