Randall K.Q. Akee & Jonathan B. Taylor
Social and Economic Change on American Indian Reservations
A Databook of the US Censuses and the American Community Survey
1990–2010

Social and Economic Change on American
Indian Reservations
A Databook of the US Censuses and theAmerican Community Survey
1990–2010
mes

Ho
Crowdede Living in tion
Percentag
Navajo Na

Percentage of Wor
kers byReservations Only

49.7
50%

Sector

100%

38.9

10.1

7.6

40

8.0

self-employed

7.0

6.7

6.7

71.0

71.5

70.8

75

30
19.8

54.8

54.5

000
90–24.7
Change 19sta Income re than 150 Indian
6.5
10 al Per Capi
to Mo
Re
25
ons Home
Reservati

1990

2006–10
2000
1990
es
as–All Rac
Indian Are

0Morongo$40K

SobobaIsabella

20

Prairie Band

2000

private50

20owell Yavap
Fort McD

Brightoniof Potawatom

5.7

3.1
6.5

7.0

2006–102000
Races
not-foal US—All

28.8
Tot30.6
Female La
bor

0
es
1990
United Stat

80%

Navajo2006–10
Indian Areas–All
Races

ai

2000

Swinomis

h

48.3

53.1

55.6

56.8

Yurok
Lower Brule40
ingo
Santo Dom

Real Per Capita Income by
Census
Creek
Crow

5

2009 dollars
20

20
10

$30K

Indian pop.

Racial or Eth
K$40nic1990

2006–10of reservations

1980
tracked by the
Censu

7.7
14.8

2000

2006–10

Total US–All Race
s

57.5

59.4

1990
s Bureau chang

1990
Black

2000
2006–10
Total US—All Races

Hispanic

Indians on Reservations

1970
Note: the roster

7.2
14.6

Asian

2000
All RaceInd
ian s

Indians
10

1990

Category

0

White

20

6.7

1990

5

er size = 1990
blue markr-profit

33.3

Force Parti
cip
govern
ati
ment
15.3
on Ra
ns Other tha
tenReservatio

Tuscaroraa
Tonawand60

Mille Lacs

10

log scale;

52.3

2000

es over time.

2006–10$9.95
ISBN 978-0-9903880-0-550995>

May 15, 2014
Randall K.Q. Akee

9 780990 388005

Free download at:taylorpolicy.com/us-databook

Jonathan B. Taylor

“Social and Economic Change on American Indian Reservations: A
Databook of the US Censuses and the American Community Survey,
1990–2010” was made possible by a grant from the Research Centerfor the Sycuan Institute on Tribal Gaming (SITG). The research center,housed in the L. Robert Payne School of Hospitality and Tourism
Management (HTM) and supported by the San Diego State University
Research Foundation, is focused on producing and disseminating unbiased research on gaming issues in tribal government. The SITG grant
program is guided by federal standards in the review of applications.
An independent panel composed of distinguished researchers in thefield evaluates proposals and makes the final funding decisions. The
views expressed in this report are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of any of the funding organizations or of the institutions with which the authors are affiliated. This research project isundertaken with the clear understanding that the investigators havethe full right to publish any results obtained by them, without priorapproval of any funding organization or individual and subject only
to established safeguards for the protection of privacy or confidentiality.

Social and Economic Change on American
Indian Reservations
A Databook of the US Censuses and theAmerican Community Survey
1990–20102014
The Taylor Policy Group, Inc.
Sarasota, FLThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit the Creative
Commons online or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard
Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

May 15, 2014

ISBN: 978-0-9903880-0-5
Randall K.Q. Akee

Jonathan B. Taylor

Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................ v!

Real Per Capita Income III ............................................................ 32!

Reservation Economies in the National Context ........................... 6!

Variation in Real Per Capita Income Change ............................... 34!

Recent Native Political Economy ................................................... 8!

Projected Real Per Capita Income ................................................. 36!

Self-Government
Economic Development
Social Investment
Native Nations Rebuilding

8!
10!
11!
12!

Recent Change on Indian Reservations ........................................ 12!
Recession and Income
Other Indicators of Change
The Outlook for Indian Country

12!
15!
16!

Methodology ................................................................................ 18!
Reservations Other than Navajo
Decennial Census vs. American Community Survey
Gaming vs. Non-Gaming
Inflation-Adjusted Dollars
IncomeIndianAverage
Median

18!
20!
22!
23!
23!
23!
25!
25!

American Indian Population ........................................................ 26!
Real Per Capita Income I............................................................... 28!
Real Per Capita Income II ............................................................. 30!

ii

Akee Taylor 2014

Real Median Household Income .................................................. 38!
Family Poverty ............................................................................. 40!
Child Poverty ............................................................................... 42!
Unemployment ............................................................................ 44!
Male and Female Labor Force Participation ................................. 46!
Employment Sector ...................................................................... 48!
Overcrowded Housing.................................................................. 50!
Homes Lacking a Complete Kitchen ............................................ 52!
Homes Lacking Complete Plumbing ............................................ 54!
High School Degree or Equivalent ................................................ 56!
College Graduates or More ........................................................... 58!
Appendices ................................................................................... 60!
Online Resources
Acknowledgments
About the Authors
References

Akee Taylor 2014

60!
60!
60!
61!

iii

Executive Summary
1. By 2010, the vast majority of American Indian tribes could beconsidered gaming tribes. We estimate that more than 92% of
all American Indians on reservations lived on reservations
with gaming operations. Gaming operations have an impact
on almost every American Indian reservation given the existence of revenue-sharing funds and intertribal gaming-device
leasing, which transfer gaming revenues to non-gaming tribes.
2. Significant gains were made in Real Per Capita Income on
American Indian reservations from 1990 to 2000. In the ten
years following, however, income gains were much smaller.
3. The Median Household Income of American Indians livingon reservations increased during the 1990s, but those gains did
not continue into the 2000s. Nor did the large reductions in
Family and Child Poverty made during the 1990s. However,neither the increases in income nor the reductions in poverty
after 1990 have eroded on reservations.
4. The Unemployment rate for American Indians residing on
reservations fell in the 1990s but remained constant in the
2000s. The Labor Force Participation rate remained steadyover time, but Indian Female Labor Force Participation
increased steadily over that period.
5. Improvements in infrastructure have continued on reservations over the past 20 years. Crowded Homes and Homes
Lacking Complete Plumbing have dropped significantly innumber.
6. Education levels have increased over time on reservations,with more College Graduates since the 1990s, although
the Indian population is far from parity with the rest of theUnited States on this measure.

iv

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 2014v

Reservation Economies in the National Context
The 25th anniversary of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988
(IGRA) occasions this review of living conditions on reservations. This
databook examines US census data over two decades, which show
both remarkable progress and a great gap between life on reservations
and in the US generally.
The economic fortunes of Indians on reservations continue to lag
those of other racial and ethnic groups tracked by the census. The percapita income of Indians on reservations is less than half the US average and consistently falls far below that of Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Indians living elsewhere.
Even after the advent and widespread adoption of self-determination
policies by tribes and the federal government, the problem of low per
capita income on reservations persists. Indeed, in light of IGRA—oneof many recent federal laws recognizing and bolstering Native selfreliance—it is perhaps surprising that Indians living on reservations
fare as poorly as they do. Their incomes stand in stark contrast to awidespread public assumption of burgeoning wealth from casino operations.
Real (that is, inflation-adjusted) Indian per capita income on reservations grew by 50% during the 1970s but fell by 8% in the following
decade, just as self-determination and gaming gained traction. Thatdrop accompanied dramatic Reagan-era cuts in funding for programs
targeting Indians. In the 1990s and 2000s, Indian incomes on reservations grew again, even though federal funding per Indian lost groundrelative to nondefense discretionary spending per American [1]. More
important, income growth on reservations outpaced the growth rates
for other racial and ethnic groups tracked by the census in the 1990s
and 2000s.

ments indicates the power of increased Native sovereignty and economic development.

Real Per Capita Income by Census Racial or Ethnic Category
2009 dollars
$30K

20

Asian

All Races

White

Black
Indians10

1970

Hispanic

Indians on Reservations

1980

1990

2000

2006–10

Note: the roster of reservations tracked by the Census Bureau changes over time.

This databook presents 13 indicators of demography, income, employment, education, and housing for reservations in the lower 48
states. It also begins to investigate the variations within Indian Country, although full examination is beyond its scope. It is meant to update earlier research on changes from 1990 to 2000 on reservations [2]and relates to prior research documenting the challenges of reservation life [3,4].

Since 1970, real Indian per capita income on reservations doubled,
increasing by 104%, whereas the growth rate for all races in the US was
49% over the same period. The fact that growth from 1990 to 2010
occurred despite low and declining federal funding for tribal govern-

The next section describes Recent Native Political Economy,
painting in broad strokes a picture of political, economic, and social
resurgence. [Throughout this document, text in small caps refers to sections,tables, and graphics captioned by the indicated name.] The subsequent
section summarizes the findings of this databook, providing a snapshot of Recent Change on Indian Reservations. The section on
Methodology highlights important conventions and considerations that influenced the selection and presentation of data. Graphs

6

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 20147

and discussions of the data follow immediately thereafter. The Appendices contain links to companion resources online, acknowledgments, biographical information about the authors, and references.

Recent Native Political Economy
Generalizations about Indian Country risk mischaracterizing andmasking enormous variety, but most observers would concur that thepast three or four decades have seen a broad resurgence in Native selfgovernment, economic development, and social investment.
Self-Government
The United States is home to thousands of internal governments,
ranging from tribal and state governments to those of counties, municipalities, and towns. There are 3,021 counties; 35,886 municipalities, towns, and townships; and 566 Native nations [5]. In the lower 48
states, 305 tribal governments preside over 324 reservations, pueblos,
rancherias, colonies, and other Indian bodies of land [6]. Over the past
35 years, Indian communities have asserted their sovereignty—theirpowers of self-determination—with at least three broad consequences.
First, they now have decision-making control over reservation life to adegree not seen since the nineteenth century. They have insisted thatthe Bureau of Indian Affairs abandon its mid-twentieth-century role asa quasi-colonial overseer of reservation poverty to become a more benign federal bureaucracy. In some cases, the BIA even provides consulting expertise to tribal governments. Native nations have displaced
opportunistic landowners, unscrupulous developers, and other modern-day carpetbaggers in order to develop resources themselves. Tribes
have fought in the courts—often successfully—to have their powers ofself-government on reservations take precedence over state, county,
and municipal authorities. Asserted Indian sovereignty has kept decisions and—critically, their consequences—internal to Native communities. Outcomes have improved accordingly [7].

tribes (one of four sovereigns explicitly named), it is largely reticent
about tribal powers, checks, and balances. Today, tribes find themselves in cooperation and conflict with state governments as theybuild state-like relationships with the federal government. Under thefederal Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, they can opt for formal“treatment-as-state” status. By order of the Secretary of the Interior,
tribes and the US Fish and Wildlife Service manage endangered species
together. At the state and local levels, intergovernmental cooperation
takes place under frameworks such as the Centennial Accord between
the Federally Recognized Indian Tribes in Washington State and theState of Washington [8] and under particularized agreements such as
the Otoe-Missouria Tribe’s police cross-deputization agreement with
the City of Perry, Oklahoma [9]. Perhaps nowhere else is this federalist
relationship more powerfully articulated than in IGRA’s requirementthat tribes and states formally compact to regulate Vegas-style Indiancasinos. Recent legislation such as the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 allows
them to be treated as states as well [10]. From gaming regulation andsewage management to law enforcement and salmon habitat restoration, tribes, states, and local governments have forged new working
relationships. Asserted Indian sovereignty has clarified how tribes fit
into federalism.
Third, tribes have been in the vanguard of the “new fiscal federalism”—the practice of shifting implementation authority and spending
discretion to state, county, municipal, and tribal governments. Since
the Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act of 1975,
tribes have been increasingly able and eager to contract federal functions, to receive block-grant-like spending discretion, and to adapt
federal policy implementation as they see fit. Devolution in IndianCountry ranges from legislation giving tribes the power to adapt welfare-to-work definitions [11] to the Nez Perce Tribe’s contracting foroff-reservation implementation of the grey wolf reintroduction in
Idaho [12]. Indian decision-making in federal policy implementation
has brought greater efficiency and effectiveness to antipoverty, health,environmental, and other policies [7,13-19].

Second, Indian communities have asserted their position in the federalist matrix of governments. Although the US Constitution mentions
8

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 2014

9

Economic Development

Social Investment

A wide range of economic development has accompanied tribal assertions of sovereignty. Tribes have long turned to timber, water, grazing,wildlife, and mineral resources for jobs and revenue. As they have asserted more sovereignty and built their capacity, they have been able
to move from simply collecting stumpage, royalties, and rents to running value-adding enterprises such as the Fort Apache Timber Company and Warm Springs Power Enterprises.

Greater Indian control and economic self-sufficiency on reservations
has been accompanied by rising social investment. Some tribes have
improved or replaced their formal institutions of government throughconstitutional reform, such as the Osage Nation, in Oklahoma and the
Ho-Chunk Nation, in Wisconsin. They have constructed, reconstructed, or bolstered corporate boards (Winnebago), appellate courts (Navajo), gaming commissions (Oneida of New York), and tribal administrations (Confederated Salish and Kootenai). Until recent decades, thesesuperstructures of tribal government reflected outsiders’ views of how
best to organize and use authority. But these reforms have broughtalignment with local cultures, conditions, and preferences, thereby
increasing the effectiveness of self-government [14,16,21-24].

And, of course, in recent years they have developed first bingo operations and then full-fledged casinos. Less well known is the broad extent to which they have parlayed gaming experience into resort, golf,
RV, spa, and hotel businesses, ranging from the Flandreau SanteeSioux’s modest but growing Royal River Hotel and Casino, a 45-mile
drive north of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to the world-class Mohegan
Sun in Uncasville, Connecticut.
Tribes have also built a wide variety of manufacturing and service
businesses. Some of these, such as S&K Technologies (Confederated
Salish and Kootenai, Montana) and Ho-Chunk, Inc. (Winnebago, Nebraska), benefited from the Small Business Act’s procurement advantages for businesses owned by tribes or individual Indians. Others,
such as Skookum Creek Tobacco (Squaxin Island, Washington), havesucceeded in markets where non-Indian manufacturers face high taxes.
A host of tribe-owned ventures also began and flourished without procurement or tax advantages, including the Mississippi Choctaw’s First
American Plastic Molding Enterprise, the Colorado River Indian
Tribes’ CRIT Farms agricultural enterprise, and the Tulalip Tribes’ Quil
Ceda Village development project.
More than ever before, tribes have been able to develop businesses that
produce jobs, profits, and government revenues. There’s no disputingthat the gaming sector, with its $27.9 billion in 2012 revenue (denominated in 2012 dollars) [20], represents the dominant development of
the past two decades, but that revenue should not obscure the otherconsiderable economic changes that are also under way.

10

Akee Taylor 2014

Programs such as the Cherokee Language Revitalization Project, in
Oklahoma; the Mille Lacs Band’s Ojibwe Language Program, in Minnesota; and the Piegan Institute on the Blackfeet Reservation, in Montana, work to strengthen Native fluency. Similar efforts, including the
San Carlos Tribal Elders Program, have helped to restore cultural
knowledge and practice and their place in community life. These efforts to refresh Indian citizens’ connection to their history and culture
are not just valid in their own right; they improve social outcomes. For
example, the Squaxin Island Tribe’s Northwest Indian Treatment Center uses a blend of traditional ceremony, art, and ritual to achieve outcomes in substance abuse recovery that are among the best in the nation [25]. The Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate rely on the cultural sanctionof elderly women to reduce workplace absenteeism and turnover [26].
Systematic evidence links cultural integrity and cohesion with positive
economic and administrative performance [16]. Informal, cultural institutions support formal ones.
And, of course, tribes are making more-conventional investments inhuman and social capital. Many tribes underwrite college scholarships
with funds derived from casino profits. The Hopi Tribe, in Arizona,
took over its high school from the BIA, orchestrated the co-location ofa Northland Pioneer [community] College on its high school grounds,
and established an organic chemistry class with a fiber-optic link to
Akee Taylor 201411

Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff [27]. The Tohono O’odham
Nation in southern Arizona built a world-caliber skilled-nursing facility that takes care of elderly members of the community using bothmodern and traditional medicine and cultural practice [28].

Indian Gaming Revenues
2012 dollars in billions
$30B

27.9

Native Nations Rebuilding
These three broad trends in Indian Country are mutually reinforcing.
As Steve Cornell and Joseph Kalt have pointed out, assertions of sovereignty and institutional reforms based in Native culture beget economic and social development [14,22,23] that, in turn, spur stronger
institutions and more-effective assertions of sovereignty. For example,
revenues from successful tribal enterprises support sovereignty directly by underwriting legal and policymaking reforms and indirectly by
establishing effective administration that competes with and evensurpasses state and local counterparts. Likewise, social investments, bethey made to increase college completion rates, revitalize Native languages, or reduce drug and alcohol recidivism, help institutions perform more effectively [16]. Native nations across the United States arerebuilding their governments, economies, and societies [24].

Recent Change on Indian Reservations
Broadly speaking, the statistics in the US Census and American Community Surveys indicate continuing improvement on Indian reservations but with a somewhat slower pace of change in the 2000s. As noted above, the change since 1970 has been remarkable, with truly
astonishing gains coming in the 1990s. In that decade, reservation
economies grew at almost three times the national average [2].
Recession and Income
The recession of 2007–2009 took a toll on the US economy, depressing
inflation-adjusted median and per capita incomes, and probably bears
some responsibility for the reduction in American Indian economic
growth as well, since casinos are recession-vulnerable. The plateauing
growth is evident in the path of Indian Gaming Revenues.

12

Akee Taylor 2014

20
14.6

10

0.9
0

1990

2000

2010

[20,29]

Nonetheless, the data make clear that Indian social and economic indicators for the 1990s and 2000s improved against the national statistics, with the exception of College Graduate or More, for which
the US outpaced reservation improvement. The table below shows the
Change on Reservations Other than Navajo. The Navajo Nation
is excluded from the table (and many other figures) because its large
population skews the impression as explained in the Methodology
section. When the table includes all reservations, the pattern of relative improvement against national rates remains consistent. [The fullcollection of charts and comparisons with and without Navajo isavailable online as indicated in the Appendices, and many Navajoonly charts accompany the main charts that follow.]
Most stunning, real Indian per capita income and median householdincome grew over the two decades by 46.5% and 27.5%, respectively,
compared with 7.8% and !1.8% for the US as a whole. Over that period, Indian income growth translated into a 2.1% compound annual
growth rate for real per capita income and 1.4% for median household
Akee Taylor 201413

income. These figures are in stark contrast to the US annual growth
rates over the same period of 0.4% and !0.1%, respectively. [TheMethodology section explains that this databook must rely on the
Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2010 five-year averages
rather than on a 2010 decennial snapshot.]

Change on Reservations Other than Navajo
in points unless indicated as %Indians on Reservations
Other than Navajo

real per capita income
real median household income
child poverty
family poverty
unemployment
labor force participation
male labor force participation
female labor force participation
overcrowded homes*
homes w/o complete plumbing
homes w/o complete kitchens*
high school degree only
college graduate or more

1990s
32.5%
30.4%
-11.0
-10.9
-4.2
1.0
-3.1
4.8
-0.3
-3.5
-0.2
1.4
2.1

2000s
10.5%
-2.2%
0.8
-1.4
-0.2
-0.6
0.3
2.5
-3.7
-1.2
1.1
2.3
1.9

Both
Decades
46.5%
27.5%
-10.1
-12.3
-4.4
0.4
-2.8
7.2
-4.0
-4.7
0.8
3.7
3.9

United States
All Races
1990s
11.4%
4.0%
-1.7
-0.8
-0.5
-1.3
-3.7
0.8
1.1
-0.1
0.2
-1.4
4.1

2000s
-3.3%
-5.5%
2.6
0.9
2.1
1.1
0.2
1.9
-2.6
-0.1
1.4
0.4
3.5

Both
Decades
7.8%
-1.8%
0.9
0.1
1.6
-0.3
-3.5
2.6
-1.6
-0.3
1.6
-1.0
7.6

*Due to data limitations, the Indian-area figures for overcrowded homes and homes w/ocomplete kitchens are the all-races, rather than Indian, statistics.

While this is good news for Indian Country, it is plainly not goodenough on at least two measures. First, the rate of change is not uniform. The statistics in the table above and the charts that follow give
weighted averages: Small tribes have less influence and large tribes
have more influence on the statistic in question. Weighted averages
properly characterize the overall change in Indian Country: Across all
reservations, Indians experienced, on average, a 46.5% increase in income from 1990 to 2010.
But the Variation in Real Per Capita Income Change is substantial. On some reservations in the 1990s, incomes lost ground in both
relative and absolute terms. In the 2000s, that happened more often.
Although both average and median incomes improved generally, al14

Akee Taylor 2014

most a fifth of the on-reservation Indian population outside Navajo
lived on reservations where the income per capita shrank by more in
the 2000s than it did for the US as a whole (-3.3%, adjusted for inflation).
Second, and more important, the absolute difference between conditions on reservations and those nationwide continues to be very large.
Indeed, at recent rates of economic growth it would take decades forper capita income in Indian Country to converge with that in the restof the US (see Projected Real Per Capita Income).
Other Indicators of Change
These caveats aside, other economic, educational, and housing statistics demonstrate improvements in concert with, if not precisely parallel to, the improvement in income statistics. The reservation Child
Poverty Rate declined in the 1990s but increased slightly in the
2000s, as did US poverty rates. The Indian Family Poverty Rate saw
a marked decline in the 1990s (from 44% to 33%), but by 2010 it had
dropped only to 32%—more than triple the US family poverty rate of10%.
The Unemployment Rate fell in the 1990s but changed little in the
2000s, while the US as a whole saw an increase in unemployment during the 2000s. The overall difference between the two is still quite
large, with reservation unemployment at 20% and US unemployment
at 8% by 2010. From 1990 to 2010, Female Labor Force Participation increased among Indians on reservations from 48% to 56%, butchanged much less in the US as a whole. Despite a decline in the Male
Labor Force Participation Rate in Indian Country, employment
held steady at about 55%.
The Indian housing stock seems to be improving over time in somedimensions. The fraction of Indians living in Overcrowded Homes
dropped from 11% to 6% from 1990 to 2010. The proportion of IndianHomes Lacking Complete Plumbing fell from 8% to 3%. Homes
Lacking Complete Kitchens displays an improving relative trend
but possibly a worsening absolute trend; the US rate increased, too.
Akee Taylor 201415

The Outlook for Indian Country
In the figure Relative Standing of Indians 2006–2010, it is clearthat even in 2010, Indians on reservations lived under uniformly
worse conditions than did Americans in general. That figure provides
the ratio of the Indian statistic to the US statistic for each indicator.
For example, Indian per capita income is 45% of US per capita income
and is plotted to the left of the dotted vertical line. The Indian family
poverty rate is more than three times that of the US and is far to theright of the vertical line.
Note that for the characteristics toward the top of the graph, from
College Graduate to Female Labor Force Participation, theratio of the Indian rates to the US rates is less than one. These indicators can be characterized as social goods—attributes that societies seek
to increase. Further note that all the items below High School Degree Only are social bads.
Of course, this collection of statistics is not exhaustive. It says nothing
about health, life expectancy, family integrity, or the environment,
for example. But these statistics are widely used measures of generalsocioeconomic status, and the fact that they are uniformly worse than
US levels indicates the ongoing need for economic, political, and social development in Indian Country. The income gap is large, and thepace of change is slowing. Growth in the US economy will probably
increase, but there is no guarantee that reservation economies will follow suit.

16

Akee Taylor 2014

Relative Standing of Indians 2006–2010
Reservations Other than Navajo
parity with the US

Among Indians on reservations aged 25 and older, those with a HighSchool Degree Only increased from 32% to 36%. College Graduates almost doubled, from 4.5% to 8.4%. By comparison, the US
proportion of adults 25 and older with college degrees was 29% in
2010. [Again, the full collection of charts and comparisons with Navajo and other US Census-tracked Indian areas is available online as indicated in the Appendices.]college graduate or more
real per capita income
real median household income
male labor force participationlabor force participation
female labor force participationhigh school degree only
homes w/o complete kitchens*
overcrowded homes*
child poverty
unemployment
family poverty
homes w/o complete plumbing
0

2

4

6

ratio of Indian to US condition*Due to data limitations, the Indian-area figures for overcrowded homes and homes w/ocomplete kitchens are the all-races, rather than Indian, statistics.

Given that economic fortunes on reservations have retreated in the
recent past, and that there are persistent gaps in important socioeconomic indicators, it is imperative that federal, Indian, and state policymakers remain attentive to Native self-determination and effective
self-governance. Future outcomes will depend heavily on the continued exercise of sovereign rights and on sound decision-making in reservation contexts. Without them, Indian economic and social wellbeing may once again depend on US taxpayers—a situation that worked
poorly in the past for all parties involved.

Akee Taylor 201417

Methodology
Reservations Other than Navajo
The Census Bureau designates several geographic areas for federally
recognized Indian communities, most commonly reservations andaccompanying trust lands, which encompass treaty homelands, executive-order reservations, lands held by the federal government in trust
for Indians, and other lands over which tribes and the federal government have the clearest jurisdictional powers. Reservations may belisted by other names—rancheria in California, pueblo in New Mexico,“Indian community” (as at Bay Mills, in Michigan, and elsewhere)—but most have similar legal and economic properties.
The census also denotes statistical areas in which the powers and titlesof reservations and trust lands are not as well established. Oklahoma
Tribal Statistical Areas (OTSAs) delineate areas comparable to the former Oklahoma reservations. They cover much of the state, encompassing even most of Tulsa, where thousands of non-Indians live.
Tribally Designated Statistical Areas (TDSAs) provide information
about Indians where tribes have no formal reservation lands. The Census Bureau also tracks joint-use areas shared by federally recognizedtribes, Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas, Alaska Native Regional
Corporation Lands, State Designated Tribal Statistical Areas, American
Indian Reservations (recognized by state governments), and State Designated Tribal Statistical Areas.
The bounty of geographic choices in Census Bureau data presents
challenges for a databook like this. To simplify matters, we havelooked at the census areas covering federally recognized tribes in thelower 48 states, leaving to other research the specialized tasks of understanding the socioeconomic status of Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and state-recognized tribes and Indian quality of life in urban
and non-reservation settings.
Even with that substantial omission, the choice of geography remains
complicated. It would be appealing to characterize all Indians living in
18

Akee Taylor 2014

all Indian areas, but life in many of those areas resembles offreservation Indian life. The Indians living in Tulsa, which lies insideboth the Creek and Cherokee OTSAs, may have economic opportunities like those that Indians in Phoenix, Oakland, or Denver have—dramatically different from the opportunities on the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation, the San Ildefonso Pueblo, or the Seneca Nation’s Cattaraugus Territory.
Limiting the analysis to reservations still leaves the problem of thevery large Navajo Nation. The 2010 decennial census records 166,824
Indians within the confines of the Navajo Nation Reservation and its
off-reservation trust lands. The next largest reservation population, at
the Pine Ridge Reservation, is one-tenth the size of the Navajo population.

Top 10 Reservation Populations
2010 decennial census

NavajoPine Ridge
Fort Apache
Gila RiverSan Carlos
RosebudTohono O'odham
Blackfeet
Turtle MountainWind River
50,000100,000

150,000

resident Indians

Indeed, the Navajo Nation is home to more Indians than the next 19
reservations combined and represents 33% of the on-reservation Indian population in the lower 48 states. Any statistical analysis of reserva-

Akee Taylor 201419

tion-based populations will be heavily influenced by its disproportionate size.
For completeness, we might have included the Navajo in characterizing reservation life. However, in order not to confuse “Indian reservation life” with “mostly Navajo reservation life,” we opted to separate
Navajo from other reservation populations and to provide comparisons between Navajo and the US where appropriate. Two other approaches—including the Navajo reservation and including both Navajo and OTSAs—are taken in our presentation of Real Per Capita Income. (Interested readers can pursue the full array of charts for all thegeographies online, as noted in the Appendices. They can also findthe full data set online and make custom aggregations of tribes at will.)
Decennial Census vs. American Community Survey
We have relied on the US decennial censuses for Indian population
counts in 1990, 2000, and 2010 (see Top 10 Reservation Populations, American Indian and Alaska Native Population, andAmerican Indian Population).
For income, employment, housing, and education statistics, the 1990
and 2000 censuses provide a one-in-six sample of population characteristics for those years—also known as the census’s “long form.” The2010 decennial census dispensed with the long-form survey; its replacement, the American Community Survey (ACS), is an annual
sample, but it is too small to provide reliable estimates for all geographic units. The Census Bureau provides three-year averages forplaces with populations between 20,000 and 65,000, and five-year averages for geographic and political units that are smaller than 20,000
in population [30]—i.e., most Indian reservations.
The Census Bureau’s policy change has forced us to compare the longform information of two decennial censuses (1990 and 2000) with the2010 ACS five-year average, which actually reports average conditions
from 2006 to 2010. Given that the recent recession took place in the
middle of that period, it is concerning that these charts may be comparing apples with oranges. US per capita income, for example, aver20

Akee Taylor 2014

aged $26,059 according to the 2010 ACS one-year survey and $27,334
according to the 2010 ACS five-year average (both in nominal, 2010
dollars). Pre-recession conditions lift the five-year average. Unfortunately, these are the only data that provide more than a simple countof the population.
However, the approach of this databook—a comparison of differencesin differences—mitigates the concern. The charts compare the ACS
five-year statistics for Indians with those for the US, and each of thoseto their 1990 and 2000 counterparts in the long-form census. But conclusions about the absolute levels should be reached with caution, because the data are not from a decennial snapshot.
To further ensure the reliability of our comparisons, the charts that
follow use consistent definitions of the indicators in question. Whenchanges in census-taking procedures or definitions prevented consistent comparisons, a substitute indicator, consistent across the decades (e.g., for College Graduate or More), was developed. Unfortunately, this could not be done for the proportion of Indians in deep
poverty, those with less than a ninth-grade education, or those dependent on public assistance—three indicators that appeared in priorwork [2]. Thus those indicators are not included.
It should also be noted that the data herein do not control for migration onto or off the reservation—a limitation for all such crosssectional data—so the charts do not compare the same populations
over time. The Census Bureau does not allow researchers to reliably
identify where people resided ten years earlier; therefore, it is not possible to estimate the flow on or off reservations.
Finally, researchers have found that the ACS undercounts the numberof American Indians and Alaska Natives relative to the US Census in2010 [31]. To some extent this is owing to the sampling nature of the
ACS data. However, in some cases the discrepancy is almost ten times
the potential sampling error, clearly indicating that something more is
at play. Inaccurate sampling weights may play a role in this discrepancy. Additionally, there is some evidence that the accuracy of counts is

Akee Taylor 201421

more problematic for urban settings than for rural ones. This databook
focuses on reservation populations, which may alleviate the concern.

book we compare characteristics of all the reservations with those of
the US as a whole.

Gaming vs. Non-Gaming

Inflation-Adjusted Dollars

Prior work distinguished between tribes that had opened casinos by
January 1, 2000, and tribes that had not [2]. At that time a substantial
number of Indians were living on reservations both with (55%) andwithout (45%) casinos. That is no longer the case.

Unless otherwise indicated, the dollar figures in this report are adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for
urban consumers (CPI-U) [32]. That is because the census question
asks for income in the prior year—hence the values are for 1989, 1999,
and 2009. Thus comparisons over time preserve purchasing-power
parity.

As of January 1, 2010, the population of Indian Areas With andWithout Casinos had shifted such that two-thirds, representing
95% of Indians living in the Census Bureau’s Indian areas, resided in
an area governed by a tribe that operated a casino. Looking at reservations only, 207 (almost two-thirds) belonged to tribes that operated
casinos and contained 92% of the on-reservation Indian population.

Indian Areas With and Without Casinos
Decennial populations of census Indian areas in the lower 48
As of January 1, 2010:
Non-Gaming#

Indians

NavajoOther Reservations

112

42,258

OTSAs
TDSAs

4

468

116

42,726

Joint Use Areas
Total

Indians1

166,824207

331,66529

273,21130

240771,700

Note: areas are not the same as tribes (see References for sources).

As explained in the American Indian Population section below,
additional tribes that do not operate casinos nonetheless benefit from
Indian gaming. More than ever before, the influence of casinos in Indian Country is a matter of degree. It would not be sensible to create
bar charts and other statistics for non-gaming Indian areas when they
represent only 6% to 8% of the population. Accordingly, in this data-

22

Census-recorded income includes income from many sources otherthan earnings—for example, SSI, Social Security, retirement income,welfare transfers, and unemployment benefits. It does not include refunds, rebates, savings withdrawals, capital gains/losses, or in-kindpayments. It is self-reported and, of course, not audited or otherwise
verified.
IndianGaming#IncomeAkee Taylor 2014

We use American Indian, Indian, Native, and Native American to refer tothe people whose lives are characterized by this data. There are many
official and unofficial designations of Native heritage from which tochoose. The federal Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood determines
eligibility for certain health care, college tuition, and other assistancefrom the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Native governments establish the criteria and procedures for determining
who is properly a citizen of, for example, the Red Lake Chippewa, theMescalero Apache, or the Eastern Band of Cherokee. Job and college
applicants self-report as they see fit.
We use the Census Bureau’s category American Indian and Alaska Native Alone—a self-reported identification. Since the 2000 census, thebureau has provided Americans with the option to designate morethan one racial or ethnic category. Over time, the American Indian

Akee Taylor 201423

and Alaska Native Population has risen as a result of strong
birthrates and an increasing propensity to self-identify as Indian [33].

American Indian and Alaska Native Population
nationwide 1950–2010
AIAN Alone or in Combination

5

5.2

4.1

millions

4

2.9

3
2.5
2.0

2

AIAN Alone
1.4
0.8

1
0.4
0

1950

0.6

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

[35,36]

Average
Virtually all the summary statistics for Indian areas—reservations,
OTSAs, TDSAs—are averages weighted by reservation Indian population. Equivalently, they represent the sum of all numerator values divided by the sum of all denominator values. For example, the sum of
all the income earned by all Indians on all reservations divided by the
total number of Indians on all reservations yields Per Capita Income.
Thus the statistics relate not how the average reservation fares but, rather, how the average Indian across all reservations fares.
MedianThe exception to the rule is Median Household Income. The median must be calculated differently to yield a summary statistic that is anappropriate analog to the weighted average. Because the Census Bureau keeps confidential the individual household data from which anactual median could be calculated, we apply the bureau’s method of
Pareto interpolation [37,38] to estimate the median. Essentially, thecounts of individuals in census-defined bands of income are added
across reservations, and the median is interpolated from the national
histogram.

At the national level, the difference between AIAN Alone and AIAN
Alone or in Combination with another race is large. Such a discrepancy would be concerning for a project like this, except that the difference between the two categories shrinks as the scope of analysis approaches the reservation. Indians in New York City and Los Angeles,
for example, tend to self-identify with more racial categories than Indians living on reservations or in cities that are close to Indian Country, such as Albuquerque and Rapid City [34].
The narrower definition most likely correlates with a tighter affiliation
with reservation economic, political, and social life. Accordingly,
wherever we refer to “Indians,” we mean American Indian and Alaska
Native Alone—not in combination with other races.

24

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 201425

American Indian Population

American Indian Population (thousands)

Reservations and All Indian Areas

Reservations Only

Data: These graphs display the Indian population on reservations andin census Indian areas. Each bar consists of three subgroups. The bottom one represents Indians residing on lands that had no casino or
bingo hall by January 1 of the indicated year. The middle one represents Indians residing on lands that did have a casino or bingo hall by
January 1 of the indicated year. A contemporaneous measure of gaming tribes was compiled from a variety of sources for this analysis (seeReferences). The top subgroup represents Indians living in cities,
towns, or counties outside reservations (top) and outside census Indian areas (bottom). In contrast to the bulk of this databook, these data
are derived from the decennial census not a sample (see References).
Trend: From 1990 to 2010, the Indian population on reservations, in
all Indian areas, and nationwide grew by 24%, 28%, and 50%, respectively. By comparison, the US total population grew by 24%. Also inthat period, gaming spread across virtually all of Indian Country. In
the 1990 census, 30% of all Indians living on a reservation and 41% of
all Indians living in an Indian census area lived in one governed by atribe that operated a bingo hall or casino. By 2010, only about
42,000—less than 10%—were not so situated. Even that number overstates how many Indians were unaffected by gaming. A substantial
number of tribes that do not operate casinos benefit indirectly fromgaming through revenue sharing (as under California’s compacts),
device leasing (as under the Washington and Arizona compacts), or
casino-funded, intertribal philanthropy and investment, such as fromthe Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community.
Implication: Given that many of the Indians living off-reservation oroutside census areas maintain economic, political, and social ties to
Indian lands, it is clear that gaming has become an important fixtureof life for many individual Indians. It is no longer possible to talkabout gaming as an either-or proposition. Rather, it is a matter of degree: Some tribes operate casinos in large markets and some do not.

3,000

2,000
2,392
1,958
1,524
1,000

0

Akee Taylor 2014

130

288

305

230

42

1990

2000

2010

498

American Indian Population (thousands)
All Indian Areas (including statistical areas)
3,000

2,000

2,118
1,724
1,323

Outside All Indian Areas
Indian Areas with Gaming
Indian Areas without Gaming

1,000

262
374
0

26

Outside Reservations
Reservations with Gaming
Reservations without Gaming

1990

Akee Taylor 2014

516

772

236

43

2000

2010

27

Real Per Capita Income I

Real Per Capita Income

Reservations Other than Navajo and Navajo Alone

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: The graph portrays aggregate, inflation-adjusted income divided
by population for Indians living on reservations and for all Americans.

$30,000

27,79826,893

24,951

Trend: Outside the Navajo Nation, Indians had an increase in per capita income of $1154 in the 2000s (10.5%). The pace of change, thoughslower than in the 1990s (32.5%), was better than for the US as a whole,which saw a decline (!3.3%). Yet even after experiencing superlative
growth in both decades, reservation per capita incomes are only 45%of the US average.

20,00010,98810,000

Implication: Nationally, personal income is about 85% of GDP, and it
amounts to 80%–90% of GDP in the majority of states [39]. Thus real
personal income per capita is a proxy for GDP per capita—a statistic ofinterest for Indian Country but one not easily measured. In the main,
per capita income tells us how reservation economies are faring.
Although it sometimes receives undue consideration at the expense ofother quality-of-life indicators, income correlates with mortality, fertility, migration, education, occupation, and a host of other measures[40]. For example, rising income derived from gaming profits has recently been linked to declines in Indian psychopathology amongchildren whose families crossed the poverty threshold [18]. Similarly,
higher baseline incomes correlate with healthier dietary responses to
Indian income growth [41]. Income tracks only the cash economy, notdomestic production, barter, subsistence, or other economicallymeaningful but uncompensated work. Nonetheless, it remains a valuable first-order comparator for living conditions in societies.
Income per capita is calculated as a mean and is subject to the influence of outliers—extreme wealth pulls the average away from the median. The distribution of income can be an object of concern both for
its potential links to economic growth [42,43], and as a matter of policy preference. Median Household Income and the Family andChild Poverty rate graphs shed more light on distribution.

8,289

1990

2000

Akee Taylor 2014

2006–10

1990

Indian2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

Real Per Capita Income
Navajo Nation$30,000

27,79826,893

24,951

20,0008,764

10,000

9,787

6,525

1990

2000
Indian28

12,142

Akee Taylor 2014

2006–10

1990

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

29

Real Per Capita Income II

Real Per Capita Income

Outside Oklahoma Statistical Areas

Outside Oklahoma Statistical Areas

Data: These graphs portray the same data as the previous ones, butthey expand the geography of the Indian data to reflect conditions in
all the areas associated with federally recognized tribes other than Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas. More precisely, the data here include
the 24,130-square-mile Navajo Reservation and a handful of Tribally
Designated Statistical Areas.
Trend: Indians living on reservations had an increase in per capita income of $1,173 in the 2000s (11.5%). Again, the pace of change—
though slower than in the 1990s (33.1%)—was better than in the restof the US, which saw declines over the two decades (!3.3%). The incomes here are about 6% to 7% lower than for reservations other thanNavajo because the Navajo Nation pulls the numbers down.

$30,000

27,79826,893

24,951

20,00010,000

10,238

11,411

7,693

1990

2000
IndianImplication: In the 2010 decennial census, the Navajo Nation’s
166,824 Indians dominated the combined population of the four
TDSAs (468 in 2010). For these reasons and others, we have opted to
examine the Navajo Nation separately and will make comparisons onthat basis for the remaining indicators. (Interested readers can find thecomparisons that include Navajo online, as explained in the Appendices.)

2006–10

1990

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

Notwithstanding the Navajo Nation’s dominance, this graph does
capture the total economic experience of Indians living on reservations in the lower 48 states. The per capita income on reservations isonly 42.4% of the national average, highlighting the continuing challenges they face.

30

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 201431

Real Per Capita Income III

Real Per Capita Income

All Indian Areas

All Indian Areas (including statistical areas)

Data: The information here covers all census-defined Indian areas associated with federally recognized tribes in the lower 48 states. Again,
the inflation-adjusted income data (2009 dollars) are calculated as before, but here the geographic scope expands to include all reservations,
including the Navajo Nation’s, Tribally Designated Statistical Areas,
and Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas (OTSAs). In the decennial census of 2010, OTSAs encompassed 273,211 Indians and covered roughly two-thirds of the land area of Oklahoma.
Trend: Indians living in all Indian areas experienced an $882 increasein per capita income over the 2000s (7.6%). The pace of change—
though slower than in the 1990s (27%)—was better than in the rest of
the US, which saw declines in the period (!3.3%). The incomes here
are higher because the Indian incomes in the OTSAs pull the numbers
up. Per capita income in the OTSAs was $11,922 in 1990, $14,602 in
2000, and $14,963 in 2010.

$30,000

27,79826,893

24,951

20,00011,577
10,00012,459

9,122

1990

2000
Indian2006–10

1990

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

Implication: OTSAs include Tulsa and other cities, and a wide variety
of non-Indian economic activities affect the fortunes of Indians living
within them. On the one hand, statistics for Indians living in OTSAs
are likely to correspond to those for off-reservation and urban Indians.
On the other hand, Indian life in Oklahoma reflects a degree of tribal
sovereignty that Indian life in Oakland, Denver, or Gallup does not.
Oklahoma tribes operate clinics, manage police forces, develop businesses, and engage in a host of other functions in their former reservation areas—areas from which OTSA boundaries are derived.
Because the focus of this databook is on the living conditions on reservations, which are subject to Native self-determination in ways thaturban, off-reservation, and to a lesser-degree OTSA life is not, we makecomparisons for the remaining indicators on the basis of reservation
statistics only. (Interested readers can find the comparisons that include OTSAs and that focus on them directly in the online graphs, as
explained in the Appendices).

32

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 201433

Variation in Real Per Capita Income Change

Real Per Capita Income Change 1990–2000

Reservations Home to More than 150 Indians

Reservations Home to More than 150 Indians$40K
MorongoSobobaIsabella

2000

Data: These graphs compare inflation-adjusted per capita income in1990 and 2000 with income a decade later. The diagonal line signifies
no change over the indicated period. Above the line, reservations experienced growth—and below it, a reduction—in per capita income.
In each graph, US per capita income for all races is plotted in green,
showing 11% growth in the 1990s and a !3.3% net change from 2000
to the 2010 ACS five-year average. The larger a blue circle, the more
Indians living on the reservation; the largest circle represents the Navajo Nation. Reservations with fewer than 150 Indians at the start ofeither decade were dropped for visual clarity. As noted in the introductory material, the use of the ACS five-year average data renders it potentially flawed for an examination of absolute changes, but statements about change relative to the US (whose ACS five-year averages
are also portrayed throughout for consistent comparison) are appropriate. The axes are in constant proportions rather than constant increments, as is common when portraying growth phenomena.

Brighton
Prairie Band of Potawatomi
Tuscarora
Tonawanda

Mille Lacs

Swinomish

10

Yurok
Lower Brule
Santo Domingo
Crow Creek

5
5

10

20

$40K

1990
log scale; blue marker size = 1990 Indian pop.

Trend: In the 1990s, 188 reservations other than Navajo in this subsample—representing 87% of Indians on such reservations—experienced income growth greater than that in the US. In the 2000s,
fewer reservations (178) experienced greater growth. Nonetheless,over the two decades, 93% of Indians lived on reservations with superior growth. Navajo growth exceeded US growth over the two decades
also.

Real Per Capita Income Change 2000–2010
Reservations Home to More than 150 Indians
MorongoSoboba$40K
Pala

2006–10

Implication: The income gap remains large almost everywhere. Only
one reservation crossed from below the US average to above it in the
1990s (Morongo), and only a few had done so by 2010 (Morongo,
Soboba, Rincon, Pala, and Isabella). The preponderance of reservations
had per capita incomes that in 2006–10 averaged three-quarters, half,or even a third of the US’s $26,893. Nonetheless, it is heartening that
more than three-quarters of the reservations and nine-tenths of thereservation population saw their incomes grow at a pace exceedingthat in the United States.

20

United States

Fort McDowell Yavapai

RinconIsabella

United States
Skokomish

20

Fort McDowell Yavapai
Oneida (WI)

Wind River
Uintah and Ouray

10

Fond du Lac
Eastern Cherokee
Penobscot

Crow Creek
Fort Yuma
Swinomish

5
5

10

20

$40K

2000
log scale; blue marker size = 2000 Indian pop.

34

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 201435

Projected Real Per Capita Income

Projected Real Per Capita Income Growth

Reservations Other than Navajo

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: This chart displays the inflation-adjusted income data from Real Per Capita Income I as a scatterplot. A growth trendline estimates
the date at which the gap would be closed if the pattern from the past
two decades continued unabated. A log regression estimates the trend.
Trend: At recent growth rates, it is safe to say that the gap will not
close for many decades. Of course, the estimated date varies with thegeography under investigation (see the online charts as described inAppendices for charts covering Navajo and OTSAs). Note that the US
trendline appears to have linear growth and the Indian one exponential growth, but this is not the case. In actual fact, both curves are plotted with compound growth; the low 0.4% US annual growth only appears linear because it increases so slowly.
Implication: The superlative growth in Indian Country in the 1990s
and the unusually large effects of the Great Recession in the 2000s,
render this a rough projection rather than a forecast. The potential
problems with measurement and estimation aside, it is a conservative
one.

$40K

If incomes in the US and in these Indian areas grow steadily
at the rates they each experienced from 1990 through 2010,
in about 2054, the per capita incomes would converge.

30$26,89320$12,142
10

1990

2000

2006–102054

The US economy stands a good chance of rebounding in the coming
decades, but reservation economic growth will not necessarily follow
along. The 1980s saw strong US growth decoupled from reservation
income shrinkage as shown in the chart Real Per Capita Income by
Census Racial or Ethnic Category. Moreover, the rapid growth ofincomes on reservations in the 1990s was most likely anomalous—aonce-in-a-lifetime benefit of self-determination and the casinos itspawned.
If both Indian Country and the United States revert to long-term
trends, the gap will widen by the end of the present decade. The onus
remains on federal and tribal policymakers to maintain and improve
the policies that produce self-determined economic growth.

36

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 201437

Real Median Household Income

Real Median Household Income

Reservations Other than Navajo and Navajo Alone

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: Here we focus specifically on household income and portray the
median as opposed to the simple average, again in inflation-adjusted
terms (2009 dollars). The median household income level indicatesthe point at which half of all households receive more or less income—the fiftieth percentile. (The median calculation is described in
Methodology.)
Trend: Median household income for the US as a whole declined by
5.5% from 2000 to 2010, while American Indians residing on reservations other than Navajo saw declines of only 2.2%. During the 1990s,
median household income increased for both groups.

$60,000
52,00154,07751,07640,00030,71230,023

2000

2006—10

23,551
20,000

Implication: The increase in income inequality in the United States
and the stagnating US median income have attracted a great deal ofattention from social scientists, the media, and policymakers [44].
Lower median household income across both groups is consistent
with stagnant per capita income over the same time period. The gainsof the 1990s were lost for the US as a whole—real median householdincome was lower in 2010 than in 1990. In contrast, the preponderance of the gains made on American Indian reservations from 1990 to2000 persisted.

1990

Indian

1990

2000

2006—10

Total US—All Races

Real Median Household Income
Navajo Nation$60,000
52,00154,07751,07640,00020,00024,352

24,378

2000

2006—10

16,548

1990

Indian38

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 2014

1990

2000

2006—10

Total US—All Races

39

Family Poverty

Family Poverty Rate

Reservations Other than Navajo and Navajo Alone

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: If a family is deemed to be in poverty, each of its individual
members is also considered to be in poverty [45]. The Census Bureau
uses income thresholds set by the Office of Management and Budget.
A family of two adults and two children fell below the poverty line in2009 if its income was less than $14,787 [45]. Income thresholds arecommon across all geography types and are updated for inflation. Income is measured before taxes and does not include non-cash government transfers such as public housing assistance and Medicaid [46].

60%

44.1
40
33.1

31.7

20

Because the poverty threshold does not take into account differencesin the cost of living in various geographic regions, family poverty rates
on American Indian reservations may be slightly lower than reported.
Furthermore, non-cash resources such as housing and subsistence fishing, farming, and gathering activities, which are not included in thefamily income calculation, may ease the burdens of poverty.

10.0

0

1990

2000

Trend: The number of American Indian families in poverty fell markedly from 1990 to 2000 but remained relatively stable, at about onethird, in the subsequent decade. Meanwhile, the family poverty rate
for the US as a whole has remained constant at about 10% and is lessthan a third the rate for American Indians.

40

Akee Taylor 2014

1990

10.1

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

Family Poverty Rate
Navajo Nation
60%

Implication: With Real Per Capita Income less than half that of theUS, it is no surprise that the Indian family poverty rate is three times as
high. Reservation life may be even more pinched than these figuressuggest. The poverty rate was set in the 1960s, and is widely regarded
as outmoded [47]. Some might argue that the lives of the poor havebeen eased by falling real costs of consumer goods, but many states
and the federal government are using thresholds higher than the poverty rate—sometimes multiples of the poverty rate—to identify families in distress [48]. Such thresholds imply that poverty lines are toolow. Given where Indian average and median incomes stand in relation to the US, applying such higher thresholds to both reservations
and the US would portray a picture of relative Indian poverty at least
as bad as this one, if not worse.

2006–10

Indian

9.2

54.9

41.1
40
33.5

20
10.0

0

1990

2000
IndianAkee Taylor 2014

2006–10

1990

9.2

10.1

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

41

Child Poverty

Child Poverty Rate

Reservations Other than Navajo and Navajo Alone

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: A child lives in poverty if his or her family’s income falls below
the relevant thresholds, which varies by family size and composition[46].
Trend: The proportion of Indian children in poverty declined from1990 to 2000. Over the next decade, however, the rate increasedslightly, from 43% to 44% for reservations other than Navajo—achange that may be due to sampling methods. Child poverty in the US
as a whole also increased from 2000.
Implication: The child poverty rate exceeds the Family Poverty Rateas shown on the preceding pages. For the US, the child poverty rate isalmost twice that of the Family Poverty Rate. The child poverty rate
for American Indian reservations is about one third higher than thereservation Family Poverty Rate.

60%
53.7

42.8

43.6

40

18.3

20

0

1990

2000

2006–10

1990

Indian

19.2

16.6

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

Child Poverty Rate
Navajo Nation
60%

59.1

47.1

44.5

40

18.3

20

0

1990

2000
Indian42

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 2014

2006–10

1990

19.2

16.6

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

43

Unemployment

Unemployment Rate

Reservations Other than Navajo and Navajo Alone

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: Unemployment measures the percentage of working-age individuals (16 years or older) who are in the labor force and who are actively seeking employment [49]. This measure does not include fulltime students, people working full-time in the home or not for pay,
and people not seeking employment for other reasons.
Trend: The unemployment rates on American Indian reservations andfor the US as a whole differ by 12 points in the ACS 2010 five-year average. Although unemployment rates have declined since the 1990
census, the pace of that decline has slowed.
Implication: Unemployment is an important indicator of the level of
economic activity. Persistent unemployment indicates an underutilization of resources—human resources—and a lack of economic
opportunity in a geographic region. Although the difference between
reservation unemployment and national unemployment remains
large, it is somewhat heartening that Indian unemployment did notincrease with the recession, as it did in the United States.

30%
24.2
20.1

20

19.9

10

7.9
6.2

0

1990

2000

2006–10

1990

Indian5.7

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

Unemployment Rate
Navajo Nation
30%

29.3
26.3

20
16.3

10

7.9
6.2

0

1990

2000
Indian44

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 2014

2006–10

1990

5.7

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

45

Male and Female Labor Force Participation

Female Labor Force Participation Rate

Reservations Other than Navajo

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: The labor force encompasses people aged 16 and older who areemployed or seeking to be employed. The labor force participation
rate describes the proportion of the working-age population that is orseeks to be economically active in the cash economy.
Trend: Generally speaking, the labor force participation rate changes
slowly or only in response to large shocks. In the United States, therates for both male and female participation changed slightly from1990 to 2010; for females it moved slightly upward and for males it
moved slightly downward. In Indian Country, these trends take thesame direction as for the US as a whole, but the increase in Indian female labor force participation is more pronounced. Enough womenentered the workforce in Indian Country to counteract the decline
among men, holding the total Indian participation rate at 55% in
1990 and 2010. The US rate stayed virtually unchanged at 65%.
Implication: When people move from outside the labor force into it,
the economy grows. Outside the labor force, they tend to be more dependent—either on family breadwinners or on government assistance—than self-sufficient. Of all our indicators, female labor force
participation brings Indians closest to parity with the US (see Relative Standing of Indians, 2006–2010), making the trend in thisgraph hopeful.

80%

60

53.1

55.6

56.8

2006–10

1990

59.4

57.5

48.3
40

20

0

1990

2000
Indian2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

Male Labor Force Participation Rate
Reservations Other than Navajo
80%

74.4

61.4

58.3

58.6

2000

2006–10

60

70.7

70.9

2000

2006–10

40

20

0

1990

Indian46

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 20141990

Total US—All Races

47

Employment Sector

Percentage of Workers by Sector

Reservations Other than Navajo and Navajo Alone

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: These graphs provide information on Indian employment in theprivate, public, not-for-profit, and self-employment sectors. The private sector, of course, includes all non-governmental companies. The
public sector includes all levels of government: federal, state, local,
and tribal. The self-employment sector includes individuals who workfor profit or fees in their own businesses, professions, trades, or farms.
The not-for-profit sector includes individuals who work in nongovernmental organizations. Whether census respondents categorize
their employment in tribally owned—that is, government-owned—
enterprises as government or private is unknown. The data for the Indian areas describe the employment of all racial groups, not just Indians.

100%
11.1

8.5

56.1

53.1

55.4

25

6.7

6.7

private

71.0

71.5

70.8

6.7

7.1

26.9

28.7

1990

2000

6.6

31.8

not-for-profit

6.7

7.2

7.7

government

15.3

14.6

14.8

2000

2006–10

2006–10

1990

Indian Areas–All Races

Total US–All Races

Percentage of Workers by Sector
Navajo Nation
100%

2.8

3.4

4.1

75

47.8

45.8

46.4

5.5

6.4

5.8

44.0

44.4

43.7

50

25

0

1990

2000

Akee Taylor 2014self-employed

7.0

6.7

6.7

private

71.0

71.5

70.8

not-for-profit

6.7

7.2

7.7

government

15.3

14.6

14.8

2000

2006–10

2006–10

Indian Areas–All Races
Akee Taylor 2014

7.0

50

Trend: These levels are generally stable over time. The data also indicate that the two largest employment sectors are the private and the
public. Government employment accounts for a larger and growing
proportion of the labor force on reservations than in the US as a whole.

48

self-employed750Implication: Indian government employment is now more than twiceas large as in the US as a whole, and at Navajo, even larger. It is noteworthy, however, that the share of government employment on reservations has not grown even more over time, given the expansion oftribal government businesses and enterprises.

8.2

1990

Total US–All Races

49

Overcrowded Housing

Percentage Living in Crowded Homes

Reservations Other than Navajo and Navajo Alone

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: These charts show the proportion of houses with more than one
occupant per room. Only actual rooms, such as kitchens, bedrooms,
dining rooms, and living rooms, are included in the count. Bathrooms,
porches, balconies, and hallways are excluded [50]. These data are notavailable for Indians alone, so both charts report the all-races population.
Trend: The percentage living in overcrowded housing has decreased
for Indians and the US as a whole since 1990. This coincides with thewell-known housing boom. The striking result is that this national
trend appears to have spilled over onto reservations as the percent living in crowded homes decreased over the decade there too.

50%

40

30

20
10.5

10.1

10

0

Implication: Clearly, one person per room is a low threshold, because
few American households live at that occupancy level. The problem of
relative Indian overcrowding is most likely greater than indicated here,
because on reservations, Indian economic conditions are generally
worse than all-races averages. For example, according to the 2010 ACS
five-year average, for people of all races on reservations other thanNavajo, the per capita income was $18,816, as opposed to $12,142 forIndians.

6.4

1990

2000

2006–10

4.7

1990

Indian Areas–All Races

5.7
3.1

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

Percentage Living in Crowded Homes
Navajo Nation
50%

49.7

38.9

40

30
19.8

20

10
4.7
0

1990

2000

2006–10

Indian Areas–All Races

50

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 2014

1990

5.7
3.1

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

51

Homes Lacking a Complete Kitchen

Percentage of Homes Lacking Complete Kitchen

Reservations Other than Navajo and Navajo Alone

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: These charts show the proportion of all-races housing units lacking a complete kitchen. A complete kitchen has a sink with piped running water, a stove with an oven, and a refrigerator.

50%

40

Trend: In the 2000s, housing units lacking a complete kitchen rose bya point or so on both on reservations other than Navajo and in the US
generally. As noted in the Methodology section, differences between the decennial census long-form sample in 1990 and 2000 andthe 2010 ACS five-year average require caution in making observations
about absolute change. However, the relative standing of reservation
housing at declining multiples of 3.7, 3, and 1.8 times the US averageover the three periods is less equivocal; it indicates steady relative improvement on this dimension of reservation housing stock. At Navajo,
the problem has been much more pronounced than elsewhere in Indian Country, but the rate shows signs of both relative and absolute improvement.

30

20

10
4.1

3.9

4.9
1.1

0

1990

2000

2006–10

1990

Indian Areas–All Races

Implication: The actual number of Indian homes lacking a complete
kitchen is probably higher than indicated, given that the data are forall races.

2.7

1.3

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

Percentage of Homes Lacking Complete Kitchen
Navajo Nation
50%

46.5
42.6
39.4

40

30

20

10
1.1
0

1990

2000

2006–10

Indian Areas–All Races

52

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 2014

1990

2.7

1.3

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

53

Homes Lacking Complete Plumbing

Percentage of Homes Lacking Complete Plumbing

Reservations Other than Navajo and Navajo Alone

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: A housing unit is considered to have complete plumbing if it
includes hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet, and either a bathtub
or a shower.

50%

40

Trend: Large gains were made during the 1990s, when the percentageof occupied Indian homes lacking complete plumbing decreased byalmost half outside Navajo; in the 2000s, it dropped further. For the
US as a whole, such homes accounted for less than 1% over all three
periods.
Implication: The proportion of Indians living without complete
plumbing on reservations other than Navajo has fallen by almost twothirds—a welcome development. At Navajo it was more than cut in
half.

30

20

10

7.7
4.2

0

1990

2000

3.0

2006–10

0.8

1990

Indian

0.6

0.5

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

Percentage of Homes Lacking Complete Plumbing
Navajo Nation
50%

48.3

40
33.4
30
22.2
20

10
0.8
0

1990

2000
Indian54

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 2014

2006–10

1990

0.6

0.5

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

55

High School Degree or Equivalent

Percentage High School Degree or the Equivalent Only

Reservations Other than Navajo and Navajo Alone

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: The graph shows the percentage of adults living on reservations
who are 25 and older and have a high school degree or the equivalent.
People with post-secondary degrees are not included in this measure.
Trend: The percentage of the reservation population holding a highschool degree or the equivalent has increased over the years. Approximately 36% of the adult reservation population outside Navajo hadcompleted secondary education by 2010. For the US as a whole, thatfigure was 29% to 30% for all years.
Implication: A high school degree or the equivalent is a basic measureof the skill level found on reservations. Improvements in overall human capital and skills are indicative of long-run economic development and investment. Given US mandatory schooling laws, completion of secondary education is common in the country. Each additional year of education boosts annual wages by 7.3% to 14%, depending on assumptions [51,52]. The increase in the percentage of reservation-dwelling adults with a high school diploma may be driven by atleast two things: Individuals with high school diplomas are moving to
the reservation or individuals who would have dropped out of highschool are now completing high school. Given the structure of thedata, it is not possible to detect which of these two scenarios is driving
the results. (The census data do not allow us to determine whether reservation residents are new arrivals since the last census enumeration.)

40%
35.8
33.5

32.1

30.0

30

28.6

29.0

2000

2006–10

20

10

0

1990

2000

2006–10

1990

IndianTotal US—All Races

Percentage High School Degree or the Equivalent Only
Navajo Nation
40%
33.5
30.0

30

26.9

28.6

29.0

2000

2006–10

23.9
20

10

0

1990

2000
Indian56

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 2014

2006–101990

Total US—All Races57

College Graduates or More

Percentage College Graduates or Higher

Reservations Other than Navajo

Reservations Other than Navajo

Data: The graph shows the percentage of reservation-dwelling Indian
adults aged 25 years and older who have a college degree or more.
Trend: The proportion of the population with a post-secondary education has been increasing on reservations over time; by 2010, it hadreached 5.4% on Navajo and 8.4% on other reservations. For the US asa whole, the percentage has climbed steadily since 1990, as the country’s economy has increasingly specialized in manufacturing and services that require high levels of education.

30%

27.9
24.4
20.3

20

10

8.4
6.5

Implication: Economic growth in the US as a whole has become increasingly skill-biased, making the rewards to education greater overtime. As noted, individuals in the US can be expected to earn from
7.3% to 14% more annually over their lifetimes for each additional
year of education [51,52]. The fact that the percentage of adults with
post-secondary education has grown on reservations is a positive sign.
Once again, the data do not permit us to determine the cause of thisincrease in educational attainment. It is possible that lifetime residents are acquiring college degrees, and it is also possible that the reservation is attracting the highly educated in a “brain gain” scenario.
The push for increased educational attainment may be driven by theincreasing economic opportunities on many reservations. In either
case, conditions seem to be more conducive than ever before to educated Indians’ living on reservations—a very propitious sign for human capital accumulation there.

4.5

0

1990

2000

2006–10

1990

Indian2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

Percentage College Graduates or Higher
Navajo Nation
30%

27.9
24.4
20.3

20

10
4.8

5.4

2000

2006–10

3.1
0

1990

Indian58

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 2014

1990

2000

2006–10

Total US—All Races

59

Appendices
Online Resources
Alternate graphs displaying this data for all reservations (including
Navajo), all census Indian areas, OTSAs only, and Navajo only, alongwith the set of numerators and denominators for the indicators, canbe found at taylorpolicy.com/us-databook

Jonathan B. Taylor is an economist with expertise in natural resources,
gaming, and American Indian development. Mr. Taylor is president of
the Taylor Policy Group, an economics and public policy consultancy;a research affiliate at the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development; and a senior policy associate at the Native Nations Institute, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of
Arizona, Tucson.

References
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for research funding provided by the Sycuan Instituteon Tribal Gaming and for the able assistance provided by Connor
Carney, Courtney Colgan, Margot Crandall Hollick, and Martha Lee
Spaulding. Helpful comments were provided by Joseph Kalt, Miriam
Jorgensen, Matthew Taylor, Sarah Kastelic, Jackie Old Coyote, and theNative Nations Institute Research Seminar. Of course, all errors andomissions remain our responsibility.
Randall K.Q. Akee
Los Angeles, CA

Jonathan B. Taylor
Sarasota, FL

In general throughout this databook, population characteristics for1990 are derived from GeoLytics [53]. Data for 2000 are extracted fromthe census summary file containing the long-form responses [54]. Data for 2006–2010 are taken from the American Community Survey
2010 five-year average [55]. The main exceptions to this pattern are
Top 10 Reservation Populations, American Indian and Alaska
Native Population, and American Indian Population, which are
based on the decennial census—the 100% enumeration—as reported
by Social Explorer [36,56,57].

Randall K.Q. Akee is an assistant professor at the University of California, Los Angeles in the Department of Public Policy and American
Indian Studies. Dr. Akee spent several years working for the State of
Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs Economic Development Division.
He is also a research fellow at the Harvard Project on American Indian
Economic Development and at the Institute for the Study of Labor(IZA). His main research interests are labor economics, economic development, and migration.

Determining exactly when a tribe first opened a casino or a bingo operation is difficult, and the earlier the date, the harder it is to be precise.
We created rosters of tribes with casinos open as of January 1, 1999,
2000, and 2010 using lists of tribes with gaming at a certain time
[29,58,59]; a special tabulation by a casino directory maker [60]; information from state regulatory agencies (such as the Nevada Gaming
Control Board, Tax and License Division, the North Dakota Gaming
Division, the Washington State Gambling Commission); records of
the National Indian Gaming Commission [61]; telephone conversations with tribal regulators and managers; and newspapers and tribal
casino websites. Notwithstanding the challenges of pinning down exactly when tribes began to earn gaming profits, our observation that
more than nine out of ten Indians currently live on reservations withcasinos is robust because it relies on a current and comprehensive
source [62].

60

Akee Taylor 2014

May 2014

About the Authors

Akee Taylor 2014

61

1.

Walke R (2000) Indian-related federal spending trends, FY 1975–2001, US
Congressional Research Service memorandum, March 1, 2000. Report of
the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate to accompany S. Con.
Res. 101 together with additional and minority views, Senate Report 106251. pp. 199–250.

2.

Taylor JB, Kalt JP (2005) American Indians on reservations: A databook ofsocioeconomic change between the 1990 and 2000 censuses. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development.

3.

Snipp CM (1989) American Indians: The First of This Land. Russell Sage
Foundation.

4.

Trosper RL (1996) American Indian Poverty on Reservations, 1969–1989.
In: Sandefur GD, Rindfuss RR, Cohen B, editors. Changing numbers,changing needs: American Indian demography and public health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. pp. 172–195.

5.

Bureau of Indian Affairs (2012) Indian entities recognized and eligible toreceive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Federal
Register 77: 47868–47873.

6.

Osier V (2012) American Indian and Alaska Native area to tribe 2012.

7.

Krepps MB, Caves RE (1994) Bureaucrats and Indians: Principal-agent relations and efficient management of tribal forest resources. Journal of
economic behavior & organization 24: 133–151.

8.

9.

Centennial accord between the federally recognized Indian Tribes in
Washington State and the State of Washington (1989) Centennial accord
between the federally recognized Indian Tribes in Washington State andthe State of Washington. Olympia, WA: Washington State. Available:
http://www.goia.wa.gov/government-togovernment/data/centennialaccord.htm.
Payne H (2012) Otoe-Missouria Tribe signs cross-deputization agreement.
Native American Times. Available:
http://www.nativetimes.com/news/tribal/8239-otoe-missouria-tribesigns-cross-deputization-agreement.

10. Dodd C, Frank B (2010) The Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform and consumer
protection act. Available: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS111hr4173enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr4173enr.pdf.
11. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(1996) Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996.

Tribe. hpaiedorg. Available:
http://hpaied.org/images/resources/publibrary/Idaho%20Gray%20Wolf%20Recovery.pdf. Accessed 17 September 2013.
13. Moore M, Forbes H, Henderson L (1990) The provision of primary healthcare services under band control: The Montreal Lake case. Native Studies
Review 6: 153–164.
14. Cornell SE, Kalt JP (1992) Reloading the dice: improving the chances for
economic development on American Indian reservations. In: Cornell SE,
Kalt JP, editors. What can tribes do? Strategies and institutions in American Indian economic development. Los Angeles CA: American IndianStudies Center, University of California Los Angeles. pp. 1–59.
15. Dixon M, Shelton BL, Roubideaux Y, Mather D, Mala Smith C (1998)
Tribal perspectives on Indian self-determination and tribal selfgovernance in health care management. Denver, CO: National Indian
Health Board.
16. Jorgensen MR (2000) Bringing the background forward: evidence from
Indian country on the social and cultural determinants of economic development Harvard University.
17. Wakeling S, Jorgensen MR, Michaelson S, Begay M (2001) Policing on
American Indian Reservations. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
18. Costello EJ, Compton SN, Keeler G, Angold A (2003) Relationships between poverty and psychopathology: a natural experiment. JAMA: thejournal of the American Medical Association 290: 2023–2029. Available:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=Pub
Med&dopt=Citation&list_uids=14559956.
19. Cornell SE, Kalt JP, Krepps MB, Taylor JB (1998) American Indian Gaming
Policy and its Socioeconomic Effects: A Report to the National Gambling
Impact Study Commission. Cambridge, MA: The Economics Resource
Group, Inc.
20. National Indian Gaming Commission (2013) Gaming Revenues. National
Indian Gaming Commission. Available:
http://www.nigc.gov/Gaming_Revenue_Reports.aspx. Accessed 16 September 2013.
21. Akee RK, Jorgensen MR, Sunde U (2011) Constitutional Change and Economic Development: Empirical Evidence from American Indian Nations:
1–37.

12. HPAIED (1999) Idaho Gray Wolf Recovery—Wildlife Program, Nez Perce

22. Cornell SE, Kalt JP (1994) Cultural evolution and constitutional public
choice: institutional diversity and economic performance on American
Indian reservations Vancouver, BC.

62

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 201463

23. Cornell SE, Kalt JP (1995) Where does economic development really comefrom? Constitutional rule among the contemporary Sioux and Apache.
Economic Inquiry 33: 402–426.
24. Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development (2008) The
state of the Native nations: conditions under U.S. policies of selfdetermination. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Taylor JB (2006) Indian self-government in Washington, vol. II: The character and effects of the Indian economy in Washington State. Cambridge,
MA and Olympia, WA: Taylor Policy Group, Inc. and Washington Indian
Gaming Association.
26. HPAIED (2005) Professional Empowerment Program SWO Human Services Agency Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate. hpaiedorg. Available:
http://hpaied.org/images/resources/publibrary/Professional%20Empower
ment%20Program.pdf. Accessed 17 September 2013.
27. HPAIED (2000) Two Plus Two Plus Two Program, Hopi Junior/Senior HighSchool, Hopi Nation. hpaiedorg. Available:
http://hpaied.org/images/resources/publibrary/Hopi%20Jr%20Sr%20Hig
h%20Two%20Plus%20Two%20Plus%20Two.pdf. Accessed 17 September
2013.
28. HPAIED (2008) Archie Hendrick, Sr. Skilled Nursing Facility and Tohono
O'odham Hospice. hpaiedorg. Available:
http://hpaied.org/images/resources/publibrary/Archie%20Hendricks%20
Sr%20Skilled%20Nursing%20Facility%20TO%20Nation.pdf. Accessed2013.
29. GAO (1997) Tax policy: a profile of the Indian gaming industry. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office.
30. Macdonald H (2006) The American Community Survey: Warmer (MoreCurrent), but Fuzzier (Less Precise) than the Decennial Census. Journal of
the American Planning Association 72: 491–503.
doi:10.1080/01944360608976768.
31. Ong J, Ong P (n.d.) AIAN underrepresentation in the ACS. UCLA IndianStudies Center. Available:
http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/research/pb1_memo3.aspx. Accessed 1 November 2013.
32. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012) Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), US City Average. ftpblsgov. Available:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt. Accessed 15 March
2012.
33. Eschbach K (1995) The enduring and vanishing American Indian: American Indian population growth and intermarriage in 1990. Ethnic and ra-

64

Akee Taylor 2014

cial studies 18: 89–108. doi:10.1080/01419870.1995.9993855.
34. Ogunwole SU (2006) We the people: American Indians and Alaska Natives
in the United States. US Census Bureau. 23 pp.
35. US Census (2002) American Indians and Alaska Natives in the UnitedStates Wall Map. Available:
http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/special/aian_wall/aian_wall_map.ht
m. Accessed 28 August 2013.
36. US Census Bureau (2010) Census 2010 - P3. Race. Social Explorer. Available: http://www.socialexplorer.com. Accessed 12 March 2014.
37. United States Bureau of the Census (2001) Summary file 3—2000 census
of population and housing technical documentation. Available:
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf2.pdf. Accessed 5 September
2013.
38. Stults BJ (n.d.) Deriving median household income. mumford1dyndnsorg. Available:
http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/CityProfiles/Profiles/MHHINote.
htm. Accessed 7 September 2012.
39. Analysis UBOE, editor (2013) Regional economic accounts. Available:
http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm. Accessed 10 April 2013.
40. Shryock HS, Siegel JS, Stockwell EG (1976) The methods and materials of
demography. New York: Academic Press.
41. Akee RK, Simeonova E, Copeland W, Angold A, Costello EJ (2013) Young
Adult Obesity and Household Income: Effects of Unconditional CashTransfers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5: 1–28.
doi:10.1257/app.5.2.1.
42. Berg AG, Ostry JD (2011) Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two
Sides of the Same Coin? IMF Staff Discussion Note : 1–21.
43. Boushey H, Hersh AS (2012) The American Middle Class, Income Inequality, and the Strength of Our Economy. New Evidence in Economics, Center for American Progress: 1–56.
44. Tavernise S (2013) US income gap rose, sign of uneven recovery. The New
York Times: A21. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/usincomes-dropped-last-year-census-bureau-says.html. Accessed 16 September 2013.
45. US Census Bureau (2013) Poverty Data—Poverty thresholds—U.S Census
Bureau. Available:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html.
Accessed 2 May 2013.

Akee Taylor 201465

46. US Census Bureau (2012) How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty—U.S
Census Bureau. Available:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.ht
ml. Accessed 2 May 2013.
47. Citro CF, Michael RT (1995) Measuring poverty: a new approach. Washington, DC: Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance—National ResearchCouncil.
48. Mariani C, Lanning M, Marty J, Robling C (2007) Commission to end
poverty in Minnesota by 2020. Available:
http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/lcep/LCEP_Final_Report_Single
Pgs.pdf. Accessed 17 September 2013.
49. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008) BLS Glossary. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Available: http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#U. Accessed 20 April
2013.

58. BIA (1987) Survey of Indian bingo activity, July 1, 1987. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Indian Affairs, US Department of the Interior.
59. Cordeiro EE (1992) The economics of bingo: Factors influencing the success of bingo operations on American Indian reservations. In: Cornell SE,
Kalt JP, editors. What can tribes do? Strategies and institutions in American Indian economic development. Los Angeles CA: American IndianStudies Center, University of California Los Angeles. pp. 205–238.
60. Casino City (2010) Gaming properties with opening dates.
61. National Indian Gaming Commission (n.d.) Gaming Tribes. Available:
www.nigc.gov/nigc/nigcControl?option=GAMING_TRIBES&REGIONID=
0. Accessed 25 March 2004.
62. Casino City (2013) Gaming Directory.com. Available:
http://www.gamingdirectory.com/.

50. US Census Bureau (2013) American Community Survey and Puerto Rico
Community Survey: Subject Definitions. censusgov. Available:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Subje
ctDefinitions/2012_ACSSubjectDefinitions.pdf. Accessed 14 September
2013.
51. Card D (1995) Using geographic variation in college proximity to estimate
the return to schooling. In: Christofides LN, Grant EK, Swidinsky R, editors. Aspects of Labor Market Behaviour: Essays in Honour of John Vanderkamp. University of Toronto Press. Available:
http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/geo_var_schooling.pdf.
52. Angrist JD, Krueger AB (1991) Does compulsory school attendance affectschooling and earnings? The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106: 979–
1014.
53. GeoLytics, Inc., (2000) Census CD 1990 long form in 2000 boundaries.
East Brunswick, NJ: GeoLytics, Inc.
54. US Census (2000) Census 2000 Summary File 3. Washington, DC: Bureauof the Census.
55. US Census (2013) 2006–2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates DP03. US Census Bureau.
56. US Census Bureau (1990) Census 1990 Summary File Tape File 1 – P6.
Race. Social Explorer. Available: http://www.socialexplorer.com. Accessed
12 March 2014.
57. US Census Bureau (2000) Census 2000 Summary File 1 – P3. Race. Social
Explorer. Available: http://www.socialexplorer.com. Accessed 12 March
2014.

66

Akee Taylor 2014

Akee Taylor 201467