tribal revenue allocation plans

New Scholarship on Tribal Gaming Revenue Allocation Plans

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Thaddieus W. Conner and William A. Taggart have published “Indian Gaming and Tribal Revenue Allocation Plans: Socio-economic determinants of policy adoption” in the Social Science Journal. Here is the abstract:

As the Indian gaming industry has experienced unprecedented growth over the past two decades, tribes have pursued different paths regarding the utilization of gaming revenues within parameters established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Since 1993, more than 100 tribes have received approval through the Department of the Interior to distribute revenues directly to tribal members through per capita payments governed by a Tribal Revenue Allocation Plan (RAP). This paper improves our understanding of nations with payment plans by exploring whether socio-economic tribal features are associated with the successful adoption of a RAP. We find that tribes who gained approval of a RAP in the 1990s have higher per capita incomes, while also having smaller populations and lower levels of educational attainment. Population is the strongest predictor of RAP adoptions in both the 1990s and 2000s, with the impact of other tribal features being less meaningful in explaining adoption in the second decade.

Email me if you want a pdf.

Interior Office of Inspector General Follow-Up to 2003 Report on Tribal Per Capita Payments

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

In 2003, the OIG issued a report evaluating the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ process for approving tribal revenue allocation ordinances. A few days ago, the OIG issued a quick follow up to that report, determining whether and how the BIA responded to the OIG’s three recommendations. Here is that follow-up:

ER-VS-BIA-0001-2012Public

An excerpt:

Based on our review, we agree that BIA’s Office oflndian Gaming attempted to implement the first two recommendations but did not succeed due to resistance from tribal authorities and lack of enforcement capability. BIA concluded that it did not have the authority to force tribes to submit the additional financial information that would have been required to implement OIG’s first two recommendations. OIG agrees that there is no express authority in either applicable regulation or statute to require submittal of financial information from tribes to obtain approval for gaming Revenue Allocation Plans (RAPs). DOl and BIA could have, however, used their authority to deny RAPs to effectively compel requested financial information from tribes.