Termination by Decentralization? Native American Responses to Federal Regional Councils, 1969–1983

Thomas A. Britten
{"title":"Termination by Decentralization? Native American Responses to Federal Regional Councils, 1969–1983","authors":"Thomas A. Britten","doi":"10.1353/aiq.2021.0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:An interesting yet often overlooked facet of Richard M. Nixon’s consequential presidency was his administration’s ambitious efforts to improve the responsiveness and efficiency of federal grants in aid programs. In order to encourage federal agencies to cooperate with each other, to coordinate their efforts, and to make them more accessible to the people, Nixon created ten Federal Regional Councils (FRCs) and directed major grant making agencies to establish field offices in each of them. In keeping with the administration’s emphasis on decentralization (or New Federalism), the FRCs sought to reverse the concentration of power in Washington, DC, by moving decision making closer to the point of delivery of services and to empower state and local governments to administer federally assisted programs. In theory at least, state and local governments would embrace a more prominent role in identifying and prioritizing their needs and in managing the expenditure of federal funds. They would likewise support the streamlined and simplified application procedures that regionalization promised. At first glance, Native Americans appeared to be potential beneficiaries of these reforms since regionalization promised tribal governments improved access to federal assistance and because it appeared to be consistent with their aspirations for tribal self-determination. That said, most tribal governments as well as national Indian reform organizations such as the National Congress of American Indians and the National Tribal Chairmen’s Association opposed regionalization and worked strenuously to alter its application to tribes. This study seeks to explain Indian opposition to regionalization along with subsequent efforts to modify regionalization to reflect tribal aspirations. In the end, they were largely successful in resisting, ignoring, and/or adapting to the demands of regionalization until the entire effort was abandoned.","PeriodicalId":22216,"journal":{"name":"The American Indian Quarterly","volume":"8 1","pages":"121 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Indian Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2021.0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:An interesting yet often overlooked facet of Richard M. Nixon’s consequential presidency was his administration’s ambitious efforts to improve the responsiveness and efficiency of federal grants in aid programs. In order to encourage federal agencies to cooperate with each other, to coordinate their efforts, and to make them more accessible to the people, Nixon created ten Federal Regional Councils (FRCs) and directed major grant making agencies to establish field offices in each of them. In keeping with the administration’s emphasis on decentralization (or New Federalism), the FRCs sought to reverse the concentration of power in Washington, DC, by moving decision making closer to the point of delivery of services and to empower state and local governments to administer federally assisted programs. In theory at least, state and local governments would embrace a more prominent role in identifying and prioritizing their needs and in managing the expenditure of federal funds. They would likewise support the streamlined and simplified application procedures that regionalization promised. At first glance, Native Americans appeared to be potential beneficiaries of these reforms since regionalization promised tribal governments improved access to federal assistance and because it appeared to be consistent with their aspirations for tribal self-determination. That said, most tribal governments as well as national Indian reform organizations such as the National Congress of American Indians and the National Tribal Chairmen’s Association opposed regionalization and worked strenuously to alter its application to tribes. This study seeks to explain Indian opposition to regionalization along with subsequent efforts to modify regionalization to reflect tribal aspirations. In the end, they were largely successful in resisting, ignoring, and/or adapting to the demands of regionalization until the entire effort was abandoned.
去中心化终止?印第安人对联邦地区委员会的回应,1969-1983
摘要:在理查德·m·尼克松(Richard M. Nixon)的重要总统任期中,一个有趣但经常被忽视的方面是,尼克松雄心勃勃地努力提高援助项目中联邦拨款的响应能力和效率。为了鼓励联邦机构相互合作,协调他们的努力,并使他们更容易为人民所接受,尼克松成立了十个联邦地区委员会(frc),并指示主要拨款机构在每个地方设立实地办事处。为了与政府对权力下放(或新联邦制)的强调保持一致,联邦财务汇报委员会试图扭转华盛顿特区的权力集中,方法是将决策权移到更接近服务提供点的地方,并授权州和地方政府管理联邦援助的项目。至少在理论上,州和地方政府将在确定和优先考虑其需求以及管理联邦基金支出方面发挥更重要的作用。它们还将支持区域化所承诺的精简和简化的申请程序。乍一看,印第安人似乎是这些改革的潜在受益者,因为区域化承诺部落政府可以更好地获得联邦援助,而且这似乎符合他们对部落自决的愿望。也就是说,大多数部落政府以及诸如美国印第安人全国代表大会和全国部落主席协会等全国印第安人改革组织都反对区域化,并努力改变其对部落的适用。本研究试图解释印第安人对区域化的反对,以及随后修改区域化以反映部落愿望的努力。最后,他们基本上成功地抵制、忽视和(或)适应了区域化的要求,直到整个努力被放弃。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信