Housing Needs of American 

Indians and Alaska Natives in 

Tribal Areas: 

A Report From the Assessment of 

American Indian, Alaska Native, and 

Native Hawaiian Housing Needs

Executive Summary

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research 
Housing Needs of American 

Indians and Alaska Natives in 

Tribal Areas: 

A Report From the Assessment of 

American Indian, Alaska Native, and 

Native Hawaiian Housing Needs

Executive Summary

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development 

and Research

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Nancy Pindus

G. Thomas Kingsley

Jennifer Biess

Diane Levy

Jasmine Simington

Christopher Hayes

Urban Institute

January 2017
1

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

Executive Summary

During the past two decades, although 

improvements have been made, the 

overcrowding and physical housing 

problems of American Indians and Alaska 

Natives (AIANs) living on reservations and 

other tribal areas remain strikingly more 

severe than those of other Americans. 

Particular circumstances of tribal areas—

remoteness, lack of infrastructure, and 

complex legal and other constraints related 

to land ownership—make it extremely 

difficult to improve housing conditions in 

those areas, although it is important to point 

out that tribal area housing problems and 

the barriers to addressing them are much 

more challenging in some locations and 

regions of the country than in others.

The nation’s central legal framework for 

providing housing assistance in Indian 

Country—the Native American Housing 

Assistance and Self-Determination Act 

(NAHASDA) of 1996, which gives the tribes 

primary responsibility for the use of federal 

and other assistance in addressing these 

problems—appears to be working more 

effectively than did the previous approach. 

Although the need for further capacity 

improvements remains widespread, the 

tribes have demonstrated the ability to 

construct and rehabilitate housing for lowincome families at substantial levels under 

this framework. Congress has provided 

a fairly consistent level of funding for its 

primary delivery mechanism, the Indian 

Housing Block Grant (IHBG), administered by 

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD)—in nominal terms—

but this flow has been seriously eroded by 

inflation. Inadequate funding appears to be a 

major constraint at this point.

Regardless of the extent to which previous 

funding levels can be restored, however, 

HUD and other federal agencies need to 

assist and encourage the tribes to better 

leverage the assistance they receive and 

to foster both economic development and 

housing improvement. In the move toward 

self-determination, many tribes have recently 

been innovative in making progress in both 

areas. The agencies need to build on these 

examples, working with the tribes to catalyze 

further progress, especially in tribal areas 

where current problems are most severe. 

This main final report includes the principal 

findings and conclusions of the Assessment 

of American Indian, Alaska Native, 

and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs, a 

congressionally mandated study funded by 

HUD and carried out by the Urban Institute 

and its subcontractors, Econometrica, Inc.; 

NORC at the University of Chicago; and 

Support Services International, Inc.1

Conducted between 2011 and 2016, this 

study is the largest study of AIAN housing 

1 This study produced four additional reports (1) on the housing needs of Native Hawaiians (Corey et al., 2016), (2) on the circumstances 

of the AIAN population living in urban areas (Levy et al., 2016), (3) on mortgage lending on tribal lands (Listokin et al., 2016), and (4) an 

interim report that summarized census data on the changing circumstances of the AIAN population across the country (Pettit et al., 2014).
2

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

conditions and policies ever undertaken 

in Indian Country.2 It entailed in-person 

surveys of individual households in their 

homes in a representative sample of 38 

tribal areas (1,340 completed interviews), 

a large-scale telephone survey of the tribal 

departments and other local entities that 

administer the IHBG for the tribes (Tribal/

Tribally Designated Housing Entity [TDHE] 

Survey, 110 completed interviews), and 

interviews with a broader array of local 

leaders in site visits to 22 of the sampled 

areas. The study also entailed extensive 

analysis of data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau and other secondary sources.

This report focuses on conditions in the 617 

AIAN tribal areas defined by the U.S. Census 

Bureau and on the 526 counties that contain 

or immediately surround them. The report 

has three parts: (1) Demographic, Social, 

and Economic Conditions; (2) Housing 

Conditions and Needs; and (3) Housing 

Policies and Programs.

Demographic, Social, 

and Economic Conditions 

Three things about a population are most 

critical to understanding its demand for and 

effects on housing conditions: (1) whether it 

is growing, (2) how its economic well-being 

compares with that of other groups, and (3) 

whether its socioeconomic conditions are 

internally uniform or diverse.

The AIAN population in tribal areas 

and their surrounding counties 

continues to grow rapidly. Patterns 

suggest that links to traditional tribal 

areas and cultures remain strong—

most who identify AIAN as their only 

race are remaining on tribal land or 

staying close to tribal areas rather than 

moving to distant cities.

2 The term Indian Country is used in the common colloquial sense to mean tribal areas, including Alaska Native villages, and is not used as a 

legal term in this report.

Nationwide, the number of people who 

identified their race as AIAN grew from 

4.1 million in 2000 to 5.2 million in 2010—

an increase of 27 percent. In 2010, this 

population included 2.6 million who said 

they belonged to other racial groups in 

addition to AIAN (the “AIAN multirace” 

population). This group grew most rapidly 

in urban areas outside Indian Country and 

grew much more rapidly overall than those 

who identified AIAN as their only race (the 

“AIAN-alone” population). Some in the AIAN 

policy community, however, have suggested 

that a significant number in the multirace 

group living in urban areas may not be 

members of the recognized tribes that are 

NAHASDA’s intended beneficiaries. 

It has also been suggested, however, 

that a high percentage of both the AIAN 

multiracial and AIAN-alone populations that 

live in tribal areas and their surrounding 

counties are likely to be tribal members. 

Their growth has been somewhat slower, 

but it is still much stronger than the U.S. 

population growth overall. The AIANalone population grew much faster in tribal 

areas and the surrounding counties than it 

did in the rest of the nation—by 10 versus 

6 percent. From 2000 to 2010, the total 

AIAN population (AIAN-alone plus AIAN 

multirace) grew by 12 percent in the tribal 

areas and by 31 percent in the surrounding 

counties (compared with the overall U.S. 

growth rate of 10 percent). By 2010, the 

total AIAN population had reached 1.15 

million in tribal areas and 1.32 million in the 

surrounding counties.

The overall economic well-being of 

the AIAN population remains generally 

more problematic than that of nonAIANs almost everywhere and is worse 

for AIANs in tribal areas than for AIANs 

living in other parts of the country.
3

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

For example, the American Community 

Survey (ACS) shows that, compared with 

a U.S. average poverty rate of 18 percent 

in the 2006-to-2010 period, AIAN-alone 

poverty rates stood at 22 percent in 

metropolitan counties outside Indian 

Country, 28 percent in the surrounding 

counties, and 32 percent in tribal areas 

(exhibit ES.1). The latter figure is almost 

double (1.8 times) the U.S. average.

Notable advances in socioeconomic 

conditions in many tribal areas have 

occurred during the past two decades, 

however, offering promising models 

for change. These advances include 

improvements in the capacity of the 

people (higher educational attainment) 

and vigorous initiatives by tribes 

exercising their self-determination to 

drive economic development.

From 2000 to 2006–2010 the share of 

AIAN adults living in tribal areas that had a 

bachelor’s degree or higher went up only 

slightly, from 7.8 to 9.2 percent, but this 

increase narrowed the gap in educational 

attainment in tribal areas as compared to 

the non-AIAN population during that period. 

Since 1990, researchers have seen 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 on American 

Indian Economic Development, 2008: 111). 

New economic activity includes large-scale 

investments by the tribes and a variety of 

businesses started by private tribal members. 

Gaming has played a part in this economic 

activity—substantially increasing wealth in 

some places—but it has not been the primary 

driver of development in most areas and has 

an uncertain future as a basis for economic 

development.

An important understanding for policy 

is that conditions in tribal areas are 

markedly diverse across the nation.

One example indicator that illustrates 

this point is the share of a tribal area’s 

population that has a private-sector job. 

The measure is positively correlated with 

population growth and other indicators 

of economic well-being and inversely 
4

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

correlated with remote locations. In the 

top quarter of the 213 largest tribal areas3

by this measure, private employees 

accounted for 17 percent or more of the 

population. In the bottom quarter, they 

accounted for less than 7 percent. The top 

quarter is spread across many parts of the 

country, although a distinct cluster is in 

Oklahoma. Regarding the bottom quarter, 

large clusters are located in the poorest 

regions of Indian Country: Arizona/New 

Mexico, the Plains and northwest Alaska. 

Although the distinction between publicand private-sector jobs is somewhat 

blurred by tribal and state definitions of 

certain tribal enterprises, this example 

does serve to highlight economic diversity 

in Indian Country. 

Housing Conditions and Needs 

The central motivation for this study was to 

determine the extent of housing problems 

and needs in Indian Country. This study 

follows standards that HUD uses in its 

work on worst case housing needs. These 

standards start with physical problems in 

three categories:

1. Systems deficiencies—plumbing, kitchen, 

heating, and electrical.

2. Condition problems, including structural 

deficiencies, holes in the wall, and so forth.

3. Overcrowding, defined by having more 

than one person per room.

The analysis then addresses the 

most rapidly growing problem nearly 

everywhere—affordability, or cost burden—

defined as when households are paying 

more than 30 percent of their income for 

housing expenses. 

Findings are based on two sources of 

information. The first source is this project’s 

completed household survey—a nationally 

3 These 213 are tribal areas the Census Bureau considers large enough to permit the publication of independent estimates for a large 

number of ACS variables. Together, they account for 89 percent of the total 2010 AIAN-alone population in all tribal areas. 

representative snapshot of tribal areas 

as of the time period 2013 to 2015, which 

provides data on all these problems. The 

second source is U.S. Census Bureau 

data. Although the Census Bureau does 

not collect any data on three of these 

problems—heating, electrical, or condition 

deficiencies—it does collect data on all 

the other indicators and has the benefit 

of supporting comparisons over time and 

between geographies, which, because of 

sample size limitations, cannot be done with 

the household survey data.

Data from this project’s household 

survey show that physical housing 

problems for AIAN households in tribal 

areas remain much more severe than 

for U.S. households, on average, in 

almost all categories. The share of AIAN 

households in tribal areas with a cost 

burden problem, however, is comparable 

with that of all U.S. households.

Physical housing problems have declined 

enough to be negligible for the United 

States, on average—incidences typically 

of 1 to 2 percent—but not for American 

Indians and Alaska Natives in tribal areas. 

For example, 2013 American Housing 

Survey data show the U.S. average share of 

households with plumbing deficiencies was 

1 percent, but this study’s household survey 

shows the share for AIAN populations 

in tribal areas was 6 percent; the share 

with heating deficiencies was 2 percent 

for the United States but 12 percent for 

AIANs in tribal areas; the share that was 

overcrowded was 2 percent for the United 

States but 16 percent for AIANs in tribal 

areas (exhibit ES.2). The only problems in 

which the incidences were nearly the same 

were electrical deficiencies (about 1 percent 

for both) and cost burden (36 percent 

for the United States versus 38 percent in 

tribal areas). 
5

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

Adding up these measures would yield 

an inaccurate estimate of the number of 

households affected by one or more of 

these problems, because it would involve 

double counting (a single household, for 

example, might have a cost burden problem 

plus a kitchen or plumbing deficiency and 

also be overcrowded, and so forth). This 

study also accordingly calculated incidences 

in mutually exclusive categories. 

These calculations show that 10 percent of 

AIAN tribal area households had plumbing 

and/or kitchen deficiencies. Another 

13 percent that did not have plumbing 

or kitchen deficiencies had some mix 

of heating, electrical, and/or condition 

problems, and another 11 percent that did 

not have any of the previous problems were 

overcrowded. Finally, for another 23 percent, 

cost burden was their only problem.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Plumbing Kitchen Electrical Heating

Exhibit ES.2 - Individual Housing Problems in Tribal Areas and United States

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015. American Housing Survey, 2013. 

Percent of AIAN alone households with incomplete facilities

6.6

1.1

12.0

Total US

AIAN in Tribal Areas

Physical Problems

1.3

1.7 1.4

0.1

5.6

Altogether, then, 34 percent of AIAN 

households had one or more physical 

problems compared with only 7 percent 

for U.S. households, on average. Including 

the cost burden-only measure, 57 percent 

of AIAN households had one or more 

identified housing problems of any kind 

(compared with 40 percent of the U.S. 

households overall). 

Any estimate of the amount of new 

housing required to address the needs of 

a population must be based on a set of 

assumptions, and those assumptions are 

always open to question and alternative 

formulations. The assumptions developed 

by the research team for this study 

indicate that, as of the 2013–2015 period, 

it would have been necessary to build 

around 33,000 new units to eliminate the 

overcrowding of the AIAN population in 

tribal areas and another 35,000 new units 
6

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

to replace units that were severely physically 

inadequate, yielding a total need of around 

68,000 new units. 

Census/ACS data also confirm that 

physical housing problems for AIAN 

households in tribal areas remain much 

more severe than for U.S. households, 

on average. They also show that, 

for low-income AIAN households in 

tribal areas, the incidence of physical 

problems is much higher (by about 40 

percent) than for the average AIAN 

household in tribal areas. Finally, they 

show that marked differences exist 

in the severity of these problems in 

different regions and locations. Cost 

burden problems, however, have 

grown since 1990 and their locations 

appear to be inversely correlated with 

those of physical problems.

The analysis uses data from the ACS for 

the 2006-to-2010 period (the period just 

before the housing collapse and the Great 

Recession), remembering that the only 

physical problems covered by these data 

are plumbing/kitchen deficiencies and 

overcrowding. The data show that one or 

more of these physical problems affected 

13 percent of AIAN households in tribal 

areas. This number is much higher—by three 

times—than the comparable number for all 

U.S. households at that time—4 percent. 

The share of low-income AIAN households 

(those with incomes that are less than 80 

percent of the local median) in tribal areas 

with physical problems was much more 

severe: 18 percent, almost 40 percent more 

than the AIAN tribal area average. 

Substantial variations occurred in the 

incidence of these problems by region. 

Physical problems were, by far, the most 

serious in three of the study regions—the 

Plains, Arizona/New Mexico, and Alaska 

(which reaches a high of 36 percent, three 

times the all-tribal area average of 13 

percent). These three regions accounted 

for 44 percent of all AIAN households in 

tribal areas, but they accounted for 73 

percent of those households that had 

physical housing problems. 

The shares with cost burden-only problems 

are higher in other regions. In fact, across 

tribal areas, the incidence of cost burden 

problems was inversely related to the 

incidence of overcrowding and other 

physical problems; in other words, places 

with the most serious overcrowding 

problems generally had among the lowest 

cost burden problems, and vice versa.

Among the 213 largest tribal areas, 

the quarter with the highest levels of 

overcrowding—all more than 18 percent—

was mostly in the poorest regions—the 

Plains, Arizona/New Mexico, and Alaska. 

By contrast, the quarter with the lowest 

overcrowding—all at less than 4.5 percent—

was, in general, in places that came out 

among the highest in terms of private-sector 

employment, as discussed earlier.

This study generally confirms what has 

become the conventional wisdom about 

homelessness in Indian Country; namely 

that, in tribal areas, homelessness 

mostly translates into overcrowding 

rather than having people sleeping on 

the street. The study estimates that, 

at the time of the household survey 

in 2013–2015, between 42,000 and 

85,000 people in tribal areas were 

staying with friends or relatives only 

because they had no place of their own; 

that is, they were homeless.

It is generally understood that AIAN families 

in tribal areas who do have housing tend 

to take in family members and others who 

do not have a place to stay. The tribal/

TDHE survey and site visit interviews 

generally support this conclusion as does the 
7

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

household survey (exhibit ES.3). According 

to the household survey, 19 percent of 

household heads said they had more 

household members than could live in their 

unit comfortably (somewhat more than the 16 

percent that were overcrowded by the HUD 

standard) and 17 percent said they did have 

some household members that were there 

only because they had no other place to stay.

Very few of the heads of these households 

(19 percent) said they would ask these 

people to leave, but the vast majority (80 

percent) of the people involved would like 

to get a place of their own if they could. 

This 17 percent of households represents 

the first sample-based estimate ever made 

related to this form of homelessness in 

tribal areas nationwide. Further, this study 

estimates that the number of people in 

Exhibit ES.3 - Overcrowded households in Tribal Areas and United States

0

5

10

15

20

Population

Percent of households experiencing overcrowding

AIAN in Tribal Areas Total US

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015. American Housing Survey, 2013. 

15.9

2.2

these households with no place else to stay 

(that is, the doubled-up homeless) totaled 

between 42,000 and 85,000—between 3.6 

and 7.2 percent of the total 2013–2015 AIAN 

population in tribal areas. 

This study confirms that a strong 

preference remains for homeownership 

in tribal areas. The homeownership rate 

in tribal areas is already high, but many 

households are renters, and nearly all 

want to become homeowners. They 

face notable barriers, however, in 

achieving that goal.

This study’s household survey reports that 

68 percent of AIAN households in tribal 

areas were homeowners in 2013–2015. It also 

reports that 90 percent of renters would 

prefer to own their own home (and 90 
8

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

percent of them said they would contribute 

their own labor if it would enable them to 

do so). 

Of current homeowners responding to 

the household survey, 8 percent had been 

denied a mortgage, and 9 percent of renters 

who had applied for a mortgage had been 

turned down. Both groups mentioned that 

the most common reason for being denied 

a mortgage was a low credit score or lack 

of a credit history. The next most common 

reason that renters mentioned was not 

having a sufficient downpayment. 

Those who had never applied for a 

mortgage also experienced barriers to 

homeownership. This group of households 

mentioned additional barriers that 

include not having sufficient savings, not 

having a regular source of income, and 

lack of access to a mortgage lender. Of 

the households that were interested in 

homeownership but had never applied for 

a mortgage, 29 percent also mentioned 

that they did not know how to buy a 

home or were unfamiliar with the loan 

application process, lending terms, or real 

estate transactions.

Housing Policies and Programs 

The U.S. government has a general trust 

obligation to promote the welfare of AIAN 

populations by supplying housing along 

with other services on reservations and 

other tribal areas. Notable progress began 

to be made toward this end in housing 

in the 1960s, with expanded production 

under two programs implemented under 

provisions of the Housing Act of 1937: 

(1) the low-rent program (operated like 

public housing elsewhere in the nation) 

and (2) the Mutual Help program (a 

lease-purchase type of homeownership 

program). HUD administered these 

programs and a network of local Indian 

Housing Authorities (IHAs) implemented 

them on the ground, operating under 

strong HUD oversight.

By 1990, the IHAs had developed 67,400 

assisted housing units, a number equal to 

42 percent of all low-income households 

living in Indian Country at the time. 

Dissatisfaction with these programs, 

however, was present on several levels. 

Criticisms included overly complex 

procedures, a lack of flexibility, coordination 

problems, and the lack of trained personnel. 

Underlying these criticisms was deeper 

dissatisfaction with the extent to which 

HUD controlled these programs, giving 

tribal leaders insufficient influence over 

program planning and operations.

Recognizing these problems, in an era in 

which self-determination had become the 

central theme of U.S. Native American 

policy, Congress replaced this approach 

with a new framework in 1996: the Native 

American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act. NAHASDA brought 

a new funding delivery mechanism—the 

Indian Housing Block Grant—allocated to 

tribes via a needs-based formula. Funds 

are given directly to the tribes, rather 

than to IHAs. The tribal governments may 

run the program themselves or assign 

operating responsibility to a Tribally 

Designated Housing Entity that reports 

to them. The tribes must prepare an 

Indian Housing Plan (IHP) and annual 

performance reports and submit them 

to HUD’s Office of Native American 

Programs (ONAP), which is responsible 

for overall performance monitoring and 

quality control. 

IHBG funding must cover continuing 

support for the remaining stock funded 

under the 1937 Act programs—the 

Formula Current Assisted Stock (FCAS)—

and also assisted housing development 
9

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

(new construction, acquisition, and 

rehabilitation), planning and administration, 

and an array of activities that support 

affordable housing and its residents (for 

example, housing counseling, energy 

audits, crime prevention, and safety). 

Congress has provided a fairly 

consistent level of funding for the 

IHBG in nominal terms, but this flow 

has been seriously eroded by inflation. 

Funding for housing development has 

been especially hard hit.

Since 1998, the first year that IHBG became 

operational, Congress has provided a 

consistent level of funding annually in nominal 

terms—an average of about $667 million 

per year from 1998 through 2014. During 17 

years, however, inflation has seriously eroded 

that level. The 2014 amount ($637 million in 

nominal dollars) represented only $440 million 

in 1998 purchasing power (exhibit ES.4).

Funding for housing development has been 

especially hard hit because other categories 

of expenditures (including FCAS support) 

involve comparatively fixed costs and are 

very hard to reduce proportionally as inflation 

takes its toll. Amounts available for housing 

development are squeezed as a result.

During the 1998-to-2006 period, total 

expenditures averaged $636 million annually 

in constant 1998 dollars. Mostly because 

of the effects of inflation, the amount had 

declined to an average of $429 million per 

year during the 2011-to-2014 period—a 

decline of almost exactly one-third. During 

the 2011-to-2014 period, the tribes were 

Source: HUD ONAP LOCCS Report, current as of June 1, 2015.

Note: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided an additional $504,201,481 in IHBG funding. 

Exhibit ES.4 - Amount of IHBG Funds Awarded, 1998 to 2014

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Constant 1998 Dollars

Nominal Dollars

1998 Dollars (in millions)

Year
10

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

able to spend only $128 million per year for 

housing development in 1998 dollars, about 

one-half of the $244 million the program 

had been able to spend on housing during 

the 1998-to-2006 period.

The tribes have demonstrated the 

capacity to construct and rehabilitate 

housing for low-income families at 

substantial levels under the NAHASDA 

framework. Their ability to effectively 

use an unexpected injection of funding 

under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 

toward these ends in a very limited 

time period is particularly strong 

evidence supporting this conclusion.

What has happened to the quantity of 

assisted housing in Indian Country since 

NAHASDA was enacted? First, as would 

be expected, a decline has occurred in 

the number of FCAS (1937 Act) units 

available—from 72,000 in 2003 to 

49,000 in 2014. Nearly all of this loss was 

accounted for by conveyances of Mutual 

Help units to their residents (as called for 

in the program design) rather than by 

demolition. Losses to the low-rent program 

inventory have been negligible.

These reductions in older FCAS units have 

been more than made up for, however, 

by new production under the IHBG. In its 

early years (from 1998 through 2006), the 

IHBG program supported the building of 

an average of 1,900 new assisted housing 

units per year and the rehabilitating of an 

additional 2,700 units annually. Production 

then increased to peak levels in the 2007-

to-2010 period (2,400 new units and 4,100 

rehabilitated units per year). One question 

raised before the enactment of NAHASDA 

was whether the tribes would be able to 

produce as much housing on their own 

as had occurred under the earlier HUDdirected system. These numbers give an 

answer clearly in the affirmative.

This conclusion about tribal capacity is 

strongly reinforced by what the tribes 

were able to do with an unexpected 

injection of additional funds from ARRA 

in 2009. ARRA provided $47.25 million 

for IHBG activities on top of the regular 

IHBG allocation, with the proviso that 

funds would be recaptured if they were 

not obligated within 1 year of the date 

they were made available and spent within 

3 years. The tribes were able to spend 

virtually all (more than 99 percent) of these 

funds consistent with that requirement, 

yielding an additional 1,954 new 

construction units and 13,338 rehabilitated 

units between 2009 and 2012. 

Under the regular IHBG allocations, 

however, the constant dollar funding 

reductions noted previously caused a 

different pattern of production during the 

2011-to-2014 period. Tribes responded by 

cutting back new construction (to 2,000 

units per year) and expanding the number 

of rehabilitated units (to 4,800 per year), 

presumably judging that an emphasis on 

rehabilitation, given the overall funding 

constraint, would allow them to reach a 

larger share of the families in need.

Since the enactment of NAHASDA, 

large increases have occurred in 

the number of HUD grantees and 

in the share of all programs being 

administered directly by tribal 

governments. Many indications 

suggest that these programs 

generally are meeting basic functional 

expectations and that the tribes prefer 

operations under NAHASDA to the 

previous system.

In 1995, HUD assistance in Indian Country 

was being administered by 187 IHAs, serving 

467 tribes. In fiscal year 2014, 363 compliant 

IHPs had been submitted to serve 563 

tribes. This project’s tribal/TDHE survey 

indicated that offices of tribal governments 
11

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

were administering 41 percent of these 

programs and TDHEs were administering 

the rest (96 percent of the latter said they 

were then, or had been, IHAs). 

Despite concerns about administrative 

capacity, ONAP reports widespread 

compliance with program requirements and 

general ability to disburse funds rapidly. 

The tribal/TDHE survey indicates that, for 

most programs, the number of full-time 

staff remained stable during the past 3 

years (although, at 11 of 22 sites visited, 

administrators said they were understaffed).

Local administrators recognize that they 

have enhanced flexibility under NAHASDA 

(for example, 83 percent of survey 

respondents said it is easier to leverage 

private funds now). They indicated no call 

for any major overhaul of IHBG regulations, 

although some changes were requested, 

such as those pertaining to program 

administration (58 percent) and developing 

new units (50 percent). 

When asked about what they would like to 

change, most respondents suggested they 

would like to be able to offer assistance to 

families just above the eligibility line who, 

even though somewhat better off, still 

cannot afford decent housing in tribal areas. 

Survey respondents also said they would 

like more training; priorities were for training 

in building maintenance, information/

computer systems, and case management 

support in resident services.

Most tribes and TDHEs rely on partnerships 

to provide a broader array of services 

than would otherwise be possible and 

on contractors to provide administrative 

and building-related services. Although 

contracting is a sound business strategy 

for accomplishing objectives with limited 

resources, in some cases, these relationships 

appear to be necessary for reasons of 

limited organizational capacity and staff 

capability, which are attributed to sparse 

local populations, insufficient funding, and 

limited opportunities for staff training. 

Among the sites visited and the tribal/TDHE 

survey respondents, most organizations 

offer only housing assistance programs 

funded under the IHBG program. Among 

those that do offer other programs, 

the most commonly cited were the 

Housing Improvement Program of the 

U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau 

of Indian Affairs and HUD’s Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credit program. Few 

respondents named the Indian Community 

Development Block Grant program as a 

major program for their tribal area. 

Although the flexibility of NAHASDA 

enables tribes to design, develop, and 

operate their own affordable housing 

programs based on local needs, tribal 

housing departments and TDHEs still 

face significant challenges in carrying 

out their plans.

Almost all respondents to the tribal/TDHE 

survey indicated that development costs 

had increased during the past 3 years, with 

40 percent saying costs had increased 

greatly and 57 percent saying costs had 

increased somewhat. In addition, 35 percent 

of tribal/TDHEs reported that development 

cost was a very serious constraint, and 

another 15 percent said it was a fairly serious 

constraint in developing new housing. When 

asked to name the top three factors that 

increase the cost of developing new housing, 

tribes/TDHEs cited the following barriers 

most frequently: developing infrastructure 

(70 percent), availability of labor (39 

percent), lack of funds (34 percent), and 

acquiring or assembling land (30 percent). 

Other challenges reported by tribes included 

risk of flooding, water shortages, and the 

aging of existing infrastructure. 

The availability of labor is affected because 

tribal housing agencies do not have enough 

construction activity to support construction 
12

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

workers (either in-house employees or 

contractors) on a consistent basis. This 

scarcity of work results in the need for 

workers with the necessary skills to travel 

outside the tribal area for work and then not 

be available when needed in the tribal area. 

Land assembly and acquisition remain as 

frequent problems that add to the cost 

of development. The main source of this 

challenge is fractionated land, which is the 

result of allotments that have been divided 

among heirs through probate. Having many 

owners makes it hard to assemble large 

enough parcels for development. To solve this 

problem, a few tribes have initiated efforts to 

buy back fractionated land or land adjacent 

to tribal lands. Other sites try to ensure that 

the housing agency owns its own land. 

Survey respondents suggested that their 

biggest challenges in operating the rental 

program were tenants damaging their units 

(91 percent), controlling criminal activity (74 

percent), and tenants not paying rent on 

time (65 percent). 

A changing landscape exists regarding 

mortgage lending in Indian Country, 

with greater lending activity and 

a lessening of once seemingly 

intractable problems, such as those 

related to tribal trust land.

Originating mortgages on properties 

located in Indian Country presents unique 

challenges that relate to the legal status 

of lands on reservations; the remote 

locations of reservations that inhibit the 

development of an infrastructure that can 

support mortgage lending; a lack of cultural 

understanding by mainstream lenders 

of Native American attitudes toward the 

use of credit, particularly when used for 

a land transaction; and, possibly, lenders’ 

discrimination against Native American 

mortgage applicants. 

A number of programs have been 

developed to address the challenges of 

lending in Indian Country, including the 

Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee 

Program under the Housing and Community 

Development Act of 1992, as amended 

by NAHASDA; Section 502 Direct Loan 

Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Rural Housing); and U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs Native American Direct 

Loan Program. The Section 184 loan 

program, by providing lenders with a 

100-percent guarantee for mortgages to 

AIAN borrowers originated on tribal trust 

land, essentially eliminates problems with 

the unique nature of tribal trust land used 

as collateral. Section 184 serves AIAN 

borrowers both on and off trust lands. 

Rather than tribal trust land issues, the 

lenders interviewed in this study indicated 

that mortgage lending on tribal trust land 

remains a time-consuming process that 

reduces the appeal of lending on tribal trust 

land, even with the federal guarantee. This 

process is so long, in part, because of the 

requirements under the Section 184 loan 

program for tribes to develop and execute 

leases for land on which the mortgaged 

property is located. Therefore, lenders 

indicate that they prefer to work with tribes 

that have the capacity to develop leases 

and get them approved relatively quickly.

The Helping Expedite and Advance 

Responsible Tribal Homeownership 

(HEARTH) Act of 2012 is viewed as a 

promising approach to assist tribes in 

assembling land for development.

The HEARTH Act of 2012 creates an 

alternative land leasing process. Tribes 

are authorized to execute agricultural 

and business leases of tribal trust lands 

for a primary term of 25 years and up 

to two renewal terms of 25 years each 

without approval by the Secretary of the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, provided 

governing tribal leasing regulations have 
13

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

already been submitted to the Secretary. 

Before 2012, tribes had to submit leases of 

tribal land to the Secretary of the Interior 

for approval. Under the HEARTH Act, 

tribes make their own decisions about 

land leasing, exercising their right of selfdetermination. Leveraging trust land was 

one goal expressed by tribal officials, who 

were enthusiastic about the potential of 

the HEARTH Act to break down barriers to 

leasing on tribal land. 

Tribes have developed programs 

for potential homebuyers, often 

in partnership with nonprofit 

organizations and financial institutions.

In addition to having processing 

issues, many potential borrowers have 

creditworthiness issues and insufficient 

incomes or savings to qualify for mortgages, 

even those mortgages guaranteed under the 

Section 184 program that have more flexible 

underwriting standards than do Federal 

Housing Administration or conventional 

loans. Lenders report that prepurchase 

counseling, particularly counseling 

provided by organizations familiar with 

the unique challenges of lending on tribal 

trust land, is critical to getting borrowers 

mortgage ready. Moreover, downpayment 

assistance programs can help borrowers 

with insufficient savings qualify for Section 

184 program mortgages. Many tribes have 

designed local programs to respond to 

these barriers to homeownership among 

their members. The diversity of tribal 

land requires that homebuyer education 

be tailored to the unique needs of tribes. 

Topics addressed in homebuyer education 

programs include establishing credit and 

improving a low credit rating, understanding 

the homebuying process, and responsibilities 

of homeownership. A number of tribes also 

offer downpayment assistance programs. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Although needs for capacity 

improvement remain widespread, 

the housing assistance system 

established under NAHASDA appears 

to be functioning reasonably well and 

doing what it was intended to do. It 

represents a marked improvement 

over the previous approach.

This project was not asked to conduct 

a formal evaluation of NAHASDA. 

Nonetheless, it offers many findings 

pertinent to an understanding of how 

programs are working in the NAHASDA 

framework and of opportunities to 

improve performance.

When NAHASDA was enacted, some in the 

Native American housing policy community, 

including some appropriators and IHA 

officials, expressed uncertainty about tribes’ 

capacity to administer the new program 

and avoid abuses when federal controls 

were reduced. This study shows that these 

challenges have largely been addressed. 

• The tribes were able to establish new 

administrative entities and processes to 

administer the IHGB and related programs 

fairly quickly after enactment.

• The new system (IHBG, the NAHASDA 

block grant) has proven it is able to match 

or exceed the rate of assisted housing 

production in Indian Country under the 

old approach (1937 Act programs). Limits 

on funding are now a major constraint on 

production.

• This study could not provide much direct 

evidence on the quality of IHBG housing 

or costs per unit, but nothing indicates 

that these measures under IHBG have 

been inadequate or different than those 

produced under the old system.
14

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

• As hoped, the mix of housing types and 

development patterns produced under 

NAHASDA appears more sensitive to 

cultural and other local determinants in 

individual tribal areas than was the case 

under the old approach.

• Although far from ubiquitous, many 

examples of leveraging and innovative 

practice today could not have taken 

place under the pre-NAHASDA system. 

Likewise substantial qualitative evidence 

indicates that processes are more efficient 

now than under the previous, more rulebound approach. In general, the tribes 

seem to be stepping up to the challenge 

of self-determination in housing.

• Qualitative evidence also supports 

the view that the system is now 

more broadly accountable to tribal 

members—that tribal members are able 

to participate more through their tribal 

governments in planning and other 

programmatic decisionmaking.

• Although they recommend 

some changes, tribal leaders and 

administrators almost uniformly prefer 

operations under NAHASDA to the 

system that existed before. 

Regardless of the extent to which 

previous funding levels can be 

restored, HUD and other federal 

agencies need to assist and encourage 

the tribes to better leverage the 

assistance they receive to generate 

both economic development and 

housing improvement in an integrated 

manner, particularly in the places that 

need it most.

It is clear that the amount of federal housing 

assistance provided to Indian Country to this 

point has not been sufficient to meet the 

need. In addition, the flow of IHBG funding is 

now trending down in relation to this need in 

real terms. At this time, insufficient funding, 

more than administrative capacity, is the 

major constraint on providing housing. 

In considering policy options, the diversity 

of conditions across tribal areas is of great 

importance. Housing problems in some 

tribal areas are much more severe than in 

others. The focus must be on innovative 

technical assistance and training that will 

encourage the tribes, especially those 

most in need, to markedly enhance their 

own development efforts—learning from 

other tribes that have been most successful 

in expanding their local economies and 

channeling resources to address unmet 

housing needs efficiently.

A new type of targeted approach is 

recommended then—one that jointly 

addresses economic and housing 

development in tribal areas that are most 

distressed. Although HUD programs in 

tribal areas have always had the twin 

purposes of housing and economic 

development, a stronger focus on this 

intersection is needed. This approach 

envisions movement toward an ideal 

program, while maintaining the current 

IHBG program. In many cases, this 

approach may involve helping the tribes 

make the fundamental institutional changes 

that have been critical to establishing a 

dynamic market economy in tribal areas 

elsewhere: emphasizing the rule of law in 

dispute resolution and other aspects of 

tribal activity, separating politics from dayto-day administration and business affairs, 

and creating an efficient tribal bureaucracy. 

It would also include, however, practical 

technical assistance and training on the 

specific design and operation of programs 

developed to support the new strategies. 

Models would be developed based on 

successful programs implemented in other 

tribal areas but modified, as appropriate, to 

address cultural and other differences.
15

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

ONAP could play a leading role in this 

effort. It has a solid track record of longestablished relationships helping tribes 

achieve their housing objectives and could 

use reporting and technical assistance 

activities to support efforts that combine 

housing and economic development. ONAP 

would need additional resources enabling it 

to play an expanded role. 

HUD should initiate a program to more 

frequently monitor housing and other 

conditions of the AIAN population 

nationwide, primarily taking advantage 

of the Census Bureau’s ACS.

HUD published its first comprehensive 

national assessment of AIAN housing 

conditions in 1996. Between that time and 

this study, 20 years later, all stakeholders 

concerned with housing conditions in 

tribal areas have had little information on 

changing circumstances to guide their 

policy deliberations. The long time gap is 

explained by the fact that this study was 

very expensive—$6.3 million during 6 years. 

With competing demands for research 

resources, decisionmakers had a difficult time 

mobilizing support for a study of this scope.

The high cost of this study was driven 

mostly by the challenging task of conducting 

a reliable random sample household survey, 

particularly in tribal areas, which often lack 

rural addressing in many places and require 

intensive fieldwork to build sample frames. 

There are strong reasons to believe, however, 

that almost all of the information that needs 

to be updated for policymaking can be 

obtained without a separate household 

survey. ACS data are now released every 

year, and, although sample sizes are too 

small to support reliable estimates for 

smaller tribal areas individually, they are 

ample to support reports on most needed 

indicators for tribal areas in total by region 

and for larger tribal areas individually (as 

demonstrated by the use of ACS data in 

this report). A major increase in the national 

sample size was implemented in 2011, so ACS 

data in the future will be more reliable than is 

the 2006–2010 data used in this report.4

It is recommended that HUD support studies 

that rely on decennial census and ACS data 

in census years (for example, 2020, 2030) 

and on ACS data alone for the intervening 

5-year points (for example, 2015, 2025, 

2035). The currency of the data should 

make a greater contribution to timely and 

cost-effective adaptations of policies and 

programs. Two reports are recommended in 

each reporting year. 

1. A report on conditions for AIAN 

populations nationwide across all 

geographies. It would compare 

indicators for AIAN populations in 

tribal areas and surrounding counties 

with those in other metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan areas. No one else now 

regularly produces a report like this and 

it should be of great value to the overall 

AIAN policy community. 

2. A report focused on tribal areas, with 

the NAHASDA/HUD policy community 

as its primary audience. This report 

would examine trends in housing 

conditions, problems, and needs in tribal 

areas and also program performance 

under NAHASDA. 

An additional need must be considered. In 

the course of this study, many tribes said 

they would like to develop much better 

data on housing conditions and other 

circumstances on their own individual 

reservations to guide program planning. 

This interest, in part, can be met for the 

larger tribes (that is, where ACS sample 

sizes warrant) by sending them standard 

situation profiles from the ACS each year 

4 This increase raised the national sample to 3.5 million addresses, up from 2.9 million in the 2000s (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a).
16

Executive Summary

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

and encouraging tribal input regarding 

data presentations and formats. In addition, 

HUD’s Office of Policy Development and 

Research should work with ONAP to 

develop efficient guidelines and training 

programs to help tribes (that can mount the 

needed resources) conduct sample surveys 

and use other available data to assess their 

situations efficiently. This study’s household 

survey is publicly available to tribes for their 

use, which is consistent with the intent of 

NAHASDA to enhance tribal capacity and 

self-determination. 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

January 2017