The US Urban Indigenous Population(s): Characteristics, Concerns, & Governance Arrangements

Transcription

1 The US Urban Indigenous Population(s): Characteristics, Concerns, & Governance Arrangements Miriam Jorgensen Research Director Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development Univ. of Arizona Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, & Policy International Indigenous Community Safety Seminar Montreal, Canada March 2011

2 White House Briefing, 2010: Revealing an Invisible Population 64% of the American Indian and Alaska Native population lives offreservation (not all urban) A number of reservations are in and near urban areas. Why so invisible?

3 What is the US Urban Indigenous Population? Original, non-migrant urban dwellers Migrants (permanent or temporary) in search of jobs, health care, education, safety, etc. Relocation programs in 1950s Generational effects of all of these factors That is, pretty similar factors everywhere.

4 So what makes this a special AIAN population? 1. US relationships to Indigenous populations within their geography are government-to-government US Government Tribal Government Tribal Government Tribal Government

5 So what makes this a special AIAN population? 2. An important fraction of urban Indigenous people are outside the federal-tribal relationship: Descendants who do not have or cannot have Native nation citizenship (tribal membership) Citizens of state-recognized tribes Self-identified Indigenous individuals who have little connection to contemporary Native nations (but this is a small group in most

6 So what makes this a special AIAN population? 3. Many nations represented In 13 metro areas studied by the National Urban Indian Family Coalition, Census data show that: 14.4% report Cherokee affiliation 12.5% report Navajo 3.5% report Ojibwe/Chippewa 2.8% report Sioux (L/N/Dakota) 66.8% report Other Tribes In LA, 2000 data: 11 tribes with citizens, 18 with 100+ citizens, dozens with fewer

7 A Closer Look at the Indigenous Population in 13 US Metro Areas Albuquerque, NM Buffalo, NY Chicago, IL Denver, CO Los Angeles, CA Minneapolis, MN Oklahoma City, OK Phoenix, AZ Portland, OR San Antonio, TX San Jose, CA Seattle, WA Tulsa, OK

8 Demographic Characteristics ( ACS, released 2010) Characteristic AIAN % Non-Hispanic White % Under age % 20.2% Bachelors degree or higher 17.9% 38.1% Different house 1 year ago 20.8% 14.0% Unemployment rate (pre-recession) 9.7% 5.0% Weighted mean family income $52,120 $86,094 Weighted mean housing value $276,703 $366,049 Own % : Rent % 51.9 : : 28.4 Food Stamps recipients 12.8% 3.3% Poverty rate (under 18 rate) 20.0% (27.1%) 7.2% (7.3%) >1 person per room 5.8% 1.2% House owners paying >30% income 45.3% 39.3%

9 Conclusion: There s a disconnect between support services and need Tribes serve on-territory population first US government channels most money through tribes (government-to-government relationship) Economies of scale make offsite services difficult to deliver (unless population large) Tribes rarely coordinate in offsite service delivery (this may be changing)

10 Urban Indian Organizations Fill the Gap with services Service Provided # of Orgs Service Provided Youth services (12-18) 15 Economic development 6 Cultural classes/ceremonies 14 Economic subsidies 6 Elders programs 12 Transportation 6 Parenting classes 11 Housing 5 Economic education 10 ICWA/foster care managemt 5 Domestic violence programs # of Orgs 9 Medical health services 5 Mental health services 9 Clothing bank 5 Employment services 9 Head Start/Early Head Start 3 Food bank 9 Housing education 2 Policy advocacy 9 Child care 2 Home visiting services 8 Fatherhood 1 Source: NUIFC survey of 17 member organizations, 2010

11 Urban Indian Organizations Fill the Gap with limited resources 17 Urban Indian organizations surveyed by NUIFC

12 Urban Indian Organizations Fill the Gap with little federal support 17 Urban Indian organizations surveyed by NUIFC

13 Governance & the Urban Indian Population Separate from tribes, there are no urban Indian governments. That is: There is no body that makes binding decisions for the community, organizes the community to meet its goals, and represents the population(s) That s appropriate because of the primacy of tribal sovereignty There are UIC policy-setting boards and UIC EDs who manage service delivery & outreach But that s managing, not governing And there can be confusion about the difference (esp ly by community members and board members)

14 Governance & the Urban Indian Population Tribes could/should do more. Some are: Menominee Community Center of Chicago Citizen Potawatomi Nation legislature (and plans for service delivery outposts ) Chickasaw Nation housing & scholarship programs serve citizens anywhere Fond du Lac Lake Superior Band of Chippewa pharmacies in Duluth, MN and Minneapolis, MN Cowlitz Nation health services delivery to all of King County, WA (Seattle area)

15 Governance & the Urban Indian Population UI centers could/should do more. Some are: American Indian Center of Chicago (landlord for Menominee Community Center of Chicago) United Indians of All Tribes Foundation in Seattle (serves as a polling place for tribal elections) Some other ideas: Embassy / point of contact Yarnteen Corporation (Australia) model: rethink the problem (NAYA Family Center in Portland may be on this track)

16 Safety and Vulnerability In the US urban Indigenous population, these safety and vulnerability issues are paramount: Domestic violence Victimization from other assaults Police brutality and abuse Children in need of care Sex trafficking