2

A Conversation with Community Leaders on Intergenerational Poverty

Joe Hobot, president and CEO of American Indian OIC in Minneapolis, led the first session by asking questions of leaders serving Native American communities about their experiences with and work on intergenerational poverty. The invited leaders were Kevin Killer (president, Oglala Sioux Tribe), Cheryl Crazy Bull (president and CEO, American Indian College Fund), and Judith LeBlanc (director, Native Organizers Alliance). The session was designed to engage these tribal leaders so they could:

• offer a landscape view of intergenerational poverty and mobility in their communities and among the populations they work with;
• discuss key barriers and obstacles they see affecting Native American families that are reducing the chances their children will grow up to be happy, healthy, and prosperous adults;
• discuss any promising tribal efforts, including programs, models, and community-led responses, that support upward economic mobility for families and the next generation; and
• shed light on the resilience and strengths of Native American communities to address intergenerational poverty.

VIEW OF INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTY

Joe Hobot started by asking speakers to describe what intergenerational poverty means or looks like within their work, and how communities contend with intergenerational poverty and issues around it. He also asked

speakers to discuss the resilience and assets of the communities that allow them to address and transcend these intergenerational issues.

Cheryl Crazy Bull answered by saying that the issue of intergenerational poverty is personal to her, as she is part of a family that was lifted out of poverty through education and employment. The qualities that are foundational to Native American communities, such as kinship, cultural practices, and traditional foods and medicines, are damaged by the economic condition of poverty, she said. Families who have insufficient access to food, transportation, health care, and other resources are less able to participate in the cultural practices and traditions that contribute to prosperity and well-being, such as community gardens. Communities that lack access to meaningful economic resources end up in a cycle of intergenerational poverty, said Crazy Bull; those who break the cycle are often first-generation students and first-generation workers.

Judith LeBlanc responded to the question by saying that any solutions to poverty must begin with the understanding that Native Americans are the only people on this land that have a collectively owned land base that has been self-governed “since the beginning of time.” In order to counter the impacts of intergenerational poverty and the current state of crisis in health, the economy, and lack of opportunities for Native Americans, people are “returning to the basics.” There is an explosion of interest in language revitalization and in leaning on the values and relationships of the community. For example, LeBlanc said, when the Navajo reservation was hit hard by COVID-19, a grassroots network rose up to provide food to families; these efforts included an organic farmer who set up relays of eggs to distribute to families within 25 miles. The current crises have revitalized a “certain understanding of community that sometimes has been lost in other periods of time.”

Kevin Killer agreed that it is an “interesting time” right now in Native communities. He focused his remarks on the role of land in the economy, noting that running a business usually requires capital, people, and property. While some tribes have a lot of land, that land tends to be tailored to the industry in the area, and the federal government has a lot of influence over the use of the land as well. It is important to work within the frame of the resources of the community, he said, but also to redefine, rethink, and reimagine how economics can work while keeping health, education, and welfare front and center.

ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The committee hosting this workshop, said Hobot, is tasked with focusing on federal efforts to reduce intergenerational poverty. Given this focus, he asked panelists to identify the most significant obstacles to

economic mobility, and to discuss how the federal government’s efforts could facilitate or hinder progress. LeBlanc said that answering this question requires an acknowledgment that while some Native Americans live on reservations, many live in urban environments. It should be a “horizon goal” for treaty rights and sovereignty to apply wherever Native people have chosen to live. For example, she said, health care is a treaty right, and it should be guaranteed whether or not an individual lives in an urban area or on the reservation. However, there has been chronic underfunding of health care; the impact of this underfunding was reflected in the disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on Native populations.

In addition to the need for the federal government to recognize treaty rights for Native people wherever they live, LeBlanc said that the federal government should provide support for Native communities in accessing capital. For example, she said, there are a number of new grants and programs, and an influx of federal money into Indian country, but there is still a need for the federal government to make it widely known that this money is available and to provide technical support to those applying for grants or implementing programs. Even with this available money, LeBlanc added, tribal leaders still need to make tough decisions about whether to “plug the holes of a leaking bucket” because of chronic underfunding, or to plan for the long term with regenerative economic development. Hobot added that he sees similarities between the current situation and the situation after the passage of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA; Public Law 93-638). This Act provided resources for communities but without any real technical support; in addition, he said, the resources allocated were a pittance compared to the overall needs of the communities.

One important role for the federal government, said Killer, is to help tribal leaders navigate bureaucracy in order to get things done. For example, he said, getting broadband internet to the reservation can be a complicated and long process that involves securing funding, getting permits, and obtaining an easement from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This process can take months, said Killer. Fortunately, the current administration wants to help with these kinds of projects, and some people in government, like U.S. Representative Sharice Davids of Kansas, even have a first-hand understanding of the needs of the community. In addition to providing assistance in navigating bureaucracy, Killer said it would be helpful for the federal government to ensure that there is parity between states and tribes and that funds distributed to tribes are calculated appropriately. For example, he said, the Trump administration used on-reservation housing numbers to allocate funding for COVID-19 and that formula undercounted Killer’s community by about 5,000 people. In contrast, the Biden administration used the tribal Census number as a starting point. The latter was a

“game changer” in terms of recognition of the community, he said, but it has taken decades to get to this point. Hobot added that one of the challenges in working with the federal government is that there is sometimes a presumption that a tribe has far more manpower than it actually has. The government may issue burdensome directives and rules concerning incoming resources, which can overwhelm a small staff.

Crazy Bull shifted to a broader view to answer Hobot’s question. The obstacles to economic prosperity in Native communities, she said, are lack of choice, lack of restorative opportunities, and lack of safety and security. When Crazy Bull worked at her community’s tribal school, she emphasized to students that they could feel safe at school regardless of what was going on at home. Given that the infrastructure issues are so deep and so challenging, she said, the federal government has an obligation to create safe and secure environments based on choice and restorative practices. When looking at a federal program, she urged the committee to consider whether the program creates an environment where there is the opportunity to disrupt the lack of mobility or the lack of prosperity. Federal investment, on its own, is “wholly inadequate” to helping people move forward. If an individual is hungry or does not know where he or she is going to sleep, that person will find it difficult to focus on education or vocation, she said. By contrast, when people feel safe and secure and programs are rooted in community choice and restoration, there is an opportunity for people to move forward and pursue paths that disrupt intergenerational poverty.

In order to have programs that work for Native Americans, said LeBlanc, it is critical to have representation in the government and for Native and tribal input to be incorporated into program design “from the get-go.” LeBlanc said that she recently attended a meeting with Chuck Sams, the Native American director of the National Park Service. At this meeting, hundreds of Indians with ancestral relationships to Yellowstone National Park were consulted about the history and future of the park. The National Park Service has never before seen it as important to consult with tribes, said LeBlanc, and without a Native director in place, this meeting likely would not have happened. She noted that within the National Park Service, the responsibility for tribal relations has been moved from the agency’s “underbelly” into the director’s office; this is the first time in history that tribal nations will have a direct line of communications with the director. LeBlanc said that representation is critical, and tribal and Native participation in the design of programs increases the likelihood that they will be effective.

Hobot agreed that representation matters and said that it changes the nature of the dialogue between the community and the federal government. “If we have authentic conversations” with the government, funding can be directed toward solutions that are rooted in the community’s history

and traditions rather than toward overly prescriptive approaches. Native communities know what needs to be done, he said, and they need the government to lend support and then “get out of the way.” Killer agreed, noting that solutions are more likely to work when they are created and led by Natives. When the United States sends money to other countries, like Ukraine, the recipients are given latitude on how to deploy resources. Native communities need the same latitude and discretion for self-determination, he said. Crazy Bull added that while representation matters, who is in charge is also very important. The decision maker is ultimately the person who can allocate resources, which is critical.

COMMUNITY-DRIVEN SOLUTIONS

Native communities should be the designers and architects of the solutions to intergenerational poverty, said Hobot. He asked panelists to talk about solutions and strategies that have been successful in their own communities, particularly those that could be scalable or replicable. Crazy Bull focused on the role of health and education, emphasizing the importance of high-quality maternal and child health care, bodily autonomy, access to safe and secure housing, and interventions for domestic violence. It is critical to invest in solutions that help children get a healthy start, she said, and in those that give people the safety and security they need to make good choices for themselves. In addition, said Crazy Bull, tribally controlled education, whether on a reservation or in another environment, is essential to the well-being of children and youth. Getting an education is a critical path to upward mobility, and having people achieve their educational dreams from a culturally sound place is key to overcoming intergenerational poverty. She referred to a study¹ which found that graduates of tribal colleges and universities had higher well-being scores than the national college-graduate population, adding that there are real advantages to an identity-based, place-based education, with teachers and students who are connected to communities. Crazy Bull said that while the strategies she identified already exist, the government could invest more fully and more robustly in these approaches.

Unfortunately, said LeBlanc, the federal government is not fulfilling its responsibility to Native communities, and philanthropists have had to step in to meet their needs. For example, LeBlanc recently helped facilitate a meeting funded by philanthropists in which Native birth workers—doulas, doctors, and nurses—discussed the need to make traditional ways

___________________

¹ American Indian College Fund. 2019. Alumni of Tribal Colleges and Universities Better Their Communities. Washington, DC: Gallup Inc. https://collegefund.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Gallup_Report_Final_8-1-192.pdf

of birthing available to all Native women. Native communities and women have suffered for years because of a lack of understanding of traditional ways of birthing, and there has been a need for this type of work for a very long time, she said. The fact that this was the first meeting of this sort “means that the government isn’t doing [its job].” In a similar vein, said LeBlanc, there was an effort many years ago on the Muskogee Reservation to discuss how to provide healthy food to families. Discussions with various stakeholders resulted in a plan to create community gardens that would allow families to work together producing food that is indigenous to their land and culture. However, said LeBlanc, this program ran into a “stumbling block” because federal programs did not allow food from nonapproved sources. Philanthropists stepped in to fund the program, but when this funding wound down, the program ended. The federal government, said LeBlanc, needs to fully fund programs that are community directed and that reflect parity between states and tribes; this approach is essential for investing in the programs that will have long-term impact.

POSSIBLE PATH FORWARD

As the final question, Hobot asked the panelists to describe what they see as the path forward to transcend intergenerational poverty. The starting point, said LeBlanc, must be an Indigenous framework. She explained that indigeneity is not simply about being Indian, but it is a way of thinking, a way of walking, and an understanding that “everything is related.” In addition, indigeneity includes an understanding of the time continuum. For Native people, the idea that the way ancestors did things can guide us in the 21st century is “on the very front of our hearts and our minds.” It is essential to understand that the future for our descendants is dependent on what we do today, LeBlanc said, and that “the only time the past and the future come together is in the present.” Crazy Bull agreed that an Indigenous framework is critical and said that people in Indigenous communities do not necessarily think in terms of upward mobility. Rather, they want to be able to take care of themselves and their families, to take care of cultural responsibilities, to have the safety of a home, and to have access to health care. These things, she said, are not about mobility but are about quality of life and being “able to see ourselves in seven generations the way our ancestors saw us seven generations ago.” The path for mobility, said Crazy Bull, must include a comprehensive approach to building an economic foundation for communities, as well as education that is culturally rooted in the community’s identity and the individual’s needs. It is critical that partners—whether they are the federal government, philanthropists, or community partners—adopt this approach and think differently. Hobot added that the path forward needs to have sovereignty at the center, by

using community definitions of success and allowing communities to decide how resources are dispersed to achieve success.

Crazy Bull said that moving forward also will require truth telling. For example, the government should send strong messages about Indian mascots and their impact on children and youth, should fully investigate the history of Native American boarding schools, and should acknowledge how land was taken from Native Americans and “destructively divided up” in order to minimize economic power. Killer agreed and noted that moving forward will require “a lot of healing.” One of the biggest advantages that Native communities have right now, he said, is youth; about half of his nation is under age 18. Decision makers should take this reality into consideration when crafting policies and programs and should ensure that the federal government is meeting its responsibility both to help the youth and to help the nation help itself. “We have all the tools, we have all the ideas,” he said, but the work requires a partnership that incorporates healing into economic policies.

DISCUSSION

Following the panel discussion, Greg Duncan, chair of the Committee on Policies and Programs to Reduce Intergenerational Poverty, moderated a question-and-answer session with the panelists and Hobot, taking questions from committee members and the audience.

What are the barriers to realizing health care as a treaty right, or even as a human right? Is it an issue of funding, or is it an issue of power and who controls health investments?

When treaty rights were first established, there were specific provisions about what would be provided, said Killer. One of the provisions around health care says that each reservation or territory shall be afforded one doctor, he said, but in the 21st century, what does one doctor mean? In the Oglala Sioux Tribe, there are two separate health care systems. On the reservation, the Indian Health Service (IHS) does good work, but it is “extremely bureaucratic” so it is hard to get things moving. The other organization is Oyate Health Center,² which provides care to the urban Native community living in Rapid City, South Dakota. IHS is responsible for providing these services, but the tribe has the right to instead contract the services themselves under the ISDEAA (known colloquially as 638). Since taking over, there have been “missteps and mishaps” but overall, Killer said, it has been going in a positive direction. Providing for their own health

___________________

² For more information see https://www.oyatehealth.com/

care is an extension of the treaty right, he said, allowing the Native community to have a responsive, tribal member-led health care system. Killer said that he knows of other Native communities around the country that are also considering “638ing” their health programs. Killer emphasized that these changes take time, but also that there are mechanisms in place and that ISDEAA offers a lot of opportunities for tribes.

Given that more Native Americans live off-reservation than on-reservation, how can education be supported in a way that preserves the principles of sovereignty and cultural relevance?

The starting point for education, said Hobot, is understanding the relationship between Indian people and the educational system. For many generations, education was weaponized as a tool of pacification against Indians. Hobot characterized it as a system of the “three -tions”: assimilation, indoctrination, and subjugation. Now, Native communities have transcended this relationship and learned to navigate the system to earn their educations. Through this experience, he said, they have learned that there are different ways to “do school.” In Hobot’s community in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Native community has created an alternative program in the urban environment; the program centers the culture, perspectives, and histories of Native Americans. Hobot said that when culture is validated and omnipresent within the learning space, students and families want to participate. These new approaches to education are a way to develop and cultivate future leaders who are “well-rooted in their identities, but have the skill sets to navigate the dominant culture.” The challenge, he said, is that the educational system does not lend itself well to reform, and oftentimes reaffirms its primacy despite what is being vocalized by parents and youth.

In Minneapolis, the Native American community is “voting with their feet” by leaving the mainstream school system en masse because it is not meeting their needs. Hobot said that he often gets asked, “Why are so many Native Americans failing within public education?” His response is that they are not failing, but rather they are making a “spirit-saving decision to exit a noxious environment” that ignores or denigrates their culture. One of the most “obnoxious” examples of this, he said, is Friday night football games, where players don helmets with Indians as mascots and caricatures. The other question that Hobot gets asked is, “Why is public education failing Native Americans?” His response to this question is that the system is performing exactly as it was intended to perform. That is, it was never meant to lift Native Americans up into embracing sovereignty as critical thinkers; rather, it was meant to “create citizen widgets within this fictitious, prefabricated American culture.” These new, Native-led learning spaces represent a return to the past and to “how we know we learn best.”

Those outside the community see it as innovative and cutting-edge, he said, but “what’s old is new again.” Hobot said he has great hope for the future and that he feels a responsibility to demonstrate the efficacy and vitality that these new schools represent.

Crazy Bull added her perspective from the world of higher education and said that the College Fund has produced recommendations³ for post-secondary institutions—predominantly White institutions—on ways that they can create a more inclusive, welcoming, and safe environment for Native students. Among the recommendations are recruiting more Native people to teach or work at the institution and ensuring that the curriculum includes learning about tribes and Native communities. LeBlanc agreed that implementing an inclusive curriculum is a challenge. She noted that there are only about 15 states that mandate the teaching of Native history in public schools, but that this mandate is unfunded in the majority of states. Unless teachers unions, teachers, or parents demand implementation of the law, she said, “it’s not happening.” It must become the norm, rather than the exception, that all students learn about and understand Indigenous history. LeBlanc emphasized that “Indigenous life on this land is foundational to understanding how we got to where we are at.” For example, she asked, if students do not learn that national parks were created through military force and the removal of peoples, how can the hundreds of thousands of people who visit parks to reconnect with nature make things right in the future? LeBlanc said that implementing a curriculum that includes learning about Native history is a “critical battle” not just for Native children, but for all of our children.

___________________

³ The recommendations may be found in American Indian College Fund, Creating Visibility and Healthy Learning Environments for Native Americans in Higher Education: Declaration of Native Purpose in Higher Education: An Indigenous Higher Education Equity Initiative (Denver, CO: 2019). https://resources.collegefund.org/wp-content/uploads/Creating-Visibility-and-Healthy-Learning-Environments-for-Natives-in-Higher-Education_web.pdf

This page intentionally left blank.