Native American Housing: Tribes Generally View Block Grant Program as Effective, but Tracking of Infrastructure Plans and Investments Needs Improvement
Published: 2010-02-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) changed how the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides housing assistance to Native Americans. Congress created NAHASDA to recognize self-determination for tribes in addressing their low-income housing needs. In NAHASDA's 2008 reauthorization, Congress asked GAO to assess the program's effectiveness. This report discusses (1) how tribes have used NAHASDA funds, (2) how NAHASDA has improved the process of providing tribes with funds for housing, and (3) the extent to which NAHASDA has contributed to infrastructure improvements in tribal communities. GAO analyzed agency documentation, surveyed all tribes receiving grants in fiscal year 2008, conducted site visits with select tribes, and interviewed officials at HUD and other agencies.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Native American tribes have used NAHASDA block grant funds to develop new housing and to provide other types of housing assistance to eligible members, but fewer small grantees have developed new housing. Out of 359 grantees in fiscal year 2008, 102 received less than $250,000, with 22 of those reporting that they had developed new housing over the life of their participation in the program. Smaller grantees often provide tenant-based rental assistance and other such services to members, but HUD neither tracks activities that are not unit-based (units built, acquired, or rehabilitated) nor reports those activities to Congress. However, HUD is revising its reporting to track more activities, which should help efforts to assess the impact of NAHASDA. Most grantees that we surveyed and interviewed view NAHASDA as effective, largely because it emphasizes tribal self-determination. Grantees feel the program has helped to improve housing conditions and increase access to affordable housing, but they reported that developing housing finance mechanisms and increasing economic development remain as challenges. Housing-related infrastructure development is an affordable housing activity under NAHASDA, but HUD does not collect grantees' infrastructure plans or measure their infrastructure investments. Indian Health Service (IHS) data show an acute need for sanitation-related infrastructure in Indian housing, and 85 percent of grantees responding to our survey reported that developing infrastructure, such as providing homes with access to drinking water, was a continuing need. According to IHS officials, HUD can access IHS data on sanitation deficiencies under a 2007 memorandum of understanding between the agencies. HUD could use this data to track grantees' efforts to address a key need in their communities and broaden the scope of accomplishment data it reports to Congress. This data could also help grantees identify any unmet sanitation needs they might address with their NAHASDA grants.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In the United States, Native Americans disproportionately experience  socioeconomic challenges, including high unemployment and extreme  poverty, which impact housing conditions on Indian reservations and in  other Indian areas. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2008 that Native  Americans were almost twice as likely to live in poverty as the rest of the  population—27 percent compared with 15 percent. As a result,  overcrowding, substandard housing, and homelessness are far more  common in Native American communities; nearly 46 percent of Native  American households were overcrowded in 2008, a rate that was almost  three times as high as the rest of the country. The U.S. government’s  relationship with Native American tribes has historically been troubled,  making it difficult to address the needs of low-income Native Americans.  Since 1961, the government has sought to address Native Americans’ need  for more housing that is safe, decent, and affordable by allowing them  access to several housing programs beginning with the U.S. Housing Act of  1937 (1937 Act) and administered by the Department of Housing and  Urban Development (HUD). In October 1996, Congress went a step  further in creating a housing program for Native Americans that  recognized the tribes’ right to self-determination and self-governance. The  Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996  (NAHASDA) reorganized the system of housing assistance that HUD  provided to Native Americans by eliminating or incorporating several  separate programs Native Americans utilized into a single block grant  program—known as the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program— along with the Title VI Loan Guarantee (Title VI) program to assist  grantees with private market financing. NAHASDA was first funded in  fiscal year 1998, and in November 1998 we reported on its  implementation. Today, more than 360 grantees servicing approximately  555 tribes participate in NAHASDA’s block grant program—most grantees  have participated since its inception—with the goal of providing their  members with adequate and affordable housing.
In the 2008 reauthorization of NAHASDA, you asked us to assess the  effectiveness of NAHASDA in achieving its purposes of meeting the  affordable housing needs of low-income Native American families. You  asked that we look at the program’s effectiveness in meeting the needs of  tribes of various sizes, specifically with respect to smaller tribes or those  receiving lesser or minimum grant amounts. In this report, we evaluate (1)  how NAHASDA program funds have allowed Native American tribes to  address their affordable housing needs; (2) how, if at all, NAHASDA has  improved the process of providing Native American tribes with access to  federal funds to meet their affordable housing needs; and (3) the extent to  which NAHASDA funding has contributed to infrastructure improvements  in Native American communities.
In conducting this work, we reviewed NAHASDA’s legislative history and  HUD’s policies and procedures for administering the program. We also  reviewed previous congressional reports and testimonies, an Office of  Management and Budget report, our previous reports, and an independent  study of the program contracted by HUD. We obtained documents from  HUD related to NAHASDA grantee population and enrollment, grant  amounts awarded, and grantees’ use of funds to pursue eligible affordable  housing activities. We determined that the data HUD provided to us were  sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To obtain the perspectives of Native  American tribes and tribally designated housing entities participating in  NAHASDA, we conducted site visits with grantees in four of HUD’s six  Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) regions and conducted  telephone interviews with grantees in the two remaining regions, and we  surveyed all tribes and tribally designated housing entities that received a  grant in fiscal year 2008, obtaining a 66 percent response rate. For site  visits and telephone interviews, we selected 12 grantees (2 in each region)  based on such factors as 2008 population, enrollment, and grant size  relative to other regional grantees; housing activities reported to HUD; and  geographic location. We also met with officials from the National  American Indian Housing Council, a nonprofit housing advocacy  organization that represents American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native  Hawaiians; and Cherokee Freedmen representatives who advocate for  housing and other benefits for the Cherokee Freedmen. We interviewed  officials in ONAP headquarters and in each regional ONAP office. Finally,  we interviewed officials at the Indian Health Service, Bureau of Indian  Affairs, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development because  those agencies also provide assistance to Native American communities.  Appendix I contains a more detailed description of our scope and  methodology. Appendix III contains a brief history of the Cherokee  Freedmen and information pertaining to the Cherokee Nation’s provision  of housing assistance to Cherokee Freedmen members.
We conducted this performance audit in Alaska; Arizona; California;  Colorado; Illinois; Michigan; Montana; Oklahoma; Utah; Washington;  Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin from January 2009 to February 2010 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: NAHASDA authorized two HUD-administered programs—IHBG and Title  VI—that aim to provide affordable housing assistance to Native Americans  living on or near Indian tribal lands or areas, including assistance for  housing-related infrastructure. NAHASDA was first funded in fiscal year  1998 and was most recently reauthorized in 2008.
Prior to NAHASDA, Native Americans received assistance for affordable  housing under various programs aimed at providing housing assistance to  low-income families. For example, several of the programs were  authorized by the 1937 Act, including housing development and  modernization grants, operating subsidies, and Section 8 rental assistance.  Prior to NAHASDA, there were no specific provisions relating to the  unique circumstances of Native Americans living on or near tribal lands,  such as the federal government’s obligations to Native Americans through  treaties and legislation, the relationships between sovereign governments  (federal and tribal) with different laws, and the challenges with  development on trust lands. When NAHASDA was enacted in 1996, it  incorporated the major programs that served Native Americans into a  single block grant program (the IHBG program). NAHASDA also created  the Title VI program.
The IHBG program is a formula grant program that provides funding for  affordable housing activities to Native American tribes or tribally  designated housing entities (TDHE). The purpose of the Title VI program  is to assist IHBG recipients that are unable to obtain financing for eligible  affordable housing activities without a federal guarantee. Through the  IHBG and Title VI programs, NAHASDA aims to accomplish the following  statutory objectives:    assist and promote affordable housing activities to develop, maintain, and  operate affordable housing in safe and healthy environments on Indian  reservations and in other Indian areas for occupancy by low-income  Indian families;   ensure better access to private mortgage markets for Indian tribes and  their members and promote self-sufficiency of Indian tribes and their  members;   coordinate activities to provide housing for Indian tribes and their  members with federal, state, and local activities to further economic and  community development for Indian tribes and their members;   plan for and integrate infrastructure resources with housing development  for Indian tribes; and   promote the development of private capital markets in Indian country for  the benefit of Indian communities.
NAHASDA, as described in the statute, is “o provide federal assistance  for Indian tribes in a manner that recognizes the right of tribal self- governance, and for other purposes.” Under NAHASDA, tribes practice  self-governance or self-determination through (1) negotiated rulemaking,  (2) receiving funding directly rather than through Indian Housing  Authorities, and (3) determining the details of their housing programs.
Negotiated rulemaking is the process whereby an agency considering  drafting a rule brings together representatives of that agency and affected  parties for negotiations, consistent with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of  1990. ONAP consults with tribes on various matters. One important  element of these discussions is negotiated rulemaking, which allows  Native Americans to participate in developing regulations, including those  pertaining to the IHBG allocation formula. Before NAHASDA, HUD  provided most of its assistance to Native Americans through Indian  Housing Authorities in the same manner as public housing. With the  enactment of NAHASDA, tribes may choose to receive housing funds  directly or they may designate a TDHE to administer the housing program  on their behalf. Tribes and TDHEs can use IHBG funds for any eligible  NAHASDA activity. Finally, under NAHASDA, tribes are able to determine  (1) whom they serve (for example, giving preference to members of the  participating tribe); (2) what types of eligible activities they offer; and (3)  how they deliver their programs and projects.
Entities eligible for NAHASDA programs are federally recognized Indian  tribes or their TDHEs and a limited number of state recognized tribes that  were funded under the 1937 Act. Families that are eligible for NAHASDA- funded assistance are low-income Indian families—defined as Indian  families whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the area median  income—residing on a reservation or in an Indian area. Further,  NAHASDA requires that dwelling units be occupied, owned, leased,  purchased, or constructed by low-income families and that the dwelling  units remain affordable for the remaining useful life of the property.  According to HUD’s 2009 IHBG formula allocation data, 282,111 American  Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) households residing in NAHASDA  formula areas were low-income.
Under NAHASDA, there are seven eligible activities:  1.  Indian housing assistance, i.e. modernization or operating assistance  for 1937 Act units; 2.  housing development, including the acquisition, new construction, and  reconstruction or rehabilitation of affordable housing;  3.  housing services, including housing counseling and assistance to  owners, tenants, and contractors involved in eligible housing activities; 4.  housing management services for affordable housing, including loan  processing, inspections, and tenant selection; 5.  crime prevention and safety;  6.  model activities that provide creative approaches to solving affordable  7.  reserve accounts for administrative and planning activities related to  affordable housing.
Under NAHASDA, grantees can use a range of approaches to provide  homeownership and rental assistance. These include providing    homeownership units for purchase or lease-purchase through new  construction, acquisition (for example, purchase of existing units),  rehabilitation, or acquisition and rehabilitation; rental units through new construction, acquisition (for example, purchase  of existing units), rehabilitation, or acquisition and rehabilitation; rental units through conversion of existing structures or demolition and  replacement of existing structures;   homeownership assistance through acquisition (for example,  downpayment or closing cost assistance to the homebuyer) or acquisition  and rehabilitation; and  tenant-based rental assistance (residents pay up to 30 percent of their  adjusted income).
Grantees also can leverage NAHASDA funds by combining them with  funds from other federal, state, local, and private sources to support  eligible program activities. According to HUD, leveraging was not common  under the 1937 Act.
Since the enactment of NAHASDA, several legislative and regulatory  changes have occurred (see fig. 1). Those changes include the creation of  the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program in 2000 and the use of  grant funds for housing-related community development activities.  Funding for the IHBG program has remained steady. NAHASDA’s first  appropriation in fiscal year 1998 was $592 million, and average funding  was approximately $633 million between 1998 and 2009. The highest level  of funding was $691 million in 2002, and the lowest was $577 million in  1999. For fiscal year 2009, the program’s appropriation was $621 million.  However, when accounting for inflation, constant dollars have generally  decreased since the enactment of NAHASDA. The highest level of funding  in constant dollars was $779 million in 1998, and the lowest was $621  million in 2009.  Amounts cited above and in figure 1 are for the IHBG  program and exclude NAHASDA set-asides such as technical assistance  and Title VI funding.
ONAP, which administers NAHASDA, is part of HUD’s Office of Public and  Indian Housing and administers the Indian Community Development  Block Grant and the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee programs.  ONAP’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. and its Denver office direct the  administration of the IHBG program on the national level, while six  regional offices administer grants on the local level. Each regional office  contains two divisions: Grants Management, which provides funding,  technical assistance, and project support to grantees; and Grants  Evaluation, which reviews grantees’ performance and initiates  enforcement procedures when necessary.
NAHASDA changed HUD’s role and involvement in Native American  housing. Prior to NAHASDA, HUD had greater involvement in the  development of housing projects while also managing multiple programs  that served Native Americans. Several of the programs were competitive,  and HUD reviewed and scored project proposals for those programs and  awarded grants to the highest-ranked projects, in addition to distributing  funds through the other noncompetitive (formula-based) programs. Under  the competitive programs, HUD had greater influence over how funds  were spent. Under NAHASDA, HUD plays a more administrative role in  delivering housing benefits to Native Americans, providing funding  through a single, tribally negotiated grant allocation formula. HUD’s role is  (1) to provide grants, loan guarantees, and technical assistance to Indian  tribes and Alaska Native villages for the development and operation of  low-income housing in Indian areas; (2) to conduct oversight by ensuring  that reporting requirements are met and by monitoring grant recipients  onsite; and (3) to enforce remedies for noncompliant grant recipients.
Prior to NAHASDA, HUD distributed grants from multiple programs to 217  Indian Housing Authorities. Under NAHASDA, in fiscal year 2008, 535  tribes benefited from more than 350 IHBG grants. The amount of funding  is based on an allocation formula that has two components: (1) the costs  of operating and modernizing pre-NAHASDA HUD-funded units and (2)  the need for providing affordable housing activities. Need is calculated  based on seven different factors that include the grantee’s AI/AN  population and the number of households within that population that fall  in certain low-income categories (see fig. 2). Allocation amounts are  adjusted by local area costs for construction and rents. Because  population impacts all need factors in the grant allocation, larger grantees   (larger tribes operating their own housing programs or the TDHEs  representing those tribes) receive larger grants. Additionally, grantees that  own and operate pre-NAHASDA units receive both portions of the grant  while those without the pre-NAHASDA units receive only the need portion.  Since their inception, NAHASDA’s regulations have included a provision  for minimum funding. Tribes whose annual need allocation was less than  $50,000 in their first year of participation or less than $25,000 in  subsequent years have received minimum funding in those amounts (the  allocation is to the tribe, although the grantee might be a separate entity  operating the housing program). The minimum funding allocation was  revised for fiscal year 2008. In fiscal year 2008, individual grants ranged  from the minimum to more than $70 million.
According to the data HUD uses annually for the IHBG formula allocation,  each of the need factors has increased from 1999 to 2009. For example,  during this period, the number of AI/AN households living in overcrowded  units and units lacking kitchen facilities increased by almost 10 percent,  and the number of AI/AN households with housing expenses greater than  50 percent of their income increased by 43 percent. In order to receive  their grant distribution, grantees must submit an Indian Housing Plan  (IHP) for each program year. In the IHP, grantees identify their affordable  housing needs and describe the housing activities they plan to pursue to  address those needs. At the end of the program year, grantees also must  submit an Annual Performance Report (APR) that outlines actual  accomplishments and, if federal fiscal year expenditures are $500,000 or  more, the results of an independent audit. HUD is modifying its reporting  process and plans to implement a combined IHP and APR with several  revisions in fiscal year 2011. In addition to reporting, grantees must follow  requirements for environmental reviews, procurement and labor  standards, family eligibility, and accounting for program income.
As part of its oversight, HUD also conducts periodic onsite monitoring  visits with grantees using a risk-based approach to select which grantees it  will visit each year. Risk factors include grant size and the amount of time  since a grantee’s last visit. In fiscal year 2009, ONAP completed 60 onsite  monitoring visits with NAHASDA grantees nationwide. Additionally, HUD  has enforcement procedures for grantees found to be noncompliant with  program requirements. Enforcement procedures involve issuing (1) a  letter of warning, (2) a notice of intent to impose remedies if there is  continued noncompliance, and (3) imposition of remedies, which includes  the option of a hearing before a hearing officer. Enforcement can be  discontinued at any time if the grantee corrects the violation prior to the  imposition of remedies.
section_title: The IHBG Program Has Helped Tribes Address Some of Their Affordable Housing Needs, but HUD and Tribes Reported That Small Grantees Face Unique Challenges
paragraphs: Native American tribes receiving NAHASDA grants have used the funds to  develop new housing and to provide other types of housing assistance.  However, fewer small grantees, which receive lesser grants, have  developed new housing with NAHASDA funds compared to those  receiving larger grants, even though it is the primary federal housing  program for Native Americans. Many NAHASDA grantees, including those  receiving lesser grants, reported providing tenant-based rental assistance,  housing counseling, and downpayment assistance. Smaller grantees— those receiving less than $250,000 annually—often focus on providing  those services. The APR that HUD currently uses to track the use of grant  funds does not collect data on activities that are not unit-based (directly  involving housing units built, acquired, or rehabilitated). However, HUD is  revising its reporting to track more activities. Both HUD and grantees  agreed that the opportunity to leverage grant funds to secure funds from  other sources allows grantees to better address their affordable housing  needs. However, a lack of administrative capacity and other challenges  limit additional funding opportunities for some grantees.
subsections: section_title: Tribes Have Used IHBG Funds to Build, Acquire, and Rehabilitate Affordable Housing and to Provide Other Types of Housing Assistance
paragraphs: In recent years, Native American tribes and TDHEs receiving IHBG funds  under NAHASDA have used the funds to build, acquire, and rehabilitate  affordable housing units and to provide other types of housing assistance,  such as tenant-based rental assistance, housing counseling, and  downpayment assistance to eligible tribal members. During fiscal years  2003 through 2008, NAHASDA grantees collectively used IHBG funds to  build 8,130 homeownership and 5,011 rental units; acquire 3,811  homeownership and 800 rental units; and rehabilitate 27,422  homeownership and 5,289 rental units (see fig. 3).
HUD tracks the number of units that grantees build, acquire, and  rehabilitate using IHBG funds each fiscal year through the grantees’ APR.
Grantees use the APR, which serves as a self-assessment document, to  report on their use of grant funds at the end of each program year. The  APR also follows the Indian Housing Plan (IHP), which grantees submit to  HUD each program year to describe their affordable housing needs and  how they will use grant funds to address those needs.
Between 2003 and 2008, grantees developed more homeownership units  than rental units with IHBG funds. For example, the number of  homeownership units built was more than one and one-half times the  number of rental units built; the number of homeownership units acquired  was almost five times the number of rental units acquired; and the number  of homeownership units rehabilitated was more than five times the  number of rental units rehabilitated. National American Indian Housing  Council board members that also serve as executive directors for tribal  housing entities nationwide told us that while large-scale rental housing is  often needed, such properties are very expensive to maintain over time.  They said that, as a result, the associated costs provide a disincentive for  tribes to develop this type of housing. For example, the housing director of  one small grantee we visited showed us the tribe’s new senior apartment  community, which was funded in part by NAHASDA (see fig. 4). During  our visit, the director explained that he spends much of his own time  carrying out maintenance services at the facility.
Among NAHASDA grantees, during fiscal years 2003 through 2008, the  most common development activity was rehabilitation of existing units,  particularly homeownership units. In each fiscal year, the number of  homeownership units rehabilitated was substantially greater than the  number of homeownership units built or acquired. Grantees can use IHBG  funds to rehabilitate units owned by the tribe or TDHE or units owned by  private entities that will be occupied by eligible members, or they can  provide the funds to eligible homeowners for rehabilitation.
In addition to these unit-based activities, many grantees, including several  of those we interviewed, have used IHBG funds to provide tenant-based  rental assistance, housing or financial literacy counseling, and  downpayment assistance to eligible individuals and families. Based on the  results of our survey of all grantees for 2008, in fiscal years 2008 and 2009,  approximately 50 percent of grantees used IHBG funds to provide tenant- based rental assistance; more than 50 percent used IHBG funds to provide  housing or financial literacy counseling; and approximately 30 percent  used IHBG funds to provide downpayment assistance (see table 1).
Grantees that have housing stock developed with 1937 Act program funds,  or pre-NAHASDA housing stock, also can use IHBG funds to provide  modernization and operating assistance for those housing units. In fiscal  year 2008, HUD allocated IHBG funds to support modernization or  operation of 57,523 pre-NAHASDA units that grantees collectively  maintained in their housing inventories. HUD also tracks modernization  or operation of pre-NAHASDA units in the APR.
section_title: HUD and Tribes Reported That Small Grantees Face Challenges in Developing New Housing
paragraphs: HUD and tribes we interviewed and surveyed reported that small grantees,  which receive lesser grants, face particular challenges in building new  housing units with IHBG funds. The minimum grant amount in fiscal year  2008 was $48,660 ($49,715 for fiscal year 2009). For the purposes of our  review, we generally considered annual grants less than $250,000 to be  lesser grants and the grantees receiving those grants to be small grantees.  In fiscal year 2008, 102 out of 359 grantees received grants of less than  $250,000 to maintain existing housing, develop new housing, and pursue  other eligible activities under NAHASDA (see fig. 5).
Out of 227 grantees providing a survey response to whether they had built  new housing units using any IHBG funds since participating in NAHASDA,  159 (70 percent) indicated that they had built at least one unit (see table  2). Of the 22 small grantees in this group (those receiving less than  $250,000 in fiscal year 2008), the average number of units was  considerably small. The three grantees receiving less than $50,000 built an  average of four units over the life of their participation in the program,  compared with an average 12 units for the 19 grantees that received  between $50,000 and $250,000 in 2008. The larger grantees have built the  majority of units. The 22 grantees that responded to this survey question  and received $1 million or more in fiscal year 2008 built, on average,  almost 450 housing units each.
Among the 12 grantees we interviewed, 4 received less than $250,000 in  2008, and only 1 of the 4 received more than that amount in any of its prior  years in the program. Of those 4 grantees, only 1 had developed new  housing with IHBG funds. During our visit, the housing director showed us  a 10-home development that was completed in 2006 with IHBG and other  funding, including funding from another HUD program. Although the  grantee completed its first IHBG-funded development in 2006, it has  participated in NAHASDA since the program’s inception in fiscal year  1998. One other small grantee we interviewed also had developed new  housing, but not with IHBG funds. During our visit with the second  grantee, the tribal administrator explained that the grantee’s newest units  were funded with 1937 Act funds it received from HUD just before  NAHASDA’s implementation. That grantee also has participated in  NAHASDA since its inception.
Development of new housing can be difficult for smaller grantees  receiving lesser grants. ONAP officials and several grantees we  interviewed stated that new housing development with lesser grants or  minimum funding can take place only if the funds are accumulated over  several years or if development is done in phases or on a smaller scale (see  fig. 6). In many cases, new development is possible for those grantees only  if IHBG funds are leveraged (combined with funds from other sources), a  process which can involve additional challenges, which we will discuss  later in this report.
In our survey, we asked all respondents to suggest best practices or  effective strategies for grantees receiving less than $250,000 in annual  IHBG funds. Similar to what ONAP officials and the grantees we  interviewed said, many survey respondents suggested that grantees  receiving lesser grants pursue phased housing development, leveraging,  and small-scale development. Additionally, several respondents suggested  that the following actions can be helpful:    pool their resources (grant funds, staff, and expertise) with other small  grantees, such as under an umbrella TDHE or informally, and rotate new  development among grantees;    minimize administrative expenses (for example, by limiting staff to those  that have experience with housing programs or in grant writing) or work  with consultants; focus on small projects critical to the community, such as housing  rehabilitation or home maintenance, or on providing only rental assistance  and downpayment assistance; and   network with and seek technical assistance from other tribes, agency  officials, or NAIHC.
Further details on survey respondents’ suggestions for grantees receiving  less than $250,000 annually are discussed in Appendix II.
section_title: The Annual Performance Report Does Not Collect Data on Several Significant Eligible Housing Activities, but HUD Expects Revisions to Help Efforts to Assess the Impact of NAHASDA on Low-Income Native Americans
paragraphs: The APR that HUD uses to collect data on grantees’ use of IHBG funds  does not track several significant activities because HUD currently tracks  only unit-based activities in the APR. Grantees report on the number of  units they build, acquire, and rehabilitate as well as on the number of pre- NAHASDA units they operate and modernize using IHBG funds. However,  they are not required to report on the number of individuals or households  that receive tenant-based rental assistance, housing counseling, or  downpayment assistance. Grantees can include this type of information as  narrative in the APR, but HUD does not track it. As a result, it is not  included in HUD’s annual report to Congress on program  accomplishments for NAHASDA. Since HUD currently does not track and  report IHBG-funded activities that are not unit-based, smaller grantees that  receive lesser grants and either have not developed new housing or have  done so over several years also have not been able to adequately  demonstrate their use of IHBG funds. Those grantees often focus on  providing members with services such as rental and downpayment  assistance.
In addition to limitations in the information it captures, the current APR is  a multiyear report that requires grantees to report on multiple fiscal years  when prior year funds remain unspent. At present, a grant remains open  across fiscal years until the funds from that grant are fully expended. Both  ONAP officials and officials for two grantees we interviewed stated that  multiyear reporting can be confusing and can reduce the accuracy of the  data being reported. For example, ONAP headquarters officials explained  that some grants used to fund construction have remained open for  several years concurrently. According to the officials, this confuses  grantees’ reporting on use of funds as well as HUD’s administrative  process.
ONAP has begun revising the APR and plans to implement the revised  format in fiscal year 2011. The revised APR is expected to be a single-year  report, which should eliminate multiyear reporting inconsistencies.  Additionally, HUD’s planned revisions should allow grantees to report on  activities beyond housing units built, acquired, and rehabilitated and  demonstrate greater impact relative to those units—for example, the  number of students or elderly households assisted, or the number of  individuals moved into housing from homelessness or substandard  housing conditions. The new format also will expand general reporting  categories because HUD plans to track tenant-based rental assistance,  downpayment and closing-cost assistance, and homebuyer lending  subsidies. Finally, the IHP and APR will be a combined document, which  HUD believes will further simplify reporting. Measures that address a full  range of activities should help tribes receiving lesser grants to better  demonstrate how and to what extent NAHASDA funds are helping them  meet their affordable housing needs. Additionally, a more complete set of  program measures should help HUD and Congress better assess the extent  of NAHASDA’s impact on low-income Native Americans and whether the  program is a significant improvement over the programs it replaced.
section_title: HUD and Tribes Agreed that Leveraging Their IHBG Funds with Funds from Other Sources Allows Grantees to Better Address Their Affordable Housing Needs
paragraphs: HUD and tribes participating in NAHASDA agreed that the opportunity to  leverage IHBG funds with funds from other sources, a key component of  NAHASDA, allows grantees to better address their affordable housing  needs. HUD officials told us that the opportunity to leverage IHBG funds  to support affordable housing activities is a significant benefit for tribes  participating in NAHASDA, and a positive change for Native American  housing since leveraging was not common under 1937 Act programs.  Moreover, an official in one regional ONAP office described leveraging as  a core concept of NAHASDA. While leveraging HUD funds was allowed  prior to NAHASDA, two separate regional officials explained that  leveraging still had been a relatively new concept for HUD and tribes since  the public housing structure under which tribes previously received  assistance did not encourage leveraging. NAHASDA requires that grantees  explain how grant funds will allow them to leverage additional resources  in their annual IHP.
As part of self-determination, grantees prioritize how they use grant funds  to address a variety of housing needs that qualify as eligible NAHASDA  activities. With regard to leveraging IHBG funds, ONAP officials in one  region stated that none of the grantees in that region was so successful or  received so large a grant that it did not need additional support to address  its housing needs. In several regional offices, the officials told us that they  provide resources to assist grantees with leveraging. Some offices had a  staff member who was dedicated to helping grantees identify leveraging  opportunities and providing them with technical assistance. However, one  regional official noted that regional staff members do not assist grantees  with completing applications for funding.
Half of the grantees we interviewed and 48 percent (100/209) of survey  respondents answering a question on the role leveraging plays in their  ability to fund affordable housing development and activities said that it  plays a great or very great role. Many of the grantees participating in  leveraging activities explained that IHBG funding alone is insufficient to  adequately address their communities’ affordable housing needs. The  housing director of one large grantee we visited told us that, instead of  using IHBG funds independently to support housing activities, he focused  on leveraging the funds to obtain additional support. He said he viewed  NAHASDA as opening up the opportunity for tribes to use as many  resources as possible to fund their housing needs. The housing director of  a second large grantee we visited explained that nearly all of the grantee’s  70-plus IHBG-funded units had been built with a combination of funds  from the IHBG program and other sources. A third housing director  provided us with records showing that, since NAHASDA’s inception in  1998, the grantee had leveraged its IHBG funds to secure additional  funding for housing development at an almost one-to-one ratio. Survey  respondents leveraging their IHBG funds provided similar comments. They  stated that leveraging is necessary either to fully fund a development  project; to pursue both development and rehabilitation; to build multiple  housing units; or to generally address their communities’ affordable  housing needs. Some respondents offered examples of how combined  funding from the IHBG program and other sources allowed them to  address specific housing needs, including funding a new housing  rehabilitation program for members, purchasing units to address  overcrowding and homelessness, and providing homebuyer assistance.
Based on our interviews with NAHASDA grantees and on survey  responses grantees provided, we found that grantees generally use the  Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) program and the  Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee program in combination with  the IHBG program to fund affordable housing activities. Both the ICDBG  and Section 184 are HUD programs. Some grantees also use programs  provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural  Development, and some larger grantees use the Low-Income Housing Tax  Credit program (see table 3).
Of the 12 grantees we interviewed, 8 told us that either the TDHE or the  tribe itself had received competitively awarded grants through the ICDBG  program and used those grants to fund a variety of projects. In addition to  housing development, the projects included providing water and sewer  systems; community buildings, such as a foster care facility and public  safety building; flood protection for homes; and small business incubators  (see fig. 7). Among survey respondents, participation in the ICDBG  program in individual ONAP regions was between 60 and 95 percent, with  the highest participation rate in the Northern Plains region, followed by  the Northwest region. Five of the 12 grantees we interviewed said they  had used the Section 184 loan program, and two others said they would  consider the program in future leveraging efforts. Among survey  respondents, participation in the Section 184 loan program in individual  ONAP regions was more varied, from 39 to 85 percent, with the highest  participation rate in the Northern Plains region, followed closely by the  Northwest region.
Although USDA’s Rural Development provides low-income housing  assistance through several programs for which Native American tribes or  their members are eligible, few NAHASDA grantees use the three USDA  programs we asked about in our survey. Several grantees we interviewed  said they participated in at least one USDA program in combination with  the IHBG program; however, overall numbers from our survey show that  only 10 percent of grantees reported using USDA’s Section 515 program  (Rural Rental Housing) and 18 percent reported using the Section 502  program (Single-Family Housing). USDA Rural Development officials told  us they were surprised the figures were so low, especially given that  Native American areas (along with the Mississippi Delta, Appalachia, and  the Colonias on the Mexican border) are among the primary areas they  target in order to serve some of the poorest and worst housed groups in  the nation. They also said that they have set-asides under the Section 515  program for new construction on tribal lands. Several of the grantees we  interviewed told us that they had little or no interaction with USDA local  field office officials, and when they did, it was usually at their tribe’s  initiative. For example, one small grantee’s housing director said that he  was aware that some USDA programs might benefit his tribe, but that he  had not had any contact with officials at the local USDA office, even  though the office is about one hour away. USDA also told us that they are  currently developing a more targeted outreach strategy that identifies  tribal housing authorities as critical intermediaries and partners in raising  the visibility of USDA Rural Development’s programs in Indian country.
Some larger grantees also use Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)  programs in combination with the IHBG program to fund affordable  housing activities (see figs. 8 and 9). For each ONAP region, we  interviewed two grantees whose population and grant size varied widely.  As such, of the 12 grantees we interviewed, we make references to the “six  smaller” or “six larger” grantees. Five of the six larger grantees we  interviewed said that they currently use or had used LIHTC programs.  Similarly, 96 percent of survey respondents who said they participate in  LIHTC programs received grants of at least $250,000 in fiscal year 2008.
section_title: Lack of Administrative Capacity and Other Challenges Limit Additional Funding Opportunities for Some Grantees
paragraphs: According to HUD officials and the grantees we interviewed, some  grantees are limited in their ability to seek additional funds, including  those that (1) have limited administrative resources, which prevents them  from participating in a variety of programs; (2) are too small to qualify for  LIHTC programs, which may require the development of a minimum  number of housing units to serve a significant proportion of the low- income population; and (3) undergo frequent administrative turnover.  Additionally, though most of the grantees agreed that leveraging their  IHBG funds by combining them with funds from other sources is  beneficial, most grantees participating in multiple programs were larger  grantees. And, among the 48 percent of survey respondents indicating that  leveraging plays a great or very great role in their ability to fund affordable  housing and related activities, 81 percent received at least $250,000 in  IHBG funds in 2008. Of the respondents indicating that leveraging plays  some, little, or no role in funding affordable housing, 66 percent reported  having 5 or fewer persons on their housing staff (staff that manage,  administer, and prepare grants or reports for the grantee’s housing  program).
All six of the smaller grantees we interviewed said they lacked some  aspect of administrative capacity (such as housing staff resources,  expertise, and time), which limits or prevents their participation in other  programs or their ability to compete for non-NAHASDA funds. Three of  the six smaller grantees had not applied for funding from other federal  agencies, and three had not applied for or had experienced challenges  applying for the ICDBG program, though ICDBG participation is high  among grantees overall. Two of the six grantees also had not applied for  the competitive portion of NAHASDA stimulus funds due to time  constraints or to not having a grant writer to prepare a competitive  proposal. Grantees we interviewed and those responding to our survey  also reported that burdensome administrative requirements impact their  ability to participate in NAHASDA and other housing programs (see fig.  10). The grants planner for one small grantee we visited said his tribe  declined the IHBG grant one year because it determined the grant amount  would not justify the effort and cost of participating in the program. The  housing director of another small grantee explained that while leveraging  offers the ability to stretch dollars, without enough funding to pay for the  necessary staff resources, it is very difficult to take on the extra burden of  making different funding sources work together.
As noted, five of the six larger grantees we interviewed indicated they had  participated in LIHTC programs. However, none of the smaller grantees  we interviewed indicated that they had participated in LIHTC programs,  and two explained that such programs would require more resources than  were available to them. For example, the housing director of one of the  smaller grantees said that they had considered participating in a LIHTC  program, but found they could not undertake the required scale of  development. HUD data supports this assessment. According to HUD, of  16,754 LIHTC projects placed into service between 1995 and 2006, only  about 17 percent of the projects had 20 or fewer units.
Limited resources mainly impact smaller grantees that receive lesser  grants, but grantees of any size may experience frequent turnover in  housing and management staff that affect the continuity of housing plans  and activities. One housing director explained that frequent turnover in  housing management and staff can contribute to a lack of knowledge of  implementing housing programs and lack of consistency in the grantee’s  housing plan.
Incompatibility among different funding programs was cited by 68 percent  of survey respondents as a challenge to leveraging. Some other funding  programs may be incompatible with the IHBG program due to conflicting  requirements, such as requirements for eligible beneficiaries. In addition,  68 percent of survey respondents identified lack of coordination between  agencies providing funding as a leveraging challenge. Several grantees we  interviewed reported that a lack of coordination between HUD and other  funding agencies limits their efforts to combine IHBG funds with funds  from those other agencies. For example, the grantees explained that, like  HUD, various agencies require grantees to complete environmental  reviews when they receive funds to develop housing and related  infrastructure. However, they said that HUD generally does not accept  environmental reviews that meet other agencies’ requirements, making it  necessary for them to have multiple reviews carried out.
Officials from NAIHC and three grantees we interviewed also reported that  limited interest from financial institutions is an ongoing challenge for  tribal entities in obtaining financing for housing development. They said  that many banks are reluctant to do business with tribes because of  cumbersome procedures or lack of experience. For example, they  explained that the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) process for issuing land  title or trust status reports when a mortgage is made on trust lands is  lengthy and inefficient. Several grantees explained that BIA’s process for  issuing this paperwork can take months or years, making such  transactions impractical for lenders and difficult for members pursuing  homeownership or receiving homeownership assistance. In 1998 we  reported that from 1992 through 1996, lenders made only 91 conventional  home purchase loans to Native Americans on trust lands (80 of which  went to members of only two tribes), largely because lenders have a  limited understanding of land ownership, jurisdiction, and legal issues  pertaining to Native American trust lands.
A more recent source notes that while federal programs and other efforts  subsequently encouraged greater lending to Native Americans on trust  lands, challenges remain. Both the Section 184 and NAHASDA’s Title VI  loan guarantee programs aim to provide an incentive for private lenders to  make housing loans to tribes and their members. In comparison with the  Section 184 program, participation in Title VI was low among grantees we  interviewed and those responding to our survey. Two of the 12 grantees  we interviewed and 17 percent (33/199) of survey respondents said they  had participated in Title VI. Data we received from ONAP on both loan  programs support what we found on Section 184 and Title VI participation.  In fiscal year 2008, HUD provided guarantees for 1,577 Section 184 loans  totaling $274.8 million compared with only 8 Title VI loans totaling $14.2  million. And, in fiscal year 2009, HUD provided guarantees for 2,401  Section 184 loans totaling $395.4 million compared with only 6 Title VI  loans totaling $12.8 million. However, Title VI is a newer loan program and  it offers lenders a 95 percent federal guarantee, compared with the Section  184 program’s 100 percent guarantee. Some individual grantees also have  made efforts to facilitate lending in their communities. For example, one  grantee we met with had an agreement with BIA to do title permitting  onsite in order to expedite the title process for Section 184 program loans,  and two other grantees we interviewed had established their own banks.
section_title: Survey Respondents and Tribes We Interviewed Generally Viewed NAHASDA as Effective in Meeting Their Low-Income Housing Needs, but Some Reported Challenges, Including Concerns with the Allocation Formula
paragraphs: Grantees responding to our survey and those we interviewed generally  viewed NAHASDA as an effective affordable housing program and as an  improvement over the programs it replaced. A primary reason was that  NAHASDA emphasizes tribal self-determination, which is the right to use  grant funds with minimal restrictions to meet tribes’ self-identified housing  needs. Survey respondents reported that they view NAHASDA as most  effective at providing homeownership opportunities and improving  housing conditions for low-income Native Americans. However, some  grantees we spoke with and some responding to our survey had specific  concerns about NAHASDA, such as problems with meeting what they  considered to be onerous regulatory requirements and perceived  inequities in the grant allocation formula. Negotiated rulemaking between  HUD and tribes participating in NAHASDA provides the tribes with an  opportunity to address their concerns with NAHASDA’s regulations,  including concerns pertaining to the grant allocation formula.
subsections: section_title: Tribes View NAHASDA as Effective at Addressing Their Affordable Housing Needs and as an Improvement over the HUD Programs It Replaced
paragraphs: Based on our survey of and interviews with NAHASDA grantees, most  grantees view NAHASDA as an effective low-income housing program, and  a primary reason was NAHASDA’s recognition of tribal self-determination.  Of the 223 survey respondents that provided views on NAHASDA’s  effectiveness, almost 90 percent (200 grantees) reported that the program  has had a positive effect in helping them to meet their affordable housing  needs (see table 4). Of those 200 grantees, more than half (110 grantees)  reported that NAHASDA has had a very positive effect. Similarly, 8 of the  12 grantees we interviewed told us that NAHASDA has simplified the  process of providing housing benefits for their tribes. However, 5 of the 8  grantees who said that NAHASDA has simplified the process of accessing  affordable housing benefits also mentioned some cumbersome aspects to  the program, such as the reporting requirements.
Among survey respondents, there were some minor differences in the  results across grantees receiving grants of various sizes. Of the 47 survey  respondents that provided views on NAHASDA’s effectiveness and that  received a grant less than $250,000 in fiscal year 2008, 46 had a generally  positive or very positive view of NAHASDA’s effectiveness (see table 5). In  contrast with this consistently positive view of NAHASDA among  respondents that received lesser grants, eight grantees that received more  than $250,000 reported negative views on NAHASDA’s effectiveness. Our  analysis of survey respondents’ written explanations shows that some  grantees preferred the 1937 Act housing programs because they were able  to successfully compete for funds. Officials we spoke with at NAIHC said  that larger tribes with sophisticated housing departments were more likely  to view NAHASDA as less effective than the 1937 Act programs it replaced  because they may receive less funding under the block grant formula.
We asked survey respondents to provide explanations to support their  overall views of NAHASDA, and most that viewed NAHASDA positively  wrote that the program helps them meet their overall affordable housing  needs. However, of those that provided more specific reasons for  NAHASDA’s positive impact, most respondents mentioned that the  program has been effective because it allows the grantee to  target specific housing needs for their tribe, such as increasing energy  efficiency in affordable units (56 responses);   exercise self-determination and program flexibility (19 responses); and  leverage their NAHASDA grant with funding from other sources (10  responses).
We also surveyed grantees on the extent to which they thought NAHASDA  was effective at meeting certain programmatic goals. We found that survey  respondents viewed NAHASDA as very effective at improving housing  conditions and increasing access to affordable rental housing and  homeownership, but less effective at developing housing finance  mechanisms and increasing economic development on Indian lands (see  fig. 11).
One survey respondent primarily operating in an urban area wrote that  under NAHASDA, they have been able to develop mixed-use housing in  their region and have been able to supplement the housing they provide  with social support services. Similarly, another survey respondent wrote  that under NAHASDA, they have been able to maintain existing housing  units and provide financial literacy training to the community as well as  counseling to aid prospective homeowners in the tribe.
We asked survey respondents to compare their experiences under  NAHASDA with experiences under the 1937 Act housing programs it  replaced in 1998. Of the 138 respondents that checked that they had  participated in the 1937 Act programs, 102 grantees—or about 74  percent—reported that NAHASDA is an improvement over the programs it  replaced. Of those that viewed NAHASDA as an improvement, about  half—53 out of 102—checked that NAHASDA was much better. Only 17  reported that NAHASDA was worse or much worse than the 1937 Act  programs it replaced (see table 6).
The grantees we interviewed also viewed NAHASDA as an improvement  over 1937 Act housing programs, and all of them identified self- determination as the main reason. For example, one grantee we  interviewed said that because of the flexibility afforded by NAHASDA,  their tribe was able to buy housing units in urban areas rather than on  their reservation and rent the units to low-income members. This grantee  explained that they intended to provide housing in locations that had more  opportunities for employment so that program beneficiaries could become  increasingly self-sufficient.
Self-determination was also the most common reason that survey  respondents favored NAHASDA over the previous housing programs. The  102 survey respondents reporting that NAHASDA was better or much  better provided 85 written reasons for their answers. We analyzed their  responses and found that the largest group—65 responses—said that  NAHASDA was an improvement because it provided for tribal self- determination. For example, one survey respondent wrote that each tribe  has unique housing needs influenced by their specific cultures, economic  conditions, and physical environments and that NAHASDA has been a  drastic improvement because it allows tribes the flexibility to meet those  needs. Another respondent wrote that although the funding levels have  effectively dropped with NAHASDA, the program has allowed tribes to be  more flexible with how they spend the grant, allowing for a more effective  use of the limited funding. For those survey respondents that provided  explanations on how NAHASDA was worse or much worse than the  programs it replaced, the main reasons provided were    NAHASDA provides less funding than previous programs (six responses)
NAHASDA is a block grant, which does not reward those tribes that have  the capacity to apply for and win competitive housing grants (five  responses); and   NAHASDA has too many administrative and regulatory requirements (five  responses).
section_title: Tribes Recommended Loosening Administrative Burdens to Improve the Program and Reported Limitations in the NAHASDA Grant Allocation Formula as a Major Challenge
paragraphs: Respondents to our survey provided a total of 133 distinct  recommendations on how to improve NAHASDA, and most of the  respondents wrote that certain administrative rules and obligations were  too onerous (see table 7). Most commonly, those respondents cited  mandatory environmental reviews as overly cumbersome. Others noted  certain administrative restrictions on their funds; for example, some said  that the cap on the portion of the grant they can use for administrative  expenses was arbitrary and limited their administrative capacity.  Specifically, one respondent wrote that determining the amount spent on  administrative costs should be up to each tribe so that tribes can manage  their own programs as they see fit.
Grantees we interviewed identified limitations in the grant allocation  formula as a particular challenge with the IHBG program. They told us that  they believe the allocation formula is either based on inaccurate data (for  example, enrollment numbers or area construction costs) or does not  consider certain key factors, such as a lack of land to develop housing. In  calculating a grantee’s annual allocation, the formula considers such  factors as fair market rent and total development cost for a grantee’s local  area. However, the formula does not take into account whether a tribe has  buildable land to use for housing development in the calculation of total  development cost or as a separate factor. The housing director of one  small grantee we visited that did not own trust land reported that they had  to first allocate grant funds to purchase land for any new development.  Similarly, of the 201 survey respondents that provided an opinion  specifically on the grant allocation formula, 159 grantees—or nearly 80  percent—said the formula could be improved. And, of those survey  respondents that checked certain problems with utilizing NAHASDA, 46  percent of respondents said that the formula is based on inaccurate data,  and 64 percent said that it does not consider certain factors such as  properly accounting for construction costs or the cost of purchasing land  for development. Survey respondents provided a total of 159 suggestions  on how the IHBG allocation formula could be improved, and most  recommended that the demographic data used in determining the need  portion of the grant be updated (see table 8). For example, multiple survey  respondents said that U.S. Census figures do not accurately reflect the  population for which they provide housing services.
Two of the grantees we interviewed and some survey respondents also  said that the IHBG operation and maintenance subsidy that currently  supports 1937 Act units should extend to NAHASDA-funded units. During  our visit with one of the grantees we interviewed, the housing director  explained that because their NAHASDA units are low-income, the tribe  would likely need assistance with upkeep to ensure that they maintain  their value.
In addition, several of the 12 grantees we interviewed stated that the  minimum IHBG grant of around $50,000 per year is insufficient for those  who receive it to pursue any significant housing activities, especially new  housing development. Some survey respondents provided similar  comments about the minimum grant amount. Moreover, ONAP officials in  all six regions stated that grantees receiving lesser grants, including the  minimum, are limited in their ability to address their affordable housing  needs.
However, ONAP headquarters officials explained that tribes participate in  developing regulations for the grant allocation formula, including  establishing a minimum grant amount, through negotiated rulemaking with  HUD. They informed us that the negotiated rulemaking committee will be  convened in March 2010 to determine regulations that implement October  2008 statutory changes to NAHASDA. They also confirmed that the May  2012 committee agenda will include reviewing the allocation formula.
section_title: Almost Half of the Grantees We Surveyed Use IHBG Funds for Infrastructure Development, but HUD Does Not Collect Grantees’ Plans or Monitor Their Investments in Housing-Related Infrastructure
paragraphs: Of the 232 NAHASDA grantees responding to our survey, 70 percent  viewed investment in housing-related infrastructure—such as connecting a  home to a local water supply—as a great housing need, but slightly less  than half indicated that they use IHBG funds to develop infrastructure (see  fig. 12). Additionally, we found that HUD does not collect grantees’  infrastructure plans or measure their investments in infrastructure for  affordable homes funded by the IHBG program. According to data from  the Department of Health and Human Services’ Indian Health Service  (IHS), there is an acute need for sanitation-related infrastructure for  Indian housing in general, and our survey indicates a significant need for  adequate sanitation infrastructure for homes funded by HUD programs.  Some IHS officials also told us that they have found instances where HUD  homes were built with insufficient planning, taxing existing water supplies  and wastewater systems. Although HUD does not collect information on  the sanitation infrastructure needs for HUD homes, IHS does collect such  information and, according to IHS officials, can make it available to HUD  under a 2007 memorandum of understanding between the agencies.
subsections: section_title: Seventy Percent of Survey Respondents Viewed Housing-Related Infrastructure as a Great Need, but Only About Half Report Using IHBG Funds to Help Meet that Need
paragraphs: Out of 232 NAHASDA grantees that responded to our survey, 85 percent  (198 grantees) reported that developing infrastructure, such as providing  homes with access to drinking water, was a continuing need for their tribe.  And, 70 percent (164 grantees) said that developing infrastructure was a  great or very great need. Additionally, grantees that responded to our  survey ranked adding or updating housing-related infrastructure 4th out of  13 greatest continuing housing needs, after constructing new units,  rehabilitating existing units, and operating and maintaining units (see fig.  13).
Despite this demonstrated need for infrastructure development, slightly  less than half of the survey respondents—98 of the 222 who responded to  this question—reported that they actually use their IHBG grant for  infrastructure development (see fig. 14). Some of the grantees that  responded to our survey explained that they have a pronounced need for  infrastructure development and that they often do not receive enough  funding to address infrastructure with the IHBG program. Of those  grantees that we spoke with, smaller grantees were less likely to use the  IHBG program for infrastructure, either because they do not receive  enough funding to address their needs or because they provide assistance  to persons living in units that are on a city- or county-funded infrastructure  system. Indeed, the results of our survey show that, of the grantees  receiving a large grant, twice as many used IHBG funds for infrastructure  development as those receiving a small grant.
Officials in four of the six regional ONAP offices, as well as half of the IHS  field directors that we spoke with, said that because of the need for  affordable housing for most tribes, tribal housing departments may be  providing housing units without adequate infrastructure to support those  units. Although the grantees we interviewed did not say that they built  homes with inadequate infrastructure, six said that they use or intend to  use other programs to help meet their infrastructure needs.
NAHASDA emphasizes tribal self-determination by providing a  noncompetitive block grant to tribes, but survey respondents that  provided views on problems with the program said that the greatest  problem—out of a list of six most common problems—is a lack of funding  specifically for housing-related infrastructure (see fig. 15).
Housing-related infrastructure development is an affordable housing  activity under NAHASDA. ONAP officials, especially those in the regional  offices, said that prior to NAHASDA, they worked with IHS to identify all  infrastructure needs for housing developments funded by HUD. Under  NAHASDA, however, tribes have the flexibility to determine the uses of  their funding within the scope of eligible activities, including the extent to  which they want to use the IHBG program for infrastructure development.
Instead of using the IHBG program, survey respondents reported that they  were more likely to fund their infrastructure development using other  funding sources (see table 9). Although some tribes rely on other  programs to help fund their infrastructure development, our interviews  with grantees and findings from a 2003 NAIHC study indicate that non- IHBG programs for infrastructure development—such as programs  administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, HUD, and USDA— have characteristics that present challenges to some tribes. For example,  while the study found that the ICDBG program was a sought-after program  for IHBG grantees to fund infrastructure projects, it was only available to  tribes that have the administrative capacity to meet the application  requirements. Furthermore, our analysis found that the ICDBG program is  consistently funded at about one-tenth the level of the IHBG program,  making it much smaller. In addition, since IHS is statutorily prohibited  from funding sanitation facility construction projects for IHBG-funded  units, some survey respondents and grantees we spoke with said that they  were disappointed that IHS would not provide the sanitation infrastructure  support without reimbursement from the tribe.
section_title: HUD Does Not Collect Information on Grantees’ Infrastructure Needs or the Amounts Grantees Invest in Housing-Related Infrastructure Development
paragraphs: HUD’s primary tools for monitoring grantees’ uses of IHBG funds are the  IHP and the APR. In our review of the IHP, which describes grantees’  plans for the coming year, we found that it does not provide a means for  HUD to systematically collect information from grantees on both their  housing-related infrastructure needs and their plans to address those  needs, including infrastructure for new housing construction. The IHP  collects information on some of grantees’ estimated housing needs, such  as the number of families who need housing because they are living in  overcrowded conditions. The IHP also collects information on grantees’  plans to address those stated needs, such as by constructing new housing  to alleviate the overcrowded conditions. However, although it does cover  many important housing-related activities the IHP does not require  grantees to describe how they intend to address any existing infrastructure  deficiencies, such as a home with inadequate access to potable water. In  addition, the IHP does not require grantees to describe what infrastructure  development a new construction project will require and how that  infrastructure will be funded.
The APR, which describes grantees’ accomplishments during the past  year, provides grantees the opportunity to report how they are carrying  out the plans and addressing the housing needs outlined in the IHP. In our  review of the APR, we found that because it is based on activities  described in the IHP, it also lacks an assessment of how a tribe is meeting  the infrastructure needs of its low-income members. HUD officials we  spoke with confirmed that the APR does not track grantees’ infrastructure  investments. Although the IHP and the APR allow grantees to describe any  needs and plans—including those for infrastructure development—in a  narrative format, we learned that those narratives are not included in  ONAP’s reporting system, which means that these components are not  used in HUD’s overall reports to Congress. Further, one grantee that we  spoke with said that they do not believe HUD officials actually review the  narratives or track them so they do not take the time to list activities that  are not measured, such as infrastructure-related needs and plans.
As previously noted, HUD is planning to combine the IHP and the APR by  fiscal year 2011. We reviewed a draft of this document and found that  while it does a better job of tracking grantees’ uses of NAHASDA funds,  from identifying affordable housing needs to assessing the impact of  completed housing development, it does not systematically assess  grantees’ needs, plans, or investments related to infrastructure  development. Because grantees are not required to report on or to quantify  their need for and investments in infrastructure, HUD may lack the  information necessary to assess the extent to which NAHASDA is meeting  its statutory objectives of improving the health and safety of low-income  Native Americans and integrating infrastructure resources to support  housing development.
section_title: The Indian Health Service Has Found That Inadequate Sanitation Infrastructure Is an Acute Problem for Native Americans, but HUD Has Not Used Health Service Data to Help Inform IHBG Grantees of Any Identified Deficiencies
paragraphs: Of the 98 survey respondents that reported using IHBG funds for  infrastructure, the majority reported using the IHBG program to provide  access to clean water and to provide for wastewater removal (see fig. 16).  Similarly, grantees that we spoke with, and some responding to our  survey, explained that sanitation infrastructure, such as providing access  to clean drinking water and providing for the safe, reliable removal of  wastewater, was an important type of infrastructure for low-income  housing. According to IHS, access to adequate sanitation facilities is a vital  public health issue for Native Americans. Adequate access to safe drinking  water helps to stem the spread of disease, and proper wastewater removal  systems help reduce the incidence of bacteria, viruses, and parasites that  cause communicable diseases like typhoid and hepatitis A.
Government data sources show that there is still an acute need for  adequate sanitation infrastructure on Indian lands. The U.S. Census  estimated that in 2008 Native American households were five times as  likely to have incomplete plumbing as the rest of the population. And,  according to a March 2008 draft report issued by an interagency  infrastructure task force written pursuant to the United Nation’s  Millennium Challenge Goals, approximately 43,800 housing units occupied  by Native Americans—or about 13 percent of Native American homes— had inadequate access to safe drinking water and wastewater disposal  systems in 2007.
The report noted a slight improvement since the benchmark year, 2003,  when there were 44,234 homes with inadequate infrastructure. However, it  concluded that this rate of decrease was not sufficient to meet the U.S.  government’s goal of reducing the number of Native American homes with  inadequate sanitation facilities to half of the 2003 figure by 2015. HUD  officials we spoke with told us that they joined this task force at its  inception in 2003 and signed a memorandum of understanding with the  other members of the task force, including IHS, to facilitate interagency  coordination to meet the United Nations goal.
The data used in the report were collected by IHS’s Sanitation Tracking  and Reporting System, a database that tracks reported sanitation  deficiencies for most Native American communities. Although IHS is  statutorily precluded from funding sanitation construction services for  HUD homes, IHS is authorized to and actively collects data on the  infrastructure needs for those homes as long as the data are reported by  their tribal counterparts. IHS officials we spoke with in headquarters and  five of the ten officials we contacted in field offices said that they have  found instances where tribes in their region have built homes using  NAHASDA funding with inadequate planning for sanitation infrastructure.  For example, one official told us that his field office has been contacted by  individual tribal members about NAHASDA homes with inadequate sewer  lines or inadequate drains. He added that, in general, tribal housing  departments may feel pressure from their community to maximize the  number of housing units produced and that this pressure may lead to more  units being built at the expense of adequate infrastructure for the units.  The other five field directors said that they have not seen tribes build  NAHASDA homes with inadequate infrastructure, but three of these five  acknowledged that NAHASDA homes could be stretching existing  infrastructure facilities in certain communities. For example, one director  told us that because NAHASDA homes are often built within existing  housing developments, as tribes add homes to existing communities, the  communities’ underlying sanitation infrastructure may increasingly be  burdened with those homes.
HUD officials we spoke with said that they also do not have the data  necessary to measure the extent to which HUD-funded homes need  updated infrastructure investment. However, according to IHS officials,  HUD can access IHS’s sanitation deficiency database pursuant to a 2007  memorandum of understanding that specifically authorizes data sharing  between IHS, HUD, and other agencies.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Native American tribes generally have a positive view of NAHASDA, and  most see it as an improvement over the housing programs previously  available to them, in large part because of NAHASDA’s emphasis on self- determination for the tribes. However, small grantees that receive lesser  grants reported facing challenges in building new housing and in trying to  leverage their grant funds to secure additional funding for affordable  housing activities. Reporting on NAHASDA accomplishments is currently  limited primarily to building, acquiring, and rehabilitating housing units,  despite the fact that many tribes use NAHASDA funds for other eligible  purposes. Because of this limitation in reporting, HUD has not collected a  full set of data on NAHASDA. As a result, Congress has not had a complete  picture of the program’s accomplishments. However, the revisions HUD  plans to make to the Indian Housing Plan (IHP) and Annual Performance  Report (APR) should address some reporting limitations, which should  help efforts to assess the impact of NAHASDA on low-income Native  Americans.
NAHASDA also has helped some tribes with infrastructure development,  but infrastructure continues to be a pressing need for many tribes,  particularly in the area of sanitation. HUD does not currently collect  grantees’ assessments of their housing-related infrastructure needs or data  on how they use grant funds to address those needs, and planned revisions  to the IHP and APR do not address reporting on infrastructure. As a result,  additional opportunities exist for HUD to collect such information, which  would allow it to track grantees’ efforts to address a key need in their  communities and would broaden the scope of accomplishment data that  HUD can report to Congress.
Furthermore, comprehensive data on tribes’ infrastructure needs as they  pertain to sanitation facilities are already collected by IHS and are  available to HUD under an interagency memorandum of understanding. If  HUD were to obtain this data and share it with grantees, the data could  help tribes identify any unmet sanitation needs that they might include in  their reporting and address with their NAHASDA grants.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better assess the extent to which NAHASDA is meeting its objectives of  providing safe and healthy homes and coordinating infrastructure with  housing development for low-income Native Americans, we recommend  that HUD’s Office of Native American Programs ensure that its revised  Indian Housing Plan and Annual Performance Report:    capture data on tribes’ infrastructure-related needs;    capture tribes’ plans for addressing their identified infrastructure needs;    measure the extent to which NAHASDA grantees are using IHBG funds  and Title VI loan guarantees for housing-related infrastructure  development; and   assess the effectiveness of infrastructure development in meeting the  needs of low-income Native Americans, such as by measuring the number  of low-income Native Americans that have better access to drinking water  or a safe heat source.
To help grantees identify their existing sanitation infrastructure needs, we  recommend that HUD provide them with sanitation deficiency data  obtained from IHS on homes in the grantees’ service area—particularly for  those homes that are statutorily precluded from receiving IHS-funded  sanitation construction services.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to HUD for review and comment. HUD’s  Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs provided  written comments that are discussed below and presented in Appendix IV.
HUD stated that our report is generally positive and would be a very useful  document. HUD also requested that we change the report title to reflect  only the generally positive view of the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG)  program under NAHASDA. However, we thought it necessary to include  language on an issue for which the report makes recommendations to  HUD.
HUD also agreed with our conclusions and recommendations, noting that  while there have been improvements, our conclusion that there is still a  significant need for adequate infrastructure to support Indian housing is  accurate. Additionally, HUD stated, and we agree, that HUD and the Indian  Health Service (IHS) should continue to work together to address these  problems. As indicated in our conclusions and recommendations, we  believe that HUD’s inclusion of infrastructure needs and investments in  program reporting and its use of IHS data on sanitation deficiencies in  Indian country should benefit Native American tribes participating in the  IHBG program and capture additional program results for HUD and  Congress. HUD noted that allowing tribes to use their IHBG funds to  leverage IHS resources would improve their ability to address  infrastructure deficiencies. In our report, we highlight that leveraging  IHBG funds with funds from other sources has benefited tribes, and that  many tribes view leveraging as a practical approach to adequately funding  their communities’ affordable housing needs.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Housing and  Urban Development and other interested parties.  The report is also  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in Appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to evaluate (1) how Native American Housing  Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) program funds  have allowed Native American tribes to address their affordable housing  needs; (2) how, if at all, NAHASDA has improved the process of providing  Native American tribes with access to federal funds to meet their  affordable housing needs; and (3) the extent to which NAHASDA funding  has contributed to infrastructure improvements in Native American  communities.
To address all three objectives, we reviewed NAHASDA’s legislative  history and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD)  policies and procedures for administering the program. We interviewed  officials in HUD’s Office of Native American Programs (ONAP)  headquarters and in all six regional ONAP offices. We reviewed previous  congressional reports and testimonies, our previous reports, a 2007 Office  of Management and Budget Program Assessment Rating Tool report on the  Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program, and a 2009 independent  study of the IHBG program contracted by HUD. To obtain information on  grantees’ experiences with the program, we developed a sample of 12  grantees—2 in each ONAP region—of various sizes. We reviewed HUD’s  annual IHBG allocation reports for fiscal years 1998 through 2008, which  include data on each tribe’s American Indian and Alaska Native  population, reported enrollment, criteria that HUD uses to determine the  IHBG allocation, and the grant amount. Though grantees may be individual  tribes or their tribally designated housing entities (TDHE), HUD makes an  allocation to each tribe. To help us evaluate the program’s effectiveness in  meeting the affordable housing needs of tribes of various sizes, we further  analyzed the fiscal year 2008 allocation report by ONAP region to  determine which grantees in each region could be identified as large or  small based on population and enrollment—or as receiving a large or small  grant—when compared with other grantees in the same region. In our  analysis, we found that small and large grantees, based on population and  grant size, were not always similar among the six ONAP regions. Because  tribal populations vary across regions and grant size is largely based on  population factors, small and large designations within regions also were  relative to other grantees in each region. For the purposes of our review,  we generally considered annual grants less than $250,000 to be lesser  grants and the grantees receiving those grants to be small grantees. We  chose to interview a range of grantees and, for each region, we  interviewed two grantees whose population and grant size varied widely  (see table 10). In making a final sample selection, we solicited input from  the relevant oversight ONAP office on grantee participation, performance,  and accessibility. We interviewed grantees either onsite or by telephone.
To obtain a wider range of grantee perspectives, we also administered a  Web-based survey to all grantees that received funding in fiscal year 2008,  obtaining a 66 percent response rate. Additionally, we met with officials  from groups representing Native American housing interests: the National  American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), a nonprofit organization that  represents the interests of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native  Hawaiians in providing affordable housing; and Cherokee Freedmen  representatives, who advocate for housing and other benefits for the  Cherokee Freedmen. Appendix III contains a brief history of the Cherokee  Freedmen and information pertaining to the Cherokee Nation’s provision  of housing assistance to Cherokee Freedmen members. Finally, we  interviewed officials at the Indian Health Service (IHS), Bureau of Indian  Affairs (BIA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural  Development because those agencies also provide assistance to Native  American communities.
subsections: section_title: Survey Administration
paragraphs: We initially contacted 351 tribes or TDHEs who were recipients of 2008  NAHASDA grants. We sent initial notifications and the survey by e-mail to  most grantees. A small number of grantees did not have e-mail accounts,  and we contacted them by telephone and sent them the survey by fax. To  encourage responses, we followed up with four e-mails that included a  link to the survey. Additionally, to try and increase the response rate, we  contacted those grantees who had not responded to the e-mailed survey by  telephone. We also contacted some respondents by telephone to clarify  unclear responses. We received responses from 232 grantees, or a 66  percent response rate. Grantees responding to the survey represented 413  of the 535 tribes (77 percent) nationwide that benefited from NAHASDA  grants in 2008.
To pretest the questionnaire, we conducted cognitive interviews and held  debriefing sessions with five NAHASDA grantees; two pretests were  conducted in person and three were conducted by telephone. Pretest  participants were selected to represent a variety of grantee sizes (as  represented by dollar amount of the grants); whether they represented a  tribe, single-tribe TDHE, or umbrella TDHE; and geographic locations. We  conducted these pretests to determine if the questions were burdensome  or difficult to understand and if they measured what we intended. In  addition, we met individually with officials from ONAP and NAIHC to  obtain their comments on our questionnaire. On the basis of the feedback  from the pretests and these other knowledgeable entities, we modified the  questions as appropriate.
Content coding of responses. We provided respondents with an  opportunity to answer several open-ended questions. The responses to  those questions were classified and coded for content by a GAO analyst,  while a second analyst verified that the first analyst had coded the  responses appropriately. Some comments were coded into more than one  category since some respondents commented on more than one topic. As a  result, the number of coded items is not equal to the number of  respondents who provided comments. These comments cannot be  generalized to our population of NAHASDA grantees.
Nonsampling errors. Because this was not a sample survey, there are no  sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any  survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as  nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question  is interpreted, the sources of information available to respondents, or the  types of people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability  into the survey results. We included steps at both the data collection and  data analysis stages for the purpose of minimizing such nonsampling  errors.
These steps included (1) having survey specialists help develop the  questionnaire, (2) pretesting the questionnaire with NAHASDA grantees,  (3) using multiple reminders to encourage survey response, and (4)  contacting respondents to follow up on obvious inconsistencies, errors,  and incomplete answers.
Nonresponse analysis. Because only 66 percent of the study population  provided responses, bias from nonresponse may result. If the responses of  those who did not respond would have differed from the responses of  those who did on some survey questions, the numbers reported solely  from those who did respond would be biased from excluding parts of the  population with different characteristics or views. To limit this kind of  error, we made multiple attempts to obtain the participation of as many  NAHASDA grantees as possible. We performed an additional analysis to  determine whether our survey respondents had characteristics that were  significantly different from all grantees in the study population. To do this,  we identified two grantee characteristics that were available for the entire  study population—grantee location (region) and grant size. For these  comparisons, we found little difference between the distribution of  responses from the respondents and the actual population values.
However, when comparing respondents to nonrespondents by grant size,  we found that the survey respondents, on average, received much larger  grants; the median grant size was $717,686 for those who responded and  $451,222 for those who did not. This suggests that grantees receiving large  grant amounts were more likely to participate in our survey than others.  For example, more than two-thirds of grantees with grants larger than  $250,000 participated in the survey while only about half of the smaller  grantees participated. Respondents to the survey received about 80  percent of the grant amounts distributed in 2008.
We performed computer analyses to identify inconsistencies in responses  and other indications of error. In addition, an independent analyst verified  that the computer programs used to analyze the data were written  correctly.
To evaluate how NAHASDA program funds have allowed Native American  tribes to address their affordable housing needs, we reviewed NAHASDA  legislation to identify housing activities that are eligible under the  program. We reviewed HUD performance data on the NAHASDA program,  including its fiscal year 2008 NAHASDA Report to Congress and  cumulative data on affordable housing units grantees built, acquired, and  rehabilitated using IHBG funds during fiscal years 2003 through 2008. We  assessed the reliability of these data by (1) performing electronic testing of  the data elements, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and  the systems that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials  knowledgeable about these data. We determined that these variables were  sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes. In addition to analyzing the  2008 IHBG allocation report, we reviewed data on pre-NAHASDA units  that HUD factored into making 2008 grant allocations. We also reviewed  the Indian Housing Plan (IHP) and Annual Performance Report (APR)  forms that grantees use to report on planned and actual housing activities  each year. Further, we requested and analyzed a sample of completed  IHPs for 2005 through 2008 that grantees submitted in each ONAP region  to determine the types of housing activities grantees were pursuing in  recent years. We used the IHP information in part to develop our sample  for grantee site visits and telephone interviews. In conducting those site  visits and telephone interviews and in our Web-based survey, we asked  grantees questions related to how they use IHBG funds to address their  affordable housing needs, other sources of funding they use in  combination with the IHBG program (leveraging), some of the challenges  they experience with the IHBG program or with leveraging, and program  reporting. Similarly, in our interviews with regional ONAP officials, we  asked questions about grantees’ housing activities, leveraging, and  program reporting. Specific to leveraging, we asked whether ONAP  provides resources to assist grantees with identifying and accessing other  potential funding opportunities to supplement their IHBG funds. Finally,  we interviewed officials at IHS, BIA, and USDA about collaborating with  HUD to provide housing and related services to Native American  communities.
To evaluate how, if at all, NAHASDA has improved the process of  providing Native American tribes with access to federal funds to meet  their affordable housing needs, we obtained perspectives from ONAP,  grantees, and NAIHC on NAHASDA as it compares to the housing  programs for which Native Americans were eligible under the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act). In our interviews with ONAP officials,  grantees, and NAIHC representatives, we discussed various aspects of  NAHASDA in comparison with the 1937 Act programs, including program  structure and funding. In our Web-based survey, we also asked grantees to  report on specific challenges they have experienced with the IHBG  program, and we asked those with pre-NAHASDA experience to rate  NAHASDA in comparison with pre-NAHASDA programs.
To evaluate the extent to which NAHASDA funding has contributed to  infrastructure improvements in Native American communities, we  reviewed the NAHASDA legislation to identify the statutory goals of the  program. We then analyzed HUD’s IHP and APR forms to assess the extent  to which HUD tracked grantees’ infrastructure needs and measured their  investments in housing-related infrastructure development. In conducting  our grantee site visits and telephone interviews and in our Web-based  survey, we discussed grantees’ use of NAHASDA funds to meet their  infrastructure needs. We also discussed their use of IHBG funds for  infrastructure development. In our survey, in particular, we asked grantees  to describe their housing-related infrastructure needs, the extent to which  they use IHBG funds to meet those needs, and any challenges they face. In  our meetings with each of the six regional ONAP offices and with officials  at ONAP headquarters, we asked similar questions. Finally, we asked IHS  officials for their assessment of the sanitation infrastructure needs on  Indian lands and we reviewed IHS’s sanitation deficiency data collection  process and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit in Alaska; Arizona; California;  Colorado; Illinois; Michigan; Montana; Oklahoma; Utah; Washington;  Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin from January 2009 to February 2010 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Survey Respondents’ Suggestions for Smaller Tribes Participating in NAHASDA
paragraphs: To identify potential steps that small grantees can take to maximize the  impact of their Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) grant, we asked all survey  respondents to suggest best practices or effective strategies for grantees  that receive lesser grants, which we defined as less than $250,000 per year  (see table 11). Of the 168 distinct recommendations provided, respondents  overwhelmingly mentioned using the NAHASDA grant in combination with  other funding sources—also known as leveraging—to maximize the grant’s  impact. Other recommendations focused on enhancing the administrative  capacity of tribal housing departments. For example, some survey  respondents wrote that tribes should make sure to hire staff with  experience in grant writing and others recommended that small grantees  pool their resources, for example by joining an umbrella tribally  designated housing entity, to minimize administrative costs.
section_title: Appendix III: Cherokee Freedmen
paragraphs: As part of our outreach to tribal entities served by the Native American  Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA)  program, we obtained information pertaining to the provision of federal  housing assistance to Cherokee Freedmen. In a suit filed in federal district  court, the Cherokee Freedmen claim to be “direct descendants of former  slaves of the Cherokees, or free blacks who intermarried with Cherokees,  who were made citizens of the Cherokee Nation in the Nineteenth  Century.” The Cherokee Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe  headquartered in Oklahoma, has attempted to expel this particular group  of its citizens over the past several years through both tribal legislation  and constitutional amendment. The Cherokee Freedmen’s claim for tribal  membership is based on an 1866 treaty between the Cherokee Nation and  the federal government, under which two groups of people—former slaves  of the Cherokee Nation and “all free colored persons”—either residing in  Cherokee territory when the Civil War began or who returned within six  months, and the descendants of such persons, were guaranteed “all rights  of native Cherokees.” In response to the efforts to deny them citizenship  rights, the Cherokee Freedmen have turned to litigation in both federal  and tribal court, claiming that the action of the Cherokee Nation conflicts  with the treaty and violates equal protection. The Cherokee Nation’s  arguments are grounded on the premise that the authority of Indian tribes  to define membership is inherent. Any attempt by the Cherokee Nation to  act on its measures to disenroll the Cherokee Freedmen has been enjoined  in tribal court while federal litigation proceeds. Figure 17 provides an  overview of key events in the Cherokee Freedmen’s history since 1866.
subsections: section_title: The Cherokee Freedmen and Housing Benefits
paragraphs: As part of our outreach to tribal entities served by NAHASDA, we obtained  information pertaining to the provision of housing assistance to Cherokee  Freedmen. We relied on statements from the Cherokee Nation’s housing  department, representatives of the Cherokee Freedmen, and Department  of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) officials for the following  information:    According to the Cherokee Nation’s housing department, the department  is “color blind” and makes no distinction between Cherokee Freedmen  and other enrolled members in providing housing benefits.
Cherokee Freedmen representatives told us that many Cherokee  Freedmen members’ enrollment applications have not been processed and  many enrolled members have been unable to obtain housing and other  benefits.
HUD officials explained that because they had not received any  complaints from Cherokee Freedmen regarding housing benefits as of  February 1, 2010, HUD is not actively monitoring the Cherokee Nation’s  compliance with the injunction in its provision of housing benefits to  members. The officials said that they would pursue any such complaints  through HUD’s program monitoring and enforcement procedures.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Andy Finkel, Assistant Director;  Bernice Benta; Juliann Gorse; John McGrail; Marc Molino; Luann Moy;  Paul Revesz; and Jennifer Schwartz made key contributions to this report.