Continuity and Change: 

Demographic, Socioeconomic, 

and Housing Conditions 

of American Indians and 

Alaska Natives

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research 
Visit PD&R’s website

www.huduser.org

to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other 

services of HUD USER, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly 

publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a 

hotline (800-245-2691) for help accessing the information you need.
Continuity and Change: 

Demographic, Socioeconomic, 

and Housing Conditions 

of American Indians and 

Alaska Natives 

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Kathryn L.S. Pettit

G. Thomas Kingsley

Jennifer Biess

Kassie Bertumen

Nancy Pindus

Chris Narducci

Amos Budde

January 2014
Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Jennifer Stoloff of the Policy Development and 

Research Office at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for her 

guidance on this project. Emily Wright from the HUD Office of Native American Programs 

also provided helpful feedback that improved the report. Karl Eschbach’s insights on 

the demographic trends of Native Americans helped to guide our analysis of population 

change. Brittany Edens at the Urban Institute provided excellent research assistance that 

helped ensure the accuracy and clarity of the report. Finally, we appreciate the thoughtful 

comments from the Expert Panel members, who are listed below.

Expert Panel for the Assessment of Native American, Alaska Native, 

and Hawaiian Housing Needs

Dr. Laura R. Appelbaum, Senior Research Analyst, Centers at the University of Colorado 

at Denver and Health Sciences Center and Co-Principal of Alto Research

Kauila Clark, Native Hawaiian Traditional Healing Center 

Marvin Jones, Retired Executive Director of Community Services at the Cherokee Nation

Miriam Jorgensen, Research Director, Native Nations Institute, University of Arizona, 

and Research Director, Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development

Dr. Blake Kazama, Retired Executive Director, Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority

Peter Morris, Director of Strategy and Partnerships, Policy Research Center, National 

Congress of American Indians

Patricia Nie, Community Development Officer, Wells Fargo

Deana K. O’Hara, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Native 

American Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Don Shircel, Director, Family Services, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc
Disclaimer

The contents of this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views 

or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government.
vi

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... ix

Population Growth and Distribution................................................................................................................ix

Social and Economic Conditions.......................................................................................................................xi

Economic Development ........................................................................................................................................xii

Housing Conditions and Needs .........................................................................................................................xiii

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................................xvi

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

This Report and the Overall Study...................................................................................................................1

The Structure of This Report ..............................................................................................................................3

Section 2—Population Growth and Distribution........................................................................................4

Section 3—Social and Economic Conditions...............................................................................................4

Section 4—Economic Development................................................................................................................5

Section 5—Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs ..............................................................5

Section 6—Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................5

Population Growth and Distribution................................................................................ 6

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................6

Defining the American Indian and Alaska Native Population .............................................................6

American Indian and Alaska Native Population Trends.........................................................................7

Geographies ................................................................................................................................................................9

Spatial Patterns of the AIAN Population.......................................................................................................11
vii

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Population Trends in Tribal Areas .....................................................................................................................15

The Multiracial AIAN Population........................................................................................................................17

Mobility...........................................................................................................................................................................18

Implications..................................................................................................................................................................19

Social and Economic Conditions ...................................................................................... 20

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................20

Age Structure..............................................................................................................................................................21

Household Sizes and Types .................................................................................................................................23

Educational Attainment.........................................................................................................................................26

Employment ................................................................................................................................................................28

Income and Poverty ................................................................................................................................................31

How the AIAN Population Fared In the Great Recession......................................................................32

Implications..................................................................................................................................................................35

Economic Development ...................................................................................................... 36

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................36

Background: Expansion of Economic Development in the 1990s....................................................36

Employment Growth in the 2000s ..................................................................................................................38

Tribally Owned Businesses and Enterprises ................................................................................................40

Expansion of Community Development Financial Institutions ..........................................................44

Housing Conditions and Needs......................................................................................... 50

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................50

Housing Characteristics in Tribal Areas and Surrounding Counties................................................51

Homeownership.........................................................................................................................................................54

Subprime Lending....................................................................................................................................................54

Housing Structure Type.........................................................................................................................................56

Housing Characteristics and Problems: Larger Tribal Areas ...............................................................57

Housing Age and Size.............................................................................................................................................58

Housing Values and Rents....................................................................................................................................58
viii

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Housing Problems and Needs—Framework................................................................................................59

Housing Problems and Needs—Quantity......................................................................................................60

Housing Problems and Needs—Facilities......................................................................................................62

Housing Problems and Needs—Price..............................................................................................................63

Overall Incidence of Housing Problems.........................................................................................................65

Implications..................................................................................................................................................................67

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 68

Changing Circumstances in Indian Country................................................................................................68

Circumstances for Indians in the Rest of the Nation...............................................................................69

Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................70

References.............................................................................................................................. 71

Appendix 1. Description of Data Sources ....................................................................... 76

American Community Survey ............................................................................................................................76

ACS Selected Population Tables .......................................................................................................................76

Community Development Financial Institution Database ....................................................................78

County Business Patterns.....................................................................................................................................78

Decennial Census......................................................................................................................................................78

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data.............................................................................................................78

National Indian Gaming Commission Register of Gaming Institutions...........................................79

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology.................................... 80

Types of Tribal Areas Defined by the U.S. Census Bureau...................................................................80

Using Consistent Geographic Boundaries for 2000 to 2010 Analysis...........................................83
ix

Executive Summary

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Executive Summary

This interim report is part of the National 

Assessment of Native American, Alaska 

Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing 

Needs, sponsored by the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD). The project’s overarching purpose 

is to document the housing needs and 

conditions of American Indians and Alaska 

Natives (AIANs) and Native Hawaiians. 

As a component of this broader project, 

this specific report examines trends in 

the circumstances (social, economic, and 

housing) of the AIAN population using 

secondary sources, predominantly the 

products of the U.S. Census Bureau. The 

final report of this study will merge rich field 

research data with the findings presented 

here. Though this report only offers a 

partial picture, it contains new information 

about how Native Americans are faring 

in the Nation today. The housing needs 

and conditions of Native Hawaiians will be 

described in a separate report.

Population Growth and Distribution

This report primarily relies on U.S. Census 

Bureau data sources, including the decennial 

census and the American Community 

Survey (ACS). In these surveys respondents 

self-report on their race and ethnicity. These 

data are uniformly defined nationwide and 

provide both the racial and geographic 

detail required for our research questions. 

Where possible, we compare the conditions 

of AIAN and non-AIAN populations 

across four area types: 1) tribal areas, 2) 

surrounding counties (the non-tribal parts 

of counties that include tribal areas), 3) 

metropolitan counties without any tribal 

area, and 4) nonmetropolitan counties 

without any tribal area. We also divide the 

country into nine study regions as a method 

for understanding variation in the indicators 

(Figure ES.1).1

In census surveys individuals who select 

AIAN as their only race are called the “AIAN 

alone” population; 2.9 million people were 

in this category in 2010, up 18 percent 

since 2000 (almost twice the 9.7-percent 

growth rate of the Nation as a whole). The 

intersection between race and ethnicity has 

emerged in the last decade as an important 

issue. The Hispanic share of the AIAN alone 

population climbed from 8.4 percent in 

1990 to 16 percent in 2000 and again to 

23 percent in 2010. The non-Hispanic and 

Hispanic AIAN populations have markedly 

different spatial and growth patterns. From 

2000 to 2010, the non-Hispanic AIAN alone 

population rose by 8.6 percent, while the 

Hispanic AIAN alone population experienced 

a rapid growth of 68 percent.

The residential spatial patterns of nonHispanic and Hispanic AIAN populations 

also differ. Non-Hispanic AIAN alone 

persons were more commonly located in 

1 For descriptions of the geographic definitions used in this report, see Section 2 and Appendix 2.
x

Executive Summary

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Figure ES.1. Study Region Map

South Central

Arizona/

New Mexico

Alaska

North Central

Oklahoma

Pacific

Northwest

California

Nevada

Plains

Eastern

places termed “Indian Country” (which we 

define in this report as all AIAN tribal areas 

and the counties that surround them). In 

2010, Indian Country accounted for twothirds of the population of non-Hispanic 

AIANs and more than three-quarters of 

the growth in non-Hispanic AIANs over 

the 2000s. Specifically, 42 percent of this 

group lived in reservations and other AIAN 

tribal areas, and 26 percent more lived in 

the counties surrounding those areas. 

In contrast, only 5 percent of Hispanic 

AIAN alone lived in tribal areas and 27 

percent in surrounding counties. About twothirds were residents in other parts 

of the country (mostly metropolitan areas). 

Only 30 percent of the growth of this group 

occurred in Indian Country; the share of 

Hispanic AIAN alone people living in Indian 

Country declined slightly from 2000 to 2010.

Individuals in a third group, here termed 

AIAN multiracial, identify themselves as 

AIAN and at least one other race. This 

group is nearly as large as the AIAN alone 

population (2.3 million people in 2010) 

and growing rapidly (up 39 percent since 

2000). Similar to the Hispanic AIAN alone 

population, they are more likely to live 

in metropolitan areas outside of Indian 

Country. Only 8 percent live in tribal areas; 

67 percent live outside of AIAN counties, 

predominantly in metropolitan areas. 

Nationally, about 16 percent of AIAN 

residents in tribal areas are multiracial, but 

the prevalence of AIAN people identifying 
xi

Executive Summary

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

with multiple races varies across regions. At 

one extreme, 31 percent of AIAN tribal area 

residents in Oklahoma identify with more 

than one race. In the other regions, AIAN 

tribal area residents identifying as multiracial 

range from 2 percent in Arizona/New Mexico, 

to 19 percent in the South Central study 

region. Data are limited for AIAN multiracial 

households, so for the remainder of this 

report, indicators labeled as “AIAN” will refer 

to AIAN alone, unless otherwise noted.

Social and Economic Conditions

In this section we compare characteristics 

of the AIAN alone population (non-Hispanic 

and Hispanic combined) with those for nonAIAN people. Most of these measures use 

the ACS 5-year data from 2006 to 2010, 

which combines 5 years of monthly surveys 

to produce reliable estimates for tribal 

areas and other smaller geographies. The 

social and economic conditions of the AIAN 

population traditionally differ from nonIndians along a number of dimensions that 

affect their housing needs and preferences. 

Though most of those differences remain, 

a number of them narrowed over the first 

decade of the 2000s:

• In 2010, 30 percent of the AIAN population 

was under age 18 (compared with a nonAIAN share of 24 percent) and the AIAN 

share age 62 and older was 9.3 percent 

(compared with 16 percent for non-AIAN). 

Both gaps have diminished since 2000. 

• Historically, married couples with children 

represented a higher share of AIAN than 

non-AIAN households. In the 2000s this 

share dropped markedly for both groups, 

especially for Indians, enough so that 

the difference was eliminated. The AIAN 

share dropped from 29 percent in 1990 

to 19 percent in 2010; the non-AIAN share 

dropped from 26 to 20 percent over the 

same period. 

• In 2010, AIAN households were still larger 

than non-Indian households: 3.0 versus 

2.6 persons on average. These numbers 

changed very little over the decade and 

did not vary significantly by area type.

• Educational attainment improved 

markedly for Native Americans over the 

past decade, with the share over age 

25 without a high school diploma falling 

from 29 percent in 2000, to 23 percent 

in 2006-2010 (multiyear average).This 

measure dropped by a smaller amount for 

the non-AIAN population (from 20 to 15 

percent), so the gap actually widened.

AIAN social and economic characteristics 

vary considerably by area type. In 2010, 

for example, 34 percent of the AIAN alone 

population living in tribal areas was under 

18, as compared to 26 percent in other 

nonmetropolitan counties. The AIAN alone 

poverty rate ranged from 32 percent in 

tribal areas to 25 percent in the surrounding 

counties, and the unemployment rate 

ranged from 16 percent in tribal areas to 12 

percent in other nonmetropolitan counties.

For a sense of the changes in AIAN 

socioeconomic well-being, it is important 

to look at what happened before and after 

the start of the Great Recession of 2008. 

As might be expected, conditions for 

Native Americans worsened significantly 

during the Great Recession. The declines 

in employment and income were similar 

to non-AIAN populations, but the AIAN 

population on average began in a more 

financially vulnerable situation. 

• The AIAN labor force participation rate 

(as a percentage of the population over 

age 16) dropped slightly from 2008 to 

2010, from 61 percent to 59 percent. By 

comparison, the non-AIAN rate also fell 

about 1.5 points to 64 percent in 2010. 
xii

Executive Summary

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

• The AIAN unemployment rate jumped from 

11 percent in 2008 to 18 percent in 2010. 

This measure for the non-AIAN population 

also increased sharply over these 2 years 

from 6.3 percent to 11 percent. 

• The AIAN poverty rate was 24 percent in 

2008 but rose to 28 percent by 2010. The 

non-AIAN poverty rate experienced less 

of an increase, growing by 2.1 percentage 

points to end at 15 percent in 2010. 

National averages on the effects of 

the recession mask important regional 

variations. Data covering the recession 

years are available only for the four major 

Census Bureau regions: Northeast, South, 

Midwest, and West. Native Americans in 

the West, which includes the two most 

distressed of our study regions, Northern 

Plains and Arizona/New Mexico, were hit 

hardest by the Great Recession. Recession 

effects appear mildest in the South, which 

includes the Oklahoma and South Central 

study regions as well as the southern half of 

Eastern Woodlands.

• The AIAN labor force participation rate 

in the West dropped 60 percent to 57 

percent between 2008 and 2010. The 

2010 rates for the other three regions 

were higher and ranged from 60 to 62 

percent. The fall in the Western rate 

exceeded the 1.4- point decline in the 

Northeast and Midwest and the 0.27-point 

decline in the South.

• The West also saw an 8.6 percentagepoint spike in the AIAN unemployment 

rate from 2008 to 2010, resulting in a 2010 

rate of 21 percent. The rates for the other 

regions were 14 percent (South), 15 percent 

(Northeast), and 19 percent (Midwest), 

reflecting increases of five to six points. 

• The Great Recession yielded sizable 

increases in AIAN poverty in all regions, 

but again, the change for the West 

was most severe: an increase from 24.8 

percent in 2008 to 30 percent in 2010. 

The poverty level was higher in the 

Midwest (33 percent), but the increase 

was only about half of the Western 

change. Poverty rates in 2010 were 25 

percent in both the Northeast and South, 

up 3.3 and 3.8 points, respectively. 

Economic Development

The most important factor driving 

economic well-being and the ability to 

improve housing conditions in any area is 

the state of the local economy. Residents 

cannot prosper unless good jobs are being 

generated and sustained nearby. This 

section examines economic development 

trends, focusing on outcomes in tribal areas. 

Research by the Harvard Project on 

American Indian Economic Development 

(2008) showed that economic development 

in Indian Country improved substantially in 

the 1990s, although there were important 

differences in performance by tribe and 

region. With the shift in national policy 

orientation toward self-determination, 

researchers saw increasing tribal efforts 

to create environments supportive of 

private entrepreneurship: “tribes investing 

in their own capacities to govern and 

thereby improving local accountability 

and encouraging tribal and non-tribal 

investments in human and other capital” 

(Harvard Project 2008, p. 111).

There are a number of indications that 

positive trends continued in the 2000s, at 

least up until the Great Recession. Though 

there are no separate data for tribal areas, 

government reports indicate that the number 

of Native-owned businesses increased 

nationally from 102,000 in 1992 to 201,000 

in 2002, and then to 237,000 in 2007. The 

growth between 1992 and 2002 translates 
xiii

Executive Summary

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

into a 7 percent annual increase for Nativeowned businesses, more than twice the 2.9 

percent rate recorded for all U.S. businesses 

over that period. The growth in Nativeowned business between 2002 and 2007 

translates into a rate of 3.3 percent increase 

per year; below that for the previous 

period, but comparable to the growth rate 

for all U.S. businesses for that period (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011; U.S. Minority Business 

Development Agency 2006).

In tribal areas, the new economic activity 

includes large-scale investments by the 

tribes themselves, which are reportedly 

operating in a more businesslike manner 

than previous tribal enterprises. It also 

accounts for businesses of many types 

established and owned by private tribal 

citizens, including gaming.

The role of gaming in Indian Country over 

this period warrants mention because it 

accounts for a large share of economic 

activity in some areas. It has been estimated 

that there were only 81 Indian gaming 

operations under way in 1992; by 2011 that 

number had increased to 421 operations, 

generating about $27.2 billion in total 

revenues (Robinson 1995; National Indian 

Gaming Commission [NIGC] 2012b). Tribes 

often reinvest gaming profits in other tribal 

enterprises, and significant shares have 

been distributed to tribal members through 

per-capita payments (“per-caps”), creating 

substantial wealth in some places. 

However, proceeds have been very uneven. 

A large share of gaming revenues flows 

to a relatively small number of tribes that 

account for a fairly small share of tribal 

area population. In 2011, 5 percent of 

tribal gaming enterprises (23 enterprises) 

generated about 38 percent of the total 

Indian gaming revenues, and 18 percent 

(78 enterprises) accounted for close to 

75 percent. The larger casinos are mostly 

near major population centers, as gaming 

has been of little benefit to large tribes 

remote from customer markets. With the 

competition from a growing number of nonIndian casinos and prospects of a possible 

major expansion of Internet gambling, the 

future of the industry is uncertain. 

The positive trends in Native American 

enterprises are consistent with a rise in 

employment in Indian Country. Data for 

individual tribal areas are not available, but 

there is information about employment 

levels in AIAN counties. In 2000, 20.7 million 

jobs were located in AIAN counties, 18 

percent of the national total. From 2000 to 

2007, employment in those counties grew 

by 303,000 per year, 48 percent of total 

U.S. job growth. This is a growth rate of 1.4 

percent per year, dwarfing the 0.36 percent 

average for all non-AIAN counties. 

During the Great Recession, the patterns 

reversed. Places that performed best earlier 

in the decade typically faced sharper 

reversals later on. The total number of jobs 

in AIAN counties dropped by 3 percent per 

year from 2007 to 2010, compared with a 

drop of 2.3 percent annually for non-AIAN 

counties. The net result over the full decade 

was that employment in AIAN counties grew 

by 0.65 percent, a sharp contrast to the 4.5 

percent decline in non-AIAN counties.

Housing Conditions and Needs

Since 6 out of 10 of AIAN households live 

in tribal areas and surrounding counties, 

we need to understand the overall housing 

market in those areas. The number of 

housing units in tribal areas totaled 2.1 million 

in 2010, a slower 8.1-percent increase since 

2000 when compared with a nationwide 

increase of 14 percent. In contrast to the 

slower tribal area increases, the 18-percent 

growth in housing units in the surrounding 

counties exceeded the national average. The 
xiv

Executive Summary

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

high housing growth rate in surrounding 

counties was largely driven by growth in 

three of the study regions: Northern Plains, 

California/Nevada, and Arizona/New Mexico.

Vacancy rates for all housing units in 2010 

in tribal areas (14 percent) and surrounding 

counties (13 percent) exceeded the U.S. rate 

of 11 percent. The rate is above 30 percent in 

tribal areas in the California/Nevada region. 

A high vacancy rate in a given area does not 

preclude there being a shortage of housing 

for particular groups in that area. The vacant 

units may be too expensive for low-income 

families, too small for larger households, 

of poorer quality than other housing in the 

area, or far from employment centers.

The number of AIAN owner-occupied 

housing units rose 16 percent from 

2000 to 2010, twice the rate for nonAIAN households. The overall AIAN 

homeownership rate of 54 percent still 

lagged considerably behind the non-AIAN 

rate of 65 percent. AIAN homeownership 

rates in tribal areas, however, overall are 

quite high: 67 percent in 2010.

The mix of structure types for housing 

units occupied by AIAN households differs 

greatly by area type. In tribal areas, about 

74 percent of both AIAN and non-AIAN 

households lived in single-family detached 

homes in 2006–10. Another 17 percent of 

AIAN households in tribal areas lived in 

mobile homes and recreational vehicles 

(RVs) during this period. In the surrounding 

counties, only about half of the AIAN homes 

are single-family residences, 12 percentage 

points lower than the share for non-AIAN 

households. Mobile homes and RVs account 

for 13 percent of housing units, almost twice 

the non-AIAN rate in these areas.

For certain housing indicators (age and 

size of housing, housing costs, and housing 

problems), we used the ACS Selected 

Population Tables, which include additional 

indicators for the AIAN population that are 

unavailable in the standard ACS summary 

files. The data set only reports AIAN 

indicators for geographies with at least 50 

AIAN individuals. Even with the suppression, 

the areas that meet the population 

threshold account for a large share of the 

AIAN households. We group the individual 

geographies to calculate indicators for three 

area types: larger tribal areas, selected AIAN 

counties, and selected non-AIAN counties.

The age and size of housing in AIAN 

counties vary by area type. In 2006–10, 

about 25 percent of all AIAN households 

lived in buildings built before 1960. The 

share was much lower for larger tribal areas 

(15 percent) and selected AIAN counties (18 

percent). Fifty-four percent of AIAN renters 

in larger tribal areas lived in units with 

three or more bedrooms, compared with 41 

percent in the selected AIAN counties, and 

29 percent in other counties. 

Given that AIAN households on average 

have lower incomes, it is not surprising that 

the home values for homeowners and rents 

were lower than the national average. The 

average home value for AIAN homeowners 

in 2006–10 was $175,000 nationally; about 

66 percent of the average for all households 

in 2006–10. After adjusting for inflation, 

home values rose by 46 percent since 2000 

for all households in the selected AIAN 

counties but only rose 29 percent for AIAN 

homeowners in those counties. 

AIAN renter households paid, on average, 

$700 in gross rent in 2006–10. Like home 

values, these rents were lower compared 

with the national average. Rents averaged 

a low $440 in the larger tribal areas, rising 

to $630 in AIAN counties. AIAN households 

experienced a much smaller increase in 

rents than all renters, with an increase of 5.6 

percent compared with 42 percent for all 

renters, after controlling for inflation. 
xv

Executive Summary

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Housing problems for AIAN households 

relate to quantity, quality, and price of 

housing. The general standard for adequate 

quantity of housing is having no more than 

one person per room; a household with a 

higher ratio is considered overcrowded. 

In 2006–10, 65,000 AIAN households 

(8.1 percent of all AIAN households) 

were overcrowded, much higher than the 

national average of 3.1 percent. This pattern 

continues with housing quality, where 

almost 3 percent of AIAN households 

lacked complete plumbing facilities in 

2006–10, more than five times the share 

for all households. A similar share of AIAN 

households lacked complete kitchen 

facilities, three and a half times as high as 

the national average. Both indicators have 

dropped by one-third for AIAN households 

over the last decade. 

AIAN households in larger tribal areas and 

selected AIAN counties are most likely to 

experience overcrowding and inadequate 

facilities. Larger tribal areas and selected 

AIAN counties show the highest rates of 

AIAN overcrowding in 2006–10 (11 and 10 

percent, respectively). Similarly, the facility 

inadequacy rates for AIAN households in 

larger tribal areas were about twice the 

national rates; specifically, 6.1 percent had 

incomplete plumbing and 5.4 percent had 

incomplete kitchen facilities. The housing 

quality problems for AIAN households were 

also high in the selected AIAN counties (4.4 

percent for plumbing and 3.9 percent for 

kitchen facilities). 

AIAN households in two regions in particular 

experience much worse housing quantity 

and quality problems. Selected AIAN 

counties in the Arizona/New Mexico and 

Alaska regions exhibited the highest rates of 

AIAN overcrowding in 2006–10, 16 percent 

and 22 percent, respectively. In these 

Arizona/New Mexico counties, 9.8 percent 

of AIAN households have incomplete 

plumbing, and 8.5 percent lack complete 

kitchen facilities. The comparable numbers 

for selected AIAN counties in the Alaska 

region were 18 percent for plumbing and 15 

percent for kitchen facilities. 

Housing affordability is the most common 

problem for AIAN households. In 2006–10, 

almost 4 out of 10 AIAN households were 

paying more than 30 percent of their income 

on housing costs, or cost burdened. Almost 

2 out of 10 were severely cost burdened 

(paying more than 50 percent). Unlike the 

changes in facilities and overcrowding, 

housing affordability problems are on the 

rise. The cost-burdened rate went up 5.9 

percentage points for AIAN households 

from 2000 to 2006–10.

The spatial patterns also provide a contrast to 

earlier problem indicators, because housing 

is more affordable in tribal areas and AIAN 

counties than in the United States on average. 

Only about one-quarter of AIAN households 

in larger tribal areas and one-third in selected 

AIAN counties were cost-burdened in 2006–

10. In both area types, these rates were lower 

than those for all households.

The households in the selected AIAN 

counties in the California/Nevada region 

had the greatest financial housing hardship. 

About half of those AIAN householders paid 

more than 30 percent of their income on 

housing in 2006–10. 

The data source for the four indicators 

of housing problems does not provide 

information about how those problems 

overlap, but that information is available 

from the Comprehensive Housing 

Affordability Strategy data derived from the 

2005–09 ACS. About 41 percent of AIAN 

households in 2005–09 had at least one 

housing problem, compared with 36 percent 

of all households. This rate exceeded 

the AIAN cost-burdened share of 33 

percent, indicating that 7 percent of AIAN 
xvi

Executive Summary

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

households have physical or overcrowding 

problems but not financial ones. 

Conclusion

A central focus of this study is on 

conditions in tribal lands and their 

surrounding counties. In these areas, the 

Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) is the 

dominant framework for the delivery of 

housing assistance. Two findings in this 

report suggest that the circumstances 

of the AIAN population in these areas 

should continue to be a priority concern 

for national policy: continued population 

growth and the remaining gap between 

AIAN populations and other Americans. 

Population growth fuels housing needs. The 

non-Hispanic AIAN alone population grew 

substantially in Indian Country in the 2000s 

(these areas accounted for three-quarters of 

the growth of that population nationally over 

the decade). 

Gaps in well-being between the AIAN 

populations in Indian Country and other 

Americans remain sizable. Compared with 

non-Indians nationally, AIAN people living 

in tribal areas in 2006–10 had a poverty 

rate and an unemployment rate that were 

at least twice as high. Compared with 

the national average, AIAN households in 

large tribal areas were more than three 

times as likely to live in housing that was 

overcrowded and more than 11 times more 

likely to live in housing that did not have 

adequate plumbing facilities. 

Our household survey will include resident 

perceptions and more information about 

physical housing conditions so that we can 

draw final conclusions about the extent 

of housing problems and needs in Indian 

Country. However, data presented here 

suggest that the housing problems of the 

AIAN population in tribal areas remain severe.

Another notable finding in this report 

was the explosive growth of two other 

subgroups who identified their race as 

Indian: AIAN multirace (41 percent growth 

in the 2000s) and AIAN alone Hispanic 

(64 percent growth). Two-thirds of the 

growth of these groups took place outside 

of Indian Country, mostly in metropolitan 

areas. Even though there may have been 

some improvements and a narrowing of 

gaps along the way, recent data show 

that the well-being of AIAN populations 

living outside of Indian County is also 

still considerably below that of their nonIndian counterparts across a number of 

dimensions. Our upcoming study of Indians 

living in urban areas will explore the nature 

of these gaps and their possible causes.

For both Indian Country and the rest of the 

United States, this report demonstrates the 

value of examining issues by type of area 

and by region to understand the diverse 

contexts in which Indians live. Geography, 

governance, cultural context, and land 

use vary and affect the housing needs of 

residents. The report provides an important 

backdrop for the remaining data collection 

activities of this assessment. Combining 

our observations from the secondary data 

with the insights from the primary data will 

offer a full picture of the housing needs of 

American Indians and Alaska Natives. 
1

Section 1. Introduction

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

1. Introduction

This document is the Interim Report of 

the congressionally mandated assessment 

of Native American, Alaska Native, and 

Native Hawaiian Housing Needs. This 

project is being conducted by the Urban 

Institute and its subcontractors for the 

Office of Policy Development and Research 

of the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD–Contract No. 

C-CHI-01092/GS-23F-8198H).2 As specified 

in HUD’s Statement of Work:

The study will consider a wide range of 

issues by using the Census information 

describing the needs of the Native 

American, Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian populations—the study will 

consider not only their housing conditions, 

but their socioeconomic situations as 

well, to give a broader context to housing 

needs. The passage of the Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 

Act (NAHASDA) of 1996 fundamentally 

changed the way federal funding is delivered 

to tribal people. Thus issues surrounding the 

changes NAHASDA introduced are a key 

part of the study. 

The Urban Institute conducted a similar 

assessment in 1996 (Kingsley et al. 1996). 

HUD’s Statement of Work also noted 

this earlier work and stated: “That report 

2 Urban Institute staff are conducting the work with support from three subcontractors: NORC at the University of Chicago, Econometrica 

Inc., and Support Services International.

3 Matthew Snipp (1989, 36–40) explains why the term “American Indians and Alaska Natives” is the preferred racial designation for the 

populations that are the subject of this study (precise definitions consistent with census surveys are presented in Section 2). However, we 

also use its acronym—AIAN—and sometimes fall back on the terms Native Americans and Indians to refer to this same population.

presented a complete overview of the 

housing situation of most American Indians 

and Alaska Natives. It is proposed that the 

current study update that work.” 

The 1996 study (which we often refer to 

in this text simply as “the 1996 report”) 

presented measures showing that “the 

housing problems of American Indians 

and Alaska Natives were substantially 

more severe than those of non-Indians in 

all parts of America.” It also showed that 

although earlier HUD programs serving AIAN 

households (now often referred to as the 1937 

Act programs) had indeed made important 

contributions to housing conditions, they 

nonetheless had serious defects. 

The goal of the current study is to provide 

clear, credible, and consistent information 

that can guide policy decisions in ways 

that enable tribes to more effectively use 

resources to improve housing conditions. 

This Report and the Overall Study

This report presents an overview analysis of 

the circumstances of the American Indian 

and Alaska Native (AIAN)3 population as 

of 2010 and how those circumstances 

have changed over the past two decades. 

It relies primarily on data from products 

of the U.S. Census Bureau: the decennial 

census of 2000 and 2010, and the American 

Community Survey (ACS) for various 
2

Section 1. Introduction

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

years in the 2000s. (See Appendix 1 for 

descriptions of the various U.S. Census 

Bureau products used and how they 

differ from each other. This appendix also 

includes a discussion of the quality of the 

data, including the undercount of American 

Indians on reservations.) 

There has been comparatively little 

nationwide research on trends in AIAN 

well-being in recent years, and this report 

fills an important gap in that regard. The 

study reviews trends in demography, spatial 

patterns, social and economic conditions, 

and economic development (all critical 

to understanding the housing problems 

and needs) as well as in basic housing 

conditions themselves. 

Still, Census Bureau surveys are limited 

both with respect to the topics they 

cover and the depth in which they cover 

them. To do justice to the mandate of 

this study, additional, richer information 

must be collected, particularly with 

respect to the housing conditions and 

socioeconomic situations of AIAN families 

living on reservations and other tribal areas. 

Furthermore, the Census Bureau products 

offer no information at all on the nature and 

administration of HUD assistance and local 

housing programs. To meet the full mandate, 

the overall study includes several other data 

collection and research efforts pertaining to 

the AIAN population.4

• Background interviews and literature 

reviews involve reviews of relevant 

research literature published since 1996, 

and interviews with people knowledgable 

about conditions and trends in Indian 

Country, defined in this study to include 

all AIAN tribal areas and the counties that 

surround them—see further definitions in 

Section 2.

• A major in-person household survey in 40 

sampled AIAN tribal areas (target 1,280 

households interviewed). These interviews 

will be conducted by tribal members 

who have been recruited and trained for 

this purpose by NORC at the University 

of Chicago, a project subcontractor and 

respected survey firm. The interviews 

will entail “walk-through” observations 

of housing conditions, and household 

interviews focused on how household 

members view their own housing 

conditions and their views on assisted 

housing programs. 

• A telephone survey of tribal housing 

offices and Tribally Designated Housing 

Entities (TDHEs) (national sample of 104 

entities that administer the Indian Housing 

Block Grant program under NAHASDA) 

emphasizing experience with programs 

and policies but also covering views on 

changing problems and needs. 

• More indepth in-person interviews with 

local housing officials, tribal leaders, and 

community leaders in 24 of the 40 tribal 

areas selected for the household survey. 

These interviews will also emphasize 

experience with programs and policies but 

will include views on changing problems 

and needs.

• A telephone survey of lenders that 

originate home loans in Indian Country 

(sample of 35, weighted toward those 

that have been the most active lenders in 

tribal areas). 

• Site visits to five urban areas with 

concentrations of Native American 

populations and telephone interviews 

with staff at Urban Indian Community 

Centers and other informed individuals in 

25 other urban areas. 

4 The overall study will also include research on the housing needs of Native Hawaiians, which will be published as a separate stand-alone report.
3

Section 1. Introduction

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Detailed designs were developed for all 

components in this project in the first half 

of 2011, and preliminary research to support 

this interim report was begun shortly after 

that. It was decided, however, that the 

overall study would benefit from a series 

of formal, government-to-government 

consultations about its content and 

approach with tribal leaders across the 

country before the other components of 

the work were implemented. Accordingly, 

consultation sessions between tribal 

leaders and HUD were held in each of 

the six regions of HUD’s Office of Native 

American Programs in spring 2012, and 

ideas for improving the study discussed in 

those sessions were incorporated in revised 

research designs and implementation plans. 

Work on the other components of the study, 

therefore, was still in early stages as this report 

was being completed. The field work for all of 

the other surveys is planned for completion in 

early 2014, and the final report on the overall 

study will be published in late 2014.

The Structure of This Report 

The next three sections of this report 

address research questions posed by HUD 

for this study on “Demography, Geography, 

and Economy” (see box below). These topics 

are all important determinants of the nature 

and magnitude of AIAN housing demand 

and need. 

The subsequent section reviews Census 

Bureau data pertaining to the central 

purpose of the larger study: AIAN housing 

problems and needs. However, because 

Census Bureau products have only limited 

measures of housing conditions, we cannot 

assess housing needs in full using only those 

sources. A full exploration of that topic 

cannot occur until the full survey for this 

study is complete.

Before saying more about the content of 

these sections, it is important to note that in 

each of them we respond to one of the most 

striking features of the AIAN experience 

Research Questions—Demography, Geography, and Economy

• What is the extent of population growth (change) since the previous study?

• Where do most AIAN people live? On reservations, near reservations, central cities, 

suburbs, etc.? How has this changed over time?

• What are the current social and economic conditions for the population (age, household 

composition, education, employment, poverty, etc.?) How have they changed over time?

• What kinds of diversity in living and economic conditions are observed using the 2000 

Census and 2010 (ACS) data? How do they compare to what was observed in the 1996 

report, which used the 1990 Census data?

• What kinds of economic diversity exist across tribal areas? What are the major industries 

that employ people in and near tribal areas? How do they differ across tribal areas? In 

urban areas? How has this changed over time?

• How do housing and socioeconomic conditions vary by the presence of gaming? How 

important is this industry as compared with other economic activities? How has this 

changed over time?
4

Section 1. Introduction

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

in America: the dramatic diversity of 

circumstances for the AIAN population. The 

1996 study showed that socioeconomic 

as well as housing experiences varied 

markedly depending on where people lived. 

Governance, cultural context, and land use 

of areas also vary and affect the housing 

needs of residents. 

In each of the sections of the current report, 

we again examine variations using the same 

four basic geographic divisions we used in 

the earlier work. These will be defined in 

detail in Section 2. In summary, they include: 

• Tribal Areas: reservations and other areas 

with concentrations of tribal population 

and activity as recognized by the U.S. 

Census Bureau.

• Surrounding Counties: the portions of all 

U.S. counties in which any tribal area is 

located and that are outside of tribal area 

boundaries.

• Other Metropolitan: all metropolitan 

counties that do not contain any part of a 

tribal area in their boundaries.

• Other Nonmetropolitan: all 

nonmetropolitan counties that do not 

contain any part of a tribal area in their 

boundaries.

In the remainder of this report, we refer 

to these geographic breaks as area types. 

Again, as in 1996, we present data for these 

categories within each of nine regions 

whose definitions are derived from the six 

administrative regions of HUD’s Office of 

Native American Programs (ONAP).

Section 2—Population Growth 

and Distribution 

This section describes how the AIAN 

population has grown over the past century 

and then examines the shifts in individual 

components of change (births, deaths, 

migration, and other factors) in determining 

the totals. Differing population trends for the 

geographies defined above over the past 

two decades are then compared. We also 

examine data for those who chose AIAN as 

their only race (AIAN alone) compared to 

the AIAN multiracial population (those who 

identify as being AIAN in combination with 

other races) and look at the shares who 

characterize themselves as Hispanic within 

each category. This section relies most 

extensively on decennial census data for 

2000 and 2010. 

Section 3—Social and 

Economic Conditions

This section reports on social and economic 

characteristics of the AIAN alone population 

and how they compare across geographies 

and time and against those of the non-AIAN 

population in the same categories. Topics 

include age of the structure, household 

size and type, educational attainment, 

employment levels, and income and poverty. 

Throughout this section, we note differences 

between the Hispanic and non-Hispanic 

components of the AIAN alone population 

for selected indicators.

Change over the 2000 to 2010 period is 

noted for some indicators. For others, 2010 

decennial census data are not available, so 

comparisons are made with circumstances 

as reported in the 2006–10 ACS data, which 

represent an average of surveys collected 

monthly over the 5 years from 2006 to 

2010. For a few indicators, we rely on 1-year 

ACS data that, although not available in as 

much geographic detail, do enable us to 

note changes in conditions for the AIAN 

population before and after the onset of the 

Great Recession as compared to the rest of 

the U.S. population.
5

Section 1. Introduction

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Section 4—Economic Development

The analysis discussed above relates to 

the changing economic circumstances 

(employment, income, etc.) of AIAN 

households. A separate topic, however, 

is how the productive economies in 

Indian Country (AIAN tribal areas and 

surrounding counties) have themselves been 

changing; that is, the growth of business 

establishments located in these areas and 

the jobs offered by those establishments. 

This section looks at data on the expansion 

of AIAN-owned businesses nationwide but 

focuses on the County Business Patterns 

data series from the U.S. Census Bureau, 

showing the industries and employment 

changes in the counties that contain tribal 

areas. We also discuss the nature of new 

tribally owned businesses in Indian Country. 

This includes an examination of the influence 

of gaming in the economies of tribal areas, 

using available information from the National 

Indian Gaming Commission and other 

sources. Finally, we review the role played by 

Native Community Development Financial 

Institutions (CDFIs) that have emerged in 

tribal areas over the past decade to further 

economic development. 

Section 5—Initial Review of Housing 

Conditions and Needs

Our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data on 

housing in this report begins by looking at 

trends in housing stock and vacancy in tribal 

areas and AIAN counties overall. We then 

discuss tenure and structure type for AIAN 

households for all tribal areas. We move to 

descriptions of the age and size of AIAN 

housing for larger tribal areas. Finally, we 

present data pertaining to housing problems 

for larger tribal areas (measures available 

from the Census Bureau surveys include 

overcrowding, affordability problems, and 

lack of adequate kitchen and plumbing 

facilities). We present national totals for 

AIAN households compared with nonIndians or the total population and then 

explore variations in these relationships 

across area types and regions.

Section 6—Conclusions

Our conclusions are presented in two 

parts because U.S. policy toward the AIAN 

population varies markedly by geography. 

The first part deals with circumstances 

in Indian Country, the areas where the 

NAHASDA is the dominant framework 

for the delivery of housing assistance. 

The second part deals with the rest of 

the Nation, where approaches to housing 

assistance are generally the same for 

Indians as for other Americans.
6

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

2. Population Growth 

and Distribution

Introduction

To assess the housing needs of AIAN people, 

we need to understand the size of the 

population, where people live, and how these 

characteristics have changed over time. This 

section first reviews trends in the overall size 

of the AIAN population in the United States. 

Next, we use the typology developed in the 

1996 report (as noted in Section 1) to portray 

the changing spatial distribution of the AIAN 

population (across area types and regions). 

We then briefly look at the size, growth, and 

spatial distribution of the AIAN multiracial 

population. Finally, we discuss the implications 

of the findings in this section for our broader 

examination of AIAN housing needs. 

Defining the American Indian and 

Alaska Native Population

How the AIAN population is defined is 

clearly important to interpreting the findings 

in this report, particularly because the 

population is defined in different ways for 

different purposes. In almost all sections of 

this report, we rely on the definition used 

in the decennial census and other surveys 

conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. In 

these surveys respondents self-report on 

their race and ethnicity. These data are 

uniformly defined nationwide and provide 

both the racial and geographic detail 

required for our research questions.

Because this is a study of housing conditions 

and needs, however, it is important to note 

the definition set forth in the NAHASDA,5 the 

law that establishes the terms and conditions 

under which federal housing assistance is 

provided in Indian Country. The Act states that 

“The term ‘Indian’ means any person who is 

a member of an Indian tribe” and specifically 

authorizes the Secretary of HUD to make 

“grants under this section on behalf of Indian 

tribes.” The Act also states that “the term 

‘Indian tribe’ means a tribe that is a federally 

recognized tribe or a State-recognized tribe,” 

but further clarifies that the only Staterecognized tribes that qualify are those that 

received HUD 1937 Act assistance before the 

effective date of NAHASDA.6 

The Act further describes the formula by 

which grant funds under NAHASDA are to 

be allocated and specifies that one of the 

key “factors for the determination of need” 

must be “the extent of poverty and economic 

distress and the number of Indian families 

within Indian areas of the tribe.” However, even 

though NAHASDA defines Indians in terms 

of tribal membership, there are no nationally 

5 Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (P.L.104–330 as amended). Definitions are drawn from sections 

4, 101, and 302.

6 Specifically, the text refers to tribes that have been “recognized as an Indian tribe by any State,” and “for which an Indian Housing Authority has, 

before the effective date under section 705, entered into a contract with the Secretary pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937 for 

housing for Indian families and has received funding pursuant to such contract within the 5-year period ending upon such effective date.”
7

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

available, reliable, or uniform data about the 

number of tribal members for the relevant 

geographies. Accordingly, in operationalizing 

the allocation formula, HUD relies on the 

census definition of AIAN, which is based on 

self-identification of race. It is important for 

the reader to keep the difference in definitions 

in mind as we discuss the heterogeneity 

in the size and circumstances of the AIAN 

population across the geographic area types. 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

Population Trends

The 1996 report noted the rapid increase 

of people who self-identified as AIAN 

since 1970. The analysis below updates the 

previous analysis with information from 

the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses. 

The decennial census, while intended as a 

100-percent count of the population, has 

historically undercounted hard-to-reach 

populations. (See Appendix 1 for more 

details.) Although imperfect, census data 

are the most complete national source of 

population counts by race. This analysis uses 

the published statistics and does not attempt 

to adjust for the undercount on reservations. 

Comparisons among the 1990 and later 

decennial censuses are complicated because, 

starting with the 2000 decennial census, the 

questionnaire permitted people to identify 

themselves as belonging to more than one 

race. In most of this section (and this report), 

we focus on the population that identified 

AIAN as their only race (the “AIAN alone” 

population).7 We find that the population 

that said they were AIAN and belonged to 

one or more other races as well (the “AIAN 

* Indicates population projections. 

Note: Beginning in 2000, individuals could choose more than one race. For 2000 and later years, these figures represent the AIAN alone population.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 1890 to 2010 and Population Projections as published in December 2009

American Indian/Alaska Native population (in thousands) Figure 2.1. American Indian and Alaska Native Population, 1890 to 2030

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4.000

3,500

2,500

1,500

500

4,500

248 237 266 244 332 334 343 

552 

827 

1,420 

1,959 

2,476 

2,932 

3,436 

4,192 

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020* 2030* 

7 This compromise is not ideal, but research comparing survey responses that contain both single-race and multiple-race questions show that American Indians of multiple races were generally more likely to choose the other race. In particular, for the largest multiracial combination of AIAN and 

white, only 21 percent of the group chose AIAN when asked to choose only one race (Parker, et al. 2004). But Ingram et al. (2003) did find that 

bridging races increased the AIAN population in 2000 by 12 percent. Using this 12 percent as a rough multiplier for the 2000 and 2010 populations, 

the growth rate would have risen to 42 percent instead of 26 percent from 1990 to 2000 but would still decline to 18 percent from 2000 to 2010. 
8

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

multiracial” population) differs from the AIAN 

alone group in important ways. We look at 

the size and growth of the AIAN multiracial 

population at the end of this section. 

In 2010, 2.9 million people reported their only 

race as American Indian or Alaska Native 

(Figure 2.1). This AIAN alone population is 

continuing to rise, but at a much slower pace 

than before. The growth rate was 38 percent 

from 1980 to 1990, but fell to 26 percent 

for the 1990 to 2000 period, and dropped 

again to 18 percent from 2000 to 2010. 

The absolute growth from 2000 to 2010 of 

456,000 also represented a decline from the 

increase of 517,000 from 1990 to 2000.

Even with the growth deceleration, the AIAN 

alone population still grew faster than the 

total U.S. population from 2000 to 2010 (18 

percent for AIAN compared with 9.7 percent 

overall). Because of this, the AIAN alone share 

of total population has increased slightly over 

the past 10 years from 0.88 percent to 0.95 

percent. The Census Bureau projects that this 

trend will continue, with the share of the AIAN 

population rising to 1.2 percent of the total 

population by 2030, or 4.2 million people.8

The intersection between race and 

ethnicity was not discussed in the 1996 

report, but over time, it has emerged as 

a larger issue.9 The Hispanic share of the 

AIAN population was 6.6 percent in 1980, 

climbed to 8.4 percent by 1990, and then 

grew rapidly to reach 23 percent of the 

AIAN alone population in 2010 (Figure 2.2). 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 1890 to 2010 

Percent of the AIAN alone population that is Hispanic

Figure 2.2.Trends in AIAN Alone and Hispanic Populations, 1980 to 2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

6.6 

8.4 

16.4 

23.4 

0.7 0.7 

1.2 

1.4 

1980 1990 2000 2010 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Percent of the Hispanic population that is AIAN alone

Percent of AIAN alone population that is Hispanic (left axis)

Percent of Hispanic population that is AIAN alone (right axis) 

8 The 4.2 million population projection for 2030 is based on the data released from the U.S. Census Bureau in December 2009. More current projections were released in December 2012 and have a considerably higher figure—4.889 million. We use the 2009 data because 

we believe that the vital statistics method of allocating births that are classified as Hispanic and “some other race” incorrectly inflates the 

number of AIAN births. This has more of an influence in the post-decennial census projections than in the 2009 projections because the 

share of the AIAN population that was also Hispanic rose sharply between 2000 and 2010.

9 In the decennial census, the question about race (white; African American; Asian; Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian; Native American 

and Alaska Native) is separate from that of ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino/not Hispanic or Latino).
9

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

The additional 278,000 Hispanic AIAN 

alone population drove much of the AIAN 

growth from 2000 to 2010, accounting for 

61 percent of the total AIAN population 

increase. The shift in ethnic composition is 

critical to understanding the shifting growth 

patterns of Native Americans, which are 

described in detail below.

The overall Hispanic population, however, 

has shown relatively small changes in 

how often they identify as AIAN. In 1980 

and 1990, about 0.7 percent of Hispanics 

self-identified as AIAN alone. By 2010, 1.4 

percent of Hispanics self-identified as AIAN 

alone, twice the rate of 20 years earlier 

but still small relative to the entire Hispanic 

population. Even with this low share of 

Hispanics that self-identify as AIAN, the 

large size of the Hispanic population in the 

United States (50.5 million) and its rapid 

growth (43 percent from 2000 to 2010) 

explains the jump in percentage of selfidentified AIAN people who are Hispanic. 

Interestingly, the Hispanic AIAN alone 

population is not primarily driven by recent 

immigration—7 out of 10 were born in the 

United States and only about 2 out of 10 of 

the Hispanic AIAN alone immigrants moved 

to the United States after 1990. 

Geographies

In this section we look at key geographic 

divisions that help describe a diverse, 

growing population. In it, we see a story 

of substantial ethnic change that brings 

a shift away from traditional tribal areas 

and toward metropolitan areas. The 1996 

report introduced a typology based on 

tribal area status, adjacency to tribal 

areas, and metropolitan status to illustrate 

how the characteristics and needs of the 

AIAN population vary across the United 

States. Since this breakdown revealed 

several meaningful differences relevant to 

AIAN housing needs, we adopt the same 

categories for this analysis.10

• AIAN Counties: At least part of the 

county is considered to be an American 

Indian or Alaska Native area by the U.S. 

Census Bureau. In 2010, 523 out of the 

3,138 counties included in ONAP regions 

fell into the “AIAN Counties” group.11 We 

divide this category into two subgroups:

o Tribal Areas: AIAN counties or parts 

of AIAN counties considered to be 

reservations and other areas with 

concentrations of tribal population 

and activity. For this study, we use 

boundaries as defined by the U.S. 

Census Bureau. The 2010 decennial 

census identifies a total of 617 AIAN 

tribal areas nationwide (221 of which 

are Alaska Native Villages). Appendix 2 

defines the different types of tribal areas 

included in the Census Bureau data and 

presents counts pertaining to each type. 

It also explains the methods we used to 

define tribal area geographies that are 

comparable in 2000 and 2010.

o AIAN Surrounding Counties: The parts 

of AIAN counties outside of tribal areas. 

A major finding of the 1996 report is the 

importance of areas outside of tribal 

land but near enough for residents to 

have ties to the tribal area. American 

Indians in surrounding counties may 

have left the tribal area for economic, 

personal, or other reasons but are close 

enough to have interactions with a 

reservation. Of the 523 AIAN counties, 

453 counties are only partially tribal 

and, thus, contain areas that fall into the 

“surrounding counties” category.

10 Since Hawaii is not included in the ONAP regions, the population totals in this section exclude the 4,164 AIAN people in that State, which 

represents only 0.1 percent of the total population.

11 The counts for each geographic type exclude tribal areas and counties in Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
10

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

• Non-AIAN Counties: The remaining 

counties that do not contain tribal areas. 

These are divided between counties 

within and outside of officially defined 

metropolitan areas, 947 and 1,668 

counties in each category, respectively. 

For the remainder of this report, we 

refer to these county types as “other 

metropolitan counties” and “other 

nonmetropolitan counties,” respectively.12

As noted above, in this study we use the 

617 “American Indian and Alaska Native 

Areas” as defined by the U.S. Census 

Bureau in 2010.13 Official AIAN tribal area 

boundaries are not static, and boundaries 

can change for several reasons. As 

geographic information system technology 

has advanced, tribes, States, and the U.S. 

Census Bureau have been able to clarify 

AIAN boundaries, resulting in minor changes 

to the official Census Bureau boundary 

lines over time. Land disputes between the 

tribes or a modified legal status may also 

cause tribal boundaries to be changed. New 

tribal areas are also being recognized; 31 

new AIAN areas were added to the Census 

Bureau list this past decade alone. One of 

the goals of this report is to explore the 

changing characteristics of AIAN areas over 

the past decade. To reflect change for a 

consistent set of boundaries, we created a 

geographic crosswalk from tribal areas as 

defined in 2000 to the 2010 tribal areas. For 

notes on this methodology, see Appendix 2.

There is another aspect of the geography 

that also needs to be recognized: region. 

Native Americans living in tribal areas 

generally have more economic and housing 

challenges than those living in metropolitan 

areas, but even among tribal areas, the level 

of household problems differs widely across 

regions. Accordingly, this report reviews 

demographic, social, economic, and housing 

conditions in each of the above geographic 

categories, further subdivided by region. 

As in the 1996 report, our study regions 

are based on the service areas of HUD’s 

six ONAP areas. For the purposes of this 

study, three of these areas were considered 

to be too heterogeneous and were split, 

which results in a total of nine study regions 

(Figure 2.3). 

1. North Central (Chicago 

Office—Eastern/Woodlands)

2. Eastern (Chicago 

Office—Eastern/Woodlands)

3. Oklahoma (Oklahoma City 

Office—Southern Plains) 

4. South Central (Oklahoma City 

Office—Southern Plains)

5. Northern Plains (Denver 

Office—Northern Plains)

6. Arizona/New Mexico (Phoenix 

Office—Southwest)

7. California/Nevada (Phoenix 

Office—Southwest)

8. Pacific Northwest (Seattle 

Office—Northwest)

9. Alaska 

(Anchorage Office—Alaska)

12 In a separate report on American Indians and Alaska Natives living in urban areas as a part of this project, we will describe patterns of 

concentrations of the AIAN population living in metropolitan areas and their characteristics. 

13 These areas are identified by summary level 280 in census data files, but we exclude Hawaiian Home Lands from analysis in this report. 

Appendix 2 defines the five different types of tribal areas: Federally Recognized Reservations, State-Recognized Reservations, Joint-Use 

Areas, Tribally Designated Statistical Areas, and Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas.
11

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Figure 2.3. Tribal Areas Map

Spatial Patterns 

of the AIAN Population

At 59 percent a majority of the almost 3 

million AIAN alone people lived in AIAN 

counties. The Hispanic makeup of the AIAN 

alone population described above varies 

considerably based on geographic location. 

The other metropolitan counties have the 

largest share and growth in share, with 

Hispanics accounting for 42 percent of the 

AIAN alone population in 2010 (Figure 2.4). 

The share of Hispanic AIAN alone population 

also rose in the other geographic area types, 

but to a lesser extent. The Hispanic share of 

AIAN alone on tribal land rose only slightly 

since 2000 and was still quite small at 3.4 

percent in 2010. The Hispanic presence is 

much higher in the surrounding counties, 

where they made up almost one-quarter of 

the AIAN alone population.
12

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 2000 and 2010

Percent of the AIAN alone population that is Hispanic 

Figure 2.4. Share of AIAN Alone Population That Is Hispanic, 2000 to 2010 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4.000

3,500

2,500

1,500

500

4,500

2.3 

18.1 

31.4 

13.8 

3.4 

24.1 

42.5 

20.1 

Tribal areas Surrounding counties Other metropolitan counties Other nonmetropolitan countries 

2000

2010

Area type

The change in ethnic makeup of the AIAN 

alone population drove shifts in the overall 

spatial and growth patterns. As mentioned 

earlier, the American Indian population is 

growing at a faster pace than the rest of the 

country in all area types. However, AIAN 

population growth from 2000 to 2010 of 

8.2 percent in the tribal areas, where there 

were very few Hispanics, is the slowest of all 

the area types (Table 2.1). This is well below 

the 33-percent population growth reported 

for tribal areas between 1980 and 1990, 

illustrating a significant change in growth 

patterns of the AIAN population.14 Now, 

surrounding counties and non-AIAN counties 

are experiencing three times the growth rate 

seen in tribal areas, largely driven by the 

increase in the Hispanic AIAN population. 

14 As noted before, we cannot directly compare the geographic area of tribal land from 2010 to 1980, but this still appears to be 

a major change in trends.
13

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Table 2.1. AIAN Alone Population and Growth by Hispanic Origin and Area Type, 2000 to 2010

AIAN Alone Population, 2010 Percent Change in AIAN Alone, 2000 to 2010

Total Non-Hispanic Hispanic Total Non-Hispanic Hispanic

Total 2,928,084 2,244,275 683,809 18.4 8.6 68.4

AIAN Counties 1,728,677 1,512,380 216,297 14.5 9.8 63.8

Tribal areas 967,135 934,383 32,752 8.2 7.0 59.7

Surrounding counties 761,542 577,997 183,545 23.6 14.6 64.6

Non-AIAN Counties 1,199,407 731,895 467,512 24.6 6.3 70.6

Other metropolitan 1,012,320 582,459 429,861 25.9 5.6 70.5

Nonmetropolitan 187,087 149,436 37,651 17.6 9.0 71.3

Note: Data for 2000 have been adjusted for 31 tribal areas with signifcant boundary changes between 2000 and 2010. See Appendix 2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

The non-Hispanic and Hispanic AIAN 

population growth from 2000 to 2010 

reinforced existing residential spatial 

patterns (Table 2.2). About two-thirds of 

the non-Hispanic AIAN population lived in 

AIAN counties, 42 percent in tribal areas 

and 26 percent in surrounding counties. 

This area was also where more than threequarters of the population growth occurred. 

In contrast, the non-AIAN counties were 

home to about two-thirds of the Hispanic 

AIAN population and accounted for 70 

percent of its growth. Only 5 percent of 

Hispanic AIANs lived in tribal areas and 27 

percent in surrounding counties.

The non-Hispanic AIAN trend is similar 

to what was observed from 1980 to 1990 

for the total AIAN population, when AIAN 

counties accounted for almost 80 percent of 

the population growth. The growth patterns 

from 2000 to 2010 resulted in almost a 1 

percentage point decline in the share of 

Hispanic AIAN alone people living in Indian 

Country and a similar size increase in the 

non-Hispanic AIAN share in those areas.
14

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Table 2.2. Distribution of AIAN Alone Population and Growth by Hispanic Origin and Area Type, 2000 to 2010

Percent of AIAN Alone Population, 2000 Percent of AIAN Alone Growth, 2000 to 2010

Total Non-Hispanic Hispanic Total Non-Hispanic Hispanic

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AIAN Counties 59.0 67.4 31.6 48.1 75.8 30.3

Tribal areas 33.0 41.6 4.8 16.1 34.4 4.4

Surrounding counties 26.0 25.8 26.8 32.0 41.4 25.9

Non-AIAN Counties 41.0 32.6 68.4 51.9 24.2 69.7

Other metropolitan 34.6 26.0 62.9 45.8 17.3 64.0

Nonmetropolitan 6.4 6.7 5.5 6.1 6.9 5.6

Note: Data for 2000 have been adjusted for 31 tribal areas with significant boundary changes between 2000 and 2010. See Appendix 2.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

Altogether, one-third of the AIAN alone 

population lives in tribal areas and another 

26 percent live in counties surrounding tribal 

areas (Table 2.2). Of those living in nonAIAN counties, most live in in metropolitan 

areas: 35 percent of the entire AIAN 

population alone live in other metropolitan 

areas where only 6 percent live in nonAIAN, nonmetropolitan areas. Although the 

distribution of the AIAN alone population in 

2010 is generally similar to a decade earlier, 

the Hispanic AIAN growth resulted in slight 

shifts of the population away from tribal 

areas and toward other metropolitan areas.

Extending the analysis, we find more nuance 

among the AIAN counties when examined 

by region (Table 2.3). The Hispanic share of 

the AIAN alone population in AIAN counties 

ranged from 2.1 percent in the Alaska region 

up to 42 percent in the California/Nevada 

region in 2010. Unlike the national picture, 

the share of Hispanic AIAN population does 

not necessarily correspond to the level 

of overall growth. The AIAN growth rate 

from 2000 to 2010 in the North Central 

and Oklahoma AIAN counties was similar 

to the national average of 15 percent even 

with relatively low shares of Hispanic AIAN 

population. They did drive the growth in 

regions such as the Pacific Northwest and 

California/Nevada, where they account for 

64 percent and 94 percent of the total AIAN 

growth, respectively.
15

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Table 2.3. AIAN Alone Population Ethnicity and Growth by Study Region, 2000 to 2010

AIAN Counties Tribal Areas

Study Region

Hispanic AIAN 

as a Percent of 

All AIAN, 2010

"Percent 

Change in AIAN, 

2000 to 2010

Hispanic AIAN Share 

of AIAN Growth, 

2000 to 2010

Hispanic AIAN 

as a Percent of 

All AIAN, 2010

Percent Change 

in AIAN, 2000 to 

2010

Hispanic AIAN Share 

of AIAN Growth, 

2000 to 2010

Total 12.5 14.5 38.5 3.4 8.2 16.7

 North Central 6.8 15.0 23.1 3.4 12.0 11.2

 Eastern 13.5 17.7 45.4 2.6 11.7 12.4

 Oklahoma 4.0 17.7 12.0 3.4 17.5 10.3

 South Central 18.8 14.9 16.4 6.2 14.0 22.6

 Northern Plains 4.3 11.1 18.4 2.6 6.4 12.1

 Arizona/New Mexico 10.9 14.0 36.2 3.2 -0.1 NA

 California/Nevada 42.3 17.0 94.4 12.2 11.7 32.6

 Pacific Northwest 14.1 11.8 63.5 6.4 6.7 36.0

 Alaska 2.1 6.1 12.1 1.1 3.2 5.1

NA: Not applicable.

Note: Data for 2000 have been adjusted for 31 tribal areas with significant boundary changes between 2000 and 2010. See Appendix 2.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

The Hispanic share of AIAN alone population 

in tribal areas is more uniform, with the 

share exceeding the national average in only 

three regions—the Pacific Northwest (6.4 

percent), South Central (6.2 percent), and 

the California/Nevada region (12 percent). 

Tribal areas in the latter two regions did 

experience higher than average AIAN alone 

growth rates from 2000 to 2010, but the 

Pacific Northwest showed a much lower 

rate. Population grew by a substantial 

amount in tribal areas in the North Central, 

Eastern, and Oklahoma regions, with only 

about one-tenth of the growth due to 

increases in Hispanic AIAN.

Population Trends in Tribal Areas

Tribal areas are an essential geographic area 

of focus when evaluating the challenges 

faced by the American Indian population. 

A complex web of historical and political 

events has affected the way that the United 

States has determined which areas legally 

belong to Indian nations and which areas do 

not. As these events are closely intertwined 

with American expansionism and interact 

with an incredibly diverse American Indian 

population, characteristics of tribal areas vary 

remarkably in different regions of the country. 

The number and nature of tribal areas differ 

greatly by region (Table 2.4). Oklahoma, for 

example, accounts for the largest tribal land 

area of all regions, while Alaskan tribal areas 

are the most numerous, relatively small and 

more sparsely populated. The South Central 

region has the fewest number of tribal areas 

and the smallest total land area, but with an 

average of 169 people per square mile, it is 

the most densely populated.
16

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Table 2.4. Geographic Characteristics for Tribal Areas by Study Region, 2000 to 2010

AIAN Alone Population

Study Region

Number of 

Tribal Areas

Land Area

(Sq. Miles)

Density 

(Population/ Sq. Mi.)

2010 Percent Change, 

2000 to 2010

Total 617 187,121 25.8 967,135 8.2

 North Central 36 4,780 23.2 42,238 12.0

 Eastern 68 5,286 156.7 102,482 11.7

 Oklahoma 30 52,145 49.0 280,069 17.5

 South Central 17 1,483 169.0 13,429 14.0

 Northern Plains 31 46,929 5.0 128,429 6.4

 Arizona/New Mexico 42 43,731 7.2 265,888 -0.1

 California/Nevada 130 2,826 26.3 25,425 11.7

 Pacific Northwest 42 9,423 21.6 42,110 6.7

 Alaska 221 20,518 11.9 67,065 3.2

Note: Data for 2000 have been adjusted for 31 tribal areas with significant boundary changes between 2000 and 2010. See Appendix 2. 

Thirteen tribal areas cross study regions. For the count of areas, these areas are assigned to the region containing the majority of their 

population. For the other indicators, the values are apportioned across regions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

Population growth rates of tribal areas in 

different regions also vary greatly (Table 

2.4). In 2000, Arizona/New Mexico was the 

region with the largest AIAN population in 

tribal areas, but it experienced a slight loss 

in population over the decade. Over this 

same time period, Oklahoma areas saw an 

18-percent AIAN growth, making Oklahoma 

the region with the largest AIAN population 

at the end of the decade. Tribal areas in 

the Northern Plains region, Alaska, and the 

Pacific Northwest experienced slow AIAN 

population growth, ranging from 3.2 to 6.7 

percent, whereas the remaining four regions 

saw double-digit growth.

In addition to total AIAN population, looking 

at the proportion of the total population 

that is AIAN sheds light on racial diversity 

of the tribal areas (Figure 2.5). In Arizona/

New Mexico, the home of Navajo, Hopi, 

and other large tribes, 84 percent of the 

population on tribal areas were AIAN alone. 

The Northern Plains region, at 55 percent, 

has the next highest rate. On the other hand, 

AIAN residents make up less than 13 percent 

in tribal areas in the Eastern, Oklahoma, and 

South Central study regions.
17

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010.

Percent of region’s total population

Figure 2.5. Share of Tribal Population that is AIAN Alone by Study Region, 2010

0

20

40

60

80

70

50

30

10

90

Study Region

38.1

12.4 11.0

5.4

55.1

83.9

34.2

20.7

27.5

N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains AZ/NM CA/NV Pacific NW Alaska

Average AIAN alone population 

on tribal areas: 20%

The Multiracial AIAN Population

As noted above, starting in 2000, 

respondents have been able to identify 

themselves as belonging to more than 

one race in surveys conducted by the U.S. 

Census Bureau. In 2010, 2.3 million people 

selected AIAN in combination with one or 

more other races—a number equal to 77 

percent of the AIAN alone population. And 

this group is growing very rapidly: from 

2000 to 2010, it increased by 39 percent, 

more than twice the 18 percent growth rate 

for AIAN alone.

The residential patterns of the AIAN 

multiracial and AIAN alone populations differ 

markedly (Table 2.5). In 2010, only 8 percent 

of the multiracial group lived in tribal areas, 

compared with 33 percent for AIAN alone. 

About two-thirds of the AIAN multiracial 

population lived in non-AIAN counties, and 

most of that group lived in metropolitan 

areas. In contrast, only 41 percent of the 

AIAN alone population lived outside of

AIAN counties.
18

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Table 2.5. Multiracial AIAN Population by Area Type, 2010

Population Percent of Total Percent Hispanic

Mulitracial AIAN Mulitracial AIAN AIAN Alone Mulitracial AIAN AIAN Alone

Total 2,259,025 100.0 100.0 22.0 23.4

AIAN Counties 740,335 32.8 59.0 20.2 12.5

Tribal areas 180,417 8.0 33.0 8.0 3.4

Surrounding counties 559,918 24.8 26.0 24.1 24.1

Non-AIAN Counties 1,518,690 67.2 41.0 22.9 39.0

Other metropolitan 1,284,004 56.8 34.6 24.9 42.5

Nonmetropolitan 234,686 10.4 6.4 11.8 20.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010

Parallel to the AIAN alone population, the 

share of the AIAN multiracial population 

that also identified as Hispanic rose from 

16 percent in 2000 to 22 percent in 2010. 

The overall distribution of Hispanic AIAN 

individuals among the area types also 

looks very similar for both single-race and 

multiracial AIAN. However, the 20 percent 

Hispanic share for AIAN multiracial people 

was considerably higher in the AIAN counties 

than the 13 percent for the AIAN alone 

population. In contrast, the Hispanic share in 

non-AIAN counties for the AIAN multiracial 

population (23 percent) is much lower than 

the share of AIAN alone (39 percent).

Nationally, about 16 percent of AIAN 

residents on tribal areas are multiracial, but 

the prevalence of AIAN people identifying 

with multiple races varies across regions. 

At one extreme, almost one-third of AIAN 

tribal area residents in Oklahoma identify 

with more than one race. Among the other 

regions, the number of AIAN tribal area 

residents identifying as multiracial ranges 

from 2 percent in Arizona/New Mexico to 19 

percent in South Central. 

Mobility

The sections above examine residence as of 

April 2010, but we know households move 

because of changes in family or financial 

status or to move closer to amenities or 

employment opportunities. About 81 percent 

of the AIAN population in the 2006–10 ACS 

reported that they lived in the same house 

they had 1 year before (a rate slightly less 

likely than for non-AIAN households). AIAN 

people living on tribal areas are less likely to 

move than AIAN people overall, 88 percent 

reporting that they lived in the same house 

as a year before. 

Although we cannot differentiate movein dates by race, a greater share overall of 

homeowners on tribal lands (58 percent) 

moved into their homes before 2000 than 

did overall (55 percent). For renters, the 

difference is negligible—15.1 percent of renter 

households moved into tribal areas before 

2000, less than one-half of one percentage 

point different than the rate for all 

households. The limited ACS tables do not 

answer the more important questions about 

where and why AIAN households move. The 
19

Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

AIAN household survey for tribal lands will 

have richer information that will allow us to 

explore those questions.

Implications

The American Indian population in the 

United States continues its pace of high 

growth but not at the same rate in all areas 

of the country. On tribal lands in particular, 

the wide variation in population trends by 

region demonstrates the need to understand 

local housing markets and strengthens the 

argument for policies tailored to different 

levels of housing demand.

Consistent with the findings of the 1996 

report, it is clear that ties to AIAN counties—

land just outside of tribal areas—remain 

strong. However, an examination of AIAN 

housing needs should also consider how the 

challenges may differ for those living outside 

of AIAN counties, an increasing share of 

which will be Hispanic. In both cases, the 

housing needs of the AIAN population will 

be influenced by an intersection of both 

location and cultural factors. The following 

section begins to explore these issues 

by examining some social and economic 

similarities and differences among our area 

types and between the Hispanic and nonHispanic AIAN population.
20

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

3. Social and 

Economic Conditions

Introduction

Population growth is an important driver 

of change in housing needs, and the last 

section has shown that there is considerable 

diversity in growth rates in Indian Country. 

However, growth tells only a part of the 

story. The nature of the housing needs in two 

places with similar growth trajectories would 

differ substantially if one has a much higher 

unemployment rate, share of young children, 

or marriage rate than the other, as we will 

explain in more detail throughout this section.

In the first part of this section, we explore 

variations in a number of socioeconomic 

characteristics like these that help shape an 

area’s housing need. As noted in Section 

1, the main topics include age structure, 

household size and type, educational 

attainment, employment levels, and income 

and poverty. Throughout, we compare 

conditions and trends for the AIAN alone 

population against those for non-Indians. We 

also look at variations across area types and 

study regions as in the preceding section. 

Consistent with the previous chapter, we 

exclude Hawaii from our analysis in this 

chapter, so all estimates for the Nation 

exclude Hawaii unless otherwise noted.

For some variables, we can compare 

changes over the 2000 to 2010 period 

because decennial census data for both 

years are available (age structure, household 

size and type). For the others (educational 

attainment, employment levels, and income 

and poverty), we are limited to comparing 

2000 decennial census long-form values 

to the 5-year averages in the 2006–10 

American Community Survey (ACS). The 

ACS has a smaller sample size than the 

2000 long- form, and thus wider confidence 

intervals, particularly for smaller or more 

rural geographies like many tribal areas.15

Our methodology of summing the tribal 

areas together should minimize the error 

involved, but any small changes in indicators 

should be viewed with caution.16

For most of this section, using the decennial 

census long-form and the ACS limits our 

detailed geographic analysis to the entire 

AIAN alone population, which includes both 

Hispanic and non-Hispanic Native Americans.17

The implications of including both Hispanics 

and non-Hispanics will vary for the different 

geographic areas. As discussed in Section 

2, Hispanics account for a small share of the 

AIAN alone population in tribal areas, so the 

statistics presented for tribal areas largely 

reflect conditions for the non-Hispanic AIAN 

15 See DeWeaver (2010) for more information on the limitations of the ACS in providing complete, timely, and reliable data for Indian Country.

16 We are not able to accurately calculate the margin of error (MOE) by geographic area types because the Census Bureau advises that the 

approximation formula provided to calculate MOEs for calculated indicators seriously breaks down when aggregating more than four 

estimates (Alexander 2011).

17 We do not distinguish between the Hispanic and Non-Hispanic AIAN alone populations in the majority of the analysis in this section because the Census Bureau only publishes summary tables for the standard 2006–10 ACS for the total AIAN alone population.
21

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

alone population. In contrast, the growth 

of the Hispanic AIAN population could 

have more influence on the changes in the 

AIAN social and economic characteristics 

in non-AIAN counties. To help interpret the 

patterns and trends by geographic area, we 

note differences between Hispanic and nonHispanic AIAN alone populations nationally for 

selected indicators.

An important question not answered by the 

analysis that uses 2000 as the benchmark is 

how the AIAN population fared before and 

after the onset of the Great Recession. The 

5-year ACS data cannot be used to answer 

this question because they represent surveys 

collected monthly from 2006 to 2010, which 

spans both the period of economic expansion 

and the recent recession. More recent data 

are available from the 1-year ACS, although 

data from that source cannot be presented in 

much detail geographically. We examine the 

time period from 2008 to 2010 to look at the 

impact of the Great Recession on the AIAN 

alone population, compared to non-Indians 

for the Nation as a whole and the four main 

census regions. This analysis includes Hawaii 

due to the aforementioned data limitations. 

Age Structure

The age structure of a population, along with 

different household type patterns, which we 

discuss later, affects household formation 

and housing need because it is tied to major 

life-cycle events (for example, moving out on 

one’s own, getting married, having children) 

(Pendall et al. 2012). The 1996 report noted 

that American Indians and Alaska Natives 

were younger, on average, than the nonAIAN population. The most recent decennial 

census confirms that this is still the case. 

As shown in Figure 3.1, the AIAN alone 

population is more heavily concentrated in 

Age group

Percent of population

Figure 3.1. Share of Population by Age Group and Race, 2010 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 to 4 

5 to 9 

10 to 14 

15 to 19 

20 to 24 

25 to 29 

30 to 34 

35 to 39 

40 to 44 

45 to 49 

50 to 54 

55 to 59 

60 to 64 

65 to 69 

70 to 74 

75 to 79 

80 to 84 

85+ 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010.

Non-AIAN alone

AIAN alone
22

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

younger age groups as compared with the 

non-AIAN population. Up to age 40, the 

AIAN population share for each age group 

exceeds that of the non-AIAN population, 

but after age 40, the non-AIAN population 

shares surpass the AIAN population shares. 

Overall, 30 percent of the AIAN population 

in 2010 was younger than 18 as compared 

with 24 percent of the non-AIAN population. 

Having a higher share of children has 

important implications for AIAN housing 

needs. For example, households with children 

will require a larger house or apartment and 

also be concerned with access to quality 

schools and parks (McAuley and Nutty 1982).

Although still higher than the non-AIAN 

share, the percentage of the AIAN population 

younger than 18 fell 4 percentage points from 

2000 to 2010. This reflects the overall aging of 

the population; the under-18 shares dropped 

for both the AIAN and non-AIAN populations 

in the 2000s across all area types. The AIAN 

decrease was larger than for the non-AIAN 

population, and as a result the gap narrowed. 

The percentage of the AIAN population 

younger than 18 fell from 1.33 times the nonAIAN level in 2000, to 1.26 times in 2010. The 

highest share of children is found in tribal areas 

(34 percent), but they also experienced the 

greatest shift in age distribution—a drop of 4.8 

percentage points since 2000 (Figure 3.2). 

When we look at the age differences by 

Hispanic origin, we find that the Hispanic AIAN 

population more closely mirrors the Hispanic 

non-AIAN population than non-Hispanic 

Native Americans. For example, about 10 

percent of the Hispanic non-AIAN population 

is younger than 5, compared with 9.3 percent 

of Hispanic Native Americans and only 7.5 

percent of non-Hispanic Native Americans. 

Understanding the trends in the elderly is 

also important for assessing housing needs. 

The AIAN alone elderly population has high 

disability rates, increasing the importance 

Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010.

Ratio of AIAN alone population share 

to the non-AIAN alone population share

Figure 3.2. Gap Between AIAN and Non-AIAN Population Under 18 and 62 and Older by Area Type, 2010

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

1.4

1.0

0.6

0.2

1.4 

0.6 

1.2 

0.5 

1.2 

0.6 

1.1 

0.6 

Under 18 62 and older 

Tribal areas 

Surrounding counties 

Other metropolitan counties 

Other nonmetropolitan counties 
23

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

of the accessibility of housing. In 2011, more 

than half (51 percent) of the AIAN alone 

population age 65 and older was disabled 

as compared with 47 percent for the 

Nation as a whole.18 Frail or disabled elderly 

households may require adapted features 

(for example, safety features like grab bars 

in bathrooms). They also often live on fixed 

incomes, making the continued affordability 

of their housing an important factor 

(Spillman, Biess, and MacDonald 2012).

American Indians and Alaska Natives still 

had a considerably smaller share of their 

population age 62 and older than the nonIndian population. In 2010, 9.3 percent of 

the AIAN population was age 62 and older, 

compared with 16 percent for the nonAIAN population. Tribal areas and other 

nonmetropolitan counties had larger shares of 

both their AIAN and non-AIAN populations in 

this age group as compared with surrounding 

counties and other metropolitan counties. 

The percentage of the population in the age 

62 and older category increased over the 

past two decades across all area types for 

both the AIAN and non-AIAN population. 

The increase from 2000 to 2010 in elderly 

share for AIANs exceeded the growth in the 

non-AIAN share, so again the gap between 

the AIAN and non-AIAN populations 

narrowed. Overall, the ratio of AIAN to nonAIAN shares of people age 62 and older 

rose from 0.48 in 2000, to 0.57 in 2010. This 

pattern held across all area types. 

Household Sizes and Types

Household size has a direct link to what size 

housing units are in demand in a given area, 

and AIAN alone households tend to be larger 

than non-AIAN households.19 In 2010, the 

average AIAN household size was 3 persons, 

while the average non-AIAN household 

size was 2.6 persons. This pattern persisted 

across all area types (Figure 3.3). From 2000 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 2010

Average number of persons per household Figure 3.3. Average Household Size by Race and Area Type, 2010

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

AIAN alone

Non-AIAN alone

Area type

Total Tribal areas Surrounding counties Other metropolitan 

counties 

Other nonmetropolitan 

counties 

3.0 

2.6 

3.2 

2.5 

3.0 

2.6 

2.9 

2.6 2.7 

2.5 

18 Disability statistics are from the 2011 ACS 1-year estimates.

19 The indicators presented for household size and type define AIAN alone households as those with an AIAN alone householder.
24

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

to 2010, there was little change in the average 

household size of either AIAN or non-AIAN 

households in any of the area types.

The 1996 report found that large households 

(those with five or more people) made 

up a larger share of all AIAN households 

than in non-AIAN households. Consistent 

with higher average household sizes, the 

percentage of AIAN households with five or 

more people in 2010 (19 percent) was much 

higher than the comparable figure for nonAIAN households (11 percent).20 The AIAN 

large-household share dropped 0.8 points 

from 2000 to 2010, while the non-AIAN 

share stayed about the same.

Although the patterns of household size 

changed little since the 1996 report, the 

mix of AIAN types of households has 

changed in absolute terms and in relation 

to non-AIAN households. As mentioned 

in the discussion of age structure above, 

household type has important implications 

for housing need, with housing demand 

and preferences varying by household type, 

particularly with the presence of children. 

Further, housing instability is particularly 

prevalent among low-income families with 

children (Phinney et al. 2007). In 2010, 70 

percent of AIAN households were family 

households, in contrast to only 66 percent 

of non-AIAN households. The share of nonAIAN households in families varied little 

across area type—from 66 to 68 percent. 

In contrast, the family share of AIAN 

households ranged widely from 66 percent 

in other nonmetropolitan counties up to 

75 percent in tribal areas. The family share 

of both AIAN and non-AIAN households 

decreased across all area types from 2000 

to 2010, but the variation across area types 

was similar in both years. Correspondingly, 

AIAN households had lower shares in 

nonfamily household arrangements (30 

percent) than non-AIAN households (34 

percent) in 2010. This varied by geography: 

AIAN households in tribal areas had the 

lowest share of nonfamily households (25 

percent), and AIAN households in other 

nonmetropolitan counties had the highest 

share (34 percent). AIAN households 

are also less likely to live in single-person 

households than the non-AIAN population. 

Nationally, 23 percent of AIAN alone 

households consisted of a single person 

as compared with 27 percent of non-AIAN 

households in 2010. 

The most dramatic change among household 

types from 1990 to 2010 was the precipitous 

drop in the share of AIAN households that 

were married couples with children (Figure 

3.4). In 1990, 29 percent of AIAN households 

consisted of married couples with children; 

this figure dropped to 19 percent by 2010. 

Although the comparable share for non-AIAN 

households also declined (from 26 percent 

in 1990, to 20 percent in 2010), the drop 

was not as large. By 2010, AIAN households 

were just about as likely to consist of 

married couples with children as non-AIAN 

households (Figure 3.5).

In 2010, the percentage of AIAN households 

that consisted of single-parent families 

(17 percent) was much higher than that of 

non-AIAN households (9.5 percent). This 

relationship held for both female-headed 

households and male-headed households. 

Overall, 12 percent of AIAN households 

consisted of female-headed families with 

children as compared to 7.1 percent of nonAIAN households, and 4.6 percent of AIAN 

households consisted of male-headed 

families with children as compared to 2.4 

percent of non-AIAN households. 

20 The analysis of household type conducted for the 1996 report is not directly comparable to the analyses presented here, but the overall 

pattern holds. The previous analysis used a data source that defined AIAN households as households with an AIAN alone householder or 

AIAN spouse, whereas the data used in these analyses define AIAN alone households as those with an AIAN alone householder.
25

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 1990 and 2010

Percent of the AIAN alone households Figure 3.4. AIAN Households by Household Type, 1990 and 2010

0

10

20

30

35

25

15

5

1990

2010

Household type

Married w/ children Single parent w/ children Married w/out children Other families Nonfamily households

28.6 

19.4 

16.5 16.9 

20.2 20.7 

8.9 

13.5 

25.8 

29.6 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 2010

Percent of households by type Figure 3.5. AIAN and Non-AIAN Households by Household Type, 2010

0

10

20

30

35

40

25

15

5

AIAN alone

Non-AIAN alone

Household type

Married w/ children Single parent w/ children Married w/out children Other families Nonfamily households

19.4 

16.9 

20.7 

13.5 

29.6 

20.2 

9.5 

28.3 

8.4 

33.6 
26

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

The relatively high share of AIAN femaleheaded households is of particular concern 

since they are more likely to experience 

housing hardship and instability than 

married parents (Manning and Brown 2006; 

Nelson 2004).

In 2010, the prevalence of single-parent 

families was higher in tribal areas and 

their surrounding counties than in nonAIAN counties. Single-parent families 

with children made up 18 to 19 percent 

of AIAN households on tribal areas 

and in surrounding counties, while they 

only accounted for 15 percent in other 

metropolitan counties and 13 percent in 

other nonmetropolitan counties. In contrast, 

the single-parent family share varied little by 

area type for non-AIAN households (ranging 

from 8.9 to 9.9 percent). 

Since 2000, the percentages of AIAN singleparent family households decreased slightly, 

both overall and across all area types, while 

the percentages of non-AIAN households 

consisting of single-parent families increased 

slightly both overall (0.32 percent increase) 

and across all area types. Thus, the gap in 

single-parent family shares between AIAN 

and non-AIAN households narrowed over 

the 2000s. The AIAN single-parent share 

was 1.8 times the non-AIAN share in 2010, 

down slightly from 1.9 in 2000. 

The “other family” category is defined as 

male- or female-headed family households 

without children under the age of 18. In 

2010, these other families accounted for 

14 percent of all AIAN households, much 

above the 8.4 percent rate for non-AIAN 

households. The share of households in 

this family arrangement increased from 

1990 for all groups, but at a much faster 

pace for AIAN households than non-AIAN 

households. As a result, the AIAN share in 

this category jumped from 1.3 times the nonAIAN share in 1990, to 1.6 times in 2010. 

The increase in the share of other family 

households could be due to more 

intergenerational households—either with 

elderly family members moving into the 

household or children over the age of 

18 continuing to live in the household or 

returning to the household. Other research 

has documented that AIAN households are 

more likely than the population in general 

to live in multigenerational arrangements. 

Using ACS 2009–11 three-year estimates, 

the U.S. Census Bureau finds that AIAN 

households have a larger share of families 

living in multigenerational households (about 

11 percent) than the total population (5.6 

percent) (Lofquist 2012).21 Shares of AIAN 

families in multigenerational households are 

larger in States with large AIAN populations.

Educational Attainment

Educational attainment impacts an 

individual’s ability to find and retain 

employment. Those with lower education 

levels are more likely to experience 

difficulties in these areas, which can lead 

to housing instability (Phinney et al. 2007). 

In general, the AIAN population has lower 

levels of educational attainment than 

the non-AIAN population. However, the 

proportion of AIAN adults (age 25 and 

over) without a high school degree has 

fallen significantly over the last decade. In 

2006–10, this share was 23 percent, down 6 

percentage points from the 2000 share (29 

percent) (Figure 3.6). 

21 The U.S. Census Bureau defines multigenerational households in three ways: (1) a householder, child of householder, and grandchild of 

householder; (2) a householder, parent or parent-in-law of householder, and child of householder; and (3) a householder, parent or parentin-law of householder, child of householder, and grandchild of householder. None of these definitions takes into account the age of the 

children in the household, so the report’s findings are not comparable to our findings with regard to “other families,” which do not include 

households with children under the age of 18. However, the general trend supports our hypothesis that multigenerational living arrangements account in part for the increase in “other families.”
27

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Sources: Kingsley et al. 1996; U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010, and American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2006–10

Percent of the population age 25 or older 

without a high school diploma

Figure 3.6. Share Adults Without a High School Diploma by Race, 1990 to 2006–10

0

10

20

30

35

40

25

15

5

AIAN alone

Non-AIAN alone

1990 2000 2006-10

34.4 

29.1

23.4 24.7

19.6

14.9

Despite these gains, the 2006–10 rate was still 

much higher than the 15 percent for non-AIAN 

adults, and the gap is widening. In 1990, the 

share of the AIAN population without a high 

school diploma was 1.4 times the non-AIAN 

share. This figure increased to 1.5 times in 

2000, and again to 1.6 times in 2006–10. The 

share of adults without a high school diploma 

was slightly higher in tribal areas and other 

nonmetropolitan areas, but the gap with nonAIAN rates persisted across all area types.

The growth of Hispanic AIAN population 

contributed to the growing gap in education. 

About 19 percent of AIAN non-Hispanics older 

than 25 in 2006–10 did not have a high school 

degree. The share for Hispanic AIAN adults is 

almost twice as high at 37 percent, close to 

the 36 percent rate for non-AIAN Hispanics.

Similarly, English proficiency provides 

another contrast among AIAN Hispanics 

and non-Hispanics. About 30 percent of 

AIAN Hispanics do not speak English very 

well. This is lower than the 37 percent for 

non-AIAN Hispanics, which makes sense 

given the smaller share of AIAN Hispanics 

being new immigrants as mentioned in the 

first section. Comparatively, the share of 

AIAN non-Hispanics not speaking English 

very well is very small—about 4 percent.

There were noteworthy variations in 

educational attainment across regions. 

Overall, the shares without a high school 

diploma were highest in Arizona/New 

Mexico (27 percent) and the Eastern and 

California/Nevada regions (25 percent) and 

lowest in the Oklahoma and North Central 

regions (17 and 18 percent, respectively). The 

regional distributions of this measure were 

similar for AIAN and non-AIAN counties. 
28

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

In 2006–10, the share of the AIAN adult 

population with a bachelor’s degree or higher 

was 13 percent overall, but this indicator varied 

considerably by area type. AIAN adults in 

tribal areas were least likely to have completed 

a college education (only 9.2 percent), while 

the percentage for AIAN population living in 

other metropolitan counties was much higher, 

at almost 17 percent. The 2006–10 share of 

AIAN adults with a bachelor’s degree was 

only slightly higher than the 2000 level—an 

increase of only 1.5 percentage points. 

Even with these gains, the share of AIAN 

adults who had completed college is still 

far lower than the 28 percent for non-AIAN 

adults. Overall, the gap between the AIAN 

and non-AIAN population on this measure 

has shown little change since 1990. The 

2000 and 2006–10 percentage of the 

AIAN population obtaining a bachelor’s 

or graduate degree was only 47 and 46 

percent of the non-AIAN share, respectively, 

about the same as the 1990 comparison. 

However, the gap between the AIAN and 

non-AIAN populations widened in some 

area types and narrowed in others from 

2000 to 2006–10. In tribal areas the gap 

is widest, but it has improved the most: 

the percentage of the AIAN population 

with a bachelor’s or higher degree was 44 

percent of the non-AIAN percentage in 

2000, and 46 percent in 2006–10. In other 

nonmetropolitan areas, the gap is much 

smaller, but increased over that period. In 

2000, the share of the AIAN population with 

at least a bachelor’s degree was 71 percent 

of the non-AIAN share and decreased to 68 

percent of the non-AIAN share in 2006–10. 

Employment

Labor force participation and employment 

have clear effects on housing needs, 

including the obvious measure of earned 

income. Another example, the formation of 

new households (for example, young adults 

moving out of their parents’ homes and 

starting their own households) is suppressed 

when unemployment is higher, which lessens 

housing demand (Masnick, McCue, and 

Belsky 2010). The employment situation of 

the AIAN population generally worsened 

over the 2000s. We examined three 

indicators related to employment in this 

section: the share of AIAN population older 

than 16 in the labor force—either working or 

looking for work (labor force participation 

rate), the percentage of population older 

than 16 that was employed (employment 

rate), and the share of the labor force that 

was unemployed (unemployment rate).

The labor force participation rate fell slightly 

from 61 percent in 2000, to 60 percent 

in 2006–10. The non-AIAN participation 

rate increased slightly over the same time 

period, from 63 percent to 65 percent. As a 

result, the gap widened, with the AIAN rate 

moving from 3 percentage points below 

the non-AIAN rate to 5 percentage points 

lower over this period. The AIAN labor force 

participation rates are considerably higher in 

other metropolitan counties (64 percent) and 

lower in tribal areas (55 percent) and other 

nonmetropolitan counties (54 percent).

By region, the AIAN labor force shares 

(across all area types) varied from a low 

of 54 percent (Arizona/New Mexico) to 

high in the 62–63 percent range in four 

regions (North Central, Oklahoma, South 

Central, and Pacific Northwest) (Table 3.1). 

Disparities with non-Indians also varied by 

region. Overall labor force participation was 

the same or almost the same for AIAN and 

non-AIAN populations in the Oklahoma and 

South Central regions, but the AIAN rate 

was 8 to 11 percentage points lower than 

the non-Indian rate in the Northern Plains, 

Arizona/New Mexico, and Alaska regions. 
29

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Table 3.1. AIAN Employment Indicators by Study Region and Area Type, 2006–10

Study Region

Total N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains AZ/NM CA/NV Pacific NW Alaska

AIAN Alone Labor Force Participation Rate 

(population 16 and older)

Total 59.9 62.1 60.4 62.1 62.9 60.5 54.0 61.1 62.3 59.3

Tribal areas 55.3 62.1 56.1 61.3 58.0 57.5 47.4 49.3 56.5 59.4

Surrounding counties 62.0 63.0 61.2 67.7 57.0 63.5 63.2 59.3 62.7 59.3

Other metropolitan counties 64.4 63.4 63.5 NA 65.3 65.5 59.0 64.5 69.1 58.1

Nonmetropolitan areas 53.7 53.2 51.4 58.7 56.7 54.3 48.3 55.7 58.3 NA

AIAN Alone Employment Rate (population 16 and older)

Total 51.6 51.5 52.8 56.1 56.9 49.7 46.1 52.4 52.9 46.4

Tribal areas 46.5 48.8 49.3 55.5 53.4 44.7 39.1 40.1 45.8 45.1

Surrounding counties 53.6 53.2 53.4 60.3 53.2 54.1 55.6 50.5 53.5 49.4

Other metropolitan counties 56.2 52.8 55.7 NA 59.1 54.5 47.0 55.8 60.3 46.8

Nonmetropolitan areas 47.1 46.2 44.0 53.0 50.3 49.2 44.0 52.0 49.9 NA

AIAN Alone Unemployment Rate 

(civilian labor force age 16 and older)

Total 13.9 17.0 12.5 9.7 9.6 17.9 14.7 14.3 15.1 21.7

Tribal areas 15.9 21.3 12.2 9.5 7.9 22.2 17.6 18.7 18.8 24.0

Surrounding counties 13.6 15.5 12.9 11.0 6.7 14.7 12.0 14.9 14.7 16.7

Other metropolitan counties 12.7 16.7 12.2 NA 9.4 16.8 20.4 13.4 12.7 19.3

Nonmetropolitan areas 12.3 13.1 14.3 9.7 11.3 9.4 9.0 6.7 14.4 NA

NA: Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2006–10 

Looking at the second employmentrelated indicator, a little over half of 

the AIAN population 16 and older was 

employed, according to the 2006–10 data, 

compared with almost 60 percent for nonAIAN (Figure 3.7). This pattern of lower 

employment rates for AIAN compared 

with non-AIAN holds true in all of our 

geographic areas. AIAN employment rates 

are lowest in the tribal areas and other 

nonmetropolitan counties (47 percent). 

Tribal areas also had the largest gap with 

the non-AIAN rate (about 10 percentage 

points). The employment rate in other 

metropolitan counties was 61 percent for 

non-Indians compared to 56 percent for 

AIAN alone in those counties.
30

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2006– 10 

Figure 3.7. Employment Indicators by Race for Population 16 and Over, 2006–10

Percent of workers

working ful-time

Employment

rate

Labor force

participation rate

AIAN alone

Non-AIAN alone

Percent of the population 16 and over

59.9 

51.6 

53.0 

64.6 

59.5 

60.1 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

AIAN workers are also less likely than nonAIAN workers to work full-time. Only 53 

percent of AIAN workers reported full-time 

employment in 2006–10, compared with 60 

percent of non-AIAN workers. These rates 

were similar across geographic areas. 

Unemployment rate is the final indicator 

used to understand AIAN employment 

patterns. About 14 percent of the AIAN 

labor force was unemployed in 2006–10. 

The AIAN unemployment rate was highest in 

tribal areas (16 percent) in contrast to the 12 

to 14 percent unemployment rates for AIAN 

people in other areas.

As with the other indicators, unemployment 

rates are worse for AIAN than non-AIAN 

people: the AIAN rate was about 6 points 

higher than the non-AIAN rate in 2006–10. 

However, the gap overall has been declining 

over the past two decades. In 1990, the 

AIAN unemployment rate was 2.3 times of 

the non-AIAN rate. The ratio fell to 2.2 in 

2000, and then again to 1.8 in 2006–10. The 

decline is mostly due to the increase in the 

non-AIAN unemployment rate (up 1.7 points 

over the 20 years) than the improvement in 

the AIAN rate (which fell only 0.29 points).

Additionally, these employment conditions 

together result in the AIAN alone 

population having higher rates of having 

no health insurance than the non-AIAN 

population. The share of the AIAN alone 

population that lacked health insurance was 

28 percent, which is 13 percentage points 

higher than the non-AIAN share for the 

Nation as a whole in 2011.22 This means that 

the AIAN alone population faces added 

healthcare costs on top of already lower 

income levels, as we will discuss in the next 

section, which leads to greater challenges 

in affording housing.

22 Lack of health insurance estimates are from the 2011 ACS 1-year estimates.
31

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Income and Poverty

Household income determines both housing 

preferences and needs. For example, higher 

income households are more likely to prefer 

owning a single-family home and are more 

able to achieve that, while lower income 

households are more likely to rent (Katz 

and Turner 2007; Skaburskis 1999). Lower 

income households are also more likely 

to experience housing hardship (Nelson 

2004). The average AIAN household 

income in 2006–10 was $49,000, which 

was about $22,000 less than the non-AIAN 

average. Although average income varied 

by geography for both groups, the average 

AIAN household income was below that of 

non-AIAN households across all geography 

types. The surrounding counties and other 

metropolitan counties exhibited the highest 

average income for both AIAN and nonAIAN households but also exhibited the 

largest disparity between the groups at 

$20,000. Conversely, tribal areas and other 

nonmetropolitan counties had lower average 

income levels—$42,000 and $38,000, 

respectively—but they had the smallest gap 

between AIAN and non-AIAN households of 

about $14,000.

Average household income decreased 

since 2000 for both AIAN and non-AIAN 

households overall—by $3,500 for AIAN 

households and $3,300 for non-AIAN 

households, after accounting for inflation. 

The average household income also fell in 

each geography type; however, the size of 

the decrease varied. For AIAN households, 

average household income fell by the largest 

amount in other nonmetropolitan counties 

($9,500). In other metropolitan counties, 

average household income dropped by 

about $6,000, and in surrounding counties 

it fell by about $2,900. Interestingly, in 

tribal areas the average household income 

fell by a much smaller amount—only by 

about $130. For non-AIAN households, the 

average household income dropped by 

the smallest amount in tribal areas as well 

(about $870), while the decrease in the other 

geography types ranged from $2,700 in 

the surrounding counties to $3,800 in other 

metropolitan counties.

The ratio of AIAN income to non-AIAN 

income fell slightly over the decade from 

0.71 to 0.69 overall. AIAN households lost 

the most ground as compared with nonAIAN households in non-AIAN counties. 

In other metropolitan counties, the 

ratio fell from 0.78 to 0.74, and in other 

nonmetropolitan counties the ratio fell by an 

even larger margin—from 0.84 to 0.71.23

Among all gaps between Native American 

and non-Indian well-being, that in the 

poverty rate may be the most troubling. More 

than one-quarter (26 percent) of the AIAN 

population lived below the poverty line in 

2000 and 2006–10, almost twice the rate 

for non-AIAN individuals in both periods. In 

2006–10 the poverty rate for the AIAN alone 

population in tribal areas was 32 percent, 

substantially above the 14 percent national 

rate for non-Indians. The AIAN alone rate 

was 25 percent in surrounding counties and 

22 percent in other metropolitan counties, 

compared to 14 and 13 percent for nonIndians in those areas, respectively. The 

poverty rate is even higher for AIAN children. 

One in three AIAN children was poor in 

2006–10, compared to one in five non-AIAN 

children (Figure 3.8). Among geographic 

areas, AIAN children in tribal areas were most 

likely to be poor (39 percent). 

23 In contrast to education and language, economic indicators reveal similarities among the groups. AIAN households have similar income 

levels whether Hispanic or non-Hispanic ($49,000 to $50,000).
32

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2006–10 

Percent of population in poverty of those 

for whom poverty status is known

Figure 3.8. Poverty Rates by Age and Race, 2006–10

0

10

20

30

35

40

25

15

5

AIAN alone

Non-AIAN alone

Under 18 18 to 24 65 and older

Age group

33.3 

23.9 

19.6 19.1 

12.5 

9.5 

Poverty rates for AIAN working-age adults 

and elderly in 2006–10 were lower than for 

children (24 and 20 percent, respectively), 

but the difference in rates for AIAN and nonAIAN people in these groups are wider than 

the differential in child poverty rates. For 

example, the AIAN elderly poverty rate was 

more than twice (2.1 times) the non-AIAN 

rate overall and almost 2.5 times the nonAIAN rate in tribal areas.

Regional differences in AIAN poverty 

were substantial. Across all area types, the 

2006–10 rates ranged from the 20 to 22 

percent range at the low end (South Central, 

California/Nevada, and Alaska), to 36 percent 

(Northern Plains), and 33 percent (Arizona/

New Mexico) at the upper end. In tribal areas, 

the rates varied from 23 percent (Oklahoma 

and Alaska), to 41 percent (Northern Plains), 

and 37 percent (Arizona/New Mexico). 

There were also notable regional differences 

in the poverty gaps between the AIAN and 

non-AIAN populations. The AIAN poverty 

rate was 3.1 times the non-AIAN rate in the 

Northern Plains region and 2.9 times the nonAIAN rate in Alaska. At the other extreme, the 

AIAN rate was only 1.3 times the non-AIAN 

rates in the South Central region. 

How the AIAN Population 

Fared In the Great Recession

The earlier parts of this section have reported 

on socioeconomic conditions and trends 

for American Indians and Alaska Natives by 

comparing 2000 decennial census data to 

those from the 5-year 2006–10 ACS. This 

is an important base for understanding, 

but it does not answer the question of how 

America’s AIAN population weathered the 

Great Recession of the last decade. 
33

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

To respond to that question, we rely on the 

1-year ACS estimates for 2008 and 2010 

(the latest data available at the time of 

analysis). We summarize the main trends 

by looking at three indicators: labor force 

participation rates, unemployment rates, 

and poverty rates. 

The National Story. The earlier parts of this 

section showed that trends for the AIAN 

alone population from 2000 to 2006–10 

by these economic indicators were mixed. 

The period saw almost no change in the 

AIAN labor force participation rate, and 

the ratio of the AIAN rate to the nonAIAN rate had dropped slightly. However, 

modest improvements occurred in the 

AIAN unemployment rate and poverty rate 

and, in both cases, gaps between AIAN and 

non-AIAN levels narrowed significantly over 

the decade. 

The Native American population was more 

economically vulnerable in 2008 at the start 

of the Great Recession than the non-AIAN 

population, putting them in a worse position 

in the face of the rising unemployment and 

falling earnings brought on by the economic 

downturn. However, the pace of the 

economic deterioration was not much worse 

than it was for the non-AIAN population, and 

over the decade as a whole, gaps between 

the AIAN and non-AIAN performance had 

been reduced on some measures. 

• The AIAN labor force participation rate 

(as a percentage of the population older 

than 16) dropped slightly from 61 percent 

in 2008 to 59 percent in 2010. This 

represented 0.93 of the non-AIAN rate in 

both years, down modestly from the 0.95 

ratio achieved in 2000.

• The AIAN unemployment rate went up 

sharply from 11 percent in 2008 to 18 

percent in 2010, yet this measure for the 

non-AIAN population increased from 6.3 

percent to 11 percent. Although the gap 

between the two groups narrowed with 

the AIAN unemployment rate falling from 

1.8 times the non-AIAN rate in 2008 to 1.7 

times the non-AIAN rate in 2010 (a sizable 

improvement over the 2.2 ratio in 2000), 

the AIAN unemployment rate was still 7 

percentage points higher than that of the 

non-AIAN population.

• The AIAN poverty rate also saw 

considerable deterioration, rising from 24 

percent in 2008 to 28 percent in 2010, as 

compared with an increase from 13 percent 

in 2008 to 15 percent in 2010 for the nonIndian population. In this case the AIAN/

non-AIAN gap increased slightly. The 

AIAN poverty rate went up from 1.85 times 

the non-AIAN rate in 2008 to 1.87 times 

the non-AIAN rate in 2010. Although this 

represented a substantial improvement in 

relation to the 2.1 ratio of 2000, disparities 

between the two groups persist. 

Regional Variations. Because of sample-size 

limitations, reliable data are not available 

for the detailed geographies we examined 

earlier in this section. Accordingly, we review 

data only for the United States as a whole 

as well as for the four major census regions: 

Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. The 

pattern of 2008 to 2010 change for the 

four major U.S. regions seems consistent 

with what we might expect given discussion 

of the variations in AIAN conditions 

between regions earlier in this section. 

Most disturbingly, Native Americans in the 

West region (which contains the two most 

distressed study regions, Northern Plains 

and Arizona/New Mexico and 46 percent of 

the total AIAN population) were hit hardest 

by the Great Recession (Table 3.2). Though 

not directly comparable, Austin’s (2009) 

analysis of the effects of the Great Recession 

on the AIAN population finds a similar 

pattern: The West experienced the largest 

increase in the employment rate disparity 

between the AIAN and white populations 
34

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

between 2007 and 2009.24 Alternatively, 

recession effects appear mildest in the 

South (which contains the Oklahoma and 

South Central study regions as well as the 

southern half of Eastern Woodlands). 

Table 3.2. AIAN Economic Indicators, 2008 to 2010

Percent 

2010

Percentage Point 

Change 2008 to 2010

Ratio to Non-AIAN 

2010

Change in Ratio

2008 to 2010

AIAN Alone Labor Force Participation Rate (population 16 and older)

United States 59.26 -1.77 0.93 -0.01

Northeast 61.28 -1.43 0.95 -0.01

Midwest 60.14 -1.41 0.92 0.00

South 62.04 -0.27 0.99 0.02

West 56.92 -3.00 0.89 -0.03

AIAN Alone Unemployment Rate (civilian labor force age 16 and older)

United States 17.88 6.73 1.66 -0.10

Northeast 14.67 5.65 1.48 -0.02

Midwest 18.58 5.22 1.76 -0.31

South 13.48 5.45 1.25 -0.02

West 21.15 8.56 1.81 -0.12

AIAN Alone Poverty Rate

United States 28.44 4.20 1.87 0.02

Northeast 24.58 3.26 1.91 0.07

Midwest 33.02 2.59 2.29 -0.17

South 24.68 3.82 1.46 0.03

West 29.75 5.17 1.97 0.03

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2008 and 2010 

24 Austin (2009) uses different definitions of region than those used by the U.S. Census Bureau; he breaks the United States into eight 

regions, of which the West (California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington) and Southwest (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and 

Utah) are entirely contained within the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of the West region. Part of Austin’s Northern Plains region (Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming) is also contained within the U.S. Census Bureau’s West region, although he also includes Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota in the Northern Plains region. The largest disparity increases were found in the Northern Plains and Southwest. 

Austin’s West region had the third largest disparity increase.
35

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

• Over this 2-year period, the AIAN labor 

force participation rate in the West 

dropped by 3 percentage points to 

reach 57 percent. That decline was more 

than twice the next largest (minus 1.4 

percent in the Northeast and Midwest), 

while the decline for the South was only 

0.27 percent. In 2010, the rates for the 

other three regions were in the 60- to 

62-percent range, well above that for the 

West. AIAN labor force participation was 

almost as high as for non-Indians in the 

South (0.99), but only 0.89 of the nonAIAN level in the West. 

• The West also saw by far the largest spike 

in unemployment—an increase of 8.6 

percentage points to reach a 21-percent 

rate at the end of the period. The 2010 

rates for the other regions were 14 

percent (South), 15 percent (Northeast), 

and 19 percent (Midwest)—increases for 

these three were all in the 5.2 to 5.6 point 

range. In 2010, AIAN unemployment rates 

were higher than non-AIAN rates in all 

regions, but there was quite a range: 1.3 

higher in the South, 1.5 in the Northeast, 

and 1.8 in the Midwest and West. Those 

ratios, however, were slightly better than 

they had been in 2008 in all regions.

• The Great Recession yielded sizable 

increases in AIAN poverty in all regions, 

but again, the change for the West was 

most severe: an increase of 5.2 percentage 

points to reach an overall rate of 30 

percent in 2010. The 2010 poverty level 

was actually higher in the Midwest (33 

percent), but the increase there was not 

as large (2.6 points). Poverty rates in 2010 

reached 25 percent in the Northeast (up 

3.3 points from 2008) and in the South 

(up 3.8 points). With respect to poverty at 

the end of the Great Recession, the AIAN/

non-AIAN gap was also highest in the 

Midwest (AIAN rate 2.3 times the nonAIAN rate). The comparable ratios were 

2.0 in the West, 1.9 in the Northeast, and 

1.5 in the South. In this case these ratios 

were modestly higher than they had been 

in 2008 in all regions except the Midwest, 

where the ratio dropped from 2.5 to 2.3. 

Implications

The social and economic conditions 

of Native American families are major 

drivers of the housing needs and 

challenges we discuss in Section 5. Larger 

families, additional children, and the 

multigenerational households all relate to 

the desired housing size and structure. 

Policymakers should track the significant 

shifts, such as the fall in the share of 

households with children younger than 

18, to project future demand for various 

housing types. Education levels and resulting 

employment opportunities for AIAN adults 

determine the income available to pay for 

housing. Although it is good news that the 

AIAN community was not disproportionately 

hit by the Great Recession, the fact remains 

that the economic situation for AIAN families 

has worsened considerably in the past few 

years; and as will be shown in Section 5, this 

translates to high levels of housing problems.
36

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

4. Economic Development

Introduction

The most important driver of economic wellbeing (and the ability to improve housing 

conditions) in any area is the state of the 

local economy. In this section we look more 

closely at economic development trends 

for that part of the AIAN population that 

traditionally has been most distressed: those 

living on reservations and in other tribal 

areas, and those living in the areas that 

immediately surround them.

We begin by reviewing research by others 

that examined how private enterprise 

progressed in Indian Country throughout 

the 1990s. We only have partial information 

on what has happened since then, but we 

are able to present some new evidence that 

offers updates in three topical areas and 

discuss implications of those findings. 

The areas are:

1. Business ownership

a. Changes in AIAN business ownership 

through 2007 nationwide and 

b. Employment growth for AIAN counties, 

by region, through 2010 (AIAN counties 

are those that contain all or a part of 

one or more AIAN tribal areas—the 

data are not available separately for the 

tribal areas themselves.)

2. Tribally owned businesses, including gaming.

3. Native Community Development Financial 

Institutions (CDFIs)—expansion of new 

institutional infrastructure to support 

economic development in tribal areas.

Background: Expansion of Economic 

Development in the 1990s

At the end of the 1980s, the status of 

economic enterprise in Indian Country 

was uneven. Some tribes had achieved 

considerable economic success by taking 

advantage of a rich resource base, and 

others had been successful in stimulating 

other forms of private business, but many 

generated very few private sector jobs 

(Cornell and Kalt 1989, 1992). A large 

number of tribal areas had significant 

dependent populations (high ratios of 

children to working-age adults), high 

unemployment, and federal jobs making 

up a large share of all employment. A good 

measure of independent economic health 

for an area is how many private employees25

it has per 1,000 population. In 1990, the 

national average for this ratio was 255; for 

AIAN tribal areas it was only 158 (Kingsley, 

et al. 1996).

According to the Harvard Project on 

American Indian Economic Development 

(2008) (referred to, going forward, as the 

Harvard Project), changes occurred over 

the subsequent decade to the effect that 

“Economic development is taking root in 

25 Private employees include those working for private firms and self-employed workers.
37

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Indian Country, albeit unevenly across tribes 

and industry sectors” (111). They note that

Past approaches to development by 

assimilation, by project-based job creation 

or by pursuing federal grants are on the 

wane, largely because of their repeated 

failure. Contemporary nation-building 

approaches are in the ascendancy, with 

tribes investing in their own capacities 

to govern and thereby improving local 

accountability and encouraging tribal 

and non-tribal investments in human and 

other capital. Over 1990–2000, for both 

Indian nations with gaming enterprises 

and those without such operations, real 

per capita income in Indian Country grew 

at two to three times the rate experienced 

by the general U.S. population (111).

In their view the shift in U.S. government 

policy furthering self-determination for Indian 

tribes (of which NAHASDA was a part) was 

vital among the underlying causes of this 

change. With expanded freedom to select 

their own path, many tribes have chosen to 

strengthen their own governance in ways that 

establish a foundation for entrepreneurialism. 

These include the following: 

• Emphasizing the rule of law: This means 

ensuring an environment where the rules 

are clear about how collective decisions 

will be made and how disputes will be 

resolved and where there is confidence 

the rules will be enforced. The rule of law 

encourages private business investment. 

• Separating politics from day-to-day 

administration and business affairs:

Institutional change to reinforce the 

separation of powers in tribal governance—

for example, ensuring an independent 

judiciary—or creating independent boards 

of directors for tribal enterprises.

• Creating an efficient tribal bureaucracy:

This entails efficient and reliable 

administration, good record keeping 

(taking advantage of today’s computer 

technology), and actions to facilitate 

business creation and operation (such as 

speeding up permitting processes). 

Gaming has been one important force 

behind economic growth in Indian Country. 

Robinson (1995) estimated that there were 

only 81 active Indian gaming operations 

nationally in 1992. But the number went up 

rapidly after that, reaching 311 in 2000. 

Gaming profits have often been reinvested in 

tribal enterprise, and significant shares have 

been distributed to tribal members through 

per-capita payments, creating substantial 

wealth in some places. However, proceeds 

have been very uneven. The Harvard Project 

(2008, 148) concludes:

A disproportionately large share of the total 

casino revenue in Indian Country accrues 

to tribes that represent a small share of the 

Indian population (near population dense 

metropolitan areas).... [gaming] is having 

only a limited effect on the economic 

fortunes of households among large tribes 

remote from customer markets.

Furthermore, the focus on gaming in the 

press has created a distorted view of Indian 

economic development over this period. 

Tribal area economies have also seen 

substantial expansion of other types of 

private enterprise. 

Nongaming enterprises are proliferating 

rapidly in Indian Country. Some of these 

are large and visible (developed by 

tribes)... But development is also founded 

on businesses owned by private tribal 

citizens—from Burger King franchises 

and Hampton Inns to paving companies, 

construction firms, automobile repair 

shops, and cattle ranches (Harvard 

Project 2008, 117). 
38

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Total enterprise growth for the AIAN 

population has been impressive. Government 

reports showed a total of 102,000 Nativeowned businesses nationwide in 1992. Over 

the subsequent decade, the number had 

doubled, reaching 201,000 in 2002. Nativeowned businesses had increased at an annual 

rate of 7 percent, compared to 2.9 percent 

for all U.S. businesses (U.S. Minority Business 

Development Agency 2006). 

Employment Growth in the 2000s

Available evidence suggests that the economic 

environment for the AIAN population 

continued to be strong through 2007, but then 

the Great Recession hit Indian Country26 very 

hard, as it did the rest of the Nation.

The number of AIAN-owned enterprises 

continued to grow rapidly in the middle years 

of the decade, reaching 237,000 by 2007. 

The 2002 to 2007 annual growth rate of 3.3 

percent was clearly below the comparable 

AIAN rate for 1992 to 2002, but equal to 

the average for all U.S. businesses for that 

period (U.S. Census Bureau 2011; U.S. Minority 

Business Development Agency 2006).

Other evidence comes from the U.S. 

Department of Commerce County Business 

Patterns series. This series shows total 

U.S. employment at 113.1 million in 2000; 

20.7 million (or 18 percent) of those jobs 

were located in AIAN counties. However, 

from 2000 to 2007, employment in AIAN 

counties grew by 303,000 per year, 48 

percent of total U.S. job growth. The AIAN 

county growth rate was 1.4 percent per year, 

dwarfing the 0.36 percent average for all 

non-AIAN counties (Figure 4.1).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2000, 2007, 2010

Annual percent change 

Figure 4.1. Employment Trends in AIAN Counties From 2000 to 2010

4

-2

0

2

AIAN counties

Non-AIAN counties

2000 to 2007 2007 to 2010 2000 to 2010

1.4 

-3.0 

0.1 

0.4 

-2.3 

-0.5 

26 Again, as used in this report, the term “Indian Country” refers to the tribal areas and their surrounding counties (see Section 2).
39

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Most (87 percent) of the AIAN county jobs 

in 2000 were within the boundaries of 

metropolitan areas, and these grew much 

faster over the 2000 to 2007 period than 

those outside of metro areas: an annual rate 

of 1.5 percent compared to 0.68 percent 

(Table 4.1).

Table 4.1. Employment in AIAN and Non-AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2000, 2007, and 2010

Study Region

Total N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains AZ/NM CA/NV Pacific NW Alaska

Number of Employees (thousands)

Total, 2000 113,138 8,863 63,966 1,194 14,039 4,591 2,450 13,760 4,071 203 

Total, 2007 117,597 8,635 65,248 1,282 14,961 5,022 2,955 14,756 4,496 241 

Total, 2010 109,083 7,878 60,566 1,221 14,431 4,767 2,588 13,240 4,146 247 

AIAN counties, 2000 20,690 2,159 6,992 1,154 411 679 2,284 4,223 2,609 178 

AIAN counties, 2007 22,810 2,226 7,207 1,238 441 772 2,751 5,104 2,861 211 

AIAN counties, 2010 20,822 2,085 6,660 1,176 439 732 2,397 4,458 2,655 220 

Non-AIAN counties, 2000 92,448 6,704 56,974 40 13,628 3,912 166 9,537 1,462 25 

Non-AIAN counties, 2007 94,787 6,410 58,041 45 14,520 4,250 204 9,652 1,636 30 

Non-AIAN counties, 2010 88,261 5,793 53,906 44 13,992 4,035 191 8,782 1,491 27 

Percent of Employees, 2010

Total 100.0 7.2 55.5 1.1 13.2 4.4 2.4 12.1 3.8 0.2

AIAN counties 100.0 10.0 32.0 5.7 2.1 3.5 11.5 21.4 12.8 1.1

Non-AIAN counties 100.0 6.6 61.1 0.1 15.9 4.6 0.2 10.0 1.7 0.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2000, 2007, 2010

During the Great Recession, the patterns 

reversed. Places that performed best earlier 

in the decade typically faced the sharpest 

reversals later on. The total number of jobs 

in AIAN counties dropped by 3 percent per 

year from 2007 to 2010, compared with a 

drop of 2.3 percent annually for non-AIAN 

counties. Among AIAN counties, annual 

rates of decline were 3.1 percent in metro 

areas and 2.5 percent in other areas.

This national picture, however, masks sizable 

variations in performance across regions. 

Over the 2000 to 2007 period, annual 

employment growth was by far fastest in 

AIAN counties in Arizona/New Mexico and 

California/Nevada—averaging 2.7 percent, 

more than three times the average national 

rate. The next closest among AIAN counties 

was Alaska (2.4 percent), but the absolute 

numbers there were quite small. After that 

were the Northern Plains States (1.8 percent) 

and the Pacific Northwest (1.3 percent). The 

lowest rate for AIAN counties was in the 

North Central and Eastern regions (0.44 and 

0.43 percent, respectively) (Table 4.2).
40

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Table 4.2. Employment Trends in AIAN and Non-AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2000 to 2010

Study Region

Total N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains AZ/NM CA/NV Pacific NW Alaska

Percent Employment Change per Year, 2000 to 2007 

(Growth Period)

Total 0.6 -0.4 0.3 1.0 0.9 1.3 2.7 1.0 1.4 2.4

AIAN counties 1.4 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.7 2.7 1.3 2.4

Non-AIAN counties 0.4 -0.6 0.3 1.4 0.9 1.2 3.0 0.2 1.6 2.7

Percent Employment Change per Year, 2007 to 2010 

(Great Recession)

Total -2.5 -3.0 -2.5 -1.6 -1.2 -1.7 -4.3 -3.5 -2.7 0.9

AIAN counties -3.0 -2.2 -2.6 -1.7 -0.2 -1.8 -4.5 -4.4 -2.5 1.4

Non-AIAN counties -2.3 -3.3 -2.4 -0.2 -1.2 -1.7 -2.2 -3.1 -3.0 -3.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2000, 2007, 2010

Among non-AIAN counties during this 

period, the fastest rate of expansion was 3 

percent per year in Arizona/New Mexico. 

Interestingly, those in California/Nevada 

did not fare nearly as well (0.17 percent). 

Intermediate growth rates were realized in 

the Pacific Northwest (1.6 percent) and the 

Northern Plains (1.2 percent)—not much 

different from the rates for AIAN counties 

in those regions. Non-AIAN counties in the 

North Central region (the main rust-belt 

States) actually lost employment, even over 

this pre-recession growth period (by 0.64 

percent per year). 

Over the Great Recession, there was similar 

variation across regions, and the rule 

generally held that those that had performed 

best earlier in the decade had the worst 

record in the recession years. Among AIAN 

counties, annual employment loss rates in 

Arizona/New Mexico and California/Nevada 

were in the 4.4- to 4.5-percent range. Alaska 

actually registered a modest increase, but 

again the amount was small (1.4 percent 

or 9,100 jobs). Rates of decline almost 

everywhere else were above 2 percent. The 

best record was registered by AIAN counties 

in the South Central region (a decline of 0.16 

percent per year) and Oklahoma (a decline of 

1.7 percent per year). 

But what has been the net effect of these 

changes on employment from 2000 to 

2010? Over the full decade, employment in 

AIAN counties had grown slightly (by about 

0.65 percent), whereas the number of jobs in 

non-AIAN counties had actually declined (by 

almost 4.5 percent). 

Tribally Owned Businesses 

and Enterprises

The expansion and diversification of tribally 

owned businesses noted earlier for the 

1990s continued into the 2000s. This has 

occurred both on and off the reservations. 

Types of businesses include hotels and 

resorts, golf courses, manufacturing, oil 

extraction companies, mining, coal and 

natural resources, timber, and wild game 

hunting. Examples include:
41

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

• The Seminole Tribe of Florida purchased 

the Hard Rock Hotel Café and Restaurant 

chain for $965 million—the first time 

an Indian tribe had ever purchased a 

major international corporation. The 

tribe continued to make news when it 

announced that it is expanding globally, 

focusing on Latin America, Eastern Europe, 

and Asia (De la Merced 2006; Stuts 2012).

• Tulalip Tribes in Washington built Quil Ceda 

Village, a highly successful commercial 

development that includes outlets, anchor 

stores such as Home Depot and Walmart 

and a number of other retail businesses 

(Harvard Project 2003).

• Menominee Tribal Enterprises (MTE), a 

lumber production company operating 

since 1908, employs about 300 people. 

MTE practices sustainable yield forestry 

and operates a mill. In recent years, the 

tribe has been branching out, exporting 

some products as far as China, and using 

sophisticated logging machinery to 

ensure that all parts of the tree are used. 

MTE is also planning a biomass electrical 

plant that will use forest waste to produce 

electricity (Thornton n.d.; Trosper 2007).

• The Chickasaw Nation owns and 

operates a wide variety of businesses. 

In 2000, the tribe purchased Bedré Fine 

Chocolate. The production facility in 

Davis, Oklahoma, uses state-of-the-art 

machinery to ensure the ingredient mix is 

controlled, guaranteeing a superior and 

more consistent product. The Chickasaw 

Nation opened Bank2, a full-service 

community bank, in 2002. Headquartered 

in Oklahoma City since January 2002, the 

bank’s assets have grown from $7.5 million 

to more than $100 million (Chickasaw 

Nation 2013; Bank2 n.d.; Bedré Fine 

Chocolate 2006). 

The institutional infrastructure supporting 

the expansion of tribally owned enterprise 

has also strengthened since 2000. This 

includes new supports for networking 

and collaboration. One advance was the 

establishment of the American Indian 

Business Network (AIBN). The AIBN 

provides an opportunity for tribal businesses 

to showcase their products and interact 

with other business owners and potential 

customers. It also allows for networking 

among tribal leaders, Indian entrepreneurs, 

and other tribal government businesses. 

Indian gaming—where tribes own and 

operate casinos—also continued to play an 

important role in the 2000s. In 2001, 201 

of the 561 federally recognized tribes (36 

percent) operated one or more gaming 

operations (Hillabrant, Earp, Rhodes, Pindus 

2004). According to the National Indian 

Gaming Association (NIGA) (2009), by 

2006, 224 tribes (40 percent) operated 

gaming facilities. By the end of 2009, that 

number increased to 237 (42 percent). 

The total number of gaming operations has 

also grown. The National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC) reported in 2000 

that there were about 311 tribal gaming 

enterprises throughout the United States; 

by the end of 2006, the number rose to 394 

nationwide. The number had reached 421 at 

the end of fiscal year 2011 (NIGC 2012b).

Gaming revenues have flourished as well. 

By the end of fiscal year 2000, NIGC found 

that gaming enterprises generated about $11 

billion in total revenues. Six years later, NIGC 

reported that revenues increased to about 

$24.9 billion for the 394 gaming facilities. The 

most recent figures show that the 421 gaming 

operations generated about $27.2 billion 

in total revenues (NIGC 2012b). Figure 4.2 

illustrates the growth in tribal gaming revenues 

from 2000 to 2011, indicating a leveling off in 

the $26 billion to $27 billion range since 2007.
42

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Source: NIGC 2010; NIGC 2012b 

Dollars (in billions) Figure 4.2. Growth in Gaming Revenues, 2000 to 2011

0

$10

$20

$30

$25

$15

$5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$11.0 

$12.8 

$14.7 

$16.8 

$19.5 

$22.6 

$24.9 

$26.1 $26.7 $26.5 $26.5 

$27.2 

From 2000 to 2007, the total sector’s 

revenues increased by at least 10 percent 

from year to year. However, in 2008, revenues 

started to slow, with annual increases at 2 

percent. By 2009, the sector saw its first 

decline, though marginal (0.7 percent). From 

2009 to 2010, revenues remained the same, 

and in 2011, revenues saw a modest upturn of 

3 percent (NIGC 2012b). 

We noted earlier that gaming operations 

and revenues were very uneven across 

tribal areas in the 1990s. That continued to 

be the case in the 2000s. Table 4.3 shows 

that a small number of enterprises have 

been highly successful, while the great 

majority has not been as fortunate. Of 

the 421 gaming facilities operating in 2011, 

one in every three generated less than $3 

million in gaming revenues. Close to one-half 

generated between $10 million and $100 

million, and less than one-fifth generated 

more than $100 million in gaming revenue. 

Among the tribal gaming facilities, the 

23 largest tribal enterprises (5 percent) 

generated about 38 percent of the total 

Indian gaming revenues, and the 78 largest 

(18 percent) accounted for close to 75 

percent of all tribal gaming revenues. 

NIGA (2011) conducted a more indepth 

analysis and found that in addition to the 

$26 billion generated from gaming revenue 

in 2009, tribal governments also generated 

billions in other gaming-related services 

and taxes. For example, they report that 
43

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

tribal governments generated about $3.2 

billion from gaming-related hospitality and 

entertainment services (that is, resorts, 

hotels, restaurants, golf, entertainment 

complexes, and travel centers); 

approximately $9.4 billion in federal taxes 

and revenue savings (including employer 

and employee Social Security taxes, 

income taxes, excise taxes, and savings on 

unemployment and welfare payments); and 

about $2.4 billion in State taxes, revenue 

sharing, and regulatory payments (including 

State income, sales, and excise taxes; 

regulatory payments; and revenue sharing 

pursuant to tribal-state compacts).

Table 4.3. Gaming Operations by Revenue Size Category, 2011

Percent Dollar Amount (in Thousands)

Gaming Revenue Range

Number of Tribal 

Gaming Operations

Revenues (in 

Thousands of Dollars) Operations Revenues Mean Median

Total 421 27,153,808 

$250 million and over 23 10,421,992 5.5 36.4 453,130 378,397 

$100 to $250 million 55 9,065,678 13.1 33.4 164,831 156,252 

$50 to $100 million 52 3,639,595 12.4 13.4 69,992 66,151 

$25 to $50 million 55 1,902,860 13.4 7.0 34,597 32,784 

$10 to $25 million 98 1,629,551 23.6 6.0 16,628 15,753 

$3 to $10 million 70 413,441 16.6 1.5 5,906 5,525 

Under $3 million 68 80,691 16.2 0.3 1,187 1,010 

Note: Data are compiled from gaming operation audit reports received and entered by the NIGC through June 20, 2012.

Source: National Indian Gaming Commission 2012a

Tribal governments allocated the largest 

share of gaming revenues (20 percent) 

toward education, children and the elderly, 

culture, charity, and other purposes; 19 

percent to economic development; 17 

percent for both healthcare and police 

and fire protection; and 16 percent for 

infrastructure. Housing received the smallest 

share (11 percent) (NIGA 2009).

A few examples illustrate the range of 

activities supported by tribal gaming revenues: 

• Eleven Native American tribes in 

Minnesota that own and operate 18 

casino-resorts throughout the State 

brought much needed funding to tribal 

government programs (Ryan 2009). 

• In the Sierra Nevada foothills, the 

Chukchansi Indians allocated gaming 

revenues toward cultural activities; the 

tribe gave $1 million to California State 

University, Fresno to preserve its language 

(Onishi 2012). 

• In 2007, as mentioned above, the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida used $965 

million in gaming revenues to purchase 

the Hard Rock Hotel Café and Restaurant 

chain (NIGA 2009). 

• In that same year, the Mississippi Band of 
44

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Choctaw Indians contributed $43 million 

to a new justice center that houses all of 

the law enforcement offices, tribal courts, 

and a 47-bed jail. This effort was matched 

with a federal grant for $56 million to the 

center (Williams 2007).

Gaming has also had an impact on 

employment. Tribal gaming created more 

than 628,000 direct and indirect jobs 

for tribal and surrounding communities 

(NIGA 2009). These numbers are based on 

estimates derived from economic models 

of regional economies that use multipliers 

to estimate the impacts of inputs such as 

dollars invested. These jobs include level one 

jobs (jobs that are directly created by Indian 

gaming facilities themselves, the ancillary 

businesses connected to the gaming 

facilities, and other tribal government and 

enterprise positions); level two jobs (those 

supported by tribal employees spending 

their wages); and level three jobs (those 

created indirectly, assuming that 75 percent 

of goods and services were purchased 

locally and 25 percent outside the region). 

The benefits from Indian gaming may not be 

as secure as in the past, however, as the future 

appears to hold more competition. In some 

places, it seems likely that State government 

prohibitions will be relaxed to permit the 

expansion of private casino-style gaming 

outside of Indian areas. More threatening, 

perhaps, may be the movement toward 

legalizing Internet gaming (which would give 

States the ability to regulate and tax online 

gaming, even on reservations). This would 

allow people to play games like poker on their 

mobile devices whenever and wherever they 

want. In June 2012, Delaware became the first 

State to legalize casino-style gambling on the 

Internet. These shifts highlight the importance 

of efforts to diversify tribally owned 

enterprises and encourage entrepreneurship 

among the AIAN population more broadly. 

Expansion of Community 

Development Financial Institutions

During the late 1990s, the U.S. Department 

of the Treasury (Treasury) commissioned 

the congressionally mandated Native 

American Lending Study (2001), which 

found that Native people were experiencing 

considerable difficulty accessing capital 

and financial services. Hillabrant, Earp, 

Rhodes, and Pindus (2004) also found that 

tribal communities have complex legal, 

administrative, and political barriers. Poor 

coordination of business-related activities 

within the tribe and with neighboring cities 

and counties created more challenges for 

economic development in Indian Country. A 

1997 study by the First Nations Development 

Institute estimated that Indian Country 

“faced between $17.6 billion and $56.6 

billion in annual capital needs for basic 

infrastructure, community facilities, housing 

and economic development” (Harvard 

Project 2008, 130). Since the release of 

these findings, the federal government has 

developed a set of programs and initiatives 

to address these barriers, including Native 

CDFIs, a Native Initiatives Strategic Plan, 

Native Individual Development Accounts 

(IDAs), and Native Entrepreneur and 

Education Development.27

Native Community Development Financial 

Institutions. One approach, which continues 

to gain momentum in tribal communities, 

was the creation of Native CDFIs. As defined 

in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 12, 

Section 1805.200, 

A CDFI is a financial institution that 

provides credit and financial services to 

underserved markets and populations. 

CDFIs include community development 

banks, community development credit 

unions, community development 

loan funds, community development 

27 See http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_do/programs_id.asp?programID=3.
45

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

venture capital funds, microenterprise 

development loan funds, community 

development corporations, among others.

A Native CDFI is “controlled or sponsored 

by, or whose target market is, more than 

50 percent of any combination of Native 

American, Alaskan Native, or Hawaiian 

Native groups” (CDFI Fund 2012b). In 

addition to providing access to capital or 

credit, some provide training and technical 

assistance to ensure that the credit is used 

effectively. CDFIs also provide housing and 

home repair loans.

Table 4.4. Share of Native CDFIs by Study Region, 2012

Number of Native CDFIs Percent

Total 61 100

Northern Plains 15 25

North Central 10 16

Oklahoma 10 16

Arizona/New Mexico 9 15

Alaska 6 10

Eastern 4 7

Pacific Northwest 4 7

California/Nevada 3 5

South Central 0 0

Note: Total percent does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. Database of Certified CDFIs and Native CDFIs current as of July 31, 2012. 

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Community Development Financial Institution 2012a 

Certified Native CDFIs are dispersed across 

regions (Table 4.4). Fifteen CDFIs (the largest 

number) are in the Northern Plains, 10 are in 

North Central, and 10 are in Oklahoma. Nine 

are in Arizona/New Mexico and none are 

located in South Central to date.28

In 2000, there were three certified Native 

CDFIs. By the end of 2006, their number 

had grown to 38 (Kristin Eagan email 

to Kassie Bertumen, October 22, 2012). 

And, as of July 2012, 72 Native CDFIs 

had been certified (11 of which were 

located in Hawaii) (U.S. Department of 

the Treasury Community Development 

Financial Institutions 2012a). Since 2002, 

the Treasury’s CDFI Fund has awarded 

more than 175 grants totaling $31 million to 

certified Native CDFIs, which serve nearly 

100 tribal communities. With the support of 

the CDFI Fund’s technical assistance grants 

and “know-how” or “best practices” from 

the Native CDFIs Network, it appears that 

Emerging Native CDFIs and Sponsoring 

Entities will likely obtain certification at a 

steady or increased rate.29

Native Initiatives Strategic Plan. In response 

to the financial barriers faced by AIAN 

people, the CDFI Fund developed its Native 

28 These numbers do not include the 11 Native CDFIs in Hawaii.

29 An Emerging Native CDFI is an entity that primarily serves a Native Community and that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Fund that it 

has a reasonable plan to achieve Native CDFI certification within a reasonable timeframe. A Sponsoring Entity is an entity (typically a tribe 

or tribal entity) that proposes to create a separate legal entity. That entity will emerge and eventually become certified as a Native CDFI.
46

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Initiatives Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 

2009–14 to guide the implementation of its 

activities over the next 5 years. Its initiatives 

include conducting training to help the 

development of new Native CDFIs and 

provide capacity and guidance to important 

programming through its Expanding Native 

Opportunities (ENO) program and providing 

financial and technical assistance support to 

build the capacity of certified Native CDFIs, 

Emerging Native CDFIs, and Sponsoring 

Entities through its Native American CDFI 

Assistance (NACA) program. 

Of the 61 certified Native CDFIs, a significant 

majority are loan fund financial institutions 

(82 percent), some are credit unions 

(7 percent), a handful are banks or thrifts30

(8 percent), and a few are depository 

institution holding companies (3 percent). 

None of the Native CDFIs are venture capital 

funds31 (Figure 4.3). This distribution reflects 

the primary scope of most Native CDFIs—

providing individual and small business 

loans. A much smaller number of Native 

CDFIs are engaged in securing financing for 

large projects, using the flexibility afforded 

to CDFIs. Although most CDFIs have tribal 

or regional footprints, a small number are 

national in the scope of their activities.

Based on their case study research, Dewees 

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Community Development Financial Institution 2012a 

Figure 4.3. Breakdown of Native CDFIs by Financial Institution Type, 2012

6.6%

3.3%

8.2%

82.0%

Loan fund

Credit union

Bank or thrift

Depository institution 

holding company

30 As defined in the CDFI Fund’s 2012 CIIS Glossary, “Any entity the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC).”

31 As defined in the CDFI Fund’s 2012 CIIS Glossary, “An organization that predominantly invests funds in businesses, typically in the form of 

either equity investments or subordinated debt with equity features such as a revenue participation or warrants, and generally seeks to 

participate in the upside returns of such businesses, via such equity investments in equity features in an effort to at least partially offset 

the risk investments.”
47

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

and Sarkozy-Banoczy (2008) suggest that 

Native CDFIs are slowly working to change 

attitudes and culture in Native communities 

to create a more positive social environment 

for formal business development and that 

“...contributions made by Native CDFIs 

represent a critical strategy for meeting the 

local demand for capital that has not been 

met by mainstream financial markets, while 

also addressing the broader social, cultural, 

and political issues related to economic 

development in Native communities” (18). 

For example, Native CDFIs can become 

eligible lenders under the Indian and 

Economic Development Loan Program 

and can apply for New Markets Tax Credit 

(NMTC) allocations. The potential of Native 

CDFIs to build financial and management 

capacity as well as entrepreneurial attitudes 

holds promise for economic development in 

Indian Country.

Examples of Native CDFIs. Native CDFIs 

vary in the types of services they provide, 

the footprint in which they work, and the 

capacity of their work. Below are two 

examples—the first is a CDFI that provides 

direct services, and the second is a CDFI 

that is an intermediary. Both have a national 

footprint, working with tribal communities 

across the country.

Native American Capital, LLC (NAC) is a 

Native CDFI that has a national footprint. 

It has a history of advocating for Indian 

Country in the legislative, business, and 

academic spheres. It has direct experience 

winning and distributing various federal 

funding, such as the NMTC program, SBA 

Super 8(a), HUBZone, Tribal Economic 

Development Bond (TEDB), among others, 

as well as corporate funding. NAC has also 

provided technical support both to tribes 

and to organizations that are providing 

services to tribal communities. Recently, 

NAC helped Lower Brule Community 

Four Bands Community Fund

(Four Bands) is a nonprofit organization 

that supports economic development 

activities on the Cheyenne River Indian 

Reservation. The CDFI Fund has played a 

significant role in allowing Four Bands to 

help families build strong and sustainable 

small businesses and increase their capability 

to enter the financial mainstream.

As of 2010, Four Bands has:

• Trained nearly 2,000 people in personal 

financial skills and entrepreneurship, 

including many youth;

• Distributed more than $1,500,000 in micro, 

small business, and credit building loans;

• Committed $230,000 in matched savings 

for Individual Development Accounts;

• Supported more than 70 new and 

existing businesses resulting in the 

creation of 150 jobs;

• Built or rehabilitated 30 storefronts;

• Conducted a reservation-wide “buy local” 

campaign; and

• Worked with the Cheyenne River Sioux 

tribal government to make policy 

improvements to support private business 

and personal financial skills development 

among tribal members.

Source: U.S. Congress House Committee on Financial Services 2010. “Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs)—Their Unique 

Role and Challenges Serving Lower-Income, Underserved and Minority Communities.” 
48

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Development Enterprise, LLC (LBCDE), a 

certified community development entity 

in South Dakota, win an $18 million NMTC 

allocation. LBCDE’s first NMTC transaction 

of $9 million, closed in mid-2012, brought 

KernPosits manufacturing company to the 

Mississippi Choctaw on-reservation TechParc. 

The company brings manufacturing training 

and jobs to the community. LBCDE used 

its remaining allocation as part of the 

$52.5 million Terra-2 project—a project that 

brings broadband Internet infrastructure to 

remote native villages on the Alaskan Slope 

northeast of Anchorage.

First Nations Oweesta Corporation (Oweesta) 

is a Native CDFI intermediary that provides 

training, technical assistance, and investments 

to Native communities across the country. It 

has focused a large share of its services and 

investment on the Cheyenne River Indian 

Reservation. As of 2010, Oweesta received 

more than $2 million from the CDFI through 

its NACA program. These funds, along 

with a range of other sources, enabled it 

to develop its own organizational capacity 

and provide much-needed services to 

support Native communities in their efforts 

to build local economies. Some examples of 

innovative products and services that Native 

CDFIs offer their local communities include 

1) providing culturally sensitive business 

development and financial education classes; 

2) awarding small business loans through the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs loan guarantee and 

insurance programs; 3) conducting trainings 

on credit building and loans; 4) offering 

youth entrepreneur internships; 5) assisting 

members to complete their federal income 

taxes and access certain tax credits; and 6) 

educating tribal leadership (U.S. Congress 

House Committee on Financial Services 2010).

In a testimony before the House Committee 

on Financial Services (2010), Vice President 

of Programs and Operations Tanya Fiddler 

described the CDFI Fund’s work and 

investments as “critical” to Native economic 

development. She shared information about 

the numerous benefits that her organization 

and other Native CDFIs, organizations, 

and communities have accrued. Among 

these, she described how the CDFI Fund’s 

investments allowed them to reach a broader 

audience at a more frequent rate and how 

the investments helped them expand the 

number and capacity of Native CDFIs.

Effects on Native CDFIs During the 

Economic Downtown. During the Great 

Recession, Native CDFIs experienced an 

increase in competition for federal and 

State funds, a loss of private revenue from 

individuals and corporations, and the need 

to do more with less. On the other hand, 

Native CDFIs, because they are federally 

subsidized, were cushioned from the full 

effects of the downturn. Congress saw 

that Native CDFIs were struggling with 

matching nonfederal funds for their NACA 

grants and responded by waiving the grant 

requirement. Stimulus spending on energy 

and infrastructure also benefitted some 

Native CDFIs. 

Native Individual Development Accounts. 

Another approach for expanding 

opportunities for housing investments is 

through IDAs. IDAs emerged in the United 

States in the 1990s as an asset-building 

strategy. IDAs provide matching funds to 

low-income recipients to promote savings 

that can be spent later on eligible uses 

such as postsecondary education, business 

development, and homeownership. IDAs help 

Native people access financial education and 

capital, and save and build assets. 

In 2006, the CDFI Fund supported a Native 

IDA Initiative (NIDAI) that provided a series 

of trainings in seven regions throughout 

the country, including Hawaii and Alaska. 

Three prominent tribal organizations 

provided technical assistance to help Native 
49

Section 4. Economic Development

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

organizations start, implement, and sustain 

IDAs in their communities. A total of 69 

Native Community programs attended the 

NIDAI trainings. Of the 62 communities that 

participated, 9 started IDA programs, 47 are 

working on developing IDA programs, and 13 

enhanced their IDA programs. From 2007 

to 2008, IDAs have supported about 350 

tribal members. 

Native Entrepreneur and Education

Development. Finally, the CDFI Fund has 

provided a third strategy for expanding 

economic development in Indian Country, 

known as the Native Entrepreneur and 

Education Development (NEED) program. 

NEED provides training and technical 

assistance to enable Native CDFIs to create 

entrepreneurship development systems 

in their own communities. The program is 

tailored specifically to the needs of Native 

communities and entrepreneurs seeking to 

start businesses. In 2007, the CDFI Fund 

conducted trainings and provided one-onone technical assistance to Native CDFIs, 

tribes, and other Native organizations. 

Seventy representatives across 38 

organizations in 24 Native communities have 

participated in NEED.

Overall, despite strides in increasing access 

to capital, there are still hurdles, including 

slow housing development in Indian Country. 

As with the other social and economic 

indicators presented in this report, there is a 

great deal of variation in resource availability 

and access across Indian Country. 
50

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

5. Housing Conditions 

and Needs

Introduction

In this section, we present available U.S. 

Census Bureau data relating to the central 

purpose of this study: learning about the 

housing problems and needs of the AIAN 

population and how they have changed 

since the prior (1996) report. The section 

opens by examining the housing markets for 

tribal areas and surrounding counties. It then 

describes a number of basic characteristics 

of AIAN-occupied housing units: tenure 

(owner versus renter), number of bedrooms, 

structure type, the year the structure was 

built, and housing values and rents. 

We then analyze indicators pertaining to 

housing problems and needs. Available U.S. 

Census Bureau products do include important 

measures—on overcrowding, affordability 

problems, and lack of adequate kitchen and 

plumbing facilities—and those are included 

here. As noted in Section 1, however, these 

measures are partial. Only when we have the 

data from our household surveys—covering 

other topics like structural quality, heating and 

electrical systems, and how residents of tribal 

areas assess their own housing conditions 

and opportunities—will we be able to fully 

complete the assessment (to be released in 

the project’s final report in 2014).

For each of the indicators currently available 

from U.S. Census Bureau sources, we 

present national totals for AIAN households 

compared to non-Indians or the total 

population, and then explore patterns 

across regions and area types to the extent 

possible. The cautions about the decennial 

census and the American Community 

Survey (ACS) data for tribal areas that were 

mentioned in the introductions of Sections 

2 and 3 also apply to the housing indicators. 

Major changes in Census Bureau data 

collection—particularly related to the change 

from the decennial census long-form sample 

to the ACS—have meant that data on most 

of the housing indicators are not available 

as comprehensively as they were for the 

socioeconomic measures in Section 3. 

Complete data are available from the 2010 

decennial census and the 2006–10 ACS for all 

geographies for total housing units, housing 

vacancies, AIAN tenure, and AIAN housing 

structures. But for all of the other housing 

indicators noted above, the latest and most 

comprehensive data available for the AIAN 

population are from the 2006–10 ACS 

Selected Population Tables.32 The data for the 

AIAN alone population are provided only for 

the tribal areas and the counties where there 

is a population of at least 50 AIAN alone 

individuals. We refer to these as larger tribal 

areas, selected AIAN counties, and selected 

non-AIAN counties to distinguish these area 

types from those used in earlier analysis.

32 The Census Bureau does not release any data for these housing indicators even at the national or regional levels in the 1-year ACS series so 

we cannot present 2000/2008/2010 comparisons for them similar to what we were able to do for selected economic indicators in Section 3.
51

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

The larger tribal areas account for 93 

percent of AIAN alone households in all 

tribal areas in 2006–10. The selected AIAN 

counties and non-AIAN counties account for 

95 percent and 64 percent, respectively, of 

the AIAN alone households in all counties in 

their categories. Thus, the indicators from 

this source capture the housing conditions 

for the majority of AIAN households, 

but they do not necessarily reflect the 

conditions in tribal areas and counties with 

smaller AIAN populations. 

Housing Characteristics in Tribal 

Areas and Surrounding Counties

Since 6 out of 10 AIAN people live in 

tribal areas or the surrounding counties, 

understanding AIAN housing conditions 

should begin with reviewing the context of 

the overall housing markets in those areas. 

According to the decennial census, the 

amount of housing available grew relatively 

slowly in tribal areas compared to overall 

U.S. experience. The number of housing 

units in tribal areas totaled 2.1 million in 

2010, a sluggish 8.1-percent increase since 

2000 (compared to a nationwide increase 

of 14 percent). Though the overall housing 

increase in tribal areas was generally slow, 

tribal areas in some regions did experience 

higher rates of housing construction (Figure 

5.1). The number of tribal area housing units in 

Alaska increased by a rapid 23 percent. At the 

other extreme, about 1,000 units were lost in 

Arizona/New Mexico tribal areas, a 0.7 percent 

reduction. The growth rates for tribal areas in 

the remaining regions ranged from 7.4 to 15 

percent, closer to the national average. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

Percent change in housing units, 2000 to 2010

Figure 5.1. Percent Change in Housing Units by Area Type and Study Region, 2000 to 2010

0

10

20

30

35

25

15

5

-5

Tribal areas

Surrounding counties

Study region

N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains AZ/NM CA/NV Pacific NW Alaska

7.4 

3.5 

8.9 

1.5 

11.9 

-0.7 

12.3 

14.7 

23.5 

12.2 

13.4 13.5 

15.4 

21.8 

29.1 

22.0 

16.1 

12.0 
52

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

In contrast to the slower tribal area 

increases, the surrounding counties 

experienced higher growth than the 

national average. In these counties, units 

increased by 15 percent, climbing to a total 

of 25 million housing units in 2010. The 

high growth rate of housing in surrounding 

counties was largely driven by growth 

in three regions. These counties in the 

Northern Plains and California/Nevada 

saw growth rates of 22 percent, and those 

in the Arizona/New Mexico region rose by 

29 percent.

The decennial census measures vacant 

housing units, defined as those habitable 

units that are absent of occupants as of April 

1, 2010. The vacancy rate for tribal areas 

reached 14 percent in 2010, higher than the 

average U.S. rate of 11 percent. The vacancy 

rate for surrounding counties fell in between 

at 13 percent. The tribal areas’ slow building 

rate over the decade may have cushioned 

them somewhat from the severe damage 

felt in many areas due to the U.S. housing 

market crash. Their vacancy rate went up a 

very small 0.4 percentage points from 2000 

to 2010, while the surrounding counties and 

the U.S. rates rose by about 2.4 percentage 

points (Figure 5.2). 

Like changes in housing stock, the vacancy 

rates for tribal areas vary widely by region 

(Table 5.1). The highest vacancy rate for tribal 

areas in 2010 was found in California/Nevada, 

where 31 percent of housing units stood 

empty (a slight decline from 34 percent in 

2000). The lowest vacancy rates occurred in 

South Central tribal areas: 9.3 percent, which 

was lower than the national average. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

Percent of housing units that are vacant

Figure 5.2. Vacancy Rates by Area Type, 2000 to 2010

0

4

8

12

14

16

10

6

2

2000

2010

Total Tribal areas Surrounding counties

9.0 

14.0 

10.5 

11.4 

14.4 

13.0 

Area type
53

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

South Central was one of four regions where 

vacancies decreased over the decade. 

Tribal areas in Arizona/New Mexico present 

the most extreme case—the vacancy rate 

dropped by 5.4 points to a still high 19 

percent in 2010. This improvement went 

counter to the overall experience in this 

region, where the average vacancy rate rose 

by 2.2 percentage points. On the other hand, 

the vacancy rates rose for tribal areas in the 

North Central region (up nearly 2 points to 

24 percent). This region also saw the highest 

overall increase in vacancy rates, up by 3.4 

points to 13.

Table 5.1. Housing Market Indicators by Area Type and Study Region, 2000 to 2010

Study Region

Total N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains AZ/NM CA/NV Pacific NW Alaska

Housing Units (in thousands), 2010

Tribal areas 2,104 54 355 1,139 103 94 115 44 90 110 

Surrounding counties 25,309 2,569 8,273 462 513 858 3,280 5,978 3,221 155 

Percent Change in Housing Units, 2000 to 2010

Tribal areas 8.1 7.4 3.5 8.9 1.5 11.9 -0.7 12.3 14.7 23.5

Surrounding counties 17.8 12.2 13.4 13.5 15.4 21.8 29.1 22.0 16.1 12.0

Vacancy Rates, 2010

Tribal areas 14.4 24.1 10.4 13.3 9.3 19.9 18.6 31.3 16.6 21.8

Surrounding counties 13.0 17.4 13.9 9.4 9.6 12.2 15.4 11.1 9.2 12.6

Percentage Point Change in Vacancy Rates, 2000 to 2010

Tribal areas 0.4 1.9 -0.7 1.2 -1.8 2.0 -5.4 -2.5 2.7 1.0

Surrounding counties 2.5 2.8 2.9 0.4 -0.8 1.2 2.9 2.6 1.8 0.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 and 2010

A high vacancy rate in a given area does 

not preclude there being a shortage of 

housing for particular groups in that area. 

The units that are vacant may not be 

useable by low-income AIAN families for 

cost, structural, or locational reasons. The 

vacant units may be too expensive, too small 

for larger households, of poorer quality 

than other housing stock in the area, or far 

from employment centers. In fact, analysis 

later in this section indicates a shortage of 

affordable housing for the low-income AIAN 

population in tribal areas. This finding is 

consistent with the evaluation of the Indian 

Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program that 

found that 70 percent of the tribal areas 

in their study reported vacancy rates of 

less than 5 percent for IHBG housing (Van 

Otten et al. 2009). The interviews of local 

housing officials and community leaders 

that will be conducted as part of this study 

should shed some light on the vacancy 

issue. However, understanding the dynamics 

of tribal housing markets may inform plans 
54

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

on how to address AIAN housing problems 

discussed later in the section and merits 

additional indepth research.

Homeownership

As of 2010 more than 509,000 AIAN 

households owned their homes nationwide. 

This number increased significantly from 2000 

to 2010, up by 16 percent compared to an 

8-percent increase for non-AIAN households. 

However, the AIAN homeownership rate of 

54 percent is still considerably lower than the 

non-AIAN rate of 65 percent.

As discussed in the 1996 report, the lower 

homeownership rate is due to many barriers 

experienced by Native Americans and 

Alaska Natives. These include economic and 

geographic isolation, legal issues stemming 

from limited rights over land, reluctance of 

private lenders to engage a tenuous market, 

low incomes and poor credit histories, and 

lack of financial literacy, among others 

(Kolluri and Rengert 2000, Todd and Burlon 

2009, Listokin, Leichenko, and King 2006).33

The causes of lower homeownership vary 

greatly by region and area type. For example, 

research found that in the Ninth Federal 

Reserve District, the ownership rate is 

explained only in part by low incomes among 

Native American households. Even when 

controlling for income and housing quality, 

there remain gaps in the homeownership 

rates between reservations in the District 

and those in other areas, and large and small 

reservations. (Todd and Burlon 2009).

The diverse legal, economic, and 

cultural circumstances lead to different 

homeownership outcomes. For example, 

AIAN homeownership rates in tribal areas 

overall are quite high—67 percent in 2010. 

The tribal area rate dropped by about 

1 percentage point from 2000 to 2010, 

similar to the overall change for the Nation. 

In other nonmetropolitan counties, AIAN 

households also have greater opportunity for 

homeownership, with 58 percent owning their 

homes in 2010. This rate surprisingly fell very 

little in the 2000s (0.3 points, compared to 

2 points for all households in those counties). 

In contrast to tribal areas, only 47 percent of 

AIAN households in the surrounding counties 

and other metropolitan counties own their 

homes. Rates for both types of counties fell 

slightly from 2000 to 2010. 

Although AIAN homeownership rates 

decreased in the United States as a whole, 

rates actually increased in some areas. The 

AIAN homeownership rates in tribal areas 

ranged from 54 percent in the Northern 

Plains region to 77 percent in the Arizona/

New Mexico region. The homeownership 

rate fell most sharply for tribal areas in 

the South Central region, where rates 

dropped by nearly 6 points to 71 percent. 

Tribal areas in the North Central, Eastern, 

Pacific Northwest, and Alaska regions also 

experienced significant reductions. 

Within regions, homeownership rates in 

surrounding counties are lower than the 

tribal area rates. In seven of the regions, 

less than half of the AIAN households 

own their homes. A notable increase in 

homeownership rates was seen in counties 

surrounding tribal areas in Oklahoma, where 

the rate went up 4.5 points to 53 percent. 

Subprime Lending

As we suggest above, greater access to 

homeownership is typically a positive 

economic signal for households and 

communities. Over the past several decades, 

one reason for increased access to ownership 

was the availability of subprime loans, many 

of which are characterized by adjustable rates, 

33 A range of strategies has been developed to overcome these barriers and improve ownership rates over the past two decades, including 

the lease-to-own Mutual Help program, flexible funds in the form of the Indian Housing Block Grant, loan guaranties, financial literacy programs, and improved economic conditions. See Kolluri and Rengert 2000 for more details.
55

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

looser approval and underwriting guidelines, 

and limited long-run affordability checks and 

requirements (First Nations Development 

Institute 2008). As a result these loans have 

a much higher incidence of foreclosure. 

Several studies have shown minority groups 

were issued a disproportionate share of 

subprime mortgage loans (Bocian et al. 

2006, Goldstein 2008, Jorgensen et al. 2008) 

and Native Americans were no exception. 

Detailed data on mortgages from the Home 

Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reveals stark 

differences in prevalence of loans with high 

interest rates (one way of measuring subprime 

lending) between Native American and white 

mortgage borrowers. 

In 2004, 26 percent of all owner-occupied 

conventional home purchase mortgage 

loans made to non-Hispanic AIAN alone 

borrowers had high interest rates, compared 

to just 10 percent to non-Hispanic white 

borrowers.34 As the housing bubble inflated, 

the share increased for both populations 

by about 8 points. By 2006, 34 percent of 

owner-occupied purchase loans to AIAN 

borrowers had high interest rates, compared 

to 19 percent to whites (Figure 5.3).

The same pattern is noted for refinanced 

loans. In 2004, 27 percent of owner-occupied 

conventional refinance loans to non-Hispanic 

AIAN alone owner-occupants had high 

interest rates, compared to 13 percent to 

non-Hispanic whites. By 2006, both shares 

increased by approximately 12 points: Native 

American borrowers to 39 percent and white 

borrowers to 26 percent.35

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, 2004 to 2006

Percent of owner-occupied conventionaal home purchase

mortgage loans that had high interest rates

Figure 5.3. Home Purchase Mortgage Loans With High Interest Rates by Race, 2004 to 2006

0

4

8

12

14

16

10

6

2

Non-Hispanic AIAN alone 2010

Non-Hispanic white alone 

2004 2005 2006

25.9 

36.8 

34.4 

10.2 

18.2 18.6 

34 Loans with high interest rates in 2004 to 2006 have Annual Percentage Rates exceeding the comparable Treasury yield by 3 percentage 

points or more for first-liens. Conventional refers to a loan not insured by a government program, like Federal Housing Administration or 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. These indicators include any loans to borrowers in Hawaii.

35 A forthcoming report on lending practices in Indian Country will be a substantial portion of this assessment of Native American housing conditions and will include indepth analysis of secondary data sources as well as interviews with housing practitioners and lenders in Indian Country.
56

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Housing Structure Type

Across the area types and racial groups, 

more households reside in single-family, 

detached homes than other types of 

housing, and this rate has grown over the 

past decade. About 63 percent of all U.S. 

households live in detached homes in 

2006–10, while about 60 percent of AIAN 

households do so. This rate has risen by 2.6 

percentage points for AIAN and 1.8 for nonAIAN households since 2000.

Nationally, the gap between AIAN and nonAIAN likelihood of living in single-family 

detached homes is relatively small, but 

the overall values mask major geographic 

differences. In tribal areas, almost threequarters of both AIAN and non-AIAN 

households live in single detached homes 

(Figure 5.4). In the surrounding counties 

and other metropolitan areas, a little more 

than half of the AIAN households live in 

single-family detached homes. The greatest 

difference is between AIAN households 

and non-AIAN households in surrounding 

counties, where the AIAN rate is about 12 

percentage points below the non-AIAN rate.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2006–10

Percent of AIAN alone households that live in each housing structure type

Figure 5.4. AIAN Alone Housing Structure Type by Area Type, 2006–10

0

20

40

60

70

80

90

100

50

30

10

Mobile home/RV

Townhouse/multifamily

Single-family detached

Total Tribal areas Surrounding counties Other metropolitan

counties

Other nonmetropolitan

counties Area type

60.5 

73.6 

51.8 54.4 

62.8 

26.8 

9.9 

35.0 

37.7 19.1 

12.8 16.6 13.2 

7.8 

18.1 
57

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Another striking difference in housing type 

between AIAN and non-AIAN households 

is in the shares that live in other types of 

housing, which includes mobile homes and 

recreational vehicles (RVs). In 2006–10, 

13 percent of AIAN households resided 

in these homes, twice the rate of nonAIAN households. Across area types, the 

share of AIANs living in mobile homes or 

other housing was highest in tribal areas 

(17 percent) and other nonmetropolitan 

counties (18 percent). The shares in 

surrounding counties and other metropolitan 

areas were lower at 13 and 7.8 percent, 

respectively. The rates of AIAN households 

living in these other structure types are 

higher than those for non-AIAN households 

in all area types, but the largest difference of 

6.3 points is in the surrounding counties.

AIAN households residing in mobile homes 

or RVs have decreased by 1.6 percentage 

points overall and in all area types since 

2000. The biggest decrease was seen in 

nonmetropolitan areas, where the percent 

residing in other types of housing dropped 

from 23 in 2000, to 18 in 2006–10. The rates 

in the remaining area types each dropped 

between 1 and 2 points.

Mobile homes are often the cheapest form 

of housing and are easiest to acquire in 

rural areas due to the limited availability 

of traditional housing contractors and 

developers (George et al. 2002). Further, 

the regulatory environment in tribal areas 

is not conducive to private land ownership; 

most land is held in trust by the U.S. 

government, so financing for housing 

construction is challenging. Nonpermanent 

housing structures offer a solution to this 

common problem. Although such housing 

may provide the population with needed 

low-cost shelter, these homes are less 

valuable as an asset and more vulnerable to 

environmental elements (Cooper 2011).

Housing Characteristics and 

Problems: Larger Tribal Areas

As mentioned in the introduction, the 

remainder of this section is based on data 

from the ACS Selected Population Tables, 

2006–10. These summary tables for racial 

groups are only produced for geographic 

areas where there is a population of at least 

50 individuals of a given race; and likewise, 

estimates are not produced for those 

tribal areas and counties not meeting the 

threshold. Although not ideal, we judged 

this data source to be acceptable for this 

analysis because the geographies that do 

meet the population threshold cover a large 

proportion of AIAN alone households. Even 

with the limitations, this data source gives 

us more information about the housing 

characteristics and problems than we could 

obtain from the decennial census and 

standard ACS 5-year data alone.

The coverage of the data set requires that we 

change our comparison geographies in this 

section (noted below and described in more 

detail in Appendix 1 for a full explanation).36 In 

addition to the United States, the geographic 

levels available for this analysis are:

• Larger tribal areas: 230 tribal areas, 

accounting for 93 percent of AIAN 

households in tribal areas.

• Selected counties: 574 counties had large 

enough AIAN populations to have AIAN 

estimates. The AIAN households in these 

counties account for 83 percent of all AIAN 

households in all counties. For the analysis 

we split these counties in two groups: 

36 As before, we present data by region, but our methodology in this section for assigning the 13 tribal areas that cross study regions differs 

slightly from earlier analysis in this chapter. For the earlier sections, we used data published for summary level 280 (by State and tribal 

area), so could apportion the values for these tribal areas across multiple regions. For the analysis based on the ACS Selected Population 

data, we used the data for the tribal area summary level 250 (not divided by State) in order to minimize the exclusion of geographic areas 

due to low AIAN population. Unlike the earlier sections, the analysis based on the ACS Selected Population data assigns the values for 

each cross-region tribal area to the region that accounted for the majority of its population.
58

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

o Selected AIAN counties: 333 counties 

that contain tribal areas, accounting for 

95 percent of AIAN households in AIAN 

counties. Note these are entire counties, 

not the “surrounding counties” used in 

the earlier sections.

o Selected non-AIAN counties: 241 

counties that do not contain tribal 

areas, accounting for 64 percent of 

AIAN households in non-AIAN counties. 

• United States: 100 percent of all AIAN 

households, including Hawaii.

The structure of the ACS Selected 

Population data also requires a change in 

the comparison race. In previous analyses, 

we subtracted the AIAN households from 

the total households to calculate values 

for non-AIAN. Since the AIAN households 

are suppressed in areas that do not meet 

the population threshold, performing the 

same calculation would result in a figure 

representing both the non-AIAN population 

and the AIAN population in the suppressed 

areas. Instead, for analysis based on this 

data source, we compare AIAN housing 

indicators to indicators for all households.

Housing Age and Size 

In 2006–10, one quarter of all AIAN 

households lived in buildings built before 

1960. The share is much lower for larger 

tribal areas (15 percent) and selected AIAN 

counties (18 percent). In the selected nonAIAN counties, the rates of living in housing 

built before 1960 are very similar for AIAN 

and all households—about one-third. For 

AIAN households, these rates do not vary 

much by tenure; 23 percent of AIAN owners 

live in homes built before 1960, and 27 

percent of renters do as well.

With larger household sizes, as discussed 

in Section 3, one might expect that AIAN 

households would live in larger housing 

units. About 57 percent of AIAN households 

lived in units with three or more bedrooms 

in 2006–10, lower than the 62 percent for 

all households. About 74 percent of AIAN 

owners lived in the larger units, also lower 

than the rate for all households. However, 

AIAN renters were considerably more 

likely to live in these larger units than all 

households (37 percent versus 29 percent). 

Across area types, AIAN housing unit size 

does not vary much for owners, but there is 

a considerable range for renters. Fifty-four 

percent of AIAN renters in larger tribal areas 

lived in units with three or more bedrooms, 

compared to 41 percent in the selected AIAN 

counties and 29 percent in other counties. 

This aligns with the general pattern of larger 

families in tribal areas. It also reflects the 

type of housing available in larger tribal 

areas since all households in these areas live 

in a similar higher share of large units.

Housing Values and Rents

Given that American Indian and Alaska 

Native households have lower incomes than 

non-AIAN households, it makes sense that 

the home values for AIAN owners would be 

lower than for all households. The average 

home value for AIAN homeowners in 2006–

10 was $175,000—about 66 percent of the 

average for all households in 2006–10. The 

gap has increased since 2000, when the 

average value for AIAN owner-occupied 

homes was 69 percent of the average for all 

owner-occupied homes. 

The values for AIAN homeowners in larger 

tribal areas and in AIAN counties overall 

were much lower than the U.S. average, 

$112,000 and $152,000 respectively. Given 

that these values are from a period that 

includes the end of the housing boom, 

values for all area types were lower in 

regions that were hard hit by the crash, such 

as California and other parts of the West. 
59

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Relatively slower growth in home values 

for AIAN households in the selected AIAN 

counties led to the widening of the gap 

relative to the average home value for all 

households. After adjusting for inflation, 

home values rose by 46 percent from 2000 

to 2006–10 for all households in the selected 

AIAN counties, but only rose 29 percent for 

AIAN homeowners in the same areas. The 

growth rates in larger tribal areas and nonAIAN counties were similar for AIAN owners 

and all owners.

AIAN renter households on average paid 

$700 in gross rent in 2006–10. Like home 

values, these rents were lower than for all 

renter households. However, AIAN gross 

rents were about 80 percent of those for all 

renters, a smaller difference than was the 

case with home values. Rents averaged a 

very low $440 in the larger tribal areas, rising 

to $630 in AIAN counties. AIAN households 

experienced a much smaller increase in 

rents than all renters, with an increase of 

5.6 percent compared to 42 percent for all 

renters, after controlling for inflation.

Housing Problems 

and Needs—Framework

The Urban Institute’s earlier report on AIAN 

housing (Kingsley et al. 1996) reviewed 

the history of America’s concern with 

housing conditions since the late 1800s and 

presented a framework for understanding 

the measures that together define 

“inadequate” housing. With few changes, 

that framework is again adopted for this 

report. It notes that there are three defining 

attributes: quantity, quality, and price. 

Quantity. At the marketwide level, this 

attribute relates to whether the number of 

housing units can accommodate the number 

of households that will live in the area 

(taking into account vacancies and likely 

future growth). Within an existing unit, this 

attribute relates to the relationship between 

the number of people living in the unit and 

the amount of space available, that is, the 

extent of overcrowding.

Quality. This attribute is most complex 

because it has three aspects, two of which 

are difficult to define and measure reliably:

• Facilities problems: This is the easiest 

to measure. Problems exist when a unit 

1) lacks adequate plumbing, kitchen, 

electrical and/or heating facilities; or 2) 

such facilities do not function properly; or 

3) they constitute a safety hazard.

• Condition problems: These occur when 

the unit was built inadequately (or 

has since deteriorated) such that it is 

structurally unsafe or offers inadequate 

protection from the elements. These 

have been traditionally hard to rate in an 

objective manner.

• Design problems: These relate to the 

physical arrangement and characteristics 

of external features and interior spaces, 

whether they are deemed to be attractive 

and functionally convenient. For several 

reasons—including the fact that tastes 

vary—an objective rating scheme for this 

aspect has never been devised.

Price. Under this attribute, problems exist 

when families are forced to pay higher 

housing expenses than they can reasonably 

afford, that is, such that they do not have 

enough money left over for adequate food, 

clothing, and other necessities of life.

The actual rating of housing conditions in 

an area requires defining specific standards 

related to each of the attributes above. 

In this study, we rely on well-accepted 

standards used by HUD in its recurrent 

“Worst-Case Housing Needs” reports to 

Congress (see Hardiman et al. 2010, and 

Steffan et al. 2011). These standards relate 
60

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

to all elements of the framework presented 

above, except for “design problems,” for 

which as noted, an objective rating scheme 

has never been devised.

Quantity Standards. In the HUD standard, 

and in U.S. Census Bureau reports, a housing 

unit is defined to be overcrowded if it has 

more than 1 person per room, and severely 

overcrowded households have more than 1.5 

persons per room. The denominator of total 

rooms include living rooms, dining rooms, 

kitchens, bedrooms, finished recreation 

rooms, enclosed porches suitable for yearround use, and lodger’s rooms.

Quality Standards. Census data are only 

available pertaining to a part of the facilities 

problems aspect of this item. The census 

and ACS surveys ask whether a unit has 

adequate kitchen and plumbing facilities, 

and we report on data derived from these 

questions for the AIAN population.

As noted in the introduction to this section, 

the census does not have information on 

two other critical aspects of housing quality: 

1) the existence of adequate heating and 

electrical systems; and 2) structural quality 

measures (for example, leaks, holes, or 

cracks in the walls or ceiling)—now termed 

“upkeep problems” in HUD’s worst case 

needs analyses (Steffen et al. 2011). We will 

be able to report on these aspects for tribal 

areas in this study’s final report, using results 

from our household survey.37

Price Standards. In the HUD standards, a 

household is deemed to pay an excessive 

amount for housing (have an excessive 

“housing cost burden”) if its outlays for 

housing exceed 30 percent of its income. 

HUD classifies housing expenses in excess of 

50 percent of income as a “severe” housing 

cost burden. 

Housing Problems 

and Needs—Quantity

Though cultural standards play a role in 

whether the HUD definition of overcrowding 

indicates a housing problem, it provides 

one metric to assess housing need related 

to quantity of housing. In 2006–10, 

65,000 households or 8.1 percent of all 

AIAN households were overcrowded, and 

about one-third of these households were 

severely overcrowded. AIAN households 

were much more likely to be overcrowded 

than all households (3.1 percent). AIAN 

renter households were more likely to be 

overcrowded (10.2 percent) than AIAN 

owner households (6.4 percent) (Table 5.2). 

37 The instrument for that survey uses the same questions and observational approaches used for the HUD reports (based on the American 

Housing Survey instrument).
61

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Table 5.2. Facility and Crowding Indicators by Race and Area Type, 2006-10

AIAN Alone Households Total Households

Total 

U.S.

Larger 

Tribal 

Areas

Selected 

AIAN 

Counties

Selected 

Non-AIAN 

Counties

Total 

U.S.

Larger

 Tribal 

Areas

Selected 

AIAN 

Counties

Selected 

Non-AIAN 

Counties

Percent of Households that are Overcrowded 

(more than 1.0 person per room)

Total 8.1 11.3 10.0 6.7 3.1 3.9 3.7 4.0

Owner 6.4 10.3 8.6 3.9 1.7 2.9 2.2 2.0

Renter 10.2 13.1 11.7 9.5 6.0 6.0 6.7 7.3

Percent of Occupied Housing Units Lacking 

Complete Plumbing Facilities

Total 2.9 6.1 4.4 1.0 0.5 1.6 0.6 0.5

Owner 3.7 7.6 5.8 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.5 0.3

Renter 1.9 3.3 2.5 1.1 0.8 1.5 0.8 0.8

Percent of Occupied Housing Units Lacking 

Complete Kitchen Facilities

Total 2.8 5.4 3.9 1.4 0.8 1.6 0.9 0.8

Owner 3.3 6.5 5.0 0.8 0.4 1.5 0.5 0.4

Renter 2.2 3.2 2.5 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.6 1.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Selected Population Tables, 2006-10 

The highest incidence of overcrowding was 

in larger tribal areas, where 11 percent of 

households were overcrowded, compared 

to 3.1 percent for all U.S. households. The 

10 percent AIAN overcrowding rate for 

AIAN counties was nearly as high as for the 

tribal area rates. We cannot report reliably 

on trends since 2000, due to a change in 

the census questionnaire, but the 2006–10 

disparity between AIAN and all households 

and among geographic types appear similar 

to 2000 patterns. 

Selected AIAN counties in Arizona/New 

Mexico and Alaska exhibited the highest 

rates of AIAN overcrowding in 2006–10, 

16 percent and 22 percent respectively. 

Overcrowding was also a serious problem 

in the Northern Plains AIAN counties (13 

percent). AIAN counties in four regions 

(North Central, Eastern, Oklahoma, and 

South Central) all had lower than average 

AIAN overcrowding rates, ranging from 4.1 

to 7.2 percent. 

The limited sample size means that specific 

rates for larger tribal areas for some regions 

have wide margins of error, but examining 

the indicators in relation to the AIAN counties 

reveals a consistent pattern. Overcrowding 

in larger tribal areas is worse than for AIAN 

counties in every region, with the largest 

gap of 3 to 4 percentage points for Arizona/

New Mexico and Alaska. The variation in 

overcrowding among regional tribal areas 

closely follows the variation among the AIAN 

counties (Pearson coefficient of 99 percent). 

This means a region with high rates for AIAN 
62

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

counties also has high rates for their tribal 

areas relative to other regions.

Housing Problems 

and Needs—Facilities

Almost 3 percent of AIAN households 

lacked complete plumbing facilities in 

2006–10, more than five times the share for 

all households (Table 5.2). A similar share of 

AIAN households lacked complete kitchen 

facilities, a rate 3.5 times as high as for all 

households. Contrary to the pattern for 

overcrowding, owners are more likely to 

have incomplete plumbing (3.7 percent) than 

renters (1.9 percent). The incomplete kitchen 

patterns parallel those for plumbing; the rate 

for this problem for owners (3.3 percent) is 

higher than for renters (2.2 percent). 

The spatial patterns for both plumbing and 

kitchen problems are very similar (Figure 5.5). 

In 2006–10, the inadequacy rates were more 

than twice as high for AIAN households in 

larger tribal areas than in the United States 

as a whole; this was true for both incomplete 

plumbing (6.1 percent) and kitchen facilities 

(5.4 percent), as compared to 0.5 and 0.8 

percent for all U.S. households, respectively. 

The problems for AIAN households were 

also high in the selected AIAN counties (4.4 

for plumbing and 3.9 percent for kitchen 

facilities). Both indicators have improved for 

AIAN households over the last decade. The 

rates for incomplete kitchen and plumbing for 

AIAN households fell by about one-third from 

2000 to 2006–10 in all area types. 

As noted in the 1996 report, AIAN households 

living in AIAN counties in the Arizona/New 

Mexico and Alaska regions are more likely to 

have housing quality problems than in other 

areas of the country. In the AIAN counties of 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000, and American Community Survey, Selected Population Tables, 2006–10

Percent of AIAN alone households with incomplete facilities

Figure 5.5. Facilities Problems by Area Type, 2000 and 2006–10

0

2

4

6

7

8

5

3

1

2000

2006-10

Larger tribal areas Selected AIAN counties Larger tribal areas Selected AIAN counties

Plumbing Kitchen

9

10 9.5 

6.8 

8.3 

6.1 6.0 

4.4 

5.4 

3.9 
63

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Arizona/New Mexico, 9.8 percent of AIAN 

households have incomplete plumbing and 

8.5 percent lack complete kitchen facilities. 

The comparable numbers for AIAN counties 

in the Alaska region were 18 percent for 

plumbing and 15 percent for kitchen facilities. 

Although the problems still far exceed those 

in any other region, the incomplete plumbing 

and kitchen rates decreased by 6 to 7 points 

between 2000 and 2006–10 for both regions. 

AIAN households in the remaining regions 

experience fewer facilities problems, ranging 

from 0.5 to 2.7 percent. 

As with overcrowding, the relative rankings 

for larger tribal areas across regions for 

physical deficiencies mirror the selected 

AIAN counties (92 to 93 percent correlated). 

The largest apparent difference is in Arizona/

New Mexico, where rates of incomplete 

plumbing and kitchens in larger tribal areas 

are 7 and 6 points higher, respectively, than 

the selected AIAN county rates.

Improvements to the quality of housing in the 

Arizona/New Mexico and Alaska regions have 

been the result of heightened interest and 

targeted infrastructure investments. Without 

accompanying maintenance efforts, however, 

the recent improvements may be temporary. 

Many improvements were made with onetime grants or development investments (All 

Things Considered 2012), and without ongoing 

repairs, conditions can quickly deteriorate. 

In the Alaska region, especially, housing and 

plumbing are vulnerable to extreme weather 

conditions. Pipes freeze during the winter 

and winds can damage siding and roofs. As a 

result, maintaining the integrity of housing and 

its support systems is expensive. If funding for 

maintenance is not incorporated into housing 

improvement investment, any gains in facilities 

could be lost.

Housing Problems and Needs—Price

About 291,000 AIAN households paid more 

than 30 percent of their income on housing 

in 2006–10. This translates to almost 4 out 

of 10 AIAN households with excessive cost 

burdens, a slightly higher percentage than 

for all households. The share of AIAN and all 

households paying more than 30 percent of 

their income on housing was roughly equal, 

but AIAN households were more likely to be 

severely cost-burdened—paying more than 

50 percent of their income on housing—than 

non-AIAN households (19 versus 16 percent). 

Unlike the progress in facilities and 

overcrowding, housing affordability 

problems are on the rise. The cost-burdened 

rate went up 5.9 points for AIAN households 

from 2000 to 2006–10, a lower increase 

than the 8.4 points for all households.

Renter households median income in 2006–

10 was about $26,100, about half of that for 

owners. Thus, it is not surprising that renters 

have a harder time affording housing than 

owners in all area types. More than half of 

AIAN renters pay unaffordable housing costs, 

about the same share as all renters, and more 

than one-quarter are severely cost burdened. 

Only 3 out of 10 AIAN homeowners were 

cost-burdened, a slightly lower rate than for 

all owners, and much lower than for AIAN 

renter households (Table 5.3).
64

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Table 5.3. Housing Affordability by Race and Area Type, 2006–10

AIAN Alone Households Total Households

Total 

U.S.

Larger 

Tribal 

Areas

Selected 

AIAN 

Counties

Selected 

Non-AIAN 

Counties

Total 

U.S.

Larger

 Tribal 

Areas

Selected 

AIAN 

Counties

Selected 

Non-AIAN 

Counties

Percent of Households by Share of Income Spent on Housing 

Total

30 percent or more 38.4 25.2 33.8 45.8 37.0 28.2 40.6 39.9

50 percent or more 18.5 12.0 15.9 22.8 16.4 12.1 18.2 18.2

Owner

30 percent or more 29.1 19.6 24.9 37.3 30.6 22.1 34.6 33.1

50 percent or more 12.6 8.8 10.7 16.3 12.0 8.6 14.0 13.3

Renter

30 percent or more 50.9 37.8 47.3 54.6 50.9 44.2 52.8 51.5

50 percent or more 26.5 19.2 23.7 29.5 25.9 21.3 26.6 26.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Selected Population Tables, 2006-10

Housing costs are more affordable than 

average in tribal areas and AIAN counties. 

Only about one-quarter of AIAN households 

on tribal areas and one-third in AIAN 

counties were cost-burdened in 2006–10. 

In both area types, these rates were lower 

than those for all households. Only in nonAIAN counties do AIAN households have 

higher rates of cost burden than nonAIAN households: in the selected nonAIAN counties, 46 percent of AIAN alone 

households paid more than 30 percent of 

their income for housing, compared to a 

40-percent average for all households in 

those counties. The non-AIAN counties 

had the highest rates of cost burden (46 

percent) and the greatest increase among 

the area types since 2000 (8.7 points). 

By far, the households in the selected 

AIAN counties in the California/Nevada 

region suffer the greatest financial housing 

hardship (Figure 5.6). About half of AIAN 

householders in that region paid more than 

30 percent of their income on housing, 

slightly more than the rate for all households 

in 2006–10. Selected AIAN counties in the 

Pacific Northwest and Eastern regions also 

had rates well above the average, 41 and 

37 percent, respectively. Although AIAN 

counties in Arizona/New Mexico ranked 

among the highest on overcrowding and 

facilities, their cost-burdened rate was the 

lowest at 28 percent, well below the 34 

percent for all households in the region. 

Oklahoma and South Central were very close 

behind at 29 and 30 percent, respectively.
65

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Selected Population Tables, 2006–10

Percent of AIAN alone households that are paying more than

30 percent of their income on housing costs, 2006-10

Figure 5.6. Percent of AIAN Alone Households That Are Cost Burdened in Selected AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2006–10

0

20

40

60

50

30

10

Study region

N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains AZ/NM CA/NV Pacific NW Alaska

35.0 

29.3 29.6 29.7 

27.7 

50.0 

41.0 

31.5 

37.4

Housing affordability rates for selected AIAN 

counties and larger tribal areas do not track 

across regions as they do for overcrowding 

and physical housing problems. (Pearson 

coefficient of 11 percent). Cost burden rates 

are lower in tribal areas than AIAN counties in 

every region. The most extreme differences 

are in regions that we have noted as having 

the worst affordability problems for AIAN 

counties. The cost burden rate for larger 

tribal areas in California is 26 points below 

the AIAN county rate, and the corresponding 

gap for the Pacific Northwest is 15 points. The 

higher incidence of housing quality problems 

in tribal areas described earlier likely 

contributes to the lower housing costs.

Overall Incidence 

of Housing Problems

We have only limited information from 

published data on how the problems of 

overcrowding, physical deficiencies, and 

affordability overlap. Although not directly 

comparable to the 2006–10 ACS Special 

Populations data above, the Consolidated 

Planning data set derived from the 2005–09 

ACS can shed some light on the patterns of 

housing needs overall. This special tabulation 

produced for HUD reports on households 

with one or more housing problem (physical 

problems, overcrowding, or cost burden). 

About 41 percent of AIAN households 

in 2005–09 had at least one housing 

problem, compared to 36 percent of 

all households. This rate exceeded 

the AIAN cost-burdened share of 33 

percent, indicating that 7 percent of AIAN 

households have physical or overcrowding 

problems but not financial ones. The share 

of all AIAN households with any housing 

problem in AIAN counties was very similar 

to the U.S. figure, but AIAN households in 

other metropolitan counties had a slightly 

higher share of housing problems.
66

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Consistent with their much higher share 

with cost burdens, renters were also more 

likely to have one or more housing problem 

than owners. About half of AIAN renters had 

at least one housing problem in 2005–09, 

while only about one-third of AIAN owners 

did during the same period.

Expectedly, low-income households are more 

vulnerable than other households. Nearly 

8 out of 10 AIAN households earning 30 

percent or less of the metropolitan median 

family income had at least one housing 

problem in 2005–09, and about 6 out of 

10 households with 30 to 50 percent of 

area median income did. AIAN households 

nationally have lower or equal rates of 

housing problems within each income 

category than all households. This means 

that the higher rates of housing needs for 

AIAN households overall are driven by having 

higher shares of low-income households. 

The regional story mirrors the one told above 

for the individual housing needs indicators 

(Figure 5.7). AIAN counties in the Alaska 

region, which exhibited the highest rate of 

physical deficiencies, exhibited the highest 

share of AIAN households with any housing 

problem (54 percent). The next two highest 

were AIAN counties in California/Nevada 

and Arizona/New Mexico, with about 44 

percent. We can surmise that the nature of 

the housing problems differs between these 

two regions, since the former had the highest 

share with cost burdens and the latter the 

worst incidence of overcrowding. AIAN 

counties in the Oklahoma and South Central 

regions had the lowest shares of AIAN 

households with any housing problem, 30 

and 31 percent, respectively. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Consolidated Planning Special Tabulations 2005–2009

Percent of AIAN alone households Figure 5.7. Percent of AIAN Households With One or More Housing Problems in AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2005–2009

0

20

40

60

50

30

10

Study region

N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains AZ/NM CA/NV Pacific NW Alaska

36.7 35.3 

29.8 31.3 

39.7 

44.3 44.5 

39.9 

54.2 
67

Section 5. Initial Review of Housing Conditions and Needs

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Implications

Like the population and socioeconomic 

analysis in earlier sections, AIAN housing 

conditions and needs in tribal areas are 

different than in other geographic areas, and 

the policy solutions will need to be crafted 

appropriately. One concern in four regions 

(Plains, North Central, Alaska, and California/

Nevada) is the large share of vacant housing 

in tribal housing markets. Tribal areas in 

these regions had one-fifth or more of their 

housing units standing vacant, indicating 

either low levels of demand or a mismatch 

between the supply of vacant housing and 

the needs of the tribal residents. The high 

vacancy rates may contribute to the lower 

home values and less household wealth for 

AIAN owners.

The declining AIAN homeownership rate 

signals another area of concern, although 

homeownership as an asset-building strategy 

should be considered in the light of local 

housing markets. The other components 

of this research project—the lender study, 

household survey, and interviews with local 

tribal leaders—should shed light on the level 

of interest in homeownership and the current 

barriers for AIAN households wishing to 

purchase a home.

Our analysis of housing problems 

demonstrated the continuing hardship 

that many AIAN households face. Sharp 

reductions in facilities problems in tribal 

areas since 2000 are an important advance 

in meeting the housing needs of American 

Indians and Alaska Natives. But AIAN 

households still experience these problems 

at extremely high rates, particularly in larger 

tribal areas in the Arizona/New Mexico and 

Alaska regions.

Housing affordability persists as the most 

prevalent housing problem among AIAN 

households. More than half of AIAN renters 

and about one-third of the AIAN owners are 

paying unaffordable housing costs. Since 

rents and home values are lower on average 

than for non-Indians, AIAN households having 

lower-than-average income appear to be the 

root of the cost burden rates. This means 

that education and workforce development, 

in addition to traditional housing programs, 

can contribute to the alleviation of housing 

problems. In short, the signs of improvement 

for AIAN households living in and outside of 

tribal areas should be welcomed, but with 

4 out of 10 AIAN households suffering from 

at least one housing problem, much work 

remains to be done.
68

Section 6. Conclusions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

6. Conclusions

The Urban Institute’s 1996 report 

reviewed the socioeconomic and housing 

circumstances of the American Indian 

and Alaska Native (AIAN) population in 

a comprehensive manner, comparing 

conditions across subjects and geographies, 

mostly as of 1990. The current study was 

designed to tell the story of what has 

happened to this population over the two 

decades, adopting a similarly broad scope 

and structure. 

As noted in Section 1, this particular report, 

which is based largely on census surveys, 

can tell only a part of that story. Our field 

surveys, scheduled for completion in early 

2014, will fill in a wealth of details that will 

be critical to a full understanding of AIAN 

housing needs. This report does offer 

important new findings—some that would 

not have been anticipated in 1996. The 

picture is not a simple one; there are major 

variations across geography. It is a story of 

both continuity and change.

Our conclusions are presented in two 

parts because U.S. policy toward the AIAN 

population varies markedly by geography. 

The first part deals with circumstances 

in Indian Country, the areas where the 

Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) is the 

dominant framework for the delivery of 

housing assistance. The second part deals 

with the rest of the Nation, where approaches 

to housing assistance are generally the same 

for Indians as for other Americans.

Changing Circumstances 

in Indian Country

In the 2000s the AIAN population in tribal 

areas grew in eight of our nine study regions 

and the growth was faster in the counties 

surrounding those areas. Tribal areas and 

their surrounding counties accounted for 

two-thirds of the non-Hispanic AIAN alone 

population in 2010 and for three-quarters of 

its growth over the decade. 

Gaps in well-being between Indians and nonIndians appear to have narrowed along some 

dimensions since 2000, but sizable gaps 

still remain. For example AIAN people living 

in tribal areas in 2006–10 had poverty and 

unemployment rates that were more than 

twice as high as the rates for non-Indians 

nationally. Compared with the national 

average, AIAN households in large tribal 

areas were twice as likely to live in housing 

that was overcrowded and 12 times more 

likely to live in housing that did not have 

adequate plumbing facilities. In these areas 17 

percent of AIAN households lived in mobile 

homes or RVs compared with an average of 6 

percent for all households nationally. 

These indicators are enough to suggest that, 

while there have been improvements, the 

housing problems of the AIAN population 

in tribal areas overall may still be the most 

severe of any group in the Nation. The 

household surveys will provide information 
69

Section 6. Conclusions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

on the other physical housing conditions and 

the perceptions of the residents, allowing us 

to draw more definitive conclusions about 

the problems and needs in Indian Country. 

The data also indicate large differences 

in tribal area socioeconomic and housing 

conditions by region. In 2006–10, AIAN 

tribal area poverty rates in the nine study 

regions varied from 23 percent in Oklahoma 

and Alaska to 41 percent in the Northern 

Plains region. The share of households in 

larger tribal areas with inadequate plumbing 

facilities ranged from about 1 percent in 

six regions to 17 percent in Arizona/New 

Mexico. Differences like these must be 

kept in mind as policymakers and program 

managers consider strategies to address 

housing needs.

Our current study was not designed as an 

overall assessment of NAHASDA, but we 

expect our Tribally Designated Housing 

Entities (TDHE) survey to shed light on 

both problems and opportunities in housing 

program implementation in Indian Country. 

In the later stages of this research, we will 

attempt to document approaches that seem 

to be taking advantage of the NAHASDA 

environment to drive improvements in the 

housing stock and the delivery of housing 

services. The data collection will explore how 

program managers assess the barriers they 

face in administering Indian Housing Block 

Grant (IHBG) resources and gather their 

views of opportunities to stimulate private 

investment in housing for tribal members. 

Interviews in our site visits will permit us to 

explore the potential for private housing 

investment in Indian Country in more depth 

and to learn more about differences in 

market potential in different regions. Further, 

our survey of private lenders will provide 

another perspective on this issue and will 

contribute to our understanding of access to 

private investment in tribal areas. 

Circumstances for Indians 

in the Rest of the Nation

Although the growth rate of the nonHispanic AIAN alone population was 

about the same as that of the Nation as a 

whole in the 2000s (8.6 and 9.7 percent, 

respectively), the rates were much faster for 

two other subgroups who identified their 

race as Indian: AIAN multirace (41 percent) 

and AIAN alone Hispanic (64 percent). 

Two-thirds of the growth of these latter 

two groups took place outside of Indian 

Country, mostly in metropolitan areas. By 

2010 the AIAN alone Hispanic population 

reached 468,000, and the AIAN multiracial 

population rose to 1.52 million.

The marked growth in the multiracial AIAN 

and AIAN Hispanic population underscores 

the need to examine conditions for the AIAN 

population outside of Indian Country. Though 

there may have been some improvements, 

the latest data available show that the AIAN 

populations living outside of Indian County 

are still not doing as well as their non-Indian 

counterparts in a number of ways. The 

gaps, on average, are not as wide as for 

Indians living in tribal areas, but they remain 

serious nonetheless. Sections 3 and 5 have 

documented, for example, that in metro 

areas outside of Indian Country, Indians 

face considerably more serious problems 

than non-Indians with respect to poverty, 

employment rate, and housing cost burden. 

As noted, Indians living outside of tribal 

areas are served by the same housing 

assistance programs that serve other 

Americans without any preferential 

treatment. Funding for these programs is 

being reduced overall. Across metropolitan 

areas, there are notable differences in 

AIAN population growth as well as living 

conditions. This gives special emphasis to 

our upcoming study of Indians in urban 

areas to provide greater understanding 
70

Section 6. Conclusions

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

of the well-being of different subgroups 

among the overall AIAN population in these 

areas. We plan to learn about changes in 

other service programs as well as housing 

problems, and we plan assessments that are 

qualitative as well as quantitative.

Summary

The last decade has seen progress in some 

measures of housing problems and related 

socioeconomic measures for the AIAN 

population, but the marked disparities 

with non-Indian people that were noted 

in the 1996 report persist today. Although 

it is good that the AIAN community was 

not disproportionately hit by the Great 

Recession, the economic situation for AIAN 

families has worsened considerably in the 

past few years, exacerbating already high 

levels of housing problems.

This report confirms the necessity of 

examining issues by type of area and by 

region to understand the diverse contexts in 

which Indians live. Geography, governance, 

cultural context, and land use vary and affect 

the housing needs of residents. This report 

also confirms the importance of considering 

socioeconomic and economic development 

trends, as well as tribal context, in assessing 

housing needs and conditions. Education, 

workforce development, and traditional 

housing assistance play a critical role in 

alleviating housing problems.

The interim report provides an important 

backdrop for the project’s remaining data 

collection activities. The continuing housing 

hardship experienced by AIAN households 

is severe, with 4 out of 10 having at least 

one housing problem. Combining our 

observations from the secondary data with 

the insights from the primary data will offer 

a fuller picture of AIAN housing needs, but 

the data analyzed here already call for the 

policy community’s attention.
71

References

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

References

Alexander, Trent. 2011. American Community 

Survey Steering Committee Updates. 

“Presentation to the State Data 

Centers and Census Information 

Centers.” February 16.

All Things Considered. 2012. “Remote 

Alaskan Villages Get Indoor Plumbing.” 

National Public Radio. October 18.

Arias, Elizabeth, William S. Schauman, Karl 

Eschbach, Paul D. Sorlie, and Eric 

Backlund. 2008. “The Validity of 

Race and Hispanic Origin Reporting 

on Death Certificates in the United 

States.” Vital and Health Statistics, 

Series 2, Number 148, October.

Austin, Algernon. 2009. American Indians 

and the Great Recession: Economic 

Disparities Growing Larger. Issue Brief 

#264. Washington, D.C.: Economic 

Policy Institute.

Bank2. n.d. “About Us.” http://www.

bank2online.com/about-us/

about-us.html. 

Bedré Fine Chocolate. 2006. “Our Company.” 

http://www.bedrechocolates.com/jsps/

company.jsp. 

Bocian, Debbie Gruenstein, Keith S. Ernst, and 

Wei Li. 2006. Unfair Lending: The Effect 

of Race and Ethnicity on the Price of 

Subprime Mortgages. Washington, D.C.: 

Center for Responsible Lending.

Chickasaw Nation. 2013. “About Tribal 

Commerce.” http://www.chickasaw.

net/tribal_commerce/index_222.htm. 

Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund. 2001. The Report of 

the Native American Lending Study. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

the Treasury. http://www.cdfifund.gov/

docs/2001_nacta_lending_study.pdf.

Cooper, Kenneth J. 2011. “As Housing 

Shortage Worsens, Tribes Forced to 

Use FEMA Trailers.” America’s Wire.

May 2. http://newamericamedia.

org/2011/05/as-housing-crisisescalates-native-american-tribes-usefema-mobile-homes.php

Cornell, Stephen, and Joseph P. Kalt. 1989. 

Pathways from Poverty: Development 

and Institute Building on American 

Indian Reservations. Harvard Project 

on American Indian Economic 

Development. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University. May.

. 1992. What Can Tribes Do?: Strategies 

and Institutions in American Indian 

Economic Development. American 

Indian Handbook and Manual Series 

No. 4. Los Angeles: American Indian 

Studies Center, University of California 

at Los Angeles. 

De la Merced, Michael J. 2006. “Florida’s 

Seminole Tribe Buys Hard Rock Cafes 

and Casinos.” The New York Times. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/

business/08rock.html?_r=0.
72

References

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

DeWeaver, Norm. 2010. The American 

Community Survey: Serious Implications 

for Indian Country. Washington, D.C.: 

National Congress of American Indians 

Policy Research Center. 

Dewees, Sarah, and Stewart SarkozyBanoczy. 2008. “Investing in Native 

Community Change: Understanding 

the Role of Community Development 

Financial Institutions.” http://www.

cdfifund.gov/impact_we_make/

research/rural-and-underservedmarkets/reports/Investing%20in%20

Native%20Community%20Change%20

-%20Understanding%20the%20

Role%20of%20Community%20

Development.pdf. 

First Nations Development Institute. 2008. 

Borrowing Trouble: Predatory Lending 

in Native American Communities. See 

http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/

Topics/Special%20Interest%20Areas/

Other/ http://www.aecf.org/~/media/

Pubs/Topics/Special%20Interest%20

Areas/Other/BorrowingTrouble 

PredatoryLendinginNativeAmeri/

borrowing%20trouble.pdf

George, Lance, Eric Oberdorfer, Theresa 

Singleton, Jen Wichmann, and Keith 

Wiley. 2002. Taking Stock: Rural 

People, Poverty, and Housing at the 

Turn of the 21st Century. Washington, 

D.C.: Housing Assistance Council.

Goldstein, Ira, and Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg. 

2008. Subprime Lending, Mortgage 

Foreclosures and Race: How far 

have we come and how far have 

we to go? Philadelphia, PA: The 

Reinvestment Fund.

Hardiman, David L., Carolyn Lynch, Marge 

Martin, Barry L. Steffen, David A. 

Vandenbroucke, Yung Gann, and 

David Yao. 2010. Worst Case Housing 

Needs 2007: A Report to Congress. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy 

Development and Research, U.S. 

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development.

Harvard Project on American Indian Economic 

Development. 2003. Honoring Nations: 

2003 Honoree Quil Ceda Village, The 

Tulalip Tribes (Tulalip, WA). Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy 

School of Government.

Harvard Project on American Indian 

Economic Development. 2008. 

The State of the Native Nations: 

Conditions Under U.S. Policies of SelfDetermination. New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press.

Hillabrant, Walter, Judy Earp, Mack 

Rhoades, and Nancy Pindus. 2004. 

Overcoming Challenges to Business 

and Economic Development in Indian 

Country. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica 

Policy Research.

Ingram, DD, JD Parker, N Schenker, JA 

Weed, B Hamilton, E Arias, JH 

Madans. 2003. “United States Census 

2000 population with bridged race 

categories.” National Center for Health 

Statistics. Vital Health Statistics 2(135).

Joice, Paul, Ben J. Winter, Heidi Johnson, 

and Abubakari Zuberi. 2011. 

Redistribution Effect of Introducing 

2010 Census and 2005–2009 

ACS Data into the CDBG Formula. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development. 

Jorgensen, Miriam, Sarah Dewees, and Karen 

Edwards. 2008. Borrowing Trouble: 

Predatory Lending in Native American 

Communities. Longmont, CO: First 

Nations Development Institute.
73

References

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Katz, Bruce, and Margery Austin Turner. 

2007. Rethinking U.S. Rental Housing 

Policy. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for 

Housing Studies, Harvard University. 

Kingsley, G. Thomas, Virginia E. Spencer, John 

Simonson, Carla E. Herbig, Nancy Kay, 

Maris Mikelsons, and Peter Tatian. 1996. 

Assessment of American Indian Housing 

Needs and Programs: Final Report. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development.

Kolluri, Lopa, and Kristopher M. Rengert. 

2000. “Housing and Homeownership 

on American Indian Tribal Lands: 

Barriers, Progress, and the Promise 

of New Initiatives,” Housing Facts & 

Findings. Fannie Mae Foundation. Fall 

2000, Volume 2, Issue 3. 

Listokin, David, with Robin Leichenko 

and Juliet King. 2006. Housing and 

Economic Development in Indian 

Country: Challenge and Opportunity.

Washington, D.C.: Rutgers University.

Livingston, Gretchen. 2011. In a Down 

Economy, Fewer Births. Washington, 

D.C.: Pew Research Center. October 12.

Lofquist, Daphne A. 2012. “Multigenerational 

Households: 2009–2011.” Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Economics and Statistics 

Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. 

American Community Survey Brief.

Manning, Wendy D., and Susan Brown. 

2006. “Children’s Economic WellBeing in Married and Cohabitating 

Parent Families.” Journal of Marriage 

and Family 68(2); 345–362. 

Martin, Joyce A., Brady E. Hamilton, Stephanie 

J. Ventura, Michelle J.K. Osterman, 

Sharon Kirmeyer, T.J. Mathews, and 

Elizabeth C. Wilson. 2011. Births: Final 

Data for 2009. National Vital Statistics 

Report. 60:1. November 3.

Masnick, George S., Daniel McCue, and 

Eric S. Belsky. 2010. Updated 2010–

2020 Household and New Home 

Demand Projections. Cambridge, 

MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies, 

Harvard University.

McAuley, William J. and Cheri L. Nutty. 

1982. “Residential Preferences and 

Moving Behavior: A Family Life-Cycle 

Analysis.” Journal of Marriage and 

Family 44(2):301–309.

National Indian Gaming Association. 2009. 

“The Economic Impact of Indian 

Gaming.” http://www.indiangaming.

org/info/NIGA_2009_Economic_

Impact_Report.pdf. 

. 2011. “2010 National Indian Gaming 

Association Annual Report.” http://

www.indiangaming.org/info/2011_

Annual_Report.PDF.

National Indian Gaming Commission. 

2012a. “Gaming Revenues 2007–2011.” 

http://www.nigc.gov/Portals/0/

NIGC%20Uploads/Tribal%20Data/

GamingRevenues20072011.pdf.

. 2012b. “Growth in Indian Gaming 

Graph 2002–2011.” http://www.nigc.

gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kxuWD3

mc9Gc%3d&tabid=67.

. 2010. “Growth in Indian Gaming 

Graph 1999–2009.” http://www.nigc.

gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kxuWD3

mc9Gc%3d&tabid=67 .

Nelson, Sandi. 2004. “Trends in Parent’s 

Economic Hardship.” Washington, D.C.: 

Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/

publications/310970.html. 
74

References

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Onishi, Norimitsu. 2012. “With Casino 

Revenues, Tribes Push to Preserve 

Languages, and Cultures.” New York 

Times. June 16. http://www.nytimes.

com/2012/06/17/us/chukchansi-tribein-california-pushes-to-preservelanguage.html?pagewanted=all

Parker, Jennifer D., Nathaniel Schenker, 

Deborah D. Ingram, James A. Weed, 

Katherine E. Heck, and Jennifer H. 

Madans. 2004. Bridging Between Two 

Standards for Collecting Information 

on Race and Ethnicity: An Application 

to Census 2000. Public Health Reports 

Mar-Apr; 119(2): 192–205.

Passel, Jeffrey S. 1992. “The Growing 

American Indian Population, 1960–990: 

Beyond Demography.” Paper presented 

at the Annual Meeting of the American 

Statistical Association, August.

Pendall, Rolf, Lesley Freiman, Dowell Myers, 

and Selma Happ. 2012. Demographic 

Challenges and Opportunities for U.S. 

Housing Markets. Washington, D.C.: 

Bipartisan Policy Center.

Phinney, Robin, Sheldon Danziger, Harold 

A. Pollack, and Kristin Seefeldt. 2007. 

“Housing Instability among Current 

and Former Welfare Recipients.” 

American Journal of Public Health

97(5): 832–837.

Robinson, Robert. 1995. The Economic 

Impact of Indian Reservation-Based 

Gaming Activities. Washington, D.C.: 

National Indian Policy Center. 

Ryan, Barry. 2009. “The Economic 

Contributions of Minnesota Tribal 

Governments in 2007. A Study 

Commissioned by the Minnesota 

Indian Gaming Association.” Minnesota 

Indian Gaming Association. http://

www.mnindiangamingassoc.com/

MIGA_RYAN_REPORT_ON_EC_

IMPACT_2009.pdf. 

Skaburskis, Andrejs. 1999. “Modeling Choice 

of Tenure and Building Type.” Urban 

Studies 36(13): 2199–2215.

Snipp, Matthew C. 1989. American Indians: 

The First of this Land. New York: 

Russell Sage Foundation. 36–40.

Spillman, Brenda C., Jennifer Biess, and 

Graham MacDonald. 2012. Housing as 

a Platform for Improving Outcomes 

for Older Renters. Washington, D.C.: 

Urban Institute.

Steffen, Barry L., Keith Fudge, Marge 

Martin, Maria Teresa Souza, David 

A. Vandenbroucke, and Yung-Gann 

David Yao. 2011. Worst Case Housing 

Needs 2009: Report to Congress. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development.

Stuts, Howard. 2012. “Seminoles have 

become a force in Indian gaming.” 

Las Vegas Review Journal. Las Vegas, 

NV. http://www.reviewjournal.com/

business/casinos-gaming/seminoleshave-become-force-indian-gaming. 

Thornton, Dennis. n.d. “Menominee Tribal 

Enterprises celebrates century of 

lumber production.” http://mtewood.

com/News%20&%20Events/Articles/

Menominee%20100th.pdf. 

Todd, Richard M., and Frederico Burlon. 

2009. Homeownership gaps among 

Indian Reservations prove puzzling. 

Minneapolis, MN: Federal Reserve 

Bank of Minneapolis.

Trosper, Ronald L. 2007. “Indigenous 

influence on forest management on the 

Menominee Indian Reservation.” Forest 

Ecology and Management 249: 134–139.
75

References

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “Census Bureau 

Reports American Indian- and Alaska 

Native-Owned Businesses Generated 

$34 Billion in Receipts in 2007.” March 

15. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/

releases/archives/business_ownership/

cb11-47.html. 

. 2012. “Census Bureau Releases 

Estimates of Undercount and 

Overcount in the 2010 Census.” 

May 22. http://www.census.gov/

newsroom/releases/archives/2010_

census/cb12-95.html.

U.S. Congress House Committee on 

Financial Services. 2010. “Community 

Development Financial Institutions 

(CDFIs)—Their Unique Role 

and Challenges Serving LowerIncome, Underserved and Minority 

Communities.” March 9, 2010. See 

http://financialservices.house.gov/

media/file/hearings/111/tanya_fiddler_

testimony_final_3-9-10.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. 2011. Worst Case Housing 

Needs 2009: Report to Congress. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development.

U.S. Department of the Treasury Community 

Development Financial Institution 

Fund. 2012a. “Database of Certified 

CDFIs and Native CDFIs as of July 

31, 2012.” http://www.cdfifund.

gov/what_we_do/programs_

id.asp?programID=9#certified.

. 2012b. “FY 2012 CDFI and NACA 

Programs Application Glossary.” 

http://www.cdfifund.gov/docs/2012/

cdfi/FY%202012%20CDFI%20

and%20NACA%20Programs%20

Application%20Glossary.pdf . 

. 2012c. “FY 2012 CIIS Glossary. CIIS 

10.0.” August 1, 2012. http://www.

cdfifund.gov/CIIS/2012/FY%20

2012%20CIIS%20Glossary.pdf. 

. “Native American Initiatives Program.” 

http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_

do/programs_id.asp?programID=3.

. “The Report of the Native American 

Lending Study.” November 2001. 

http://www.cdfifund.gov/docs/2001_

nacta_lending_study.pdf.

U.S. National Archives and Records 

Administration. 2012. Code of Federal 

Regulations. Title 12. Community 

Development Financial Institutions 

Program Applicant Eligibility.

U.S. Minority Business Development Agency. 

2006. The State of Minority Business 

Enterprises: An Overview of the 

2002 Survey of Business Owners.

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 

Office (GPO). 

Van Otten, Dan, Joyce McAfee, Larry 

Buron, Jennifer Turnham, John 

Griffith, and Brooke Spellman. 2009. 

Indian Housing Block Grant Program 

Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development.

Williams, Andrea. 2007. “Choctaw Open 

Justice Complex.” Meridian, MS: ABC 11 

WTOK. http://www.wtok.com/. 
76

Appendix 1. Description of Data Resources

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Appendix 1. Description 

of Data Sources

The analyses presented in this report relied 

on several different data sources. In this 

appendix, we describe each source and 

examine any limitations the source may have 

when it comes to studying the American 

Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population. 

American Community Survey 

The American Community Survey (ACS) 

is an ongoing statistical survey run by 

the U.S. Census Bureau, replacing the 

long-form in the decennial census. The 

ACS has approximately 250,000 monthly 

respondents, totaling 3 million respondents 

per year. ACS publishes annual estimates 

for geographies with more than 65,000 

people. Because of the smaller sample size 

compared to the decennial census, the 

Census Bureau averages 5 years of surveys 

to produce estimates for the smallest 

geographies, including tribal areas.

We analyzed the tabulations from the 

2008 and 2010 annual surveys and the 

tabulations and microdata from the 

2006–10, 5-year survey.

Limitations

Because the ACS produces estimates based 

on a smaller sample than the decennial 

census long-form survey, which the U.S. 

Census Bureau stopped conducting after the 

2000 decennial census, the estimates are 

subject to more sampling error than longform census estimates. The reliability of ACS 

estimates for areas of smaller population 

and smaller population groups, like the 

AIAN population, have been questioned. 

DeWeaver (2010) finds that the 2006–2008, 

3-year ACS estimate of the size of the AIAN 

alone population is 14.3 percent lower than 

the size predicted over that period by the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Estimates 

program.40 Further, multiyear estimates, by 

definition, cannot provide a point-in-time 

picture, which can be critical for certain 

analyses. For example, overcrowding in 

households may have been impacted by the 

housing finance crisis that occurred during 

the period between 2006 and 2010; these 

multiyear estimates may not accurately 

portray true conditions at any point over this 

period. Although the U.S. Census Bureau 

also produces 1-year estimates, these are not 

available for all tribal areas because of the 

restricted sample size.

ACS Selected Population Tables

The ACS Selected Population Tables, 

another U.S. Census Bureau product, 

provides tabulations of social, economic, 

and housing characteristics for selected 

racial and ethnic groups that are unavailable 

in the general ACS. This product includes 

estimates for 392 race, Hispanic origin, 

40 See DeWeaver 2010 for more information on the limitations of the ACS in providing complete, timely, and reliable data for Indian Country.
77

Appendix 1. Description of Data Resources

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

ancestry, and tribal groups with a national 

population of at least 7,000. Estimates 

for individual groups are published for 

geographies in which that group had a 

population of at least 50 members during 

the 5-year ACS data collection period, 

with census tract being the lowest level 

of geography available.

We analyzed the 2006–10, 5-year 

estimate tabulations.

Limitations

Because of the population thresholds as 

noted above, the Census Bureau does not 

produce AIAN alone estimates for many 

geographic areas. AIAN alone estimates 

were available across all tables included in 

the analysis for the United States nationally, 

all States, 574 of 3,138 counties (not 

including counties in Hawaii), and 230 of 617 

tribal areas. See Table A.1 for a breakdown 

of coverage for tribal areas and AIAN alone 

households in tribal areas 

Table A1.1. American Community Survey, Selected Population Tables Coverage Rates, 2006–10

Number of Tribal Areas

Coverage

 Rate (%)

Number of AIAN Alone Occupied 

Housing Units on Tribal Land

Coverage 

Rate (%)

In ACS Selected 

Population 

Tables Universe

In ACS Standard 

Tables Universe

In ACS Selected 

Population 

Tables Universe

In ACS Standard 

Tables Universe

Total 230 617 37 239,233 256,661 93

North Central 21 36 58 13,035 13,866 94

Eastern 19 68 28 28,236 31,020 91

Oklahoma 27 30 90 72,163 72,322 100

South Central 8 17 47 3,556 3,877 92

Northern Plains 25 31 81 30,328 30,604 99

Arizona/New Mexico 30 42 71 65,470 68,141 96

California/Nevada 17 130 13 4,225 7,593 56

Pacific Northwest 24 42 57 10,599 11,381 93

Alaska 59 221 27 11,621 17,857 65

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2006–10 and American Community Survey Selected 

Population Tables, 2006–10
78

Appendix 1. Description of Data Resources

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Community Development 

Financial Institution Database

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s 

Community Development Financial 

Institutions (CDFI) Fund maintains a 

database of certified CDFIs. The data 

contains the organization’s name, financial 

institution type, Native CDFI designation, 

address, contact person and his/her contact 

information, and the organization’s Web site.

We gathered the information that was 

current as of mid-2012.

County Business Patterns 

The U.S. Census Bureau’s Business Patterns 

series is produced annually and provides 

subnational economic data by industry. Data 

for this product comes from administrative 

sources, the 5-year Economic Census, and 

the annual Company Organization Survey. 

The series is useful for studying the economic 

activity of small areas; analyzing economic 

changes over time; and benchmarking 

statistical series, surveys, and databases 

between economic censuses. The Business 

Patterns series provides information on the 

number of establishments and employment 

at the county and Zip Code level, but the 

research team relied on the county-level data 

for this report.

We analyzed data from 2000, 2007, and 2010.

Decennial Census

Every 10 years, the U.S. Census Bureau 

conducts a national household survey. 

The federal government uses decennial 

census data for apportioning congressional 

seats, for identifying distressed areas, 

and for many other activities. Short-form 

information is collected on every person and 

includes basic characteristics, such as age, 

sex, and race. Through 2000, the long- form 

was sent to one out of every six households 

and collected more detailed information, 

such as income, housing characteristics, and 

employment. After 2000, the long-form of 

the census was replaced with the ACS. 

We analyzed data from 1990, 2000, and 2010.

Limitations

The decennial census, while nominally a 

100-percent count of the population, has 

historically undercounted hard-to-reach 

populations. In 2010, coverage of the 

AIAN population varied by geography. 

American Indians and Alaska Natives living 

on reservations were undercounted by 

4.9 percent, compared with a 0.9 percent 

overcount in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). 

For the 2010 decennial census, the Census 

Bureau reports an overcount of American 

Indians outside of reservations of 1.95 percent. 

The net error for American Indians not living 

on reservations was not statistically different 

from zero in 2010 or 2000. 

Applying the tribal undercount percentage 

to the official totals would translate as an 

additional 47,000 people, or 1.7 percent of 

all AIAN alone population. This analysis uses 

the published statistics from the decennial 

census and does not attempt to adjust for 

the undercount on reservations. 

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 

(HMDA) requires most lending institutions 

to report mortgage loan applications, 

including the outcome of the application, 

information about the loan and applicant, 

location of the property, structure type, 

lien status, and whether the loan had a 

high interest rate. The Federal Financial 

Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) 

collects the data in order to determine 

whether financial institutions are meeting a 

community’s housing credit needs, to target 

community development funds to attract 
79

Appendix 1. Description of Data Resources

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

private investment, and to identify possible 

discriminatory lending patterns. 

We analyzed data from 2004 to 2006.

National Indian Gaming Commission 

Register of Gaming Institutions

Through a Freedom of Information Act 

request, the Urban Institute obtained, from 

the National Indian Gaming Commission 

(NIGC), a list of all registered tribal gaming 

operations in the country. Each operation is 

labeled with a tribe name, name of gaming 

operation, address, phone number, fax, and 

email address. 

Limitations

A limitation of the data set is that the listed 

administrative address does not necessarily 

match the location of the physical gaming 

operation, which is likely in the instances 

where administrative addresses are P.O. boxes.

We obtained the data that was current as 

of March 2011.
80

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Appendix 2. Geographic Area 

Definitions and Methodology

Types of Tribal Areas Defined 

by the U.S. Census Bureau

The U.S. Census Bureau defines nine 

different types of tribal areas in the United 

States that include government-designated 

reservations, trust lands, and joint use areas 

as well as several types of statistical entities: 

• American Indian reservations—federal 

(federal AIRs): These are areas that 

the federal government set aside for 

tribal use. The boundaries of federally 

recognized reservations are determined 

through treaties, agreements, executive 

orders, federal statutes, secretarial orders, 

and judicial determinations. This type 

of reservation can be legally referred 

to as any of the following: colonies, 

communities, Indian colonies, Indian 

communities, Indian rancherias, Indian 

reservations, Indian villages, pueblos, 

rancherias, ranches, reservations, 

reserves, settlements, and villages. 

Federal AIRs may cross State and other 

area boundaries. American Indian tribes 

are considered to have the primary 

governmental authority over federally 

recognized reservations. The U.S. Census 

Bureau determines the boundaries of 

federal AIRS through its annual Boundary 

and Annexation Survey.

• Off-reservation trust lands: These areas 

are held in trust for an American Indian 

tribe or individual American Indian by 

the federal government. Trust lands 

can be located on or off designated 

reservation lands, but the U.S. Census 

Bureau only provides data for offreservation trust lands—the areas that are 

not already included in the tabulations 

of data for reservations. Off-reservation 

trust lands are always affiliated with 

a federally recognized tribal area and 

their boundaries are determined by the 

U.S. Census Bureau through its annual 

Boundary and Annexation Survey. 

• Joint-use areas: These are areas that are 

administered jointly by more than one 

American Indian tribe and/or are areas 

that are claimed by multiple tribes. For the 

purpose of providing statistical data, the 

U.S. Census Bureau considers joint-use 

areas to be geographically comparable to 

a reservation. Joint-use areas do not cross 

State boundaries. 

• American Indian reservations—State 

(State AIRs): These areas are set aside 

for tribes that are recognized by a State 

government. Names and boundaries for 

these reservations are provided to the U.S. 

Census Bureau by a liaison appointed by 

the State’s governor. 

• Statistical entities: These are areas that do 

not directly correspond to a federally or 

State-recognized land base but are home 

to a concentration of American Indian and 
81

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Alaska Native (AIAN) people affiliated 

with a particular tribe.

o Oklahoma tribal statistical areas 

(OTSAs): These are the areas of 

Oklahoma that were formerly 

reservations. OTSAs are identified 

in consultation with the federally 

recognized tribes that previously 

had a reservation in Oklahoma. 

OTSA boundaries mirror those of the 

tribes’ former reservations, unless the 

boundaries have been changed through 

agreements with neighboring tribes.

o Oklahoma tribal statistical area (OTSA) 

joint-use areas: These areas are OTSAs 

that are administered jointly by multiple 

American Indian tribes with an OTSA 

and/or are claimed by multiple tribes 

with an OTSA. For the presentation 

of statistical data, the U.S. Census 

Bureau treats these areas as distinct 

geographic areas. 

o Tribal-designated statistical areas 

(TDSAs): These are areas inhabited by 

a concentration of people who identify 

with a federally recognized American 

Indian tribe but do not have a federally 

recognized land base. To be considered 

a TDSA, the area must have organized 

tribal activity. TDSA boundaries are 

identified by the inhabitants for the U.S. 

Census Bureau. TDSAs may cross State 

lines but cannot include land that is 

part of another tribal area. 

o State-designated tribal statistical areas 

(SDTSAs): These are areas inhabited 

by a concentration of members of 

State-recognized American Indian 

tribes without a State-recognized land 

base. A governor-appointed liaison 

for the State reports these areas and 

their boundaries to the U.S. Census 

Bureau. To be considered a SDTSA, 

the area must have organized tribal 

activity. SDTSAs cannot cross State 

lines and cannot include land that is 

part of another tribal area. These areas 

were referred to as State-designated 

American Indian statistical areas 

(SDAISAs) in the 2000 decennial 

census.

o Alaska Native Village statistical 

areas (ANVSAs): These areas are the 

portions of Alaska Native Villages 

(ANVs) that are densely populated. 

ANVs are associations, bands, clans, 

communities, groups, tribes, or villages 

that were recognized through the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

of 1971. However, the exact boundaries 

of ANVs are difficult to determine, so 

the U.S. Census Bureau presents data 

for the ANVSAs. ANVSAs are areas 

where Alaska Natives, particularly those 

belonging to the defining ANV, are a 

large share of the population in at least 

one season of the year. ANV officials, if 

they choose to, review the boundaries 

of ANVSAs; if ANV officials choose not 

to participate, boundaries are verified 

by officials of the ANV’s Alaska Native 

Regional Corporation (ANRC). ANVSA’s 

cannot include land that is part of 

another tribal area. 

Table A2.1 presents some basic 

characteristics for each type of tribal area 

or the United States as a whole and the nine 

study regions. 
82

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Table A2.1. AIAN Tribal Areas and Population, 2010

Study Region

Total N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central N. Plains AZ/NM CA/NV Pacific NW Alaska

Number of Tribal Areas 617 36 68 30 17 31 42 130 42 221 

Federally recognized tribal area 321 36 32 1 11 31 40 128 41 1 

With reservation and off-reservation trust land 121 25 6 0 6 15 15 31 23 0 

With reservation only 190 10 21 1 5 15 25 95 17 1 

With off-reservation trust land only 10 1 5 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 

Joint-use area 7 0 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 

State-recognized reservation 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TDSA or OTSA 29 0 1 25 0 0 0 2 1 0 

State-designated tribal statistical area 30 0 25 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 

Alaska Native Village statistical area 220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220 

2010 AIAN Population (000) 967.1 42.2 102.5 280.1 13.4 128.4 265.9 25.4 42.1 67.1 

Federally recognized tribal area 542.0 42.2 26.8 6.9 3.4 128.4 265.9 25.3 41.8 1.2 

With reservation and off-reservation trust land 346.3 29.7 1.0 NA 1.4 80.7 199.5 5.0 29.0 NA 

With reservation only 195.3 12.5 25.6 6.9 2.0 47.7 66.4 20.2 12.7 1.2 

With off-reservation trust land only 0.4 0.1 0.2 NA NA 0.0 NA 0.1 0.1 NA 

Joint-use area 8.2 NA NA 8.2 0.0 NA 0.0 NA NA NA 

State-recognized reservation 0.8 NA 0.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

TDSA or OTSA 265.5 NA 0.0 265.0 NA NA NA 0.1 0.3 NA 

State-designated tribal statistical area 84.8 NA 74.8 NA 10.0 NA NA NA NA NA 

Alaska Native Village statistical area 65.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 65.9 

Total Population Per Area (000) 25.8 23.2 156.7 49.0 169.0 5.0 7.2 26.3 21.6 11.9 

Federally recognized tribal area 9.0 23.2 43.9 21.1 20.9 5.0 7.2 25.2 18.1 11.0 

With reservation and off-reservation trust land 7.5 22.8 6.4 NA 43.5 4.3 6.3 91.4 18.3 NA 

With reservation only 12.3 24.1 81.9 21.1 18.2 6.5 11.1 15.6 17.6 11.0 

With off-reservation trust land only 11.4 110.3 1.9 NA NA 31.4 NA 20.1 416.2 NA 

Joint-use area 118.3 NA NA 119.2 0.0 NA 0.0 NA NA NA 

State-recognized reservation 233.8 NA 233.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

TDSA or OTSA 50.4 NA 71.7 49.8 NA NA NA 907.2 163.5 NA 

State-designated tribal statistical area 189.2 NA 180.6 NA 224.0 NA NA NA NA NA 

Alaska Native Village statistical area 11.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 11.9 

NA: Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010
83

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Using Consistent Geographic 

Boundaries for 2000 to 2010 Analysis

Official U.S. Census Bureau boundaries for 

tribal areas can change between decennial 

census years for a number of reasons, 

though this does not happen frequently. 

New tribal areas are created, and earlier 

ones are split or combined. Boundaries 

are also adjusted as new legal agreements 

are made or past disputes about land are 

resolved. This section describes the analytic 

decisions made to construct the tribal areas 

for the analysis for this report.

Redefined Tribal Areas

In this analysis, we aimed to report changes 

in population and housing between 2000 

and 2010 for a consistent land area, not 

those that occurred due to differences 

in boundaries between those years. 

Accordingly, where boundary changes 

would have significant impact, we used 

2000 geographies to construct an area that 

matched as closely as possible to the area as 

defined in the 2010 census. 

Such adjustments were required for only 

31 of the 617 tribal areas. In the remaining 

cases, either the tribal area boundaries did 

not change or the change was modest or 

had negligible impact on population.

Criteria for Redefinition

We decided that a redefinition of the 2000 

boundary would be necessary for tribal 

areas that had significant changes in land 

area and population. Specifically, the criteria 

to identify tribal areas for redefinition were:

1. Change in area: Where there was an 

increase or decrease in land area that 

exceeded 2 percent.

2. Change in population: Where there was 

an increase or decrease in population that 

exceeded 2,000.

This rule was applied for tribal areas that 

existed in both years (22 areas) and those 

that existed only in 2010 (9 areas). 

Redefinition Methods

1. Combinations of 2000 tribal areas: For 

three 2010 tribal areas, two 2000 tribal 

areas had been combined in 2010, but 

there was no change in the boundary of 

the combined area.41

2. Combinations of 2000 census tracts: For 

19 tribal areas that existed in 2000 and 

2010 and 9 tribal areas that existed only in 

2010, we constructed areas equivalent to 

the 2010 boundaries using 2000 census 

tracts. Tables A2.2 and A2.3 list the tribal 

areas for which the 2000 data was based 

on the refined boundaries.

As a general rule when constructing the 

equivalent areas, we included 2000 tracts 

only when more than 50 percent of the 

census tract population fell into the 2010 tribal 

area boundary. However, it was necessary 

in six cases to lower the threshold in order 

to include at least one tract as tribal land in 

each AIAN county (5 percent in six cases 

and 2.5 percent in one case). In addition, two 

of the tracts selected partially overlapped 

nonredefined tribal areas. Because we did not 

have estimates at the subtract level, we could 

not eliminate this double-counting.42

41 The 2010 Menominee Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land tribal boundary was redefined for 2000 by combining the 2000 geographic area of this same name with the Menominee/Stockbridge-Munsee joint use area; the 2010 Mille Lacs Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land was redefined for 2000 by combining the area 2000 area of this same name with the Sandy Lake Reservation; and the 

2010 Knik ANSVA was redefined for 2000 by combining the 2000 Knik ANVSA with the Kanatak TDSA. 

42 We estimate that including the two tracts and the tribal areas as tribal land shifts the population in tribal areas by 186 AIAN alone people 

from the totals for their surrounding counties.
84

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Table A2.2. Tribal Areas with Significant Boundary Changes, Population Counts Before and After Adjustment, 2000

Total Population AIAN Alone Population

Tribal Area Name Before Crosswalk After Crosswalk Before Crosswalk After Crosswalk

Adais Caddo SDAISA 39,080 12,836 421 249

Agua Caliente Reservation 21,358 21,358 176 176

Apache Choctaw SDAISA 23,459 5,664 1,828 1,195

Aroostook Band of Mimac, TDSA 9,756 2,946 286 140

Cayuga Nation TDSA 10,707 21,318 23 64

Cherokee Tribe of Northeast Alabama SDAISA 173 7,511 0 44

Cherokees of Southeast Alabama SDAISA 120,294 77,522 366 256

Coharie SDAISA 123,761 51,055 1,429 860

Echota Cherokee SDAISA 65,068 41,200 1,941 1,958

Four Winds Cherokee SDAISA 79,657 32,069 943 419

Kenaitze ANVSA 29,320 31,088 1,672 1,908

Lumbee SDAISA 474,100 443,164 58,238 57,903

MaChis Lower Creek SDAISA 24,198 20,865 329 357

Mississippi Choctaw Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land 5,190 24,269 4,902 4,304

Nanticoke Indian Tribe SDAISA 22,683 17,255 394 387

Nanticoke Lenni Lenape SDAISA 12,316 6,283 351 319

Pine Ridge Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land 15,521 17,656 14,304 14,855

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi TDSA 35,415 4,251 466 109

United Houma Nation SDAISA 839,880 189,614 11,019 6,860

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010

Table A2.3. New Tribal Areas in 2010 With Population Greater than 2,000

Tribal Area Name Total Population AIAN Alone Population

Ketchikan ANVSA 12,742 1,692

Nome ANVSA 3,681 1,994

Occaneechi-Saponi SDTSA 8,615 112

Pee Dee SDTSA 2,915 104

Petersburg ANVSA 2,347 175

Sitka ANVSA 4,480 855

United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation SDTSA 5,869 36

Washoe Ranches Trust Land (part) 2,916 69

Wassamasaw SDTSA 2,011 31

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010
85

Appendix 2. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND HOUSING CONDITIONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

Excluded Tribal Areas

In three cases, we decided to drop the 

tribal area from the 2000 analysis. These 

tribal areas are treated similarly to the tribal 

areas that were new in 2010 but below 

the population threshold for redefinition; 

they are included in the 2010 analyses but 

excluded from the 2000 analyses.

The tribal area for the Jena Band of 

Choctaw existed in 2000 and 2010. It 

met the redefinition criteria because 

it experienced extreme land area and 

population losses from 2000 to 2010. Its 

2010 land area was reduced by 99.9 percent 

from its 2000 land area, and its 2010 

population decreased to zero. Because its 

2010 land area was so small, no tract could 

be assigned to it to create an equivalent area 

for the 2000 analysis, so it was excluded 

from the 2000 analysis. 

In addition, two of the tracts selected for tractlevel crosswalks according to the rules above 

each contained an entire separate tribal area 

that had not been selected for redefinition. 

In this case, we dropped the two tribal areas 

that the tracts contained (Salamatof ANVSA 

and Saxman ANVSA) from the 2000 to 2010 

tribal area crosswalk to avoid counting the 

population of that area twice.

Adjustments in Calculating Data for Tribal 

Areas and Surrounding Counties

Counties were identified as AIAN counties 

if some part of the county’s land was 

designated as a tribal area in 2010. The 

surrounding county area was calculated by 

subtracting the tribal area estimate from the 

estimate for the county as a whole. 

For the 2000 calculations, we subtracted 

the figures for redefined tribal boundaries 

from the county total. As mentioned above, 

the tract-based definitions did not perfectly 

replicate 2010 boundaries. Further, some tribal 

areas experienced small boundary changes 

for which we did not account. Either of these 

two factors could alter which counties the 

tribal areas covered. As a result, the counties 

classified as AIAN counties using 2010 

boundary definitions do not match exactly the 

counties that would be designated as tribal 

land using the crosswalk in 2000. 

This mismatch meant that adjustments 

had to be made in order to calculate the 

surrounding county level for all of the 

2010-defined AIAN counties. In the 2000 

analyses, 31 AIAN counties (as determined 

by the 2010 boundaries) contained no tribal 

land according to the 2000 boundaries 

used in our analysis.43 In these cases, we 

imputed the tribal area values as zero. 

This adjustment resulted in a small shift 

of the population from tribal areas to 

the surrounding counties. In addition, six 

counties that were not classified as AIAN 

counties by 2010 standards contained tribal 

land according to the 2000 boundaries. In 

these cases, we dropped the parts of the 

tribal areas that intersected with these six 

counties from our 2000 analyses.44

43 This total includes two counties that contained the small amount of land for Jena Band of Choctaw in 2010 (noted above). In 2010, the 

tribal area AIAN alone population of these counties was zero in 18 cases and less than 350 in 13 cases. 

44 All of the parts of the tribal area that intersected with these six counties had AIAN alone populations of zero in 2000, so our actions did 

not affect the analysis.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

January 2014