United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Honorable

Thad Cochran, U.S. Senate

November 1998 NATIVE AMERICAN

HOUSING

Information on HUD’s

Funding of Indian

Housing Programs

GAO/RCED-99-16

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-280876 

November 30, 1998

The Honorable Thad Cochran

United States Senate

Dear Senator Cochran:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has

traditionally provided federal housing assistance to Native Americans

through many of the same programs that have provided public housing to

the nation’s low-income families. However, this changed significantly on

October 26, 1996, when the President signed the Native American Housing

Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) into law. This act

separated Indian housing programs from public housing programs. Under

NAHASDA, federal housing assistance for Indian tribes is to be provided in a

manner that recognizes the tribes’ right of self-determination and

self-governance, offering tribes the maximum flexibility to plan,

implement, and administer their own unique housing programs. Moreover,

the new act eliminated most of the existing Indian housing assistance

programs and grants and replaced them with a single block grant program

that went into effect on October 1, 1997. Given concerns over the last 2

years with the management of Indian housing programs,1

 you requested

that we examine certain aspects of the Department’s implementation of

NAHASDA:

• How did the Department allocate funding to Indian housing authorities

and tribes before NAHASDA’s enactment, and how much was appropriated

for Indian housing programs in fiscal years 1993 through 1997?

• What factors did the Department use to allocate Indian housing block

grant funding to tribes and tribally designated housing entities2

 under

NAHASDA, and did the Department consider current tribal housing needs,

past tribal housing management performance, and the magnitude of

unspent housing grant funding for incomplete housing projects? What is

the amount, type, and “age” of unspent funding for incomplete housing

projects?

• What is the status of the Department’s Indian housing block grant funding

for fiscal years 1998 and 1999?

1

See Native American Housing: Challenges Facing HUD’s Indian Housing Program

(GAO/T-RCED-97-105, Mar. 12, 1997) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office

of Inspector General’s audit report, Office of Native American Programs Oversight of Indian Housing

Authorities (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1998).

2

In the remainder of our report, we refer to tribes and tribally designated housing entities simply as

“housing entities.”

Page 1 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

Results in Brief Before the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination

Act became effective on October 1, 1997, the Department of Housing and

Urban Development distributed funding to Indian housing authorities and

tribes through 14 different programs. Each of the 14 programs had its own

criteria for awarding and allocating grant funding. For nine of these

programs, funding was awarded competitively, requiring the Indian

housing authorities or tribes to submit project proposals, which the

Department then scored and ranked, awarding grants to the

highest-ranked projects. For the other five programs, the Department

allocated funding to Indian housing authorities or tribes noncompetitively,

using formulas or distributing the funds on a first-come, first-served basis.

Over 5 fiscal years, 1993 through 1997, the Department provided a total of

$2.8 billion to Indian housing authorities and tribes through these 14

programs.

After the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act

went into effect for fiscal year 1998, eliminating 9 of the 14 separate Indian

housing programs and replacing them with a single block grant program,

the Department used the act’s noncompetitive allocation formula to

determine the grant amounts for the 575 Indian housing entities. The

formula has two components: (1) the costs of operating and modernizing

existing housing units and (2) the need for providing affordable housing

activities.3

 The Department considers current tribal housing needs in

calculating the second component of the formula. The allocation formula

does not include a factor for past management performance. According to

HUD’s Office of General Counsel, it was legally constrained from

considering Indian housing authorities’ past management performance as

a factor in awarding fiscal year 1998 block grants under the Native

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. HUD’s rationale

was that there is no authority under the new act for the Department to

consider the authorities’ failure to comply with requirements and

regulations that are no longer in effect. However, relying on other

guidance, HUD has placed conditions on the use of Native American

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination grant funds if a housing entity

has a history of problems with administering other federal grant programs.

Furthermore, in subsequent years, HUD can consider performance under

the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act when

dispensing new grants. The block grant formula also did not consider the

approximately $929 million in total unspent Indian housing program

funding awarded in previous years because, although the programs that

3

Among the activities funded through this second component are new construction, rehabilitation,

rental assistance, and counseling.

Page 2 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

provided those dollars were eliminated, the funding addresses needs that

continue to exist. Most of the unspent funds were provided in fiscal years

1993 through 1997 through two programs—Development and

Modernization. Entities must report their planned use of those funds to the

Department as part of their Indian housing plans.

For fiscal year 1998, $590 million was appropriated for the Indian housing

block grants awarded under the new act. As of July 1, 1998, over 97

percent of the housing entities had submitted the required Indian housing

plans to the Department describing their planned use of block grant funds.

As of September 30, 1998, the Department had reviewed and approved 327

plans, representing approximately $548 million in funding, and was in the

process of reviewing 40 additional plans representing another $39 million.

For fiscal year 1999, the Department requested $600 million for the

program; however, the Department had not calculated final individual

grant amounts.

Background Until fiscal year 1998, Indian housing authorities4

 and tribes received most

of their funding for low-income housing through programs established

under the U.S. Housing Act of 19375

 and administered by HUD’s Office of

Native American Programs. Through its headquarters and six field offices,

and with the help of 217 Indian housing authorities, HUD administered the

housing programs that benefited Native American families that live in or

near tribal areas. HUD provided funding to construct, maintain, and

rehabilitate low-income housing through programs such as Development,

Operating Subsidies, and Modernization.

On October 26, 1996, the Native American Housing Assistance and

Self-Determination Act was signed into law, separating Indian housing

from public housing, administratively and financially. The regulations

implementing NAHASDA were developed by a negotiated rulemaking

committee. The committee had 58 members, 48 of them from

geographically diverse small, medium, and large tribes; the other 10 were

HUD employees. After review by the Office of Management and Budget, HUD

published the final rule implementing NAHASDA on March 12, 1998; it went

into effect on April 13, 1998.

4

Prior to the enactment of NAHASDA, Indian housing authorities managed the majority of Indian

housing programs. An Indian housing authority is a business entity established by a tribal government,

organized under tribal or state law, to develop and manage assisted housing units.

5

The U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended, created the Public Housing Program to provide decent,

safe, and sanitary housing for low-income families; in 1961, the Department determined that this

included Native American low-income families.

Page 3 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

NAHASDA eliminated 9 of HUD’s 14 separate Indian housing programs,

replacing them with a single block grant program with one set of funding

criteria for HUD to administer and, according to HUD officials, one system

for managing and accounting for funds.6

 The new act also allowed tribes to

designate themselves, new housing entities, or existing Indian housing

authorities as the housing entity to manage existing housing, to plan and

implement housing programs, and to administer block grant funding. This

change resulted in the number of housing entities more than doubling,

from 217 housing authorities to 575 tribally designated housing entities.

Under NAHASDA, to receive funding, each housing entity must submit an

Indian housing plan to HUD describing 1-year and 5-year housing goals and

objectives, housing needs, and financial resources.

HUD Used

Competitive and

Noncompetitive

Processes to Provide

Indian Housing Grant

Funding

Prior to NAHASDA, HUD provided funding directly to Indian housing

authorities and tribes through 14 programs for which a total of $2.8 billion

was appropriated in fiscal years 1993 through 1997.7

 Each program had its

own criteria for awarding and allocating funds and its own system for

managing and accounting for the funds. For nine of the programs, Indian

housing authorities or tribes competed for funding. The Indian housing

authorities and tribes submitted project proposals, which HUD then scored

and ranked, awarding grants for the highest-ranked projects. For the other

five programs, HUD allocated funds to Indian housing authorities or tribes

noncompetitively through a formula or on a first-come, first-served basis.

Tables I.1 and I.2 in appendix I describe each program and the criteria

used to provide funding.

Funding for HUD’s Indian housing programs has remained relatively

consistent in recent years, ranging from a low of $491 million in fiscal year

1996 to a high of $593 million in fiscal year 1995, as shown in figure 1. In

fiscal year 1997, the last year these programs were funded separately,

funding was approximately $562 million, of which almost $322 million, or

57 percent, was awarded through competitive programs. The

approximately $240 million (43 percent) remaining was allocated

noncompetitively. Figure 2 shows how the fiscal year 1997 funds were

distributed.

6

NAHASDA did not affect five programs: Indian Community Development Block Grants, Drug

Elimination Grants, Drug Elimination Technical Assistance Grants, Economic Development and

Supportive Services, and Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantees.

7

HUD also provided funding for demonstration programs—some funded only for 1 year, others funded

infrequently in small amounts.

Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

Figure 1: Funding for HUD’s Indian

Housing Programs, Fiscal Years

1993-97

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

537

585 593

491

562

Dollars in millions

Fiscal years

Source: GAO’s analysis based on data from HUD’s Office of Native American Programs.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

Figure 2: Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing

Programs, Fiscal Year 1997

Dollars in millions

18%

20%

36%

10% 12%

Other ($55)

Comprehensive Improvement Assistance for 

modernization (Nonemergency) ($24.9)

HOME Investment Partnership ($21)

Drug Elimination ($5.8)

Emergency Shelter Grant ($1.3)

Economic Development and Supportive 

Services ($1.2)

Section 8 Rental Assistance ($0.4)

Tenant Opportunities ($0.4)

Operating Subsidy 

($99)

Comprehensive Grant 

Program for modernization 

($114.5)

Indian Community 

Development Block 

Grant ($67)

Development 

($200)

Other ($26.2)

Comprehensive Improvement Assistance for 

modernization (Emergency) ($23.1) 

Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program ($3) 

Drug Elimination Technical Assistance Grant 

($0.1)

Competitively funded grants 

Noncompetitively funded grants 

5%

Total funding = $561.7 million 

= $322 or 57 percent 

= $239.7 or 43 percent 

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: GAO’s analysis based on data from HUD’s Office of Native American Programs.

Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

The Formula Used to

Determine Fiscal Year

1998 NAHASDA Block

Grants Did Not

Consider Past

Housing Authority

Performance or

Unspent Funding

With the start of the NAHASDA program, HUD applied the act’s allocation

formula to determine the amounts of the fiscal year 1998 block grants. The

formula considers tribes’ housing needs, but did not include a factor for

housing authorities’ past performance. HUD determined that the

Department was legally constrained from considering the past

management performance of Indian housing authorities. The formula also

did not factor in $929 million provided in past years but not yet spent by

the Indian housing authorities and tribes. Most of the unspent funding was

provided in fiscal years 1993 through 1997 for the Development and

Modernization programs, which were intended to assist Indian housing

authorities in building new housing and modernizing existing units. The

housing entities can continue to use these unspent funds as originally

planned or as proposed in their Indian housing plans.

NAHASDA Funding Is

Based on Two

Components—Maintaining

Existing Housing and Need

for Affordable Housing

The NAHASDA block grant formula consists of two components: (1) the

costs of operating and modernizing existing housing units and (2) the need

for providing affordable housing. A housing entity’s total block grant

amount is the sum of the amounts determined under each of these two

components—or the amount an Indian housing authority received in fiscal

year 1996 for modernization and operating subsidy.8

To determine funding for the first component—operating and

modernizing—HUD calculates the number of existing housing units an

entity has and the operating costs of providing that housing. HUD then

calculates the modernization costs of keeping these units in good working

order. These two cost figures are combined as the entity’s funding amount

under the first component of the NAHASDA formula. To calculate funding of

the second component of the NAHASDA formula—need for affordable

housing—HUD uses various factors. These factors reflect each housing

entity’s Native American population, income levels, local housing costs

and housing conditions, and the extent of housing shortages. Hence, it is

through the calculation of this component that tribal housing needs are

considered in the distribution of NAHASDA funding.

In allocating funds in the first year of the NAHASDA program, HUD recognized

that the data used to calculate block grants may need to be improved. HUD

has hired a contractor to review alternative data sources to use when

applying the NAHASDA formula. In addition, NAHASDA regulations require that

HUD, with the consultation and involvement of the tribes, review the

8

NAHASDA has provisions to assure tribes of minimum grant amounts based on the amount of funds

they received before the act went into effect. For a more detailed discussion, see appendix II, page 32.

Page 7 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

formula and, if necessary, revise the formula within 5 years. Appendix II

provides a more detailed description of the current formula.

Past Housing Authority

Management Performance

Was Not a Factor in

Calculating Fiscal Year

1998 Block Grants, but

Performance Under

NAHASDA May Be a

Factor in the Future

HUD interpreted NAHASDA as legally constraining the Department from

considering Indian housing authorities’ past management performance as

a factor in determining the eligibility of housing entities for fiscal year 1998

NAHASDA block grants. Indian housing authorities’ past performance came

under the requirements and regulations for programs created under the

U.S. Housing Act of 1937, requirements and regulations that are no longer

in effect since NAHASDA eliminated most of these programs. According to

HUD’s Office of General Counsel, there is no provision under NAHASDA

allowing HUD, when awarding block grant funding under the act, to

consider Indian housing authorities’ failure to comply with requirements

and regulations that are no longer in effect. Consequently, the housing

entities were given the opportunity to demonstrate good management and

performance under NAHASDA. However, HUD does have the authority9

 and

has, in several instances, placed conditions, such as additional monitoring

and oversight, on the use of grant funds by a housing entity that has a

history of poor performance in administering federal grant programs. For

example, for a tribe with problems administering its Indian Community

Development Block Grant and HOME programs, HUD plans to more closely

monitor expenditures of NAHASDA block grant funds and to require that the

tribe submit quarterly program and financial reports.

In future fiscal years, regulations permit HUD, when dispensing new grants,

to consider how well housing entities have managed past NAHASDA grants.

NAHASDA regulations allow HUD to sanction poorly managed housing

entities by (1) reducing or eliminating future grant funding or (2) replacing

the housing entity managing the program. Such actions may be taken if

HUD determines, through activities such as reviewing reports provided by

tribes or making site visits, that housing entities are substantially

noncompliant with NAHASDA regulations.10 HUD plans to closely monitor

housing entities that are having performance problems and to provide

them with technical assistance to help them comply with NAHASDA

9

HUD relied on 24 C.F.R. part 85, Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements

to State, Local, and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments, which provides a number of

remedies for noncompliance with grant terms.

10NAHASDA regulations define substantial noncompliance as (1) a material effect on a recipient

meeting an Indian housing plan’s goals and objectives, (2) a material pattern of activities constituting

willful noncompliance with NAHASDA, (3) an expenditure of a material amount of the NAHASDA

funding budgeted by the recipient for a material activity, and (4) placing the housing program at

substantial risk of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Page 8 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

requirements. To monitor and assist these entities, HUD is using Internet

e-mail to facilitate the submission and review of Indian housing plans and

to respond to housing entities’ questions about the program.

Providing additional monitoring and technical assistance may pose a

challenge for HUD, given the Department’s decreasing resources. HUD’s

Inspector General has stated that effectively overseeing housing entities

while simultaneously implementing the NAHASDA program may prove

difficult with current HUD staffing because the number of housing entities

served by HUD under NAHASDA will more than double.

Until the first year of NAHASDA is completed, HUD will not know what the

impact this increase in the number of housing entities served will have on

its workload. The Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Native American

Programs, estimated that 221 staff years will be needed to fully implement

Indian housing programs. Meanwhile, several changes are planned to

accommodate the future workload with the present staffing level of 178

employees. The planned changes include addressing the length and

frequency of site visits, modifying some work processes, and using

technology to improve efficiency. The Deputy Assistant Secretary added

that because of the resource limitations, the office may have to reduce the

number of site visits to tribal housing entities during fiscal year 1999. HUD

plans to visit only 20 percent of the housing entities, instead of 33 percent

as originally planned.

Under NAHASDA regulations, the tribes also have a responsibility to monitor

the performance and compliance of their housing entities. For example,

tribes are required to ensure that their entities prepare periodic progress

reports, including annual compliance assessments and performance and

audit reports.

Unspent Indian Housing

Funding Was Not a Factor

in Calculating Fiscal Year

1998 NAHASDA Block

Grants

The unspent $929 million in Indian housing funding was not a factor in

calculating the fiscal year 1998 block grants because, according to HUD

officials, the unspent funding addresses needs that continue to exist. This

funding, awarded in previous years, remains available for housing entities

to complete ongoing work or for eligible NAHASDA activities. NAHASDA

regulations require housing entities to use unspent funding for housing

planned under earlier housing programs if contracts have already been

signed. However, if such contracts have not been signed, NAHASDA

regulations allow the entities to integrate the funding into their overall

NAHASDA housing plan. Housing entities report these unspent funds and the

Page 9 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

plans for their use as part of the Indian housing plans they submit for HUD’s

approval.

Officials from HUD’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer told us that some

funds, particularly the Development and Modernization funds, have

remained unspent because of the construction difficulties some projects

on Indian lands have encountered.11 These difficulties include legal

disputes and the remoteness of the Indian lands, which makes access

difficult for the builders and other individuals, businesses, and suppliers

needed to construct housing.

Most of the unspent funding, almost $903 million of it, was provided in

fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and was for the Development and

Modernization programs. The unspent funding provided in fiscal years

1993 through 1997 is shown by program in figure 3. Over this same 5-year

period, HUD provided a total of $2.8 billion for Indian housing programs;

thus, about 30 percent of this funding remains unspent. In appendix III,

table III.1 shows the unspent Indian housing funding by program over an

18-year period. Table III.2 shows the unspent Indian housing funding over

the same period for 15 Indian housing authorities and tribes that have

unspent funding of more than $10 million each.

11We reported on the difficulties in building housing on Indian lands in February 1998 and March 1997.

See Native American Housing: Homeownership Opportunities on Trust Lands Are Limited

(GAO/RCED-98-49, Feb. 24, 1998) and Native American Housing: Information on HUD’s Housing

Programs for Native Americans (GAO/RCED-97-64, Mar. 28, 1997).

Page 10 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

Figure 3: Unspent Indian Housing

Funding Provided in Fiscal Years

1993-97, by Program

Development 57%

($511.3)

35%

4%

Other ($35.9)

Operating Subsidies ($12.0)

Section 8 Rental Assistance ($10.0)

Drug Elimination ($8.6)

Economic Development and Support 

Services ($3.4)

Emergency Shelter Grants ($1.0)

HOPE I ($0.7)

Youth Sports ($0.2)

Modernization

($316.5)

HOME Investment 

Partnership ($38.9)

4%

Dollars in millions

Total unspent funding = $902.6 million 

Source: GAO’s analysis based on data from HUD’s Program Accounting System.

HUD Has Allocated

NAHASDA Block

Grants for Fiscal Year

1998 and Requested

1999 Funding

As of September 30, 1998, HUD had allocated most of the fiscal year 1998

NAHASDA block grants and had requested funds from the Congress for fiscal

year 1999 block grants. To receive grants from the $590 million available

for the NAHASDA program in fiscal year 1998, each of the 575 housing

entities had to submit an Indian housing plan by July 1, 1998. HUD had

received plans representing over 97 percent of the entities by the deadline.

As of September 30, 1998, HUD had approved 327 plans representing

approximately $548 million and was in the process of reviewing 40

additional plans representing $39 million—for a total of 367 plans and

Page 11 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

$587 million in fiscal year 1998 block grants. Appendix IV shows the fiscal

year 1998 block grant amount for each housing entity.

For the fiscal year 1999 program, HUD requested $600 million from the

Congress. As of September 30, 1998, however, HUD had not calculated the

final fiscal year 1999 block grant allocations because it had not yet

received its appropriation. Fiscal year 1999 Indian housing plans are due

by July 1, 1999, for HUD’s review and approval.

Conclusions Passage and implementation of NAHASDA presents HUD and the Native

American tribes with both opportunities and challenges. NAHASDA allows

HUD to manage and monitor most housing assistance to tribes through a

single program. At the same time, NAHASDA more than doubled the number

of grantees that must be assisted and monitored—during a period of

declining resources at the Department. As for the tribes, they gained the

freedom to set their own priorities and to determine how to best meet

their housing needs with the resources available. Yet the tribes will

ultimately be responsible for making sure that grant funds are spent

efficiently and appropriately. It is too soon to determine how well HUD and

the tribes will meet the challenges presented by NAHASDA.

Agency Comments We provided the Department of Housing and Urban Development with a

draft of this report for review and comment. HUD generally agreed with the

report but commented that we should recognize that the Department

merely administers the NAHASDA formula. The formula was a product of the

negotiated rulemaking process, and the Department did not determine or

control the elements of the formula. We have expanded the discussion in

our report to reflect this concern.

HUD also suggested that we include information on standard spend-out

rates for the Development and Modernization programs in our discussion

of unspent program funding to allow for a more comprehensive

understanding of the issue. We believe that our discussion of the unspent

program funding addresses this concern. We point out that most of the

unspent funding was appropriated over a recent 5-year period—fiscal

years 1993 through 1997. Furthermore, we describe the difficulties of

building on Indian lands and point out that Development and

Modernization funds can remain unspent because of these difficulties.

Consequently, we did not make the suggested change to the report.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

Additionally, HUD provided a number of suggested technical and

clarification comments that we have incorporated as appropriate.

Scope and

Methodology

To determine how HUD awarded and allocated funding to Indian housing

authorities and tribes before NAHASDA’s enactment, we reviewed

regulations governing HUD’s grant award programs. In addition, we

reviewed the applicable HUD handbooks and guidebooks and interviewed

officials from HUD’s headquarters Office of Native American Programs in

Washington, D.C., and Denver, Colorado, who were familiar with the

programs’ funding. To determine the aggregate funding amounts for Indian

housing programs in fiscal years 1993 through 1997, we obtained data from

HUD’s annual reports.

To determine what factors HUD used to allocate Indian housing block grant

funding to housing entities under NAHASDA, we reviewed NAHASDA, the final

rule developed under the act, notices, and plans for implementing NAHASDA.

We also analyzed the NAHASDA block grant allocation formula. We

discussed the NAHASDA block grant allocation process and formula with

officials of HUD’s Office of Native American Programs who were

responsible for NAHASDA’s implementation. In addition, we interviewed

members of the NAHASDA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee who

participated in drafting the final rule and the block grant allocation

formula. To determine the amount, type, and “age” of unspent Indian

housing program funds, we analyzed data obtained for us by HUD from its

Program Accounting System. We did not systematically verify the accuracy

of HUD’s data or conduct a reliability assessment of HUD’s databases as part

of this assignment.

To determine the status of Indian housing block grant funding for fiscal

year 1998, we reviewed HUD’s reports on housing entities’ status in meeting

NAHASDA funding requirements and the associated funding amounts. We

also interviewed officials of HUD’s Office of Native American Programs

who were responsible for calculating and allocating the fiscal year 1998

block grants.

We performed our work from June 1998 through November 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of HUD and the

Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies available

Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
B-280876 

to others on request. Please call me at (202) 512-7631 if you or your staff

have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix

V.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley J. Czerwinski

Associate Director, Housing and

 Community Development Issues

Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Page 15 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria

and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for

Competitive and

Noncompetitive

Indian Housing

Programs

20

Appendix II 

Formula Used to

Allocate NAHASDA

Block Grant Funding

32

How Funding for Operating and Modernizing Housing Is

Calculated

32

Sample Funding Calculation for Operating and Modernizing

Existing Housing

33

Data Sources HUD Used in Calculating Operating and

Modernizing Funding

34

How Funding for Need for Additional Housing Is Calculated 35

Sample Calculation for Need for Housing Activities 36

Data Sources Used in Calculating Funding for the Need for

Housing Activities

38

NAHASDA Regulations Provide Minimum Funding Guarantees 38

Appendix III 

Unspent Indian

Housing Funding,

1980-97

39

Page 16 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Contents

Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year

1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts

Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

46

Appendix V 

Major Contributors to

This Report

63

Tables Table I.1: Competitive Grant Award Criteria for Indian Housing

Programs and Fiscal Year 1997 Funding

20

Table I.2: Noncompetitive Grant Allocation Criteria for Indian

Housing Programs and Fiscal Year 1997 Funding

28

Table II.1: Hypothetical Sample Calculation of Block Grant

Funding for Operating Housing

33

Table II.2: Hypothetical Sample Calculation of Block Grant

Funding for Modernizing Housing

34

Table II.3: Hypothetical Sample Calculation of a Housing Entity’s

Weighted Share of Seven Need Factors

36

Table III.1: Total Amounts of Unspent Indian Housing Funding By

Programs

39

 Table III.2: Indian Housing Authorities and Tribes With More

Than $10 Million in Total Unspent Indian Housing Funding

40

Figures Figure 1: Funding for HUD’s Indian Housing Programs, Fiscal

Years 1993-97

5

Figure 2: Competitive and Noncompetitive Indian Housing

Programs, Fiscal Year 1997

6

Figure 3: Unspent Indian Housing Funding Provided in Fiscal

Years 1993-97, by Program

11

Figure II.1: Formula for Calculating Funding for Operating and

Modernizing Existing Housing

32

Figure II.2: Formula for Calculating Funding for Need for

Housing Activities

36

Page 17 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Contents

Figure II.3: Hypothetical Sample Calculation of Funding for Need

for Housing Activities

37

Abbreviations

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

NAHASDA Native American Housing Assistance and

Self-Determination Act of 1996

ONAP Office of Native American Programs

TDC total development cost

Page 18 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing Programs

Table I.1: Competitive Grant Award

Criteria for Indian Housing Programs

and Fiscal Year 1997 Funding

Program Description

Fiscal year 1997 funding

(dollars in millions)

Developmenta Assists Indian housing

authorities in developing,

acquiring, and rehabilitating

housing for Native

American families

$200.0—

—

—

—

Indian Community

Development Block Grant

Assists tribes in developing

decent housing, suitable

living environments, and

economic opportunities for

low- and moderate- income

families

67.0—

—

Page 20 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing Programs

Criteria

For determining total funding allocated to

a field office’s area

For determining Indian housing

authority’s or tribe’s eligibility For scoring and ranking proposals

— Bureau of Indian Affairs housing needs

assessment 

— Percentage of the area’s total need

— Estimated number of units to be funded

— Weighted average cost of developing

housing within each area

— Indian housing authority established

under state law or a HUD-approved tribal

ordinance

— Indian housing authority had the

capacity to administer the program as

demonstrated by compliance with HUD

standards for housing development,

modernization, and operations

— Indian housing authority met

performance eligibility thresholds to apply

for housing development funding:

environmental review, fiscal closeout, final

site approval and control, utility supplier’s

firm commitment, and preconstruction

certification

— Relative unmet need for housing

— Relative Indian housing authority

occupancy rate compared with the

occupancy rates of other eligible Indian

housing authorities

— Time since last Development grant was

approved compared with that for other

eligible Indian housing authorities

— Current Indian housing authority

development “pipeline” activity already in

progress

— For fiscal year 1997, HUD applied

additional factors for scoring and ranking

that included clear Indian housing authority

demonstration of preplanning housing

project activities, site selection that results in

cost savings, and innovative approaches to

development or financing that reduce

housing delivery time or increase the

number of units

— $1 million base amount for each field

office

— Additional amount calculated by a

formula that considered the latest Census

data for the eligible Native American

population residing in each area and the

extent of poverty and housing overcrowding

— Reasonableness of project’s cost 

— Project’s appropriateness for intended

use

— Project can be achieved within 2 years

— Tribe’s administrative, managerial, and

technical capacity

— Tribe’s past grants administration

— Tribe’s actions to impede development

of housing for low- and moderate-income

individuals

— Outstanding block grant obligations to

HUD

— Need for project and its design

— Project planning

— Leveraging of block grant funding

(continued)

Page 21 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing Programs

Program Description

Fiscal year 1997 funding

(dollars in millions)

Comprehensive Improvement

Assistance Program for

modernizationa

(Nonemergency)

Assists Indian housing

authorities that manage

fewer than 250 units in

modernizing existing

housing and improving

Indian housing authority

management

24.9—

HOME Investment

Partnershipa

Assists tribes in expanding

the supply of affordable

housing for low- and

very-low-income families by

building and repairing

housing

21.0—

Drug Elimination Assists Indian housing

authorities in establishing

and implementing antidrug

and anticrime programs in

Indian housing

developments

5.8—

Page 22 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing Programs

Criteria

For determining total funding allocated to

a field office’s area

For determining Indian housing

authority’s or tribe’s eligibility For scoring and ranking proposals

— Indian housing authority’s need for

repairing and replacing existing housing

units

— Compliance with Fair Housing, Civil

Rights, and environmental statutes

— Housing projects have to be fully

available for occupancy

— Project extent and urgency to comply

with statutory, regulatory, or court-ordered

deadlines

— Extent of vacancies where the vacancies

are not due to a lack of housing demand

— Indian housing authority’s modernization

capability

— Indian housing authority’s management

capability

— Degree of residential involvement in the

Indian housing authority’s operations

— Degree of Indian housing authority

activity in resident initiatives

— Degree of resident employment

— Tribal government support for the

modernization project

— Degree of activity in coordinating and

providing resident services

— Formula calculating housing needs for

tribes within each field office area

— Administrative capacity to undertake the

proposed housing project, including the

necessary internal control systems

— If the tribe participated in the HOME

program before, it performed adequately 

— If the tribe had deficiencies in its prior

administration of a HOME project, it took

action to correct the deficiencies

Degree to which

— project addressed the housing needs of

the tribe and maximized benefits to

low-income families

— tribe had taken the financial,

administrative, and legal actions necessary

to undertake the proposed project and had

the administrative staff to carry out the

project

— tribe would use other sources of funding,

such as state grants, private mortgage

insurance, private contributions, and other

federal grants, to leverage funding for the

project

— Funding awarded directly to Indian

housing authorities by HUD’s Office of

Public and Indian Housing

— Plan for evaluating activities

— Plan for establishing a relationship with

local law enforcement entities

— Coordination with empowerment zone

and welfare reform efforts

— Description of use of community

facilities and bringing back community

focus to housing authority properties

— Assurance that Indian housing authority

has a broad range of tools for making and

maintaining a safe community

— Indian housing authority’s administrative

capacity and relevant experience

— Problem’s extent

— Support of residents, local government,

and community in implementing activities

— Soundness of proposed plan

— Extent of coordination and participation

with other organizations in community

planning

(continued)

Page 23 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing Programs

Program Description

Fiscal year 1997 funding

(dollars in millions)

Emergency Shelter Granta Assists tribes in improving

quality, increasing

availability, and funding

operations of emergency

shelters and in providing

essential services to

homeless individuals

1.3—

Economic Development and

Supportive Services

Assists Indian housing

authorities in establishing

and implementing resident

self-sufficiency programs

and in supporting

independent living for

elderly and disabled

residents

1.2—

Section 8 Rental Assistancea Assists Indian housing

authorities in providing

subsidies to low- and

very-low-income families for

renting safe, decent, and

sanitary private sector

housing

0.4—

Page 24 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing Programs

Criteria

For determining total funding allocated to

a field office’s area

For determining Indian housing

authority’s or tribe’s eligibility For scoring and ranking proposals

— Formula calculating emergency shelter

needs for tribes within each field office area

— Form, timeliness, and completeness of

application

— Tribe’s eligibility as determined by

Department of Treasury Office of Revenue

Sharing

— Eligibility of persons to be served for

program assistance

— Tribe’s building compliance with

disability requirements

— Tribe’s capacity to carry out the

proposed activities successfully and within a

reasonable time

— Tribe’s service to the homeless

population that is most difficult to reach and

serve

— Existence of an unmet need for the

proposed project

— Appropriateness of proposed activities to

meet the needs of the served population

— Extent of coordination with other

community programs

— Funding awarded directly to Indian

housing authorities by HUD’s Office of

Public and Indian Housing

— 51 percent or more of the residents

included in the proposed project are

affected by welfare reform

— Proposed activities must take place in a

community facility that is easily accessible

for applicants

— Community resources must be firmly

committed to the project

— Indian housing authority’s compliance

with current programs

— Troubled housing authority must use a

contract administrator

— Indian housing authority’s administrative

capacity and relevant experience

— Extent of problem and need for project

— Soundness of program approach and

methodology

— Indian housing authority’s ability to

leverage project resources

— Extent of coordination with community to

identify and address problems

— Funding provided to field offices to assist

Indian housing authorities in providing funds

for eligible families

— Families, not Indian housing authorities

or tribes, must be eligible for assistance

— Funding provided to field offices to assist

Indian housing authorities in providing funds

for eligible families

(continued)

Page 25 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing Programs

Program Description

Fiscal year 1997 funding

(dollars in millions)

Tenant Opportunitiesa Assists Indian housing

resident organizations in

establishing educational,

professional, and economic

programs

0.4—

Total program funding $322.0

Page 26 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing Programs

Criteria

For determining total funding allocated to

a field office’s area

For determining Indian housing

authority’s or tribe’s eligibility For scoring and ranking proposals

— Funding awarded directly to

organizations by HUD’s Office of Public and

Indian Housing

— 51 percent or more of the residents

included in the proposed project are

affected by welfare reform

— Signed agreement between the

applicant and the housing authority

describing each of their roles and

responsibilities 

— Proposed activities must take place in a

community facility that is easily accessible

for applicants

— Must use the services of a contract

administrator or mediator

— Must be a registered nonprofit

organization

— Compliance with current programs and

no unresolved audit findings

— Contract administrator must not be in

default

— Letters of support from project

participants

— Certification of resident organization

board elections

— Resident organization’s administrative

capacity to carry out the project and its

relevant experience

— Need for the project and extent of the

problem

— Soundness of program approach and

methodology

— Resident organization’s ability to leverage

project resources

— Extent that project reflects a coordinated

community-based process identifying and

addressing the problem

— HUD ONAP awarded a small portion of

the funding using a lottery system

aNAHASDA eliminated this program.

Page 27 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing Programs

Table I.2: Noncompetitive Grant

Allocation Criteria for Indian Housing

Programs and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding Program Description

Fiscal year 1997 funding

(dollars in millions)

Comprehensive Grant

Program for modernizationa

Assists Indian housing

authorities that manage 250

or more units in

modernizing existing

housing and improving

Indian housing authority

management

$114.5—

Operating Subsidya Assists Indian housing

authorities in helping pay

for operating expenses

99.0—

Comprehensive Improvement

Assistance Program for

modernizationa

(Emergency)

Assists Indian housing

authorities that manage

fewer than 250 units in

correcting conditions

posing an immediate health

and safety threat to

residents

23.1—

Section 184 Loan Guarantee Assists Indian housing

authorities, tribes, or Native

American families in

accessing private financing

by providing HUD with

funds to guarantee loans for

constructing, acquiring, or

rehabilitating housing

3.0—

Page 28 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing Programs

Criteria

For determining total funding allocated to

a field office’s area

For determining Indian housing

authority’s or tribe’s eligibility

For allocating funding to Indian housing

authorities or tribes

— Funding allocated directly to field offices

by HUD’s Office of Public and Indian

Housing

— HUD approval of Indian housing

authority’s comprehensive plan identifying

all physical condition and management

improvements of existing housing and

action plan for achieving them

— Coordination with local officials in

developing comprehensive plan

— Indian housing authority board

resolution approving comprehensive plan

— Additional assurances or information

required from HUD monitoring, audit

findings, civil rights compliance findings,

or corrective action orders

— Formula calculating housing

modernization needs of Indian housing

authorities

— Funding allocated directly to field offices

by HUD’s Office of Public and Indian

Housing

— Indian housing authorities must meet

HUD financial management and occupant

income requirements

— Performance Funding System formula for

calculating what a well-managed Indian

housing authority would need to operate its

housing programs

— Indian housing authority’s need for

repairing existing housing units

— Compliance with Fair Housing, Civil

Rights, and environmental statutes

— Housing projects have to be fully

available for occupancy

— All eligible applications funded subject to

the availability of funds

— HUD does not allocate funding for loan

guarantees to field offices

— Tribe must have developed eviction and

foreclosure procedures

— HUD guarantees loans made by private

lenders to applicants that meet loan

qualifications

(continued)

Page 29 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing Programs

Program Description

Fiscal year 1997 funding

(dollars in millions)

Drug Elimination Technical

Assistance Grant

Assists Indian housing

authorities and housing

authority resident

organizations in hiring drug

and crime elimination

experts

0.1—

Total program funding $239.7

Page 30 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix I 

Grant Award Criteria and Fiscal Year 1997

Funding for Competitive and

Noncompetitive Indian Housing Programs

Criteria

For determining total funding allocated to

a field office’s area

For determining Indian housing

authority’s or tribe’s eligibility

For allocating funding to Indian housing

authorities or tribes

— Funding allocated directly to technical

assistance providers by HUD’s Office of

Public and Indian Housing

Applicant must

— be a resident organization incorporated

as nonprofit or if a resident management

corporation, must enter into a contract with

a housing authority or tribe

— if a consultant, have tribe- and

antidrug-related experience

— meet eligibility requirements for the

Drug Elimination Grant program

— not propose an ineligible activity

— describe the nature of the problem

— describe the technical assistance

needed and the outcome of the assistance

— describe the steps being taken to

address the problem

— describe how the assistance will help

develop an antidrug and anticrime strategy

— commit to providing continued support

of antidrug and anticrime activities

— include a field office 

confirmation form

— Funding is allocated on a first-come,

first-served basis

aNAHASDA eliminated this program.

Page 31 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix II 

Formula Used to Allocate NAHASDA Block

Grant Funding

Using the block grant formula established under the Native American

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA), the

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocates funds to

Indian housing entities for (1) the costs of operating and modernizing

existing housing units and (2) the need for providing affordable housing

activities.1

 In calculating grant amounts for operating and modernizing

existing housing, HUD, as specified in the formula, considers inflation since

1996 in the cost of providing these services, the number of housing units

an entity operates, and the entity’s cost of providing these services

compared with the average cost for all entities. In calculating grant

amounts for the need to provide affordable housing activities, HUD

considers seven weighted factors specified in the formula indicating the

need for housing activities and the cost of obtaining the activities.

Additionally, once the block grants are calculated, HUD ensures that the

funding amounts meet certain minimum levels.

How Funding for

Operating and

Modernizing Housing

Is Calculated

HUD calculates an entity’s grant amount for operating and modernizing

existing housing using fiscal year 1996 national average funding per

housing unit and increasing it to reflect cost increases. After this inflation

adjustment, HUD adjusts the national average amount to reflect geographic

differences in the cost of operating and modernizing housing for each

Indian housing entity. HUD then multiplies each entity’s cost per unit by the

number of housing units the entity operates to arrive at its grant amount.

Figure II.1 illustrates the formula for calculating funding for operating and

modernizing existing housing.

Figure II.1: Formula for Calculating Funding for Operating and Modernizing Existing Housing

x x x

Geographic

 Cost

Adjustment

 Factor

=

A Grantee's

 Funding

 Amount

Number of

 Housing

 Units

 Inflation

Adjustment

 Factor

Prior Year's

 Average

Funding Per

Housing Unit

1

While HUD identifies this part of the formula as the “need” component, we infer from the indicators it

contains that the particular need being measured is for the provision of housing activities. The funds

can be used for various activities, including new construction, rehabilitation, rental assistance, and

counseling.

Page 32 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix II 

Formula Used to Allocate NAHASDA Block

Grant Funding

Sample Funding

Calculation for

Operating and

Modernizing Existing

Housing

Housing entities operate a variety of units that are classified into three

major types: (1) low-income rental units built under the U.S. Housing Act

of 1937, (2) units operated under the Section 8 Rental Assistance program,

and (3) Turnkey III and Mutual Help homeownership units. For the

NAHASDA block grants, HUD separately calculates grant amounts that reflect

the operating and modernizing needs of each of these types of housing

units. An entity’s funding reflects these needs and is the sum of two

calculations.

Table II.1 shows a hypothetical sample calculation of an entity’s funding

for operating housing. In calculating funding for operating housing, HUD

uses the 1996 national average funding for each of the three types of

housing. In our hypothetical sample calculation, we assume that the

inflation cost adjustment is 5.3 percent and that the entity’s geographic

cost factor is 14 percent above the national average. We also assume that

the entity is responsible for operating 150 low-income housing units, 50

Section 8 housing units, and 20 Turnkey III and Mutual Help units. We use

the fiscal year 1996 national average funding amount for each type of

housing unit in our hypothetical calculation.

Table II.1: Hypothetical Sample Calculation of Block Grant Funding for Operating Housing

Housing type

Fiscal year

1996

average

funding

amount

per unit

Inflation

adjustment

factor

Geographic

cost

adjustment

factor

Number of

units

Funding

amount

Low-income $2,440 x 1.053 x 1.140 x 150 = $439,354

Section 8 $3,625 x 1.053 x 1.140 x 50 = 217,576

Turnkey III

and Mutual

Help

$528 x 1.053 x 1.140 x 20 = 12,676

Total $669,606

The national average funding amount for low-income units in fiscal year

1996 was $2,440 per unit. We increase this amount by 5.3 percent for

inflation and by 14 percent for operating costs above the national average,

and consider that the entity operates 150 low-income units. Given these

assumptions, our hypothetical housing entity would receive a grant

amount of $439,354 for low-income units. Similar calculations for Section

8 units and for Turnkey III and Mutual Help units yield grant amounts of

Page 33 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix II 

Formula Used to Allocate NAHASDA Block

Grant Funding

$217,576 and $12,676, respectively. Adding these three figures together

yields a total operating housing grant amount of $669,606.

In calculating funding for modernizing housing, HUD bases the average

1996 funding amount on the number of low-income and Turnkey III and

Mutual Help units. Section 8 units are excluded in this calculation. The

national average funding amount for modernizing housing units in fiscal

year 1996 was $1,974 per unit. The block grant uses the same inflation

adjustment factor for both operating and modernizing housing.

Consequently, we assume a 5.3-percent inflation adjustment for this

calculation. Under the block grant, the geographic cost factor for

modernizing housing differs from that used for operating housing. In our

sample calculation, we assume that the entity’s geographic cost factor is

2 percent below the national average. The resulting grant calculation for

modernizing housing is shown in table II.2.

Table II.2: Hypothetical Sample Calculation of Block Grant Funding for Modernizing Housing

Housing type

Fiscal year

1996

average

funding

amount

per unit

Inflation

adjustment

factor

Geographic

cost

adjustment

factor

Number of

units

Funding

amount

Low-income $1,974 x 1.053 x 0.98 x 150 = $305,557

Turnkey III

and Mutual

Help

$1,974 x 1.053 x 0.98 x 20 = 40,741

Total $346,298

We increase the fiscal year 1996 modernizing funding amount by

5.3 percent for inflation, reduce it by 2 percent for below average costs,

and consider the 170 housing units the entity operates (150 low-income

units and 20 Turnkey III and Mutual Help units). These calculations result

in a modernizing grant amount of $346,298. Adding this amount to the

$669,606 the entity receives for operating housing results in a total grant of

$1,015,904 for operating and modernizing housing.

Data Sources HUD

Used in Calculating

Operating and

Modernizing Funding

For fiscal year 1998, HUD derived the number of housing units and areas

served from reports submitted by Indian housing authorities or tribes. The

numbers reported were confirmed by the Department. HUD adjusted costs

for inflation using the housing cost component of the Consumer Price

Index, published annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. HUD adjusted

Page 34 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix II 

Formula Used to Allocate NAHASDA Block

Grant Funding

for geographic differences in the cost of operating housing (for example,

the costs of maintenance and tenant services) using the larger of the

entity’s historical Allowable Expense Levels for calculating operating

subsidies under the Public Housing Program (prior to October 1, 1997) or

the private sector housing Fair Market Rents, data collected and published

annually by HUD. Fair Market Rents represent the rental cost of private

sector housing units and reflect geographic differences in rental housing

supply and demand in local U.S. housing markets.

HUD based the geographic cost factor used to calculate funding for

modernizing housing on the cost of building a standard housing unit of

moderate design in various geographic locations. Given moderate housing

design specifications, HUD calculates the labor, materials, and other costs

required to construct such a unit in various locations. These amounts are

based on cost surveys conducted by private firms. Thus, the geographic

cost factor reflects labor, materials, and other costs in the housing

construction industry.

How Funding for

Need for Additional

Housing Is Calculated

Once funding for operating and modernizing housing is determined for

each entity, HUD totals the funding amounts and deducts the amounts from

available appropriations. This calculation results in the amount of funding

available to all housing entities to address the need to provide affordable

housing activities. The formula for the need for housing activities allocates

available funding among entities based on their proportionate share of

seven weighted factors and the cost of building a standard housing unit of

moderate design in various geographic locations. The geographic cost

adjustment factor is the same as or similar to that used in the formula to

calculate funding for modernizing housing.2

 Figure II.2 shows the formula

for calculating funding for the need for housing activities.

2

The cost adjustment factor is the ratio of an entity’s total development cost (TDC) to the average TDC

of all entities included in the calculation. Because some of the entities do not receive funding under

the modernization component of the formula, the average TDC for modernization funding may differ

from the average TDC under this component of the formula.

Page 35 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix II 

Formula Used to Allocate NAHASDA Block

Grant Funding

Figure II.2: Formula for Calculating Funding for Need for Housing Activities

 Amount

Available for

Distribution

Grantee's Share

 of Seven 

 Weighted

 Factors

Geographic 

 Cost 

Adjustment

 Factor

x x

 Grantee's

 Funding for

 Need for

 Housing

 Activities

=

Sample Calculation

for Need for Housing

Activities

The formula for calculating funding for the need to provide affordable

housing activities uses various weighted need factors. The factors capture

the portions of the national population that fall into seven categories and

are American Indians or Alaska Natives living in areas where a tribe has

jurisdiction or has provided substantial housing services. These categories

include the Native American population, low-income households,

households with housing cost exceeding half their income, low-income

households in need of housing, and households living in overcrowded

conditions or without kitchen or plumbing facilities. Table II.3 shows each

factor and its associated weight. HUD multiplies each housing entity’s share

of each factor by the factor’s assigned weight and adds the total for all

factors to produce the entity’s weighted share for the seven need factors.

Table II.3: Hypothetical Sample Calculation of a Housing Entity’s Weighted Share of Seven Need Factors

Need factors Weight

Hypothetical housing

entity’s share of factor

Weighted share of

factora

1 Population (American Indians and Alaska

Natives) 0.11 0.0050 0.000550

2 Households that are in overcrowded units or

lacking plumbing or kitchen facilities 0.25 0.0055 0.001375

3 Households with housing costs that exceed

50 percent of income 0.22 0.0060 0.001320

4 Number of low-income households in

excess of available housing 0.15 0.0075 0.001125

5 Low-income households 0.07 0.0070 0.000490

6 Very-low-income households 0.07 0.0055 0.000385

7 Extremely-low-income households 0.13 0.0075 0.000975

Total 0.00622

aThe “weighted share of the factor” is calculated by multiplying “weight” by the “hypothetical

housing entity’s share of the factor.”

Page 36 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix II 

Formula Used to Allocate NAHASDA Block

Grant Funding

The third column of table II.3 shows the weight for each of the seven need

factors. For example, in our sample calculation, we assume that a housing

entity’s jurisdiction covers, or that the entity has provided, substantial

housing services to one-half of 1 percent of the total American Indian and

Alaska Native population (see factor 1 in the table). This factor receives a

weight of 11 percent in the formula. Multiplying the entity’s share of the

American Indian and Alaska Native population by the factor’s weight

produces the entity’s weighted share for the factor. To produce the entity’s

weighted share of the seven factors, we make similar computations for

each factor and add the entity’s weighted shares together.

HUD uses the formula shown in figure II.3 to calculate an entity’s funding

for the need to provide affordable housing activities. To illustrate, we

assume that $100 million of the program’s total appropriation remains

after the operating and modernizing grants have been allocated. We use

the weighted share of the seven need factors as calculated in table II.3,

0.00622. We also assume that the entity’s geographic cost factor is

2 percent below the national average. Multiplying these amounts results in

a grant calculation of $609,560 for need for housing activities.

Figure II.3: Hypothetical Sample Calculation of Funding for Need for Housing Activities

 Amount

Available 

 for

Distribution

Grantee's Share

 of Seven 

 Weighted

 Factors

Geographic

 Cost

Adjustment

 Factor

 Funding for

 Need for

 Housing

 Activities

=

$100,000,000 * 0.00622 * 0.98 $609,560 =

x x

After calculating funding for operating and modernizing housing and for

the need for housing activities, HUD combines the amounts into a single

block grant. The total grant amount of our hypothetical sample calculation

is $1,267,736.

Page 37 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix II 

Formula Used to Allocate NAHASDA Block

Grant Funding

Data Sources Used in

Calculating Funding

for the Need for

Housing Activities

For fiscal year 1998, HUD used the same geographic cost factor to calculate

funding for the need to provide affordable housing activities as it did for

modernizing existing housing. HUD obtained data for each of the seven

need factors from the 1990 U.S. Census, which HUD updated to reflect

current conditions. Housing entities can challenge the Census data by

conducting their own surveys subject to HUD guidelines and by submitting

the data to HUD for use in calculating grant amounts for need for housing

activities.

NAHASDA

Regulations Provide

Minimum Funding

Guarantees

The NAHASDA regulations establish two kinds of minimum funding levels for

housing entities. Consequently, when HUD calculates funding amounts that

are below the legislated minimums, housing entities are given additional

funds. The first minimum funding level guarantees every entity an

allocation that at least equals its fiscal year 1996 funding for operating and

modernizing housing. The second minimum funding level guarantees every

housing entity an allocation of at least $50,000 for funding the need for

affordable housing activities. In subsequent years, HUD will reduce the

second minimum funding guarantee to $25,000, and in fiscal year 2002, it

will be eliminated.

Page 38 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix III 

Unspent Indian Housing Funding, 1980-97

Table III.1: Total Amounts of Unspent Indian Housing Funding by Programs

Program

1980-

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total

Development $4.1 $1.1 $5.6 $5.5 $24.6 $67.5 $119.2 $129.9 $170.1 $527.6a

Modernization 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.3 7.5 11.4 34.6 75.7 187.4 318.2

HOME 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.8 6.4 9.7 17.5 38.9

Section 8 5.9 0.7 0.4 0.2 2.5 4.3 0.3 2.6 0.2 17.2

Operating

Subsidy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 11.2 12.0

Drug Elimination 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 5.0 8.8

Economic

Development 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.4 3.5

Emergency

Shelter Grants 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.8 1.0

Family

Self-Sufficiency 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9

HOPE 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Miscellaneous 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Youth Sports 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2

Total $10.3 $2.1 $6.4 $7.9 $36.1 $88.0 $161.6 $224.2 $392.6 $929.2

Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

aTotal includes $7,031 in unspent Development funds awarded in fiscal year 1971 to the Navajo

Housing Authority.

Source: GAO analysis based on data from HUD’s Program Accounting System.

Page 39 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix III 

Unspent Indian Housing Funding, 1980-97

Table III.2: Indian Housing Authorities

and Tribes With More Than $10 Million

in Total Unspent Indian Housing

Funding

Indian housing

authority/tribe

and programs 1980-1989 1990 1991

Navajo Housing Authority, Arizona

Development $42,940 $0 $0

Modernization 0 0 7,921

Operating

Subsidy 0 0 0

Drug Elimination 0 0 0

Youth Sports 0 0 0

Tenant

Opportunity 0 0 0

Section 8 0 724,500 167,009

Subtotal 42,940 724,500 174,930

Choctaw Nation Housing Authority, Oklahoma

Development 21,700 0 0

Modernization 0 0 0

Drug Elimination 0 0 0

Section 8 320,142 0 11,458

Subtotal 341,842 0 11,458

Association of Village Council Presidents Housing Authority, Alaska

Development 124,283 175,939 36,075

Modernization 0 0 0

Operating

Subsidy 0 0 0

Subtotal 124,283 175,939 36,075

Cherokee Nation Housing Authority, Oklahoma

Development 168,871 13,353 4,700

Modernization 0 0 0

Drug Elimination 0 0 0

Economic

Development 0 0 0

Section 8 2,241,769 0 0

Subtotal 2,410,640 13,353 4,700

Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu Housing Authority, Alaska

Development 15,000 0 0

Modernization 0 0 0

Operating

Subsidy 0 0 0

Subtotal 15,000 0 0

Tohono O’odham Housing Authority, Arizona

Page 40 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix III 

Unspent Indian Housing Funding, 1980-97

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total

$2,437,015 $810,429 $10,903,286 $31,567,573 $16,354,860 $0 $62,123,133a

0 362,143 357,391 1,703,830 3,278,125 12,325,219 18,034,629

0 0 0 0 14,869 4,090,503 4,105,372

0 0 1,421 92,449 0 0 93,870

0 0 8,100 175 0 0 8,275

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 18,185 267,527 0 0 0 1,177,221

2,437,015 1,190,756 11,537,725 33,364,027 19,647,854 16,415,722 85,542,500

0 379,473 201,360 7,494,496 11,508,137 0 19,605,166

0 0 0 554,830 2,621,880 2,901,711 6,078,421

0 0 0 0 183,063 421,147 604,210

63,291 17,174 552,534 0 0 0 964,599

63,291 396,647 753,894 8,049,326 14,313,080 3,322,858 27,252,396

11,301 81,280 330,165 0 10,846,071 3,702,767 15,307,882

0 0 0 0 187,825 2,645,934 2,833,759

0 0 0 0 0 248,483 248,483

11,301 81,280 330,165 0 11,033,896 6,597,184 18,390,124

39,747 0 3,298,263 0 1,340,364 4,415,000 9,280,299

0 0 0 0 0 2,505,038 2,505,038

0 0 0 0 141,792 695,205 836,997

0 0 0 0 980,692 0 980,692

22,213 288,499 812,343 58,970 742,467 200,709 4,366,970

61,960 288,499 4,110,606 58,970 3,205,315 7,815,952 17,969,996

0 0 2,825,756 3,923,608 0 3,392,144 10,156,509

0 0 0 1,219,006 1,384,864 1,517,217 4,121,086

0 0 0 0 78,280 8,779 87,059

0 0 2,825,756 5,142,614 1,463,144 4,918,140 14,364,654

(continued)

Page 41 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix III 

Unspent Indian Housing Funding, 1980-97

Indian housing

authority/tribe

and programs 1980-1989 1990 1991

Development 108,827 0 1

Modernization 144,465 0 0

Operating

Subsidy 0 0 0

Subtotal 253,292 0 1

Standing Rock Housing Authority, South Dakota

Development 0 0 0

Modernization 0 0 0

Operating

Subsidy 0 0 0

Subtotal 0 0 0

Northern Circle Housing Authority, California

Development 71,215 0 0

Modernization 0 0 0

Operating

Subsidy 0 0 0

Drug Elimination 0 0 0

Subtotal 71,215 0 0

Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority, Alaska

Development 16,314 0 0

Modernization 0 0 0

Subtotal 16,314 0 0

Navajo Nation of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah

Modernization 0 0 0

HOME 0 0 0

Subtotal 0 0 0

Yurok Housing Authority, California

Development 0 0 0

Subtotal 0 0 0

Karuk Tribe Housing Authority, California

Development 0 0 0

Modernization 0 0 0

Operating

Subsidy 0 0 0

Drug Elimination 0 0 0

Economic

Development 0 0 0

Section 8 0 0 0

Subtotal 0 0 0

Page 42 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix III 

Unspent Indian Housing Funding, 1980-97

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total

0 2,007,701 0 0 86,000 0 2,202,528

52,042 1,913,765 2,040,680 2,980,294 2,392,303 2,261,424 11,784,973

0 0 0 0 0 9,110 9,110

52,042 3,921,466 2,040,680 2,980,294 2,478,303 2,270,534 13,996,611

0 13,850 5,227,542 5,919,606 0 0 11,160,998

0 0 0 0 0 2,392,389 2,392,389

0 0 0 0 0 58,376 58,376

0 13,850 5,227,542 5,919,606 0 2,450,765 13,611,763

18,200 2,708,151 4,968,066 0 249,314 4,050,288 12,065,234

0 0 0 0 968 755,392 756,360

0 0 0 0 0 229,715 229,715

0 0 0 0 55,973 86,143 142,116

18,200 2,708,151 4,968,066 0 306,255 5,121,538 13,193,425

0 0 1,500,000 1,011,663 5,631,099 3,776,247 11,935,322

0 0 0 0 469,563 703,974 1,173,537

0 0 1,500,000 1,011,663 6,100,662 4,480,221 13,108,859

9,533 4,354 93,561 941,979 4,947,668 4,834,399 10,831,494

0 663,066 1,202,000 0 0 0 1,865,066

9,533 667,420 1,295,561 941,979 4,947,668 4,834,399 12,696,560

0 0 0 0 2,144,820 10,546,517 12,691,336

0 0 0 0 2,144,820 10,546,517 12,691,336

0 0 0 0 4,730,539 7,085,126 11,815,665

0 0 0 0 142,227 586,307 728,534

0 0 0 0 0 14,145 14,145

0 6 0 0 0 0 6

25,356 0 0 0 0 0 25,356

0 0 0 0 0 7,721 7,721

25,356 6 0 0 4,872,765 7,693,298 12,591,426

(continued)

Page 43 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix III 

Unspent Indian Housing Funding, 1980-97

Indian housing

authority/tribe

and programs 1980-1989 1990 1991

Pueblo of Acoma Housing Authority, New Mexico

Development 0 0 0

Modernization 0 0 0

Operating

Subsidy 0 0 0

Drug Elimination 0 0 0

Subtotal 0 0 0

Owens Valley Housing Authority, California

Development 0 0 0

Modernization 0 0 0

Operating

Subsidy 0 0 0

Economic

Development 0 0 0

Youth Sports 0 0 0

Subtotal 0 0 0

Qualla Housing Authority, North Carolina

Development 175,112 0 0

Modernization 0 0 0

Operating

Subsidy 0 0 0

Drug Elimination 0 0 0

Section 8 0 0 0

Subtotal 175,112 0 0

Total $3,450,638 $913,792 $227,164

Page 44 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix III 

Unspent Indian Housing Funding, 1980-97

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total

0 993,400 1,519,818 200,000 905,420 5,098,135 8,716,774

50,086 348,541 477,990 402,653 326,841 318,358 1,924,470

0 0 0 0 0 42,569 42,569

0 0 0 236,615 0 50,000 286,615

50,086 1,341,942 1,997,809 839,268 1,232,261 5,509,062 10,970,428

0 2,983,136 0 0 0 5,839,637 8,822,772

0 0 0 0 622,503 1,041,869 1,664,372

0 0 0 0 0 145,836 145,836

0 0 0 0 0 77,500 77,500

0 0 0 17,927 0 0 17,927

0 2,983,136 0 17,927 622,503 7,104,842 10,728,408

0 1,355,221 2,197,382 2,360,665 427,135 0 6,515,515

0 0 0 663,698 830,823 1,290,980 2,785,501

0 0 0 0 0 171,720 171,720

0 0 0 0 132,634 248,155 380,789

0 296,414 54,650 0 0 0 351,064

0 1,651,635 2,252,032 3,024,363 1,390,592 1,710,855 10,204,589

$2,728,785 $15,244,787 $38,839,838 $61,350,036 $73,759,119 $90,791,886 $287,313,075

aNavajo Housing Authority has $7,031 in unspent development funds awarded in fiscal year 1971

that are not shown, but are included in the total.

Source: GAO analysis based on data from HUD’s Program Accounting System.

Page 45 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Alaska Office of Native American Programs (Anchorage, Alaska)

Afognak $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000

Ahtna Native Regional Corp. 0 803,320 104,883 908,203

Akhiok 0 0 50,000 50,000

Akiachak 0 0 392,103 392,103

Akiak 0 0 240,007 240,007

Akutan 0 0 50,000 50,000

Alakanuk 0 0 436,112 436,112

Alatna 0 0 52,228 52,228

Aleknagik 0 0 134,086 134,086

Aleutian Regional Corp. 0 1,966,036 80,712 2,046,748

Algaaciq (St. Mary’s) 0 0 50,000 50,000

Allakaket 0 0 171,276 171,276

Ambler 0 0 217,492 217,492

Anaktuvuk Pass 0 0 179,863 179,863

Andreafski 0 0 303,000 303,000

Angoon 0 0 253,364 253,364

Aniak 0 0 244,719 244,719

Annette Island (Metlakakla) 0 952,646 450,718 1,403,364

Anvik 0 0 111,538 111,538

Arctic Slope Native

Regional Corp. 0 2,671,001 326,417 2,997,418

Arctic Village 0 0 159,331 159,331

Atka 0 0 50,000 50,000

Atmautluak 0 0 218,690 218,690

Atqasuk (Atkasook) 0 0 125,127 125,127

Baranof Island Regional

Corp. 0 570,247 976,513 1,546,760

Barrow 0 0 1,038,462 1,038,462

Beaver 0 0 122,147 122,147

Belkofski 0 0 50,000 50,000

Bering Straits Native

Regional Corp. 0 2,749,747 50,000 2,799,747

Bill Moore’s Slough 0 0 50,000 50,000

Birch Creek 0 0 94,148 94,148

Brevig Mission 0 0 199,917 199,917

(continued)

Page 46 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Bristol Bay Native Regional

Corp. 0 2,086,968 50,000 2,136,968

Buckland 0 0 266,237 266,237

Calista Native Regional

Corp. 0 6,826,319 70,170 6,896,489

Cantwell 0 0 50,000 50,000

Chalkyitsik 0 0 91,284 91,284

Chanega 0 0 50,000 50,000

Chefornak 0 0 255,813 255,813

Chevak 0 0 576,265 576,265

Chickaloon 0 0 50,000 50,000

Chignik 0 0 50,000 50,000

Chignik Lagoon 0 0 50,000 50,000

Chignik Lake 0 0 94,891 94,891

Chilkat 0 0 62,415 62,415

Chilkoot 0 0 97,185 97,185

Chistochina 0 0 50,000 50,000

Chitina 0 0 50,000 50,000

Chuatbaluk 0 0 55,474 55,474

Chugach Native Regional

Corp. 0 1,181,842 336,987 1,518,829

Chuloonawick 0 0 50,000 50,000

Circle 0 0 50,000 50,000

Clark’s Point 0 0 65,731 65,731

Cook Inlet Native Regional

Corp. 0 3,646,373 7,759,824 11,406,197

Council 0 0 50,000 50,000

Craig 0 0 90,156 90,156

Crooked Creek 0 0 90,901 90,901

Curyung 0 0 707,840 707,840

Deering 0 0 191,512 191,512

Dot Lake 0 0 50,000 50,000

Douglas 0 0 147,173 147,173

Doyon Native Regional

Corp. 0 2,361,527 5,239,663 7,601,190

Eagle 0 0 78,570 78,570

Eek 0 0 225,215 225,215

Egegik 0 0 115,561 115,561

Eklutna 0 0 61,916 61,916

(continued)

Page 47 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Ekuk 0 0 50,000 50,000

Ekwok 0 0 87,261 87,261

Elim 0 0 252,959 252,959

Emmonak 0 0 403,597 403,597

Evansville (Bettles Field) 0 0 50,000 50,000

Eyak 0 0 50,000 50,000

False Pass 0 0 50,000 50,000

Fort Yukon 0 0 514,380 514,380

Gakona 0 0 50,000 50,000

Galena 0 0 339,596 339,596

Gambell 0 0 543,066 543,066

Georgetown 0 0 50,000 50,000

Golovin (Chinik) 0 0 153,792 153,792

Goodnews Bay 0 0 252,834 252,834

Grayling 0 0 116,642 116,642

Gulkana 0 0 63,562 63,562

Hamilton 0 0 50,000 50,000

Healy Lake 0 0 61,849 61,849

Holy Cross 0 0 297,856 297,856

Hoonah 0 0 133,071 133,071

Hooper Bay 0 0 765,920 765,920

Hughes 0 0 76,282 76,282

Huslia 0 0 261,512 261,512

Hydaburg 0 0 198,439 198,439

Igiugig 0 0 50,000 50,000

Iliamna 0 0 50,000 50,000

Inalik (Diomede) 0 0 157,855 157,855

Ivanoff Bay 0 0 50,000 50,000

Kaguyak 0 0 50,000 50,000

Kake 0 0 132,523 132,523

Kaktovik (Barter Island) 0 0 186,168 186,168

Kalskag 0 0 132,062 132,062

Kaltag 0 0 206,411 206,411

Kanatak 0 0 50,000 50,000

Karluk 0 0 50,000 50,000

Kasigluk 0 0 309,048 309,048

Kassan 0 0 50,000 50,000

(continued)

Page 48 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Kenaitze 0 0 334,880 334,880

Ketchikan 0 0 923,481 923,481

Kiana 0 0 234,102 234,102

King Cove 0 0 52,770 52,770

King Island 0 0 214,196 214,196

Kipnuk 0 0 541,053 541,053

Kivalina 0 0 231,362 231,362

Klawock 0 0 162,059 162,059

Kluti Kaah (Copper Center) 0 0 90,469 90,469

Knik 0 0 50,000 50,000

Kobuk 0 0 57,326 57,326

Kokhanok 0 0 163,599 163,599

Koliganek 0 0 181,733 181,733

Kongiganak 0 0 205,451 205,451

Koniag Native Regional

Corp. 0 2,390,598 593,589 2,984,187

Kotlik 0 0 377,963 377,963

Kotzebue 0 0 1,312,189 1,312,189

Koyuk 0 0 191,897 191,897

Koyukuk 0 0 116,435 116,435

Kwethluk 0 0 497,032 497,032

Kwigillingok 0 0 287,415 287,415

Kwinhagak (Quinhagak) 0 0 496,365 496,365

Larsen Bay 0 0 50,000 50,000

Lesnoi (Woody Island) 0 0 50,000 50,000

Levelock 0 0 116,593 116,593

Lime 0 0 62,596 62,596

Lower Kalskag 0 0 284,520 284,520

Manley Hot Springs 0 0 50,000 50,000

Manokotak 0 0 250,856 250,856

Marshall 0 0 187,278 187,278

Mary’s Igloo 0 0 50,000 50,000

McGrath 0 0 156,342 156,342

Mekoryuk 0 0 242,902 242,902

Mentasta 0 0 77,564 77,564

Minto 0 0 163,309 163,309

Mountain Village 0 0 372,881 372,881

(continued)

Page 49 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Naknek 0 0 96,531 96,531

NANA Native Regional Corp. 0 3,025,334 115,444 3,140,778

Nanwelek (English Bay) 0 0 50,000 50,000

Napaimute 0 0 50,000 50,000

Napakiak 0 0 268,381 268,381

Napaskiak 0 0 310,296 310,296

Nelson Lagoon 0 0 57,875 57,875

Nenana 0 0 88,255 88,255

New Stuyahok 0 0 302,444 302,444

Newhalen 0 0 112,322 112,322

Newtok 0 0 191,503 191,503

Nightmute 0 0 106,423 106,423

Nikolai 0 0 132,524 132,524

Nikolski 0 0 50,000 50,000

Ninilchik 0 0 115,135 115,135

Noatuk 0 0 231,478 231,478

Nome 0 0 1,027,192 1,027,192

Nondalton 0 0 137,485 137,485

Noorvik 0 0 302,902 302,902

Northway 0 0 114,732 114,732

Nuiqsut 0 0 233,455 233,455

Nulato 0 0 288,280 288,280

Nunapitchuk 0 0 313,630 313,630

Ohogamiut 0 0 50,000 50,000

Old Harbor 0 0 121,103 121,103

Orutsararmuit (Bethel) 0 0 1,993,850 1,993,850

Oscarville 0 0 50,000 50,000

Ouzinkie 0 0 56,554 56,554

Paimiut 0 0 50,000 50,000

Pauloff Village 0 0 50,000 50,000

Pedro Bay 0 0 50,000 50,000

Perryville 0 0 91,868 91,868

Petersburg 0 0 182,169 182,169

Pilot Point 0 0 50,000 50,000

Pilot Station 0 0 355,408 355,408

Pitka’s Point 0 0 144,982 144,982

Platinum 0 0 102,978 102,978

(continued)

Page 50 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Point Hope 0 0 396,766 396,766

Point Lay 0 0 115,842 115,842

Port Graham 0 0 50,000 50,000

Port Heiden 0 0 50,000 50,000

Port Lions 0 0 50,373 50,373

Portage Creek 0 0 50,000 50,000

Qagan Tayagungin (Sand

Point) 0 0 124,429 124,429

Qawalangin (Unalaska) 0 0 66,058 66,058

Rampart 0 0 99,098 99,098

Red Devil 0 0 50,000 50,000

Ruby 0 0 119,407 119,407

Russian Mission (Yukon) 0 0 179,207 179,207

Saint George 0 0 66,482 66,482

Saint Michael 0 0 223,716 223,716

Saint Paul 0 0 138,218 138,218

Salamatoff 0 0 70,392 70,392

Savoonga 0 0 544,306 544,306

Saxman 0 0 82,922 82,922

Scammon Bay 0 0 289,347 289,347

Selawik 0 0 435,627 435,627

Seldovia 0 0 50,000 50,000

Shageluk 0 0 149,918 149,918

Shaktoolik 0 0 103,670 103,670

Sheldon’s Point 0 0 91,020 91,020

Shishmaref 0 0 404,060 404,060

Shungnak 0 0 152,185 152,185

Skagway 0 0 50,000 50,000

Sleetmute 0 0 125,691 125,691

Solomon 0 0 50,000 50,000

South Naknek 0 0 69,225 69,225

Stebbins 0 0 326,636 326,636

Stevens 0 0 139,449 139,449

Stoney River 0 0 99,421 99,421

Takotna 0 0 50,000 50,000

Tanacross 0 0 89,899 89,899

Tanana 0 0 310,339 310,339

(continued)

Page 51 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Tatitlek 0 0 50,000 50,000

Tazlina 0 0 50,000 50,000

Telida 0 0 50,000 50,000

Teller 0 0 140,387 140,387

Tetlin 0 0 73,155 73,155

Tlingit and Haida 0 3,462,463 1,916,883 5,379,346

Togiak 0 0 493,467 493,467

Toksook Bay 0 0 250,764 250,764

Tuluksak 0 0 267,715 267,715

Tuntutuliak 0 0 275,263 275,263

Tununak 0 0 244,420 244,420

Twin Hills 0 0 63,542 63,542

Tyonek 0 0 129,135 129,135

Ugashik 0 0 50,000 50,000

Umkumiute 0 0 50,000 50,000

Unalakleet 0 0 365,712 365,712

Unga 0 0 50,000 50,000

Venetie 0 0 182,508 182,508

Wainwright 0 0 379,830 379,830

Wales 0 0 144,596 144,596

White Mountain 0 0 161,602 161,602

Wrangell 0 0 272,929 272,929

Yakutat 0 0 97,820 97,820

Eastern/Woodlands Office of Native American Programs (Chicago, Illinois)

Aroostook Band of Micmac 0 0 264,338 264,338

Bad River Band 0 726,554 579,538 1,306,092

Bay Mills Indian Community 0 316,043 130,764 446,807

Boise Forte Band of

Minnesota Chippewa 625,857 313,223 90,881 1,029,961

Catawba Indian Tribe 0 0 1,323,851 1,323,851

Cayuga Nation 0 0 543,690 543,690

Coharie State Tribe 0 70,254 489,028 559,282

Eastern Cherokee 0 2,173,643 1,089,423 3,263,066

Fond Du Lac Band of

Minnesota Chippewa 0 1,200,008 2,074,560 3,274,568

Forest County Potawatami 0 148,893 207,892 356,785

Grand Portage Band of

Minnesota Chippewa 0 125,500 82,731 208,231

(continued)

Page 52 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Grand Traverse Band 0 236,939 1,010,483 1,247,422

Haliwa-Saponi State Tribe 0 105,314 884,029 989,343

Hannahville Community 0 56,836 50,603 107,439

Ho-Chunk Nation 0 624,834 2,310,667 2,935,501

Houlton Band of Maliseets 0 338,629 107,103 445,732

Huron Band of Potawatomi 0 0 431,007 431,007

Keweenaw Bay Indian

Community 0 978,791 348,223 1,327,014

Lac Courte Oreilles 0 1,475,457 522,808 1,998,265

Lac Du Flambeau Band 0 981,921 449,818 1,431,739

Lac Vieux Desert Band 0 148,964 62,575 211,539

Leech Lake Band of

Minnesota Chippewa 0 1,519,852 1,304,247 2,824,099

Little River Band of Ottawa 0 0 355,600 355,600

Little Traverse Bay Band 0 0 277,884 277,884

Lower Sioux 0 126,005 88,530 214,535

Lumbee State Tribe 0 716,137 7,126,642 7,842,779

Menominee Indian Tribe 0 1,630,182 953,927 2,584,109

Miccosukee Tribe 0 0 50,000 50,000

Mille Lacs Band of

Minnesota Chippewa 0 360,022 662,002 1,022,024

Mississippi Choctaw Tribe 0 1,922,246 1,144,205 3,066,451

Mohegan Tribe of

Connecticut 0 0 168,511 168,511

MOWA Band of Choctaw

Indians 0 158,459 389,128 547,587

Narragansett Tribe 0 0 523,937 523,937

Oneida Nation of New York 0 134,878 979,796 1,114,674

Oneida Tribe 0 1,117,427 2,415,422 3,532,849

Onondaga Nation 0 0 50,000 50,000

Passamaquody Indian Tribe 0 547,350 121,229 668,579

Penobscot Tribe 0 390,908 132,281 523,189

Pleasant Point 0 453,476 195,656 649,132

Poarch Band of Creek

Indians 0 375,158 1,223,463 1,598,621

Pokagon Band of

Potawatomi 0 0 1,973,548 1,973,548

Prairie Island Sioux 0 103,987 50,000 153,987

(continued)

Page 53 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Red Cliff Band of Lake

Superior Chippewa 0 469,707 272,025 741,732

Red Lake Band of Chippewa 0 1,662,624 1,314,276 2,976,900

Sac and Fox Tribe 0 74,181 185,410 259,591

Saginaw Chippewa 0 332,641 1,287,825 1,620,466

Saint Croix Chippewa 0 757,761 141,318 899,079

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe 0 1,493,551 2,516,092 4,009,643

Seminole Tribe 0 1,322,247 1,627,943 2,950,190

Seneca Nation of New York 0 1,215,173 1,169,714 2,384,887

Shakopee Sioux 0 0 50,000 50,000

Sokagoan Chippewa Tribe 0 484,856 158,382 643,238

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe 0 775,161 631,876 1,407,037

Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe 0 266,025 141,696 407,721

Tonawanda Band of

Senecas 0 0 264,421 264,421

Tuscarora Nation 0 0 223,317 223,317

Upper Sioux Indian

Community 0 0 249,304 249,304

Waccamaw Siouan State

Tribe 0 0 348,430 348,430

Wampanoag Tribe 0 144,083 182,379 326,462

White Earth Band of

Minnesota Chippewa 0 1,258,745 976,332 2,235,077

Northern Plains Office of Native American Programs (Denver, Colorado)

Blackfeet Tribe 0 3,760,421 2,107,010 5,867,431

Cheyenne River Sioux 0 2,881,771 2,116,285 4,998,056

Crow Creek Sioux 0 1,124,282 352,817 1,477,099

Crow Tribe 0 1,652,953 1,633,951 3,286,904

Devils Lake Sioux 0 1,445,814 732,490 2,178,304

Flandreau Santee Sioux 0 264,711 90,065 354,776

Fort Belknap Indian

Community 0 1,864,031 548,735 2,412,766

Fort Peck Assiniboine and

Sioux 0 3,419,483 1,792,834 5,212,317

Ft. Berthold Affiliated Tribes 0 1,902,952 884,864 2,787,816

Goshute Reservation 0 53,949 50,000 103,949

Lower Brule Sioux 5,127 780,132 206,277 991,536

Northern Arapahoe 0 982,183 1,288,173 2,270,356

Northern Cheyenne 0 2,173,214 896,217 3,069,431

(continued)

Page 54 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

NW Band of Shoshone

Nation 0 0 50,000 50,000

Oglala Sioux of Pine Ridge

Reservation 0 4,732,611 3,943,170 8,675,781

Omaha Tribe 0 934,177 500,356 1,434,533

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska 0 136,158 1,596,489 1,732,647

Rocky Boy Chippewa-Cree 0 1,642,085 426,110 2,068,195

Rosebud Sioux 0 3,563,851 3,081,230 6,645,081

Salish and Kootenai Tribes 0 2,548,578 1,565,115 4,113,693

Santee Sioux Tribe 333,771 466,875 149,064 949,710

Shoshone Tribe of the Wind

River Reservation 0 869,076 673,195 1,542,271

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux 0 2,318,758 837,730 3,156,488

Skull Valley Band of Goshute 0 0 50,000 50,000

Southern Ute Tribe 0 809,464 260,001 1,069,465

Standing Rock Sioux 0 2,596,789 1,449,142 4,045,931

Turtle Mountain Band of

Chippewa 0 4,760,965 2,026,160 6,787,125

Uintah and Ouray Ute

Indian Tribe 0 803,536 975,740 1,779,276

Ute 0 838,181 388,172 1,226,353

Ute Mountain Tribe 0 984,885 415,484 1,400,369

Winnebago Tribe 0 762,672 379,982 1,142,654

Yankton Sioux 0 1,074,250 660,025 1,734,275

Southern Plains Office of Native American Programs (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)

Absentee-Shawnee 0 1,765,008 134,210 1,899,218

Alabama-Coushatta 0 214,963 100,511 315,474

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal

Town 0 0 84,176 84,176

Apache Tribe 637,178 194,962 314,672 1,146,812

Caddo Tribe 0 412,982 50,000 462,982

Cherokee Nation 0 8,628,145 16,018,567 24,646,712

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes 0 503,350 2,067,732 2,571,082

Chickasaw 0 5,257,562 5,549,223 10,806,785

Chitimacha Tribe 0 109,524 62,012 171,536

Choctaw Nation 0 4,138,115 7,471,743 11,609,858

Citizen Band Potawatomi

Tribe 0 89,223 1,646,108 1,735,331

Comanche Tribe 0 668,824 1,558,565 2,227,389

(continued)

Page 55 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Coushatta Tribe 0 30,426 50,000 80,426

Delaware Tribe 0 0 50,000 50,000

Delaware Tribe of Indians

(Eastern) 0 709,133 1,703,786 2,412,919

Eastern Shawnee Tribe 0 0 96,086 96,086

Fort Sill Apache Tribe 0 0 50,000 50,000

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and

Nebraska 0 300,096 50,000 350,096

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 0 0 76,067 76,067

Jena Band of Choctaw 0 0 99,773 99,773

Kaw Tribe 310,191 201,922 113,729 625,842

Kialegee Tribal Town 0 0 73,245 73,245

Kickapoo Tribe 297,153 433,949 89,313 820,415

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma 0 0 437,546 437,546

Kiowa Tribe 0 284,706 1,583,826 1,868,532

Miami Tribe 0 0 70,938 70,938

Modoc Tribe 0 0 50,000 50,000

Muskogee (Creek) Nation 0 4,201,040 12,158,489 16,359,529

Osage Tribe 0 917,972 1,488,541 2,406,513

Otoe-Missouria Tribe 0 280,797 121,234 402,031

Ottawa Tribe 0 0 95,055 95,055

Pawnee Tribe 0 284,894 375,758 660,652

Peoria Tribe 0 1,003,075 58,050 1,061,125

Ponca Tribe 0 427,079 577,821 1,004,900

Prairie Band of Potawatomi 0 236,301 151,569 387,870

Quapaw Tribe 0 0 196,266 196,266

Sac and Fox of Missouri 0 105,701 50,000 155,701

Sac and Fox Tribe 0 796,419 1,070,351 1,866,770

Seminole Nation 0 440,848 1,236,724 1,677,572

Seneca-Cayuga 0 0 217,291 217,291

Texas Band of Kickapoo

Indians 0 64,567 689,274 753,841

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 0 0 123,553 123,553

Tonkawa Tribe 0 224,380 141,891 366,271

Tunica-Biloxi Tribe 0 0 50,000 50,000

United Keetoowah 0 0 929,417 929,417

Wichita Tribe 0 110,326 50,000 160,326

Wyandotte 0 0 353,544 353,544

(continued)

Page 56 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Southwest Office of Native American Programs (Phoenix, Arizona)

Acoma Pueblo 0 285,579 763,522 1,049,101

Agua Caliente Band of

Cahuilla 0 0 50,000 50,000

Ak-Chin Papago 0 150,242 101,494 251,736

Alturas Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Auburn Rancheria 0 0 197,234 197,234

Augustine Band of Cahuilla 0 0 50,000 50,000

Barona Group of Capitan

Grande 0 154,276 104,983 259,259

Berry Creek Rancheria 0 175,668 289,000 464,668

Big Lagoon Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Big Pine Band 0 343,929 80,548 424,477

Big Sandy Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Big Valley Rancheria 0 0 218,785 218,785

Blue Lake Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Bridgeport Paiute Indian

Colony 0 117,081 50,000 167,081

Buena Vista Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Cabazon Band 0 0 50,000 50,000

Cahuilla Band 0 36,606 50,000 86,606

Campo Band 431,811 186,444 50,000 668,255

Cedarville Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Chemehuevi 460,460 352,829 50,000 863,289

Chicken Ranch Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Chico Rancheria 0 0 306,401 306,401

Cloverdale Rancheria 0 0 242,445 242,445

Cochiti Pueblo 0 65,841 269,467 335,308

Cocopah Tribe 0 322,807 323,278 646,085

Cold Springs Rancheria 0 186,803 50,000 236,803

Colorado River Indian Tribes 0 1,446,442 702,313 2,148,755

Colusa Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Cortina Rancheria 0 0 144,210 144,210

Coyote Valley Band 0 153,461 131,212 284,673

Cuyapaipe Community 0 0 50,000 50,000

Death Valley Timba-Sha 0 0 156,660 156,660

Dry Creek Rancheria 0 0 391,245 391,245

(continued)

Page 57 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Duck Valley

Shoshone-Paiute 0 650,883 338,152 989,035

Duckwater Shoshone 62,591 68,594 53,928 185,113

Elk Valley Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Ely Shoshone 0 240,586 50,000 290,586

Enterprise Rancheria 0 0 274,763 274,763

Fallon Paiute-Shoshone 217,783 594,969 165,295 978,047

Fort Bidwell 0 138,060 154,018 292,078

Fort Independence 0 35,122 50,000 85,122

Fort McDermitt Paiute and

Shoshone 0 0 201,514 201,514

Fort McDowell Mohave

Apache 0 153,342 189,358 342,700

Fort Mojave Tribe 0 776,498 145,786 922,284

Gila River 0 3,940,269 3,244,244 7,184,513

Greenville Rancheria 0 0 196,031 196,031

Grindstone Rancheria 0 216,048 157,085 373,133

Guidiville Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Havasupai 0 0 175,013 175,013

Hoopa Valley 0 810,806 720,581 1,531,387

Hopi 0 930,414 2,828,733 3,759,147

Hopland Rancheria 0 113,239 166,168 279,407

Hualapai 0 1,114,894 524,196 1,639,090

Inaja Band 0 0 50,000 50,000

Ione Band of Miwok Indians 0 0 122,403 122,403

Isleta Pueblo 0 217,350 825,957 1,043,307

Jackson Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Jamul Indian Village 0 0 50,000 50,000

Jemez Pueblo 0 141,083 568,366 709,449

Jicarilla Reservation 0 763,543 534,913 1,298,456

Kaibab Band of Paiute 0 211,053 50,000 261,053

Karuk 0 474,020 2,170,879 2,644,899

La Jolla Band 0 172,440 50,000 222,440

La Posta Band 0 0 50,000 50,000

Laguna Pueblo 0 1,008,627 1,021,323 2,029,950

Las Vegas Colony 0 0 50,000 50,000

Laytonville Rancheria 0 181,953 162,177 344,130

Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone 0 159,619 85,931 245,550

(continued)

Page 58 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Los Coyotes Band of

Cahuilla 0 0 72,271 72,271

Lovelock Colony 0 10,636 50,000 60,636

Lytton Rancheria of

California 0 0 177,789 177,789

Manchester Point Arena

Rancheria 0 249,830 104,160 353,990

Manzanita Band 0 0 50,000 50,000

Mesa Grande Band 0 79,702 50,000 129,702

Mescalero Reservation 132,463 1,425,890 547,562 2,105,915

Middletown Rancheria 0 0 64,411 64,411

Moapa Band of Paiute 0 245,643 66,655 312,298

Mooretown Rancheria 0 248,218 1,085,410 1,333,628

Morongo Band of Cahuilla 0 257,771 201,126 458,897

Nambe Pueblo 0 281,975 87,500 369,475

Navajo Nation 0 23,234,147 63,527,938 86,762,085

North Fork Rancheria 0 0 259,664 259,664

Paiute-Shoshone of Bishop

Colony 0 733,813 1,121,664 1,855,477

Pajoaque Pueblo 0 109,489 50,927 160,416

Pala Bank 0 326,959 165,264 492,223

Pascua Yaqui Tribe 0 2,704,248 7,946,434 10,650,682

Paskenta Band of Nomlaki

Indian 0 0 193,332 193,332

Pauma Band 0 56,211 56,435 112,646

Payson Tonto Apache 0 0 50,000 50,000

Pechanga Band 0 0 145,415 145,415

Picayune Rancheria 0 0 833,797 833,797

Picuris Pueblo 0 61,912 67,889 129,801

Pinoleville Rancheria 0 0 139,794 139,794

Pit River Tribe 0 0 62,315 62,315

Potter Valley Rancheria 0 0 128,782 128,782

Pyramid Lake Paiute 0 901,434 400,688 1,302,122

Quartz Valley Reservation 0 4,229 199,354 203,583

Quechan Tribe 0 1,011,817 344,054 1,355,871

Ramona Band 0 0 50,000 50,000

Redding Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Redwood Valley Rancheria 0 100,139 64,657 164,796

Reno-Sparks Colony 0 599,868 57,527 657,395

(continued)

Page 59 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Resighini Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Rincon Reservation 0 323,225 198,052 521,277

Robinson Rancheria 0 154,294 122,491 276,785

Rohnerville Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Round Valley Reservation 0 443,966 1,643,066 2,087,032

Rumsey Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Salt River Pima-Maricopa 0 1,514,638 1,377,274 2,891,912

San Carlos Apache 0 3,309,670 2,478,731 5,788,401

San Felipe Pueblo 0 23,433 477,979 501,412

San Ildefonso Pueblo 0 265,690 66,508 332,198

San Juan Pueblo 0 283,210 307,397 590,607

San Juan Southern Paiute

Tribe 0 0 182,680 182,680

San Manuel Band 0 0 50,000 50,000

San Pasqual Band 0 216,986 122,210 339,196

San Rosa Band of Cahuilla 0 14,079 50,000 64,079

San Ysabel Reservation 0 0 60,116 60,116

Sandia Pueblo 0 83,607 107,283 190,890

Santa Ana Pueblo 0 51,868 112,718 164,586

Santa Clara Pueblo 0 295,798 276,423 572,221

Santa Rosa Rancheria 0 237,471 94,141 331,612

Santa Ynez Band of

Chumash 0 279,701 50,000 329,701

Santo Domingo Pueblo 0 33,354 678,007 711,361

Scotts Valley (Pomo) 0 0 98,642 98,642

Sheep Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Sherwood Valley Rancheria 0 156,775 129,591 286,366

Shingle Springs Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Smith River Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Soboba Band 0 283,137 87,262 370,399

Stewarts Point Rancheria 0 0 176,017 176,017

Sulphur Bank Rancheria 0 0 88,517 88,517

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe 0 0 50,000 50,000

Susanville Rancheria 95,530 334,388 74,698 504,616

Sycuan Band 0 0 50,000 50,000

Table Bluff Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Table Mountain Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Taos Pueblo 0 364,123 486,178 850,301

(continued)

Page 60 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Te-Moak 105,729 975,833 242,558 1,324,120

Tesuque Pueblo 0 83,542 53,492 137,034

Tohono O’Odham Nation 0 2,481,134 3,835,927 6,317,061

Torres-Martinez Band of

Cahuilla 0 135,409 50,000 185,409

Trinidad Rancheria 0 0 50,000 50,000

Tule River Indian Tribe 264,328 182,707 260,736 707,771

Tulomne Rancheria 0 79,382 50,000 129,382

Twenty Nine Palms Band 0 0 50,000 50,000

Upper Lake Rancheria 0 0 134,215 134,215

Utu Utu Gwaiti Paiute 0 0 50,000 50,000

Viejas Group of Capitan

Grande 0 192,992 64,467 257,459

Walker River Paiute Tribe 23,381 587,847 199,533 810,761

Washoe Tribe 0 851,138 111,905 963,043

White Mountain Apache

(Fort Apache) 0 3,599,029 3,163,428 6,762,457

Winnemucca Colony 0 0 50,000 50,000

Yavapai-Apache (Camp

Verde) 0 597,104 175,472 772,576

Yavapai-Prescott 0 0 50,000 50,000

Yerington Paiute Tribe 0 221,891 113,008 334,899

Yomba Shoshone Tribe 0 121,153 50,000 171,153

Ysleta Del Sur 0 246,091 558,411 804,502

Yurok Tribe 0 0 1,478,302 1,478,302

Zia Pueblo 0 106,376 147,181 253,557

Zuni Tribe 0 1,936,970 1,790,160 3,727,130

Northwest Office of Native American Programs (Seattle, Washington)

Burns-Paiute Colony 0 0 76,128 76,128

Chehalis Confederated

Tribes 247,033 293,403 149,093 689,529

Coeur D’Alene Tribe 0 614,492 208,996 823,488

Colville Confederated Tribes 0 1,598,879 1,082,444 2,681,323

Coos Bay Confederated

Tribes 0 25,440 544,206 569,646

Coquille Indian Tribe 0 0 508,040 508,040

Cow Creek Tribes 0 0 656,152 656,152

Fort Hall Shoshone-Bannock 0 814,415 965,985 1,780,400

(continued)

Page 61 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix IV 

HUD’s Fiscal Year 1998 Indian Housing

Block Grant Amounts Calculated for 575

Housing Entities

HUD office/housing entity

Fiscal year 1996

adjustment

Operating and

modernizing existing

housing

Need for housing

activities Total

Grand Ronde Confederated

Tribes 0 0 3,064,719 3,064,719

Hoh Indian Tribe 0 51,768 58,640 110,408

Jamestowm Klallam Tribe 0 19,080 415,041 434,121

Kalispel Indian Community 0 36,416 50,000 86,416

Klamath Indian Tribe 0 224,043 2,586,984 2,811,027

Kootenai Tribe 0 52,947 50,000 102,947

Lower Elwha Tribal

Community 0 285,933 529,004 814,937

Lummi Tribe 0 1,402,610 2,913,937 4,316,547

Makah Indian Tribe 0 775,800 297,959 1,073,759

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 0 216,848 392,936 609,784

Nez Perce Tribe 0 813,285 556,788 1,370,073

Nisqually Indian Community 0 266,076 425,567 691,642

Nooksack Tribe 224,848 332,279 128,798 685,925

Port Gamble Indian

Community 96,271 230,043 102,654 430,968

Puyallup Tribe 0 252,604 1,904,125 2,156,729

Quileute Tribe 381,649 146,809 140,865 649,323

Quinault Tribe 0 419,723 1,961,303 2,381,026

Samish Nation 0 0 274,914 274,914

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe 33,990 106,571 71,076 211,637

Shoalwater Bay Tribe 0 34,013 139,502 173,515

Siletz Confederated Tribes 0 489,565 2,559,537 3,049,102

Skokomish Indian Tribe 0 203,920 687,814 891,734

Spokane Tribe 0 974,699 276,409 1,251,108

Squaxin Island Tribe 0 240,466 537,452 777,918

Stillaguamish Tribe 0 109,123 205,492 314,615

Suquamish Tribal Council 0 175,116 158,942 334,058

Swinomish Indians 0 465,636 196,843 662,479

Tulalip Tribes 0 1,253,475 393,273 1,646,748

Umatilla Confederated

Tribes 144,564 782,523 346,956 1,274,043

Upper Skagit Tribe 0 377,500 371,722 749,222

Warm Springs

Confederated Tribes 0 677,932 705,720 1,383,652

Yakima Indian Nation 0 2,317,848 2,236,787 4,554,635

Total $590,045,972

Source: HUD’s Office of Native American Programs.

Page 62 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Appendix V 

Major Contributors to This Report

Carol Anderson-Guthrie

Robert J. Dinkelmeyer

Luis Escalante, Jr.

Jerry C. Fastrup

Michael L. Mgebroff

(385752) Page 63 GAO/RCED-99-16 Indian Housing Funding
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100