Native American Housing: Information on HUD's Funding of Indian Housing
Programs (Letter Report, 11/30/98, GAO/RCED-99-16).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) implementation of the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
(NAHASDA), focusing on: (1) how HUD allocated funding to Indian housing
authorities and tribes before NAHASDA's enactment, and how much was
appropriated for Indian programs in fiscal years (FY) 1993 through 1997;
(2) identifying the factors HUD used to allocate Indian housing block
grant funding to tribes and tribally designated housing entities under
NAHASDA, and whether HUD considered current tribal housing needs, past
tribal housing management performance, and the magnitude of unspent
housing grant funding for incomplete housing projects; (3) the amount,
type, and age of unspent funding for incomplete housing projects; and
(4) the status of HUD's Indian housing block grant funding for fiscal
years 1998 and 1999.
GAO noted that: (1) before NAHASDA became effective, HUD distributed
funding to Indian housing authorities and tribes through 14 different
programs, each having its own criteria for awarding and allocating grant
funding; (2) for nine of these programs, funding was awarded
competitively, requiring the Indian housing authorities or tribes to
submit project proposals, which HUD then scored and ranked; (3) for the
other five programs, HUD allocated funding to Indian housing authorities
or tribes noncompetively, using formulas or distributing the funds on a
first-come, first-serve basis; (4) over fiscal years 1993 through 1997,
HUD provided a total of $2.8 billion to Indian housing authorities and
tribes through these 14 programs; (5) after NAHASDA went into effect for
FY 1998, eliminating 9 of the 14 separate Indian housing programs and
replacing them with a single block grant program, HUD used the act's
noncompetitive allocation formula to determine the grant amounts for the
575 Indian housing entities; (6) the formula has two components: (a) the
costs of operating and modernizing existing housing units; and (b) the
need for providing affordable housing activities; (7) the allocation
formula does not include a factor for past management performance; (8)
HUD's rationale was that there is no authority under the new act for it
to consider the authorities' failure to comply with requirements and
regulations that are no longer in effect; (9) relying on other guidance,
HUD has placed conditions on the use of NAHASDA grant funds if a housing
entity has a history of problems with administering other federal grant
programs; (10) in subsequent years, HUD can consider performance under
NAHASDA when dispensing new grants; (11) the block grant formula also
did not consider the approximately $929 million in total unspent Indian
housing program funding awarded in previous years because the funding
addresses needs that continue to exist; (12) most of the unspent funds
were provided in fiscal years 1993 through 1997 through two
programs--Development and Modernization; (13) entities must report their
planned use of those funds to HUD as part of their Indian housing plans;
(14) for FY 1998, $590 million was appropriated for the Indian housing
block grants awarded under the new act; (15) as of July 1, 1998, over 97
percent of the housing entities had submitted the required Indian
housing plans to HUD describing their planned use of block grant funds
and HUD approved 327 of those plans; and (16) for FY 1999, HUD requested
$600 million for the program.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-99-16
TITLE: Native American Housing: Information on HUD's Funding of
Indian Housing Programs
DATE: 11/30/98
SUBJECT: Native Americans
Indian lands
Block grants
Low income housing
Federal aid for housing
Indian affairs legislation
Housing programs
Grant award procedures
Grant administration
Community development
IDENTIFIER: HUD Indian Housing Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed 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. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Honorable
Thad Cochran, U.S. Senate
November 1998
NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING -
INFORMATION ON HUD'S FUNDING OF
INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAMS
GAO/RCED-99-16
Indian Housing Funding
(385752)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development
NAHASDA - Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act of 1996
ONAP - Office of Native American Programs
TDC - total development cost
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-280876
November 30, 1998
The Honorable Thad Cochran
United States Senate
Dear Senator Cochran:
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
traditionally provided federal housing assistance to Native Americans
through many of the same programs that have provided public housing
to the nation's low-income families. However, this changed
significantly on October 26, 1996, when the President signed the
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
(NAHASDA) into law. This act separated Indian housing programs from
public housing programs. Under NAHASDA, federal housing assistance
for Indian tribes is to be provided in a manner that recognizes the
tribes' right of self-determination and self-governance, offering
tribes the maximum flexibility to plan, implement, and administer
their own unique housing programs. Moreover, the new act eliminated
most of the existing Indian housing assistance programs and grants
and replaced them with a single block grant program that went into
effect on October 1, 1997. Given concerns over the last 2 years with
the management of Indian housing programs,\1 you requested that we
examine certain aspects of the Department's implementation of
NAHASDA:
-- How did the Department allocate funding to Indian housing
authorities and tribes before NAHASDA's enactment, and how much
was appropriated for Indian housing programs in fiscal years
1993 through 1997?
-- What factors did the Department use to allocate Indian housing
block grant funding to tribes and tribally designated housing
entities\2 under NAHASDA, and did the Department consider
current tribal housing needs, past tribal housing management
performance, and the magnitude of unspent housing grant funding
for incomplete housing projects? What is the amount, type, and
"age" of unspent funding for incomplete housing projects?
-- What is the status of the Department's Indian housing block
grant funding for fiscal years 1998 and 1999?
--------------------
\1 See Native American Housing: Challenges Facing HUD's Indian
Housing Program (GAO/T-RCED-97-105, Mar. 12, 1997) and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Inspector
General's audit report, Office of Native American Programs Oversight
of Indian Housing Authorities (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1998).
\2 In the remainder of our report, we refer to tribes and tribally
designated housing entities simply as "housing entities."
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Before the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act became effective on October 1, 1997, the Department of Housing
and Urban Development distributed funding to Indian housing
authorities and tribes through 14 different programs. Each of the 14
programs had its own criteria for awarding and allocating grant
funding. For nine of these programs, funding was awarded
competitively, requiring the Indian housing authorities or tribes to
submit project proposals, which the Department then scored and
ranked, awarding grants to the highest-ranked projects. For the
other five programs, the Department allocated funding to Indian
housing authorities or tribes noncompetitively, using formulas or
distributing the funds on a first-come, first-served basis. Over 5
fiscal years, 1993 through 1997, the Department provided a total of
$2.8 billion to Indian housing authorities and tribes through these
14 programs.
After the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act went into effect for fiscal year 1998, eliminating 9 of the 14
separate Indian housing programs and replacing them with a single
block grant program, the Department used the act's noncompetitive
allocation formula to determine the grant amounts for the 575 Indian
housing entities. The formula has two components: (1) the costs of
operating and modernizing existing housing units and (2) the need for
providing affordable housing activities.\3 The Department considers
current tribal housing needs in calculating the second component of
the formula. The allocation formula does not include a factor for
past management performance. According to HUD's Office of General
Counsel, it was legally constrained from considering Indian housing
authorities' past management performance as a factor in awarding
fiscal year 1998 block grants under the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act. HUD's rationale was that
there is no authority under the new act for the Department to
consider the authorities' failure to comply with requirements and
regulations that are no longer in effect. However, relying on other
guidance, HUD has placed conditions on the use of Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination grant funds if a housing
entity has a history of problems with administering other federal
grant programs. Furthermore, in subsequent years, HUD can consider
performance under the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act when dispensing new grants. The block grant
formula also did not consider the approximately $929 million in total
unspent Indian housing program funding awarded in previous years
because, although the programs that provided those dollars were
eliminated, the funding addresses needs that continue to exist. Most
of the unspent funds were provided in fiscal years 1993 through 1997
through two programs--Development and Modernization. Entities must
report their planned use of those funds to the Department as part of
their Indian housing plans.
For fiscal year 1998, $590 million was appropriated for the Indian
housing block grants awarded under the new act. As of July 1, 1998,
over 97 percent of the housing entities had submitted the required
Indian housing plans to the Department describing their planned use
of block grant funds. As of September 30, 1998, the Department had
reviewed and approved 327 plans, representing approximately $548
million in funding, and was in the process of reviewing 40 additional
plans representing another $39 million. For fiscal year 1999, the
Department requested $600 million for the program; however, the
Department had not calculated final individual grant amounts.
--------------------
\3 Among the activities funded through this second component are new
construction, rehabilitation, rental assistance, and counseling.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Until fiscal year 1998, Indian housing authorities\4 and tribes
received most of their funding for low-income housing through
programs established under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937\5 and
administered by HUD's Office of Native American Programs. Through
its headquarters and six field offices, and with the help of 217
Indian housing authorities, HUD administered the housing programs
that benefited Native American families that live in or near tribal
areas. HUD provided funding to construct, maintain, and rehabilitate
low-income housing through programs such as Development, Operating
Subsidies, and Modernization.
On October 26, 1996, the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act was signed into law, separating Indian housing
from public housing, administratively and financially. The
regulations implementing NAHASDA were developed by a negotiated
rulemaking committee. The committee had 58 members, 48 of them from
geographically diverse small, medium, and large tribes; the other 10
were HUD employees. After review by the Office of Management and
Budget, HUD published the final rule implementing NAHASDA on March
12, 1998; it went into effect on April 13, 1998.
NAHASDA eliminated 9 of HUD's 14 separate Indian housing programs,
replacing them with a single block grant program with one set of
funding criteria for HUD to administer and, according to HUD
officials, one system for managing and accounting for funds.\6 The
new act also allowed tribes to designate themselves, new housing
entities, or existing Indian housing authorities as the housing
entity to manage existing housing, to plan and implement housing
programs, and to administer block grant funding. This change
resulted in the number of housing entities more than doubling, from
217 housing authorities to 575 tribally designated housing entities.
Under NAHASDA, to receive funding, each housing entity must submit an
Indian housing plan to HUD describing 1-year and 5-year housing goals
and objectives, housing needs, and financial resources.
--------------------
\4 Prior to the enactment of NAHASDA, Indian housing authorities
managed the majority of Indian housing programs. An Indian housing
authority is a business entity established by a tribal government,
organized under tribal or state law, to develop and manage assisted
housing units.
\5 The U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended, created the Public
Housing Program to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for
low-income families; in 1961, the Department determined that this
included Native American low-income families.
\6 NAHASDA did not affect five programs: Indian Community
Development Block Grants, Drug Elimination Grants, Drug Elimination
Technical Assistance Grants, Economic Development and Supportive
Services, and Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantees.
HUD USED COMPETITIVE AND
NONCOMPETITIVE PROCESSES TO
PROVIDE INDIAN HOUSING GRANT
FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Prior to NAHASDA, HUD provided funding directly to Indian housing
authorities and tribes through 14 programs for which a total of $2.8
billion was appropriated in fiscal years 1993 through 1997.\7 Each
program had its own criteria for awarding and allocating funds and
its own system for managing and accounting for the funds. For nine
of the programs, Indian housing authorities or tribes competed for
funding. The Indian housing authorities and tribes submitted project
proposals, which HUD then scored and ranked, awarding grants for the
highest-ranked projects. For the other five programs, HUD allocated
funds to Indian housing authorities or tribes noncompetitively
through a formula or on a first-come, first-served basis. Tables I.1
and I.2 in appendix I describe each program and the criteria used to
provide funding.
Funding for HUD's Indian housing programs has remained relatively
consistent in recent years, ranging from a low of $491 million in
fiscal year 1996 to a high of $593 million in fiscal year 1995, as
shown in figure 1. In fiscal year 1997, the last year these programs
were funded separately, funding was approximately $562 million, of
which almost $322 million, or 57 percent, was awarded through
competitive programs. The approximately $240 million (43 percent)
remaining was allocated noncompetitively. Figure 2 shows how the
fiscal year 1997 funds were distributed.
Figure 1: Funding for HUD's
Indian Housing Programs, Fiscal
Years 1993-97
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's analysis based on data from HUD's Office of Native
American Programs.
Figure 2: Competitive and
Noncompetitive Indian Housing
Programs, Fiscal Year 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Source: GAO's analysis based on data from HUD's Office of Native
American Programs.
--------------------
\7 HUD also provided funding for demonstration programs--some funded
only for 1 year, others funded infrequently in small amounts.
THE FORMULA USED TO DETERMINE
FISCAL YEAR 1998 NAHASDA BLOCK
GRANTS DID NOT CONSIDER PAST
HOUSING AUTHORITY PERFORMANCE
OR UNSPENT FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
With the start of the NAHASDA program, HUD applied the act's
allocation formula to determine the amounts of the fiscal year 1998
block grants. The formula considers tribes' housing needs, but did
not include a factor for housing authorities' past performance. HUD
determined that the Department was legally constrained from
considering the past management performance of Indian housing
authorities. The formula also did not factor in $929 million
provided in past years but not yet spent by the Indian housing
authorities and tribes. Most of the unspent funding was provided in
fiscal years 1993 through 1997 for the Development and Modernization
programs, which were intended to assist Indian housing authorities in
building new housing and modernizing existing units. The housing
entities can continue to use these unspent funds as originally
planned or as proposed in their Indian housing plans.
NAHASDA FUNDING IS BASED ON
TWO COMPONENTS--MAINTAINING
EXISTING HOUSING AND NEED
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
The NAHASDA block grant formula consists of two components: (1) the
costs of operating and modernizing existing housing units and (2) the
need for providing affordable housing. A housing entity's total
block grant amount is the sum of the amounts determined under each of
these two components--or the amount an Indian housing authority
received in fiscal year 1996 for modernization and operating
subsidy.\8
To determine funding for the first component--operating and
modernizing--HUD calculates the number of existing housing units an
entity has and the operating costs of providing that housing. HUD
then calculates the modernization costs of keeping these units in
good working order. These two cost figures are combined as the
entity's funding amount under the first component of the NAHASDA
formula. To calculate funding of the second component of the NAHASDA
formula--need for affordable housing--HUD uses various factors.
These factors reflect each housing entity's Native American
population, income levels, local housing costs and housing
conditions, and the extent of housing shortages. Hence, it is
through the calculation of this component that tribal housing needs
are considered in the distribution of NAHASDA funding.
In allocating funds in the first year of the NAHASDA program, HUD
recognized that the data used to calculate block grants may need to
be improved. HUD has hired a contractor to review alternative data
sources to use when applying the NAHASDA formula. In addition,
NAHASDA regulations require that HUD, with the consultation and
involvement of the tribes, review the formula and, if necessary,
revise the formula within 5 years. Appendix II provides a more
detailed description of the current formula.
--------------------
\8 NAHASDA has provisions to assure tribes of minimum grant amounts
based on the amount of funds they received before the act went into
effect. For a more detailed discussion, see appendix II, page 32.
PAST HOUSING AUTHORITY
MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE WAS
NOT A FACTOR IN CALCULATING
FISCAL YEAR 1998 BLOCK
GRANTS, BUT PERFORMANCE
UNDER NAHASDA MAY BE A
FACTOR IN THE FUTURE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
HUD interpreted NAHASDA as legally constraining the Department from
considering Indian housing authorities' past management performance
as a factor in determining the eligibility of housing entities for
fiscal year 1998 NAHASDA block grants. Indian housing authorities'
past performance came under the requirements and regulations for
programs created under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, requirements
and regulations that are no longer in effect since NAHASDA eliminated
most of these programs. According to HUD's Office of General
Counsel, there is no provision under NAHASDA allowing HUD, when
awarding block grant funding under the act, to consider Indian
housing authorities' failure to comply with requirements and
regulations that are no longer in effect. Consequently, the housing
entities were given the opportunity to demonstrate good management
and performance under NAHASDA. However, HUD does have the
authority\9 and has, in several instances, placed conditions, such as
additional monitoring and oversight, on the use of grant funds by a
housing entity that has a history of poor performance in
administering federal grant programs. For example, for a tribe with
problems administering its Indian Community Development Block Grant
and HOME programs, HUD plans to more closely monitor expenditures of
NAHASDA block grant funds and to require that the tribe submit
quarterly program and financial reports.
In future fiscal years, regulations permit HUD, when dispensing new
grants, to consider how well housing entities have managed past
NAHASDA grants. NAHASDA regulations allow HUD to sanction poorly
managed housing entities by (1) reducing or eliminating future grant
funding or (2) replacing the housing entity managing the program.
Such actions may be taken if HUD determines, through activities such
as reviewing reports provided by tribes or making site visits, that
housing entities are substantially noncompliant with NAHASDA
regulations.\10 HUD plans to closely monitor housing entities that
are having performance problems and to provide them with technical
assistance to help them comply with NAHASDA requirements. To monitor
and assist these entities, HUD is using Internet e-mail to facilitate
the submission and review of Indian housing plans and to respond to
housing entities' questions about the program.
Providing additional monitoring and technical assistance may pose a
challenge for HUD, given the Department's decreasing resources.
HUD's Inspector General has stated that effectively overseeing
housing entities while simultaneously implementing the NAHASDA
program may prove difficult with current HUD staffing because the
number of housing entities served by HUD under NAHASDA will more than
double.
Until the first year of NAHASDA is completed, HUD will not know what
the impact this increase in the number of housing entities served
will have on its workload. The Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of
Native American Programs, estimated that 221 staff years will be
needed to fully implement Indian housing programs. Meanwhile,
several changes are planned to accommodate the future workload with
the present staffing level of 178 employees. The planned changes
include addressing the length and frequency of site visits, modifying
some work processes, and using technology to improve efficiency. The
Deputy Assistant Secretary added that because of the resource
limitations, the office may have to reduce the number of site visits
to tribal housing entities during fiscal year 1999. HUD plans to
visit only 20 percent of the housing entities, instead of 33 percent
as originally planned.
Under NAHASDA regulations, the tribes also have a responsibility to
monitor the performance and compliance of their housing entities.
For example, tribes are required to ensure that their entities
prepare periodic progress reports, including annual compliance
assessments and performance and audit reports.
--------------------
\9 HUD relied on 24 C.F.R. part 85, Administrative Requirements for
Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local, and Federally
Recognized Indian Tribal Governments, which provides a number of
remedies for noncompliance with grant terms.
\10 NAHASDA regulations define substantial noncompliance as (1) a
material effect on a recipient meeting an Indian housing plan's goals
and objectives, (2) a material pattern of activities constituting
willful noncompliance with NAHASDA, (3) an expenditure of a material
amount of the NAHASDA funding budgeted by the recipient for a
material activity, and (4) placing the housing program at substantial
risk of fraud, waste, or abuse.
UNSPENT INDIAN HOUSING
FUNDING WAS NOT A FACTOR IN
CALCULATING FISCAL YEAR 1998
NAHASDA BLOCK GRANTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
The unspent $929 million in Indian housing funding was not a factor
in calculating the fiscal year 1998 block grants because, according
to HUD officials, the unspent funding addresses needs that continue
to exist. This funding, awarded in previous years, remains available
for housing entities to complete ongoing work or for eligible NAHASDA
activities. NAHASDA regulations require housing entities to use
unspent funding for housing planned under earlier housing programs if
contracts have already been signed. However, if such contracts have
not been signed, NAHASDA regulations allow the entities to integrate
the funding into their overall NAHASDA housing plan. Housing
entities report these unspent funds and the plans for their use as
part of the Indian housing plans they submit for HUD's approval.
Officials from HUD's Office of the Chief Financial Officer told us
that some funds, particularly the Development and Modernization
funds, have remained unspent because of the construction difficulties
some projects on Indian lands have encountered.\11 These difficulties
include legal disputes and the remoteness of the Indian lands, which
makes access difficult for the builders and other individuals,
businesses, and suppliers needed to construct housing.
Most of the unspent funding, almost $903 million of it, was provided
in fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and was for the Development and
Modernization programs. The unspent funding provided in fiscal years
1993 through 1997 is shown by program in figure 3. Over this same
5-year period, HUD provided a total of $2.8 billion for Indian
housing programs; thus, about 30 percent of this funding remains
unspent. In appendix III, table III.1 shows the unspent Indian
housing funding by program over an 18-year period. Table III.2 shows
the unspent Indian housing funding over the same period for 15 Indian
housing authorities and tribes that have unspent funding of more than
$10 million each.
Figure 3: Unspent Indian
Housing Funding Provided in
Fiscal Years 1993-97, by
Program
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's analysis based on data from HUD's Program Accounting
System.
--------------------
\11 We reported on the difficulties in building housing on Indian
lands in February 1998 and March 1997. See Native American Housing:
Homeownership Opportunities on Trust Lands Are Limited
(GAO/RCED-98-49, Feb. 24, 1998) and Native American Housing:
Information on HUD's Housing Programs for Native Americans
(GAO/RCED-97-64, Mar. 28, 1997).
HUD HAS ALLOCATED NAHASDA BLOCK
GRANTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND
REQUESTED 1999 FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
As of September 30, 1998, HUD had allocated most of the fiscal year
1998 NAHASDA block grants and had requested funds from the Congress
for fiscal year 1999 block grants. To receive grants from the $590
million available for the NAHASDA program in fiscal year 1998, each
of the 575 housing entities had to submit an Indian housing plan by
July 1, 1998. HUD had received plans representing over 97 percent of
the entities by the deadline. As of September 30, 1998, HUD had
approved 327 plans representing approximately $548 million and was in
the process of reviewing 40 additional plans representing $39
million--for a total of 367 plans and $587 million in fiscal year
1998 block grants. Appendix IV shows the fiscal year 1998 block
grant amount for each housing entity.
For the fiscal year 1999 program, HUD requested $600 million from the
Congress. As of September 30, 1998, however, HUD had not calculated
the final fiscal year 1999 block grant allocations because it had not
yet received its appropriation. Fiscal year 1999 Indian housing
plans are due by July 1, 1999, for HUD's review and approval.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Passage and implementation of NAHASDA presents HUD and the Native
American tribes with both opportunities and challenges. NAHASDA
allows HUD to manage and monitor most housing assistance to tribes
through a single program. At the same time, NAHASDA more than
doubled the number of grantees that must be assisted and
monitored--during a period of declining resources at the Department.
As for the tribes, they gained the freedom to set their own
priorities and to determine how to best meet their housing needs with
the resources available. Yet the tribes will ultimately be
responsible for making sure that grant funds are spent efficiently
and appropriately. It is too soon to determine how well HUD and the
tribes will meet the challenges presented by NAHASDA.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We provided the Department of Housing and Urban Development with a
draft of this report for review and comment. HUD generally agreed
with the report but commented that we should recognize that the
Department merely administers the NAHASDA formula. The formula was a
product of the negotiated rulemaking process, and the Department did
not determine or control the elements of the formula. We have
expanded the discussion in our report to reflect this concern.
HUD also suggested that we include information on standard spend-out
rates for the Development and Modernization programs in our
discussion of unspent program funding to allow for a more
comprehensive understanding of the issue. We believe that our
discussion of the unspent program funding addresses this concern. We
point out that most of the unspent funding was appropriated over a
recent 5-year period--fiscal years 1993 through 1997. Furthermore,
we describe the difficulties of building on Indian lands and point
out that Development and Modernization funds can remain unspent
because of these difficulties. Consequently, we did not make the
suggested change to the report.
Additionally, HUD provided a number of suggested technical and
clarification comments that we have incorporated as appropriate.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
To determine how HUD awarded and allocated funding to Indian housing
authorities and tribes before NAHASDA's enactment, we reviewed
regulations governing HUD's grant award programs. In addition, we
reviewed the applicable HUD handbooks and guidebooks and interviewed
officials from HUD's headquarters Office of Native American Programs
in Washington, D.C., and Denver, Colorado, who were familiar with the
programs' funding. To determine the aggregate funding amounts for
Indian housing programs in fiscal years 1993 through 1997, we
obtained data from HUD's annual reports.
To determine what factors HUD used to allocate Indian housing block
grant funding to housing entities under NAHASDA, we reviewed NAHASDA,
the final rule developed under the act, notices, and plans for
implementing NAHASDA. We also analyzed the NAHASDA block grant
allocation formula. We discussed the NAHASDA block grant allocation
process and formula with officials of HUD's Office of Native American
Programs who were responsible for NAHASDA's implementation. In
addition, we interviewed members of the NAHASDA Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee who participated in drafting the final rule and the block
grant allocation formula. To determine the amount, type, and "age"
of unspent Indian housing program funds, we analyzed data obtained
for us by HUD from its Program Accounting System. We did not
systematically verify the accuracy of HUD's data or conduct a
reliability assessment of HUD's databases as part of this assignment.
To determine the status of Indian housing block grant funding for
fiscal year 1998, we reviewed HUD's reports on housing entities'
status in meeting NAHASDA funding requirements and the associated
funding amounts. We also interviewed officials of HUD's Office of
Native American Programs who were responsible for calculating and
allocating the fiscal year 1998 block grants.
We performed our work from June 1998 through November 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of HUD and the
Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies
available to others on request. Please call me at (202) 512-7631 if
you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this
report are listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Stanley J. Czerwinski
Associate Director, Housing and
Community Development Issues
GRANT AWARD CRITERIA AND FISCAL
YEAR 1997 FUNDING FOR COMPETITIVE
AND NONCOMPETITIVE INDIAN HOUSING
PROGRAMS
=========================================================== Appendix I
Table I.1
Competitive Grant Award Criteria for
Indian Housing Programs and Fiscal Year
1997 Funding
Criteria
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 For determining total For determining Indian
funding (dollars funding allocated to a field housing authority's or For scoring and ranking
Program Description in millions) office's area tribe's eligibility proposals
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ---------------------------- ---------------------------- -----------------------------
Development\a Assists Indian $200.0 --Bureau of Indian Affairs --Indian housing authority --Relative unmet need for
housing housing needs assessment established under state law housing
authorities in --Percentage of the area's or a HUD-approved tribal --Relative Indian housing
developing, total need ordinance authority occupancy rate
acquiring, and --Estimated number of units --Indian housing authority compared with the occupancy
rehabilitating to be funded had the capacity to rates of other eligible
housing for Native --Weighted average cost of administer the program as Indian housing authorities
American families developing housing within demonstrated by compliance --Time since last Development
each area with HUD standards for grant was approved compared
housing development, with that for other eligible
modernization, and Indian housing authorities
operations --Current Indian housing
--Indian housing authority authority development
met performance eligibility "pipeline" activity already
thresholds to apply for in progress
housing development funding: --For fiscal year 1997, HUD
environmental review, fiscal applied additional factors
closeout, final site for scoring and ranking that
approval and control, included clear Indian housing
utility supplier's firm authority demonstration of
commitment, and preplanning housing project
preconstruction activities, site selection
certification that results in cost savings,
and innovative approaches to
development or financing that
reduce housing delivery time
or increase the number of
units
Indian Community Assists tribes in 67.0 --$1 million base amount for --Reasonableness of --Need for project and its
Development Block developing decent each field office project's cost design
Grant housing, suitable --Additional amount --Project's appropriateness --Project planning
living calculated by a formula that for intended use --Leveraging of block grant
environments, and considered the latest Census --Project can be achieved funding
economic data for the eligible Native within 2 years
opportunities for American population residing --Tribe's administrative,
low-and moderate- in each area and the extent managerial, and technical
income families of poverty and housing capacity
overcrowding --Tribe's past grants
administration
--Tribe's actions to impede
development of housing for
low-and moderate-income
individuals
--Outstanding block grant
obligations to HUD
Comprehensive Assists Indian 24.9 --Indian housing authority's --Compliance with Fair --Project extent and urgency
Improvement housing need for repairing and Housing, Civil Rights, and to comply with statutory,
Assistance Program authorities that replacing existing housing environmental statutes regulatory, or court-ordered
for manage fewer than units --Housing projects have to deadlines
modernization\a 250 units in be fully available for --Extent of vacancies where
(Nonemergency) modernizing occupancy the vacancies are not due to
existing housing a lack of housing demand
and improving --Indian housing authority's
Indian housing modernization capability
authority --Indian housing authority's
management management capability
--Degree of residential
involvement in the Indian
housing authority's
operations
--Degree of Indian housing
authority activity in
resident initiatives
--Degree of resident
employment
--Tribal government support
for the modernization
project
--Degree of activity in
coordinating and providing
resident services
HOME Investment Assists tribes in 21.0 --Formula calculating --Administrative capacity to Degree to which
Partnership\a expanding the housing needs for tribes undertake the proposed --project addressed the
supply of within each field office housing project, including housing needs of the tribe
affordable housing area the necessary internal and maximized benefits to
for low-and very- control systems low-income families
low-income --If the tribe participated --tribe had taken the
families by in the HOME program before, financial, administrative,
building and it performed adequately and legal actions necessary
repairing housing --If the tribe had to undertake the proposed
deficiencies in its prior project and had the
administration of a HOME administrative staff to carry
project, it took action to out the project
correct the deficiencies --tribe would use other
sources of funding, such as
state grants, private
mortgage insurance, private
contributions, and other
federal grants, to leverage
funding for the project
Drug Elimination Assists Indian 5.8 --Funding awarded directly --Plan for evaluating --Indian housing authority's
housing to Indian housing activities administrative capacity and
authorities in authorities by HUD's Office --Plan for establishing a relevant experience
establishing and of Public and Indian Housing relationship with local law --Problem's extent
implementing enforcement entities --Support of residents, local
antidrug and --Coordination with government, and community in
anticrime programs empowerment zone and welfare implementing activities
in Indian housing reform efforts --Soundness of proposed plan
developments --Description of use of --Extent of coordination and
community facilities and participation with other
bringing back community organizations in community
focus to housing authority planning
properties
--Assurance that Indian
housing authority has a
broad range of tools for
making and maintaining a
safe community
Emergency Shelter Assists tribes in 1.3 --Formula calculating --Form, timeliness, and --Tribe's capacity to carry
Grant\a improving quality, emergency shelter needs for completeness of application out the proposed activities
increasing tribes within each field --Tribe's eligibility as successfully and within a
availability, and office area determined by Department of reasonable time
funding operations Treasury Office of Revenue --Tribe's service to the
of emergency Sharing homeless population that is
shelters and in --Eligibility of persons to most difficult to reach and
providing be served for program serve
essential services assistance --Existence of an unmet need
to homeless --Tribe's building for the proposed project
individuals compliance with disability --Appropriateness of proposed
requirements activities to meet the needs
of the served population
--Extent of coordination with
other community programs
Economic Assists Indian 1.2 --Funding awarded directly --51 percent or more of the --Indian housing authority's
Development and housing to Indian housing residents included in the administrative capacity and
Supportive authorities in authorities by HUD's Office proposed project are relevant experience
Services establishing and of Public and Indian Housing affected by welfare reform --Extent of problem and need
implementing --Proposed activities must for project
resident self- take place in a community --Soundness of program
sufficiency facility that is easily approach and methodology
programs and in accessible for applicants --Indian housing authority's
supporting --Community resources must ability to leverage project
independent living be firmly committed to the resources
for elderly and project --Extent of coordination with
disabled residents --Indian housing authority's community to identify and
compliance with current address problems
programs
--Troubled housing authority
must use a contract
administrator
Section 8 Rental Assists Indian 0.4 --Funding provided to field --Families, not Indian --Funding provided to field
Assistance\a housing offices to assist Indian housing authorities or offices to assist Indian
authorities in housing authorities in tribes, must be eligible for housing authorities in
providing providing funds for eligible assistance providing funds for eligible
subsidies to low- families families
and very-low-
income families
for renting safe,
decent, and
sanitary private
sector housing
Tenant Assists Indian 0.4 --Funding awarded directly --51 percent or more of the --Resident organization's
Opportunities\a housing resident to organizations by HUD's residents included in the administrative capacity to
organizations in Office of Public and Indian proposed project are carry out the project and its
establishing Housing affected by welfare reform relevant experience
educational, --Signed agreement between --Need for the project and
professional, and the applicant and the extent of the problem
economic programs housing authority describing --Soundness of program
each of their roles and approach and methodology
responsibilities --Resident organization's
--Proposed activities must ability to leverage project
take place in a community resources
facility that is easily --Extent that project
accessible for applicants reflects a coordinated
--Must use the services of a community-based process
contract administrator or identifying and addressing
mediator the problem
--Must be a registered --HUD ONAP awarded a small
nonprofit organization portion of the funding using
--Compliance with current a lottery system
programs and no unresolved
audit findings
--Contract administrator
must not be in default
--Letters of support from
project participants
--Certification of resident
organization board elections
=====================================================================================================================================================
Total program $322.0
funding
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a NAHASDA eliminated this program.
Table I.2
Noncompetitive Grant Allocation Criteria
for Indian Housing Programs and Fiscal
Year 1997 Funding
Criteria
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 For determining total For determining Indian For allocating funding to
funding (dollars funding allocated to a field housing authority's or Indian housing authorities or
Program Description in millions) office's area tribe's eligibility tribes
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ---------------------------- ---------------------------- -----------------------------
Comprehensive Assists Indian $114.5 --Funding allocated directly --HUD approval of Indian --Formula calculating housing
Grant Program for housing to field offices by HUD's housing authority's modernization needs of Indian
modernization\a authorities that Office of Public and Indian comprehensive plan housing authorities
manage 250 or more Housing identifying all physical
units in condition and management
modernizing improvements of existing
existing housing housing and action plan for
and improving achieving them
Indian housing --Coordination with local
authority officials in developing
management comprehensive plan
--Indian housing authority
board resolution approving
comprehensive plan
--Additional assurances or
information required from
HUD monitoring, audit
findings, civil rights
compliance findings, or
corrective action orders
Operating Assists Indian 99.0 --Funding allocated directly --Indian housing authorities --Performance Funding System
Subsidy\a housing to field offices by HUD's must meet HUD financial formula for calculating what
authorities in Office of Public and Indian management and occupant a well-managed Indian housing
helping pay for Housing income requirements authority would need to
operating expenses operate its housing programs
Comprehensive Assists Indian 23.1 --Indian housing authority's --Compliance with Fair --All eligible applications
Improvement housing need for repairing existing Housing, Civil Rights, and funded subject to the
Assistance Program authorities that housing units environmental statutes availability of funds
for manage fewer than --Housing projects have to
modernization\a 250 units in be fully available for
(Emergency) correcting occupancy
conditions posing
an immediate
health and safety
threat to
residents
Section 184 Loan Assists Indian 3.0 --HUD does not allocate --Tribe must have developed --HUD guarantees loans made
Guarantee housing funding for loan guarantees eviction and foreclosure by private lenders to
authorities, to field offices procedures applicants that meet loan
tribes, or Native qualifications
American families
in accessing
private financing
by providing HUD
with funds to
guarantee loans
for constructing,
acquiring, or
rehabilitating
housing
Drug Elimination Assists Indian 0.1 --Funding allocated directly Applicant must --Funding is allocated on a
Technical housing to technical assistance --be a resident organization first-come, first-served
Assistance Grant authorities and providers by HUD's Office of incorporated as nonprofit or basis
housing authority Public and Indian Housing if a resident management
resident corporation, must enter into
organizations in a contract with a housing
hiring drug and authority or tribe
crime elimination --if a consultant, have
experts tribe-and antidrug-related
experience
--meet eligibility
requirements for the Drug
Elimination Grant program
--not propose an ineligible
activity
--describe the nature of the
problem
--describe the technical
assistance needed and the
outcome of the assistance
--describe the steps being
taken to address the
problem
--describe how the
assistance will help develop
an antidrug and anticrime
strategy
--commit to providing
continued support of
antidrug and anticrime
activities
--include a field office
confirmation form
=====================================================================================================================================================
Total program $239.7
funding
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a NAHASDA eliminated this program.
FORMULA USED TO ALLOCATE NAHASDA
BLOCK GRANT FUNDING
========================================================== Appendix II
Using the block grant formula established under the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA), the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocates funds to
Indian housing entities for (1) the costs of operating and
modernizing existing housing units and (2) the need for providing
affordable housing activities.\1 In calculating grant amounts for
operating and modernizing existing housing, HUD, as specified in the
formula, considers inflation since 1996 in the cost of providing
these services, the number of housing units an entity operates, and
the entity's cost of providing these services compared with the
average cost for all entities. In calculating grant amounts for the
need to provide affordable housing activities, HUD considers seven
weighted factors specified in the formula indicating the need for
housing activities and the cost of obtaining the activities.
Additionally, once the block grants are calculated, HUD ensures that
the funding amounts meet certain minimum levels.
--------------------
\1 While HUD identifies this part of the formula as the "need"
component, we infer from the indicators it contains that the
particular need being measured is for the provision of housing
activities. The funds can be used for various activities, including
new construction, rehabilitation, rental assistance, and counseling.
HOW FUNDING FOR OPERATING AND
MODERNIZING HOUSING IS
CALCULATED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
HUD calculates an entity's grant amount for operating and modernizing
existing housing using fiscal year 1996 national average funding per
housing unit and increasing it to reflect cost increases. After this
inflation adjustment, HUD adjusts the national average amount to
reflect geographic differences in the cost of operating and
modernizing housing for each Indian housing entity. HUD then
multiplies each entity's cost per unit by the number of housing units
the entity operates to arrive at its grant amount. Figure II.1
illustrates the formula for calculating funding for operating and
modernizing existing housing.
Figure II.1: Formula for
Calculating Funding for
Operating and Modernizing
Existing Housing
(See figure in printed
edition.)
SAMPLE FUNDING CALCULATION FOR
OPERATING AND MODERNIZING
EXISTING HOUSING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
Housing entities operate a variety of units that are classified into
three major types: (1) low-income rental units built under the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937, (2) units operated under the Section 8 Rental
Assistance program, and (3) Turnkey III and Mutual Help homeownership
units. For the NAHASDA block grants, HUD separately calculates grant
amounts that reflect the operating and modernizing needs of each of
these types of housing units. An entity's funding reflects these
needs and is the sum of two calculations.
Table II.1 shows a hypothetical sample calculation of an entity's
funding for operating housing. In calculating funding for operating
housing, HUD uses the 1996 national average funding for each of the
three types of housing. In our hypothetical sample calculation, we
assume that the inflation cost adjustment is 5.3 percent and that the
entity's geographic cost factor is 14 percent above the national
average. We also assume that the entity is responsible for operating
150 low-income housing units, 50 Section 8 housing units, and 20
Turnkey III and Mutual Help units. We use the fiscal year 1996
national average funding amount for each type of housing unit in our
hypothetical calculation.
Table II.1
Hypothetical Sample Calculation of Block
Grant Funding for Operating Housing
Fiscal
year
Ho 1996
us average Inflatio Geograph
in funding n ic cost
g amount adjustme adjustme
ty per nt nt Number Funding
pe unit factor factor of units amount
-- ------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ --------
Lo $2,440 x 1.053 x 1.140 x 150 = $439,354
w-
i
n
c
o
m
e
Se $3,625 x 1.053 x 1.140 x 50 = 217,576
c
t
i
o
n
8
Tu $528 x 1.053 x 1.140 x 20 = 12,676
r
n
k
e
y
I
I
I
a
n
d
M
u
t
u
a
l
H
e
l
p
To $669,606
t
a
l
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The national average funding amount for low-income units in fiscal
year 1996 was $2,440 per unit. We increase this amount by 5.3
percent for inflation and by 14 percent for operating costs above the
national average, and consider that the entity operates 150
low-income units. Given these assumptions, our hypothetical housing
entity would receive a grant amount of $439,354 for low-income units.
Similar calculations for Section 8 units and for Turnkey III and
Mutual Help units yield grant amounts of $217,576 and $12,676,
respectively. Adding these three figures together yields a total
operating housing grant amount of $669,606.
In calculating funding for modernizing housing, HUD bases the average
1996 funding amount on the number of low-income and Turnkey III and
Mutual Help units. Section 8 units are excluded in this calculation.
The national average funding amount for modernizing housing units in
fiscal year 1996 was $1,974 per unit. The block grant uses the same
inflation adjustment factor for both operating and modernizing
housing. Consequently, we assume a 5.3-percent inflation adjustment
for this calculation. Under the block grant, the geographic cost
factor for modernizing housing differs from that used for operating
housing. In our sample calculation, we assume that the entity's
geographic cost factor is 2 percent below the national average. The
resulting grant calculation for modernizing housing is shown in table
II.2.
Table II.2
Hypothetical Sample Calculation of Block
Grant Funding for Modernizing Housing
Fiscal
year
Ho 1996
us average Inflatio Geograph
in funding n ic cost
g amount adjustme adjustme
ty per nt nt Number Funding
pe unit factor factor of units amount
-- ------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ --------
Lo $1,974 x 1.053 x 0.98 x 150 = $305,557
w-
i
n
c
o
m
e
Tu $1,974 x 1.053 x 0.98 x 20 = 40,741
r
n
k
e
y
I
I
I
a
n
d
M
u
t
u
a
l
H
e
l
p
===================================================================================
To $346,298
t
a
l
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We increase the fiscal year 1996 modernizing funding amount by 5.3
percent for inflation, reduce it by 2 percent for below average
costs, and consider the 170 housing units the entity operates (150
low-income units and 20 Turnkey III and Mutual Help units). These
calculations result in a modernizing grant amount of $346,298.
Adding this amount to the $669,606 the entity receives for operating
housing results in a total grant of $1,015,904 for operating and
modernizing housing.
DATA SOURCES HUD USED IN
CALCULATING OPERATING AND
MODERNIZING FUNDING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3
For fiscal year 1998, HUD derived the number of housing units and
areas served from reports submitted by Indian housing authorities or
tribes. The numbers reported were confirmed by the Department. HUD
adjusted costs for inflation using the housing cost component of the
Consumer Price Index, published annually by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. HUD adjusted for geographic differences in the cost of
operating housing (for example, the costs of maintenance and tenant
services) using the larger of the entity's historical Allowable
Expense Levels for calculating operating subsidies under the Public
Housing Program (prior to October 1, 1997) or the private sector
housing Fair Market Rents, data collected and published annually by
HUD. Fair Market Rents represent the rental cost of private sector
housing units and reflect geographic differences in rental housing
supply and demand in local U.S. housing markets.
HUD based the geographic cost factor used to calculate funding for
modernizing housing on the cost of building a standard housing unit
of moderate design in various geographic locations. Given moderate
housing design specifications, HUD calculates the labor, materials,
and other costs required to construct such a unit in various
locations. These amounts are based on cost surveys conducted by
private firms. Thus, the geographic cost factor reflects labor,
materials, and other costs in the housing construction industry.
HOW FUNDING FOR NEED FOR
ADDITIONAL HOUSING IS
CALCULATED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4
Once funding for operating and modernizing housing is determined for
each entity, HUD totals the funding amounts and deducts the amounts
from available appropriations. This calculation results in the
amount of funding available to all housing entities to address the
need to provide affordable housing activities. The formula for the
need for housing activities allocates available funding among
entities based on their proportionate share of seven weighted factors
and the cost of building a standard housing unit of moderate design
in various geographic locations. The geographic cost adjustment
factor is the same as or similar to that used in the formula to
calculate funding for modernizing housing.\2 Figure II.2 shows the
formula for calculating funding for the need for housing activities.
Figure II.2: Formula for
Calculating Funding for Need
for Housing Activities
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\2 The cost adjustment factor is the ratio of an entity's total
development cost (TDC) to the average TDC of all entities included in
the calculation. Because some of the entities do not receive funding
under the modernization component of the formula, the average TDC for
modernization funding may differ from the average TDC under this
component of the formula.
SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR NEED FOR
HOUSING ACTIVITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5
The formula for calculating funding for the need to provide
affordable housing activities uses various weighted need factors.
The factors capture the portions of the national population that fall
into seven categories and are American Indians or Alaska Natives
living in areas where a tribe has jurisdiction or has provided
substantial housing services. These categories include the Native
American population, low-income households, households with housing
cost exceeding half their income, low-income households in need of
housing, and households living in overcrowded conditions or without
kitchen or plumbing facilities. Table II.3 shows each factor and its
associated weight. HUD multiplies each housing entity's share of
each factor by the factor's assigned weight and adds the total for
all factors to produce the entity's weighted share for the seven need
factors.
Table II.3
Hypothetical Sample Calculation of a
Housing Entity's Weighted Share of Seven
Need Factors
Hypothetical
housing entity's Weighted share
Need factors Weight share of factor of factor\a
--------------- ----------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
1 Population (American Indians 0.11 0.0050 0.000550
and Alaska Natives)
2 Households that are in 0.25 0.0055 0.001375
overcrowded units or lacking
plumbing or kitchen
facilities
3 Households with housing costs 0.22 0.0060 0.001320
that exceed 50 percent of
income
4 Number of low-income 0.15 0.0075 0.001125
households in excess of
available housing
5 Low-income households 0.07 0.0070 0.000490
6 Very-low-income households 0.07 0.0055 0.000385
7 Extremely-low-income 0.13 0.0075 0.000975
households
====================================================================================================
Total 0.00622
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The "weighted share of the factor" is calculated by multiplying
"weight" by the "hypothetical housing entity's share of the factor."
The third column of table II.3 shows the weight for each of the seven
need factors. For example, in our sample calculation, we assume that
a housing entity's jurisdiction covers, or that the entity has
provided, substantial housing services to one-half of 1 percent of
the total American Indian and Alaska Native population (see factor 1
in the table). This factor receives a weight of 11 percent in the
formula. Multiplying the entity's share of the American Indian and
Alaska Native population by the factor's weight produces the entity's
weighted share for the factor. To produce the entity's weighted
share of the seven factors, we make similar computations for each
factor and add the entity's weighted shares together.
HUD uses the formula shown in figure II.3 to calculate an entity's
funding for the need to provide affordable housing activities. To
illustrate, we assume that $100 million of the program's total
appropriation remains after the operating and modernizing grants have
been allocated. We use the weighted share of the seven need factors
as calculated in table II.3, 0.00622. We also assume that the
entity's geographic cost factor is 2 percent below the national
average. Multiplying these amounts results in a grant calculation of
$609,560 for need for housing activities.
Figure II.3: Hypothetical
Sample Calculation of Funding
for Need for Housing Activities
(See figure in printed
edition.)
After calculating funding for operating and modernizing housing and
for the need for housing activities, HUD combines the amounts into a
single block grant. The total grant amount of our hypothetical
sample calculation is $1,267,736.
DATA SOURCES USED IN
CALCULATING FUNDING FOR THE
NEED FOR HOUSING ACTIVITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:6
For fiscal year 1998, HUD used the same geographic cost factor to
calculate funding for the need to provide affordable housing
activities as it did for modernizing existing housing. HUD obtained
data for each of the seven need factors from the 1990 U.S. Census,
which HUD updated to reflect current conditions. Housing entities
can challenge the Census data by conducting their own surveys subject
to HUD guidelines and by submitting the data to HUD for use in
calculating grant amounts for need for housing activities.
NAHASDA REGULATIONS PROVIDE
MINIMUM FUNDING GUARANTEES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:7
The NAHASDA regulations establish two kinds of minimum funding levels
for housing entities. Consequently, when HUD calculates funding
amounts that are below the legislated minimums, housing entities are
given additional funds. The first minimum funding level guarantees
every entity an allocation that at least equals its fiscal year 1996
funding for operating and modernizing housing. The second minimum
funding level guarantees every housing entity an allocation of at
least $50,000 for funding the need for affordable housing activities.
In subsequent years, HUD will reduce the second minimum funding
guarantee to $25,000, and in fiscal year 2002, it will be eliminated.
UNSPENT INDIAN HOUSING FUNDING,
1980-97
========================================================= Appendix III
Table III.1
Total Amounts of Unspent Indian Housing
Funding By Programs
1980-
Program 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total
--------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Developme $4.1 $1.1 $5.6 $5.5 $24.6 $67.5 $119.2 $129.9 $170.1 $527.6
nt \a
Moderniza 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.3 7.5 11.4 34.6 75.7 187.4 318.2
tion
HOME 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.8 6.4 9.7 17.5 38.9
Section 8 5.9 0.7 0.4 0.2 2.5 4.3 0.3 2.6 0.2 17.2
Operating 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 11.2 12.0
Subsidy
Drug 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 5.0 8.8
Eliminat
ion
Economic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.4 3.5
Developm
ent
Emergency 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.8 1.0
Shelter
Grants
Family 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9
Self-
Sufficie
ncy
HOPE 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
Miscellan 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
eous
Youth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2
Sports
=========================================================================================
Total $10.3 $2.1 $6.4 $7.9 $36.1 $88.0 $161.6 $224.2 $392.6 $929.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
\a Total includes $7,031 in unspent Development funds awarded in
fiscal year 1971 to the Navajo Housing Authority.
Source: GAO analysis based on data from HUD's Program Accounting
System.
Table III.2
Indian Housing Authorities and Tribes
With More Than $10 Million in Total
Unspent Indian Housing Funding
Indian
housing
authority/
tribe and
programs 1980-1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total
---------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------ -------------
Navajo Housing Authority, Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen $42,940 $0 $0 $2,437,015 $810,429 $10,903,28 $31,567,57 $16,354,860 $0 $62,123,133\a
t 6 3
Modernizat 0 0 7,921 0 362,143 357,391 1,703,830 3,278,125 12,325,219 18,034,629
ion
Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,869 4,090,503 4,105,372
Subsidy
Drug 0 0 0 0 0 1,421 92,449 0 0 93,870
Eliminati
on
Youth 0 0 0 0 0 8,100 175 0 0 8,275
Sports
Tenant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Opportuni
ty
Section 8 0 724,500 167,009 0 18,185 267,527 0 0 0 1,177,221
Subtotal 42,940 724,500 174,930 2,437,015 1,190,756 11,537,725 33,364,027 19,647,854 16,415,722 85,542,500
Choctaw Nation Housing Authority, Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 21,700 0 0 0 379,473 201,360 7,494,496 11,508,137 0 19,605,166
t
Modernizat 0 0 0 0 0 0 554,830 2,621,880 2,901,711 6,078,421
ion
Drug 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 183,063 421,147 604,210
Eliminati
on
Section 8 320,142 0 11,458 63,291 17,174 552,534 0 0 0 964,599
Subtotal 341,842 0 11,458 63,291 396,647 753,894 8,049,326 14,313,080 3,322,858 27,252,396
Association of Village Council Presidents Housing Authority, Alaska
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 124,283 175,939 36,075 11,301 81,280 330,165 0 10,846,071 3,702,767 15,307,882
t
Modernizat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187,825 2,645,934 2,833,759
ion
Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 248,483 248,483
Subsidy
Subtotal 124,283 175,939 36,075 11,301 81,280 330,165 0 11,033,896 6,597,184 18,390,124
Cherokee Nation Housing Authority, Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 168,871 13,353 4,700 39,747 0 3,298,263 0 1,340,364 4,415,000 9,280,299
t
Modernizat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,505,038 2,505,038
ion
Drug 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141,792 695,205 836,997
Eliminati
on
Economic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 980,692 0 980,692
Developme
nt
Section 8 2,241,769 0 0 22,213 288,499 812,343 58,970 742,467 200,709 4,366,970
Subtotal 2,410,640 13,353 4,700 61,960 288,499 4,110,606 58,970 3,205,315 7,815,952 17,969,996
Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu Housing Authority, Alaska
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 15,000 0 0 0 0 2,825,756 3,923,608 0 3,392,144 10,156,509
t
Modernizat 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,219,006 1,384,864 1,517,217 4,121,086
ion
Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78,280 8,779 87,059
Subsidy
Subtotal 15,000 0 0 0 0 2,825,756 5,142,614 1,463,144 4,918,140 14,364,654
Tohono O'odham Housing Authority, Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 108,827 0 1 0 2,007,701 0 0 86,000 0 2,202,528
t
Modernizat 144,465 0 0 52,042 1,913,765 2,040,680 2,980,294 2,392,303 2,261,424 11,784,973
ion
Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,110 9,110
Subsidy
Subtotal 253,292 0 1 52,042 3,921,466 2,040,680 2,980,294 2,478,303 2,270,534 13,996,611
Standing Rock Housing Authority, South Dakota
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 0 0 0 0 13,850 5,227,542 5,919,606 0 0 11,160,998
t
Modernizat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,392,389 2,392,389
ion
Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58,376 58,376
Subsidy
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 13,850 5,227,542 5,919,606 0 2,450,765 13,611,763
Northern Circle Housing Authority, California
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 71,215 0 0 18,200 2,708,151 4,968,066 0 249,314 4,050,288 12,065,234
t
Modernizat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 968 755,392 756,360
ion
Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 229,715 229,715
Subsidy
Drug 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,973 86,143 142,116
Eliminati
on
Subtotal 71,215 0 0 18,200 2,708,151 4,968,066 0 306,255 5,121,538 13,193,425
Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority, Alaska
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 16,314 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 1,011,663 5,631,099 3,776,247 11,935,322
t
Modernizat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 469,563 703,974 1,173,537
ion
Subtotal 16,314 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 1,011,663 6,100,662 4,480,221 13,108,859
Navajo Nation of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modernizat 0 0 0 9,533 4,354 93,561 941,979 4,947,668 4,834,399 10,831,494
ion
HOME 0 0 0 0 663,066 1,202,000 0 0 0 1,865,066
Subtotal 0 0 0 9,533 667,420 1,295,561 941,979 4,947,668 4,834,399 12,696,560
Yurok Housing Authority, California
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,144,820 10,546,517 12,691,336
t
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,144,820 10,546,517 12,691,336
Karuk Tribe Housing Authority, California
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,730,539 7,085,126 11,815,665
t
Modernizat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142,227 586,307 728,534
ion
Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,145 14,145
Subsidy
Drug 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6
Eliminati
on
Economic 0 0 0 25,356 0 0 0 0 0 25,356
Developme
nt
Section 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,721 7,721
Subtotal 0 0 0 25,356 6 0 0 4,872,765 7,693,298 12,591,426
Pueblo of Acoma Housing Authority, New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 0 0 0 0 993,400 1,519,818 200,000 905,420 5,098,135 8,716,774
t
Modernizat 0 0 0 50,086 348,541 477,990 402,653 326,841 318,358 1,924,470
ion
Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,569 42,569
Subsidy
Drug 0 0 0 0 0 0 236,615 0 50,000 286,615
Eliminati
on
Subtotal 0 0 0 50,086 1,341,942 1,997,809 839,268 1,232,261 5,509,062 10,970,428
Owens Valley Housing Authority, California
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 0 0 0 0 2,983,136 0 0 0 5,839,637 8,822,772
t
Modernizat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 622,503 1,041,869 1,664,372
ion
Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145,836 145,836
Subsidy
Economic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77,500 77,500
Developme
nt
Youth 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,927 0 0 17,927
Sports
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 2,983,136 0 17,927 622,503 7,104,842 10,728,408
Qualla Housing Authority, North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developmen 175,112 0 0 0 1,355,221 2,197,382 2,360,665 427,135 0 6,515,515
t
Modernizat 0 0 0 0 0 0 663,698 830,823 1,290,980 2,785,501
ion
Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171,720 171,720
Subsidy
Drug 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132,634 248,155 380,789
Eliminati
on
Section 8 0 0 0 0 296,414 54,650 0 0 0 351,064
Subtotal 175,112 0 0 0 1,651,635 2,252,032 3,024,363 1,390,592 1,710,855 10,204,589
=====================================================================================================================================================
Total $3,450,638 $913,792 $227,164 $2,728,785 $15,244,78 $38,839,83 $61,350,03 $73,759,119 $90,791,886 $287,313,075
7 8 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Navajo Housing Authority has $7,031 in unspent development funds
awarded in fiscal year 1971 that are not shown, but are included in
the total.
Source: GAO analysis based on data from HUD's Program Accounting
System.
HUD'S FISCAL YEAR 1998 INDIAN
HOUSING BLOCK GRANT AMOUNTS
CALCULATED FOR 575 HOUSING
ENTITIES
========================================================== Appendix IV
Operating and
HUD office/ Fiscal year 1996 modernizing Need for housing
housing entity adjustment existing housing activities Total
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Alaska Office of Native American Programs (Anchorage, Alaska)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afognak $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
Ahtna Native 0 803,320 104,883 908,203
Regional Corp.
Akhiok 0 0 50,000 50,000
Akiachak 0 0 392,103 392,103
Akiak 0 0 240,007 240,007
Akutan 0 0 50,000 50,000
Alakanuk 0 0 436,112 436,112
Alatna 0 0 52,228 52,228
Aleknagik 0 0 134,086 134,086
Aleutian Regional 0 1,966,036 80,712 2,046,748
Corp.
Algaaciq (St. 0 0 50,000 50,000
Mary's)
Allakaket 0 0 171,276 171,276
Ambler 0 0 217,492 217,492
Anaktuvuk Pass 0 0 179,863 179,863
Andreafski 0 0 303,000 303,000
Angoon 0 0 253,364 253,364
Aniak 0 0 244,719 244,719
Annette Island 0 952,646 450,718 1,403,364
(Metlakakla)
Anvik 0 0 111,538 111,538
Arctic Slope 0 2,671,001 326,417 2,997,418
Native Regional
Corp.
Arctic Village 0 0 159,331 159,331
Atka 0 0 50,000 50,000
Atmautluak 0 0 218,690 218,690
Atqasuk 0 0 125,127 125,127
(Atkasook)
Baranof Island 0 570,247 976,513 1,546,760
Regional Corp.
Barrow 0 0 1,038,462 1,038,462
Beaver 0 0 122,147 122,147
Belkofski 0 0 50,000 50,000
Bering Straits 0 2,749,747 50,000 2,799,747
Native Regional
Corp.
Bill Moore's 0 0 50,000 50,000
Slough
Birch Creek 0 0 94,148 94,148
Brevig Mission 0 0 199,917 199,917
Bristol Bay 0 2,086,968 50,000 2,136,968
Native Regional
Corp.
Buckland 0 0 266,237 266,237
Calista Native 0 6,826,319 70,170 6,896,489
Regional Corp.
Cantwell 0 0 50,000 50,000
Chalkyitsik 0 0 91,284 91,284
Chanega 0 0 50,000 50,000
Chefornak 0 0 255,813 255,813
Chevak 0 0 576,265 576,265
Chickaloon 0 0 50,000 50,000
Chignik 0 0 50,000 50,000
Chignik Lagoon 0 0 50,000 50,000
Chignik Lake 0 0 94,891 94,891
Chilkat 0 0 62,415 62,415
Chilkoot 0 0 97,185 97,185
Chistochina 0 0 50,000 50,000
Chitina 0 0 50,000 50,000
Chuatbaluk 0 0 55,474 55,474
Chugach Native 0 1,181,842 336,987 1,518,829
Regional Corp.
Chuloonawick 0 0 50,000 50,000
Circle 0 0 50,000 50,000
Clark's Point 0 0 65,731 65,731
Cook Inlet Native 0 3,646,373 7,759,824 11,406,197
Regional Corp.
Council 0 0 50,000 50,000
Craig 0 0 90,156 90,156
Crooked Creek 0 0 90,901 90,901
Curyung 0 0 707,840 707,840
Deering 0 0 191,512 191,512
Dot Lake 0 0 50,000 50,000
Douglas 0 0 147,173 147,173
Doyon Native 0 2,361,527 5,239,663 7,601,190
Regional Corp.
Eagle 0 0 78,570 78,570
Eek 0 0 225,215 225,215
Egegik 0 0 115,561 115,561
Eklutna 0 0 61,916 61,916
Ekuk 0 0 50,000 50,000
Ekwok 0 0 87,261 87,261
Elim 0 0 252,959 252,959
Emmonak 0 0 403,597 403,597
Evansville 0 0 50,000 50,000
(Bettles Field)
Eyak 0 0 50,000 50,000
False Pass 0 0 50,000 50,000
Fort Yukon 0 0 514,380 514,380
Gakona 0 0 50,000 50,000
Galena 0 0 339,596 339,596
Gambell 0 0 543,066 543,066
Georgetown 0 0 50,000 50,000
Golovin (Chinik) 0 0 153,792 153,792
Goodnews Bay 0 0 252,834 252,834
Grayling 0 0 116,642 116,642
Gulkana 0 0 63,562 63,562
Hamilton 0 0 50,000 50,000
Healy Lake 0 0 61,849 61,849
Holy Cross 0 0 297,856 297,856
Hoonah 0 0 133,071 133,071
Hooper Bay 0 0 765,920 765,920
Hughes 0 0 76,282 76,282
Huslia 0 0 261,512 261,512
Hydaburg 0 0 198,439 198,439
Igiugig 0 0 50,000 50,000
Iliamna 0 0 50,000 50,000
Inalik (Diomede) 0 0 157,855 157,855
Ivanoff Bay 0 0 50,000 50,000
Kaguyak 0 0 50,000 50,000
Kake 0 0 132,523 132,523
Kaktovik (Barter 0 0 186,168 186,168
Island)
Kalskag 0 0 132,062 132,062
Kaltag 0 0 206,411 206,411
Kanatak 0 0 50,000 50,000
Karluk 0 0 50,000 50,000
Kasigluk 0 0 309,048 309,048
Kassan 0 0 50,000 50,000
Kenaitze 0 0 334,880 334,880
Ketchikan 0 0 923,481 923,481
Kiana 0 0 234,102 234,102
King Cove 0 0 52,770 52,770
King Island 0 0 214,196 214,196
Kipnuk 0 0 541,053 541,053
Kivalina 0 0 231,362 231,362
Klawock 0 0 162,059 162,059
Kluti Kaah 0 0 90,469 90,469
(Copper Center)
Knik 0 0 50,000 50,000
Kobuk 0 0 57,326 57,326
Kokhanok 0 0 163,599 163,599
Koliganek 0 0 181,733 181,733
Kongiganak 0 0 205,451 205,451
Koniag Native 0 2,390,598 593,589 2,984,187
Regional Corp.
Kotlik 0 0 377,963 377,963
Kotzebue 0 0 1,312,189 1,312,189
Koyuk 0 0 191,897 191,897
Koyukuk 0 0 116,435 116,435
Kwethluk 0 0 497,032 497,032
Kwigillingok 0 0 287,415 287,415
Kwinhagak 0 0 496,365 496,365
(Quinhagak)
Larsen Bay 0 0 50,000 50,000
Lesnoi (Woody 0 0 50,000 50,000
Island)
Levelock 0 0 116,593 116,593
Lime 0 0 62,596 62,596
Lower Kalskag 0 0 284,520 284,520
Manley Hot 0 0 50,000 50,000
Springs
Manokotak 0 0 250,856 250,856
Marshall 0 0 187,278 187,278
Mary's Igloo 0 0 50,000 50,000
McGrath 0 0 156,342 156,342
Mekoryuk 0 0 242,902 242,902
Mentasta 0 0 77,564 77,564
Minto 0 0 163,309 163,309
Mountain Village 0 0 372,881 372,881
Naknek 0 0 96,531 96,531
NANA Native 0 3,025,334 115,444 3,140,778
Regional Corp.
Nanwelek (English 0 0 50,000 50,000
Bay)
Napaimute 0 0 50,000 50,000
Napakiak 0 0 268,381 268,381
Napaskiak 0 0 310,296 310,296
Nelson Lagoon 0 0 57,875 57,875
Nenana 0 0 88,255 88,255
New Stuyahok 0 0 302,444 302,444
Newhalen 0 0 112,322 112,322
Newtok 0 0 191,503 191,503
Nightmute 0 0 106,423 106,423
Nikolai 0 0 132,524 132,524
Nikolski 0 0 50,000 50,000
Ninilchik 0 0 115,135 115,135
Noatuk 0 0 231,478 231,478
Nome 0 0 1,027,192 1,027,192
Nondalton 0 0 137,485 137,485
Noorvik 0 0 302,902 302,902
Northway 0 0 114,732 114,732
Nuiqsut 0 0 233,455 233,455
Nulato 0 0 288,280 288,280
Nunapitchuk 0 0 313,630 313,630
Ohogamiut 0 0 50,000 50,000
Old Harbor 0 0 121,103 121,103
Orutsararmuit 0 0 1,993,850 1,993,850
(Bethel)
Oscarville 0 0 50,000 50,000
Ouzinkie 0 0 56,554 56,554
Paimiut 0 0 50,000 50,000
Pauloff Village 0 0 50,000 50,000
Pedro Bay 0 0 50,000 50,000
Perryville 0 0 91,868 91,868
Petersburg 0 0 182,169 182,169
Pilot Point 0 0 50,000 50,000
Pilot Station 0 0 355,408 355,408
Pitka's Point 0 0 144,982 144,982
Platinum 0 0 102,978 102,978
Point Hope 0 0 396,766 396,766
Point Lay 0 0 115,842 115,842
Port Graham 0 0 50,000 50,000
Port Heiden 0 0 50,000 50,000
Port Lions 0 0 50,373 50,373
Portage Creek 0 0 50,000 50,000
Qagan Tayagungin 0 0 124,429 124,429
(Sand Point)
Qawalangin 0 0 66,058 66,058
(Unalaska)
Rampart 0 0 99,098 99,098
Red Devil 0 0 50,000 50,000
Ruby 0 0 119,407 119,407
Russian Mission 0 0 179,207 179,207
(Yukon)
Saint George 0 0 66,482 66,482
Saint Michael 0 0 223,716 223,716
Saint Paul 0 0 138,218 138,218
Salamatoff 0 0 70,392 70,392
Savoonga 0 0 544,306 544,306
Saxman 0 0 82,922 82,922
Scammon Bay 0 0 289,347 289,347
Selawik 0 0 435,627 435,627
Seldovia 0 0 50,000 50,000
Shageluk 0 0 149,918 149,918
Shaktoolik 0 0 103,670 103,670
Sheldon's Point 0 0 91,020 91,020
Shishmaref 0 0 404,060 404,060
Shungnak 0 0 152,185 152,185
Skagway 0 0 50,000 50,000
Sleetmute 0 0 125,691 125,691
Solomon 0 0 50,000 50,000
South Naknek 0 0 69,225 69,225
Stebbins 0 0 326,636 326,636
Stevens 0 0 139,449 139,449
Stoney River 0 0 99,421 99,421
Takotna 0 0 50,000 50,000
Tanacross 0 0 89,899 89,899
Tanana 0 0 310,339 310,339
Tatitlek 0 0 50,000 50,000
Tazlina 0 0 50,000 50,000
Telida 0 0 50,000 50,000
Teller 0 0 140,387 140,387
Tetlin 0 0 73,155 73,155
Tlingit and Haida 0 3,462,463 1,916,883 5,379,346
Togiak 0 0 493,467 493,467
Toksook Bay 0 0 250,764 250,764
Tuluksak 0 0 267,715 267,715
Tuntutuliak 0 0 275,263 275,263
Tununak 0 0 244,420 244,420
Twin Hills 0 0 63,542 63,542
Tyonek 0 0 129,135 129,135
Ugashik 0 0 50,000 50,000
Umkumiute 0 0 50,000 50,000
Unalakleet 0 0 365,712 365,712
Unga 0 0 50,000 50,000
Venetie 0 0 182,508 182,508
Wainwright 0 0 379,830 379,830
Wales 0 0 144,596 144,596
White Mountain 0 0 161,602 161,602
Wrangell 0 0 272,929 272,929
Yakutat 0 0 97,820 97,820
Eastern/Woodlands Office of Native American Programs (Chicago, Illinois)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aroostook Band of 0 0 264,338 264,338
Micmac
Bad River Band 0 726,554 579,538 1,306,092
Bay Mills Indian 0 316,043 130,764 446,807
Community
Boise Forte Band 625,857 313,223 90,881 1,029,961
of Minnesota
Chippewa
Catawba Indian 0 0 1,323,851 1,323,851
Tribe
Cayuga Nation 0 0 543,690 543,690
Coharie State 0 70,254 489,028 559,282
Tribe
Eastern Cherokee 0 2,173,643 1,089,423 3,263,066
Fond Du Lac Band 0 1,200,008 2,074,560 3,274,568
of Minnesota
Chippewa
Forest County 0 148,893 207,892 356,785
Potawatami
Grand Portage 0 125,500 82,731 208,231
Band of
Minnesota
Chippewa
Grand Traverse 0 236,939 1,010,483 1,247,422
Band
Haliwa-Saponi 0 105,314 884,029 989,343
State Tribe
Hannahville 0 56,836 50,603 107,439
Community
Ho-Chunk Nation 0 624,834 2,310,667 2,935,501
Houlton Band of 0 338,629 107,103 445,732
Maliseets
Huron Band of 0 0 431,007 431,007
Potawatomi
Keweenaw Bay 0 978,791 348,223 1,327,014
Indian Community
Lac Courte 0 1,475,457 522,808 1,998,265
Oreilles
Lac Du Flambeau 0 981,921 449,818 1,431,739
Band
Lac Vieux Desert 0 148,964 62,575 211,539
Band
Leech Lake Band 0 1,519,852 1,304,247 2,824,099
of Minnesota
Chippewa
Little River Band 0 0 355,600 355,600
of Ottawa
Little Traverse 0 0 277,884 277,884
Bay Band
Lower Sioux 0 126,005 88,530 214,535
Lumbee State 0 716,137 7,126,642 7,842,779
Tribe
Menominee Indian 0 1,630,182 953,927 2,584,109
Tribe
Miccosukee Tribe 0 0 50,000 50,000
Mille Lacs Band 0 360,022 662,002 1,022,024
of Minnesota
Chippewa
Mississippi 0 1,922,246 1,144,205 3,066,451
Choctaw Tribe
Mohegan Tribe of 0 0 168,511 168,511
Connecticut
MOWA Band of 0 158,459 389,128 547,587
Choctaw Indians
Narragansett 0 0 523,937 523,937
Tribe
Oneida Nation of 0 134,878 979,796 1,114,674
New York
Oneida Tribe 0 1,117,427 2,415,422 3,532,849
Onondaga Nation 0 0 50,000 50,000
Passamaquody 0 547,350 121,229 668,579
Indian Tribe
Penobscot Tribe 0 390,908 132,281 523,189
Pleasant Point 0 453,476 195,656 649,132
Poarch Band of 0 375,158 1,223,463 1,598,621
Creek Indians
Pokagon Band of 0 0 1,973,548 1,973,548
Potawatomi
Prairie Island 0 103,987 50,000 153,987
Sioux
Red Cliff Band of 0 469,707 272,025 741,732
Lake Superior
Chippewa
Red Lake Band of 0 1,662,624 1,314,276 2,976,900
Chippewa
Sac and Fox Tribe 0 74,181 185,410 259,591
Saginaw Chippewa 0 332,641 1,287,825 1,620,466
Saint Croix 0 757,761 141,318 899,079
Chippewa
Sault Ste. Marie 0 1,493,551 2,516,092 4,009,643
Tribe
Seminole Tribe 0 1,322,247 1,627,943 2,950,190
Seneca Nation of 0 1,215,173 1,169,714 2,384,887
New York
Shakopee Sioux 0 0 50,000 50,000
Sokagoan Chippewa 0 484,856 158,382 643,238
Tribe
St. Regis Mohawk 0 775,161 631,876 1,407,037
Tribe
Stockbridge- 0 266,025 141,696 407,721
Munsee Tribe
Tonawanda Band of 0 0 264,421 264,421
Senecas
Tuscarora Nation 0 0 223,317 223,317
Upper Sioux 0 0 249,304 249,304
Indian Community
Waccamaw Siouan 0 0 348,430 348,430
State Tribe
Wampanoag Tribe 0 144,083 182,379 326,462
White Earth Band 0 1,258,745 976,332 2,235,077
of Minnesota
Chippewa
Northern Plains Office of Native American Programs (Denver, Colorado)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Tribe 0 3,760,421 2,107,010 5,867,431
Cheyenne River 0 2,881,771 2,116,285 4,998,056
Sioux
Crow Creek Sioux 0 1,124,282 352,817 1,477,099
Crow Tribe 0 1,652,953 1,633,951 3,286,904
Devils Lake Sioux 0 1,445,814 732,490 2,178,304
Flandreau Santee 0 264,711 90,065 354,776
Sioux
Fort Belknap 0 1,864,031 548,735 2,412,766
Indian Community
Fort Peck 0 3,419,483 1,792,834 5,212,317
Assiniboine and
Sioux
Ft. Berthold 0 1,902,952 884,864 2,787,816
Affiliated
Tribes
Goshute 0 53,949 50,000 103,949
Reservation
Lower Brule Sioux 5,127 780,132 206,277 991,536
Northern Arapahoe 0 982,183 1,288,173 2,270,356
Northern Cheyenne 0 2,173,214 896,217 3,069,431
NW Band of 0 0 50,000 50,000
Shoshone Nation
Oglala Sioux of 0 4,732,611 3,943,170 8,675,781
Pine Ridge
Reservation
Omaha Tribe 0 934,177 500,356 1,434,533
Ponca Tribe of 0 136,158 1,596,489 1,732,647
Nebraska
Rocky Boy 0 1,642,085 426,110 2,068,195
Chippewa-Cree
Rosebud Sioux 0 3,563,851 3,081,230 6,645,081
Salish and 0 2,548,578 1,565,115 4,113,693
Kootenai Tribes
Santee Sioux 333,771 466,875 149,064 949,710
Tribe
Shoshone Tribe of 0 869,076 673,195 1,542,271
the Wind River
Reservation
Sisseton- 0 2,318,758 837,730 3,156,488
Wahpeton Sioux
Skull Valley Band 0 0 50,000 50,000
of Goshute
Southern Ute 0 809,464 260,001 1,069,465
Tribe
Standing Rock 0 2,596,789 1,449,142 4,045,931
Sioux
Turtle Mountain 0 4,760,965 2,026,160 6,787,125
Band of Chippewa
Uintah and Ouray 0 803,536 975,740 1,779,276
Ute Indian Tribe
Ute 0 838,181 388,172 1,226,353
Ute Mountain 0 984,885 415,484 1,400,369
Tribe
Winnebago Tribe 0 762,672 379,982 1,142,654
Yankton Sioux 0 1,074,250 660,025 1,734,275
Southern Plains Office of Native American Programs (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absentee-Shawnee 0 1,765,008 134,210 1,899,218
Alabama- 0 214,963 100,511 315,474
Coushatta
Alabama- 0 0 84,176 84,176
Quassarte Tribal
Town
Apache Tribe 637,178 194,962 314,672 1,146,812
Caddo Tribe 0 412,982 50,000 462,982
Cherokee Nation 0 8,628,145 16,018,567 24,646,712
Cheyenne-Arapaho 0 503,350 2,067,732 2,571,082
Tribes
Chickasaw 0 5,257,562 5,549,223 10,806,785
Chitimacha Tribe 0 109,524 62,012 171,536
Choctaw Nation 0 4,138,115 7,471,743 11,609,858
Citizen Band 0 89,223 1,646,108 1,735,331
Potawatomi Tribe
Comanche Tribe 0 668,824 1,558,565 2,227,389
Coushatta Tribe 0 30,426 50,000 80,426
Delaware Tribe 0 0 50,000 50,000
Delaware Tribe of 0 709,133 1,703,786 2,412,919
Indians
(Eastern)
Eastern Shawnee 0 0 96,086 96,086
Tribe
Fort Sill Apache 0 0 50,000 50,000
Tribe
Iowa Tribe of 0 300,096 50,000 350,096
Kansas and
Nebraska
Iowa Tribe of 0 0 76,067 76,067
Oklahoma
Jena Band of 0 0 99,773 99,773
Choctaw
Kaw Tribe 310,191 201,922 113,729 625,842
Kialegee Tribal 0 0 73,245 73,245
Town
Kickapoo Tribe 297,153 433,949 89,313 820,415
Kickapoo Tribe of 0 0 437,546 437,546
Oklahoma
Kiowa Tribe 0 284,706 1,583,826 1,868,532
Miami Tribe 0 0 70,938 70,938
Modoc Tribe 0 0 50,000 50,000
Muskogee (Creek) 0 4,201,040 12,158,489 16,359,529
Nation
Osage Tribe 0 917,972 1,488,541 2,406,513
Otoe-Missouria 0 280,797 121,234 402,031
Tribe
Ottawa Tribe 0 0 95,055 95,055
Pawnee Tribe 0 284,894 375,758 660,652
Peoria Tribe 0 1,003,075 58,050 1,061,125
Ponca Tribe 0 427,079 577,821 1,004,900
Prairie Band of 0 236,301 151,569 387,870
Potawatomi
Quapaw Tribe 0 0 196,266 196,266
Sac and Fox of 0 105,701 50,000 155,701
Missouri
Sac and Fox Tribe 0 796,419 1,070,351 1,866,770
Seminole Nation 0 440,848 1,236,724 1,677,572
Seneca-Cayuga 0 0 217,291 217,291
Texas Band of 0 64,567 689,274 753,841
Kickapoo Indians
Thlopthlocco 0 0 123,553 123,553
Tribal Town
Tonkawa Tribe 0 224,380 141,891 366,271
Tunica-Biloxi 0 0 50,000 50,000
Tribe
United Keetoowah 0 0 929,417 929,417
Wichita Tribe 0 110,326 50,000 160,326
Wyandotte 0 0 353,544 353,544
Southwest Office of Native American Programs (Phoenix, Arizona)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoma Pueblo 0 285,579 763,522 1,049,101
Agua Caliente 0 0 50,000 50,000
Band of Cahuilla
Ak-Chin Papago 0 150,242 101,494 251,736
Alturas Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000
Auburn Rancheria 0 0 197,234 197,234
Augustine Band of 0 0 50,000 50,000
Cahuilla
Barona Group of 0 154,276 104,983 259,259
Capitan Grande
Berry Creek 0 175,668 289,000 464,668
Rancheria
Big Lagoon 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Big Pine Band 0 343,929 80,548 424,477
Big Sandy 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Big Valley 0 0 218,785 218,785
Rancheria
Blue Lake 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Bridgeport Paiute 0 117,081 50,000 167,081
Indian Colony
Buena Vista 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Cabazon Band 0 0 50,000 50,000
Cahuilla Band 0 36,606 50,000 86,606
Campo Band 431,811 186,444 50,000 668,255
Cedarville 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Chemehuevi 460,460 352,829 50,000 863,289
Chicken Ranch 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Chico Rancheria 0 0 306,401 306,401
Cloverdale 0 0 242,445 242,445
Rancheria
Cochiti Pueblo 0 65,841 269,467 335,308
Cocopah Tribe 0 322,807 323,278 646,085
Cold Springs 0 186,803 50,000 236,803
Rancheria
Colorado River 0 1,446,442 702,313 2,148,755
Indian Tribes
Colusa Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000
Cortina Rancheria 0 0 144,210 144,210
Coyote Valley 0 153,461 131,212 284,673
Band
Cuyapaipe 0 0 50,000 50,000
Community
Death Valley 0 0 156,660 156,660
Timba-Sha
Dry Creek 0 0 391,245 391,245
Rancheria
Duck Valley 0 650,883 338,152 989,035
Shoshone-Paiute
Duckwater 62,591 68,594 53,928 185,113
Shoshone
Elk Valley 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Ely Shoshone 0 240,586 50,000 290,586
Enterprise 0 0 274,763 274,763
Rancheria
Fallon Paiute- 217,783 594,969 165,295 978,047
Shoshone
Fort Bidwell 0 138,060 154,018 292,078
Fort Independence 0 35,122 50,000 85,122
Fort McDermitt 0 0 201,514 201,514
Paiute and
Shoshone
Fort McDowell 0 153,342 189,358 342,700
Mohave Apache
Fort Mojave Tribe 0 776,498 145,786 922,284
Gila River 0 3,940,269 3,244,244 7,184,513
Greenville 0 0 196,031 196,031
Rancheria
Grindstone 0 216,048 157,085 373,133
Rancheria
Guidiville 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Havasupai 0 0 175,013 175,013
Hoopa Valley 0 810,806 720,581 1,531,387
Hopi 0 930,414 2,828,733 3,759,147
Hopland Rancheria 0 113,239 166,168 279,407
Hualapai 0 1,114,894 524,196 1,639,090
Inaja Band 0 0 50,000 50,000
Ione Band of 0 0 122,403 122,403
Miwok Indians
Isleta Pueblo 0 217,350 825,957 1,043,307
Jackson Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000
Jamul Indian 0 0 50,000 50,000
Village
Jemez Pueblo 0 141,083 568,366 709,449
Jicarilla 0 763,543 534,913 1,298,456
Reservation
Kaibab Band of 0 211,053 50,000 261,053
Paiute
Karuk 0 474,020 2,170,879 2,644,899
La Jolla Band 0 172,440 50,000 222,440
La Posta Band 0 0 50,000 50,000
Laguna Pueblo 0 1,008,627 1,021,323 2,029,950
Las Vegas Colony 0 0 50,000 50,000
Laytonville 0 181,953 162,177 344,130
Rancheria
Lone Pine Paiute- 0 159,619 85,931 245,550
Shoshone
Los Coyotes Band 0 0 72,271 72,271
of Cahuilla
Lovelock Colony 0 10,636 50,000 60,636
Lytton Rancheria 0 0 177,789 177,789
of California
Manchester Point 0 249,830 104,160 353,990
Arena Rancheria
Manzanita Band 0 0 50,000 50,000
Mesa Grande Band 0 79,702 50,000 129,702
Mescalero 132,463 1,425,890 547,562 2,105,915
Reservation
Middletown 0 0 64,411 64,411
Rancheria
Moapa Band of 0 245,643 66,655 312,298
Paiute
Mooretown 0 248,218 1,085,410 1,333,628
Rancheria
Morongo Band of 0 257,771 201,126 458,897
Cahuilla
Nambe Pueblo 0 281,975 87,500 369,475
Navajo Nation 0 23,234,147 63,527,938 86,762,085
North Fork 0 0 259,664 259,664
Rancheria
Paiute-Shoshone 0 733,813 1,121,664 1,855,477
of Bishop Colony
Pajoaque Pueblo 0 109,489 50,927 160,416
Pala Bank 0 326,959 165,264 492,223
Pascua Yaqui 0 2,704,248 7,946,434 10,650,682
Tribe
Paskenta Band of 0 0 193,332 193,332
Nomlaki Indian
Pauma Band 0 56,211 56,435 112,646
Payson Tonto 0 0 50,000 50,000
Apache
Pechanga Band 0 0 145,415 145,415
Picayune 0 0 833,797 833,797
Rancheria
Picuris Pueblo 0 61,912 67,889 129,801
Pinoleville 0 0 139,794 139,794
Rancheria
Pit River Tribe 0 0 62,315 62,315
Potter Valley 0 0 128,782 128,782
Rancheria
Pyramid Lake 0 901,434 400,688 1,302,122
Paiute
Quartz Valley 0 4,229 199,354 203,583
Reservation
Quechan Tribe 0 1,011,817 344,054 1,355,871
Ramona Band 0 0 50,000 50,000
Redding Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000
Redwood Valley 0 100,139 64,657 164,796
Rancheria
Reno-Sparks 0 599,868 57,527 657,395
Colony
Resighini 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Rincon 0 323,225 198,052 521,277
Reservation
Robinson 0 154,294 122,491 276,785
Rancheria
Rohnerville 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Round Valley 0 443,966 1,643,066 2,087,032
Reservation
Rumsey Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000
Salt River Pima- 0 1,514,638 1,377,274 2,891,912
Maricopa
San Carlos Apache 0 3,309,670 2,478,731 5,788,401
San Felipe Pueblo 0 23,433 477,979 501,412
San Ildefonso 0 265,690 66,508 332,198
Pueblo
San Juan Pueblo 0 283,210 307,397 590,607
San Juan Southern 0 0 182,680 182,680
Paiute Tribe
San Manuel Band 0 0 50,000 50,000
San Pasqual Band 0 216,986 122,210 339,196
San Rosa Band of 0 14,079 50,000 64,079
Cahuilla
San Ysabel 0 0 60,116 60,116
Reservation
Sandia Pueblo 0 83,607 107,283 190,890
Santa Ana Pueblo 0 51,868 112,718 164,586
Santa Clara 0 295,798 276,423 572,221
Pueblo
Santa Rosa 0 237,471 94,141 331,612
Rancheria
Santa Ynez Band 0 279,701 50,000 329,701
of Chumash
Santo Domingo 0 33,354 678,007 711,361
Pueblo
Scotts Valley 0 0 98,642 98,642
(Pomo)
Sheep Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000
Sherwood Valley 0 156,775 129,591 286,366
Rancheria
Shingle Springs 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Smith River 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Soboba Band 0 283,137 87,262 370,399
Stewarts Point 0 0 176,017 176,017
Rancheria
Sulphur Bank 0 0 88,517 88,517
Rancheria
Summit Lake 0 0 50,000 50,000
Paiute Tribe
Susanville 95,530 334,388 74,698 504,616
Rancheria
Sycuan Band 0 0 50,000 50,000
Table Bluff 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Table Mountain 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Taos Pueblo 0 364,123 486,178 850,301
Te-Moak 105,729 975,833 242,558 1,324,120
Tesuque Pueblo 0 83,542 53,492 137,034
Tohono O'Odham 0 2,481,134 3,835,927 6,317,061
Nation
Torres-Martinez 0 135,409 50,000 185,409
Band of Cahuilla
Trinidad 0 0 50,000 50,000
Rancheria
Tule River Indian 264,328 182,707 260,736 707,771
Tribe
Tulomne Rancheria 0 79,382 50,000 129,382
Twenty Nine Palms 0 0 50,000 50,000
Band
Upper Lake 0 0 134,215 134,215
Rancheria
Utu Utu Gwaiti 0 0 50,000 50,000
Paiute
Viejas Group of 0 192,992 64,467 257,459
Capitan Grande
Walker River 23,381 587,847 199,533 810,761
Paiute Tribe
Washoe Tribe 0 851,138 111,905 963,043
White Mountain 0 3,599,029 3,163,428 6,762,457
Apache (Fort
Apache)
Winnemucca Colony 0 0 50,000 50,000
Yavapai-Apache 0 597,104 175,472 772,576
(Camp Verde)
Yavapai-Prescott 0 0 50,000 50,000
Yerington Paiute 0 221,891 113,008 334,899
Tribe
Yomba Shoshone 0 121,153 50,000 171,153
Tribe
Ysleta Del Sur 0 246,091 558,411 804,502
Yurok Tribe 0 0 1,478,302 1,478,302
Zia Pueblo 0 106,376 147,181 253,557
Zuni Tribe 0 1,936,970 1,790,160 3,727,130
Northwest Office of Native American Programs (Seattle, Washington)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burns-Paiute 0 0 76,128 76,128
Colony
Chehalis 247,033 293,403 149,093 689,529
Confederated
Tribes
Coeur D'Alene 0 614,492 208,996 823,488
Tribe
Colville 0 1,598,879 1,082,444 2,681,323
Confederated
Tribes
Coos Bay 0 25,440 544,206 569,646
Confederated
Tribes
Coquille Indian 0 0 508,040 508,040
Tribe
Cow Creek Tribes 0 0 656,152 656,152
Fort Hall 0 814,415 965,985 1,780,400
Shoshone-
Bannock
Grand Ronde 0 0 3,064,719 3,064,719
Confederated
Tribes
Hoh Indian Tribe 0 51,768 58,640 110,408
Jamestowm Klallam 0 19,080 415,041 434,121
Tribe
Kalispel Indian 0 36,416 50,000 86,416
Community
Klamath Indian 0 224,043 2,586,984 2,811,027
Tribe
Kootenai Tribe 0 52,947 50,000 102,947
Lower Elwha 0 285,933 529,004 814,937
Tribal Community
Lummi Tribe 0 1,402,610 2,913,937 4,316,547
Makah Indian 0 775,800 297,959 1,073,759
Tribe
Muckleshoot 0 216,848 392,936 609,784
Indian Tribe
Nez Perce Tribe 0 813,285 556,788 1,370,073
Nisqually Indian 0 266,076 425,567 691,642
Community
Nooksack Tribe 224,848 332,279 128,798 685,925
Port Gamble 96,271 230,043 102,654 430,968
Indian Community
Puyallup Tribe 0 252,604 1,904,125 2,156,729
Quileute Tribe 381,649 146,809 140,865 649,323
Quinault Tribe 0 419,723 1,961,303 2,381,026
Samish Nation 0 0 274,914 274,914
Sauk-Suiattle 33,990 106,571 71,076 211,637
Indian Tribe
Shoalwater Bay 0 34,013 139,502 173,515
Tribe
Siletz 0 489,565 2,559,537 3,049,102
Confederated
Tribes
Skokomish Indian 0 203,920 687,814 891,734
Tribe
Spokane Tribe 0 974,699 276,409 1,251,108
Squaxin Island 0 240,466 537,452 777,918
Tribe
Stillaguamish 0 109,123 205,492 314,615
Tribe
Suquamish Tribal 0 175,116 158,942 334,058
Council
Swinomish Indians 0 465,636 196,843 662,479
Tulalip Tribes 0 1,253,475 393,273 1,646,748
Umatilla 144,564 782,523 346,956 1,274,043
Confederated
Tribes
Upper Skagit 0 377,500 371,722 749,222
Tribe
Warm Springs 0 677,932 705,720 1,383,652
Confederated
Tribes
Yakima Indian 0 2,317,848 2,236,787 4,554,635
Nation
=========================================================================================
Total $590,045,972
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: HUD's Office of Native American Programs.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V
Carol Anderson-Guthrie
Robert J. Dinkelmeyer
Luis Escalante, Jr.
Jerry C. Fastrup
Michael L. Mgebroff
*** End of document. ***