Alaska Native Villages: Recent Federal Assistance Exceeded $3 Billion, with Most Provided to Regional Nonprofits
Published: 2005-08-02T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: This report responds to section 112, Division B, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, which directs GAO to review federal programs benefiting rural communities in Alaska. After discussions with congressional staff, GAO agreed to examine federal programs benefiting Alaska Native villages. Specifically, this report (1) provides information on the amount of federal assistance provided to Alaska Native villages during fiscal years 1998 through 2003, (2) describes how selected federal funds have been used to assist Alaska Native villages, and (3) provides data on the number and average cost of houses built by villages and Alaska Native regional housing authorities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO's analysis of available data indicates that Alaska Native villages and regional Native nonprofits--including Native associations, and regional health and housing nonprofits--received over $3 billion in federal assistance from fiscal years 1998 through 2003. Specifically, total federal funding included approximately $483 million to 216 Alaska Native villages and about $3 billion to 33 regional Native nonprofits. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accounted for 63 percent of all funding over the period. According to federal and state officials, Alaska Native villages also likely benefited from federal funding to the state of Alaska and to cities and boroughs that contain villages, such as when federal funding is used by municipalities to provide water services. Based on data GAO obtained from the state of Alaska, during fiscal years 1998 through 2003, the state passed through more than $105 million in federal funding to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits. Based on available information for 13 programs GAO reviewed, federal funding was used to provide Alaska Natives with assistance in health care, housing, infrastructure, and other areas. For example, according to information from HHS, its Tribal Self-Governance Program was used by 13 regional Native nonprofits, three Native villages, four groups of Alaska Native villages, and one statewide Native health care provider to provide clinical services at tribally run hospitals and health clinics that had over 1 million total visits throughout Alaska in 2002. Another program, HUD's Indian Housing Block Grant, provided funds used by villages and regional housing authorities to build, rehabilitate, modernize, and operate single-family homes and multifamily housing properties. However, the extent of readily available information on how funds were used from the 13 programs GAO reviewed varied, in part due to different agency reporting requirements. Results from GAO's survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing authorities indicated that, during calendar years 1998 through 2003, responding entities constructed a total of 874 single-family units. GAO's survey indicated that the average cost of units constructed by responding entities varied by region and by whether they were developed by villages or housing authorities. For example, the 6-year average regional cost (in 2003 dollars) of all units constructed ranged from a low of $138,944 per unit, or $122 per square foot, to a high of $305,634 per unit, or $267 per square foot. GAO also found that the cost of new housing units developed by housing authorities was slightly higher than units developed by Native villages, and that regional housing authorities constructed more than three times the number of units compared with villages. However, various factors could account for differences in the cost and number of units completed among regions or between villages and regional housing authorities.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: According to the Census Bureau, about 120,000 people who live in Alaska  are Native—aboriginal Americans, many of whom reside in rural areas of  the state long inhabited by their ancestors. For many years, the federal  government both provided funding to assist Alaska Natives and their  communities to meet a wide range of social and economic needs—funding  that has amounted to millions of dollars annually—and administered many  of the programs that provided the assistance. However, with the passage of  certain federal legislation, Native villages—entities within the state that are  recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to receive services from  the federal government—and other Native organizations began to receive  more responsibility for administering programs that assist their  communities. Moreover, these entities also began to receive funding  directly from the federal government to administer the programs.  Currently, the federal government provides direct financial assistance to  many of the more than 200 federally recognized Alaska Native villages and  other Native organizations. In addition, the federal government provides  financial assistance to the state, which has passed through some of these  funds to Alaska Native villages. However, recently, some federal laws have  limited the ability of Alaska Native villages to receive direct funding.
This report responds to section 112, Division B, of the Consolidated  Appropriations Act of 2004, which directed us to review federal programs  benefiting rural Alaska communities. As agreed with your staff, we focused  our review on federal programs benefiting Alaska Native villages. Our  report (1) provides information on the amount of federal assistance  provided to assist Alaska Native villages during federal fiscal years 1998  through 2003; (2) describes how selected federal funds have been used to  assist Alaska Native villages; and (3) provides data on the number and  average cost of houses built by villages and Alaska Native regional housing  authorities.
To address these objectives we met with officials of various federal  agencies, the state of Alaska, boroughs, and cities. In addition, we met with  representatives of Native villages, regional Native nonprofit organizations,  and other organizations that assist Alaska Natives. To report on the amount  of federal funding that has been provided to assist Alaska Native villages,  we examined data on both funding to over 200 federally recognized Alaska  Native villages and regional Native nonprofits, and funding to Native  villages that was passed through the state of Alaska. We classified as  regional Native nonprofits: Native associations that were identified in the  Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) or the organizations that  succeeded them, which, throughout this report, we refer to as ANCSA  regional nonprofits; Native health organizations identified in P.L. 105-83;  and Alaska regional housing authorities identified by the Department of  Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To provide information on  funding to Alaska Native villages, we analyzed data from the Federal  Assistance Award Data System (FAADS), which identifies recipients of  federal awards, federal programs for which awards were made, and award  amounts. To verify the accuracy of our data, we provided federal agencies  with data on their programs that we obtained from FAADS. Based on  agency responses, where appropriate, we made adjustments to data we  obtained from FAADS. To provide information on the amount of federal  funding to assist Alaska Native villages that was passed through by the  state, we obtained information from the state of Alaska Department of  Administration, Division of Finance. To describe how selected federal  funds were used to assist Alaska Native communities, we selected 13 major programs from among 11 agencies. For each of these programs, we met  with federal officials and, where appropriate, state, local, village and other  tribal officials, as well as officials representing organizations that primarily  serve Alaska Natives. We also reviewed program descriptions from the  Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) and reviewed agency  documents on how recipients used program funds. To determine the  number of housing units completed and their costs, we surveyed all villages  and regional housing authorities that had received HUD funds from the  Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996,  as amended (NAHASDA), during fiscal years 1998 through 2003. In carrying  out our work, we did not conduct audit work to assess whether funds were  spent in compliance with federal regulations, and we did not assess the  efficiency or effectiveness of how federal funds were distributed or spent.  We conducted our work from February 2004 to July 2005 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I for  a detailed description of our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In terms of land area, Alaska is the largest U.S. state—more than the  combined area of the next three largest states: Texas, California, and  Montana. However, according to the Census Bureau, Alaska is also one of  the least populated states, with about 630,000 people—of which about 19  percent, or 120,000, are Alaska Native or American Indian. Over half of the  state’s population is concentrated in the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, and  the Matanuska-Susitna area in south central Alaska. Many Alaska Natives,  however, live in rural areas of western, northern, and interior Alaska long  inhabited by their ancestors. Alaska Natives are generally divided into six  major groupings: Unangan (Aleuts), Alutiiq (Pacific Eskimos), Inupiat  (Northern Eskimos), Yup’ik (Bering Sea Eskimos), Athabascan (Interior  Indians), and Tlingit and Haida (Southeast Coastal Indians).
subsections: section_title: A Variety of Entities Facilitates the Provision of Federal Assistance to Alaska Native Villages
paragraphs: A variety of entities facilitates federal assistance to Alaska Native villages.  For many years, the federal government generally funded and administered  many of the programs that provided assistance to Alaska Natives. However,  with the passage of several key pieces of legislation, Alaska Native villages  and other tribal organizations began to take on more responsibility for  directly administering programs to assist their communities, and began to  receive direct funding to carry out these tasks. For example, in 1971,  Congress passed ANCSA, which was intended to resolve Native claims to  land in the state. Under ANCSA, the Secretary of the Interior divided the  state into 12 geographic regions so that each would include Natives “having  a common heritage and sharing common interests.” All Natives became  shareholders in one of 12 regional corporations or in a 13th corporation for  nonresident Natives. In addition, Natives who resided in one of more than  200 villages listed in ANCSA were also enrolled in Native village  corporations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs currently recognizes 229 Alaska  Native villages as eligible to receive federal funds. Appendix II contains a  listing of Alaska Native villages and the number of American Indian and  Alaska Native (AIAN) persons and enrolled Alaska Native members by ANCSA region.8, 9 Figure 1 shows the location of Alaska Native villages and  the 12 ANCSA regions.
AIAN includes persons who indicated their race as American Indian or Alaska Native on the  2000 Census questionnaire. AIAN persons reside within geographic village boundaries  recognized by the Census Bureau. AIAN persons who reside within the region but not within  a specific village boundary area are counted as at-large members of the regional for-profit  corporation.  Enrolled members are actual members of a tribe that may reside anywhere in  the world.
Throughout, we have included two federally recognized entities with the regional Native  nonprofits. The Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes, a regional tribe with  delegates from 21 communities, is identified as a regional Native association in ANCSA. The  Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve is the only federally recognized  Indian reservation within the state, and it operates a regional health entity and regional  housing authority.
Ahtna Inc.
Kawerak Inc.
Cook Inlet Region Inc.
Koniag Inc.
NANA Regional Corporation Inc.
Also, nearly all health care that is delivered to Alaska Natives is  administered by 13 Alaska Native regional health organizations that were  identified in Public Law 105-83.  These entities operate under compacting  arrangements, which are agreements the Indian Health Service (IHS)  negotiates with Native villages and other Native entities. Under the 1975  Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act, as amended,  and further through the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 and the Tribal  Self-Governance Amendments of 2000, tribes and tribal organizations were  allowed to participate in and manage programs that for years had been  administered on their behalf by the Departments of the Interior and of  Health and Human Services. Also, prior to NAHASDA, Alaska Natives were  served by 14 regional housing authorities that were authorized by previous  federal housing laws to provide services for Alaska Natives. NAHASDA  further expanded the ability of Native villages to directly receive federal  funding for the purpose of providing services to eligible Alaska Natives.  The regional housing authorities and Native villages engage in a variety of  affordable housing activities, including construction, rehabilitation, and  management. See appendix III for a list of the ANCSA regional nonprofits,  the regional health corporations, and the regional housing authorities that  operate within the 12 ANCSA-defined areas of Alaska.
Recent legislation has limited the ability of Native villages to directly  receive federal funding. Public Law 108-447 temporarily limits the ability of  IHS from directly funding villages that are already located within the area  of a Native Alaska regional health facility. This restriction was put in place  due to congressional concerns about the efficiency of providing direct  federal funding to Alaska Native villages. Also, 25 USC 13f prohibits the  provision of certain BIA funding to villages with fewer than 25 members;  and 25 USC 3651 (note) limits which entities can receive certain  Department of Justice funds. In addition, HUD’s fiscal year 2004-2005  appropriations included a provision that restricted certain housing funding  to only those Alaska villages or tribally designated housing entities that had  received funds in the previous fiscal year.
In addition to the aforementioned Native nonprofits, a variety of other  nonprofits also facilitate the provision of federal assistance to Alaska  Native villages. These nonprofits, many of which are also controlled by  Alaska Natives, provide assistance related to a broad range of areas,  including justice issues, cultural and environmental preservation, and  educational and economic advancement. Some of these nonprofits operate  in one or more regions or on a subregional basis. Appendix IV contains a  listing of nonprofits other than those discussed previously that received  federal funding for the purpose of assisting Alaska Native villages from  1998 through 2003.
Alaska Native villages also receive federal assistance that is passed through  by the state or local agencies. For example, federally recognized Native  villages may be part of communities that are incorporated under state law  as cities or boroughs. State of Alaska data show that 124 Native villages are  located within incorporated cities. However, these cities provide  government services, such as water and sanitation, to Native village  members that live in their jurisdiction, which would otherwise most likely  be provided by Native villages. Likewise, some villages are located in  organized boroughs that provide services to villages and cities.
In 1998, Congress established the Denali Commission to address crucial  needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly isolated Alaska Native  villages. The commission is composed of a federal and a state co-chair and  representatives from local agencies, as well as Alaska Native public and  private entities. To carry out its work, the commission receives an annual  federal appropriation and funds that are transferred from other federal  agencies. The purpose of the commission is to (1) deliver the services of  the federal government in the most cost-effective manner practicable; (2)  provide job training and other economic development services in rural  communities; (3) and, promote rural development and provide  infrastructure such as water, sewer, and communication systems.  According to the commission’s 2004 annual report, rural Alaska  communities often face serious challenges to maintaining a sufficient  energy supply, especially during the state’s harsh winters. Improving rural  Alaska’s energy infrastructure has been the commission’s primary focus  since 1999.
section_title: Research Shows Improvement in the Social and Economic Condition of Alaska Natives, but Some Problems Persist
paragraphs: Although recent research shows improvement in the social and economic  condition of Alaska Natives, many problems persist. A 1989 report by the  University of Alaska’s Institute of Social and Economic Research  documented that Alaska Natives were facing a number of social and  economic crises, such as high incidences of alcohol abuse, suicide,  homicide, and unemployment. The Alaska Natives Commission—a  federal-state commission—reported similar findings in 1994. The  commission stated that because of the high rate of unemployment and lack  of economic opportunities for Alaska Natives, government programs for  the poor had become the foundation of many village economies. More  recently, a 2004 report found that conditions for Alaska Natives improved  in some areas, but that Alaska Natives still faced continuing and new  disparities. For example, the report indicated that Alaska Natives have  experienced improvements in health, such as reductions in tuberculosis,  due in part to improvement in water and sewer systems; however, Natives  continue to face health problems related to alcohol abuse and other  factors. Similarly, the report indicated that Alaska Natives are making  economic improvements, but continue to have disproportionately high  poverty rates compared with non-Native Alaskans.
section_title: Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received Over $3 Billion in Federal Funding from 1998 through 2003
paragraphs: From 1998 through 2003, Alaska Native villages and regional Native  nonprofits received more than $3 billion in funding from multiple federal  agencies, with HHS providing the majority of the funding. Native villages  received substantially less funding than regional Native nonprofits,  although Native villages had slightly more diverse sources for funding.  Additionally, a small number of programs accounted for the majority of  funding to villages and regional Native nonprofits, and, similarly, a few  villages and regional Native nonprofits received the majority of federal  funding. Combined federal funding to Native villages and regional Native  nonprofits increased from about $512 million in 1999 to about $662 million  in 2003. Alaska Native villages also benefited from federal funding provided  to nonprofit organizations that primarily provide assistance to Alaska  Natives, incorporated cities and boroughs that contain Native villages, and  the state of Alaska. Moreover, during state fiscal years 1998 through 2003,  the state of Alaska passed through more than $105 million in federal funds  to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits.
subsections: section_title: Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received Over $3 Billion in Funding from Multiple Federal Agencies, with HHS the Largest Single Provider of Funding
paragraphs: Based on our analysis of information from FAADS, 17 federal agencies  provided about $3.5 billion in federal funding to Alaska Native villages and  regional Native nonprofits—ANCSA regional nonprofits, regional health  nonprofits, and regional housing authorities—from 1998 through 2003. As  shown in figure 2, HHS provided 63 percent of the funding, and HUD,  Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided slightly  more than 30 percent; thus, four agencies accounted for more than 90  percent of all direct federal funding to villages and regional Native  nonprofits. None of the other 13 agencies provided more than 1 percent of  the total funding to villages and regional Native nonprofits.
The federally established Denali Commission, through its federal  appropriations, also provided assistance to rural Alaska communities,  including Alaska Native villages. From 1999 through 2003, Denali obligated  approximately $290 million, but Denali did not report the grant amounts to  the Census Bureau so that the information could be included in FAADS.  Denali officials said they were not aware of the FAADS reporting  requirement until recently.
subsections: section_title: Native Villages Received Substantially Less Funding Than Regional Native Nonprofits, but Native Villages Received Their Funding from More Sources
paragraphs: Of the $3.5 billion provided to Alaska Native villages and regional Native  nonprofits, as shown in figure 3, federal agencies provided more than $483  million (14 percent) in direct federal funding to 216 Alaska Native villages  and $3 billion (86 percent) to 33 regional Native nonprofits from 1998  through 2003.
Although regional Native nonprofits received more funding than Native  villages, the sources of major funding for villages were slightly more  diverse than for regional Native nonprofits.  Specifically, Native villages  received direct funding from 16 agencies, with HHS, Interior, EPA, and  HUD providing about 84 percent. In comparison, regional Native nonprofits  received funding from 14 federal agencies, with HHS accounting for 70  percent of the funding (see figs. 4 and 5).
Regional Native nonprofits may receive more funding from HHS than  villages because regional Native nonprofits include regional health  organizations that receive funding from IHS to operate major medical  facilities such as hospitals. Under existing law, some villages are restricted  from receiving IHS funding in cases where they are located in areas that are  already served by an Alaska Native regional health organization.
In contrast, Native villages received more funding from certain agencies  than regional Native nonprofits.  The Departments of Commerce, Justice,  and Transportation (DOT) and EPA all provided more funding to villages  than to regional Native nonprofits. For example, EPA provided $72 million  to villages over the period, or over six times the amount provided to  regional Native nonprofits.
section_title: A Small Number of Programs Accounted for the Majority of Funding and a Small Number of Both Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received the Majority of the Funding
paragraphs: While Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received different  amounts of funding, with different primary sources of funding, both  received the majority of their funding from a few programs. For example,  Native villages received funding from a total of 112 programs; however, as  shown in table 2, the top programs from nine agencies providing the most  funding accounted for about 64 percent of the funding to all Native villages.
Similarly, while regional Native nonprofits received funding from 149  programs, about 87 percent of the funding came from the nine agencies  that provided the largest funding (see table 3).
Further, Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received funding  from some of the same programs, but not always in similar amounts. For  example, Native villages received about $10 million from the Department of  Justice’s Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants and  about $6 million from the United States Department of Agriculture’s  (USDA) Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities  program. Regional Native nonprofits received less than $500,000 from the  same Justice program and about $1.4 million from the same USDA  program.
In addition to the concentration of funding among a small number of  agencies, as shown in figures 5 and 6, relatively few Native villages and  regional Native nonprofits received more than a third of the funding. For  example, only 13 out of 216 Native villages received 38 percent of total  federal funding to Native villages. Also, 10 of 33 regional Native nonprofits  received 71 percent of total funding to these entities.
section_title: Combined Federal Funding to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Increased 29 Percent between 1999 and 2003
paragraphs: In 2003 constant dollars, annual combined federal funding to Native  villages and regional Native nonprofits increased 29 percent, from $512  million in 1999 to $662 million in 2003. Combined funding to Native  villages and regional Native nonprofits increased every year, except 2003,  peaking in 2002 at $737 million (see fig. 7).
The large increase between 2001 and 2002, from $586 million to $737  million, is primarily attributable to increases in HHS funding to Native  villages and regional Native nonprofits. HHS funding increased from $308  million in 2001 to $475 million in 2002. The decrease in funding between  2002 and 2003 is primarily attributable to decreases in funding from HHS  and Interior.
Finally, direct federal funding to Native villages grew 29 percent, from $64  million in 1999 to $83 million in 2003, and the number of Native villages  receiving funds directly increased 32 percent from 148 in 1999 to 196 in  2003. Federal direct funding to the 33 regional Native nonprofits grew 29  percent from $448 million in 1999 to $579 million in 2003.
Funding for 1998 is not included in the comparison because not all HHS  and Interior funding was included in FAADS. According to HHS officials,  FAADS does not capture the $139 million in federal funds expended by  HHS in 1998 for it to operate the Alaska Native Medical Center and provide  sanitation facilities projects. Also, according to Interior, the Bureau of  Indian Affairs did not report 1998 funding data for inclusion in FAADS.
section_title: Alaska Native Villages and Alaska Natives Also Benefited from Federal Funding to Other Nonprofit Organizations, Cities, Boroughs, and the State of Alaska
paragraphs: Many Alaska Native villages also benefited from other nonprofits that  primarily assist Alaska Natives. Also, Native villages located within  incorporated cities benefited from municipal services, such as sewer and  water services. In addition, Alaska Native villages and Alaska Natives  benefited from federal funding to school districts, boroughs, and the state,  for purposes such as education, transportation, and other community  services. The state also passed through some federal funding it receives to  Native villages, cities, and boroughs.
Based on our analysis of FAADS data, 46 nonprofit organizations that  primarily provide assistance and support to Alaska Natives received $224  million during 1998 through 2003. These organizations are a diverse group  that include: statewide entities, such as the Alaska Federation of Natives,  considered to be the largest advocacy group representing Alaska Natives;  the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, which supports subsistence  activities; the Alaska Native Heritage Center, which seeks to promote  awareness of Native culture and values; and the Council of Athabascan  Tribal governments, a subregional Native nonprofit that provides health  care services to six villages. See appendix IV for a list of the nonprofit  organizations that primarily assist Alaska Natives and that received federal  funding from 1998 through 2003.
Our analysis of FAADS data indicated that 12 federal agencies provided  incorporated cities that have Native villages within their borders with $167  million in federal funding during 1998 through 2003. Overall, 75 different  incorporated cities received some form of federal funding, with an average  of 32 cities receiving funds in any year. USDA provided the largest amount  of funding to these cities—$88 million or about half of all funding provided  to the cities. More specifically, its Water and Waste Disposal Systems for  Rural Communities program, provided the largest share of this funding— $55 million. The Department of Energy provided the next largest share of  funding to cities—about $26 million over the period. However, most of the  Department of Energy’s funding was from one program—Renewable  Energy Research and Development program—which accounted for $25  million to the incorporated cities. In addition, incorporated cities with  Native villages within their borders received about $22 million from the  DOT’s Airport Improvement Program.
Our analysis of FAADS data also indicates that from 1998 through 2003, 18  federal agencies provided $161 million to borough governments. DOT  contributed the largest share of the funding, $53 million. Its Airport  Improvement Program provided $37 million to boroughs, making it the  largest program overall. HUD provided the next largest amount of funding,  $25 million.  HUD’s Community Development Block Grants program  provided $18 million to boroughs, making it the second largest program.  Commerce, USDA, and Education each provided about $16 million to  boroughs.
Based on our analysis of FAADS data, independent school districts  received about $674 million from 11 federal agencies. Fifty-six different  school districts received federal funding, with an average of 52 school  districts funded annually. Education was responsible for 98 percent of all  funding to school districts, about $662 million. More specifically, the  majority of these funds came from the department’s formula-based Impact  Aid program. Impact Aid provided $481 million in financial assistance to  school districts where school enrollments or availability of revenue are  adversely affected by federal activities, or where a significant number of  children reside on federal (including Indian) lands.
Finally, our analysis of FAADS data also shows that the state of Alaska  received about $7 billion in federal funding from 1998 through 2003. The  state received about $3 billion from DOT, with about $2.3 billion coming  from a formula-driven Federal Highway Administration program and $662  million from the Airport Improvement Program. USDA and Education each  provided about $800 million to the state, with USDA providing $335 million  from the Food Stamp program and $95 million from the Water and Waste  Disposal Systems for Rural Communities program, and Education  providing $122 million for Impact Aid program. EPA provided $401 million  to the state, which included $216 million from its Surveys, Studies,  Investigations and Special Purpose Grants program, which is used  primarily to fund the state’s Village Safe Water program.
In addition to using federal funds to provide general services throughout  the state, the state of Alaska also passed through some of its federal funds  to Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, cities, and boroughs.   During the state fiscal period 1998 through 2003, the state passed through  more than $105 million in federal funds to Native villages and regional  Native nonprofits. This funding was provided by 15 federal agencies to  Native villages and by 17 federal agencies to regional Native nonprofits to  address health, environmental, economic, and other needs. In addition, the  state passed through $82.5 million to incorporated cities and almost $253  million to boroughs with Native villages. See appendix V for more  information on federal funds the state passed through to villages, regional  Native nonprofits and other entities.
section_title: Federal Funds Have Been Used to Provide an Array of Services to Alaska Native Villages
paragraphs: Federal funds from the 13 programs we reviewed have been used to  provide an array of services to Alaska Native villages. However, the extent  of federal agency information on those uses varied widely by program.  Specifically, funds from these programs were used to provide Alaska  Natives with assistance in health care, housing, infrastructure, and other  areas such as education and community development. In addition to  providing funds for carrying out specific program activities, most of the  programs we reviewed also covered at least a portion of grantees’ total  administrative costs. The extent of readily available information on how  funds from these programs were used varied, partly because of different  reporting requirements and partly due to different efforts to summarize  individual grantee data. Summaries of the 13 programs we reviewed are  contained in appendixes VI through XVI.
subsections: section_title: Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, and Other State and Local Organizations, Used Federal Funding to Provide an Array of Services to Their Communities
paragraphs: Alaska Native Villages, regional Native Nonprofits, and other state and  local organizations used funds from the 13 programs we reviewed to  provide an array of services to their communities. Specifically, they used  funds from these programs to provide assistance related to health care,  housing, infrastructure, and other areas (see table 4).
Two programs we reviewed provided health care funding for Alaska  Natives: the Department of Health and Human Services’ Tribal Self- Governance Program and the Denali Commission’s Health Care Program.  HHS’s Indian Health Service (IHS) awards self-governance funding to 13  regional Native health care nonprofits, three Native villages, one statewide  Native health care provider, and four groups of between two and seven  Alaska Native villages, to provide health care services to Alaska Natives.   Under the program, IHS negotiates self-governance compacts with these  regional Native nonprofits, villages, and the statewide Alaska Native Tribal  Health Consortium that allow those organizations to assume the  management, design and implementation of their own health care  programs. According to IHS officials and agency documentation, these  organizations recently used HHS’s Tribal Self-Governance Program funding  in several areas. These include the following:   Clinical health services, including hospitals and health clinics, dental  services, mental health services, and alcohol and substance abuse  treatment. Collectively, these funds were used to operate 7 tribal  hospitals, 28 tribal health centers, and 176 tribal community health aid  clinics with about 500 community health aides.
Contract health services (i.e., health services from private-sector  providers where specialized health care services were not readily  available at tribally operated providers). For example, the Alaska Native  Medical Center in Anchorage—which generally provides treatment for  serious illness and injury for Alaska Natives from all over Alaska—often  uses contract health care funds to consult with specialists and to  provide specialized care such as cardiac or neurological surgery.
Preventive health services, such as public health nursing, health  education, and immunization. For example, the Tanana Chiefs  Conference used tribal self-governance funds to provide a community  health representative program for patient education.
Contract support costs (such as general administrative costs incurred  by grantees).
Health care facilities, including maintenance, improvement, and  construction of health care and sanitation facilities. For example, in  2004, the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium added a small,  ground-floor room to accommodate a Magnetic Resonance Imaging  service.
The majority of the Denali Commission’s recent Health Care Program  funding was used by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services  and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, a statewide Native health  care provider, according to Denali Commission documentation. These  groups used the funding primarily to construct new primary care clinics  and repair and renovate existing ones, as well as to purchase health care  equipment, for residents in rural Alaska, including Alaska Natives.  According to the commission’s 2004 annual report, since 1999 it funded the  construction of primary health clinics in 41 communities, while projects are under way in 59 other communities across the state. For example, in  2003, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium used a total of $2.7  million from the commission’s health facilities program to build a health  clinic in Toksook Bay (the location of the Nunakauyarmiut Tribe). The  Denali Commission provides funding for other health care needs as well,  such as a grant to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services to  cover half of the $400,000 needed to purchase an ultrasound machine for  Sitka.
subsections: section_title: Native Villages and Tribally Designated Housing Entities Used Federal Housing Funding to Construct, Rehabilitate, and Maintain Housing Stock
paragraphs: HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grant program (IHBG) funds housing  activities conducted by Alaska Native villages or Native regional housing  nonprofits. This program has the stated intent of recognizing the right of  tribal self-governance. HUD’s IHBG funds can be used in a variety of  housing-related activities, including housing development, assistance to  housing developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, and planning and  administration. According to HUD, between 1998 and 2003, 38 percent of  the IHBG funds were used for housing development activities, 22 percent  were used for modernizing and operating current assisted stock, 11 percent  were used for planning and administration, and 29 percent were used for  other housing activities, such as housing services, housing management  services, crime prevention, model activities, and unspent funds. Figure 8  shows a new house built in Alaska by the Bristol Bay Housing Authority  with IHBG and other funds.
Three of the 13 programs we reviewed—USDA’s Water and Waste Disposal  System for Rural Communities, DOT’s Airport Improvement Program, and  the Denali Commission’s Energy Facilities Program—provided water,  transportation, and energy infrastructure in Alaska Native communities.
Funding under USDA’s Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural  Communities is used primarily in conjunction with the state of Alaska’s  Village Safe Water program. According to USDA officials and agency  documentation, USDA funds are combined with EPA funds and 25 percent  matching state funds to eliminate the “honey bucket”—a plastic 5-gallon  bucket used as a toilet in some Alaska Native villages—and provide  communities with water and sewer systems that function in Alaska’s harsh  environment, such as the flush and haul system. From 2000 through 2003,  USDA funded 86 Village Safe Water projects. In the Alaska Native village  of Napaskiak, for example, USDA provided a $570,300 grant that, when  matched with $190,200 from the state, is being used to replace all of the  remaining single-family home honey buckets in the community with the  flush and haul system.
DOT’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP) was used to construct new  airports and rehabilitate old ones, since many of the Alaska Native villages  that are not accessible by roads contain an airport runway that provides the  only year-round access to the village. Most of the program’s funding goes to  Alaska’s Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, which  administers most projects under the program. AIP officials said that many  funds go to improving existing airports to bring all airports up to a  minimum standard, and while airports in the lower 48 states are often on  their second or third improvement plan, most airports in Alaska are being  constructed or improved for the first time. Figure 9 below shows the 310  AIP projects, by type, for the 1999-2004 AIP grants that benefited Alaska  Native villages.
The Denali Commission’s energy program has been used to address issues  affecting Alaska Natives by focusing on upgrades for bulk fuel tank farms  and rural power system upgrades. Energy has been the commission’s  primary infrastructure theme since 1999. The first challenge undertaken by  the commission was the upgrade and consolidation of fuel tanks in 172  communities identified as health and environmental hazards by the U.S.  Coast Guard and EPA. According to the commission’s 2004 Annual Report,  the two major recipients of the commission’s energy facilities funds—the  Alaska Energy Authority and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative—have  upgraded bulk fuel tanks in 64 communities across the state, while projects  are under way in 70 other communities. For example, in 2001, the  commission provided about $2.9 million of the roughly $3.8 million used by  the Alaska Energy Authority to upgrade a tank farm in the Alaska Native  village of Kotlik (see fig. 10). The new tank farm replaced a system that had  been cited for violations by the U.S. Coast Guard with one that was in full  compliance with federal regulations. The commission’s 2004 annual report  also stated that the commission has upgraded rural power systems in 13  communities, has started construction in 20 others, and is in the planning  or design phase in an additional 18. These upgrades include adding backup  power generators and increasing efficiency of existing generators.
Eight of the 13 programs we reviewed assisted Alaska Natives in areas such  as social services, capacity building, community development, job training,  education, law enforcement, and economic development in Alaska Native  communities.
Interior’s Tribal Self-Governance Program: Twelve Alaska Native  villages, eight regional Native nonprofits, one group consisting of  multiple Alaska Native villages and one Indian reservation recently used  Interior’s Tribal Self-Governance Program to fund a variety of activities.  According to agency officials and documents, these activities included:    tribal government programs, such as funding to allow grantees to  plan, conduct, consolidate, and administer programs, services,  functions, and activities for tribal citizens according to priorities  established by their tribal governments;  human services programs, such as welfare assistance, child abuse  and neglect counseling, and disaster assistance programs;  education programs, such as scholarship grants for Alaska Native  students attending accredited postsecondary institutions and adult  education programs;  public safety and justice, such as using funding for tribal courts that  enable tribes to establish and maintain their own civil and criminal  codes in accordance with local tribal customs and traditions;   community development, such as the Housing Improvement  Program, which funds repairs and renovations of existing homes and  construction of new homes, job training and placement programs, or  road maintenance programs; and  resource management, such as programs assisting Alaska Natives in  managing their forest, mineral, oil, gas, and other land-based  programs, including fire protection and sacred-site programs.
EPA’s Indian Environmental General Assistance Program: In 2004,  program funding went to 139 Alaska Native villages and 11 groups of  two or more tribes that are currently building their capacity to  implement environmental protection programs, including development  of solid and hazardous waste programs. According to EPA officials and  documentation, villages use this “capacity building” funding to hire and  train staff and purchase office equipment, conduct a review of village  programs to ensure compliance with federal regulations, develop a  strategic environmental plan for the village, implement village recycling  programs, and coordinate environmental efforts with other villages and  federal and state officials, among other uses. For example, officials in  Native Village of Goodnews Bay reported to EPA that they used program  funding to provide the village with environmental education, awareness,  increased capacity to apply for other grants, and jobs.
HUD’s Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (ICDBG):  Eighty ICDBG grants were awarded from 1998 through 2003, with all but  one of those grants going to Alaska Native villages, and one going to a  joint venture between a village and a regional Native health care  nonprofit. The projects included 21 health-related facilities (e.g., clinics,  mental health, and primary care facilities); 35 community centers; 17  infrastructure projects (e.g., fuel tanks and water and sewer systems); 6  housing-related projects (e.g., housing rehabilitation, new construction,  and land acquisition for new housing) and one imminent threat grant.  For example, the Native Villages of Ekuk and Curyung used ICDBG  grant funds in fiscal year 2002 to construct a combined Head  Start/Family Resource Center in Dillingham (see fig. 11). Each Native  village received $500,000 in ICDBG funds and leveraged an additional  $3.2 million from other sources, excluding the land that was donated by  the Bristol Bay Native Association, according to program  documentation. Opened to students in January 2003, the center provides  Head Start and Early Learning programs and child care to parents  transitioning from welfare to work. The new center serves 60 children,  ranging from infants to 12-year-olds, and replaced an old center that  served only 30 children.
Labor’s Youth Opportunity Grant Program: From 2000-2004, one  coalition of Alaska Native Villages and regional Native nonprofits used  approximately $32 million in funding from this program to fund a variety  of education, job training, and youth development activities. The  coalition selected Cook Inlet Tribal Council as the lead agency to apply  for the Youth Opportunity Grant; Cook Inlet provided oversight,  monitoring, and technical assistance. Cook Inlet subcontracted out the  operation of most of the program to 11 regional Native nonprofits and 4  Alaska Native villages. According to agency documentation, about 2,960  Alaska youth, the vast majority of whom were Alaska Natives, enrolled  in the YO! Alaska Program’s 40 youth centers and participated in  internships, sports and recreation activities, reading and math  remediation, community service, high school graduate equivalency  degree preparation, and other activities.
Education’s Alaska Native Education Program: In 2003, 32 educational  organizations with experience in developing educational programs for  Alaska Natives used funds to address the educational needs of Alaska  Native students, parents, and teachers. The program’s enabling  legislation specifically directs that some funding be used for Alaska  Native cultural education programs, including a cultural exchange  program between urban and rural students, dropout prevention  programs, and parenting programs. Other funds have been used for  family literacy programs, home instruction for preschool-age Alaska  Natives, and to increase the educational opportunities of Alaska Native  students and teachers. For example, the University of Alaska Southeast  used an approximately $1.6 million grant for four main goals, one of  which was to recruit and actively mentor Alaska Native high school  students for the university’s Bachelor of Science program.
Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Alaska Native  villages have used Justice’s COPS program to address village law  enforcement needs through hiring and training police officers and  purchasing uniforms and police vehicles. For example, since 1999, the  COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program was used to hire 35 police  officers in Alaska Native villages, and provide training and equipment to  Native villages.
Commerce’s Economic Adjustment Assistance Program: Alaska Native  villages and regional Native nonprofits have used Economic Adjustment  Assistance to develop comprehensive economic development strategies  tailored to villages’ specific economic problems and opportunities.  Since 1999, the program has funded 29 projects. For example, in 2001,  the Tanana Chiefs Conference was awarded $725,000 for the  construction of a 20-room hotel with a combination restaurant, lounge,  and meeting facilities on council-owned property located in the Village  of Circle.
Commerce’s Public Works and Economic Development Facilities  Program: Alaska Native villages and other tribal organizations have used  three grants from this program since 1999. For example, in 2001, a  village used $2.3 million to assist with the construction of a complex to  house a museum, visitor center, and retail and office space.
section_title: Most of the Selected Programs Provide Funding for at Least a Portion of Grantees’ Administrative Fees
paragraphs: Eleven of the 13 programs we reviewed provided some funding to pay for a  portion of the total administrative costs associated with the programs.   The majority of these 11 programs provided funding for administrative  costs as part of the overall grant amount, rather than allowing for  reimbursement for specific administrative costs that grantees incur. Most  of these 11 programs had restrictions on the amount of administrative  funds grantees can use. For example, HUD’s IHBG program allows grantees  to use up to 20 percent of the grant amount for total administrative costs. In  contrast, Labor’s Youth Opportunity Grant program does not specifically  limit administrative costs. However, according to Labor officials, the  department negotiates with grantees to keep administrative costs low.
section_title: Available Information on How Grantees Used Funds from Selected Programs Varies, in Part Due to Different Reporting Requirements
paragraphs: Information on how Alaska Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, and  other grantees used funds from the 13 programs we reviewed varied widely,  partially because different programs have different reporting requirements  and also because agencies summarize program data differently. For  example, the statute governing the Department of the Interior’s Tribal Self- Governance Program does not require that the grantee submit information  on how they used program funds; however, they can submit such information voluntarily. Additionally, reporting requirements for the other  programs we reviewed varied, ranging from general information on  delivery of services paid for by grant funds to detailed information on the  financial uses of funds and progress toward grant goals. For example,  HHS’s Tribal Self-Governance Program requires that grantees report  annually on health status and service delivery in their locations, but does  not require specific financial reports on how funding was used. Conversely,  DOT’s Airport Improvement Program requires that grantees send quarterly  performance reports that include comparisons between the projects’  accomplishments and the goals established for the quarter, reasons for not  accomplishing planned goals in specific cases, and an analysis and  explanation of any cost overruns.
Additionally, some agencies do more than others to summarize individual  grantee data on a programwide basis. For example, EPA’s Indian  Environmental General Assistance Program has information in project files  on each individual grantee’s projects, but has not summarized the  information to show how all program funds have been used. In contrast,  the Denali Commission collects project information in a Web-based,  publicly available database that provides detailed financial and progress  information. The system includes all of the commission’s grants, and can be  queried to produce information by attributes such as theme (the underlying  subject area of the project, such as energy—bulk fuel), community  involvement, recipient, and milestone (such as in the business plan or  construction phase).
section_title: Alaska Native Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Constructed More Than 800 and Rehabilitated Almost 3,000 Homes, and the Number and Costs of Completed Units Varied across Regions
paragraphs: Results from our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing  authorities indicated that, from calendar years 1998 through 2003, these  entities constructed 874 single-family units and rehabilitated 2,990 single- family units. Most of the new units constructed were three- and four- bedroom homes, and most of the new construction and rehabilitation  activity occurred in a few regions. In addition, housing authorities  constructed more than three times and rehabilitated more than twice the  number of units than responding villages. However, village production of  new homes increased steadily, while production by regional housing  authorities fluctuated. Our analysis of survey data also indicated that the  average costs of units constructed varied by region and by who developed  them. Survey results also showed that housing authorities had higher new  construction costs than villages, although villages had higher rehabilitation  costs for units that did not require acquisition. According to federal, state,  and local officials, variation in the number and cost of units constructed  and rehabilitated by region and between housing authorities and villages  reflect various factors, such as differences in local housing goals and  objectives and proximity to sources of building materials.  Also, regional  housing authorities modernized 5,211 single-family units previously  developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 and developed several  multifamily properties. Villages, however, are ineligible to receive funding  for modernization. Reproductions of our surveys are contained in  appendixes XVII and XVIII.
subsections: section_title: Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Completed Construction on 874 Units and Rehabilitated 2,990 Units from 1998 through 2003
paragraphs: Based on our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing  authorities, from calendar years 1998 through 2003, villages and regional  housing authorities completed construction on a total of 874 single-family  units and rehabilitated 2,990 single-family units. As shown in table 5, the  number of units these entities constructed ranged from 104 in 1998 to 199  in 2002. The most common size of newly constructed units was a three- bedroom home. Slightly more than half of all units constructed were of this  type. The second most common units were four-bedroom homes, which  represented about a third of all units. Also, the total number of units  rehabilitated by regional housing authorities and villages increased, from  253 in 1998 to 628 in 2002.
As shown in figure 12, most of the newly constructed units were located in  only a few regions.  Specifically, four of the 12 regions—the Association of  Village Council Presidents (AVCP), Fairbanks Native Association, Central  Council, and Bristol Bay Native Association—accounted for 590 units— about 68 percent of the new construction. Specifically, one region— AVCP— accounted for about 30 percent of the production.  Three regions,  Copper River Native Association, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, and  Kodiak Area Native Association, produced few or no new units.
Similarly, the majority of units that villages and housing authorities  rehabilitated over the period were located in a few regions. As shown in  figure 13, three regions—Central Council, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, and  Bristol Bay Native Association—accounted for almost 60 percent of all  rehabilitated units. In contrast, the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association  and Arctic Slope Native Association regions completed relatively few or no  rehabilitation projects.
The 2,990 rehabilitated units include 2,920 units that did not require  purchase before rehabilitation began, and 70 units that housing authorities  and villages acquired before they were rehabilitated. Housing authorities  and villages in five regions—AVCP, Bristol Bay Native Association, Central  Council, Chugachmiut, and Maniilaq Association—rehabilitated acquired  units. Most of the rehabilitated units that required acquisition—47—were  completed in the Central Council region.
section_title: Housing Authorities Constructed More Than Three Times and Rehabilitated More Than Two Times the Number of Units Compared with Villages
paragraphs: Based on our survey, housing authorities constructed more than three  times the number of new units as villages did. As shown in table 6, regional  housing authorities constructed 666 units, while villages completed 208  units. Both the AVCP housing authority and the 11 villages within this  region completed the most units—173 and 90, respectively—compared  with housing authorities and villages located in other regions. The regional  housing authority in Copper River Native Association region as well as the  responding villages in both the Kodiak Island Native Association and  Chugachmiut regions completed no units.
Housing authorities rehabilitated more than double the number of units  compared with responding villages, for both units that did not and did  require acquisition. As shown in table 7, for units that did not require  acquisition, housing authorities rehabilitated 2,114 units compared with  806 rehabilitated by villages. Almost 70 percent of housing authority  rehabilitations occurred in three regions—Bristol Bay Native Association,  Central Council, and Cook Inlet Tribal Council. Similarly, villages in four  regions—AVCP, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Fairbanks Native Association,  and Maniilaq Association—accounted for over 70 percent of the units  rehabilitated by villages. The regional housing authorities rehabilitated  more units in all regions except for the Arctic Slope Native Association,  AVCP, Chugachmiut, and Maniilaq Association regions.
Similarly, housing authorities rehabilitated more than double the number of  the acquired units as villages. Three housing authorities—Bristol Bay  Native Association, Central Council, and Chugachmiut—rehabilitated 50  units that required acquisition. The housing authorities in Central Council  rehabilitated the most acquired units, 43. Responding villages in three  regions—AVCP, Central Council, and Maniilaq Association—rehabilitated  20 units that required acquisition. Rehabilitations of this type were more  evenly spread among the responding villages, with Central Council  completing 4 units, AVCP completing 6 units, and Maniilaq Association  completing 10.
Over the period covered by our survey, villages annually increased unit  construction, while regional housing authority production varied annually.  Specifically, village production grew more than sevenfold, from 7 units in  1998 to 53 units in 2003. Regional housing authority production ranged  from 97 in 1998 to 149 in 2002, but also fluctuated widely over the period  (see fig. 14).
section_title: Regional Housing Authorities Modernized 5,211 Single-Family Units Previously Developed under U.S. Housing Act of 1937
paragraphs: Based on our survey, 13 housing authorities modernized 5,211 single-family  units previously developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. Villages  are ineligible to receive funds for modernization activities. AVCP  modernized the most units, 1,287. In contrast, the housing authorities in the  Copper River Native Association and the Fairbanks Native Association  regions modernized few units over the period (see fig. 15).
section_title: Regional Housing Authorities Constructed, Rehabilitated, and Modernized Multifamily Housing Properties
paragraphs: Only housing authorities completed new construction, rehabilitation, and  modernization of multifamily properties (i.e., properties with five or more  units). From 1998 through 2003, responding regional housing authorities  constructed six multifamily properties—two by the housing authority in  the Cook Inlet Tribal Council region, two by the housing authority in the  Copper River Native Association region, and one each in the Aleutian  Pribilof Islands and Central Council regions. Average property sizes ranged  from 6,470 square feet in the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association region to  34,831 square feet in the Cook Inlet Tribal Council region. Housing  authorities also rehabilitated four multifamily properties, two of which  were acquired. The housing authorities in the Bristol Bay Native  Association and Central Council regions acquired and rehabilitated one  multifamily property each, and the regional housing authority in the  Kawerak Inc. region rehabilitated two multifamily properties.
In addition, seven housing authorities modernized 73 multifamily  properties over the period. Responding housing authorities completed a  low of 8 multifamily properties in 1999 and a high of 17 properties in 2003.  Housing authorities in seven regions—Arctic Slope Native Association,  Bristol Bay Native Association, Central Council, Chugachmiut, Cook Inlet  Tribal Council, Copper River Native Association, Kodiak Area Native  Association—modernized multifamily housing. The housing authority in  Cook Inlet Tribal Council region modernized the most multifamily  properties—30.
section_title: New Construction and Housing Rehabilitation Costs Varied by Region and by Whether Units Were Completed by Villages or Housing Authorities
paragraphs: Construction and rehabilitation costs varied widely by region, with more  remote regions generally incurring higher costs. Additionally, regional  housing authorities had higher construction costs than villages. In contrast,  villages had higher rehabilitation costs for housing units that did not  require acquisition. Regional housing authority single-family modernization  costs also varied by region, and multifamily housing costs varied according  to the type of housing development. In general, housing costs are  influenced by factors such as transportation, local expertise, terrain, site  preparation, and required building/energy standards.
Overall, based on our survey results, from 1998 through 2003, the average  construction cost for all units produced by 31 villages and 12 housing  authorities, was $222,928 per unit or $183 per square foot (in 2003 dollars).  The average unit size was 1,217 square feet. During the same time period,  the average cost of units rehabilitated by villages and housing authorities  that did not require acquisition was $46,866 for major rehabilitation  (costing $20,000 or more per unit) and $7,070 for minor rehabilitation  (costing less than $20,000 per unit).  The average cost of units that were  rehabilitated and acquired by villages and housing authorities was $87,324  or $79 per square foot.
New construction housing costs showed wide variation in eleven regions,  based on responding regional housing authorities and villages.  As shown  by figure 16, the average combined cost per square foot ranged from $122  in Chugachmiut (located in southern Alaska, near Anchorage) to $267 in  the Arctic Slope (located in the northern most region in Alaska). The  average size of the units in these two regions was similar—1,134 per square  feet and 1,142 per square feet, respectively. Kodiak Area Native Association  region (located southwest of Anchorage) had the second highest costs per  square foot, and Cook Inlet (Anchorage is part of Cook Inlet) had the  second lowest cost per unit.  These two regions also had similar sized units.
Seattle is a primary source of construction materials for housing in Alaska.   The Arctic Slope Native Association is the furthest region from Seattle and  incurs the highest costs for transporting building material and equipment.  Chugachmiut has lower transportation costs because it is closer to Seattle.  However, the Kodiak Area Native Association region exemplifies how a  region relatively close to Seattle can nonetheless face unusually high  construction costs. According to an official with the Kodiak Island Housing  Authority, there are several factors that have increased the cost of  construction on the island, such as remote villages along the coast often  not having adequate docking facilities to offload construction material,  requiring special, expensive barges. Also, since the Kodiak Area Native  Association area is rocky, extensive drilling and blasting is required to  excavate the housing foundation for each unit and for digging trenches for  water and sewer lines to the housing site. Finally, villages that are close to  Kodiak City—the largest city in the Kodiak Area Native Association  region—have high land costs.
As shown in table 8, responding regional housing authorities had higher  average costs for all units constructed and built larger units than did  villages. Regional housing authorities’ average cost for all units constructed  was $236,229 per unit or $189 per square foot, compared with villages,  which had an average cost per unit of $180,338 or $160 per square foot.  However, housing authority square-foot costs remained stable over the 6- year period, while village square-foot costs fluctuated. For example, from  1999 through 2000, the per-square-foot costs for villages decreased by 25  percent from $183 to $138, but between 2002 and 2003, the average per- square-foot costs increased 47 percent from $144 to $212. Moreover,  housing authorities built units that were on average 433 square feet larger  than units villages built in 1999 and 246 square feet larger in 2003. However,  in 2000, villages built slightly larger units than housing authorities.
Similar to new construction costs, the combined average rehabilitation  cost for units that did not require acquisition varied throughout Alaska’s  regions (see fig. 17). The region that reported the highest cost for major  rehabilitation was the Arctic Slope Native Association, which had an  average cost per unit of $93,444, followed by Cook Inlet Tribal Council,  with an average per unit cost of $66,368. The two lowest-cost regions for  major rehabilitation were Bristol Bay Native Association (southwestern  Alaska), with an average per unit cost of $30,154, and Kawerak Inc.  (northern Alaska), with an average cost per unit of $31,056. The highest- cost regions for minor rehabilitation were Kawerak Inc., which reported an  average per unit cost of $17,671, and Kodiak Area Native Association,  which reported an average per unit cost of $14,471. The lowest-cost regions  for minor rehabilitation were Copper River Native Association (northeast  of Anchorage) and Chugachmiut, which reported average per unit costs of  $4,239 and $5,278, respectively.
Although villages had higher rehabilitation costs for units that did not  require acquisition, housing authorities had higher costs for units that did  require acquisition. For units that did not require acquisition, housing  authorities had lower costs than villages for major and minor  rehabilitation. Housing authorities’ average cost for major rehabilitation  was $44,200 per unit, while the village cost was $60,516 per unit. However,  the average difference between village and regional housing authority  minor rehabilitation costs was minimal: $6,967 vs. $7,301. (See fig. 18.)
Conversely, regional housing authorities had higher average costs for units  that were rehabilitated and acquired than villages. Over the 6-year period,  70 of these units were completed by four housing authorities and five  villages. The average per unit cost for regional housing authorities was  $105,849, compared with the average village per unit cost of $41,010. One  reason for this cost difference may be that the regional housing authorities  acquired much larger units; they averaged 1,281 square feet per unit  compared with villages, which acquired units about half the size that  averaged 634 square feet. However, regional housing authority costs per  square foot were also higher than villages: $82 for regional housing  authorities versus $64 for villages.
section_title: Regional Housing Authority Single-Family Modernization Costs Also Varied by Region
paragraphs: The average modernization costs for regional housing authorities varied by  region. The average per unit costs for major modernization ($20,000 or  more per unit) for all housing authorities was $28,387 per unit and for  minor modernization (less than $20,000), $10,002 per unit. Twelve regional  housing authorities completed major modernizations over the period. The  regional housing authorities in Cook Inlet Tribal Council and Kawerak Inc.  region had the highest average costs for major modernizations, averaging  $44,330 and $43,324 per unit, respectively. The housing authorities in  Association of Village Council Presidents and Bristol Bay Native  Association regions had the lowest average costs for major modernization,  averaging $22,795 and $23,643 per unit, respectively. Thirteen regional  housing authorities completed minor modernizations. The housing  authority in Kawerak Inc. region had the highest average minor  modernization costs—$12,425 per unit—and the housing authority in the  Cook Inlet Tribal Council region had the lowest average cost—$2,575 per  unit.
section_title: Multifamily Housing Costs Varied by Region and Type of Housing Development
paragraphs: As previously noted, only regional housing authorities undertook  multifamily projects. Although the average multifamily new construction  cost for the six properties was about $3.8 million per property or $196 per  square foot, per-square-foot costs ranged from $171 for the housing  authority in the Copper River Native Association region to $219 for the  housing authority in the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Native Association region.  Similarly, the only two properties that included rehabilitation with  acquisition experienced very different costs. For example, one small  property (5,760 square feet), located in the Bristol Bay Native Association  region, had a total cost of about $880,270 or $152 per square foot, and a  large property (54,323 square feet) located in the Central Council region,  had a total cost of about $5.3 million or $97 per square foot. Additionally,  the two properties that were rehabilitated without acquisition (both in the  Kawerak Inc. region) averaged $50,272 per property. In contrast, the 73  multifamily properties that were modernized had an average per property  cost of $118,082. The average costs ranged from $8,661 per property in the  Copper River Native Association region to $354,730 per property in Kodiak  Island Native Association region.
section_title: Several Factors May Account for Differences in the Number and Cost of Units Constructed and Rehabilitated by Villages and Housing Authorities and by Region
paragraphs: As previously discussed, the number of units constructed and rehabilitated  over the period varied by whether they were completed by villages or  housing authorities, and by region. According to federal and tribal officials  and documentation, the following factors could account for these  differences:   Differences in housing goals and objectives. In order to receive  NAHASDA funding, housing authorities and villages are required to  submit to HUD a 1-year and 5-year Indian Housing Plan (IHP), which  outlines the housing goals and objectives for their communities. To  carry out their plans, housing authorities and villages can determine the  extent to which they focus their resources on new construction,  rehabilitation, or other affordable housing activities. For example,  Bristol Bay Housing Authority outlined in its fiscal year 2003 IHP that it  would allocate a fixed amount of funds for new construction in villages,  based on an assessment of needs.
Differences in the amount of NAHASDA funding. Regional housing  authorities generally receive considerably larger amounts of annual  funding compared with villages because regional housing authorities  receive funding on behalf of villages that have designated them to  receive their NAHASDA funds, as well as modernization and operating  funds for units developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. Lack of  additional funding in some cases limits the affordable housing villages  can construct or rehabilitate. For example, in fiscal year 2003, the  housing authority in the Maniilaq Association region received about  twice the amount of funds of the single-largest amount provided to a  village in that region. In addition, the amount of funding housing  authorities and villages receive from the HUD formula takes into  account Native population of the service area. Some of the populations  that regional housing authorities serve are considerably higher than that  of villages, and some regions have higher populations than other  regions.  For example, the total Native population in the Cook Inlet  Native Association region is more than 10 times that of the Aleutian  Pribilof Islands Association region.
Differences in the extent to which NAHASDA funds were leveraged.  Variations in the number of units constructed and rehabilitated may  reflect the extent to which NAHASDA funds were leveraged. For  example, according to the Cook Inlet housing authority, it leveraged  IHBG funds with other sources of funding to complete a recent housing  development. Cook Inlet housing authority used NAHASDA funds for  about 10 percent of project costs and leveraged the remaining costs with  private mortgages and other funding.
Similarly, federal and state housing officials informed us that several  factors may account for differences in regional construction and  rehabilitation costs, as well as differences in costs reported by villages and  housing authorities. These factors include the following:   Transportation costs: Many Alaska Native villages are in remote  locations, requiring equipment and building supplies to be transported  to the construction sites. In general, regions that are farthest from  Seattle—a major source of building materials—incur higher costs for  transporting building material and equipment than regions that are  closer.
Length of construction season: Villages that experience extremely cold  weather, such as those in the north and the interior of Alaska, have short  construction seasons. For example, the construction season in the  Arctic Slope Native Association is usually 2 or 3 months long, depending  on ice conditions in the Bering Strait and north of the Arctic Circle. A  short construction season means higher costs due to limited barge  access to remote communities (with barge access the only viable  method for moving construction materials and equipment to remote  villages), less time available for site preparation and actual  construction, overtime pay for working longer hours each day, and  climate changes that suddenly stop construction or excavation.
Using outside expertise: Higher costs are associated with transporting,  housing and feeding outside construction workers, engineers, and  housing inspectors. This could be for both regional housing authorities  and rural Native villages. Larger villages may be able to use local  construction workers, but smaller, more isolated villages with a limited  skilled labor pool to choose from may have to rely on outside workers  with required technical skills (e.g., electricians, plumbers, etc.). Many  housing authorities rely on outside contractors, who usually provide a  core crew of their own construction workers—supplemented by the  local workforce—to construct housing.
Land costs: Generally, urban areas cost more than rural areas because  they are closer to utilities and roads and are located in active real estate  markets in high-density areas. Rural Native villages often donate land  for housing development, though in many cases they have less access to  infrastructure.
Wage costs: The hourly wage rates for new construction and  rehabilitation of housing vary across Alaska’s regions. Generally, labor  costs are higher in the more remote areas of Alaska, such as the north,  and lower in the southern areas. For example, under the Davis-Bacon  Act, carpenters are required to be paid $15.83 (without fringe benefits)  in the Anchorage area; $25.05 plus $7.80 for fringe benefits in the  Northern area; and $17.68 (without fringe benefits) in the southern  area. In 2000, NAHASDA was amended to allow Native villages to  establish tribally determined wage rates for their IHBG construction  projects instead of using Davis-Bacon wages rates. However, according  to HUD officials, Davis-Bacon wage rates and tribally determined wage  rates within the same region are frequently similar.
Type of terrain: Many of the houses in Alaska Native communities,  particularly in northern and central Alaska, were constructed on  permafrost—land that is permanently frozen. It generally costs more to  build on this type of terrain due to the need for specialized engineered  foundation systems. It also generally costs more to build on hilly terrain  or rocky soil, such as Kodiak Island in the Kodiak Area Native  Association region.
Site preparation: Building or extending roads and installing power,  water, and sewer lines—both on-site and off-site, particularly in rural  communities—can be costly. Also, the same type of terrain problems  mentioned above apply to site preparation.
Energy efficiency standards: The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation  (AHFC) requires any recipient of its funds to follow the Building Energy  Efficiency Standard (BEES). Each regional housing authority receives  annual funding from AHFC, but the villages do not receive any such  funds. Therefore, each regional housing authority is required to adhere  to the BEES for each newly constructed unit whenever they use AHFC  funding. According to an AHFC official responsible for administering  the BEES program, there are additional costs associated with  compliance with the BEES standards, although these costs will vary  depending on several factors, such as whether an independent inspector  is required to inspect the housing unit. Villages may also voluntarily  choose to use some or all of the BEES standards.
Building code standards: Alaska’s Construction Inspection Guidelines  require each builder to retain an independent, licensed inspector to  perform each of the inspections set forth in the guidelines. According an  AHFC official, this could amount to between 5 to 12 inspector site visits  during the construction period. Since only regional housing authorities  receive AHFC funds, Native villages are not required to follow any state  building codes, unless they are located in one of the 13 municipalities  that have adopted building code standards. However, similar to the  BEES, Native villages may voluntarily choose to use some or all of the  building code standards.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the federal  co-chair of the Denali Commission and the Secretaries of Agriculture,  Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban  Development, Justice, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and the  Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the  Governor of Alaska. We received technical comments from five federal  agencies and the state of Alaska that we incorporated, as appropriate. The  Departments of Commerce and the Interior generally agreed with the  report and provided written comments that are reprinted in appendixes  XIX and XXI, respectively.  The Department of Health and Human Services  also provided written comments, stating that the GAO draft report did not  include its Health Resources and Services Administration’s Minority AIDS  Initiative among the 13 programs we reviewed.  Funding for the  administration is included in our analysis as part of overall funding for the  Department of Health and Human Services.  In addition, as discussed in the  report, the 13 programs we selected for review generally provided the  largest amount of funding to Alaska Native villages and regional Native  nonprofits during fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for their respective  agencies.  Based on our analysis, the Minority AIDS Initiative did not  provide the largest amount of the department’s funding to Alaska Native  villages and regional Native nonprofits during the period.  The Department  of Health and Human Services’ written comments are reprinted in appendix  XX.
We are sending copies of this report to the federal co-chair of the Denali  Commission and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Education,  Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, the  Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and the Administrator of the  Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Governor of Alaska.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202)  512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report.  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix XXII.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This study’s objectives were to (1) provide information on the amount of  federal assistance to Alaska Native villages during federal fiscal years 1998  through 2003; (2) describe how selected federal funds have been used to  assist Alaska Native villages; and (3) provide data on the number and  average cost of houses built by villages and Alaska Native regional housing  authorities. To address these objectives, we met with officials of various  federal agencies, the state of Alaska, boroughs, and cities. In addition, we  met with representatives of Native villages, regional Native nonprofit  organizations, and other organizations that primarily focus on Alaska  Natives. We also met with officials from advocacy groups that represent  Alaska Natives, including the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Alaska  Inter-Tribal Council, and the National Congress of American Indians.
To report on the amount of federal funding that has been provided to assist  Alaska Native villages, we examined data on both funding to over 200  federally recognized Alaska Native villages and regional Native nonprofits.  We classified as regional Native nonprofits the Native associations that  were identified in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and  the organizations that succeeded them, which, throughout this report, we  refer to as ANCSA Native nonprofits; Native health organizations identified  in Public Law 105-83; and housing authorities identified by the Department  of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To provide information on  federal funding to Alaska Native villages, we analyzed data from the  Federal Assistance Award Data System (FAADS), which identifies  recipients of federal awards, federal programs for which awards were  made, and award amounts. The analysis sought to isolate funding provided  to Alaska Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, other nonprofits that  primarily focus on Alaska Natives, incorporated cities that have villages  within their borders, boroughs, and the state of Alaska. In providing FAADS  data to the Census Bureau, each federal agency codes recipients of its  federal funds into 13 categories. Two of these categories apply to Native  recipients: Indian tribes and other nonprofit agencies. During electronic  testing, GAO identified reliability problems with these categories. Similar  problems were identified by other researchers (e.g., University of Alaska  Anchorage and the Alaska Legislature Legislative Research Service) that  have used this data. For example, agencies did not consistently apply the  recipient codes to the same recipients. Therefore, we conducted our own  coding of the recipient type, and in some cases, recipients were recoded  into a new category. Specifically, we classified entities as Alaska Native  villages based on whether they were recognized as such by the Bureau of  Indian Affairs (BIA). We classified entities as regional Native nonprofits  based on whether there were (1) regional Native associations identified in  ANCSA and the organizations that succeeded them, (2) regional Native  health organizations identified in Public Law 105-83, or (3) Alaska regional  housing authorities identified by the Department of Housing and Urban  Development. We classified entities as other nonprofits that primarily focus  on Alaska Natives based our review of published information and on  consultations with the Denali Commission and the Alaska Federation of  Natives. In addition, we classified entities as state entities based on  whether they were state of Alaska agencies or subagencies; boroughs  based on whether there were recognized Alaska borough governments;  cities based on whether they were incorporated cities that contain Alaska  Native villages within their borders; and Independent School Districts  based on whether they are Alaska public school districts.
Maintained by the Census Bureau, FAADS produces a quarterly file of  standardized data records on all types of financial assistance awards made  by federal agencies to all types of recipients during the indicated quarter.  Each transaction record identifies, by the Catalog of Federal Domestic  Assistance (CFDA) program code number and name, the type and amount  of financial assistance, the type and location of the recipient, and the  geographic place of performance. Also, GAO’s FAADS analyses uses  constant 2003 dollars. We assessed the reliability of the FAADS data by (1)  performing electronic testing of the required data elements for obvious  errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) comparing program totals by  fiscal year to similar data from the Single Audit Act database, (3) reviewing  related documentation, (4) reviewing related studies that used FAADS data,  and (5) interviewing Census Bureau officials knowledgeable about the  data. In addition, for 10 federal agencies whose programs are focused on in  this report, we provided agency officials with FAADS program dollar  amount totals for all entities receiving funds in Alaska, by fiscal year, and  asked agencies to verify that the totals were correct. In cases where there  was a greater than 10 percent difference between our totals based on  FAADS compared with data provided directly to us by the agencies, we  identified the agency programs producing the largest dollar differences and  the largest percentage differences, and discussed those differences with  agency officials. If we determined that the agency data were reliable, we  adjusted our data to reflect the verified agency data. We did this by  obtaining the agency obligations provided to individual recipients in Alaska  for agency programs from 1998 through 2003. The FAADS data was  obtained from Census in March 2005.
To provide information on the amount of federal funds passed through to  Alaska Native villages and other entities by the state of Alaska to carry out  federal programs, we analyzed information obtained from the state of  Alaska’s Department of Administration, Division of Finance; and the  University of Alaska. The Division of Finance coordinated our request for  “pass through” data with 15 state departments and component units. The  information we obtained from the Division of Finance and the University of  Alaska included the amount of federal funds passed through to various  entities for state fiscal years 1998 through 2003, including the specific  federal program that provided the funds. We limited our review to Alaska  Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, incorporated cities that have  Native villages within their borders, and boroughs. To assess the reliability  of the state data, we discussed the data system with Division of Finance  officials and the University of Alaska. We also discussed the process they  used to satisfy our request. We concluded that the data we obtained from  the state of Alaska were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.   The state data were obtained from the Division of Finance and University  of Alaska during February and March 2005.
To describe how selected federal funds were used to assist Alaska Native  communities, we judgmentally selected 13 major programs from 11  agencies—1 each from 9 agencies and 2 each from the remaining 2  agencies. We selected 1 program each from the Denali Commission, the  Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Education, Health and Human  Services (HHS), Justice, Interior, Labor, and Transportation (DOT), and the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We also selected two programs  each from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the  Department of Commerce. Generally, the selected programs provided the  largest amount of funding to Alaska Native villages and regional Native  nonprofits during fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for their respective agencies, based on our analysis of FAADS. These programs also  represented 84 percent of total federal funding to Alaska Native villages  and regional native nonprofits during the period. For USDA, we selected  CFDA 10.760—Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural  Communities—even though it did not provide the most direct funding to  Native villages and regional Native nonprofits, because it also provided  significant funding to cities and to the state, through the state’s Village Safe  Water program, which used funds to benefit Native villages and Alaska  Natives. For Labor, we selected Youth Opportunity Grants (CFDA 17.263),  which provided almost $16 million to regional Native nonprofits during the  period. Our FAADS analysis identified Workforce Investment Act program  (CFDA 17.255) as the program that provided the most funding, which was  used to provide funding for youth opportunity activities and was  subsequently replaced during the period with 6 new programs, including  CFDA 17.263—Youth Opportunity Grants. For Education, we selected the  Alaska Native Education Program (CFDA 84.356), which represented the  largest program when combining amounts provided by 2 other programs  that were consolidated into this program during the period—Alaska Native  Home-Based Education for Preschool Children (CFDA 84.321) and Alaska  Native Educational Planning, Curriculum Development, Teacher Training,  and Recruitment Program (CFDA 84.320). For Commerce, FAADS  indicated that the Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) program  provided the largest amount of department funding to Alaska Native  villages and regional Native nonprofits during 1998 through 2003. We also  selected Commerce’s Public Works and Economic Development Facilities  program for review after department officials informed us that EAA  provided atypically high funding to Alaska Native villages in 2001 in  response to an Alaska salmon-fishing disaster. Also, we selected 2 HUD  programs: the Indian Housing Block Grant program, which provided the  largest amount of department funding to Alaska Native villages and  regional Native nonprofits, according to our FAADS analysis; and the  Indian Community Development Block Grant program, because it also can  be used to construct new housing in Alaska Native villages.
For each of the 13 programs we reviewed, we met with federal officials  and, where appropriate, state, local, and village officials, as well as other  officials representing organizations that primarily serve Alaska Natives. We  also reviewed program descriptions from the CFDA and reviewed agency  documents on how recipients used program funds, including grantee  reports, annual reports to Congress, and reports prepared in compliance  with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. To better  understand certain programs administered by the state of Alaska, we spoke  with officials from the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public  Facilities, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and the  Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Where program data are reported,  we interviewed agency officials and reviewed program documents to  assure ourselves that data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  report.
To better understand the need for and uses of the selected programs, we  visited several Alaska Native villages. Based on our analysis of FAADS,  each of the villages received funding from at least 1 of the 13 selected  programs.  During our visit, we interviewed representatives of Alaska  Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, and incorporated cities with  villages within their borders.  We saw several examples of projects  completed using the selected programs, including housing, water and  waste treatment facilities, bulk fuel tank farms, and primary health care  facilities.
To provide information on the cost and number of houses built by Native  villages and Alaska Native regional housing authorities, we surveyed  Alaska Native villages and regional housing authorities (also known as  tribally designated housing entities) that were identified as having received  Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funds for at least 1 year from fiscal  year 1998 through 2003. We identified 78 Alaska Native villages and 15  regional housing authorities that have received IHBG funds. We provided  each of the 93 villages and regional housing authorities with a  questionnaire delivered by e-mail or by U.S. mail. Questionnaire items  covered the number developed and the cost of new single-family units and  multifamily properties, the number developed and the cost of rehabilitated  single-family units and multifamily housing properties, and the number  developed and the cost of modernized single-family units and multifamily  housing properties. To prepare for the survey, we conducted interviews  with HUD officials, Alaska state officials, and members of various Alaska  Native villages and regional housing authorities. We had HUD Alaska field  office officials review the survey for content, and we pretested the  questionnaire with two regional housing authorities and five villages to  determine whether respondents would understand questions the way we  intended. Since the questionnaire was administered via e-mail as well as  U.S. mail, usability tests also were conducted with all of the pretests to  observe respondents answering the questionnaire as it would appear when  opened and displayed on their computer screen.
We took the following steps to increase the response rate for both village  and housing authority participants. We sent two reminder notices via e-mail  and conducted follow-up telephone calls to those offices that did not  respond to our survey by the initial deadline. Collection of survey data  ended on March 15, 2005. We received responses from 57 villages and 13  regional housing authorities, providing a response rate of 73.1 percent for  villages and 86.7 percent for regional housing authorities. Table 9 details  the responding regional housing authorities and villages that were  constructing or rehabilitating single-family homes between calendar years  1998-2003. We did not attempt to verify the respondents’ answers against an  independent source of information; however, questionnaire items were  tested by probing pretest participants about their answers using in-depth  interviewing techniques. Interviewers judged that all the respondents’  answers to the questions were correct. In addition, answers to the final  questionnaire were compared with data in HUD’s Annual Performance  Reports for 1998 through 2003. These data are not directly comparable with  data obtained in the survey, but do indicate whether survey respondents’  answers were reasonable. We conducted follow-up phone calls to clarify  responses where there appeared to be discrepancies.
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce certain  types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,  differences in how a particular question is interpreted, the sources of  information available to respondents, or the types of people who do not  respond can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. Steps  such as pretesting and follow-up contacts to increase response rates serve  to minimize nonresponse error. In addition, steps such as performing  statistical analyses to identify inconsistencies and having a second  independent reviewer for the data analysis can further minimize such error.  Data from surveys returned via e-mail were entered electronically by  participants and imported into an electronic data file. Data from all fax- returned or mail-returned surveys were edited for consistency before  sending them for keypunching. These surveys were “double key entered”  into our database (that is, the entries were 100 percent verified), and a  random sample of the surveys was further verified for completeness and  accuracy. Close-ended questionnaire items were analyzed using statistical  software. We conducted our survey work from August 2004 through March  2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
section_title: Alaska Native Population by Native Village and ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation
paragraphs: Alaska Natives receive assistance from more than 200 villages that are  recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to receive federal funding.   Table 10 contains: a listing of the 12 regional areas established by ANCSA  identified by the regional for-profit name and the Metlakatla Indian  Community, Annette Island Reserve; the villages within each region; and  the corresponding number of American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN)  persons and enrolled tribal members.
section_title: Listing of Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits
paragraphs: Regional Native nonprofits also serve Alaska Natives. In this study, we  include regional nonprofits that were: identified as regional Native  associations in ANCSA or the organizations that succeeded them; identified  as regional Native health organizations in P.L. 105-83; or that were  identified as Alaska regional housing authorities by HUD. Table 11  provides a listing of Alaska Native regional health care and housing  nonprofits, by ANCSA region.
section_title: Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance to Alaska Native Villages
paragraphs: In addition to receiving assistance directly from the federal government  and from regional Native nonprofit organizations, Alaska Native villages  also receive assistance from other nonprofits funded by the federal  government. According to our analysis of data from FAADS for the federal  fiscal year period 1998 through 2003, 46 of these other nonprofits received  federal funding for the purpose of assisting Alaska Native villages. The 46  nonprofits are       Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission,  Alaska Federation of Natives,  Alaska Native Arts Foundation,  Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission,  Alaska Native Health Board Inc.,  Alaska Native Heritage Center,  Alaska Native Heritage Park Inc.,  Alaska Native Justice Center Inc.,  Alaska Native Science Commission,  Alaska Native Women’s Coalition,  Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission,  Bering Straits Foundation,  Chugach Regional Resources Commission,  Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments,  Cultural Heritage And Educational Institute,  Eastern Aleutian Tribes Inc.,  Institute of Alaska Native Arts Inc.,  Mount Sanford Tribal Consortium,  Qutekcak Native Tribe (Seward),  Robert Aqqaluk Newlin Sr. Memorial Trust,  Rural Alaska Community Action Program Inc.,  Simon Paneak Memorial Museum,  Southeast Alaska Indian Cultural Center,  United Crow Band Inc.,  Valdez Native Tribe, and  Yukon River Inter Tribal Watershed Council.
section_title: The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to Native Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs
paragraphs: Based on our analysis of data from the state of Alaska, the state passed  through more than $105 million in federal funds to Alaska Native villages  and regional Native nonprofits for state fiscal years 1998 through 2003.   However, Native villages received a smaller share of this funding. Also, the  state of Alaska passed through over $335 million in federal funds to  incorporated cities and boroughs that have villages located within their  borders.
subsections: section_title: State of Alaska Passed Through Over $105 Million in Federal Funds to Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits
paragraphs: According to data provided by the state of Alaska Department of  Administration, Division of Finance, the state passed through more than  $105 million to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits for state  fiscal years 1998 through 2003. As shown in figure 19, Native villages  received $18.2 million (17 percent) compared with regional Native  nonprofits, which received $87.3 million (83 percent). During this period,  the state passed through federal funding to 99 different Native villages and  23 regional Native nonprofits.
Over the period, Native villages received most of their funding from slightly  more agencies than regional Native nonprofits. Native villages received  state pass-through funding from 15 federal agencies, with about 67 percent  of the funding provided by four federal departments—Commerce, EPA,  HHS, and Transportation.  Commerce provided more than 20 percent of the  major funding, with EPA contributing 20 percent and HHS and  Transportation contributing 14 and 12 percent, respectively. In comparison,  regional Native nonprofits received state pass-through funding from 17  federal agencies, but about 85 percent of all funding was provided by two  federal agencies—HHS and USDA.  HHS contributed about 68 percent of  the major funding, with another 17 percent provided by USDA (see figs. 20  and 21).
Overall, both Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received the  majority of their pass-through funding from a few programs. For example,  over the period, the state of Alaska passed through federal funding for 64  different programs to Native villages. However, as shown in table 12, the  top five programs accounted for over 70 percent of the funding to these  entities. None of the remaining 59 programs contributed more than $1  million each in state pass-through funding over the period.
Also, most agencies’ funding was provided by only one of their programs.  For example, three different Commerce programs provided slightly more  than $3.9 million in pass-through funding to Native villages, and almost all  of this was provided by the Fisheries Disasters Relief program. Similarly,  Native villages received funding from two EPA programs, and most of this  was provided by the Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose  grants program. Further, all of the General Services Administration’s (GSA)  funding came from the Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property  program.
Regional Native nonprofits received funding from a larger number of  programs than Native villages. For example, over the period, the state of  Alaska passed through federal funding for 102 different programs to  regional Native nonprofits.  As shown in table 13, the top 6 funding  programs accounted for 76 percent of the funding to these entities. None of  the remaining 96 programs contributed more than $2 million each in state  pass-through funding over the period.
Similar to Native villages, most agencies’ funding to regional Native  nonprofits were provided by a relatively few number of those agencies’  programs. For example, 42 different HHS programs provided funding to  regional Native nonprofits, but Temporary Assistance to Needy Families  (TANF) provided 68 percent of all HHS funding.  Similarly, 79 percent of all  USDA funding was provided by the Special Supplemental Nutrition  Program for Woman, Infants and Children.
Table 14 shows that pass-through funding provided to Native villages by the  state of Alaska increased between state fiscal years 1998 and 2003.  Although the number of Native villages receiving pass-through funding  stayed fairly constant over the period, increasing from 41 in 1998 to 46 in  2003, the annual amount of funding increased by 75 percent, from $1.6  million in 1998 to about $2.9 million in 2003. The Denali Commission  accounted for 63 percent of the increase during the period, while GSA’s  Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property program accounted for 35  percent. Commerce pass-through funding reached its peak in 2000 and  2002, with about 65 percent of all Commerce funding provided in those 2  years alone under the Fisheries Disaster Relief program in response to a  slump in the Alaska fishing industry. EPA funding reached its peak in 1999  and 2000, with about 85 percent of the agency’s total funding over the  period being provided in those 2 years under the Surveys, Studies,  Investigations, and Special Purpose grants program.
The amount of federal funding passed through by the state to regional  Native nonprofits grew steadily over the period—by 160 percent—from 18  entities receiving $8.3 million in 1998 to 19 entities receiving $21.6 million  in 2003. Most of this growth was caused by an increase in HHS program  funding, which accounted for 90 percent of the growth. As was the case  with Native villages, EPA funding reached its peak in 2000, with about 56  percent of the agency’s total funding over the period being provided under  the Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose grants program.  HUD funding also reached its peak in 2000, with about 36 percent of the  agency’s total funding provided under the HOME Investment Partnerships  program. Moreover, pass-through funding provided by HHS programs to  regional Native nonprofits outpaced the growth in funding to Native  villages by almost 10 times. (See fig. 22.)
The state of Alaska passed through federal funds totaling more than $335  million for state fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to incorporated cities and  boroughs with Native villages.  Specifically, 104 cities received $82.5 million  and 16 boroughs received almost $253 million.  The state passed through  funding it received from 20 federal departments for programs such as  HHS’s ChildCare Mandatory and Matching Funds of the ChildCare and  Development Fund, and TANF; and EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving  Fund, and its Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose grants  program. Although these funds were not given to a Native village or  regional Native nonprofit, Alaska Natives likely benefited from shared  services and assistance provided by the cities and boroughs. For example,  incorporated cities that have Native villages located within their borders  provide municipal services, such as water, that benefit Alaska Natives.
section_title: Denali Commission Program Summary
paragraphs: Agency: Denali Commission.
Program name: Denali Commission (emphasis on energy and health).
Authorization: The Denali Commission Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3121  note; 70 Fed. Reg. 28283 (May 17, 2005) (Five Year Strategic Plan (2005- 2009) and Fiscal Year 2006 Work Plan).
Eligible program recipients: Awards are available to state and local  governments, private, public, profit, nonprofit organizations and  institutions or individuals eligible in Alaska. Beneficiaries must be the  general public, particularly distressed communities.
Program objectives: To deliver the services of the federal government in  the most cost-effective manner practicable by reducing administrative and  overhead costs; to provide job training and other economic development  services in rural communities, particularly distressed communities; to  promote rural development, provide power generation and transmission  facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer systems and  other infrastructure needs. Another objective is to provide funding for the  construction of new primary health care clinics.
Application process: For bulk fuel and rural power grants (the vast  majority of energy grants), there is not an application process. In 1999, the  commission worked with the Alaska Energy Authority to assemble a  priority ranking of the needs of all bulk fuel sites in the state. One hundred  seventy-two rural Alaskan communities were ranked, based on deficiencies  in fuel storage and power systems, and funding priority goes to those  projects with higher scores. Each year, as some projects are completed,  those with lower priorities get funded. For most of the commission’s other  programs, generally a community must send the commission a letter  requesting assistance, along with comprehensive community-based and  approved development plans. The commission judges potential projects  based on consistency with locally developed and regionally supported  infrastructure development plans, long-term sustainability, relative impacts  on reducing unemployment, raising the standard of living, reducing the cost  of utilities, and cost sharing by others. In some cases, applicants can apply  directly to state and local partners working with the commission. The time  frame for grants is based on the projects and negotiated between the  commission and the grantee, subject to the 5-year maximum time frame  imposed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Allowable Uses of Program Funds: Funds can be used for infrastructure  or utility needs benefiting Alaskans. The commission has made rural  energy its primary infrastructure theme since its inception in 1999, but has  12 program areas in total:   washeterias (potable water and laundry facilities as well as showers and   elder housing,  domestic violence facilities.
Examples of actual uses of program funds:  The commission maintains  a Web-based information system that includes detailed financial and  progress information on projects. The system can be publicly queried,  specifying project attributes such as community involved, recipient, theme  (the underlying subject area of the project, such as energy (e.g., bulk fuel)  or health care (e.g., hospitals), and milestone (where in the process the  project is, such as business plan or construction).
The Denali Commission’s energy program has been used to address energy  issues that affect Alaska Natives by focusing on bulk fuel tank farm  upgrades and rural power system upgrades. Energy has been the  commission’s primary infrastructure theme since 1999. According to the  commission’s 2004 annual report, the first challenge undertaken by the  commission was the upgrade and consolidation of fuel tanks in 172  communities identified as health and environmental hazards by the U.S.  Coast Guard and U.S. EPA. Since its inception, grantees of the  commission’s energy facilities funds—usually the Alaska Energy Authority  and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative—have upgraded bulk fuel tanks in  64 communities across the state, while projects are under way in 70 other  communities, according to the 2004 annual report. That report also notes  that the commission has upgraded rural power systems in 13 communities,  has started construction in 20 others, and is in the planning or design phase  in an additional 18. These upgrades include adding backup power  generators and increasing efficiency of existing generators. The  commission’s web site has information on specific energy projects,  including the following:  upgrading a tank farm in the Village of Kotlik. In 2001, the commission  provided about $2.9 million of the roughly $3.8 million used by the  Alaska Energy Authority to upgrade the tank farm, which had been cited  for violations by the U.S. Coast Guard.     moving a fuel tank farm in the Native Village of White Mountain. The  commission partnered with the Alaska Energy Authority to use a  $2,395,743 commission grant, along with $1,239,817 in state and local  funds. The Alaska Energy Authority used the funds to move the fuel tank  farm from the middle of the village’s business district, where the school  and store are located, to an area still accessible but west of the village,  and equipped the tanks with spill prevention. Construction on that  project was completed in 2003.  developing a new aircraft off-loading fuel pipeline in the Native Village  of Ambler. The commission partnered with Alaska Village Electric  Cooperative to use a $566,700 commission grant (with $31,000 in other  funds) to develop the pipeline to provide year-round fuel deliveries. The  pipeline system included modifications to local tank farms to connect to  the new pipeline. Construction on that project was completed in 2002.
The primary focus of the Denali Commission’s health facilities program— its second infrastructure priority—is to provide funding for the  construction of new primary care clinics and repair and renovation of  existing primary care facilities. From 1999 through 2004, the commission  completed primary care facilities in 41 communities, and has 59 facilities in  planning or design phases, according to its 2004 annual report. Some  specific health care projects from Denali’s project database include the  following:  designing and constructing a rural primary care facility and community  health center in the Native Village of Kiana. The commission partnered  with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium to use a commission  grant of $716,000 (with $400,000 in other funding) for the facility and  community health center, which replaced an existing village clinic.  Construction on that project was completed in 2002.   constructing a health clinic in the Native Village of Toksook Bay (the  location of the Nunakauyarmiut Tribe). The commission partnered with  the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium to use two grants totaling  $2.7 million from the commission’s health facilities program to build a  health clinic in Toksook Bay. Construction was completed in January,  2005.  providing funding for other health care needs as well, such as a grant to  the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services to cover half of the  $400,000 needed to purchase an ultrasound machine in Sitka.
Funding mechanism:  The commission’s energy and other programs  usually provide federal funds to grantees that the commission calls  “partners” (i.e., state or federal agencies or nonprofits that administer  numerous projects). For energy projects, for example, the Alaska Energy  Authority and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative were the commission’s  partner agency on over 95 percent of grants. For health projects, the Alaska  Native Tribal Health Consortium and the state of Alaska’s Department of  Health and Social Services were the commission’s partner on most  projects. A few grantees are not partner agencies, such as Native villages or  other local communities that administer just one program for their  community.
Restrictions on administrative costs: The commission does not have a  standard limit on the amount of funding grantees can spend on total  administrative costs. However, the commission negotiates with each  grantee on the amount of indirect administrative costs that the commission  will provide. According to agency officials, for energy partners the amount  of indirect costs that the commission allows has generally ranged from 0  percent to 4 percent of total grant amounts, paid for from the overall grant  amount.
section_title: Program Summary for the Department of Agriculture
paragraphs: Subagency: Rural Development.
Program name: Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural  Communities.
Authorization: Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as  amended, 7 U.S.C. 1926; 7 C.F.R. §§ 1779.1 et seq.; 7 C.F.R. §§ 1780.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: Municipalities, counties, and other political  subdivisions of a state, such as districts and authorities, associations,  cooperatives, corporations operated on a not-for-profit basis, Indian tribes  on federal and state reservations, and other federally recognized Indian  tribes. Facilities shall primarily serve rural residents and rural businesses.  The service area shall not include any area in any city or town having a  population in excess of 10,000 inhabitants, according to the latest decennial  Census of the United States. Beneficiaries may be farmers, ranchers, rural  residents, rural businesses, and other users in eligible applicant areas.
Program objectives: To provide basic human amenities, alleviate health  hazards and promote the orderly growth of the rural areas of the nation by  meeting the need for new and improved rural water and waste disposal  facilities.
Application process: Over 80 percent of program funding in Alaska is  appropriated by Congress to fund the state of Alaska’s Village Safe Water  program, administered by the Alaska Department of Environmental  Conservation. For those grants, applicants file an application on forms  prescribed by the Department of Environmental Conservation that  describes the community need, how the proposed project will address that  need, and cost. A committee comprising representatives from USDA Rural  Development (USDA RD), the Alaska Department of Environmental  Conservation, and EPA (which also provides funds for the Village Safe  Water program) scores each application to the Village Safe Water program.  (The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, which oversees many of the  projects funded by the Village Safe Water program, does not have a  representative on the committee, but does have the ability to advise  informally on project selection.) The scoring depends on several variables,  including whether the grant is requested for construction or planning.  For  construction projects, project need and impact are the most significant  scoring factors, followed by operation and maintenance of the project (e.g.,  if the project will be operated by certified technicians), community  planning, and application quality. Communities must have overall  environmental plans to be approved for construction grants. For planning  projects, the factors include planning need, existing level of service,  previous planning efforts, and type of facilities to be planned. Also,  according to agency officials, there are some projects that are specifically  included by Congress in appropriations legislation, which requires USDA  RD to contact certain entities to assist them in USDA RD’s application  process if they choose to apply. Most of the other program funding goes to  the Combination Water/Waste programs, which USDA RD administers  directly. Under this program, villages and cities can apply to USDA RD for  funding.
Allowable uses of program funds: Funds may be used for the  installation, repair, improvement, or expansion of a rural water facility,  including distribution lines, well pumping facilities and costs related  thereto; the installation, repair, improvement, or expansion of a rural waste  disposal facility, including the collection, and treatment of sanitary, storm,  and solid wastes; and indoor plumbing in certain cases where the residents  are unable to afford the improvements on their own. Grant funds may not  be used to pay interest on loans, operation and maintenance costs, or to  acquire or refinance an existing system.
Examples of actual uses of program funds: USDA RD’s Water and  Waste Disposal System for Rural Communities has been used for new and  improved rural water and waste disposal facilities. According to USDA RD  officials and available documentation, USDA RD funds are combined with  EPA funds and 25 percent matching state funds to eliminate the honey  bucket—5-gallon buckets that serve as a toilet—and provide communities  with water and sewer systems that function in Alaska’s harsh environment,  such as the flush and haul system. According to agency documentation,  from 2000 through 2003, USDA RD provided funding for 86 Village Safe  Water grants. Over that same time period, USDA RD funded 17 other  projects through USDA RD Combination Water/Waste projects, and also  provided funding for the state-administered Remote Maintenance Worker  program. USDA RD and state documentation show the following examples  of Village Safe Water projects:  In 2003, USDA RD provided a grant of $570,300 to benefit Napaskiak  that, when matched with $190,200 in state funds, is being used to replace  all of the remaining single-family home honey buckets in the community  with the “flush haul” system, according to agency documentation.
In 2000, USDA RD provided $633,800, in conjunction with $211,200 in  Alaska Housing Finance funding, for water and sewer improvements in  Nulato. Uses of the funds included the design and construction of a  wastewater lagoon for the lower town site, maintenance upgrades for  the new town site lagoon and landfill, and replacement of the water and  sewer system for the lower town site teacher housing area.
In 2000, USDA RD provided a $2,175,000 grant that, in conjunction with  $725,000 in state funds, was used in Bethel for a new piped water  distribution and sewer collection system, including circulating water  mains and pressure sewer mains.
One example of a Combination Water/Waste project is the project in  Talkeetna. According to USDA RD, Alaska’s 2003 annual report and other  agency documentation, in 2002, USDA RD provided the Mat-Su Borough  with $1.3 million to help fund an upgrade for a sewage treatment facility in  Talkeetna. The new system was the first of its type in Alaska and uses a  collection of cells and aquatic plants to pretreat raw sewage from the  community. The project converted an old percolation cell into a lagoon cell  lined with a plastic layer, increasing treatment capacity by over 25 percent,  according to the 2003 annual report. A wetland was also constructed to  treat secondary effluent from the lagoons prior to discharge into the  Talkeetna River.
Funding mechanism: According to agency documentation, over 80  percent of USDA RD’s Alaska funding is appropriated by Congress  specifically for the Alaska Village Safe Water program; that funding goes to  the state of Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation, which  administers the Village Safe Water projects in rural Alaska. Most of the  other program funding goes from USDA RD directly to cities and villages.
Restrictions on administrative costs: The program follows Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, a primary federal regulation  that outlines the principles for determining which administrative costs can  be recovered for programs administered under grants with the federal  government; there are no other established limitations. Until fiscal year  2005, the state paid for administrative costs of the Village Safe Water  program from state funds and from federal EPA funds, so 100 percent of  USDA RD’s funds went to project costs, according to agency officials.  Officials also stated that, in fiscal year 2005, USDA RD and the state began  working toward providing some USDA RD funds for administrative costs.  Funding for these administrative costs will come from the grant amount.
section_title: Program Summaries for the Department of Commerce
paragraphs: Subagency: Economic Development Administration.
Program name: Economic Adjustment Assistance.
Authorization: Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as  amended, 42 U.S.C. 3149; 13 C.F.R. § 308.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: Eligible applicants include economic  development districts; states, cities or other political subdivisions of a state  or a consortium of political subdivisions; Indian tribes or a consortium of  Indian tribes; institutions of higher learning or a consortium of such  institutions; or public or nonprofit organizations or associations acting in  cooperation with officials of a political subdivision of a state. Applicants  using Economic Development Administration (EDA) supplemental disaster  assistance will generally be restricted to disaster-impacted areas.
Program objectives: To assist state and local interests to design and  implement strategies to adjust or bring about change to an economy.  Program focuses on areas that have experienced or are under threat of  serious structural damage to the underlying economic base. Such  economic change may occur suddenly or over time, and generally results  from industrial or corporate restructuring, new federal laws or  requirements, reduction in defense expenditures, depletion of natural  resources, or natural disaster. EAA aids the long-range economic  development of areas with severe unemployment and low family-income  problems; aids in the development of public facilities and private  enterprises to help create new, permanent jobs.
Application process: EDA’s Economic Development Representative  (EDR) or regional office representative will meet with the applicant to  determine whether preparation of a project proposal is appropriate. If  appropriate, applicants are requested to prepare a brief project proposal  according to an outline provided by the EDR. Following a review by the  EDR and regional office staff, the Regional Director will determine whether  to invite a formal application. An environmental impact assessment is  necessary, and an environmental impact statement may also be required.  All proposals and applications for funding submitted to EDA are evaluated  competitively for conformance to statutory and regulatory requirements  and conformance with EDA’s Investment Policy Guidelines and funding  priorities. Final decision on applications from eligible applicants is made  by the Regional Office Director of the Economic Development  Administration, Department of Commerce.
Allowable uses of program funds: EAA funds can be used to provide  grants for planning or construction of projects tailored to the community’s  specific economic problems and opportunities. Specific activities may  include   creation or expansion of strategically targeted business development,  market or industry research and analysis.
Examples of actual uses of program funds:  According to information  GAO received from EDA, since 1999, EDA has funded 29 EAA projects in  Native villages and Native nonprofits.  Examples of specific projects  include the following:  In 2001, a total of $5.1 million was provided to five different entities,  including the Native Villages of Savoonga, Wales, and Unalakleet, for the  construction of five approximately 4,000-square-foot multipurpose  community buildings to Alaskan native entities. These facilities included  amenities such as a visitor center, lodging, meeting hall; office spaces;  conference rooms, kitchens, restrooms, and storage.
In 2001, the Tanana Chiefs Conference was awarded $725,000 for the  construction of a 20-room hotel with a combination restaurant, lounge,  and meeting facilities on council-owned property located midtown in  the Village of Circle.
Funding mechanism: The EDA provides funding directly to grantees,  which could be Alaska Native entities. Generally, EDA funds 50 percent of a  project’s cost. However, certain conditions of high economic distress or an  applicant’s inability to provide all of the matching share may permit a  higher grant rate.
Restrictions on administrative costs: According to EDA officials, there  is no specific dollar limitation on allowable administrative costs; however,  under the EAA program, administrative costs typically do not constitute a  significant portion of the total grant. For smaller or rural grantees such as  Alaskan tribes, allowable administrative costs could include the cost of a  Project Administrator because such entities may not hold the in-house  expertise needed to manage large construction projects.
Program name: Grants for Public Works and Economic Development  Facilities.
Authorization: Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as  amended, 42 U.S.C. 3141; 13 C.F.R. § 305.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: States, cities, counties, an institution of  higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher education, and  other political subdivisions, Indian tribes, the Federated States of  Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Commonwealths and  territories of the U.S. flag, Economic Development Districts, and private or  public nonprofit organizations or associations acting in cooperation with  officials of a political subdivision of a state or Indian Tribe. Individuals,  companies, corporations, and associations organized for profit are not  eligible.
Program objectives: To promote long-term economic development in  areas experiencing substantial economic distress. EDA provides public  works investments to support the construction of rehabilitation of essential  public infrastructure and development facilities necessary to generate  higher-skill, higher-wage jobs and private investment.
Application process: The EDR or other appropriate EDA official will  meet with the applicant and community leaders to explore the applicability  of the proposed project. If deemed appropriate, a proposal will be  requested. After reviewing the proposal, the EDR or the regional office will  notify the applicant regarding the decision of whether to invite an  application. If the project appears viable, a preapplication conference with  regional office personnel may be arranged at EDA’s discretion. An  environmental impact assessment is required for this program. The review  of the environmental impact assessment may result in an environmental  impact statement being required. Applications are approved by the  Regional Director and announced by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce  for Economic Development.
Allowable uses of program funds: Public works investments may  include  investments in facilities such as water and sewer system improvements,  industrial access roads, industrial and business parks, port facilities,  railroad sidings, distance learning facilities, skill-training facilities,  business incubator facilities, redevelopment of brownfields, eco- industrial facilities, and telecommunications infrastructure  improvements needed for business retention and expansion;  eligible activities such as the acquisition, rehabilitation, design and  engineering, or improvement of public land or publicly owned and  operated development facilities, including machinery and equipment;  and  infrastructure for broadband deployment and other types of  telecommunications-enabling projects and other kinds of technology  infrastructure.
Examples of actual uses of program funds:  According to information  we received from EDA, since 1999, EDA has funded three public works  projects totaling about $3.8 million in Native areas. Examples of specific  projects include the following:  In 2001, the Seldovia Village Tribe was provided $2.3 million to assist  with the purchase of two lots and construction of a complex that will  encompass a museum, visitor center, and retail/office space.
In 1999, the Nenana Native Association was provided $480,000 for  implementation of the entities’ economic development plan by  renovating and upgrading its community hall and funding construction  of other business infrastructure to continue development of tourism  business.
In 1999, the Shishmaref Village Council was provided about $1 million  for a traditional tannery.
Funding mechanism:  The EDA provides funding directly to grantees,  which could be Alaska Native entities. The basic grant rate may be up to 50  percent of the project cost. Severely depressed areas may receive  supplementary grants to bring the federal contribution up to 80 percent of  the project cost. Recognized Indian tribes may be eligible for up to 100  percent assistance. On average, EDA’s investment covers approximately 50  percent of project costs.
Restrictions on administrative costs:  According to EDA officials, there  is no specific dollar limitation on allowable administrative costs; however,  under the Public Works and Economic Development Facilities program,  administrative costs typically do not constitute a significant portion of the  total grant. For smaller or rural grantees such as Alaskan tribes, allowable  administrative costs could include the cost of a project administrator  because such entities may not have the in-house expertise needed to  manage large construction projects.
section_title: Program Summary for the Department of Education
paragraphs: Subagency: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Program name: Alaska Native Educational Programs.
Authorization: Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended, 20  U.S.C. 7541-7546; 34 C.F.R. §§ 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
Eligible program recipients: Alaska Native educational organizations or  educational entities with experience in developing educational programs  for Alaska Natives.
Program objectives: To support projects that recognize and address the  unique educational needs of Alaska Native students, parents, and teachers.
Application process: Alaska Native Educational Programs are  competitive grants, except for program funds that have been earmarked for  specified recipients for specified purposes. For competitive grants,  applicants submit proposals under which the Department of Education  uses a peer review process where panels choose applications to determine  which proposal best meets program objectives and the needs of Alaska  Natives. The Department of Education selects panelists who are  knowledgeable of Alaska Native educational needs, eligible activities, and  project management and evaluation, and who are from outside the  department.  To avoid potential conflicts of interest, panelists are usually  non-Alaska Natives. Specific selection criteria for the 2003 application  included the magnitude of the need for and significance of the project,  quality of project design, quality of project services, and the quality of the  project evaluation to be conducted on the project. Approved grants are  usually for 3-year funding periods.
Allowable uses of program funds:  Program funds can be used in a  variety of areas, including  increasing the education of Alaska Native teachers or those who teach   home instruction for preschool Alaska Natives,  math and science assistance.
Additionally, the enabling legislation, the Alaska Native Educational Equity,  Support, and Assistance Act, has five earmarks for specific programs:  $1 million annually for the Alaska Native Heritage Center for cultural  educational programs designed to share the Alaska Native culture with  students;  $1 million annually for Alaska Humanities Forum for a cultural  exchange program designed to share Alaska Native culture with urban  students in a rural setting;  $2 million annually for a dropout prevention program operated by Cook   $2 million annually for the Alaska Initiative for Community Engagement  for continuation of that entity’s general programs; and  $1 million annually to continue existing parenting educational programs,  including parenting education provided through in-home visitation of  new mothers.
Examples of actual uses of program funds:  Individual grant files  maintained by the department contain the following examples of how  grantees used funds.
In 2000, the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) received a grant of about  $1.6 million for “Preparing Indigenous Teachers for Alaska Schools.”  The 3- year grant had four main goals, one of which was to increase participation  of Alaska Native students in bachelor of science programs at UAS. One way  the program increased participation was by using mentors to recruit high  school students for the UAS bachelor of science program. By the third year  of the grant, program participants actively mentored 75 high school  students and post-high-school candidates from 11 different communities.  In the third year of the grant, the program provided 16 mentors a stipend of  $1,000 each, and also provided scholarships for 15 students in the amount  of $8,500 each. Another goal of the program was to develop a focused  support system for Alaska Native students at UAS. One way the program  used grant funds to accomplish this was to hire math tutors to assist Alaska  Native students in individual and group tutoring sessions. The program also  financially supported the UAS Native/Rural Resource Center for cultural  activities such as lectures, storytelling series, and pot luck dinners.
In 1999, the Alaska Native Heritage Center received a 3-year Alaska Native  Education Program grant in the amount of about $570,000. The grant had  seven objectives, including providing Alaska Native youth with cultural  activities unavailable in the schools. The center’s activities addressing this  objective included dance classes, youth leadership workshops, and art  workshops. Over the 3 years of the grant, 157 students participated in  programs offered by the center through the grant.
Funding mechanism:  The Department of Education provides funding  directly to grantees, which could be Alaska Native educational  organizations or educational entities with experience in developing  educational programs for Alaska Natives.
Restrictions on administrative costs: The program’s enabling  legislation states that no more than 5 percent of funds provided to a grantee  may be used for administrative purposes. No amount in addition to the  grant is provided for reimbursement of administrative costs.
section_title: Program Summary for the Department of Health and Human Services
paragraphs: Subagency: Indian Health Service.
Program name: Tribal Self-Governance.
Authorization: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,  as amended, 25 U.S.C. 458aaa—458aaa-18; 42 C.F.R. § 137.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: Any federally recognized tribe that (1)  formally requests, through a governing body action, participation in the  Tribal Self-Governance Program; (2) has furnished organizationwide single  audit reports for the previous 3 years that contain no uncorrected  significant and material audit exceptions in the audit of the tribe’s self- determination contracts or self-governance funding agreements with any  federal agency; and (3) successfully completes a planning phase, to the  satisfaction of the tribe, that includes legal and budgetary research and  internal tribal government planning and organizational preparation relating  to the administration of health care programs. Tribes may also authorize  another eligible tribe to participate in the self-governance program on their  behalf. Under current law, tribes not already in a compacting relationship  with the Indian Health Service (IHS) may not receive funds for health care  services if they are located in areas served by an Alaska Native regional  health entity.
Program objectives: The purpose of the program is to make financial  assistance awards to Indian tribes to enable them to assume from IHS  programs, services, functions, and activities with respect to which Indian  tribes or Indians are primary or significant beneficiaries.
Application process: If a tribe is eligible and interested in entering the  self-governance program, it sends a letter of intent to either the Director of  the Office of Tribal Self-Governance or to an IHS area director for a tribe’s  area. health care facilities, including maintenance, improvement, and  construction of health care and sanitation facilities.
Examples of actual uses of program funds: IHS and the Alaska Native  Tribal Health Consortium—a statewide Native health care provider— collect information on health status and services delivery and compile this  information into several different reports, including Alaska-specific reports  such as the Statistical Summary of Workload reports and Annual  Performance Contract information. The 2003 Annual Performance  Contract states that grant recipients used program funds during this period  to  operate 7 tribal hospitals, 28 tribal health centers, and 176 tribal  community health aide clinics; and  provide 4,093 homes with water facilities, and 3,004 homes with  wastewater facilities.
The 2002 Statistical Summary of Workload states the following:  In the 7 hospitals in Alaska that receive tribal self-governance funding, there were 10,992 inpatient admissions (excluding newborns), an  overall decrease of 802 admissions from fiscal year 2001; and  there were 1,868 total newborn admissions (deliveries), a 6.65  percent decrease from 2001.
In the tribally run hospitals, health centers, and community clinics,  there were 970,146 ambulatory care visits, a 2.2 percent increase   in 2001, the most recent year available, contract medical accounted  for 1,939 hospital admissions, 7,181 hospital patient days, 128  hospital births, and 60,741 outpatient clinic visits; and  during 2002, adjusted health aide visits totaled 263,947 encounters,  which was a 1.9 percent decrease from 2001.
Funding mechanism:  IHS provides funding directly to the compacting  entity—that is, the regional Native health care nonprofit, Alaska Native  village, or group of villages administering the health program.
Restrictions on administrative costs: IHS does not have a standard limit  on the amount of funding compacting tribes can spend on total  administrative costs. Pursuant to tribal funding agreements, IHS provides  funding for contract support payments—payments to compacting tribes to  pay for some of tribes’ administrative costs.
section_title: Program Summaries for the Department of Housing and Urban Development
paragraphs: Subagency: Public and Indian Housing.
Program name: Indian Community Development Block Grant.
Authorization: Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as  amended, 42 U.S.C. 5306; 24 C.F.R. § 1003.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: Any Indian tribe, band, group, nation, or  tribal organization, including Alaska Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, and any  Alaska Native village that is eligible for assistance under the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act or that had been eligible  under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. Tribal  organizations are permitted to submit applications on behalf of eligible  tribes when one or more eligible tribes authorize the organization to do so  under concurring resolutions. The tribal organization must be eligible  under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance  Act.
Program objectives:  The objective of the Indian Community  Development Block Grant (ICDBG) program is to provide assistance to  Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages in the development of viable  communities, including decent housing, a suitable living environment, and  economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate  income.
Application process:  Applicants must file an application on forms  prescribed by HUD that describes the community development need and  how that need will be addressed by the proposed project. The applicant  must provide sufficient information for the project to be rated against  selection criteria. The rating criteria include the need of the project,  soundness of approach, leveraging resources and comprehensiveness and  coordination. The Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Area Office  is responsible for administering the program and for notifying applicants of  the results, which are done annually. (e.g., fuel tanks and water and sewer systems); 6 housing-related projects  (e.g., housing rehab, new construction and land acquisition for new  housing), and one imminent threat grant.
Funding mechanism:  Funding goes directly from HUD to the grantees;  from 1998 through 2003, according to HUD documentation, all but 1 of the  80 grants went to Alaska Native villages, and that grant went to a joint  venture between a village and regional Native health care nonprofit.
Restrictions on administrative costs: The program’s regulations state  that no more than 20 percent of funds provided to a grantee may be used  for administrative purposes.
Program name: Indian Housing Block Grant.
Authorization: Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act (NAHASDA) of 1996, 25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.; 24 C.F.R. §  1000.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: Indian tribes or tribally designated housing  entities (referred to throughout this appendix as housing authorities).
Program objectives: IHBG funds are used for affordable housing  activities administered by tribes or housing authorities, while recognizing  the right of tribal self-governance.
Application process:  An eligible recipient must submit to HUD an Indian  Housing Plan (IHP) each year to receive funding.
Allowable uses of program funds: Indian Housing Block Grants can be  used for a variety of eligible affordable housing activities, including  modernization and operating assistance for U.S. Housing Act of 1937  housing; new construction, acquisition or rehabilitation of renter- or owner- occupied housing; housing services, housing management, crime  prevention and safety or model activities as described in the Indian  Housing Plan.
Actual uses of program funds:  The actual uses of IHBG funds from 1998  through 2003 for Alaska Native recipients were as follows, according to  HUD documentation:  Funding mechanism: HUD provides IHBG formula grants directly to  Alaska Native tribes or their tribally designated housing entity. The IHBG  funding formula considers two factors: (1) the needs of the grantee, and (2)  the housing previously developed by HUD funding. Tribes may annually  choose to receive IHBG funds and provide services directly to their  members or tribes may choose to designate a housing entity to receive their  IHBG funds and provide services on their behalf. Appropriations for 2004- 2005 included a provision limiting IHBG recipients in Alaska to those tribes  or tribally designated housing entities that received funds in the previous  fiscal year. Grantees do not have a matching funds requirement to qualify  for the IHBG grant. The minimum grant award is $25,000.
Restrictions on administrative costs: The IHBG program allows  grantees to use up to 20 percent of the total grant amount for  administrative costs. Administrative costs are taken out of the grant  amount.
section_title: Program Summary for the Department of the Interior
paragraphs: Subagency: Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Program name: Tribal Self-Governance Program.
Authorization: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,  as amended, 25 U.S.C. 458aa—458hh; 25 C.F.R. § 1000.1 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: Any federally recognized tribe that (1)  formally requests, through a governing body action, participation in the  Tribal Self-Governance Program; (2) demonstrates, for the previous 3 fiscal  years, financial stability and financial management capability by furnishing  organizationwide single audit reports for those 3 years that contain no  uncorrected significant and material audit exceptions in the audit of the  tribe’s self-determination contracts; and (3) successfully completes a  planning phase, to the satisfaction of the tribe, that includes legal and  budgetary research and internal tribal government planning and  organizational preparation. If each tribe requests, two or more otherwise  eligible tribes may be treated as a single tribe for the purpose of  participating in self-governance as a consortium.
Program objectives: To further the goals of Indian self-determination by  providing funds to Indian tribes to administer a wide range of programs  with maximum administrative and programmatic flexibility.
Application process: If a tribe is eligible and interested in entering the  self-governance program, it sends a letter of intent to the Director of the  Office of Tribal Self-Governance. The letter of intent must also include  information about how self-governance will benefit the tribe. Awards are  not competitive; if a tribe is eligible, it may generally participate in the  program. An annual funding agreement is negotiated between the  participating tribe and the Secretary of the Interior consistent with federal  laws and the tribal relationship. A tribe may also negotiate a multiyear  funding agreement.
Tribal Self-Governance Annual Report to Congress. Tribal submission of  information for the Secretary’s annual report is optional, although agency  officials and documentation noted that tribal self-governance data  collection is important to the program. Most grantees in Alaska do not send  such information to Interior; for 2003, for example, only six of the  program’s 22 Alaskan grantees provided such information to Interior.  Starting in fiscal year 2005, according to Interior officials, Alaska’s 22  grantees agreed in their annual funding agreements to provide Interior with  Government Performance and Results Act information, such as housing,  environmental, training, technical assistance, and other uses of tribal self- governance funds.
Allowable uses of program funds: Funds may be used by grantees to  support programs previously administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,  pursuant to the terms of annual funding agreements or for programs  specifically authorized by federal statute, and may not be used for the  operation of elementary and secondary schools or for community colleges.  Under these agreements, grantees have the flexibility to redesign programs  to meet local needs and priorities. Table 24 shows budget categories for  tribal self-government allocations from Interior to program grantees. Many  of the budget categories also contain more specific allocation areas.
Examples of actual uses of program funds: Based on summaries  submitted by grantees for Interior’s Tribal Self-Governance 2003 Annual  Report to Congress, the following are examples of recent uses of tribal self- governance funds:  In 2003, the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida used approximately  $4.6 million for job placement and training for 2,084 tribal members  through its various programs. The number of individuals receiving  support services assistance totaled 1,472. Those services included direct  employment, vocational rehabilitation, and employability assistance.  The Central Council also provided transportation, work clothing, and  tools to over 276 tribal members. One hundred seventy people received  classroom training and 25 received on the job training. courts. Bristol Bay also used the funds to provide training for village  administrators and village presidents and improve communications with  the village.
Funding mechanism: Interior provides funding directly to the grantee— that is, the Alaska Native village, regional Native nonprofit, or group of  villages administering the Tribal Self-Governance Program. Twelve Alaska  Native villages, eight regional Native nonprofits, one group consisting of  several other Alaska Native villages and one Indian reservation received  self-governance funding in 2003.
Restrictions on administrative costs: There are no specific restrictions  on administrative costs. Pursuant to tribal funding agreements, Interior  provides for contract support payments, which offset indirect and direct  administrative costs.
section_title: Program Summary for the Department of Justice
paragraphs: Subagency: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Program name: Community Oriented Policing Services.
Authorization: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as  amended, 42 U.S.C. 3796dd—3796dd-8.
Eligible program recipients: States, units of local government, federally  recognized Indian tribal governments, U.S. territories or possessions  (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,  American Samoa, and the Mariana Islands), other public and private  entities, and multijurisdictional or regional consortia thereof. engage in community policing in and around elementary and secondary  schools.
Application process: COPS grants are awarded on a competitive basis.  Applications are submitted to COPS’s Grants Administration Division for  approval and include a description of the proposed project and a priority  ranking of specific needs requested in the grant proposal. In fiscal year  2004, COPS received more than $60 million in grant requests and awarded  available funds of about $25 million, nationwide. Typically awards are  made to successful applicants based on the applicants’ ranking of needs at  the time the grant request is submitted.  Applicants may be denied any level  of funding if they are under investigation by the U.S. Attorneys Office, in  noncompliance under another COPS program, or not correcting  deficiencies in their current application.
Allowable uses of program funds: Grants provide funding for a variety  of activities, including  36 months of entry-level salaries and benefits;   basic equipment, such as handguns, holsters, and body armor;  technology items, such as computers, software, automated booking  systems, fingerprint identification systems, and GPS systems; and  police cars.
Examples of actual uses of program funds:    Since its inception in 1994, COPS program grants have been used to add  community policing officers to the nation’s streets and schools, enhance  crime-fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and  provide training and technical assistance to advance community  policing. In the state of Alaska, COPS grants have been awarded to hire  324 additional police officers and sheriff’s deputies, including about 100  officers under the programs discussed below.
COPS has created a series of programs to meet the needs of law  enforcement in Native communities. The COPS Tribal Resources Grant  Program is a broad, comprehensive program designed to meet law  enforcement needs in Native communities. This program offers a variety  of funding in areas such as hiring additional officers, law enforcement  training, uniforms, basic-issue equipment, emerging technologies, and  police vehicles. incorporated both of these previous initiatives into one centralized grant  program.
The COPS in Schools (CIS) grant program is designed to help law  enforcement agencies hire additional school resource officers to engage  in community policing in and around primary and secondary schools.  CIS provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build  collaborative partnerships with the school community and to use  community policing efforts to combat school violence.
The Alaska State Patrol received technology grants beginning in 1999  that benefited the Village Public Safety Officers of Alaska.
Funding mechanism:  COPS provides grants to tribal, state, and local law  enforcement agencies up to 75 percent of the costs to hire and train  community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crime- fighting technologies, and develop and test innovative policing strategies.   The CIS and technology grants do not require the 25 percent local match.  Funds can be accessed by grantees using a phone system or electronically.
Restrictions on administrative costs:  According to the Grants Administration Division, administrative costs are  not allowable under most COPS programs.
section_title: Program Summary for the Department of Labor
paragraphs: Subagency: Employment and Training Administration.
Program name: Youth Opportunity Grants.
Authorization: Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended, 29 U.S.C.  2914; 20 C.F.R. § 664.800 et seq.
Eligible program recipients: This program is no longer taking new  applications for grants. The 5 years of funding for grantees, which began in  2000, has already been completed, but most Youth Opportunity Grant  program sites have some funds remaining that will allow them to provide a  reduced level of programming for at least part of a sixth year. Eligible  recipients included Native American and Alaska Native entities. Alaska  Native applicants were required to be a Workforce Investment Act Section  166 Native American Grantee, and the community the applicant served had  to meet certain poverty rate criteria in the Internal Revenue Code and be an  Alaska Native village as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims  Settlement Act. Beneficiaries had to be youth between the ages of 14 and 21  at the time they joined the program, and had to reside in the target area,  without regard to income.
Program objectives: To increase the long-term employment of youth who  live in empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and high poverty  areas. Youth Opportunity Grants concentrate extensive resources in high- poverty areas in order to bring about communitywide impact on  employment rates, high school completion rates, and college enrollment  rates.
Application process: The program was competitive, and there were not  specific amounts of grants set aside for Native Americans. Proposals were  reviewed by an independent panel, including both federal staff and peer  reviewers; site visits were made to finalists. Panelists rated the proposals  based on project design and service strategy, youth development and  community services, dropout prevention, management and accountability,  and need in the target area. Applications had to include both a technical  proposal and a financial proposal, describing, for example, how the grantee  would provide comprehensive services, where the services would be  delivered, the staff numbers that would deliver the services, and the  program’s activities. Grant awards were made for an initial period of 1 year,  with up to 4 additional option years based on the availability of funds and  satisfactory progress toward achieving the goals and objectives of the  grant. employment, community service, sports, recreation, education, and life  skills programs.
Funding mechanism: Funding went directly from Labor to the grantees. In  Alaska, the grantee was Cook Inlet Tribal Council, which was designated as  the lead agency to apply for the grant by the Alaska Native Coalition on  Employment and Training. This coalition was originally composed of 10  Alaska Native regional nonprofits, two Alaska Native villages, and one  other Native organization. That coalition selected Cook Inlet Tribal Council  as the lead agency to apply for the Youth Opportunity Grant.
Restrictions on administrative costs: The program’s enabling  legislation does not specifically limit administrative costs. However,  Department of Labor officials informed us that they negotiated with  grantees to keep administrative costs low. Grantees pay for administrative  costs from the grant amount; no amount in addition to the grant is provided  for reimbursement of administrative costs.
section_title: Program Summary for the Department of Transportation
paragraphs: Subagency: Federal Aviation Administration.
Program name: Airport Improvement Program.
Authorization: 49 U.S.C. 47101 - 47142.
Eligible program recipients: States, counties (in Alaska, boroughs),  municipalities, and other public agencies, including Indian tribes, are  eligible for airport development grants if the airport is listed in the National  Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, which identifies more than 3,300  airports nationally that are significant to national air transportation. Grants  for projects under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) are typically  given only to publicly owned, public use airports, with a few exceptions.  Recipients of grants are commonly called sponsors. Sponsors must meet  basic qualifications set up by the Federal Aviation Administration to  receive AIP grants. In addition, a sponsor must be legally, financially, and  otherwise able to assume and carry out the assurances and obligations  contained in the project application and grant agreement.
Program objectives: The purpose of the AIP is to assist sponsors, owners,  and operators of public-use airports in the development of a nationwide  system of airports adequate to meet the needs of civil aeronautics.
Application process: Applicants file an application on forms prescribed  by DOT that describe the objective of the project, benefits of the project,  and need for the project, among other things. The application also requires  budget and financial information. The Alaska Department of  Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) selects projects on a  competitive basis, and the Federal Aviation Administration oversees the  Alaska DOTPF’s selection of projects for completion. The Alaska DOTPF  awards AIP funding based on, among other criteria, safety improvements  that the project would make, improving community access to basic  necessities, economic benefits, and if the community has alternatives to air  travel. This process takes place annually, and projects can take up to 3 to 4  years to design, engineer, and build. and certain roads within airport boundaries; (6) construction and  installation of airfield lighting, navigational aids, and certain off-site work;  (7) safety equipment required for certification of airport facility; (8)  security equipment required by the Secretary of Transportation; (9) snow- removal equipment; (10) terminal development; (11) aviation-related  weather reporting equipment; (12) equipment to measure runway surface  friction; (13) burn area training structures and land for that purpose; (14)  agency-approved burn area training structures and land for that purpose;  (15) relocation of air traffic control towers and navigational aids if they  impede other projects funded by AIP; (16) land, paving, drainage, aircraft  deicing equipment and structures for centralized deicing areas; and (17)  projects to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Clean  Air Act, and Federal Water Pollution Control.
Examples of actual uses of program funds:  In general terms, the AIP  uses its funding for airport planning and development. The AIP tracks its  spending by three categories: purpose of the project (the underlying  objective of the project, such as airport reconstruction), the physical  component of the project (e.g., a runway), and the type of the project (the  work being done, such as a runway extension). Based on GAO analysis of  agency data, from 1999 through 2004, DOT provided funding for 310 grants  that benefited Alaska Native villages and villages that are located within the  boundaries of incorporated cities. According to AIP documentation, some  recent examples of grant uses:  In 2002, Alaska’s Department of Transportation and Public Facilities  used grants totaling $8.3 million for airport improvements in the Alaska  Native village of Iliamna, including $6.4 million to strengthen the  runway.
In 2003, the Native Village of Venetie used grants totaling about $6  million to construct a new airport and a snow-removal equipment  building.
In 2004, Alaska’s Department of Transportation and Public Facilities  used grants totaling $257,000 to rehabilitate the seaplane base in the  Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve. was located in an Alaska Native village or village located within the  boundaries of an incorporated city.
Restrictions on administrative costs: According to agency officials, the  AIP limits the amount of indirect administrative costs that Alaska’s DOTPF  can recover to 4.8 percent of the total AIP grants to the state; in 2003, the  actual rate for indirect costs was less than 3 percent. DOT’s Federal  Highway Administration adjusts that limit each year. Administrative costs  are paid for from the grant, rather than given by AIP in addition to the AIP  grant.
section_title: Program Summary for the Environmental Protection Agency
paragraphs: Subagency: Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Office.
Program name: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program.
Authorization: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act of  1992, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4368b; 40 C.F.R. Part 35, Subpart B.
Eligible program recipients: Alaska Native or American Indian tribal  government or intertribal consortium.
Program objectives: The primary purpose of the Indian Environmental  General Assistance Program (IGAP) is to support the development of a  core tribal environmental protection program. IGAP is intended to help  Alaska Native and American Indian tribes build their capacity to administer  environmental programs and address environmental problems on Indian  land.
Application process: Tribes and consortia in Alaska submit applications  to EPA’s Alaska Operations Office on forms prescribed by EPA. Each IGAP  application must include a description of the tribe’s environmental needs  and goals, a work plan to accomplish those goals, and identification of  grant outputs and outcomes. IGAP applicants must specify how they will  spend the IGAP funds prior to receiving the IGAP grant. EPA evaluates  proposals based on the completeness of the application, demonstration of  risks and benefits to human health and the environment, the nature and  quality of activities intended to build tribal capacity to address long-term  environmental risks and needs, and management capability and past  performance, if applicable. IGAP grants are not competitive grants; funding  is available to all eligible tribes that demonstrate the capability to  successfully manage a grant. EPA bases award amounts on fund  availability, the number of eligible tribes and consortia applying, and the  amount of any funds remaining in existing IGAP grants. IGAP project  periods cannot exceed 4 years. developing and implementing integrated and sustainable solid waste   cleanup and closure of unregulated dumps;  acquiring training in environmental program priority areas (e.g., water,  waste, pollution prevention, alternative energy, environmental  emergency response);  training and working with tribally elected officials on EPA programs,  environmental regulations, and effective intergovernmental  coordination;  identifying and performing baseline assessments of sources of pollution  (water quality sampling, air quality emissions inventories, and waste  stream analysis);  establishing a tribal communications capability and technical expertise  to work with federal, state, local, tribal, and other environmental  officials; and  increasing communities’ environmental awareness.
Additionally, EPA provided GAO with “success stories” highlighting  specific examples of how IGAP funds have been used. Following are some  examples:  In 2003, the Gwich’yaa Zhee (Fort Yukon) IGAP program participated in  the household hazardous waste back haul with Yutana barge lines, and  back hauled 93 lead-acid batteries, 63 drums of waste oil, eight old  vehicles, and 318 pounds of aluminum cans to be recycled.
In 2003, the Goodnews Bay IGAP program sent a person to a Solid Waste  Workshop, completed feasibility studies on the local dump, and started  the process of getting a permit and draft management plans approved by  the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to get a new  landfill. Goodnews Bay also said that the IGAP program provided the  community with environmental education, awareness, increased  capacity to apply for other grants, and jobs. with other villages in the region, such as forming the Ugashik Watershed  Council.
In 1999, The Aleut Community of St. Paul Island IGAP program  developed a Village Environmental Planning Survey and in 2000 began  working on a Specific Action Plan, focusing on addressing the  community’s solid and hazardous waste issues and educating the  community on a variety of environmental issues. The IGAP program  reported its top three accomplishments as: (1) establishment of a  department within the tribal government of St. Paul to address current  and ongoing environmental issues in the community; (2) signing the  Tribal Environmental Agreement with EPA in 2000, and (3)  establishment and implantation of a recycling program.
Funding mechanism: IGAP grants go directly from EPA to the Alaska  Native tribes and tribal consortia that run the programs.
Restrictions on administrative costs: Grantees use indirect cost rates  approved by the Department of the Interior where a grantee has such a  rate. Where a grantee does not have a rate, it typically includes all  administrative costs as direct costs, negotiating with EPA the portion of  overhead costs allocable to IGAP. There is no programwide limit on total  administrative costs. Direct and indirect administrative costs are provided  as part of the grant, rather than given by EPA in addition to the IGAP grant.
section_title: Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages
subsections: section_title: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, the
section_title: Government Accountability Office (GAO) is
paragraphs: Please also retain a copy of the  questionnaire for your records.
James Vitarello (202-512-5119,  used them to construct, acquire, or rehabilitate  vitarelloj@gao.gov). single-family units or multi-family properties  during that period.
Native communities, including when NAHASDA  number, click on the answer box (___) and begin  grants were used in combination with other  typing.  Do not enter dollar signs or commas.  Do  sources of funding.  Results of the survey will be  used in our report to the Congress, and will help  them understand the costs of providing affordable  housing in Alaska Native communities. not use the enter key to end a line.  To select a check  box (), click or double-click on the center of the  box.  To change or deselect a response, click on the  check box and the “” should disappear.
Please complete the following sections on housing  about a particular question(s), include the comment  activities pertaining to: new construction of single- with the question number at the end of the  family units, rehabilitation of existing single-family  questionnaire. units with acquisition, rehabilitation of existing  single-family units without acquisition, and  completion of multi-family property development.
While completing this survey, please save your document often as  you work.
Thank you very much for your time and  and return it to this email address as an attachment. assistance!
1.  Please provide the following information for the individual(s) completing this questionnaire, so that we may  call to clarify information if necessary. The answer boxes will expand.  (Area Code) Phone Number  The following sections will ask you about:  New construction of single-family units (Question #2)
Rehabilitation of existing single-family units with acquisition (Question #3)
Rehabilitation of existing single-family units without acquisition (Question #4)
Completion of multi-family property development (Questions #5-#7)
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS   2.  Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or owned homes.  During calendar years 1998  through 2003, did your village complete any new construction of single-family units using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with  other funds?  Please check your response.
2a.  If yes, how many single-family units of the following sizes were completed, and what were the combined  square footages and total development costs for all units for each calendar year? (Please enter numbers in  each box, including “0” if none.  Please do not enter commas.) (Includes costs for administration, planning, site  acquisition, demolition, construction, and/or  equipment and financing (including payment of  carrying charges) and other necessary costs, such as  (A unit is completed  shipping costs or the Alaska Building Energy  Efficiency Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes off- for occupancy.) site costs for water, sewers, and roads. Include all  costs associated with unit completion even if some  costs were incurred in previous calendar years.)
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS WITH ACQUISITION   3.  Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or  owned homes.  During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your village complete any rehabilitation of  existing single-family units where the unit(s) was/were acquired using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in  combination with other funds? Please check your response.
3a.  If yes, how many single-family units of the following sizes were completed, and what were the combined  square footages and total development costs for all units for each calendar year?  (Please enter numbers in  each box, including “0” if none.  Please do not enter commas.) (Includes costs for administration, planning, site  acquisition, single-family unit acquisition,  demolition, construction, and/or equipment and  financing (including payment of carrying charges) (A unit is completed  and other necessary costs, such as shipping costs or  the Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standards  for occupancy.) (BEES) costs. Excludes off-site costs for water,  sewers, and roads. Include all costs associated with  unit completion even if some costs were incurred in  previous calendar years.)
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS WITHOUT ACQUISITION  4.  Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or  owned homes.  During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your village complete any rehabilitation of  existing single-family units where the rehabilitation did not require the purchase of the unit(s) using  NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please check your response.
4a.  If yes, for each calendar year, how many single-family units were completed, and what were total  development costs for all units?  (Please enter numbers in each box, including “0” if none.  Please do not enter  commas.)
Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standards  occupancy.)
December 31) (BEES) costs. Excludes off-site costs for  water, sewers, and roads. Include all costs  associated with unit completion even if some  costs were incurred in previous calendar  years.)
COMPLETION OF MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT  5.  Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented or owned  homes.  During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your village complete any new construction of  multi-family properties using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please  check your response.
Yes, Continue to Question 5a  No, SKIP to Question 6  Don’t know, SKIP to Question 6  5a.  If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and what were the  combined square footages and total development costs for all properties?  (Please enter numbers in  each box, including “0” if none.  Please do not enter commas.)
December 31) available for occupancy.)
Standards (BEES) costs.  Excludes  off-site costs for water, sewers, and  roads.  Include all costs associated  with unit completion even if some  costs were incurred in previous  calendar years.)
6.  Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented or owned  homes.  During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your village complete any rehabilitation of existing  multi-family properties where property was acquired using NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in  combination with other funds?  Please check your response.
Yes, Continue to Question 6a   No, SKIP to Question 7  Don’t know, SKIP to Question 7  6a.  If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and what were the  combined square footages and total development costs for all properties?  (Please enter numbers in  each box, including “0” if none.  Please do not enter commas.)
December 31) available for occupancy.)
Standards (BEES) costs.  Excludes  off-site costs for water, sewers, and  roads.  Include all costs associated  with unit completion even if some  costs were incurred in previous  calendar years.)
7.  Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented or owned  homes.  During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your village complete any rehabilitation of existing  multi-family properties where the rehabilitation did not require the purchase of property using  NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in combination with other funds?  Please check your response.
Yes, Continue to Question 7a   No, SKIP to Question 8  Don’t know, SKIP to Question 8  7a.  If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and what were total  development costs for all properties?  (Please enter numbers in each box, including “0” if none.  Please  do not enter commas.)
Total Development Costs for All  (Includes costs for administration,  planning, site acquisition, demolition,  construction, and/or equipment and  financing (including payment of  carrying charges) and other necessary  (A multifamily property is completed  costs, such as shipping costs or the  when it is available for occupancy.)
December 31)
Standards (BEES) costs.  Excludes  off-site costs for water, sewers, and  roads.  Include all costs associated  with unit completion even if some  costs were incurred in previous  calendar years.)
Did your village construct, acquire, or rehabilitate single-family units and/or multi-family properties in the  geographic area(s) corresponding to the following ANCSA non-profit regions during calendar years 1998 through  2003? Please check all that apply.
10.  Please provide any additional comments below. The answer box will expand.
section_title: Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated Housing Entities
subsections: section_title: In response to a mandate contained in the
section_title: Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of
paragraphs: Please also retain a copy of the  questionnaire for your records.
If you have any questions please contact: Brodi  properties during that period.
The purpose of this survey is to determine the cost  vitarelloj@gao.gov).
NAHASDA grants were used in combination with  other sources of funding.  Results of the survey  questionnaire by clicking on the gray-shaded answer  box or check box that you wish to answer.  To  will be used in our report to the Congress, and will  answer a question that requires you to write a  help them understand the costs of providing  number, click on the answer box (___) and begin  affordable housing in Alaska Native communities.
Please complete the following sections on housing  not use the enter key to end a line.  To select a check  box (), click or double-click on the center of the  box.  To change or deselect a response, click on the  check box and the “” should disappear.
Do not “unlock” this document, because it will erase  units with acquisition, rehabilitation of existing  your answers.  If you wish to include comments  single-family units without acquisition,  about a particular question(s), include the comment  modernization of single-family units, and  with the question number at the end of the  completion of multi-family property development. questionnaire.
While completing this survey, please save your document often as  you work. and return it to this email address as an attachment.
Thank you very much for your time and  mail the questionnaire back to us at:  assistance!
1.  Please provide the following information for the individual(s) completing this questionnaire, so that we may  call to clarify information if necessary. The answer boxes will expand.  (Area Code) Phone Number  The following sections will ask you about:  New construction of single-family units (Question #2)
Rehabilitation of existing single-family units with acquisition (Question #3)
Rehabilitation of existing single-family units without acquisition (Question #4)
Modernization of single-family units (Question #5)
Completion of multi-family property development (Questions #6-#9)
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS   2.  Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or owned homes.  During calendar years 1998  through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) complete any new construction of single-family units using NAHASDA funds  exclusively or in combination with other funds?  Please check your response.
2a.  If yes, how many single-family units of the following sizes were completed, and what were the combined  square footages and total development costs for all units for each calendar year? (Please enter numbers in  each box, including “0” if none.  Please do not enter commas.) (Includes costs for administration, planning, site  acquisition, demolition, construction, and/or  equipment and financing (including payment of  carrying charges) and other necessary costs, such as  (A unit is completed  shipping costs or the Alaska Building Energy  Efficiency Standards (BEES) costs. Excludes off- for occupancy.) site costs for water, sewers, and roads. Include all  costs associated with unit completion even if some  costs were incurred in previous calendar years.)
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS WITH ACQUISITION   3.  Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or  owned homes.  During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity  (TDHE) complete any rehabilitation of existing single-family units where the unit(s) was/were acquired  using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? Please check your response.
3a.  If yes, how many single-family units of the following sizes were completed, and what were the combined  square footages and total development costs for all units for each calendar year?  (Please enter numbers in  each box, including “0” if none.  Please do not enter commas.) (Includes costs for administration, planning, site  acquisition, single-family unit acquisition,  demolition, construction, and/or equipment and  financing (including payment of carrying charges) (A unit is completed  and other necessary costs, such as shipping costs or  the Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standards  for occupancy.) (BEES) costs. Excludes off-site costs for water,  sewers, and roads. Include all costs associated with  unit completion even if some costs were incurred in  previous calendar years.)
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Calendar Year of Completion:  (January 1 to December 31)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS WITHOUT ACQUISITION  4.  Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or  owned homes.  During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity  (TDHE) complete any rehabilitation of existing single-family units where the rehabilitation did not require the purchase of the unit(s) using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? (Do not include modernized U.S. Housing Act of 1937 single-family units.) Please check your response.
4a.  If yes, for each calendar year, how many single-family units were completed, and what were the total  development costs for all units?  (Please enter numbers in each box, including “0” if none.  Please do not enter  commas.)
Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standards  occupancy.)
December 31) (BEES) costs. Excludes off-site costs for  water, sewers, and roads. Include all costs  associated with unit completion even if some  costs were incurred in previous calendar  years.)
MODERNIZATION OF U.S. HOUSING ACT OF 1937 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS  5.  Single-family units are housing constructed in one to four unit buildings and may be either rented or  owned homes.  During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity  (TDHE) complete any modernization of U.S. Housing Act of 1937 single-family units using  NAHASDA funds exclusively or in combination with other funds? (Do not include rehabilitated single- family units.)  Please check your response.
5a.  If yes, for each calendar year, how many single-family units were completed, and what were the total  development costs for all units?  (Please enter numbers in each box, including “0” if none.  Please do not enter  commas.)
Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standards  occupancy.)
December 31) (BEES) costs. Excludes off-site costs for  water, sewers, and roads. Include all costs  associated with unit completion even if some  costs were incurred in previous calendar  years.)
COMPLETION OF MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT  6.  Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented or owned  homes.  During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE)  complete any new construction of multi-family properties using NAHASDA funds exclusively or in  combination with other funds? Please check your response.
Yes, Continue to Question 6a  No, SKIP to Question 7  Don’t know, SKIP to Question 7  6a.  If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and what were the  combined square footages and total development costs for all properties?  (Please enter numbers in  each box, including “0” if none.  Please do not enter commas.)
December 31) available for occupancy.)
Standards (BEES) costs.  Excludes  off-site costs for water, sewers, and  roads.  Include all costs associated  with unit completion even if some  costs were incurred in previous  calendar years.)
7.  Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented or owned  homes.  During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE)  complete any rehabilitation of existing multi-family properties where property was acquired using  NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in combination with other funds?  Please check your response.
Yes, Continue to Question 7a   No, SKIP to Question 8  Don’t know, SKIP to Question 8  7a.  If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and what were the  combined square footages and total development costs for all properties?  (Please enter numbers in  each box, including “0” if none.  Please do not enter commas.)
December 31) available for occupancy.)
Standards (BEES) costs.  Excludes  off-site costs for water, sewers, and  roads.  Include all costs associated  with unit completion even if some  costs were incurred in previous  calendar years.)
8.  Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented or owned  homes.  During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE)  complete any rehabilitation of existing multi-family properties where the rehabilitation did not require the  purchase of property using NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in combination with other funds?  (Do  not include modernized U.S. Housing Act of 1937 multi-family properties.) Please check your response.
Yes, Continue to Question 8a   No, SKIP to Question 9  Don’t know, SKIP to Question 9  8a.  If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and what were the  total development costs for all properties?  (Please enter numbers in each box, including “0” if none.
Please do not enter commas.)
Total Development Costs for All  (Includes costs for administration,  planning, site acquisition, demolition,  construction, and/or equipment and  financing (including payment of  carrying charges) and other necessary  costs, such as shipping costs or the  (A multifamily property is completed  when it is available for occupancy.)
December 31)
Standards (BEES) costs.  Excludes  off-site costs for water, sewers, and  roads.  Include all costs associated  with unit completion even if some  costs were incurred in previous  calendar years.)
9.  Multi-family properties are housing structures with 5 or more units that may be either rented  or owned homes.  During calendar years 1998 through 2003, did your Tribally Designated  Housing Entity (TDHE) complete any modernization of U.S. Housing Act of 1937 multi-family  properties using NAHASDA funds either exclusively or in combination with other funds?  (Do  not include rehabilitated multi-family properties.)  Please check your response.
Yes, Continue to Question 9a   No, SKIP to Question 10  Don’t know, SKIP to Question 10  9a.  If yes, for each calendar year, how many multi-family properties were completed, and  what were the total development costs for all properties?  (Please enter numbers in each  box, including “0” if none.  Please do not enter commas.)
Total Development Costs for All  (Includes costs for administration,  planning, site acquisition, demolition,  construction, and/or equipment and  financing (including payment of  carrying charges) and other necessary  costs, such as shipping costs or the  (A multifamily property is completed  when it is available for occupancy.)
December 31)
Standards (BEES) costs.  Excludes  off-site costs for water, sewers, and  roads.  Include all costs associated  with unit completion even if some  costs were incurred in previous  calendar years.)
10.
Did your Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) construct, acquire, rehabilitate, or  modernize single-family units and/or multi-family properties in the geographic area(s)  corresponding to the following ANCSA non-profit regions during calendar years 1998 through  2003? Please check all that apply.
11.  In what Annual Performance Report (APR) “Table II Activity” did your Tribally Designated  Housing Entity (TDHE) include costs for your staff and administration for each of the following  years? Please check one for each row  12.  Please provide any additional comments below. The answer box will expand.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Mark Egger, Brodi Fontenot, Curtis  Groves, Cathy Hurley, May Lee, John Lord, Jeffery D. Malcolm, Grant  Mallie, Alison Martin, John McGrail, Dan Meyer, Marc W. Molino, Andrew  Nelson, David M. Pittman, Barbara M. Roesmann, James D. Vitarello, and  Chuck Wilson also made key contributions to this report.