GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

NATIVE AMERICAN 

HOUSING 

Tribes Generally View 

Block Grant Program 

as Effective, but 

Tracking of 

Infrastructure Plans 

and Investments 

Needs Improvement 

February 2010 

GAO-10-326 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 2010

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING 

Tribes Generally View Block Grant Program as

Effective, but Tracking of Infrastructure Plans and 

Highlights of GAO-10-326, a report to Investments Needs Improvement 

congressional committees 

The Native American Housing 

Assistance and Self-Determination 

Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) changed 

how the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) 

provides housing assistance to 

Native Americans. Congress 

created NAHASDA to recognize 

self-determination for tribes in 

addressing their low-income 

housing needs. In NAHASDA’s 2008 

reauthorization, Congress asked 

GAO to assess the program’s 

effectiveness. This report discusses 

(1) how tribes have used 

NAHASDA funds, (2) how 

NAHASDA has improved the 

process of providing tribes with 

funds for housing, and (3) the 

extent to which NAHASDA has 

contributed to infrastructure 

improvements in tribal 

communities. GAO analyzed 

agency documentation, surveyed 

all tribes receiving grants in fiscal 

year 2008, conducted site visits 

with select tribes, and interviewed 

officials at HUD and other 

agencies. 

What GAO Recommends

To better assess program impact 

and help grantees identify their 

infrastructure needs, GAO 

recommends that HUD (1) 

incorporate reporting on 

infrastructure in its planned 

revisions for grantee reporting on 

uses of block grant funds and 

(2) obtain IHS data on housingrelated infrastructure deficiencies 

on Indian lands. HUD agreed with 

the report’s conclusions and 

recommendations. 

Native American tribes have used NAHASDA block grant funds to develop 

new housing and to provide other types of housing assistance to eligible 

members (see figure below), but fewer small grantees have developed new 

housing. Out of 359 grantees in fiscal year 2008, 102 received less than 

$250,000, with 22 of those reporting that they had developed new housing over 

the life of their participation in the program. Smaller grantees often provide 

tenant-based rental assistance and other such services to members, but HUD 

neither tracks activities that are not unit-based (units built, acquired, or 

rehabilitated) nor reports those activities to Congress. However, HUD is 

revising its reporting to track more activities, which should help efforts to 

assess the impact of NAHASDA. 

NAHASDA Grantee Replacing a Log Cabin Using Block Grant Funds

Source: GAO

Most grantees that we surveyed and interviewed view NAHASDA as effective, 

largely because it emphasizes tribal self-determination. Grantees feel the 

program has helped to improve housing conditions and increase access to 

affordable housing, but they reported that developing housing finance 

mechanisms and increasing economic development remain as challenges. 

Housing-related infrastructure development is an affordable housing activity 

under NAHASDA, but HUD does not collect grantees’ infrastructure plans or 

measure their infrastructure investments. Indian Health Service (IHS) data 

show an acute need for sanitation-related infrastructure in Indian housing, 

and 85 percent of grantees responding to our survey reported that developing 

infrastructure, such as providing homes with access to drinking water, was a 

continuing need. According to IHS officials, HUD can access IHS data on 

sanitation deficiencies under a 2007 memorandum of understanding between 

the agencies. HUD could use this data to track grantees’ efforts to address a 

key need in their communities and broaden the scope of accomplishment data 

it reports to Congress. This data could also help grantees identify any unmet 

sanitation needs they might address with their NAHASDA grants. 

View GAO-10-326 or key components.

For more information, contact William B. 

Shear at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-326 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 3 

The IHBG Program Has Helped Tribes Address Some of Their 

Affordable Housing Needs, but HUD and Tribes Reported That 

Small Grantees Face Unique Challenges 13 

Survey Respondents and Tribes We Interviewed Generally Viewed 

NAHASDA as Effective in Meeting Their Low-Income Housing 

Needs, but Some Reported Challenges, Including Concerns with 

the Allocation Formula 33 

Almost Half of the Grantees We Surveyed Use IHBG Funds for 

Infrastructure Development, but HUD Does Not Collect 

Grantees’ Plans or Monitor Their Investments in HousingRelated Infrastructure 41 

Conclusions 50 

Recommendations for Executive Action 51 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 51 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 53 

Appendix II Survey Respondents’ Suggestions for Smaller 

Tribes Participating in NAHASDA 59 

Appendix III Cherokee Freedmen 60 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 63 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 64 

 Native American Housing 
Tables 

Table 1: Survey Respondents Reporting That They Provided 

Specific Types of Housing Assistance Using IHBG Funds in 

Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 16 

Table 2: Survey Respondents Reporting That They Used IHBG 

Funds to Build New Units, by Fiscal Year 2008 Grant Size 19 

Table 3: NAHASDA Grantees’ Use of Specific Funding Programs in 

Combination with the IHBG Program Based on Survey 

Responses 24 

Table 4: Survey Respondents’ Views on the Overall Effectiveness of 

NAHASDA 34 

Table 5: Survey Respondents’ Views on the Overall Effectiveness of 

NAHASDA, by Fiscal Year 2008 Grant Size 35 

Table 6: Survey Respondents’ Views on NAHASDA Compared with 

1937 Act Housing Programs 37 

Table 7: Most Frequent Suggestions on How NAHASDA Could be 

Improved 38 

Table 8: Survey Respondents’ Suggestions on How the IHBG 

Allocation Formula Could Be Improved 40 

Table 9: Survey Respondents’ Use of Various Programs to Develop 

Housing-Related Infrastructure 46 

Table 10: Location and Other Characteristics of NAHASDA 

Grantees Selected for Site Visits and Telephone Interviews 54 

Table 11: Advice for Grantees Receiving Grants of Less Than 

$250,000 per Year 59 

Figures 

Figure 1: Funding for Indian Housing from Fiscal Year 1993 to 

2009, and NAHASDA’s Legislative and Regulatory 

Changes 9 

Figure 2: Weighted Share of Seven Need Factors in the IHBG 

Formula 12 

Figure 3: Number of Homeownership and Rental Units Developed 

with IHBG Funds, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 14 

Figure 4: $1 Million Senior Apartment Community Built with 

$400,000 in IHBG Funds (ONAP Alaska Region) 16 

Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2008 IHBG Adjusted Grant Amounts 18 

Figure 6: Small Grantee Replacing a Log Cabin with a 400 to 500 

Square Foot Home Using $30,000 in IHBG Funds (ONAP 

Alaska Region) 20 

Page ii GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
Figure 7: Tribal Temporary Foster Care Facility and Public Safety 

Building Funded through the ICDBG Program (ONAP 

Northwest Region) 26 

Figure 8: Tribal Community Center Funded through Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credit Programs (ONAP Northern Plains 

Region) 28 

Figure 9: Example of Large Grantee Housing Project (ONAP Alaska 

Region) 29 

Figure 10: Percentage of Survey Respondents Reporting Specific 

Challenges to Leveraging as Moderate to Very Great 31 

Figure 11: Grantees View NAHASDA as Most Effective at 

Improving Housing Conditions for Low-Income Native 

Americans 36 

Figure 12: Housing-Related Infrastructure 42 

Figure 13: Survey Respondents’ Rankings of Their Greatest 

Continuing Housing Needs, by Percentage 43 

Figure 14: Survey Respondents’ Use of the IHBG Program for 

Infrastructure Development, by Fiscal Year 2008 Grant 

Size 44 

Figure 15: Survey Respondents’ Views on Problems with 

NAHASDA Ranked by Number of Responses 45 

Figure 16: Types of Infrastructure for Which Survey Respondents 

Reported Using IHBG Funds 48 

Figure 17: Cherokee Freedmen History 61 

Page iii GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
Abbreviations 

1937 Act U.S. Housing Act of 1937 

AI/AN American Indian and Alaska Native 

APR Annual Performance Report 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

ICDBG Indian Community Development Block Grant 

IHBG Indian Housing Block Grant 

IHP Indian Housing Plan 

IHS Indian Health Service 

LIHTC Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 

NAHASDA Native American Housing Assistance and Self- 

 Determination Act of 1996 

NAIHC National American Indian Housing Council 

ONAP Office of Native American Programs 

TDHE tribally designated housing entity 

Title VI Title VI Loan Guarantee Program 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

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

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page iv GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
Page 1 GAO-10-326 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

February 25, 2010 

The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd 

Chairman 

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Barney Frank 

Chairman 

The Honorable Spencer Bachus 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Financial Services 

House of Representatives 

In the United States, Native Americans disproportionately experience 

socioeconomic challenges, including high unemployment and extreme 

poverty, which impact housing conditions on Indian reservations and in 

other Indian areas. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2008 that Native 

Americans were almost twice as likely to live in poverty as the rest of the 

population—27 percent compared with 15 percent. As a result, 

overcrowding, substandard housing, and homelessness are far more 

common in Native American communities; nearly 46 percent of Native 

American households were overcrowded in 2008, a rate that was almost 

three times as high as the rest of the country. The U.S. government’s 

relationship with Native American tribes has historically been troubled, 

making it difficult to address the needs of low-income Native Americans. 

Since 1961, the government has sought to address Native Americans’ need 

for more housing that is safe, decent, and affordable by allowing them 

access to several housing programs beginning with the U.S. Housing Act of 

1937 (1937 Act) and administered by the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD).1

 In October 1996, Congress went a step 

further in creating a housing program for Native Americans that 

recognized the tribes’ right to self-determination and self-governance. The 

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 

1

The 1937 Act, as amended, created programs to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing 

for low-income families. Native Americans did not receive federal housing funds under the 

1937 Act until 1961. 

 Native American Housing 
 

(NAHASDA) reorganized the system of housing assistance that HUD 

provided to Native Americans by eliminating or incorporating several 

separate programs Native Americans utilized into a single block grant 

program—known as the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program—

along with the Title VI Loan Guarantee (Title VI) program to assist 

grantees with private market financing.2

 NAHASDA was first funded in 

fiscal year 1998, and in November 1998 we reported on its 

implementation.3

 Today, more than 360 grantees servicing approximately 

555 tribes participate in NAHASDA’s block grant program—most grantees 

have participated since its inception—with the goal of providing their 

members with adequate and affordable housing. 

In the 2008 reauthorization of NAHASDA, you asked us to assess the 

effectiveness of NAHASDA in achieving its purposes of meeting the 

affordable housing needs of low-income Native American families. You 

asked that we look at the program’s effectiveness in meeting the needs of 

tribes of various sizes, specifically with respect to smaller tribes or those 

receiving lesser or minimum grant amounts. In this report, we evaluate (1) 

how NAHASDA program funds have allowed Native American tribes to 

address their affordable housing needs; (2) how, if at all, NAHASDA has 

improved the process of providing Native American tribes with access to 

federal funds to meet their affordable housing needs; and (3) the extent to 

which NAHASDA funding has contributed to infrastructure improvements 

in Native American communities. 

In conducting this work, we reviewed NAHASDA’s legislative history and 

HUD’s policies and procedures for administering the program. We also 

reviewed previous congressional reports and testimonies, an Office of 

Management and Budget report, our previous reports, and an independent 

study of the program contracted by HUD. We obtained documents from 

HUD related to NAHASDA grantee population and enrollment, grant 

amounts awarded, and grantees’ use of funds to pursue eligible affordable 

housing activities. We determined that the data HUD provided to us were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To obtain the perspectives of Native 

 

2

Title VI of NAHASDA enables HUD to provide a 95 percent loan guarantee to private 

lenders or investors that make loans to NAHASDA grantees to develop housing and 

community facilities. The Title VI loan is secured by a grantee’s pledge of its current and 

future IHBG funds. In this report, we use the term grantee to mean NAHASDA grant 

recipient. 

3

GAO, Native American Housing: Information on HUD’s Funding of Indian Housing 

Programs, GAO/RCED-99-16 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 1998). 

Page 2 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

American tribes and tribally designated housing entities participating in 

NAHASDA, we conducted site visits with grantees in four of HUD’s six 

Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) regions and conducted 

telephone interviews with grantees in the two remaining regions, and we 

surveyed all tribes and tribally designated housing entities that received a 

grant in fiscal year 2008, obtaining a 66 percent response rate.4

 For site 

visits and telephone interviews, we selected 12 grantees (2 in each region) 

based on such factors as 2008 population, enrollment, and grant size 

relative to other regional grantees; housing activities reported to HUD; and 

geographic location. We also met with officials from the National 

American Indian Housing Council, a nonprofit housing advocacy 

organization that represents American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native 

Hawaiians; and Cherokee Freedmen representatives who advocate for 

housing and other benefits for the Cherokee Freedmen. We interviewed 

officials in ONAP headquarters and in each regional ONAP office. Finally, 

we interviewed officials at the Indian Health Service, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development because 

those agencies also provide assistance to Native American communities. 

Appendix I contains a more detailed description of our scope and 

methodology. Appendix III contains a brief history of the Cherokee 

Freedmen and information pertaining to the Cherokee Nation’s provision 

of housing assistance to Cherokee Freedmen members. 

We conducted this performance audit in Alaska; Arizona; California; 

Colorado; Illinois; Michigan; Montana; Oklahoma; Utah; Washington; 

Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin from January 2009 to February 2010 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

NAHASDA authorized two HUD-administered programs—IHBG and Title 

VI—that aim to provide affordable housing assistance to Native Americans 

living on or near Indian tribal lands or areas, including assistance for 

Background 

 

4

For additional details on the results of our survey, see GAO-10-373SP. 

Page 3 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

housing-related infrastructure.5 NAHASDA was first funded in fiscal year 

1998 and was most recently reauthorized in 2008. 

Federal Indian reservation. An area of land 

reserved for a tribe or tribes under treaty or 

other agreement with the United States, 

executive order, or federal statute or administrative action as permanent tribal homelands, 

and where the federal government holds title 

to the land in trust on behalf of the tribe.

Allotted lands. Remnants of reservations

broken up during the federal allotment period 

of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

Starting with the General Allotment Act in 

1887 (also known as the Dawes Act) until the 

Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, allotments

were conveyed to members of affected tribes

and held in trust by the federal government. 

As allotments were taken out of trust, they 

became subject to state and local taxation, 

which resulted in thousands of acres passing 

out of Indian hands.

Restricted status or restricted fee land.

Land title is held by an individual Indian 

person or a tribe and can only be alienated or 

encumbered by the owner with the approval of 

the Secretary of the Interior because of 

limitations contained in the conveyance 

instrument pursuant to federal law.

State Indian reservations. Lands held in 

trust by a state for an Indian tribe. These lands

are not subject to state property tax, though 

they are subject to state law.

Types of Indian Lands Prior to NAHASDA, Native Americans received assistance for affordable 

housing under various programs aimed at providing housing assistance to 

low-income families. For example, several of the programs were 

authorized by the 1937 Act, including housing development and 

modernization grants, operating subsidies, and Section 8 rental assistance. 

Prior to NAHASDA, there were no specific provisions relating to the 

unique circumstances of Native Americans living on or near tribal lands, 

such as the federal government’s obligations to Native Americans through 

treaties and legislation, the relationships between sovereign governments 

(federal and tribal) with different laws, and the challenges with 

development on trust lands. When NAHASDA was enacted in 1996, it 

incorporated the major programs that served Native Americans into a 

single block grant program (the IHBG program). 6

 NAHASDA also created 

the Title VI program. 

The IHBG program is a formula grant program that provides funding for 

affordable housing activities to Native American tribes or tribally 

designated housing entities (TDHE).7

 The purpose of the Title VI program 

is to assist IHBG recipients that are unable to obtain financing for eligible 

affordable housing activities without a federal guarantee. Through the 

 

5

According to the U.S. Census, in 2000, 879,381 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) 

individuals—or 36 percent of all AI/AN individuals—lived on trust land, reservations, or 

other tribal-owned property. The number of AI/AN individuals living on trust land, 

reservations, or other tribal-owned property more than doubled from 1990 to 2000. These 

Census numbers are based on single-race reporting, that is, individuals who reported only 

that they were AI/AN and not AI/AN and another race. 

6

A 1995 GAO report describes block grants as “a form of federal aid authorized for a wider 

range of activities [...] The recipients of block grants are given greater flexibility to use 

funds based on their own priorities and to design programs and allocate resources as they 

determine to be appropriate. These recipients are typically general purpose governments at 

the state or local level, as opposed to service providers (for example, community action 

organizations).” GAO, Block Grants: Characteristics, Experience, and Lessons Learned, 

GAO/HEHS-95-74 (Feb. 9, 1995). 

7

A TDHE is either (1) a former Indian Housing Authority that managed Native American 

housing programs under the 1937 Act and converted its operations to meet the 

requirements of NAHASDA or (2) a new nontribal government entity authorized by one or 

more tribes to receive grants and provide affordable housing assistance for Native 

Americans under NAHASDA. A TDHE acts on behalf of the one or more tribes authorizing 

or establishing the housing entity. 

Page 4 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

IHBG and Title VI programs, NAHASDA aims to accomplish the following 

statutory objectives: 

• assist and promote affordable housing activities to develop, maintain, and 

operate affordable housing in safe and healthy environments on Indian 

reservations and in other Indian areas for occupancy by low-income 

Indian families; 

• ensure better access to private mortgage markets for Indian tribes and 

their members and promote self-sufficiency of Indian tribes and their 

members; 

• coordinate activities to provide housing for Indian tribes and their 

members with federal, state, and local activities to further economic and 

community development for Indian tribes and their members; 

• plan for and integrate infrastructure resources with housing development 

for Indian tribes; and 

• promote the development of private capital markets in Indian country for 

the benefit of Indian communities.8

NAHASDA, as described in the statute, is “[t]o provide federal assistance 

for Indian tribes in a manner that recognizes the right of tribal selfgovernance, and for other purposes.” Under NAHASDA, tribes practice 

self-governance or self-determination through (1) negotiated rulemaking, 

(2) receiving funding directly rather than through Indian Housing 

Authorities, and (3) determining the details of their housing programs.9

Negotiated rulemaking is the process whereby an agency considering 

drafting a rule brings together representatives of that agency and affected 

parties for negotiations, consistent with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 

1990. ONAP consults with tribes on various matters. One important 

 

8

The terms Indian and Native American generally refer to American Indians and Alaska 

Natives (AI/AN). In this report, we generally use Native American interchangeably with 

AI/AN. 

9

According to 24 CFR 1000.10, an Indian Housing Authority is “[...] an entity that [...] is 

authorized to engage or assist in the development or operation of low-income housing for 

Indians under the 1937 Act; and [...] is established: (i) by exercise of the power of self 

government of an Indian tribe independent of state law; or (ii) by operation of state law 

providing specifically for housing authorities for Indians, including regional housing 

authorities in the state of Alaska.” 

Page 5 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

element of these discussions is negotiated rulemaking, which allows 

Native Americans to participate in developing regulations, including those 

pertaining to the IHBG allocation formula. Before NAHASDA, HUD 

provided most of its assistance to Native Americans through Indian 

Housing Authorities in the same manner as public housing. With the 

enactment of NAHASDA, tribes may choose to receive housing funds 

directly or they may designate a TDHE to administer the housing program 

on their behalf. Tribes and TDHEs can use IHBG funds for any eligible 

NAHASDA activity. Finally, under NAHASDA, tribes are able to determine 

(1) whom they serve (for example, giving preference to members of the 

participating tribe); (2) what types of eligible activities they offer; and (3) 

how they deliver their programs and projects. 

Entities eligible for NAHASDA programs are federally recognized Indian 

tribes or their TDHEs and a limited number of state recognized tribes that 

were funded under the 1937 Act. Families that are eligible for NAHASDAfunded assistance are low-income Indian families—defined as Indian 

families whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the area median 

income—residing on a reservation or in an Indian area.10 Further, 

NAHASDA requires that dwelling units be occupied, owned, leased, 

purchased, or constructed by low-income families and that the dwelling 

units remain affordable for the remaining useful life of the property.11

According to HUD’s 2009 IHBG formula allocation data, 282,111 American 

Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) households residing in NAHASDA 

formula areas were low-income. 

Under NAHASDA, there are seven eligible activities: 

According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA), a federally recognized tribe is an 

American Indian or Alaska Native tribal entity 

that has a government-to-government 

relationship with the United States and is

eligible for BIA funding and services. Tribes

may receive federal recognition by an Act of 

Congress; by the administrative procedures

under 25 CFR, Part 83; or by the decisions of 

a United States court. As of August 2009, 

there were 564 federally recognized tribes. 

According to Department of Housing and 

Urban Development officials, all tribes had to 

obtain federal recognition to participate in the 

Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) 

program, with the exception of five state 

recognized tribes that participated in federal 

housing programs under the U.S. Housing 

Act of 1937. When NAHASDA was

implemented, those five tribes were grandfathered into the program.

Federally Recognized Tribes

and Participation in NAHASDA

1. Indian housing assistance, i.e. modernization or operating assistance 

for 1937 Act units; 

2. housing development, including the acquisition, new construction, and 

reconstruction or rehabilitation of affordable housing; 

 

10Under specific circumstances, nonlow-income Indian families and non-Indian families 

residing on a reservation or in an Indian area also are eligible to receive assistance. 

11Per the 2008 reauthorization of NAHASDA, provisions regarding binding commitments for 

the remaining useful life of property do not apply to a family or household member who 

subsequently takes ownership of a homeownership unit. This affordability provision also 

does not apply to housing built under Section 202 of the 1937 Act. 

Page 6 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

3. housing services, including housing counseling and assistance to 

owners, tenants, and contractors involved in eligible housing activities; 

4. housing management services for affordable housing, including loan 

processing, inspections, and tenant selection; 

5. crime prevention and safety; 

6. model activities that provide creative approaches to solving affordable 

housing problems; and 

7. reserve accounts for administrative and planning activities related to 

affordable housing. 

Under NAHASDA, grantees can use a range of approaches to provide 

homeownership and rental assistance. These include providing 

• homeownership units for purchase or lease-purchase through new 

construction, acquisition (for example, purchase of existing units), 

rehabilitation, or acquisition and rehabilitation; 

• rental units through new construction, acquisition (for example, purchase 

of existing units), rehabilitation, or acquisition and rehabilitation; 

• rental units through conversion of existing structures or demolition and 

replacement of existing structures; 

• homeownership assistance through acquisition (for example, 

downpayment or closing cost assistance to the homebuyer) or acquisition 

and rehabilitation; and 

• tenant-based rental assistance (residents pay up to 30 percent of their 

adjusted income). 

Grantees also can leverage NAHASDA funds by combining them with 

funds from other federal, state, local, and private sources to support 

eligible program activities. According to HUD, leveraging was not common 

under the 1937 Act. 

Since the enactment of NAHASDA, several legislative and regulatory 

changes have occurred (see fig. 1). Those changes include the creation of 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program in 2000 and the use of 

Page 7 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

grant funds for housing-related community development activities.12

Funding for the IHBG program has remained steady. NAHASDA’s first 

appropriation in fiscal year 1998 was $592 million, and average funding 

was approximately $633 million between 1998 and 2009. The highest level 

of funding was $691 million in 2002, and the lowest was $577 million in 

1999. For fiscal year 2009, the program’s appropriation was $621 million. 

However, when accounting for inflation, constant dollars have generally 

decreased since the enactment of NAHASDA. The highest level of funding 

in constant dollars was $779 million in 1998, and the lowest was $621 

million in 2009. Amounts cited above and in figure 1 are for the IHBG 

program and exclude NAHASDA set-asides such as technical assistance 

and Title VI funding. 

 

12The American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 authorized the 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program under NAHASDA to serve Native 

Hawaiians. The Hawaii State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is the sole recipient of 

program funds. The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program was not included in 

this review. 

Page 8 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Figure 1: Funding for Indian Housing from Fiscal Year 1993 to 2009, and NAHASDA’s Legislative and Regulatory Changes

Constant 2009 dollars

Dollars in millions

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: GAO analysis of NAHASDA statute and regulations.

1937 Act programs

NAHASDA 

regulations 

established: 

Regulations

implementing 

NAHASDA 

were written 

pursuant to 

the first 

negotiated 

rulemaking 

committee. 

NAHASDA 

passed

NAHASDA 

amendment 

passed: Public 

Law (P.L.) 

106-568 made 

changes, such 

as creating a

parallel 

program to 

cover Native 

Hawaiians and 

allowing for 

waivers of 

environmental 

reviews.

NAHASDA 

amendment 

passed: P.L. 

107-292 made 

changes, such 

as allowing for 

the usage of 

grants for 

housing-related 

community 

development.

Final rule 

published 

from formula 

negotiated 

rulemaking 

committee:

The rule made 

changes to the 

IHBG formula, 

such as

addressing 

certain 

definitions of 

formula areas

and establishing a new 

minimum 

allocation 

formula.

NAHASDA 

reauthorization 

and amendments passed:

P.L. 110-411 

made changes, 

such as

establishing a

demonstration 

loan guarantee 

program for 

community 

development.

NAHASDA 

amendment 

passed: P.L. 

109-58 made 

minor 

changes, 

such as the 

addition of 

energy 

efficiency as

part of a

development 

activity.

NAHASDA 

amendment 

passed:

P.L. 108-393 

established 

a limited 

guarantee 

level of 95% 

for the Title 

VI loan 

program.

Actual dollars

ONAP, which administers NAHASDA, is part of HUD’s Office of Public and 

Indian Housing and administers the Indian Community Development 

Block Grant and the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee programs. 

ONAP’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. and its Denver office direct the 

administration of the IHBG program on the national level, while six 

Page 9 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

regional offices administer grants on the local level.13 Each regional office 

contains two divisions: Grants Management, which provides funding, 

technical assistance, and project support to grantees; and Grants 

Evaluation, which reviews grantees’ performance and initiates 

enforcement procedures when necessary. 

NAHASDA changed HUD’s role and involvement in Native American 

housing. Prior to NAHASDA, HUD had greater involvement in the 

development of housing projects while also managing multiple programs 

that served Native Americans. Several of the programs were competitive, 

and HUD reviewed and scored project proposals for those programs and 

awarded grants to the highest-ranked projects, in addition to distributing 

funds through the other noncompetitive (formula-based) programs. Under 

the competitive programs, HUD had greater influence over how funds 

were spent. Under NAHASDA, HUD plays a more administrative role in 

delivering housing benefits to Native Americans, providing funding 

through a single, tribally negotiated grant allocation formula. HUD’s role is 

(1) to provide grants, loan guarantees, and technical assistance to Indian 

tribes and Alaska Native villages for the development and operation of 

low-income housing in Indian areas; (2) to conduct oversight by ensuring 

that reporting requirements are met and by monitoring grant recipients 

onsite; and (3) to enforce remedies for noncompliant grant recipients. 

Prior to NAHASDA, HUD distributed grants from multiple programs to 217 

Indian Housing Authorities. Under NAHASDA, in fiscal year 2008, 535 

tribes benefited from more than 350 IHBG grants. The amount of funding 

is based on an allocation formula that has two components: (1) the costs 

of operating and modernizing pre-NAHASDA HUD-funded units and (2) 

the need for providing affordable housing activities. Need is calculated 

based on seven different factors that include the grantee’s AI/AN 

population and the number of households within that population that fall 

in certain low-income categories (see fig. 2). Allocation amounts are 

adjusted by local area costs for construction and rents. Because 

population impacts all need factors in the grant allocation, larger grantees 

 

13The six regional ONAP offices are Alaska ONAP (Anchorage), Eastern Woodlands ONAP 

(Chicago), Northern Plains ONAP (Denver), Northwest ONAP (Seattle), Southern Plains 

ONAP (Oklahoma City), and Southwest ONAP (Phoenix). In 2008, HUD’s Alaska ONAP had 

the smallest proportion of total AI/AN residents in the six regions (3 percent); the largest 

proportions of AI/AN were in the Southwest region (32 percent) and Eastern Woodlands 

region (30 percent). However, the Alaska region had the largest proportion of its total 

population that identifies as AI/AN (15 percent); the Eastern Woodlands region had the 

smallest proportion of its total population that identifies as AI/AN (0.49 percent). 

Page 10 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

(larger tribes operating their own housing programs or the TDHEs 

representing those tribes) receive larger grants. Additionally, grantees that 

own and operate pre-NAHASDA units receive both portions of the grant 

while those without the pre-NAHASDA units receive only the need portion. 

Since their inception, NAHASDA’s regulations have included a provision 

for minimum funding. Tribes whose annual need allocation was less than 

$50,000 in their first year of participation or less than $25,000 in 

subsequent years have received minimum funding in those amounts (the 

allocation is to the tribe, although the grantee might be a separate entity 

operating the housing program). The minimum funding allocation was 

revised for fiscal year 2008.14 In fiscal year 2008, individual grants ranged 

from the minimum to more than $70 million. 

The American Indian and Alaska Native 

(AI/AN) population data that the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

currently uses to determine annual Indian 

Housing Block Grant (IHBG) allocations is

based on 2000 U.S. Census data as adjusted 

by Indian Health Service data on AI/AN births

and deaths. The Census data used are for all 

AI/AN households within a tribe’s formula

(geographic) area, and the Census attempts

to count all housing units and all persons

residing in those units. HUD has procedures

for a tribe’s formula area to be corrected and 

for a tribe to challenge its population or 

household data. If tribes meet specific 

conditions, HUD also will use tribal 

enrollment data in lieu of population data to 

determine IHBG allocations. In some cases, 

the population data for a tribe’s formula area

is greater than its enrollment. In general, for 

those cases, HUD does not allow population 

data to exceed twice the tribe’s enrollment.

HUD’s Use of AI/AN Data in 

Allocating NAHASDA Grants

 

14Through negotiated rulemaking between HUD and tribal representatives, NAHASDA 

regulations initially established a provision for minimum IHBG funding. The provision 

allowed a tribe that was allocated less than $50,000 for the need portion of its grant in the 

first year of participation to have the need portion of its grant adjusted to $50,000. In 

subsequent fiscal years, a tribe that was allocated less than $25,000 for the need portion of 

its grant would have the need portion of its grant adjusted to $25,000. Minimum funding 

was initially established for fiscal years 1998 to 2002. From fiscal years 2003 to 2007, HUD 

extended minimum funding each year to avoid hardship to the affected tribes. In fiscal year 

2008, the annual minimum grant was revised through negotiated rulemaking to reflect a 

percentage of the IHBG annual appropriation. 

Page 11 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Figure 2: Weighted Share of Seven Need Factors in the IHBG Formula 

7%

7%

11%

13%

15%

22%

25%

Source: GAO.

Very low-income households

Low-income households

Population (American Indians and

Alaska Natives)

Extremely low-income households

Number of low-income households in

excess of available housing

Households with housing costs that exceed

50 percent of income

Households that are in overcrowded units

or lack plumbing or kitchen facilities

According to the data HUD uses annually for the IHBG formula allocation, 

each of the need factors has increased from 1999 to 2009. For example, 

during this period, the number of AI/AN households living in overcrowded 

units and units lacking kitchen facilities increased by almost 10 percent, 

and the number of AI/AN households with housing expenses greater than 

50 percent of their income increased by 43 percent. In order to receive 

their grant distribution, grantees must submit an Indian Housing Plan 

(IHP) for each program year. In the IHP, grantees identify their affordable 

housing needs and describe the housing activities they plan to pursue to 

address those needs. At the end of the program year, grantees also must 

submit an Annual Performance Report (APR) that outlines actual 

accomplishments and, if federal fiscal year expenditures are $500,000 or 

more, the results of an independent audit. HUD is modifying its reporting 

process and plans to implement a combined IHP and APR with several 

revisions in fiscal year 2011. In addition to reporting, grantees must follow 

requirements for environmental reviews, procurement and labor 

standards, family eligibility, and accounting for program income. 

As part of its oversight, HUD also conducts periodic onsite monitoring 

visits with grantees using a risk-based approach to select which grantees it 

will visit each year. Risk factors include grant size and the amount of time 

since a grantee’s last visit. In fiscal year 2009, ONAP completed 60 onsite 

Page 12 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

monitoring visits with NAHASDA grantees nationwide. Additionally, HUD 

has enforcement procedures for grantees found to be noncompliant with 

program requirements. Enforcement procedures involve issuing (1) a 

letter of warning, (2) a notice of intent to impose remedies if there is 

continued noncompliance, and (3) imposition of remedies, which includes 

the option of a hearing before a hearing officer. Enforcement can be 

discontinued at any time if the grantee corrects the violation prior to the 

imposition of remedies. 

Native American tribes receiving NAHASDA grants have used the funds to 

develop new housing and to provide other types of housing assistance. 

However, fewer small grantees, which receive lesser grants, have 

developed new housing with NAHASDA funds compared to those 

receiving larger grants, even though it is the primary federal housing 

program for Native Americans. Many NAHASDA grantees, including those 

receiving lesser grants, reported providing tenant-based rental assistance, 

housing counseling, and downpayment assistance. Smaller grantees—

those receiving less than $250,000 annually—often focus on providing 

those services. The APR that HUD currently uses to track the use of grant 

funds does not collect data on activities that are not unit-based (directly 

involving housing units built, acquired, or rehabilitated). However, HUD is 

revising its reporting to track more activities. Both HUD and grantees 

agreed that the opportunity to leverage grant funds to secure funds from 

other sources allows grantees to better address their affordable housing 

needs. However, a lack of administrative capacity and other challenges 

limit additional funding opportunities for some grantees. 

The IHBG Program 

Has Helped Tribes 

Address Some of 

Their Affordable 

Housing Needs, but 

HUD and Tribes 

Reported That Small 

Grantees Face Unique 

Challenges 

Page 13 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Tribes Have Used IHBG 

Funds to Build, Acquire, 

and Rehabilitate 

Affordable Housing and to 

Provide Other Types of 

Housing Assistance 

In recent years, Native American tribes and TDHEs receiving IHBG funds 

under NAHASDA have used the funds to build, acquire, and rehabilitate 

affordable housing units and to provide other types of housing assistance, 

such as tenant-based rental assistance, housing counseling, and 

downpayment assistance to eligible tribal members. During fiscal years 

2003 through 2008, NAHASDA grantees collectively used IHBG funds to 

build 8,130 homeownership and 5,011 rental units; acquire 3,811 

homeownership and 800 rental units; and rehabilitate 27,422 

homeownership and 5,289 rental units (see fig. 3). 

Figure 3: Number of Homeownership and Rental Units Developed with IHBG Funds, 

Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Units

Fiscal year

Rental units rehabilitated

Rental units acquired

Rental units built

Homeownership units rehabilitated

Homeownership units acquired

Homeownership units built

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

HUD tracks the number of units that grantees build, acquire, and 

rehabilitate using IHBG funds each fiscal year through the grantees’ APR. 

Page 14 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Grantees use the APR, which serves as a self-assessment document, to 

report on their use of grant funds at the end of each program year.15 The 

APR also follows the Indian Housing Plan (IHP), which grantees submit to 

HUD each program year to describe their affordable housing needs and 

how they will use grant funds to address those needs. 

Between 2003 and 2008, grantees developed more homeownership units 

than rental units with IHBG funds. For example, the number of 

homeownership units built was more than one and one-half times the 

number of rental units built; the number of homeownership units acquired 

was almost five times the number of rental units acquired; and the number 

of homeownership units rehabilitated was more than five times the 

number of rental units rehabilitated. National American Indian Housing 

Council board members that also serve as executive directors for tribal 

housing entities nationwide told us that while large-scale rental housing is 

often needed, such properties are very expensive to maintain over time.16

They said that, as a result, the associated costs provide a disincentive for 

tribes to develop this type of housing. For example, the housing director of 

one small grantee we visited showed us the tribe’s new senior apartment 

community, which was funded in part by NAHASDA (see fig. 4). During 

our visit, the director explained that he spends much of his own time 

carrying out maintenance services at the facility. 

 

15Prior to fiscal year 2003, ONAP did not have reliable data on IHBG activity. For data 

purposes, HUD considers NAHASDA-funded units to be those built using any IHBG funds. 

16According to the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), as of January 2009, 

the organization had a membership of 267 tribes and TDHEs, representing nearly 460 

Indian tribes. NAIHC provides its members with training, technical assistance, research, 

communications, and advocacy. 

Page 15 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Figure 4: $1 Million Senior Apartment Community Built with $400,000 in IHBG 

Funds (ONAP Alaska Region) 

Source: GAO.

Among NAHASDA grantees, during fiscal years 2003 through 2008, the 

most common development activity was rehabilitation of existing units, 

particularly homeownership units. In each fiscal year, the number of 

homeownership units rehabilitated was substantially greater than the 

number of homeownership units built or acquired. Grantees can use IHBG 

funds to rehabilitate units owned by the tribe or TDHE or units owned by 

private entities that will be occupied by eligible members, or they can 

provide the funds to eligible homeowners for rehabilitation. 

In addition to these unit-based activities, many grantees, including several 

of those we interviewed, have used IHBG funds to provide tenant-based 

rental assistance, housing or financial literacy counseling, and 

downpayment assistance to eligible individuals and families. Based on the 

results of our survey of all grantees for 2008, in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, 

approximately 50 percent of grantees used IHBG funds to provide tenantbased rental assistance; more than 50 percent used IHBG funds to provide 

housing or financial literacy counseling; and approximately 30 percent 

used IHBG funds to provide downpayment assistance (see table 1). 

Table 1: Survey Respondents Reporting That They Provided Specific Types of 

Housing Assistance Using IHBG Funds in Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 

Type of assistance Fiscal year 2008 Fiscal year 2009 

Tenant-based rental assistance 52 percent (112/217) 49 percent (104/214) 

Housing or financial literacy 

counseling 

63 percent (136/217) 54 percent (114/211) 

Downpayment assistance 36 percent (74/206) 28 percent (57/204) 

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees. 

Page 16 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Note: The number of grantees providing a response for each type of assistance varied. A total of 232 

grantees responded to our survey. 

Grantees that have housing stock developed with 1937 Act program funds, 

or pre-NAHASDA housing stock, also can use IHBG funds to provide 

modernization and operating assistance for those housing units. In fiscal 

year 2008, HUD allocated IHBG funds to support modernization or 

operation of 57,523 pre-NAHASDA units that grantees collectively 

maintained in their housing inventories.17 HUD also tracks modernization 

or operation of pre-NAHASDA units in the APR. 

HUD and Tribes Reported 

That Small Grantees Face 

Challenges in Developing 

New Housing 

HUD and tribes we interviewed and surveyed reported that small grantees, 

which receive lesser grants, face particular challenges in building new 

housing units with IHBG funds. The minimum grant amount in fiscal year 

2008 was $48,660 ($49,715 for fiscal year 2009). For the purposes of our 

review, we generally considered annual grants less than $250,000 to be 

lesser grants and the grantees receiving those grants to be small grantees. 

In fiscal year 2008, 102 out of 359 grantees received grants of less than 

$250,000 to maintain existing housing, develop new housing, and pursue 

other eligible activities under NAHASDA (see fig. 5). 

 

17Grantees’ pre-NAHASDA housing units decrease in number over time when grantees 

convey units from their inventories through lease-purchase or purchase agreements; when 

units are demolished; or when grantees otherwise lose the legal right to own, operate, or 

maintain the units. 

Page 17 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2008 IHBG Adjusted Grant Amounts

22%

7%

18%

39%

Less than $50,000

N=24

$50,000 to less than $250,000

N=78

$250,000 to less than $500,000

N=65

$1 million or more

N=140

Grant amount

Total = 359 Grantees

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

14%

$500,000 to less than $1 million

N=52

Note: The 359 grantees are tribes or TDHEs that represent one or more tribes. Individual tribes 

receive an allocation; however, the grantee receives the total distribution of funds. Under umbrella 

TDHEs that represent more than one tribe, some smaller grant amounts may be combined. Adjusted 

grant amounts include backfunding to grantees or repayments to HUD, as applicable. 

Out of 227 grantees providing a survey response to whether they had built 

new housing units using any IHBG funds since participating in NAHASDA, 

159 (70 percent) indicated that they had built at least one unit (see table 

2). Of the 22 small grantees in this group (those receiving less than 

$250,000 in fiscal year 2008), the average number of units was 

considerably small. The three grantees receiving less than $50,000 built an 

average of four units over the life of their participation in the program, 

compared with an average 12 units for the 19 grantees that received 

between $50,000 and $250,000 in 2008. The larger grantees have built the 

majority of units. The 22 grantees that responded to this survey question 

and received $1 million or more in fiscal year 2008 built, on average, 

almost 450 housing units each. 

Page 18 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Table 2: Survey Respondents Reporting That They Used IHBG Funds to Build New 

Units, by Fiscal Year 2008 Grant Size 

Grant size Number of grantees Average number of units

Less than $50,000 3 4.33

$50,000 to less than $250,000 19 12.32

$250,000 to less than $500,000 58 20.12

$500,000 to less than $1 million 57 48.67

$1 million or more 22 447.59

Total 159 

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees. 

Note: Unit averages are for units built with any IHBG funds over the life of grantees’ participation in 

the program. A total of 232 grantees responded to our survey and 227 responded to this question. Of 

those 227, 68 reported not building any units with IHBG funds. 

Among the 12 grantees we interviewed, 4 received less than $250,000 in 

2008, and only 1 of the 4 received more than that amount in any of its prior 

years in the program. Of those 4 grantees, only 1 had developed new 

housing with IHBG funds. During our visit, the housing director showed us 

a 10-home development that was completed in 2006 with IHBG and other 

funding, including funding from another HUD program. Although the 

grantee completed its first IHBG-funded development in 2006, it has 

participated in NAHASDA since the program’s inception in fiscal year 

1998. One other small grantee we interviewed also had developed new 

housing, but not with IHBG funds. During our visit with the second 

grantee, the tribal administrator explained that the grantee’s newest units 

were funded with 1937 Act funds it received from HUD just before 

NAHASDA’s implementation. That grantee also has participated in 

NAHASDA since its inception. 

Development of new housing can be difficult for smaller grantees 

receiving lesser grants. ONAP officials and several grantees we 

interviewed stated that new housing development with lesser grants or 

minimum funding can take place only if the funds are accumulated over 

several years or if development is done in phases or on a smaller scale (see 

fig. 6). In many cases, new development is possible for those grantees only 

if IHBG funds are leveraged (combined with funds from other sources), a 

process which can involve additional challenges, which we will discuss 

later in this report. 

Page 19 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Figure 6: Small Grantee Replacing a Log Cabin with a 400 to 500 Square Foot Home 

Using $30,000 in IHBG Funds (ONAP Alaska Region) 

Source: GAO.

In our survey, we asked all respondents to suggest best practices or 

effective strategies for grantees receiving less than $250,000 in annual 

IHBG funds. Similar to what ONAP officials and the grantees we 

interviewed said, many survey respondents suggested that grantees 

receiving lesser grants pursue phased housing development, leveraging, 

and small-scale development. Additionally, several respondents suggested 

that the following actions can be helpful: 

• pool their resources (grant funds, staff, and expertise) with other small 

grantees, such as under an umbrella TDHE or informally, and rotate new 

development among grantees; 

• minimize administrative expenses (for example, by limiting staff to those 

that have experience with housing programs or in grant writing) or work 

with consultants; 

• focus on small projects critical to the community, such as housing 

rehabilitation or home maintenance, or on providing only rental assistance 

and downpayment assistance; and 

• network with and seek technical assistance from other tribes, agency 

officials, or NAIHC. 

Page 20 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Further details on survey respondents’ suggestions for grantees receiving 

less than $250,000 annually are discussed in Appendix II. 

The Annual Performance 

Report Does Not Collect 

Data on Several Significant 

Eligible Housing Activities, 

but HUD Expects 

Revisions to Help Efforts 

to Assess the Impact of 

NAHASDA on Low-Income 

Native Americans 

The APR that HUD uses to collect data on grantees’ use of IHBG funds 

does not track several significant activities because HUD currently tracks 

only unit-based activities in the APR. Grantees report on the number of 

units they build, acquire, and rehabilitate as well as on the number of preNAHASDA units they operate and modernize using IHBG funds. However, 

they are not required to report on the number of individuals or households 

that receive tenant-based rental assistance, housing counseling, or 

downpayment assistance. Grantees can include this type of information as 

narrative in the APR, but HUD does not track it. As a result, it is not 

included in HUD’s annual report to Congress on program 

accomplishments for NAHASDA. Since HUD currently does not track and 

report IHBG-funded activities that are not unit-based, smaller grantees that 

receive lesser grants and either have not developed new housing or have 

done so over several years also have not been able to adequately 

demonstrate their use of IHBG funds. Those grantees often focus on 

providing members with services such as rental and downpayment 

assistance. 

In addition to limitations in the information it captures, the current APR is 

a multiyear report that requires grantees to report on multiple fiscal years 

when prior year funds remain unspent. At present, a grant remains open 

across fiscal years until the funds from that grant are fully expended. Both 

ONAP officials and officials for two grantees we interviewed stated that 

multiyear reporting can be confusing and can reduce the accuracy of the 

data being reported. For example, ONAP headquarters officials explained 

that some grants used to fund construction have remained open for 

several years concurrently. According to the officials, this confuses 

grantees’ reporting on use of funds as well as HUD’s administrative 

process. 

ONAP has begun revising the APR and plans to implement the revised 

format in fiscal year 2011. The revised APR is expected to be a single-year 

report, which should eliminate multiyear reporting inconsistencies. 

Additionally, HUD’s planned revisions should allow grantees to report on 

activities beyond housing units built, acquired, and rehabilitated and 

demonstrate greater impact relative to those units—for example, the 

number of students or elderly households assisted, or the number of 

individuals moved into housing from homelessness or substandard 

housing conditions. The new format also will expand general reporting 

Page 21 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

categories because HUD plans to track tenant-based rental assistance, 

downpayment and closing-cost assistance, and homebuyer lending 

subsidies. Finally, the IHP and APR will be a combined document, which 

HUD believes will further simplify reporting. Measures that address a full 

range of activities should help tribes receiving lesser grants to better 

demonstrate how and to what extent NAHASDA funds are helping them 

meet their affordable housing needs. Additionally, a more complete set of 

program measures should help HUD and Congress better assess the extent 

of NAHASDA’s impact on low-income Native Americans and whether the 

program is a significant improvement over the programs it replaced. 

HUD and Tribes Agreed 

that Leveraging Their 

IHBG Funds with Funds 

from Other Sources Allows 

Grantees to Better Address 

Their Affordable Housing 

Needs 

HUD and tribes participating in NAHASDA agreed that the opportunity to 

leverage IHBG funds with funds from other sources, a key component of 

NAHASDA, allows grantees to better address their affordable housing 

needs. HUD officials told us that the opportunity to leverage IHBG funds 

to support affordable housing activities is a significant benefit for tribes 

participating in NAHASDA, and a positive change for Native American 

housing since leveraging was not common under 1937 Act programs. 

Moreover, an official in one regional ONAP office described leveraging as 

a core concept of NAHASDA. While leveraging HUD funds was allowed 

prior to NAHASDA, two separate regional officials explained that 

leveraging still had been a relatively new concept for HUD and tribes since 

the public housing structure under which tribes previously received 

assistance did not encourage leveraging. NAHASDA requires that grantees 

explain how grant funds will allow them to leverage additional resources 

in their annual IHP. 

As part of self-determination, grantees prioritize how they use grant funds 

to address a variety of housing needs that qualify as eligible NAHASDA 

activities. With regard to leveraging IHBG funds, ONAP officials in one 

region stated that none of the grantees in that region was so successful or 

received so large a grant that it did not need additional support to address 

its housing needs. In several regional offices, the officials told us that they 

provide resources to assist grantees with leveraging. Some offices had a 

staff member who was dedicated to helping grantees identify leveraging 

opportunities and providing them with technical assistance. However, one 

regional official noted that regional staff members do not assist grantees 

with completing applications for funding. 

Half of the grantees we interviewed and 48 percent (100/209) of survey 

respondents answering a question on the role leveraging plays in their 

ability to fund affordable housing development and activities said that it 

Page 22 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

plays a great or very great role. Many of the grantees participating in 

leveraging activities explained that IHBG funding alone is insufficient to 

adequately address their communities’ affordable housing needs. The 

housing director of one large grantee we visited told us that, instead of 

using IHBG funds independently to support housing activities, he focused 

on leveraging the funds to obtain additional support. He said he viewed 

NAHASDA as opening up the opportunity for tribes to use as many 

resources as possible to fund their housing needs. The housing director of 

a second large grantee we visited explained that nearly all of the grantee’s 

70-plus IHBG-funded units had been built with a combination of funds 

from the IHBG program and other sources. A third housing director 

provided us with records showing that, since NAHASDA’s inception in 

1998, the grantee had leveraged its IHBG funds to secure additional 

funding for housing development at an almost one-to-one ratio. Survey 

respondents leveraging their IHBG funds provided similar comments. They 

stated that leveraging is necessary either to fully fund a development 

project; to pursue both development and rehabilitation; to build multiple 

housing units; or to generally address their communities’ affordable 

housing needs. Some respondents offered examples of how combined 

funding from the IHBG program and other sources allowed them to 

address specific housing needs, including funding a new housing 

rehabilitation program for members, purchasing units to address 

overcrowding and homelessness, and providing homebuyer assistance. 

Based on our interviews with NAHASDA grantees and on survey 

responses grantees provided, we found that grantees generally use the 

Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) program and the 

Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee program in combination with 

the IHBG program to fund affordable housing activities. Both the ICDBG 

and Section 184 are HUD programs. Some grantees also use programs 

provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural 

Development, and some larger grantees use the Low-Income Housing Tax 

Credit program (see table 3). 

Page 23 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Table 3: NAHASDA Grantees’ Use of Specific Funding Programs in Combination with the IHBG Program Based on Survey 

Responses

Program and agency Description 

Respondent participation 

(percentage and number) 

Title VI Loan Guarantee 

Program; HUD 

Authorized by NAHASDA in 1996 and enables HUD to provide a 95 percent 

loan guarantee to private lenders or investors that make loans to 

NAHASDA grantees to develop housing and community facilities. The Title 

VI loan is secured by a tribe’s or tribally designated housing entity’s pledge 

of its current and future IHBG funds. 

17 percent (33/199) 

Indian Community 

Development Block Grant 

Program (ICDBG); HUD 

Authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, and assists eligible grantees with developing viable 

communities, mainly by funding housing and economic development 

activities principally for persons of low- and moderate-income. Program 

regulations provide for two types of grants, single purpose and imminent 

threat. Single purpose grants are awarded competitively within ONAP 

regions.a

 Eligible applicants are federally recognized Indian tribes, Alaska 

Native villages, Village and Regional Corporations established under the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and certain other tribal organizations. 

70 percent (153/218) 

Section 184 Indian Home 

Loan Guarantee Program; 

HUD 

Authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and 

designed to offer homeownership and housing rehabilitation opportunities to 

eligible Native Americans on trust or restricted lands. The program provides 

a 100 percent federal guarantee to private lenders for home loans made to 

federally recognized tribes or their members and tribally designated housing 

entities. 

58 percent (124/214) 

Section 502 Single-Family 

Housing Direct Loan 

Program; USDA 

Authorized by the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, to provide very lowand low-income individuals or families in rural areas with loans to finance 

the purchase or construction of a home at an affordable interest rate. 

Applicants may obtain 100 percent financing. 

18 percent (35/191) 

Section 515 Rural Rental 

Housing Loan Program; 

USDA 

Authorized by the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, to provide loans to 

any individual, corporation, association, trust, Indian tribe, public or private 

nonprofit organization, consumer cooperative, or partnership to provide 

rental or cooperative housing and related facilities in rural areas for very 

low-, low-, or moderate-income persons or families, including elderly 

persons and persons with disabilities. 

10 percent (19/190) 

Rural Community 

Development Initiative 

Grant Program (RCDI); 

USDA 

Created in 2000 to develop the capacity and ability of nonprofit 

organizations, low-income rural communities, or federally recognized tribes 

to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community 

and economic development in rural areas. Eligible applicants are qualified 

private, nonprofit (including faith-based and community), and public 

(including tribal) intermediary organizations that provide financial and 

technical assistance programs to multiple recipients. 

12 percent (21/178) 

Page 24 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Program and agency Description 

Respondent participation 

(percentage and number) 

Low-Income Housing Tax 

Credit Program (LIHTC); 

IRS 

Created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Under the program, state and local 

agencies are authorized to issue federal tax credits for the acquisition, 

rehabilitation, or construction of affordable rental housing. To qualify for 

credit, a project must have a specific proportion of its units set aside for 

lower income households and the rents on those units are limited to a 

maximum of 30 percent of qualifying income. The amount of the credit is 

based on several factors, including the development cost and the 

proportion of units that is set aside. Credits are provided for a period of 10 

years. State and local agencies that issue LIHTC awards distribute the 

funds competitively and according to a qualified allocation plan. 

25 percent (51/205) 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD, USDA, and GAO’s NAHASDA survey data. 

Note: The number of grantees providing a response for each program varied. A total of 232 grantees 

responded to our survey. 

a

The ICDBG single purpose grant is awarded based on five rating factors, including (1) capacity of the 

applicant, (2) need or extent of the problem, and (3) leveraging resources. Imminent threat funds may 

be made available to alleviate or remove imminent threats to health or safety. The funds are awarded 

only if ONAP determines that certain regulatory requirements are met. 

Of the 12 grantees we interviewed, 8 told us that either the TDHE or the 

tribe itself had received competitively awarded grants through the ICDBG 

program and used those grants to fund a variety of projects. In addition to 

housing development, the projects included providing water and sewer 

systems; community buildings, such as a foster care facility and public 

safety building; flood protection for homes; and small business incubators 

(see fig. 7). Among survey respondents, participation in the ICDBG 

program in individual ONAP regions was between 60 and 95 percent, with 

the highest participation rate in the Northern Plains region, followed by 

the Northwest region.18 Five of the 12 grantees we interviewed said they 

had used the Section 184 loan program, and two others said they would 

consider the program in future leveraging efforts. Among survey 

respondents, participation in the Section 184 loan program in individual 

ONAP regions was more varied, from 39 to 85 percent, with the highest 

 

18Among the six ONAP regions, survey respondents indicated their participation in the 

ICDBG program as follows: Alaska (69 percent or 24/35); Eastern Woodlands (60 percent or 

24/40); Northern Plains (95 percent or 19/20); Northwest (72 percent or 13/18); Southern 

Plains (66 percent or 21/32); and Southwest (71 percent or 52/73). 

Page 25 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

participation rate in the Northern Plains region, followed closely by the 

Northwest region.19

Figure 7: Tribal Temporary Fo ure 7: Tribal Temporary Foster Care Facility and Public ter Care Facility and Public Safety Buildin afety Building Funded throu Funded through the ICDBG Pro h the ICDBG Program (ONAP ram (ONAP 

Northwest Region) 

Source: GAO.

Temporary foster care facility. Public safety building.

Although USDA’s Rural Development provides low-income housing 

assistance through several programs for which Native American tribes or 

their members are eligible, few NAHASDA grantees use the three USDA 

programs we asked about in our survey. Several grantees we interviewed 

said they participated in at least one USDA program in combination with 

the IHBG program; however, overall numbers from our survey show that 

only 10 percent of grantees reported using USDA’s Section 515 program 

(Rural Rental Housing) and 18 percent reported using the Section 502 

program (Single-Family Housing). USDA Rural Development officials told 

us they were surprised the figures were so low, especially given that 

Native American areas (along with the Mississippi Delta, Appalachia, and 

the Colonias on the Mexican border) are among the primary areas they 

target in order to serve some of the poorest and worst housed groups in 

 

19Among the six ONAP regions, survey respondents indicated their participation in the 

Section 184 loan program as follows: Alaska (39 percent or 13/33); Eastern Woodlands (74 

percent or 28/38); Northern Plains (85 percent or 17/20); Northwest (79 percent or 15/19); 

Southern Plains (39 percent or 13/33); and Southwest (54 percent or 38/71). 

Page 26 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

the nation. They also said that they have set-asides under the Section 515 

program for new construction on tribal lands. Several of the grantees we 

interviewed told us that they had little or no interaction with USDA local 

field office officials, and when they did, it was usually at their tribe’s 

initiative. For example, one small grantee’s housing director said that he 

was aware that some USDA programs might benefit his tribe, but that he 

had not had any contact with officials at the local USDA office, even 

though the office is about one hour away. USDA also told us that they are 

currently developing a more targeted outreach strategy that identifies 

tribal housing authorities as critical intermediaries and partners in raising 

the visibility of USDA Rural Development’s programs in Indian country. 

Some larger grantees also use Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) 

programs in combination with the IHBG program to fund affordable 

housing activities (see figs. 8 and 9). For each ONAP region, we 

interviewed two grantees whose population and grant size varied widely. 

As such, of the 12 grantees we interviewed, we make references to the “six 

smaller” or “six larger” grantees. Five of the six larger grantees we 

interviewed said that they currently use or had used LIHTC programs. 

Similarly, 96 percent of survey respondents who said they participate in 

LIHTC programs received grants of at least $250,000 in fiscal year 2008. 

Page 27 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Figure 8: Tribal Community Center Funded through Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Programs (ONAP Northern Plains

Region) 

Source: GAO.

Page 28 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Figure 9: Example of Large Grantee Housing Project (ONAP Alaska Region) 

Source: GAO.

Large grantee purchased homes (top photos) and used IHBG, low-income housing tax credit programs, and other funding to replace 

them with new affordable homes (bottom photos). 

Page 29 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

According to HUD officials and the grantees we interviewed, some 

grantees are limited in their ability to seek additional funds, including 

those that (1) have limited administrative resources, which prevents them 

from participating in a variety of programs; (2) are too small to qualify for 

LIHTC programs, which may require the development of a minimum 

number of housing units to serve a significant proportion of the lowincome population; and (3) undergo frequent administrative turnover. 

Additionally, though most of the grantees agreed that leveraging their 

IHBG funds by combining them with funds from other sources is 

beneficial, most grantees participating in multiple programs were larger 

grantees. And, among the 48 percent of survey respondents indicating that 

leveraging plays a great or very great role in their ability to fund affordable 

housing and related activities, 81 percent received at least $250,000 in 

IHBG funds in 2008. Of the respondents indicating that leveraging plays 

some, little, or no role in funding affordable housing, 66 percent reported 

having 5 or fewer persons on their housing staff (staff that manage, 

administer, and prepare grants or reports for the grantee’s housing 

program). 

Lack of Administrative 

Capacity and Other 

Challenges Limit 

Additional Funding 

Opportunities for Some 

Grantees 

All six of the smaller grantees we interviewed said they lacked some 

aspect of administrative capacity (such as housing staff resources, 

expertise, and time), which limits or prevents their participation in other 

programs or their ability to compete for non-NAHASDA funds. Three of 

the six smaller grantees had not applied for funding from other federal 

agencies, and three had not applied for or had experienced challenges 

applying for the ICDBG program, though ICDBG participation is high 

among grantees overall. Two of the six grantees also had not applied for 

the competitive portion of NAHASDA stimulus funds due to time 

constraints or to not having a grant writer to prepare a competitive 

proposal.20 Grantees we interviewed and those responding to our survey 

also reported that burdensome administrative requirements impact their 

ability to participate in NAHASDA and other housing programs (see fig. 

10). The grants planner for one small grantee we visited said his tribe 

declined the IHBG grant one year because it determined the grant amount 

would not justify the effort and cost of participating in the program. The 

housing director of another small grantee explained that while leveraging 

offers the ability to stretch dollars, without enough funding to pay for the 

 

20The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $510 million in funding 

for NAHASDA. Half of the funds were awarded to fiscal year 2008 grantees in formula 

grants based on 2008 allocation inputs. The other half was made available through 

competitive grants. 

Page 30 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

necessary staff resources, it is very difficult to take on the extra burden of 

making different funding sources work together. 

Figure 10: Percentage of Survey Respondents Reporting Specific Challenges to 

Leveraging as Moderate to Very Great 

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.

75

74

68

68

61

51 Exclusion from some

programs due to size

Limited interest from

financial institutions

Lack of coordination between

agencies providing funding

Incompatibility among

different funding programs

Burdensome administrative

requirements from funding sources

Limited capacity due to resources

Note: The number of grantees providing a response for each leveraging challenge varied. 

As noted, five of the six larger grantees we interviewed indicated they had 

participated in LIHTC programs. However, none of the smaller grantees 

we interviewed indicated that they had participated in LIHTC programs, 

and two explained that such programs would require more resources than 

were available to them. For example, the housing director of one of the 

smaller grantees said that they had considered participating in a LIHTC 

program, but found they could not undertake the required scale of 

development. HUD data supports this assessment. According to HUD, of 

16,754 LIHTC projects placed into service between 1995 and 2006, only 

about 17 percent of the projects had 20 or fewer units.21

Limited resources mainly impact smaller grantees that receive lesser 

grants, but grantees of any size may experience frequent turnover in 

housing and management staff that affect the continuity of housing plans 

and activities. One housing director explained that frequent turnover in 

housing management and staff can contribute to a lack of knowledge of 

 

21Approximately 37 percent of the LIHTC projects HUD reported were placed into service 

between 1995 and 2006 had 21 to 50 units; 22 percent had 51 to 99 units; and 24 percent had 

100 or more units. 

Page 31 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

implementing housing programs and lack of consistency in the grantee’s 

housing plan. 

Incompatibility among different funding programs was cited by 68 percent 

of survey respondents as a challenge to leveraging. Some other funding 

programs may be incompatible with the IHBG program due to conflicting 

requirements, such as requirements for eligible beneficiaries. In addition, 

68 percent of survey respondents identified lack of coordination between 

agencies providing funding as a leveraging challenge. Several grantees we 

interviewed reported that a lack of coordination between HUD and other 

funding agencies limits their efforts to combine IHBG funds with funds 

from those other agencies. For example, the grantees explained that, like 

HUD, various agencies require grantees to complete environmental 

reviews when they receive funds to develop housing and related 

infrastructure. However, they said that HUD generally does not accept 

environmental reviews that meet other agencies’ requirements, making it 

necessary for them to have multiple reviews carried out. 

Officials from NAIHC and three grantees we interviewed also reported that 

limited interest from financial institutions is an ongoing challenge for 

tribal entities in obtaining financing for housing development. They said 

that many banks are reluctant to do business with tribes because of 

cumbersome procedures or lack of experience. For example, they 

explained that the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) process for issuing land 

title or trust status reports when a mortgage is made on trust lands is 

lengthy and inefficient. Several grantees explained that BIA’s process for 

issuing this paperwork can take months or years, making such 

transactions impractical for lenders and difficult for members pursuing 

homeownership or receiving homeownership assistance. In 1998 we 

reported that from 1992 through 1996, lenders made only 91 conventional 

home purchase loans to Native Americans on trust lands (80 of which 

went to members of only two tribes), largely because lenders have a 

limited understanding of land ownership, jurisdiction, and legal issues 

pertaining to Native American trust lands.22

A more recent source notes that while federal programs and other efforts 

subsequently encouraged greater lending to Native Americans on trust 

lands, challenges remain. Both the Section 184 and NAHASDA’s Title VI 

 

22GAO, Native American Housing: Homeownership Opportunities on Trust Lands Are 

Limited, GAO/RCED-98-49 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 1998). 

Page 32 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

loan guarantee programs aim to provide an incentive for private lenders to 

make housing loans to tribes and their members.23 In comparison with the 

Section 184 program, participation in Title VI was low among grantees we 

interviewed and those responding to our survey. Two of the 12 grantees 

we interviewed and 17 percent (33/199) of survey respondents said they 

had participated in Title VI. Data we received from ONAP on both loan 

programs support what we found on Section 184 and Title VI participation. 

In fiscal year 2008, HUD provided guarantees for 1,577 Section 184 loans 

totaling $274.8 million compared with only 8 Title VI loans totaling $14.2 

million. And, in fiscal year 2009, HUD provided guarantees for 2,401 

Section 184 loans totaling $395.4 million compared with only 6 Title VI 

loans totaling $12.8 million. However, Title VI is a newer loan program and 

it offers lenders a 95 percent federal guarantee, compared with the Section 

184 program’s 100 percent guarantee. Some individual grantees also have 

made efforts to facilitate lending in their communities. For example, one 

grantee we met with had an agreement with BIA to do title permitting 

onsite in order to expedite the title process for Section 184 program loans, 

and two other grantees we interviewed had established their own banks. 

Grantees responding to our survey and those we interviewed generally 

viewed NAHASDA as an effective affordable housing program and as an 

improvement over the programs it replaced. A primary reason was that 

NAHASDA emphasizes tribal self-determination, which is the right to use 

grant funds with minimal restrictions to meet tribes’ self-identified housing 

needs. Survey respondents reported that they view NAHASDA as most 

effective at providing homeownership opportunities and improving 

housing conditions for low-income Native Americans. However, some 

grantees we spoke with and some responding to our survey had specific 

concerns about NAHASDA, such as problems with meeting what they 

considered to be onerous regulatory requirements and perceived 

inequities in the grant allocation formula. Negotiated rulemaking between 

HUD and tribes participating in NAHASDA provides the tribes with an 

opportunity to address their concerns with NAHASDA’s regulations, 

including concerns pertaining to the grant allocation formula. 

Survey Respondents 

and Tribes We 

Interviewed Generally 

Viewed NAHASDA as 

Effective in Meeting 

Their Low-Income 

Housing Needs, but 

Some Reported 

Challenges, Including 

Concerns with the 

Allocation Formula 

 

23Individual tribal members can only apply for Section 184 loans. 

Page 33 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Tribes View NAHASDA as 

Effective at Addressing 

Their Affordable Housing 

Needs and as an 

Improvement over the 

HUD Programs It Replaced 

Based on our survey of and interviews with NAHASDA grantees, most 

grantees view NAHASDA as an effective low-income housing program, and 

a primary reason was NAHASDA’s recognition of tribal self-determination. 

Of the 223 survey respondents that provided views on NAHASDA’s 

effectiveness, almost 90 percent (200 grantees) reported that the program 

has had a positive effect in helping them to meet their affordable housing 

needs (see table 4). Of those 200 grantees, more than half (110 grantees) 

reported that NAHASDA has had a very positive effect. Similarly, 8 of the 

12 grantees we interviewed told us that NAHASDA has simplified the 

process of providing housing benefits for their tribes. However, 5 of the 8 

grantees who said that NAHASDA has simplified the process of accessing 

affordable housing benefits also mentioned some cumbersome aspects to 

the program, such as the reporting requirements. 

Table 4: Survey Respondents’ Views on the Overall Effectiveness of NAHASDA 

Number of 

responses 

Percentage of those that 

answered the question

Very positive 110 49.3

Generally positive 90 40.4

Neither positive or negative 15 6.7

Generally negative 7 3.1

Very negative 1 0.4

Total 223 100

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees. 

Note: Results shown exclude seven responses of “don’t know or no opinion” and two “not checked” 

responses. 

Among survey respondents, there were some minor differences in the 

results across grantees receiving grants of various sizes. Of the 47 survey 

respondents that provided views on NAHASDA’s effectiveness and that 

received a grant less than $250,000 in fiscal year 2008, 46 had a generally 

positive or very positive view of NAHASDA’s effectiveness (see table 5). In 

contrast with this consistently positive view of NAHASDA among 

respondents that received lesser grants, eight grantees that received more 

than $250,000 reported negative views on NAHASDA’s effectiveness. Our 

analysis of survey respondents’ written explanations shows that some 

grantees preferred the 1937 Act housing programs because they were able 

to successfully compete for funds. Officials we spoke with at NAIHC said 

that larger tribes with sophisticated housing departments were more likely 

to view NAHASDA as less effective than the 1937 Act programs it replaced 

because they may receive less funding under the block grant formula. 

Page 34 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Table 5: Survey Respondents’ Views on the Overall Effectiveness of NAHASDA, by Fiscal Year 2008 Grant Size 

Grantees receiving less than $250,000 Grantees receiving more than $250,000

Number Percentage Number Percentage

Very or generally positive 46 97.9 154 87.5

Neither positive or negative 1 2.1 14 8.0

Very or generally negative 0 0 8 4.5

Total 47 100 176 100

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees. 

Note: Results shown exclude seven responses of “don’t know or no opinion” and two “not checked” 

responses. 

We asked survey respondents to provide explanations to support their 

overall views of NAHASDA, and most that viewed NAHASDA positively 

wrote that the program helps them meet their overall affordable housing 

needs. However, of those that provided more specific reasons for 

NAHASDA’s positive impact, most respondents mentioned that the 

program has been effective because it allows the grantee to 

• target specific housing needs for their tribe, such as increasing energy 

efficiency in affordable units (56 responses); 

• exercise self-determination and program flexibility (19 responses); and 

• leverage their NAHASDA grant with funding from other sources (10 

responses). 

We also surveyed grantees on the extent to which they thought NAHASDA 

was effective at meeting certain programmatic goals. We found that survey 

respondents viewed NAHASDA as very effective at improving housing 

conditions and increasing access to affordable rental housing and 

homeownership, but less effective at developing housing finance 

mechanisms and increasing economic development on Indian lands (see 

fig. 11).24

 

24GAO/RCED-98-49. 

Page 35 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Figure 11: Grantees View NAHASDA as Most Effective at Improving Housing Conditions for Low-Income Native Americans

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.

54.3

44.4

45.3

20.3

24.1

Improving housing conditions for 

low-income tribal members

Increasing access to affordable 

rental housing

Increasing access to affordable 

homeownership

Developing private housing 

finance mechanisms

Increasing economic development 

activities, such as providing jobs

for tribal members

% 39.2

36.2

34.9

36.2

47.4

% 4.3

13.8

15.1

25.9

20.7

%

Effectiveness of NAHASDA

Very to extremely Somewhat to moderately Slightly or not

Note: Of the 232 respondents, 221 provided views on NAHASDA and 11 either did not provide their 

opinion or checked “don’t know.” Percentages show the portion of the total survey responses. 

One survey respondent primarily operating in an urban area wrote that 

under NAHASDA, they have been able to develop mixed-use housing in 

their region and have been able to supplement the housing they provide 

with social support services. Similarly, another survey respondent wrote 

that under NAHASDA, they have been able to maintain existing housing 

units and provide financial literacy training to the community as well as 

counseling to aid prospective homeowners in the tribe. 

We asked survey respondents to compare their experiences under 

NAHASDA with experiences under the 1937 Act housing programs it 

replaced in 1998. Of the 138 respondents that checked that they had 

participated in the 1937 Act programs, 102 grantees—or about 74 

percent—reported that NAHASDA is an improvement over the programs it 

replaced. Of those that viewed NAHASDA as an improvement, about 

half—53 out of 102—checked that NAHASDA was much better. Only 17 

reported that NAHASDA was worse or much worse than the 1937 Act 

programs it replaced (see table 6). 

Page 36 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Table 6: Survey Respondents’ Views on NAHASDA Compared with 1937 Act 

Housing Programs

Number of 

responses 

Percentage of those 

that answered the 

question

Much better 53 38.4

Better 49 35.5

About the same 19 13.8

Worse 15 10.9

Much worse 2 1.4

Total 138 100.0 

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees. 

Note: Results shown exclude seven responses of “don’t know or no opinion” and two “not checked” 

responses. Percentages show the portion of those respondents that provided views on NAHASDA. 

The grantees we interviewed also viewed NAHASDA as an improvement 

over 1937 Act housing programs, and all of them identified selfdetermination as the main reason. For example, one grantee we 

interviewed said that because of the flexibility afforded by NAHASDA, 

their tribe was able to buy housing units in urban areas rather than on 

their reservation and rent the units to low-income members. This grantee 

explained that they intended to provide housing in locations that had more 

opportunities for employment so that program beneficiaries could become 

increasingly self-sufficient. 

Self-determination was also the most common reason that survey 

respondents favored NAHASDA over the previous housing programs. The 

102 survey respondents reporting that NAHASDA was better or much 

better provided 85 written reasons for their answers. We analyzed their 

responses and found that the largest group—65 responses—said that 

NAHASDA was an improvement because it provided for tribal selfdetermination. For example, one survey respondent wrote that each tribe 

has unique housing needs influenced by their specific cultures, economic 

conditions, and physical environments and that NAHASDA has been a 

drastic improvement because it allows tribes the flexibility to meet those 

needs. Another respondent wrote that although the funding levels have 

effectively dropped with NAHASDA, the program has allowed tribes to be 

more flexible with how they spend the grant, allowing for a more effective 

use of the limited funding. For those survey respondents that provided 

explanations on how NAHASDA was worse or much worse than the 

programs it replaced, the main reasons provided were 

Page 37 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

• NAHASDA provides less funding than previous programs (six responses) 

• NAHASDA is a block grant, which does not reward those tribes that have 

the capacity to apply for and win competitive housing grants (five 

responses); and 

• NAHASDA has too many administrative and regulatory requirements (five 

responses). 

Tribes Recommended 

Loosening Administrative 

Burdens to Improve the 

Program and Reported 

Limitations in the 

NAHASDA Grant 

Allocation Formula as a 

Major Challenge 

Respondents to our survey provided a total of 133 distinct 

recommendations on how to improve NAHASDA, and most of the 

respondents wrote that certain administrative rules and obligations were 

too onerous (see table 7). Most commonly, those respondents cited 

mandatory environmental reviews as overly cumbersome. Others noted 

certain administrative restrictions on their funds; for example, some said 

that the cap on the portion of the grant they can use for administrative 

expenses was arbitrary and limited their administrative capacity.25

Specifically, one respondent wrote that determining the amount spent on 

administrative costs should be up to each tribe so that tribes can manage 

their own programs as they see fit. 

Table 7: Most Frequent Suggestions on How NAHASDA Could be Improved 

How NAHASDA could be improved 

Number of such 

recommendations

Minimize regulatory requirements 32

Provide more training for grantees 22

Ensure that HUD staff is trained and more responsive 21

Revise HUD’s reporting requirements 19

Revise the allocation formula 18

Appropriate more funds 12

Provide funds more quickly 9

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees. 

Note: Survey respondents—111 total—provided various suggestions on improving NAHASDA. Of 

those that we were able to categorize, we identified 133 distinct recommendations primarily because 

some respondents provided more than one suggestion. 

 

25The regulations, as negotiated, limit planning and administrative expenses to 20 percent 

of a grantee’s annual grant amount. Grantees must receive approval from HUD when those 

expenses are expected to exceed 20 percent of their annual grant amount. 

Page 38 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Grantees we interviewed identified limitations in the grant allocation 

formula as a particular challenge with the IHBG program. They told us that 

they believe the allocation formula is either based on inaccurate data (for 

example, enrollment numbers or area construction costs) or does not 

consider certain key factors, such as a lack of land to develop housing. In 

calculating a grantee’s annual allocation, the formula considers such 

factors as fair market rent and total development cost for a grantee’s local 

area. However, the formula does not take into account whether a tribe has 

buildable land to use for housing development in the calculation of total 

development cost or as a separate factor.26 The housing director of one 

small grantee we visited that did not own trust land reported that they had 

to first allocate grant funds to purchase land for any new development. 

Similarly, of the 201 survey respondents that provided an opinion 

specifically on the grant allocation formula, 159 grantees—or nearly 80 

percent—said the formula could be improved. And, of those survey 

respondents that checked certain problems with utilizing NAHASDA, 46 

percent of respondents said that the formula is based on inaccurate data, 

and 64 percent said that it does not consider certain factors such as 

properly accounting for construction costs or the cost of purchasing land 

for development. Survey respondents provided a total of 159 suggestions 

on how the IHBG allocation formula could be improved, and most 

recommended that the demographic data used in determining the need 

portion of the grant be updated (see table 8). For example, multiple survey 

respondents said that U.S. Census figures do not accurately reflect the 

population for which they provide housing services. 

Two of the grantees we interviewed and some survey respondents also 

said that the IHBG operation and maintenance subsidy that currently 

supports 1937 Act units should extend to NAHASDA-funded units. During 

our visit with one of the grantees we interviewed, the housing director 

explained that because their NAHASDA units are low-income, the tribe 

would likely need assistance with upkeep to ensure that they maintain 

their value.27

 

26Grantees we interviewed described land as not buildable if it included flood plains or 

hillside, or if it was near water with high mineral content. 

27NAHASDA was amended in October 2008 by Pub. L. No. 110-411 to allow for the 

operation and maintenance of NAHASDA units as a housing management service and not 

as a model activity, which required approval from HUD. 

Page 39 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

In addition, several of the 12 grantees we interviewed stated that the 

minimum IHBG grant of around $50,000 per year is insufficient for those 

who receive it to pursue any significant housing activities, especially new 

housing development. Some survey respondents provided similar 

comments about the minimum grant amount. Moreover, ONAP officials in 

all six regions stated that grantees receiving lesser grants, including the 

minimum, are limited in their ability to address their affordable housing 

needs. 

Table 8: Survey Respondents’ Suggestions on How the IHBG Allocation Formula 

Could Be Improved 

How the IHBG formula could be improved 

Number of such 

recommendations

Improve the demographic data used 38

Increase the minimum grant 24

Revisit the definition of the formula area 19

Increase funding 20

Incorporate certain ongoing costs, such as unit maintenance 23

Incorporate certain regional costs, such as construction costs 19

Other suggestions 16

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees. 

However, ONAP headquarters officials explained that tribes participate in 

developing regulations for the grant allocation formula, including 

establishing a minimum grant amount, through negotiated rulemaking with 

HUD. They informed us that the negotiated rulemaking committee will be 

convened in March 2010 to determine regulations that implement October 

2008 statutory changes to NAHASDA. They also confirmed that the May 

2012 committee agenda will include reviewing the allocation formula. 

Page 40 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Of the 232 NAHASDA grantees responding to our survey, 70 percent 

viewed investment in housing-related infrastructure—such as connecting a 

home to a local water supply—as a great housing need, but slightly less 

than half indicated that they use IHBG funds to develop infrastructure (see 

fig. 12). Additionally, we found that HUD does not collect grantees’ 

infrastructure plans or measure their investments in infrastructure for 

affordable homes funded by the IHBG program. According to data from 

the Department of Health and Human Services’ Indian Health Service 

(IHS), there is an acute need for sanitation-related infrastructure for 

Indian housing in general, and our survey indicates a significant need for 

adequate sanitation infrastructure for homes funded by HUD programs. 

Some IHS officials also told us that they have found instances where HUD 

homes were built with insufficient planning, taxing existing water supplies 

and wastewater systems. Although HUD does not collect information on 

the sanitation infrastructure needs for HUD homes, IHS does collect such 

information and, according to IHS officials, can make it available to HUD 

under a 2007 memorandum of understanding between the agencies. 

Almost Half of the 

Grantees We 

Surveyed Use IHBG 

Funds for 

Infrastructure 

Development, but 

HUD Does Not 

Collect Grantees’ 

Plans or Monitor 

Their Investments in 

Housing-Related 

Infrastructure 

Page 41 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Figure 12: Housing-Related Infrastructure 

Source: GAO and Art Explosion (images).

Septic

tank

Communication

Community-level

Access

Sanitation

Electricity

Well

Underground sewer system pipe

Gas line

Water

Heat

Page 42 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

Seventy Percent of Survey 

Respondents Viewed 

Housing-Related 

Infrastructure as a Great 

Need, but Only About Half 

Report Using IHBG Funds 

to Help Meet that Need 

Out of 232 NAHASDA grantees that responded to our survey, 85 percent 

(198 grantees) reported that developing infrastructure, such as providing 

homes with access to drinking water, was a continuing need for their tribe. 

And, 70 percent (164 grantees) said that developing infrastructure was a 

great or very great need. Additionally, grantees that responded to our 

survey ranked adding or updating housing-related infrastructure 4th out of 

13 greatest continuing housing needs, after constructing new units, 

rehabilitating existing units, and operating and maintaining units (see fig. 

13). 

Figure 13: Survey Respondents’ Rankings of Their Greatest Continuing Housing

Needs, by Percentage 

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.

79.3

49.1

40.9

27.6

26.3

16.8

15.9

15.5

13.8

9.9

6.9

6.0

Crime prevention and safety 6.0

Providing housing services to

members outside the tribal area

Addressing homelessness

Providing downpayment assistance

Increasing homeownership

Providing rental assistance

Increasing energy efficiency

Addressing overcrowding

Purchasing land for housing 

Adding or updating infrastructure 

Operating and maintaining units

Rehabilitating existing units

Constructing new units

Note: Percentages indicate the portion of survey respondents that ranked a particular need in their 

top three continuing housing needs. Results do not include 4.3 percent of respondents that reported 

“other continuing housing needs.” 

Despite this demonstrated need for infrastructure development, slightly 

less than half of the survey respondents—98 of the 222 who responded to 

this question—reported that they actually use their IHBG grant for 

Page 43 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

infrastructure development (see fig. 14). Some of the grantees that 

responded to our survey explained that they have a pronounced need for 

infrastructure development and that they often do not receive enough 

funding to address infrastructure with the IHBG program. Of those 

grantees that we spoke with, smaller grantees were less likely to use the 

IHBG program for infrastructure, either because they do not receive 

enough funding to address their needs or because they provide assistance 

to persons living in units that are on a city- or county-funded infrastructure 

system. Indeed, the results of our survey show that, of the grantees 

receiving a large grant, twice as many used IHBG funds for infrastructure 

development as those receiving a small grant. 

Figure 14: Survey Respondents’ Use of the IHBG Program for Infrastructure 

Development, by Fiscal Year 2008 Grant Size 

Grantees receiving

less than $250,000

28%

14 out of 50

grantees

Grantees receiving

more than $250,000

48.8%

84 out of 172

grantees

Total

44.1%

98 out of 222

grantees

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.

Officials in four of the six regional ONAP offices, as well as half of the IHS 

field directors that we spoke with, said that because of the need for 

affordable housing for most tribes, tribal housing departments may be 

providing housing units without adequate infrastructure to support those 

units. Although the grantees we interviewed did not say that they built 

homes with inadequate infrastructure, six said that they use or intend to 

use other programs to help meet their infrastructure needs. 

NAHASDA emphasizes tribal self-determination by providing a 

noncompetitive block grant to tribes, but survey respondents that 

provided views on problems with the program said that the greatest 

Page 44 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

problem—out of a list of six most common problems—is a lack of funding 

specifically for housing-related infrastructure (see fig. 15).28

Figure 15: Survey Respondents’ Views on Problems with NAHASDA Ranked by 

Number of Responses

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.

122

88

86

73

58

48 Agency delays in

disbursing grant funds

Grant allocation formula is

based on inaccurate data

Program regulations do not allow us

to address certain housing needs

Administrative costs of operating

the program are high

Allocation formula does

not consider certain key factors

Lack of funding specifically for

housing-related infrastructure

Housing-related infrastructure development is an affordable housing 

activity under NAHASDA. ONAP officials, especially those in the regional 

offices, said that prior to NAHASDA, they worked with IHS to identify all 

infrastructure needs for housing developments funded by HUD. Under 

NAHASDA, however, tribes have the flexibility to determine the uses of 

their funding within the scope of eligible activities, including the extent to 

which they want to use the IHBG program for infrastructure development. 

Instead of using the IHBG program, survey respondents reported that they 

were more likely to fund their infrastructure development using other 

funding sources (see table 9). Although some tribes rely on other 

programs to help fund their infrastructure development, our interviews 

with grantees and findings from a 2003 NAIHC study indicate that nonIHBG programs for infrastructure development—such as programs 

administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, HUD, and USDA—

have characteristics that present challenges to some tribes.29 For example, 

 

28NAHASDA was amended in October 2008 by Pub. L. No. 110-411 to authorize a 

demonstration loan guarantee program for community development projects. HUD officials 

told us that this legislation did not impact tribes’ ability to use the IHBG or the Title VI 

program for housing-related infrastructure development. 

29National American Indian Housing Council, Building the Framework: Housing 

Infrastructure Development in Indian Country (2003). 

Page 45 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

while the study found that the ICDBG program was a sought-after program 

for IHBG grantees to fund infrastructure projects, it was only available to 

tribes that have the administrative capacity to meet the application 

requirements. Furthermore, our analysis found that the ICDBG program is 

consistently funded at about one-tenth the level of the IHBG program, 

making it much smaller. In addition, since IHS is statutorily prohibited 

from funding sanitation facility construction projects for IHBG-funded 

units, some survey respondents and grantees we spoke with said that they 

were disappointed that IHS would not provide the sanitation infrastructure 

support without reimbursement from the tribe.30

Table 9: Survey Respondents’ Use of Various Programs to Develop HousingRelated Infrastructure 

Programs available to tribes to 

develop housing-related 

infrastructure 

Number of respondents

that reported using

program(s)

Percentage of all 

responding

IHS programs 155 66.8

HUD’s ICDBG program 118 50.9

Bureau of Indian Affairs programs 109 47.0

IHBG program (NAHASDA) 98 44.1

State and local government programs 69 29.7

USDA programs 61 26.3

Other sources of funds, including 

nongovernmental sources 40 20.7

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees. 

Note: Respondents could select more than one source of funding. 

 

30For many years, IHS has been statutorily precluded from directly funding the construction 

of sanitation facilities for HUD-funded homes. Prior to NAHASDA, HUD officials said that 

they worked with IHS to develop sanitation facilities for HUD-funded housing and 

coordinated the necessary payments to IHS. Now, tribes are responsible for planning their 

own housing development and can obtain technical assistance services from IHS and 

reimburse IHS for any construction costs from their IHBG funds or other sources. 

Page 46 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

HUD Does Not Collect 

Information on Grantees’ 

Infrastructure Needs or the 

Amounts Grantees Invest 

in Housing-Related 

Infrastructure 

Development 

HUD’s primary tools for monitoring grantees’ uses of IHBG funds are the 

IHP and the APR. In our review of the IHP, which describes grantees’ 

plans for the coming year, we found that it does not provide a means for 

HUD to systematically collect information from grantees on both their 

housing-related infrastructure needs and their plans to address those 

needs, including infrastructure for new housing construction. The IHP 

collects information on some of grantees’ estimated housing needs, such 

as the number of families who need housing because they are living in 

overcrowded conditions. The IHP also collects information on grantees’ 

plans to address those stated needs, such as by constructing new housing 

to alleviate the overcrowded conditions. However, although it does cover 

many important housing-related activities the IHP does not require 

grantees to describe how they intend to address any existing infrastructure 

deficiencies, such as a home with inadequate access to potable water. In 

addition, the IHP does not require grantees to describe what infrastructure 

development a new construction project will require and how that 

infrastructure will be funded. 

The APR, which describes grantees’ accomplishments during the past 

year, provides grantees the opportunity to report how they are carrying 

out the plans and addressing the housing needs outlined in the IHP. In our 

review of the APR, we found that because it is based on activities 

described in the IHP, it also lacks an assessment of how a tribe is meeting 

the infrastructure needs of its low-income members. HUD officials we 

spoke with confirmed that the APR does not track grantees’ infrastructure 

investments. Although the IHP and the APR allow grantees to describe any 

needs and plans—including those for infrastructure development—in a 

narrative format, we learned that those narratives are not included in 

ONAP’s reporting system, which means that these components are not 

used in HUD’s overall reports to Congress. Further, one grantee that we 

spoke with said that they do not believe HUD officials actually review the 

narratives or track them so they do not take the time to list activities that 

are not measured, such as infrastructure-related needs and plans. 

As previously noted, HUD is planning to combine the IHP and the APR by 

fiscal year 2011. We reviewed a draft of this document and found that 

while it does a better job of tracking grantees’ uses of NAHASDA funds, 

from identifying affordable housing needs to assessing the impact of 

completed housing development, it does not systematically assess 

grantees’ needs, plans, or investments related to infrastructure 

development. Because grantees are not required to report on or to quantify 

their need for and investments in infrastructure, HUD may lack the 

information necessary to assess the extent to which NAHASDA is meeting 

Page 47 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

its statutory objectives of improving the health and safety of low-income 

Native Americans and integrating infrastructure resources to support 

housing development. 

The Indian Health Service 

Has Found That 

Inadequate Sanitation 

Infrastructure Is an Acute 

Problem for Native 

Americans, but HUD Has 

Not Used Health Service 

Data to Help Inform IHBG 

Grantees of Any Identified 

Deficiencies 

Of the 98 survey respondents that reported using IHBG funds for 

infrastructure, the majority reported using the IHBG program to provide 

access to clean water and to provide for wastewater removal (see fig. 16). 

Similarly, grantees that we spoke with, and some responding to our 

survey, explained that sanitation infrastructure, such as providing access 

to clean drinking water and providing for the safe, reliable removal of 

wastewater, was an important type of infrastructure for low-income 

housing. According to IHS, access to adequate sanitation facilities is a vital 

public health issue for Native Americans. Adequate access to safe drinking 

water helps to stem the spread of disease, and proper wastewater removal 

systems help reduce the incidence of bacteria, viruses, and parasites that 

cause communicable diseases like typhoid and hepatitis A. 

Figure 16: Types of Infrastructure for Which Survey Respondents Reported Using

IHBG Funds

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.

34.1%

30.2%

25.4%

22.0%

16.8%

Gas/propane lines 13.8%

Telephone lines

Electrical systems

Roads

Wastewater systems

Water systems

Percentage that used IHBG funds for each type of infrastructure Number of

respondents

79

70

59

51

39

32

Note: This graphic does not include those respondents that reported using the IHBG for “other 

infrastructure,” which amounted to 15 responses, or 6.5 percent of the total. 

Government data sources show that there is still an acute need for 

adequate sanitation infrastructure on Indian lands. The U.S. Census 

estimated that in 2008 Native American households were five times as 

likely to have incomplete plumbing as the rest of the population. And, 

according to a March 2008 draft report issued by an interagency 

Page 48 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

infrastructure task force written pursuant to the United Nation’s 

Millennium Challenge Goals, approximately 43,800 housing units occupied 

by Native Americans—or about 13 percent of Native American homes—

had inadequate access to safe drinking water and wastewater disposal 

systems in 2007. 31

The report noted a slight improvement since the benchmark year, 2003, 

when there were 44,234 homes with inadequate infrastructure. However, it 

concluded that this rate of decrease was not sufficient to meet the U.S. 

government’s goal of reducing the number of Native American homes with 

inadequate sanitation facilities to half of the 2003 figure by 2015. HUD 

officials we spoke with told us that they joined this task force at its 

inception in 2003 and signed a memorandum of understanding with the 

other members of the task force, including IHS, to facilitate interagency 

coordination to meet the United Nations goal. 

The data used in the report were collected by IHS’s Sanitation Tracking 

and Reporting System, a database that tracks reported sanitation 

deficiencies for most Native American communities. Although IHS is 

statutorily precluded from funding sanitation construction services for 

HUD homes, IHS is authorized to and actively collects data on the 

infrastructure needs for those homes as long as the data are reported by 

their tribal counterparts. IHS officials we spoke with in headquarters and 

five of the ten officials we contacted in field offices said that they have 

found instances where tribes in their region have built homes using 

NAHASDA funding with inadequate planning for sanitation infrastructure. 

For example, one official told us that his field office has been contacted by 

individual tribal members about NAHASDA homes with inadequate sewer 

lines or inadequate drains. He added that, in general, tribal housing 

departments may feel pressure from their community to maximize the 

number of housing units produced and that this pressure may lead to more 

units being built at the expense of adequate infrastructure for the units. 

The other five field directors said that they have not seen tribes build 

NAHASDA homes with inadequate infrastructure, but three of these five 

acknowledged that NAHASDA homes could be stretching existing 

infrastructure facilities in certain communities. For example, one director 

told us that because NAHASDA homes are often built within existing 

 

31Federal Infrastructure Task Force Access Subgroup, Meeting the Access Goal: Strategies 

for Increasing Access to Safe Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment to American 

Indian and Alaska Native Homes (March 2008). 

Page 49 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

housing developments, as tribes add homes to existing communities, the 

communities’ underlying sanitation infrastructure may increasingly be 

burdened with those homes. 

HUD officials we spoke with said that they also do not have the data 

necessary to measure the extent to which HUD-funded homes need 

updated infrastructure investment. However, according to IHS officials, 

HUD can access IHS’s sanitation deficiency database pursuant to a 2007 

memorandum of understanding that specifically authorizes data sharing 

between IHS, HUD, and other agencies. 

Native American tribes generally have a positive view of NAHASDA, and 

most see it as an improvement over the housing programs previously 

available to them, in large part because of NAHASDA’s emphasis on selfdetermination for the tribes. However, small grantees that receive lesser 

grants reported facing challenges in building new housing and in trying to 

leverage their grant funds to secure additional funding for affordable 

housing activities. Reporting on NAHASDA accomplishments is currently 

limited primarily to building, acquiring, and rehabilitating housing units, 

despite the fact that many tribes use NAHASDA funds for other eligible 

purposes. Because of this limitation in reporting, HUD has not collected a 

full set of data on NAHASDA. As a result, Congress has not had a complete 

picture of the program’s accomplishments. However, the revisions HUD 

plans to make to the Indian Housing Plan (IHP) and Annual Performance 

Report (APR) should address some reporting limitations, which should 

help efforts to assess the impact of NAHASDA on low-income Native 

Americans. 

Conclusions 

NAHASDA also has helped some tribes with infrastructure development, 

but infrastructure continues to be a pressing need for many tribes, 

particularly in the area of sanitation. HUD does not currently collect 

grantees’ assessments of their housing-related infrastructure needs or data 

on how they use grant funds to address those needs, and planned revisions 

to the IHP and APR do not address reporting on infrastructure. As a result, 

additional opportunities exist for HUD to collect such information, which 

would allow it to track grantees’ efforts to address a key need in their 

communities and would broaden the scope of accomplishment data that 

HUD can report to Congress. 

Furthermore, comprehensive data on tribes’ infrastructure needs as they 

pertain to sanitation facilities are already collected by IHS and are 

available to HUD under an interagency memorandum of understanding. If 

Page 50 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

HUD were to obtain this data and share it with grantees, the data could 

help tribes identify any unmet sanitation needs that they might include in 

their reporting and address with their NAHASDA grants. 

To better assess the extent to which NAHASDA is meeting its objectives of 

providing safe and healthy homes and coordinating infrastructure with 

housing development for low-income Native Americans, we recommend 

that HUD’s Office of Native American Programs ensure that its revised 

Indian Housing Plan and Annual Performance Report: 

• capture data on tribes’ infrastructure-related needs; 

• capture tribes’ plans for addressing their identified infrastructure needs; 

• measure the extent to which NAHASDA grantees are using IHBG funds 

and Title VI loan guarantees for housing-related infrastructure 

development; and 

• assess the effectiveness of infrastructure development in meeting the 

needs of low-income Native Americans, such as by measuring the number 

of low-income Native Americans that have better access to drinking water 

or a safe heat source. 

To help grantees identify their existing sanitation infrastructure needs, we 

recommend that HUD provide them with sanitation deficiency data 

obtained from IHS on homes in the grantees’ service area—particularly for 

those homes that are statutorily precluded from receiving IHS-funded 

sanitation construction services. 

We provided a draft of this report to HUD for review and comment. HUD’s 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs provided 

written comments that are discussed below and presented in Appendix IV. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

HUD stated that our report is generally positive and would be a very useful 

document. HUD also requested that we change the report title to reflect 

only the generally positive view of the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) 

program under NAHASDA. However, we thought it necessary to include 

language on an issue for which the report makes recommendations to 

HUD. 

Page 51 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
 

HUD also agreed with our conclusions and recommendations, noting that 

while there have been improvements, our conclusion that there is still a 

significant need for adequate infrastructure to support Indian housing is 

accurate. Additionally, HUD stated, and we agree, that HUD and the Indian 

Health Service (IHS) should continue to work together to address these 

problems. As indicated in our conclusions and recommendations, we 

believe that HUD’s inclusion of infrastructure needs and investments in 

program reporting and its use of IHS data on sanitation deficiencies in 

Indian country should benefit Native American tribes participating in the 

IHBG program and capture additional program results for HUD and 

Congress. HUD noted that allowing tribes to use their IHBG funds to 

leverage IHS resources would improve their ability to address 

infrastructure deficiencies. In our report, we highlight that leveraging 

IHBG funds with funds from other sources has benefited tribes, and that 

many tribes view leveraging as a practical approach to adequately funding 

their communities’ affordable housing needs. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development and other interested parties. The report is also 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

William B. Shear 

listed in Appendix V. 

Director, Financial Markets 

 and Community Investment 

Page 52 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Our objectives were to evaluate (1) how Native American Housing 

Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) program funds 

have allowed Native American tribes to address their affordable housing 

needs; (2) how, if at all, NAHASDA has improved the process of providing 

Native American tribes with access to federal funds to meet their 

affordable housing needs; and (3) the extent to which NAHASDA funding 

has contributed to infrastructure improvements in Native American 

communities. 

To address all three objectives, we reviewed NAHASDA’s legislative 

history and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) 

policies and procedures for administering the program. We interviewed 

officials in HUD’s Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) 

headquarters and in all six regional ONAP offices. We reviewed previous 

congressional reports and testimonies, our previous reports, a 2007 Office 

of Management and Budget Program Assessment Rating Tool report on the 

Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program, and a 2009 independent 

study of the IHBG program contracted by HUD. To obtain information on 

grantees’ experiences with the program, we developed a sample of 12 

grantees—2 in each ONAP region—of various sizes. We reviewed HUD’s 

annual IHBG allocation reports for fiscal years 1998 through 2008, which 

include data on each tribe’s American Indian and Alaska Native 

population, reported enrollment, criteria that HUD uses to determine the 

IHBG allocation, and the grant amount. Though grantees may be individual 

tribes or their tribally designated housing entities (TDHE), HUD makes an 

allocation to each tribe. To help us evaluate the program’s effectiveness in 

meeting the affordable housing needs of tribes of various sizes, we further 

analyzed the fiscal year 2008 allocation report by ONAP region to 

determine which grantees in each region could be identified as large or 

small based on population and enrollment—or as receiving a large or small 

grant—when compared with other grantees in the same region. In our 

analysis, we found that small and large grantees, based on population and 

grant size, were not always similar among the six ONAP regions. Because 

tribal populations vary across regions and grant size is largely based on 

population factors, small and large designations within regions also were 

relative to other grantees in each region. For the purposes of our review, 

we generally considered annual grants less than $250,000 to be lesser 

grants and the grantees receiving those grants to be small grantees. We 

chose to interview a range of grantees and, for each region, we 

interviewed two grantees whose population and grant size varied widely 

(see table 10). In making a final sample selection, we solicited input from 

the relevant oversight ONAP office on grantee participation, performance, 

and accessibility. We interviewed grantees either onsite or by telephone. 

Page 53 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To obtain a wider range of grantee perspectives, we also administered a 

Web-based survey to all grantees that received funding in fiscal year 2008, 

obtaining a 66 percent response rate. Additionally, we met with officials 

from groups representing Native American housing interests: the National 

American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), a nonprofit organization that 

represents the interests of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native 

Hawaiians in providing affordable housing; and Cherokee Freedmen 

representatives, who advocate for housing and other benefits for the 

Cherokee Freedmen. Appendix III contains a brief history of the Cherokee 

Freedmen and information pertaining to the Cherokee Nation’s provision 

of housing assistance to Cherokee Freedmen members. Finally, we 

interviewed officials at the Indian Health Service (IHS), Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural 

Development because those agencies also provide assistance to Native 

American communities. 

Table 10: Location and Other Characteristics of NAHASDA Grantees Selected for Site Visits and Telephone Interviews

HUD ONAP region Grantee’s location 

2008 American Indian and 

Alaska Native (AI/AN) 

population 

2008 Tribal 

enrollment

Fiscal year 2008

IHBG allocation

Alaska Alaska 33,004a 7,433 $13,383,003

Alaska 958 592 301,873

Eastern Woodlands Michigan 588 294 125,437

Wisconsin 11,157 14,745 3,465,919

Southern Plains Oklahoma 2,793 3,196 500,088

Oklahoma 118,059 241,226 27,605,755

Southwest Arizona 189,314 268,004 74,025,827

California 65 214 48,660

Northwest Washington 200 377 137,663

Washington 8,192 4,096 2,911,842

Northern Plains Montana 7,905 6,970 4,109,638

Utah 725 437 $182,343

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data. 

Note: The AI/AN population data is based on 2000 U.S. Census data for all AI/AN households within 

a tribe’s formula (geographic) area while enrollment is based on tribal data for members enrolled. 

a

This grantee is a regional housing entity serving several tribes. 

Page 54 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

We initially contacted 351 tribes or TDHEs who were recipients of 2008 

NAHASDA grants.1

 We sent initial notifications and the survey by e-mail to 

most grantees. A small number of grantees did not have e-mail accounts, 

and we contacted them by telephone and sent them the survey by fax. To 

encourage responses, we followed up with four e-mails that included a 

link to the survey. Additionally, to try and increase the response rate, we 

contacted those grantees who had not responded to the e-mailed survey by 

telephone. We also contacted some respondents by telephone to clarify 

unclear responses. We received responses from 232 grantees, or a 66 

percent response rate. Grantees responding to the survey represented 413 

of the 535 tribes (77 percent) nationwide that benefited from NAHASDA 

grants in 2008. 

Survey Administration 

To pretest the questionnaire, we conducted cognitive interviews and held 

debriefing sessions with five NAHASDA grantees; two pretests were 

conducted in person and three were conducted by telephone. Pretest 

participants were selected to represent a variety of grantee sizes (as 

represented by dollar amount of the grants); whether they represented a 

tribe, single-tribe TDHE, or umbrella TDHE; and geographic locations. We 

conducted these pretests to determine if the questions were burdensome 

or difficult to understand and if they measured what we intended. In 

addition, we met individually with officials from ONAP and NAIHC to 

obtain their comments on our questionnaire. On the basis of the feedback 

from the pretests and these other knowledgeable entities, we modified the 

questions as appropriate. 

Content coding of responses. We provided respondents with an 

opportunity to answer several open-ended questions. The responses to 

those questions were classified and coded for content by a GAO analyst, 

while a second analyst verified that the first analyst had coded the 

responses appropriately. Some comments were coded into more than one 

category since some respondents commented on more than one topic. As a 

result, the number of coded items is not equal to the number of 

respondents who provided comments. These comments cannot be 

generalized to our population of NAHASDA grantees. 

 

1

HUD reported 359 recipients of NAHASDA grants for fiscal year 2008. We later adjusted 

the number we surveyed to 351 because at the time of our survey, 8 recipients were 

represented by umbrella TDHEs that were already part of our survey population. 

Page 55 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Nonsampling errors. Because this was not a sample survey, there are no 

sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any 

survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as 

nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question 

is interpreted, the sources of information available to respondents, or the 

types of people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability 

into the survey results. We included steps at both the data collection and 

data analysis stages for the purpose of minimizing such nonsampling 

errors. 

These steps included (1) having survey specialists help develop the 

questionnaire, (2) pretesting the questionnaire with NAHASDA grantees, 

(3) using multiple reminders to encourage survey response, and (4) 

contacting respondents to follow up on obvious inconsistencies, errors, 

and incomplete answers. 

Nonresponse analysis. Because only 66 percent of the study population 

provided responses, bias from nonresponse may result. If the responses of 

those who did not respond would have differed from the responses of 

those who did on some survey questions, the numbers reported solely 

from those who did respond would be biased from excluding parts of the 

population with different characteristics or views. To limit this kind of 

error, we made multiple attempts to obtain the participation of as many 

NAHASDA grantees as possible. We performed an additional analysis to 

determine whether our survey respondents had characteristics that were 

significantly different from all grantees in the study population. To do this, 

we identified two grantee characteristics that were available for the entire 

study population—grantee location (region) and grant size. For these 

comparisons, we found little difference between the distribution of 

responses from the respondents and the actual population values. 

However, when comparing respondents to nonrespondents by grant size, 

we found that the survey respondents, on average, received much larger 

grants; the median grant size was $717,686 for those who responded and 

$451,222 for those who did not. This suggests that grantees receiving large 

grant amounts were more likely to participate in our survey than others. 

For example, more than two-thirds of grantees with grants larger than 

$250,000 participated in the survey while only about half of the smaller 

grantees participated. Respondents to the survey received about 80 

percent of the grant amounts distributed in 2008. 

We performed computer analyses to identify inconsistencies in responses 

and other indications of error. In addition, an independent analyst verified 

Page 56 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

that the computer programs used to analyze the data were written 

correctly. 

To evaluate how NAHASDA program funds have allowed Native American 

tribes to address their affordable housing needs, we reviewed NAHASDA 

legislation to identify housing activities that are eligible under the 

program. We reviewed HUD performance data on the NAHASDA program, 

including its fiscal year 2008 NAHASDA Report to Congress and 

cumulative data on affordable housing units grantees built, acquired, and 

rehabilitated using IHBG funds during fiscal years 2003 through 2008. We 

assessed the reliability of these data by (1) performing electronic testing of 

the data elements, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and 

the systems that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials 

knowledgeable about these data. We determined that these variables were 

sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes. In addition to analyzing the 

2008 IHBG allocation report, we reviewed data on pre-NAHASDA units 

that HUD factored into making 2008 grant allocations. We also reviewed 

the Indian Housing Plan (IHP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) 

forms that grantees use to report on planned and actual housing activities 

each year. Further, we requested and analyzed a sample of completed 

IHPs for 2005 through 2008 that grantees submitted in each ONAP region 

to determine the types of housing activities grantees were pursuing in 

recent years. We used the IHP information in part to develop our sample 

for grantee site visits and telephone interviews. In conducting those site 

visits and telephone interviews and in our Web-based survey, we asked 

grantees questions related to how they use IHBG funds to address their 

affordable housing needs, other sources of funding they use in 

combination with the IHBG program (leveraging), some of the challenges 

they experience with the IHBG program or with leveraging, and program 

reporting. Similarly, in our interviews with regional ONAP officials, we 

asked questions about grantees’ housing activities, leveraging, and 

program reporting. Specific to leveraging, we asked whether ONAP 

provides resources to assist grantees with identifying and accessing other 

potential funding opportunities to supplement their IHBG funds. Finally, 

we interviewed officials at IHS, BIA, and USDA about collaborating with 

HUD to provide housing and related services to Native American 

communities. 

To evaluate how, if at all, NAHASDA has improved the process of 

providing Native American tribes with access to federal funds to meet 

their affordable housing needs, we obtained perspectives from ONAP, 

grantees, and NAIHC on NAHASDA as it compares to the housing 

programs for which Native Americans were eligible under the U.S. 

Page 57 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act). In our interviews with ONAP officials, 

grantees, and NAIHC representatives, we discussed various aspects of 

NAHASDA in comparison with the 1937 Act programs, including program 

structure and funding. In our Web-based survey, we also asked grantees to 

report on specific challenges they have experienced with the IHBG 

program, and we asked those with pre-NAHASDA experience to rate 

NAHASDA in comparison with pre-NAHASDA programs. 

To evaluate the extent to which NAHASDA funding has contributed to 

infrastructure improvements in Native American communities, we 

reviewed the NAHASDA legislation to identify the statutory goals of the 

program. We then analyzed HUD’s IHP and APR forms to assess the extent 

to which HUD tracked grantees’ infrastructure needs and measured their 

investments in housing-related infrastructure development. In conducting 

our grantee site visits and telephone interviews and in our Web-based 

survey, we discussed grantees’ use of NAHASDA funds to meet their 

infrastructure needs. We also discussed their use of IHBG funds for 

infrastructure development. In our survey, in particular, we asked grantees 

to describe their housing-related infrastructure needs, the extent to which 

they use IHBG funds to meet those needs, and any challenges they face. In 

our meetings with each of the six regional ONAP offices and with officials 

at ONAP headquarters, we asked similar questions. Finally, we asked IHS 

officials for their assessment of the sanitation infrastructure needs on 

Indian lands and we reviewed IHS’s sanitation deficiency data collection 

process and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit in Alaska; Arizona; California; 

Colorado; Illinois; Michigan; Montana; Oklahoma; Utah; Washington; 

Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin from January 2009 to February 2010 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

Page 58 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
Appendix II: Survey Respondents’ 

Suggestions for Smaller Tribes Participating Appendix II: Survey Respondents’ in NAHASDA 

Suggestions for Smaller Tribes Participating 

in NAHASDA 

To identify potential steps that small grantees can take to maximize the 

impact of their Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) grant, we asked all survey 

respondents to suggest best practices or effective strategies for grantees 

that receive lesser grants, which we defined as less than $250,000 per year 

(see table 11). Of the 168 distinct recommendations provided, respondents 

overwhelmingly mentioned using the NAHASDA grant in combination with 

other funding sources—also known as leveraging—to maximize the grant’s 

impact. Other recommendations focused on enhancing the administrative 

capacity of tribal housing departments. For example, some survey 

respondents wrote that tribes should make sure to hire staff with 

experience in grant writing and others recommended that small grantees 

pool their resources, for example by joining an umbrella tribally 

designated housing entity, to minimize administrative costs. 

Table 11: Advice for Grantees Receiving Grants of Less Than $250,000 per Year 

Survey respondents recommend that tribes receiving less than $250,000 a year ... 

Number of such 

recommendations

Leverage their grant 

Use their NAHASDA grant to leverage other sources of funding such as the Section 184 loan 

program, U.S. Department if Agriculture’s Rural Development loans, and state or local funding 61

Focus on smaller projects instead of constructing units

Focus on smaller projects such as home rehabilitation, weatherization, downpayment assistance, 

or rental assistance 21

Identify and focus on the tribe’s priorities

Such as by conducting a survey of the tribe and by meeting with tribal leadership to create an 

effective housing plan 20

Increase administrative capacity 

Such as by hiring a professional grant writer 18

Pool their resources with other NAHASDA recipients

Such as by joining an umbrella tribally designated housing entity in their region, in order to 

maximize administrative capacity and available funds 14

Learn best practices from peers

Such as by contacting the National American Indian Housing Council or other grantees with more 

experience in using NAHASDA 11

Accumulate funds over time 

Combine multiple-year grants (called “phasing”) to accumulate a larger pool of funds 10

Minimize administrative expenses

Such as by limiting housing staff size and travel expenses 10

Other suggestions 3

Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees. 

Page 59 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing 
Appendix III: Cherokee Freedmen Appendix III: Cherokee Freedmen 

As part of our outreach to tribal entities served by the Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) 

program, we obtained information pertaining to the provision of federal 

housing assistance to Cherokee Freedmen. In a suit filed in federal district 

court, the Cherokee Freedmen claim to be “direct descendants of former 

slaves of the Cherokees, or free blacks who intermarried with Cherokees, 

who were made citizens of the Cherokee Nation in the Nineteenth 

Century.” The Cherokee Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe 

headquartered in Oklahoma, has attempted to expel this particular group 

of its citizens over the past several years through both tribal legislation 

and constitutional amendment. The Cherokee Freedmen’s claim for tribal 

membership is based on an 1866 treaty between the Cherokee Nation and 

the federal government, under which two groups of people—former slaves 

of the Cherokee Nation and “all free colored persons”—either residing in 

Cherokee territory when the Civil War began or who returned within six 

months, and the descendants of such persons, were guaranteed “all rights 

of native Cherokees.” In response to the efforts to deny them citizenship 

rights, the Cherokee Freedmen have turned to litigation in both federal 

and tribal court, claiming that the action of the Cherokee Nation conflicts 

with the treaty and violates equal protection. The Cherokee Nation’s 

arguments are grounded on the premise that the authority of Indian tribes 

to define membership is inherent. Any attempt by the Cherokee Nation to 

act on its measures to disenroll the Cherokee Freedmen has been enjoined 

in tribal court while federal litigation proceeds.1

 Figure 17 provides an 

overview of key events in the Cherokee Freedmen’s history since 1866. 

 

1

For additional information on the history of the dispute, see Yule Kim and M. Maureen 

Murphy, The Cherokee Freedmen Dispute: Legal Background, Analysis, and Proposed 

Legislation, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL34321 (Washington, 

D.C., Jan. 14, 2009). 

Page 60 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
Appendix III: Cherokee Freedmen 

Figure 17: Cherokee Freedmen History 

Source: GAO.

1866

1896

1976

2003

2006

2007

2008

2009

Treaty of 1866, Article IX: The Cherokee agreed that all freedmen 

who were residents of the Cherokee Nation and their descendants

would have the same rights as Native Cherokees. 1896 Membership on the Dawes Rolls: The Dawes Commission 

created the membership rolls of the “Five Civilized Tribes of 

Oklahoma,” including the Cherokee Nation. For the Cherokee, two 

separate rolls were created: the Freedmen Roll and the Blood Roll. 

2003 Election for Principal Chief: Several Cherokee Freedmen 

alleged to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that they were excluded 

from voting in the 2003 election for Principal Chief because their 

ancestry came from the Freedmen Roll. BIA approved the results of this

election. 

August 2003 Vann v. Kempthorne: In response to the 2003 election, 

the Cherokee Freedmen filed a lawsuit in federal district court against 

the Secretary of the Interior and requested that the election be ruled 

invalid. 

October 2008 NAHASDA Reauthorization: The statute authorized 

the Cherokee Nation to receive Native American Housing Assistance 

and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) funds as long as the May 

2007 injunction remained in effect pending the outcome of various

litigation between the Cherokee Nation, Cherokee Freedmen, and the 

federal government.

April 30, 2009: Several members of Congress sent a letter to 

Attorney General Holder requesting that the Department of Justice 

investigate allegations that the Cherokee Nation had denied 

benefits, including housing assistance, to its Cherokee Freedmen 

members.

June 23, 2007, Referendum: The Cherokee Nation passed 

a referendum to remove the requirement for BIA approval of 

constitutional amendments. 

1976 Ratification of Constitution: The Cherokee ratified their 

constitution, requiring reference to the Dawes Rolls for tribal 

membership. Subsequently, the Cherokee passed legislation 

requiring descent exclusively from the Blood Roll for tribal membership, denying the Cherokee Freedmen voting rights and eligibility for 

Cherokee Nation programs and services.

March 3, 2007, Referendum: The Cherokee Nation voted to amend 

its constitution to exclude Freedmen from tribal membership (not 

approved by BIA).

May 22, 2007, Temporary Injunction: The District Court of the 

Cherokee Nation issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of 

the March 2007 constitutional amendment and reinstated membership 

benefits to the Freedmen.

March 7, 2006, Allen v. Cherokee Nation Tribal Council: The 

Cherokee Nation Judicial Appeals Tribunal ruled that the provision of 

the Code of the Cherokee Nation that tribal membership was derived 

only through the Blood Roll violated the Cherokee Constitution.

December 19, 2006, Federal District Court Decision: In Vann v. 

Kempthorne, the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that both 

the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the Treaty of 1866 

abrogated tribal sovereign immunity with respect to the suit filed by the 

Freedmen described above. The court allowed the Cherokee Freedmen to 

sue the Cherokee Nation and the tribal officers, along with Secretary 

Kempthorne.

July 24, 2008, Vann v. Kempthorne Decision: The D.C. Circuit Court 

of Appeals, reversing the District Court, rules that the sovereign 

immunity of the Cherokee Nation was not abrogated by the 13th 

Amendment or the 1866 Treaty; however, the Court also held that 

tribal sovereign immunity did not bar a lawsuit that sought to stop the 

officers of the Cherokee Nation from violating the 13th Amendment 

and the 1866 Treaty.

February 3, 2009, Cherokee Nation v. Nash: The Cherokee Nation 

filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

Oklahoma against several Freedmen and the Department of the 

Interior. The Cherokee Nation sought a declaration that several 

federal statutes modified the 1866 Treaty to the extent that “non-Indian 

Freedmen descendants” no longer have rights to citizenship in the 

Cherokee Nation. 

May 7, 2009: Two members of Congress urged the Department of 

Justice to reject fellow members’ request for an investigation into 

alleged violations of the Freedmen’s civil rights, contending that the 

issue is for the courts to decide.

November 9, 2009: The Department of Justice declines to initiate an 

investigation, citing ongoing litigation over the status of the Freedmen.

Mar.

Feb.

April

May

May

June

Dec.

July

Oct.

Nov.

Page 61 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
Appendix III: Cherokee Freedmen 

As part of our outreach to tribal entities served by NAHASDA, we obtained 

information pertaining to the provision of housing assistance to Cherokee 

Freedmen. We relied on statements from the Cherokee Nation’s housing 

department, representatives of the Cherokee Freedmen, and Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) officials for the following 

information: 

The Cherokee 

Freedmen and 

Housing Benefits 

• According to the Cherokee Nation’s housing department, the department 

is “color blind” and makes no distinction between Cherokee Freedmen 

and other enrolled members in providing housing benefits. 

• Cherokee Freedmen representatives told us that many Cherokee 

Freedmen members’ enrollment applications have not been processed and 

many enrolled members have been unable to obtain housing and other 

benefits. 

• HUD officials explained that because they had not received any 

complaints from Cherokee Freedmen regarding housing benefits as of 

February 1, 2010, HUD is not actively monitoring the Cherokee Nation’s 

compliance with the injunction in its provision of housing benefits to 

members. The officials said that they would pursue any such complaints 

through HUD’s program monitoring and enforcement procedures. 

Page 62 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department Appendix IV: Comments from the of Housing and Urban Development 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

Page 63 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing 
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

Acknowledgments 

William B. Shear, (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Andy Finkel, Assistant Director; 

Bernice Benta; Juliann Gorse; John McGrail; Marc Molino; Luann Moy; 

Paul Revesz; and Jennifer Schwartz made key contributions to this report. 

Page 64 GAO-10-326 Native American Housing

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(250503) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper