Mortgage Lending on 

Tribal Land: 

A Report From the Assessment of 

American Indian, Alaska Native, and 

Native Hawaiian Housing Needs

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research 
Mortgage Lending on Tribal Land

A Report From the Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native, 

and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs

Prepared by 

David Listokin

Kenneth Temkin 

Nancy Pindus 

David Stanek 

Urban Institute

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Washington, DC 

January 2017 
ii

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the 14 lenders, housing finance agencies, and Native American Community 

Development Financial Institutions that participated in this study, providing information and 

insights based on their experiences with mortgage lending on land under the jurisdiction of tribal 

communities. 

A panel of experts made valuable contributions to the research design and to this final report. 

Panel members included Laura R. Appelbaum (FirstPic, Inc.), Kauila Clark (Native Hawaiian 

Traditional Healing Center), Marvin Jones (Community Services at the Cherokee Nation—

retired), Miriam Jorgensen (University of Arizona and Harvard Project on American Indian 

Economic Development), Patricia Nie (Wells Fargo & Company), Deana K. O’Hara (Office of 

Native American Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development), Don Shircel 

(Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc.), Pamala Silas (National American Indian Housing Council), 

and Malia Villegas (National Congress of American Indians). Early comments were also 

provided by Blake Kazama (Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority—retired), and Peter 

Morris (formerly with National Congress of American Indians).

The authors also thank Urban Institute colleagues who contributed to the successful completion 

of this report. Jennifer Biess and Jasmine Simington assisted with data analysis and editing. Eric 

Burnstein prepared maps for the report, and former colleague Taz George provided information 

on national mortgage lending to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Tom Kingsley served as 

an advisor and reviewer throughout the study. Kenneth Temkin, co-author, who designed the 

study and contributed to data analysis and earlier drafts of this report died in February 2015. His 

colleagues and the research community miss him. 

Tom Wright, Director, and Scott Laliberte, Database Analyst, at the Office of Loan Guarantee in 

HUD’s Office of Native American Programs (ONAP), responded to multiple data requests and 

were generous with their time in guiding the research team through the data from the Section 184 

Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program. Finally, Elizabeth Rudd and Paul Joice, the study’s 

Government Technical Representatives from HUD’s Office of Policy Development and 

Research, provided excellent guidance and oversight during this research effort. The authors also 

thank ONAP staff who provided helpful comments on drafts of the report. 

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. 
iii

Foreword

In response to Congress’s mandate to assess Native American housing needs, the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) commissioned the Assessment of 

American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs. The study produced five 

separate reports, which together contain a comprehensive and authoritative body of information 

on the current state of housing conditions and resources in Native American communities. This 

report, Mortgage Lending on Tribal Land, describes the Section 184 Indian Home Loan 

Guarantee Program (Loan Guarantees for Indian Housing 24 CFR Part 1005) that was 

established in 1992 to encourage private lenders to make home loans to Native Americans.

Section 184 loans are 100 percent guaranteed and can be made to Native Americans for homes in 

eligible areas, which are defined by participating tribes. This study is based on the analysis of 

Section 184 loan originations from 1994 through May 2015 and a survey of lenders and other 

key informants on barriers and facilitators of mortgage lending in Indian Country. 

The authors of this report argue that mortgage lending in Indian Country is made difficult by 

factors common to underserved markets and rural areas and point out that lending in Indian 

Country is even more difficult because tribal trust land cannot be alienated or encumbered. The 

Section 184 Program was designed to overcome this barrier by providing a 100 percent 

guarantee to lenders. Most Section 184 loans, however, are made for homes on fee-simple land. 

Lenders surveyed for this study stated that the Section 184 Program, in fact, does enable lending 

on tribal trust land, but that daunting administrative barriers to establishing the leases and title 

records that lenders need to make a home loan still exist. The report also highlights actions that 

tribes, lenders, and the federal government can take to facilitate mortgage lending in Indian 

Country. 

The household surveys of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians conducted 

as part of the overall assessment of housing needs show that the vast majority of Native 

Americans would prefer to own their own home. This study shows that the Section 184 Program 

makes a critical contribution to the realization of these aspirations. 

Katherine M. O’Regan

Assistant Secretary for Policy

Development and Research
iv

Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... vii 

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

2. Literature and Previous Credit Availability—Historical Context ...............................................3 

3. Loan Programs Used on Tribal Trust Land .................................................................................6 

Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program ................................................................ 6 

Section 502 Direct Loan Program............................................................................................. 8 

VA Native American Veteran Direct Loan Program ................................................................ 8 

4. Analysis of Section 184 Program Origination Volume ...............................................................9 

5. Survey of Lenders ......................................................................................................................15 

Background: Factors Influencing Mortgage Lending on Tribal Trust Land .......................... 15 

Lender Survey: Methods ......................................................................................................... 16 

Lender Survey: Analysis of Responses ................................................................................... 18

Lender Survey: Further Findings ............................................................................................ 30

6. Concluding Observations ...........................................................................................................34 

Glossary .........................................................................................................................................37 

References ......................................................................................................................................39 

Appendix A. Lender Telephone Interview Guide ....................................................................... A-1

Appendix B. Supplemental Tables ..............................................................................................B-1 
v 

List of Exhibits

Exhibit ES.1 

Overview of Land Ownership in Indian Country ........................................................................ viii 

Exhibit ES.2 

The Section 184 Program in Brief ................................................................................................. ix 

Exhibit ES.3 

Section 184 Program Quick Numbers (1994–May 2015) ............................................................. ix

Exhibit ES.4 

Lender Perceptions Concerning Mortgage Lending in Indian Country ...........................................x 

Exhibit 3.1 

Map of Eligible Areas for Section 184 Loans .................................................................................7 

Exhibit 4.1 

Summary of Section 184 Lending Volume by Land Status, FY 1994–May 2015, Nominal Value .....9 

Exhibit 4.2 

Map of Number of Section 184 Loans Guaranteed by, ONAP Region FY 1994–September 2014 ...10 

Exhibit 4.3 

Section 184 Loans by Region and Land Status, FY 1994–March 2015 ........................................11 

Exhibit 4.4 

Graph of Number of Section 184 Loans by Year and Land Status, FY 1994–May 2015 .............12 

Exhibit 4.5 

Number of Section 184 Loans by Year and Land Status, FY 1994–May 2015 ............................12 

Exhibit 4.6 

Total Lenders and First-Time Lenders Annually, FY 1994–May 2015 ........................................13 

Exhibit 4.7 

Number of Section 184 Loans by Top 10 Lenders and Remaining Lenders, FY 1994–May 2015 ....14 

Exhibit 5.1 

Analytic Framework Related to Understanding Tribal Trust Land Mortgage Lending ................15 

Exhibit 5.2 

Summary of Lender Sampling Frame and Interview Success Rate ...............................................18 

Exhibit 5.3 

Summary of Lender Responses to Trust Land Status Questions ...................................................19 

Exhibit 5.4 

Summary of Mortgage Lending Process in Indian Country ..........................................................20 

Exhibit 5.5 

Summary of Lender Responses Regarding Attracting Applicants for Mortgages on Tribal Trust 

Land ...............................................................................................................................................22 

Exhibit 5.6 

Summary of Lender Responses Regarding Strategies used to Attract Applicants for Mortgages 

on Tribal Trust Land .....................................................................................................................23 
vi 

Exhibit 5.7 

Summary of Lender Responses to Issues Regarding Qualifying Applicants for Mortgages on 

Tribal Trust Land ...........................................................................................................................24 

Exhibit 5.8 

Summary of Lender Responses to Strategies Used to Qualify Applicants for Mortgages on Tribal 

Trust Land ......................................................................................................................................26

Exhibit 5.9 

Summary of Lender Responses to Issues Regarding Servicing Mortgages Originated on Tribal 

Trust Land ......................................................................................................................................28 

Exhibit 5.10 

Summary of Lender Responses to Strategies used to Service Mortgages Originated on Tribal 

Trust Land ......................................................................................................................................28

Exhibit 5.11 

Summary of Lender Responses to Questions Regarding Management Strategies to Support 

Tribal Trust Lending ......................................................................................................................29 

Exhibit 5.12 

Cumulative Claims by Number of Section 184 Loans, FY 1994–March 2015 .............................31 

Exhibit 5.13 

Section 184 Loans Compared to Overall Mortgages to AIAN Population, 2001 to 2013 ............33 

Exhibit B.1 

Summary of Section 184 Lending Volume by Land Status, Inflation Adjusted 2014 Dollars ...B-1 

Exhibit B.2 

Loans by State and Land Status, FY 1994–March 2015 .............................................................B-2 

Exhibit B.2a 

Map of Number of Section 184 Loans Guaranteed, FY 1994–September 2014 .........................B-3 

Exhibit B.3 

Summary of Section 184 Lending Volume: FY 1994–May 26, 2015, by Land Status and Year, 

Nominal Value .............................................................................................................................B-4 

Exhibit B.4 

Summary of Section 184 Lending Volume: FY 1994–May 2015, by Land Status and Year, 

Inflation-Adjusted 2014 Dollars ..................................................................................................B-5 

Exhibit B.5 

Number of Lenders and First-Time Lenders before and after Changes to Section 184 Program 

Lending Rules in FY 2005 ...........................................................................................................B-6 

Exhibit B.6 

Top 10 Lender Loan Value and Number of Loans by Period, Nominal Value ...........................B-7 

Exhibit B.7 

Claims by Year of Obligation, FY 1994–March 2015, Nominal Value ......................................B-8 

Exhibit B.8 

Purpose of Section 184 Loans—Summary ..................................................................................B-9 
vii 

Executive Summary

American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIANs), like other racial and ethnic minorities and lowand moderate-income households in the United States, historically have been underserved 

regarding securing home mortgages. Mortgage lending to any traditionally underserved market is 

challenging for a variety of reasons. Prospective homeowners are likely to have limited 

experience dealing with mainstream financial institutions and to have limited incomes, assets, 

and credit histories. Although Native Americans share characteristics of other members of 

traditionally underserved markets, originating mortgages in Indian Country includes unique 

challenges (Pettit et al., 2014).1

 Property in Indian Country is held in varying complicated 

arrangements that lenders may not fully understand (exhibit ES.1). One significant hurdle is that 

Indian land may be held in trust by the federal government, a situation that stands in contrast 

with the rest of the United States, where the vast majority of land is in fee simple ownership, 

which can be readily mortgaged. Indian Country also confronts other unique mortgage 

challenges, including fractionated landownership (when a trust parcel is owned by more than one 

owner as undivided interests). The remote rural location of many reservations inhibits the 

development of a lending infrastructure, such as branches and loan servicers that support 

mortgage lending. Also, real estate transactions in Indian Country may involve the specialized 

situation of dealing with tribal courts and tribes, because tribes are sovereign nations, and also 

dealing with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in certain situations.2

This report, largely based on lender interviews, provides up-to-date information about challenges 

that remain for lenders when originating mortgages on reservations and other AIAN tribal areas. 

This study does not touch on mortgage lending that affects the sizeable share of the AIAN 

population that lives in cities and other rural areas. It updates the Kingsley et al. (1996) study of 

Native American housing conditions that reported the extreme difficulty in using tribal trust land 

as collateral as a major impediment for mortgage lending activity on such land. The current 

investigation focuses on the lending experience on tribal trust land. Since the 1996 study, the 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development implemented the Section 184 Indian Home 

Loan Guarantee Program (Loan Guarantees for Indian Housing 24 CFR Part 1005) that provides 

lenders with a 100 percent guarantee for mortgages to AIAN borrowers originated on tribal trust 

land, which essentially eliminates problems with the unique nature of tribal trust land used as 

collateral. (As shown in exhibit ES.2, the Section 184 Program serves AIAN borrowers both on 

and off trust lands.) The research team interviewed lenders and other mortgage market observers 

to determine the factors that now affect tribal trust lending volumes and to ascertain lender 

practices to facilitate such lending. This study describes the contemporary mortgage program 

availability and activity in Indian Country (focusing on Section 184) and examines how today’s 

lenders view challenges to and best practices for mortgages in Indian Country; much of the 

report reflects the perspectives of the interviewed lenders. The analysis also examines the 

Section 184 Program’s effect on lending activity during the recent financial crisis.

 

1 Indian Country collectively describes land under the jurisdiction of tribal governments throughout the United 

States, communities made up mainly of Indians, and Indian trust and other land. The phrase “Indian Country” is

used here in the common colloquial sense to mean tribal areas, including Alaska Native Villages, and is not used as 

a legal term in this report.

2 “The tribes possess nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-government” (U.S. Department of the

Interior BIA, 2015). 
viii

Overall, the survey results indicate that the extreme difficulty in using tribal trust land as collateral 

is no longer a huge issue, given the Section 184 Program’s 100 percent guarantee. Rather than 

pointing to collateral as a major tribal trust land issue, the lenders 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. It is time consuming because of the process involved in 

securing appropriate land leases, title status reports, and environmental clearances. Lenders report 

that Section 184 Program loans can take up to 6 to 8 months to process and close; in some cases, it 

can take even longer. This process is so long, in part, because of the requirements under the 

Section 184 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.
ix

In addition to facing processing issues, many 

potential borrowers have creditworthiness issues 

and insufficient incomes and savings to qualify 

for mortgages, even those guaranteed under the 

Section 184 Program that have more flexible 

underwriting standards than Federal Housing 

Administration (FHA) or conventional loans. 

Lenders report that prepurchase homebuyer, 

credit, and other 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 to qualify for Section 184 

Program mortgages.

The Section 184 Program had a cumulative dollar 

volume of $4.7 billion from 1994 through May 

2015, providing 28,840 mortgages, with an 

average loan value of $163,000 (exhibit ES.3). 

Overall, the lenders interviewed agreed that 

Section 184 helped maintain lending to Native 

Americans during the recent financial crisis, 

because the program’s volume increased after 

2005. Moreover, Section 184 Program loans are a 

useful alternative to FHA and conventional 

products for eligible homebuyers purchasing 

homes on fee simple land because of Section 184 

characteristics such as low downpayments and 

flexible underwriting. The lenders, in summary, 

reported that the landscape regarding mortgage 

lending in Indian Country is changing, with greater 

lending activity and a lessening of once seemingly 

intractable problems, such as those related to tribal 

trust land. At the same time, difficult challenges 

linger, some of which are unique to tribal lands (for 

example, fractional landowners) and some of which 

are hurdles related to economic and social constraints 

(for example, lower borrower incomes and limited or 

blemished credit histories) that more broadly impede 

the expansion of mortgage credit to underserved 

populations. A menu of lender-recommended 

strategies to foster enhanced mortgage lending in 

Indian Country is summarized in exhibit ES.4. 
x 
1 

1. Introduction

This report summarizes findings from a survey of lenders, housing finance agencies (HFAs), and 

Native American Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) on the challenges 

associated with originating mortgages on land under the jurisdiction of tribal communities. This 

study does not touch on mortgage lending that affects the sizeable share of the American Indian 

and Alaska Native (AIAN) population that lives in cities and other rural areas that are outside 

tribal jurisdiction. Although this study does consider lending across the range of landownership 

arrangements noted in exhibit ES.4 in the Executive Summary, this report focuses on tribal trust 

lands. The reason for this focus is that lending on tribal trust land presents a unique combination 

of challenges that make it difficult for lenders to serve homebuyers of properties located on such 

land. What makes mortgage lending problematic on tribal trust land is that the United States 

holds such land in trust for a tribe and the land cannot be readily sold or mortgaged. As a result, 

mortgages are secured by a leasehold interest in the trust.

The legal status of land in Indian Country has an important bearing on the ability to secure a 

mortgage. This subject is complicated, and the following paragraphs summarize important Indian 

Country land characteristics. 

As a result of the General Allotment Act of 1887 (often referred to as the Dawes Act after one of 

its sponsors) and other historical developments, land in Indian Country may be held in trust by 

the federal government for the tribe or individual Native Americans.3

 That stands in contrast 

with the rest of the United States, where the vast majority of land is in fee simple ownership. 

Although trust status offers some advantages to Native communities (for example, trust land is 

not subject to local, state, or federal taxation), trust lands can be difficult to use for collateral for 

financing homes or economic enterprises, and they are subject to enormous oversight by the 

federal government. Although other legal issues in Indian Country impede the ready use of land 

for homeownership and other purposes (for example, the legacy of allotment sometimes results 

in fractionation of ownership),4 trust land status is a major hurdle. Such status is summarized in a

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and U.S. Department of the 

Treasury (Treasury) study: 

Outside of Indian country, private landholders throughout the United States hold 

title to their land in fee simple status, which simply means that the landowner 

holds both the legal and equitable title to the land. Accordingly, private 

landowners may mortgage or sell their land on their own initiative. The real estate 

market has grown up around such transactions, and is thriving in today’s climate 

of low-interest mortgage financing...As modern real estate transactions became 

more dependent on the use of land as collateral and the free transfer of title 

between parties, the legal restrictions associated with tribal and individual trust 

 

3 With the vast territorial expansion of the United States during the mid-1800s, the notion of placing American

Indians beyond the bounds of White civilization became untenable. So, the federal government developed and 

refined a reservation policy. One central legislative piece of the period was the General Allotment Act of 1887 (the 

Dawes Act), which authorized the breakup of communal tribal lands on reservations into individual ownership 

parcels. The individual parcels were to be placed under federal trust for a period of time, and lands remaining after 

allotment (the “surplus” lands) could then be sold off to non-Indian homesteaders. 4 Some 4.1 million fractionated interests are in 99,000 land parcels on 10 million acres of Indian trust land (Kendall, 

2011).
2 

land became an impediment to...securing private mortgage financing in Indian 

country (HUD and Treasury, 2000: 5). 

Although a number of federal initiatives have been implemented to increase mortgage lending on 

tribal trust land, mortgage origination volume remains low. Through interviews with mortgage 

market participants, this study highlights some of the challenges that affect lending volume on 

tribal trust land and practices that can help lenders overcome these challenges. 

Following this introduction, section 2 provides a brief literature review that describes previous 

research conducted on this topic. Section 3 provides an overview of the three major loan 

programs (HUD Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Rural Housing Service [RHS] Section 502 Direct Loan Program, and the 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] Native American Veteran Direct Loan [NADL] 

program) that are used to support mortgage lending on tribal trust land. After this background 

discussion, section 4 presents the analysis of the Section 184 Program’s volume between 1994 

and May 2015. Section 5 describes the survey of lenders, including a description of the methods 

used to sample lenders and other organizations, and presents the survey findings on challenges to 

mortgage lending on Indian land and also the lender recommendations to address these 

challenges. Section 6 presents concluding observations. 

Key findings of this report are incorporated into Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska 

Natives in Tribal Areas (Pindus et al., 2016) also includes perspectives on homeownership and 

mortgage lending informed by household surveys and interviews with Tribally Designated 

Housing Entities (TDHEs) and other entities that are involved in housing production on Indian 

land. 
3 

2. Literature and Previous Credit Availability—Historical Context

The housing finance system in the United States historically was designed to serve the needs of 

mainly White middle- or upper-income, nuclear families (Wright, 1981). In contrast were severe 

mortgage challenges and lower mortgage attainment that racial and ethnic minorities, recent 

immigrants, and low- to moderate-income households—popularly referred to as “traditionally 

underserved populations” or “underserved markets”—faced. Racial discrimination and cultural 

barriers contributed to the homeownership and mortgage attainment challenges that the 

traditionally underserved faced. For example, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston concluded 

that, although “overt discrimination in mortgage lending is rarely seen today, discrimination is 

more likely to be subtle...or unintentional,” citing such examples as failing to market mortgages 

to potential minority borrowers or adhering to underwriting criteria that “contain arbitrary or 

outdated criteria that effectively disqualify” such potential borrowers (Federal Reserve Bank of 

Boston, 1993: 9; Hunter and Walker, 1996; Listokin et al., 1998; Listokin et al., 2001; Listokin

and Wyly, 2000; Ratner, 1996; Squires, 1992; Turner, 1992; Wyly and Holloway, 1999). 

Economic barriers, including the lower income and wealth of the traditionally underserved; low 

levels of intergenerational wealth transfers; and limited upward mobility also suppressed 

minorities’ homeownership and mortgage access rates. A rich literature has considered these 

multifaceted mortgage finance challenges confronting traditionally underserved populations 

(Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1993). 

One component of the traditionally underserved mortgage attainment challenge concerns that of 

AIANs in tribal lands. Starting about two to three decades ago, an analytic and policy literature 

began to consider this subject, and some of the more prominent examples of such studies that 

considered the mortgage situation in Indian Country are mentioned here. One chapter of

Assessment of American Indian Housing Needs and Programs: Final Report considered 

mortgage lending in Indian areas (Kingsley et al., 1996). Kingsley et al. conducted a lender 

survey in which private mortgage lenders were randomly selected in each of 36 AIAN areas 

where study-related research (for example, interviews with tribal leaders and Indian Housing 

Authority directors) had previously been conducted. Telephone interviews with mortgage 

originators or Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) officers at the identified lenders revealed a 

trace level of private mortgage activity in tribal areas. The nascent volume was attributed to 

issues related to the inability to use tribal trust land as collateral, lack of demand for 

homeownership among tribal trust land residents, and, to a much lesser extent, borrower income 

and credit problems (Kingsley et al., 1996). 

Shortly after the Kingsley et al. (1996) study, a report from HUD and Treasury (HUD and 

Treasury, 2000) spoke of daunting housing conditions and mortgage availability challenges in 

Indian Country and attributed private lender disengagement from that area to a constellation of 

constraints including— 

1. Tribal trust land status. 

2. Limited knowledge by lenders of tribal governments and tribal laws. 

3. Higher lender transaction costs. 

4. Higher predevelopment (for example, environmental assessment) and infrastructure costs. 
4 

5. Poor or no homebuyer credit or familiarity with financing skills.5 

6. Limited savings and assets in tribal areas. 

A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that, during the 5 

years of 1992 through 1996, lenders made a total of only 91 conventional loans to Native 

Americans on trust lands (GAO, 1998). As in the Kingsley et al. (1996) and HUD and Treasury 

(2000) studies, the GAO study attributed the negligible mortgage activity to a host of challenges, 

ranging from tribal trust land restrictions that made it problematic for such land to serve as 

collateral to pervasive joblessness and high poverty on reservations (GAO, 1998). 

After conducting a survey of Native Americans and Native Hawaiians, the Native American 

CDFI Fund in a 2001 study reported that 65 percent of respondents found conventional 

mortgages “difficult” or “impossible” to attain (Treasury, 2001). As part of this study, CDFI 

administered a financial survey to tribal governments and private financial service organizations 

located on or near Native lands. That survey identified 17 barriers to capital access, including

limited use of trust land as collateral; income, infrastructure, and other economic challenges in 

Native communities; and a paucity of financial institutions on or near Indian lands. 

Listokin, Leichenko, and King (2006), in a study by Rutgers University for the Fannie Mae 

Foundation, explored the history and the land, population, economic, and housing characteristics 

of Indian Country. It examined as well the modest mortgage activity in Indian Country and the 

myriad reasons for the relatively fewer loans, including trust land, economic, regulatory, and 

cultural impediments. For example, according to Listokin, Leichenko, and King (2006), of the 

15.7 million total acres comprising the Navajo Nation, almost all (14.7 million acres or 94 

percent) was in tribal trust status, thus hard to collateralize for mortgage purposes. About fourtenths (44 percent) of the reservation’s population was in poverty as of 2000, thus making it 

harder to income-qualify for a mortgage. In addition, the analysis found that many would-be 

Navajo borrowers either had no formal credit established, had blemished credit, or were wary 

about dealing with non-Indian institutional lenders (Listokin, Leichenko, and King, 2006). 

Sometimes credit issues arose because of cultural or other miscommunication. For example, if a 

medical payment was late, was it the result of financial tardiness on the part of the Navajo patient 

receiving the service—as might be interpreted by a mortgage underwriter—or was it simply due 

to a backlog of medical reimbursement by the Indian Health Service (IHS) on the Navajo 

Nation? The paucity of financial institutions in the Navajo Nation made it difficult to secure 

home loans from local lenders, who would tend to be most knowledgeable of housing and 

household conditions on the reservation. Finally, lender practices, such as paying loan officers on 

commission, discouraged these officers from working on Navajo mortgage loans, which were 

typically of modest size and harder to qualify. 

A 2007 study of Section 184, prepared for HUD by ACKCO, Inc., and Abt Associates Inc. 

(ACKCO and Abt), found that “lenders often experienced a cluster of difficulties in making 

mortgage loans to tribal members living on reservations” (ACKCO and Abt, 2007: 2), including 

such challenges as— 

 

5 A study of homeownership constraints on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in northwest Montana identified weak 

credit histories of potential mortgage borrowers and other challenges, such as low income (Federal Reserve System 

and The Brookings Institution, 2008).
5 

1. Trust status of tribal and allotment lands. 

2. Tribal attitudes toward land. 

3. Meager housing markets in many Native communities. 

4. Difficulties in performing appraisals. 

5. Limited available resources for downpayments. 

6. Poor credit histories for many tribal members. 

7. The issue of tribal sovereignty as a factor in enforcing contracts (ACKCO and Abt, 

2007). 

The similarities of findings in the studies of ACKCO and Abt (2007), GAO (1998), HUD and 

Treasury (2000), Kingsley et al. (1996), and Listokin, Leichenko, and King (2006) summarized

in this section are evident: mortgage activity is extraordinarily limited in Indian Country, and the 

near absence of credit is due to a constellation of legal, economic, social, cultural, institutional, 

and other forces.

The current investigation builds on the studies just reviewed and other related literature (Barbier, 

1998; Federal Reserve System and The Brookings Institution, 2008; GAO, 2011, 2014; Kolluri 

and Rengert, 2000). This literature, for the most part, reports on a mortgage situation in Indian 

Country of a decade ago or longer back in time. For instance, when the Kingsley et al. (1996) 

study was completed, the HUD Section 184 Program, specifically designed to address the trust 

land and other challenges to mortgages in such areas, was in its infancy. What is the 

contemporary mortgage program availability and activity, and how do today’s lenders view 

challenges to and best practices for mortgages in Indian Country? To address these questions, the 

research team surveyed lenders that originate mortgages on tribal trust land and also other 

mortgage market participants (such as housing finance agencies and Native CDFIs). The 

methods for selecting survey participants and the results of the survey are discussed later in this 

report. Before that discussion, the next section presents an overview of the programs lenders use 

to originate mortgages on tribal trust land.
6 

3. Loan Programs Used on Tribal Trust Land

Three main federal programs support mortgage lending on tribal trust land: the HUD Section 184 

Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program, the USDA RHS Section 502 Direct Loan Program, and 

the VA Native American Veteran Direct Loan program. According to this study’s respondents, 

other, smaller-scale loan products are originated on tribal trust land (in some cases by CDFIs), 

but these three federal programs constitute the bulk of mortgages originated on tribal trust land 

(Pierson, 2013). Moreover, among the three federal programs, respondents indicated that the 

Section 184 Program is, by far, the program most often used by lenders to support tribal trust 

mortgage lending.6

Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program

The Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program provides lenders with a 100 percent 

guarantee in the event of a borrower’s foreclosure. It is available for single-family housing of 

one to four units located on tribal trust land, individual allotted trust land, or fee simple land in 

an Indian area. The borrower may be an individual tribal member, tribe, or TDHE. Unlike the 

RHS Section 502 Program, Section 184 guarantees are not reserved for moderate- and lowincome homebuyers. Section 184 loans can be made only to borrowers who are members of a 

federally recognized tribe, a regional or village corporation as defined in the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act, or one of the following five state (and not federally recognized) tribes: 

Coharie Tribe (North Carolina), Haliwa-Saponi Tribe (North Carolina), Lumbee Tribe (North 

Carolina), Waccamaw Siouan Tribe (North Carolina); MOWA band of Choctaw Indians 

(Alabama). Tribes interested in participating in the Section 184 Program must have leasing, 

eviction, foreclosure, and other procedures and provisions in place (for example, tribal court 

jurisdiction over real property).

The Section 184 Program can be used only for mortgages on properties located in an approved 

Indian Operating Area (also called eligible areas [EAs]). Exhibit 3.1 shows the location of EAs 

by state. As the map indicates, some states contain no EAs, and, in 23 states, the entire state is an 

EA. For the remainder, EAs are restricted to certain counties. 

Because some EAs constitute an entire state, the Section 184 Program is not used for mortgage 

lending on only tribal trust land. As long as a property is located in an EA, a Section 184 loan 

can be originated for properties located on fee simple, tribal trust, or allocated land. Moreover, in 

late 2004, HUD issued guidance that enabled tribes to have more flexibility in designating EAs 

so they correspond to their Indian Housing Block Grant formula area. As a result, the size of EAs 

increased around 2005 or 2006, thereby creating a larger potential market for Section 184 loans, 

particularly for areas where fee simple lending was the predominant type of transaction. 

 

6 The research team could not find data on tribal trust lending volume for the Section 502 Direct Loan Program or 

the VA Native American Veteran Direct Loan program. The Housing Assistance Council reported that 7 loans were 

originated under the Section 502 Direct Loan Program on tribal trust land in fiscal year (FY) 2009, suggesting very 

low volumes for this program on tribal trust land (Housing Assistance Council, 2010). The Housing Assistance 

Council reported that the USDA Office of Rural Development made 1,213 direct Section 502 loans from FY 2000 

through FY 2004. Of the loans made, 196, or 16 percent, of the Section 502 loans were made to Native Americans 

living on restricted lands (Housing Assistance Council, 2006)
7 

Under the Section 184 Program, HUD charges a 1 percent guarantee fee (recently increased to 

1.5 percent) and requires homebuyers to make a downpayment ranging from 1.25 to 2.25 

percent, based on the lower of the appraised value and the cost of the home. The funds for 

downpayment can come from private funds or can be a gift from the tribe or the TDHE. If the 

borrower’s income is less than 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) funds can be used to cover the 

downpayment. The lender must evaluate the borrower’s ability to repay the loan, considering 

income history and stability, credit history, and other factors. The borrower’s total debt-toincome ratio (back-end ratio), in general, may not exceed 41 percent, although HUD may make 

exceptions in appropriate circumstances. Until 2014, the Section 184 Program did not require 

mortgage insurance, but, as of late 2014, a .175 percent yearly insurance premium was instituted 

(Fogarty, 2014). Section 184 has maximum loan limits, which are established by HUD for all 

counties in the EAs (for example, the maximum single-family loan limit in 2015 is $271,050 in 

Navajo County, Arizona).
8 

Section 502 Direct Loan Program 

Under the Section 502 Direct Loan Program, USDA RHS provides loans at below-market 

interest rates to homebuyers whose household incomes do not exceed 80 percent of AMI.7 Loan 

terms are up to 33 years and, for households with incomes of less than 60 percent of AMI, terms 

may extend for a longer period. The program offers subsidies, based on the homebuyer’s income, 

that reduce the interest rate to as low as 1 percent. Although the monthly payment rises as the 

homeowner’s income rises, the note rate establishes a cap on monthly payments. Loans may 

cover 100 percent of the cost of purchasing a new or existing home and also appraisal, title 

insurance, and other closing costs. Funds may also be used to repair or relocate a home, prepare a 

site, or provide water and sewer facilities.

Homebuyers must show they are unable to obtain financing from conventional sources on 

reasonable terms but can afford to repay the loan. A low-income applicant’s repayment ability, in 

general, is demonstrated if principal, interest, taxes, and insurance do not amount to more than 

29 percent of income (front-end ratio) and total monthly debt (for housing and all other 

purposes) does not exceed 41 percent of income (back-end ratio). For low-income borrowers, the 

percentages are 33 percent (front-end ratio) and 41 percent (back-end ratio). The homebuyer 

signs a note promising to repay the RHS loan at the “note rate” (a current rate of interest) and 

gives RHS a mortgage on the home. As discussed previously, actual monthly payments are 

subsidized. The homebuyer also enters into a retention agreement under which, when title is 

transferred to a third party, the homebuyer must repay the amount of the interest assistance or 50 

percent of the value of the appreciation of the home, whichever is less. 

VA Native American Veteran Direct Loan Program

Since 1992, the Native American Veteran Direct Loan, or NADL, program has provided eligible 

Native American veterans and their spouses the opportunity to use their VA home loan guaranty 

benefit on federal trust land. By statute, before VA may make a loan to any Native American 

veteran, the veteran’s tribal or other sovereign governing body must enter into a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) with VA. The MOU details the conditions under which the program will 

operate on trust lands (for example, that the tribe has established standards and procedures that 

apply to the conveyance of a leasehold interest in real property by a Native American borrower 

to a lender).

Native American veterans who are eligible for VA home loan benefits and whose tribal or other 

sovereign governments have signed a MOU may then apply directly to VA for a 30-year fixedrate loan to purchase, build, or improve a home located on federal trust land. They may also 

refinance a direct loan already made under this program to lower their interest rate. If the 

property is not located on federal trust land, the veteran can use the traditional VA Home Loan 

Guaranty Program. 

 

7 USDA RHS also has a Section 502 Guaranteed Rural Housing Loan Program. This program generally is not used 

to support lending on tribal trust land.
9 

4. Analysis of Section 184 Program Origination Volume

This section presents an analysis of Section 184 data covering the period of federal fiscal year 

(FY) 1994 through May 2015 (the latest period covered in the data received from HUD). The 

analysis summarizes program activity over time by number of loans, loan volume, and land 

status. The Section 184 Program activity is summarized in exhibit 4.1. Between FY 1994 and 

May 2015, the Section 184 Program provided guarantees for about 28,800 mortgages for an 

aggregate amount of $4.709 billion, or an average of about $163,000 per loan.8 The program 

overwhelmingly insures loans originated on properties located on fee simple land: 88 percent of 

the number of loans representing about 91 percent of the dollar volume of loans insured from the 

start of the program through May 2015 were located on such land. Properties located on tribal 

trust land account for a small share of all mortgages insured by the program: about 10 percent of 

all loans and 7 percent of the aggregate dollar volume insured under the program. In a similar 

way, properties located on individual allotted trust land also account for a minor share of all 

Section 184 activity, about 2 percent of all loans and 2 percent of the program’s aggregate dollar 

value. As these summary statistics demonstrate, the number of loans and dollar volume track 

each other quite closely during the study period. The rest of this section focuses exclusively on 

the number of loans. Information about the dollar volume of loans is in appendix B. The analysis 

also compares program activity and participation of lenders before and after the expansion of 

EAs in late 2004 and examines program activity during the period of the financial crisis. 

 

8 All dollar values in this report are in nominal terms. When adjusted for inflation, the aggregate value of all Section 

184 loans is $5.052 billion and the average value per loan is $175,000. See appendix B, exhibits B.1 and B.4 for 

inflation-adjusted tables.
10 

Exhibits 4.2 and 4.3 provide further detail, showing the number of Section 184 loans by HUD’s 

Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) region and land status.9 Oklahoma (Region 3) had 

the most lending between FY 1994 and May 2015, with 13,095 loans (45 percent of all Section 

184 loans), of which just 32 were made on trust land (both tribal and allotted/individual trust). 

Alaska (Region 9) had the next highest amount of lending, with 3,409 loans (12 percent of all 

loans), with 23 of those loans on trust land. The Arizona-New Mexico region (Region 6) had 

2,754 total loans (10 percent of all loans), 1,040 of which were on trust land, followed by the 

North Central region (Region 1), which had 2,342 loans (8 percent of all loans), 812 of which 

were on trust land.10 

In part because the EA definition was made more flexible in late 2004, between FY 2005 and 

May 2015, the program had considerably higher average annual volume than in the previous 

decade: 2,561 loans per year were insured under the Section 184 Program between 2005 and 

May 2015 compared with the average of about 196 loans per year from FY 1994 to FY 2004. 

 

9 For the overall study of American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian housing, regions are defined by the 

service areas of HUD’s six ONAP area offices. Three of these areas were considered to be too heterogeneous and so 

were split, which results in a total of nine study regions. Two regions, Oklahoma and Alaska, consist of a single 

state.

10 The number of Section 184 loans guaranteed by state is shown in exhibit B.2 in appendix B. This study did not 

analyze factors that might explain the differences in Section 184 loans by ONAP region or state, such as differences 

in potential AIAN demand.
11 

The share of insured loans originated on properties located on fee simple land (exhibit 4.1) was 

also higher during the FY 2005-to-May 2015 period (90 percent of loans) when compared with 

the FY 1994-to-FY 2004 period (52 percent of loans). 

Exhibits 4.4 and 4.5 display additional detail on the year-by-year Section 184 Program activity 

by land status between FY 1994 and May 2015. As exhibit 4.4 demonstrates graphically, the 

annual Section 184 volume for transactions on fee simple land increased dramatically after FY 

2004. The increase in Section 184 loans after the expansion of the EAs was almost entirely due 

to increases in the number of loans insured on fee simple land. Before the expansion of EAs in 

late 2004, both the number of loans insured on trust land (both tribal and allotted/individual trust) 

and fee simple land were roughly similar (323 loans on fee simple land versus 261 loans on trust 

land).11 Beginning in 2005, however, the number of loans insured on fee simple land began to 

outstrip those insured on trust land, increasing by approximately 30 percent annually until 

reaching a high point of 3,977 fee simple loans in 2012, a peak almost 40 times higher than the 

annual average number of loans on fee simple land insured before 2005 (103). In the most recent 

full year of lending (2014), the number of loans on fee simple land decreased slightly from its 

2012 peak (3,997) to 3,622. Lending on trust land remained relatively constant during this same 

period. 

The Section 184 Program’s volume did not decline during the financial crisis that started at the 

end of 2007. Indeed, the program’s total volume, particularly on fee simple land, increased from 

1,380 total loans in 2007 (1,122 fee simple loans) to 4,302 total loans in 2012 (3,997 fee simple 

loans) (exhibit 4.5). Some of this increase may be due to increases in EAs after 2004, but the 

sharp uptick in volume after 2007 (particularly between 2008 and 2009) may also reflect that 

lenders were relying more on government guaranteed lending in the wake of the credit crisis. As 

discussed in more detail in the summary of discussions with lenders, the Section 184 Program is 

used as a complement to traditional FHA products for Native American borrowers who are either 

purchasing or refinancing loans on properties located in EAs.

 

11 See exhibits B.3 through B.5 in appendix B for further details on lending data.
12 
13 

Exhibit 4.6 shows the total number of lenders and first-time lenders under the Section 184 

Program from FY 1994 to May 2015. During this period, 332 different lenders have issued loans 

in EAs. As with the overall amount and number of loans insured, the number of active lenders 

involved in the lending market increased after the changes in the Section 184 Program in 2004. 

Before 2005, an average of 19 lenders each year issued loans under Section 184, with 87 lenders 

involved in the market between 1994 and 2004. During this same period, about 8 new lenders 

entered the market each year. After 2005, an average of 108 lenders issued loans annually, with 

about 24 new lenders entering the market each year. Also since 2005, a total of 245 active 

lenders have been involved in the market.12

The changes in the Section 184 Program rules also encouraged several lending institutions to 

increase their overall lending portfolio in EAs. Exhibit 4.7 shows the number of Section 184 

loans issued by the 10 institutions that generated the greatest number of loans compared with the 

number of loans issued by the rest of the lending institutions.13 Overall, the 10 lenders that 

carried the most Section 184 loans constituted about one-half of the overall lending between FY 

 

12 A detailed table is provided in appendix B, exhibit B.6.

13 A detailed table is provided in appendix B, exhibit B.7.
14 

1994 and May 2015, insuring 13,758 loans (of a total of 28,840 loans). Before 2005, however, 

these top 10 lenders were less robustly active in the market, accounting for just 28 percent (604 

loans) of the total number of loans (2,163) issued in that period. 
15 

5. Survey of Lenders

This section provides a framework for understanding the lender survey structure and responses, 

describes the methods used to select and survey lenders, and presents an analysis of survey 

findings. 

Background: Factors Influencing Mortgage Lending on Tribal Trust Land

The brief literature overview in section 2 identified challenges to mortgage lending in Indian 

Country. These hurdles can best be understood in a broader conceptual framework, shown in 

exhibit 5.1.14

 

14 The issues included in exhibit 5.1 are also discussed in Laderman and Reid (2010). 
16 

Originating mortgages on tribal trust land presents enormous challenges for lenders. Native 

Americans can be classified as members of traditionally underserved markets. Mortgage lending 

to any traditionally underserved market is challenging for a variety of reasons. Prospective 

homeowners are likely to have limited experience dealing with mainstream financial institutions 

and to have limited incomes, assets, and credit histories. Mainstream lenders may have limited 

cultural understanding of the traditionally underserved population, and the latter, in turn, may be 

wary of conventional lenders. 

Although Native Americans share characteristics of other members of traditionally underserved 

markets, originating mortgages on Indian land includes unique challenges related to the legal status 

of lands on reservations (exhibit ES.3 in the Executive Summary). Another challenge arises from 

the disproportionately rural location of Indian Country. In general, rural areas have considerable 

“housing distress” (affordability, structural inadequacy, and overcrowding), especially among lowincome and minority households, and rural areas further confront “substantial problems” as 

described by the Housing Assistance Council regarding mortgage access and credit cost (Housing 

Assistance Council, 2012). Therefore, successfully originating mortgages on tribal trust land 

requires lenders to work within an environment in which three types of issues intersect: those 

related to (1) underserved markets, (2) tribal trust land, and (3) rural mortgage production. The 

telephone survey of lenders conducted for this study was designed to elicit information about the 

experiences of lenders and others regarding these challenges.

Lender Survey: Methods 

This subsection details the methods used to develop a sampling frame for the lender survey and 

the process used to contact lender respondents and administer the survey. The primary objective 

was to survey representatives of lenders that were familiar with the challenges associated with 

originating mortgages on tribal trust land. Given that such lending is a specialized activity, the 

sampling frame was developed using HUD’s data on origination volumes by lender. This 

database includes information on the number of Section 184 Program loans originated by lender 

in each year between 1995 and August 2011.15 The data also provide further breakdowns, 

including totals by lender by loan purpose (purchase or refinance) and the land status (fee simple, 

tribal trust, or individual allotted trust land) on which the mortgaged property is located. 

Using this information, lender volume was aggregated for purchase loans by land status for the 

period from 2009 to August 2011 (based on the assumption that the process for originating 

purchase loans, as compared with refinance loans, presented the most challenges for a lender). 

The sampling frame developed included the 10 lenders with the largest number of Section 184 

Program purchase loans originated in tribal trust land, referred to as the “tribal trust” frame. 

To understand if lending to Native Americans on fee simple land (compared with tribal trust 

land) also presented unique challenges, another sampling frame was developed that included the 

20 lenders that originated the most Section 184 Program purchase mortgages between 2009 and 

August 2011 on fee simple lands, referred to as the “fee simple” frame. Of those 20 lenders, 5 

were already included in the tribal trust frame. When the research team started contacting the 

lenders included in the fee simple frame, it became apparent that nearly all were located in 

Oklahoma and that most conducted business in Oklahoma. This concentration of lenders in 

 

15 The data used in the discussion of the Section 184 Program include loans up through May 2015. The data for loan 

activity from August 2011 through May 2015 were not available at the time the sampling approach was developed.
17 

Oklahoma is likely related to the unique circumstances in that state: the entire state is an EA for 

the Section 184 Program and many Native Americans live in Oklahoma. Rather than have a 

large number of lenders in the survey originating loans on fee simple land in Oklahoma, six 

Oklahoma-based lenders were removed from the fee simple frame, and the resources saved from 

attempting to interview those lenders were used to support interviews with representatives of 

Native CDFIs and HFAs that participate or analyze tribal trust land lending. 

Using the Section 184 Program data ensured that the survey would include lenders that were 

familiar with the challenges associated with originating mortgages on tribal trust land. To gain 

the perspectives of lenders that did not participate in the Section 184 Program, another sampling 

frame was developed that included the top 10 originators of purchase mortgages to Native 

Americans in 2011. This list included 5 lenders already included in the fee simple and/or tribal 

trust frames. In addition, the frame included 2 lenders (Farm Credit Services of Mid-America

and United Services Automobile Association [USAA]) that were removed from the frame 

because they served narrowly defined markets.16

Using the initial set of interviews, the research team identified Native CDFIs and HFAs that 

support mortgage lending on tribal trust land and included such organizations in the sampling 

frame. Initial interviews also identified the USDA RHS, through its Section 502 Direct Loan

Program, and the VA, through its Native American Veteran Direct Loan program, as important 

potential sources of information about tribal trust lending; thus, the team added these 

organizations to the sampling frame, along with other entities (other than Native CDFIs, HFAs, 

RHS, and VA) that either participate in or observe lending on Indian land. 

As detailed in exhibit 5.2, 30 unique organizations were included in the sampling frame. A 

representative of each organization was contacted at least three times through a combination of 

e-mails and telephone calls. Interviews, conducted from August through December 2013, were 

completed with representatives of slightly less than one-half of the entities in the sample.

The survey instrument (appendix A) was used in all the interviews but was tailored by the 

interviewer so that the conversation provided an appropriate level of detail, given the 

respondent’s organization. The survey was designed to cover the topics identified earlier in this 

report related to the three types of issues (underserved markets, tribal trust land, and rural 

mortgage production) lenders face when making mortgage loans on Indian land. As is explained 

in detail below, lenders were asked to rate the severity of different problems and the 

effectiveness of potential ameliorative strategies. Interview times ranged from 45 minutes to 2 

hours. Longer interviews were completed in more than one session, because respondents 

typically did not have more than an hour in their schedule on any given day for the interview. 

It is important to note that this sample is not meant to be representative of all lenders that either 

originate or contemplate originating mortgages on tribal trust land. It does reflect, however, the 

observations and opinions of many of the largest mortgage originators that serve Native 

Americans in general and those purchasing homes on tribal trust land; therefore, the sample 

offers insights to and observations of some of the most experienced tribal trust mortgage lenders 

in the country. 

 

16 Farm Credit Services of Mid-America targets rural borrowers, but USAA targets active and retired military 

personnel and their families.
18 

Lender Survey: Analysis of Responses

This subsection presents findings from the lender survey. The survey asked lender respondents to 

rate, on a 5-point Likert scale, the extent to which an issue is a problem, from 1 (not a problem) 

to 5 (a very big problem) and the effectiveness of potential strategies to address issues, from 1 

(not effective) to 5 (very effective). In addition to being asked these close-ended questions, 

respondents were asked open-ended questions that enabled them to expand on their answers and 

provide more detail about their observations of lending on tribal trust land. 

Respondents’ answers to questions related to the challenges lenders face when originating 

mortgages on tribal trust land are presented first. These answers are followed by an analysis of 

questions related to challenges associated with attracting and qualifying applicants for mortgages 

on tribal trust land. The final two sections of the analysis address questions regarding servicing 

mortgages on tribal trust land and the management factors that support a lender’s mortgage 

volume on tribal trust land.

Land Status Issues

When asked about the impact of land status issues (trust land status, fractional ownership, and 

recovering foreclosed mortgaged properties) on lending on tribal land, respondents would 

sometimes couch their answers in a without Section 184 versus with Section 184 context. Their 

responses accordingly are reported in a similar dichotomous fashion in exhibit 5.3. To follow the 
19 

difference, recall the Likert rating scale of 1 (not a problem) to 5 (a very big problem). Without

the Section 184 Program, land challenges loom large: trust land status is viewed as a significant 

problem (3.6), followed by fractional ownership (3.4), and recovering foreclosed mortgaged 

properties (3.1). With the Section 184 Program, the land status challenge is viewed as much less 

of a hurdle: the trust land status is now rated a 2.6 on the Likert scale (down from 3.6), and 

recovering foreclosed mortgage properties is now rated 2.0 (down from 3.1). The problem of 

fractional ownership remains unchanged, at 3.4. 

The lender respondents’ comments in their discussion of land status issues on Indian lands 

illuminate the Likert ratings cited previously. Even with the Section 184 Program, the problem of 

fractional ownership may exist, because this unfortunate legacy continues from the Dawes Act of 

1887 and other historical developments. As one lender respondent stated, concerning fractional 

ownership in one area of Indian Country: “This was an issue—the challenge here is that a lender 

may have to get approval of up to 200 people to get a mortgage originated. There is no simple 

way to do this—you have to hunt them down and get approvals.” The Section 184 Program does 

not eliminate this “hunt.” 

On other land issues, however, such as whether trust land status provided sufficient collateral for 

a mortgage, lender respondents spoke of the game-changing impact of the Section 184 Program 

offering a 100 percent guarantee in the event of a borrower’s foreclosure. When queried about 

the challenge offered by trust land status, one respondent said that it would be rated as a 5 (a very 

big problem) without Section 184 and would be rated a 1 (not a problem) with Section 184. 

Although that was one respondent’s opinion, the respondents as a group still viewed land status 

as posing some problem even with Section 184, albeit these problems were less daunting than the 

situation before Section 184. The respondents said these lingering land-related problems arose 

because of the lengthy processing times required to close Section 184 Program loans on trust and 

individual allotted trust land. 

All Section 184 Program loans (as outlined in exhibit 5.4) originated on tribal trust or individual 

allotted trust land require the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to approve a lease and provide a 

Title Status Report (TSR). Both of these documents must be in the loan package submitted to 

HUD for its approval, and sometimes delays occur in securing these documents.

[A] problem with trust land lending [is that it’s] incredibly labor intensive and 

time consuming. The production process does not fit into lenders’ origination 

processes because they take 6-12 months to complete an origination. The 
20 

participants in any transaction (BIA, tribal housing authorities, etc.) are different 

than for a typical real estate transaction—and so lenders need special 

skills/knowledge for successful transactions. —Lender 
21 

In addition, lender respondents reported that any new lease must comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This environmental review, in theory, should take no longer 

than 30 days, but lenders report that NEPA approval often takes considerably longer, particularly 

because a NEPA review requires some work to be done by the tribes.17

Lender respondents reported that the BIA “has a big impact on a lender’s volume” and that, in 

many cases, “[t]he process within BIA given NEPA is too slow.” Respondents noted that a great 

deal of variation occurs in the processing times across BIA regional offices. For example, one 

respondent worked with two BIA offices. The respondent reported good processing times in one 

office but said another office “was very difficult to work with.” In the more efficient BIA office, 

the respondent reported “[t]he Realty Department in [that] BIA office works to satisfy NEPA and 

TSR requests. The Land Title Recordation Office must record the deed, lease, and mortgage, and 

the local office has agreed to a 30-day turnaround. This is not a typical arrangement.” The 

respondent reported that it took about a year to get a deal through the other, less-efficient BIA 

office. Respondents pointed out that not all the delays are within the BIA purview. One 

respondent noted that it takes time to develop a lease, because that process must start with the 

tribes and tribes differ in how promptly they approve a lease, which is then sent to BIA. 

What are some of the strategies lenders use to reduce processing times? Successful tribal trust 

lenders indicated that they work with tribes to use leases that comply with BIA requirements and, 

if possible, start lease documents using templates that include language and provisions that have 

been approved in other transactions. One lender noted: “[The first] thing is to get a lease for the 

land—which is in accordance with BIA (25 years with an option for a 25 year renewal).” 

To ensure a lease complies with BIA requirements, [we] draft the lease. BIA preapproves a package (including the lease) prior to [our] processing a loan. [We also 

ask] BIA to approve environmental reviews in advance for any loans originated 

for newly constructed units. [We] ha[ve] a good relationship with the local BIA 

office and [we] trained the tribal housing authority on what is needed for a 

package to BIA that can be pre-approved. —Lender 

One lender respondent said he/she works with a tribal counsel that is required to approve a lease 

and then works with BIA to order a NEPA review and TSRs. Respondents also noted that some 

tribes have implemented a title plan, and so the tribe has no need to request BIA to develop a 

TSR from scratch. The tribe itself can develop a TSR for BIA approval.

Lender respondents noted that the key for any successful transaction on Indian land is to initiate 

procedural requirements and reviews early in the process. A typical observation from a 

respondent: “...[environmental] reviews are beyond the lender’s control—the strategy is to start 

this process early. Such reviews take the longest. Best practice is to get environmental reviews 

prior to when the lease is contemplated.” A related strategy to reduce time delays resulting from 

programmatic processing is to initiate the processing in parallel rather than sequentially (for 

example, start the TSR and NEPA processes at the same time rather than waiting to initiate

 

17 Many housing interventions in Indian Country evoke NEPA-related environmental review. For example, activities 

carried out with the assistance of NAHASDA must be evaluated in accordance with NEPA, thus evoking an 

environmental assessment or a more detailed environmental impact statement (if the NAHASDA-aided project will 

significantly affect the environment). A 2014 study on Native American housing reported that “several recipients 

seeking to combine funding for their housing projects said that different federal agency requirements, particularly 

mandatory environmental review requirements, posed a significant challenge” (GAO, 2014: 16).
22 

NEPA until after the TSR is complete). One lender suggested doing a more efficient areawide 

NEPA review rather than a parcel-by-parcel environmental assessment.

One way to reduce processing times would be to develop standard leases that could be used by 

tribes when developing leases for a particular transaction. A respondent noted, however, that any 

effort to create a standardized template must balance the benefits of standardizing documents and 

procedures and, at the same time, maintain individual tribal character and authority. 

Lender respondents also noted that processing times are shorter when mortgage recipients are 

members of tribes with high levels of capacity to support homeownership activities. A 

respondent noted that such high-capacity tribes can provide good information to BIA and also 

can develop leases that will be approved by BIA relatively quickly. Moreover, tribes that can 

work with the local BIA office can make the mortgage origination process go more smoothly. 

Lenders noted that they must perform tasks typically done by tribes for transactions when a 

borrower is a member of a tribe that does not have much capacity to support homeownership—

which increases the lenders’ time effort and processing costs. Therefore, increasing tribal 

capacity to support homeownership may increase the number of lenders willing to support 

lending on tribal trust land. 

Attracting Applicant Issues and Strategies

One potential factor that could reduce demand for mortgages on Indian land is that lenders find it 

difficult to attract applicants, particularly given historical and cultural factors that may be 

barriers for Native Americans to work with mainstream financial institutions. In general, the 

lender respondents did not rank such factors as particularly problematic. The mean responses 

(exhibit 5.5) show that wariness about working with commercial lenders, language, and a 

lackluster interest in homeownership, in general, do not make it particularly difficult to attract 

applicants. 

The one component of attracting mortgage applicants on Indian land that respondents viewed as 

being more problematic concerns paperwork. Borrowers who may be interested in purchasing 
23 

homes on Indian land sometimes are overwhelmed by the amount of documentation required for 

processing a loan application. Whereas some of these documents are required for any mortgage 

transaction (paystubs, bank records, etc.), other required documents, particularly those needed 

for BIA approval, add to an already burdensome process for the borrower. 

How do lenders that are relatively successful in originating mortgages on tribal trust land attract 

applicants (exhibit 5.6)? The most effective strategies are, according to respondents’ rankings: 

working with tribes (4.1) and having a presence on or near Indian land (3.7). One respondent 

indicated that it has a presence on Indian land and also works with tribes. This lender responds to 

requests from tribal housing authorities to come on site and discuss homeownership. This 

approach, according to the respondent, provides a strong advantage over competitors. This lender 

also works with some Native CDFIs that offer downpayment assistance to tribal members.

Lender respondents also noted the importance of being visible within the Native American 

community. One respondent indicated that his/her institution sends representatives to community 

events and to meet with groups to make sure tribal members are aware of what the lender has to 

offer concerning mortgage products. The respondent noted that, because many tribal members 

get information via word of mouth, the lender works with tribal members so that they have 

accurate information. 

Another respondent indicated that it has marketed mortgages at Native American pow-wows and 

honorings to facilitate relationships whereby tribes see the lender as a partner. One lender was on 

the local Indian Chamber of Commerce—an effective method that allows for interaction with 

local tribes. When conducting marketing and outreach, one respondent said that it was critical 

that lender staff who are performing such activities are qualified to talk about available financial 

products within the special context of Indian Country and are experienced with attending Native 

American events. The importance of being energetic and flexible in outreach to the Native 

American community was noted as well. One respondent described such flexibility: “[We] close 

loans in parking lots.” 
24 

Lender respondents also mentioned that enhancing the supply of quality housing available in 

Indian Country would increase the demand for homeownership and, in turn, would encourage 

more households to apply for mortgages. Although respondents recognized that enhancing the 

supply of attractive housing on tribal lands was challenging, they suggested strategies to at least 

begin this process, such as training Native American building contractors. To jumpstart quality 

housing construction, one respondent provided construction loans on tribal lands that would then 

be repaid when tribal members secured Section 184 permanent mortgages. 

Qualifying Applicant Issues and Strategies

Potential homebuyers for properties located on tribal trust land are likely to have similar 

challenges in qualifying for mortgages as are members of other traditionally underserved 

markets. Such borrowers typically have poor credit histories and inadequate savings and/or 

income to qualify for a mortgage. Lender respondents (exhibit 5.7), when asked about issues 

they face to qualify Native American borrowers, indicated that many potential borrowers had 

blemished credit histories that made it difficult to qualify for the Section 184 Program. 

Blemished credit of Native American borrowers averaged a ranking of 4.0 on the Likert scale (5 

= a very big problem), according to the lender interviews. 

The remaining potential borrower qualifying issues were not reported as being nearly as 

problematic as blemished credit. The next highest-ranked issues were related to applicants’ 

savings and income—both of which present problems, but not as severe as blemished credit. 

Indeed, the low downpayment requirement for Section 184 Program loans likely makes a lack of 

savings less problematic than blemished credit. Moreover, respondents said they often market the 

Section 184 Program to tribes in which incomes are sufficient to qualify for mortgages. 

Appraising the value of properties to be mortgaged was similarly viewed as not a major hurdle 
25 

compared with blemished credit because, as one respondent stated, “HUD lending is based on a 

cost approach when there are no comps [comparable sales].”18

Given that lender respondents cited blemished credit as a key challenge in serving borrowers on 

tribal trust land, the Section 184 Program is well suited for such lending because it does not have 

a minimum Fair Isaac Corporation, or FICO, score and enables underwriters to be flexible when 

evaluating an applicant’s creditworthiness.19 

Despite the Section 184 Program’s stated guidelines that provide for flexibility, some 

respondents thought that HUD’s standards regarding underwriting creditworthiness had 

tightened after the 2008 financial crisis. Some indicated that even minimal debts that are 

delinquent within the past 12 months make it difficult to receive an approval from HUD. One 

respondent noted the following: 

HUD has reduced the 184 Program’s underwriting flexibility—some 184 staff are 

denying loans based on a narrow reason. One applicant had $33K in credit card 

debt, but every payment is on time except for one 30 day late (to help an ill family 

member). HUD will not approve this loan based on one 30-day late on a small 

account—[it is] not looking at [the] overall picture. HUD is taking too narrow an 

approach when evaluating applications. —Lender 

Another lender respondent indicated that, to be approved for a Section 184 Program loan, an 

applicant must clear all collections in the past 12 months and wait 12 full months to resubmit the 

application. One respondent noted that some applicants have higher credit scores than the 

minimum credit score required for FHA (620) and RHS-guaranteed loans (640), but they have 

their Section 184 Program applications denied. 

One lender respondent had a different view, thinking that the Section 184 Program allowed for 

an underwriter to use flexibility when evaluating an applicant’s credit history, particularly for 

derogatory payment histories resulting from late payments made by the Indian Health Service to 

healthcare providers. In fact, many respondents noted that applicants often had late payments on 

their credit history because IHS was slow to pay a medical provider. Because these late payments 

 

18 The appraisal profession typically determines the market value of a given property (“subject property”) via three 

approaches: sales, income, and cost. The sales approach considers the selling prices of properties comparable with

the subject property; adjustments are made to these sales prices based on such considerations as the date and nature 

of the sale and property size and amenities. The income approach capitalizes the annual income that the subject 

property would generate. The cost approach values properties based on the cost of reproducing the subject 

property’s land and improvements. For owner-occupied homes, such as those financed by the Section 184 Program, 

appraisers would typically emphasize the sales approach. The problem, however, is that relatively few sales may be 

made in Indian Country and adjustments are harder to make because of the unique qualities of these properties. 

Because the sales approach may be problematic in Indian Country, appraisers are allowed to rely more heavily on 

other valuation methods, namely the cost approach. The HUD document Appraisal of Single Family Homes on 

Native American Lands (HUD, 2006; 4150.2 appendix C) states under “Approaches to Value” that “until sufficient 

sales exist on a reservation or within the specific Native American area to provide a reasonable sales comparison 

approach for determining...value...[then] an appraisal on trust land must rely more on the cost approach” (HUD, 

2006: C-2). 19 According to the HUD Section 184 Indian Loan Guarantee Program Processing Guidelines, “...an applicant is not 

eligible for a Section 184 guaranteed mortgage if he or she is presently delinquent on any type of federal debt, unless 

there is evidence of an accepted repayment plan, and 12 months of timely payments have been made by the 

applicant to the federal agency owed” (HUD, 2014: 6).
26 

are not the fault of the applicant, an underwriter should discount such late payments when 

underwriting a Native American’s loan application. 

It is difficult to work with borrowers with little knowledge of the mortgage 

process—it requires a lot of work by the lender to get a deal to closing. Lenders 

are often criticized for issues that arise in the process that are not financing related 

and not under the lender’s control. — Lender 

Given the challenges Native American borrowers face to qualify for a loan, respondents 

indicated that homebuyer education is a critical element in any process to provide mortgages to 

homebuyers purchasing homes on tribal trust land (exhibit 5.8). Homebuyer education had an 

average Likert rating of 4.6 (where 5 = very effective strategy). In fact, all but one respondent 

indicated homebuyer counseling was a highly effective strategy to address issues related to 

qualifying applicants. One lender respondent noted that the average tribal trust buyer has no 

familiarity with mortgages and homeownership, and so the lender must train applicants and help 

them through the process. The lender’s applicants receive homebuyer education from a local 

nonprofit organization that partners with the lender to provide the training. This respondent 

indicated that the most effective model for providing homebuyer education is to have a lender 

partner with a tribe and local nonprofits that serve tribal areas.

Another lender respondent works with at least four housing authorities to offer education for 

potential borrowers, including credit counseling and general homeownership counseling. This 

respondent noted that it is difficult to get potential buyers interested in homebuyer education 

classes unless a person is highly motivated to purchase a home, which most often occurs after a 

tribal member sees a specific home. This lender partners with a Native CDFI that helps to 

finance new construction so that it can work with tribal members interested in a specific home.
27 

One lender respondent provided financial literacy education for Native American adults in a series 

of 15 classes offered during the course of a year. This lender’s institution also ran a youth camp for 

Native American teenagers (ages 14 to 18) that included instruction in basic financial education. 

Lender respondents also noted that some tribes provide homebuyer education (particularly those 

that offer downpayment assistance), and that such a model was promising. Because of a lack of 

tribal capacity, however, tribal members often have to be referred to off-reservation agencies that 

may not have the capacity or expertise needed for counseling trust land buyers. 

Some lender respondents mentioned downpayment assistance as a strategy to foster yet more 

Native American households to qualify for mortgages in Indian Country. The Section 184 

Program has a modest downpayment requirement (1.25 to 2.25 percent), but one respondent 

bluntly noted that “most potential borrowers have no funds for downpayment.” This lender spoke 

approvingly of a Federal Home Loan Bank that provided downpayment assistance of up to 

$6,000 for Indian Country mortgage borrowers. The $6,000 grant would be totally forgiven 

during a 5-year period of homeownership. 

Very few respondents offered especially flexible portfolio mortgage products that went beyond 

the terms offered by the dominant government-backed mortgage programs for Indian Country, 

such as Section 184. When offered, the purpose of such flexibility was to stretch mortgage 

qualification on tribal lands. One Native American credit union, for example, offered its tribal 

members mortgage loans with a 50-percent back-end ratio. (The Section 184 mortgage typically 

has a 41-percent back-end ratio.) This Native American credit union has made available about 80 

of these “last resort” loans (last resort for those not qualifying for the HUD-term loans), but all 

80 of these loans have to be kept in portfolio rather than sold into the secondary market because 

these last resort loans with mortgage characteristics different than the HUD-term loans are not 

saleable on the secondary market. Keeping loans in portfolio means that the lender is unable to 

replenish its capital available for additional lending and must also hold capital reserves against 

potential losses. Moreover, holding loans in portfolio exposes the lender to credit and 

prepayment risks resulting from delinquencies and prepayments. 

Servicing Issues and Strategies

 Lender respondents indicated that the most problematic mortgage servicing issue in Indian 

Country (exhibit 5.9) is that borrowers will take on additional consumer debt after receiving their 

mortgage. In some cases, lenders said this additional debt is used to purchase items for the new 

home, such as furniture, or to take on a new or larger car loan. 

Some lender respondents that originate loans to traditionally underserved market members 

indicated that they use more enhanced and proactive servicing strategies, such as having an 

outreach specialist periodically visit borrowers to inquire about problems with the house or 

personal finances (Listokin, Leichenko, and King, 2006). In that light, A Guide to Mortgage 

Lending in Indian Country recommends, under mortgage portfolio management, that: “Effective 

loan monitoring to minimize delinquencies is particularly important when lending in Indian 

Country. ... To minimize delinquencies and foreclosures, some banks have adopted ‘enhanced’ 

or ‘accelerated’ servicing programs in which they closely monitor loans” (Office of the 

Controller of the Currency, 1997: 17). 
28 

This study’s survey of mortgage lending in Indian Country indicated some examples of such 

enhanced mortgage servicing (exhibit 5.10). One lender respondent recounted that “[we] stay 

involved with the borrower to ensure that the borrower remains current” and another noted that 

the mortgage servicer “does follow up more aggressively.” This enhanced oversight sometimes 

involves post-mortgage origination counseling and other helpful services. One lender said that its 

borrowers are regularly “counseled not to take on more debt.” Another recounted how it worked 

with borrowers who were unfamiliar with homeownership to file storm-related insurance claims. 

Numerous respondents emphasized the importance of working with the tribe when dealing with 

delinquent Native American borrowers. One lender recounted that, when a delinquent borrower 

does not respond to its inquiries, it asks tribal officials to visit such borrowers because the “tribal 

officials are [a] trusted intermediary who can work with the borrower.” 
29 

Lender Management Strategies

Processing applications and originating loans on tribal trust land requires specialized knowledge 

about the Section 184 Program and the BIA and HUD requirements that must be satisfied to 

receive each organization’s approval. Moreover, it can take a long time between taking an 

application and getting to closing. Therefore, the survey asked lenders about management 

strategies that they perceived to be most effective in supporting lending on tribal trust land. 

The respondents indicated that having senior management support for serving tribal trust land was 

extremely important, as was proactive workforce development and education, such as requiring 

lending staff to have specialized knowledge of the HUD Section 184 Program and the complex 

process that must be completed to originate a mortgage on tribal trust land (exhibit 5.11). 

One respondent noted the following: “...senior management is essential for tribal trust lending. If 

senior management doesn’t have a commitment—it won’t happen.” In a similar fashion, one 

respondent described that loan officers at his/her institution were influenced by the bank 

president’s “message from the top” of the importance of lending to tribal members. One 

representative underscored the importance of senior management’s long-term commitment to 

tribal trust lending given inevitable startup delays. The company’s senior management first 

agreed to a small pilot of originating Section 184 Program mortgages on tribal trust land. The 

pilot did not go well, and it took 3 years to close the first Section 184 Program loan. Senior 

management, however, took this delay in stride and remained committed to mortgage lending in 

Indian Country. This lender worked with BIA to resolve delays, and the processing time for 

Section 184 loans dropped to an acceptable 90 days. Enduring senior management commitment 

and collaboration with the BIA were vital in this case. 

As noted earlier, workforce development and training of mortgage staff capable of dealing with 

the many special demands of Indian Country were also deemed important. One respondent said 

that it rigorously trained loan officers working on tribal lands during a 3-year period “to get them 

up-to-speed on the 184 program.” 
30 

Lender Survey: Further Findings

A series of open-ended questions in the survey provided insights beyond the three considerations 

of attracting, qualifying, and servicing mortgages in Indian Country reported previously. The 

open-ended questions dealt with such subjects as lender motivations to offer mortgages in Indian 

Country, the repayment record of such loans, and the impact of the recent real estate crisis on the 

mortgage situation in Native American lands. 

As indicated in the previous discussion of the lender sampling approach, the institutions 

contacted in the survey were those entities that were relatively active in the Section 184 Program, 

or, more generally, were leading originators of purchase mortgages to Native Americans 

throughout the United States. What were the motivations of this higher performing group of 

lenders? It is not surprising that the specific prompting forces varied, and, for many lenders, 

those forces included a mixture of economic and social objectives. 

For tribal-owned lenders, the motivation was primarily service to their people. One such 

institution said, “[We are] 100 percent tribal-owned [and are] a mission-driven bank—help 

Native Americans achieve homeownership. Tribal owners are also excited to help other tribes.... 

A lot of tribes realize that education and jobs are good things—but homes provide a foundation 

for wealth creation, build a foundation for family prosperity.” 

The societal gain of providing mortgages to a traditionally underserved population was cited by 

many of the majority-owned lender respondents as well. In essence, they were motivated to 

provide services in Indian Country because it was perceived as “the right thing to do.” Lender 

respondents also had other motivations. Some, albeit not many, respondents cited the influence 

of the Community Reinvestment Act, requiring that lenders provide financing to their designated 

service area (which, for some institutions, included Indian Country). One respondent stated, 

“Biggest benefit—CRA points for many lenders. Shows outreach to underserved areas; most 

lenders use this service for CRA exam.” Yet, this same lender acknowledged the additional 

benefit that lending on Indian land provided “good publicity.” 

In addition, some respondents also mentioned the objective of securing a profit from lending in 

Indian Country. An economic return was envisioned as coming less from the Indian land 

mortgage lending itself (which because of the lengthy time to close these loans and their 

relatively modest dollar amount was rarely its own profit center), but rather from the indirect or 

long-term business opportunities ensuing from the mortgage activity. For example, making 

mortgages available in Indian Country might cultivate consumer lending by tribal members for 

automobile purchases and other purposes. Also, mortgage lending could lead to business loans to 

tribes, especially to tribes that operated casinos or other business activities requiring capital for 

investment. One respondent said, “The biggest opportunity to lenders is that Native American 

communities are under-banked and underserved in general. Originating mortgages provides an 

opportunity to penetrate markets for business lending, particularly in commercial lending for 

tribes with casinos.” 

Although the lender survey and the interviews concerning Section 184 that ACKCO and Abt 

(2007) conducted with lenders, tribes, and other stakeholders are not the same, they echo similar 

findings. For instance, ACKCO and Abt found that Section 184 was “seen as a valuable tool in 

expanding homeownership for tribal members, but there are challenges” (ACKCO and Abt, 

2007: 25). Some of these challenges included insufficient incomes and credit problems in tribal 

communities, limited availability of buildable land, delays in obtaining home site leases, and 
31 

delays in the TSR process. Lenders that ACKCO and Abt interviewed “indicated the Section 184 

Program is a good product that has allowed them to serve a market they had not previously been 

able to serve [and they liked many] features of the program, however, [they also found] the 

program complex and time-consuming, especially for purchases on trust land” (ACKCO and 

Abt, 2007: 38). The “learning curve” for lenders was “steep” (ACKCO and Abt, 2007: 27). 

Mortgage Performance 

What is the repayment record of the Section 184 mortgage lending on Indian land? Although the 

lender survey does not provide a valid statistical record of the loan performance, the 

impressionistic account from the lenders surveyed for this study is that of solid repayment, which 

is supported by loan performance data from HUD’s ONAP. The following comments from 

different lender respondents speak for themselves: “delinquency rates for 184 and in-house loans 

are relatively low”; “foreclosure rate of less than 1 percent”; “the lack of foreclosures is a 

function of the homebuyer education”; and “in 16 years had 4 foreclosures (mostly sold to 

another tribal member); out of 60 loans [only] took a loss on 1.” These lender respondents’ 

comments of a good loan performance record comport with the data on the program’s loan 

performance reported in the following paragraphs. 

Exhibit 5.12 shows the Section 184 claims record on mortgages originated between FY 1994 and 

March 2015.20 The overall cumulative claims rate was 2.4 percent regarding the number of loans 

with claims as a share of total Section 184 loans (662 of 28,133) and 2.5 percent regarding the

 

20 This period reflects the data received from ONAP regarding claims, which differ slightly from the other Section 

184 lending data used in this report. 
32 

dollar value of claims as a share of the total dollar value of Section 184 loans ($115 million of 

$4,582 million).21 Cumulative claim rates spiked for mortgages originated between 2005 and 

2008 and claim rates declined again after 2009. The decline in the cumulative claim rates for 

more recent origination cohorts could reflect more restrictive underwriting standards, which were 

mentioned by some respondents, or perhaps the improving economy in recent years. 

The available claims data on Section 184 mortgages do not permit ready comparison with the 

repayment performance of other types of mortgages.22 Nonetheless, the big picture finding is that 

the overwhelming share of Section 184 borrowers are making timely repayments and that the 

lenders surveyed, admittedly only a small sample, are satisfied with the Section 184 loan 

repayment to date. 

Impact of Real Estate Mortgage Crisis

From about 2006 onward, housing prices, as measured by the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller 

Home Price Indices,23 experienced significant historical deflation. This loss of value was linked 

to a bursting of a housing and mortgage bubble that, not coincidentally, took place during and 

contributed to a severe national economic recession. How did these tumultuous events affect 

mortgage lending on Indian lands? 

Again, the lender survey provides impressionistic results on this subject. Among the 

respondents’ comments were some that understandably reflected negative impact. A few lender

respondents spoke of declining mortgage demand because Native American borrowers feared job 

loss or income reduction related to the economic recession. For the most part, however, the 

respondents described only minimal effect of the national recession and real estate downturn on 

the mortgage climate in Indian Country. Why the disconnect? This disconnect reflects Indian 

Country’s history of being once removed from the overall national economy and mortgage 

market, so when the national economy and real estate market convulsed, Indian lands were 

largely insulated from the seismic national downturn. One respondent said, “Not a big impact. 

It’s always a recession on Indian land [and] all lending was federally guaranteed—so not an 

issue.” In a similar vein, another respondent concluded, “The downturn did not have a 

tremendous impact—tribal land values are insulated from downturns and construction costs 

actually declined.” 

It is interesting that, during the real estate downturn, the share of Section 184 loans that were 

used for refinancing rather than for purchasing increased (exhibit B.8 in appendix B). During the 

full span of the program (FY 1994 to May 2015), of the total 28,837 Section 184 loans, 77 

percent were for home purchase and 23 percent were refinance transactions. The refinancing 

percentage increased during the years of the real estate mortgage crisis. From FY 2008 through 

FY 2012, of the total 15,283 Section 184 loans, 67 percent were for purchase and 33 percent 

 

21 Exhibit B.8 in appendix B contains further detail. 22 For example, HUD’s FHA Single Family Loan Performance Trends—Credit Risk Report contains many FHA 

loan performance metrics, such as delinquency rates (30/60/90-day), seriously delinquent, and exceptions (inforeclosure or in-bankruptcy). For example, as of March 2014, the seasonally adjusted FHA delinquency 

percentages were 4.28 (30-day), 1.66 (60-day), 4.18 (90-day), 7.47 (seriously delinquent), and 2.20 (in foreclosure). 

The FHA report, however, does not contain information on “claims” (HUD RMRA ERAD, 2015). 23 The S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices are some of the leading measures of U.S. residential real 

estate prices, tracking changes in the value of residential real estate both nationwide and in 20 metropolitan regions 

(S&P Dow Jones Indices, 2015). 
33 

were for refinance. Why the uptick of Section 184 refinancing in the real estate downturn? 

Perhaps the historically low interest rates in that period led to opportunistic refinancing, or 

perhaps the downturn dampened new housing construction and thus the use of Section 184 for 

home purchase purposes. 

In the period of the economic downturn, the share of Section 184 loans increased considerably 

relative to all national AIAN mortgages, the latter as reported by the Home Mortgage Disclosure 

Act (HMDA). This exploratory comparison is shown in exhibit 5.13 for the period from 2001 to 

2013.24 During this 13-year span, Section 184 mortgages accounted for 4.3 percent of the total 

AIAN mortgages nationwide. By contrast, during the economically challenged 2008-to-2012 

period, Section 184 loans accounted for a much higher 11.2 percent of the total AIAN mortgage 

loans nationwide. 

 

24 It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the information concerning the national mortgages originated for 

AIAN. For instance, HMDA reporting is quite limited in rural areas, which would likely disproportionately affect 

(reduce) the tally of AIAN loans derived from HMDA. Lenders operating exclusively in nonmetropolitan areas and 

small lenders are less likely to report their originations. Many researchers using HMDA data exclude 

nonmetropolitan areas from their analyses because the coverage is relatively poor in sparsely populated counties. 

Also, the number of loans with missing race information fluctuates from year to year.
34 

6. Concluding Observations

This report concludes with a comparison of current results about mortgage lending in Indian 

Country with that of previous investigations, specifically regarding mortgage activity and 

lending challenges and strategies. 

The Kingsley et al. (1996) study used 1990 Census data to estimate the number of AIAN 

households with private mortgages in tribal areas (that is, excluding the HUD Mutual Help 

program payments). Almost all of that private loan activity was in Oklahoma (Tribal 

Jurisdictional Statistical Areas—TJSA) or related designated areas (Tribal Designated Statistical 

Areas [TDSA] that are outside Oklahoma but resemble that state’s TJSAs). On reservation and 

trust lands (areas outside TJSAs or TDSAs), the Kingsley et al. (1996) study found a pocket of 

home mortgage lending in Minnesota and Wisconsin tribal areas, some nascent mortgage activity 

on Navajo Nation land, and a small number of total home mortgages in all reservation and trust 

lands throughout the continental United States.25 Alaska tribal areas, according to Kingsley et al. 

(1996), had no home mortgages. Given this information and other data, the study concluded that, 

although some “private lenders originate some mortgages for Indian homebuyers” in tribal areas, 

“the volumes remain extremely small” (Kingsley et al., 1996: 236). Other studies from that era 

reported similar trace-level Indian Country mortgage activity, such as the GAO (1998) report, 

which indicated that only 91 conventional mortgages had been made to Native Americans on 

trust lands during the 1992-through-1996 period. 

The investigation of the Section 184 Program mortgage activity conducted in this current study 

suggests a heightened volume of mortgage activity in Indian Country. Although comparable 

current figures are not available by area to match those of Kingsley et al. (1996), and available 

data do not comport exactly with the findings of the GAO (1998), analysis of Section 184 data 

supports this finding. To recap, the 1994-through-May 2015 Section 184 Program lending 

accounted for 28,837 loans amounting to $4.709 billion. Although much of that total was on fee 

simple lands (25,221 mortgages comprising about $4.283 billion), that still leaves 3,612 

mortgages amounting to $482 million on trust lands. As such, the Section 184 lending alone (not 

counting RHS or other loan sources that can be used) suggests enhanced mortgage presence in 

Indian Country compared with the situation of about 20 years ago that was reported in the 

Kingsley et al. (1996) study. The GAO (1998) study reported Native American mortgage activity 

on trust lands of about 25 mortgages per year for the period from 1992 through 1996, but annual 

Section 184 lending on tribal trust lands averaged 83 mortgages per year from FY 1994 through 

FY 2004 and rose to 202 loans annually during the more recent FY 2005-through-May 2015 

period (see exhibit 4.1 in section 4). 

The primary reason for expanded mortgage activity in Indian Country in the contemporary 

period is a lessening of the constraints to such activity. A glimpse of that change is observed by 

comparing the current findings with the lender survey results reported in Kingsley et al. (1996). 

In 1996, lenders evaluated tribal land problems (especially trust land status) as the greatest 

hurdle, followed closely by borrower demand constraints. On a relative basis, lenders viewed 

borrower economic and underwriting problems in 1996 as being far less problematic. In the 

 

25 Kingsley et al. (1996) suggested that this activity was the result of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s

offering a special Tribal Indian Housing Program funded through the state legislature and some banks in Wisconsin 

being proactive in tribal lending.
35 

lender survey of 2013, presented in this report, the difficulty in using tribal trust land as collateral 

is viewed as far from the leading challenge to mortgage financing on tribal lands. That hurdle has 

been replaced by underwriting challenges due to borrower circumstances such as blemished 

credit and limited income. Other challenges, such as fractionated land and delayed title reports 

and environmental reviews, also remain. In 2013, lenders viewed issues related to borrower 

demand as being the least problematic. Why did lender perspective concerning the land hurdle to 

Indian Country mortgage activity change from 1996 to 2013? This change may be related to the 

stark differences in the programmatic status of the Section 184 mortgage during this time span. 

In 1996, Section 184 was in a gestation or launch stage compared with its status in 2013, when 

Section 184 was maturely operational. Section 184 provides lenders with a 100 percent guarantee 

in the event of a borrower’s foreclosure, so it essentially neutralizes the historical problem with 

using land as collateral for mortgage financing on tribal lands. As summed up by one lender, 

although Section 184 was not an Indian Country land cure-all, because the challenge of 

fractional ownership remained, Section 184 was a “game changer” concerning mortgage lending 

in Indian Country. 

Besides the more widespread implementation of the Section 184 Program post-1996, other 

factors may have contributed to the dramatic reduction in the land challenges to lending in Indian 

Country, at least as perceived by the sample of lenders interviewed in each of the studies. 

Possible ameliorative contributing changes include some improvement in the TSR process 

(though TSR issues linger, as reported earlier in this section) and greater clarification post-1996 

regarding how tribal courts will deal with mortgage foreclosure situations.26 

Nevertheless, by far, the greatest increase in Section 184 loan volume is on fee simple land, 

heavily concentrated in Oklahoma. Although tribal trust land status is no longer considered a 

major barrier, the volume of mortgage lending on tribal trust land is still quite small. In short, the 

landscape regarding mortgage lending in Indian Country is changing, with greater lending 

activity and a diminution of once seemingly intractable problems, such as those related to trust 

land. At the same time, difficult challenges linger, some of which are unique to tribal lands (for 

example, fractional owners) and others that are related to economic and social constraints that 

more broadly impede the expansion of mortgage credit to underserved populations. 

Recommended actions to foster mortgage lending in Indian Country from the perspective of the 

lenders interviewed in this study include— 

• Expedite issuance of the TSR from BIA. 

• Expedite NEPA review. 

• Encourage tribes to use BIA-compliant leases or encourage tribes to implement their 

own title plans. 

• Initiate procedures/reviews early in the mortgage process and initiate processing in 

parallel rather than sequentially. 

 

26 HUD and BIA are working to improve TSR processing. HUD describes the following in its 2015 Summary 

Statement on section 184: “HUD has collaborated extensively with the BIA to streamline the processes for obtaining 

Title Status Reports on trust land....This effort will allow tribes to better manage their housing inventory, create 

better neighborhoods, and encourage economic growth. The passage of the Helping Expedite and Advance 

Responsible Tribal Home Ownership (HEARTH) Act has increased the role tribes can play in the approval process 

for leases and mortgages. Tribes’ and federal agency partners’ access to land records in BIA’s Trust Asset 

Accounting Management System (TAAMS) will increase as more tribes exercise their self-governance rights.” 
36 

• Encourage tribal mortgage and credit counseling and other homeownershipsupportive activities. 

A number of these activities are under way, such as efforts by HUD and BIA to improve TSR 

processing and the passage of the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Home 

Ownership Act in 2012. Recommendations from lenders support these efforts and suggest the 

need to assure effective implementation through ongoing interagency collaboration, technical 

assistance to tribes regarding land titling and leasing, and promotion of financial counseling in 

tribal areas.
37 

Glossary 

back-end ratio: The borrower’s total debt-to-income ratio.

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund: The CDFI Fund of the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury was created for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization 

and community development through investment in and assistance to community development 

financial institutions (CDFIs). The CDFI Fund was established by the Riegle Community 

Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. Native American CDFIs and a special 

CDFI Native Initiative Fund stimulate and aid these CDFIs (Treasury OIG, 2013). 

eligible area (EA) for Section 184 loans: Participating tribes determine the areas where the 

Section 184 loan can be used. Many states are eligible in their entirety, but, in other states, only 

select counties are eligible (HUD PIH, 2015).

Federal Housing Administration (FHA): FHA provides mortgage insurance on loans made by 

FHA-approved lenders throughout the United States and its territories. FHA insures mortgages 

on single-family and multifamily homes including manufactured homes and hospitals. FHA 

mortgage insurance provides lenders with protection against losses as the result of homeowners 

defaulting on their mortgage loans. The lenders bear less risk because FHA will pay a claim to 

the lender in the event of a homeowner’s default. Loans must meet certain requirements 

established by FHA to qualify for insurance.

fractionated ownership: The term used to note ownership of a property in the name of more than 

one individual. It is typically used in conjunction with allotted or individual trust lands to 

describe situations where, over time and through division of inheritance, multiple parties have 

claim to a single property (HUD, 2014: chapter 1).

front-end ratio: Ratio of principal, interest, taxes, and insurance to the borrower’s income. 

Indian Country: The definition of “Indian Country” has changed throughout history, but the term 

is used here in the common colloquial sense to mean tribal areas, including Alaska Native 

Villages. The term “Indian Country” is not used as a legal term in this report.

Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG): The Indian Housing Block Grant Program is a formula 

grant that provides a range of affordable housing activities on Indian reservations and Indian 

areas. The block grant approach to housing for Native Americans was enabled by the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA). 

Likert scale: A scale commonly used in questionnaires to represent people’s attitudes on a topic. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): NEPA requires federal agencies to integrate 

environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental 

impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. To meet NEPA 

requirements federal agencies prepare a detailed statement known as an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) (EPA, 2015). 

Native American credit unions: A credit union is a financial cooperative, owned entirely by its 

members. A Native American credit union typically has Native American members and provides 

financial services to Native American communities. 
38 

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA): 

NAHASDA reorganized the system of housing assistance provided to Native Americans through 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development by eliminating several separate programs of 

assistance and replacing them with a block grant program. The two programs authorized for 

Indian tribes under NAHASDA are the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) that is a formulabased grant program, and Title VI Loan Guarantee, that provides financing guarantees to Indian 

tribes for private market loans to develop affordable housing. 

Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program: Loan Guarantees for Indian Housing (see 

24 CFR part 1005), commonly refereed to as the Section 184 Program, is a home mortgage 

program specifically designed for American Indian and Alaska Native families, Alaska villages, 

tribes, or Tribally Designated Housing Entities. Section 184 loans can be used, both on and off 

Native lands, for new construction, rehabilitation, purchase of an existing home, or refinance. 

The program is managed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

Section 184 home loans are guaranteed 100 percent by the Office of Loan Guarantee within 

HUD’s Office of Native American Programs.

Section 502 Direct Loan Program: This program, administered by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Rural Housing Service, provides loans at below-market interest rates to homebuyers 

whose household incomes do not exceed 80 percent of Area Median Income.

title status report (TSR): A report issued by the Land Titles and Records Office of the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs having administrative jurisdiction over the specific Indian land indicating the type 

of ownership of the land, listing any restrictions or encumbrances on the land, the current 

owners, and any specific conditions or exceptions. Also referred to as an Interest Report Simple 

or Interest Report, a TSR takes the place of a title commitment for land that is held in trust. The 

TSR is a necessary precursor to issuing a mortgage for a property on trust land (HUD, 2014: 

chapter 1; Indian Land Tenure Foundation, 2015).

Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE): The entity designated by each tribe that is 

responsible for administering its housing assistance program that is funded by the federal 

government. 
39

References

ACKCO, Inc., and Abt Associates Inc. 2007. Section 184 Program Evaluation. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Barbier, Steve. 1998. “Obstacles to Lending on the Navajo Reservation.” (Originally

accessed at http//:www.nmnews.fgray.com/nmn/plus3.htm on June 9, 1998. Web address is 

no longer accessible.) 

Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. 1993. Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity 

Lending in Boston. Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. 

Federal Reserve System and The Brookings Institution. 2008. The Enduring Challenge of 

Concentrated Poverty in America: Case Studies from Communities across the U.S.

Richmond, VA: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. 

Fogarty, Mark. 2014. “Popular Indian Mortgage Program Now Costs More.” 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/11/21/popular-indian-mortgage-programnow-costs-more-157943. 

Housing Assistance Council. 2006. A Guide for Lending on Native American Lands: A Guide 

for Rural Development Staff. Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. 

Housing Assistance Council. 2010. USDA Rural Development Housing Programs: FY 2009 

Year-End Report. Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. 

Housing Assistance Council. 2012. Taking Stock: Rural People, Poverty, and Housing in the 

21st Century. Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. 

Hunter, William, and Mabel Beth Walker. 1996. “The Cultural Affinity Hypothesis and 

Mortgage Lending Decisions,” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 13 (1): 57–70. 

Indian Land Tenure Foundation. 2015. “Glossary.” http://www.iltf.org/glossary. 

Kendall, Mary, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2011. “Regulatory 

Barriers to American Indian Job Creation.” Testimony before the House Subcommittee on 

Technology Information, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform. 112th Cong., 

First sess., April 7, 2011. Serial No. 112-32. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

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, DC: 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 2 (3). (Originally accessed at 

www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hff/v2i3-indian.shtml on November 29, 2000. Web 

address is no longer accessible.) 

Laderman, Elizabeth, and Carolina Reid. 2010. “Mortgage Lending on Native American 

Reservations: Does a Guarantee Matter?” Journal of Housing Economics 19 (3): 233–242. 
40

Listokin, David, with Robin Leichenko and Juliet King. 2006. Housing and Economic 

Development in Indian Country: Challenge and Opportunity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers 

University. 

Listokin, David, Elvin K. Wyly, Brian Schmitt, and Ioan Voicu. 2001. “The Potential and 

Limitations of Mortgage Innovation in Fostering Homeownership in the United States,” 

Housing Policy Debate 12 (3): 465–513. 

Listokin, David, and Elvin Wyly. 2000. “Making New Mortgage Markets: Case Studies of 

Institutions, Home Buyers, and Communities,” Housing Policy Debate 11 (3): 575–643. 

Listokin, David, Elvin K. Wyly, Larry Keating, Susan M. Wachter, Kristopher Rengert, and 

Barbara Listokin. 1998. Successful Mortgage Lending Strategies for the Underserved. Vol. 

1: Industry Strategies; Vol. 2: Case Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Office of the Controller of the Currency. 1997. “A Guide to Mortgage Lending in Indian 

Country.” http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/other-publicationsreports/country.pdf. 

Pettit, Kathyrn L.S., G. Thomas Kingsley, Jennifer Biess, Kassie Bertumen, Nancy Pindus, 

Chris Narducci, and Amos Budde. 2014. Continuity and Change: Demographic, 

Socioeconomic, and Housing Conditions of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Prepared 

for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development 

and Research. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 

Pierson, Brian. 2013. Indian Housing Development Handbook. Washington, DC: National 

American Indian Housing Council. 

Pindus, Nancy M., G. Thomas Kingsley, Jennifer Biess, Diane Levy, Jasmine Simington, and 

Christopher Hayes. 2016. 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. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, DC: Urban 

Institute. 

Ratner, Mitchell S. 1996. “Many Routes to Homeownership: A Four-Site Ethnographic 

Study of Minority and Immigrant Experiences,” Housing Policy Debate 7 (1): 103–145. 

S&P Dow Jones Indices. 2015. S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices. 

http://us.spindices.com/index-family/real-estate/sp-case-shiller. 

Squires, Gregory D., ed. 1992. From Redlining to Reinvestment. Philadelphia: Temple 

University Press. 

Turner, Margery Austin. 1992. “Discrimination in Urban Housing Markets: Lessons from 

Fair Housing Audits,” Housing Policy Debate 3 (2): 185–215. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2006. “Appraisal of Single 

Family Homes on Native American Lands.” 

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=41502appcHSGH.pdf. 
41

———. 2014. Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program Processing Guidelines. 

Notice PIH 2014-22. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Public and Indian Housing 

(PIH). 2015. “Borrowers Section 184 Loan Resources.” 

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/homeo

wnership/184/borrowers.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Risk Management 

and Regulatory Affairs (RMRA), Office of Evaluation, Reporting and Analysis Division 

(ERAD). 2015. FHA Single Family Loan Performance Trends—Credit Risk Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and U.S. Department of the 

Treasury (Treasury). 2000. One-Stop Mortgage Center Initiative in Indian Country: A Report 

to the President. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Treasury. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2015. “Frequently Asked 

Questions.” http://www.bia.gov/FAQs. 

U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury). 2001. The Report of the Native American 

Lending Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Community 

Development Financial Institutions Fund.

U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury), Office of the Inspector General (OIG). 2013. 

“Audit of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund’s Fiscal Years 2013 and 

2012 Financial Statements.” https://www.treasury.gov/ffb/financialstatements/FFB22013_2012%20Financial%20Reports.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. “National Environment Policy Act 

(NEPA).” http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/. 

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1998. Native American Housing: Homeownership 

Opportunities on Trust Lands are Limited. GAO RCED-98-49. Washington, DC: U.S. 

General Accounting Office 

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2011. Indian-Issues: Observations that May 

Affect Economic Activity on Tribal Lands. GAO Rpt. 11-543T. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 

———. 2014. Native American Housing: Additional Actions Needed to Better Support 

Tribal Efforts. GAO Rpt. 14-255. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Wright, Gwendolyn. 1981. Building the American Dream: A Social History of Housing in 

America. New York: Pantheon. 

Wyly, Elvin K., and Steven R. Holloway. 1999. “The ‘Color of Money’ Revisited: Racial 

Lending Patterns in Atlanta’s Neighborhoods,” Housing Policy Debate 10 (3): 555–600. 
A- 1

Appendix A. Lender Telephone Interview Guide 

OMB Number: 2528-0288

Expiration Date: 10/31/2015 

Introduction/Purpose of the Study 

My name is _______________ and I’m a researcher from/consulting with the Urban Institute, a non-profit 

research organization located in Washington, DC. As you may have learned from the advance letter that was sent, 

the Urban Institute, on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is studying the 

housing conditions and needs of Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians across the United States.

One component of the study will identify challenges and opportunities associated with making mortgage loans to 

Native Americans on Indian land. We define Indian land in the study as land located within reservation boundaries. 

We understand that land status on reservations can differ, and we will ask about that in the survey. 

We have selected your organization based on data regarding Section 184 program lending volume [or, if 

applicable] your organization’s presence in the Native American mortgage lending market as identified by 

stakeholders. 

Are you responsible for taking mortgage loan applications?

[If NO]: Could you provide me the phone number of a person who does?

[If YES]: 

Your participation is very important to the success of this study. These interviews will provide important 

information on homeownership and lending in Indian county, on the uses and benefits of the Section 184 program, 

and on challenges to homeownership and lending in Indian country. We will use what we learn today and from 

other interviews to contribute to a report on housing conditions and needs among Native Americans. This report 

will be submitted to HUD to inform the federal government of housing challenges. 

Would you like to participate in the survey? 

[If YES] Would you like to complete the survey now? 

[If YES] Go through the survey with the respondent. 

Confidentiality Statement [Interviewer must read this]: 

Before beginning the interview, I (we) want to thank you for agreeing to participate in this study and remind you 

that your participation is voluntary. You don’t have to participate and you can decide not to answer any specific 
A- 2

questions. You also may end the interview at any point. I (we) know that you are busy and will try to be as brief as 

possible. The interview today should last about 45 minutes. This interview is not part of an audit or a compliance 

review. We are interested in learning about your ideas, experiences, and opinions. There are no right or wrong 

answers. 

In addition, before we start, I want to let you know that although we will take notes during these interviews, 

information is never repeated with the name of the respondent in any reports or in any discussions with 

supervisors, colleagues, or HUD. When we write our reports and discuss our findings, information from all the 

people we speak with is compiled and presented so that no one person can be identified.

Do you have any questions before we begin? 

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. What are the main benefits or opportunities to your company that arise from mortgage lending on 

Indian land? 

We wish to hear your insights regarding various challenges to lending on Indian land as well as the strategies and 

programs to overcome these challenges. For the sake of discussion, we will first consider Native American Land 

issues and then the subjects of Attracting, Qualifying and Retaining mortgage borrowers on Indian land. 
A- 3

2. On a 1 to 5 scale (1 not at all a problem to 5 a very big problem) how big a problem are the following 

land and title issues to your company’s ability to lend on Indian land? 

a. Land and Title Issues (1 through 5 rating)

Land and Title Issue

Problem Level (1-

5)

Trust land status

Fractional ownership

Uncertainty about recovering mortgaged properties 

in the event of a foreclosure

Other land/title issues: Specify:

b. Which two issues are the biggest problems? Why?

What strategies and programs does your company use to address each of the following land and title issues (probe 

for section 184 and others)?

1. Trust land status

2. Fractional ownership

3. Uncertainty about recovering mortgaged properties in the event 

of a foreclosure

4. Other land/title issues: Specify

c. What two strategies and programs are the most effective for 

addressing land and title issues? Why?

3. On a 1 to 5 scale (1 not at all a problem to 5 a very big problem) how big a problem are the following 

challenges to attracting mortgage applicants on Indian land?

a. Attracting Applicants (1 through 5 rating)

Attracting applicant challenge

Problem Level (1-

5)

1. Potential borrowers are wary of formal 

institutional lenders

2. Language issues

3. Paperwork issues

4. Limited demand—minimal interest in or 

familiarity with homeownership and/or 

perceived quality of available housing stock.

5. Others: Specify
A- 4

b. Which two challenges are the biggest problems? Why?

c. Do you use (yes or no) any of the following strategies to attract 

mortgage applicants on Indian land and how effective are each of 

these strategies on a 1 through 5 scale (1 not at all effective to 5 

very effective)? 

Strategy for attracting applicants

Use

(Yes or No)

Effectiveness (1-

5)

1. Lender presence in/near Indian land

2. Advertising through media that reaches Indian 

land

3. Enhanced language and cultural sensitivity 

messages included in outreach materials 

4. Outreach through informal gatherings

5. Outreach through employers of Native 

Americans 

6. Working with Tribes, TDHEs and other Tribal

institutions, such as Tribal CDFIs and credit 

unions

7. Others: Specify

d. Which two from the above list are the most effective for attracting 

mortgage applicants? Why?

On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 not at all a problem and 5 a very big problem) how big a problem are each of the following 

challenges to qualifying mortgage applicants on Indian land?

e. Qualifying applicants (1 through 5 rating)

Qualifying applicant challenge

Problem Level 

(1 to 5)

1. No credit history

2. Blemished credit

3. Insufficient income

4. Low savings for down payment

5. High existing household debt

6. Mortgaged property condition

7. Difficulty in appraising mortgage property (e.g., 

insufficient “comps”)
A- 5

8. Issues with employment record

9. Land title issues

10. Others: Specify 

f. Which two challenges are the biggest problems? Why?

g. Do you use (yes or no) the following strategies to qualify mortgage 

applicants on Indian land and how effective are each of the 

following strategies on a 1 through 5 scale (1 not at all effective to 5 

very effective)?

Strategy for qualifying applicants

Use

(Yes or No)

Effectiveness (1-

5)

1. Provide homebuyer education and counseling

2. Provide affordable and flexible lending products 

(e.g., low down payments and higher debt ratios)

3. Use flexible and culturally- sensitive underwriting 

related to credit, property standards and appraisals, 

employment and income, asset verification, and 

other considerations

4. Foster fair access to credit through multiple reviews 

and other strategies; 

5. Working with Tribes, TDHEs and other Tribal

institutions, such as Tribal CDFIs and credit unions 

6. Others: Specify

h. Which two from the above list are the most effective for qualifying 

mortgage applicants? Why?

On a 1 to 5 scale (1 not at all a problem to 5 a very big problem) how big a problem are the following challenges to 

servicing and retaining mortgage borrowers on Indian land?

i. Serving/Retaining Mortgage Borrowers (1 through 5 rating)

Servicing/retaining mortgage challenge Problem Level (1-5)

1. Higher delinquency

2. Lack of steady income

3. Taking on subsequent additional mortgage debt 

(e.g., second mortgage)

4. Taking on subsequent consumer debt (e.g., 
A- 6

new/larger auto loan)

5. Inexperience with homeownership (e.g., making 

repairs and securing insurance, etc.)

6. Others: Specify

j. Which two challenges are the biggest problems? Why?

k. Do you use (yes or no) the following strategies to servicing and 

retaining mortgages on Indian land and how effective are each of 

these strategies on a 1 through 5 scale (1 not at all effective to 5 

very effective)?

Strategy to service mortgages

Use

(Yes or No)

Effectiveness (1-

5)

1. Enhanced communication and education of 

borrowers 

2. Enhanced oversight (e.g., neighborhood “drivethroughs” and visiting borrowers);

3. Quick response to delinquency and delinquency 

workout

4. Working with Tribes, TDHEs and other Tribal

institutions, such as Tribal CDFIs and credit unions 

5. Others: Specify

l. Which two from the list above are the most effective for servicing 

and retaining mortgage borrowers? Why?

m. Do you use (yes or no) the following management strategies for 

fostering mortgage lending on Indian land and how would you 

evaluate the effectiveness of each of these strategies on a 1 through 

5 scale (1 not at all effective to 5 very effective)?

n. Management (1 through 5 rating)

Management strategy

Use

(Yes or No)

Effectiveness (1-

5)

1. Senior management commitment
A- 7

2. Specific lending goals

3. Compensation formulas that encourage 

working on affordable lending

4. Recruiting staff who are familiar with 

issues associated with originating 

mortgages on Indian land

5. Workforce development and education

6. Market research

7. Targeted outreach activities

8. Working with TDHEs and other Tribal

institutions, such as Tribal CDFIs and 

credit unions 

9. Others: Specify

o. Which two from the above list are the most effective management 

strategies? Why?

Which three programs do you use most frequently to originate mortgages on Indian land (such as Section 184, 

NAHASDA, or any other initiatives)? 

Why does your company use these programs? (Probe if programs help lender meet CRA requirements) 

What are some of the best features of these programs?

What are some of the things that you would like to see changed about these programs?

What would happen to your company’s lending volume on Indian land if these programs did not exist?

Are there other lending programs (such as FHA, portfolio CRA products, etc.) that your company uses to serve 

other traditionally underserved markets? If yes: Why are these types of loans difficult to originate to Native 

American borrowers?

How do the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) policies and practices affect your company’s ability to originate 

mortgages on Indian land?

What are the two most important changes that BIA could make that would increase your company’s mortgage 

origination volume on Indian land?

What has been the impact of the recent real estate crisis on mortgage lending in Indian country?

To what extent does the Section 184 program and other government mortgage lending programs that support 

lending on Indian land help offset challenges associated with the real estate slowdown?
B- 1

Appendix B. Supplemental Tables

Number of Loans

Fee Simple 25,221 87.5 1,178 1,131 52.4 103 24,090 90.3 2,313

Reservation - Allotted 601 2.1 28 118 5.5 11 483 1.8 46

Reservation - Tribal Trust 3,011 10.4 141 911 42.2 83 2,100 7.9 202

Other 4 0 0 - 0 - 4 0 0

Total 28,837 100 1,346 2,160 100 196 26,677 100 2,561

Dollar Volume of Loans ($)

Fee Simple 4,568,994,999 97 226,561,736 174,180,260 80.6 15,834,569 4,394,814,740 97.8 421,902,215

Reservation - Allotted 95,513,682 2 4,736,216 15,969,181 7.4 1,451,744 79,544,501 1.8 7,636,272

Reservation - Tribal Trust 386,564,796 8.2 19,168,502 100,331,569 46.4 9,121,052 286,233,227 6.4 27,478,390

Other 775,085 0 38,434 - - - 775,085 0 74,408

Total 5,051,848,563 107.3 250,504,887 290,481,009 134.4 26,407,364 4,761,367,554 106 457,091,285

Average Loan Amount ($)

Fee Simple 181,158 154,006 182,433

Reservation - Allotted 158,925 135,332 164,688

Reservation - Tribal Trust 128,384 110,133 136,302

Other 193,771 0 193,771

Total 175,186 134,482 178,482

Share of 

Total(%) Average per Year

Exhibit B.1: Summary of Section 184 Lending Volume by Land Status, Inflation Adjusted 2014 Dollars

Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Section 184 Loan Data

Note: “Other” includes assignment and leasehold land types.

1994 - May 2015 1994 - 2004 2005 - May 2015

 Total Share of 

Total(%)

Average per 

Year Total Share of Total(%)

Average per 

Year Total
B- 2

# of loans Value # of loans Value # of loans Value # of loans Value

Alabama 61 $10,056,174 - - - - 61 $10,056,174

Alaska 3,386 $800,476,704 4 $524,086 19 $3,228,959 3,409 $804,229,772

Arizona 1,036 $178,142,533 22 $2,733,501 756 $63,084,546 1,814 $243,961,358

Arkansas 1 $286,309 - - - - 1 $286,309

California 1,548 $468,279,302 42 $12,860,732 150 $35,585,823 1,740 $516,726,049

Colorado 362 $87,164,240 - - 36 $6,962,077 398 $94,126,353

Connecticut 13 $3,174,325 - - 1 $400,382 14 $3,574,708

Florida 320 $81,259,192 - - 36 $44,295,288 356 $125,554,516

Idaho 109 $15,167,894 41 $4,938,526 125 $10,524,255 275 $30,630,841

Illinois 18 $3,994,289 - - - - 18 $3,994,289

Indiana 28 $4,423,789 - - - - 28 $4,423,789

Iowa 21 $1,897,956 - - - - 21 $1,897,956

Kansas 177 $26,048,967 1 $74,992 - - 178 $26,123,960

Louisiana 17 $2,484,798 - - 20 $2,124,143 37 $4,608,961

Maine 14 $1,830,914 - - 4 $401,985 18 $2,232,903

Massachusetts 40 $10,899,109 - - - - 40 $10,899,109

Michigan 510 $60,515,973 2 $107,162 99 $9,260,717 611 $69,883,953

Minnesota 304 $45,235,829 2 $226,950 79 $10,026,951 385 $55,489,811

Mississippi 3 $521,522 - - 1 $261,628 4 $783,151

Missouri 16 $2,222,222 - - - - 16 $2,222,222

Montana 348 $51,774,622 157 $22,039,018 157 $18,225,353 662 $92,039,307

Nebraska 98 $10,585,746 1 $71,104 11 $978,319 110 $11,635,181

Nevada 131 $27,064,538 - - 21 $2,148,819 152 $29,213,378

New Mexico 678 $118,347,510 3 $351,030 259 $33,748,667 940 $152,447,469

New York 46 $6,929,656 - - 1 $182,507 47 $7,112,164

North Carolina 348 $47,038,355 2 $383,921 68 $6,762,220 418 $54,184,566

North Dakota 188 $24,309,450 27 $2,408,695 43 $4,134,598 258 $30,852,813

Oklahoma 13,063 $1,780,004,142 25 $2,953,640 7 $518,510 13,095 $1,783,476,324

Oregon 476 $100,262,359 29 $3,716,400 80 $5,620,722 585 $109,599,590

Rhode Island 3 $411,137 - - - - 3 $411,137

South Carolina 20 $3,372,122 - - 3 $184,947 23 $3,557,072

South Dakota 268 $27,345,263 47 $4,850,574 191 $16,975,846 506 $49,171,921

Texas 4 $712,821 1 $124,482 4 $665,331 9 $1,502,639

Utah 57 $11,361,965 3 $356,493 15 $1,535,612 75 $13,254,088

Washington 949 $211,287,670 134 $21,054,366 189 $22,846,406 1,272 $255,188,765

Wisconsin 716 $90,577,724 51 $4,539,629 579 $49,894,969 1,346 $145,012,952

Wyoming 13 $1,587,041 11 $1,285,453 6 $644,702 30 $3,517,213

Total 25,390 $4,317,054,162 605 $85,600,754 2,960 $351,224,282 28,955 $4,753,882,763

Exhibit B.2: Loans by State and Land Status, FY1994 - March 2015

Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Native American Programs (ONAP)

Note: The totals in this chart differ slightly from the totals in the other Section 184 charts (e.g., Exhibit 2) because of minor difference in the timing 

of the data received

Fee Simple Allotted Tribal Trust Total
B- 3

Exhibit B.2a: Map of Number of Section 184 Loans Guaranteed, FY1994-September 2014

Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Native American Programs (ONAP)

Note: The totals in this chart differ slightly from the totals in the other Section 184 charts (e.g., Exhibit 2) because of minor 

difference in the timing of the data received
B- 4

Total

Value 

($000s)

1994 0 0 2 121 61 1 71 71 0 - - 3 192 64

1995 6 699 117 5 425 85 11 841 76 0 - - 22 1,965 89

1996 76 8,860 117 3 186 62 77 5,444 71 0 - - 156 14,491 93

1997 148 16,455 111 5 483 97 60 5,516 92 0 - - 213 22,454 105

1998 119 12,364 104 2 235 117 9 859 95 0 - - 130 13,458 104

1999 86 8,566 100 2 108 54 44 3,213 73 0 - - 132 11,887 90

2000 72 6,991 97 7 615 88 81 6,734 83 0 - - 160 14,340 90

2001 58 7,159 123 11 1,504 137 31 3,151 102 0 - - 100 11,814 118

2002 88 9,695 110 3 229 76 207 16,068 78 0 - - 298 25,992 87

2003 155 20,703 134 27 2,653 98 183 15,873 87 0 - - 365 39,229 107

2004 323 37,303 115 53 5,787 109 208 17,413 84 0 - - 584 60,503 104

2005 589 78,836 134 50 5,704 114 135 13,916 103 0 - - 774 98,456 127

2006 980 158,000 161 67 9,557 143 136 14,610 107 0 - - 1,183 182,166 154

2007 1,122 193,219 172 66 9,883 150 192 22,982 120 0 - - 1,380 226,084 164

2008 493 269,811 181 45 6,472 144 156 21,028 135 0 - - 1,694 297,311 176

2009 2,554 428,116 168 50 8,319 166 278 43,593 157 0 - - 2,882 480,027 167

2010 3,054 504,095 165 38 5,582 147 183 24,029 131 0 - - 3,275 533,706 163

2011 2,612 451,855 173 52 8,539 164 465 45,656 98 1 $31 $31 3,130 506,080 162

2012 3,997 714,560 179 51 9,525 187 254 35,995 142 0 - - 4,302 760,080 177

2013 2,876 516,257 180 41 5,806 142 224 31,762 142 2 $647 $324 3,143 554,472 176

2014 3,622 631,516 174 19 2,734 144 68 9,562 141 1 $85 $85 3,710 643,897 174

2015 1,191 208,209 175 4 324 81 9 1,647 183 0 - - 1,204 210,180 175

Total 25,221 4,283,269 170 601 84,667 141 3,011 339,893 113 4 $763 $191 28,840 4,708,784 163

Source: Authors’ calculations of United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Section 184 Loan Data

Notes: 2015 data goes through May 26.

 “Other” includes assignment, and leasehold land types. 

Avg. Value 

($000s) # of loans

Total 

Value 

($000s)

Avg. Value 

($000s) # of loans

Total 

Value 

($000s)

Year

Fee Simple Reservation - Allotted Reservation - Tribal Trust Other Grand Total

# of loans Avg. Value 

($000s) # of loans Avg. Value ($000s) # of loans Total Value ($000s)

Avg. Value 

($000s)

Exhibit B.3: Summary of Section 184 Lending Volume: FY1994-May 26, 2015 by Land Status and Year, Nominal Value

Total 

Value 

($000s)
B- 5

Total

Value 

($000s)

1994 0 - - 2 193 97 1 114 114 0 - - 3 307 102

1995 6 1,086 181 5 660 132 11 1,307 119 0 - - 22 3,053 139

1996 76 13,369 176 3 281 94 77 8,215 107 0 - - 156 21,865 140

1997 148 24,271 164 5 712 142 60 8,137 136 0 - - 213 33,119 155

1998 119 17,956 151 2 341 170 9 1,248 139 0 - - 130 19,546 150

1999 86 12,172 142 2 153 76 44 4,566 104 0 - - 132 16,891 128

2000 72 9,611 133 7 845 121 81 9,257 114 0 - - 160 19,714 123

2001 58 9,570 165 11 2,010 183 31 4,212 136 0 - - 100 15,792 158

2002 88 12,758 145 3 301 100 207 21,145 102 0 - - 298 34,204 115

2003 155 26,636 172 27 3,414 126 183 20,422 112 0 - - 365 50,472 138

2004 323 46,750 145 53 7,252 137 208 21,823 105 0 - - 584 75,824 130

2005 589 95,562 162 50 6,914 138 135 16,869 125 0 - - 774 119,345 154

2006 980 185,537 189 67 11,222 167 136 17,156 126 0 - - 1,183 213,915 181

2007 1,122 220,655 197 66 11,286 171 192 26,245 137 0 - - 1,380 258,187 187

2008 1,493 296,670 199 45 7,116 158 156 23,121 148 0 - - 1,694 326,908 193

2009 2,554 472,414 185 50 9,179 184 278 48,103 173 0 - - 2,882 529,697 184

2010 3,054 547,279 179 38 6,060 159 183 26,088 143 0 - - 3,275 579,426 177

2011 2,612 475,552 182 52 8,987 173 465 48,050 103 1 32 32 3,130 532,621 170

2012 3,997 736,788 184 51 9,821 193 254 37,115 146 0 - - 4,302 783,724 182

2013 2,876 524,631 182 41 5,901 144 224 32,277 144 2 658 329 3,143 563,467 179

2014 3,622 631,516 174 19 2,734 144 68 9,562 141 1 85 85 3,710 643,897 174

2015 1,191 208,209 175 4 324 81 9 1,647 183 0 - - 1,204 210,180 175

Total 25,221 4,568,995 181 601 95,514 159 3,011 386,565 128 4 775 194 28,840 5,052,156 175

Source: Authors’ calculations of United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Section 184 Loan Data

Notes: 2015 data goes through May 26.

 “Other” includes assignment, and leasehold land types. 

Avg. Value 

($000s) # of loans

Total 

Value 

($000s)

Avg. Value 

($000s) # of loans

Total 

Value 

($000s)

Year

Fee Simple Reservation - Allotted Reservation - Tribal Trust Other Grand Total

# of loans Avg. Value 

($000s) # of loans Avg. Value ($000s) # of loans Total Value ($000s)

Avg. Value 

($000s)

Exhibit B.4: Summary of Section 184 Lending Volume: FY1994-May 2015 by Land Status and Year, Inflation-Adjusted 2014 Dollars

Total 

Value 

($000s)
B- 6

1994-May 2015 1994-2004 2005-May 2015

Average lenders annually 62 19 108

Average first-time lenders annually 16 8 24

Total lenders 332 87 245

Exhibit B.5: Number of Lenders and First-Time Lenders before 

and after Changes to Section 184 Program Lending Rules in 

FY2005

Source: Authors’ calculations of United States Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Section 184 Loan Data
B- 7

Amount ($000s) Percent # Loans Percent

Top 10 lenders 2,405,565 51.1 13,758 47.7

All other lenders 2,303,219 48.9 15,082 52.3

Total 4,708,784 100 28,840 100

Amount ($000s) Percent # Loans Percent

Top 10 lenders 63,455 29.3 604 27.9

All other lenders 152,870 70.7 1,559 72.1

Total 216,326 100 2,163 100

Amount ($000s) Percent # Loans Percent

Top 10 lenders 2,342,110 52.1 13,154 49.3

All other lenders 2,150,349 47.9 13,523 50.7

Total 4,492,459 100 26,677 100

1994-2015

1994-2004

2005-2015

Exhibit B.6: Top 10 Lender Loan Value and Number of 

Loans by Period, Nominal Value

Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Section 184 Loan Data
B- 8

# of Loans 

Endorsed

$ of Loans 

Endorsed # Claims Total Claims $

% Claims 

by 

Number 

of Loans

% Claims 

by Value

1994 3 192,214 0 0 0 0

1995 22 1,965,422 0 0 0 0

1996 156 14,491,168 3 180,045 1.9 1.2

1997 213 22,454,026 9 537,477 4.2 2.4

1998 130 13,457,805 5 528,167 3.8 3.9

1999 132 11,886,921 14 905,473 10.6 7.6

2000 160 14,339,856 8 473,437 5 3.3

2001 100 11,814,144 6 854,864 6 7.2

2002 298 25,992,232 6 396,526 2 1.5

2003 365 39,228,689 13 1,468,054 3.6 3.7

2004 584 60,503,031 21 1,610,053 3.6 2.7

2005 774 98,456,033 46 6,214,932 5.9 6.3

2006 1,183 182,166,395 99 18,082,930 8.4 9.9

2007 1,380 226,083,847 95 20,624,323 6.9 9.1

2008 1,694 297,310,870 130 31,327,764 7.7 10.5

2009 2,882 480,026,908 101 16,754,117 3.5 3.5

2010 3,274 533,533,152 68 9,672,919 2.1 1.8

2011 3,130 506,079,739 20 2,774,947 0.6 0.5

2012 4,265 753,307,310 16 2,136,848 0.4 0.3

2013 3,119 549,145,647 2 204,373 0.1 0

2014 3,624 629,095,091 0 0 0 0

2015 645 110,939,461 0 0 0 0

Total 28,133 4,582,469,961 662 114,747,246 2.4 2.5

Exhibit B.7: Claims by Year of Obligation, FY1994 – March 2015, 

Nominal Value

Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Native 

American Programs (ONAP) Section 184 Loan Data
B- 9

# of Loans Percent # of Loans Percent # of 

Loans Percent

1994 3 100 - 0 3 100

1995 22 100 - 0 22 100

1996 155 99.4 1 0.6 156 100

1997 212 99.5 1 0.5 213 100

1998 129 99.2 1 0.8 130 100

1999 132 100 - 0 132 100

2000 156 97.5 4 2.5 160 100

2001 100 100 - 0 100 100

2002 298 100 - 0 298 100

2003 282 77.3 83 22.7 365 100

2004 440 75.3 144 24.7 584 100

2005 702 90.7 72 9.3 774 100

2006 1,047 88.5 136 11.5 1,183 100

2007 1,298 94.1 82 5.9 1,380 100

2008 1,460 86.2 234 13.8 1,694 100

2009 2,079 72.1 803 27.9 2,882 100

2010 2,451 74.8 824 25.2 3,275 100

2011 1,886 60.3 1,244 39.7 3,130 100

2012 2,399 55.8 1,903 44.2 4,302 100

2013 2,770 88.1 373 11.9 3,143 100

2014 3,330 89.8 380 10.2 3,710 100

2015 977 81.1 227 18.9 1,204 100

Total 22,328 77.4 6,512 22.6 28,840 100

Purchase Refinance Total

Exhibit B.8: Purpose of Section 184 Loans – Summary

Source: Authors’ calculations of United States Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Section 184 Loan Data

Notes: Purchase includes: Acquisition of Exiting Home; Acquisition/Rehab of 

Existing Home; Acquisition of New Home – Less than 1 Year Old; New – Less than 1 

Year Old; and Proposed Construction.

Refinance includes: Credit Qualifying w/Cash Out; Credit Qualifying w/Escrow 

Account; Credit Qualifying w/o Cash Out; Streamline w/o Appraisal; and 

Streamline w/Appraisal.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

January 2017