A second consideration was in the larger system and the process whereby Aboriginal communities are funded for the development of their social and adult education programs. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada funds most of the programs and organizations through Aboriginal Human Resource Development Agreements (AHRDA). Funding on reserves is sometimes accomplished through an elaborate system of allocation that is based on old ideas of how Aboriginal people should be governed. Selection of new programming is difficult if the program has not already been approved by an AHRDA agreement. This lack of direct connection to Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada funding has made it difficult for NILA to connect and get their message to the communities and people who need them. The spending choices are not easy in many northern communities. How do communities measure their needs for literacy when there are high demands for clean drinking water and safe housing? Typically, each provincial government also has a department devoted to Aboriginal concerns, but they primarily consider NILA a national organization and only fund activities on a project basis versus core funding. NILA saw their role as moving the literacy issue further up the wish list of needs in remote communities.

NILA has been the middle player stuck between tops and bottoms, as described by Barry Oshry (1996). Oshry described the plight of the middles as living in a tearing world. He said, “What you want from them, they don’t have; they need to go to others to get it. And what others want from them, they need to come to you to get” (p. 15). This project presented an opportunity for NILA to develop leadership strategies on how they deal with the tops, or program funders, and the bottoms, or organizations and individuals who need the information, referrals, and resources offered by NILA.