The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA): Background and Funding
Released: 2015-11-03T00:00:00

Introduction

Native Americans living on reservations or other tribal lands are more likely to experience poor housing conditions, such as living in housing that is physically substandard or overcrowded, than the population as a whole. One reason for this is that a disproportionate number of Native Americans are low-income, making it difficult to afford suitable housing. Additionally, Native Americans who live on reservations or in other tribal areas face housing issues that do not generally apply to the rest of the country, such as the legal status of trust land and the implications that has for mortgage lending.

Recognizing the singular challenges in providing affordable housing for Native Americans in tribal areas, and the need for such housing, in the 1960s the federal government began to implement specific housing programs for Native Americans that were separate from other affordable housing programs. Questions about whether these programs were meeting their goals, and whether they were running efficiently, persisted for several decades. In 1996, Congress passed the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA). The law reorganized several existing federal housing assistance programs for Native Americans into a single block grant program. In addition to providing funding for affordable housing for Native Americans, the law focused on self-determination for tribes, giving tribes broad authority to choose how to use the affordable housing funds they receive under NAHASDA.

The block grant program authorized under NAHASDA provides funding to tribes and Alaska Native villages for affordable housing activities that benefit low-income Native Americans living in tribal areas. A separate block grant program, established later by an amendment to NAHASDA, makes funding available for housing for low-income Native Hawaiians who are eligible to live on the Hawaiian Home Lands. NAHASDA also authorizes a loan guarantee program to help tribes and Alaska Native villages access financing for affordable housing activities and authorizes funding for training and technical assistance.

This report provides some brief background on Native American housing issues and the system of federal housing assistance for Native Americans prior to NAHASDA. It then describes the programs authorized by NAHASDA: the Native American Housing Block Grant, the Title VI Loan Guarantee Program, and the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant, as well as funding for training and technical assistance. It concludes with a discussion of historical funding levels for NAHASDA programs and tribes' uses of NAHASDA funds.

Background on Native American Housing Issues

The federal government currently recognizes over 550 Native American tribes and Alaska Native villages across the United States. These tribes and Alaska Native villages vary widely in terms of size, population, geography, history, and culture. The size and surroundings of tribes' reservations and other tribal lands are also very different. For example, some reservations are very large while others are quite small—the largest is over 16 million acres, while the smallest reservations encompass fewer than 1,000 acres—and some tribes do not have reservations at all. Many reservations are located in remote rural areas, while some are located closer to urban areas.

According to the U.S. Census, more than 5 million individuals identified as American Indian or Alaska Natives (AIAN) in 2010. Of this number, nearly 3 million individuals identified themselves solely as American Indians or Alaska Natives, while an additional 2 million identified as AIAN in combination with another race. Not everyone who identifies as AIAN is a member of a federally recognized tribe or Alaska Native village. Some individuals who identify as AIAN may not be formally enrolled members of any tribe, and some may be enrolled members of state recognized tribes or other tribes not formally recognized by the federal government. Furthermore, many people who identify as AIAN do not live on or near reservations or in other tribal areas. Of those who identified as AIAN alone, about one-third lived in tribal areas (such as on reservations or on off-reservation trust lands) in 2010, according to the Census.

This report describes the main federal housing program for members of federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native villages who are living on tribal lands or in nearby areas. Native Americans who do not live in tribal areas are potentially eligible for the same federal housing programs as the rest of the population. Certain issues impact housing and housing programs in tribal areas differently than the rest of the country. The special nature of the relationship between the federal government and federally recognized tribes has implications for Native American housing and housing programs. Furthermore, the restricted legal status of tribal lands has implications for financing housing in these areas. Finally, while economic conditions and the quality of the housing stock vary by tribe, housing conditions in tribal areas generally tend to be worse than in other areas.

The Federal Government's Relationship with Tribes

The federal government's relationship with federally recognized tribes is unique in several ways. For one thing, federally recognized tribes are sovereign nations, and the relationship between the federal government and tribes is a government-to-government relationship. Tribes are entitled to govern their own affairs, including deciding tribal membership and leadership, and tribal areas are governed by tribal law.

Furthermore, the federal government has a long-standing trust responsibility to members of federally recognized Native American tribes, meaning that it has a responsibility to provide for certain needs of tribes and tribal members. This trust responsibility was first established through treaties between the federal government and individual tribes; under these treaties, tribes generally ceded land to the federal government in exchange for protection and certain annuities, personnel, goods, and services. Over time, the federal government's trust responsibility to tribes has been affirmed through laws, court decisions, and executive orders, and has been the basis for a number of federal programs that provide funds or services specifically to Native American tribal members.

At times, the federal government's responsibility to provide certain services to tribes and the tribes' right to govern their own affairs can appear to be in conflict. Tribal leaders have expressed concerns that having federal agencies administer funding that is provided to tribes, and making most of the decisions about how such funding is used, undermines tribal sovereignty and impedes the ability of tribes to develop the capacity and resources needed to administer their own affairs. In light of these concerns, federal policy towards Native Americans began to shift towards the concept of self-determination beginning in the 1970s.

Self-determination recognizes the sovereignty of tribes and aims to give tribes authority over their own affairs. In 1975, Congress enacted the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act ( P.L. 93-638 ), providing tribes with the authority to contract to provide services otherwise provided by the federal government and to administer their own education programs. It represented the first major shift towards self-determination in federal programs for Native Americans. Self-determination has continued to be a cornerstone of federal Indian policy since that time, with the government providing funds for many social programs to tribes while allowing tribes greater discretion in how they implement those programs.

Legal Status of Tribal Land

The legal status of tribal land poses some distinctive challenges for housing for Native Americans. Most tribal land is held in trust or otherwise restricted in some way. When land is held in trust, it means that the federal government holds the title to the land for the benefit of an individual ("individual trust land") or a tribe ("tribal trust land"). Both tribal and individual trust lands are subject to restrictions on alienation and encumbrance—that is, trust land generally cannot be transferred, leased, or have a lien or claim placed against it without the approval of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). When land is held in restricted fee status, rather than in trust, an individual or tribe holds the title to the land, but the land still cannot be alienated or encumbered without the BIA's approval.

These restrictions on trust and restricted lands raise issues for mortgage lending because the land generally cannot be used as collateral for a mortgage. Banks are usually unwilling to offer mortgage loans (either for households to purchase a home or for developers to build housing) where they will not be able to take title to the land if the borrower does not repay the mortgage as promised.

Because of the restrictions on mortgaging trust land, many loans on trust lands involve long-term leases of the land, with the leasehold interest acting as the collateral for the loan since the ownership interest in the land cannot be transferred. For example, an individual might obtain a 50-year leasehold interest in the land, and obtain a mortgage using that leasehold interest and the home as collateral. This has provided a model for lending on lands that have legal restrictions to being mortgaged. However, leases on tribal lands also generally require the BIA's approval. The process of obtaining the BIA's approval to obtain a long-term lease of trust land can make it more complicated and time-consuming to take out a mortgage.

Another factor that can pose obstacles to mortgage lending is that tribal lands are subject to tribal laws, rather than state or federal laws. This includes laws governing foreclosure and eviction procedures if someone who took out a loan fails to pay it back as promised. This can contribute to banks being unwilling to offer loans on tribal lands, because banks might be uncertain about tribal laws or have concerns that some tribes do not have sufficient foreclosure or eviction laws in place. Together, these factors can limit the availability of private financing in tribal areas, either for individuals to purchase homes or for developers to access capital to increase the supply of housing.

Housing Conditions in Tribal Areas

Housing conditions on tribal lands vary widely. However, in general, the housing problems of Native Americans living on tribal lands tend to be particularly severe compared to the rest of the country. Historically, Native Americans on tribal lands have been more likely than the general population to live in housing that is overcrowded and/or physically substandard, and this continues to be the case today.

Many issues contribute to poor housing conditions in tribal areas. Lack of economic development and economic opportunity contributes to substandard housing. Native Americans living on tribal lands are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty as the general population, making it difficult for many families to afford safe, affordable housing or leading to overcrowding. The issues raised by the legal status of trust land can make it difficult for tribes or individuals to obtain capital to finance affordable housing in tribal areas. Furthermore, the remoteness of some reservations can make it difficult or expensive to obtain building materials or find qualified labor, raising the cost of housing construction.

In the years prior to the enactment of NAHASDA, several studies detailed the generally poor condition of housing on tribal lands. In 1989, Congress established the National Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian housing, which released its final report in 1992. It described a persistent need for decent housing on tribal lands and identified barriers to the provision of such housing. In 1996, just before NAHASDA was enacted, the Urban Institute completed a study for HUD on Native American housing needs and the progress of existing housing programs in meeting those needs. It found that 28% of Native Americans on reservations or in other tribal areas were living in housing that lacked plumbing or kitchen facilities or was overcrowded, and that overall about 40% of Native Americans living in tribal areas were experiencing inadequate housing conditions.

Since NAHASDA took effect in FY1998, tribes indicate that the law has had a positive impact on their ability to address housing needs in tribal areas. However, poor housing conditions remain much more prevalent in tribal areas than in the country as a whole, and some tribes experience particularly severe conditions. According to an analysis of 2010 Census data by the Housing Assistance Council, a nonprofit organization focused on rural housing issues, 5% of housing units on tribal lands lack complete plumbing facilities, and 5% lack complete kitchen facilities, compared to less than 1% of housing units nationally that lack each of these features. Eight percent of housing units on tribal lands are overcrowded, compared to 3% nationally. Tribal officials, policy makers, and others routinely describe extremely poor housing conditions that many tribes experience.

In light of the special trust relationship between the federal government and tribes, the specific issues that affect housing on tribal lands, and the poor housing conditions in these areas, the federal government has established several programs that directly target housing on Native American lands over the last several decades. The next section of this report provides a brief overview of the evolution of federal housing programs for Native Americans, leading up to the reorganization of Native American housing programs into the system that is in place today.

Brief History of Native American Housing Programs

The federal government has had a long-standing policy of promoting access to decent and affordable housing for all Americans. The Housing Act of 1949 included a goal of "a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family." However, Native Americans living on reservations or other tribal lands generally had little access to the affordable housing programs established by the federal government until the early 1960s. At that time, the government began to recognize that Native Americans largely lacked access to existing affordable housing programs and took steps to provide affordable housing funding explicitly for Native Americans.

In 1961, tribal governments were first recognized as eligible to receive funding under the public housing program, which had been established by the Housing Act of 1937 and was administered at the time by the Public Housing Administration. This recognition allowed tribes to establish Indian housing authorities (IHAs), similar to local public housing authorities (PHAs), to administer federal housing assistance programs authorized under the 1937 law. In 1962, the Public Housing Administration established the Mutual Help Homeownership Opportunity Program to provide funds to IHAs to help Native Americans achieve home ownership through a lease-purchase program. Both the public housing program and the Mutual Help program were administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) after that department was established in 1965, and these two programs provided the bulk of housing assistance to Native Americans until NAHASDA reorganized the federal government's Native American housing programs into today's block grant system.

Also in 1965, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the Interior established the Housing Improvement Program (HIP). Through HIP, the BIA provides grants to assist the least well-off Native Americans with repairing severely inadequate housing. The BIA was authorized to establish various assistance programs for Native Americans by the Snyder Act of 1921. However, while it used this authority to establish other types of programs for Native Americans, it did not create a specific housing program for Native Americans until it created HIP.

In the mid-1970s, the government began to recognize that simply extending existing programs to tribal areas was not always effective, given some of the unique circumstances related to housing on tribal lands. Despite the availability of a number of affordable housing programs in tribal areas, poor housing conditions in tribal areas persisted. In 1978, a report from the General Accounting Office (GAO) noted that, despite the fact that HUD, BIA, and the Farmers Home Administration administered several programs that could help provide affordable housing for Native Americans, these programs had "not been effective in providing the number of units necessary to keep pace with the increasing need for decent, safe, and sanitary Indian housing." The report noted that HUD's programs were generally designed for more urban areas, and tended to be less effective on reservations located in more rural areas.

Federal agencies began to make efforts to make housing programs more targeted to the specific circumstances of Native Americans living in tribal areas. Around this time, HUD created a separate Office of Indian Housing to administer the agency's Native American housing programs, which were previously operated as part of the public housing program. In 1976, regulations governing Native American housing assistance were published separately from the public housing regulations.

Federal efforts to improve housing conditions in tribal areas continued during the 1980s and early 1990s. In 1983, Congress authorized a program to allow the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to insure home mortgages made on tribal lands. This program was intended to address issues related to the lack of availability of mortgage credit on tribal lands and to encourage lenders to offer mortgages in these areas. In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Housing Act of 1988 ( P.L. 100-358 ), which separated Native American housing assistance from the existing public housing program in law and specified that future amendments to the public housing program would not apply to the Native American program (although existing requirements of the public housing program did continue to apply). The law also codified the Mutual Help Homeownership Opportunity Program. In 1992, Congress authorized another loan guarantee program, the Section 184 program, to encourage mortgage lending on tribal lands by allowing HUD to guarantee certain home mortgages in tribal areas.

By the early 1990s, tribes were eligible to receive funding through at least 14 HUD programs, each of which had its own eligibility criteria and program requirements. These included programs specifically for tribes, such as Mutual Help, the Indian public housing program, and programs to provide loan guarantees on tribal lands such as the Section 184 program. It also included other, broader HUD programs for which tribes were eligible to receive funds, often through a set-aside of funding from the larger program. However, taken together, these programs were generally seen as inadequate to address the persistent housing needs and unique circumstances of Native Americans living on tribal lands. Furthermore, these programs generally did not recognize the principle of tribal self-determination.

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996

In 1996, Congress enacted the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act ( P.L. 104-330 ). The law represented a major reorganization of federal Native American housing assistance, consolidating most of the federal housing funding that previously had been provided to tribes under HUD programs into a single block grant that provides funds to eligible tribes based on a formula.

Purpose

President Clinton signed NAHASDA into law on October 26, 1996, and it took effect on October 1, 1997 (the beginning of FY1998). The congressional findings recognized the federal government's unique relationship with tribes and its responsibility to ensure access to affordable, decent homes for Native Americans, while at the same time recognizing the rights of tribal self-governance and self-determination.

The centerpiece of NAHASDA was a reorganization of most of the existing federal housing assistance for Native Americans into a single block grant program, the Native American Housing Block Grant (NAHBG). (This block grant is sometimes also referred to as the Indian Housing Block Grant, or IHBG.) NAHASDA removed the ability of IHAs to directly receive funds through most other HUD programs, and instead authorized tribes to receive block grant funds that could be used for a broad range of affordable housing activities. Specifically, NAHASDA eliminated tribes' ability to receive funds under programs authorized by the Housing Act of 1937, as amended, such as the public housing program, Section 8, and Mutual Help. It also eliminated tribes' ability to directly receive funds through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program block grant, homelessness assistance programs, and the Youthbuild program (which has since been transferred from HUD to the Department of Labor). Tribes were given the flexibility to choose how to use the funds provided under the new block grant program to meet their housing needs within the parameters set by the law.

NAHASDA also established a loan guarantee program to help tribes obtain private financing for affordable housing activities and authorized funding for technical assistance. In 2000, the law was amended to add a block grant providing housing assistance for Native Hawaiians.

NAHASDA has been amended several times since it was enacted, and has been reauthorized twice, in 2002 ( P.L. 107-292 ) and 2008 ( P.L. 110-411 ). The most recent authorization for most NAHASDA programs expired at the end of FY2013. (The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant has not been reauthorized since its original authorization expired in FY2005.) The 113 th Congress considered NAHASDA reauthorization legislation, but none was enacted prior to the end of the 113 th Congress. In the 114 th Congress, the House and Senate have each been considering NAHASDA reauthorization bills ( H.R. 360 and S. 710 , respectively). For more information on NAHASDA reauthorization efforts in the 114 th Congress, see CRS Report R44261, The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA): Issues and Reauthorization Legislation in the 114th Congress , by [author name scrubbed].

Negotiated Rulemaking

NAHASDA requires that regulations implementing the statute must be issued through a negotiated rulemaking process. Negotiated rulemaking means that the process of developing regulations to implement the statute includes groups and individuals with a stake in the outcome of the regulations, as well as the federal agency tasked with implementing the law. In the case of NAHASDA, negotiated rulemaking means that regulations are developed through a process that includes tribal representatives as well as representatives of HUD.

Amendments to NAHASDA have clarified that negotiated rulemaking must also be used to develop any regulations required by amendments to the statute. HUD is required to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee within 180 days of the enactment of any laws reauthorizing NAHASDA to develop any proposed regulations that may be required.

Native American Housing Block Grants

The Native American Housing Block Grant program is the centerpiece of NAHASDA and the largest source of federal funding specifically targeted to Native American housing. Through the NAHBG, HUD provides funding to federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages. In addition, five state recognized tribes that had contracts with HUD to receive funding under the pre-NAHASDA housing programs authorized by the Housing Act of 1937 are also eligible recipients of NAHBG funds. (Native Hawaiians are not eligible for NAHBG funds. Rather, Native Hawaiians are eligible for a separate housing program authorized by an amendment to NAHASDA, discussed in the " Housing Assistance for Native Hawaiians " section of this report.)

Each year, Congress appropriates funding for the NAHBG to HUD, which then distributes formula grants to eligible tribes and Alaska Native villages, or to organizations that tribes or Alaska Native villages have identified to administer their grants (known as tribally designated housing entities, or TDHEs). TDHEs can be IHAs that administered previous housing programs for tribes, or they can be tribal departments or nonprofit entities. A single TDHE can be designated to administer the NAHBG for one or more tribes. Tribes and TDHEs that receive NAHBG funds are referred to as recipients.

Indian Housing Plans

In order to receive NAHBG funds, a tribe or its TDHE must submit an annual Indian Housing Plan (IHP) and have it approved by HUD. The IHP describes the tribe's affordable housing needs and its planned affordable housing activities for the next one-year period. These plans include descriptions of the activities that the tribe plans to fund with the NAHBG, estimates of the number of housing units or households that will be assisted and the amount of funding that will be spent on each activity, and requests for HUD approval of any necessary waivers of NAHBG requirements, among other things. The IHP must be submitted to HUD at least 75 days before the beginning of the tribal program year.

While the IHP is required to be submitted and approved by HUD before a tribe can receive NAHBG funding, tribes are also required to submit an Annual Performance Report (APR) to HUD after the program year detailing the actual activities that the tribe funded with NAHBG funds. Recently, HUD combined the IHP with the APR. Now, tribes or TDHEs submit the IHP portion of the form prior to the beginning of the program year, and then submit the APR portion after the program year ends.

Funding Formula

The NAHASDA statute directed the Secretary of HUD to establish a formula for the distribution of NAHBG funds based on several factors. These factors include the number of housing units developed under certain pre-NAHASDA housing programs that continue to be operated by a tribe; poverty measures; and the number of members of federally recognized tribes (or the five state recognized tribes that are eligible for NAHASDA) that are living in the tribe's formula area. The actual formula is set out in regulations, which were developed through negotiated rulemaking between the tribes and HUD. It is based on two broad parameters: formula current assisted stock (FCAS), which measures the pre-NAHASDA housing stock developed under the 1937 Housing Act programs that the tribe continues to operate, and housing need.

The two main components of the formula are also adjusted by additional factors intended to reflect costs in the local area. For example, the formula is adjusted to reflect either fair market rents in the area or the amount of operating subsidy a tribe received to operate its public housing units developed under the Housing Act of 1937. It also takes into account "total development cost," which is the cost of building a "moderately designed" house in the area based on the average of at least two nationally recognized residential construction cost indices. The formula is also adjusted to ensure that each tribe receives a certain minimum amount of funding.

A tribe receives NAHBG funds based on the FCAS and need within its formula area, which is defined as reservations, trust land, and other tribal areas. A tribe can request that additional areas be added to its formula area. To do this, the tribe must show that it has an agreement with the governing entity of the area to provide housing services in the area, and that it either (1) could exercise court jurisdiction or (2) is providing substantial housing services in the area and will continue to do so. A tribe's formula area for the purposes of the NAHBG might differ from the area that is included as part of a tribe's service area for the purposes of other programs.

Formula Current Assisted Stock

As described earlier in this report, prior to the enactment of NAHASDA, tribes received federal housing assistance through HUD programs that had been authorized under the Housing Act of 1937. These included the Mutual Help program and the public housing assistance provided to IHAs. Although tribes no longer receive funding or develop new units under these programs, they continue to operate and maintain units that were built under the Housing Act of 1937. Therefore, in order to provide tribes with funds to continue to maintain and operate these units, part of the formula for distributing NAHBG funding is based on the number of housing units that were developed by the tribe under these 1937 Housing Act programs and continue to be owned or operated by the tribe today. Section 8 units are also included in this part of the formula if the tribe continues to provide rental assistance similar to the Section 8 program. Altogether, the number of housing units assisted under these programs that continue to be operated by a tribe is referred to as formula current assisted stock.

The tribe is responsible for continuing to operate and maintain units developed under the 1937 Housing Act programs for as long as they remain in existence or until a homeowner unit is conveyed to the occupant. Therefore, the purpose of the FCAS component of the formula is to provide funds for both an operating subsidy and a modernization allocation for tribes to operate and maintain these units. Tribes report changes to their FCAS to HUD each year. Tribes might stop operating units funded under these old programs when a homeowner takes possession of a lease-purchase unit or when an older unit is demolished, for example. According to HUD, about half of tribes eligible for formula allocations under NAHASDA have FCAS.

Need

After the FCAS component of the formula is calculated, the remaining NAHBG funds are distributed based on need within a tribe's formula area. The need portion of the formula takes into account the Native American population, the income characteristics of the population, and the state of the housing stock in a tribe's formula area. More specifically, the need component of the formula is made up of the following seven factors, with the weight each factor is given in parentheses:

The number of American Indian or Alaska Native households that are overcrowded or lack either kitchen or plumbing facilities (25%); The number of American Indian or Alaska Native households that have a housing cost burden greater than 50% of annual income (22%); Housing shortage, defined as the number of American Indian or Alaska Native households with an annual income less than or equal to 80% of median income, minus current assisted stock and housing units developed under NAHASDA (15%); The number of American Indian or Alaska Native households with annual incomes less than or equal to 30% of median income (13%); The number of American Indian or Alaska Native households (11%); The number of American Indian or Alaska Native households with annual incomes between 30% and 50% of median income (7%); and The number of American Indian or Alaska Native households with annual incomes between 50% and 80% of median income (7%).

Each participating tribe receives an allocation of funding based on the formula current assisted housing stock and need in its formula area.

Tribes can challenge most of the data used by HUD in determining formula allocations, including the population estimate (the number of Native Americans living in the formula area) and what HUD refers to as the household variables (the number of households in different situations). A tribe can challenge the data by submitting other data that it feels more accurately represent the tribe's housing needs. The data must be collected in a way that is consistent across tribes and must be acceptable to HUD. Examples that HUD gives of the types of data that might be used to challenge Census data are administrative data, such as tribal enrollment figures or data from the Indian Health Service (IHS), or a survey that is conducted by the tribe.

The NAHASDA regulations, developed pursuant to negotiated rulemaking with representatives from both HUD and the tribes, specify that the data used to calculate the need portion of the formula should be data that are "collected in a uniform manner that can be confirmed and verified for all AIAN [American Indian and Alaska Native] households and persons living in an identified area." The regulations also specified that, initially, U.S. Census data would be used. HUD has continued to use Census data to calculate the need portion of the formula. Some tribes have argued that Census data are not the most accurate source to use for calculating the NAHBG formula because they include anyone who identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native, not just members of federally recognized tribes (the population that is eligible for NAHASDA). Other tribes have maintained that Census data are the most reliable source of data that are collected uniformly across tribes and should continue to be used.

Furthermore, since the Census began to allow respondents to identify as belonging to more than one race in 2000, there has been disagreement over whether the "single-race" or "multi-race" Census data should be used to count the number of Native Americans living in an area for the purposes of the formula. Since FY2006, annual appropriations acts have directed HUD to calculate the formula both ways for each tribe—that is, once using only the number of people who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native alone, and once including the total number who identify as Native American or Alaska Native whether alone or in combination with another race—and to award each tribe the larger of the two grant amounts. For more details on the use of Census data in the NAHBG formula, and the debate over the use of single-race or multi-race data, see Appendix .

Eligible Activities

Tribes can use NAHBG funds for a wide range of affordable housing activities. In most cases, the housing assisted with NAHBG funds must benefit low-income members of federally recognized tribes (or members of the small number of state recognized tribes that are eligible for NAHASDA). Tribes can give preference to their own tribal members, as opposed to members of other federally recognized tribes living in their formula areas, if they indicate such a preference in their IHP.

NAHBG funds can be used to develop, operate, maintain, or support affordable housing, including both rental housing and homeownership housing, as well as to provide associated infrastructure and services. The NAHASDA statute identifies six broad categories of activities for which NAHBG funds can be used:

Indian Housing Assistance : Funds can be used to provide maintenance or operating assistance for housing that was developed under the programs authorized by the Housing Act of 1937 prior to NAHASDA. Development : Funds can be used to acquire, construct, reconstruct, or rehabilitate affordable housing. Among other things, this category allows funds to be used for infrastructure and utilities. Housing Services : Funds can be used for services for residents, including housing counseling, support for resident organizations, and services that promote residents' self-sufficiency. Housing Management Services : Funds can be used for services related to the management of affordable housing, such as processing loans, performing inspections, selecting tenants, and providing maintenance or operating assistance for housing that was developed using NAHBG funds. Crime Prevention and Safety : Funds can be used for safety, security, and law enforcement activities related to protecting residents of affordable housing. Model Activities : Funds can be used for model programs that are consistent with the purposes of NAHASDA and are approved by the Secretary of HUD.

The regulations limit the amount of funds that can be used for administrative expenses to 20% of the annual grant amount. If a tribe intends to use more than 20% of a grant amount on administrative expenses, it must get approval from HUD. Eligible administrative expenses include costs such as program administration, data collection, and, if the tribe chooses, staff and overhead costs. Tribes can also put up to a certain amount of funds into reserve accounts to accumulate funds for planning and administrative activities.

Figure 1 shows the percentage of total NAHBG expenditures between FY2008 and FY2013 that were used for each eligible activity under NAHASDA. The largest percentages of expenditures were for Indian housing assistance, defined as the operation and maintenance of pre-NAHASDA housing units (37%), and for housing development (31%), followed by administrative expenses (15%). The other categories of eligible activities each represented less than 10% of expenditures. Since this represents expenditures, rather than number of units assisted, the smaller percentages of funds expended on many eligible activities may partly reflect the lower cost of these activities as compared to developing or operating affordable housing.

Income and Affordability Requirements

NAHBG funds are intended to provide affordable housing to low-income tribal members. Therefore, the statute and regulations include several provisions related to ensuring that housing assisted with NAHBG funds is and remains affordable to this population.

Low-Income Benefit

In general, housing funded through the NAHBG must benefit low-income Native American households that are living on reservations or in other tribal areas. Low-income is defined as having an income that is no higher than 80% of the area median income.

Although housing funded through the NAHBG is generally intended for low-income Native American families, there are some exceptions. Subject to specific conditions, tribes can use NAHBG funds to assist Native American households that are not low-income if there is a need for housing for such households that cannot otherwise be met. Tribes can also use NAHBG funds to provide housing for law enforcement officers under certain circumstances. Finally, tribes can use NAHBG funds to provide housing assistance to a household whose presence is considered "essential" to the well-being of the area (an example might be a medical professional in a remote area) if the household's housing needs cannot reasonably be met without the assistance.

Maximum Rent

Monthly rents or homebuyer payments (that is, payments under a lease-purchase program) in NAHBG-assisted housing may not exceed 30% of a household's monthly adjusted income. Tribes or TDHEs are responsible for having written policies related to rents and homebuyer payments and methods for determining such payments. The statute does not specify a minimum rent, but tribes are free to set a minimum rent if they choose to do so (as long as the rent does not exceed 30% of a household's adjusted income).

Affordability Period

Housing assisted with NAHBG funds must remain affordable for "the remaining useful life of the property," as determined by the Secretary of HUD, or for another period of time set by the Secretary. The recipient must require "binding commitments," such as deed restrictions or other mechanisms, to ensure that the affordability period will be met. An affordability period applies regardless of the amount of NAHBG funds expended on a unit, although tribes can choose to set a relatively short affordability period for units that have small investments of NAHBG funds. The 2008 law that reauthorized NAHASDA specified that the long-term affordability and binding commitment requirement does not apply to households that subsequently take ownership of homeownership units assisted under NAHASDA.

Oversight

The NAHASDA statute and regulations include a number of provisions related to the oversight of NAHBG funds. These provisions include both HUD's oversight of the recipients of NAHBG funds and recipients' oversight of the activities that they fund with NAHBG grants.

HUD Oversight of Recipients

NAHASDA requires recipients to submit performance reports to HUD each fiscal year describing the specific activities for which NAHBG funds were used and how they related to the housing needs set forth in the IHP. These reports are known as annual performance reports (APRs), and, as noted earlier in this report, HUD has recently redesigned the report to combine it with the IHP.

NAHASDA also provides several steps that HUD can take if a recipient of NAHBG funds is not complying with the requirements of the program. If HUD finds that a tribe has substantially not complied with NAHASDA requirements, then HUD is to take one of several actions, including terminating assistance to the tribe, reducing payments by the amount of funds that were not spent properly, limiting funds to the tribe, or, in certain cases, replacing the TDHE. Certain notice and hearing requirements apply. The Secretary also has the authority to refer a case to the Attorney General for a civil action. For less serious instances of noncompliance, HUD can provide technical assistance to the tribe to ensure that funds are expended in compliance with the requirements of the law.

Any funds that HUD recaptures as a result of a recipient not complying with NAHASDA requirements are added to the NAHBG funds to be distributed to tribes the following fiscal year.

Recipient Oversight of Grantees

Recipients of NAHASDA funds (i.e., tribes and TDHEs) are required to ensure that funds are used in ways that comply with the program requirements. NAHASDA requires recipients to have enforceable agreements with owners of housing assisted with NAHASDA funds to ensure long-term compliance and establish remedies for noncompliance. Recipients are also required to review housing activities under NAHASDA at least annually, including through onsite inspections, to ensure that activities are complying with the requirements of NAHASDA.

Title VI Loan Guarantee Program

As was described earlier in this report, the legal status of trust lands can make it difficult to obtain traditional financing for building or purchasing housing in tribal areas. This can impact not only individuals seeking mortgages to purchase homes, but also tribes seeking loan funds to build housing or other types of buildings.

Title VI of NAHASDA authorizes a loan guarantee program to help tribes obtain financing for affordable housing activities. The program is referred to as the Title VI Loan Guarantee Program. Under the Title VI program, HUD can guarantee loans made by private lenders to NAHBG recipients to help them fund affordable housing activities. Individual tribal members are not eligible for Title VI loan guarantees.

The same affordable housing activities that are eligible uses of NAHBG funds are eligible under Title VI. The tribe pledges future NAHBG amounts as collateral for the loan. (A tribe can borrow up to five times the need portion of its annual NAHBG formula allocation.) If the tribe defaults on the loan, HUD will repay the lender 95% of the remaining principal and interest amount it is owed, and HUD can be repaid from the tribe's NAHBG formula allocations.

HUD receives an appropriation each year to cover the costs of the program. In recent years, Congress has appropriated about $2 million per year to cover the costs of these loan guarantees. Annual appropriations acts also include a limit on the dollar amount of loans that HUD can insure under the program in a given year. In FY2015, HUD was authorized to guarantee up to $16.5 million in loans under this program.

As of the end of FY2014, HUD had guaranteed a total of 80 loans totaling over $200 million over the life of the program. In FY2014 alone, HUD guaranteed five loans totaling $14.4 million.

Technical Assistance

NAHASDA also authorizes funding for training and technical assistance. Under Section 703 of NAHASDA, Congress authorizes funding for "a national organization representing Native American housing interests" to provide training and technical assistance to IHAs and TDHEs. Congress has provided funding for training and technical assistance for an organization representing Native American housing interests in annual appropriations acts, and this funding was traditionally provided to the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC). Since FY2012, appropriations acts have provided funding for "national or regional organizations representing Native American housing interests." Therefore, in recent years, HUD awarded this funding to additional organizations as well as the NAIHC. In FY2015, Congress provided $3.5 million for training or technical assistance for national or regional organizations that represent Native American housing interests, but directed that at least $2 million of that amount be provided to a national organization as described in the NAHASDA statute.

Congress has also traditionally set aside additional funding within the NAHBG account for HUD to provide training and technical assistance related to the inspection of NAHASDA-assisted housing, various contract expenses, and housing oversight and management. In FY2015, Congress provided $2 million for this purpose.

Housing Assistance for Native Hawaiians

In 2000, Congress amended NAHASDA to add Title VIII, which provides for housing assistance for Native Hawaiians. Title VIII establishes the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant (NHHBG) program, which is similar to the Native American Housing Block Grant program. However, unlike the NAHBG, the only eligible recipient of funds under the NHHBG is the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), an agency of the state government of Hawaii. The DHHL, in turn, can provide funds to local organizations to carry out housing activities. Like tribes and TDHEs under the NAHBG program, the DHHL must submit a housing plan for HUD's approval prior to receiving funds.

NHHBG funds must be used for affordable housing activities that benefit low-income Native Hawaiians who are eligible to live on the Hawaiian home lands. Native Hawaiians are defined as citizens of the United States who are descended from the aboriginal Hawaiian people. The Hawaiian home lands are lands that were set aside under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 to be used to provide homesteads for Native Hawaiians. The lands are administered by the DHHL, which provides 99-year homestead leases to eligible Native Hawaiian applicants. Those who obtain leases can then build or purchase a home on the land.

Native Hawaiians have some of the most severe housing needs, with 15% of Native Hawaiians in Hawaii living in poverty and 25% living in overcrowded conditions. Furthermore, Hawaii has some of the highest housing costs in the nation, and the Hawaiian home lands tend to be located in rural areas and often include land that presents challenges for building. All of these factors contribute to a shortage of affordable housing that is available to Native Hawaiians, particularly on the Hawaiian home lands. According to HUD, DHHL estimates that there are about 9,000 Native Hawaiian households that currently hold homestead leases on the Hawaiian home lands, over 26,000 households on the waiting list for leases to reside on the Hawaiian home lands, and over 32,000 households that could apply to reside on the Hawaiian home lands. DHHL estimates that there are over 34,000 households in total that may be eligible for assistance under the NHHBG—that is, Native Hawaiians eligible to reside on the Hawaiian home lands who are also low-income.

Eligible activities under the NHHBG are similar to the eligible activities under the NAHBG, and include the development of affordable housing, including new construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition; providing infrastructure; offering support services and housing management services; crime prevention activities; developing community facilities that serve low-income Native Hawaiian residents of affordable housing; and model activities approved by HUD. In recent years, HUD has allowed the DHHL to use up to 20% of its grant amount for administrative expenses.

Like the NAHBG, housing funded through the NHHBG must remain affordable for the remaining useful life of the property, and the monthly rents or homebuyer payments cannot be more than 30% of a household's monthly adjusted income.

The NHHBG can be used for both rental and owner-occupied housing. However, the DHHL has historically used most of its NHHBG funding for owner-occupied housing or related activities (such as providing infrastructure or offering housing counseling). This appears to be due to the fact that the Hawaiian home lands were originally set aside for homesteading purposes, and that there are currently a large number of families on the wait list to receive a homestead lease on the Hawaiian home lands, some of whom have been on the list for years or even decades. The DHHL has traditionally used NHHBG funding to assist with constructing or rehabilitating single-family homes on the Hawaiian home lands, or to provide assistance with financing the purchase or repair of such homes.

Over the life of the program through FY2014, NHHBG funds have been used to build, acquire, or substantially rehabilitate homes for 570 households and to provide counseling or other services to over 1,500 households. The DHHL aims to use NHHBG funds to assist about 65 families per year with building, acquiring, or substantially rehabilitating a home.

NAHASDA Funding

Appropriations

Each year, Congress appropriates funding to HUD for NAHASDA programs during the annual appropriations process. Funding for NAHASDA programs is appropriated to two accounts: the Native American Housing Block Grant account and the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant account.

Native American Housing Block Grant Account

Funding for all NAHASDA programs, except for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant, is appropriated to the Native American Housing Block Grant account. NAHBGs themselves make up the bulk of the funding each year, but the account also includes funding to cover the costs of the Title VI Loan Guarantee Program and funding for training and technical assistance. In addition, appropriations laws include a limit on the dollar amount of loans that HUD can insure under the Title VI program during the fiscal year.

Since the account was first funded, in nominal (non-inflation-adjusted) terms, total funding has ranged from a low of $600 million (in FY1998, the first year of funding) to a high of $700 million (in FY2010), with appropriations in most years falling somewhere in between. Table 1 shows the funding level for each program funded within the NAHBG account, as well as overall account-level funding, for each year from FY2003 to FY2015.

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Account

Table 2 shows the annual funding levels for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program in each year since it was first funded in FY2002. Prior to FY2006, NHHBG funding was appropriated within the Community Development Fund account within HUD. Since FY2006, NHHBG funding has been appropriated in its own account.

The NHHBG account generally includes a set-aside of funds to be used for training and technical assistance, and this amount has been relatively steady over the years. In FY2015, $9 million was appropriated to the account, including $300,000 for training and technical assistance.

Tribes' Uses of NAHBG Funds

As described, tribes can use NAHBG funds for a wide variety of affordable housing activities that benefit low-income tribal members. In general, tribes rehabilitate more units with NAHBG funds than they build or acquire, and tribes are more likely to use funds for owner-occupied housing than for rental housing.

Units Assisted

Between FY2008 and FY2014, HUD reports that a total of over 44,000 units of housing were built, acquired, or rehabilitated using NAHBG funds. On average, tribes used NAHBG funds to build, acquire, or rehabilitate between 5,000 and 8,000 units per year. As Figure 2 shows, rehabilitation of housing units is more common than building or acquiring units. In FY2014, about 4,000 units were rehabilitated using NAHBG funds, compared to nearly 1,000 units built or acquired.

HUD estimates that over 100,000 housing units have been built, acquired, or rehabilitated with NAHBG funds since the program began. Of this total, over 35,000 units have been built or acquired, and over 70,000 have been substantially rehabilitated. Until recently, HUD did not systematically collect information on the number of units that benefited from NAHBG funds in ways other than construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation, such as through the use of rental assistance or down payment assistance programs. HUD has begun collecting more data on other eligible activities with the revised IHP/APR form that it began using in FY2012, suggesting that more data on these uses of NAHBG funds might be available in the future.

A 2009 evaluation of the NAHBG program conducted for HUD provided some estimates on the number of households or units that were assisted through other types of activities over the course of a single year. The evaluation estimated, on the basis of interviews with selected tribes, that tribes had used NAHBG funds to assist a total of about 1,000 households with down payment assistance, about 8,500 households through various rental assistance programs, and about 5,000 households with emergency assistance with making rent, mortgage, or utility payments during the most recent program year. Tribes had also provided ongoing maintenance or operating assistance during the year to about 5,000 rental units that had been developed using NAHBG funds.

In addition to developing and maintaining new units and providing other types of housing assistance, tribes also currently continue to maintain about 31,000 existing low-rent public housing units and close to 12,000 Mutual Help units that were developed prior to NAHASDA.

Homeownership vs. Rental Units

In general, many tribes choose to use NAHASDA funds to develop more new owner-occupied units rather than rental units. For example, GAO found that, between FY2003 and FY2008, tribes used NAHBG funds to build, acquire, or rehabilitate nearly four times as many homeownership units as rental units. Specifically, as Figure 3 shows, tribes assisted 40,000 homeownership units using NAHBG funds during this time period, compared to just over 10,000 rental units.

One reason that tribes give for assisting more homeownership units than rental units is the ongoing cost to tribes of maintaining and operating rental units built with NAHASDA funds. Ongoing maintenance of rental units is expensive for tribes and TDHEs, while the maintenance and other costs of owner-occupied housing become the responsibility of the homeowner rather than remaining the responsibility of the tribe.

FY2015 Formula Allocations

Every federally recognized tribe and the five state recognized tribes that were grandfathered in under NAHASDA are eligible to receive a formula allocation of NAHBG funds. Each year, HUD runs the NAHBG formula to determine how much each tribe is eligible to receive under the formula (a tribe's formula allocation). However, the number and size of grants actually made can differ from the number and size of these formula allocations for several reasons.

One reason that the number and size of formula allocations may differ from the number and size of grants made is that several tribes might select the same TDHE to administer their funds, resulting in those tribes' formula allocations being combined into a single grant to that TDHE. This means that there are fewer grants made than formula allocations, and the average grant amount is generally higher than the average formula allocation. Another reason that the number of grants might differ from the number of formula allocations is that some tribes that are eligible for formula allocations may not receive a grant in a given year. This could occur because a tribe has elected not to take its formula allocation, because it did not submit an Indian Housing Plan or that plan was not approved by HUD, or for other reasons. This section describes the formula allocation amounts, rather than grant amounts, for FY2015.

In FY2015, HUD announced formula allocations totaling over $650 million in NAHBG funds for 586 tribes and Alaska Native villages. The amounts of the individual formula allocations ranged from just over $50,000 (many tribes and Alaska Native villages) to nearly $84 million (the Navajo Housing Authority). The $84 million awarded to the Navajo Housing Authority was nearly three times larger than the next highest formula allocation amount (nearly $29 million to the Cherokee Nation).

The mean formula allocation was about $1.1 million, while the median formula allocation was nearly $270,000. Over 370 tribes or Alaska Native villages had allocations of less than $500,000; of these, over 150 had allocations of less than $100,000. About 140 recipients had allocations of more than $1 million; of these, 20 had allocations of at least $5 million, and eight had allocations of $10 million or more. Figure 4 summarizes how many of the 586 formula allocations to tribes and Alaska Native villages in FY2015 fell within certain dollar ranges.

Tribes can leverage their NAHBG funds—that is, use the funds they receive through the program to attract additional funds from other sources—or otherwise combine NAHBG funds with other funding streams to develop affordable housing. The Title VI program is an example of leveraging, because it allows tribes to use their NAHBG funds to help them obtain additional financing from private sources. Leveraging of HUD funding was allowed prior to NAHASDA, but was not common, and some tribes have identified the ability to leverage funds as a major benefit of NAHASDA. However, HUD has suggested that the ability of some tribes to leverage NAHBG funds using Title VI is limited because tribes can only borrow up to five times the need portion of their NAHBG formula allocations.

Leveraging or otherwise combining funds from multiple sources might be particularly important for tribes who receive relatively small grants under the NAHBG, since those grants alone might not be enough to undertake some larger-scale housing projects. For example, a tribe that receives an allocation of $50,000 is unlikely to be able to construct or acquire new housing units with its NAHBG funding alone, and may have to focus on other, lower-cost affordable housing activities unless it is able to combine its NAHBG funding with funding from other sources. However, smaller tribes might be less likely than larger tribes to have the capacity to seek out or administer funding from additional sources.

Other sources of funds available to tribes can include other federal programs, as well as state, local, tribal, or private funds. Some examples of other federal sources of funding for housing might include other HUD programs, the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) administered by the Department of the Treasury, or housing programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Tribes might also be able to access funding for related projects, such as infrastructure needed to support housing development, from agencies including the BIA, USDA, or the Indian Health Service (IHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

While combining funds from multiple sources can make it easier for tribes to address a wider range of housing needs, it also means that tribes have to comply with multiple programs' requirements. This can lead to challenges for tribes in leveraging NAHBG funding, including additional expense or time devoted to complying with multiple programs' requirements.

Census Data in the NAHBG Formula

Data from the decennial Census are used for many aspects of the NAHBG formula. Some issues have arisen related to the use of these data to calculate formula allocations. First, some tribes have argued that other sources, such as tribal enrollment or survey data, would more accurately identify the population that NAHASDA is intended to serve than the Census data. Second, since 2000, the Census has allowed respondents to identify themselves as belonging to more than one race, leading to questions about whether the NAHBG formula should take into account only those who identify solely as American Indians or Alaska Natives, or those who also identify as American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with another race.

This appendix provides a brief overview of these two issues. In general, tribes have indicated that they wish to come to a consensus about formula issues among themselves through the negotiated rulemaking process, rather than having HUD or Congress make decisions on how to handle these issues. Tribes have previously discussed these issues in negotiated rulemaking, but have not come to a consensus regarding any changes to date.

Using Census Data to Calculate the Need Portion of the Formula

The NAHASDA regulations, as agreed upon in negotiated rulemaking, specify that the data source used to calculate the need portion of the formula must be data that are "collected in a uniform manner and that can be confirmed and verified for all AIAN [American Indian and Alaska Native] households and persons living in an identified area." The regulations also specify that, initially, the data source used would be decennial Census data. HUD has continued to use Census data to calculate the need portion of the formula grant amounts for the NAHBG, including data on the number of American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) households.

There has been disagreement among tribes on whether Census data are the best data for HUD to use to allocate NAHBG funding. Some tribes believe that it is the most uniform, verifiable source of data available, and therefore is the fairest way to allocate funding among tribes. Other tribes, however, argue that Census data may not be representative of the population that NAHASDA is meant to serve.

NAHASDA provides funds to tribes to provide affordable housing to people who are members of federally recognized (or a small number of state recognized) tribes and are living in a tribe's formula area. However, the Census counts include anyone who identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native, whether or not they are enrolled members of such a tribe. Some of the people who identify as AIAN in the Census might not be enrolled tribal members at all, or they might be members of tribes that are not eligible under NAHASDA (such as state recognized tribes, or Canadian or South American tribes). Therefore, some tribes have argued that Census data do not provide an accurate count of the tribal population, as opposed to the overall AIAN population, and have suggested that tribes should have the option of using alternative data sources that better reflect the population that NAHASDA is intended to serve. They also argue that using the reported AIAN numbers in the Census rather than data that count enrolled tribal members effectively distributes NAHBG funds based on the number of people who identify with a specific racial group rather than based on their political status as tribal members.

Some possible alternative data sources that could be used include tribal enrollment data, tribal censuses, or data collected by other federal agencies. Many tribes have argued that one or more of these sources might more accurately reflect the tribal population. Furthermore, tribes have pointed out that, as sovereign nations, they choose the conditions of tribal membership; therefore, they argue that they should be allowed to choose the best data to measure their own tribal populations.

Other tribes have opposed using data sources other than the Census, arguing that the Census data are the only available data that are collected in a "uniform" and "verifiable" manner across tribes, as required by the regulations. These tribes note that existing alternative data sources each have drawbacks. For example, some data might not be collected by all tribes, or the data that are produced might not be standardized or verified across tribes. These tribes argue that it would be expensive and burdensome to require all tribes to adopt a single new data source, particularly if it required tribes to begin collecting data that they do not collect currently. They also express concerns that allowing tribes to each use different data sources could be cumbersome, and that this approach could lead to delays in funds being awarded while HUD verified the accuracy of many different data sources.

The 2008 reauthorization of NAHASDA included a provision directing the Secretary of HUD to contract with an organization to carry out a study of data sources, including sources other than the Census, that could be used to evaluate Native American housing needs for the purposes of the formula. The law authorized appropriations to carry out the study, but no funds have been appropriated, and the study has not been carried out.

"Single-Race" and "Multi-Race" Census Data

Beginning in 2000, Census respondents have had the option of identifying themselves as belonging to more than one race. The NAHASDA statute and regulations do not specify whether HUD should use data related only to the number of individuals who identify solely as American Indian or Alaska Native ("single-race data"), or if it should also include the number who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with another race ("multi-race data").

For the FY2004 formula allocations, HUD chose to use the total number of individuals who identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, regardless of whether they also identified with another race. HUD said that it made this decision because it believed it to be the most inclusive of all Native Americans living in a tribe's formula area. However, many tribes disagreed with both this decision itself and with HUD's decision to use the multi-race data without consulting tribes through negotiated rulemaking or a notice and comment period. Since FY2006, annual appropriations acts have directed HUD to calculate the formula both ways for each tribe—that is, using the single-race data and the multi-race data—and to award each tribe the larger of the two grant amounts.

Tribes have not reached a consensus about the single-race and multi-race data through negotiated rulemaking. In 2006, at Congress's direction, HUD solicited comments on its use of multi-race data in the NAHBG formula. Many tribes argued against using the multi-race data, maintaining that the single-race data are a better approximation of the tribal population that NAHASDA is intended to serve. These tribes raised concerns that those who identify as AIAN under the multi-race data might be less likely to be enrolled tribal members or less likely to live on reservations, and that using the multi-race data could therefore shift NAHASDA funding away from tribal members living on traditional reservations towards tribes that have more urban areas included in their formula areas.

Although many tribes are in favor of using the single-race data, there are some tribes that favor using the multi-race data. These tribes argue that there are tribal members who identify as belonging to multiple races, and that using only the single-race data would therefore exclude these tribal members. These tribes argue that using the multi-race data is a better reflection of the total population that they serve.