Continuity and Change:

Demographic, Socioeconomic,

and Housing Conditions

of American Indians and

Alaska Natives

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research Visit PD&R’s website

www.huduser.org

to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD USER, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help accessing the information you need.

Continuity and Change:

Demographic, Socioeconomic,

and Housing Conditions

of American Indians and

Alaska Natives

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Kathryn L.S. Pettit

G. Thomas Kingsley

Jennifer Biess

Kassie Bertumen

Nancy Pindus

Chris Narducci

Amos Budde

January 2014

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Jennifer Stoloff of the Policy Development and

Research Office at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for her

guidance on this project. Emily Wright from the HUD Office of Native American Programs

also provided helpful feedback that improved the report. Karl Eschbach’s insights on

the demographic trends of Native Americans helped to guide our analysis of population

change. Brittany Edens at the Urban Institute provided excellent research assistance that helped ensure the accuracy and clarity of the report. Finally, we appreciate the thoughtful comments from the Expert Panel members, who are listed below.

Expert Panel for the Assessment of Native American, Alaska Native,

and Hawaiian Housing Needs

Dr. Laura R. Appelbaum, Senior Research Analyst, Centers at the University of Colorado

at Denver and Health Sciences Center and Co-Principal of Alto Research

Kauila Clark, Native Hawaiian Traditional Healing Center

Marvin Jones, Retired Executive Director of Community Services at the Cherokee Nation

Miriam Jorgensen, Research Director, Native Nations Institute, University of Arizona, and Research Director, Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development

Dr. Blake Kazama, Retired Executive Director, Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority

Peter Morris, Director of Strategy and Partnerships, Policy Research Center, National

Congress of American Indians

Patricia Nie, Community Development Officer, Wells Fargo

Deana K. O’Hara, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Native

American Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Don Shircel, Director, Family Services, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc

Disclaimer

The contents of this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... ix

Population Growth and Distribution ................................................................................................................ ix

Social and Economic Conditions ....................................................................................................................... xi

Economic Development ........................................................................................................................................ xii

Housing Conditions and Needs ......................................................................................................................... xiii

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................... xvi

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

This Report and the Overall Study ................................................................................................................... 1

The Structure of This Report .............................................................................................................................. 3

Section 2—Population Growth and Distribution ........................................................................................ 4

Section 3—Social and Economic Conditions ............................................................................................... 4

Section 4—Economic Development ................................................................................................................ 5

Section 5—Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs .............................................................. 5

Section 6—Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Population Growth and Distribution ................................................................................ 6

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Defining the American Indian and Alaska Native Population ............................................................. 6

American Indian and Alaska Native Population Trends ......................................................................... 7

Geographies ................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Spatial Patterns of the AIAN Population ....................................................................................................... 11

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

vi

Population Trends in Tribal Areas ..................................................................................................................... 15

The Multiracial AIAN Population ........................................................................................................................ 17

Mobility ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Implications .................................................................................................................................................................. 19

Social and Economic Conditions ...................................................................................... 20

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 20

Age Structure.............................................................................................................................................................. 21

Household Sizes and Types ................................................................................................................................. 23

Educational Attainment ......................................................................................................................................... 26

Employment ................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Income and Poverty ................................................................................................................................................ 31

How the AIAN Population Fared In the Great Recession...................................................................... 32

Implications .................................................................................................................................................................. 35

Economic Development ...................................................................................................... 36

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 36

Background: Expansion of Economic Development in the 1990s .................................................... 36

Employment Growth in the 2000s .................................................................................................................. 38

Tribally Owned Businesses and Enterprises ................................................................................................ 40

Expansion of Community Development Financial Institutions .......................................................... 44

Housing Conditions and Needs ......................................................................................... 50

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 50

Housing Characteristics in Tribal Areas and Surrounding Counties ................................................ 51

Homeownership......................................................................................................................................................... 54

Subprime Lending .................................................................................................................................................... 54

Housing Structure Type ......................................................................................................................................... 56

Housing Characteristics and Problems: Larger Tribal Areas ............................................................... 57

Housing Age and Size ............................................................................................................................................. 58

Housing Values and Rents .................................................................................................................................... 58

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

vii

Housing Problems and Needs—Framework ................................................................................................ 59

Housing Problems and Needs—Quantity...................................................................................................... 60

Housing Problems and Needs—Facilities ...................................................................................................... 62

Housing Problems and Needs—Price.............................................................................................................. 63

Overall Incidence of Housing Problems ......................................................................................................... 65

Implications .................................................................................................................................................................. 67

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 68

Changing Circumstances in Indian Country ................................................................................................ 68

Circumstances for Indians in the Rest of the Nation ............................................................................... 69

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 70

References .............................................................................................................................. 71

Appendix 1. Description of Data Sources ....................................................................... 76

American Community Survey ............................................................................................................................ 76

ACS Selected Population Tables ....................................................................................................................... 76

Community Development Financial Institution Database .................................................................... 78

County Business Patterns ..................................................................................................................................... 78

Decennial Census ...................................................................................................................................................... 78

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data ............................................................................................................. 78

National Indian Gaming Commission Register of Gaming Institutions ........................................... 79

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology .................................... 80

Types of Tribal Areas Defined by the U.S. Census Bureau ................................................................... 80

Using Consistent Geographic Boundaries for 2000 to 2010 Analysis ........................................... 83

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

viii

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

detail required for our research questions.

Where possible, we compare the conditions

of AIAN and non-AIAN populations

across four area types: 1) tribal areas, 2)

This interim report is part of the National

surrounding counties (the non-tribal parts

Assessment of Native American, Alaska

of counties that include tribal areas), 3)

Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing

metropolitan counties without any tribal

Needs, sponsored by the U.S. Department

area, and 4) nonmetropolitan counties

of Housing and Urban Development

without any tribal area. We also divide the

(HUD). The project’s overarching purpose

country into nine study regions as a method

is to document the housing needs and

for understanding variation in the indicators

conditions of American Indians and Alaska

(Figure ES.1).1

Natives (AIANs) and Native Hawaiians.

As a component of this broader project,

In census surveys individuals who select

this specific report examines trends in

AIAN as their only race are called the “AIAN

the circumstances (social, economic, and

alone” population; 2.9 million people were

housing) of the AIAN population using

in this category in 2010, up 18 percent

secondary sources, predominantly the

since 2000 (almost twice the 9.7-percent

products of the U.S. Census Bureau. The

growth rate of the Nation as a whole). The

final report of this study will merge rich field

intersection between race and ethnicity has

research data with the findings presented

emerged in the last decade as an important

here. Though this report only offers a

issue. The Hispanic share of the AIAN alone

partial picture, it contains new information

population climbed from 8.4 percent in

about how Native Americans are faring

1990 to 16 percent in 2000 and again to

in the Nation today. The housing needs

23 percent in 2010. The non-Hispanic and

and conditions of Native Hawaiians will be

Hispanic AIAN populations have markedly

described in a separate report.

different spatial and growth patterns. From

Population Growth and Distribution

2000 to 2010, the non-Hispanic AIAN alone

population rose by 8.6 percent, while the

This report primarily relies on U.S. Census

Hispanic AIAN alone population experienced

Bureau data sources, including the decennial

a rapid growth of 68 percent.

census and the American Community

The residential spatial patterns of non-

Survey (ACS). In these surveys respondents

Hispanic and Hispanic AIAN populations

self-report on their race and ethnicity. These

also differ. Non-Hispanic AIAN alone

data are uniformly defined nationwide and

persons were more commonly located in

provide both the racial and geographic

1 For descriptions of the geographic definitions used in this report, see Section 2 and Appendix 2.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

ix

Executive Summary

Figure ES.1. Study Region Map

Plains

North Central

Pacific

Northwest

Eastern

California

Nevada

Arizona/

New Mexico

Alaska

Oklahoma

South Central

places termed “Indian Country” (which we

Hispanic AIAN alone people living in Indian

define in this report as all AIAN tribal areas

Country declined slightly from 2000 to 2010.

and the counties that surround them). In

2010, Indian Country accounted for two-

Individuals in a third group, here termed

thirds of the population of non-Hispanic

AIAN multiracial, identify themselves as

AIANs and more than three-quarters of

AIAN and at least one other race. This

the growth in non-Hispanic AIANs over

group is nearly as large as the AIAN alone

the 2000s. Specifically, 42 percent of this

population (2.3 million people in 2010)

group lived in reservations and other AIAN

and growing rapidly (up 39 percent since

tribal areas, and 26 percent more lived in

2000). Similar to the Hispanic AIAN alone

the counties surrounding those areas.

population, they are more likely to live

in metropolitan areas outside of Indian

In contrast, only 5 percent of Hispanic

Country. Only 8 percent live in tribal areas;

AIAN alone lived in tribal areas and 27

67 percent live outside of AIAN counties,

percent in surrounding counties. About two-

predominantly in metropolitan areas.

thirds were residents in other parts

of the country (mostly metropolitan areas).

Nationally, about 16 percent of AIAN

Only 30 percent of the growth of this group

residents in tribal areas are multiracial, but

occurred in Indian Country; the share of

the prevalence of AIAN people identifying

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

x

Executive Summary

with multiple races varies across regions. At

• In 2010, AIAN households were still larger

one extreme, 31 percent of AIAN tribal area

than non-Indian households: 3.0 versus

residents in Oklahoma identify with more

2.6 persons on average. These numbers

than one race. In the other regions, AIAN

changed very little over the decade and

tribal area residents identifying as multiracial

did not vary significantly by area type.

range from 2 percent in Arizona/New Mexico,

to 19 percent in the South Central study

• Educational attainment improved

region. Data are limited for AIAN multiracial

markedly for Native Americans over the

households, so for the remainder of this

past decade, with the share over age

report, indicators labeled as “AIAN” will refer

25 without a high school diploma falling

to AIAN alone, unless otherwise noted.

from 29 percent in 2000, to 23 percent

in 2006-2010 (multiyear average).This

Social and Economic Conditions

measure dropped by a smaller amount for

the non-AIAN population (from 20 to 15

In this section we compare characteristics

percent), so the gap actually widened.

of the AIAN alone population (non-Hispanic

and Hispanic combined) with those for non-

AIAN social and economic characteristics

AIAN people. Most of these measures use

vary considerably by area type. In 2010,

the ACS 5-year data from 2006 to 2010,

for example, 34 percent of the AIAN alone

which combines 5 years of monthly surveys

population living in tribal areas was under

to produce reliable estimates for tribal

18, as compared to 26 percent in other

areas and other smaller geographies. The

nonmetropolitan counties. The AIAN alone

social and economic conditions of the AIAN

poverty rate ranged from 32 percent in

population traditionally differ from non-

tribal areas to 25 percent in the surrounding

Indians along a number of dimensions that

counties, and the unemployment rate

affect their housing needs and preferences.

ranged from 16 percent in tribal areas to 12

Though most of those differences remain,

percent in other nonmetropolitan counties.

a number of them narrowed over the first

For a sense of the changes in AIAN

decade of the 2000s:

socioeconomic well-being, it is important

• In 2010, 30 percent of the AIAN population

to look at what happened before and after

was under age 18 (compared with a non-

the start of the Great Recession of 2008.

AIAN share of 24 percent) and the AIAN

As might be expected, conditions for

share age 62 and older was 9.3 percent

Native Americans worsened significantly

(compared with 16 percent for non-AIAN).

during the Great Recession. The declines

Both gaps have diminished since 2000.

in employment and income were similar

to non-AIAN populations, but the AIAN

• Historically, married couples with children

population on average began in a more

represented a higher share of AIAN than

financially vulnerable situation.

non-AIAN households. In the 2000s this

share dropped markedly for both groups,

• The AIAN labor force participation rate

especially for Indians, enough so that

(as a percentage of the population over

the difference was eliminated. The AIAN

age 16) dropped slightly from 2008 to

share dropped from 29 percent in 1990

2010, from 61 percent to 59 percent. By

to 19 percent in 2010; the non-AIAN share

comparison, the non-AIAN rate also fell

dropped from 26 to 20 percent over the

about 1.5 points to 64 percent in 2010.

same period.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

xi

Executive Summary

• The AIAN unemployment rate jumped from

but again, the change for the West

11 percent in 2008 to 18 percent in 2010.

was most severe: an increase from 24.8

This measure for the non-AIAN population

percent in 2008 to 30 percent in 2010.

also increased sharply over these 2 years

The poverty level was higher in the

from 6.3 percent to 11 percent.

Midwest (33 percent), but the increase

was only about half of the Western

• The AIAN poverty rate was 24 percent in

change. Poverty rates in 2010 were 25

2008 but rose to 28 percent by 2010. The

percent in both the Northeast and South,

non-AIAN poverty rate experienced less

up 3.3 and 3.8 points, respectively.

of an increase, growing by 2.1 percentage

points to end at 15 percent in 2010.

Economic Development

National averages on the effects of

The most important factor driving

the recession mask important regional

economic well-being and the ability to

variations. Data covering the recession

improve housing conditions in any area is

years are available only for the four major

the state of the local economy. Residents

Census Bureau regions: Northeast, South,

cannot prosper unless good jobs are being

Midwest, and West. Native Americans in

generated and sustained nearby. This

the West, which includes the two most

section examines economic development

distressed of our study regions, Northern

trends, focusing on outcomes in tribal areas.

Plains and Arizona/New Mexico, were hit

hardest by the Great Recession. Recession

Research by the Harvard Project on

effects appear mildest in the South, which

American Indian Economic Development

includes the Oklahoma and South Central

(2008) showed that economic development

study regions as well as the southern half of

in Indian Country improved substantially in

Eastern Woodlands.

the 1990s, although there were important

differences in performance by tribe and

• The AIAN labor force participation rate

region. With the shift in national policy

in the West dropped 60 percent to 57

orientation toward self-determination,

percent between 2008 and 2010. The

researchers saw increasing tribal efforts

2010 rates for the other three regions

to create environments supportive of

were higher and ranged from 60 to 62

private entrepreneurship: “tribes investing

percent. The fall in the Western rate

in their own capacities to govern and

exceeded the 1.4- point decline in the

thereby improving local accountability

Northeast and Midwest and the 0.27-point

and encouraging tribal and non-tribal

decline in the South.

investments in human and other capital”

(Harvard Project 2008, p. 111).

• The West also saw an 8.6 percentage-

point spike in the AIAN unemployment

There are a number of indications that

rate from 2008 to 2010, resulting in a 2010

positive trends continued in the 2000s, at

rate of 21 percent. The rates for the other

least up until the Great Recession. Though

regions were 14 percent (South), 15 percent

there are no separate data for tribal areas,

(Northeast), and 19 percent (Midwest),

government reports indicate that the number

reflecting increases of five to six points.

of Native-owned businesses increased

nationally from 102,000 in 1992 to 201,000

• The Great Recession yielded sizable

in 2002, and then to 237,000 in 2007. The

increases in AIAN poverty in all regions,

growth between 1992 and 2002 translates

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

xii

Executive Summary

into a 7 percent annual increase for Native-

near major population centers, as gaming

owned businesses, more than twice the 2.9

has been of little benefit to large tribes

percent rate recorded for all U.S. businesses

remote from customer markets. With the

over that period. The growth in Native-

competition from a growing number of non-

owned business between 2002 and 2007

Indian casinos and prospects of a possible

translates into a rate of 3.3 percent increase

major expansion of Internet gambling, the

per year; below that for the previous

future of the industry is uncertain.

period, but comparable to the growth rate

for all U.S. businesses for that period (U.S.

The positive trends in Native American

Census Bureau 2011; U.S. Minority Business

enterprises are consistent with a rise in

Development Agency 2006).

employment in Indian Country. Data for

individual tribal areas are not available, but

In tribal areas, the new economic activity

there is information about employment

includes large-scale investments by the

levels in AIAN counties. In 2000, 20.7 million

tribes themselves, which are reportedly

jobs were located in AIAN counties, 18

operating in a more businesslike manner

percent of the national total. From 2000 to

than previous tribal enterprises. It also

2007, employment in those counties grew

accounts for businesses of many types

by 303,000 per year, 48 percent of total

established and owned by private tribal

U.S. job growth. This is a growth rate of 1.4

citizens, including gaming.

percent per year, dwarfing the 0.36 percent

average for all non-AIAN counties.

The role of gaming in Indian Country over

this period warrants mention because it

During the Great Recession, the patterns

accounts for a large share of economic

reversed. Places that performed best earlier

activity in some areas. It has been estimated

in the decade typically faced sharper

that there were only 81 Indian gaming

reversals later on. The total number of jobs

operations under way in 1992; by 2011 that

in AIAN counties dropped by 3 percent per

number had increased to 421 operations,

year from 2007 to 2010, compared with a

generating about $27.2 billion in total

drop of 2.3 percent annually for non-AIAN

revenues (Robinson 1995; National Indian

counties. The net result over the full decade

Gaming Commission [NIGC] 2012b). Tribes

was that employment in AIAN counties grew

often reinvest gaming profits in other tribal

by 0.65 percent, a sharp contrast to the 4.5

enterprises, and significant shares have

percent decline in non-AIAN counties.

been distributed to tribal members through

per-capita payments (“per-caps”), creating

Housing Conditions and Needs

substantial wealth in some places.

Since 6 out of 10 of AIAN households live

However, proceeds have been very uneven.

in tribal areas and surrounding counties,

A large share of gaming revenues flows

we need to understand the overall housing

to a relatively small number of tribes that

market in those areas. The number of

account for a fairly small share of tribal

housing units in tribal areas totaled 2.1 million

area population. In 2011, 5 percent of

in 2010, a slower 8.1-percent increase since

tribal gaming enterprises (23 enterprises)

2000 when compared with a nationwide

generated about 38 percent of the total

increase of 14 percent. In contrast to the

Indian gaming revenues, and 18 percent

slower tribal area increases, the 18-percent

(78 enterprises) accounted for close to

growth in housing units in the surrounding

75 percent. The larger casinos are mostly

counties exceeded the national average. The

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

xiii

Executive Summary

high housing growth rate in surrounding

indicators for the AIAN population that are

counties was largely driven by growth in

unavailable in the standard ACS summary

three of the study regions: Northern Plains,

files. The data set only reports AIAN

California/Nevada, and Arizona/New Mexico.

indicators for geographies with at least 50

AIAN individuals. Even with the suppression,

Vacancy rates for all housing units in 2010

the areas that meet the population

in tribal areas (14 percent) and surrounding

threshold account for a large share of the

counties (13 percent) exceeded the U.S. rate

AIAN households. We group the individual

of 11 percent. The rate is above 30 percent in

geographies to calculate indicators for three

tribal areas in the California/Nevada region.

area types: larger tribal areas, selected AIAN

A high vacancy rate in a given area does not

counties, and selected non-AIAN counties.

preclude there being a shortage of housing

for particular groups in that area. The vacant

The age and size of housing in AIAN

units may be too expensive for low-income

counties vary by area type. In 2006–10,

families, too small for larger households,

about 25 percent of all AIAN households

of poorer quality than other housing in the

lived in buildings built before 1960. The

area, or far from employment centers.

share was much lower for larger tribal areas

(15 percent) and selected AIAN counties (18

The number of AIAN owner-occupied

percent). Fifty-four percent of AIAN renters

housing units rose 16 percent from

in larger tribal areas lived in units with

2000 to 2010, twice the rate for non-

three or more bedrooms, compared with 41

AIAN households. The overall AIAN

percent in the selected AIAN counties, and

homeownership rate of 54 percent still

29 percent in other counties.

lagged considerably behind the non-AIAN

rate of 65 percent. AIAN homeownership

Given that AIAN households on average

rates in tribal areas, however, overall are

have lower incomes, it is not surprising that

quite high: 67 percent in 2010.

the home values for homeowners and rents

were lower than the national average. The

The mix of structure types for housing

average home value for AIAN homeowners

units occupied by AIAN households differs

in 2006–10 was $175,000 nationally; about

greatly by area type. In tribal areas, about

66 percent of the average for all households

74 percent of both AIAN and non-AIAN

in 2006–10. After adjusting for inflation,

households lived in single-family detached

home values rose by 46 percent since 2000

homes in 2006–10. Another 17 percent of

for all households in the selected AIAN

AIAN households in tribal areas lived in

counties but only rose 29 percent for AIAN

mobile homes and recreational vehicles

homeowners in those counties.

(RVs) during this period. In the surrounding

counties, only about half of the AIAN homes

AIAN renter households paid, on average,

are single-family residences, 12 percentage

$700 in gross rent in 2006–10. Like home

points lower than the share for non-AIAN

values, these rents were lower compared

households. Mobile homes and RVs account

with the national average. Rents averaged

for 13 percent of housing units, almost twice

a low $440 in the larger tribal areas, rising

the non-AIAN rate in these areas.

to $630 in AIAN counties. AIAN households

experienced a much smaller increase in

For certain housing indicators (age and

rents than all renters, with an increase of 5.6

size of housing, housing costs, and housing

percent compared with 42 percent for all

problems), we used the ACS Selected

renters, after controlling for inflation.

Population Tables, which include additional

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

xiv

Executive Summary

Housing problems for AIAN households

plumbing, and 8.5 percent lack complete

relate to quantity, quality, and price of

kitchen facilities. The comparable numbers

housing. The general standard for adequate

for selected AIAN counties in the Alaska

quantity of housing is having no more than

region were 18 percent for plumbing and 15

one person per room; a household with a

percent for kitchen facilities.

higher ratio is considered overcrowded.

In 2006–10, 65,000 AIAN households

Housing affordability is the most common

(8.1 percent of all AIAN households)

problem for AIAN households. In 2006–10,

were overcrowded, much higher than the

almost 4 out of 10 AIAN households were

national average of 3.1 percent. This pattern

paying more than 30 percent of their income

continues with housing quality, where

on housing costs, or cost burdened. Almost

almost 3 percent of AIAN households

2 out of 10 were severely cost burdened

lacked complete plumbing facilities in

(paying more than 50 percent). Unlike the

2006–10, more than five times the share

changes in facilities and overcrowding,

for all households. A similar share of AIAN

housing affordability problems are on the

households lacked complete kitchen

rise. The cost-burdened rate went up 5.9

facilities, three and a half times as high as

percentage points for AIAN households

the national average. Both indicators have

from 2000 to 2006–10.

dropped by one-third for AIAN households

The spatial patterns also provide a contrast to

over the last decade.

earlier problem indicators, because housing

AIAN households in larger tribal areas and

is more affordable in tribal areas and AIAN

selected AIAN counties are most likely to

counties than in the United States on average.

experience overcrowding and inadequate

Only about one-quarter of AIAN households

facilities. Larger tribal areas and selected

in larger tribal areas and one-third in selected

AIAN counties show the highest rates of

AIAN counties were cost-burdened in 2006–

AIAN overcrowding in 2006–10 (11 and 10

10. In both area types, these rates were lower

percent, respectively). Similarly, the facility

than those for all households.

inadequacy rates for AIAN households in

The households in the selected AIAN

larger tribal areas were about twice the

counties in the California/Nevada region

national rates; specifically, 6.1 percent had

had the greatest financial housing hardship.

incomplete plumbing and 5.4 percent had

About half of those AIAN householders paid

incomplete kitchen facilities. The housing

more than 30 percent of their income on

quality problems for AIAN households were

housing in 2006–10.

also high in the selected AIAN counties (4.4

percent for plumbing and 3.9 percent for

The data source for the four indicators

kitchen facilities).

of housing problems does not provide

information about how those problems

AIAN households in two regions in particular

overlap, but that information is available

experience much worse housing quantity

from the Comprehensive Housing

and quality problems. Selected AIAN

Affordability Strategy data derived from the

counties in the Arizona/New Mexico and

2005–09 ACS. About 41 percent of AIAN

Alaska regions exhibited the highest rates of

households in 2005–09 had at least one

AIAN overcrowding in 2006–10, 16 percent

housing problem, compared with 36 percent

and 22 percent, respectively. In these

of all households. This rate exceeded

Arizona/New Mexico counties, 9.8 percent

the AIAN cost-burdened share of 33

of AIAN households have incomplete

percent, indicating that 7 percent of AIAN

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

xv

Executive Summary

households have physical or overcrowding

Another notable finding in this report

problems but not financial ones.

was the explosive growth of two other

subgroups who identified their race as

Conclusion

Indian: AIAN multirace (41 percent growth

A central focus of this study is on

in the 2000s) and AIAN alone Hispanic

conditions in tribal lands and their

(64 percent growth). Two-thirds of the

surrounding counties. In these areas, the

growth of these groups took place outside

Native American Housing Assistance and

of Indian Country, mostly in metropolitan

Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) is the

areas. Even though there may have been

dominant framework for the delivery of

some improvements and a narrowing of

housing assistance. Two findings in this

gaps along the way, recent data show

report suggest that the circumstances

that the well-being of AIAN populations

of the AIAN population in these areas

living outside of Indian County is also

should continue to be a priority concern

still considerably below that of their non-

for national policy: continued population

Indian counterparts across a number of

growth and the remaining gap between

dimensions. Our upcoming study of Indians

AIAN populations and other Americans.

living in urban areas will explore the nature

of these gaps and their possible causes.

Population growth fuels housing needs. The

non-Hispanic AIAN alone population grew

For both Indian Country and the rest of the

substantially in Indian Country in the 2000s

United States, this report demonstrates the

(these areas accounted for three-quarters of

value of examining issues by type of area

the growth of that population nationally over

and by region to understand the diverse

the decade).

contexts in which Indians live. Geography,

governance, cultural context, and land

Gaps in well-being between the AIAN

use vary and affect the housing needs of

populations in Indian Country and other

residents. The report provides an important

Americans remain sizable. Compared with

backdrop for the remaining data collection

non-Indians nationally, AIAN people living

activities of this assessment. Combining

in tribal areas in 2006–10 had a poverty

our observations from the secondary data

rate and an unemployment rate that were

with the insights from the primary data will

at least twice as high. Compared with

offer a full picture of the housing needs of

the national average, AIAN households in

American Indians and Alaska Natives.

large tribal areas were more than three

times as likely to live in housing that was

overcrowded and more than 11 times more

likely to live in housing that did not have

adequate plumbing facilities.

Our household survey will include resident

perceptions and more information about

physical housing conditions so that we can

draw final conclusions about the extent

of housing problems and needs in Indian

Country. However, data presented here

suggest that the housing problems of the

AIAN population in tribal areas remain severe.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

xvi

Section 1. Introduction

1. Introduction

presented a complete overview of the

housing situation of most American Indians

and Alaska Natives. It is proposed that the

This document is the Interim Report of

current study update that work.”

the congressionally mandated assessment

of Native American, Alaska Native, and

The 1996 study (which we often refer to

Native Hawaiian Housing Needs. This

in this text simply as “the 1996 report”)

project is being conducted by the Urban

presented measures showing that “the

Institute and its subcontractors for the

housing problems of American Indians

Office of Policy Development and Research

and Alaska Natives were substantially

of the U.S. Department of Housing and

more severe than those of non-Indians in

Urban Development (HUD–Contract No.

all parts of America.” It also showed that

C-CHI-01092/GS-23F-8198H).2 As specified

although earlier HUD programs serving AIAN

in HUD’s Statement of Work:

households (now often referred to as the 1937

Act programs) had indeed made important

The study will consider a wide range of

contributions to housing conditions, they

issues by using the Census information

nonetheless had serious defects.

describing the needs of the Native

American, Alaska Native and Native

The goal of the current study is to provide

Hawaiian populations—the study will

clear, credible, and consistent information

consider not only their housing conditions,

that can guide policy decisions in ways

but their socioeconomic situations as

that enable tribes to more effectively use

well, to give a broader context to housing

resources to improve housing conditions.

needs. The passage of the Native American

This Report and the Overall Study

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination

Act (NAHASDA) of 1996 fundamentally

This report presents an overview analysis of

changed the way federal funding is delivered

the circumstances of the American Indian

to tribal people. Thus issues surrounding the

and Alaska Native (AIAN)3 population as

changes NAHASDA introduced are a key

of 2010 and how those circumstances

part of the study.

have changed over the past two decades.

The Urban Institute conducted a similar

It relies primarily on data from products

assessment in 1996 (Kingsley et al. 1996).

of the U.S. Census Bureau: the decennial

HUD’s Statement of Work also noted

census of 2000 and 2010, and the American

this earlier work and stated: “That report

Community Survey (ACS) for various

2 Urban Institute staff are conducting the work with support from three subcontractors: NORC at the University of Chicago, Econometrica Inc., and Support Services International.

3 Matthew Snipp (1989, 36–40) explains why the term “American Indians and Alaska Natives” is the preferred racial designation for the populations that are the subject of this study (precise definitions consistent with census surveys are presented in Section 2). However, we also use its acronym—AIAN—and sometimes fall back on the terms Native Americans and Indians to refer to this same population.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

1

Section 1. Introduction

years in the 2000s. (See Appendix 1 for

• A major in-person household survey in 40

descriptions of the various U.S. Census

sampled AIAN tribal areas (target 1,280

Bureau products used and how they

households interviewed). These interviews

differ from each other. This appendix also

will be conducted by tribal members

includes a discussion of the quality of the

who have been recruited and trained for

data, including the undercount of American

this purpose by NORC at the University

Indians on reservations.)

of Chicago, a project subcontractor and

respected survey firm. The interviews

There has been comparatively little

will entail “walk-through” observations

nationwide research on trends in AIAN

of housing conditions, and household

well-being in recent years, and this report

interviews focused on how household

fills an important gap in that regard. The

members view their own housing

study reviews trends in demography, spatial

conditions and their views on assisted

patterns, social and economic conditions,

housing programs.

and economic development (all critical

to understanding the housing problems

• A telephone survey of tribal housing

and needs) as well as in basic housing

offices and Tribally Designated Housing

conditions themselves.

Entities (TDHEs) (national sample of 104

entities that administer the Indian Housing

Still, Census Bureau surveys are limited

Block Grant program under NAHASDA)

both with respect to the topics they

emphasizing experience with programs

cover and the depth in which they cover

and policies but also covering views on

them. To do justice to the mandate of

changing problems and needs.

this study, additional, richer information

must be collected, particularly with

• More indepth in-person interviews with

respect to the housing conditions and

local housing officials, tribal leaders, and

socioeconomic situations of AIAN families

community leaders in 24 of the 40 tribal

living on reservations and other tribal areas.

areas selected for the household survey.

Furthermore, the Census Bureau products

These interviews will also emphasize

offer no information at all on the nature and

experience with programs and policies but

administration of HUD assistance and local

will include views on changing problems

housing programs. To meet the full mandate,

and needs.

the overall study includes several other data

collection and research efforts pertaining to

• A telephone survey of lenders that

the AIAN population.4

originate home loans in Indian Country

(sample of 35, weighted toward those

• Background interviews and literature

that have been the most active lenders in

reviews involve reviews of relevant

tribal areas).

research literature published since 1996,

and interviews with people knowledgable

• Site visits to five urban areas with

about conditions and trends in Indian

concentrations of Native American

Country, defined in this study to include

populations and telephone interviews

all AIAN tribal areas and the counties that

with staff at Urban Indian Community

surround them—see further definitions in

Centers and other informed individuals in

Section 2.

25 other urban areas.

4 The overall study will also include research on the housing needs of Native Hawaiians, which will be published as a separate stand-alone report.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

2

Section 1. Introduction

Detailed designs were developed for all

The Structure of This Report

components in this project in the first half

of 2011, and preliminary research to support

The next three sections of this report

this interim report was begun shortly after

address research questions posed by HUD

that. It was decided, however, that the

for this study on “Demography, Geography,

overall study would benefit from a series

and Economy” (see box below). These topics

of formal, government-to-government

are all important determinants of the nature

consultations about its content and

and magnitude of AIAN housing demand

approach with tribal leaders across the

and need.

country before the other components of

The subsequent section reviews Census

the work were implemented. Accordingly,

Bureau data pertaining to the central

consultation sessions between tribal

purpose of the larger study: AIAN housing

leaders and HUD were held in each of

problems and needs. However, because

the six regions of HUD’s Office of Native

Census Bureau products have only limited

American Programs in spring 2012, and

measures of housing conditions, we cannot

ideas for improving the study discussed in

assess housing needs in full using only those

those sessions were incorporated in revised

sources. A full exploration of that topic

research designs and implementation plans.

cannot occur until the full survey for this

Work on the other components of the study,

study is complete.

therefore, was still in early stages as this report

Before saying more about the content of

was being completed. The field work for all of

these sections, it is important to note that in

the other surveys is planned for completion in

each of them we respond to one of the most

early 2014, and the final report on the overall

striking features of the AIAN experience

study will be published in late 2014.

Research Questions—Demography, Geography, and Economy

• What is the extent of population growth (change) since the previous study?

• Where do most AIAN people live? On reservations, near reservations, central cities,

suburbs, etc.? How has this changed over time?

• What are the current social and economic conditions for the population (age, household composition, education, employment, poverty, etc.?) How have they changed over time?

• What kinds of diversity in living and economic conditions are observed using the 2000

Census and 2010 (ACS) data? How do they compare to what was observed in the 1996

report, which used the 1990 Census data?

• What kinds of economic diversity exist across tribal areas? What are the major industries that employ people in and near tribal areas? How do they differ across tribal areas? In

urban areas? How has this changed over time?

• How do housing and socioeconomic conditions vary by the presence of gaming? How

important is this industry as compared with other economic activities? How has this

changed over time?

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

3

Section 1. Introduction

in America: the dramatic diversity of

migration, and other factors) in determining

circumstances for the AIAN population. The

the totals. Differing population trends for the

1996 study showed that socioeconomic

geographies defined above over the past

as well as housing experiences varied

two decades are then compared. We also

markedly depending on where people lived.

examine data for those who chose AIAN as

Governance, cultural context, and land use

their only race (AIAN alone) compared to

of areas also vary and affect the housing

the AIAN multiracial population (those who

needs of residents.

identify as being AIAN in combination with

other races) and look at the shares who

In each of the sections of the current report,

characterize themselves as Hispanic within

we again examine variations using the same

each category. This section relies most

four basic geographic divisions we used in

extensively on decennial census data for

the earlier work. These will be defined in

2000 and 2010.

detail in Section 2. In summary, they include:

Section 3—Social and

• Tribal Areas: reservations and other areas

Economic Conditions

with concentrations of tribal population

and activity as recognized by the U.S.

This section reports on social and economic

Census Bureau.

characteristics of the AIAN alone population

• Surrounding Counties: the portions of all

and how they compare across geographies

U.S. counties in which any tribal area is

and time and against those of the non-AIAN

located and that are outside of tribal area

population in the same categories. Topics

boundaries.

include age of the structure, household

size and type, educational attainment,

• Other Metropolitan: all metropolitan

employment levels, and income and poverty.

counties that do not contain any part of a

Throughout this section, we note differences

tribal area in their boundaries.

between the Hispanic and non-Hispanic

components of the AIAN alone population

• Other Nonmetropolitan: all

for selected indicators.

nonmetropolitan counties that do not

contain any part of a tribal area in their

Change over the 2000 to 2010 period is

boundaries.

noted for some indicators. For others, 2010

decennial census data are not available, so

In the remainder of this report, we refer

comparisons are made with circumstances

to these geographic breaks as area types.

as reported in the 2006–10 ACS data, which

Again, as in 1996, we present data for these

represent an average of surveys collected

categories within each of nine regions

monthly over the 5 years from 2006 to

whose definitions are derived from the six

2010. For a few indicators, we rely on 1-year

administrative regions of HUD’s Office of

ACS data that, although not available in as

Native American Programs (ONAP).

much geographic detail, do enable us to

Section 2—Population Growth

note changes in conditions for the AIAN

and Distribution

population before and after the onset of the

Great Recession as compared to the rest of

This section describes how the AIAN

the U.S. population.

population has grown over the past century

and then examines the shifts in individual

components of change (births, deaths,

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

4

Section 1. Introduction

Section 4—Economic Development

AIAN households compared with non-

Indians or the total population and then

The analysis discussed above relates to

explore variations in these relationships

the changing economic circumstances

across area types and regions.

(employment, income, etc.) of AIAN

households. A separate topic, however,

Section 6—Conclusions

is how the productive economies in

Indian Country (AIAN tribal areas and

Our conclusions are presented in two

surrounding counties) have themselves been

parts because U.S. policy toward the AIAN

changing; that is, the growth of business

population varies markedly by geography.

establishments located in these areas and

The first part deals with circumstances

the jobs offered by those establishments.

in Indian Country, the areas where the

This section looks at data on the expansion

NAHASDA is the dominant framework

of AIAN-owned businesses nationwide but

for the delivery of housing assistance.

focuses on the County Business Patterns

The second part deals with the rest of

data series from the U.S. Census Bureau,

the Nation, where approaches to housing

showing the industries and employment

assistance are generally the same for

changes in the counties that contain tribal

Indians as for other Americans.

areas. We also discuss the nature of new

tribally owned businesses in Indian Country.

This includes an examination of the influence

of gaming in the economies of tribal areas,

using available information from the National

Indian Gaming Commission and other

sources. Finally, we review the role played by

Native Community Development Financial

Institutions (CDFIs) that have emerged in

tribal areas over the past decade to further

economic development.

Section 5—Initial Review of Housing

Conditions and Needs

Our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data on

housing in this report begins by looking at

trends in housing stock and vacancy in tribal

areas and AIAN counties overall. We then

discuss tenure and structure type for AIAN

households for all tribal areas. We move to

descriptions of the age and size of AIAN

housing for larger tribal areas. Finally, we

present data pertaining to housing problems

for larger tribal areas (measures available

from the Census Bureau surveys include

overcrowding, affordability problems, and

lack of adequate kitchen and plumbing

facilities). We present national totals for

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

5

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

2. Population Growth

conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. In

these surveys respondents self-report on

and Distribution

their race and ethnicity. These data are

uniformly defined nationwide and provide

both the racial and geographic detail

required for our research questions.

Introduction

Because this is a study of housing conditions

To assess the housing needs of AIAN people,

and needs, however, it is important to note

we need to understand the size of the

the definition set forth in the NAHASDA,5 the

population, where people live, and how these

law that establishes the terms and conditions

characteristics have changed over time. This

under which federal housing assistance is

section first reviews trends in the overall size

provided in Indian Country. The Act states that

of the AIAN population in the United States.

“The term ‘Indian’ means any person who is

Next, we use the typology developed in the

a member of an Indian tribe” and specifically

1996 report (as noted in Section 1) to portray

authorizes the Secretary of HUD to make

the changing spatial distribution of the AIAN

“grants under this section on behalf of Indian

population (across area types and regions).

tribes.” The Act also states that “the term

We then briefly look at the size, growth, and

‘Indian tribe’ means a tribe that is a federally

spatial distribution of the AIAN multiracial

recognized tribe or a State-recognized tribe,”

population. Finally, we discuss the implications

but further clarifies that the only State-

of the findings in this section for our broader

recognized tribes that qualify are those that

examination of AIAN housing needs.

received HUD 1937 Act assistance before the

effective date of NAHASDA.6

Defining the American Indian and

Alaska Native Population

The Act further describes the formula by

which grant funds under NAHASDA are to

How the AIAN population is defined is

be allocated and specifies that one of the

clearly important to interpreting the findings

key “factors for the determination of need”

in this report, particularly because the

must be “the extent of poverty and economic

population is defined in different ways for

distress and the number of Indian families

different purposes. In almost all sections of

within Indian areas of the tribe.” However, even

this report, we rely on the definition used

though NAHASDA defines Indians in terms

in the decennial census and other surveys

of tribal membership, there are no nationally

5 Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (P.L.104–330 as amended). Definitions are drawn from sections 4, 101, and 302.

6 Specifically, the text refers to tribes that have been “recognized as an Indian tribe by any State,” and “for which an Indian Housing Authority has, before the effective date under section 705, entered into a contract with the Secretary pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937 for housing for Indian families and has received funding pursuant to such contract within the 5-year period ending upon such effective date.”

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

6

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

available, reliable, or uniform data about the

100-percent count of the population, has

number of tribal members for the relevant

historically undercounted hard-to-reach

geographies. Accordingly, in operationalizing

populations. (See Appendix 1 for more

the allocation formula, HUD relies on the

details.) Although imperfect, census data

census definition of AIAN, which is based on

are the most complete national source of

self-identification of race. It is important for

population counts by race. This analysis uses

the reader to keep the difference in definitions

the published statistics and does not attempt

in mind as we discuss the heterogeneity

to adjust for the undercount on reservations.

in the size and circumstances of the AIAN

population across the geographic area types.

Comparisons among the 1990 and later

decennial censuses are complicated because,

American Indian and Alaska Native

starting with the 2000 decennial census, the

Population Trends

questionnaire permitted people to identify

themselves as belonging to more than one

The 1996 report noted the rapid increase

race. In most of this section (and this report),

of people who self-identified as AIAN

we focus on the population that identified

since 1970. The analysis below updates the

AIAN as their only race (the “AIAN alone”

previous analysis with information from

population).7 We find that the population

the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses.

that said they were AIAN and belonged to

The decennial census, while intended as a

one or more other races as well (the “AIAN

Figure 2.1. American Indian and Alaska Native Population, 1890 to 2030

)

4,500

4,192

4.000

3,500

3,436

3,000

2,932

2,500

2,476

2,000

1,959

1,500

1,420

1,000

827

552

500

332

334

343

248

237

266

244

American Indian/Alaska Native population (in thousands

0

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020*

2030*

* Indicates population projections.

Note: Beginning in 2000, individuals could choose more than one race. For 2000 and later years, these figures represent the AIAN alone population.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 1890 to 2010 and Population Projections as published in December 2009

7 This compromise is not ideal, but research comparing survey responses that contain both single-race and multiple-race questions show that American Indians of multiple races were generally more likely to choose the other race. In particular, for the largest multiracial combination of AIAN and white, only 21 percent of the group chose AIAN when asked to choose only one race (Parker, et al. 2004). But Ingram et al. (2003) did find that bridging races increased the AIAN population in 2000 by 12 percent. Using this 12 percent as a rough multiplier for the 2000 and 2010 populations, the growth rate would have risen to 42 percent instead of 26 percent from 1990 to 2000 but would still decline to 18 percent from 2000 to 2010.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

7

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

multiracial” population) differs from the AIAN

total U.S. population from 2000 to 2010 (18

alone group in important ways. We look at

percent for AIAN compared with 9.7 percent

the size and growth of the AIAN multiracial

overall). Because of this, the AIAN alone share

population at the end of this section.

of total population has increased slightly over

the past 10 years from 0.88 percent to 0.95

In 2010, 2.9 million people reported their only

percent. The Census Bureau projects that this

race as American Indian or Alaska Native

trend will continue, with the share of the AIAN

(Figure 2.1). This AIAN alone population is

population rising to 1.2 percent of the total

continuing to rise, but at a much slower pace

population by 2030, or 4.2 million people.8

than before. The growth rate was 38 percent

from 1980 to 1990, but fell to 26 percent

The intersection between race and

for the 1990 to 2000 period, and dropped

ethnicity was not discussed in the 1996

again to 18 percent from 2000 to 2010.

report, but over time, it has emerged as

The absolute growth from 2000 to 2010 of

a larger issue.9 The Hispanic share of the

456,000 also represented a decline from the

AIAN population was 6.6 percent in 1980,

increase of 517,000 from 1990 to 2000.

climbed to 8.4 percent by 1990, and then

grew rapidly to reach 23 percent of the

Even with the growth deceleration, the AIAN

AIAN alone population in 2010 (Figure 2.2).

alone population still grew faster than the

Figure 2.2. Trends in AIAN Alone and Hispanic Populations, 1980 to 2010

25

2.5

23.4

Percent of AIAN alone population that is Hispanic (left axis)

e

Percent of Hispanic population that is AIAN alone (right axis)

20

2.0

16.4

15

1.5

1.4

10

1.2

1.0

8.4

6.6

0.7

0.7

5

0.5

Percent of the AIAN alone population that is Hispanic

Percent of the Hispanic population that is AIAN alon

0

0.0

1980

1990

2000

2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 1890 to 2010

8 The 4.2 million population projection for 2030 is based on the data released from the U.S. Census Bureau in December 2009. More current projections were released in December 2012 and have a considerably higher figure—4.889 million. We use the 2009 data because we believe that the vital statistics method of allocating births that are classified as Hispanic and “some other race” incorrectly inflates the number of AIAN births. This has more of an influence in the post-decennial census projections than in the 2009 projections because the share of the AIAN population that was also Hispanic rose sharply between 2000 and 2010.

9 In the decennial census, the question about race (white; African American; Asian; Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian; Native American and Alaska Native) is separate from that of ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino/not Hispanic or Latino).

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

8

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

The additional 278,000 Hispanic AIAN

States. Since this breakdown revealed

alone population drove much of the AIAN

several meaningful differences relevant to

growth from 2000 to 2010, accounting for

AIAN housing needs, we adopt the same

61 percent of the total AIAN population

categories for this analysis.10

increase. The shift in ethnic composition is

critical to understanding the shifting growth

• AIAN Counties: At least part of the

patterns of Native Americans, which are

county is considered to be an American

described in detail below.

Indian or Alaska Native area by the U.S.

Census Bureau. In 2010, 523 out of the

The overall Hispanic population, however,

3,138 counties included in ONAP regions

has shown relatively small changes in

fell into the “AIAN Counties” group.11 We

how often they identify as AIAN. In 1980

divide this category into two subgroups:

and 1990, about 0.7 percent of Hispanics

self-identified as AIAN alone. By 2010, 1.4

o Tribal Areas: AIAN counties or parts

percent of Hispanics self-identified as AIAN

of AIAN counties considered to be

alone, twice the rate of 20 years earlier

reservations and other areas with

but still small relative to the entire Hispanic

concentrations of tribal population

population. Even with this low share of

and activity. For this study, we use

Hispanics that self-identify as AIAN, the

boundaries as defined by the U.S.

large size of the Hispanic population in the

Census Bureau. The 2010 decennial

United States (50.5 million) and its rapid

census identifies a total of 617 AIAN

growth (43 percent from 2000 to 2010)

tribal areas nationwide (221 of which

explains the jump in percentage of self-

are Alaska Native Villages). Appendix 2

identified AIAN people who are Hispanic.

defines the different types of tribal areas

Interestingly, the Hispanic AIAN alone

included in the Census Bureau data and

population is not primarily driven by recent

presents counts pertaining to each type.

immigration—7 out of 10 were born in the

It also explains the methods we used to

United States and only about 2 out of 10 of

define tribal area geographies that are

the Hispanic AIAN alone immigrants moved

comparable in 2000 and 2010.

to the United States after 1990.

o AIAN Surrounding Counties: The parts

Geographies

of AIAN counties outside of tribal areas.

A major finding of the 1996 report is the

In this section we look at key geographic

importance of areas outside of tribal

divisions that help describe a diverse,

land but near enough for residents to

growing population. In it, we see a story

have ties to the tribal area. American

of substantial ethnic change that brings

Indians in surrounding counties may

a shift away from traditional tribal areas

have left the tribal area for economic,

and toward metropolitan areas. The 1996

personal, or other reasons but are close

report introduced a typology based on

enough to have interactions with a

tribal area status, adjacency to tribal

reservation. Of the 523 AIAN counties,

areas, and metropolitan status to illustrate

453 counties are only partially tribal

how the characteristics and needs of the

and, thus, contain areas that fall into the

AIAN population vary across the United

“surrounding counties” category.

10 Since Hawaii is not included in the ONAP regions, the population totals in this section exclude the 4,164 AIAN people in that State, which represents only 0.1 percent of the total population.

11 The counts for each geographic type exclude tribal areas and counties in Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

9

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

• Non-AIAN Counties: The remaining

regions. Accordingly, this report reviews

counties that do not contain tribal areas.

demographic, social, economic, and housing

These are divided between counties

conditions in each of the above geographic

within and outside of officially defined

categories, further subdivided by region.

metropolitan areas, 947 and 1,668

As in the 1996 report, our study regions

counties in each category, respectively.

are based on the service areas of HUD’s

For the remainder of this report, we

six ONAP areas. For the purposes of this

refer to these county types as “other

study, three of these areas were considered

metropolitan counties” and “other

to be too heterogeneous and were split,

nonmetropolitan counties,” respectively.12

which results in a total of nine study regions

(Figure 2.3).

As noted above, in this study we use the

617 “American Indian and Alaska Native

1. North Central (Chicago

Areas” as defined by the U.S. Census

Office—Eastern/Woodlands)

Bureau in 2010.13 Official AIAN tribal area

boundaries are not static, and boundaries

2. Eastern (Chicago

can change for several reasons. As

Office—Eastern/Woodlands)

geographic information system technology

3. Oklahoma (Oklahoma City

has advanced, tribes, States, and the U.S.

Office—Southern Plains)

Census Bureau have been able to clarify

AIAN boundaries, resulting in minor changes

4. South Central (Oklahoma City

to the official Census Bureau boundary

Office—Southern Plains)

lines over time. Land disputes between the

5. Northern Plains (Denver

tribes or a modified legal status may also

Office—Northern Plains)

cause tribal boundaries to be changed. New

tribal areas are also being recognized; 31

6. Arizona/New Mexico (Phoenix

new AIAN areas were added to the Census

Office—Southwest)

Bureau list this past decade alone. One of

the goals of this report is to explore the

7. California/Nevada (Phoenix

changing characteristics of AIAN areas over

Office—Southwest)

the past decade. To reflect change for a

8. Pacific Northwest (Seattle

consistent set of boundaries, we created a

Office—Northwest)

geographic crosswalk from tribal areas as

defined in 2000 to the 2010 tribal areas. For

9. Alaska

notes on this methodology, see Appendix 2.

(Anchorage Office—Alaska)

There is another aspect of the geography

that also needs to be recognized: region.

Native Americans living in tribal areas

generally have more economic and housing

challenges than those living in metropolitan

areas, but even among tribal areas, the level

of household problems differs widely across

12 In a separate report on American Indians and Alaska Natives living in urban areas as a part of this project, we will describe patterns of concentrations of the AIAN population living in metropolitan areas and their characteristics.

13 These areas are identified by summary level 280 in census data files, but we exclude Hawaiian Home Lands from analysis in this report.

Appendix 2 defines the five different types of tribal areas: Federally Recognized Reservations, State-Recognized Reservations, Joint-Use Areas, Tribally Designated Statistical Areas, and Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

10

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

Figure 2.3. Tribal Reservation Map

Spatial Patterns

AIAN alone population in 2010 (Figure 2.4).

of the AIAN Population

The share of Hispanic AIAN alone population

also rose in the other geographic area types,

At 59 percent a majority of the almost 3

but to a lesser extent. The Hispanic share of

million AIAN alone people lived in AIAN

AIAN alone on tribal land rose only slightly

counties. The Hispanic makeup of the AIAN

since 2000 and was still quite small at 3.4

alone population described above varies

percent in 2010. The Hispanic presence is

considerably based on geographic location.

much higher in the surrounding counties,

The other metropolitan counties have the

where they made up almost one-quarter of

largest share and growth in share, with

the AIAN alone population.

Hispanics accounting for 42 percent of the

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

11

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

Figure 2.4. Share of AIAN Alone Population That Is Hispanic, 2000 to 2010

4,500

42.5

4.000

3,500

2000

31.4

2010

3,000

2,500

24.1

20.1

2,000

18.1

1,500

13.8

1,000

Percent of the AIAN alone population that is Hispanic

500

3.4

2.3

0

Tribal areas

Surrounding counties

Other metropolitan counties

Other nonmetropolitan countries

Area type

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 2000 and 2010

The change in ethnic makeup of the AIAN

the area types (Table 2.1). This is well below

alone population drove shifts in the overall

the 33-percent population growth reported

spatial and growth patterns. As mentioned

for tribal areas between 1980 and 1990,

earlier, the American Indian population is

illustrating a significant change in growth

growing at a faster pace than the rest of the

patterns of the AIAN population.14 Now,

country in all area types. However, AIAN

surrounding counties and non-AIAN counties

population growth from 2000 to 2010 of

are experiencing three times the growth rate

8.2 percent in the tribal areas, where there

seen in tribal areas, largely driven by the

were very few Hispanics, is the slowest of all

increase in the Hispanic AIAN population.

14 As noted before, we cannot directly compare the geographic area of tribal land from 2010 to 1980, but this still appears to be a major change in trends.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

12

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

Table 2.1. AIAN Alone Population and Growth by Hispanic Origin and Area Type, 2000 to 2010

AIAN Alone Population, 2010

Percent Change in AIAN Alone, 2000 to 2010

Total

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Total

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Total

2,928,084

2,244,275

683,809

18.4

8.6

68.4

AIAN Counties

1,728,677

1,512,380

216,297

14.5

9.8

63.8

Tribal areas

967,135

934,383

32,752

8.2

7.0

59.7

Surrounding counties

761,542

577,997

183,545

23.6

14.6

64.6

Non-AIAN Counties

1,199,407

731,895

467,512

24.6

6.3

70.6

Other metropolitan

1,012,320

582,459

429,861

25.9

5.6

70.5

Nonmetropolitan

187,087

149,436

37,651

17.6

9.0

71.3

Note: Data for 2000 have been adjusted for 31 tribal areas with signifcant boundary changes between 2000 and 2010. See Appendix 2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

The non-Hispanic and Hispanic AIAN

Hispanic AIANs lived in tribal areas and 27

population growth from 2000 to 2010

percent in surrounding counties.

reinforced existing residential spatial

patterns (Table 2.2). About two-thirds of

The non-Hispanic AIAN trend is similar

the non-Hispanic AIAN population lived in

to what was observed from 1980 to 1990

AIAN counties, 42 percent in tribal areas

for the total AIAN population, when AIAN

and 26 percent in surrounding counties.

counties accounted for almost 80 percent of

This area was also where more than three-

the population growth. The growth patterns

quarters of the population growth occurred.

from 2000 to 2010 resulted in almost a 1

In contrast, the non-AIAN counties were

percentage point decline in the share of

home to about two-thirds of the Hispanic

Hispanic AIAN alone people living in Indian

AIAN population and accounted for 70

Country and a similar size increase in the

percent of its growth. Only 5 percent of

non-Hispanic AIAN share in those areas.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

13

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

Table 2.2. Distribution of AIAN Alone Population and Growth by Hispanic Origin and Area Type, 2000 to 2010

Percent of AIAN Alone Population, 2000

Percent of AIAN Alone Growth, 2000 to 2010

Total

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Total

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

AIAN Counties

59.0

67.4

31.6

48.1

75.8

30.3

Tribal areas

33.0

41.6

4.8

16.1

34.4

4.4

Surrounding counties

26.0

25.8

26.8

32.0

41.4

25.9

Non-AIAN Counties

41.0

32.6

68.4

51.9

24.2

69.7

Other metropolitan

34.6

26.0

62.9

45.8

17.3

64.0

Nonmetropolitan

6.4

6.7

5.5

6.1

6.9

5.6

Note: Data for 2000 have been adjusted for 31 tribal areas with significant boundary changes between 2000 and 2010. See Appendix 2.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

Altogether, one-third of the AIAN alone

the AIAN alone population in AIAN counties

population lives in tribal areas and another

ranged from 2.1 percent in the Alaska region

26 percent live in counties surrounding tribal

up to 42 percent in the California/Nevada

areas (Table 2.2). Of those living in non-

region in 2010. Unlike the national picture,

AIAN counties, most live in in metropolitan

the share of Hispanic AIAN population does

areas: 35 percent of the entire AIAN

not necessarily correspond to the level

population alone live in other metropolitan

of overall growth. The AIAN growth rate

areas where only 6 percent live in non-

from 2000 to 2010 in the North Central

AIAN, nonmetropolitan areas. Although the

and Oklahoma AIAN counties was similar

distribution of the AIAN alone population in

to the national average of 15 percent even

2010 is generally similar to a decade earlier,

with relatively low shares of Hispanic AIAN

the Hispanic AIAN growth resulted in slight

population. They did drive the growth in

shifts of the population away from tribal

regions such as the Pacific Northwest and

areas and toward other metropolitan areas.

California/Nevada, where they account for

64 percent and 94 percent of the total AIAN

Extending the analysis, we find more nuance

growth, respectively.

among the AIAN counties when examined

by region (Table 2.3). The Hispanic share of

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

14

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

Table 2.3. AIAN Alone Population Ethnicity and Growth by Study Region, 2000 to 2010

AIAN Counties

Tribal Areas

Hispanic AIAN

"Percent

Hispanic AIAN Share Hispanic AIAN Percent Change Hispanic AIAN Share

as a Percent of Change in AIAN,

of AIAN Growth,

as a Percent of in AIAN, 2000 to

of AIAN Growth,

Study Region

All AIAN, 2010

2000 to 2010

2000 to 2010

All AIAN, 2010

2010

2000 to 2010

Total

12.5

14.5

38.5

3.4

8.2

16.7

North Central

6.8

15.0

23.1

3.4

12.0

11.2

Eastern

13.5

17.7

45.4

2.6

11.7

12.4

Oklahoma

4.0

17.7

12.0

3.4

17.5

10.3

South Central

18.8

14.9

16.4

6.2

14.0

22.6

Northern Plains

4.3

11.1

18.4

2.6

6.4

12.1

Arizona/New Mexico

10.9

14.0

36.2

3.2

-0.1

NA

California/Nevada

42.3

17.0

94.4

12.2

11.7

32.6

Pacific Northwest

14.1

11.8

63.5

6.4

6.7

36.0

Alaska

2.1

6.1

12.1

1.1

3.2

5.1

NA: Not applicable.

Note: Data for 2000 have been adjusted for 31 tribal areas with significant boundary changes between 2000 and 2010. See Appendix 2.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

The Hispanic share of AIAN alone population

events has affected the way that the United

in tribal areas is more uniform, with the

States has determined which areas legally

share exceeding the national average in only

belong to Indian nations and which areas do

three regions—the Pacific Northwest (6.4

not. As these events are closely intertwined

percent), South Central (6.2 percent), and

with American expansionism and interact

the California/Nevada region (12 percent).

with an incredibly diverse American Indian

Tribal areas in the latter two regions did

population, characteristics of tribal areas vary

experience higher than average AIAN alone

remarkably in different regions of the country.

growth rates from 2000 to 2010, but the

Pacific Northwest showed a much lower

The number and nature of tribal areas differ

rate. Population grew by a substantial

greatly by region (Table 2.4). Oklahoma, for

amount in tribal areas in the North Central,

example, accounts for the largest tribal land

Eastern, and Oklahoma regions, with only

area of all regions, while Alaskan tribal areas

about one-tenth of the growth due to

are the most numerous, relatively small and

increases in Hispanic AIAN.

more sparsely populated. The South Central

region has the fewest number of tribal areas

Population Trends in Tribal Areas

and the smallest total land area, but with an

average of 169 people per square mile, it is

Tribal areas are an essential geographic area

the most densely populated.

of focus when evaluating the challenges

faced by the American Indian population.

A complex web of historical and political

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

15

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

Table 2.4. Geographic Characteristics for Tribal Areas by Study Region, 2000 to 2010

AIAN Alone Population

Number of

Land Area

Density

2010

Percent Change,

Tribal Areas

(Sq. Miles)

(Population/ Sq. Mi.)

2000 to 2010

Study Region

Total

617

187,121

25.8

967,135

8.2

North Central

36

4,780

23.2

42,238

12.0

Eastern

68

5,286

156.7

102,482

11.7

Oklahoma

30

52,145

49.0

280,069

17.5

South Central

17

1,483

169.0

13,429

14.0

Northern Plains

31

46,929

5.0

128,429

6.4

Arizona/New Mexico

42

43,731

7.2

265,888

-0.1

California/Nevada

130

2,826

26.3

25,425

11.7

Pacific Northwest

42

9,423

21.6

42,110

6.7

Alaska

221

20,518

11.9

67,065

3.2

Note: Data for 2000 have been adjusted for 31 tribal areas with significant boundary changes between 2000 and 2010. See Appendix 2.

Thirteen tribal areas cross study regions. For the count of areas, these areas are assigned to the region containing the majority of their population. For the other indicators, the values are apportioned across regions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

Population growth rates of tribal areas in

In addition to total AIAN population, looking

different regions also vary greatly (Table

at the proportion of the total population

2.4). In 2000, Arizona/New Mexico was the

that is AIAN sheds light on racial diversity

region with the largest AIAN population in

of the tribal areas (Figure 2.5). In Arizona/

tribal areas, but it experienced a slight loss

New Mexico, the home of Navajo, Hopi,

in population over the decade. Over this

and other large tribes, 84 percent of the

same time period, Oklahoma areas saw an

population on tribal areas were AIAN alone.

18-percent AIAN growth, making Oklahoma

The Northern Plains region, at 55 percent,

the region with the largest AIAN population

has the next highest rate. On the other hand,

at the end of the decade. Tribal areas in

AIAN residents make up less than 13 percent

the Northern Plains region, Alaska, and the

in tribal areas in the Eastern, Oklahoma, and

Pacific Northwest experienced slow AIAN

South Central study regions.

population growth, ranging from 3.2 to 6.7

percent, whereas the remaining four regions

saw double-digit growth.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

16

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

Figure 2.5. Share of Tribal Population that is AIAN Alone by Study Region, 2010

90

83.9

80

70

60

55.1

50

40

38.1

34.2

Average AIAN alone population

30

27.5

on tribal areas: 20%

Percent of region’s total population

20.7

20

12.4

11.0

10

5.4

0

N. Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

S. Central

N. Plains

AZ/NM

CA/NV

Pacific NW

Alaska

Study Region

Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010.

The Multiracial AIAN Population

The residential patterns of the AIAN

multiracial and AIAN alone populations differ

As noted above, starting in 2000,

markedly (Table 2.5). In 2010, only 8 percent

respondents have been able to identify

of the multiracial group lived in tribal areas,

themselves as belonging to more than

compared with 33 percent for AIAN alone.

one race in surveys conducted by the U.S.

About two-thirds of the AIAN multiracial

Census Bureau. In 2010, 2.3 million people

population lived in non-AIAN counties, and

selected AIAN in combination with one or

most of that group lived in metropolitan

more other races—a number equal to 77

areas. In contrast, only 41 percent of the

percent of the AIAN alone population. And

AIAN alone population lived outside of

this group is growing very rapidly: from

AIAN counties.

2000 to 2010, it increased by 39 percent,

more than twice the 18 percent growth rate

for AIAN alone.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

17

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

Table 2.5. Multiracial AIAN Population by Area Type, 2010

Population

Percent of Total

Percent Hispanic

Mulitracial AIAN

Mulitracial AIAN

AIAN Alone

Mulitracial AIAN

AIAN Alone

Total

2,259,025

100.0

100.0

22.0

23.4

AIAN Counties

740,335

32.8

59.0

20.2

12.5

Tribal areas

180,417

8.0

33.0

8.0

3.4

Surrounding counties

559,918

24.8

26.0

24.1

24.1

Non-AIAN Counties

1,518,690

67.2

41.0

22.9

39.0

Other metropolitan

1,284,004

56.8

34.6

24.9

42.5

Nonmetropolitan

234,686

10.4

6.4

11.8

20.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010

Parallel to the AIAN alone population, the

Mobility

share of the AIAN multiracial population

that also identified as Hispanic rose from

The sections above examine residence as of

16 percent in 2000 to 22 percent in 2010.

April 2010, but we know households move

The overall distribution of Hispanic AIAN

because of changes in family or financial

individuals among the area types also

status or to move closer to amenities or

looks very similar for both single-race and

employment opportunities. About 81 percent

multiracial AIAN. However, the 20 percent

of the AIAN population in the 2006–10 ACS

Hispanic share for AIAN multiracial people

reported that they lived in the same house

was considerably higher in the AIAN counties

they had 1 year before (a rate slightly less

than the 13 percent for the AIAN alone

likely than for non-AIAN households). AIAN

population. In contrast, the Hispanic share in

people living on tribal areas are less likely to

non-AIAN counties for the AIAN multiracial

move than AIAN people overall, 88 percent

population (23 percent) is much lower than

reporting that they lived in the same house

the share of AIAN alone (39 percent).

as a year before.

Nationally, about 16 percent of AIAN

Although we cannot differentiate move-

residents on tribal areas are multiracial, but

in dates by race, a greater share overall of

the prevalence of AIAN people identifying

homeowners on tribal lands (58 percent)

with multiple races varies across regions.

moved into their homes before 2000 than

At one extreme, almost one-third of AIAN

did overall (55 percent). For renters, the

tribal area residents in Oklahoma identify

difference is negligible—15.1 percent of renter

with more than one race. Among the other

households moved into tribal areas before

regions, the number of AIAN tribal area

2000, less than one-half of one percentage

residents identifying as multiracial ranges

point different than the rate for all

from 2 percent in Arizona/New Mexico to 19

households. The limited ACS tables do not

percent in South Central.

answer the more important questions about

where and why AIAN households move. The

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

18

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

AIAN household survey for tribal lands will

have richer information that will allow us to

explore those questions.

Implications

The American Indian population in the

United States continues its pace of high

growth but not at the same rate in all areas

of the country. On tribal lands in particular,

the wide variation in population trends by

region demonstrates the need to understand

local housing markets and strengthens the

argument for policies tailored to different

levels of housing demand.

Consistent with the findings of the 1996

report, it is clear that ties to AIAN counties—

land just outside of tribal areas—remain

strong. However, an examination of AIAN

housing needs should also consider how the

challenges may differ for those living outside

of AIAN counties, an increasing share of

which will be Hispanic. In both cases, the

housing needs of the AIAN population will

be influenced by an intersection of both

location and cultural factors. The following

section begins to explore these issues

by examining some social and economic

similarities and differences among our area

types and between the Hispanic and non-

Hispanic AIAN population.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

19

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

3. Social and

chapter, so all estimates for the Nation

exclude Hawaii unless otherwise noted.

Economic Conditions

For some variables, we can compare

changes over the 2000 to 2010 period

because decennial census data for both

Introduction

years are available (age structure, household

size and type). For the others (educational

Population growth is an important driver

attainment, employment levels, and income

of change in housing needs, and the last

and poverty), we are limited to comparing

section has shown that there is considerable

2000 decennial census long-form values

diversity in growth rates in Indian Country.

to the 5-year averages in the 2006–10

However, growth tells only a part of the

American Community Survey (ACS). The

story. The nature of the housing needs in two

ACS has a smaller sample size than the

places with similar growth trajectories would

2000 long- form, and thus wider confidence

differ substantially if one has a much higher

intervals, particularly for smaller or more

unemployment rate, share of young children,

rural geographies like many tribal areas.15

or marriage rate than the other, as we will

Our methodology of summing the tribal

explain in more detail throughout this section.

areas together should minimize the error

involved, but any small changes in indicators

In the first part of this section, we explore

should be viewed with caution.16

variations in a number of socioeconomic

characteristics like these that help shape an

For most of this section, using the decennial

area’s housing need. As noted in Section

census long-form and the ACS limits our

1, the main topics include age structure,

detailed geographic analysis to the entire

household size and type, educational

AIAN alone population, which includes both

attainment, employment levels, and income

Hispanic and non-Hispanic Native Americans.17

and poverty. Throughout, we compare

The implications of including both Hispanics

conditions and trends for the AIAN alone

and non-Hispanics will vary for the different

population against those for non-Indians. We

geographic areas. As discussed in Section

also look at variations across area types and

2, Hispanics account for a small share of the

study regions as in the preceding section.

AIAN alone population in tribal areas, so the

Consistent with the previous chapter, we

statistics presented for tribal areas largely

exclude Hawaii from our analysis in this

reflect conditions for the non-Hispanic AIAN

15 See DeWeaver (2010) for more information on the limitations of the ACS in providing complete, timely, and reliable data for Indian Country.

16 We are not able to accurately calculate the margin of error (MOE) by geographic area types because the Census Bureau advises that the approximation formula provided to calculate MOEs for calculated indicators seriously breaks down when aggregating more than four estimates (Alexander 2011).

17 We do not distinguish between the Hispanic and Non-Hispanic AIAN alone populations in the majority of the analysis in this section because the Census Bureau only publishes summary tables for the standard 2006–10 ACS for the total AIAN alone population.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

20

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

alone population. In contrast, the growth

time period from 2008 to 2010 to look at the

of the Hispanic AIAN population could

impact of the Great Recession on the AIAN

have more influence on the changes in the

alone population, compared to non-Indians

AIAN social and economic characteristics

for the Nation as a whole and the four main

in non-AIAN counties. To help interpret the

census regions. This analysis includes Hawaii

patterns and trends by geographic area, we

due to the aforementioned data limitations.

note differences between Hispanic and non-

Hispanic AIAN alone populations nationally for

Age Structure

selected indicators.

The age structure of a population, along with

An important question not answered by the

different household type patterns, which we

analysis that uses 2000 as the benchmark is

discuss later, affects household formation

how the AIAN population fared before and

and housing need because it is tied to major

after the onset of the Great Recession. The

life-cycle events (for example, moving out on

5-year ACS data cannot be used to answer

one’s own, getting married, having children)

this question because they represent surveys

(Pendall et al. 2012). The 1996 report noted

collected monthly from 2006 to 2010, which

that American Indians and Alaska Natives

spans both the period of economic expansion

were younger, on average, than the non-

and the recent recession. More recent data

AIAN population. The most recent decennial

are available from the 1-year ACS, although

census confirms that this is still the case.

data from that source cannot be presented in

As shown in Figure 3.1, the AIAN alone

much detail geographically. We examine the

population is more heavily concentrated in

Figure 3.1. Share of Population by Age Group and Race, 2010

85+

Non-AIAN alone

80 to 84

AIAN alone

75 to 79

70 to 74

65 to 69

60 to 64

55 to 59

p 50 to 54

45 to 49

40 to 44

Age grou

35 to 39

30 to 34

25 to 29

20 to 24

15 to 19

10 to 14

5 to 9

0 to 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Percent of population

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

21

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

younger age groups as compared with the

decrease was larger than for the non-AIAN

non-AIAN population. Up to age 40, the

population, and as a result the gap narrowed.

AIAN population share for each age group

The percentage of the AIAN population

exceeds that of the non-AIAN population,

younger than 18 fell from 1.33 times the non-

but after age 40, the non-AIAN population

AIAN level in 2000, to 1.26 times in 2010. The

shares surpass the AIAN population shares.

highest share of children is found in tribal areas

(34 percent), but they also experienced the

Overall, 30 percent of the AIAN population

greatest shift in age distribution—a drop of 4.8

in 2010 was younger than 18 as compared

percentage points since 2000 (Figure 3.2).

with 24 percent of the non-AIAN population.

Having a higher share of children has

When we look at the age differences by

important implications for AIAN housing

Hispanic origin, we find that the Hispanic AIAN

needs. For example, households with children

population more closely mirrors the Hispanic

will require a larger house or apartment and

non-AIAN population than non-Hispanic

also be concerned with access to quality

Native Americans. For example, about 10

schools and parks (McAuley and Nutty 1982).

percent of the Hispanic non-AIAN population

is younger than 5, compared with 9.3 percent

Although still higher than the non-AIAN

of Hispanic Native Americans and only 7.5

share, the percentage of the AIAN population

percent of non-Hispanic Native Americans.

younger than 18 fell 4 percentage points from

2000 to 2010. This reflects the overall aging of

Understanding the trends in the elderly is

the population; the under-18 shares dropped

also important for assessing housing needs.

for both the AIAN and non-AIAN populations

The AIAN alone elderly population has high

in the 2000s across all area types. The AIAN

disability rates, increasing the importance

Figure 3.2. Gap Between AIAN and Non-AIAN Population Under 18 and 62 and Older by Area Type, 2010

1.6

Tribal areas

1.4

Surrounding counties

1.4

Other metropolitan counties

1.2

Other nonmetropolitan counties

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

Ratio of AIAN alone population share

to the non-AIAN alone population share

0.2

0.0

Under 18

62 and older

Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

22

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

of the accessibility of housing. In 2011, more

The percentage of the population in the age

than half (51 percent) of the AIAN alone

62 and older category increased over the

population age 65 and older was disabled

past two decades across all area types for

as compared with 47 percent for the

both the AIAN and non-AIAN population.

Nation as a whole.18 Frail or disabled elderly

The increase from 2000 to 2010 in elderly

households may require adapted features

share for AIANs exceeded the growth in the

(for example, safety features like grab bars

non-AIAN share, so again the gap between

in bathrooms). They also often live on fixed

the AIAN and non-AIAN populations

incomes, making the continued affordability

narrowed. Overall, the ratio of AIAN to non-

of their housing an important factor

AIAN shares of people age 62 and older

(Spillman, Biess, and MacDonald 2012).

rose from 0.48 in 2000, to 0.57 in 2010. This

pattern held across all area types.

American Indians and Alaska Natives still

had a considerably smaller share of their

Household Sizes and Types

population age 62 and older than the non-

Indian population. In 2010, 9.3 percent of

Household size has a direct link to what size

the AIAN population was age 62 and older,

housing units are in demand in a given area,

compared with 16 percent for the non-

and AIAN alone households tend to be larger

AIAN population. Tribal areas and other

than non-AIAN households.19 In 2010, the

nonmetropolitan counties had larger shares of

average AIAN household size was 3 persons,

both their AIAN and non-AIAN populations in

while the average non-AIAN household

this age group as compared with surrounding

size was 2.6 persons. This pattern persisted

counties and other metropolitan counties.

across all area types (Figure 3.3). From 2000

Figure 3.3. Average Household Size by Race and Area Type, 2010

3.5

AIAN alone

3.2

d

3.0

Non-AIAN alone

3.0

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

Average number of persons per househol

0.5

0.0

Total

Tribal areas

Surrounding counties

Other metropolitan

Other nonmetropolitan

counties

counties

Area type

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 2010

18 Disability statistics are from the 2011 ACS 1-year estimates.

19 The indicators presented for household size and type define AIAN alone households as those with an AIAN alone householder.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

23

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

to 2010, there was little change in the average

nonfamily household arrangements (30

household size of either AIAN or non-AIAN

percent) than non-AIAN households (34

households in any of the area types.

percent) in 2010. This varied by geography:

AIAN households in tribal areas had the

The 1996 report found that large households

lowest share of nonfamily households (25

(those with five or more people) made

percent), and AIAN households in other

up a larger share of all AIAN households

nonmetropolitan counties had the highest

than in non-AIAN households. Consistent

share (34 percent). AIAN households

with higher average household sizes, the

are also less likely to live in single-person

percentage of AIAN households with five or

households than the non-AIAN population.

more people in 2010 (19 percent) was much

Nationally, 23 percent of AIAN alone

higher than the comparable figure for non-

households consisted of a single person

AIAN households (11 percent).20 The AIAN

as compared with 27 percent of non-AIAN

large-household share dropped 0.8 points

households in 2010.

from 2000 to 2010, while the non-AIAN

share stayed about the same.

The most dramatic change among household

types from 1990 to 2010 was the precipitous

Although the patterns of household size

drop in the share of AIAN households that

changed little since the 1996 report, the

were married couples with children (Figure

mix of AIAN types of households has

3.4). In 1990, 29 percent of AIAN households

changed in absolute terms and in relation

consisted of married couples with children;

to non-AIAN households. As mentioned

this figure dropped to 19 percent by 2010.

in the discussion of age structure above,

Although the comparable share for non-AIAN

household type has important implications

households also declined (from 26 percent

for housing need, with housing demand

in 1990, to 20 percent in 2010), the drop

and preferences varying by household type,

was not as large. By 2010, AIAN households

particularly with the presence of children.

were just about as likely to consist of

Further, housing instability is particularly

married couples with children as non-AIAN

prevalent among low-income families with

households (Figure 3.5).

children (Phinney et al. 2007). In 2010, 70

percent of AIAN households were family

In 2010, the percentage of AIAN households

households, in contrast to only 66 percent

that consisted of single-parent families

of non-AIAN households. The share of non-

(17 percent) was much higher than that of

AIAN households in families varied little

non-AIAN households (9.5 percent). This

across area type—from 66 to 68 percent.

relationship held for both female-headed

In contrast, the family share of AIAN

households and male-headed households.

households ranged widely from 66 percent

Overall, 12 percent of AIAN households

in other nonmetropolitan counties up to

consisted of female-headed families with

75 percent in tribal areas. The family share

children as compared to 7.1 percent of non-

of both AIAN and non-AIAN households

AIAN households, and 4.6 percent of AIAN

decreased across all area types from 2000

households consisted of male-headed

to 2010, but the variation across area types

families with children as compared to 2.4

was similar in both years. Correspondingly,

percent of non-AIAN households.

AIAN households had lower shares in

20 The analysis of household type conducted for the 1996 report is not directly comparable to the analyses presented here, but the overall pattern holds. The previous analysis used a data source that defined AIAN households as households with an AIAN alone householder or AIAN spouse, whereas the data used in these analyses define AIAN alone households as those with an AIAN alone householder.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

24

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

Figure 3.4. AIAN Households by Household Type, 1990 and 2010

35

1990

2010

29.6

30

s

28.6

25.8

25

20.2

20.7

20

19.4

16.5

16.9

15

13.5

10

8.9

Percent of the AIAN alone household

5

0

Married w/ children

Single parent w/ children

Married w/out children

Other families

Nonfamily households

Household type

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 1990 and 2010

Figure 3.5. AIAN and Non-AIAN Households by Household Type, 2010

40

AIAN alone

Non-AIAN alone

35

33.6

30

29.6

28.3

e

25

20.7

20.2

20

19.4

16.9

15

13.5

10

9.5

Percent of households by typ

8.4

5

0

Married w/ children

Single parent w/ children

Married w/out children

Other families

Nonfamily households

Household type

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 2010

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

25

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

The relatively high share of AIAN female-

pace for AIAN households than non-AIAN

headed households is of particular concern

households. As a result, the AIAN share in

since they are more likely to experience

this category jumped from 1.3 times the non-

housing hardship and instability than

AIAN share in 1990, to 1.6 times in 2010.

married parents (Manning and Brown 2006;

Nelson 2004).

The increase in the share of other family

households could be due to more

In 2010, the prevalence of single-parent

intergenerational households—either with

families was higher in tribal areas and

elderly family members moving into the

their surrounding counties than in non-

household or children over the age of

AIAN counties. Single-parent families

18 continuing to live in the household or

with children made up 18 to 19 percent

returning to the household. Other research

of AIAN households on tribal areas

has documented that AIAN households are

and in surrounding counties, while they

more likely than the population in general

only accounted for 15 percent in other

to live in multigenerational arrangements.

metropolitan counties and 13 percent in

Using ACS 2009–11 three-year estimates,

other nonmetropolitan counties. In contrast,

the U.S. Census Bureau finds that AIAN

the single-parent family share varied little by

households have a larger share of families

area type for non-AIAN households (ranging

living in multigenerational households (about

from 8.9 to 9.9 percent).

11 percent) than the total population (5.6

percent) (Lofquist 2012).21 Shares of AIAN

Since 2000, the percentages of AIAN single-

families in multigenerational households are

parent family households decreased slightly,

larger in States with large AIAN populations.

both overall and across all area types, while

the percentages of non-AIAN households

Educational Attainment

consisting of single-parent families increased

slightly both overall (0.32 percent increase)

Educational attainment impacts an

and across all area types. Thus, the gap in

individual’s ability to find and retain

single-parent family shares between AIAN

employment. Those with lower education

and non-AIAN households narrowed over

levels are more likely to experience

the 2000s. The AIAN single-parent share

difficulties in these areas, which can lead

was 1.8 times the non-AIAN share in 2010,

to housing instability (Phinney et al. 2007).

down slightly from 1.9 in 2000.

In general, the AIAN population has lower

levels of educational attainment than

The “other family” category is defined as

the non-AIAN population. However, the

male- or female-headed family households

proportion of AIAN adults (age 25 and

without children under the age of 18. In

over) without a high school degree has

2010, these other families accounted for

fallen significantly over the last decade. In

14 percent of all AIAN households, much

2006–10, this share was 23 percent, down 6

above the 8.4 percent rate for non-AIAN

percentage points from the 2000 share (29

households. The share of households in

percent) (Figure 3.6).

this family arrangement increased from

1990 for all groups, but at a much faster

21 The U.S. Census Bureau defines multigenerational households in three ways: (1) a householder, child of householder, and grandchild of householder; (2) a householder, parent or parent-in-law of householder, and child of householder; and (3) a householder, parent or parent-in-law of householder, child of householder, and grandchild of householder. None of these definitions takes into account the age of the children in the household, so the report’s findings are not comparable to our findings with regard to “other families,” which do not include households with children under the age of 18. However, the general trend supports our hypothesis that multigenerational living arrangements account in part for the increase in “other families.”

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

26

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

Figure 3.6. Share Adults Without a High School Diploma by Race, 1990 to 2006–10

40

AIAN alone

Non-AIAN alone

35

34.4

30

29.1

a

25

24.7

23.4

20

19.6

14.9

15

without a high school diplom

10

Percent of the population age 25 or older

5

0

1990

2000

2006-10

Sources: Kingsley et al. 1996; U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010, and American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2006–10

Despite these gains, the 2006–10 rate was still

and non-Hispanics. About 30 percent of

much higher than the 15 percent for non-AIAN

AIAN Hispanics do not speak English very

adults, and the gap is widening. In 1990, the

well. This is lower than the 37 percent for

share of the AIAN population without a high

non-AIAN Hispanics, which makes sense

school diploma was 1.4 times the non-AIAN

given the smaller share of AIAN Hispanics

share. This figure increased to 1.5 times in

being new immigrants as mentioned in the

2000, and again to 1.6 times in 2006–10. The

first section. Comparatively, the share of

share of adults without a high school diploma

AIAN non-Hispanics not speaking English

was slightly higher in tribal areas and other

very well is very small—about 4 percent.

nonmetropolitan areas, but the gap with non-

AIAN rates persisted across all area types.

There were noteworthy variations in

educational attainment across regions.

The growth of Hispanic AIAN population

Overall, the shares without a high school

contributed to the growing gap in education.

diploma were highest in Arizona/New

About 19 percent of AIAN non-Hispanics older

Mexico (27 percent) and the Eastern and

than 25 in 2006–10 did not have a high school

California/Nevada regions (25 percent) and

degree. The share for Hispanic AIAN adults is

lowest in the Oklahoma and North Central

almost twice as high at 37 percent, close to

regions (17 and 18 percent, respectively). The

the 36 percent rate for non-AIAN Hispanics.

regional distributions of this measure were

similar for AIAN and non-AIAN counties.

Similarly, English proficiency provides

another contrast among AIAN Hispanics

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

27

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

In 2006–10, the share of the AIAN adult

new households (for example, young adults

population with a bachelor’s degree or higher

moving out of their parents’ homes and

was 13 percent overall, but this indicator varied

starting their own households) is suppressed

considerably by area type. AIAN adults in

when unemployment is higher, which lessens

tribal areas were least likely to have completed

housing demand (Masnick, McCue, and

a college education (only 9.2 percent), while

Belsky 2010). The employment situation of

the percentage for AIAN population living in

the AIAN population generally worsened

other metropolitan counties was much higher,

over the 2000s. We examined three

at almost 17 percent. The 2006–10 share of

indicators related to employment in this

AIAN adults with a bachelor’s degree was

section: the share of AIAN population older

only slightly higher than the 2000 level—an

than 16 in the labor force—either working or

increase of only 1.5 percentage points.

looking for work (labor force participation

rate), the percentage of population older

Even with these gains, the share of AIAN

than 16 that was employed (employment

adults who had completed college is still

rate), and the share of the labor force that

far lower than the 28 percent for non-AIAN

was unemployed (unemployment rate).

adults. Overall, the gap between the AIAN

and non-AIAN population on this measure

The labor force participation rate fell slightly

has shown little change since 1990. The

from 61 percent in 2000, to 60 percent

2000 and 2006–10 percentage of the

in 2006–10. The non-AIAN participation

AIAN population obtaining a bachelor’s

rate increased slightly over the same time

or graduate degree was only 47 and 46

period, from 63 percent to 65 percent. As a

percent of the non-AIAN share, respectively,

result, the gap widened, with the AIAN rate

about the same as the 1990 comparison.

moving from 3 percentage points below

the non-AIAN rate to 5 percentage points

However, the gap between the AIAN and

lower over this period. The AIAN labor force

non-AIAN populations widened in some

participation rates are considerably higher in

area types and narrowed in others from

other metropolitan counties (64 percent) and

2000 to 2006–10. In tribal areas the gap

lower in tribal areas (55 percent) and other

is widest, but it has improved the most:

nonmetropolitan counties (54 percent).

the percentage of the AIAN population

with a bachelor’s or higher degree was 44

By region, the AIAN labor force shares

percent of the non-AIAN percentage in

(across all area types) varied from a low

2000, and 46 percent in 2006–10. In other

of 54 percent (Arizona/New Mexico) to

nonmetropolitan areas, the gap is much

high in the 62–63 percent range in four

smaller, but increased over that period. In

regions (North Central, Oklahoma, South

2000, the share of the AIAN population with

Central, and Pacific Northwest) (Table 3.1).

at least a bachelor’s degree was 71 percent

Disparities with non-Indians also varied by

of the non-AIAN share and decreased to 68

region. Overall labor force participation was

percent of the non-AIAN share in 2006–10.

the same or almost the same for AIAN and

non-AIAN populations in the Oklahoma and

Employment

South Central regions, but the AIAN rate

Labor force participation and employment

was 8 to 11 percentage points lower than

have clear effects on housing needs,

the non-Indian rate in the Northern Plains,

including the obvious measure of earned

Arizona/New Mexico, and Alaska regions.

income. Another example, the formation of

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

28

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

Table 3.1. AIAN Employment Indicators by Study Region and Area Type, 2006–10

Study Region

Total

N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains

AZ/NM

CA/NV

Pacific NW

Alaska

AIAN Alone Labor Force Participation Rate

(population 16 and older)

Total

59.9

62.1

60.4

62.1

62.9

60.5

54.0

61.1

62.3

59.3

Tribal areas

55.3

62.1

56.1

61.3

58.0

57.5

47.4

49.3

56.5

59.4

Surrounding counties

62.0

63.0

61.2

67.7

57.0

63.5

63.2

59.3

62.7

59.3

Other metropolitan counties

64.4

63.4

63.5

NA

65.3

65.5

59.0

64.5

69.1

58.1

Nonmetropolitan areas

53.7

53.2

51.4

58.7

56.7

54.3

48.3

55.7

58.3

NA

AIAN Alone Employment Rate (population 16 and older)

Total

51.6

51.5

52.8

56.1

56.9

49.7

46.1

52.4

52.9

46.4

Tribal areas

46.5

48.8

49.3

55.5

53.4

44.7

39.1

40.1

45.8

45.1

Surrounding counties

53.6

53.2

53.4

60.3

53.2

54.1

55.6

50.5

53.5

49.4

Other metropolitan counties

56.2

52.8

55.7

NA

59.1

54.5

47.0

55.8

60.3

46.8

Nonmetropolitan areas

47.1

46.2

44.0

53.0

50.3

49.2

44.0

52.0

49.9

NA

AIAN Alone Unemployment Rate

(civilian labor force age 16 and older)

Total

13.9

17.0

12.5

9.7

9.6

17.9

14.7

14.3

15.1

21.7

Tribal areas

15.9

21.3

12.2

9.5

7.9

22.2

17.6

18.7

18.8

24.0

Surrounding counties

13.6

15.5

12.9

11.0

6.7

14.7

12.0

14.9

14.7

16.7

Other metropolitan counties

12.7

16.7

12.2

NA

9.4

16.8

20.4

13.4

12.7

19.3

Nonmetropolitan areas

12.3

13.1

14.3

9.7

11.3

9.4

9.0

6.7

14.4

NA

NA: Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2006–10

Looking at the second employment-

are lowest in the tribal areas and other

related indicator, a little over half of

nonmetropolitan counties (47 percent).

the AIAN population 16 and older was

Tribal areas also had the largest gap with

employed, according to the 2006–10 data,

the non-AIAN rate (about 10 percentage

compared with almost 60 percent for non-

points). The employment rate in other

AIAN (Figure 3.7). This pattern of lower

metropolitan counties was 61 percent for

employment rates for AIAN compared

non-Indians compared to 56 percent for

with non-AIAN holds true in all of our

AIAN alone in those counties.

geographic areas. AIAN employment rates

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

29

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

Figure 3.7. Employment Indicators by Race for Population 16 and Over, 2006–10

AIAN alone

Non-AIAN alone

Labor force

participation rate

59.9

64.6

Employment

rate

51.6

59.5

Percent of workers

working ful-time

53.0

60.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent of the population 16 and over

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2006– 10

AIAN workers are also less likely than non-

AIAN unemployment rate was 2.3 times of

AIAN workers to work full-time. Only 53

the non-AIAN rate. The ratio fell to 2.2 in

percent of AIAN workers reported full-time

2000, and then again to 1.8 in 2006–10. The

employment in 2006–10, compared with 60

decline is mostly due to the increase in the

percent of non-AIAN workers. These rates

non-AIAN unemployment rate (up 1.7 points

were similar across geographic areas.

over the 20 years) than the improvement in

the AIAN rate (which fell only 0.29 points).

Unemployment rate is the final indicator

used to understand AIAN employment

Additionally, these employment conditions

patterns. About 14 percent of the AIAN

together result in the AIAN alone

labor force was unemployed in 2006–10.

population having higher rates of having

The AIAN unemployment rate was highest in

no health insurance than the non-AIAN

tribal areas (16 percent) in contrast to the 12

population. The share of the AIAN alone

to 14 percent unemployment rates for AIAN

population that lacked health insurance was

people in other areas.

28 percent, which is 13 percentage points

higher than the non-AIAN share for the

As with the other indicators, unemployment

Nation as a whole in 2011.22 This means that

rates are worse for AIAN than non-AIAN

the AIAN alone population faces added

people: the AIAN rate was about 6 points

healthcare costs on top of already lower

higher than the non-AIAN rate in 2006–10.

income levels, as we will discuss in the next

However, the gap overall has been declining

section, which leads to greater challenges

over the past two decades. In 1990, the

in affording housing.

22 Lack of health insurance estimates are from the 2011 ACS 1-year estimates.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

30

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

Income and Poverty

it fell by about $2,900. Interestingly, in

tribal areas the average household income

Household income determines both housing

fell by a much smaller amount—only by

preferences and needs. For example, higher

about $130. For non-AIAN households, the

income households are more likely to prefer

average household income dropped by

owning a single-family home and are more

the smallest amount in tribal areas as well

able to achieve that, while lower income

(about $870), while the decrease in the other

households are more likely to rent (Katz

geography types ranged from $2,700 in

and Turner 2007; Skaburskis 1999). Lower

the surrounding counties to $3,800 in other

income households are also more likely

metropolitan counties.

to experience housing hardship (Nelson

2004). The average AIAN household

The ratio of AIAN income to non-AIAN

income in 2006–10 was $49,000, which

income fell slightly over the decade from

was about $22,000 less than the non-AIAN

0.71 to 0.69 overall. AIAN households lost

average. Although average income varied

the most ground as compared with non-

by geography for both groups, the average

AIAN households in non-AIAN counties.

AIAN household income was below that of

In other metropolitan counties, the

non-AIAN households across all geography

ratio fell from 0.78 to 0.74, and in other

types. The surrounding counties and other

nonmetropolitan counties the ratio fell by an

metropolitan counties exhibited the highest

even larger margin—from 0.84 to 0.71.23

average income for both AIAN and non-

Among all gaps between Native American

AIAN households but also exhibited the

and non-Indian well-being, that in the

largest disparity between the groups at

poverty rate may be the most troubling. More

$20,000. Conversely, tribal areas and other

than one-quarter (26 percent) of the AIAN

nonmetropolitan counties had lower average

population lived below the poverty line in

income levels—$42,000 and $38,000,

2000 and 2006–10, almost twice the rate

respectively—but they had the smallest gap

for non-AIAN individuals in both periods. In

between AIAN and non-AIAN households of

2006–10 the poverty rate for the AIAN alone

about $14,000.

population in tribal areas was 32 percent,

Average household income decreased

substantially above the 14 percent national

since 2000 for both AIAN and non-AIAN

rate for non-Indians. The AIAN alone rate

households overall—by $3,500 for AIAN

was 25 percent in surrounding counties and

households and $3,300 for non-AIAN

22 percent in other metropolitan counties,

households, after accounting for inflation.

compared to 14 and 13 percent for non-

The average household income also fell in

Indians in those areas, respectively. The

each geography type; however, the size of

poverty rate is even higher for AIAN children.

the decrease varied. For AIAN households,

One in three AIAN children was poor in

average household income fell by the largest

2006–10, compared to one in five non-AIAN

amount in other nonmetropolitan counties

children (Figure 3.8). Among geographic

($9,500). In other metropolitan counties,

areas, AIAN children in tribal areas were most

average household income dropped by

likely to be poor (39 percent).

about $6,000, and in surrounding counties

23 In contrast to education and language, economic indicators reveal similarities among the groups. AIAN households have similar income levels whether Hispanic or non-Hispanic ($49,000 to $50,000).

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

31

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

Figure 3.8. Poverty Rates by Age and Race, 2006–10

40

AIAN alone

Non-AIAN alone

35

33.3

30

25

23.9

19.6

20

19.1

15

12.5

9.5

for whom poverty status is known

10

Percent of population in poverty of those

5

0

Under 18

18 to 24

65 and older

Age group

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2006–10

Poverty rates for AIAN working-age adults

There were also notable regional differences

and elderly in 2006–10 were lower than for

in the poverty gaps between the AIAN and

children (24 and 20 percent, respectively),

non-AIAN populations. The AIAN poverty

but the difference in rates for AIAN and non-

rate was 3.1 times the non-AIAN rate in the

AIAN people in these groups are wider than

Northern Plains region and 2.9 times the non-

the differential in child poverty rates. For

AIAN rate in Alaska. At the other extreme, the

example, the AIAN elderly poverty rate was

AIAN rate was only 1.3 times the non-AIAN

more than twice (2.1 times) the non-AIAN

rates in the South Central region.

rate overall and almost 2.5 times the non-

AIAN rate in tribal areas.

How the AIAN Population

Fared In the Great Recession

Regional differences in AIAN poverty

were substantial. Across all area types, the

The earlier parts of this section have reported

2006–10 rates ranged from the 20 to 22

on socioeconomic conditions and trends

percent range at the low end (South Central,

for American Indians and Alaska Natives by

California/Nevada, and Alaska), to 36 percent

comparing 2000 decennial census data to

(Northern Plains), and 33 percent (Arizona/

those from the 5-year 2006–10 ACS. This

New Mexico) at the upper end. In tribal areas,

is an important base for understanding,

the rates varied from 23 percent (Oklahoma

but it does not answer the question of how

and Alaska), to 41 percent (Northern Plains),

America’s AIAN population weathered the

and 37 percent (Arizona/New Mexico).

Great Recession of the last decade.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

32

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

To respond to that question, we rely on the

between the two groups narrowed with

1-year ACS estimates for 2008 and 2010

the AIAN unemployment rate falling from

(the latest data available at the time of

1.8 times the non-AIAN rate in 2008 to 1.7

analysis). We summarize the main trends

times the non-AIAN rate in 2010 (a sizable

by looking at three indicators: labor force

improvement over the 2.2 ratio in 2000),

participation rates, unemployment rates,

the AIAN unemployment rate was still 7

and poverty rates.

percentage points higher than that of the

non-AIAN population.

The National Story. The earlier parts of this

section showed that trends for the AIAN

• The AIAN poverty rate also saw

alone population from 2000 to 2006–10

considerable deterioration, rising from 24

by these economic indicators were mixed.

percent in 2008 to 28 percent in 2010, as

The period saw almost no change in the

compared with an increase from 13 percent

AIAN labor force participation rate, and

in 2008 to 15 percent in 2010 for the non-

the ratio of the AIAN rate to the non-

Indian population. In this case the AIAN/

AIAN rate had dropped slightly. However,

non-AIAN gap increased slightly. The

modest improvements occurred in the

AIAN poverty rate went up from 1.85 times

AIAN unemployment rate and poverty rate

the non-AIAN rate in 2008 to 1.87 times

and, in both cases, gaps between AIAN and

the non-AIAN rate in 2010. Although this

non-AIAN levels narrowed significantly over

represented a substantial improvement in

the decade.

relation to the 2.1 ratio of 2000, disparities

between the two groups persist.

The Native American population was more

economically vulnerable in 2008 at the start

Regional Variations. Because of sample-size

of the Great Recession than the non-AIAN

limitations, reliable data are not available

population, putting them in a worse position

for the detailed geographies we examined

in the face of the rising unemployment and

earlier in this section. Accordingly, we review

falling earnings brought on by the economic

data only for the United States as a whole

downturn. However, the pace of the

as well as for the four major census regions:

economic deterioration was not much worse

Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. The

than it was for the non-AIAN population, and

pattern of 2008 to 2010 change for the

over the decade as a whole, gaps between

four major U.S. regions seems consistent

the AIAN and non-AIAN performance had

with what we might expect given discussion

been reduced on some measures.

of the variations in AIAN conditions

between regions earlier in this section.

• The AIAN labor force participation rate

Most disturbingly, Native Americans in the

(as a percentage of the population older

West region (which contains the two most

than 16) dropped slightly from 61 percent

distressed study regions, Northern Plains

in 2008 to 59 percent in 2010. This

and Arizona/New Mexico and 46 percent of

represented 0.93 of the non-AIAN rate in

the total AIAN population) were hit hardest

both years, down modestly from the 0.95

by the Great Recession (Table 3.2). Though

ratio achieved in 2000.

not directly comparable, Austin’s (2009)

• The AIAN unemployment rate went up

analysis of the effects of the Great Recession

sharply from 11 percent in 2008 to 18

on the AIAN population finds a similar

percent in 2010, yet this measure for the

pattern: The West experienced the largest

non-AIAN population increased from 6.3

increase in the employment rate disparity

percent to 11 percent. Although the gap

between the AIAN and white populations

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

33

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

between 2007 and 2009.24 Alternatively,

recession effects appear mildest in the

South (which contains the Oklahoma and

South Central study regions as well as the

southern half of Eastern Woodlands).

Table 3.2. AIAN Economic Indicators, 2008 to 2010

Percent

Percentage Point

Ratio to Non-AIAN

Change in Ratio

2010

Change 2008 to 2010

2010

2008 to 2010

AIAN Alone Labor Force Participation Rate (population 16 and older)

United States

59.26

-1.77

0.93

-0.01

Northeast

61.28

-1.43

0.95

-0.01

Midwest

60.14

-1.41

0.92

0.00

South

62.04

-0.27

0.99

0.02

West

56.92

-3.00

0.89

-0.03

AIAN Alone Unemployment Rate (civilian labor force age 16 and older)

United States

17.88

6.73

1.66

-0.10

Northeast

14.67

5.65

1.48

-0.02

Midwest

18.58

5.22

1.76

-0.31

South

13.48

5.45

1.25

-0.02

West

21.15

8.56

1.81

-0.12

AIAN Alone Poverty Rate

United States

28.44

4.20

1.87

0.02

Northeast

24.58

3.26

1.91

0.07

Midwest

33.02

2.59

2.29

-0.17

South

24.68

3.82

1.46

0.03

West

29.75

5.17

1.97

0.03

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2008 and 2010

24 Austin (2009) uses different definitions of region than those used by the U.S. Census Bureau; he breaks the United States into eight regions, of which the West (California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington) and Southwest (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) are entirely contained within the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of the West region. Part of Austin’s Northern Plains region (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) is also contained within the U.S. Census Bureau’s West region, although he also includes Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota in the Northern Plains region. The largest disparity increases were found in the Northern Plains and Southwest.

Austin’s West region had the third largest disparity increase.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

34

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

• Over this 2-year period, the AIAN labor

2.0 in the West, 1.9 in the Northeast, and

force participation rate in the West

1.5 in the South. In this case these ratios

dropped by 3 percentage points to

were modestly higher than they had been

reach 57 percent. That decline was more

in 2008 in all regions except the Midwest,

than twice the next largest (minus 1.4

where the ratio dropped from 2.5 to 2.3.

percent in the Northeast and Midwest),

while the decline for the South was only

Implications

0.27 percent. In 2010, the rates for the

The social and economic conditions

other three regions were in the 60- to

of Native American families are major

62-percent range, well above that for the

drivers of the housing needs and

West. AIAN labor force participation was

challenges we discuss in Section 5. Larger

almost as high as for non-Indians in the

families, additional children, and the

South (0.99), but only 0.89 of the non-

multigenerational households all relate to

AIAN level in the West.

the desired housing size and structure.

• The West also saw by far the largest spike

Policymakers should track the significant

in unemployment—an increase of 8.6

shifts, such as the fall in the share of

percentage points to reach a 21-percent

households with children younger than

rate at the end of the period. The 2010

18, to project future demand for various

rates for the other regions were 14

housing types. Education levels and resulting

percent (South), 15 percent (Northeast),

employment opportunities for AIAN adults

and 19 percent (Midwest)—increases for

determine the income available to pay for

these three were all in the 5.2 to 5.6 point

housing. Although it is good news that the

range. In 2010, AIAN unemployment rates

AIAN community was not disproportionately

were higher than non-AIAN rates in all

hit by the Great Recession, the fact remains

regions, but there was quite a range: 1.3

that the economic situation for AIAN families

higher in the South, 1.5 in the Northeast,

has worsened considerably in the past few

and 1.8 in the Midwest and West. Those

years; and as will be shown in Section 5, this

ratios, however, were slightly better than

translates to high levels of housing problems.

they had been in 2008 in all regions.

• The Great Recession yielded sizable

increases in AIAN poverty in all regions,

but again, the change for the West was

most severe: an increase of 5.2 percentage

points to reach an overall rate of 30

percent in 2010. The 2010 poverty level

was actually higher in the Midwest (33

percent), but the increase there was not

as large (2.6 points). Poverty rates in 2010

reached 25 percent in the Northeast (up

3.3 points from 2008) and in the South

(up 3.8 points). With respect to poverty at

the end of the Great Recession, the AIAN/

non-AIAN gap was also highest in the

Midwest (AIAN rate 2.3 times the non-

AIAN rate). The comparable ratios were

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

35

Section 4. Economic Development

4. Economic Development 2. Tribally owned businesses, including gaming.

3. Native Community Development Financial

Institutions (CDFIs)—expansion of new

Introduction

institutional infrastructure to support

economic development in tribal areas.

The most important driver of economic well-

being (and the ability to improve housing

Background: Expansion of Economic

conditions) in any area is the state of the

Development in the 1990s

local economy. In this section we look more

closely at economic development trends

At the end of the 1980s, the status of

for that part of the AIAN population that

economic enterprise in Indian Country

traditionally has been most distressed: those

was uneven. Some tribes had achieved

living on reservations and in other tribal

considerable economic success by taking

areas, and those living in the areas that

advantage of a rich resource base, and

immediately surround them.

others had been successful in stimulating

other forms of private business, but many

We begin by reviewing research by others

generated very few private sector jobs

that examined how private enterprise

(Cornell and Kalt 1989, 1992). A large

progressed in Indian Country throughout

number of tribal areas had significant

the 1990s. We only have partial information

dependent populations (high ratios of

on what has happened since then, but we

children to working-age adults), high

are able to present some new evidence that

unemployment, and federal jobs making

offers updates in three topical areas and

up a large share of all employment. A good

discuss implications of those findings.

measure of independent economic health

The areas are:

for an area is how many private employees25

1. Business ownership

it has per 1,000 population. In 1990, the

national average for this ratio was 255; for

a. Changes in AIAN business ownership

AIAN tribal areas it was only 158 (Kingsley,

through 2007 nationwide and

et al. 1996).

b. Employment growth for AIAN counties,

According to the Harvard Project on

by region, through 2010 (AIAN counties

American Indian Economic Development

are those that contain all or a part of

(2008) (referred to, going forward, as the

one or more AIAN tribal areas—the

Harvard Project), changes occurred over

data are not available separately for the

the subsequent decade to the effect that

tribal areas themselves.)

“Economic development is taking root in

25 Private employees include those working for private firms and self-employed workers.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

36

Section 4. Economic Development

Indian Country, albeit unevenly across tribes

administration, good record keeping

and industry sectors” (111). They note that

(taking advantage of today’s computer

technology), and actions to facilitate

Past approaches to development by

business creation and operation (such as

assimilation, by project-based job creation

speeding up permitting processes).

or by pursuing federal grants are on the

wane, largely because of their repeated

Gaming has been one important force

failure. Contemporary nation-building

behind economic growth in Indian Country.

approaches are in the ascendancy, with

Robinson (1995) estimated that there were

tribes investing in their own capacities

only 81 active Indian gaming operations

to govern and thereby improving local

nationally in 1992. But the number went up

accountability and encouraging tribal

rapidly after that, reaching 311 in 2000.

and non-tribal investments in human and

other capital. Over 1990–2000, for both

Gaming profits have often been reinvested in

Indian nations with gaming enterprises

tribal enterprise, and significant shares have

and those without such operations, real

been distributed to tribal members through

per capita income in Indian Country grew

per-capita payments, creating substantial

at two to three times the rate experienced

wealth in some places. However, proceeds

by the general U.S. population (111).

have been very uneven. The Harvard Project

(2008, 148) concludes:

In their view the shift in U.S. government

policy furthering self-determination for Indian

A disproportionately large share of the total

tribes (of which NAHASDA was a part) was

casino revenue in Indian Country accrues

vital among the underlying causes of this

to tribes that represent a small share of the

change. With expanded freedom to select

Indian population (near population dense

their own path, many tribes have chosen to

metropolitan areas)…. [gaming] is having

strengthen their own governance in ways that

only a limited effect on the economic

establish a foundation for entrepreneurialism.

fortunes of households among large tribes

These include the following:

remote from customer markets.

• Emphasizing the rule of law: This means

Furthermore, the focus on gaming in the

ensuring an environment where the rules

press has created a distorted view of Indian

are clear about how collective decisions

economic development over this period.

will be made and how disputes will be

Tribal area economies have also seen

resolved and where there is confidence

substantial expansion of other types of

the rules will be enforced. The rule of law

private enterprise.

encourages private business investment.

Nongaming enterprises are proliferating

• Separating politics from day-to-day

rapidly in Indian Country. Some of these

administration and business affairs:

are large and visible (developed by

Institutional change to reinforce the

tribes)… But development is also founded

separation of powers in tribal governance—

on businesses owned by private tribal

for example, ensuring an independent

citizens—from Burger King franchises

judiciary—or creating independent boards

and Hampton Inns to paving companies,

of directors for tribal enterprises.

construction firms, automobile repair

shops, and cattle ranches (Harvard

• Creating an efficient tribal bureaucracy:

Project 2008, 117).

This entails efficient and reliable

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

37

Section 4. Economic Development

Total enterprise growth for the AIAN

of the decade, reaching 237,000 by 2007.

population has been impressive. Government

The 2002 to 2007 annual growth rate of 3.3

reports showed a total of 102,000 Native-

percent was clearly below the comparable

owned businesses nationwide in 1992. Over

AIAN rate for 1992 to 2002, but equal to

the subsequent decade, the number had

the average for all U.S. businesses for that

doubled, reaching 201,000 in 2002. Native-

period (U.S. Census Bureau 2011; U.S. Minority

owned businesses had increased at an annual

Business Development Agency 2006).

rate of 7 percent, compared to 2.9 percent

for all U.S. businesses (U.S. Minority Business

Other evidence comes from the U.S.

Development Agency 2006).

Department of Commerce County Business

Patterns series. This series shows total

Employment Growth in the 2000s

U.S. employment at 113.1 million in 2000;

20.7 million (or 18 percent) of those jobs

Available evidence suggests that the economic

were located in AIAN counties. However,

environment for the AIAN population

from 2000 to 2007, employment in AIAN

continued to be strong through 2007, but then

counties grew by 303,000 per year, 48

the Great Recession hit Indian Country26 very

percent of total U.S. job growth. The AIAN

hard, as it did the rest of the Nation.

county growth rate was 1.4 percent per year,

The number of AIAN-owned enterprises

dwarfing the 0.36 percent average for all

continued to grow rapidly in the middle years

non-AIAN counties (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. Employment Trends in AIAN Counties From 2000 to 2010

2

AIAN counties

1.4

Non-AIAN counties

0.4

0.1

0

-0.5

-2

Annual percent change

-2.3

-3.0

4

2000 to 2007

2007 to 2010

2000 to 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2000, 2007, 2010

26 Again, as used in this report, the term “Indian Country” refers to the tribal areas and their surrounding counties (see Section 2).

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

38

Section 4. Economic Development

Most (87 percent) of the AIAN county jobs

those outside of metro areas: an annual rate

in 2000 were within the boundaries of

of 1.5 percent compared to 0.68 percent

metropolitan areas, and these grew much

(Table 4.1).

faster over the 2000 to 2007 period than

Table 4.1. Employment in AIAN and Non-AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2000, 2007, and 2010

Study Region

Total

N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains

AZ/NM

CA/NV

Pacific NW

Alaska

Number of Employees (thousands)

Total, 2000

113,138

8,863

63,966

1,194

14,039

4,591

2,450

13,760

4,071

203

Total, 2007

117,597

8,635

65,248

1,282

14,961

5,022

2,955

14,756

4,496

241

Total, 2010

109,083

7,878

60,566

1,221

14,431

4,767

2,588

13,240

4,146

247

AIAN counties, 2000

20,690

2,159

6,992

1,154

411

679

2,284

4,223

2,609

178

AIAN counties, 2007

22,810

2,226

7,207

1,238

441

772

2,751

5,104

2,861

211

AIAN counties, 2010

20,822

2,085

6,660

1,176

439

732

2,397

4,458

2,655

220

Non-AIAN counties, 2000

92,448

6,704

56,974

40

13,628

3,912

166

9,537

1,462

25

Non-AIAN counties, 2007

94,787

6,410

58,041

45

14,520

4,250

204

9,652

1,636

30

Non-AIAN counties, 2010

88,261

5,793

53,906

44

13,992

4,035

191

8,782

1,491

27

Percent of Employees, 2010

Total

100.0

7.2

55.5

1.1

13.2

4.4

2.4

12.1

3.8

0.2

AIAN counties

100.0

10.0

32.0

5.7

2.1

3.5

11.5

21.4

12.8

1.1

Non-AIAN counties

100.0

6.6

61.1

0.1

15.9

4.6

0.2

10.0

1.7

0.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2000, 2007, 2010

During the Great Recession, the patterns

Over the 2000 to 2007 period, annual

reversed. Places that performed best earlier

employment growth was by far fastest in

in the decade typically faced the sharpest

AIAN counties in Arizona/New Mexico and

reversals later on. The total number of jobs

California/Nevada—averaging 2.7 percent,

in AIAN counties dropped by 3 percent per

more than three times the average national

year from 2007 to 2010, compared with a

rate. The next closest among AIAN counties

drop of 2.3 percent annually for non-AIAN

was Alaska (2.4 percent), but the absolute

counties. Among AIAN counties, annual

numbers there were quite small. After that

rates of decline were 3.1 percent in metro

were the Northern Plains States (1.8 percent)

areas and 2.5 percent in other areas.

and the Pacific Northwest (1.3 percent). The

lowest rate for AIAN counties was in the

This national picture, however, masks sizable

North Central and Eastern regions (0.44 and

variations in performance across regions.

0.43 percent, respectively) (Table 4.2).

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

39

Section 4. Economic Development

Table 4.2. Employment Trends in AIAN and Non-AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2000 to 2010

Study Region

Total

N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains

AZ/NM

CA/NV

Pacific NW

Alaska

Percent Employment Change per Year, 2000 to 2007

(Growth Period)

Total

0.6

-0.4

0.3

1.0

0.9

1.3

2.7

1.0

1.4

2.4

AIAN counties

1.4

0.4

0.4

1.0

1.0

1.8

2.7

2.7

1.3

2.4

Non-AIAN counties

0.4

-0.6

0.3

1.4

0.9

1.2

3.0

0.2

1.6

2.7

Percent Employment Change per Year, 2007 to 2010

(Great Recession)

Total

-2.5

-3.0

-2.5

-1.6

-1.2

-1.7

-4.3

-3.5

-2.7

0.9

AIAN counties

-3.0

-2.2

-2.6

-1.7

-0.2

-1.8

-4.5

-4.4

-2.5

1.4

Non-AIAN counties

-2.3

-3.3

-2.4

-0.2

-1.2

-1.7

-2.2

-3.1

-3.0

-3.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2000, 2007, 2010

Among non-AIAN counties during this

everywhere else were above 2 percent. The

period, the fastest rate of expansion was 3

best record was registered by AIAN counties

percent per year in Arizona/New Mexico.

in the South Central region (a decline of 0.16

Interestingly, those in California/Nevada

percent per year) and Oklahoma (a decline of

did not fare nearly as well (0.17 percent).

1.7 percent per year).

Intermediate growth rates were realized in

But what has been the net effect of these

the Pacific Northwest (1.6 percent) and the

changes on employment from 2000 to

Northern Plains (1.2 percent)—not much

2010? Over the full decade, employment in

different from the rates for AIAN counties

AIAN counties had grown slightly (by about

in those regions. Non-AIAN counties in the

0.65 percent), whereas the number of jobs in

North Central region (the main rust-belt

non-AIAN counties had actually declined (by

States) actually lost employment, even over

almost 4.5 percent).

this pre-recession growth period (by 0.64

percent per year).

Tribally Owned Businesses

and Enterprises

Over the Great Recession, there was similar

variation across regions, and the rule

The expansion and diversification of tribally

generally held that those that had performed

owned businesses noted earlier for the

best earlier in the decade had the worst

1990s continued into the 2000s. This has

record in the recession years. Among AIAN

occurred both on and off the reservations.

counties, annual employment loss rates in

Types of businesses include hotels and

Arizona/New Mexico and California/Nevada

resorts, golf courses, manufacturing, oil

were in the 4.4- to 4.5-percent range. Alaska

extraction companies, mining, coal and

actually registered a modest increase, but

natural resources, timber, and wild game

again the amount was small (1.4 percent

hunting. Examples include:

or 9,100 jobs). Rates of decline almost

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

40

Section 4. Economic Development

• The Seminole Tribe of Florida purchased

The institutional infrastructure supporting

the Hard Rock Hotel Café and Restaurant

the expansion of tribally owned enterprise

chain for $965 million—the first time

has also strengthened since 2000. This

an Indian tribe had ever purchased a

includes new supports for networking

major international corporation. The

and collaboration. One advance was the

tribe continued to make news when it

establishment of the American Indian

announced that it is expanding globally,

Business Network (AIBN). The AIBN

focusing on Latin America, Eastern Europe,

provides an opportunity for tribal businesses

and Asia (De la Merced 2006; Stuts 2012).

to showcase their products and interact

with other business owners and potential

• Tulalip Tribes in Washington built Quil Ceda

customers. It also allows for networking

Village, a highly successful commercial

among tribal leaders, Indian entrepreneurs,

development that includes outlets, anchor

and other tribal government businesses.

stores such as Home Depot and Walmart

and a number of other retail businesses

Indian gaming—where tribes own and

(Harvard Project 2003).

operate casinos—also continued to play an

important role in the 2000s. In 2001, 201

• Menominee Tribal Enterprises (MTE), a

of the 561 federally recognized tribes (36

lumber production company operating

percent) operated one or more gaming

since 1908, employs about 300 people.

operations (Hillabrant, Earp, Rhodes, Pindus

MTE practices sustainable yield forestry

2004). According to the National Indian

and operates a mill. In recent years, the

Gaming Association (NIGA) (2009), by

tribe has been branching out, exporting

2006, 224 tribes (40 percent) operated

some products as far as China, and using

gaming facilities. By the end of 2009, that

sophisticated logging machinery to

number increased to 237 (42 percent).

ensure that all parts of the tree are used.

MTE is also planning a biomass electrical

The total number of gaming operations has

plant that will use forest waste to produce

also grown. The National Indian Gaming

electricity (Thornton n.d.; Trosper 2007).

Commission (NIGC) reported in 2000

that there were about 311 tribal gaming

• The Chickasaw Nation owns and

enterprises throughout the United States;

operates a wide variety of businesses.

by the end of 2006, the number rose to 394

In 2000, the tribe purchased Bedré Fine

nationwide. The number had reached 421 at

Chocolate. The production facility in

the end of fiscal year 2011 (NIGC 2012b).

Davis, Oklahoma, uses state-of-the-art

machinery to ensure the ingredient mix is

Gaming revenues have flourished as well.

controlled, guaranteeing a superior and

By the end of fiscal year 2000, NIGC found

more consistent product. The Chickasaw

that gaming enterprises generated about $11

Nation opened Bank2, a full-service

billion in total revenues. Six years later, NIGC

community bank, in 2002. Headquartered

reported that revenues increased to about

in Oklahoma City since January 2002, the

$24.9 billion for the 394 gaming facilities. The

bank’s assets have grown from $7.5 million

most recent figures show that the 421 gaming

to more than $100 million (Chickasaw

operations generated about $27.2 billion

Nation 2013; Bank2 n.d.; Bedré Fine

in total revenues (NIGC 2012b). Figure 4.2

Chocolate 2006).

illustrates the growth in tribal gaming revenues

from 2000 to 2011, indicating a leveling off in

the $26 billion to $27 billion range since 2007.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

41

Section 4. Economic Development

Figure 4.2. Growth in Gaming Revenues, 2000 to 2011

$30

$27.2

$26.7

$26.5

$26.5

$26.1

$24.9

$25

$22.6

)

$20

$19.5

$16.8

$14.7

$15

$12.8

Dollars (in billions

$11.0

$10

$5

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Source: NIGC 2010; NIGC 2012b

From 2000 to 2007, the total sector’s

one in every three generated less than $3

revenues increased by at least 10 percent

million in gaming revenues. Close to one-half

from year to year. However, in 2008, revenues

generated between $10 million and $100

started to slow, with annual increases at 2

million, and less than one-fifth generated

percent. By 2009, the sector saw its first

more than $100 million in gaming revenue.

decline, though marginal (0.7 percent). From

2009 to 2010, revenues remained the same,

Among the tribal gaming facilities, the

and in 2011, revenues saw a modest upturn of

23 largest tribal enterprises (5 percent)

3 percent (NIGC 2012b).

generated about 38 percent of the total

Indian gaming revenues, and the 78 largest

We noted earlier that gaming operations

(18 percent) accounted for close to 75

and revenues were very uneven across

percent of all tribal gaming revenues.

tribal areas in the 1990s. That continued to

be the case in the 2000s. Table 4.3 shows

NIGA (2011) conducted a more indepth

that a small number of enterprises have

analysis and found that in addition to the

been highly successful, while the great

$26 billion generated from gaming revenue

majority has not been as fortunate. Of

in 2009, tribal governments also generated

the 421 gaming facilities operating in 2011,

billions in other gaming-related services

and taxes. For example, they report that

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

42

Section 4. Economic Development

tribal governments generated about $3.2

unemployment and welfare payments); and

billion from gaming-related hospitality and

about $2.4 billion in State taxes, revenue

entertainment services (that is, resorts,

sharing, and regulatory payments (including

hotels, restaurants, golf, entertainment

State income, sales, and excise taxes;

complexes, and travel centers);

regulatory payments; and revenue sharing

approximately $9.4 billion in federal taxes

pursuant to tribal-state compacts).

and revenue savings (including employer

and employee Social Security taxes,

income taxes, excise taxes, and savings on

Table 4.3. Gaming Operations by Revenue Size Category, 2011

Percent

Dollar Amount (in Thousands)

Number of Tribal

Revenues (in

Gaming Revenue Range

Gaming Operations Thousands of Dollars)

Operations

Revenues

Mean

Median

Total

421

27,153,808

$250 million and over

23

10,421,992

5.5

36.4

453,130

378,397

$100 to $250 million

55

9,065,678

13.1

33.4

164,831

156,252

$50 to $100 million

52

3,639,595

12.4

13.4

69,992

66,151

$25 to $50 million

55

1,902,860

13.4

7.0

34,597

32,784

$10 to $25 million

98

1,629,551

23.6

6.0

16,628

15,753

$3 to $10 million

70

413,441

16.6

1.5

5,906

5,525

Under $3 million

68

80,691

16.2

0.3

1,187

1,010

Note: Data are compiled from gaming operation audit reports received and entered by the NIGC through June 20, 2012.

Source: National Indian Gaming Commission 2012a

Tribal governments allocated the largest

brought much needed funding to tribal

share of gaming revenues (20 percent)

government programs (Ryan 2009).

toward education, children and the elderly,

culture, charity, and other purposes; 19

• In the Sierra Nevada foothills, the

percent to economic development; 17

Chukchansi Indians allocated gaming

percent for both healthcare and police

revenues toward cultural activities; the

and fire protection; and 16 percent for

tribe gave $1 million to California State

infrastructure. Housing received the smallest

University, Fresno to preserve its language

share (11 percent) (NIGA 2009).

(Onishi 2012).

A few examples illustrate the range of

• In 2007, as mentioned above, the

activities supported by tribal gaming revenues:

Seminole Tribe of Florida used $965

million in gaming revenues to purchase

• Eleven Native American tribes in

the Hard Rock Hotel Café and Restaurant

Minnesota that own and operate 18

chain (NIGA 2009).

casino-resorts throughout the State

• In that same year, the Mississippi Band of

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

43

Section 4. Economic Development

Choctaw Indians contributed $43 million

Expansion of Community

to a new justice center that houses all of

Development Financial Institutions

the law enforcement offices, tribal courts,

and a 47-bed jail. This effort was matched

During the late 1990s, the U.S. Department

with a federal grant for $56 million to the

of the Treasury (Treasury) commissioned

center (Williams 2007).

the congressionally mandated Native

American Lending Study (2001), which

Gaming has also had an impact on

found that Native people were experiencing

employment. Tribal gaming created more

considerable difficulty accessing capital

than 628,000 direct and indirect jobs

and financial services. Hillabrant, Earp,

for tribal and surrounding communities

Rhodes, and Pindus (2004) also found that

(NIGA 2009). These numbers are based on

tribal communities have complex legal,

estimates derived from economic models

administrative, and political barriers. Poor

of regional economies that use multipliers

coordination of business-related activities

to estimate the impacts of inputs such as

within the tribe and with neighboring cities

dollars invested. These jobs include level one

and counties created more challenges for

jobs (jobs that are directly created by Indian

economic development in Indian Country. A

gaming facilities themselves, the ancillary

1997 study by the First Nations Development

businesses connected to the gaming

Institute estimated that Indian Country

facilities, and other tribal government and

“faced between $17.6 billion and $56.6

enterprise positions); level two jobs (those

billion in annual capital needs for basic

supported by tribal employees spending

infrastructure, community facilities, housing

their wages); and level three jobs (those

and economic development” (Harvard

created indirectly, assuming that 75 percent

Project 2008, 130). Since the release of

of goods and services were purchased

these findings, the federal government has

locally and 25 percent outside the region).

developed a set of programs and initiatives

The benefits from Indian gaming may not be

to address these barriers, including Native

as secure as in the past, however, as the future

CDFIs, a Native Initiatives Strategic Plan,

appears to hold more competition. In some

Native Individual Development Accounts

places, it seems likely that State government

(IDAs), and Native Entrepreneur and

prohibitions will be relaxed to permit the

Education Development.27

expansion of private casino-style gaming

Native Community Development Financial

outside of Indian areas. More threatening,

Institutions. One approach, which continues

perhaps, may be the movement toward

to gain momentum in tribal communities,

legalizing Internet gaming (which would give

was the creation of Native CDFIs. As defined

States the ability to regulate and tax online

in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 12,

gaming, even on reservations). This would

Section 1805.200,

allow people to play games like poker on their

mobile devices whenever and wherever they

A CDFI is a financial institution that

want. In June 2012, Delaware became the first

provides credit and financial services to

State to legalize casino-style gambling on the

underserved markets and populations.

Internet. These shifts highlight the importance

CDFIs include community development

of efforts to diversify tribally owned

banks, community development credit

enterprises and encourage entrepreneurship

unions, community development

among the AIAN population more broadly.

loan funds, community development

27 See http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_do/programs_id.asp?programID=3.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

44

Section 4. Economic Development

venture capital funds, microenterprise

American, Alaskan Native, or Hawaiian

development loan funds, community

Native groups” (CDFI Fund 2012b). In

development corporations, among others.

addition to providing access to capital or

credit, some provide training and technical

A Native CDFI is “controlled or sponsored

assistance to ensure that the credit is used

by, or whose target market is, more than

effectively. CDFIs also provide housing and

50 percent of any combination of Native

home repair loans.

Table 4.4. Share of Native CDFIs by Study Region, 2012

Number of Native CDFIs

Percent

Total

61

100

Northern Plains

15

25

North Central

10

16

Oklahoma

10

16

Arizona/New Mexico

9

15

Alaska

6

10

Eastern

4

7

Pacific Northwest

4

7

California/Nevada

3

5

South Central

0

0

Note: Total percent does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. Database of Certified CDFIs and Native CDFIs current as of July 31, 2012.

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Community Development Financial Institution 2012a Certified Native CDFIs are dispersed across

Financial Institutions 2012a). Since 2002,

regions (Table 4.4). Fifteen CDFIs (the largest

the Treasury’s CDFI Fund has awarded

number) are in the Northern Plains, 10 are in

more than 175 grants totaling $31 million to

North Central, and 10 are in Oklahoma. Nine

certified Native CDFIs, which serve nearly

are in Arizona/New Mexico and none are

100 tribal communities. With the support of

located in South Central to date.28

the CDFI Fund’s technical assistance grants

and “know-how” or “best practices” from

In 2000, there were three certified Native

the Native CDFIs Network, it appears that

CDFIs. By the end of 2006, their number

Emerging Native CDFIs and Sponsoring

had grown to 38 (Kristin Eagan email

Entities will likely obtain certification at a

to Kassie Bertumen, October 22, 2012).

steady or increased rate.29

And, as of July 2012, 72 Native CDFIs

had been certified (11 of which were

Native Initiatives Strategic Plan. In response

located in Hawaii) (U.S. Department of

to the financial barriers faced by AIAN

the Treasury Community Development

people, the CDFI Fund developed its Native

28 These numbers do not include the 11 Native CDFIs in Hawaii.

29 An Emerging Native CDFI is an entity that primarily serves a Native Community and that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Fund that it has a reasonable plan to achieve Native CDFI certification within a reasonable timeframe. A Sponsoring Entity is an entity (typically a tribe or tribal entity) that proposes to create a separate legal entity. That entity will emerge and eventually become certified as a Native CDFI.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

45

Section 4. Economic Development

Initiatives Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years

(8 percent), and a few are depository

2009–14 to guide the implementation of its

institution holding companies (3 percent).

activities over the next 5 years. Its initiatives

None of the Native CDFIs are venture capital

include conducting training to help the

funds31 (Figure 4.3). This distribution reflects

development of new Native CDFIs and

the primary scope of most Native CDFIs—

provide capacity and guidance to important

providing individual and small business

programming through its Expanding Native

loans. A much smaller number of Native

Opportunities (ENO) program and providing

CDFIs are engaged in securing financing for

financial and technical assistance support to

large projects, using the flexibility afforded

build the capacity of certified Native CDFIs,

to CDFIs. Although most CDFIs have tribal

Emerging Native CDFIs, and Sponsoring

or regional footprints, a small number are

Entities through its Native American CDFI

national in the scope of their activities.

Assistance (NACA) program.

Based on their case study research, Dewees

Of the 61 certified Native CDFIs, a significant

majority are loan fund financial institutions

(82 percent), some are credit unions

(7 percent), a handful are banks or thrifts30

Figure 4.3. Breakdown of Native CDFIs by Financial Institution Type, 2012

3.3%

8.2%

6.6%

Loan fund

Credit union

Bank or thrift

Depository institution

holding company

82.0%

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Community Development Financial Institution 2012a 30 As defined in the CDFI Fund’s 2012 CIIS Glossary, “Any entity the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).”

31 As defined in the CDFI Fund’s 2012 CIIS Glossary, “An organization that predominantly invests funds in businesses, typically in the form of either equity investments or subordinated debt with equity features such as a revenue participation or warrants, and generally seeks to participate in the upside returns of such businesses, via such equity investments in equity features in an effort to at least partially offset the risk investments.”

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

46

Section 4. Economic Development

and Sarkozy-Banoczy (2008) suggest that

vary in the types of services they provide,

Native CDFIs are slowly working to change

the footprint in which they work, and the

attitudes and culture in Native communities

capacity of their work. Below are two

to create a more positive social environment

examples—the first is a CDFI that provides

for formal business development and that

direct services, and the second is a CDFI

“…contributions made by Native CDFIs

that is an intermediary. Both have a national

represent a critical strategy for meeting the

footprint, working with tribal communities

local demand for capital that has not been

across the country.

met by mainstream financial markets, while

also addressing the broader social, cultural,

Native American Capital, LLC (NAC) is a

and political issues related to economic

Native CDFI that has a national footprint.

development in Native communities” (18).

It has a history of advocating for Indian

For example, Native CDFIs can become

Country in the legislative, business, and

eligible lenders under the Indian and

academic spheres. It has direct experience

Economic Development Loan Program

winning and distributing various federal

and can apply for New Markets Tax Credit

funding, such as the NMTC program, SBA

(NMTC) allocations. The potential of Native

Super 8(a), HUBZone, Tribal Economic

CDFIs to build financial and management

Development Bond (TEDB), among others,

capacity as well as entrepreneurial attitudes

as well as corporate funding. NAC has also

holds promise for economic development in

provided technical support both to tribes

Indian Country.

and to organizations that are providing

services to tribal communities. Recently,

Examples of Native CDFIs. Native CDFIs

NAC helped Lower Brule Community

Four Bands Community Fund

• Committed $230,000 in matched savings

(Four Bands) is a nonprofit organization

for Individual Development Accounts;

that supports economic development

• Supported more than 70 new and

activities on the Cheyenne River Indian

existing businesses resulting in the

Reservation. The CDFI Fund has played a

creation of 150 jobs;

significant role in allowing Four Bands to

help families build strong and sustainable

• Built or rehabilitated 30 storefronts;

small businesses and increase their capability

to enter the financial mainstream.

• Conducted a reservation-wide “buy local”

campaign; and

As of 2010, Four Bands has:

• Worked with the Cheyenne River Sioux

• Trained nearly 2,000 people in personal

tribal government to make policy

financial skills and entrepreneurship,

improvements to support private business

including many youth;

and personal financial skills development

among tribal members.

• Distributed more than $1,500,000 in micro,

small business, and credit building loans;

Source: U.S. Congress House Committee on Financial Services 2010. “Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs)—Their Unique Role and Challenges Serving Lower-Income, Underserved and Minority Communities.”

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

47

Section 4. Economic Development

Development Enterprise, LLC (LBCDE), a

investments as “critical” to Native economic

certified community development entity

development. She shared information about

in South Dakota, win an $18 million NMTC

the numerous benefits that her organization

allocation. LBCDE’s first NMTC transaction

and other Native CDFIs, organizations,

of $9 million, closed in mid-2012, brought

and communities have accrued. Among

KernPosits manufacturing company to the

these, she described how the CDFI Fund’s

Mississippi Choctaw on-reservation TechParc.

investments allowed them to reach a broader

The company brings manufacturing training

audience at a more frequent rate and how

and jobs to the community. LBCDE used

the investments helped them expand the

its remaining allocation as part of the

number and capacity of Native CDFIs.

$52.5 million Terra-2 project—a project that

brings broadband Internet infrastructure to

Effects on Native CDFIs During the

remote native villages on the Alaskan Slope

Economic Downtown. During the Great

northeast of Anchorage.

Recession, Native CDFIs experienced an

increase in competition for federal and

First Nations Oweesta Corporation (Oweesta)

State funds, a loss of private revenue from

is a Native CDFI intermediary that provides

individuals and corporations, and the need

training, technical assistance, and investments

to do more with less. On the other hand,

to Native communities across the country. It

Native CDFIs, because they are federally

has focused a large share of its services and

subsidized, were cushioned from the full

investment on the Cheyenne River Indian

effects of the downturn. Congress saw

Reservation. As of 2010, Oweesta received

that Native CDFIs were struggling with

more than $2 million from the CDFI through

matching nonfederal funds for their NACA

its NACA program. These funds, along

grants and responded by waiving the grant

with a range of other sources, enabled it

requirement. Stimulus spending on energy

to develop its own organizational capacity

and infrastructure also benefitted some

and provide much-needed services to

Native CDFIs.

support Native communities in their efforts

to build local economies. Some examples of

Native Individual Development Accounts.

innovative products and services that Native

Another approach for expanding

CDFIs offer their local communities include

opportunities for housing investments is

1) providing culturally sensitive business

through IDAs. IDAs emerged in the United

development and financial education classes;

States in the 1990s as an asset-building

2) awarding small business loans through the

strategy. IDAs provide matching funds to

Bureau of Indian Affairs loan guarantee and

low-income recipients to promote savings

insurance programs; 3) conducting trainings

that can be spent later on eligible uses

on credit building and loans; 4) offering

such as postsecondary education, business

youth entrepreneur internships; 5) assisting

development, and homeownership. IDAs help

members to complete their federal income

Native people access financial education and

taxes and access certain tax credits; and 6)

capital, and save and build assets.

educating tribal leadership (U.S. Congress

In 2006, the CDFI Fund supported a Native

House Committee on Financial Services 2010).

IDA Initiative (NIDAI) that provided a series

In a testimony before the House Committee

of trainings in seven regions throughout

on Financial Services (2010), Vice President

the country, including Hawaii and Alaska.

of Programs and Operations Tanya Fiddler

Three prominent tribal organizations

described the CDFI Fund’s work and

provided technical assistance to help Native

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

48

Section 4. Economic Development

organizations start, implement, and sustain

IDAs in their communities. A total of 69

Native Community programs attended the

NIDAI trainings. Of the 62 communities that

participated, 9 started IDA programs, 47 are

working on developing IDA programs, and 13

enhanced their IDA programs. From 2007

to 2008, IDAs have supported about 350

tribal members.

Native Entrepreneur and Education

Development. Finally, the CDFI Fund has

provided a third strategy for expanding

economic development in Indian Country,

known as the Native Entrepreneur and

Education Development (NEED) program.

NEED provides training and technical

assistance to enable Native CDFIs to create

entrepreneurship development systems

in their own communities. The program is

tailored specifically to the needs of Native

communities and entrepreneurs seeking to

start businesses. In 2007, the CDFI Fund

conducted trainings and provided one-on-

one technical assistance to Native CDFIs,

tribes, and other Native organizations.

Seventy representatives across 38

organizations in 24 Native communities have

participated in NEED.

Overall, despite strides in increasing access

to capital, there are still hurdles, including

slow housing development in Indian Country.

As with the other social and economic

indicators presented in this report, there is a

great deal of variation in resource availability

and access across Indian Country.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

49

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

5. Housing Conditions

For each of the indicators currently available

from U.S. Census Bureau sources, we

and Needs

present national totals for AIAN households

compared to non-Indians or the total

population, and then explore patterns

Introduction

across regions and area types to the extent

possible. The cautions about the decennial

In this section, we present available U.S.

census and the American Community

Census Bureau data relating to the central

Survey (ACS) data for tribal areas that were

purpose of this study: learning about the

mentioned in the introductions of Sections

housing problems and needs of the AIAN

2 and 3 also apply to the housing indicators.

population and how they have changed

Major changes in Census Bureau data

since the prior (1996) report. The section

collection—particularly related to the change

opens by examining the housing markets for

from the decennial census long-form sample

tribal areas and surrounding counties. It then

to the ACS—have meant that data on most

describes a number of basic characteristics

of the housing indicators are not available

of AIAN-occupied housing units: tenure

as comprehensively as they were for the

(owner versus renter), number of bedrooms,

socioeconomic measures in Section 3.

structure type, the year the structure was

built, and housing values and rents.

Complete data are available from the 2010

decennial census and the 2006–10 ACS for all

We then analyze indicators pertaining to

geographies for total housing units, housing

housing problems and needs. Available U.S.

vacancies, AIAN tenure, and AIAN housing

Census Bureau products do include important

structures. But for all of the other housing

measures—on overcrowding, affordability

indicators noted above, the latest and most

problems, and lack of adequate kitchen and

comprehensive data available for the AIAN

plumbing facilities—and those are included

population are from the 2006–10 ACS

here. As noted in Section 1, however, these

Selected Population Tables.32 The data for the

measures are partial. Only when we have the

AIAN alone population are provided only for

data from our household surveys—covering

the tribal areas and the counties where there

other topics like structural quality, heating and

is a population of at least 50 AIAN alone

electrical systems, and how residents of tribal

individuals. We refer to these as larger tribal

areas assess their own housing conditions

areas, selected AIAN counties, and selected

and opportunities—will we be able to fully

non-AIAN counties to distinguish these area

complete the assessment (to be released in

types from those used in earlier analysis.

the project’s final report in 2014).

32 The Census Bureau does not release any data for these housing indicators even at the national or regional levels in the 1-year ACS series so we cannot present 2000/2008/2010 comparisons for them similar to what we were able to do for selected economic indicators in Section 3.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

50

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

The larger tribal areas account for 93

According to the decennial census, the

percent of AIAN alone households in all

amount of housing available grew relatively

tribal areas in 2006–10. The selected AIAN

slowly in tribal areas compared to overall

counties and non-AIAN counties account for

U.S. experience. The number of housing

95 percent and 64 percent, respectively, of

units in tribal areas totaled 2.1 million in

the AIAN alone households in all counties in

2010, a sluggish 8.1-percent increase since

their categories. Thus, the indicators from

2000 (compared to a nationwide increase

this source capture the housing conditions

of 14 percent). Though the overall housing

for the majority of AIAN households,

increase in tribal areas was generally slow,

but they do not necessarily reflect the

tribal areas in some regions did experience

conditions in tribal areas and counties with

higher rates of housing construction (Figure

smaller AIAN populations.

5.1). The number of tribal area housing units in

Alaska increased by a rapid 23 percent. At the

Housing Characteristics in Tribal

other extreme, about 1,000 units were lost in

Areas and Surrounding Counties

Arizona/New Mexico tribal areas, a 0.7 percent

reduction. The growth rates for tribal areas in

Since 6 out of 10 AIAN people live in

the remaining regions ranged from 7.4 to 15

tribal areas or the surrounding counties,

percent, closer to the national average.

understanding AIAN housing conditions

should begin with reviewing the context of

the overall housing markets in those areas.

Figure 5.1. Percent Change in Housing Units by Area Type and Study Region, 2000 to 2010

35

Tribal areas

Surrounding counties

30

29.1

25

23.5

21.8

22.0

20

16.1

15.4

15

14.7

13.4

13.5

12.2

11.9

12.3

12.0

10

8.9

7.4

5

3.5

1.5

Percent change in housing units, 2000 to 2010

0

-0.7

-5

N. Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

S. Central

N. Plains

AZ/NM

CA/NV

Pacific NW

Alaska

Study region

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

51

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

In contrast to the slower tribal area

rate for surrounding counties fell in between

increases, the surrounding counties

at 13 percent. The tribal areas’ slow building

experienced higher growth than the

rate over the decade may have cushioned

national average. In these counties, units

them somewhat from the severe damage

increased by 15 percent, climbing to a total

felt in many areas due to the U.S. housing

of 25 million housing units in 2010. The

market crash. Their vacancy rate went up a

high growth rate of housing in surrounding

very small 0.4 percentage points from 2000

counties was largely driven by growth

to 2010, while the surrounding counties and

in three regions. These counties in the

the U.S. rates rose by about 2.4 percentage

Northern Plains and California/Nevada

points (Figure 5.2).

saw growth rates of 22 percent, and those

in the Arizona/New Mexico region rose by

Like changes in housing stock, the vacancy

29 percent.

rates for tribal areas vary widely by region

(Table 5.1). The highest vacancy rate for tribal

The decennial census measures vacant

areas in 2010 was found in California/Nevada,

housing units, defined as those habitable

where 31 percent of housing units stood

units that are absent of occupants as of April

empty (a slight decline from 34 percent in

1, 2010. The vacancy rate for tribal areas

2000). The lowest vacancy rates occurred in

reached 14 percent in 2010, higher than the

South Central tribal areas: 9.3 percent, which

average U.S. rate of 11 percent. The vacancy

was lower than the national average.

Figure 5.2. Vacancy Rates by Area Type, 2000 to 2010

16

2000

14.4

2010

14.0

14

13.0

12

11.4

10.5

10

9.0

8

6

4

Percent of housing units that are vacant

2

0

Total

Tribal areas

Surrounding counties

Area type

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

52

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

South Central was one of four regions where

region, where the average vacancy rate rose

vacancies decreased over the decade.

by 2.2 percentage points. On the other hand,

Tribal areas in Arizona/New Mexico present

the vacancy rates rose for tribal areas in the

the most extreme case—the vacancy rate

North Central region (up nearly 2 points to

dropped by 5.4 points to a still high 19

24 percent). This region also saw the highest

percent in 2010. This improvement went

overall increase in vacancy rates, up by 3.4

counter to the overall experience in this

points to 13.

Table 5.1. Housing Market Indicators by Area Type and Study Region, 2000 to 2010

Study Region

Total

N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains

AZ/NM

CA/NV

Pacific NW

Alaska

Housing Units (in thousands), 2010

Tribal areas

2,104

54

355

1,139

103

94

115

44

90

110

Surrounding counties

25,309

2,569

8,273

462

513

858

3,280

5,978

3,221

155

Percent Change in Housing Units, 2000 to 2010

Tribal areas

8.1

7.4

3.5

8.9

1.5

11.9

-0.7

12.3

14.7

23.5

Surrounding counties

17.8

12.2

13.4

13.5

15.4

21.8

29.1

22.0

16.1

12.0

Vacancy Rates, 2010

Tribal areas

14.4

24.1

10.4

13.3

9.3

19.9

18.6

31.3

16.6

21.8

Surrounding counties

13.0

17.4

13.9

9.4

9.6

12.2

15.4

11.1

9.2

12.6

Percentage Point Change in Vacancy Rates, 2000 to 2010

Tribal areas

0.4

1.9

-0.7

1.2

-1.8

2.0

-5.4

-2.5

2.7

1.0

Surrounding counties

2.5

2.8

2.9

0.4

-0.8

1.2

2.9

2.6

1.8

0.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

A high vacancy rate in a given area does

population in tribal areas. This finding is

not preclude there being a shortage of

consistent with the evaluation of the Indian

housing for particular groups in that area.

Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program that

The units that are vacant may not be

found that 70 percent of the tribal areas

useable by low-income AIAN families for

in their study reported vacancy rates of

cost, structural, or locational reasons. The

less than 5 percent for IHBG housing (Van

vacant units may be too expensive, too small

Otten et al. 2009). The interviews of local

for larger households, of poorer quality

housing officials and community leaders

than other housing stock in the area, or far

that will be conducted as part of this study

from employment centers. In fact, analysis

should shed some light on the vacancy

later in this section indicates a shortage of

issue. However, understanding the dynamics

affordable housing for the low-income AIAN

of tribal housing markets may inform plans

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

53

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

on how to address AIAN housing problems

similar to the overall change for the Nation.

discussed later in the section and merits

In other nonmetropolitan counties, AIAN

additional indepth research.

households also have greater opportunity for

homeownership, with 58 percent owning their

Homeownership

homes in 2010. This rate surprisingly fell very

As of 2010 more than 509,000 AIAN

little in the 2000s (0.3 points, compared to

households owned their homes nationwide.

2 points for all households in those counties).

This number increased significantly from 2000

In contrast to tribal areas, only 47 percent of

to 2010, up by 16 percent compared to an

AIAN households in the surrounding counties

8-percent increase for non-AIAN households.

and other metropolitan counties own their

However, the AIAN homeownership rate of

homes. Rates for both types of counties fell

54 percent is still considerably lower than the

slightly from 2000 to 2010.

non-AIAN rate of 65 percent.

Although AIAN homeownership rates

As discussed in the 1996 report, the lower

decreased in the United States as a whole,

homeownership rate is due to many barriers

rates actually increased in some areas. The

experienced by Native Americans and

AIAN homeownership rates in tribal areas

Alaska Natives. These include economic and

ranged from 54 percent in the Northern

geographic isolation, legal issues stemming

Plains region to 77 percent in the Arizona/

from limited rights over land, reluctance of

New Mexico region. The homeownership

private lenders to engage a tenuous market,

rate fell most sharply for tribal areas in

low incomes and poor credit histories, and

the South Central region, where rates

lack of financial literacy, among others

dropped by nearly 6 points to 71 percent.

(Kolluri and Rengert 2000, Todd and Burlon

Tribal areas in the North Central, Eastern,

2009, Listokin, Leichenko, and King 2006).

Pacific Northwest, and Alaska regions also

33

experienced significant reductions.

The causes of lower homeownership vary

greatly by region and area type. For example,

Within regions, homeownership rates in

research found that in the Ninth Federal

surrounding counties are lower than the

Reserve District, the ownership rate is

tribal area rates. In seven of the regions,

explained only in part by low incomes among

less than half of the AIAN households

Native American households. Even when

own their homes. A notable increase in

controlling for income and housing quality,

homeownership rates was seen in counties

there remain gaps in the homeownership

surrounding tribal areas in Oklahoma, where

rates between reservations in the District

the rate went up 4.5 points to 53 percent.

and those in other areas, and large and small

Subprime Lending

reservations. (Todd and Burlon 2009).

As we suggest above, greater access to

The diverse legal, economic, and

homeownership is typically a positive

cultural circumstances lead to different

economic signal for households and

homeownership outcomes. For example,

communities. Over the past several decades,

AIAN homeownership rates in tribal areas

one reason for increased access to ownership

overall are quite high—67 percent in 2010.

was the availability of subprime loans, many

The tribal area rate dropped by about

of which are characterized by adjustable rates,

1 percentage point from 2000 to 2010,

33 A range of strategies has been developed to overcome these barriers and improve ownership rates over the past two decades, including the lease-to-own Mutual Help program, flexible funds in the form of the Indian Housing Block Grant, loan guaranties, financial literacy programs, and improved economic conditions. See Kolluri and Rengert 2000 for more details.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

54

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

looser approval and underwriting guidelines,

loans made to non-Hispanic AIAN alone

and limited long-run affordability checks and

borrowers had high interest rates, compared

requirements (First Nations Development

to just 10 percent to non-Hispanic white

Institute 2008). As a result these loans have

borrowers.34 As the housing bubble inflated,

a much higher incidence of foreclosure.

the share increased for both populations

Several studies have shown minority groups

by about 8 points. By 2006, 34 percent of

were issued a disproportionate share of

owner-occupied purchase loans to AIAN

subprime mortgage loans (Bocian et al.

borrowers had high interest rates, compared

2006, Goldstein 2008, Jorgensen et al. 2008)

to 19 percent to whites (Figure 5.3).

and Native Americans were no exception.

Detailed data on mortgages from the Home

The same pattern is noted for refinanced

Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reveals stark

loans. In 2004, 27 percent of owner-occupied

differences in prevalence of loans with high

conventional refinance loans to non-Hispanic

interest rates (one way of measuring subprime

AIAN alone owner-occupants had high

lending) between Native American and white

interest rates, compared to 13 percent to

mortgage borrowers.

non-Hispanic whites. By 2006, both shares

increased by approximately 12 points: Native

In 2004, 26 percent of all owner-occupied

American borrowers to 39 percent and white

conventional home purchase mortgage

borrowers to 26 percent.35

Figure 5.3. Home Purchase Mortgage Loans With High Interest Rates by Race, 2004 to 2006

16

Non-Hispanic AIAN alone 2010

36.8

Non-Hispanic white alone

14

34.4

12

25.9

10

8

18.2

18.6

6

10.2

4

mortgage loans that had high interest rates

2

Percent of owner-occupied conventionaal home purchase

0

2004

2005

2006

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, 2004 to 2006

34 Loans with high interest rates in 2004 to 2006 have Annual Percentage Rates exceeding the comparable Treasury yield by 3 percentage points or more for first-liens. Conventional refers to a loan not insured by a government program, like Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs. These indicators include any loans to borrowers in Hawaii.

35 A forthcoming report on lending practices in Indian Country will be a substantial portion of this assessment of Native American housing conditions and will include indepth analysis of secondary data sources as well as interviews with housing practitioners and lenders in Indian Country.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

55

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

Housing Structure Type

differences. In tribal areas, almost three-

quarters of both AIAN and non-AIAN

Across the area types and racial groups,

households live in single detached homes

more households reside in single-family,

(Figure 5.4). In the surrounding counties

detached homes than other types of

and other metropolitan areas, a little more

housing, and this rate has grown over the

than half of the AIAN households live in

past decade. About 63 percent of all U.S.

single-family detached homes. The greatest

households live in detached homes in

difference is between AIAN households

2006–10, while about 60 percent of AIAN

and non-AIAN households in surrounding

households do so. This rate has risen by 2.6

counties, where the AIAN rate is about 12

percentage points for AIAN and 1.8 for non-

percentage points below the non-AIAN rate.

AIAN households since 2000.

Nationally, the gap between AIAN and non-

AIAN likelihood of living in single-family

detached homes is relatively small, but

the overall values mask major geographic

Figure 5.4. AIAN Alone Housing Structure Type by Area Type, 2006–10

100

Mobile home/RV

7.8

12.8

13.2

Townhouse/multifamily

90

16.6

18.1

Single-family detached

80

9.9

26.8

37.7

19.1

70

35.0

60

50

40

73.6

62.8

30

60.5

54.4

51.8

20

10

Percent of AIAN alone households that live in each housing structure type

0

Total

Tribal areas

Surrounding counties

Other metropolitan

Other nonmetropolitan

counties

counties

Area type

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2006–10

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

56

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

Another striking difference in housing type

low-cost shelter, these homes are less

between AIAN and non-AIAN households

valuable as an asset and more vulnerable to

is in the shares that live in other types of

environmental elements (Cooper 2011).

housing, which includes mobile homes and

recreational vehicles (RVs). In 2006–10,

Housing Characteristics and

13 percent of AIAN households resided

Problems: Larger Tribal Areas

in these homes, twice the rate of non-

As mentioned in the introduction, the

AIAN households. Across area types, the

remainder of this section is based on data

share of AIANs living in mobile homes or

from the ACS Selected Population Tables,

other housing was highest in tribal areas

2006–10. These summary tables for racial

(17 percent) and other nonmetropolitan

groups are only produced for geographic

counties (18 percent). The shares in

areas where there is a population of at least

surrounding counties and other metropolitan

50 individuals of a given race; and likewise,

areas were lower at 13 and 7.8 percent,

estimates are not produced for those

respectively. The rates of AIAN households

tribal areas and counties not meeting the

living in these other structure types are

threshold. Although not ideal, we judged

higher than those for non-AIAN households

this data source to be acceptable for this

in all area types, but the largest difference of

analysis because the geographies that do

6.3 points is in the surrounding counties.

meet the population threshold cover a large

AIAN households residing in mobile homes

proportion of AIAN alone households. Even

or RVs have decreased by 1.6 percentage

with the limitations, this data source gives

points overall and in all area types since

us more information about the housing

2000. The biggest decrease was seen in

characteristics and problems than we could

nonmetropolitan areas, where the percent

obtain from the decennial census and

residing in other types of housing dropped

standard ACS 5-year data alone.

from 23 in 2000, to 18 in 2006–10. The rates

The coverage of the data set requires that we

in the remaining area types each dropped

change our comparison geographies in this

between 1 and 2 points.

section (noted below and described in more

Mobile homes are often the cheapest form

detail in Appendix 1 for a full explanation).36 In

of housing and are easiest to acquire in

addition to the United States, the geographic

rural areas due to the limited availability

levels available for this analysis are:

of traditional housing contractors and

• Larger tribal areas: 230 tribal areas,

developers (George et al. 2002). Further,

accounting for 93 percent of AIAN

the regulatory environment in tribal areas

households in tribal areas.

is not conducive to private land ownership;

most land is held in trust by the U.S.

• Selected counties: 574 counties had large

government, so financing for housing

enough AIAN populations to have AIAN

construction is challenging. Nonpermanent

estimates. The AIAN households in these

housing structures offer a solution to this

counties account for 83 percent of all AIAN

common problem. Although such housing

households in all counties. For the analysis

may provide the population with needed

we split these counties in two groups:

36 As before, we present data by region, but our methodology in this section for assigning the 13 tribal areas that cross study regions differs slightly from earlier analysis in this chapter. For the earlier sections, we used data published for summary level 280 (by State and tribal area), so could apportion the values for these tribal areas across multiple regions. For the analysis based on the ACS Selected Population data, we used the data for the tribal area summary level 250 (not divided by State) in order to minimize the exclusion of geographic areas due to low AIAN population. Unlike the earlier sections, the analysis based on the ACS Selected Population data assigns the values for each cross-region tribal area to the region that accounted for the majority of its population.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

57

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

o Selected AIAN counties: 333 counties

units. About 57 percent of AIAN households

that contain tribal areas, accounting for

lived in units with three or more bedrooms

95 percent of AIAN households in AIAN

in 2006–10, lower than the 62 percent for

counties. Note these are entire counties,

all households. About 74 percent of AIAN

not the “surrounding counties” used in

owners lived in the larger units, also lower

the earlier sections.

than the rate for all households. However,

AIAN renters were considerably more

o Selected non-AIAN counties: 241

likely to live in these larger units than all

counties that do not contain tribal

households (37 percent versus 29 percent).

areas, accounting for 64 percent of

AIAN households in non-AIAN counties.

Across area types, AIAN housing unit size

does not vary much for owners, but there is

• United States: 100 percent of all AIAN

a considerable range for renters. Fifty-four

households, including Hawaii.

percent of AIAN renters in larger tribal areas

The structure of the ACS Selected

lived in units with three or more bedrooms,

Population data also requires a change in

compared to 41 percent in the selected AIAN

the comparison race. In previous analyses,

counties and 29 percent in other counties.

we subtracted the AIAN households from

This aligns with the general pattern of larger

the total households to calculate values

families in tribal areas. It also reflects the

for non-AIAN. Since the AIAN households

type of housing available in larger tribal

are suppressed in areas that do not meet

areas since all households in these areas live

the population threshold, performing the

in a similar higher share of large units.

same calculation would result in a figure

Housing Values and Rents

representing both the non-AIAN population

and the AIAN population in the suppressed

Given that American Indian and Alaska

areas. Instead, for analysis based on this

Native households have lower incomes than

data source, we compare AIAN housing

non-AIAN households, it makes sense that

indicators to indicators for all households.

the home values for AIAN owners would be

lower than for all households. The average

Housing Age and Size

home value for AIAN homeowners in 2006–

In 2006–10, one quarter of all AIAN

10 was $175,000—about 66 percent of the

households lived in buildings built before

average for all households in 2006–10. The

1960. The share is much lower for larger

gap has increased since 2000, when the

tribal areas (15 percent) and selected AIAN

average value for AIAN owner-occupied

counties (18 percent). In the selected non-

homes was 69 percent of the average for all

AIAN counties, the rates of living in housing

owner-occupied homes.

built before 1960 are very similar for AIAN

The values for AIAN homeowners in larger

and all households—about one-third. For

tribal areas and in AIAN counties overall

AIAN households, these rates do not vary

were much lower than the U.S. average,

much by tenure; 23 percent of AIAN owners

$112,000 and $152,000 respectively. Given

live in homes built before 1960, and 27

that these values are from a period that

percent of renters do as well.

includes the end of the housing boom,

With larger household sizes, as discussed

values for all area types were lower in

in Section 3, one might expect that AIAN

regions that were hard hit by the crash, such

households would live in larger housing

as California and other parts of the West.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

58

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

Relatively slower growth in home values

attribute relates to the relationship between

for AIAN households in the selected AIAN

the number of people living in the unit and

counties led to the widening of the gap

the amount of space available, that is, the

relative to the average home value for all

extent of overcrowding.

households. After adjusting for inflation,

home values rose by 46 percent from 2000

Quality. This attribute is most complex

to 2006–10 for all households in the selected

because it has three aspects, two of which

AIAN counties, but only rose 29 percent for

are difficult to define and measure reliably:

AIAN homeowners in the same areas. The

• Facilities problems: This is the easiest

growth rates in larger tribal areas and non-

to measure. Problems exist when a unit

AIAN counties were similar for AIAN owners

1) lacks adequate plumbing, kitchen,

and all owners.

electrical and/or heating facilities; or 2)

AIAN renter households on average paid

such facilities do not function properly; or

$700 in gross rent in 2006–10. Like home

3) they constitute a safety hazard.

values, these rents were lower than for all

• Condition problems: These occur when

renter households. However, AIAN gross

the unit was built inadequately (or

rents were about 80 percent of those for all

has since deteriorated) such that it is

renters, a smaller difference than was the

structurally unsafe or offers inadequate

case with home values. Rents averaged a

protection from the elements. These

very low $440 in the larger tribal areas, rising

have been traditionally hard to rate in an

to $630 in AIAN counties. AIAN households

objective manner.

experienced a much smaller increase in

rents than all renters, with an increase of

• Design problems: These relate to the

5.6 percent compared to 42 percent for all

physical arrangement and characteristics

renters, after controlling for inflation.

of external features and interior spaces,

whether they are deemed to be attractive

Housing Problems

and functionally convenient. For several

and Needs—Framework

reasons—including the fact that tastes

vary—an objective rating scheme for this

The Urban Institute’s earlier report on AIAN

aspect has never been devised.

housing (Kingsley et al. 1996) reviewed

the history of America’s concern with

Price. Under this attribute, problems exist

housing conditions since the late 1800s and

when families are forced to pay higher

presented a framework for understanding

housing expenses than they can reasonably

the measures that together define

afford, that is, such that they do not have

“inadequate” housing. With few changes,

enough money left over for adequate food,

that framework is again adopted for this

clothing, and other necessities of life.

report. It notes that there are three defining

attributes: quantity, quality, and price.

The actual rating of housing conditions in

an area requires defining specific standards

Quantity. At the marketwide level, this

related to each of the attributes above.

attribute relates to whether the number of

In this study, we rely on well-accepted

housing units can accommodate the number

standards used by HUD in its recurrent

of households that will live in the area

“Worst-Case Housing Needs” reports to

(taking into account vacancies and likely

Congress (see Hardiman et al. 2010, and

future growth). Within an existing unit, this

Steffan et al. 2011). These standards relate

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

59

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

to all elements of the framework presented

needs analyses (Steffen et al. 2011). We will

above, except for “design problems,” for

be able to report on these aspects for tribal

which as noted, an objective rating scheme

areas in this study’s final report, using results

has never been devised.

from our household survey.37

Quantity Standards. In the HUD standard,

Price Standards. In the HUD standards, a

and in U.S. Census Bureau reports, a housing

household is deemed to pay an excessive

unit is defined to be overcrowded if it has

amount for housing (have an excessive

more than 1 person per room, and severely

“housing cost burden”) if its outlays for

overcrowded households have more than 1.5

housing exceed 30 percent of its income.

persons per room. The denominator of total

HUD classifies housing expenses in excess of

rooms include living rooms, dining rooms,

50 percent of income as a “severe” housing

kitchens, bedrooms, finished recreation

cost burden.

rooms, enclosed porches suitable for year-

round use, and lodger’s rooms.

Housing Problems

and Needs—Quantity

Quality Standards. Census data are only

available pertaining to a part of the facilities

Though cultural standards play a role in

problems aspect of this item. The census

whether the HUD definition of overcrowding

and ACS surveys ask whether a unit has

indicates a housing problem, it provides

adequate kitchen and plumbing facilities,

one metric to assess housing need related

and we report on data derived from these

to quantity of housing. In 2006–10,

questions for the AIAN population.

65,000 households or 8.1 percent of all

AIAN households were overcrowded, and

As noted in the introduction to this section,

about one-third of these households were

the census does not have information on

severely overcrowded. AIAN households

two other critical aspects of housing quality:

were much more likely to be overcrowded

1) the existence of adequate heating and

than all households (3.1 percent). AIAN

electrical systems; and 2) structural quality

renter households were more likely to be

measures (for example, leaks, holes, or

overcrowded (10.2 percent) than AIAN

cracks in the walls or ceiling)—now termed

owner households (6.4 percent) (Table 5.2).

“upkeep problems” in HUD’s worst case

37 The instrument for that survey uses the same questions and observational approaches used for the HUD reports (based on the American Housing Survey instrument).

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

60

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

Table 5.2. Facility and Crowding Indicators by Race and Area Type, 2006-10

AIAN Alone Households

Total Households

Larger

Selected

Selected

Larger

Selected

Selected

Total

Tribal

AIAN

Non-AIAN

Total

Tribal

AIAN

Non-AIAN

U.S.

Areas

Counties

Counties

U.S.

Areas

Counties

Counties

Percent of Households that are Overcrowded

(more than 1.0 person per room)

Total

8.1

11.3

10.0

6.7

3.1

3.9

3.7

4.0

Owner

6.4

10.3

8.6

3.9

1.7

2.9

2.2

2.0

Renter

10.2

13.1

11.7

9.5

6.0

6.0

6.7

7.3

Percent of Occupied Housing Units Lacking

Complete Plumbing Facilities

Total

2.9

6.1

4.4

1.0

0.5

1.6

0.6

0.5

Owner

3.7

7.6

5.8

0.8

0.4

1.6

0.5

0.3

Renter

1.9

3.3

2.5

1.1

0.8

1.5

0.8

0.8

Percent of Occupied Housing Units Lacking

Complete Kitchen Facilities

Total

2.8

5.4

3.9

1.4

0.8

1.6

0.9

0.8

Owner

3.3

6.5

5.0

0.8

0.4

1.5

0.5

0.4

Renter

2.2

3.2

2.5

1.9

1.5

2.0

1.6

1.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Selected Population Tables, 2006-10

The highest incidence of overcrowding was

percent). AIAN counties in four regions

in larger tribal areas, where 11 percent of

(North Central, Eastern, Oklahoma, and

households were overcrowded, compared

South Central) all had lower than average

to 3.1 percent for all U.S. households. The

AIAN overcrowding rates, ranging from 4.1

10 percent AIAN overcrowding rate for

to 7.2 percent.

AIAN counties was nearly as high as for the

tribal area rates. We cannot report reliably

The limited sample size means that specific

on trends since 2000, due to a change in

rates for larger tribal areas for some regions

the census questionnaire, but the 2006–10

have wide margins of error, but examining

disparity between AIAN and all households

the indicators in relation to the AIAN counties

and among geographic types appear similar

reveals a consistent pattern. Overcrowding

to 2000 patterns.

in larger tribal areas is worse than for AIAN

counties in every region, with the largest

Selected AIAN counties in Arizona/New

gap of 3 to 4 percentage points for Arizona/

Mexico and Alaska exhibited the highest

New Mexico and Alaska. The variation in

rates of AIAN overcrowding in 2006–10,

overcrowding among regional tribal areas

16 percent and 22 percent respectively.

closely follows the variation among the AIAN

Overcrowding was also a serious problem

counties (Pearson coefficient of 99 percent).

in the Northern Plains AIAN counties (13

This means a region with high rates for AIAN

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

61

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

counties also has high rates for their tribal

In 2006–10, the inadequacy rates were more

areas relative to other regions.

than twice as high for AIAN households in

larger tribal areas than in the United States

Housing Problems

as a whole; this was true for both incomplete

and Needs—Facilities

plumbing (6.1 percent) and kitchen facilities

(5.4 percent), as compared to 0.5 and 0.8

Almost 3 percent of AIAN households

percent for all U.S. households, respectively.

lacked complete plumbing facilities in

The problems for AIAN households were

2006–10, more than five times the share for

also high in the selected AIAN counties (4.4

all households (Table 5.2). A similar share of

for plumbing and 3.9 percent for kitchen

AIAN households lacked complete kitchen

facilities). Both indicators have improved for

facilities, a rate 3.5 times as high as for all

AIAN households over the last decade. The

households. Contrary to the pattern for

rates for incomplete kitchen and plumbing for

overcrowding, owners are more likely to

AIAN households fell by about one-third from

have incomplete plumbing (3.7 percent) than

2000 to 2006–10 in all area types.

renters (1.9 percent). The incomplete kitchen

patterns parallel those for plumbing; the rate

As noted in the 1996 report, AIAN households

for this problem for owners (3.3 percent) is

living in AIAN counties in the Arizona/New

higher than for renters (2.2 percent).

Mexico and Alaska regions are more likely to

have housing quality problems than in other

The spatial patterns for both plumbing and

areas of the country. In the AIAN counties of

kitchen problems are very similar (Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.5. Facilities Problems by Area Type, 2000 and 2006–10

10

9.5

2000

2006-10

9

8.3

8

7

6.8

6.1

6.0

6

5.4

5

4.4

4

3.9

3

2

1

Percent of AIAN alone households with incomplete facilities

0

Larger tribal areas

Selected AIAN counties

Larger tribal areas

Selected AIAN counties

Plumbing

Kitchen

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000, and American Community Survey, Selected Population Tables, 2006–10

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

62

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

Arizona/New Mexico, 9.8 percent of AIAN

Housing Problems and Needs—Price

households have incomplete plumbing and

8.5 percent lack complete kitchen facilities.

About 291,000 AIAN households paid more

The comparable numbers for AIAN counties

than 30 percent of their income on housing

in the Alaska region were 18 percent for

in 2006–10. This translates to almost 4 out

plumbing and 15 percent for kitchen facilities.

of 10 AIAN households with excessive cost

Although the problems still far exceed those

burdens, a slightly higher percentage than

in any other region, the incomplete plumbing

for all households. The share of AIAN and all

and kitchen rates decreased by 6 to 7 points

households paying more than 30 percent of

between 2000 and 2006–10 for both regions.

their income on housing was roughly equal,

AIAN households in the remaining regions

but AIAN households were more likely to be

experience fewer facilities problems, ranging

severely cost-burdened—paying more than

from 0.5 to 2.7 percent.

50 percent of their income on housing—than

non-AIAN households (19 versus 16 percent).

As with overcrowding, the relative rankings

for larger tribal areas across regions for

Unlike the progress in facilities and

physical deficiencies mirror the selected

overcrowding, housing affordability

AIAN counties (92 to 93 percent correlated).

problems are on the rise. The cost-burdened

The largest apparent difference is in Arizona/

rate went up 5.9 points for AIAN households

New Mexico, where rates of incomplete

from 2000 to 2006–10, a lower increase

plumbing and kitchens in larger tribal areas

than the 8.4 points for all households.

are 7 and 6 points higher, respectively, than

Renter households median income in 2006–

the selected AIAN county rates.

10 was about $26,100, about half of that for

Improvements to the quality of housing in the

owners. Thus, it is not surprising that renters

Arizona/New Mexico and Alaska regions have

have a harder time affording housing than

been the result of heightened interest and

owners in all area types. More than half of

targeted infrastructure investments. Without

AIAN renters pay unaffordable housing costs,

accompanying maintenance efforts, however,

about the same share as all renters, and more

the recent improvements may be temporary.

than one-quarter are severely cost burdened.

Many improvements were made with one-

Only 3 out of 10 AIAN homeowners were

time grants or development investments (All

cost-burdened, a slightly lower rate than for

Things Considered 2012), and without ongoing

all owners, and much lower than for AIAN

repairs, conditions can quickly deteriorate.

renter households (Table 5.3).

In the Alaska region, especially, housing and

plumbing are vulnerable to extreme weather

conditions. Pipes freeze during the winter

and winds can damage siding and roofs. As a

result, maintaining the integrity of housing and

its support systems is expensive. If funding for

maintenance is not incorporated into housing

improvement investment, any gains in facilities

could be lost.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

63

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

Table 5.3. Housing Affordability by Race and Area Type, 2006–10

AIAN Alone Households

Total Households

Larger

Selected

Selected

Larger

Selected

Selected

Total

Tribal

AIAN

Non-AIAN

Total

Tribal

AIAN

Non-AIAN

U.S.

Areas

Counties

Counties

U.S.

Areas

Counties

Counties

Percent of Households by Share of Income Spent on Housing

Total

30 percent or more

38.4

25.2

33.8

45.8

37.0

28.2

40.6

39.9

50 percent or more

18.5

12.0

15.9

22.8

16.4

12.1

18.2

18.2

Owner

30 percent or more

29.1

19.6

24.9

37.3

30.6

22.1

34.6

33.1

50 percent or more

12.6

8.8

10.7

16.3

12.0

8.6

14.0

13.3

Renter

30 percent or more

50.9

37.8

47.3

54.6

50.9

44.2

52.8

51.5

50 percent or more

26.5

19.2

23.7

29.5

25.9

21.3

26.6

26.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Selected Population Tables, 2006-10

Housing costs are more affordable than

By far, the households in the selected

average in tribal areas and AIAN counties.

AIAN counties in the California/Nevada

Only about one-quarter of AIAN households

region suffer the greatest financial housing

on tribal areas and one-third in AIAN

hardship (Figure 5.6). About half of AIAN

counties were cost-burdened in 2006–10.

householders in that region paid more than

In both area types, these rates were lower

30 percent of their income on housing,

than those for all households. Only in non-

slightly more than the rate for all households

AIAN counties do AIAN households have

in 2006–10. Selected AIAN counties in the

higher rates of cost burden than non-

Pacific Northwest and Eastern regions also

AIAN households: in the selected non-

had rates well above the average, 41 and

AIAN counties, 46 percent of AIAN alone

37 percent, respectively. Although AIAN

households paid more than 30 percent of

counties in Arizona/New Mexico ranked

their income for housing, compared to a

among the highest on overcrowding and

40-percent average for all households in

facilities, their cost-burdened rate was the

those counties. The non-AIAN counties

lowest at 28 percent, well below the 34

had the highest rates of cost burden (46

percent for all households in the region.

percent) and the greatest increase among

Oklahoma and South Central were very close

the area types since 2000 (8.7 points).

behind at 29 and 30 percent, respectively.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

64

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

Figure 5.6. Percent of AIAN Alone Households That Are Cost Burdened in Selected AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2006–10

n

60

50.0

50

41.0

40

37.4

35.0

31.5

30

29.3

29.6

29.7

27.7

20

10

30 percent of their income on housing costs, 2006-10

0

Percent of AIAN alone households that are paying more tha

N. Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

S. Central

N. Plains

AZ/NM

CA/NV

Pacific NW

Alaska

Study region

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Selected Population Tables, 2006–10

Housing affordability rates for selected AIAN

affordability overlap. Although not directly

counties and larger tribal areas do not track

comparable to the 2006–10 ACS Special

across regions as they do for overcrowding

Populations data above, the Consolidated

and physical housing problems. (Pearson

Planning data set derived from the 2005–09

coefficient of 11 percent). Cost burden rates

ACS can shed some light on the patterns of

are lower in tribal areas than AIAN counties in

housing needs overall. This special tabulation

every region. The most extreme differences

produced for HUD reports on households

are in regions that we have noted as having

with one or more housing problem (physical

the worst affordability problems for AIAN

problems, overcrowding, or cost burden).

counties. The cost burden rate for larger

tribal areas in California is 26 points below

About 41 percent of AIAN households

the AIAN county rate, and the corresponding

in 2005–09 had at least one housing

gap for the Pacific Northwest is 15 points. The

problem, compared to 36 percent of

higher incidence of housing quality problems

all households. This rate exceeded

in tribal areas described earlier likely

the AIAN cost-burdened share of 33

contributes to the lower housing costs.

percent, indicating that 7 percent of AIAN

households have physical or overcrowding

Overall Incidence

problems but not financial ones. The share

of Housing Problems

of all AIAN households with any housing

problem in AIAN counties was very similar

We have only limited information from

to the U.S. figure, but AIAN households in

published data on how the problems of

other metropolitan counties had a slightly

overcrowding, physical deficiencies, and

higher share of housing problems.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

65

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

Consistent with their much higher share

The regional story mirrors the one told above

with cost burdens, renters were also more

for the individual housing needs indicators

likely to have one or more housing problem

(Figure 5.7). AIAN counties in the Alaska

than owners. About half of AIAN renters had

region, which exhibited the highest rate of

at least one housing problem in 2005–09,

physical deficiencies, exhibited the highest

while only about one-third of AIAN owners

share of AIAN households with any housing

did during the same period.

problem (54 percent). The next two highest

were AIAN counties in California/Nevada

Expectedly, low-income households are more

and Arizona/New Mexico, with about 44

vulnerable than other households. Nearly

percent. We can surmise that the nature of

8 out of 10 AIAN households earning 30

the housing problems differs between these

percent or less of the metropolitan median

two regions, since the former had the highest

family income had at least one housing

share with cost burdens and the latter the

problem in 2005–09, and about 6 out of

worst incidence of overcrowding. AIAN

10 households with 30 to 50 percent of

counties in the Oklahoma and South Central

area median income did. AIAN households

regions had the lowest shares of AIAN

nationally have lower or equal rates of

households with any housing problem, 30

housing problems within each income

and 31 percent, respectively.

category than all households. This means

that the higher rates of housing needs for

AIAN households overall are driven by having

higher shares of low-income households.

Figure 5.7. Percent of AIAN Households With One or More Housing Problems in AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2005–2009

60

54.2

s

50

44.3

44.5

39.7

39.9

40

36.7

35.3

31.3

29.8

30

20

Percent of AIAN alone household

10

0

N. Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

S. Central

N. Plains

AZ/NM

CA/NV

Pacific NW

Alaska

Study region

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Consolidated Planning Special Tabulations 2005–2009

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

66

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

Implications

and about one-third of the AIAN owners are

paying unaffordable housing costs. Since

Like the population and socioeconomic

rents and home values are lower on average

analysis in earlier sections, AIAN housing

than for non-Indians, AIAN households having

conditions and needs in tribal areas are

lower-than-average income appear to be the

different than in other geographic areas, and

root of the cost burden rates. This means

the policy solutions will need to be crafted

that education and workforce development,

appropriately. One concern in four regions

in addition to traditional housing programs,

(Plains, North Central, Alaska, and California/

can contribute to the alleviation of housing

Nevada) is the large share of vacant housing

problems. In short, the signs of improvement

in tribal housing markets. Tribal areas in

for AIAN households living in and outside of

these regions had one-fifth or more of their

tribal areas should be welcomed, but with

housing units standing vacant, indicating

4 out of 10 AIAN households suffering from

either low levels of demand or a mismatch

at least one housing problem, much work

between the supply of vacant housing and

remains to be done.

the needs of the tribal residents. The high

vacancy rates may contribute to the lower

home values and less household wealth for

AIAN owners.

The declining AIAN homeownership rate

signals another area of concern, although

homeownership as an asset-building strategy

should be considered in the light of local

housing markets. The other components

of this research project—the lender study,

household survey, and interviews with local

tribal leaders—should shed light on the level

of interest in homeownership and the current

barriers for AIAN households wishing to

purchase a home.

Our analysis of housing problems

demonstrated the continuing hardship

that many AIAN households face. Sharp

reductions in facilities problems in tribal

areas since 2000 are an important advance

in meeting the housing needs of American

Indians and Alaska Natives. But AIAN

households still experience these problems

at extremely high rates, particularly in larger

tribal areas in the Arizona/New Mexico and

Alaska regions.

Housing affordability persists as the most

prevalent housing problem among AIAN

households. More than half of AIAN renters

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

67

Section 6. Conclusions

6. Conclusions

to housing assistance are generally the same

for Indians as for other Americans.

The Urban Institute’s 1996 report

Changing Circumstances

reviewed the socioeconomic and housing

in Indian Country

circumstances of the American Indian

and Alaska Native (AIAN) population in

In the 2000s the AIAN population in tribal

a comprehensive manner, comparing

areas grew in eight of our nine study regions

conditions across subjects and geographies,

and the growth was faster in the counties

mostly as of 1990. The current study was

surrounding those areas. Tribal areas and

designed to tell the story of what has

their surrounding counties accounted for

happened to this population over the two

two-thirds of the non-Hispanic AIAN alone

decades, adopting a similarly broad scope

population in 2010 and for three-quarters of

and structure.

its growth over the decade.

As noted in Section 1, this particular report,

Gaps in well-being between Indians and non-

which is based largely on census surveys,

Indians appear to have narrowed along some

can tell only a part of that story. Our field

dimensions since 2000, but sizable gaps

surveys, scheduled for completion in early

still remain. For example AIAN people living

2014, will fill in a wealth of details that will

in tribal areas in 2006–10 had poverty and

be critical to a full understanding of AIAN

unemployment rates that were more than

housing needs. This report does offer

twice as high as the rates for non-Indians

important new findings—some that would

nationally. Compared with the national

not have been anticipated in 1996. The

average, AIAN households in large tribal

picture is not a simple one; there are major

areas were twice as likely to live in housing

variations across geography. It is a story of

that was overcrowded and 12 times more

both continuity and change.

likely to live in housing that did not have

adequate plumbing facilities. In these areas 17

Our conclusions are presented in two

percent of AIAN households lived in mobile

parts because U.S. policy toward the AIAN

homes or RVs compared with an average of 6

population varies markedly by geography.

percent for all households nationally.

The first part deals with circumstances

in Indian Country, the areas where the

These indicators are enough to suggest that,

Native American Housing Assistance and

while there have been improvements, the

Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) is the

housing problems of the AIAN population

dominant framework for the delivery of

in tribal areas overall may still be the most

housing assistance. The second part deals

severe of any group in the Nation. The

with the rest of the Nation, where approaches

household surveys will provide information

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

68

Section 6. Conclusions

on the other physical housing conditions and

Circumstances for Indians

the perceptions of the residents, allowing us

in the Rest of the Nation

to draw more definitive conclusions about

the problems and needs in Indian Country.

Although the growth rate of the non-

Hispanic AIAN alone population was

The data also indicate large differences

about the same as that of the Nation as a

in tribal area socioeconomic and housing

whole in the 2000s (8.6 and 9.7 percent,

conditions by region. In 2006–10, AIAN

respectively), the rates were much faster for

tribal area poverty rates in the nine study

two other subgroups who identified their

regions varied from 23 percent in Oklahoma

race as Indian: AIAN multirace (41 percent)

and Alaska to 41 percent in the Northern

and AIAN alone Hispanic (64 percent).

Plains region. The share of households in

Two-thirds of the growth of these latter

larger tribal areas with inadequate plumbing

two groups took place outside of Indian

facilities ranged from about 1 percent in

Country, mostly in metropolitan areas. By

six regions to 17 percent in Arizona/New

2010 the AIAN alone Hispanic population

Mexico. Differences like these must be

reached 468,000, and the AIAN multiracial

kept in mind as policymakers and program

population rose to 1.52 million.

managers consider strategies to address

housing needs.

The marked growth in the multiracial AIAN

and AIAN Hispanic population underscores

Our current study was not designed as an

the need to examine conditions for the AIAN

overall assessment of NAHASDA, but we

population outside of Indian Country. Though

expect our Tribally Designated Housing

there may have been some improvements,

Entities (TDHE) survey to shed light on

the latest data available show that the AIAN

both problems and opportunities in housing

populations living outside of Indian County

program implementation in Indian Country.

are still not doing as well as their non-Indian

In the later stages of this research, we will

counterparts in a number of ways. The

attempt to document approaches that seem

gaps, on average, are not as wide as for

to be taking advantage of the NAHASDA

Indians living in tribal areas, but they remain

environment to drive improvements in the

serious nonetheless. Sections 3 and 5 have

housing stock and the delivery of housing

documented, for example, that in metro

services. The data collection will explore how

areas outside of Indian Country, Indians

program managers assess the barriers they

face considerably more serious problems

face in administering Indian Housing Block

than non-Indians with respect to poverty,

Grant (IHBG) resources and gather their

employment rate, and housing cost burden.

views of opportunities to stimulate private

investment in housing for tribal members.

As noted, Indians living outside of tribal

Interviews in our site visits will permit us to

areas are served by the same housing

explore the potential for private housing

assistance programs that serve other

investment in Indian Country in more depth

Americans without any preferential

and to learn more about differences in

treatment. Funding for these programs is

market potential in different regions. Further,

being reduced overall. Across metropolitan

our survey of private lenders will provide

areas, there are notable differences in

another perspective on this issue and will

AIAN population growth as well as living

contribute to our understanding of access to

conditions. This gives special emphasis to

private investment in tribal areas.

our upcoming study of Indians in urban

areas to provide greater understanding

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

69

Section 6. Conclusions

of the well-being of different subgroups

among the overall AIAN population in these

areas. We plan to learn about changes in

other service programs as well as housing

problems, and we plan assessments that are

qualitative as well as quantitative.

Summary

The last decade has seen progress in some

measures of housing problems and related

socioeconomic measures for the AIAN

population, but the marked disparities

with non-Indian people that were noted

in the 1996 report persist today. Although

it is good that the AIAN community was

not disproportionately hit by the Great

Recession, the economic situation for AIAN

families has worsened considerably in the

past few years, exacerbating already high

levels of housing problems.

This report confirms the necessity of

examining issues by type of area and by

region to understand the diverse contexts in

which Indians live. Geography, governance,

cultural context, and land use vary and affect

the housing needs of residents. This report

also confirms the importance of considering

socioeconomic and economic development

trends, as well as tribal context, in assessing

housing needs and conditions. Education,

workforce development, and traditional

housing assistance play a critical role in

alleviating housing problems.

The interim report provides an important

backdrop for the project’s remaining data

collection activities. The continuing housing

hardship experienced by AIAN households

is severe, with 4 out of 10 having at least

one housing problem. Combining our

observations from the secondary data with

the insights from the primary data will offer

a fuller picture of AIAN housing needs, but

the data analyzed here already call for the

policy community’s attention.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

70

References

References

Chickasaw Nation. 2013. “About Tribal

Commerce.” http://www.chickasaw.

net/tribal_commerce/index_222.htm.

Alexander, Trent. 2011. American Community

Survey Steering Committee Updates.

Community Development Financial

“Presentation to the State Data

Institutions Fund. 2001. The Report of

Centers and Census Information

the Native American Lending Study.

Centers.” February 16.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

the Treasury. http://www.cdfifund.gov/

All Things Considered. 2012. “Remote

docs/2001_nacta_lending_study.pdf.

Alaskan Villages Get Indoor Plumbing.”

National Public Radio. October 18.

Cooper, Kenneth J. 2011. “As Housing

Shortage Worsens, Tribes Forced to

Arias, Elizabeth, William S. Schauman, Karl

Use FEMA Trailers.” America’s Wire.

Eschbach, Paul D. Sorlie, and Eric

May 2. http://newamericamedia.

Backlund. 2008. “The Validity of

org/2011/05/as-housing-crisis-

Race and Hispanic Origin Reporting

escalates-native-american-tribes-use-

on Death Certificates in the United

fema-mobile-homes.php

States.” Vital and Health Statistics,

Series 2, Number 148, October.

Cornell, Stephen, and Joseph P. Kalt. 1989.

Pathways from Poverty: Development

Austin, Algernon. 2009. American Indians

and Institute Building on American

and the Great Recession: Economic

Indian Reservations. Harvard Project

Disparities Growing Larger. Issue Brief

on American Indian Economic

#264. Washington, D.C.: Economic

Development. Cambridge, MA:

Policy Institute.

Harvard University. May.

Bank2. n.d. “About Us.” http://www.

. 1992. What Can Tribes Do?: Strategies

bank2online.com/about-us/

and Institutions in American Indian

about-us.html.

Economic Development. American

Indian Handbook and Manual Series

Bedré Fine Chocolate. 2006. “Our Company.”

No. 4. Los Angeles: American Indian

http://www.bedrechocolates.com/jsps/

Studies Center, University of California

company.jsp.

at Los Angeles.

Bocian, Debbie Gruenstein, Keith S. Ernst, and

De la Merced, Michael J. 2006. “Florida’s

Wei Li. 2006. Unfair Lending: The Effect

Seminole Tribe Buys Hard Rock Cafes

of Race and Ethnicity on the Price of

and Casinos.”

Subprime Mortgages.

The New York Times.

Washington, D.C.:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/

Center for Responsible Lending.

business/08rock.html?_r=0.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

71

References

DeWeaver, Norm. 2010. The American

Needs 2007: A Report to Congress.

Community Survey: Serious Implications

Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy

for Indian Country. Washington, D.C.:

Development and Research, U.S.

National Congress of American Indians

Department of Housing and

Policy Research Center.

Urban Development.

Dewees, Sarah, and Stewart Sarkozy-

Harvard Project on American Indian Economic

Banoczy. 2008. “Investing in Native

Development. 2003. Honoring Nations:

Community Change: Understanding

2003 Honoree Quil Ceda Village, The

the Role of Community Development

Tulalip Tribes (Tulalip, WA). Cambridge,

Financial Institutions.” http://www.

MA: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy

cdfifund.gov/impact_we_make/

School of Government.

research/rural-and-underserved-

markets/reports/Investing%20in%20

Harvard Project on American Indian

Native%20Community%20Change%20

Economic Development. 2008.

-%20Understanding%20the%20

The State of the Native Nations:

Role%20of%20Community%20

Conditions Under U.S. Policies of Self-

Development.pdf.

Determination. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

First Nations Development Institute. 2008.

Borrowing Trouble: Predatory Lending

Hillabrant, Walter, Judy Earp, Mack

in Native American Communities. See

Rhoades, and Nancy Pindus. 2004.

http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/

Overcoming Challenges to Business

Topics/Special%20Interest%20Areas/

and Economic Development in Indian

Other/ http://www.aecf.org/~/media/

Country. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica

Pubs/Topics/Special%20Interest%20

Policy Research.

Areas/Other/BorrowingTrouble

Ingram, DD, JD Parker, N Schenker, JA

PredatoryLendinginNativeAmeri/

Weed, B Hamilton, E Arias, JH

borrowing%20trouble.pdf

Madans. 2003. “United States Census

George, Lance, Eric Oberdorfer, Theresa

2000 population with bridged race

Singleton, Jen Wichmann, and Keith

categories.” National Center for Health

Wiley. 2002. Taking Stock: Rural

Statistics. Vital Health Statistics 2(135).

People, Poverty, and Housing at the

Joice, Paul, Ben J. Winter, Heidi Johnson,

Turn of the 21st Century. Washington,

and Abubakari Zuberi. 2011.

D.C.: Housing Assistance Council.

Redistribution Effect of Introducing

Goldstein, Ira, and Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg.

2010 Census and 2005–2009

2008. Subprime Lending, Mortgage

ACS Data into the CDBG Formula.

Foreclosures and Race: How far

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

have we come and how far have

Housing and Urban Development.

we to go? Philadelphia, PA: The

Jorgensen, Miriam, Sarah Dewees, and Karen

Reinvestment Fund.

Edwards. 2008. Borrowing Trouble:

Hardiman, David L., Carolyn Lynch, Marge

Predatory Lending in Native American

Martin, Barry L. Steffen, David A.

Communities. Longmont, CO: First

Vandenbroucke, Yung Gann, and

Nations Development Institute.

David Yao. 2010. Worst Case Housing

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

72

References

Katz, Bruce, and Margery Austin Turner.

Masnick, George S., Daniel McCue, and

2007. Rethinking U.S. Rental Housing

Eric S. Belsky. 2010. Updated 2010–

Policy. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for

2020 Household and New Home

Housing Studies, Harvard University.

Demand Projections. Cambridge,

MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies,

Kingsley, G. Thomas, Virginia E. Spencer, John

Harvard University.

Simonson, Carla E. Herbig, Nancy Kay,

Maris Mikelsons, and Peter Tatian. 1996.

McAuley, William J. and Cheri L. Nutty.

Assessment of American Indian Housing

1982. “Residential Preferences and

Needs and Programs: Final Report.

Moving Behavior: A Family Life-Cycle

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Analysis.” Journal of Marriage and

Housing and Urban Development.

Family 44(2):301–309.

Kolluri, Lopa, and Kristopher M. Rengert.

National Indian Gaming Association. 2009.

2000. “Housing and Homeownership

“The Economic Impact of Indian

on American Indian Tribal Lands:

Gaming.” http://www.indiangaming.

Barriers, Progress, and the Promise

org/info/NIGA_2009_Economic_

of New Initiatives,” Housing Facts &

Impact_Report.pdf.

Findings. Fannie Mae Foundation. Fall

2000, Volume 2, Issue 3.

. 2011. “2010 National Indian Gaming

Association Annual Report.” http://

Listokin, David, with Robin Leichenko

www.indiangaming.org/info/2011_

and Juliet King. 2006. Housing and

Annual_Report.PDF.

Economic Development in Indian

Country: Challenge and Opportunity.

National Indian Gaming Commission.

Washington, D.C.: Rutgers University.

2012a. “Gaming Revenues 2007–2011.”

http://www.nigc.gov/Portals/0/

Livingston, Gretchen. 2011. In a Down

NIGC%20Uploads/Tribal%20Data/

Economy, Fewer Births. Washington,

GamingRevenues20072011.pdf.

D.C.: Pew Research Center. October 12.

. 2012b. “Growth in Indian Gaming

Lofquist, Daphne A. 2012. “Multigenerational

Graph 2002–2011.” http://www.nigc.

Households: 2009–2011.” Washington,

gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kxuWD3

D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce,

mc9Gc%3d&tabid=67.

Economics and Statistics

Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.

. 2010. “Growth in Indian Gaming

American Community Survey Brief.

Graph 1999–2009.” http://www.nigc.

gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kxuWD3

Manning, Wendy D., and Susan Brown.

mc9Gc%3d&tabid=67 .

2006. “Children’s Economic Well-

Being in Married and Cohabitating

Nelson, Sandi. 2004. “Trends in Parent’s

Parent Families.” Journal of Marriage

Economic Hardship.” Washington, D.C.:

and Family 68(2); 345–362.

Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/

publications/310970.html.

Martin, Joyce A., Brady E. Hamilton, Stephanie

J. Ventura, Michelle J.K. Osterman,

Sharon Kirmeyer, T.J. Mathews, and

Elizabeth C. Wilson. 2011. Births: Final

Data for 2009. National Vital Statistics

Report. 60:1. November 3.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

73

References

Onishi, Norimitsu. 2012. “With Casino

Skaburskis, Andrejs. 1999. “Modeling Choice

Revenues, Tribes Push to Preserve

of Tenure and Building Type.” Urban

Languages, and Cultures.” New York

Studies 36(13): 2199–2215.

Times. June 16. http://www.nytimes.

com/2012/06/17/us/chukchansi-tribe-

Snipp, Matthew C. 1989. American Indians:

in-california-pushes-to-preserve-

The First of this Land. New York:

language.html?pagewanted=all

Russell Sage Foundation. 36–40.

Parker, Jennifer D., Nathaniel Schenker,

Spillman, Brenda C., Jennifer Biess, and

Deborah D. Ingram, James A. Weed,

Graham MacDonald. 2012. Housing as

Katherine E. Heck, and Jennifer H.

a Platform for Improving Outcomes

Madans. 2004. Bridging Between Two

for Older Renters. Washington, D.C.:

Standards for Collecting Information

Urban Institute.

on Race and Ethnicity: An Application

Steffen, Barry L., Keith Fudge, Marge

to Census 2000. Public Health Reports

Martin, Maria Teresa Souza, David

Mar-Apr; 119(2): 192–205.

A. Vandenbroucke, and Yung-Gann

Passel, Jeffrey S. 1992. “The Growing

David Yao. 2011. Worst Case Housing

American Indian Population, 1960–990:

Needs 2009: Report to Congress.

Beyond Demography.” Paper presented

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of

at the Annual Meeting of the American

Housing and Urban Development.

Statistical Association, August.

Stuts, Howard. 2012. “Seminoles have

Pendall, Rolf, Lesley Freiman, Dowell Myers,

become a force in Indian gaming.”

and Selma Happ. 2012. Demographic

Las Vegas Review Journal. Las Vegas,

Challenges and Opportunities for U.S.

NV. http://www.reviewjournal.com/

Housing Markets. Washington, D.C.:

business/casinos-gaming/seminoles-

Bipartisan Policy Center.

have-become-force-indian-gaming.

Phinney, Robin, Sheldon Danziger, Harold

Thornton, Dennis. n.d. “Menominee Tribal

A. Pollack, and Kristin Seefeldt. 2007.

Enterprises celebrates century of

“Housing Instability among Current

lumber production.” http://mtewood.

and Former Welfare Recipients.”

com/News%20&%20Events/Articles/

American Journal of Public Health

Menominee%20100th.pdf.

97(5): 832–837.

Todd, Richard M., and Frederico Burlon.

Robinson, Robert. 1995. The Economic

2009. Homeownership gaps among

Impact of Indian Reservation-Based

Indian Reservations prove puzzling.

Gaming Activities. Washington, D.C.:

Minneapolis, MN: Federal Reserve

National Indian Policy Center.

Bank of Minneapolis.

Ryan, Barry. 2009. “The Economic

Trosper, Ronald L. 2007. “Indigenous

Contributions of Minnesota Tribal

influence on forest management on the

Governments in 2007. A Study

Menominee Indian Reservation.” Forest

Commissioned by the Minnesota

Ecology and Management 249: 134–139.

Indian Gaming Association.” Minnesota

Indian Gaming Association. http://

www.mnindiangamingassoc.com/

MIGA_RYAN_REPORT_ON_EC_

IMPACT_2009.pdf.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

74

References

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “Census Bureau

. 2012c. “FY 2012 CIIS Glossary. CIIS

Reports American Indian- and Alaska

10.0.” August 1, 2012. http://www.

Native-Owned Businesses Generated

cdfifund.gov/CIIS/2012/FY%20

$34 Billion in Receipts in 2007.” March

2012%20CIIS%20Glossary.pdf.

15. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/

releases/archives/business_ownership/

. “Native American Initiatives Program.”

cb11-47.html.

http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_

do/programs_id.asp?programID=3.

. 2012. “Census Bureau Releases

Estimates of Undercount and

. “The Report of the Native American

Overcount in the 2010 Census.”

Lending Study.” November 2001.

May 22. http://www.census.gov/

http://www.cdfifund.gov/docs/2001_

newsroom/releases/archives/2010_

nacta_lending_study.pdf.

census/cb12-95.html.

U.S. National Archives and Records

U.S. Congress House Committee on

Administration. 2012. Code of Federal

Financial Services. 2010. “Community

Regulations. Title 12. Community

Development Financial Institutions

Development Financial Institutions

(CDFIs)—Their Unique Role

Program Applicant Eligibility.

and Challenges Serving Lower-

U.S. Minority Business Development Agency.

Income, Underserved and Minority

2006. The State of Minority Business

Communities.” March 9, 2010. See

Enterprises: An Overview of the

http://financialservices.house.gov/

2002 Survey of Business Owners.

media/file/hearings/111/tanya_fiddler_

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing

testimony_final_3-9-10.pdf.

Office (GPO).

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Van Otten, Dan, Joyce McAfee, Larry

Development. 2011. Worst Case Housing

Buron, Jennifer Turnham, John

Needs 2009: Report to Congress.

Griffith, and Brooke Spellman. 2009.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

I ndian Housing Block Grant Program

Housing and Urban Development.

Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of the Treasury Community

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development Financial Institution

Development.

Fund. 2012a. “Database of Certified

Williams, Andrea. 2007. “Choctaw Open

CDFIs and Native CDFIs as of July

Justice Complex.” Meridian, MS: ABC 11

31, 2012.” http://www.cdfifund.

WTOK. http://www.wtok.com/.

gov/what_we_do/programs_

id.asp?programID=9#certified.

. 2012b. “FY 2012 CDFI and NACA

Programs Application Glossary.”

http://www.cdfifund.gov/docs/2012/

cdfi/FY%202012%20CDFI%20

and%20NACA%20Programs%20

Application%20Glossary.pdf .

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

75

Appendix 1. Description of Data Resources

Appendix 1. Description

census long-form survey, which the U.S.

Census Bureau stopped conducting after the

of Data Sources

2000 decennial census, the estimates are

subject to more sampling error than long-

form census estimates. The reliability of ACS

The analyses presented in this report relied

estimates for areas of smaller population

on several different data sources. In this

and smaller population groups, like the

appendix, we describe each source and

AIAN population, have been questioned.

examine any limitations the source may have

DeWeaver (2010) finds that the 2006–2008,

when it comes to studying the American

3-year ACS estimate of the size of the AIAN

Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population.

alone population is 14.3 percent lower than

the size predicted over that period by the

American Community Survey

U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Estimates

program.40 Further, multiyear estimates, by

The American Community Survey (ACS)

definition, cannot provide a point-in-time

is an ongoing statistical survey run by

picture, which can be critical for certain

the U.S. Census Bureau, replacing the

analyses. For example, overcrowding in

long-form in the decennial census. The

households may have been impacted by the

ACS has approximately 250,000 monthly

housing finance crisis that occurred during

respondents, totaling 3 million respondents

the period between 2006 and 2010; these

per year. ACS publishes annual estimates

multiyear estimates may not accurately

for geographies with more than 65,000

portray true conditions at any point over this

people. Because of the smaller sample size

period. Although the U.S. Census Bureau

compared to the decennial census, the

also produces 1-year estimates, these are not

Census Bureau averages 5 years of surveys

available for all tribal areas because of the

to produce estimates for the smallest

restricted sample size.

geographies, including tribal areas.

ACS Selected Population Tables

We analyzed the tabulations from the

2008 and 2010 annual surveys and the

The ACS Selected Population Tables,

tabulations and microdata from the

another U.S. Census Bureau product,

2006–10, 5-year survey.

provides tabulations of social, economic,

Limitations

and housing characteristics for selected

racial and ethnic groups that are unavailable

Because the ACS produces estimates based

in the general ACS. This product includes

on a smaller sample than the decennial

estimates for 392 race, Hispanic origin,

40 See DeWeaver 2010 for more information on the limitations of the ACS in providing complete, timely, and reliable data for Indian Country.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

76

Appendix 1. Description of Data Resources

ancestry, and tribal groups with a national

population of at least 7,000. Estimates

for individual groups are published for

geographies in which that group had a

population of at least 50 members during

the 5-year ACS data collection period,

with census tract being the lowest level

of geography available.

We analyzed the 2006–10, 5-year

estimate tabulations.

Limitations

Because of the population thresholds as

noted above, the Census Bureau does not

produce AIAN alone estimates for many

geographic areas. AIAN alone estimates

were available across all tables included in

the analysis for the United States nationally,

all States, 574 of 3,138 counties (not

including counties in Hawaii), and 230 of 617

tribal areas. See Table A.1 for a breakdown

of coverage for tribal areas and AIAN alone

households in tribal areas

Table A1.1. American Community Survey, Selected Population Tables Coverage Rates, 2006–10

Number of AIAN Alone Occupied

Number of Tribal Areas

Housing Units on Tribal Land

In ACS Selected

In ACS Selected

Population

In ACS Standard

Coverage

Population

In ACS Standard

Coverage

Tables Universe Tables Universe

Rate (%)

Tables Universe Tables Universe

Rate (%)

Total

230

617

37

239,233

256,661

93

North Central

21

36

58

13,035

13,866

94

Eastern

19

68

28

28,236

31,020

91

Oklahoma

27

30

90

72,163

72,322

100

South Central

8

17

47

3,556

3,877

92

Northern Plains

25

31

81

30,328

30,604

99

Arizona/New Mexico

30

42

71

65,470

68,141

96

California/Nevada

17

130

13

4,225

7,593

56

Pacific Northwest

24

42

57

10,599

11,381

93

Alaska

59

221

27

11,621

17,857

65

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2006–10 and American Community Survey Selected Population Tables, 2006–10

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

77

Appendix 1. Description of Data Resources

Community Development

and collected more detailed information,

Financial Institution Database

such as income, housing characteristics, and

employment. After 2000, the long-form of

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s

the census was replaced with the ACS.

Community Development Financial

Institutions (CDFI) Fund maintains a

We analyzed data from 1990, 2000, and 2010.

database of certified CDFIs. The data

Limitations

contains the organization’s name, financial

institution type, Native CDFI designation,

The decennial census, while nominally a

address, contact person and his/her contact

100-percent count of the population, has

information, and the organization’s Web site.

historically undercounted hard-to-reach

populations. In 2010, coverage of the

We gathered the information that was

AIAN population varied by geography.

current as of mid-2012.

American Indians and Alaska Natives living

County Business Patterns

on reservations were undercounted by

4.9 percent, compared with a 0.9 percent

The U.S. Census Bureau’s Business Patterns

overcount in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2012).

series is produced annually and provides

For the 2010 decennial census, the Census

subnational economic data by industry. Data

Bureau reports an overcount of American

for this product comes from administrative

Indians outside of reservations of 1.95 percent.

sources, the 5-year Economic Census, and

The net error for American Indians not living

the annual Company Organization Survey.

on reservations was not statistically different

The series is useful for studying the economic

from zero in 2010 or 2000.

activity of small areas; analyzing economic

changes over time; and benchmarking

Applying the tribal undercount percentage

statistical series, surveys, and databases

to the official totals would translate as an

between economic censuses. The Business

additional 47,000 people, or 1.7 percent of

Patterns series provides information on the

all AIAN alone population. This analysis uses

number of establishments and employment

the published statistics from the decennial

at the county and Zip Code level, but the

census and does not attempt to adjust for

research team relied on the county-level data

the undercount on reservations.

for this report.

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data

We analyzed data from 2000, 2007, and 2010.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

Decennial Census

(HMDA) requires most lending institutions

to report mortgage loan applications,

Every 10 years, the U.S. Census Bureau

including the outcome of the application,

conducts a national household survey.

information about the loan and applicant,

The federal government uses decennial

location of the property, structure type,

census data for apportioning congressional

lien status, and whether the loan had a

seats, for identifying distressed areas,

high interest rate. The Federal Financial

and for many other activities. Short-form

Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)

information is collected on every person and

collects the data in order to determine

includes basic characteristics, such as age,

whether financial institutions are meeting a

sex, and race. Through 2000, the long- form

community’s housing credit needs, to target

was sent to one out of every six households

community development funds to attract

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

78

Appendix 1. Description of Data Resources

private investment, and to identify possible

discriminatory lending patterns.

We analyzed data from 2004 to 2006.

National Indian Gaming Commission

Register of Gaming Institutions

Through a Freedom of Information Act

request, the Urban Institute obtained, from

the National Indian Gaming Commission

(NIGC), a list of all registered tribal gaming

operations in the country. Each operation is

labeled with a tribe name, name of gaming

operation, address, phone number, fax, and

email address.

Limitations

A limitation of the data set is that the listed

administrative address does not necessarily

match the location of the physical gaming

operation, which is likely in the instances

where administrative addresses are P.O. boxes.

We obtained the data that was current as

of March 2011.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

79

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

Appendix 2. Geographic Area • Off-reservation trust lands: These areas

are held in trust for an American Indian

Definitions and Methodology

tribe or individual American Indian by

the federal government. Trust lands

can be located on or off designated

Types of Tribal Areas Defined

reservation lands, but the U.S. Census

by the U.S. Census Bureau

Bureau only provides data for off-

reservation trust lands—the areas that are

The U.S. Census Bureau defines nine

not already included in the tabulations

different types of tribal areas in the United

of data for reservations. Off-reservation

States that include government-designated

trust lands are always affiliated with

reservations, trust lands, and joint use areas

a federally recognized tribal area and

as well as several types of statistical entities:

their boundaries are determined by the

U.S. Census Bureau through its annual

• American Indian reservations—federal

Boundary and Annexation Survey.

(federal AIRs): These are areas that

the federal government set aside for

• Joint-use areas: These are areas that are

tribal use. The boundaries of federally

administered jointly by more than one

recognized reservations are determined

American Indian tribe and/or are areas

through treaties, agreements, executive

that are claimed by multiple tribes. For the

orders, federal statutes, secretarial orders,

purpose of providing statistical data, the

and judicial determinations. This type

U.S. Census Bureau considers joint-use

of reservation can be legally referred

areas to be geographically comparable to

to as any of the following: colonies,

a reservation. Joint-use areas do not cross

communities, Indian colonies, Indian

State boundaries.

communities, Indian rancherias, Indian

reservations, Indian villages, pueblos,

• American Indian reservations—State

rancherias, ranches, reservations,

(State AIRs): These areas are set aside

reserves, settlements, and villages.

for tribes that are recognized by a State

Federal AIRs may cross State and other

government. Names and boundaries for

area boundaries. American Indian tribes

these reservations are provided to the U.S.

are considered to have the primary

Census Bureau by a liaison appointed by

governmental authority over federally

the State’s governor.

recognized reservations. The U.S. Census

• Statistical entities: These are areas that do

Bureau determines the boundaries of

not directly correspond to a federally or

federal AIRS through its annual Boundary

State-recognized land base but are home

and Annexation Survey.

to a concentration of American Indian and

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

80

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

Alaska Native (AIAN) people affiliated

the area must have organized tribal

with a particular tribe.

activity. SDTSAs cannot cross State

lines and cannot include land that is

o Oklahoma tribal statistical areas

part of another tribal area. These areas

(OTSAs): These are the areas of

were referred to as State-designated

Oklahoma that were formerly

American Indian statistical areas

reservations. OTSAs are identified

(SDAISAs) in the 2000 decennial

in consultation with the federally

census.

recognized tribes that previously

had a reservation in Oklahoma.

o Alaska Native Village statistical

OTSA boundaries mirror those of the

areas (ANVSAs): These areas are the

tribes’ former reservations, unless the

portions of Alaska Native Villages

boundaries have been changed through

(ANVs) that are densely populated.

agreements with neighboring tribes.

ANVs are associations, bands, clans,

communities, groups, tribes, or villages

o Oklahoma tribal statistical area (OTSA)

that were recognized through the

joint-use areas: These areas are OTSAs

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

that are administered jointly by multiple

of 1971. However, the exact boundaries

American Indian tribes with an OTSA

of ANVs are difficult to determine, so

and/or are claimed by multiple tribes

the U.S. Census Bureau presents data

with an OTSA. For the presentation

for the ANVSAs. ANVSAs are areas

of statistical data, the U.S. Census

where Alaska Natives, particularly those

Bureau treats these areas as distinct

belonging to the defining ANV, are a

geographic areas.

large share of the population in at least

o Tribal-designated statistical areas

one season of the year. ANV officials, if

(TDSAs): These are areas inhabited by

they choose to, review the boundaries

a concentration of people who identify

of ANVSAs; if ANV officials choose not

with a federally recognized American

to participate, boundaries are verified

Indian tribe but do not have a federally

by officials of the ANV’s Alaska Native

recognized land base. To be considered

Regional Corporation (ANRC). ANVSA’s

a TDSA, the area must have organized

cannot include land that is part of

tribal activity. TDSA boundaries are

another tribal area.

identified by the inhabitants for the U.S.

Table A2.1 presents some basic

Census Bureau. TDSAs may cross State

characteristics for each type of tribal area

lines but cannot include land that is

or the United States as a whole and the nine

part of another tribal area.

study regions.

o State-designated tribal statistical areas

(SDTSAs): These are areas inhabited

by a concentration of members of

State-recognized American Indian

tribes without a State-recognized land

base. A governor-appointed liaison

for the State reports these areas and

their boundaries to the U.S. Census

Bureau. To be considered a SDTSA,

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

81

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

Table A2.1. AIAN Tribal Areas and Population, 2010

Study Region

Total

N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains

AZ/NM

CA/NV

Pacific NW

Alaska

Number of Tribal Areas

617

36

68

30

17

31

42

130

42

221

Federally recognized tribal area

321

36

32

1

11

31

40

128

41

1

With reservation and off-reservation trust land

121

25

6

0

6

15

15

31

23

0

With reservation only

190

10

21

1

5

15

25

95

17

1

With off-reservation trust land only

10

1

5

0

0

1

0

2

1

0

Joint-use area

7

0

0

4

1

0

2

0

0

0

State-recognized reservation

10

0

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

TDSA or OTSA

29

0

1

25

0

0

0

2

1

0

State-designated tribal statistical area

30

0

25

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

Alaska Native Village statistical area

220

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

220

2010 AIAN Population (000)

967.1

42.2

102.5

280.1

13.4

128.4

265.9

25.4

42.1

67.1

Federally recognized tribal area

542.0

42.2

26.8

6.9

3.4

128.4

265.9

25.3

41.8

1.2

With reservation and off-reservation trust land

346.3

29.7

1.0

NA

1.4

80.7

199.5

5.0

29.0

NA

With reservation only

195.3

12.5

25.6

6.9

2.0

47.7

66.4

20.2

12.7

1.2

With off-reservation trust land only

0.4

0.1

0.2

NA

NA

0.0

NA

0.1

0.1

NA

Joint-use area

8.2

NA

NA

8.2

0.0

NA

0.0

NA

NA

NA

State-recognized reservation

0.8

NA

0.8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

TDSA or OTSA

265.5

NA

0.0

265.0

NA

NA

NA

0.1

0.3

NA

State-designated tribal statistical area

84.8

NA

74.8

NA

10.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Alaska Native Village statistical area

65.9

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

65.9

Total Population Per Area (000)

25.8

23.2

156.7

49.0

169.0

5.0

7.2

26.3

21.6

11.9

Federally recognized tribal area

9.0

23.2

43.9

21.1

20.9

5.0

7.2

25.2

18.1

11.0

With reservation and off-reservation trust land

7.5

22.8

6.4

NA

43.5

4.3

6.3

91.4

18.3

NA

With reservation only

12.3

24.1

81.9

21.1

18.2

6.5

11.1

15.6

17.6

11.0

With off-reservation trust land only

11.4

110.3

1.9

NA

NA

31.4

NA

20.1

416.2

NA

Joint-use area

118.3

NA

NA

119.2

0.0

NA

0.0

NA

NA

NA

State-recognized reservation

233.8

NA

233.8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

TDSA or OTSA

50.4

NA

71.7

49.8

NA

NA

NA

907.2

163.5

NA

State-designated tribal statistical area

189.2

NA

180.6

NA

224.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Alaska Native Village statistical area

11.9

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

11.9

NA: Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

82

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

Using Consistent Geographic

1. Change in area: Where there was an

Boundaries for 2000 to 2010 Analysis

increase or decrease in land area that

exceeded 2 percent.

Official U.S. Census Bureau boundaries for

tribal areas can change between decennial

2. Change in population: Where there was

census years for a number of reasons,

an increase or decrease in population that

though this does not happen frequently.

exceeded 2,000.

New tribal areas are created, and earlier

This rule was applied for tribal areas that

ones are split or combined. Boundaries

existed in both years (22 areas) and those

are also adjusted as new legal agreements

that existed only in 2010 (9 areas).

are made or past disputes about land are

resolved. This section describes the analytic

Redefinition Methods

decisions made to construct the tribal areas

for the analysis for this report.

1. Combinations of 2000 tribal areas: For

three 2010 tribal areas, two 2000 tribal

Redefined Tribal Areas

areas had been combined in 2010, but

there was no change in the boundary of

In this analysis, we aimed to report changes

the combined area.41

in population and housing between 2000

and 2010 for a consistent land area, not

2. Combinations of 2000 census tracts: For

those that occurred due to differences

19 tribal areas that existed in 2000 and

in boundaries between those years.

2010 and 9 tribal areas that existed only in

Accordingly, where boundary changes

2010, we constructed areas equivalent to

would have significant impact, we used

the 2010 boundaries using 2000 census

2000 geographies to construct an area that

tracts. Tables A2.2 and A2.3 list the tribal

matched as closely as possible to the area as

areas for which the 2000 data was based

defined in the 2010 census.

on the refined boundaries.

Such adjustments were required for only

As a general rule when constructing the

31 of the 617 tribal areas. In the remaining

equivalent areas, we included 2000 tracts

cases, either the tribal area boundaries did

only when more than 50 percent of the

not change or the change was modest or

census tract population fell into the 2010 tribal

had negligible impact on population.

area boundary. However, it was necessary

in six cases to lower the threshold in order

Criteria for Redefinition

to include at least one tract as tribal land in

We decided that a redefinition of the 2000

each AIAN county (5 percent in six cases

boundary would be necessary for tribal

and 2.5 percent in one case). In addition, two

areas that had significant changes in land

of the tracts selected partially overlapped

area and population. Specifically, the criteria

nonredefined tribal areas. Because we did not

to identify tribal areas for redefinition were:

have estimates at the subtract level, we could

not eliminate this double-counting.42

41 The 2010 Menominee Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land tribal boundary was redefined for 2000 by combining the 2000 geographic area of this same name with the Menominee/Stockbridge-Munsee joint use area; the 2010 Mille Lacs Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land was redefined for 2000 by combining the area 2000 area of this same name with the Sandy Lake Reservation; and the 2010 Knik ANSVA was redefined for 2000 by combining the 2000 Knik ANVSA with the Kanatak TDSA.

42 We estimate that including the two tracts and the tribal areas as tribal land shifts the population in tribal areas by 186 AIAN alone people from the totals for their surrounding counties.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

83

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

Table A2.2. Tribal Areas with Significant Boundary Changes, Population Counts Before and After Adjustment, 2000

Total Population

AIAN Alone Population

Tribal Area Name

Before Crosswalk

After Crosswalk

Before Crosswalk

After Crosswalk

Adais Caddo SDAISA

39,080

12,836

421

249

Agua Caliente Reservation

21,358

21,358

176

176

Apache Choctaw SDAISA

23,459

5,664

1,828

1,195

Aroostook Band of Mimac, TDSA

9,756

2,946

286

140

Cayuga Nation TDSA

10,707

21,318

23

64

Cherokee Tribe of Northeast Alabama SDAISA

173

7,511

0

44

Cherokees of Southeast Alabama SDAISA

120,294

77,522

366

256

Coharie SDAISA

123,761

51,055

1,429

860

Echota Cherokee SDAISA

65,068

41,200

1,941

1,958

Four Winds Cherokee SDAISA

79,657

32,069

943

419

Kenaitze ANVSA

29,320

31,088

1,672

1,908

Lumbee SDAISA

474,100

443,164

58,238

57,903

MaChis Lower Creek SDAISA

24,198

20,865

329

357

Mississippi Choctaw Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land

5,190

24,269

4,902

4,304

Nanticoke Indian Tribe SDAISA

22,683

17,255

394

387

Nanticoke Lenni Lenape SDAISA

12,316

6,283

351

319

Pine Ridge Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land

15,521

17,656

14,304

14,855

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi TDSA

35,415

4,251

466

109

United Houma Nation SDAISA

839,880

189,614

11,019

6,860

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010

Table A2.3. New Tribal Areas in 2010 With Population Greater than 2,000

Tribal Area Name

Total Population

AIAN Alone Population

Ketchikan ANVSA

12,742

1,692

Nome ANVSA

3,681

1,994

Occaneechi-Saponi SDTSA

8,615

112

Pee Dee SDTSA

2,915

104

Petersburg ANVSA

2,347

175

Sitka ANVSA

4,480

855

United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation SDTSA

5,869

36

Washoe Ranches Trust Land (part)

2,916

69

Wassamasaw SDTSA

2,011

31

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

84

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

Excluded Tribal Areas

For the 2000 calculations, we subtracted

the figures for redefined tribal boundaries

In three cases, we decided to drop the

from the county total. As mentioned above,

tribal area from the 2000 analysis. These

the tract-based definitions did not perfectly

tribal areas are treated similarly to the tribal

replicate 2010 boundaries. Further, some tribal

areas that were new in 2010 but below

areas experienced small boundary changes

the population threshold for redefinition;

for which we did not account. Either of these

they are included in the 2010 analyses but

two factors could alter which counties the

excluded from the 2000 analyses.

tribal areas covered. As a result, the counties

The tribal area for the Jena Band of

classified as AIAN counties using 2010

Choctaw existed in 2000 and 2010. It

boundary definitions do not match exactly the

met the redefinition criteria because

counties that would be designated as tribal

it experienced extreme land area and

land using the crosswalk in 2000.

population losses from 2000 to 2010. Its

This mismatch meant that adjustments

2010 land area was reduced by 99.9 percent

had to be made in order to calculate the

from its 2000 land area, and its 2010

surrounding county level for all of the

population decreased to zero. Because its

2010-defined AIAN counties. In the 2000

2010 land area was so small, no tract could

analyses, 31 AIAN counties (as determined

be assigned to it to create an equivalent area

by the 2010 boundaries) contained no tribal

for the 2000 analysis, so it was excluded

land according to the 2000 boundaries

from the 2000 analysis.

used in our analysis.43 In these cases, we

In addition, two of the tracts selected for tract-

imputed the tribal area values as zero.

level crosswalks according to the rules above

This adjustment resulted in a small shift

each contained an entire separate tribal area

of the population from tribal areas to

that had not been selected for redefinition.

the surrounding counties. In addition, six

In this case, we dropped the two tribal areas

counties that were not classified as AIAN

that the tracts contained (Salamatof ANVSA

counties by 2010 standards contained tribal

and Saxman ANVSA) from the 2000 to 2010

land according to the 2000 boundaries. In

tribal area crosswalk to avoid counting the

these cases, we dropped the parts of the

population of that area twice.

tribal areas that intersected with these six

counties from our 2000 analyses.44

Adjustments in Calculating Data for Tribal

Areas and Surrounding Counties

Counties were identified as AIAN counties

if some part of the county’s land was

designated as a tribal area in 2010. The

surrounding county area was calculated by

subtracting the tribal area estimate from the

estimate for the county as a whole.

43 This total includes two counties that contained the small amount of land for Jena Band of Choctaw in 2010 (noted above). In 2010, the tribal area AIAN alone population of these counties was zero in 18 cases and less than 350 in 13 cases.

44 All of the parts of the tribal area that intersected with these six counties had AIAN alone populations of zero in 2000, so our actions did not affect the analysis.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

85

Document Outline

- Continuity and Change

- Acknowledgments

- Disclaimer

- Table of Contents

- Executive Summary

- 1. Introduction

- 2. Population Growth and Distribution

- 3. Social and Economic Conditions

- 4. Economic Development

- 5. Housing Conditions and Needs

- 6. Conclusions

- References

- Appendix 1. Description of Data Sources

- Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................

Social and Economic Conditions .....................................................................

Economic Development ...............................................................................

Housing Conditions and Needs .......................................................................

Conclusion .........................................................................................

Introduction .......................................................................................

The Structure of This Report .......................................................................

Section 2—Population Growth and Distribution .......................................................

Section 4—Economic Development .....................................................................

Population Growth and Distribution .................................................................

American Indian and Alaska Native Population Trends ................................................

Geographies ........................................................................................

Spatial Patterns of the AIAN Population ............................................................

Population Trends in Tribal Areas ..................................................................

The Multiracial AIAN Population ....................................................................

Mobility ...........................................................................................

Implications .......................................................................................

Age Structure.......................................................................................

Household Sizes and Types ..........................................................................

Educational Attainment .............................................................................

Employment .........................................................................................

Income and Poverty .................................................................................

How the AIAN Population Fared In the Great Recession................................................

Background: Expansion of Economic Development in the 1990s .........................................

Employment Growth in the 2000s .....................................................................

Tribally Owned Businesses and Enterprises ..........................................................

Expansion of Community Development Financial Institutions ..........................................

Housing Characteristics in Tribal Areas and Surrounding Counties ...................................

Homeownership.......................................................................................

Housing Structure Type .............................................................................

Housing Characteristics and Problems: Larger Tribal Areas ..........................................

Housing Age and Size ...............................................................................

Housing Problems and Needs—Framework ...............................................................

Housing Problems and Needs—Quantity.................................................................

Housing Problems and Needs—Facilities ..............................................................

Housing Problems and Needs—Price....................................................................

Overall Incidence of Housing Problems ..............................................................

Conclusions ........................................................................................

Circumstances for Indians in the Rest of the Nation ................................................

Summary ............................................................................................

References .........................................................................................

Appendix 1. Description of Data Sources ............................................................

Community Development Financial Institution Database ...............................................

National Indian Gaming Commission Register of Gaming Institutions ..................................

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology .................................... 80

Using Consistent Geographic Boundaries for 2000 to 2010 Analysis ...................................

Continuity and Change

Acknowledgments

Disclaimer

Table of Contents