Alaska Native Villages: Recent Federal Assistance Exceeded $3	 
Billion, with Most Provided to Regional Nonprofits (02-AUG-05,	 
GAO-05-719).							 
                                                                 
This report responds to section 112, Division B, of the 	 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, which directs GAO to	 
review federal programs benefiting rural communities in Alaska.  
After discussions with congressional staff, GAO agreed to examine
federal programs benefiting Alaska Native villages. Specifically,
this report (1) provides information on the amount of federal	 
assistance provided to Alaska Native villages during fiscal years
1998 through 2003, (2) describes how selected federal funds have 
been used to assist Alaska Native villages, and (3) provides data
on the number and average cost of houses built by villages and	 
Alaska Native regional housing authorities.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-719 					        
    ACCNO:   A31818						        
  TITLE:     Alaska Native Villages: Recent Federal Assistance	      
Exceeded $3 Billion, with Most Provided to Regional Nonprofits	 
     DATE:   08/02/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Block grants					 
	     Community development				 
	     Economic development				 
	     Federal aid programs				 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Funds management					 
	     Housing programs					 
	     Locally administered programs			 
	     Native Americans					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Public assistance programs 			 
	     Regional development programs			 
	     Rural economic development 			 
	     State-administered programs			 
	     Surveys						 
	     Development assistance programs			 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     BIA Tribal Self-Governance Program 		 
	     Federal Assistance Award Data System		 
	     HUD Indian Housing Block Grant Program		 
	     Alaska						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-719

     

     * Report to Congressional Addressees and the Alaska Federation of
       Natives
          * August 2005
     * ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES
          * Recent Federal Assistance Exceeded $3 Billion, with Most Provided
            to Regional Nonprofits
     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
          * Background
               * A Variety of Entities Facilitates the Provision of Federal
                 Assistance to Alaska Native Villages
               * Research Shows Improvement in the Social and Economic
                 Condition of Alaska Natives, but Some Problems Persist
          * Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received
            Over $3 Billion in Federal Funding from 1998 through 2003
               * Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits
                 Received Over $3 Billion in Funding from Multiple Federal
                 Agencies, with HHS the Largest Single Provider of Funding
                    * Native Villages Received Substantially Less Funding
                      Than Regional Native Nonprofits, but Native Villages
                      Received Their Funding from More Sources
                    * A Small Number of Programs Accounted for the Majority
                      of Funding and a Small Number of Both Native Villages
                      and Regional Native Nonprofits Received the Majority of
                      the Funding
               * Combined Federal Funding to Native Villages and Regional
                 Native Nonprofits Increased 29 Percent between 1999 and 2003
               * Alaska Native Villages and Alaska Natives Also Benefited
                 from Federal Funding to Other Nonprofit Organizations,
                 Cities, Boroughs, and the State of Alaska
          * Federal Funds Have Been Used to Provide an Array of Services to
            Alaska Native Villages
               * Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, and
                 Other State and Local Organizations, Used Federal Funding to
                 Provide an Array of Services to Their Communities
                    * Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits, Villages, and State
                      Agencies Used Federal Funding to Provide a Wide Range
                      of Health Care Services to Alaska Natives
                    * Native Villages and Tribally Designated Housing
                      Entities Used Federal Housing Funding to Construct,
                      Rehabilitate, and Maintain Housing Stock
                    * State Agencies, Native Villages, and Other Agencies
                      Used Federal Infrastructure Funding to Address Needs
                      for Water and Waste Disposal Systems, Airport
                      Improvements, and Energy
                    * Alaska Native Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, and
                      Other State and Local Entities Used Federal Funding for
                      Social Services, Capacity Building, Community
                      Development, Job Training, Native Education, Law
                      Enforcement, and Economic Development
               * Most of the Selected Programs Provide Funding for at Least a
                 Portion of Grantees' Administrative Fees
               * Available Information on How Grantees Used Funds from
                 Selected Programs Varies, in Part Due to Different Reporting
                 Requirements
          * Alaska Native Villages and Regional Housing Authorities
            Constructed More Than 800 and Rehabilitated Almost 3,000 Homes,
            and the Number and Costs of Completed Units Varied across Regions
               * Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Completed
                 Construction on 874 Units and Rehabilitated 2,990 Units from
                 1998 through 2003
               * Housing Authorities Constructed More Than Three Times and
                 Rehabilitated More Than Two Times the Number of Units
                 Compared with Villages
               * Regional Housing Authorities Modernized 5,211 Single-Family
                 Units Previously Developed under U.S. Housing Act of 1937
               * Regional Housing Authorities Constructed, Rehabilitated, and
                 Modernized Multifamily Housing Properties
               * New Construction and Housing Rehabilitation Costs Varied by
                 Region and by Whether Units Were Completed by Villages or
                 Housing Authorities
               * Regional Housing Authority Single-Family Modernization Costs
                 Also Varied by Region
               * Multifamily Housing Costs Varied by Region and Type of
                 Housing Development
               * Several Factors May Account for Differences in the Number
                 and Cost of Units Constructed and Rehabilitated by Villages
                 and Housing Authorities and by Region
          * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * Scope and Methodology
     * Alaska Native Population by Native Village and ANCSA Region or Indian
       Reservation
     * Listing of Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits
     * Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance to Alaska Native Villages
     * The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to Native Villages,
       Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs
          * State of Alaska Passed Through Over $105 Million in Federal Funds
            to Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits
     * Denali Commission Program Summary
     * Program Summary for the Department of Agriculture
     * Program Summaries for the Department of Commerce
     * Program Summary for the Department of Education
     * Program Summary for the Department of Health and Human Services
     * Program Summaries for the Department of Housing and Urban Development
     * Program Summary for the Department of the Interior
     * Program Summary for the Department of Justice
     * Program Summary for the Department of Labor
     * Program Summary for the Department of Transportation
     * Program Summary for the Environmental Protection Agency
     * Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages
     * Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated Housing Entities
     * Comments from the Department of Commerce
     * Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
     * Comments from the Department of the Interior
     * GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Addressees and the Alaska Federation of Natives

August 2005

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES

 Recent Federal Assistance Exceeded $3 Billion, with Most Provided to Regional
                                   Nonprofits

                                       a

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES

Recent Federal Assistance Exceeded $3 Billion, with Most Provided to
Regional Nonprofits

  What GAO Found

GAO's analysis of available data indicates that Alaska Native villages and
regional Native nonprofits-including Native associations, and regional
health and housing nonprofits-received over $3 billion in federal
assistance from fiscal years 1998 through 2003. Specifically, total
federal funding included approximately $483 million to 216 Alaska Native
villages and about $3 billion to 33 regional Native nonprofits. The
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accounted for 63 percent of
all funding over the period. According to federal and state officials,
Alaska Native villages also likely benefited from federal funding to the
state of Alaska and to cities and boroughs that contain villages, such as
when federal funding is used by municipalities to provide water services.
Based on data GAO obtained from the state of Alaska, during fiscal years
1998 through 2003, the state passed through more than $105 million in
federal funding to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits.

Based on available information for 13 programs GAO reviewed, federal
funding was used to provide Alaska Natives with assistance in health care,
housing, infrastructure, and other areas. For example, according to
information from HHS, its Tribal Self-Governance Program was used by 13
regional Native nonprofits, three Native villages, four groups of Alaska
Native villages, and one statewide Native health care provider to provide
clinical services at tribally run hospitals and health clinics that had
over 1 million total visits throughout Alaska in 2002. Another program,
HUD's Indian Housing Block Grant, provided funds used by villages and
regional housing authorities to build, rehabilitate, modernize, and
operate single-family homes and multifamily housing properties. However,
the extent of readily available information on how funds were used from
the 13 programs GAO reviewed varied, in part due to different agency
reporting requirements.

Results from GAO's survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing
authorities indicated that, during calendar years 1998 through 2003,
responding entities constructed a total of 874 single-family units. GAO's
survey indicated that the average cost of units constructed by responding
entities varied by region and by whether they were developed by villages
or housing authorities. For example, the 6-year average regional cost (in
2003 dollars) of all units constructed ranged from a low of $138,944 per
unit, or $122 per square foot, to a high of $305,634 per unit, or $267 per
square foot. GAO also found that the cost of new housing units developed
by housing authorities was slightly higher than units developed by Native
villages, and that regional housing authorities constructed more than
three times the number of units compared with villages. However, various
factors could account for differences in the cost and number of units
completed among regions or between villages and regional housing
authorities.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

                                    Contents

Letter                                                                   1 
           Results in Brief                                                 3 
           Background                                                       6 
            Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received 
                 Over $3 Billion in Federal Funding from 1998 through 2003 14 
           Federal Funds Have Been Used to Provide an Array of Services to 
           Alaska Native Villages                                          27 
               Alaska Native Villages and Regional Housing Authorities     
                  Constructed More Than 800 and Rehabilitated Almost 3,000 
                 Homes, and the Number and Costs of Completed Units Varied 
           across Regions                                                  42 
           Agency Comments and Our Evaluation                              61 

Appendixes                                                             
                 Appendix I: Scope and Methodology                         63 
                Appendix II: Alaska Native Population by Native Village       
                             and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation        70
              Appendix III:  Listing of Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits  80 
                Appendix IV: Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance to     
                             Alaska Native Villages                        81
                 Appendix V: The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal       
                             Funding to Native Villages, Regional Native  
                             Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs              84
                Appendix VI: Denali Commission Program Summary             92 
              Appendix VII:  Program Summary for the Department of         97 
                             Agriculture                                  
              Appendix VIII: Program Summaries for the Department of      101 
                             Commerce                                     
                Appendix IX: Program Summary for the Department of        107 
                             Education                                    
                 Appendix X: Program Summary for the Department of Health     
                             and Human Services                           110
                Appendix XI: Program Summaries for the Department of          
                             Housing and Urban Development                114
              Appendix XII:  Program Summary for the Department of the    119 
                             Interior                                     
              Appendix XIII: Program Summary for the Department of        123 
                             Justice                                      
              Appendix XIV:  Program Summary for the Department of Labor  127 

                                    Contents

      Appendix XV: Program Summary for the Department of Transportation   130 
Appendix XVI:   Program Summary for the Environmental Protection           
                   Agency                                                 134
Appendix XVII:  Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages      138 
Appendix XVIII: Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated      
                   Housing Entities                                       151
Appendix XIX:   Comments from the Department of Commerce               167 
      Appendix XX: Comments from the Department of Health and Human           
                   Services                                               168
Appendix XXI:   Comments from the Department of the Interior           170 
Appendix XXII:  GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments                  171 

                                     Tables

Table 1:   List of ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and        
              Nonprofits                                                    9 
Table 2:   Top Federal Programs, by Agency, Benefiting Native        
              Villages                                                     19 
Table 3:   Top Federal Programs, by Agency, Benefiting Regional      
              Native Nonprofits                                            20 
Table 4:   Primary Purposes for Which Grant Funds from 13 Selected   
              Programs Were Recently Used                                  28 
Table 5:   Number of Single-Family Units Constructed and             
             Rehabilitated for Villages and Regional Housing            
              Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003               43 
Table 6:   Number of New Units Constructed by Housing Authorities    
            Compared with Villages, by Region, Calendar Years           
1998-2003                                                               46 
Table 7:   Number of New Units Rehabilitated without Acquisition by  
                 Housing Authorities Compared with Villages, by Region, 
Calendar Years 1998-2003                                                47 
Table 8:   Average New Construction Costs, Number and Size of        
              Units, Regional Housing Authorities and Villages             53 
Table 9:   Number of Regional Housing Authorities and Villages That  
               Were Constructing or Rehabilitating Single-Family Units, 
Calendar Years 1998-2003                                                69 
Table 10: Listing of Alaska Native Villages and the Number of AIAN   
Persons and Enrolled Members, by ANCSA Region or                     
Indian Reservation                                                      71 

Contents

Table 11: ANCSA Regional Nonprofits or Indian Reservation and the

Corresponding Native Regional Health Care and Housing

Nonprofits 80 Table 12: Top Federal Programs Providing Funding Passed
Through

by the State of Alaska to Native Villages, State Fiscal Years

1998-2003 88 Table 13: Top Federal Programs Providing Funding Passed
Through

by the State of Alaska to Regional Native Nonprofits, State

Fiscal Years 1998-2003 89 Table 14: Yearly Federal Funds Passed Through by
the State of

Alaska to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits,

State Fiscal Years 1998-2003 90 Table 15: Denali Commission Reporting
Requirements 93 Table 16: USDA Reporting Requirements for Village Safe
Water

Funding 98 Table 17: Commerce Reporting Requirements for EAA Funding 102
Table 18: Commerce Reporting Requirements for Public Works

Funding 105 Table 19: Education Reporting Requirements for Alaska Native

Educational Programs Funding 107 Table 20: HHS Reporting Requirements for
Tribal Self-Governance

Funding 111 Table 21: HUD Reporting Requirements for ICDBG Funding 115
Table 22: HUD Reporting Requirements for IHBG Funding 117 Table 23:
Percentage of IHBG Funds Used by Activity, Calendar

Years 1998-2003 118 Table 24: Allowable Uses of Tribal Self-Governance
Program

Funding, Based on Budget Categories 121 Table 25: Justice Reporting
Requirements for COPS Funding 124 Table 26: Labor Reporting Requirements
for Youth Opportunity

Grant Funding 128 Table 27: DOT Reporting Requirements for AIP Funding 131
Table 28: EPA Reporting Requirements for IGAP Funding 135

Figure 1:

Figures

Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4:

Location of Alaska Native Villages and ANCSA Regions 8 Percentage of
Federal Funding to Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits,
by Agency, 1998-2003 15 Federal Funding Provided to Villages and Regional
Native Nonprofits, 1998-2003 16 Total Agency Funding to Alaska Regional
Native Nonprofits and Alaska Native Villages, 1998-2003 17

Contents

:Top Native Village Recipients, by Percentage of Federal Funding Received
21
:Top Regional Native Nonprofits, by Percentage of Federal Funding Received
22
:Growth in Federal Funding to Native Villages and Regional Native
Nonprofits 23
:House Built by the Bristol Bay Housing Authority Using IHBG and Other
Funds 32
:Percentage of 1999-2004 AIP Projects Used to Assist Alaska Native
Villages, by Type 34
:Before and After Upgrade Photos of Kotlik Bulk Fuel Facilities 35
:Head Start Center in Dillingham 38
:Number of Single-Family Units Constructed by Region for Villages and
Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003 44
:Number of Units Rehabilitated (with and without Acquisition) by Region
for Responding Villages and Housing Authorities, Calendar Years 1998-2003
45
:Annual and Total Number of Units Constructed by Housing Authorities and
Villages, Calendar Years 1998-2003 48
:Number of Single-Family Units Modernized by Housing Authorities, Calendar
Years 1998-2003 49
:Average Regional New Construction Costs for Housing Authorities and
Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, Ranked by Cost Per Square
Foot 52
:Average Rehabilitation Costs for Regional Housing Authorities and
Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, by Region, for Units That Did
Not Require Acquisition 55
:Housing Authority and Village Rehabilitation Costs for Units That Did Not
Require Acquisition, by Region, Calendar Years 1998-2003 56
:Amount of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska to Native
Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003 85
:Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska, by
Agency, to Native Villages, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003 86

Contents

                                 Abbreviations

NAHASDA Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act OMB
Office of Management and Budget ONAP Office of Native American Programs

Contents

                         USDA RD USDA Rural Development

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

August 2, 2005

The Honorable Thad Cochran Chairman The Honorable Robert C. Byrd Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Appropriations United States Senate

The Honorable Jerry Lewis Chairman The Honorable David R. Obey Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives

The Honorable Ted Stevens Committee on Appropriations United States Senate

Julie Kitka President Alaska Federation of Natives

According to the Census Bureau, about 120,000 people who live in Alaska
are Native-aboriginal Americans, many of whom reside in rural areas of the
state long inhabited by their ancestors. For many years, the federal
government both provided funding to assist Alaska Natives and their
communities to meet a wide range of social and economic needs-funding that
has amounted to millions of dollars annually-and administered many of the
programs that provided the assistance. However, with the passage of
certain federal legislation, Native villages-entities within the state
that are recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to receive
services from the federal government-and other Native organizations began
to receive more responsibility for administering programs that assist
their communities. Moreover, these entities also began to receive funding
directly from the federal government to administer the programs.
Currently, the federal government provides direct financial assistance to
many of the more than 200 federally recognized Alaska Native villages and
other Native organizations. In addition, the federal government provides
financial assistance to the state, which has passed through some of these
funds to Alaska Native villages. However, recently, some federal laws have
limited the ability of Alaska Native villages to receive direct funding.

This report responds to section 112, Division B, of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2004, which directed us to review federal programs
benefiting rural Alaska communities. As agreed with your staff, we focused
our review on federal programs benefiting Alaska Native villages. Our
report (1) provides information on the amount of federal assistance
provided to assist Alaska Native villages during federal fiscal years 1998
through 2003; (2) describes how selected federal funds have been used to
assist Alaska Native villages; and (3) provides data on the number and
average cost of houses built by villages and Alaska Native regional
housing authorities.

To address these objectives we met with officials of various federal
agencies, the state of Alaska, boroughs, and cities. In addition, we met
with representatives of Native villages, regional Native nonprofit
organizations, and other organizations that assist Alaska Natives. To
report on the amount of federal funding that has been provided to assist
Alaska Native villages, we examined data on both funding to over 200
federally recognized Alaska Native villages and regional Native
nonprofits, and funding to Native villages that was passed through the
state of Alaska. We classified as regional Native nonprofits: Native
associations that were identified in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA) or the organizations that succeeded them, which, throughout
this report, we refer to as ANCSA regional nonprofits; Native health
organizations identified in P.L. 105-83; and Alaska regional housing
authorities identified by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). To provide information on funding to Alaska Native villages, we
analyzed data from the Federal Assistance Award Data System (FAADS), which
identifies recipients of federal awards, federal programs for which awards
were made, and award amounts. To verify the accuracy of our data, we
provided federal agencies with data on their programs that we obtained
from FAADS. Based on agency responses, where appropriate, we made
adjustments to data we obtained from FAADS. To provide information on the
amount of federal funding to assist Alaska Native villages that was passed
through by the state, we obtained information from the state of Alaska
Department of Administration, Division of Finance. To describe how
selected federal funds were used to assist Alaska Native communities, we
selected 13 major

                                Results in Brief

programs from among 11 agencies.1 For each of these programs, we met with
federal officials and, where appropriate, state, local, village and other
tribal officials, as well as officials representing organizations that
primarily serve Alaska Natives. We also reviewed program descriptions from
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) and reviewed agency
documents on how recipients used program funds. To determine the number of
housing units completed and their costs, we surveyed all villages and
regional housing authorities that had received HUD funds from the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, as amended
(NAHASDA), during fiscal years 1998 through 2003. In carrying out our
work, we did not conduct audit work to assess whether funds were spent in
compliance with federal regulations, and we did not assess the efficiency
or effectiveness of how federal funds were distributed or spent. We
conducted our work from February 2004 to July 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I for a
detailed description of our scope and methodology.

GAO's analysis of available data indicates that Alaska Native villages and
regional Native nonprofits received over $3 billion in federal assistance
during the 6-year period of federal fiscal years 1998 through 2003.2 Based
on data from FAADS, which contains governmentwide data on federal award
assistance transactions, and other agency data, total federal funding for
the period included approximately $483 million to 216 Alaska Native
villages and about $3 billion to 33 regional Native nonprofits-ANCSA
regional nonprofits, regional health nonprofits, and regional housing
authorities. Although direct federal funding was provided by 17 federal
agencies, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accounted for
63 percent of all funding over the period. Similarly, agencies provided
direct federal funding through 112 programs to villages and 149 programs
to regional Native nonprofits, although a small number of these programs
accounted for most of the federal funding. For example, HUD's Indian
Housing Block Grant program, which provides funds for housing, accounted
for 22 percent of all federal funding to Native villages and 16 percent of
all federal funding

1Generally, the selected programs provided the largest amount of funding
to Alaska Native villages and regional Native nonprofits during fiscal
years 1998-2003 for their respective agencies, based on our analysis of
FAADS.

2GAO analyses of FAADS are reported in constant 2003 dollars. Unless
otherwise indicated, the years referred to in our report are federal
fiscal years. The federal fiscal year runs from October through September.

Page 3 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

to regional Native nonprofits during the period. Overall, total annual
federal funding to villages and regional Native nonprofits increased from
about $500 million in 1999 to about $662 million in 2003-or about 30
percent.3 In addition to the federal government directly providing funds
to Alaska Native villages and regional Native nonprofits, the state of
Alaska passed through over $105 million in federal funds to Alaska Native
villages and regional Native nonprofits during a similar period. Also,
over the period, villages may have benefited from direct funding of $224
million to nonprofit organizations that primarily provide assistance to
Alaska Natives; over $300 million to incorporated cities and boroughs that
contain villages, such as when villages located in these areas receive
water and sewer services; and over $7 billion provided to the state for
transportation, education, health and human services, and other
assistance.

Federal funds from the 13 programs we reviewed were used to provide Alaska
Natives with assistance in health care, housing, infrastructure, and other
areas. For example, according to information from HHS, its Tribal
Self-Governance Program was used by 13 regional Native nonprofits, three
Native villages, four groups of Alaska Native villages, and one statewide
Native health care provider to provide clinical services at tribally run
hospitals and health clinics that had over 1 million total visits
throughout Alaska in 2002.4 Another program, HUD's Indian Housing Block
Grant, provided funds used by villages and regional housing authorities to
build, rehabilitate, modernize, and operate single-family homes and
multifamily housing properties. In addition to providing funds for
carrying out specific program activities, most of the programs we reviewed
also covered at least a portion of grantees' total administrative costs.
However, the extent of readily available information on how funds were
used from the 13 programs we reviewed varied, in part, due to different
agency reporting requirements. For example, Interior had only limited
information on the usage of funding under its Tribal Self-Governance
Program, in part because the relevant statutory provisions do not require
grantees to submit the information. On the other hand, the Denali
Commission-a federal agency established in 1998 to address crucial rural
Alaska needs, such as energy

3Funding for 1998 is not included in this comparison because not all HHS
and Interior funding was included in FAADS for this year.

4FAADS lists the Tribal Self-Governance as a single program; however,
funding for this program is provided to Native villages through annual
funding agreements that include funds from multiple Indian Health Service
programs.

Page 4 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

infrastructure-has specific grantee reporting requirements that include,
among other things, detailed program and financial information.

Results from our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing
authorities indicated that responding entities constructed a total of 874
single-family units and rehabilitated a total of 2,990 single-family units
from calendar year 1998 to 2003.5 The two most common units constructed
were three- and four-bedroom homes. Over the period, 462 three-bedroom and
262 four-bedroom homes were constructed. Four of the 12 regions accounted
for about 68 percent of the new home production, including one that
accounted for over 30 percent of the production. Also, over the period,
Alaska Native regional housing authorities constructed more than three
times the number of units (666) than villages (208). We also found that
three regions accounted for about 60 percent of the number of units
rehabilitated, and that regional housing authorities rehabilitated 70
percent of units compared with 30 percent rehabilitated by villages. Our
analysis of the survey data indicated that the average cost of units
constructed by responding entities varied by region and by whether they
were developed by villages or housing authorities. For example, the 6-year
average regional cost (in 2003 dollars) of all units constructed ranged
from a low of $138,944 per unit, or $122 per square foot, to a high of
$305,634 per unit, or $267 per square foot. Although housing authorities
had higher new construction costs than villages, villages had higher costs
for units that were rehabilitated without acquisition. However, various
factors could account for differences in the number or cost of units
completed among regions or between villages and regional housing
authorities. For example, regional differences in housing construction
costs may reflect variations in the cost of transporting building
materials and equipment to remote villages. Also, differences in
construction costs between regional housing authorities and villages may
reflect costs housing authorities likely incur when complying with Alaska
state construction and energy efficiency standards-a condition of
receiving state funds for housing construction. Villages generally do not
receive funds from the state for housing construction, and although they
may construct properties that meet these standards, adherence to such
standards would typically occur voluntarily.

5In addition, regional housing authorities modernized 5,211 single-family
units over the period and 73 multifamily properties developed under the
U.S. Housing Act of 1937, using "current assisted stock" funding that is
provided as part of NAHASDA. We have not included the modernization of
housing in the comparisons between Native villages and regional housing
authorities, because only regional housing authorities received such
funding..

Page 5 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Background

In terms of land area, Alaska is the largest U.S. state-more than the
combined area of the next three largest states: Texas, California, and
Montana. However, according to the Census Bureau, Alaska is also one of
the least populated states, with about 630,000 people-of which about 19
percent, or 120,000, are Alaska Native or American Indian. Over half of
the state's population is concentrated in the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage,
and the Matanuska-Susitna area in south central Alaska. Many Alaska
Natives, however, live in rural areas of western, northern, and interior
Alaska long inhabited by their ancestors. Alaska Natives are generally
divided into six major groupings: Unangan (Aleuts), Alutiiq (Pacific
Eskimos), Inupiat (Northern Eskimos), Yup'ik (Bering Sea Eskimos),
Athabascan (Interior Indians), and Tlingit and Haida (Southeast Coastal
Indians).

A Variety of Entities Facilitates the Provision of Federal Assistance to
Alaska Native Villages

A variety of entities facilitates federal assistance to Alaska Native
villages. For many years, the federal government generally funded and
administered many of the programs that provided assistance to Alaska
Natives. However, with the passage of several key pieces of legislation,
Alaska Native villages and other tribal organizations began to take on
more responsibility for directly administering programs to assist their
communities, and began to receive direct funding to carry out these tasks.
For example, in 1971, Congress passed ANCSA, which was intended to resolve
Native claims to land in the state. Under ANCSA, the Secretary of the
Interior divided the state into 12 geographic regions so that each would
include Natives "having a common heritage and sharing common interests."
All Natives became shareholders in one of 12 regional corporations or in a
13th corporation for nonresident Natives. In addition, Natives who resided
in one of more than 200 villages listed in ANCSA were also enrolled in
Native village corporations.6 The Bureau of Indian Affairs currently
recognizes 229 Alaska Native villages as eligible to receive federal
funds.7 Appendix II contains a listing of Alaska Native villages and the
number of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) persons and enrolled
Alaska Native members by

6The act provided 45 million acres of land and over $900 million to be
shared among Native regional corporations, village corporations, and
Alaska Natives.

7Groupings of Alaska Natives are also sometimes referred to as yupiit,
tribes, associations, councils, or communities. Throughout, we use the
term "village."

Page 6 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

ANCSA region.8, 9 Figure 1 shows the location of Alaska Native villages
and the 12 ANCSA regions.

8AIAN includes persons who indicated their race as American Indian or
Alaska Native on the 2000 Census questionnaire. AIAN persons reside within
geographic village boundaries recognized by the Census Bureau. AIAN
persons who reside within the region but not within a specific village
boundary area are counted as at-large members of the regional for-profit
corporation. Enrolled members are actual members of a tribe that may
reside anywhere in the world.

9Throughout, we have included two federally recognized entities with the
regional Native nonprofits. The Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida
Indian Tribes, a regional tribe with delegates from 21 communities, is
identified as a regional Native association in ANCSA. The Metlakatla
Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve is the only federally recognized
Indian reservation within the state, and it operates a regional health
entity and regional housing authority.

Figure 1: Location of Alaska Native Villages and ANCSA Regions

Source: MapInfo.

Note: The regions are identified by the names of their for-profit regional
corporations.

In addition to Alaska Native villages, Alaska Natives are also served by a
number of other Native-controlled regional nonprofit organizations that
receive federal funding to administer a broad range of services, including
12 regional Native associations identified in ANCSA or the organizations
that succeeded them, which, for the purposes of this report, we refer to
as ANCSA regional nonprofits, and regional health care and housing
nonprofits.10 Table 1 provides a list of the ANCSA for-profit regional
corporations and the corresponding regional nonprofit.

     Table 1: List of ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofits

Source: GAO.

10The 12 regional Native associations identified in ANCSA were charged
with naming incorporators to create regional for-profit corporations to
carry out the act. These regional for-profit corporations were to cover
the same geographic areas as those covered by the operations of the
existing Native associations. Where the ANCSA-identified Native
association name has changed or the association has been succeeded by
another entity, we have used the name of the current regional entity.
Generally these nonprofits are composed of member villages and operate
programs on behalf of the member villages.

Also, nearly all health care that is delivered to Alaska Natives is
administered by 13 Alaska Native regional health organizations that were
identified in Public Law 105-83. These entities operate under compacting
arrangements, which are agreements the Indian Health Service (IHS)
negotiates with Native villages and other Native entities.11 Under the
1975 Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act, as amended,
and further through the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 and the Tribal
Self-Governance Amendments of 2000, tribes and tribal organizations were
allowed to participate in and manage programs that for years had been
administered on their behalf by the Departments of the Interior and of
Health and Human Services. Also, prior to NAHASDA, Alaska Natives were
served by 14 regional housing authorities that were authorized by previous
federal housing laws to provide services for Alaska Natives. NAHASDA
further expanded the ability of Native villages to directly receive
federal funding for the purpose of providing services to eligible Alaska
Natives. The regional housing authorities and Native villages engage in a
variety of affordable housing activities, including construction,
rehabilitation, and management.12 See appendix III for a list of the ANCSA
regional nonprofits, the regional health corporations, and the regional
housing authorities that operate within the 12 ANCSA-defined areas of
Alaska.13

Recent legislation has limited the ability of Native villages to directly
receive federal funding. Public Law 108-447 temporarily limits the ability
of IHS from directly funding villages that are already located within the
area of a Native Alaska regional health facility. This restriction was put
in place due to congressional concerns about the efficiency of providing
direct federal funding to Alaska Native villages. Also, 25 USC 13f
prohibits the provision of certain BIA funding to villages with fewer than
25 members; and 25 USC 3651 (note) limits which entities can receive
certain

11Compacting generally provides grant recipients broad flexibility in the
use of federal funds for multiple programs. In order to compact, a Native
village or other Native entity must have contracted with IHS to provide
specific health services for at least 3 years and have had satisfactory
annual financial statement audits during the most recent 3-year period.

12Regional housing authorities are also referred to as tribally designated
housing entities, or TDHEs. Throughout this report we refer to them as
regional housing authorities. These entities also receive NAHASDA funds
for the purpose of modernizing and operating housing developed under the
U.S. Housing Act of 1937.

13We have included the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve
with the regional Native nonprofits in our analyses. Metlakatla Indian
Community is the only federally recognized Indian reservation within the
state, and it operates a regional health entity and regional housing
authority.

Department of Justice funds. In addition, HUD's fiscal year 2004-2005
appropriations included a provision that restricted certain housing
funding to only those Alaska villages or tribally designated housing
entities that had received funds in the previous fiscal year.

In addition to the aforementioned Native nonprofits, a variety of other
nonprofits also facilitate the provision of federal assistance to Alaska
Native villages. These nonprofits, many of which are also controlled by
Alaska Natives, provide assistance related to a broad range of areas,
including justice issues, cultural and environmental preservation, and
educational and economic advancement. Some of these nonprofits operate in
one or more regions or on a subregional basis. Appendix IV contains a
listing of nonprofits other than those discussed previously that received
federal funding for the purpose of assisting Alaska Native villages from
1998 through 2003.

Alaska Native villages also receive federal assistance that is passed
through by the state or local agencies. For example, federally recognized
Native villages may be part of communities that are incorporated under
state law as cities or boroughs. State of Alaska data show that 124 Native
villages are located within incorporated cities. However, these cities
provide government services, such as water and sanitation, to Native
village members that live in their jurisdiction, which would otherwise
most likely be provided by Native villages. Likewise, some villages are
located in organized boroughs that provide services to villages and
cities.14

14About 43 percent of Alaska is made up of 16 organized boroughs. The
remaining 57 percent of the state is sparsely populated land that is
considered a single "unorganized borough."

Page 11 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

In 1998, Congress established the Denali Commission to address crucial
needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly isolated Alaska Native
villages. The commission is composed of a federal and a state co-chair and
representatives from local agencies, as well as Alaska Native public and
private entities.15 To carry out its work, the commission receives an
annual federal appropriation and funds that are transferred from other
federal agencies. The purpose of the commission is to (1) deliver the
services of the federal government in the most cost-effective manner
practicable; (2) provide job training and other economic development
services in rural communities; (3) and, promote rural development and
provide infrastructure such as water, sewer, and communication systems.
According to the commission's 2004 annual report, rural Alaska communities
often face serious challenges to maintaining a sufficient energy supply,
especially during the state's harsh winters. Improving rural Alaska's
energy infrastructure has been the commission's primary focus since 1999.

15The Denali Commission was established by the Denali Commission Act of
1998 (P.L. 105277) to provide sustainable rural infrastructure
development, job training and other economic development services in rural
communities with a focus on distressed communities, and to deliver
services in the most cost-effective manner practicable in Alaska. The
Denali Commission is composed of seven members appointed by the Secretary
of Commerce, including: a federal co-chairperson; the Governor of Alaska,
or an individual selected from nominations submitted by the Governor, who
shall serve as the state co-chairperson; the President of the University
of Alaska, or an individual selected from nominations submitted by the
President of the University of Alaska; the President of the Alaska
Municipal League or an individual selected from nominations submitted by
the President of the Alaska Municipal League; the President of the Alaska
Federation or Natives or an individual selected from nominations submitted
by the President of the Alaska Federation or Natives; the Executive
President of the Alaska State AFL-CIO or an individual selected from
nominations submitted by the Executive President; and the President of the
Associated General Contractors of Alaska or an individual selected from
nominations submitted by the President of the Associated General
Contractors of Alaska.

Research Shows Improvement in the Social and Economic Condition of Alaska
Natives, but Some Problems Persist

Although recent research shows improvement in the social and economic
condition of Alaska Natives, many problems persist. A 1989 report by the
University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research
documented that Alaska Natives were facing a number of social and economic
crises, such as high incidences of alcohol abuse, suicide, homicide, and
unemployment.16 The Alaska Natives Commission-a federal-state
commission-reported similar findings in 1994. The commission stated that
because of the high rate of unemployment and lack of economic
opportunities for Alaska Natives, government programs for the poor had
become the foundation of many village economies. More recently, a 2004
report found that conditions for Alaska Natives improved in some areas,
but that Alaska Natives still faced continuing and new disparities.17 For
example, the report indicated that Alaska Natives have experienced
improvements in health, such as reductions in tuberculosis, due in part to
improvement in water and sewer systems; however, Natives continue to face
health problems related to alcohol abuse and other factors. Similarly, the
report indicated that Alaska Natives are making economic improvements, but
continue to have disproportionately high poverty rates compared with
non-Native Alaskans.

16Institute of Social and Economic Research, The Alaska Federation of
Natives Report on the Status of Alaska Natives: A Call for Action
(Anchorage, Alaska, January 1989).

17Institute of Social and Economic Research, Our Choices, Our Future:
Analysis of the Status of Alaska Natives Report 2004 (Anchorage, Alaska,
July 2004).

Page 13 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received Over $3
Billion in Federal Funding from 1998 through 2003

From 1998 through 2003, Alaska Native villages and regional Native
nonprofits received more than $3 billion in funding from multiple federal
agencies, with HHS providing the majority of the funding.18 Native
villages received substantially less funding than regional Native
nonprofits, although Native villages had slightly more diverse sources for
funding. Additionally, a small number of programs accounted for the
majority of funding to villages and regional Native nonprofits, and,
similarly, a few villages and regional Native nonprofits received the
majority of federal funding. Combined federal funding to Native villages
and regional Native nonprofits increased from about $512 million in 1999
to about $662 million in 2003. Alaska Native villages also benefited from
federal funding provided to nonprofit organizations that primarily provide
assistance to Alaska Natives, incorporated cities and boroughs that
contain Native villages, and the state of Alaska. Moreover, during state
fiscal years 1998 through 2003, the state of Alaska passed through more
than $105 million in federal funds to Native villages and regional Native
nonprofits.19

Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received Over $3
Billion in Funding from Multiple Federal Agencies, with HHS the Largest
Single Provider of Funding

Based on our analysis of information from FAADS, 17 federal agencies
provided about $3.5 billion in federal funding to Alaska Native villages
and regional Native nonprofits-ANCSA regional nonprofits, regional health
nonprofits, and regional housing authorities-from 1998 through 2003.20 As
shown in figure 2, HHS provided 63 percent of the funding, and HUD,
Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided slightly
more than 30 percent; thus, four agencies accounted for more than 90
percent of all direct federal funding to villages and regional Native
nonprofits. None of the other 13 agencies provided more than 1 percent of
the total funding to villages and regional Native nonprofits.

18Unless otherwise indicated, the years referred to in our report are
federal fiscal years. The federal fiscal year runs from October through
September. 19The fiscal year for the state of Alaska is July through June.
20GAO FAADS analyses use constant 2003 dollars.

Page 14 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Funding to Alaska Native Villages and
Regional Native Nonprofits, by Agency, 1998-2003

<1% Othera

1% each: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Justice, Labor,
and Transportation

2% Environmental Protection Agency

Department of the Interior

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Health and Human Services

Total direct federal funding: $3.5 billion

Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1998-2003.

aOther agencies include the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
National Endowment for the Arts, Institute of Museum and Library Services,
National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Corporation for
National and Community Service, and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.

The federally established Denali Commission, through its federal
appropriations, also provided assistance to rural Alaska communities,
including Alaska Native villages. From 1999 through 2003, Denali obligated
approximately $290 million, but Denali did not report the grant amounts to
the Census Bureau so that the information could be included in FAADS.
Denali officials said they were not aware of the FAADS reporting
requirement until recently.

Figure 3: Federal Funding Provided to Villages and Regional Native
Nonprofits, 1998-2003

Native villages $483,452,291

Regional Native nonprofits $3,006,106,541

Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1998-2003.

Although regional Native nonprofits received more funding than Native
villages, the sources of major funding for villages were slightly more
diverse than for regional Native nonprofits. Specifically, Native villages
received direct funding from 16 agencies, with HHS, Interior, EPA, and HUD
providing about 84 percent. In comparison, regional Native nonprofits
received funding from 14 federal agencies, with HHS accounting for 70
percent of the funding (see figs. 4 and 5).

Figure 4: Total Agency Funding to Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits and
Alaska Native Villages, 1998-2003 Regional Native nonprofits ($3.0
billion) Alaska Native villages ($483 million)

and Urban Development

Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1998-2003.

aOther agencies are the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Energy,
Environmental Protection Agency, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Institute of Museum and Library Services, the National Endowment for the
Arts and the Corporation for National and Community Service.

bOther agencies are the National Endowment for the Arts, Institute of
Museum and Library Services, Corporation for National and Community
Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Energy,
National Science Foundation, and Department of Labor.

21Public Law 108-447 temporarily limits the ability of HHS's Indian Health
Service from directly funding villages that are already located within the
area of a Native Alaska regional health facility. This restriction is the
latest in a series of provisions that have effectively frozen the funding
structure that was in place prior to 1998.

Page 18 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

      Table 2: Top Federal Programs, by Agency, Benefiting Native Villages

Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1998-2003.

aAccording to HHS officials, the total funding amount also includes
funding for the Tribal Self-Governance Program (CFDA 93.210) and Indian
Self-Determination (CFDA 93.441).

bAlso called Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants.

cStarting in 2002, this program was consolidated into CFDA 84.356-Alaska
Native Education Program.

Similarly, while regional Native nonprofits received funding from 149
programs, about 87 percent of the funding came from the nine agencies that
provided the largest funding (see table 3).

Table 3: Top Federal Programs, by Agency, Benefiting Regional Native Nonprofits

Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1998-2003.

Notes: Regional Native nonprofits did not receive any funding from the
Department of Transportation during the period.

aAccording to HHS officials, the total funding amount also includes
funding for Tribal Self-Governance Program (CFDA 93.210) and Indian
Self-Determination (CFDA 93.441).

Further, Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received funding
from some of the same programs, but not always in similar amounts. For
example, Native villages received about $10 million from the Department of
Justice's Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants and
about $6 million from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities program. Regional
Native nonprofits received less than $500,000 from the same Justice
program and about $1.4 million from the same USDA program.

In addition to the concentration of funding among a small number of
agencies, as shown in figures 5 and 6, relatively few Native villages and
regional Native nonprofits received more than a third of the funding. For
example, only 13 out of 216 Native villages received 38 percent of total
federal funding to Native villages. Also, 10 of 33 regional Native
nonprofits received 71 percent of total funding to these entities.

Figure 5: Top Native Village Recipients, by Percentage of Federal Funding
                                    Received

Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1998-2003.

aThe Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government includes Arctic Village
and the Village of Venetie. All three of these entities are recognized by
BIA. For this analysis, funding for these entities is combined.

bThe Native Village of Gambell and the Native Village of Savoonga, both
located on St. Lawerence Island, are separate BIA-recognized entities;
however, because they were recorded in FAADS as joint recipients for some
funds, we combined them in this analysis.

Figure 6: Top Regional Native Nonprofits, by Percentage of Federal Funding
Received

        Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1998-2003.

Combined Federal Funding to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits
Increased 29 Percent between 1999 and 2003

In 2003 constant dollars, annual combined federal funding to Native
villages and regional Native nonprofits increased 29 percent, from $512
million in 1999 to $662 million in 2003.22 Combined funding to Native
villages and regional Native nonprofits increased every year, except 2003,
peaking in 2002 at $737 million (see fig. 7).

22This increase does not include $26 million (constant 2003 dollars) in
HHS expenditures to operate the Alaska Native Medical Center in the first
quarter of 1999, before the center was operated by the Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium and the Southcentral Foundation. If these
expenditures are added to the HHS grant amounts to Native villages and
regional nonprofits in 1999, the increase from 1999 through 2003 is 23
percent.

Page 22 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 7: Growth in Federal Funding to Native Villages and Regional Native
Nonprofits

Dollars in millions

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Alaska Native villages

Regional Native nonprofits Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency
data, 1999-2003.

The large increase between 2001 and 2002, from $586 million to $737
million, is primarily attributable to increases in HHS funding to Native
villages and regional Native nonprofits. HHS funding increased from $308
million in 2001 to $475 million in 2002. The decrease in funding between
2002 and 2003 is primarily attributable to decreases in funding from HHS
and Interior.

Finally, direct federal funding to Native villages grew 29 percent, from
$64 million in 1999 to $83 million in 2003, and the number of Native
villages receiving funds directly increased 32 percent from 148 in 1999 to
196 in 2003. Federal direct funding to the 33 regional Native nonprofits
grew 29 percent from $448 million in 1999 to $579 million in 2003.

Alaska Native Villages and Alaska Natives Also Benefited from Federal
Funding to Other Nonprofit Organizations, Cities, Boroughs, and the State
of Alaska

Funding for 1998 is not included in the comparison because not all HHS and
Interior funding was included in FAADS. According to HHS officials, FAADS
does not capture the $139 million in federal funds expended by HHS in 1998
for it to operate the Alaska Native Medical Center and provide sanitation
facilities projects.23 Also, according to Interior, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs did not report 1998 funding data for inclusion in FAADS.

Many Alaska Native villages also benefited from other nonprofits that
primarily assist Alaska Natives. Also, Native villages located within
incorporated cities benefited from municipal services, such as sewer and
water services. In addition, Alaska Native villages and Alaska Natives
benefited from federal funding to school districts, boroughs, and the
state, for purposes such as education, transportation, and other community
services. The state also passed through some federal funding it receives
to Native villages, cities, and boroughs.

Based on our analysis of FAADS data, 46 nonprofit organizations that
primarily provide assistance and support to Alaska Natives received $224
million during 1998 through 2003. These organizations are a diverse group
that include: statewide entities, such as the Alaska Federation of
Natives, considered to be the largest advocacy group representing Alaska
Natives; the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, which supports subsistence
activities; the Alaska Native Heritage Center, which seeks to promote
awareness of Native culture and values; and the Council of Athabascan
Tribal governments, a subregional Native nonprofit that provides health
care services to six villages. See appendix IV for a list of the nonprofit
organizations that primarily assist Alaska Natives and that received
federal funding from 1998 through 2003.

Our analysis of FAADS data indicated that 12 federal agencies provided
incorporated cities that have Native villages within their borders with
$167 million in federal funding during 1998 through 2003. Overall, 75
different incorporated cities received some form of federal funding, with
an average of 32 cities receiving funds in any year.24 USDA provided the
largest amount of funding to these cities-$88 million or about half of all
funding provided

23In constant 2003 dollars.

24According to state of Alaska data, 122 of 145 incorporated cities
include a Native village. Two cities each include two Native villages.

Page 24 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

to the cities. More specifically, its Water and Waste Disposal Systems for
Rural Communities program, provided the largest share of this funding- $55
million. The Department of Energy provided the next largest share of
funding to cities-about $26 million over the period. However, most of the
Department of Energy's funding was from one program-Renewable Energy
Research and Development program-which accounted for $25 million to the
incorporated cities. In addition, incorporated cities with Native villages
within their borders received about $22 million from the DOT's Airport
Improvement Program.

Our analysis of FAADS data also indicates that from 1998 through 2003, 18
federal agencies provided $161 million to borough governments. DOT
contributed the largest share of the funding, $53 million. Its Airport
Improvement Program provided $37 million to boroughs, making it the
largest program overall. HUD provided the next largest amount of funding,
$25 million. HUD's Community Development Block Grants program provided $18
million to boroughs, making it the second largest program. Commerce, USDA,
and Education each provided about $16 million to boroughs.

Based on our analysis of FAADS data, independent school districts received
about $674 million from 11 federal agencies. Fifty-six different school
districts received federal funding, with an average of 52 school districts
funded annually. Education was responsible for 98 percent of all funding
to school districts, about $662 million. More specifically, the majority
of these funds came from the department's formula-based Impact Aid
program. Impact Aid provided $481 million in financial assistance to
school districts where school enrollments or availability of revenue are
adversely affected by federal activities, or where a significant number of
children reside on federal (including Indian25) lands.

25The Impact Aid program defines Indian lands in Alaska to include real
property that is tax exempt due to federal law, agreement, or policy, and
that was conveyed under ANCSA to a Native individual, Native group or
corporation organized under ANCSA, or village or regional corporation, as
those terms are defined in ANCSA.

Page 25 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Finally, our analysis of FAADS data also shows that the state of Alaska
received about $7 billion in federal funding from 1998 through 2003.26 The
state received about $3 billion from DOT, with about $2.3 billion coming
from a formula-driven Federal Highway Administration program and $662
million from the Airport Improvement Program. USDA and Education each
provided about $800 million to the state, with USDA providing $335 million
from the Food Stamp program and $95 million from the Water and Waste
Disposal Systems for Rural Communities program, and Education providing
$122 million for Impact Aid program. EPA provided $401 million to the
state, which included $216 million from its Surveys, Studies,
Investigations and Special Purpose Grants program, which is used primarily
to fund the state's Village Safe Water program.

In addition to using federal funds to provide general services throughout
the state, the state of Alaska also passed through some of its federal
funds to Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, cities, and
boroughs.27 During the state fiscal period 1998 through 2003, the state
passed through more than $105 million in federal funds to Native villages
and regional Native nonprofits. This funding was provided by 15 federal
agencies to Native villages and by 17 federal agencies to regional Native
nonprofits to address health, environmental, economic, and other needs. In
addition, the state passed through $82.5 million to incorporated cities
and almost $253 million to boroughs with Native villages. See appendix V
for more information on federal funds the state passed through to
villages, regional Native nonprofits and other entities.

26Our FAADS analysis showed an additional $3 billion coded as federal
funding to the state during the period; however, we were not able to match
the recipient names with a state department. Most of the additional
federal funds were for HHS's Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid) (CFDA
93.778) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (CFDA 93.558).

27Information on funds passed through the state of Alaska was provided by
the Alaska Department of Administration, Division of Finance, not through
an analysis of FAADS.

Federal Funds Have Been Used to Provide an Array of Services to Alaska
Native Villages

Federal funds from the 13 programs we reviewed have been used to provide
an array of services to Alaska Native villages. However, the extent of
federal agency information on those uses varied widely by program.
Specifically, funds from these programs were used to provide Alaska
Natives with assistance in health care, housing, infrastructure, and other
areas such as education and community development.28 In addition to
providing funds for carrying out specific program activities, most of the
programs we reviewed also covered at least a portion of grantees' total
administrative costs. The extent of readily available information on how
funds from these programs were used varied, partly because of different
reporting requirements and partly due to different efforts to summarize
individual grantee data. Summaries of the 13 programs we reviewed are
contained in appendixes VI through XVI.

Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, and Other State and
Local Organizations, Used Federal Funding to Provide an Array of Services
to Their Communities

Alaska Native Villages, regional Native Nonprofits, and other state and
local organizations used funds from the 13 programs we reviewed to provide
an array of services to their communities. Specifically, they used funds
from these programs to provide assistance related to health care, housing,
infrastructure, and other areas (see table 4).

28We included in our review the Public Works and Economic Development
Facilities program after speaking with Commerce officials, who stated that
this program is generally used more by Alaska Native villages than the
Economic Adjustment Assistance program. The officials stated that while
the Economic Adjustment Assistance program was the highest funded Commerce
program assisting Alaska Native villages during 1998-2003, the program
provided atypically high funding levels in 2001 in response to the Alaskan
salmon fishing disaster. HUD's Indian Community Development Block Grant
program was added to our review because in addition to the Indian Housing
Block Grant program, it, too, can be used to construct new housing in
Alaska Native villages. For more detailed information on GAO's
methodology, see appendix I.

 Table 4: Primary Purposes for Which Grant Funds from 13 Selected Programs Were
                                 Recently Used

                                  Source: GAO.

29In total, 20 Alaska Native villages receive self-governance funding from
IHS directly or as part of small groups that are not regional Native
health care nonprofits. All other Alaska Native villages in Alaska receive
health care services through regional Native health care nonprofits. We
have included Eastern Aleutian Tribes Inc., as an entity that provided
health care services to a group of villages; it was recognized as a Native
regional health entity by

P.L. 108-447, enacted in December 2004.

30The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium is a nonprofit health
organization authorized by P.L. 105-83 and managed by regional health
corporations and elected representatives from Alaska Native village
governments not part of a regional health corporation. The consortium was
created in 1997 to provide statewide Native health services when those
services were transferred from federal ownership and control to Alaska
tribes.

31In addition to funding the above services and facilities, a small
percentage of the IHS funding goes to one-time cooperative agreements that
provide planning and negotiation resources to villages interested in
participating in the Tribal Self-Governance Program.

32The IHS Tribal Self-Governance Program allows tribes and nonprofits to
reprogram funding allocations within the limitations of appropriations
laws as the tribe or nonprofit deems best to address their own health care
needs and priorities. Pursuant to legislative reporting requirements, IHS
receives information on health status and service delivery.

33Over 95 percent of the funding for the operations described herein was
provided under the Tribal Self-Governance Program. The remaining funds for
these operations came from IHS's Indian Self-Determination Program, which
also provides funds that allow tribes to administer health programs. Some
of the information in IHS's published reports on health status and service
delivery combines the uses from these two programs.

hospitals, 28 tribal health centers, and 176 tribal community health aid

clinics with about 500 community health aides.

     o Contract health services (i.e., health services from private-sector
       providers where specialized health care services were not readily
       available at tribally operated providers). For example, the Alaska
       Native Medical Center in Anchorage-which generally provides treatment
       for serious illness and injury for Alaska Natives from all over
       Alaska-often uses contract health care funds to consult with
       specialists and to provide specialized care such as cardiac or
       neurological surgery.
     o Preventive health services, such as public health nursing, health
       education, and immunization. For example, the Tanana Chiefs Conference
       used tribal self-governance funds to provide a community health
       representative program for patient education.
     o Contract support costs (such as general administrative costs incurred
       by grantees).
     o Health care facilities, including maintenance, improvement, and
       construction of health care and sanitation facilities. For example, in
       2004, the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium added a small,
       ground-floor room to accommodate a Magnetic Resonance Imaging service.

The majority of the Denali Commission's recent Health Care Program funding
was used by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, a statewide Native health care
provider, according to Denali Commission documentation. These groups used
the funding primarily to construct new primary care clinics and repair and
renovate existing ones, as well as to purchase health care equipment, for
residents in rural Alaska, including Alaska Natives. According to the
commission's 2004 annual report, since 1999 it funded the construction of
primary health clinics in 41 communities, while projects

Native Villages and Tribally Designated Housing Entities Used Federal
Housing Funding to Construct, Rehabilitate, and Maintain Housing Stock

are under way in 59 other communities across the state.34 For example, in
2003, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium used a total of $2.7
million from the commission's health facilities program to build a health
clinic in Toksook Bay (the location of the Nunakauyarmiut Tribe). The
Denali Commission provides funding for other health care needs as well,
such as a grant to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services to
cover half of the $400,000 needed to purchase an ultrasound machine for
Sitka.

HUD's Indian Housing Block Grant program (IHBG) funds housing activities
conducted by Alaska Native villages or Native regional housing nonprofits.
This program has the stated intent of recognizing the right of tribal
self-governance. HUD's IHBG funds can be used in a variety of
housing-related activities, including housing development, assistance to
housing developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, and planning and
administration.35 According to HUD, between 1998 and 2003, 38 percent of
the IHBG funds were used for housing development activities, 22 percent
were used for modernizing and operating current assisted stock, 11 percent
were used for planning and administration, and 29 percent were used for
other housing activities, such as housing services, housing management
services, crime prevention, model activities, and unspent funds. Figure 8
shows a new house built in Alaska by the Bristol Bay Housing Authority
with IHBG and other funds.

34The Denali Commission focuses its efforts on rural Alaska. According to
Denali officials, most of the Commission's projects benefit Alaska Native
villages.

35Prior to the passage of NAHASDA, HUD provided financial and technical
assistance to Indian housing authorities under the U.S. Housing Act of
1937 for the development and operation of low-income housing projects in
Indian areas.

Figure 8: House Built by the Bristol Bay Housing Authority Using IHBG and Other
                                     Funds

State Agencies, Native Villages, and Other Agencies Used Federal
Infrastructure Funding to Address Needs for Water and Waste Disposal
Systems, Airport Improvements, and Energy

Source: GAO.

Three of the 13 programs we reviewed-USDA's Water and Waste Disposal
System for Rural Communities, DOT's Airport Improvement Program, and the
Denali Commission's Energy Facilities Program-provided water,
transportation, and energy infrastructure in Alaska Native communities.

Funding under USDA's Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural Communities
is used primarily in conjunction with the state of Alaska's Village Safe
Water program.36 According to USDA officials and agency documentation,
USDA funds are combined with EPA funds and 25 percent matching state funds
to eliminate the "honey bucket"-a plastic 5-gallon bucket used as a toilet
in some Alaska Native villages-and provide communities with water and
sewer systems that function in Alaska's harsh environment, such as the
flush and haul system.37 From 2000 through 2003, USDA funded 86 Village
Safe Water projects.38 In the Alaska Native village of Napaskiak, for
example, USDA provided a $570,300 grant that, when matched with $190,200
from the state, is being used to replace all of the remaining
single-family home honey buckets in the community with the flush and haul
system.

DOT's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) was used to construct new airports
and rehabilitate old ones, since many of the Alaska Native villages that
are not accessible by roads contain an airport runway that provides the
only year-round access to the village. Most of the program's funding goes
to Alaska's Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, which
administers most projects under the program.39 AIP officials said that
many funds go to improving existing airports to bring all airports up to a
minimum standard, and while airports in the lower 48 states are often on
their second or third improvement plan, most airports in Alaska are being
constructed or improved for the first time. Figure 9 below shows the 310
AIP projects, by type, for the 1999-2004 AIP grants that benefited Alaska
Native villages.

36The Village Safe Water projects focus on rural Alaska. According to USDA
officials, most of the Village Safe Water projects benefit Alaska Native
villages.

37A flush and haul system generally consists of individual storage tanks
that provide water to flush toilets, and the sewage is then stored in a
separate tank, the contents of which are transported to a sewage lagoon.

38Since 2000, program funds have been given directly from USDA to the
state, while prior to that, grants were given directly to the communities
with grant administration done by the state. Some of these projects have
not been completed as of May 2005, as projects can take several years to
complete. Additionally, some funds have only been allocated and
construction of the project has not been started.

39The state of Alaska is the owner and operator for most of the airports
in Alaska; as such, the state is the eligible sponsor that can receive AIP
funding for these airports.

Figure 9: Percentage of 1999-2004 AIP Projects Used to Assist Alaska
Native Villages, by Type

Runway safety area

Airport planning

Airport construction

Other, including obstruction removal, security improvements, lighting

Snow-removal equipment and buildings

Improve existing airport

Source: GAO analysis of airport improvement program data.

Notes: Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

AIP provides grants that benefit both Alaska Native villages as well as
other areas. Federal Aviation Administration officials provided GAO with a
database of 519 projects in Alaska from 1999-2004. GAO categorized 310 of
those as benefiting Alaska Native villages, including villages located
within the boundaries of incorporated cities; non-Alaska Natives living in
those areas could benefit from those projects as well. Additionally,
grants that were made to benefit airports in larger locations, such as
Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks were not included, though Alaska Natives
living in and traveling to those locations could benefit from those
projects. Further, 36 of the 519 projects were labeled as statewide
projects without specific locations; those projects are not included in
the analysis above, and likewise could benefit Alaska Natives using those
airports. Some of the projects in this database have not been completed,
as completion of some projects can take as long as 4 years.

The Denali Commission's energy program has been used to address issues
affecting Alaska Natives by focusing on upgrades for bulk fuel tank farms
and rural power system upgrades. Energy has been the commission's primary
infrastructure theme since 1999. The first challenge undertaken by the
commission was the upgrade and consolidation of fuel tanks in 172
communities identified as health and environmental hazards by the U.S.
Coast Guard and EPA. According to the commission's 2004 Annual Report, the
two major recipients of the commission's energy facilities funds-the
Alaska Energy Authority and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative-have
upgraded bulk fuel tanks in 64 communities across the state, while
projects are under way in 70 other communities. For example, in 2001, the
commission provided about $2.9 million of the roughly $3.8 million used by
the Alaska Energy Authority to upgrade a tank farm in the Alaska Native
village of Kotlik (see fig. 10). The new tank farm replaced a system that
had been cited for violations by the U.S. Coast Guard with one that was in
full compliance with federal regulations. The commission's 2004 annual
report also stated that the commission has upgraded rural power systems in
13 communities, has started construction in 20 others, and is in the
planning or design phase in an additional 18. These upgrades include
adding backup power generators and increasing efficiency of existing
generators.

Figure 10: Before and After Upgrade Photos of Kotlik Bulk Fuel Facilities

Before upgrade.

Source: Denali Commission.

After upgrade.

Alaska Native Villages, Regional Eight of the 13 programs we reviewed
assisted Alaska Natives in areas such Native Nonprofits, and Other as
social services, capacity building, community development, job training,
State and Local Entities Used education, law enforcement, and economic
development in Alaska Native Federal Funding for Social communities.
Services, Capacity Building, Community Development, Job  o  Interior's
Tribal Self-Governance Program: Twelve Alaska Native Training, Native
Education, Law villages, eight regional Native nonprofits, one group
consisting of Enforcement, and Economic multiple Alaska Native villages
and one Indian reservation recently used Development Interior's Tribal
Self-Governance Program to fund a variety of activities.

According to agency officials and documents, these activities included:

     o tribal government programs, such as funding to allow grantees to plan,
       conduct, consolidate, and administer programs, services, functions,
       and activities for tribal citizens according to priorities established
       by their tribal governments;
     o human services programs, such as welfare assistance, child abuse and
       neglect counseling, and disaster assistance programs;
     o education programs, such as scholarship grants for Alaska Native
       students attending accredited postsecondary institutions and adult
       education programs;
     o public safety and justice, such as using funding for tribal courts
       that enable tribes to establish and maintain their own civil and
       criminal codes in accordance with local tribal customs and traditions;
     o community development, such as the Housing Improvement Program, which
       funds repairs and renovations of existing homes and construction of
       new homes, job training and placement programs, or road maintenance
       programs; and
     o resource management, such as programs assisting Alaska Natives in
       managing their forest, mineral, oil, gas, and other land-based
       programs, including fire protection and sacred-site programs.
        * EPA's Indian Environmental General Assistance Program: In 2004,
          program funding went to 139 Alaska Native villages and 11 groups of
          two or more tribes that are currently building their capacity to
          implement environmental protection programs, including development
          of solid and hazardous waste programs. According to EPA officials
          and documentation, villages use this "capacity building" funding to
          hire and
        * train staff and purchase office equipment, conduct a review of
          village programs to ensure compliance with federal regulations,
          develop a strategic environmental plan for the village, implement
          village recycling programs, and coordinate environmental efforts
          with other villages and federal and state officials, among other
          uses. For example, officials in Native Village of Goodnews Bay
          reported to EPA that they used program funding to provide the
          village with environmental education, awareness, increased capacity
          to apply for other grants, and jobs.
     o HUD's Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (ICDBG): Eighty
       ICDBG grants were awarded from 1998 through 2003, with all but one of
       those grants going to Alaska Native villages, and one going to a joint
       venture between a village and a regional Native health care nonprofit.
       The projects included 21 health-related facilities (e.g., clinics,
       mental health, and primary care facilities); 35 community centers; 17
       infrastructure projects (e.g., fuel tanks and water and sewer
       systems); 6 housing-related projects (e.g., housing rehabilitation,
       new construction, and land acquisition for new housing) and one
       imminent threat grant. For example, the Native Villages of Ekuk and
       Curyung used ICDBG grant funds in fiscal year 2002 to construct a
       combined Head Start/Family Resource Center in Dillingham (see fig.
       11). Each Native village received $500,000 in ICDBG funds and
       leveraged an additional $3.2 million from other sources, excluding the
       land that was donated by the Bristol Bay Native Association, according
       to program documentation. Opened to students in January 2003, the
       center provides Head Start and Early Learning programs and child care
       to parents transitioning from welfare to work. The new center serves
       60 children, ranging from infants to 12-year-olds, and replaced an old
       center that served only 30 children.

Figure 11: Head Start Center in Dillingham

Source: HUD/Alaska Field Office.

        * Labor's Youth Opportunity Grant Program: From 2000-2004, one
          coalition of Alaska Native Villages and regional Native nonprofits
          used approximately $32 million in funding from this program to fund
          a variety of education, job training, and youth development
          activities. The coalition selected Cook Inlet Tribal Council as the
          lead agency to apply for the Youth Opportunity Grant; Cook Inlet
          provided oversight, monitoring, and technical assistance. Cook
          Inlet subcontracted out the operation of most of the program to 11
          regional Native nonprofits and 4
        * Alaska Native villages. According to agency documentation, about
          2,960 Alaska youth, the vast majority of whom were Alaska Natives,
          enrolled in the YO! Alaska Program's 40 youth centers and
          participated in internships, sports and recreation activities,
          reading and math remediation, community service, high school
          graduate equivalency degree preparation, and other activities.
     o Education's Alaska Native Education Program: In 2003, 32 educational
       organizations with experience in developing educational programs for
       Alaska Natives used funds to address the educational needs of Alaska
       Native students, parents, and teachers. The program's enabling
       legislation specifically directs that some funding be used for Alaska
       Native cultural education programs, including a cultural exchange
       program between urban and rural students, dropout prevention programs,
       and parenting programs. Other funds have been used for family literacy
       programs, home instruction for preschool-age Alaska Natives, and to
       increase the educational opportunities of Alaska Native students and
       teachers. For example, the University of Alaska Southeast used an
       approximately $1.6 million grant for four main goals, one of which was
       to recruit and actively mentor Alaska Native high school students for
       the university's Bachelor of Science program.
     o Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Alaska Native
       villages have used Justice's COPS program to address village law
       enforcement needs through hiring and training police officers and
       purchasing uniforms and police vehicles. For example, since 1999, the
       COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program was used to hire 35 police
       officers in Alaska Native villages, and provide training and equipment
       to Native villages.
     o Commerce's Economic Adjustment Assistance Program: Alaska Native
       villages and regional Native nonprofits have used Economic Adjustment
       Assistance to develop comprehensive economic development strategies
       tailored to villages' specific economic problems and opportunities.
       Since 1999, the program has funded 29 projects. For example, in 2001,
       the Tanana Chiefs Conference was awarded $725,000 for the construction
       of a 20-room hotel with a combination restaurant, lounge, and meeting
       facilities on council-owned property located in the Village of Circle.
     o Commerce's Public Works and Economic Development Facilities Program:
       Alaska Native villages and other tribal organizations have used

Most of the Selected Programs Provide Funding for at Least a Portion of
Grantees' Administrative Fees

three grants from this program since 1999. For example, in 2001, a village
used $2.3 million to assist with the construction of a complex to house a
museum, visitor center, and retail and office space.

Eleven of the 13 programs we reviewed provided some funding to pay for a
portion of the total administrative costs associated with the programs.40
The majority of these 11 programs provided funding for administrative
costs as part of the overall grant amount, rather than allowing for
reimbursement for specific administrative costs that grantees incur. Most
of these 11 programs had restrictions on the amount of administrative
funds grantees can use. For example, HUD's IHBG program allows grantees to
use up to 20 percent of the grant amount for total administrative costs.
In contrast, Labor's Youth Opportunity Grant program does not specifically
limit administrative costs. However, according to Labor officials, the
department negotiates with grantees to keep administrative costs low.

Available Information on How Grantees Used Funds from Selected Programs
Varies, in Part Due to Different Reporting Requirements

Information on how Alaska Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, and
other grantees used funds from the 13 programs we reviewed varied widely,
partially because different programs have different reporting requirements
and also because agencies summarize program data differently.41 For
example, the statute governing the Department of the Interior's Tribal
Self-Governance Program does not require that the grantee submit
information on how they used program funds; however, they can submit such

40Total administrative costs consist of direct and indirect administrative
costs. Direct administrative costs include costs that grantees can
allocate to a particular federal program, such as unemployment taxes and
workers compensation insurance. Indirect administrative costs include
costs that grantees cannot easily allocate to a particular federal
program. Indirect costs typically include administrative salaries and
fringe benefits associated with overall financial and organizational
administration, operation and maintenance costs for facilities and
equipment, and payroll and procurement services.

41In addition to reports required by federal agencies, grantees are
subject to audit under the Single Audit Act. The Single Audit Act states
that nonfederal grantees that expend a total amount of federal awards
equal to or in excess of $500,000 are subject to an examination to
determine if the grantee has expended funds in compliance with program
requirements.

information voluntarily.42 Additionally, reporting requirements for the
other programs we reviewed varied, ranging from general information on
delivery of services paid for by grant funds to detailed information on
the financial uses of funds and progress toward grant goals. For example,
HHS's Tribal Self-Governance Program requires that grantees report
annually on health status and service delivery in their locations, but
does not require specific financial reports on how funding was used.
Conversely, DOT's Airport Improvement Program requires that grantees send
quarterly performance reports that include comparisons between the
projects' accomplishments and the goals established for the quarter,
reasons for not accomplishing planned goals in specific cases, and an
analysis and explanation of any cost overruns.

Additionally, some agencies do more than others to summarize individual
grantee data on a programwide basis. For example, EPA's Indian
Environmental General Assistance Program has information in project files
on each individual grantee's projects, but has not summarized the
information to show how all program funds have been used. In contrast, the
Denali Commission collects project information in a Web-based, publicly
available database that provides detailed financial and progress
information. The system includes all of the commission's grants, and can
be queried to produce information by attributes such as theme (the
underlying subject area of the project, such as energy-bulk fuel),
community involvement, recipient, and milestone (such as in the business
plan or construction phase).

42While Interior's self-governance grantees have limited reporting
requirements, grantees' annual funding agreements contain provisions for
the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an annual review of the tribe's
performance of trust functions. The Secretary may reassume a program,
service, function, or activity, if there is a finding of imminent jeopardy
to a physical trust asset or the public health and safety.

Page 41 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Alaska Native Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Constructed More
Than 800 and Rehabilitated Almost 3,000 Homes, and the Number and Costs of
Completed Units Varied across Regions

Results from our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing
authorities indicated that, from calendar years 1998 through 2003, these
entities constructed 874 single-family units and rehabilitated 2,990
single-family units.43 Most of the new units constructed were three- and
four-bedroom homes, and most of the new construction and rehabilitation
activity occurred in a few regions. In addition, housing authorities
constructed more than three times and rehabilitated more than twice the
number of units than responding villages. However, village production of
new homes increased steadily, while production by regional housing
authorities fluctuated. Our analysis of survey data also indicated that
the average costs of units constructed varied by region and by who
developed them. Survey results also showed that housing authorities had
higher new construction costs than villages, although villages had higher
rehabilitation costs for units that did not require acquisition. According
to federal, state, and local officials, variation in the number and cost
of units constructed and rehabilitated by region and between housing
authorities and villages reflect various factors, such as differences in
local housing goals and objectives and proximity to sources of building
materials. Also, regional housing authorities modernized 5,211
single-family units previously developed under the U.S. Housing Act of
1937 and developed several multifamily properties. Villages, however, are
ineligible to receive funding for modernization. Reproductions of our
surveys are contained in appendixes XVII and XVIII.

Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Completed Construction on 874
Units and Rehabilitated 2,990 Units from 1998 through 2003

Based on our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing
authorities, from calendar years 1998 through 2003, villages and regional
housing authorities completed construction on a total of 874 single-family
units and rehabilitated 2,990 single-family units. As shown in table 5,
the number of units these entities constructed ranged from 104 in 1998 to
199 in 2002. The most common size of newly constructed units was a
three-bedroom home. Slightly more than half of all units constructed were
of this type. The second most common units were four-bedroom homes, which

43Our survey asked for information on newly constructed and rehabilitated
single-family units that were completed from 1998 through 2003 using
NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds. We asked
respondents to only include units completed (when available for occupancy)
by December 31, 2003. Rehabilitation refers to a wide range of
improvements made to existing housing, such as energy-related improvements
and lead-based paint abatement. Rehabilitation figures are for units
rehabilitated without acquisition (i.e., that did not require purchase)
and those acquired before they were rehabilitated.

represented about a third of all units. Also, the total number of units
rehabilitated by regional housing authorities and villages increased, from
253 in 1998 to 628 in 2002.

Table 5: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed and Rehabilitated for
Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar Years
1998-2003

Source: GAO.

Notes: Not all of the regional housing authorities and villages
constructing or rehabilitating units completed units each year.

aTwelve regional housing authorities and 31 villages constructed units.

bFour regional housing authorities and 5 villages rehabilitated acquired
units, and 10 regional housing authorities and 31 villages rehabilitated
units that did not require acquisition.

As shown in figure 12, most of the newly constructed units were located in
only a few regions. Specifically, four of the 12 regions-the Association
of Village Council Presidents (AVCP), Fairbanks Native Association,
Central Council, and Bristol Bay Native Association-accounted for 590
units- about 68 percent of the new construction. Specifically, one region-
AVCP- accounted for about 30 percent of the production. Three regions,
Copper River Native Association, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association,
and Kodiak Area Native Association, produced few or no new units.

Figure 12: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed by Region for
Villages and Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003 Year
Region 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association 0 0 015 0 0

15

34

Arctic Slope Native Association 0 1 2 127 3

Association of Village Council Presidents Bristol Bay Native Association
Central Council Chugachmiut Cook Inlet Tribal Council

                                 13 44 18 15 1

46

0 17 16

1

                                 53 22 22 15 1

                                                                 54 14 23 7 3

49 7 6 0

64

                                                                 48 15 26 5 3

                                                            263 102 112 58 73

Kodiak Area Native Association 0 0 013 0 0

13

Manillaq Association 0 3 2 4 611

26

Total 104 134 143 156 199 138

Source: GAO.

Note: Twelve regional housing authorities and 31 villages constructed
units, although not all of the regional housing authorities and villages
completed units each year.

Similarly, the majority of units that villages and housing authorities
rehabilitated over the period were located in a few regions. As shown in
figure 13, three regions-Central Council, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, and
Bristol Bay Native Association-accounted for almost 60 percent of all
rehabilitated units. In contrast, the Aleutian Pribilof Islands
Association and Arctic Slope Native Association regions completed
relatively few or no rehabilitation projects.

Figure 13: Number of Units Rehabilitated (with and without Acquisition) by
Region for Responding Villages and Housing Authorities, Calendar Years
1998-2003

Year

Region Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association Arctic Slope Native
Association Association of Village Council Presidents Bristol Bay Native
Association Central Council Chugachmiut Cook Inlet Tribal Council Copper
River Native Association Fairbanks Native Association Kawerak Inc. Kodiak
Area Native Association Manillaq Association

Total

Note: Four regional housing authorities and 5 villages rehabilitated
acquired units, and 10 regional housing authorities and 31 villages
rehabilitated units that did not require acquisition. Not all of the
regional housing authorities and villages rehabilitating units completed
units each year.

The 2,990 rehabilitated units include 2,920 units that did not require
purchase before rehabilitation began, and 70 units that housing
authorities and villages acquired before they were rehabilitated. Housing
authorities and villages in five regions-AVCP, Bristol Bay Native
Association, Central Council, Chugachmiut, and Maniilaq
Association-rehabilitated acquired units. Most of the rehabilitated units
that required acquisition-47-were completed in the Central Council region.

Housing Authorities Constructed More Than Three Times and Rehabilitated
More Than Two Times the Number of Units Compared with Villages

Based on our survey, housing authorities constructed more than three times
the number of new units as villages did. As shown in table 6, regional
housing authorities constructed 666 units, while villages completed 208
units. Both the AVCP housing authority and the 11 villages within this
region completed the most units-173 and 90, respectively-compared with
housing authorities and villages located in other regions. The regional
housing authority in Copper River Native Association region as well as the
responding villages in both the Kodiak Island Native Association and
Chugachmiut regions completed no units.

 Table 6: Number of New Units Constructed by Housing Authorities Compared with
                    Villages, by Region, Calendar Years 1998

Source: GAO.

Note: Not all of the regional housing authorities and villages
constructing units completed units each year.

Housing authorities rehabilitated more than double the number of units
compared with responding villages, for both units that did not and did
require acquisition. As shown in table 7, for units that did not require
acquisition, housing authorities rehabilitated 2,114 units compared with
806 rehabilitated by villages. Almost 70 percent of housing authority
rehabilitations occurred in three regions-Bristol Bay Native Association,
Central Council, and Cook Inlet Tribal Council. Similarly, villages in
four regions-AVCP, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Fairbanks Native
Association, and Maniilaq Association-accounted for over 70 percent of the
units rehabilitated by villages. The regional housing authorities
rehabilitated more units in all regions except for the Arctic Slope Native
Association, AVCP, Chugachmiut, and Maniilaq Association regions.

Table 7: Number of New Units Rehabilitated without Acquisition by Housing
Authorities Compared with Villages, by Region, Calendar Years 1998-2003

Source: GAO.

Note: Not all of the regional housing authorities and villages
rehabilitating units completed units each year.

Similarly, housing authorities rehabilitated more than double the number
of the acquired units as villages. Three housing authorities-Bristol Bay
Native Association, Central Council, and Chugachmiut-rehabilitated 50
units that required acquisition. The housing authorities in Central
Council rehabilitated the most acquired units, 43. Responding villages in
three regions-AVCP, Central Council, and Maniilaq
Association-rehabilitated 20 units that required acquisition.
Rehabilitations of this type were more evenly spread among the responding
villages, with Central Council completing 4 units, AVCP completing 6
units, and Maniilaq Association completing 10.

Over the period covered by our survey, villages annually increased unit
construction, while regional housing authority production varied annually.
Specifically, village production grew more than sevenfold, from 7 units in
1998 to 53 units in 2003. Regional housing authority production ranged
from 97 in 1998 to 149 in 2002, but also fluctuated widely over the period
(see fig. 14).

Figure 14: Annual and Total Number of Units Constructed by Housing
Authorities and Villages, Calendar Years 1998-2003

Villages

Units constructed Number of villages constructing units 60 20 50 15 40 30

                                       10

20 5 10

0

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Regional housing authorities

Units constructed Number of housing authorities constructing units 150

                                       10

120

                                       8

90

                                       6

60

                                       4

30

                                       2

0

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Source: GAO.

Regional Housing Authorities Modernized 5,211 Single-Family Units
Previously Developed under

U.S. Housing Act of 1937

Based on our survey, 13 housing authorities modernized 5,211 single-family
units previously developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.44 Villages
are ineligible to receive funds for modernization activities. AVCP
modernized the most units, 1,287. In contrast, the housing authorities in
the Copper River Native Association and the Fairbanks Native Association
regions modernized few units over the period (see fig. 15).

Figure 15: Number of Single-Family Units Modernized by Housing
Authorities, Calendar Years 1998-2003

Source: GAO.

Notes: Although all 13 regional housing authorities modernized units, not
all of the regional housing authorities completed those units each year.

aTwo regional housing authorities in Central Council responded to this
question.

44Funds for modernization of housing developed under the U.S. Housing Act
of 1937 are provided only to regional housing authorities who are the
owners of record.

Page 49 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Regional Housing Authorities Constructed, Rehabilitated, and Modernized
Multifamily Housing Properties

Only housing authorities completed new construction, rehabilitation, and
modernization of multifamily properties (i.e., properties with five or
more units). From 1998 through 2003, responding regional housing
authorities constructed six multifamily properties-two by the housing
authority in the Cook Inlet Tribal Council region, two by the housing
authority in the Copper River Native Association region, and one each in
the Aleutian Pribilof Islands and Central Council regions. Average
property sizes ranged from 6,470 square feet in the Aleutian Pribilof
Islands Association region to 34,831 square feet in the Cook Inlet Tribal
Council region.45 Housing authorities also rehabilitated four multifamily
properties, two of which were acquired. The housing authorities in the
Bristol Bay Native Association and Central Council regions acquired and
rehabilitated one multifamily property each, and the regional housing
authority in the Kawerak Inc. region rehabilitated two multifamily
properties.

In addition, seven housing authorities modernized 73 multifamily
properties over the period. Responding housing authorities completed a low
of 8 multifamily properties in 1999 and a high of 17 properties in 2003.
Housing authorities in seven regions-Arctic Slope Native Association,
Bristol Bay Native Association, Central Council, Chugachmiut, Cook Inlet
Tribal Council, Copper River Native Association, Kodiak Area Native
Association-modernized multifamily housing. The housing authority in Cook
Inlet Tribal Council region modernized the most multifamily properties-30.

New Construction and Housing Rehabilitation Costs Varied by Region and by
Whether Units Were Completed by Villages or Housing Authorities

Construction and rehabilitation costs varied widely by region, with more
remote regions generally incurring higher costs. Additionally, regional
housing authorities had higher construction costs than villages. In
contrast, villages had higher rehabilitation costs for housing units that
did not require acquisition. Regional housing authority single-family
modernization costs also varied by region, and multifamily housing costs
varied according to the type of housing development. In general, housing
costs are influenced by factors such as transportation, local expertise,
terrain, site preparation, and required building/energy standards.

45For newly constructed, rehabilitated, and modernized multifamily
properties, we did not collect information on the number of individual
units or the size of units included in these properties.

Page 50 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Overall, based on our survey results, from 1998 through 2003, the average
construction cost for all units produced by 31 villages and 12 housing
authorities, was $222,928 per unit or $183 per square foot (in 2003
dollars). The average unit size was 1,217 square feet. During the same
time period, the average cost of units rehabilitated by villages and
housing authorities that did not require acquisition was $46,866 for major
rehabilitation (costing $20,000 or more per unit) and $7,070 for minor
rehabilitation (costing less than $20,000 per unit). The average cost of
units that were rehabilitated and acquired by villages and housing
authorities was $87,324 or $79 per square foot.46

New construction housing costs showed wide variation in eleven regions,
based on responding regional housing authorities and villages. As shown by
figure 16, the average combined cost per square foot ranged from $122 in
Chugachmiut (located in southern Alaska, near Anchorage) to $267 in the
Arctic Slope (located in the northern most region in Alaska). The average
size of the units in these two regions was similar-1,134 per square feet
and 1,142 per square feet, respectively. Kodiak Area Native Association
region (located southwest of Anchorage) had the second highest costs per
square foot, and Cook Inlet (Anchorage is part of Cook Inlet) had the
second lowest cost per unit. These two regions also had similar sized
units.

46Includes both rehabilitation and acquisition costs.

 Figure 16: Average Regional New Construction Costs for Housing Authorities and
Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, Ranked by Cost Per Square Foot (in

Arctic Slope Native Association Kodiak Area Native Association Kawerak
Inc. Fairbanks Native Association Bristol Bay Native Association
Association of Village Council Presidents Manillaq Association Central
Council Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association Cook Inlet Tribal Council
Chugachmiut

$267 255 225 206 188 179 174 170 161 144 122

$305,634 301,823 258,043 208,088 259,095 225,942 203,248 226,901 268,614
158,918 138,944

Source: GAO.

Note: Twelve regional housing authorities and 31 villages constructed
units. Copper River Native Association region did not report any new
construction.

Seattle is a primary source of construction materials for housing in
Alaska. The Arctic Slope Native Association is the furthest region from
Seattle and incurs the highest costs for transporting building material
and equipment. Chugachmiut has lower transportation costs because it is
closer to Seattle. However, the Kodiak Area Native Association region
exemplifies how a region relatively close to Seattle can nonetheless face
unusually high construction costs. According to an official with the
Kodiak Island Housing Authority, there are several factors that have
increased the cost of construction on the island, such as remote villages
along the coast often not having adequate docking facilities to offload
construction material, requiring special, expensive barges. Also, since
the Kodiak Area Native Association area is rocky, extensive drilling and
blasting is required to excavate the housing foundation for each unit and
for digging trenches for water and sewer lines to the housing site.
Finally, villages that are close to Kodiak City-the largest city in the
Kodiak Area Native Association region-have high land costs.

As shown in table 8, responding regional housing authorities had higher
average costs for all units constructed and built larger units than did
villages. Regional housing authorities' average cost for all units
constructed was $236,229 per unit or $189 per square foot, compared with
villages, which had an average cost per unit of $180,338 or $160 per
square foot. However, housing authority square-foot costs remained stable
over the 6year period, while village square-foot costs fluctuated. For
example, from 1999 through 2000, the per-square-foot costs for villages
decreased by 25 percent from $183 to $138, but between 2002 and 2003, the
average per-square-foot costs increased 47 percent from $144 to $212.
Moreover, housing authorities built units that were on average 433 square
feet larger than units villages built in 1999 and 246 square feet larger
in 2003. However, in 2000, villages built slightly larger units than
housing authorities.

  Table 8: Average New Construction Costs, Number and Size of Units, Regional
                        Housing Authorities and Villages

Source: GAO.

Note: One responding regional housing authority and 21 responding villages
did not report completing any new construction during the period.

Similar to new construction costs, the combined average rehabilitation
cost for units that did not require acquisition varied throughout Alaska's
regions (see fig. 17). The region that reported the highest cost for major
rehabilitation was the Arctic Slope Native Association, which had an
average cost per unit of $93,444, followed by Cook Inlet Tribal Council,
with an average per unit cost of $66,368. The two lowest-cost regions for
major rehabilitation were Bristol Bay Native Association (southwestern
Alaska), with an average per unit cost of $30,154, and Kawerak Inc.
(northern Alaska), with an average cost per unit of $31,056. The
highest-cost regions for minor rehabilitation were Kawerak Inc., which
reported an average per unit cost of $17,671, and Kodiak Area Native
Association, which reported an average per unit cost of $14,471. The
lowest-cost regions for minor rehabilitation were Copper River Native
Association (northeast of Anchorage) and Chugachmiut, which reported
average per unit costs of $4,239 and $5,278, respectively.

Figure 17: Average Rehabilitation Costs for Regional Housing Authorities
and Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, by Region, for Units That
Did Not Require Acquisition (in 2003 Dollars)

Source: GAO.

Note: N/A indicates that no data were reported for these fields. Ten
regional housing authorities and 31 villages rehabilitated units that did
not require purchase.

Although villages had higher rehabilitation costs for units that did not
require acquisition, housing authorities had higher costs for units that
did require acquisition. For units that did not require acquisition,
housing authorities had lower costs than villages for major and minor
rehabilitation. Housing authorities' average cost for major rehabilitation
was $44,200 per unit, while the village cost was $60,516 per unit.
However, the average difference between village and regional housing
authority minor rehabilitation costs was minimal: $6,967 vs. $7,301. (See
fig. 18.)

Figure 18: Housing Authority and Village Rehabilitation Costs for Units That Did
                  Not Require Acquisition, by Region, Calendar

Years 1998-2003

Region Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association Arctic Slope Native
Association

Association of Village Council Presidents Bristol Bay Native Association
Central Councila Chugachmiut Cook Inlet Tribal Council Copper River Native
Association Fairbanks Native Association Kawerak Inc. Kodiak Area Native
Association Manillaq Association

Number of villages

N/A

2

6 N/A

1 N/A

2 N/A N/A

2 N/A

1 8,011

6,183

4,331

7,002

4,931

6,685

10,186

6,017

                                    N/A N/A

4,239

6,657

15,325

16,737

17,807

15,057

13,675

5,105

9,706

Notes: N/A indicates that no data were reported for these fields.

aOne housing authority in Central Council completed major rehabilitation,
and two housing authorities in Central Council completed minor
rehabilitation.

Conversely, regional housing authorities had higher average costs for
units that were rehabilitated and acquired than villages. Over the 6-year
period, 70 of these units were completed by four housing authorities and
five villages. The average per unit cost for regional housing authorities
was $105,849, compared with the average village per unit cost of $41,010.
One reason for this cost difference may be that the regional housing
authorities acquired much larger units; they averaged 1,281 square feet
per unit compared with villages, which acquired units about half the size
that

Regional Housing Authority Single-Family Modernization Costs Also Varied
by Region

averaged 634 square feet. However, regional housing authority costs per
square foot were also higher than villages: $82 for regional housing
authorities versus $64 for villages.

The average modernization costs for regional housing authorities varied by
region. The average per unit costs for major modernization ($20,000 or
more per unit) for all housing authorities was $28,387 per unit and for
minor modernization (less than $20,000), $10,002 per unit. Twelve regional
housing authorities completed major modernizations over the period. The
regional housing authorities in Cook Inlet Tribal Council and Kawerak Inc.
region had the highest average costs for major modernizations, averaging
$44,330 and $43,324 per unit, respectively. The housing authorities in
Association of Village Council Presidents and Bristol Bay Native
Association regions had the lowest average costs for major modernization,
averaging $22,795 and $23,643 per unit, respectively. Thirteen regional
housing authorities completed minor modernizations. The housing authority
in Kawerak Inc. region had the highest average minor modernization
costs-$12,425 per unit-and the housing authority in the Cook Inlet Tribal
Council region had the lowest average cost-$2,575 per unit.

Multifamily Housing Costs Varied by Region and Type of Housing Development

As previously noted, only regional housing authorities undertook
multifamily projects. Although the average multifamily new construction
cost for the six properties was about $3.8 million per property or $196
per square foot, per-square-foot costs ranged from $171 for the housing
authority in the Copper River Native Association region to $219 for the
housing authority in the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Native Association
region. Similarly, the only two properties that included rehabilitation
with acquisition experienced very different costs. For example, one small
property (5,760 square feet), located in the Bristol Bay Native
Association region, had a total cost of about $880,270 or $152 per square
foot, and a large property (54,323 square feet) located in the Central
Council region, had a total cost of about $5.3 million or $97 per square
foot. Additionally, the two properties that were rehabilitated without
acquisition (both in the Kawerak Inc. region) averaged $50,272 per
property. In contrast, the 73 multifamily properties that were modernized
had an average per property cost of $118,082. The average costs ranged
from $8,661 per property in the Copper River Native Association region to
$354,730 per property in Kodiak Island Native Association region.

Several Factors May Account for Differences in the Number and Cost of
Units Constructed and Rehabilitated by Villages and Housing Authorities
and by Region

As previously discussed, the number of units constructed and rehabilitated
over the period varied by whether they were completed by villages or
housing authorities, and by region. According to federal and tribal
officials and documentation, the following factors could account for these
differences:

     o Differences in housing goals and objectives. In order to receive
       NAHASDA funding, housing authorities and villages are required to
       submit to HUD a 1-year and 5-year Indian Housing Plan (IHP), which
       outlines the housing goals and objectives for their communities. To
       carry out their plans, housing authorities and villages can determine
       the extent to which they focus their resources on new construction,
       rehabilitation, or other affordable housing activities. For example,
       Bristol Bay Housing Authority outlined in its fiscal year 2003 IHP
       that it would allocate a fixed amount of funds for new construction in
       villages, based on an assessment of needs.
     o Differences in the amount of NAHASDA funding. Regional housing
       authorities generally receive considerably larger amounts of annual
       funding compared with villages because regional housing authorities
       receive funding on behalf of villages that have designated them to
       receive their NAHASDA funds, as well as modernization and operating
       funds for units developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.47 Lack
       of additional funding in some cases limits the affordable housing
       villages can construct or rehabilitate. For example, in fiscal year
       2003, the housing authority in the Maniilaq Association region
       received about twice the amount of funds of the single-largest amount
       provided to a village in that region. In addition, the amount of
       funding housing authorities and villages receive from the HUD formula
       takes into account Native population of the service area. Some of the
       populations that regional housing authorities serve are considerably
       higher than that of villages, and some regions have higher populations
       than other regions. For example, the total Native population in the
       Cook Inlet Native Association region is more than 10 times that of the
       Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association region.

47HUD uses two components to determine annual NAHASDA funding: current
assisted stock and housing need. The housing need component consists of
seven weighted criteria, such as population and overcrowding.

Page 58 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

        * Differences in the extent to which NAHASDA funds were leveraged.
          Variations in the number of units constructed and rehabilitated may
          reflect the extent to which NAHASDA funds were leveraged. For
          example, according to the Cook Inlet housing authority, it
          leveraged IHBG funds with other sources of funding to complete a
          recent housing development. Cook Inlet housing authority used
          NAHASDA funds for about 10 percent of project costs and leveraged
          the remaining costs with private mortgages and other funding.
        * Similarly, federal and state housing officials informed us that
          several factors may account for differences in regional
          construction and rehabilitation costs, as well as differences in
          costs reported by villages and housing authorities. These factors
          include the following:
     o Transportation costs: Many Alaska Native villages are in remote
       locations, requiring equipment and building supplies to be transported
       to the construction sites. In general, regions that are farthest from
       Seattle-a major source of building materials-incur higher costs for
       transporting building material and equipment than regions that are
       closer.48
     o Length of construction season: Villages that experience extremely cold
       weather, such as those in the north and the interior of Alaska, have
       short construction seasons. For example, the construction season in
       the Arctic Slope Native Association is usually 2 or 3 months long,
       depending on ice conditions in the Bering Strait and north of the
       Arctic Circle. A short construction season means higher costs due to
       limited barge access to remote communities (with barge access the only
       viable method for moving construction materials and equipment to
       remote villages), less time available for site preparation and actual
       construction, overtime pay for working longer hours each day, and
       climate changes that suddenly stop construction or excavation.
     o Using outside expertise: Higher costs are associated with
       transporting, housing and feeding outside construction workers,
       engineers, and housing inspectors. This could be for both regional
       housing authorities

48For example, the 2002 Construction Cost Survey, sponsored by the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation, indicated that construction material costs
for Barrow (in the far north) were about 115 percent higher than for Sitka
(near the southern tip of Alaska). The study indicated that a major reason
for these increased costs was the added cost of transportation.

Page 59 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

and rural Native villages. Larger villages may be able to use local
construction workers, but smaller, more isolated villages with a limited
skilled labor pool to choose from may have to rely on outside workers with
required technical skills (e.g., electricians, plumbers, etc.). Many
housing authorities rely on outside contractors, who usually provide a
core crew of their own construction workers-supplemented by the local
workforce-to construct housing.

     o Land costs: Generally, urban areas cost more than rural areas because
       they are closer to utilities and roads and are located in active real
       estate markets in high-density areas. Rural Native villages often
       donate land for housing development, though in many cases they have
       less access to infrastructure.
     o Wage costs: The hourly wage rates for new construction and
       rehabilitation of housing vary across Alaska's regions. Generally,
       labor costs are higher in the more remote areas of Alaska, such as the
       north, and lower in the southern areas. For example, under the
       Davis-Bacon Act, carpenters are required to be paid $15.83 (without
       fringe benefits) in the Anchorage area; $25.05 plus $7.80 for fringe
       benefits in the Northern area; and $17.68 (without fringe benefits) in
       the southern area.49 In 2000, NAHASDA was amended to allow Native
       villages to establish tribally determined wage rates for their IHBG
       construction projects instead of using Davis-Bacon wages rates.
       However, according to HUD officials, Davis-Bacon wage rates and
       tribally determined wage rates within the same region are frequently
       similar.
     o Type of terrain: Many of the houses in Alaska Native communities,
       particularly in northern and central Alaska, were constructed on
       permafrost-land that is permanently frozen. It generally costs more to
       build on this type of terrain due to the need for specialized
       engineered foundation systems. It also generally costs more to build
       on hilly terrain or rocky soil, such as Kodiak Island in the Kodiak
       Area Native Association region.
     o Site preparation: Building or extending roads and installing power,
       water, and sewer lines-both on-site and off-site, particularly in
       rural

49The southern region includes areas such as Bristol Bay, Aleutian East
and West, Bethel, and Valdez. The northern region includes areas such as
Fairbanks, Fairbanks Northstar Borough, and the Northwest Arctic Borough.

Page 60 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

communities-can be costly. Also, the same type of terrain problems
mentioned above apply to site preparation.

     o Energy efficiency standards: The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
       (AHFC) requires any recipient of its funds to follow the Building
       Energy Efficiency Standard (BEES). Each regional housing authority
       receives annual funding from AHFC, but the villages do not receive any
       such funds. Therefore, each regional housing authority is required to
       adhere to the BEES for each newly constructed unit whenever they use
       AHFC funding. According to an AHFC official responsible for
       administering the BEES program, there are additional costs associated
       with compliance with the BEES standards, although these costs will
       vary depending on several factors, such as whether an independent
       inspector is required to inspect the housing unit. Villages may also
       voluntarily choose to use some or all of the BEES standards.
     o Building code standards: Alaska's Construction Inspection Guidelines
       require each builder to retain an independent, licensed inspector to
       perform each of the inspections set forth in the guidelines. According
       an AHFC official, this could amount to between 5 to 12 inspector site
       visits during the construction period. Since only regional housing
       authorities receive AHFC funds, Native villages are not required to
       follow any state building codes, unless they are located in one of the
       13 municipalities that have adopted building code standards. However,
       similar to the BEES, Native villages may voluntarily choose to use
       some or all of the building code standards.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the federal
co-chair of the Denali Commission and the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, Justice, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the
Governor of Alaska. We received technical comments from five federal
agencies and the state of Alaska that we incorporated, as appropriate. The
Departments of Commerce and the Interior generally agreed with the report
and provided written comments that are reprinted in appendixes XIX and
XXI, respectively. The Department of Health and Human Services also
provided written comments, stating that the GAO draft report did not
include its Health Resources and Services Administration's Minority AIDS
Initiative among the 13 programs we reviewed. Funding for the
administration is included in our analysis as part of overall funding for
the Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, as discussed in
the report, the 13 programs we selected for review generally provided the
largest amount of funding to Alaska Native villages and regional Native
nonprofits during fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for their respective
agencies. Based on our analysis, the Minority AIDS Initiative did not
provide the largest amount of the department's funding to Alaska Native
villages and regional Native nonprofits during the period. The Department
of Health and Human Services' written comments are reprinted in appendix

XX.

We are sending copies of this report to the federal co-chair of the Denali
Commission and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health
and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, the Interior,
Labor, and Transportation, and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, as well as the Governor of Alaska.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-8678 [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are
listed in appendix XXII.

William B. Shear

Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

This study's objectives were to (1) provide information on the amount of
federal assistance to Alaska Native villages during federal fiscal years
1998 through 2003; (2) describe how selected federal funds have been used
to assist Alaska Native villages; and (3) provide data on the number and
average cost of houses built by villages and Alaska Native regional
housing authorities. To address these objectives, we met with officials of
various federal agencies, the state of Alaska, boroughs, and cities. In
addition, we met with representatives of Native villages, regional Native
nonprofit organizations, and other organizations that primarily focus on
Alaska Natives. We also met with officials from advocacy groups that
represent Alaska Natives, including the Alaska Federation of Natives, the
Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, and the National Congress of American
Indians.

To report on the amount of federal funding that has been provided to
assist Alaska Native villages, we examined data on both funding to over
200 federally recognized Alaska Native villages and regional Native
nonprofits. We classified as regional Native nonprofits the Native
associations that were identified in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA) and the organizations that succeeded them, which, throughout
this report, we refer to as ANCSA Native nonprofits; Native health
organizations identified in Public Law 105-83; and housing authorities
identified by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To
provide information on federal funding to Alaska Native villages, we
analyzed data from the Federal Assistance Award Data System (FAADS), which
identifies recipients of federal awards, federal programs for which awards
were made, and award amounts. The analysis sought to isolate funding
provided to Alaska Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, other
nonprofits that primarily focus on Alaska Natives, incorporated cities
that have villages within their borders, boroughs, and the state of
Alaska. In providing FAADS data to the Census Bureau, each federal agency
codes recipients of its federal funds into 13 categories. Two of these
categories apply to Native recipients: Indian tribes and other nonprofit
agencies. During electronic testing, GAO identified reliability problems
with these categories. Similar problems were identified by other
researchers (e.g., University of Alaska Anchorage and the Alaska
Legislature Legislative Research Service) that have used this data. For
example, agencies did not consistently apply the recipient codes to the
same recipients. Therefore, we conducted our own coding of the recipient
type, and in some cases, recipients were recoded into a new category.
Specifically, we classified entities as Alaska Native villages based on
whether they were recognized as such by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA). We classified entities as regional Native nonprofits based on
whether there were (1) regional Native associations identified in

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

ANCSA and the organizations that succeeded them, (2) regional Native
health organizations identified in Public Law 105-83, or (3) Alaska
regional housing authorities identified by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development. We classified entities as other nonprofits that
primarily focus on Alaska Natives based our review of published
information and on consultations with the Denali Commission and the Alaska
Federation of Natives. In addition, we classified entities as state
entities based on whether they were state of Alaska agencies or
subagencies; boroughs based on whether there were recognized Alaska
borough governments; cities based on whether they were incorporated cities
that contain Alaska Native villages within their borders; and Independent
School Districts based on whether they are Alaska public school districts.

Maintained by the Census Bureau, FAADS produces a quarterly file of
standardized data records on all types of financial assistance awards made
by federal agencies to all types of recipients during the indicated
quarter. Each transaction record identifies, by the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) program code number and name, the type and
amount of financial assistance, the type and location of the recipient,
and the geographic place of performance. Also, GAO's FAADS analyses uses
constant 2003 dollars. We assessed the reliability of the FAADS data by
(1) performing electronic testing of the required data elements for
obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) comparing program totals
by fiscal year to similar data from the Single Audit Act database, (3)
reviewing related documentation, (4) reviewing related studies that used
FAADS data, and (5) interviewing Census Bureau officials knowledgeable
about the data. In addition, for 10 federal agencies whose programs are
focused on in this report, we provided agency officials with FAADS program
dollar amount totals for all entities receiving funds in Alaska, by fiscal
year, and asked agencies to verify that the totals were correct.1 In cases
where there was a greater than 10 percent difference between our totals
based on FAADS compared with data provided directly to us by the agencies,
we identified the agency programs producing the largest dollar differences
and the largest percentage differences, and discussed those differences
with agency officials. If we determined that the agency data were
reliable, we

1These agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,
Justice, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. While the Denali Commission is also a federal agency
whose programs are a focus in this report, the commission has not yet
reported data on their obligations to the Census Bureau for FAADS
purposes; therefore, we did not ask the commission to verify any data we
obtained from FAADS.

Page 64 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages Appendix I
Scope and Methodology

adjusted our data to reflect the verified agency data. We did this by
obtaining the agency obligations provided to individual recipients in
Alaska for agency programs from 1998 through 2003. The FAADS data was
obtained from Census in March 2005.

To provide information on the amount of federal funds passed through to
Alaska Native villages and other entities by the state of Alaska to carry
out federal programs, we analyzed information obtained from the state of
Alaska's Department of Administration, Division of Finance; and the
University of Alaska. The Division of Finance coordinated our request for
"pass through" data with 15 state departments and component units. The
information we obtained from the Division of Finance and the University of
Alaska included the amount of federal funds passed through to various
entities for state fiscal years 1998 through 2003, including the specific
federal program that provided the funds. We limited our review to Alaska
Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, incorporated cities that have
Native villages within their borders, and boroughs. To assess the
reliability of the state data, we discussed the data system with Division
of Finance officials and the University of Alaska. We also discussed the
process they used to satisfy our request. We concluded that the data we
obtained from the state of Alaska were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. The state data were obtained from the Division of
Finance and University of Alaska during February and March 2005.

To describe how selected federal funds were used to assist Alaska Native
communities, we judgmentally selected 13 major programs from 11 agencies-1
each from 9 agencies and 2 each from the remaining 2 agencies. We selected
1 program each from the Denali Commission, the Departments of Agriculture
(USDA), Education, Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice, Interior,
Labor, and Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). We also selected two programs each from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and the Department of Commerce. Generally, the
selected programs provided the largest amount of funding to Alaska Native
villages and regional Native nonprofits during fiscal years 1998 through
2003 for their respective

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

agencies, based on our analysis of FAADS.2 These programs also represented
84 percent of total federal funding to Alaska Native villages and regional
native nonprofits during the period. For USDA, we selected CFDA
10.760-Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities-even though
it did not provide the most direct funding to Native villages and regional
Native nonprofits, because it also provided significant funding to cities
and to the state, through the state's Village Safe Water program, which
used funds to benefit Native villages and Alaska Natives. For Labor, we
selected Youth Opportunity Grants (CFDA 17.263), which provided almost $16
million to regional Native nonprofits during the period. Our FAADS
analysis identified Workforce Investment Act program (CFDA 17.255) as the
program that provided the most funding, which was used to provide funding
for youth opportunity activities and was subsequently replaced during the
period with 6 new programs, including CFDA 17.263-Youth Opportunity
Grants. For Education, we selected the Alaska Native Education Program
(CFDA 84.356), which represented the largest program when combining
amounts provided by 2 other programs that were consolidated into this
program during the period-Alaska Native Home-Based Education for Preschool
Children (CFDA 84.321) and Alaska Native Educational Planning, Curriculum
Development, Teacher Training, and Recruitment Program (CFDA 84.320). For
Commerce, FAADS indicated that the Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA)
program provided the largest amount of department funding to Alaska Native
villages and regional Native nonprofits during 1998 through 2003. We also
selected Commerce's Public Works and Economic Development Facilities
program for review after department officials informed us that EAA
provided atypically high funding to Alaska Native villages in 2001 in
response to an Alaska salmon-fishing disaster. Also, we selected 2 HUD
programs: the Indian Housing Block Grant program, which provided the
largest amount of department funding to Alaska Native villages and
regional Native nonprofits, according to our FAADS analysis; and the
Indian Community Development Block Grant program, because it also can be
used to construct new housing in Alaska Native villages.

For each of the 13 programs we reviewed, we met with federal officials
and, where appropriate, state, local, and village officials, as well as
other officials representing organizations that primarily serve Alaska
Natives. We

2In determining which programs were the largest, we combined funding
amounts of programs that had been merged during the period to create the
programs that were in place during 2003.

Page 66 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages Appendix I
Scope and Methodology

also reviewed program descriptions from the CFDA and reviewed agency
documents on how recipients used program funds, including grantee reports,
annual reports to Congress, and reports prepared in compliance with the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. To better understand
certain programs administered by the state of Alaska, we spoke with
officials from the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Where program data are reported, we
interviewed agency officials and reviewed program documents to assure
ourselves that data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report.

To better understand the need for and uses of the selected programs, we
visited several Alaska Native villages.3 Based on our analysis of FAADS,
each of the villages received funding from at least 1 of the 13 selected
programs. During our visit, we interviewed representatives of Alaska
Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, and incorporated cities with
villages within their borders. We saw several examples of projects
completed using the selected programs, including housing, water and waste
treatment facilities, bulk fuel tank farms, and primary health care
facilities.

To provide information on the cost and number of houses built by Native
villages and Alaska Native regional housing authorities, we surveyed
Alaska Native villages and regional housing authorities (also known as
tribally designated housing entities) that were identified as having
received Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funds for at least 1 year from
fiscal year 1998 through 2003. We identified 78 Alaska Native villages and
15 regional housing authorities that have received IHBG funds. We provided
each of the 93 villages and regional housing authorities with a
questionnaire delivered by e-mail or by U.S. mail. Questionnaire items
covered the number developed and the cost of new single-family units and
multifamily properties, the number developed and the cost of rehabilitated
single-family units and multifamily housing properties, and the number
developed and the cost of modernized single-family units and multifamily
housing properties. To prepare for the survey, we conducted interviews
with HUD officials, Alaska state officials, and members of various Alaska

3Akiachak Native Community, Curyung Tribal Council, Igiugig Village,
Village of Iliamna, Native Village of Kongiganak, Native Village of
Kotzebue, Orutsararmuit Native Village, and Pedro Bay Village.

Page 67 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages Appendix I
Scope and Methodology

Native villages and regional housing authorities. We had HUD Alaska field
office officials review the survey for content, and we pretested the
questionnaire with two regional housing authorities and five villages to
determine whether respondents would understand questions the way we
intended. Since the questionnaire was administered via e-mail as well as

U.S. mail, usability tests also were conducted with all of the pretests to
observe respondents answering the questionnaire as it would appear when
opened and displayed on their computer screen.

We took the following steps to increase the response rate for both village
and housing authority participants. We sent two reminder notices via
e-mail and conducted follow-up telephone calls to those offices that did
not respond to our survey by the initial deadline. Collection of survey
data ended on March 15, 2005. We received responses from 57 villages and
13 regional housing authorities, providing a response rate of 73.1 percent
for villages and 86.7 percent for regional housing authorities. Table 9
details the responding regional housing authorities and villages that were
constructing or rehabilitating single-family homes between calendar years
1998-2003. We did not attempt to verify the respondents' answers against
an independent source of information; however, questionnaire items were
tested by probing pretest participants about their answers using in-depth
interviewing techniques. Interviewers judged that all the respondents'
answers to the questions were correct. In addition, answers to the final
questionnaire were compared with data in HUD's Annual Performance Reports
for 1998 through 2003. These data are not directly comparable with data
obtained in the survey, but do indicate whether survey respondents'
answers were reasonable. We conducted follow-up phone calls to clarify
responses where there appeared to be discrepancies.

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Table 9: Number of Regional Housing Authorities and Villages That Were
Constructing or Rehabilitating Single-Family Units, Calendar Years
1998-2003

Source: GAO.

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce certain
types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,
differences in how a particular question is interpreted, the sources of
information available to respondents, or the types of people who do not
respond can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. Steps
such as pretesting and follow-up contacts to increase response rates serve
to minimize nonresponse error. In addition, steps such as performing
statistical analyses to identify inconsistencies and having a second
independent reviewer for the data analysis can further minimize such
error. Data from surveys returned via e-mail were entered electronically
by participants and imported into an electronic data file. Data from all
fax-returned or mail-returned surveys were edited for consistency before
sending them for keypunching. These surveys were "double key entered" into
our database (that is, the entries were 100 percent verified), and a
random sample of the surveys was further verified for completeness and
accuracy. Close-ended questionnaire items were analyzed using statistical
software. We conducted our survey work from August 2004 through March 2005
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

     Alaska Native Population by Native Village and ANCSA Region or Indian
                                  Reservation

Alaska Natives receive assistance from more than 200 villages that are
recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to receive federal funding.1
Table 10 contains: a listing of the 12 regional areas established by ANCSA
identified by the regional for-profit name and the Metlakatla Indian
Community, Annette Island Reserve; the villages within each region; and
the corresponding number of American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) persons
and enrolled tribal members.2

168 Fed. Reg. 68180 (Dec. 5, 2003). The following BIA recognized entities
are not included in the appendix table because they are regional or
confederated entities and any associated populations are included in
member villages or as part of the "at large" regional population: Central
Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes; Inupiat Community of the
Arctic Slope; Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government; and Pribilof
Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul and St. George Islands.

2AIAN includes persons who indicated their race as American Indian or
Alaska Native on the 2000 Census questionnaire. AIAN persons reside within
geographic village boundaries recognized by the Census Bureau. AIAN
persons who reside within the region but not within a specific village
boundary area are counted as at-large members of the regional corporation.
The number of AIAN persons and enrolled members were provided by HUD. HUD
develops AIAN counts for purposes of determining housing assistance by
updating Census 2000 data with birth and death records obtained from the
Department of Human Services' Indian Health Services, as well by obtaining
input from Native villages. Enrolled members are actual members of a tribe
and may reside anywhere in the world. HUD also obtains counts for enrolled
members from BIA.

Appendix II Alaska Native Population by Native Village and ANCSA Region or
                               Indian Reservation

Table 10: Listing of Alaska Native Villages and the Number of AIAN Persons
and Enrolled Members, by ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation

Appendix II Alaska Native Population by Native Village and ANCSA Region or
Indian Reservation Appendix II Alaska Native Population by Native Village
and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation Appendix II Alaska Native
Population by Native Village and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation
Appendix II Alaska Native Population by Native Village and ANCSA Region or
Indian Reservation Appendix II Alaska Native Population by Native Village
and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation Appendix II Alaska Native
Population by Native Village and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation
Appendix II Alaska Native Population by Native Village and ANCSA Region or
Indian Reservation Appendix II Alaska Native Population by Native Village
and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation

                                  Source: HUD.

Appendix III

                  Listing of Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits

Regional Native nonprofits also serve Alaska Natives. In this study, we
include regional nonprofits that were: identified as regional Native
associations in ANCSA or the organizations that succeeded them; identified
as regional Native health organizations in P.L. 105-83; or that were
identified as Alaska regional housing authorities by HUD.1 Table 11
provides a listing of Alaska Native regional health care and housing
nonprofits, by ANCSA region.

Table 11: ANCSA Regional Nonprofits or Indian Reservation and the
Corresponding Native Regional Health Care and Housing Nonprofits

Source: GAO.

aMetlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve is a federally
recognized Indian reservation that includes a regional health entity and
regional housing authority.

bThe Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium is a nonprofit health
organization authorized by P.L. 10583 and managed by regional health
corporations and elected representatives from Alaska Native village
governments not part of a regional health corporation. ANTHC and
Southcentral Foundation jointly operate the Alaska Native Medical Center
in Anchorage.

1ANCSA, Section 7 (a), P.L. 92-203, as amended; Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-83).

Page 80 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix IV

Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

In addition to receiving assistance directly from the federal government
and from regional Native nonprofit organizations, Alaska Native villages
also receive assistance from other nonprofits funded by the federal
government. According to our analysis of data from FAADS for the federal
fiscal year period 1998 through 2003, 46 of these other nonprofits
received federal funding for the purpose of assisting Alaska Native
villages. The 46 nonprofits are

     o Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission,
     o Alaska Federation of Natives,
     o Alaska Inter-Tribal Council,
     o Alaska Nanuuq Commission,
     o Alaska Native Arts Foundation,
     o Alaska Native Brotherhood,
     o Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission,
     o Alaska Native Health Board Inc.,
     o Alaska Native Heritage Center,
     o Alaska Native Heritage Park Inc.,
     o Alaska Native Justice Center Inc.,
     o Alaska Native Science Commission,
     o Alaska Native Women's Coalition,
     o Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission,
     o Alaska Village Initiatives,
     o Alutiiq Heritage Foundation,
     o Bering Straits Foundation,

Appendix IV Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance to Alaska Native
Villages

     o Calista Elders Council,
     o Chugach Regional Resources Commission,
     o CIRI Foundation,
     o Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments,
     o Cultural Heritage And Educational Institute,
     o Denakkanaaga Inc.,
     o Doyon Foundation,
     o Eastern Aleutian Tribes Inc.,
     o Eskimo Walrus Commission,
     o Fairbanks Native Association,
     o Institute of Alaska Native Arts Inc.,
     o Koahnic Broadcast Corporation,
     o Kuigpagmiut Inc.,
     o Kuskokwim Native Association,
     o Maniilaq Manpower Inc.,
     o Mount Sanford Tribal Consortium,
     o Qutekcak Native Tribe (Seward),
     o Robert Aqqaluk Newlin Sr. Memorial Trust,
     o Rural Alaska Community Action Program Inc.,
     o Sealaska Heritage Institute,
     o Simon Paneak Memorial Museum,

Appendix IV Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance to Alaska Native
Villages

     o Southeast Alaska Indian Cultural Center,
     o TDX Foundation,
     o Tok Native Association,
     o Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation,
     o United Crow Band Inc.,
     o United Villages Inc.,
     o Valdez Native Tribe, and
     o Yukon River Inter Tribal Watershed Council.

Appendix V

The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to Native Villages,
Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

State of Alaska Passed Through Over $105 Million in Federal Funds to
Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits

Based on our analysis of data from the state of Alaska, the state passed
through more than $105 million in federal funds to Alaska Native villages
and regional Native nonprofits for state fiscal years 1998 through 2003.1
However, Native villages received a smaller share of this funding. Also,
the state of Alaska passed through over $335 million in federal funds to
incorporated cities and boroughs that have villages located within their
borders.

According to data provided by the state of Alaska Department of
Administration, Division of Finance, the state passed through more than
$105 million to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits for state
fiscal years 1998 through 2003. As shown in figure 19, Native villages
received $18.2 million (17 percent) compared with regional Native
nonprofits, which received $87.3 million (83 percent). During this period,
the state passed through federal funding to 99 different Native villages
and 23 regional Native nonprofits.

1The state fiscal year for Alaska is July through June. GAO converted
amounts passed through by the state of Alaska to constant 2003 dollars
using the gross domestic product deflator.

Page 84 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages Appendix V
The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to Native Villages,
Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Figure 19: Amount of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska
to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years
1998-2003

Native villages $18,244,808

Regional Native nonprofits $87,342,851

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

Over the period, Native villages received most of their funding from
slightly more agencies than regional Native nonprofits. Native villages
received state pass-through funding from 15 federal agencies, with about
67 percent of the funding provided by four federal departments-Commerce,
EPA, HHS, and Transportation. Commerce provided more than 20 percent of
the major funding, with EPA contributing 20 percent and HHS and
Transportation contributing 14 and 12 percent, respectively. In
comparison, regional Native nonprofits received state pass-through funding
from 17 federal agencies, but about 85 percent of all funding was provided
by two federal agencies-HHS and USDA. HHS contributed about 68 percent of
the major funding, with another 17 percent provided by USDA (see figs. 20
and 21).

Appendix V The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to Native
Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Figure 20: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of
Alaska, by Agency, to Native Villages, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003

1% each: Other,a Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency

3% Department of Agriculture Department of Justice Department of Labor

Denali Commission

General Services Administration

Department of Transportation Department of Health and Human Services
Environmental Protection Agency Department of Commerce

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

aDepartments of Education, Energy, and the Interior, and National
Endowment for the Arts.

Appendix V The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to Native
Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Figure 21: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of
Alaska, by Agency, to Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years
1998-2003

2% each: Other,a Departments of Labor and Education

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of Agriculture

Department of Health and Human Services

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

aU.S. Agency for International Development; Corporation for National and
Community Service; Denali Commission; Departments of Commerce, Energy, the
Interior, Justice, and Transportation; General Services Administration
(GSA); National Endowment for the Arts; and National Science Foundation.

Overall, both Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received the
majority of their pass-through funding from a few programs. For example,
over the period, the state of Alaska passed through federal funding for 64
different programs to Native villages. However, as shown in table 12, the
top five programs accounted for over 70 percent of the funding to these
entities. None of the remaining 59 programs contributed more than $1
million each in state pass-through funding over the period.

    Appendix V The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to Native
           Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Table 12: Top Federal Programs Providing Funding Passed Through by the
State of Alaska to Native Villages, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

Also, most agencies' funding was provided by only one of their programs.
For example, three different Commerce programs provided slightly more than
$3.9 million in pass-through funding to Native villages, and almost all of
this was provided by the Fisheries Disasters Relief program. Similarly,
Native villages received funding from two EPA programs, and most of this
was provided by the Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose
grants program. Further, all of the General Services Administration's
(GSA) funding came from the Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property
program.

Regional Native nonprofits received funding from a larger number of
programs than Native villages. For example, over the period, the state of
Alaska passed through federal funding for 102 different programs to
regional Native nonprofits. As shown in table 13, the top 6 funding
programs accounted for 76 percent of the funding to these entities. None
of the remaining 96 programs contributed more than $2 million each in
state pass-through funding over the period.

    Appendix V The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to Native
           Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Table 13: Top Federal Programs Providing Funding Passed Through by the
State of Alaska to Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years
1998-2003

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

Similar to Native villages, most agencies' funding to regional Native
nonprofits were provided by a relatively few number of those agencies'
programs. For example, 42 different HHS programs provided funding to
regional Native nonprofits, but Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) provided 68 percent of all HHS funding. Similarly, 79 percent of
all USDA funding was provided by the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Woman, Infants and Children.

Table 14 shows that pass-through funding provided to Native villages by
the state of Alaska increased between state fiscal years 1998 and 2003.
Although the number of Native villages receiving pass-through funding
stayed fairly constant over the period, increasing from 41 in 1998 to 46
in 2003, the annual amount of funding increased by 75 percent, from $1.6
million in 1998 to about $2.9 million in 2003. The Denali Commission
accounted for 63 percent of the increase during the period, while GSA's
Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property program accounted for 35
percent.2 Commerce pass-through funding reached its peak in 2000 and

2The Denali Commission program was established in 1998; the state of
Alaska did not pass through funding from the Denali Commission to Native
villages until 2001. The total increase in funding of $1.2 million over
the period includes seven federal agencies whose funding increased and
eight whose funding decreased.

Page 89 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages Appendix V
The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to Native Villages,
Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

2002, with about 65 percent of all Commerce funding provided in those 2
years alone under the Fisheries Disaster Relief program in response to a
slump in the Alaska fishing industry. EPA funding reached its peak in 1999
and 2000, with about 85 percent of the agency's total funding over the
period being provided in those 2 years under the Surveys, Studies,
Investigations, and Special Purpose grants program.

Table 14: Yearly Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska to
Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years
1998-2003

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

The amount of federal funding passed through by the state to regional
Native nonprofits grew steadily over the period-by 160 percent-from 18
entities receiving $8.3 million in 1998 to 19 entities receiving $21.6
million in 2003. Most of this growth was caused by an increase in HHS
program funding, which accounted for 90 percent of the growth. As was the
case with Native villages, EPA funding reached its peak in 2000, with
about 56 percent of the agency's total funding over the period being
provided under the Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose
grants program. HUD funding also reached its peak in 2000, with about 36
percent of the agency's total funding provided under the HOME Investment
Partnerships program. Moreover, pass-through funding provided by HHS
programs to regional Native nonprofits outpaced the growth in funding to
Native villages by almost 10 times. (See fig. 22.)

Appendix V The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to Native
Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Figure 22: Trend of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska to
Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years
1998-2003

Dollars in millions

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

State fiscal year

Regional Native nonprofit

Native village

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

The state of Alaska passed through federal funds totaling more than $335
million for state fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to incorporated cities
and boroughs with Native villages. Specifically, 104 cities received $82.5
million and 16 boroughs received almost $253 million. The state passed
through funding it received from 20 federal departments for programs such
as HHS's ChildCare Mandatory and Matching Funds of the ChildCare and
Development Fund, and TANF; and EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund,
and its Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose grants
program. Although these funds were not given to a Native village or
regional Native nonprofit, Alaska Natives likely benefited from shared
services and assistance provided by the cities and boroughs. For example,
incorporated cities that have Native villages located within their borders
provide municipal services, such as water, that benefit Alaska Natives.

Appendix VI

                       Denali Commission Program Summary

Agency: Denali Commission.

Program name: Denali Commission (emphasis on energy and health).

Authorization: The Denali Commission Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3121 note;
70 Fed. Reg. 28283 (May 17, 2005) (Five Year Strategic Plan (20052009) and
Fiscal Year 2006 Work Plan).

Eligible program recipients: Awards are available to state and local
governments, private, public, profit, nonprofit organizations and
institutions or individuals eligible in Alaska. Beneficiaries must be the
general public, particularly distressed communities.

Program objectives: To deliver the services of the federal government in
the most cost-effective manner practicable by reducing administrative and
overhead costs; to provide job training and other economic development
services in rural communities, particularly distressed communities; to
promote rural development, provide power generation and transmission
facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer systems and
other infrastructure needs. Another objective is to provide funding for
the construction of new primary health care clinics.1

Application process: For bulk fuel and rural power grants (the vast
majority of energy grants), there is not an application process. In 1999,
the commission worked with the Alaska Energy Authority to assemble a
priority ranking of the needs of all bulk fuel sites in the state. One
hundred seventy-two rural Alaskan communities were ranked, based on
deficiencies in fuel storage and power systems, and funding priority goes
to those projects with higher scores.2 Each year, as some projects are
completed, those with lower priorities get funded. For most of the
commission's other programs, generally a community must send the
commission a letter requesting assistance, along with comprehensive
community-based and approved development plans. The commission judges
potential projects based on consistency with locally developed and
regionally supported infrastructure development plans, long-term
sustainability, relative impacts on reducing unemployment, raising the
standard of living, reducing the cost

1The Denali Commission focuses its efforts on rural Alaska. According to
Denali officials, most of the Commission's projects benefit Alaska Native
villages.

2Initially, 168 communities were ranked, and 4 additional communities have
been added within the last 3 years.

Page 92 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

                 Appendix VI Denali Commission Program Summary

of utilities, and cost sharing by others. In some cases, applicants can
apply directly to state and local partners working with the commission.
The time frame for grants is based on the projects and negotiated between
the commission and the grantee, subject to the 5-year maximum time frame
imposed by the Office of Management and Budget.

               Table 15: Denali Commission Reporting Requirements

Source: GAO analysis of Denali Commission data.

Allowable Uses of Program Funds: Funds can be used for infrastructure or
utility needs benefiting Alaskans. The commission has made rural energy
its primary infrastructure theme since its inception in 1999, but has 12
program areas in total:

     o energy facilities,
     o health facilities,
     o training,
     o government coordination,
     o multiuse facilities,
     o washeterias (potable water and laundry facilities as well as showers
       and toilets),
     o transportation,
     o solid waste,
     o economic development,
     o elder housing,

Appendix VI Denali Commission Program Summary

     o teacher housing, and
     o domestic violence facilities.

Examples of actual uses of program funds: The commission maintains a
Web-based information system that includes detailed financial and progress
information on projects. The system can be publicly queried, specifying
project attributes such as community involved, recipient, theme (the
underlying subject area of the project, such as energy (e.g., bulk fuel)
or health care (e.g., hospitals), and milestone (where in the process the
project is, such as business plan or construction).

The Denali Commission's energy program has been used to address energy
issues that affect Alaska Natives by focusing on bulk fuel tank farm
upgrades and rural power system upgrades. Energy has been the commission's
primary infrastructure theme since 1999. According to the commission's
2004 annual report, the first challenge undertaken by the commission was
the upgrade and consolidation of fuel tanks in 172 communities identified
as health and environmental hazards by the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. EPA.
Since its inception, grantees of the commission's energy facilities
funds-usually the Alaska Energy Authority and Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative-have upgraded bulk fuel tanks in 64 communities across the
state, while projects are under way in 70 other communities, according to
the 2004 annual report. That report also notes that the commission has
upgraded rural power systems in 13 communities, has started construction
in 20 others, and is in the planning or design phase in an additional 18.
These upgrades include adding backup power generators and increasing
efficiency of existing generators. The commission's web site has
information on specific energy projects, including the following:

     o upgrading a tank farm in the Village of Kotlik. In 2001, the
       commission provided about $2.9 million of the roughly $3.8 million
       used by the Alaska Energy Authority to upgrade the tank farm, which
       had been cited for violations by the U.S. Coast Guard.
     o moving a fuel tank farm in the Native Village of White Mountain. The
       commission partnered with the Alaska Energy Authority to use a
       $2,395,743 commission grant, along with $1,239,817 in state and local
       funds. The Alaska Energy Authority used the funds to move the fuel
       tank farm from the middle of the village's business district, where
       the school and store are located, to an area still accessible but west
       of the village,

Appendix VI Denali Commission Program Summary

and equipped the tanks with spill prevention. Construction on that

project was completed in 2003.

        * developing a new aircraft off-loading fuel pipeline in the Native
          Village of Ambler. The commission partnered with Alaska Village
          Electric Cooperative to use a $566,700 commission grant (with
          $31,000 in other funds) to develop the pipeline to provide
          year-round fuel deliveries. The pipeline system included
          modifications to local tank farms to connect to the new pipeline.
          Construction on that project was completed in 2002.
        * The primary focus of the Denali Commission's health facilities
          program- its second infrastructure priority-is to provide funding
          for the construction of new primary care clinics and repair and
          renovation of existing primary care facilities. From 1999 through
          2004, the commission completed primary care facilities in 41
          communities, and has 59 facilities in planning or design phases,
          according to its 2004 annual report. Some specific health care
          projects from Denali's project database include the following:
     o designing and constructing a rural primary care facility and community
       health center in the Native Village of Kiana. The commission partnered
       with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium to use a commission
       grant of $716,000 (with $400,000 in other funding) for the facility
       and community health center, which replaced an existing village
       clinic. Construction on that project was completed in 2002.
     o constructing a health clinic in the Native Village of Toksook Bay (the
       location of the Nunakauyarmiut Tribe). The commission partnered with
       the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium to use two grants totaling
       $2.7 million from the commission's health facilities program to build
       a health clinic in Toksook Bay. Construction was completed in January,
       2005.
     o providing funding for other health care needs as well, such as a grant
       to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services to cover half
       of the $400,000 needed to purchase an ultrasound machine in Sitka.

Funding mechanism: The commission's energy and other programs usually
provide federal funds to grantees that the commission calls "partners"
(i.e., state or federal agencies or nonprofits that administer numerous
projects). For energy projects, for example, the Alaska Energy Authority
and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative were the commission's

Appendix VI Denali Commission Program Summary

partner agency on over 95 percent of grants. For health projects, the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the state of Alaska's
Department of Health and Social Services were the commission's partner on
most projects. A few grantees are not partner agencies, such as Native
villages or other local communities that administer just one program for
their community.

Restrictions on administrative costs: The commission does not have a
standard limit on the amount of funding grantees can spend on total
administrative costs. However, the commission negotiates with each grantee
on the amount of indirect administrative costs that the commission will
provide. According to agency officials, for energy partners the amount of
indirect costs that the commission allows has generally ranged from 0
percent to 4 percent of total grant amounts, paid for from the overall
grant amount.

Appendix VII

Program Summary for the Department of Agriculture

Subagency: Rural Development.

Program name: Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities.

Authorization: Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, 7
U.S.C. 1926; 7 C.F.R. S:S: 1779.1 et seq.; 7 C.F.R. S:S: 1780.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: Municipalities, counties, and other political
subdivisions of a state, such as districts and authorities, associations,
cooperatives, corporations operated on a not-for-profit basis, Indian
tribes on federal and state reservations, and other federally recognized
Indian tribes. Facilities shall primarily serve rural residents and rural
businesses. The service area shall not include any area in any city or
town having a population in excess of 10,000 inhabitants, according to the
latest decennial Census of the United States. Beneficiaries may be
farmers, ranchers, rural residents, rural businesses, and other users in
eligible applicant areas.

Program objectives: To provide basic human amenities, alleviate health
hazards and promote the orderly growth of the rural areas of the nation by
meeting the need for new and improved rural water and waste disposal
facilities.

Application process: Over 80 percent of program funding in Alaska is
appropriated by Congress to fund the state of Alaska's Village Safe Water
program, administered by the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. For those grants, applicants file an application on forms
prescribed by the Department of Environmental Conservation that describes
the community need, how the proposed project will address that need, and
cost. A committee comprising representatives from USDA Rural Development
(USDA RD), the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and EPA
(which also provides funds for the Village Safe Water program) scores each
application to the Village Safe Water program. (The Alaska Native Tribal
Health Consortium, which oversees many of the projects funded by the
Village Safe Water program, does not have a representative on the
committee, but does have the ability to advise informally on project
selection.) The scoring depends on several variables, including whether
the grant is requested for construction or planning. For construction
projects, project need and impact are the most significant scoring
factors, followed by operation and maintenance of the project (e.g., if
the project will be operated by certified technicians), community
planning, and application quality. Communities must have overall

         Appendix VII Program Summary for the Department of Agriculture

environmental plans to be approved for construction grants. For planning
projects, the factors include planning need, existing level of service,
previous planning efforts, and type of facilities to be planned. Also,
according to agency officials, there are some projects that are
specifically included by Congress in appropriations legislation, which
requires USDA RD to contact certain entities to assist them in USDA RD's
application process if they choose to apply. Most of the other program
funding goes to the Combination Water/Waste programs, which USDA RD
administers directly.1 Under this program, villages and cities can apply
to USDA RD for funding.

      Table 16: USDA Reporting Requirements for Village Safe Water Funding

Source: GAO analysis of USDA data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Funds may be used for the installation,
repair, improvement, or expansion of a rural water facility, including
distribution lines, well pumping facilities and costs related thereto; the
installation, repair, improvement, or expansion of a rural waste disposal
facility, including the collection, and treatment of sanitary, storm, and
solid wastes; and indoor plumbing in certain cases where the residents are
unable to afford the improvements on their own. Grant funds may not be
used to pay interest on loans, operation and maintenance costs, or to
acquire or refinance an existing system.

1About 1 percent of program grant funding goes to the state-administered
Remote Maintenance Worker program, which provides technical assistance to
villages and provides infrastructure help in case of emergencies.

Page 98 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages Appendix
VII Program Summary for the Department of Agriculture

Examples of actual uses of program funds: USDA RD's Water and Waste
Disposal System for Rural Communities has been used for new and improved
rural water and waste disposal facilities. According to USDA RD officials
and available documentation, USDA RD funds are combined with EPA funds and
25 percent matching state funds to eliminate the honey bucket-5-gallon
buckets that serve as a toilet-and provide communities with water and
sewer systems that function in Alaska's harsh environment, such as the
flush and haul system.2 According to agency documentation, from 2000
through 2003, USDA RD provided funding for 86 Village Safe Water grants.3
Over that same time period, USDA RD funded 17 other projects through USDA
RD Combination Water/Waste projects, and also provided funding for the
state-administered Remote Maintenance Worker program. USDA RD and state
documentation show the following examples of Village Safe Water projects:

     o In 2003, USDA RD provided a grant of $570,300 to benefit Napaskiak
       that, when matched with $190,200 in state funds, is being used to
       replace all of the remaining single-family home honey buckets in the
       community with the "flush haul" system, according to agency
       documentation.
     o In 2000, USDA RD provided $633,800, in conjunction with $211,200 in
       Alaska Housing Finance funding, for water and sewer improvements in
       Nulato. Uses of the funds included the design and construction of a
       wastewater lagoon for the lower town site, maintenance upgrades for
       the new town site lagoon and landfill, and replacement of the water
       and sewer system for the lower town site teacher housing area.
     o In 2000, USDA RD provided a $2,175,000 grant that, in conjunction with
       $725,000 in state funds, was used in Bethel for a new piped water
       distribution and sewer collection system, including circulating water
       mains and pressure sewer mains.

2A flush and haul system generally consists of individual storage tanks
that provide water to flush toilets, and the sewage is then stored in a
separate tank, whose contents are transported to a sewage lagoon.

3Since 2000, program funds have been given directly to the state, while
prior to that grants were given directly to the communities with grant
administration done by the state. The Village Safe Water projects focus on
rural Alaska. According to USDA officials, most of the Village Safe Water
projects benefit Alaska Native villages. Some of these 86 projects have
not been completed; in fact, some funds have only been allocated and
construction of the project has not been started.

Appendix VII Program Summary for the Department of Agriculture

One example of a Combination Water/Waste project is the project in
Talkeetna. According to USDA RD, Alaska's 2003 annual report and other
agency documentation, in 2002, USDA RD provided the Mat-Su Borough with
$1.3 million to help fund an upgrade for a sewage treatment facility in
Talkeetna. The new system was the first of its type in Alaska and uses a
collection of cells and aquatic plants to pretreat raw sewage from the
community. The project converted an old percolation cell into a lagoon
cell lined with a plastic layer, increasing treatment capacity by over 25
percent, according to the 2003 annual report. A wetland was also
constructed to treat secondary effluent from the lagoons prior to
discharge into the Talkeetna River.

Funding mechanism: According to agency documentation, over 80 percent of
USDA RD's Alaska funding is appropriated by Congress specifically for the
Alaska Village Safe Water program; that funding goes to the state of
Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation, which administers the
Village Safe Water projects in rural Alaska. Most of the other program
funding goes from USDA RD directly to cities and villages.

Restrictions on administrative costs: The program follows Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, a primary federal regulation
that outlines the principles for determining which administrative costs
can be recovered for programs administered under grants with the federal
government; there are no other established limitations. Until fiscal year
2005, the state paid for administrative costs of the Village Safe Water
program from state funds and from federal EPA funds, so 100 percent of
USDA RD's funds went to project costs, according to agency officials.
Officials also stated that, in fiscal year 2005, USDA RD and the state
began working toward providing some USDA RD funds for administrative
costs. Funding for these administrative costs will come from the grant
amount.

Appendix VIII

Program Summaries for the Department of Commerce

Subagency: Economic Development Administration.

Program name: Economic Adjustment Assistance.

Authorization: Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 3149; 13 C.F.R. S: 308.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: Eligible applicants include economic
development districts; states, cities or other political subdivisions of a
state or a consortium of political subdivisions; Indian tribes or a
consortium of Indian tribes; institutions of higher learning or a
consortium of such institutions; or public or nonprofit organizations or
associations acting in cooperation with officials of a political
subdivision of a state. Applicants using Economic Development
Administration (EDA) supplemental disaster assistance will generally be
restricted to disaster-impacted areas.

Program objectives: To assist state and local interests to design and
implement strategies to adjust or bring about change to an economy.
Program focuses on areas that have experienced or are under threat of
serious structural damage to the underlying economic base. Such economic
change may occur suddenly or over time, and generally results from
industrial or corporate restructuring, new federal laws or requirements,
reduction in defense expenditures, depletion of natural resources, or
natural disaster. EAA aids the long-range economic development of areas
with severe unemployment and low family-income problems; aids in the
development of public facilities and private enterprises to help create
new, permanent jobs.

Application process: EDA's Economic Development Representative (EDR) or
regional office representative will meet with the applicant to determine
whether preparation of a project proposal is appropriate. If appropriate,
applicants are requested to prepare a brief project proposal according to
an outline provided by the EDR. Following a review by the EDR and regional
office staff, the Regional Director will determine whether to invite a
formal application. An environmental impact assessment is necessary, and
an environmental impact statement may also be required. All proposals and
applications for funding submitted to EDA are evaluated competitively for
conformance to statutory and regulatory requirements and conformance with
EDA's Investment Policy Guidelines and funding priorities. Final decision
on applications from eligible applicants is made by the Regional Office
Director of the Economic Development Administration, Department of
Commerce.

         Appendix VIII Program Summaries for the Department of Commerce

           Table 17: Commerce Reporting Requirements for EAA Funding

Source: GAO analysis of Commerce data.

Allowable uses of program funds: EAA funds can be used to provide grants
for planning or construction of projects tailored to the community's
specific economic problems and opportunities. Specific activities may
include

     o creation or expansion of strategically targeted business development,
     o revolving loan funds,
          * infrastructure improvements,
          * o  organizational development, and
          * market or industry research and analysis.
          * Examples of actual uses of program funds: According to
            information GAO received from EDA, since 1999, EDA has funded 29
            EAA projects in Native villages and Native nonprofits. Examples
            of specific projects include the following:
     o In 2001, a total of $5.1 million was provided to five different
       entities, including the Native Villages of Savoonga, Wales, and
       Unalakleet, for the construction of five approximately
       4,000-square-foot multipurpose community buildings to Alaskan native
       entities. These facilities included

Appendix VIII Program Summaries for the Department of Commerce

amenities such as a visitor center, lodging, meeting hall; office spaces;

conference rooms, kitchens, restrooms, and storage.

o  In 2001, the Tanana Chiefs Conference was awarded $725,000 for the
construction of a 20-room hotel with a combination restaurant, lounge, and
meeting facilities on council-owned property located midtown in the
Village of Circle.

Funding mechanism: The EDA provides funding directly to grantees, which
could be Alaska Native entities. Generally, EDA funds 50 percent of a
project's cost. However, certain conditions of high economic distress or
an applicant's inability to provide all of the matching share may permit a
higher grant rate.

Restrictions on administrative costs: According to EDA officials, there is
no specific dollar limitation on allowable administrative costs; however,
under the EAA program, administrative costs typically do not constitute a
significant portion of the total grant. For smaller or rural grantees such
as Alaskan tribes, allowable administrative costs could include the cost
of a Project Administrator because such entities may not hold the in-house
expertise needed to manage large construction projects.

Appendix VIII Program Summaries for the Department of Commerce

Program name: Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities.

Authorization: Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 3141; 13 C.F.R. S: 305.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: States, cities, counties, an institution of
higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher education, and
other political subdivisions, Indian tribes, the Federated States of
Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Commonwealths and
territories of the U.S. flag, Economic Development Districts, and private
or public nonprofit organizations or associations acting in cooperation
with officials of a political subdivision of a state or Indian Tribe.
Individuals, companies, corporations, and associations organized for
profit are not eligible.

Program objectives: To promote long-term economic development in areas
experiencing substantial economic distress. EDA provides public works
investments to support the construction of rehabilitation of essential
public infrastructure and development facilities necessary to generate
higher-skill, higher-wage jobs and private investment.

Application process: The EDR or other appropriate EDA official will meet
with the applicant and community leaders to explore the applicability of
the proposed project. If deemed appropriate, a proposal will be requested.
After reviewing the proposal, the EDR or the regional office will notify
the applicant regarding the decision of whether to invite an application.
If the project appears viable, a preapplication conference with regional
office personnel may be arranged at EDA's discretion. An environmental
impact assessment is required for this program. The review of the
environmental impact assessment may result in an environmental impact
statement being required. Applications are approved by the Regional
Director and announced by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic
Development.

Appendix VIII Program Summaries for the Department of Commerce

       Table 18: Commerce Reporting Requirements for Public Works Funding

Source: GAO analysis of Commerce data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Public works investments may include

     o investments in facilities such as water and sewer system improvements,
       industrial access roads, industrial and business parks, port
       facilities, railroad sidings, distance learning facilities,
       skill-training facilities, business incubator facilities,
       redevelopment of brownfields, eco-industrial facilities, and
       telecommunications infrastructure improvements needed for business
       retention and expansion;
     o eligible activities such as the acquisition, rehabilitation, design
       and engineering, or improvement of public land or publicly owned and
       operated development facilities, including machinery and equipment;
       and
     o infrastructure for broadband deployment and other types of
       telecommunications-enabling projects and other kinds of technology
       infrastructure.

Appendix VIII Program Summaries for the Department of Commerce

Examples of actual uses of program funds: According to information we
received from EDA, since 1999, EDA has funded three public works projects
totaling about $3.8 million in Native areas. Examples of specific projects
include the following:

     o In 2001, the Seldovia Village Tribe was provided $2.3 million to
       assist with the purchase of two lots and construction of a complex
       that will encompass a museum, visitor center, and retail/office space.
     o In 1999, the Nenana Native Association was provided $480,000 for
       implementation of the entities' economic development plan by
       renovating and upgrading its community hall and funding construction
       of other business infrastructure to continue development of tourism
       business.
     o In 1999, the Shishmaref Village Council was provided about $1 million
       for a traditional tannery.

Funding mechanism: The EDA provides funding directly to grantees, which
could be Alaska Native entities. The basic grant rate may be up to 50
percent of the project cost. Severely depressed areas may receive
supplementary grants to bring the federal contribution up to 80 percent of
the project cost. Recognized Indian tribes may be eligible for up to 100
percent assistance. On average, EDA's investment covers approximately 50
percent of project costs.

Restrictions on administrative costs: According to EDA officials, there is
no specific dollar limitation on allowable administrative costs; however,
under the Public Works and Economic Development Facilities program,
administrative costs typically do not constitute a significant portion of
the total grant. For smaller or rural grantees such as Alaskan tribes,
allowable administrative costs could include the cost of a project
administrator because such entities may not have the in-house expertise
needed to manage large construction projects.

Appendix IX

Program Summary for the Department of Education

Subagency: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Program name: Alaska Native Educational Programs.

Authorization: Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended, 20

U.S.C. 7541-7546; 34 C.F.R. S:S: 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97,
98, and 99.

Eligible program recipients: Alaska Native educational organizations or
educational entities with experience in developing educational programs
for Alaska Natives.

Program objectives: To support projects that recognize and address the
unique educational needs of Alaska Native students, parents, and teachers.

Application process: Alaska Native Educational Programs are competitive
grants, except for program funds that have been earmarked for specified
recipients for specified purposes. For competitive grants, applicants
submit proposals under which the Department of Education uses a peer
review process where panels choose applications to determine which
proposal best meets program objectives and the needs of Alaska Natives.
The Department of Education selects panelists who are knowledgeable of
Alaska Native educational needs, eligible activities, and project
management and evaluation, and who are from outside the department. To
avoid potential conflicts of interest, panelists are usually non-Alaska
Natives. Specific selection criteria for the 2003 application included the
magnitude of the need for and significance of the project, quality of
project design, quality of project services, and the quality of the
project evaluation to be conducted on the project. Approved grants are
usually for 3-year funding periods.

    Table 19: Education Reporting Requirements for Alaska Native Educational
                                Programs Funding

                    Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

Appendix IX Program Summary for the Department of Education

Allowable uses of program funds: Program funds can be used in a variety of
areas, including

     o curriculum development,
     o family literacy,
     o parenting education,
     o increasing the education of Alaska Native teachers or those who teach
       Alaska Natives,
     o home instruction for preschool Alaska Natives,
     o remedial tutoring,
     o dropout prevention, and
          * math and science assistance.
          * Additionally, the enabling legislation, the Alaska Native
            Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act, has five
            earmarks for specific programs:
     o $1 million annually for the Alaska Native Heritage Center for cultural
       educational programs designed to share the Alaska Native culture with
       students;
     o $1 million annually for Alaska Humanities Forum for a cultural
       exchange program designed to share Alaska Native culture with urban
       students in a rural setting;
     o $2 million annually for a dropout prevention program operated by Cook
       Inlet Tribal Council;
     o $2 million annually for the Alaska Initiative for Community Engagement
       for continuation of that entity's general programs; and
     o $1 million annually to continue existing parenting educational
       programs, including parenting education provided through in-home
       visitation of new mothers.

Appendix IX Program Summary for the Department of Education

Examples of actual uses of program funds: Individual grant files
maintained by the department contain the following examples of how
grantees used funds.1

In 2000, the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) received a grant of
about $1.6 million for "Preparing Indigenous Teachers for Alaska Schools."
The 3year grant had four main goals, one of which was to increase
participation of Alaska Native students in bachelor of science programs at
UAS. One way the program increased participation was by using mentors to
recruit high school students for the UAS bachelor of science program. By
the third year of the grant, program participants actively mentored 75
high school students and post-high-school candidates from 11 different
communities. In the third year of the grant, the program provided 16
mentors a stipend of $1,000 each, and also provided scholarships for 15
students in the amount of $8,500 each. Another goal of the program was to
develop a focused support system for Alaska Native students at UAS. One
way the program used grant funds to accomplish this was to hire math
tutors to assist Alaska Native students in individual and group tutoring
sessions. The program also financially supported the UAS Native/Rural
Resource Center for cultural activities such as lectures, storytelling
series, and pot luck dinners.

In 1999, the Alaska Native Heritage Center received a 3-year Alaska Native
Education Program grant in the amount of about $570,000. The grant had
seven objectives, including providing Alaska Native youth with cultural
activities unavailable in the schools. The center's activities addressing
this objective included dance classes, youth leadership workshops, and art
workshops. Over the 3 years of the grant, 157 students participated in
programs offered by the center through the grant.

Funding mechanism: The Department of Education provides funding directly
to grantees, which could be Alaska Native educational organizations or
educational entities with experience in developing educational programs
for Alaska Natives.

Restrictions on administrative costs: The program's enabling legislation
states that no more than 5 percent of funds provided to a grantee may be
used for administrative purposes. No amount in addition to the grant is
provided for reimbursement of administrative costs.

1These examples are from a former CFDA program number, as the current CFDA
program number combined several different CFDA program numbers, starting
in 2001.

Page 109 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix X

Program Summary for the Department of Health and Human Services

Subagency: Indian Health Service.

Program name: Tribal Self-Governance.1

Authorization: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as
amended, 25 U.S.C. 458aaa-458aaa-18; 42 C.F.R. S: 137.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: Any federally recognized tribe that (1)
formally requests, through a governing body action, participation in the
Tribal Self-Governance Program; (2) has furnished organizationwide single
audit reports for the previous 3 years that contain no uncorrected
significant and material audit exceptions in the audit of the tribe's
self-determination contracts or self-governance funding agreements with
any federal agency; and (3) successfully completes a planning phase, to
the satisfaction of the tribe, that includes legal and budgetary research
and internal tribal government planning and organizational preparation
relating to the administration of health care programs. Tribes may also
authorize another eligible tribe to participate in the self-governance
program on their behalf. Under current law, tribes not already in a
compacting relationship with the Indian Health Service (IHS) may not
receive funds for health care services if they are located in areas served
by an Alaska Native regional health entity.2

Program objectives: The purpose of the program is to make financial
assistance awards to Indian tribes to enable them to assume from IHS
programs, services, functions, and activities with respect to which Indian
tribes or Indians are primary or significant beneficiaries.

1This appendix focuses on grants for tribes already participating in the
Tribal Self-Governance Program. Nationally, less than 0.1 percent of
Tribal Self-Governance funding goes to planning grants for tribes not
currently participating in the Tribal Self-Governance Program.

2Compacting generally provides grant recipients broad flexibility in the
use of federal funds for multiple programs.

Page 110 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix X Program Summary for the Department of Health and Human Services

Application process: If a tribe is eligible and interested in entering the
self-governance program, it sends a letter of intent to either the
Director of the Office of Tribal Self-Governance or to an IHS area
director for a tribe's

3

area.

    Table 20: HHS Reporting Requirements for Tribal Self-Governance Funding

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Funds can be used by compacting tribes to
provide any program, service, function, or activity that IHS is authorized
to administer. According to IHS documentation, these areas include

     o clinical health services, including hospitals and health clinics,
       dental services, mental health services, and alcohol and substance
       abuse treatment;4
     o contract health services (i.e., health services from private sector
       providers where specialized health care services were not readily
       available at tribally-operated providers);
     o preventive health services, such as public health nursing, health
       education, and immunization;
     o contract support costs (e.g., tribes' and tribal consortia's general
       administrative costs); and

3If 50 other eligible tribes nationally have already applied that year to
become new compacting tribes, then additional eligible tribes applying
would need to wait until the next fiscal year to participate.

4The IHS Tribal Self-Governance Program allows tribes and nonprofits to
reprogram funding allocations within the limitations of appropriations
laws as the tribe or nonprofit deems best to address their own health care
needs and priorities. Pursuant to legislative reporting requirements, IHS
receives information on health status and service delivery.

Appendix X Program Summary for the Department of Health and Human Services

o  health care facilities, including maintenance, improvement, and
construction of health care and sanitation facilities.

Examples of actual uses of program funds:5 IHS and the Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium-a statewide Native health care provider- collect
information on health status and services delivery and compile this
information into several different reports, including Alaska-specific
reports such as the Statistical Summary of Workload reports and Annual
Performance Contract information. The 2003 Annual Performance Contract
states that grant recipients used program funds during this period to

o  operate 7 tribal hospitals, 28 tribal health centers, and 176 tribal
community health aide clinics; and

o  provide 4,093 homes with water facilities, and 3,004 homes with
wastewater facilities.

The 2002 Statistical Summary of Workload states the following:

o  In the 7 hospitals in Alaska that receive tribal self-governance
funding,6

     o there were 10,992 inpatient admissions (excluding newborns), an
       overall decrease of 802 admissions from fiscal year 2001; and
     o there were 1,868 total newborn admissions (deliveries), a 6.65 percent
       decrease from 2001.

5Over 95 percent of the funding for the operations described herein was
provided under the Tribal Self-Governance Program. The remaining funds for
these operations came from IHS's Indian Self-Determination Program, which
also provides funds that allow tribes to administer health programs. Some
of the information in IHS's published reports on health status and service
delivery combines the uses from these two programs.

6The tribal hospitals in Alaska (with location and number of hospital
beds), as listed in the 2002 Statistical Summary of Workload, are: Alaska
Native Medical Center (Anchorage, 156 beds); Kanakanak Hospital
(Dillingham, 16 beds); Maniilaq Medical Center (Kotzebue, 17 beds); Mt.
Edgecumbe Hospital (Sitka, 49 beds); Norton Sound Regional Hospital (Nome,
19 beds); Samuel Simmonds Memorial Hospital (Barrow, 14 beds); and
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Hospital (Bethel, 50 beds).

Appendix X Program Summary for the Department of Health and Human Services

o  In the tribally run hospitals, health centers, and community clinics,

     o there were 970,146 ambulatory care visits, a 2.2 percent increase from
       2001;7
     o in 2001, the most recent year available, contract medical8 accounted
       for 1,939 hospital admissions, 7,181 hospital patient days, 128
       hospital births, and 60,741 outpatient clinic visits; and
     o during 2002, adjusted health aide visits totaled 263,947 encounters,
       which was a 1.9 percent decrease from 2001.9

Funding mechanism: IHS provides funding directly to the compacting
entity-that is, the regional Native health care nonprofit, Alaska Native
village, or group of villages administering the health program.

Restrictions on administrative costs: IHS does not have a standard limit
on the amount of funding compacting tribes can spend on total
administrative costs. Pursuant to tribal funding agreements, IHS provides
funding for contract support payments-payments to compacting tribes to pay
for some of tribes' administrative costs.

7IHS defines an ambulatory care visit as an encounter between a patient
and a health care provider in an organized clinic, medical center, or
hospital within an IHS or tribal facility where service resulting from the
encounter is not part of an inpatient stay. Services provided for these
ambulatory visits include pharmacy, X-ray, and laboratory visits.

8Contract medical care refers to services that are not available directly
from IHS or tribes. These services are purchased under contract from
community hospitals and practitioners.

9Tribal self-governance funds also were used for community health aide
(CHA) program visits by individual patients. IHS does not total all CHA
visits the same way, since some visits take longer than others. IHS counts
the amount of community health aide hours required by specific kinds of
visits. For example, IHS counts a patient encounter as taking 1 hour, a
group health education presentation as taking 2 hours, and fluoride rinses
as taking 6 minutes.

Appendix XI

Program Summaries for the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Subagency: Public and Indian Housing.

Program name: Indian Community Development Block Grant.

Authorization: Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 5306; 24 C.F.R. S: 1003.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: Any Indian tribe, band, group, nation, or
tribal organization, including Alaska Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, and
any Alaska Native village that is eligible for assistance under the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act or that had been eligible
under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. Tribal
organizations are permitted to submit applications on behalf of eligible
tribes when one or more eligible tribes authorize the organization to do
so under concurring resolutions. The tribal organization must be eligible
under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act.

Program objectives: The objective of the Indian Community Development
Block Grant (ICDBG) program is to provide assistance to Indian tribes and
Alaska Native villages in the development of viable communities, including
decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunities,
principally for persons of low and moderate income.

Application process: Applicants must file an application on forms
prescribed by HUD that describes the community development need and how
that need will be addressed by the proposed project. The applicant must
provide sufficient information for the project to be rated against
selection criteria. The rating criteria include the need of the project,
soundness of approach, leveraging resources and comprehensiveness and
coordination. The Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Area Office is
responsible for administering the program and for notifying applicants of
the results, which are done annually.

     Appendix XI Program Summaries for the Department of Housing and Urban
                                  Development

             Table 21: HUD Reporting Requirements for ICDBG Funding

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages
may use block grants to improve the housing stock, provide community
facilities, make infrastructure improvements, and expand job opportunities
by supporting the economic development of their communities. Activities
eligible for funding include housing rehabilitation programs, acquisition
of land for housing, direct assistance to facilitate homeownership among
low and moderate income persons, construction of tribal and other
facilities for single or multiuse, streets and other public facilities,
and economic development projects, particularly those by nonprofit tribal
organizations or local development corporations when the recipient
determines that the provision of such assistance is appropriate to carry
out an economic development project. Tribes and Alaska Native villages are
restricted from using block grants for construction and improvement of
governmental facilities, the purchase of equipment, general government
expenses, operating and maintenance expenses, political activities, new
housing construction (except through community-based development
organizations), and income payments.

Actual uses of program funds: Eighty ICDBG grants were awarded from 1998
through 2003, according to HUD documentation. These projects included: 21
health-related facilities (e.g., clinics, mental health, and primary care
facilities); 35 community centers; 17 infrastructure projects

Appendix XI Program Summaries for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development

(e.g., fuel tanks and water and sewer systems); 6 housing-related projects
(e.g., housing rehab, new construction and land acquisition for new
housing), and one imminent threat grant.

Funding mechanism: Funding goes directly from HUD to the grantees; from
1998 through 2003, according to HUD documentation, all but 1 of the 80
grants went to Alaska Native villages, and that grant went to a joint
venture between a village and regional Native health care nonprofit.

Restrictions on administrative costs: The program's regulations state that
no more than 20 percent of funds provided to a grantee may be used for
administrative purposes.

     Appendix XI Program Summaries for the Department of Housing and Urban
                                  Development

Program name: Indian Housing Block Grant.

Authorization: Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act (NAHASDA) of 1996, 25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.; 24 C.F.R. S: 1000.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: Indian tribes or tribally designated housing
entities (referred to throughout this appendix as housing authorities).

Program objectives: IHBG funds are used for affordable housing activities
administered by tribes or housing authorities, while recognizing the right
of tribal self-governance.

Application process: An eligible recipient must submit to HUD an Indian
Housing Plan (IHP) each year to receive funding.

             Table 22: HUD Reporting Requirements for IHBG Funding

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Indian Housing Block Grants can be used
for a variety of eligible affordable housing activities, including
modernization and operating assistance for U.S. Housing Act of 1937
housing; new construction, acquisition or rehabilitation of renter- or
owner-occupied housing; housing services, housing management, crime
prevention and safety or model activities as described in the Indian
Housing Plan.

     Appendix XI Program Summaries for the Department of Housing and Urban
                                  Development

Actual uses of program funds: The actual uses of IHBG funds from 1998
through 2003 for Alaska Native recipients were as follows, according to
HUD documentation:

 Table 23: Percentage of IHBG Funds Used by Activity, Calendar Years 1998-2003

Source: HUD.

a"Other uses" includes housing services, housing management services,
crime prevention, model activities and unspent funds.

Funding mechanism: HUD provides IHBG formula grants directly to Alaska
Native tribes or their tribally designated housing entity. The IHBG
funding formula considers two factors: (1) the needs of the grantee, and
(2) the housing previously developed by HUD funding. Tribes may annually
choose to receive IHBG funds and provide services directly to their
members or tribes may choose to designate a housing entity to receive
their IHBG funds and provide services on their behalf. Appropriations for
20042005 included a provision limiting IHBG recipients in Alaska to those
tribes or tribally designated housing entities that received funds in the
previous fiscal year. Grantees do not have a matching funds requirement to
qualify for the IHBG grant. The minimum grant award is $25,000.

Restrictions on administrative costs: The IHBG program allows grantees to
use up to 20 percent of the total grant amount for administrative costs.
Administrative costs are taken out of the grant amount.

Appendix XII

Program Summary for the Department of the Interior

Subagency: Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Program name: Tribal Self-Governance Program.

Authorization: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as
amended, 25 U.S.C. 458aa-458hh; 25 C.F.R. S: 1000.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: Any federally recognized tribe that (1)
formally requests, through a governing body action, participation in the
Tribal Self-Governance Program; (2) demonstrates, for the previous 3
fiscal years, financial stability and financial management capability by
furnishing organizationwide single audit reports for those 3 years that
contain no uncorrected significant and material audit exceptions in the
audit of the tribe's self-determination contracts; and (3) successfully
completes a planning phase, to the satisfaction of the tribe, that
includes legal and budgetary research and internal tribal government
planning and organizational preparation. If each tribe requests, two or
more otherwise eligible tribes may be treated as a single tribe for the
purpose of participating in self-governance as a consortium.

Program objectives: To further the goals of Indian self-determination by
providing funds to Indian tribes to administer a wide range of programs
with maximum administrative and programmatic flexibility.

Application process: If a tribe is eligible and interested in entering the
self-governance program, it sends a letter of intent to the Director of
the Office of Tribal Self-Governance. The letter of intent must also
include information about how self-governance will benefit the tribe.1
Awards are not competitive; if a tribe is eligible, it may generally
participate in the program. An annual funding agreement is negotiated
between the participating tribe and the Secretary of the Interior
consistent with federal laws and the tribal relationship. A tribe may also
negotiate a multiyear funding agreement.

Reporting requirements: Interior requests tribes to submit information on
funds spent by category (e.g., human services), amount, tribal goal, and
progress toward tribal goal, for inclusion in the Secretary of the
Interior's

1If 50 other tribes nationally that meet the eligibility requirements have
previously applied that year to become new compacting tribes, then
additional eligible tribes applying would need to wait until the next
fiscal year to participate.

Page 119 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages Appendix
XII Program Summary for the Department of the Interior

Tribal Self-Governance Annual Report to Congress. Tribal submission of
information for the Secretary's annual report is optional, although agency
officials and documentation noted that tribal self-governance data
collection is important to the program. Most grantees in Alaska do not
send such information to Interior; for 2003, for example, only six of the
program's 22 Alaskan grantees provided such information to Interior.
Starting in fiscal year 2005, according to Interior officials, Alaska's 22
grantees agreed in their annual funding agreements to provide Interior
with Government Performance and Results Act information, such as housing,
environmental, training, technical assistance, and other uses of tribal
self-governance funds.

Allowable uses of program funds: Funds may be used by grantees to support
programs previously administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, pursuant
to the terms of annual funding agreements or for programs specifically
authorized by federal statute, and may not be used for the operation of
elementary and secondary schools or for community colleges. Under these
agreements, grantees have the flexibility to redesign programs to meet
local needs and priorities. Table 24 shows budget categories for tribal
self-government allocations from Interior to program grantees. Many of the
budget categories also contain more specific allocation areas.

        Appendix XII Program Summary for the Department of the Interior

  Table 24: Allowable Uses of Tribal Self-Governance Program Funding, Based on
                               Budget Categories

Source: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.

Examples of actual uses of program funds: Based on summaries submitted by
grantees for Interior's Tribal Self-Governance 2003 Annual Report to
Congress, the following are examples of recent uses of tribal
self-governance funds:

     o In 2003, the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida used approximately
       $4.6 million for job placement and training for 2,084 tribal members
       through its various programs. The number of individuals receiving
       support services assistance totaled 1,472. Those services included
       direct employment, vocational rehabilitation, and employability
       assistance. The Central Council also provided transportation, work
       clothing, and tools to over 276 tribal members. One hundred seventy
       people received classroom training and 25 received on the job
       training.
     o In 2003, the Bristol Bay Native Association used approximately $2
       million for tribal government, including providing assistance in
       drafting and amending tribal constitutions, and developing and
       enhancing tribal

Appendix XII Program Summary for the Department of the Interior

courts. Bristol Bay also used the funds to provide training for village
administrators and village presidents and improve communications with the
village.

Funding mechanism: Interior provides funding directly to the grantee- that
is, the Alaska Native village, regional Native nonprofit, or group of
villages administering the Tribal Self-Governance Program. Twelve Alaska
Native villages, eight regional Native nonprofits, one group consisting of
several other Alaska Native villages and one Indian reservation received
self-governance funding in 2003.

Restrictions on administrative costs: There are no specific restrictions
on administrative costs. Pursuant to tribal funding agreements, Interior
provides for contract support payments, which offset indirect and direct
administrative costs.

Appendix XIII

Program Summary for the Department of Justice

Subagency: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Program name: Community Oriented Policing Services.

Authorization: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 3796dd-3796dd-8.

Eligible program recipients: States, units of local government, federally
recognized Indian tribal governments, U.S. territories or possessions
(including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Mariana Islands), other public and private
entities, and multijurisdictional or regional consortia thereof.

Program objectives: The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office
was created as a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994. Grants are to be made to increase police presence and improve
cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies and members of the
community. Specifically COPS was established to accomplish numerous
projects or activities, including the following:

     o substantially increasing the number of law enforcement officers
       interacting directly with members of the community;
     o providing additional and more effective training to law enforcement
       officers to enhance their problem solving, service, and other skills
       needed in interacting with members of the community;
     o encouraging the development and implementation of innovative programs
       to permit members of the community to assist state, federally
       recognized Indian tribal government, and local law enforcement
       agencies in the prevention of crime in the community;
     o encouraging the development of new technologies to assist state,
       federally recognized Indian tribal government, and local law
       enforcement agencies in reorienting the emphasis of their activities
       from reacting to crime to preventing crime; and
     o establishing school-based partnerships between state and federally
       recognized Indian tribal government and local law enforcement
       agencies, and local school systems by using school resource officers
       to

          Appendix XIII Program Summary for the Department of Justice

engage in community policing in and around elementary and secondary
schools.

Application process: COPS grants are awarded on a competitive basis.
Applications are submitted to COPS's Grants Administration Division for
approval and include a description of the proposed project and a priority
ranking of specific needs requested in the grant proposal. In fiscal year
2004, COPS received more than $60 million in grant requests and awarded
available funds of about $25 million, nationwide. Typically awards are
made to successful applicants based on the applicants' ranking of needs at
the time the grant request is submitted. Applicants may be denied any
level of funding if they are under investigation by the U.S. Attorneys
Office, in noncompliance under another COPS program, or not correcting
deficiencies in their current application.

           Table 25: Justice Reporting Requirements for COPS Funding

                           Type Description Frequency

Financial These reports reflect the actual federal monies spent,
Quarterly, unless an extension is required or a unliquidated obligations
incurred, local matching contributions, waiver is granted. and the
unobligated balance of federal funds.

Program progress These reports request information about the status of the
grant Once per year during the grant funding period. reports in terms of
hiring, purchases, and progress achieved in

implementing community policing.

Final progress reports This report serves as the final progress report and
is used by As requested by COPS of grantees that have COPS to make final
assessment of grant progress. completed the grant period.

Final financial status The final financial status report should reflect
the total amount No later than 90 days after the end of the grant report
of federal expenditures, the total amount of local matching, and period,
unless an extension is granted.

the total amount of unobligated funds.

Surveys about hiring COPS may conduct these surveys via phone, fax, or
letter to As requested. determine the number of officers hired and
deployed into the community, policing roles, and timetable for when future
hiring may occur.

                     Source: GAO analysis of Justice data.

Appendix XIII Program Summary for the Department of Justice

Allowable uses of program funds: Grants provide funding for a variety of
activities, including

     o 36 months of entry-level salaries and benefits;
     o background investigations;
     o training;
     o uniforms;
     o basic equipment, such as handguns, holsters, and body armor;
     o technology items, such as computers, software, automated booking
       systems, fingerprint identification systems, and GPS systems; and
     o police cars.

Examples of actual uses of program funds:

     o Since its inception in 1994, COPS program grants have been used to add
       community policing officers to the nation's streets and schools,
       enhance crime-fighting technology, support crime prevention
       initiatives, and provide training and technical assistance to advance
       community policing. In the state of Alaska, COPS grants have been
       awarded to hire 324 additional police officers and sheriff's deputies,
       including about 100 officers under the programs discussed below.
     o COPS has created a series of programs to meet the needs of law
       enforcement in Native communities. The COPS Tribal Resources Grant
       Program is a broad, comprehensive program designed to meet law
       enforcement needs in Native communities. This program offers a variety
       of funding in areas such as hiring additional officers, law
       enforcement training, uniforms, basic-issue equipment, emerging
       technologies, and police vehicles.
     o COPS's Universal Hiring Program (UHP) provides funding directly to
       local, state, and tribal jurisdictions for the salaries and benefits
       of newly hired officers engaged in community policing. COPS merged the
       COPS Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns and Accelerated Hiring,
       Education, and Deployment program functions into UHP in 1995, which

Appendix XIII Program Summary for the Department of Justice

incorporated both of these previous initiatives into one centralized grant

program.

     o The COPS in Schools (CIS) grant program is designed to help law
       enforcement agencies hire additional school resource officers to
       engage in community policing in and around primary and secondary
       schools. CIS provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to
       build collaborative partnerships with the school community and to use
       community policing efforts to combat school violence.
     o The Alaska State Patrol received technology grants beginning in 1999
       that benefited the Village Public Safety Officers of Alaska.

Funding mechanism: COPS provides grants to tribal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies up to 75 percent of the costs to hire and train
community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge
crime-fighting technologies, and develop and test innovative policing
strategies.1 The CIS and technology grants do not require the 25 percent
local match. Funds can be accessed by grantees using a phone system or
electronically.2

Restrictions on administrative costs:

According to the Grants Administration Division, administrative costs are
not allowable under most COPS programs.

1Hiring grants were limited to a maximum of $75,000 per officer over a
3-year period.

2Specifically, grantees may request funds using one of two systems, the
Phone Activated Paperless Request System or the Letter of Credit
Electronic Certification System.

Page 126 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XIV

Program Summary for the Department of Labor

Subagency: Employment and Training Administration.

Program name: Youth Opportunity Grants.

Authorization: Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
2914; 20 C.F.R. S: 664.800 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: This program is no longer taking new
applications for grants. The 5 years of funding for grantees, which began
in 2000, has already been completed, but most Youth Opportunity Grant
program sites have some funds remaining that will allow them to provide a
reduced level of programming for at least part of a sixth year. Eligible
recipients included Native American and Alaska Native entities. Alaska
Native applicants were required to be a Workforce Investment Act Section
166 Native American Grantee, and the community the applicant served had to
meet certain poverty rate criteria in the Internal Revenue Code and be an
Alaska Native village as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act. Beneficiaries had to be youth between the ages of 14 and
21 at the time they joined the program, and had to reside in the target
area, without regard to income.

Program objectives: To increase the long-term employment of youth who live
in empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and high poverty areas.
Youth Opportunity Grants concentrate extensive resources in high-poverty
areas in order to bring about communitywide impact on employment rates,
high school completion rates, and college enrollment rates.

Application process: The program was competitive, and there were not
specific amounts of grants set aside for Native Americans. Proposals were
reviewed by an independent panel, including both federal staff and peer
reviewers; site visits were made to finalists. Panelists rated the
proposals based on project design and service strategy, youth development
and community services, dropout prevention, management and accountability,
and need in the target area. Applications had to include both a technical
proposal and a financial proposal, describing, for example, how the
grantee would provide comprehensive services, where the services would be
delivered, the staff numbers that would deliver the services, and the
program's activities. Grant awards were made for an initial period of 1
year, with up to 4 additional option years based on the availability of
funds and satisfactory progress toward achieving the goals and objectives
of the grant.

            Appendix XIV Program Summary for the Department of Labor

Table 26: Labor Reporting Requirements for Youth Opportunity Grant Funding

Source: GAO analysis of Labor data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Program funds can be used to provide
comprehensive activities to eligible youth seeking assistance in achieving
academic and employment success; activities include a variety of options
for improving educational skill competencies and provide effective
connections to employers; ongoing mentoring opportunities; training
opportunities; continued support services for eligible youth; incentives
for recognition and achievement to eligible youth; and youth development
opportunities in activities related to leadership, development, decision
making, citizenship, community service, and recreation. The enabling
legislation also authorized the use of funds for intensive placement
services and follow-up services for not less than 24 months after the
completion of participation in the Youth Opportunity Grant programs.

Examples of actual uses of program funds: According to Department of Labor
documentation, a coalition of Alaska Native organizations that served the
state of Alaska used program funds to set up youth opportunity community
centers in 40 villages across Alaska. In each center, there were one or
two youth development specialists who provided a variety of services.
According to Labor documentation and officials, over 2,900 Alaska Native
youth participated in YO! Alaska programs, including

Appendix XIV Program Summary for the Department of Labor

employment, community service, sports, recreation, education, and life
skills programs.

Funding mechanism: Funding went directly from Labor to the grantees. In
Alaska, the grantee was Cook Inlet Tribal Council, which was designated as
the lead agency to apply for the grant by the Alaska Native Coalition on
Employment and Training. This coalition was originally composed of 10
Alaska Native regional nonprofits, two Alaska Native villages, and one
other Native organization. That coalition selected Cook Inlet Tribal
Council as the lead agency to apply for the Youth Opportunity Grant.

Restrictions on administrative costs: The program's enabling legislation
does not specifically limit administrative costs. However, Department of
Labor officials informed us that they negotiated with grantees to keep
administrative costs low. Grantees pay for administrative costs from the
grant amount; no amount in addition to the grant is provided for
reimbursement of administrative costs.

Appendix XV

Program Summary for the Department of Transportation

Subagency: Federal Aviation Administration.

Program name: Airport Improvement Program.

Authorization: 49 U.S.C. 47101 - 47142.

Eligible program recipients: States, counties (in Alaska, boroughs),
municipalities, and other public agencies, including Indian tribes, are
eligible for airport development grants if the airport is listed in the
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, which identifies more than
3,300 airports nationally that are significant to national air
transportation. Grants for projects under the Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) are typically given only to publicly owned, public use airports,
with a few exceptions. Recipients of grants are commonly called sponsors.
Sponsors must meet basic qualifications set up by the Federal Aviation
Administration to receive AIP grants. In addition, a sponsor must be
legally, financially, and otherwise able to assume and carry out the
assurances and obligations contained in the project application and grant
agreement.

Program objectives: The purpose of the AIP is to assist sponsors, owners,
and operators of public-use airports in the development of a nationwide
system of airports adequate to meet the needs of civil aeronautics.

Application process: Applicants file an application on forms prescribed by
DOT that describe the objective of the project, benefits of the project,
and need for the project, among other things. The application also
requires budget and financial information. The Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) selects projects on a
competitive basis, and the Federal Aviation Administration oversees the
Alaska DOTPF's selection of projects for completion. The Alaska DOTPF
awards AIP funding based on, among other criteria, safety improvements
that the project would make, improving community access to basic
necessities, economic benefits, and if the community has alternatives to
air travel. This process takes place annually, and projects can take up to
3 to 4 years to design, engineer, and build.

Allowable uses of program funds: Grants can be made for integrated airport
system planning in a specific area; and airport master planning,
construction, or rehabilitation at a public-use airport or portion
thereof. Eligible work at airports consists of (1) airport master plans;
(2) airport noise compatibility plans; (3) land acquisition; (4) site
preparation; (5) construction, alteration, and rehabilitation of runways,
taxiways, aprons,

        Appendix XV Program Summary for the Department of Transportation

and certain roads within airport boundaries; (6) construction and
installation of airfield lighting, navigational aids, and certain off-site
work;

(7)
           safety equipment required for certification of airport facility;
           (8) security equipment required by the Secretary of
           Transportation; (9) snow-removal equipment; (10) terminal
           development; (11) aviation-related weather reporting equipment;
           (12) equipment to measure runway surface friction; (13) burn area
           training structures and land for that purpose; (14)
           agency-approved burn area training structures and land for that
           purpose;

(15)
           relocation of air traffic control towers and navigational aids if
           they impede other projects funded by AIP; (16) land, paving,
           drainage, aircraft deicing equipment and structures for
           centralized deicing areas; and (17) projects to comply with the
           Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Clean Air Act, and
           Federal Water Pollution Control.

              Table 27: DOT Reporting Requirements for AIP Funding

                       Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.

Appendix XV Program Summary for the Department of Transportation

Examples of actual uses of program funds: In general terms, the AIP uses
its funding for airport planning and development. The AIP tracks its
spending by three categories: purpose of the project (the underlying
objective of the project, such as airport reconstruction), the physical
component of the project (e.g., a runway), and the type of the project
(the work being done, such as a runway extension). Based on GAO analysis
of agency data, from 1999 through 2004, DOT provided funding for 310
grants that benefited Alaska Native villages and villages that are located
within the boundaries of incorporated cities.1 According to AIP
documentation, some recent examples of grant uses:

     o In 2002, Alaska's Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
       used grants totaling $8.3 million for airport improvements in the
       Alaska Native village of Iliamna, including $6.4 million to strengthen
       the runway.
     o In 2003, the Native Village of Venetie used grants totaling about $6
       million to construct a new airport and a snow-removal equipment
       building.
     o In 2004, Alaska's Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
       used grants totaling $257,000 to rehabilitate the seaplane base in the
       Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve.

Funding mechanism: From 1999 through 2004, based on GAO analysis of AIP
data, AIP provided the vast majority of its Alaska funding to the state of
Alaska, which oversaw projects through the DOTPF. The DOTPF received 91
percent of the funding that benefited Alaska Native villages or villages
that are located within the boundaries of incorporated cities. The
remainder was provided directly to Alaska Native villages, incorporated
cities encompassing Alaska Native villages, and boroughs, where the
borough sponsored the airport benefiting from the project and that airport

1The Airport Improvement Program provides grants that benefit both Alaska
Native villages as well as other areas. The projects referred to herein
were categorized by GAO as benefiting Alaska Native villages or villages
that are located within the boundaries of incorporated cities; non-Alaska
Natives living in those areas would benefit from those projects as well.
Additionally, grants that were made to benefit airports in larger
locations, such as Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks, were not included,
though Alaska Natives traveling to those locations could benefit from
those projects. Some of these projects have not been completed, as
completion of some projects can take as long as 4 years.

Appendix XV Program Summary for the Department of Transportation

was located in an Alaska Native village or village located within the
boundaries of an incorporated city.

Restrictions on administrative costs: According to agency officials, the
AIP limits the amount of indirect administrative costs that Alaska's DOTPF
can recover to 4.8 percent of the total AIP grants to the state; in 2003,
the actual rate for indirect costs was less than 3 percent. DOT's Federal
Highway Administration adjusts that limit each year. Administrative costs
are paid for from the grant, rather than given by AIP in addition to the
AIP grant.

Appendix XVI

Program Summary for the Environmental Protection Agency

Subagency: Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Office.

Program name: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program.

Authorization: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act of
1992, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4368b; 40 C.F.R. Part 35, Subpart B.

Eligible program recipients: Alaska Native or American Indian tribal
government or intertribal consortium.

Program objectives: The primary purpose of the Indian Environmental
General Assistance Program (IGAP) is to support the development of a core
tribal environmental protection program. IGAP is intended to help Alaska
Native and American Indian tribes build their capacity to administer
environmental programs and address environmental problems on Indian land.

Application process: Tribes and consortia in Alaska submit applications to
EPA's Alaska Operations Office on forms prescribed by EPA. Each IGAP
application must include a description of the tribe's environmental needs
and goals, a work plan to accomplish those goals, and identification of
grant outputs and outcomes. IGAP applicants must specify how they will
spend the IGAP funds prior to receiving the IGAP grant. EPA evaluates
proposals based on the completeness of the application, demonstration of
risks and benefits to human health and the environment, the nature and
quality of activities intended to build tribal capacity to address
long-term environmental risks and needs, and management capability and
past performance, if applicable. IGAP grants are not competitive grants;
funding is available to all eligible tribes that demonstrate the
capability to successfully manage a grant. EPA bases award amounts on fund
availability, the number of eligible tribes and consortia applying, and
the amount of any funds remaining in existing IGAP grants. IGAP project
periods cannot exceed 4 years.

      Appendix XVI Program Summary for the Environmental Protection Agency

             Table 28: EPA Reporting Requirements for IGAP Funding

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Grantees are permitted to spend IGAP
funds on planning, developing, and establishing tribal capability to
implement environmental protection programs, as well as implementation of
solid and hazardous waste programs.

Examples of actual uses of program funds: Approximately 140 Alaska Native
tribes are currently using EPA's Indian General Assistance Program to
build their capacity to implement environmental protection programs,
including development and implementation of solid and hazardous waste
programs, according to EPA officials and documentation. Generally,
according to EPA officials and documentation, Alaska Natives often use
IGAP grants to complete some of the following tasks:

     o establishing an environmental office, through, among other steps,
       hiring and training staff and purchasing office equipment;
     o conducting an administrative review of tribal policies and procedures
       to ensure compliance with federal regulations and circulars;
     o establishing the administrative, legal, technical, and implementation
       capability of the tribe to develop and operate a tribal environmental
       program;
     o assessing and prioritizing environmental concerns and developing a
       strategic plan to address problems;
     o implementing recycling and household hazardous waste removal programs,
       which typically include aluminum cans, batteries, used appliances,
       junk cars, used oil, and solvents;

Appendix XVI Program Summary for the Environmental Protection Agency

     o developing and implementing integrated and sustainable solid waste
       management programs;
     o cleanup and closure of unregulated dumps;
     o acquiring training in environmental program priority areas (e.g.,
       water, waste, pollution prevention, alternative energy, environmental
       emergency response);
     o training and working with tribally elected officials on EPA programs,
       environmental regulations, and effective intergovernmental
       coordination;
     o identifying and performing baseline assessments of sources of
       pollution (water quality sampling, air quality emissions inventories,
       and waste stream analysis);
     o establishing a tribal communications capability and technical
       expertise to work with federal, state, local, tribal, and other
       environmental officials; and
          * increasing communities' environmental awareness.
          * Additionally, EPA provided GAO with "success stories"
            highlighting specific examples of how IGAP funds have been used.
            Following are some examples:
     o In 2003, the Gwich'yaa Zhee (Fort Yukon) IGAP program participated in
       the household hazardous waste back haul with Yutana barge lines, and
       back hauled 93 lead-acid batteries, 63 drums of waste oil, eight old
       vehicles, and 318 pounds of aluminum cans to be recycled.
     o In 2003, the Goodnews Bay IGAP program sent a person to a Solid Waste
       Workshop, completed feasibility studies on the local dump, and started
       the process of getting a permit and draft management plans approved by
       the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to get a new
       landfill. Goodnews Bay also said that the IGAP program provided the
       community with environmental education, awareness, increased capacity
       to apply for other grants, and jobs.
     o From 2000 through 2003, the Ugashik IGAP program set up a monitored
       collection site for recycled and reuse products and worked more
       closely

Appendix XVI Program Summary for the Environmental Protection Agency

with other villages in the region, such as forming the Ugashik Watershed

Council.

o  In 1999, The Aleut Community of St. Paul Island IGAP program developed
a Village Environmental Planning Survey and in 2000 began working on a
Specific Action Plan, focusing on addressing the community's solid and
hazardous waste issues and educating the community on a variety of
environmental issues. The IGAP program reported its top three
accomplishments as: (1) establishment of a department within the tribal
government of St. Paul to address current and ongoing environmental issues
in the community; (2) signing the Tribal Environmental Agreement with EPA
in 2000, and (3) establishment and implantation of a recycling program.

Funding mechanism: IGAP grants go directly from EPA to the Alaska Native
tribes and tribal consortia that run the programs.

Restrictions on administrative costs: Grantees use indirect cost rates
approved by the Department of the Interior where a grantee has such a
rate.1 Where a grantee does not have a rate, it typically includes all
administrative costs as direct costs, negotiating with EPA the portion of
overhead costs allocable to IGAP. There is no programwide limit on total
administrative costs. Direct and indirect administrative costs are
provided as part of the grant, rather than given by EPA in addition to the
IGAP grant.

1An indirect cost rate is established for an entity by determining the
percentage that indirect costs represent of all costs. The indirect cost
rate is then used by federal agencies to determine how much money from a
federal grant the entity will recover for the indirect costs of
administering the grant.

Page 137 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages

                     U.S. Government Accountability Office

  Survey of Alaska Native Villages on Housing Developed with NAHASDA funds in
                           Alaska Native Communities

Introduction

In response to a mandate contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act
of 2004, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is conducting a survey
of all entities in Alaska who have received grants under the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA),
as amended. GAO is collecting this information from grant recipients who
received funds between 1998 and 2003 and used them to construct, acquire,
or rehabilitate single-family units or multi-family properties during that
period.

The purpose of this survey is to determine the cost of housing newly
constructed, acquired, or rehabilitated with NAHASDA grants in Alaska
Native communities, including when NAHASDA grants were used in combination
with other sources of funding. Results of the survey will be used in our
report to the Congress, and will help them understand the costs of
providing affordable housing in Alaska Native communities.

Instructions

Please complete the following sections on housing activities pertaining
to: new construction of single-family units, rehabilitation of existing
single-family units with acquisition, rehabilitation of existing
single-family units without acquisition, and completion of multi-family
property development.

Please return the questionnaire within 2 weeks of receipt. Complete this
survey in MS Word, save it, and return it to this email address as an
attachment. If you prefer to print out the questionnaire and fax return or
post-mail it, you may. You may contact us for a business reply envelope,
or you may fax or mail the questionnaire back to us at:

1

Dan Meyer

U.S. Government Accountability Office 200 W. Adams Street, #700 Chicago,
IL 60606 (202) 512-2502 or (202) 512-2514 FAX

Please also retain a copy of the questionnaire for your records.

If you have any questions please contact: Brodi Fontenot (202-512-8279,
[email protected]) or James Vitarello (202-512-5119, [email protected]).

Please use your mouse to navigate throughout the questionnaire by clicking
on the gray-shaded answer box or check box that you wish to answer. To

typing. Do not enter dollar signs or commas. Do not use the enter key to
end a line. To select a check box (/-), click or double-click on the
center of the box. To change or deselect a response, click on the check
box and the "x" should disappear.

Do not "unlock" this document, because it will erase your answers. If you
wish to include comments about a particular question(s), include the
comment with the question number at the end of the questionnaire.

While completing this survey, please save your document often as you work.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance!

Appendix XVII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages

1. Please provide the following information for the individual(s)
completing this questionnaire, so that we may call to clarify information
if necessary. The answer boxes will expand.

Name Title Village Address Address (Area Code) Phone Number E-mail Address

The following sections will ask you about:

0/00.

New construction of single-family units (Question #2)

0/00.

Rehabilitation of existing single-family units with acquisition (Question
#3)

0/00.

Rehabilitation of existing single-family units without acquisition (Question #4)

0/00.

Completion of multi-family property development (Questions #5-#7)

Appendix XVIIReproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS
Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings
and may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years 1998
through 2003, did your village complete any new construction of
single-family units using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with
other funds? Please check your response.
Yes, Continue to Question 2a No, SKIP to Question 3
Don't know, SKIP to Question 3

Appendix XVII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages

2a. If yes, how many single-family units of the following sizes were
completed, and what were the combined square footages and total
development costs for all units for each calendar year? (Please enter
numbers in each box, including "0" if none. Please do not enter commas.)

Appendix XVII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages

REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS WITH ACQUISITION

3. Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit
buildings and may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years
1998 through 2003, did your village complete any rehabilitation of
existing single-family units where the unit(s) was/were acquired using
NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please check
your response.

Yes, Continue to Question 3a

No, SKIP to Question 4

Don't know, SKIP to Question 4

Appendix XVII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages

3a. If yes, how many single-family units of the following sizes were
completed, and what were the combined square footages and total
development costs for all units for each calendar year? (Please enter
numbers in each box, including "0" if none. Please do not enter commas.)

Appendix XVII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages

REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS WITHOUT ACQUISITION

4. Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit
buildings and may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years
1998 through 2003, did your village complete any rehabilitation of
existing single-family units where the rehabilitation did not require the
purchase of the unit(s) using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination
with other funds? Please check your response.

Yes, Continue to Question 4a

No, SKIP to Question 5

Don't know, SKIP to Question 5

Appendix XVII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages

4a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many single-family units were
completed, and what were total development costs for all units? (Please
enter numbers in each box, including "0" if none. Please do not enter
commas.)

Appendix XVII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages

COMPLETION OF MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT

5. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units
that may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years 1998
through 2003, did your village complete any new construction of
multi-family properties using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination
with other funds? Please check your response.

Yes, Continue to Question 5a

No, SKIP to Question 6

Don't know, SKIP to Question 6

5a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were
completed, and what were the combined square footages and total
development costs for all properties? (Please enter numbers in each box,
including "0" if none. Please do not enter commas.)

Total Development Costs for

Appendix XVII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages

6. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units
that may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years 1998
through 2003, did your village complete any rehabilitation of existing
multi-family properties where property was acquired using NAHASDA funds
either exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please check your
response.

Yes, Continue to Question 6a

No, SKIP to Question 7

Don't know, SKIP to Question 7

6a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were
completed, and what were the combined square footages and total
development costs for all properties? (Please enter numbers in each box,
including "0" if none. Please do not enter commas.)

Total Development Costs for All Properties (Includes costs for
administration, planning, multi-family property acquisition, site
acquisition, demolition, construction, and/or

Total Number of

Calendar

equipment and financing

Completed

Combined Square

Year of

(including payment of carrying

Multi-family Properties

Footage for All

charges) and other necessary costs,

Completion

(A multifamily property is

such as shipping costs or the

Properties

(January 1 to

completed when it is

Alaska Building Energy Efficiency

December 31)

available for occupancy.)

Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes off-site costs for water, sewers, and
roads. Include all costs associated with unit completion even if some
costs were incurred in previous calendar years.)

1998

properties

Sq. Ft.

$

1999

properties

Sq. Ft.

$

2000

properties

Sq. Ft.

$

2001

properties

Sq. Ft.

$

2002

properties

Sq. Ft.

$

2003

properties

Sq. Ft.

$

Appendix XVII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages

7. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units
that may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years 1998
through 2003, did your village complete any rehabilitation of existing
multi-family properties where the rehabilitation did not require the
purchase of property using NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in
combination with other funds? Please check your response.

Yes, Continue to Question 7a

No, SKIP to Question 8

Don't know, SKIP to Question 8

7a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were
completed, and what were total development costs for all properties?
(Please enter numbers in each box, including "0" if none. Please do not
enter commas.)

Total Development Costs for All

Appendix XVII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages Appendix
XVII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages

 10. Please provide any additional comments below. The answer box will expand.

Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated Housing Entities

                     U.S. Government Accountability Office

 Survey of Alaska Tribally Designated Housing Entities on Housing Developed and
           Modernized with NAHASDA funds in Alaska Native Communities

Introduction

In response to a mandate contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act
of 2004, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is conducting a survey
of all entities in Alaska who have received grants under the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA),
as amended. GAO is collecting this information from grant recipients who
received funds between 1998 and 2003 and used them to construct, acquire,
rehabilitate, or modernize single-family units or multi-family properties
during that period.

The purpose of this survey is to determine the cost of housing newly
constructed, acquired, rehabilitated, or modernized with NAHASDA grants in
Alaska Native communities, including when NAHASDA grants were used in
combination with other sources of funding. Results of the survey will be
used in our report to the Congress, and will help them understand the
costs of providing affordable housing in Alaska Native communities.

Instructions

Please complete the following sections on housing activities pertaining
to: new construction of single-family units, rehabilitation of existing
single-family units with acquisition, rehabilitation of existing
single-family units without acquisition, modernization of single-family
units, and completion of multi-family property development.

Please return the questionnaire within 2 weeks of receipt. Complete this
survey in MS Word, save it, and return it to this email address as an
attachment. If you prefer to print out the questionnaire and fax return or
post-mail it, you may. You may contact us for a business reply envelope,
or you may fax or mail the questionnaire back to us at:

1

Dan Meyer

U.S. Government Accountability Office 200 W. Adams Street, #700 Chicago,
IL 60606 (202) 512-2502 or (202) 512-2514 FAX

Please also retain a copy of the questionnaire for your records.

If you have any questions please contact: Brodi Fontenot (202-512-8279,
[email protected]) or James Vitarello (202-512-5119, [email protected]).

Please use your mouse to navigate throughout the questionnaire by clicking
on the gray-shaded answer box or check box that you wish to answer. To
answer a question that requires you to write a

typing. Do not enter dollar signs or commas. Do not use the enter key to
end a line. To select a check box (/-), click or double-click on the
center of the box. To change or deselect a response, click on the check
box and the "x" should disappear.

Do not "unlock" this document, because it will erase your answers. If you
wish to include comments about a particular question(s), include the
comment with the question number at the end of the questionnaire.

While completing this survey, please save your document often as you work.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance!

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

1. Please provide the following information for the individual(s)
completing this questionnaire, so that we may call to clarify information
if necessary. The answer boxes will expand.

Name Title Tribally Designated Housing Entity Address Address (Area Code)
Phone Number E-mail Address

The following sections will ask you about:

0/00.

New construction of single-family units (Question #2)

0/00.

Rehabilitation of existing single-family units with acquisition (Question
#3)

0/00.

Rehabilitation of existing single-family units without acquisition (Question #4)

0/00.

Modernization of single-family units (Question #5)

0/00.

Completion of multi-family property development (Questions #6-#9)

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS
Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings
and may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years 1998
through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) complete
any new construction of single-family units using NAHASDA funds
exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please check your
response.
Yes, Continue to Question 2a No, SKIP to Question 3
Don't know, SKIP to Question 3

     Figure 21: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State
     of Alaska, by Agency, to Regional Native Nonprofits, State        
     Fiscal Years 1998-2003                                                87 
     Figure 22: Trend of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of  
             Alaska to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, 
     State Fiscal Years 1998-2003                                          91 

AHFC         Alaska Housing Finance Corporation                   
AIAN         American Indian or Alaska Native                     
AIP          Airport Improvement Program                          
ANCSA        Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act                  
ANTHC        Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium               
APR          Annual Performance Report                            
AVCP         Association of Village Council Presidents            
BEES         Building Energy Efficiency Standard                  
BIA          Bureau of Indian Affairs                             
CEDS         Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy          
CFDA         Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance               
CIS          COPS in Schools                                      
COPS         Community Oriented Policing Services                 
DEC          Department of Environmental Conservation             
DOT          Department of Transportation                         
DOTPF        Department of Transportation and Public Facilities   
EAA          Economic Adjustment Assistance                       
EDA          Economic Development Administration                  
EDR          Economic Development Representative                  
EPA          Environmental Protection Agency                      
FAADS        Federal Assistance Award Data System                 
GSA          General Services Administration                      
HHS          Department of Health and Human Services              
HUD          Department of Housing and Urban Development          
IGAP         Indian Environmental General Assistance Program      
IHBG         Indian Housing Block Grants                          
IHP          Indian Housing Plan                                  
IHS          Indian Health Service                                

SF                    Standard Form                                        
TANF                                Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
TDHE                  Tribally Designated Housing Entity                   
UAS                   University of Alaska Southeast                       
UHP                   Universal Hiring Program                             
USDA                               United States Department of Agriculture 

For-profit regional corporation   Corresponding regional nonprofit         
Ahtna Inc.                            Copper River Native Association      
The Aleut Corporation             Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association    
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation     Arctic Slope Native Association      
Bering Straits Native Corporation Kawerak Inc.                             
Bristol Bay Native Corporation         Bristol Bay Native Association      
Calista Corporation                         Association of Village Council 
                                                                   Presidents 
Chugach Alaska Corporation        Chugachmiut                              
Cook Inlet Region Inc.            Cook Inlet Tribal Council                
Doyon Limited                     Tanana Chiefs Conference                 
Koniag Inc.                            Kodiak Area Native Association      
NANA Regional Corporation Inc.    Maniilaq Association                     
Sealaska Corporation              Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida 
                                     Indian Tribes                            
Thirteenth Regional Corporation   No nonprofit organization                

Native Villages Received        Of the $3.5 billion provided to Alaska     
                                   Native villages and regional Native        
Substantially Less Funding Than nonprofits, as shown in figure 3, federal  
                                   agencies provided more than $483           
Regional Native Nonprofits, but million (14 percent) in direct federal     
                                   funding to 216 Alaska Native villages      
Native Villages Received Their  and $3 billion (86 percent) to 33 regional 
                                   Native nonprofits from 1998                
Funding from More Sources       through 2003.                              

                                      Regional Native nonprofits may receive  
                                      more funding from HHS than              
                                      villages because regional Native        
                                      nonprofits include regional health      
                                      organizations that receive funding from 
                                      IHS to operate major medical            
                                      facilities such as hospitals. Under     
                                      existing law, some villages are         
                                      restricted                              
                                      from receiving IHS funding in cases     
                                      where they are located in areas that    
                                      are already served by an Alaska Native  
                                      regional health organization.21         
                                      In contrast, Native villages received   
                                      more funding from certain agencies      
                                      than regional Native nonprofits. The    
                                      Departments of Commerce, Justice,       
                                      and Transportation (DOT) and EPA all    
                                      provided more funding to villages       
                                      than to regional Native nonprofits. For 
                                      example, EPA provided $72 million       
                                      to villages over the period, or over    
                                      six times the amount provided to        
                                      regional Native nonprofits.             
                                      While Native villages and regional      
                                      Native nonprofits received different    
                                      amounts of funding, with different      
                                      primary sources of funding, both        
                                      received the majority of their funding  
                                      from a few programs. For example,       
A Small Number of Programs         Native villages received funding from a 
Accounted for the Majority of      total of 112 programs; however, as      
Funding and a Small Number of Both shown in table 2, the top programs from 
Native Villages and Regional       nine agencies providing the most        
Native Nonprofits Received the     funding accounted for about 64 percent  
Majority of the Funding            of the funding to all Native villages.  

                                                                   Percentage
                                                                     of total
Agency    Program name (CFDA)                       Total funding  funding 
HUD       Indian Housing Block Grants (14.867)      $104,068,580        22 
EPA       Indian Environmental General Assistance                  
             Program (66.926)                              63,269,797      13 
HHS       Indian Health Service Health Management                  
             Development Program (93.228)a                 47,721,221      10 
Interior  Tribal Self-Governance (15.022)               45,500,244       9 
DOT       Airport Improvement Program (20.106)          17,545,183       4 
Commerce  Economic Adjustment Assistance (11.307)       11,705,345       2 
Justice   Public Safety Partnership and Community                  
             Policing Grants (16.710)b                      9,766,546       2 
USDA      Water and Waste Disposal Systems for                     
             Rural Communities (10.760)                     6,017,480       1 
Education Alaska Native Educational Planning,                      
             Curriculum Development, Teacher Training,                
             and Recruitment Program (84.320)c              1,497,690      <1 
             103 other programs                         176,360,205        36 
Total                                               $483,452,291       100 

                                                                   Percentage
                                                                     of total
Agency    Program name (CFDA)                        Total funding funding 
HHS       Indian Health Service-Health                             
             Management Development Program                           
             (93.228)a                                 $1,841,321,664      61 
HUD       Indian Housing Block Grants (14.867)         480,063,494      16 
Interior  Tribal Self-Governance (15.022)              245,776,863       8 
Labor     Workforce Investment Act (17.255)             18,964,143       1 
Education Rehabilitation Services-American Indians                 
             with Disabilities (84.250)                    13,310,179      <1 
USDA      Community Facilities Loans and Grants                    
             (10.766)                                       7,815,357      <1 
EPA       Indian Environmental General Assistance                  
             Program (66.926)                               7,563,292      <1 
Commerce  Economic Adjustment Assistance (11.307)        3,628,586      <1 
Justice   Violence against Women Discretionary                     
             Grants for Indian Tribal Governments                     
             (16.587)                                       2,066,729      <1 
             140 other programs                           385,596,234      13 
Total                                               $3,006,106,541     100 

Agency                  Program                     Primary purposes       
                                                       grantees used funds    
Denali Commission       Denali Commission (emphasis Energy and health care 
                           on                          infrastructure         
                           energy and health)          
Department of           Water and Waste Disposal    Infrastructure         
Agriculture             System                      
                           for Rural Communities       
Department of Commerce  Economic Adjustment         Economic development   
                           Assistance                  
Department of Commerce  Economic Development-Grants Economic development   
                           for Public Works and        
                           Development                 
                           Facilities                  
Department of Education Alaska Native Programs      Education              
Department of Health    Tribal Self-Governance      Health care            
and Human Services                                  
Department of Housing   Indian Housing Block Grant  Housing construction   
and Urban                                           and rehabilitation     
Development                                         
Department of Housing   Indian Community            Community development  
and Urban               Development                 
Development             Block Grant                 
Department of Justice   Community Oriented Policing Law enforcement        
                           Services                    
Department of the       Tribal Self-Governance      Community welfare,     
Interior                                            community development  
Department of Labor     Youth Opportunity Grants    Education, job         
                                                       training               
Department of           Airport Improvement Program Transportation         
Transportation                                      infrastructure         
Environmental           Indian Environmental        Capacity building      
Protection Agency       General                     
                           Assistance Program          

Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits, Two programs we reviewed provided       
Villages, and State Agencies Used  health care funding for Alaska Natives: 
Federal Funding to Provide a Wide  the Department of Health and Human      
Range of Health Care Services to   Services' Tribal Self-Governance        
Alaska                             Program and the Denali Commission's     
                                      Health Care Program. HHS's Indian       
                                      Health Service (IHS) awards             
                                      self-governance funding to 13 regional  
                                      Native health care nonprofits, three    
                                      Native villages, one statewide          
Natives                            Native health care provider, and four   
                                      groups of between two and seven Alaska  
                                      Native villages, to provide health care 
                                      services to Alaska Natives. 29          
                                      Under the program, IHS negotiates       
                                      self-governance compacts with these     
                                      regional Native nonprofits, villages,   
                                      and the statewide Alaska Native Tribal  
                                      Health Consortium30 that allow those    
                                      organizations to assume the             
                                      management, design and implementation   
                                      of their own health care programs. 31   
                                      According to IHS officials and agency   
                                      documentation, these                    
                                      organizations recently used HHS's       
                                      Tribal Self-Governance Program funding  
                                      in several areas. 32 These include the  
                                      following:33                            
                                      o  Clinical health services, including  
                                      hospitals and health clinics, dental    
                                      services, mental health services, and   
                                      alcohol and substance abuse             
                                      treatment. Collectively, these funds    
                                      were used to operate 7 tribal           

Bedroom       
size of unit  
constructed     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003    Total 
1 bedroom            1        7        4        4        3        3     22 
2 bedroom            7    17       22       21       46          15    128 
3 bedroom           62    64       74       99       87          76    462 
4 bedroom           34    46       43       32       63          44    262 
Total new                                                           
construction                                                        
unitsa          104      134      143      156      199      138       874 
Total                                                               
rehabilitated                                                       
unitsb          253      386      610      526      628      587     2,990 

Copper River Native Association   0     0     0     0     0   0          0 
Fairbanks Native Association      0    36    11    18    22   26       113 
Kawerak Inc.                     13    14    15     4    18   1         65 

                         2000 0   2001 0   2002 0 2003 0 Total                
                       37 5 610 28 5 526 36 5 628   33 5                      
1998 1999 0 0 10 18  187 116   88 144  163 108 587 48                      
3 0 253 386 8 11 66   10 158 16 66 18   26 105 141 39       0 162 23 2,990 
78 0 3 0 148 51 25  32 14 18 84 21 23 38 87 21 119 38       505 653 94 596
15 11 10 15 1 0 89     21 12       33    20 19  76 34       202 287 119 80
     77 Source: GAO.                               15 39                  269

                                 Number of new
                      units constructed Number of    Number of new
                                        housing      
                             by housing  authorities        units   Number of 
                                                      constructed    villages 
Region                   authorities   responding  by villages  responding 
Aleutian Pribilof                 15            1 No villages  No villages 
Islands Association                               responded      responded 
Arctic Slope Native               25            1            9           2 
Association                                                    
Association of Village           173            1           90          11 
Council Presidents                                             
Bristol Bay Native                88            1           14           2 
Association                                                    
Central Council                  104            2            8           1 
Chugachmiut                       58            1            0           0 
Cook Inlet Tribal                 61            1           12           3 
Council                                                        
Copper River Native                0            1 No villages  No villages 
Association                                       responded      responded 
Fairbanks Native                  75            1           38           6 
Association                                                    
Kawerak Inc.                      44            1           21           3 
Kodiak Area Native                13            1            0           0 
Association                                                    
Maniilaq Association              10            1           16           3 
Total                            666           13          208          31 

                    Number of units Number of   
                   rehabilitated by     housing Number of units   
                            housing authorities  rehabilitated by   Number of 
                                                                     villages 
Region               authorities  responding          villages  responding 
Aleutian Pribilof              0           1 No villages       No villages 
Islands Association                          responded           responded 
Arctic Slope Native            0           1                23           2 
Association                                                    
Association of                                                             
Village Council                0           1               156          10
Presidents                                                     
Bristol Bay Native           455           1                46           3 
Association                                                    
Central Council              550           2                56           3 
Chugachmiut                   22           1                69           1 
Cook Inlet Tribal            438           1               158           4 
Council                                                        
Copper River Native          202           1 No Villages       No Villages 
Association                                  Responded           Responded 
Fairbanks Native             167           1               120           3 
Association                                                    
Kawerak Inc.                 100           1                19           2 
Kodiak Area Native            61           1                19           1 
Association                                                    
Maniilaq Association         119           1               140           2 
Total                      2,114          13               806          31 

2003 Dollars)      
                                                 Average Total      Average   
                                 Average cost   cost per  number  sq. ft. per 
Region                     per square foot    unit    of units unit        

                                                         34             1,142 
                                                         13             1,181 
                                                         65             1,145 
                                                         113            1,006 
                                                         102            1,375 
                                                         263            1,258 
                                                         26             1,167 
                                                         112            1,329 
                                                         15             1,665 
                                                         73             1,101 
                                                         58             1,134 

2003 dollars         
                            1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003 
12 regional housing                                               
authorities                                                       
Average cost per     $244,550 $227,164 $226,554 $241,919 $226,577 $260,864 
unit                                                              
Average cost per       $188       $180     $188     $192     $194     $193 
square foot                                                       
Total number of            97      119      105      111      149       85 
units                                                             
Average square feet   1,296    1,256    1,205    1,255    1,167      1,350 
per unit                                                          
Number of responding                                              
housing authorities         6        5        6        9        7        7 
31 villages                                                       
Average cost per     $125,199 $150,845 $174,761 $168,249 $154,076 $235,007 
unit                                                              
Average cost per       $102       $183     $138     $142     $144     $212 
square foot                                                       
Total number of             7       15       38       45       50       53 
units                                                             
Average square feet   1,226        823  1,260    1,182    1,068      1,104 
per unit                                                          
Number of responding                                              
villages                    3       11       15       18       17       16 

                Rehabilitation                 
                Major                          
                ($20,000 or more per unit)     
                                                             N/A 
                                                             N/A 
                                                         $93,444 
                                                             N/A 
                                                          46,562 
                                                             N/A 
                                                             N/A 
                                                          30,154 
                                                          52,668 
                                                          50,581 
                                                             N/A 
                                                          48,209 
                                                          67,051 
                                                          66,308 

                                                                          N/A 
                                                                          N/A 
                                                                          N/A 
                                                                       45,854 
                                                                       63,069 
                                                                       23,230 
                                                                          N/A 
                                                                       33,991 
                                                                       51,177 
                                                                       31,164 
                                          Villages                     
                                          Regional housing authorities 
                                          Source: GAO.                 

                                     Minor                          Number    
                                     (less than $20,000 per unit) of villages 
                                                              N/A         N/A 
                                                              N/A 
                                                              N/A         N/A 
                                                              N/A 
                                                           $6,632           8 
                                                              N/A 

                               1998  1999   2000   2001   2002   2003   Total 
Constructed new units                                               
Regional housing                                                    
authorities                    6      5      6      9      7      7     12 
Villages                       3     11     15     18     17     16     31 
Rehabilitation with acquisition                                     
Regional housing                                                    
authorities                    1      3      1      1      1      2      4 
Villages                       0      1      2      0      1      2      5 
Rehabilitation only                                                 
Regional housing                                                    
authorities                    4      6      7      8      9      9     10 
Villages                       7     10     21     21     23     24     31 

ANCSA region or Indian                                            Enrolled 
reservation            Villages                      AIAN persons  members 
The Aleut Corporation  Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove            393      636 
                          Native Village of Akutan               121      163 
                          Native Village of Atka                  86      180 
                          Native Village of Belkofski              0       61 
                          Native Village of False Pass            44       96 
                          Native Village of Nelson                71       50 
                          Lagoon                                     
                          Native Village of Nikolski              28       59 
                          Pauloff Harbor Village                  26       51 
                          Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of              437      620 
                          Sand Point Village                         
                          Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska           407      539 
                          Saint George (Pribilof                 144      131 
                          Islands Aleut Communities)                 
                          Saint Paul (Pribilof Islands           589      653 
                          Aleut Communities)                         
                          Native Village of Unga                  44       87 
                          At-large                                74    3,400 
Region total                                                2,464    6,726 
Arctic Slope Regional  Village of Anaktuvuk Pass              265      279 
Corporation            Atqasuk Village (Atkasook)             229      254 
                          Native Village of Barrow                   
                          Inupiat Traditional                        
                          Government                                 
                          (formerly Native Village of          3,124    2,590 
                          Barrow)                                    
                          Kaktovik Village (Barter               262      231 
                          Island)                                    
                          Native Village of Nuiqsut              411      450 
                          (Nooiksut)                                 
                          Native Village of Point Hope           731      841 
                          Native Village of Point Lay            232      200 
                          Village of Wainwright                  541      602 
                          At-large                                13    7,200 
Region total                                                5,809   12,647 

(Continued From Previous Page)
ANCSA region or Indian                                            Enrolled 
reservation            Villages                      AIAN persons  members 
Calista Corporation    Akiachak Native Community              610      571 
                          Akiak Native Community                 318      210 
                          Village of Alakanuk                    703      689 
                          Algaaciq Native Village (St.           356      439 
                          Mary's)                                    
                          Yupiit of Andreafski                   127      200 
                          Village of Aniak                       453      686 
                          Asa'carsarmiut Tribe                       
                          (formerly Native Village of                
                          Mountain                                   
                          Village)                               778    1,026 
                          Village of Atmautluak                  305      305 
                          Village of Bill Moore's                  0       83 
                          Slough                                     
                          Native Village of Chuathbaluk          121      134 
                          Village of Chefornak                   418      441 
                          Chevak Native Village                  809      694 
                          Chuloonawick Native Village              0       52 
                          Village of Crooked Creek               139      121 
                          Native Village of Eek                  293      278 
                          Emmonak Village                        793      861 
                          Native Village of Georgetown             3       50 
                          Native Village of Goodnews             234      346 
                          Bay                                        
                          Native Village of Hamilton               0       26 
                          Native Village of Hooper Bay         1,070      933 
                          Iqurmuit Traditional Council               
                          (formerly Native Village of                
                          Russian                                    
                          Mission)                               306      296 
                          Village of Kalskag                     198       99 
                          Native Village of Kasigluk             568      532 
                          Native Village of Kipnuk               683      702 
                          Native Village of Kongiganak           378      369 
                          Village of Kotlik                      626      571 
                          Organized Village of Kwethluk          732      819 
                          Native Village of                      358      408 
                          Kwigillingok                               
                          Native Village of Kwinhagak            584      661 
                          (Quinhagak)                                
                          Lime Village                             0       44 
                          Village of Lower Kalskag               276      329 
                          Native Village of Marshall             376      345 
                          (Fortuna Ledge)                            
                          Native Village of Mekoryuk             220      445 
                          Native Village of Napaimute              0      125 
                          Native Village of Napakiak             369      384 

(Continued From Previous Page)
ANCSA region or Indian                                            Enrolled 
reservation            Villages                      AIAN persons  members 
                          Native Village of Napaskiak            415      372 
                          Newtok Village                         337      313 
                          Native Village of Nightmute            213      195 
                          Nunakauyarmiut Tribe                                
                          (formerly Native Village of            562      654
                          Toksook Bay)                               
                          Native Village of Nunapitchuk          484      473 
                          Village of Ohogamiut                     0       26 
                          Orutsararmuit Native Village         4,025    3,798 
                          (Bethel)                                   
                          Oscarville Traditional                  66       77 
                          Village                                    
                          Native Village of Paimiut                0       67 
                          Pilot Station Traditional              592      537 
                          Village                                    
                          Native Village of Pitka's              129      161 
                          Point                                      
                          Platinum Traditional Village            41       71 
                          Village of Red Devil                    27       28 
                          Native Village of Scammon Bay          499      430 
                          Native Village of Sheldon's            170      138 
                          Point                                      
                          Village of Sleetmute                    96      126 
                          Village of Stony River                  56       59 
                          Tuluksak Native Community              436      508 
                          Native Village of Tuntutuliak          396      384 
                          Native Village of Tununak              341      247 
                          Umkumiute Native Village                13       31 
                          At-large                                29   11,940 
Region total                                               22,130   34,909 

(Continued From Previous Page)
ANCSA region or Indian                                            Enrolled 
reservation             Villages                     AIAN persons  members 
Bristol Bay Native      Native Village of Aleknagik           202      487 
Corporation                                                       
                           Native Village of Chignik              89      220 
                           Lagoon                                    
                           Native Village of Chignik              50      315 
                           Chignik Lake Village                  133      326 
                           Village of Clarks Point                75      181 
                           Curyung Tribal Council                             
                           (formerly Native Village of         1,625    1,873
                           Dillingham)                               
                           Egegik Village                         93      254 
                           Native Village of Ekuk                  0       72 
                           Ekwok Village                         132      222 
                           Igiugig Village                        46       63 
                           Village of Iliamna                     62      158 
                           Ivanoff Bay Village                    22       42 
                           Native Village of Kanatak             214      107 
                           King Salmon Tribe                      55       78 
                           Kokhanok Village                      166      162 
                           New Koliganek Village                              
                           Council (formerly Koliganek           172      261
                           Village)                                  
                           Levelock Village                      122      166 
                           Manokotak Village                     409      475 
                           Naknek Native Village                 334      314 
                           New Stuyahok Village                  489      525 
                           Newhalen Village                      153      195 
                           Nondalton Village                     209      439 
                           Pedro Bay Village                      34      117 
                           Native Village of Perryville          110      267 
                           Native Village of Pilot               136      160 
                           Point                                     
                           Portage Creek Village                  34       78 
                           (Ohgsenakale)                             
                           Native Village of Port                 98      139 
                           Heiden                                    
                           South Naknek Village                  120      275 
                           Traditional Village of                811      868 
                           Togiak                                    
                           Twin Hills Village                     70      102 
                           Ugashik Village                         9       65 
                           At-large                              135    5,945 
Region total                                                6,412   14,951 

(Continued From Previous Page)
ANCSA region or Indian                                            Enrolled 
reservation                Villages                  AIAN persons  members 
Sealaska Corporation       Angoon Community                   504      573 
                              Association                            
                              Chilkat Indian Village             125      203 
                              (Klukwan)                              
                              Chilkoot Indian                    392      495 
                              Association (Haines)                   
                              Craig Community                    525      367 
                              Association                            
                              Douglas Indian                     283      411 
                              Association                            
                              Hoonah Indian Association          609      587 
                              Hydaburg Cooperative               359      402 
                              Association                            
                              Organized Village of Kake          674      523 
                              Organized Village of                20      143 
                              Kasaan                                 
                              Ketchikan Indian                 2,544    4,660 
                              Corporation                            
                              Klawock Cooperative                521      476 
                              Association                            
                              Petersburg Indian                  482      418 
                              Association                            
                              Organized Village of               322      175 
                              Saxman                                 
                              Sitka Tribe of Alaska            2,275    3,241 
                              Skagway Village                     96       48 
                              Wrangell Cooperative               587      565 
                              Association                            
                              Yakutat Tlingit Tribe              383      385 
                              At-large                         5,303   16,114 
Region total                                               16,004   29,786 
Chugach Alaska Corporation Native Village of Chanega           70       57 
                              Native Village of Eyak             429      368 
                              (Cordova)                              
                              Native Village of                  175      260 
                              Nanwalek (English Bay)                 
                              Native Village of Port             160      151 
                              Graham                                 
                              Native Village of                   95       91 
                              Tatitlek                               
                              At-large                         1,354    2,020 
Region total                                                2,283    2,947 
Cook Inlet Region Inc.     Chickaloon Native Village          508      254 
                              Eklutna Native Village              57      239 
                              Kenaitze Indian Tribe            2,366    1,183 
                              Knik Tribe                       1,160      580 
                              Ninilchik Village                  921      526 
                              Village of Salamatoff              225      155 
                              Seldovia Village Tribe             131      907 
                              Native Village of Tyonek           195      581 
                              At-large                        29,833    7,218 
Region total                                               35,397   11,643 

(Continued From Previous Page)
ANCSA region or Indian                                            Enrolled 
reservation            Villages                      AIAN persons  members 
Ahtna Inc.             Native Village of Cantwell              62      108 
                          Cheesh-Na Tribe (formerly the                       
                          Native Village of                       59       66
                          Chistochina)                               
                          Native Village of Chitina               62      316 
                          Native Village of Gakona                18       85 
                          Gulkana Village                         79      132 
                          Native Village of Kluti Kaah           206      302 
                          (Copper Center)                            
                          Mentasta Traditional Council                        
                          (formerly Mentasta Lake                103      250
                          Village)                                   
                          Native Village of Tazlina               91      147 
                          At-large                               247    1,100 
Region total                                                  927    2,506 

(Continued From Previous Page)
ANCSA region or Indian                                            Enrolled 
reservation            Villages                      AIAN persons  members 
Doyon Limited          Alatna Village                          35       34 
                          Allakaket Village                      133       93 
                          Anvik Village                          105       94 
                          Arctic Village                         144      139 
                          Beaver Village                          82      235 
                          Birch Creek Tribe (formerly                         
                          listed as Birch Creek                   29       28
                          Village)                                   
                          Chalkyitsik Village                     83      111 
                          Circle Native Community                 88      185 
                          Village of Dot Lake                     29       28 
                          Native Village of Eagle                 31       30 
                          Evansville Village (Bettles             26       15 
                          Field)                                     
                          Native Village of Fort Yukon           544      528 
                          Galena Village (Louden                 468      455 
                          Village)                                   
                          Organized Village of Grayling          183      178 
                          (aka Holikachuk)                           
                          Healy Lake Village                      28       27 
                          Holy Cross Village                     225      219 
                          Hughes Village                          64       62 
                          Huslia Village                         287      279 
                          Village of Kaltag                      206      200 
                          Koyukuk Native Village                  95       92 
                          Manley Hot Springs Village              18       17 
                          McGrath Native Village                 225      219 
                          Native Village of Minto                245      224 
                          Nenana Native Association              196      499 
                          Nikolai Village                         83       81 
                          Northway Village                       349      256 
                          Nulato Village                         325      680 
                          Rampart Village                         42       41 
                          Native Village of Ruby                 167      162 
                          Shageluk Native Village                129      125 
                          Native Village of Stevens               85      199 
                          Takotna Village                         22       21 
                          Native Village of Tanacross            131      126 
                          Native Village of Tanana               258      942 
                          Telida Village                           3        3 
                          Native Village of Tetlin               119      114 
                          Village of Venetie                     323      237 

(Continued From Previous Page)
ANCSA region or Indian                                            Enrolled 
reservation            Villages                      AIAN persons  members 
                          At-large                             9,366    6,868 
Region total                                               14,972   13,846 
Bering Straits Native  Native Village of Brevig               271      297 
                          Mission                                    
Corporation            Chinik Eskimo Community                142      110 
                          (Golovin)                                  
                          Native Village of Council                0      131 
                          Native Village of Diomede              146      190 
                          (Inalik)                                   
                          Native Village of Elim                 359      403 
                          Native Village of Gambell              663      666 
                          King Island Native Community           209      454 
                          Native Village of Koyuk                299      370 
                          Native Village of Mary's                 0       98 
                          Igloo                                      
                          Nome Eskimo Community                1,997    2,106 
                          Native Village of Saint                366      399 
                          Michael                                    
                          Native Village of Savoonga             655      721 
                          Native Village of Shaktoolik           232      211 
                          Native Village of Shishmaref           566      643 
                          Village of Solomon                       3       68 
                          Stebbins Community                     552      642 
                          Association                                
                          Native Village of Teller               264      208 
                          Native Village of Unalakleet           698      637 
                          Native Village of Wales                146      267 
                          Native Village of White                187      275 
                          Mountain                                   
                          At-large                                 0    6,179 
Region total                                                7,755   15,075 
Koniag Inc.            Village of Afognak                     108      309 
                          Native Village of Akhiok                79      100 
                          Kaguyak Village                          4        9 
                          Native Village of Karluk                27      189 
                          Native Village of Larsen Bay            96      479 
                          Lesnoi Village (Woody Island)           62      255 
                          Village of Old Harbor                  214      573 
                          Native Village of Ouzinkie             207      381 
                          Native Village of Port Lions           172      352 
                          Shoonaq' Tribe of Kodiak               652    1,213 
                          At-large                               961    3,300 
Region total                                                2,582    7,160 

(Continued From Previous Page)
ANCSA region or Indian                                            Enrolled 
reservation                 Villages                 AIAN persons  members 
NANA Regional Corporation   Native Village of Ambler          286      361 
Inc.                                                              
                               Native Village of                 420      392 
                               Buckland                              
                               Native Village of                 137      186 
                               Deering                               
                               Native Village of Kiana           385      468 
                               Native Village of                 389      389 
                               Kivalina                              
                               Native Village of Kobuk           109       78 
                               Native Village of               2,526    2,629 
                               Kotzebue                              
                               Native Village of Noatak          439      497 
                               Noorvik Native Community          643      735 
                               Native Village of                 786      844 
                               Selawik                               
                               Native Village of                 259      266 
                               Shungnak                              
                               At-large                          224      499 
Region total                                                6,603    7,344 
Metlakatla Indian                                                 
Community,                                                        
Annette Island Reserve                                      1,356    2,096 
Region total                                                1,356    2,096 
Total                                                     124,694  161,636 

ANCSA regional nonprofits or
Indian reservation     Regional health entities      Regional housing      
                                                           authorities        
Copper River Native    Copper River Native       Copper River Basin        
Association            Association               Regional Housing          
                                                    Authority                 
Aleutian Pribilof      Aleutian Pribilof Islands Aleutian Housing          
Islands Association    Association Inc.          Authority                 
Arctic Slope Native    Arctic Slope Native         Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu 
Association            Association                       Housing Authority 
Kawerak Inc.           Norton Sound Health         Bering Straits Regional 
                          Corporation                       Housing Authority 
Bristol Bay Native     Bristol Bay Area Health   Bristol Bay Housing       
Association            Corporation               Authority                 
Association of Village Yukon-Kuskokwim Health       Association of Village 
Council                Corporation                      Council Presidents 
Presidents                                       Regional Housing          
                                                    Authority                 
Chugachmiut            Chugachmiut               North Pacific Rim Housing 
                                                            Authority         
Cook Inlet Tribal      Southcentral Foundation   Cook Inlet Housing        
Council                                          Authority                 
Tanana Chiefs          Tanana Chiefs Conference  Interior Regional Housing 
Conference                                               Authority         
Kodiak Area Native     Kodiak Area Native          Kodiak Island Housing   
Association            Association                       Authority         
Maniilaq Association   Maniilaq Association      Northwest Inupiat Housing 
                                                            Authority         
Central Council of the Southeast Alaska Regional 1. Baranof Island Housing 
Tlingit and            Health                            Authority         
Haida Indian Tribes    Consortium                2. Tlingit-Haida Regional 
                                                            Housing Authority 
Metlakatla Indian      Metlakatla Indian         Metlakatla Housing        
Community,             Community                 Authority                 
Annette Island                                   
Reservea                                         
Not applicable         Alaska Native Tribal      Not applicable            
                          Health Consortiumb        

CFDA                                     Total funding (2003 Percentage of 
number  Agency   Program name              constant dollars) total funding 
11.477  Commerce Fisheries Disasters              $3,917,481         21.47 
                    Relief                                      
                    Surveys, Studies,                           
66.606  EPA      Investigations, and                         
                    Special Purpose                             
                    Grants                            3,564,182         19.54 
                    Donation of Federal                                       
39.003  GSA      Surplus Personal                  2,161,318         11.85
                    Property                                    
20.205  DOT      Highway Planning and              2,131,188         11.68 
                    Construction                                
93.568  HHS      Low-Income Home Energy            1,215,690          6.66 
                    Assistance                                  
Various Various  59 other programs                 5,254,948         28.80 
Total                                            $18,244,808        100.00 

CFDA                                           Total funding Percentage of 
                                                          (2003         total 
number  Agency  Program name               constant dollars)       funding 
93.558    HHS   Temporary Assistance for         $39,736,114         45.49 
                   Needy Families                               
                   Special Supplemental                         
10.557   USDA   Nutrition Program for                        
                   Women,                                       
                   Infants, and Children             11,695,142         13.39 
                   Surveys, Studies,                            
66.606    EPA   Investigations, and                          
                   Special Purpose                              
                   Grants                             4,674,378          5.35 
                   Consolidated Knowledge                       
93.230    HHS   Development and                              
                   Application                                  
                   Program (Substance Abuse                     
                   and Mental Health                            
                   Administration)                    4,309,512          4.93 
14.239    HUD   HOME Investment                    3,468,928          3.97 
                   Partnerships Program                         
93.658    HHS   Foster Care                        2,680,311          3.07 
Various Various 96 other programs                 20,778,465         23.79 
Total                                            $87,342,851        100.00 

State fiscal                                               Regional Native 
year                    Native villages funds             nonprofits funds 
1998                                     $1,634,613             $8,306,967 
1999                                      3,568,358              8,197,285 
2000                                      4,734,037             15,457,542 
2001                                      2,941,878             13,989,537 
2002                                      2,508,634             19,762,459 
2003                                      2,857,288             21,629,060 

Type            Description                                      Frequency 
Performance and Grantees must electronically file reports to a   Quarterly 
financial       Web-based database for each project- both energy 
                   and nonenergy. These reports detail the          
                   expenditures (for the commission funds and any   
                   other project funds), milestones reached (such   
                   as completion of construction) and comparison    
                   with the planned dates for the milestone and     
                   associated cost, and a narrative describing the  
                   progress on the project. Grantees often include  
                   pictures in the report to show progress on       
                   construction projects.                           

Type             Description                           Frequency           
                    For the Village Safe Water program,   Once, prior to      
Engineering and  the Alaska Department of              drawing             
                    Environmental                         
construction     Conservation (DEC) or the Alaska      down grant funding  
analyst          Native Tribal Health Consortium       
                    (ANTHC), if it is                     
                    overseeing the project, provides an   
                    engineering and environmental report, 
                    which                                 
                    USDA's state construction analyst     
                    reviews and approves prior to USDA    
                    allowing DEC                          
                    or ANTHC to draw down grant money.    
Financial        Under the Memorandum of Understanding Upon each draw      
                    between the Alaska Department of      request             
                    Environmental Conservation and USDA,  for each project    
                    DEC must provide USDA with            
                    expenditure                           
                    reports.                              
                    These reports are status reports that                     
Progress and     include both a financial summary as   Semiannual
                    well as                               
financial        narrative information from the        
                    project engineer regarding the        
                    progress made on the                  
                    project.                              

Type        Description                                          Frequency 
Performance Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)   Annually  
               Updates: This is a long-term strategic plan for      
               economic stabilization and growth for an area. The   
               CEDS profiles the economy of the area, assesses the  
               local institutional capacity and organizational      
               structure determining growth, sets strategic         
               priorities, and identifies implementation projects.  
Performance Annual narrative report: This report covers the      Annually  
               grant scope of work and what was accomplished over   
               the reporting period to satisfy the planning         
               process, and project implementation purpose of the   
               grant.                                               
Financial   Annual financial report: This report covers the      Annually  
               financial transactions by cost category for all      
               grant expenditures during the reporting period.      

Type        Description                              Frequency             
Performance Quarterly performance report: The        Quarterly             
               grantee is required to report the status 
               of work accomplished in project          
               development through project completion,  
               including land acquisition,              
               engineering/design, construction         
               contract award, construction, final      
               inspection, and project completion.      
Financial   Recipient's outlay report and request    Periodic as project   
               for reimbursement for construction       progresses            
               programs: In order to request a          
               reimbursement from EDA for construction  
               costs and transactions incurred by the   
               grantee, the grantee is required to file 
               this report to document its expenditures 
               and transactions. EDA will disburse      
               funds only for actual outlays.           
Financial   Financial status report: This financial  Periodic as project   
               report is prepared on a periodic basis   progresses            
               to represent the financial status of the 
               grant in conjunction with the            
               performance reports and audit reporting  
               period.                                  
Performance Final acceptance inspection report: This After construction is 
               is a critical one-time report executed   completed             
               by the project architect, the            
               contractor, and the owner (EDA grantee)  
               at the end of construction to certify    
               final acceptance inspection and project  
               completion.                              

Type            Description                    Frequency                   
                      Reports contain a narrative Annually, every year that a 
Performance and    section to describe how the grantee receives            
                                            funds 
financial            were used and a financial funds under the program.    
                            section that provides 
                                   information on 
                   how the funding was spent.     

Type        Description                                          Frequency 
Performance    Pursuant to 42 CFR 137.200, each compacting tribe Annual    
                                   must report on health status and 
               services delivery. Most compacting tribes use an     
               IHS-prescribed form to report                        
               information on number of patient visits, diagnostic  
               first visits, and radiology,                         
               laboratory, pharmacy, and dental services            
               information.                                         

Type                  Description                             Frequency    
Status and evaluation Reports contain a narrative section to  Annually     
report                describe progress made in completing    
                         approved activities and expenditure of  
                         funds. If the project has been          
                         completed, an evaluation of how the     
                         project has been effective in meeting   
                         community development needs.            
Federal Cash          The report must be submitted to the     Quarterly    
Transaction           area ONAP, accounting for funds         
Report, Standard Form received and disbursed by the           
(SF)                  recipient.                              
272                                                           
Minority Business     Recipients must submit the report on    Biannually   
Enterprise            contract and subcontract activity.      
Reports,                                                      
HUD-2516                                                      
Final status and      Recipients must submit a narrative      Upon project 
evaluation            report identifying all expenditures     completion   
                         spent                                   
report                on each activity and any remaining      
                         costs to be paid with ICDBG funds.      
                         Narrative must include an assessment of 
                         the effectiveness of the program in     
                         resolving or addressing the community   
                         need as described in the application.   
SF-269                A Final Financial Status Report must be Upon project 
                         submitted with the Final Status and     completion   
                         Evaluation Report, which identifies all 
                         expenditures spent with ICDBG funds.    

Type        Description                                          Frequency 
Financial   Tribes and housing authorities are required to file  Quarterly 
               a Federal Cash Transactions Report ONAP (HUD-272-I)  
               that reports on expenditures of Indian Housing Block 
               Grant (IHBG) and unobligated United States Housing   
               Act of 1937 funding.                                 
Performance Tribes and housing authorities submit an IHP that    Annually  
               identifies affordable housing goals and objectives   
               specific to each activity the grantee plans to       
               administer and an Annual Performance Report that     
               details how grantees are progressing with            
               implementation of their IHPs.                        

                                              Activity
                     Housing Development                Current assisted stock
                                    Home                
      Rental                   ownership           Home 
         new       Rental            new      ownership                         Planning and   Other 
construction rehabilitation construction rehabilitation Modernization Operating administration Usesa 
Percentage                                                                                     
of IHBG                                                                                        
funds                                                                                          
expended   5                      1   22             10                12    10             11    29 

                                    Public                                                                      Other      
Tribal     Human                    safety and  Community   Resource   Trust         General        Economic    tribal     
government services    Education    justice     development management services      administration development programs   
No         Welfare     Johnson      Tribal      Housing     Forestry   Realty/       Tribal annual  No specific No         
specific   assistance, O'Malley     courts      improvement            appraisals    audits         budget      specific   
budget     including   (federal                 plan                                                allocation  budget     
allocation child       government                                                                   areas       allocation 
areas      welfare and program to                                                                               areas      
           disaster    provide                                                                                  
           assistance  education to                                                                             
                       American                                                                                 
                       Indians and                                                                              
                       Alaska                                                                                   
                       Natives)                                                                                 
           Indian      Scholarships Law         Economic    Fisheries  Land surveys                             
           Child       and higher   enforcement development                                                     
           Welfare Act education                loans                                                           
           Child abuse Adult        Community   Roads       Water      Agricultural/                            
           and neglect education    fire                    resources/ minerals and                             
                                    protection              rights     grazing                                  
                                                            Irrigation                                          

Type             Description                                     Frequency 
Monthly program  Shows current month, year to date, and          Monthly   
progress report  cumulative participation by youth in the        
                    various types of youth programs, such as        
                    reading/math remediation. The reports also      
                    contain information about the impact of the     
                    program, such as the number of participants who 
                    have achieved a high school diploma, entered a  
                    4year college, or completed                     
                    vocational/technical school.                    
Quarterly        For the quarter, reports include follow-up      Quarterly 
program progress information on out-of-school, in-school, and    
report           total youth who had been enrolled in the        
                    program within the previous 24 months, and      
                    their work, school, or other status. This       
                    report is based on youth who have had a         
                    long-term placement in employment,              
                    postsecondary education, or long-term           
                    occupational skills training within the last 24 
                    months. This is primarily a retention report.   

Financial      On OMB SF-269, these reports show total outlay of Quarterly 
reports        funds for both the quarter                        
                  and cumulative, but do not report specifically    
                  for what the funds were used.                     
Financial and  Annual Updates to Application for Youth           Annual    
                  Opportunity Grant details the grantee's           
progress       budget and actual spending, including information 
                  on personnel, travel, and                         
                  equipment costs, for example. The report also     
                  details aspects of program areas                  
                  such as the educational and youth development     
                  components of the grant,                          
                  among others.                                     

Type        Description                                          Frequency 
Performance Provides information on the grantee's performance,   Quarterly 
               including comparisons between the project's          
               accomplishments and the goals established for the    
               period, reasons for not accomplishing planned goals  
               in those cases where they have not been met, and     
               other pertinent information, such as analysis and    
               explanation of cost overruns or high unit costs.     

Financial         Grantees must file several Annually, unless requested by 
                 financial reports that provide AIP                           
                                    information 
              on the total outlays of funds and officials to be more          
             obligations. These reports include frequent.                     
             the Financial Status Report on OMB 
             SF 269, Federal Cash               
              Transactions Report (OMB SF 272), 
                  and Request for Reimbursement 
             (OMB SF 270).                      
             Grantees must file final financial Within 90 days of the end of  
             status report showing fund         the project                   
             expenditures.                      

Type            Description                           Frequency            
Performance and Grantees must file performance        Quarterly            
financial       reports that include information on   
                   the progress made on the grant's      
                   projects, by specific task,           
                   milestones reached, any problems the  
                   grantee had along with actions taken  
                   to overcome those problems, and state 
                   financial expenditure information.    
Financial       Financial Status Reports on OMB SF    Annual               
                   269, which show the total outlay of   
                   funds for the year, but do not report 
                   specifically for what the funds were  
                   used.                                 
                   Final financial status report showing Once, within 90 days 
                   fund expenditures.                    of the end of the    
                                                         project              

                                              Total Development Costs by      
                                              Bedroom Size (Includes costs    
                                              for administration, planning,   
                                              site acquisition, demolition,   
              Total Number                    construction, and/or equipment  
              of Completed                    and financing (including        
              Units by       Combined Square  payment of carrying charges)    
Bedroom    Bedroom Size   Footage for All  and other necessary costs, such 
Size       (A unit is     Completed Units  as shipping costs or the Alaska 
              completed when by Bedroom Size  Building Energy Efficiency      
              it is                           Standards (BEES) costs.         
              available for                   Excludes off-site costs for     
              occupancy.)                     water, sewers, and roads.       
                                              Include all costs associated    
                                              with unit completion even if    
                                              some costs were incurred in     
                                              previous calendar years.)       
Calendar Year of Completion: 1998 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 1999 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2000 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2001 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2002 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2003 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               

                                              Total Development Costs by      
                                              Bedroom Size (Includes costs    
                                              for administration, planning,   
                                              site acquisition, single-family 
              Total Number                    unit acquisition, demolition,   
              of Completed                    construction, and/or equipment  
              Units by                        and financing (including        
              Bedroom Size   Combined Square  payment of carrying charges)    
Bedroom    (A unit is     Footage for All  and other necessary costs, such 
Size       completed when Completed Units  as shipping costs or the Alaska 
              it is          by Bedroom Size  Building Energy Efficiency      
              available for                   Standards (BEES) costs.         
              occupancy.)                     Excludes off-site costs for     
                                              water, sewers, and roads.       
                                              Include all costs associated    
                                              with unit completion even if    
                                              some costs were incurred in     
                                              previous calendar years.)       
Calendar Year of Completion: 1998 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 1999 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2000 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2001 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2002 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2003 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               

                                              Total Development Costs         
                                              (Includes costs for             
                                              administration, planning, site  
                                              acquisition, demolition,        
                                              construction, and/or equipment  
                                              and financing (including        
Calendar Year  Total Number of Completed   payment of carrying charges)    
of Completion  Units (A unit is completed  and other necessary costs, such 
(January 1 to  when it is available for    as shipping costs or the Alaska 
    December 31)  occupancy.)                 Building Energy Efficiency      
                                              Standards (BEES) costs.         
                                              Excludes off-site costs for     
                                              water, sewers, and roads.       
                                              Include all costs associated    
                                              with unit completion even if    
                                              some costs were incurred in     
                                              previous calendar years.)       
Rehabilitation Costing $20,000 or More Per 
Unit                                       
        1998                            units $                               
        1999                            units $                               
        2000                            units $                               
        2001                            units $                               
        2002                            units $                               
        2003                            units $                               
Rehabilitation Costing Less Than $20,000   
Per Unit                                   
        1998                            units $                               
        1999                            units $                               
        2000                            units $                               
        2001                            units $                               
        2002                            units $                               
        2003                            units $                               

                                                               All Properties 
                                          (Includes costs for administration, 
                                                  planning, site acquisition, 
                                             demolition, construction, and/or 
          Calendar   Total Number of                  equipment and financing 
                        Completed       Combined Square (including payment of 
           Year of                      carrying                              
                   Multi-family           charges) and other necessary costs, 
                   Properties           
        Completion                      Footage for All                       
                   (A multifamily               such as shipping costs or the 
                   property is          
     (January 1 to                      Properties                            
                   completed when it is     Alaska Building Energy Efficiency 
      December 31)                      
                   available for             Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes 
                   occupancy.)          
                                        off-site costs for water, sewers, and 
                                          roads. Include all costs associated 
                                            with unit completion even if some 
                                              costs were incurred in previous 
                                                  calendar years.)            
         1998                properties               Sq. Ft. $               
         1999                properties               Sq. Ft. $               
         2000                properties               Sq. Ft. $               
         2001                properties               Sq. Ft. $               
         2002                properties               Sq. Ft. $               
         2003                properties               Sq. Ft. $               
9                                    

                                             Properties                       
                                 (Includes costs for administration,          
                                      planning, site acquisition, demolition, 
                                 construction, and/or equipment and           
               Calendar            financing (including payment of            
                        Total Number of Completed                             
            Year of                     carrying charges) and other necessary 
                        Multi-family Properties                               
             Completion         costs, such as shipping costs or the          
                        (A multifamily property is completed                  
         (January 1 to            Alaska Building Energy Efficiency           
                        when it is available for occupancy.)                  
           December 31)           Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes            
                                off-site costs for water, sewers, and         
                                 roads. Include all costs associated          
                                  with unit completion even if some           
                                   costs were incurred in previous            
                                          calendar years.)                    
              1998                          properties $                      
              1999                          properties $                      
              2000                          properties $                      
              2001                          properties $                      
              2002                          properties $                      
              2003                          properties $                      
11                   

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

2a. If yes, how many single-family units of the following sizes were
completed, and what were the combined square footages and total
development costs for all units for each calendar year? (Please enter
numbers in each box, including "0" if none. Please do not enter commas.)

                                              Total Development Costs by      
                                              Bedroom Size (Includes costs    
                                              for administration, planning,   
                                              site acquisition, demolition,   
              Total Number                    construction, and/or equipment  
              of Completed                    and financing (including        
              Units by       Combined Square  payment of carrying charges)    
Bedroom    Bedroom Size   Footage for All  and other necessary costs, such 
Size       (A unit is     Completed Units  as shipping costs or the Alaska 
              completed when by Bedroom Size  Building Energy Efficiency      
              it is                           Standards (BEES) costs.         
              available for                   Excludes off-site costs for     
              occupancy.)                     water, sewers, and roads.       
                                              Include all costs associated    
                                              with unit completion even if    
                                              some costs were incurred in     
                                              previous calendar years.)       
Calendar Year of Completion: 1998 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 1999 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2000 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2001 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2002 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2003 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS WITH ACQUISITION

3. Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit
buildings and may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years
1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE)
complete any rehabilitation of existing single-family units where the
unit(s) was/were acquired using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in
combination with other funds? Please check your response.

Yes, Continue to Question 3a

No, SKIP to Question 4

Don't know, SKIP to Question 4

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

3a. If yes, how many single-family units of the following sizes were
completed, and what were the combined square footages and total
development costs for all units for each calendar year? (Please enter
numbers in each box, including "0" if none. Please do not enter commas.)

                                              Total Development Costs by      
                                              Bedroom Size (Includes costs    
                                              for administration, planning,   
                                              site acquisition, single-family 
              Total Number                    unit acquisition, demolition,   
              of Completed                    construction, and/or equipment  
              Units by                        and financing (including        
              Bedroom Size   Combined Square  payment of carrying charges)    
Bedroom    (A unit is     Footage for All  and other necessary costs, such 
Size       completed when Completed Units  as shipping costs or the Alaska 
              it is          by Bedroom Size  Building Energy Efficiency      
              available for                   Standards (BEES) costs.         
              occupancy.)                     Excludes off-site costs for     
                                              water, sewers, and roads.       
                                              Include all costs associated    
                                              with unit completion even if    
                                              some costs were incurred in     
                                              previous calendar years.)       
Calendar Year of Completion: 1998 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 1999 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2000 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2001 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2002 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
Calendar Year of Completion: 2003 (January 1 to December 31)
1-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
2-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
3-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               
4-Bedroom           units          Sq. Ft. $                               

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS WITHOUT ACQUISITION

4. Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit
buildings and may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years
1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE)
complete any rehabilitation of existing single-family units where the
rehabilitation did not require the purchase of the unit(s) using NAHASDA
funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? (Do not include
modernized U.S. Housing Act of 1937 single-family units.) Please check
your response.

Yes, Continue to Question 4a

No, SKIP to Question 5

Don't know, SKIP to Question 5

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

4a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many single-family units were
completed, and what were the total development costs for all units?
(Please enter numbers in each box, including "0" if none. Please do not
enter commas.)

                                              Total Development Costs         
                                              (Includes costs for             
                                              administration, planning, site  
                                              acquisition, demolition,        
                                              construction, and/or equipment  
                                              and financing (including        
Calendar Year  Total Number of Completed   payment of carrying charges)    
of Completion  Units (A unit is completed  and other necessary costs, such 
(January 1 to  when it is available for    as shipping costs or the Alaska 
    December 31)  occupancy.)                 Building Energy Efficiency      
                                              Standards (BEES) costs.         
                                              Excludes off-site costs for     
                                              water, sewers, and roads.       
                                              Include all costs associated    
                                              with unit completion even if    
                                              some costs were incurred in     
                                              previous calendar years.)       
Rehabilitation Costing $20,000 or More Per 
Unit                                       
        1998                            units $                               
        1999                            units $                               
        2000                            units $                               
        2001                            units $                               
        2002                            units $                               
        2003                            units $                               
Rehabilitation Costing Less Than $20,000   
Per Unit                                   
        1998                            units $                               
        1999                            units $                               
        2000                            units $                               
        2001                            units $                               
        2002                            units $                               
        2003                            units $                               

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

MODERNIZATION OF U.S. HOUSING ACT OF 1937 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS

5. Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit
buildings and may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years
1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE)
complete any modernization of U.S. Housing Act of 1937 single-family units
using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? (Do
not include rehabilitated single-family units.) Please check your
response.

Yes, Continue to Question 5a

No, SKIP to Question 6

Don't know, SKIP to Question 6

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

5a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many single-family units were
completed, and what were the total development costs for all units?
(Please enter numbers in each box, including "0" if none. Please do not
enter commas.)

                                             Total Development Costs          
                                             (Includes costs for              
                                             administration, planning, site   
                                             acquisition, demolition,         
                                             construction, and/or equipment   
                                             and financing (including payment 
Calendar Year  Total Number of Completed  of carrying charges) and other   
of Completion  Units (A unit is completed necessary costs, such as         
(January 1 to  when it is available for   shipping costs or the Alaska     
    December 31)  occupancy.)                Building Energy Efficiency       
                                             Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes 
                                             off-site costs for water,        
                                             sewers, and roads. Include all   
                                             costs associated with unit       
                                             completion even if some costs    
                                             were incurred in previous        
                                             calendar years.)                 
Modernization Costing $20,000 or More Per 
Unit                                      
        1998                           units $                                
        1999                           units $                                
        2000                           units $                                
        2001                           units $                                
        2002                           units $                                
        2003                           units $                                
Modernization Costing Less Than $20,000   
Per Unit                                  
        1998                           units $                                
        1999                           units $                                
        2000                           units $                                
        2001                           units $                                
        2002                           units $                                
        2003                           units $                                

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

COMPLETION OF MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT

6. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units
that may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years 1998
through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) complete
any new construction of multi-family properties using NAHASDA funds
exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please check your
response.

Yes, Continue to Question 6a

No, SKIP to Question 7

Don't know, SKIP to Question 7

6a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were
completed, and what were the combined square footages and total
development costs for all properties? (Please enter numbers in each box,
including "0" if none. Please do not enter commas.)

Total Development Costs for

                                                               All Properties 
                                          (Includes costs for administration, 
                                                  planning, site acquisition, 
                                             demolition, construction, and/or 
           Calendar  Total Number of                  equipment and financing 
                        Completed     Combined Square (including payment of   
         Year of                      carrying                                
                    Multi-family          charges) and other necessary costs, 
                    Properties        
         Completion                   Footage for All                         
                    (A multifamily              such as shipping costs or the 
                    property is       
      (January 1 to                   Properties                              
                    completed when it       Alaska Building Energy Efficiency 
                    is                
       December 31)                   
                    available for            Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes 
                    occupancy.)       
                                        off-site costs for water, sewers, and 
                                          roads. Include all costs associated 
                                            with unit completion even if some 
                                              costs were incurred in previous 
                                                 calendar years.)             
          1998             properties                Sq. Ft. $                
          1999             properties                Sq. Ft. $                
          2000             properties                Sq. Ft. $                
          2001             properties                Sq. Ft. $                
          2002             properties                Sq. Ft. $                
          2003             properties                Sq. Ft. $                
11                                 

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

7. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units
that may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years 1998
through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) complete
any rehabilitation of existing multi-family properties where property was
acquired using NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in combination with
other funds? Please check your response.

Yes, Continue to Question 7a

No, SKIP to Question 8

Don't know, SKIP to Question 8

7a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were
completed, and what were the combined square footages and total
development costs for all properties? (Please enter numbers in each box,
including "0" if none. Please do not enter commas.)

Total Development Costs for All Properties (Includes costs for
administration, planning, multi-family property acquisition, site
acquisition, demolition, construction, and/or

Total Number of

Calendar

equipment and financing

Completed

Combined Square

Year of

(including payment of carrying

Multi-family Properties

Footage for All

charges) and other necessary costs,

Completion

(A multifamily property is

such as shipping costs or the

Properties

(January 1 to

completed when it is

Alaska Building Energy Efficiency

December 31)

available for occupancy.)

Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes off-site costs for water, sewers, and
roads. Include all costs associated with unit completion even if some
costs were incurred in previous calendar years.)

1998

properties

Sq. Ft.

$

1999

properties

Sq. Ft.

$

2000

properties

Sq. Ft.

$

2001

properties

Sq. Ft.

$

2002

properties

Sq. Ft.

$

2003

properties

Sq. Ft.

$

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

8. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units
that may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years 1998
through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) complete
any rehabilitation of existing multi-family properties where the
rehabilitation did not require the purchase of property using NAHASDA
funds either exclusively or in combination with other funds? (Do not
include modernized U.S. Housing Act of 1937 multi-family properties.)
Please check your response.

Yes, Continue to Question 8a

No, SKIP to Question 9

Don't know, SKIP to Question 9

8a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were
completed, and what were the total development costs for all properties?
(Please enter numbers in each box, including "0" if none. Please do not
enter commas.)

Total Development Costs for All

                                             Properties                       
                                 (Includes costs for administration,          
                                      planning, site acquisition, demolition, 
                                 construction, and/or equipment and           
               Calendar            financing (including payment of            
                        Total Number of Completed                             
            Year of                     carrying charges) and other necessary 
                        Multi-family Properties                               
             Completion         costs, such as shipping costs or the          
                        (A multifamily property is completed                  
         (January 1 to            Alaska Building Energy Efficiency           
                        when it is available for occupancy.)                  
           December 31)           Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes            
                                off-site costs for water, sewers, and         
                                 roads. Include all costs associated          
                                  with unit completion even if some           
                                   costs were incurred in previous            
                                          calendar years.)                    
              1998                          properties $                      
              1999                          properties $                      
              2000                          properties $                      
              2001                          properties $                      
              2002                          properties $                      
              2003                          properties $                      
13                   

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

9. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units
that may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years 1998
through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) complete
any modernization of U.S. Housing Act of 1937 multi-family properties
using NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in combination with other funds?
(Do not include rehabilitated multi-family properties.) Please check your
response.

Yes, Continue to Question 9a

No, SKIP to Question 10

Don't know, SKIP to Question 10

9a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were
completed, and what were the total development costs for all properties?
(Please enter numbers in each box, including "0" if none. Please do not
enter commas.)

Total Development Costs for All

                                                                   Properties 
                                          (Includes costs for administration, 
                                      planning, site acquisition, demolition, 
                                           construction, and/or equipment and 
                    Calendar                  financing (including payment of 
                             Total Number of Completed                        
                Year of                 carrying charges) and other necessary 
                             Multi-family Properties                          
                  Completion             costs, such as shipping costs or the 
                             (A multifamily property is completed             
             (January 1 to                  Alaska Building Energy Efficiency 
                             when it is available for occupancy.)             
                December 31)                 Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes 
                                        off-site costs for water, sewers, and 
                                          roads. Include all costs associated 
                                            with unit completion even if some 
                                              costs were incurred in previous 
                                             calendar years.)                 
                  1998                         properties $                   
                  1999                         properties $                   
                  2000                         properties $                   
                  2001                         properties $                   
                  2002                         properties $                   
                  2003                         properties $                   
14                        

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

10. Did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) construct, acquire,
rehabilitate, or modernize single-family units and/or multi-family
properties in the geographic area(s) corresponding to the following ANCSA
non-profit regions during calendar years 1998 through 2003? Please check
all that apply.

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association Arctic Slope Native Association
Association of Village Council Presidents Bristol Bay Native Association
Central Council Chugachmiut Cook Inlet Tribal Council Copper River Native
Association Fairbanks Native Association Kawerak, Incorporated Kodiak Area
Native Association Maniilaq Association Other, please specify:

Appendix XVIII Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated
Housing Entities

 Entity (TDHE) include costs for your staff
       and administration for each of the following years? Please check one
       for each row
e Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix XXI

Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix XXII

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

William B. Shear, (202) 512-8678

GAO Contact

In addition to those named above, Mark Egger, Brodi Fontenot, Curtis

Staff

Groves, Cathy Hurley, May Lee, John Lord, Jeffery D. Malcolm, Grant

Mallie, Alison Martin, John McGrail, Dan Meyer, Marc W. Molino, Andrew
Nelson, David M. Pittman, Barbara M. Roesmann, James D. Vitarello, and
Chuck Wilson also made key contributions to this report.

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                             Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

Contact:

To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***