Indian Self-Determination & Education Assistance Act

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 5301–5423) — commonly called the "638 Act" (after its original Public Law number, P.L. 93-638) — is the foundational law that allows Indian tribes to take over the operation of federal programs that serve their communities. Instead of having the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Indian Health Service run schools, health clinics, law enforcement, roads, and social services on reservations, tribes can enter into self-determination contracts (Title I) or self-governance compacts (Titles IV and V) that transfer the federal funding — and the authority to design and deliver programs — directly to tribal governments. This law fundamentally shifted federal Indian policy from paternalistic federal control to tribal self-governance, recognizing that tribes are the best judges of their own communities' needs. Today, tribes and tribal organizations operate the majority of BIA and IHS programs through 638 contracts and compacts, managing billions of dollars in federal funds annually.

Current Law (2026)

Parameter	Value
Governing law	25 U.S.C. §§ 5301–5423 (Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 1975; amended 1988, 1994, 2000, 2020)
Administering agencies	Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Indian Health Service (IHS)
Title I	Self-determination contracts — tribes contract to operate specific federal programs
Title IV	Tribal Self-Governance Program (BIA) — tribes receive block funding through compacts
Title V	Tribal Self-Governance Program (IHS) — tribes receive block funding for health programs
Contract support costs	Federal funding for administrative overhead of operating contracted programs
Eligible tribes	All federally recognized Indian tribes and tribal organizations
Participating tribes	Over 300 tribes participate in self-determination or self-governance programs
Annual funding	Billions of dollars transferred to tribes through 638 contracts and compacts

Legal Authority

25 U.S.C. § 5301 — Congressional findings (Congress finds that federal domination of Indian programs has denied tribes effective participation in planning and implementing programs that serve them)
25 U.S.C. § 5302 — Congressional declaration of policy (U.S. policy is to support tribal self-determination and to strengthen tribal governments' capacity to manage their own affairs)
25 U.S.C. § 5321 — Self-determination contracts (Secretary of Interior/HHS shall enter into self-determination contracts with any Indian tribe or tribal organization that requests to plan, conduct, and administer programs, functions, services, and activities that the federal government would otherwise provide)
25 U.S.C. § 5324 — Contract provisions and administration (contract must include the funding amount, program scope, reporting requirements, and terms for amendment, renewal, and retrocession)
25 U.S.C. § 5325 — Contract funding and indirect costs (the amount of the contract must be not less than the amount the Secretary would have spent to operate the program directly; includes contract support costs for administrative overhead)
25 U.S.C. § 5362 — Tribal Self-Governance Program (BIA) (establishes a program allowing tribes to enter into funding agreements that combine multiple BIA programs into a single compact)
25 U.S.C. § 5384 — Self-governance compacts (IHS) (tribes may negotiate compacts with IHS to assume control of health care programs, functions, services, and activities)
25 U.S.C. § 5385 — Funding agreements (IHS) (specifies terms for IHS funding agreements under self-governance, including the requirement that funding be at least equal to what IHS would have spent)

How It Works

When a tribe requests a self-determination contract, the Secretary must grant it unless one of a limited set of grounds for declination (refusal) applies: the tribe's proposal would put trust resources at risk, the tribe doesn't have adequate organizational capacity, the proposed project cannot be properly completed, or the amount of funding is insufficient. The burden is on the Secretary to justify any declination — the law creates a strong presumption in favor of tribal contracting. If declined, the tribe can appeal through an administrative process or to federal court.

Title I contracts are the original mechanism. A tribe identifies a specific program, function, service, or activity (PFSA) that a federal agency operates for its benefit — a BIA-run school, an IHS health clinic, a roads maintenance program — and contracts to operate it instead. The tribe receives not less than the amount the federal agency would have spent, plus contract support costs (funding for the administrative overhead of running the program — accounting, insurance, auditing, personnel management). The tribe then operates the program according to the contract terms but with significant flexibility to adapt delivery to local needs.

Titles IV and V — self-governance compacts represent a more advanced form of tribal control. Instead of contracting for individual programs, a self-governance tribe negotiates a compact that provides block funding for multiple programs. The tribe has broad discretion to redesign, consolidate, and reallocate funds among programs based on tribal priorities — a level of flexibility that Title I contracts don't provide. Self-governance tribes can, for example, redirect funding from a BIA program they don't need to one they do, within broad parameters. Title IV covers BIA programs; Title V covers IHS programs.

Contract support costs were the subject of a landmark Supreme Court case — Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter (2012) �� in which the Court held that the federal government must fully fund contract support costs, even if Congressional appropriations are insufficient. This ruling meant that the government's contractual obligation to tribes is mandatory, not discretionary — a significant financial commitment that has increased federal spending on tribal programs by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Before the 638 Act, virtually all federal Indian programs were run by BIA and IHS bureaucrats — often non-Native people with limited understanding of tribal cultures and priorities. Today, over 60% of BIA's budget and a substantial portion of IHS funding flows through 638 contracts and compacts. Tribes operate their own schools, health clinics, child welfare programs, courts, police departments, natural resource management programs, and road maintenance — with federal funding but tribal control. The results have been mixed but generally positive: tribal-controlled programs tend to be more responsive to community needs, though challenges remain with chronic underfunding, administrative capacity, and the complexity of managing federal funds.

How It Affects You

If you're a tribal member seeking health care, education, or social services: Understanding whether your services are tribally operated or federally operated determines who you contact when something goes wrong — and what your recourse is.

Tribally operated programs (the majority of BIA and IHS programs today): The tribal government is your service provider. If you have a complaint about the quality of service, the process for addressing your health care, or how your child's school is run, you raise it with the tribal government — your tribal council, the director of the tribally operated program, or tribal grievance procedures. BIA and IHS retain oversight responsibility but are not the day-to-day operator.

Federally operated programs (where no tribal compact exists): IHS or BIA operates directly. You raise service complaints through federal agency channels — the IHS area office or BIA regional office. IHS has a Patient Advocate program at each facility.

Your right to IHS care: Your eligibility for Indian Health Service care doesn't depend on whether your tribe has a self-determination compact — it depends on your tribal membership and other eligibility criteria. Even in areas where IHS directly operates facilities (rather than a tribe), you are entitled to care based on your eligibility, not on your tribe's contracting status. Find IHS facilities at ihs.gov/locations.

If you're a tribal government administrator considering self-determination contracting: The 638 Act's contracting pathway is a multiyear process — and it begins with building organizational capacity before approaching BIA or IHS.

Starting points:

Identify the programs, functions, services, and activities (PFSAs) your tribe wants to assume — start with programs your tribe already has some capacity to manage
Request a planning grant from BIA or IHS (available under § 5321) — planning grants fund the work of assessing your organizational capacity, drafting a contract proposal, and training staff before you take on program delivery
Submit a contract proposal to your BIA regional office or IHS area office — under the law, the Secretary must grant the contract unless one of the limited declination criteria applies; the burden is on the Secretary to justify any declination
Negotiate contract support costs (CSC): Federal law now requires full CSC funding (after Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter and subsequent settlements) — don't accept a contract that doesn't include full CSC; these administrative overhead funds are essential to running the program effectively
Retrocession option: If after contracting you need to return the program to federal operation, § 5324 provides a retrocession right — giving you the ability to reverse the contract with appropriate notice

Self-governance compacts (Titles IV/V): If your tribe is ready for greater autonomy — combining multiple programs into a single block grant with broad redesign authority — self-governance compacts offer substantially more flexibility than individual Title I contracts. Self-governance tribes can reallocate funds among programs based on tribal priorities. Contact your BIA regional office (Title IV) or IHS area office (Title V) about eligibility and the planning year process.

Complementary development funding: ISDEAA contracting covers BIA and IHS programs, but does not itself fund new economic and social development projects. The Administration for Native Americans (ANA) Self-Sufficiency Grants program (45 CFR Part 1336, 42 U.S.C. § 2991) provides discretionary competitive grants specifically for tribe-designed economic and social development projects — a funding stream that works alongside, not through, ISDEAA contracting.

If you're a federal employee in a program where your tribe is proposing to assume operations: The law provides specific protections when a federal program transitions to tribal operation under § 5323. You have the right to:

Tribal employment offer: The tribe must offer employment to federal employees working in the contracted program if the tribe desires
Federal benefit protections: If you accept tribal employment, you retain certain protections — including civil service preference for future federal employment for 3 years and Indian preference rights
Reassignment rights: If you decline tribal employment, you have reassignment rights within the federal agency for 1 year

In practice, transitions are negotiated — the tribe wants experienced staff, and experienced federal employees often prefer the flexibility and cultural alignment of tribal employment. Connect with your union representative early in the process and document all written offers.

If you're a state government official working in areas with high tribal program presence: When the entity delivering services in your state is a tribally operated program under a 638 contract, the organizational structure matters for your intergovernmental relationships:

Contract with the tribe, not BIA/IHS: For programs the tribe has contracted, you deal with the tribal program director — not the federal agency — for joint operations, Medicaid billing relationships, child welfare coordination, or law enforcement cooperation
Medicaid billing: Tribally operated IHS facilities can bill Medicaid directly; the IHS federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) is different from state FMAP; this affects your Medicaid budget analysis
P.L. 280 states: If your state has criminal and civil jurisdiction over tribal lands under Public Law 280 (Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin), your tribal law enforcement relationships are more complex — tribal 638 law enforcement contracts may overlap with state jurisdiction

State Variations

The Indian Self-Determination Act is exclusively federal, but intersects with state systems:

Tribal programs operated under 638 contracts may interact with state systems (child welfare, education, law enforcement) particularly for tribal members living off-reservation
State-tribal intergovernmental agreements may supplement 638 programs in areas like Medicaid, child welfare, and law enforcement
P.L. 280 states (where the state has criminal/civil jurisdiction on reservations) have different dynamics for tribal law enforcement and justice programs
State recognition of tribal authority to operate programs varies

Implementing Regulations

25 CFR Part 900 — Contracts under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (227 sections across 16 subparts — the complete procedural and operational framework for Title I "638 contracts" through which tribes and tribal organizations assume direct administration of BIA and IHS programs):
- Subpart C — Contract Proposal Contents (7 sections): a proposal must identify the program to be contracted, the funding amount requested (based on what the Secretary would have spent on that program — the "Secretarial amount"), the tribe's plan for carrying out the program, the contract period (1 year minimum; 3 years maximum; renewable), and evidence of tribal authorization; no other documentation may be required beyond what Part 900 specifies
- Subpart D — Review and Approval (6 sections): the Secretary has 90 days after receipt to approve and award the contract or decline — a non-negotiable deadline (extendable only with the tribe's written consent); within 2 days the Secretary must acknowledge receipt; within 15 days the Secretary must notify the tribe of any obvious deficiencies; if the Secretary does not decline within 90 days, the proposal is deemed approved and the contract must be awarded automatically (§ 900.18); upon approval, the full funding amount must be added to the contract immediately (§ 900.19)
- Subpart E — Declination Procedures (14 sections): the Secretary may only decline for 5 specific reasons enumerated in § 900.22: (a) services to Indian beneficiaries will not be satisfactory; (b) adequate protections for accounting of funds are not included; (c) the proposed project or function is beyond the scope of programs authorized by § 102(a) of the Act; (d) the skills, qualifications, or abilities necessary to perform the service are not adequate; or (e) the amount requested substantially exceeds the applicable Secretarial amount. The Secretary may not decline for any other reason. Severability rule: if only part of a proposal triggers a declination criterion, the Secretary must approve the severable portions that do not (§ 900.25). Upon declination, the Secretary must provide written explanation, technical assistance to overcome the objection, and appeal rights. Successor annual funding agreements — contracts that are substantially the same as the prior year's — cannot be declined at all (§ 900.32)
- Subpart F — Management Systems Standards (26 sections): tribal management systems for financial management, property management, and procurement are governed by the tribe's own standards — not by federal standards — unless the tribe's systems fail to meet minimum adequate management criteria; the standards tribes must meet are those applicable to a comparable non-federal entity (§ 900.36), not the full federal acquisition regulations; property acquired with contract funds is tribal property (§ 900.56)
- Subpart J — Construction (28 sections): construction projects may be included in 638 contracts; tribes may use their own procurement procedures for design and construction services (not federal procurement rules), subject to meeting applicable codes and standards; federal bonding and insurance requirements apply; tribes may use a construction management or design-build approach
- Subpart M — Federal Tort Claims Act Coverage (31 sections — the largest subpart): tribal contractors are deemed federal employees for FTCA purposes while carrying out ISDEAA contracts — meaning the United States is liable (not the tribe individually) for tort claims arising from program activities; this coverage is a critical protection that makes 638 contracting financially viable for tribes without access to commercial liability insurance for former federal programs; coverage applies to contractors and subcontractors performing under the contract; the tribe must notify BIA/IHS of all FTCA claims
- Subpart L — Appeals (28 sections): tribes may appeal declinations and contract disputes to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) or directly to federal court; the tribe may continue operating under the existing contract while an appeal is pending; appeals of retrocession and reassumption decisions are also covered here
- Subpart P — Retrocession and Reassumption (17 sections): a tribe may retrocede (voluntarily return) all or any severable portion of a contracted program at any time by providing 120 days written notice; the Secretary must then resume operation of that program; the Secretary may reassume a contract (take it back involuntarily) only if imminent jeopardy to the health, safety, or welfare of Indian people exists — the standard is high and reassumption requires emergency process, including immediate cessation of tribal operation and assumption of full federal service delivery
42 CFR Part 137 — Tribal Self-Governance (Title V self-governance compacts with Indian Health Service — eligibility, planning, negotiation, funding, program standards)
25 CFR Part 1000 — Annual funding agreements under the Tribal Self-Governance Act (Title IV compacts with Interior Department — eligibility, planning phase, negotiation, construction, retrocession)
5 CFR 352.701–.707 — Reemployment rights for Federal employees who transfer to tribal organizations under the Indian Self-Determination Act

Pending Legislation

SRES 156 (Sen. Murkowski, R-AK) — Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Status: Passed Senate.
HRES 911 — Recognizing National Native American Heritage Month and celebrating the heritages and cultures of Native Americans and the contributions of Native Americans to the United States. Status: Introduced.

See also Tribal Sovereignty and Self-Determination and Bureau of Indian Education for related tribal legislation.

Recent Developments

The PROGRESS for Indian Tribes Act (2019) permanently authorized the Tribal Self-Governance Program under Title IV, removing the need for periodic reauthorization. The Supreme Court's decision in Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (2021) confirmed that Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) qualify as "Indian tribes" for certain federal funding purposes, expanding the reach of self-determination contracting. IHS Title V self-governance has expanded significantly, with more tribes opting for compact-based health care delivery. Chronic underfunding of BIA and IHS base programs remains the most significant challenge — self-determination gives tribes control over program delivery, but if the underlying federal funding is inadequate, tribal-operated programs face the same resource constraints that federal programs did.

DOGE and tribal program contracts (2025): DOGE reviews of BIA and IHS contracts — including ISDEAA contracts and compacts with tribes — created uncertainty about whether self-determination contracts would be renewed, modified, or terminated as part of agency restructuring. The ISDEAA creates contractual rights for tribes operating federal programs; termination requires the government to continue providing the services itself if it terminates a tribal compact, making unilateral DOGE terminations legally complicated. Tribal leaders met with OMB and DOGE representatives to protect compact funding from across-the-board cuts.
IHS contract support costs settled: Contract Support Costs (CSC) — administrative overhead that tribes incur when running federal programs under ISDEAA compacts, beyond the direct program funding — have been chronically underfunded. The Supreme Court's decisions in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter (2012) and subsequent cases established that the federal government must pay full CSC. The Indian Health Service and BIA reached settlement frameworks addressing years of underpaid CSC, resulting in billion-dollar+ settlements distributed to tribes. Full CSC funding was appropriated for FY2024-2025.
Alaska Native land and subsistence rights: The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) framework — which created Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) rather than reservations — continues to generate complex self-determination and subsistence rights questions distinct from the lower-48 framework. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) subsistence priority for rural Alaskans (including Alaska Natives) on federal lands has been subject to ongoing litigation and management disputes. Trump administration resource development priorities in Alaska (ANWR oil leasing, Tongass timber) directly affect tribal subsistence interests.
Tribal gaming and economic self-sufficiency: Self-determination through gaming revenue — Indian gaming generated $41 billion nationally in 2023 — has allowed many tribes to fund health, education, and government services previously dependent on federal appropriations. Tribes with successful gaming operations are less dependent on federal ISDEAA contracts; tribes in remote areas without gaming revenue remain most dependent on self-determination contract funding adequacy. The NIGC (National Indian Gaming Commission) regulatory framework requires compact approval from state governors, creating state-tribal relationships that interact with federal self-determination principles.