Tribal Consultations Summary
Summary
A Treasury summary of Tribal consultations on the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. It explains that Section 602 of the Social Security Act, added by section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, established the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund and reserved $20 billion for eligible Tribal governments, with $1 billion allocated equally and the remaining $19 billion allocated as the Secretary of the Treasury determines. It states that, under its Tribal consultation policy, Treasury solicited letters and convened five Tribal consultations between March 31, 2021, and April 5, 2021, and summarizes the perspectives gathered.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Summary of Tribal Consultations Relating to the
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
Overview
Section 602 of the Social Security Act, as added by section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan
Act of 2021, established the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (FRF) and reserved $20
billion of the total appropriation for eligible Tribal governments. Section 602(b)(2)(B) of the
Social Security Act provides that $1 billion shall be equally allocated to each of the eligible
Tribal governments and the remaining $19 billion shall be allocated in a manner determined by
the Secretary of the Treasury. In accordance with Treasury’s Tribal consultation policy,
Treasury solicited letters and held five Tribal consultations between March 31, 2021, and April
5, 2021, to gather perspectives from Tribal leaders on allocation methodologies, the use of funds,
and administrative functions such as reporting and compliance. More than 1,200 attendees from
all regions of the country joined the consultations.
Tribal nations in the United States operate as sovereign nations with vastly different structures,
economies, and populations. The feedback delivered by 85 Tribal leaders during these
consultations alongside 150 letters from Indian Country reflect this diversity. Treasury
appreciates the many perspectives brought to the consultations.
Feedback from Tribal leaders
Commenters highlighted the importance of the FRF for Tribal governments’ ability to continue
offering essential services in communities that were among the hardest hit by the pandemic.
They largely noted that expediency in disbursing FRF would allow Tribes to address the revenue
gap created by the pandemic’s economic impact and to continue to fight the spread of COVID-
19 in their communities.
With reference to how to allocate the $19 billion, many Tribal leaders provided their views on
which factors should be considered and how these factors could be integrated into an allocation
formula.
Tribal leaders broadly affirmed the importance of population levels as one factor in the allocation
formula. There was overwhelming support for using self-certified enrollment data. Some
commenters, however, argued for including non-enrolled residents on Tribal lands and noted the
variation in the correlation between the size of a Tribe’s enrolled membership and its fiscal
responsibilities.
Commenters also discussed a variety of metrics that might address economic distress within
Tribal communities. While there was a diversity of recommendations to this regard, a
considerable number of commenters noted that pre-pandemic employment, as was used in the
Coronavirus Relief Fund allocations to Tribes, was likely correlated with the negative economic
1
impact of the pandemic. The use of Tribal expenditures for the allocation formula was also
discussed.
Many of the other ideas shared a common challenge: the data gathered for particular Tribes
varies considerably. For example, consideration of metrics such as the poverty rate or household
income levels for Tribal members were suggested, but commenters noted that this information
may not be collected across all Tribes. Similarly, the use of COVID-19 incidence rates was
proposed, but commenters noted that these rates may not be tracked consistently by Tribes.
For the distribution of FRF, some commenters suggested incorporating Tribal land size as
formula factor for the allocations. Others raised concerns about how particular approaches may
disadvantage Tribes of particular sizes or geographies. For example, commenters suggested that
a Tribe’s land base as a metric might address the particular challenges of geographically large
Tribes, but others were concerned how this might impact Tribes without a land base at all.
Other allocation design factors
Reflecting the complexities in weighting the relative needs of Tribal governments according to
an allocation formula, commenters requested flexibility and safeguards for Tribal governments:
- Commenters favored wide latitude for sovereign nations to determine the best use of
funds to meet the goals of the American Rescue Plan within their communities.
- Commenters further requested that indirect administrative costs be permitted as an
eligible use of funds.
- Tribal leaders requested clear but non-exhaustive examples and guidance at the time
funds and distributed.
- Commenters also largely favored establishing a baseline to ensure that no Tribes lost out
on funding necessary to continue essential operations. Less common were suggestions to
establish an upper cap on disbursements.
2
File and source
- File
- TREAS-Tribal-Consultations-Summary.pdf
- Size
- 163,884 bytes
- SHA-256
- 31bd7b2d4e495cbc9cffb29acae72389fc7029332f145a921108c17ca6a465ac
- Original
- home.treasury.gov