Housing Needs of American

Indians and Alaska Natives in

Urban 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

Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska

Natives Living in Urban Areas

A Report From the Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native,

and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs

Prepared by

Diane K. Levy

Jennifer Biess

Abby Baum

Nancy Pindus

Brittany Murray

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C.

January 2017

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the many people at each study site who agreed to talk with us and on whom

the success of this research depended. Staff of local government agencies, community-based

organizations, and other community leaders shared their experiences and insights during

telephone and in-person interviews. Our primary organization-based contact at each site helped

us identify and schedule meetings with other key stakeholders. Participants in the focus groups

also shared their housing experiences to help elucidate the issues we sought to understand.

Everyone’s contributions were richer in detail than it was possible to reflect in this report.

Walter Hillabrant and Judy Earp (Support Services International [SSI], Inc.) played major roles

on this study. Hillabrant provided information on Indian community centers that was invaluable

during the site-selection process. Both Hillabrant and Earp contributed to the research design and

data collection protocols and participated in the site visits. SSI also organized meetings of the

expert advisory panel to solicit input on the research design and on this report. Cynthia Robins

(Westat, Inc.) generously shared contact information for Indian community centers. Richard

Hilton (Econometrica) also participated in the site visits.

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 Hawaiian

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 (Wells 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 (formerly with National Congress of American Indians).

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

of the study. Tom Kingsley provided guidance on the research design and reviewed report drafts.

Kathy Pettit prepared population data tables and provided advice on the interpretation of relevant

census data. Amos Budde assisted Pettit with data preparation. Jasmine Simington provided

assistance finalizing the report. Marcy Gessel and Elizabeth Forney provided excellent editing

and formatting services. Tim Ware and Jeaneen Zanovello assisted throughout the study with

project administration and preparations for this final report.

Paul Joice and Elizabeth Rudd (HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research)

provided excellent guidance and oversight during this research effort. Emily Wright from

HUD’s Office of Native American Programs provided helpful comments on the report.

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.

ii

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 Hawaiian 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. This

report,  Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives Living in Urban Areas,

documents housing conditions of Native Americans living in urban areas. Methods included

analysis of data from the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses, the 2006–2010 American

Community Survey 5-year estimates, and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and also

interviews with staff from social service organizations serving Native Americans in 24

metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), chosen because they contain substantial numbers of Native

American residents.

The study reveals that 65 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives who identify as

having only one race (that is, who do not consider themselves multiracial) live in an MSA and

that they often are concentrated within or near tribal land that falls within the MSA. The study

finds wide variation in housing conditions for Native Americans, but, on average, Native

American households in urban areas have higher rates of overcrowding and physical condition

problems than do all households. Service providers reported that Native Americans who struggle

to make the transition from a reservation or a village to an urban area face a specific set of

challenges that may contribute to cycling back and forth between the home village or reservation

and the city, a pattern that respondents associated with homelessness. In addition, Native

Americans who go to urban areas to seek medical care not available in their tribal home, may

end up stranded in the city without housing. This tragic situation highlights the importance of

housing as a platform for improving the quality of life and the need to coordinate health,

housing, and social welfare services.

Most of the assessment of Native American housing needs focuses on tribal areas, but, as this

report shows, a large and growing population of Native Americans is in urban areas. The report

highlights the conundrum that, although Native Americans may benefit from the greater

opportunities offered in cities, at the same time, they cannot access the housing programs

available in tribal areas and very few, if any, housing services are intended to serve Native

Americans in urban areas.

Katherine M. O’Regan

Assistant Secretary for Policy

Development and Research

iii

Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... viii

Overview of Methods .............................................................................................................. ix

Overview of Key Findings .........................................................................................................x

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

Research Contribution ...............................................................................................................2

Methods......................................................................................................................................3

Study Limitations .......................................................................................................................5

Overview of the Report ..............................................................................................................6

2. Characteristics of Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas .........................................................7

Location of Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas .................................................................7

Size of Metropolitan Statistical Areas .......................................................................................8

Ethnicity of the American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Population ...................................9

Distance to Nearest Tribal Area ...............................................................................................10

Share of Metropolitan Statistical Areas That Is Tribal Land ...................................................10

Suburbs: Urban Versus Rural ..................................................................................................11

Summary ..................................................................................................................................11

3. Population Growth, Distribution, and Mobility .........................................................................12

Geographic Distribution Nationwide .......................................................................................12

Population Size and Growth, Distribution, and Mobility in the Sampled Metropolitan

Statistical Areas .......................................................................................................................14

4. Social and Economic Conditions ...............................................................................................19

Age ...........................................................................................................................................19

Household Size ........................................................................................................................20

Household Type .......................................................................................................................21

Labor Force Characteristics .....................................................................................................24

Income and Poverty .................................................................................................................26

5. Housing Conditions, Problems, and Needs................................................................................30

Housing Structure Type ...........................................................................................................30

Housing Availability ................................................................................................................31

Housing Problems and Needs ..................................................................................................31

Housing Conditions: Primary Cities Versus Suburbs ..............................................................37

Challenges To Obtaining Housing ...........................................................................................38

Homelessness ...........................................................................................................................39

Impact of the Recession ...........................................................................................................40

iv

6. Housing and Housing-Related Services in Urban Areas ...........................................................42

Types of Services Available ....................................................................................................42

Variations in Service Environment ..........................................................................................47

Funding Sources.......................................................................................................................47

Barriers To Gaining Access to Services ..................................................................................48

Needed Services .......................................................................................................................49

7. Homeownership and Access to Mortgage Financing ................................................................50

Homeownership Rates and Mortgage Originations .................................................................50

High-Cost Loans ......................................................................................................................52

Denial Rates .............................................................................................................................53

Respondent-Identified Challenges ...........................................................................................53

8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................55

Directions for Future Research ................................................................................................56

Appendix A. Glossary ................................................................................................................. A-1

Appendix B. References ..............................................................................................................B-1

Appendix C. Comparing Social and Economic Characteristics Nationwide Between 1990

and 2010 .......................................................................................................................................C-1

Appendix D. Site Selection and Replacement ............................................................................ D-1

Appendix E. List of Indian Community Centers ......................................................................... E-1

Appendix F. Outreach and Data Collection Methods .................................................................. F-1

Appendix G. Maps of Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas .................................................. G-1

Appendix H. Supplemental MSA-Level Exhibits ...................................................................... H-1

v

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 2.1  Location of Sampled MSAs by Study Region .........................................................7

Exhibit 2.2  Location of MSAs Across the United States ...........................................................8

Exhibit 2.3  Selected Indicators for Sampled MSAs, 2010 .........................................................9

Exhibit 3.1  MSAs With the Highest AIAN-Alone Concentrations, 2010 ................................13

Exhibit 4.1  Population, by Age Group and Race, for Sampled MSAs, 2010 ...........................20

Exhibit 4.2  Share of Population, by Highest Educational Attainment Category and Race,

for Sampled MSAs, 2006–2010 .............................................................................24

Exhibit 4.3  Average Labor Force Characteristics, by Race, for Sampled MSAs, 2006–2010 ...25

Exhibit 4.4  Average Household Income, by Race of Householder, 2006–2010 ......................26

Exhibit 4.5  Share of Households That Had Extremely Low Incomes, by Race, 2006–2010 ...27

Exhibit 4.6  Average Overall Poverty Rates, by Race, 2006–2010 ...........................................28

Exhibit 5.1  Share of Occupied Housing Units, by Structure Type and Race of Householder,

for Sampled MSAs, 2010 .......................................................................................31

Exhibit 5.2  Average and Median Share of Households That Are Cost Burdened and Severely

Cost Burdened, by Race, for Sampled MSAs, 2006–2010 ....................................33

Exhibit 5.3  Average Share of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities,

by Tenure and Race of Householder, for Sampled MSAs, 2006–2010 ...................34

Exhibit 5.4  Average Share of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities,

by Tenure and Race of Householder, for Sampled MSAs, 2006–2010 .................35

Exhibit 5.5  Rates of Overcrowding for Occupied Housing Units, by Race of Householder

and Tenure, for Sampled MSAs, 2006–2010 .........................................................37

Exhibit 6.1  Number of Housing-Related Services Identified, by Type and Population Served,

Across Sampled MSAs ..........................................................................................42

Exhibit 7.1  Average Rate of Owner-Occupied Home Purchase Originations, by Race of

Borrower, for Sampled MSAs, 2000 and 2010 ......................................................51

Exhibit 7.2  AIAN-Alone Rate of Owner-Occupied Home Purchase Originations for Select

Sampled MSAs, 2000 and 2010.............................................................................51

Exhibit 7.3  Average Percentage of Home Purchase and Refinance Lending That Was High

Cost, by Race and Ethnicity and Income Level of the Borrower (2004–2006

Average), for Sampled MSAs and the Farmington, NM MSA .............................52

Exhibit 7.4  Average Home Purchase Denial Rate for Mortgage Applicants, by Race and

Ethnicity and Income Level of Applicant, for Sampled MSAs, 2010 ...................53

Exhibit C.1  Summary Table ....................................................................................................C-1

Exhibit D.1  Sites Initially Selected and Replacement Sites ................................................... D-3

Exhibit E.1  List of Indian Community Centers ...................................................................... E-1

Exhibit F.1  Characteristics of Discussion Group Participants ................................................ F-2

Exhibit F.2  Number of Interviews and Respondent Organization Type, by MSAs ............... F-3

vi

Exhibit G.1  Anchorage, AK MSA .......................................................................................... G-1

Exhibit G.2  Bakersfield-Delano, CA MSA  ........................................................................... G-2

Exhibit G.3  Billings, MT MSA  ............................................................................................. G-3

Exhibit G.4  Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH MSA  ....................................................... G-4

Exhibit G.5  Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA ..................................................... G-5

Exhibit G.6   Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI MSA  ....................................................... G-6

Exhibit G.7  Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA  ............................................................ G-7

Exhibit G.8  Duluth, MN-WI MSA ........................................................................................ G-8

Exhibit G.9  Fairbanks, AK MSA  .......................................................................................... G-9

Exhibit G.10  Farmington, NM MSA ..................................................................................... G-10

Exhibit G.11  Fayetteville, NC MSA  ..................................................................................... G-11

Exhibit G.12  Flagstaff, AZ MSA  .......................................................................................... G-12

Exhibit G.13  Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA  ....................................................... G-13

Exhibit G.14  Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN MSA ................................ G-14

Exhibit G.15  New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MSA  ................... G-15

Exhibit G.16  Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ MSA .................................................................. G-16

Exhibit G.17  Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA MSA  ............................................... G-17

Exhibit G.18  Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA MSA  ........................................ G-18

Exhibit G.19  Reno-Sparks, NV MSA  ................................................................................... G-19

Exhibit G.20  Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA MSA  .......................................... G-20

Exhibit G.21  Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA MSA ................................................. G-21

Exhibit G.22  Santa Fe, NM MSA .......................................................................................... G-22

Exhibit G.23  Tucson, AZ MSA  ............................................................................................. G-23

Exhibit G.24  Tulsa, OK MSA  ............................................................................................... G-24

Exhibit H.1  Household Size and Type, by Race of Householder and MSA, 2010 ................ H-1

Exhibit H.2  Percentage of Households, by Family Relationship Type, Race of Householder,

and MSA, 2010 ................................................................................................... H-1

Exhibit H.3  Age Group, by Population Type and MSA, 2010 ............................................... H-2

Exhibit H.4  Highest Level of Educational Attainment, by Population Type and MSA, 2006–

2010..................................................................................................................... H-2

Exhibit H.5  Economic Characteristics, by Population Type and MSA, 2006–2010 .............. H-3

Exhibit H.6  Housing Cost Burden, by Race of Householder and MSA, 2006–2010 ............. H-3

Exhibit H.7  Rate of Owner-Occupied Home Purchase Originations, by Race and Ethnicity of

Borrower, for Selected MSAs, 2000 and 2010 ................................................... H-4

vii

Executive Summary

This report sheds light on the housing conditions, opportunities, and challenges experienced by

American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIANs) who live in metropolitan areas, mostly off

reservations or tribal lands. It is the first national study since 1996 (Kingsley et al., 1996) to

examine the characteristics and housing needs of AIAN populations living in metropolitan areas.

The study is a component of the national Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native, and

Native Hawaiian Housing Needs, mandated by the U.S. Congress and sponsored by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The following questions served as the starting point for this study:

•  What has been the change since 20001 in the AIAN-alone2 population living in metropolitan areas?

•  What is the concentration or dispersion of AIAN-alone households across and within

metropolitan areas?

•  What factors affect the mobility of this population between metropolitan areas and

reservations or tribal areas?

•  What are the housing challenges related to housing quality, availability, and cost?

•  What is the extent of homelessness among AIANs in metropolitan areas and what are the

characteristics of homeless people in this population?

•  What housing-related services are available to AIAN households living in metropolitan

areas?

•  What has been the impact of the recent national recession (December 2007 through June

2009) and local housing market conditions on housing opportunities and needs?

Research protocols aimed at housing challenges and services focused on disadvantaged AIAN

households, tribally enrolled and not enrolled, rather than on the range of housing conditions and

needs across the breadth of this population that lives in metropolitan areas. The study does not

attempt to distinguish housing challenges that might be unique to AIANs compared with other

populations.

1 Analysis of changes in the AIAN-alone population is based on 2000 and 2010 census data. Analyses based on other data reflect different timeframes, as indicated throughout the report.

2 U.S. Census Bureau surveys require respondents to self-report their race and ethnicity. These surveys use a uniform definition of race and ethnicity. Starting with the 2000 decennial census, survey respondents were able to select multiple race categories. Because of this change, it is difficult to compare 2000 and 2010 decennial census data with data from earlier decennial censuses, so comparisons with the data presented in the Kingsley et al. (1996) report should be viewed with caution, particularly if differences are small. Further, because the Census Bureau surveys ask about race and ethnicity separately, the AIAN-alone population (people who indicated AIAN as their only race) includes AIAN non-Hispanic people and AIAN Hispanic people. (See Pettit et al. [2014] for a full discussion of AIAN population trends and sections 3 and 4 of this report for a discussion of demographics.) viii

Overview of Methods

The study design draws on the first national assessment of housing conditions and needs among

American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians by Kingsley et al. (1996). Like the

earlier study, this one blends primary and secondary data to present a picture of AIANs and their

housing conditions in metropolitan areas.

Data were collected from 24 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). After first drawing a sample

of 30 MSAs using population size and the presence of an active Indian community center (ICC)

or other AIAN-focused organization, the research team chose 5 MSAs for site visits and the

remaining 25 MSAs for contacting by telephone. The initial point of contact in each selected

MSA was the identified ICC or AIAN-focused organization. The team members ultimately were

able to collect data from all 5 MSAs selected for site visits and from 19 of the 25 MSAs selected

for telephone interviews, for a total of 24 MSA sites.

Findings are based on primary data collected through interviews and discussion groups with

housing professionals, service providers, and AIAN community members and on secondary data

drawn from the American Community Survey, the decennial census, and the Home Mortgage

Disclosure Act.

For topics such as mobility, homelessness, housing-related services, and the effect of the 2007-

to-2009 recession on housing needs, the study relies on qualitative data from a sample of MSAs

and respondents. Many of the guiding research questions thus are addressed by reporting the

perceptions of respondents from their particular vantage points as service providers, service

administrators, community members, or advocates for American Indians and Alaska Natives. For

the secondary data analysis, the population is defined as those people who identified their race in

the census as American Indian or Alaska Native alone, consistent with the definition in the

interim report,  Continuity and Change: Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Housing Conditions

of American Indians and Alaska Natives (Pettit et al., 2014). 3

To determine whether findings from this study reflect the housing-related conditions and

challenges of American Indians and Alaska Natives who live in metropolitan areas nationwide

would require a larger, systematic study. The results of this study cannot be generalized to the

national AIAN population because the sample size of MSAs is too small and sites were selected

purposefully. Direct comparisons of findings between the Kingsley et al. (1996) national study

and this one cannot be drawn because slightly different questions were asked in the field and the

populations and geographies are defined differently. Despite these differences, the findings are

similar to those reported in Kingsley et al. (1996), a result that suggests that many of the housing needs and challenges documented nearly 20 years ago persist.

3 Findings based on census data use data for respondents who identified as AIAN alone (AIAN as their only race).

Because the census asks about race and ethnicity separately, the AIAN-alone population includes non-Hispanic and Hispanic people. (See Pettit et al. [2014] for a full discussion of AIAN population trends.)

ix

Overview of Key Findings

The AIAN population living in metropolitan areas is growing. This population is

disproportionately disadvantaged economically and faces cultural and experiential barriers to

accessing services and achieving a measure of housing security and stability.

As they are for the population at large, metropolitan areas are home to the majority of the AIAN

population in the United States.  In all 24 MSAs sampled for this study, the AIAN-alone

population is growing, and, in 19 of the study sites, the rate of growth for AIAN-alone

individuals is higher than the rate for the areas’ population overall.

Factors mentioned as common reasons to move to or from metropolitan areas include housing

availability, health status and access to healthcare services, educational and employment

opportunities, and family ties.  Individuals weigh known or anticipated benefits and challenges they associate with a place in making a decision to move. A typology of movers emerged from

discussions about mobility experiences. “Cyclers” tend to move back and forth between tribal

land and metropolitan areas on the basis of circumstances and opportunities, whereas returnees

leave metropolitan areas to return to their reservation or village for the long term, often because

of family ties and responsibilities, financial circumstances, or a sense of being out of place.

People who are “resigned” remain in a metropolitan area because too few opportunities are

available for them in their home tribal area even though they might want to return. Finally,

people who are “trapped” in metropolitan areas would return home but cannot afford the travel

costs.

Data on the social and economic conditions among AIAN populations living in the sampled

MSAs present a picture of disadvantage.  Compared with the total population in the study sites, AIAN-alone people, on average, are younger and live in larger households, and a single parent

heads relatively more of the households. Fewer AIAN-alone adults have earned a high school

diploma or postsecondary degree. Employment rates and average incomes are low; rates of

poverty, including child poverty, are high.

AIAN-alone households experience a higher median rate of housing-cost burden and inferior

housing conditions compared with all households.  AIAN-alone households are more likely to live in housing that lacks complete kitchen and plumbing facilities. They also are more likely to

be cost burdened and live in housing that is overcrowded, either by choice—to live with

extended family—or by necessity—to manage housing costs.

AIAN households face challenges associated with differences between tribal and metropolitan

areas.  Study participants noted that, in addition to facing high housing costs and poor conditions, many AIANs lack familiarity with urban housing market practices when they move to

metropolitan areas. Participants also cited a lack of familiarity with job-search skills, fewer

social ties, and race-based housing discrimination as factors that hinder housing (and

employment) opportunities for AIAN populations.

The homeownership rate and access to home purchase financing among AIAN-alone households

are lower than those for all households.  Homeownership and mortgage originations to AIAN

x

households are disproportionately low in almost all the study sites compared with their share of the population. AIAN borrowers had a higher share of high-cost home purchase and refinance

loans than did non-Hispanic White borrowers across income levels. Loan denial rates also were

higher than the average for minority and non-Hispanic White borrowers across income levels.

Homelessness among AIAN populations is identified as a serious problem in many of the study

sites.  Data on the AIAN homeless population are insufficient to determine the extent of the problem or the characteristics of people most likely to become homeless. Respondents suggested

that a lack of affordable housing, health-related issues, and domestic violence were key drivers

of homelessness among AIAN populations in the MSA study sites and that the 2007–2009

recession worsened the problem. They reported an increase in homelessness among families,

youth, and the elderly, and they perceive that AIAN households are overrepresented among the

homeless population in some MSAs.

Qualitative data collected through telephone interviews and site visits indicate that  few

organizations in the study sites target housing assistance to AIAN households or serve them

exclusively.  This lack of targeted assistance can leave people with limited options for connecting with service providers who make them feel comfortable. Few, if any, designated funding sources

appear to support housing services for AIANs living off tribal land. Barriers to obtaining housing

assistance include a lack of familiarity with what services are available; a perception that

mainstream providers lack cultural sensitivity toward AIANs; and requirements that people who

seek services find challenging, such as needing to provide proof of income to determine

eligibility for services.

The 2007–2009 recession (sometimes called the Great Recession) and foreclosure crisis

differentially affected the study areas.  In some but not all study sites, the recession negatively affected housing availability, housing cost, and the employment rate. Across the MSA study

sites, respondents said that the foreclosure crisis led to an increased demand for rental housing,

which prompted landlords to inflate rental costs and become more selective of tenants. They also

noted that less funding for new housing construction was available and that lenders were

applying stricter credit criteria. Respondents thought the number of homeless individuals and

families had increased, a problem they attributed to the recession and attendant job losses.

This metropolitan study complements the national report that assesses housing conditions on

tribal lands and native villages, and it points to ways in which conditions in metropolitan and

tribal areas can affect people’s decisions about where to live and whether to move from one type

of locale to another. It also contributes to the still-limited literature on AIAN populations living in metropolitan areas.

xi

1. Introduction

Understanding the socioeconomic and housing conditions and challenges of American Indian

and Alaska Native (AIAN)4 populations living in metropolitan areas5 is crucial to understanding housing needs and conditions of AIANs nationwide. The national study completed in 1996

(Kingsley et al., 1996) brought to light the sizeable and growing AIAN population living in

metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). The portion of this population that resides in MSAs

increased from 564,100 in 1980 to 754,600 by 1990 (Kingsley et al., 1996). Between 2000 and

2010, the AIAN-alone population living in non-AIAN metropolitan counties6 increased 26

percent, from 803,764 to 1,012,320 (Pettit et al., 2014). Direct comparisons with figures reported

in Kingsley et al. (1996) cannot be made because of differences in how populations and

geographies were defined, but it is clear that the number of AIAN households living in urban

areas continues to increase. 7 (See appendix C for details comparing national data on social and economic characteristics between 1990 and 2010.)

The Kingsley et al. (1996: 96) national study identified conditions that served to draw people to

metropolitan areas from reservations and tribal areas: “lack of jobs, decent housing, and remote

location” of tribal lands—many of the factors found in this study. Housing problems that urban

AIAN households faced in the mid-1990s, especially low-income families, included a lack of

affordable housing, overcrowding, homelessness, and low access to housing assistance programs.

The Kingsley et al. (1996) study also reported that unemployment, poor credit, lack of available

housing for large and extended families, and lack of education about finding and keeping

housing were barriers for AIANs who sought decent and affordable housing in metropolitan

areas. Evidence presented in this report finds that the living conditions and experiences of many

AIANs living in urban areas remain challenging.

This report is part of a larger study—the national Assessment of American Indian, Alaska

Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs, mandated by the U.S. Congress and sponsored by

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The purpose of this MSA

study component is to understand housing conditions, opportunities, and challenges and the

factors that affect the decisions of AIAN households to move to, remain in, or leave MSAs.

Guiding questions include—

4 Consistent with Pettit et al. (2014), the authors use the term “American Indian and Alaska Native” and its abbreviation—AIAN—throughout this report.

5 The term “metropolitan areas” throughout the report refers to metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), which are discussed in detail in section 2.

6 In the Pettit et al. (2014) interim report, the term “non-AIAN counties” refers to counties that do not contain tribal areas, which include those located within and outside officially defined MSAs. Data presented in this report pertain to the AIAN population living in and near MSAs or in “other metropolitan counties,” which are a subset of non-AIAN

counties. The phrase, “non-AIAN metropolitan counties” refers to “other metropolitan counties” in this report.

7 U.S. Census Bureau surveys require respondents to self-report their race and ethnicity. These surveys use a uniform definition of race and ethnicity. Starting with the 2000 decennial census, survey respondents were able to select multiple race categories. Because of this change, it is difficult to compare 2000 and 2010 decennial census data with data from earlier decennial censuses, so comparisons with the data presented in the Kingsley et al. (1996) report should be viewed with caution, particularly if differences are small. Further, because the Census Bureau surveys ask about race and ethnicity separately, the AIAN-alone population (people who indicated AIAN as their only race) includes AIAN non-Hispanic people and AIAN Hispanic people. (See Pettit et al. [2014] for a full discussion of AIAN population trends and sections 3 and 4 of this report for a discussion of demographics.) 1

•  What has been the change since 20008 in the AIAN-alone population living in metropolitan areas?

•  What is the concentration or dispersion of AIAN-alone households across and within

metropolitan areas?

•  What factors affect the mobility of this population between metropolitan areas and

reservations or tribal areas?

•  What are the housing challenges related to housing quality, availability, and cost?

•  What is the extent of homelessness among AIANs in metropolitan areas and what are the

characteristics of homeless people in this population?

•  What housing-related services are available to AIAN households living in metropolitan

areas?

•  What has been the impact of the recent national recession (December 2007 through June

2009) and local housing market conditions on housing opportunities and needs?

These questions served as a starting point for inquiries. For topics such as mobility,

homelessness, housing-related services, and the impact of the recession on housing needs, the

study relies on interview and site visit data from a sample of MSAs and respondents. Many of

the questions thus are addressed by reporting perceptions of respondents from their particular

vantage points as service providers, service administrators, community members, or advocates

for AIANs. Furthermore, the research pursued the experiences of AIANs without attempting to

distinguish which experiences or conditions might be unique to them compared with other

disadvantaged populations.

Research Contribution

Findings from this study on metropolitan areas relate to the housing circumstances and mobility

decisions of AIANs who live in tribal and native communities. Mobility between tribal and

nontribal lands and familial and cultural ties between people who leave one place or return

suggest that no hard distinction exists between urban and nonurban AIANs.

A difference exists, however, in funding sources for services provided to AIANs. The larger

study focuses on tribes that receive Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination

Act funds from the U.S. federal government to address housing and infrastructure needs on

Indian reservations, in Indian communities, in Alaska Native villages, and among Native

Hawaiian populations. By contrast, this study examines the characteristics, housing conditions,

and housing needs of tribally enrolled and nonenrolled AIANs who live in MSAs, only some of

which include reservation lands within their boundaries. Many of these AIANs live without

support or services offered by a tribal government.

Previous studies on AIANs living in metropolitan areas have cited a lack of sufficient research

on this growing population (such as National Urban Indian Family Coalition, 2008; War Shield

8 Analysis of changes in the AIAN-alone population is based on 2000 and 2010 census data. Analyses based on other data reflect different timeframes, as indicated throughout the report.

2

Development and the Northern Plains Initiative, 2010). In addition to addressing the research questions, this study contributes to the literature on AIANs living in MSAs and the connections

between people and issues both on and off tribal lands and native villages.

Methods

This study builds on the Kingsley et al. (1996) national study of housing conditions and needs,

which included research on AIANs living in metropolitan areas. Similar to the earlier study,

census data are used to examine changes in the location, size, and characteristics of the AIAN

population living in MSAs and their housing conditions. Primary data collected through

interviews and discussion groups provide insights and perceptions of local stakeholders on

mobility, housing issues and services, and changes in housing needs and challenges over time.

Census data that could be used to address issues of mobility and homelessness in the sampled

MSAs were limited, so this study relies heavily on qualitative data to explore these topics.

Sampling

This study uses a purposive sample of MSAs. An MSA was eligible for selection if it included at

least 4,300 AIAN-alone individuals, determined on the basis of data from the 2010 census, and if

evidence indicated an Indian community center (ICC) is located in that MSA. Appendix D

provides details on the site sampling plan and an overview of the selected MSAs. The research

team planned to select two types of MSA study sites: (1) for telephone interviews and (2) for site

visits at MSAs that had recognized centers that serve local AIAN populations. Because no

national listing of such recognized centers exists, however, the team instead constructed a listing

through web searches and resources gathered from other studies. Most valuable were a list of

organizations shared by researchers at Westat and information provided by Walter Hillabrant, a

member of the research team. (See appendix E for a list of ICCs and other community-based

organizations.)

Of the 84 MSAs that met the population threshold (at least 4,300 AIAN-alone individuals), 54

showed some evidence of having an ICC. From these 54 sites, the research team drew a

purposive sample of 30 MSAs that are diverse in region, population size, distance to tribal areas,

and housing and economic conditions. Of these 30 MSA sites, 5 were selected for in-person site

visits; the remaining 25 were identified as telephone-contact sites. Research team members

ultimately visited 5 sites and conducted telephone interviews with respondents in 19 MSAs, for a

total of 24 study sites. The team members were unable to secure telephone interviews in six sites.

These 24 MSAs account for 23 percent of the AIAN-alone population that lives in MSAs

nationwide. The complete MSA names of the 24 study sites, which are described in detail in

section 2, are listed here:9

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area

Bakersfield-Delano, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area

9 The metropolitan statistical area definitions are based on the delineations established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the OMB Bulletin dated December 1, 2009.

3

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fairbanks, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area

Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Reno-Sparks, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

Data Collection and Analysis

Research team members completed telephone interviews with at least one respondent in 19 of the

25 telephone-contact sites for a total of 28 interviews. They conducted interviews with staff of

local ICCs, Indian Health Centers, 10 other AIAN-focused organizations, and non-AIAN entities to which the researchers were directed. During the 5 site visits, team members interviewed 59

people and talked with 20 people through discussion groups in 3 of the 5 sites. 11 In most of the 24 study sites, researchers spoke with someone from an AIAN-related organization, although not

always a person knowledgeable about housing needs and challenges in the local AIAN

community. Key topics across interviews and discussion groups included housing conditions and

problems that AIAN households experience, housing availability and cost, homelessness,

availability and capacity of local organizations that address housing needs, impact of the 2007–

2009 recession on housing availability and need, and factors that affect households’ decisions to

move between urban and tribal areas. (See appendix F for details on data collection and for the

interview and discussion guides.)

10 Tribal and urban Indian Health Centers are federally qualified health centers that provide care to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The health centers are referred to as Indian Health Centers or Native American Health Centers. The centers themselves use various names; for example, San Francisco Native Health or Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley.

11 See appendix F for an overview of characteristics of the discussion group participants. The researchers were unable to convene groups in two of the five MSAs during the site visits.

4

Detailed notes taken during the interviews and discussion groups were cleaned, entered into a qualitative data analysis software program, and coded by topic. Researchers then analyzed coded

segments to identify themes within topics, paying attention both to themes emerging across sites

and to less common themes that nevertheless expand understanding of housing-related

experiences and conditions.

Secondary data sources include the 2000 and 2010 U.S. decennial census, the 2006–2010

American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, the 2006–2010 ACS 5-Year Selected

Population Tables, and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data of 1975. These data are

used for descriptive analyses throughout the report.

This report blends an analysis of census data; HMDA data; and primary, qualitative data. For

these findings to be properly interpreted, the definitions of race and geography used with each

data type must be clear. For the analysis of census data, the Native American population is

defined as those who identified as American Indian or Alaska Native as their only race, 12 to be consistent with the Pettit et al. (2014) interim report of the current study. This group includes

people who identify as being of Hispanic or Latino origin as well as those who do not.

In interviews and discussion groups, however, the researchers did not specify a particular

definition of the AIAN population. The team members instead allowed respondents to speak of

the population in their community as they defined it. This definition could be broader than the

definition used for the secondary data analysis, and it likely includes those who identify as

American Indian or Alaska Native in addition to other racial groups. Respondents also included

tribally enrolled AIANs and AIANs who claimed affiliation but were not enrolled in a tribe.

Samples used in the study included the entire MSAs. The secondary data analysis therefore

primarily presents findings for entire MSAs, which include both the primary city and the

surrounding areas that are socially or economically connected to that city. As discussed in

sections 2 and 3, MSAs can include tribal lands, so discussions of indicators at the MSA level

generally include tribal land. In the interviews and focus groups, however, the researchers asked

respondents about the conditions for Native Americans in “urban areas” without explicitly

defining the term. Respondents tended to interpret this question as referring to AIANs living in

the primary city and possibly near suburbs but not on tribal lands within the MSA.

Study Limitations

Findings from this report are not generalizable to experiences of AIANs living in other

metropolitan areas. The sample of sites is too small and sites were selected purposefully.

12 U.S. Census Bureau surveys require respondents to self-report their race and ethnicity. These surveys use a uniform definition of race and ethnicity. Starting with the 2000 decennial census, survey respondents were able to select multiple race categories. Because of this change, it is difficult to compare 2000 and 2010 decennial census data with data from earlier decennial censuses, so comparisons with the data presented in the Kingsley et al. (1996) report should be viewed with caution, particularly if differences are small. Further, because the Census Bureau surveys ask about race and ethnicity separately, the AIAN-alone population (people who indicated AIAN as their only race) includes AIAN non-Hispanic people and AIAN Hispanic people. (See Pettit et al. [2014] for a full discussion of AIAN population trends and sections 3 and 4 of this report for a discussion of demographics.) 5

Research team members were able to interview and meet with a relatively small number of people. The research protocols and sampling methods led to a focus on lower-income and more

disadvantaged AIANs. Secondary data along with some qualitative data help round out the

picture of housing conditions and needs among AIAN households living in the selected MSAs.

That the findings align with those from Kingsley et al. (1996) and that the secondary and primary

data support each other strongly suggest, however, that a larger study on housing conditions and

needs in metropolitan areas might reach similar conclusions.

Overview of the Report

Section 2 describes the 24 MSAs sampled for the study and presents an overview of the

characteristics of those areas. Section 3 describes the population growth, distribution, and

mobility of the AIAN-alone population nationwide and in the 24 MSA study sites. Section 4

examines change over time in socioeconomic characteristics of the AIAN-alone population in the

MSA study sites and comparisons with other populations. Section 5 addresses housing

conditions and problems, including homelessness, and section 6 discusses housing-related

service availability and accessibility. Section 7 examines homeownership and mortgage access.

Section 8 concludes with a consideration of key findings and policy implications related to

housing conditions and needs among urban-dwelling Native Americans.

6

2. Characteristics of Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas

The 24 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) sampled for this study were chosen to achieve a

diversity of contexts. They are located across the country, vary in size, and include some of the

nation’s largest MSAs. 13 They also vary in the extent to which the American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population who identifies their race as AIAN alone identify their ethnicity as

being of Hispanic or Latino origin. Most of the 24 sampled MSAs include tribal land, but 7 are

located a significant distance from the nearest reservation or native village. The sampled MSAs

also vary in the extent to which their suburban areas are rural. Some MSAs, such as New York,

are almost entirely urban, whereas large shares of the population of the suburbs of other sampled

MSAs live in rural areas.

Location of Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas

The 24 sampled MSAs are distributed throughout the United States and include at least one MSA

in each of the nine study regions. 14 Exhibit 2.1 lists the sampled MSAs by their study region. The map in exhibit 2.2 displays the location of the MSAs across the United States.

In section 1, each of the 24 sampled MSAs was first identified by the full name (for example, the

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA); thereafter in the report these MSAs are called by the

name of the largest city in the MSA (for example, the Houston MSA).

Exhibit 2.1. Location of Sampled MSAs, by Study Region

MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Note: The MSA definitions are based on the delineations established by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) in the OMB Bulletin dated December 1, 2009.

13 This section includes data from only 24 of the 30 MSAs selected. Researchers were able to contact at least one respondent from those 24 sites.

14 The study regions are based on the regional boundaries for the six HUD Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) regional offices. Three of those regions have been divided because of diversity of circumstances within the regions. In total, this report has nine study regions. For a full explanation, see appendix D of this report and Pettit et al. (2014).

7

Exhibit 2.2. Location of MSAs Across the United States

MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Source: Urban Institute

Size of Metropolitan Statistical Areas

Five of the 24 MSAs—Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, and New York—are among the

nation’s 10 largest metropolitan areas. The other sampled MSAs are comparatively small. The

median population size of the sampled MSAs was about 950,000. Population counts for each

MSA are included in exhibit 2.3.

8

Exhibit 2.3. Selected Indicators for Sampled MSAs, 2010

MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Note: The MSA definitions are based on the delineations established by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) in the OMB Bulletin dated December 1, 2009.

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

Ethnicity of the American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Population

Pettit et al. (2014) found that AIAN-alone population growth was driven by growth in the

Hispanic cohort, as discussed in section 3. The percentage of the sampled metropolitan AIAN-

alone population that is Hispanic or Latino provides necessary context for understanding

population growth trends in those areas. The share of the AIAN-alone population that was

Hispanic or Latino ranged widely in the sampled MSAs, from nearly 3 percent in the Farmington

MSA to more than 66 percent in the Santa Barbara MSA; the median was 25 percent. The share

of the total population within the sampled MSAs that was Hispanic or Latino ranged from 1

percent in the Duluth MSA to 51 percent in the Santa Fe MSA; the median was 16 percent.

Exhibit 2.3 shows the share of the Hispanic AIAN-alone population for each sampled MSA.

9

Distance to Nearest Tribal Area

Kingsley et al. (1996) identified differences between metropolitan areas that were closer to tribal lands and those that were farther away. As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, tribal lands

encompass several different area types related to AIAN populations, including federal-

designated and state-designated reservation lands, trust lands, and statistical areas (see the

glossary in appendix A for full definitions). To the extent possible, the researchers included

MSAs of varying distances to the nearest tribal area in the sample. Site-selection criteria for

population size, growth thresholds, and the presence of an AIAN organization, however, resulted

in the exclusion of many MSAs that are located farther from tribal lands.

Distance to the nearest tribal area was calculated as the distance in miles from the edge of the

MSA boundary to the edge of the nearest tribal area boundary. About one-third of all MSAs

nationwide include tribal land or are immediately adjacent to a tribal area, so that the border-to-

border distance is 0 miles. Another one-third of MSAs nationwide are some distance away from

tribal land but are less than 35 miles away. The remaining one-third of MSAs are 35 or more

miles away from the nearest tribal area.

Because of other site-selection criteria, a disproportionately high share of the sampled MSAs—

17 of the 24 MSAs, or about 70 percent—includes tribal land within their boundaries. Only 7

MSAs did not include tribal land: Bakersfield, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Fairbanks, Houston, and

Nashville. Of those 7 MSAs, only Nashville was located 35 or more miles away from the nearest

tribal area. Exhibit 2.3 presents the distance to the nearest tribal area for all sampled MSAs. The

sampled MSAs were not evenly distributed among the three distance groups (0 miles, less than

35 miles, 35 miles or more); the research team did not conduct analyses by these distance groups.

Share of Metropolitan Statistical Areas That Is Tribal Land

Within the 17 MSAs that included tribal land, the share of each area’s land that was part of a

tribal area varied widely. In 6 MSAs—Charlotte, New York, Portland, Providence, Sacramento,

and Santa Barbara—less than 1 percent of the land in the area was tribal. Other MSAs included

large shares of tribal land. Of the 17 MSAs, 10 included at least 5 percent tribal land and some

had much more. For example, in the Fayetteville, Flagstaff, Tucson, Anchorage, and Farmington

MSAs, this share was 29, 38, 42, 49, and 60 percent, respectively. The tribal lands in these

MSAs are reservations or Alaska Native village statistical areas (in the case of Anchorage). For

MSAs in Oklahoma, however, tribes have service areas that are not reservations, in most cases.

The entire Tulsa MSA is divided among several tribal service areas and one reservation (see the

glossary in appendix A for definitions of different types of tribal areas).

The share of the MSA that is tribal land is important to note; Pettit et al. (2014) found that

conditions of the AIAN-alone population were different and often more challenging in tribal

areas than in nontribal areas. For example, the AIAN-alone population living in tribal areas had a

larger proportion of children than did their counterparts in nontribal lands. The AIAN-alone

poverty rate was highest in tribal areas, at 32 percent, substantially higher than the 14 percent

national rate among the non-AIAN population. Further, AIAN-alone employment rates were

lower and the unemployment rates were higher for the population living on tribal lands compared

10

with AIANs not living on tribal land. As a consequence, MSA-level indicators in the sample for the MSAs with sizeable shares of tribal land might be skewed by conditions found on the tribal

lands within the MSAs (see text box “Navajo Border Towns: Farmington and Flagstaff”).

Navajo Border Towns: Farmington and Flagstaff

The Farmington and Flagstaff MSAs are outliers on several measures throughout this report and are prime examples of how tribal area land within an MSA can affect MSA-level AIAN-alone indicators. About 61 percent of the land in the Farmington MSA and 38 percent of the land in the Flagstaff MSA are tribal land—primarily that of the Navajo Nation, but also the Hopi, Hualapai, Havasupai, and other tribes. As shown in the maps in appendix G, the AIAN-alone population is most densely concentrated in the tribal land areas of the MSAs rather than in the primary cities. Because of that clustering, differences in conditions on tribal lands compared with conditions in the primary cities might skew MSA-level indicators.

Suburbs: Urban Versus Rural

The differences between the AIAN-alone and total populations living in the “primary city” and

the “suburbs” are noted throughout this report. The  primary city is defined as the largest city within the MSA. The  suburbs are the remaining areas of the MSA that are not in the primary

city.

Because the boundaries of an MSA are defined by the social and economic reach of the primary

city rather than by population density, the suburbs, as defined here, look very different across the sampled MSAs. 15 In some MSAs, the suburbs are rural with low population density; in other MSAs, the suburbs are more densely populated. For example, only 4 percent of the population in

the suburbs of the New York MSA lives in rural areas, whereas 62 percent of the suburban

population of the Billings MSA lives in rural areas. The median rural share of the suburban

population across the MSAs is 16 percent. Exhibit 2.3 shows the suburban population share

living in rural areas for all 24 MSAs.

Summary

The sampled MSAs in the study are diverse in regional location, population size, and the extent

to which suburbs are more urban or rural. Nearly all the sampled MSAs include tribal land

within their boundaries; most of those that do not are located near tribal lands. For the MSAs that

include tribal land, the share of tribal land varies considerably. The diverse characteristics of the sampled MSAs provide important context for the remainder of this report. Sites that are outliers

or exceptions to average trends for particular indicators are noted throughout the report. In those

cases, the researchers analyzed the data to see if a typology or grouping of sites (for example, by

size or location) would explain the differences, but no pattern emerged.

15 MSAs are areas that contain a “substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

11

3. Population Growth, Distribution, and Mobility

This section examines the distribution of the American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

population in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) nationwide compared with the general

population and notes where AIANs live within the sampled MSAs in the study. Drawing on

qualitative data, the researchers consider how this population makes decisions about when and

where to move. Key findings include the following:

•  Nationwide, the majority of the AIAN-alone and total populations live within MSA

boundaries and tend to cluster in a small subset of metropolitan areas.

•  The AIAN-alone population is more clustered than is the total population, but it is

becoming less clustered over time.

•  Disproportionately large shares of the AIAN-alone urban population live in a few MSAs

that include large shares of tribal land.

•  In 19 of the 24 sampled MSAs, the growth rate of the AIAN-alone population is higher

than that of the total population.

•  In sampled MSAs that include tribal land, the AIAN-alone population makes up the

largest share of the total population in the tracts that are tribal land. In MSAs without

tribal land, the AIAN-alone population is distributed between primary cities and suburbs

in a way that is similar to that of the total population.

•  AIANs decide to move between tribal and metropolitan areas for a number of reasons,

weighing actual or anticipated locational benefits.

•  Although some AIANs live in MSAs permanently and are successful there, the research

identified types of movers among AIANs who face more challenging circumstances: the

cyclers, the returnees, the resigned, and the trapped.

•  AIANs living in MSAs tend to maintain ties with their tribal home.

Geographic Distribution Nationwide

A large and increasing share of the AIAN-alone population lives in MSAs nationwide. In 2010,

about 1.9 million (or 65 percent) of the 2.9 million people who identified as AIAN-alone lived in

an MSA. 16 The share has grown since 1990, when 38 percent of the AIAN population—about 754,600 people—lived in MSAs, but it is still a smaller percentage than the share of the total

U.S. population living in MSAs (85 percent).

The size of the AIAN-alone population varies considerably across MSAs. Each of the 374 MSAs

nationwide had at least a small portion of AIAN-alone inhabitants in 2010, but a small subset

were home to a large share of this population; 22 MSAs were home to at least 1 percent of the

AIAN-alone population in all MSAs. These 22 MSAs accounted for 51 percent of the total

AIAN-alone population living in MSAs and had an average AIAN-alone population share of 5

16 Note that these numbers and percentages are for the populations living in all MSAs nationwide, including counties in MSAs with tribal land. Pettit et al. (2014) discussed other metropolitan counties, which are counties in MSAs without tribal land. Because this report includes all MSAs but Pettit et al.’s (2014) universe is limited to MSAs outside Indian Country, numbers from this report will not align with the numbers provided by Pettit et al. (2014).

12

percent (see exhibit 3.1). The AIAN metropolitan population is more geographically dispersed

than it was in 1990, when 16 MSAs accounted for about 61 percent of the AIAN metropolitan

population. A similar pattern of clustering in MSAs is found among the total U.S. urban

population. By comparison, 20 MSAs were home to at least 1 percent of the total urban

population; overall, about 45 percent of the urban population lived in these 20 MSAs. 17

Exhibit 3.1. MSAs With the Highest AIAN-Alone Concentrations, 2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Note: Nationwide, 1,908,841 AIAN-alone individuals and 261,852,138 people total live within MSAs. The MSA definitions are based on the delineations established by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) in the OMB Bulletin dated December 1, 2009.

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

17 The 20 MSAs (definitions are based on the delineations established by the Office of Management and Budget

[OMB] in the OMB Bulletin dated December 1, 2009) are Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA; Baltimore-Towson, MD: Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH; Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI; Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX; Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI; Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX; Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA; Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL; Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI; New York-Northern New

Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA; Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD; Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ; Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA; San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA; San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA; Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA; St. Louis, MO-IL; Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL; and Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV.

13

In some MSAs, the AIAN-alone population is represented in the same proportion as the total

population. For example, about 5 percent of the AIAN-alone urban population lives in the Los

Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA MSA, as does about 5 percent of the total urban population.

In a similar way, about 1 percent of both the AIAN-alone and total urban populations live in the

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI, Portland, and Sacramento MSAs. The AIAN-alone

population is disproportionately large in MSAs where the area’s share of the AIAN-alone

population exceeds the share of the total MSA population. These MSAs include Albuquerque,

NM, Anchorage, Farmington, Flagstaff, Oklahoma City, OK, Phoenix, Tucson, and Tulsa, all of

which include significant shares of tribal land or are part of Oklahoma tribal service areas.

Although overall the urban AIAN population is less clustered than in previous decades, some

MSAs still serve as population hubs for Native Americans.

Population Size and Growth, Distribution, and Mobility in the Sampled

Metropolitan Statistical Areas

This section explores changes in the MSA-based AIAN population and the distribution of AIAN

households within the sampled MSAs. It considers connections between AIANs and their tribal

lands and the drivers of mobility to and from urban areas.

Population Size and Growth

To be included in the study, MSAs had to include at least 4,300 AIAN-alone individuals. Even

with that threshold, the AIAN-alone population made up a small portion of the 2010 total

population in most sites. In more than one-half of the sampled MSAs, the AIAN-alone

population comprised less than 2 percent of the total population, and, in all but two, the AIAN-

alone population made up less than 10 percent of the total population. The only two MSAs with a

higher share are Farmington and Flagstaff, both of which include large portions of tribal land.

In many areas, the AIAN-alone population is growing rapidly; during the 2000-to-2010 period, it

exceeded the growth rate for the MSA as a whole in 19 of the 24 sampled MSAs. The 5 excepted

MSAs were Bakersfield, Farmington, Flagstaff, Reno, and Sacramento. In each of the sampled

MSAs, the AIAN-alone population grew at least 10 percent during the decade, and, in some

areas, it grew by much wider margins. In the Houston MSA, for example, the AIAN-alone

population grew 84 percent from 2000 to 2010.

Petit et al. (2014), however, noted that differences in population growth between the Hispanic and

non-Hispanic components of the AIAN-alone population were substantial (see figure 2.2 in Pettit et

al., 2014). Although the AIAN-alone population overall grew 18 percent from 2000 to 2010, this

increase was driven largely by growth among the Hispanic segment of the population. From 2000 to

2010, the Hispanic AIAN-alone group increased 68 percent in total and 70 percent in metropolitan

counties without tribal land. By contrast, the non-Hispanic AIAN-alone group nationwide grew only

9 percent, a figure very close to the 10-percent increase for the U.S. population overall. Furthermore, the non-Hispanic AIAN group grew most rapidly during the decade in the counties that surround

tribal areas (14.5 percent) and less rapidly in the tribal areas themselves (7.0 percent) and in

metropolitan counties without tribal land (6.3 percent). This observation suggests that an important conclusion from Kingsley et al. (1996) stil  pertains; namely, that many AIANs still appear to want to remain close to their own tribal areas, even if continuing to live within tribal boundaries becomes

difficult (for a variety of reasons discussed subsequently).

14

Distribution of American Indians and Alaska Natives Within Metropolitan Areas

Where the AIAN-alone population lives within each MSA appears to be driven by whether the

area includes a large amount of tribal land. If an MSA includes tribal areas, the AIAN-alone

population is usually the majority in tracts within the tribal land. Appendix G includes maps of

each sampled MSA that show the share of population that is AIAN alone for each tract and the

primary city boundaries and tribal land boundaries in the MSA. A review of trends from these

maps shows that in most MSAs without tribal land (five of seven), the AIAN-alone population is

spread throughout the MSA and the AIAN-alone population rarely makes up 2 percent or more

of the population in any given tract. By contrast, in MSAs in which at least 5 percent of the land

is tribal, AIAN-alone people are in the majority in tracts that are within tribal areas and in tracts that immediately surround tribal areas. This pattern is pronounced in Farmington, a border town

of the Navajo Nation.

Further, in 10 of the 17 MSAs that include any amount of tribal land, a disproportionately high

share of the AIAN-alone population lives in the tribal land portion of the MSA. For example, in

the Flagstaff MSA, tribal land makes up 38 percent of the land and 65 percent of the AIAN-alone

population in the MSA lives on tribal land. In a similar scenario, in the Duluth MSA, only a

small share of the land is tribal (about 2 percent) but nearly 31 percent of AIAN-alone people

live on that land. Other MSAs with this pattern include Charlotte, Fayetteville, New York,

Phoenix, Reno, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, and Santa Fe. Anchorage is an exception to this

pattern: 49 percent of the MSA is tribal land, but only 18 percent of AIAN-alone people live

there. The share of the AIAN-alone population that lives in the MSA but outside the primary city

(in the suburbs) is more heavily concentrated in the suburbs than in the primary city in 7 MSAs

(Farmington, Fayetteville, Flagstaff, Reno, Santa Fe, Tucson, and Tulsa). All these MSAs

contain large amounts of tribal land. Because tribal land is almost entirely outside primary city

boundaries—in the suburbs—the location of tribal land affects the geographic distribution of the

AIAN population within MSAs.

Findings presented later in this report address the differences between AIAN-alone individuals living in the primary cities and those living in suburbs on a few key indicators. As noted previously, many of the study sites include tribal land. Almost al  the tribal land in the study sites is in the suburban areas. As Pettit et al. (2014) identified, tribal areas tend to have different demographic, social,

economic, and housing characteristics than other geographies. Because of these differences, suburban characteristics for study sites with large amounts of tribal land may be driven by characteristics of the tribal lands and not reflect the entire nontribal part of the suburban area.

Mobility to and From Tribal Lands

AIAN-alone households move slightly more often than al  households do. The 2006–2010 American

Community Survey (ACS) reports that 22 percent of AIAN-alone households in the sampled MSAs

had made some kind of move in the previous year, on average, compared with 19 percent of al

households. Data on mobility from the ACS and the decennial census are limited, but they do

provide information on the number of households that moved within the previous year and whether

they moved within the same county, to a different county within the same state, to a different state 15

within the same region, to a different state in a different region, or to a country abroad. No ACS or decennial census data, however, report whether people move to and from tribal lands.

Because of these limitations, the researchers relied on interview and discussion-group data to

examine factors affecting mobility decisions. These data focus primarily on low-income and

disadvantaged AIANs, so the research team learned more about the moves made by this subgroup

and little about those who had moved to metropolitan areas and lived in stable, safe, and healthy

housing conditions. Further, when asked about moves to and from tribal areas, respondents

reported moves to and from the primary city rather than the metropolitan area as a whole.

Even though the majority of the sampled MSAs in the study included some tribal land and most

of those that did not were located near tribal lands, none of the respondents indicated that their

MSA’s AIAN population came from one particular tribe or village. People instead come to urban

areas from across the region, the state, or the United States as a whole. Respondents from the

Boston MSA noted that the city of Boston is home to First Nations people from Canada as well.

Most respondents thought that the number of people moving to primary cities from native

villages and reservations increased during the past several years. In particular, respondents said

the number of young couples and young families moving to primary cities from tribal lands

increased. Respondents from the Anchorage and Fairbanks MSAs also noted an increase in the

number of teenagers moving to the cities.

Respondents identified a relatively small number of factors that influenced people’s decisions to

move from tribal lands to primary cities. Some AIANs were driven by circumstances on the

reservation or in the native village that pushed them to move away (henceforth referred to as

push factors). Many of these factors, which are similar to those found by Kingsley et al. (1996), included “lack of jobs, decent housing, and remote location” of tribal areas (Kingsley et al.,

1996: 96). Other factors were related to the attractive elements (real or perceived) of life in a

primary city that drew people there (henceforth referred to as  pull factors).

The push factors often were related to unmet needs, high cost of living, and lack of opportunity.

Respondents identified unmet housing needs as one factor: people leave tribal lands because of

lack of housing, overcrowded living situations, or substandard housing conditions. Respondents

from the Anchorage MSA also cited the high cost of fuel and utilities in native villages. Other

respondents noted the lack of jobs and other income-generating activities and a lack of interest

among young people in the subsistence activities that older generations relied on to support

themselves. They also cited limited educational opportunities. Respondents said schools often

have too few teachers and, in some Alaska Native villages, the communities are too small to

support a school. Finally, respondents indicated that people move to primary cities as a means of

escape from domestic violence or substance abuse issues of other family members, or they move

to overcome their own drug or alcohol use issues.

Pull factors, often the inverse of push factors, center on either real or anticipated access to

services and opportunities in primary cities. To be specific, people move from tribal areas to

primary cities to seek employment, education, better housing, and better medical care,.

Respondents from a few sites also noted that some individuals think even substandard housing

16

available in the primary city would be preferable to the housing on the reservation. A few

respondents from the Billings MSA noted that overcrowding issues, although present in the

primary city, are less acute than what households experience on the reservation, and a respondent

from the Farmington MSA noted that housing on the reservation may not have electricity or

running water. 18 AIANs also move because they anticipate gaining access to a range of services and supports, such as medical services for themselves or a family member. Family is another pull

factor—some people move to follow a family member who relocated previously.

Respondents pointed out that not everyone who relocates to a primary city stays there.

Respondents from the Anchorage MSA reported that the number of people moving back to tribal

lands during the past 5 to 10 years increased, although the number of tribal-land returnees is

thought to be smaller than the number of individuals moving to primary cities. Also, respondents

from the Bakersfield and Flagstaff MSAs reported more frequent moves back and forth between

the tribal areas and primary cities even if the population overall remained steady. 19

From the interview data, the researchers identified four types of movers: cyclers, returnees, the

resigned, and the trapped.  Cyclers are defined as people who move back and forth between their village or reservation and a primary city. They move when the alternative area (the tribal area if

they are living in the urban area and vice versa) becomes more attractive. For example,

individuals who moved to the primary city for access to job opportunities may return to their

home reservation or village after several months of an unsuccessful job search and relocate to the

primary city if they get a strong lead on a new job. People also move back and forth to maximize

access to medical services and other community services and supports available in an urban area

or in a village or a reservation. Family ties also affect moves to and from primary cities; someone

may relocate to the city to follow a family member who has moved there or may return to be

closer to family still living on the reservation.

Returnees are defined as people who leave the primary city to return to their village or

reservation permanently or for a longer term. They return for several reasons. Some people

return to their home reservation or village to retire. Others experience financial problems living

in the primary city, often because they cannot find jobs or affordable housing. Other AIANs find

that the services and resources available to them when they live on the reservation or in their

village are better than the services they can find living off tribal lands. Returnees also move back because of family ties or responsibilities. Kingsley et al. (1996) found that life in metropolitan

areas introduced new stresses and did not allow for a full expression of AIAN cultural identity;

in a similar way, respondents noted that some people feel unsettled and out of place in the

primary city and will return to their home reservation or village to live where they feel they fit in.

The  resigned are defined as people who stay in the primary city because of lack of opportunities on the reservation or in their village, not because they have made a positive choice to remain in

18 The Urban Institute conducted a nationally representative survey of housing on tribal lands as part of the broader assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian housing needs that provides evidence on housing conditions.

19 The distance between these MSAs and tribal land differs. The Bakersfield MSA does not include tribal land and is 12 miles from the nearest reservation, whereas nearly 40 percent of the land within the Flagstaff MSA is tribal.

17

the primary city. Respondents from about one-fourth of the sites in the sample identified

resignation as a reason people stay in the metropolitan area, noting that people “have nothing to

go back to, so they stay.” Respondents specifically identified a lack of jobs and available housing

on tribal lands as reasons people who would prefer to return instead remain in primary cities.

The  trapped are defined as people who moved to the primary city and cannot get back to their home reservation or village even though they want to return. This group includes people who

came to the city for medical treatment, school, or jobs and cannot afford the travel and other

expenses to return home. (See text box “Medical Care and [a Lack of] Wraparound Services.”)

Medical Care and (a Lack of) Wraparound Services

Respondents from both the Anchorage MSA and the Phoenix MSA noted that AIANs go to primary cities because they or a family member needs medical treatment that they cannot get in their native village or on the reservation. After treatment, some people cannot afford the cost of transportation back to their village or reservation, or they are not healthy enough to travel, so they are unable to leave the primary city. The respondent from the Anchorage MSA noted that sometimes people stay in medical hostels or

with family members or friends who live in the city, whereas others move straight from the hospital to a homeless shelter. A respondent from the Phoenix MSA explained that vulnerable patients who have just received medical treatment often have no safe place to recover, because they are unable to remain in the hospital; have no network in the city; and are unable to stay the whole day in a homeless shelter, given shelter requirements that people leave during the day. A medical hostel is connected with one of the Phoenix hospitals, but no such shelter is available for patients of the Phoenix Indian Medical Center, which serves most of the AIAN patient population. A respondent from the Phoenix MSA suggested that

temporary housing modeled after a Ronald McDonald House is needed, especially given the

circumstances of most of the patients seeking care. Respondents from the Phoenix MSA also noted that AIANs will go to the primary city to care for a sick family member and often lose their temporary housing and become homeless.

Maintaining Ties to Home Reservations and Villages

Many respondents noted that the reservation or village is still  home for Native Americans living in primary cities and, if people have strong ties to the reservation or village when they move to

the city, they tend to maintain those ties. Overall, more respondents said that most AIANs

maintain ties to their home reservation or village than said they do not keep ties. The strength of

ties varies widely. A respondent in the Tulsa MSA noted that “many people have mainstreamed

and lost their cultural identity,” and a respondent in the Phoenix MSA said that “the city isn’t

home regardless of the length of time someone lives there.”

The strength and maintenance of ties can depend on the distance between the MSA and the

individual’s home reservation or village. Those AIANs who live in an MSA closer to their home

reservation or village have an easier time going back to visit family or take part in family,

community, and cultural events.

18

4. Social and Economic Conditions

Because social and economic conditions can influence housing needs and preferences, this

section examines the demographics, employment, and income characteristics of the American

Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population who self-identify as AIAN alone across the 24

sampled metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Compared with the total population in these

MSAs—

•  The AIAN-alone population is younger.

•  AIAN-alone households tend to be larger.

•  A higher share of AIAN-alone households are families with children younger than 18,

and a higher share live in households with members from three or more generations (that

is, multigenerational households).

•  More AIAN households are headed by a single parent.

•  Fewer AIAN-alone adults have earned a high school diploma or bachelors or graduate

degree.

•  The AIAN-alone population has lower labor force participation rates, lower employment,

and higher unemployment rates.

•  AIAN-alone households have lower average incomes, are more likely to have extremely

low incomes (having incomes below 30 percent of the area median), and have higher

overall and child poverty rates.

•  Among the AIAN-alone population, characteristics of households living in the primary

cities and suburbs are similar, whereas among the total population, disadvantage is

concentrated in the primary cities.

These trends in the sampled MSAs mirror those observed at the national level. (For more

information, see appendix C.)

This section relies heavily on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau and American Community Survey

(ACS) data, and it includes findings from interviews and discussion groups. Because the

researchers primarily interviewed respondents from service agencies and the questions focused

on housing issues, the study focused more on low-income and disadvantaged AIANs than on the

higher income portion of the population. Findings from the interviews and discussion groups

should be interpreted with this subpopulation in mind.

Age

The AIAN-alone population in the sampled MSAs is younger than the general population (see

exhibit 4.1). This finding aligns with those of Kingsley et al. (1996) and Pettit et al. (2014), who found that the AIAN population residing in metropolitan counties without tribal land had higher

shares of children and lower shares of adults age 62 and older than did the non-AIAN population

(Kingsley et al., 1996; Pettit et al., 2014). The share of adults ages 18 to 61 is similar for the

AIAN-alone and total populations, but the AIAN-alone population has larger shares of children.

On average, about 31 percent of the AIAN-alone population was younger than 18 years of age

compared with 25 percent of the total population in 2010. The AIAN share of young people was

19

higher than the share of the total population in 22 of 24 MSAs. The share of elderly, however,

was lower: 8 percent of the AIAN-alone population was 62 years old and older compared with

15 percent of the total population. 20 This pattern was observed in all 24 MSAs.

The size of the age-group disparity between the AIAN-alone population and the total population

varies across the study sites. The biggest difference between the AIAN-alone population share

and the total population shares by age was in the Billings MSA, where the share of the

population younger than 18 years of age was 13 percentage points higher among the AIAN-alone

population than among the total population, and the share of the population 62 years and older

was 11 percentage points lower for the AIAN-alone population than for the total population.

Exhibit 4.1. Population, by Age Group and Race, for Sampled MSAs, 2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

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

Household Size

The average size of AIAN-alone households was slightly larger than that of the total population

and has not changed much during the past decade. In 2010, the average AIAN-alone household

size was 3.1 persons compared with the average total population household size of 2.7 persons.

20 It is unknown whether this difference is due to differences in life expectancy, mobility patterns among elderly AIANs that result in moves to tribal lands, or other factors.

20

Average AIAN household size varied across MSAs, from 2.7 persons in Boston, Fairbanks,

Nashville, Santa Fe, and Tulsa to 3.5 persons in Farmington and 3.7 persons in Flagstaff.

Household Type

The household structure differed between AIAN households and all households. A larger share

of AIAN households included children than did all households. AIAN-alone households had a

higher share of single-parent households with children. Multigenerational households—those

with members from three or more generations—also were more common among AIAN-alone

households than among all households.

Households With Children

Overall, about 39 percent of AIAN-alone households included children who are less than the age

of 18 compared with about 31 percent of all households.

Married Couples With Children

Among AIAN-alone households in the sampled MSAs, 21 percent were married couples with

children, about the same as for all households (22 percent). The share of households married

with children was lower in 11 of the 24 MSAs among AIAN-alone households than with all

households in the MSA. It was about the same in 7 MSAs and higher in 6. In the Fairbanks

MSA, the proportion of married couples among AIAN-alone households was 8 percentage points

below that of all households, and the rate in the Chicago MSA, among AIAN-alone households

was 7 percentage points higher than that for all households.

These findings track national trends over time. Kingsley et al. (1996) found that AIAN

households had higher shares of married couples with children than did all households, but Pettit

et al. (2014) reported little difference by 2010, finding that about 21 percent of both AIAN and

non-AIAN households in other metropolitan counties were married couples with children.

Single Parents With Children

On average, 18 percent of AIAN-alone households in the sampled MSAs were headed by a

single parent in 2010; in all households, the share was 10 percent. Further, the share of single-

parent households with children was higher among AIAN-alone households than among all

households in each of the sampled MSAs. The biggest disparity between the two groups was in

the Billings MSA, where the share of AIAN-alone households headed by a single parent was

three times that of all households (28 percent compared with 9 percent, respectively).

At the national level, the share of single-parent households with children among AIAN-alone

households has remained higher than the share among non-AIAN households, and the difference

has increased.  Kingsley et al. (1996) found that about 10 percent of AIAN households in

metropolitan counties without tribal land were single-parent households compared with 7 percent

of non-AIAN households. In 2010, the share of AIAN-alone households in metropolitan counties

without tribal land that were single parents was 15 percent compared with 9 percent of non-

AIAN households.

21

Households Without Children

The share of households without children is correspondingly lower among AIAN-alone

households compared with all households in the sampled MSAs (62 percent compared with 69

percent, respectively). This group includes married couples without children, nonfamily

households, and other family households. Following national findings from Pettit et al. (2014),

AIAN-alone households in each of the 24 MSAs have smaller shares of married households

without children compared with all households (19 percent compared with 26 percent,

respectively).

AIAN-alone households also include lower shares of nonfamily households compared with all

households.  Nonfamily households are those that do not include at least one person related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. On average, about 29 percent of AIAN-alone

households were nonfamilies compared with 34 percent of all households. This pattern was

found in 19 of the MSAs in the study.

The opposite pattern, however, appears for  other family households, defined as male-headed or female-headed households that include relatives but do not include children who are less than the

age of 18. A higher share of other family arrangements was found among AIAN-alone

households compared with all households. In 2010, on average, 14 percent of AIAN-alone

households were in other family configurations compared with 9 percent for all households. This

finding aligns with the findings of Pettit et al. (2014) in their interim report, which attributed it to a greater propensity among AIAN households to form multigenerational living arrangements

than among households in general. Other research also found a higher rate of multigenerational

households among AIANs compared with non-AIANs (Lofquist, 2012). Respondents in the

Anchorage and Bakersfield MSAs supported this interpretation, noting that to have multiple

generations living in the same household was a common arrangement among AIANs in their

communities. Respondents also noted that when AIANs first move to MSAs, they are likely to

stay with family members already living in the city (see text box “Multigenerational Families”).

Multigenerational Families

Respondents from several MSA sites noted that AIAN households often prefer multigenerational living

arrangements for both cultural and economic reasons. When asked what housing program they would

like to see in their community to address housing needs, a respondent from the Portland MSA

specifically mentioned a need for housing that supports multigenerational living arrangements. A

respondent from the Billings MSA noted that when some families get housing, they will take in other family members. Families, however, might also double up to help make housing more affordable or

because there is a shortage of available housing units.

Age and Household Size and Type: Primary Cities Versus Suburbs

An examination of differences between the primary cities and suburban areas of the MSAs

reveals that, in 2010, the suburbs had higher shares of children and older adults (age 62 and

older), whereas primary cities had larger shares of working-age adults (ages 18 to 61) among

both the AIAN-alone population and the total MSA population. Further, the suburbs had higher

shares of married couples—both with children and without—and primary cities had higher

shares of single-parent and nonfamily households for both AIAN-alone and all households.

22

Differences in household structures by city-suburb location are greater for all households than

for AIAN-alone households across structure types, with the exception of single parents with

children (4.2-percentage-point difference compared with 2.4-percentage-point difference,

respectively). This observation could be driven in part by the fact that the suburban area includes

tribal land in 17 of the 24 MSAs and, as noted, AIAN-alone characteristics on tribal land differ

from other areas.

Educational Attainment

Educational attainment levels were lower for the AIAN-alone population than the total

population during the 2006-to-2010 period. Compared with the total population, larger shares of

the AIAN-alone population had less than a high school diploma or only a high school diploma or

general educational development (GED) diploma, and a smaller share had earned a college

degree.

In the 24 MSAs, a larger share of the AIAN-alone population age 25 and older had less than a

high school diploma (24 percent) than did the total population (15 percent), on average (see

exhibit 4.2). This relationship held in all but two of the sampled MSAs (Bakersfield and Santa

Fe). Variation existed, however, in the size of the disparity between the AIAN share and the total

population share. In the Reno MSA, for example, the AIAN share exceeded the total share by

only 0.9 percentage points, whereas, in the Portland MSA, the AIAN-alone share with less than a

high school diploma was almost four times that of the total population (38 percent compared

with 10 percent, respectively).

Nationwide, educational attainment of the AIAN-alone population has persistently lagged that of

the general population, and the disparity has worsened. Kingsley et al. (1996) found that 29

percent of AIAN adults ages 25 and older in metropolitan counties without tribal land had less

than a high school diploma or GED compared with 23 percent of non-AIAN adults. In 2010, 23

percent of AIAN-alone adults ages 25 and older in metropolitan counties without tribal land had

less than a high school degree compared with 14 percent of non-AIAN adults (Pettit et al., 2014).

Compared with the total population, a larger share of the AIAN-alone population in the sampled

MSAs had as its highest educational attainment a high school diploma or GED, on average.

During the 2006-to-2010 period, a high school diploma or GED was the highest level of

education attained for 31 percent of the AIAN-alone population compared with 26 percent of the

total population. Of the 24 sampled MSAs, 19 followed this pattern. In one MSA (Bakersfield),

the AIAN-alone share and total share with a high school diploma were the same and, in the

remaining 4 MSAs (Billings, Duluth, Houston, and Portland), the AIAN-alone share was lower

than that of the total population.

The AIAN-alone population has lower rates of attaining bachelor’s and graduate degrees. On

average, during the 2006-to-2010 period, the share of AIAN adults ages 25 and older with a

bachelor’s or graduate degree was less than one-half the rate for the total population: 14 percent

compared with 33 percent, respectively. The AIAN share was less than the total population share

in all MSAs and, in most MSAs, the median difference between the two shares was about 15

percentage points.

23

Exhibit 4.2. Share of Population, by Highest Educational Attainment Category and Race,

for Sampled MSAs, 2006–2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. GED = general educational development. MSA =

metropolitan statistical area.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2006–2010

Educational Attainment: Primary Cities Versus Suburbs

The share of the AIAN population with less than a high school diploma was about the same

between the primary cities and the suburbs, whereas the share with a bachelor’s degree or higher

was slightly higher in the primary cities (15 percent) than in the suburbs (13 percent). By

contrast, the total population share with less than a high school diploma was much higher in the

primary city (20 percent) than in the suburbs (13 percent).

Labor Force Characteristics

The employment rate for the AIAN-alone population lagged that of the total population. For

those 16 and older, on average, during the 2006-to-2010 period, the employment rate for the

AIAN-alone population was 55 percent compared with 61 percent in the total population (see

exhibit 4.3). This pattern held in 20 of the 24 MSAs, the exceptions being Nashville, Portland,

Santa Fe, and Tulsa, where the AIAN-alone employment rate was greater than (Nashville,

Portland, and Santa Fe) or about equal to (Tulsa) the rate in the total population.

24

Exhibit 4.3. Average Labor Force Characteristics, by Race, for Sampled MSAs, 2006–2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2006–2010

The AIAN-alone population also had higher rates of unemployment than did the general

population. During the 2006-to-2010 period, the AIAN-alone unemployment rate was 13 percent

compared with 8 percent for the total population, on average. This trend persisted in all 24 MSAs,

although the size of the gap varied. For example, in the Dallas MSA, the AIAN unemployment rate

was only about 1 percentage point higher than the rate for the total population, but, in the Duluth

MSA, the rate was 14 percentage points above that of the total population.

The AIAN-alone civilian labor force participation rate—the percent of the population ages 16

and older that is either working or looking for work in the civilian (nonmilitary) sector—was 63

percent in the sampled MSAs, on average, during the 2006-to-2010 period, which was 4

percentage points lower than the rate for the total population (67 percent). The rate was higher

than 67 percent in only 5 of the 24 MSAs—Nashville, New York, Portland, Santa Fe, and Tulsa.

Respondents discussed the challenges AIANs face gaining and retaining employment.

Respondents from the Anchorage and Reno MSAs noted that many AIANs live in areas with

high rates of unemployment and that many AIANs have a poor record of retaining employment.

Respondents commented that low educational attainment and lack of work experience make it

difficult for many AIANs to access work training opportunities and jobs that pay livable wages.

They noted that these challenges were particularly great for those who move to the cities from

tribal lands. Respondents in five MSA sites—Billings, Boston, Farmington, Phoenix, and

Tulsa—also noted that many lower-income AIANs do not own a car or truck, an obstacle that

further limits their employment prospects.

25

Labor Force Characteristics: Primary City Versus Suburbs

American Indians and Alaska Natives living in primary cities are about as likely to be employed

as those living in suburban areas (56 percent compared with 55 percent, respectively). Among

the total population, the rate of employment was slightly lower in the cities than in the suburbs

(59 percent and 62 percent, respectively). The rate of unemployment for both the AIAN-alone

and total populations was slightly higher in primary cities. Among AIANs, the rate was 14

percent in primary cities and 12 percent in suburbs, on average, compared with 9 percent among

the total population in the primary cities and 7 percent in the suburbs.

Income and Poverty

Across all indicators of income and poverty, AIAN-alone households fare poorly compared with

the total population. The average household income for AIAN-alone households was about

$53,000 compared with about $80,000 for the total population during the 2006-to-2010 period in

the 24 sampled MSAs. The AIAN-alone average household income was below that of the total

population in 23 of the MSAs. The average income disparity between AIAN-alone and all

households ranged from $5,500 in the Santa Barbara MSA to $39,000 in the Boston MSA (see

exhibit 4.4). The median difference for all 24 MSAs was about $21,000. Bakersfield was the

only sampled MSA in which the AIAN-alone average household income was higher than the

average among the total population, with a difference of $1,000.

Exhibit 4.4. Average Household Income, by Race of Householder, 2006–2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2006–2010

26

The AIAN-alone population also has a higher share of population that earns incomes at or below

30 percent of the Area Median Income, classified as having extremely low incomes, than does

the total population. On average, during the 2006-to-2010 period, 20 percent of AIAN

households had extremely low incomes compared with 13 percent of all households. This pattern

held in each of the sampled MSAs except Bakersfield and Dallas. In the Dallas MSA, the share

of AIAN-alone households that had extremely low incomes was about the same as the share for

all households. In the Bakersfield MSA, the AIAN share was about 4 percentage points lower

than that of all households. In the remaining 22 MSAs, the difference between the AIAN-alone

share and the total share ranged from a 3-percentage-point difference in the Tulsa MSA to a 27-

percentage-point difference in the Billings MSA, where more than one-third of AIAN-alone

households had extremely low incomes (see exhibit 4.5).

Exhibit 4.5. Share of Households That Had Extremely Low Incomes, by Race, 2006–2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Consolidated Planning/Comprehensive

Housing Affordability Strategy File, 2006–10 (special product of the U.S. Census Bureau, American

Community Survey 2006–2010)

As would be expected, given the higher shares of extremely low-income households, the poverty

rate of the AIAN-alone population was higher than that of the total population (see exhibit 4.6).

During the 2006-to-2010 period, the AIAN poverty rate was 24 percent compared with 13

percent of the total population, on average, and was higher than the total rate in 23 of the 24

MSAs. The only exception was the Dallas MSA, where the AIAN rate was about the same as the

total population rate. In the remaining 23 sites, the size of the difference ranged from 2

percentage points in the Bakersfield MSA to 31 percentage points in the Billings MSA.

27

Further, the AIAN-alone child poverty rate21 was 30 percent, on average, in the sampled MSAs compared with 18 percent for the total population during the 2006-to-2010 period. The AIAN

child poverty rate was higher than the total population rate in 20 of 24 MSAs, with differences

ranging from 1 percentage point in the Chicago MSA to 39 percentage points in the Billings

MSA. In 4 MSAs—Dallas, Houston, Reno, and Santa Fe—the AIAN child poverty rate was

lower than the total rate, but the differences were small, ranging from 0.4 percentage points

lower for the AIAN-alone population in Houston to 4 percentage points lower for the AIAN-

alone population in Reno.

Exhibit 4.6. Average Overall Poverty Rates, by Race, 2006–2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2006–2010

Income and Poverty: Primary Cities Versus Suburbs

On all the income and poverty measures, the conditions were worse in the primary cities than in

the suburbs for the AIAN-alone population and for the total population. The disparities between

those living in the primary cities and suburbs were less pronounced for the AIAN-alone

population than they were for the total population. For example, the share of AIAN households

that had extremely low incomes was slightly higher in the primary cities (22 percent) than in the

21  Child poverty rate is defined as the percentage of individuals under the age of 18 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.

28

suburbs (19 percent). By contrast, the share for all households in the primary cities that had

extremely low incomes was 19 percent and the suburban share was 11 percent, more than twice

the difference among AIAN households.

These differences suggest that, among the population at large, households with low incomes and

those living in poverty are concentrated in the primary cities, whereas income-disadvantaged

AIAN-alone households are more dispersed across primary cities and suburban areas. The

researchers hypothesize that this difference might occur because the suburbs, as defined in this

study, include tribal land, where incomes are lower and poverty rates are higher than in other

areas.

29

5. Housing Conditions, Problems, and Needs

This section examines housing characteristics and conditions and the challenges that American

Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) populations residing in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)

face in obtaining housing. It also addresses homelessness. Key findings include the following:

•  AIAN-alone households live in single-family, detached homes at rates similar to all

households in the sampled MSAs (about 60 percent), but relatively fewer AIAN

households live in multifamily units and relatively more live in other housing types (such

as in recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and boats) than do all households.

•  AIAN-alone households have a higher median rate of cost burden and severe cost burden

than do all households, suggesting that affordability issues are more acute for them.

Respondents in all the sampled MSAs noted a shortage of affordable housing.

•  Data suggest that AIANs are more likely to live in housing that lacks complete plumbing

and kitchen facilities than are all households.

•  AIANs are more likely to live in overcrowded housing situations; overcrowding likely is

the result of both housing affordability challenges and cultural norms for

multigenerational living and for helping family members.

•  AIANs face a number of housing-related challenges, including lack of familiarity with

metropolitan area housing-market practices and job-search skills, fewer social ties, and

race-based discrimination in housing.

•  Respondents identified a lack of affordable housing and individual health issues as

factors driving homelessness among AIANs living in MSAs.

Housing Structure Type

Most AIAN households in MSAs live in single-family homes and slightly less than one-third live

in multifamily housing (59 and 31 percent, respectively) (see exhibit 5.1). These figures are

comparable to those for all households. Roughly 3.5 times more AIAN households live in  other

housing, such as mobile homes, recreational vehicles, and boats, than do all households (11

percent compared with 3 percent). The rate of AIAN households living in other housing was

highest in the Fayetteville MSA, at 31 percent. Housing of this type is less valuable as an asset

and is more vulnerable to weather-related damage (Cooper, 2011; see Pettit et al., 2014, for a

more detailed discussion).

30

Exhibit 5.1. Share of Occupied Housing Units, by Structure Type and Race of Householder,

for Sampled MSAs, 2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

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

Housing Availability

The availability of housing, as indicated by vacancy rates, varied across the sampled MSAs. The

overall average vacancy rate across rental and ownership housing was 9 percent. The vacancy

rates in 11 of the sampled MSAs were higher than the national MSA average of 10 percent, and

the rates in 13 of the sampled MSAs were lower than the national average. The Flagstaff MSA

had the highest rate, at 26 percent, and the Portland MSA had the lowest, at 6 percent (see

exhibit 2.3). In general, lower vacancy rates suggest more competition for available units.

Respondents in the Anchorage, Bakersfield, Billings, Dallas, and Fairbanks MSAs talked about

the high rental prices that landlords charge because of the demand for housing.

Although the vacancy rate does not identify the types of housing that are needed, respondents

and focus group participants across the sites reported a lack of affordable units and of housing

units big enough to accommodate large families. These issues are of particular importance, given

the lower incomes and larger household sizes of AIAN households.

Housing Problems and Needs

This study examined housing problems and needs of AIAN households by considering three key

components: (1) housing price and affordability, (2) housing quality, and (3) overcrowding.

31

Compared with the total population, AIAN households are more likely to be cost burdened and

to live in low-quality and overcrowded housing.

Housing Price and Affordability

Given that the AIAN-alone households in most of the sampled MSAs have lower income levels

and higher rates of poverty than do the households in the total population, renter households can

be expected to occupy housing units that cost less. In fact, the average rent for AIAN-alone

households was lower than the average for all households in every sampled MSA except

Bakersfield and Nashville, where the rents were about the same. On the low end, rents in the

Farmington MSA averaged $530 for AIAN-alone households and $660 for all households. In the

Santa Barbara MSA, the average rent for AIAN-alone households was $1,200 and for all

households was $1,300. As discussed later in section 7, the average value of homes owned by

AIAN-alone households also was lower.

Lower rents and home values do not themselves indicate that AIAN-alone households have less

severe housing affordability problems. To be considered affordable, housing costs should not

exceed 30 percent of a household’s income. Households with housing costs that exceed 30

percent of income are considered to be cost burdened, and those with housing costs that exceed

50 percent of income are extremely cost burdened (Schwartz and Wilson, 2008).

On average, during the 2006-to-2010 period, a similar share of AIAN-alone and all households

was cost burdened (40 and 41 percent, respectively) (see exhibit 5.2). This similarity, however,

masks considerable variation among MSAs, as indicated by the median share of cost-burdened

households, which was 43 percent for AIAN-alone households and 37 percent for all households.

In 18 of the 24 MSAs, the AIAN-alone cost-burdened share was higher than that of all

households and, in some places, the difference was large. In the Nashville and Providence

MSAs, for example, the AIAN-alone rates were 23 and 24 percentage points higher,

respectively, than the rates for all households. In 5 MSAs, the percentage of AIAN-alone

households that were cost burdened was less than that of all households. The difference was

small in most of the MSAs, but, in the Flagstaff MSA, the AIAN-alone rate was 14 percentage

points lower than that of all households. There was no difference in cost burden between AIAN-

alone and all households in the Phoenix MSA.

During the same period, almost one-fifth of households (19 percent) were severely cost

burdened, on average, among both AIAN-alone and all households. Again, a difference in the

median share is apparent: 22 percent of AIAN-alone households were severely cost burdened

compared with 17 percent for all households. The share of severely cost-burdened AIAN-alone

households was higher than the share of all households in 20 of the 24 MSAs. The exceptions

were the Farmington, Flagstaff, Reno, and Tulsa MSAs. In the Flagstaff MSA, the rate for all

households was 7 percentage points above the AIAN-alone rate. Note that all 4 MSAs include

substantial shares of tribal land. Pettit et al. (2014) found that cost burden was lower for the

AIAN-alone population living on tribal land than for those in other areas.

32

Exhibit 5.2. Average and Median Share of Households That Are Cost Burdened and

Severely Cost Burdened, by Race, for Sampled MSAs, 2006–2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Note: Cost burdened refers to households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing, and severely cost burdened refers to households paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey selected population tables, 2006–2010

Housing Quality

American Indians and Alaska Natives experience a number of housing-quality problems, as

indicated by secondary data and discussions with respondents and focus group participants.

Many respondents stated that the conditions that AIANs and non-AIANs face were similar,

because poor-quality housing reflected household income more than race. The problems,

however, appear to be more prevalent among AIAN households, perhaps because they have

disproportionately low incomes.

Facilities

Facilities problems are defined as the lack of complete plumbing and lack of a complete kitchen.

Most AIAN-alone households live in housing with complete facilities, but, relative to all

households, their rate of housing with incomplete facilities is higher. Housing in which AIAN

households reside is less likely to have complete plumbing than is housing among all housing

units, a designation that means the units lack at least one of the following: hot and cold running

33

water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower. 22 In 2006–2010, the AIAN share of occupied housing units that lacked complete plumbing facilities was nearly 3 percent, whereas the

corresponding share for all occupied housing units was only 0.5 percent. Although the share is

low, the rate among AIAN households was nearly 6 times the overall rate. Considerable variation

exists among MSAs: the AIAN share ranged from 0 percent incomplete plumbing in Reno to 16

percent in Flagstaff. The rate of incomplete plumbing facilities decreased by less than 1

percentage point during the decade for AIAN-alone and for all occupied housing units. On

average, the share of AIAN households living in housing without complete plumbing facilities

decreased by 0.7 percentage points from 2000 to 2006–2010 compared with a decrease of 0.3

percentage points for all housing units.

After controlling for tenure type, the researchers found that rates for AIAN-alone households are

still higher than those for all households (see exhibit 5.3). About 2 percent of AIAN-alone renter

households lacked complete plumbing, roughly twice the rate for all occupied rental units (less

than 1 percent). Further, among owner-occupied households, the AIAN-alone rate was 3.6

percent compared with only 0.4 percent for all households.

Exhibit 5.3. Average Share of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing

Facilities, by Tenure and Race of Householder, for Sampled MSAs, 2006–2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey selected population tables, 2006–2010

22 See the documentation on the American Community Survey for additional information:

http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/.

34

A higher share of housing units occupied by AIAN-alone households also lacked complete

kitchen facilities compared with all occupied housing units. To be considered complete, kitchens

must include a sink with faucet, stove or cooking range, and a refrigerator. Housing that lacks a

complete kitchen is missing one or more of these facilities. On average, during the 2006-to-2010

period, about 3 percent of housing units occupied by AIAN households had incomplete kitchen

facilities, a rate about three times the share of 0.7 percent for all occupied housing units. The

variation among MSAs ranged from 0 percent in Billings to 14 percent in Flagstaff. The

prevalence of incomplete kitchens declined by less than 1 percentage point (0.8) from 2000 to

2006–2010.

The picture of incomplete kitchen facilities by housing tenure was similar to that of plumbing

(see exhibit 5.4). Most households had complete kitchens, but lacking a complete kitchen was

more common among renters than owners for both AIAN-alone occupied housing units and all

occupied housing units. Further, the AIAN-alone rate was higher than the rate for all occupied

housing units among both renters and owners. About 2 percent of AIAN-alone renters lacked

complete kitchens compared with about 1.5 percent of all households. Among owner-occupied

units, slightly more than 3 percent of homes occupied by AIAN-alone households did not have a

complete kitchen compared with less than 1 percent of all owner-occupied units.

Exhibit 5.4. Average Share of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Kitchen

Facilities, by Tenure and Race of Householder, for Sampled MSAs, 2006–2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey selected population tables, 2006–2010

35

Housing Conditions

Poor housing conditions include problems related to inadequately built housing and housing that

has deteriorated (Pettit et al., 2014). Without a survey, it is not possible to quantify the types or number of housing condition problems that AIAN-alone households in MSAs experienced. This

study explored the issue through interviews and focus group discussions. Most respondents

either worked with low-income clients or had low incomes. Respondents noted that many AIAN

households can afford only housing that is poorly maintained. Problems cited across the sampled

MSAs included water leaks, mold, dry rot, waterline breaks, asbestos, lack of proper heating or

air conditioning, and problems with vermin. Some respondents also commented on poor

insulation in housing, a condition that can lead to high utility costs.

Overcrowding

Overcrowding and severe overcrowding were more prevalent among AIAN-alone households

than among all households in the 24 sampled MSAs. The U.S. Census Bureau defines

overcrowding as having more than 1 occupant per room and defines  severe overcrowding  as having more than 1.5 occupants per room.

During the 2006-to-2010 period, about 10 percent of AIAN-alone households were overcrowded

compared with 4 percent of all households. The rate of overcrowding was worse among the

AIAN population than among the general population in 22 of the 24 sampled MSAs. In the Santa

Barbara and Santa Fe MSAs—the two exceptions—the relative rates of overcrowding were

about the same. During the same period, about 3 percent of AIAN-alone households were

severely overcrowded, roughly three times the 1-percent rate among all households. Severe

overcrowding was higher among AIAN-alone households than among all households in 21 of the

24 sampled MSAs. In the Nashville, Reno, and Santa Barbara MSAs, the severe overcrowding

among all households was no more than 1 percentage point more than the rate for AIAN-alone

households. The Flagstaff MSA had the highest rates of overcrowding and severe overcrowding

among AIAN-alone households (25 and 9 percent, respectively) and had the largest disparities

between the rates for AIAN-alone and all households: the rate among AIAN households was 18

percentage points higher than the overall rate of overcrowding, and it was 6 percentage points

higher than the overall rate for severe overcrowding.

Overcrowding was worse among renters than homeowners for both AIAN and all households.

The rate for AIAN households was higher than that for all households across tenure type (see

exhibit 5.5). To be specific, during the 2006-to-2010 period, about 12 percent of renter-occupied

units with an AIAN-alone householder were overcrowded compared with 8 percent of owner-

occupied units with an AIAN-alone householder. During the same period, about 7 percent of all

renter-occupied housing units were overcrowded compared with 2 percent of all owner-occupied

housing units. The same patterns apply for severe overcrowding.

36

Exhibit 5.5. Rates of Overcrowding for Occupied Housing Units, by Race of Householder

and Tenure, for Sampled MSAs, 2006–2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey selected population tables, 2006–2010

Respondents in nearly one-half of the sampled MSAs discussed AIAN households’ use of

“doubling up,” or overcrowding, as a means to achieve housing affordability by increasing the

number of income earners who share a home. Doubling up can involve multiple families sharing

housing or multiple generations living together. Not all doubling up should be considered an

outcome of necessity, however. Although some overcrowded conditions might indicate an effort

to reduce housing costs, in other instances it might reflect preferences for multigenerational

living arrangements and a sense of responsibility toward family that encourages AIANs to house

and care for relatives in need. Whether overcrowding results from need or preference, it can

violate lease terms of private-market and subsidized housing. For example, a respondent from

the Duluth MSA mentioned that AIANs will not allow relatives to stay on the street. This view

can lead households to take in people who are not on the lease. If the landlord discovers the

situation, the tenants run the risk of eviction. The text box “Challenging Regulations” describes

additional conflicts that AIANs face.

Challenging Regulations

Some requirements of federally assisted housing conflict with Native cultural practice. For example, fishing is central to the way of life of many Alaska Natives. Some Alaska Natives still move to fish camps during summers to fish for subsistence and income. One respondent from the Anchorage MSA noted that federal regulations prohibit tenants of housing developments funded by Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) from subletting apartments. Elderly Alaska Natives who want to move to fish camps for the

summer cannot sublet their apartments to children or other family members, so they must either stay

home or pay rent on the empty units while they are gone. If the operator of the housing development

allowed tenants to sublet, the Internal Revenue Service could deem the operator out of compliance and no longer eligible to receive LIHTCs.

Housing Conditions: Primary Cities Versus Suburbs

Variation in the measures of facilities and housing conditions and problems between primary

cities and suburbs were few and pointed to differences between AIAN-alone and all households.

One measure that stood out was overcrowding. Rates of overcrowding and severe overcrowding

were consistent between the primary cities and suburbs among AIAN-alone occupied housing

units (about 10 percent were overcrowded and 3 percent were severely overcrowded), but, for all

occupied housing units, the rates were higher in the primary cities and lower in the suburbs.

37

Challenges To Obtaining Housing

AIAN households can face a number of challenges to finding and retaining housing in urban

areas. Five types of challenges or barriers emerged from respondent interviews and focus group

discussions: (1) lack of familiarity with urban life and urban housing markets, (2) lack of

employment plans or prospects, (3) limited social networks, (4) insufficient rental or credit

history, and (5) race-based discrimination. (See the text box “Transitioning to Life in the City.”)

Social service providers and focus group participants noted that the process for finding housing

on reservations and in native villages differs considerably from the process in MSAs, whether on

the private market or in subsidized housing. For example, many people on reservations live in

tribally administered housing. They know whom to contact about housing and they know other

people who live in such housing. It is also common for people to share a home with relatives or

friends. By contrast, searching for housing in MSAs involves applying for housing assistance

from nonnative housing authorities or other entities or entering into a rental lease with a landlord they do not know. Respondents observed that, because of the differences, many AIANs who

migrate to cities from tribal lands can find navigating the housing markets difficult, and they are

unprepared for higher housing costs. A respondent in the Reno MSA observed that some people

who move from the reservation have difficulties learning how to look for housing, and their

struggles have been exacerbated by insufficient income to afford the rental prices in the city.

In addition, respondents suggested that some AIANs move to MSAs without firm plans for

housing and employment. They might not have a permanent place to stay when they arrive or a

source of income. The lack of a fixed address for some people can impede job searches. Movers

also might be unaware of community and social service supports available to aid them in their

transition.

Some AIANs leave behind a dense social network when they relocate to MSAs, where they have

fewer ties. The relevance of social ties came up in discussions of housing, with respondents saying

that people had more options for staying with family or friends on reservations or in native villages than in MSAs. Participants also talked about the inability to live longer term with a relative or friend in the city because of concerns about lease violations or even eviction if lease terms are violated.

Respondents also commented on challenges associated with obtaining rental housing. Individuals

who previously have not had a lease in their name, do not have a credit history, or have a poor

credit report might not meet a landlord’s leasing requirements. This situation can be true of

anyone, but AIANs moving to MSAs might be more likely than other renters to face such

challenges if they do not have a rental history with private landlords, credit or employment

histories, or a bank account—all issues mentioned by respondents in various MSAs. Respondents

also talked about the lack of experience some AIANs have with making a rental deposit,

managing money to ensure they can pay rent monthly and maintain a household, and complying

with inflexible lease terms.

Respondents’ comments about housing discrimination varied. A number of them said that low

income was a more significant barrier to securing housing than was discrimination based on race.

Across the sampled MSAs, respondents said that landlords do not like to rent to low-income

38

people. Other respondents mentioned assumptions some landlords make about AIANs that

intersect with income and culture. Comments included that landlords do not want to rent housing

to voucher holders because they assume subsidized renters will damage the property. Because

some landlords assume AIANs rent with a housing voucher, they turn away AIAN homeseekers.

Respondents also said landlords assume that AIAN renters will allow additional family members

to move into their housing units and that AIANs are likely to return to a reservation before the

end of their lease. The researchers do not know whether (and which of) these assumptions are

based on stereotype alone, but a respondent in the Billings MSA said that some landlords have,

in fact, had tenants break a lease to return to the reservation. A respondent in the Reno MSA also

said that cultural differences between landlords and AIAN tenants could discourage effective

communication, thereby making landlords hesitant to rent to AIAN homeseekers.

Transitioning to Life in the City

A respondent from the Phoenix MSA noted that tribes in the area provide financial assistance to students pursuing higher education. Students move to Phoenix for college and receive a stipend from their tribe, but they are not prepared to budget for their monthly expenses, including housing, and the money runs out before their next stipend. A respondent shared a story about a student who dropped out of school to get a job to pay rent after incurring tuition debt. After observing the struggles of many students who move to Phoenix for school, the Phoenix Indian Center offered to give a presentation to youth at a nearby tribe on city culture and transitioning from the reservation; the tribe did not take advantage of the offer. In addition to students’ struggling, other individuals and families also struggle to transition to the city. A respondent noted that people who relocate from the reservation are not prepared for the higher cost of living or for navigating the mainstream school and healthcare systems. Many people are unfamiliar with lease agreements and do not think they are able to advocate for themselves or voice concerns to their landlord. Respondents in many of the study sites said that moving to a city is a cultural leap.

Homelessness

As discussed throughout this section, AIANs face challenges to obtaining stable housing.

Research shows that the most important predictor of homelessness is extreme poverty (Burt,

2001), and, although individuals with mental health, physical health, and substance abuse issues

are particularly vulnerable, the key driving factor of homelessness is the availability of

affordable housing (Cunningham, 2009). Given that AIANs in the sampled MSAs

disproportionately have extremely low incomes, face employment challenges, and often have

higher rates of housing cost burden, those AIANs living in MSAs can be expected to be at higher

risk for homelessness. The researchers explored aspects of homelessness—described to

respondents as having no residence, staying in a shelter or transitional housing, or staying with

friends or family on a nonpermanent basis—through interviews and discussion groups. 23

23 HUD collects data through local Homeless Management Information Systems (HMISs) on the race of people who seek homeless services and makes summary reports available to the public. These reports are provided at the Continuum of Care (CoC) level. A CoC is a local consortium of homeless service providers that coordinates homeless services within a jurisdiction, which can be a city, a county, a combination of counties or cities, a metropolitan area, or even an entire state. The data are not available at the MSA level in most cases and, of the 24 MSA study sites, the CoC

boundaries matched the MSA boundaries in only 3 MSAs (Bakersfield, Reno, and Tucson). These data are further limited because CoCs do not systematically and uniformly collect data on the race of homeless people who do not seek services (the unsheltered population); data reflect only the sheltered portion of the homeless population. Because of these two significant limitations, the researchers chose not to use HMIS data to inform this report.

39

Respondents noted that homelessness is a persistent issue among the AIAN population in urban

settings. In seven of the MSA sites—Anchorage, Billings, Duluth, Fairbanks, Phoenix, Portland,

and Tucson—respondents stated that AIANs were disproportionately represented in their

communities’ homeless populations.

Respondents identified several factors that lead to homelessness among AIANs that, in general,

are consistent with the literature on risk factors for homelessness (Koegel, Melamid, and

Burnam, 1995; Caton et al., 2005). In many cities, respondents pointed to systemic issues, such

as the economic climate, high cost of living, and lack of affordable housing, and said that low

wages and high housing costs make affording rent difficult even for individuals who are

employed. Respondents noted that housing costs were a problem, especially for larger families.

Respondents noted that many AIANs new to MSAs stay with a family member or friend who

also is struggling. Eventually wearing out their welcome, they are asked to leave. In some

instances, the new arrivals become homeless. Respondents from four MSAs—Anchorage,

Bakersfield, Billings, and Phoenix—noted that the AIAN homeless population tends to be

transient, moving back and forth between their home reservation or village and the metropolitan

area.

Respondents from the Anchorage and Phoenix MSAs also noted that some AIANs become

homeless after coming to the primary city for medical treatment. If the treatment requires a

recovery period and the patient cannot afford a place to stay during that time, the patient might

become homeless. Respondents also noted that the AIAN homeless population includes victims

of domestic violence.

Respondents from the Bakersfield, Duluth, Farmington, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, and Tulsa

MSAs said they noticed changes in the number and characteristics of AIANs who are homeless.

Respondents discussed seeing an increase in the number of homeless families with children and

the elderly. Individuals also commented on the increase in homeless youth. Concern about youth

homelessness was strong in the Anchorage MSA, where respondents talked about the risks that

homeless youth face of violence and being drawn into prostitution. At least one respondent said

AIAN youth who come to the city are not “streetwise.” Some respondents surmised that the

number and types of homeless people have changed because of the recent recession in the United

States.

Impact of the Recession

The recent national recession (December 2007 through June 2009) negatively affected

households and communities across the United States. To assess whether and how it affected the

AIAN population, the research team examined relevant housing and employment data and asked

respondents about their perceptions of its impact.

The recession negatively affected housing availability and cost and employment opportunities in

a number of the sampled MSAs, although not in all of them. Across all U.S. MSAs between

2006 and 2010, the average decline in the employment rate was 4 points and the average decline

in the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s House Price Index was 40 points. HPI measures the

40

average quarterly change in home sales prices or refinancing for the same properties in select

MSAs. Among the sampled MSAs, eight MSAs were comparatively hard hit with larger-than-

average declines in both HPI and employment rate. Those MSAs were Bakersfield, Flagstaff,

Phoenix, Portland, Providence, Reno, Sacramento, and Tucson. Respondents in the Phoenix

MSA noted that, in the wake of the foreclosure crisis, investors bought up much of the available

housing and held it, waiting to sell until market conditions improved. This action constrained the

supply of available housing in the Phoenix city limits.

Seven MSA sites—Anchorage, Billings, Dallas, Fairbanks, Fayetteville, Houston, and Tulsa—

fared comparatively better with smaller-than-average declines in the HPI and the employment

rate. Respondents from the Anchorage and Billings MSAs discussed the impact of the recession

in their cities, noting that they fared better than the rest of the country did. Anchorage

respondents noted that little high-risk lending took place there, and those from Billings said the

oil boom in the region increased jobs and demand for housing, which led to higher rental costs.

In the remaining MSAs—Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Duluth, Farmington, Nashville, New

York, Santa Barbara, and Santa Fe—the impact was mixed: the MSAs experienced a larger-than-

average decline on one of the two measures, either the HPI or employment rate and a smaller-

than-average decline on the other.

Respondents across MSAs noted that the foreclosure crisis led to increased demand for rental

housing, inflating rental costs and making it more difficult to obtain rental housing. Because of

fewer available rental units and increased demand, landlords were able to be more selective.

Respondents from a few MSAs also noted that funding for new housing development was

limited during the recession, so fewer new rental units became available, further constraining

supply in a time of increased demand. In the Anchorage MSA, a respondent noted that lenders

were setting stricter credit criteria in the wake of the recession, adding to the obstacles for Alaska Natives trying to become homeowners. Respondents from the majority of MSAs also noted that

they observed an increase in the number of homeless individuals and families, a situation that

they attributed to job losses.

41

6. Housing and Housing-Related Services in Urban Areas

This section provides an overview of the housing and housing-related services that respondents

identified in their communities and the challenges that American Indian and Alaska Native

(AIAN) populations face in gaining access to services. The information is suggestive of the

range and capacity of housing-related services available to AIANs living in MSAs. Each

sampled metropolitan statistical area (MSA) had, at minimum, an Indian community center or

other Native American-focused organization. It is possible that the sampled sites have more

service organizations than those identified by the researchers. Key findings include the

following:

•  In most sampled MSAs, few service organizations target assistance to AIANs or serve

them exclusively.

•  The array of available services varies considerably across the sampled MSAs.

•  No funding sources appear to be designated to support AIAN housing services in off-

reservation MSAs.

•  AIANs face several barriers when trying to gain access to housing services, including a

lack of familiarity with available services, staff of mainstream providers who do not

interact with AIANs in a culturally competent manner, and regulations that pose

challenges for AIANs seeking services.

Types of Services Available

Overall, respondents from the sampled MSAs identified 89 distinct housing-related services (see

exhibit 6.1). Services included those exclusively serving AIAN populations (33 percent of all

services mentioned), services that target AIANs but serve the broader population (22 percent of

all services mentioned), and mainstream services that serve the broader population without any

specific targeting to AIANs (45 percent of all services mentioned).

Exhibit 6.1. Number of Housing-Related Services Identified, by Type and Population

Served, Across Sampled MSAs

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area. PHA = public housing

authority.

Source: Respondent interviews and focus groups

42

The number of services identified in each sampled MSA ranged from 1 to 12, with the median

being 3. The number of services was not related to the overall population size or to the share of

AIAN-alone population in a given MSA. Furthermore, the 2 MSAs in which the most services

were identified (Anchorage with 9 and Phoenix with 12) were sites visited by the research team.

It is likely that the number of services located in each site is related to the depth of data

collection conducted in that MSA (the number of interviews and discussion groups conducted).

Because researchers did not conduct an exhaustive search for services provided in the sampled

MSAs, they could not draw definitive conclusions on the service richness across the sites.

Homeless Services

Services for the homeless were the most frequently mentioned service type available.

Respondents identified 32 distinct homeless services across the 24 sampled MSAs, 1 of which

serves only AIANs, 12 of which target AIANs but serve a broader client base, and 19 of which

are mainstream services. 24

Phoenix was home to the only homeless service that exclusively serves AIANs (see text box

“Initiative”). The program is a multiagency effort funded by a local hospital grant to provide

chronically homeless AIANs with housing, medical treatment, and intensive case management to

become housing stable.

Initiative

In the Phoenix MSA, a group of service providers, including the Phoenix Indian Center, Native American Connections, and Native Health, came together to provide housing, intensive case management, and

supportive services to chronically homeless AIANs with chronic medical conditions. The operator of a local hospital funds the collaboration, because the hospital staff noticed that the emergency room

services were being used by homeless individuals who were not sick but who needed food and water.

Through the grant, Native American Connections employs a case manager who works with program

participants to find housing—either in properties operated by Native American Connections or in

properties operated by other private landlords. The case manager also makes sure the clients go to

Native Health for healthcare services and Phoenix Indian Center for employment services and helps

clients apply for benefits for which they are eligible. Program participants are eligible to receive case management and supportive services for 6 months after they become housed. In the first 2 years of the program, the effort served more than 130 clients.

An AIAN community organization in Phoenix is the only provider of AIAN-targeted homeless

services identified in the city. One of the organization’s shelters serves only men and

incorporates American Indian culture by including a sweat lodge and offering traditional healing

services. The same organization owns and manages a 54-unit, permanent supportive housing

program that targets chronically homeless individuals.

Services targeted to AIANs also were identified in the Anchorage and Duluth MSAs and

included transitional housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing, and homeless

24 HUD’s Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program, which provided support for homeless families and individuals or those at risk of becoming homeless, ended in September 2012, before the start of data collection for this study.

43

youth services. For example, in the Duluth MSA, the American Indian Center runs an emergency

domestic violence shelter for women and children, providing advocacy, safety planning, support

groups, and cultural services and activities such as traditional healing, Ojibwe language classes,

and an elder council (see text box “Housing and Community Center”). The organization operates

three other homelessness programs. One offers a transitional housing program that helps women

and children obtain permanent housing. Another provides intensive case management services to

households experiencing long-term homelessness. The last provides housing through a 29-unit

supportive housing program.

Housing and Community Center

Two respondents in the Duluth MSA described a multiuse building that includes 29 units of affordable, permanent supportive housing targeted to American Indians. The building is named Gimaajii Mino

Bimaadizyann, the Ojibwe phrase for “we are, all of us together, beginning a good life.” Gimaajii, for short, also houses Duluth’s American Indian Center, which provides cultural services to its residents and other AIANs in the community. Gimaajii residents must have an income at or below 50 percent of the Area

Median Income and either be homeless or unstably housed. The building consists of 4 efficiency, 5 one-bedroom, 11 two-bedroom, and 9 three-bedroom housing units. The building includes community space

for cultural programming, a health clinic, a gymnasium, and rental space for tribal entities and nonprofits.

Supportive services, such as case management, job training, domestic violence support groups, and

medical advocacy, are offered to the residents on a voluntary basis. The project is supported through several funding streams, including tribal funds. In developing the Gimaajii, planners approached nearby tribes to ask for their help. Tribes responded by providing a range of supports. For example, one tribe contributed funds for rental assistance, another provides staff for the onsite supportive services, one contributed an upfront capital contribution, and another moved its Duluth tribal office into the building and pays rent.

In many of the sampled MSAs, mainstream homeless services were the only services available to

AIANs. Services available included emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent

supportive housing, homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing, case management, drop-in

centers, and additional funds for housing unaccompanied youth. Emergency shelters were the

most frequently noted mainstream service, with respondents identifying 11 such services in 10 of

the sampled MSAs. Respondents from several sites suggested that many homeless AIANs

choose not to go to shelters because the shelters are uncomfortable, crowded, or prison like; are

perceived as dangerous; and have overly restrictive rules or policies. Individuals also said that

AIANs prefer to make it on their own, stay on the street, camp, or double up. Respondents

identified two transitional housing programs in the Anchorage MSA and one program in the

Phoenix MSA that provide emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent supportive

housing. Tucson was the only MSA where a respondent reported that homelessness prevention

and rapid rehousing services were available. In the Billings MSA, respondents mentioned a drop-

in center for homeless people and those at risk of becoming homeless and a program offered

through the school in which unaccompanied youth are granted access to the Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program.

Subsidized Rental Housing Services

Most of the 13 subsidized rental housing programs that respondents mentioned are provided by

local public housing authorities. Services exclusively serving or targeting AIAN populations

appear to be rare. In the Billings MSA, respondents observed that the AIAN households prefer

44

public housing rather than vouchers because vouchers require money for security deposits.

Public housing, however, has a long waiting list and, during the waiting period of approximately

18 months, people travel to tribal lands and risk missing their turn for housing. In addition,

respondents from several sites stated that AIANs often do not feel comfortable with, or trustful

of, the staff in municipal social service agencies. Respondents thought little outreach was

provided to support AIANs compared with outreach provided to other minority groups.

Respondents from the Farmington and Reno MSAs noted the availability of subsidized rental

housing through local tribes’ Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs) or tribal housing

authorities funded by the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program. Within MSAs, TDHE-

funded housing is located in the tribal areas. A respondent in Phoenix noted that, aside from

IHBG-assisted units on tribal lands, a 36-unit senior facility run by Native American

Connections in Phoenix targets AIANs. A respondent in the Portland MSA also identified a 53-

unit multifamily housing development run by the Native American Youth Association that

targets AIAN families. This development was funded by the federal HOME Investment

Partnership Program (HOME) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds (see

text box “Portland’s Native American Youth and Family Center’s Rental Project”). 25 In general, however, respondents did not mention these types of non-IHBG-funded, subsidized rental

housing that targets or exclusively serves AIAN households in most of the sampled MSAs. The

omission suggests that such housing is rare.

Portland’s Native American Youth and Family Center’s Rental Project

Respondents from the Portland MSA noted that a local AIAN service provider, the Native American Youth and Family Center, is developing a 53-unit multifamily development designed to support AIAN foster

children. The development will house foster youth, foster parents looking to adopt a child, and AIAN

elders to create a sense of community and support for the youth living there. Although 5 units will be rented at the market rate, the rest of the units will be affordable, and 16 of the units will be subsidized with a housing choice voucher or other long-term subsidy. The development also will include a learning center for early childhood education and a long house, which will serve as the community center.

Case Management and Referrals to Housing Services

Some organizations provided case management services that addressed housing needs as part of

clients’ service plans through their involvement in behavioral health, prisoner reentry, and other

programs. Respondents identified five such services in the following MSAs: Anchorage, Boston,

Portland, Sacramento, and Santa Barbara. The service in the Anchorage MSA provides housing

search assistance, helping clients locate available apartments and enter into a lease. Services in

the Anchorage and Portland MSAs target AIAN families, and those in the three other MSAs

serve AIANs exclusively. Those organizations that exclusively serve AIANs are run by

American Indian community organizations and Indian Health Centers that work with clients

through other programs.

25 Housing funded with CDBG, HOME, IHBG, or TDHE funds is not restricted to people enrolled in a tribe, whether in the tribe that provides the housing or another tribe.

45

Respondents identified 12 other service entities that provide referrals to mainstream housing

services but do not offer case management; 10 of these serve AIANs exclusively. Most of the

services are provided by Indian Health Centers.

Financial Assistance

Respondents identified 11 programs that provide various forms of financial assistance; of those

programs, 9 provide assistance paying rent and utilities and 2 provide assistance for home

modifications. Of the 11 financial assistance programs, 6 exclusively serve AIAN populations, 4

are mainstream programs, and 1 serves all racial groups while targeting AIANs. Of the 6 services

that provide assistance exclusively to AIANs, some are provided by AIAN community

organizations, as in the Nashville and Santa Fe MSAs. The community centers did their own

fundraising locally to finance these services. A respondent in the Dallas MSA noted that the local

Indian Health Center runs an employment and training program funded by a small Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant that includes funding for one-time emergency

rent assistance for up to 20 people. A respondent in the Reno MSA noted that the local tribe

provides rental assistance for tribal members living off reservation through its tribal housing

program, using IHBG funds (text box “Using Tribal Funds To Support Metropolitan Area-Based

Tribal Members”). The three programs providing assistance for home modifications are

mainstream programs operating in the Dallas, Portland, and Tucson MSAs. The programs in the

Dallas and Portland MSAs serve seniors and fund improvements to maintain the accessibility of

homes to support aging in place, although the Portland program is very limited in scope and

provides assistance only on an ad hoc basis.

Using Tribal Funds To Support Metropolitan Area-Based Tribal Members

The Reno-Sparks Indian Colony in the Reno MSA provides rental assistance to its tribal members who

choose to live off reservation in the area. One respondent estimated that about 80 tribal members live off reservation in the Reno MSA. The tribe recognized that if tribal members living off reservation lose housing, they likely will return and apply for housing assistance on the reservation. To avoid this situation, they decided to support the tribal members who live off reservation. During the course of the year before the interview, the respondent noted that about 60 households were receiving assistance. The tribe is planning to develop 50 new housing units for AIANs, 30 of which would be built off reservation in the city of Reno.

Affordable Homeownership Programs

Programs to support affordable homeownership were mentioned less frequently. Respondents

noted only two such programs, one in the Anchorage MSA that exclusively serves AIAN

households and another in the Portland MSA that targets AIANs. In Anchorage, a program was

able to use IHBG funds to build 10 to 15 homes per year to sell to AIANs living in the

metropolitan area. In Portland, the Native American Youth Association operates a

homeownership program that provides homeowners with individual development accounts. 26

26 Individual development account providers match every dollar saved by the participants, offering incentives and rewards for saving to low-income to moderate-income participants.

46

Variations in Service Environment

The ecology of service providers varies across the sampled MSAs. In 7 MSAs—Billings,

Charlotte, Chicago, Fairbanks, Fayetteville, Flagstaff, and Tucson—respondents said that only

mainstream housing-related service providers (such as public housing authorities or mainstream

homeless service systems) were active in the area. In another 7 MSAs—Bakersfield, Boston,

Houston, New York, Providence, Santa Barbara, and Tulsa—the only service providers that

exclusively served or targeted services to AIAN were organizations that provided referrals to

mainstream providers. This observation suggests that in more than one-half of the sampled

MSAs, few or, in some places, no organizations provide direct housing-related services solely for

or targeted to AIANs. In the remaining 10 MSAs, at least one type of housing service targeted or

exclusively served AIANs.

Interviews and focus group discussions indicated that the Anchorage, Phoenix, and Portland

MSAs appear to have the greatest diversity of services available exclusively for or targeted to

AIANs. In the Anchorage MSA, services included homeless services, the homeownership

program, and housing search assistance. In the Phoenix MSA, several types of homeless

services, affordable rental units, and rental assistance and housing search services are available.

In the Portland MSA, programs operate affordable rental units, provide emergency financial

assistance, and offer a homeownership program.

Funding Sources

Responses about the types of housing services available in communities and how those services

are funded suggest a lack of dedicated financial supports for housing and housing-related

services for AIAN households living off tribal lands. Respondents did note that services targeting

or exclusively serving AIANs received funding from federal programs, including the IHBG

program, Indian Health Service program, the HOME program, the CDBG program, and FEMA.

Community organizations also engage in local fundraising efforts to finance their services.

According to staff of service organizations, however, funding is pieced together and resources

are insufficient for the housing services they provide.

Federal funds come with regulations for how the money can be used and who can be served.

Respondents in the Duluth and Phoenix MSAs commented that, in many cases, they are unable

to restrict services to only AIANs because the funding rules prohibit considering race as a factor

in eligibility determination. IHBG does allow funds to be used to serve AIANs exclusively;

however, tribes or their TDHEs receive those funds, and TDHEs tend to focus services on

AIANs living on their tribal land. Respondents did note a few examples in which IHBG funds

were used to build housing near or in a city off tribal land, such as in Billings and Farmington.

Furthermore, tribes can choose to serve or give preference to their own tribal members when

using IHBG funds, effectively excluding AIANs enrolled in other tribes or nonenrolled AIANs.

Part of the Tulsa MSA, for example, is in the Creek Nation’s service area. Respondents noted

that American Indians who are not Creek tribal members are unable to use housing services

provided by the Creek Nation. According to a respondent in the Anchorage MSA, Alaska Native

Corporations direct funds to their native villages rather than to services in the city, where many

enrolled members reside.

47

Barriers To Gaining Access to Services

Respondents identified several barriers to the ability of AIANs to gain access to housing-related

services and resources. Representatives from several sites said insufficient outreach is made to

the AIAN community about available services. Respondents noted a particular gap in outreach

for homeless services and said more publicity about available services is needed so that people

who become homeless know where to seek assistance. A related challenge was AIANs’ lack of

familiarity with service systems. Respondents from the Anchorage, Billings, Boston, Phoenix,

and Providence MSAs suggested that AIANs have difficulty navigating service systems in urban

areas because those systems differ considerably from the structure of service provision on tribal

lands. One respondent commented that many AIANs become overwhelmed when attempting to

obtain services.

Respondents from several sites noted that AIANs feel uncomfortable with or distrustful of staff

members in mainstream social service agencies, believing staff members will lack the cultural

competence to work with them effectively and respectfully. In the Billings MSA, for example,

staff members of a service organization said that AIAN families were afraid to go to homeless

shelters for fear that social services agencies would take their children. Although this fear likely is present for Native American and non-Native American families alike, it is compounded for

AIAN families because of the history of forcible removal of children to attend off-reservation

boarding schools. Respondents also talked about privacy concerns among many AIANs who

might avoid seeking services because they do not want to share personal information and are

unsure about how such information will be used.

Finally, requirements of some mainstream services can present challenges for AIAN clients. For

example, public housing authorities must document that clients meet income eligibility

requirements. Respondents noted that documenting income for AIAN clients can be difficult in

some circumstances. Respondents specifically said that many AIANs disagree with public

housing authority rules about counting per capita payments from gaming revenues as income

when determining eligibility. 27 A respondent in the Billings MSA pointed out that public housing authorities may have trouble obtaining data on gaming payments and other per capita payments.

Income from making and selling crafts also is difficult to document.

American Indians and Alaska Natives also face barriers with the emergency shelter system.

Because some shelters exclusively serve women or men, families are not allowed to stay

together, a particular problem given the perceived increase in the number of homeless families

among AIANs. Respondents suggested that shelters that bar individuals who drink alcohol or use

illegal drugs from staying there, such as one shelter in the Billings MSA, could cause difficulties

27 Per capita payments are a portion of the tribal revenue distributed to enrolled members. Federal regulations stipulate that the first $2,000 of yearly income from per capita payments can be excluded from the reporting requirement. Payments received from gaming profits, however, cannot be excluded from reported income. See

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=13-30pihn.pdf.  The study team did not determine whether people disagree with the regulation to report gaming and per capita income because of their personal stance or because of confusion about the reporting requirements.

48

for AIANs because of the prevalence of substance use. Conversely, shelters without this rule

might not be viable options for homeless individuals overcoming substance addiction issues. In

cities such as Nashville, where respondents identified few or no mainstream services that work

with AIANs, respondents said that they address some clients’ homelessness by paying the

transportation cost for people to return to their home reservation.

Needed Services

Respondents were asked whether some types of housing-related services needed are not available

in their communities. One of two frequently mentioned needs was temporary or transitional

housing. Some lower-income AIANs who come to MSAs for medical treatment need temporary

housing while they are seeking services, undergoing treatment, or recovering from medical

procedures. Respondents also identified a need for transitional housing to serve AIANs coming

out of prison or substance-abuse recovery programs. Housing search assistance also is needed to

help formerly incarcerated people, who might be turned down for housing after a prospective

landlord conducts a criminal background check. Respondents from the Anchorage, Billings, and

Tulsa MSAs noted a high incarceration rate among AIANs in their communities. 28

The second most frequently mentioned need was for housing that reflected AIAN cultural values

and practices. Respondents said they would like to see housing that could accommodate

multigenerational living arrangements and housing for elders. Other ideas included

developments with spaces for cultural activities and tenant rules that allowed for doubling up and

subleasing of apartments during fishing season.

A number of respondents talked about the lack of available information that could support efforts

to address housing needs among AIANs, regardless of service type. For example, not all service

providers track the race of clients; they could not provide detailed information on the number of

AIANs served. Without data to document requests for services and services provided, it is

difficult to quantify the scope of need and the resources required to address the need.

28 Nationwide, Native Americans made up 1.9 percent of those incarcerated in federal prisons in April 2015. See

http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp.  The researchers did not access state or local incarceration data.

49

7. Homeownership and Access to Mortgage Financing

This section presents census and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data on homeownership and

home purchase loans and explores factors that can affect the ability of American Indian and

Alaska Native (AIAN) households to own a home. Key findings include the following:

•  The AIAN-alone homeownership rate was about 10 percentage points lower than that of

all households, on average.

•  Home mortgage originations to AIAN borrowers were disproportionately low in all but

one of the sampled metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), with the share of loans

originated being less than the AIAN share of the population.

•  AIAN borrowers had higher shares of high-cost home purchase and refinance loans than

did non-Hispanic White borrowers at every income level.

•  Loan denial rates for AIANs were higher than the average for all minority borrowers and

higher than the average for non-Hispanic White borrowers at all income levels.

•  Barriers to homeownership include low income, lack of assets, poor credit history,

discrimination, and insufficient stock of decent, affordable homes for sale.

•  Interest in homeownership is strong, as is the belief that owning a home confers benefits

to households and communities.

Homeownership Rates and Mortgage Originations

The homeownership rate among AIAN-alone households in 2010 was 52 percent, which is 10

percentage points lower than that of the total population for the sampled MSAs. In 22 of the 24

sampled MSAs, the difference ranged from 1 percentage point lower in Houston to 30 points

lower in Billings. Only 2 sampled MSAs—Dallas and Fayetteville—had rates that were higher

than that of the total population. AIAN homeowners were more likely to live in the suburbs than

in primary cities, a statistic that is consistent with all homeowners; owner-occupied housing units

in the sampled MSAs were more prevalent in the suburbs by about 25 percentage points.

The share of home purchase loans made to AIAN borrowers is very low compared with other

minority borrowers and with all borrowers, and it has declined since 2000 (exhibit 7.1). 29

Between 2000 and 2010, the overall average share of home purchase loans originated to AIAN

borrowers in the sample MSAs decreased from 2 to 1 percent. During the same time, the share of

home purchase loans made to minority borrowers increased 2 percentage points and the share

made to non-Hispanic White borrowers decreased nearly 2 percentage points. 30

29 The way mortgage applicants could identify their race changed in 2004. Before 2004, applicants could select only one race. Starting in 2004, they could identify with one or more races. Therefore, AIAN data for 2000 include those applicants who identified as AIAN when they could choose only one race. AIAN data for 2010 include those who identified as AIAN and no other races (that is, identified as AIAN alone). Comparisons between 2000 and 2010

should be interpreted with this difference in mind.

30 The average rate of home purchase originations among non-Hispanic White borrowers declined from 76.1 to 74.5

percent, or 1.6 percentage points.

50

Exhibit 7.1. Average Rate of Owner-Occupied Home Purchase Originations, by Race of

Borrower, for Sampled MSAs, 2000 and 2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Note: The way mortgage applicants could identify their race changed in 2004. Before 2004, applicants could select only one race. Starting in 2004, they could identify with one or more races. Therefore, AIAN data for 2000 include those applicants who identified as AIAN when they could choose only one race. AIAN data for 2010 include those who identified as AIAN and no other races (that is, identified as AIAN alone).

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, 2000 and 2010

Even the two MSAs with the highest share of loans made to AIAN borrowers in both 2000 and

2010 nevertheless saw considerable declines during that time (exhibit 7.2). In the Farmington

MSA, the share dropped 14 percentage points, and, in the Flagstaff MSA, it dropped 5

percentage points. Those two sites also had a stagnant or slight decline in AIAN-alone

population share between 2000 and 2010, a situation that could account for a small part of the

drop in the share of home purchase loans. In the six MSAs where the share of loans increased

during the decade, the increase was no more than 2 percentage points.

Exhibit 7.2. AIAN-Alone Rate of Owner-Occupied Home Purchase Originations for Select

Sampled MSAs, 2000 and 2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Note: The way mortgage applicants could identify their race changed in 2004. Before 2004, applicants could select only one race. Starting in 2004, they could identify with one or more races. Therefore, AIAN data for 2000 include those applicants who identified as AIAN when they could choose only one race. AIAN data for 2010 include those who identified as AIAN and no other races (that is, identified as AIAN alone).

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, 2000 and 2010

51

AIAN households make up a small share of metropolitan populations, as discussed in section 3,

so the share of home purchase loans is expected to be small. The share of loans, however, was

less than the share of AIAN-alone people in the population in each sample MSA in 2010, with

the exception of the Nashville MSA, where the share of population and share of loans were the

same. The relationship between population and home purchase loan origination shares was

somewhat different in 2000. At that time, the share of population and loans was the same in three

of the sampled MSAs (Bakersfield, Boston, and New York), and the loan share was slightly

higher than the population share in four MSAs (Charlotte, Chicago, Houston, and Nashville).

(See exhibit H.7 in appendix H for population and loan origination shares for each sampled MSA

by race and ethnicity.)

High-Cost Loans

Among AIAN homeowners who held a mortgage loan, borrowers’ share of high-cost home

purchase and refinance loans31 was similar to that of minority borrowers and higher than the share among non-Hispanic White borrowers across income levels (see exhibit 7.3).

Exhibit 7.3. Average Percentage of Home Purchase and Refinance Lending That Was High

Cost, by Race and Ethnicity and by Income Level of Borrower (2004–2006 Average), for

Sampled MSAs and the Farmington, NM MSA

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Note: Applicants in all years included in this analysis had the option to select multiple races, so this table provides data on the AIAN-alone group.

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, 2004, 2005, and 2006

The Farmington MSA, which had the highest share of home-purchase loan originations to

AIAN-alone borrowers, also had the highest rate of high-cost loans at each income level. As

shown in the second row of exhibit 7.3, more than one-half of AIAN-alone borrowers in this

MSA at each income level received a high-cost loan.

The greater percentage of high-cost loans does not signify relatively higher home values. Across

the sampled MSAs, the median average home value was lower for the AIAN-alone population

than for the total population. In 2010, the median average home value in the sampled MSAs for

AIAN-alone households was $163,603 compared with $269,132 for all households. The

percentage increase in average home value during the past decade slightly favored AIAN-alone

homeowners over the total population—31 percent compared with 29 percent, respectively.

31 A high-cost home loan is defined as a loan for home purchase or refinance with an interest rate or fees that exceed the federally established thresholds.

52

Denial Rates

AIAN mortgage loan applicants had a higher rate of denial in 2010 than did minority and non-

Hispanic White applicants across income levels (see exhibit 7.4). Although rates of mortgage

loan application denials declined between 2000 and 2010 for most racial and income groups,

they increased for low-income AIAN applicants by 7 percentage points.

Exhibit 7.4. Average Home Purchase Denial Rate for Mortgage Applicants, by Race and

Ethnicity and by Income Level of Applicant, for Sampled MSAs, 2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Note: Applicants in 2010 had the option to select multiple races, so this table provides data on the AIAN-alone group.

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, 2010

Respondent-Identified Challenges

Respondents and discussion group participants provided insights into reasons behind the low

homeownership rate among AIANs and discussed challenges to homeownership in general. The

factors that study participants identified echo those reported by Kingsley et al. (1996) and were

fairly consistent across the MSAs. The most commonly cited impediments to owning a home

were low income, a lack of assets, and no or poor credit history. Other factors included

discrimination against American Indians and Alaska Natives. Some respondents said

discrimination was a major factor, whereas others thought low income, few assets, and poor

credit were more significant barriers to homeownership. Furthermore, participants mentioned

that any house that many AIANs could afford to buy likely would be in poor condition, a factor

that decreased the incentive to purchase.

The recent national recession (December 2007 through June 2009) and mortgage market

problems nationwide constricted credit broadly, adding another challenge for AIAN households

interested in purchasing a home. Respondents also said that many prospective homebuyers and

bank staff were unaware of the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program (Section 184

loans). 32 Some respondents said they believe that banks do not train staff adequately on the program and that some staff members are unwilling to work with the Section 184 loans because

they entail extra paperwork. In their survey of lenders who work with AIANs, Listokin et al.

(forthcoming) reported that lenders find Section 184 loans to be time consuming to close and that

lenders believe the loans require program-specific expertise.

32 Section 184 loans were not available in all the sample MSAs. The state of Tennessee (in the Nashville MSA) and parts of two other MSAs—New Hampshire (in the Boston MSA) and New Jersey and Pennsylvania (in the New York MSA)—were ineligible. Some MSAs were located in states with county-specific eligibility. For a detailed discussion of program eligibility, see Listokin et al. (forthcoming).

53

In addition to addressing financial barriers to homebuying, respondents discussed a lack of

knowledge among some AIANs about the homebuying process, mortgages in general, and home

maintenance. Respondents shared stories of AIAN homeowners who did not understand their

mortgage loan terms, faced payment requirements that were difficult to make, and lost their

homes to foreclosure because they were unable to make payments. A number of respondents

called for the development of homebuyer and post-purchase education and support programs

specifically for AIAN households.

During discussions of barriers to homeownership, respondents noted interest within the AIAN

community to increase the homeownership rate. In addition to improving individual owners’

assets and housing stability, homeownership was believed to support neighborhood stability.

Interest has been strong enough in at least two MSAs to motivate the exploration of alternative

homeownership models. In the Portland MSA, a respondent said that a shared-equity program

has been popular with AIAN homeowners. 33 Some residents of the Reno MSA have considered jointly purchasing a home with another household.

33 Shared equity programs offer low-income homebuyers a subsidy to lower the purchase price on a property. In exchange, the buyer agrees to share any price appreciation with the subsidy provider at the time of resale. The programs, run by nonprofit organizations or government agencies, help preserve affordable housing units for future homebuyers (HUD, 2012).

54

8. Conclusions

This report helps bring to light the housing circumstances and challenges of a population that has

received little attention: American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) populations who live in

metropolitan areas. It is based on an analysis of national demographic, socioeconomic, and

housing-related data and qualitative data collected via telephone and in-person interviews and

discussion groups in 24 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Findings suggest changes since a

similar study was conducted nearly 20 years ago but also indicate consistency in the types of

housing challenges that AIANs face, especially those who are disadvantaged.

The share of American Indians and Alaska Natives living in metropolitan areas has increased

since the last national study (Kingsley et al., 1996). AIANs also have become more

geographically dispersed over time, even though population hubs remain. Qualitative data from

the 24 sampled MSAs indicate AIANs move from a reservation or village to a primary city or

metropolitan area for a number of anticipated advantages, including educational or employment

opportunities or healthcare options, or to leave unfavorable circumstances. They do not always

move to the nearest MSA—the AIAN population within any given area was said to be diverse in

tribal enrollment or affiliation. Service providers perceive that the AIAN population growth in

MSAs is driven by increasing numbers of youth and young families moving from reservations or

villages to cities.

Housing-related circumstances and challenges that AIANs experience living in metropolitan

areas, however, are similar to those reported in the Kingsley et al. (1996) national study. People

who identify their race as AIAN alone still are disproportionately disadvantaged compared with

the total population of the sampled MSAs. They have lower incomes and lower rates of

employment and educational attainment and higher rates of poverty and extreme poverty.

Affordable and decent housing is hard to find. AIAN-alone households are disproportionately

likely to live in housing that lacks complete kitchen and plumbing facilities.

Challenges such as finding affordable housing units in good condition that have complete

facilities are not unique to American Indians and Alaska Natives who are disadvantaged; other

people certainly have similar struggles. As discussed in the report, however, not only are AIANs

who live in MSAs disproportionately disadvantaged compared with the general population, in

aggregate, but also AIANs who move from a reservation or village to an MSA face the challenge

of cultural adaptation and adjustment to systems and processes different from those to which

they are accustomed.

Options for AIANs who seek help with housing needs consist mostly of mainstream

organizations. Most organizations identified in the sampled MSAs that provide housing-related

services are mainstream entities. A limited number of organizations target AIANs or serve them

exclusively; in two of the sampled MSAs, no such organizations were available. Such a services

landscape is not a concern in itself, given the presence of other providers of assistance. Some

AIANs, however, are reluctant to seek assistance from mainstream organizations because of

previous poor experiences they or people they know have had or because they anticipate

challenges interacting with staff members due to cultural differences. Such reluctance can leave

people with few options for support.

55

Findings from this study complement those from the other components of the Assessment of

American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs. Designed and conducted

separately, this MSA-focused report contributes to the overall assessment of housing conditions

and needs. The components are best viewed as overlapping rather than wholly distinct pieces of a

picture. The MSA study in particular is closely related to the centerpiece of the overall study,

Housing in Indian Country—a nationally representative survey of randomly selected AIAN

households that live on reservations or tribal lands. What has been learned about AIANs’

mobility between reservations and metropolitan areas—especially regarding factors that affect

mobility decisions—suggests that findings from this component and the national survey (Pindus

et al., 2016) should be read together. The opportunities and challenges in one context, real and

perceived, affect lives in the other.

Directions for Future Research

A larger, systematic study of the AIAN population living in metropolitan areas would show

whether findings from this study reflect the housing circumstances and challenges in

metropolitan areas nationwide. It also would support a comparison of findings between

reservations and metropolitan areas, which would increase the identification and understanding

of interrelationships among the factors affecting people’s lives in both location types. Additional

topics for research relevant to understanding mobility and housing needs of AIANs and useful to

the work conducted by national AIAN entities, tribal governments and corporations, and MSA-

based service providers could include the following.

Tribal and Village Affiliations of AIANs Living in MSAs

Data on the tribal enrollment or affiliation of AIANs living in a nationally representative sample

of MSAs would bolster information on the geographic distribution of AIAN populations. Beyond

increasing knowledge, such data could be taken into account by federal policymakers and

national and local AIAN leaders during discussions of changing demographics in communities

and of how resources for housing and other services might be organized and directed.

Factors Influencing Mobility

This study found consistency across the sampled MSAs in the factors AIANs identified that

motivate moves to and from metropolitan areas. It is not yet known which factors are most

prevalent and have the strongest influence. Data from a larger sample of sites, collected

systematically, could help pinpoint the most significant factors. Results from such a study could

be used to identify issues around which services might be offered to help people remain where

they are, if that is their preference, or prepare for and transition successfully following a move.

Results also could help explain why the AIAN-alone population in MSAs is younger than the

general population and why the share of single-parent households with children is higher than the

share among non-AIAN households.

56

Service-Sector Landscape in Metropolitan Areas

Few service-provider organizations appear to exclusively serve or target services to AIAN

populations. A survey of the AIAN service-sector landscape in MSAs, based on snowball

sampling, could confirm whether this is true across MSAs with a significant AIAN population.

In addition to questions about the number of AIAN-oriented service entities is the question of

whether services offered meet the needs of existing and newly arrived community members.

Findings from research on mobility factors and the service landscape together could help target

resources by identifying the greatest areas of need.

Funding for Services in Metropolitan Areas

Housing-related funding is directed to reservations, tribal areas, and native villages through the

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) and from native

corporations that raise funds from private ventures, but no comparable source of dedicated

funding is directed to serve AIANs who live in metropolitan areas. AIAN entities working in

MSAs, like other service organizations, can raise funds and apply for local, state, and federal

grants and contracts. Most service organizations that serve AIANs who meet eligibility

requirements, regardless of the tribe in which they are enrolled or affiliated, however, do not

have a tribe or corporation from which to seek funding. NAHASDA funds can be used off

reservation or outside tribal areas or villages—and in some places are—but, given the need for

housing resources on tribal lands, it would be understandable if many governments would not

want to direct a portion of these funds elsewhere. Analysis of data on funding sources for

housing purposes in MSAs would clarify available resources, perhaps identifying previously

untapped sources. Whether there ought to be a dedicated source of funding for housing services

in MSAs can be debated.

57

Appendix A. Glossary

child poverty rate.  The percentage of individuals under the age of 18 (that is, children) 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.

cycler.  A person who moves back and forth between his or her reservation or native village and a primary city.

Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG).  A formula-based, annual grant to tribes to support housing services administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

metropolitan statistical area (MSA or metropolitan area).  A grouping of one or more counties that contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population and any adjacent counties that have

a high degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the

urban core.

multigenerational family.  A family household that includes at least two members related by

blood, adoption, or marriage and that includes members of at least three generations (for

example, the householder, his or her parent, and his or her child or the householder, his or her

child, and his or her grandchild). This definition is the same as that used by the U.S. Census

Bureau (Lofquist, 2012).

Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA).  Signed on October 26, 1996,

NAHASDA replaced the myriad programs that had previously provided housing assistance to

Native American tribes under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 with a block grant that allowed

tribes or their Tribally Designated Housing Entities (also called  TDHEs) more flexibility to decide whom to serve, what services to offer, and how to deliver programs and services. As with

the 1937 Act, under NAHASDA, tribes are still required to primarily serve low-income families.

nonfamily household. A household that does not include at least one person related to the

householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.

other family household.  A male-headed or female-headed household that includes relatives but does not include children who are less than age 18.

other housing. Housing other than single-family homes or multifamily housing, such as mobile homes, recreational vehicles, and boats.

overcrowding. A household that has more than one occupant per room, including households

with  severe overcrowding (that is, those with more than 1.5 occupants per room).

poverty rate.  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.

A-1

primary city.  The core urban area (biggest city) within a metropolitan statistical area.

pull factors.  Attractive elements (real or perceived) of life in a primary city that draw people there from the reservation or native village.

push factors.  Circumstances on the reservation or in the native village that push people to move away.

resigned.  A person who stays in the primary city because of lack of opportunities on the

reservation or in his or her native village, not because he or she has made a positive choice to

remain in the primary city.

returnee.  A person who leaves the primary city to return to his or her reservation or native village permanently or for a longer term.

rural area.  Land outside urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 populations (Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 163, page

52,174).

severe overcrowding.  A household that has more than 1.5 occupants per room.

suburbs.  The remaining areas of a metropolitan statistical area that are not part of the primary city.

trapped. A person who moved to the primary city (for example, for medical treatment, school, or jobs) and cannot get back to his or her home reservation or native village (because of travel and

other expenses to return home) even though he or she wants to return.

tribal area.  Any of the nine different types of tribal areas or statistical entities defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Pettit et al. (2014) describe these tribal areas as follows:

1.   American Indian reservations—federal (federal AIRs) are set aside by the federal

government for tribal use. The boundaries of federally recognized reservations are

determined through treaties, agreements, executive orders, federal statutes, secretarial

orders, and judicial determinations. These reservations legally can be referred to as any of

the following: colonies, communities, Indian colonies, Indian communities, Indian

rancherias, Indian reservations, Indian villages, pueblos, rancherias, ranches,

reservations, reserves, settlements, and villages. Federal AIRs may cross state and other

area boundaries. American Indian tribes are considered to have the primary governmental

authority over federally recognized reservations. The U.S. Census Bureau determines the

boundaries of federal AIRS through its annual Boundary and Annexation Survey.

2.   Off-reservation trust lands are held in trust for an American Indian tribe or individual American Indian by the federal government. Trust lands can be located on or off

designated reservation lands, but the U.S. Census Bureau provides data only for off-

reservation trust lands—the areas that are not already included in the tabulations of data

A-2

for reservations. Off-reservation trust lands are always affiliated with a federally

recognized tribal area, and the U.S. Census Bureau determines their boundaries through

its annual Boundary and Annexation Survey.

3.   Joint-use areas are administered jointly by more than one American Indian tribe and/or are claimed by multiple tribes. For the purpose of providing statistical data, the U.S.

Census Bureau considers joint-use areas to be geographically comparable to a

reservation. Joint-use areas do not cross state boundaries.

4.   American Indian reservations—state (state AIRs) are set aside for tribes that are

recognized by a state government. Names and boundaries for these reservations are

provided to the U.S. Census Bureau by a liaison appointed by the state’s governor.

Statistical entities do not directly correspond to a federally recognized or state-recognized land base but are home to a concentration of American Indian and Alaska Native people

affiliated with a particular tribe.

5.   Oklahoma tribal statistical areas (OTSAs) were formerly reservations. OTSAs are

identified in consultation with the federally recognized tribes that previously had a

reservation in Oklahoma. OTSA boundaries mirror those of the tribes’ former

reservations, unless the boundaries have been changed through agreements with

neighboring tribes.

6.   Oklahoma tribal statistical area (OTSA) joint-use areas are administered jointly by

multiple American Indian tribes with an OTSA and/or are claimed by multiple tribes with

an OTSA. For the presentation of statistical data, the U.S. Census Bureau treats these

areas as distinct geographic areas.

7.   Tribal-designated statistical areas (TDSAs) are inhabited by a concentration of people who identify with a federally recognized American Indian tribe but do not have a

federally recognized land base. To be considered a TDSA, the area must have organized

tribal activity. TDSA boundaries are identified by the inhabitants for the U.S. Census

Bureau. TDSAs may cross state lines but cannot include land that is part of another tribal

area.

8.   State-designated tribal statistical areas (SDTSAs)  are inhabited by a concentration of members of state-recognized American Indian tribes without a state-recognized land

base. A governor-appointed liaison for the state reports these areas and their boundaries

to the U.S. Census Bureau. To be considered an SDTSA, the area must have organized

tribal activity. SDTSAs cannot cross state lines and cannot include land that is part of

another tribal area. These areas were referred to as state-designated American Indian

statistical areas in the 2000 decennial census.

9.   Alaska Native village statistical areas (ANVSAs) are the portions of Alaska Native

villages (ANVs) that are densely populated. ANVs are associations, bands, clans,

communities, groups, tribes, or villages that were recognized through the Alaska Native

A-3

Claims Settlement Act of 1971. The exact boundaries of ANVs are difficult to determine,

however, so the U.S. Census Bureau presents data for the ANVSAs. ANVSAs are areas

where Alaska Natives, particularly those belonging to the defining ANV, are a large

share of the population in at least one season of the year. ANV officials, if they choose to,

review the boundaries of ANVSAs; if ANV officials choose not to participate,

boundaries are verified by officials of the ANV’s Alaska Native Regional Corporation

(ANRC). ANVSAs cannot include land that is part of another tribal area.

A-4

Appendix B. References

Burt, Martha R. 2001. “What Will It Take To End Homelessness?” Washington, DC: Urban

Institute. http://www.urban.org/research/publication/what-will-it-take-end-homelessness.

Caton, Carol L., Boanerges Dominguez, Bella Schanzer, Deborah S. Hasin, Patrick E. Shrout,

Alan Felix, Hunter McQuistion, Lewis A. Opler, and Eustance Hsu. 2005. “Risk Factors for

Long-Term Homelessness: Findings from a Longitudinal Study of First-Time Homeless Single

Adults,”  American Journal of Public Health 95 (10): 1753–1759.

Cooper, Kenneth J. 2011. “As Housing Shortage Worsens, Tribes Forced to Use FEMA

Trailers.”  America’s Wire. May 2. http://newamericamedia.org/2011/05/as-housing-crisis-

escalates-native-american-tribes-use-fema-mobile-homes.php.

Cunningham, Mary K. 2009. “Preventing and Ending Homelessness—Next Steps.” Washington,

DC: Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411837_ending_homelessness.pdf.

Kingsley, G. Thomas, Virginia E. Spencer, John Simonson, Carla E. Herbig, Nancy Kay, Maris

Mikelsons, and Peter Tatian. 1996.  Assessment of American Indian Housing Needs and

Programs: Final Report.  Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development.

Koegel, Paul, Elan Melamid, and M. Audrey Burnam. 1995. “Childhood Risk Factors for

Homelessness among Homeless Adults,”  American Journal of Public Health 85 (12): 1642–

1649.

Listokin, David, Kenneth Temkin, Nancy Pindus, and David Stanek. Forthcoming.  Mortgage

Lending on Tribal Land: A Report From the Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native, and

Native Hawaiian Housing Needs.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development.

Lofquist, Daphne A. 2012.  Multigenerational Households: 2009–2011.  American Community

Survey Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics

Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.

National Urban Indian Family Coalition. 2008.  Urban Indian America: The Status of American

Indian and Alaska Native Children and Families Today.  Report to the Annie E. Casey

Foundation. Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Pettit, Kathryn L.S., G. Thomas Kingsley, Jennifer Biess, Kassie Bertumen, Nancy Pindus, Chris

Narducci, and Amos Budde. 2014.  Continuity and Change: Demographic, Socioeconomic, and

Housing Conditions of Native American Indians and Alaska Natives.  Prepared for the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

B-1

Pindus, Nancy, G. Thomas Kingsley, Jennifer Biess, Diane Levy, Jasmine Simington, and

Christopher Hayes. 2016.  Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Tribal

Areas.  Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy

Development and Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development.

Schwartz, Mary, and Ellen Wilson. 2008. “Who Can Afford To Live in a Home? A Look at Data

From the 2006 American Community Survey.” Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

http://www.census.gov/housing/census/publications/who-can-afford.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. “Census Bureau Releases Estimates of Undercount and Overcount in

the 2010 Census.” Press release, May 22.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-95.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. “About Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.”

http://www.census.gov/population/metro/about/.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2012. “Shared Equity Models

Offer Sustainable Homeownership,”  Evidence Matters (Fall). Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development.

http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/em/fall12/highlight3.html.

War Shield Development and the Northern Plains Initiative. 2010.  Montana Urban Indian Policy

Roundtables: Report and Recommendations.  Great Falls, MT: Rural Dynamics Incorporated.

B-2

Appendix C. Comparing Social and Economic Characteristics

Nationwide Between 1990 and 2010

Although the data used are not directly comparable, the Kingsley et al. (1996) national study and

analyses done for the interim report of the current study (Pettit et al., 2014) found similar social and economic trends for the American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population living in

metropolitan areas compared with their non-AIAN counterparts in counties that are part of

metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) but that did not include tribal land. Both reports refer to

these counties as “other metropolitan counties.”

This appendix summarizes the AIAN population trends in metropolitan areas without tribal land

discussed by Kingsley et al. (1996) and Pettit et al. (2014) to provide a broader context for this

report, which primarily focuses on the trends in the 24 study sites. See exhibit C.1 for a summary

of these trends and the subsequent discussion for a more detailed review.

Exhibit C.1. Summary Table

Population Age

Both Kingsley et al. (1996) and Pettit et al. (2014) found that the Native American population is

younger: the AIAN-alone population in other metropolitan counties had a larger proportion of

children and a smaller proportion of people age 62 and older than did the non-AIAN-alone

population in both 1990 and 2010.

•  Kingsley et al. (1996) found that, in 1990, 27 percent of the AIAN-alone population

living in other metropolitan counties was younger than 18 years of age, 2 percentage

points above the share of 25 percent of non-AIAN populations.

•  Pettit et al. (2014) found that, in 2010, 28 percent of the AIAN-alone population was less

than 18 years of age in other metropolitan counties compared with 24 percent of the non-

AIAN population.

•  Kingsley et al. (1996) found that only 7 percent of the AIAN population in other

metropolitan counties was 62 years old or older, about one-half the share of 15 percent of

non-AIAN populations.

•  Pettit et al. (2014) found that, in 2010, about 9 percent of the AIAN-alone population in

other metropolitan counties was 62 or older compared with 16 percent of the non-AIAN

population.

C-1

Household Type

Although AIAN households had higher rates of being in married-couples-with-children

formations in 1990 compared with non-AIAN households, this difference largely disappeared by

2010.

•  Kingsley et al. (1996) found that 36 percent of AIAN households in other metropolitan

counties were married couples with children, 10 percentage points higher than the share

for non-AIAN households.

•  Pettit et al. (2014) found that, in 2010, however, about 21 percent of both AIAN and non-

AIAN households in other metropolitan counties were married couples with children.

Both studies found that AIAN households had higher rates of single-parent formations compared

with non-AIAN households, and the disparity seems to have grown during the 1990-to-2010

period.

•  Kingsley et al. (1996) found that, in 1990, about 10 percent of AIAN households in other

metropolitan counties were single-parent households compared with 7 percent of non-

AIAN households.

•  Pettit et al. (2014) found that, in 2010, 15 percent of AIAN-alone households were

single-parent households compared with 9 percent of non-AIAN households.

Educational Attainment

From 1990 to 2010, the share of adults age 25 and older without a high school diploma fell for

both the AIAN and non-AIAN populations, but a disparity persists.

•  Kingsley et al. (1996) found that 29 percent of AIAN adults age 25 and older in other

metropolitan counties did not have a high school diploma compared with 23 percent of

non-AIAN adults.

•  Pettit et al. (2014) found that, in 2010, 23 percent of AIAN-alone adults age 25 and older

in other metropolitan counties did not have a high school diploma compared with 14

percent of non-AIAN adults.

Unemployment

Both studies also found that the unemployment rate for the AIAN population was higher than for

the non-AIAN population.

•  Kingsley et al. (1996) found that the AIAN unemployment rate was 10 percent in other

metropolitan counties compared with 6 percent for non-AIANs in 1990.

•  Pettit et al. (2014) found that, in 2010, the AIAN-alone unemployment rate in these areas

was 13 percent compared with non-AIAN rates of 8 percent.

C-2

Poverty

The AIAN population also experienced higher poverty rates than did the non-AIAN population

during the 1990-to-2010 period.

•  Kingsley et al. (1996) found that, in 1990, the AIAN poverty rate in other metropolitan

counties was 1.45 times the non-AIAN rate.

•  Pettit et al. (2014) found that, in 2010, the AIAN-alone poverty rate in other metropolitan

counties was about 1.65 times higher than the non-AIAN rate.

C-3

Appendix D. Site Selection and Replacement

The assessment of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) housing needs in metropolitan

areas included a sample of 30 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Drawing from an original

selection of 30 MSAs, the research team conducted site visits in 5 of those MSAs to conduct in-

person interviews with staff at selected AIAN organizations and to hold discussion groups with

AIAN community residents. In 19 of the remaining 25 sites, the team conducted telephone

interviews with AIAN organizations and respondents.

Sample Frame

To create the sample frame from which MSA study sites were drawn, the team identified MSAs

with substantial AIAN populations, an Indian community center (ICC), and substantial growth in

the AIAN population during the past decade.

Large AIAN Population

After reviewing the AIAN population sizes, we set the AIAN population minimum within an

MSA at 4,300. This lower limit captures a higher percentage of the urban AIANs than was

captured in the previous study (79 percent compared with 61 percent); 84 MSAs met this

population threshold.

Presence of an ICC or Other AIAN-Focused Organization

Having an ICC or similar organization in the MSA was a requirement for inclusion in the sample.

Of the 84 MSAs that met the population threshold, 54 had an ICC or similar organization.

Growth in AIAN Population Between 2000 and 2010

To focus on MSAs with growing AIAN populations, we set a minimum threshold of 10-percent

growth in the AIAN population during the 10 years from 2000 to 2012. 34 This criterion supports the study’s interest in areas with relatively large and growing AIAN populations. Of the 54

MSAs, 43 met this threshold.

From the remaining 43 MSAs, we drew a purposive sample according to the selection criteria

presented in the following paragraphs, seeking to capture the greatest diversity of MSAs that

project resources would allow.

Distance From the Nearest Tribal Area (Reservation, Pueblo, Rancheria, and so on)

We sought to include MSAs that are relatively close to tribal areas and those that are farther

away relative to other prospective MSA study sites. This criterion supports the study’s interest in

the dynamics of housing and socioeconomic patterns related to moves to and from tribal lands

and metropolitan areas. We used ArcGIS to determine the distance between the MSA and the

nearest tribal area.

34 Data for population growth come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s decennial censuses.

D-1

Regional Diversity

We selected MSAs in each of the nine study regions to ensure we captured the experiences of the

metropolitan-based AIAN populations in different parts of the country. For purposes of this

study, we defined regions primarily by the six service areas of HUD’s Office of Native American

Programs (ONAP). Three of these areas, however, were considered to be too heterogeneous for

the study and so were split, resulting in nine study regions:

1.  North Central (Chicago Office—Eastern/Woodlands).

2.  Eastern (Chicago Office—Eastern/Woodlands).

3.  Oklahoma (Oklahoma City Office—Southern Plains).

4.  South Central (Oklahoma City Office—Southern Plains).

5.  Plains (Denver Office—Northern Plains).

6.  Arizona/New Mexico (Phoenix Office—Southwest).

7.  California/Nevada (Phoenix Office—Southwest).

8.  Pacific Northwest (Seattle Office—Northwest).

9.  Alaska (Anchorage Office—Alaska).

To the extent possible, we also sought diversity within regions so that selected MSAs would not

be clustered in a single state or other area.

Total Metropolitan Population

We sought to have diversity in the total MSA population so that both larger and smaller MSAs were included.

Housing Market Strength

We sought to have diversity in economic measures to include MSAs with both strong and weak

economies, as indicated by the vacancy rate and the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s House

Price Index (HPI). This factor consists of four components that we compiled to create a general

assessment of housing market strength, as shown in the Factors Description section that follows

this section.

Socioeconomic Strength

We sought to have diversity in economic measures to include MSAs with strong and weak

economies, as indicated by the unemployment rate and average household income. This factor

consists of four components that we compiled to create a general assessment of local economic

strength.

In addition to the selection criteria, the research team considered information individual

researchers brought to the table about particular communities along with information about ICCs

gleaned from organizations’ websites.

D-2

Exhibit D.1 lists the 43 MSAs in the sample frame. The 30 MSAs initially selected from the 43

MSAs are in regular font, with the 5 sites initially selected for site visits indicated in bold font.

The 13 MSAs not initially selected served as replacement sites should an ICC in the sample have

been unable to participate in the urban component of the study. Replacement sites are listed in

italics. (After the selection process was complete, 24 sites were sampled: 5 of the selected 30

MSAs received site visits and 19 of the MSAs received telephone calls. Researchers were unable

to secure telephone interviews in 6 of the MSAs.)

Exhibit D.1. Sites Initially Selected and Replacement Sites

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Note: Bold font indicates sites that initially were selected to be site visit locations. Italic font indicates sites that initially were selected as replacement sites. Regular font (no bold or italic) indicates sites initially selected only as telephone interview sites.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community

Survey 5-year estimates, 2006–2010; Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index.

D-3

The selection factors did not lead to a fixed or unique sample of MSAs. Instead, we selected sites

with the goal of maximizing diversity across the selection factors. Other sites could have been

selected to achieve this maximum diversity goal. In the following section, we present details of

our selection process.

Our first step was to identify MSAs that were at either end of a continuum for five of the six

selection factors (not including ONAP region). (See the Factors Description section for an

explanation of the six factors.) For example, we ranked sites by relative distance to a tribal area

and then assigned the top and bottom 15 sites one point each (the 15 sites farthest from a tribal

area and the 15 sites nearest a tribal area received one point). The 15 MSAs with the largest and

15 MSAs with the smallest population ratio (ratio of AIAN population to the total population)

likewise were given one point each. We did this for each factor so that a site could receive up to

five points. Selecting MSAs with the highest point total enabled us to identify MSAs that were

diverse across the factors: small and large MSAs, MSAs with higher and lower population ratios,

MSAs with stronger and weaker economies, and so on. We then reviewed the list to see which

regions were heavily represented in the list of 43 sites.

We moved most of the MSAs with a low factor count (those that fell in the center of the MSA

rankings on a number of factors) to the replacement list. We did the same with MSAs located in

regions with heavy representation. For example, the Stockton-Lodi, CA MSA shares a factor

count of 3 with a number of other California MSA study sites, but, after considering other MSAs

in the region, along with information about the Stockton MSA offered by members of the

research team, we placed this MSA on the replacement list. The Washington-Arlington-

Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA was moved to the replacement list because of concerns that

the AIAN community might be such an outlier in a number of ways that its inclusion might seem

odd, even though it had a factor count of 5.

After we had 30 MSAs on the study list, we selected the proposed 5 site-visit MSAs by

considering the factor count, the region, and components of the overall study.

We selected an MSA in Alaska, in part, to address the concern expressed during consultations

that other study components included a small number of sites (too few) in Alaska. Between the

two Alaska options, the Anchorage MSA has a higher factor count than the Fairbanks MSA.

Also, representatives from the Anchorage community had expressed interest in the urban study

during a consultation meeting. We selected an MSA in the eastern region to ensure regional

diversity in light of the predominance of westerly areas on the list. We initially selected the

Orlando-Kissimmee-Stanford, FL MSA because, in addition to having a high factor count, it

offers a metropolitan area far from a tribal area and a weaker housing and socioeconomic

context. As described later in this section, however, we replaced the Orlando MSA with the

Boston MSA because the ICC in the Orlando MSA was no longer active.

Four MSAs within the Arizona-New Mexico region have the same factor count. We selected the

Phoenix MSA because it has a large overall population, ensuring two of the five sites are larger

MSAs in terms of total population.

D-4

We selected the remaining two MSA sites, Reno and Billings because they have high factor

counts (overall and among sites in the same region) and offer diversity in region and selection

factors.

Factor Descriptions

Factor Count

Factor count  is the number of times that a site falls into the top or bottom 15 sites across factors.

Sites with a count of 5 received preference over sites with a lower factor count, taking

geographic region into account.

Distance to Tribal Area

Distance to tribal area  identifies an MSA as being located a far or short distance to a tribal area relative to other MSAs on the list. MSAs identified as center are those that fall in the middle of

the distance ranking.

Population Ratio

Population ratio  identifies MSAs with a large or small AIAN population relative to the total population. MSAs identified as center are those sites that fall in the middle of the population

ratio ranking.

Total Population

Total population  of the MSA identified as largest and smallest refers to MSAs with higher and lower population totals, respectively. MSAs identified as center are those sites that fall in the

middle of the ranking.

Housing Market Strength

Housing market strength  is a composite indicator based on four factors, each of which was

assigned a score related to market strength. We summed the scores and used them to rank MSAs

as strong, center, or weak.

Vacancy Rate (2006–2010 5-year average)

Vacancy rate  identifies MSAs with either a large or small share of vacant housing units as a measure of housing demand. (MSAs with higher vacancy rates having lower demand for housing

and MSAs with lower vacancy rates having higher demand for housing.) MSAs identified as

center are those sites that fall in the middle of the ranking.

D-5

Vacancy Rate Change (from 2000 to 2006–2010 5-year average)

Vacancy rate change  identifies MSAs that have experienced the greatest negative and positive changes in the vacancy rate from 2000 to 2006–2010, as a measure of how housing demand has

changed during the past decade. MSAs identified as center are those sites that fall in the middle

of the ranking.

Federal Housing Finance Agency’s House Price Index (HPI) (2012)

HPI 2012  identifies MSAs where the housing price is the highest and lowest. MSAs identified as center are those sites that fall in the middle of the ranking.

Change in the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s House Price Index (HPI) (2000–2012)

HPI change  identifies MSAs where the housing price changed the most (positive or negative)

from 2000 to 2012. MSAs identified as center are those sites that fall in the middle of the

ranking.

Socioeconomic Strength

Socioeconomic strength is a composite indicator based on four factors, each of which was

assigned a score related to market strength. We summed scores and used them to rank MSAs as

strong, center, or weak.

Unemployment Rate (2006–2010 5-year average)

Unemployment rate identifies the MSAs with the highest and lowest unemployment rate as a

measure of the local economic situation. MSAs identified as center are those sites that fall in the

middle of the ranking.

Unemployment Rate Change (from 2000 to 2006–2010 5-year average)

Unemployment rate change identifies MSAs that had the greatest change (either positive or

negative) in their unemployment rate during the past decade as a measure of how the local

economic situation has changed over time. MSAs identified as center are those sites that fall in

the middle of the ranking.

Average Household Income (2006–2010 5-year average)

Average household income identifies MSAs with the highest and lowest average household

incomes for all households. MSAs identified as center are those sites that fall in the middle of

this ranking.

Average Household Income Change (from 2000 to 2006–2010 5-year average)

Average household income change identifies MSAs that had the greatest changes in average

income (either positive or negative) from 2000 to 2006–2010. MSAs identified as center are

those sites that fall in the middle of the ranking.

D-6

Site Replacement

After encountering disconnected telephone numbers or making a number of unsuccessful

attempts to reach someone (more detail about our outreach process is included in appendix F),

the research team made the following replacements:

•  The Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA was replaced with the Raleigh-Cary, NC MSA.

•  The Colorado Springs, CO MSA was replaced with the Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO

MSA.

•  The Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA MSA was replaced with the Salt Lake City, UT

MSA.

•  The Orlando MSA was replaced with the Boston MSA for the site visit, and the Boston

MSA was replaced with the Fayetteville MSA for the telephone interview.

•  The Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA was replaced with the

Nashville MSA.

•  The Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA was replaced with the Santa Barbara

MSA.

•  The Spokane, WA MSA was replaced with the Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA.

•  Replacement decisions were made by selecting an MSA from the same region and one

that was as similar as possible on the other site-selection factors. The final sites in the full

sample were the following:

o  Site visits for 5 MSAs: Anchorage, Billings, Boston, Phoenix, and Reno.

o  Telephone interviews for 25 MSAs: Albuquerque, Bakersfield, Charlotte,

Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Duluth, Fairbanks, Farmington, Fayetteville, Flagstaff,

Houston, Las Vegas, Nashville, New York, Oklahoma City, Portland, Providence,

Raleigh, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Santa Barbara, Santa Fe, Tucson, and Tulsa.

•  Six of the 25 MSAs sampled for telephone interviews did not participate in the study:

Albuquerque, Denver, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Raleigh, and Salt Lake City.

D-7

Appendix E. List of Indian Community Centers

The list of Indian community centers identified in metropolitan statistical areas as of May 2013

is compiled from Internet searches and with contributions from Walter Hillabrant (Support

Services International, Inc.) and Cynthia Robins (Westat, Inc.). (See exhibit E.1.)

Exhibit E.1. List of Indian Community Centers

MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

E-1

Appendix F. Outreach and Data Collection Methods

The metropolitan area component of the American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian

Housing study was conducted by collecting and analyzing primary data through qualitative

methods and analyzing secondary quantitative data. Site visits were conducted in 5 of the 30

sampled metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and included in-person interviews with staff at

selected American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) organizations and discussion groups with

AIAN community residents. In 19 of the remaining 25 sites, researchers conducted telephone

interviews with key staff at selected AIAN organizations and with AIAN community leaders. We

used secondary data to analyze demographic and socioeconomic patterns, housing problems, and

homeownership and mortgage lending disparities.

Site Visits

Outreach for the site visits began by sending letters, by U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and e-mail,

to executive directors at each of the five MSAs’ Indian community center (ICC) or primary

AIAN organization. The letters notified directors that their city was selected for study and

requested their participation in a 3-day site visit. Researchers followed up with phone calls to

assess directors’ willingness to participate and to schedule the visit. The ICCs were asked to

recommend individuals within their organization or from other AIAN housing organizations who

were familiar with housing conditions and needs of this population. Introductory letters were sent

to individuals recommended by the ICCs, via e-mail, followed by telephone calls to schedule in-

person interviews.

Participation in the interviews was voluntary and each interview lasted approximately 1 hour.

Interview protocols varied, depending on respondent type, but key topics covered included

housing conditions and problems that AIAN households experienced, housing availability and

cost, homelessness, availability and capacity of local organizations that address housing needs,

the impact of the recent national recession (December 2007 through June 2009) on housing

availability and need, and factors that affect households’ decisions to move between urban and

tribal areas. The respondent interview protocol is included at the end of this appendix.

Researchers also worked with ICC staff to organize discussion groups with members of the local

AIAN community. ICC staff members were asked to provide a location and recruit about 15

adult heads of household (ages 18 and older) to ensure 10 to 12 participants per group. The

guidelines for recruitment included making sure participants were diverse in housing tenure

(renters, owners, homeless), age, and tribal membership or affiliation. Researchers provided the

ICC with flyers to aid in recruitment and also a confidential, toll-free line for interested

individuals to register. We were successful in recruiting groups in three of the five MSA sites:

Anchorage, Boston, and Phoenix.

Participation in the discussion group was voluntary and lasted approximately 2 hours. Attendees

were asked to complete a brief informational questionnaire at the end of the discussion. Exhibit

F.1 provides an overview of participants’ characteristics overall and by MSA. Participants were

given $20 cash incentives for attending. Discussion group topics included housing availability

and cost, homelessness, access to housing services, and mobility between tribal lands and urban

F-1

areas. The discussion group protocol and participants’ information form are included at the end

of this appendix.

Exhibit F.1. Characteristics of Discussion Group Participants

Source: Discussion group participant information forms

Telephone Interviews

Outreach to sites to request telephone interviews began by sending letters, by USPS and e-mail,

to the executive directors of the ICC or primary AIAN organization in the 25 sites. Researchers

then called ICCs or other AIAN service providers and community leaders to schedule telephone

interviews and to request recommendations for other organizations or individuals to interview

who were knowledgeable about housing conditions and challenges that AIAN populations

experienced.

For sites that had more than one key organization identified, researchers first contacted the center that appeared to focus on community services rather than on health services. If the first contact

said the second center addressed housing issues, then we proceeded to contact and schedule an

interview with staff from the second organization. If contact was not successful with the first

center, the second center in the city served as an alternate for the site.

Researchers made up to five attempts to reach staff at the organizations. If they could not

schedule an interview after the five attempts, they replaced the site with one from the alternate

list. The first priority for replacement was a site in the same region. If no replacement option in

the same region existed, the site selection was random.

F-2

Telephone interviews were voluntary and lasted approximately 30 minutes. Protocols varied,

depending on respondent type, but key topics that were covered included housing conditions and

problems that AIAN households experienced, housing availability and cost, homelessness,

availability and capacity of local organizations that address housing needs, impact of the recession on housing availability and need, and factors that affect households’ decisions to move between

urban and tribal areas. The respondent interview guide for the telephone interviews was the same

guide used in the in-person respondent interviews and is included at the end of this appendix.

Researchers planned to complete two phone interviews for each site; however, due to the small

number of organizations that were knowledgeable about the AIAN community, in most of the

sites, they were able to complete only one interview and, in some sites, they were unable to

complete any interviews. The primary reason for refusal was that staff of the organization could

not speak to the housing needs of Native Americans in its area. The number of interviews

completed at each site and the organization types that were interviewed are included in exhibit F.2.

Exhibit F.2. Number of Interviews and Respondent Organization Type, by MSA

MSA = metropolitan statistical area. N/A = not applicable.

Source: Urban Institute interviews.

F-3

Secondary Data Analysis Sources

American Community Survey

The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) publishes annual estimates for

geographies with more than 65,000 people. Because of the smaller sample size compared with

the decennial census, the Census Bureau averages 1, 3, and 5 years of surveys to produce

estimates for the smallest geographies, including tribal areas. For this metropolitan area-focused

study, we used the 2010 ACS 5-year estimates for analysis. Because the ACS produces estimates

on a smaller sample than the decennial census long-form survey, the estimates are subject to

more sampling error. Multiyear estimates cannot provide a point-in-time picture; this

shortcoming makes analyzing the effects of certain phenomena difficult. For example, the effects

of the housing finance crisis (December 2007 to June 2009) are not clearly captured in the

analysis because the ACS estimates rely on data collected between 2006 and 2010 and, therefore,

might not accurately portray true conditions at any one point during this period.

ACS Selected Population Tables

The ACS Selected Population Tables provide tabulations of social, economic, and housing

characteristics for certain racial groups that are unavailable in the general ACS. The metropolitan

analysis includes the 2010 5-year estimate tables.

Annual Homeless Assessment Report

The Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) gives estimates of homelessness based on

point in time and housing inventory counts at the national, state, and Continuum of Care levels.

AHAR estimates the chronically homeless, homeless veterans, and homeless children and youth,

and it details whether the people are homeless individuals, part of homeless families, or part of a

specific subpopulation. The metropolitan report used 2010 AHAR reports for each of the

sampled MSAs, except for Santa Barbara, which does not have an AHAR report listed on HUD’s

website.

Decennial Census

Every 10 years, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts a National Household Survey. Basic

characteristics such as age, sex, and race are collected on every person in the short form, and

more detailed information on income, employment, and housing characteristics is collected on

the long form from one in every six households. After 2000, the long form was replaced with the

ACS. This report uses the 2000 and 2010 decennial census.

The decennial census historically has undercounted hard-to-reach populations. For AIAN

populations, those living on tribal lands are undercounted, but those living off tribal lands are

overcounted. AIAN households living on reservations were undercounted by 4.9 percent in 2010

compared with a 0.9 percent overcount in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). For the 2010

decennial census, the Census Bureau reports an overcount of AIAN populations outside

reservations of 1.95 percent. The net error for AIAN populations not living on reservations was

F-4

not statistically different from zero in 2010 or 2000. This analysis uses the published statistics

from the decennial census and does not attempt to adjust for the undercount and overcount.

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires most lending institutions to report mortgage loan

applications, including the outcome of the application, information about the loan and applicant,

location of the property, structure type, lien status, and whether the loan had a high interest rate.

The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council collects the data to determine whether

financial institutions are meeting a community’s housing credit needs, to target community

development funds to attract private investment, and to identify possible discriminatory lending

patterns.

F-5

Native Americans Living in Urban Areas Key Informant

(Telephone/On-Site) Interview Guide

OMB Control Number: 2528-0288, Expiration Date: October 31, 2015

Introduction/Purpose of the Study

My name is _______________ and I’m a researcher from the [organization name, location]. I’m

calling today because the Urban Institute, on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD), is studying the housing conditions and needs of Native Americans, Alaska

Natives, and Native Hawaiians across the United States. The study will describe housing needs

and socioeconomic conditions in Indian Country.

One part of this study focuses on the housing needs and conditions among Indians living in urban

and suburban areas off of reservations and tribal lands. We will be speaking with community

leaders, staff of organizations that work with Native Americans, and community residents to

better understand the housing issues in the study sites. We are visiting 5 communities and talking

by telephone to community leaders and local community organization staff in 25 additional

communities.

We will use what we learn today and from other interviews to contribute to a report on housing

conditions and needs among Native Americans. This report will be submitted to HUD to inform

the federal government of housing challenges. The interview today should last about half an hour

[telephone] // one and one half hours [in-person].

I’ll start by going over the consent to participate.

Confidentiality Statement [Interviewer must read this]

Before beginning the interview, I (we) want to thank you for agreeing to participate in this study

and remind you that your participation is voluntary. I (we) know that you are busy and will try to

be as brief as possible. We have many questions and are going to talk to many different people,

so please do not feel as though we expect you to be able to answer every question. The interview

today should last about 30 to 35 minutes. This interview is not part of an audit or a compliance

review. We are interested in learning about your ideas, experiences, and opinions about housing

in your community. There are no right or wrong answers. We want to know what you think.

In addition, before we start, I want to let you know that although we will take notes during these

interviews, information is never repeated with the name of the respondent in any reports or in

any discussions with supervisors, colleagues, or HUD. When we write our reports and discuss

our findings, information from all the people we speak with is compiled and presented so that no

one person can be identified.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

F-6

A. Respondent Background Questions

1. Name and Title of Respondent

2. Affiliation

3. How long have you been in this position?

4. How long have you worked for this organization / agency?

5. Please describe the housing related services or assistance offered by your organization/agency.

6. What is the geographic area your organization or agency serves?

7. Approximately how many people does your organization or agency serve in the course of a

year?

8. Please describe your client base. Who seeks services or assistance (race, ethnicity, age, income

level, household structure, etc.)?

9. Approximately what percent of your client base is Native American or Alaska Native?

a. With which tribes are these clients enrolled or affiliated?

10. Is this organization / agency itself affiliated with a particular tribe or tribes? Which one(s)?

B. Housing availability, cost, household needs; impact of the recession

1. What are the most pressing housing needs among Native American households in your

community?

2. Are there enough safe and affordable housing units in your community to meet the need?

a. If no, what types of housing units are in short supply? (small, medium or large rental units,

houses for rent, houses for sale, etc.)?

3. Has the supply of safe and affordable housing changed in the last 5 years?

a. In what way?

4. Has the cost of housing changed in this area in the last 5 years?

[If YES] How has it changed? Why has it changed?

(increased/decreased due to demand for rental units; increased/decreased sales prices due

demand / foreclosures and drop in demand; etc.)

C. Housing conditions of AIAN in urban areas

1. How would you describe the housing conditions experienced by most Native American

households in [community]?

a. What are the most commonly cited problems?

b. How widespread do you think these problems are?

2. Are there problems that affect renters more than homeowners? Vice versa?

a. What are they?

3. Are there differences between the housing conditions faced by Native American (American

Indian and Alaska Native) and non-Native households in the community?

a. What are the differences?

b. What do you think the differences can be attributed to?

D. Homelessness (changes in who is homeless, available resources)

F-7

1. Is  homelessness  or being at risk of homelessness (e.g., having no residence, staying in a shelter or transitional housing, staying with friends or family on a non-permanent basis) a problem

among Native Americans living in [community]?

2. What are the major factors leading to homelessness among Native Americans here?

a. Probe: lack of affordable housing; loss of income; domestic violence, mental or physical

health problems, substance abuse, etc.

3. Do you think the number of homeless Native Americans in this community has changed in the

last 5 years?

a. How and why do you think the number has changed?

4. Has there been a change in the last 5 years in who becomes homeless (age, gender, tribal

group, family structure, education level, etc.)?

[If YES] Please describe the change.

5. Do most homeless Native Americans here have no place to stay, stay in temporary housing, or

double up with family or friends?

6. Do many Native Americans make use of homeless shelters?

[If NO] Why do you think they do not?

7. Are there organizations or agencies that target homeless-related services to the Native

American community? Describe.

8. What is needed here in the way of services, outreach, or other factors to address problems of

homelessness among Native Americans in [community]?

E. Capacity (availability and quality) of local organizations to address housing

needs

1. Do clients have housing needs that your organization / agency cannot address?

a. What are the barriers to your organization’s / agency’s ability to address these needs? (funds,

training, additional staff, space, etc.)

2. What other organizations / agencies in the area offer housing services to Native Americans?

3. Do these organizations / agencies have expertise in addressing the housing needs of Native

Americans who:

a. Are elderly? Are single parents? Who have young children?

b. Are victims of domestic violence?

c. Have a disability? Have a substance abuse problem?

d. Have a felony conviction?

e. Are veterans?

4. Do the organizations that address the housing needs of Native Americans tend to work with

people regardless of tribal enrollment and descent or do they target services to people from a

specific tribe or tribes?

5. If you could, what new housing program would you start in your community to address Native

American housing needs? Why?

6. What factors tend to encourage Native American households to seek assistance?

a. What factors discourage households?

F. PHA staff module

1. What percentage of your public housing clients are Native Americans?

F-8

a. For Housing Choice Vouchers?

b. For Section 184 loan guarantees?

c. For other types of assistance?

2. Has the percent changed in the last 5 years? Describe the change.

a. What factors do you think have led to the change?

3. Have you seen a change in the number of Native American households applying for assistance

(regardless of whether they receive assistance)?

[If YES] Why do you think there has been a change? (Recession-related factors, job loss,

increase in housing costs, lack of affordable housing units for people moving to the community,

etc.)

4. Have you seen changes in the characteristics of Native American households who have

applied for assistance in the past 5 years? (age, marital status, number of children, tribal status) 5. Does your agency conduct outreach to Native Americans?

[If YES] Please describe

6. Does your agency have information materials targeted to Native Americans?

[If YES] May I have a copy?

7. Are there particular challenges related to serving Native Americans? Please explain.

G. Local AIAN community leaders module (also include in ICC guide)

1. Describe the ways that your organization works with other organizations and agencies that

address housing needs of Native Americans / Alaska Natives.

2. Do you find some organizations or agencies better able to work with Native Americans to

address their housing needs?

a. What factors make an organization or agency more effective than others?

3. Nowadays, what are some of the main reasons Native Americans might choose to move from

tribal lands to urban areas? (job opportunities, access to housing, education opportunities,

domestic violence, etc.)

4. What factors lead Native Americans to move from urban areas to reservations / tribal areas?

(access to housing, reasons related to family, reasons related to culture, etc.)

5. Do more people move to or away from urban areas now?

a. Why has this changed?

6. Has the  number of moves people make between tribal lands and urban areas increased in the last 5 years?

a. Why do you think people are moving more/less often than in the past?

7. Do you find that many or few Native Americans living in [community] maintain close ties

with their tribes?

a. Why do you think most Native Americans living in urban areas do/do not maintain close ties

with a reservation or tribal area?

H. HUD HQ and regional staff module

1. Do any federal housing programs explicitly include Native American households in the list of

potential clients?

2. Are there any federal programs that identify Native American households, other than people

living on Indian lands, as priority clients?

F-9

[Outreach to AIAN households]

3. Does HUD provide guidance to local HAs on how to reach out to Native American

households living in metro areas? Please explain.

4. Are there outreach materials local HAs can use that have been developed specifically with

Native American households in mind?

a. If so, may I have a copy?

[Challenges to serving AIAN households]

5. What challenges do local HAs identify as associated with serving Native Americans

households in metro areas?

6. How has HUD responded to any request from local HAs for assistance working with Native

American households? Examples?

F-10

Community Group in Urban Areas Discussion Guide

OMB Control Number: 2528-0288, Expiration Date: October 31, 2015

Introduction and Consent

Thank you for coming and agreeing to participate in this group discussion today.

Who are we?

I’m [name], a researcher with the Urban Institute; I will be your moderator for the session. The

Urban Institute is a non-profit research organization located in Washington, DC. With me today

is [name and affiliation].

Why am I here?

You have been invited to join this group because you are Native American and because you live

in [name of community]. The Urban Institute asked [local organization] to invite people to

participate in this group. The Institute, on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD), is studying the housing conditions and needs of Native Americans, Alaska

Natives, and Native Hawaiians across the United States. One part of this study focuses on the

housing needs and conditions among Indians living in urban and suburban areas off of

reservations and tribal lands. We will be speaking with community leaders, staff of organizations

that work with Native Americans, and you to better understand the housing issues in the study

sites. We are visiting 5 communities and talking by telephone to community leaders and local

housing organization staff in 25 additional communities.

What is a discussion group?

Discussion groups are a way to find out what people think about an issue through group

discussion. We are interested in learning about your ideas, feelings, and opinions about housing

in [community]. There is no right or wrong answers. We want to know what you think. You

should feel free to disagree with each other; we hope to hear as many points of view as possible

in response to the questions I’ll ask. Your participation is very important to the success of this

study.

What happens with the information shared during the group?

Importantly, we ask everyone here today to respect people’s privacy. Although we cannot

control what people say after they leave, we remind you that what is said in the room should stay

in the room. We will use only first names in today’s discussion; we will not identify you even by

first name in our records, and we will not tell program staff what you said. The information that

you tell us will not affect your relationship with the program and will not affect your benefits in

any way. We will use what we learn today and from other interviews and discussion groups to

contribute to a report on housing conditions and needs among Native Americans. This report will

be submitted to HUD to inform the federal government of housing challenges.

How does this work?

F-11

The session today should last about two hours. At the end of this session, we will ask you to

complete a short, anonymous background information form. We will also give you $20 for

participating today and will ask you to sign a receipt indicating you have received this payment.

I may remind you occasionally to speak one at a time so that we can hear your comments. I am

your guide, but this is a group discussion; everyone should feel free to speak. To keep us on

schedule, I may change the subject or move ahead. Please stop me if you have something to add.

Are there any questions before we begin? We’ll start by going over the consent to participate.

Confidentiality Statement [Interviewer must read this]:

Participation in this discussion group is voluntary, which means that you don’t have to

participate and you can decide not to answer any specific questions. There are no consequences

for choosing not to participate or not to answer any question. You can also leave the group at any

point. You will receive a [CASH GIFT/ GIFT CARD/VOUCHER] as a token of appreciation for

participating. The group discussion will last about two hours.

The information you provide will be confidential, and will not be shared with anyone except for

research staff working on the study. This includes anything that can identify you such as your

name, address, or telephone number. Information is never repeated with the name of a participant

in any reports or in any discussions with program staff or HUD. When we write our reports and

discuss our findings, information from all the people we speak with is compiled and presented so

that no one person can be identified. Everyone who works on this survey has signed a legal

document stating they will not reveal any of your personal information and can be severely

penalized if they do.

We value the information you will share with us today and want to make sure we capture all of

it. So, with your permission, we will be taping the session and/or [name of person] will be taking

notes on a laptop computer. However, we destroy the tapes as soon as we have made complete

notes of the meeting, and those notes will not use your names. Does anyone have an objection to

taping this group? Also, as we said, we will not use your names in preparing any reports and will

disguise your comments so that no one can identify who made specific comments. We will ask

you to sign for your incentive payment in order to account for our financial disbursements, but

we pass on only a coded identifier, not your name, to our accounting department.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

Discussion Group Topics

Please tell us your first name, the tribe you are enrolled in or descended from, and whether you

live here in [community] or in a nearby area.

I’d like to begin with a very broad question that will help guide the rest of our discussion today.

A. Housing Challenges – Open.

F-12

1.

What are the major issues related to housing you have experienced or have heard about

from other Native American and Alaska Native community members?

2.

Probe if necessary: cost, availability, quality / conditions, location, access, etc.

[MODERATOR: 1) Select topic modules based on issues mentioned by discussants 2) After

covering these topics, proceed to the remaining modules, if any.]

B. Housing Availability and Cost.

1.

Are there many apartments or houses available to rent or purchase in [community]?

a.

Is housing availability a problem here?

2.

Do you think the number of available housing units has changed in the last five years or

so?

a.

How has availability changed? (more/less housing available; changes in the availability

of decent housing; housing from foreclosures)

3.

Do you think the cost of housing is a problem in [community]? Explain

4.

Have rents or sales prices changed in the last five or so years?

[If YES] How have prices changed? (increased, decreased) Why do you think prices have

changed?

C. Access to Rental Housing (information and cost).

1.

Where do people find information on houses and apartments available for rent?

(websites, newspaper, friends or family, rental signs in neighborhoods, ICC, other community

organization or agency, etc.)

2.

If you have looked for apartments or houses for rent in the last few years, how did you

go about finding information on available apartments and houses?

3.

Do you think the information on available houses/apartments for rent is easy to find? Is

there enough information on available units?

4.

What would make it easier for people to find out about available houses/apartments for

rent?

Are there affordable houses or apartments to rent that are decent?

D. Access to For-sale Housing (information and cost).

1.

Where to people interested in buying a home/condominium find out about properties for

sale? (websites, newspaper, friends or family, for-sale signs in neighborhoods, real estate agents,

ICC, other community organization or agency, etc.)

2.

Where do people interested in buying a home/condominium go to learn about home loan

options? (banks, Native-owned credit union or community development financial institutions,

etc.)

3.

Are there particular barriers or challenges that affect people’s decision or ability to buy a

house/condominium? (difficulty in qualifying for a mortgage, limited access to banks/ lenders,

etc.)

4.

Have you heard about any homebuyer classes that prepare people to become

homeowners? Describe.

E. Homelessness – who is homeless, available resources.

F-13

1.

Is  homelessness or risk of homelessness (e.g., having no residence, staying in a shelter or

transitional housing, staying with friends or family on a non-permanent basis) a problem among

Native Americans/Alaska Natives living in this community?

a.

Would you say there are more people now than there were 5 years ago who have no place

to stay, stay in temporary housing, or double up with family or friends?

2.

Can you describe who the homeless people are in this community in terms of tribal

group, age group, gender, singles / families, other characteristics – employment status, health

status, etc.?

3.

What do you think are the major challenges or barriers to finding decent housing for the

people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless?

4.

Do you know of any housing services or resources available to people who are at risk of

becoming homeless or who are homeless? Describe.

a.

Are these resources sufficient?

b.

Are they helpful based on what you may have heard in the community? Explain

F. Access to Housing Services / organizations that can address housing needs.

1.

Are there any services or resources available in this area for people in need of some type

of housing assistance, such as assistance in finding a place to live, assistance with paying rent,

arranging housing repairs, etc.? Describe

2.

How difficult is it to access the services and resources you mentioned? Describe.

[If NO] What makes them difficult to access? (location, cultural barriers, criteria for receiving

services, etc.)

3.

[If there are tribe-specific organizations] Do members of [name] community tend to go

to an organization only if it is affiliated with their own tribal group? Why?

4.

What would help improve access to housing services available in this area?

5.

To what degree are the available services able to address people’s housing needs?

Explain.

Now I’d like to ask some questions about where people choose to live.

G. Living in Urban Areas and on Indian Land.

1.

Why do you think some people leave [community] to move to a reservation or tribal

land?

a.

And why do you think some people leave more urban areas to move to areas next to a

reservation or tribal land but not on it?

2.

What about people who have grown up in an urban community or have moved to urban

areas in recent memory (well past the time of forced relocation). Why do you think people stay

instead of moving to a reservation or tribal land?

3.

To what degree does availability of housing or housing costs in this area affect people’s

decisions on where to live?

4.

What about you, do you intend to stay here or in another urban area or do you think you

might move someday to a reservation or to tribal land? Why?

5.

For those of you who intend to stay, what might change your mind and lead you to leave

[community]?

6.

For those of you who intend to leave, what might change your mind?

F-14

7.

What are your hopes for your children or grandchildren in this regard? Would you want

them to live here or in another urban area or do you hope they will live on a reservation or tribal

land? Why?

H. Wrap up.

1.

Are there other issues related to housing issues or concerns that I haven’t asked about?

F-15

Discussion Group Participant Information Form

Please complete this form. The information will be used only to summarize who participated in

this discussion group. Your name and address are not needed.

1.  How many years have you lived in this community?___________________________

2.

Have you ever lived on a reservation or tribal land?___________________________

3.

What is the total number of people living in your household?____________________

4.

How many children younger than 18 live in your household? ____________________

5.

What tribe are you enrolled in?____________________________________________

6.

If not enrolled, are you a descendent or otherwise affiliated with a tribe?

If yes, which tribe?______________________________________________________

7.  Are you employed?



Yes



Full time (more than 32 hours per week)



Part time



No

8.  Are you a student?



Yes



Full time



Part time



No

9.  Which category best describes your total household income for 2010? Please include

income from all jobs, public assistance, or social security by anyone in the household, before

taxes. (check one)



Less than $10,000



$10,000 to $19,999



$20,000 to $39,999



$40,000 to $59,999



$60,000 to $79,999



$80,000 to $99,999



$100,000 or more

10.  Are you:



Male



Female

11. What is your age? _____________________

12. What is your housing situation?



Homeowner

F-16



Renter, unassisted



Renter in public housing



Renter with a Housing Choice (Section 8) Voucher



Stay with family or friends



Stay at a shelter or other temporary housing



Currently have no place to stay



Other________________

F-17

Appendix G. Maps of Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas

Exhibit G.1. Anchorage, AK MSA

G- 1

Exhibit G.2. Bakersfield-Delano, CA MSA

G- 2

Exhibit G.3. Billings, MT MSA

G- 3

Exhibit G.4. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH MSA

G- 4

Exhibit G.5. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA

G- 5

Exhibit G.6. Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI MSA

G- 6

Exhibit G.7. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA

G- 7

Exhibit G.8. Duluth, MN-WI MSA

G- 8

Exhibit G.9. Fairbanks, AK MSA

G- 9

Exhibit G.10. Farmington, NM MSA

G- 10

Exhibit G.11. Fayetteville, NC MSA

G- 11

Exhibit G.12. Flagstaff, AZ MSA

G- 12

Exhibit G.13. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA

G- 13

Exhibit G.14. Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN MSA

G- 14

Exhibit G.15. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MSA

G- 15

Exhibit G.16. Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ MSA

G- 16

Exhibit G.17. Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA MSA

G- 17

Exhibit G.18. Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA MSA

G- 18

Exhibit G.19. Reno-Sparks, NV MSA

G- 19

Exhibit G.20. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA MSA

G- 20

Exhibit G. 21. Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA MSA

G- 21

Exhibit G.22. Santa Fe, NM MSA

G- 22

Exhibit G.23. Tucson, AZ MSA

G- 23

Exhibit G.24. Tulsa, OK MSA

G- 24

Appendix H. Supplemental MSA-Level Exhibits

Exhibit H.1. Household Size and Type, by Race of Householder and MSA, 2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

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

Exhibit H.2. Percentage of Households, by Family Relationship Type, Race of Householder,

and MSA, 2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

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

H-  1

Exhibit H.3. Age Group, by Population Type and MSA, 2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

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

Exhibit H.4. Highest Level of Educational Attainment, by Population Type and MSA,

2006–2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. GED = general educational development. MSA =

metropolitan statistical area.

Note: Universe is the population ages 25 and older.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006–2010

H-  2

Exhibit H.5. Economic Characteristics, by Population Type and MSA, 2006–2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey selected population tables, 2006–2010

Exhibit H.6. Housing Cost Burden, by Race of Householder and MSA, 2006–2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Note: Percentage cost burdened is the percentage of households paying more than 30 percent of their

household incomes for housing. Percentage severely cost burdened is the percentage of households

paying more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey selected population tables, 2006–2010

H-  3

Exhibit H.7. Rate of Owner-Occupied Home Purchase Originations, by Race and Ethnicity

of Borrower, for Selected MSAs, 2000 and 2010

AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Note: The way mortgage applicants could identify their race changed in 2004. Before 2004, applicants could select only one race. Starting in 2004, they could identify with one or more races. Therefore, AIAN

data for 2000 include those applicants who identified as AIAN when they could choose only one race.

AIAN data for 2010 include those who identified as AIAN and no other races (that is, identified as AIAN

alone).

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, 2000 and 2010

H-  4

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

January 2017

Document Outline

- Cover

- Acknowledgments

- Disclaimer

- Foreword

- Contents

- List of Exhibits

- Executive Summary

- Overview of Methods

- Overview of Key Findings

- 1. Introduction

- Research Contribution

- Methods

- Study Limitations

- Overview of the Report

- 2. Characteristics of Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas

- Location of Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas

- Size of Metropolitan Statistical Areas

- Ethnicity of the American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Population

- Distance to Nearest Tribal Area

- Share of Metropolitan Statistical Areas That Is Tribal Land

- Suburbs: Urban Versus Rural

- Summary

- 3. Population Growth, Distribution, and Mobility

- Geographic Distribution Nationwide

- Population Size and Growth, Distribution, and Mobility in the Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas

- 4. Social and Economic Conditions

- Age

- Household Size

- Household Type

- Labor Force Characteristics

- Income and Poverty

- 5. Housing Conditions, Problems, and Needs

- Housing Structure Type

- Housing Availability

- Housing Problems and Needs

- Housing Conditions: Primary Cities Versus Suburbs

- Challenges To Obtaining Housing

- Homelessness

- Impact of the Recession

- 6. Housing and Housing-Related Services in Urban Areas

- Types of Services Available

- Variations in Service Environment

- Funding Sources

- Barriers To Gaining Access to Services

- Needed Services

- 7. Homeownership and Access to Mortgage Financing

- Homeownership Rates and Mortgage Originations

- High-Cost Loans

- Denial Rates

- Respondent-Identified Challenges

- 8. Conclusions

- Directions for Future Research

- Appendix A. Glossary

- Appendix B. References

- Appendix C. Comparing Social and Economic Characteristics Nationwide Between 1990 and 2010

- Appendix D. Site Selection and Replacement

- Appendix E. List of Indian Community Centers

- Appendix F. Outreach and Data Collection Methods

- Appendix G. Maps of Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas

- Appendix H. Supplemental MSA-Level Exhibits

- Back Cover

Table of Contents

Cover

Acknowledgments

Disclaimer

Foreword

Contents

List of Exhibits

Executive Summary

Overview of Methods

Overview of Key Findings

1. Introduction

Research Contribution

Methods

Study Limitations

Overview of the Report

2. Characteristics of Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas

Location of Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas

Size of Metropolitan Statistical Areas

Ethnicity of the American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Population

Distance to Nearest Tribal Area

Share of Metropolitan Statistical Areas That Is Tribal Land

Suburbs: Urban Versus Rural

Summary

3. Population Growth, Distribution, and Mobility

Geographic Distribution Nationwide

Population Size and Growth, Distribution, and Mobility in the Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas

4. Social and Economic Conditions

Age

Household Size

Household Type

Labor Force Characteristics

Income and Poverty

5. Housing Conditions, Problems, and Needs

Housing Structure Type

Housing Availability

Housing Problems and Needs

Housing Conditions: Primary Cities Versus Suburbs

Challenges To Obtaining Housing

Homelessness

Impact of the Recession

6. Housing and Housing-Related Services in Urban Areas

Types of Services Available

Variations in Service Environment

Funding Sources

Barriers To Gaining Access to Services

Needed Services

7. Homeownership and Access to Mortgage Financing

Homeownership Rates and Mortgage Originations

High-Cost Loans

Denial Rates

Respondent-Identified Challenges

8. Conclusions

Directions for Future Research

Appendix A. Glossary

Appendix B. References

Appendix C. Comparing Social and Economic Characteristics Nationwide Between 1990 and 2010

Appendix D. Site Selection and Replacement

Appendix E. List of Indian Community Centers

Appendix F. Outreach and Data Collection Methods

Appendix G. Maps of Sampled Metropolitan Statistical Areas

Appendix H. Supplemental MSA-Level Exhibits

Back Cover