a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Addressees and 

the Alaska Federation of Natives

August 2005 ALASKA NATIVE 

VILLAGES

Recent Federal 

Assistance Exceeded 

$3 Billion, with Most 

Provided to Regional 

Nonprofits

GAO-05-719
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-719.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William B. 

Shear at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov.

Highlights of GAO-05-719, a report to 

congressional addressees and the Alaska 

Federation of Natives 

August 2005

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES 

Recent Federal Assistance Exceeded $3 

Billion, with Most Provided to Regional 

Nonprofits 

GAO’s analysis of available data indicates that Alaska Native villages and 

regional Native nonprofits—including Native associations, and regional 

health and housing nonprofits—received over $3 billion in federal assistance 

from fiscal years 1998 through 2003. Specifically, total federal funding 

included approximately $483 million to 216 Alaska Native villages and about 

$3 billion to 33 regional Native nonprofits. The Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) accounted for 63 percent of all funding over the 

period. According to federal and state officials, Alaska Native villages also 

likely benefited from federal funding to the state of Alaska and to cities and 

boroughs that contain villages, such as when federal funding is used by 

municipalities to provide water services. Based on data GAO obtained from 

the state of Alaska, during fiscal years 1998 through 2003, the state passed 

through more than $105 million in federal funding to Native villages and 

regional Native nonprofits. 

Based on available information for 13 programs GAO reviewed, federal 

funding was used to provide Alaska Natives with assistance in health care, 

housing, infrastructure, and other areas. For example, according to 

information from HHS, its Tribal Self-Governance Program was used by 13 

regional Native nonprofits, three Native villages, four groups of Alaska 

Native villages, and one statewide Native health care provider to provide 

clinical services at tribally run hospitals and health clinics that had over 1 

million total visits throughout Alaska in 2002. Another program, HUD’s 

Indian Housing Block Grant, provided funds used by villages and regional 

housing authorities to build, rehabilitate, modernize, and operate singlefamily homes and multifamily housing properties. However, the extent of 

readily available information on how funds were used from the 13 programs 

GAO reviewed varied, in part due to different agency reporting requirements.

Results from GAO’s survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing 

authorities indicated that, during calendar years 1998 through 2003, 

responding entities constructed a total of 874 single-family units. GAO’s 

survey indicated that the average cost of units constructed by responding 

entities varied by region and by whether they were developed by villages or 

housing authorities. For example, the 6-year average regional cost (in 2003 

dollars) of all units constructed ranged from a low of $138,944 per unit, or 

$122 per square foot, to a high of $305,634 per unit, or $267 per square foot. 

GAO also found that the cost of new housing units developed by housing 

authorities was slightly higher than units developed by Native villages, and 

that regional housing authorities constructed more than three times the 

number of units compared with villages. However, various factors could 

account for differences in the cost and number of units completed among 

regions or between villages and regional housing authorities. 

This report responds to section 112, 

Division B, of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2004, which 

directs GAO to review federal 

programs benefiting rural 

communities in Alaska. After 

discussions with congressional staff, 

GAO agreed to examine federal 

programs benefiting Alaska Native 

villages. Specifically, this report (1) 

provides information on the amount 

of federal assistance provided to 

Alaska Native villages during fiscal 

years 1998 through 2003, (2) 

describes how selected federal 

funds have been used to assist 

Alaska Native villages, and (3) 

provides data on the number and 

average cost of houses built by 

villages and Alaska Native regional 

housing authorities. 
Page i GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received 

Over $3 Billion in Federal Funding from 1998 through 2003 14

Federal Funds Have Been Used to Provide an Array of Services to 

Alaska Native Villages 27

Alaska Native Villages and Regional Housing Authorities 

Constructed More Than 800 and Rehabilitated Almost 3,000 

Homes, and the Number and Costs of Completed Units Varied 

across Regions 42

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 61

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 63

Appendix II: Alaska Native Population by Native Village and ANCSA 

Region or Indian Reservation 70

Appendix III: Listing of Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits 80

Appendix IV: Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance to Alaska Native 

Villages 81

Appendix V: The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to 

Native Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and 

Boroughs 84

Appendix VI: Denali Commission Program Summary 92

Appendix VII: Program Summary for the Department of Agriculture 97

Appendix VIII: Program Summaries for the Department of Commerce 101

Appendix IX: Program Summary for the Department of Education 107

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

Services 110

Appendix XI: Program Summaries for the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 114

Appendix XII: Program Summary for the Department of the Interior 119

Appendix XIII: Program Summary for the Department of Justice 123

Appendix XIV: Program Summary for the Department of Labor 127
Contents

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

Appendix XV: Program Summary for the Department of Transportation 130

Appendix XVI: Program Summary for the Environmental Protection 

Agency 134

Appendix XVII: Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages 138

Appendix XVIII: Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated 

Housing Entities 151

Appendix XIX: Comments from the Department of Commerce 167

Appendix XX: Comments from the Department of Health and Human 

Services 168

Appendix XXI: Comments from the Department of the Interior 170

Appendix XXII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 171

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

Nonprofits 9

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

Villages 19

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

Native Nonprofits 20

Table 4: Primary Purposes for Which Grant Funds from 13 Selected 

Programs Were Recently Used 28

Table 5: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed and 

Rehabilitated for Villages and Regional Housing 

Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003 43

Table 6: Number of New Units Constructed by Housing Authorities 

Compared with Villages, by Region, Calendar Years 

1998-2003 46

Table 7: Number of New Units Rehabilitated without Acquisition by 

Housing Authorities Compared with Villages, by Region, 

Calendar Years 1998-2003 47

Table 8: Average New Construction Costs, Number and Size of 

Units, Regional Housing Authorities and Villages 53

Table 9: Number of Regional Housing Authorities and Villages That 

Were Constructing or Rehabilitating Single-Family Units, 

Calendar Years 1998-2003 69

Table 10: Listing of Alaska Native Villages and the Number of AIAN 

Persons and Enrolled Members, by ANCSA Region or 

Indian Reservation 71
Contents

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

Table 11: ANCSA Regional Nonprofits or Indian Reservation and the 

Corresponding Native Regional Health Care and Housing 

Nonprofits 80

Table 12: Top Federal Programs Providing Funding Passed Through 

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

1998-2003 88

Table 13: Top Federal Programs Providing Funding Passed Through 

by the State of Alaska to Regional Native Nonprofits, State 

Fiscal Years 1998-2003 89

Table 14: Yearly Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of 

Alaska to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, 

State Fiscal Years 1998-2003 90

Table 15: Denali Commission Reporting Requirements 93

Table 16: USDA Reporting Requirements for Village Safe Water 

Funding 98

Table 17: Commerce Reporting Requirements for EAA Funding 102

Table 18: Commerce Reporting Requirements for Public Works 

Funding 105

Table 19: Education Reporting Requirements for Alaska Native 

Educational Programs Funding 107

Table 20: HHS Reporting Requirements for Tribal Self-Governance 

Funding 111

Table 21: HUD Reporting Requirements for ICDBG Funding 115

Table 22: HUD Reporting Requirements for IHBG Funding 117

Table 23: Percentage of IHBG Funds Used by Activity, Calendar 

Years 1998-2003 118

Table 24: Allowable Uses of Tribal Self-Governance Program 

Funding, Based on Budget Categories 121

Table 25: Justice Reporting Requirements for COPS Funding 124

Table 26: Labor Reporting Requirements for Youth Opportunity 

Grant Funding 128

Table 27: DOT Reporting Requirements for AIP Funding 131

Table 28: EPA Reporting Requirements for IGAP Funding 135

Figures Figure 1: Location of Alaska Native Villages and ANCSA Regions 8

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Funding to Alaska Native Villages 

and Regional Native Nonprofits, by Agency, 1998-2003 15

Figure 3: Federal Funding Provided to Villages and Regional Native 

Nonprofits, 1998-2003 16

Figure 4: Total Agency Funding to Alaska Regional Native 

Nonprofits and Alaska Native Villages, 1998-2003 17
Contents

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

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

Funding Received 21

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

Funding Received 22

Figure 7: Growth in Federal Funding to Native Villages and 

Regional Native Nonprofits 23

Figure 8: House Built by the Bristol Bay Housing Authority Using 

IHBG and Other Funds 32

Figure 9: Percentage of 1999-2004 AIP Projects Used to Assist 

Alaska Native Villages, by Type 34

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

Facilities 35

Figure 11: Head Start Center in Dillingham 38

Figure 12: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed by Region for 

Villages and Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar 

Years 1998-2003 44

Figure 13: Number of Units Rehabilitated (with and without 

Acquisition) by Region for Responding Villages and 

Housing Authorities, Calendar Years 1998-2003 45

Figure 14: Annual and Total Number of Units Constructed by 

Housing Authorities and Villages, Calendar Years 

1998-2003 48

Figure 15: Number of Single-Family Units Modernized by Housing 

Authorities, Calendar Years 1998-2003 49

Figure 16: Average Regional New Construction Costs for Housing 

Authorities and Villages Combined, Calendar Years 

1998-2003, Ranked by Cost Per Square Foot 52

Figure 17: Average Rehabilitation Costs for Regional Housing 

Authorities and Villages Combined, Calendar Years 

1998-2003, by Region, for Units That Did Not Require 

Acquisition 55

Figure 18: Housing Authority and Village Rehabilitation Costs for 

Units That Did Not Require Acquisition, by Region, 

Calendar Years 1998-2003 56

Figure 19: Amount of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of 

Alaska to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, 

State Fiscal Years 1998-2003 85

Figure 20: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State 

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

1998-2003 86
Contents

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

Figure 21: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State 

of Alaska, by Agency, to Regional Native Nonprofits, State 

Fiscal Years 1998-2003 87

Figure 22: Trend of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of 

Alaska to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, 

State Fiscal Years 1998-2003 91

Abbreviations

AHFC Alaska Housing Finance Corporation

AIAN American Indian or Alaska Native

AIP Airport Improvement Program

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

ANTHC Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

APR Annual Performance Report

AVCP Association of Village Council Presidents

BEES Building Energy Efficiency Standard

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

CEDS Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy

CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

CIS COPS in Schools

COPS Community Oriented Policing Services

DEC Department of Environmental Conservation

DOT Department of Transportation

DOTPF Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

EAA Economic Adjustment Assistance

EDA Economic Development Administration

EDR Economic Development Representative

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FAADS Federal Assistance Award Data System

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

IGAP Indian Environmental General Assistance Program

IHBG Indian Housing Block Grants

IHP Indian Housing Plan

IHS Indian Health Service

NAHASDA Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ONAP Office of Native American Programs
Contents

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

SF Standard Form

TANF Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

TDHE Tribally Designated Housing Entity 

UAS University of Alaska Southeast 

UHP Universal Hiring Program

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDA RD USDA Rural Development

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

August 2, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Chairman

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Jerry Lewis

Chairman

The Honorable David R. Obey

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Ted Stevens

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

Julie Kitka

President

Alaska Federation of Natives

According to the Census Bureau, about 120,000 people who live in Alaska 

are Native—aboriginal Americans, many of whom reside in rural areas of 

the state long inhabited by their ancestors. For many years, the federal 

government both provided funding to assist Alaska Natives and their 

communities to meet a wide range of social and economic needs—funding 

that has amounted to millions of dollars annually—and administered many 

of the programs that provided the assistance. However, with the passage of 

certain federal legislation, Native villages—entities within the state that are 

recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to receive services from 

the federal government—and other Native organizations began to receive 

more responsibility for administering programs that assist their 

communities. Moreover, these entities also began to receive funding 

directly from the federal government to administer the programs. 

Currently, the federal government provides direct financial assistance to 

many of the more than 200 federally recognized Alaska Native villages and 

other Native organizations. In addition, the federal government provides 

financial assistance to the state, which has passed through some of these 
Page 2 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

funds to Alaska Native villages. However, recently, some federal laws have 

limited the ability of Alaska Native villages to receive direct funding. 

This report responds to section 112, Division B, of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2004, which directed us to review federal programs 

benefiting rural Alaska communities. As agreed with your staff, we focused 

our review on federal programs benefiting Alaska Native villages. Our 

report (1) provides information on the amount of federal assistance 

provided to assist Alaska Native villages during federal fiscal years 1998 

through 2003; (2) describes how selected federal funds have been used to 

assist Alaska Native villages; and (3) provides data on the number and 

average cost of houses built by villages and Alaska Native regional housing 

authorities. 

To address these objectives we met with officials of various federal 

agencies, the state of Alaska, boroughs, and cities. In addition, we met with 

representatives of Native villages, regional Native nonprofit organizations, 

and other organizations that assist Alaska Natives. To report on the amount 

of federal funding that has been provided to assist Alaska Native villages, 

we examined data on both funding to over 200 federally recognized Alaska 

Native villages and regional Native nonprofits, and funding to Native 

villages that was passed through the state of Alaska. We classified as 

regional Native nonprofits: Native associations that were identified in the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) or the organizations that 

succeeded them, which, throughout this report, we refer to as ANCSA 

regional nonprofits; Native health organizations identified in P.L. 105-83; 

and Alaska regional housing authorities identified by the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To provide information on 

funding to Alaska Native villages, we analyzed data from the Federal 

Assistance Award Data System (FAADS), which identifies recipients of 

federal awards, federal programs for which awards were made, and award 

amounts. To verify the accuracy of our data, we provided federal agencies 

with data on their programs that we obtained from FAADS. Based on 

agency responses, where appropriate, we made adjustments to data we 

obtained from FAADS. To provide information on the amount of federal 

funding to assist Alaska Native villages that was passed through by the 

state, we obtained information from the state of Alaska Department of 

Administration, Division of Finance. To describe how selected federal 

funds were used to assist Alaska Native communities, we selected 13 major
Page 3 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

programs from among 11 agencies.1 For each of these programs, we met 

with federal officials and, where appropriate, state, local, village and other 

tribal officials, as well as officials representing organizations that primarily 

serve Alaska Natives. We also reviewed program descriptions from the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) and reviewed agency 

documents on how recipients used program funds. To determine the 

number of housing units completed and their costs, we surveyed all villages 

and regional housing authorities that had received HUD funds from the 

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, 

as amended (NAHASDA), during fiscal years 1998 through 2003. In carrying 

out our work, we did not conduct audit work to assess whether funds were 

spent in compliance with federal regulations, and we did not assess the 

efficiency or effectiveness of how federal funds were distributed or spent. 

We conducted our work from February 2004 to July 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I for 

a detailed description of our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief GAO’s analysis of available data indicates that Alaska Native villages and 

regional Native nonprofits received over $3 billion in federal assistance 

during the 6-year period of federal fiscal years 1998 through 2003.2 Based on 

data from FAADS, which contains governmentwide data on federal award 

assistance transactions, and other agency data, total federal funding for the 

period included approximately $483 million to 216 Alaska Native villages 

and about $3 billion to 33 regional Native nonprofits—ANCSA regional 

nonprofits, regional health nonprofits, and regional housing authorities. 

Although direct federal funding was provided by 17 federal agencies, the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accounted for 63 percent 

of all funding over the period. Similarly, agencies provided direct federal 

funding through 112 programs to villages and 149 programs to regional 

Native nonprofits, although a small number of these programs accounted 

for most of the federal funding. For example, HUD’s Indian Housing Block 

Grant program, which provides funds for housing, accounted for 22 percent 

of all federal funding to Native villages and 16 percent of all federal funding 

1

Generally, the selected programs provided the largest amount of funding to Alaska Native 

villages and regional Native nonprofits during fiscal years 1998-2003 for their respective 

agencies, based on our analysis of FAADS.

2

GAO analyses of FAADS are reported in constant 2003 dollars. Unless otherwise indicated, 

the years referred to in our report are federal fiscal years. The federal fiscal year runs from 

October through September. 
Page 4 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

to regional Native nonprofits during the period. Overall, total annual 

federal funding to villages and regional Native nonprofits increased from 

about $500 million in 1999 to about $662 million in 2003—or about 30 

percent.3

 In addition to the federal government directly providing funds to 

Alaska Native villages and regional Native nonprofits, the state of Alaska 

passed through over $105 million in federal funds to Alaska Native villages 

and regional Native nonprofits during a similar period. Also, over the 

period, villages may have benefited from direct funding of $224 million to 

nonprofit organizations that primarily provide assistance to Alaska Natives; 

over $300 million to incorporated cities and boroughs that contain villages, 

such as when villages located in these areas receive water and sewer 

services; and over $7 billion provided to the state for transportation, 

education, health and human services, and other assistance. 

Federal funds from the 13 programs we reviewed were used to provide 

Alaska Natives with assistance in health care, housing, infrastructure, and 

other areas. For example, according to information from HHS, its Tribal 

Self-Governance Program was used by 13 regional Native nonprofits, three 

Native villages, four groups of Alaska Native villages, and one statewide 

Native health care provider to provide clinical services at tribally run 

hospitals and health clinics that had over 1 million total visits throughout 

Alaska in 2002.4

 Another program, HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grant, 

provided funds used by villages and regional housing authorities to build, 

rehabilitate, modernize, and operate single-family homes and multifamily 

housing properties. In addition to providing funds for carrying out specific 

program activities, most of the programs we reviewed also covered at least 

a portion of grantees’ total administrative costs. However, the extent of 

readily available information on how funds were used from the 13 

programs we reviewed varied, in part, due to different agency reporting 

requirements. For example, Interior had only limited information on the 

usage of funding under its Tribal Self-Governance Program, in part because 

the relevant statutory provisions do not require grantees to submit the 

information. On the other hand, the Denali Commission—a federal agency 

established in 1998 to address crucial rural Alaska needs, such as energy 

3

Funding for 1998 is not included in this comparison because not all HHS and Interior 

funding was included in FAADS for this year.

4

FAADS lists the Tribal Self-Governance as a single program; however, funding for this 

program is provided to Native villages through annual funding agreements that include 

funds from multiple Indian Health Service programs.
Page 5 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

infrastructure—has specific grantee reporting requirements that include, 

among other things, detailed program and financial information. 

Results from our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing 

authorities indicated that responding entities constructed a total of 874 

single-family units and rehabilitated a total of 2,990 single-family units from 

calendar year 1998 to 2003.5

 The two most common units constructed were 

three- and four-bedroom homes. Over the period, 462 three-bedroom and 

262 four-bedroom homes were constructed. Four of the 12 regions 

accounted for about 68 percent of the new home production, including one 

that accounted for over 30 percent of the production. Also, over the period, 

Alaska Native regional housing authorities constructed more than three 

times the number of units (666) than villages (208). We also found that 

three regions accounted for about 60 percent of the number of units 

rehabilitated, and that regional housing authorities rehabilitated 70 percent 

of units compared with 30 percent rehabilitated by villages. Our analysis of 

the survey data indicated that the average cost of units constructed by 

responding entities varied by region and by whether they were developed 

by villages or housing authorities. For example, the 6-year average regional 

cost (in 2003 dollars) of all units constructed ranged from a low of $138,944 

per unit, or $122 per square foot, to a high of $305,634 per unit, or $267 per 

square foot. Although housing authorities had higher new construction 

costs than villages, villages had higher costs for units that were 

rehabilitated without acquisition. However, various factors could account 

for differences in the number or cost of units completed among regions or 

between villages and regional housing authorities. For example, regional 

differences in housing construction costs may reflect variations in the cost 

of transporting building materials and equipment to remote villages. Also, 

differences in construction costs between regional housing authorities and 

villages may reflect costs housing authorities likely incur when complying 

with Alaska state construction and energy efficiency standards—a 

condition of receiving state funds for housing construction. Villages 

generally do not receive funds from the state for housing construction, and 

although they may construct properties that meet these standards, 

adherence to such standards would typically occur voluntarily. 

5

In addition, regional housing authorities modernized 5,211 single-family units over the 

period and 73 multifamily properties developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, using 

“current assisted stock” funding that is provided as part of NAHASDA. We have not included 

the modernization of housing in the comparisons between Native villages and regional 

housing authorities, because only regional housing authorities received such funding..
Page 6 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Background In terms of land area, Alaska is the largest U.S. state—more than the 

combined area of the next three largest states: Texas, California, and 

Montana. However, according to the Census Bureau, Alaska is also one of 

the least populated states, with about 630,000 people—of which about 19 

percent, or 120,000, are Alaska Native or American Indian. Over half of the 

state’s population is concentrated in the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, and 

the Matanuska-Susitna area in south central Alaska. Many Alaska Natives, 

however, live in rural areas of western, northern, and interior Alaska long 

inhabited by their ancestors. Alaska Natives are generally divided into six 

major groupings: Unangan (Aleuts), Alutiiq (Pacific Eskimos), Inupiat 

(Northern Eskimos), Yup’ik (Bering Sea Eskimos), Athabascan (Interior 

Indians), and Tlingit and Haida (Southeast Coastal Indians). 

A Variety of Entities 

Facilitates the Provision of 

Federal Assistance to 

Alaska Native Villages

A variety of entities facilitates federal assistance to Alaska Native villages. 

For many years, the federal government generally funded and administered 

many of the programs that provided assistance to Alaska Natives. However, 

with the passage of several key pieces of legislation, Alaska Native villages 

and other tribal organizations began to take on more responsibility for 

directly administering programs to assist their communities, and began to 

receive direct funding to carry out these tasks. For example, in 1971, 

Congress passed ANCSA, which was intended to resolve Native claims to 

land in the state. Under ANCSA, the Secretary of the Interior divided the 

state into 12 geographic regions so that each would include Natives “having 

a common heritage and sharing common interests.” All Natives became 

shareholders in one of 12 regional corporations or in a 13th corporation for 

nonresident Natives. In addition, Natives who resided in one of more than 

200 villages listed in ANCSA were also enrolled in Native village 

corporations.6

 The Bureau of Indian Affairs currently recognizes 229 Alaska 

Native villages as eligible to receive federal funds.7

 Appendix II contains a 

listing of Alaska Native villages and the number of American Indian and 

Alaska Native (AIAN) persons and enrolled Alaska Native members by

6

The act provided 45 million acres of land and over $900 million to be shared among Native 

regional corporations, village corporations, and Alaska Natives. 

7

Groupings of Alaska Natives are also sometimes referred to as yupiit, tribes, associations, 

councils, or communities. Throughout, we use the term “village.” 
Page 7 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

the 12 ANCSA regions. 

8

AIAN includes persons who indicated their race as American Indian or Alaska Native on the 

2000 Census questionnaire. AIAN persons reside within geographic village boundaries 

recognized by the Census Bureau. AIAN persons who reside within the region but not within 

a specific village boundary area are counted as at-large members of the regional for-profit 

corporation. Enrolled members are actual members of a tribe that may reside anywhere in 

the world. 

9

Throughout, we have included two federally recognized entities with the regional Native 

nonprofits. The Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes, a regional tribe with 

delegates from 21 communities, is identified as a regional Native association in ANCSA. The 

Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve is the only federally recognized 

Indian reservation within the state, and it operates a regional health entity and regional 

housing authority.
Page 8 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 1: Location of Alaska Native Villages and ANCSA Regions 

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

Aleut

Bristol

Bay

Koniag

Calista

Bering Straits

NANA

Arctic Slope

Doyon

Ahtna

Cook

Inlet

Chugach

Sealaska

Alaska Native villages

Source: MapInfo.
Page 9 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

In addition to Alaska Native villages, Alaska Natives are also served by a 

number of other Native-controlled regional nonprofit organizations that 

receive federal funding to administer a broad range of services, including 

12 regional Native associations identified in ANCSA or the organizations 

that succeeded them, which, for the purposes of this report, we refer to as 

ANCSA regional nonprofits, and regional health care and housing 

nonprofits.10 Table 1 provides a list of the ANCSA for-profit regional 

corporations and the corresponding regional nonprofit. 

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

Source: GAO.

10The 12 regional Native associations identified in ANCSA were charged with naming 

incorporators to create regional for-profit corporations to carry out the act. These regional 

for-profit corporations were to cover the same geographic areas as those covered by the 

operations of the existing Native associations. Where the ANCSA-identified Native 

association name has changed or the association has been succeeded by another entity, we 

have used the name of the current regional entity. Generally these nonprofits are composed 

of member villages and operate programs on behalf of the member villages. 

For-profit regional corporation Corresponding regional nonprofit

Ahtna Inc. Copper River Native Association

The Aleut Corporation Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Arctic Slope Native Association

Bering Straits Native Corporation Kawerak Inc.

Bristol Bay Native Corporation Bristol Bay Native Association

Calista Corporation Association of Village Council Presidents

Chugach Alaska Corporation Chugachmiut

Cook Inlet Region Inc. Cook Inlet Tribal Council

Doyon Limited Tanana Chiefs Conference

Koniag Inc. Kodiak Area Native Association

NANA Regional Corporation Inc. Maniilaq Association

Sealaska Corporation Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida 

Indian Tribes

Thirteenth Regional Corporation No nonprofit organization
Page 10 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Also, nearly all health care that is delivered to Alaska Natives is 

administered by 13 Alaska Native regional health organizations that were 

identified in Public Law 105-83. These entities operate under compacting 

arrangements, which are agreements the Indian Health Service (IHS) 

negotiates with Native villages and other Native entities.11 Under the 1975 

Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act, as amended, 

and further through the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 and the Tribal 

Self-Governance Amendments of 2000, tribes and tribal organizations were 

allowed to participate in and manage programs that for years had been 

administered on their behalf by the Departments of the Interior and of 

Health and Human Services. Also, prior to NAHASDA, Alaska Natives were 

served by 14 regional housing authorities that were authorized by previous 

federal housing laws to provide services for Alaska Natives. NAHASDA 

further expanded the ability of Native villages to directly receive federal 

funding for the purpose of providing services to eligible Alaska Natives. 

The regional housing authorities and Native villages engage in a variety of 

affordable housing activities, including construction, rehabilitation, and 

management.12 See appendix III for a list of the ANCSA regional nonprofits, 

the regional health corporations, and the regional housing authorities that 

operate within the 12 ANCSA-defined areas of Alaska.13

Recent legislation has limited the ability of Native villages to directly 

receive federal funding. Public Law 108-447 temporarily limits the ability of 

IHS from directly funding villages that are already located within the area 

of a Native Alaska regional health facility. This restriction was put in place 

due to congressional concerns about the efficiency of providing direct 

federal funding to Alaska Native villages. Also, 25 USC 13f prohibits the 

provision of certain BIA funding to villages with fewer than 25 members; 

and 25 USC 3651 (note) limits which entities can receive certain 

11Compacting generally provides grant recipients broad flexibility in the use of federal funds 

for multiple programs. In order to compact, a Native village or other Native entity must have 

contracted with IHS to provide specific health services for at least 3 years and have had 

satisfactory annual financial statement audits during the most recent 3-year period. 

12Regional housing authorities are also referred to as tribally designated housing entities, or 

TDHEs. Throughout this report we refer to them as regional housing authorities. These 

entities also receive NAHASDA funds for the purpose of modernizing and operating housing 

developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. 

13We have included the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve with the 

regional Native nonprofits in our analyses. Metlakatla Indian Community is the only 

federally recognized Indian reservation within the state, and it operates a regional health 

entity and regional housing authority.
Page 11 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Department of Justice funds. In addition, HUD’s fiscal year 2004-2005 

appropriations included a provision that restricted certain housing funding 

to only those Alaska villages or tribally designated housing entities that had 

received funds in the previous fiscal year. 

In addition to the aforementioned Native nonprofits, a variety of other 

nonprofits also facilitate the provision of federal assistance to Alaska 

Native villages. These nonprofits, many of which are also controlled by 

Alaska Natives, provide assistance related to a broad range of areas, 

including justice issues, cultural and environmental preservation, and 

educational and economic advancement. Some of these nonprofits operate 

in one or more regions or on a subregional basis. Appendix IV contains a 

listing of nonprofits other than those discussed previously that received 

federal funding for the purpose of assisting Alaska Native villages from 

1998 through 2003. 

Alaska Native villages also receive federal assistance that is passed through 

by the state or local agencies. For example, federally recognized Native 

villages may be part of communities that are incorporated under state law 

as cities or boroughs. State of Alaska data show that 124 Native villages are 

located within incorporated cities. However, these cities provide 

government services, such as water and sanitation, to Native village 

members that live in their jurisdiction, which would otherwise most likely 

be provided by Native villages. Likewise, some villages are located in 

organized boroughs that provide services to villages and cities.14 

14About 43 percent of Alaska is made up of 16 organized boroughs. The remaining 57 percent 

of the state is sparsely populated land that is considered a single “unorganized borough.” 
Page 12 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

In 1998, Congress established the Denali Commission to address crucial 

needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly isolated Alaska Native 

villages. The commission is composed of a federal and a state co-chair and 

representatives from local agencies, as well as Alaska Native public and 

private entities.15 To carry out its work, the commission receives an annual 

federal appropriation and funds that are transferred from other federal 

agencies. The purpose of the commission is to (1) deliver the services of 

the federal government in the most cost-effective manner practicable; (2) 

provide job training and other economic development services in rural 

communities; (3) and, promote rural development and provide 

infrastructure such as water, sewer, and communication systems. 

According to the commission’s 2004 annual report, rural Alaska 

communities often face serious challenges to maintaining a sufficient 

energy supply, especially during the state’s harsh winters. Improving rural 

Alaska’s energy infrastructure has been the commission’s primary focus 

since 1999. 

15The Denali Commission was established by the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-

277) to provide sustainable rural infrastructure development, job training and other 

economic development services in rural communities with a focus on distressed 

communities, and to deliver services in the most cost-effective manner practicable in 

Alaska. The Denali Commission is composed of seven members appointed by the Secretary 

of Commerce, including: a federal co-chairperson; the Governor of Alaska, or an individual 

selected from nominations submitted by the Governor, who shall serve as the state cochairperson; the President of the University of Alaska, or an individual selected from 

nominations submitted by the President of the University of Alaska; the President of the 

Alaska Municipal League or an individual selected from nominations submitted by the 

President of the Alaska Municipal League; the President of the Alaska Federation or Natives 

or an individual selected from nominations submitted by the President of the Alaska 

Federation or Natives; the Executive President of the Alaska State AFL-CIO or an individual 

selected from nominations submitted by the Executive President; and the President of the 

Associated General Contractors of Alaska or an individual selected from nominations 

submitted by the President of the Associated General Contractors of Alaska.
Page 13 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Research Shows 

Improvement in the Social 

and Economic Condition of 

Alaska Natives, but Some 

Problems Persist

Although recent research shows improvement in the social and economic 

condition of Alaska Natives, many problems persist. A 1989 report by the 

University of Alaska’s Institute of Social and Economic Research 

documented that Alaska Natives were facing a number of social and 

economic crises, such as high incidences of alcohol abuse, suicide, 

homicide, and unemployment.16 The Alaska Natives Commission—a 

federal-state commission—reported similar findings in 1994. The 

commission stated that because of the high rate of unemployment and lack 

of economic opportunities for Alaska Natives, government programs for 

the poor had become the foundation of many village economies. More 

recently, a 2004 report found that conditions for Alaska Natives improved 

in some areas, but that Alaska Natives still faced continuing and new 

disparities.17 For example, the report indicated that Alaska Natives have 

experienced improvements in health, such as reductions in tuberculosis, 

due in part to improvement in water and sewer systems; however, Natives 

continue to face health problems related to alcohol abuse and other 

factors. Similarly, the report indicated that Alaska Natives are making 

economic improvements, but continue to have disproportionately high 

poverty rates compared with non-Native Alaskans. 

16Institute of Social and Economic Research, The Alaska Federation of Natives Report on 

the Status of Alaska Natives: A Call for Action (Anchorage, Alaska, January 1989).

17Institute of Social and Economic Research, Our Choices, Our Future: Analysis of the 

Status of Alaska Natives Report 2004 (Anchorage, Alaska, July 2004).
Page 14 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Alaska Native Villages 

and Regional Native 

Nonprofits Received 

Over $3 Billion in 

Federal Funding from 

1998 through 2003

From 1998 through 2003, Alaska Native villages and regional Native 

nonprofits received more than $3 billion in funding from multiple federal 

agencies, with HHS providing the majority of the funding.18 Native villages 

received substantially less funding than regional Native nonprofits, 

although Native villages had slightly more diverse sources for funding. 

Additionally, a small number of programs accounted for the majority of 

funding to villages and regional Native nonprofits, and, similarly, a few 

villages and regional Native nonprofits received the majority of federal 

funding. Combined federal funding to Native villages and regional Native 

nonprofits increased from about $512 million in 1999 to about $662 million 

in 2003. Alaska Native villages also benefited from federal funding provided 

to nonprofit organizations that primarily provide assistance to Alaska 

Natives, incorporated cities and boroughs that contain Native villages, and 

the state of Alaska. Moreover, during state fiscal years 1998 through 2003, 

the state of Alaska passed through more than $105 million in federal funds 

to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits.19

Alaska Native Villages and 

Regional Native Nonprofits 

Received Over $3 Billion in 

Funding from Multiple 

Federal Agencies, with HHS 

the Largest Single Provider 

of Funding

Based on our analysis of information from FAADS, 17 federal agencies 

provided about $3.5 billion in federal funding to Alaska Native villages and 

regional Native nonprofits—ANCSA regional nonprofits, regional health 

nonprofits, and regional housing authorities—from 1998 through 2003.20 As 

shown in figure 2, HHS provided 63 percent of the funding, and HUD, 

Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided slightly 

more than 30 percent; thus, four agencies accounted for more than 90 

percent of all direct federal funding to villages and regional Native 

nonprofits. None of the other 13 agencies provided more than 1 percent of 

the total funding to villages and regional Native nonprofits.

18Unless otherwise indicated, the years referred to in our report are federal fiscal years. The 

federal fiscal year runs from October through September. 

19The fiscal year for the state of Alaska is July through June.

20GAO FAADS analyses use constant 2003 dollars.
Page 15 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Funding to Alaska Native Villages and Regional 

Native Nonprofits, by Agency, 1998-2003 

a

Other agencies include the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Endowment for the 

Arts, Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, 

Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The federally established Denali Commission, through its federal 

appropriations, also provided assistance to rural Alaska communities, 

including Alaska Native villages. From 1999 through 2003, Denali obligated 

approximately $290 million, but Denali did not report the grant amounts to 

the Census Bureau so that the information could be included in FAADS. 

Denali officials said they were not aware of the FAADS reporting 

requirement until recently. 

<1% Othera

2% Environmental Protection Agency

Department of Housing

and Urban Development

Department of Health

and Human Services

Department of the Interior

1% each: Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Education, Justice, Labor, 

and Transportation

10%

63% 19%

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

Total direct federal funding: $3.5 billion
Page 16 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Native Villages Received 

Substantially Less Funding Than 

Regional Native Nonprofits, but 

Native Villages Received Their 

Funding from More Sources 

Of the $3.5 billion provided to Alaska Native villages and regional Native 

nonprofits, as shown in figure 3, federal agencies provided more than $483 

million (14 percent) in direct federal funding to 216 Alaska Native villages 

and $3 billion (86 percent) to 33 regional Native nonprofits from 1998 

through 2003. 

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

1998-2003

Although regional Native nonprofits received more funding than Native 

villages, the sources of major funding for villages were slightly more 

diverse than for regional Native nonprofits. Specifically, Native villages 

received direct funding from 16 agencies, with HHS, Interior, EPA, and 

HUD providing about 84 percent. In comparison, regional Native nonprofits 

received funding from 14 federal agencies, with HHS accounting for 70 

percent of the funding (see figs. 4 and 5).

Native villages 

Regional Native

nonprofits 

14%

86%

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

$3,006,106,541

$483,452,291
Page 17 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 4: Total Agency Funding to Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits and Alaska Native Villages, 1998-2003 

a

Other agencies are the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Energy, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Institute of Museum and Library Services, the 

National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for National and Community Service.

b

Other agencies are the National Endowment for the Arts, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 

Corporation for National and Community Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and Department of Labor.

Department 

of Housing 

and Urban 

Development

Department of 

Health and

Human Services

Department

of the Interior

<1% each: Othera

and Department

of Agriculture

17%

9%

70%

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

1% each: 

Departments of 

Education and

Labor

Regional Native nonprofits ($3.0 billion) Alaska Native villages ($483 million)

28%

22%

19%

15%

5%

<1% each: Otherb

and 

Department of Education

Department of Health

and Human Services

Department

of the Interior

Environmental 

Protection Agency

Department of Housing

and Urban Development

Department of Justice

3% each: Departments 

of Agriculture and 

Commerce 

4% Department of 

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

Regional Native nonprofits may receive more funding from HHS than 

villages because regional Native nonprofits include regional health 

organizations that receive funding from IHS to operate major medical 

facilities such as hospitals. Under existing law, some villages are restricted 

from receiving IHS funding in cases where they are located in areas that are 

already served by an Alaska Native regional health organization.21

In contrast, Native villages received more funding from certain agencies 

than regional Native nonprofits. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, 

and Transportation (DOT) and EPA all provided more funding to villages 

than to regional Native nonprofits. For example, EPA provided $72 million 

to villages over the period, or over six times the amount provided to 

regional Native nonprofits.

A Small Number of Programs 

Accounted for the Majority of 

Funding and a Small Number of 

Both Native Villages and 

Regional Native Nonprofits 

Received the Majority of the 

Funding

While Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received different 

amounts of funding, with different primary sources of funding, both 

received the majority of their funding from a few programs. For example, 

Native villages received funding from a total of 112 programs; however, as 

shown in table 2, the top programs from nine agencies providing the most 

funding accounted for about 64 percent of the funding to all Native villages.

21Public Law 108-447 temporarily limits the ability of HHS’s Indian Health Service from 

directly funding villages that are already located within the area of a Native Alaska regional 

health facility. This restriction is the latest in a series of provisions that have effectively 

frozen the funding structure that was in place prior to 1998.
Page 19 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

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

a

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

b

Also called Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants.

c

Starting in 2002, this program was consolidated into CFDA 84.356—Alaska Native Education 

Program.

Similarly, while regional Native nonprofits received funding from 149 

programs, about 87 percent of the funding came from the nine agencies 

that provided the largest funding (see table 3).

Agency Program name (CFDA) Total funding

 Percentage

of total

funding

HUD Indian Housing Block Grants (14.867) $104,068,580 22

EPA Indian Environmental General Assistance 

Program (66.926) 63,269,797 13

HHS Indian Health Service Health Management 

Development Program (93.228)a 47,721,221 10

Interior Tribal Self-Governance (15.022) 45,500,244 9

DOT Airport Improvement Program (20.106) 17,545,183 4

Commerce Economic Adjustment Assistance (11.307) 11,705,345 2

Justice Public Safety Partnership and Community 

Policing Grants (16.710)b 9,766,546 2

USDA Water and Waste Disposal Systems for 

Rural Communities (10.760) 6,017,480 1

Education Alaska Native Educational Planning, 

Curriculum Development, Teacher Training, 

and Recruitment Program (84.320)c 1,497,690 <1

103 other programs 176,360,205 36

Total $483,452,291 100
Page 20 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

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

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

during the period.

a

According to HHS officials, the total funding amount also includes funding for Tribal Self-Governance 

Program (CFDA 93.210) and Indian Self-Determination (CFDA 93.441).

Further, Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received funding 

from some of the same programs, but not always in similar amounts. For 

example, Native villages received about $10 million from the Department of 

Justice’s Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants and 

about $6 million from the United States Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities 

program. Regional Native nonprofits received less than $500,000 from the 

same Justice program and about $1.4 million from the same USDA 

program. 

In addition to the concentration of funding among a small number of 

agencies, as shown in figures 5 and 6, relatively few Native villages and 

regional Native nonprofits received more than a third of the funding. For 

example, only 13 out of 216 Native villages received 38 percent of total 

Agency Program name (CFDA) Total funding

Percentage

of total

funding

HHS Indian Health Service—Health 

Management Development Program 

(93.228)a $1,841,321,664 61

HUD Indian Housing Block Grants (14.867) 480,063,494 16

Interior Tribal Self-Governance (15.022) 245,776,863 8

Labor Workforce Investment Act (17.255) 18,964,143 1

Education Rehabilitation Services—American Indians 

with Disabilities (84.250) 13,310,179 <1

USDA Community Facilities Loans and Grants 

(10.766) 7,815,357 <1

EPA Indian Environmental General Assistance 

Program (66.926) 7,563,292 <1

Commerce Economic Adjustment Assistance (11.307) 3,628,586 <1

Justice Violence against Women Discretionary 

Grants for Indian Tribal Governments 

(16.587) 2,066,729 <1

140 other programs 385,596,234 13

Total $3,006,106,541 100
Page 21 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

federal funding to Native villages. Also, 10 of 33 regional Native nonprofits 

received 71 percent of total funding to these entities.

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

a

The Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government includes Arctic Village and the Village of Venetie. All 

three of these entities are recognized by BIA. For this analysis, funding for these entities is combined.

 bThe Native Village of Gambell and the Native Village of Savoonga, both located on St. Lawerence 

Island, are separate BIA-recognized entities; however, because they were recorded in FAADS as joint 

recipients for some funds, we combined them in this analysis. 

Native village

Percentage of

total funding

Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (Arctic Village and Village of Venetie)a

Ketchikan Indian Corporation

Seldovia Village Tribe

Orutsararmuit Native Village (aka Bethel)

Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government (formerly Native Village of Barrow)

Native Villages of Gambell and Savoongab

Native Village of Kwinhagak (aka Quinhagak)

10

4

3

Number of villages

13

203

38%

62%

Sitka Tribe of Alaska

3

3

Kenaitze Indian Tribe

2

3

Native Village of Kotzebue

4

3

3

Percentage of total village funding

Top

funded

villages

Other

funded

villages

Total 100

Various (203 other Native villages) 62

Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1998-2003.
Page 22 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

Received

Combined Federal Funding 

to Native Villages and 

Regional Native Nonprofits 

Increased 29 Percent 

between 1999 and 2003 

In 2003 constant dollars, annual combined federal funding to Native 

villages and regional Native nonprofits increased 29 percent, from $512 

million in 1999 to $662 million in 2003.22 Combined funding to Native 

villages and regional Native nonprofits increased every year, except 2003, 

peaking in 2002 at $737 million (see fig. 7). 

Other tribal organizations

Percentage of

total funding

Tanana Chiefs Conference Inc.

Manillaq Association

Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation

Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes

Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation 12

9

Number of regional Native nonprofits

10

23

71%

29%

Association of Village Council Presidents

3

3

Cook Inlet Housing Authority

3

Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium 8

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium 10

Southcentral Foundation 11

5

7

Percentage of total regional 

Native nonprofit funding

Top

funded

nonprofits

Other

funded

nonprofits

Total 100

Various (23 other regional Native nonprofits) 29

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

22This increase does not include $26 million (constant 2003 dollars) in HHS expenditures to 

operate the Alaska Native Medical Center in the first quarter of 1999, before the center was 

operated by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the Southcentral Foundation. If 

these expenditures are added to the HHS grant amounts to Native villages and regional 

nonprofits in 1999, the increase from 1999 through 2003 is 23 percent. 
Page 23 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

Nonprofits

The large increase between 2001 and 2002, from $586 million to $737 

million, is primarily attributable to increases in HHS funding to Native 

villages and regional Native nonprofits. HHS funding increased from $308 

million in 2001 to $475 million in 2002. The decrease in funding between 

2002 and 2003 is primarily attributable to decreases in funding from HHS 

and Interior. 

Finally, direct federal funding to Native villages grew 29 percent, from $64 

million in 1999 to $83 million in 2003, and the number of Native villages 

receiving funds directly increased 32 percent from 148 in 1999 to 196 in 

2003. Federal direct funding to the 33 regional Native nonprofits grew 29 

percent from $448 million in 1999 to $579 million in 2003. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Alaska Native villages

Regional Native nonprofits

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Dollars in millions

Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1999-2003.
Page 24 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Funding for 1998 is not included in the comparison because not all HHS 

and Interior funding was included in FAADS. According to HHS officials, 

FAADS does not capture the $139 million in federal funds expended by 

HHS in 1998 for it to operate the Alaska Native Medical Center and provide 

sanitation facilities projects.23 Also, according to Interior, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs did not report 1998 funding data for inclusion in FAADS. 

Alaska Native Villages and 

Alaska Natives Also 

Benefited from Federal 

Funding to Other Nonprofit 

Organizations, Cities, 

Boroughs, and the State of 

Alaska 

Many Alaska Native villages also benefited from other nonprofits that 

primarily assist Alaska Natives. Also, Native villages located within 

incorporated cities benefited from municipal services, such as sewer and 

water services. In addition, Alaska Native villages and Alaska Natives 

benefited from federal funding to school districts, boroughs, and the state, 

for purposes such as education, transportation, and other community 

services. The state also passed through some federal funding it receives to 

Native villages, cities, and boroughs. 

Based on our analysis of FAADS data, 46 nonprofit organizations that 

primarily provide assistance and support to Alaska Natives received $224 

million during 1998 through 2003. These organizations are a diverse group 

that include: statewide entities, such as the Alaska Federation of Natives, 

considered to be the largest advocacy group representing Alaska Natives; 

the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, which supports subsistence 

activities; the Alaska Native Heritage Center, which seeks to promote 

awareness of Native culture and values; and the Council of Athabascan 

Tribal governments, a subregional Native nonprofit that provides health 

care services to six villages. See appendix IV for a list of the nonprofit 

organizations that primarily assist Alaska Natives and that received federal 

funding from 1998 through 2003.

Our analysis of FAADS data indicated that 12 federal agencies provided 

incorporated cities that have Native villages within their borders with $167 

million in federal funding during 1998 through 2003. Overall, 75 different 

incorporated cities received some form of federal funding, with an average 

of 32 cities receiving funds in any year.24 USDA provided the largest amount 

of funding to these cities—$88 million or about half of all funding provided 

23In constant 2003 dollars.

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

Two cities each include two Native villages.
Page 25 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

to the cities. More specifically, its Water and Waste Disposal Systems for 

Rural Communities program, provided the largest share of this funding—

$55 million. The Department of Energy provided the next largest share of 

funding to cities—about $26 million over the period. However, most of the 

Department of Energy’s funding was from one program—Renewable 

Energy Research and Development program—which accounted for $25 

million to the incorporated cities. In addition, incorporated cities with 

Native villages within their borders received about $22 million from the 

DOT’s Airport Improvement Program. 

Our analysis of FAADS data also indicates that from 1998 through 2003, 18 

federal agencies provided $161 million to borough governments. DOT 

contributed the largest share of the funding, $53 million. Its Airport 

Improvement Program provided $37 million to boroughs, making it the 

largest program overall. HUD provided the next largest amount of funding, 

$25 million. HUD’s Community Development Block Grants program 

provided $18 million to boroughs, making it the second largest program. 

Commerce, USDA, and Education each provided about $16 million to 

boroughs. 

Based on our analysis of FAADS data, independent school districts 

received about $674 million from 11 federal agencies. Fifty-six different 

school districts received federal funding, with an average of 52 school 

districts funded annually. Education was responsible for 98 percent of all 

funding to school districts, about $662 million. More specifically, the 

majority of these funds came from the department’s formula-based Impact 

Aid program. Impact Aid provided $481 million in financial assistance to 

school districts where school enrollments or availability of revenue are 

adversely affected by federal activities, or where a significant number of 

children reside on federal (including Indian25) lands.

25The Impact Aid program defines Indian lands in Alaska to include real property that is tax 

exempt due to federal law, agreement, or policy, and that was conveyed under ANCSA to a 

Native individual, Native group or corporation organized under ANCSA, or village or 

regional corporation, as those terms are defined in ANCSA.
Page 26 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Finally, our analysis of FAADS data also shows that the state of Alaska 

received about $7 billion in federal funding from 1998 through 2003.26 The 

state received about $3 billion from DOT, with about $2.3 billion coming 

from a formula-driven Federal Highway Administration program and $662 

million from the Airport Improvement Program. USDA and Education each 

provided about $800 million to the state, with USDA providing $335 million 

from the Food Stamp program and $95 million from the Water and Waste 

Disposal Systems for Rural Communities program, and Education 

providing $122 million for Impact Aid program. EPA provided $401 million 

to the state, which included $216 million from its Surveys, Studies, 

Investigations and Special Purpose Grants program, which is used 

primarily to fund the state’s Village Safe Water program.

In addition to using federal funds to provide general services throughout 

the state, the state of Alaska also passed through some of its federal funds 

to Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, cities, and boroughs.27 

During the state fiscal period 1998 through 2003, the state passed through 

more than $105 million in federal funds to Native villages and regional 

Native nonprofits. This funding was provided by 15 federal agencies to 

Native villages and by 17 federal agencies to regional Native nonprofits to 

address health, environmental, economic, and other needs. In addition, the 

state passed through $82.5 million to incorporated cities and almost $253 

million to boroughs with Native villages. See appendix V for more 

information on federal funds the state passed through to villages, regional 

Native nonprofits and other entities.

26Our FAADS analysis showed an additional $3 billion coded as federal funding to the state 

during the period; however, we were not able to match the recipient names with a state 

department. Most of the additional federal funds were for HHS’s Medical Assistance 

Program (Medicaid) (CFDA 93.778) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (CFDA 

93.558).

27Information on funds passed through the state of Alaska was provided by the Alaska 

Department of Administration, Division of Finance, not through an analysis of FAADS.
Page 27 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Federal Funds Have 

Been Used to Provide 

an Array of Services to 

Alaska Native Villages

Federal funds from the 13 programs we reviewed have been used to 

provide an array of services to Alaska Native villages. However, the extent 

of federal agency information on those uses varied widely by program. 

Specifically, funds from these programs were used to provide Alaska 

Natives with assistance in health care, housing, infrastructure, and other 

areas such as education and community development.28 In addition to 

providing funds for carrying out specific program activities, most of the 

programs we reviewed also covered at least a portion of grantees’ total 

administrative costs. The extent of readily available information on how 

funds from these programs were used varied, partly because of different 

reporting requirements and partly due to different efforts to summarize 

individual grantee data. Summaries of the 13 programs we reviewed are 

contained in appendixes VI through XVI.

Alaska Native Villages and 

Regional Native Nonprofits, 

and Other State and Local 

Organizations, Used Federal 

Funding to Provide an Array 

of Services to Their 

Communities

Alaska Native Villages, regional Native Nonprofits, and other state and 

local organizations used funds from the 13 programs we reviewed to 

provide an array of services to their communities. Specifically, they used 

funds from these programs to provide assistance related to health care, 

housing, infrastructure, and other areas (see table 4). 

28We included in our review the Public Works and Economic Development Facilities 

program after speaking with Commerce officials, who stated that this program is generally 

used more by Alaska Native villages than the Economic Adjustment Assistance program. 

The officials stated that while the Economic Adjustment Assistance program was the 

highest funded Commerce program assisting Alaska Native villages during 1998-2003, the 

program provided atypically high funding levels in 2001 in response to the Alaskan salmon 

fishing disaster. HUD’s Indian Community Development Block Grant program was added to 

our review because in addition to the Indian Housing Block Grant program, it, too, can be 

used to construct new housing in Alaska Native villages. For more detailed information on 

GAO’s methodology, see appendix I. 
Page 28 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

Source: GAO.

Agency Program Primary purposes grantees used funds

Denali Commission Denali Commission (emphasis on 

energy and health)

Energy and health care infrastructure

Department of Agriculture Water and Waste Disposal System 

for Rural Communities 

Infrastructure

Department of Commerce Economic Adjustment Assistance Economic development

Department of Commerce Economic Development—Grants 

for Public Works and Development 

Facilities

Economic development

Department of Education Alaska Native Programs Education

Department of Health and Human Services Tribal Self-Governance Health care

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Indian Housing Block Grant Housing construction and rehabilitation

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Indian Community Development 

Block Grant

Community development

Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing 

Services

Law enforcement

Department of the Interior Tribal Self-Governance Community welfare, community development

Department of Labor Youth Opportunity Grants Education, job training

Department of Transportation Airport Improvement Program Transportation infrastructure

Environmental Protection Agency Indian Environmental General 

Assistance Program

Capacity building 
Page 29 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Alaska Regional Native 

Nonprofits, Villages, and State 

Agencies Used Federal Funding 

to Provide a Wide Range of 

Health Care Services to Alaska 

Natives

Two programs we reviewed provided health care funding for Alaska 

Natives: the Department of Health and Human Services’ Tribal SelfGovernance Program and the Denali Commission’s Health Care Program. 

HHS’s Indian Health Service (IHS) awards self-governance funding to 13 

regional Native health care nonprofits, three Native villages, one statewide 

Native health care provider, and four groups of between two and seven 

Alaska Native villages, to provide health care services to Alaska Natives.29 

Under the program, IHS negotiates self-governance compacts with these 

regional Native nonprofits, villages, and the statewide Alaska Native Tribal 

Health Consortium30 that allow those organizations to assume the 

management, design and implementation of their own health care 

programs.31 According to IHS officials and agency documentation, these 

organizations recently used HHS’s Tribal Self-Governance Program funding 

in several areas.32 These include the following:33

• Clinical health services, including hospitals and health clinics, dental 

services, mental health services, and alcohol and substance abuse 

treatment. Collectively, these funds were used to operate 7 tribal 

29In total, 20 Alaska Native villages receive self-governance funding from IHS directly or as 

part of small groups that are not regional Native health care nonprofits. All other Alaska 

Native villages in Alaska receive health care services through regional Native health care 

nonprofits. We have included Eastern Aleutian Tribes Inc., as an entity that provided health 

care services to a group of villages; it was recognized as a Native regional health entity by 

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

30The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium is a nonprofit health organization authorized 

by P.L. 105-83 and managed by regional health corporations and elected representatives 

from Alaska Native village governments not part of a regional health corporation. The 

consortium was created in 1997 to provide statewide Native health services when those 

services were transferred from federal ownership and control to Alaska tribes. 

31In addition to funding the above services and facilities, a small percentage of the IHS 

funding goes to one-time cooperative agreements that provide planning and negotiation 

resources to villages interested in participating in the Tribal Self-Governance Program. 

32The IHS Tribal Self-Governance Program allows tribes and nonprofits to reprogram 

funding allocations within the limitations of appropriations laws as the tribe or nonprofit 

deems best to address their own health care needs and priorities. Pursuant to legislative 

reporting requirements, IHS receives information on health status and service delivery. 

33Over 95 percent of the funding for the operations described herein was provided under the 

Tribal Self-Governance Program. The remaining funds for these operations came from IHS’s 

Indian Self-Determination Program, which also provides funds that allow tribes to 

administer health programs. Some of the information in IHS’s published reports on health 

status and service delivery combines the uses from these two programs.
Page 30 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

clinics with about 500 community health aides. 

• Contract health services (i.e., health services from private-sector 

providers where specialized health care services were not readily 

available at tribally operated providers). For example, the Alaska Native 

Medical Center in Anchorage—which generally provides treatment for 

serious illness and injury for Alaska Natives from all over Alaska—often 

uses contract health care funds to consult with specialists and to 

provide specialized care such as cardiac or neurological surgery.

• Preventive health services, such as public health nursing, health 

education, and immunization. For example, the Tanana Chiefs 

Conference used tribal self-governance funds to provide a community 

health representative program for patient education.

• Contract support costs (such as general administrative costs incurred 

by grantees).

• Health care facilities, including maintenance, improvement, and 

construction of health care and sanitation facilities. For example, in 

2004, the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium added a small, 

ground-floor room to accommodate a Magnetic Resonance Imaging 

service. 

The majority of the Denali Commission’s recent Health Care Program 

funding was used by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services 

and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, a statewide Native health 

care provider, according to Denali Commission documentation. These 

groups used the funding primarily to construct new primary care clinics 

and repair and renovate existing ones, as well as to purchase health care 

equipment, for residents in rural Alaska, including Alaska Natives. 

According to the commission’s 2004 annual report, since 1999 it funded the 

construction of primary health clinics in 41 communities, while projects
Page 31 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

are under way in 59 other communities across the state.34 For example, in 

2003, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium used a total of $2.7 

million from the commission’s health facilities program to build a health 

clinic in Toksook Bay (the location of the Nunakauyarmiut Tribe). The 

Denali Commission provides funding for other health care needs as well, 

such as a grant to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services to 

cover half of the $400,000 needed to purchase an ultrasound machine for 

Sitka.

Native Villages and Tribally 

Designated Housing Entities 

Used Federal Housing Funding 

to Construct, Rehabilitate, and 

Maintain Housing Stock

HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grant program (IHBG) funds housing 

activities conducted by Alaska Native villages or Native regional housing 

nonprofits. This program has the stated intent of recognizing the right of 

tribal self-governance. HUD’s IHBG funds can be used in a variety of 

housing-related activities, including housing development, assistance to 

housing developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, and planning and 

administration.35 According to HUD, between 1998 and 2003, 38 percent of 

the IHBG funds were used for housing development activities, 22 percent 

were used for modernizing and operating current assisted stock, 11 percent 

were used for planning and administration, and 29 percent were used for 

other housing activities, such as housing services, housing management 

services, crime prevention, model activities, and unspent funds. Figure 8 

shows a new house built in Alaska by the Bristol Bay Housing Authority 

with IHBG and other funds.

34The Denali Commission focuses its efforts on rural Alaska. According to Denali officials, 

most of the Commission’s projects benefit Alaska Native villages. 

35Prior to the passage of NAHASDA, HUD provided financial and technical assistance to 

Indian housing authorities under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 for the development and 

operation of low-income housing projects in Indian areas.
Page 32 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

State Agencies, Native Villages, 

and Other Agencies Used 

Federal Infrastructure Funding 

to Address Needs for Water and 

Waste Disposal Systems, Airport 

Improvements, and Energy 

Three of the 13 programs we reviewed—USDA’s Water and Waste Disposal 

System for Rural Communities, DOT’s Airport Improvement Program, and 

the Denali Commission’s Energy Facilities Program—provided water, 

transportation, and energy infrastructure in Alaska Native communities. 

Source: GAO.
Page 33 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Funding under USDA’s Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural 

Communities is used primarily in conjunction with the state of Alaska’s 

Village Safe Water program.36 According to USDA officials and agency 

documentation, USDA funds are combined with EPA funds and 25 percent 

matching state funds to eliminate the “honey bucket”—a plastic 5-gallon 

bucket used as a toilet in some Alaska Native villages—and provide 

communities with water and sewer systems that function in Alaska’s harsh 

environment, such as the flush and haul system.37 From 2000 through 2003, 

USDA funded 86 Village Safe Water projects.38 In the Alaska Native village 

of Napaskiak, for example, USDA provided a $570,300 grant that, when 

matched with $190,200 from the state, is being used to replace all of the 

remaining single-family home honey buckets in the community with the 

flush and haul system. 

DOT’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP) was used to construct new 

airports and rehabilitate old ones, since many of the Alaska Native villages 

that are not accessible by roads contain an airport runway that provides the 

only year-round access to the village. Most of the program’s funding goes to 

Alaska’s Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, which 

administers most projects under the program.39 AIP officials said that many 

funds go to improving existing airports to bring all airports up to a 

minimum standard, and while airports in the lower 48 states are often on 

their second or third improvement plan, most airports in Alaska are being 

constructed or improved for the first time. Figure 9 below shows the 310 

AIP projects, by type, for the 1999-2004 AIP grants that benefited Alaska 

Native villages.

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

the Village Safe Water projects benefit Alaska Native villages. 

37A flush and haul system generally consists of individual storage tanks that provide water to 

flush toilets, and the sewage is then stored in a separate tank, the contents of which are 

transported to a sewage lagoon.

38Since 2000, program funds have been given directly from USDA to the state, while prior to 

that, grants were given directly to the communities with grant administration done by the 

state. Some of these projects have not been completed as of May 2005, as projects can take 

several years to complete. Additionally, some funds have only been allocated and 

construction of the project has not been started.

39The state of Alaska is the owner and operator for most of the airports in Alaska; as such, 

the state is the eligible sponsor that can receive AIP funding for these airports.
Page 34 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 9: Percentage of 1999-2004 AIP Projects Used to Assist Alaska Native 

Villages, by Type

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

AIP provides grants that benefit both Alaska Native villages as well as other areas. Federal Aviation 

Administration officials provided GAO with a database of 519 projects in Alaska from 1999-2004. GAO 

categorized 310 of those as benefiting Alaska Native villages, including villages located within the 

boundaries of incorporated cities; non-Alaska Natives living in those areas could benefit from those 

projects as well. Additionally, grants that were made to benefit airports in larger locations, such as 

Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks were not included, though Alaska Natives living in and traveling to 

those locations could benefit from those projects. Further, 36 of the 519 projects were labeled as 

statewide projects without specific locations; those projects are not included in the analysis above, and 

likewise could benefit Alaska Natives using those airports. Some of the projects in this database have 

not been completed, as completion of some projects can take as long as 4 years. 

The Denali Commission’s energy program has been used to address issues 

affecting Alaska Natives by focusing on upgrades for bulk fuel tank farms 

and rural power system upgrades. Energy has been the commission’s 

primary infrastructure theme since 1999. The first challenge undertaken by 

the commission was the upgrade and consolidation of fuel tanks in 172 

communities identified as health and environmental hazards by the U.S. 

Coast Guard and EPA. According to the commission’s 2004 Annual Report, 

the two major recipients of the commission’s energy facilities funds—the 

Alaska Energy Authority and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative—have 

upgraded bulk fuel tanks in 64 communities across the state, while projects 

8%

15%

15%

15%

22%

26%

Improve existing airport

Snow-removal equipment and buildings

Other, including obstruction removal,

security improvements, lighting

Airport construction

Runway safety area

Airport planning

Source: GAO analysis of airport improvement program data.
Page 35 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

are under way in 70 other communities. For example, in 2001, the 

commission provided about $2.9 million of the roughly $3.8 million used by 

the Alaska Energy Authority to upgrade a tank farm in the Alaska Native 

village of Kotlik (see fig. 10). The new tank farm replaced a system that had 

been cited for violations by the U.S. Coast Guard with one that was in full 

compliance with federal regulations. The commission’s 2004 annual report 

also stated that the commission has upgraded rural power systems in 13 

communities, has started construction in 20 others, and is in the planning 

or design phase in an additional 18. These upgrades include adding backup 

power generators and increasing efficiency of existing generators. 

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

Before upgrade.

After upgrade.

Source: Denali Commission.
Page 36 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Alaska Native Villages, Regional 

Native Nonprofits, and Other 

State and Local Entities Used 

Federal Funding for Social 

Services, Capacity Building, 

Community Development, Job 

Training, Native Education, Law 

Enforcement, and Economic 

Development

Eight of the 13 programs we reviewed assisted Alaska Natives in areas such 

as social services, capacity building, community development, job training, 

education, law enforcement, and economic development in Alaska Native 

communities. 

• Interior’s Tribal Self-Governance Program: Twelve Alaska Native 

villages, eight regional Native nonprofits, one group consisting of 

multiple Alaska Native villages and one Indian reservation recently used 

Interior’s Tribal Self-Governance Program to fund a variety of activities. 

According to agency officials and documents, these activities included: 

• tribal government programs, such as funding to allow grantees to 

plan, conduct, consolidate, and administer programs, services, 

functions, and activities for tribal citizens according to priorities 

established by their tribal governments;

• human services programs, such as welfare assistance, child abuse 

and neglect counseling, and disaster assistance programs;

• education programs, such as scholarship grants for Alaska Native 

students attending accredited postsecondary institutions and adult 

education programs;

• public safety and justice, such as using funding for tribal courts that 

enable tribes to establish and maintain their own civil and criminal 

codes in accordance with local tribal customs and traditions; 

• community development, such as the Housing Improvement 

Program, which funds repairs and renovations of existing homes and 

construction of new homes, job training and placement programs, or 

road maintenance programs; and

• resource management, such as programs assisting Alaska Natives in 

managing their forest, mineral, oil, gas, and other land-based 

programs, including fire protection and sacred-site programs.

• EPA’s Indian Environmental General Assistance Program: In 2004, 

program funding went to 139 Alaska Native villages and 11 groups of 

two or more tribes that are currently building their capacity to 

implement environmental protection programs, including development 

of solid and hazardous waste programs. According to EPA officials and 

documentation, villages use this “capacity building” funding to hire and 
Page 37 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

train staff and purchase office equipment, conduct a review of village 

programs to ensure compliance with federal regulations, develop a 

strategic environmental plan for the village, implement village recycling 

programs, and coordinate environmental efforts with other villages and 

federal and state officials, among other uses. For example, officials in 

Native Village of Goodnews Bay reported to EPA that they used program 

funding to provide the village with environmental education, awareness, 

increased capacity to apply for other grants, and jobs.

• HUD’s Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (ICDBG): 

Eighty ICDBG grants were awarded from 1998 through 2003, with all but 

one of those grants going to Alaska Native villages, and one going to a 

joint venture between a village and a regional Native health care 

nonprofit. The projects included 21 health-related facilities (e.g., clinics, 

mental health, and primary care facilities); 35 community centers; 17 

infrastructure projects (e.g., fuel tanks and water and sewer systems); 6 

housing-related projects (e.g., housing rehabilitation, new construction, 

and land acquisition for new housing) and one imminent threat grant. 

For example, the Native Villages of Ekuk and Curyung used ICDBG 

grant funds in fiscal year 2002 to construct a combined Head 

Start/Family Resource Center in Dillingham (see fig. 11). Each Native 

village received $500,000 in ICDBG funds and leveraged an additional 

$3.2 million from other sources, excluding the land that was donated by 

the Bristol Bay Native Association, according to program 

documentation. Opened to students in January 2003, the center provides 

Head Start and Early Learning programs and child care to parents 

transitioning from welfare to work. The new center serves 60 children, 

ranging from infants to 12-year-olds, and replaced an old center that 

served only 30 children. 
Page 38 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 11: Head Start Center in Dillingham

• Labor’s Youth Opportunity Grant Program: From 2000-2004, one 

coalition of Alaska Native Villages and regional Native nonprofits used 

approximately $32 million in funding from this program to fund a variety 

of education, job training, and youth development activities. The 

coalition selected Cook Inlet Tribal Council as the lead agency to apply 

for the Youth Opportunity Grant; Cook Inlet provided oversight, 

monitoring, and technical assistance. Cook Inlet subcontracted out the 

operation of most of the program to 11 regional Native nonprofits and 4 

Source: HUD/Alaska Field Office.
Page 39 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Alaska Native villages. According to agency documentation, about 2,960 

Alaska youth, the vast majority of whom were Alaska Natives, enrolled 

in the YO! Alaska Program’s 40 youth centers and participated in 

internships, sports and recreation activities, reading and math 

remediation, community service, high school graduate equivalency 

degree preparation, and other activities. 

• Education’s Alaska Native Education Program: In 2003, 32 educational 

organizations with experience in developing educational programs for 

Alaska Natives used funds to address the educational needs of Alaska 

Native students, parents, and teachers. The program’s enabling 

legislation specifically directs that some funding be used for Alaska 

Native cultural education programs, including a cultural exchange 

program between urban and rural students, dropout prevention 

programs, and parenting programs. Other funds have been used for 

family literacy programs, home instruction for preschool-age Alaska 

Natives, and to increase the educational opportunities of Alaska Native 

students and teachers. For example, the University of Alaska Southeast 

used an approximately $1.6 million grant for four main goals, one of 

which was to recruit and actively mentor Alaska Native high school 

students for the university’s Bachelor of Science program.

• Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Alaska Native 

villages have used Justice’s COPS program to address village law 

enforcement needs through hiring and training police officers and 

purchasing uniforms and police vehicles. For example, since 1999, the 

COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program was used to hire 35 police 

officers in Alaska Native villages, and provide training and equipment to 

Native villages.

• Commerce’s Economic Adjustment Assistance Program: Alaska Native 

villages and regional Native nonprofits have used Economic Adjustment 

Assistance to develop comprehensive economic development strategies 

tailored to villages’ specific economic problems and opportunities. 

Since 1999, the program has funded 29 projects. For example, in 2001, 

the Tanana Chiefs Conference was awarded $725,000 for the 

construction of a 20-room hotel with a combination restaurant, lounge, 

and meeting facilities on council-owned property located in the Village 

of Circle. 

• Commerce’s Public Works and Economic Development Facilities 

Program: Alaska Native villages and other tribal organizations have used 
Page 40 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

three grants from this program since 1999. For example, in 2001, a 

village used $2.3 million to assist with the construction of a complex to 

house a museum, visitor center, and retail and office space.

Most of the Selected 

Programs Provide Funding 

for at Least a Portion of 

Grantees’ Administrative 

Fees

Eleven of the 13 programs we reviewed provided some funding to pay for a 

portion of the total administrative costs associated with the programs.40 

The majority of these 11 programs provided funding for administrative 

costs as part of the overall grant amount, rather than allowing for 

reimbursement for specific administrative costs that grantees incur. Most 

of these 11 programs had restrictions on the amount of administrative 

funds grantees can use. For example, HUD’s IHBG program allows grantees 

to use up to 20 percent of the grant amount for total administrative costs. In 

contrast, Labor’s Youth Opportunity Grant program does not specifically 

limit administrative costs. However, according to Labor officials, the 

department negotiates with grantees to keep administrative costs low. 

Available Information on 

How Grantees Used Funds 

from Selected Programs 

Varies, in Part Due to 

Different Reporting 

Requirements

Information on how Alaska Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, and 

other grantees used funds from the 13 programs we reviewed varied widely, 

partially because different programs have different reporting requirements 

and also because agencies summarize program data differently.41 For 

example, the statute governing the Department of the Interior’s Tribal SelfGovernance Program does not require that the grantee submit information 

on how they used program funds; however, they can submit such

40Total administrative costs consist of direct and indirect administrative costs. Direct 

administrative costs include costs that grantees can allocate to a particular federal program, 

such as unemployment taxes and workers compensation insurance. Indirect administrative 

costs include costs that grantees cannot easily allocate to a particular federal program. 

Indirect costs typically include administrative salaries and fringe benefits associated with 

overall financial and organizational administration, operation and maintenance costs for 

facilities and equipment, and payroll and procurement services. 

41In addition to reports required by federal agencies, grantees are subject to audit under the 

Single Audit Act. The Single Audit Act states that nonfederal grantees that expend a total 

amount of federal awards equal to or in excess of $500,000 are subject to an examination to 

determine if the grantee has expended funds in compliance with program requirements.
Page 41 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

information voluntarily.42 Additionally, reporting requirements for the other 

programs we reviewed varied, ranging from general information on 

delivery of services paid for by grant funds to detailed information on the 

financial uses of funds and progress toward grant goals. For example, 

HHS’s Tribal Self-Governance Program requires that grantees report 

annually on health status and service delivery in their locations, but does 

not require specific financial reports on how funding was used. Conversely, 

DOT’s Airport Improvement Program requires that grantees send quarterly 

performance reports that include comparisons between the projects’ 

accomplishments and the goals established for the quarter, reasons for not 

accomplishing planned goals in specific cases, and an analysis and 

explanation of any cost overruns.

Additionally, some agencies do more than others to summarize individual 

grantee data on a programwide basis. For example, EPA’s Indian 

Environmental General Assistance Program has information in project files 

on each individual grantee’s projects, but has not summarized the 

information to show how all program funds have been used. In contrast, 

the Denali Commission collects project information in a Web-based, 

publicly available database that provides detailed financial and progress 

information. The system includes all of the commission’s grants, and can be 

queried to produce information by attributes such as theme (the underlying 

subject area of the project, such as energy—bulk fuel), community 

involvement, recipient, and milestone (such as in the business plan or 

construction phase). 

42While Interior’s self-governance grantees have limited reporting requirements, grantees’ 

annual funding agreements contain provisions for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an 

annual review of the tribe’s performance of trust functions. The Secretary may reassume a 

program, service, function, or activity, if there is a finding of imminent jeopardy to a physical 

trust asset or the public health and safety.
Page 42 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Alaska Native Villages 

and Regional Housing 

Authorities 

Constructed More 

Than 800 and 

Rehabilitated Almost 

3,000 Homes, and the 

Number and Costs of 

Completed Units 

Varied across Regions 

Results from our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing 

authorities indicated that, from calendar years 1998 through 2003, these 

entities constructed 874 single-family units and rehabilitated 2,990 singlefamily units.43 Most of the new units constructed were three- and fourbedroom homes, and most of the new construction and rehabilitation 

activity occurred in a few regions. In addition, housing authorities 

constructed more than three times and rehabilitated more than twice the 

number of units than responding villages. However, village production of 

new homes increased steadily, while production by regional housing 

authorities fluctuated. Our analysis of survey data also indicated that the 

average costs of units constructed varied by region and by who developed 

them. Survey results also showed that housing authorities had higher new 

construction costs than villages, although villages had higher rehabilitation 

costs for units that did not require acquisition. According to federal, state, 

and local officials, variation in the number and cost of units constructed 

and rehabilitated by region and between housing authorities and villages 

reflect various factors, such as differences in local housing goals and 

objectives and proximity to sources of building materials. Also, regional 

housing authorities modernized 5,211 single-family units previously 

developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 and developed several 

multifamily properties. Villages, however, are ineligible to receive funding 

for modernization. Reproductions of our surveys are contained in 

appendixes XVII and XVIII. 

Villages and Regional 

Housing Authorities 

Completed Construction on 

874 Units and Rehabilitated 

2,990 Units from 1998 

through 2003

Based on our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing 

authorities, from calendar years 1998 through 2003, villages and regional 

housing authorities completed construction on a total of 874 single-family 

units and rehabilitated 2,990 single-family units. As shown in table 5, the 

number of units these entities constructed ranged from 104 in 1998 to 199 

in 2002. The most common size of newly constructed units was a threebedroom home. Slightly more than half of all units constructed were of this 

type. The second most common units were four-bedroom homes, which 

43Our survey asked for information on newly constructed and rehabilitated single-family 

units that were completed from 1998 through 2003 using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in 

combination with other funds. We asked respondents to only include units completed (when 

available for occupancy) by December 31, 2003. Rehabilitation refers to a wide range of 

improvements made to existing housing, such as energy-related improvements and leadbased paint abatement. Rehabilitation figures are for units rehabilitated without acquisition 

(i.e., that did not require purchase) and those acquired before they were rehabilitated.
Page 43 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

represented about a third of all units. Also, the total number of units 

rehabilitated by regional housing authorities and villages increased, from 

253 in 1998 to 628 in 2002. 

Table 5: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed and Rehabilitated for Villages 

and Regional Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003

Source: GAO.

Notes: Not all of the regional housing authorities and villages constructing or rehabilitating units 

completed units each year.

a

Twelve regional housing authorities and 31 villages constructed units.

b

Four regional housing authorities and 5 villages rehabilitated acquired units, and 10 regional housing 

authorities and 31 villages rehabilitated units that did not require acquisition.

As shown in figure 12, most of the newly constructed units were located in 

only a few regions. Specifically, four of the 12 regions—the Association of 

Village Council Presidents (AVCP), Fairbanks Native Association, Central 

Council, and Bristol Bay Native Association—accounted for 590 units—

about 68 percent of the new construction. Specifically, one region—

AVCP— accounted for about 30 percent of the production. Three regions, 

Copper River Native Association, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, and 

Kodiak Area Native Association, produced few or no new units. 

Bedroom 

size of unit 

constructed 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

1 bedroom 1 7 4 4 3 3 22

2 bedroom 7 17 22 21 46 15 128

3 bedroom 62 64 74 99 87 76 462

4 bedroom 34 46 43 32 63 44 262

Total new 

construction 

unitsa 104 134 143 156 199 138 874

Total 

rehabilitated 

unitsb 253 386 610 526 628 587 2,990
Page 44 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 12: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed by Region for Villages and Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar 

Years 1998-2003 

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

regional housing authorities and villages completed units each year.

Similarly, the majority of units that villages and housing authorities 

rehabilitated over the period were located in a few regions. As shown in 

figure 13, three regions—Central Council, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, and 

Bristol Bay Native Association—accounted for almost 60 percent of all 

rehabilitated units. In contrast, the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association 

and Arctic Slope Native Association regions completed relatively few or no 

rehabilitation projects.

Region

Year

1998 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total

0 0 0 0 15 0 15

13 48 46 53 54 49 263

0 3 1 2 1 27 34

104 138 134 143 156 199 874

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association

Association of Village Council Presidents

Arctic Slope Native Association

44 15 0 22 14 7 102

18 26 17 22 23 6 112

15 5 16 15 7 0 58

1 3 1 1 3 64 73

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 26 36 11 18 22 113

13 1 14 15 4 18 65

0 0 0 0 13 0 13

0 11 3 2 4 6 26

Bristol Bay Native Association

Central Council

Cook Inlet Tribal Council

Chugachmiut

Copper River Native Association

Fairbanks Native Association

Kawerak Inc.

Kodiak Area Native Association

Manillaq Association

Total

Source: GAO.
Page 45 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 13: Number of Units Rehabilitated (with and without Acquisition) by Region for Responding Villages and Housing 

Authorities, Calendar Years 1998-2003 

Note: Four regional housing authorities and 5 villages rehabilitated acquired units, and 10 regional 

housing authorities and 31 villages rehabilitated units that did not require acquisition. Not all of the 

regional housing authorities and villages rehabilitating units completed units each year.

The 2,990 rehabilitated units include 2,920 units that did not require 

purchase before rehabilitation began, and 70 units that housing authorities 

and villages acquired before they were rehabilitated. Housing authorities 

and villages in five regions—AVCP, Bristol Bay Native Association, Central 

Council, Chugachmiut, and Maniilaq Association—rehabilitated acquired 

units. Most of the rehabilitated units that required acquisition—47—were 

completed in the Central Council region. 

Region

Year

1998 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 33 18 37 28 36 162

3 5 0 5 5 5 23

253 587 386 610 526 628 2,990

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association

Association of Village Council Presidents

Arctic Slope Native Association

8 48 11 187 88 163 505

66 141 78 116 144 108 653

0 39 3 10 16 26 94

0 119 148 158 66 105 596

51 38 25 32 18 38 202

15 76 11 14 84 87 287

10 34 15 18 21 21 119

1 15 0 21 23 20 80

89 39 77 12 33 19 269

Bristol Bay Native Association

Central Council

Cook Inlet Tribal Council

Chugachmiut

Copper River Native Association

Fairbanks Native Association

Kawerak Inc.

Kodiak Area Native Association

Manillaq Association

Total

Source: GAO.
Page 46 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Housing Authorities 

Constructed More Than 

Three Times and 

Rehabilitated More Than 

Two Times the Number of 

Units Compared with 

Villages

Based on our survey, housing authorities constructed more than three 

times the number of new units as villages did. As shown in table 6, regional 

housing authorities constructed 666 units, while villages completed 208 

units. Both the AVCP housing authority and the 11 villages within this 

region completed the most units—173 and 90, respectively—compared 

with housing authorities and villages located in other regions. The regional 

housing authority in Copper River Native Association region as well as the 

responding villages in both the Kodiak Island Native Association and 

Chugachmiut regions completed no units.

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

2003 

Source: GAO.

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

year.

Housing authorities rehabilitated more than double the number of units 

compared with responding villages, for both units that did not and did 

require acquisition. As shown in table 7, for units that did not require 

acquisition, housing authorities rehabilitated 2,114 units compared with 

806 rehabilitated by villages. Almost 70 percent of housing authority 

rehabilitations occurred in three regions—Bristol Bay Native Association, 

Region

Number of new

units constructed

by housing

authorities

Number of housing

authorities

responding

Number of new

units constructed

by villages

Number of villages

responding

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association 15 1 No villages responded No villages responded

Arctic Slope Native Association 25 1 9 2

Association of Village Council Presidents 173 1 90 11

Bristol Bay Native Association 88 1 14 2

Central Council 104 2 8 1

Chugachmiut 58 1 0 0

Cook Inlet Tribal Council 61 1 12 3

Copper River Native Association 0 1 No villages responded No villages responded

Fairbanks Native Association 75 1 38 6

Kawerak Inc. 44 1 21 3

Kodiak Area Native Association 13 1 0 0

Maniilaq Association 10 1 16 3

Total 666 13 208 31
Page 47 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Central Council, and Cook Inlet Tribal Council. Similarly, villages in four 

regions—AVCP, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Fairbanks Native Association, 

and Maniilaq Association—accounted for over 70 percent of the units 

rehabilitated by villages. The regional housing authorities rehabilitated 

more units in all regions except for the Arctic Slope Native Association, 

AVCP, Chugachmiut, and Maniilaq Association regions.

Table 7: Number of New Units Rehabilitated without Acquisition by Housing Authorities Compared with Villages, by Region, 

Calendar Years 1998-2003

Source: GAO.

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

year.

Similarly, housing authorities rehabilitated more than double the number of 

the acquired units as villages. Three housing authorities—Bristol Bay 

Native Association, Central Council, and Chugachmiut—rehabilitated 50 

units that required acquisition. The housing authorities in Central Council 

rehabilitated the most acquired units, 43. Responding villages in three 

regions—AVCP, Central Council, and Maniilaq Association—rehabilitated 

20 units that required acquisition. Rehabilitations of this type were more 

evenly spread among the responding villages, with Central Council 

completing 4 units, AVCP completing 6 units, and Maniilaq Association 

completing 10. 

Region

Number of units

rehabilitated by

housing

authorities

Number of

housing

authorities

responding

Number of units

rehabilitated by

villages

Number of villages

responding

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association 0 1 No villages responded No villages responded

Arctic Slope Native Association 0 1 23 2

Association of Village Council Presidents 0 1 156 10

Bristol Bay Native Association 455 1 46 3

Central Council 550 2 56 3

Chugachmiut 22 1 69 1

Cook Inlet Tribal Council 438 1 158 4

Copper River Native Association 202 1 No Villages Responded No Villages Responded

Fairbanks Native Association 167 1 120 3

Kawerak Inc. 100 1 19 2

Kodiak Area Native Association 61 1 19 1

Maniilaq Association 119 1 140 2

Total 2,114 13 806 31
Page 48 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Over the period covered by our survey, villages annually increased unit 

construction, while regional housing authority production varied annually. 

Specifically, village production grew more than sevenfold, from 7 units in 

1998 to 53 units in 2003. Regional housing authority production ranged 

from 97 in 1998 to 149 in 2002, but also fluctuated widely over the period 

(see fig. 14). 

Figure 14: Annual and Total Number of Units Constructed by Housing Authorities 

and Villages, Calendar Years 1998-2003

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

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

0

5

10

15

20

Units constructed Number of villages constructing units

0

2

4

6

8

10

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Number of housing authorities constructing units

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

30

60

90

120

150

Units constructed

Villages

Regional housing authorities

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

Regional Housing 

Authorities Modernized 

5,211 Single-Family Units 

Previously Developed under 

U.S. Housing Act of 1937 

Based on our survey, 13 housing authorities modernized 5,211 single-family 

units previously developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.44 Villages 

are ineligible to receive funds for modernization activities. AVCP 

modernized the most units, 1,287. In contrast, the housing authorities in the 

Copper River Native Association and the Fairbanks Native Association 

regions modernized few units over the period (see fig. 15).

Figure 15: Number of Single-Family Units Modernized by Housing Authorities, 

Calendar Years 1998-2003

Notes: Although all 13 regional housing authorities modernized units, not all of the regional housing 

authorities completed those units each year.

a

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

44Funds for modernization of housing developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 are 

provided only to regional housing authorities who are the owners of record.

Region Number of single family units modernized

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association

Association of Village Council Presidents

Arctic Slope Native Association

500

1,287

375

5,211

717

190

365

208

4

6

775

431

353

Bristol Bay Native Association

Central Councila

Cook Inlet Tribal Council

Chugachmiut

Copper River Native Association

Fairbanks Native Association

Kawerak Inc.

Kodiak Area Native Association

Manillaq Association

Total

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

Regional Housing 

Authorities Constructed, 

Rehabilitated, and 

Modernized Multifamily 

Housing Properties

Only housing authorities completed new construction, rehabilitation, and 

modernization of multifamily properties (i.e., properties with five or more 

units). From 1998 through 2003, responding regional housing authorities 

constructed six multifamily properties—two by the housing authority in 

the Cook Inlet Tribal Council region, two by the housing authority in the 

Copper River Native Association region, and one each in the Aleutian 

Pribilof Islands and Central Council regions. Average property sizes ranged 

from 6,470 square feet in the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association region to 

34,831 square feet in the Cook Inlet Tribal Council region.45 Housing 

authorities also rehabilitated four multifamily properties, two of which 

were acquired. The housing authorities in the Bristol Bay Native 

Association and Central Council regions acquired and rehabilitated one 

multifamily property each, and the regional housing authority in the 

Kawerak Inc. region rehabilitated two multifamily properties.

In addition, seven housing authorities modernized 73 multifamily 

properties over the period. Responding housing authorities completed a 

low of 8 multifamily properties in 1999 and a high of 17 properties in 2003. 

Housing authorities in seven regions—Arctic Slope Native Association, 

Bristol Bay Native Association, Central Council, Chugachmiut, Cook Inlet 

Tribal Council, Copper River Native Association, Kodiak Area Native 

Association—modernized multifamily housing. The housing authority in 

Cook Inlet Tribal Council region modernized the most multifamily 

properties—30. 

New Construction and 

Housing Rehabilitation 

Costs Varied by Region and 

by Whether Units Were 

Completed by Villages or 

Housing Authorities

Construction and rehabilitation costs varied widely by region, with more 

remote regions generally incurring higher costs. Additionally, regional 

housing authorities had higher construction costs than villages. In contrast, 

villages had higher rehabilitation costs for housing units that did not 

require acquisition. Regional housing authority single-family modernization 

costs also varied by region, and multifamily housing costs varied according 

to the type of housing development. In general, housing costs are 

influenced by factors such as transportation, local expertise, terrain, site 

preparation, and required building/energy standards.

45For newly constructed, rehabilitated, and modernized multifamily properties, we did not 

collect information on the number of individual units or the size of units included in these 

properties.
Page 51 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Overall, based on our survey results, from 1998 through 2003, the average 

construction cost for all units produced by 31 villages and 12 housing 

authorities, was $222,928 per unit or $183 per square foot (in 2003 dollars). 

The average unit size was 1,217 square feet. During the same time period, 

the average cost of units rehabilitated by villages and housing authorities 

that did not require acquisition was $46,866 for major rehabilitation 

(costing $20,000 or more per unit) and $7,070 for minor rehabilitation 

(costing less than $20,000 per unit). The average cost of units that were 

rehabilitated and acquired by villages and housing authorities was $87,324 

or $79 per square foot.46 

New construction housing costs showed wide variation in eleven regions, 

based on responding regional housing authorities and villages. As shown 

by figure 16, the average combined cost per square foot ranged from $122 

in Chugachmiut (located in southern Alaska, near Anchorage) to $267 in 

the Arctic Slope (located in the northern most region in Alaska). The 

average size of the units in these two regions was similar—1,134 per square 

feet and 1,142 per square feet, respectively. Kodiak Area Native Association 

region (located southwest of Anchorage) had the second highest costs per 

square foot, and Cook Inlet (Anchorage is part of Cook Inlet) had the 

second lowest cost per unit. These two regions also had similar sized units. 

46Includes both rehabilitation and acquisition costs.
Page 52 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 16: Average Regional New Construction Costs for Housing Authorities and 

Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, Ranked by Cost Per Square Foot (in 

2003 Dollars) 

Note: Twelve regional housing authorities and 31 villages constructed units. Copper River Native 

Association region did not report any new construction.

Seattle is a primary source of construction materials for housing in Alaska. 

The Arctic Slope Native Association is the furthest region from Seattle and 

incurs the highest costs for transporting building material and equipment. 

Chugachmiut has lower transportation costs because it is closer to Seattle. 

However, the Kodiak Area Native Association region exemplifies how a 

region relatively close to Seattle can nonetheless face unusually high 

construction costs. According to an official with the Kodiak Island Housing 

Authority, there are several factors that have increased the cost of 

construction on the island, such as remote villages along the coast often 

not having adequate docking facilities to offload construction material, 

requiring special, expensive barges. Also, since the Kodiak Area Native 

Association area is rocky, extensive drilling and blasting is required to 

excavate the housing foundation for each unit and for digging trenches for 

water and sewer lines to the housing site. Finally, villages that are close to 

Region

Average

sq. ft. per

unit

Total

number

of units

Average

cost per

unit

Average cost 

per square foot

$267 $305,634 34 1,142

225 258,043 65 1,145

255 301,823 13 1,181

Arctic Slope Native Association

Kawerak Inc.

Kodiak Area Native Association

206 208,088 113 1,006

188 259,095 102 1,375

179 225,942 263 1,258

174 203,248 26 1,167

170 226,901 112 1,329

161 268,614 15 1,665

144 158,918 73 1,101

122 138,944 58 1,134

Fairbanks Native Association

Bristol Bay Native Association

Manillaq Association

Association of Village Council Presidents

Central Council

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association

Cook Inlet Tribal Council

Chugachmiut

Source: GAO.
Page 53 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Kodiak City—the largest city in the Kodiak Area Native Association 

region—have high land costs.

As shown in table 8, responding regional housing authorities had higher 

average costs for all units constructed and built larger units than did 

villages. Regional housing authorities’ average cost for all units constructed 

was $236,229 per unit or $189 per square foot, compared with villages, 

which had an average cost per unit of $180,338 or $160 per square foot. 

However, housing authority square-foot costs remained stable over the 6-

year period, while village square-foot costs fluctuated. For example, from 

1999 through 2000, the per-square-foot costs for villages decreased by 25 

percent from $183 to $138, but between 2002 and 2003, the average persquare-foot costs increased 47 percent from $144 to $212. Moreover, 

housing authorities built units that were on average 433 square feet larger 

than units villages built in 1999 and 246 square feet larger in 2003. However, 

in 2000, villages built slightly larger units than housing authorities.

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

Source: GAO.

Note: One responding regional housing authority and 21 responding villages did not report completing 

any new construction during the period.

2003 dollars

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

12 regional housing authorities

Average cost per unit $244,550 $227,164 $226,554 $241,919 $226,577 $260,864

Average cost per square foot $188 $180 $188 $192 $194 $193

Total number of units 97 119 105 111 149 85

Average square feet per unit 1,296 1,256 1,205 1,255 1,167 1,350

Number of responding 

housing authorities 6 5 6 9 7 7

31 villages

Average cost per unit $125,199 $150,845 $174,761 $168,249 $154,076 $235,007

Average cost per square foot $102 $183 $138 $142 $144 $212

Total number of units 7 15 38 45 50 53

Average square feet per unit 1,226 823 1,260 1,182 1,068 1,104

Number of responding 

villages 3 11 15 18 17 16
Page 54 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Similar to new construction costs, the combined average rehabilitation 

cost for units that did not require acquisition varied throughout Alaska’s 

regions (see fig. 17). The region that reported the highest cost for major 

rehabilitation was the Arctic Slope Native Association, which had an 

average cost per unit of $93,444, followed by Cook Inlet Tribal Council, 

with an average per unit cost of $66,368. The two lowest-cost regions for 

major rehabilitation were Bristol Bay Native Association (southwestern 

Alaska), with an average per unit cost of $30,154, and Kawerak Inc. 

(northern Alaska), with an average cost per unit of $31,056. The highestcost regions for minor rehabilitation were Kawerak Inc., which reported an 

average per unit cost of $17,671, and Kodiak Area Native Association, 

which reported an average per unit cost of $14,471. The lowest-cost regions 

for minor rehabilitation were Copper River Native Association (northeast 

of Anchorage) and Chugachmiut, which reported average per unit costs of 

$4,239 and $5,278, respectively.
Page 55 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 17: Average Rehabilitation Costs for Regional Housing Authorities and Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, by 

Region, for Units That Did Not Require Acquisition (in 2003 Dollars) 

Note: N/A indicates that no data were reported for these fields. Ten regional housing authorities and 

31 villages rehabilitated units that did not require purchase.

Although villages had higher rehabilitation costs for units that did not 

require acquisition, housing authorities had higher costs for units that did 

require acquisition. For units that did not require acquisition, housing 

authorities had lower costs than villages for major and minor 

rehabilitation. Housing authorities’ average cost for major rehabilitation 

was $44,200 per unit, while the village cost was $60,516 per unit. However, 

the average difference between village and regional housing authority 

minor rehabilitation costs was minimal: $6,967 vs. $7,301. (See fig. 18.)

Region

Rehabilitation

Major 

($20,000 or more per unit)

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association

Association of Village 

Council Presidents

Arctic Slope Native Association

N/A

46,562

$93,444

30,154

50,642

48,209

66,368

N/A

45,854

31,056

33,991

38,641

Bristol Bay Native Association

Central Council

Cook Inlet Tribal Council

Chugachmiut

Copper River Native Association

Fairbanks Native Association

Kawerak Inc.

Kodiak Area Native Association

Manillaq Association

Source: GAO.

Minor 

(less than $20,000 per unit)

N/A

$6,632

N/A

6,358

6,646

5,278

7,173

4,239

9,170

17,671

14,471

6,803
Page 56 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

Years 1998-2003

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

a

One housing authority in Central Council completed major rehabilitation, and two housing authorities 

in Central Council completed minor rehabilitation.

Conversely, regional housing authorities had higher average costs for units 

that were rehabilitated and acquired than villages. Over the 6-year period, 

70 of these units were completed by four housing authorities and five 

villages. The average per unit cost for regional housing authorities was 

$105,849, compared with the average village per unit cost of $41,010. One 

reason for this cost difference may be that the regional housing authorities 

acquired much larger units; they averaged 1,281 square feet per unit 

compared with villages, which acquired units about half the size that 

Region

Rehabilitation

Major 

($20,000 or more per unit)

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association

Association of Village 

Council Presidents

Arctic Slope Native Association

Bristol Bay Native Association

Central Councila

Cook Inlet Tribal Council

Chugachmiut

Copper River Native Association

Fairbanks Native Association

Kawerak Inc.

Kodiak Area Native Association

Manillaq Association

46,562

N/A

N/A

30,154

52,668

50,581

N/A

48,209

67,051

66,308

N/A

N/A

N/A

45,854

63,069

23,230

N/A

33,991

$93,444

N/A

51,177

31,164

N/A

N/A

$6,632

N/A

8,011

6,183

4,331

7,002

4,931

6,685

10,186

6,017

N/A

4,239

6,657

15,325

16,737

17,807

15,057

13,675

N/A

N/A

5,105

9,706

N/A

N/A

8

3

3

1

4

N/A

3

1

1

N/A

2

N/A

6

N/A

1

N/A

2

N/A

N/A

2

N/A

2

1

N/A

Source: GAO.

Minor 

(less than $20,000 per unit)

Number

of villages

Number

of villages

Regional housing authorities

Villages
Page 57 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

averaged 634 square feet. However, regional housing authority costs per 

square foot were also higher than villages: $82 for regional housing 

authorities versus $64 for villages. 

Regional Housing Authority 

Single-Family 

Modernization Costs Also 

Varied by Region

The average modernization costs for regional housing authorities varied by 

region. The average per unit costs for major modernization ($20,000 or 

more per unit) for all housing authorities was $28,387 per unit and for 

minor modernization (less than $20,000), $10,002 per unit. Twelve regional 

housing authorities completed major modernizations over the period. The 

regional housing authorities in Cook Inlet Tribal Council and Kawerak Inc. 

region had the highest average costs for major modernizations, averaging 

$44,330 and $43,324 per unit, respectively. The housing authorities in 

Association of Village Council Presidents and Bristol Bay Native 

Association regions had the lowest average costs for major modernization, 

averaging $22,795 and $23,643 per unit, respectively. Thirteen regional 

housing authorities completed minor modernizations. The housing 

authority in Kawerak Inc. region had the highest average minor 

modernization costs—$12,425 per unit—and the housing authority in the 

Cook Inlet Tribal Council region had the lowest average cost—$2,575 per 

unit.

Multifamily Housing Costs 

Varied by Region and Type 

of Housing Development

As previously noted, only regional housing authorities undertook 

multifamily projects. Although the average multifamily new construction 

cost for the six properties was about $3.8 million per property or $196 per 

square foot, per-square-foot costs ranged from $171 for the housing 

authority in the Copper River Native Association region to $219 for the 

housing authority in the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Native Association region. 

Similarly, the only two properties that included rehabilitation with 

acquisition experienced very different costs. For example, one small 

property (5,760 square feet), located in the Bristol Bay Native Association 

region, had a total cost of about $880,270 or $152 per square foot, and a 

large property (54,323 square feet) located in the Central Council region, 

had a total cost of about $5.3 million or $97 per square foot. Additionally, 

the two properties that were rehabilitated without acquisition (both in the 

Kawerak Inc. region) averaged $50,272 per property. In contrast, the 73 

multifamily properties that were modernized had an average per property 

cost of $118,082. The average costs ranged from $8,661 per property in the 

Copper River Native Association region to $354,730 per property in Kodiak 

Island Native Association region.
Page 58 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Several Factors May 

Account for Differences in 

the Number and Cost of 

Units Constructed and 

Rehabilitated by Villages 

and Housing Authorities and 

by Region 

As previously discussed, the number of units constructed and rehabilitated 

over the period varied by whether they were completed by villages or 

housing authorities, and by region. According to federal and tribal officials 

and documentation, the following factors could account for these 

differences: 

• Differences in housing goals and objectives. In order to receive 

NAHASDA funding, housing authorities and villages are required to 

submit to HUD a 1-year and 5-year Indian Housing Plan (IHP), which 

outlines the housing goals and objectives for their communities. To 

carry out their plans, housing authorities and villages can determine the 

extent to which they focus their resources on new construction, 

rehabilitation, or other affordable housing activities. For example, 

Bristol Bay Housing Authority outlined in its fiscal year 2003 IHP that it 

would allocate a fixed amount of funds for new construction in villages, 

based on an assessment of needs. 

• Differences in the amount of NAHASDA funding. Regional housing 

authorities generally receive considerably larger amounts of annual 

funding compared with villages because regional housing authorities 

receive funding on behalf of villages that have designated them to 

receive their NAHASDA funds, as well as modernization and operating 

funds for units developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.47 Lack of 

additional funding in some cases limits the affordable housing villages 

can construct or rehabilitate. For example, in fiscal year 2003, the 

housing authority in the Maniilaq Association region received about 

twice the amount of funds of the single-largest amount provided to a 

village in that region. In addition, the amount of funding housing 

authorities and villages receive from the HUD formula takes into 

account Native population of the service area. Some of the populations 

that regional housing authorities serve are considerably higher than that 

of villages, and some regions have higher populations than other 

regions. For example, the total Native population in the Cook Inlet 

Native Association region is more than 10 times that of the Aleutian 

Pribilof Islands Association region. 

47HUD uses two components to determine annual NAHASDA funding: current assisted stock 

and housing need. The housing need component consists of seven weighted criteria, such as 

population and overcrowding. 
Page 59 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

• Differences in the extent to which NAHASDA funds were leveraged. 

Variations in the number of units constructed and rehabilitated may 

reflect the extent to which NAHASDA funds were leveraged. For 

example, according to the Cook Inlet housing authority, it leveraged 

IHBG funds with other sources of funding to complete a recent housing 

development. Cook Inlet housing authority used NAHASDA funds for 

about 10 percent of project costs and leveraged the remaining costs with 

private mortgages and other funding.

Similarly, federal and state housing officials informed us that several 

factors may account for differences in regional construction and 

rehabilitation costs, as well as differences in costs reported by villages and 

housing authorities. These factors include the following: 

• Transportation costs: Many Alaska Native villages are in remote 

locations, requiring equipment and building supplies to be transported 

to the construction sites. In general, regions that are farthest from 

Seattle—a major source of building materials—incur higher costs for 

transporting building material and equipment than regions that are 

closer.48 

• Length of construction season: Villages that experience extremely cold 

weather, such as those in the north and the interior of Alaska, have short 

construction seasons. For example, the construction season in the 

Arctic Slope Native Association is usually 2 or 3 months long, depending 

on ice conditions in the Bering Strait and north of the Arctic Circle. A 

short construction season means higher costs due to limited barge 

access to remote communities (with barge access the only viable 

method for moving construction materials and equipment to remote 

villages), less time available for site preparation and actual 

construction, overtime pay for working longer hours each day, and 

climate changes that suddenly stop construction or excavation.

• Using outside expertise: Higher costs are associated with transporting, 

housing and feeding outside construction workers, engineers, and 

housing inspectors. This could be for both regional housing authorities 

48For example, the 2002 Construction Cost Survey, sponsored by the Alaska Housing 

Finance Corporation, indicated that construction material costs for Barrow (in the far 

north) were about 115 percent higher than for Sitka (near the southern tip of Alaska). The 

study indicated that a major reason for these increased costs was the added cost of 

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

and rural Native villages. Larger villages may be able to use local 

construction workers, but smaller, more isolated villages with a limited 

skilled labor pool to choose from may have to rely on outside workers 

with required technical skills (e.g., electricians, plumbers, etc.). Many 

housing authorities rely on outside contractors, who usually provide a 

core crew of their own construction workers—supplemented by the 

local workforce—to construct housing.

• Land costs: Generally, urban areas cost more than rural areas because 

they are closer to utilities and roads and are located in active real estate 

markets in high-density areas. Rural Native villages often donate land 

for housing development, though in many cases they have less access to 

infrastructure. 

• Wage costs: The hourly wage rates for new construction and 

rehabilitation of housing vary across Alaska’s regions. Generally, labor 

costs are higher in the more remote areas of Alaska, such as the north, 

and lower in the southern areas. For example, under the Davis-Bacon 

Act, carpenters are required to be paid $15.83 (without fringe benefits) 

in the Anchorage area; $25.05 plus $7.80 for fringe benefits in the 

Northern area; and $17.68 (without fringe benefits) in the southern 

area.49 In 2000, NAHASDA was amended to allow Native villages to 

establish tribally determined wage rates for their IHBG construction 

projects instead of using Davis-Bacon wages rates. However, according 

to HUD officials, Davis-Bacon wage rates and tribally determined wage 

rates within the same region are frequently similar.

• Type of terrain: Many of the houses in Alaska Native communities, 

particularly in northern and central Alaska, were constructed on 

permafrost—land that is permanently frozen. It generally costs more to 

build on this type of terrain due to the need for specialized engineered 

foundation systems. It also generally costs more to build on hilly terrain 

or rocky soil, such as Kodiak Island in the Kodiak Area Native 

Association region.

• Site preparation: Building or extending roads and installing power, 

water, and sewer lines—both on-site and off-site, particularly in rural 

49The southern region includes areas such as Bristol Bay, Aleutian East and West, Bethel, 

and Valdez. The northern region includes areas such as Fairbanks, Fairbanks Northstar 

Borough, and the Northwest Arctic Borough. 
Page 61 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

communities—can be costly. Also, the same type of terrain problems 

mentioned above apply to site preparation. 

• Energy efficiency standards: The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation 

(AHFC) requires any recipient of its funds to follow the Building Energy 

Efficiency Standard (BEES). Each regional housing authority receives 

annual funding from AHFC, but the villages do not receive any such 

funds. Therefore, each regional housing authority is required to adhere 

to the BEES for each newly constructed unit whenever they use AHFC 

funding. According to an AHFC official responsible for administering 

the BEES program, there are additional costs associated with 

compliance with the BEES standards, although these costs will vary 

depending on several factors, such as whether an independent inspector 

is required to inspect the housing unit. Villages may also voluntarily 

choose to use some or all of the BEES standards.

• Building code standards: Alaska’s Construction Inspection Guidelines 

require each builder to retain an independent, licensed inspector to 

perform each of the inspections set forth in the guidelines. According an 

AHFC official, this could amount to between 5 to 12 inspector site visits 

during the construction period. Since only regional housing authorities 

receive AHFC funds, Native villages are not required to follow any state 

building codes, unless they are located in one of the 13 municipalities 

that have adopted building code standards. However, similar to the 

BEES, Native villages may voluntarily choose to use some or all of the 

building code standards. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the federal 

co-chair of the Denali Commission and the Secretaries of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 

Development, Justice, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the 

Governor of Alaska. We received technical comments from five federal 

agencies and the state of Alaska that we incorporated, as appropriate. The 

Departments of Commerce and the Interior generally agreed with the 

report and provided written comments that are reprinted in appendixes 

XIX and XXI, respectively. The Department of Health and Human Services 

also provided written comments, stating that the GAO draft report did not 

include its Health Resources and Services Administration’s Minority AIDS 

Initiative among the 13 programs we reviewed. Funding for the 

administration is included in our analysis as part of overall funding for the 
Page 62 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, as discussed in the 

report, the 13 programs we selected for review generally provided the 

largest amount of funding to Alaska Native villages and regional Native 

nonprofits during fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for their respective 

agencies. Based on our analysis, the Minority AIDS Initiative did not 

provide the largest amount of the department’s funding to Alaska Native 

villages and regional Native nonprofits during the period. The Department 

of Health and Human Services’ written comments are reprinted in appendix 

XX.

We are sending copies of this report to the federal co-chair of the Denali 

Commission and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, 

Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, the 

Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Governor of Alaska.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix XXII.

William B. Shear

Director, Financial Markets and 

Community Investment
Page 63 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

This study’s objectives were to (1) provide information on the amount of 

federal assistance to Alaska Native villages during federal fiscal years 1998 

through 2003; (2) describe how selected federal funds have been used to 

assist Alaska Native villages; and (3) provide data on the number and 

average cost of houses built by villages and Alaska Native regional housing 

authorities. To address these objectives, we met with officials of various 

federal agencies, the state of Alaska, boroughs, and cities. In addition, we 

met with representatives of Native villages, regional Native nonprofit 

organizations, and other organizations that primarily focus on Alaska 

Natives. We also met with officials from advocacy groups that represent 

Alaska Natives, including the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Alaska 

Inter-Tribal Council, and the National Congress of American Indians. 

To report on the amount of federal funding that has been provided to assist 

Alaska Native villages, we examined data on both funding to over 200 

federally recognized Alaska Native villages and regional Native nonprofits. 

We classified as regional Native nonprofits the Native associations that 

were identified in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and 

the organizations that succeeded them, which, throughout this report, we 

refer to as ANCSA Native nonprofits; Native health organizations identified 

in Public Law 105-83; and housing authorities identified by the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To provide information on 

federal funding to Alaska Native villages, we analyzed data from the 

Federal Assistance Award Data System (FAADS), which identifies 

recipients of federal awards, federal programs for which awards were 

made, and award amounts. The analysis sought to isolate funding provided 

to Alaska Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, other nonprofits that 

primarily focus on Alaska Natives, incorporated cities that have villages 

within their borders, boroughs, and the state of Alaska. In providing FAADS 

data to the Census Bureau, each federal agency codes recipients of its 

federal funds into 13 categories. Two of these categories apply to Native 

recipients: Indian tribes and other nonprofit agencies. During electronic 

testing, GAO identified reliability problems with these categories. Similar 

problems were identified by other researchers (e.g., University of Alaska 

Anchorage and the Alaska Legislature Legislative Research Service) that 

have used this data. For example, agencies did not consistently apply the 

recipient codes to the same recipients. Therefore, we conducted our own 

coding of the recipient type, and in some cases, recipients were recoded 

into a new category. Specifically, we classified entities as Alaska Native 

villages based on whether they were recognized as such by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA). We classified entities as regional Native nonprofits 

based on whether there were (1) regional Native associations identified in 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 64 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

ANCSA and the organizations that succeeded them, (2) regional Native 

health organizations identified in Public Law 105-83, or (3) Alaska regional 

housing authorities identified by the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. We classified entities as other nonprofits that primarily focus 

on Alaska Natives based our review of published information and on 

consultations with the Denali Commission and the Alaska Federation of 

Natives. In addition, we classified entities as state entities based on 

whether they were state of Alaska agencies or subagencies; boroughs 

based on whether there were recognized Alaska borough governments; 

cities based on whether they were incorporated cities that contain Alaska 

Native villages within their borders; and Independent School Districts 

based on whether they are Alaska public school districts. 

Maintained by the Census Bureau, FAADS produces a quarterly file of 

standardized data records on all types of financial assistance awards made 

by federal agencies to all types of recipients during the indicated quarter. 

Each transaction record identifies, by the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) program code number and name, the type and amount 

of financial assistance, the type and location of the recipient, and the 

geographic place of performance. Also, GAO’s FAADS analyses uses 

constant 2003 dollars. We assessed the reliability of the FAADS data by (1) 

performing electronic testing of the required data elements for obvious 

errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) comparing program totals by 

fiscal year to similar data from the Single Audit Act database, (3) reviewing 

related documentation, (4) reviewing related studies that used FAADS data, 

and (5) interviewing Census Bureau officials knowledgeable about the 

data. In addition, for 10 federal agencies whose programs are focused on in 

this report, we provided agency officials with FAADS program dollar 

amount totals for all entities receiving funds in Alaska, by fiscal year, and 

asked agencies to verify that the totals were correct.1

 In cases where there 

was a greater than 10 percent difference between our totals based on 

FAADS compared with data provided directly to us by the agencies, we 

identified the agency programs producing the largest dollar differences and 

the largest percentage differences, and discussed those differences with 

agency officials. If we determined that the agency data were reliable, we 

1

These agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and 

Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, the Interior, Labor, and 

Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. While the Denali Commission is 

also a federal agency whose programs are a focus in this report, the commission has not yet 

reported data on their obligations to the Census Bureau for FAADS purposes; therefore, we 

did not ask the commission to verify any data we obtained from FAADS. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 65 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

adjusted our data to reflect the verified agency data. We did this by 

obtaining the agency obligations provided to individual recipients in Alaska 

for agency programs from 1998 through 2003. The FAADS data was 

obtained from Census in March 2005. 

To provide information on the amount of federal funds passed through to 

Alaska Native villages and other entities by the state of Alaska to carry out 

federal programs, we analyzed information obtained from the state of 

Alaska’s Department of Administration, Division of Finance; and the 

University of Alaska. The Division of Finance coordinated our request for 

“pass through” data with 15 state departments and component units. The 

information we obtained from the Division of Finance and the University of 

Alaska included the amount of federal funds passed through to various 

entities for state fiscal years 1998 through 2003, including the specific 

federal program that provided the funds. We limited our review to Alaska 

Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, incorporated cities that have 

Native villages within their borders, and boroughs. To assess the reliability 

of the state data, we discussed the data system with Division of Finance 

officials and the University of Alaska. We also discussed the process they 

used to satisfy our request. We concluded that the data we obtained from 

the state of Alaska were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

The state data were obtained from the Division of Finance and University 

of Alaska during February and March 2005. 

To describe how selected federal funds were used to assist Alaska Native 

communities, we judgmentally selected 13 major programs from 11 

agencies—1 each from 9 agencies and 2 each from the remaining 2 

agencies. We selected 1 program each from the Denali Commission, the 

Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Education, Health and Human 

Services (HHS), Justice, Interior, Labor, and Transportation (DOT), and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We also selected two programs 

each from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the 

Department of Commerce. Generally, the selected programs provided the 

largest amount of funding to Alaska Native villages and regional Native 

nonprofits during fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for their respective
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 66 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

agencies, based on our analysis of FAADS.2 These programs also 

represented 84 percent of total federal funding to Alaska Native villages 

and regional native nonprofits during the period. For USDA, we selected 

CFDA 10.760—Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural 

Communities—even though it did not provide the most direct funding to 

Native villages and regional Native nonprofits, because it also provided 

significant funding to cities and to the state, through the state’s Village Safe 

Water program, which used funds to benefit Native villages and Alaska 

Natives. For Labor, we selected Youth Opportunity Grants (CFDA 17.263), 

which provided almost $16 million to regional Native nonprofits during the 

period. Our FAADS analysis identified Workforce Investment Act program 

(CFDA 17.255) as the program that provided the most funding, which was 

used to provide funding for youth opportunity activities and was 

subsequently replaced during the period with 6 new programs, including 

CFDA 17.263—Youth Opportunity Grants. For Education, we selected the 

Alaska Native Education Program (CFDA 84.356), which represented the 

largest program when combining amounts provided by 2 other programs 

that were consolidated into this program during the period—Alaska Native 

Home-Based Education for Preschool Children (CFDA 84.321) and Alaska 

Native Educational Planning, Curriculum Development, Teacher Training, 

and Recruitment Program (CFDA 84.320). For Commerce, FAADS 

indicated that the Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) program 

provided the largest amount of department funding to Alaska Native 

villages and regional Native nonprofits during 1998 through 2003. We also 

selected Commerce’s Public Works and Economic Development Facilities 

program for review after department officials informed us that EAA 

provided atypically high funding to Alaska Native villages in 2001 in 

response to an Alaska salmon-fishing disaster. Also, we selected 2 HUD 

programs: the Indian Housing Block Grant program, which provided the 

largest amount of department funding to Alaska Native villages and 

regional Native nonprofits, according to our FAADS analysis; and the 

Indian Community Development Block Grant program, because it also can 

be used to construct new housing in Alaska Native villages. 

For each of the 13 programs we reviewed, we met with federal officials 

and, where appropriate, state, local, and village officials, as well as other 

officials representing organizations that primarily serve Alaska Natives. We 

2

In determining which programs were the largest, we combined funding amounts of 

programs that had been merged during the period to create the programs that were in place 

during 2003. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 67 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

also reviewed program descriptions from the CFDA and reviewed agency 

documents on how recipients used program funds, including grantee 

reports, annual reports to Congress, and reports prepared in compliance 

with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. To better 

understand certain programs administered by the state of Alaska, we spoke 

with officials from the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and the 

Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Where program data are reported, 

we interviewed agency officials and reviewed program documents to 

assure ourselves that data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report. 

To better understand the need for and uses of the selected programs, we 

visited several Alaska Native villages.3

 Based on our analysis of FAADS, 

each of the villages received funding from at least 1 of the 13 selected 

programs. During our visit, we interviewed representatives of Alaska 

Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, and incorporated cities with 

villages within their borders. We saw several examples of projects 

completed using the selected programs, including housing, water and 

waste treatment facilities, bulk fuel tank farms, and primary health care 

facilities. 

To provide information on the cost and number of houses built by Native 

villages and Alaska Native regional housing authorities, we surveyed 

Alaska Native villages and regional housing authorities (also known as 

tribally designated housing entities) that were identified as having received 

Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funds for at least 1 year from fiscal 

year 1998 through 2003. We identified 78 Alaska Native villages and 15 

regional housing authorities that have received IHBG funds. We provided 

each of the 93 villages and regional housing authorities with a 

questionnaire delivered by e-mail or by U.S. mail. Questionnaire items 

covered the number developed and the cost of new single-family units and 

multifamily properties, the number developed and the cost of rehabilitated 

single-family units and multifamily housing properties, and the number 

developed and the cost of modernized single-family units and multifamily 

housing properties. To prepare for the survey, we conducted interviews 

with HUD officials, Alaska state officials, and members of various Alaska 

3

Akiachak Native Community, Curyung Tribal Council, Igiugig Village, Village of Iliamna, 

Native Village of Kongiganak, Native Village of Kotzebue, Orutsararmuit Native Village, and 

Pedro Bay Village.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 68 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Native villages and regional housing authorities. We had HUD Alaska field 

office officials review the survey for content, and we pretested the 

questionnaire with two regional housing authorities and five villages to 

determine whether respondents would understand questions the way we 

intended. Since the questionnaire was administered via e-mail as well as 

U.S. mail, usability tests also were conducted with all of the pretests to 

observe respondents answering the questionnaire as it would appear when 

opened and displayed on their computer screen. 

We took the following steps to increase the response rate for both village 

and housing authority participants. We sent two reminder notices via e-mail 

and conducted follow-up telephone calls to those offices that did not 

respond to our survey by the initial deadline. Collection of survey data 

ended on March 15, 2005. We received responses from 57 villages and 13 

regional housing authorities, providing a response rate of 73.1 percent for 

villages and 86.7 percent for regional housing authorities. Table 9 details 

the responding regional housing authorities and villages that were 

constructing or rehabilitating single-family homes between calendar years 

1998-2003. We did not attempt to verify the respondents’ answers against an 

independent source of information; however, questionnaire items were 

tested by probing pretest participants about their answers using in-depth 

interviewing techniques. Interviewers judged that all the respondents’ 

answers to the questions were correct. In addition, answers to the final 

questionnaire were compared with data in HUD’s Annual Performance 

Reports for 1998 through 2003. These data are not directly comparable with 

data obtained in the survey, but do indicate whether survey respondents’ 

answers were reasonable. We conducted follow-up phone calls to clarify 

responses where there appeared to be discrepancies. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 69 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Table 9: Number of Regional Housing Authorities and Villages That Were 

Constructing or Rehabilitating Single-Family Units, Calendar Years 1998-2003

Source: GAO.

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce certain 

types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, 

differences in how a particular question is interpreted, the sources of 

information available to respondents, or the types of people who do not 

respond can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. Steps 

such as pretesting and follow-up contacts to increase response rates serve 

to minimize nonresponse error. In addition, steps such as performing 

statistical analyses to identify inconsistencies and having a second 

independent reviewer for the data analysis can further minimize such error. 

Data from surveys returned via e-mail were entered electronically by 

participants and imported into an electronic data file. Data from all faxreturned or mail-returned surveys were edited for consistency before 

sending them for keypunching. These surveys were “double key entered” 

into our database (that is, the entries were 100 percent verified), and a 

random sample of the surveys was further verified for completeness and 

accuracy. Close-ended questionnaire items were analyzed using statistical 

software. We conducted our survey work from August 2004 through March 

2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Constructed new units

Regional housing 

authorities 6 5 6 9 7 7 12

Villages 3 11 15 18 17 16 31

Rehabilitation with acquisition

Regional housing 

authorities 1 3 1 1 1 2 4

Villages 0 1 2 0 1 2 5

Rehabilitation only

Regional housing 

authorities 4 6 7 8 9 9 10

Villages 7 10 21 21 23 24 31
Page 70 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix II

Alaska Native Population by Native Village 

and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation ApendxiI

Alaska Natives receive assistance from more than 200 villages that are 

recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to receive federal funding.1

 

Table 10 contains: a listing of the 12 regional areas established by ANCSA 

identified by the regional for-profit name and the Metlakatla Indian 

Community, Annette Island Reserve; the villages within each region; and 

the corresponding number of American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) 

persons and enrolled tribal members.2

 

1

68 Fed. Reg. 68180 (Dec. 5, 2003). The following BIA recognized entities are not included in 

the appendix table because they are regional or confederated entities and any associated 

populations are included in member villages or as part of the “at large” regional population: 

Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes; Inupiat Community of the Arctic 

Slope; Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government; and Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities 

of St. Paul and St. George Islands. 

2

AIAN includes persons who indicated their race as American Indian or Alaska Native on the 

2000 Census questionnaire. AIAN persons reside within geographic village boundaries 

recognized by the Census Bureau. AIAN persons who reside within the region but not within 

a specific village boundary area are counted as at-large members of the regional 

corporation. The number of AIAN persons and enrolled members were provided by HUD. 

HUD develops AIAN counts for purposes of determining housing assistance by updating 

Census 2000 data with birth and death records obtained from the Department of Human 

Services’ Indian Health Services, as well by obtaining input from Native villages. Enrolled 

members are actual members of a tribe and may reside anywhere in the world. HUD also 

obtains counts for enrolled members from BIA. 
Appendix II

Alaska Native Population by Native Village 

and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation

Page 71 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

Reservation

ANCSA region or Indian 

reservation Villages AIAN persons

Enrolled

members

The Aleut Corporation Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove 393 636

Native Village of Akutan 121 163

Native Village of Atka 86 180

Native Village of Belkofski 0 61

Native Village of False Pass 44 96

Native Village of Nelson Lagoon 71 50

Native Village of Nikolski 28 59

Pauloff Harbor Village 26 51

Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point Village 437 620

Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska 407 539

Saint George (Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities) 144 131

Saint Paul (Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities) 589 653

Native Village of Unga 44 87

At-large 74 3,400

Region total 2,464 6,726

Arctic Slope Regional 

Corporation

Village of Anaktuvuk Pass 265 279

Atqasuk Village (Atkasook) 229 254

Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government 

(formerly Native Village of Barrow) 3,124 2,590

Kaktovik Village (Barter Island) 262 231

Native Village of Nuiqsut (Nooiksut) 411 450

Native Village of Point Hope 731 841

Native Village of Point Lay 232 200

Village of Wainwright 541 602

At-large 13 7,200

Region total 5,809 12,647
Appendix II

Alaska Native Population by Native Village 

and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation

Page 72 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Calista Corporation Akiachak Native Community 610 571

Akiak Native Community 318 210

Village of Alakanuk 703 689

Algaaciq Native Village (St. Mary’s) 356 439

Yupiit of Andreafski 127 200

Village of Aniak 453 686

Asa’carsarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Mountain 

Village) 778 1,026

Village of Atmautluak 305 305

Village of Bill Moore’s Slough 0 83

Native Village of Chuathbaluk 121 134

Village of Chefornak 418 441

Chevak Native Village 809 694

Chuloonawick Native Village 0 52

Village of Crooked Creek 139 121

Native Village of Eek 293 278

Emmonak Village 793 861

Native Village of Georgetown 3 50

Native Village of Goodnews Bay 234 346

Native Village of Hamilton 0 26

Native Village of Hooper Bay 1,070 933

Iqurmuit Traditional Council (formerly Native Village of Russian 

Mission) 306 296

Village of Kalskag 198 99

Native Village of Kasigluk 568 532

Native Village of Kipnuk 683 702

Native Village of Kongiganak 378 369

Village of Kotlik 626 571

Organized Village of Kwethluk 732 819

Native Village of Kwigillingok 358 408

Native Village of Kwinhagak (Quinhagak) 584 661

Lime Village 0 44

Village of Lower Kalskag 276 329

Native Village of Marshall (Fortuna Ledge) 376 345

Native Village of Mekoryuk 220 445

Native Village of Napaimute 0 125

Native Village of Napakiak 369 384

(Continued From Previous Page)

ANCSA region or Indian 

reservation Villages AIAN persons

Enrolled

members
Appendix II

Alaska Native Population by Native Village 

and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation

Page 73 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Native Village of Napaskiak 415 372

Newtok Village 337 313

Native Village of Nightmute 213 195

Nunakauyarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Toksook Bay) 562 654

Native Village of Nunapitchuk 484 473

Village of Ohogamiut 0 26

Orutsararmuit Native Village (Bethel) 4,025 3,798

Oscarville Traditional Village 66 77

Native Village of Paimiut 0 67

Pilot Station Traditional Village 592 537

Native Village of Pitka’s Point 129 161

Platinum Traditional Village 41 71

Village of Red Devil 27 28

Native Village of Scammon Bay 499 430

Native Village of Sheldon’s Point 170 138

Village of Sleetmute 96 126

Village of Stony River 56 59

Tuluksak Native Community 436 508

Native Village of Tuntutuliak 396 384

Native Village of Tununak 341 247

Umkumiute Native Village 13 31

At-large 29 11,940

Region total 22,130 34,909

(Continued From Previous Page)

ANCSA region or Indian 

reservation Villages AIAN persons

Enrolled

members
Appendix II

Alaska Native Population by Native Village 

and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation

Page 74 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Bristol Bay Native Corporation Native Village of Aleknagik 202 487

Native Village of Chignik Lagoon 89 220

Native Village of Chignik 50 315

Chignik Lake Village 133 326

Village of Clarks Point 75 181

Curyung Tribal Council (formerly Native Village of Dillingham) 1,625 1,873

Egegik Village 93 254

Native Village of Ekuk 0 72

Ekwok Village 132 222

Igiugig Village 46 63

Village of Iliamna 62 158

Ivanoff Bay Village 22 42

Native Village of Kanatak 214 107

King Salmon Tribe 55 78

Kokhanok Village 166 162

New Koliganek Village Council (formerly Koliganek Village) 172 261

Levelock Village 122 166

Manokotak Village 409 475

Naknek Native Village 334 314

New Stuyahok Village 489 525

Newhalen Village 153 195

Nondalton Village 209 439

Pedro Bay Village 34 117

Native Village of Perryville 110 267

Native Village of Pilot Point 136 160

Portage Creek Village (Ohgsenakale) 34 78

Native Village of Port Heiden 98 139

South Naknek Village 120 275

Traditional Village of Togiak 811 868

Twin Hills Village 70 102

Ugashik Village 9 65

At-large 135 5,945

Region total 6,412 14,951

(Continued From Previous Page)

ANCSA region or Indian 

reservation Villages AIAN persons

Enrolled

members
Appendix II

Alaska Native Population by Native Village 

and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation

Page 75 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Sealaska Corporation Angoon Community Association 504 573

Chilkat Indian Village (Klukwan) 125 203

Chilkoot Indian Association (Haines) 392 495

Craig Community Association 525 367

Douglas Indian Association 283 411

Hoonah Indian Association 609 587

Hydaburg Cooperative Association 359 402

Organized Village of Kake 674 523

Organized Village of Kasaan 20 143

Ketchikan Indian Corporation 2,544 4,660

Klawock Cooperative Association 521 476

Petersburg Indian Association 482 418

Organized Village of Saxman 322 175

Sitka Tribe of Alaska 2,275 3,241

Skagway Village 96 48

Wrangell Cooperative Association 587 565

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe 383 385

At-large 5,303 16,114

Region total 16,004 29,786

Chugach Alaska Corporation Native Village of Chanega 70 57

Native Village of Eyak (Cordova) 429 368

Native Village of Nanwalek (English Bay) 175 260

Native Village of Port Graham 160 151

Native Village of Tatitlek 95 91

At-large 1,354 2,020

Region total 2,283 2,947

Cook Inlet Region Inc. Chickaloon Native Village 508 254

Eklutna Native Village 57 239

Kenaitze Indian Tribe 2,366 1,183

Knik Tribe 1,160 580

Ninilchik Village 921 526

Village of Salamatoff 225 155

Seldovia Village Tribe 131 907

Native Village of Tyonek 195 581

At-large 29,833 7,218

Region total 35,397 11,643

(Continued From Previous Page)

ANCSA region or Indian 

reservation Villages AIAN persons

Enrolled

members
Appendix II

Alaska Native Population by Native Village 

and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation

Page 76 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Ahtna Inc. Native Village of Cantwell 62 108

Cheesh-Na Tribe (formerly the Native Village of Chistochina) 59 66

Native Village of Chitina 62 316

Native Village of Gakona 18 85

Gulkana Village 79 132

Native Village of Kluti Kaah (Copper Center) 206 302

Mentasta Traditional Council (formerly Mentasta Lake Village) 103 250

Native Village of Tazlina 91 147

At-large 247 1,100

Region total 927 2,506

(Continued From Previous Page)

ANCSA region or Indian 

reservation Villages AIAN persons

Enrolled

members
Appendix II

Alaska Native Population by Native Village 

and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation

Page 77 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Doyon Limited Alatna Village 35 34

Allakaket Village 133 93

Anvik Village 105 94

Arctic Village 144 139

Beaver Village 82 235

Birch Creek Tribe (formerly listed as Birch Creek Village) 29 28

Chalkyitsik Village 83 111

Circle Native Community 88 185

Village of Dot Lake 29 28

Native Village of Eagle 31 30

Evansville Village (Bettles Field) 26 15

Native Village of Fort Yukon 544 528

Galena Village (Louden Village) 468 455

Organized Village of Grayling (aka Holikachuk) 183 178

Healy Lake Village 28 27

Holy Cross Village 225 219

Hughes Village 64 62

Huslia Village 287 279

Village of Kaltag 206 200

Koyukuk Native Village 95 92

Manley Hot Springs Village 18 17

McGrath Native Village 225 219

Native Village of Minto 245 224

Nenana Native Association 196 499

Nikolai Village 83 81

Northway Village 349 256

Nulato Village 325 680

Rampart Village 42 41

Native Village of Ruby 167 162

Shageluk Native Village 129 125

Native Village of Stevens 85 199

Takotna Village 22 21

Native Village of Tanacross 131 126

Native Village of Tanana 258 942

Telida Village 3 3

Native Village of Tetlin 119 114

Village of Venetie 323 237

(Continued From Previous Page)

ANCSA region or Indian 

reservation Villages AIAN persons

Enrolled

members
Appendix II

Alaska Native Population by Native Village 

and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation

Page 78 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

At-large 9,366 6,868

Region total 14,972 13,846

Bering Straits Native 

Corporation

Native Village of Brevig Mission 271 297

Chinik Eskimo Community (Golovin) 142 110

Native Village of Council 0 131

Native Village of Diomede (Inalik) 146 190

Native Village of Elim 359 403

Native Village of Gambell 663 666

King Island Native Community 209 454

Native Village of Koyuk 299 370

Native Village of Mary's Igloo 0 98

Nome Eskimo Community 1,997 2,106

Native Village of Saint Michael 366 399

Native Village of Savoonga 655 721

Native Village of Shaktoolik 232 211

Native Village of Shishmaref 566 643

Village of Solomon 3 68

Stebbins Community Association 552 642

Native Village of Teller 264 208

Native Village of Unalakleet 698 637

Native Village of Wales 146 267

Native Village of White Mountain 187 275

At-large 0 6,179

Region total 7,755 15,075

Koniag Inc. Village of Afognak 108 309

Native Village of Akhiok 79 100

Kaguyak Village 4 9

Native Village of Karluk 27 189

Native Village of Larsen Bay 96 479

Lesnoi Village (Woody Island) 62 255

Village of Old Harbor 214 573

Native Village of Ouzinkie 207 381

Native Village of Port Lions 172 352

Shoonaq’ Tribe of Kodiak 652 1,213

At-large 961 3,300

Region total 2,582 7,160

(Continued From Previous Page)

ANCSA region or Indian 

reservation Villages AIAN persons

Enrolled

members
Appendix II

Alaska Native Population by Native Village 

and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation

Page 79 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Source: HUD.

NANA Regional Corporation Inc. Native Village of Ambler 286 361

Native Village of Buckland 420 392

Native Village of Deering 137 186

Native Village of Kiana 385 468

Native Village of Kivalina 389 389

Native Village of Kobuk 109 78

Native Village of Kotzebue 2,526 2,629

Native Village of Noatak 439 497

Noorvik Native Community 643 735

Native Village of Selawik 786 844

Native Village of Shungnak 259 266

At-large 224 499

Region total 6,603 7,344

Metlakatla Indian Community, 

Annette Island Reserve 1,356 2,096

Region total 1,356 2,096

Total 124,694 161,636

(Continued From Previous Page)

ANCSA region or Indian 

reservation Villages AIAN persons

Enrolled

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

Appendix III

Listing of Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits ApendxiI

Regional Native nonprofits also serve Alaska Natives. In this study, we 

include regional nonprofits that were: identified as regional Native 

associations in ANCSA or the organizations that succeeded them; identified 

as regional Native health organizations in P.L. 105-83; or that were 

identified as Alaska regional housing authorities by HUD.1

 Table 11 

provides a listing of Alaska Native regional health care and housing 

nonprofits, by ANCSA region. 

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

Nonprofits 

Source: GAO.

a

Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve is a federally recognized Indian reservation that 

includes a regional health entity and regional housing authority.

b

The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium is a nonprofit health organization authorized by P.L. 105-

83 and managed by regional health corporations and elected representatives from Alaska Native 

village governments not part of a regional health corporation. ANTHC and Southcentral Foundation 

jointly operate the Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage.

1

ANCSA, Section 7 (a), P.L. 92-203, as amended; Department of the Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-83).

ANCSA regional nonprofits or 

Indian reservation Regional health entities Regional housing authorities

Copper River Native Association Copper River Native Association Copper River Basin Regional Housing 

Authority

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association Inc. Aleutian Housing Authority

Arctic Slope Native Association Arctic Slope Native Association Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu Housing Authority

Kawerak Inc. Norton Sound Health Corporation Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority

Bristol Bay Native Association Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation Bristol Bay Housing Authority

Association of Village Council 

Presidents

Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation Association of Village Council Presidents 

Regional Housing Authority

Chugachmiut Chugachmiut North Pacific Rim Housing Authority

Cook Inlet Tribal Council Southcentral Foundation Cook Inlet Housing Authority

Tanana Chiefs Conference Tanana Chiefs Conference Interior Regional Housing Authority

Kodiak Area Native Association Kodiak Area Native Association Kodiak Island Housing Authority

Maniilaq Association Maniilaq Association Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority

Central Council of the Tlingit and 

Haida Indian Tribes

Southeast Alaska Regional Health

Consortium

1. Baranof Island Housing Authority

2. Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority

Metlakatla Indian Community, 

Annette Island Reservea

Metlakatla Indian Community Metlakatla Housing Authority 

Not applicable Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortiumb Not applicable
Page 81 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix IV

Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance to 

Alaska Native Villages ApendxiIV

In addition to receiving assistance directly from the federal government 

and from regional Native nonprofit organizations, Alaska Native villages 

also receive assistance from other nonprofits funded by the federal 

government. According to our analysis of data from FAADS for the federal 

fiscal year period 1998 through 2003, 46 of these other nonprofits received 

federal funding for the purpose of assisting Alaska Native villages. The 46 

nonprofits are 

• Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission,

• Alaska Federation of Natives,

• Alaska Inter-Tribal Council,

• Alaska Nanuuq Commission,

• Alaska Native Arts Foundation,

• Alaska Native Brotherhood,

• Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission,

• Alaska Native Health Board Inc.,

• Alaska Native Heritage Center,

• Alaska Native Heritage Park Inc.,

• Alaska Native Justice Center Inc.,

• Alaska Native Science Commission,

• Alaska Native Women’s Coalition,

• Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission,

• Alaska Village Initiatives,

• Alutiiq Heritage Foundation,

• Bering Straits Foundation,
Appendix IV

Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance 

to Alaska Native Villages

Page 82 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

• Calista Elders Council,

• Chugach Regional Resources Commission,

• CIRI Foundation,

• Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments,

• Cultural Heritage And Educational Institute,

• Denakkanaaga Inc.,

• Doyon Foundation,

• Eastern Aleutian Tribes Inc.,

• Eskimo Walrus Commission,

• Fairbanks Native Association,

• Institute of Alaska Native Arts Inc.,

• Koahnic Broadcast Corporation,

• Kuigpagmiut Inc.,

• Kuskokwim Native Association,

• Maniilaq Manpower Inc.,

• Mount Sanford Tribal Consortium,

• Qutekcak Native Tribe (Seward),

• Robert Aqqaluk Newlin Sr. Memorial Trust,

• Rural Alaska Community Action Program Inc.,

• Sealaska Heritage Institute,

• Simon Paneak Memorial Museum,
Appendix IV

Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance 

to Alaska Native Villages

Page 83 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

• Southeast Alaska Indian Cultural Center,

• TDX Foundation,

• Tok Native Association, 

• Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation,

• United Crow Band Inc.,

• United Villages Inc.,

• Valdez Native Tribe, and

• Yukon River Inter Tribal Watershed Council.
Page 84 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix V

The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal 

Funding to Native Villages, Regional Native 

Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs ApendxiV

Based on our analysis of data from the state of Alaska, the state passed 

through more than $105 million in federal funds to Alaska Native villages 

and regional Native nonprofits for state fiscal years 1998 through 2003.1

 

However, Native villages received a smaller share of this funding. Also, the 

state of Alaska passed through over $335 million in federal funds to 

incorporated cities and boroughs that have villages located within their 

borders. 

State of Alaska Passed 

Through Over $105 Million 

in Federal Funds to Alaska 

Native Villages and Regional 

Native Nonprofits 

According to data provided by the state of Alaska Department of 

Administration, Division of Finance, the state passed through more than 

$105 million to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits for state 

fiscal years 1998 through 2003. As shown in figure 19, Native villages 

received $18.2 million (17 percent) compared with regional Native 

nonprofits, which received $87.3 million (83 percent). During this period, 

the state passed through federal funding to 99 different Native villages and 

23 regional Native nonprofits. 

1

The state fiscal year for Alaska is July through June. GAO converted amounts passed 

through by the state of Alaska to constant 2003 dollars using the gross domestic product 

deflator. 
Appendix V

The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal 

Funding to Native Villages, Regional Native 

Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Page 85 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 19: Amount of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska to 

Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003

Over the period, Native villages received most of their funding from slightly 

more agencies than regional Native nonprofits. Native villages received 

state pass-through funding from 15 federal agencies, with about 67 percent 

of the funding provided by four federal departments—Commerce, EPA, 

HHS, and Transportation. Commerce provided more than 20 percent of the 

major funding, with EPA contributing 20 percent and HHS and 

Transportation contributing 14 and 12 percent, respectively. In comparison, 

regional Native nonprofits received state pass-through funding from 17 

federal agencies, but about 85 percent of all funding was provided by two 

federal agencies—HHS and USDA. HHS contributed about 68 percent of 

the major funding, with another 17 percent provided by USDA (see figs. 20 

and 21).

Native villages 

Regional Native

nonprofits 

17%

83%

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

$87,342,851

$18,244,808
Appendix V

The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal 

Funding to Native Villages, Regional Native 

Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Page 86 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 20: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska, by 

Agency, to Native Villages, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003

a

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

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of Justice

Department of Health

and Human Services

General Services Administration

1% each: Other,a Department of Housing

and Urban Development, and the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency

5%

5%

4%

12%

22%

12%

14%

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

Department of Commerce

Department of Labor

Denali Commission

Department of Transportation

3% Department of Agriculture

20%
Appendix V

The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal 

Funding to Native Villages, Regional Native 

Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Page 87 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 21: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska, by 

Agency, to Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003 

a

U.S. Agency for International Development; Corporation for National and Community Service; Denali 

Commission; Departments of Commerce, Energy, the Interior, Justice, and Transportation; General 

Services Administration (GSA); National Endowment for the Arts; and National Science Foundation. 

Overall, both Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received the 

majority of their pass-through funding from a few programs. For example, 

over the period, the state of Alaska passed through federal funding for 64 

different programs to Native villages. However, as shown in table 12, the 

top five programs accounted for over 70 percent of the funding to these 

entities. None of the remaining 59 programs contributed more than $1 

million each in state pass-through funding over the period.

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of Health

and Human Services

2% each: Other,a Departments of 

Labor and Education

5%

4%

17%

68%

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

Department of Housing

and Urban Development

Department of Agriculture
Appendix V

The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal 

Funding to Native Villages, Regional Native 

Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Page 88 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

1998-2003

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

Also, most agencies’ funding was provided by only one of their programs. 

For example, three different Commerce programs provided slightly more 

than $3.9 million in pass-through funding to Native villages, and almost all 

of this was provided by the Fisheries Disasters Relief program. Similarly, 

Native villages received funding from two EPA programs, and most of this 

was provided by the Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose 

grants program. Further, all of the General Services Administration’s (GSA) 

funding came from the Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property 

program. 

Regional Native nonprofits received funding from a larger number of 

programs than Native villages. For example, over the period, the state of 

Alaska passed through federal funding for 102 different programs to 

regional Native nonprofits. As shown in table 13, the top 6 funding 

programs accounted for 76 percent of the funding to these entities. None of 

the remaining 96 programs contributed more than $2 million each in state 

pass-through funding over the period.

CFDA 

number Agency Program name

Total funding (2003

constant dollars)

Percentage of

total funding

11.477 Commerce Fisheries Disasters Relief $3,917,481 21.47

66.606 EPA Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose 

Grants 3,564,182 19.54

39.003 GSA Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property 2,161,318 11.85

20.205 DOT Highway Planning and Construction 2,131,188 11.68

93.568 HHS Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 1,215,690 6.66

Various Various 59 other programs 5,254,948 28.80

Total $18,244,808 100.00
Appendix V

The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal 

Funding to Native Villages, Regional Native 

Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Page 89 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

Fiscal Years 1998-2003

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

Similar to Native villages, most agencies’ funding to regional Native 

nonprofits were provided by a relatively few number of those agencies’ 

programs. For example, 42 different HHS programs provided funding to 

regional Native nonprofits, but Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 

(TANF) provided 68 percent of all HHS funding. Similarly, 79 percent of all 

USDA funding was provided by the Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Woman, Infants and Children.

Table 14 shows that pass-through funding provided to Native villages by the 

state of Alaska increased between state fiscal years 1998 and 2003. 

Although the number of Native villages receiving pass-through funding 

stayed fairly constant over the period, increasing from 41 in 1998 to 46 in 

2003, the annual amount of funding increased by 75 percent, from $1.6 

million in 1998 to about $2.9 million in 2003. The Denali Commission 

accounted for 63 percent of the increase during the period, while GSA’s 

Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property program accounted for 35 

percent.2

 Commerce pass-through funding reached its peak in 2000 and 

CFDA 

number Agency Program name

Total funding (2003

constant dollars)

Percentage of total

funding

93.558 HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy Families $39,736,114 45.49

10.557 USDA Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 

Infants, and Children 11,695,142 13.39

66.606 EPA Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose 

Grants 4,674,378 5.35

93.230 HHS Consolidated Knowledge Development and Application 

Program (Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Administration) 4,309,512 4.93

14.239 HUD HOME Investment Partnerships Program 3,468,928 3.97

93.658 HHS Foster Care 2,680,311 3.07

Various Various 96 other programs 20,778,465 23.79

Total $87,342,851 100.00

2

The Denali Commission program was established in 1998; the state of Alaska did not pass 

through funding from the Denali Commission to Native villages until 2001. The total 

increase in funding of $1.2 million over the period includes seven federal agencies whose 

funding increased and eight whose funding decreased.
Appendix V

The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal 

Funding to Native Villages, Regional Native 

Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Page 90 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

2002, with about 65 percent of all Commerce funding provided in those 2 

years alone under the Fisheries Disaster Relief program in response to a 

slump in the Alaska fishing industry. EPA funding reached its peak in 1999 

and 2000, with about 85 percent of the agency’s total funding over the 

period being provided in those 2 years under the Surveys, Studies, 

Investigations, and Special Purpose grants program.

Table 14: Yearly Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska to Native 

Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

The amount of federal funding passed through by the state to regional 

Native nonprofits grew steadily over the period—by 160 percent—from 18 

entities receiving $8.3 million in 1998 to 19 entities receiving $21.6 million 

in 2003. Most of this growth was caused by an increase in HHS program 

funding, which accounted for 90 percent of the growth. As was the case 

with Native villages, EPA funding reached its peak in 2000, with about 56 

percent of the agency’s total funding over the period being provided under 

the Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose grants program. 

HUD funding also reached its peak in 2000, with about 36 percent of the 

agency’s total funding provided under the HOME Investment Partnerships 

program. Moreover, pass-through funding provided by HHS programs to 

regional Native nonprofits outpaced the growth in funding to Native 

villages by almost 10 times. (See fig. 22.) 

State fiscal 

year Native villages funds

Regional Native

nonprofits funds

1998 $1,634,613 $8,306,967

1999 3,568,358 8,197,285

2000 4,734,037 15,457,542

2001 2,941,878 13,989,537

2002 2,508,634 19,762,459

2003 2,857,288 21,629,060
Appendix V

The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal 

Funding to Native Villages, Regional Native 

Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs

Page 91 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Figure 22: Trend of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska to Native 

Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003

The state of Alaska passed through federal funds totaling more than $335 

million for state fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to incorporated cities and 

boroughs with Native villages. Specifically, 104 cities received $82.5 million 

and 16 boroughs received almost $253 million. The state passed through 

funding it received from 20 federal departments for programs such as 

HHS’s ChildCare Mandatory and Matching Funds of the ChildCare and 

Development Fund, and TANF; and EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund, and its Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose grants 

program. Although these funds were not given to a Native village or 

regional Native nonprofit, Alaska Natives likely benefited from shared 

services and assistance provided by the cities and boroughs. For example, 

incorporated cities that have Native villages located within their borders 

provide municipal services, such as water, that benefit Alaska Natives. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Dollars in millions

Native village

Regional Native nonprofit

Source: GAO analysis of state of Alaska data.

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

Appendix VI

Denali Commission Program Summary ApendxiVI

Agency: Denali Commission.

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

Authorization: The Denali Commission Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3121 

note; 70 Fed. Reg. 28283 (May 17, 2005) (Five Year Strategic Plan (2005-

2009) and Fiscal Year 2006 Work Plan).

Eligible program recipients: Awards are available to state and local 

governments, private, public, profit, nonprofit organizations and 

institutions or individuals eligible in Alaska. Beneficiaries must be the 

general public, particularly distressed communities.

Program objectives: To deliver the services of the federal government in 

the most cost-effective manner practicable by reducing administrative and 

overhead costs; to provide job training and other economic development 

services in rural communities, particularly distressed communities; to 

promote rural development, provide power generation and transmission 

facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer systems and 

other infrastructure needs. Another objective is to provide funding for the 

construction of new primary health care clinics.1

 

Application process: For bulk fuel and rural power grants (the vast 

majority of energy grants), there is not an application process. In 1999, the 

commission worked with the Alaska Energy Authority to assemble a 

priority ranking of the needs of all bulk fuel sites in the state. One hundred 

seventy-two rural Alaskan communities were ranked, based on deficiencies 

in fuel storage and power systems, and funding priority goes to those 

projects with higher scores.2

 Each year, as some projects are completed, 

those with lower priorities get funded. For most of the commission’s other 

programs, generally a community must send the commission a letter 

requesting assistance, along with comprehensive community-based and 

approved development plans. The commission judges potential projects 

based on consistency with locally developed and regionally supported 

infrastructure development plans, long-term sustainability, relative impacts 

on reducing unemployment, raising the standard of living, reducing the cost 

1

The Denali Commission focuses its efforts on rural Alaska. According to Denali officials, 

most of the Commission’s projects benefit Alaska Native villages. 

2

Initially, 168 communities were ranked, and 4 additional communities have been added 

within the last 3 years.
Appendix VI

Denali Commission Program Summary

Page 93 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

of utilities, and cost sharing by others. In some cases, applicants can apply 

directly to state and local partners working with the commission. The time 

frame for grants is based on the projects and negotiated between the 

commission and the grantee, subject to the 5-year maximum time frame 

imposed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Table 15: Denali Commission Reporting Requirements

Source: GAO analysis of Denali Commission data.

Allowable Uses of Program Funds: Funds can be used for infrastructure 

or utility needs benefiting Alaskans. The commission has made rural 

energy its primary infrastructure theme since its inception in 1999, but has 

12 program areas in total: 

• energy facilities,

• health facilities,

• training,

• government coordination,

• multiuse facilities,

• washeterias (potable water and laundry facilities as well as showers and 

toilets),

• transportation,

• solid waste,

• economic development,

• elder housing,

Type Description Frequency

Performance and 

financial

Grantees must electronically file reports to a Web-based database for each project—

both energy and nonenergy. These reports detail the expenditures (for the 

commission funds and any other project funds), milestones reached (such as 

completion of construction) and comparison with the planned dates for the milestone 

and associated cost, and a narrative describing the progress on the project. Grantees 

often include pictures in the report to show progress on construction projects.

Quarterly
Appendix VI

Denali Commission Program Summary

Page 94 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

• teacher housing, and

• domestic violence facilities.

Examples of actual uses of program funds: The commission maintains 

a Web-based information system that includes detailed financial and 

progress information on projects. The system can be publicly queried, 

specifying project attributes such as community involved, recipient, theme 

(the underlying subject area of the project, such as energy (e.g., bulk fuel) 

or health care (e.g., hospitals), and milestone (where in the process the 

project is, such as business plan or construction). 

The Denali Commission’s energy program has been used to address energy 

issues that affect Alaska Natives by focusing on bulk fuel tank farm 

upgrades and rural power system upgrades. Energy has been the 

commission’s primary infrastructure theme since 1999. According to the 

commission’s 2004 annual report, the first challenge undertaken by the 

commission was the upgrade and consolidation of fuel tanks in 172 

communities identified as health and environmental hazards by the U.S. 

Coast Guard and U.S. EPA. Since its inception, grantees of the 

commission’s energy facilities funds—usually the Alaska Energy Authority 

and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative—have upgraded bulk fuel tanks in 

64 communities across the state, while projects are under way in 70 other 

communities, according to the 2004 annual report. That report also notes 

that the commission has upgraded rural power systems in 13 communities, 

has started construction in 20 others, and is in the planning or design phase 

in an additional 18. These upgrades include adding backup power 

generators and increasing efficiency of existing generators. The 

commission’s web site has information on specific energy projects, 

including the following:

• upgrading a tank farm in the Village of Kotlik. In 2001, the commission 

provided about $2.9 million of the roughly $3.8 million used by the 

Alaska Energy Authority to upgrade the tank farm, which had been cited 

for violations by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

• moving a fuel tank farm in the Native Village of White Mountain. The 

commission partnered with the Alaska Energy Authority to use a 

$2,395,743 commission grant, along with $1,239,817 in state and local 

funds. The Alaska Energy Authority used the funds to move the fuel tank 

farm from the middle of the village’s business district, where the school 

and store are located, to an area still accessible but west of the village, 
Appendix VI

Denali Commission Program Summary

Page 95 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

and equipped the tanks with spill prevention. Construction on that 

project was completed in 2003.

• developing a new aircraft off-loading fuel pipeline in the Native Village 

of Ambler. The commission partnered with Alaska Village Electric 

Cooperative to use a $566,700 commission grant (with $31,000 in other 

funds) to develop the pipeline to provide year-round fuel deliveries. The 

pipeline system included modifications to local tank farms to connect to 

the new pipeline. Construction on that project was completed in 2002.

The primary focus of the Denali Commission’s health facilities program—

its second infrastructure priority—is to provide funding for the 

construction of new primary care clinics and repair and renovation of 

existing primary care facilities. From 1999 through 2004, the commission 

completed primary care facilities in 41 communities, and has 59 facilities in 

planning or design phases, according to its 2004 annual report. Some 

specific health care projects from Denali’s project database include the 

following:

• designing and constructing a rural primary care facility and community 

health center in the Native Village of Kiana. The commission partnered 

with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium to use a commission 

grant of $716,000 (with $400,000 in other funding) for the facility and 

community health center, which replaced an existing village clinic. 

Construction on that project was completed in 2002. 

• constructing a health clinic in the Native Village of Toksook Bay (the 

location of the Nunakauyarmiut Tribe). The commission partnered with 

the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium to use two grants totaling 

$2.7 million from the commission’s health facilities program to build a 

health clinic in Toksook Bay. Construction was completed in January, 

2005.

• providing funding for other health care needs as well, such as a grant to 

the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services to cover half of the 

$400,000 needed to purchase an ultrasound machine in Sitka.

Funding mechanism: The commission’s energy and other programs 

usually provide federal funds to grantees that the commission calls 

“partners” (i.e., state or federal agencies or nonprofits that administer 

numerous projects). For energy projects, for example, the Alaska Energy 

Authority and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative were the commission’s 
Appendix VI

Denali Commission Program Summary

Page 96 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

partner agency on over 95 percent of grants. For health projects, the Alaska 

Native Tribal Health Consortium and the state of Alaska’s Department of 

Health and Social Services were the commission’s partner on most 

projects. A few grantees are not partner agencies, such as Native villages or 

other local communities that administer just one program for their 

community. 

Restrictions on administrative costs: The commission does not have a 

standard limit on the amount of funding grantees can spend on total 

administrative costs. However, the commission negotiates with each 

grantee on the amount of indirect administrative costs that the commission 

will provide. According to agency officials, for energy partners the amount 

of indirect costs that the commission allows has generally ranged from 0 

percent to 4 percent of total grant amounts, paid for from the overall grant 

amount. 
Page 97 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix VII

Program Summary for the Department of 

Agriculture ApendxiVI

Subagency: Rural Development.

Program name: Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural 

Communities.

Authorization: Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as 

amended, 7 U.S.C. 1926; 7 C.F.R. §§ 1779.1 et seq.; 7 C.F.R. §§ 1780.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: Municipalities, counties, and other political 

subdivisions of a state, such as districts and authorities, associations, 

cooperatives, corporations operated on a not-for-profit basis, Indian tribes 

on federal and state reservations, and other federally recognized Indian 

tribes. Facilities shall primarily serve rural residents and rural businesses. 

The service area shall not include any area in any city or town having a 

population in excess of 10,000 inhabitants, according to the latest decennial 

Census of the United States. Beneficiaries may be farmers, ranchers, rural 

residents, rural businesses, and other users in eligible applicant areas.

Program objectives: To provide basic human amenities, alleviate health 

hazards and promote the orderly growth of the rural areas of the nation by 

meeting the need for new and improved rural water and waste disposal 

facilities.

Application process: Over 80 percent of program funding in Alaska is 

appropriated by Congress to fund the state of Alaska’s Village Safe Water 

program, administered by the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation. For those grants, applicants file an application on forms 

prescribed by the Department of Environmental Conservation that 

describes the community need, how the proposed project will address that 

need, and cost. A committee comprising representatives from USDA Rural 

Development (USDA RD), the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation, and EPA (which also provides funds for the Village Safe 

Water program) scores each application to the Village Safe Water program. 

(The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, which oversees many of the 

projects funded by the Village Safe Water program, does not have a 

representative on the committee, but does have the ability to advise 

informally on project selection.) The scoring depends on several variables, 

including whether the grant is requested for construction or planning. For 

construction projects, project need and impact are the most significant 

scoring factors, followed by operation and maintenance of the project (e.g., 

if the project will be operated by certified technicians), community 

planning, and application quality. Communities must have overall 
Appendix VII

Program Summary for the Department of 

Agriculture

Page 98 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

environmental plans to be approved for construction grants. For planning 

projects, the factors include planning need, existing level of service, 

previous planning efforts, and type of facilities to be planned. Also, 

according to agency officials, there are some projects that are specifically 

included by Congress in appropriations legislation, which requires USDA 

RD to contact certain entities to assist them in USDA RD’s application 

process if they choose to apply. Most of the other program funding goes to 

the Combination Water/Waste programs, which USDA RD administers 

directly.1

 Under this program, villages and cities can apply to USDA RD for 

funding. 

Table 16: USDA Reporting Requirements for Village Safe Water Funding

Source: GAO analysis of USDA data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Funds may be used for the 

installation, repair, improvement, or expansion of a rural water facility, 

including distribution lines, well pumping facilities and costs related 

thereto; the installation, repair, improvement, or expansion of a rural waste 

disposal facility, including the collection, and treatment of sanitary, storm, 

and solid wastes; and indoor plumbing in certain cases where the residents 

are unable to afford the improvements on their own. Grant funds may not 

be used to pay interest on loans, operation and maintenance costs, or to 

acquire or refinance an existing system.

1

About 1 percent of program grant funding goes to the state-administered Remote 

Maintenance Worker program, which provides technical assistance to villages and provides 

infrastructure help in case of emergencies.

Type Description Frequency

Engineering and 

construction analyst

For the Village Safe Water program, the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (DEC) or the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), if it is 

overseeing the project, provides an engineering and environmental report, which 

USDA’s state construction analyst reviews and approves prior to USDA allowing DEC 

or ANTHC to draw down grant money.

Once, prior to drawing 

down grant funding

Financial Under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation and USDA, DEC must provide USDA with expenditure 

reports. 

Upon each draw request 

for each project

Progress and 

financial

These reports are status reports that include both a financial summary as well as 

narrative information from the project engineer regarding the progress made on the 

project. 

Semiannual
Appendix VII

Program Summary for the Department of 

Agriculture

Page 99 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Examples of actual uses of program funds: USDA RD’s Water and 

Waste Disposal System for Rural Communities has been used for new and 

improved rural water and waste disposal facilities. According to USDA RD 

officials and available documentation, USDA RD funds are combined with 

EPA funds and 25 percent matching state funds to eliminate the honey 

bucket—5-gallon buckets that serve as a toilet—and provide communities 

with water and sewer systems that function in Alaska’s harsh environment, 

such as the flush and haul system.2

 According to agency documentation, 

from 2000 through 2003, USDA RD provided funding for 86 Village Safe 

Water grants.3

 Over that same time period, USDA RD funded 17 other 

projects through USDA RD Combination Water/Waste projects, and also 

provided funding for the state-administered Remote Maintenance Worker 

program. USDA RD and state documentation show the following examples 

of Village Safe Water projects:

• In 2003, USDA RD provided a grant of $570,300 to benefit Napaskiak 

that, when matched with $190,200 in state funds, is being used to replace 

all of the remaining single-family home honey buckets in the community 

with the “flush haul” system, according to agency documentation.

• In 2000, USDA RD provided $633,800, in conjunction with $211,200 in 

Alaska Housing Finance funding, for water and sewer improvements in 

Nulato. Uses of the funds included the design and construction of a 

wastewater lagoon for the lower town site, maintenance upgrades for 

the new town site lagoon and landfill, and replacement of the water and 

sewer system for the lower town site teacher housing area. 

• In 2000, USDA RD provided a $2,175,000 grant that, in conjunction with 

$725,000 in state funds, was used in Bethel for a new piped water 

distribution and sewer collection system, including circulating water 

mains and pressure sewer mains.

2

A flush and haul system generally consists of individual storage tanks that provide water to 

flush toilets, and the sewage is then stored in a separate tank, whose contents are 

transported to a sewage lagoon.

3

Since 2000, program funds have been given directly to the state, while prior to that grants 

were given directly to the communities with grant administration done by the state. The 

Village Safe Water projects focus on rural Alaska. According to USDA officials, most of the 

Village Safe Water projects benefit Alaska Native villages. Some of these 86 projects have 

not been completed; in fact, some funds have only been allocated and construction of the 

project has not been started.
Appendix VII

Program Summary for the Department of 

Agriculture

Page 100 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

One example of a Combination Water/Waste project is the project in 

Talkeetna. According to USDA RD, Alaska’s 2003 annual report and other 

agency documentation, in 2002, USDA RD provided the Mat-Su Borough 

with $1.3 million to help fund an upgrade for a sewage treatment facility in 

Talkeetna. The new system was the first of its type in Alaska and uses a 

collection of cells and aquatic plants to pretreat raw sewage from the 

community. The project converted an old percolation cell into a lagoon cell 

lined with a plastic layer, increasing treatment capacity by over 25 percent, 

according to the 2003 annual report. A wetland was also constructed to 

treat secondary effluent from the lagoons prior to discharge into the 

Talkeetna River. 

Funding mechanism: According to agency documentation, over 80 

percent of USDA RD’s Alaska funding is appropriated by Congress 

specifically for the Alaska Village Safe Water program; that funding goes to 

the state of Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation, which 

administers the Village Safe Water projects in rural Alaska. Most of the 

other program funding goes from USDA RD directly to cities and villages. 

Restrictions on administrative costs: The program follows Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, a primary federal regulation 

that outlines the principles for determining which administrative costs can 

be recovered for programs administered under grants with the federal 

government; there are no other established limitations. Until fiscal year 

2005, the state paid for administrative costs of the Village Safe Water 

program from state funds and from federal EPA funds, so 100 percent of 

USDA RD’s funds went to project costs, according to agency officials. 

Officials also stated that, in fiscal year 2005, USDA RD and the state began 

working toward providing some USDA RD funds for administrative costs. 

Funding for these administrative costs will come from the grant amount.
Page 101 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix VIII

Program Summaries for the Department of 

Commerce ApendxiVI

Subagency: Economic Development Administration. 

Program name: Economic Adjustment Assistance. 

Authorization: Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 3149; 13 C.F.R. § 308.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: Eligible applicants include economic 

development districts; states, cities or other political subdivisions of a state 

or a consortium of political subdivisions; Indian tribes or a consortium of 

Indian tribes; institutions of higher learning or a consortium of such 

institutions; or public or nonprofit organizations or associations acting in 

cooperation with officials of a political subdivision of a state. Applicants 

using Economic Development Administration (EDA) supplemental disaster 

assistance will generally be restricted to disaster-impacted areas. 

Program objectives: To assist state and local interests to design and 

implement strategies to adjust or bring about change to an economy. 

Program focuses on areas that have experienced or are under threat of 

serious structural damage to the underlying economic base. Such 

economic change may occur suddenly or over time, and generally results 

from industrial or corporate restructuring, new federal laws or 

requirements, reduction in defense expenditures, depletion of natural 

resources, or natural disaster. EAA aids the long-range economic 

development of areas with severe unemployment and low family-income 

problems; aids in the development of public facilities and private 

enterprises to help create new, permanent jobs.

Application process: EDA’s Economic Development Representative 

(EDR) or regional office representative will meet with the applicant to 

determine whether preparation of a project proposal is appropriate. If 

appropriate, applicants are requested to prepare a brief project proposal 

according to an outline provided by the EDR. Following a review by the 

EDR and regional office staff, the Regional Director will determine whether 

to invite a formal application. An environmental impact assessment is 

necessary, and an environmental impact statement may also be required. 

All proposals and applications for funding submitted to EDA are evaluated 

competitively for conformance to statutory and regulatory requirements 

and conformance with EDA’s Investment Policy Guidelines and funding 

priorities. Final decision on applications from eligible applicants is made 

by the Regional Office Director of the Economic Development 

Administration, Department of Commerce.
Appendix VIII

Program Summaries for the Department of 

Commerce

Page 102 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Table 17: Commerce Reporting Requirements for EAA Funding 

Source: GAO analysis of Commerce data.

Allowable uses of program funds: EAA funds can be used to provide 

grants for planning or construction of projects tailored to the community’s 

specific economic problems and opportunities. Specific activities may 

include 

• creation or expansion of strategically targeted business development,

• revolving loan funds,

• infrastructure improvements,

• organizational development, and 

• market or industry research and analysis.

Examples of actual uses of program funds: According to information 

GAO received from EDA, since 1999, EDA has funded 29 EAA projects in 

Native villages and Native nonprofits. Examples of specific projects 

include the following:

• In 2001, a total of $5.1 million was provided to five different entities, 

including the Native Villages of Savoonga, Wales, and Unalakleet, for the 

construction of five approximately 4,000-square-foot multipurpose 

community buildings to Alaskan native entities. These facilities included 

Type Description Frequency 

Performance Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) 

Updates: This is a long-term strategic plan for economic 

stabilization and growth for an area. The CEDS profiles the 

economy of the area, assesses the local institutional capacity 

and organizational structure determining growth, sets strategic 

priorities, and identifies implementation projects.

Annually

Performance Annual narrative report: This report covers the grant scope of 

work and what was accomplished over the reporting period to 

satisfy the planning process, and project implementation 

purpose of the grant. 

Annually

Financial Annual financial report: This report covers the financial 

transactions by cost category for all grant expenditures during 

the reporting period.

Annually
Appendix VIII

Program Summaries for the Department of 

Commerce

Page 103 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

conference rooms, kitchens, restrooms, and storage. 

• In 2001, the Tanana Chiefs Conference was awarded $725,000 for the 

construction of a 20-room hotel with a combination restaurant, lounge, 

and meeting facilities on council-owned property located midtown in 

the Village of Circle.

Funding mechanism: The EDA provides funding directly to grantees, 

which could be Alaska Native entities. Generally, EDA funds 50 percent of a 

project’s cost. However, certain conditions of high economic distress or an 

applicant’s inability to provide all of the matching share may permit a 

higher grant rate.

Restrictions on administrative costs: According to EDA officials, there 

is no specific dollar limitation on allowable administrative costs; however, 

under the EAA program, administrative costs typically do not constitute a 

significant portion of the total grant. For smaller or rural grantees such as 

Alaskan tribes, allowable administrative costs could include the cost of a 

Project Administrator because such entities may not hold the in-house 

expertise needed to manage large construction projects. 
Appendix VIII

Program Summaries for the Department of 

Commerce

Page 104 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Program name: Grants for Public Works and Economic Development 

Facilities.

Authorization: Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 3141; 13 C.F.R. § 305.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: States, cities, counties, an institution of 

higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher education, and 

other political subdivisions, Indian tribes, the Federated States of 

Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Commonwealths and 

territories of the U.S. flag, Economic Development Districts, and private or 

public nonprofit organizations or associations acting in cooperation with 

officials of a political subdivision of a state or Indian Tribe. Individuals, 

companies, corporations, and associations organized for profit are not 

eligible. 

Program objectives: To promote long-term economic development in 

areas experiencing substantial economic distress. EDA provides public 

works investments to support the construction of rehabilitation of essential 

public infrastructure and development facilities necessary to generate 

higher-skill, higher-wage jobs and private investment.

Application process: The EDR or other appropriate EDA official will 

meet with the applicant and community leaders to explore the applicability 

of the proposed project. If deemed appropriate, a proposal will be 

requested. After reviewing the proposal, the EDR or the regional office will 

notify the applicant regarding the decision of whether to invite an 

application. If the project appears viable, a preapplication conference with 

regional office personnel may be arranged at EDA’s discretion. An 

environmental impact assessment is required for this program. The review 

of the environmental impact assessment may result in an environmental 

impact statement being required. Applications are approved by the 

Regional Director and announced by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce 

for Economic Development.
Appendix VIII

Program Summaries for the Department of 

Commerce

Page 105 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Table 18: Commerce Reporting Requirements for Public Works Funding

Source: GAO analysis of Commerce data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Public works investments may 

include

• investments in facilities such as water and sewer system improvements, 

industrial access roads, industrial and business parks, port facilities, 

railroad sidings, distance learning facilities, skill-training facilities, 

business incubator facilities, redevelopment of brownfields, ecoindustrial facilities, and telecommunications infrastructure 

improvements needed for business retention and expansion;

• eligible activities such as the acquisition, rehabilitation, design and 

engineering, or improvement of public land or publicly owned and 

operated development facilities, including machinery and equipment; 

and

• infrastructure for broadband deployment and other types of 

telecommunications-enabling projects and other kinds of technology 

infrastructure. 

Type Description Frequency 

Performance Quarterly performance report: The grantee is required to report 

the status of work accomplished in project development 

through project completion, including land acquisition, 

engineering/design, construction contract award, construction, 

final inspection, and project completion.

Quarterly

Financial Recipient’s outlay report and request for reimbursement for 

construction programs: In order to request a reimbursement 

from EDA for construction costs and transactions incurred by 

the grantee, the grantee is required to file this report to 

document its expenditures and transactions. EDA will disburse 

funds only for actual outlays.

Periodic as project progresses

Financial Financial status report: This financial report is prepared on a 

periodic basis to represent the financial status of the grant in 

conjunction with the performance reports and audit reporting 

period. 

Periodic as project progresses

Performance Final acceptance inspection report: This is a critical one-time 

report executed by the project architect, the contractor, and the 

owner (EDA grantee) at the end of construction to certify final 

acceptance inspection and project completion.

After construction is completed
Appendix VIII

Program Summaries for the Department of 

Commerce

Page 106 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Examples of actual uses of program funds: According to information 

we received from EDA, since 1999, EDA has funded three public works 

projects totaling about $3.8 million in Native areas. Examples of specific 

projects include the following:

• In 2001, the Seldovia Village Tribe was provided $2.3 million to assist 

with the purchase of two lots and construction of a complex that will 

encompass a museum, visitor center, and retail/office space. 

• In 1999, the Nenana Native Association was provided $480,000 for 

implementation of the entities’ economic development plan by 

renovating and upgrading its community hall and funding construction 

of other business infrastructure to continue development of tourism 

business.

• In 1999, the Shishmaref Village Council was provided about $1 million 

for a traditional tannery. 

Funding mechanism: The EDA provides funding directly to grantees, 

which could be Alaska Native entities. The basic grant rate may be up to 50 

percent of the project cost. Severely depressed areas may receive 

supplementary grants to bring the federal contribution up to 80 percent of 

the project cost. Recognized Indian tribes may be eligible for up to 100 

percent assistance. On average, EDA’s investment covers approximately 50 

percent of project costs.

Restrictions on administrative costs: According to EDA officials, there 

is no specific dollar limitation on allowable administrative costs; however, 

under the Public Works and Economic Development Facilities program, 

administrative costs typically do not constitute a significant portion of the 

total grant. For smaller or rural grantees such as Alaskan tribes, allowable 

administrative costs could include the cost of a project administrator 

because such entities may not have the in-house expertise needed to 

manage large construction projects.
Page 107 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix IX

Program Summary for the Department of 

Education ApendxiIX

Subagency: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Program name: Alaska Native Educational Programs.

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

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

Eligible program recipients: Alaska Native educational organizations or 

educational entities with experience in developing educational programs 

for Alaska Natives.

Program objectives: To support projects that recognize and address the 

unique educational needs of Alaska Native students, parents, and teachers.

Application process: Alaska Native Educational Programs are 

competitive grants, except for program funds that have been earmarked for 

specified recipients for specified purposes. For competitive grants, 

applicants submit proposals under which the Department of Education 

uses a peer review process where panels choose applications to determine 

which proposal best meets program objectives and the needs of Alaska 

Natives. The Department of Education selects panelists who are 

knowledgeable of Alaska Native educational needs, eligible activities, and 

project management and evaluation, and who are from outside the 

department. To avoid potential conflicts of interest, panelists are usually 

non-Alaska Natives. Specific selection criteria for the 2003 application 

included the magnitude of the need for and significance of the project, 

quality of project design, quality of project services, and the quality of the 

project evaluation to be conducted on the project. Approved grants are 

usually for 3-year funding periods.

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

Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

Type Description Frequency 

Performance and 

financial

Reports contain a narrative section to describe how the funds 

were used and a financial section that provides information on 

how the funding was spent.

Annually, every year that a grantee receives 

funds under the program.
Appendix IX

Program Summary for the Department of 

Education

Page 108 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Allowable uses of program funds: Program funds can be used in a 

variety of areas, including

• curriculum development,

• family literacy,

• parenting education,

• increasing the education of Alaska Native teachers or those who teach 

Alaska Natives,

• home instruction for preschool Alaska Natives,

• remedial tutoring,

• dropout prevention, and 

• math and science assistance.

Additionally, the enabling legislation, the Alaska Native Educational Equity, 

Support, and Assistance Act, has five earmarks for specific programs:

• $1 million annually for the Alaska Native Heritage Center for cultural 

educational programs designed to share the Alaska Native culture with 

students;

• $1 million annually for Alaska Humanities Forum for a cultural 

exchange program designed to share Alaska Native culture with urban 

students in a rural setting;

• $2 million annually for a dropout prevention program operated by Cook 

Inlet Tribal Council;

• $2 million annually for the Alaska Initiative for Community Engagement 

for continuation of that entity’s general programs; and

• $1 million annually to continue existing parenting educational programs, 

including parenting education provided through in-home visitation of 

new mothers.
Appendix IX

Program Summary for the Department of 

Education

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

Examples of actual uses of program funds: Individual grant files 

maintained by the department contain the following examples of how 

grantees used funds.1

 

In 2000, the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) received a grant of about 

$1.6 million for “Preparing Indigenous Teachers for Alaska Schools.” The 3-

year grant had four main goals, one of which was to increase participation 

of Alaska Native students in bachelor of science programs at UAS. One way 

the program increased participation was by using mentors to recruit high 

school students for the UAS bachelor of science program. By the third year 

of the grant, program participants actively mentored 75 high school 

students and post-high-school candidates from 11 different communities. 

In the third year of the grant, the program provided 16 mentors a stipend of 

$1,000 each, and also provided scholarships for 15 students in the amount 

of $8,500 each. Another goal of the program was to develop a focused 

support system for Alaska Native students at UAS. One way the program 

used grant funds to accomplish this was to hire math tutors to assist Alaska 

Native students in individual and group tutoring sessions. The program also 

financially supported the UAS Native/Rural Resource Center for cultural 

activities such as lectures, storytelling series, and pot luck dinners. 

In 1999, the Alaska Native Heritage Center received a 3-year Alaska Native 

Education Program grant in the amount of about $570,000. The grant had 

seven objectives, including providing Alaska Native youth with cultural 

activities unavailable in the schools. The center’s activities addressing this 

objective included dance classes, youth leadership workshops, and art 

workshops. Over the 3 years of the grant, 157 students participated in 

programs offered by the center through the grant. 

Funding mechanism: The Department of Education provides funding 

directly to grantees, which could be Alaska Native educational 

organizations or educational entities with experience in developing 

educational programs for Alaska Natives. 

Restrictions on administrative costs: The program’s enabling 

legislation states that no more than 5 percent of funds provided to a grantee 

may be used for administrative purposes. No amount in addition to the 

grant is provided for reimbursement of administrative costs.

1

These examples are from a former CFDA program number, as the current CFDA program 

number combined several different CFDA program numbers, starting in 2001.
Page 110 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix X

Program Summary for the Department of 

Health and Human Services ApendxiX

Subagency: Indian Health Service. 

Program name: Tribal Self-Governance.1

Authorization: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 

as amended, 25 U.S.C. 458aaa—458aaa-18; 42 C.F.R. § 137.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: Any federally recognized tribe that (1) 

formally requests, through a governing body action, participation in the 

Tribal Self-Governance Program; (2) has furnished organizationwide single 

audit reports for the previous 3 years that contain no uncorrected 

significant and material audit exceptions in the audit of the tribe’s selfdetermination contracts or self-governance funding agreements with any 

federal agency; and (3) successfully completes a planning phase, to the 

satisfaction of the tribe, that includes legal and budgetary research and 

internal tribal government planning and organizational preparation relating 

to the administration of health care programs. Tribes may also authorize 

another eligible tribe to participate in the self-governance program on their 

behalf. Under current law, tribes not already in a compacting relationship 

with the Indian Health Service (IHS) may not receive funds for health care 

services if they are located in areas served by an Alaska Native regional 

health entity.2

 

Program objectives: The purpose of the program is to make financial 

assistance awards to Indian tribes to enable them to assume from IHS 

programs, services, functions, and activities with respect to which Indian 

tribes or Indians are primary or significant beneficiaries. 

1

This appendix focuses on grants for tribes already participating in the Tribal SelfGovernance Program. Nationally, less than 0.1 percent of Tribal Self-Governance funding 

goes to planning grants for tribes not currently participating in the Tribal Self-Governance 

Program. 

2

Compacting generally provides grant recipients broad flexibility in the use of federal funds 

for multiple programs. 
Appendix X

Program Summary for the Department of 

Health and Human Services 

Page 111 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Application process: If a tribe is eligible and interested in entering the 

self-governance program, it sends a letter of intent to either the Director of 

the Office of Tribal Self-Governance or to an IHS area director for a tribe’s 

area.3

 

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

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Funds can be used by compacting 

tribes to provide any program, service, function, or activity that IHS is 

authorized to administer. According to IHS documentation, these areas 

include

• clinical health services, including hospitals and health clinics, dental 

services, mental health services, and alcohol and substance abuse 

treatment;4

 

• contract health services (i.e., health services from private sector 

providers where specialized health care services were not readily 

available at tribally-operated providers); 

• preventive health services, such as public health nursing, health 

education, and immunization; 

• contract support costs (e.g., tribes’ and tribal consortia’s general 

administrative costs); and

3

If 50 other eligible tribes nationally have already applied that year to become new 

compacting tribes, then additional eligible tribes applying would need to wait until the next 

fiscal year to participate.

Type Description Frequency 

Performance Pursuant to 42 CFR 137.200, each compacting tribe must report on health status and 

services delivery. Most compacting tribes use an IHS-prescribed form to report 

information on number of patient visits, diagnostic first visits, and radiology, 

laboratory, pharmacy, and dental services information. 

Annual

4

The IHS Tribal Self-Governance Program allows tribes and nonprofits to reprogram funding 

allocations within the limitations of appropriations laws as the tribe or nonprofit deems best 

to address their own health care needs and priorities. Pursuant to legislative reporting 

requirements, IHS receives information on health status and service delivery.
Appendix X

Program Summary for the Department of 

Health and Human Services 

Page 112 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

• health care facilities, including maintenance, improvement, and 

construction of health care and sanitation facilities. 

Examples of actual uses of program funds:

5

 IHS and the Alaska Native 

Tribal Health Consortium—a statewide Native health care provider—

collect information on health status and services delivery and compile this 

information into several different reports, including Alaska-specific reports 

such as the Statistical Summary of Workload reports and Annual 

Performance Contract information. The 2003 Annual Performance 

Contract states that grant recipients used program funds during this period 

to

• operate 7 tribal hospitals, 28 tribal health centers, and 176 tribal 

community health aide clinics; and

• provide 4,093 homes with water facilities, and 3,004 homes with 

wastewater facilities. 

The 2002 Statistical Summary of Workload states the following:

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

• there were 10,992 inpatient admissions (excluding newborns), an 

overall decrease of 802 admissions from fiscal year 2001; and

• there were 1,868 total newborn admissions (deliveries), a 6.65 

percent decrease from 2001. 

5

Over 95 percent of the funding for the operations described herein was provided under the 

Tribal Self-Governance Program. The remaining funds for these operations came from IHS’s 

Indian Self-Determination Program, which also provides funds that allow tribes to 

administer health programs. Some of the information in IHS’s published reports on health 

status and service delivery combines the uses from these two programs.

6

The tribal hospitals in Alaska (with location and number of hospital beds), as listed in the 

2002 Statistical Summary of Workload, are: Alaska Native Medical Center (Anchorage, 156 

beds); Kanakanak Hospital (Dillingham, 16 beds); Maniilaq Medical Center (Kotzebue, 17 

beds); Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital (Sitka, 49 beds); Norton Sound Regional Hospital (Nome, 19 

beds); Samuel Simmonds Memorial Hospital (Barrow, 14 beds); and Yukon-Kuskokwim 

Delta Hospital (Bethel, 50 beds). 
Appendix X

Program Summary for the Department of 

Health and Human Services 

Page 113 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

• there were 970,146 ambulatory care visits, a 2.2 percent increase 

from 2001;7

 

• in 2001, the most recent year available, contract medical8

 accounted 

for 1,939 hospital admissions, 7,181 hospital patient days, 128 

hospital births, and 60,741 outpatient clinic visits; and

• during 2002, adjusted health aide visits totaled 263,947 encounters, 

which was a 1.9 percent decrease from 2001.9

 

Funding mechanism: IHS provides funding directly to the compacting 

entity—that is, the regional Native health care nonprofit, Alaska Native 

village, or group of villages administering the health program. 

Restrictions on administrative costs: IHS does not have a standard limit 

on the amount of funding compacting tribes can spend on total 

administrative costs. Pursuant to tribal funding agreements, IHS provides 

funding for contract support payments—payments to compacting tribes to 

pay for some of tribes’ administrative costs. 

7

IHS defines an ambulatory care visit as an encounter between a patient and a health care 

provider in an organized clinic, medical center, or hospital within an IHS or tribal facility 

where service resulting from the encounter is not part of an inpatient stay. Services provided 

for these ambulatory visits include pharmacy, X-ray, and laboratory visits.

8

Contract medical care refers to services that are not available directly from IHS or tribes. 

These services are purchased under contract from community hospitals and practitioners. 

9

Tribal self-governance funds also were used for community health aide (CHA) program 

visits by individual patients. IHS does not total all CHA visits the same way, since some visits 

take longer than others. IHS counts the amount of community health aide hours required by 

specific kinds of visits. For example, IHS counts a patient encounter as taking 1 hour, a 

group health education presentation as taking 2 hours, and fluoride rinses as taking 6 

minutes.
Page 114 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XI

Program Summaries for the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development ApendxiXI

Subagency: Public and Indian Housing.

Program name: Indian Community Development Block Grant.

Authorization: Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 5306; 24 C.F.R. § 1003.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: Any Indian tribe, band, group, nation, or 

tribal organization, including Alaska Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, and any 

Alaska Native village that is eligible for assistance under the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act or that had been eligible 

under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. Tribal 

organizations are permitted to submit applications on behalf of eligible 

tribes when one or more eligible tribes authorize the organization to do so 

under concurring resolutions. The tribal organization must be eligible 

under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 

Act.

Program objectives: The objective of the Indian Community 

Development Block Grant (ICDBG) program is to provide assistance to 

Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages in the development of viable 

communities, including decent housing, a suitable living environment, and 

economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate 

income.

Application process: Applicants must file an application on forms 

prescribed by HUD that describes the community development need and 

how that need will be addressed by the proposed project. The applicant 

must provide sufficient information for the project to be rated against 

selection criteria. The rating criteria include the need of the project, 

soundness of approach, leveraging resources and comprehensiveness and 

coordination. The Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Area Office 

is responsible for administering the program and for notifying applicants of 

the results, which are done annually. 
Appendix XI

Program Summaries for the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development

Page 115 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Table 21: HUD Reporting Requirements for ICDBG Funding 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Indian tribes and Alaska Native 

villages may use block grants to improve the housing stock, provide 

community facilities, make infrastructure improvements, and expand job 

opportunities by supporting the economic development of their 

communities. Activities eligible for funding include housing rehabilitation 

programs, acquisition of land for housing, direct assistance to facilitate 

homeownership among low and moderate income persons, construction of 

tribal and other facilities for single or multiuse, streets and other public 

facilities, and economic development projects, particularly those by 

nonprofit tribal organizations or local development corporations when the 

recipient determines that the provision of such assistance is appropriate to 

carry out an economic development project. Tribes and Alaska Native 

villages are restricted from using block grants for construction and 

improvement of governmental facilities, the purchase of equipment, 

general government expenses, operating and maintenance expenses, 

political activities, new housing construction (except through communitybased development organizations), and income payments.

Actual uses of program funds: Eighty ICDBG grants were awarded from 

1998 through 2003, according to HUD documentation. These projects 

included: 21 health-related facilities (e.g., clinics, mental health, and 

primary care facilities); 35 community centers; 17 infrastructure projects 

Type Description Frequency 

Status and evaluation report Reports contain a narrative section to describe progress made in completing 

approved activities and expenditure of funds. If the project has been 

completed, an evaluation of how the project has been effective in meeting 

community development needs.

Annually

Federal Cash Transaction 

Report, Standard Form (SF) 

272

The report must be submitted to the area ONAP, accounting for funds 

received and disbursed by the recipient. 

Quarterly

Minority Business Enterprise 

Reports, 

HUD-2516

Recipients must submit the report on contract and subcontract activity. Biannually

Final status and evaluation 

report

Recipients must submit a narrative report identifying all expenditures spent 

on each activity and any remaining costs to be paid with ICDBG funds. 

Narrative must include an assessment of the effectiveness of the program in 

resolving or addressing the community need as described in the application.

Upon project completion

SF-269 A Final Financial Status Report must be submitted with the Final Status and 

Evaluation Report, which identifies all expenditures spent with ICDBG funds.

Upon project completion
Appendix XI

Program Summaries for the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development

Page 116 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

(e.g., fuel tanks and water and sewer systems); 6 housing-related projects 

(e.g., housing rehab, new construction and land acquisition for new 

housing), and one imminent threat grant. 

Funding mechanism: Funding goes directly from HUD to the grantees; 

from 1998 through 2003, according to HUD documentation, all but 1 of the 

80 grants went to Alaska Native villages, and that grant went to a joint 

venture between a village and regional Native health care nonprofit.

Restrictions on administrative costs: The program’s regulations state 

that no more than 20 percent of funds provided to a grantee may be used 

for administrative purposes. 
Appendix XI

Program Summaries for the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development

Page 117 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Program name: Indian Housing Block Grant. 

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

1000.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: Indian tribes or tribally designated housing 

entities (referred to throughout this appendix as housing authorities).

Program objectives: IHBG funds are used for affordable housing 

activities administered by tribes or housing authorities, while recognizing 

the right of tribal self-governance.

Application process: An eligible recipient must submit to HUD an Indian 

Housing Plan (IHP) each year to receive funding.

Table 22: HUD Reporting Requirements for IHBG Funding 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Indian Housing Block Grants can be 

used for a variety of eligible affordable housing activities, including 

modernization and operating assistance for U.S. Housing Act of 1937 

housing; new construction, acquisition or rehabilitation of renter- or owneroccupied housing; housing services, housing management, crime 

prevention and safety or model activities as described in the Indian 

Housing Plan. 

Type Description Frequency 

Financial Tribes and housing authorities are required to file a 

Federal Cash Transactions Report ONAP (HUD-272-I) 

that reports on expenditures of Indian Housing Block 

Grant (IHBG) and unobligated United States Housing 

Act of 1937 funding. 

Quarterly

Performance Tribes and housing authorities submit an IHP that 

identifies affordable housing goals and objectives 

specific to each activity the grantee plans to administer 

and an Annual Performance Report that details how 

grantees are progressing with implementation of their 

IHPs. 

Annually
Appendix XI

Program Summaries for the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development

Page 118 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Actual uses of program funds: The actual uses of IHBG funds from 1998 

through 2003 for Alaska Native recipients were as follows, according to 

HUD documentation: 

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

Source: HUD.

a

“Other uses” includes housing services, housing management services, crime prevention, model 

activities and unspent funds. 

Funding mechanism: HUD provides IHBG formula grants directly to 

Alaska Native tribes or their tribally designated housing entity. The IHBG 

funding formula considers two factors: (1) the needs of the grantee, and (2) 

the housing previously developed by HUD funding. Tribes may annually 

choose to receive IHBG funds and provide services directly to their 

members or tribes may choose to designate a housing entity to receive their 

IHBG funds and provide services on their behalf. Appropriations for 2004-

2005 included a provision limiting IHBG recipients in Alaska to those tribes 

or tribally designated housing entities that received funds in the previous 

fiscal year. Grantees do not have a matching funds requirement to qualify 

for the IHBG grant. The minimum grant award is $25,000. 

Restrictions on administrative costs: The IHBG program allows 

grantees to use up to 20 percent of the total grant amount for 

administrative costs. Administrative costs are taken out of the grant 

amount. 

Activity

Housing Development Current assisted stock

Rental 

new

construction

Rental

rehabilitation

Home

ownership

new

construction 

Home

ownership

rehabilitation Modernization Operating

Planning and

administration

Other

Usesa

Percentage 

of IHBG 

funds 

expended 5 1 22 10 12 10 11 29
Page 119 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XII

Program Summary for the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiXI

Subagency: Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Program name: Tribal Self-Governance Program.

Authorization: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 

as amended, 25 U.S.C. 458aa—458hh; 25 C.F.R. § 1000.1 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: Any federally recognized tribe that (1) 

formally requests, through a governing body action, participation in the 

Tribal Self-Governance Program; (2) demonstrates, for the previous 3 fiscal 

years, financial stability and financial management capability by furnishing 

organizationwide single audit reports for those 3 years that contain no 

uncorrected significant and material audit exceptions in the audit of the 

tribe’s self-determination contracts; and (3) successfully completes a 

planning phase, to the satisfaction of the tribe, that includes legal and 

budgetary research and internal tribal government planning and 

organizational preparation. If each tribe requests, two or more otherwise 

eligible tribes may be treated as a single tribe for the purpose of 

participating in self-governance as a consortium. 

Program objectives: To further the goals of Indian self-determination by 

providing funds to Indian tribes to administer a wide range of programs 

with maximum administrative and programmatic flexibility.

Application process: If a tribe is eligible and interested in entering the 

self-governance program, it sends a letter of intent to the Director of the 

Office of Tribal Self-Governance. The letter of intent must also include 

information about how self-governance will benefit the tribe.1

 Awards are 

not competitive; if a tribe is eligible, it may generally participate in the 

program. An annual funding agreement is negotiated between the 

participating tribe and the Secretary of the Interior consistent with federal 

laws and the tribal relationship. A tribe may also negotiate a multiyear 

funding agreement.

Reporting requirements: Interior requests tribes to submit information 

on funds spent by category (e.g., human services), amount, tribal goal, and 

progress toward tribal goal, for inclusion in the Secretary of the Interior’s 

1

If 50 other tribes nationally that meet the eligibility requirements have previously applied 

that year to become new compacting tribes, then additional eligible tribes applying would 

need to wait until the next fiscal year to participate.
Appendix XII

Program Summary for the Department of the 

Interior

Page 120 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Tribal Self-Governance Annual Report to Congress. Tribal submission of 

information for the Secretary’s annual report is optional, although agency 

officials and documentation noted that tribal self-governance data 

collection is important to the program. Most grantees in Alaska do not send 

such information to Interior; for 2003, for example, only six of the 

program’s 22 Alaskan grantees provided such information to Interior. 

Starting in fiscal year 2005, according to Interior officials, Alaska’s 22 

grantees agreed in their annual funding agreements to provide Interior with 

Government Performance and Results Act information, such as housing, 

environmental, training, technical assistance, and other uses of tribal selfgovernance funds. 

Allowable uses of program funds: Funds may be used by grantees to 

support programs previously administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

pursuant to the terms of annual funding agreements or for programs 

specifically authorized by federal statute, and may not be used for the 

operation of elementary and secondary schools or for community colleges. 

Under these agreements, grantees have the flexibility to redesign programs 

to meet local needs and priorities. Table 24 shows budget categories for 

tribal self-government allocations from Interior to program grantees. Many 

of the budget categories also contain more specific allocation areas.
Appendix XII

Program Summary for the Department of the 

Interior

Page 121 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

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

Examples of actual uses of program funds: Based on summaries 

submitted by grantees for Interior’s Tribal Self-Governance 2003 Annual 

Report to Congress, the following are examples of recent uses of tribal selfgovernance funds:

• In 2003, the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida used approximately 

$4.6 million for job placement and training for 2,084 tribal members 

through its various programs. The number of individuals receiving 

support services assistance totaled 1,472. Those services included direct 

employment, vocational rehabilitation, and employability assistance. 

The Central Council also provided transportation, work clothing, and 

tools to over 276 tribal members. One hundred seventy people received 

classroom training and 25 received on the job training. 

• In 2003, the Bristol Bay Native Association used approximately $2 

million for tribal government, including providing assistance in drafting 

and amending tribal constitutions, and developing and enhancing tribal 

Tribal 

governmentHuman 

services Education

Public 

safety 

and 

justice

Community 

development

Resource 

management

Trust 

services

General 

administration

Economic 

development

Other 

tribal 

programs

No 

specific 

budget 

allocation 

areas

Welfare 

assistance, 

including 

child 

welfare and 

disaster 

assistance

Johnson 

O’Malley 

(federal 

government 

program to 

provide 

education to 

American 

Indians and 

Alaska 

Natives)

Tribal 

courts

Housing 

improvement 

plan

Forestry Realty/

appraisals

Tribal annual 

audits

No specific 

budget 

allocation 

areas

No 

specific 

budget 

allocation 

areas

Indian 

Child 

Welfare Act

Scholarships 

and higher 

education

Law 

enforcement

Economic 

development 

loans

Fisheries Land 

surveys 

Child 

abuse and 

neglect

Adult 

education

Community fire 

protection

Roads Water 

resources/ 

rights

Agricultural/

minerals 

and 

grazing

Irrigation
Appendix XII

Program Summary for the Department of the 

Interior

Page 122 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

courts. Bristol Bay also used the funds to provide training for village 

administrators and village presidents and improve communications with 

the village. 

Funding mechanism: Interior provides funding directly to the grantee—

that is, the Alaska Native village, regional Native nonprofit, or group of 

villages administering the Tribal Self-Governance Program. Twelve Alaska 

Native villages, eight regional Native nonprofits, one group consisting of 

several other Alaska Native villages and one Indian reservation received 

self-governance funding in 2003. 

Restrictions on administrative costs: There are no specific restrictions 

on administrative costs. Pursuant to tribal funding agreements, Interior 

provides for contract support payments, which offset indirect and direct 

administrative costs. 
Page 123 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XIII

Program Summary for the Department of 

Justice ApendxXiI

Subagency: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Program name: Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Authorization: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 3796dd—3796dd-8.

Eligible program recipients: States, units of local government, federally 

recognized Indian tribal governments, U.S. territories or possessions 

(including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 

American Samoa, and the Mariana Islands), other public and private 

entities, and multijurisdictional or regional consortia thereof.

Program objectives: The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 

Office was created as a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994. Grants are to be made to increase police 

presence and improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement 

agencies and members of the community. Specifically COPS was 

established to accomplish numerous projects or activities, including the 

following:

• substantially increasing the number of law enforcement officers 

interacting directly with members of the community;

• providing additional and more effective training to law enforcement 

officers to enhance their problem solving, service, and other skills 

needed in interacting with members of the community; 

• encouraging the development and implementation of innovative 

programs to permit members of the community to assist state, federally 

recognized Indian tribal government, and local law enforcement 

agencies in the prevention of crime in the community; 

• encouraging the development of new technologies to assist state, 

federally recognized Indian tribal government, and local law 

enforcement agencies in reorienting the emphasis of their activities 

from reacting to crime to preventing crime; and

• establishing school-based partnerships between state and federally 

recognized Indian tribal government and local law enforcement 

agencies, and local school systems by using school resource officers to 
Appendix XIII

Program Summary for the Department of 

Justice 

Page 124 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

engage in community policing in and around elementary and secondary 

schools.

Application process: COPS grants are awarded on a competitive basis. 

Applications are submitted to COPS’s Grants Administration Division for 

approval and include a description of the proposed project and a priority 

ranking of specific needs requested in the grant proposal. In fiscal year 

2004, COPS received more than $60 million in grant requests and awarded 

available funds of about $25 million, nationwide. Typically awards are 

made to successful applicants based on the applicants’ ranking of needs at 

the time the grant request is submitted. Applicants may be denied any level 

of funding if they are under investigation by the U.S. Attorneys Office, in 

noncompliance under another COPS program, or not correcting 

deficiencies in their current application. 

Table 25: Justice Reporting Requirements for COPS Funding

Source: GAO analysis of Justice data.

Type Description Frequency 

Financial These reports reflect the actual federal monies spent, 

unliquidated obligations incurred, local matching contributions, 

and the unobligated balance of federal funds.

Quarterly, unless an extension is required or a 

waiver is granted.

Program progress 

reports

These reports request information about the status of the grant 

in terms of hiring, purchases, and progress achieved in 

implementing community policing.

Once per year during the grant funding period. 

Final progress reports This report serves as the final progress report and is used by 

COPS to make final assessment of grant progress.

As requested by COPS of grantees that have 

completed the grant period.

Final financial status 

report

The final financial status report should reflect the total amount 

of federal expenditures, the total amount of local matching, and 

the total amount of unobligated funds.

No later than 90 days after the end of the grant 

period, unless an extension is granted.

Surveys about hiring COPS may conduct these surveys via phone, fax, or letter to 

determine the number of officers hired and deployed into the 

community, policing roles, and timetable for when future hiring 

may occur. 

As requested.
Appendix XIII

Program Summary for the Department of 

Justice 

Page 125 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

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

of activities, including

• 36 months of entry-level salaries and benefits; 

• background investigations; 

• training;

• uniforms;

• basic equipment, such as handguns, holsters, and body armor;

• technology items, such as computers, software, automated booking 

systems, fingerprint identification systems, and GPS systems; and

• police cars.

Examples of actual uses of program funds: 

• Since its inception in 1994, COPS program grants have been used to add 

community policing officers to the nation’s streets and schools, enhance 

crime-fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and 

provide training and technical assistance to advance community 

policing. In the state of Alaska, COPS grants have been awarded to hire 

324 additional police officers and sheriff’s deputies, including about 100 

officers under the programs discussed below.

• COPS has created a series of programs to meet the needs of law 

enforcement in Native communities. The COPS Tribal Resources Grant 

Program is a broad, comprehensive program designed to meet law 

enforcement needs in Native communities. This program offers a variety 

of funding in areas such as hiring additional officers, law enforcement 

training, uniforms, basic-issue equipment, emerging technologies, and 

police vehicles. 

• COPS’s Universal Hiring Program (UHP) provides funding directly to 

local, state, and tribal jurisdictions for the salaries and benefits of newly 

hired officers engaged in community policing. COPS merged the COPS 

Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns and Accelerated Hiring, 

Education, and Deployment program functions into UHP in 1995, which 
Appendix XIII

Program Summary for the Department of 

Justice 

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

incorporated both of these previous initiatives into one centralized grant 

program. 

• The COPS in Schools (CIS) grant program is designed to help law 

enforcement agencies hire additional school resource officers to engage 

in community policing in and around primary and secondary schools. 

CIS provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build 

collaborative partnerships with the school community and to use 

community policing efforts to combat school violence.

• The Alaska State Patrol received technology grants beginning in 1999 

that benefited the Village Public Safety Officers of Alaska.

Funding mechanism: COPS provides grants to tribal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies up to 75 percent of the costs to hire and train 

community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crimefighting technologies, and develop and test innovative policing strategies.1

 

The CIS and technology grants do not require the 25 percent local match. 

Funds can be accessed by grantees using a phone system or electronically.2

Restrictions on administrative costs: 

According to the Grants Administration Division, administrative costs are 

not allowable under most COPS programs.

1

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

2

Specifically, grantees may request funds using one of two systems, the Phone Activated 

Paperless Request System or the Letter of Credit Electronic Certification System. 
Page 127 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XIV

Program Summary for the Department of 

Labor ApendxXiIV

Subagency: Employment and Training Administration.

Program name: Youth Opportunity Grants. 

Authorization: Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 

2914; 20 C.F.R. § 664.800 et seq.

Eligible program recipients: This program is no longer taking new 

applications for grants. The 5 years of funding for grantees, which began in 

2000, has already been completed, but most Youth Opportunity Grant 

program sites have some funds remaining that will allow them to provide a 

reduced level of programming for at least part of a sixth year. Eligible 

recipients included Native American and Alaska Native entities. Alaska 

Native applicants were required to be a Workforce Investment Act Section 

166 Native American Grantee, and the community the applicant served had 

to meet certain poverty rate criteria in the Internal Revenue Code and be an 

Alaska Native village as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act. Beneficiaries had to be youth between the ages of 14 and 21 

at the time they joined the program, and had to reside in the target area, 

without regard to income.

Program objectives: To increase the long-term employment of youth who 

live in empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and high poverty 

areas. Youth Opportunity Grants concentrate extensive resources in highpoverty areas in order to bring about communitywide impact on 

employment rates, high school completion rates, and college enrollment 

rates. 

Application process: The program was competitive, and there were not 

specific amounts of grants set aside for Native Americans. Proposals were 

reviewed by an independent panel, including both federal staff and peer 

reviewers; site visits were made to finalists. Panelists rated the proposals 

based on project design and service strategy, youth development and 

community services, dropout prevention, management and accountability, 

and need in the target area. Applications had to include both a technical 

proposal and a financial proposal, describing, for example, how the grantee 

would provide comprehensive services, where the services would be 

delivered, the staff numbers that would deliver the services, and the 

program’s activities. Grant awards were made for an initial period of 1 year, 

with up to 4 additional option years based on the availability of funds and 

satisfactory progress toward achieving the goals and objectives of the 

grant.
Appendix XIV

Program Summary for the Department of 

Labor

Page 128 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Table 26: Labor Reporting Requirements for Youth Opportunity Grant Funding

Source: GAO analysis of Labor data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Program funds can be used to provide 

comprehensive activities to eligible youth seeking assistance in achieving 

academic and employment success; activities include a variety of options 

for improving educational skill competencies and provide effective 

connections to employers; ongoing mentoring opportunities; training 

opportunities; continued support services for eligible youth; incentives for 

recognition and achievement to eligible youth; and youth development 

opportunities in activities related to leadership, development, decision 

making, citizenship, community service, and recreation. The enabling 

legislation also authorized the use of funds for intensive placement services 

and follow-up services for not less than 24 months after the completion of 

participation in the Youth Opportunity Grant programs. 

Examples of actual uses of program funds: According to Department of 

Labor documentation, a coalition of Alaska Native organizations that 

served the state of Alaska used program funds to set up youth opportunity 

community centers in 40 villages across Alaska. In each center, there were 

one or two youth development specialists who provided a variety of 

services. According to Labor documentation and officials, over 2,900 

Alaska Native youth participated in YO! Alaska programs, including 

Type Description Frequency 

Monthly program 

progress report

Shows current month, year to date, and cumulative participation by youth in the 

various types of youth programs, such as reading/math remediation. The 

reports also contain information about the impact of the program, such as the 

number of participants who have achieved a high school diploma, entered a 4-

year college, or completed vocational/technical school.

Monthly

Quarterly program 

progress report

For the quarter, reports include follow-up information on out-of-school, inschool, and total youth who had been enrolled in the program within the 

previous 24 months, and their work, school, or other status. This report is based 

on youth who have had a long-term placement in employment, postsecondary 

education, or long-term occupational skills training within the last 24 months. 

This is primarily a retention report.

Quarterly

Financial reports On OMB SF-269, these reports show total outlay of funds for both the quarter 

and cumulative, but do not report specifically for what the funds were used.

Quarterly

Financial and 

progress

Annual Updates to Application for Youth Opportunity Grant details the grantee’s 

budget and actual spending, including information on personnel, travel, and 

equipment costs, for example. The report also details aspects of program areas 

such as the educational and youth development components of the grant, 

among others.

Annual
Appendix XIV

Program Summary for the Department of 

Labor

Page 129 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

employment, community service, sports, recreation, education, and life 

skills programs.

Funding mechanism: Funding went directly from Labor to the grantees. In 

Alaska, the grantee was Cook Inlet Tribal Council, which was designated as 

the lead agency to apply for the grant by the Alaska Native Coalition on 

Employment and Training. This coalition was originally composed of 10 

Alaska Native regional nonprofits, two Alaska Native villages, and one 

other Native organization. That coalition selected Cook Inlet Tribal Council 

as the lead agency to apply for the Youth Opportunity Grant.

Restrictions on administrative costs: The program’s enabling 

legislation does not specifically limit administrative costs. However, 

Department of Labor officials informed us that they negotiated with 

grantees to keep administrative costs low. Grantees pay for administrative 

costs from the grant amount; no amount in addition to the grant is provided 

for reimbursement of administrative costs.
Page 130 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XV

Program Summary for the Department of 

Transportation ApendxiXV

Subagency: Federal Aviation Administration.

Program name: Airport Improvement Program. 

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

Eligible program recipients: States, counties (in Alaska, boroughs), 

municipalities, and other public agencies, including Indian tribes, are 

eligible for airport development grants if the airport is listed in the National 

Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, which identifies more than 3,300 

airports nationally that are significant to national air transportation. Grants 

for projects under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) are typically 

given only to publicly owned, public use airports, with a few exceptions. 

Recipients of grants are commonly called sponsors. Sponsors must meet 

basic qualifications set up by the Federal Aviation Administration to 

receive AIP grants. In addition, a sponsor must be legally, financially, and 

otherwise able to assume and carry out the assurances and obligations 

contained in the project application and grant agreement. 

Program objectives: The purpose of the AIP is to assist sponsors, owners, 

and operators of public-use airports in the development of a nationwide 

system of airports adequate to meet the needs of civil aeronautics. 

Application process: Applicants file an application on forms prescribed 

by DOT that describe the objective of the project, benefits of the project, 

and need for the project, among other things. The application also requires 

budget and financial information. The Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) selects projects on a 

competitive basis, and the Federal Aviation Administration oversees the 

Alaska DOTPF’s selection of projects for completion. The Alaska DOTPF 

awards AIP funding based on, among other criteria, safety improvements 

that the project would make, improving community access to basic 

necessities, economic benefits, and if the community has alternatives to air 

travel. This process takes place annually, and projects can take up to 3 to 4 

years to design, engineer, and build.

Allowable uses of program funds: Grants can be made for integrated 

airport system planning in a specific area; and airport master planning, 

construction, or rehabilitation at a public-use airport or portion thereof. 

Eligible work at airports consists of (1) airport master plans; (2) airport 

noise compatibility plans; (3) land acquisition; (4) site preparation; (5) 

construction, alteration, and rehabilitation of runways, taxiways, aprons, 
Appendix XV

Program Summary for the Department of 

Transportation

Page 131 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

and certain roads within airport boundaries; (6) construction and 

installation of airfield lighting, navigational aids, and certain off-site work; 

(7) safety equipment required for certification of airport facility; (8) 

security equipment required by the Secretary of Transportation; (9) snowremoval equipment; (10) terminal development; (11) aviation-related 

weather reporting equipment; (12) equipment to measure runway surface 

friction; (13) burn area training structures and land for that purpose; (14) 

agency-approved burn area training structures and land for that purpose; 

(15) relocation of air traffic control towers and navigational aids if they 

impede other projects funded by AIP; (16) land, paving, drainage, aircraft 

deicing equipment and structures for centralized deicing areas; and (17) 

projects to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Clean 

Air Act, and Federal Water Pollution Control. 

Table 27: DOT Reporting Requirements for AIP Funding

Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.

Type Description Frequency 

Performance Provides information on the grantee’s performance, including 

comparisons between the project’s accomplishments and the goals 

established for the period, reasons for not accomplishing planned 

goals in those cases where they have not been met, and other 

pertinent information, such as analysis and explanation of cost 

overruns or high unit costs.

Quarterly

Financial Grantees must file several financial reports that provide information 

on the total outlays of funds and obligations. These reports include 

the Financial Status Report on OMB SF 269, Federal Cash 

Transactions Report (OMB SF 272), and Request for Reimbursement 

(OMB SF 270). 

Annually, unless requested by AIP 

officials to be more frequent.

Grantees must file final financial status report showing fund 

expenditures.

Within 90 days of the end of the project
Appendix XV

Program Summary for the Department of 

Transportation

Page 132 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Examples of actual uses of program funds: In general terms, the AIP 

uses its funding for airport planning and development. The AIP tracks its 

spending by three categories: purpose of the project (the underlying 

objective of the project, such as airport reconstruction), the physical 

component of the project (e.g., a runway), and the type of the project (the 

work being done, such as a runway extension). Based on GAO analysis of 

agency data, from 1999 through 2004, DOT provided funding for 310 grants 

that benefited Alaska Native villages and villages that are located within the 

boundaries of incorporated cities.1

 According to AIP documentation, some 

recent examples of grant uses:

• In 2002, Alaska’s Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 

used grants totaling $8.3 million for airport improvements in the Alaska 

Native village of Iliamna, including $6.4 million to strengthen the 

runway.

• In 2003, the Native Village of Venetie used grants totaling about $6 

million to construct a new airport and a snow-removal equipment 

building.

• In 2004, Alaska’s Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 

used grants totaling $257,000 to rehabilitate the seaplane base in the 

Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve. 

Funding mechanism: From 1999 through 2004, based on GAO analysis of 

AIP data, AIP provided the vast majority of its Alaska funding to the state of 

Alaska, which oversaw projects through the DOTPF. The DOTPF received 

91 percent of the funding that benefited Alaska Native villages or villages 

that are located within the boundaries of incorporated cities. The 

remainder was provided directly to Alaska Native villages, incorporated 

cities encompassing Alaska Native villages, and boroughs, where the 

borough sponsored the airport benefiting from the project and that airport 

1

The Airport Improvement Program provides grants that benefit both Alaska Native villages 

as well as other areas. The projects referred to herein were categorized by GAO as 

benefiting Alaska Native villages or villages that are located within the boundaries of 

incorporated cities; non-Alaska Natives living in those areas would benefit from those 

projects as well. Additionally, grants that were made to benefit airports in larger locations, 

such as Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks, were not included, though Alaska Natives 

traveling to those locations could benefit from those projects. Some of these projects have 

not been completed, as completion of some projects can take as long as 4 years. 
Appendix XV

Program Summary for the Department of 

Transportation

Page 133 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

was located in an Alaska Native village or village located within the 

boundaries of an incorporated city. 

Restrictions on administrative costs: According to agency officials, the 

AIP limits the amount of indirect administrative costs that Alaska’s DOTPF 

can recover to 4.8 percent of the total AIP grants to the state; in 2003, the 

actual rate for indirect costs was less than 3 percent. DOT’s Federal 

Highway Administration adjusts that limit each year. Administrative costs 

are paid for from the grant, rather than given by AIP in addition to the AIP 

grant.
Page 134 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XVI

Program Summary for the Environmental 

Protection Agency ApendxXiVI

Subagency: Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Office.

Program name: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program. 

Authorization: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act of 

1992, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4368b; 40 C.F.R. Part 35, Subpart B.

Eligible program recipients: Alaska Native or American Indian tribal 

government or intertribal consortium.

Program objectives: The primary purpose of the Indian Environmental 

General Assistance Program (IGAP) is to support the development of a 

core tribal environmental protection program. IGAP is intended to help 

Alaska Native and American Indian tribes build their capacity to administer 

environmental programs and address environmental problems on Indian 

land.

Application process: Tribes and consortia in Alaska submit applications 

to EPA’s Alaska Operations Office on forms prescribed by EPA. Each IGAP 

application must include a description of the tribe’s environmental needs 

and goals, a work plan to accomplish those goals, and identification of 

grant outputs and outcomes. IGAP applicants must specify how they will 

spend the IGAP funds prior to receiving the IGAP grant. EPA evaluates 

proposals based on the completeness of the application, demonstration of 

risks and benefits to human health and the environment, the nature and 

quality of activities intended to build tribal capacity to address long-term 

environmental risks and needs, and management capability and past 

performance, if applicable. IGAP grants are not competitive grants; funding 

is available to all eligible tribes that demonstrate the capability to 

successfully manage a grant. EPA bases award amounts on fund 

availability, the number of eligible tribes and consortia applying, and the 

amount of any funds remaining in existing IGAP grants. IGAP project 

periods cannot exceed 4 years. 
Appendix XVI

Program Summary for the Environmental 

Protection Agency

Page 135 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Table 28: EPA Reporting Requirements for IGAP Funding 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

Allowable uses of program funds: Grantees are permitted to spend 

IGAP funds on planning, developing, and establishing tribal capability to 

implement environmental protection programs, as well as implementation 

of solid and hazardous waste programs. 

Examples of actual uses of program funds: Approximately 140 Alaska 

Native tribes are currently using EPA’s Indian General Assistance Program 

to build their capacity to implement environmental protection programs, 

including development and implementation of solid and hazardous waste 

programs, according to EPA officials and documentation. Generally, 

according to EPA officials and documentation, Alaska Natives often use 

IGAP grants to complete some of the following tasks: 

• establishing an environmental office, through, among other steps, hiring 

and training staff and purchasing office equipment;

• conducting an administrative review of tribal policies and procedures to 

ensure compliance with federal regulations and circulars; 

• establishing the administrative, legal, technical, and implementation 

capability of the tribe to develop and operate a tribal environmental 

program;

• assessing and prioritizing environmental concerns and developing a 

strategic plan to address problems;

• implementing recycling and household hazardous waste removal 

programs, which typically include aluminum cans, batteries, used 

appliances, junk cars, used oil, and solvents; 

Type Description Frequency

Performance and financial Grantees must file performance reports that include information on the 

progress made on the grant’s projects, by specific task, milestones reached, 

any problems the grantee had along with actions taken to overcome those 

problems, and state financial expenditure information.

Quarterly

Financial Financial Status Reports on OMB SF 269, which show the total outlay of funds 

for the year, but do not report specifically for what the funds were used.

Annual

Final financial status report showing fund expenditures. Once, within 90 days of the 

end of the project
Appendix XVI

Program Summary for the Environmental 

Protection Agency

Page 136 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

• developing and implementing integrated and sustainable solid waste 

management programs; 

• cleanup and closure of unregulated dumps;

• acquiring training in environmental program priority areas (e.g., water, 

waste, pollution prevention, alternative energy, environmental 

emergency response);

• training and working with tribally elected officials on EPA programs, 

environmental regulations, and effective intergovernmental 

coordination;

• identifying and performing baseline assessments of sources of pollution 

(water quality sampling, air quality emissions inventories, and waste 

stream analysis);

• establishing a tribal communications capability and technical expertise 

to work with federal, state, local, tribal, and other environmental 

officials; and

• increasing communities’ environmental awareness.

Additionally, EPA provided GAO with “success stories” highlighting 

specific examples of how IGAP funds have been used. Following are some 

examples:

• In 2003, the Gwich’yaa Zhee (Fort Yukon) IGAP program participated in 

the household hazardous waste back haul with Yutana barge lines, and 

back hauled 93 lead-acid batteries, 63 drums of waste oil, eight old 

vehicles, and 318 pounds of aluminum cans to be recycled. 

• In 2003, the Goodnews Bay IGAP program sent a person to a Solid Waste 

Workshop, completed feasibility studies on the local dump, and started 

the process of getting a permit and draft management plans approved by 

the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to get a new 

landfill. Goodnews Bay also said that the IGAP program provided the 

community with environmental education, awareness, increased 

capacity to apply for other grants, and jobs.

• From 2000 through 2003, the Ugashik IGAP program set up a monitored 

collection site for recycled and reuse products and worked more closely 
Appendix XVI

Program Summary for the Environmental 

Protection Agency

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

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

Council.

• In 1999, The Aleut Community of St. Paul Island IGAP program 

developed a Village Environmental Planning Survey and in 2000 began 

working on a Specific Action Plan, focusing on addressing the 

community’s solid and hazardous waste issues and educating the 

community on a variety of environmental issues. The IGAP program 

reported its top three accomplishments as: (1) establishment of a 

department within the tribal government of St. Paul to address current 

and ongoing environmental issues in the community; (2) signing the 

Tribal Environmental Agreement with EPA in 2000, and (3) 

establishment and implantation of a recycling program. 

Funding mechanism: IGAP grants go directly from EPA to the Alaska 

Native tribes and tribal consortia that run the programs.

Restrictions on administrative costs: Grantees use indirect cost rates 

approved by the Department of the Interior where a grantee has such a 

rate.1

 Where a grantee does not have a rate, it typically includes all 

administrative costs as direct costs, negotiating with EPA the portion of 

overhead costs allocable to IGAP. There is no programwide limit on total 

administrative costs. Direct and indirect administrative costs are provided 

as part of the grant, rather than given by EPA in addition to the IGAP grant.

1

An indirect cost rate is established for an entity by determining the percentage that indirect 

costs represent of all costs. The indirect cost rate is then used by federal agencies to 

determine how much money from a federal grant the entity will recover for the indirect 

costs of administering the grant. 
Page 138 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages ApendxiXVI

1

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

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

Alaska Native Communities

Introduction 

In response to a mandate contained in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) is 

conducting a survey of all entities in Alaska who 

have received grants under the Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 

1996 (NAHASDA), as amended. GAO is 

collecting this information from grant recipients 

who received funds between 1998 and 2003 and 

used them to construct, acquire, or rehabilitate 

single-family units or multi-family properties 

during that period. 

The purpose of this survey is to determine the cost 

of housing newly constructed, acquired, or 

rehabilitated with NAHASDA grants in Alaska 

Native communities, including when NAHASDA 

grants were used in combination with other 

sources of funding. Results of the survey will be 

used in our report to the Congress, and will help 

them understand the costs of providing affordable 

housing in Alaska Native communities. 

Instructions

Please complete the following sections on housing 

activities pertaining to: new construction of singlefamily units, rehabilitation of existing single-family 

units with acquisition, rehabilitation of existing 

single-family units without acquisition, and 

completion of multi-family property development. 

Please return the questionnaire within 2 weeks of 

receipt. Complete this survey in MS Word, save it, 

and return it to this email address as an attachment. 

If you prefer to print out the questionnaire and fax 

return or post-mail it, you may. You may contact us 

for a business reply envelope, or you may fax or 

mail the questionnaire back to us at: 

Dan Meyer 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

200 W. Adams Street, #700 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(202) 512-2502 or (202) 512-2514 FAX 

Please also retain a copy of the 

questionnaire for your records. 

If you have any questions please contact: Brodi 

Fontenot (202-512-8279, fontenotb@gao.gov) or 

James Vitarello (202-512-5119, 

vitarelloj@gao.gov). 

Please use your mouse to navigate throughout the 

questionnaire by clicking on the gray-shaded answer 

box or check box that you wish to answer. To 

answer a question that requires you to write a 

number, click on the answer box (___) and begin 

typing. Do not enter dollar signs or commas. Do 

not use the enter key to end a line. To select a check 

box (), click or double-click on the center of the 

box. To change or deselect a response, click on the 

check box and the “x” should disappear. 

Do not “unlock” this document, because it will erase 

your answers. If you wish to include comments 

about a particular question(s), include the comment 

with the question number at the end of the 

questionnaire. 

While completing this survey, please save your document often as 

you work. 

Thank you very much for your time and 

assistance! 
Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages

Page 139 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

2

1. Please provide the following information for the individual(s) completing this questionnaire, so that we may 

call to clarify information if necessary. The answer boxes will expand. 

Name 

Title 

Village 

Address 

Address 

(Area Code) Phone Number 

E-mail Address 

The following sections will ask you about: 

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

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

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

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

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages

Page 140 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

3

NEW CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS 

2. Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years 1998 

through 2003, did your village complete any new construction of single-family units using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with 

other funds? Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 2a

 No, SKIP to Question 3 

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 3 
Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages

Page 141 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

4

2a. If yes, how many single-family units of the following sizes were completed, and what were the combined 

square footages and total development costs for all units for each calendar year? (Please enter numbers in 

each box, including “0” if none. Please do not enter commas.)

Bedroom 

Size 

Total Number of 

Completed Units 

by Bedroom Size 

(A unit is completed 

when it is available 

for occupancy.) 

Combined Square 

Footage for All 

Completed Units by 

Bedroom Size 

Total Development Costs 

by Bedroom Size 

(Includes costs for administration, planning, site 

acquisition, demolition, construction, and/or 

equipment and financing (including payment of 

carrying charges) and other necessary costs, such as 

shipping costs or the Alaska Building Energy 

Efficiency Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes offsite costs for water, sewers, and roads. Include all 

costs associated with unit completion even if some 

costs were incurred in previous calendar years.)

Calendar Year of Completion: 1998 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 1999 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2000 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2001 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2002 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2003 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 
Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages

Page 142 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

5

REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS WITH ACQUISITION 

3. Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or 

owned homes. During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your village complete any rehabilitation of 

existing single-family units where the unit(s) was/were acquired using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in 

combination with other funds? Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 3a 

 No, SKIP to Question 4

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 4 
Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages

Page 143 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

6

3a. If yes, how many single-family units of the following sizes were completed, and what were the combined 

square footages and total development costs for all units for each calendar year? (Please enter numbers in 

each box, including “0” if none. Please do not enter commas.) 

Bedroom 

Size 

Total Number of 

Completed Units 

by Bedroom Size 

(A unit is completed 

when it is available 

for occupancy.) 

Combined Square 

Footage for All 

Completed Units by 

Bedroom Size 

Total Development Costs 

by Bedroom Size 

(Includes costs for administration, planning, site 

acquisition, single-family unit acquisition, 

demolition, construction, and/or equipment and 

financing (including payment of carrying charges) 

and other necessary costs, such as shipping costs or 

the Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standards 

(BEES) costs. Excludes off-site costs for water, 

sewers, and roads. Include all costs associated with 

unit completion even if some costs were incurred in 

previous calendar years.)

Calendar Year of Completion: 1998 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 1999 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2000 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2001 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2002 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2003 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 
Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages

Page 144 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

7

REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS WITHOUT ACQUISITION 

4. Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or 

owned homes. During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your village complete any rehabilitation of 

existing single-family units where the rehabilitation did not require the purchase of the unit(s) using 

NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 4a 

 No, SKIP to Question 5

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 5 
Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages

Page 145 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

8

4a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many single-family units were completed, and what were total 

development costs for all units? (Please enter numbers in each box, including “0” if none. Please do not enter 

commas.)

Calendar Year 

of Completion 

(January 1 to 

December 31) 

Total Number of Completed Units 

(A unit is completed when it is available for 

occupancy.) 

Total Development Costs 

(Includes costs for administration, planning, 

site acquisition, demolition, construction, 

and/or equipment and financing (including 

payment of carrying charges) and other 

necessary costs, such as shipping costs or the 

Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standards 

(BEES) costs. Excludes off-site costs for 

water, sewers, and roads. Include all costs 

associated with unit completion even if some 

costs were incurred in previous calendar 

years.)

Rehabilitation Costing $20,000 or More Per Unit 

1998 units $ 

1999 units $ 

2000 units $ 

2001 units $ 

2002 units $ 

2003 units $ 

Rehabilitation Costing Less Than $20,000 Per Unit 

1998 units $ 

1999 units $ 

2000 units $ 

2001 units $ 

2002 units $ 

2003 units $ 
Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages

Page 146 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

9

COMPLETION OF MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT 

5. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented or owned 

homes. During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your village complete any new construction of 

multi-family properties using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please 

check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 5a

 No, SKIP to Question 6

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 6 

5a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and what were the 

combined square footages and total development costs for all properties? (Please enter numbers in 

each box, including “0” if none. Please do not enter commas.) 

Calendar 

Year of 

Completion 

(January 1 to 

December 31) 

Total Number of 

Completed 

Multi-family Properties 

(A multifamily property is 

completed when it is 

available for occupancy.) 

Combined Square 

Footage for All 

Properties 

Total Development Costs for 

All Properties 

(Includes costs for administration, 

planning, site acquisition, 

demolition, construction, and/or 

equipment and financing 

(including payment of carrying 

charges) and other necessary costs, 

such as shipping costs or the 

Alaska Building Energy Efficiency 

Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes 

off-site costs for water, sewers, and 

roads. Include all costs associated 

with unit completion even if some 

costs were incurred in previous 

calendar years.)

1998 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

1999 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2000 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2001 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2002 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2003 properties Sq. Ft. $ 
Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages

Page 147 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

10

6. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented or owned 

homes. During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your village complete any rehabilitation of existing 

multi-family properties where property was acquired using NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in 

combination with other funds? Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 6a 

 No, SKIP to Question 7

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 7 

6a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and what were the 

combined square footages and total development costs for all properties? (Please enter numbers in 

each box, including “0” if none. Please do not enter commas.) 

Calendar 

Year of 

Completion 

(January 1 to 

December 31) 

Total Number of 

Completed 

Multi-family Properties 

(A multifamily property is 

completed when it is 

available for occupancy.) 

Combined Square 

Footage for All 

Properties 

Total Development Costs for 

All Properties 

(Includes costs for administration, 

planning, multi-family property 

acquisition, site acquisition, 

demolition, construction, and/or 

equipment and financing 

(including payment of carrying 

charges) and other necessary costs, 

such as shipping costs or the 

Alaska Building Energy Efficiency 

Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes 

off-site costs for water, sewers, and 

roads. Include all costs associated 

with unit completion even if some 

costs were incurred in previous 

calendar years.)

1998 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

1999 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2000 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2001 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2002 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2003 properties Sq. Ft. $ 
Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages

Page 148 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

11

7. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented or owned 

homes. During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your village complete any rehabilitation of existing 

multi-family properties where the rehabilitation did not require the purchase of property using 

NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 7a 

 No, SKIP to Question 8

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 8 

7a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and what were total 

development costs for all properties? (Please enter numbers in each box, including “0” if none. Please 

do not enter commas.) 

Calendar 

Year of 

Completion 

(January 1 to 

December 31) 

Total Number of Completed 

Multi-family Properties 

(A multifamily property is completed 

when it is available for occupancy.) 

Total Development Costs for All 

Properties 

(Includes costs for administration, 

planning, site acquisition, demolition, 

construction, and/or equipment and 

financing (including payment of 

carrying charges) and other necessary 

costs, such as shipping costs or the 

Alaska Building Energy Efficiency 

Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes 

off-site costs for water, sewers, and 

roads. Include all costs associated 

with unit completion even if some 

costs were incurred in previous 

calendar years.)

1998 properties $ 

1999 properties $ 

2000 properties $ 

2001 properties $ 

2002 properties $ 

2003 properties $ 
Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages

Page 149 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

12

8. Did your village construct, acquire, or rehabilitate single-family units and/or multi-family properties in the 

geographic area(s) corresponding to the following ANCSA non-profit regions during calendar years 1998 through 

2003? Please check all that apply. 

 Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association 

 Arctic Slope Native Association 

 Association of Village Council Presidents 

 Bristol Bay Native Association 

 Central Council 

 Chugachmiut 

 Cook Inlet Tribal Council 

 Copper River Native Association 

 Fairbanks Native Association 

 Kawerak, Incorporated 

 Kodiak Area Native Association 

 Maniilaq Association 

 Other, please specify: 

9. In what Annual Performance Report (APR) “Table II Activity” did your village include costs for your staff and 

administration for each of the following years? Please check one for each row 

Reporting 

Year Development Planning and Administration Other Don’t know 

1998

Please, specify: 

 

1999

Please, specify: 

 

2000

Please, specify: 

 

2001

Please, specify: 

 

2002

Please, specify: 

 

2003

Please, specify: 

 
Appendix XVII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native 

Villages

Page 150 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

13

10. Please provide any additional comments below. The answer box will expand.
Page 151 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally 

Designated Housing Entities ApendxiXVI

 1

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Survey of Alaska Tribally Designated Housing Entities on Housing Developed and Modernized 

with NAHASDA funds in Alaska Native Communities

Introduction 

In response to a mandate contained in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) is 

conducting a survey of all entities in Alaska who 

have received grants under the Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 

1996 (NAHASDA), as amended. GAO is 

collecting this information from grant recipients 

who received funds between 1998 and 2003 and 

used them to construct, acquire, rehabilitate, or 

modernize single-family units or multi-family 

properties during that period. 

The purpose of this survey is to determine the cost 

of housing newly constructed, acquired, 

rehabilitated, or modernized with NAHASDA grants 

in Alaska Native communities, including when 

NAHASDA grants were used in combination with 

other sources of funding. Results of the survey 

will be used in our report to the Congress, and will 

help them understand the costs of providing 

affordable housing in Alaska Native communities. 

Instructions

Please complete the following sections on housing 

activities pertaining to: new construction of singlefamily units, rehabilitation of existing single-family 

units with acquisition, rehabilitation of existing 

single-family units without acquisition, 

modernization of single-family units, and 

completion of multi-family property development. 

Please return the questionnaire within 2 weeks of 

receipt. Complete this survey in MS Word, save it, 

and return it to this email address as an attachment. 

If you prefer to print out the questionnaire and fax 

return or post-mail it, you may. You may contact us 

for a business reply envelope, or you may fax or 

mail the questionnaire back to us at: 

Dan Meyer 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

200 W. Adams Street, #700 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(202) 512-2502 or (202) 512-2514 FAX 

Please also retain a copy of the 

questionnaire for your records. 

If you have any questions please contact: Brodi 

Fontenot (202-512-8279, fontenotb@gao.gov) or 

James Vitarello (202-512-5119, 

vitarelloj@gao.gov). 

Please use your mouse to navigate throughout the 

questionnaire by clicking on the gray-shaded answer 

box or check box that you wish to answer. To 

answer a question that requires you to write a 

number, click on the answer box (___) and begin 

typing. Do not enter dollar signs or commas. Do 

not use the enter key to end a line. To select a check 

box (), click or double-click on the center of the 

box. To change or deselect a response, click on the 

check box and the “x” should disappear. 

Do not “unlock” this document, because it will erase 

your answers. If you wish to include comments 

about a particular question(s), include the comment 

with the question number at the end of the 

questionnaire. 

While completing this survey, please save your document often as 

you work. 

Thank you very much for your time and 

assistance! 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 152 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 2

1. Please provide the following information for the individual(s) completing this questionnaire, so that we may 

call to clarify information if necessary. The answer boxes will expand. 

Name 

Title 

Tribally Designated Housing Entity 

Address 

Address 

(Area Code) Phone Number 

E-mail Address 

The following sections will ask you about: 

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

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

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

Modernization of single-family units (Question #5) 

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

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 153 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 3

NEW CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS 

2. Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or owned homes. During calendar years 1998 

through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) complete any new construction of single-family units using NAHASDA funds 

exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 2a

 No, SKIP to Question 3 

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 3 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 154 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 4

2a. If yes, how many single-family units of the following sizes were completed, and what were the combined 

square footages and total development costs for all units for each calendar year? (Please enter numbers in 

each box, including “0” if none. Please do not enter commas.)

Bedroom 

Size 

Total Number of 

Completed Units 

by Bedroom Size 

(A unit is completed 

when it is available 

for occupancy.) 

Combined Square 

Footage for All 

Completed Units by 

Bedroom Size 

Total Development Costs 

by Bedroom Size 

(Includes costs for administration, planning, site 

acquisition, demolition, construction, and/or 

equipment and financing (including payment of 

carrying charges) and other necessary costs, such as 

shipping costs or the Alaska Building Energy 

Efficiency Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes offsite costs for water, sewers, and roads. Include all 

costs associated with unit completion even if some 

costs were incurred in previous calendar years.)

Calendar Year of Completion: 1998 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 1999 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2000 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2001 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2002 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2003 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 155 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 5

REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS WITH ACQUISITION 

3. Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or 

owned homes. During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity 

(TDHE) complete any rehabilitation of existing single-family units where the unit(s) was/were acquired 

using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 3a 

 No, SKIP to Question 4

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 4 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 156 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 6

3a. If yes, how many single-family units of the following sizes were completed, and what were the combined 

square footages and total development costs for all units for each calendar year? (Please enter numbers in 

each box, including “0” if none. Please do not enter commas.) 

Bedroom 

Size 

Total Number of 

Completed Units 

by Bedroom Size 

(A unit is completed 

when it is available 

for occupancy.) 

Combined Square 

Footage for All 

Completed Units by 

Bedroom Size 

Total Development Costs 

by Bedroom Size 

(Includes costs for administration, planning, site 

acquisition, single-family unit acquisition, 

demolition, construction, and/or equipment and 

financing (including payment of carrying charges) 

and other necessary costs, such as shipping costs or 

the Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standards 

(BEES) costs. Excludes off-site costs for water, 

sewers, and roads. Include all costs associated with 

unit completion even if some costs were incurred in 

previous calendar years.)

Calendar Year of Completion: 1998 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 1999 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2000 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2001 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2002 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

Calendar Year of Completion: 2003 (January 1 to December 31) 

1-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

2-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

3-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 

4-Bedroom units Sq. Ft. $ 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 157 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 7

REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS WITHOUT ACQUISITION 

4. Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or 

owned homes. During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity 

(TDHE) complete any rehabilitation of existing single-family units where the rehabilitation did not require

the purchase of the unit(s) using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? (Do not

include modernized U.S. Housing Act of 1937 single-family units.) Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 4a 

 No, SKIP to Question 5

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 5 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 158 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 8

4a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many single-family units were completed, and what were the total 

development costs for all units? (Please enter numbers in each box, including “0” if none. Please do not enter 

commas.)

Calendar Year 

of Completion 

(January 1 to 

December 31) 

Total Number of Completed Units 

(A unit is completed when it is available for 

occupancy.) 

Total Development Costs 

(Includes costs for administration, planning, 

site acquisition, demolition, construction, 

and/or equipment and financing (including 

payment of carrying charges) and other 

necessary costs, such as shipping costs or the 

Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standards 

(BEES) costs. Excludes off-site costs for 

water, sewers, and roads. Include all costs 

associated with unit completion even if some 

costs were incurred in previous calendar 

years.)

Rehabilitation Costing $20,000 or More Per Unit 

1998 units $ 

1999 units $ 

2000 units $ 

2001 units $ 

2002 units $ 

2003 units $ 

Rehabilitation Costing Less Than $20,000 Per Unit 

1998 units $ 

1999 units $ 

2000 units $ 

2001 units $ 

2002 units $ 

2003 units $ 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 159 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 9

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

5. Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or 

owned homes. During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity 

(TDHE) complete any modernization of U.S. Housing Act of 1937 single-family units using 

NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? (Do not include rehabilitated singlefamily units.) Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 5a 

 No, SKIP to Question 6

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 6 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 160 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 10

5a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many single-family units were completed, and what were the total 

development costs for all units? (Please enter numbers in each box, including “0” if none. Please do not enter 

commas.)

Calendar Year 

of Completion 

(January 1 to 

December 31) 

Total Number of Completed Units 

(A unit is completed when it is available for 

occupancy.) 

Total Development Costs 

(Includes costs for administration, planning, 

site acquisition, demolition, construction, 

and/or equipment and financing (including 

payment of carrying charges) and other 

necessary costs, such as shipping costs or the 

Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standards 

(BEES) costs. Excludes off-site costs for 

water, sewers, and roads. Include all costs 

associated with unit completion even if some 

costs were incurred in previous calendar 

years.)

Modernization Costing $20,000 or More Per Unit 

1998 units $ 

1999 units $ 

2000 units $ 

2001 units $ 

2002 units $ 

2003 units $ 

Modernization Costing Less Than $20,000 Per Unit 

1998 units $ 

1999 units $ 

2000 units $ 

2001 units $ 

2002 units $ 

2003 units $ 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 161 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 11

COMPLETION OF MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT 

6. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented or owned 

homes. During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) 

complete any new construction of multi-family properties using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in 

combination with other funds? Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 6a

 No, SKIP to Question 7

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 7 

6a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and what were the 

combined square footages and total development costs for all properties? (Please enter numbers in 

each box, including “0” if none. Please do not enter commas.) 

Calendar 

Year of 

Completion 

(January 1 to 

December 31) 

Total Number of 

Completed 

Multi-family Properties 

(A multifamily property is 

completed when it is 

available for occupancy.) 

Combined Square 

Footage for All 

Properties 

Total Development Costs for 

All Properties 

(Includes costs for administration, 

planning, site acquisition, 

demolition, construction, and/or 

equipment and financing 

(including payment of carrying 

charges) and other necessary costs, 

such as shipping costs or the 

Alaska Building Energy Efficiency 

Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes 

off-site costs for water, sewers, and 

roads. Include all costs associated 

with unit completion even if some 

costs were incurred in previous 

calendar years.)

1998 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

1999 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2000 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2001 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2002 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2003 properties Sq. Ft. $ 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 162 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 12

7. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented or owned 

homes. During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) 

complete any rehabilitation of existing multi-family properties where property was acquired using 

NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 7a 

 No, SKIP to Question 8

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 8 

7a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and what were the 

combined square footages and total development costs for all properties? (Please enter numbers in 

each box, including “0” if none. Please do not enter commas.) 

Calendar 

Year of 

Completion 

(January 1 to 

December 31) 

Total Number of 

Completed 

Multi-family Properties 

(A multifamily property is 

completed when it is 

available for occupancy.) 

Combined Square 

Footage for All 

Properties 

Total Development Costs for 

All Properties 

(Includes costs for administration, 

planning, multi-family property 

acquisition, site acquisition, 

demolition, construction, and/or 

equipment and financing 

(including payment of carrying 

charges) and other necessary costs, 

such as shipping costs or the 

Alaska Building Energy Efficiency 

Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes 

off-site costs for water, sewers, and 

roads. Include all costs associated 

with unit completion even if some 

costs were incurred in previous 

calendar years.)

1998 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

1999 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2000 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2001 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2002 properties Sq. Ft. $ 

2003 properties Sq. Ft. $ 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 163 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 13

8. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented or owned 

homes. During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) 

complete any rehabilitation of existing multi-family properties where the rehabilitation did not require the 

purchase of property using NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in combination with other funds? (Do 

not include modernized U.S. Housing Act of 1937 multi-family properties.) Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 8a 

 No, SKIP to Question 9

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 9 

8a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and what were the 

total development costs for all properties? (Please enter numbers in each box, including “0” if none. 

Please do not enter commas.) 

Calendar 

Year of 

Completion 

(January 1 to 

December 31) 

Total Number of Completed 

Multi-family Properties 

(A multifamily property is completed 

when it is available for occupancy.) 

Total Development Costs for All 

Properties 

(Includes costs for administration, 

planning, site acquisition, demolition, 

construction, and/or equipment and 

financing (including payment of 

carrying charges) and other necessary 

costs, such as shipping costs or the 

Alaska Building Energy Efficiency 

Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes 

off-site costs for water, sewers, and 

roads. Include all costs associated 

with unit completion even if some 

costs were incurred in previous 

calendar years.)

1998 properties $ 

1999 properties $ 

2000 properties $ 

2001 properties $ 

2002 properties $ 

2003 properties $ 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 164 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 14

9. Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented 

or owned homes. During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated 

Housing Entity (TDHE) complete any modernization of U.S. Housing Act of 1937 multi-family 

properties using NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in combination with other funds? (Do 

not include rehabilitated multi-family properties.) Please check your response.

 Yes, Continue to Question 9a 

 No, SKIP to Question 10

 Don’t know, SKIP to Question 10 

9a. If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and 

what were the total development costs for all properties? (Please enter numbers in each 

box, including “0” if none. Please do not enter commas.) 

Calendar 

Year of 

Completion 

(January 1 to 

December 31) 

Total Number of Completed 

Multi-family Properties 

(A multifamily property is completed 

when it is available for occupancy.) 

Total Development Costs for All 

Properties 

(Includes costs for administration, 

planning, site acquisition, demolition, 

construction, and/or equipment and 

financing (including payment of 

carrying charges) and other necessary 

costs, such as shipping costs or the 

Alaska Building Energy Efficiency 

Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes 

off-site costs for water, sewers, and 

roads. Include all costs associated 

with unit completion even if some 

costs were incurred in previous 

calendar years.)

1998 properties $ 

1999 properties $ 

2000 properties $ 

2001 properties $ 

2002 properties $ 

2003 properties $ 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 165 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 15

10. Did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) construct, acquire, rehabilitate, or 

modernize single-family units and/or multi-family properties in the geographic area(s) 

corresponding to the following ANCSA non-profit regions during calendar years 1998 through 

2003? Please check all that apply. 

 Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association 

 Arctic Slope Native Association 

 Association of Village Council Presidents 

 Bristol Bay Native Association 

 Central Council 

 Chugachmiut 

 Cook Inlet Tribal Council 

 Copper River Native Association 

 Fairbanks Native Association 

 Kawerak, Incorporated 

 Kodiak Area Native Association 

 Maniilaq Association 

 Other, please specify: 
Appendix XVIII

Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities

Page 166 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

 16

11. In what Annual Performance Report (APR) “Table II Activity” did your Tribally Designated 

Housing Entity (TDHE) include costs for your staff and administration for each of the following 

years? Please check one for each row 

Reporting 

Year Development Planning and Administration Other Don’t know 

1998

Please, specify: 

 

1999

Please, specify: 

 

2000

Please, specify: 

 

2001

Please, specify: 

 

2002

Please, specify: 

 

2003

Please, specify: 

 

12. Please provide any additional comments below. The answer box will expand.
Page 167 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XIX

Comments from the Department of 

Commerce ApendxiXIX
Page 168 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XX

Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services ApendxiX
Appendix XX

Comments from the Department of Health 

and Human Services

Page 169 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages
Page 170 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XXI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiXI
Page 171 GAO-05-719 Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages

Appendix XXII

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxXi I

GAO Contact William B. Shear, (202) 512-8678

Staff 

Acknowledgments

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

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

Mallie, Alison Martin, John McGrail, Dan Meyer, Marc W. Molino, Andrew 

Nelson, David M. Pittman, Barbara M. Roesmann, James D. Vitarello, and 

Chuck Wilson also made key contributions to this report. 

(250191)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548