I’m thrilled to sit down with Donald Gainsborough, a political savant and leader in policy and legislation, who is at the helm of Government Curated. With his deep expertise in public policy and data governance, particularly concerning tribal communities, Donald offers invaluable insights into the pressing need for better data quality and accessibility for tribal governments. In this conversation, we explore the historical challenges of data representation for Native American communities, the impact of recent federal restrictions, the potential of regional collaboration, and innovative strategies for building data capacity through partnerships. Join us as we delve into these critical topics that affect not just tribal nations, but society as a whole.
How have historical issues with data quality affected tribal governments and their ability to serve their communities?
Historically, tribal governments have been either underrepresented or completely misrepresented in government datasets. This has created a real blind spot for policymakers and the communities themselves. Without accurate data, it’s tough to make informed decisions about things like healthcare, education, or infrastructure. For instance, funding allocations often rely on population stats or economic indicators, and when those numbers are off, tribes miss out on critical resources. It’s a systemic issue that’s been around for decades, rooted in a lack of direct engagement with tribal leaders and inconsistent data collection methods.
What are some real-world impacts of poor data on Native American communities, especially when it comes to funding or decision-making?
Poor data has a ripple effect. Take funding for example—many federal and state programs use demographic or economic data to decide how much money a community gets. If the data undercounts a tribe’s population or misrepresents their needs, they might not get enough for schools, hospitals, or housing. I’ve seen cases where tribes couldn’t secure grants because the numbers didn’t reflect their reality. Beyond funding, bad data messes with long-term planning. Without solid information, tribal leaders struggle to prioritize projects or advocate for their people effectively.
Why is the geographic spread of tribal communities across state and local boundaries such a big hurdle for data collection?
Tribal communities often span multiple jurisdictions—sometimes crossing state lines or overlapping with local counties. This creates a patchwork of data collection systems that don’t always talk to each other. A tribe might be counted partially in one state’s dataset and partially in another, or not at all if they’re remote. Plus, many data systems aren’t designed to recognize tribal sovereignty or their unique boundaries. It’s a logistical nightmare that often leaves gaps in the information we have about these communities.
Can you share your thoughts on why accurate data about tribal communities matters for everyone, not just for the tribes themselves?
Absolutely. Tribal communities are distinct legal entities, but their issues—healthcare, infrastructure, education—don’t exist in a vacuum. They impact the broader society. For example, if a tribal area lacks proper roads or medical services due to underfunding from bad data, that affects neighboring non-tribal areas too. Economic challenges in one community can spill over. Plus, accurate data helps us understand diversity and inequality across the nation. If we’re missing the full picture on tribal nations, we’re missing part of what shapes our collective future.
There have been recent federal efforts since early 2025 to limit access to certain demographic data. Can you explain what’s going on with that?
Since early this year, there’s been a push at the federal level to restrict public access to specific datasets, particularly those related to minority demographics. This includes information that’s crucial for understanding population trends, economic conditions, and social needs. The reasoning behind these moves varies—some cite privacy concerns, others point to budget cuts or policy shifts. But the result is less transparency. For tribal communities, who already struggle with data scarcity, this is a major setback because it limits their ability to benchmark their needs against reliable national stats.
How do these federal restrictions specifically impact tribal governments and their operations?
These restrictions hit tribal governments hard. They often rely on federal data to supplement their own limited resources for planning and advocacy. When access to demographic or economic information is cut off, it’s like trying to navigate with a broken map. They can’t accurately assess their community’s needs or make a strong case for funding. It also hinders their ability to collaborate with state or local governments, since everyone’s working with incomplete or outdated information. It’s a real barrier to progress.
What do you see as the biggest risks if data on tribal communities continues to be restricted or misrepresented?
The risks are huge. First, there’s the immediate impact on tribal communities—continued underfunding, missed opportunities for development, and worsening disparities in health and education. But it goes beyond that. Misrepresented data can perpetuate stereotypes or misunderstandings about Native populations, which affects policy at all levels. For society as a whole, we risk making decisions based on a skewed view of reality. If we don’t have a clear picture of tribal needs and contributions, we’re not addressing the full scope of national challenges.
The concept of a regional approach to working with tribal governments comes up a lot. Can you explain what that looks like in practical terms?
A regional approach means thinking beyond city or county lines and focusing on broader areas where tribal and non-tribal governments can work together. It’s about collaboration on shared issues like transportation, housing, or environmental planning. Practically, it involves creating platforms or councils where tribal leaders have a seat at the table alongside local and state officials. The idea is to pool resources, share data, and align priorities so that solutions reflect everyone’s needs, not just those of the dominant jurisdiction.
Can you dive deeper into how regional collaboration aligns with the worldview of Native people and nations?
Many Native cultures emphasize interconnectedness—between people, land, and communities. A regional approach mirrors that by focusing on collective well-being over isolated gains. It’s not about one group winning at the expense of another; it’s about recognizing that we’re all tied together. For Native nations, who often see their lands and histories crossing modern borders, this way of thinking feels natural. It respects their perspective on stewardship and community, making collaboration more meaningful and effective.
What’s your forecast for the future of data governance and collaboration with tribal communities over the next decade?
I’m cautiously optimistic. I think we’re at a turning point where the importance of data for tribal communities is finally getting more attention. If regional collaborations continue to grow and if we can push back against federal data restrictions, we could see real progress in the next ten years. Technology, like better mapping tools and data-sharing platforms, will play a big role. But it hinges on trust—building genuine partnerships with tribal leaders and ensuring they have control over their data. If we get that right, I believe we’ll see stronger, more equitable systems that benefit everyone.
