|
|
|
Contact: Xxxxx Xxxxx, LAN Coordinator Sacramento Area Office, (California, Washington, Idaho and Nevada) The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is the principal bureau, within the federal government, responsible for the administration of federal programs for federally recognized Indian tribes, and for promoting Indian self-determination. In addition, the Bureau has a trust responsibility emanating from treaties and other agreements with Native groups. The mission of the Bureau is to enhance the quality of life, to promote economic opportunity, and to carry out the responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets of Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. The BIA provides the kinds of services one expects from a local, city, county, New Mexico or the Federal Government. This includes, but is not limited to, law enforcement, social services, education, housing improvements, loan opportunities for Indian businesses, and leasing of land. The Indian Health Service, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, provides health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives. The BIA currently provides federal services to approximately 1.2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives who are members of more than 557 federally recognized Indian tribes in the 48 contiguous United New Mexicos and in Alaska. The Bureau administers 43,450,266.97 acres of tribally owned land, 10,183,530.13 acres of individually owned land, and 417,224.98 acres of federally- owned land which is held in trust status. The BIA is headed by an Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, who is responsible for BIA policy, but operationally the BIA is a bifurcated organization directed by (1) a Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs, who has line authority over 12 Area Offices, 83 Agency Offices, three sub-agencies, six field stations, and two irrigation project offices and (2) the Director of the Office of Indian Education, who has direct authority over 26 education line officers. The BIA funds 187 elementary, secondary and post-secondary Indian schools, many of them operated by tribal governments or organizations under contract with the Bureau. Other programs provide assistance for Indian college students, for vocational training, and for adult education. The Bureau of Indian Affairs' mission is to enhance the quality of life, to promote economic opportunity, and to carry out the responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets of American Indians, Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. We will accomplish this through the delivery of quality services, maintaining government-to-government relationships within the spirit of Indian self-determination. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a challenging and dynamic place to work. We provide high quality services in a timely and professional manner. We have the organizational flexibility to meet the changing needs of our customers. Our employees are committed, knowledgeable and empowered. Our policies are clear, consistent and supported throughout the organization. We manage for excellence, fostering cooperation and coordination in consultation with Indian Tribes while supporting self-determination and tribal sovereignty. The Bureau of Indian Affairs takes pride in our ability to successfully manage a complex, multi-faceted organization.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs' mission is to fulfill its trust responsibilities and promote self-determination on behalf of Tribal Governments, American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is the primary agency of the Federal Government charged with the responsibility to administer federal Indian policy and to discharge the federal trust responsibility for American Indian tribes, Alaska native villages and tribal organizations. Federal Indian policy and the trust responsibility are derived from the special legal and political relationship between the tribes and the federal government. This unique [legal and political] relationship is rooted in American history. Much of Federal Indian policy evolves around this "special" relationship which is often broadly expressed in terms of legal duties, moral obligations and expectancies that have arisen from the historical dealings between tribes and the Federal Government. In the narrowest sense, the special relationship is described as a trust relationship between a Trustee and the Beneficiary. The evolution of the trust doctrine over time is primarily the result of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The Court's literal references to a "guardian-ward" relationship in several cases has served as the conceptual basis for the existence of the trust relationship doctrine today. While the Supreme Court decisions fell short of defining all the attributes of an enforceable trust responsibility, the U.S. Constitution itself suggests the Nation's implicit decision to place Indian affairs under federal control. See e.g. Article I, §2, cl. 3 which expressly delegates to "the Congress . . . the power...to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes." As a source of federal power, Congress set the basic framework of federal Indian policy in enacting the Trade and Intercourse Acts passed between 1790 and 1834. The central policy of the Acts was to subject all interaction between Indians and non-Indians to federal control. The Acts prohibited non-Indians from acquiring Indian lands, except with the specific approval of Congress. Trading with Indians was made subject to federal regulation. The underlying objective of this early Federal policy was to protect Indians against incursion by non-Indians, since exploitation of Indians was one of the major causes of fighting and conflict between Indians and non-Indians on the western frontier. In fact, the Secretary of War was established in 1784 with its primary mission to "negotiate treaties with the Indians" and with the armed militia at the disposal of Indian commissioners. Over the next 50 years, laws regulating trade between non-Indians and Indians were added to the books and a network of Indian agents and sub-agents was established. When trade restrictions proved ineffective in maintaining peaceful relations between Indians and their neighbors, Federal Indian policy evolved into systematic forced removal of Indian groups from choice eastern lands to the wilderness west of the Mississippi. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 institutionalized the forced removal of Indians. The most notable removal occurred among the Five Civilized Tribes who were taken from their homes in the southeastern states and marched along the infamous "Trail of Tears" to what is now Oklahoma. By 1849, with the creation of the Department of Interior (DOI), the BIA passed from military to civil control, and its primary mission became "civilizing" the Indian people by training them for farming or trades. During this period, the wardship principle developed as those Indians who cooperated were protected and fed, while those who were intractable were "harassed and scourged without intermission". The General Allotment Act of 1887, the intent of which was to assimilate the Indian by giving him individual ownership, institutionalized the continuing efforts to civilize Indians. In the nearly 50 years of the allotment period, Indian land holdings were reduced from more than 136 million acres to less than 50 million acres in 1934 when the policy was completely abandoned . In response to the Meriam Report, Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This brought a halt to the allotment policy and created a foundation for tribal self-government. Although tribes were urged to adopt American-style elected democratic governments, in practice the BIA continued to direct and influence tribal affairs to a degree greater than was consistent with notions of self-government. To expedite assimilation, the Congress shortly thereafter passed several bills terminating the special Federal relationship of Indian tribes with the United States. Twelve termination acts were passed by the Congress between 1954 and 1962, affecting about a dozen tribes and several hundred small bands and groups in Oregon and California. The tragic results forced the Federal Government to abandon termination, to de-emphasize its custodial functions, and to focus greater efforts on the development of both human and natural resources on Indian reservations. In 1970, President Nixon called for self-determination of Indian people without the threat of termination of the trust relationship over Indian lands. Since that date, self-determination has been the basis of Federal-Indian policy. Today, the BIA provides services directly, or through Self-Determination contract, grant and compact agreements with tribes, to over 1.2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives in 31 states. The scope of BIA programs is extensive and covers virtually the entire range of state and local government services:
More importantly, BIA's programs are funded and operated in a highly decentralized manner with over 90% of all appropriations expended at the local level with an increasing amount operated by tribes and tribal organizations under contracts or self-governance compacts. In addition, the BIA administers more than 43 million acres of tribally-owned land, over 11 million acres of individually owned land held in trust status and 443,000 acres of Federally-owned land. The BIA is charged with the primary responsibility for administration of Federal programs for Federally recognized Indian tribes, and for carrying out the trust responsibility emanating from treaties, the U.S. Constitution, laws, court decisions and other agreements with American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. The BIA has the primary Federal requirement, at law, to serve on an identified constituent group. In the last two centuries, the Congress has passed more Federal laws dealing with Indian tribes and Alaska Natives than any other group of people in the United States. While the Snyder Act, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and the Indian Education Amendments of 1978 provide the primary budgetary authorities, numerous statutes, court decisions, treaties and other authorities (including those passed in the early 1800's regulating trade with Indians) continue to guide the BIA's mission and administration (see Appendix A). The diversity of these mandates frequently requires the BIA to balance the inherent conflicts and problems created by more than 200 years of shifting and evolving Federal-Indian policy. The BIA's most basic responsibilities are its trust obligations and facilitating tribal self-determination. However, while the protection of trust resources is a fundamental responsibility, tribal communities struggling to meet the basic needs of their communities must compete for the same limited resources the BIA uses to protect trust resources. The BIA's success relies on judiciously balancing these competing mandates. The People We Serve The BIA's programs serve communities that face great challenges. According to the 1990 census, the American Indian population increased to 1,937,391, four times the population reported in 1960. While most of this increase is due to an increase in self-identification, a large portion is the result of a natural population increase. Based on this rapid rate of growth, the Census Bureau estimates that the American Indian population will reach 4.3 million, representing just over 1 percent of the population, by the year 2050. Geographically diverse, almost half of American Indians reside on approximately 300 reservations and other restricted and trust lands located throughout the United States. Reservations can vary in size from a few acres, such as the rancherias in California, to the 17.5 million acre Navajo reservation. Approximately 63% of American Indians reside in urban areas - half of whom are concentrated in a relatively small number of cities. According to the 1990 census, more than one-half of the American Indian population lived in just six states: Oklahoma, California, Arizona, Alaska, Washington and New Mexico. From 1970 to 1980, the American Indian population increased by 28 percent, and added 22 percent in the 1980's. The American Indian population is relatively young as reported by the 1990 census: American Indians U.S. Population Under 5 Years 9.7% 7.3% Under 18 Years 34.2% 25.6% Census also reports that the median age of American Indians is 26 years, compared to 33 years for the population at large. This young population is in part the result of mortality rates that are higher for American Indians than for the U.S. population. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality among American Indians. The second leading cause of mortality is homicide, suicide and accidents, alcohol-related and primarily affecting Indians in their teens through mid-20's. It is estimated that alcohol-related deaths among American Indians are four times greater than the U.S. average. By any socioeconomic measure, American Indians trail the general U.S. population. According to the 1990 census, an American Indian's family median income was $21,619 annually compared to $35,225 for the U.S. population. The per capita income in 1989 was $4,478 for American Indians residing on all reservations and trust lands, compared with $8,328 for all American Indians. More significant, is the comparison of 1980 to 1990 census data, and socioeconomic trends which indicate that American Indians are slipping farther behind the U.S. population. In 1979, 28% of American Indians were living below the poverty level compared to 12% of the U.S. population. By 1989, 31% of American Indians were living in poverty compared to 13% of the U.S. population. Other socioeconomic indicators reveal the following: American Indians U.S. Population According to research two factors account for the decline in American Indians' overall income. While American Indian men's educational progress has improved with tangible results, it did not contribute to a relative gain in income, because non-Indian men also improved their skills and education. The U.S. economy contributed to this situation because the least skilled and least educated were rewarded less and found it harder to remain employed. Since American Indian men were disproportionately represented, the overall income of American Indian men fell. (American Indian women witnessed increased incomes; however this was largely attributable to an increase in annual hours worked.) In other words, improvements in education levels or labor market experiences of American Indians had little impact on gains in relative incomes. In 1990 dollars, federal spending for Indian programs peaked in 1979 at a total of $4.4 billion. By 1989, federal expenditures fell to $2.5 billion. Since employment in Indian country has historically relied on Federal jobs and tribal jobs resulting from contracting of Federal programs, the decline in Federal expenditures is another important factor in the increased poverty levels among American Indians. In summary, American Indians are younger and have higher levels of poverty, unemployment, single parent families, fertility and mortality than the U.S. population at large. Tragically, trends are deteriorating for this highly vulnerable population. Tribal self-determination relies on strong tribal self-governance and self-sufficiency. However, numerous obstacles defined by popular public opinion and misconceptions of Indians present tribal leaders, managers and their members with seemingly insurmountable challenges hindering the pursuit of strong and stable governing institutions, economic development and human capital development. Today, the BIA plays a critical role in removing obstacles to capacity building and promoting tribal self-determination. For example, the BIA's implementation of the Self-Determination Act has allowed the tribes to exert increased control over their own development goals and programs. It is undeniable that helping tribes improve the quality of life for their members will require substantial investments in, and prudent management of, tribal government infrastructure, community infrastructure, education, job training and employment opportunities and other components of long term, sustainable development.
The development of a strategic plan is complicated by many factors which directly affect the BIA, yet are outside the BIA's realm of control. The following issues are cross-cutting external factors which can positively or adversely affect the BIA's achievement of its mission. Budget. As the Congress and the President have reached a balanced budget agreement, all Federal agencies will be placed in the unenviable position of competing for the same domestic budget resources and making difficult choices within current budget levels. This strategic plan was developed assuming that the BIA will have a relatively flat budget through 2002 and no dramatic shifts in the funding mix will occur. Shifting Tribal Priorities. The BIA budget process is unique in the federal budgeting process because it provides tribes the opportunity to help shape the BIA funding request by stating their priorities for the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) account, over which tribes have direct control. Approximately 45% of the BIA's budget is currently in TPA. Using a base funding level, tribes develop a detailed budget that expresses their funding preferences. This tribal budget process provides the flexibility to consider funding options should the appropriation be higher or lower than the base level. Tribes and their respective Agency Offices (83 nation-wide) work closely together to establish budget priorities for funding and staffing. The budget is then submitted to Area Offices (12 nation-wide) for their input and forwarded to Central Office in Washington, D.C. Budget priorities set by tribes during the budget formulation process are not changed by either the Area or Central Office without consultation with the tribes. Tribes on the other hand may reprogram funds to other programs when their priorities have changed following the actual appropriation. This poses a significant challenge in the strategic planning process, since each tribe's priorities differ and constantly change, shift and evolve. The regular and frequent turnover of key tribal officials requires the BIA to be vigilant in explaining its policies and processes as well as responding to changing tribal budgetary needs. Since tribes are free to establish their own priorities, and needs vary from tribe to tribe and change over time, changes can be unexpected and abrupt. Self-Determination Contracting/Compacting. At one time the BIA provided virtually all services and programs directly to Indians. In 1975, Congress passed P.L. 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act which authorized the Secretaries of Interior and Health & Human Services to enter into contracts under which the tribes themselves would assume responsibility for administration of federal Indian programs. Today, the emphasis of federal policy is on self-determination and self-governance. A natural consequence of tribes taking on the administration of federal programs was and is a decrease in BIA staffing and offices. As more tribes contract or compact (under Title IV, Self- Governance, P.L. 103-413, amending P.L. 93-638, 1994) the BIA will continue to downsize and consolidate offices. If budgets are cut or inflation out paces modest budget increases, tribes may choose to retrocede programs they have been operating due to inadequate funding. For these reasons, tribes will be increasingly selective in the programs they choose to contract or compact. Measuring Results. The successful implementation and operation of any BIA program depends upon successful contract and compact negotiation and operation of programs pursuant to Pub. L. 93-638. Since the majority of BIA programs are operated by tribal contractors, the BIA must successfully negotiate Pub. L. 93-638 contracts to obtain tribal contractor reports on program performance. The BIA will nurture the trust of tribal contractors by eliminating dated or irrelevant reporting requirements. The BIA acknowledges that given the wide array of programs and the highly decentralized service delivery, the BIA's most formidable task will be measuring performance results, especially at the local tribal level. Partnerships. No single Federal agency has adequate funding or statutory authority to satisfy all objectives and needs expressed by tribes. Ideally, tribal needs could be met by a fully cooperative partnership of tribal, Federal, state, private and other entities. To that end, the BIA and tribes must be able to influence others to participate in partnerships despite the uncertainty of their participation. Changing State and Federal Government Policies. The nature of political and national attitude changes can have severe impacts on tribes and their resources. In particular, new unfunded mandates can place an unanticipated strain on limited BIA resources. Alternatively, shifting Federal policy can burden tribal governments. For example, BIA funding for essential tribal services is frequently supplemented by tribal enterprises. Any changes in statutory or regulatory authorities that work to restrict or inhibit revenues to tribes will, in turn burden BIA funding and delay or prevent the achievement of the Bureau's mission. The flow of popular and congressional attitudes toward social programs being financed solely by the Federal Government will likewise affect the capacity of tribes to administer programs. Recent congressional proposals to tax tribal governments, reform welfare programs, and amend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 are indicators of changing attitudes. In addition, changes in federal Indian policy will also be influenced by: the widespread public perception that most tribes are becoming wealthy as a result of the economic successes of a small number of tribes with casinos, that they pay no income taxes and that they are buying up land without consideration of the impacts on the tax rolls of state or county governments, combined with legal victories that have restored hunting and fishing rights in ceded territories, or restored Indian country status to Indian lands. These changes in attitudes and public perceptions will undoubtedly result in closer scrutiny of Indian budgets by Congress and enactment of more restrictive or limiting Indian policy legislation, all which will effectively hinder the Bureau's fulfillment of its fundamental mission. Any shift in federal Indian policy will also be influenced by the States' administration of traditionally federal programs. Implicit in federal Indian policy is the limitation on the exercise of state authority over Indian tribes. Consequently, as states seek the transfer of federal funding and it's attendant administrative jurisdiction to state and local control, Indian tribes must ensure that funds are either "set aside" for direct funding or "earmarked" as pass-through funds which states must pass to tribal governments. This is critical because states do not have or exercise the trust responsibilities to tribes as does the Federal Government. The effect of any federal program transfers to states without specific provisions for direct or indirect tribal government participation will be denial of essential services and programs. In turn, tribes will turn to the BIA to provide or assist tribes with services and protection of tribal rights. Disasters. The BIA budget is allocated to fund existing services, activities and programs designed to meet basic tribal needs. When acts of nature such as floods, winter storms and other disasters occur the BIA is hard pressed to fund emergency needs and damages without depleting the already limited BIA resources. This shift of resources to acts of nature emergencies can limit the ability of the Bureau to achieve its intended goals. Migration. As economic opportunities improve in tribal communities, or conversely as economic conditions in urban areas worsen, tribal members will relocate back to reservation communities or BIA/tribal service areas. The migration back to service areas and the inability to predict with certainty the expected growth of tribal community needs will place a greater strain on the BIA's limited resources to service these communities. http://shaman.unm.edu/oiep/home.htm The Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP) web site is provided to give an overview of the purpose, programs, and activities of the OIEP. "Indian Education: Best in America" is our theme that is inherent in our mission statement and in the forefront of all our educational pursuits. OIEP is located within the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the U.S. Department of Interior and is responsible for line direction and management of all Bureau of Indian Affairs education functions including the formation of policies and procedures, supervision of all program activities undertaken within the office's jurisdiction, and the approval of the expenditure of funds appropriated for the Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian education functions. Three major legislative actions have restructured the Bureau of Indian Affairs since the Snyder Act of 1921. First, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which introduced the teaching of Indian history and culture into Bureau schools. Full assimilation and eradication of Indian culture had been the policy of the federal government previously. A second major legislative action was the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 (PL 93-638). This legislation gave authority to the tribes to contract with the BIA in the operation of schools and to determine the education programs for their children. The Education Amendments Act of 1978 (PL 95-561) and further technical amendments (PL 98-511, 99-89, and 100-297) mandated major changes in Bureau funded schools. These amendments empowered Indian school boards, provided for local hiring of teachers and staff, and the direct funding of schools. The mission of OIEP can be found in 25 CFR 32 and New Mexicos that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, OIEP is to provide quality education opportunities from early childhood throughout life in accordance with the Tribe's needs for cultural and economic well-being in keeping with the wide diversity of Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages as distinct cultural and governmental entities. OIEP shall manifest consideration of the whole person, taking into account the spiritual, mental, physical, and cultural aspects of the person within a family and Tribal or Alaska Native village contexts. Students: In 1997, there are 49,213 students being served in K-12 in basic instructional programs in Bureau-funded schools. This includes students served in dormitory programs who attend public schools. This total reflects an increase of 3.3% in the number of students severed from last school or 1,567 more students There are 10,463 students in residential programs operated and funded by the BIA. This represents 21% of the student population served by the BIA. In post-secondary programs, there are approximately 25,000 students served at BIA funded tribally controlled community colleges and universities. In the two BIA operated post-secondary institutions, there are 1,501 full time students. Schools: In 1997, there are 82 elementary and secondary schools operated by the BIA. There are 105 elementary schools funded by the BIA which tribes operate under contract or grants. These 187 schools (elementary, secondary, and boarding) are located on 63 reservations in 23 New Mexicos. In 1997, the BIA operated 5 peripheral dormitories on reservations. Peripheral dormitories are established on reservations for Indian students who attend nearby public schools. There are 9 peripheral dormitories that are Bureau funded and tribally operated under contracts or grants. The BIA funds 7 off-reservation boarding schools. The BIA operates 4 of the schools and 3 are tribally operated by contracts. The BIA funds 24 tribally controlled community colleges and operates 2: Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute. There are approximately 5000 teachers, administrators, counselors, and support personnel in the BIA school system. There are approximately 2,115 educational facilities maintained by the BIA which include multiple buildings on school property and exclude living quarters provided to teachers and/or administrators. The OIEP and BIA Goals 2000 Panel have developed the following goals and benchmarks:
The Vision of BIA is: The Aberdeen Area Office of the BIA will continue to provide timely, quality services, manage for excellence, fostering cooperation and coordination in consultation with Indian Tribes while supporting self-determination and tribal sovereignty.
The Mission of Aberdeen Area BIA is:
The Goals of Sacramento Area BIA The Bureau of Indian Affairs is charged with providing services directly or through contract, grant and compact agreements with Tribes. The general goals are as follows:
Status of BIA LAN/WAN Technology The BIA is connecting all 187 of their schools to the Internet by way of the Dept. of Interiors’ National Network - DOINET. The Campus Wide Network will be a fiber-based backbone with 3Com Switches to connect all of the following classrooms and the Computer Center. According to the Presidents’ Goals 2000 Plan, "All classrooms will be connected by the year 2000." Thus, the "Access Native America" plan will allow 2 Internet drops per classroom and 1 Internet drop per administration desk. None of these classrooms are networked together. All of the classrooms are using AppleTalk for Peer-to-Peer networks. K-8 - Each classroom has a minimum of two Apple IIe computers, some have ImageWriter Printers. Status of BIA LAN/WAN Technology The BIA has connecting all 187 of their schools to the Internet by way of the Dept. of Interiors’ National Network - DOINET. The Campus Wide Network will be a fiber-based backbone with 3Com Switches to connect all of the following classrooms and the Computer Center. According to the Presidents’ Goals 2000 Plan, "All classrooms will be connected by the year 2000." Thus, the "Access Native America" plan will allow 2 Internet drops per classroom and 1 Internet drop per administration desk. DOINET is the integrated data network backbone of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). The U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Reclamation manage DOINET on behalf of all other bureaus under the Department of the Interior. As the single network architecture, DOINET ensures network compatibility within the Department. Also, DOINET supports the telecommunications requirements of the scientific and administrative applications of the department and its bureaus. The network developed out of a need to share resources among the bureaus, which leads to reduced overall costs and increased efficiency. The backbone of DOINET consists of various nodes located at key DOI bureau locations around the country. These nodes are connected together by high-speed circuits from FTS2000. Each backbone-switching node consists of a Stratacom IPX cell switch and one or more Cisco routers. Router connections utilize Cisco-compatible OSPF (open shortest path first) routing protocol. Other protocols such as PPP (point-to-point protocol) can also be used. To provide redundancy, each cell switch is connected to at least two other node locations by a T1 circuit. Cell relay technology is used by Stratacom to transfer data between the switches. Cisco routers are connected to the switches using Frame Relay to provide the data connection. Frame relay was chosen because it is efficient at handling highspeed, bursty data over wide area networks. Also, it is well suited for LAN-to-LAN connectivity, which is prevalent within the Department of Interior. Remote locations can connect to DOINET by dial-up procedures or dedicated circuits. From there they can connect to any location on the network. Besides data, DOINET supports voice and compressed video. The cell relay switches integrate the data, voice and video information onto the shared T1 circuits. The network also supports connections to and from the Internet. Future Expansion In the future, we plan to migrate to Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), incorporate T3 trunking and add other nodes to the network: Billings, MT; Salt Lake City, UT; and Boston, MA. Also, the network will be scalable so that adding bandwidth, minor equipment and software upgrades can accommodate multimedia services. BIA can contribute to the community by: (This creates Tribal entrepreneurs that see how they may "Work within the reservation.") Contact: XXX XXXX, IHS Headquarters, Sacramento Sacramento Area Indian Health Service SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFFICE 1320 West Valley Parkway, Suite 309 Escondido, CA 92029 760-735-6880/81 760-735-6893 FAX
The Indian Health Service (IHS), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for providing federal health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The provision of health services to members of federally recognized tribes grew out of the special government-to-government relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. This relationship, established in 1787, is based on Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, and has been given form and substance by numerous treaties, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and Executive Orders. The IHS is the principal federal health care provider and health advocate for Indian people, and its goal is to raise their health status to the highest possible level. The IHS currently provides health services to approximately 1.4 million American Indians and Alaska Natives who belong to more than 545 federally recognized tribes in 34 states. The California Area Office (CAO) carries out the federal government's trust responsibility to provide healthcare to Indian people living in California. This is achieved by contracting with federally recognized tribal governments and urban Indian organizations to provide a wide range of health services. These tribal and urban programs offer outpatient medical, dental and behavioral health services to eligible Indian people. Contract health service (CHS) coverage may be available for those Indian patients who meet the eligibility requirements. CHS may be used to purchase needed services that are not available at the outpatient clinic. The Office of Environmental Health and Engineering works in conjunction with the local tribal governments to help bring clean water and sanitation facilities to Indian communities that lack these basic necessities. The CAO is currently organized into 4 components: Office of the Area Director; the Office of Public Health; the Office of Management Support; and the Office of Environmental Health and Engineering. The Office of the Area Director provides overall direction and leadership by encouraging maximum consultation and participation by California Area tribes, tribal and urban Indian organizations in establishing the goals and objectives of the California Area Office. This office coordinates activities and resources internally and externally with other Federal, State, local and privately funded health care programs regarding pertinent health policy and program management issues. Margo D. Kerrigan, M.P.H., Area Director J. Paul Redeagle, Deputy Area Director Stephen Mader, M.D., Chief Medical Officer Dennis Heffington, Indian Self-Determination Program Manager Debrah Ward, Acting Management Analyst The major goal of the California Area Office of Public Health (OPH) is to ensure that high quality health services are available for Indian people in California. This goal is best accomplished by helping the tribal and urban Indian health programs meet nationally accepted standards of care for healthcare organizations. The OPH professional staff is available to provide training and technical assistance in addition to performing basic federal functions such as contract monitoring and health program performance evaluations. Pat Callison,
RN (Extension 323)
Ralph Ettinger, PhD (Extension 324)
LaMerle Fridley, RN (Extension 331)
Jerry Gordon, DDS (Extension 321)
Carol Goodin, RPh (Extension 322)
Steven Lopez, RHIA (Extension 328)
Stephen Mader, MD (Extension 308)
Arvada Nelson (Extension 332)
Jan Bergemann
(Extension 327): Information Systems Coord.
The Office of Management Support provides advice to the Area Director and functional area managers on administrative and management policy and procedures requirements. This office provides support in the areas of human resources, financial management, acquisition management, property management, and general administrative services. Beverly Miller,
Acting Associate Director (Extension 312)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
