Housing Needs of American 

Indians and Alaska Natives in 

Tribal Areas:  

A Report From the Assessment of 

American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs

Executive Summary

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

Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in 

Tribal Areas:  

A Report From the Assessment of 

American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs

Executive Summary

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Housing  

and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development  

and Research

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Nancy Pindus

G. Thomas Kingsley

Jennifer Biess

Diane Levy

Jasmine Simington

Christopher Hayes

Urban Institute

January 2017

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

this framework. Congress has provided 

a fairly consistent level of funding for its primary delivery mechanism, the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG), administered by During the past two decades, although 

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban improvements have been made, the 

Development (HUD)—in nominal terms—

overcrowding and physical housing 

but this flow has been seriously eroded by problems of American Indians and Alaska inflation. Inadequate funding appears to be a Natives (AIANs) living on reservations and major constraint at this point.

other tribal areas remain strikingly more severe than those of other Americans. 

Regardless of the extent to which previous Particular circumstances of tribal areas—

funding levels can be restored, however, remoteness, lack of infrastructure, and HUD and other federal agencies need to complex legal and other constraints related assist and encourage the tribes to better to land ownership—make it extremely 

leverage the assistance they receive and difficult to improve housing conditions in to foster both economic development and those areas, although it is important to point housing improvement. In the move toward out that tribal area housing problems and self-determination, many tribes have recently the barriers to addressing them are much been innovative in making progress in both more challenging in some locations and areas. The agencies need to build on these regions of the country than in others.

examples, working with the tribes to catalyze further progress, especially in tribal areas The nation’s central legal framework for where current problems are most severe. 

providing housing assistance in Indian Country—the Native American Housing 

This main final report includes the principal Assistance and Self-Determination Act 

findings and conclusions of the Assessment (NAHASDA) of 1996, which gives the tribes of American Indian, Alaska Native, 

primary responsibility for the use of federal and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs, a 

and other assistance in addressing these congressionally mandated study funded by problems—appears to be working more 

HUD and carried out by the Urban Institute effectively than did the previous approach. 

and its subcontractors, Econometrica, Inc.; Although the need for further capacity NORC at the University of Chicago; and improvements remains widespread, the 

Support Services International, Inc.1 

tribes have demonstrated the ability to construct and rehabilitate housing for low-Conducted between 2011 and 2016, this 

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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

1

Executive Summary

conditions and policies ever undertaken Nationwide, the number of people who 

in Indian Country.2 It entailed in-person identified their race as AIAN grew from surveys of individual households in their 4.1 million in 2000 to 5.2 million in 2010—

homes in a representative sample of 38 

an increase of 27 percent. In 2010, this tribal areas (1,340 completed interviews), population included 2.6 million who said a large-scale telephone survey of the tribal they belonged to other racial groups in departments and other local entities that addition to AIAN (the “AIAN multirace” 

administer the IHBG for the tribes (Tribal/

population). This group grew most rapidly Tribally Designated Housing Entity [TDHE] 

in urban areas outside Indian Country and Survey, 110 completed interviews), and grew much more rapidly overall than those interviews with a broader array of local who identified AIAN as their only race (the leaders in site visits to 22 of the sampled 

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

areas. The study also entailed extensive policy community, however, have suggested analysis of data from the U.S. Census 

that a significant number in the multirace Bureau and other secondary sources.

group living in urban areas may not be members of the recognized tribes that are This report focuses on conditions in the 617 

NAHASDA’s intended beneficiaries. 

AIAN tribal areas defined by the U.S. Census Bureau and on the 526 counties that contain It has also been suggested, however, 

or immediately surround them. The report that a high percentage of both the AIAN 

has three parts: (1) Demographic, Social, multiracial and AIAN-alone populations that and Economic Conditions; (2) Housing 

live in tribal areas and their surrounding Conditions and Needs; and (3) Housing 

counties are likely to be tribal members. 

Policies and Programs.

Their growth has been somewhat slower, but it is still much stronger than the U.S. 

Demographic, Social,  

population growth overall. The AIAN-

and Economic Conditions 

alone population grew much faster in tribal areas and the surrounding counties than it Three things about a population are most did in the rest of the nation—by 10 versus critical to understanding its demand for and 6 percent. From 2000 to 2010, the total effects on housing conditions: (1) whether it AIAN population (AIAN-alone plus AIAN 

is growing, (2) how its economic well-being multirace) grew by 12 percent in the tribal compares with that of other groups, and (3) areas and by 31 percent in the surrounding whether its socioeconomic conditions are counties (compared with the overall U.S. 

internally uniform or diverse.

growth rate of 10 percent). By 2010, the The AIAN population in tribal areas total AIAN population had reached 1.15 

and their surrounding counties 

million in tribal areas and 1.32 million in the continues to grow rapidly. Patterns surrounding counties.

suggest that links to traditional tribal The overall economic well-being of areas and cultures remain strong—

the AIAN population remains generally most who identify AIAN as their only more problematic than that of non-race are remaining on tribal land or AIANs almost everywhere and is worse staying close to tribal areas rather than for AIANs in tribal areas than for AIANs moving to distant cities.

living in other parts of the country.

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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

2

Executive Summary

For example, the American Community 

Since 1990, researchers have seen increasing Survey (ACS) shows that, compared with tribal efforts to create environments 

a U.S. average poverty rate of 18 percent supportive of private entrepreneurship—

in the 2006-to-2010 period, AIAN-alone 

“tribes investing in their own capacities poverty rates stood at 22 percent in 

to govern and thereby improving local 

metropolitan counties outside Indian 

accountability and encouraging tribal and Country, 28 percent in the surrounding non-tribal investments in human and other counties, and 32 percent in tribal areas capital” (Harvard Project on American 

(exhibit ES.1). The latter figure is almost Indian Economic Development, 2008: 111). 

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

New economic activity includes large-scale investments by the tribes and a variety of Notable advances in socioeconomic 

businesses started by private tribal members. 

conditions in many tribal areas have Gaming has played a part in this economic occurred during the past two decades, activity—substantially increasing wealth in however, offering promising models some places—but it has not been the primary for change. These advances include driver of development in most areas and has improvements in the capacity of the an uncertain future as a basis for economic people (higher educational attainment) development.

and vigorous initiatives by tribes exercising their self-determination to An important understanding for policy drive economic development.

is that conditions in tribal areas are markedly diverse across the nation.

From 2000 to 2006–2010 the share of 

AIAN adults living in tribal areas that had a One example indicator that illustrates bachelor’s degree or higher went up only this point is the share of a tribal area’s slightly, from 7.8 to 9.2 percent, but this population that has a private-sector job. 

increase narrowed the gap in educational The measure is positively correlated with attainment in tribal areas as compared to population growth and other indicators the non-AIAN population during that period. 

of economic well-being and inversely 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

3

Executive Summary

correlated with remote locations. In the representative snapshot of tribal areas top quarter of the 213 largest tribal areas3 

as of the time period 2013 to 2015, which by this measure, private employees 

provides data on all these problems. The accounted for 17 percent or more of the second source is U.S. Census Bureau 

population. In the bottom quarter, they data. Although the Census Bureau does 

accounted for less than 7 percent. The top not collect any data on three of these quarter is spread across many parts of the problems—heating, electrical, or condition country, although a distinct cluster is in deficiencies—it does collect data on all Oklahoma. Regarding the bottom quarter, the other indicators and has the benefit large clusters are located in the poorest of supporting comparisons over time and regions of Indian Country: Arizona/New between geographies, which, because of Mexico, the Plains and northwest Alaska. 

sample size limitations, cannot be done with Although the distinction between public- 

the household survey data.

and private-sector jobs is somewhat 

blurred by tribal and state definitions of Data from this project’s household certain tribal enterprises, this example survey show that physical housing 

does serve to highlight economic diversity problems for AIAN households in tribal in Indian Country. 

areas remain much more severe than for U.S. households, on average, in Housing Conditions and Needs 

almost all categories. The share of AIAN 

households in tribal areas with a cost The central motivation for this study was to burden problem, however, is comparable determine the extent of housing problems with that of all U.S. households.

and needs in Indian Country. This study follows standards that HUD uses in its Physical housing problems have declined work on worst case housing needs. These enough to be negligible for the United standards start with physical problems in States, on average—incidences typically three categories:

of 1 to 2 percent—but not for American Indians and Alaska Natives in tribal areas. 

1.  Systems deficiencies—plumbing, kitchen, For example, 2013 American Housing 

heating, and electrical.

Survey data show the U.S. average share of 2. Condition problems, including structural households with plumbing deficiencies was deficiencies, holes in the wall, and so forth.

1 percent, but this study’s household survey shows the share for AIAN populations 

3. Overcrowding, defined by having more in tribal areas was 6 percent; the share than one person per room.

with heating deficiencies was 2 percent for the United States but 12 percent for The analysis then addresses the 

AIANs in tribal areas; the share that was most rapidly growing problem nearly 

overcrowded was 2 percent for the United everywhere—affordability, or  cost burden—

States but 16 percent for AIANs in tribal defined as when households are paying 

areas (exhibit ES.2). The only problems in more than 30 percent of their income for which the incidences were nearly the same housing expenses. 

were electrical deficiencies (about 1 percent Findings are based on two sources of 

for both) and cost burden (36 percent 

information. The first source is this project’s for the United States versus 38 percent in completed household survey—a nationally tribal areas). 

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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

4

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES.2 - Individual Housing Problems in Tribal Areas and United States 12.0

12

10

8

6.6

6

5.6

AIAN in Tribal Areas

4

Total US

Percent of AIAN alone households with incomplete facilities 2

1.7

1.3

1.4

1.1

0.1

0

Plumbing

Kitchen

Electrical

Heating

Physical Problems

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

Adding up these measures would yield 

Altogether, then, 34 percent of AIAN 

an inaccurate estimate of the number of households had one or more physical 

households affected by one or more of 

problems compared with only 7 percent 

these problems, because it would involve for U.S. households, on average. Including double counting (a single household, for the cost burden-only measure, 57 percent example, might have a cost burden problem of AIAN households had one or more 

plus a kitchen or plumbing deficiency and identified housing problems of any kind also be overcrowded, and so forth). This (compared with 40 percent of the U.S. 

study also accordingly calculated incidences households overall). 

in mutually exclusive categories. 

Any estimate of the amount of new 

These calculations show that 10 percent of housing required to address the needs of AIAN tribal area households had plumbing a population must be based on a set of and/or kitchen deficiencies. Another 

assumptions, and those assumptions are 13 percent that did not have plumbing 

always open to question and alternative or kitchen deficiencies had some mix 

formulations. The assumptions developed of heating, electrical, and/or condition by the research team for this study 

problems, and another 11 percent that did indicate that, as of the 2013–2015 period, not have any of the previous problems were it would have been necessary to build 

overcrowded. Finally, for another 23 percent, around 33,000 new units to eliminate the cost burden was their only problem.

overcrowding of the AIAN population in tribal areas and another 35,000 new units HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

5

Executive Summary

to replace units that were severely physically times the all-tribal area average of 13 

inadequate, yielding a total need of around percent). These three regions accounted 68,000 new units. 

for 44 percent of all AIAN households in tribal areas, but they accounted for 73 

Census/ACS data also confirm that 

percent of those households that had 

physical housing problems for AIAN 

physical housing problems. 

households in tribal areas remain much more severe than for U.S. households, The shares with cost burden-only problems on average. They also show that, 

are higher in other regions. In fact, across for low-income AIAN households in 

tribal areas, the incidence of cost burden tribal areas, the incidence of physical problems was inversely related to the 

problems is much higher (by about 40 

incidence of overcrowding and other 

percent) than for the average AIAN 

physical problems; in other words, places household in tribal areas. Finally, they with the most serious overcrowding 

show that marked differences exist problems generally had among the lowest in the severity of these problems in cost burden problems, and vice versa.

different regions and locations. Cost burden problems, however, have 

Among the 213 largest tribal areas, 

grown since 1990 and their locations the quarter with the highest levels of appear to be inversely correlated with overcrowding—all more than 18 percent—

those of physical problems.

was mostly in the poorest regions—the 

Plains, Arizona/New Mexico, and Alaska. 

The analysis uses data from the ACS for By contrast, the quarter with the lowest the 2006-to-2010 period (the period just overcrowding—all at less than 4.5 percent—

before the housing collapse and the Great was, in general, in places that came out Recession), remembering that the only 

among the highest in terms of private-sector physical problems covered by these data employment, as discussed earlier.

are plumbing/kitchen deficiencies and 

overcrowding. The data show that one or This study generally confirms what has more of these physical problems affected become the conventional wisdom about 13 percent of AIAN households in tribal homelessness in Indian Country; namely areas. This number is much higher—by three that, in tribal areas, homelessness times—than the comparable number for all mostly translates into overcrowding U.S. households at that time—4 percent. 

rather than having people sleeping on The share of low-income AIAN households the street. The study estimates that, (those with incomes that are less than 80 

at the time of the household survey percent of the local median) in tribal areas in 2013–2015, between 42,000 and 

with physical problems was much more 

85,000 people in tribal areas were severe: 18 percent, almost 40 percent more staying with friends or relatives only than the AIAN tribal area average. 

because they had no place of their own; that is, they were homeless.

Substantial variations occurred in the incidence of these problems by region. 

It is generally understood that AIAN families Physical problems were, by far, the most in tribal areas who do have housing tend serious in three of the study regions—the to take in family members and others who Plains, Arizona/New Mexico, and Alaska do not have a place to stay. The tribal/

(which reaches a high of 36 percent, three TDHE survey and site visit interviews 

generally support this conclusion as does the HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

6

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES.3 - Overcrowded households in Tribal Areas and United States 20

15.9

15

10

Percent of households experiencing overcrowding 5

2.2

0

AIAN in Tribal Areas

Total US

Population

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

household survey (exhibit ES.3). According these households with no place else to stay to the household survey, 19 percent of (that is, the doubled-up homeless) totaled household heads said they had more 

between 42,000 and 85,000—between 3.6 

household members than could live in their and 7.2 percent of the total 2013–2015 AIAN 

unit comfortably (somewhat more than the 16 

population in tribal areas. 

percent that were overcrowded by the HUD 

standard) and 17 percent said they did have This study confirms that a strong 

some household members that were there preference remains for homeownership only because they had no other place to stay. 

in tribal areas. The homeownership rate in tribal areas is already high, but many Very few of the heads of these households households are renters, and nearly all (19 percent) said they would ask these want to become homeowners. They 

people to leave, but the vast majority (80 

face notable barriers, however, in percent) of the people involved would like achieving that goal.

to get a place of their own if they could. 

This 17 percent of households represents This study’s household survey reports that the first sample-based estimate ever made 68 percent of AIAN households in tribal related to this form of homelessness in areas were homeowners in 2013–2015. It also tribal areas nationwide. Further, this study reports that 90 percent of renters would estimates that the number of people in prefer to own their own home (and 90 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

7

Executive Summary

percent of them said they would contribute Housing Authorities (IHAs) implemented their own labor if it would enable them to them on the ground, operating under 

do so). 

strong HUD oversight.

Of current homeowners responding to 

By 1990, the IHAs had developed 67,400 

the household survey, 8 percent had been assisted housing units, a number equal to denied a mortgage, and 9 percent of renters 42 percent of all low-income households who had applied for a mortgage had been living in Indian Country at the time. 

turned down. Both groups mentioned that Dissatisfaction with these programs, 

the most common reason for being denied however, was present on several levels. 

a mortgage was a low credit score or lack Criticisms included overly complex 

of a credit history. The next most common procedures, a lack of flexibility, coordination reason that renters mentioned was not 

problems, and the lack of trained personnel. 

having a sufficient downpayment. 

Underlying these criticisms was deeper dissatisfaction with the extent to which Those who had never applied for a 

HUD controlled these programs, giving 

mortgage also experienced barriers to 

tribal leaders insufficient influence over homeownership. This group of households program planning and operations.

mentioned additional barriers that 

include not having sufficient savings, not Recognizing these problems, in an era in having a regular source of income, and which self-determination had become the lack of access to a mortgage lender. Of central theme of U.S. Native American 

the households that were interested in policy, Congress replaced this approach homeownership but had never applied for with a new framework in 1996: the Native a mortgage, 29 percent also mentioned 

American Housing Assistance and Self-

that they did not know how to buy a 

Determination Act. NAHASDA brought 

home or were unfamiliar with the loan 

a new funding delivery mechanism—the 

application process, lending terms, or real Indian Housing Block Grant—allocated to estate transactions.

tribes via a needs-based formula. Funds are given directly to the tribes, rather Housing Policies and Programs 

than to IHAs. The tribal governments may The U.S. government has a general trust run the program themselves or assign 

obligation to promote the welfare of AIAN 

operating responsibility to a Tribally populations by supplying housing along Designated Housing Entity that reports with other services on reservations and to them. The tribes must prepare an 

other tribal areas. Notable progress began Indian Housing Plan (IHP) and annual 

to be made toward this end in housing 

performance reports and submit them 

in the 1960s, with expanded production to HUD’s Office of Native American 

under two programs implemented under 

Programs (ONAP), which is responsible 

provisions of the Housing Act of 1937: for overall performance monitoring and (1) the low-rent program (operated like quality control. 

public housing elsewhere in the nation) IHBG funding must cover continuing 

and (2) the Mutual Help program (a 

support for the remaining stock funded lease-purchase type of homeownership 

under the 1937 Act programs—the 

program). HUD administered these 

Formula Current Assisted Stock (FCAS)—

programs and a network of local Indian and also assisted housing development 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

8

Executive Summary

(new construction, acquisition, and 

that level. The 2014 amount ($637 million in rehabilitation), planning and administration, nominal dollars) represented only $440 million and an array of activities that support in 1998 purchasing power (exhibit ES.4).

affordable housing and its residents (for example, housing counseling, energy 

Funding for housing development has been audits, crime prevention, and safety). 

especially hard hit because other categories of expenditures (including FCAS support) Congress has provided a fairly 

involve comparatively fixed costs and are consistent level of funding for the very hard to reduce proportionally as inflation IHBG in nominal terms, but this flow takes its toll. Amounts available for housing has been seriously eroded by inflation. 

development are squeezed as a result.

Funding for housing development has been especially hard hit.

During the 1998-to-2006 period, total 

expenditures averaged $636 million annually Since 1998, the first year that IHBG became in constant 1998 dollars. Mostly because operational, Congress has provided a 

of the effects of inflation, the amount had consistent level of funding annually in nominal declined to an average of $429 million per terms—an average of about $667 million year during the 2011-to-2014 period—a 

per year from 1998 through 2014. During 17 

decline of almost exactly one-third. During years, however, inflation has seriously eroded the 2011-to-2014 period, the tribes were Exhibit ES.4 - Amount of IHBG Funds Awarded, 1998 to 2014

800

700

600

500

)

Constant 1998 Dollars

400

Nominal Dollars

1998 Dollars (in millions

300

200

100

0

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Year

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

9

Executive Summary

able to spend only $128 million per year for This conclusion about tribal capacity is housing development in 1998 dollars, about strongly reinforced by what the tribes one-half of the $244 million the program were able to do with an unexpected 

had been able to spend on housing during injection of additional funds from ARRA the 1998-to-2006 period.

in 2009. ARRA provided $47.25 million 

for IHBG activities on top of the regular The tribes have demonstrated the 

IHBG allocation, with the proviso that capacity to construct and rehabilitate funds would be recaptured if they were housing for low-income families at not obligated within 1 year of the date substantial levels under the NAHASDA they were made available and spent within framework. Their ability to effectively 3 years. The tribes were able to spend use an unexpected injection of funding virtually all (more than 99 percent) of these under the American Recovery and 

funds consistent with that requirement, Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 

yielding an additional 1,954 new 

toward these ends in a very limited construction units and 13,338 rehabilitated time period is particularly strong units between 2009 and 2012. 

evidence supporting this conclusion.

Under the regular IHBG allocations, 

What has happened to the quantity of 

however, the constant dollar funding 

assisted housing in Indian Country since reductions noted previously caused a 

NAHASDA was enacted? First, as would 

different pattern of production during the be expected, a decline has occurred in 2011-to-2014 period. Tribes responded by the number of FCAS (1937 Act) units 

cutting back new construction (to 2,000 

available—from 72,000 in 2003 to 

units per year) and expanding the number 49,000 in 2014. Nearly all of this loss was of rehabilitated units (to 4,800 per year), accounted for by conveyances of Mutual presumably judging that an emphasis on Help units to their residents (as called for rehabilitation, given the overall funding in the program design) rather than by 

constraint, would allow them to reach a demolition. Losses to the low-rent program larger share of the families in need.

inventory have been negligible.

Since the enactment of NAHASDA, 

These reductions in older FCAS units have large increases have occurred in 

been more than made up for, however, 

the number of HUD grantees and 

by new production under the IHBG. In its in the share of all programs being early years (from 1998 through 2006), the administered directly by tribal 

IHBG program supported the building of governments. Many indications 

an average of 1,900 new assisted housing suggest that these programs 

units per year and the rehabilitating of an generally are meeting basic functional additional 2,700 units annually. Production expectations and that the tribes prefer then increased to peak levels in the 2007-operations under NAHASDA to the 

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

previous system.

rehabilitated units per year). One question raised before the enactment of NAHASDA In 1995, HUD assistance in Indian Country was whether the tribes would be able to was being administered by 187 IHAs, serving produce as much housing on their own 

467 tribes. In fiscal year 2014, 363 compliant as had occurred under the earlier HUD-IHPs had been submitted to serve 563 

directed system. These numbers give an tribes. This project’s tribal/TDHE survey answer clearly in the affirmative.

indicated that offices of tribal governments HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

10

Executive Summary

were administering 41 percent of these local populations, insufficient funding, and programs and TDHEs were administering 

limited opportunities for staff training. 

the rest (96 percent of the latter said they were then, or had been, IHAs). 

Among the sites visited and the tribal/TDHE 

survey respondents, most organizations Despite concerns about administrative 

offer only housing assistance programs capacity, ONAP reports widespread 

funded under the IHBG program. Among 

compliance with program requirements and those that do offer other programs, 

general ability to disburse funds rapidly. 

the most commonly cited were the 

The tribal/TDHE survey indicates that, for Housing Improvement Program of the 

most programs, the number of full-time U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau staff remained stable during the past 3 

of Indian Affairs and HUD’s Low-Income years (although, at 11 of 22 sites visited, Housing Tax Credit program. Few 

administrators said they were understaffed).

respondents named the Indian Community Development Block Grant program as a 

Local administrators recognize that they major program for their tribal area. 

have enhanced flexibility under NAHASDA (for example, 83 percent of survey 

Although the flexibility of NAHASDA respondents said it is easier to leverage enables tribes to design, develop, and private funds now). They indicated no call operate their own affordable housing for any major overhaul of IHBG regulations, programs based on local needs, tribal although some changes were requested, 

housing departments and TDHEs still such as those pertaining to program 

face significant challenges in carrying administration (58 percent) and developing out their plans.

new units (50 percent). 

Almost all respondents to the tribal/TDHE 

When asked about what they would like to survey indicated that development costs change, most respondents suggested they had increased during the past 3 years, with would like to be able to offer assistance to 40 percent saying costs had increased 

families just above the eligibility line who, greatly and 57 percent saying costs had even though somewhat better off, still increased somewhat. In addition, 35 percent cannot afford decent housing in tribal areas. 

of tribal/TDHEs reported that development Survey respondents also said they would cost was a very serious constraint, and like more training; priorities were for training another 15 percent said it was a fairly serious in building maintenance, information/

constraint in developing new housing. When computer systems, and case management 

asked to name the top three factors that support in resident services.

increase the cost of developing new housing, tribes/TDHEs cited the following barriers Most tribes and TDHEs rely on partnerships most frequently: developing infrastructure to provide a broader array of services (70 percent), availability of labor (39 

than would otherwise be possible and 

percent), lack of funds (34 percent), and on contractors to provide administrative acquiring or assembling land (30 percent). 

and building-related services. Although Other challenges reported by tribes included contracting is a sound business strategy risk of flooding, water shortages, and the for accomplishing objectives with limited aging of existing infrastructure. 

resources, in some cases, these relationships appear to be necessary for reasons of 

The availability of labor is affected because limited organizational capacity and staff tribal housing agencies do not have enough capability, which are attributed to sparse construction activity to support construction HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

11

Executive Summary

workers (either in-house employees or 

A number of programs have been 

contractors) on a consistent basis. This developed to address the challenges of scarcity of work results in the need for lending in Indian Country, including the workers with the necessary skills to travel Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee outside the tribal area for work and then not Program under the Housing and Community be available when needed in the tribal area. 

Development Act of 1992, as amended 

by NAHASDA; Section 502 Direct Loan 

Land assembly and acquisition remain as Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture frequent problems that add to the cost Rural Housing); and U.S. Department of of development. The main source of this Veterans Affairs Native American Direct challenge is fractionated land, which is the Loan Program. The Section 184 loan 

result of allotments that have been divided program, by providing lenders with a 

among heirs through probate. Having many 100-percent guarantee for mortgages to owners makes it hard to assemble large AIAN borrowers originated on tribal trust enough parcels for development. To solve this land, essentially eliminates problems with problem, a few tribes have initiated efforts to the unique nature of tribal trust land used buy back fractionated land or land adjacent as collateral. Section 184 serves AIAN 

to tribal lands. Other sites try to ensure that borrowers both on and off trust lands. 

the housing agency owns its own land. 

Rather than tribal trust land issues, the Survey respondents suggested that their lenders interviewed in this study indicated biggest challenges in operating the rental that mortgage lending on tribal trust land program were tenants damaging their units remains a time-consuming process that 

(91 percent), controlling criminal activity (74 

reduces the appeal of lending on tribal trust percent), and tenants not paying rent on land, even with the federal guarantee. This time (65 percent). 

process is so long, in part, because of the requirements under the Section 184 loan A changing landscape exists regarding program for tribes to develop and execute mortgage lending in Indian Country, leases for land on which the mortgaged with greater lending activity and 

property is located. Therefore, lenders a lessening of once seemingly 

indicate that they prefer to work with tribes intractable problems, such as those that have the capacity to develop leases related to tribal trust land.

and get them approved relatively quickly.

Originating mortgages on properties 

The Helping Expedite and Advance 

located in Indian Country presents unique Responsible Tribal Homeownership 

challenges that relate to the legal status (HEARTH) Act of 2012 is viewed as a of lands on reservations; the remote 

promising approach to assist tribes in locations of reservations that inhibit the assembling land for development.

development of an infrastructure that can support mortgage lending; a lack of cultural The HEARTH Act of 2012 creates an 

understanding by mainstream lenders 

alternative land leasing process. Tribes of Native American attitudes toward the are authorized to execute agricultural use of credit, particularly when used for and business leases of tribal trust lands a land transaction; and, possibly, lenders’ 

for a primary term of 25 years and up 

discrimination against Native American to two renewal terms of 25 years each 

mortgage applicants. 

without approval by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, provided governing tribal leasing regulations have HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

12

Executive Summary

already been submitted to the Secretary. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Before 2012, tribes had to submit leases of tribal land to the Secretary of the Interior Although needs for capacity 

for approval. Under the HEARTH Act, 

improvement remain widespread, 

tribes make their own decisions about 

the housing assistance system 

land leasing, exercising their right of self-established under NAHASDA appears 

determination. Leveraging trust land was to be functioning reasonably well and one goal expressed by tribal officials, who doing what it was intended to do. It were enthusiastic about the potential of represents a marked improvement 

the HEARTH Act to break down barriers to over the previous approach.

leasing on tribal land. 

This project was not asked to conduct 

Tribes have developed programs 

a formal evaluation of NAHASDA. 

for potential homebuyers, often 

Nonetheless, it offers many findings 

in partnership with nonprofit 

pertinent to an understanding of how 

organizations and financial institutions.

programs are working in the NAHASDA 

framework and of opportunities to 

In addition to having processing 

improve performance.

issues, many potential borrowers have 

creditworthiness issues and insufficient When NAHASDA was enacted, some in the 

incomes or savings to qualify for mortgages, Native American housing policy community, even those mortgages guaranteed under the including some appropriators and IHA 

Section 184 program that have more flexible officials, expressed uncertainty about tribes’ 

underwriting standards than do Federal capacity to administer the new program Housing Administration or conventional and avoid abuses when federal controls loans. Lenders report that prepurchase were reduced. This study shows that these counseling, particularly counseling 

challenges have largely been addressed. 

provided by organizations familiar with 

•  The tribes were able to establish new the unique challenges of lending on tribal administrative entities and processes to trust land, is critical to getting borrowers administer the IHGB and related programs mortgage ready. Moreover, downpayment 

fairly quickly after enactment.

assistance programs can help borrowers with insufficient savings qualify for Section 

•  The new system (IHBG, the NAHASDA 

184 program mortgages. Many tribes have block grant) has proven it is able to match designed local programs to respond to 

or exceed the rate of assisted housing these barriers to homeownership among 

production in Indian Country under the their members. The diversity of tribal old approach (1937 Act programs). Limits land requires that homebuyer education on funding are now a major constraint on be tailored to the unique needs of tribes. 

production.

Topics addressed in homebuyer education programs include establishing credit and 

•  This study could not provide much direct improving a low credit rating, understanding evidence on the quality of IHBG housing the homebuying process, and responsibilities or costs per unit, but nothing indicates of homeownership. A number of tribes also that these measures under IHBG have 

offer downpayment assistance programs. 

been inadequate or different than those produced under the old system.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

13

Executive Summary

•  As hoped, the mix of housing types and real terms. At this time, insufficient funding, development patterns produced under 

more than administrative capacity, is the NAHASDA appears more sensitive to 

major constraint on providing housing. 

cultural and other local determinants in individual tribal areas than was the case In considering policy options, the diversity under the old approach.

of conditions across tribal areas is of great importance. Housing problems in some 

•  Although far from ubiquitous, many 

tribal areas are much more severe than in examples of leveraging and innovative 

others. The focus must be on innovative practice today could not have taken 

technical assistance and training that will place under the pre-NAHASDA system. 

encourage the tribes, especially those Likewise substantial qualitative evidence most in need, to markedly enhance their indicates that processes are more efficient own development efforts—learning from 

now than under the previous, more rule-other tribes that have been most successful bound approach. In general, the tribes in expanding their local economies and seem to be stepping up to the challenge channeling resources to address unmet 

of self-determination in housing.

housing needs efficiently.

•  Qualitative evidence also supports 

A new type of targeted approach is 

the view that the system is now 

recommended then—one that jointly 

more broadly accountable to tribal 

addresses economic and housing 

members—that tribal members are able 

development in tribal areas that are most to participate more through their tribal distressed. Although HUD programs in 

governments in planning and other 

tribal areas have always had the twin 

programmatic decisionmaking.

purposes of housing and economic 

development, a stronger focus on this 

•  Although they recommend 

intersection is needed. This approach 

some changes, tribal leaders and 

envisions movement toward an ideal 

administrators almost uniformly prefer program, while maintaining the current operations under NAHASDA to the 

IHBG program. In many cases, this 

system that existed before. 

approach may involve helping the tribes Regardless of the extent to which 

make the fundamental institutional changes previous funding levels can be 

that have been critical to establishing a restored, HUD and other federal 

dynamic market economy in tribal areas agencies need to assist and encourage elsewhere: emphasizing the rule of law in the tribes to better leverage the 

dispute resolution and other aspects of assistance they receive to generate tribal activity, separating politics from day-both economic development and 

to-day administration and business affairs, housing improvement in an integrated and creating an efficient tribal bureaucracy. 

manner, particularly in the places that It would also include, however, practical need it most.

technical assistance and training on the specific design and operation of programs It is clear that the amount of federal housing developed to support the new strategies. 

assistance provided to Indian Country to this Models would be developed based on 

point has not been sufficient to meet the successful programs implemented in other need. In addition, the flow of IHBG funding is tribal areas but modified, as appropriate, to now trending down in relation to this need in address cultural and other differences.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

14

Executive Summary

ONAP could play a leading role in this and for larger tribal areas individually (as effort. It has a solid track record of long-demonstrated by the use of ACS data in established relationships helping tribes this report). A major increase in the national achieve their housing objectives and could sample size was implemented in 2011, so ACS 

use reporting and technical assistance data in the future will be more reliable than is activities to support efforts that combine the 2006–2010 data used in this report.4

housing and economic development. ONAP 

would need additional resources enabling it It is recommended that HUD support studies to play an expanded role. 

that rely on decennial census and ACS data in census years (for example, 2020, 2030) HUD should initiate a program to more and on ACS data alone for the intervening frequently monitor housing and other 5-year points (for example, 2015, 2025, conditions of the AIAN population 

2035). The currency of the data should nationwide, primarily taking advantage make a greater contribution to timely and of the Census Bureau’s ACS.

cost-effective adaptations of policies and programs. Two reports are recommended in HUD published its first comprehensive 

each reporting year. 

national assessment of AIAN housing 

conditions in 1996. Between that time and 1.  A report on conditions for AIAN 

this study, 20 years later, all stakeholders populations nationwide across all 

concerned with housing conditions in 

geographies. It would compare 

tribal areas have had little information on indicators for AIAN populations in 

changing circumstances to guide their 

tribal areas and surrounding counties 

policy deliberations. The long time gap is with those in other metropolitan and 

explained by the fact that this study was nonmetropolitan areas. No one else now very expensive—$6.3 million during 6 years. 

regularly produces a report like this and With competing demands for research 

it should be of great value to the overall resources, decisionmakers had a difficult time AIAN policy community. 

mobilizing support for a study of this scope.

2. A report focused on tribal areas, with The high cost of this study was driven the NAHASDA/HUD policy community 

mostly by the challenging task of conducting as its primary audience. This report 

a reliable random sample household survey, would examine trends in housing 

particularly in tribal areas, which often lack conditions, problems, and needs in tribal rural addressing in many places and require areas and also program performance 

intensive fieldwork to build sample frames. 

under NAHASDA. 

There are strong reasons to believe, however, An additional need must be considered. In that almost all of the information that needs the course of this study, many tribes said to be updated for policymaking can be 

they would like to develop much better obtained without a separate household 

data on housing conditions and other 

survey. ACS data are now released every circumstances on their own individual 

year, and, although sample sizes are too reservations to guide program planning. 

small to support reliable estimates for This interest, in part, can be met for the smaller tribal areas individually, they are larger tribes (that is, where ACS sample ample to support reports on most needed sizes warrant) by sending them standard indicators for tribal areas in total by region situation profiles from the ACS each year 4   This increase raised the national sample to 3.5 million addresses, up from 2.9 million in the 2000s (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

15

Executive Summary

and encouraging tribal input regarding data presentations and formats. In addition, HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research should work with ONAP to 

develop efficient guidelines and training programs to help tribes (that can mount the needed resources) conduct sample surveys and use other available data to assess their situations efficiently. This study’s household survey is publicly available to tribes for their use, which is consistent with the intent of NAHASDA to enhance tribal capacity and self-determination. 

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

16

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Washington, DC 20410-6000

January 2017 

Document Outline

Continuity and Change