Article Tag: has_thumbnail

Despite compelling reasons to study the impact of Indian gaming on the health of tribal members, gambling problems among American Indians have received scant attention from the research field. One reason for the dearth of research in this area is the challenge of conducting research with a population that has a long history with research abuses, especially in the area of addictive disorders. How and when should investigators approach American Indian communities? Which research questions should receive priority? To answer these questions, Tribal Government Gaming magazine  invited Katherine Spilde and Eileen Luna-Firebaugh to offer guidance to gambling researchers interested in studying American Indian populations.

Both of our institutions, San Diego State University and the University of Arizona, encourage and support academic research on issues related to American Indian tribal governments.  Whether legal or policy studies, cultural analysis or public health research, part of our mandate is to strengthen and contribute to the foundations of original research about the important changes taking place in Indian Country. However, many projects that might seem important or interesting from an academic perspective are not meaningful to or feasible in tribal communities, where priorities and beliefs about what is to be shared vary widely from place to place.
   
To understand why tribal governments are sometimes reluctant to allow “outside” researchers to study their communities, consider the following story:  In 2004, the Havasupai Tribe filed a lawsuit against Arizona State University charging that ASU researchers had misused blood samples taken from tribal members who had been told that the sample material would be used for a study on the genetics of diabetes. The Havasupai community members later learned that the samples were also used for research on schizophrenia, inbreeding and migration patterns, without the tribe’s consent. This recent case, while shocking, was reminiscent of other past abuses and reinforced Indian Country’s suspicions of research and the assumption that findings could be used to harm and humiliate American Indian people and communities (Santos, 2008; Sahota, 2007).
   
Researchers interested in studying the economic and social impact of gambling on American Indian communities must understand the history this story reflects and illustrates as well as the new research regulations some tribal governments have adopted to protect themselves and to exert more control over investigations conducted on or with their communities. We offer the following recommendations to researchers who are thinking about studying gambling impacts or gambling disorders among American Indian communities.

OBSERVE PROPER PROTOCOL

Issues of proper protocol can make or break a research project in Indian Country. As sovereign nations, American Indian tribal governments have the right and responsibility to regulate research on their lands, and some tribal governments have created their own Institutional Review Boards (IRB) for the purpose of evaluating proposals for research on their communities (Sahota, 2007).  Investigators should take care to follow the community’s research
regulations when submitting the project to the tribe’s IRB.
   
We find that academic researchers are often reluctant to approach tribal government officials about potential projects. One simple guideline for dealing with tribal leaders is to consider them as one would any other esteemed elected official or honored representative. Elected tribal chairs and members of tribal councils are the chosen representatives of sovereign peoples and nations. They carry a heavy mantle of responsibility and should be accorded great respect. If the leaders and members believe that the concept of tribal sovereignty is understood and honored by researchers, they will be more cooperative and forthcoming and more likely to contribute their ideas and support to research among their community members.    

STRIVE FOR CULTURAL COMPETENCE

The recommendation to develop a project that is culturally competent might sound like obvious advice to those interested in working with native communities.  However, in our experience, academic researchers often fail to do their homework or invest time in trying to understand the community’s perspective on important issues. Learn as much as you can about the history, culture, traditions and circumstances of the community you would like to study. For example, try to understand the pace and rhythm of life in the community, which may not always proceed in accordance with your project’s timetable or deadlines. Ceremonies and rituals often take precedence, even over previously scheduled interviews with outside investigators.
   
In addition to examining your own personal preconceptions, take a critical look at the existing methodology for cultural bias. For example, current screening instruments for gambling problems have not been validated for use in American Indian populations. You might also consider how the view of gambling among Indian tribes might influence your investigation.  Whereas the dominant American culture often seems ambivalent about gambling, despite the large percentage of Americans who gamble, many tribes view their own traditional gambling activities as an important and positive part of their history and culture.         
 
Additionally, for many tribal governments, gaming revenues provide the most significant (or only) source of governmental income, so tribal gaming’s political impacts are understood to outweigh any potential or actual social impacts.

AIM FOR A TRUE PARTNERSHIP

Most importantly, community leaders and tribal members should be involved from the inception of the research project as more than just human subjects to be studied. Researchers should expect—and invite—tribal representatives to monitor your research project and to request continuous consultation and conversation. Be prepared to explain your project again and again to leaders, small groups and individuals and to incorporate feedback along the way. Projects that reflect true collaboration are ultimately the most valuable to tribal communities themselves and may provide additional value to populations of interest to other researchers.
   
Reciprocity should be the hallmark of research projects with American Indian communities. If investigators make use of the subjects’ time and participation, they should give back to the community by providing resources and skills and by focusing on projects that the community itself is seeking. Hiring tribal members to assist in research activities is a common practice that can benefit the tribe and also make it less likely that research participants will be exploited or exposed to unnecessary risk (Caldwell et al., 2005). 

CONCLUSIONS

These are just a few of the many opportunities and challenges involved in the study of gambling’s economic and social impacts on American Indian populations. Despite the many challenges, we are confident that academic researchers who make the effort to conduct community-based, collaborative research in Indian Country will succeed in producing enlightening studies that will benefit both the tribes and the larger gamb
ling field. We support the creation of tribal IRBs to monitor and shape academic research on tribal communities and encourage researchers to learn more about these processes and protocols to ensure successful completion of important work.

Online gaming isn’t new. Since gambling has proven to stretch back to the dawn of time, it’s not surprising to see it reach all the way back to the dawn of the internet. For the past 20 years, gaming has been the second-most lucrative segment of the internet (right after “sex”). So it was only a matter of time before Native Americans had to grapple with the issues that online gaming brings to the tribal doorstep.
   
While commercial casinos are eagerly lining up behind what is anticipated to be the legalization of certain parts of online gaming in the U.S., tribes have been reluctant participants. After all, it’s only been 20 years or so that tribal government gaming has been transforming some of the nation’s poorest communities into prosperous and powerful organizations, producing revenue, jobs and a bright future of their people. The multi-tiered regulatory system is still being refined and tribes, for the most part, are just beginning to use gaming revenues to diversify their economies.
   
So it isn’t any wonder that most tribes are uncomfortable with a form of gaming with which they are unfamiliar and whose benefits are somewhat nebulous at this point. And it’s not a shock that the issue at the top of the list of concerns is one that is familiar to all Native American leaders: tribal sovereignty.

GETTING HERE

In any case, the United States is late to the party when it comes to online gaming. The birthplace of online gaming is small Caribbean and Central American countries where some nefarious companies and individuals set up servers and systems to run their online operations in a U.S.-facing setting.
   
The industry was a bit more respectable across the Atlantic, where small nations and territories like Malta, Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, Alderney and others set up rudimentary regulatory systems that legitimatized the activity. Today, most European countries have accepted the reality of online and mobile betting and have established rules and regulations that control the online industry. At the same time, the European Union, via the European Commission, has set anti-monopoly rules that allow a fairly level online gaming playing field among all its members.
   
The U.S., meanwhile, went in the other direction. In 2006, Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA), slipping it through at the end of the session, and effectively banning the transmission of money to and from any organization involved with internet gaming. Although enforcement was still two years away, it prohibited U.S.-based banks from accepting transactions from online gaming companies.
   
At that time, many of the companies that had been accepting U.S. wagers—PartyGaming, Microgaming, 888 and others—stopped taking those bets, while others—Full Tilt Poker, PokerStars and many smaller sites—continued to accept them. Some companies that halted U.S. bets made deals with the U.S. Department of Justice that purged any previous wrongdoing from their record, while the ones that continue to take bets are considered criminals.
   
But UIGEA barely dented the online gaming industry in the U.S., with players quickly finding ways around the transaction prohibition. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. market for online gaming is worth somewhere around $20 billion.
   
Online gaming advocates point at that number and describe tax revenues that can be derived from it. Suddenly, politicians are interested.

ONLINE LEGISLATIVE ACTION

In 2010, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) proposed a bill that would legalize certain forms of online gaming. The bill was approved by the Finance Committee, but died before ever getting a hearing before the full House of Representatives.
   
Late last year, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the Senate’s majority leader, pushed a bill to legalize online poker, again stressing the tax revenue that could be accrued during a budget crunch. Although the bill never received a hearing by a committee or the full Senate, it nonetheless was seriously considered. Several factors played against its passage, not the least of which was a division among the gaming industry about how it should be implemented.
   
Tribal interests were closely involved with the negotiations, and although the bill didn’t pass, they sent the message that no online gaming legalization will pass without tribal involvement and signoff.
   
Meanwhile, individual states have begun to consider legalizing “intrastate” online gaming, meaning only residents who live inside the state borders can gamble on devices located within the state. New Jersey came the closest. In late 2010, the state legislature passed a bill legalizing online gaming, which was vetoed by Governor Chris Christie in February. While supporters will re-introduce the bill with changes addressing Christie’s objections, the bill has little bearing on Indian Country because there are no federally recognized tribes or tribal gaming facilities in the state.
   
Not so in California, where two bills to legalize online gaming have divided state tribes, gaming and non-gaming alike. The debate in California is lively and somewhat divisive, but is indicative of tribal opinions across the country.
   
Robert Smith, the chairman of the Pala Band of Mission Indians, is also chairman of California Tribal Business Alliance, a group of three tribes interested in developing partnerships and coalitions with like-minded governments and with business, community and civic organizations, with the intent to build productive alliances based on mutual respect and cooperation.
   
Smith says it’s essential for tribes to have a seat at the table when internet gaming is discussed.
   
“We need that seat to educate decision-makers about the inherent rights of tribal governments and to ensure that tribal interests are included in the policy discussions,” he says. “There’s too much at stake, to not be involved.”
   
Robert Martin, the chairman of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, says that seat should lead to action, lest the tribes be left behind by opposing online gaming. As a member of the California Online Poker Association (COPA), Martin supports one of bills, which would legalize online poker in the state. He believes that if the state doesn’t get involved, only the illegal offshore operators will continue to benefit.
   
“Unlike offshore operators who have skirted the law, tribes have consistently adhered and abided by the provisions of UIGEA and IGRA,” he says. “In 48 states, tribes are synonymous with gaming.
   
“In California, tribal governments are the state’s established gaming partners. It has been a beneficial relationship for both sides for years as tribal gaming has generated billions in revenue for the state and currently employs more than 64,000 Californians.”

BUSINESS CONSENSUS

Ivan Makil, the former president of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community in Arizona, and a candidate for chairman of the National Indian Gaming A
ssociation, believes tribes need to come together on this issue.
   
“The opinions of the tribes need to be heard,” he says. “We need to draw on the necessary expertise and as much objective information as possible in order to evaluate the potential impacts of online gaming. Internet gaming will mean different things for different tribes depending upon market, geography and philosophy. Consensus can only be reached when there is clarity about this issue and its impacts on all tribes.”
   
Leslie Lohse, treasurer of the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians, and vice chairwoman of the CTBA, believes that internet gaming as proposed everywhere threatens tribal sovereignty.
   
“CTBA does not jump into something quickly without examining every angle,” she explains. “We don’t just look at the business perspective, which we can appreciate, but we also have to consider how it impacts the sovereignty of our governments. Not to mention the social aspect. We want to be careful what we ask for because we just might get it. Let’s slow down, be clear, and fully vet it and not just be in a rush to plug a hole.”
   
Ernie Stevens, the chairman of NIGA, says his organization has been monitoring this issue for the past decade and his goals remain unchanged.
   
“Throughout these discussions, NIGA’s position has remained consistent: any new laws on internet gaming must acknowledge Indian tribes as governments, protect tribal sovereignty, and preserve existing rights under IGRA,” he says. “This approach succeeded in 2006 when Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Because of our work, that act protects electronically linked Class II and Class III Indian gaming, and tribal-state compact provisions that speak to internet gambling.
   
Morongo’s Martin believes that tribes can come together with a single voice when speaking of internet gaming.
   
“There already is a consensus within Indian Country that we need to adapt to meet the changing demands of the market,” he says. “Part of that consensus also includes that the internet is the new frontier of gaming.”
   
Smith says while there is a general agreement, specifics can get difficult.
   
“There are 565 federally recognized tribal governments in the United States,” he says. “It is virtually impossible to get unanimity on this issue or any issue.”
   
Since most i-gaming bills envision taxing the online gaming sites in different ways, Lohse says there isn’t a way around that issue if you stand for tribal sovereignty.
   
“Taxation is out,” she says bluntly. “It’s a non-starter right there. We are a government. One government cannot tax another government. Several compacts in California have been rejected recently because they have been deemed as taxation on the tribes.”
   
Martin agrees on that point.
   
“A governing body cannot legally assign taxes to federally recognized tribes,” he says. “It is unenforceable, and therefore sovereignty doesn’t come into question.”
   
Under one of the California bills, only LLCs would be able to offer online gaming, which would mean tribes would set up an LLC separate from their tribal enterprises, and be taxed like a normal business. While Lohse wouldn’t rule that out, she contends it is a slippery slope.
   
“That’s a big issue for us,” she says. “If it’s an LLC, there is no consideration about the impact on the tribal government. You’re creating a business, which we have a right to do, but the issue is that even online creates gaming devices that violate our compacts. Today, the Gaming Control Board considers any gambling online as an illegal gaming device. The tribes would have to go outside our government status, which would be like punishing ourselves. It starts to erode our sovereignty.”
   
Martin disagrees.
  
“Online poker poses absolutely no threat to tribal sovereignty because it is a Class II game under IGRA,” he says. “Class II games are not exclusive to tribes and are not part of any tribal compacts.”

MARKET OPPORTUNITY

Land-based, commercial casino companies see internet gaming as a double benefit. First, it will create new revenues in a difficult economy. It may even allow first-time gamblers to get a taste of gaming entertainment. But they also believe that they can use online gaming to bring customers to their bricks-and-mortar casinos by offering inducements—free or low-cost rooms, cash-back coupons, sweepstakes and more. The same is true for tribal casinos, says Martin.
   
“The online player differs from the player at brick-and-mortar casinos,” he says. “However, by offering poker online, studies have shown that more players will develop an interest in also playing at live casinos in addition to playing online. So the two forms of gaming will complement each other well.”
   
Smith isn’t so sure.
   
“Tribal governments need to look at i-gaming from every angle, every perspective, before taking a position on the authorization of internet gaming,” he insists. “As sovereign nations, first and foremost, we need to look at it from the governmental perspective. Tribal governments come to the table knowing that any decision made could impact their governments in the near term, and, more importantly, it could impact the future of their nations.
   
“Lobbyists, advocates and shareholders are looking at it purely from a business perspective, from a dollars-and-cents perspective—how it impacts their bottom line now, not how it will affect the livelihood of their government generations from now.”
   
Smith is concerned about how online gaming would spread outside of tribal casinos and hopes that regulations would control it. In New Jersey, Christie cited a similar concern when vetoing the bill in that state.
   
“The regulatory scheme at the state level, or the federal level for that matter, should prohibit internet cafés, the establishment of i-poker rooms at existing brick-and-mortar casinos, as well as, the redemption of winnings at existing casinos,” Smith says.
   
Smith believes that internet gaming should remain illegal until it is clear what the impact might be, how it can be effectively regulated and controlled and has adequate protections for tribes. 
   
“Internet gaming should remain illegal,” he says, “until all of the due diligence is done and, at a minimum, it is determined that it is cost-effective, can be implemented with all of the safeguards necessary to protect the sovereign rights of tribes and existing government-to-government agreements, it has all of the safeguards to protect owners, operators, employees, players, etc., and, it should be limited to i-poker. Furthermore, illegal operators should be brought to justice.”
   
Martin says any delay will simply embolden the illegal operators and threaten the integrity of the existing gaming systems.
   
“Currently, the players aren’t being afforded any protection from fraud and theft,” he says. “The states aren’t receiving any benefits from this growing industry and the tribes are being locked out from this new frontier in gaming. The only ones who are benefiting with the status quo are the illegal offshore operators who continue to siphon jobs and billions in revenue from our economy.”
   
Lohse believes that there is a more important reason for taking the time to understand all the ramifications of online gaming.
   
“As tribal leaders, we have to stand firm and see the bigger picture,” she says. “You have to have things to preserve for the future. We want our people to be able to survive and thrive. If we make an agreement on internet gambling and it goes wrong, we’ve betrayed our children.”

The late Serrano spiritual leader Santos Manuel often spoke of the tradition of generosity illustrated by his parents, Helena and Antonio.
   
“My father Antonio, when eating deer meat, would cut off a piece and hand it to the hungry boys,” Manuel told anthropologist John Harrington in 1915. “He would point to the soup and tell them to have a drink. He would make arrows and give the boys four or five ready-made ones, telling them, ‘Go and hunt with these.’
   
“My mother gave poor women buckskin garments. Poor people would seek out Antonio and Helena and everybody loved and respected them for their generosity.”
   
Sharing is a trait indicative of most American Indian cultures, from the Wampanoag who reached out to European settlers on the East Coast, to the Potlatch traditions of Northwest tribes, to the Lakota spiritual leader Sitting Bull, who lived in self-imposed poverty.
   
So it comes as no surprise that American Indian communities operating the more lucrative tribal government casinos have, since passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to surrounding non-Indian communities and other tribal nations.
   
IGRA lists as acceptable uses of casino revenue charitable giving along with government programs, economic development and the welfare of native citizens. The response from some tribes has been astonishing.
   
The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, operators of Mystic Lake Casino Hotel in Prior Lake, Minnesota, has donated nearly $200 million to charitable organizations and Native American organizations over the past 13 years.
   
The San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians of San Bernardino County, California, many of whom are descendants of Santos Manuel, has contributed more than $50 million to tribes and charities since 2001.
   
Shakopee and San Manuel illustrate the charitable giving of indigenous communities operating the approximately 17 percent of the nation’s 418 tribal casinos that, combined, generate 69.5 percent of the $26.5 billion in revenue won in 2009 by the Indian casino industry.
   
Shakopee is known for giving economic development grants to Indian tribes, along with nearly $400 million in loans. In January the tribe gave $1 million each to the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, the Crow Tribe of Montana, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota and the Spirit Lake Tribe of North Dakota.
   
“Our philosophy was that we wanted to help tribes get through difficult times or raise money to start or expand businesses,” Shakopee Chairman Stanley Crooks says. “We didn’t want to do some joint venture and share in their profits, but we wanted to make it easier for them to get the money they needed to do what they thought was right for their tribe, whether it’s economic development projects or job creation.”
   
As is the case with many of the more lucrative casino tribes, San Manuel would historically budget a set amount for charities and wait for the applications.
   
“It was a program driven by the nature of the requests,” says Jake Coin, executive director of public affairs. “The tribe had no real opportunity to set their own goals with regard to what they wanted to achieve through their community outreach.”
   
San Manuel has since established guidelines for giving that are based on the tribe’s culture and traditions, particularly its commitment to Serrano ancestral lands, a vast territory that includes most of San Bernardino County. The band’s ancestral lands dwarf its 800-acre reservation.
   
The main thrust of San Manuel outreach is to help ensure the health, education and economic well-being of residents of San Bernardino, Highland and unincorporated areas that make up Serrano territory.
   
“We took a look at the (community outreach) program and decided we do have important community goals we wanted to address, among them being to raise the quality of life for people in the Inland Empire,” Coin says.
   
The tribe has long-term relationships with Second Harvest, the Red Cross, Loma Linda University Medical Center and St. Bernardine Hospital. It has given millions of dollars to local schools, colleges and universities.
   
As is the case with Shakopee, a component of San Manuel giving includes other native nations.
   
When the devastating Rodeo-Chediski fire of 2002 wiped out 468,638 acres of valuable timber resources on the White Mountain Apache Reservation in Arizona, San Manuel quickly stepped forward to donate $1 million to help the tribe deal with the economic loss.
   
“What the San Manuel Indians did for the White Mountain Apache really touched the hearts of our leaders and all our people,” then-tribal Vice Chairman Johnny Endfield said.
   
When floodwaters in 2008 swept the Havasupai village of Supai, deep in the Grand Canyon, destroying a campground and obliterating the majestic Navajo Falls, San Manuel again donated $1 million to help restore the village.
    
San Manuel also stepped forward with $1 million contributions when wildfires ravaged Indian villages in Southern California, and when freezing temperatures gripped tribal communities in the Great Plains.
    
“We try to be good brothers and sisters to all tribes,” Vice Chairwoman Lynn Valbuena says. “When they have those problems, it hits home. We need to do what we can. There are no second thoughts. We move forward and we do it.”
    
Education is deemed by San Manuel Chairman James Ramos as crucial to individual development. So he took particular pride in the October 2004 opening of the Santos Manuel Student Union and Cross Cultural Center at California State University, San Bernardino.
    
The $18 million center, funded in part with $3 million from the tribe, was named after the tribal leader who in 1866 was driven out of the San Bernardino Mountains by a California militia, leading 30 members of the Yuhaviatam Clan of the Serrano Indians to the valley floor, where the San Manuel Reservation is now located.

When Horizon Engineering Services was established 13 years ago in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the American Indian-owned civil engineering firm soon found a wealth of native clients in the emerging tribal government gambling industry.

“A lot of my initial success as a business person has been because of gaming,” says company President Margo Gray-Proctor, a citizen of the Osage Nation of Oklahoma. “Horizon Engineering has done, perhaps, 20 casinos, from the smallest to the resorts. We continue to do work on tribal casinos even today.”

Horizon’s project list also includes housing, hospitals and airports for tribal and non-Indian clients. Gray-Proctor expanded Horizon’s business umbrella to include drug screening and entertainment subsidiaries to meet the needs of the tribal gambling and resort industry.

U.S. Census figures show a 17.9 percent growth in American Indian-owned businesses from 2002 to 2007, an explosion of tribal entrepreneurialism that generates some $27 billion in combined sales. The figure roughly equals revenue from the nation’s 446 tribal casinos in 28 states.

Gaming Good for Native Business

While there is no empirical data to show a link between Native American business growth and the emergence of tribal gambling, tribal leaders and financial consultants believe the development of tribal casinos, many with hotels, are helping fuel a rise in native entrepreneurs.

“I would think gaming has probably had a tremendous role in the growth of native-owned businesses,” says Tracy Stanhoff, a member of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation of Kansas and owner of Ad Pro, an advertising and graphic design company based in Huntington Beach, California. About 30 percent of Ad Pro business is with American Indian clients.

It was the congressional intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 to strengthen tribal governments and grow diversified tribal economies. That goal has been at least partially achieved with the more than 227,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives who, according to a 2007 census report, are either self-employed or own businesses with employees.

A federal policy of tribal self-determination launched in the 1970s, a gradual strengthening of Indian self-governance and revenue from casino gambling has led to economic and social progress in Indian country.

But tribal leaders who hoped IGRA and the emerging tribal gambling, resort and tourism industry would fuel a return to the native economy and intertribal trade that existed before European settlement of North America are less than satisfied.

Many of the 565 Indian governments and Alaska native villages and corporations have policies and ordinances with native preference in hiring and contracting services. “I don’t know of any tribe in Oklahoma (a state with 39 federally recognized tribes) that doesn’t have tribal preference in hiring and contracting,” says Jess Green, a Chickasaw attorney.

The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, which has a well-established government and diversified economy, is heralded for its procurement policy, small business loan program and other efforts to encourage native entrepreneurialism.

“The Cherokee Tribe of Oklahoma is the gold standard in working with tribally owned businesses,” Gray-Protor says. “I have yet to find a better process—their bid process and their advocating for native-owned businesses. They want tribal members to grow their community.”

Better Buy

But the “buy Indian” concept—illustrated by tribal casino resorts and other tribal government business enterprises using tribal-owned vendors—has been slow to become a reality. Tribal leaders contend there have been too few tribal business partnerships and joint ventures involving native entrepreneurs and tribal government enterprises.

“Native partnerships are ideal, whether it involves small, tribally owned businesses or tribal government business enterprises. That’s always encouraged,” says Gray-Proctor, chairwoman for the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development. “But it has to be the right fit. You just can’t do it because it needs to be done. It has to be the right opportunity.

“We are seeing those types of tribal partnerships. But is it occurring as often and as fast as we want it to? No. A 17 percent growth in tribal businesses is a great start. Is it enough? No.”

“I don’t think there’s enough native-to-native business,” agrees Stanhoff, head of the American Indian Chamber of Commerce of California, “but we’re making strides in doing more of that.”

The American Indian Business Network formed several years ago by the National Indian Gaming Association to foster tribal business partnerships and joint ventures has yet to deliver on its promises. Management of the network was recently placed in the hands of Jamie Fullmer, former chairman of the Yavapai Apache Nation and CEO of Blue Stone Strategy Group, a Phoenix, Arizona, tribal consulting firm.

“Our challenge is the concern that tribes aren’t using native-owned businesses,” Fullmer says. “That might not necessarily be because they don’t want to, but rather because there isn’t a national communication infrastructure by which tribes that want and need vendor services can connect to tribally owned and native-owned service providers or product producers.”

The Intertribal Agricultural Council (IAC) has failed in its effort to work with NIGA tribes on a cooperative agreement to sell beef, poultry and crops produced on reservation farms and ranches to tribal gambling resorts.

“It isn’t taking place,” says Nathan Notah, program manager for the IAC and a citizen of the Navajo Nation. “There are different tribal groups and individuals who are attempting to work together with gaming tribes, but so far it hasn’t happened.”

The market value of crops and food products produced on tribal lands in 2007 reached $2.2 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. About $286.3 million came from ranches and farms owned by individual American Indians and Alaska Natives. Other reservation farms and ranches are operated by tribal governments or non-Indians. There were 79,703 native-owned farm and ranch operations in 2007, according to the Department of Agriculture, an increase of 88 percent from 2002.

“Most tribes are working with regional buyers and distributors for their products,” Notah says. “But as with any business you are always looking for new prospects. That’s what the gaming industry would be.”

Meanwhile, the National Indian Gaming Commission, the federal agency that oversees tribal casinos, is considering including a “buy Indian” provision as part of its ongoing review of NIGC regulations.

Tribal Partnerships

One of the most prominent gambling-related tribal partnerships is the 2005 union of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, both of Southern California, and the Oneida Nation and Forest County Potawatomi of Wisconsin in Four Fires LLC, developers of a Marriott Residence Inn Hotel in Washington, D.C. San Manuel, Viejas and Oneida later formed Three Fires LLC, developers of a second Marriott Residence Inn in Sacramento, California.

“It would be very much an understatement to describe Four Fires and Three Fires as merely two LLCs joining tribes and non-Indian corporations together in the development of hotels,” Viejas Chairman Anthony Pico said in 2005. “It was our hope that by creating a model for tribal partnerships in joint ventures Viejas could promote economic diversity and the growth of a nationwide tribal economy.”

The growth of a diversified nationwide tribal economy is slowly becoming a reality, in part because of the reinvestment of revenue from tribal casinos. But tribal partnerships similar to Four Fires and Three Fires remain elusive.

“I haven’t seen a tribal partnership constructed in that way since then,” says Bill Lomax, president of the Native American Finance Officers Association.

Indian communities with casinos have reached out to other tribes in economic development projects. The Yavapai Apaches under Fullmer’s leadership assisted four Indian tribes in financing and managing casinos. The Pequot Indian Nation, Mohegan Tribe and others have also assisted in financing of tribal casinos.

The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, owners of the lucrative Mystic Lakes Casino in Prior Lake, Minnesota, has in the last 13 years contributed an astonishing $200 million to charities and Indian organizations, including grants of $1 million or more to several tribes for economic development projects.

“Our philosophy was that we wanted to help tribes get through difficult times or raise money to start or expand businesses,” Chairman Stanley Crooks of the Shakopee Sioux says of the tribe’s charitable giving to other Indian nations. “We didn’t want to do some joint venture and share in the profits, but we wanted to make it easier for them to get money they needed to do what they thought was right for their tribe, whether it’s economic development or job creation.”

Change Is Coming

It has been three or four decades since most tribes began rebuilding communities decimated by centuries of genocide, poverty and a failed system of federal government paternalism. Native financial experts note a disparity in the maturity of tribal governments, legal systems and economies that make intertribal partnerships difficult. Government gambling, they say, is only a partial solution.

“Given there had been several generations of poverty and failed government policies toward American Indians, it’s premature to take a 1988 decision like the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and ask, ‘Is it working?’” says Mike Lettig, an executive with KeyBank’s Native American Financial Services. “A fair observation would be, ‘It’s a start.’”

Tribal government gambling has largely benefited a few, smaller tribes in urban areas of the country. In 2009 about 29 percent of the 446 tribal casinos generated 87 percent of the country’s tribal casino revenues, according to Alan Meister, an economist with Nathan Associates Inc. and author of the 2011 edition of the Indian Gaming Industry Report. Many large, remote tribes in the Midwest, Great Plains and Southwest remain locked in cyclical poverty.

“IGRA is one effort that has had a small impact on the great economic needs of Native America,” Lettig says. “The infrastructure needs of Native America today—water, sewer, roads, housing—have been estimated at between $50 billion and $60 billion. In terms of addressing the needs and issues in Pine Ridge and Rosebud, Hopi and San Carlos, the issues of inadequate housing and third-world conditions have not been rectified.”

“The economic viability and business logic behind tribal government gaming don’t fit every tribe. There’s an economic mismatch at this juncture,” Lettig continues. “Native America remains a third-world country in the world’s most prosperous nation. Over the next several years you will see strategic alliances. It just takes time.”

Indian communities need to separate tribal governance from business and economic development, Gray-Proctor says. She and Lomax also believe gaming tribes need to diversity economies that today are heavily dependent on casinos to generate government revenues.

“In terms of true diversification from a business and finance perspective, most tribes are not diversifying away from gaming, at least in a way I as a business person think that they should,” Lomax says.

“Tribes rightfully have been looking at the whole issue of economic development, trying to spur activity on their own reservations,” says Jacob Coin, executive of public affairs for the San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians in San Bernardino County, California. “I would like to see tribes do more to use their governmental, sovereign powers to create a political and economic climate within their jurisdictions to stimulate the kind of individual entrepreneurialism and private-sector development that we desperately need.

“The Three Fires, Four Fires model is one whose day is here. Tribes should look at creating these kinds of alliances and partnerships and trying to work through the challenges of opening up their economic outreach beyond reservation boundaries. The whole world is our market. The whole world is our economy. We need to be a part of that.”