The law in brief
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act was signed in January 1975. It is often called “Public Law 93-638,” or simply “638,” and Native program staff still talk about “638 contracts” and “638 schools.” The law allowed federally recognized tribes to enter into contracts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service to run programs that those agencies had been providing to the tribe. It also contained provisions about Native participation in federal education programs.
Before 1975, the government generally decided what services to deliver, who would staff them and how money would be spent. The Indian Self-Determination Act shifted the principle: a tribe could ask to take over administration, and federal officials were required to explain any refusal on specific grounds.
What came before
The law grew out of a long period of dissatisfaction. Termination policy in the 1950s had threatened to end federal recognition for some tribes, and, even for those not targeted, services were often poorly matched to local needs. By the 1960s a number of federal officials, Native leaders and members of Congress favored greater tribal participation. In 1970 President Richard Nixon sent Congress a message endorsing self-determination without termination, and the 1975 act put much of that approach into law.
How contracting worked
In general terms, a tribe could propose to administer a program, negotiate a contract, and receive funds to carry it out. The tribe would then hire staff, set its own procedures within the contract’s terms and report to the federal agency. Over time the law was amended to strengthen the tribal role, to cover administrative costs more fully and to allow longer-term agreements. A separate self-governance track, developed in the late 1980s and 1990s, let participating tribes negotiate agreements covering broader sets of programs and manage funds with greater flexibility.
Not every nation took up these options at the same speed. Taking over a program required administrative capacity, accounting systems and trained personnel, and some nations were better placed than others to do so. Many Apache nations began with a small number of programs and expanded later.
Programs Apache nations have taken on
Without listing current programs, which change and are best checked directly with each nation, the categories where tribes commonly used the law include:
- education and school operation, including support for language and culture
- health services, building on the federal obligations that had long been carried out through the Indian Health Service, which Apache communities long relied on
- social services, housing assistance and elder programs
- natural resources, forestry and range management
- law enforcement and court administration
- road maintenance and community infrastructure
For the Mescalero Apache Tribe, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe and other nations, the mix and timing of these steps differed. In Oklahoma, the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma and the Fort Sill Apache Tribe operate in a different setting from the reservations of the Southwest, with much smaller land bases. Each nation’s choices depended on its needs, its capacity and its relations with local federal offices.
Native-controlled schooling
The education side of the 1975 act connected to wider efforts to allow Native communities greater direction of their children’s schooling, an effort associated with the Indian Education Act 1972 and other measures. The idea that local communities should oversee schools, including what is taught about language and history, was a notable change from the era of boarding schools run by outsiders. Apache nations have approached this in different ways, from managing tribal schools to working with public school districts.
Limits and continuing problems
Self-determination contracting has produced real gains, but it has also drawn criticism and raised difficulties that readers should understand.
- Funding shortfalls: tribes have often reported that the amounts provided do not fully cover the costs of running a program, including the overhead needed to manage it. Congress later added provisions on contract support costs, and disputes over them reached the Supreme Court in the 2000s and 2010s.
- Reporting requirements: contracted programs remain subject to federal rules, audits and reports, which can be burdensome.
- Federal responsibility: because the federal government still holds trust and treaty obligations, there are ongoing debates about whether contracting can shift responsibility away from federal agencies. Tribes have generally insisted that it must not.
- Unequal capacity: smaller nations or those with fewer staff can face more difficulty than larger ones.
Self-determination beyond the law
The 1975 act is one part of a larger picture. Tribal constitutions under the Indian Reorganization Act, court decisions on tribal authority, and the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 also shaped what self-determination could mean. Nations also pursued their goals through economic projects, land management and cultural programs that went beyond what any federal contract provided.
Today, “self-determination” is used to describe tribes making their own decisions about their affairs in ways that suit them. It is not a single outcome, and Apache nations continue to define it in practice. For up-to-date information on services and programs, consult the official websites of each nation. This site is independent and does not speak for any tribe.