Housing Needs of American 

Indians and Alaska Natives in 

Tribal Areas:  

A Report From the Assessment of 

American Indian, Alaska Native, and 

Native Hawaiian Housing Needs

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research 

Visit PD&R’s website

huduser.gov

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.

Housing Needs of American 

Indians and Alaska Natives in 

Tribal Areas:  

A Report From the Assessment of 

American Indian, Alaska Native, and 

Native Hawaiian Housing Needs

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Housing  

and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development  

and Research

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Nancy Pindus

G. Thomas Kingsley

Jennifer Biess

Diane Levy

Jasmine Simington

Christopher Hayes

Urban Institute

January 2017

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the tribal leaders and housing directors who agreed to participate in this study and facilitated the approval process and data collection efforts. They also thank the tribal research review boards and councils that approved this study, providing oversight 

and assurances that encouraged participation and forthright responses. They are especial y 

grateful to the household survey respondents residing in the 38 sampled tribal areas, the 

tribal and Tribal y Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) directors who responded to the 

telephone survey, and the housing agency managers and staff and other program staff who 

talked with the research team during site visits. The success of this research depended on 

their wil ingness to share knowledge and insights. Everyone’s contributions were richer in 

detail than it was possible to reflect in this report. 

NORC at the University of Chicago was responsible for the household survey and the 

telephone survey of tribal housing departments and TDHEs. This complex effort was 

completed successful y and with cultural sensitivity. The authors thank Carol Hafford 

(project director) and Suzanne Bard (survey director) for their excellent management and 

implementation of the surveys and for their participation in site visits and qualitative analysis. 

They also thank NORC researchers Steven Pedlow (statistician), Beth Fisher, Bernard Dugoni, Patricia Maugherman, Alyce Marshal , Joan Lipiec, Eram Khan, Judith Nell Petty, Kyle Fennel , Ned English, Katie Archambeau, Ilana Ventura, Katherine Burda, Ed Sipulski, Mario Tejada, 

Haider Baig, Amy Bartolini, Chet Bowie, and Elizabeth Johnson and also the American Indian 

and Alaska Native field interviewers for the important roles they played in sampling design, tribal outreach, survey development and administration, field operations, mapmaking and 

listing, quality control, analysis, and disclosure review. 

Econometrica, Inc., and Support Services International (SSI), Inc., were key partners on this study. Charles Hanson, Richard Hilton, and Doray Sitko (Econometrica) handled logistics 

and provided clear and succinct summaries for tribal consultations and also participated 

in the site visits and qualitative analysis; Wayne Mundy participated in Alaska site visits. 

Walter Hil abrant and Judy Earp (SSI) contributed to the research design and data collection protocols and participated in the site visits and qualitative analysis. SSI also organized 

meetings of the expert advisory panel.

A panel of experts made valuable contributions to the research design and to this final 

report. Panel members included Laura R. Appelbaum (FirstPic, Inc.), Kauila Clark (Native 

Hawai an Traditional Healing Center), Marvin Jones (Community Services at the Cherokee 

Nation—retired), Miriam Jorgensen (University of Arizona and Harvard Project on American 

Indian Economic Development); Patricia Nie (Wel s Fargo & Company), Deana K. O’Hara 

(Office of Native American Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development), 

Don Shircel (Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc.), Pamala Silas (National American Indian 

Housing Council), and Malia Villegas (National Congress of American Indians). Early 

comments were also provided by Blake Kazama (Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority—

retired) and Peter Morris (National Congress of American Indians).

In addition, the research team expresses deep gratitude and appreciation to the tribal leaders and others from across the country who provided extensive and thoughtful commentary on 

the draft report.

The study benefited immeasurably from the support of leadership within the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Office of Public and Indian 

Housing (PIH), including the support of Assistant Secretary Sandra Henriquez at the 

beginning of the study, of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Lourdes Castro-Ramírez 

as the data were being collected and the final reports written, and of the three Deputy 

Assistant Secretaries for Native American Programs (ONAP) who served during the life 

of the study, including Rodger Boyd, Randy Akers (Acting), and Heidi Frechette. ONAP 

staff, especial y Deana K. O’Hara and Emily Wright, commented on reports, responded to 

numerous inquiries, and facilitated communication with tribal leaders and stakeholders. Alia Fierro, 2016–2017 Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Housing Graduate Fellow at HUD’s 

Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) prepared appendix J. Blair Russel , social science analyst, contributed to an analysis of the Indian Housing Block Grant construction 

costs and grant amounts.

Elizabeth Rudd and Paul Joice, the study’s Government Technical Representatives from 

HUD/PD&R, provided excellent guidance and oversight during this research effort. The 

authors also thank Jennifer Stoloff for her assistance before leaving HUD.

The authors also thank Urban Institute colleagues who contributed to the successful 

completion of the study. Doug Wissoker developed the tribal area sampling plan and worked 

with NORC on survey sampling and weighting. Kathy Pettit prepared population data tables 

and advised on the interpretation of relevant census data. Eric Burnstein and Lily Posey 

assisted with data preparation and analysis. Former colleagues Abigail Baum and Brittany 

Murray participated in site visits and data analysis, and Chris Narducci and Amos Budde 

assisted with data preparation and analysis earlier in the project. 

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.

Foreword

In response to Congress’s mandate to assess Native American housing needs, the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) commissioned the Assessment of 

American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawai an Housing Needs. The study produced five 

separate reports, which together contain a comprehensive and authoritative body of information on the current state of housing conditions and resources in Native American communities. The study also provides a broad assessment of how tribes have used the control of HUD housing 

funds they gained through passage of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-

Determination Act (NAHASDA) of 1996. This report,  Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Tribal Areas, presents results of two original and unique data sources produced specifical y for this study: (1) a national y representative survey of housing conditions and needs among American Indian and Alaska Native households in tribal areas and (2) a survey 

of 110 Tribal y Designated Housing Entities, including 22 site visits. Results of these surveys are complemented in this report by analyses of data from decennial censuses, the American 

Community Survey, the American Housing Survey, and HUD financial and information systems.

This report tel s two main stories. First, the housing problems of American Indians and Alaska Natives, particularly in reservations and other tribal areas, are extreme by any standard. Of American Indian and Alaska Native households living in tribal areas, 23 percent live in housing with a physical condition problem of some kind compared with 5 percent of all U.S. households. 

To measure homelessness in tribal areas this study took a novel approach and asked heads of households if an adult was living in the household who would be living in his or her own housing unit if he or she could. From that question, this study estimates that between 42,000 and 85,000 

homeless Native Americans are living in tribal areas. Unlike on-the-street homelessness, in tribal areas homelessness often translates into overcrowding. Of American Indian and Alaska Native households living in tribal areas, 16 percent experience overcrowding compared with 2 percent of all U.S. households. 

Second, tribes have produced housing much more quickly under NAHASDA than they did in 

earlier periods, despite the fact that the buying power of Indian Housing Block Grant funding has been substantial y eroded by inflation since it was introduced in 1998.

HUD’s first national assessment of Native American housing needs was published in 1996, 

just as NAHASDA was paving the way for a fundamental reinvention of HUD’s Indian housing 

programs that shifted control to tribes and provided them greater flexibility to respond to local needs. Published 20 years later, the assessment reported here confirms the success of the 

self-determination that NAHASDA enabled, while emphasizing that the housing needs in tribal areas remain the most severe in the nation and that the resources to address the problems have declined more rapidly than for other federal housing programs.

Katherine M. O’Regan

Assistant Secretary for Policy

Development and Research

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................xv

Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions  ...........................................................................xvi

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

Housing Policies and Programs  ............................................................................................................xxii

Conclusions and Recommendations  ...................................................................................................xxvii

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

Introduction to the Overall Assessment .............................................................................................1

Purpose and Content of This Report ...................................................................................................3

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions ............................................................3

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs ............................................................................................4

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs ............................................................................................4

Sources of Information ..............................................................................................................................4

Background Interviews and Literature Reviews  ..........................................................................5

Data From Census Bureau Products and HUD Administrative Data Files  ........................5

New Data Collected Specifically for This Study ...........................................................................7

Geographies ...................................................................................................................................................10

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions ...............................13

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................13

1.2. Population Growth and Distribution .............................................................................................14

Defining the American Indian and Alaska Native Population ..................................................14

Population Growth  ..................................................................................................................................15

Broad Spatial Patterns ............................................................................................................................17

Population Trends for Tribal Areas by Region ...............................................................................19

Mobility .........................................................................................................................................................21

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

v

1.3. Social and Economic Conditions ....................................................................................................22

Age Structure .............................................................................................................................................23

Household Sizes and Types ..................................................................................................................26

Educational Attainment .........................................................................................................................29

Employment ................................................................................................................................................31

Income and Poverty .................................................................................................................................34

How the AIAN Population Fared in the Great Recession ..........................................................36

The National Story ......................................................................................................................................... 36

Regional Variations ....................................................................................................................................... 37

Implications .................................................................................................................................................39

1.4. Economic Development ....................................................................................................................39

Background: Expansion of Economic Development in the 1990s  ........................................39

Employment Growth in the 2000s ....................................................................................................41

Tribally Owned Businesses and Enterprises ...................................................................................43

1.5. Diversity Among Tribal Areas ..........................................................................................................46

Indicators and Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................47

Diversity and Correlation Analysis  ....................................................................................................49

Mapping Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 49

Regression Analysis  ..................................................................................................................................... 50

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs ............................................................55

2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................55

2.2. Housing Characteristics ....................................................................................................................56

The Housing Stock in Indian Country ...............................................................................................56

Vacancy Rates ............................................................................................................................................57

Tenure (Renter versus Homeowner Occupancy) .........................................................................59

Structure Type............................................................................................................................................60

Other Indicators ........................................................................................................................................61

Age of Structure and Unit Size ............................................................................................................... 62

Home Values and Rents ............................................................................................................................. 63

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

vi

2.3. Housing Problems and Needs ........................................................................................................63

Framework and Standards ....................................................................................................................64

Attributes of the Framework .................................................................................................................... 64

Specific Standards Used in This Report ............................................................................................. 64

Housing Problems and Needs—Survey Results ............................................................................66

Housing Problems as Reported by the U.S. Census/ACS .........................................................68

Problems for Low-Income Households ............................................................................................... 70

Variation by Region ...................................................................................................................................... 70

Change in Tribal Area Housing Problems Over Time ................................................................... 73

Overcrowding and Physical Deficiencies .........................................................................................73

2.4. Housing Composition, Overcrowding, and Homelessness .................................................76

Household Composition .........................................................................................................................77

Household Size ..........................................................................................................................................78

The Relationship Between Overcrowding and Homelessness ................................................79

Extent of Overcrowding and Overlapping Cost Burden ............................................................ 81

Extent of Literal Homelessness  ............................................................................................................. 82

Prevalence of Homelessness Risk Factors ......................................................................................83

Perceived Characteristics of Homeless and Near Homeless People  ...................................83

Availability of Homeless Services on Tribal Lands.......................................................................84

Estimating the Size of the Literal and Near Homeless Population on Tribal Lands ........84

2.5. Demand for and Barriers to Homeownership and Mortgage Lending  .........................86

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs ............................................................92

3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................92

3.2. The Evolution of Federal Housing Assistance in Indian Country  ....................................93

The “1937 Act” Programs ......................................................................................................................93

Initiating Federal Housing Assistance  ................................................................................................ 93

Important Accomplishments, but Residual Issues ........................................................................ 94

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

vii

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act ..............................95

Basic Objectives, Activities, and Eligibility .....................................................................................95

Regulations and Amendments  .............................................................................................................. 98

Federal Guarantee for Financing Tribal Housing Activities ....................................................... 98

Operating and Monitoring Activities Under NAHASDA ............................................................. 98

Funding and Financial Performance .................................................................................................100

IHBG Funding .................................................................................................................................................. 100

Total Funding by Source (Sources of Funds) ................................................................................... 101

Expenditures (Uses of Funds) .................................................................................................................103

3.3. The Assisted Housing Stock ...........................................................................................................106

Change in the FCAS (1937 Act) Housing Stock ...............................................................................107

Housing Production Under NAHASDA ............................................................................................110

Cumulative Assistance as of 2010 and 2014 .....................................................................................112

Grantee Reports on Housing Stock Quality ......................................................................................115

3.4. Administration of the IHBG Grant ................................................................................................117

Grantee Types and Evolution in the Administration of the IHBG Program  .......................117

Characteristics of the Organizations That Administer the IHBG Program  .......................119

Contracting Out Administrative Functions  ....................................................................................121

Priorities for Organizational Improvements  ..................................................................................121

3.5. Contributions of Other Housing and Community Development Programs  ................123

Publicly Funded Non-IHBG Housing and Community Development Programs  

Operating in Indian Country  ................................................................................................................124

Housing Provided in Indian Country by Other Major Housing Programs  ..........................125

Other Publicly Funded Non-IHBG Housing Programs Operating in Indian Country  ....126

3.6. IHBG Housing Development and Management  .....................................................................126

Challenges in New Housing Development  .....................................................................................127

Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................................... 127

Availability of Labor ...................................................................................................................................... 129

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

viii

Lack of Funds and Rising Development Costs .............................................................................129

Land Assembly and Acquisition ............................................................................................................. 130

Environmental Review Process ...........................................................................................................130

Chal enges in Maintaining Existing Housing Stock ........................................................................ 132

3.7. Homeownership and Mortgage Lending Programs  ..............................................................134

Background .................................................................................................................................................134

History of Legal Status of Land in Indian Country  .....................................................................134

Implications and Challenges for Homeowners and Lenders  ..................................................135

Mortgage Lending Programs ...............................................................................................................136

Section 184 (NAHASDA) ............................................................................................................................ 136

Section 502 Direct Lending (USDA Rural) ........................................................................................ 136

VA Direct Lending ......................................................................................................................................... 137

Federal Programs To Address Land Status and Property Rights Issues ............................138

Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership (HEARTH) Act  ..138

Other Programs To Assist Homebuyers  .........................................................................................138

Homebuyer Education ................................................................................................................................ 138

Downpayment Assistance ......................................................................................................................... 139

Home Repair/Rehabilitation Loans ....................................................................................................... 140

On-the-Ground Efforts Since NAHASDA ........................................................................................140

Access to and Response by Lenders ................................................................................................... 140

Tribal Capacity and Innovative Approaches ..................................................................................... 141

3.8. Leveraging and Strengthening the Private Market: Challenges and Solutions  ..........141

Tribal/TDHE Survey Findings About Leveraging .........................................................................142

Site Visit Responses, Examples of Leveraging, and Promising Approaches .....................142

3.9. Conclusions and Recommendations ...........................................................................................147

System Performance Under NAHASDA ...........................................................................................147

Recommendations for Improving Performance Based on the Findings of This Study..150

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

ix

Monitoring AIAN Housing and Socioeconomic Conditions More Effectively .................. 151

The Changing Circumstances of American Indians and Alaska Natives:  

National Review  ............................................................................................................................................. 152

The Changing Circumstances of American Indians and Alaska Natives: Housing  

Conditions and Needs in Indian Country  .......................................................................................... 153

Analysis for Individual Tribal Areas  ...................................................................................................... 154

Glossary ................................................................................................................155

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations  ...............................................................159

References ............................................................................................................160

Additional Reading .............................................................................................167

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

x

List of Exhibits

Exhibit ES.1 - Poverty Rates, 2006-10 ............................................................................................................ xvii

Exhibit ES.2 - Individual Housing Problems in Tribal Areas and United States .......................... xix

Exhibit ES.3 - Overcrowded Households in Tribal Areas and United States ............................... xxi

Exhibit ES.4 - Amount of IHBG Funds Awarded, 1998 to 2014 ......................................................... xxi i

Exhibit Intro.1 - Research Topic, by Data Source ....................................................................................... 6

Exhibit Intro.2 - List of Tribes Participating in the Household Survey ............................................ 8

Exhibit Intro.3 - Location of Tribal Areas ....................................................................................................... 12

Exhibit 1.21 - American Indian and Alaska Native Population, 1890 to 2030 .............................. 16

Exhibit 1.22 - Trends in AIAN-Alone and Hispanic Populations, 1980 to 2010 ........................... 17

Exhibit 1.23 -AIAN Population Growth, 2000-2010, by Geographic Area .................................... 18

Exhibit 1.24 - Population and Characteristics of AIAN Tribal Areas, 2010 .................................... 19

Exhibit 1.25 - 2000-2010 Population Change in Tribal Areas ............................................................. 20

Exhibit 1.26 - Tribal Area Growth in Total AIAN Population (AIAN-Alone + Multiracial),  

2000-2010 ................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Exhibit 1.31 - Share of Population by Age Group and Race, 2010 ..................................................... 23

Exhibit 1.32 - Gap Between AIAN and Non-AIAN Population  Under 18 and 62 and  

Older by Area Type, 2010 ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Exhibit 1.33 - Average Household Size by Race and Area Type, 2010 ........................................... 25

Exhibit 1.34 - AIAN Households by Household Type, 1990 and 2010 ............................................. 27

Exhibit 1.35 - AIAN and Non-AIAN Households by Household Type, 2010 ................................. 28

Exhibit 1.36 - Share of Adults Without a High School Diploma by Race, 1990 to 2006–10 .. 30

Exhibit 1.37 - AIAN Employment Indicators by Study Region and Area Type, 2006–10 ...... 32

Exhibit 1.38 - Employment Indicators by Race  for Population 16 and Over, 2006–10 .......... 33

Exhibit 1.39 - Poverty Rates, 2006-10 ............................................................................................................ 35

Exhibit 1.310 - Poverty Rates by Age and Race, 2006–10 .................................................................... 36

Exhibit 1.311 - AIAN Economic Indicators, 2008 to 2010 ....................................................................... 38

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xi

Exhibit 1.41 - Employment Trends in AIAN Counties from 2000 to 2010 ..................................... 42

Exhibit 1.42 - Employment in AIAN and Non-AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2000,  

2007 and 2010 ........................................................................................................................................................... 43

Exhibit 1.43 - Employment Trends in  AIAN and Non-AIAN Counties by Study Region,  

2000 to 2010 .............................................................................................................................................................. 44

Exhibit 1.44 - Gaming Operations by Revenue Size Category, 2011 ................................................. 45

Exhibit 1.51 - Indicators Related to Tribal Area Diversity ....................................................................... 48

Exhibit 1.52 - Correlation Matrix: Indicators Related to Tribal Area Diversity .............................. 50

Exhibit 1.53 - Highest and Lowest Percent Change in Population, 2000-2010 ......................... 51

Exhibit 1.54 - Highest and Lowest Percent of Population Employed in the Private  

Sector, 2006 to 2010 ............................................................................................................................................... 51

Exhibit 1.55 - Highest and Lowest Percent of Households Overcrowded, 2006 to 2010 ..... 52

Exhibit 1.56 - Highest and Lowest Percent of Households Paying More Than 30 Percent  

of Income for Housing, 2006 to 2010 ............................................................................................................. 52

Exhibit 1.57 - Diversity Among Tribal Areas, Regression Results ...................................................... 53

Exhibit 2.21 - Percent Change in Housing Units by Area Type and Study Region, 2000  

to 2010 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 57

Exhibit 2.22 - Vacancy Rates by Area Type, 2000 to 2010 ................................................................. 58

Exhibit 2.23 - Housing Market Indicators by Area Type and Study Region, 2000  

to 2010 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 59

Exhibit 2.24 - Tenure, AIAN-Alone Households in Tribal Areas, 2000-2010 ............................... 60

Exhibit 2.25 - AIAN-Alone Housing Structure Type by Area Type, 2006–10 .............................. 62

Exhibit 2.31 - Individual Housing Problems in Tribal Areas ................................................................... 66

Exhibit 2.32 - Housing Problem Summary, AIAN Households in Tribal Areas ............................ 67

Exhibit 2.33 - Housing Problem Summary, Census/ACS Data ........................................................... 69

Exhibit 2.34 - Housing Problem Summary, AIAN Households in Tribal Areas by  

Region (ACS 2006-10) ........................................................................................................................................... 71

Exhibit 2.35 - Needs to Address Overcrowding and Physical Deficiencies ................................. 75

Exhibit 2.41 - Tribal Area Households by Type ........................................................................................... 79

Exhibit 2.42 - Core Family Households by Type ........................................................................................ 80

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xii

Exhibit 2.43 - Extended Households by Type ............................................................................................ 81

Exhibit 2.44 - Percent of Tribal Households that are Overcrowded by Presence of  

Cost Burden and Household Type, 2013-2015   ......................................................................................... 82

Exhibit 2.45 - Estimating the Size of the Doubled Up Population .................................................... 85

Exhibit 2.51 - Homeownership ............................................................................................................................ 87

Exhibit 2.52 - Homeownership Preference as Reported on the Tribal/TDHE Survey ............ 88

Exhibit 2.53 -  Barriers to Obtaining a Mortgage ...................................................................................... 89

Exhibit 2.54  - Barriers to Homeownership Reported by Renters .................................................... 90

Exhibit 3.21 - Amount of IHBG Funds Awarded, 1998 to 2014 ........................................................... 100

Exhibit 3.22 - NAHASDA Funding by Source, Through 2013 .............................................................. 102

Exhibit 3.23 - IHBG Program Expenditures, 2003-2014 ........................................................................ 103

Exhibit 3.24 - Analysis of IHBG Program Expenditures, 2003-2014 ............................................... 105

Exhibit 3.31 - Change in the FCAS (1937 Act) Housing Stock ............................................................ 108

Exhibit 3.32 - FCAS Housing Units 2014 and 2003-2014 Change, by Region ............................ 109

Exhibit 3.33 - Housing Production Under NAHASDA, 1998-2014 .................................................... 111

Exhibit 3.34 - IHBG Funded Housing Production, 2007-2014 ............................................................ 112

Exhibit 3.35 - Cumulative Assisted Units, 2010 and 2014 ..................................................................... 114

Exhibit 3.36 - Grantee Reported Condition of HUD Assisted Housing, 2012 .............................. 115

Exhibit 3.37 - Condition of FCAS (1937 Act) Housing by Region, 2012 ......................................... 116

Exhibit 3.41 - IHBG Grantees and Tribal Beneficiaries, FY 2014  ....................................................... 117

Exhibit 3.42 -Training Needs ................................................................................................................................ 122

Exhibit 3.61 - Barriers to New Housing Development Most Frequently Reported by  

Tribes/TDHEs .............................................................................................................................................................. 127

Exhibit 3.62 - Factors Mentioned by Sites that Affect Development Costs ................................ 128

Exhibit 3.63 - Housing Maintenance Challenges Most Frequently Reported by  

Tribes/TDHEs, by Type of Housing .................................................................................................................. 132

Exhibit 3.71 - Understanding Tribal Trust Land Mortgage Lending ................................................. 135

Exhibit 3.72 - Map of Eligible Areas for Section 184 Loans .................................................................. 137

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xiii

Technical Appendixes

Published separately in volume 2.

Appendix A. Description of Data Sources

Appendix B. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology 

Appendix C. Regression Analysis Methodology

Appendix D. Data Collection Instruments and Procedures 

Appendix E. Sampling, Survey Response, and Weighting 

Appendix F. Survey Response Rate by Tribe 

Appendix G. Site Selection Memo 

Appendix H. Site Visit Respondents by Type 

Appendix I. Household Survey and Tribal/TDHE Survey Summary Tables 

Appendix J. Major National Reports on Native American Housing Needs

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xiv

Executive Summary

this framework. Congress has provided 

Executive Summary

a fairly consistent level of funding for its 

primary delivery mechanism, the Indian 

Housing Block Grant (IHBG), administered by 

During the past two decades, although 

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

improvements have been made, the 

Development (HUD)—in nominal terms—

overcrowding and physical housing 

but this flow has been seriously eroded by 

problems of American Indians and Alaska 

inflation. Inadequate funding appears to be a 

Natives (AIANs) living on reservations and 

major constraint at this point.

other tribal areas remain strikingly more 

severe than those of other Americans. 

Regardless of the extent to which previous 

Particular circumstances of tribal areas—

funding levels can be restored, however, 

remoteness, lack of infrastructure, and 

HUD and other federal agencies need to 

complex legal and other constraints related 

assist and encourage the tribes to better 

to land ownership—make it extremely 

leverage the assistance they receive and 

difficult to improve housing conditions in 

to foster both economic development and 

those areas, although it is important to point 

housing improvement. In the move toward 

out that tribal area housing problems and 

self-determination, many tribes have recently 

the barriers to addressing them are much 

been innovative in making progress in both 

more challenging in some locations and 

areas. The agencies need to build on these 

regions of the country than in others.

examples, working with the tribes to catalyze 

further progress, especial y in tribal areas 

The nation’s central legal framework for 

where current problems are most severe. 

providing housing assistance in Indian 

Country—the Native American Housing 

This main final report includes the principal 

Assistance and Self-Determination Act 

findings and conclusions of the Assessment 

(NAHASDA) of 1996, which gives the tribes 

of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native 

primary responsibility for the use of federal 

Hawai an Housing Needs, a congressional y 

and other assistance in addressing these 

mandated study funded by HUD and 

problems—appears to be working more 

carried out by the Urban Institute and its 

effectively than did the previous approach. 

subcontractors, Econometrica, Inc.; NORC 

Although the need for further capacity 

at the University of Chicago; and Support 

improvements remains widespread, the 

Services International, Inc.1 

tribes have demonstrated the ability to 

construct and rehabilitate housing for low-

Conducted between 2011 and 2016, this 

income families at substantial levels under 

study is the largest study of AIAN housing 

1 

This study produced four additional reports (1) on the housing needs of Native Hawaiians (Corey et al., 2016), (2) on the circumstances of the AIAN population living in urban areas (Levy et al., 2016), (3) on mortgage lending on tribal lands (Listokin et al., 2016), and (4) an interim report that summarized census data on the changing circumstances of the AIAN population across the country (Pettit et al., 2014).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xv

Executive Summary

conditions and policies ever undertaken in 

increase of 27 percent. In 2010, this population 

Indian Country.2 It entailed in-person surveys 

included 2.6 mil ion who said they belonged 

of individual households in their homes in 

to other racial groups in addition to AIAN (the 

a representative sample of 38 tribal areas 

“AIAN multirace” population). This group grew 

(1,340 completed interviews), a large-scale 

most rapidly in urban areas outside Indian 

telephone survey of the tribal departments 

Country and grew much more rapidly overal  

and other local entities that administer the 

than those who identified AIAN as their only 

IHBG for the tribes (Tribal/Tribal y Designated 

race (the “AIAN-alone” population). Some in 

Housing Entity [TDHE] Survey, 110 completed 

the AIAN policy community, however, have 

interviews), and interviews with a broader 

suggested that a significant number in the 

array of local leaders in site visits to 22 of 

multirace group living in urban areas may not 

the sampled areas. The study also entailed 

be members of the recognized tribes that are 

extensive analysis of data from the U.S. 

NAHASDA’s intended beneficiaries. 

Census Bureau and other secondary sources.

It has also been suggested, however, that a 

This report focuses on conditions in the 617 

high percentage of both the AIAN multiracial 

AIAN tribal areas defined by the U.S. Census 

and AIAN-alone populations that live in 

Bureau and on the 526 counties that contain 

tribal areas and their surrounding counties 

or immediately surround them. The report 

are likely to be tribal members. Their growth 

has three parts: (1) Demographic, Social, and 

has been somewhat slower, but it is stil  

Economic Conditions; (2) Housing Conditions 

much stronger than the U.S. population 

and Needs; and (3) Housing Policies and 

growth overal . The AIAN-alone population 

Programs.

grew much faster in tribal areas and the 

surrounding counties than it did in the rest 

Demographic, Social,  

of the nation—by 10 versus 5 percent. From 

and Economic Conditions 

2000 to 2010, the total AIAN population 

(AIAN-alone plus AIAN multirace) grew by 12 

Three things about a population are most 

percent in the tribal areas and by 31 percent 

critical to understanding its demand for and 

in the surrounding counties (compared with 

effects on housing conditions: (1) whether it 

the overall U.S. growth rate of 10 percent). By 

is growing, (2) how its economic wel -being 

2010, the total AIAN population had reached 

compares with that of other groups, and (3) 

1.15 mil ion in tribal areas and 1.32 mil ion in 

whether its socioeconomic conditions are 

the surrounding counties.

internal y uniform or diverse.

The overall economic well-being of 

The AIAN population in tribal areas and 

the AIAN population remains generally 

their surrounding counties continues to 

more problematic than that of non-

grow rapidly. Patterns suggest that links 

AIANs almost everywhere and is worse 

to traditional tribal areas and cultures 

for AIANs in tribal areas than for AIANs 

remain strong—most who identify AIAN 

living in other parts of the country.

as their only race are remaining on tribal 

land or staying close to tribal areas 

For example, the American Community 

rather than moving to distant cities.

Survey (ACS) shows that, compared with a 

U.S. average poverty rate of 18 percent in the 

Nationwide, the number of people who 

2006-to-2010 period, AIAN-alone poverty 

identified their race as AIAN grew from 4.1 

rates stood at 22 percent in metropolitan 

mil ion in 2000 to 5.2 mil ion in 2010—an 

2  The term Indian Country is used in the common colloquial sense to mean tribal areas, including Alaska Native villages, and is not used as a legal term in this report.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xvi

Executive Summary

counties outside Indian Country, 28 percent 

thereby improving local accountability and 

in the surrounding counties, and 32 percent 

encouraging tribal and non-tribal investments 

in tribal areas (exhibit ES.1). The latter figure 

in human and other capital” (Harvard Project 

is almost double (1.8 times) the U.S. average.

on American Indian Economic Development, 

2008: 111). New economic activity includes 

Notable advances in socioeconomic 

large-scale investments by the tribes and a 

conditions in many tribal areas have 

variety of businesses started by private tribal 

occurred during the past two decades, 

members. Gaming has played a part in this 

however, offering promising models 

economic activity—substantial y increasing 

for change. These advances include 

wealth in some places—but it has not been 

improvements in the capacity of the 

the primary driver of development in most 

people (higher educational attainment) 

areas and has an uncertain future as a basis 

and vigorous initiatives by tribes 

for economic development.

exercising their self-determination to 

drive economic development.

An important understanding for policy 

is that conditions in tribal areas are 

From 2000 to 2006-2010 the share of 

markedly diverse across the nation.

AIAN adults living in tribal areas that had a 

bachelor’s degree or higher went up only 

One example indicator that illustrates this 

slightly, from 7.8 to 9.2 percent, but this 

point is the share of a tribal area’s population 

increase narrowed the gap in educational 

that has a private-sector job. The measure is 

attainment in tribal areas as compared to the 

positively correlated with population growth 

non-AIAN population during that period. Since 

and other indicators of economic wel -

1990, researchers have seen increasing tribal 

being and inversely correlated with remote 

efforts to create environments supportive of 

locations. In the top quarter of the 213 

private entrepreneurship—“tribes investing 

largest tribal areas3 by this measure, private 

in their own capacities to govern and 

employees accounted for 17 percent or more 

3  These 213 are tribal areas the Census Bureau considers large enough to permit the publication of independent estimates for a large number of ACS variables. Together, they account for 89 percent of the total 2010 AIAN-alone population in all tribal areas. 

Exhibit ES.

Exhibit ES. 1 - Po

1 - Pov v

ert erty Ra

y Rat tes, 2006-

es, 2006-10 10

AIAN Population

Tribal Areas

0.32

Surrounding Counties

0.28

Other Metropolitan areas

0.22

Other Non-metropolitan areas

0.26

United States – All Races

0.18

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Poverty Rate

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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xvii

Executive Summary

of the population. In the bottom quarter, 

the Census Bureau does not collect any 

they accounted for less than 7 percent. The 

data on three of these problems—heating, 

top quarter is spread across many parts of 

electrical, or condition deficiencies—it does 

the country, although a distinct cluster is in 

collect data on all the other indicators and 

Oklahoma. Regarding the bottom quarter, 

has the benefit of supporting comparisons 

large clusters are located in the poorest 

over time and between geographies, which, 

regions of Indian Country: Arizona/New 

because of sample size limitations, cannot 

Mexico, the Plains and northwest Alaska. 

be done with the household survey data.

Although the distinction between public- 

Data from this project’s household 

and private-sector jobs is somewhat 

survey show that physical housing 

blurred by tribal and state definitions of 

problems for AIAN households in tribal 

certain tribal enterprises, this example does 

areas remain much more severe than  

serve to highlight economic diversity in 

for U.S. households, on average, in 

Indian Country. 

almost all categories. The share of AIAN  

Housing Conditions and Needs 

households in tribal areas with a cost 

burden problem, however, is comparable 

The central motivation for this study was to 

with that of all U.S. households.

determine the extent of housing problems 

and needs in Indian Country. This study 

Physical housing problems have declined 

follows standards that HUD uses in its 

enough to be negligible for the United 

work on worst case housing needs. These 

States, on average—incidences typically 

standards start with physical problems in 

of 1 to 2 percent—but not for American 

three categories:

Indians and Alaska Natives in tribal areas. 

For example, 2013 American Housing 

1.  Systems deficiencies—plumbing, kitchen, 

Survey data show the U.S. average share of 

heating, and electrical.

households with plumbing deficiencies was 

1 percent, but this study’s household survey 

2. Condition problems, including structural 

shows the share for AIAN populations 

deficiencies, holes in the wal , and so forth.

in tribal areas was 6 percent; the share 

3. Overcrowding, defined by having more 

with heating deficiencies was 2 percent 

than one person per room.

for the United States but 12 percent for 

AIANs in tribal areas; the share that was 

The analysis then addresses the 

overcrowded was 2 percent for the United 

most rapidly growing problem nearly 

States but 16 percent for AIANs in tribal 

everywhere—affordability, or  cost burden—

areas (exhibit ES.2). The only problems 

defined as when households are paying 

in which the incidences were nearly the 

more than 30 percent of their income for 

same were electrical deficiencies (about 

housing expenses. 

1 percent for both) and cost burden (36 

percent for the United States versus 38 

Findings are based on two sources of 

percent in tribal areas). 

information. The first source is this project’s 

completed household survey—a national y 

Adding up these measures would yield 

representative snapshot of tribal areas as of 

an inaccurate estimate of the number of 

the time period 2013 to 2015, which provides 

households affected by one or more of 

data on all these problems. The second 

these problems, because it would involve 

source is U.S. Census Bureau data. Although 

double counting (a single household, for 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xviii

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES.2 - Individual Housing Pr

Exhibit ES.2 - Individual Housing Pr oblems in T

oblems in T ribal Ar

ribal Ar

eas and Unit

eas and Unit

ed Sta

ed States tes

12.0

12

10

8

6.6

6

5.6

AIAN in Tribal Areas

4

Total US

2

1.7

1.3

1.4

1.1

0.1

Percent of AIAN alone households with incomplete facilities

0

Plumbing

Kitchen

Electrical

Heating

Physical Problems

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015. American Housing Survey, 2013.  

example, might have a cost burden problem 

of AIAN households had one or more 

plus a kitchen or plumbing deficiency and 

identified housing problems of any kind 

also be overcrowded, and so forth). This 

(compared with 40 percent of the U.S. 

study also accordingly calculated incidences 

households overall). 

in mutual y exclusive categories. 

Any estimate of the amount of new 

These calculations show that 10 percent of 

housing required to address the needs of 

AIAN tribal area households had plumbing 

a population must be based on a set of 

and/or kitchen deficiencies. Another 

assumptions, and those assumptions are 

13 percent that did not have plumbing 

always open to question and alternative 

or kitchen deficiencies had some mix 

formulations. The assumptions developed 

of heating, electrical, and/or condition 

by the research team for this study 

problems, and another 11 percent that did 

indicate that, as of the 2013–2015 period, 

not have any of the previous problems were 

it would have been necessary to build 

overcrowded. Final y, for another 23 percent, 

around 33,000 new units to eliminate 

cost burden was their only problem.

the overcrowding of the AIAN population 

in tribal areas and another 35,000 new 

Altogether, then, 34 percent of AIAN 

units to replace units that were severely 

households had one or more physical 

physically inadequate, yielding a total need 

problems compared with only 7 percent 

of around 68,000 new units. 

for U.S. households, on average. Including 

the cost burden-only measure, 57 percent 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xix

Executive Summary

Census/ACS data also confirm that 

percent of those households that had 

physical housing problems for AIAN 

physical housing problems. 

households in tribal areas remain much 

The shares with cost burden-only problems 

more severe than for U.S. households, 

are higher in other regions. In fact, across 

on average. They also show that, 

tribal areas, the incidence of cost burden 

for low-income AIAN households in 

problems was inversely related to the 

tribal areas, the incidence of physical 

incidence of overcrowding and other 

problems is much higher (by about 40 

physical problems; in other words, places 

percent) than for the average AIAN 

with the most serious overcrowding 

household in tribal areas. Finally, they 

problems general y had among the lowest 

show that marked differences exist 

cost burden problems, and vice versa.

in the severity of these problems in 

different regions and locations. Cost 

Among the 213 largest tribal areas, 

burden problems, however, have grown 

the quarter with the highest levels of 

since 1990 and their locations appear 

overcrowding—all more than 18 percent—

to be inversely correlated with those of 

was mostly in the poorest regions—the 

physical problems.

Plains, Arizona/New Mexico, and Alaska. 

By contrast, the quarter with the lowest 

The analysis uses data from the ACS for 

overcrowding—all at less than 4.5 percent—

the 2006-to-2010 period (the period just 

was, in general, in places that came out 

before the housing collapse and the Great 

among the highest in terms of private-sector 

Recession), remembering that the only 

employment, as discussed earlier.

physical problems covered by these data 

are plumbing/kitchen deficiencies and 

This study generally confirms what has 

overcrowding. The data show that one or 

become the conventional wisdom about 

more of these physical problems affected 

homelessness in Indian Country; namely 

13 percent of AIAN households in tribal 

that, in tribal areas, homelessness mostly 

areas. This number is much higher—by three 

translates into overcrowding rather than 

times—than the comparable number for al  

having people sleeping on the street. 

U.S. households at that time—4 percent. 

The study estimates that, at the time 

The share of low-income AIAN households 

of the household survey in 2013–2015, 

(those with incomes that are less than 80 

between 42,000 and 85,000 people in 

percent of the local median) in tribal areas 

tribal areas were staying with friends or 

with physical problems was much more 

relatives only because they had no place 

severe: 18 percent, almost 40 percent more 

of their own; that is, they were homeless.

than the AIAN tribal area average. 

It is general y understood that AIAN families 

Substantial variations occurred in the 

in tribal areas who do have housing tend 

incidence of these problems by region. 

to take in family members and others who 

Physical problems were, by far, the most 

do not have a place to stay. The tribal/

serious in three of the study regions—the 

TDHE survey and site visit interviews 

Plains, Arizona/New Mexico, and Alaska 

general y support this conclusion as does the 

(which reaches a high of 36 percent, three 

household survey (exhibit ES.3). According 

times the all-tribal area average of 13 

to the household survey, 19 percent of 

percent). These three regions accounted 

household heads said they had more 

for 44 percent of all AIAN households in 

household members than could live in their 

tribal areas, but they accounted for 73 

unit comfortably (somewhat more than the 16 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xx

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES.3 - Ov

Exhibit ES.3 - Over er

cro cr

w owded households in T

ded Households in T ribal Ar

ribal Ar

eas and Unit

eas and Unit

ed Sta

ed States tes

20

15.9

15

10

5

2.2

Percent of households experiencing overcrowding

0

AIAN in Tribal Areas

Total US

Population

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015. American Housing Survey, 2013.  

percent that were overcrowded by the HUD 

This study confirms that a strong 

standard) and 17 percent said they did have 

preference remains for homeownership 

some household members that were there 

in tribal areas. The homeownership rate 

only because they had no other place to stay. 

in tribal areas is already high, but many 

households are renters, and nearly all 

Very few of the heads of these households 

want to become homeowners. They 

(19 percent) said they would ask these 

face notable barriers, however, in 

people to leave, but the vast majority (80 

achieving that goal.

percent) of the people involved would like 

to get a place of their own if they could. 

This study’s household survey reports that 

This 17 percent of households represents 

68 percent of AIAN households in tribal areas 

the first sample-based estimate ever made 

were homeowners in 2013–2015. It also reports 

related to this form of homelessness in 

that 90 percent of renters would prefer to 

tribal areas nationwide. Further, this study 

own their own home (and 90 percent of them 

estimates that the number of people in 

said they would contribute their own labor if it 

these households with no place else to stay 

would enable them to do so). 

(that is, the doubled-up homeless) totaled 

Of current homeowners responding to 

between 42,000 and 85,000—between 3.6 

the household survey, 8 percent had been 

and 7.2 percent of the total 2013–2015 AIAN 

denied a mortgage, and 9 percent of renters 

population in tribal areas. 

who had applied for a mortgage had been 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xxi

Executive Summary

turned down. Both groups mentioned that 

Criticisms included overly complex 

the most common reason for being denied 

procedures, a lack of flexibility, coordination 

a mortgage was a low credit score or lack 

problems, and the lack of trained personnel. 

of a credit history. The next most common 

Underlying these criticisms was deeper 

reason that renters mentioned was not 

dissatisfaction with the extent to which 

having a sufficient downpayment. 

HUD controlled these programs, giving 

tribal leaders insufficient influence over 

Those who had never applied for a 

program planning and operations.

mortgage also experienced barriers to 

homeownership. This group of households 

Recognizing these problems, in an era in 

mentioned additional barriers that include 

which self-determination had become the 

not having sufficient savings, not having a 

central theme of U.S. Native American 

regular source of income, and lack of access 

policy, Congress replaced this approach 

to a mortgage lender. Of the households 

with a new framework in 1996: the Native 

that were interested in homeownership 

American Housing Assistance and Self-

but had never applied for a mortgage, 29 

Determination Act. NAHASDA brought 

percent also mentioned that they did not 

a new funding delivery mechanism—the 

know how to buy a home or were unfamiliar 

Indian Housing Block Grant—allocated to 

with the loan application process, lending 

tribes via a needs-based formula. Funds are 

terms, or real estate transactions.

given directly to the tribes, rather than to 

IHAs. The tribal governments may run the 

Housing Policies and Programs 

program themselves or assign operating 

responsibility to a Tribal y Designated 

The U.S. government has a general trust 

Housing Entity that reports to them. The 

obligation to promote the welfare of AIAN 

tribes must prepare an Indian Housing Plan 

populations by supplying housing along 

(IHP) and annual performance reports 

with other services on reservations and 

and submit them to HUD’s Office of 

other tribal areas. Notable progress began 

Native American Programs (ONAP), which 

to be made toward this end in housing 

is responsible for overall performance 

in the 1960s, with expanded production 

monitoring and quality control. 

under two programs implemented under 

provisions of the Housing Act of 1937: (1) 

IHBG funding must cover continuing support 

the low-rent program (operated like public 

for the remaining stock funded under the 

housing elsewhere in the nation) and (2) 

1937 Act programs—the Formula Current 

the Mutual Help program (a lease-purchase 

Assisted Stock (FCAS)—and also assisted 

type of homeownership program). HUD 

housing development (new construction, 

administered these programs and a network 

acquisition, and rehabilitation), planning and 

of local Indian Housing Authorities (IHAs) 

administration, and an array of activities that 

implemented them on the ground, operating 

support affordable housing and its residents 

under strong HUD oversight.

(for example, housing counseling, energy 

audits, crime prevention, and safety). 

By 1990, the IHAs had developed 67,400 

assisted housing units, a number equal to 

Congress has provided a fairly consistent 

42 percent of all low-income households 

level of funding for the IHBG in nominal 

living in Indian Country at the time. 

terms, but this flow has been seriously 

Dissatisfaction with these programs, 

eroded by inflation. Funding for housing 

however, was present on several levels. 

development has been especially hard hit.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xxii

Executiv

Ex

e Summary

ecutiv

Since 1998, the first year that IHBG became 

During the 1998-to-2006 period, total 

operational, Congress has provided a 

expenditures averaged $636 mil ion annual y 

consistent level of funding annually in 

in constant 1998 dollars. Mostly because 

nominal terms—an average of about 

of the effects of inflation, the amount had 

$667 million per year from 1998 through 

declined to an average of $429 mil ion per 

2014. During 17 years, however, inflation 

year during the 2011-to-2014 period—a 

has seriously eroded that level. The 2014 

decline of almost exactly one-third. During 

amount ($637 million in nominal dollars) 

the 2011-to-2014 period, the tribes were 

represented only $440 million in 1998 

able to spend only $128 mil ion per year for 

purchasing power (exhibit ES.4).

housing development in 1998 dollars, about 

one-half of the $244 mil ion the program 

Funding for housing development has 

had been able to spend on housing during 

been especially hard hit because other 

the 1998-to-2006 period.

categories of expenditures (including 

FCAS support) involve comparatively 

The tribes have demonstrated the 

fixed costs and are very hard to reduce 

capacity to construct and rehabilitate 

proportionally as inflation takes its 

housing for low-income families at 

toll. Amounts available for housing 

substantial levels under the NAHASDA 

development are squeezed as a result.

framework. Their ability to effectively 

Exhibit ES.4 - Amoun

Exhibit ES.4 - Amoun t of IHBG F

t of IHBG F unds A

unds Aw w

ar arded, 1998 t

ded, 1998 t

o 20

o 2014 14

800

700

600

)

500

Constant 1998 Dollars

400

Nominal Dollars

300

1998 Dollars (in millions

200

100

0

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Year

Source: HUD ONAP LOCCS Report, current as of June 1, 2015.

Note: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided an additional $504,201,481 in IHBG funding.  

HOUSING NEE

E D

E S O

D

F AMER

E ICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NAT

A I

T VES I

E N TRIBA

B L AREAS

xxiii

Executiv

Ex

e Summary

ecutiv

use an unexpected injection of funding 

within 3 years. The tribes were able to spend 

under the American Recovery and 

virtual y all (more than 99 percent) of these 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 

funds consistent with that requirement, 

toward these ends in a very limited time 

yielding an additional 1,954 new 

period is particularly strong evidence 

construction units and 13,338 rehabilitated 

supporting this conclusion.

units between 2009 and 2012. 

What has happened to the quantity of 

Under the regular IHBG allocations, 

assisted housing in Indian Country since 

however, the constant dollar funding 

NAHASDA was enacted? First, as would 

reductions noted previously caused a 

be expected, a decline has occurred in 

different pattern of production during the 

the number of FCAS (1937 Act) units 

2011-to-2014 period. Tribes responded by 

available—from 72,000 in 2003 to 

cutting back new construction (to 2,000 

49,000 in 2014. Nearly all of this loss was 

units per year) and expanding the number 

accounted for by conveyances of Mutual 

of rehabilitated units (to 4,800 per year), 

Help units to their residents (as called for 

presumably judging that an emphasis on 

in the program design) rather than by 

rehabilitation, given the overall funding 

demolition. Losses to the low-rent program 

constraint, would allow them to reach a 

inventory have been negligible.

larger share of the families in need.

These reductions in older FCAS units have 

Since the enactment of NAHASDA, large 

been more than made up for, however, 

increases have occurred in the number 

by new production under the IHBG. In its 

of HUD grantees and in the share 

early years (from 1998 through 2006), the 

of all programs being administered 

IHBG program supported the building of 

directly by tribal governments. Many 

an average of 1,900 new assisted housing 

indications suggest that these programs 

units per year and the rehabilitating of an 

generally are meeting basic functional 

additional 2,700 units annual y. Production 

expectations and that the tribes prefer 

then increased to peak levels in the 2007-

operations under NAHASDA to the 

to-2010 period (2,400 new units and 4,100 

previous system.

rehabilitated units per year). One question 

In 1995, HUD assistance in Indian Country 

raised before the enactment of NAHASDA 

was being administered by 187 IHAs, serving 

was whether the tribes would be able to 

467 tribes. In fiscal year 2014, 363 compliant 

produce as much housing on their own 

IHPs had been submitted to serve 563 

as had occurred under the earlier HUD-

tribes. This project’s tribal/TDHE survey 

directed system. These numbers give an 

indicated that offices of tribal governments 

answer clearly in the affirmative.

were administering 41 percent of these 

This conclusion about tribal capacity is 

programs and TDHEs were administering 

strongly reinforced by what the tribes were 

the rest (96 percent of the latter said they 

able to do with an unexpected injection of 

were then, or had been, IHAs). 

additional funds from ARRA in 2009. ARRA 

Despite concerns about administrative 

provided $47.25 mil ion for IHBG activities 

capacity, ONAP reports widespread 

on top of the regular IHBG allocation, with 

compliance with program requirements and 

the proviso that funds would be recaptured 

general ability to disburse funds rapidly. 

if they were not obligated within 1 year of 

The tribal/TDHE survey indicates that, for 

the date they were made available and spent 

most programs, the number of ful -time 

HOUSING NEE

E D

E S O

D

F AMER

E ICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NAT

A I

T VES I

E N TRIBA

B L AREAS

xxiv

Executiv

Ex

e Summary

ecutiv

staff remained stable during the past 3 

U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau 

years (although, at 11 of 22 sites visited, 

of Indian Affairs and HUD’s Low-Income 

administrators said they were understaffed).

Housing Tax Credit program. Few 

respondents named the Indian Community 

Local administrators recognize that they 

Development Block Grant program as a 

have enhanced flexibility under NAHASDA 

major program for their tribal area. 

(for example, 83 percent of survey 

respondents said it is easier to leverage 

Although the flexibility of NAHASDA 

private funds now). They indicated no call 

enables tribes to design, develop, and 

for any major overhaul of IHBG regulations, 

operate their own affordable housing 

although some changes were requested, 

programs based on local needs, tribal 

such as those pertaining to program 

housing departments and TDHEs still 

administration (58 percent) and developing 

face significant challenges in carrying 

new units (50 percent). 

out their plans.

When asked about what they would like to 

Almost all respondents to the tribal/TDHE 

change, most respondents suggested they 

survey indicated that development costs 

would like to be able to offer assistance to 

had increased during the past 3 years, with 

families just above the eligibility line who, 

40 percent saying costs had increased 

even though somewhat better off, still 

greatly and 57 percent saying costs had 

cannot afford decent housing in tribal areas. 

increased somewhat. In addition, 35 percent 

Survey respondents also said they would 

of tribal/TDHEs reported that development 

like more training; priorities were for training 

cost was a very serious constraint, and 

in building maintenance, information/

another 15 percent said it was a fairly serious 

computer systems, and case management 

constraint in developing new housing. When 

support in resident services.

asked to name the top three factors that 

increase the cost of developing new housing, 

Most tribes and TDHEs rely on partnerships 

tribes/TDHEs cited the following barriers 

to provide a broader array of services 

most frequently: developing infrastructure 

than would otherwise be possible and 

(70 percent), availability of labor (39 

on contractors to provide administrative 

percent), lack of funds (34 percent), and 

and building-related services. Although 

acquiring or assembling land (30 percent). 

contracting is a sound business strategy 

Other challenges reported by tribes included 

for accomplishing objectives with limited 

risk of flooding, water shortages, and the 

resources, in some cases, these relationships 

aging of existing infrastructure. 

appear to be necessary for reasons of 

limited organizational capacity and staff 

The availability of labor is affected because 

capability, which are attributed to sparse 

tribal housing agencies do not have enough 

local populations, insufficient funding, and 

construction activity to support construction 

limited opportunities for staff training. 

workers (either in-house employees or 

contractors) on a consistent basis. This 

Among the sites visited and the tribal/TDHE 

scarcity of work results in the need for 

survey respondents, most organizations 

workers with the necessary skil s to travel 

offer only housing assistance programs 

outside the tribal area for work and then not 

funded under the IHBG program. Among 

be available when needed in the tribal area. 

those that do offer other programs, 

the most commonly cited were the 

Land assembly and acquisition remain as 

Housing Improvement Program of the 

frequent problems that add to the cost 

HOUSING NEE

E D

E S O

D

F AMER

E ICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NAT

A I

T VES I

E N TRIBA

B L AREAS

xxv

Executiv

Ex

e Summary

ecutiv

of development. The main source of this 

Veterans Affairs Native American Direct 

challenge is fractionated land, which is the 

Loan Program. The Section 184 loan 

result of allotments that have been divided 

program, by providing lenders with a 

among heirs through probate. Having many 

100-percent guarantee for mortgages to 

owners makes it hard to assemble large 

AIAN borrowers originated on tribal trust 

enough parcels for development. To solve this 

land, essentially eliminates problems with 

problem, a few tribes have initiated efforts to 

the unique nature of tribal trust land used 

buy back fractionated land or land adjacent 

as collateral. Section 184 serves AIAN 

to tribal lands. Other sites try to ensure that 

borrowers both on and off trust lands. 

the housing agency owns its own land. 

Rather than tribal trust land issues, the 

lenders interviewed in this study indicated 

Survey respondents suggested that their 

that mortgage lending on tribal trust land 

biggest challenges in operating the rental 

remains a time-consuming process that 

program were tenants damaging their units 

reduces the appeal of lending on tribal trust 

(91 percent), controlling criminal activity (74 

land, even with the federal guarantee. This 

percent), and tenants not paying rent on 

process is so long, in part, because of the 

time (65 percent). 

requirements under the Section 184 loan 

program for tribes to develop and execute 

A changing landscape exists regarding 

leases for land on which the mortgaged 

mortgage lending in Indian Country, 

property is located. Therefore, lenders 

with greater lending activity and a 

indicate that they prefer to work with tribes 

lessening of once seemingly intractable 

that have the capacity to develop leases and 

problems, such as those related to 

get them approved relatively quickly.

tribal trust land.

The Helping Expedite and Advance 

Originating mortgages on properties 

Responsible Tribal Homeownership 

located in Indian Country presents unique 

(HEARTH) Act of 2012 is viewed as a 

challenges that relate to the legal status 

promising approach to assist tribes in 

of lands on reservations; the remote 

assembling land for development.

locations of reservations that inhibit the 

development of an infrastructure that can 

The HEARTH Act of 2012 creates an 

support mortgage lending; a lack of cultural 

alternative land leasing process. Tribes 

understanding by mainstream lenders 

are authorized to execute agricultural 

of Native American attitudes toward the 

and business leases of tribal trust lands 

use of credit, particularly when used for 

for a primary term of 25 years and up 

a land transaction; and, possibly, lenders’ 

to two renewal terms of 25 years each 

discrimination against Native American 

without approval by the Secretary of the 

mortgage applicants. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, provided 

governing tribal leasing regulations have 

A number of programs have been 

already been submitted to the Secretary. 

developed to address the challenges of 

Before 2012, tribes had to submit leases of 

lending in Indian Country, including the 

tribal land to the Secretary of the Interior 

Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee 

for approval. Under the HEARTH Act, tribes 

Program under the Housing and Community 

make their own decisions about land leasing, 

Development Act of 1992, as amended 

exercising their right of self-determination. 

by NAHASDA; Section 502 Direct Loan 

Leveraging trust land was one goal expressed 

Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

by tribal officials, who were enthusiastic 

Rural Housing); and U.S. Department of 

HOUSING NEE

E D

E S O

D

F AMER

E ICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NAT

A I

T VES I

E N TRIBA

B L AREAS

xxvi

Executiv

Ex

e Summary

ecutiv

about the potential of the HEARTH Act to 

This project was not asked to conduct a 

break down barriers to leasing on tribal land. 

formal evaluation of NAHASDA. Nonetheless, 

it offers many findings pertinent to an 

Tribes have developed programs 

understanding of how programs are 

for potential homebuyers, often in 

working in the NAHASDA framework and of 

partnership with nonprofit organizations 

opportunities to improve performance.

and financial institutions.

When NAHASDA was enacted, some in the 

In addition to having processing 

Native American housing policy community, 

issues, many potential borrowers have 

including some appropriators and IHA 

creditworthiness issues and insufficient 

officials, expressed uncertainty about tribes’ 

incomes or savings to qualify for mortgages, 

capacity to administer the new program 

even those mortgages guaranteed under the 

and avoid abuses when federal controls 

Section 184 program that have more flexible 

were reduced. This study shows that these 

underwriting standards than do Federal 

challenges have largely been addressed. 

Housing Administration or conventional 

loans. Lenders report that prepurchase 

•  The tribes were able to establish new 

counseling, particularly counseling 

administrative entities and processes to 

provided by organizations familiar with 

administer the IHGB and related programs 

the unique challenges of lending on tribal 

fairly quickly after enactment.

trust land, is critical to getting borrowers 

•  The new system (IHBG, the NAHASDA 

mortgage ready. Moreover, downpayment 

block grant) has proven it is able to 

assistance programs can help borrowers 

match or exceed the rate of assisted 

with insufficient savings qualify for Section 

housing production in Indian Country 

184 program mortgages. Many tribes have 

under the old approach (1937 Act 

designed local programs to respond to 

programs). Limits on funding are now a 

these barriers to homeownership among 

major constraint on production.

their members. The diversity of tribal 

land requires that homebuyer education 

•  This study could not provide much direct 

be tailored to the unique needs of tribes. 

evidence on the quality of IHBG housing 

Topics addressed in homebuyer education 

or costs per unit, but nothing indicates 

programs include establishing credit and 

that these measures under IHBG have 

improving a low credit rating, understanding 

been inadequate or different than those 

the homebuying process, and responsibilities 

produced under the old system.

of homeownership. A number of tribes also 

offer downpayment assistance programs. 

•  As hoped, the mix of housing types and 

development patterns produced under 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

NAHASDA appears more sensitive to 

cultural and other local determinants in 

Although needs for capacity 

individual tribal areas than was the case 

improvement remain widespread, 

under the old approach.

the housing assistance system 

established under NAHASDA appears 

•  Although far from ubiquitous, many 

to be functioning reasonably well and 

examples of leveraging and innovative 

doing what it was intended to do. It 

practice today could not have taken place  

represents a marked improvement over 

under the pre-NAHASDA system. Likewise 

the previous approach.

substantial qualitative evidence indicates 

HOUSING NEE

E D

E S O

D

F AMER

E ICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NAT

A I

T VES I

E N TRIBA

B L AREAS

xxvii

Executiv

Ex

e Summary

ecutiv

that processes are more efficient now 

local economies and channeling resources to 

than under the previous, more rule-bound 

address unmet housing needs efficiently.

approach. In general, the tribes seem to 

A new type of targeted approach is 

be stepping up to the challenge of self-

recommended then—one that jointly 

determination in housing.

addresses economic and housing 

•  Qualitative evidence also supports the 

development in tribal areas that are most 

view that the system is now more broadly 

distressed. Although HUD programs in tribal 

accountable to tribal members—that tribal 

areas have always had the twin purposes 

members are able to participate more 

of housing and economic development, a 

through their tribal governments in planning 

stronger focus on this intersection is needed. 

and other programmatic decisionmaking.

This approach envisions movement toward 

an ideal program, while maintaining the 

•  Although they recommend 

current IHBG program. In many cases, this 

some changes, tribal leaders and 

approach may involve helping the tribes 

administrators almost uniformly prefer 

make the fundamental institutional changes 

operations under NAHASDA to the 

that have been critical to establishing a 

system that existed before. 

dynamic market economy in tribal areas 

elsewhere: emphasizing the rule of law in 

Regardless of the extent to which 

dispute resolution and other aspects of 

previous funding levels can be restored, 

tribal activity, separating politics from day-

HUD and other federal agencies need 

to-day administration and business affairs, 

to assist and encourage the tribes to 

and creating an efficient tribal bureaucracy. 

better leverage the assistance they 

It would also include, however, practical 

receive to generate both economic 

technical assistance and training on the 

development and housing improvement 

specific design and operation of programs 

in an integrated manner, particularly in 

developed to support the new strategies. 

the places that need it most.

Models would be developed based on 

It is clear that the amount of federal housing 

successful programs implemented in other 

assistance provided to Indian Country to this 

tribal areas but modified, as appropriate, to 

point has not been sufficient to meet the 

address cultural and other differences.

need. In addition, the flow of IHBG funding is 

ONAP could play a leading role in this 

now trending down in relation to this need in 

effort. It has a solid track record of long-

real terms. At this time, insufficient funding, 

established relationships helping tribes 

more than administrative capacity, is the 

achieve their housing objectives and could 

major constraint on providing housing. 

use reporting and technical assistance 

In considering policy options, the diversity 

activities to support efforts that combine 

of conditions across tribal areas is of great 

housing and economic development. ONAP 

importance. Housing problems in some tribal 

would need additional resources enabling it 

areas are much more severe than in others. 

to play an expanded role. 

The focus must be on innovative technical 

HUD should initiate a program to more 

assistance and training that will encourage 

frequently monitor housing and other 

the tribes, especial y those most in need, to 

conditions of the AIAN population 

markedly enhance their own development 

nationwide, primarily taking advantage 

efforts—learning from other tribes that have 

of the Census Bureau’s ACS.

been most successful in expanding their 

HOUSING NEE

E D

E S O

D

F AMER

E ICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NAT

A I

T VES I

E N TRIBA

B L AREAS

xxviii

Executive Summary

HUD published its first comprehensive 

of policies and programs. Two reports are 

national assessment of AIAN housing 

recommended in each reporting year. 

conditions in 1996. Between that time and 

1.  A report on conditions for AIAN 

this study, 20 years later, all stakeholders 

populations nationwide across al  

concerned with housing conditions in 

geographies. It would compare indicators 

tribal areas have had little information on 

for AIAN populations in tribal areas and 

changing circumstances to guide their 

surrounding counties with those in other 

policy deliberations. The long time gap is 

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. 

explained by the fact that this study was 

No one else now regularly produces a 

very expensive—$6.3 mil ion during 6 years. 

report like this and it should be of great 

With competing demands for research 

value to the overall AIAN policy community. 

resources, decisionmakers had a difficult time 

mobilizing support for a study of this scope.

2. A report focused on tribal areas, with the 

NAHASDA/HUD policy community as 

The high cost of this study was driven 

its primary audience. This report would 

mostly by the challenging task of 

examine trends in housing conditions, 

conducting a reliable random sample 

problems, and needs in tribal areas and also 

household survey, particularly in tribal 

program performance under NAHASDA. 

areas, which often lack rural addressing in 

many places and require intensive fieldwork 

An additional need must be considered. In 

to build sample frames. There are strong 

the course of this study, many tribes said they 

reasons to believe, however, that almost all 

would like to develop much better data on 

of the information that needs to be updated 

housing conditions and other circumstances 

for policymaking can be obtained without 

on their own individual reservations to guide 

a separate household survey. ACS data 

program planning. This interest, in part, can 

are now released every year, and, although 

be met for the larger tribes (that is, where 

sample sizes are too small to support 

ACS sample sizes warrant) by sending them 

reliable estimates for smaller tribal areas 

standard situation profiles from the ACS 

individually, they are ample to support 

each year and encouraging tribal input 

reports on most needed indicators for 

regarding data presentations and formats. In 

tribal areas in total by region and for larger 

addition, HUD’s Office of Policy Development 

tribal areas individually (as demonstrated 

and Research should work with ONAP to 

by the use of ACS data in this report). A 

develop efficient guidelines and training 

major increase in the national sample size 

programs to help tribes (that can mount the 

was implemented in 2011, so ACS data in 

needed resources) conduct sample surveys 

the future will be more reliable than is the 

and use other available data to assess their 

2006–2010 data used in this report.4

situations efficiently. This study’s household 

survey is publicly available to tribes for their 

It is recommended that HUD support 

use, which is consistent with the intent of 

studies that rely on decennial census and 

NAHASDA to enhance tribal capacity and 

ACS data in census years (for example, 

self-determination. 

2020, 2030) and on ACS data alone for 

the intervening 5-year points (for example, 

2015, 2025, 2035). The currency of the 

data should make a greater contribution 

to timely and cost-effective adaptations 

4  This increase raised the national sample to 3.5 million addresses, up from 2.9 million in the 2000s (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xxix

Introduction

AIAN reservations and other tribal areas; 

Introduction

(2) experiences of lenders under the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-

Determination Act (NAHASDA) of 1996 and 

Introduction to the Overall 

key issues related to lending on and around 

Assessment

AIAN reservations and other tribal areas; 

(3) the situation for AIAN populations living 

This document is the final report of 

in other parts of the United States (mostly 

the congressional y mandated national 

urban); and (4) the situation for Native 

Assessment of American Indian, Alaska 

Hawaiians in Hawaii.

Native, and Native Hawai an Housing 

Needs. The study was conducted for the 

HUD recognized that the policy environment 

Office of Policy Development and Research 

and policy relevant conditions and trends are 

(PD&R), U.S. Department of Housing and 

different in each of these four topic areas. It 

Urban Development (HUD), Contract No. 

was also recognized that the audiences for 

C-CHI-01092/GS-23F-8198H. Urban Institute 

the research are different for each topic area. 

staff conducted this work with support 

After discussions with many interested parties, 

from three subcontractors: (1) NORC at the 

it was decided that readers and policymakers 

University of Chicago; (2) Econometrica, Inc.; 

would be served best by publishing four 

and (3) Support Services International, Inc.

separate reports to convey the final results of 

work under this contract.

The Urban Institute conducted a similar 

assessment for HUD in 1996 (Kingsley et 

•   Housing Needs of American Indians and 

al., 1996). HUD’s statement of work noted 

Alaska Natives in Tribal Areas (this report). 

this earlier work and stated, “That report 

This is the main, and final report, focusing 

presented a complete overview of the 

on circumstances, needs and policy in and 

housing situation of most American Indians 

around AIAN tribal areas (the areas that 

and Alaska Natives. It is proposed that the 

are the focus of NAHASDA and the Indian 

current study update that work.” 

Housing Block Grant—IHBG). It recasts 

census data for those areas and presents 

The Kingsley et al. (1996) study presented 

the results from the two most important 

measures showing that the housing problems 

primary data collection efforts in this study: 

of American Indians and Alaska Natives 

(1) a major in-person survey of households in 

(AIAN populations)5 were substantially 

tribal areas and (2) a survey of tribal housing 

more severe than those of non-Indians in 

program administrators in those areas. It 

all parts of America. It also showed that, 

also presents policy and program reviews 

although earlier HUD programs serving AIAN 

related to NAHASDA/IHBG with information 

households (now often referred to as the 1937 

derived from interviews, document reviews, 

Act programs) had indeed made important 

and analysis of HUD management data 

contributions to housing conditions, they 

and also two of the surveys conducted 

nonetheless had serious defects. 

for this project. It contains some census 

The current overall assessment had a broad 

data on AIAN populations in urban areas, 

mandate. The scope covered four main 

but only to give perspective on what is 

topic areas: (1) the situation on and around 

happening in Indian Country.6 

5  Matthew Snipp (1989: 36–40) explains why the phrase “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). This report also uses its acronym—AIAN—and sometimes uses the terms Native Americans and Indians to refer to this same population.

6  “Indian Country” is used in the common colloquial sense to mean tribal areas, including Alaska Native villages. The phrase “Indian Country” 

is not used as a legal term in this report.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

1

Introduction

•   Mortgage Lending on Tribal Land.  This 

The overall project produced one other 

report presents detailed findings of the 

report that already has been published and 

lender study, which focused on mortgage 

contains additional information, useful to the 

lending in tribal areas—findings that 

work as it was in progress. 

are summarized in part 3 of this final 

•   Interim Report.  The project’s interim 

report. The report provides up-to-date 

report,  Continuity and Change: 

information about challenges that remain 

Demographic, Socioeconomic and 

for lenders when originating mortgages 

Housing Conditions of American Indians 

on reservations and other AIAN tribal 

and Alaska Natives (Pettit et al., 2014), 

areas. The findings draw from interviews 

presented an overview analysis of the 

conducted with lenders and other 

circumstances of the AIAN population 

mortgage market observers to determine 

as of 2010 and how those circumstances 

the factors that now affect tribal trust 

have changed during the past two 

lending volumes and to ascertain lender 

decades. It relied primarily on data from 

practices to facilitate such lending. This 

products of the U.S. Census Bureau: the 

study describes contemporary mortgage 

decennial censuses of 2000 and 2010 and 

program availability and activity in Indian 

the American Community Survey (ACS) 

Country (focusing on HUD’s Section 184 

for various years in the 2000s. 

loan guarantee program) and examines 

how today’s lenders view challenges and 

Work on this project began in December 

incorporate best practices for mortgages 

2010. Detailed designs were developed for 

in Indian Country. 

all components in the first half of 2011, and 

preliminary research to support the interim 

•   Housing Needs of American Indians 

report was begun shortly after that. It was 

and Alaska Natives in Urban Areas.  This 

decided that the overall study would benefit 

is a full separate report on the housing 

from a series of formal, government-to-

situation of the AIAN populations living 

government consultations about its content 

on the U.S. mainland but outside of 

and approach with tribal leaders across the 

Indian Country. This work relies mainly 

country before the other components of 

on census data and presents information 

the work were implemented. Consultation 

from telephone surveys with urban Indian 

sessions between tribal leaders and HUD 

community center and social service 

accordingly were held in each of the six area 

agency staffs in 19 selected urban areas 

offices of HUD’s Office of Native American 

and in-person interviews and focus 

Programs (ONAP) in the spring of 2012, and 

groups involving relevant groups in 5 

ideas for improving the study discussed in 

selected case study cities.

those sessions were incorporated in revised 

•   Housing Needs of Native Hawaiians.  This 

research designs and implementation plans. 

is a full separate report on the housing 

The household survey in Hawaii was added 

situation of Native Hawai ans in Hawai . 

to the project’s scope of work in 2012.

It is based on a comprehensive review of 

After its final review of project plans, the 

census data for Hawai , interviews with 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

relevant policy leaders and program 

(OMB) gave its approval to proceed 

staffs in the state, and a sizeable survey of 

with the project’s survey agenda (to be 

families on the waiting list for housing on 

explained in more detail in later sections) in 

the Native Hawai an home lands. 

September 2012. All surveys fielded under 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

2

Introduction

this project were completed successfully 

with housing conditions for AIAN and non-

with solid response rates. The Hawaii survey 

AIAN populations in other parts of the 

was completed in September 2015 and 

country. The broader charge of this report 

fieldwork on all surveys related to the Indian 

is to shed light on factors that interact to 

Country components of the work were 

shape housing needs and conditions and, 

completed in December 2015. 

in particular, to deepen understanding 

of the influence of government policies 

The first draft of this report was submitted 

and programs. The main factors that 

to HUD in May 2016 and subsequently 

determine housing conditions and needs 

reviewed by HUD staff, the project’s 

are demographic and socioeconomic 

Expert Panel (see discussion under 

conditions and trends as shaped by the 

acknowledgments), and a broad array of 

historical and legal context, the cultural 

representatives of the tribes whose areas 

context, geographic factors, and the overall 

were the locations for the household 

economy and housing market. 

surveys. This draft, revised in response to 

all comments received, was submitted to 

Federal programs and policies have been 

HUD in October 2016, and after submission 

developed in response to housing needs and 

of data files and other closeout tasks, the 

conditions, and substantial programmatic 

full performance period under the contract 

changes have occurred since the Kingsley et 

ended in December 2016.

al. (1996) study. This is a dynamic system—

sociodemographic and contextual factors 

Purpose and Content of This Report

affect housing conditions; federal programs 

respond; and this, in turn, has an effect 

The remainder of this introductory section 

on socioeconomic conditions (housing 

focuses on background information to 

affordability, for example), infrastructure, 

help readers better understand this report, 

and housing conditions. Changes in 

the final report on the housing problems 

contextual factors and in housing conditions 

and needs of the AIAN populations in 

lead to adjustments in the federal response, 

and around AIAN reservations and other 

such as changes in the way housing 

tribal areas. This section describes the 

programs are funded. To adequately cover 

substantive purposes and content of the 

these topics, this report has three parts.

report. It is followed by a description of the 

sources of information that were tapped 

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and 

to provide findings in each topical area. 

Economic Conditions

The final section defines the geographical 

subdivisions of the country for which data 

Comparatively little nationwide research 

are presented relating to each research topic.

has been conducted on trends in AIAN 

wel -being in recent years, and this report 

The central purpose of this report is 

fil s an important gap in that regard. Part 

to assess current housing conditions 

1 reviews trends in demography, spatial 

and quantify housing needs in AIAN 

patterns, social and economic conditions, 

communities. To do so, this report presents 

and economic development, all critical to 

and discusses findings from a nationally 

understanding housing conditions (which 

representative household survey and 

are measured using a standard framework 

other sources about housing conditions in 

defining housing problems) and needs. 

Indian Country, how those conditions have 

After an introduction, section 1.2 discusses 

changed over time, and how they compare 

bases for defining AIAN populations 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

3

Introduction

and then reviews how those populations 

problems and needs. It has nine sections: 

have grown (overall and by subgroup 

After an introduction (3.1), section 3.2 

and geography), focusing on change 

reviews the evolution of federal housing 

from 1990 to 2010. Section 1.3 examines 

assistance in Indian Country and IHBG 

AIAN social and economic conditions 

financing; section 3.3 presents data about 

and trends, including a discussion of how 

the HUD-assisted housing stock; section 3.4 

the national AIAN population has fared 

examines the administration of the IHBG 

since the Great Recession). Section 1.4 

in tribal areas and includes a discussion 

reviews what is known about changes in 

of the characteristics of the tribes and 

the productive economies of tribal areas 

Tribal y Designated Housing Entities (tribes/

(and their surrounding counties) in recent 

[TDHEs]) that administer the program; 

decades. The materials in the previous 

section 3.5 discusses the contributions of 

sections are adapted from this project’s 

other housing and community development 

interim report. Section 1.5, however, is new—

programs; section 3.6 focuses on challenges 

offering analysis of the dramatic diversity 

and solutions in IHBG housing development 

of circumstances that exist for the AIAN 

and management; section 3.7 examines 

population across different tribal areas.

the status and performance of programs 

to enhance mortgage lending; section 

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

3.8 reviews experience in leveraging and 

strengthening the private market for 

Part 2 is the heart of this report. It starts 

housing in and around tribal areas; and, 

with an analysis of several indicators of 

final y, section 3.9 summarizes what has 

housing market conditions in tribal areas, 

been learned about the overall impact of 

including housing stock growth, vacancy 

NAHASDA since its inception. 

rates, and structure types (section 2.2). 

It then addresses the central question 

It is important to state that the mandate 

of the assessment: What are the extent 

for this study did not include a formal 

and nature of AIAN housing problems 

“evaluation” of NAHASDA. Given the nature 

and needs (section 2.3)? This section 

and complexity of the work undertaken under 

begins by presenting the framework for 

NAHASDA, a reliable full evaluation would be 

assessment and then offers the relevant 

almost impossible to carry out. Nonetheless, 

measures, derived from census files and, 

findings in part 3 have a great deal to say 

more importantly, from the household 

about how the component activities in 

survey conducted for this study. It then 

NAHASDA have been working, offering 

discusses the perceptions of tribal area 

findings and conclusions that should prove 

residents about their housing, and analyzes 

of value to federal and tribal officials in their 

overcrowding and homelessness in Indian 

efforts to improve program effectiveness. 

Country in a way that has not been possible 

before (section 2.4). The final section 2.5 

Sources of Information

analyzes homeownership and mortgage 

As described throughout, this report 

lending in tribal areas.

used quantitative and qualitative methods 

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

and multiple data sources to address all 

components of this research agenda. 

Part 3 turns attention to policies and 

Information sources fall into three major 

programs—the key levers that affect the 

categories: (1) background interviews and 

nation’s ability to address AIAN housing 

literature reviews; (2) existing data sources, 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

4

Introduction

primarily U.S. Census Bureau products 

Interviews also involved the members 

and HUD administrative data files; and 

of an Expert Panel (identified in the 

(3) new data collected specifically for this 

acknowledgments section), composed of 

study. Individual sources are often used to 

individuals with deep knowledge of trends 

support two or more substantive elements 

in the circumstances of Native Americans 

of the research. This section describes each 

(in tribal areas and in all other types of 

source and notes the substantive section 

locations), and/or programs and policies 

in which it is used most intensively, and 

pertaining to housing in Indian Country. 

then refers to that description as may be 

applicable in other locations. For example, 

Data From Census Bureau Products 

the most important use of the multisite, 

and HUD Administrative Data Files 

nationally representative household survey 

Two major sources of existing data were 

is in determining housing conditions and 

used in this study. The first and most 

needs, so it is discussed primarily in part 

extensive data are from the U.S. Census 

2, but it also supports findings in several 

Bureau and included (1) both long-form 

of the sections of part 3. Exhibit Intro.1 

and short-form (SF1 and SF3) data from 

is a matrix identifying a detailed list of 

the 2000 decennial census; (2) data from 

substantive topics covered by the research 

the ACS—1- and 3-year data as of 2009 

linked to the sources of information used in 

for counties and larger areas, 2006–2010 

examining each of them. 

5-year data for AIAN areas and other 

smaller geographies; (3) data from the 2010 

Background Interviews and 

decennial census (SF1 file for all relevant 

Literature Reviews 

geographies); and (4) data for selected 

This study task entailed reviews of 

areas from the American Housing Survey. 

relevant research literature published 

These census products have been the basis 

since the Kingsley et al. (1996) study and 

for findings in almost all sections of part 

interviews with people knowledgeable 

1 of this report and for a number of the 

about conditions and trends in Indian 

sections in part 2. Appendix A contains a 

Country and about the evolution of the 

more detailed description of the various U.S. 

policy environment, particularly regarding 

Census Bureau products used and how they 

housing and housing services. This work 

differ from each other. This appendix also 

was undertaken as appropriate in all phases 

includes a discussion of the quality of the 

of this project. 

data, including the undercount of American 

Indians residing in tribal areas.

Relevant literature reviewed is identified 

in the list of references at the end of this 

The second category is composed of various 

report. Interviewees included officials from 

HUD administrative data files. These include 

HUD (most particularly, from its Office 

files maintained by ONAP, primarily ONAP’s 

of Native American Programs—ONAP), 

Performance Tracking Database (PTD) 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. 

on performance and financial information 

Census Bureau. Interviewees also included 

related to the IHBG program. The source 

representatives of key interest groups (for 

for this system is the Annual Performance 

example, the National American Indian 

Reports (APRs) submitted by all tribes 

Housing Council (NAIHC) and the National 

that are IHBG grantees. These data have 

Congress of American Indians (NCAI).

been used primarily to support the findings 

presented in part 3.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

5

Introduction

Exhibit Intro.1 - Research Topic, by Data Source

Data Sources And Respondents

Research Questions and 

New Data Collection

Existing Data

Data Collection Topics

Telephone Survey

Tribal Area In-

Household Survey

Census and ACS

HUD Admin Data

Person Interviews

TDHEs

Lenders

Sample size

1,600 Total

120

30

8-10 Per Site

Not Applicable

Completed responses

1,340

110

14

188

Not Applicable

Scope

38 Tribal Areas*

National Sample

National Sample

22 Tribal Areas

Not Applicable

Demography, Geography, Economy

Population growth since 1996 study

X

X

X

Diversity in living conditions - changes over time

X

X

X

X

Social and economic conditions

X

X

X

X

X

Diversity in liviing conditions across tribal areas

X

X

X

X

Economic diversity across tribal areas/major industries 

X

X

X

and employers

Effects of gaming

X

Housing Issues

Changes in living conditions since 1990 Census

X

X

X

X

X

Major housing problems and needs

X

X

X

X

Issues and conditions leading to greater housing needs

X

X

X

Appropriate standards for housing needs and problems

X

X

X

X

X

Types of housing structures; constraint on building types

X

X

X

Land use issues and practices

X

X

X

Assisted vs. unassisted units

X

X

X

X

Rental vs. Ownership

X

X

X

X

X

Lending issues and the financial crisis

X

X

X

Federal Issues/NAHASDA

Implications of NAHASDA on current housing stock and 

X

X

living conditions

Effects of funding change on housing needs and quality 

X

X

X

on leveraging opportunities

Effects of NAHASDA on housing needs —  

X

X

X

X

# served, quality, crowding, affordability

HUD and other federal housing programs serving  

X

X

X

X

tribal people

*40 tribal areas were originally selected but 2 were determined to be ineligible by HUD because they were not IHBG grantees. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

6

Introduction

New Data Collected Specifically for 

The sample was selected to be 

representative of tribes nationwide, 

This Study

meaning that characteristics of the 

Understanding what existing data can 

population can be inferred from the 

tell us about AIAN housing problems and 

characteristics of the sample (see the text 

needs is critical, but cannot substitute for 

box, An Overview of Sampling). Fieldwork 

learning about actual conditions on the 

on the household survey was completed 

ground reported directly by residents and 

successfully in December 2015. The 

program administrators. 

weighted response rate was 60 percent, a 

rate considered quite high for a survey of 

The most important new data collection 

this type.9 The results are presented and 

effort in this project by far was a major 

discussed in Parts 2 and 3 of this report.

in-person household survey in a sample 

of AIAN tribal areas. This was one of the 

The second most important new data 

largest and most complex surveys ever 

collection effort was a  telephone survey 

undertaken in Indian Country. Special care 

of TDHEs, the entities, including the tribes 

was taken so that the process would not 

themselves, that administer the IHBG 

only be technically effective (to ensure 

program under NAHASDA. A national 

reliable results) but also be fully acceptable 

sample of tribes/TDHEs in 120 tribal 

to the tribes involved. Negotiations were 

areas was selected, with one respondent 

held with tribal leaders in each of the 

for each sampled tribe/TDHE, but some 

targeted sample of 38 tribal areas selected 

were responsible for more than one 

for the survey; in nine cases it was necessary 

tribe/tribal area, resulting in 116 eligible 

to obtain approval from the tribe’s 

respondents. Interviews were completed 

Institutional Review Board and also from 

with 110 respondents, or 95 percent of the 

the tribal government. All 38 tribes in the 

sample. This survey was aimed at housing 

sample ultimately agreed to participate.7  

directors and managers that have hands-

on experience with programs and policies, 

Samples of tribal member households8 

and sought their opinions on changing 

were then selected for interviews in each 

housing problems and needs. The survey 

sampled tribal area. Interviews were 

was completed in July 2015 and results are 

conducted with 1,340 households in their 

presented and discussed primarily in part 3. 

homes. NORC recruited, hired, and trained 

tribal members to conduct these housing 

The samples of sites that were the subjects 

unit visits and interviews. The interviews 

of the household and tribal/TDHE surveys 

included “walk-through” observations of 

were selected via one integrated probability 

housing conditions and interviews with 

sample design to produce reliable national 

the head of household or their designated 

estimates. In brief, this involved proportional 

proxy, and were focused on how residents 

stratification by region and size. Within 

view their own housing conditions and their 

each stratum, tribal areas were selected 

views on assisted housing programs. Exhibit 

using probability proportionate to size. This 

Intro. 2 lists the tribes that participated in 

process was used first to select the 120 tribal 

the household survey.

areas to respond to the tribal/TDHE survey. 

7  A sample of 40 tribal areas originally was selected, but HUD deemed that 2 were ineligible because they were not IHBG grantees.

8  Tribal member households were those households in which the owner/renter, their spouse, or custodial child age 17 or younger self-identified as Native American or Alaska Native (alone or multiracial). 

9  A weighted response rate is reported for nationally representative surveys, because that is an average of the response rates according to where the population is located.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

7

Introduction

Exhibit Intro.2 - List of Tribes Participating in the Household Survey

Total Tribes: 38; Tribes in bold participated in site visits

North Central (4 Participating Tribes)

·        Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin

·         Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin

·         Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota White Earth Band

·         Red Lake band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota

Eastern (2 Participating Tribes)

·         Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina

·         Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina

Oklahoma (8 Participating Tribes)

·         Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma

·         Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma

·         Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

·         Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma

·         Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

·         Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma

·         Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

·         Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

Plains (7 Participating Tribes)

·         Arapahoe and Shoshone Tribes of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming 

·         Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana

·         Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota

·         Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota

·         Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota

·         Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota

·         Omaha Tribe of Nebraska

Arizona - New Mexico (9 Participating Tribes)

·         Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona

·         Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, and  Utah

·         Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico

·         Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico

·         Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona

·         San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona

·         Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona

·         White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona

·         Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico

California – Nevada (1 Participating Tribe)

·         Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California

Pacific Northwest (4 Participating Tribes)

·         Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington

·         Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

·         Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Washington

·         Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation, Washington 

Alaska (3 Participating Tribes)

·         Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove

·         Chickaloon Native Vil age

·         Native Vil age of Unalakleet

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

8

Introduction

The sites targeted for the household survey 

interviews, separate from the tribal/TDHE 

were a representative subsample of the 120.

survey, provided more extensive qualitative 

information on perceptions of conditions 

In addition to the two surveys described 

and local institutional arrangements, 

previously,  in-person interviews with tribal/

particularly as they relate to housing, 

TDHE officials, tribal and community 

housing problems and the implementation 

leaders and program staff were conducted 

of housing programs. In total, interviews 

during site visits to a purposive sample of 

were conducted with 188 individuals, an 

22 of the 38 tribal areas that participated 

average of 8-9 per site.

in the household survey. These onsite 

Overview of Sampling

What is sampling? Sampling is a statistical method of obtaining representative data or 

information from a population. Sampling is used when a census (that is, collecting data from every unit or person in a population) is cost prohibitive. As long as a sampling method is used in which each unit or person in the population has a known and positive chance (probability) of being selected, the sample is called “representative,” because the characteristics of the population can be inferred from the characteristics of the sample. 

Why is it used? First, collecting data for a sample is less expensive than for a census. 

Second, having to collect data from fewer people can be done faster than having to collect 

data from every person. Third, when collecting data for a sample, more attention can be 

given to each person than would be possible when collecting for a census. More attention to each person can result in more accurate data of higher quality and higher response rates. 

How does it work? The sampling process involves six stages.

1.  Defining the population of interest. 

2. Identifying a  sampling frame or list of individuals or households to measure (as much of the population of interest as possible). 

3. Specifying a  sampling method for selecting individuals or households from the frame.

4. Determining the sample size. 

5. Implementing the sampling plan to select the sample.

6. Collecting data from each sample member (that is, conducting the survey). 

How does sampling apply to the housing needs assessment? To achieve a national y 

representative sample, 38 tribal areas were selected, using population counts to guarantee that every tribal member had an equal chance of being included in the sample. Having a diverse 

selection of tribal areas allows estimates from the sample to be national y representative. Estimates based on the interviews from a group of households in the 38 sampled tribal areas can be used to create national estimates of housing needs across Indian Country. Because they are national estimates, they cannot be applied to any particular reservation, native vil age, or tribal service area. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

9

Introduction

Final y, one other new data collection effort 

2010 decennial census identifies a total 

was undertaken: a  telephone survey of 

of 617 AIAN tribal areas nationwide (221 

lenders that originate home loans in Indian 

of which are Alaska Native vil ages). 

Country. This effort was a purposive sample 

Appendix B defines the different types 

of 30 lenders, Native CDFIs and credit 

of tribal areas included in the Census 

unions, and other organizations selected 

Bureau data and presents counts 

because of special knowledge and/or 

pertaining to each type. It also explains 

experience in AIAN lending; 14 extensive 

the methods used in this study to 

interviews were completed. Results are 

define tribal area geographies that are 

discussed in parts 2 and 3 of this report 

comparable in 2000 and 2010.

and in the separate report on lending noted 

2.  AIAN Surrounding Counties: The parts 

previously (Listokin et al., 2016).

of AIAN counties outside of tribal 

Geographies

areas. A major finding of the Kingsley 

et al. (1996) study is the importance 

In this study, key geographic divisions are 

of areas outside of tribal land, but near 

used that help describe a diverse, growing 

enough for residents to have ties to 

population. Kingsley et al. (1996) introduced 

the tribal area. American Indians in 

a typology based on tribal area status, 

surrounding counties may have left the 

adjacency to tribal areas, and metropolitan 

tribal area for economic, personal, or 

status to illustrate how the characteristics 

other reasons, but are close enough 

and needs of the AIAN population vary 

to have interactions with a federally or 

across the United States. Because this 

state-recognized tribal land base. Of 

breakdown revealed several meaningful 

the 523 AIAN counties, 453 are only 

differences relevant to AIAN housing needs, 

partially tribal areas and, thus, contain 

the same categories are used for this 

areas that fall into the “surrounding 

analysis. This typology is applied to the 617 

counties” category.

“American Indian and Alaska Native Areas” 

defined by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010.10  

•   Non-AIAN Counties: The counties that 

do not contain tribal areas are referred 

•   AIAN Counties: At least part of the county 

to as “other counties.” These are divided 

is considered to be an American Indian 

between counties within and outside 

or Alaska Native tribal area by the U.S. 

of official y defined metropolitan areas. 

Census Bureau. In 2010, 523 out of the 

For the remainder of this report, non-

3,138 counties included in ONAP regions 

AIAN counties within metropolitan areas 

fell into the “AIAN Counties” group.11 This 

(947 counties) are referred to as “other 

category is divided into two subgroups.

metropolitan counties” and those outside 

official y defined metropolitan areas 

1.   Tribal Areas: AIAN counties or parts 

(1,668 counties) are referred to as “other 

of AIAN counties considered to be 

nonmetropolitan counties.”

reservations and other areas with 

concentrations of tribal population and 

Official AIAN tribal area boundaries are 

activity. This study uses boundaries as 

not static, and boundaries can change for 

defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. The 

several reasons. As geographic information 

10  These areas are identified by summary level 280 in census data files, but this report excludes Hawaiian Home Lands from the analysis. 

Appendix B 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.

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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

10

Introduction

system technology has advanced, tribes, 

in the Kingsley et al. (1996) study, the study 

states, and the U.S. Census Bureau have 

regions are based on the service areas of 

been able to clarify AIAN boundaries, 

HUD’s six ONAP areas. For purposes of this 

resulting in minor changes to the official 

study, three of these areas were considered 

Census Bureau boundary lines over 

to be too heterogeneous and were split, 

time. Land disputes between tribes or a 

which results in a total of nine study regions 

modified legal status may also cause tribal 

(exhibit Intro. 3). The study regions and their 

boundaries to be changed. 

respective ONAP field offices are: 

New tribal areas are also being recognized; 

1.  North Central (Chicago Office—Eastern/

31 new AIAN areas were added to the 

Woodlands)

Census Bureau list this past decade alone. 

2. Eastern (Chicago Office—Eastern/

One goal of this report is to explore the 

Woodlands)

changing characteristics of AIAN areas 

during the past decade. To reflect change for 

3. Oklahoma (Oklahoma City Office—

a consistent set of boundaries, the research 

Southern Plains) 

team created a geographic crosswalk from 

tribal areas as defined in 2000 to the tribal 

4. South Central (Oklahoma City Office—

areas as defined in 2010. For notes on this 

Southern Plains)

methodology, see appendix B.

5. Plains (Denver Office—Northern Plains)

Another aspect of the geography also needs 

6. Arizona/New Mexico (Phoenix Office—

to be recognized: region. Native Americans 

Southwest)

living in tribal areas general y have more 

economic and housing challenges than 

7.  California/Nevada (Phoenix Office—

those living in metropolitan areas, but even 

Southwest)

among tribal areas, the level of household 

problems differs widely across regions. This 

8. Pacific Northwest (Seattle Office—

report accordingly reviews demographic, 

Northwest)

social, economic, and housing conditions 

9. Alaska (Anchorage Office—Alaska)

in each previously mentioned geographic 

category, further subdivided by region. As 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

11

Introduction

Exhibit Intro.3 - Location of Tribal Areas

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

12

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

size and type, educational attainment, 

Part 1. Demographic, 

employment levels, and income and poverty. 

The comparative years in this analysis vary 

Social, and Economic 

based on data availability. When 2010 

decennial census data are available, the 

Conditions

analysis compares 2000 with 2010. When 

2010 decennial census data are not available, 

the analysis uses the 2006–2010 American 

Introduction

Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates. 

Part 1 of this report reviews the 

These estimates represent an average of 

demographic, social and economic 

surveys collected monthly during the 5 years 

circumstances of American Indians and 

from 2006 to 2010. To assess changes in 

Alaska Natives (AIAN), focusing on the 

conditions for the AIAN population before 

AIAN population residing in tribal areas 

and after the Great Recession compared with 

and their surrounding counties. Most 

the rest of the U.S. population, the analysis 

of the information presented is derived 

uses 1-year ACS data at the regional level.

from surveys that the U.S. Census Bureau 

The analysis discussed previously examines 

conducted. Materials in sections 1.2 

the changing economic circumstances 

through 1.4 are adapted from Pettit et 

of AIAN households. A separate topic, 

al. 2014, this project’s interim report; the 

however, is how the productive economies 

analysis in section 1.5 is new, prepared for 

in Indian Country (AIAN tribal areas and 

this final report.

surrounding counties) have evolved. Section 

Section 1.2 describes how the AIAN 

1.4 covers this topic and examines growth in 

population has grown during the past 

business establishments and jobs in these 

several decades and compares population 

areas. It uses the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

trends for the geographies defined in the 

County Business Patterns data to document 

Introduction during the past two decades. 

the expansion of AIAN-owned businesses 

The analysis general y focuses on data for 

nationwide and show the industry and 

those who chose AIAN as their only race 

employment changes in Indian Country. This 

(AIAN-alone), but also includes the size of 

section also discusses the nature of new 

the AIAN multiracial population (those who 

tribal y owned businesses in Indian Country, 

identify as being AIAN in combination with 

including a brief examination of gaming’s 

other races) and examines the shares who 

influence on tribal economies. 

characterize themselves as Hispanic within 

The final section in part 1 (1.5) addresses 

each of those categories. This section relies 

one of the most striking features of the 

most extensively on decennial census data 

AIAN experience in America: the dramatic 

for 2000 and 2010. 

diversity of circumstances across tribal 

Section 1.3 reports the social and economic 

areas. Kingsley et al. (1996) showed 

characteristics of the AIAN-alone population 

that socioeconomic and also housing 

and how they compare across geographies 

experiences varied markedly in differing 

and time and against those of other 

AIAN settlements. Governance, cultural 

Americans (the non-AIAN population) in 

context, and land use of areas also vary 

the same categories. Topics include the 

across tribal areas and affect the housing 

age structure of the population, household 

needs of residents.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

13

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

1.2. Population Growth and 

tribe. The term 'federal y recognized tribe' 

means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or 

Distribution

other organized group or community of 

To assess the housing needs of AIAN people, 

Indians, including any Alaska Native vil age or 

it is necessary to understand the size of the 

regional or vil age corporation as defined in 

population, where people live, and how these 

or established pursuant to the Alaska Native 

characteristics have changed over time. This 

Claims Settlement Act, that is recognized as 

section reviews trends in the overall size of the 

eligible for the special programs and services 

AIAN population in the United States for the 

provided by the United States to Indians 

basic geographies and important racial/ethnic 

because of their status as Indians pursuant to 

subcategories. The final subsection looks at 

the Indian Self-Determination and Education 

the population distribution across tribal areas 

Assistance Act of 1975.” The Act further 

in more detail. 

clarifies that the only state-recognized 

tribes that qualify are those that received 

Defining the American Indian and 

HUD 1937 Act assistance before the 

Alaska Native Population

effective date of NAHASDA.13 

How this report defines the AIAN population 

Even though NAHASDA defines Indians in 

is clearly important for interpreting its find-

terms of tribal membership, however, no 

ings, particularly because the population is 

national y available, reliable, and/or uniform 

defined in different ways for different purpos-

data about the number of tribal members 

es. Almost all sections of this report rely on 

exist for the United States as a whole, let 

the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition because 

alone for more detailed geographies. Given 

much of this report’s analysis relies on its data 

this limitation, this study must rely on census 

products (as explained in later sections). 

surveys, because they offer the only data 

on the AIAN population that are uniformly 

This approach is not ideal as it does not align 

defined nationwide and provide both the 

with the definition used in the context of the 

racial and geographic detail required to 

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-

answer this study’s research questions. 

Determination Act (NAHASDA) of 1996,12 the 

law that establishes the terms and conditions 

In U.S. Census Bureau surveys, 

under which federal housing assistance is 

respondents self-report on their race and 

provided in Indian Country and the primary 

ethnicity. This report uses that definition, 

concern of this report. NAHASDA states that 

which defines  Indian as those respondents 

“The term ‘Indian’ means any person who is 

who have identified their race as AIAN. 

a member of an Indian tribe” and specifical y 

Tribal leaders have also recognized that 

authorizes the Secretary of HUD to make 

this is the only feasible approach to 

“grants under this section on behalf of Indian 

reliably depict the population nationwide, 

tribes.” The Act also states that “the term 

as indicated by their acceptance of using 

‘Indian tribe’ means a tribe that is a federal y 

this definition in the formula by which 

recognized tribe or a State-recognized 

NAHASDA grant funds are allocated.14 

12  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. 

13  The text specifically 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.” 

14  See section 3.2 of this report for an explanation of the NAHASDA formula. The Act specifies that one of the key “factors for the determination of need” must be “the extent of poverty and economic distress and the number of Indian families within Indian areas of the tribe.” Census data are the basis for these determinations in operationalizing the formula.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

14

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Population Growth 

alone population grew from 2.47 mil ion to 

2.92 mil ion, an increase of 18 percent, almost 

Kingsley et al. (1996) noted the rapid 

twice the 9.7 percent increase during that 

increase from 1970 to 1990 of people who 

decade for the U.S. population as a whole. 

self-identified as AIAN. This analysis updates 

The AIAN multiracial population, however, 

that work with information from the 2000 

grew even faster: from 1.62 mil ion to 2.56 

and 2010 decennial censuses. The decennial 

mil ion, an increase of 39 percent.

census, although intended as a 100-percent 

count of the population, historical y has 

Given the purposes and context of this report, 

undercounted hard-to-reach populations 

which center on the NAHASDA definition, 

(see appendix A for more detail). Although 

it is most appropriate to primarily use the 

imperfect, census data are the only complete 

AIAN-alone population as the basis for the 

national source of population counts by race. 

analyses of AIAN population characteristics 

and growth, at the national level and in 

Comparisons between the 1990 and later 

comparisons between major geographies; 

decennial censuses are further complicated 

although, as explained later in this section, this 

because, starting with the 2000 decennial 

report looks at the multiracial population as 

census, the questionnaire permitted people 

well in some analyses related to tribal areas.

to identify themselves as belonging to 

more than one race. This change in racial 

Consistent with this decision, exhibit 1.21 

identification implies the need to examine 

shows the historical context of AIAN 

the AIAN population in two components: (1) 

population growth in this country since 1890, 

those who identified AIAN as their only race 

reporting totals and estimates only for the 

(“AIAN-alone”) and (2) those who identified 

AIAN-alone population starting in 2000. 

themselves as being AIAN and one or more 

AIAN population levels remained low through 

other races (“AIAN multiracial”). 

most of the 20th century, but then began 

to accelerate in the 1960s and 1970s. Even 

Research comparing survey responses that 

without the multiracial group, the growth 

contain both single-race and multiple-race 

has been impressive. The total jumped 

questions supports the interpretation that 

from 827,000 in 1970 to 1.96 mil ion in 1990, 

people who identified themselves as AIAN-

reached 2.9 mil ion in 2010, and is expected 

alone are more likely to be tribal members or 

to more than double again to hit 4.2 mil ion in 

otherwise more closely aligned with U.S. tribal 

2030. Rates of growth, however, have been 

cultures than the AIAN multiracial population 

declining. The decennial growth rate was 38 

overal . Studies show that people who identify 

percent in the 1980s, but it dropped to 26 

as AIAN and other races, are general y more 

percent by the 1990s and again to 18 percent 

likely to choose a non-AIAN race in the 

from 2000 to 2010. AIANs, of course, stil  

single-race responses. For instance, for the 

represent a very small share of the total U.S. 

largest multiracial combination of AIAN and 

population, increasing slightly during the past 

White, only 21 percent of the group chose 

10 years from 0.88 to 0.95 percent.

AIAN when asked to choose only one race 

(Parker et al., 2004). 

The intersection between race and ethnicity 

has emerged as a larger issue over time.15 The 

The distinction is important in this study’s 

Hispanic share of the AIAN population was 

effort to accurately portray the size and 

6.6 percent in 1980, climbed to 8.4 percent 

growth of the Indian population in this 

by 1990, and then grew rapidly to reach 23 

country. Between 2000 and 2010, the AIAN-

15  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).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

15

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

percent of the AIAN-alone population in 2010 

entire Hispanic population. Even with this low 

(exhibit 1.22). The additional 278,000 Hispanic 

share of Hispanics that self-identify as AIAN, 

AIAN-alone population drove much of the 

the large size of the Hispanic population in 

AIAN growth from 2000 to 2010, accounting 

the United States (50.5 mil ion) and its rapid 

for 61 percent of the total AIAN population 

growth (43 percent from 2000 to 2010) 

increase. The shift in ethnic composition is 

explains the jump in percentage of self-

critical to understanding the shifting growth 

identified AIAN people who are Hispanic.

patterns of Native Americans, which are 

It is interesting that growth in the Hispanic 

described in more detail in later sections. 

AIAN-alone population is not primarily driven 

The overal  Hispanic population, however, has 

by recent immigration—7 out of 10 were born 

shown relatively small changes in how often 

in the United States, and only about 2 out of 

they identify as AIAN. In 1980 and 1990, about 

10 of the Hispanic AIAN-alone immigrants 

0.7 percent of Hispanics self-identified as 

moved to the United States after 1990. It must 

AIAN-alone. By 2010, 1.4 percent of Hispanics 

be recognized that a sizeable component of 

self-identified as AIAN-alone, twice the rate 

the AIAN-Hispanic population nationwide may 

of 20 years earlier but still small relative to the 

not be closely tied to U.S. tribes. Nevertheless, 

Exhibit 1.21 - American Indian and Alask

Exhibit 1.21 - American Indian and Alask a Na

a Nativtive Popula

e Popula tion, 1890 t

tion, 1890 t

o 20

o 2030 30

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

American Indian/Alaska Native population  (in thousands)

332

334

343

248

266

237

244

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 census 2010 and Population Projections as published in December 2009.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

16

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

the heritage of large numbers in this group 

non-AIAN counties (rest of the United States). 

might relate to Indian cultures in Central 

In those areas (mostly metropolitan), the 

or South America, rather than tribes in the 

AIAN multiracial group accounted for 56 

continental United States. 

percent and Hispanic AIAN-alone group for 

another 17 percent. The shares in the counties 

Broad Spatial Patterns

surrounding tribal areas fell in-between. In 

2010, the non-Hispanic AIAN-alone group 

Whether the non-Hispanic AIAN-alone 

(again, the group likely to contain the highest 

population dominates the AIAN population 

concentration of U.S. tribal members in our 

varies depending on the geography. About 

view) accounted for 44 percent of the AIAN 

equal shares of the AIAN population were 

population in the surrounding counties.

in the AIAN multiracial and non-Hispanic 

AIAN-alone groups (44 and 43 percent, 

Although the AIAN multiracial population 

respectively) nationwide, but the Hispanic 

and the Hispanic AIAN-alone populations 

AIAN-alone group comprised a much smaller 

experienced rapid growth (39 and 68 

portion (13 percent) in 2010 (exhibit 1.23). 

percent, respectively) compared with only 

In tribal areas, however, the non-Hispanic 

9 percent for the non-Hispanic AIAN-alone 

AIAN-alone (the group this report assumes 

group, growth patterns differed markedly 

is the closest approximation of the U.S. tribal 

in different geographies. Between 2000 

Indians) group still dominated, making up 85 

and 2010, the non-Hispanic AIAN-alone 

percent of the AIAN population. That group, 

population growth rate was 7 percent in tribal 

however, accounted for only 27 percent in 

areas and an even faster 14 percent in the 

Exhibit 1.22 - T

Exhibit 1.22 - Tr rends in AIAN-

ends in AIAN- Alone and Hispanic Popula

Alone and Hispanic Popula

tions, 1980 t

tions, 1980 to 20 o 20

10 10

25

2.5

23.4 

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

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-alone

0

0.0

1980 

1990 

2000 

2010 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 1890 to 2010 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

17

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

surrounding counties, but only 6 percent in 

data on the “total” AIAN population (AIAN-

the rest of the United States.

alone plus AIAN multiracial) than data only 

for the AIAN-alone group. This is especial y 

Although the AIAN multiracial and AIAN 

important for the assessment of housing 

Hispanic groups in urban areas and non-AIAN 

needs presented in part 2. The 2000-to-2010 

counties may be less likely to have direct links 

growth rate of the total AIAN population 

to U.S. tribal cultures, it has been argued that 

in tribal areas was 12 percent, considerably 

is not true for members of those groups who 

more than that for the AIAN-alone group (8 

live in tribal areas. In this study’s consultations 

percent).

with tribal leaders16 attendees emphasized 

that many multiracial and Hispanic AIAN 

Despite earlier concerns, the non-Hispanic 

individuals residing within tribal area 

AIAN-alone population continues to grow most 

boundaries are, in fact, tribal members and 

rapidly near tribal areas. In the early 1990s, some 

are, thus, NAHASDA eligible. This means that 

in the policy community were concerned about 

when looking at tribal areas separately, it may 

AIAN growth rates being more rapid outside 

be more appropriate for some purposes to use 

tribal areas than within them, which warned of 

16  Tribal Leader Consultation on HUD’s Housing Needs Assessment: Proceedings and Notes. Denver, Colorado, May 10, 2012.  

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/consultations/Consultation_Notes_May_10_Denver_final.pdf.

Exhibit 1.23 -AIAN Population Growth, 2000-2010, by Geographic Area

 Total U.S. 

 Tribal Areas 

 Surround. Counties 

 Rest of U.S. 

2000

2010

2000

2010

2000

2010

2000

2010

 Population (000) 

 Total 

 4,094 

 5,187 

 1,021 

 1,148 

 1,012 

 1,321 

 2,061 

 2,718 

 Multiracial 

 1,622 

 2,259 

 129 

 180 

 395 

 560 

 1,098 

 1,519 

 AIAN-alone  

 2,472 

 2,928 

 893 

 967 

 617 

 762 

 963 

 1,199 

   Hispanic 

 406 

 684 

 21 

 33 

 111 

 184 

 274 

 468 

   Non-Hispanic 

 2,066 

 2,244 

 872 

 934 

 506 

 578 

 689 

 732 

 Percent of Population 

 Total 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 Multiracial 

 40 

 44 

 13 

 16 

 39 

 42 

 53 

 56 

 AIAN-alone 

 60 

 56 

 87 

 84 

 61 

 58 

 47 

 44 

   Hispanic 

 10 

 13 

 2 

 3 

 11 

 14 

 13 

 17 

   Non-Hispanic 

 50 

 43 

 85 

 81 

 50 

 44 

 33 

 27 

 Pct. Change, 2000-2010 

Total

 27 

 12 

 31 

 32 

 Multiracial 

 39 

 40 

 42 

 38 

 AIAN-alone 

 18 

 8 

 23 

 25 

   Hispanic 

 68 

 59 

 65 

 71 

   Non-Hispanic 

 9 

 7 

 14 

 6 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010.              

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

18

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

the deterioration of tribal cultures. Kingsley et 

examined in more detail in Levy et al. (2016), 

al. (1996), however, found that most rapid AIAN 

this project’s separate report on the AIAN 

growth occurred in the counties surrounding 

population living in urban areas. 

tribal areas; not the larger cities farther away. 

When economic conditions on the reservation 

Population Trends for Tribal Areas 

could not support them adequately, many 

by Region

moved just across the boundary, but not far 

Tribal areas are an essential geographic area 

away, suggesting that tribal ties remained 

of focus when evaluating the challenges 

strong. The data from the 2000 and 2010 

faced by the American Indian population. A 

censuses support basical y the same 

complex web of historical and political events 

conclusion for that decade. The non-Hispanic 

has affected the way that the United States 

AIAN-alone growth rate in the surrounding 

has determined which areas legal y belong 

counties (14 percent) was more than twice the 

to Indian nations and which areas do not. 

rate for that group in tribal areas (7 percent) 

As these events are closely intertwined with 

and in urban centers and other counties 

American expansionism and interact with 

outside of Indian Country (6 percent).17

a very diverse American Indian population, 

As noted, the remainder of this report 

characteristics of tribal areas vary remarkably 

focuses on the AIAN population in and 

in different regions of the country.

around tribal areas. The circumstances of 

The introduction noted that for the 2010 

those with AIAN self-identification living 

decennial census, the Census Bureau had 

in non-AIAN counties are touched on for 

identified and mapped 617 AIAN tribal 

reference in some later sections of this 

areas. Altogether, these areas encompassed 

report (section 1.3 in particular), but they are 

17  As discussed in  Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Urban Areas (Levy et al., 2016), AIANs who participated in the study said they have maintained strong ties to their tribal culture even though they live some distance away. Those who participated in that study, however, were most likely to maintain cultural ties because recruitment was done through AIAN entities.

Exhibit 1.24 - Population and Characteristics of AIAN Tribal Areas, 2010

United 

North 

South 

Arizona 

Calif.

Pacific 

States

Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

Central

Plains

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

Number Tribal Areas

 617 

 36 

 68 

 30 

 17 

 31 

 42 

 130 

 42 

 221 

Area (Sq. Miles, 000)

 187.1 

 4.8 

 5.3 

 52.1 

 1.5 

 46.9 

 43.7 

 2.8 

 9.4 

 20.5 

Density (Pop./ Sq. Mi.)

 25.8 

 23.2 

 156.7 

 49.0 

 169.0 

 5.0 

 7.2 

 26.3 

 21.6 

 11.9 

Population (000) 2010

Total all races

 4,819 

 111 

 828 

 2,557 

 251 

 233 

 317 

 74 

 203 

 244 

AIAN Total

 1,148 

 46 

 116 

 407 

 17 

 135 

 271 

 28 

 48 

 79 

AIAN-alone

 967 

 42 

 102 

 280 

 13 

 128 

 266 

 25 

 42 

 67 

Percent of Population

Total all races

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

AIAN Total

 24 

 42 

 14 

 16 

 7 

 58 

 86 

 38 

 24 

 33 

AIAN-alone

 20 

 38 

 12 

 11 

 5 

 55 

 84 

 34 

 21 

 27 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2010.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

19

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

187,100 square miles of land accommodating 

accounted for only 24 percent of the total 

a total AIAN resident population of 1.15 

populations in tribal areas. AIAN people 

mil ion, which implies an average size of 303 

made up a majority of the population in 

square miles and 1,860 AIAN residents per 

only two regions: (1) the Plains, where 58 

tribal area (see exhibit 1.24). 

percent of tribal area residents were AIAN, 

and (2) Arizona/New Mexico, where nearly al  

As noted, however, major variations occurred in 

residents (86 percent) were AIAN. In all other 

these and other characteristics across the nine 

regions, AIAN residents were in the minority, 

study regions. In the California/Nevada and 

with their population shares ranging from 

Alaska regions, tribal areas were general y quite 

only 7 percent in the South Central up to 42 

small with an average of 214 and 359 AIAN 

percent in the North Central region.

residents per area, respectively. Oklahoma 

and Arizona/New Mexico fell at the other 

Total tribal area population densities (including 

extreme. There, the average AIAN population 

AIAN and non-Indian populations) were 

was 13,583 and 6,458 AIAN residents per area, 

general y low as wel : an average of 25.8 

respectively. The total square miles of tribal 

persons per square mile, with a range from 5.0 

area land varied from 46,900 in the Plains 

in the Plains up to a high of 169.0 in the South 

and 43,700 in Arizona/New Mexico down to 

Central region. Despite this variation, al  regions 

1,500 in the South Central Region and 2,800 in 

classify as rural, on average, as areas with 

California/Nevada.

densities less than 200 persons per square mile 

are general y considered to be rural. In contrast, 

It is important to note that in most regions, 

the average density of the urbanized portions 

the non-Indian populations living in tribal 

of all U.S. metropolitan areas according to the 

areas in 2010 were larger than the total 

2010 U.S. census was 2,343 per square mile.

AIAN populations. Overal , AIAN residents 

Exhibit 1.25 - 2000-2010 Population Change in Tribal Areas

United 

North 

South 

Arizona 

Calif. 

Pacific 

States

Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

Central

Plains

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

Population (000) 2000 

AIAN Total

1,021.1

40.9

97.9

334.1

14.1

124.4

269.8

24.2

43.1

72.6

AIAN-alone

892.6

38.1

90.3

238.3

11.8

120.7

266.1

22.8

39.5

65.0

Population (000) 2010

AIAN Total

1,147.6

46.2

1 5.8

407.5

16.6

135.0

271.2

27.8

48.0

79.4

AIAN-alone

967.1

42.2

102.5

280.1

13.4

128.4

265.9

25.4

42.1

67.1

AIAN-alone percent of total

2000

 87 

 93 

 92 

 71 

 84 

 97 

 99 

 94 

 92 

 90 

2010

 84 

 91 

 89 

 69 

 81 

 95 

 98 

 91 

 88 

 84 

Percent growth 2000-2010

AIAN Total

 12 

 13 

 18 

 22 

 18 

 9 

 1 

 15 

 11 

 9 

AIAN-alone

 8 

 11 

 13 

 18 

 14 

 6 

 (0)

 12 

 7 

 3 

Source:  U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

20

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1.2 .26 - T

6 - T ribal Ar

ribal Ar ea Gr

ea Gro owth in T

wth in To otal AIAN Popula

tal AIAN Popula

tion (

tion (

AIAN-

AIAN-

Alone + Multi-r

Alone + Multir

ace), 2000-

acial), 2000-2010 2010

450

408

400

2000

2010

350

334

300

270

271

250

200

150

Population Count (in thousands)

135

124

116

100

98

79

73

50

41

46

43

48

24

28

14

17

0

North Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

South Central

Plains

Arizona/New Mexico California/Nevada

Pacific Northwest

Alaska

Study Region

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010.

Although it is declining at both the national 

Mobility

and regional levels, considerable variation 

The previous sections examine residence 

exists across tribal areas in the AIAN-alone 

as of April 2010, but households may 

share of total AIAN populations (exhibits 

move in response to changes in family or 

1.25 and 1.26). The AIAN multiracial group 

financial status or to be closer to amenities 

general y grew more rapidly than the AIAN-

or employment opportunities. About 81 

alone population during the 2000-to-2010 

percent of the AIAN population in the 2006–

decade, causing the national AIAN-alone 

2010 ACS reported living in the same house 

share in tribal areas to drop from 87 to 84 

they had lived in 1 year before (a rate slightly 

percent. The AIAN-alone share also declined 

less likely than for non-AIAN households). 

in each region. In 2010, the AIAN-alone share 

AIAN people living in tribal areas are less 

of the overall AIAN population was more than 

likely to move than are AIAN people overal : 

80 percent in all but one region. The highest 

88 percent reported living in the same house 

shares were found in Arizona/New Mexico 

as in the previous year. 

(98 percent) and the Plains (95 percent). 

Oklahoma was the exception, where only 69 

Although move-in dates cannot be 

percent of the AIAN population identified as 

differentiated by race, a greater share overall 

single race.

of homeowners on tribal lands (58 percent) 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

21

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

moved into their homes before 2000 than 

chapter, so all national estimates exclude 

did so nationwide (55 percent). For renters, 

Hawaii unless otherwise noted.

the difference is negligible—15.1 percent of 

For some variables, changes can be 

renter households in tribal areas moved into 

compared during the 2000-to-2010 period 

their homes before 2000, less than one-half 

because decennial census data for both 

of 1 percentage point different than the rate 

years are available (age structure, household 

for all households.

size and type). For the others (educational 

1.3. Social and Economic Conditions

attainment, employment levels, and income 

and poverty), the analysis is limited to 

Section 1.3 of this report is an adapted 

comparing 2000 decennial census long-form 

excerpt from Pettit et al. (2014), this study’s 

values with the 5-year averages in the 2006–

interim report (see section 3, Social and 

2010 ACS. The ACS has a smaller sample 

Economic Conditions, in Pettit et al., 2014). 

size than the 2000 long form, and thus 

wider confidence intervals, particularly for 

Population growth is a central driver of 

smaller or more rural geographies like many 

change in housing needs, and the last 

tribal areas.18 The methodology of summing 

section has shown that considerable 

the tribal areas together should minimize 

diversity exists in growth rates in Indian 

the error involved, but any small changes in 

Country. Growth, however, tel s only part of 

indicators should be viewed with caution.19 

the story. The nature of the housing needs 

in two places with similar growth trajectories 

For most of this section, using the decennial 

would differ substantial y if one area has a 

census long-form and the ACS limits detailed 

much higher unemployment rate, share of 

geographic analysis to the entire AIAN-alone 

young children, or marriage rate than the 

population, which includes both Hispanic 

other, as will be explained in more detail 

and non-Hispanic Native Americans.20 The 

throughout this section.

implications of including both Hispanics 

and non-Hispanics will vary for the different 

The first part of this section explores 

geographic areas. As noted in section 1.2, 

variations in a number of socioeconomic 

Hispanics account for a small share of the 

characteristics like these that help shape 

AIAN-alone population in tribal areas, so the 

an area’s housing need. As noted in section 

statistics presented for tribal areas largely 

1.1, the main topics include age structure, 

reflect conditions for the non-Hispanic AIAN-

household size and type, educational 

alone population. In contrast, the growth of 

attainment, employment levels, and income 

the Hispanic AIAN population could have 

and poverty. Throughout, conditions and 

more influence on the changes in the AIAN 

trends are compared for the AIAN-alone 

social and economic characteristics in non-

population against those for non-Indians. This 

AIAN counties. To help interpret the patterns 

section also looks at variations across area 

and trends by geographic area, differences 

types and study regions as in the preceding 

are noted between Hispanic and non-

section. Consistent with the previous chapter, 

Hispanic AIAN-alone populations nationwide 

Hawaii is excluded from the analysis in this 

for selected indicators.

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

19  It was not possible 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).

20  The researchers do not distinguish between the Hispanic and Non-Hispanic AIAN-alone populations in most of the analysis in this section-because the Census Bureau publishes only summary tables for the standard 2006–2010 ACS for the total AIAN-alone population.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

22

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

An important question not answered by the 

to exclude that state from the West region in 

analysis that uses 2000 as the benchmark is 

the particular census data used here.)

how the AIAN population fared before and 

after the onset of the Great Recession. The 

Age Structure

5-year ACS data cannot be used to answer 

The age structure of a population, along 

this question because they represent surveys 

with different household type patterns, 

collected monthly from 2006 to 2010, which 

which are discussed later, affects household 

spans both the period of economic expansion 

formation and housing need because it is 

and the Great Recession. More recent data 

tied to major life-cycle events (for example, 

are available from the 1-year ACS, although 

moving out on one’s own, getting married, 

data from that source cannot be presented 

having children). The Kingsley et al. (1996) 

in much detail geographical y. The period 

study noted that AIANs were younger, on 

from 2008 to 2010 is examined to look at the 

average, than the non-AIAN population. The 

impact of the Great Recession on the AIAN-

most recent decennial census confirms that 

alone population compared with non-Indians 

this is still the case. 

for the United States as a whole, and the four 

main Census Bureau regions. (This analysis 

As shown in exhibit 1.31, the AIAN-alone 

includes Hawaii because it was not possible 

population is more heavily concentrated in 

Exhibit 1.31 - Shar

Exhibit 1.31 - Shar e of Popula

e of Popula

tion b

tion by A y Age Gr

ge Gr

oup and Rac

oup and Race, 20e, 20

10 10

85+ 

80 to 84 

75 to 79 

70 to 74 

65 to 69 

60 to 64 

55 to 59 

50 to 54  

45 to 49 

40 to 44 

Non-AIAN-alone

Age group

35 to 39 

AIAN-alone

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.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

23

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

younger age groups as compared with the 

aging of the population; the under-18 shares 

non-AIAN population. Up to age 40, the 

dropped for both the AIAN and non-AIAN 

AIAN population share for each age group 

populations in the 2000s across all area 

exceeds that of the non-AIAN population, 

types. The AIAN decrease was larger than for 

but after age 40, the non-AIAN population 

the non-AIAN population, and as a result the 

shares surpass the AIAN population shares.

gap narrowed. The percentage of the AIAN 

population younger than age 18 fell from 1.33 

Overal , 30 percent of the AIAN population in 

times the non-AIAN level in 2000 to 1.26 

2010 was younger than 18 compared with 24 

times that level in 2010. The highest share of 

percent of the non-AIAN population. Having 

children is found in tribal areas (34 percent), 

a higher share of children has important 

but they also experienced the greatest shift 

implications for AIAN housing needs. For 

in age distribution—a drop of 4.8 percentage 

example, households with children wil  

points since 2000 (exhibit 1.32).

require a larger house or apartment in 

areas with such options and may also be 

Looking at the age differences by Hispanic 

concerned with access to quality schools 

origin, the Hispanic AIAN population more 

and parks (McAuley and Nutty, 1982).

closely mirrors the Hispanic non-AIAN 

population than non-Hispanic Native 

Although still higher than the non-AIAN 

Americans. For example, about 10 percent 

share, the percentage of the AIAN population 

of the Hispanic non-AIAN population is 

younger than 18 fell 4 percentage points 

younger than 5 compared with 9.3 percent 

from 2000 to 2010. This reflects the overal  

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1.3 .32- Gap Be

2 - Gap Betw tween AIAN and Non-

een AIAN and Non- AIAN Popula

AIAN Popula tion  Under 18 and 62 and Older b

tion  Under 18 and 62 and Older by Ar y Ar

ea T ea T

ype ype, 20

, 2010 10

1.6

Tribal areas 

1.4 

Surrounding counties 

1.4

Other metropolitan counties 

1.2 

1.2 

Other nonmetropolitan counties 

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.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

24

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

of Hispanic Native Americans and only 7.5 

population. In 2010, 9.3 percent of the AIAN 

percent of non-Hispanic Native Americans. 

population was age 62 and older compared 

with 16 percent for the non-AIAN population. 

Understanding the trends in the elderly is 

Tribal areas and other nonmetropolitan 

also important for assessing housing needs. 

counties had larger shares of both their AIAN 

The AIAN-alone elderly population has high 

and non-AIAN populations in this elderly 

disability rates, increasing the importance 

group compared with surrounding counties 

of the accessibility of housing. In 2011, more 

and other metropolitan counties. 

than one-half (51 percent) of the AIAN-alone 

population age 65 and older was disabled 

The percentage of the population in the age 62 

as compared with 47 percent for the United 

and older category increased during the past 

States as a whole.21 Frail or disabled elderly 

two decades across all area types for both the 

households may require adapted features 

AIAN and non-AIAN population. The increase 

(for example, safety features like grab bars 

from 2000 to 2010 in elderly share for AIANs 

in bathrooms). They also often live on fixed 

exceeded the growth in the non-AIAN share, 

incomes, making the continued affordability 

so again the gap between the AIAN and non-

of their housing an important factor 

AIAN populations narrowed. Overal , the ratio 

(Spil man, Biess, and MacDonald, 2012).

of AIAN to non-AIAN shares of people age 62 

and older rose from 0.48 in 2000 to 0.57 in 

American Indians and Alaska Natives stil  

2010. This pattern held across all area types. 

had a considerably smaller share of their 

population 62 and older than the non-Indian 

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

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

Exhibit 1.33 - A

Exhibit 1.33 - Aververage Household Siz

age Household Size b e by Rac

y Rac

e and Ar

e and Area T ea T

ype ype, 20

, 2010 10

3.5

3.2 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0

2.9 

2.7 

2.6 

2.5 

2.6 

2.6 

2.5 

2.5

2.0

AIAN-alone

Non-AIAN-alone

1.5

1.0

0.5

Average number of persons per household

0.0

Total 

Tribal areas 

Surrounding counties 

Other metropolitan 

Other nonmetropolitan 

counties 

counties 

Area type

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

25

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Household Sizes and Types

to 2010, little change occurred in the average 

household size of either AIAN or non-AIAN 

Household size has a direct link to what size 

households in any of the area types. 

housing units are in demand in a given area, 

and AIAN-alone households tend to be larger 

The Kingsley et al. (1996) study found that 

than non-AIAN households.22 In 2010, the 

large households (those with five or more 

average AIAN household size was 3 persons, 

people) made up a larger share of all AIAN 

although the average non-AIAN household 

households than in non-AIAN households. 

size was 2.6 persons. This pattern persisted 

Consistent with higher average household 

across all area types (exhibit 1.33). From 2000 

sizes, the percentage of AIAN households 

23  The analysis of household type conducted for the Kingsley et al. (1996) report is not directly comparable with 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.

Household Definitions According to the 2010 Census

household: A social unit that includes all the people who occupy a housing unit (that is, is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied as 

separate living quarters). 

large household: Households with five or more people

family or family household:  A social unit that includes the head of the household, or householder, and one or more other people living in the same household who are related to 

the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. A family household may include people not 

related to the householder. Families are classified as married-couple families, single-parent families, or other families. 

married-couple family:  A family social unit in which the householder and his or her spouse are enumerated as members of the same household. Married-couple families with children can 

include the householder’s own biological children, stepchildren, or children through adoption.

single-parent family:  A family social unit in which the head of the household is not married, but the household includes the householder’s own biological children, stepchildren, or 

children through adoption. These households are classified as male-headed or female-

headed based on the sex of the householder.

other family:  A family social unit in which the household is male- or female-headed without children under the age of 18. 

nonfamily household: A social unit that includes a single person only or a single person with nonrelatives only.

single-person household:  A social unit with only one member.

multigenerational household: A social unit that contains three or more parent-child generations. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2010, Summary Social, Economic, and Housing 

Characteristics, Selected Appendixes: 2010, B–4 Definitions of Subject Characteristics and 

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

26

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

with five or more people in 2010 (19 percent) 

percent of AIAN households were family 

was much higher than the comparable figure 

households, in contrast to only 66 percent 

for non-AIAN households (11 percent).23 The 

of non-AIAN households. The share of non-

AIAN large-household share dropped 0.8 

AIAN households in families varied little 

points from 2000 to 2010, but the non-AIAN 

across area type—from 66 to 68 percent. In 

share stayed about the same.

contrast, the family share of AIAN households 

ranged widely from 66 percent in other 

Although the patterns of household size 

nonmetropolitan counties up to 75 percent 

changed little since the Kingsley et al. (1996) 

in tribal areas. The family share of both AIAN 

study, the mix of AIAN types of households 

and non-AIAN households decreased across 

has changed in absolute terms and in relation 

all area types from 2000 to 2010, but the 

to non-AIAN households. As mentioned in 

variation across area types was similar in both 

the previous discussion of age structure, 

years. AIAN households correspondingly 

household type has important implications 

had lower shares in nonfamily household 

for housing need, with housing demand 

arrangements (30 percent) than non-AIAN 

and preferences varying by household type, 

households (34 percent) in 2010. This varied 

particularly with the presence of children. 

by geography: AIAN households in tribal areas 

(See the text box, Household Definitions 

had the lowest share of nonfamily households 

According to the 2010 Census.)

(25 percent), and AIAN households in other 

nonmetropolitan counties had the highest 

Further, housing instability is particularly 

share (34 percent). AIAN households are also 

prevalent among low-income families with 

less likely to live in single-person households 

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

than the non-AIAN population. 

Exhibit 1.34 - AIAN Households b

Exhibit 1.34 - AIAN Households b

y Household T

y Household Type ype, 1990 and 20

, 1990 and 2010 10

35

29.6 

30

28.6 

25.8 

25

20.2 

20.7 

20

19.4 

1990

16.5 

16.9 

2010

15

13.5 

10

8.9 

Percent of the AIAN-alone households

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 census 1990 and 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

27

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Nationwide in 2010, 23 percent of AIAN-

In 2010, the percentage of AIAN 

alone households consisted of a single 

households that consisted of single-parent 

person compared with 27 percent of non-

families (17 percent) was much higher than 

AIAN households. 

that of non-AIAN households (9.5 percent). 

This relationship held for both female-

The most dramatic change among 

headed households and male-headed 

household types from 1990 to 2010 was 

households. Overall, 12 percent of AIAN 

the precipitous drop in the share of AIAN 

households consisted of female-headed 

households that were married couples 

families with children compared with 7.1 

with children (exhibit 1.34). In 1990, 29 

percent of non-AIAN households, and 4.6 

percent of AIAN households consisted of 

percent of AIAN households consisted 

married couples with children; this figure 

of male-headed families with children 

dropped to 19 percent by 2010. Although the 

compared with 2.4 percent of non-AIAN 

comparable share for non-AIAN households 

households. The relatively high share of 

also declined (from 26 percent in 1990 to 20 

AIAN female-headed households is of 

percent in 2010), the drop was not as large. 

particular concern because they are more 

By 2010, AIAN households were just about 

likely to experience housing hardship and 

as likely to consist of married couples with 

instability than married parents (Manning 

children as non-AIAN households (exhibit 

and Brown, 2006; Nelson, 2004).

1.35). 

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1.3 .35 - AIAN and Non-

5 - AIAN and Non- AIAN Households b

AIAN Households b y Household T

y Household T ype, 20

ype, 2010 10

40

35

33.6 

30

29.6 

28.3 

25

AIAN-alone

20.7 

20.2 

Non-AIAN-alone

20

19.4 

16.9 

15

13.5 

Percent of households by type

10

9.5 

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 census 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

28

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

In 2010, the prevalence of single-parent 

children older than the age of 18 continuing 

families was higher in tribal areas and 

to live in the household or returning to the 

their surrounding counties than in non-

household. Other research has documented 

AIAN counties. Single-parent families 

that AIAN households are more likely 

with children made up 18 to 19 percent of 

than the population in general to live in 

AIAN households on tribal areas and in 

multigenerational arrangements. Using 

surrounding counties, but they accounted 

2009–2011 ACS 3-year estimates, the U.S. 

for only 15 percent in other metropolitan 

Census Bureau finds that AIAN households 

counties and 13 percent in other 

have a larger share of families living in 

nonmetropolitan counties. In contrast, the 

multigenerational households (about 11 

single-parent family share varied little by 

percent) than the total population (5.6 

area type for non-AIAN households (ranging 

percent) (Lofquist, 2012). Shares of AIAN 

from a much lower 8.9 to 9.9 percent). 

families in multigenerational households are 

larger in states with large AIAN populations.

Since 2000, the percentages of AIAN single-

parent family households decreased slightly, 

Educational Attainment

both overall and across all area types, but 

Educational attainment affects an 

the percentages of non-AIAN households 

individual’s ability to find and retain 

consisting of single-parent families increased 

employment. Those with less education are 

slightly both overall (0.3 percent increase) 

more likely to experience difficulties in these 

and across all area types. Thus, the gap in 

areas, which can lead to housing instability 

single-parent family shares between AIAN 

(Phinney et al., 2007). In general, the AIAN 

and non-AIAN households narrowed during 

population has lower levels of educational 

the 2000s. The AIAN single-parent share 

attainment than the non-AIAN population. 

was 1.8 times the non-AIAN share in 2010, 

The proportion of AIAN adults (age 25 

down slightly from 1.9 in 2000.

and older) without a high school degree, 

The “other family” category is defined as 

however, has fallen significantly during the 

male- or female-headed family households 

past decade. During the 2006-to-2010 

without children under the age of 18. In 

period, this share was 23 percent, down 6 

2010, these other families accounted for 

percentage points from the 2000 share (29 

14 percent of all AIAN households, much 

percent) (exhibit 1.36). 

more than the 8.4 percent rate for non-

Despite these gains, the 2006-to-2010 

AIAN households. The share of households 

rate was still much higher than the 15 

in this family arrangement increased from 

percent for non-AIAN adults, and the gap 

1990 for all groups, but at a much faster 

is widening. In 1990, the share of the AIAN 

pace for AIAN households than non-AIAN 

population without a high school diploma 

households. As a result, the AIAN share in 

was 1.4 times the non-AIAN share. This 

this category jumped from 1.3 times the 

figure increased to 1.5 times in 2000, and 

non-AIAN share in 1990, to 1.6 times in 2010. 

again to 1.6 times during the 2006-to-2010 

The increase in the share of other family 

period. The share of adults without a high 

households could be due to an increase 

school diploma was slightly higher in tribal 

in the number of multigenerational 

areas and other nonmetropolitan areas, 

households—either with elderly family 

but the gap with non-AIAN rates persisted 

members moving into the household or 

across all area types.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

29

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Exhibit 1.36 - Share of Adults Without a High School Diploma by Race, 1990 to 2006–10

Exhibit 1.36 - Share Adults Without a High School Diploma by Race, 1990 to 2006–10

40

35

34.4 

30

29.1

25

24.7

23.4

AIAN-alone

Non-AIAN-alone

20

19.6

14.9

15

without a high school diploma

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, 2006–10 Five-Year Estimates The growth of Hispanic AIAN population 

Noteworthy variations in educational 

contributed to the growing gap in education. 

attainment existed across regions. Overal , 

About 19 percent of AIAN non-Hispanics 

the shares without a high school diploma 

older than 25 during the 2006-to-2010 

were highest in Arizona/New Mexico (27 

period did not have a high school degree. 

percent) and the Eastern and California/

The share for Hispanic AIAN adults is almost 

Nevada regions (25 percent) and lowest in 

twice as high at 37 percent, close to the 36 

the Oklahoma and North Central regions (17 

percent rate for non-AIAN Hispanics.

and 18 percent, respectively). The regional 

distributions of this measure were similar for 

In a similar way, English proficiency provides 

AIAN and non-AIAN counties. 

another contrast among AIAN Hispanics and 

non-Hispanics. About 30 percent of AIAN 

During the 2006-to-2010 period, the 

Hispanics do not speak English very wel . 

share of the AIAN adult population with a 

This is lower than the 37 percent for non-

bachelor’s degree or higher was 13 percent 

AIAN Hispanics, which makes sense given 

overal , but this indicator varied considerably 

the smaller share of AIAN Hispanics that is 

by area type. AIAN adults in tribal areas 

new immigrants, as mentioned in section 

were least likely to have completed a 

1.2. The share of AIAN non-Hispanics not 

college education (only 9.2 percent), 

speaking English very well is comparatively 

but the percentage for AIAN population 

quite smal —about 4 percent.

living in other metropolitan counties was 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

30

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

much higher, at almost 17 percent. The 

decreased to 68 percent of the non-AIAN 

2006-to-2010 share of AIAN adults with a 

share in the 2006-to-2010 period.

bachelor’s degree was only slightly higher 

than the 2000 level—an increase of only 1.5 

Employment

percentage points. 

Labor force participation and employment 

general y determines household income, 

Even with these gains, the share of AIAN 

which is the primary determinant of a 

adults who had completed college is still 

family’s ability to address its housing 

far lower than the 28 percent for non-AIAN 

needs. The formation of new households 

adults. Overal , the gap between the AIAN 

(for example, young adults moving out 

and non-AIAN population on this measure 

of their parents’ homes and starting their 

has shown little change since 1990. The 

own households) is suppressed when 

2000 and 2006-to-2010 percentage of the 

unemployment is higher, which lessens 

AIAN population obtaining a bachelor’s 

housing demand (Masnick, McCue, and 

or graduate degree was only 47 and 46 

Belsky, 2010). The employment situation of 

percent of the non-AIAN share, respectively, 

the AIAN population general y worsened 

about the same as the 1990 comparison. 

during the 2000s. Three indicators related 

The gap between the AIAN and non-AIAN 

to employment were examined in this 

populations, however, widened in some area 

section: (1) the share of the AIAN population 

types and narrowed in others from 2000 to 

older than 16 in the labor force—either 

the 2006-to-2010 period. In tribal areas, the 

working or looking for work (labor force 

gap is widest, but it has improved the most: 

participation rate), (2) the percentage of the 

the percentage of the AIAN population 

population older than 16 that was employed 

with a bachelor’s or higher degree was 44 

(employment rate), and (3) the share of 

percent of the non-AIAN percentage in 

the labor force that was unemployed 

2000 and 46 percent in the 2006-to-2010 

(unemployment rate). (See the text box, 

period. In other nonmetropolitan areas, the 

Employment Indicators.)

gap is much smaller, but it increased during 

The labor force participation rate fell slightly 

that period. In 2000, the share of the AIAN 

from 61 percent in 2000, to 60 percent in 

population with at least a bachelor’s degree 

the 2006-to-2010 period. The non-AIAN 

was 71 percent of the non-AIAN share and 

participation rate increased slightly during 

Employment Indicators

labor force participation rate:  the share of the population age 16 and older in the labor force that was either working or looking for work in either civilian jobs or in the military.

employment rate: the percentage of population age 16 and older that was employed in civilian jobs. 

unemployment rate: the share of the civilian labor force that was unemployed. 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Glossary. 

http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

31

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Exhibit 1.37 - AIAN Employment Indicators by Study Region and Area Type, 2006–10

United 

North 

South 

Arizona 

Calif.- 

Pacific 

States

Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

Central

Plains

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

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 

64.4

63.4

63.5

NA

65.3

65.5

59.0

64.5

69.1

58.1

counties

Other nonmetropolitan 

53.7

53.2

51.4

58.7

56.7

54.3

48.3

55.7

58.3

NA

counties

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 

56.2

52.8

55.7

NA

59.1

54.5

47.0

55.8

60.3

46.8

counties

Other nonmetropolitan 

47.1

46.2

44.0

53.0

50.3

49.2

44.0

52.0

49.9

NA

counties

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

1 .0

6.7

14.7

12.0

14.9

14.7

16.7

Other metropolitan 

12.7

16.7

12.2

NA

9.4

16.8

20.4

13.4

12.7

19.3

counties

Other nonmetropolitan 

12.3

13.1

14.3

9.7

11.3

9.4

9.0

6.7

14.4

NA

counties

NA: Not applicable.

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

the same time period, from 63 to 65 percent. 

regions (North Central, Oklahoma, South 

As a result, the gap widened, with the AIAN 

Central, and Pacific Northwest) (exhibit 1.37). 

rate moving from 3 percentage points below 

Disparities with non-Indians also varied by 

the non-AIAN rate to 5 percentage points 

region. Overal  labor force participation was 

lower during this period. The AIAN labor 

the same or almost the same for AIAN and 

force participation rates are considerably 

non-AIAN populations in the Oklahoma and 

higher in other metropolitan counties 

South Central regions, but the AIAN rate 

(64 percent) and lower in tribal areas 

was 8 to 11 percentage points lower than the 

(55 percent) and other nonmetropolitan 

non-Indian rate in the Plains, Arizona/New 

counties (54 percent).

Mexico, and Alaska regions.

By region, the AIAN labor force shares 

Looking at the second employment-related 

(across all area types) varied from a low 

indicator, a little more than one-half of the 

of 54 percent (Arizona/New Mexico) to 

AIAN population 16 and older was employed, 

highs in the 62-to-63-percent range in four 

according to the 2006–2010 data compared 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

32

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

with almost 60 percent for non-AIAN (exhibit 

The unemployment rate is the final indicator 

1.38). This pattern of lower employment rates 

used to understand AIAN employment 

for AIAN compared with non-AIAN holds true 

patterns. About 14 percent of the AIAN 

in all the geographic areas. AIAN employment 

labor force was unemployed in the 2006-

rates are lowest in the tribal areas and other 

to-2010 period. The AIAN unemployment 

nonmetropolitan counties (47 percent). 

rate was highest in tribal areas (16 

percent) in contrast to the 12 to 14 percent 

Tribal areas also had the largest gap in 

unemployment rates for AIAN people in 

employment compared with the non-AIAN 

other areas.

rate (about 10 percentage points). The 

employment rate in other metropolitan 

As with the other indicators, unemployment 

counties was 61 percent for non-Indians 

rates are worse for AIAN than for non-AIAN 

compared with 56 percent for AIAN-alone 

people; the AIAN rate was about 6 points 

people in those counties.

higher than the non-AIAN rate in the 2006-

to-2010 period. The gap overal , however, 

AIAN workers are also less likely than non-

has been declining during the past two 

AIAN workers to work full time. Only 53 

decades. In 1990, the AIAN unemployment 

percent of AIAN workers reported ful -time 

rate was 2.3 times the non-AIAN rate. The 

employment in the 2006-to-2010 period 

ratio fell to 2.2 in 2000 and then fell again to 

compared with 60 percent of non-AIAN 

1.8 in the 2006-to-2010 period. The decline 

workers. These rates were similar across 

is mostly due to the increase in the non-

geographic areas.

AIAN unemployment rate (up 1.7 points over 

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

Exhibit 1.38 - Emplo

Exhibit 1.38 - Emplo ymen

ymen t Indica

t Indicat tors b

ors b

y Rac

y Race  f e for Popula

or Popula

tion 16 and Ov

tion 16 and Over er, 2006–

, 2006–10 10

59.9 

Labor force

participation rate

64.6 

AIAN-alone

51.6 

Non-AIAN-alone

Employment

rate

59.5 

53.0 

Percent of workers

working ful-time

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, 2006– 10 Five-Year Estimates. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

33

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

the 20 years) rather than the improvement 

smallest gap between AIAN and non-AIAN 

in the AIAN rate (which fell only 0.3 points).

households of about $14,000.

In addition, these employment conditions 

Average household income decreased 

result in lower rates of health insurance 

since 2000 for both AIAN and non-AIAN 

coverage for the AIAN-alone population 

households overal —by $3,500 for AIAN 

than for the non-AIAN population. The share 

households and $3,300 for non-AIAN 

of the AIAN-alone population that lacked 

households, after accounting for inflation. 

health insurance was 28 percent, which is 13 

The average household income also fell in 

percentage points higher than the non-AIAN 

each geography type; however, the size of 

share for the Nation as a whole in 2011.24 This 

the decrease varied. For AIAN households, 

means that the AIAN-alone population faces 

average household income fell by the largest 

added healthcare costs on top of already 

amount in other nonmetropolitan counties 

lower income levels (as will be discussed 

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

in the next section), which leads to greater 

average household income dropped by 

challenges in affording housing.

about $6,000, and in surrounding counties 

it fell by about $2,900. In tribal areas 

Income and Poverty

the average household income fell by 

a much smaller amount—only by about 

Household income affects both housing 

$130. For non-AIAN households, the 

preferences and needs and also the ability 

average household income dropped by 

to satisfy them. For example, higher-

the smallest amount in tribal areas as well 

income households are more likely to prefer 

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

owning a single-family home and are more 

geography types ranged from $2,700 in 

able to achieve that, but lower income 

the surrounding counties to $3,800 in other 

households are more likely to rent (Katz 

metropolitan counties.

and Turner, 2007; Skaburskis, 1999). Lower 

income households are also more likely to 

The ratio of AIAN income to non-AIAN 

experience housing hardship (Nelson, 2004). 

income fell slightly more over the decade, 

The average AIAN household income in the 

from 0.71 to 0.69 overal . AIAN households 

2006-to-2010 period was $49,000, which 

lost the most ground compared with non-

was about $22,000 less than the non-

AIAN households in non-AIAN counties. 

AIAN average. Although average income 

In other metropolitan counties, the 

varied by geography for both groups, the 

ratio fell from 0.78 to 0.74, and in other 

average AIAN household income was less 

nonmetropolitan counties the ratio fell by an 

than that of non-AIAN households across 

even larger margin—from 0.84 to 0.71.25

all geography types. The surrounding 

counties and other metropolitan counties 

Among all gaps between Native American 

exhibited the highest average income for 

and non-AIAN wel -being, that in the 

both AIAN and non-AIAN households, but 

poverty rate may be the most troubling. 

also exhibited the largest disparity between 

(See the text box, Poverty Rate.) More 

the groups at $20,000. Tribal areas and 

than one-fourth (26 percent) of the AIAN 

other nonmetropolitan counties conversely 

population lived below the poverty line 

had lower average income levels—$42,000 

in 2000 and in the 2006-to-2010 period. 

and $38,000, respectively—but they had the 

This is almost twice the rate for non-AIAN 

individuals in both of these periods. In the 

25  By contrast with 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).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

34

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Poverty Rate

The poverty rate is the percentage of people living in households that have money incomes 

that fall below the poverty threshold for their family size and composition, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

2006-to-2010 period, the poverty rate for 

period were lower than for children (24 and 

the AIAN-alone population in tribal areas 

20 percent, respectively), but the difference 

was 32 percent, substantial y more than 

in rates for AIAN and non-AIAN people in 

the 18 percent national rate for non-Indians 

these groups are wider than the differential 

(exhibit 1.39). The AIAN-alone rate was 

in child poverty rates. For example, the AIAN 

28 percent in surrounding counties and 

elderly poverty rate was more than twice (2.1 

22 percent in other metropolitan counties 

times) the non-AIAN rate overall and almost 

compared with 14 and 13 percent for 

2.5 times the non-AIAN rate in tribal areas.

non-Indians in those areas, respectively. 

Regional differences in AIAN poverty 

The poverty rate is even higher for AIAN 

were substantial. Across all area types, the 

children. One in three AIAN children was 

2006-to-2010 rates ranged from the 20-to-

poor in the 2006-to-2010 period compared 

22-percent range at the low end (South 

with one in five non-AIAN children (exhibit 

Central, California/Nevada, and Alaska), to 

1.310). Among geographic areas, AIAN 

36 percent (Plains), and 33 percent (Arizona/

children in tribal areas were most likely to be 

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

poor (39 percent). 

the rates varied from 23 percent (Oklahoma 

Poverty rates for AIAN working-age adults 

and Alaska), to 41 percent (Plains), and 37 

and the elderly during the 2006-to-2010 

percent (Arizona/New Mexico). 

 Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1.3 .39 - Po

9 - Povertverty Ra

y Rat tes, 2006-

es, 2006-10 10

AIAN Population

Tribal Areas

0.32

Surrounding Counties

0.28

Other Metropolitan areas

0.22

Other Non-metropolitan areas

0.26

United States – All Races

0.18

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Poverty Rate

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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

35

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Notable regional differences also occurred 

To respond to that question, the analysis relies 

in the poverty gaps between the AIAN and 

on the ACS 1-year estimates for 2008 and 

non-AIAN populations. The AIAN poverty 

2010 (the latest data available at the time of 

rate was 3.1 times the non-AIAN rate in the 

analysis). Three indicators summarize the main 

Plains region and 2.9 times the non-AIAN 

trends: (1) labor force participation rates, (2) 

rate in Alaska. At the other extreme, the 

unemployment rates, and (3) poverty rates. 

AIAN rate was only 1.3 times the non-AIAN 

The National Story

rates in the South Central region. 

The earlier parts of this section showed that 

How the AIAN Population Fared in 

trends for the AIAN-alone population from 

the Great Recession

2000 to the 2006-to-2010 period by these 

economic indicators were mixed. The period 

The earlier parts of this section have reported 

saw almost no change in the AIAN labor 

on socioeconomic conditions and trends 

force participation rate, and the ratio of the 

for American Indians and Alaska Natives by 

AIAN rate to the non-AIAN rate had dropped 

comparing 2000 decennial census data with 

slightly. Modest improvements occurred, 

those from the 2006–2010 ACS 5-year data. 

however, in the AIAN unemployment 

This base is important for understanding, 

rate and poverty rate and, in both cases, 

but it does not answer the question of how 

gaps between AIAN and non-AIAN levels 

America’s AIAN population weathered the 

narrowed during the decade. 

Great Recession of the past decade. 

Exhibit 1.310 - Po

Exhibit 1.310 - Pov v

ert erty Ra

y Rat tes b

es by A y Age and Rac

ge and Race e, 2006–

, 2006–10 10

40

35

33.3 

30

25

23.9 

AIAN-alone

19.6 

Non-AIAN-alone

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 64

65 and older

Age group

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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

36

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

The Native American population was more 

increased slightly. The AIAN poverty rate 

economically vulnerable in 2008 at the 

went up from 1.85 times the non-AIAN 

start of the Great Recession than was the 

rate in 2008 to 1.87 times the non-AIAN 

non-AIAN population, putting them in a 

rate in 2010. Although this represented 

worse position in the face of the rising 

a substantial improvement in relation to 

unemployment and falling earnings brought 

the 2.1 ratio of 2000, disparities between 

on by the economic downturn. The pace of 

the two groups persist. 

the economic deterioration, however, was 

Regional Variations

not much worse than it was for the non-

AIAN population, and during the decade as 

Because of sample-size limitations, reliable 

a whole, gaps between AIAN and non-AIAN 

data are not available for the detailed 

performance had been reduced on some 

geographies examined earlier in this 

measures. 

section. This analysis accordingly reviews 

data only for the United States as a whole 

•  The AIAN labor force participation rate 

and for the four major Census Bureau 

(as a percentage of the population older 

regions: (1) Northeast, (2) Midwest, (3) 

than 16) dropped slightly from 61 percent 

South, and (4) West. The pattern of the 

in 2008 to 59 percent in 2010. This 

2008-to-2010 change for the four major 

represented 0.93 of the non-AIAN rate in 

U.S. regions seems consistent with what 

both years, down modestly from the 0.95 

might be expected, given discussion of the 

ratio achieved in 2000.

variations in AIAN conditions among regions 

•  The AIAN unemployment rate went up 

earlier in this section. It is most disturbing 

sharply from 11 percent in 2008 to 18 

that Native Americans in the West region 

percent in 2010, yet this measure for the 

(which contains the two most distressed 

non-AIAN population increased from 6.3 

study regions—Plains and Arizona/New 

to 11 percent. Although the gap between 

Mexico—and 46 percent of the total AIAN 

the two groups narrowed with the AIAN 

population) were hit hardest by the Great 

unemployment rate fal ing from 1.8 times 

Recession (exhibit 1.311). Although not 

the non-AIAN rate in 2008 to 1.7 times 

directly comparable, Austin’s (2009) analysis 

the non-AIAN rate in 2010 (a sizable 

of the effects of the Great Recession on the 

improvement over the 2.2 ratio in 2000), 

AIAN population finds a similar pattern: the 

the AIAN unemployment rate was still 7 

West experienced the largest increase in 

percentage points higher than that of the 

the employment rate disparity between the 

non-AIAN population.

AIAN and White populations between 2007 

and 2009.26 The Great Recession effects 

•  The AIAN poverty rate also saw 

alternatively appear mildest in the South 

considerable deterioration, rising from 

(which contains the Oklahoma and South 

24 percent in 2008 to 28 percent in 

Central study regions and also the southern 

2010, as compared with an increase 

half of Eastern Woodlands). 

from 13 percent in 2008 to 15 percent 

in 2010 for the non-AIAN population. 

In this case the AIAN/non-AIAN gap 

26  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. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

37

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

•  Over this 2-year period, the AIAN labor 

•  The West also saw by far the largest spike 

force participation rate in the West 

in unemployment—an increase of 8.6 

dropped by 3 percentage points to 

percentage points to reach a 21-percent 

reach 57 percent. That decline was more 

rate at the end of the period. The 2010 

than twice the next largest (minus 1.4 

rates for the other regions were 14 

percent in the Northeast and Midwest), 

percent (South), 15 percent (Northeast), 

but the decline for the South was only 

and 19 percent (Midwest)—increases for 

0.27 percent. In 2010, the rates for the 

these three were all in the 5.2-to-5.6-point 

other three regions were in the 60-to-62-

range. In 2010, AIAN unemployment rates 

percent range, well over that for the West. 

were higher than were non-AIAN rates 

AIAN labor force participation was almost 

in all regions, but the range was wide: 1.3 

as high as for non-AIAN in the South 

higher in the South, 1.5 in the Northeast, 

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

and 1.8 in the Midwest and West. Those 

level in the West. 

ratios, however, were slightly better than 

they had been in 2008 in all regions.

Exhibit 1.311 - AIAN Economic Indicators, 2008 to 2010

Percent  

Percentage Point 

Ratio to Non-AIAN 

Change in Ratio 

2010

Change 

2010

2008 to 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, One-Year Estimates, 2008 and 2010. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

38

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

•  The Great Recession yielded sizable 

1.4. Economic Development

increases in AIAN poverty in all regions, 

Section 1.4 of this report comprises 

but, again, the change for the West 

adapted excerpts from section 4, Economic 

was the most severe: an increase of 5.2 

Development, of Pettit et al. (2014), this 

percentage points to reach an overall rate 

study’s interim report. 

of 30 percent in 2010. The 2010 poverty 

level was actual y higher in the Midwest 

The most important driver of economic wel -

(33 percent), but the increase there was 

being (and the ability to improve housing 

not as large (2.6 points). Poverty rates in 

conditions) in any area is the state of the 

2010 reached 25 percent in the Northeast 

local economy. This section looks more 

(up 3.3 points from 2008) and in the 

closely at economic development trends 

South (up 3.8 points). Regarding poverty 

for that part of the AIAN population that 

at the end of the Great Recession, the 

traditional y has been most distressed: those 

AIAN/non-AIAN gap was also highest in 

living on reservations and in other tribal 

the Midwest (AIAN rate 2.3 times the non-

areas, and those living in the areas that 

AIAN rate). The comparable ratios were 

immediately surround them.

2.0 in the West, 1.9 in the Northeast, and 

1.5 in the South. In this case, these ratios 

The section begins by reviewing research by 

were modestly higher than they had been 

others that examined how private enterprise 

in 2008 in all regions except the Midwest, 

progressed in Indian Country throughout 

where the ratio dropped from 2.5 to 2.3. 

the 1990s. Only partial information is 

available on what has happened since then, 

Implications

but some new evidence is presented that 

offers updates in two topical areas, and 

The social and economic conditions of 

the section discusses implications of those 

Native American families are major drivers 

findings. These areas are employment 

of the housing needs and challenges 

growth in the 2000s and tribally owned 

discussed in part 2 of this report. Larger 

businesses and enterprises, including 

families, additional children, and the 

gaming.

multigenerational households all relate to 

the desired housing size and structure. 

Background: Expansion of Economic 

Policymakers should track the significant 

Development in the 1990s 

shifts, such as the fall in the share of 

households with children younger than 18, to 

At the end of the 1980s, the status of 

project future demand for various housing 

economic enterprise in Indian Country 

types. Education levels and resulting 

was uneven. Some tribes had achieved 

employment opportunities for AIAN adults 

considerable economic success by taking 

determine the income available to pay for 

advantage of a rich resource base, and 

housing. Although it is good news that the 

others had been successful in stimulating 

AIAN community was not disproportionately 

other forms of private business, but many 

hit by the Great Recession, the fact remains 

generated very few private-sector jobs 

that the economic situation for AIAN 

(Cornell and Kalt, 1989, 1992). A large 

families has worsened considerably in 

number of tribal areas had significant 

the past few years; and as will be shown 

dependent populations (high ratios of 

in part 2, this translates to high levels of 

children to working-age adults), high 

housing problems.

unemployment, and federal jobs making 

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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

39

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

up a large share of all employment. A 

•  Emphasizing the rule of law means 

good measure of independent economic 

ensuring an environment in which the 

health for an area is how many private 

rules are clear about how collective 

employees27 it has per 1,000 population. In 

decisions will be made and how disputes 

1990, the national average for this ratio was 

will be resolved and in which there is 

255; for AIAN tribal areas it was only 158 

confidence the rules will be enforced. 

(Kingsley et al., 1996).

The rule of law encourages private 

business investment. 

According to the Harvard Project on 

American Indian Economic Development 

•  Separating politics from day-to-day 

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

administration and business affairs refers 

Harvard Project), changes occurred over 

to institutional change to reinforce the 

the subsequent decade to the effect that 

separation of powers in tribal governance—

“Economic development is taking root in 

for example, ensuring an independent 

Indian Country, albeit unevenly across tribes 

judiciary—or creating independent boards 

and industry sectors” (Harvard Project, 

of directors for tribal enterprises.

2008: 111). They noted that—

•  Creating an efficient tribal bureaucracy 

Past approaches to development by 

entails efficient and reliable administration, 

assimilation, by project-based job 

good recordkeeping (taking advantage of 

creation or by pursuing federal grants 

today’s computer technology), and actions 

are on the wane, largely because of 

to facilitate business creation and operation 

their repeated failure. Contemporary 

(such as speeding up permitting processes). 

nation-building approaches are in the 

Gaming has been one important force behind 

ascendancy, with tribes investing in 

economic growth in Indian Country. Robinson 

their own capacities to govern and 

(1995) estimated that only 81 Indian gaming 

thereby improving local accountability 

operations were active nationwide in 1992. 

and encouraging tribal and non-tribal 

The number went up rapidly after that, 

investments in human and other capital. 

however, reaching 311 in 2000. 

Over 1990–2000, for both Indian 

nations with gaming enterprises and 

Gaming profits have often been reinvested in 

those without such operations, real per 

tribal enterprise, and significant shares have 

capita income in Indian Country grew at 

been distributed to tribal members through 

two to three times the rate experienced 

per-capita payments, creating substantial 

by the general U.S. population. (Harvard 

wealth in some places; however, proceeds 

Project, 2008: 111)

have been very uneven. The Harvard Project 

(2008) concludes—

In their view, the shift in U.S. government 

policy furthering self-determination for 

A disproportionately large share of the 

Indian tribes (of which NAHASDA was a 

total casino revenue in Indian Country 

part—see discussion in section 3.2) was vital 

accrues to tribes that represent a small 

among the underlying causes of this change. 

share of the Indian population (near 

With expanded freedom to select their own 

population dense metropolitan areas)…. 

path, many tribes have chosen to strengthen 

[gaming] is having only a limited effect 

their own governance in ways that establish 

on the economic fortunes of households 

a foundation for entrepreneurialism. These 

among large tribes remote from customer 

ways include the following: 

markets. (Harvard Project, 2008: 148)

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

40

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Furthermore, the focus on gaming in the 

Other evidence comes from the U.S. 

press has created a distorted view of Indian 

Department of Commerce County Business 

economic development over this period. 

Patterns series. This series shows total 

Tribal area economies have also seen 

U.S. employment at 113.1 million in 2000; 

substantial expansion of other types of 

20.7 million (or 18 percent) of those jobs 

private enterprise. 

were located in AIAN counties. From 2000 

to 2007, however, employment in AIAN 

Nongaming enterprises are proliferating 

counties grew by 303,000 per year, 48 

rapidly in Indian Country. Some of 

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

these are large and visible (developed 

county growth rate was 1.4 percent per year, 

by tribes)… But development is also 

dwarfing the 0.36 percent average for all 

founded on businesses owned by 

non-AIAN counties (exhibit 1.41).

private tribal citizens—from Burger 

King franchises and Hampton Inns to 

Most (87 percent) of the AIAN county jobs 

paving companies, construction firms, 

in 2000 were within the boundaries of 

automobile repair shops, and cattle 

metropolitan areas, and these grew much 

ranches. (Harvard Project, 2008: 117)

faster during the 2000-to-2007 period than 

did those outside of metropolitan areas: an 

Total enterprise growth for the AIAN 

annual rate of 1.5 percent compared with 

population has been impressive. 

0.68 percent (exhibit 1.42). 

Government reports showed a total 

of 102,000 Native-owned businesses 

During the Great Recession, the patterns 

nationwide in 1992. Over the subsequent 

reversed. Places that performed best earlier 

decade, the number had doubled, reaching 

in the decade typical y faced the sharpest 

201,000 in 2002. Native-owned businesses 

reversals later on. The total number of jobs 

had increased at an annual rate of 7 

in AIAN counties dropped by 3.0 percent 

percent compared with 2.9 percent for 

per year from 2007 to 2010 compared with 

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

a drop of 2.3 percent annual y for non-AIAN 

Development Agency, 2006). 

counties. Among AIAN counties, annual rates 

of decline were 3.1 percent in metropolitan 

Employment Growth in the 2000s

areas and 2.5 percent in other areas.

Available evidence suggests that the 

This national picture, however, masks sizable 

economic environment for the AIAN 

variations in performance across regions. 

population continued to be strong through 

During the 2000-to-2007 period, annual 

2007, but then the Great Recession hit 

employment growth was by far fastest in 

Indian Country very hard, as it did the rest 

AIAN counties in Arizona/New Mexico and 

of the Nation.

California/Nevada—averaging 2.7 percent, 

more than three times the average national 

The number of AIAN-owned enterprises 

rate. The next closest among AIAN counties 

continued to grow rapidly in the middle 

was Alaska (2.4 percent), but the absolute 

years of the decade, reaching 237,000 by 

numbers there were quite small. After that 

2007. The 2002-to-2007 annual growth 

came the Plains states (1.8 percent) and the 

rate of 3.3 percent was clearly below the 

Pacific Northwest (1.3 percent). The lowest 

comparable AIAN rate for the 1992-to-

rate for AIAN counties was in the North 

2002 period, but equal to the average for 

Central and Eastern regions (0.44 and 0.43 

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

percent, respectively) (exhibit 1.43). 

Census Bureau, 2011; U.S. Minority Business 

Development Agency, 2006).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

41

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Among non-AIAN counties during this 

years. Among AIAN counties, annual 

period, the fastest rate of expansion was 3 

employment loss rates in Arizona/New 

percent per year in Arizona/New Mexico. It 

Mexico and California/Nevada were in 

is interesting that those in California/Nevada 

the 4.4-to-4.5-percent range. Alaska 

did not fare nearly as well (0.17 percent). 

actually registered a modest increase, but 

Intermediate growth rates were realized 

again the amount was small (1.4 percent 

in the Pacific Northwest (1.6 percent) and 

or 9,100 jobs). Rates of decline almost 

the Plains (1.2 percent)—not much different 

everywhere else were more than 2 percent. 

from the rates for AIAN counties in those 

AIAN counties in the South Central region 

regions. Non-AIAN counties in the North 

registered the best record (a decline of 0.16 

Central region (the main rust-belt states) 

percent per year) and Oklahoma (a decline 

actually lost employment, even more than 

of 1.7 percent per year). 

this prerecession growth period (by 0.64 

What has been the net effect of these 

percent per year). 

changes on employment from 2000 to 

2010? During the full decade, employment 

During the Great Recession, similar 

in AIAN counties grew slightly (by about 

variation existed across regions, and the 

0.65 percent), whereas the number of jobs 

rule generally held that those that had 

in non-AIAN counties actual y declined (by 

performed best earlier in the decade had 

almost 4.5 percent).

the worst record in the Great Recession 

Exhibit 1.41 - Employment Trends in AIAN Counties from 2000 to 2010

Exhibit 1.41 - Employment Trends in AIAN Counties from 2000 to 2010

2

AIAN 

1.4 

counties

Non-AIAN 

counties

0.36

0.06

0

-0.46

Annual percent change 

-2

-2.3 

-3

4

2000 to 2007

2007 to 2010

2000 to 2010

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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

42

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Tribally Owned Businesses and 

announced that it is expanding globally, 

focusing on Latin America, Eastern 

Enterprises

Europe, and Asia (De la Merced, 2006; 

The expansion and diversification of tribally 

Stuts, 2012).

owned businesses noted earlier for the 

•  Tulalip Tribes in Washington built 

1990s continued into the 2000s. This has 

Quil Ceda Vil age, a highly successful 

occurred both on and off the reservations. 

commercial development that includes 

Types of businesses include hotels and 

outlets, anchor stores such as Home Depot 

resorts, golf courses, manufacturing, oil 

and Walmart, and a number of other retail 

extraction companies, mining, coal and 

businesses (Harvard Project, 2003).

natural resources, timber, and wild game 

hunting. Examples include—

•  Menominee Tribal Enterprises (MTE), a 

lumber production company operating 

•  The Seminole Tribe of Florida purchased 

since 1908, employs about 300 people. 

the Hard Rock Hotel Café and Restaurant 

MTE practices sustainable yield forestry 

chain for $965 million—the first time 

and operates a mill. In recent years, the 

an Indian tribe had ever purchased a 

tribe has been branching out, exporting 

major international corporation. The 

some products as far as China, and using 

tribe continued to make news when it 

Exhibit 1.42 - Employment in AIAN and Non-AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2000, 2007 and 2010

Study Region

United 

States N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central

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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

43

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

sophisticated logging machinery to 

Business Network (AIBN). The AIBN 

ensure that all parts of the tree are used. 

provides an opportunity for tribal businesses 

MTE is also planning a biomass electrical 

to showcase their products and interact 

plant that will use forest waste to produce 

with other business owners and potential 

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

customers. It also allows for networking 

among tribal leaders, Indian entrepreneurs, 

•  The Chickasaw Nation owns and 

and other tribal government businesses. 

operates a wide variety of businesses. 

In 2000, the tribe purchased Bedré Fine 

Indian gaming—when tribes own and 

Chocolate. The production facility, in 

operate casinos—also continued to play an 

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

important role in the 2000s. In 2001, 201 

machinery to ensure the ingredient mix is 

of the 561 federally recognized tribes (36 

controlled, guaranteeing a superior and 

percent) operated one or more gaming 

more consistent product. The Chickasaw 

operations (Hillabrant, et al., 2004). 

Nation opened Bank2, a full-service 

According to the National Indian Gaming 

community bank, in 2002. Headquartered 

Association (NIGA) (2009), by 2006, 

in Oklahoma City since January 2002, 

224 tribes (40 percent) operated gaming 

the bank’s assets have grown from 

facilities. By the end of 2009, that number 

$7.5 million to more than $100 million 

increased to 237 (42 percent). 

(Bank2, n.d.; Bedré Fine Chocolate, 2006; 

The total number of gaming operations has 

Chickasaw Nation, 2013). 

also grown. The National Indian Gaming 

The institutional infrastructure supporting 

Commission (NIGC) reported in 2000 that 

the expansion of tribally owned enterprise 

about 311 tribal gaming enterprises were 

has also strengthened since 2000. This 

operating throughout the United States; by 

includes new supports for networking 

the end of 2006, the number rose to 394 

and collaboration. One advance was the 

nationwide. The number reached 421 at the 

establishment of the American Indian 

end of fiscal year (FY) 2011 (NIGC, 2012b).

Exhibit 1.43 - Employment Trends in  AIAN and Non-AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2000 to 2010

United 

North 

South 

Arizona/ 

Calif./

Pacific 

States

Central

Eastern Oklahoma Central

Plains

N. Mexico

Nevada Northwest 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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

44

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Gaming revenues have flourished as well. By 

Indian gaming revenues, and the 78 largest 

the end of FY 2000, NIGC found that AIAN 

(18 percent) accounted for close to 75 

gaming enterprises generated about $11 

percent of all tribal gaming revenues. 

billion in total revenues. Six years later, NIGC 

NIGA (2011) conducted a more in-depth 

reported that revenues increased to about 

analysis and found that in addition to the 

$24.9 billion for the 394 gaming facilities at 

$26 billion generated from gaming revenue 

the time. After that, gaming revenues rose 

in 2009, tribal governments also generated 

and then leveled off in the $26 to $27 billion 

billions in other gaming-related services 

range. In 2011, revenues reached $27.2 billion 

and taxes. For example, they report that 

from 421 gaming operations (NIGC, 2012b). 

tribal governments generated about $3.2 

As noted earlier, gaming operations and 

billion from gaming-related hospitality and 

revenues were very uneven across tribal 

entertainment services (that is, resorts, 

areas in the 1990s. That continued to be the 

hotels, restaurants, golf, entertainment 

case in the 2000s. Exhibit 1.44 shows that 

complexes, and travel centers); 

a small number of enterprises have been 

approximately $9.4 billion in federal taxes 

highly successful, but the great majority has 

and revenue savings (including employer 

not been as fortunate. Of the 421 gaming 

and employee Social Security taxes, 

facilities operating in 2011, one in every three 

income taxes, excise taxes, and savings on 

generated less than $3 million in gaming 

unemployment and welfare payments); and 

revenues. Close to one-half generated 

about $2.4 billion in state taxes, revenue 

between $10 million and $100 million, and 

sharing, and regulatory payments (including 

less than one-fifth generated more than 

state income, sales, and excise taxes; 

$100 million in gaming revenue. 

regulatory payments; and revenue sharing 

pursuant to tribal-state compacts).

Among the tribal gaming facilities, the 

23 largest tribal enterprises (5 percent) 

Tribal governments allocated the largest 

generated about 38 percent of the total 

share of gaming revenues (20 percent) 

Exhibit 1.44 - 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. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

45

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

toward education, children and the elderly, 

encourage entrepreneurship among the 

culture, charity, and other purposes; 19 

AIAN population more broadly.

percent to economic development; 17 

percent for both healthcare and police 

1.5. Diversity Among Tribal Areas

and fire protection; and 16 percent for 

The last two sections offer some grounds 

infrastructure. Housing received the smallest 

for optimism. Since 2000, the gaps for some 

share (11 percent) (NIGA, 2009). 

measures (for example, unemployment rate, 

poverty rate) have narrowed somewhat, 

Gaming has also had an impact on 

and a vigorous new spirit of enterprise in 

employment. Tribal gaming created more 

many tribal areas seems to be creating a 

than 628,000 direct and indirect jobs 

foundation for better times ahead; however, 

for tribal and surrounding communities 

troubling conditions remain. As has been 

(NIGA, 2009). These numbers are based on 

the case since reliable measurement in this 

estimates derived from economic models 

country began, the economic circumstances 

of regional economies that use multipliers 

of the AIAN population remain more 

to estimate the impacts of inputs such as 

problematic than those of other Americans 

dollars invested. These jobs include level-one 

almost everywhere, and those in tribal areas 

jobs (jobs that are directly created by Indian 

remain more dire than for AIAN people in 

gaming facilities themselves, the ancil ary 

the rest of the United States. 

businesses connected to the gaming 

facilities, and other tribal government and 

As Kingsley et al. (1996) pointed out, 

enterprise positions); level-two jobs (those 

however, conditions in tribal areas vary from 

supported by tribal employees spending 

each other dramatical y. Some are much 

their wages); and level-three jobs (those 

better off, and are on significantly better 

created indirectly, assuming that 75 percent 

growth trajectories, than others. This section 

of goods and services were purchased 

uses selected demographic, economic, 

local y and 25 percent outside the region). 

and other indicators, to examine tribal area 

diversity in this new century and to see if 

The benefits from Indian gaming may not 

these conclusions still hold. A regression 

be as secure as in the past, however, as the 

analysis was conducted to test the 

future appears to hold more competition. 

association of these indicators, described 

In some places, it seems likely that state 

in later sections, with three dependent 

government prohibitions will be relaxed 

variables: (1) percent of households 

to permit the expansion of private casino-

considered overcrowded, (2) percent of 

style gaming outside of Indian areas. More 

households considered cost burdened, and 

threatening, perhaps, may be the movement 

(3) percent of households without complete 

toward legalizing Internet gaming (which 

plumbing facilities. 

would give states the ability to regulate and 

tax online gaming, even on reservations). 

To analyze such diversity, Kingsley et al. 

This would allow people to play games like 

(1996) used 1990 census data that covered 

poker on their mobile devices whenever 

virtual y all tribal areas. Smaller sample sizes 

and wherever they want. In June 2012, 

in the ACS prevent reliable reporting of 

Delaware became the first state to legalize 

conditions in many smaller tribal areas; yet, 

casino-style gambling on the Internet. These 

as explained by Pettit et al. 2014, p.50), the 

shifts highlight the importance of efforts 

Census Bureau’s selected population tables 

to diversify tribal y owned enterprises and 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

46

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

for the 2006–2010 ACS do report relevant 

was +6.2 percent but the rates for the 

indicators individual y for tribal areas with 

middle half of the distribution ranged 

sufficiently large AIAN populations. Such 

from -2.5 to +17.1 percent.

data are available for 230 of the 617 total 

3. Income ratio (ratio of the tribal area’s 

tribal areas, which account for a very high 

AIAN-alone median household income to 

share of the total tribal area AIAN-alone 

the median household income for rural 

population nationwide. 

areas in its state as of the 2006-to-2010 

This analysis assesses tribal diversity 

period). The median value was 0.52 with 

using a slightly smaller group: 213 of the 

the middle half of the distribution fal ing 

230 tribal areas (records were deleted for 

between 0.42 and 0.68.

state-designated tribal areas that are not 

4. Income change (percent change in the 

IHBG grantees and for others where major 

area’s AIAN-alone median income from 

redefinitions of boundaries between 2000 

2000 to the 2006-to-2010 period). The 

and 2010 made it impossible to present 

median value was -2.0 percent but the 

reliable comparisons over time). These 213 

middle half of the distribution ranged 

areas had a 2010 AIAN-alone population of 

from -20.3 to 14.7 percent.

861,000, the equivalent of 89 percent of the 

total AIAN-alone population in tribal areas. 

5. Private employment (among the area’s 

The 2010 AIAN-alone populations of these 

AIAN-alone population, the percent that 

areas ranged from the smallest at 155 to 

are private-sector employees—as of 

166,800 (Navajo, which, as pointed out earlier, 

the 2006-to-2010 period). The median 

is by far the nation’s largest tribal area). 

was 11.8 percent but the middle half fell 

between 7.0 and 17.2 percent.

Indicators and Hypotheses

6. High school graduates (among the area’s 

For these 213 tribal areas, the analysis 

AIAN-alone population 25 years of age or 

includes eight indicators that might influence 

older, the percentage that have high school 

tribal economic wel -being and, thereby, 

diplomas—as of the 2006-to-2010 period). 

housing conditions, and analyzed their 

The median value was 79.6 percent but the 

association with three direct measures of 

middle half of the distribution ranged from 

housing conditions. Data for all but gaming 

72.2 to 85.0 percent.

were derived from the 2000 census, the 

2010 census, and/or the 2006–2010 ACS. 

7. Gaming (Yes, if the tribe had at least one 

The source of gaming data is NIGC (2012b).

gaming establishment as of March 2011). 

The eight indicators are—

8. Remoteness (the distance in miles 

between the centroid of the geography 

1.  Population size (the area’s total 2010 

of the tribal area and the nearest census 

AIAN-alone population). As shown on 

“place” with a 2010 population of 100,000 

exhibit 1.51, the median population was 

or more). The median value was 88 miles 

890. The middle half of the distribution 

with the middle half of the distribution 

ranged from 494 (25th percentile) to 

fal ing between 48 and 258 miles. As an 

2,906 (75th percentile). 

indicator of “remoteness,” Kingsley et 

2. Population growth (percentage change 

al. (1996) found that a similar distance 

in the area’s AIAN-alone population from 

measure was a significant predictor of 

2000 to 2010). The median growth rate 

1990 economic outcomes in tribal areas. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

47

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

The analysis also included three indicators 

Regarding the first eight indicators, the 

of housing problems whose values are likely 

hypothesis is that a tribal area is likely to 

to be influenced by the indicators noted 

be better off with respect to the three 

previously. All of these indicators are derived 

indicators of housing problems if it has 

from the 2006–2010 ACS. These indicators 

a large AIAN-alone population, if that 

will be examined in much more depth in 

population is growing rapidly, if its AIAN-

section 2 of this report.

alone income is more than that for the 

rural portions of its state, if that income is 

•   Cost burden (the tribal area’s share of 

growing rapidly, if private-sector employees 

AIAN-alone households paying more than 

make up a large share of its population, if 

30 percent of their income for housing. 

high school graduates account for a large 

The median value was 24 percent, with 

share of its adult population, if it has at 

the middle half of the distribution ranging 

least one gaming establishment and if it is 

from 17 to 30 percent).

located close to a large city. The private-

sector employment indicator should 

•   Overcrowding (the percent of AIAN-alone 

be interpreted with caution, however, 

households in the tribal area with more 

because three types of employment exist 

than one person per room). The median 

in Indian Country: (1) private, (2) public, 

was 8.9 percent with the middle half 

and (3) state-owned or tribally owned 

ranging from 4.5 to 17.9 percent.

enterprise. Employment data for this last 

•   Lack of plumbing (the share of the tribal 

category is not available separately, and 

area’s AIAN-alone households that lack 

may be included in totals for private- 

complete plumbing facilities). Median of 

and public-sector employment, depending 

1.3 percent, with the middle half ranging 

on definitions used by tribes or states. Such 

between 0.0 and 6.0 percent.

definitions are not uniformly applied. For 

Exhibit 1.51 - Indicators Related to Tribal Area Diversity

Median 50th 

Coeff. Of 

Standard 

Mean

Percentile

25th Percentile

75th Percentile

variation

deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Independent variables

Population  size

 4,041 

 890 

 494 

 2,906 

 3.59 

 14,499 

 155 

 166,824 

Population growth

 9.0 

 6.2 

 (2.5)

 17.1 

 2.28 

 20.4 

 (33.6)

 113.0 

Income Ratio

 0.57 

 0.52 

 0.42 

 0.68 

 0.37 

 0.21 

 0.20 

 1.38 

Income change

 (0.6)

 (2.0)

 (20.3)

 14.7 

 (54.24)

 29.9 

 (67.5)

 146.7 

Private employment

 13.3 

 11.8 

 7.0 

 17.2 

 0.58 

 7.7 

 2.3 

 44.2 

High school graduates

 78.5 

 79.6 

 72.2 

 85.0 

 0.12 

 9.1 

 52.6 

 96.1 

Gaming

 0.6 

 1.0 

 -   

 1.0 

 0.81 

 0.5 

 -   

 1.0 

Remoteness

 202 

 88 

 48 

 258 

 1.12 

 225 

 3 

 857 

Housing problem indicators

Cost burden

 23.6 

 23.6 

 16.7 

 29.7 

 0.44 

 10.4 

 3.9 

 58.6 

Overcrowding

 14.5 

 8.9 

 4.5 

 17.9 

 1.08 

 15.6 

 -   

 70.7 

Lack plumbing

 7.3 

 1.3 

 -   

 6.0 

 2.40 

 17.6 

 -   

 100.0 

Note:  Data cover 213 larger tribal areas.  See text for explanation and definition of indicators.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010, American Community Survey 2006-10 5-Year Estimates, 2006-10 Selected Population Tables, and NIGC address data.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

48

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

example, New Mexico classifies gaming 

these two variables are negatively correlated 

employment as government employment.

with cost burden—again as expected. 

Regarding the housing indicators, the 

Fairly strong correlations also exist 

hypothesis is that physical housing problem 

between the physical housing problems 

measures (overcrowding and lack of 

and several other indicators. A strong, 

plumbing) are positively correlated with 

positive relationship exists between 

each other and negatively correlated with 

overcrowding and remoteness (0.62), and 

cost burden. Cost burdens are general y 

inverse relationships are evident between 

higher in places where economies are strong 

overcrowding and gaming (-0.44), high 

and housing costs are high—the opposite of 

school graduation rates (-0.37), and private-

the pattern for physical housing problems.

employment rates (-0.43). In other words, 

physical housing problems are likely to be 

Diversity and Correlation Analysis 

worse in tribal areas that are more remote 

and not as bad in tribal areas that have 

The data indicate that conditions in U.S. 

gaming and higher rates of high school 

tribal areas remain extremely diverse. This 

graduation and private employment.

was suggested by the previous discussion, 

showing the wide interquartile ranges 

Mapping Analysis

(range between values at the 25th and 75th 

percentiles, covering the middle half of the 

The maps in exhibits 1.53 through 1.56 plot 

distribution of larger tribal areas) for most 

the geographical distributions of the top 

of the indicators. The conclusion is strongly 

and bottom quartiles of the 213 larger tribal 

reinforced by the data in exhibit 1.51 on 

areas for four of these indicators.

coefficients of variation (standard deviation 

Comparative  rates of population change do 

divided by the mean) for each indicator. 

not show a distinct regional pattern (exhibit 

The smallest of these (indicating the least 

1.53). Tribal areas with the fastest population 

variation or diversity) is for the percent of 

growth and those with the sharpest 

adults that have high school degrees (0.12). 

population losses are in all parts of the 

Other coefficients that fall below 1.00 are for 

country, although some concentrations exist. 

the income ratio (.37), cost burden (0.44), 

Many of the most rapidly growing areas 

the private-employment percentage (0.58), 

are in the Midwest (from Oklahoma north 

and gaming (0.81). At the other extreme, 

through Minnesota and Michigan) and in the 

those that exhibit the most diversity are 

Pacific Northwest, and many with the most 

income change (54.24), population size 

serious loss rates are in Arizona and Alaska.

(3.59), lacking plumbing facilities (2.40), and 

Regional patterns are clearer regarding the 

population growth (2.28).

share of the tribal area population with 

Although many of the relationships between 

private-sector jobs. This is a reasonably 

individual indicators on the correlation 

good indicator of economic wel -being 

matrix (exhibit 1.52) are weak, these numbers 

(exhibit 1.54), keeping in mind the caveat 

general y confirm most of the hypotheses 

that classification of employment in tribal y 

noted previously. The strongest relationship 

owned enterprises is likely to vary across 

on the table, as expected, is the high 

the country. The top quartile for private-

correlation between overcrowding and lack 

employment percentage (17 percent or 

of plumbing facilities (correlation coefficient 

more) is most clustered in Oklahoma, with 

of 0.66). Although the coefficients are low, 

secondary clusters in New Mexico, Michigan 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

49

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

and the Carolinas. Clusters from the quartile 

As expected, areas with high overcrowding 

ranking lowest by this indicator (less than 7 

rates tend to have lower rates of housing 

percent) are in Arizona and the Plains states. 

cost burden. Clusters of tribal areas with the 

It is interesting that Alaska has clusters at 

highest cost burdens occur in Oklahoma, 

both ends of the spectrum for this measure. 

Minnesota and Michigan, and the Pacific 

Several tribal areas with high private-sector 

Northwest. Those where the cost burden 

employment are found along the state’s 

problem is least serious are most clustered 

southern coast, but those with lower private-

in Arizona/New Mexico and Alaska.

sector employment are found along the 

Regression Analysis 

state’s north and northwest coasts.

To further test these relationships, this study 

The pattern for  overcrowding is essentially 

conducted a regression analysis, assigning 

the reverse of that for private employment. 

the three housing problem indicators (cost 

Many of the tribal areas with the highest 

burden, overcrowding, and lack of plumbing) 

rates of overcrowding are in Arizona, the 

as dependent variables, and all other 

Plains states and the north/north west 

indicators as independent variables.

coast of Alaska. As noted in section 1.3, 

these same regions also stand out in terms 

The analysis is presented in full in appendix 

of high AIAN poverty rates. Clusters in the 

C. It general y confirmed expectations based 

lowest quartile for overcrowding occur in 

on the previous discussion. Results were 

Oklahoma, the north central and northeast 

strongest for the relationship between the 

regions, Nevada and the Pacific Northwest. 

independent variables and overcrowding, 

Exhibit 1.52 - Correlation Matrix: Indicators Related to Tribal Area Diversity

Independent variables

Housing problem indicators

Popul. 

Income 

Income 

Private 

High 

Remote-

Cost 

Over-

Lack 

Popul. size

growth

ratio

change

employ.

school

Gaming

ness

burden

crowded

plumbing

Independent variables

Population size

 1.00 

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

Population growth

 0.01 

 1.00 

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

Income ratio

 (0.46)

 0.17 

 1.00 

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

Income change

 0.00 

 0.11 

 0.56 

 1.00 

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

Private employment

 0.12 

 0.16 

 0.19 

 (0.03)

 1.00 

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

High school graduates

 (0.10)

 (0.00)

 0.09 

 0.04 

 0.27 

 1.00 

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

Gaming

 0.12 

 0.14 

 (0.01)

 0.06 

 0.17 

 0.18 

 1.00 

 -   

 -   

 -   

 -   

Remoteness

 (0.13)

 (0.31)

 (0.06)

 (0.13)

 (0.26)

 0.00 

 (0.59)

 1.00 

 -   

 -   

 -   

Housing problem indicators

Cost burden

 0.03 

 (0.01)

 (0.36)

 (0.27)

 0.12 

 0.13 

 0.08 

 (0.03)

 1.00 

 -   

 -   

Overcrowded

 (0.05)

 (0.07)

 (0.04)

 0.09 

 (0.43)

 (0.37)

 (0.44)

 0.62 

 (0.14)

 1.00 

 -   

Lack plumbing

 (0.01)

 (0.13)

 (0.10)

 0.05 

 (0.28)

 (0.21)

 (0.39)

 0.52 

 (0.1 )

 0.66 

 1.00 

Note:  Data cover 213 larger tribal areas.  See text for explanation and definition of indicators.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010, American Community Survey 2006-10 5-Year Estimates, 2006-10 Selected Population Tables, and NIGC address data.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

50

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Exhibit 1.53 - Highes

Exhibit 1.53 - Highes t and L

t and L o

o w

w es

es t Per

t Perc cen

en t Change in Popula

t Change in Popula tion, 2000-

tion, 2000- 20

201010

AIAN alone households

AIAN-alone househo, 213 L

lds, 2 ar

1 ger T

3 Lar ribal A

ger Tri reas

bal Areas

Exhibit 1.54 - Highes

Exhibit 1.54 - Highes t and L

t and L o

o w

w es

es t Per

t Perc cen

en t of Popula

t of Popula tion Emplo

tion Employ yed in Priva

ed in the Privte Sec

at tor

e Sect , 2006-

or

20

, 2006 t 10

o 2010

AIAN alone households

AIAN-alone househo , 213 L

lds, 2 ar

1 ger T

3 Lar ribal A

ger Tri reas

bal Areas

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

51

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Exhibit 1.5

Exhibit 1.5 5 - Highes

5 - Highes t and L

t and L o

o w

w es

es t Per

t Perc cen

en t of Households Ov

t of Households Overer

cr cr

o o

w wded, 2006-

ded, 2006 t 10

o 2010

AIAN alone households

AIAN-alone househo , 213 L

lds, 2 ar

1 ger T

3 Lar ribal A

ger Tri reas

bal Areas

Exhibit 1.56 - Highes

Exhibit 1.56 - Highes t and L

t and L o

o w

w es

es t Per

t Perccen

en t of Households P

t of Households Pa aying Mor

ying Mor e than 30 Per

e Than 30 Perc c

enent of Inc

t of Inc ome f

ome f or Housing, 2006-

or Housing, 2006 t 10

o 2010

AIAN alone households

AIAN-alone househo, 213 L

lds, 2 ar

1 ger T

3 Lar ribal A

ger Trireas

bal Areas

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

52

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

producing an adjusted R2 of 0.52. Median 

population center increased and population 

income growth, population growth, the 

growth increased. Private employment and 

percent of the AIAN population with at 

the percent of the population with a high 

least a high school education, the rate of 

school education, on the other hand, had a 

AIAN private employment, and remoteness 

negative relationship with overcrowding. The 

were all statistical y significant (0.05 level). 

relationship between income growth and 

The relationship between overcrowding and 

overcrowding was positive (higher growth 

both remoteness and population growth 

rates are associated with higher rates of 

was positive, indicating that overcrowding 

overcrowding), which is unexpected, but the 

increased as distance from the nearest large 

effect was relatively smal . 

Exhibit 1.57 - Diversity Among Tribal Areas, Regression Results

Dependent Variable

Overcrowding

Plumbing Deficiency

Cost Burden

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Intercept

37.97***

35.65***

61.08***

20.39**

16.64

41.87***

18.39***

19.25***

19.93***

-7.458

-7.351

-7.992

-10.061

-9.944

-10.038

-6.571

-6.442

-6.090

Ratio of AIAN median 

-5.40

-5.03

-2.95

-14.52**

-13.93**

-12.24

-18.63***

-18.76***

-18.46***

income to state rural 

median income

-4.511

-4.523

-5.197

-6.085

-6.119

-6.527

-3.974

-3.964

-3.960

Pct growth AIAN median HH 

0.1***

0.1***

0.07

0.12***

0.12***

0.09**

-0.02

-0.02

-0.02

income

-0.031

-0.031

-0.036

-0.042

-0.042

-0.045

-0.027

-0.027

-0.027

AIAN private employees per 

-0.49***

-0.5***

-0.6***

-0.25

-0.26

-0.35**

0.21**

0.21**

0.2**

100 AIAN population

-0.107

-0.108

-0.123

-0.145

-0.146

-0.155

-0.095

-0.095

-0.094

AIAN population (norm.)

0.08

0.07

0.02

0.13

0.11

0.07

0.00

0.01

0.00

-0.088

-0.088

-0.102

-0.119

-0.120

-0.128

-0.078

-0.078

-0.077

Pct growth AIAN population

0.1 ***

0.1 ***

0.02

0.04

0.04

-0.04

0.02

0.02

0.02

-0.039

-0.039

-0.044

-0.053

-0.053

-0.055

-0.035

-0.034

-0.033

Pct of AIAN population 25+ 

-0.26***

-0.27***

-0.38***

-0.07

-0.08

-0.19

0.15

0.15

0.14

with at least HS degree

-0.089

-0.089

-0.101

-0.119

-0.120

-0.127

-0.078

-0.078

-0.077

Gaming

-3.08

-1 .62***

-4.99

-12.92***

1.14

0.58

-1.892

-1.836

-2.553

-2.305

-1.667

-1.399

Remoteness (norm.)

0.31***

0.35***

0.29***

0.35***

0.02

0.01

-0.038

-0.032

-0.051

-0.043

-0.033

-0.028

Adjusted R2

0.52

0.52

0.36

0.31

0.31

0.21

0.16

0.16

0.16

Model 1: All Indicators; Model 2: Gaming indicator excluded; Model 3: Remoteness indicator excluded

***p<0.01

**  p<0.05

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

53

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

The impact of gaming operations on 

overcrowding was not significant. Given 

the relatively strong negative correlation 

between gaming and remoteness, it appears 

that remoteness is the more decisive factor 

affecting overcrowding.

The AIAN populations most likely to 

experience overcrowded conditions are in 

more remote communities where private-

sector employment is at the lower end 

of the range, education levels are low, 

and population growth is relatively high; 

communities with higher-income growth 

also tend to be more overcrowded.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

54

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Part 2. Housing Conditions  assessment: What are the housing problems 

and needs of tribal area AIAN populations 

and Needs

and how have they changed during the past 

two decades? It opens with a framework 

that defines the various attributes of housing 

that, consistent with national standards, are 

2.1. Introduction

regarded as problems, and how they may be 

Part 2 is the heart of this report. It 

looked at together. The section next presents 

examines evidence from several sources 

the objective findings at the national level 

on the changing housing circumstances of 

drawn from the household survey. The 

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) 

household survey is the only data source 

populations. It looks at general conditions 

that provides authoritative information on al  

of the housing in which AIAN families 

dimensions of housing problems and needs 

reside and also their housing problems and 

in Indian Country. The household survey 

needs. It focuses on conditions in tribal 

uses a national y representative sample to 

areas and the counties that surround them. 

create national estimates of housing needs 

It offers new insights on the definition 

for all of Indian Country, including the Alaska 

of overcrowding and homelessness in 

tribal areas. Census data cover only some 

Indian Country.28 In addition, because 

of the dimensions, so are reviewed next 

homeownership is seen as a key policy issue, 

because they permit analysis of regional 

it looks in some depth at homeownership 

variations, which the national household 

trends in tribal areas and how the residents 

survey sample does not. 

of those areas regard the importance of 

This section then presents information 

owning their own homes. 

from the household survey on how tribal 

Section 2.2 reviews general characteristics 

area residents view their current housing 

that describe housing in Indian Country. 

conditions, including levels of satisfaction 

The section begins by presenting data on 

overall and their views about the extent 

the growth of the total housing stock and 

to which their housing reflects and is 

changes in vacancy rates in tribal areas 

sensitive to their tribal culture. The section 

between 1990 and 2010, contrasting trends 

closes by examining the views of tribal 

in different regions. It then reviews trends 

area housing administrators on housing 

in several descriptive characteristics—the 

conditions in tribal areas.

distribution of the stock by tenure, structure 

One of the most complex sets of housing 

type, age of structure, unit size, and home 

issues in Indian Country lies in the 

values and rent levels—also considering 

relationship between overcrowding and 

regional variations when possible. Although 

homelessness. AIAN households are larger, 

much of the material in this section is based 

on average, than non-AIAN households, in 

on census data adapted from this project’s 

part due to the fact that more of them are 

interim report (Pettit et al., 2014), it also 

multigenerational by choice. Some say that 

adds interpretive information on these 

AIAN families are often wil ing to accept 

topics, when possible, from the surveys and 

some overcrowding to keep their extended 

interviews in Indian Country.

families together under one roof, but more 

Section 2.3 presents findings related to 

housing options might allow families to stay 

the central questions that motivated this 

together without overcrowding. The belief is 

28  “Indian Country” is used in the common colloquial sense to mean tribal areas, including Alaska Native villages. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

55

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

common, however, that some households are 

Full decennial census data (2000 and 2010) 

also taking in individuals who are not family 

fortunately are available for three of these 

members and would otherwise be homeless. 

measures (housing stock size, vacancy rates 

What are appropriate guidelines for policy 

and tenure) and the Census Bureau releases 

in these circumstances? These interrelated 

data for all the geographies of interest on 

issues are explored in section 2.4, bringing 

structure type. For the other measures, 

together census data on household types 

however, the Census Bureau releases 

and sizes along with household survey data 

American Community Survey (ACS) data 

on variations in household composition in 

only via its selected population tables (noted 

various types of housing, and views on these 

in section 1.5 and explained more ful y in 

topics gleaned from the tribal/TDHE survey 

later sections), and this means the data are 

and onsite interviews.

not available for all tribal areas but only for 

230 of the larger areas. 

After a more complete examination of 

homeownership levels and trends by region 

The Housing Stock in Indian Country

using census data, part 2 closes with section 

Because 6 out of 10 AIAN people live in 

2.5, drawing mostly on the household and 

tribal areas or the surrounding counties, 

tribal/TDHE survey and interviews conducted 

understanding AIAN housing conditions 

with officials and community leaders on site 

should begin with reviewing the context 

visits. It reviews the extent of preferences for 

of the overall housing markets in those 

homeownership in Indian Country and the 

areas—housing stock that accommodates 

factors that influence the degree to which 

non-AIAN and also AIAN households. The 

those preferences are being realized (for 

number of housing units in tribal areas 

example, land problems and other barriers to 

totaled 2.1 mil ion in 2010, representing an 8.1 

mortgage lending). Again, current conditions 

percent increase over the number in 2000. 

are explored, while considering recent trends 

This growth rate was considerably slower 

and future potential.

than the 14 percent experienced for the U.S. 

2.2. Housing Characteristics

housing stock as a whole, but this is to be 

expected given the slower rate of overall 

This section describes general 

population growth in tribal areas.

characteristics of housing occupied by 

American Indians and Alaska Natives. As 

Tribal areas in some regions, however, did 

such it provides understanding of the overall 

experience more rapid net increases in total 

housing context that sets the stage for our 

housing stock (exhibit 2.21). The number of 

deeper analysis of housing problems and 

tribal area housing units in Alaska increased 

needs in the section to follow. This section 

by a rapid 24 percent. At the other extreme, 

covers a range of topics that are key to 

about 1,000 units were lost in Arizona/New 

understanding context: the overall size of 

Mexico tribal areas, a 0.7 percent reduction. 

the housing stock, vacancy rates, tenure 

The growth rates for tribal areas in the 

(renter versus owner), structure type, age 

remaining regions ranged from 1.5 (South 

of structure, unit size, home values, and 

Central) to 15 (Pacific Northwest) percent.

rent levels. The focus is on tribal areas and 

By contrast with the slower tribal area 

their surrounding counties, but the section 

increases, the surrounding counties 

compares conditions there with those in 

experienced higher growth than the national 

other parts of the country where it seems 

average. In these counties, units increased by 

most valuable to do so. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

56

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

15 percent, climbing to a total of 25 mil ion 

rates rose by about 2.4 percentage points 

housing units in 2010. The high growth rate 

(exhibit 2.22). The tribal areas’ comparatively 

of housing in surrounding counties was 

slow building rate during the decade may 

driven largely by growth in three regions: 

have cushioned them somewhat from the 

Plains and California/Nevada saw growth 

severe damage related to overbuilding (for 

rates of 22 percent, and those in the Arizona/

example, vacancies due to unfinished units 

New Mexico region rose by 29 percent. 

or foreclosures) felt in many areas due to the 

U.S. housing market crash. 

Vacancy Rates

Like changes in housing stock, the vacancy 

The last decennial census defined vacant 

rates for tribal areas vary widely by region 

housing units as those habitable units 

(exhibit 2.23). The highest vacancy rate for 

that were absent of occupants as of April 

tribal areas in 2010 was found in California/

1, 2010. The vacancy rate for tribal areas 

Nevada, where 31 percent of housing units 

reached 14 percent in 2010, higher than 

stood empty (a slight decline from 34 percent 

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

in 2000). The lowest vacancy rates occurred 

vacancy rate for surrounding counties was 

in South Central tribal areas: 9.3 percent, 

in between, at 13 percent. The vacancy 

which was lower than the national average.

rate in tribal areas went up a very small 

0.4 percentage points from 2000 to 2010, 

South Central was one of four regions where 

but the surrounding counties and the U.S. 

vacancies decreased during the decade. 

Exhibit 2.21 - Percent Change in Housing Units by Area Type and Study Region, 2000 to 2010

Exhibit 2.21 - 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

Plains

AZ/NM

CA/NV

Pacific NW

Alaska

Study region

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

57

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Tribal areas in Arizona/New Mexico present 

larger households, of poorer quality than 

the most extreme case—the vacancy rate 

other housing stock in the area, or far 

dropped by 5.4 points to a still high 19 

from employment centers. In fact, analysis 

percent in 2010. This improvement went 

later in this section indicates a shortage of 

counter to the overall experience in this 

affordable housing for the low-income AIAN 

region, where the average vacancy rate rose 

population in tribal areas. This finding is 

by 2.2 percentage points. 

consistent with an interim evaluation of the 

Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program 

On the other hand, the vacancy rates rose 

that found that 70 percent of the tribal areas 

for tribal areas in the North Central region 

in their study reported vacancy rates of less 

(up nearly 2 points to 24 percent). That 

than 5 percent for IHBG housing (Van Otten 

region also saw the highest overall increase 

et al., 2009). The interviews of local housing 

in vacancy rates, up by 3.4 points to 13, 

officials and community leaders conducted 

according to U.S. census data.

as part of this study reported housing 

shortages due to budget constraints, 

A high vacancy rate in a given area does 

inadequate infrastructure, planning and 

not preclude a shortage of housing existing 

permitting delays, and lack of developable 

for particular groups in that area. The 

land. Understanding the dynamics of tribal 

units that are vacant might not be useable 

housing markets may inform plans on 

by low-income AIAN families for cost, 

how to address AIAN housing problems 

structural, or locational reasons. The vacant 

discussed later in the section. 

units may be too expensive, too small for 

Exhibit 2.22 - Vacancy Rates by Area Type, 2000 to 2010

Exhibit 2.22 - Vacancy Rates by Area Type, 2000 to 2010

16

2000

2010

14 

14 

14

13

12

11

11

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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

58

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.23 - Housing Market Indicators by Area Type and Study Region, 2000 to 2010

United 

North 

Okla-

South 

Arizona 

Calif.-

Pacific 

States

Central

Eastern

homa

Central

Plains

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

Percent Change in Housing Units, 2000 to 2010

Tribal Areas

8.1

7.4

3.5

8.9

1.5

1 .9

-0.7

12.3

14.7

23.5

Surrounding 

17.8

12.2

13.4

13.5

15.4

21.8

29.1

22.0

16.1

12.0

Counties

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 

13.0

17.4

13.9

9.4

9.6

12.2

15.4

1 .1

9.2

12.6

Counties

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 

2.5

2.8

2.9

0.4

-0.8

1.2

2.9

2.6

1.8

0.1

Counties

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010.

Tenure (Renter versus Homeowner 

in the Arizona/New Mexico region (exhibit 

2.24). Tribal area homeownership rates 

Occupancy)

declined notably during the decade in the 

As of 2010 more than 509,000 AIAN 

North Central, Eastern, South Central, Pacific 

households owned their homes nationwide. 

Northwest, and Alaska regions while remaining 

This number increased significantly 

steady or increasing slightly in other regions.

from 2000 to 2010, up by 16 percent 

As discussed in the Kingsley et al. (1996) 

compared with an 8 percent increase for 

report, the lower homeownership rate 

non-AIAN households. The national AIAN 

is due to many barriers experienced by 

homeownership rate of 54 percent, however, 

AIANs. These barriers include economic and 

is still considerably lower than the non-AIAN 

geographic isolation; legal issues stemming 

rate of 65 percent.

from limited rights over land; reluctance of 

AIAN homeownership rates in tribal areas are 

private lenders to engage a tenuous market; 

quite high—67 percent in 2010.29 The tribal 

and low incomes, poor credit histories, and 

area rate dropped by about 1 percentage 

lack of financial literacy among potential 

point from 2000 to 2012, similar to the overal  

homebuyers, among other barriers (Kolluri 

change for the nation. Although the AIAN 

and Rengert, 2000; Listokin, Leichenko, and 

homeownership rate decreased in the United 

King, 2006; Todd and Burlon, 2009).

States as a whole, rates actual y increased 

The causes of a lower homeownership 

in some regions. AIAN homeownership 

rate vary greatly by region and area 

rates in tribal areas ranged from 54 percent 

type. For example, research found that 

in the Plains region in 2010 to 77 percent 

29  The U.S. Census Bureau defines a unit as being owner occupied if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. This definition includes HUD Mutual Help homes, because a family’s monthly payments are credited to an equity account that is used to purchase the home. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

59

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.24 - Tenure, AIAN-Alone Households in Tribal Areas, 2000-2010

North 

South 

Arizona- 

California- 

Pacific 

US Total

Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

Central

Plains

New Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

Households (thousands) 

2000

Renter 

 81.2 

 4.9 

 7.7 

 25.2 

 1.4 

 14.8 

 16.3 

 2.3 

 4.0 

 4.7 

Homeowner

 177.9 

 6.9 

 23.6 

 50.3 

 4.0 

 16.7 

 52.7 

 5.4 

 7.5 

 10.8 

Total

 259.1 

 11.8 

 31.3 

 75.5 

 5.5 

 31.5 

 69.0 

 7.6 

 11.5 

 15.5 

2010

Renter 

 95.8 

 6.1 

 10.5 

 30.3 

 1.3 

 16.1 

 17.3 

 2.7 

 4.8 

 6.8 

Homeowner

 198.1 

 7.7 

 25.7 

 59.9 

 3.1 

 18.6 

 56.9 

 6.3 

 7.8 

 12.1 

Total

 293.9 

 13.8 

 36.2 

 90.2 

 4.4 

 34.7 

 74.2 

 8.9 

 12.6 

 18.9 

Percent  Homeowner

2000

 68.7 

 58.5 

 75.5 

 66.6 

 74.0 

 53.1 

 76.3 

 70.3 

 65.4 

 69.7 

2010

 67.4 

 55.9 

 70.9 

 66.4 

 71.0 

 53.6 

 76.7 

 70.2 

 61.9 

 64.0 

2000-2010 Pct. Change

Renter 

 18.0 

 24.5 

 37.6 

 20.4 

 (10.4)

 8.8 

 5.7 

 17.6 

 21.0 

 44.9 

Homeowner

 11.4 

 12.1 

 8.8 

 19.2 

 (23.0)

 11.0 

 8.1 

 17.1 

 3.9 

 12.3 

Total

 13.5 

 17.2 

 15.8 

 19.6 

 (19.7)

 10.0 

 7.5 

 17.2 

 9.8 

 22.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010.

in the Ninth Federal Reserve District, the 

households did so. This rate has risen by 2.6 

low ownership rate for American Indian 

percent for AIAN and 1.8 percent for non-

households is explained only in part by 

AIAN households since 2000.

low incomes. Even when controlling for 

The gap nationwide between AIAN and 

income and housing quality, gaps in the 

non-AIAN likelihood of living in single-family 

homeownership rates remain between 

detached homes is relatively smal , but 

reservations in this district and those in 

the overall values mask major geographic 

other areas, and between large and small 

differences. In tribal areas, nearly three-

reservations (Todd and Burlon, 2009).30  

fourths of AIAN-alone households live in 

Structure Type

single-family detached homes (exhibit 

2.25). In the surrounding counties and 

Across the area types and racial groups, 

other metropolitan areas, a little more than 

more households reside in single-family, 

one-half of the AIAN households live in 

detached homes than other types of housing, 

single-family detached homes. The greatest 

and this rate has grown during the past 

difference is between AIAN households 

decade. (See text box, Housing Structures.) 

and non-AIAN households in surrounding 

About 63 percent of all U.S. households lived 

counties, where the AIAN rate is about 12 

in detached homes during the 2006-to-

percentage points below the non-AIAN rate.

2010 period, and about 60 percent of AIAN 

30  See section 2.5 for a discussion of factors affecting homeownership.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

60

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Another striking difference in housing type 

Mobile homes are often the cheapest form 

between AIAN and non-AIAN households 

of housing and are easiest to acquire in 

is in the shares that live in “other types of 

rural areas due to the limited availability 

housing,” which includes mobile homes 

of traditional housing contractors and 

and recreational vehicles (RVs). During the 

developers (George et al., 2002). Further, 

2006-to-2010 period, 13 percent of AIAN 

the regulatory environment in tribal areas 

households resided in these types of homes, 

is general y not conducive to private land 

twice the rate of non-AIAN households. 

ownership; most land is held in trust by the 

Across area types, the share of AIANs 

U.S. government, so financing for housing 

living in mobile homes or other housing 

construction is chal enging. Nonpermanent 

was highest in tribal areas (17 percent) 

housing structures offer a solution to this 

and other nonmetropolitan counties 

common problem. Although such housing 

(18 percent). The shares in surrounding 

might provide the population with needed 

counties and other metropolitan areas were 

low-cost shelter, these homes are less 

lower at 13 and 8 percent, respectively. The 

valuable as an asset than more permanently 

rates of AIAN households living in these 

built homes and more vulnerable to 

other structure types are higher than those 

environmental elements (Cooper, 2011).

for non-AIAN households in all area types, 

but the largest difference of 6.3 points is in 

Other Indicators

the surrounding counties.

As mentioned previously, the Census Bureau 

does not provide full ACS estimates for 

AIAN households residing in mobile homes 

standard geographies used for the remaining 

or RVs have decreased by 1.6 percentage 

indicators reviewed in this subsection (age 

points overall and in all area types since 

of structure and unit size; home values and 

2000. The biggest decrease was seen in 

rents). This study accordingly reports data 

nonmetropolitan areas, where the percent 

on these indicators from the 2006–2010 ACS 

residing in other types of housing dropped 

selected population tables. In these tables, 

from 23 in 2000 to 18 in the 2006-to-2010 

the data for the AIAN-alone population 

period. The rates in the remaining area types 

are provided only for the tribal areas and 

each dropped between 1 and 2 points.

counties that have a population of at least 

Housing Structures

mobile home: A movable dwel ing, 8 feet or more wide and 40 feet or more long, designed to be towed on its own chassis, with transportation gear integral to the unit when it leaves the factory and without need of a permanent foundation.

single-family detached home: One housing unit not attached to other units that is intended for one family.

townhouse: A dwel ing that is one of several side-by-side housing units.

Multifamily housing: Residential buildings with units built one on top of another and those built side by side that do not have a ground-to-roof wall but may have common facilities 

(that is, attic, basement, heating plant, plumbing, and so on.)

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

61

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.25 - AIAN Alone Housing Structure Type by Area Type, 2006–10

Exhibit 2.25 - 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 counties Other nonmetropolitan counties

Area type

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

50 AIAN-alone individuals. These areas are 

Age of Structure and Unit Size

referred to as  larger tribal areas,  selected 

In the 2006-to-2010 period, one-fourth of 

AIAN counties, and  selected non-AIAN 

all AIAN households lived in buildings built 

counties, to distinguish these area types from 

before 1960. The share is much lower for 

those used in earlier analyses.

larger tribal areas (15 percent) and selected 

The larger tribal areas account for 93 percent 

AIAN counties (18 percent). In the selected 

of AIAN-alone households in all tribal areas 

non-AIAN counties, the rates of living in 

in the 2006-to-2010 period. The selected 

housing built before 1960 are very similar for 

AIAN counties and non-AIAN counties 

AIAN and all households—about one-third. 

account for 95 and 64 percent, respectively, 

For AIAN households, these rates do not 

of the AIAN-alone households in all counties 

vary much by tenure; 23 percent of AIAN 

in their categories. Thus, the indicators from 

owners live in homes built before 1960, and 

this source capture the housing conditions 

27 percent of renters do as wel .

for the vast majority of AIAN households, 

With larger household sizes, as discussed 

although they do not necessarily reflect the 

in section 1.3, one might expect that AIAN 

conditions in tribal areas and counties with 

households would live in larger housing 

smal er AIAN populations. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

62

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

units. About 57 percent of AIAN households 

Relatively slower growth in home values 

lived in units with three or more bedrooms 

for AIAN households in the selected 

in the 2006-to-2010 period, lower than the 

AIAN counties led to the widening of the 

62 percent for all households. About 74 

gap relative to the average home value 

percent of AIAN owners lived in the larger 

for all households. After adjusting for 

units, also lower than the rate for all owner 

inflation, home values rose by 46 percent 

households. AIAN renters were considerably 

from 2000 to the 2006-to-2010 period 

more likely to live in these larger units, 

for all households in the selected AIAN 

however, than were all renter households 

counties, but rose only 29 percent for 

(37 versus 29 percent). 

AIAN homeowners in the same areas. The 

growth rates in larger tribal areas and 

Across area types, AIAN housing unit size 

non-AIAN counties were similar for AIAN 

does not vary much for owners but does vary 

owners and all owners.

considerably for renters. Of AIAN renters in 

larger tribal areas, 54 percent lived in units 

AIAN renter households, on average, paid 

with three or more bedrooms compared with 

$700 in gross rent during the 2006-to-2010 

41 percent in the selected AIAN counties 

period. Like home values, these rents were 

and 29 percent in other counties. This range 

lower than for all U.S. renter households. 

aligns with the general pattern of larger 

AIAN gross rents, however, were about 80 

families in tribal areas. It also reflects the 

percent of those for all renters, a smaller 

type of housing available in larger tribal areas 

gap than was found for home values. Rents 

because all households in these areas live in a 

averaged a very low $440 in the larger 

similar higher share of large units.

tribal areas, rising to $630 in selected AIAN 

counties. AIAN households experienced 

Home Values and Rents

a much smaller increase in rents than all 

renters, with an increase of 5.6 percent 

The average home value for AIAN 

compared with 42 percent for all renters, 

homeowners in the 2006-to-2010 period 

after controlling for inflation.

was $175,000—about 66 percent of the 

average for all U.S. households. The gap has 

2.3. Housing Problems and Needs

increased since 2000, when the average 

value for AIAN owner-occupied homes was 

This section presents findings related 

69 percent of the average for all owner-

to the central questions that motivated 

occupied homes. 

this assessment: What are the housing 

problems and needs of tribal area AIAN 

The home values for AIAN homeowners 

populations and how have they changed 

in larger tribal areas and in selected AIAN 

during the past two decades? It presents 

counties overall were much lower than 

answers to these questions based on the 

the U.S. average, $112,000 and $152,000, 

household survey (the only source that 

respectively. Given that these values are 

provides authoritative information on 

from a period that includes the end of the 

all dimensions of housing problems and 

housing boom and its aftermath, values for 

needs in Indian Country) and from Census 

all area types were lower in regions that 

Bureau sources. First, however, this 

were hard hit by the crash, such as California 

section offers a framework that defines 

and other parts of the West. 

the various attributes of housing that are 

regarded as problems, and how they may 

be looked at together. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

63

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Framework and Standards

of households that will live in the area 

(taking into account vacancies and likely 

Attributes of the Framework

future growth). Within an existing unit, this 

attribute relates to the relationship between 

The Urban Institute’s first report on AIAN 

the number of people living in the unit and 

housing (Kingsley et al., 1996) reviewed 

the amount of space available, that is, the 

the history of U.S. concern with housing 

extent of  overcrowding.

conditions since the late 1800s and presented 

a framework for understanding the 

Price. Under this attribute, problems 

measures that together define “inadequate” 

exist when families are forced to pay a 

housing. That framework was used in this 

higher percent of their income for housing 

project’s interim report (Pettit et al., 2014) 

expenses than they can reasonably afford, 

and is again adopted for this report. The 

such that they do not have enough money 

framework notes three defining attributes: 

left over for adequate food, clothing, and 

(1) quality, (2) quantity, and (3) price. 

other necessities of life.

Quality. This attribute is most complex 

Specific Standards Used in This Report

because it has three aspects, two of which 

are difficult to define and measure reliably.

The actual rating of housing conditions in 

an area requires defining specific standards 

1.  Facilities problems: This aspect is the 

related to each of the attributes previously 

easiest to measure objectively. Problems 

discussed. This study relies on wel -accepted 

exist when a unit (1) lacks adequate 

standards used by HUD in its recurrent 

plumbing, kitchen, electrical and/or 

“Worst-Case Housing Needs” reports to 

heating facilities; or (2) such facilities 

Congress (Hardiman et al., 2010; Steffen et 

do not function properly; or (3) they 

al., 2011, 2013). These standards relate to 

constitute a safety hazard.

all elements of the framework presented 

previously, except for “design problems,” for 

2. Condition problems: These occur when 

which, as noted, an objective rating scheme 

the unit was built inadequately (or 

has never been devised. 

has since deteriorated) such that it is 

structural y unsafe or offers inadequate 

Data are presented on housing problems in 

protection from the elements. These 

tribal areas from two sources, representing 

problems have been hard to rate in an 

two points in time: (1) the household 

objective manner.

survey, as of 2013–2015, which provides 

data on all the problem categories noted 

3. Design problems: These problems 

previously except for “design problems”; 

relate to the physical arrangement and 

and (2) the 5-year ACS for 2006–2010, 

characteristics of external features 

which provides data covering the same 

and interior spaces, whether they are 

topics except for heating facilities, electrical 

deemed to be attractive and functional y 

facilities, and condition. 

convenient. For several reasons—including 

the fact that tastes vary—an objective 

The household survey provides a detailed 

rating scheme for this aspect has never 

snapshot of conditions in all categories 

been devised.

for the total of all tribal areas nationwide. 

Because of sample size limitations (see 

Quantity. At the market-wide level, this 

appendix D), it cannot provide information 

attribute relates to whether the number of 

on individual tribal areas or even regional 

housing units can accommodate the number 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

64

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

breakdowns, and it cannot present data for 

Quality Standards. The specific inadequacies 

different income groups or show change 

in this group that are enumerated in the 

over time. That is why the ACS data are 

household survey are as follows:

needed. They allow for presentation of such 

•  Plumbing problem: Lacking piped hot 

comparisons that are comparable with data 

water or a flush toilet, or lacking both 

provided in the earlier report (Kingsley et 

bathtub and shower for the exclusive use 

al., 1996), even though they do not have 

of the unit.

information on heating facilities, electrical 

facilities, or condition. 

•   Kitchen problem: Lacking a sink, range, or 

refrigerator for the exclusive use of the unit.

This section also compares household 

survey results with measures provided in 

•   Heating problem:  Having been 

the American Housing Survey (AHS) as of 

uncomfortably cold during the past winter 

2013 for the nation as a whole. The relevant 

for 24 hours or more, or three times for 

definitions in the AHS are comparable 

6 hours each, because of broken down 

with those in the household survey, but 

heating equipment.

again, survey sample sizes are small and 

no information can be provided for small 

•   Electrical problem: Having no electricity or 

geographies like tribal areas, even in 

having all of the following three electrical 

the aggregate. Although each individual 

problems—(1) exposed wiring, (2) a room 

measure used here is defined consistently 

with no working wall outlet, and (3) three 

with those in the “Worst Case Needs” 

or more blown fuses or tripped circuit 

reports based on the AHS, the measures 

breakers in the past 90 days.

are combined here in a somewhat different 

•   Condition problem: Having any five of 

way to be consistent with categories used 

the following six maintenance problems: 

in Kingsley et al. (1996), as explained in the 

(1) leaks from outdoors, (2) holes in the 

following sections. 

House on the Navajo Reservation. Image courtesy Elizabeth Rudd, Program Evaluation Division of the Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

65

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

floor, (3) holes or open cracks in the wal s 

Quantity Standards. In the HUD standard, 

or ceiling, (4) more than 1 square foot of 

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

peeling paint or plaster, (5) rats in the past 

unit is defined as being overcrowded if it 

90 days, or (6) leaks from inside (such as 

houses more than one person per room. The 

broken pipes or water heaters, backed up 

denominator of total rooms include living 

plumbing, or water from another unit).

rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, bedrooms, 

finished recreation rooms, enclosed porches 

In the Worst Case Needs reports, a unit 

suitable for year-round use, and lodger’s 

is considered to have “severe physical 

rooms. The Worst Case Needs framework 

inadequacies” if it has any one of the 

considers overcrowding to be a “moderate” 

following problems as defined previously: 

problem, but this problem general y is 

plumbing, heating, electrical, or condition 

regarded as severe in Indian Country policy 

problems. This report adds in kitchen 

circles, so it is treated as such in this report. 

problems (which HUD considers to be a 

“moderate” rather than a “severe” problem) to 

Price Standards (Cost Burden). In the HUD 

be consistent with the framework employed 

standards, a household is deemed to pay 

in Kingsley et al. (1996). Again, of this group, 

an excessive amount for housing (have an 

the decennial census and the ACS provide 

excessive “housing cost burden”) if its outlays 

data only on plumbing and kitchen problems.

for housing exceed 30 percent of its income. 

At the end of this section, this study provides 

Housing Problems and Needs—

an estimate of the total number of “severely 

Survey Results

inadequate” housing units in tribal areas at 

the time of the household survey. For this 

Exhibit 2.31 shows the results of the 

study, severely inadequate units are defined 

household survey for each housing problem 

based on the previously discussed categories 

independently. It shows what percent of 

to include (1) all units having a condition 

all AIAN households in Indian Country 

problem and (2) all other units having three 

(household head or spouse identify as 

of the four possible systems deficiencies 

AIAN-alone or multirace in the 2013-15 

(plumbing, kitchen, heating, and electrical). 

survey) have that problem compared with al  

Exhibit 2.31 - Individual Housing Problems in Tribal Areas

INDIVIDUAL HOUSING PROBLEMS % with problem

AIAN in Tribal Areas 2013-15 Household Survey

Total US (AHS-2013)

Percent

Confid. Interval

FACILITIES PROBLEM

Plumbing

5.6 

± 4

1.3

Kitchen

6.6 

±  3

1.7

Electrical

1.1 

±  1

1.4

Heating

12.0 

±  3

0.1

CONDITION PROBLEM

8.1 

±  3

0.8

OVERCROWDED

15.9 

±  6

2.2

COST BURDEN

37.5 

±  5

36.1

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015. American Housing Survey, 2013.

Notes: Estimates are weighted to be nationally representative of American Indians and Alaskan Natives. The confidence interval is computed at the 95% level.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

66

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

households in the United States (2013 AHS). 

This way of looking at the data is valuable 

The contrasts for all but one of the physical 

but, because individual households can be 

problems are dramatic. For plumbing 

affected by several of these problems at 

deficiencies, the incidences are 5.6 percent 

once, it does not provide a number that is 

for AIAN tribal area households versus a 1.3 

more important for policy considerations: 

percent U.S. average. The comparisons are 

the total number of households affected 

6.6 to 1.7 percent for kitchen deficiencies, 

by one or more of these housing problems. 

12.0 to 0.1 percent for heating, 8.1 to 0.8 

From this perspective, adding up the 

percent for condition, and 15.9 to 2.2 

numbers on exhibit 2.31 would entail 

percent for overcrowding. The exception 

double counting. Numbers that avoid that 

was electrical deficiencies—1.1 to 1.4 percent. 

are provided in exhibit 2.32, which shows 

Physical housing problems clearly have 

mutually exclusive categories.

been all but eliminated for U.S. households 

It shows that 10.2 percent of AIAN tribal 

nationwide, but that is certainly not true 

area households had plumbing and/or 

for AIAN populations in tribal areas, where 

kitchen deficiencies; another 13.0 percent 

problems remain widespread. 

that did not have plumbing/kitchen 

Cost burden, or affordability, is the housing 

deficiencies had some mix of heating, 

problem whose rapid growth has been 

electrical, and/or condition problems; and 

well publicized in most of the United States 

another 10.8 percent that did not have 

since 2000. The incidence of cost burden 

any of the previously discussed problems 

is similar between AIAN and all households; 

were overcrowded. Altogether, then, 34.0 

37.5 percent of AIAN households in tribal 

percent had one or more physical problems 

areas had a cost burden problem versus 36.1 

(compared with only 7.0 percent for U.S. 

percent for all U.S. households.

households, on average).

Exhibit 2.32 - Housing Problem Summary, AIAN Households in Tribal Areas

AIAN in Tribal Areas   

HOUSING PROBLEMS COMBINED % with problem

2013-15 Household Survey 

Total US

Percent

Confid. Interval

(AHS-2013)

FACILITIES/CONDITION PROBLEMS

Plumbing/Kitchen

10.2

± 4

3.0

Other Heating/Electrical/Cond.

13.0

±4

2.0

Subtotal

23.0

± 8

5.0

OTHER OVERCROWDED

10.8

±2

2.0

SUBTOTAL - PHYSICAL PROBLEMS

34.0

± 9

7.0

COST BURDEN ONLY

22.7

± 6

33.0

TOTAL WITH ANY PROBLEM

56.7

± 5

40.0

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Note: mutually exclusive categories - individual households are counted only once

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

67

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Final y for another 22.7 percent of AIAN 

These special tabulations differ from the files 

tribal area households, cost burden was 

used earlier in this report in two ways: (1) they 

their only housing problem (compared with 

provide data only for tribal areas; and (2) they 

a U.S. average of 32.7 percent). In total, 56.7 

define AIAN households with a householder 

percent of AIAN tribal area households had 

or spouse who identifies as AIAN, either alone 

one or more identified housing problems of 

or multiracial.

any kind (compared with 40.0 percent for 

Exhibit 2.33 presents the results at the national 

the United States overal ). These are national 

level. The main findings are total number of 

estimates based on the household survey. 

AIAN households in tribal areas (AIAN-alone 

Information on representativeness of the 

plus AIAN multiracial) grew from 234,400 in 

household survey sample is provided in the 

1990 to the 370,900 reported in the 2006–

text box, Is the Sample of Tribes Selected for 

2010 ACS; an increase of 58 percent. Changes 

the Household Survey Representative of All 

in the housing indicators during this period 

Tribes Nationwide?

were even more noteworthy. 

Housing Problems as Reported by 

•   These data confirm that the physical 

the U.S. Census/ACS

housing problems in AIAN tribal areas 

As noted, although the decennial census and 

are still much more severe than those 

the ACS lack data on some important housing 

faced by U.S. households, on average. 

According to these Census Bureau 

problems (heating facilities, electricity, and 

sources, the share that had either 

physical condition), they have benefits not 

plumbing/kitchen deficiencies and/or 

shared by the more complete housing survey 

were overcrowded reached a level of 13 

results just reviewed; that is, they can show 

percent in the 2006-to-2010 period. The 

regional variations and changes over time and 

2006–2010 ACS indicates that the U.S 

break out results for low-income households. 

average share with these problems (4 

This section relies on special tabulations of 

percent) was less than one-third the AIAN 

the 2006–2010 ACS provided by the U.S. 

tribal area share (13 percent). 

Census Bureau to HUD for formula analysis. 

Is the Sample of Tribes Selected for the Household Survey Representative 

of All Tribes Nationwide?

A comparison of the rates of housing problems in sampled tribal areas and nonsampled 

tribal areas was performed to check the representativeness of the survey sample. The 

comparison used measures of housing problems (overcrowded households or households 

lacking complete kitchen facilities or plumbing, and households with a severe cost burden) 

and economic distress (number of households with incomes that are less than 30 percent of 

Area Median Income [AMI], 30 to 50 percent of AMI, and 50 to 80 percent of AMI) reported 

in the American Community Survey, covering the years from 2010 to 2013. This analysis 

found that the measures for the two groups are very close, with no significant differences 

between the sampled and nonsampled tribal areas, showing that the survey sample frame 

is representative of all tribes nationwide (although the circumstances of any given tribal area can differ from the national estimate). The sampled tribal areas encompassed 60 percent of 

the AIAN population of al  tribal areas.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

68

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.33 - Housing Problem Summary, Census/ACS Data

AIAN households in Tribal Areas

Census 1990

ACS 2006-10

Total U.S. all races ACS 2006-10

ALL HOUSEHOLDS

Number of households (000)

234.4

 370.9 

 113,794 

Percent

Physical Problems

Plumbing/Kitchen Deficiency

 14 

 6 

 1 

Other Overcrowded

 14 

 8 

 3 

Subtotal

 28 

 13 

 4 

Cost Burden Only

 17 

 21 

 33 

Total One or More Problems

 44 

 34 

 37 

Total No Housing Problems

 56 

 66 

 63 

Total

 100 

 100 

 100 

LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS (<80 % of median income)

Number of households (000)

144.9

 193.4 

 46,213 

Low income as % of total

 62 

 52 

 41 

Percent

Physical Problems

Plumbing/Kitchen Deficiency

 19 

 8 

 2 

Other Overcrowded

 15 

 9 

 5 

Subtotal

 34 

 18 

 7 

Cost Burden Only

 25 

 36 

 60 

Total One or More Problems

 59 

 55 

 67 

Total No Housing Problems

 41 

 45 

 33 

Total

 100 

 100 

 100 

Source: HUD Special Tabulations of Census and ACS data (1990 data as reported in Kingsley et al, 1996) Note: AIAN households = those where householder or spouse identifies as AIAN. In 1990, AIAN included those who identified AIAN as their only race. In 2006-10, this category included AIAN-Alone plus AIAN multiracial.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

69

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

•  By contrast, according to ACS data, the 

income groups in all categories. Their share 

AIAN tribal area share with a housing 

with the physical problems noted on exhibit 

cost burden was less than the average 

2.31 (plumbing/kitchen deficiencies and 

for the United States in the 2006-to-

overcrowding) was 18 percent in the 2006-to-

2010 period.  The sizeable increases in 

2010 period, much more than the 13 percent 

housing affordability problems across 

for all AIAN tribal area households. This level 

the United States of late have been 

was 2.6 times the 7 percent share with these 

widely recognized. In 1990, 22 percent 

problems among all low-income groups 

of U.S. households had a cost burden-

nationwide. The gap remains significant. 

only problem; that is, they did not have 

The low-income share in the cost-burdened-

the physical problems noted previously, 

only group went up to 36 percent during 

but spent more than 30 percent of their 

the 2006-to-2010 period. The latter figure is 

income for housing expenses. By the 

much worse than the 21 percent for all AIAN 

2006-to-2010 period, that figure had 

tribal area households, but much better than 

gone up to 33 percent. Among AIAN 

the 60 percent of low-income households 

households in tribal areas, the cost-

that faced such problems nationwide.

burdened-only group reached 21 percent 

in the 2006-to-2010 period.

Variation by Region

The AIAN tribal area share of households 

Another noteworthy finding of this analysis is 

with “one or more housing problems” (a 

the enormous variation in the extent of AIAN 

traditional marker for monitoring housing 

tribal area housing problems by region during 

problems) is now actual y lower than that for 

the 2006-to-2010 period (exhibit 2.34). The 

U.S. households overal : 33 versus 37 percent. 

share of all AIAN households in tribal areas 

This measure, however, is no longer a very 

with the physical problems highlighted was 

useful way to monitor overal  comparative 

very close to the al -race national average 

need because of the marked divergence in 

in the Eastern and Oklahoma regions (6 

trends between its two components: physical 

and 4 percent respectively). The share was 

problems versus cost burden problems.

in a higher, but intermediate, range (8 to 

10 percent) in four regions (North Central, 

Problems for Low-Income 

South Central, California/Nevada, and Pacific 

Households

Northwest). These housing problems are 

How do these relationships differ for 

concentrated in the remaining three regions: 

AIAN tribal area households that have low 

Plains (15 percent), Arizona/New Mexico (31 

incomes (those with incomes that are less 

percent), and Alaska (36 percent). These 

than 80 percent of median in their areas, 

three regions account for 44 percent of al  

the target beneficiaries for NAHASDA 

AIAN households in tribal areas, but they 

funding)? During the 2006-to-2010 

account for 73 percent of those households 

period, 193,400 such households existed, 

that had physical housing problems.

representing 52 percent of all AIAN tribal 

The share of low-income AIAN households 

area households (the low-income share had 

in tribal areas with these problems also was 

been a higher 62 percent in 1990).

dominant in these regions: 18 percent in the 

The patterns regarding housing problems 

Plains, 36 percent in Arizona/New Mexico, 

are similar to those for all AIAN tribal area 

and 44 percent in Alaska (compared with 8 

households, but as would be expected, the 

percent or less in the North Central, Eastern, 

problems are much more prevalent for low-

and Oklahoma regions). The three regions 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

70

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.34 - Housing Problem Summary, AIAN Households in Tribal Areas, by Region (ACS 2006-10) United 

North 

Eastern

Okla-

South 

Plains

Arizona 

Calif.-

Pacific 

Alaska

States

Central

homa

Central

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

ALL HOUSEHOLDS

Number of households 

(000)

 370.9 

 15.8 

 38.9 

 160.8 

 5.8 

 33.8 

 69.5 

 8.7 

 13.7 

 23.8 

Percent

Physical Problems

Plumbing/Kitchen 

Deficiency

 6 

 2 

 1 

 1 

 1 

 3 

 17 

 2 

 1 

 21 

Other Overcrowded

 8 

 6 

 5 

 3 

 9 

 13 

 14 

 6 

 8 

 15 

Subtotal

 13 

 8 

 6 

 4 

 10 

 15 

 31 

 8 

 9 

 36 

Cost Burden Only

 21 

 25 

 27 

 23 

 21 

 20 

 12 

 22 

 24 

 19 

Total One or More 

Problems

 34 

 33 

 33 

 27 

 31 

 36 

 43 

 30 

 33 

 55 

Total No Housing 

Problems

 66 

 67 

 67 

 73 

 69 

 64 

 57 

 70 

 67 

 45 

Total

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS (<80 % of median income)

Number of households 

(000)

 193.4 

 9.8 

 20.3 

 69.1 

 2.9 

 21.8 

 42.8 

 5.3 

 7.4 

 14.0 

Low income as % of total

 52 

 62 

 52 

 43 

 50 

 65 

 62 

 61 

 54 

 59 

Percent

Physical Problems

Plumbing/Kitchen 

Deficiency

 8 

 2 

 1 

 2 

 1 

 4 

 22 

 2 

 2 

 29 

Other Overcrowded

 9 

 6 

 7 

 5 

 12 

 14 

 14 

 7 

 10 

 15 

Subtotal

 18 

 8 

 8 

 6 

 14 

 18 

 36 

 9 

 12 

 44 

Cost Burden Only

 36 

 38 

 46 

 46 

 38 

 30 

 19 

 33 

 40 

 26 

Total One or More 

Problems

 55 

 48 

 57 

 54 

 52 

 50 

 58 

 43 

 53 

 70 

Total No Housing 

Problems

 45 

 52 

 43 

 46 

 48 

 50 

 42 

 57 

 47 

 30 

Total

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100

Source: U.S. Census 2006-2010

Note: AIAN households are those where householder or spouse identifies as AIAN-Alone or AIAN multiracial HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

71

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

House with horse trailer on the Navajo Reservation. Image courtesy Elizabeth Rudd, Program 

Evaluation Division of the Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD

1937 Act house on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation designated for rehabilitation using Indian Community Development Block Grant funds for mold remediation. 

Image courtesy Kevin Turnau, Northern Plains Office of Native American Programs, HUD.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

72

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

with the most serious problems were also 

to draw precise conclusions about the 

among those where low-income households 

extent of the change. Other reasons cause 

dominated the total population in the area: 65 

concern about comparisons with the 1990 

percent in the Plains, 62 percent in Arizona/

census figure: tribal area boundaries have 

New Mexico, and 59 percent in Alaska.

changed, and technical differences exist 

between the 1990 census and the 2006–

Less variation was evident in the share in which 

2010 ACS. This report accordingly does not 

cost burden was the only housing problem 

offer a firm answer to questions about the 

and, consistent with the findings in section 

nature and extent of the change in housing 

1.5, places with the most prevalent physical 

problems since 1990.

problems often had the lowest cost burden 

problems. The cost-burdened-only shares 

Overcrowding and Physical 

among all AIAN households in tribal areas 

Deficiencies

were 12 percent in Arizona/New Mexico, 19 

percent in Alaska, and 20 percent in the Plains. 

This project’s household survey shows 

They were highest in the Eastern (27 percent) 

that as of 2013-15, the overcrowding 

and North Central (25 percent) regions.

and physical housing problems of AIAN 

populations living on reservations and other 

Change in Tribal Area Housing 

tribal areas remain strikingly more severe 

Problems Over Time

than those of other Americans. 

The authors of this report think the data 

How many additional units of good quality 

available for this study do not allow a 

housing would be needed to eliminate 

definitive conclusion as to whether housing 

overcrowding and replace severely 

conditions in Indian Country have improved 

inadequate housing in Indian Country? 

since 1990. Kingsley et al. (1996) used 

The answer could vary depending on 

special tabulations of the 1990 census data 

assumptions about standards and other 

to present an overall figure for the percent 

factors, and any such assumptions are 

of AIAN households in tribal areas with 

always open to question and alternative 

physical problems defined as in exhibit 2.33 

formulations. These assumptions, however, 

(the share that had either plumbing/kitchen 

lead to at least a plausible set of estimates 

deficiencies and/or were overcrowded). This 

providing a rough answer to the question.

figure was 28 percent, substantial y more 

than the 13 percent figure for the 2006-to-

The first step in this process was to estimate 

2010 period derived from ACS data. This 

the total number of AIAN households 

study’s 2013-15 household survey, however, 

residing in tribal areas at the time of the 

yields a point estimate of 24 percent (instead 

household survey, 2013-2015 (mid-point 

of 13 percent) in the comparably defined 

= 2014). This was accomplished using a 

category (with a confidence interval of plus/

straight-line method. Between the mid-point 

minus 7.8 percentage points). It could wel  

of the 2006-to-2010 period and 2010, total 

be that after declining from 1990 through 

AIAN households in Indian Country grew 

the 2006-to-2010 period (the period just 

by 4,750 per year.31 Extending that annual 

before the national housing market collapse) 

increment through 2014 (the mid-point of the 

this problem indicator went up again to the 

survey period) yields an estimate of 399,400 

higher level by 2013-15 (after the collapse), 

total households in 2014 (exhibit 2.35). 

but given the margins of error, it is difficult 

31  The project team compiled totals for 2006–2010 (ACS) and 2010 (census) for tribal areas consistent with methods used throughout this report and described in appendix A.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

73

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

The next step was to divide this total into four 

in tribal areas were overcrowded in the 

policy-relevant groups using percentages 

2013-to-2015 period. This amounts to 

derived from household survey data.

64,000 households out of the 399,400 

households that were estimated to be 

1.  Severely inadequate housing, but not 

residing in Indian Country at the time. In 

overcrowded.

exhibit 2.35, this total is broken down into 

two subgroups: (1) 53,000 households 

2. Overcrowded and but not severely 

for which units were overcrowded but 

inadequate.

not severely inadequate and (2) 11,000 

3. Overcrowded and severely inadequate.

households for which units were both 

overcrowded and severely inadequate.

4. Other.

Regarding the first group, no need exists to 

Severely inadequate housing includes 

replace all these units, because they do not 

all occupied units that have condition 

have major condition problems. The need is 

deficiencies, plus all other units that have 

to add only enough additional units to enable 

three out of the four possible systems 

the residents to spread out and eliminate 

deficiencies, consistent with definitions 

overcrowding in this group; however, it is 

earlier in this section. Survey data show that 

very difficult to estimate the number of 

such units that were not also overcrowded 

additional units required without more data 

account for 6 percent of the total, or 24,000 

on the mix of household types and sizes 

units. All these need to be replaced.

in this group than the survey sample wil  

support. Some of these households now 

In these calculations, it is assumed 

contain two or more separate family units 

that a unit is overcrowded when it is 

living together and would prefer enough new 

housing more than one person per room 

units to enable each separate family to have 

(consistent with the HUD standards noted 

its own unit. For others, however, the current 

previously). Survey results show that 

households may be one extended family 

16 percent of all AIAN occupied units 

Housing in a New Mexico Pueblo. 

Image courtesy Roberta Youmans, Office of Native American Programs, HUD.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

74

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

that wants to continue to live together. In 

shares for the two overcrowded categories: 

this case the need is for one larger unit, not 

43.1 and 42.4 percent respectively. It is 

separate units.

reasonable to assume that new separate 

units should be provided in these cases. The 

The survey provides data on households in 

estimate presented assumes that, overal , 

each category that say they are sheltering 

expanding the number of units in these two 

some people only because they have no 

categories by 50 percent would be enough 

other place to go (the “near homeless” 

to add these new units and provide for other 

as will be discussed in section 2.4). These 

size related adjustments to the stock. To 

account for an average of 16.6 percent of 

eliminate overcrowding in the first group, then 

all households in tribal areas, but very high 

(overcrowded but not severely inadequate), 

Exhibit 2.35 - Needs to Address Overcrowding and Physical Deficiencies

Overcrowded not 

Overcrowded severely 

Severely inadequate not 

Total

severely inadequate

inadequate

overcrowded

Other

NEW UNITS NEEDED

Percent of households

 100 

 13 

 3 

 6 

 78 

No. of households (000)

 399 

 53 

 11 

 24 

 312 

To eliminate 

overcrowding 

No. of rooms/unit

 5 

 4 

 4 

 5 

 6 

No. of persons/unit

 4 

 7 

 7 

 3 

 3 

No. additional rooms 

 144 

 114 

 29 

 na 

 na 

needed (000)

No. additional units 

 33 

 27 

 6 

 na 

 na 

needed (000)

To replace severely 

inadequate

No. additional units 

 35 

 na 

 11 

 24 

 na 

needed (000)  

Total new units needed 

 68 

 27 

 17 

 24 

 na 

(000)

POSSIBLE REHABS 

(not in the above)

Condition moderate

 23 

 4 

 na 

 na 

 19 

Other w/ 1 or more 

 7 

 2 

 na 

 na 

 5 

facil. probs.

Total

 30 

 6 

 na 

 na 

 24

Source: Authors calculations based on Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

75

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

this yields an estimate of 27,000 additional 

a considerably larger figure for total need. 

units needed (50 percent of 53,000 units).

For example, NAHASDA is designed to allow 

tribes to provide housing services to “Indian 

For the second group (overcrowded and 

Areas” (a tribal area plus normal y adjacent 

severely inadequate), first the need exists 

lands in which tribal members reside and 

to replace all these units because of their 

where additional housing needs may be 

physical condition—a need for 11,000 new 

substantial). The total need in all Indian Areas 

units. Then additional units are needed 

nationwide could be a considerably larger 

to prevent the new units from being 

figure than the one presented previously. 

overcrowded. Again, using the 50-percent 

Also, when calculating housing needs, it 

assumption, 50 percent of 11,000 units 

makes sense for tribes to estimate needs 

equals about 6,000 additional units. 

for the future (for example, 5- to 10 years 

into the future when the local Indian Area 

The estimated total new units needed, 

population may have grown substantial y).32 

therefore, includes (1) 24,000 to replace 

units in the severely inadequate but not 

The authors of this study do not have any 

overcrowded group; (2) 11,000 to replace 

factual basis for making such broader 

units in the severely inadequate and 

estimates, a necessary limitation to a 

overcrowded group; (3) 27,000 to eliminate 

national study. The approach and data 

overcrowding in the overcrowded-only group; 

offered previously (for tribal areas and 2014 

and (4) 6,000 to eliminate overcrowding in 

only), however, should provide information 

the overcrowded and severely inadequate 

and guidance to tribes in making their 

group. This adds to a total need of 68,000 

estimates. This approach ideal y can 

additional units to both replace severely 

contribute to developing a widely accepted 

inadequate units and eliminate overcrowding 

methodology and objective criteria for 

in tribal areas as of 2013-15.

determining housing shortage that can be 

implemented at the tribal level. 

The bottom panel on the table uses survey 

data to estimate the number of other 

2.4. Housing Composition, 

units that are appropriate candidates for 

Overcrowding, and Homelessness

rehabilitation. It assumes that these should 

include units with moderate condition 

In the United States, the prevalence of 

problems and others with 1 or more 

homelessness is driven by problems of 

facilities problems. This works out to a 

poverty and lack of affordable housing. 

total of an additional 30,000 units needing 

Research shows that the single biggest 

rehabilitation—7,000 in the formerly 

individual-level predictor of homelessness 

overcrowded housing stock and 23,000 

is being extremely low income (Burt, 2001), 

in the stock that had no other physical 

and the key systemic driver of homelessness 

housing problems.

is the availability of affordable housing, or 

lack thereof (Cunningham, 2009). American 

It is important to remember that the 

Indians and Alaska Natives face these issues 

previously discussed estimates relate only 

at higher rates than non-AIAN households 

to census-based population for recognized 

(Pettit et al., 2014). In the face of these 

tribal areas, and only as of 2014. Related 

pressures, literal homelessness (that is, 

estimates could be made that would yield 

32  Several individual tribes have made their own estimates of housing needs based on tribal or regional surveys. The larger sample sizes and/

or more detailed information obtained about housing conditions that can be collected in such studies may support different assumptions about the percent of units that need to be replaced or that are needed to alleviate overcrowding. For example, Navajo Nation’s housing needs assessment (RPI Consulting, The Jones Payne Group, Native Home Capital, and Alternative Marketing Solutions, 2011) estimated that 34,100 units were needed to replace housing due to poor condition and to increase capacity to alleviate overcrowding. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

76

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

living on the street, in emergency shelter, or 

households in tribal areas (59 percent) 

someplace not meant for human habitation, 

include the respondent’s spouse, and 57 

according to the HUD definition) and taking 

percent include the respondent’s child. About 

in family and friends who would otherwise be 

14 percent of AIAN households include the 

homeless (doubling up or near homelessness) 

household head’s grandchild, and 7 percent 

are almost universal. Nearly all (99.8 percent) 

include a sibling and 5 percent include a 

of tribal/TDHE respondents said that 

parent. On rare occasions, households include 

households double up. Despite doubling up, 

the head’s aunts and uncles (0.6 percent of 

most tribes/TDHEs (88 percent) noted that 

households) and grandparents (0.5 percent). 

literal homelessness still occurs. To better 

Further, about 8 percent of households 

understand the full extent of homelessness 

include a household member related to the 

in Indian Country, which includes both literal 

household head in some other way. 

homelessness and doubling up, this section 

These members form households in a 

examines tribal household composition and 

diverse array of living arrangements. To 

the relationship between overcrowding and 

better understand these arrangements, this 

homelessness in Indian Country in addition 

section of the study uses more nuanced 

to the extent of literal homelessness in tribal 

household type definitions than the U.S. 

areas, availability of homeless services, and 

Census Bureau definitions used in section 1 

prevalence of homeless risk factors. It also 

of this report (see the text box, Definition of 

estimates the size of the population that 

Survey Household Composition Types, for 

would be homeless if people were not taken 

definitions of the types of households used 

in by another household. 

in this section). 

Household Composition

Most households in Indian Country form 

Although living in larger households can 

either core families or extended households; 

be a way to cope with housing affordability 

single-person households and nonfamily 

challenges or prevent homelessness, 

households are relatively rare (exhibit 2.41). 

AIAN households may also choose larger 

About 45 percent of households are core 

households or extended family living 

households and another 39 percent are in an 

arrangements (that is, households that 

extended household. In contrast, 13 percent 

include members beyond the household 

are single-person households, and 3 percent 

head, spouse, and children) because 

are nonfamily households. 

they are valued in their tribe’s culture 

Of all core families, about 85 percent are 

or because the household prefers the 

headed by a married couple, and more 

arrangement for other reasons. To parse 

than one-half of those households include 

this complex issue, it is important to first 

children (exhibit 2.42). The remaining 15 

examine household composition trends 

percent of core family households consist of 

using data from the household survey 

single parents with children. Most of these 

conducted for this study. 

households (75 percent) are headed by a 

The household survey shows that, although 

female, and 25 percent are headed by a male. 

AIAN households most commonly include 

About two-thirds (67 percent) of extended 

members of the core family (for example, 

households are broader extended family 

spouse and children), AIAN households 

households (exhibit 2.43). Of these, more 

also include other members, particularly 

than one-half (56 percent) include children. 

grandchildren, with some regularity. Most 

Three-generation family households 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

77

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Definition of Survey Household Composition Types 

•   core families:  households with or without children when the only adult(s) in the household is the respondent or the respondent and his/her spouse. These families include married 

couples with or without children and also single-parent household types.

•   extended households: households that include related family members beyond the core family structure and may or may not include a core family. This category includes the 

following subtypes: 

o   three-generation families: households that include three generations of the same family (that is, grandparent, his/her child, and his/her grandchild) with no other family 

members. This differs slightly from the Census Bureau definition of multigenerational 

households, which cannot include other household members and can include more than 

three parent-child generations. 

o   broader extended families: households that include related household members 

beyond the core family or three-generation household members (for example, the 

respondent’s siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews) but no nonrelated household 

members

o   extended households with relatives and nonrelatives: households that include both related and nonrelated household members.

•  single-person households: households in which the respondent is the only household member.

•  nonfamily households: households in which the respondent lives with at least one nonrelative and does not live with any relatives or a spouse. 

comprise a smaller, but still substantial, share 

are somewhat smaller, including only 

(22 percent). Extended households with 

3.2 persons, on average, while extended 

relatives and nonrelatives are rare, making up 

households include 4.7 persons, on average. 

only 11 percent of extended households, most 

These estimates are pulled up by some 

of which (75 percent) include children. Across 

exceptionally large households. Using the 

the entire extended households group, the 

median, however, the same trend persists. 

majority (68 percent) includes children. 

Overall, the median tribal area household 

includes 2.7 persons. The median core 

Household Size

household is smaller (2.3 persons), and the 

median extended household is larger (3.9 

AIAN households tend to be larger than 

persons). Further, extended households have 

households in the United States overall 

much larger shares of very large households 

(Pettit et al., 2014), and this study finds that, 

than do core families: 16.1 percent of 

within tribal areas, extended households 

extended households include more than 6 

tend to be larger than core households. 

persons, which is more than six times the 

Overall, AIAN households include an 

2.5 percent rate for core households. 

average of 3.6 persons. Core households 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

78

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.41 - Tribal Area Households by Type

Exhibit 2.41 - Tribal Area Households by Type

45

40

35

30

25

20

Percent of households

15

10

5

0

Core families

Extended

Single-person

Non family

Household Type

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: Survey data have been weighted to be nationally representative.

The Relationship Between 

than literal homelessness: only 11 percent of the 

homeless people they surveyed were literal y 

Overcrowding and Homelessness

homeless, and the remaining 89 percent were 

In Indian Country, literal homelessness 

doubled up. Because these people would 

and, to some extent, overcrowding are 

have been homeless if they were not able to 

two components of the same problem: an 

stay with friends or family members, a true 

insufficient stock of affordable housing. 

measure of the extent of homelessness on 

Because households take in friends and 

tribal areas must include them in addition to 

family who cannot afford their own housing 

those who are literal y homeless.

or for whom no housing is available, staying 

The tribal/TDHE survey and site visit 

with others, or doubling up, often prevents 

interviews confirm the widespread use of 

literal homelessness (that is, sleeping outside, 

doubling up or overcrowding as a strategy 

in an emergency shelter, or in some place 

to prevent literal homelessness. Nearly 

not meant for human habitation) on tribal 

all tribes/TDHEs (99.8 percent) reported 

lands. In its study of homelessness among 

that doubling up occurs in their service 

six Minnesota tribes, Wilder Research (2014) 

areas, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) 

defined homelessness as being without 

said it was a major problem. The site 

housing of one’s own and describes doubling 

visit respondents reinforced this point. 

up as “near homelessness.” The study found 

Respondents in 17 of the 22 sites visited 

that near homelessness was far more common 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

79

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.42 - Core Family Households by Type

Exhibit 2.42 - Core Family Households by Type

50

45

40

35

30

25

45.9

20

38.9

Percent of core households

15

3.6

10

5

11.1

0

Married, with children

Married, without children

Single parent

Total

Female head, with children

Male head, with children

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: Survey data have been weighted to be nationally representative.

said that homelessness primarily takes the 

Other site visit respondents seemed to 

form of doubling up or overcrowding. When 

have literal homelessness in mind as their 

asked about homelessness, some site visit 

definition of homelessness. They said that 

respondents included doubling up in their 

they did not have much homelessness, 

definitions of the problem. One respondent 

but they noted the bigger problem was 

from the Pine Ridge Reservation said— 

overcrowding. For example, a Cherokee 

respondent explained— 

People go from one family member’s 

home to another; everyone’s homeless 

There is not a lot of homelessness. 

around here—but, they just stay with 

What we do experience is two, three, 

family members and extended families 

four families under one roof; Native 

until they get kicked out—it’s not good—

American families take care of each 

they are not living in the street, but it’s 

other. They will not let a family member 

still not good. 

be homeless. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

80

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 2. .43 - Ex

43 - Ext tended Households b

ended Households by T y T

ype ype

80

70

60

With children

Without children

50

40

30

Percent of extended households

20

10

0

Broader extended family households

Three generation households

Extended households with relatives and non-relatives

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: Survey data have been weighted to be nationally representative.

As the Cherokee respondent’s comment 

whole. Pettit et al. (2014) found, based 

suggests, households in tribal areas take 

on analysis of ACS data, that 11 percent 

in families and additional households 

of AIAN households in larger tribal areas 

that would otherwise be homeless and 

were overcrowded compared with only 

experience overcrowding as a result. Site visit 

3 percent of households nationwide. This 

respondents in some sites explicitly stated 

study’s household survey finds an even 

that the lack of affordable housing was 

higher rate of overcrowding among tribal 

driving this need to double up. For example, a 

area households. About 16 percent of AIAN 

respondent from the Choctaw Nation said— 

households were overcrowded, meaning 

their household included more than 1 person 

Overcrowding is a serious problem. To 

per room, and about 6 percent were severely 

avoid some members being homeless, 

overcrowded (that is, more than 1.5 persons 

it is not uncommon to have multiple 

per room). As might be expected given 

generations residing in a single 

their larger household size, overcrowding 

residence. There’s a huge unmet need 

is particularly common among extended 

for safe affordable housing.

households. About 28 percent of extended 

households were overcrowded compared 

Extent of Overcrowding and 

with about 9 percent for core families. 

Overlapping Cost Burden

Further, the standard overcrowding 

Overcrowding is more common on tribal 

measure may not ful y capture housing 

lands than in the United States as a 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

81

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

quantity constraints. About 19 percent of 

Most overcrowded households do not 

tribal area households in the survey said 

face housing affordability problems, which 

they include more members than “can live 

suggests that adding more household 

in the unit comfortably.” Although highly 

members and the incomes that come 

related to overcrowding, this question 

with them may relieve cost burden to 

provides the respondent’s impression as 

some degree. A small share of households 

to whether they have adequate space, 

grapples with both overcrowding and 

and it is notable that the share reporting 

housing cost burden, however, leaving them 

this is slightly higher than the rate of 

particularly vulnerable (exhibit 2.44). Across 

overcrowding. Core households were much 

all AIAN households, about 7 percent are 

more likely to say “yes” to this question 

both overcrowded and cost burdened. More 

than to be overcrowded according to 

extended households face this situation 

the standard measure: 17 percent of core 

than core families. Although 4 percent of 

households had more members than 

core families are both overcrowded and cost 

could live comfortably in the unit, nearly 

burdened, three times as many extended 

double the rate of overcrowding. The share 

families (12 percent) face this situation. 

for extended households (29 percent) 

Extent of Literal Homelessness 

aligned with overcrowding rates. Taken 

together, however, this suggests that space 

Although overcrowding is more common, 

constraints may be more severe than the 

literal homelessness does still happen in 

standard overcrowding measure captures. 

Indian Country. In the tribal/TDHE survey, 

a substantial majority of respondents (88 

Exhibit 2.44 - Percent of Tribal Households that are Overcrowded by Presence of Cost Burden and Household Type, 2014-2015  

Exhibit 2.44 - Percent of Tribal Households that are Overcrowded by Presence of Cost Burden and Household Type, 2013-2015 

35

30

Not Cost Burdened

Cost Burdened

25

20

15

Percent of tribal households

10

5

0

All households

Core families

Extended households

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: Survey data have been weighted to be nationally representative.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

82

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

percent) said that their reservation had 

more AIAN households are eligible for housing 

literal homelessness, and respondents from 

assistance than in the population general y. 

12 of the 22 sites visited observed literal 

homelessness in their communities. Further, 

Perceived Characteristics of 

respondents from 3 of the 22 sites said 

Homeless and Near Homeless People 

that a significant number of people in their 

According to site visit respondents, 

communities were literal y homeless.33 

homelessness and near homelessness are 

particularly common among people with 

Prevalence of Homelessness Risk 

substance use issues, veterans, and families. 

Factors

Of the 13 sites where site visit respondents 

To understand the level of homelessness 

discussed the characteristics of those 

risk in Indian Country, this section 

facing literal and near homelessness in their 

examines the prevalence of deep poverty 

areas, respondents in eight sites noted the 

(that is, living below 50 percent of the 

prevalence of substance use issues. Because 

federal poverty line), the largest individual-

people with histories of substance use can 

level risk factor for homelessness, and 

be ineligible to receive housing assistance 

access to housing subsidies, which 

or live with an assisted family member or 

research shows is an important protective 

friend, they are particularly vulnerable to 

factor against homelessness (Burt, 2001; 

homelessness. A respondent from Lac du 

Cunningham, 2009).34 

Flambeau described one such situation. 

A substantial y larger share of AIAN 

We had a call yesterday from a 

households lives in deep poverty than U.S. 

young woman who was booted out 

households overal . Nearly one out of four 

of her home by the housing authority, 

AIAN households surveyed (23 percent) had 

probably by misguided information, 

family incomes that are less than 50 percent 

and is living in the woods. The housing 

of the federal poverty line. This figure stands 

authority won’t allow her to live with 

in stark contrast to the 6.6 percent rate in 

her father because he lives in housing 

the United States as a whole (DeNavas-Walt 

authority property. She had a drug-

and Proctor, 2015), indicating substantial y 

related infraction and is basically living 

higher prevalence of this risk factor in the 

in the woods.

tribal area population than elsewhere. This 

Literal and near homelessness among 

risk factor is particularly concentrated 

veterans and families also was noted in 

among extended households: 29 percent 

multiple sites. Respondents from 4 of the 

of AIAN extended households live in deep 

13 sites that discussed the issue noted the 

poverty compared with 16 percent among 

problem of homelessness among veterans. 

AIAN core family households. 

American Indian veterans nationwide tend 

Only about 12 percent of AIAN households 

to be overrepresented among the homeless 

receive housing assistance through IHBG. 

veteran population. According to  Veteran 

This exceeds the 4 percent of households 

Homelessness: A Supplemental Report to 

nationwide that receive rental assistance 

the 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment 

(Irving and Loveless, 2015). Because of the 

Report to Congress, 2.5 percent of the 2010 

greater poverty in Indian Country, however, 

homeless veteran population identified as 

33  The household survey did not ask about literal homelessness, but, later in this section, new data collected in that survey are used to estimate the size of the homeless population.

34  The household survey did not collect data on other elements of homelessness risk, which include health disparities and exposure to domestic and other violence, but these issues are known to be significant in Indian Country (USICH, 2012).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

83

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

American Indian compared with only 0.7 

on tribal lands is difficult, but this study 

percent of the veteran population overall 

provides new data to help approximate the 

(USICH, 2012). Respondents at two sites also 

scope of the problem. 

noted homelessness among AIAN families. 

HUD tracks the size of the literal y homeless 

Availability of Homeless Services on 

population nationwide through the Point-in-

Time Count, an annual effort held on a single 

Tribal Lands

night in January that counts people staying 

Despite the vast majority of tribal areas having 

in emergency shelters and other homeless 

literal y homeless individuals (88 percent 

services and those sleeping unsheltered. 

according to the tribal/TDHE survey as noted 

Unsheltered counts are particularly difficult 

previously), the tribal/TDHE survey and site 

in rural areas, including tribal areas, because 

visits indicate that having homeless services 

homeless people are spread out over large 

is far less common. Only 46 percent of tribes/

geographic areas (Housing Assistance 

TDHEs reported that their community uses 

Council, 2013). Given this challenge, the 

homeless shelters; respondents from only 11 of 

Point-in-Time Count provides a lower-bound 

the 22 sites visited said that their reservation 

number of American Indians and Alaska 

had a homeless shelter within its boundaries. 

Natives who are literal y homeless on a single 

Respondents from some areas without 

night. According to the 2015 Point-in-Time 

shelters said that they referred people to 

Count, 15,136 American Indians and Alaska 

mainstream shelters in the nearest town, but 

Natives were literal y homeless across the 

those were often distant. For example, the 

United States on a single night in January 

Lummi Nation refers households to homeless 

of that year. American Indians and Alaska 

services in Forks, Washington, which is a 

Natives were overrepresented in the literal y 

1-hour drive away. The Oglala Sioux Tribe has 

homeless population. Although American 

a shelter for homeless veterans in Pine Ridge. 

Indians and Alaska Natives comprise only 

The tribe owns the shelter building and the 

1 percent of the overall population, about 

land that it is on, and the U.S. Department of 

3 percent of homeless people identified 

Veterans Affairs funds the operations. The 

American Indian or Alaska Native as their 

shelter facility has 12 beds and, when the 

only race (HUD, 2015a). Further, about 0.5 

research team visited in November 2014, 18 

percent of the AIAN-alone population was 

veterans were on the waiting list. The Lumbee 

homeless in the 2015 Point-in-Time Count 

Tribe maintains five homes for transitional 

compared with 0.1 percent of the total 

housing. If someone is homeless and they are 

population that is homeless (HUD, 2015a). 

eligible, they can stay up to 90 days free of 

These data, however, are limited in two ways: 

charge. The homes are ful y furnished, with 

(1) publical y available data do not allow 

the cost of utilities included. 

researchers to estimate homelessness only 

on tribal areas, and (2) they do not capture 

Estimating the Size of the Literal 

the doubled-up population.35 

and Near Homeless Population on 

Although it cannot provide an estimate of 

Tribal Lands

the size of the literal y homeless population, 

Estimating the size of the homeless 

the household survey provides the first 

population (both those who are literal y 

sample-based estimate of the doubled-

homeless and those who are doubled up) 

up population across all tribal areas in 

35  Publically available Point-in-Time Count data are aggregated at the continuum of care (CoC) level. CoCs are organizing bodies for homeless services and vary in their geographic scope. Some CoCs cover one urban area or one county; others cover a collection of counties; others cover an entire state. Data on tribal jurisdictions are not collected. Because of this variation, researchers cannot identify homelessness within tribal boundaries. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

84

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

the United States. About 17 percent of 

had no other place to go. On average, 0.62 

AIAN households include some household 

people per household were nonrelatives, and 

members that were staying with them only 

0.63 were distant relatives, which means 0.62 

because they had no other place to stay. 

people per household at minimum and 1.25 

Although only a small share of the heads 

people at maximum are near homeless. 

of these households (19 percent) would 

Based on an estimated 399,400 households 

ask these people to leave, the vast majority 

in tribal areas at the time of the household 

of them (80 percent) thought that those 

survey, 67,900 households include a near 

members of their household would like to get 

homeless member. This yields an estimate 

a place of their own if they could. Together, 

of 42,100 near homeless people, using 

the data suggest that these doubled-up 

the average number of nonrelatives per 

situations are not the household’s first choice 

household, and 84,700 near homeless 

and that those members would otherwise 

people using the average number of 

have been literal y homeless. In other words, 

nonrelatives and distant relatives per 

they are near homeless. 

household. This translates to a near 

To estimate the number of near homeless 

homeless rate for AIAN households between 

people, this analysis examines the 

3.6 and 7.2 percent (exhibit 2.45). 

composition of the households that include 

Data from the AHS suggest that near 

them. Overall, these households tend to 

homelessness is more common among 

be large, with 5.5 people, on average, and 

AIAN households than among the general 

include nonrelatives and distant relatives (that 

population, though exactly comparable 

is, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, in-laws, and 

data for the U.S. population overall are 

more distant relatives). This analysis assumes 

not available. The 2013 AHS estimated 

that all nonrelatives and at least some of the 

that 4.4 million households, or 3.8 percent 

distant relatives are most likely to be the near 

of all households, were doubled up using 

homeless household members, those who 

Exhibit 2.45 - Estimating the Size of the Doubled Up Population

N

Percent

AIAN Households in Tribal Areas

399,400

100

With  a member with no other place to stay

67,900

17

AIAN Population in Tribal Areas

1,198,000

100

House hold members with no other place to stay

Minimum

42,100

3.6

Maximum

84,700

7.2

Source: American Community Survey for AIAN tribal households and AIAN Population in Tribal Areas; Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: The minimum estimate of household members with no other place to stay was calculated by multiplying the number of households with a member of this type by the average number of nonrelatives in those households (0.62 people). The maximum number was estimated by multiplying the number of households with a member with no other place to stay by the average number of nonrelatives and distant relatives in these households (1.25 people). The total number of AIAN households residing in tribal areas at the time of the household survey (mid point = 2014) was calculated using a straight-line method based on the growth in total AIAN households in Indian Country from the midpoint of the 2006-2010 period and 2010, extending that growth percentage to 2014. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

85

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

a much broader definition of doubled 

homeownership. Of the tribes/TDHEs, 

up (that is, households with at least one 

75 percent reported that demand for 

member who had moved out in the past 

homeownership was high, 21 percent 

year, which includes college students living 

reported that demand for homeownership 

at home for the summer, elderly household 

was moderate, and only slightly more than 

members who have since moved to 

4 percent reported low or no demand 

assisted living, and other non-near 

for homeownership. Furthermore, 76 

homeless people) (HUD, 2015b; AHS 2013 

percent of tribes/TDHEs said demand for 

estimates). Because the AHS doubled-up 

homeownership had increased during the 

rate is close to the minimum tribal area 

past 3 years (exhibit 2.52).

estimate even though the AHS definition 

In the household survey, 90 percent of 

of doubling up is not restricted to near 

renters responded that they would prefer to 

homeless situations, the data comparison 

own their own home. In addition, 90 percent 

suggests that near homeless doubling up 

of all respondents said they would be wil ing 

is more common on tribal areas than in the 

to contribute labor (from a family member 

United States overall.

or their own) to build their house if it meant 

2.5. Demand for and Barriers to 

they could own a home. AIAN households 

face a number of barriers to homeownership. 

Homeownership and Mortgage 

Both current homeowners and renters were 

Lending 

asked about barriers to homeownership 

This section presents more recent 

and responses were similar (exhibit 2.53). Of 

and detailed national information 

current homeowners, 8 percent had been 

about AIAN homeownership, demand 

denied a mortgage, and 9 percent of renters 

for homeownership, and barriers to 

had been denied a mortgage. The most 

homeownership in tribal areas. 

common reason for being denied mentioned 

by both groups was a low credit score or lack 

The census data presented in section 2.2 

of a credit history. The next most common 

shows that AIAN homeownership rates 

reason mentioned by renters (35 percent) 

in tribal areas were 67 percent in 2010.36 

was not having a sufficient downpayment. 

Findings of the national y representative 

Of the renters, 29 percent said they did not 

survey of households in tribal areas 

make enough money to pay the mortgage. 

conducted for this study in 2013-2015 

Both renters (35 percent) and homeowners 

are very similar, estimating that the AIAN 

(30 percent) indicated that they were denied 

homeownership rate in tribal areas was 68 

mortgages because they had too much debt. 

percent. Based on the household survey, 

most homes (62 percent) were privately 

Those who have never applied for a 

owned and on nontrust land, and 20 percent 

mortgage also can experience barriers to 

of homes were on land owned by the tribe, 

homeownership (exhibit 2.54). The responses 

and 14 percent were on individual allotted 

of the 90 percent of renters indicating that 

trust land. Based on the survey, 66 percent 

they would prefer to own a home are similar 

of all AIAN homeowners in tribal areas do 

to those that have applied for mortgages 

not currently hold a mortgage (exhibit 2.51). 

and been denied, but these responses also 

capture the experiences of earlier stages in 

Both tribal/TDHE survey respondents and 

the homeownership decision process, such 

AIAN household survey respondents living 

as having sufficient savings, a regular source 

in tribal areas report a strong demand for 

of income, and access to a mortgage lender. 

36 As noted previously, this includes HUD Mutual Help homes.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

86

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.51 - Homeownership

AIAN Households in Tribal Areas  (Household Survey 2013-2015)

Percent of 

Percent of Total 

Confidence 

Households

Total

N

n missing

Sample Missing

Standard Error

Interval

Own Home or Lease 

 1,340 

30

2.2%

to Purchase

Buying home or 

57.1

764

4.64

±9.1%

apartment with 

lease/purchase or 

similar

Own their own 

10.8

149

1.65

±3.2%

home

Neither 

32.1

397

3.44

±6.7%

Mortgage Status

913

10

1.1%

Currently holds 

33.6

225

6.21

±12.2%

mortgage

Currently does not 

66.4

678

6.21

±12.2%

hold mortgage

Type of Land*

913

33

3.6%

Privately owned, 

62.4

427

10.27

±20.1%

non-trust land

Allotment land 

13.5

138

5.04

±9.9%

(individual trust 

land)

Land owned by the 

21.1

279

5.98

±1 .7%

tribe (whether in 

trust or not)

Other

3.0

36

0.86

±1.7%

Type of unit*

913

17

1.9%

Farm

3.5

25

1.04

±2.0%

Ranch

2.0

19

0.78

±1.5%

Mobile home

13.7

162

3.01

±5.9%

Manufactured home

9.3

76

2.15

±4.2%

House/townhouse/

71.5

614

4.82

±9.4%

apartment/other

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: * denotes question asked only of current homeowners.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

87

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

The barrier most often mentioned by this 

borrower credit, fractional property 

group (60 percent) was the inability to save 

ownership, challenged borrower finances 

enough for a downpayment, followed by low 

(lower income and savings and higher 

credit score or no credit history (46 percent), 

debt), and processing hurdles (delays in 

and inability to afford the monthly mortgage 

environmental review and land title reports). 

payment (32 percent). It is interesting that 29 

Lender discrimination was mentioned as 

percent of this group mentioned that they 

one of the top three barriers by a relatively 

did not know how to buy a home or were 

small percentage of tribes/TDHEs (8 

unfamiliar with the loan application, lending 

percent) and AIAN households interested 

terms, or real estate transactions; and 17 

in homeownership, but it was mentioned 

percent mentioned that they could not find 

as a barrier by 16 percent of renters that 

a mortgage lender in the area. Respondents 

are interested in homeownership. Another 

also mentioned a lack of available and 

report completed for this study,  Mortgage 

affordable homes for sale.

Lending on Tribal Land (Listokin et al., 2016), 

Results from the tribal/TDHE survey reflect 

describes a changing landscape regarding 

similar perceptions to those reported by AIAN 

mortgage lending in Indian Country with 

households. Tribal/TDHE survey respondents 

greater lending activity and a lessening of 

were asked to state the three most important 

once seemingly intractable problems, such 

barriers to getting AIAN households in 

as those related to tribal trust land. Section 

tribal areas to apply for a mortgage, with 

3.7 of this report describes housing policies 

the following results: insufficient income 

and programs designed to address many 

(reported by 77 percent of those surveyed), 

of the barriers identified in the tribal/TDHE 

no or blemished credit history (reported by 

and household surveys. 

72 percent), lack of savings (by 61 percent), 

wariness of lenders (by 33 percent), and 

paperwork issues (by 31 percent).

Exhibit 2.52 - Homeownership Preference as Reported on the  

Tribes/TDHEs reported the following 

Tribal/TDHE Survey

sources of mortgage lending in their 

respective service areas: private lenders (85 

Strength of Preference for Homeownership

percent); rural housing services (46 percent); 

Percent reporting

tribe and tribal lenders (41 percent); other 

High

75.0

(36 percent); and Federal Home Loan Bank 

Moderate

20.7

(27 percent). When asked to state the top 

Low

4.2

three barriers to attracting lenders, tribes/

Share of Response

100

TDHEs mentioned: (1) uncertainty about 

N

110

recovery of mortgaged property in the 

event of foreclosure (77 percent), trust land 

Trend in Preference Over Past 3 Years

status (58 percent), and lack of mortgage 

Percent reporting

institutions (44 percent). A separate survey 

Increased

76.1

of lenders in Indian Country conducted as 

Decreased

4.1

part of this study finds that lenders report 

much the same challenges as those reported 

Stayed the Same

19.8

by tribes/TDHEs.37 Major challenges 

Share of Response

98.2

to mortgage lending in Indian Country 

N

110

reported by lenders were blemished 

Source: Tribal/TDHE Survey 2014-2015

37  See Listokin et al. (2016).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

88

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Site visits documented a diverse set of 

very important: “…what helped me was 

homeownership challenges and solutions 

Indian Health Service. They funded the well 

for AIAN households. Most sites reported 

and septic at 100 percent [of the cost]. 

demand for homeownership. Housing 

That was a big part, as we could use that 

agency and other respondents reported 

as our downpayment.”

that the greatest barriers were tribes’ and 

For some sites, such as Gila River, Makah, 

individuals’ lack of funds and capacity 

and Acoma Pueblo, the concepts of 

in developing homes, credit issues, high 

homeownership and mortgages are 

infrastructure costs, tribal politics, and 

quite new, and as discussed in section 3, 

reluctance to deal with the stresses of 

a number of tribes are turning attention 

maintaining a home. Many respondents 

to homebuyer education. Several tribes 

stressed the difficulties in obtaining a 

mentioned that land is still held in tribal 

deed or proving ownership (needed for 

trust or kept in families, so few houses 

a mortgage) in Indian Country. In some 

are available for purchase. At other sites, 

cases homebuyers need to install basic 

however, a variety of programs were used 

infrastructure (electricity, septic, and so on) 

to help clients with homeownership and 

when they purchase a house, adding to the 

develop new housing. For example, the 

expense. One Lac du Flambeau respondent 

Choctaw Nation has its own purchasing and 

noted that getting such costs covered was 

financing program (Choctaw Home Finance 

Exhibit 2.53 -  Barriers to Obtaining a Mortgage

AIAN Households in Tribal Areas (Household Survey (2013 - 2015)

HOMEOWNERS

RENTERS

Total

N

n missing

Total

N

n missing

Mortgage denied

913

5

427

15

Yes

8.4

59

8.6

43

No

91.6

849

91.4

369

Reasons mortgage was denied

59

43

Didn’t have a sufficient down payment

14.8

9

0

35.4

14

0

Don’t make enough money to pay the mortgage

9.7

5

0

28.9

13

0

Don’t have a job

10.0

4

0

7.6

4

0

Don’t have a long/good job history

3.5

4

0

16.0

9

0

My credit score was too low/ didn’t have a credit 

45.7

27

0

60.7

23

0

history

Too much debt (credit cards, student loans, medical/

29.8

13

0

34.6

16

0

health care costs)

There were issues about the title to the land or 

5.0

6

0

3.3

3

0

property rights

I felt I was discriminated against because I am 

10.0

7

0

15.4

5

0

American Indian/Alaska Native

Other

17.2

13

0

19.6

8

0

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

89

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Cooperative) developed with Wel s Fargo 

interviews with housing staff. From the 

and PMI Mortgage Insurance, and the Lac 

1990 census to the 2006–2010 ACS, the 

du Flambeau Reservation works with a CDFI 

total number of AIAN households in tribal 

that operates a loan fund.

areas (AIAN-alone plus AIAN multiracial) 

increased by 58 percent to a total population 

In conclusion, part 2 describes housing 

of 370,900. Although physical housing 

market conditions in tribal areas and 

problems (such as plumbing/kitchen 

addresses the central question of this 

deficiencies) and overcrowding of AIAN 

assessment: What are the extent and nature 

households in tribal areas appear to have 

of AIAN housing problems and needs? 

improved since 1990, these problems are 

It examines evidence from census data, 

still much more severe than those faced by 

a survey of households in tribal areas, a 

U.S. households, on average. The 2006–2010 

survey of tribal/TDHE directors, and onsite 

Exhibit 2.54  - Barriers to Homeownership Reported by Renters

AIAN Households in Tribal Areas (Household Survey 2013-2015)

Percent of Total 

Confidence 

Percent of Households

Total

N

n missing

Sample Missing

Standard Error

Interval

Barriers faced when buying home **

1,266

Can’t save enough for a house/can’t afford 

60.0

510

410

32.4%

2.01

±3.9%

down payment (down payment)

Can’t afford the monthly mortgage 

32.4

272

410

32.4%

2.44

±4.8%

payment

Can’t find a mortgage lender in the area  

17.5

156

410

32.4%

2.34

±4.6%

Can’t resolve land rights (property rights)

10.5

103

410

32.4%

3.41

±6.7%

Don’t have collateral to get a loan because 

13.5

148

410

32.4%

2.11

±4.1%

my land is held in trust

Don’t have a job

25.5

235

410

32.4%

2.80

±5.5%

Don’t have a long/good job history

13.3

124

410

32.4%

1.39

±2.7%

My credit score was too low/didn’t have a 

45.6

388

410

32.4%

3.22

±6.3%

credit history

Too much debt (credit cards, student loans, 

27.3

227

410

32.4%

2.05

±4.0%

medical/health care costs)

No housing available in a location I want 

19.8

212

410

32.4%

2.67

±5.2%

to live

No affordable housing in my area

20.2

183

410

32.4%

1.66

±3.3%

No houses are available for sale or being 

18.5

187

410

32.4%

2.22

±4.3%

built that are suitable for me/my family 

Don’t know how to buy a home/unfamiliar 

28.6

249

410

32.4%

1.79

±3.5%

with loan application process, lending 

terms, or real estate transactions 

Lenders are more likely to deny applications 

16.2

183

410

32.4%

2.42

±4.7%

from American Indian/Alaska Native

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: * denotes question asked only of current renters

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

90

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

ACS indicates that the U.S. average share of 

to stay, yielding an estimate of between 

households with these problems (4 percent) 

42,000 and 85,000 people in tribal areas 

was less than one-third the AIAN tribal area 

who are doubled up because they have no 

share (13 percent). Although the AIAN tribal 

place else to stay.

area rate had dropped from being 5.6 times 

The household survey uses a national y 

worse than the U.S. average, to 3.3 times 

representative sample to create national 

that average, the gap was still substantial. 

estimates of housing needs for all of Indian 

Housing problems and conditions vary 

Country, including the Alaska tribal areas. 

across tribal areas and are far more severe in 

The research team estimates that, as of 

three geographic areas: New Mexico/Arizona, 

2014-2015, a total of 68,000 new units were 

the Plains, and northwestern Alaska vil ages.

needed to replace severely inadequate units 

Using census data on household types and 

and eliminate overcrowding. 

sizes along with household survey data on 

The household survey also confirms that a 

variations in household composition, and 

strong preference for homeownership exists 

views on these topics gleaned from the 

in tribal areas. Most renters want to become 

tribal/TDHE survey and onsite interviews, 

homeowners but face barriers due to low 

part 2 provides new information about the 

credit score, lack of a credit history, or not 

nature of overcrowding and homelessness 

having a sufficient downpayment. 

in tribal areas. Overcrowding in many 

tribal areas is strikingly more severe than 

Part 3 turns to housing policies and 

elsewhere in the United States as a whole 

programs that address housing needs and 

(11 percent of AIAN households in larger 

conditions and the program options for 

tribal areas compared with only 3 percent 

addressing demand for homeownership in 

of households nationwide). The household 

Indian Country.

survey finds an even higher rate of 

overcrowding among tribal area households. 

About 16 percent of tribal households were 

overcrowded, meaning their household 

included more than 1 person per room, and 

about 6 percent were severely overcrowded 

(that is, more than 1.5 persons per room). 

In the household survey, 17 percent of 

household heads said they did have some 

household members that were living with 

them only because they had no other place 

 Choctaw -- http://www.choctawhousing.com/services/

affordable-rental-housing.aspx 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

91

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Part 3. Housing Policies 

culminating in a full description of NAHASDA—

its purposes and the way it is administered. 

and Programs

The final paragraphs of this section review 

program funding (sources and uses of funds). 

Section 3.3 reviews the changes in the size 

and composition of the HUD-assisted housing 

3.1. Introduction

stock in tribal areas, and the way both 

Parts 1 and 2 of this report described the 

program administrators and residents view the 

circumstances of American Indians and 

quality and adequacy of this housing. These 

Alaska Natives (AIANs), and changes during 

sections natural y give emphasis to the Indian 

the past two decades. Key points are— 

Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program, which 

is the central vehicle for providing housing 

•  The AIAN population continues to grow 

assistance under NAHASDA. 

fairly rapidly in Indian Country nationwide.

This is followed by a deeper look at the 

•  While the gaps have been diminishing 

organizations that administer and manage 

for some measures, the socioeconomic 

operations under NAHASDA in tribal areas, 

well-being of the AIAN population 

including discussions of how they are 

remains considerably less than that of 

organized and staffed, their activities, and 

most Americans.

how they perform this work (section 3.4). 

Section 3.5 reviews the contributions of 

•  AIAN housing problems and needs, 

other federal programs that provide housing 

particularly in tribal areas, are stil  

assistance in Indian Country, supplementing 

much more serious than those of other 

efforts under the IHBG.

Americans general y. 

An examination of the challenges of 

Part 3 reviews U.S. housing policy under 

developing new housing in Indian Country 

what is now the dominant structure for 

under the IHBG is provided in section 3.6, 

providing federal housing assistance in 

based largely on information provided by 

Indian Country: the Native American 

tribal/Tribally Designated Housing Entity 

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 

(TDHE) leaders and staff (via surveys and 

Act (NAHASDA), enacted in 1996. As noted 

onsite interviews). This section also highlights 

in the introduction to this report, this study 

a number of production success stories 

did not formal y evaluate performance under 

that have been identified. Section 3.7 is 

NAHASDA. Nonetheless, findings have a 

similar, but focuses on efforts to expand 

great deal to say about how the component 

homeownership, including the role played by 

programs have been working, offering many 

the changing availability of mortgage lending.

findings and conclusions that should prove 

of value to federal and tribal officials in their 

NAHASDA contains a charge not present in 

efforts to improve program effectiveness. 

earlier legislation, namely that tribes use their 

federal resources in part to strengthen the 

This part of the report begins by providing 

private housing markets in their areas. Section 

information on the historical and institutional 

3.8 explains how this is working out, covering 

context that will help readers understand the 

both challenges and solutions. Final y, section 

more substantive findings to follow. Section 

3.9 draws from this study as a whole to 

3.2 reviews the evolution of federal housing 

discuss the overall impact NAHASDA has had 

assistance in Indian Country since it began, 

since it was enacted two decades ago. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

92

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

3.2. The Evolution of Federal 

and managing assisted housing in Indian 

Housing Assistance in Indian Country  Country.38 Two major programs were 

mobilized under the aegis of the 1937 Act.

The Kingsley et al. (1996) report provided 

a fairly complete history of how federal 

1.  The Low-Rent Program—essentially 

housing assistance in AIAN tribal areas 

the national public housing program, 

was first developed and then evolved. 

implemented in Indian Country. HUD 

This section provides a brief summary of 

grants went to IHAs who used them to 

that history before 1996 and then tel s a 

acquire the rights to land and build new 

more complete story of the subsequent 

units, or acquire and rehabilitate existing 

establishment and operation of activity 

ones, for rent by low-income families. 

under NAHASDA.

The IHAs then managed the properties 

and received additional federal funds to 

The “1937 Act” Programs

cover the difference between allowable 

operating costs and tenants' payments 

The deep poverty and deplorable living 

toward rent (set not to exceed 30 percent 

conditions in tribal areas were recognized as 

of the tenant’s adjusted income).

a concern by policymakers early in the 20th 

century. The Snyder Act of 1921 authorized 

2. The Mutual Help Program—one of a very 

the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau 

few federal programs that have offered 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) to provide a broad 

homeownership opportunities to low-

range of assistance to those areas, which 

income families. As in the rental program, 

could have included housing; however, no 

IHAs developed new housing with HUD 

action was taken on the housing front for 

grants, but purchasers were responsible for 

four decades after that.

all operating and maintenance costs. The 

purchasing household had to make an initial 

Initiating Federal Housing Assistance 

$1,500 contribution (but tribes often met 

Federal housing assistance was not available 

this requirement on behalf of the household 

to any low-income Americans until the 

by contributing the land), and make a 

passage of the United States Housing Act 

monthly “homebuyer payment” (set by 

of 1937, which created the Public Housing 

the IHAs at between 15 and 30 percent of 

Program; many expected that form of 

household income) for up to 30 years. The 

assistance to be extended to Indian Country. 

program was actual y a “lease-purchase” 

Public housing development soon proceeded 

arrangement. A portion of the monthly 

rapidly in many urban areas, but it was not 

payment made by the families covered an 

until 1961 that the Office of the General 

administrative fee, but the remainder was 

Counsel of the Public Housing Administration 

credited to an equity account that was 

determined that American Indian tribal 

used to purchase the home. Families do not 

governments were eligible “municipalities” 

actual y gain title to their properties until al  

that could receive public housing support. 

of their payment obligations have been met 

(expected to happen within 25 years).

After that determination was made, the 

Public Housing Administration (with help 

The central management of these two 

from BIA) began to work with the tribes 

programs was transferred to HUD when it 

to establish a network of Indian Housing 

was created in 1965. At HUD, the programs 

Authorities (IHAs) capable of developing 

were simply administered as a part of the 

38  The IHAs were similar to the public housing authorities that administer public housing elsewhere. They are appointed by local officials but operate under federal rules and oversight. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

93

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

public housing program until a separate 

the low-rent program had 24,500 housing 

Office of Indian Housing was established 

units in management and Mutual Help 

in the mid-1970s. In 1976, the first Indian 

had another 42,900, for a total of 67,400. 

housing regulations were published separate 

These two programs were then housing 

from those for public housing. During 

more than one-fourth (25.9 percent) of the 

subsequent years, pressure increased for 

234,400 total AIAN households living in 

an even more distinct approach to Indian 

tribal areas nationwide; 42 percent of low-

housing. Congress passed the “Indian 

income AIAN households in tribal areas 

Housing Act of 1988,” which, for the first 

(Kingsley et al., 1996: table 3.5).

time, established a statutory commitment 

Dissatisfaction with these programs also 

to the provision of Indian housing assistance 

existed on several levels. A 1978 U.S. 

outside of the general framework of the 1937 

General Accounting Office report (GAO, 

Act. HUD then developed new consolidated 

1978) stated that the programs remained 

regulations for Indian housing. 

underfunded in relation to the need but 

Through the 1970s and 1980s, substantial 

also addressed overly complex procedures, 

operating capacity was built in the IHAs 

a lack of flexibility, coordination problems, 

in tribal areas and the low-rent and 

and the lack of sufficiently trained personnel. 

Mutual Help programs developed rapidly. 

Underlying the problems of complexity 

Although these two programs were by 

and lack of flexibility, of course, was the 

far the dominant forms of federal housing 

unhappiness of many tribal leaders with the 

assistance in Indian Country, other forms 

extent to which HUD controlled program 

were also being made available at a 

plans and operations. HUD officials 

smaller scale. These included tenant-based 

had to approve the details of housing 

assistance (called Section 8 certificates 

plans submitted by the IHAs, and tribal 

or housing vouchers, initiated nationwide 

governments thought they had insufficient 

in 1974); the BIA’s Housing Improvement 

influence over IHA activities. 

Program (HIP—a production program for 

In 1989, Congress designated a National 

very low-income families, established in 

Commission on American Indian, Alaska 

1965); funds from two national block grant 

Native and Native Hawai an Housing to 

programs that could be used for housing—

investigate the situation. It presented 

the Community Development Block Grant 

its findings in a 1992 report (National 

(CDBG) and the HOME program; assistance 

Commission, 1992) concluding that many 

from the Farmers Home Administration 

of these problems persisted. HUD then 

(FmHA); and financing assistance through 

moved aggressively to try to address 

the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 

the issues, implementing a number of 

Section 248 mortgage insurance program, 

administrative changes the commission had 

established in 1987. More will be said 

recommended. In addition, HUD revised 

about how these programs work and their 

program regulations to significantly reduce 

contributions later in part 3.

and simplify operating rules and provide 

Important Accomplishments, but 

more flexibility to local implementers.

Residual Issues

In May 1993, action was taken to further 

The contribution of the 1937 Act programs 

consolidate the coordination of AIAN 

in Indian Country in its first quarter century 

programs within HUD. Since 1982, much of 

has not been well recognized. By 1990, 

HUD’s interaction with the tribes and IHAs 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

94

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

had taken place via six regional Offices of 

Federal assistance in and of itself will 

Indian Programs (OIPs). In the 1993 changes, 

never be a sufficient or appropriate 

(1) the OIP title was replaced with Office 

way to deal with the full range of 

of Native American Programs (ONAP—

housing problems and opportunities in 

better reflecting the inclusion of natives 

Indian Country. Further priority needs 

from Alaska); (2) responsibility for the 

to be given to economic development 

Indian CDBG program was transferred from 

in tribal areas with related policy 

HUD’s Office of Community Planning and 

thrust to encourage more private 

Development to ONAP; and (3) the six field 

investment in Indian housing. 

offices (now called Area Offices of Native 

(Kingsley et al., 1996: 232)

American Programs—AONAPs) would 

thereafter report directly to ONAP, rather 

The Native American Housing 

than to HUD Regional Administrators.

Assistance and Self-Determination Act

These changes by HUD were general y much 

With this background, tribal leaders, 

appreciated in Indian Country, but they stil  

Congress, and HUD worked collaboratively 

fell short of expectations in an era in which 

in the mid-1990s to craft new legislation that 

“self-determination” had become the central 

would transform the way housing assistance 

theme of U.S. Indian policy.

would be delivered in tribal areas. The result 

was NAHASDA, signed into law on October 

The Kingsley et al. (1996) report provided a 

26, 1996 (P.L. 104-330, as amended).39 

comprehensive assessment of the 1937 Act 

programs and HUD’s administration of them. 

The Act opens with several congressional 

It recognized both the contribution these 

“findings” that, among other things, 

programs had made, and HUD’s efforts to 

explicitly reaffirm the “unique trust 

streamline regulations and make them work 

responsibility of the United States to protect 

more effectively. Nonetheless, one of its 

and support Indian people,” including its 

central conclusions strongly reinforced the 

“special role in providing affordable homes 

arguments for self-determination:

in a safe and healthy environment.” These 

findings also state that “…the Federal 

…mostly because of categorical 

government shall work to assist in the 

constraints inherent in their authorizing 

development of private housing finance 

legislation, the Rental and Mutual 

mechanisms on Indian land,” and that 

Help programs provide neither the 

“Federal assistance shall be provided 

incentives nor the flexibility needed for 

in a manner that recognizes Indian self-

tribal and IHA officials to apply federal 

determination and tribal self-governance.”

funds creatively to address housing 

needs in Indian Country efficiently and 

Basic Objectives, Activities, and 

effectively. (Kingsley et al., 1996: 189)

Eligibility

In addition, the Kingsley et al. (1996) 

Under NAHASDA, the tribes have both 

report drew attention to the need for 

more responsibility and more flexibility. 

economic development to support 

They have greater flexibility to determine 

housing development. The call for 

what types of products and services they 

economic development reflected a 

offer, how they will deliver programs and 

theme that turned out to be important in 

projects, and whom they serve (although, 

subsequent legislation: 

with certain specified exceptions, they are 

39  Materials in this section are adapted from documents prepared by ONAP: its  NAHASDA Essentials (HUD/ONAP, 2011) and its annual  Report to Congress (most recently, HUD/ONAP, 2014). 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

95

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

still required to serve low-income families 

economic and community development 

as required under the U.S. Housing Act 

for Indian tribes and their members.

of 1937—see further discussion in later 

•  Plan for and integrate infrastructure 

sections). Perhaps most notably, NAHASDA 

resources for Indian tribes with housing 

changed the delivery mechanism.40 

development for Indian tribes.

•  It provided for an  IHBG. Both the annual 

•  Promote the development of private 

grant received by tribes and the program 

capital markets in Indian Country and 

that directs the use of this grant are 

allow such markets to operate and grow, 

known as IHBG. IHBG is a program 

thereby benefiting Indian communities.

that provides funding to eligible tribes 

nationwide; funding is allocated according 

Section 202 of the statute permits a variety 

to a formula. 

of  activities to provide affordable housing 

and to assist low-income families living in 

•  It provided that IHBG funds and other 

affordable housing units.

assistance would be given directly to 

Indian tribes rather than to IHAs. Tribes 

•   Indian Housing Assistance.  This includes 

may run the program directly or may 

modernization and operating assistance 

designate a TDHE to administer it on 

for housing previously developed or 

their behalf. The tribes may designate 

operated under the 1937 Act programs. 

their old IHA to administer the program, 

Rent and utility subsidies for this housing 

and many have done so; in that case, 

are also in this category.

the IHA thereafter works directly for the 

tribe. More than 580 tribes receive IHBG 

•   Housing Development.  This can include 

funding (HUD/PD&R, 2015b).

property acquisition, new construction 

of affordable housing, reconstruction, 

The law states that the primary  objectives of 

moderate or substantial rehabilitation, 

NAHASDA are to—

site improvements, the development 

of utilities and utility services, 

•  Assist and promote affordable housing 

demolition, and other rehabilitation and 

activities to develop, maintain and operate 

construction activities.

affordable housing in safe and healthy 

environments on Indian reservations and 

•   Housing Services.  This is the provision 

in other Indian areas for occupancy by 

for services related to affordable housing, 

low-income Indian families.

which can include housing counseling, 

the establishment and support of 

•  Ensure better access to private mortgage 

resident management organizations, 

markets for Indian tribes and their 

energy auditing, and other services 

members and promote self-sufficiency of 

related to assisting owners, tenants, 

Indian tribes and their members.

contractors and other entities that 

•  Coordinate activities to provide housing 

participate in the program.

for Indian tribes and their members with 

federal, state, and local activities to further 

40  The statute contains seven title sections: I—Block Grants and Grant Requirements (covers the Indian Housing Plan [IHP] and other federal requirements), II—Affordable Housing Activities (covers eligible activities, low-income targeting, and other program requirements), III—Allocation of Grant Amounts (covers the annual allocation and the formula), IV—Compliance Audit and Reports (covers remedies for noncompliance, monitoring, and performance reports), V— Termination of Assistance for Indian Tribes Under Incorporated Programs (covers repealed programs), VI—Federal Guarantees for Financing for Tribal Housing Activities (covers the provisions for the loan guarantee program), and VII—Other Housing Assistance for Native Americans (covers loan guarantees, leasehold interests in trust or restricted lands for housing, training and technical assistance, and Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990). 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

96

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

•   Housing Management Services.  

equitable and fair to eligible recipients.41 

This includes preparation of work 

The grantee may be the tribe or a TDHE 

specifications, loan processing, 

that administers the program on behalf 

inspections, tenant selection, 

of the tribe.42 The formula is calculated 

management of tenant-based rental 

annual y, depending upon the annual IHBG 

assistance, operation and maintenance 

appropriation from Congress. The first IHBG 

of units developed with IHBG funds 

formula run produces estimated allocations 

and management of affordable housing 

that are sent to both tribes and TDHEs 

projects.

(completed on June 1). Final allocations 

are completed after appropriations are 

•   Crime Prevention and Safety.  This   covers 

announced and a previous year carryover 

safety, security and law enforcement 

is determined. The date of the final formula 

measures to protect residents of 

run varies each year depending on when the 

affordable housing from crime.

President signs the appropriations into law. 

The formula contains two components. 

•   Model Activities.  This category includes 

activities supportive of affordable housing 

1.   Formula Current Assisted Stock (FCAS) 

within the goals of the statute that are 

relates to funding for the continued 

not explicitly included in the previously 

management of housing units still 

discussed activities. Examples include 

operated by the tribes that were 

the construction of community buildings, 

previously developed under the 1937 Act 

daycare centers, job training centers, and 

programs. Tribes update information on 

maintenance storage buildings.

the FCAS stock they continue to manage 

each year. Two elements are considered 

•   Administration and Planning.  Recipients 

in calculating the FCAS portion of the 

may spend up to 20 percent of their grant 

formula: an operating subsidy and an 

amount on administration and planning of 

al ocation for modernization.

IHBG related activities.

2.  Need is calculated using seven weighted 

NAHASDA regulations (§ 1000.1040) define 

factors, which consider the local 

eligible beneficiaries to specifical y include 

population’s income levels, the condition 

(1) low-income Indian families whose income 

of existing housing, and the level of 

does not exceed 80 percent of the median 

housing costs. The need allocation is 

income for the area; (2) non low-income 

adjusted for local area cost differences. 

Indian families whose income exceeds 80 

Data on these components are drawn 

percent of the area median, but may be 

from the census and from HUD sources. 

assisted by NAHASDA funding under certain 

Tribes may challenge data through a 

specified circumstances; and (3) non-Indian 

specified process. The amount that any 

families whose housing needs cannot be 

one tribe will receive is determined by 

met without IHBG assistance and the grant 

its formula numbers and by the overall 

recipient agrees that the family’s presence 

programmatic funding for that year.

is essential to the wel -being of the Indian 

families living in the tribal area.

Grant recipients are allowed to provide 

benefits in an  Indian Area, which refers 

The  IHBG formula is used to allocate 

to the area within which an Indian tribe 

grant funding in a manner intended to be 

41  Regulatory requirements that implement the formula are in Subpart D. Allocation Formula, §§ 1000.301-1000.340. 

42  NAHASDA states that “the term ‘Indian tribe’ means a tribe that is a federally recognized tribe or a State-recognized tribe,” but further clarifies that the only state-recognized tribes that qualify are those that received HUD 1937 Act assistance before the effective date of NAHASDA. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

97

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

operates affordable housing programs or 

and amended Section 106 to require that 

the area in which a TDHE is authorized by 

HUD initiate a negotiated rulemaking in 

one or more Indian tribes to operate. This 

January 2010 (75 FR 423). An important 

includes the tribes own tribal area (the 

amendment to the law in 2000 added Title 

geographic area over which the Indian tribe 

VIII, providing for a new Native Hawai an 

can exercise court jurisdiction), and may 

Housing Block Grant (NHHBG) program, 

include other (normal y adjacent) areas 

operated separately by the State of Hawaii 

where the tribe can document that it has 

Department of Hawai an Home Lands.

formal y agreed to provide housing services 

Federal Guarantee for Financing 

under a Memorandum of Agreement with 

Tribal Housing Activities

that jurisdiction. 

Private lenders and investors historical y 

Regulations and Amendments 

were reluctant to do business in Indian 

To interpret and implement NAHASDA, 

Country (due to remote locations, 

regulations are developed by HUD and 

cumbersome procedures related to trust 

tribes nationwide through negotiated 

lands, and other reasons). Title VI of the 

rulemaking. The process of developing the 

Act, allows HUD to guarantee 95 percent 

regulations was mandated by Section 106(b) 

of outstanding principal and interest on a 

of the statute. The original regulations were 

loan made by a private lender to an IHBG 

developed using a 58-member Negotiated 

recipient for affordable housing activities. 

Rulemaking Committee, which included 

Borrowers pledge a portion of their current 

tribal leaders from across the country, and 

and future IHBG funds as security.

also HUD staff. This unusual way of writing 

The guarantee has proven to be a workable 

regulations is significant because this was 

incentive to private lenders. Since the 

the first step in implementing the “self-

program began operating (in fiscal year [FY] 

determination” intention of NAHASDA. 

2000), through FY 2015, HUD issued 86 

The IHBG regulations replace the U.S. 

Title VI loan guarantees, totaling more than 

Housing Act of 1937 regulations (at § 

$220 mil ion. Under these guarantees, 3,080 

950), and set forth the necessary policies 

housing units have been built, rehabilitated, 

and procedures for the administration of 

or supported with new infrastructure.

grants made to eligible recipients under 

the IHBG program. HUD is in the fourth 

Operating and Monitoring Activities 

round of negotiated rulemaking: (1) 1997 to 

Under NAHASDA

1998 for implementation, (2) 2004 for the 

formula, (3) 2010 to 2012 for implementing 

A number of procedural steps are specified 

reauthorization, and (4) 2013 and ongoing 

to secure accountability and effectiveness 

for the formula. 

in program operations. First, al  recipients 

of IHBG funds are required to prepare, and 

NAHASDA, which was signed into law in 

submit to HUD (ONAP), an annual  Indian 

1996, was further amended on October 

Housing Plan (IHP) that spel s out how 

21, 1998; December 27, 2000; November 

they intend to use the funds they receive 

13, 2002; October 30, 2004; December 

under their IHBG and from other sources for 

22, 2005; August 8, 2005; and October 

housing related activities in the coming year. 

14, 2008. The Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-411, 

The IHP must describe the recipient’s existing 

approved October 14, 2008) reauthorized 

housing stock, assess housing needs, and 

NAHASDA through September 30, 2013, 

determine how resources will be expended.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

98

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Second, all recipients must also prepare 

to correct or remedy any noncompliance 

and submit an  Annual Performance Report 

that has been discovered. ONAP may 

(APR). These cover the financial side of 

provide technical assistance at that point 

operations for the year (with breakdowns 

to help the recipient deal with the issues 

of sources and uses of funds), and quantify 

at hand. ONAP then monitors steps taken 

what the recipient has accomplished under 

to resolve the issues and, when results are 

the program. Until 2013, grantees were 

not satisfactory, may impose remedies 

required to submit one APR for each open 

or sanctions as deemed necessary and 

grant. In 2013, HUD revised this policy so 

appropriate. In FY 2013, ONAP completed 

that grantees now have to submit only one 

72 onsite monitoring reviews of this kind. 

overall APR per year.

Technical assistance and training, however, 

Performance monitoring is the responsibility 

is an even greater emphasis for ONAP 

of both the recipients and ONAP. Recipient 

(provided to its own staff and also to 

self-monitoring requires all grant recipients 

grant recipients and their staffs). ONAP’s 

to annual y assess their own programs 

TA/Training agenda touches on almost 

for compliance with program rules, and 

all topics related to the development and 

to report the results to their constituents 

operation of affordable housing under 

and also to HUD. ONAP has prepared 

NAHASDA. Much of it is arranged and 

(and regularly updates) a  Self-Monitoring 

delivered locally without using outside 

Guidebook to assist grantees with this task. 

contractors. At this level, Area ONAP staff 

train tribal and TDHE staff as needed, 

ONAP monitoring occurs in several ways 

routinely responding to tribal requests. 

through processes designed to “respect 

This entails preparing explanatory and 

tribal sovereignty and self-governance” 

training materials, and conducting local 

(see the ONAP  Grants Evaluation 

workshops and training sessions.

Guidebook). First, the data in all APRs 

are entered into a Performance Tracking 

Other training is developed at the national 

Database (PTD) that yields a variety 

level, and does often involve outside 

of reports. These reports are analyzed 

contractors and consultants. Topics 

by ONAP staff to assess performance 

covered in FY 2013 included, for example, 

comprehensively (covering program 

“NAHASDA Essentials,” “Indian Housing Plan 

accomplishments, how activities are being 

and Performance Report,” “Environmental 

carried out, and financial performance). 

Review,” “Procurement,” and “Youth 

Organization Development.” 

Second, ONAP reviews and assesses 

activities of selected recipients in depth 

In 2012, ONAP switched from traditional 

and on site, using a “risk-based approach.” 

contracting to a Notice of Funds 

Each year, a risk-assessment process 

Availability (NOFA) process to procure 

identifies grant recipients considered to 

outside services in these areas, and this 

have the greatest potential for using funds 

has enabled a notable program expansion. 

inappropriately or otherwise failing to 

The number of trainings and technical 

meet statutory or regulatory requirements. 

assistance engagements reached 99 in 

After the selected recipients have been 

FY 2013 (45 completed and 54 in process) 

assessed, ONAP issues a report to them 

compared with 23 per year under the 

that recognizes their accomplishments and 

previous contracting process.

also provides recommendations on how 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

99

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Funding and Financial Performance

$600 to $650 mil ion range (nominal dollars, 

that is, not adjusted for inflation) during the 

The following paragraphs first describe the 

life of the program. In FY 2009, the American 

levels of funding Congress has provided 

Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) of 

for the IHBG since the program became 

2009 provided an additional $497.25 mil ion 

operational. They then review the sources of 

in IHBG funds.43 In total, $11.3 bil ion was 

income for tribal activities under the overall 

appropriated from FY 1998 to FY 2014, an 

NAHASDA umbrel a, and how IHBG funds 

average of $667 mil ion per year. In both FYs 

have been spent, by category.

2015 and 2016, Congress appropriated $650 

mil ion to the Block Grant account.

IHBG Funding

In every year, some set-asides have been 

The top line in exhibit 3.21 shows the IHBG 

available, but the vast majority of the funds 

funding appropriated by Congress year-

have been awarded to grant recipients via 

by-year since the program became ful y 

the formula. Set-asides in recent years have 

operational in 1998 through FY 2014. After 

typical y ranged from approximately $4 mil ion 

the 1998 grant ($589 mil ion) the annual 

to $8 mil ion, and are used to (1) fund the 

levels have remained relatively constant in the 

43  The ARRA provided funds for housing programs in Indian Country in addition to the amounts authorized by Congress for IHBG directly. 

This included a $255 million addition to the formula distribution and a separate $242.25 million under a competitive distribution. For a more complete explanation, see ONAP (2012: 9).

Exhibit 3.21 - Amoun

Exhibit 3.21 - Amoun t of IHBG F

t of IHBG F unds A

unds Aw w

ar arded, 1998 t

ded, 1998 t o 20

o 2014 14

800

700

600

)

500

Constant 1998 Dollars

400

Nominal Dollars

300

1998 Dollars (in millions

200

100

0

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Year

Source: HUD ONAP LOCCS Report, current as of June 1, 2015.

Note: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided an additional $504,201,481 in IHBG funding.  

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

100

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Title VI loan guarantee program (usual y $2 

(TDC)44 for a 3-bedroom housing unit 

mil ion annual y); (2) cover HUD expenses on 

grew from $183,937 in 2006 to $329,839 

inspections, contracting, and other program 

in 2014, an increase of 79 percent.45 

assistance; and (3) contract with national and 

Total Funding by Source (Sources of 

regional organizations to provide technical 

Funds)

assistance and training to IHBG recipients.

In the spirit of NAHASDA, tribes use 

It is extremely important to point out, 

their IHBG resources for direct housing 

however, that the program’s buying power has 

investment, but also in ways that can 

declined markedly over the years. The lower 

leverage a larger pool of resources for 

line in exhibit 3.21 shows grant amounts each 

housing improvement in their service areas. 

year in  constant (1998) dollars. The totals 

go down from the $599 mil ion of 1998 to a 

Exhibit 3.22 is a summary of APR data on 

low of $428 mil ion in 2013, only 73 percent 

all NAHASDA-related funding the grantees 

of what the program could have purchased 

have been awarded from the start of 

at the 1998 level. The 17-year constant dollar 

the program through FY 2013 (nominal 

total was $8.8 bil ion, an average of $516 

dollars). The IHBG total is $7.4 bil ion, which 

mil ion annual y, which is much less than the 

represents 71 percent of the IHBG awards to 

average of allocated nominal dollars not 

recipients through FY 2014.

adjusted for inflation ($667 mil ion per year).

The table shows a total of $9.0 bil ion in total 

Two other factors further contribute to 

related funding to these recipients during this 

the reduced buying power of NAHASDA 

period. Grantees are required to report al  

funding amounts since 1998: (1) population 

the HUD funding they receive in their APR. 

growth and (2) increased construction costs. 

Tribes/TDHEs typical y report related funds 

they receive from other sources on this form 

1.  Not only has IHBG funding not kept pace 

as wel . However, the totals in exhibit 3.22 

with inflation, but it also has not kept 

probably understate the true totals awarded 

pace with population growth in tribal 

from all sources. Nonetheless, it is worth 

areas. During the period of 1999 to 2014, 

reviewing the amounts reported because they 

the AIAN population grew 59 percent. 

do show amounts substantial y in excess of 

Because of this growth, the per capita 

the IHBG alone. 

IHBG allocation in nominal dollars went 

from $573 to $386.

The IHBG grant itself is clearly dominant, 

accounting for 82 percent of the 

2. Construction costs have outpaced 

$9.0 billion reported total. The most 

inflation-related price increases, and 

understandable way to talk about the 

to the extent that IHBG is used to fund 

amounts in the other categories may be 

construction, the Consumer Price Index 

to express them as a function of the IHBG 

understates the erosion of the grant’s 

amount. For example, the grantees had 

value. The average total development cost 

been awarded $121.65 in total funding for 

44  TDC is calculated by averaging the current construction costs for a moderately designed house as listed in not less than two nationally recognized residential construction cost indices. These indices draw their data from surveys of construction costs in a geographic area. 

Multipliers for each area are applied against these basic numbers to provide costs that are specific to a geographic location. A second multiplier is then applied to account for nonconstruction costs (administration, planning, site acquisition, financing, and so on). Site-based utility costs are included. Off-site costs such as water, sewer, roads, and so on, are excluded. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/

program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/regs/notices.

45  TDCs vary considerably across tribal areas. The average TDC is calculated using the share of total unadjusted allocation for each tribal area as a weight.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

101

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

every $100 in IHBG funds they received 

Section 184 loan guarantees and grants to 

(third column on the table). What are the 

cover drug elimination activities.

sources of this additional $21.65?

The next largest item is NAHASDA Program 

The largest component ($9.46 or 44 

Income ($5.26 per $100 of IHBG grants). 

percent) came from additional resources 

This is made up of funds the grantees 

received directly from HUD. Most 

receive related to their operations of 

prominent among these is the Indian 

programs under NAHASDA, such as 

Community Development Block Grant 

rents received from tenants in NAHASDA 

(ICDBG—$6.49), but the category also 

supported housing.46 The grantees also gain 

includes amounts for the Title VI and 

some other resources from their continued 

46  The categories of Program Income include income from fees for services, income from the use/rental of property, funds from the sale of units developed with HUD assistance, sale of equipment, loan principal and interest, sale of loans or obligations, investment income, and income from funds pending use.

Exhibit 3.22 - NAHASDA Funding by Source, Through 2013

Total awarded ($ mil .)

Percent

$ per $100 of IHBG

Total

9,021.7

100.0

 121.65 

NAHASDA Block Grant (IHBG)

7,416.1

82.2

 100.00 

Other HUD Direct

701.9

7.8

 9.46 

Indian Comm. Development Block 

481.5

5.3

 6.49 

Grant

NAHASDA Title VI (Federal 

182.7

2.0

 2.46 

Guarantee)

Section 184 Loan Guarantee

8.2

0.1

 0.11 

Drug Elimination

6.8

0.1

 0.09 

Prior year funds and other

22.6

0.3

 0.30 

NAHASDA Program Income

390.4

4.3

 5.26 

1937 Act & Other  Existing Prog. 

219.1

2.4

 2.95 

Resources

Other Federal or State Resources

128.3

1.4

 1.73 

Private Resources and Other

156.3

1.7

 2.11 

Tribe

25.3

0.3

 0.34 

Financial Institution

14.2

0.2

 0.19 

Other

116.8

1.3

 1.58

Source: ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD).

Note: Universe includes all grants whether they were open or closed based on their most recent APR.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

102

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

operation of 1937 Act and other existing 

sector investment, but also investment 

programs, adding another $2.95.

made by the tribes themselves from their 

own resources ($0.34).

The remaining sources account for 

comparatively small shares. The grantees 

Expenditures (Uses of Funds)

received only $1.73 (per $100 of IHBG 

Exhibit 3.23 shows all IHBG expenditures 

grants) from other federal and state 

reported by the grantees from FY 2003 

programs. Finally, they received $2.11 from 

through FY 2014, broken down by 

all other sources. This includes private-

NAHASDA program activity categories 

Exhibit 3.23 - IHBG Program Expenditures, 2003-2014

Expenditures, ($ mill.) 

Total

Ave/yr.

Percent

Total

 7,789 

 649.0 

 100 

Housing Assistance (FCAS)

 2,856 

 238.0 

 37 

Modernization 1937 Act Housing

 1,013 

 84.5 

 13 

Operation 1937 Act Housing

 1,842 

 153.5 

 24 

Housing Development (Rental)

 759 

 63.3 

 10 

Acquisiition

 82 

 6.8 

 1 

Construction

 547 

 45.6 

 7 

Rehabilitation

 117 

 9.7 

 1 

Other

 14 

 1.1 

 0 

Housing Development (Homeowner)

 1,898 

 158.2 

 24 

Acquisition of units and land

 264 

 22.0 

 3 

Construction

 1,081 

 90.1 

 14 

Rehabilitation

 514 

 42.8 

 7 

Other

 39 

 3.3 

 1 

Housing Services

 470 

 39.2 

 6 

Housing Management Services

 457 

 38.1 

 6 

Crime Prevention & Safety

 156 

 13.0 

 2 

Model Activities

 142 

 11.8 

 2 

Reserve Accounts

 10 

 0.8 

 0 

Planning & Administration

 1,040 

 86.6 

 13

Source: ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

103

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

defined earlier in this section.47 Total 

Have any important changes occurred in 

expenditures during this period amounted 

the composition of these expenditures over 

to $7.8 billion, or an average of $649 

time? The analysis in exhibit 3.24 responds 

million per year. 

to this question. Because of the way the 

data are reported by the tribes in their 

The largest individual category by far 

APRs, it is to be expected that substantial 

was FCAS Housing Assistance, covering 

variations will occur year to year. One 

the costs of the continued operation 

can make more meaningful comparisons 

and modernizing of the housing stock 

by averaging expenses during multiyear 

built under the pre-NAHASDA 1937 Act 

periods. The table shows expenditures for 

programs. The amount for this category 

one 5-year period (1998 to 2002) and three 

was $238 million annually, 37 percent of 

4-year periods (2003 to 2006, 2007 to 

the total; almost two-thirds of this went for 

2010, and 2011 to 2014).

operations, the rest for modernization.

The top panel on the table shows the 

Subtracting expenditures relating to 

percentage distribution of expenditures 

reserves and planning and administration 

by category in each period. APR data are 

(bottom of the table) means that $324 

not available for the 1998-to-2002 period, 

mil ion per year had been spent directly to 

but percentages for those years can be 

cover the newer activities originated under 

reported because ACKCO, Inc., and Abt 

NAHASDA itself. The largest component 

Associates Inc. made estimates for them 

of this was Housing Development, with an 

in an earlier assessment of the program 

annual total of $222 mil ion (34 percent of 

(Van Otten et al., 2009). First, the share 

the grand total), including $63 mil ion (10 

devoted to operating and modernizing the 

percent) for rental units and $158 mil ion (24 

1937 Act stock (Housing Assistance, FCAS) 

percent) for homeownership units. Within 

increased from 33 percent in the first period 

both of these categories, most of the outlays 

to 36 percent in the second, but it has since 

were for new construction (57 percent in the 

leveled off (36-to-38-percent range). The 

homeownership program), rather than the 

share spent on Planning and Administration 

acquisition or rehabilitation of existing units.

has increased regularly, from 10 percent in 

the first period to 15 percent in the last.

In the remaining accounts, 6 percent of the 

grand total was spent on Housing Services, 

The percentages spent on the remaining 

6 percent on Housing Management Services, 

smaller categories have also gone up 

2 percent on Crime Prevention and Safety, 

(Housing Services, Housing Management 

and 2 percent on Model Activities. The 

Services, Crime Prevention and Safety, and 

amounts set aside in reserve accounts 

Model Activities), together accounting for 

amounted to less than 1 percent of the 

13 percent in the first period, going up to 19 

grand total. Expenditures for Planning and 

percent in the last period. The implication 

Administration amounted to $87 mil ion per 

of the numbers noted previously is that the 

year, representing 13 percent of the grand 

share devoted to the remaining activity, 

total. It is noteworthy that this share is 

NAHASDA Housing Development, has had 

considerably less than the 20 percent that is 

to decrease, and by a sizeable amount. The 

allowable for these purposes.

share for both subcategories (rental plus 

homeowner development) dropped from 44 

47  These expenditures are of IHGB funds only (that is, they do not include expenditures from other NAHASDA-related resources reported in exhibit 3.22). Complete records on expenditures for the early years of the program (1998 to 2002) are not available (although rough estimates have been made and are discussed further in later sections).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

104

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

percent in the 1998-to-2002 period, to 30 

On the other hand, the per-unit cost of 

percent in the 2011-to-2014 period, a decline 

managing and modernizing this stock has 

of 14 percentage points.

gone up. The effect was that average annual 

expenditures for this function decreased 

The lower panel on the table explores these 

in nominal terms, from $268 mil ion in the 

changes in dollar terms. The situation in 

2003-to-2006 to $222 mil ion in the 2011-to-

the Housing Assistance (FCAS) category 

2014 period (not shown on the exhibit), but 

is complicated. On one hand, the number 

inflation has been important here. The real 

of units in this 1937 Act housing stock has 

expenditure on this function (in constant 

been declining (as would be expected with 

1998 dollars as shown on the bottom panel) 

the aging of the stock and the conveyance 

declined by much more proportional y, from 

of Mutual Help units to their occupants).48 

$227 mil ion per year in the 2003-to-2006 

48  Numbers on the decline of this stock will be presented in the first part of the next section.

Exhibit 3.24 - Analysis of IHBG Program Expenditures, 2003-2014

1998-02

2003-06

2007-10

2011-14

Percent of total expenditures

Total

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

Housing Assistance (FCAS)

 33 

 36 

 38 

 37 

Housing Development (Rental

 14 

 10 

 10 

 9 

Housing Development (Homeowner)

 30 

 28 

 23 

 21 

Housing Services

 5 

 5 

 7 

 7 

Housing Management Services

 6 

 6 

 5 

 7 

Crime Prevention & Safety

 1 

 2 

 2 

 3 

Model Activities

 2 

 2 

 2 

 2 

Reserve Accounts

 -   

 0 

 0 

 0 

Planning & Administration

 10 

 12 

 14 

 15 

Ave. Expenditures/Year ($ millions, constant 1998 $)

Total

NA

 636 

 447 

 429 

Housing Assistance (FCAS)

NA

 227 

 170 

 157 

Housing Development (Rental

NA

 65 

 44 

 38 

Housing Development (Homeowner)

NA

 179 

 104 

 90 

Housing Services

NA

 31 

 30 

 30 

Housing Management Services

NA

 39 

 21 

 29 

Crime Prevention & Safety

NA

 10 

 7 

 13 

Model Activities

NA

 11 

 8 

 8 

Reserve Accounts

NA

 1 

 1 

 0 

Planning & Administration

NA

 74 

 62 

 64

Source: ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

105

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

period to $157 mil ion annual y in the 2011-to-

3.3. The Assisted Housing Stock

2014 period, a drop of 31 percent. Thus, even 

This section examines the outputs of the 

though expenses for these activities have 

grants and other assistance provided under 

increased markedly as a share of all IHGB-

NAHASDA to improve housing conditions in 

related outlays, the real amounts being 

AIAN tribal areas, that is, the results yielded 

spent on them have decreased. 

by the flows of NAHASDA funding reviewed 

The absolute amounts spent for Planning 

in the last section. 

and Administration increased between the 

The analysis begins by looking at the 

2003-to-2006 and 2011-to-2014 periods 

housing stock that was produced under the 

nominally, from an average of $84 to $91 

1937 Act programs (FCAS units), and how it 

million per year. These costs, however, 

has changed during the 17 years since IHBG 

have also declined in real dollars between 

funds began to flow (from 1998 to 2014). It 

these periods, from $74 to $64 million per 

then looks at the new housing investments 

year in constant 1998 dollars. Many of the 

that have been made under NAHASDA 

costs in this category are relatively fixed, 

during this period, new construction and 

so it is not surprising their total did not 

the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing 

decline more in proportion to overall real 

housing. The next subsection puts these 

declines in program size. 

two strands together and quantifies the 

The other smaller categories have also 

total IHBG-assisted housing stock in Indian 

declined in constant 1998 dollars, from 91 

Country as it existed in 2014. Following 

mil ion per year in the 2003-to-2006 period 

that, this section reviews data provided 

down to 80 mil ion per year in the 2011-to-

by the tribes in their APRs on the physical 

2014 period (Housing Services, Housing 

condition of that stock. 

Management Services, Crime Prevention and 

In considering the implications of these 

Safety and Model Activities). 

numbers, it is important to remember that 

The declines noted so far, however, have 

these “products” can be quite different 

been comparatively modest. Again, the 

from each other. Under the 1937 Act, 

implication is most serious for Housing 

it was expected that the owners of the 

Development. Taking the two development 

assisted units (now the tribal governments 

categories together (rental plus 

or TDHEs or other institutions controlled 

homeownership), expenditures dropped in 

by them) would continue to operate and 

nominal dollars from $287 mil ion per year 

maintain them until the end of their useful 

in the 2003-to-2006 period to $182 mil ion 

lives (or until their titles were transferred 

annual y in the 2011-to-2014 period. The 

to new owners). New units produced 

decline between these periods, however, 

under NAHASDA do not necessarily offer 

was truly dramatic in constant 1998 

that expectation. Many of them do, but 

dollars—from $244 mil ion per year to $128 

the choice now depends on the tribe’s 

mil ion, a decline of 48 percent. Thus, in 

programmatic strategy. 

real terms, the average amount of funding 

The last part of this section reviews what the 

available to be spent on NAHASDA housing 

survey findings say about the HUD-assisted 

development each year in the 2011-to-2014 

housing stock in tribal areas. This covers 

period was only about one-half of what it 

the views and insights of tribal housing 

had been in the 2003-to-2006 period. 

officials (tribal/TDHE survey) and of tribal 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

106

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

area residents (household survey—both the 

of 42 percent of all eligible households 

families who live in HUD housing units and 

living in tribal areas at that time. During 

other residents of these areas). 

the subsequent 7 years, they continued to 

expand that stock until 1998, the year when 

Change in the FCAS (1937 Act) 

production under NAHASDA began. In that 

Housing Stock

year, total remaining 1937 Act (Formula 

Current Assisted Stock—FCAS) units stood 

As noted in section 3.2, HUD and the IHAs 

at 71,144, which was 7 percent more than the 

built a substantial housing stock in tribal areas 

1990 total. In the next few years, a few more 

under the first three decades of the 1937 Act 

units in the pipeline were completed, raising 

programs. By 1990, 67,400 units were under 

the total slightly to 71,980 in 2003.

management in Indian Country, the equivalent 

Homes being built by the Choctaw Nation in Durant, Oklahoma using green building standards and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Image courtesy Southern Plains Office of Native American Programs staff.

Homes built by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe in Washington state using funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

107

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

After that, however, because funding for 

been substantial, from 71,980 units in 2003, 

new units was not provided under these 

to 48,756 in 2014—a decline of 2,111 units per 

programs after 1998, this total could only 

year, on average, 32 percent overal . 

decline, and that is indeed what has occurred. 

Exhibit 3.32 shows the composition of 

As housing stock ages, it is inevitable that 

these declines by program component and 

some units will deteriorate and ultimately 

by region. Almost all the FCAS units are 

be demolished. ONAP staff thinks, however, 

the products of the two main assistance 

that very few assisted units in tribal areas 

programs in Indian Country: (1) the low-rent 

have been removed from the stock in this 

and (2) Mutual Help programs. The table 

way. If units are well maintained, and in some 

shows a small “other” category involving 

cases rehabilitated along the way, they can 

other forms of assistance that are included 

be kept alive for a very long period of time. 

in the formula calculations.49 All these other 

Units can also be lost from the assisted 

forms of assistance are being phased out 

stock because of a change in ownership, 

and, together, they are too small to influence 

and this factor is highly relevant here. For 

the findings and conclusions reported in 

Mutual Help units, transferring ownership to 

later sections of this report.

the residents (conveyances) after they have 

built up sufficient equity during the years, is 

The most striking finding to be drawn from 

central to the program’s design. As shown 

exhibit 3.32 is that almost all the losses 

in exhibit 3.31, the declines in FCAS have 

occurred in the Mutual Help stock, a drop 

49  These other forms of assistance include Turnkey III (a lease-purchase type of program authorized by administrative action in the 1970s; see Kingsley et al., 1996), Section 8 assistance (provided to households living in private rentals—like the housing voucher program), and units 

“in development” (in projects supported under the main programs that have never been formally completed so remain on the books). 

Exhibit 3.31 - Change in the F

Exhibit 3.31 - Change in the F CAS (19

CAS (193 37 Ac

7 Ac t) Housing St

t) Housing Stock ock

80

70 72.0

)

69.3

67.3

60

65.2

63.6

61.1

58.3

56.2

55.7

50

52.5

50.6

48.8

40

30

20

Housing Units (in thousands

10

0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Years

Source: FCAS Formula data files

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

108

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

of 60 percent from 2003 to 2014 (from 

commitment of ongoing federal operating 

31,469 units to only 13,803 units). Although 

support, this may be the least expensive 

the reasons for these losses are mixed, 

way to provide continued affordable 

ONAP staff indicate that the bulk of the 

housing in Indian Country. 

decline is explained by conveyances to 

Among regions in 2014, the Plains had the 

residents consistent with rules built into the 

largest share of the FCAS stock (12,308 

program’s structure. 

units or 25 percent), followed by Arizona/

The complementary result is also striking. 

New Mexico (21 percent) and Oklahoma 

The stock in the low-rent program hardly 

(18 percent). At the other extreme, South 

declined at all during this 11-year period, by 

Central region had only 299 units (less than 1 

only 1 percent, from 31,469 units in 2003 

percent) followed by the Eastern (5 percent) 

to 31,000 in 2014. Through maintenance 

and California/Nevada (6 percent) regions.

and modernization, the tribes/TDHEs 

Declines in the FCAS stock from 2003 to 

have been able to keep almost all these 

2014 ranged from 42 percent in the Eastern 

rental units in operation. They have strong 

region to 21 percent in the North Central. 

incentives to keep these units adequately 

The North Central was the only region with 

maintained and occupied since, given the 

Exhibit 3.32 - FCAS Housing Units 2014 and 2003-2014 Change, by Region

North 

South 

Arizona 

Calif.-

Pacific 

US Total

Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

Central

Plains

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

Total units, 2014

Total

 48,756 

 4,573 

 2,476 

 8,846 

 299 

 12,308 

 10,448 

 3,096 

 3,507 

 3,203 

Low Rent

 31,000 

 3,970 

 1,482 

 2,982 

 172 

 9,907 

 7,305 

 1,946 

 2,069 

 1,167 

Mutual Help

 13,803 

 518 

 757 

 3,139 

 127 

 2,075 

 3,053 

 1,078 

 1,116 

 1,940 

Other

 3,953 

 85 

 237 

 2,725 

 -   

 326 

 90 

 72 

 322 

 96 

Percent of total 

units, 2014

Total

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

Low Rent

 64 

 87 

 60 

 34 

 58 

 80 

 70 

 63 

 59 

 36 

Mutual Help

 28 

 11 

 31 

 35 

 42 

 17 

 29 

 35 

 32 

 61 

Other

 8 

 2 

 10 

 31 

 -   

 3 

 1 

 2 

 9 

 3 

2003-2014 

Pct Change.

Total

 (32)

 (21)

 (42)

 (39)

 (38)

 (22)

 (35)

 (38)

 (29)

 (39)

Low Rent

 (1)

 (1)

 (17)

 (3)

 (8)

 (1)

 0 

 4 

 (0)

 (0)

Mutual Help

 (60)

 (67)

 (62)

 (61)

 (50)

 (60)

 (63)

 (62)

 (55)

 (50)

Other

 (31)

 (61)

 (53)

 (14)

 (100)

 (43)

 (76)

 (77)

 (20)

 (36)

Source: FCAS Formula data files.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

109

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

a sizeable decline in the rental stock (17 

were homeownership units. Based on more 

percent)—none of the others saw declines 

complete information available from their 

in low-rent units of more than 8 percent. 

survey, Van Otten et al. (2009) characterizes 

Across the regions, declines in Mutual Help 

production during that period as follows: 

housing all fell in the 50-to-67-percent 

…it appears that the peak rental 

range, mostly due to conveyances as 

construction and acquisition occurred 

explained previously. By 2014, the share of 

in the first 3 years of NAHASDA, and 

total FCAS housing accounted for by Mutual 

then tribes placed more emphasis 

Help ranged from 11 percent (North Central 

on homeownership. Homeownership 

region) to 61 percent (Alaska). 

production appears to have peaked 

Housing Production Under NAHASDA

with the 2002 and 2003 grants, 

although it remains a sizeable activity 

When the tribes took over full responsibility 

after this period. Some tribal housing 

for their housing strategies under NAHASDA 

administrators reported that production 

in 1998, new systems, procedures, and 

was lower in the earlier years because 

habits had to be developed to enable them 

it was a new program and it took time 

to account for their own performance. Basic 

to develop plans and implement new 

reporting requirements were established via 

programs. Production has gone down 

the APR, but it took time before this system 

in more recent years because tribes are 

was working reliably across all grantees. An 

spending an increasing share of IHBG 

interim assessment of the IHBG program by 

funding on FCAS and NAHASDA rental 

ACKCO, Inc., and Abt Associates Inc. in the 

units. (Van Otten et al., 2009: 24–25)

late 2000s examined the program records 

of a sample of 28 IHBG grantees and was 

Exhibit 3.33 shows that output increased 

able to use that sample as a basis for 

again after 2006. Regular new construction 

estimating total national IHBG production 

and acquisition added another 17,563 units 

for the early years (Van Otten et al., 2009).50 

during the next 8 years (2007 to 2014), an 

average of 2,195 units per year. Again, the 

ONAP considers that the APR system is 

majority of these were homeownership 

now reporting production numbers reliably 

units, 11,269 or 64 percent. It was during 

but, even though partial APR data were 

this period that ARRA provided its one-

available for the early years, it thinks that 

time increment of additional funding for 

the estimates in Van Otten et al. (2009) 

NAHASDA housing, and that led to the 

still represent the most reliable numbers 

addition of another 1,954 units.51 Total 2007-

for the 1998-to-2006 period. The summary 

to-2014 production then stood at 19,517 

in exhibit 3.33 accordingly reports those 

units (an average addition of 2,440 units 

estimates for the 1998-to-2006 period and 

per year). All told, the program had added 

APR data for the 2007-to-2014 period. 

36,953 housing units in Indian Country via 

new construction and acquisition during the 

New Construction/Acquisition.  The exhibit 

first 17 years under NAHASDA.

shows that 17,436 units were added to the 

stock (new construction plus acquisition of 

A shift in trends since 2007, however, has 

existing units) from 1998 through 2006; an 

been important for policy. As noted, the 

average of 1,937 units per year. The majority 

number of IHBG-funded units added during 

of this stock (12,147 units or 70 percent) 

50  The sample and the estimating procedures are described in Van Otten et al. (2009: 21–25). 

51  Year-by-year breakdowns of ARRA production are not available.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

110

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

the 2007-to-2014 period averaged 2,195 

Rehabilitation.  The type of rehabilitation 

per year. As shown in exhibit 3.34, however, 

accounted for in exhibit 3.34 is “substantial 

the rate declined sharply during this period. 

rehabilitation”—in HUD parlance, a 

New construction and acquisition added 

substantial transformation in the quality 

2,414 units annual y during the 2007-to-

of a badly deteriorated unit, not just minor 

2010 period, but that rate dropped by 18 

refurbishment. How should this type of 

percent to 1,977 units per year during the 

production be valued? Press accounts 

next 4 years. A decline was to be expected 

normally treat the rehabilitation of a housing 

given shifts in funding. As pointed out in 

unit as less of a contribution than the 

section 3.2, IHGB funds available for housing 

construction of a new unit, and rehabilitation 

production also declined markedly in real 

is indeed generally less costly per unit than 

dollars between these two periods. 

new construction. The difference in either 

quality or cost, however, is not always large.

Tenure proportions also changed between 

these periods. Homeownership units 

The right measure is not the number of units in 

declined as a share of total production as 

standard condition that have been produced 

the rental share increased (from 33 percent 

but, rather, how much the program has added 

in the 2007-to-2010 period to 39 percent in 

in terms of the number of years of useful life 

the 2011-to-2014 period). 

of units in standard condition. Substantial 

rehabilitation can, and often does, yield as 

Exhibit 3.33 - Housing Production Under NAHASDA, 1998-2014

2007-2014

Total

1998-06

Total

2007-10

2011-14

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION

Regular IHBG

Rental

 11,583 

 5,289 

 6,294 

 3,176 

 3,118 

Homeownership

 23,416 

 12,147 

 11,269 

 6,481 

 4,788 

Subtotal

 34,999 

 17,436 

 17,563 

 9,657 

 7,906 

ARRA

 1,954 

 -   

 1,954 

 n.a. 

 n.a. 

Total

 36,953 

 17,436 

 19,517 

 n.a. 

 n.a. 

REHABILITATION

Regular IHBG

Rental

 n.a. 

 n.a. 

 9,267 

 2,888 

 6,379 

Homeownership

 n.a. 

 n.a. 

 26,035 

 13,372 

 12,663 

Subtotal

 59,410 

 24,108 

 35,302 

 16,260 

 19,042 

ARRA

 13,338 

 -   

 13,338 

 n.a. 

 n.a. 

Total

 72,748 

 24,108 

 48,640 

 n.a. 

 n.a.

Sources:  1998-06 from ACKCO and Abt Associates, 2009, p. 24, and ONAP Performance Tracking Database HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

111

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

many added unit-years of useful life as new 

period to 4,761 per year in the 2011-to-2014 

construction. The estimates presented here 

period, an increase of 17 percent. It appears 

assume that the value added by rehabilitation 

that tribes cut back the more expensive 

per unit is only slightly less, on average, than 

construction/acquisition component of their 

that yielded by construction and acquisition.52 

programs and devoted more resources to 

the rehabilitation component. 

Exhibit 3.33 shows the number of units 

substantial y rehabilitated under NAHASDA 

Another interesting shift in this period is a 

since the start of the program. This includes 

marked increase in the rehabilitation of rental 

24,108 units during the 1998-to-2006 

(as opposed to homeownership) units (exhibit 

period (Van Otten et al., 2009) and 48,568 

3.34). Rental rehabilitation production 

during the 2007-to-2014 period (including 

more than doubled from 722 units annually 

13,338 that were ARRA funded). The total 

during the 2007-to-2010 period to 1,595 

is 72,676 units, almost exactly twice the 

units per year during the 2011-to-2014 

number of units added under construction/

period. The rental share of the rehabilitation 

acquisition. Of the 35,302 units rehabilitated 

pipeline went up from 18 percent in the 

in the 2007-to-2014 period, 74 percent were 

first of these periods to 34 percent in the 

homeownership units.53

second, and the homeownership share 

declined proportionately. 

Important shifts occurred in the rehabilitation 

program after 2006 (exhibit 3.34). Production 

Cumulative Assistance as of 2010 

volumes under the construction/acquisition 

and 2014

component declined in the face of shrinking 

program resources, but rehabilitation 

Exhibit 3.35 presents data on the 

volumes increased. Units rehabilitated went 

cumulative number of assisted units in 

up from 4,065 per year in the 2007-to-2010 

tribal areas in 2010 and in 2014. Some of 

52  The data needed to support reliable estimates of unit-years of useful life added by each of these two types of production streams are not available. 

53  These are units occupied by households transitioning to homeownership, such as mutual help homes.

Exhibit 3.34 - IHBG Funded Housing Production, 2007-2014

Units per Year

Percent of Total

2007-14

2007-10

2011-14

2007-14

2007-10

2011-14

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION

Rental

 787 

 794 

 780 

 36 

 33 

 39 

Homeownership

 1,409 

 1,620 

 1,197 

 64 

 67 

 61 

Total

 2,195 

 2,414 

 1,977 

 100 

 100 

 100 

REHABILITATION

Rental

 1,158 

 722 

 1,595 

 26 

 18 

 33 

Homeownership

 3,254 

 3,343 

 3,166 

 74 

 82 

 66 

Total

 4,413 

 4,065 

 4,761 

 100 

 100 

 100

Source:  ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD)

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

112

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

these units are more deeply subsidized 

Accurate totals are available for FCAS units 

than others because of the variety 

that existed in each of these years because 

of forms of housing assistance used, 

HUD requires the tribes to keep track of 

particularly under NAHASDA. Nonetheless, 

units that are demolished or otherwise 

it is useful to estimate the quantity of 

removed from that stock. The analysis 

housing that has been produced, and for 

suggests, however, that removals from 

this purpose, counting the number of units 

NAHASDA-produced stock are likely to be 

added to the assisted housing inventory is 

negligible to this point (see the text box, 

a reasonable approach. 

Why Removals From the NAHASDA Housing 

Stock Are Likely To Be Negligible).

Why Removals From the NAHASDA Housing Stock Are Likely To Be Negligible

In efforts to account for change in a housing inventory, it is almost always prohibitively 

expensive to record removals (demolitions, changes in use, and so on) as they occur. Removals accordingly usual y have to be estimated. The method the U.S. Census Bureau uses to estimate removals for its annual estimates of the U.S. housing stock is ful y documented by the Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014b). The most critical element relies on nationwide measures of actual losses during 2-year intervals by age cohort obtained via analysis of American 

Housing Survey (AHS) data (the most recent analysis for the 2009-to-2011 period is presented and explained in Eggers and Moumen [2015]). 

As would be expected, annual loss rates are very small for housing built recently and get larger for older age cohorts. The annual loss rates derived from the AHS analysis that the Census Bureau applied in its 2014 estimates were 0.03 percent for units in structures built from 1990 to 1999, 0.06 percent for those built from 1980 to 1989, and 0.17 percent for those built between 1970 and 1979, and a much larger 0.38 percent for those built between 1940 and 1949. For example, to estimate the number of units remaining in the 1990-to-1999 cohort as of 2014, the Census Bureau started with the number of units in that cohort as of the 2010 census and then applied the 0.03 

percent annual loss rate during 4 years. The losses of units built after 1999 in the AHS analysis were so small that the Census Bureau assumes a removal rate of zero for that cohort.

Applying the Census Bureau method to Native American Housing Assistance and Self-

Determination Act (NAHASDA) production, removals would be very close to zero, because the 

vast majority of NAHASDA production has occurred since 1999. As an alternative, the Census 

Bureau approach can be applied, but in a more conservative manner that does not apply only 

one rate of removal but assumes that the rate of removal for housing units built in a given period will increase over time. In particular, (1) for NAHASDA units produced from 1998 to 2006, assume annual removal rates of zero during the 1998-to-2006 period, 0.03 percent during the 2007-to-2010 period, and 0.06 percent during the 2011-to-2014 period; (2) for units produced from 2007 

to 2010, assume annual rates of zero during the 2007-to-2010 period and 0.03 percent during the 2010-to-2014 period; (3) for units produced after 2010, assume zero losses by 2014. Even this approach yields total removals of only 181 NAHASDA-produced units by 2014, or 0.17 percent of the total produced by then. This analysis suggests that removals from NAHASDA-produced units to this point are likely to be so small that a formal estimate is not warranted. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

113

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

As shown in exhibit 3.35, cumulative 

peaked at around 82,500 units in 1998, 

assistance through 2010 amounted to 

after 30 years of activity. Under NAHASDA, 

124,300 units. The majority of these 

the estimates presented indicate that the 

(68,100 or 55 percent) had been produced 

cumulative number of assisted units grew to 

under NAHASDA, with the rest made up of 

1.5 times that number by 2010, and to 1.9 times 

units in the FCAS inventory. Of the total, 

that number in 2014, 17 years after NAHASDA 

83,900 (66 percent) were construction 

production began. In terms of units added per 

or acquisition units and the rest (40,300) 

year, in the period just before NAHASDA (from 

were rehabilitation units. 

1990 to 1998), around 1,800 units per year 

were added to the 1937 Act inventory. The 

By 2014, 4 years later, these estimates indicate 

first 17 years under NAHASDA yielded annual 

that the total had grown to 158,100 units—an 

averages of 2,200 construction or acquisition 

increase of 27 percent. The NAHASDA share 

units and 4,300 rehabilitation units. As noted, 

had increased to 69 percent (109,300 units) 

these numbers are not strictly comparable, but 

as the FCAS inventory continued to decline. 

they leave no doubt that the rate of assisted 

The construction/acquisition share had 

housing production under NAHASDA so far 

dropped to 54 percent because rehabilitation 

has matched or exceeded that of the decade 

units accounted for a larger percentage of 

that preceded it. This is an important finding, 

output during those years. 

because a major concern about the feasibility 

of NAHASDA before its enactment, was 

This record marks a substantial increase in 

whether the tribes would be able to produce 

assisted housing in Indian Country since 

as much as the more professionalized IHA/

NAHASDA started production in 1998. The 

HUD system had done earlier. 

total number of 1937 Act units in tribal areas 

Exhibit 3.35 - Cumulative Assisted Units, 2010 and 2014

2010

2014

Housing Units

Pct. Of Grand Total

Housing Units

Pct. Of Grand Total

GRAND TOTAL

Construction/Acquisition

 83,278 

 67 

 85,709 

 54 

Rehabilitation

 40,368 

 33 

 72,748 

 46 

Total

 123,646 

 100 

 158,457 

 100 

FCAS INVENTORY

Low Rent

 31,200 

 25 

 31,000 

 20 

Mutual Help & Other

 24,985 

 20 

 17,756 

 11 

Total

 56,185 

 45 

 48,756 

 31 

NAHASDA INVENTORY

Construction/Acquisition

 27,093 

 22 

 36,953 

 23 

Rehabilitation

 40,368 

 33 

 72,748 

 46 

Total

 67,461 

 55 

 109,701 

 69

Sources:  Exhibits 3.32 and 3.33

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

114

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Grantee Reports on Housing Stock 

over time or location. Third, for the previously 

discussed reasons, ONAP does not use this 

Quality

table 3 data actively in program management.

In table 3 of the APR, HUD asks that IHBG 

Nonetheless, it should be useful to look 

grantees submit data on the number of units 

at these data to get a rough sense of how 

in their inventories (by program type), the 

tribal housing staffs view the quality of 

number of those that have been inspected 

their assisted housing stocks. Data come 

and, among those, the numbers that are in 

from a special run of APR table 3 data 

standard condition, or alternatively, need to 

in ONAP’s PTD as of the end of FY 2012 

be replaced or rehabilitated. 

(exhibits 3.36 and 3.37). Exhibit 3.36 

These reports face three types of problems. 

presents the information by program 

First, as noted, tribal housing staffs do 

types. Data in this file cover 59,300 FCAS 

not maintain ongoing control over al  

units,54 of which all but 2 percent were 

their NAHASDA units after they are built 

in the low-rent program (59 percent) or 

as they did for FCAS units. Therefore, 

Mutual Help (39 percent). The share of 

many NAHASDA-produced units are not 

all units reported as being inspected was 

subsequently subject to inspection by those 

fairly high, 81 percent overall, with a higher 

grantees. Second, the method used to rate the 

inspection rate for the low-rent program 

quality of units does not follow an “objective 

than for the Mutual Help program.

observation” approach like that used in the 

The tribes had rated 73 percent of the 

AHS (explained in part 2), so the ratings 

FCAS units overall as being in standard 

cannot be expected to be reliably comparable 

54  Only 52,000 units actually were still in the official FCAS inventory at that point, so this file must include table 3 records for some units that had been phased out at that point. 

Exhibit 3.36 - Grantee Reported Condition of HUD Assisted Housing, 2012

Percent of inspected units by condition

Need rehabilitation

Percent of Units

Percent Inspected

Total 

Standard condition

<$20K

>$20K

Need replace.

FCAS (1937 Act) units

 100 

 81 

 100 

 70 

 19 

 10 

 2 

Mutualhelp

 39 

 73 

 100 

 75 

 17 

 8 

 1 

Low rent

 59 

 89 

 100 

 66 

 21 

 11 

 2 

Turnkey & other

 2 

 26 

 100 

 87 

 6 

 6 

 1 

NAHASDA funded units

 100 

 85 

 100 

 90 

 7 

 2 

 1 

Recipient owned/manag.

 13 

 62 

 100 

 80 

 18 

 2 

 0 

Homeownership

 44 

 85 

 100 

 91 

 5 

 3 

 1 

Rental

 32 

 90 

 100 

 91 

 7 

 2 

 0 

Temporary housing

 1 

 71 

 100 

 76 

 22 

 2 

 -   

Other 

 11 

 98 

 100 

 91 

 6 

 3 

 0

Source: ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

115

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Exhibit 3.37 - Condition of FCAS (1937 Act) Housing by Region, 2012

United 

North  

Okla-

South 

Arizona 

Calif.-

Pacific 

States

Central

Eastern

homa

Central

Plains

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

Percent of total units

 100.0 

 8.1 

 5.2 

 14.8 

 1.0 

 16.1 

 32.9 

 7.0 

 7.8 

 7.0 

Percent of units inspected

 81 

 85 

 87 

 79 

 95 

 69 

 84 

 95 

 89 

 87 

Percent of units by condition

Total

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

In standard condition

 70 

 73 

 82 

 68 

 86 

 64 

 77 

 74 

 82 

 78 

Less than standard condition

 29 

 32 

 22 

 31 

 14 

 36 

 24 

 26 

 18 

 23 

Needing rehab. (<$20K)

 19 

 23 

 15 

 27 

 11 

 21 

 10 

 19 

 14 

 14 

Needing rehab. (>$20K)

 10 

 9 

 6 

 3 

 3 

 14 

 11 

 6 

 4 

 9 

Needing replacement

 2 

 0 

 0 

 1 

 -   

 1 

 3 

 1 

 0 

 0

Source: ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD).

condition. A larger share of the Mutual 

share of units rated as being in standard 

Help units was in standard condition (75 

condition is higher, 90 percent overall. Only 

percent) than were the rental units (66 

the “temporary housing” component of 

percent). It is somewhat surprising that 

this stock has a much lower share rated as 

the tribes stated that only 2 percent of 

standard (71 percent). The tribes indicate 

these units needed to be replaced (the 

that only 1 percent of these units need to 

rest could be brought up to standard 

be replaced, and 2 percent more need 

through rehabilitation).

rehabilitation costing more than $20,000.

Data in this file cover only 15,500 

Exhibit 3.37 shows APR data on the 

NAHASDA units as of the end of FY 

condition of the FCAS portion of the 

2012, which is only about one-half of 

inventory by region. The patterns are 

all NAHASDA construction/acquisition 

similar, but the extent of variation is not 

units that existed at that point. It is likely 

trivial. The share of units that had been 

that these are the units under programs 

inspected ranges from a low of 69 percent 

structured such that the tribes retain some 

(Plains) to a high of 95 percent (South-

ongoing management and/or assistance 

Central and California/Nevada). The region 

responsibilities. The APRs indicate that 

with the lowest share of units in standard 

85 percent of these units had been 

condition was the Plains (64 percent), 

inspected. Inspection rates were highest 

followed by Oklahoma (68 percent) 

for units produced under tribal rental and 

and North Central (73 percent). The 

homeownership programs (85-90 percent) 

region with the highest share in standard 

and lowest for units that were owned and 

condition was South Central (86 percent), 

managed by recipients (62 percent). 

followed by Eastern and Pacific Northwest 

(both at 82 percent). 

As would be expected, because all of this 

housing is newer than the FCAS stock, the 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

116

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

3.4. Administration of the IHBG Grant

2014, 585 tribes or tribal organizations were 

eligible to receive IHBG funds; 32 of these 

This section of the report reviews the 

tribes chose not to participate (HUD/ONAP, 

types of organizations that have evolved 

2015). ONAP received 363 compliant Indian 

in tribal areas to administer the IHBG. It 

Housing Plans (IHP) representing 553 

examines their size and stability, contractual 

tribes (exhibit 3.41).

relationships and partnerships with other 

organizations, and staff priorities for 

After NAHASDA was enacted, tribes 

organizational improvements. Findings draw 

had to choose who would apply for and 

predominantly from the tribal/TDHE survey 

administer IHBG funds for them (Section 

data and data from site visit respondents.

IV of the statute). They could decide to 

administer the program themselves through 

Grantee Types and Evolution in the 

a unit of tribal government, or they could 

Administration of the IHBG Program 

choose to have some other organization 

administer the program on their behalf. 

Before passage of NAHASDA, IHAs 

All such organizations in the latter case 

developed and managed assisted 

are termed TDHEs. In many instances the 

housing units according to ordinances 

old IHAs were designated to serve as the 

that had to be federal y approved. After 

TDHE under NAHASDA, but other outside 

passage of NAHASDA, which provided 

organizations (for example, other nonprofit 

local decisionmaking and priority-setting 

organizations) could be designated to take 

authority to tribes, the organizational 

on this work. In all cases, the designation 

landscape began to change significantly. 

of administrative responsibility had to be 

certified in the IHP submission. 

In the mid-1990s, before NAHASDA was 

enacted, 187 IHAs represented 267 American 

A majority of the 110 respondents (58 

Indian tribes and 200 Alaska Native 

percent) from the national y representative 

vil ages—a total of 467 tribal areas (Kingsley 

tribal/TDHE survey said their organization 

et al., 1996). The number of tribes receiving 

was a TDHE separate from the tribal 

housing assistance grants has grown 

government and 41 percent identified as an 

substantial y since then, as has the number 

office of the tribal government. 

of entities administering the program. In FY 

Exhibit 3.41 - IHBG Grantees and Tribal Beneficiaries, FY 2014 

ONAP Regions

Eligible Participants

Actual Recipients

Fund Assignments ($ mil.)

Alaska (Anchorage)

237

55

99.24

Eastern/Woodlands (Chicago)

62

56

90.95

Northern Plains (Denver)

32

34

177.69

Northwest (Seattle)

42

42

54.48

Southern Plains (Oklahoma City)

47

47

96.37

Southwest (Phoenix)

165

129

123.77

All Areas

585

363

646.52

Source: ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD)

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

117

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Data from the tribal/TDHE survey and 

TDHE. Interview respondents at the Lummi 

the site visit interviews shed light on 

Nation said they think this change led to 

changes in the organizational structure 

improved administration because funds are 

of program administration. Three-

guided by one consolidated plan, which was 

fourths of survey respondents said their 

not the case under tribal administration.

organization had always administered IHBG 

At the Lumbee Tribe, the tribal council 

for their respective reservation.55 Among 

administers the NAHASDA budget and 

respondents whose organization was 

directs the use of funds run through the 

distinct from the tribal government, the vast 

housing department. Based on comments 

majority (95.5 percent) said that they were 

from site visit respondents, it appears that 

or previously had been an IHA.56 

this structure has led to decisions that 

Site visit respondents talking about the 

differed from those the housing department 

evolution of IHBG program administration 

would have made were they to set priorities 

provided examples of the diversity in 

on the use of grant funds. According to 

organizational structure and changes over 

respondents, the council prefers to direct 

time. For example, in the Zuni Tribe, housing 

funds to housing rehabilitation because such 

administration was based in a TDHE until 

work benefits more people, whereas the 

2004, when administrative responsibility was 

housing department would prefer to direct 

assumed by the tribe. Three years later, the 

funds to homeownership efforts. 

tribe designated the Zuni Housing Authority 

By and large, IHBG administrative entities 

as the TDHE, which has administered 

manage the program solely for their own 

the IHBG program since 2007. A site visit 

tribal area. ONAP Performance Tracking 

respondent said that because administration 

data for 2003–2014 show only 8 regional 

was shifted back to a TDHE from a tribal 

corporations, though it is possible that 

department, activities were better coordinated 

at least some of the other grantee types 

across housing programs and there was 

administered the IHBG program for more 

more funding. Seven housing departments 

than one tribal area. The tribal/TDHE survey 

administered the IHBG grant program in 

found that only 3 percent of respondents, a 

Cherokee Nation before those departments 

total of 9, said their organization administers 

were consolidated into one department. A 

IHBG for tribal areas in addition to their own. 

site visit respondent said the consolidation 

These respondents’ organizations administer 

improved administrative performance by 

the program for a total of 166 other tribal 

reducing redundancy and clearly identifying 

areas. Two respondents said they administer 

responsibility for particular tasks. The housing 

IHBG grants for 49 other tribal areas; others 

department did not administer all NAHASDA 

said they administer the grants for from 1 to 

funds, however; administration was split 

29 areas. Together these data suggest that 

between the housing department, which 

more tribes are administering the program 

reports to its board of commissioners, and 

themselves or designating it to a local entity 

the community services department, which 

than what appears to have been the case in 

reports to the tribal chief of staff. The Lummi 

the mid-1990s.57 

Nation transferred IHBG administration to a 

55  An organization could have administered the grant as one grantee type, such as an IHA, and then been designated as the TDHE after NAHASDA was passed. 

56  Respondents were asked whether their organization currently was or ever had been considered an IHA; data do not specify the percent of respondents who had been but no longer were an IHA.

57  Kingsley et al. (1996) reported that 187 IHAs represented approximately 467 American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages, as noted, but, because the report does not specify the percent of the IHAs that administered housing programs for other tribes or villages, it is not possible to compare data directly.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

118

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

NAHASDA increased opportunities for 

in the previous 3 years (63 percent) 

self-determination and the work that 

but 28 percent said they have had two 

comes with such opportunities. Tribal/

directors in that time. Fewer turnovers have 

TDHE survey respondents familiar with how 

occurred in directors among TDHEs. A 

HUD housing assistance was administered 

higher percentage of respondents from 

before the start of block grants in 1998 

TDHEs said they’ve had only one director 

said that the block grants require more 

in 3 years (77 percent) compared with 

work. Of those respondents able to draw 

respondents from tribal housing authorities 

a comparison, 57 percent said current 

(44 percent). Overall, 10 percent of 

administrative procedures under the IHBG 

respondents said their organization has had 

program required more work than was 

three or more executive directors in the 

necessary before NAHASDA and the block 

past 3 years.

grant program began. About one-fourth of 

Of the tribal/TDHE respondents whose 

respondents (24 percent) thought the block 

organizations had full-time staff, 35 percent 

grants required less administrative work.

had 4 to 6 staff, 27 percent had 7 to 10, 

Characteristics of the Organizations 

and 29 percent had 11 or more. The number 

of staff does not track tightly to the size 

That Administer the IHBG Program 

of an organization’s budget, as one might 

A majority of survey respondents (66 

expect. One-half of the organizations with 

percent) said their organization had its 

grants of less than $1 million (51 percent) 

own board of directors or commissioners. 

had 11 or more staff and only 4 percent of 

One-half of respondents (50 percent) 

these organizations had 1 to 3 staff. Among 

said their organization’s board selected 

organizations with grants of $3 million or 

the executive director, 33 percent said the 

more, 11 percent had 3 or fewer staff and 

executive director was selected by the 

only 21 percent had 11 or more.

tribal government, and 11 percent said their 

Most respondents said that the number of 

organization used a formal hiring process, 

staff members had stayed the same during 

but did not specify what that meant beyond 

the past 3 years (60 percent). About the 

soliciting applications. 

same percent indicated the number of staff 

As might be expected, a higher percent of 

had increased (21 percent) as said it had 

respondents from tribal housing authorities 

decreased (19 percent). In addition to the 

indicated their director was selected by 

retention of staff positions, staff members 

the tribal government compared with 

have remained on the job. About 68 percent 

respondents from TDHEs (39 and 8 percent, 

of respondents said that between 75 percent 

respectively), whereas considerably more 

and 100 percent of ful -time staff had been 

TDHE respondents said their director 

on staff for 3 or more years. Another 21 

was named by the organization’s board 

percent of respondents said that 51 to 75 

of directors (52 percent compared with 4 

percent of their organization’s full-time staff 

percent, respectively).

had been on the job for 3 or more years.

Leadership, the number of staff positions, 

Slightly less than one-half of the 

and staff members have exhibited a 

respondents (44 percent) said their 

degree of stability for at least 3 years. A 

organization did not have part-time staff. 

majority of survey respondents said that 

Respondents from organizations that 

their organization has had one director 

did have part-time staff were evenly split 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

119

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

between those who said they had 1 to 10 

and 92 percent said they had staff who 

part-time staff members (27 percent) and 11 

specialized in building maintenance. On 

to 100 part-time staff members (28 percent).

the lowest end, 59 percent of respondents 

said their organization had information 

Site visit respondents from 11 organizations 

management and computer systems 

did discuss problems with understaffing. 

specialists and 63 percent said they 

Among these respondents, four said their 

had specialists in public relations and 

organization has had to reduce the number 

communication with the public.

of staff in response to budget cutbacks. Staff 

from other organizations discussed staffing 

Nearly three-fourths of respondents (73 

and funding needs in response to questions 

percent) said their organization partners 

about organizational improvements.

or collaborates with other agencies or 

organizations to provide housing services 

Most of the organizations with at least 

in conjunction with the use of IHBG 

three full-time staff have specialized staff. 

funds. Among these organizations that 

For example, 93 percent of respondents 

partner with other entities, 58 percent 

indicated that their organization had staff 

partnered with local nonprofit and service-

who specialized in case management with 

provider organizations. About one-half 

residents, 92 percent said they had staff 

of respondents (52 percent) partnered 

who specialized in finances and budgets, 

Partnering

Partnering to maximize resources. Blackfeet Housing has created relationships with other 

programs and funders to work in partnership on some programs. For example, Blackfeet 

Housing offers an emergency repair program for elders, veterans, and people who have a 

disability. Funds are capped at $500 for each participating household, but respondents say this amount is insufficient to make any substantial repairs. Blackfeet Housing is working with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Home Improvement Program to 

pool resources. This partnership would allow for up to $20,000 to be spent on needed repairs. 

Partnering to reduce service gaps. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma developed a client-

centered, interagency approach to service delivery that seeks to meet clients’ needs 

and reduce any service gaps. The collaboration includes several tribal departments and 

programs—housing, community health representatives, community-based home visitors, 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, transportation services, domestic violence, Food 

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, adult protective services, and emergency 

services. This interagency cooperation includes the State of Oklahoma and municipalities 

located within the Choctaw Nation service area. This collaborative approach to service 

delivery helps to identify clients’ needs and reduce gaps in services.

Partnering to access staff training and funding for energy services. The Tribal Energy 

Group of the Bonneville Power Administration partners with a number of local power 

companies serving a number of tribes, including Blackfeet, Lummi, Makah, and Yakama. The 

Tribal Energy Group supports training and funding for energy audits and weatherization 

projects for low-income households.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

120

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

with other tribal programs. Another 25 

Contracting can be a sound business 

percent partnered with a nontribal local 

practice that frees staff to focus on areas 

jurisdiction and 20 percent partnered with 

of in-house expertise while ensuring all 

a local nontribal public housing authority. 

work functions are accomplished. Given the 

More than two-thirds of respondents 

high percent of TDHEs and tribal housing 

(68 percent) identified other partners, 

authorities that contract out work, it is likely 

including state and federal organizations 

that some number of tribes and TDHEs 

and nonprofit organizations such as Habitat 

do so strategical y. Interviews with IHBG 

for Humanity. The text box, Partnering, 

grant administrators suggest, however, that 

provides examples of various partnerships. 

contracting decisions in some organizations 

are driven by limited organizational 

Contracting Out Administrative 

capacity or staff capabilities—that some 

Functions 

administrators contract out work because of 

need rather than strategic preference. For 

Nearly all survey respondents (92 percent) 

example, in Wind River, Eastern Shoshone, 

said their organization contracts out for 

a staff member said that it is less expensive 

a range of administrative and building-

at present to contract out certain tasks 

related functions. Among respondents 

because staff does not have the necessary 

whose organizations contract out services 

capabilities to carry out the work. An effort 

on a regular basis, more than one-half said 

is under way to increase capabilities and 

they contract out legal help (92 percent), 

productivity so that more work can be done 

construction work (67 percent), and 

in-house. Staff from the housing authority 

information management and computer 

in Bad River, which serves as the TDHE, 

systems (56 percent). About 43 percent 

said that the authority contracts out for a 

contract out maintenance services. Nearly 

number of services to cover needs that staff 

one-third of respondents (30 percent) 

could not take on and to gain the expertise 

contract out finance and accounting 

of specialists. Contracted services have 

services; 28 percent of respondents said 

included information technology support, 

they contract out building management and 

auditing, legal assistance, surveying and 

operations. Other contracted administrative 

architectural services, and maintenance that 

and building services included rent 

required more than the standard skill set. 

collection, human resources services, project 

management, and grants consulting.

Priorities for Organizational 

Improvements 

Survey data show some differences in 

contracting practices by type of IHBG 

Survey respondents identified the highest 

administrator. TDHEs are more likely to 

priorities for improving the effectiveness 

contract out information management and 

of their organization. A plurality identified 

computer systems services than are tribal 

increased training (48 percent) to address a 

housing authorities (77 compared with 27 

lack of skil s or work efficiency and to ensure 

percent, respectively) whereas TDHEs are 

new staff are equipped to carry out their 

less likely than tribal authorities to contract 

jobs. This response echoes findings from 

out construction services (46 compared 

a U.S. Government Accountability (GAO) 

with 96 percent, respectively), though nearly 

study that reported limited administrative 

one-half of them do contract out for such 

capacity was a commonly cited problem 

services. Differences based on grant size 

(GAO, 2014). Respondents also called for 

were not as stark.

increased funding (42 percent). 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

121

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

All respondents were asked about the 

information management and computer 

types of training staff would like to 

systems compared with 3 percent of TDHEs. 

receive. Training needs mentioned most 

TDHE respondents gave higher priority to 

frequently included building maintenance 

public relations and communications training 

(26 percent), administrative tasks (20 

than did respondents from tribal housing 

percent), information and computer systems 

authorities, 13 percent compared with 2 

(12 percent) and case management with 

percent; and 33 percent of TDHEs cited 

residents (10 percent). Other topics cited by 

building maintenance compared with 16 

at least 5 percent of respondents included 

percent of housing authorities. 

public relations and communications, 

Site visit respondents identified similar 

finances and budgeting, and construction 

training needs and were able to offer more 

and building management. 

detailed examples of what staff need. The 

Differences existed in the types of training 

variety of training needs they identified can 

that survey respondents from tribal housing 

be clustered into six groups, divided by type 

authorities and those from TDHEs identified. 

of staff and topics, as shown in exhibit 3.42.

Among tribal housing authorities, 37 percent 

Interview respondents from many sites 

said staff needed training in administrative 

said they take advantage of trainings to 

tasks compared with 8 percent of TDHE 

the extent possible, but costs for offsite 

respondents; and 25 percent cited 

Exhibit 3.42 -Training Needs

Leadership

Specializations

Management training for supervisors 

Housing counselor certification

How to find other funding

Credit counseling

Public relations campaigns/events

Communications / public relations

Front-line Staff

Maintenance

HUD requirements and NAHASDA

Maintenance training for staff without construction backgrounds

Occupancy, collections, inspections, and supervisor training

Additional maintenance training

Procurement

Specialty training for maintenance staff

Updates on new processes and procedures

Safety (fire drills, fire extinguishers, OSHA, first aid, CPR)

Energy / environmental

General

Additional training on geothermal units

Refresher trainings for experienced staff

Energy audits

Professional development for staff with no workforce experience

Additional training on energy efficiency

LEED certification

Environmental review training

Source: Site Visit Interviews, 2013-2015

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

122

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

trainings, especial y travel costs, are a 

and the director has little time to spend 

hindrance to getting the training that staff 

on efforts to leverage funds. In Gila River 

need and to maintaining staff certifications. 

Indian Community, low funding has led to 

Another barrier is finding the time to take off 

insufficient staffing, which impedes their 

from work without creating staff coverage 

ability to complete construction projects 

problems. A number of respondents who 

on time. The respondent also said the 

cited cost challenges identified approaches 

organization has not been able to purchase 

they have taken to meet at least some 

equipment needed for building and 

training needs, such as inviting trainers to 

demolishing housing.

offer onsite sessions; coordinating with 

Respondents from four tribes discussed 

nearby tribes to offer regional sessions; 

the effects of funding cuts, in particular. A 

sending one staff member to an offsite 

respondent from Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate 

training who then trains other staff after 

of the Lake Traverse Reservation, said the 

returning; having experienced staff mentor 

organization can rehabilitate only one house 

newer staff; and making use of various 

at a time because budget restrictions led to 

media CDs, DVDs, books) and materials 

staff layoffs. At the Wind River Reservation, 

via the Internet in place of formal training 

Eastern Shoshone, budget cuts resulted 

sessions. (See text box, Choctaw Nation: 

in the layoff of four maintenance workers. 

Staff Training and Education) 

Other respondents discussed ways in 

Beyond staff development and training 

which their organizations have weathered 

needs, interview respondents identified a 

staff layoffs due to budget reductions. A 

number of organizational improvements 

respondent from Choctaw Nation said the 

they would like to realize. Improvements 

number of staff positions was reduced from 

respondents mentioned related to 

162 in 2004 to 98 at the time of the site 

organizational/administrative practices 

visit. The organization’s ability to continue 

(rather than service improvements), 

its work was attributed to stability of tribal 

and include improving staff capacity 

and TDHE governance and staff knowledge 

and efficiency and improving electronic 

of program policies and procedures. At the 

systems, software, and use of technology, 

Wind River Reservation, Northern Arapaho, 

which would help to improve staff 

a respondent said that housing authority 

efficiency and organizational practices, 

staff that remained after cutbacks in 2003 

such as rent collection. Respondents 

received training to help them increase 

also mentioned interest in improving 

their productivity.

communications and coordination with 

other tribal services providers.

3.5. Contributions of Other Housing 

and Community Development 

Interview respondents from seven tribes 

Programs 

discussed issues of staffing, training needs 

and other needed improvements in the 

This section of the report focuses on federal 

context of budget challenges and the 

funding other than the IHBG program for 

effects of budget and staff cutbacks on 

housing related activities undertaken by 

services. Respondents from three tribes 

tribes and TDHEs. Findings draw from the 

talked about staffing restrictions that 

tribal/TDHE survey data and information 

result from low funding. For example, the 

provided by ONAP.

executive director position of the TDHE 

for Chickaloon Native Vil age is part time 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

123

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Choctaw Nation: Staff Training and Education

Site visit respondents described the priority and resources the Choctaw Nation and its 

various departments and agencies put toward staff training and education. Some staff are 

mandated to attend training sessions, and other staff are encouraged to attend relevant 

sessions. Leaders allocate time during the workday for training and ongoing education. 

Sessions are offered by the “Choctaw University” and serve staff from across departments 

and programs. The sessions focus on inculcating a client-centered work ethos, skill 

acquisition, and development of ways to improve work production and results through 

col aborative efforts.

Publicly Funded Non-IHBG Housing 

must be members of federal y recognized 

tribes or Alaska Natives who live in 

and Community Development 

approved tribal service areas58 and whose 

Programs Operating in Indian Country  income does not exceed 150 percent of 

Most of the tribal/TDHE survey respondents 

the U.S. poverty guidelines. Recipients live 

(61 percent) said their organization offers 

in substandard housing and must have 

only housing assistance programs funded 

no other resource for housing assistance. 

under the IHBG program. From the 39 

Further, criteria stipulate that recipients must 

percent of organizations that offer other 

not have received assistance since October 

programs, survey respondents most often 

1, 1986, for home repairs, renovation, or 

identified the BIA’s Housing Improvement 

replacement or downpayment assistance, 

Program and the Low-Income Housing 

and did not acquire their current housing 

Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program as the largest 

through a federal y sponsored housing 

programs in their portfolio. Respondents 

program that includes such assistance.

mentioned other programs, including HUD’s 

The LIHTC was established as part of the 

ICDBG program; Weatherization Assistance 

U.S. Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Novogradic & 

Program funded by states with U.S. 

Company, n.d.). LIHTC is an indirect federal 

Department of Energy (DOE) resources; and 

subsidy intended to incentivize the private 

activities funded by ARRA stimulus grants 

market to finance the development of 

from HUD. Respondents also mentioned 

affordable rental housing units. Developers 

rental assistance programs funded by the 

apply for LIHTC through state housing 

tribes and NAHASDA.

agencies, which administer the program in 

BIA initiated HIP in 1965 under the 

accordance with guidelines set by the IRS. 

Snyder Act of 1921 (DOI/BIA, 2015). HIP 

If awarded the tax credits, most developers 

offers grants to the most disadvantaged 

pass the credits along to equity investors, 

households for home improvements or 

directly or through a syndicator, who realize 

replacement. BIA provides HIP funds to 

dollar-for-dollar reduction in their federal tax 

tribes or to BIA regional housing offices, 

liabilities for a 10-year period in exchange 

which then review applications and disburse 

for project financing. Affordable units built 

grants. BIA describes the program as a 

or rehabilitated with LIHTC financing must 

secondary safety-net to tackle substandard 

remain affordable for at least 30 years.

housing and homelessness. Grant recipients 

58  An approved tribal service area is a geographical area designated by a tribe and approved by the BIA where HIP services can be delivered. 

http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/HumanServices/HousingImprovementProgram/index.htm.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

124

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

The Housing and Community Development 

used for acquisition, new construction 

Act of 1974 was amended in 1977 to set 

or rehabilitation of affordable housing, 

aside 1 percent of CDBG appropriations 

site improvements and infrastructure 

for allocation to American Indian tribes 

construction, energy retrofits and healthy 

and Alaska Native villages (HUD n.d.). 

homes improvements, administration and 

ICDBG grants are used for housing, 

planning costs, and investments made to 

community facilities, and economic 

leverage private capital. Funds had to be 

purposes. Housing activities may include 

spent within 3 years. See section 3.3 for 

housing rehabilitation, land acquisition 

additional discussion of the ARRA grants 

for new construction, and limited new 

that went to Indian Country.

construction. Community facilities 

activities may include construction of 

Housing Provided in Indian Country 

community infrastructure and community 

by Other Major Housing Programs 

buildings. Economic development 

Of the tribal/TDHE survey respondents, 17 

efforts may be commercial, industrial or 

identified HIP as a major housing assistance 

agricultural in nature. ICDBG also offers 

program they operate. Activities supported 

a small number of noncompetitive grants 

by HIP include home improvement 

to be used to address problems that pose 

and housing rehabilitation efforts, 

an imminent threat to public health or 

homeownership programs, and housing 

safety. All activities are meant to support 

construction. At the time the survey was 

AIAN communities and primarily benefit 

conducted, respondents estimated the 

low- and moderate-income people. 

number of affected units annually to be 0 

The program is administered regionally 

to 5.59 A couple of respondents commented 

through six HUD Area ONAP offices. The 

that the number of HIP affected units 

offices receive applications from eligible 

was very low, with one respondent 

tribes and villages through a competitive 

wondering whether the small amount 

NOFA process. 

of HIP funding was worth the effort the 

DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Program, 

program requires. The 14 respondents 

which began in 1976, provides grants to 

who identified LIHTC as a major program 

increase the energy efficiency of low-

their organization operated said their 

income households’ homes (DOE/OEERE, 

organization uses the LIHTC funds for 

n.d.). Grant funds are provided to American 

rental and homeownership programs, 

Indian tribes, states and territories, which 

including rental-housing renovations. 

contract with local governments and 

At the time of the survey, respondents 

nonprofit organizations to provide the 

estimated that from 40 to 104 units of 

weatherization upgrades. 

housing had been affected by LIHTC.

As noted in sections 3.2 and 3.3, as part 

Six respondents identified the DOE’s 

of ARRA, HUD distributed grants through 

Weatherization Assistance Program as a 

the Native American Housing Block Grant 

major program. Funds from this program 

Stimulus Program (HUD, n.d.). Tribes and 

were used to renovate owner-occupied 

TDHEs’ eligible for funding under NAHASDA 

and rental housing. Respondents estimated 

could apply to a NOFA to compete 

between 25 and 60 units of housing had 

for ARRA funds that were obligated in 

been affected by this program. Four 

September 2009. The grants were to be 

respondents identified the ICDBG as a major 

59  Responses to the survey question on the number of units affected by each major program included annual and total counts. The type of response was unclear in some cases so the data reported here should be read with that limitation in mind.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

125

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

program, with funding used for remodeling 

based on a formula. The funds may be 

and rehabilitating homes. Each respondent 

used for the production or preservation 

estimated that roughly 25 units of housing 

of affordable housing through acquisition, 

had been affected by this program. 

new construction, and/or rehabilitation of 

nonluxury housing with suitable amenities. 

Three respondents cited ARRA as a 

HTF offers a new opportunity for tribes to 

major program or source of funds. ARRA 

partner with states, because funds are to 

funds were used with rental housing 

be used for extremely low-income families 

efforts. Respondents estimated about 22 

or families at or below the poverty line, and 

housing units had been affected by ARRA 

even small population states will receive the 

funding. Seven respondents also said they 

minimum $3 million grant. 

operated tribal rental assistance programs. 

Responses varied in detail; no program 

3.6. IHBG Housing Development and 

offering type appears to be dominant, 

Management 

though all seven respondents said the tribal 

programs supported rental housing. The 

Under NAHASDA, HUD plays an 

estimated number of units affected ranged 

administrative and oversight role in 

from 13 to 73.

delivering housing benefits to Native 

Americans and providing funding 

Other Publicly Funded Non-IHBG 

through a single, tribal y negotiated 

Housing Programs Operating in 

grant allocation formula. Grantees (tribal 

Indian Country 

housing departments or TDHEs) submit 

an IHP for each program year. In the IHP, 

A majority of tribal/TDHE survey 

grantees identify their affordable housing 

respondents (82 percent) said other 

needs and describe the housing activities 

organizations offered housing assistance 

they plan to pursue to address those 

programs in their area. These programs, 

needs. At the end of the program year, 

offered by tribes, local or state programs, 

grantees also must submit an APR that 

and federal agencies, support home 

outlines accomplishments, and, if federal 

improvement and rehabilitation activities, 

fiscal year expenditures are $500,000 or 

homeownership efforts, and rental 

more, the results of an independent audit. 

assistance programs. Respondents said 

In addition to reporting, grantees must 

funding for the programs offered by other 

follow requirements for environmental 

organizations comes from tribes and federal 

reviews, procurement and labor standards, 

agencies, including the U.S. Department of 

family eligibility, and accounting for 

Agriculture (USDA), BIA, HUD, and DOE. 

program income. Although the flexibility 

of NAHASDA enables tribes to design, 

A new affordable housing production 

develop, and operate their own affordable 

program is the Housing Trust Fund (HTF), 

housing programs based on local needs, 

established under Title 1 of the Housing 

tribal housing departments/TDHEs face 

and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, 

challenges in carrying out their plans. This 

Section 1131 (Public law 110-289).60 This 

section describes challenges in developing 

program was not mentioned by tribes/

new housing and in maintaining existing 

TDHEs because the first allocations of 

housing stock, presenting findings from the 

these grants were not allocated until May 

tribal/TDHE survey and site visits, followed 

2016. HUD will allocate grant funds annually 

by promising practices and solutions 

to states and state-designated entities 

implemented or suggested by tribes. 

60 https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/htf/.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

126

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Challenges in New Housing 

The factors affecting cost and time 

do overlap, and site visit respondents 

Development 

mentioned many of these factors as wel , 

Tribal housing departments/TDHEs face a 

offering descriptions and examples of the 

wide range of challenges that may affect the 

barriers (exhibit 3.62).

cost and also the time it takes to develop 

new IHBG housing. Almost all respondents 

Infrastructure

to the tribal/TDHE survey indicated that 

IHBG funding includes within it “total 

development costs had increased during 

development costs,” but these are 

the past 3 years, with 40 percent saying 

not identified separately under the 

cost had increased greatly and 57 percent 

block grant. The sources of funding for 

saying cost had increased somewhat. Of 

infrastructure as mandated by law remain 

the tribes/TDHEs, 35 percent reported 

the same: Indian Health Service (Sanitation 

that development cost was a very serious 

Facilities Construction, and so on), USDA, 

constraint, and another 15 percent said it 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

was a fairly serious constraint in developing 

ICDBG, and others, and the IHBG can be 

new housing. When asked to name the 

used specifical y for infrastructure as wel . 

top three factors that increase the cost of 

Nevertheless, infrastructure provision 

developing new housing, tribes/TDHEs 

was mentioned as a barrier to developing 

cited the following barriers most frequently 

new housing by 14 of the 22 sites visited. 

(exhibit 3.61): developing infrastructure 

The most commonly cited infrastructure 

(70 percent), availability of labor (39 

issues across sites were the need for 

percent), lack of funds (34 percent), and 

expanded water and sewage treatment 

acquiring or assembling land (30 percent). 

facilities, access to electricity, and access 

Regarding barriers that increased the 

to roads. According to one Acoma Pueblo 

time to develop new housing, the factors 

respondent, “the biggest issue we have 

named most frequently were environmental 

regarding housing is the development of 

review process (71 percent), satisfying HUD 

infrastructure.” For the Makah Tribe, finding 

administrative requirements (56 percent), 

land close to existing infrastructure can be 

locating and securing outside financial 

difficult, especial y because most of the land 

support (33 percent), and addressing 

is surrounded by forests used for timber 

property rights/leasing issues (27 percent).

production. Respondents from the Northern 

Arapaho Tribe on the Wind River reservation 

Exhibit 3.61 - Barriers to New Housing Development Most Frequently Reported by Tribes/TDHEs Barriers that increase cost

Barriers that increase time

% reporting that barrier

% reporting that barrier

Developing infrastructure

70.4

Environmental review process

70.9

Availability of labor

38.9

HUD administrative requirements

56.1

Lack of funds

34.1

Securing outside financial support

32.5

Acquiring or assembling land

29.7

Property rights and leasing

27.4

Notes: Respondents were asked to name the top three barriers in separate questions about cost and time. 

Source: Tribal/TDHE survey 2014-2015

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

127

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Exhibit 3.62 - Factors Mentioned by Sites that Affect Development Costs

Cost-related barriers to development

Number of sites Mentioning  this barrier

Not enough funds

13

Infrastructure

14

Acquiring/assembling land

12

Weather or climate

11

Environmental Review Process

9

Increasing development costs

8

Availability of labor

3

Source: Site visit interviews 2013-2015. N=22

also noted that it is hard to get land close 

and a criticism voiced by many TDHEs. To 

enough to infrastructure, specifical y gas, 

compensate for the lack of infrastructure 

water, and highways. 

provided, homeowners often must find 

a way to fund necessary infrastructure 

Site visit respondents described physical 

themselves. Multiple respondents noted 

challenges to building infrastructure, 

that residents were paying for their own 

and difficulty in obtaining funds for 

septic tanks and electricity lines. At Citizen 

infrastructure updates and expansion. At 

Potawatomi Nation, the tribal Office of 

some sites, the terrain makes it difficult to 

Environmental Health (OEH) builds water 

run the necessary pipes needed for water 

wells and septic tanks for tribal members 

and sewage treatment. Risk of flooding 

purchasing or building a home in the service 

also presents a problem for building 

area. A tribal official said, “This program 

infrastructure in some locations (Tohono 

enhances our housing because, if you 

O’odham Nation, Zuni Tribe), while in 

have a plot of land that you want to build 

others (Lummi Nation, Makah Tribe, Native 

on, then OEH can come in and help. Wells 

Village of Unalakleet), water shortages limit 

and septic tanks cost a lot of money. Any 

infrastructure expansion. Respondents at 

tribal member residing in the service area 

Bad River and at Bishop Paiute noted that 

qualifies for this service. Program staff do 

their sewage systems were at capacity. At 

any of the design work, which is pretty 

the Lummi Nation, the sewer system was 

much cut and dry. The program will drill 

originally built in 1976 and needs to be 

you a well if you don’t have access to city or 

upgraded. At the Pine Ridge (Oglala Sioux 

county water. It is pretty expensive to drill a 

Tribe) reservation, respondents reported 

well, more than $5000.”

that some infrastructure dates from the 

1930s and is disintegrating.

Some tribes/TDHEs have been successful in 

obtaining loans or developing partnerships 

Site visit respondents reported that it has 

with local utility providers. Although 

been difficult to obtain funds for necessary 

assistance is available from IHS, many 

infrastructure updates. NAHASDA funds 

respondents reported that the funds were 

do not include separate funding for 

not sufficient. For example, Bad River 

infrastructure expansion and development. 

Band of Chippewa respondents reported 

This has been a challenge for development, 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

128

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

that IHS is providing engineering services 

short construction season can lead to higher 

for their new water system, but a funding 

development costs. 

source to build the system has not yet 

The combination of irregular employment 

been established. On the other hand, 

for construction workers on tribal land, 

respondents from White Earth Band of 

limited training opportunities in some 

Chippewa reported that tribal water and 

remote locations, and higher paying 

sewage authorities collaborate with IHS 

employment outside of tribal areas 

to build needed infrastructure. Loans and 

leads to worker shortages and higher 

grants are also available from USDA and 

costs, further limiting the volume of new 

the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. At Gila 

construction that can be initiated. One 

River Indian Community, the tribe has 

Yakama Nation respondent explained 

developed a profitable partnership with 

the problem: “Our costs have increased a 

Verizon to provide members with Internet 

lot during the past 3 years. This has had 

and telephone service. To obtain funding, 

a great effect on how much we can get 

one Pine Ridge reservation respondent 

done. We use a lot of carpenters and their 

noted that the tribe has been trying to 

rate has doubled in the last few years. That 

include infrastructure costs in the project 

lowers the number of houses that can be 

budgets for new homes, and they have 

built. That is just one example—all labor 

received assistance from USDA loans for 

and materials costs have risen.”

rural development. Lake Traverse reservation 

respondents stated that USDA Rural 

Lack of Funds and Rising 

Development is a very important partner for 

Development Costs

infrastructure funds, and they had received 

several USDA grants for infrastructure. 

Lack of sufficient funding for new 

development was a barrier mentioned by 

Availability of Labor

respondents at 13 of the 22 sites visited. This 

Although availability of labor was mentioned 

concern was often raised in combination 

at only a few sites visited, a common theme 

with discussions of rising development costs.

associated with this barrier appears to exist. 

At Chickaloon Native Vil age, funding 

Tribal housing departments and TDHEs 

shortages, timing of receipt of funds, the 

do not have enough construction activity 

limited season when construction is possible, 

to support construction workers (either 

and increasing costs result in serious 

in-house employees or contractors) on a 

challenges to development. One respondent 

consistent basis. This results in workers 

at Chickaloon said, “We have to make sure 

with the necessary skil s traveling outside 

we have funds from last year, and we are 

the tribal area for work and then not being 

dealing with seasons when the money final y 

available when needed in the tribal area. At 

comes in. There has been a big decrease in 

Pine Ridge reservation, for example, site visit 

funds over the last 5 years, and a 30-percent 

respondents explained that skilled workers 

increase in development costs—just in 

go to Rapid City where they can get steady 

materials. Some items such as lumber and 

work at higher pay. At Bishop Paiute, site 

concrete have increased 50 percent.” A 

visit respondents reported a shortage of 

respondent at Yakama Nation said, “all labor 

workers that have the necessary skil s. At 

and materials costs have risen.” 

three sites, a limited construction season 

due to weather is a challenge because 

The increasing cost of material was also 

paying contractors higher fees during a 

mentioned at Omaha Tribe, “One problem 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

129

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

we face is that the cost of materials has 

indicated that some families are not wil ing 

tripled in the last couple of years. One 

to give up land they are not using. 

thing that would be helpful would be 

A few sites have initiated efforts to buy 

to have HUD do some bulk buying and 

back fractionated land or land adjacent 

storage to lower our costs.” A respondent 

to tribal lands. At Gila River, the tribe is 

at Lumbee Tribe noted that funding 

seeking to buy back land that is owned by 

constraints delay development, stating that 

non-members, especially land originally 

the tribe can afford to build only 12 to 15 

allotted to a tribal member that has passed 

houses per year, although the need is much 

into ownership by a non-member. The 

greater and land is available. 

Oglala Sioux tribe (Pine Ridge) also has a 

Land Assembly and Acquisition

land buy-back program to help ensure that 

land goes back to the tribe. Other sites 

The process of land assembly and land 

try to ensure that the housing authority 

acquisition was noted as a barrier to new 

owns its own land. In addition to the costs 

development by respondents at 12 of the 

of finding and obtaining agreement from 

22 sites visited. The source of this challenge 

owners of parcels, four sites stated that 

is fractionated land, which is the result of 

they did not have enough funds to purchase 

allotments that have been divided among 

land or build housing even though land 

heirs through probate. Although title 

was available. Citizen Potawatomi Nation 

ownership was divided among all the heirs, 

has established a Realty Department to 

the land itself was not physical y divided, 

conduct title searches and sets aside funds 

and each Indian heir received an undivided 

specifically for the purchase of fractionated 

interest in the land. With each generation, 

land (see the text box, Addressing the 

the number of owners increases, resulting in 

Challenges of Fractionated Land: Citizen 

the highly fractionated ownership of much 

Potawatomi Nation).

of Indian land today. To do anything with the 

land (that is, develop the property or sell it), 

Environmental Review Process

an interest owner must gain consent from a 

The environmental review process required 

majority of the parcel’s other owners. Unless 

for development is a consistent challenge 

a tribe owns at least a majority interest in a 

that was mentioned by respondents at 9 

fractionated tract, the tribe must seek the 

of the 22 sites. The National Environmental 

approval of the other owners to use the tract 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires 

for development purposes.61 

agencies to undertake an assessment 

Having so many owners makes it hard 

of the environmental effects of their 

to assemble large enough parcels for 

proposed actions, consider reasonable 

development. One Lummi Nation respondent 

alternatives to proposed actions, and 

noted that “there is a divided interest in 

allow for public participation before 

the land here—the allotments may have a 

taking actions and making decisions. 

thousand heirs to a small parcel of land. You 

All projects entirely or partly financed, 

can only mitigate that with 51 percent of 

assisted, conducted or approved by 

owners deciding something. .. The goal of 

federal agencies must comply with NEPA 

any tribal member here is to have housing 

and other applicable, related federal 

on their own land, but they can’t due to the 

laws and authorities (HUD, 2015c). The 

divided interests.” Site visit respondents at 

involvement of multiple federal agencies, 

Wind River reservation (Eastern Shoshone) 

61  Some 4.1 million fractionated interests are in 99,000 land parcels on 10 million acres of Indian trust land (Kendall, 2011).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

130

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Addressing the Challenges of Fractionated Land: Citizen Potawatomi Nation

Citizen Potawatomi Nation established a Tribal Realty Department to conduct title searches 

and other activities related to housing. A tribal leader said, “We do our own title searches. 

Our Realty Department can do a lot. We still have to work with the BIA [Bureau of Indian 

Affairs] closely on trust land. I point those things out because they enhance housing and our ability to provide housing for our people….” 

The tribe has taken advantage of a U.S. Department of the Interior program to help tribes 

recover allotments that have many owners/descendants with smal , fractional ownership. A 

tribal official described the situation: “Let’s say that my grandfather’s original allotment (under the Dawes Act) is inherited by his children. Some of these heirs may marry a non-Native. 

When these heirs (second-generation) die, the land may pass on to many owners. Once the 

land goes out of a Native American’s hand, it gets more complicated. What our tribe does 

is we allocate $2 mil ion per year to our Realty Department to purchase fractionated land.” 

Working with their Realty Department, the tribe has developed ways to purchase fractionated land and maintain flexibility in the uses of that land: “Let’s say that someone is sel ing a house next to or near the Nation’s land, and we want to buy it…. The Nation buys the property; 

however, that house is not owned by the Housing Authority, rather it is owned and operated 

by the Nation, which may rent or sell the house to a tribal member without doing so under 

the stringent NAHASDA [Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act] 

regulations. Whenever we acquire land, the Realty Department is involved.” 

and their associated regulations and 

improvements to assist in expediting the 

procedures, has resulted in a complex and 

environmental review process. Site visits 

cumbersome process. In a 2014 report, 

for this study reflect conditions in 2013-

the GAO recommended the establishment 

2015, including some of the issues that 

of a “coordinated environmental review 

were considered by the working group. 

process for all agencies overseeing tribal 

The length of time and the cost associated 

housing development” (GAO, 2014: 34). 

with the environmental review process 

This recommendation was made to 

were common concerns across sites. At 

“increase consistency and reduce time 

some sites, every house built requires an 

and predevelopment cost for Native 

environmental review, which can involve 

American Housing Assistance and Self-

soil samples and other environmental work 

Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) 

for each lot. This can be a lengthy process 

grant recipients” (GAO, 2014: 34). In 

and delays development. Several sites 

response to this recommendation, HUD 

mentioned that an environmental review is 

formed a workgroup composed of all 

required when rebuilding on a site as well as 

affected agencies to discuss barriers and 

for a previously undeveloped site. 

solutions to completing environmental 

reviews for Indian housing and housing-

Multiple respondents noted that 

related infrastructure. In a report released 

submitting applications to the BIA to build 

in December 2015, the interagency 

on sites was particularly time consuming. 

workgroup recommended a series of 

The process is not automated, and 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

131

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

respondents noted it could take as long 

Challenges in Maintaining Existing 

as 5 years to get an approval. At Northern 

Housing Stock

Arapahoe on the Wind River Reservation, 

a respondent said the application goes to 

Tribes/TDHEs surveyed were asked 

14 different offices as part of the approval 

to report their top three maintenance 

process. Some respondents mentioned the 

challenges for rental units and for Mutual 

need for BIA to approve the placement of 

Help units (exhibit 3.63). The same three 

electrical lines, which can create further 

challenges were mentioned most frequently 

delay. The requirements often are not 

for both types of housing units: (1) tenants 

consistent across agencies. For example, 

or residents causing damage to the unit, (2) 

respondents at Gila River noted a conflict 

controlling criminal activity, and (3) tenants 

between the BIA and EPA requirements. 

or residents not paying rent or mortgage 

Respondents at Zuni Tribe pointed out 

payment on time. Comparing the two 

that BIA does not accept the HUD format 

types of housing, damage to the units and 

for the paperwork. According to one 

controlling criminal activity were mentioned 

Yakama Nation respondent, all required 

more frequently for rental units, but late 

governmental approvals and requests 

payment was mentioned more frequently as 

move very slowly: “Regulations and 

a challenge for Mutual Help units.

approval—everything in the government 

Site visits provide additional insight into 

works at a snail’s pace. Too many levels of 

some of these maintenance challenges. 

approval all taking a long time. Everyone 

Substance abuse, domestic violence, and 

has a different concern or questions and 

severe overcrowding were mentioned as 

things just generally get bogged down.”

causes of difficult maintenance challenges. 

Some respondents were aware that plans 

Methamphetamine (“meth”) was noted for 

exist at the federal level to improve these 

causing serious damage to units. One site 

processes. In the meantime, they note that 

visit respondent explained that the housing 

having to use NAHASDA funds to cover 

agency has to test the housing units for 

environmental and cultural assessments and 

meth exposure. If the level of exposure is 

surveys limits what tribes can do with their 

within certain levels, it can be remedied 

remaining funds.

by an extensive washing process for al  

Exhibit 3.63 - Housing Maintenance Chal enges Most Frequently Reported by Tribes/TDHEs, by Type of Housing Percent of respondents who indicated the fol owing were one of their 3 biggest chal enges:

Rental Housing %

Mutual Help Housing %

Causing damage to unit

90.9

79.7

Control ing criminal activity

73.8

64.5

Not paying rent/mortgage on time

65.3

87.8

Lack of trained staff

25.3

13.7

Lack of operations funds for Indian Housing

20.4

26.6

Performance problems with contractors 

3.9

6.4

Notes: Respondents were asked to name the top three barriers in separate questions about rental and mutual help Source: Tribal/TDHE Survey, 2014-2015

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

132

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

the wal s and other surfaces. In extreme 

repairs that they would like, or that requires 

cases, all wal s, floors, and insulation must 

longer waits for service. Most use some 

be removed. Although housing agencies 

type of work order system to schedule 

regularly inspect units, and evidence of 

and track requests for maintenance and 

meth use is grounds for eviction, sometimes 

repairs. One site, Blackfeet, developed an 

the evidence is not detected until a tenant 

app so that work orders can be managed 

moves out. Holes in the wal s (sometimes 

electronically, and they have shared this 

associated with incidents of domestic 

with other tribes. Some sites have tried to 

violence) add to maintenance challenges 

limit maintenance service to homeowners. 

and at least one tribe noted that such 

For example, at Blackfeet, the maintenance 

damage also triggers a call to social services. 

team provides landscaping services only 

Overcrowded housing places additional 

to elderly and handicapped residents. 

strain on homes, especial y in bathrooms 

Able-bodied residents are expected to do 

and kitchens, increasing the incidence of 

this themselves, and the housing authority 

mold and insects. 

makes equipment (for example, weed 

trimmers, lawnmowers) available for check-

Weather conditions added to maintenance 

out. At Pine Ridge, the housing authority 

challenges at several sites: flooding 

prioritizes heating, stoves, refrigerator, and 

(Blackfeet, Omaha, Gila River, Bad River), 

furnace problems and will make referrals 

high winds or tornados (Cherokee, Lake 

to other programs when the housing 

Traverse, Bad River), severe heat (Gila River, 

authority does not have the resources to 

Cherokee), and severe cold (Unalakleet, 

make the repair. In light of maintenance 

Pine Ridge) can cause weather-related 

challenges and limited resources, several 

emergencies that take priority over 

tribes have initiated programs to educate 

routine maintenance. Sites also frequently 

residents on basic home maintenance and 

mentioned that the age of the housing stock 

repairs. Two examples from Zuni Tribe 

increases maintenance costs. 

and Lummi Nation are included in the text 

boxes, Housing Education and Supportive 

Most sites that commented on maintenance 

Services: Zuni Tribe and Tenant Education 

challenges reported a shortage of staff 

and Citizen Participation: Lummi Nation.

(related to lack of funding) that keeps 

them from doing all the maintenance and 

Housing Education and Supportive Services: Zuni Tribe

The Zuni Housing Authority (ZHA) partners with other programs for specific clients or 

families. Its goal is to help families become self-sufficient with rentals and homebuyer 

programs. ZHA provides classes to give renters and homeowners the knowledge and 

skil s to manage finances and take care of their homes (for example, draining water tanks, 

caulking windows). ZHA’s hope is for families to be self-sufficient while maintaining healthy homes. ZHA holds classes several times a year during the day and in the evening. Classes 

are oriented toward seasonal changes that affect home maintenance and annual inspections. 

“We do our best to work with our clients. We tell them that we are in the business of 

providing housing. We identify problems in the early stages for prevention and to be 

proactive. We collaborate with other Pueblo of Zuni divisions and on referrals.”

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

133

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Tenant Education and Citizen Participation: Lummi Nation

The Lummi Nation’s Housing Department hosts an annual housing forum on a Saturday in 

February. The Housing Department staff provide exhibits relative to their responsibility—

planning, security, maintenance, advocates, and so on. Tribal members attend the event 

to socialize and learn; the Housing Department gives out educational pamphlets and door 

prizes and solicits input for the next year’s Indian Housing Plan. They provide food, and 

participants can bring their children. The Executive Director of the Housing Department 

estimates that 200 people or so come during the course of the 8-hour event.

3.7. Homeownership and Mortgage 

lending and its impacts on expanding 

homeownership on tribal lands.

Lending Programs 

Mortgage lending to any traditional y 

Background

underserved market is challenging, as 

It is important to consider the political history 

lenders must reach out to populations 

related to land status in Indian Country to 

that may not have experience dealing with 

understand the current landscape, challenges, 

mainstream financial institutions, have very 

and successes in mortgage lending.62 

limited funds for downpayments, and little 

or no credit history. In addition to these 

History of Legal Status of Land in 

problems, which are present for many lower 

Indian Country 

income households, originating mortgages 

on properties located in Indian Country 

The challenge of mortgage lending on tribal 

presents unique challenges that relate to 

trust land is that the United States holds 

the legal status of lands on reservations; 

such land in trust for a tribe and the land 

the remote locations of reservations that 

cannot be readily sold or mortgaged. As a 

inhibit the development of an infrastructure 

result, mortgages are secured by a leasehold 

that can support mortgage lending; a lack 

interest in the trust. The legal status of land 

of cultural understanding by mainstream 

in Indian Country has an important bearing 

lenders of Native American attitudes toward 

on the ability to secure a mortgage. 

the use of credit, particularly when used for 

The General Allotment Act of 1887 (or 

a land transaction; and, potential y, lenders’ 

the Dawes Act) and a series of other 

discrimination against Native American 

historical events establish that land in Indian 

mortgage applicants. 

Country may be held in trust by the federal 

These challenges have been documented 

government for the tribe or individual Native 

in a number of studies, and changes have 

Americans.63 This differs from the remainder 

occurred at the policy level and tribal level 

of the United States where the vast majority 

to home mortgage lending to address 

of land is in fee-simple ownership. Trust status 

these problems. This section focuses on 

offers some advantages to native communities 

the changing availability of mortgage 

(for example, trust land is not subject to local, 

62  This section is a modified excerpt from  Mortgage Lending on Tribal Land (Listokin et al, 2016), which was prepared as part of this study.

63  With the vast territorial expansion of the United States during the mid-1800s, the notion of placing American Indians beyond the bounds of White civilization became untenable. So, the federal government developed and refined a reservation policy. One central legislative piece of the period was the General Allotment Act of 1887, which authorized the breakup of communal tribal lands on reservations into individual ownership parcels. The individual parcels were to be placed under federal trust for a period of time, and lands remaining after allotment (the “surplus” lands) could then be sold off to non-Indian homesteaders.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

134

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

state, or federal taxation), but trust lands can 

challenges relating to the legal status of 

be difficult to use for collateral for financing 

lands on reservations (exhibit 3.71). Another 

homes or economic enterprises, and they 

challenge arises from the disproportionately 

are subject to considerable oversight by the 

rural location of Indian Country. In general, 

federal government. Although other legal 

rural areas have considerable “housing 

issues in Indian Country impede the ready 

distress” (affordability, structural inadequacy, 

use of land for homeownership and other 

and overcrowding), especial y among low-

purposes (for example, the legacy of allotment 

income and minority households, and rural 

sometimes resulted in fractionation of 

areas further confront “substantial problems” 

ownership), trust land status is a major hurdle.

as described by the Housing Assistance 

Council regarding mortgage access and credit 

Implications and Challenges for 

cost (Housing Assistance Council, 2012). 

Homeowners and Lenders 

Therefore, successfully originating mortgages 

on tribal trust land requires lenders to work 

Although Native Americans share 

within an environment in which three types 

characteristics of other members of 

of issues intersect: those related to (1) 

traditional y underserved markets, originating 

underserved markets, (2) tribal trust land, and 

mortgages on Indian land includes unique 

(3) rural mortgage production.64 

64  A recently taken position of the U.S. Department of Justice is that its attorneys will not proceed with tribal foreclosures unless brought in federal court. The hesitancy of tribes to cede their jurisdiction to the federal courts may result in a reduction of lending in tribal areas and was noted especially by the Northern Pueblos Housing Authority and Santa Clara Pueblo Housing Authority.

Exhibit 3.71 - Unders

Exhibit 3.71 - Unders tanding T

tanding T ribal T

ribal Trus rust Land Mort

t Land Mort

gage L

gage L

ending

ending

Underserved Market Issues: 

1. Poor or no credit history

2. Lack of downpayment 

3. Little familiarity with the homebuying 

process; cultural barriers 

4. Limited demand for homeownership 

Rural Market Production Issues: 

Tribal Trust Issues: 

1. Small volume precludes 

1. Complex foreclosure process

economies of scale

2. Lengthy processing times 

2. Lack of appraisals

for applications

3. Limited housing supply

Source: Laderman and Reid 2010. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

135

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Mortgage Lending Programs65

entire state is an EA. For the remainder, 

EAs are restricted to certain counties. 

To address these issues, a number of 

programs have been developed to facilitate 

Because some EAs constitute an entire state, 

mortgage lending in Indian Country, 

the Section 184 program is not used only for 

including Section 184, Section 502 Direct 

mortgage lending on tribal trust land. As long 

Lending, and U.S. Department of Veterans 

as a property is located in an EA, a Section 

Affairs (VA) Direct Lending. 

184 loan can be originated for properties 

located on fee simple, tribal trust, or allocated 

Section 184 (NAHASDA)

land. Moreover, in late 2004, HUD issued 

guidance that allowed tribes more flexibility 

The Section 184 program provides lenders 

in designating eligible areas so that they 

with a 100 percent guarantee in the event 

correspond to their IHBG formula area. As a 

of a borrower’s foreclosure. It is available for 

result, the size of EAs increased around 2005 

single-family housing of one to four units 

to 2006, thereby creating a larger potential 

located on tribal trust land, allotted trust 

market for Section 184 loans, particularly 

land or fee simple land in an Indian area. 

for areas where fee simple lending was the 

The borrower may be an individual tribal 

predominant type of transaction. 

member, tribe or TDHE. Unlike the Rural 

Housing Service (RHS) Section 502 program 

Section 502 Direct Lending (USDA 

described in later paragraphs, Section 184 

Rural)

guarantees are not reserved for moderate- 

and low-income homebuyers. Section 184 

Under the Section 502 direct loan program, 

loans can be made only to borrowers who 

RHS provides loans at below-market interest 

are members of a federal y recognized tribe, 

rates to homebuyers whose household 

a regional or vil age corporation as defined 

incomes do not exceed 80 percent of Area 

in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 

Median Income (AMI).66 Loan terms are up 

or one of the following five state (and not 

to 33 years and, for households with income 

federal y recognized) tribes: Coharie Tribe 

less than 60 percent of AMI, may extend 

(North Carolina), Haliwa-Saponi Tribe (North 

longer. The program offers subsidies, based 

Carolina), Lumbee Tribe (North Carolina), 

on the homebuyer’s income, that reduce 

Waccamaw Siouan Tribe (North Carolina), 

the interest rate to as low as 1 percent. 

and MOWA band of Choctaw (Alabama). 

Although the monthly payment rises as the 

Tribes interested in participating in the 

homeowner’s income rises, the note rate 

Section 184 program must have leasing, 

establishes a cap on monthly payments. 

eviction, foreclosure, and other procedures 

Loans may cover 100 percent of the cost of 

and provisions in place (for example, tribal 

purchasing a new or existing home, and also 

court jurisdiction over real property).

costs of appraisal, title insurance, and other 

closing costs. Funds may also be used to 

The Section 184 program can be used 

repair or relocate a home, prepare a site, or 

only for mortgages on properties located 

provide water and sewer facilities.

in an approved Indian Operating area 

(sometimes called Eligible Areas [EAs]). 

Homebuyers must show that they 

Exhibit 3.72 shows the location of EAs by 

are unable to obtain financing from 

state. The map shows that some states 

conventional sources on reasonable terms 

contain no EAs and that for 23 states, the 

but can afford to repay the loan. A low-

65  This section is a modified excerpt from the  Mortgage Lending on Tribal Land  report of this study (Listokin et al., 2016).

66  The RHS also has a Section 502 guarantee program. This program is not generally used to support lending on tribal trust land.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

136

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

income applicant’s repayment ability 

must repay the amount of the interest 

generally is demonstrated if principal, 

assistance or 50 percent of the value of the 

interest, taxes, and insurance do not 

appreciation of the home, whichever is less.

amount to more than 29 percent of income 

VA Direct Lending

(front-end ratio) and total monthly debt 

(for housing and all other purposes) does 

Since 1992, the Native American Veteran 

not exceed 41 percent of income (back-

Direct Loan (NADL) program has provided 

end ratio). For low-income borrowers, the 

eligible Native American Veterans and 

percentages are 33 percent (front-end 

their spouses the opportunity to use 

ratio) and 41 percent (back-end ratio). The 

their VA home loan guaranty benefit on 

homebuyer signs a note promising to repay 

federal trust land. By statute, before VA 

the RHS loan at the “note rate” (a current 

may make a loan to any Native American 

rate of interest) and gives RHS a mortgage 

veteran, the veteran’s tribal or other 

on the home. As discussed previously, 

sovereign governing body must enter 

actual monthly payments are subsidized. 

into a memorandum of understanding 

The homebuyer also enters into a retention 

(MOU) with the VA. The MOU details the 

agreement under which, when title is 

conditions under which the program will 

transferred to a third party, the homebuyer 

operate on trust lands (for example, that 

Exhibit 3.72 - Map of Eligible Areas for Section 184 loans

WA

ME

MT

ND

VT

OR

MN

NH

ID

SD

WI

NY

MA

WY

MI

RI

PA

CT

IA

NE

NV

NJ

OH

IN

UT

DE

IL

CO

WV

MD

VA

CA

KS

MO

KY

NC

TN

OK

AZ

AR

SC

NM

MS

AL

GA

Area of Section 184 Eligibility

LA

Entire State

TX

AK

Select Counties

FL

Ineligible

Source: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/homeownership/184. Accessed February 3, 2014

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

137

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

the tribe has established standards and 

Leveraging trust land was one goal 

procedures that apply to the conveyance 

expressed by tribal officials, who were 

of a leasehold interest in real property by a 

enthusiastic about the potential of the 

Native American borrower to a lender).

HEARTH Act to break down barriers to 

leasing on tribal land. On one site visit, 

Native American veterans who are eligible 

tribal leaders illustrated how the new 

for VA home loan benefits and whose 

legislation was rolling out on the ground. As 

tribal or other sovereign governments 

required by the act, the Citizen Potawatomi 

have signed an MOU, may then apply 

Nation secured approval of its leasing 

directly to VA for a 30-year fixed rate loan 

regulations by the Secretary of Interior not 

to purchase, build, or improve a home 

long before the site visit. A tribal leader 

located on federal trust land. They may also 

said, “The Act allows a tribal member the 

refinance a direct loan already made under 

right to lease a home on trust land…. We 

this program to lower their interest rate. If 

have not been able to do a lease home 

the property is not located on federal trust 

mortgage until now. Nobody would perfect 

land, the Veteran can use the traditional VA-

that until now. Before, all our bricks and 

guaranteed Home Loan program.

mortar belonged to us, and we couldn’t 

mortgage it at all. We’ve been trying to do 

Federal Programs To Address Land 

that and, now, I have it on my desk!”

Status and Property Rights Issues

Other Programs To Assist 

Given the various challenges of mortgage 

Homebuyers 

lending related to tribal land status and 

property rights issues, recent federal 

Beyond federal legislation, many tribes 

legislation addressed these barriers in 

have designed local programs to respond 

hopes of expanding homeownership on 

to the particular barriers to homeownership 

Indian Country.

amongst their members. 

Helping Expedite and Advance 

Homebuyer Education

Responsible Tribal Homeownership 

(HEARTH) Act 

As mentioned in section 2.5, 29 percent of 

survey respondents who had never applied 

The HEARTH Act of 2012 creates an 

for a mortgage mentioned that they did not 

alternative land leasing process. Tribes 

know how to buy a home or were general y 

are authorized to execute agricultural 

unfamiliar with the processes, highlighting 

and business leases of tribal trust lands 

a demand for homebuyer education across 

for a primary term of 25 years and up 

tribal lands. Site visit interviews reinforced 

to two renewal terms of 25 years each 

the importance of homebuyer education, 

without approval by the Secretary of 

as multiple respondents across sites spoke 

Interior, provided governing tribal leasing 

about this need, as well the need to better 

regulations have already been submitted 

educate tribal leadership and tribal housing 

to the Secretary. Before 2012, tribes had to 

department/TDHE staff on the programs 

submit leases of tribal land to the Secretary 

available to assist members. 

of Interior for approval (DOI/BIA, n.d.). Under 

the HEARTH Act, tribes are empowered to 

The diversity of tribal land requires that 

make decisions about land leasing as they 

homebuyer education be tailored to the 

see fit, in the spirit of self-determination. 

unique needs of tribes. Many tribes are 

responding to the lack of knowledge around 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

138

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

buying homes in customized ways. Lac 

for a downpayment for a home. The amount 

du Flambeau partnered with a local loan 

is based on income and the interest rate is 

fund in an innovative homebuyer education 

based on credit score (lower credit score, 

program presented in the text box, Lac 

higher interest). The downpayment can be 

du Flambeau: Homebuyer Education. 

used to build or to buy an existing stick 

Another example from the Lumbee Tribe 

built or manufactured home (the only 

is presented in the text box, Lumbee Tribe: 

trailers that qualify are double-wides). 

Homeownership Program.

Respondents at Lumbee indicated that a 

lot of manufactured homes are purchased 

Downpayment Assistance

through this program. As one respondent 

noted, “We could be helping and hurting 

To encourage homeownership, tribes also 

them at the same time. But it gives them 

designed programs to help households 

housing, and that’s the bottom line.” 

that could not afford downpayments. 

(As reported in section 2.5, 35 percent of 

The Lumbee Housing Department will also 

renters surveyed mentioned this as a barrier 

help a homebuyer with their mortgage if they 

and 60 percent of survey respondents who 

are behind in their payments. The program 

had never applied for a mortgage noted this 

provides 2 payments of up to $1,500 each 

as a barrier). In another innovative program 

to help them catch up. The homeowner has 

to support households that want to be 

to be delinquent with their mortgage and 

homeowners, the Lumbee Tribe can provide 

provide evidence of documented hardship.

a one-time loan from $4,000 up to $10,000 

Lac du Flambeau: Homebuyer Education

The Lac du Flambeau Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians works with 

the Wisconsin Native Loan Fund, Inc. (also known as Wigamig Owners Loan Fund, Inc., 

or WOLF). The Wisconsin Native Loan Fund is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) Certified Community 

Development Financial Institution, or CDFI, located in downtown Lac du Flambeau. Wigamig 

means “home” in the Ojibwa language. The mission of the Wisconsin Native Loan Fund is to 

provide tribal members with access to mortgage lending opportunities that include home 

improvement, downpayment assistance, and debt consolidation loans, as the Wisconsin 

Native Loan Fund seeks to encourage homeownership and self-sufficiency among tribal 

members and their families in and around the Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation. The 

Wisconsin Native Loan Fund, Inc. offers a selection of financial development classes, one-on-one technical assistance, and revolving loan fund home products to improve economic and 

social conditions on poverty-stricken reservations such as Lac du Flambeau. They do this by providing financial literacy on the reservation and working closely with key tribal members and entities. They also have programs to expose tribal members to credit counseling/credit 

repair and to promote good habits around money management and the use of credit.

As seen in this example, a core component of Lac du Flambeau’s program is the provision of 

financial literacy and financial development classes. Other important aspects to homebuyer 

education, seen in the other creative programs across sites, focused on assistance in financing the home after a client is ready to purchase. The Lumbee Tribe is one such example. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

139

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Lumbee Tribe: Home Ownership Program

The Lumbee Tribe’s Home Ownership Program provides safe, affordable housing for tribal y 

enrolled first-time homebuyers who cannot obtain financing with a conventional lender. 

The tribe contracts out to build the homes within its service area and serves as the lender, providing a 30-year, low-interest mortgage (1 or 2 percent interest, depending on income). 

To qualify, the buyer must have a credit score of 550 or more and demonstrate the ability to afford a house. The Housing Department has three subdivisions where houses can be built, 

or the Housing Department will build the home on a lot owned by the client. The tribe will 

build only on land that has state-maintained road frontage, because they want to build a 

marketable home. At Lumbee, all land is fee simple, so there is no issue regarding using the home for collateral when obtaining financing, as there is in the case of tribal trust lands. 

Home Repair/Rehabilitation Loans

Access to and Response by Lenders

Another important strategy for improving 

Five sites visited did not have eligible areas 

homeownership, is offering home repair 

for the Section 184 program and were 

and rehabilitation assistance. This is 

frustrated by the lack of options available to 

particularly helpful for substandard housing 

them to aid in buying a home. These sites 

conditions, when home rehabilitation can 

noted that in some cases, lack of resources 

become costly. The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

for housing has led to people moving off 

administers the Housing Improvement 

the reservation. In sites where the program 

Program, a safety-net program that 

did operate, some noted that they had 

provides grants for repairing, renovating, or 

trouble finding a lender to participate and 

replacing existing housing and for providing 

issues with predatory lending. In Acoma 

new housing. HIP funds are distributed 

Pueblo, one respondent shared that some 

on the basis of the number of eligible 

of the tribal citizens were “paying exorbitant 

applicants and their estimated cost of 

interest rates to buy mobile homes, 

program services (DOI/BIA, 2015). 

which depreciate quickly…” At Wind River 

reservation/Eastern Shoshone, interview 

On-the-Ground Efforts Since 

respondents highlighted difficulty in finding 

NAHASDA

lenders, despite the intended advantages 

of Section 184 program. Respondents said 

Interview respondents spoke about many 

that some banks still do not want to be 

challenges and successful efforts to improve 

involved with trust land, so people have to 

homeownership, particularly around 

go to South Dakota for mainstream banks 

the Section 184 program and initiatives 

to get a Section 184 loan.

around homebuyer readiness, because the 

concept of homeownership and mortgage 

Beyond perceived discrimination, some 

was new for many. Although demand for 

logistical concerns existed with lenders. 

homeownership exists, barriers regarding 

One respondent at Lummi Nation said, 

access to lenders, tribal capacity, and credit 

“We struggle with the banks where they 

issues still remain. 

sell loans and the banks buying the loans 

aren’t familiar with 184 and owners have to 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

140

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

keep up with where to send the payment.” 

the challenge of buying a traditional home 

Furthermore, multiple sites mentioned that 

on the reservation. Some sites, however, 

the paperwork associated with getting titles 

explicitly mentioned that they did not offer 

and using Section 184 was too lengthy and 

downpayment assistance for mobile homes.

was a deterrent for some people. 

Alongside the tribal capacity shown in many 

Tribal Capacity and Innovative 

areas, tribal politics remained a barrier for 

Approaches

some sites. One site mentioned that elders 

of the tribal religious clan do not allow 

Tribes have demonstrated the capacity to 

Section 184 mortgages due to concerns 

implement useful programs that respond 

of potential foreclosures. The respondent 

to local needs, as seen in the homebuyer 

shared the following concern: “The bank will 

education and financing programs discussed 

have first claim on the allotment and thus 

previously. They have initiated partnerships 

the land will be alienated from tribal control.” 

with other organizations; see the example 

There is “fear that 184 would lead to a 

presented in the text box, Choctaw Nation: 

class system on the reservation.” Interview 

Home Purchasing and Financing Program. 

respondents at Tohono O’odham also noted 

In site visit interviews respondents also 

that the local district had some concerns 

described alternative ways that members 

that they could lose some of their authority 

are finding homes when homeownership 

using Section 184 if the bank held the lease 

barriers cannot be immediately overcome.

on the land.

At Tohono O’odham Nation, site visit 

3.8. Leveraging and Strengthening 

respondents suggested that a lease-to-

the Private Market: Challenges and 

purchase option should be offered to assist 

Solutions 

people in obtaining affordable housing. 

The tribe could purchase the home and 

NAHASDA changed the system for funding 

lease to own to a given member until they 

and developing housing, with a focus on 

are qualified for Section 184. At Bishop 

tribal self-determination and flexibility 

Paiute, downpayment assistance is offered 

to accommodate the diversity of needs 

for purchasing mobile homes to overcome 

and cultural preferences across Indian 

Choctaw Nation: Home Purchasing and Financing Program

Working in collaboration with the Wel s Fargo Bank and PMI Mortgage Insurance, the 

Choctaw Nation developed a home purchasing/financing program—Choctaw Home Finance 

Cooperative. One instrument used to finance housing is the Section 184 Loan Guarantee 

Program. Described as the “best tool,” this program has had regulatory changes that have 

made it closer to conventional lending. Employed Choctaw tribal members nationwide can 

use this streamlined program. It provides favorable rates (3-percent loans) and can cover 

closing costs. The program has surpassed $100 mil ion in loans to tribal members across the nation. The default rate is low (2 percent) and occurs mostly outside the state of Oklahoma). 

The Choctaw Nation can lend to cover closings, certifications, appraisals, and downpayments (so far, though, no members have used it for downpayments). 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

141

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Country. One intention of NAHASDA was 

respondents (89 percent) reported private 

to enable and encourage tribes to secure 

subsidies were included in 25 percent or 

much more private investment and be less 

fewer projects (including zero subsidy). 

dependent on government support to 

Thus, the proportion of projects subsidized 

increase the supply of appropriate housing. 

by funds other than IHBG is smal , and of 

Another underlying goal was to foster 

that group, the proportion with private 

innovation in housing development. Section 

investment is even smaller. The activity that 

3.2 presented APR data submitted by 

is under way, however, is significant and 

NAHASDA grantees showing that grantees 

promising, given that this activity is new 

received less than $2 per $100 of IHBG 

for most tribes and that many challenges 

grants from private-sector investment. The 

remain. The barriers to leveraging that were 

flexibility and complexity of leveraging 

most frequently reported by tribes/TDHEs 

private investment, which is often combined 

are lack of interest from other organizations 

with other government and/or tribal funds, 

or financial institutions (45 percent); lack of 

however, makes reporting this information 

availability of programs (42 percent); political 

especially difficult. This section presents 

tensions between the tribe, TDHE, and other 

qualitative information from the tribal/TDHE 

organizations (35 percent); administrative 

survey and site visits about successful 

constraints (33 percent); and differing 

examples of leveraging private investment, 

priorities (31 percent).

other innovative initiatives undertaken in 

the spirit of NAHASDA, and barriers that 

Site Visit Responses, Examples 

constrain private investment in housing and 

of Leveraging, and Promising 

community development in Indian Country. 

Approaches

Tribal/TDHE Survey Findings About 

Site visit respondents at 18 of 22 sites 

discussed leveraging, reporting varying 

Leveraging

experiences and degrees of success.67 

When asked about the percent of al  

The findings and examples that follow 

housing and rehabilitation projects carried 

include leveraging of other government 

out or under way in the past 5 years that 

funds, partnerships, and other promising 

involved sources other than IHBG finds, the 

approaches and also examples of leveraging 

level of such activity reported by tribes/

private investment. These activities al  

TDHEs is limited. Almost 69 percent of 

demonstrate the motivation and creativity 

respondents indicated that the percent 

that tribes are drawing upon to address 

of housing construction or rehabilitation 

housing and economic development needs 

projects that used housing subsidies other 

with severely limited resources. In general, 

than IHBG Funds was 25 percent or less 

even at sites that had limited experience or 

(including zero subsidy), and almost 18 

no projects that leveraged funds outside 

percent of respondents reported subsidies 

of IHBG, the flexibility to leverage funds to 

in the range of 26 to 50 percent of projects. 

expand housing development and housing 

These subsidies include other HUD and 

services was viewed positively. Respondents 

state or federal subsidies. When asked 

at many sites, however, noted challenges with 

what proportion of these projects were 

leveraging NAHASDA funding because, after 

carried out jointly with private developers 

they cover their operating and maintenance 

who invested their own capital, most of the 

costs, little or no funding remains to 

67  These topics were not asked about systematically across all sites. Rather, these are issues raised by respondents during site visit interviews, so the problems and solutions might be particular to a small number of programs.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

142

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

leverage. A respondent from Pine Ridge said, 

Funds To Expand Housing Opportunities). 

“The purpose of NAHASDA was to leverage 

A respondent at the site said, “NAHASDA 

funding, but you need funding to leverage 

helps to leverage other funds when we need 

more, and show you have the resources to 

to pool resources to create projects.”

borrow—this doesn’t work if people are too 

Other examples of leveraging include an 

poor to pay rent.”

EPA grant obtained by Bishop Paiute that 

LIHTC was the program most mentioned 

required a 50 percent match that was 

by site visit respondents in connection 

difficult for the tribe to come up with. 

with leveraging, and was used at nine 

Chickaloon Native Vil age used a USDA 

sites.68 Two other sites had applied for 

loan to purchase a gravel pit needed for 

LIHTC, but at the time of the site visit, 

construction. Their plan is to build a project 

had not yet heard whether they had been 

and then pay off the loan with revenue from 

approved. Bad River is one site that has 

the project. Wind River Eastern Shoshone 

embraced the opportunity offered by 

obtained a Federal home loan bank grant 

LIHTC. As stated by one respondent, 

in 2000 that was used for renovation of 50 

“The prospect of leveraging money for 

homes. In addition, eight tribes mentioned 

new development through programs like 

using the Title VI loan guarantee. These 

LIHTC has created the possibility of new 

varied opportunities do not always bring in 

development—this has changed the focus 

new private investment, but use other federal 

of the housing authority from exclusively 

funds such as ICDBG, and sometimes the 

perpetuating existing stock.” Even with 

tribe provides funds or land to support a 

two successful experiences, however, 

project. A number of site visit respondents 

criticisms remained regarding the state’s 

mentioned the need to work with experts, 

LIHTC quality assurance plan, which the 

hire additional staff, or obtain more training 

tribe thought favored urban projects. It 

to improve their ability to leverage funding 

was also noted that many projects require 

and combine multiple funding sources. 

a minimum match of 20 percent. The 

The flexibility allowed under NAHASDA and 

application requirements and paperwork 

the diverse circumstances of tribes offer a 

are such that Bad River appointed a 

wide range of examples for consideration 

project manager specifically for tax credit 

by other tribes and also policymakers. The 

and ARRA projects because the process 

text boxes in the remainder of this section 

required too much work for regular staff. 

provide some illustrative examples from 

A respondent at White Earth, a tribe that 

the Lumbee Tribe (Leveraging NAHASDA 

is working on its fifth LIHTC project, noted 

Funds To Expand Housing Opportunities), 

that more investors and developers are 

Blackfeet Nation (Leveraging and 

interested in building with LIHTC monies, 

Private Market Development), Zuni Tribe 

such as the Greater Minnesota Housing 

(Leveraging Funding Sources and Partners), 

Fund. It was also pointed out, however, 

Makah Tribe (Makah’s Supportive Housing 

that LIHTC does have restrictions, such as 

Project: Leveraging Funds To Meet Needs 

set aside requirements for single parents, 

of Tribal Members), and Pine Ridge Indian 

homeless, veterans, and elders. The Lumbee 

Reservation (Partnership Helps To Build a 

Tribe has also successfully used LIHTC and 

New Vision for Oglala Sioux). 

other sources for development (see the text 

box, Lumbee Tribe: Leveraging NAHASDA 

68  A fuller examination of LIHTC in Indian Country could be undertaken using LIHTC data. Although LIHTC data are geocoded to latitude and longitude, and to census tract, they are not identified as being within tribal lands or not. To be of use, the data would have to be geocoded using tribal land shape files, a task that was beyond the scope of this project.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

143

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Lumbee Tribe: Leveraging NAHASDA Funds To Expand Housing 

Opportunities

The Lumbee Tribe works closely with its community partners, the local bank, and the city 

(Pembroke, North Carolina) to develop funding packages for housing that serves the needs 

of tribal members. Using these partnerships, along with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 

(LIHTC) and Title VI, the tribe is providing new, energy-efficient housing and accommodating the needs of elders and those with disabilities. Examples include— a $7.2 mil ion rental 

housing project supported by LIHTC through the State of North Carolina. The tribe built 

50 rental homes. The homes are two- and three-bedroom ENERGY STAR homes. The 

timing of this project initial y was problematic. In 2008, when the housing market crashed, nobody would buy the credits, but then the stimulus (American Reinvestment and Recovery 

Act) came in and the tribe was able to use that funding to buy the tax credits. Because 

the project used only Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, or 

NAHASDA, and stimulus funds, it did not cost the Lumbee Tribe any additional money. Of 

the 50 houses, 7 are designed for accessibility: built at ground level or with ramps and with accessible showers and toilets.

The Lumbee Tribe recently received approval for a 50-unit elderly (age 55 or older) rental 

building. The project is funded by $5 mil ion through the LIHTC Program and with a $2 

mil ion Title VI loan.

Blackfeet Nation: Leveraging and Private-Market Development

Through the Montana Housing Tax Credit Program, Blackfeet Housing leveraged resources 

to build affordable housing. Working in partnership with Blackfeet Housing on the Tax Credit Initiative are Raymond James Financial and Travois, Inc. Blackfeet Housing applied to the 

Montana Housing Board and was funded. The Housing Authority worked with a consultant to 

sell the tax credits for the maximum amount. Blackfeet Housing received $5.7 mil ion in tax credits from the state, which translated to $5.3 mil ion for new construction. The tax credit homes are for low-income housing (20 to 40 percent less than median income). Operational 

costs are paid through Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funds. Funds must be committed 

up front to begin the project. Blackfeet Housing used $20,000 per unit from IHBG and will 

build 30 tax credit homes. The Executive Director of Blackfeet Housing Authority said, “We 

can’t afford to not take advantage of this.” The Montana Housing Tax Credit Program has the support of the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

144

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Zuni Tribe: Leveraging Funding Sources and Partners

The Zuni Housing Authority (ZHA) leveraged funds from multiple partners to build new 

housing on the reservation. The Zuni Tribe, the Federal Highway Administration, the ZHA, 

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs all contributed funds, along with American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act funds, to develop the Bluebird subdivision. Zuni homeowners obtain 

mortgages through U.S Department of Veterans Affairs loans, Section 184, New Mexico 

Mortgage Finance Authority, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Self-

Help. Wel s Fargo provides assistance for helping homebuyers become credit worthy. ZHA 

leveraged Indian Housing Block Grant and Indian Community Development Block Grant 

funds that are targeted for housing rehabilitation and reconstruction. Zuni was the first 

tribe in New Mexico to get a USDA Rural Self-Help grant to help families build their own 

homes using “sweat equity.” A $279,000 USDA Section 523 grant served as seed money for 

technical assistance for the project. The homes were financed with USDA Section 502 direct 

mortgages, at about $90,000 each. 

Makah’s Supportive Housing Project: Leveraging Funds To Meet Needs of 

Tribal Members

Respondents in Makah described a new development called Sail River Heights, which is a 

51-acre subdivision built on higher ground outside the vulnerable tsunami flood zone where 

most of the community of Neah Bay, Washington, is located. This development includes the 

tribe’s first permanent supportive housing project to provide rental housing, health care, 

jobs, and counseling to formerly homeless families and individuals. To finance construction, the tribe used a variety of sources, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, 

or LIHTC; a loan from the Washington State Trust fund; funding from the Federal Home Loan 

Bank; a predevelopment loan from Enterprise Community Loan Fund; and tribal resources. 

The project consists of 21 units of affordable, permanent supportive housing for members 

of the community requiring access to social services. The project includes 12 one-bedroom 

units, 4 two-bedroom units, and 4 three-bedroom units to accommodate different size 

families and also an apartment for the manager. The final supportive housing idea for Makah was born out of a regional tribal meeting that occurred in Seattle in March 2011, where 

participants included representatives from a supportive housing homeless shelter developed 

on a reservation in Minnesota. The sharing of the Minnesota experience of a successful 

supportive housing concept helped to inspire the supportive housing project developed in 

Makah’s Sail River Heights development.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

145

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Pine Ridge: Partnership Helps To Build a New Vision for Oglala Sioux

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act’s (NAHASDA’s) 

influence extends beyond the number of homes built. The Oglala Sioux provide an example 

of how work distinct from NAHASDA-funded activities has been made possible, in part, 

through the partnerships formed with NAHASDA grantees and a broadened sense of who 

is responsible for addressing housing needs. The Oglala Sioux Tribe Partnership for Housing (OSTPH) is a partnership of the Oglala Sioux Lakota Housing Authority (OLHA), Oglala 

Sioux Tribe (OST), and Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation (TVCDC) to 

support housing and a sustainable community. OSTPH is a nonprofit organization founded 

in 1999. Partners serve different segments of the population and have varying missions and 

funding sources, but all embrace housing as a responsibility. OSTPH is a subgrantee under 

NAHASDA, and its funding supports board administration and homebuyer education. OLHA, 

the prime NAHASDA grantee, provides assisted housing, primarily on tribal trust land, and 

works with the partnership to assist prospective homebuyers (for example, credit repair, 

homebuyer education, lease issues related to fractionated land) and to assist homeowners 

with repairs and rehabilitations. TVCDC is developing a planned community on 34 acres 

owned by its nonprofit organization. Although the project does not receive funding from 

NAHASDA, all the partner organizations collaborate to create a more efficient process 

toward homeownership and community development. 

TVCDC is premised on “how to build a system to meet the need, not just a roof over the 

head, but to empower the community.” The planned community is a project designed by 

the Oglala Lakota people and guided by elders. In 2010, the community received a grant 

from HUD to help develop the project and it continues to receive funding from foundations, 

donors, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies, and individuals. 

It will provide mixed-income single-family and multifamily housing with both rental and 

homeownership opportunities, and it will include a youth shelter, food-growing operations, 

community and education facilities, and retail spaces for local businesses. The project also uses innovative programs to train the local workforce, including youth, in green building 

practices and to guide families to build their own homes. 

The first project completed was to build an energy-efficient straw bale house in partnership with the University of Colorado at Boulder and Oglala Lakota College. Housing built in this area must withstand a harsh environment—high heat in summer and bitter cold winters. 

Youth working on the building project receive assistance to obtain a general educational 

development, or GED, certificate followed by training in green construction methods. The 

longer-term goal is to move youth into employee-owned construction firms. 

TVCDC hired a homeownership coordinator to work with families through the homebuying 

process and is also working with the OSTPH and OLHA on homebuying and credit 

counseling. TVCDC works with Mazaska Owecaso Otipi Financial, a Native Community 

Development Financial Institution (CDFI), that provides housing loans and assistance.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

146

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

3.9. Conclusions and 

This study has produced partial evidence 

on most of these criteria. This evidence 

Recommendations

is reviewed in subsequent paragraphs, 

This project was not asked to conduct 

along with a discussion of what is 

a formal evaluation of NAHASDA. 

insufficient or missing.

Nonetheless, it offers many findings 

pertinent to an understanding of how 

Administrative capacity: The tribes were 

programs are working in the NAHASDA 

able to establish new administrative 

framework and of opportunities to 

entities and processes to administer the 

improve performance. 

IHBG and related programs fairly quickly 

after enactment.

This section begins by offering a framework 

When NAHASDA was enacted, 

for assessing performance under NAHASDA 

uncertainties were expressed (by 

and then notes, for each element of the 

legislators, appropriators, and some Indian 

framework, (1) relevant findings from this 

housing stakeholders) as to whether the 

study that shed light on results so far; 

tribes would have the capacity to take 

and (2) other information that would be 

over the administration of demanding 

needed to round out a more satisfying 

housing programs. This study shows 

assessment. Then, based on the partial 

that, even though administrative capacity 

assessment just presented, the section 

does remain an issue at some level in 

offers recommendations about improving 

many places (see section 3.4), these 

system performance. Final y, it offers 

basic challenges have largely been met 

recommendations on steps that could be 

(see section 3.4 and 3.6). The evidence is 

taken to monitor housing and other relevant 

provided by the ONAP monitoring system 

conditions in Indian Country more frequently 

and information from the tribal/TDHE 

and efficiently as a basis for effective 

survey and site visit interviews (see section 

adaptations to policies and programs.

3.4). Responsibilities were transferred to 

System Performance Under 

new tribally controlled entities reasonably 

NAHASDA

soon after NAHASDA was enacted. In 

addition, as noted in section 3.4, the task 

What questions would be asked by a 

entailed developing capacity in many more 

performance assessment of NAHASDA? It 

places. In 1990, 187 IHAs were providing 

would begin with information on whether the 

HUD-assisted housing in 467 tribal areas. 

administrative capacity needed to operate 

In FY 2014, 363 IHBG grant recipients 

the program could be established. It would 

provided assisted housing to 553 tribes. 

then look at conventional measures related 

to program outputs: quantity, quality, cost 

It took a few years before the APR 

efficiency, and whether the mix of outputs 

system was functioning adequately, 

responded to the varying needs of the 

but ONAP staff report almost 100 

beneficiaries. Next, it would offer measures 

percent compliance with APR reporting 

of client satisfaction. Given the specific hopes 

requirements after that. The APRs 

for NAHASDA, it would also offer information 

document what and how much was 

pertaining to innovation and leveraging. 

produced or accomplished under each 

Final y, it would have to examine information 

program element and the amount of funds 

on program integrity and accountability.

spent on them (see section 3.2). ONAP’s 

quality control system verifies the results.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

147

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Quantity. The new system has proven able to 

Cost Efficiency: This study does not 

match or exceed the previous rate of assisted 

address cost efficiency but does offer some 

housing production in Indian Country under 

insights for future assessments.

the old approach. Limits on funding are now 

An assessment of the development of cost 

a major constraint on production.

performance under IHBG was beyond the 

Tabulations presented in section 3.3 show 

scope of this study, so no data are presented 

that the tribes’ production under IHBG 

on that topic. Based on working with the 

ramped up to peak levels (2,400 hard units 

APR data and visiting many IHBG grantees 

and 4,100 rehabilitated units per year) in 

for this study, the research team thinks that 

the 2007-to-2010 period. Output expanded 

providing meaningful comprehensive data 

even more rapidly from those levels as 

on quality and cost through the APR system 

ARRA funds became available (an additional 

would be expensive and not cost-effective. 

2,000 hard units and 13,300 rehabilitated 

A more effective way to provide useful data 

units between 2009 and 2012). Production 

on these topics in the future would be for 

declined after that as funding was reduced 

ONAP to select a random sample of IHBG 

so much in real terms that reductions in 

developments completed each year, and hire 

output were necessitated. 

experienced independent contractors to do 

thorough analyses of the quality and costs 

Quality: This study does not provide direct 

of those developments. Such analyses are 

evidence of the quality of IHBG housing.

difficult because specific development barriers 

in individual tribal areas need to be factored 

Nothing indicates that housing produced 

in. For example, costs that seem excessive 

under IHBG is inadequate or different than 

by the standards of cities in the same state 

that produced under the old system. Survey 

may well be deemed reasonable after specific 

results reported in section 3.3 show that the 

conditions in an area are understood. 

incidence of one or more severe physical 

housing deficiencies in assisted housing in 

Mix of housing types and development 

tribal areas in 2014-15 (22 percent of units) 

patterns: The mix of housing types and 

was the same as that for unassisted housing. 

development patterns produced under 

The survey does not support estimates of 

NAHASDA appears more sensitive to 

the share of those deficiencies that existed in 

local determinants, including culture, in 

housing produced under NAHASDA versus 

individual tribal areas than was the case 

that under the earlier 1937 act programs 

under the old approach.

that were still occupied. (Higher point 

estimates of overcrowding now in assisted 

One major criticism of HUD’s pre-

housing compared with unassisted housing 

NAHASDA production program was that 

indicate not that differences in the quality of 

its products were not always sensitive to 

the housing produced existed but that not 

the needs and desires of the populations 

enough assisted housing was produced in 

at hand. Each tribal area has its own 

relation to the need.) APRs from the tribes 

cultural preferences and its own situation 

indicate that, in their assessment, only 1 

determines the best design for the housing 

percent of units produced under NAHASDA 

development agenda. The pre-NAHASDA 

through FY 2012 are of such low quality that 

system had many examples of mismatches 

they need to be replaced and 9 percent 

in this regard, such as instances in which 

need to be rehabilitated (exhibit 3.37). 

HUD used standardized “tract house” 

models across many types of tribal areas 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

148

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

without regard to differences in local 

Innovation: Substantial anecdotal evidence 

cultures, conditions, and preferences.

indicates that processes are better aligned 

with tribe and resident needs now than 

This study did not assemble exhaustive 

under the old, more rule-bound approach. 

information on this topic, but substantial 

In general, the tribes seem to be stepping 

anecdotal evidence indicates that having 

up to the challenge of self-determination 

the tribes become directly responsible for 

in housing.

making housing type and pattern choices 

has made a critical difference (see, for 

Evidence of partnerships, not only to 

example, the discussion in section 3.3; 

leverage funds, but also to provide 

HUD/PD&R, 2015a). 

homebuyer education, teach home 

maintenance, improve home energy 

Leveraging funds: Although far from 

efficiency, and provide training and 

ubiquitous, many examples of leveraging 

employment in the building trades was an 

show that it could not have taken place 

important finding of this study’s site visits. 

under the old system. 

As with leveraging, a more systematic review 

of these activities, along with continued 

The promise of NAHASDA was not just more 

opportunities for sharing ideas among 

assisted housing development per se, but 

tribes, will document progress and build on 

rather a fundamental change to the system by 

these successes.

which housing would be developed in Indian 

Country. The new system was to produce 

Accountability. The tribal/TDHE survey 

more appropriate and ample housing because 

and site visit interviews support the view 

it would secure much more private investment 

that the system is now more broadly 

(like outside market-oriented systems) and 

accountable to tribal members—that 

be less dependent on government support. 

tribal members are able to participate 

The data on leveraging in section 3.2 and 

more through their tribal governments 

many of the development examples cited 

in planning and other programmatic 

in sections 3.6 through 3.8 indicate that this 

decisionmaking.

sort of change has been at least initiated 

in many tribal areas. Not enough reliable 

As noted in section 3.5, a substantial 

information is being generated, however, to 

majority of tribes/TDHEs reports active 

support firm judgments on where and how 

consultation with community residents in 

much progress is being made. Pinning down 

planning and other aspects of their work—71 

progress in this area seems worth additional 

percent with IHBG housing residents and 

effort by ONAP. First, a more explicit and 

65 percent with other community residents. 

serious review of the data provided in table 

Almost all (90 percent) tribes/TDHEs say 

1 of the APRs (see the previous discussion 

they hold community meetings and 69 

regarding exhibit 3.22) should occur, with 

percent say they conduct informal visits 

more extensive probing of the entries on this 

and discussions with various groups. In 

table. Next, coupling evidence from these 

the preponderance of site-visit interviews 

reviews with additional anecdotal evidence, 

that dealt with the subject, interviewees 

ONAP should consider establishing a 

indicated that the level of resident 

balanced, but systematic, approach to rating 

engagement is higher than it was before 

the tribes on their efforts at leveraging and 

NAHASDA. Some of this is to be expected, 

entrepreneurialism in housing and economic 

because decisions about the housing 

development more broadly. 

agenda are now under the provenance 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

149

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

of tribal governments, which in itself 

Recommendations for Improving 

implies residents’ voices would have more 

Performance Based on the Findings 

of a chance to make a difference than 

of This Study

under the old HUD/IHA system. Many site 

interviewees noted, however, that resident 

Regardless of the level of IHBG funding 

voice was making more of a difference 

provided, HUD and other federal agencies 

in tribal deliberations in general with the 

need to help tribes better leverage the 

emphasis on self-determination. 

assistance they receive to generate both 

economic development and housing 

Although they recommend some 

improvement in an integrated manner, 

changes, tribal leaders and 

particularly in the places that need it most.

administrators almost uniformly prefer 

operations under NAHASDA to the 

It is clear that the amount of federal housing 

system that existed before.

assistance provided to Indian Country to 

this point has not been sufficient to meet 

Program administrators do call for some 

the need. In real terms, the flow of IHBG 

changes in the regulations—for example, 

funding is now trending down in relation 

in general administration (58 percent) 

to this need. Further, it is evident that 

and developing new units (49 percent)—

at this time, insufficient funding, more 

but nothing major. The only frequent 

than administrative capacity, is the major 

criticism of NAHASDA is that a sizeable 

constraint on providing housing. 

number of tribes/TDHEs think it may be 

offering them less funding than under the 

In considering policy options, the diversity 

previous approach. 

of conditions across tribal areas is of great 

importance. Housing problems in some 

This study offers little evidence in two 

tribal areas are much more severe than 

areas: (1) beneficiaries’ satisfaction with 

in others. This means that the focus must 

assisted housing and (2) program integrity.

be on innovative technical assistance and 

training that will encourage the tribes, 

The household survey did ask about 

especial y those most in need, to markedly 

satisfaction with housing, but the results 

enhance their own development efforts—

were similar for those living in assisted 

learning from other tribes that have been 

housing and other residents of tribal areas. 

most successful in expanding their local 

This study was not funded to conduct 

economies and channeling resources to 

research on the topic of program integrity, 

address unmet housing needs efficiently.

such as assuring that funds are not misused.

A new type of targeted approach is 

Although gaps remain in the information 

recommended then—one that jointly 

base, all the findings of this study 

addresses economic and housing 

support the overall conclusion: Although 

development in tribal areas that are most 

needs for capacity improvement remain 

distressed. Although HUD programs in tribal 

widespread, the housing assistance 

areas have always had the twin purposes 

system established under NAHASDA 

of housing and economic development, 

appears to be functioning reasonably well 

a stronger focus on this intersection is 

and is doing what it was intended to do. 

needed. This approach envisions movement 

It represents a marked improvement over 

toward an ideal program, while maintaining 

the previous approach.

the current IHBG program. In many cases, 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

150

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

this approach may involve helping tribes 

cost more than $6 million and took 

make the fundamental institutional changes 

more than 6 years to complete.) With 

that have been critical to establishing a 

competing demands for research resources, 

dynamic market economy in tribal areas 

decisionmakers had a hard time mobilizing 

elsewhere: emphasizing the rule of law in 

support for a study of this scope.

dispute resolution and other aspects of tribal 

The high cost of this study was driven 

activity, separating politics from day-to-day 

mostly by the challenging task of 

administration and business affairs, and 

conducting a reliable random sample 

creating an efficient tribal bureaucracy; 

household survey, particularly in tribal areas 

however, it would also include practical 

that often lack rural addressing in many 

technical assistance and training on 

places and require intensive fieldwork to 

the specific design and operation 

build sample frames. In some cases, surveys 

of programs developed to support 

of this kind are the only options, but, in this 

the new strategies. Models would be 

case, strong reasons indicate that nearly all 

developed based on successful programs 

the information that needs to be updated 

implemented in other tribal areas, but 

for policymaking can be obtained without a 

modified as appropriate to address 

separate household survey. 

cultural, regional, and other differences.

ACS data products are now released every 

HUD’s ONAP could play a leading role in 

year, and although sample sizes are too 

this effort. It has a solid track record of 

small to support reliable estimates for 

long-established relationships helping tribes 

smaller tribal areas individual y, they are 

achieve their housing objectives. ONAP 

ample to support reports on most needed 

would need additional resources enabling it 

indicators for tribal areas in total by region, 

to play an expanded role. 

and for larger tribal areas individual y (as 

Monitoring AIAN Housing and 

demonstrated by the use of ACS data in this 

Socioeconomic Conditions More 

report). It is also noteworthy that a major 

Effectively

increase in the national ACS sample size 

was implemented in 2011, so ACS data in the 

A second recommendation is that HUD 

future will be more reliable than the 2006–

initiate a program to more frequently 

2010 data used in this report.69 

monitor housing and other conditions of the 

AIAN population nationwide, primarily taking 

It is recommended that HUD support 

advantage of the Census Bureau’s decennial 

studies that rely on decennial census and 

census and American Community Survey.

ACS data in census years (for example, 

2020, 2030), and on ACS data alone for the 

HUD published its first comprehensive 

intervening 5-year points (for example, 2015, 

national assessment of AIAN housing 

2025, 2035). The cost should be less than 

conditions in 1996. Between that time and 

that for this study, and spreading it over the 

this study, 20 years later, all stakeholders 

years should make it even more palatable for 

concerned with housing conditions in 

a cost-conscious legislature to support. The 

tribal areas have had little information on 

currency of the data should make a greater 

changing circumstances to guide their 

contribution to timely and cost-effective 

policy deliberations. The long time gap 

adaptations of policies and programs. 

is explained by the fact that a study of 

this kind is very expensive. (This study 

69  This increase raised the national sample to 3.5 million addresses, up from 2.9 million in the 2000s (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a). 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

151

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Two reports are recommended in each 

It is recommended that comparisons of 

reporting year. The first could be called 

other circumstances and trends in this 

The Changing Circumstances of American 

report be made using the AIAN alone 

Indians and Alaska Natives: National Review. 

group (as has been done in part 1 of this 

This report would look at conditions for 

current report). These analyses start from 

AIAN populations nationwide across all 

the view that forming sound policy related 

geographies. It would compare indicators 

to AIAN populations needs to be based 

for AIAN populations in tribal areas and 

on an understanding of how they differ 

surrounding counties with those in other 

from non-Indians along many dimensions, 

metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas 

not just economic. The substantive scope 

(in short, it would resemble part 1 of 

of the census and ACS fortunately can 

this report). No one else now regularly 

answer questions across a very broad 

produces a report like this and it should be 

range. Again, in each instance, information 

of great value to the overall AIAN policy 

is needed to compare—

community. The second report could 

•  Circumstances for AIAN populations 

be called:  The Changing Circumstances 

across the different geography types and 

of American Indians and Alaska Natives: 

regions.

Housing Conditions and Needs in Indian 

Country. This report would focus on tribal 

•  Circumstances over time, comparing 

areas, with the NAHASDA/HUD policy 

current information to 5-10 years ago.

community as its primary audience (like this 

current final report overall). These reports, 

•  Housing problems and other indicators 

as envisioned, are further described in 

for the AIAN population to the same 

subsequent paragraphs.

indicators for non-Indians.

The Changing Circumstances of 

On the sociodemographic side, topics of 

American Indians and Alaska Natives:   concern include population age, household 

National Review 

size and composition, and education levels. 

Economic indicators include those related 

In census years, this report would begin 

to labor force participation and employment 

with a review of changes in AIAN population 

(by type and sector as appropriate), and 

totals during the past decade, similar to 

a second group of economic indicators 

that presented in section 1.2. Data would 

pertaining to income and poverty rates. 

be reported for the main racial categories 

(AIAN alone and AIAN multiracial) for the 

Then, the report could present available 

following basic geographies: tribal areas, 

data on changes in housing conditions. At 

surrounding counties and other metropolitan 

this point, these data include only basic 

and non-metropolitan areas, national total, 

descriptors from regularly published ACS data: 

and totals for each ONAP region. The report 

vacancy rates, tenure, and structure type. In 

would include explicit comparisons with the 

this current report, the research team was 

rates of non-Indian (or all race) populations, 

able to take advantage of the ACS selected 

addressing questions such as—Is the AIAN 

population tables made available from the 

population growing faster or slower, by 

2006–2010 ACS survey which contained many 

how much, and where? For the in-between 

more housing-related indicators for larger 

years, this population analysis would not be 

tribal areas (see discussion in section 2.2). The 

included, because the ACS does not offer 

Census Bureau unfortunately has not released 

comparable data for this purpose. 

these tables since that time, and does not now 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

152

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

plan to do so in the future. It is recommended 

The next major section of the report would 

that HUD urge the Census Bureau to prepare 

examine trends in housing conditions, 

these selected population tables again, 

problems, and needs in tribal areas. This 

at least at 5-year intervals consistent with 

analysis would rely primarily on HUD’s 

the timing of the recommended AIAN 

“special tabs” data provided by the Census 

reports. The 2006–2010 reports began with 

Bureau—the same data analyzed in section 

several important descriptive topics: age of 

2.3 of this report. Data would cover AIAN 

structure, unit size, home values, and rent, 

multirace households in tribal areas. Again, 

including the basic ACS housing problem 

these data permit presenting the key 

indicators: plumbing/kitchen deficiencies, 

indicators in the combined form: plumbing/

overcrowding, and housing cost burden.

kitchen deficiencies and/or overcrowding 

and/or cost burden). They also permit 

The Changing Circumstances of 

analysis of conditions and trends for low-

American Indians and Alaska Natives:   income AIAN households in contrast to 

Housing Conditions and Needs in 

AIAN households in higher-income groups. 

Indian Country 

In this current report, the research team 

looked at only the NAHASDA-eligible group 

This report would be structured and 

(less than 80 percent of median income). 

written for audiences concerned primarily 

In future reports, it is recommended 

with housing problems in Indian Country 

that HUD also examine the situation for 

and performance under NAHASDA. It 

yet lower income subgroups (less than 

would present evidence on changing 

50 percent of median and less than 30 

circumstances of the AIAN population in 

percent of median). Trends (changes in all 

tribal areas, with some information being 

key indicators during the past 5-10 years) 

offered on the surrounding counties (it 

would be analyzed by ONAP region.

would contain no information on conditions 

in metropolitan or nonmetropolitan locations 

The report would then move to program 

outside of Indian Country). 

performance under NAHASDA, including 

updates of the ONAP-PTD tables presented 

It would begin with a summary of findings 

here in sections 3.2 and 3.3. This would 

from the National Review report for the 

start with Line of Credit Control System 

same year, but then focus the discussion 

data on grant amounts during the past 5 

on tribal areas and surrounding counties. 

years, both in nominal and real terms—the 

This part would explain the demographic 

question is whether the IHBG grant has lost 

and socioeconomic context, which must 

purchasing power in real terms and if so, by 

be understood to assess the dynamics 

how much. Next, data would be presented 

behind how housing needs in Indian 

on expenditure levels by activity category 

Country are changing, and also trends 

(exhibits 3.23 and 3.24). The purpose is 

in the ability of this population to afford 

to find out which categories have been 

decent housing. In census years, emphasis 

growing or declining, both proportionally 

would be given to analysis of the growth 

and in real dollars. An obvious question 

rates of AIAN populations in tribal areas 

is whether amounts spent on housing 

(past decade) compared with those of 

production have been squeezed down 

non-Indians—nationwide and by region. 

because of continued expenditures in 

Comparative population growth rates have 

other categories that are harder to cut (as 

a great deal to do with understanding 

observed during the past 10-15 years).

potential future housing needs. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

153

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

This would be followed by analysis of 

Analysis for Individual Tribal Areas 

housing production (in units) during the 

An additional need that should be 

past 5 years broken down by tenure and by 

considered. In the course of this study, 

acquisition/construction versus rehabilitation. 

many tribes said they would like to develop 

It has been noted in this report how difficult 

better data on housing conditions and 

it is to interpret these production numbers 

other circumstances for their own individual 

because they are made up of different 

reservations to guide program planning. This 

program types. For example, building 100 

interest can in part be met for the larger 

units in the same format as the 1937 Act 

tribes (that is, where ACS sample sizes 

rental program (in which the tribe retains 

warrant) by sending them standard situation 

ownership and obligations for maintenance), 

profiles from the ACS each year (formats 

is a very different thing from providing an 

and indicators as per the national review 

upfront capital subsidy to a private owner 

suggested previously) and encouraging 

in which the tribe will have no further 

tribal input regarding data presentation 

involvement in the project after construction. 

and formats.70 In addition however, PD&R 

The most valuable change to the APR would 

should work with ONAP to develop 

be a requirement that the tribes report 

efficient guidelines and training programs 

production levels for 5 to 6 basic program 

to help tribes (that can mount the needed 

types and also totals in the future.

resources) conduct sample surveys and 

In each of these efforts, the data tables would 

use other available data to assess their own 

be supplemented by interviews with key 

situations efficiently. This study’s household 

stakeholders at all levels and reviews of new 

survey instrument is publicly available to 

program reports and other literature, possibly 

tribes for their use. This is an important 

with a simpler survey of tribes/TDHEs and 

responsibility consistent with the intent of 

other key stakeholders in some years.

NAHASDA to enhance tribal capacity and 

self-determination.

70  The Census Bureau relies on stakeholders and advisory committees for feedback on AIAN matters. Feedback can be provided to the Census Bureau National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations at https://www.census.gov/about/cac/nac.html.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

154

Glossary

Glossary

child poverty rate: The percentage of 

individuals under the age of 18 living in 

households that have money incomes that 

AIBN: American Indian Business Network. 

fall below the poverty threshold for their 

Provides an opportunity for tribal businesses 

family size and composition, as defined by 

to showcase their products and interact 

the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

with other business owners and potential 

EA: Eligible Area for Section 184 Loans. 

customers. It also allows for networking 

Participating tribes determine the areas where 

among tribal leaders, Indian entrepreneurs, 

the Section 184 loan can be used. Many states 

and other tribal government businesses.

are eligible in their entirety, although only 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: 

select counties are eligible in other states.  

Authorized Alaska Natives to 44 mil ion 

FCAS: Formula Current Assisted Stock. 

acres of public land in Alaska and 

Funding to maintain and operate the older 

$962,000,000 in cash as settlement of 

1937 Act units built before NAHASDA.

their aboriginal claim to land in the state. 

It established Alaska Native vil ages and 

FHA: Federal Housing Administration. 

regional Alaska Native corporations to 

Provides mortgage insurance on loans made 

oversee the lands and payments.

by FHA-approved lenders throughout the 

United States and its territories. FHA insures 

AONAP: Area Offices of Native American 

mortgages on single family and multifamily 

Programs. Six offices that report directly 

homes including manufactured homes and 

to ONAP and manage a variety of AIAN 

hospitals. FHA mortgage insurance provides 

programs funded through HUD.

lenders with protection against losses as the 

APR: Annual Performance Report. 

result of homeowners defaulting on their 

Submitted by tribes to HUD’s Office of 

mortgage loans. The lenders bear less risk 

Native American Programs as a part of 

because FHA will pay a claim to the lender 

performance monitoring and quality control.

in the event of a homeowner’s default. Loans 

must meet certain requirements established 

CDFI Fund: Community Development 

by FHA to qualify for insurance. 

Financial Institutions Fund.  Created for 

the purpose of promoting economic 

fractionated ownership: The term used to 

revitalization and community development 

note ownership of a property in the name of 

through investment in and assistance 

more than one individual. It is typical y used 

to community development financial 

in conjunction with allotted or individual trust 

institutions. The CDFI Fund was established 

lands to describe situations in which, over time 

by the Riegle Community Development and 

and through division of inheritance, multiple 

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. Native 

parties have claim to a single property. 

American CDFIs and a special CDFI Native 

FY: Fiscal year. The federal fiscal year is 

Initiative Fund stimulate and aid these CDFIs. 

October 1–September 30.

CHR: Community Health Representative. 

GED: General educational development 

American Indians and Alaska Natives 

tests are a group of four subject tests which, 

selected, employed, and supervised by their 

when passed, provide certification that 

tribes and trained by IHS to provide specific 

the test taker has achieved American or 

healthcare and outreach services at the 

Canadian high school-level academic skil s.

community level.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

155

Glossary

HEARTH Act: Helping Expedite and 

o   Extended households with relatives 

Advance Responsible Tribal Home-

and nonrelatives:  any noncore family 

ownership. The HEARTH Act of 2012 creates 

household that includes the respondent 

an alternative land leasing process. Tribes 

with at least one relative and one 

are authorized to execute agricultural 

nonrelative.

and business leases of tribal trust lands 

for a primary term of 25 years and up 

•  Single-person households: households 

to two renewal terms of 25 years each 

in which the respondent is the only 

without approval by the Secretary of the 

household member.

U.S. Department of the Interior, provided 

•  Nonfamily households: households in 

governing tribal leasing regulations have 

which the respondent lives with at least 

already been submitted to the Secretary. 

one nonrelative and does not live with any 

household composition: This term refers to 

relatives or a spouse. 

living arrangements of households. In this 

•  Other family arrangements: The “other 

report, examined household types include— 

family arrangements” category is defined 

•  Core families: households with or 

by the U.S. Census Bureau as male- or 

without children in which the only 

female-headed households without 

adult(s) in the household is the 

children under the age of 18. 

respondent or the respondent and his/

HIP: Housing Improvement Plan. A housing 

her spouse. These include married 

assistance program funded under the IHBG 

couples with or without children and also 

program and administered by the Bureau of 

single-parent household types.

Indian Affairs.

•  Extended households:  households that 

Indian Self-Determination and Education 

include related family members beyond 

Assistance Act of 1975: This piece of 

the core family structure. This category 

legislation redistributed power from the 

includes the following subtypes: 

federal government to tribes in education and 

o   Three-generation families, also called 

program administration. Later amendments in 

multigenerational families.  Family 

the 1980s and 1990s established block grants 

households, which are households that 

from the Indian Health Service and Bureau of 

include at least two members related 

Indian Affairs to cover other programs.

by blood, adoption, or marriage, 

Indian Country: The definition of “Indian 

that include members of at least 

Country” has changed throughout history, 

three generations (for example, the 

but the term is used here in the common 

householder, his or her parent, and his 

colloquial sense to mean tribal areas, 

or her child or a householder, his or 

including Alaska Native vil ages. The term 

her child, and his or her grandchild). 

“Indian Country” is not used as a legal term 

This is the same definition used by the 

in this report.

U.S. Census Bureau.

IHA: Indian Housing Authorities. 

o   Broader extended families: 

Responsible for implementing federal 

households that include other related 

policies on a local level.

household members (for example, the 

respondent’s siblings, aunts, uncles, 

IHBG: Indian Housing Block Grant. A formula 

nieces, nephews), but no nonrelated 

grant that provides a range of affordable 

household members.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

156

Glossary

housing activities on Indian reservations and 

primarily serve low-income families. 

Indian areas. The block grant approach to 

housing for Native Americans was enabled 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act. 

by the Native American Housing Assistance 

Requires federal agencies to integrate 

and Self Determination Act of 1996. 

environmental values into their decision 

making processes by considering the 

IHP: Indian Housing Plan. Submitted by 

environmental impacts of their proposed 

tribes to HUD’s Office of Native American 

actions and reasonable alternatives to those 

Programs as a part of performance 

actions. To meet NEPA requirements federal 

monitoring and quality control.

agencies prepare a detailed environmental 

impact statement. 

LIHTC: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. 

Created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the 

NADL: Native American Veteran Direct Loan 

LIHTC program gives state and local LIHTC-

program. Provides eligible Native American 

allocating agencies the equivalent of nearly 

Veterans and their spouses the opportunity 

$8 bil ion in annual budget authority to issue 

to use their VA home loan guaranty benefit 

tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, 

on federal trust land.

or new construction of rental housing 

targeted to lower-income households.

NOFA: Notice of Funds Availability. Process 

used by agencies, including HUD, to procure 

LOCCS: Line of Credit Control System. 

outside services. 

The U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development’s primary grant 

OEH: Office of Environmental Health. 

disbursement system.

Builds water wel s and septic tanks for tribal 

members purchasing or building a home in 

MTE: Menominee Tribal Enterprises. A 

the service area at Citizen Potawatomi Nation.

tribal y owned lumber production company. 

ONAP: Office of Native American Programs 

Native American Credit Unions: A credit 

within HUD. Administers housing and 

union is a financial cooperative, owned 

community development programs that 

entirely by its members. A Native American 

benefit American Indian and Alaska Native 

credit union typical y has Native American 

tribal governments, tribal members, the 

members and provides financial services to 

Department of Hawai an Home Lands, 

Native American communities. 

Native Hawai ans, and other Native 

American organizations. 

NAHASDA: Native American Housing 

Assistance and Self Determination Act. 

overcrowding: A household that has more 

Signed on October 26, 1996, NAHASDA 

than one occupant per room. This includes 

replaced the myriad programs that had 

households that are severely overcrowded 

previously provided housing assistance 

(that is, those with more than 1.5 occupants 

to Native American tribes under the U.S. 

per room). 

Housing Act of 1937 with a block grant that 

allowed tribes or their Tribal y Designated 

poverty rate: The percentage of people 

Housing Entities (also called TDHEs) 

living in households that have money 

more flexibility to decide whom to serve, 

incomes that fall below the poverty 

what services to offer, and how to deliver 

threshold for their family size and 

programs and services. As with the 1937 Act, 

composition, as defined by the U.S. Office of 

under NAHASDA, tribes are still required to 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

157

Glossary

Management and Budget.

to obtain adequate housing through 

conventional financing. The program is 

PTD: Performance tracking database. Used 

managed by the Rural Housing service, 

by Office of Native American Programming 

which is part of Rural Development in the 

to monitor performance and financial 

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

information related to the Indian Housing 

Block Grant program. 

severe overcrowding: A household that has 

more than 1.5 occupants per room.

RHS: Rural Housing Service of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Administers 

Snyder Act: Public Law 67-85, November 2, 

Section 502 Direct Lending program.

1921 authorized the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

under the supervision of the Secretary 

RV: Recreational vehicle. A large vehicle that 

of the Interior, to “direct, supervise, and 

often has a bathroom, kitchen, and beds for 

expend such moneys as Congress may 

use during travel and camping.

from time to time appropriate, for the 

Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee 

benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians 

Program: Loan Guarantees for Indian 

throughout the United States” for purposes 

Housing (see 24 CFR part 1005), commonly 

including education; health; general 

referred to as the Section 184 Program, 

administration of Indian property; extension, 

is a home mortgage program specifical y 

improvement, operation, and maintenance 

designed for American Indian and Alaska 

of existing Indian irrigation systems and for 

Native families, Alaska vil ages, tribes, 

development of water supplies; repair of 

or Tribal y Designated Housing Entities. 

the buildings and grounds of existing plants 

Section 184 loans can be used, both on 

and projects; and various other aspects of 

and off native lands, for new construction, 

governance and administration. 

rehabilitation, purchase of an existing home, 

TDC: Total Development Cost. Total 

or refinance. The program is managed by 

Development Cost (TDC) is calculated by 

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

averaging the current construction costs 

Development (HUD). Section 184 home 

for a moderately designed house as listed 

loans are guaranteed 100 percent by the 

in not less than two national y recognized 

Office of Loan Guarantee within HUD’s 

residential construction cost indices.

Office of Native American Programs. 

TDHE: Tribal y Designated Housing Entity. 

Section 502 Guaranteed Rural Housing 

The entity designated by each tribe that is 

Loan Program: The Section 502 Guaranteed 

responsible for administering its housing 

Rural Housing Loan Program is designed 

assistance program that is funded by the 

to serve rural residents who have a steady, 

federal government. 

low or modest income, and yet are unable 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

158

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

List of Acronyms and 

IRS: Internal Revenue Service.

NAIHC: National American Indian Housing 

Abbreviations 

Council. 

NCAI: National Congress of American 

ACS: American Community Survey.

Indians. 

AHS: American Housing Survey.

NIGC: National Indian Gaming Commission. 

AIAN: American Indians and Alaskan Native.

OIP: Office of Indian Programs. Replaced by 

Office of Native American Programs.

AMI: Area Median Income.  

OLHA: Oglala Sioux Lakota Housing 

ARRA: American Recovery and 

Authority.

Reinvestment Act of 2009.

OMB: U.S. Office of Management and 

BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Budget.

CDBG: Community Development Block 

OST: Oglala Sioux Tribe. 

Grant.

OSTPH: Oglala Sioux Tribe Partnership for 

CDC: Community Development Corporation. 

Housing. 

CDFI: Community development financial 

PIH: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

institutions.

Development’s Office of Public and Indian 

Housing.

DOE: Department of Energy.

PD&R: U.S. Department of Housing and 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency.

Urban Development’s Office of Policy 

GAO: Government Accountability Office. (In 

Development and Research.

2004, the name changed from the General 

TVCDC: Thunder Valley Community 

Accounting Office to the Government 

Development Corporation. 

Accountability Office.)

USDA: United States Department of 

HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Agriculture.

Urban Development.

ZHA: Zuni Housing Authority.

ICDBG: Indian Community Development 

Block Grant. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

159

References

References

Corey, Kristen, Jennifer Biess, Nancy Pindus, 

and Doray Sitko. 2016.  Housing 

Needs of Native Hawai ans: A Report 

Alexander, Trent. 2011. “Presentation to 

From the Assessment of American 

the State Data Centers and Census 

Indian, Alaska Native, and Native 

Information Centers.” American 

Hawaiian Housing Needs.  Prepared 

Community Survey Steering 

for the U.S. Department of Housing 

Committee Updates. February 16.

and Urban Development, Office of 

Policy Development and Research. 

Austin, Algernon. 2009.  American Indians 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

and the Great Recession: Economic 

Disparities Growing Larger.  Issue Brief 

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

#264. Washington, DC: Economic 

Pathways from Poverty: Development 

Policy Institute.

and Institute Building on American 

Indian Reservations.  Harvard Project 

Bank2. n.d. “About Us. ” http://www.bank2online.

on American Indian Economic 

com/about-us/about-us.html. 

Development. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University.

Bedré Fine Chocolate. 2006. “Our Company.” 

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

. 1992. “Reloading the Dice: 

company.jsp. 

Improving the Chances for Economic 

Development on American Indian 

Burt, Martha R. 2001. “What Will It Take To 

Reservations.” In  What Can Tribes 

End Homelessness?” Washington, DC: 

Do? Strategies and Institutions in 

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

American Economic Development, 

research/publication/what-wil -it-take-

edited by Stephen Cornell and Joseph 

end-homelessness.

P. Kalt. Los Angeles, CA: University of 

Chickasaw Nation. 2013. “About Tribal 

California at Los Angeles, American 

Commerce.” http://www.chickasaw.

Indian Studies Center: Chapter 1.

net/tribal_commerce/index_222.htm. 

Cunningham, Mary K. 2009. “Preventing 

Cooper, Kenneth J. 2011. “As Housing 

and Ending Homelessness—Next 

Shortage Worsens, Tribes Forced To 

Steps.” Washington, DC: Urban 

Use FEMA Trailers,”  America’s Wire.  

Institute. http://www.urban.org/

May 2. http://newamericamedia.

UploadedPDF/411837_ending_

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

homelessness.pdf.

escalates-native-american-tribes-use-

fema-mobile-homes.php. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

160

References

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

Harvard Project on American Indian 

Seminole Tribe Buys Hard Rock Cafes 

Economic Development (Harvard 

and Casinos,”  New York Times.  http://

Project). 2003.  Honoring Nations: 2003 

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

Honoree Quil Ceda Vil age, The Tulalip 

business/08rock.html?_r=0.

Tribes (Tulalip, WA).  Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University, John F. Kennedy 

DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, and Bernadette 

School of Government.

D. Proctor. 2015. “Income and 

Poverty in the United States: 2014.” 

. 2008.  The State of the Native Nations: 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Conditions Under U.S. Policies of Self-

Commerce, Economics and Statistics 

Determination.  New York, NY: Oxford 

Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. 

University Press.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/

Census/library/publications/2015/

Hillabrant, Walter, Judy Earp, Mack 

demo/p60-252.pdf.

Rhoades, and Nancy Pindus. 2004. 

Overcoming Challenges to Business 

DeWeaver, Norm. 2010.  The American 

and Economic Development in Indian 

Community Survey: Serious Implications 

Country.  Princeton, NJ: Mathematica 

for Indian Country.  Washington, DC: 

Policy Research.

National Congress of American Indians 

Policy Research Center. 

Housing Assistance Council. 2012.  Taking Stock: 

Rural People, Poverty, and Housing in the 

Eggers, Frederick J., and Fouad Moumen. 

21st Century.  Washington, DC: Housing 

2015.  Components of Inventory 

Assistance Council. 

Change, 2009–2011.  Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

. 2013. “Conducting Homeless Counts 

Urban Development, Office of Policy 

on Native American Lands: A Toolkit.” 

Development and Research. 

Washington, DC: Housing Assistance 

Council. http://www.ruralhome.org/

George, Lance, Eric Oberdorfer, Theresa 

storage/documents/rpts_pubs/na_

Singleton, Jen Wichmann, and Keith 

homeless_count_toolkit.pdf. 

Wiley. 2002.  Taking Stock: Rural 

People, Poverty, and Housing at the 

Irving, Shelley K., and Tracy A. Loveless. 

Turn of the 21st Century.  Washington, 

2015. “Dynamics of Economic Wel -

DC: Housing Assistance Council.

Being: Participation in Government 

Programs, 2009–2012: Who Gets 

Hardiman, David L., Carolyn Lynch, Marge 

Assistance?” Washington, DC: U.S. 

Martin, Barry L. Steffen, David A. 

Department of Commerce, Economics 

Vandenbroucke, Yung-Gann David Yao. 

and Statistics Administration, U.S. 

2010.  Worst Case Housing Needs 2007: 

Census Bureau. https://www.census.

A Report to Congress.  Washington, 

gov/content/dam/Census/library/

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf.

Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. 

Katz, Bruce, and Margery Austin Turner. 

2007.  Rethinking U.S. Rental Housing 

Policy.  Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for 

Housing Studies of Harvard University. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

161

References

Kendal , Mary, Acting Inspector General, 

Listokin, David, Kenneth Temkin, Nancy 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2011. 

Pindus, and David Stanek. 2016. 

“Regulatory Barriers to American Indian 

Mortgage Lending on Tribal Land: 

Job Creation.”  Testimony before the 

A Report From the Assessment of 

House Subcommittee on Technology 

American Indian, Alaska Native, and 

Information, Intergovernmental 

Native Hawai an Housing Needs. 

Relations and Procurement Reform. 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of 

112th Cong., First sess., April 7, 2011. 

Housing and Urban Development, Office 

Serial No. 112-32. Washington, DC: U.S. 

of Policy Development and Research. 

Government Printing Office. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Kingsley, G. Thomas, Virginia E. Spencer, 

Lofquist, Daphne A. 2012. “Multigenerational 

John Simonson, Carla E. Herbig, 

Households: 2009–2011.” American 

Nancy Kay, Maris Mikelsons, and Peter 

Community Survey Brief. 

Tatian. 1996.  Assessment of American 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Indian Housing Needs and Programs: 

Commerce, Economics and Statistics 

Final Report.  Washington, DC: U.S. 

Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Manning, Wendy D., and Susan Brown. 

Development.

2006. “Children’s Economic Wel -

Kolluri, Lopa, and Kristopher M. Rengert. 

Being in Married and Cohabitating 

2000. “Housing and Homeownership 

Parent Families,”  Journal of Marriage 

on American Indian Tribal Lands: 

and Family 68 (2): 345–362. 

Barriers, Progress, and the Promise 

Masnick, George S., Daniel McCue, and Eric 

of New Initiatives,”  Housing Facts & 

S. Belsky. 2010.  Updated 2010–2020 

Findings 2 (3): page range unavailable.

Household and New Home Demand 

Levy, Diane K., Jennifer Biess, Abby Baum, 

Projections.  Cambridge, MA: Joint 

Nancy Pindus, and Brittany Murray. 

Center for Housing Studies of Harvard 

2016. Housing Needs of American 

University.

Indians and Alaska Natives in Urban 

McAuley, Wil iam J., and Cheri L. Nutty. 

Areas: A Report From the Assessment 

1982. “Residential Preferences and 

of American Indian, Alaska Native, 

Moving Behavior: A Family Life-Cycle 

and Native Hawai an Housing Needs. 

Analysis,”  Journal of Marriage and 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of 

Family 44 (2): 301–309.

Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and 

National Commission on American Indian, 

Research. Washington, DC: Urban 

Alaska Native, and Native Hawai an 

Institute.

Housing. 1992.  Building the Future: A 

Blueprint for Change “By our homes 

Listokin, David, with Robin Leichenko 

you will know us.”  Washington, DC: 

and Juliet King. 2006.  Housing and 

National Commission on American 

Economic Development in Indian 

Indian, Alaska Native, and Native 

Country: Chal enge and Opportunity. 

Hawai an Housing.

New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

162

References

National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA). 

Pettit, Kathryn L.S., G. Thomas Kingsley, 

2009. “The Economic Impact of Indian 

Jennifer Biess, Kassie Bertumen, 

Gaming.”  http://www.indiangaming.

Nancy Pindus, Chris Narducci, and 

org/info/NIGA_2009_Economic_

Amos Budde. 2014.  Continuity and 

Impact_Report.pdf. 

Change: Demographic, Socioeconomic 

and Housing Conditions of American 

. 2011. “2010 National Indian Gaming 

Indians and Alaska Natives. 

Association Annual Report. ” http://

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

www.indiangaming.org/info/2011_

of Housing and Urban Development, 

Annual_Report.PDF.

Office of Policy Development and 

Research.

National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC). 

2010. “Growth in Indian Gaming Graph 

Phinney, Robin, Sheldon Danziger, Harold 

1999–2009.” http://www.nigc.gov/

A. Pollack, and Kristin Seefeldt. 2007. 

LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kxuWD3mc9

“Housing Instability among Current 

Gc%3d&tabid=67.

and Former Welfare Recipients,” 

American Journal of Public Health 97 

. 2012a. “Gaming Revenues 2007–2011.” 

(5): 832–837.

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

NIGC%20Uploads/Tribal%20Data/

Robinson, Robert. 1995.  The Economic 

GamingRevenues20072011.pdf.

Impact of Indian Reservation-Based 

Gaming Activities.  Washington, DC: 

. 2012b. “Growth in Indian Gaming 

National Indian Policy Center. 

Graph 2002–2011.” http://www.nigc.

gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kxuWD3

RPI Consulting, The Jones Payne Group, 

mc9Gc%3d&tabid=67.

Native Home Capital, and Alternative 

Marketing Solutions. 2011.  Phase 

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

II Housing Needs Assessment and 

Economic Hardship.” Washington, DC: 

Demographic Analysis.  Prepared for 

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

Navajo Housing Authority. Durango, 

publications/310970.html.

CO: RPI Consulting. 

Novogradic & Company. n.d. Affordable 

Skaburskis, Andrejs. 1999. “Modeling Choice 

Housing Resource Center. “About 

of Tenure and Building Type,”  Urban 

the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.” 

Studies  36 (13): 2199–2215.

https://www.novoco.com/resource-

centers/affordable-housing-tax-

Snipp, Matthew C. 1989.  American Indians: 

credits/lihtc-basics/about-lihtc 

The First of This Land.  New York: 

Russell Sage Foundation. 

Parker, Jennifer D., Nathaniel Schenker, 

Deborah D. Ingram, James A. Weed, 

Spil man, Brenda C., Jennifer Biess, and 

Katherine E. Heck, and Jennifer H. 

Graham MacDonald. 2012.  Housing as 

Madans. 2004. “Bridging Between Two 

a Platform for Improving Outcomes for 

Standards for Collecting Information 

Older Renters.  Washington, DC: Urban 

on Race and Ethnicity: An Application 

Institute.

to Census 2000,”  Public Health 

Reports  119 (2): 192–205.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

163

References

Steffen, Barry L., Keith Fudge, Marge 

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

Martin, Maria Teresa Souza, David A. 

Reports American Indian- and Alaska 

Vandenbroucke, and Yung-Gann David 

Native-Owned Businesses Generated 

Yao. 2011.  Worst Case Housing Needs 

$34 Billion in Receipts in 2007.” 

2009: Report to Congress.  Washington, 

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

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

releases/archives/business_

Urban Development, Office of Policy 

ownership/cb11-47.html. 

Development and Research.

. 2014a.  American Community Survey 

Steffen, Barry L., with Shawn Bucholtz, 

Design and Methodology.  Washington, 

Marge Martin, David A. Vandenbroucke, 

DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

and Yung-Gann David Yao. 2013, 

. 2014b.  Methodology for State and 

Worst Case Housing Needs 2011: 

County Total Housing Unit Estimates 

Report to Congress.  Washington, 

(Vintage 2014), April 1, 2010, to July 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

1, 2014.  Washington, DC: U.S. Census 

Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Bureau.

Development and Research.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office 

Stuts, Howard. 2012. “Seminoles Have 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Become a Force in Indian Gaming,” 

Energy (OEERE). n.d. “Weatherization 

Las Vegas Review Journal,  February 

Assistance Program.” http://www.

12. http://www.reviewjournal.com/

energy.gov/eere/wipo/weatherization-

business/casinos-gaming/seminoles-

assistance-program.

have-become-force-indian-gaming. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Thornton, Dennis. n.d. “Menominee Tribal 

Development (HUD). n.d. “Community 

Enterprises Celebrates Century of 

Development Block Grant Program.” 

Lumber Production.” http://mtewood.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/

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

HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_

Menominee%20100th.pdf. 

planning/communitydevelopment/

Todd, Richard M., and Frederico Burlon. 

programs.

2009.  Homeownership Gaps Among 

. 2015a.  The 2015 Annual Homeless 

Indian Reservations Prove Puzzling. 

Assessment Report (AHAR) to 

Minneapolis, MN: Federal Reserve 

Congress: Part 1: Point-in-Time 

Bank of Minneapolis.

Estimates of Homelessness. 

Trosper, Ronald L. 2007. “Indigenous 

Washington, DC:U.S, Department of 

Influence on Forest Management on 

Housing and Urban Development. 

the Menominee Indian Reservation,” 

https://www.hudexchange.info/

Forest Ecology and Management  249 

resources/documents/2015-AHAR-

(2007): 134–139.

Part-1.pdf. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

164

References

. 2015b.  The 2014 Annual Homeless 

. 2015b.”Who Counts? Identifying 

Assessment Report (AHAR) to 

Native American Populations,” 

Congress: Part 2: Estimates of 

Evidence Matters  Spring: 16–21. 

Homelessness in the United States. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau 

Washington, DC:U.S. Department of 

of Indian Affairs (BIA). n.d. “HEARTH 

Housing and Urban Development. 

Act of 2012. ” http://bia.gov/WhoWeAre/

https://www.hudexchange.info/

BIA/OTS/HEARTH/index.htm.

onecpd/assets/File/2014-AHAR-

Part-2.pdf. 

. 2015. “Housing Improvement 

Program.” http://www.bia.gov/

. 2015c.  Coordinated Environmental 

WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/HumanServices/

Review Process Final Report. 

HousingImprovementProgram/.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Development. http://portal.hud.

Statistics.  Glossary.  http://www.bls.

gov/hudportal/documents/

gov/bls/glossary.htm 

huddoc?id=CoorEnvirReview.pdf

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1978. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Substandard Indian Housing Increases 

Development (HUD), Office of Native 

Despite Federal Efforts—A Change is 

American Programs (ONAP). 2011. 

Needed.  CED-78-63. Washington, DC: 

NAHASDA Essentials.  Washington, 

U.S. General Accounting Office. 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Native 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

American Programs. 

(GAO). 2014.  Native American 

Housing: Additional Actions Needed 

. 2014.  Report to Congress: Native 

to Better Support Tribal Efforts: 

American Housing and Self-

Report to Congress.  Washington, 

Determination Act,  Fiscal Year 2013. 

DC: U.S. Government Accountability 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

Office.  http://www.gao.gov/

of Housing and Urban Development, 

assets/670/662063.pdf.

Office of Native American Programs. 

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness 

. 2015.  Report to Congress: Native 

(USICH). 2012.  Expert Panel on 

American Housing and Self-

Homelessness among American Indians, 

Determination Act, Fiscal Year 2014. 

Alaska Natives, and Native Hawai ans. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

Washington, DC: U.S. Interagency 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

Council on Homelessness. https://

Office of Native American Programs.

www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/report-

on-homelessness-among-american-

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

indians-alaska-natives.

Development (HUD), Office of Policy 

Development and Research (PD&R). 

2015a. “Obstacles, Solutions, and Self-

Determination in Indian Housing Policy,” 

Evidence Matters Spring: 1; 3–15. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

165

References

U.S. Minority Business Development Agency. 

Wilder Research. 2014.  Homelessness and 

2006.  The State of Minority Business 

Near-Homelessness on Minnesota 

Enterprises: An Overview of the 2002 

Indian Reservations: 2012 Study.  St. 

Survey of Business Owners.  Washington, 

Paul, MN: Wilder Research. https://

DC: Government Printing Office. 

www.wilder.org/Wilder-Research/

Publications/Studies/Homelessness%20

Van Otten, Dan, Joyce McAfee, Larry Buron, 

in%20Minnesota%202012%20Study/

Jennifer Turnham, John Griffith, and 

Homelessness%20and%20Near-

Brooke Spel man. 2009.  Indian Housing 

Homelessness%20on%20Minnesota%20

Block Grant Program Evaluation Report. 

Indian%20Reservations.pdf.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

166

Additional Reading

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

Additional Reading

and Abubakari Zuberi. 2011. 

Redistribution Effect of Introducing 

2010 Census and 2005–2009 

Burt, Martha, Laudan Y. Aron, and Edgar 

ACS Data Into the CDBG Formula. 

Lee, with Jesse Valente. 2001.  Helping 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

America’s Homeless: Emergency 

Housing and Urban Development. 

Shelter or Affordable Housing? 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Jorgensen, Miriam, Sarah Dewees, and Karen 

Edwards. 2008.  Borrowing Trouble: 

Dewees, Sarah, and Stewart Sarkozy-Banoczy. 

Predatory Lending in Native American 

2008. “Investing in Native Community 

Communities.  Longmont, CO: First 

Change: Understanding the Role of 

Nations Development Institute.

Community Development Financial 

Institutions.”  http://www.cdfifund.

Laderman, Elizabeth, and Carolina Reid. 

gov/impact_we_make/research/

2010. “Mortgage Lending on Native 

rural-and-underserved-markets/

American Reservations: Does a 

reports/Investing%20in%20Native%20

Guarantee Matter?”  Journal of Housing 

Community%20Change%20-%20

Economics  19(3): 233–242.

Understanding%20the%20Role%20

of%20Community%20Development.pdf. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. “Census Bureau 

Releases Estimates of Undercount and 

First Nations Development Institute. 2008. 

Overcount in the 2010 Census.” http://

“Borrowing Trouble: Predatory Lending 

www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/

in Native American Communities.”  

archives/2010_census/cb12-95.html.

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

Topics/Special%20Interest%20Areas/

U.S. Congress House Committee on 

Other/Borrowing Trouble Predatory 

Financial Services. 2010. “Community 

LendinginNativeAmeri/borrowing%20

Development Financial Institutions 

trouble.pdf.

(CDFIs): Their Unique Role and 

Challenges Serving Lower-Income, 

Goldstein, Ira, and Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg. 

Underserved and Minority Communities.”  

2008.  Subprime Lending, Mortgage 

http://financialservices.house.gov/

Foreclosures and Race: How Far 

media/file/hearings/111/tanya_fiddler_

Have We Come and How Far Have 

testimony_final_3-9-10.pdf.

We To Go?  Philadelphia, PA: The 

Reinvestment Fund.

Ingram, Deborah D., Jennifer D. Parker, 

Nathaniel Schenker, James A. Weed, 

Brady Hamilton, Elizabeth Arias, 

Jennifer H. Madans. 2003. “United 

States Census 2000 Population With 

Bridged Race Categories,”  Vital Health 

Statistics 2 (135): 1–55. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

167

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

January 2017