Assessing the Interactions Between Native American Tribes and the U.S. Government in Homeland Security and Emergency Management Policy

The working relationships between Native American tribes, the states, and the federal government have been strained for centuries. These intergovernmental interactions have led to a fragmented system whose attempt to deliver public service is consistently met with opposition. One area where this has become increasingly evident is within homeland security and emergency management policy. This study used a cross sectional survey to gather information about the beliefs tribes held about the various aspects of their working relationships with states and the federal government within the context of homeland security and emergency management. Analysis of the data revealed that the majority of the intergovernmental relationships that existed between tribes and the U.S. government did not possess the characteristics of an effective working relationship. Evidence also suggests that the intergovernmental relationships were actually having a negative impact on the U.S. government's goal to achieve a unified system of homeland security and emergency management on American soil.

[1]  Kellian Clink.  National Congress of American Indians , 2017 .

[2]  Heidi K. Adams.  Sovereignty, Safety, and Security: Tribal Governments Under the Stafford and Homeland Security Acts , 2017 .

[3]  L. Evans.  Power from Powerlessness , 2011 .

[4]  J. Ronquillo.  American Indian Tribal Governance and Management: Public Administration Promise or Pretense? , 2010 .

[5]  Aliza Organick,et al.  From Conflict to Cooperation: State and Tribal Court Relations in the Era of Self-Determination , 2009 .

[6]  William Lester,et al.  Business “Not” as Usual: The National Incident Management System, Federalism, and Leadership , 2007 .

[7]  D. Menzel.  The Katrina Aftermath: A Failure of Federalism or Leadership? , 2006 .

[8]  Peter K. Eisinger,et al.  Imperfect Federalism: The Intergovernmental Partnership for Homeland Security , 2006 .

[9]  Susan A. MacManus,et al.  Mandates and Management Challenges in the Trenches: An Intergovernmental Perspective on Homeland Security , 2006 .

[10]  Donald P. Moynihan,et al.  Homeland Security and the U.S. Public Management Policy Agenda , 2005 .

[11]  Erich W. Steinman.  American Federalism and Intergovernmental Innovation in State-Tribal Relations , 2004 .

[12]  Barbara Gray,et al.  Us versus Them: How Identities and Characterizations Influence Conflict , 2003 .

[13]  J. Butts.  Victims in Waiting: How the Homeland Security Act Falls Short of Fully Protecting Tribal Lands , 2003 .

[14]  J. Ortiz.  Tribal Governance and Public Administration , 2002 .

[15]  N. Pollard,et al.  Homeland Security: The Difference between a Vision and a Wish , 2002 .

[16]  C. Wise,et al.  Organizing the Federal System for Homeland Security: Problems, Issues, and Dilemmas , 2002 .

[17]  C. Wise,et al.  Organizing for Homeland Security , 2002 .

[18]  P. Wilson.  Tribes, States, and the Management of Lake Resources: Lakes Coeur d'Alene and Flathead , 2002 .

[19]  S. Aufrecht.  Missing: Native American Governance in American Public Administration Literature , 1999 .

[20]  J. Ashley,et al.  Superficiality and Bias The (Mis)Treatment of Native Americans in U.S. Government Textbooks , 1999 .

[21]  W. D. Mason.  Tribes and States: A New Era in Intergovernmental Affairs , 1998 .

[22]  D. McCool.  Intergovernmental Conflict and Indian Water Rights: An Assessment of Negotiated Settlements , 1993 .

[23]  D. E. Wilkins.  Breaking Into the Intergovernmental Matrix: The Lumbee Tribe's Efforts to Secure Federal Acknowledgment , 1993 .

[24]  T. Mcguire.  Federal Indian Policy: A Framework for Evaluation , 1990 .