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

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