Bureau of Indian Affairs Funds GW Institute for Tribal Tourism Development
What happened
The Bureau of Indian Affairs provided GWâs International Institute of Tourism Studies with $1.5 million in annual funding through a federal cooperative agreement. This agreement, which is the first of its kind for an academic institution, may provide up to $7.5 million over five years to support tourism in tribal nations. The funding will allow the institute to provide technical assistance to tribes and tribal organizations.
From gwhatchet.com
Why it matters
The funding is designed to support sustainable tourism development within tribal nations. The agreement also creates opportunities for GW students in fields such as Indigenous tourism planning, research, and entrepreneurship.
From gwhatchet.com
Who's involved
- Bureau of Indian AffairsProvided the annual federal cooperative agreement funding to support tribal tourism.
- universityHosts the International Institute of Tourism Studies, which receives the federal funding.
Who could feel it
Possible knock-on effectsThese are possibilities Brind reasoned out, not predictions, and not advice. Most are not stated in any report.
- Bureau of Indian AffairsSpeculative
The Bureau of Indian Affairs might see increased support for tribal tourism projects through the partnership.
- universitySpeculative
GW's International Institute of Tourism Studies could see increased revenue from the $1.5 million annual federal cooperative agreement.
Keep exploring
The entities involved
-
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Unted States government agency
-
university
academic institution for further education
-
National Institutes of Health
government organization in Shah Alam, Malaysia
Related events
- The administration is under pressure as it attempts to eviscerate the national research budget, which falls under Congressional oversight.
- The Trump administration seeks greater control over NIH grantmaking, while Susan Collins objects to the Office of Management and Budget's involvement.
- The Trump administration implemented viewpoint-based grant cuts and political screening mechanisms at NSF and NIH, leading to legal challenges.