This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-719 
entitled 'Alaska Native Villages: Recent Federal Assistance Exceeds $3 
Billion, with Most Provided to Regional Nonprofits' which was released 
on August 2, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
:
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.
Report to Congressional Addressees and the Alaska Federation of Natives:
August 2005:
ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES:
Recent Federal Assistance Exceeded $3 Billion, with Most Provided to 
Regional Nonprofits:
GAO-05-719:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-719, a report to congressional addressees and the 
Alaska Federation of Natives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
This report responds to section 112, Division B, of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2004, which directs GAO to review federal 
programs benefiting rural communities in Alaska. After discussions with 
congressional staff, GAO agreed to examine federal programs benefiting 
Alaska Native villages. Specifically, this report (1) provides 
information on the amount of federal assistance provided to Alaska 
Native villages during fiscal years 1998 through 2003, (2) describes 
how selected federal funds have been used to assist Alaska Native 
villages, and (3) provides data on the number and average cost of 
houses built by villages and Alaska Native regional housing 
authorities. 
What GAO Found:
GAOs analysis of available data indicates that Alaska Native villages 
and regional Native nonprofitsincluding Native associations, and 
regional health and housing nonprofitsreceived over $3 billion in 
federal assistance from fiscal years 1998 through 2003. Specifically, 
total federal funding included approximately $483 million to 216 Alaska 
Native villages and about $3 billion to 33 regional Native nonprofits. 
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accounted for 63 
percent of all funding over the period. According to federal and state 
officials, Alaska Native villages also likely benefited from federal 
funding to the state of Alaska and to cities and boroughs that contain 
villages, such as when federal funding is used by municipalities to 
provide water services. Based on data GAO obtained from the state of 
Alaska, during fiscal years 1998 through 2003, the state passed through 
more than $105 million in federal funding to Native villages and 
regional Native nonprofits. 
Based on available information for 13 programs GAO reviewed, federal 
funding was used to provide Alaska Natives with assistance in health 
care, housing, infrastructure, and other areas. For example, according 
to information from HHS, its Tribal Self-Governance Program was used by 
13 regional Native nonprofits, three Native villages, four groups of 
Alaska Native villages, and one statewide Native health care provider 
to provide clinical services at tribally run hospitals and health 
clinics that had over 1 million total visits throughout Alaska in 2002. 
Another program, HUDs Indian Housing Block Grant, provided funds used 
by villages and regional housing authorities to build, rehabilitate, 
modernize, and operate single-family homes and multifamily housing 
properties. However, the extent of readily available information on how 
funds were used from the 13 programs GAO reviewed varied, in part due 
to different agency reporting requirements.
Results from GAOs survey of Alaska Native villages and regional 
housing authorities indicated that, during calendar years 1998 through 
2003, responding entities constructed a total of 874 single-family 
units. GAOs survey indicated that the average cost of units 
constructed by responding entities varied by region and by whether they 
were developed by villages or housing authorities. For example, the 6-
year average regional cost (in 2003 dollars) of all units constructed 
ranged from a low of $138,944 per unit, or $122 per square foot, to a 
high of $305,634 per unit, or $267 per square foot. GAO also found that 
the cost of new housing units developed by housing authorities was 
slightly higher than units developed by Native villages, and that 
regional housing authorities constructed more than three times the 
number of units compared with villages. However, various factors could 
account for differences in the cost and number of units completed among 
regions or between villages and regional housing authorities.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-719].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact William B. Shear at (202) 
512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received Over $3 
Billion in Federal Funding from 1998 through 2003:
Federal Funds Have Been Used to Provide an Array of Services to Alaska 
Native Villages:
Alaska Native Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Constructed 
More Than 800 and Rehabilitated Almost 3,000 Homes, and the Number and 
Costs of Completed Units Varied across Regions:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Alaska Native Population by Native Village and ANCSA 
Region or Indian Reservation:
Appendix III: Listing of Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits:
Appendix IV: Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance to Alaska Native 
Villages:
Appendix V: The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to 
Native Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs:
Appendix VI: Denali Commission Program Summary:
Appendix VII: Program Summary for the Department of Agriculture:
Appendix VIII: Program Summaries for the Department of Commerce:
Appendix IX: Program Summary for the Department of Education:
Appendix X: Program Summary for the Department of Health and Human 
Services:
Appendix XI: Program Summaries for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development:
Appendix XII: Program Summary for the Department of the Interior:
Appendix XIII: Program Summary for the Department of Justice:
Appendix XIV: Program Summary for the Department of Labor:
Appendix XV: Program Summary for the Department of Transportation:
Appendix XVI: Program Summary for the Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix XVII: Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages:
Appendix XVIII: Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated 
Housing Entities:
Appendix XIX: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix XX: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Appendix XXI: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix XXII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: List of ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofits:
Table 2: Top Federal Programs, by Agency, Benefiting Native Villages:
Table 3: Top Federal Programs, by Agency, Benefiting Regional Native 
Nonprofits:
Table 4: Primary Purposes for Which Grant Funds from 13 Selected 
Programs Were Recently Used:
Table 5: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed and Rehabilitated 
for Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 
1998-2003:
Table 6: Number of New Units Constructed by Housing Authorities 
Compared with Villages, by Region, Calendar Years 1998-2003:
Table 7: Number of New Units Rehabilitated without Acquisition by 
Housing Authorities Compared with Villages, by Region, Calendar Years 
1998-2003:
Table 8: Average New Construction Costs, Number and Size of Units, 
Regional Housing Authorities and Villages:
Table 9: Number of Regional Housing Authorities and Villages That Were 
Constructing or Rehabilitating Single-Family Units, Calendar Years 1998-
2003:
Table 10: Listing of Alaska Native Villages and the Number of AIAN 
Persons and Enrolled Members, by ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation:
Table 11: ANCSA Regional Nonprofits or Indian Reservation and the 
Corresponding Native Regional Health Care and Housing Nonprofits:
Table 12: Top Federal Programs Providing Funding Passed Through by the 
State of Alaska to Native Villages, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003:
Table 13: Top Federal Programs Providing Funding Passed Through by the 
State of Alaska to Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 1998- 
2003:
Table 14: Yearly Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska to 
Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 1998-
2003:
Table 15: Denali Commission Reporting Requirements:
Table 16: USDA Reporting Requirements for Village Safe Water Funding:
Table 17: Commerce Reporting Requirements for EAA Funding:
Table 18: Commerce Reporting Requirements for Public Works Funding:
Table 19: Education Reporting Requirements for Alaska Native 
Educational Programs Funding:
Table 20: HHS Reporting Requirements for Tribal Self-Governance Funding:
Table 21: HUD Reporting Requirements for ICDBG Funding:
Table 22: HUD Reporting Requirements for IHBG Funding:
Table 23: Percentage of IHBG Funds Used by Activity, Calendar Years 
1998-2003:
Table 24: Allowable Uses of Tribal Self-Governance Program Funding, 
Based on Budget Categories:
Table 25: Justice Reporting Requirements for COPS Funding:
Table 26: Labor Reporting Requirements for Youth Opportunity Grant 
Funding:
Table 27: DOT Reporting Requirements for AIP Funding:
Table 28: EPA Reporting Requirements for IGAP Funding:
Figures:
Figure 1: Location of Alaska Native Villages and ANCSA Regions:
Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Funding to Alaska Native Villages and 
Regional Native Nonprofits, by Agency, 1998-2003:
Figure 3: Federal Funding Provided to Villages and Regional Native 
Nonprofits, 1998-2003:
Figure 4: Total Agency Funding to Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits and 
Alaska Native Villages, 1998-2003:
Figure 5: Top Native Village Recipients, by Percentage of Federal 
Funding Received:
Figure 6: Top Regional Native Nonprofits, by Percentage of Federal 
Funding Received:
Figure 7: Growth in Federal Funding to Native Villages and Regional 
Native Nonprofits:
Figure 8: House Built by the Bristol Bay Housing Authority Using IHBG 
and Other Funds:
Figure 9: Percentage of 1999-2004 AIP Projects Used to Assist Alaska 
Native Villages, by Type:
Figure 10: Before and After Upgrade Photos of Kotlik Bulk Fuel 
Facilities:
Figure 11: Head Start Center in Dillingham:
Figure 12: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed by Region for 
Villages and Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003:
Figure 13: Number of Units Rehabilitated (with and without Acquisition) 
by Region for Responding Villages and Housing Authorities, Calendar 
Years 1998-2003:
Figure 14: Annual and Total Number of Units Constructed by Housing 
Authorities and Villages, Calendar Years 1998-2003:
Figure 15: Number of Single-Family Units Modernized by Housing 
Authorities, Calendar Years 1998-2003:
Figure 16: Average Regional New Construction Costs for Housing 
Authorities and Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, Ranked by 
Cost Per Square Foot:
Figure 17: Average Rehabilitation Costs for Regional Housing 
Authorities and Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, by Region, 
for Units That Did Not Require Acquisition:
Figure 18: Housing Authority and Village Rehabilitation Costs for Units 
That Did Not Require Acquisition, by Region, Calendar Years 1998-2003:
Figure 19: Amount of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of 
Alaska to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal 
Years 1998-2003:
Figure 20: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of 
Alaska, by Agency, to Native Villages, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003:
Figure 21: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of 
Alaska, by Agency, to Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 
1998-2003:
Figure 22: Trend of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska 
to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 
1998-2003:
Abbreviations:
AHFC: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation:
AIAN: American Indian or Alaska Native:
AIP: Airport Improvement Program:
ANCSA: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act:
ANTHC: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium:
APR: Annual Performance Report:
AVCP: Association of Village Council Presidents:
BEES: Building Energy Efficiency Standard:
BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs:
CEDS: Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy:
CFDA: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance:
CIS: COPS in Schools:
COPS: Community Oriented Policing Services:
DEC: Department of Environmental Conservation:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
DOTPF: Department of Transportation and Public Facilities:
EAA: Economic Adjustment Assistance:
EDA: Economic Development Administration:
EDR: Economic Development Representative:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FAADS: Federal Assistance Award Data System:
GSA: General Services Administration:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
IGAP: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program:
IHBG: Indian Housing Block Grants:
IHP: Indian Housing Plan:
IHS: Indian Health Service:
NAHASDA: Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
ONAP: Office of Native American Programs:
SF: Standard Form:
TANF: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families:
TDHE: Tribally Designated Housing Entity:
UAS: University of Alaska Southeast:
UHP: Universal Hiring Program:
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture:
USDA RD: USDA Rural Development:
[End of Section]
Letter:
August 2, 2005:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Chairman:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Jerry Lewis:
Chairman:
The Honorable David R. Obey:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
Julie Kitka:
President:
Alaska Federation of Natives:
According to the Census Bureau, about 120,000 people who live in Alaska 
are Native--aboriginal Americans, many of whom reside in rural areas of 
the state long inhabited by their ancestors. For many years, the 
federal government both provided funding to assist Alaska Natives and 
their communities to meet a wide range of social and economic needs-- 
funding that has amounted to millions of dollars annually--and 
administered many of the programs that provided the assistance. 
However, with the passage of certain federal legislation, Native 
villages--entities within the state that are recognized by the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs (BIA) to receive services from the federal 
government--and other Native organizations began to receive more 
responsibility for administering programs that assist their 
communities. Moreover, these entities also began to receive funding 
directly from the federal government to administer the programs. 
Currently, the federal government provides direct financial assistance 
to many of the more than 200 federally recognized Alaska Native 
villages and other Native organizations. In addition, the federal 
government provides financial assistance to the state, which has passed 
through some of these funds to Alaska Native villages. However, 
recently, some federal laws have limited the ability of Alaska Native 
villages to receive direct funding.
This report responds to section 112, Division B, of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2004, which directed us to review federal 
programs benefiting rural Alaska communities. As agreed with your 
staff, we focused our review on federal programs benefiting Alaska 
Native villages. Our report (1) provides information on the amount of 
federal assistance provided to assist Alaska Native villages during 
federal fiscal years 1998 through 2003; (2) describes how selected 
federal funds have been used to assist Alaska Native villages; and (3) 
provides data on the number and average cost of houses built by 
villages and Alaska Native regional housing authorities.
To address these objectives we met with officials of various federal 
agencies, the state of Alaska, boroughs, and cities. In addition, we 
met with representatives of Native villages, regional Native nonprofit 
organizations, and other organizations that assist Alaska Natives. To 
report on the amount of federal funding that has been provided to 
assist Alaska Native villages, we examined data on both funding to over 
200 federally recognized Alaska Native villages and regional Native 
nonprofits, and funding to Native villages that was passed through the 
state of Alaska. We classified as regional Native nonprofits: Native 
associations that were identified in the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act (ANCSA) or the organizations that succeeded them, which, 
throughout this report, we refer to as ANCSA regional nonprofits; 
Native health organizations identified in P.L. 105-83; and Alaska 
regional housing authorities identified by the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development (HUD). To provide information on funding to 
Alaska Native villages, we analyzed data from the Federal Assistance 
Award Data System (FAADS), which identifies recipients of federal 
awards, federal programs for which awards were made, and award amounts. 
To verify the accuracy of our data, we provided federal agencies with 
data on their programs that we obtained from FAADS. Based on agency 
responses, where appropriate, we made adjustments to data we obtained 
from FAADS. To provide information on the amount of federal funding to 
assist Alaska Native villages that was passed through by the state, we 
obtained information from the state of Alaska Department of 
Administration, Division of Finance. To describe how selected federal 
funds were used to assist Alaska Native communities, we selected 13 
major programs from among 11 agencies.[Footnote 1] For each of these 
programs, we met with federal officials and, where appropriate, state, 
local, village and other tribal officials, as well as officials 
representing organizations that primarily serve Alaska Natives. We also 
reviewed program descriptions from the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance (CFDA) and reviewed agency documents on how recipients used 
program funds. To determine the number of housing units completed and 
their costs, we surveyed all villages and regional housing authorities 
that had received HUD funds from the Native American Housing Assistance 
and Self-Determination Act of 1996, as amended (NAHASDA), during fiscal 
years 1998 through 2003. In carrying out our work, we did not conduct 
audit work to assess whether funds were spent in compliance with 
federal regulations, and we did not assess the efficiency or 
effectiveness of how federal funds were distributed or spent. We 
conducted our work from February 2004 to July 2005 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I for a 
detailed description of our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
GAO's analysis of available data indicates that Alaska Native villages 
and regional Native nonprofits received over $3 billion in federal 
assistance during the 6-year period of federal fiscal years 1998 
through 2003.[Footnote 2]Based on data from FAADS, which contains 
governmentwide data on federal award assistance transactions, and other 
agency data, total federal funding for the period included 
approximately $483 million to 216 Alaska Native villages and about $3 
billion to 33 regional Native nonprofits--ANCSA regional nonprofits, 
regional health nonprofits, and regional housing authorities. Although 
direct federal funding was provided by 17 federal agencies, the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accounted for 63 percent 
of all funding over the period. Similarly, agencies provided direct 
federal funding through 112 programs to villages and 149 programs to 
regional Native nonprofits, although a small number of these programs 
accounted for most of the federal funding. For example, HUD's Indian 
Housing Block Grant program, which provides funds for housing, 
accounted for 22 percent of all federal funding to Native villages and 
16 percent of all federal funding to regional Native nonprofits during 
the period. Overall, total annual federal funding to villages and 
regional Native nonprofits increased from about $500 million in 1999 to 
about $662 million in 2003--or about 30 percent.[Footnote 3] In 
addition to the federal government directly providing funds to Alaska 
Native villages and regional Native nonprofits, the state of Alaska 
passed through over $105 million in federal funds to Alaska Native 
villages and regional Native nonprofits during a similar period. Also, 
over the period, villages may have benefited from direct funding of 
$224 million to nonprofit organizations that primarily provide 
assistance to Alaska Natives; over $300 million to incorporated cities 
and boroughs that contain villages, such as when villages located in 
these areas receive water and sewer services; and over $7 billion 
provided to the state for transportation, education, health and human 
services, and other assistance.
Federal funds from the 13 programs we reviewed were used to provide 
Alaska Natives with assistance in health care, housing, infrastructure, 
and other areas. For example, according to information from HHS, its 
Tribal Self-Governance Program was used by 13 regional Native 
nonprofits, three Native villages, four groups of Alaska Native 
villages, and one statewide Native health care provider to provide 
clinical services at tribally run hospitals and health clinics that had 
over 1 million total visits throughout Alaska in 2002.[Footnote 4] 
Another program, HUD's Indian Housing Block Grant, provided funds used 
by villages and regional housing authorities to build, rehabilitate, 
modernize, and operate single-family homes and multifamily housing 
properties. In addition to providing funds for carrying out specific 
program activities, most of the programs we reviewed also covered at 
least a portion of grantees' total administrative costs. However, the 
extent of readily available information on how funds were used from the 
13 programs we reviewed varied, in part, due to different agency 
reporting requirements. For example, Interior had only limited 
information on the usage of funding under its Tribal Self-Governance 
Program, in part because the relevant statutory provisions do not 
require grantees to submit the information. On the other hand, the 
Denali Commission--a federal agency established in 1998 to address 
crucial rural Alaska needs, such as energy infrastructure--has specific 
grantee reporting requirements that include, among other things, 
detailed program and financial information.
Results from our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing 
authorities indicated that responding entities constructed a total of 
874 single-family units and rehabilitated a total of 2,990 single- 
family units from calendar year 1998 to 2003.[Footnote 5] The two most 
common units constructed were three-and four-bedroom homes. Over the 
period, 462 three-bedroom and 262 four-bedroom homes were constructed. 
Four of the 12 regions accounted for about 68 percent of the new home 
production, including one that accounted for over 30 percent of the 
production. Also, over the period, Alaska Native regional housing 
authorities constructed more than three times the number of units (666) 
than villages (208). We also found that three regions accounted for 
about 60 percent of the number of units rehabilitated, and that 
regional housing authorities rehabilitated 70 percent of units compared 
with 30 percent rehabilitated by villages. Our analysis of the survey 
data indicated that the average cost of units constructed by responding 
entities varied by region and by whether they were developed by 
villages or housing authorities. For example, the 6-year average 
regional cost (in 2003 dollars) of all units constructed ranged from a 
low of $138,944 per unit, or $122 per square foot, to a high of 
$305,634 per unit, or $267 per square foot. Although housing 
authorities had higher new construction costs than villages, villages 
had higher costs for units that were rehabilitated without acquisition. 
However, various factors could account for differences in the number or 
cost of units completed among regions or between villages and regional 
housing authorities. For example, regional differences in housing 
construction costs may reflect variations in the cost of transporting 
building materials and equipment to remote villages. Also, differences 
in construction costs between regional housing authorities and villages 
may reflect costs housing authorities likely incur when complying with 
Alaska state construction and energy efficiency standards--a condition 
of receiving state funds for housing construction. Villages generally 
do not receive funds from the state for housing construction, and 
although they may construct properties that meet these standards, 
adherence to such standards would typically occur voluntarily.
Background:
In terms of land area, Alaska is the largest U.S. state--more than the 
combined area of the next three largest states: Texas, California, and 
Montana. However, according to the Census Bureau, Alaska is also one of 
the least populated states, with about 630,000 people--of which about 
19 percent, or 120,000, are Alaska Native or American Indian. Over half 
of the state's population is concentrated in the Kenai Peninsula, 
Anchorage, and the Matanuska-Susitna area in south central Alaska. Many 
Alaska Natives, however, live in rural areas of western, northern, and 
interior Alaska long inhabited by their ancestors. Alaska Natives are 
generally divided into six major groupings: Unangan (Aleuts), Alutiiq 
(Pacific Eskimos), Inupiat (Northern Eskimos), Yup'ik (Bering Sea 
Eskimos), Athabascan (Interior Indians), and Tlingit and Haida 
(Southeast Coastal Indians).
A Variety of Entities Facilitates the Provision of Federal Assistance 
to Alaska Native Villages:
A variety of entities facilitates federal assistance to Alaska Native 
villages. For many years, the federal government generally funded and 
administered many of the programs that provided assistance to Alaska 
Natives. However, with the passage of several key pieces of 
legislation, Alaska Native villages and other tribal organizations 
began to take on more responsibility for directly administering 
programs to assist their communities, and began to receive direct 
funding to carry out these tasks. For example, in 1971, Congress passed 
ANCSA, which was intended to resolve Native claims to land in the 
state. Under ANCSA, the Secretary of the Interior divided the state 
into 12 geographic regions so that each would include Natives "having a 
common heritage and sharing common interests." All Natives became 
shareholders in one of 12 regional corporations or in a 13th 
corporation for nonresident Natives. In addition, Natives who resided 
in one of more than 200 villages listed in ANCSA were also enrolled in 
Native village corporations.[Footnote 6] The Bureau of Indian Affairs 
currently recognizes 229 Alaska Native villages as eligible to receive 
federal funds.[Footnote 7] Appendix II contains a listing of Alaska 
Native villages and the number of American Indian and Alaska Native 
(AIAN) persons and enrolled Alaska Native members by:
ANCSA region.[Footnote 8],[Footnote 9] Figure 1 shows the location of 
Alaska Native villages and the 12 ANCSA regions.
Figure 1: Location of Alaska Native Villages and ANCSA Regions:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The regions are identified by the names of their for-profit 
regional corporations.
[End of figure]
In addition to Alaska Native villages, Alaska Natives are also served 
by a number of other Native-controlled regional nonprofit organizations 
that receive federal funding to administer a broad range of services, 
including 12 regional Native associations identified in ANCSA or the 
organizations that succeeded them, which, for the purposes of this 
report, we refer to as ANCSA regional nonprofits, and regional health 
care and housing nonprofits.[Footnote 10] Table 1 provides a list of 
the ANCSA for-profit regional corporations and the corresponding 
regional nonprofit.
Table 1: List of ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofits:
For-profit regional corporation: Ahtna Inc; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Copper River Native Association.
For-profit regional corporation: The Aleut Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association.
For-profit regional corporation: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Arctic Slope Native Association.
For-profit regional corporation: Bering Straits Native Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Kawerak Inc.
For-profit regional corporation: Bristol Bay Native Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Bristol Bay Native Association.
For-profit regional corporation: Calista Corporation; Corresponding 
regional nonprofit: Association of Village Council Presidents.
For-profit regional corporation: Chugach Alaska Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Chugachmiut.
For-profit regional corporation: Cook Inlet Region Inc; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Cook Inlet Tribal Council.
For-profit regional corporation: Doyon Limited; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Tanana Chiefs Conference.
For-profit regional corporation: Koniag Inc; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Kodiak Area Native Association.
For-profit regional corporation: NANA Regional Corporation Inc; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Maniilaq Association.
For-profit regional corporation: Sealaska Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Central Council of the Tlingit and 
Haida Indian Tribes.
For-profit regional corporation: Thirteenth Regional Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: No nonprofit organization.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Also, nearly all health care that is delivered to Alaska Natives is 
administered by 13 Alaska Native regional health organizations that 
were identified in Public Law 105-83. These entities operate under 
compacting arrangements, which are agreements the Indian Health Service 
(IHS) negotiates with Native villages and other Native 
entities.[Footnote 11] Under the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and 
Educational Assistance Act, as amended, and further through the Tribal 
Self-Governance Act of 1994 and the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments 
of 2000, tribes and tribal organizations were allowed to participate in 
and manage programs that for years had been administered on their 
behalf by the Departments of the Interior and of Health and Human 
Services. Also, prior to NAHASDA, Alaska Natives were served by 14 
regional housing authorities that were authorized by previous federal 
housing laws to provide services for Alaska Natives. NAHASDA further 
expanded the ability of Native villages to directly receive federal 
funding for the purpose of providing services to eligible Alaska 
Natives. The regional housing authorities and Native villages engage in 
a variety of affordable housing activities, including construction, 
rehabilitation, and management.[Footnote 12] See appendix III for a 
list of the ANCSA regional nonprofits, the regional health 
corporations, and the regional housing authorities that operate within 
the 12 ANCSA-defined areas of Alaska.[Footnote 13]
Recent legislation has limited the ability of Native villages to 
directly receive federal funding. Public Law 108-447 temporarily limits 
the ability of IHS from directly funding villages that are already 
located within the area of a Native Alaska regional health facility. 
This restriction was put in place due to congressional concerns about 
the efficiency of providing direct federal funding to Alaska Native 
villages. Also, 25 USC 13f prohibits the provision of certain BIA 
funding to villages with fewer than 25 members; and 25 USC 3651 (note) 
limits which entities can receive certain Department of Justice funds. 
In addition, HUD's fiscal year 2004-2005 appropriations included a 
provision that restricted certain housing funding to only those Alaska 
villages or tribally designated housing entities that had received 
funds in the previous fiscal year.
In addition to the aforementioned Native nonprofits, a variety of other 
nonprofits also facilitate the provision of federal assistance to 
Alaska Native villages. These nonprofits, many of which are also 
controlled by Alaska Natives, provide assistance related to a broad 
range of areas, including justice issues, cultural and environmental 
preservation, and educational and economic advancement. Some of these 
nonprofits operate in one or more regions or on a subregional basis. 
Appendix IV contains a listing of nonprofits other than those discussed 
previously that received federal funding for the purpose of assisting 
Alaska Native villages from 1998 through 2003.
Alaska Native villages also receive federal assistance that is passed 
through by the state or local agencies. For example, federally 
recognized Native villages may be part of communities that are 
incorporated under state law as cities or boroughs. State of Alaska 
data show that 124 Native villages are located within incorporated 
cities. However, these cities provide government services, such as 
water and sanitation, to Native village members that live in their 
jurisdiction, which would otherwise most likely be provided by Native 
villages. Likewise, some villages are located in organized boroughs 
that provide services to villages and cities.[Footnote 14]
In 1998, Congress established the Denali Commission to address crucial 
needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly isolated Alaska Native 
villages. The commission is composed of a federal and a state co-chair 
and representatives from local agencies, as well as Alaska Native 
public and private entities.[Footnote 15] To carry out its work, the 
commission receives an annual federal appropriation and funds that are 
transferred from other federal agencies. The purpose of the commission 
is to (1) deliver the services of the federal government in the most 
cost-effective manner practicable; (2) provide job training and other 
economic development services in rural communities; (3) and, promote 
rural development and provide infrastructure such as water, sewer, and 
communication systems. According to the commission's 2004 annual 
report, rural Alaska communities often face serious challenges to 
maintaining a sufficient energy supply, especially during the state's 
harsh winters. Improving rural Alaska's energy infrastructure has been 
the commission's primary focus since 1999.
Research Shows Improvement in the Social and Economic Condition of 
Alaska Natives, but Some Problems Persist:
Although recent research shows improvement in the social and economic 
condition of Alaska Natives, many problems persist. A 1989 report by 
the University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research 
documented that Alaska Natives were facing a number of social and 
economic crises, such as high incidences of alcohol abuse, suicide, 
homicide, and unemployment.[Footnote 16] The Alaska Natives Commission-
-a federal-state commission--reported similar findings in 1994. The 
commission stated that because of the high rate of unemployment and 
lack of economic opportunities for Alaska Natives, government programs 
for the poor had become the foundation of many village economies. More 
recently, a 2004 report found that conditions for Alaska Natives 
improved in some areas, but that Alaska Natives still faced continuing 
and new disparities.[Footnote 17] For example, the report indicated 
that Alaska Natives have experienced improvements in health, such as 
reductions in tuberculosis, due in part to improvement in water and 
sewer systems; however, Natives continue to face health problems 
related to alcohol abuse and other factors. Similarly, the report 
indicated that Alaska Natives are making economic improvements, but 
continue to have disproportionately high poverty rates compared with 
non-Native Alaskans.
Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received Over $3 
Billion in Federal Funding from 1998 through 2003:
From 1998 through 2003, Alaska Native villages and regional Native 
nonprofits received more than $3 billion in funding from multiple 
federal agencies, with HHS providing the majority of the 
funding.[Footnote 18] Native villages received substantially less 
funding than regional Native nonprofits, although Native villages had 
slightly more diverse sources for funding. Additionally, a small number 
of programs accounted for the majority of funding to villages and 
regional Native nonprofits, and, similarly, a few villages and regional 
Native nonprofits received the majority of federal funding. Combined 
federal funding to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits 
increased from about $512 million in 1999 to about $662 million in 
2003. Alaska Native villages also benefited from federal funding 
provided to nonprofit organizations that primarily provide assistance 
to Alaska Natives, incorporated cities and boroughs that contain Native 
villages, and the state of Alaska. Moreover, during state fiscal years 
1998 through 2003, the state of Alaska passed through more than $105 
million in federal funds to Native villages and regional Native 
nonprofits.[Footnote 19]
Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received Over $3 
Billion in Funding from Multiple Federal Agencies, with HHS the Largest 
Single Provider of Funding:
Based on our analysis of information from FAADS, 17 federal agencies 
provided about $3.5 billion in federal funding to Alaska Native 
villages and regional Native nonprofits--ANCSA regional nonprofits, 
regional health nonprofits, and regional housing authorities--from 1998 
through 2003.[Footnote 20] As shown in figure 2, HHS provided 63 
percent of the funding, and HUD, Interior, and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) provided slightly more than 30 percent; thus, 
four agencies accounted for more than 90 percent of all direct federal 
funding to villages and regional Native nonprofits. None of the other 
13 agencies provided more than 1 percent of the total funding to 
villages and regional Native nonprofits.
Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Funding to Alaska Native Villages and 
Regional Native Nonprofits, by Agency, 1998-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Other agencies include the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 
National Endowment for the Arts, Institute of Museum and Library 
Services, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, 
Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
[End of figure]
The federally established Denali Commission, through its federal 
appropriations, also provided assistance to rural Alaska communities, 
including Alaska Native villages. From 1999 through 2003, Denali 
obligated approximately $290 million, but Denali did not report the 
grant amounts to the Census Bureau so that the information could be 
included in FAADS. Denali officials said they were not aware of the 
FAADS reporting requirement until recently.
Native Villages Received Substantially Less Funding Than Regional 
Native Nonprofits, but Native Villages Received Their Funding from More 
Sources:
Of the $3.5 billion provided to Alaska Native villages and regional 
Native nonprofits, as shown in figure 3, federal agencies provided more 
than $483 million (14 percent) in direct federal funding to 216 Alaska 
Native villages and $3 billion (86 percent) to 33 regional Native 
nonprofits from 1998 through 2003.
Figure 3: Federal Funding Provided to Villages and Regional Native 
Nonprofits, 1998-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Although regional Native nonprofits received more funding than Native 
villages, the sources of major funding for villages were slightly more 
diverse than for regional Native nonprofits. Specifically, Native 
villages received direct funding from 16 agencies, with HHS, Interior, 
EPA, and HUD providing about 84 percent. In comparison, regional Native 
nonprofits received funding from 14 federal agencies, with HHS 
accounting for 70 percent of the funding (see figs. 4 and 5).
Figure 4: Total Agency Funding to Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits and 
Alaska Native Villages, 1998-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Other agencies are the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Energy, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, Institute of Museum and Library Services, the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for National and Community 
Service.
[B] Other agencies are the National Endowment for the Arts, Institute 
of Museum and Library Services, Corporation for National and Community 
Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Energy, 
National Science Foundation, and Department of Labor.
[End of figure]
Regional Native nonprofits may receive more funding from HHS than 
villages because regional Native nonprofits include regional health 
organizations that receive funding from IHS to operate major medical 
facilities such as hospitals. Under existing law, some villages are 
restricted from receiving IHS funding in cases where they are located 
in areas that are already served by an Alaska Native regional health 
organization.[Footnote 21]
In contrast, Native villages received more funding from certain 
agencies than regional Native nonprofits. The Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and Transportation (DOT) and EPA all provided more funding to 
villages than to regional Native nonprofits. For example, EPA provided 
$72 million to villages over the period, or over six times the amount 
provided to regional Native nonprofits.
A Small Number of Programs Accounted for the Majority of Funding and a 
Small Number of Both Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits 
Received the Majority of the Funding:
While Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received different 
amounts of funding, with different primary sources of funding, both 
received the majority of their funding from a few programs. For 
example, Native villages received funding from a total of 112 programs; 
however, as shown in table 2, the top programs from nine agencies 
providing the most funding accounted for about 64 percent of the 
funding to all Native villages.
Table 2: Top Federal Programs, by Agency, Benefiting Native Villages:
Agency: HUD; 
Program name (CFDA): Indian Housing Block Grants (14.867);
Total funding: $104,068,580;
Percentage of total funding: 22%.
Agency: EPA;
Program name (CFDA): Indian Environmental General Assistance Program 
(66.926);
Total funding: $63,269,797;
Percentage of total funding: 13%.
Agency: HHS;
Program name (CFDA): Indian Health Service Health Management 
Development Program (93.228)[A];
Total funding: $47,721,221;
Percentage of total funding: 10%.
Agency: Interior;
Program name (CFDA): Tribal Self-Governance (15.022);
Total funding: $45,500,244;
Percentage of total funding: 9%.
Agency: DOT;
Program name (CFDA): Airport Improvement Program (20.106);
Total funding: $17,545,183;
Percentage of total funding: 4%.
Agency: Commerce;
Program name (CFDA): Economic Adjustment Assistance (11.307);
Total funding: $11,705,345;
Percentage of total funding: 2%.
Agency: Justice;
Program name (CFDA): Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing 
Grants (16.710)[B];
Total funding: $9,766,546;
Percentage of total funding: 2%.
Agency: USDA;
Program name (CFDA): Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural 
Communities (10.760);
Total funding: $6,017,480;
Percentage of total funding: 1%.
Agency: Education;
Program name (CFDA): Alaska Native Educational Planning, Curriculum 
Development, Teacher Training, and Recruitment Program (84.320)[C];
Total funding: $1,497,690;
Percentage of total funding: <1%.
Program name (CFDA): 103 other programs;
Total funding: $176,360,205;
Percentage of total funding: 36%.
Agency: Total;
Program name (CFDA): [Empty];
Total funding: $483,452,291;
Percentage of total funding: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1998-2003.
[A] According to HHS officials, the total funding amount also includes 
funding for the Tribal Self-Governance Program (CFDA 93.210) and Indian 
Self-Determination (CFDA 93.441).
[B] Also called Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants.
[C] Starting in 2002, this program was consolidated into CFDA 84.356-- 
Alaska Native Education Program.
[End of table]
Similarly, while regional Native nonprofits received funding from 149 
programs, about 87 percent of the funding came from the nine agencies 
that provided the largest funding (see table 3).
Table 3: Top Federal Programs, by Agency, Benefiting Regional Native 
Nonprofits:
Agency: HHS;
Program name (CFDA): Indian Health Service--Health Management 
Development Program (93.228)[A];
Total funding: $1,841,321,664;
Percentage of total funding: 61%.
Agency: HUD;
Program name (CFDA): Indian Housing Block Grants (14.867);
Total funding: $480,063,494;
Percentage of total funding: 16%.
Agency: Interior;
Program name (CFDA): Tribal Self-Governance (15.022);
Total funding: $245,776,863;
Percentage of total funding: 8%.
Agency: Labor;
Program name (CFDA): Workforce Investment Act (17.255);
Total funding: $18,964,143;
Percentage of total funding: 1%.
Agency: Education;
Program name (CFDA): Rehabilitation Services-- American Indians with 
Disabilities (84.250);
Total funding: %13,310,179;
Percentage of total funding: <1%.
Agency: USDA;
Program name (CFDA): Community Facilities Loans and Grants (10.766);
Total funding: $7,815,357;
Percentage of total funding: <1%.
Agency: EPA;
Program name (CFDA): Indian Environmental General Assistance Program 
(66.926);
Total funding: $7,563,292;
Percentage of total funding: <1%.
Agency: Commerce;
Program name (CFDA): Economic Adjustment Assistance (11.307);
Total funding: $3,628,586;
Percentage of total funding: <1%.
Agency: Justice;
Program name (CFDA): Violence against Women Discretionary Grants for 
Indian Tribal Governments (16.587);
Total funding: $2,066,729;
Percentage of total funding: <1%.
Program name (CFDA): 140 other programs;
Total funding: $385,596,234;
Percentage of total funding: 13%.
Agency: Total;
Program name (CFDA): [Empty];
Total funding: $3,006,106,541;
Percentage of total funding: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1998-2003.
Notes: Regional Native nonprofits did not receive any funding from the 
Department of Transportation during the period.
[A] According to HHS officials, the total funding amount also includes 
funding for Tribal Self-Governance Program (CFDA 93.210) and Indian 
Self-Determination (CFDA 93.441).
[End of table]
Further, Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received 
funding from some of the same programs, but not always in similar 
amounts. For example, Native villages received about $10 million from 
the Department of Justice's Public Safety Partnership and Community 
Policing Grants and about $6 million from the United States Department 
of Agriculture's (USDA) Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural 
Communities program. Regional Native nonprofits received less than 
$500,000 from the same Justice program and about $1.4 million from the 
same USDA program.
In addition to the concentration of funding among a small number of 
agencies, as shown in figures 5 and 6, relatively few Native villages 
and regional Native nonprofits received more than a third of the 
funding. For example, only 13 out of 216 Native villages received 38 
percent of total federal funding to Native villages. Also, 10 of 33 
regional Native nonprofits received 71 percent of total funding to 
these entities.
Figure 5: Top Native Village Recipients, by Percentage of Federal 
Funding Received:
[See PDF for image]
[A] The Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government includes Arctic 
Village and the Village of Venetie. All three of these entities are 
recognized by BIA. For this analysis, funding for these entities is 
combined.
[B] The Native Village of Gambell and the Native Village of Savoonga, 
both located on St. Lawrence Island, are separate BIA-recognized 
entities; however, because they were recorded in FAADS as joint 
recipients for some funds, we combined them in this analysis.
[End of figure] 
Figure 6: Top Regional Native Nonprofits, by Percentage of Federal 
Funding Received:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Combined Federal Funding to Native Villages and Regional Native 
Nonprofits Increased 29 Percent between 1999 and 2003:
In 2003 constant dollars, annual combined federal funding to Native 
villages and regional Native nonprofits increased 29 percent, from $512 
million in 1999 to $662 million in 2003.[Footnote 22] Combined funding 
to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits increased every year, 
except 2003, peaking in 2002 at $737 million (see fig. 7).
Figure 7: Growth in Federal Funding to Native Villages and Regional 
Native Nonprofits:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The large increase between 2001 and 2002, from $586 million to $737 
million, is primarily attributable to increases in HHS funding to 
Native villages and regional Native nonprofits. HHS funding increased 
from $308 million in 2001 to $475 million in 2002. The decrease in 
funding between 2002 and 2003 is primarily attributable to decreases in 
funding from HHS and Interior.
Finally, direct federal funding to Native villages grew 29 percent, 
from $64 million in 1999 to $83 million in 2003, and the number of 
Native villages receiving funds directly increased 32 percent from 148 
in 1999 to 196 in 2003. Federal direct funding to the 33 regional 
Native nonprofits grew 29 percent from $448 million in 1999 to $579 
million in 2003.
Funding for 1998 is not included in the comparison because not all HHS 
and Interior funding was included in FAADS. According to HHS officials, 
FAADS does not capture the $139 million in federal funds expended by 
HHS in 1998 for it to operate the Alaska Native Medical Center and 
provide sanitation facilities projects.[Footnote 23] Also, according to 
Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not report 1998 funding data 
for inclusion in FAADS.
Alaska Native Villages and Alaska Natives Also Benefited from Federal 
Funding to Other Nonprofit Organizations, Cities, Boroughs, and the 
State of Alaska:
Many Alaska Native villages also benefited from other nonprofits that 
primarily assist Alaska Natives. Also, Native villages located within 
incorporated cities benefited from municipal services, such as sewer 
and water services. In addition, Alaska Native villages and Alaska 
Natives benefited from federal funding to school districts, boroughs, 
and the state, for purposes such as education, transportation, and 
other community services. The state also passed through some federal 
funding it receives to Native villages, cities, and boroughs.
Based on our analysis of FAADS data, 46 nonprofit organizations that 
primarily provide assistance and support to Alaska Natives received 
$224 million during 1998 through 2003. These organizations are a 
diverse group that include: statewide entities, such as the Alaska 
Federation of Natives, considered to be the largest advocacy group 
representing Alaska Natives; the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, 
which supports subsistence activities; the Alaska Native Heritage 
Center, which seeks to promote awareness of Native culture and values; 
and the Council of Athabascan Tribal governments, a subregional Native 
nonprofit that provides health care services to six villages. See 
appendix IV for a list of the nonprofit organizations that primarily 
assist Alaska Natives and that received federal funding from 1998 
through 2003.
Our analysis of FAADS data indicated that 12 federal agencies provided 
incorporated cities that have Native villages within their borders with 
$167 million in federal funding during 1998 through 2003. Overall, 75 
different incorporated cities received some form of federal funding, 
with an average of 32 cities receiving funds in any year.[Footnote 24] 
USDA provided the largest amount of funding to these cities--$88 
million or about half of all funding provided to the cities. More 
specifically, its Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural 
Communities program, provided the largest share of this funding--$55 
million. The Department of Energy provided the next largest share of 
funding to cities--about $26 million over the period. However, most of 
the Department of Energy's funding was from one program--Renewable 
Energy Research and Development program--which accounted for $25 
million to the incorporated cities. In addition, incorporated cities 
with Native villages within their borders received about $22 million 
from the DOT's Airport Improvement Program.
Our analysis of FAADS data also indicates that from 1998 through 2003, 
18 federal agencies provided $161 million to borough governments. DOT 
contributed the largest share of the funding, $53 million. Its Airport 
Improvement Program provided $37 million to boroughs, making it the 
largest program overall. HUD provided the next largest amount of 
funding, $25 million. HUD's Community Development Block Grants program 
provided $18 million to boroughs, making it the second largest program. 
Commerce, USDA, and Education each provided about $16 million to 
boroughs.
Based on our analysis of FAADS data, independent school districts 
received about $674 million from 11 federal agencies. Fifty-six 
different school districts received federal funding, with an average of 
52 school districts funded annually. Education was responsible for 98 
percent of all funding to school districts, about $662 million. More 
specifically, the majority of these funds came from the department's 
formula-based Impact Aid program. Impact Aid provided $481 million in 
financial assistance to school districts where school enrollments or 
availability of revenue are adversely affected by federal activities, 
or where a significant number of children reside on federal (including 
Indian[Footnote 25]) lands.
Finally, our analysis of FAADS data also shows that the state of Alaska 
received about $7 billion in federal funding from 1998 through 
2003.[Footnote 26] The state received about $3 billion from DOT, with 
about $2.3 billion coming from a formula-driven Federal Highway 
Administration program and $662 million from the Airport Improvement 
Program. USDA and Education each provided about $800 million to the 
state, with USDA providing $335 million from the Food Stamp program and 
$95 million from the Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural 
Communities program, and Education providing $122 million for Impact 
Aid program. EPA provided $401 million to the state, which included 
$216 million from its Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special 
Purpose Grants program, which is used primarily to fund the state's 
Village Safe Water program.
In addition to using federal funds to provide general services 
throughout the state, the state of Alaska also passed through some of 
its federal funds to Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, 
cities, and boroughs.[Footnote 27] During the state fiscal period 1998 
through 2003, the state passed through more than $105 million in 
federal funds to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits. This 
funding was provided by 15 federal agencies to Native villages and by 
17 federal agencies to regional Native nonprofits to address health, 
environmental, economic, and other needs. In addition, the state passed 
through $82.5 million to incorporated cities and almost $253 million to 
boroughs with Native villages. See appendix V for more information on 
federal funds the state passed through to villages, regional Native 
nonprofits and other entities.
Federal Funds Have Been Used to Provide an Array of Services to Alaska 
Native Villages:
Federal funds from the 13 programs we reviewed have been used to 
provide an array of services to Alaska Native villages. However, the 
extent of federal agency information on those uses varied widely by 
program. Specifically, funds from these programs were used to provide 
Alaska Natives with assistance in health care, housing, infrastructure, 
and other areas such as education and community development.[Footnote 
28] In addition to providing funds for carrying out specific program 
activities, most of the programs we reviewed also covered at least a 
portion of grantees' total administrative costs. The extent of readily 
available information on how funds from these programs were used 
varied, partly because of different reporting requirements and partly 
due to different efforts to summarize individual grantee data. 
Summaries of the 13 programs we reviewed are contained in appendixes VI 
through XVI.
Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, and Other State 
and Local Organizations, Used Federal Funding to Provide an Array of 
Services to Their Communities:
Alaska Native Villages, regional Native Nonprofits, and other state and 
local organizations used funds from the 13 programs we reviewed to 
provide an array of services to their communities. Specifically, they 
used funds from these programs to provide assistance related to health 
care, housing, infrastructure, and other areas (see table 4).
Table 4: Primary Purposes for Which Grant Funds from 13 Selected 
Programs Were Recently Used:
Agency: Denali Commission;
Program: Denali Commission (emphasis on energy and health);
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Energy and health care 
infrastructure.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural Communities;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Infrastructure.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: Economic Adjustment Assistance;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Economic development.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: Economic Development--Grants for Public Works and Development 
Facilities;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Economic development.
Agency: Department of Education;
Program: Alaska Native Programs;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Education.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Tribal Self- Governance;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Health care.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Program: Indian Housing Block Grant;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Housing construction and 
rehabilitation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Program: Indian Community Development Block Grant;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Community development.
Agency: Department of Justice;
Program: Community Oriented Policing Services;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Law enforcement.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Tribal Self-Governance;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Community welfare, community 
development.
Agency: Department of Labor;
Program: Youth Opportunity Grants;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Education, job training.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Airport Improvement Program;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Transportation infrastructure.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Capacity building.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits, Villages, and State Agencies Used 
Federal Funding to Provide a Wide Range of Health Care Services to 
Alaska Natives:
Two programs we reviewed provided health care funding for Alaska 
Natives: the Department of Health and Human Services' Tribal Self- 
Governance Program and the Denali Commission's Health Care Program. 
HHS's Indian Health Service (IHS) awards self-governance funding to 13 
regional Native health care nonprofits, three Native villages, one 
statewide Native health care provider, and four groups of between two 
and seven Alaska Native villages, to provide health care services to 
Alaska Natives.[Footnote 29] Under the program, IHS negotiates self- 
governance compacts with these regional Native nonprofits, villages, 
and the statewide Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium[Footnote 30] 
that allow those organizations to assume the management, design and 
implementation of their own health care programs.[Footnote 31] 
According to IHS officials and agency documentation, these 
organizations recently used HHS's Tribal Self-Governance Program 
funding in several areas.[Footnote 32] These include the 
following:[Footnote 33]
* Clinical health services, including hospitals and health clinics, 
dental services, mental health services, and alcohol and substance 
abuse treatment. Collectively, these funds were used to operate 7 
tribal hospitals, 28 tribal health centers, and 176 tribal community 
health aid clinics with about 500 community health aides.
* Contract health services (i.e., health services from private-sector 
providers where specialized health care services were not readily 
available at tribally operated providers). For example, the Alaska 
Native Medical Center in Anchorage--which generally provides treatment 
for serious illness and injury for Alaska Natives from all over Alaska-
-often uses contract health care funds to consult with specialists and 
to provide specialized care such as cardiac or neurological surgery.
* Preventive health services, such as public health nursing, health 
education, and immunization. For example, the Tanana Chiefs Conference 
used tribal self-governance funds to provide a community health 
representative program for patient education.
* Contract support costs (such as general administrative costs incurred 
by grantees).
* Health care facilities, including maintenance, improvement, and 
construction of health care and sanitation facilities. For example, in 
2004, the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium added a small, 
ground-floor room to accommodate a Magnetic Resonance Imaging service.
The majority of the Denali Commission's recent Health Care Program 
funding was used by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services 
and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, a statewide Native 
health care provider, according to Denali Commission documentation. 
These groups used the funding primarily to construct new primary care 
clinics and repair and renovate existing ones, as well as to purchase 
health care equipment, for residents in rural Alaska, including Alaska 
Natives. According to the commission's 2004 annual report, since 1999 
it funded the construction of primary health clinics in 41 communities, 
while projects are under way in 59 other communities across the 
state.[Footnote 34] For example, in 2003, the Alaska Native Tribal 
Health Consortium used a total of $2.7 million from the commission's 
health facilities program to build a health clinic in Toksook Bay (the 
location of the Nunakauyarmiut Tribe). The Denali Commission provides 
funding for other health care needs as well, such as a grant to the 
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services to cover half of the 
$400,000 needed to purchase an ultrasound machine for Sitka.
Native Villages and Tribally Designated Housing Entities Used Federal 
Housing Funding to Construct, Rehabilitate, and Maintain Housing Stock:
HUD's Indian Housing Block Grant program (IHBG) funds housing 
activities conducted by Alaska Native villages or Native regional 
housing nonprofits. This program has the stated intent of recognizing 
the right of tribal self-governance. HUD's IHBG funds can be used in a 
variety of housing-related activities, including housing development, 
assistance to housing developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, and 
planning and administration.[Footnote 35] According to HUD, between 
1998 and 2003, 38 percent of the IHBG funds were used for housing 
development activities, 22 percent were used for modernizing and 
operating current assisted stock, 11 percent were used for planning and 
administration, and 29 percent were used for other housing activities, 
such as housing services, housing management services, crime 
prevention, model activities, and unspent funds. Figure 8 shows a new 
house built in Alaska by the Bristol Bay Housing Authority with IHBG 
and other funds.
Figure 8: House Built by the Bristol Bay Housing Authority Using IHBG 
and Other Funds:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
State Agencies, Native Villages, and Other Agencies Used Federal 
Infrastructure Funding to Address Needs for Water and Waste Disposal 
Systems, Airport Improvements, and Energy:
Three of the 13 programs we reviewed--USDA's Water and Waste Disposal 
System for Rural Communities, DOT's Airport Improvement Program, and 
the Denali Commission's Energy Facilities Program--provided water, 
transportation, and energy infrastructure in Alaska Native communities.
Funding under USDA's Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural 
Communities is used primarily in conjunction with the state of Alaska's 
Village Safe Water program.[Footnote 36] According to USDA officials 
and agency documentation, USDA funds are combined with EPA funds and 25 
percent matching state funds to eliminate the "honey bucket"--a plastic 
5-gallon bucket used as a toilet in some Alaska Native villages--and 
provide communities with water and sewer systems that function in 
Alaska's harsh environment, such as the flush and haul system.[Footnote 
37] From 2000 through 2003, USDA funded 86 Village Safe Water 
projects.[Footnote 38] In the Alaska Native village of Napaskiak, for 
example, USDA provided a $570,300 grant that, when matched with 
$190,200 from the state, is being used to replace all of the remaining 
single-family home honey buckets in the community with the flush and 
haul system.
DOT's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) was used to construct new 
airports and rehabilitate old ones, since many of the Alaska Native 
villages that are not accessible by roads contain an airport runway 
that provides the only year-round access to the village. Most of the 
program's funding goes to Alaska's Department of Transportation and 
Public Facilities, which administers most projects under the 
program.[Footnote 39] AIP officials said that many funds go to 
improving existing airports to bring all airports up to a minimum 
standard, and while airports in the lower 48 states are often on their 
second or third improvement plan, most airports in Alaska are being 
constructed or improved for the first time. Figure 9 below shows the 
310 AIP projects, by type, for the 1999-2004 AIP grants that benefited 
Alaska Native villages.
Figure 9: Percentage of 1999-2004 AIP Projects Used to Assist Alaska 
Native Villages, by Type:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of figure]
AIP provides grants that benefit both Alaska Native villages as well as 
other areas. Federal Aviation Administration officials provided GAO 
with a database of 519 projects in Alaska from 1999-2004. GAO 
categorized 310 of those as benefiting Alaska Native villages, 
including villages located within the boundaries of incorporated 
cities; non-Alaska Natives living in those areas could benefit from 
those projects as well. Additionally, grants that were made to benefit 
airports in larger locations, such as Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks 
were not included, though Alaska Natives living in and traveling to 
those locations could benefit from those projects. Further, 36 of the 
519 projects were labeled as statewide projects without specific 
locations; those projects are not included in the analysis above, and 
likewise could benefit Alaska Natives using those airports. Some of the 
projects in this database have not been completed, as completion of 
some projects can take as long as 4 years.
The Denali Commission's energy program has been used to address issues 
affecting Alaska Natives by focusing on upgrades for bulk fuel tank 
farms and rural power system upgrades. Energy has been the commission's 
primary infrastructure theme since 1999. The first challenge undertaken 
by the commission was the upgrade and consolidation of fuel tanks in 
172 communities identified as health and environmental hazards by the 
U.S. Coast Guard and EPA. According to the commission's 2004 Annual 
Report, the two major recipients of the commission's energy facilities 
funds--the Alaska Energy Authority and Alaska Village Electric 
Cooperative--have upgraded bulk fuel tanks in 64 communities across the 
state, while projects are under way in 70 other communities. For 
example, in 2001, the commission provided about $2.9 million of the 
roughly $3.8 million used by the Alaska Energy Authority to upgrade a 
tank farm in the Alaska Native village of Kotlik (see fig. 10). The new 
tank farm replaced a system that had been cited for violations by the 
U.S. Coast Guard with one that was in full compliance with federal 
regulations. The commission's 2004 annual report also stated that the 
commission has upgraded rural power systems in 13 communities, has 
started construction in 20 others, and is in the planning or design 
phase in an additional 18. These upgrades include adding backup power 
generators and increasing efficiency of existing generators.
Figure 10: Before and After Upgrade Photos of Kotlik Bulk Fuel 
Facilities:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Alaska Native Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, and Other State and 
Local Entities Used Federal Funding for Social Services, Capacity 
Building, Community Development, Job Training, Native Education, Law 
Enforcement, and Economic Development:
Eight of the 13 programs we reviewed assisted Alaska Natives in areas 
such as social services, capacity building, community development, job 
training, education, law enforcement, and economic development in 
Alaska Native communities.
* Interior's Tribal Self-Governance Program: Twelve Alaska Native 
villages, eight regional Native nonprofits, one group consisting of 
multiple Alaska Native villages and one Indian reservation recently 
used Interior's Tribal Self-Governance Program to fund a variety of 
activities. According to agency officials and documents, these 
activities included:
* tribal government programs, such as funding to allow grantees to 
plan, conduct, consolidate, and administer programs, services, 
functions, and activities for tribal citizens according to priorities 
established by their tribal governments;
* human services programs, such as welfare assistance, child abuse and 
neglect counseling, and disaster assistance programs;
* education programs, such as scholarship grants for Alaska Native 
students attending accredited postsecondary institutions and adult 
education programs;
* public safety and justice, such as using funding for tribal courts 
that enable tribes to establish and maintain their own civil and 
criminal codes in accordance with local tribal customs and traditions;
* community development, such as the Housing Improvement Program, which 
funds repairs and renovations of existing homes and construction of new 
homes, job training and placement programs, or road maintenance 
programs; and:
* resource management, such as programs assisting Alaska Natives in 
managing their forest, mineral, oil, gas, and other land-based 
programs, including fire protection and sacred-site programs.
* EPA's Indian Environmental General Assistance Program: In 2004, 
program funding went to 139 Alaska Native villages and 11 groups of two 
or more tribes that are currently building their capacity to implement 
environmental protection programs, including development of solid and 
hazardous waste programs. According to EPA officials and documentation, 
villages use this "capacity building" funding to hire and train staff 
and purchase office equipment, conduct a review of village programs to 
ensure compliance with federal regulations, develop a strategic 
environmental plan for the village, implement village recycling 
programs, and coordinate environmental efforts with other villages and 
federal and state officials, among other uses. For example, officials 
in Native Village of Goodnews Bay reported to EPA that they used 
program funding to provide the village with environmental education, 
awareness, increased capacity to apply for other grants, and jobs.
* HUD's Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (ICDBG): 
Eighty ICDBG grants were awarded from 1998 through 2003, with all but 
one of those grants going to Alaska Native villages, and one going to a 
joint venture between a village and a regional Native health care 
nonprofit. The projects included 21 health-related facilities (e.g., 
clinics, mental health, and primary care facilities); 35 community 
centers; 17 infrastructure projects (e.g., fuel tanks and water and 
sewer systems); 6 housing-related projects (e.g., housing 
rehabilitation, new construction, and land acquisition for new housing) 
and one imminent threat grant. For example, the Native Villages of Ekuk 
and Curyung used ICDBG grant funds in fiscal year 2002 to construct a 
combined Head Start/Family Resource Center in Dillingham (see fig. 11). 
Each Native village received $500,000 in ICDBG funds and leveraged an 
additional $3.2 million from other sources, excluding the land that was 
donated by the Bristol Bay Native Association, according to program 
documentation. Opened to students in January 2003, the center provides 
Head Start and Early Learning programs and child care to parents 
transitioning from welfare to work. The new center serves 60 children, 
ranging from infants to 12-year-olds, and replaced an old center that 
served only 30 children.
Figure 11: Head Start Center in Dillingham:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
* Labor's Youth Opportunity Grant Program: From 2000-2004, one 
coalition of Alaska Native Villages and regional Native nonprofits used 
approximately $32 million in funding from this program to fund a 
variety of education, job training, and youth development activities. 
The coalition selected Cook Inlet Tribal Council as the lead agency to 
apply for the Youth Opportunity Grant; Cook Inlet provided oversight, 
monitoring, and technical assistance. Cook Inlet subcontracted out the 
operation of most of the program to 11 regional Native nonprofits and 4 
Alaska Native villages. According to agency documentation, about 2,960 
Alaska youth, the vast majority of whom were Alaska Natives, enrolled 
in the YO! Alaska Program's 40 youth centers and participated in 
internships, sports and recreation activities, reading and math 
remediation, community service, high school graduate equivalency degree 
preparation, and other activities.
* Education's Alaska Native Education Program: In 2003, 32 educational 
organizations with experience in developing educational programs for 
Alaska Natives used funds to address the educational needs of Alaska 
Native students, parents, and teachers. The program's enabling 
legislation specifically directs that some funding be used for Alaska 
Native cultural education programs, including a cultural exchange 
program between urban and rural students, dropout prevention programs, 
and parenting programs. Other funds have been used for family literacy 
programs, home instruction for preschool-age Alaska Natives, and to 
increase the educational opportunities of Alaska Native students and 
teachers. For example, the University of Alaska Southeast used an 
approximately $1.6 million grant for four main goals, one of which was 
to recruit and actively mentor Alaska Native high school students for 
the university's Bachelor of Science program.
* Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Alaska Native 
villages have used Justice's COPS program to address village law 
enforcement needs through hiring and training police officers and 
purchasing uniforms and police vehicles. For example, since 1999, the 
COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program was used to hire 35 police officers 
in Alaska Native villages, and provide training and equipment to Native 
villages.
* Commerce's Economic Adjustment Assistance Program: Alaska Native 
villages and regional Native nonprofits have used Economic Adjustment 
Assistance to develop comprehensive economic development strategies 
tailored to villages' specific economic problems and opportunities. 
Since 1999, the program has funded 29 projects. For example, in 2001, 
the Tanana Chiefs Conference was awarded $725,000 for the construction 
of a 20-room hotel with a combination restaurant, lounge, and meeting 
facilities on council-owned property located in the Village of Circle.
* Commerce's Public Works and Economic Development Facilities Program: 
Alaska Native villages and other tribal organizations have used three 
grants from this program since 1999. For example, in 2001, a village 
used $2.3 million to assist with the construction of a complex to house 
a museum, visitor center, and retail and office space.
Most of the Selected Programs Provide Funding for at Least a Portion of 
Grantees' Administrative Fees:
Eleven of the 13 programs we reviewed provided some funding to pay for 
a portion of the total administrative costs associated with the 
programs.[Footnote 40] The majority of these 11 programs provided 
funding for administrative costs as part of the overall grant amount, 
rather than allowing for reimbursement for specific administrative 
costs that grantees incur. Most of these 11 programs had restrictions 
on the amount of administrative funds grantees can use. For example, 
HUD's IHBG program allows grantees to use up to 20 percent of the grant 
amount for total administrative costs. In contrast, Labor's Youth 
Opportunity Grant program does not specifically limit administrative 
costs. However, according to Labor officials, the department negotiates 
with grantees to keep administrative costs low.
Available Information on How Grantees Used Funds from Selected Programs 
Varies, in Part Due to Different Reporting Requirements:
Information on how Alaska Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, 
and other grantees used funds from the 13 programs we reviewed varied 
widely, partially because different programs have different reporting 
requirements and also because agencies summarize program data 
differently.[Footnote 41] For example, the statute governing the 
Department of the Interior's Tribal Self-Governance Program does not 
require that the grantee submit information on how they used program 
funds; however, they can submit such:
information voluntarily.[Footnote 42] Additionally, reporting 
requirements for the other programs we reviewed varied, ranging from 
general information on delivery of services paid for by grant funds to 
detailed information on the financial uses of funds and progress toward 
grant goals. For example, HHS's Tribal Self-Governance Program requires 
that grantees report annually on health status and service delivery in 
their locations, but does not require specific financial reports on how 
funding was used. Conversely, DOT's Airport Improvement Program 
requires that grantees send quarterly performance reports that include 
comparisons between the projects' accomplishments and the goals 
established for the quarter, reasons for not accomplishing planned 
goals in specific cases, and an analysis and explanation of any cost 
overruns.
Additionally, some agencies do more than others to summarize individual 
grantee data on a programwide basis. For example, EPA's Indian 
Environmental General Assistance Program has information in project 
files on each individual grantee's projects, but has not summarized the 
information to show how all program funds have been used. In contrast, 
the Denali Commission collects project information in a Web-based, 
publicly available database that provides detailed financial and 
progress information. The system includes all of the commission's 
grants, and can be queried to produce information by attributes such as 
theme (the underlying subject area of the project, such as energy--bulk 
fuel), community involvement, recipient, and milestone (such as in the 
business plan or construction phase).
Alaska Native Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Constructed 
More Than 800 and Rehabilitated Almost 3,000 Homes, and the Number and 
Costs of Completed Units Varied across Regions:
Results from our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing 
authorities indicated that, from calendar years 1998 through 2003, 
these entities constructed 874 single-family units and rehabilitated 
2,990 single-family units.[Footnote 43] Most of the new units 
constructed were three-and four-bedroom homes, and most of the new 
construction and rehabilitation activity occurred in a few regions. In 
addition, housing authorities constructed more than three times and 
rehabilitated more than twice the number of units than responding 
villages. However, village production of new homes increased steadily, 
while production by regional housing authorities fluctuated. Our 
analysis of survey data also indicated that the average costs of units 
constructed varied by region and by who developed them. Survey results 
also showed that housing authorities had higher new construction costs 
than villages, although villages had higher rehabilitation costs for 
units that did not require acquisition. According to federal, state, 
and local officials, variation in the number and cost of units 
constructed and rehabilitated by region and between housing authorities 
and villages reflect various factors, such as differences in local 
housing goals and objectives and proximity to sources of building 
materials. Also, regional housing authorities modernized 5,211 single- 
family units previously developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 
and developed several multifamily properties. Villages, however, are 
ineligible to receive funding for modernization. Reproductions of our 
surveys are contained in appendixes XVII and XVIII.
Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Completed Construction on 874 
Units and Rehabilitated 2,990 Units from 1998 through 2003:
Based on our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing 
authorities, from calendar years 1998 through 2003, villages and 
regional housing authorities completed construction on a total of 874 
single-family units and rehabilitated 2,990 single-family units. As 
shown in table 5, the number of units these entities constructed ranged 
from 104 in 1998 to 199 in 2002. The most common size of newly 
constructed units was a three-bedroom home. Slightly more than half of 
all units constructed were of this type. The second most common units 
were four-bedroom homes, which represented about a third of all units. 
Also, the total number of units rehabilitated by regional housing 
authorities and villages increased, from 253 in 1998 to 628 in 2002.
Table 5: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed and Rehabilitated 
for Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 
1998-2003:
Bedroom size of unit constructed: 1 bedroom;
1998: 1;
1999: 7;
2000: 4;
2001: 4;
2002: 3;
2003: 3;
Total: 22.
Bedroom size of unit constructed: 2 bedroom;
1998: 7;
1999: 17;
2000: 22;
2001: 21;
2002: 46;
2003: 15;
Total: 128.
Bedroom size of unit constructed: 3 bedroom;
1998: 62;
1999: 64;
2000: 74;
2001: 99;
2002: 87;
2003: 76;
Total: 462.
Bedroom size of unit constructed: 4 bedroom;
1998: 34;
1999: 46;
2000: 43;
2001: 32;
2002: 63;
2003: 44;
Total: 262.
Bedroom size of unit constructed: Total new construction units[A];
1998: 104;
1999: 134;
2000: 143;
2001: 156;
2002: 199;
2003: 138;
Total: 874.
Bedroom size of unit constructed: Total rehabilitated units[B];
1998: 253;
1999: 386;
2000: 610;
2001: 526;
2002: 628;
2003: 587;
Total: 2,990.
Source: GAO.
Notes: Not all of the regional housing authorities and villages 
constructing or rehabilitating units completed units each year.
[A] Twelve regional housing authorities and 31 villages constructed 
units.
[B] Four regional housing authorities and 5 villages rehabilitated 
acquired units, and 10 regional housing authorities and 31 villages 
rehabilitated units that did not require acquisition.
[End of table]
As shown in figure 12, most of the newly constructed units were located 
in only a few regions. Specifically, four of the 12 regions--the 
Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP), Fairbanks Native 
Association, Central Council, and Bristol Bay Native Association-- 
accounted for 590 units--about 68 percent of the new construction. 
Specifically, one region--AVCP--accounted for about 30 percent of the 
production. Three regions, Copper River Native Association, Aleutian 
Pribilof Islands Association, and Kodiak Area Native Association, 
produced few or no new units.
Figure 12: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed by Region for 
Villages and Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Twelve regional housing authorities and 31 villages constructed 
units, although not all of the regional housing authorities and 
villages completed units each year.
[End of figure]
Similarly, the majority of units that villages and housing authorities 
rehabilitated over the period were located in a few regions. As shown 
in figure 13, three regions--Central Council, Cook Inlet Tribal 
Council, and Bristol Bay Native Association--accounted for almost 60 
percent of all rehabilitated units. In contrast, the Aleutian Pribilof 
Islands Association and Arctic Slope Native Association regions 
completed relatively few or no rehabilitation projects.
Figure 13: Number of Units Rehabilitated (with and without Acquisition) 
by Region for Responding Villages and Housing Authorities, Calendar 
Years 1998-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Four regional housing authorities and 5 villages rehabilitated 
acquired units, and 10 regional housing authorities and 31 villages 
rehabilitated units that did not require acquisition. Not all of the 
regional housing authorities and villages rehabilitating units 
completed units each year.
[End of figure]
The 2,990 rehabilitated units include 2,920 units that did not require 
purchase before rehabilitation began, and 70 units that housing 
authorities and villages acquired before they were rehabilitated. 
Housing authorities and villages in five regions--AVCP, Bristol Bay 
Native Association, Central Council, Chugachmiut, and Maniilaq 
Association--rehabilitated acquired units. Most of the rehabilitated 
units that required acquisition--47--were completed in the Central 
Council region.
Housing Authorities Constructed More Than Three Times and Rehabilitated 
More Than Two Times the Number of Units Compared with Villages:
Based on our survey, housing authorities constructed more than three 
times the number of new units as villages did. As shown in table 6, 
regional housing authorities constructed 666 units, while villages 
completed 208 units. Both the AVCP housing authority and the 11 
villages within this region completed the most units--173 and 90, 
respectively--compared with housing authorities and villages located in 
other regions. The regional housing authority in Copper River Native 
Association region as well as the responding villages in both the 
Kodiak Island Native Association and Chugachmiut regions completed no 
units.
Table 6: Number of New Units Constructed by Housing Authorities 
Compared with Villages, by Region, Calendar Years 1998-2003:
Region: Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 15;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: No villages responded;
Number of villages responding: No villages responded.
Region: Arctic Slope Native Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 25;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 9;
Number of villages responding: 2.
Region: Association of Village Council Presidents;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 173;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 90;
Number of villages responding: 11.
Region: Bristol Bay Native Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 88;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 14;
Number of villages responding: 2.
Region: Central Council;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 104;
Number of housing authorities responding: 2;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 8;
Number of villages responding: 1.
Region: Chugachmiut;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 58;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 0;
Number of villages responding: 0.
Region: Cook Inlet Tribal Council;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 61;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 12;
Number of villages responding: 3.
Region: Copper River Native Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 0;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: No villages responded;
Number of villages responding: No villages responded.
Region: Fairbanks Native Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 75;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 38;
Number of villages responding: 6.
Region: Kawerak Inc;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 44;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 21;
Number of villages responding: 3.
Region: Kodiak Area Native Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 13;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 0;
Number of villages responding: 0.
Region: Maniilaq Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 10;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 16;
Number of villages responding: 3.
Region: Total;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 666;
Number of housing authorities responding: 13;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 208;
Number of villages responding: 31.
Source: GAO.
Note: Not all of the regional housing authorities and villages 
constructing units completed units each year.
[End of table]
Housing authorities rehabilitated more than double the number of units 
compared with responding villages, for both units that did not and did 
require acquisition. As shown in table 7, for units that did not 
require acquisition, housing authorities rehabilitated 2,114 units 
compared with 806 rehabilitated by villages. Almost 70 percent of 
housing authority rehabilitations occurred in three regions--Bristol 
Bay Native Association, Central Council, and Cook Inlet Tribal Council. 
Similarly, villages in four regions--AVCP, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, 
Fairbanks Native Association, and Maniilaq Association--accounted for 
over 70 percent of the units rehabilitated by villages. The regional 
housing authorities rehabilitated more units in all regions except for 
the Arctic Slope Native Association, AVCP, Chugachmiut, and Maniilaq 
Association regions.
Table 7: Number of New Units Rehabilitated without Acquisition by 
Housing Authorities Compared with Villages, by Region, Calendar Years 
1998-2003:
Region: Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 0;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: No villages responded;
Number of villages responding: No villages responded.
Region: Arctic Slope Native Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 0;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 23;
Number of villages responding: 2.
Region: Association of Village Council Presidents;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 0;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 156;
Number of villages responding: 10.
Region: Bristol Bay Native Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 455;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 46;
Number of villages responding: 3.
Region: Central Council;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 550;
Number of housing authorities responding: 2;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 56;
Number of villages responding: 3.
Region: Chugachmiut;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 22;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 69;
Number of villages responding: 1.
Region: Cook Inlet Tribal Council;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 438;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 158;
Number of villages responding: 4.
Region: Copper River Native Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 202;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: No Villages Responded;
Number of villages responding: No Villages Responded.
Region: Fairbanks Native Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 167;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 120;
Number of villages responding: 3.
Region: Kawerak Inc;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 100;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 19;
Number of villages responding: 2.
Region: Kodiak Area Native Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 61;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 19;
Number of villages responding: 1.
Region: Maniilaq Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 119;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 140;
Number of villages responding: 2.
Region: Total;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 2,114;
Number of housing authorities responding: 13;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 806;
Number of villages responding: 31.
Source: GAO.
Note: Not all of the regional housing authorities and villages 
rehabilitating units completed units each year.
[End of table]
Similarly, housing authorities rehabilitated more than double the 
number of the acquired units as villages. Three housing authorities-- 
Bristol Bay Native Association, Central Council, and Chugachmiut-- 
rehabilitated 50 units that required acquisition. The housing 
authorities in Central Council rehabilitated the most acquired units, 
43. Responding villages in three regions--AVCP, Central Council, and 
Maniilaq Association--rehabilitated 20 units that required acquisition. 
Rehabilitations of this type were more evenly spread among the 
responding villages, with Central Council completing 4 units, AVCP 
completing 6 units, and Maniilaq Association completing 10.
Over the period covered by our survey, villages annually increased unit 
construction, while regional housing authority production varied 
annually. Specifically, village production grew more than sevenfold, 
from 7 units in 1998 to 53 units in 2003. Regional housing authority 
production ranged from 97 in 1998 to 149 in 2002, but also fluctuated 
widely over the period (see fig. 14).
Figure 14: Annual and Total Number of Units Constructed by Housing 
Authorities and Villages, Calendar Years 1998-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Regional Housing Authorities Modernized 5,211 Single-Family Units 
Previously Developed under U.S. Housing Act of 1937:
Based on our survey, 13 housing authorities modernized 5,211 single- 
family units previously developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 
1937.[Footnote 44] Villages are ineligible to receive funds for 
modernization activities. AVCP modernized the most units, 1,287. In 
contrast, the housing authorities in the Copper River Native 
Association and the Fairbanks Native Association regions modernized few 
units over the period (see fig. 15).
Figure 15: Number of Single-Family Units Modernized by Housing 
Authorities, Calendar Years 1998-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: Although all 13 regional housing authorities modernized units, 
not all of the regional housing authorities completed those units each 
year.
[A] Two regional housing authorities in Central Council responded to 
this question.
[End of figure]
Regional Housing Authorities Constructed, Rehabilitated, and Modernized 
Multifamily Housing Properties:
Only housing authorities completed new construction, rehabilitation, 
and modernization of multifamily properties (i.e., properties with five 
or more units). From 1998 through 2003, responding regional housing 
authorities constructed six multifamily properties--two by the housing 
authority in the Cook Inlet Tribal Council region, two by the housing 
authority in the Copper River Native Association region, and one each 
in the Aleutian Pribilof Islands and Central Council regions. Average 
property sizes ranged from 6,470 square feet in the Aleutian Pribilof 
Islands Association region to 34,831 square feet in the Cook Inlet 
Tribal Council region.[Footnote 45] Housing authorities also 
rehabilitated four multifamily properties, two of which were acquired. 
The housing authorities in the Bristol Bay Native Association and 
Central Council regions acquired and rehabilitated one multifamily 
property each, and the regional housing authority in the Kawerak Inc. 
region rehabilitated two multifamily properties.
In addition, seven housing authorities modernized 73 multifamily 
properties over the period. Responding housing authorities completed a 
low of 8 multifamily properties in 1999 and a high of 17 properties in 
2003. Housing authorities in seven regions--Arctic Slope Native 
Association, Bristol Bay Native Association, Central Council, 
Chugachmiut, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Copper River Native 
Association, Kodiak Area Native Association--modernized multifamily 
housing. The housing authority in Cook Inlet Tribal Council region 
modernized the most multifamily properties--30.
New Construction and Housing Rehabilitation Costs Varied by Region and 
by Whether Units Were Completed by Villages or Housing Authorities:
Construction and rehabilitation costs varied widely by region, with 
more remote regions generally incurring higher costs. Additionally, 
regional housing authorities had higher construction costs than 
villages. In contrast, villages had higher rehabilitation costs for 
housing units that did not require acquisition. Regional housing 
authority single-family modernization costs also varied by region, and 
multifamily housing costs varied according to the type of housing 
development. In general, housing costs are influenced by factors such 
as transportation, local expertise, terrain, site preparation, and 
required building/energy standards.
Overall, based on our survey results, from 1998 through 2003, the 
average construction cost for all units produced by 31 villages and 12 
housing authorities, was $222,928 per unit or $183 per square foot (in 
2003 dollars). The average unit size was 1,217 square feet. During the 
same time period, the average cost of units rehabilitated by villages 
and housing authorities that did not require acquisition was $46,866 
for major rehabilitation (costing $20,000 or more per unit) and $7,070 
for minor rehabilitation (costing less than $20,000 per unit). The 
average cost of units that were rehabilitated and acquired by villages 
and housing authorities was $87,324 or $79 per square foot.[Footnote 46]
New construction housing costs showed wide variation in eleven regions, 
based on responding regional housing authorities and villages. As shown 
by figure 16, the average combined cost per square foot ranged from 
$122 in Chugachmiut (located in southern Alaska, near Anchorage) to 
$267 in the Arctic Slope (located in the northern most region in 
Alaska). The average size of the units in these two regions was 
similar--1,134 per square feet and 1,142 per square feet, respectively. 
Kodiak Area Native Association region (located southwest of Anchorage) 
had the second highest costs per square foot, and Cook Inlet (Anchorage 
is part of Cook Inlet) had the second lowest cost per unit. These two 
regions also had similar sized units.
Figure 16: Average Regional New Construction Costs for Housing 
Authorities and Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, Ranked by 
Cost Per Square Foot (in 2003 Dollars):
[See PDF for image]
Note: Twelve regional housing authorities and 31 villages constructed 
units. Copper River Native Association region did not report any new 
construction.
[End of figure]
Seattle is a primary source of construction materials for housing in 
Alaska. The Arctic Slope Native Association is the furthest region from 
Seattle and incurs the highest costs for transporting building material 
and equipment. Chugachmiut has lower transportation costs because it is 
closer to Seattle. However, the Kodiak Area Native Association region 
exemplifies how a region relatively close to Seattle can nonetheless 
face unusually high construction costs. According to an official with 
the Kodiak Island Housing Authority, there are several factors that 
have increased the cost of construction on the island, such as remote 
villages along the coast often not having adequate docking facilities 
to offload construction material, requiring special, expensive barges. 
Also, since the Kodiak Area Native Association area is rocky, extensive 
drilling and blasting is required to excavate the housing foundation 
for each unit and for digging trenches for water and sewer lines to the 
housing site. Finally, villages that are close to Kodiak City--the 
largest city in the Kodiak Area Native Association region--have high 
land costs.
As shown in table 8, responding regional housing authorities had higher 
average costs for all units constructed and built larger units than did 
villages. Regional housing authorities' average cost for all units 
constructed was $236,229 per unit or $189 per square foot, compared 
with villages, which had an average cost per unit of $180,338 or $160 
per square foot. However, housing authority square-foot costs remained 
stable over the 6-year period, while village square-foot costs 
fluctuated. For example, from 1999 through 2000, the per-square-foot 
costs for villages decreased by 25 percent from $183 to $138, but 
between 2002 and 2003, the average per-square-foot costs increased 47 
percent from $144 to $212. Moreover, housing authorities built units 
that were on average 433 square feet larger than units villages built 
in 1999 and 246 square feet larger in 2003. However, in 2000, villages 
built slightly larger units than housing authorities.
Table 8: Average New Construction Costs, Number and Size of Units, 
Regional Housing Authorities and Villages:
2003 dollars.
12 regional housing authorities.
Average cost per unit;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: $244,550;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: $227,164;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: $226,554;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: $241,919;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: $226,577;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: $260,864.
Average cost per square foot;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: $188;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: $180;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: $188;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: $192;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: $194;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: $193.
Total number of units;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: 97;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: 119;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: 105;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: 111;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: 149;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: 85.
Average square feet per unit;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,296;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,256;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,205;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,255;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,167;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,350.
Number of responding housing authorities;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: 6;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: 5;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: 6;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: 9;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: 7;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: 7.
31 villages.
Average cost per unit;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: $125,199;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: $150,845;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: $174,761;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: $168,249;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: $154,076;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: $235,007.
Average cost per square foot;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: $102;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: $183;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: $138;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: $142;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: $144;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: $212.
Total number of units;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: 7;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: 15;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: 38;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: 45;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: 50;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: 53.
Average square feet per unit;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,226;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: 823;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,260;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,182;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,068;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,104.
Number of responding villages;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: 3;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: 11;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: 15;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: 18;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: 17;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: 16.
Source: GAO.
Note: One responding regional housing authority and 21 responding 
villages did not report completing any new construction during the 
period.
[End of table]
Similar to new construction costs, the combined average rehabilitation 
cost for units that did not require acquisition varied throughout 
Alaska's regions (see fig. 17). The region that reported the highest 
cost for major rehabilitation was the Arctic Slope Native Association, 
which had an average cost per unit of $93,444, followed by Cook Inlet 
Tribal Council, with an average per unit cost of $66,368. The two 
lowest-cost regions for major rehabilitation were Bristol Bay Native 
Association (southwestern Alaska), with an average per unit cost of 
$30,154, and Kawerak Inc. (northern Alaska), with an average cost per 
unit of $31,056. The highest-cost regions for minor rehabilitation were 
Kawerak Inc., which reported an average per unit cost of $17,671, and 
Kodiak Area Native Association, which reported an average per unit cost 
of $14,471. The lowest-cost regions for minor rehabilitation were 
Copper River Native Association (northeast of Anchorage) and 
Chugachmiut, which reported average per unit costs of $4,239 and 
$5,278, respectively.
Figure 17: Average Rehabilitation Costs for Regional Housing 
Authorities and Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, by Region, 
for Units That Did Not Require Acquisition (in 2003 Dollars):
[See PDF for image]
Note: N/A indicates that no data were reported for these fields. Ten 
regional housing authorities and 31 villages rehabilitated units that 
did not require purchase.
[End of figure]
Although villages had higher rehabilitation costs for units that did 
not require acquisition, housing authorities had higher costs for units 
that did require acquisition. For units that did not require 
acquisition, housing authorities had lower costs than villages for 
major and minor rehabilitation. Housing authorities' average cost for 
major rehabilitation was $44,200 per unit, while the village cost was 
$60,516 per unit. However, the average difference between village and 
regional housing authority minor rehabilitation costs was minimal: 
$6,967 vs. $7,301. (See fig. 18.)
Figure 18: Housing Authority and Village Rehabilitation Costs for Units 
That Did Not Require Acquisition, by Region, Calendar Years 1998-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: N/A indicates that no data were reported for these fields.
[A] One housing authority in Central Council completed major 
rehabilitation, and two housing authorities in Central Council 
completed minor rehabilitation.
[End of figure]
Conversely, regional housing authorities had higher average costs for 
units that were rehabilitated and acquired than villages. Over the 6- 
year period, 70 of these units were completed by four housing 
authorities and five villages. The average per unit cost for regional 
housing authorities was $105,849, compared with the average village per 
unit cost of $41,010. One reason for this cost difference may be that 
the regional housing authorities acquired much larger units; they 
averaged 1,281 square feet per unit compared with villages, which 
acquired units about half the size that averaged 634 square feet. 
However, regional housing authority costs per square foot were also 
higher than villages: $82 for regional housing authorities versus $64 
for villages.
Regional Housing Authority Single-Family Modernization Costs Also 
Varied by Region:
The average modernization costs for regional housing authorities varied 
by region. The average per unit costs for major modernization ($20,000 
or more per unit) for all housing authorities was $28,387 per unit and 
for minor modernization (less than $20,000), $10,002 per unit. Twelve 
regional housing authorities completed major modernizations over the 
period. The regional housing authorities in Cook Inlet Tribal Council 
and Kawerak Inc. region had the highest average costs for major 
modernizations, averaging $44,330 and $43,324 per unit, respectively. 
The housing authorities in Association of Village Council Presidents 
and Bristol Bay Native Association regions had the lowest average costs 
for major modernization, averaging $22,795 and $23,643 per unit, 
respectively. Thirteen regional housing authorities completed minor 
modernizations. The housing authority in Kawerak Inc. region had the 
highest average minor modernization costs--$12,425 per unit--and the 
housing authority in the Cook Inlet Tribal Council region had the 
lowest average cost--$2,575 per unit.
Multifamily Housing Costs Varied by Region and Type of Housing 
Development:
As previously noted, only regional housing authorities undertook 
multifamily projects. Although the average multifamily new construction 
cost for the six properties was about $3.8 million per property or $196 
per square foot, per-square-foot costs ranged from $171 for the housing 
authority in the Copper River Native Association region to $219 for the 
housing authority in the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Native Association 
region. Similarly, the only two properties that included rehabilitation 
with acquisition experienced very different costs. For example, one 
small property (5,760 square feet), located in the Bristol Bay Native 
Association region, had a total cost of about $880,270 or $152 per 
square foot, and a large property (54,323 square feet) located in the 
Central Council region, had a total cost of about $5.3 million or $97 
per square foot. Additionally, the two properties that were 
rehabilitated without acquisition (both in the Kawerak Inc. region) 
averaged $50,272 per property. In contrast, the 73 multifamily 
properties that were modernized had an average per property cost of 
$118,082. The average costs ranged from $8,661 per property in the 
Copper River Native Association region to $354,730 per property in 
Kodiak Island Native Association region.
Several Factors May Account for Differences in the Number and Cost of 
Units Constructed and Rehabilitated by Villages and Housing Authorities 
and by Region:
As previously discussed, the number of units constructed and 
rehabilitated over the period varied by whether they were completed by 
villages or housing authorities, and by region. According to federal 
and tribal officials and documentation, the following factors could 
account for these differences:
* Differences in housing goals and objectives. In order to receive 
NAHASDA funding, housing authorities and villages are required to 
submit to HUD a 1-year and 5-year Indian Housing Plan (IHP), which 
outlines the housing goals and objectives for their communities. To 
carry out their plans, housing authorities and villages can determine 
the extent to which they focus their resources on new construction, 
rehabilitation, or other affordable housing activities. For example, 
Bristol Bay Housing Authority outlined in its fiscal year 2003 IHP that 
it would allocate a fixed amount of funds for new construction in 
villages, based on an assessment of needs.
* Differences in the amount of NAHASDA funding. Regional housing 
authorities generally receive considerably larger amounts of annual 
funding compared with villages because regional housing authorities 
receive funding on behalf of villages that have designated them to 
receive their NAHASDA funds, as well as modernization and operating 
funds for units developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.[Footnote 
47] Lack of additional funding in some cases limits the affordable 
housing villages can construct or rehabilitate. For example, in fiscal 
year 2003, the housing authority in the Maniilaq Association region 
received about twice the amount of funds of the single-largest amount 
provided to a village in that region. In addition, the amount of 
funding housing authorities and villages receive from the HUD formula 
takes into account Native population of the service area. Some of the 
populations that regional housing authorities serve are considerably 
higher than that of villages, and some regions have higher populations 
than other regions. For example, the total Native population in the 
Cook Inlet Native Association region is more than 10 times that of the 
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association region.
* Differences in the extent to which NAHASDA funds were leveraged. 
Variations in the number of units constructed and rehabilitated may 
reflect the extent to which NAHASDA funds were leveraged. For example, 
according to the Cook Inlet housing authority, it leveraged IHBG funds 
with other sources of funding to complete a recent housing development. 
Cook Inlet housing authority used NAHASDA funds for about 10 percent of 
project costs and leveraged the remaining costs with private mortgages 
and other funding.
Similarly, federal and state housing officials informed us that several 
factors may account for differences in regional construction and 
rehabilitation costs, as well as differences in costs reported by 
villages and housing authorities. These factors include the following:
* Transportation costs: Many Alaska Native villages are in remote 
locations, requiring equipment and building supplies to be transported 
to the construction sites. In general, regions that are farthest from 
Seattle--a major source of building materials--incur higher costs for 
transporting building material and equipment than regions that are 
closer.[Footnote 48]
* Length of construction season: Villages that experience extremely 
cold weather, such as those in the north and the interior of Alaska, 
have short construction seasons. For example, the construction season 
in the Arctic Slope Native Association is usually 2 or 3 months long, 
depending on ice conditions in the Bering Strait and north of the 
Arctic Circle. A short construction season means higher costs due to 
limited barge access to remote communities (with barge access the only 
viable method for moving construction materials and equipment to remote 
villages), less time available for site preparation and actual 
construction, overtime pay for working longer hours each day, and 
climate changes that suddenly stop construction or excavation.
* Using outside expertise: Higher costs are associated with 
transporting, housing and feeding outside construction workers, 
engineers, and housing inspectors. This could be for both regional 
housing authorities and rural Native villages. Larger villages may be 
able to use local construction workers, but smaller, more isolated 
villages with a limited skilled labor pool to choose from may have to 
rely on outside workers with required technical skills (e.g., 
electricians, plumbers, etc.) Many housing authorities rely on outside 
contractors, who usually provide a core crew of their own construction 
workers--supplemented by the local workforce--to construct housing.
* Land costs: Generally, urban areas cost more than rural areas because 
they are closer to utilities and roads and are located in active real 
estate markets in high-density areas. Rural Native villages often 
donate land for housing development, though in many cases they have 
less access to infrastructure.
* Wage costs: The hourly wage rates for new construction and 
rehabilitation of housing vary across Alaska's regions. Generally, 
labor costs are higher in the more remote areas of Alaska, such as the 
north, and lower in the southern areas. For example, under the Davis- 
Bacon Act, carpenters are required to be paid $15.83 (without fringe 
benefits) in the Anchorage area; $25.05 plus $7.80 for fringe benefits 
in the Northern area; and $17.68 (without fringe benefits) in the 
southern area.[Footnote 49] In 2000, NAHASDA was amended to allow 
Native villages to establish tribally determined wage rates for their 
IHBG construction projects instead of using Davis-Bacon wages rates. 
However, according to HUD officials, Davis-Bacon wage rates and 
tribally determined wage rates within the same region are frequently 
similar.
* Type of terrain: Many of the houses in Alaska Native communities, 
particularly in northern and central Alaska, were constructed on 
permafrost--land that is permanently frozen. It generally costs more to 
build on this type of terrain due to the need for specialized 
engineered foundation systems. It also generally costs more to build on 
hilly terrain or rocky soil, such as Kodiak Island in the Kodiak Area 
Native Association region.
* Site preparation: Building or extending roads and installing power, 
water, and sewer lines--both on-site and off-site, particularly in 
rural communities--can be costly. Also, the same type of terrain 
problems mentioned above apply to site preparation.
* Energy efficiency standards: The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation 
(AHFC) requires any recipient of its funds to follow the Building 
Energy Efficiency Standard (BEES). Each regional housing authority 
receives annual funding from AHFC, but the villages do not receive any 
such funds. Therefore, each regional housing authority is required to 
adhere to the BEES for each newly constructed unit whenever they use 
AHFC funding. According to an AHFC official responsible for 
administering the BEES program, there are additional costs associated 
with compliance with the BEES standards, although these costs will vary 
depending on several factors, such as whether an independent inspector 
is required to inspect the housing unit. Villages may also voluntarily 
choose to use some or all of the BEES standards.
* Building code standards: Alaska's Construction Inspection Guidelines 
require each builder to retain an independent, licensed inspector to 
perform each of the inspections set forth in the guidelines. According 
an AHFC official, this could amount to between 5 to 12 inspector site 
visits during the construction period. Since only regional housing 
authorities receive AHFC funds, Native villages are not required to 
follow any state building codes, unless they are located in one of the 
13 municipalities that have adopted building code standards. However, 
similar to the BEES, Native villages may voluntarily choose to use some 
or all of the building code standards.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 
federal co-chair of the Denali Commission and the Secretaries of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing 
and Urban Development, Justice, the Interior, Labor, and 
Transportation, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, as well as the Governor of Alaska. We received technical 
comments from five federal agencies and the state of Alaska that we 
incorporated, as appropriate. The Departments of Commerce and the 
Interior generally agreed with the report and provided written comments 
that are reprinted in appendixes XIX and XXI, respectively. The 
Department of Health and Human Services also provided written comments, 
stating that the GAO draft report did not include its Health Resources 
and Services Administration's Minority AIDS Initiative among the 13 
programs we reviewed. Funding for the administration is included in our 
analysis as part of overall funding for the Department of Health and 
Human Services. In addition, as discussed in the report, the 13 
programs we selected for review generally provided the largest amount 
of funding to Alaska Native villages and regional Native nonprofits 
during fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for their respective agencies. 
Based on our analysis, the Minority AIDS Initiative did not provide the 
largest amount of the department's funding to Alaska Native villages 
and regional Native nonprofits during the period. The Department of 
Health and Human Services' written comments are reprinted in appendix 
XX.
We are sending copies of this report to the federal co-chair of the 
Denali Commission and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, 
Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, 
Justice, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Governor of 
Alaska.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 
(202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 
report are listed in appendix XXII.
Signed by:
William B. Shear:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
This study's objectives were to (1) provide information on the amount 
of federal assistance to Alaska Native villages during federal fiscal 
years 1998 through 2003; (2) describe how selected federal funds have 
been used to assist Alaska Native villages; and (3) provide data on the 
number and average cost of houses built by villages and Alaska Native 
regional housing authorities. To address these objectives, we met with 
officials of various federal agencies, the state of Alaska, boroughs, 
and cities. In addition, we met with representatives of Native 
villages, regional Native nonprofit organizations, and other 
organizations that primarily focus on Alaska Natives. We also met with 
officials from advocacy groups that represent Alaska Natives, including 
the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, and 
the National Congress of American Indians.
To report on the amount of federal funding that has been provided to 
assist Alaska Native villages, we examined data on both funding to over 
200 federally recognized Alaska Native villages and regional Native 
nonprofits. We classified as regional Native nonprofits the Native 
associations that were identified in the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act (ANCSA) and the organizations that succeeded them, 
which, throughout this report, we refer to as ANCSA Native nonprofits; 
Native health organizations identified in Public Law 105-83; and 
housing authorities identified by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD). To provide information on federal funding to Alaska 
Native villages, we analyzed data from the Federal Assistance Award 
Data System (FAADS), which identifies recipients of federal awards, 
federal programs for which awards were made, and award amounts. The 
analysis sought to isolate funding provided to Alaska Native villages, 
regional Native nonprofits, other nonprofits that primarily focus on 
Alaska Natives, incorporated cities that have villages within their 
borders, boroughs, and the state of Alaska. In providing FAADS data to 
the Census Bureau, each federal agency codes recipients of its federal 
funds into 13 categories. Two of these categories apply to Native 
recipients: Indian tribes and other nonprofit agencies. During 
electronic testing, GAO identified reliability problems with these 
categories. Similar problems were identified by other researchers 
(e.g., University of Alaska Anchorage and the Alaska Legislature 
Legislative Research Service) that have used this data. For example, 
agencies did not consistently apply the recipient codes to the same 
recipients. Therefore, we conducted our own coding of the recipient 
type, and in some cases, recipients were recoded into a new category. 
Specifically, we classified entities as Alaska Native villages based on 
whether they were recognized as such by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA). We classified entities as regional Native nonprofits based on 
whether there were (1) regional Native associations identified in ANCSA 
and the organizations that succeeded them, (2) regional Native health 
organizations identified in Public Law 105-83, or (3) Alaska regional 
housing authorities identified by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. We classified entities as other nonprofits that primarily 
focus on Alaska Natives based our review of published information and 
on consultations with the Denali Commission and the Alaska Federation 
of Natives. In addition, we classified entities as state entities based 
on whether they were state of Alaska agencies or subagencies; boroughs 
based on whether there were recognized Alaska borough governments; 
cities based on whether they were incorporated cities that contain 
Alaska Native villages within their borders; and Independent School 
Districts based on whether they are Alaska public school districts.
Maintained by the Census Bureau, FAADS produces a quarterly file of 
standardized data records on all types of financial assistance awards 
made by federal agencies to all types of recipients during the 
indicated quarter. Each transaction record identifies, by the Catalog 
of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) program code number and name, the 
type and amount of financial assistance, the type and location of the 
recipient, and the geographic place of performance. Also, GAO's FAADS 
analyses uses constant 2003 dollars. We assessed the reliability of the 
FAADS data by (1) performing electronic testing of the required data 
elements for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) comparing 
program totals by fiscal year to similar data from the Single Audit Act 
database, (3) reviewing related documentation, (4) reviewing related 
studies that used FAADS data, and (5) interviewing Census Bureau 
officials knowledgeable about the data. In addition, for 10 federal 
agencies whose programs are focused on in this report, we provided 
agency officials with FAADS program dollar amount totals for all 
entities receiving funds in Alaska, by fiscal year, and asked agencies 
to verify that the totals were correct.[Footnote 50] In cases where 
there was a greater than 10 percent difference between our totals based 
on FAADS compared with data provided directly to us by the agencies, we 
identified the agency programs producing the largest dollar differences 
and the largest percentage differences, and discussed those differences 
with agency officials. If we determined that the agency data were 
reliable, we adjusted our data to reflect the verified agency data. We 
did this by obtaining the agency obligations provided to individual 
recipients in Alaska for agency programs from 1998 through 2003. The 
FAADS data was obtained from Census in March 2005.
To provide information on the amount of federal funds passed through to 
Alaska Native villages and other entities by the state of Alaska to 
carry out federal programs, we analyzed information obtained from the 
state of Alaska's Department of Administration, Division of Finance; 
and the University of Alaska. The Division of Finance coordinated our 
request for "pass through" data with 15 state departments and component 
units. The information we obtained from the Division of Finance and the 
University of Alaska included the amount of federal funds passed 
through to various entities for state fiscal years 1998 through 2003, 
including the specific federal program that provided the funds. We 
limited our review to Alaska Native villages, regional Native 
nonprofits, incorporated cities that have Native villages within their 
borders, and boroughs. To assess the reliability of the state data, we 
discussed the data system with Division of Finance officials and the 
University of Alaska. We also discussed the process they used to 
satisfy our request. We concluded that the data we obtained from the 
state of Alaska were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 
report. The state data were obtained from the Division of Finance and 
University of Alaska during February and March 2005.
To describe how selected federal funds were used to assist Alaska 
Native communities, we judgmentally selected 13 major programs from 11 
agencies--1 each from 9 agencies and 2 each from the remaining 2 
agencies. We selected 1 program each from the Denali Commission, the 
Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Education, Health and Human Services 
(HHS), Justice, Interior, Labor, and Transportation (DOT), and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We also selected two programs 
each from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the 
Department of Commerce. Generally, the selected programs provided the 
largest amount of funding to Alaska Native villages and regional Native 
nonprofits during fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for their respective 
agencies, based on our analysis of FAADS.[Footnote 51] These programs 
also represented 84 percent of total federal funding to Alaska Native 
villages and regional native nonprofits during the period. For USDA, we 
selected CFDA 10.760--Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural 
Communities--even though it did not provide the most direct funding to 
Native villages and regional Native nonprofits, because it also 
provided significant funding to cities and to the state, through the 
state's Village Safe Water program, which used funds to benefit Native 
villages and Alaska Natives. For Labor, we selected Youth Opportunity 
Grants (CFDA 17.263), which provided almost $16 million to regional 
Native nonprofits during the period. Our FAADS analysis identified 
Workforce Investment Act program (CFDA 17.255) as the program that 
provided the most funding, which was used to provide funding for youth 
opportunity activities and was subsequently replaced during the period 
with 6 new programs, including CFDA 17.263--Youth Opportunity Grants. 
For Education, we selected the Alaska Native Education Program (CFDA 
84.356), which represented the largest program when combining amounts 
provided by 2 other programs that were consolidated into this program 
during the period--Alaska Native Home-Based Education for Preschool 
Children (CFDA 84.321) and Alaska Native Educational Planning, 
Curriculum Development, Teacher Training, and Recruitment Program (CFDA 
84.320). For Commerce, FAADS indicated that the Economic Adjustment 
Assistance (EAA) program provided the largest amount of department 
funding to Alaska Native villages and regional Native nonprofits during 
1998 through 2003. We also selected Commerce's Public Works and 
Economic Development Facilities program for review after department 
officials informed us that EAA provided atypically high funding to 
Alaska Native villages in 2001 in response to an Alaska salmon-fishing 
disaster. Also, we selected 2 HUD programs: the Indian Housing Block 
Grant program, which provided the largest amount of department funding 
to Alaska Native villages and regional Native nonprofits, according to 
our FAADS analysis; and the Indian Community Development Block Grant 
program, because it also can be used to construct new housing in Alaska 
Native villages.
For each of the 13 programs we reviewed, we met with federal officials 
and, where appropriate, state, local, and village officials, as well as 
other officials representing organizations that primarily serve Alaska 
Natives. We also reviewed program descriptions from the CFDA and 
reviewed agency documents on how recipients used program funds, 
including grantee reports, annual reports to Congress, and reports 
prepared in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act 
of 1993. To better understand certain programs administered by the 
state of Alaska, we spoke with officials from the Alaska Department of 
Transportation and Public Facilities, Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation, and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. 
Where program data are reported, we interviewed agency officials and 
reviewed program documents to assure ourselves that data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
To better understand the need for and uses of the selected programs, we 
visited several Alaska Native villages.[Footnote 52] Based on our 
analysis of FAADS, each of the villages received funding from at least 
1 of the 13 selected programs. During our visit, we interviewed 
representatives of Alaska Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, 
and incorporated cities with villages within their borders. We saw 
several examples of projects completed using the selected programs, 
including housing, water and waste treatment facilities, bulk fuel tank 
farms, and primary health care facilities.
To provide information on the cost and number of houses built by Native 
villages and Alaska Native regional housing authorities, we surveyed 
Alaska Native villages and regional housing authorities (also known as 
tribally designated housing entities) that were identified as having 
received Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funds for at least 1 year 
from fiscal year 1998 through 2003. We identified 78 Alaska Native 
villages and 15 regional housing authorities that have received IHBG 
funds. We provided each of the 93 villages and regional housing 
authorities with a questionnaire delivered by e-mail or by U.S. mail. 
Questionnaire items covered the number developed and the cost of new 
single-family units and multifamily properties, the number developed 
and the cost of rehabilitated single-family units and multifamily 
housing properties, and the number developed and the cost of modernized 
single-family units and multifamily housing properties. To prepare for 
the survey, we conducted interviews with HUD officials, Alaska state 
officials, and members of various Alaska Native villages and regional 
housing authorities. We had HUD Alaska field office officials review 
the survey for content, and we pretested the questionnaire with two 
regional housing authorities and five villages to determine whether 
respondents would understand questions the way we intended. Since the 
questionnaire was administered via e-mail as well as U.S. mail, 
usability tests also were conducted with all of the pretests to observe 
respondents answering the questionnaire as it would appear when opened 
and displayed on their computer screen.
We took the following steps to increase the response rate for both 
village and housing authority participants. We sent two reminder 
notices via e-mail and conducted follow-up telephone calls to those 
offices that did not respond to our survey by the initial deadline. 
Collection of survey data ended on March 15, 2005. We received 
responses from 57 villages and 13 regional housing authorities, 
providing a response rate of 73.1 percent for villages and 86.7 percent 
for regional housing authorities. Table 9 details the responding 
regional housing authorities and villages that were constructing or 
rehabilitating single-family homes between calendar years 1998-2003. We 
did not attempt to verify the respondents' answers against an 
independent source of information; however, questionnaire items were 
tested by probing pretest participants about their answers using in- 
depth interviewing techniques. Interviewers judged that all the 
respondents' answers to the questions were correct. In addition, 
answers to the final questionnaire were compared with data in HUD's 
Annual Performance Reports for 1998 through 2003. These data are not 
directly comparable with data obtained in the survey, but do indicate 
whether survey respondents' answers were reasonable. We conducted 
follow-up phone calls to clarify responses where there appeared to be 
discrepancies.
Table 9: Number of Regional Housing Authorities and Villages That Were 
Constructing or Rehabilitating Single-Family Units, Calendar Years 1998-
2003:
Constructed new units.
Regional housing authorities;
1998: Constructed new units: 6;
1999: Constructed new units: 5;
2000: Constructed new units: 6;
2001: Constructed new units: 9;
2002: Constructed new units: 7;
2003: Constructed new units: 7;
Total: Constructed new units: 12.
Villages;
1998: Constructed new units: 3;
1999: Constructed new units: 11;
2000: Constructed new units: 15;
2001: Constructed new units: 18;
2002: Constructed new units: 17;
2003: Constructed new units: 16;
Total: Constructed new units: 31.
Rehabilitation with acquisition.
Regional housing authorities;
1998: Constructed new units: 1;
1999: Constructed new units: 3;
2000: Constructed new units: 1;
2001: Constructed new units: 1;
2002: Constructed new units: 1;
2003: Constructed new units: 2;
Total: Constructed new units: 4.
Villages;
1998: Constructed new units: 0;
1999: Constructed new units: 1;
2000: Constructed new units: 2;
2001: Constructed new units: 0;
2002: Constructed new units: 1;
2003: Constructed new units: 2;
Total: Constructed new units: 5.
Rehabilitation only.
Regional housing authorities;
1998: Constructed new units: 4;
1999: Constructed new units: 6;
2000: Constructed new units: 7;
2001: Constructed new units: 8;
2002: Constructed new units: 9;
2003: Constructed new units: 9;
Total: Constructed new units: 10.
Villages;
1998: Constructed new units: 7;
1999: Constructed new units: 10;
2000: Constructed new units: 21;
2001: Constructed new units: 21;
2002: Constructed new units: 23;
2003: Constructed new units: 24;
Total: Constructed new units: 31.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 
certain types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. 
For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, 
the sources of information available to respondents, or the types of 
people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability into the 
survey results. Steps such as pretesting and follow-up contacts to 
increase response rates serve to minimize nonresponse error. In 
addition, steps such as performing statistical analyses to identify 
inconsistencies and having a second independent reviewer for the data 
analysis can further minimize such error. Data from surveys returned 
via e-mail were entered electronically by participants and imported 
into an electronic data file. Data from all fax-returned or mail- 
returned surveys were edited for consistency before sending them for 
keypunching. These surveys were "double key entered" into our database 
(that is, the entries were 100 percent verified), and a random sample 
of the surveys was further verified for completeness and accuracy. 
Close-ended questionnaire items were analyzed using statistical 
software. We conducted our survey work from August 2004 through March 
2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Alaska Native Population by Native Village and ANCSA 
Region or Indian Reservation:
Alaska Natives receive assistance from more than 200 villages that are 
recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to receive federal 
funding.[Footnote 53] Table 10 contains: a listing of the 12 regional 
areas established by ANCSA identified by the regional for-profit name 
and the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve; the 
villages within each region; and the corresponding number of American 
Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) persons and enrolled tribal 
members.[Footnote 54]
Table 10: Listing of Alaska Native Villages and the Number of AIAN 
Persons and Enrolled Members, by ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation:
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: The Aleut Corporation;
Villages: Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove;
AIAN persons: 393;
Enrolled members: 636.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation villages: Native Village 
of Akutan;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation AIAN persons: 121;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation;
Enrolled members: 163.
Villages: Native Village of Atka;
AIAN persons: 86;
Enrolled members: 180.
Villages: Native Village of Belkofski;
AIAN persons: 0;
Enrolled members: 61.
Villages: Native Village of False Pass;
AIAN persons: 44;
Enrolled members: 96.
Villages: Native Village of Nelson Lagoon;
AIAN persons: 71;
Enrolled members: 50.
Villages: Native Village of Nikolski;
AIAN persons: 28;
Enrolled members: 59.
Villages: Pauloff Harbor Village;
AIAN persons: 26;
Enrolled members: 51.
Villages: Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point Village;
AIAN persons: 437;
Enrolled members: 620.
Villages: Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska;
AIAN persons: 407;
Enrolled members: 539.
Villages: Saint George (Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities);
AIAN persons: 144;
Enrolled members: 131.
Villages: Saint Paul (Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities);
AIAN persons: 589;
Enrolled members: 653.
Villages: Native Village of Unga;
AIAN persons: 44;
Enrolled members: 87.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: At-large;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 74;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian total: 3,400.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 2,464;
Enrolled members: 6,726.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation;
Villages: Village of Anaktuvuk Pass;
AIAN persons: 265;
Enrolled members: 279.
Villages: Atqasuk Village (Atkasook);
AIAN persons: 229;
Enrolled members: 254.
Villages: Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government 
(formerly Native Village of Barrow);
AIAN persons: 3,124;
Enrolled members: 2,590.
Villages: Kaktovik Village (Barter Island);
AIAN persons: 262;
Enrolled members: 231.
Villages: Native Village of Nuiqsut (Nooiksut);
AIAN persons: 411;
Enrolled members: 450.
Villages: Native Village of Point Hope;
AIAN persons: 731;
Enrolled members: 841.
Villages: Native Village of Point Lay;
AIAN persons: 232;
Enrolled members: 200.
Villages: Village of Wainwright;
AIAN persons: 541;
Enrolled members: 602.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: At-large;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 13;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 
7,200.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 5,809;
Enrolled members: 12,647.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Calista Corporation;
Villages: Akiachak Native Community;
AIAN persons: 610;
Enrolled members: 571.
Villages: Akiak Native Community;
AIAN persons: 318;
Enrolled members: 210.
Villages: Village of Alakanuk;
AIAN persons: 703;
Enrolled members: 689.
Villages: Algaaciq Native Village (St. Mary's);
AIAN persons: 356;
Enrolled members: 439.
Villages: Yupiit of Andreafski;
AIAN persons: 127;
Enrolled members: 200.
Villages: Village of Aniak;
AIAN persons: 453;
Enrolled members: 686.
Villages: Asa'carsarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Mountain 
Village);
AIAN persons: 778;
Enrolled members: 1,026.
Villages: Village of Atmautluak;
AIAN persons: 305;
Enrolled members: 305.
Villages: Village of Bill Moore's Slough;
AIAN persons: 0;
Enrolled members: 83.
Villages: Native Village of Chuathbaluk;
AIAN persons: 121;
Enrolled members: 134.
Villages: Village of Chefornak;
AIAN persons: 418;
Enrolled members: 441.
Villages: Chevak Native Village;
AIAN persons: 809;
Enrolled members: 694.
Villages: Chuloonawick Native Village;
AIAN persons: 0;
Enrolled members: 52.
Villages: Village of Crooked Creek;
AIAN persons: 139;
Enrolled members: 121.
Villages: Native Village of Eek;
AIAN persons: 293;
Enrolled members: 278.
Villages: Emmonak Village;
AIAN persons: 793;
Enrolled members: 861.
Villages: Native Village of Georgetown;
AIAN persons: 3;
Enrolled members: 50.
Villages: Native Village of Goodnews Bay;
AIAN persons: 234;
Enrolled members: 346.
Villages: Native Village of Hamilton;
AIAN persons: 0;
Enrolled members: 26.
Villages: Native Village of Hooper Bay;
AIAN persons: 1,070;
Enrolled members: 933.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Iqurmuit Traditional 
Council (formerly Native Village of Russian Mission);
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 306;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 296.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Village of Kalskag;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 198;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 99.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Kasigluk;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 568;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 532.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of Kipnuk;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 683;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 702.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Kongiganak;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 378;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 369.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Village of Kotlik;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 626;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 571.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Organized Village of 
Kwethluk;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 732;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 819.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Kwigillingok;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 358;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 408.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Kwinhagak (Quinhagak);
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 584;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 661.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Lime Village;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 0;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 44.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Village of Lower Kalskag;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 276;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 329.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Marshall (Fortuna Ledge);
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 376;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 345.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Mekoryuk;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 220;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 445.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Napaimute;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 0;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 125.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Napakiak;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 369;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 384.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Napaskiak;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 415;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 372.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Newtok Village;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 337;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 313.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Nightmute;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 213;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 195.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Nunakauyarmiut Tribe 
(formerly Native Village of Toksook Bay);
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 562;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 654.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Nunapitchuk;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 484;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 473.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Village of Ohogamiut;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 0;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 26.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Orutsararmuit Native 
Village (Bethel);
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 4,025;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 3,798.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Oscarville Traditional 
Village;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 66;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 77.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of Paimiut;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 0;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 67.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Pilot Station Traditional 
Village;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 592;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 537.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of Pitka's 
Point;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 129;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 161.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Platinum Traditional 
Village;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 41;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 71.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Village of Red Devil;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 27;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 28.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of Scammon 
Bay;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 499;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 430.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Sheldon's Point;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 170;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 138.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Village of Sleetmute;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 96;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 126.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Village of Stony River;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 56;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 59.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Tuluksak Native Community;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 436;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 508.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Tuntutuliak;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 396;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 384.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of Tununak;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 341;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 247.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Umkumiute Native Village;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 13;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 31.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: At-large;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 29;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 
11,940.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 22,130;
Enrolled members: 34,909.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Bristol Bay Native Corporation;
Villages: Native Village of Aleknagik;
AIAN persons: 202;
Enrolled members: 487.
Villages: Native Village of Chignik Lagoon;
AIAN persons: 89;
Enrolled members: 220.
Villages: Native Village of Chignik;
AIAN persons: 50;
Enrolled members: 315.
Villages: Chignik Lake Village;
AIAN persons: 133;
Enrolled members: 326.
Villages: Village of Clarks Point;
AIAN persons: 75;
Enrolled members: 181.
Villages: Curyung Tribal Council (formerly Native Village of 
Dillingham);
AIAN persons: 1,625;
Enrolled members: 1,873.
Villages: Egegik Village;
AIAN persons: 93;
Enrolled members: 254.
Villages: Native Village of Ekuk;
AIAN persons: 0;
Enrolled members: 72.
Villages: Ekwok Village;
AIAN persons: 132;
Enrolled members: 222.
Villages: Igiugig Village;
AIAN persons: 46;
Enrolled members: 63.
Villages: Village of Iliamna;
AIAN persons: 62;
Enrolled members: 158.
Villages: Ivanoff Bay Village;
AIAN persons: 22;
Enrolled members: 42.
Villages: Native Village of Kanatak;
AIAN persons: 214;
Enrolled members: 107.
Villages: King Salmon Tribe;
AIAN persons: 55;
Enrolled members: 78.
Villages: Kokhanok Village;
AIAN persons: 166;
Enrolled members: 162.
Villages: New Koliganek Village Council (formerly Koliganek Village);
AIAN persons: 172;
Enrolled members: 261.
Villages: Levelock Village;
AIAN persons: 122;
Enrolled members: 166.
Villages: Manokotak Village;
AIAN persons: 409;
Enrolled members: 475.
Villages: Naknek Native Village;
AIAN persons: 334;
Enrolled members: 314.
Villages: New Stuyahok Village;
AIAN persons: 489;
Enrolled members: 525.
Villages: Newhalen Village;
AIAN persons: 153;
Enrolled members: 195.
Villages: Nondalton Village;
AIAN persons: 209;
Enrolled members: 439.
Villages: Pedro Bay Village;
AIAN persons: 34;
Enrolled members: 117.
Villages: Native Village of Perryville;
AIAN persons: 110;
Enrolled members: 267.
Villages: Native Village of Pilot Point;
AIAN persons: 136;
Enrolled members: 160.
Villages: Portage Creek Village (Ohgsenakale);
AIAN persons: 34;
Enrolled members: 78.
Villages: Native Village of Port Heiden;
AIAN persons: 98;
Enrolled members: 139.
Villages: South Naknek Village;
AIAN persons: 120;
Enrolled members: 275.
Villages: Traditional Village of Togiak;
AIAN persons: 811;
Enrolled members: 868.
Villages: Twin Hills Village;
AIAN persons: 70;
Enrolled members: 102.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Ugashik Village;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 9;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 65.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: At-large;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 135;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 
5,945.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 6,412;
Enrolled members: 14,951.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Sealaska Corporation;
Villages: Angoon Community Association;
AIAN persons: 504;
Enrolled members: 573.
Villages: Chilkat Indian Village (Klukwan);
AIAN persons: 125;
Enrolled members: 203.
Villages: Chilkoot Indian Association (Haines);
AIAN persons: 392;
Enrolled members: 495.
Villages: Craig Community Association;
AIAN persons: 525;
Enrolled members: 367.
Villages: Douglas Indian Association;
AIAN persons: 283;
Enrolled members: 411.
Villages: Hoonah Indian Association;
AIAN persons: 609;
Enrolled members: 587.
Villages: Hydaburg Cooperative Association;
AIAN persons: 359;
Enrolled members: 402.
Villages: Organized Village of Kake;
AIAN persons: 674;
Enrolled members: 523.
Villages: Organized Village of Kasaan;
AIAN persons: 20;
Enrolled members: 143.
Villages: Ketchikan Indian Corporation;
AIAN persons: 2,544;
Enrolled members: 4,660.
Villages: Klawock Cooperative Association;
AIAN persons: 521;
Enrolled members: 476.
Villages: Petersburg Indian Association;
AIAN persons: 482;
Enrolled members: 418.
Villages: Organized Village of Saxman;
AIAN persons: 322;
Enrolled members: 175.
Villages: Sitka Tribe of Alaska;
AIAN persons: 2,275;
Enrolled members: 3,241.
Villages: Skagway Village;
AIAN persons: 96;
Enrolled members: 48.
Villages: Wrangell Cooperative Association;
AIAN persons: 587;
Enrolled members: 565.
Villages: Yakutat Tlingit Tribe;
AIAN persons: 383;
Enrolled members: 385.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: At-large;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 5,303;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 
16,114.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 16,004;
Enrolled members: 29,786.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Chugach Alaska Corporation;
Villages: Native Village of Chanega;
AIAN persons: 70;
Enrolled members: 57.
Villages: Native Village of Eyak (Cordova);
AIAN persons: 429;
Enrolled members: 368.
Villages: Native Village of Nanwalek (English Bay);
AIAN persons: 175;
Enrolled members: 260.
Villages: Native Village of Port Graham;
AIAN persons: 160;
Enrolled members: 151.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Tatitlek;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 95;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 91.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: At-large;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 1,354;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 
2,020.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 2,283;
Enrolled members: 2,947.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Cook Inlet Region Inc;
Villages: Chickaloon Native Village;
AIAN persons: 508;
Enrolled members: 254.
Villages: Eklutna Native Village;
AIAN persons: 57;
Enrolled members: 239.
Villages: Kenaitze Indian Tribe;
AIAN persons: 2,366;
Enrolled members: 1,183.
Villages: Knik Tribe;
AIAN persons: 1,160;
Enrolled members: 580.
Villages: Ninilchik Village;
AIAN persons: 921;
Enrolled members: 526.
Villages: Village of Salamatoff;
AIAN persons: 225;
Enrolled members: 155.
Villages: Seldovia Village Tribe;
AIAN persons: 131;
Enrolled members: 907.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of Tyonek;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 195;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 581.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: At-large;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 29,833;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 
7,218.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 35,397;
Enrolled members: 11,643.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Ahtna Inc;
Villages: Native Village of Cantwell;
AIAN persons: 62;
Enrolled members: 108.
Villages: Cheesh-Na Tribe (formerly the Native Village of Chistochina);
AIAN persons: 59;
Enrolled members: 66.
Villages: Native Village of Chitina;
AIAN persons: 62;
Enrolled members: 316.
Villages: Native Village of Gakona;
AIAN persons: 18;
Enrolled members: 85.
Villages: Gulkana Village;
AIAN persons: 79;
Enrolled members: 132.
Villages: Native Village of Kluti Kaah (Copper Center);
AIAN persons: 206;
Enrolled members: 302.
Villages: Mentasta Traditional Council (formerly Mentasta Lake Village);
AIAN persons: 103;
Enrolled members: 250.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of Tazlina;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 91;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 147.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: At-large;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 247;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 
1,100.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 927;
Enrolled members: 2,506.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Doyon Limited;
Villages: Alatna Village;
AIAN persons: 35;
Enrolled members: 34.
Villages: Allakaket Village;
AIAN persons: 133;
Enrolled members: 93.
Villages: Anvik Village;
AIAN persons: 105;
Enrolled members: 94.
Villages: Arctic Village;
AIAN persons: 144;
Enrolled members: 139.
Villages: Beaver Village;
AIAN persons: 82;
Enrolled members: 235.
Villages: Birch Creek Tribe (formerly listed as Birch Creek Village);
AIAN persons: 29;
Enrolled members: 28.
Villages: Chalkyitsik Village;
AIAN persons: 83;
Enrolled members: 111.
Villages: Circle Native Community;
AIAN persons: 88;
Enrolled members: 185.
Villages: Village of Dot Lake;
AIAN persons: 29;
Enrolled members: 28.
Villages: Native Village of Eagle;
AIAN persons: 31;
Enrolled members: 30.
Villages: Evansville Village (Bettles Field);
AIAN persons: 26;
Enrolled members: 15.
Villages: Native Village of Fort Yukon;
AIAN persons: 544;
Enrolled members: 528.
Villages: Galena Village (Louden Village);
AIAN persons: 468;
Enrolled members: 455.
Villages: Organized Village of Grayling (aka Holikachuk);
AIAN persons: 183;
Enrolled members: 178.
Villages: Healy Lake Village;
AIAN persons: 28;
Enrolled members: 27.
Villages: Holy Cross Village;
AIAN persons: 225;
Enrolled members: 219.
Villages: Hughes Village;
AIAN persons: 64;
Enrolled members: 62.
Villages: Huslia Village;
AIAN persons: 287;
Enrolled members: 279.
Villages: Village of Kaltag;
AIAN persons: 206;
Enrolled members: 200.
Villages: Koyukuk Native Village;
AIAN persons: 95;
Enrolled members: 92.
Villages: Manley Hot Springs Village;
AIAN persons: 18;
Enrolled members: 17.
Villages: McGrath Native Village;
AIAN persons: 225;
Enrolled members: 219.
Villages: Native Village of Minto;
AIAN persons: 245;
Enrolled members: 224.
Villages: Nenana Native Association;
AIAN persons: 196;
Enrolled members: 499.
Villages: Nikolai Village;
AIAN persons: 83;
Enrolled members: 81.
Villages: Northway Village;
AIAN persons: 349;
Enrolled members: 256.
Villages: Nulato Village;
AIAN persons: 325;
Enrolled members: 680.
Villages: Rampart Village;
AIAN persons: 42;
Enrolled members: 41.
Villages: Native Village of Ruby;
AIAN persons: 167;
Enrolled members: 162.
Villages: Shageluk Native Village;
AIAN persons: 129;
Enrolled members: 125.
Villages: Native Village of Stevens;
AIAN persons: 85;
Enrolled members: 199.
Villages: Takotna Village;
AIAN persons: 22;
Enrolled members: 21.
Villages: Native Village of Tanacross;
AIAN persons: 131;
Enrolled members: 126.
Villages: Native Village of Tanana;
AIAN persons: 258;
Enrolled members: 942.
Villages: Telida Village;
AIAN persons: 3;
Enrolled members: 3.
Villages: Native Village of Tetlin;
AIAN persons: 119;
Enrolled members: 114.
Villages: Village of Venetie;
AIAN persons: 323;
Enrolled members: 237.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: At-large;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 9,366;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 
6,868.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 14,972;
Enrolled members: 13,846.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Bering Straits Native Corporation;
Villages: Native Village of Brevig Mission;
AIAN persons: 271;
Enrolled members: 297.
Villages: Chinik Eskimo Community (Golovin);
AIAN persons: 142;
Enrolled members: 110.
Villages: Native Village of Council;
AIAN persons: 0;
Enrolled members: 131.
Villages: Native Village of Diomede (Inalik);
AIAN persons: 146;
Enrolled members: 190.
Villages: Native Village of Elim;
AIAN persons: 359;
Enrolled members: 403.
Villages: Native Village of Gambell;
AIAN persons: 663;
Enrolled members: 666.
Villages: King Island Native Community;
AIAN persons: 209;
Enrolled members: 454.
Villages: Native Village of Koyuk;
AIAN persons: 299;
Enrolled members: 370.
Villages: Native Village of Mary's Igloo;
AIAN persons: 0;
Enrolled members: 98.
Villages: Nome Eskimo Community;
AIAN persons: 1,997;
Enrolled members: 2,106.
Villages: Native Village of Saint Michael;
AIAN persons: 366;
Enrolled members: 399.
Villages: Native Village of Savoonga;
AIAN persons: 655;
Enrolled members: 721.
Villages: Native Village of Shaktoolik;
AIAN persons: 232;
Enrolled members: 211.
Villages: Native Village of Shishmaref;
AIAN persons: 566;
Enrolled members: 643.
Villages: Village of Solomon;
AIAN persons: 3;
Enrolled members: 68.
Villages: Stebbins Community Association;
AIAN persons: 552;
Enrolled members: 642.
Villages: Native Village of Teller;
AIAN persons: 264;
Enrolled members: 208.
Villages: Native Village of Unalakleet;
AIAN persons: 698;
Enrolled members: 637.
Villages: Native Village of Wales;
AIAN persons: 146;
Enrolled members: 267.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of White 
Mountain;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 187;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 275.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: At-large;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 0;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 
6,179.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 7,755;
Enrolled members: 15,075.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Koniag Inc;
Villages: Village of Afognak;
AIAN persons: 108;
Enrolled members: 309.
Villages: Native Village of Akhiok;
AIAN persons: 79;
Enrolled members: 100.
Villages: Kaguyak Village;
AIAN persons: 4;
Enrolled members: 9.
Villages: Native Village of Karluk;
AIAN persons: 27;
Enrolled members: 189.
Villages: Native Village of Larsen Bay;
AIAN persons: 96;
Enrolled members: 479.
Villages: Lesnoi Village (Woody Island);
AIAN persons: 62;
Enrolled members: 255.
Villages: Village of Old Harbor;
AIAN persons: 214;
Enrolled members: 573.
Villages: Native Village of Ouzinkie;
AIAN persons: 207;
Enrolled members: 381.
Villages: Native Village of Port Lions;
AIAN persons: 172;
Enrolled members: 352.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Shoonaq' Tribe of Kodiak;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 652;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 1,213.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: At-large;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 961;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 
3,300.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 2,582;
Enrolled members: 7,160.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: NANA Regional Corporation Inc;
Villages: Native Village of Ambler;
AIAN persons: 286;
Enrolled members: 361.
Villages: Native Village of Buckland;
AIAN persons: 420;
Enrolled members: 392.
Villages: Native Village of Deering;
AIAN persons: 137;
Enrolled members: 186.
Villages: Native Village of Kiana;
AIAN persons: 385;
Enrolled members: 468.
Villages: Native Village of Kivalina;
AIAN persons: 389;
Enrolled members: 389.
Villages: Native Village of Kobuk;
AIAN persons: 109;
Enrolled members: 78.
Villages: Native Village of Kotzebue;
AIAN persons: 2,526;
Enrolled members: 2,629.
Villages: Native Village of Noatak;
AIAN persons: 439;
Enrolled members: 497.
Villages: Noorvik Native Community;
AIAN persons: 643;
Enrolled members: 735.
Villages: Native Village of Selawik;
AIAN persons: 786;
Enrolled members: 844.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Native Village of 
Shungnak;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 259;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation: 266.
Villages: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: At-large;
AIAN persons: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 224;
Enrolled members: ANCSA region or Indian reservation region total: 499.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 6,603;
Enrolled members: 7,344.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Metlakatla Indian Community, 
Annette Island Reserve;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 1,356;
Enrolled members: 2,096.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Region total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 1,356;
Enrolled members: 2,096.
ANCSA region or Indian reservation: Total;
Villages: [Empty];
AIAN persons: 124,694;
Enrolled members: 161,636.
Source: HUD.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Listing of Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits:
Regional Native nonprofits also serve Alaska Natives. In this study, we 
include regional nonprofits that were: identified as regional Native 
associations in ANCSA or the organizations that succeeded them; 
identified as regional Native health organizations in P.L. 105-83; or 
that were identified as Alaska regional housing authorities by 
HUD.[Footnote 55] Table 11 provides a listing of Alaska Native regional 
health care and housing nonprofits, by ANCSA region.
Table 11: ANCSA Regional Nonprofits or Indian Reservation and the 
Corresponding Native Regional Health Care and Housing Nonprofits:
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Copper River Native 
Association;
Regional health entities: Copper River Native Association;
Regional housing authorities: Copper River Basin Regional Housing 
Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Aleutian Pribilof 
Islands Association;
Regional health entities: Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association Inc;
Regional housing authorities: Aleutian Housing Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Arctic Slope Native 
Association;
Regional health entities: Arctic Slope Native Association;
Regional housing authorities: Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu Housing Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Kawerak Inc;
Regional health entities: Norton Sound Health Corporation;
Regional housing authorities: Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Bristol Bay Native 
Association;
Regional health entities: Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation;
Regional housing authorities: Bristol Bay Housing Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Association of Village 
Council Presidents;
Regional health entities: Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation;
Regional housing authorities: Association of Village Council Presidents 
Regional Housing Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Chugachmiut;
Regional health entities: Chugachmiut;
Regional housing authorities: North Pacific Rim Housing Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Cook Inlet Tribal 
Council;
Regional health entities: Southcentral Foundation;
Regional housing authorities: Cook Inlet Housing Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Tanana Chiefs 
Conference;
Regional health entities: Tanana Chiefs Conference;
Regional housing authorities: Interior Regional Housing Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Kodiak Area Native 
Association;
Regional health entities: Kodiak Area Native Association;
Regional housing authorities: Kodiak Island Housing Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Maniilaq Association;
Regional health entities: Maniilaq Association;
Regional housing authorities: Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Central Council of the 
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes;
Regional health entities: Southeast Alaska Regional Health;
Consortium;
Regional housing authorities: 1. Baranof Island Housing Authority;
2. Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Metlakatla Indian 
Community, Annette Island Reserve[A];
Regional health entities: Metlakatla Indian Community;
Regional housing authorities: Metlakatla Housing Authority.
ANCSA regional nonprofits or Indian reservation: Not applicable;
Regional health entities: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium[B];
Regional housing authorities: Not applicable.
Source: GAO.
[A] Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve is a federally 
recognized Indian reservation that includes a regional health entity 
and regional housing authority.
[B] The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium is a nonprofit health 
organization authorized by P.L. 105-83 and managed by regional health 
corporations and elected representatives from Alaska Native village 
governments not part of a regional health corporation. ANTHC and 
Southcentral Foundation jointly operate the Alaska Native Medical 
Center in Anchorage.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance to Alaska Native 
Villages:
In addition to receiving assistance directly from the federal 
government and from regional Native nonprofit organizations, Alaska 
Native villages also receive assistance from other nonprofits funded by 
the federal government. According to our analysis of data from FAADS 
for the federal fiscal year period 1998 through 2003, 46 of these other 
nonprofits received federal funding for the purpose of assisting Alaska 
Native villages. The 46 nonprofits are:
* Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission,
* Alaska Federation of Natives,
* Alaska Inter-Tribal Council,
* Alaska Nanuuq Commission,
* Alaska Native Arts Foundation,
* Alaska Native Brotherhood,
* Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission,
* Alaska Native Health Board Inc.,
* Alaska Native Heritage Center,
* Alaska Native Heritage Park Inc.,
* Alaska Native Justice Center Inc.,
* Alaska Native Science Commission,
* Alaska Native Women's Coalition,
* Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission,
* Alaska Village Initiatives,
* Alutiiq Heritage Foundation,
* Bering Straits Foundation,
* Calista Elders Council,
* Chugach Regional Resources Commission,
* CIRI Foundation,
* Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments,
* Cultural Heritage And Educational Institute,
* Denakkanaaga Inc.,
* Doyon Foundation,
* Eastern Aleutian Tribes Inc.,
* Eskimo Walrus Commission,
* Fairbanks Native Association,
* Institute of Alaska Native Arts Inc.,
* Koahnic Broadcast Corporation,
* Kuigpagmiut Inc.,
* Kuskokwim Native Association,
* Maniilaq Manpower Inc.,
* Mount Sanford Tribal Consortium,
* Qutekcak Native Tribe (Seward),
* Robert Aqqaluk Newlin Sr. Memorial Trust,
* Rural Alaska Community Action Program Inc.,
* Sealaska Heritage Institute,
* Simon Paneak Memorial Museum,
* Southeast Alaska Indian Cultural Center,
* TDX Foundation,
* Tok Native Association,
* Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation,
* United Crow Band Inc.,
* United Villages Inc.,
* Valdez Native Tribe, and:
* Yukon River Inter Tribal Watershed Council.
[End of section]
Appendix V: The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to 
Native Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs:
Based on our analysis of data from the state of Alaska, the state 
passed through more than $105 million in federal funds to Alaska Native 
villages and regional Native nonprofits for state fiscal years 1998 
through 2003.[Footnote 56] However, Native villages received a smaller 
share of this funding. Also, the state of Alaska passed through over 
$335 million in federal funds to incorporated cities and boroughs that 
have villages located within their borders.
State of Alaska Passed Through Over $105 Million in Federal Funds to 
Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits:
According to data provided by the state of Alaska Department of 
Administration, Division of Finance, the state passed through more than 
$105 million to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits for 
state fiscal years 1998 through 2003. As shown in figure 19, Native 
villages received $18.2 million (17 percent) compared with regional 
Native nonprofits, which received $87.3 million (83 percent). During 
this period, the state passed through federal funding to 99 different 
Native villages and 23 regional Native nonprofits.
Figure 19: Amount of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of 
Alaska to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal 
Years 1998-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Over the period, Native villages received most of their funding from 
slightly more agencies than regional Native nonprofits. Native villages 
received state pass-through funding from 15 federal agencies, with 
about 67 percent of the funding provided by four federal departments-- 
Commerce, EPA, HHS, and Transportation. Commerce provided more than 20 
percent of the major funding, with EPA contributing 20 percent and HHS 
and Transportation contributing 14 and 12 percent, respectively. In 
comparison, regional Native nonprofits received state pass-through 
funding from 17 federal agencies, but about 85 percent of all funding 
was provided by two federal agencies--HHS and USDA. HHS contributed 
about 68 percent of the major funding, with another 17 percent provided 
by USDA (see figs. 20 and 21).
Figure 20: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of 
Alaska, by Agency, to Native Villages, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Departments of Education, Energy, and the Interior, and National 
Endowment for the Arts.
[End of figure]
Figure 21: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of 
Alaska, by Agency, to Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 
1998-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[A] U.S. Agency for International Development; Corporation for National 
and Community Service; Denali Commission; Departments of Commerce, 
Energy, the Interior, Justice, and Transportation; General Services 
Administration (GSA); National Endowment for the Arts; and National 
Science Foundation.
[End of figure]
Overall, both Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received 
the majority of their pass-through funding from a few programs. For 
example, over the period, the state of Alaska passed through federal 
funding for 64 different programs to Native villages. However, as shown 
in table 12, the top five programs accounted for over 70 percent of the 
funding to these entities. None of the remaining 59 programs 
contributed more than $1 million each in state pass-through funding 
over the period.
Table 12: Top Federal Programs Providing Funding Passed Through by the 
State of Alaska to Native Villages, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003:
CFDA number: 11.477;
Agency: Commerce;
Program name: Fisheries Disasters Relief;
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $3,917,481;
Percentage of total funding: 21.47%.
CFDA number: 66.606;
Agency: EPA;
Program name: Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose 
Grants;
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $3,564,182;
Percentage of total funding: 19.54%.
CFDA number: 39.003;
Agency: GSA;
Program name: Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property;
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $2,161,318;
Percentage of total funding: 11.85%.
CFDA number: 20.205;
Agency: DOT;
Program name: Highway Planning and Construction;
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $2,131,188;
Percentage of total funding: 11.68%.
CFDA number: 93.568;
Agency: HHS;
Program name: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance;
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $1,215,690;
Percentage of total funding: 6.66%.
CFDA number: Various;
Agency: Various;
Program name: 59 other programs;
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $5,254,948;
Percentage of total funding: 28.80%.
CFDA number: Total;
Agency: [Empty];
Program name: [Empty];
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $18,244,808;
Percentage of total funding: 100.00%.
Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.
[End of table]
Also, most agencies' funding was provided by only one of their 
programs. For example, three different Commerce programs provided 
slightly more than $3.9 million in pass-through funding to Native 
villages, and almost all of this was provided by the Fisheries 
Disasters Relief program. Similarly, Native villages received funding 
from two EPA programs, and most of this was provided by the Surveys, 
Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose grants program. Further, 
all of the General Services Administration's (GSA) funding came from 
the Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property program.
Regional Native nonprofits received funding from a larger number of 
programs than Native villages. For example, over the period, the state 
of Alaska passed through federal funding for 102 different programs to 
regional Native nonprofits. As shown in table 13, the top 6 funding 
programs accounted for 76 percent of the funding to these entities. 
None of the remaining 96 programs contributed more than $2 million each 
in state pass-through funding over the period.
Table 13: Top Federal Programs Providing Funding Passed Through by the 
State of Alaska to Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 1998- 
2003:
CFDA number: 93.558;
Agency: HHS;
Program name: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families;
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $39,736,114;
Percentage of total funding: 45.49%.
CFDA number: 10.557;
Agency: USDA;
Program name: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children;
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $11,695,142;
Percentage of total funding: 13.39%.
CFDA number: 66.606;
Agency: EPA;
Program name: Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose 
Grants;
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $4,674,378;
Percentage of total funding: 5.35%.
CFDA number: 93.230;
Agency: HHS;
Program name: Consolidated Knowledge Development and Application 
Program (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration);
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $4,309,512;
Percentage of total funding: 4.93%.
CFDA number: 14.239;
Agency: HUD;
Program name: HOME Investment Partnerships Program;
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $3,468,928;
Percentage of total funding: 3.97%.
CFDA number: 93.658;
Agency: HHS;
Program name: Foster Care;
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $2,680,311;
Percentage of total funding: 3.07%.
CFDA number: Various;
Agency: Various;
Program name: 96 other programs;
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $20,778,465;
Percentage of total funding: 23.79%.
CFDA number: Total;
Agency: [Empty];
Program name: [Empty];
Total funding (2003 constant dollars): $87,342,851;
Percentage of total funding: 100.00%.
Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.
[End of table]
Similar to Native villages, most agencies' funding to regional Native 
nonprofits were provided by a relatively few number of those agencies' 
programs. For example, 42 different HHS programs provided funding to 
regional Native nonprofits, but Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
(TANF) provided 68 percent of all HHS funding. Similarly, 79 percent of 
all USDA funding was provided by the Special Supplemental Nutrition 
Program for Woman, Infants and Children.
Table 14 shows that pass-through funding provided to Native villages by 
the state of Alaska increased between state fiscal years 1998 and 2003. 
Although the number of Native villages receiving pass-through funding 
stayed fairly constant over the period, increasing from 41 in 1998 to 
46 in 2003, the annual amount of funding increased by 75 percent, from 
$1.6 million in 1998 to about $2.9 million in 2003. The Denali 
Commission accounted for 63 percent of the increase during the period, 
while GSA's Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property program 
accounted for 35 percent.[Footnote 57] Commerce pass-through funding 
reached its peak in 2000 and 2002, with about 65 percent of all 
Commerce funding provided in those 2 years alone under the Fisheries 
Disaster Relief program in response to a slump in the Alaska fishing 
industry. EPA funding reached its peak in 1999 and 2000, with about 85 
percent of the agency's total funding over the period being provided in 
those 2 years under the Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special 
Purpose grants program.
Table 14: Yearly Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska to 
Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 1998-
2003:
State fiscal year: 1998;
Native villages funds: $1,634,613;
Regional Native nonprofits funds: $8,306,967.
State fiscal year: 1999;
Native villages funds: $3,568,358;
Regional Native nonprofits funds: $8,197,285.
State fiscal year: 2000;
Native villages funds: $4,734,037;
Regional Native nonprofits funds: $15,457,542.
State fiscal year: 2001;
Native villages funds: $2,941,878;
Regional Native nonprofits funds: $13,989,537.
State fiscal year: 2002;
Native villages funds: $2,508,634;
Regional Native nonprofits funds: $19,762,459.
State fiscal year: 2003;
Native villages funds: $2,857,288;
Regional Native nonprofits funds: $21,629,060.
Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.
[End of table]
The amount of federal funding passed through by the state to regional 
Native nonprofits grew steadily over the period--by 160 percent--from 
18 entities receiving $8.3 million in 1998 to 19 entities receiving 
$21.6 million in 2003. Most of this growth was caused by an increase in 
HHS program funding, which accounted for 90 percent of the growth. As 
was the case with Native villages, EPA funding reached its peak in 
2000, with about 56 percent of the agency's total funding over the 
period being provided under the Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and 
Special Purpose grants program. HUD funding also reached its peak in 
2000, with about 36 percent of the agency's total funding provided 
under the HOME Investment Partnerships program. Moreover, pass-through 
funding provided by HHS programs to regional Native nonprofits outpaced 
the growth in funding to Native villages by almost 10 times. (See fig. 
22.)
Figure 22: Trend of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska 
to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 
1998-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The state of Alaska passed through federal funds totaling more than 
$335 million for state fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to incorporated 
cities and boroughs with Native villages. Specifically, 104 cities 
received $82.5 million and 16 boroughs received almost $253 million. 
The state passed through funding it received from 20 federal 
departments for programs such as HHS's ChildCare Mandatory and Matching 
Funds of the ChildCare and Development Fund, and TANF; and EPA's Clean 
Water State Revolving Fund, and its Surveys, Studies, Investigations, 
and Special Purpose grants program. Although these funds were not given 
to a Native village or regional Native nonprofit, Alaska Natives likely 
benefited from shared services and assistance provided by the cities 
and boroughs. For example, incorporated cities that have Native 
villages located within their borders provide municipal services, such 
as water, that benefit Alaska Natives.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Denali Commission Program Summary:
Agency: Denali Commission.
Program name: Denali Commission (emphasis on energy and health).
Authorization: The Denali Commission Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3121 
note; 70 Fed. Reg. 28283 (May 17, 2005) (Five Year Strategic Plan (2005-
2009) and Fiscal Year 2006 Work Plan).
Eligible program recipients: Awards are available to state and local 
governments, private, public, profit, nonprofit organizations and 
institutions or individuals eligible in Alaska. Beneficiaries must be 
the general public, particularly distressed communities.
Program objectives: To deliver the services of the federal government 
in the most cost-effective manner practicable by reducing 
administrative and overhead costs; to provide job training and other 
economic development services in rural communities, particularly 
distressed communities; to promote rural development, provide power 
generation and transmission facilities, modern communication systems, 
water and sewer systems and other infrastructure needs. Another 
objective is to provide funding for the construction of new primary 
health care clinics.[Footnote 58]
Application process: For bulk fuel and rural power grants (the vast 
majority of energy grants), there is not an application process. In 
1999, the commission worked with the Alaska Energy Authority to 
assemble a priority ranking of the needs of all bulk fuel sites in the 
state. One hundred seventy-two rural Alaskan communities were ranked, 
based on deficiencies in fuel storage and power systems, and funding 
priority goes to those projects with higher scores.[Footnote 59] Each 
year, as some projects are completed, those with lower priorities get 
funded. For most of the commission's other programs, generally a 
community must send the commission a letter requesting assistance, 
along with comprehensive community-based and approved development 
plans. The commission judges potential projects based on consistency 
with locally developed and regionally supported infrastructure 
development plans, long-term sustainability, relative impacts on 
reducing unemployment, raising the standard of living, reducing the 
cost of utilities, and cost sharing by others. In some cases, 
applicants can apply directly to state and local partners working with 
the commission. The time frame for grants is based on the projects and 
negotiated between the commission and the grantee, subject to the 5- 
year maximum time frame imposed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Table 15: Denali Commission Reporting Requirements:
Type: Performance and financial; 
Description: Grantees must electronically file reports to a Web-based 
database for each project-- both energy and nonenergy. These reports 
detail the expenditures (for the commission funds and any other project 
funds), milestones reached (such as completion of construction) and 
comparison with the planned dates for the milestone and associated 
cost, and a narrative describing the progress on the project. Grantees 
often include pictures in the report to show progress on construction 
projects; 
Frequency: Quarterly.
Source: GAO analysis of Denali Commission data.
[End of table]
Allowable Uses of Program Funds: Funds can be used for infrastructure 
or utility needs benefiting Alaskans. The commission has made rural 
energy its primary infrastructure theme since its inception in 1999, 
but has 12 program areas in total:
* energy facilities,
* health facilities,
* training,
* government coordination,
* multiuse facilities,
* washeterias (potable water and laundry facilities as well as showers 
and toilets),
* transportation,
* solid waste,
* economic development,
* elder housing,
* teacher housing, and:
* domestic violence facilities.
Examples of actual uses of program funds: The commission maintains a 
Web-based information system that includes detailed financial and 
progress information on projects. The system can be publicly queried, 
specifying project attributes such as community involved, recipient, 
theme (the underlying subject area of the project, such as energy 
(e.g., bulk fuel) or health care (e.g., hospitals), and milestone 
(where in the process the project is, such as business plan or 
construction).
The Denali Commission's energy program has been used to address energy 
issues that affect Alaska Natives by focusing on bulk fuel tank farm 
upgrades and rural power system upgrades. Energy has been the 
commission's primary infrastructure theme since 1999. According to the 
commission's 2004 annual report, the first challenge undertaken by the 
commission was the upgrade and consolidation of fuel tanks in 172 
communities identified as health and environmental hazards by the U.S. 
Coast Guard and U.S. EPA. Since its inception, grantees of the 
commission's energy facilities funds--usually the Alaska Energy 
Authority and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative--have upgraded bulk 
fuel tanks in 64 communities across the state, while projects are under 
way in 70 other communities, according to the 2004 annual report. That 
report also notes that the commission has upgraded rural power systems 
in 13 communities, has started construction in 20 others, and is in the 
planning or design phase in an additional 18. These upgrades include 
adding backup power generators and increasing efficiency of existing 
generators. The commission's web site has information on specific 
energy projects, including the following:
* upgrading a tank farm in the Village of Kotlik. In 2001, the 
commission provided about $2.9 million of the roughly $3.8 million used 
by the Alaska Energy Authority to upgrade the tank farm, which had been 
cited for violations by the U.S. Coast Guard.
* moving a fuel tank farm in the Native Village of White Mountain. The 
commission partnered with the Alaska Energy Authority to use a 
$2,395,743 commission grant, along with $1,239,817 in state and local 
funds. The Alaska Energy Authority used the funds to move the fuel tank 
farm from the middle of the village's business district, where the 
school and store are located, to an area still accessible but west of 
the village, and equipped the tanks with spill prevention. Construction 
on that project was completed in 2003.
* developing a new aircraft off-loading fuel pipeline in the Native 
Village of Ambler. The commission partnered with Alaska Village 
Electric Cooperative to use a $566,700 commission grant (with $31,000 
in other funds) to develop the pipeline to provide year-round fuel 
deliveries. The pipeline system included modifications to local tank 
farms to connect to the new pipeline. Construction on that project was 
completed in 2002.
The primary focus of the Denali Commission's health facilities program-
-its second infrastructure priority--is to provide funding for the 
construction of new primary care clinics and repair and renovation of 
existing primary care facilities. From 1999 through 2004, the 
commission completed primary care facilities in 41 communities, and has 
59 facilities in planning or design phases, according to its 2004 
annual report. Some specific health care projects from Denali's project 
database include the following:
* designing and constructing a rural primary care facility and 
community health center in the Native Village of Kiana. The commission 
partnered with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium to use a 
commission grant of $716,000 (with $400,000 in other funding) for the 
facility and community health center, which replaced an existing 
village clinic. Construction on that project was completed in 2002.
* constructing a health clinic in the Native Village of Toksook Bay 
(the location of the Nunakauyarmiut Tribe). The commission partnered 
with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium to use two grants 
totaling $2.7 million from the commission's health facilities program 
to build a health clinic in Toksook Bay. Construction was completed in 
January, 2005.
* providing funding for other health care needs as well, such as a 
grant to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services to cover 
half of the $400,000 needed to purchase an ultrasound machine in Sitka.
Funding mechanism: The commission's energy and other programs usually 
provide federal funds to grantees that the commission calls "partners" 
(i.e., state or federal agencies or nonprofits that administer numerous 
projects). For energy projects, for example, the Alaska Energy 
Authority and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative were the commission's 
partner agency on over 95 percent of grants. For health projects, the 
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the state of Alaska's 
Department of Health and Social Services were the commission's partner 
on most projects. A few grantees are not partner agencies, such as 
Native villages or other local communities that administer just one 
program for their community.
Restrictions on administrative costs: The commission does not have a 
standard limit on the amount of funding grantees can spend on total 
administrative costs. However, the commission negotiates with each 
grantee on the amount of indirect administrative costs that the 
commission will provide. According to agency officials, for energy 
partners the amount of indirect costs that the commission allows has 
generally ranged from 0 percent to 4 percent of total grant amounts, 
paid for from the overall grant amount.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Program Summary for the Department of Agriculture:
Subagency: Rural Development.:
Program name: Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities.
Authorization: Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, 
7 U.S.C. 1926; 7 C.F.R.  1779.1 et seq; 7 C.F.R.  1780.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: Municipalities, counties, and other 
political subdivisions of a state, such as districts and authorities, 
associations, cooperatives, corporations operated on a not-for-profit 
basis, Indian tribes on federal and state reservations, and other 
federally recognized Indian tribes. Facilities shall primarily serve 
rural residents and rural businesses. The service area shall not 
include any area in any city or town having a population in excess of 
10,000 inhabitants, according to the latest decennial Census of the 
United States. Beneficiaries may be farmers, ranchers, rural residents, 
rural businesses, and other users in eligible applicant areas.
Program objectives: To provide basic human amenities, alleviate health 
hazards and promote the orderly growth of the rural areas of the nation 
by meeting the need for new and improved rural water and waste disposal 
facilities.
Application process: Over 80 percent of program funding in Alaska is 
appropriated by Congress to fund the state of Alaska's Village Safe 
Water program, administered by the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation. For those grants, applicants file an application on forms 
prescribed by the Department of Environmental Conservation that 
describes the community need, how the proposed project will address 
that need, and cost. A committee comprising representatives from USDA 
Rural Development (USDA RD), the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation, and EPA (which also provides funds for the Village Safe 
Water program) scores each application to the Village Safe Water 
program. (The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, which oversees 
many of the projects funded by the Village Safe Water program, does not 
have a representative on the committee, but does have the ability to 
advise informally on project selection.) The scoring depends on several 
variables, including whether the grant is requested for construction or 
planning. For construction projects, project need and impact are the 
most significant scoring factors, followed by operation and maintenance 
of the project (e.g., if the project will be operated by certified 
technicians), community planning, and application quality. Communities 
must have overall environmental plans to be approved for construction 
grants. For planning projects, the factors include planning need, 
existing level of service, previous planning efforts, and type of 
facilities to be planned. Also, according to agency officials, there 
are some projects that are specifically included by Congress in 
appropriations legislation, which requires USDA RD to contact certain 
entities to assist them in USDA RD's application process if they choose 
to apply. Most of the other program funding goes to the Combination 
Water/Waste programs, which USDA RD administers directly.[Footnote 60] 
Under this program, villages and cities can apply to USDA RD for 
funding.
Table 16: USDA Reporting Requirements for Village Safe Water Funding:
Type: Engineering and construction analyst;
Description: For the Village Safe Water program, the Alaska Department 
of Environmental Conservation (DEC) or the Alaska Native Tribal Health 
Consortium (ANTHC), if it is overseeing the project, provides an 
engineering and environmental report, which USDA's state construction 
analyst reviews and approves prior to USDA allowing DEC or ANTHC to 
draw down grant money; 
Frequency: Once, prior to drawing down grant funding.
Type: Financial; 
Description: Under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation and USDA, DEC must provide 
USDA with expenditure reports; 
Frequency: Upon each draw request for each project.
Type: Progress and financial; 
Description: These reports are status reports that include both a 
financial summary as well as narrative information from the project 
engineer regarding the progress made on the project; 
Frequency: Semiannual.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA data.
[End of table]
Allowable uses of program funds: Funds may be used for the 
installation, repair, improvement, or expansion of a rural water 
facility, including distribution lines, well pumping facilities and 
costs related thereto; the installation, repair, improvement, or 
expansion of a rural waste disposal facility, including the collection, 
and treatment of sanitary, storm, and solid wastes; and indoor plumbing 
in certain cases where the residents are unable to afford the 
improvements on their own. Grant funds may not be used to pay interest 
on loans, operation and maintenance costs, or to acquire or refinance 
an existing system.
Examples of actual uses of program funds: USDA RD's Water and Waste 
Disposal System for Rural Communities has been used for new and 
improved rural water and waste disposal facilities. According to USDA 
RD officials and available documentation, USDA RD funds are combined 
with EPA funds and 25 percent matching state funds to eliminate the 
honey bucket--5-gallon buckets that serve as a toilet--and provide 
communities with water and sewer systems that function in Alaska's 
harsh environment, such as the flush and haul system.[Footnote 61] 
According to agency documentation, from 2000 through 2003, USDA RD 
provided funding for 86 Village Safe Water grants.[Footnote 62] Over 
that same time period, USDA RD funded 17 other projects through USDA RD 
Combination Water/Waste projects, and also provided funding for the 
state-administered Remote Maintenance Worker program. USDA RD and state 
documentation show the following examples of Village Safe Water 
projects:
* In 2003, USDA RD provided a grant of $570,300 to benefit Napaskiak 
that, when matched with $190,200 in state funds, is being used to 
replace all of the remaining single-family home honey buckets in the 
community with the "flush haul" system, according to agency 
documentation.
* In 2000, USDA RD provided $633,800, in conjunction with $211,200 in 
Alaska Housing Finance funding, for water and sewer improvements in 
Nulato. Uses of the funds included the design and construction of a 
wastewater lagoon for the lower town site, maintenance upgrades for the 
new town site lagoon and landfill, and replacement of the water and 
sewer system for the lower town site teacher housing area.
* In 2000, USDA RD provided a $2,175,000 grant that, in conjunction 
with $725,000 in state funds, was used in Bethel for a new piped water 
distribution and sewer collection system, including circulating water 
mains and pressure sewer mains.
One example of a Combination Water/Waste project is the project in 
Talkeetna. According to USDA RD, Alaska's 2003 annual report and other 
agency documentation, in 2002, USDA RD provided the Mat-Su Borough with 
$1.3 million to help fund an upgrade for a sewage treatment facility in 
Talkeetna. The new system was the first of its type in Alaska and uses 
a collection of cells and aquatic plants to pretreat raw sewage from 
the community. The project converted an old percolation cell into a 
lagoon cell lined with a plastic layer, increasing treatment capacity 
by over 25 percent, according to the 2003 annual report. A wetland was 
also constructed to treat secondary effluent from the lagoons prior to 
discharge into the Talkeetna River.
Funding mechanism: According to agency documentation, over 80 percent 
of USDA RD's Alaska funding is appropriated by Congress specifically 
for the Alaska Village Safe Water program; that funding goes to the 
state of Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation, which 
administers the Village Safe Water projects in rural Alaska. Most of 
the other program funding goes from USDA RD directly to cities and 
villages.
Restrictions on administrative costs: The program follows Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, a primary federal regulation 
that outlines the principles for determining which administrative costs 
can be recovered for programs administered under grants with the 
federal government; there are no other established limitations. Until 
fiscal year 2005, the state paid for administrative costs of the 
Village Safe Water program from state funds and from federal EPA funds, 
so 100 percent of USDA RD's funds went to project costs, according to 
agency officials. Officials also stated that, in fiscal year 2005, USDA 
RD and the state began working toward providing some USDA RD funds for 
administrative costs. Funding for these administrative costs will come 
from the grant amount.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Program Summaries for the Department of Commerce:
Subagency: Economic Development Administration.
Program name: Economic Adjustment Assistance.
Authorization: Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 3149; 13 C.F.R.  308.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: Eligible applicants include economic 
development districts; states, cities or other political subdivisions 
of a state or a consortium of political subdivisions; Indian tribes or 
a consortium of Indian tribes; institutions of higher learning or a 
consortium of such institutions; or public or nonprofit organizations 
or associations acting in cooperation with officials of a political 
subdivision of a state. Applicants using Economic Development 
Administration (EDA) supplemental disaster assistance will generally be 
restricted to disaster-impacted areas.
Program objectives: To assist state and local interests to design and 
implement strategies to adjust or bring about change to an economy. 
Program focuses on areas that have experienced or are under threat of 
serious structural damage to the underlying economic base. Such 
economic change may occur suddenly or over time, and generally results 
from industrial or corporate restructuring, new federal laws or 
requirements, reduction in defense expenditures, depletion of natural 
resources, or natural disaster. EAA aids the long-range economic 
development of areas with severe unemployment and low family-income 
problems; aids in the development of public facilities and private 
enterprises to help create new, permanent jobs.
Application process: EDA's Economic Development Representative (EDR) or 
regional office representative will meet with the applicant to 
determine whether preparation of a project proposal is appropriate. If 
appropriate, applicants are requested to prepare a brief project 
proposal according to an outline provided by the EDR. Following a 
review by the EDR and regional office staff, the Regional Director will 
determine whether to invite a formal application. An environmental 
impact assessment is necessary, and an environmental impact statement 
may also be required. All proposals and applications for funding 
submitted to EDA are evaluated competitively for conformance to 
statutory and regulatory requirements and conformance with EDA's 
Investment Policy Guidelines and funding priorities. Final decision on 
applications from eligible applicants is made by the Regional Office 
Director of the Economic Development Administration, Department of 
Commerce.
Table 17: Commerce Reporting Requirements for EAA Funding:
Type: Performance; 
Description: Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) 
Updates: This is a long-term strategic plan for economic stabilization 
and growth for an area. The CEDS profiles the economy of the area, 
assesses the local institutional capacity and organizational structure 
determining growth, sets strategic priorities, and identifies 
implementation projects; 
Frequency: Annually.
Type: Performance; 
Description: Annual narrative report: This report covers the grant 
scope of work and what was accomplished over the reporting period to 
satisfy the planning process, and project implementation purpose of the 
grant; 
Frequency: Annually.
Type: Financial; 
Description: Annual financial report: This report covers the financial 
transactions by cost category for all grant expenditures during the 
reporting period; 
Frequency: Annually.
Source: GAO analysis of Commerce data.
[End of table]
Allowable uses of program funds: EAA funds can be used to provide 
grants for planning or construction of projects tailored to the 
community's specific economic problems and opportunities. Specific 
activities may include:
* creation or expansion of strategically targeted business development,
* revolving loan funds,
* infrastructure improvements,
* organizational development, and:
* market or industry research and analysis.
Examples of actual uses of program funds: According to information GAO 
received from EDA, since 1999, EDA has funded 29 EAA projects in Native 
villages and Native nonprofits. Examples of specific projects include 
the following:
* In 2001, a total of $5.1 million was provided to five different 
entities, including the Native Villages of Savoonga, Wales, and 
Unalakleet, for the construction of five approximately 4,000-square- 
foot multipurpose community buildings to Alaskan native entities. These 
facilities included amenities such as a visitor center, lodging, 
meeting hall; office spaces; conference rooms, kitchens, restrooms, and 
storage.
* In 2001, the Tanana Chiefs Conference was awarded $725,000 for the 
construction of a 20-room hotel with a combination restaurant, lounge, 
and meeting facilities on council-owned property located midtown in the 
Village of Circle.
Funding mechanism: The EDA provides funding directly to grantees, which 
could be Alaska Native entities. Generally, EDA funds 50 percent of a 
project's cost. However, certain conditions of high economic distress 
or an applicant's inability to provide all of the matching share may 
permit a higher grant rate.
Restrictions on administrative costs: According to EDA officials, there 
is no specific dollar limitation on allowable administrative costs; 
however, under the EAA program, administrative costs typically do not 
constitute a significant portion of the total grant. For smaller or 
rural grantees such as Alaskan tribes, allowable administrative costs 
could include the cost of a Project Administrator because such entities 
may not hold the in-house expertise needed to manage large construction 
projects.
Program name: Grants for Public Works and Economic Development 
Facilities.
Authorization: Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 3141; 13 C.F.R.  305.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: States, cities, counties, an institution 
of higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher 
education, and other political subdivisions, Indian tribes, the 
Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 
Commonwealths and territories of the U.S. flag, Economic Development 
Districts, and private or public nonprofit organizations or 
associations acting in cooperation with officials of a political 
subdivision of a state or Indian Tribe. Individuals, companies, 
corporations, and associations organized for profit are not eligible.
Program objectives: To promote long-term economic development in areas 
experiencing substantial economic distress. EDA provides public works 
investments to support the construction of rehabilitation of essential 
public infrastructure and development facilities necessary to generate 
higher-skill, higher-wage jobs and private investment.
Application process: The EDR or other appropriate EDA official will 
meet with the applicant and community leaders to explore the 
applicability of the proposed project. If deemed appropriate, a 
proposal will be requested. After reviewing the proposal, the EDR or 
the regional office will notify the applicant regarding the decision of 
whether to invite an application. If the project appears viable, a 
preapplication conference with regional office personnel may be 
arranged at EDA's discretion. An environmental impact assessment is 
required for this program. The review of the environmental impact 
assessment may result in an environmental impact statement being 
required. Applications are approved by the Regional Director and 
announced by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic 
Development.
Table 18: Commerce Reporting Requirements for Public Works Funding:
Type: Performance; 
Description: Quarterly performance report: The grantee is required to 
report the status of work accomplished in project development through 
project completion, including land acquisition, engineering/design, 
construction contract award, construction, final inspection, and 
project completion; 
Frequency: Quarterly.
Type: Financial; 
Description: Recipient's outlay report and request for reimbursement 
for construction programs: In order to request a reimbursement from EDA 
for construction costs and transactions incurred by the grantee, the 
grantee is required to file this report to document its expenditures 
and transactions. EDA will disburse funds only for actual outlays; 
Frequency: Periodic as project progresses.
Type: Financial; 
Description: Financial status report: This financial report is prepared 
on a periodic basis to represent the financial status of the grant in 
conjunction with the performance reports and audit reporting period; 
Frequency: Periodic as project progresses.
Type: Performance; 
Description: Final acceptance inspection report: This is a critical one-
time report executed by the project architect, the contractor, and the 
owner (EDA grantee) at the end of construction to certify final 
acceptance inspection and project completion; Frequency: After 
construction is completed.
Source: GAO analysis of Commerce data.
[End of table]
Allowable uses of program funds: Public works investments may include:
* investments in facilities such as water and sewer system 
improvements, industrial access roads, industrial and business parks, 
port facilities, railroad sidings, distance learning facilities, skill- 
training facilities, business incubator facilities, redevelopment of 
brownfields, eco-industrial facilities, and telecommunications 
infrastructure improvements needed for business retention and expansion;
* eligible activities such as the acquisition, rehabilitation, design 
and engineering, or improvement of public land or publicly owned and 
operated development facilities, including machinery and equipment; and:
* infrastructure for broadband deployment and other types of 
telecommunications-enabling projects and other kinds of technology 
infrastructure.
Examples of actual uses of program funds: According to information we 
received from EDA, since 1999, EDA has funded three public works 
projects totaling about $3.8 million in Native areas. Examples of 
specific projects include the following:
* In 2001, the Seldovia Village Tribe was provided $2.3 million to 
assist with the purchase of two lots and construction of a complex that 
will encompass a museum, visitor center, and retail/office space.
* In 1999, the Nenana Native Association was provided $480,000 for 
implementation of the entities' economic development plan by renovating 
and upgrading its community hall and funding construction of other 
business infrastructure to continue development of tourism business.
* In 1999, the Shishmaref Village Council was provided about $1 million 
for a traditional tannery.
Funding mechanism: The EDA provides funding directly to grantees, which 
could be Alaska Native entities. The basic grant rate may be up to 50 
percent of the project cost. Severely depressed areas may receive 
supplementary grants to bring the federal contribution up to 80 percent 
of the project cost. Recognized Indian tribes may be eligible for up to 
100 percent assistance. On average, EDA's investment covers 
approximately 50 percent of project costs.
Restrictions on administrative costs: According to EDA officials, there 
is no specific dollar limitation on allowable administrative costs; 
however, under the Public Works and Economic Development Facilities 
program, administrative costs typically do not constitute a significant 
portion of the total grant. For smaller or rural grantees such as 
Alaskan tribes, allowable administrative costs could include the cost 
of a project administrator because such entities may not have the in- 
house expertise needed to manage large construction projects.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Program Summary for the Department of Education:
Subagency: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Program name: Alaska Native Educational Programs.
Authorization: Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended, 20 
U.S.C. 7541-7546; 34 C.F.R.  74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 
98, and 99.
Eligible program recipients: Alaska Native educational organizations or 
educational entities with experience in developing educational programs 
for Alaska Natives.
Program objectives: To support projects that recognize and address the 
unique educational needs of Alaska Native students, parents, and 
teachers.
Application process: Alaska Native Educational Programs are competitive 
grants, except for program funds that have been earmarked for specified 
recipients for specified purposes. For competitive grants, applicants 
submit proposals under which the Department of Education uses a peer 
review process where panels choose applications to determine which 
proposal best meets program objectives and the needs of Alaska Natives. 
The Department of Education selects panelists who are knowledgeable of 
Alaska Native educational needs, eligible activities, and project 
management and evaluation, and who are from outside the department. To 
avoid potential conflicts of interest, panelists are usually non-Alaska 
Natives. Specific selection criteria for the 2003 application included 
the magnitude of the need for and significance of the project, quality 
of project design, quality of project services, and the quality of the 
project evaluation to be conducted on the project. Approved grants are 
usually for 3-year funding periods.
Table 19: Education Reporting Requirements for Alaska Native 
Educational Programs Funding:
Type: Performance and financial; 
Description: Reports contain a narrative section to describe how the 
funds were used and a financial section that provides information on 
how the funding was spent; 
Frequency: Annually, every year that a grantee receives funds under the 
program.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[End of table]
Allowable uses of program funds: Program funds can be used in a variety 
of areas, including:
* curriculum development,
* family literacy,
* parenting education,
* increasing the education of Alaska Native teachers or those who teach 
Alaska Natives,
* home instruction for preschool Alaska Natives,
* remedial tutoring,
* dropout prevention, and:
* math and science assistance.
Additionally, the enabling legislation, the Alaska Native Educational 
Equity, Support, and Assistance Act, has five earmarks for specific 
programs:
* $1 million annually for the Alaska Native Heritage Center for 
cultural educational programs designed to share the Alaska Native 
culture with students;
* $1 million annually for Alaska Humanities Forum for a cultural 
exchange program designed to share Alaska Native culture with urban 
students in a rural setting;
* $2 million annually for a dropout prevention program operated by Cook 
Inlet Tribal Council;
* $2 million annually for the Alaska Initiative for Community 
Engagement for continuation of that entity's general programs; and:
* $1 million annually to continue existing parenting educational 
programs, including parenting education provided through in-home 
visitation of new mothers.
Examples of actual uses of program funds: Individual grant files 
maintained by the department contain the following examples of how 
grantees used funds.[Footnote 63]
In 2000, the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) received a grant of 
about $1.6 million for "Preparing Indigenous Teachers for Alaska 
Schools." The 3-year grant had four main goals, one of which was to 
increase participation of Alaska Native students in bachelor of science 
programs at UAS. One way the program increased participation was by 
using mentors to recruit high school students for the UAS bachelor of 
science program. By the third year of the grant, program participants 
actively mentored 75 high school students and post-high-school 
candidates from 11 different communities. In the third year of the 
grant, the program provided 16 mentors a stipend of $1,000 each, and 
also provided scholarships for 15 students in the amount of $8,500 
each. Another goal of the program was to develop a focused support 
system for Alaska Native students at UAS. One way the program used 
grant funds to accomplish this was to hire math tutors to assist Alaska 
Native students in individual and group tutoring sessions. The program 
also financially supported the UAS Native/Rural Resource Center for 
cultural activities such as lectures, storytelling series, and pot luck 
dinners.
In 1999, the Alaska Native Heritage Center received a 3-year Alaska 
Native Education Program grant in the amount of about $570,000. The 
grant had seven objectives, including providing Alaska Native youth 
with cultural activities unavailable in the schools. The center's 
activities addressing this objective included dance classes, youth 
leadership workshops, and art workshops. Over the 3 years of the grant, 
157 students participated in programs offered by the center through the 
grant.
Funding mechanism: The Department of Education provides funding 
directly to grantees, which could be Alaska Native educational 
organizations or educational entities with experience in developing 
educational programs for Alaska Natives.
Restrictions on administrative costs: The program's enabling 
legislation states that no more than 5 percent of funds provided to a 
grantee may be used for administrative purposes. No amount in addition 
to the grant is provided for reimbursement of administrative costs.
[End of section]
Appendix X: Program Summary for the Department of Health and Human 
Services:
Subagency: Indian Health Service.
Program name: Tribal Self-Governance.[Footnote 64]
Authorization: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 
as amended, 25 U.S.C. 458aaa--458aaa-18; 42 C.F.R.  137.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: Any federally recognized tribe that (1) 
formally requests, through a governing body action, participation in 
the Tribal Self-Governance Program; (2) has furnished organizationwide 
single audit reports for the previous 3 years that contain no 
uncorrected significant and material audit exceptions in the audit of 
the tribe's self-determination contracts or self-governance funding 
agreements with any federal agency; and (3) successfully completes a 
planning phase, to the satisfaction of the tribe, that includes legal 
and budgetary research and internal tribal government planning and 
organizational preparation relating to the administration of health 
care programs. Tribes may also authorize another eligible tribe to 
participate in the self-governance program on their behalf. Under 
current law, tribes not already in a compacting relationship with the 
Indian Health Service (IHS) may not receive funds for health care 
services if they are located in areas served by an Alaska Native 
regional health entity.[Footnote 65]
Program objectives: The purpose of the program is to make financial 
assistance awards to Indian tribes to enable them to assume from IHS 
programs, services, functions, and activities with respect to which 
Indian tribes or Indians are primary or significant beneficiaries.
Application process: If a tribe is eligible and interested in entering 
the self-governance program, it sends a letter of intent to either the 
Director of the Office of Tribal Self-Governance or to an IHS area 
director for a tribe's area.[Footnote 66]
Table 20: HHS Reporting Requirements for Tribal Self-Governance Funding:
Type: Performance; 
Description: Pursuant to 42 CFR 137.200, each compacting tribe must 
report on health status and services delivery. Most compacting tribes 
use an IHS-prescribed form to report information on number of patient 
visits, diagnostic first visits, and radiology, laboratory, pharmacy, 
and dental services information; 
Frequency: Annual.
Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
[End of table]
Allowable uses of program funds: Funds can be used by compacting tribes 
to provide any program, service, function, or activity that IHS is 
authorized to administer. According to IHS documentation, these areas 
include:
* clinical health services, including hospitals and health clinics, 
dental services, mental health services, and alcohol and substance 
abuse treatment;[Footnote 67]
* contract health services (i.e., health services from private sector 
providers where specialized health care services were not readily 
available at tribally-operated providers);
* preventive health services, such as public health nursing, health 
education, and immunization;
* contract support costs (e.g., tribes' and tribal consortia's general 
administrative costs); and:
* health care facilities, including maintenance, improvement, and 
construction of health care and sanitation facilities.
Examples of actual uses of program funds:[Footnote 68] IHS and the 
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium--a statewide Native health care 
provider--collect information on health status and services delivery 
and compile this information into several different reports, including 
Alaska-specific reports such as the Statistical Summary of Workload 
reports and Annual Performance Contract information. The 2003 Annual 
Performance Contract states that grant recipients used program funds 
during this period to:
* operate 7 tribal hospitals, 28 tribal health centers, and 176 tribal 
community health aide clinics; and:
* provide 4,093 homes with water facilities, and 3,004 homes with 
wastewater facilities.
The 2002 Statistical Summary of Workload states the following:
* In the 7 hospitals in Alaska that receive tribal self-governance 
funding,[Footnote 69]
* there were 10,992 inpatient admissions (excluding newborns), an 
overall decrease of 802 admissions from fiscal year 2001; and:
* there were 1,868 total newborn admissions (deliveries), a 6.65 
percent decrease from 2001.
* In the tribally run hospitals, health centers, and community clinics,
* there were 970,146 ambulatory care visits, a 2.2 percent increase 
from 2001;[Footnote 70]
* in 2001, the most recent year available, contract medical[Footnote 
71] accounted for 1,939 hospital admissions, 7,181 hospital patient 
days, 128 hospital births, and 60,741 outpatient clinic visits; and:
* during 2002, adjusted health aide visits totaled 263,947 encounters, 
which was a 1.9 percent decrease from 2001.[Footnote 72]
Funding mechanism: IHS provides funding directly to the compacting 
entity--that is, the regional Native health care nonprofit, Alaska 
Native village, or group of villages administering the health program.
Restrictions on administrative costs: IHS does not have a standard 
limit on the amount of funding compacting tribes can spend on total 
administrative costs. Pursuant to tribal funding agreements, IHS 
provides funding for contract support payments--payments to compacting 
tribes to pay for some of tribes' administrative costs.
[End of section]
Appendix XI: Program Summaries for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development:
Subagency: Public and Indian Housing.
Program name: Indian Community Development Block Grant.
Authorization: Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 5306; 24 C.F.R.  1003.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: Any Indian tribe, band, group, nation, or 
tribal organization, including Alaska Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, and 
any Alaska Native village that is eligible for assistance under the 
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act or that had been 
eligible under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. 
Tribal organizations are permitted to submit applications on behalf of 
eligible tribes when one or more eligible tribes authorize the 
organization to do so under concurring resolutions. The tribal 
organization must be eligible under Title I of the Indian Self- 
Determination and Education Assistance Act.
Program objectives: The objective of the Indian Community Development 
Block Grant (ICDBG) program is to provide assistance to Indian tribes 
and Alaska Native villages in the development of viable communities, 
including decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic 
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.
Application process: Applicants must file an application on forms 
prescribed by HUD that describes the community development need and how 
that need will be addressed by the proposed project. The applicant must 
provide sufficient information for the project to be rated against 
selection criteria. The rating criteria include the need of the 
project, soundness of approach, leveraging resources and 
comprehensiveness and coordination. The Office of Native American 
Programs (ONAP) Area Office is responsible for administering the 
program and for notifying applicants of the results, which are done 
annually.
Table 21: HUD Reporting Requirements for ICDBG Funding:
Type: Status and evaluation report; 
Description: Reports contain a narrative section to describe progress 
made in completing approved activities and expenditure of funds. If the 
project has been completed, an evaluation of how the project has been 
effective in meeting community development needs; 
Frequency: Annually.
Type: Federal Cash Transaction Report, Standard Form (SF) 272; 
Description: The report must be submitted to the area ONAP, accounting 
for funds received and disbursed by the recipient; 
Frequency: Quarterly.
Type: Minority Business Enterprise Reports,; HUD-2516; 
Description: Recipients must submit the report on contract and 
subcontract activity; 
Frequency: Biannually.
Type: Final status and evaluation report; 
Description: Recipients must submit a narrative report identifying all 
expenditures spent on each activity and any remaining costs to be paid 
with ICDBG funds. Narrative must include an assessment of the 
effectiveness of the program in resolving or addressing the community 
need as described in the application; 
Frequency: Upon project completion.
Type: SF-269; 
Description: A Final Financial Status Report must be submitted with the 
Final Status and Evaluation Report, which identifies all expenditures 
spent with ICDBG funds; 
Frequency: Upon project completion.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
[End of table]
Allowable uses of program funds: Indian tribes and Alaska Native 
villages may use block grants to improve the housing stock, provide 
community facilities, make infrastructure improvements, and expand job 
opportunities by supporting the economic development of their 
communities. Activities eligible for funding include housing 
rehabilitation programs, acquisition of land for housing, direct 
assistance to facilitate homeownership among low and moderate income 
persons, construction of tribal and other facilities for single or 
multiuse, streets and other public facilities, and economic development 
projects, particularly those by nonprofit tribal organizations or local 
development corporations when the recipient determines that the 
provision of such assistance is appropriate to carry out an economic 
development project. Tribes and Alaska Native villages are restricted 
from using block grants for construction and improvement of 
governmental facilities, the purchase of equipment, general government 
expenses, operating and maintenance expenses, political activities, new 
housing construction (except through community-based development 
organizations), and income payments.
Actual uses of program funds: Eighty ICDBG grants were awarded from 
1998 through 2003, according to HUD documentation. These projects 
included: 21 health-related facilities (e.g., clinics, mental health, 
and primary care facilities); 35 community centers; 17 infrastructure 
projects (e.g., fuel tanks and water and sewer systems); 6 housing- 
related projects (e.g., housing rehab, new construction and land 
acquisition for new housing), and one imminent threat grant.
Funding mechanism: Funding goes directly from HUD to the grantees; from 
1998 through 2003, according to HUD documentation, all but 1 of the 80 
grants went to Alaska Native villages, and that grant went to a joint 
venture between a village and regional Native health care nonprofit.
Restrictions on administrative costs: The program's regulations state 
that no more than 20 percent of funds provided to a grantee may be used 
for administrative purposes.
Program name: Indian Housing Block Grant.
Authorization: Native American Housing Assistance and Self- 
Determination Act (NAHASDA) of 1996, 25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq; 24 C.F.R.  
1000.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: Indian tribes or tribally designated 
housing entities (referred to throughout this appendix as housing 
authorities).
Program objectives: IHBG funds are used for affordable housing 
activities administered by tribes or housing authorities, while 
recognizing the right of tribal self-governance.
Application process: An eligible recipient must submit to HUD an Indian 
Housing Plan (IHP) each year to receive funding.
Table 22: HUD Reporting Requirements for IHBG Funding:
Type: Financial; 
Description: Tribes and housing authorities are required to file a 
Federal Cash Transactions Report ONAP (HUD-272-I) that reports on 
expenditures of Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) and unobligated 
United States Housing Act of 1937 funding; 
Frequency: Quarterly.
Type: Performance; 
Description: Tribes and housing authorities submit an IHP that 
identifies affordable housing goals and objectives specific to each 
activity the grantee plans to administer and an Annual Performance 
Report that details how grantees are progressing with implementation of 
their IHPs; 
Frequency: Annually.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
[End of table]
Allowable uses of program funds: Indian Housing Block Grants can be 
used for a variety of eligible affordable housing activities, including 
modernization and operating assistance for U.S. Housing Act of 1937 
housing; new construction, acquisition or rehabilitation of renter-or 
owner-occupied housing; housing services, housing management, crime 
prevention and safety or model activities as described in the Indian 
Housing Plan.
Actual uses of program funds: The actual uses of IHBG funds from 1998 
through 2003 for Alaska Native recipients were as follows, according to 
HUD documentation:
Table 23: Percentage of IHBG Funds Used by Activity, Calendar Years 
1998-2003:
Percentage of IHBG funds expended; 
Activity: Housing Development: Rental: new construction: 5%;
Activity: Housing Development: Rental rehabilitation: 1%; 
Activity: Housing Development: Home ownership new construction: 22%;
Activity: Housing Development: Home ownership rehabilitation: 10%; 
Activity: Current assisted stock: Modernization: 12%; 
Activity: Current assisted stock: Operating: 10%; 
Activity: Planning and administration: 11%; 
Activity: Other Uses[A]: 29%.
Source: HUD.
[A] "Other uses" includes housing services, housing management 
services, crime prevention, model activities and unspent funds.
[End of table]
Funding mechanism: HUD provides IHBG formula grants directly to Alaska 
Native tribes or their tribally designated housing entity. The IHBG 
funding formula considers two factors: (1) the needs of the grantee, 
and (2) the housing previously developed by HUD funding. Tribes may 
annually choose to receive IHBG funds and provide services directly to 
their members or tribes may choose to designate a housing entity to 
receive their IHBG funds and provide services on their behalf. 
Appropriations for 2004-2005 included a provision limiting IHBG 
recipients in Alaska to those tribes or tribally designated housing 
entities that received funds in the previous fiscal year. Grantees do 
not have a matching funds requirement to qualify for the IHBG grant. 
The minimum grant award is $25,000.
Restrictions on administrative costs: The IHBG program allows grantees 
to use up to 20 percent of the total grant amount for administrative 
costs. Administrative costs are taken out of the grant amount.
[End of section]
Appendix XII: Program Summary for the Department of the Interior:
Subagency: Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Program name: Tribal Self-Governance Program.
Authorization: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 
as amended, 25 U.S.C. 458aa--458hh; 25 C.F.R.  1000.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: Any federally recognized tribe that (1) 
formally requests, through a governing body action, participation in 
the Tribal Self-Governance Program; (2) demonstrates, for the previous 
3 fiscal years, financial stability and financial management capability 
by furnishing organizationwide single audit reports for those 3 years 
that contain no uncorrected significant and material audit exceptions 
in the audit of the tribe's self-determination contracts; and (3) 
successfully completes a planning phase, to the satisfaction of the 
tribe, that includes legal and budgetary research and internal tribal 
government planning and organizational preparation. If each tribe 
requests, two or more otherwise eligible tribes may be treated as a 
single tribe for the purpose of participating in self-governance as a 
consortium.
Program objectives: To further the goals of Indian self-determination 
by providing funds to Indian tribes to administer a wide range of 
programs with maximum administrative and programmatic flexibility.
Application process: If a tribe is eligible and interested in entering 
the self-governance program, it sends a letter of intent to the 
Director of the Office of Tribal Self-Governance. The letter of intent 
must also include information about how self-governance will benefit 
the tribe.[Footnote 73] Awards are not competitive; if a tribe is 
eligible, it may generally participate in the program. An annual 
funding agreement is negotiated between the participating tribe and the 
Secretary of the Interior consistent with federal laws and the tribal 
relationship. A tribe may also negotiate a multiyear funding agreement.
Reporting requirements: Interior requests tribes to submit information 
on funds spent by category (e.g., human services), amount, tribal goal, 
and progress toward tribal goal, for inclusion in the Secretary of the 
Interior's Tribal Self-Governance Annual Report to Congress. Tribal 
submission of information for the Secretary's annual report is 
optional, although agency officials and documentation noted that tribal 
self-governance data collection is important to the program. Most 
grantees in Alaska do not send such information to Interior; for 2003, 
for example, only six of the program's 22 Alaskan grantees provided 
such information to Interior. Starting in fiscal year 2005, according 
to Interior officials, Alaska's 22 grantees agreed in their annual 
funding agreements to provide Interior with Government Performance and 
Results Act information, such as housing, environmental, training, 
technical assistance, and other uses of tribal self-governance funds.
Allowable uses of program funds: Funds may be used by grantees to 
support programs previously administered by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, pursuant to the terms of annual funding agreements or for 
programs specifically authorized by federal statute, and may not be 
used for the operation of elementary and secondary schools or for 
community colleges. Under these agreements, grantees have the 
flexibility to redesign programs to meet local needs and priorities. 
Table 24 shows budget categories for tribal self-government allocations 
from Interior to program grantees. Many of the budget categories also 
contain more specific allocation areas.
Table 24: Allowable Uses of Tribal Self-Governance Program Funding, 
Based on Budget Categories:
Tribal government: No specific budget allocation areas;
Human services: Welfare assistance, including child welfare and 
disaster assistance;
Education: Johnson O'Malley (federal government program to provide 
education to American Indians and Alaska Natives);
Public safety and justice: Tribal courts;
Community development: Housing improvement plan;
Resource management: Forestry;
Trust services: Realty/appraisals;
General administration: Tribal annual audits;
Economic development: No specific budget allocation areas;
Other tribal programs: No specific budget allocation areas.
Human services: Indian Child Welfare Act;
Education: Scholarships and higher education;
Public safety and justice: Law enforcement;
Community development: Economic development loans;
Resource management: Fisheries;
Trust services: Land surveys.
Human services: Child abuse and neglect;
Education: Adult education;
Public safety and justice: Community fire protection;
Community development: Roads;
Resource management: Water resources/rights;
Trust services: Agricultural/minerals and grazing.
Resource management: Irrigation.
Source: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.
[End of table]
Examples of actual uses of program funds: Based on summaries submitted 
by grantees for Interior's Tribal Self-Governance 2003 Annual Report to 
Congress, the following are examples of recent uses of tribal self- 
governance funds:
* In 2003, the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida used approximately 
$4.6 million for job placement and training for 2,084 tribal members 
through its various programs. The number of individuals receiving 
support services assistance totaled 1,472. Those services included 
direct employment, vocational rehabilitation, and employability 
assistance. The Central Council also provided transportation, work 
clothing, and tools to over 276 tribal members. One hundred seventy 
people received classroom training and 25 received on the job training.
* In 2003, the Bristol Bay Native Association used approximately $2 
million for tribal government, including providing assistance in 
drafting and amending tribal constitutions, and developing and 
enhancing tribal courts. Bristol Bay also used the funds to provide 
training for village administrators and village presidents and improve 
communications with the village.
Funding mechanism: Interior provides funding directly to the grantee-- 
that is, the Alaska Native village, regional Native nonprofit, or group 
of villages administering the Tribal Self-Governance Program. Twelve 
Alaska Native villages, eight regional Native nonprofits, one group 
consisting of several other Alaska Native villages and one Indian 
reservation received self-governance funding in 2003.
Restrictions on administrative costs: There are no specific 
restrictions on administrative costs. Pursuant to tribal funding 
agreements, Interior provides for contract support payments, which 
offset indirect and direct administrative costs.
[End of section]
Appendix XIII: Program Summary for the Department of Justice:
Subagency: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Program name: Community Oriented Policing Services.
Authorization: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 3796dd--3796dd-8.
Eligible program recipients: States, units of local government, 
federally recognized Indian tribal governments, U.S. territories or 
possessions (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Mariana Islands), other public 
and private entities, and multijurisdictional or regional consortia 
thereof.
Program objectives: The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 
Office was created as a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994. Grants are to be made to increase police 
presence and improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement 
agencies and members of the community. Specifically COPS was 
established to accomplish numerous projects or activities, including 
the following:
* substantially increasing the number of law enforcement officers 
interacting directly with members of the community;
* providing additional and more effective training to law enforcement 
officers to enhance their problem solving, service, and other skills 
needed in interacting with members of the community;
* encouraging the development and implementation of innovative programs 
to permit members of the community to assist state, federally 
recognized Indian tribal government, and local law enforcement agencies 
in the prevention of crime in the community;
* encouraging the development of new technologies to assist state, 
federally recognized Indian tribal government, and local law 
enforcement agencies in reorienting the emphasis of their activities 
from reacting to crime to preventing crime; and:
* establishing school-based partnerships between state and federally 
recognized Indian tribal government and local law enforcement agencies, 
and local school systems by using school resource officers to engage in 
community policing in and around elementary and secondary schools.
Application process: COPS grants are awarded on a competitive basis. 
Applications are submitted to COPS's Grants Administration Division for 
approval and include a description of the proposed project and a 
priority ranking of specific needs requested in the grant proposal. In 
fiscal year 2004, COPS received more than $60 million in grant requests 
and awarded available funds of about $25 million, nationwide. Typically 
awards are made to successful applicants based on the applicants' 
ranking of needs at the time the grant request is submitted. Applicants 
may be denied any level of funding if they are under investigation by 
the U.S. Attorneys Office, in noncompliance under another COPS program, 
or not correcting deficiencies in their current application.
Table 25: Justice Reporting Requirements for COPS Funding:
Type: Financial; 
Description: These reports reflect the actual federal monies spent, 
unliquidated obligations incurred, local matching contributions, and 
the unobligated balance of federal funds; 
Frequency: Quarterly, unless an extension is required or a waiver is 
granted.
Type: Program progress reports; 
Description: These reports request information about the status of the 
grant in terms of hiring, purchases, and progress achieved in 
implementing community policing; 
Frequency: Once per year during the grant funding period.
Type: Final progress reports; 
Description: This report serves as the final progress report and is 
used by COPS to make final assessment of grant progress; 
Frequency: As requested by COPS of grantees that have completed the 
grant period.
Type: Final financial status report; 
Description: The final financial status report should reflect the total 
amount of federal expenditures, the total amount of local matching, and 
the total amount of unobligated funds; 
Frequency: No later than 90 days after the end of the grant period, 
unless an extension is granted.
Type: Surveys about hiring; 
Description: COPS may conduct these surveys via phone, fax, or letter 
to determine the number of officers hired and deployed into the 
community, policing roles, and timetable for when future hiring may 
occur; 
Frequency: As requested.
Source: GAO analysis of Justice data.
[End of table]
Allowable uses of program funds: Grants provide funding for a variety 
of activities, including:
* 36 months of entry-level salaries and benefits;
* background investigations;
* training;
* uniforms;
* basic equipment, such as handguns, holsters, and body armor;
* technology items, such as computers, software, automated booking 
systems, fingerprint identification systems, and GPS systems; and:
* police cars.
Examples of actual uses of program funds:
* Since its inception in 1994, COPS program grants have been used to 
add community policing officers to the nation's streets and schools, 
enhance crime-fighting technology, support crime prevention 
initiatives, and provide training and technical assistance to advance 
community policing. In the state of Alaska, COPS grants have been 
awarded to hire 324 additional police officers and sheriff's deputies, 
including about 100 officers under the programs discussed below.
* COPS has created a series of programs to meet the needs of law 
enforcement in Native communities. The COPS Tribal Resources Grant 
Program is a broad, comprehensive program designed to meet law 
enforcement needs in Native communities. This program offers a variety 
of funding in areas such as hiring additional officers, law enforcement 
training, uniforms, basic-issue equipment, emerging technologies, and 
police vehicles.
* COPS's Universal Hiring Program (UHP) provides funding directly to 
local, state, and tribal jurisdictions for the salaries and benefits of 
newly hired officers engaged in community policing. COPS merged the 
COPS Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns and Accelerated Hiring, 
Education, and Deployment program functions into UHP in 1995, which 
incorporated both of these previous initiatives into one centralized 
grant program.
* The COPS in Schools (CIS) grant program is designed to help law 
enforcement agencies hire additional school resource officers to engage 
in community policing in and around primary and secondary schools. CIS 
provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build 
collaborative partnerships with the school community and to use 
community policing efforts to combat school violence.
* The Alaska State Patrol received technology grants beginning in 1999 
that benefited the Village Public Safety Officers of Alaska.
Funding mechanism: COPS provides grants to tribal, state, and local law 
enforcement agencies up to 75 percent of the costs to hire and train 
community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crime-
fighting technologies, and develop and test innovative policing 
strategies.[Footnote 74] The CIS and technology grants do not require 
the 25 percent local match. Funds can be accessed by grantees using a 
phone system or electronically.[Footnote 75]
Restrictions on administrative costs:
According to the Grants Administration Division, administrative costs 
are not allowable under most COPS programs.
[End of section]
Appendix XIV: Program Summary for the Department of Labor:
Subagency: Employment and Training Administration.
Program name: Youth Opportunity Grants.
Authorization: Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 
2914; 20 C.F.R.  664.800 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: This program is no longer taking new 
applications for grants. The 5 years of funding for grantees, which 
began in 2000, has already been completed, but most Youth Opportunity 
Grant program sites have some funds remaining that will allow them to 
provide a reduced level of programming for at least part of a sixth 
year. Eligible recipients included Native American and Alaska Native 
entities. Alaska Native applicants were required to be a Workforce 
Investment Act Section 166 Native American Grantee, and the community 
the applicant served had to meet certain poverty rate criteria in the 
Internal Revenue Code and be an Alaska Native village as defined in 
section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Beneficiaries had 
to be youth between the ages of 14 and 21 at the time they joined the 
program, and had to reside in the target area, without regard to income.
Program objectives: To increase the long-term employment of youth who 
live in empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and high poverty 
areas. Youth Opportunity Grants concentrate extensive resources in high-
poverty areas in order to bring about communitywide impact on 
employment rates, high school completion rates, and college enrollment 
rates.
Application process: The program was competitive, and there were not 
specific amounts of grants set aside for Native Americans. Proposals 
were reviewed by an independent panel, including both federal staff and 
peer reviewers; site visits were made to finalists. Panelists rated the 
proposals based on project design and service strategy, youth 
development and community services, dropout prevention, management and 
accountability, and need in the target area. Applications had to 
include both a technical proposal and a financial proposal, describing, 
for example, how the grantee would provide comprehensive services, 
where the services would be delivered, the staff numbers that would 
deliver the services, and the program's activities. Grant awards were 
made for an initial period of 1 year, with up to 4 additional option 
years based on the availability of funds and satisfactory progress 
toward achieving the goals and objectives of the grant.
Table 26: Labor Reporting Requirements for Youth Opportunity Grant 
Funding:
Type: Monthly program progress report; 
Description: Shows current month, year to date, and cumulative 
participation by youth in the various types of youth programs, such as 
reading/math remediation. The reports also contain information about 
the impact of the program, such as the number of participants who have 
achieved a high school diploma, entered a 4-year college, or completed 
vocational/technical school; 
Frequency: Monthly.
Type: Quarterly program progress report; 
Description: For the quarter, reports include follow-up information on 
out-of-school, in-school, and total youth who had been enrolled in the 
program within the previous 24 months, and their work, school, or other 
status. This report is based on youth who have had a long-term 
placement in employment, postsecondary education, or long-term 
occupational skills training within the last 24 months. This is 
primarily a retention report; 
Frequency: Quarterly.
Type: Financial reports; 
Description: On OMB SF-269, these reports show total outlay of funds 
for both the quarter and cumulative, but do not report specifically for 
what the funds were used; 
Frequency: Quarterly.
Type: Financial and progress; 
Description: Annual Updates to Application for Youth Opportunity Grant 
details the grantee's budget and actual spending, including information 
on personnel, travel, and equipment costs, for example. The report also 
details aspects of program areas such as the educational and youth 
development components of the grant, among others; 
Frequency: Annual.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data.
[End of table]
Allowable uses of program funds: Program funds can be used to provide 
comprehensive activities to eligible youth seeking assistance in 
achieving academic and employment success; activities include a variety 
of options for improving educational skill competencies and provide 
effective connections to employers; ongoing mentoring opportunities; 
training opportunities; continued support services for eligible youth; 
incentives for recognition and achievement to eligible youth; and youth 
development opportunities in activities related to leadership, 
development, decision making, citizenship, community service, and 
recreation. The enabling legislation also authorized the use of funds 
for intensive placement services and follow-up services for not less 
than 24 months after the completion of participation in the Youth 
Opportunity Grant programs.
Examples of actual uses of program funds: According to Department of 
Labor documentation, a coalition of Alaska Native organizations that 
served the state of Alaska used program funds to set up youth 
opportunity community centers in 40 villages across Alaska. In each 
center, there were one or two youth development specialists who 
provided a variety of services. According to Labor documentation and 
officials, over 2,900 Alaska Native youth participated in YO! Alaska 
programs, including employment, community service, sports, recreation, 
education, and life skills programs.
Funding mechanism: Funding went directly from Labor to the grantees. In 
Alaska, the grantee was Cook Inlet Tribal Council, which was designated 
as the lead agency to apply for the grant by the Alaska Native 
Coalition on Employment and Training. This coalition was originally 
composed of 10 Alaska Native regional nonprofits, two Alaska Native 
villages, and one other Native organization. That coalition selected 
Cook Inlet Tribal Council as the lead agency to apply for the Youth 
Opportunity Grant.
Restrictions on administrative costs: The program's enabling 
legislation does not specifically limit administrative costs. However, 
Department of Labor officials informed us that they negotiated with 
grantees to keep administrative costs low. Grantees pay for 
administrative costs from the grant amount; no amount in addition to 
the grant is provided for reimbursement of administrative costs.
[End of section]
Appendix XV: Program Summary for the Department of Transportation:
Subagency: Federal Aviation Administration.
Program name: Airport Improvement Program.
Authorization: 49 U.S.C. 47101 - 47142.
Eligible program recipients: States, counties (in Alaska, boroughs), 
municipalities, and other public agencies, including Indian tribes, are 
eligible for airport development grants if the airport is listed in the 
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, which identifies more than 
3,300 airports nationally that are significant to national air 
transportation. Grants for projects under the Airport Improvement 
Program (AIP) are typically given only to publicly owned, public use 
airports, with a few exceptions. Recipients of grants are commonly 
called sponsors. Sponsors must meet basic qualifications set up by the 
Federal Aviation Administration to receive AIP grants. In addition, a 
sponsor must be legally, financially, and otherwise able to assume and 
carry out the assurances and obligations contained in the project 
application and grant agreement.
Program objectives: The purpose of the AIP is to assist sponsors, 
owners, and operators of public-use airports in the development of a 
nationwide system of airports adequate to meet the needs of civil 
aeronautics.
Application process: Applicants file an application on forms prescribed 
by DOT that describe the objective of the project, benefits of the 
project, and need for the project, among other things. The application 
also requires budget and financial information. The Alaska Department 
of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) selects projects on a 
competitive basis, and the Federal Aviation Administration oversees the 
Alaska DOTPF's selection of projects for completion. The Alaska DOTPF 
awards AIP funding based on, among other criteria, safety improvements 
that the project would make, improving community access to basic 
necessities, economic benefits, and if the community has alternatives 
to air travel. This process takes place annually, and projects can take 
up to 3 to 4 years to design, engineer, and build.
Allowable uses of program funds: Grants can be made for integrated 
airport system planning in a specific area; and airport master 
planning, construction, or rehabilitation at a public-use airport or 
portion thereof. Eligible work at airports consists of (1) airport 
master plans; (2) airport noise compatibility plans; (3) land 
acquisition; (4) site preparation; (5) construction, alteration, and 
rehabilitation of runways, taxiways, aprons, and certain roads within 
airport boundaries; (6) construction and installation of airfield 
lighting, navigational aids, and certain off-site work; (7) safety 
equipment required for certification of airport facility; (8) security 
equipment required by the Secretary of Transportation; (9) snow-removal 
equipment; (10) terminal development; (11) aviation-related weather 
reporting equipment; (12) equipment to measure runway surface friction; 
(13) burn area training structures and land for that purpose; (14) 
agency-approved burn area training structures and land for that 
purpose; (15) relocation of air traffic control towers and navigational 
aids if they impede other projects funded by AIP; (16) land, paving, 
drainage, aircraft deicing equipment and structures for centralized 
deicing areas; and (17) projects to comply with the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990, Clean Air Act, and Federal Water Pollution 
Control.
Table 27: DOT Reporting Requirements for AIP Funding:
Type: Performance; 
Description: Provides information on the grantee's performance, 
including comparisons between the project's accomplishments and the 
goals established for the period, reasons for not accomplishing planned 
goals in those cases where they have not been met, and other pertinent 
information, such as analysis and explanation of cost overruns or high 
unit costs; 
Frequency: Quarterly.
Type: Financial; 
Description: Grantees must file several financial reports that provide 
information on the total outlays of funds and obligations. These 
reports include the Financial Status Report on OMB SF 269, Federal Cash 
Transactions Report (OMB SF 272), and Request for Reimbursement (OMB SF 
270); 
Frequency: Annually, unless requested by AIP officials to be more 
frequent.
Description: Grantees must file final financial status report showing 
fund expenditures; 
Frequency: Within 90 days of the end of the project.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.
[End of table]
Examples of actual uses of program funds: In general terms, the AIP 
uses its funding for airport planning and development. The AIP tracks 
its spending by three categories: purpose of the project (the 
underlying objective of the project, such as airport reconstruction), 
the physical component of the project (e.g., a runway), and the type of 
the project (the work being done, such as a runway extension). Based on 
GAO analysis of agency data, from 1999 through 2004, DOT provided 
funding for 310 grants that benefited Alaska Native villages and 
villages that are located within the boundaries of incorporated 
cities.[Footnote 76] According to AIP documentation, some recent 
examples of grant uses:
* In 2002, Alaska's Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 
used grants totaling $8.3 million for airport improvements in the 
Alaska Native village of Iliamna, including $6.4 million to strengthen 
the runway.
* In 2003, the Native Village of Venetie used grants totaling about $6 
million to construct a new airport and a snow-removal equipment 
building.
* In 2004, Alaska's Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 
used grants totaling $257,000 to rehabilitate the seaplane base in the 
Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve.
Funding mechanism: From 1999 through 2004, based on GAO analysis of AIP 
data, AIP provided the vast majority of its Alaska funding to the state 
of Alaska, which oversaw projects through the DOTPF. The DOTPF received 
91 percent of the funding that benefited Alaska Native villages or 
villages that are located within the boundaries of incorporated cities. 
The remainder was provided directly to Alaska Native villages, 
incorporated cities encompassing Alaska Native villages, and boroughs, 
where the borough sponsored the airport benefiting from the project and 
that airport was located in an Alaska Native village or village located 
within the boundaries of an incorporated city.
Restrictions on administrative costs: According to agency officials, 
the AIP limits the amount of indirect administrative costs that 
Alaska's DOTPF can recover to 4.8 percent of the total AIP grants to 
the state; in 2003, the actual rate for indirect costs was less than 3 
percent. DOT's Federal Highway Administration adjusts that limit each 
year. Administrative costs are paid for from the grant, rather than 
given by AIP in addition to the AIP grant.
[End of section]
Appendix XVI: Program Summary for the Environmental Protection Agency:
Subagency: Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Office.
Program name: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program.
Authorization: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act of 
1992, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4368b; 40 C.F.R. Part 35, Subpart B.
Eligible program recipients: Alaska Native or American Indian tribal 
government or intertribal consortium.
Program objectives: The primary purpose of the Indian Environmental 
General Assistance Program (IGAP) is to support the development of a 
core tribal environmental protection program. IGAP is intended to help 
Alaska Native and American Indian tribes build their capacity to 
administer environmental programs and address environmental problems on 
Indian land.
Application process: Tribes and consortia in Alaska submit applications 
to EPA's Alaska Operations Office on forms prescribed by EPA. Each IGAP 
application must include a description of the tribe's environmental 
needs and goals, a work plan to accomplish those goals, and 
identification of grant outputs and outcomes. IGAP applicants must 
specify how they will spend the IGAP funds prior to receiving the IGAP 
grant. EPA evaluates proposals based on the completeness of the 
application, demonstration of risks and benefits to human health and 
the environment, the nature and quality of activities intended to build 
tribal capacity to address long-term environmental risks and needs, and 
management capability and past performance, if applicable. IGAP grants 
are not competitive grants; funding is available to all eligible tribes 
that demonstrate the capability to successfully manage a grant. EPA 
bases award amounts on fund availability, the number of eligible tribes 
and consortia applying, and the amount of any funds remaining in 
existing IGAP grants. IGAP project periods cannot exceed 4 years.
Table 28: EPA Reporting Requirements for IGAP Funding:
Type: Performance and financial; 
Description: Grantees must file performance reports that include 
information on the progress made on the grant's projects, by specific 
task, milestones reached, any problems the grantee had along with 
actions taken to overcome those problems, and state financial 
expenditure information; 
Frequency: Quarterly.
Type: Financial; 
Description: Financial Status Reports on OMB SF 269, which show the 
total outlay of funds for the year, but do not report specifically for 
what the funds were used; 
Frequency: Annual.
Description: Final financial status report showing fund expenditures; 
Frequency: Once, within 90 days of the end of the project.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of table]
Allowable uses of program funds: Grantees are permitted to spend IGAP 
funds on planning, developing, and establishing tribal capability to 
implement environmental protection programs, as well as implementation 
of solid and hazardous waste programs.
Examples of actual uses of program funds: Approximately 140 Alaska 
Native tribes are currently using EPA's Indian General Assistance 
Program to build their capacity to implement environmental protection 
programs, including development and implementation of solid and 
hazardous waste programs, according to EPA officials and documentation. 
Generally, according to EPA officials and documentation, Alaska Natives 
often use IGAP grants to complete some of the following tasks:
* establishing an environmental office, through, among other steps, 
hiring and training staff and purchasing office equipment;
* conducting an administrative review of tribal policies and procedures 
to ensure compliance with federal regulations and circulars;
* establishing the administrative, legal, technical, and implementation 
capability of the tribe to develop and operate a tribal environmental 
program;
* assessing and prioritizing environmental concerns and developing a 
strategic plan to address problems;
* implementing recycling and household hazardous waste removal 
programs, which typically include aluminum cans, batteries, used 
appliances, junk cars, used oil, and solvents;
* developing and implementing integrated and sustainable solid waste 
management programs;
* cleanup and closure of unregulated dumps;
* acquiring training in environmental program priority areas (e.g., 
water, waste, pollution prevention, alternative energy, environmental 
emergency response);
* training and working with tribally elected officials on EPA programs, 
environmental regulations, and effective intergovernmental coordination;
* identifying and performing baseline assessments of sources of 
pollution (water quality sampling, air quality emissions inventories, 
and waste stream analysis);
* establishing a tribal communications capability and technical 
expertise to work with federal, state, local, tribal, and other 
environmental officials; and:
* increasing communities' environmental awareness.
Additionally, EPA provided GAO with "success stories" highlighting 
specific examples of how IGAP funds have been used. Following are some 
examples:
* In 2003, the Gwich'yaa Zhee (Fort Yukon) IGAP program participated in 
the household hazardous waste back haul with Yutana barge lines, and 
back hauled 93 lead-acid batteries, 63 drums of waste oil, eight old 
vehicles, and 318 pounds of aluminum cans to be recycled.
* In 2003, the Goodnews Bay IGAP program sent a person to a Solid Waste 
Workshop, completed feasibility studies on the local dump, and started 
the process of getting a permit and draft management plans approved by 
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to get a new 
landfill. Goodnews Bay also said that the IGAP program provided the 
community with environmental education, awareness, increased capacity 
to apply for other grants, and jobs.
* From 2000 through 2003, the Ugashik IGAP program set up a monitored 
collection site for recycled and reuse products and worked more closely 
with other villages in the region, such as forming the Ugashik 
Watershed Council.
* In 1999, The Aleut Community of St. Paul Island IGAP program 
developed a Village Environmental Planning Survey and in 2000 began 
working on a Specific Action Plan, focusing on addressing the 
community's solid and hazardous waste issues and educating the 
community on a variety of environmental issues. The IGAP program 
reported its top three accomplishments as: (1) establishment of a 
department within the tribal government of St. Paul to address current 
and ongoing environmental issues in the community; (2) signing the 
Tribal Environmental Agreement with EPA in 2000, and (3) establishment 
and implantation of a recycling program.
Funding mechanism: IGAP grants go directly from EPA to the Alaska 
Native tribes and tribal consortia that run the programs.
Restrictions on administrative costs: Grantees use indirect cost rates 
approved by the Department of the Interior where a grantee has such a 
rate.[Footnote 77] Where a grantee does not have a rate, it typically 
includes all administrative costs as direct costs, negotiating with EPA 
the portion of overhead costs allocable to IGAP. There is no 
programwide limit on total administrative costs. Direct and indirect 
administrative costs are provided as part of the grant, rather than 
given by EPA in addition to the IGAP grant.
[End of section]
Appendix XVII: Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix XVIII: Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated 
Housing Entities:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix XIX: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Comments from the Department of Commerce:
The Deputy Secretary Of Commerce:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
July 15, 2005:
Mr. William Shear:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investments:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Shear:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report entitled 
Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages: Recent Federal Assistance 
Exceeded $3 Billion, With Most Provided to Regional Nonprofits (GAO-05- 
719).
We have reviewed the draft report and found all representations 
regarding EDA programs and financial assistance to be accurate. The 
Department of Commerce has no further comments to make on this report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David A. Sampson:
Acting Deputy Secretary
[End of section]
Appendix XX: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office of Inspector General:
Washington, D.C. 20201:
July 27, 2005:
Mr. William Shear:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office"
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Shear:
Enclosed are the Department's comments on the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report entitled, "Alaska Native 
Villages: Recent Federal Assistance Exceeded $3 Billion, With Most 
Provided to Regional Nonprofits" (GAO-05-719). These comments represent 
the tentative position of the Department and are subject to 
reevaluation when the final version of this report is received.
The Department provided several technical comments directly to your 
staff.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft 
report before its publication. 
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Daniel R. Levinson:
Inspector General:
Enclosure:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's 
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's 
designated focal point and coordinator for U.S. Government 
Accountability Office reports. OIG has not conducted an independent 
assessment of these comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them.
HHS COMMENTS ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S DRAFT 
REPORT ENTITLED, "ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES: RECENT FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 
EXCEEDED $3 BILLION, WITH MOST PROVIDED TO REGIONAL NONPROFITS" (GAO- 
05-719):
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appreciates the 
opportunity to comment on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO) draft report.
General Comments:
GAO's report focused on 13 programs which provide Alaska natives with 
assistance in health care, housing, infrastructure, and other areas. 
However, the report did not contain reference to HIV/AIDS activities or 
funding. HRSA provides health care related funding under the 
Secretary's Minority AIDS Initiative (MAI) Fund ($50 million annually) 
but this was not included as one of the 13 programs in the report. The 
American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) HIV/AIDS Education and Training 
for Healthcare Providers Serving Tribal Areas and Communities is a 
program funded by the Secretary's MAI Fund that benefits Alaska natives 
and provides special training for AI/AN health care providers through 
the AIDS Education and Training Centers. Fiscal year 2005 funding for 
this program was $1,052,986.
[End of section]
Appendix XXI: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, D.C. 20240:
July 25, 2005:
Mr. William Shear:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Shear:
The Department of the Interior appreciates the opportunity to provide 
comments on the Government Accountability Office's draft report 
entitled Alaska Native Villages: Recent Federal Assistance Exceeded $3 
Billion, With Most Provided to Regional Nonprofits (report No. GAO-05- 
719).
As discussed in the draft report, specific information on the uses of 
the funds provided under the Tribal Self-Governance program was 
limited. Beyond the submission of an annual Single Audit Report, 
relevant statutory provisions do not require Self-Governance Indian 
Tribes and Consortia to submit additional information. It is true only 
a few of the tribes in Alaska have submitted information on funds spent 
by category, amount, tribal goals, and progress toward tribal goals for 
inclusion in the Tribal Self-Governance Annual Report to Congress. 
However, as indicated in the draft report, we think it is significant 
to note that starting in fiscal year 2005, the Self-Governance tribes 
in Alaska have agreed to provide Interior with Government Performance 
and Results Act information. We believe that the funding information 
reflected for the Tribal Self-Governance program is accurate.
We have also included as an enclosure, a technical comment for your 
consideration. If you require additional information, please contact 
Mr. William Sinclair, Director, Office of Self-Governance and Self- 
Determination at 202-219-0240.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
The Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget:
[End of section]
Appendix XXII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
William B. Shear, (202) 512-8678:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Mark Egger, Brodi Fontenot, Curtis 
Groves, Cathy Hurley, May Lee, John Lord, Jeffery D. Malcolm, Grant 
Mallie, Alison Martin, John McGrail, Dan Meyer, Marc W. Molino, Andrew 
Nelson, David M. Pittman, Barbara M. Roesmann, James D. Vitarello, and 
Chuck Wilson also made key contributions to this report.
(250191):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Generally, the selected programs provided the largest amount of 
funding to Alaska Native villages and regional Native nonprofits during 
fiscal years 1998-2003 for their respective agencies, based on our 
analysis of FAADS.
[2] GAO analyses of FAADS are reported in constant 2003 dollars. Unless 
otherwise indicated, the years referred to in our report are federal 
fiscal years. The federal fiscal year runs from October through 
September. 
[3] Funding for 1998 is not included in this comparison because not all 
HHS and Interior funding was included in FAADS for this year.
[4] FAADS lists the Tribal Self-Governance as a single program; 
however, funding for this program is provided to Native villages 
through annual funding agreements that include funds from multiple 
Indian Health Service programs.
[5] In addition, regional housing authorities modernized 5,211 single- 
family units over the period and 73 multifamily properties developed 
under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, using "current assisted stock" 
funding that is provided as part of NAHASDA. We have not included the 
modernization of housing in the comparisons between Native villages and 
regional housing authorities, because only regional housing authorities 
received such funding.
[6] The act provided 45 million acres of land and over $900 million to 
be shared among Native regional corporations, village corporations, and 
Alaska Natives. 
[7] Groupings of Alaska Natives are also sometimes referred to as 
yupiit, tribes, associations, councils, or communities. Throughout, we 
use the term "village." 
[8] AIAN includes persons who indicated their race as American Indian 
or Alaska Native on the 2000 Census questionnaire. AIAN persons reside 
within geographic village boundaries recognized by the Census Bureau. 
AIAN persons who reside within the region but not within a specific 
village boundary area are counted as at-large members of the regional 
for-profit corporation. Enrolled members are actual members of a tribe 
that may reside anywhere in the world. 
[9] Throughout, we have included two federally recognized entities with 
the regional Native nonprofits. The Central Council of the Tlingit and 
Haida Indian Tribes, a regional tribe with delegates from 21 
communities, is identified as a regional Native association in ANCSA. 
The Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve is the only 
federally recognized Indian reservation within the state, and it 
operates a regional health entity and regional housing authority.
[10] The 12 regional Native associations identified in ANCSA were 
charged with naming incorporators to create regional for-profit 
corporations to carry out the act. These regional for-profit 
corporations were to cover the same geographic areas as those covered 
by the operations of the existing Native associations. Where the ANCSA- 
identified Native association name has changed or the association has 
been succeeded by another entity, we have used the name of the current 
regional entity. Generally these nonprofits are composed of member 
villages and operate programs on behalf of the member villages. 
[11] Compacting generally provides grant recipients broad flexibility 
in the use of federal funds for multiple programs. In order to compact, 
a Native village or other Native entity must have contracted with IHS 
to provide specific health services for at least 3 years and have had 
satisfactory annual financial statement audits during the most recent 3-
year period. 
[12] Regional housing authorities are also referred to as tribally 
designated housing entities, or TDHEs. Throughout this report we refer 
to them as regional housing authorities. These entities also receive 
NAHASDA funds for the purpose of modernizing and operating housing 
developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. 
[13] We have included the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island 
Reserve with the regional Native nonprofits in our analyses. Metlakatla 
Indian Community is the only federally recognized Indian reservation 
within the state, and it operates a regional health entity and regional 
housing authority.
[14] About 43 percent of Alaska is made up of 16 organized boroughs. 
The remaining 57 percent of the state is sparsely populated land that 
is considered a single "unorganized borough." 
[15] The Denali Commission was established by the Denali Commission Act 
of 1998 (P.L. 105-277) to provide sustainable rural infrastructure 
development, job training and other economic development services in 
rural communities with a focus on distressed communities, and to 
deliver services in the most cost-effective manner practicable in 
Alaska. The Denali Commission is composed of seven members appointed by 
the Secretary of Commerce, including: a federal co-chairperson; the 
Governor of Alaska, or an individual selected from nominations 
submitted by the Governor, who shall serve as the state co-chairperson; 
the President of the University of Alaska, or an individual selected 
from nominations submitted by the President of the University of 
Alaska; the President of the Alaska Municipal League or an individual 
selected from nominations submitted by the President of the Alaska 
Municipal League; the President of the Alaska Federation or Natives or 
an individual selected from nominations submitted by the President of 
the Alaska Federation or Natives; the Executive President of the Alaska 
State AFL-CIO or an individual selected from nominations submitted by 
the Executive President; and the President of the Associated General 
Contractors of Alaska or an individual selected from nominations 
submitted by the President of the Associated General Contractors of 
Alaska.
[16] Institute of Social and Economic Research, The Alaska Federation 
of Natives Report on the Status of Alaska Natives: A Call for Action 
(Anchorage, Alaska, January 1989).
[17] Institute of Social and Economic Research, Our Choices, Our 
Future: Analysis of the Status of Alaska Natives Report 2004 
(Anchorage, Alaska, July 2004).
[18] Unless otherwise indicated, the years referred to in our report 
are federal fiscal years. The federal fiscal year runs from October 
through September. 
[19] The fiscal year for the state of Alaska is July through June.
[20] GAO FAADS analyses use constant 2003 dollars.
[21] Public Law 108-447 temporarily limits the ability of HHS's Indian 
Health Service from directly funding villages that are already located 
within the area of a Native Alaska regional health facility. This 
restriction is the latest in a series of provisions that have 
effectively frozen the funding structure that was in place prior to 
1998.
[22] This increase does not include $26 million (constant 2003 dollars) 
in HHS expenditures to operate the Alaska Native Medical Center in the 
first quarter of 1999, before the center was operated by the Alaska 
Native Tribal Health Consortium and the Southcentral Foundation. If 
these expenditures are added to the HHS grant amounts to Native 
villages and regional nonprofits in 1999, the increase from 1999 
through 2003 is 23 percent. 
[23] In constant 2003 dollars.
[24] According to state of Alaska data, 122 of 145 incorporated cities 
include a Native village. Two cities each include two Native villages.
[25] The Impact Aid program defines Indian lands in Alaska to include 
real property that is tax exempt due to federal law, agreement, or 
policy, and that was conveyed under ANCSA to a Native individual, 
Native group or corporation organized under ANCSA, or village or 
regional corporation, as those terms are defined in ANCSA. 
[26] Our FAADS analysis showed an additional $3 billion coded as 
federal funding to the state during the period; however, we were not 
able to match the recipient names with a state department. Most of the 
additional federal funds were for HHS's Medical Assistance Program 
(Medicaid) (CFDA 93.778) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
(CFDA 93.558).
[27] Information on funds passed through the state of Alaska was 
provided by the Alaska Department of Administration, Division of 
Finance, not through an analysis of FAADS.
[28] We included in our review the Public Works and Economic 
Development Facilities program after speaking with Commerce officials, 
who stated that this program is generally used more by Alaska Native 
villages than the Economic Adjustment Assistance program. The officials 
stated that while the Economic Adjustment Assistance program was the 
highest funded Commerce program assisting Alaska Native villages during 
1998-2003, the program provided atypically high funding levels in 2001 
in response to the Alaskan salmon fishing disaster. HUD's Indian 
Community Development Block Grant program was added to our review 
because in addition to the Indian Housing Block Grant program, it, too, 
can be used to construct new housing in Alaska Native villages. For 
more detailed information on GAO's methodology, see appendix I.
[29] In total, 20 Alaska Native villages receive self-governance 
funding from IHS directly or as part of small groups that are not 
regional Native health care nonprofits. All other Alaska Native 
villages in Alaska receive health care services through regional Native 
health care nonprofits. We have included Eastern Aleutian Tribes Inc., 
as an entity that provided health care services to a group of villages; 
it was recognized as a Native regional health entity by P.L. 108-447, 
enacted in December 2004.
[30] The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium is a nonprofit health 
organization authorized by P.L. 105-83 and managed by regional health 
corporations and elected representatives from Alaska Native village 
governments not part of a regional health corporation. The consortium 
was created in 1997 to provide statewide Native health services when 
those services were transferred from federal ownership and control to 
Alaska tribes. 
[31] In addition to funding the above services and facilities, a small 
percentage of the IHS funding goes to one-time cooperative agreements 
that provide planning and negotiation resources to villages interested 
in participating in the Tribal Self-Governance Program.
[32] The IHS Tribal Self-Governance Program allows tribes and 
nonprofits to reprogram funding allocations within the limitations of 
appropriations laws as the tribe or nonprofit deems best to address 
their own health care needs and priorities. Pursuant to legislative 
reporting requirements, IHS receives information on health status and 
service delivery. 
[33] Over 95 percent of the funding for the operations described herein 
was provided under the Tribal Self-Governance Program. The remaining 
funds for these operations came from IHS's Indian Self-Determination 
Program, which also provides funds that allow tribes to administer 
health programs. Some of the information in IHS's published reports on 
health status and service delivery combines the uses from these two 
programs.
[34] The Denali Commission focuses its efforts on rural Alaska. 
According to Denali officials, most of the Commission's projects 
benefit Alaska Native villages.
[35] Prior to the passage of NAHASDA, HUD provided financial and 
technical assistance to Indian housing authorities under the U.S. 
Housing Act of 1937 for the development and operation of low-income 
housing projects in Indian areas.
[36] The Village Safe Water projects focus on rural Alaska. According 
to USDA officials, most of the Village Safe Water projects benefit 
Alaska Native villages.
[37] A flush and haul system generally consists of individual storage 
tanks that provide water to flush toilets, and the sewage is then 
stored in a separate tank, the contents of which are transported to a 
sewage lagoon.
[38] Since 2000, program funds have been given directly from USDA to 
the state, while prior to that, grants were given directly to the 
communities with grant administration done by the state. Some of these 
projects have not been completed as of May 2005, as projects can take 
several years to complete. Additionally, some funds have only been 
allocated and construction of the project has not been started.
[39] The state of Alaska is the owner and operator for most of the 
airports in Alaska; as such, the state is the eligible sponsor that can 
receive AIP funding for these airports.
[40] Total administrative costs consist of direct and indirect 
administrative costs. Direct administrative costs include costs that 
grantees can allocate to a particular federal program, such as 
unemployment taxes and workers compensation insurance. Indirect 
administrative costs include costs that grantees cannot easily allocate 
to a particular federal program. Indirect costs typically include 
administrative salaries and fringe benefits associated with overall 
financial and organizational administration, operation and maintenance 
costs for facilities and equipment, and payroll and procurement 
services. 
[41] In addition to reports required by federal agencies, grantees are 
subject to audit under the Single Audit Act. The Single Audit Act 
states that nonfederal grantees that expend a total amount of federal 
awards equal to or in excess of $500,000 are subject to an examination 
to determine if the grantee has expended funds in compliance with 
program requirements.
[42] While Interior's self-governance grantees have limited reporting 
requirements, grantees' annual funding agreements contain provisions 
for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an annual review of the 
tribe's performance of trust functions. The Secretary may reassume a 
program, service, function, or activity, if there is a finding of 
imminent jeopardy to a physical trust asset or the public health and 
safety.
[43] Our survey asked for information on newly constructed and 
rehabilitated single-family units that were completed from 1998 through 
2003 using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other 
funds. We asked respondents to only include units completed (when 
available for occupancy) by December 31, 2003. Rehabilitation refers to 
a wide range of improvements made to existing housing, such as energy- 
related improvements and lead-based paint abatement. Rehabilitation 
figures are for units rehabilitated without acquisition (i.e., that did 
not require purchase) and those acquired before they were rehabilitated.
[44] Funds for modernization of housing developed under the U.S. 
Housing Act of 1937 are provided only to regional housing authorities 
who are the owners of record.
[45] For newly constructed, rehabilitated, and modernized multifamily 
properties, we did not collect information on the number of individual 
units or the size of units included in these properties.
[46] Includes both rehabilitation and acquisition costs.
[47] HUD uses two components to determine annual NAHASDA funding: 
current assisted stock and housing need. The housing need component 
consists of seven weighted criteria, such as population and 
overcrowding. 
[48] For example, the 2002 Construction Cost Survey, sponsored by the 
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, indicated that construction 
material costs for Barrow (in the far north) were about 115 percent 
higher than for Sitka (near the southern tip of Alaska). The study 
indicated that a major reason for these increased costs was the added 
cost of transportation. 
[49] The southern region includes areas such as Bristol Bay, Aleutian 
East and West, Bethel, and Valdez. The northern region includes areas 
such as Fairbanks, Fairbanks Northstar Borough, and the Northwest 
Arctic Borough. 
[50] These agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 
Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, 
Justice, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and the Environmental 
Protection Agency. While the Denali Commission is also a federal agency 
whose programs are a focus in this report, the commission has not yet 
reported data on their obligations to the Census Bureau for FAADS 
purposes; therefore, we did not ask the commission to verify any data 
we obtained from FAADS. 
[51] In determining which programs were the largest, we combined 
funding amounts of programs that had been merged during the period to 
create the programs that were in place during 2003. 
[52] Akiachak Native Community, Curyung Tribal Council, Igiugig 
Village, Village of Iliamna, Native Village of Kongiganak, Native 
Village of Kotzebue, Orutsararmuit Native Village, and Pedro Bay 
Village.
[53] 68 Fed. Reg. 68180 (Dec. 5, 2003). The following BIA recognized 
entities are not included in the appendix table because they are 
regional or confederated entities and any associated populations are 
included in member villages or as part of the "at large" regional 
population: Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes; 
Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope; Native Village of Venetie Tribal 
Government; and Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul and St. 
George Islands. 
[54] AIAN includes persons who indicated their race as American Indian 
or Alaska Native on the 2000 Census questionnaire. AIAN persons reside 
within geographic village boundaries recognized by the Census Bureau. 
AIAN persons who reside within the region but not within a specific 
village boundary area are counted as at-large members of the regional 
corporation. The number of AIAN persons and enrolled members were 
provided by HUD. HUD develops AIAN counts for purposes of determining 
housing assistance by updating Census 2000 data with birth and death 
records obtained from the Department of Human Services' Indian Health 
Services, as well by obtaining input from Native villages. Enrolled 
members are actual members of a tribe and may reside anywhere in the 
world. HUD also obtains counts for enrolled members from BIA. 
[55] ANCSA, Section 7 (a), P.L. 92-203, as amended; Department of the 
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-83).
[56] The state fiscal year for Alaska is July through June. GAO 
converted amounts passed through by the state of Alaska to constant 
2003 dollars using the gross domestic product deflator.
[57] The Denali Commission program was established in 1998; the state 
of Alaska did not pass through funding from the Denali Commission to 
Native villages until 2001. The total increase in funding of $1.2 
million over the period includes seven federal agencies whose funding 
increased and eight whose funding decreased.
[58] The Denali Commission focuses its efforts on rural Alaska. 
According to Denali officials, most of the Commission's projects 
benefit Alaska Native villages. 
[59] Initially, 168 communities were ranked, and 4 additional 
communities have been added within the last 3 years.
[60] About 1 percent of program grant funding goes to the state- 
administered Remote Maintenance Worker program, which provides 
technical assistance to villages and provides infrastructure help in 
case of emergencies.
[61] A flush and haul system generally consists of individual storage 
tanks that provide water to flush toilets, and the sewage is then 
stored in a separate tank, whose contents are transported to a sewage 
lagoon.
[62] Since 2000, program funds have been given directly to the state, 
while prior to that grants were given directly to the communities with 
grant administration done by the state. The Village Safe Water projects 
focus on rural Alaska. According to USDA officials, most of the Village 
Safe Water projects benefit Alaska Native villages. Some of these 86 
projects have not been completed; in fact, some funds have only been 
allocated and construction of the project has not been started.
[63] These examples are from a former CFDA program number, as the 
current CFDA program number combined several different CFDA program 
numbers, starting in 2001.
[64] This appendix focuses on grants for tribes already participating 
in the Tribal Self-Governance Program. Nationally, less than 0.1 
percent of Tribal Self-Governance funding goes to planning grants for 
tribes not currently participating in the Tribal Self-Governance 
Program. 
[65] Compacting generally provides grant recipients broad flexibility 
in the use of federal funds for multiple programs. 
[66] If 50 other eligible tribes nationally have already applied that 
year to become new compacting tribes, then additional eligible tribes 
applying would need to wait until the next fiscal year to participate.
[67] The IHS Tribal Self-Governance Program allows tribes and 
nonprofits to reprogram funding allocations within the limitations of 
appropriations laws as the tribe or nonprofit deems best to address 
their own health care needs and priorities. Pursuant to legislative 
reporting requirements, IHS receives information on health status and 
service delivery.
[68] Over 95 percent of the funding for the operations described herein 
was provided under the Tribal Self-Governance Program. The remaining 
funds for these operations came from IHS's Indian Self-Determination 
Program, which also provides funds that allow tribes to administer 
health programs. Some of the information in IHS's published reports on 
health status and service delivery combines the uses from these two 
programs.
[69] The tribal hospitals in Alaska (with location and number of 
hospital beds), as listed in the 2002 Statistical Summary of Workload, 
are: Alaska Native Medical Center (Anchorage, 156 beds); Kanakanak 
Hospital (Dillingham, 16 beds); Maniilaq Medical Center (Kotzebue, 17 
beds); Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital (Sitka, 49 beds); Norton Sound Regional 
Hospital (Nome, 19 beds); Samuel Simmonds Memorial Hospital (Barrow, 14 
beds); and Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Hospital (Bethel, 50 beds). 
[70] IHS defines an ambulatory care visit as an encounter between a 
patient and a health care provider in an organized clinic, medical 
center, or hospital within an IHS or tribal facility where service 
resulting from the encounter is not part of an inpatient stay. Services 
provided for these ambulatory visits include pharmacy, X-ray, and 
laboratory visits.
[71] Contract medical care refers to services that are not available 
directly from IHS or tribes. These services are purchased under 
contract from community hospitals and practitioners. 
[72] Tribal self-governance funds also were used for community health 
aide (CHA) program visits by individual patients. IHS does not total 
all CHA visits the same way, since some visits take longer than others. 
IHS counts the amount of community health aide hours required by 
specific kinds of visits. For example, IHS counts a patient encounter 
as taking 1 hour, a group health education presentation as taking 2 
hours, and fluoride rinses as taking 6 minutes.
[73] If 50 other tribes nationally that meet the eligibility 
requirements have previously applied that year to become new compacting 
tribes, then additional eligible tribes applying would need to wait 
until the next fiscal year to participate.
[74] Hiring grants were limited to a maximum of $75,000 per officer 
over a 3-year period.
[75] Specifically, grantees may request funds using one of two systems, 
the Phone Activated Paperless Request System or the Letter of Credit 
Electronic Certification System. 
[76] The Airport Improvement Program provides grants that benefit both 
Alaska Native villages as well as other areas. The projects referred to 
herein were categorized by GAO as benefiting Alaska Native villages or 
villages that are located within the boundaries of incorporated cities; 
non-Alaska Natives living in those areas would benefit from those 
projects as well. Additionally, grants that were made to benefit 
airports in larger locations, such as Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks, 
were not included, though Alaska Natives traveling to those locations 
could benefit from those projects. Some of these projects have not been 
completed, as completion of some projects can take as long as 4 years. 
[77] An indirect cost rate is established for an entity by determining 
the percentage that indirect costs represent of all costs. The indirect 
cost rate is then used by federal agencies to determine how much money 
from a federal grant the entity will recover for the indirect costs of 
administering the grant. 
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: