Bill Overview
Title: IHS Contract Support Cost Amendment Act
Description: This bill allows tribes to receive contract support costs for activities that would otherwise be carried out by the Department of the Interior or the Department of Health and Human Services for direct operation of a program, but for which the costs are not fully covered by the amount of funds required by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975.
Sponsors: Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]
Target Audience
Population: Native American individuals in the United States
Estimated Size: 7000000
- The bill pertains to contract support costs related to programs that would be operated by the Department of the Interior or the Department of Health and Human Services.
- The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 is specifically focused on empowering tribes to self-manage programs that were historically run by the federal government.
- Tribes in the United States would be able to receive more comprehensive funding for these programs, addressing existing gaps in financial support.
- There are approximately 574 federally recognized tribes in the United States.
- The total Native American population in the US is estimated to be around 7 million people.
- Not all members of the tribes might directly engage with or utilize programs affected by this funding amendment, but those who do will experience its impacts more directly.
Reasoning
- The IHS Contract Support Cost Amendment Act targets Native American tribes to empower them by ensuring financial support for programs usually managed by federal departments.
- The policy allows tribes to better cover costs related to health and social service operations vital for their communities.
- Given the budget constraints, not every individual in a tribe may directly notice significant changes, especially those who are not involved with the specific programs affected by the funding.
- The wellbeing impacts will vary depending on the individual's degree of interaction with services and tribal programs relying on this financial aid.
Simulated Interviews
Tribal Health Coordinator (Arizona)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a great step towards allowing us to manage our programs without financial stress.
- I think our health services will get better equipment and staffing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Business Owner (South Dakota)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am not directly involved with tribal governance or programs, so I am unsure how directly this will affect me.
- Better community programs could mean improvements for everyone around.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Elementary School Teacher (Montana)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could bolster our educational programs and improve resources for our schools.
- I hope it will lead to better student outcomes in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (New Mexico)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect better services from our healthcare facilities with increased funding.
- As a retiree, improved healthcare is very important for my quality of life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Student (Washington)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy strengthens our capability to manage programs effectively.
- Future generations will see long-term benefits as tribal institutions improve.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cultural Heritage Program Manager (Oklahoma)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional funding means we can better preserve our cultural sites and programs.
- I feel optimistic about the future recognition and support of our cultural initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Social Worker (Minnesota)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the policy, we can enhance our support services for those in need.
- Effective implementation will depend on responsible management of the funds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Law Student (California)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as a legal recognition of our needs and rights.
- I anticipate our legal frameworks and sovereignty will be stronger.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Fisheries Manager (Alaska)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our fisheries programs might benefit indirectly as stronger community programs emerge.
- The policy should aid in maintaining ecological balance and community welfare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Non-profit Organization Director (North Dakota)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could significantly improve health equity and social justice on our reservations.
- Empowerment through funding will lead to systemic changes over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $287000000 (Low: $230000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $290000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $360000000)
Year 3: $295000000 (Low: $245000000, High: $365000000)
Year 5: $305000000 (Low: $255000000, High: $375000000)
Year 10: $340000000 (Low: $285000000, High: $415000000)
Year 100: $420000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $500000000)
Key Considerations
- Determining the exact coverage of costs that are currently underfunded.
- The variability in existent programs and costs across different tribes could affect total funding needs.
- Ensuring the proper management and oversight of the additional funds provided by this policy.