This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-255 
entitled 'Native American Housing: Additional Actions Needed to Better 
Support Tribal Efforts' which was released on March 27, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

March 2014: 

Native American Housing: 

Additional Actions Needed to Better Support Tribal Efforts: 

GAO-14-255: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-255, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

More than 570 federally and state-recognized Indian tribes receive 
about $667 million in housing assistance annually under the IHBG 
program. The IHBG program recognizes the tribes' right to self-
determination and self-governance in addressing their affordable 
housing needs. Conference Report 112-284 mandates that GAO study 
tribal housing challenges. Building on past work that raised 
discussion about some challenges, this report examines common housing 
challenges tribes face and actions that could address them. GAO 
interviewed HUD and other agencies, a tribal advocacy group, and 23 
tribal entities that were selected using input from HUD and other 
factors such as tribe funding, and conducted two site visits where 
challenges appeared to be unique. 

What GAO Found: 

Indian tribes and tribally designated housing entities face both 
external and internal challenges in carrying out affordable housing 
activities under the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program, which 
was authorized by the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA). The most commonly identified 
external challenges included the often remote location of tribal lands 
and lack of infrastructure such as running water and sewer systems. 
Meeting these challenges can significantly increase development costs. 
For example, one Arizona tribe saw its costs double because materials 
had to be brought in by helicopter. Tribes also identified differing 
federal agency requirements, particularly for environmental reviews, 
as a challenge that delayed projects and increased costs when IHBG and 
other funds were combined. Further, tribes were concerned that recent 
changes in federally authorized training and technical assistance 
could reduce their quality and frequency, in part because of the 
reduced role of a longstanding provider. The most commonly identified 
internal challenges were recipients' limited administrative capacity, 
conflicts within tribes that impact housing priorities and planning, 
and cultural preferences for certain types of housing. The Navajo 
Nation's housing entity, the largest IHBG recipient, has experienced 
all of these challenges and had a backlog of nearly $500 million in 
unspent IHBG funds, which it has begun to address. 

Opportunities exist to support tribes' affordable housing efforts. 
First, a federal infrastructure task force focused on facilitating 
tribes' water and wastewater projects has recommended that 
participating agencies, including Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 
develop a coordinated environmental review process to address the 
issue of inefficient and costly multiple reviews. A similarly 
coordinated process specific to tribal housing would help tribes to 
plan and build affordable housing more quickly and efficiently. Until 
such an effort is developed and implemented, tribes will continue to 
lose valuable time and spend IHBG resources completing overlapping 
reviews. Second, HUD instituted new training and technical assistance 
procedures according to revised language in the NAHASDA appropriation 
legislation, which changed the way that HUD makes funds available to 
provider organizations. HUD has solicited feedback from tribes that 
have received training and technical assistance under the new system, 
but opportunities remain to reach out to tribes that have not used the 
new system and remain concerned that their needs will not be met. 
Third, IHBG recipients could also benefit from having HUD disseminate 
promising approaches that other tribes have used to address housing 
challenges. In May 2013, HUD recognized 22 tribes that were 
incorporating resource-efficient elements into their affordable 
housing projects. However, HUD has not shared promising housing 
practices more generally across tribes in a way that would make them 
easily accessible. Information about successful approaches could help 
tribes use their IHBG funding in the most efficient and effective ways 
to provide affordable housing in their communities. 

What GAO Recommends: 

Agencies involved in Native American housing should develop and 
implement a coordinated environmental review process. HUD should also 
seek input from all tribes about the new training and technical 
assistance procedures. Finally, HUD should share promising housing 
approaches among tribes. The agencies generally agreed with GAO's 
recommendations, but HUD disagreed with the recommendation about 
creating a feedback mechanism because it said it already had one. 
However, HUD's existing mechanism does not include outreach to tribes 
that have yet to use the new procedures. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-255]. For more 
information, contact William Shear at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Indian Tribes Face External and Internal Housing Challenges: 

Addressing Some Tribal Housing Challenges Would Require Fundamental 
Changes, but Other Opportunities Exist: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Navajo Housing Authority Case Study: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Funding for Indian Housing from Fiscal Year 1993 to 2013 and 
Key Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 
1996 (NAHASDA) Program Legislative and Regulatory Changes from 
Implementation to Present: 

Figure 2: Two Ways into the Havasupai Tribe's Village in a Side Canyon 
of the Grand Canyon, 8-Mile Trail or Helicopter: 

Figure 3: Examples of Traditional Indian Homes, Navajo Nation (left) 
and Hopi Tribe (right): 

Figure 4: Housing in the Former Bennett Freeze Area, Arizona: 

Figure 5: Vandalized NHA Development in Shiprock, New Mexico: 

Figure 6: Unoccupied Housing Units Awaiting Resolution of Land 
Ownership Issue, Navajo Reservation: 

Figure 7: Examples of Traditional Federally Funded Housing 
Developments, Navajo Reservation: 

Figure 8: Rendering of NHA Contractor's Sustainable Community Concept: 

Figure 9: Recent NHA Housing Projects, Navajo Technical University 
Dormitory and Factory-Built House: 

Abbreviations: 

BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 

CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

HEARTH Act of 2012: Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal 
Home Ownership Act of 2012: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

IHBG: Indian Housing Block Grant: 

IHS: Indian Health Service: 

NAHASDA: Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act 
of 1996: 

NAIHC: National American Indian Housing Council: 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: 

NHA: Navajo Housing Authority: 

ONAP: Office of Native American Programs: 

TDHE: tribally designated housing entity: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

VA: Department of Veterans Affairs: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

March 27, 2014: 

The Honorable Patty Murray: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Susan Collins: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Tom Latham: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Ed Pastor: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
U.S. House of Representatives: 

Native American tribes primarily receive assistance for low-income 
housing through the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program under 
the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 
1996 (NAHASDA) program. Tribes largely view NAHASDA and the IHBG, 
which has provided tribes on average about $667 million annually from 
1998 through 2013 (funding varied from $600 million to about $1.15 
billion over this period), as a success because the program has given 
them the ability to identify and address the housing needs of their 
low-income members in a manner that recognizes tribal priorities and 
tribes' unique government-to-government relationship with the United 
States. But housing activities on tribal lands, including those 
designed to provide affordable housing, involve overcoming a number of 
challenges. These include external factors such as the location and 
characteristics of tribal lands, which are frequently remote and 
lacking in infrastructure, such as water and sewer lines. Some 
challenges specifically affect tribes' affordable housing activities, 
including issues related to requirements for federally funded housing 
projects, conflicts among tribal members with differing perspectives, 
and cultural preferences for certain types of housing. 

We last reported on the IHBG program in February 2010 in response to 
the 2008 reauthorization of NAHASDA. That report looked at the 
program's effectiveness in meeting the needs of tribes of various 
sizes, especially relatively small tribes and those receiving the 
smallest grants.[Footnote 1] Conference Report 112-284 requires that 
we study challenges associated with tribal housing activities, 
including those faced by tribes that are struggling to spend their 
funds in a timely manner.[Footnote 2] In this report, we examine (1) 
the kinds of challenges that Indian tribes have faced in administering 
housing activities under the IHBG program and (2) federal or tribal 
actions, if any, that could help to address these challenges. 

In conducting this work, we reviewed NAHASDA and its implementing 
regulations, studies, testimonies, prior GAO reports, and other 
relevant sources. We reviewed budget data from the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which administers NAHASDA through 
its Office of Native American Programs (ONAP), showing NAHASDA 
recipients' annual IHBG allocations and expenditures through 2013. On 
the basis of our analysis of the funding data and explanations that 
HUD provided, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 
for the purposes of this report. We interviewed representatives of the 
National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), a nonprofit housing 
advocacy organization that represents American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Our interviews included NAIHC 
executives and members of NAIHC's board who served as housing 
officials for individual tribes and tribally designated housing 
entities (TDHE) participating in NAHASDA. We interviewed housing 
officials from 23 tribes or TDHEs participating in NAHASDA that we 
selected primarily on the basis of housing challenges identified by 
ONAP or the tribe or TDHE. We interviewed 21 of these recipients by 
telephone and made two site visits, one to the Navajo Nation's 
reservation and one to the Hopi Tribe's reservation, in part because 
they are in close proximity to each other.[Footnote 3] The Navajo 
Nation's TDHE, the Navajo Housing Authority, was the largest recipient 
of IHBG funds and was one of several recipients that had contributed 
to a large backlog of unexpended IHBG funds. The Hopi Tribe remains a 
highly traditional and independent tribe. 

In addition, we interviewed and obtained relevant documents from 
officials in ONAP. We contacted HUD staff with responsibility for an 
ongoing study on Indian tribes' housing needs and interviewed 
officials at four other federal agencies whose programs targeted or 
served Indian tribes and their members.[Footnote 4] In general, we 
asked HUD and other agency officials about housing challenges they had 
identified among Indian tribes. We used our prior work on NAHASDA and 
other sources to inform this effort.[Footnote 5] For example, we 
attended NAIHC's 2013 convention, where representatives from NAIHC, 
tribes and TDHEs, and federal agencies provided perspectives on tribal 
housing. We considered input from the tribes, federal agencies, and 
other sources and existing knowledge. We analyzed this information to 
determine actions, if any, which could potentially address the 
challenges identified. See appendix I for a more detailed discussion 
of our scope and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to March 2014 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Native Americans' Housing Needs: 

Historically, Native Americans in the United States have faced worse 
housing conditions than other socioeconomic groups. Native Americans 
disproportionately experience socioeconomic challenges, including high 
unemployment and extreme poverty that impact housing conditions on 
Indian reservations and in other Indian areas. The U.S. Census Bureau 
reported in 2013 that American Indians and Alaska Natives were almost 
twice as likely to live in poverty as the rest of the population--27 
percent compared with 14.3 percent.[Footnote 6] Over 40 percent of 
Native Americans in North Dakota and South Dakota live below the 
poverty line, and in seven other states (Arizona, Maine, Minnesota, 
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Utah) Native American poverty rates 
are about 30 percent or more. In addition, overcrowding, substandard 
housing, and homelessness are far more common in Native American 
communities. For example, a Housing Assistance Council analysis of 
2010 U.S. Census and 2005-2009 American Community Survey data found 
that 5.3 percent of homes on Native American lands lacked complete 
plumbing and 4.8 percent lacked complete kitchens. The comparable 
nationwide figures were 0.5 and 0.7 percent, respectively.[Footnote 7] 
The Housing Assistance Council also noted that household crowding in 
rural areas, such as most Native American communities, tended to be 
invisible, with households moving in with relatives or friends in 
reaction to adverse economic or social conditions or to escape 
substandard housing conditions. HUD officials noted that such 
"doubling up" and subsequent overcrowding in Native American 
communities was often tied to a tradition of extended family dwellings 
and made it difficult to quantify homelessness in Native American 
communities. [Footnote 8] 

Federal Role in Native American Housing Assistance: 

The U.S. government's relationship with Native American tribes has 
historically been troubled, making it difficult to address the needs 
of low-income Native Americans. Since 1961, the government has sought 
to address the need for safe, decent, and affordable housing for 
Native Americans by allowing tribes access to several housing 
programs, including those authorized under the U.S. Housing Act of 
1937 (1937 Act) and administered by HUD.[Footnote 9] In October 1996, 
Congress created a housing program for Native Americans that 
recognized the tribes' right to self-determination and self-governance 
(see figure 1). NAHASDA reorganized the system of housing assistance 
that HUD provided to Native Americans by eliminating or incorporating 
several separate programs into a single block grant program--known as 
the IHBG program--and created the Title VI Loan Guarantee (Title VI) 
program to assist grant recipients with private market 
financing.[Footnote 10] As figure 1 indicates, NAHASDA was first 
funded in fiscal year 1998. Today, 566 federally recognized and 5 
state-recognized Indian tribes with membership levels ranging from a 
few hundred to a few hundred thousand are eligible to receive IHBG 
funds annually to provide their members with adequate and affordable 
housing. 

Size, operation, and land jurisdictional authority vary among Indian 
tribes. As of December 2013, there were more than 300 reservations in 
the lower 48 states and 1 in Alaska. Tribes sometimes lack clearly 
defined land areas, however, and may have more than one reservation or 
share a reservation with another tribe.[Footnote 11] The remaining 
more than 200 Indian tribes do not have reservations or other lands. 
For example, the majority of Alaska's more than 200 federally 
recognized tribes--the largest number in any U.S. state--reside in 
rural villages.[Footnote 12] According to the 2010 Census, of the 2.4 
million people in the United States who reported their sole race as 
American Indian or Alaska Native, 23 percent lived on Native American 
lands.[Footnote 13] NAHASDA allows tribes to serve members of other 
tribes residing within their service area. 

Figure 1: Funding for Indian Housing from Fiscal Year 1993 to 2013 and 
Key Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 
1996 (NAHASDA) Program Legislative and Regulatory Changes from 
Implementation to Present: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Year: 1993; 
Funding: $537 million. 

Year: 1994; 
Funding: $585 million. 

Year: 1995; 
Funding: $593 million. 

Year: 1996; 
Funding: $491 million. 

Year: 1997; 
Funding: $562 million. 

1998-2013: Actual dollars. 

Year: 1998; 
Funding: $592 million. 

Year: 1999; 
Funding: $577 million. 

Year: 2000; 
Funding: $617 million. 

Year: 2001; 
Funding: $634 million. 

Year: 2002; 
Funding: $691 million. 

Year: 2003; 
Funding: $659 million. 

Year: 2004; 
Funding: $652 million. 

Year: 2005; 
Funding: $642 million. 

Year: 2006; 
Funding: $606 million. 

Year: 2007; 
Funding: $641 million. 

Year: 2008; 
Funding: $667 million. 

Year: 2009[A]; 
Funding: $621 million. 

Year: 2010; 
Funding: $700 million. 

Year: 2011; 
Funding: $649 million. 

Year: 2012; 
Funding: $650 million. 

Year: 2013; 
Funding: $649 million. 

1937 Act programs: 

1996: 
NAHASDA enacted: Recognized the right of Indian self-determination and 
tribal self-governance by making housing assistance directly available 
to the Indian tribes or tribally designated housing entities. 

1998: 
NAHASDA regulations promulgated: Regulations implementing NAHADSA were 
written pursuant to the first negotiated rulemaking committee.
NAHASDA amendment enacted: Public Law (P.L.) 105-276 made minor 
changes to NAHASDA. 

2000: 
NAHASDA amendment enacted: P.L. 106-377 allowed housing assistance to 
be provided to a law enforcement officer whose presence was determined 
to deter crime NAHASDA amendment enacted: P.L. 106-568 made changes 
such as creating parallel program to cover Native Hawaiians (Native 
Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program) and allowing for waivers for 
environmental reviews. 

2002: 
NAHASDA regulations promulgated: Regulations implementing Native 
Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program promulgated. NAHASDA 
reauthorization and amendments enacted: P.L. 107-292 made changes, 
such as allowing for the usage of grants for housing-related community 
development. 

2004: 
NAHASDA amendments enacted: P.L. 108-393 established a limited 
guarantee level of 95% for the Title VI loan program. 

2005: 
NAHASDA amendment enacted: P. L. 109-58 made minor changes, such as 
the addition of energy efficiency as part of a development activity. 

2007: 
NAHASDA regulations promulgated: Final rule published from formula 
negotiated rulemaking committee: The rule made changes to the IHBG 
formula, such as addressing certain definitions of formula areas and 
establishing a new minimum allocation formula. 

2008: 
NAHASDA amendments enacted: P.L. 110-411 made changes, such as 
establishing a demonstration loan guarantee program for community 
development. 

2010: 
NAHASDA amendment enacted: P.L. 111-269 amended NAHASDA's definition 
of income to exclude compensation received by or on behalf of a 
veteran for service-related disability, death, dependency or indemnity 
compensation. The exclusion applies to the programs authorized by 
NAHASDA. 

2012: 
NAHASDA regulations promulgated: Regulations from negotiated 
rulemaking committee implemented provisions of the 2008 
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 110-411). Rule also implemented statutory 
changes to NAHASDA made by several laws enacted between 1998 and 2005. 

Source: GAO analysis of NAHASDA statute and regulations. 

[A] Includes supplemental funding under the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

Funding levels include rescissions. 

[End of figure] 

Indian Housing Block Grant Program: 

The IHBG program, authorized under NAHASDA, is a formula grant program 
that provides funding for affordable housing activities to Native 
American tribes or TDHEs. With the enactment of NAHASDA, federally 
recognized Indian tribes or their TDHEs and a limited number of state-
recognized tribes that were funded under the 1937 Act became eligible 
for the IHBG program. Tribes may choose to receive housing funds 
directly or may designate a TDHE to administer the housing program on 
their behalf.[Footnote 14] Families eligible for NAHASDA-funded 
assistance must be low-income Indian families--those whose income does 
not exceed 80 percent of the area median income--residing on a 
reservation or in an Indian area.[Footnote 15] 

The amount of IHBG funding that Indian tribes receive is based on an 
allocation formula that has two components: (1) the costs of operating 
and modernizing pre-NAHASDA, HUD-funded units and (2) the need to 
provide new affordable housing. Need is based on seven factors that 
include the grant recipient's American Indian/Alaska Native population 
and the number of households within that population that fall in 
certain low-income categories. Allocation amounts are adjusted for 
local construction costs and rents. Because population impacts all 
need factors in the IHBG allocation, larger recipients (larger tribes 
operating their own housing programs or the TDHEs representing those 
tribes) receive larger allocations. Recipients that own and operate 
pre-NAHASDA housing units and that have existing housing needs receive 
both portions of the IHBG, while those without such units receive only 
the need portion. 

Self-Determination for Indian Tribes: 

In creating NAHASDA, Congress recognized Indian tribes' right to self-
determination and self-governance through (1) negotiated rulemaking, 
(2) direct funding (to the tribes or their designated entities), and 
(3) authority to determine the details of their housing programs. 
Negotiated rulemaking takes place when an agency that is considering 
drafting a rule brings together agency representatives and affected 
parties for consultations. In accordance with Section 106 of NAHASDA, 
HUD developed the regulations with active tribal participation, using 
the procedures of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, as 
amended.[Footnote 16] ONAP consults with tribes on various matters, 
and in conducting past work on NAHASDA, we learned that a primary 
reason for recipients' positive views of the program was its 
recognition of self-determination.[Footnote 17] 

Under NAHASDA, tribes are able to determine (1) whom they serve (for 
example, giving preference to members of the participating tribe); (2) 
the types of eligible activities they offer; and (3) the method of 
delivering their programs and projects. Those programs and projects 
must fall under one of several eligible activities, including: 

1. Indian housing assistance (i.e. modernization or operating 
assistance for 1937 Act units); 

2. housing development, including the acquisition, new construction, 
and reconstruction or rehabilitation of affordable housing; 

3. housing services, such as housing counseling and assistance to 
owners, tenants, and contractors involved in eligible housing 
activities; 

4. housing management services for affordable housing, including loan 
processing, inspections, and tenant selection; 

5. crime prevention and safety; 

6. model activities that provide creative approaches to solving 
affordable housing problems; and: 

7. reserve accounts for administrative and planning activities related 
to affordable housing. 

Indian Tribes Face External and Internal Housing Challenges: 

We used a number of sources to identify common housing challenges that 
tribes were facing, including our interviews with NAIHC executives, 
tribal housing officials on NAIHC's board and at the 23 selected 
tribes and TDHEs, HUD and other agency officials, and our prior work 
on NAHASDA.[Footnote 18] Those challenges were largely related to 
remoteness and other geographical factors, land use regulations, lack 
of adequate infrastructure, differing federal agency requirements, 
potential reduction in training opportunities and program support, 
limited administrative capacity, conflict within tribes, and cultural 
factors. Some IHBG recipients, such as the Navajo Housing Authority 
(NHA), faced a combination of these challenges (see appendix II). 

External Challenges: 

Remoteness and Other Geographical Factors: 

Many of the tribal housing officials we interviewed told us that 
tribes' remote locations or lack of adequate infrastructure to support 
housing led to higher development costs. For example, officials from a 
Utah tribe explained that there was no airport service to the area and 
that driving to a nearby town for needed materials required at least a 
60-mile trip each way, mostly on maintained but rugged dirt roads. The 
officials said that purchasing major housing construction supplies 
from other areas, some of them a few hours away, drove delivery costs 
up to as much as $1,000 per trip, in addition to the cost of the 
materials. 

The remoteness of some Indian reservations and other tribal lands has 
contributed to poor socioeconomic conditions that underscore the need 
for affordable housing. Limited economic activity in tribal areas can 
hinder the potential of tribal members to find gainful employment and 
earn livable wages that would allow them to rent or purchase market-
rate housing. A representative of a nonprofit that had partnered with 
NHA to provide financial and homebuyer education pointed out that 
having an economy that was dependent on tribal enterprise stifled the 
potential of tribes to grow through entrepreneurship and other means. 

Some remote areas where tribal lands are located can present unique 
logistical challenges, including a lack of buildable land and 
infrastructure. For example, the housing coordinator of an Arizona 
tribe whose reservation is located along the Grand Canyon in an area 
vulnerable to floods explained that having a limited amount of land 
that could be developed had led to overcrowding in the tribe's 
village. According to the housing official, the tribe had about 700 
enrolled members, 500 of whom lived at the base of the canyon in 112 
housing units. In lieu of development, the housing department had 
focused on rehabilitating members' homes, some of which were 40 and 50 
years old. However, these projects had to factor in the cost of having 
construction materials dropped by helicopter into the canyon where the 
village was located. The housing official told us that these 
deliveries could add $30,000 to the cost of a typical $20,000 
rehabilitation project (see figure 2). 

Figure 2: Two Ways into the Havasupai Tribe's Village in a Side Canyon 
of the Grand Canyon, 8-Mile Trail or Helicopter: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Source: Havasupai Tribe. 

[End of figure] 

At another tribe in Washington state, the housing director told us 
that the tribe had a moratorium on expanding water use on the 
reservation except to serve new development. However, buildable land 
in the tribe's main residential area was lacking, pushing new 
development into remote timberland where expensive infrastructure, 
such as running water and utilities, would need to be developed. 
Further, she stated that it was difficult to recruit qualified and 
affordable contractors because of the limited housing activity in the 
area. According to the official, the housing department's waiting list 
has had hundreds of names on it since the 1970s because of the lack of 
land that can be developed and the cost of providing infrastructure. 

Lack of Adequate Infrastructure: 

In some regions, tribes faced challenges related to both remoteness 
and lack of adequate infrastructure, such as roads and water and sewer 
systems. For example, officials from a Nevada tribe told us that the 
tribe's land base was undeveloped, requiring them to invest resources 
to put infrastructure in place before building homes for tribal 
members. According to the officials, sewer pipes in one of the tribe's 
communities were failing and in need of upgrades. They said that 
another community had significant bedrock that likely would require 
blasting before infrastructure could be added to the area and that the 
nearest main road was 5 miles away. The housing director for a North 
Dakota tribe told us that the tribe would need to build new sewer 
facilities and add on to the existing water systems to support 
additional development. 

In our past work on Native American housing, we highlighted the 
importance of tribes' ensuring that housing was supported by adequate 
sanitation facilities such as running water and sewer 
systems.[Footnote 19] During our current review, it was apparent that 
some of the housing officials we met with were focused on providing 
homes with access to adequate infrastructure. More specifically, some 
housing officials indicated that they did not intend to start housing 
construction without first having basic infrastructure systems in 
place to support the homes. 

Housing officials from all of the seven Alaska recipients we spoke 
with told us that they paid expensive transportation, fuel, or labor 
charges because of their remote locations and cold climate. Three 
housing officials also described their villages' inadequate 
infrastructure. One housing director told us that construction costs 
were significantly impacted by the area's remoteness and long and 
severely cold winters, when temperatures could reach 70 below. He said 
that high fuel costs impacted charges for freight and subsequently for 
lumber and other building materials. He observed that winters had been 
lasting longer and that weather had been less predictable in recent 
years. Similarly, another housing director stated that, on average, 
there were 230 days out of the year when temperatures fell below 
freezing, limiting outdoor construction to only 3 or 4 months. A third 
housing official explained that construction costs were already high 
for properties with existing infrastructure and that building 
infrastructure on an undeveloped property--that is, properties lacking 
basic amenities such as roads and running water--could add $1 million 
to the costs. He said that because his TDHE received just over $1 
million annually from the IHBG, such a project would require that 
grant funds be accumulated over several years. 

One of the Alaska housing officials we interviewed expressed 
frustration that federal officials in Washington, D.C. generally did 
not understand the realities of construction in remote areas of Alaska 
and were skeptical of the region's high construction costs. He 
explained that his construction materials were delivered by barge and 
that he needed to place orders for materials 2 to 3 months in advance. 
Missing the barge meant flying materials in at a higher cost. He noted 
that, with one exception, all of the villages served by his TDHE 
lacked connecting roads, and several villages lacked running water and 
sewer facilities. 

Land Use Regulations: 

Having a land base is essential for tribal economic development 
activities, including agricultural, energy-related, and housing 
activities. Since the late 1800s, Indian lands have diminished 
significantly, in large part because of federal policy.[Footnote 20] 
The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 changed the government's Indian 
policy to encourage tribal self-governance, and Section 5 of the act 
provided the Secretary of the Interior with discretionary authority to 
take land in trust on behalf of tribes or their members. Under the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) trust regulations, tribes or tribal 
members who purchase or own property on which they pay property taxes 
can submit a written request to the Secretary of the Interior to have 
the land taken in trust. If approved, the ownership status of the 
property is converted from taxable status to nontaxable Indian trust 
status. In addition, tribes or their members seeking to lease land 
that is held in trust status to pursue residential, commercial, or 
energy activities on the land must receive approval from BIA. 

However, in a 2006 report, we found that BIA did not have deadlines 
for making decisions on land in trust applications, and in 2010 we 
found that lease approval decisions could take several years.[Footnote 
21] BIA officials told us that every land trust transaction was unique 
and that localities with jurisdiction over the land--such as counties 
and townships--often scrutinized and opposed the transactions. ONAP 
officials also stated that the process of applying to BIA to have land 
taken into trust could be complicated and contentious and that there 
was no guarantee of approval. They agreed with BIA that localities 
often scrutinized and opposed the transactions because of concerns 
about how tribes would use the converted land. We later found that the 
often complicated ownership status of Indian trust lands was partly 
the reason that BIA often takes several years to process lease 
approvals for land parcels identified for development.[Footnote 22] 
For example, a land parcel may be held in trust for multiple 
descendents of the tribal member to whom the land was originally 
allotted. When the allottee dies, the allotment passes to the heirs. 
Ownership of some allotted land has been divided among generations of 
heirs, so that large numbers of individuals hold interest in the land. 
In some cases, such "fractionated lands" have up to several hundred 
ownership interests that have different ideas about how the land 
should be used.[Footnote 23] In addition, BIA officials explained that 
actions on trust lands were subject to requirements such as 
environmental reviews that added to BIA's processing time. The 
officials said that because of the federal government's fiduciary 
trust in managing these lands, BIA took a conservative approach to 
managing them. 

The legal restrictions associated with trust lands have acted as an 
impediment to individuals seeking a mortgage and to lending 
institutions that might otherwise promote homeownership to Indian 
tribes--a challenge that affects both market-rate and affordable 
housing. In a February 2010 report, we found that banks were reluctant 
to do business on tribal lands because of cumbersome procedures, such 
as BIA's process of issuing land title or trust status reports for 
mortgages involving trust lands.[Footnote 24] BIA acknowledged these 
limitations recently in developing new policies for lease 
transactions, noting that the regulations were outdated and unworkable 
in the current economy and hindered homeownership and economic 
development on tribal lands. In January 2013, BIA began implementing 
new policies for several of its land leasing procedures that were 
intended to expedite approvals--for example, establishing separate, 
simplified processes for different types of leases and adding time 
limits for BIA to issue decisions.[Footnote 25] For example, BIA must 
now provide decisions on residential leases and subleases within 30 
days. The practicability of these changes and their impact on housing 
development have not yet been determined. In addition to BIA's new 
regulations, in 2012 Congress enacted the Helping Expedite and Advance 
Responsible Tribal Home Ownership (HEARTH) Act. The HEARTH Act of 2012 
includes a provision that allows tribes to lease restricted lands for 
public, religious, educational, residential, or business purposes 
without BIA's prior approval. Its goal is to help expedite the land-
lease process for tribes.[Footnote 26] 

USDA officials serving as Native American coordinators in several 
states agreed that lenders had limited interest in providing mortgages 
on trust lands using a USDA single-family housing loan guarantee 
program, even when tribal members sought them. For example, they said 
that it was difficult to persuade lenders to participate in the 
program, in part because it is limited to a 90-percent guarantee on 
all mortgages, including for homes on trust lands. In contrast, HUD's 
Section 184 Loan Guarantee program provides a 100-percent 
guarantee.[Footnote 27] The Section 184 program was one of several 
legislative actions Congress took to spur the lending market on Indian 
lands. 

Differing Federal Environmental Reviews and Other Requirements: 

Several recipients seeking to combine funding for their housing 
projects said that differing federal agency requirements, particularly 
mandatory environmental review requirements, posed a significant 
challenge. Among the tribes and TDHEs we interviewed for this review, 
some told us that having to follow different requirements for federal 
agencies was burdensome and costly. In our past NAHASDA work, which 
included surveying all tribes and TDHEs that received grant funds in 
fiscal year 2008, 68 percent of respondents cited incompatible federal 
funding programs or lack of coordination among agencies, including the 
environmental review process, as a hindrance to leveraging multiple 
programs.[Footnote 28] Several of the housing officials whom we 
interviewed for this study also cited environmental reviews as a 
primary area in which differing federal agency requirements delayed 
housing development or increased the associated costs. 

NAHASDA regulations state that the environmental effects of activities 
carried out with assistance from the program must be evaluated in 
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 
as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347) and related authorities. Under 
NEPA, agencies evaluate the likely environmental effects of projects 
they are proposing using an environmental assessment or, if the 
project is more likely to significantly affect the environment, a more 
detailed environmental impact statement. Under NAHASDA regulations, an 
Indian tribe may choose to assume environmental review 
responsibilities.[Footnote 29] In addition, when tribes combine IHBG 
and other federal funds on a project--something NAHASDA allows--they 
must follow each agency's separate requirements.[Footnote 30] 

For example, housing officials from one TDHE told us that 
environmental reviews could cost between $2,000 and $4,000 for each 
agency involved. They observed that various agencies that assisted 
tribes, including USDA, BIA, Department of Energy, HUD, IHS, and the 
U.S. Department of the Treasury (for low-income housing tax credits) 
had different environmental review requirements. The officials said 
that they considered the multiple reviews to be a communication and 
coordination deficiency among the agencies and that it would be 
helpful for the agencies to recognize a single review process. The 
housing director for another TDHE told us that his TDHE had used funds 
from USDA, the Economic Development Administration, HUD, and local 
sources on a project and had completed four separate environmental 
reviews that took approximately 2 years. Although IHBG recipients can 
use their grant funds to cover the cost of environmental reviews, 
paying for multiple reviews can pose a financial obstacle, 
particularly for recipients with fewer resources, and reduces the 
funding available for housing activities. Federal agency officials 
told us that the cost of environmental reviews varied on a case-by-
case basis. For example, an IHS official explained that each review 
could range from an estimated 1 to 30 percent of the total project 
cost. According to BIA, an assessment of broad environmental effects 
for subdivisions and larger multifamily projects could range from 
$4,000 to $50,000, while a survey to identify hazardous chemical 
deposits on land chosen for development could range from $1,000 to 
$10,000. HUD did not provide cost estimates but said that the agency 
followed the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations in 
allowing tribes that were the responsible entities for environmental 
reviews to adopt other agencies' environmental reviews.[Footnote 31] 
HUD also said that it encouraged cooperating agency agreements when 
multiple federal funding agencies were involved specifically to avoid 
having multiple reviews for the same project. 

A few housing officials explained that the current funding environment 
made it difficult to develop a housing project without going to 
several sources and that the agencies' different standards were a 
hindrance to their housing efforts. For example, one housing director 
told us that in addition to conducting separate environmental reviews 
for HUD and the Department of Energy, his TDHE had difficulty with 
differing qualifications for federal agencies' rural programs. He 
cited inconsistencies among federal programs' definitions of rural 
areas, noting that some agencies used only population data, while 
others incorporated additional factors.[Footnote 32] Another housing 
director said that his TDHE had tried to rehabilitate older buildings 
that had formerly been controlled by the federal government and had 
found several structural hazards, including dilapidated roofs and lead 
paint. In attempting to make the buildings usable, the TDHE sought 
assistance from HUD and the Environmental Protection Agency and faced 
different requirements for lead paint remediation. Because the TDHE 
considered HUD's requirements to be cost prohibitive, remediation 
efforts stalled, and the project was abandoned. 

Potential Reduction in Training Opportunities and Program Support: 

In addition to ongoing external challenges, several housing officials 
were concerned about changes in the delivery of training and technical 
assistance they received under the IHBG program. As part of their 
participation in the program, tribes and TDHEs benefit from training 
and technical assistance opportunities facilitated by ONAP. Training 
topics may include, among other things, NAHASDA policies and 
procedures, housing development basics, procurement, leveraged 
financing, and partnerships and resources. Technical assistance 
provides recipients with a more hands-on experience to help them build 
administrative capacity. Some housing officials told us that training 
for their staff was essential. For example, one housing official 
emphasized that such training contributed to the long-term success of 
tribal housing organizations. Another housing official indicated that 
frequent political changes within tribes caused housing entities to 
lose qualified personnel, requiring that new staff be trained quickly. 
Similarly, two officials said that tribal housing boards and councils 
could benefit from training tailored to assist them in mitigating 
conflicts between tribes and their housing entities. 

Some housing officials were skeptical about changes that reduced 
NAIHC's role in delivering training and technical assistance. Until 
fiscal year 2012, Congress appropriated approximately $2 million to 
$3.5 million annually as part of a set-aside in the NAHASDA 
appropriation to NAIHC, which served as the primary provider of 
external training and technical assistance to IHBG recipients. ONAP 
also provided some training and technical assistance directly and some 
through contractors, but several tribal housing officials found ONAP's 
training to be more specific to NAHASDA and less tailored to their 
individual needs. In fiscal year 2012, Congress stopped appropriating 
the set-aside to NAIHC and directed HUD to provide grants on a 
competitive basis to national and regional organizations.[Footnote 33] 
HUD awarded eight organizations, including NAIHC, training and 
technical assistance grants under cooperative agreements in 2012. 
NAIHC did not receive a training and technical assistance award for 
2013. According to ONAP officials, NAIHC attempted to apply for a 2013 
award but missed the deadline for consideration. The organizations 
that enter into cooperative agreements with HUD to provide training 
and technical assistance become part of a cadre of providers that HUD 
calls on to fulfill requests from IHBG recipients. 

Some housing officials told us that when NAIHC was the primary 
provider they could request training and technical assistance directly 
from NAIHC. For example, the housing officials said that the prior 
procedures allowed them to contact NAIHC and request an individual 
trainer whom they recognized as having expertise in the area in which 
they needed assistance. With that input, NAIHC made a determination on 
the type of training that would be provided at a particular location. 
NAIHC's leadership told us that the organization's approach was to 
identify an expert in a given area and send that person where the 
assistance was needed. Under HUD's new procedures, some housing 
officials told us that waiting for regional ONAP staff to schedule 
training could delay training. One official said that she often 
received notifications about training that ONAP was offering in her 
region but was not given enough lead time to take advantage of these 
opportunities. For example, she explained that she received the 
information about 2 weeks in advance and thus did not have time to 
obtain approval to attend from the tribe or to make appropriate travel 
arrangements without paying prohibitively high costs. Yet another 
housing official noted that tribes' training and technical assistance 
needs varied within regions and suggested that a more hands-on 
approach from ONAP and other providers could help identify recipients' 
needs. According to HUD, under the new procedures, tribes and TDHEs 
submit a request for training or technical assistance through their 
regional ONAP offices or directly to headquarters. Once HUD 
headquarters staff approve the request, the tribes coordinate with the 
relevant training provider. 

Officials at one TDHE said that under HUD's new system, the tribes 
would have no control over who provided the training or technical 
assistance, when it would be offered, or whether ONAP headquarters 
would even agree that it was necessary. The housing officials said 
that ONAP responded to their training request by offering to deliver 
the training on-site within 6 months but later postponed the session 
because of insufficient travel funds. The housing officials told us 
that they had wanted to have new staff trained on HUD's Section 184 
program, which could be used along with the IHBG program, but said 
that they had so far been unable to get the needed training. ONAP 
officials stated that ONAP had not yet declined a training request 
under the current procedures but noted that scheduling and finding the 
right trainers had been challenging. In terms of external providers, 
ONAP officials said that the new approach was intended to be more 
streamlined than the federal procurement system in identifying 
training and technical assistance providers. They explained that ONAP 
was creating a database of trainers and subject-matter experts that 
they expected would expedite the process of identifying the right 
provider to fulfill each request. Regarding the TDHE's example of 
requesting training on the Section 184 program, ONAP officials said 
that this involved a misunderstanding. The TDHE had understood that 
training for non-NAHASDA programs could be requested as part of 
NAHASDA training and technical assistance procedures, but in fact 
training for other programs was paid for with a separate set of funds. 

A few tribal housing officials expected that the on-site technical 
assistance that NAIHC had provided to individual tribes and TDHEs upon 
request would be available less often under the new procedures. A 
number of tribal housing officials also said that they had previously 
relied on training scholarships from NAIHC to attend national training 
events. NAIHC used funds from its annual appropriation to provide 
scholarships for Indian housing staff that covered tuition, if 
applicable, and travel costs. NAIHC expected that it would be offering 
fewer scholarships under the new system because it would no longer be 
the primary provider of external training and technical assistance to 
IHBG recipients.[Footnote 34] Some housing officials told us that 
without this support, recipients with limited resources would have 
fewer opportunities to send housing staff to training events, such as 
national events that one official pointed out allowed tribes to 
network with and learn from each other. These recipients' concerns 
largely stemmed from their experience with NAIHC. For example, a few 
said that the organization's knowledge of tribes and their unique 
circumstances resulted in training and technical assistance that was 
relevant and practical for their needs. ONAP officials indicated that 
under the new procedures, tribes and TDHEs would have more 
opportunities for regional training events that were located closer to 
them than national events. In addition, they stated that tribes and 
TDHEs would still be able to request the technical assistance they 
needed and have it delivered by a knowledgeable provider on-site. ONAP 
officials also said that technical assistance requests were being 
developed jointly with the tribes, along with a work plan for the 
provider. The officials explained that several on-site visits were 
scheduled to allow sufficient time for the tribe to receive hands-on 
services and that there were ongoing remote communications to allow 
for any needed follow-up. 

Generally, ONAP officials said that they believed the housing 
officials' views about future training and technical opportunities 
were largely based on past experiences with ONAP that required tribes 
and TDHEs to wait for HUD to contract with training and technical 
assistance providers. The ONAP officials acknowledged that there were 
inherent delays in obtaining HUD-contracted assistance with the old 
training and technical assistance procedures in place before 2012, in 
part because of the steps the federal procurement process required, 
and said that the new procedures using cooperative agreements were 
intended to allow for more self-determination. For example, they said 
that the goal was to offer tribes and TDHEs training that was more 
specific to their needs than prior offerings. 

Many of the IHBG recipients we contacted described having positive 
relationships with their regional ONAP offices. For example, several 
housing directors in Alaska gave examples of the support they received 
from the regional office. Two of the housing officials said that they 
could rely on Alaska ONAP staff to help them interpret program policy 
and directives that they received from ONAP headquarters. Another 
housing official said that she was comfortable asking Alaska ONAP 
staff for informal feedback on draft housing plans, particularly when 
the TDHE was undertaking a new housing program or activity. But a few 
recipients also expressed concerns. Those recipients said that ONAP 
did not notify them about changes in regional staff, that key ONAP 
staff whom they relied on to handle inquiries were not responsive, and 
that new staff did not provide them with adequate guidance. For 
example, one housing official said that ONAP routinely advised tribal 
housing staff to consult the program guidance instead of providing a 
definitive response to questions or helping to interpret it. Some 
tribal housing officials agreed that insufficient support from and 
partnerships with the regional ONAP offices could contribute to a 
recipient's administrative challenges. They also said that the lack of 
a strong relationship with the regional ONAP office could result in 
the type of inactivity that had caused some recipients to fall behind 
the timeline for using their grant funds and thus to miss 
opportunities to provide needed housing for their members (see 
appendix II). 

ONAP officials, in turn, recognized some of these concerns but cited 
low staffing levels as a contributing factor. They explained that 
staffing for regional offices that directly interacted with the tribes 
had decreased by about 40 percent in recent years, in some cases due 
to retirements and subsequent unfilled vacancies. From 2009 to 2013, 
ONAP staff, most of whom are in the regional offices, decreased from 
an estimated 212 to 159. According to ONAP officials, the 2012 federal 
sequester negatively impacted HUD's workforce, contributing to 
department-wide furloughs and limiting HUD's ability to refill vacant 
positions. They said that ONAP had not hired any staff from June 2012 
to September 2013. Further, they told us that while HUD had given ONAP 
authority to appoint temporary directors among existing staff, several 
specialist positions remained open without a timeline for being 
filled. These specialists play an important role in helping IHBG 
recipients carry out housing activities, respond to program 
requirements, and remain compliant. For example, the specialists are 
responsible for ensuring that funds are awarded when a recipient meets 
the IHBG program requirements. They also provide technical assistance 
and project support, review recipients' performance, and initiate 
enforcement procedures when necessary. Without sufficient attention 
from ONAP in these areas, recipients are more likely to experience 
prolonged administrative issues that can delay the provision of 
services to members and require increased monitoring by HUD. 

Finally, tribes in the same region sometimes had different 
characteristics and carried out different activities. For example, one 
housing official explained that the tribe she worked with received 
federal recognition after NAHASDA's implementation and therefore did 
not own pre-NAHASDA (1937 Act) units, lacked reservation land, and had 
not yet built any IHBG-funded units. As a result, the tribe had 
focused on nonconstruction activities such as providing tenant-based 
rental assistance for members that was similar to HUD's Section 8 
program and was trying to identify other tribes using this 
approach.[Footnote 35] At the time we spoke, the official had not 
identified comparable tribes in the region that could share IHBG 
strategies, and she had reached out to ONAP but had not yet received 
the requested information. 

Internal Challenges: 

Limited Administrative Capacity: 

We previously concluded that limited administrative capacity could 
hinder the success of tribes and TDHEs participating in NAHASDA. 
[Footnote 36] At the time, we noted that this challenge likely was 
more common among recipients whom we contacted with smaller annual 
IHBG allocations and fewer staff. During this review, a few housing 
officials told us that they had experienced or were still experiencing 
administrative capacity issues. Size remained a factor, but frequent 
staff turnover and other administrative changes also had a negative 
impact on recipients' ability to successfully administer the IHBG. For 
example, one tribal housing department had only two staff members, 
including the director. The director, who had been in her position for 
4 years, said that because of the department's size, any staffing 
changes would have a significant impact on continuing operations. 
Another housing director told us that she had served in the position 
for about 1 year and also had one additional staff member and that 
before she started, the TDHE had been closed for some time after ONAP 
found that certain procedures had not been carried out. ONAP officials 
stated that ONAP did not initiate the TDHE's closure. 

Yet another housing director with 20 years of experience had been in 
his current position only a few months, and other staff members had 
been in their positions less than 2 years. The housing director 
explained that the housing entity receiving the tribe's NAHASDA funds 
had transitioned from a TDHE to a housing department within the tribe 
and that housing leadership had changed at least 8 times in fewer than 
3 years, making it difficult to plan with confidence. In the case of 
the largest IHBG recipient, NHA, several factors contributed to 
administrative capacity issues in recent years, including 
noncompliance by subrecipients and changes in the TDHE's leadership. 

Successful administration of the IHBG program, including the ability 
to plan and execute eligible housing initiatives and to adhere to 
program requirements, requires dedicated and knowledgeable staff and 
some measure of operational consistency. In a few cases, housing 
officials told us the tribe or TDHE they worked for initially began 
participating in the IHBG program without allocating sufficient 
personnel and ramped up over time to more adequately administer the 
grant. Moreover, HUD officials explained that while the IHBG program 
was not onerous on the front end because it was not competitive, 
tribes could be unprepared for the sophistication and systems required 
to administer housing activities under the program and to remain 
compliant with its requirements. HUD officials said they were aware, 
for instance, that turnover in tribal housing staff and housing 
directors could result in the loss of expertise that was difficult to 
replace. Further, they said that because of tribes' often remote 
locations, quality contractors that could supplement the housing 
staff's knowledge were hard to find. 

Conflict within Tribes: 

Internal conflict on housing issues within tribal entities can take 
various forms, such as disagreement between a tribe and its 
independent TDHE or between the TDHE and other departments related to 
housing, such as planning and environmental offices. We found that 
internal conflicts could affect the priority housing was given, or 
whether housing activities were carried out in a timely manner. One 
housing director in North Dakota whose tribe had experienced such 
conflicts said that he had convened a working group that was intended 
to, among other things, help resolve conflicts between the tribal 
government and the TDHE. Past tribal leadership had not wanted to 
divert some of the tribe's gaming revenues to community needs, such as 
housing, according to the official, who added that a lack of housing 
and the associated overcrowding led to other social and health issues. 
He expressed hope that new tribal leadership would prioritize housing 
needs. A Nevada housing official also told us that the tribe's 
environmental department had differed with the TDHE over adherence to 
some housing development codes and that delays in reaching agreements 
had impacted the timeline of tribal housing projects. 

In addition, the housing director of a South Dakota tribe explained 
that the tribe had only recently begun zoning efforts. As a result, 
members seeking home sites were waiting to find out where there was 
buildable land, which areas might be flood plains, and which sites 
were barred from development by the tribe.[Footnote 37] Because work 
we had previously conducted found that the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's (FEMA) mapping of rural communities, including 
tribal lands, was limited, we asked whether FEMA had visited the tribe 
to begin flood mapping. The official said that FEMA had mapped the 
surrounding county, and while the tribe's housing department had 
wanted the tribe to be included, the tribal government had not made 
mapping a priority. 

Cultural Factors: 

In some cases, housing development challenges are exacerbated by 
cultural considerations or tribal governments' inaction, and as a 
result Indian tribes often face a dilemma in combining their desire 
for progress with a need to maintain certain tribal traditions. For 
example, a few housing officials said that tradition played a role in 
how some of their members preferred to live and that some tribal 
members' preferences were at odds with new ideas for development (see 
figure 3). Several of our interviews and another source indicated that 
Native American tribes often do not see living in populous areas in 
general and in cluster housing in particular as being in line with 
their traditional systems and values. Some members want to live in 
residences or family compounds that are several miles from their 
closest neighbor, for instance. Likewise, members do not always want 
to move to more developed areas if it entails moving away from certain 
traditions. The Housing Assistance Council noted in its September 2013 
report that HUD introduced cluster housing in the 1960s as a means of 
providing cost-effective modern housing and utilities on Indian 
reservations.[Footnote 38] However, the report added that many now 
view these cluster homes as "reservation ghettos" that are more prone 
to increased criminal activity because they disrupted original social 
networks and important aspects of many Native American communities. 

Figure 3: Examples of Traditional Indian Homes, Navajo Nation (left) 
and Hopi Tribe (right): 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Some of the ways in which tribal members prefer to live make it 
difficult for tribes that want to make infrastructure available to 
more of their members. For example, housing officials at one TDHE told 
us that the TDHE faced restrictions on large portions of land because 
some members would not negotiate rights-of-way for utility services 
across land parcels or held historic grazing permits that exempted the 
land from development. The housing officials explained that while the 
grazing permits, originally intended to accommodate livestock held by 
families, did not provide actual title to the land, members were 
emotional about the land and did not want to see traditional federally-
funded homes built on it because they perceived the developments as 
breeding crime. In deference to tribal members, the TDHE had foregone 
needed development in some areas and proposed a sustainable 
communities plan, beginning with pilot communities in the hope of 
overcoming tribal members' reluctance to support planned developments. 
The TDHE plans to seek input from tribal members on building pilot 
communities that incorporate tribal systems and values. The hope is 
that building homes with community input will result in tribal members 
prioritizing housing and economic development over traditional grazing 
rights (see NHA case study in appendix II). 

These types of internal issues, which can impact how housing plans are 
carried out and have the potential to stall needed development, can 
only be addressed among tribal officials. Self-determination allows 
tribes the autonomy to determine their own housing priorities and to 
address them in the manner that best serves their members. 

Addressing Some Tribal Housing Challenges Would Require Fundamental 
Changes, but Other Opportunities Exist: 

Addressing some of the housing challenges that Indian tribes face 
requires sustained, long-term coordination and a shared commitment to 
removing fundamental barriers to affordable housing development in 
Indian communities. Among these challenges is the issue of land 
ownership, which is complicated on tribal lands and can hinder housing 
activities. Moreover, traditional housing markets do not exist on some 
tribal lands. For example, a nonprofit representative whose 
organization had been trying for years to develop a housing market for 
the Navajo reservation noted that it had only recently succeeded in 
helping to create one development with an actual market. We have seen 
that for the Navajo, as for other tribes, there may be a dilemma 
between the desire for progress and the need to maintain cultural 
traditions. 

We noted earlier that some progress was being made at the federal 
level to deal with such challenges--for example, the BIA has recently 
begun efforts to implement new leasing procedures for certain types of 
land in order to expedite approvals. HUD has also been encouraging 
more sustainable Native American homes and communities that may 
incorporate tribal culture. We have identified additional targeted 
federal actions that could expedite efforts tribes already are making 
to deliver affordable housing in their communities. 

Establish a Coordinated Environmental Review Process for Tribal 
Housing Development: 

CEQ has issued regulations that are, in general, binding on all 
federal agencies for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA. 
The CEQ regulations admonish agencies to reduce excessive paperwork 
by, among other things, 

* incorporating material into an environmental impact statement by 
reference if the material is otherwise reasonably available, and: 

* eliminating duplication with other federal procedures by allowing an 
agency to adopt appropriate environmental documents prepared by 
another agency. 

The regulations further require that, where appropriate, a lead agency 
be appointed when several agencies are involved. 

As we have seen, several of the tribal housing officials we spoke with 
told us that it was time-consuming and costly to complete separate 
environmental review processes for multiple agencies when a tribe 
combined funding sources for a project. For example, some agreed that 
it would be reasonable for federal agencies to establish a single 
process that met the requirements of each agency. A few suggested that 
the requirements should be determined by a lead agency. For example, 
one housing official stated that a more efficient approach would be to 
identify one agency as the cognizant entity whose review process would 
be adequate to cover the requirements of the other agencies. 

Federal agencies that work with Indian tribes and their members were 
aware of this obstacle.[Footnote 39] A preconstruction paperwork 
streamlining workgroup convened by a federal infrastructure task force 
noted in a February 2011 report that the environmental review process 
for water and wastewater projects on tribal lands could be improved if 
funding agencies coordinated their processes.[Footnote 40] The task 
force's report noted that while all federal agencies must comply with 
NEPA and other related regulations, their requirements could--and did--
differ significantly. The report also pointed out that environmental 
review forms across agencies requested similar information and that 
many agencies used different checklists to evaluate environmental 
issues. Much like the tribal housing officials, the report suggested 
that a checklist be developed with a first section that covered common 
requirements across all agencies, followed by a separate section 
tailored to meet the needs of individual funding agencies. In 
addition, the report suggested that selecting a lead agency on a 
project-by-project basis could help the process. We previously 
concluded that the lack of a lead federal agency to coordinate certain 
tribal environmental efforts impeded much needed progress.[Footnote 41] 

Although a coordinated review process for tribal housing development 
would require significant agency collaboration as it was implemented, 
it has the potential to benefit tribes by saving them valuable IHBG 
funds and other resources and by expediting the time frames for much-
needed development. Coordinating environmental review activities for 
housing projects could also save federal agency resources in the long 
term and avoid duplication of effort among funding agencies. The task 
force report's observation, that changing environmental review 
policies for water and wastewater could require legal reviews within 
the coordinating agencies, likely would apply to housing as well. 

Seek and Incorporate Feedback from IHBG Recipients on New Training and 
Technical Assistance Procedures: 

As discussed earlier, starting in fiscal year 2012, changes made in 
the appropriation of training and technical assistance funds have 
reduced the role of NAIHC as a provider of training and technical 
assistance to IHBG recipients. HUD's new procedures using cooperative 
agreements for IHBG recipient training and technical assistance were 
also instituted in fiscal year 2012. However, our selected interviews 
suggested that some tribes and TDHEs remained unfamiliar with the new 
procedures and were concerned about having their training and 
technical assistance needs met. Under HUD's new procedures, ONAP and 
IHBG recipients must work more closely together to ensure that the 
tribes' training and technical assistance needs are being met. As we 
have said previously, collaboration among entities with a common goal 
is most effective when mechanisms such as a means of collecting input 
from all stakeholders are in place.[Footnote 42] 

As a result, it is important that tribes and TDHEs impacted by changes 
in how they will receive training and technical assistance work with 
ONAP to better ensure that the new delivery system meets their needs. 
As previously noted, ONAP officials told us that concerns expressed by 
some IHBG recipients about the new system likely reflected recipients' 
past experiences with HUD-provided training and technical assistance. 
Further, ONAP officials said that the concerns of some IHBG recipients 
who had used the new procedures to obtain assistance had not been 
realized. For example, the officials explained that ONAP solicited 
feedback under the new procedures from tribes and TDHEs immediately 
following technical assistance visits and again 60 and 120 days 
thereafter. In response to reviewing a draft of this report, they also 
provided us with copies of a technical assistance work plan and 60-day 
follow-up evaluation for the same recipient and 32 completed 
evaluation forms from a NAHASDA training course held in January 2014. 
Finally, ONAP officials stated that they had begun incorporating 
suggestions from recipients on process improvements. 

However, given recipients' concerns and ONAP's awareness of them, 
opportunities remain for ONAP to seek input from IHBG recipients who 
have not yet used the new procedures in order to address their 
concerns with the overall process for providing training and technical 
assistance. Although some recipients provided ONAP with positive 
feedback on specific training events, others told us that they were 
skeptical of the new training and technical assistance procedures and 
were unsure that these procedures would continue to meet their needs. 
Some recipients believed that barriers existed to obtaining the 
assistance they needed. For example, some recipients told us that the 
new procedures may result in a lengthier wait to receive the services 
requested due to the time their regional offices took to communicate 
training requests to ONAP headquarters and the time for ONAP to 
contract for services. ONAP has not reached out to these IHBG 
recipients to suggest alternative ways to request services that could 
help address tribes' concerns. For example, in responding to the draft 
report, ONAP officials told us that recipients could go directly to 
headquarters to request training services. In addition, ONAP had begun 
a thorough follow-up process with technical assistance providers to 
ensure that those providers delivered the type of assistance that will 
benefit tribes in their housing efforts, which could help reassure 
tribes. Without additional outreach, some recipients could remain 
disengaged from and skeptical of the new system and thus miss 
opportunities to build the capacity of their housing programs and meet 
their housing goals. 

Disseminate Promising Housing Approaches among IHBG Recipients: 

As part of its efforts to provide IHBG recipients with capacity-
building technical assistance, ONAP could help IHBG recipients share 
approaches they have used to address housing challenges. Under the new 
training system, recipients may find that they have limited 
opportunities for sharing IHBG-related strategies during national 
training and other events because NAIHC played a significant role in 
providing scholarships that facilitated tribes' attendance at such 
events. Further, as we have seen, the circumstances of tribes within a 
region may differ, and it can be difficult for tribal housing 
officials to learn about innovative approaches to housing issues. HUD 
already has recognized Native American communities for initiatives 
such as innovative housing practices through the Sustainable 
Construction in Indian Country initiative. HUD highlighted 22 
communities through this initiative in May 2013. However, HUD has not 
shared promising housing practices more generally across tribes in a 
way that would make them easily accessible. In 2013, the National 
Congress of American Indians also released a report illustrating how 
tribes were using innovative strategies to make progress in areas such 
as education, workforce development, food production, and housing. 
[Footnote 43] A similar document on IHBG strategies could consolidate 
promising approaches that tribal housing officials may communicate one-
on-one, supplement existing training and technical assistance 
programs, and require few resources.[Footnote 44] 

Promising practices for Indian housing might include successful 
strategies for competing for funding opportunities; strategies for 
addressing issues related to remoteness, such as high fuel, 
transportation, and development costs; and creative and resourceful 
ways of delivering housing programs in a more efficient manner. To 
maximize distribution, HUD could consider making IHBG successful 
practice documents available on the website used by recipients. While 
we recognize that Indian tribes differ in important ways, a guide that 
describes practical methods that IHBG recipients have used to solve 
known challenges or to increase their success in the program could be 
adapted to address specific situations. Wider dissemination of these 
approaches could help tribes improve their delivery of needed housing 
and related services to their members. 

Conclusions: 

The lack of adequate housing in Native American communities is widely 
known, and the federal government has committed to helping Indian 
tribes address their communities' need for affordable housing and 
related services. Several federal agencies have programs that assist 
Indian tribes and their members, but NAHASDA and the IHBG were created 
for this purpose, while also giving tribes flexibilities that they 
lacked as recipients of earlier housing programs. As we have seen, 
some of the housing challenges that tribes continue to face are not 
easily resolved, such as the often remote locations of tribal lands, 
intratribal conflicts, and cultural preferences. However, certain 
targeted actions could help mitigate two challenges identified in our 
work. 

First, tribes using housing funds from multiple agencies face multiple 
environmental reviews, since each funding agency has its own 
requirements. These reviews not only cost tribes needed resources but 
can delay the implementation of needed housing projects and, in some 
cases, can halt them. A federal infrastructure task force focused on 
facilitating tribes' water and wastewater projects has recommended 
that task force participants, including HUD, develop a coordinated 
environmental review process that would address the issue of costly 
multiple reviews. A similarly coordinated process for tribal housing 
would help tribes to plan and build affordable housing more quickly 
and efficiently. Further, it would be appropriate for agencies that 
assist tribes with affordable housing to designate a lead agency as 
part of this effort. Until such an effort is developed and 
implemented, tribes will continue to expend time and IHBG resources 
completing overlapping reviews, reducing the funding available for the 
development of needed affordable housing. 

Second, HUD has made changes to training and technical assistance 
procedures funded through a NAHASDA set-aside that significantly 
changes the way these services are provided. HUD made these changes in 
keeping with the language of NAHASDA's appropriation legislation, 
which no longer recognizes a single national-level provider, and HUD 
believes that the changes should streamline the process of providing 
training and technical assistance. HUD has established a mechanism to 
obtain feedback from IHBG recipients who receive training and 
technical assistance under the new procedures, but some IHBG 
recipients who have not yet used them remain concerned that their 
training and technical assistance needs will not be met. The tribes 
play a significant role in helping HUD assess the impact of the new 
procedures, and it is important that all tribes participating in 
NAHASDA have opportunities to request and receive assistance and to 
provide HUD with feedback. A more comprehensive feedback mechanism 
would include input from tribes that have not yet used HUD's new 
procedures so that their concerns can be addressed. 

ONAP could, as part of seeking feedback from IHBG recipients, collect 
and disseminate among recipients promising approaches that they have 
used to address their housing challenges. We found that tribes and 
TDHEs could face challenges in providing affordable housing that 
others in their region with which they might have contact do not face. 
HUD is in a position to gather information on promising approaches to 
tribal housing challenges and disseminate them nationwide. In May 
2013, for example, HUD recognized 22 tribes that were incorporating 
resource-efficient elements into their affordable housing projects. 
Expanding this kind of dissemination effort could help tribes and 
TDHEs identify ways to use their IHBG funding in the most efficient 
and effective ways in their communities. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To increase consistency and reduce time and predevelopment cost for 
NAHASDA grant recipients, we recommend that an interagency effort 
similar to that of the federal infrastructure task force but specific 
to tribal housing be initiated with participants from IHS, HUD, 
Interior, and USDA to develop and implement a coordinated 
environmental review process for all agencies overseeing tribal 
housing development. In addition, the agencies should determine if it 
would be appropriate to designate a lead agency in this effort. 

To better ensure that NAHASDA grant recipients receive adequate 
training, technical assistance, and support, we recommend that the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Native American Programs take the 
following actions: 

* As ONAP finalizes new training and technical assistance procedures 
for NAHASDA grant recipients, ONAP should expand its existing 
mechanism to seek and incorporate feedback and input from all 
recipients, including input from recipients that have not yet used the 
new procedures, in order to better ensure that its training and 
technical assistance procedures meet recipients' needs. 

* ONAP should collect and disseminate promising approaches that 
recipients have used to address housing challenges. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS), HUD, Department of the Interior (Interior), and 
USDA for their review and comment. We received written comments from 
HUD and HHS that are reproduced in appendixes III and IV, 
respectively. HUD, Interior, and USDA also provided technical 
comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. The 
agencies generally agreed with our recommendations, although HUD did 
not agree with our recommendation that it should create a mechanism to 
seek and incorporate feedback from IHBG recipients. 

HUD agreed with our recommendation that all agencies involved in 
Native American housing programs develop a coordinated environmental 
review process but strongly suggested that the effort be initiated by 
an organization, such as CEQ, that has the power to bring the relevant 
parties together. Our recommendation is supportive of actions that the 
agencies may take to develop a coordinated environmental review 
process, including seeking guidance from CEQ on how to proceed with 
this collaborative effort. HUD also agreed with our recommendation 
that the agency collect and disseminate to IHBG recipients' promising 
approaches to address housing challenges. HUD highlighted its efforts 
to promote sustainable construction practices in Native American 
communities, and we had noted these efforts in the draft of this 
report. For example, HUD mentioned that its initiatives include a 
website that contains best practices and case studies on sustainable 
Native American housing projects. As previously noted, HUD did not 
agree with our recommendation that the agency create a mechanism to 
seek and incorporate feedback from IHBG recipients on its new training 
and technical assistance procedures. HUD mentioned its postcourse 
evaluation forms and the follow-up that takes place after a recipient 
receives technical assistance and HUD provided us with examples of 
completed evaluation forms from January 2014 and technical assistance 
follow-up documents. We recognize that these practices exist, but our 
suggestion that HUD seek feedback from all recipients would include 
obtaining input from recipients who have not yet used the new 
procedures and remain skeptical that their training and technical 
assistance needs will be met. We added language in relevant sections 
of the report to reflect the information that HUD provided and changed 
the recommendation language to clarify that we recommend that HUD 
obtain feedback from all IHBG recipients, including those that have 
not used the new training and technical assistance procedures. 

HHS agreed with our recommendation that agencies involved in Native 
American housing programs act to implement a coordinated environmental 
review process. The audit liaison for USDA Rural Development provided 
USDA's concurrence with the intent of the recommendation in an email 
dated March 7, 2014. In technical comments, HUD and USDA asked us to 
clarify that the federal infrastructure task force's recommendation 
for agencies to develop a coordinated environmental review process for 
tribes was limited to water and wastewater infrastructure projects and 
did not include housing. We revised the relevant language in our 
conclusions and the first recommendation to reflect the agencies' 
input. The audit liaison for Interior provided the Department's 
concurrence with the revised recommendation in an email dated March 7, 
2014. 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 
committees and HHS, HUD, Interior, and USDA. In addition, the report 
is also available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about 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 IV. 

Signed by: 

William B. Shear: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to examine (1) the kinds of challenges that Indian 
tribes have faced in administering housing activities under the Indian 
Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program and (2) federal or tribal actions, 
if any, that could help to address these challenges. 

To address both objectives, we reviewed the Native American Housing 
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) and its 
implementing regulations, testimonies by Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD) and tribal representatives, prior GAO reports, 
and other relevant sources such as studies by nonprofit housing and 
tribal advocacy organizations and a report by federal agencies working 
to improve water and sanitation access on tribal lands.[Footnote 45] 
We interviewed representatives of the National American Indian Housing 
Council (NAIHC), which represents American Indian, Alaska Native, and 
Native Hawaiian housing interests. Our interviews included NAIHC 
executives and members of NAIHC's board who served as housing 
officials for individual tribes and tribally designated housing 
entities (TDHE) participating in NAHASDA. We interviewed housing 
officials from 23 selected tribes or TDHEs participating in NAHASDA 
and conducted site visits with two of the recipients. One of these 
site visits was to the Navajo Nation's reservation to meet with 
officials of the Navajo Housing Authority (NHA). We selected this 
location to visit because NHA was the largest IHBG recipient. NHA also 
was one of several recipients that contributed to a large backlog of 
obligated yet unexpended IHBG funds.[Footnote 46] NHA has experienced 
longstanding administrative challenges and had a backlog of nearly 
$500 million in unexpended IHBG funds as of July 2013. We discussed 
with NHA officials their plans to use this backlog and observed how 
IHBG funds had been used in the past. Because of the Hopi 
reservation's proximity to the Navajo reservation and because the Hopi 
Tribe remains a highly traditional, clan-based, independent tribe, we 
also visited with Hopi Tribal Housing Authority officials. On both 
reservations, we toured traditional tribal housing and more recent 
construction projects. For example, on the Navajo reservation, we 
visited a traditional dwelling (called a "hooghan") and homes in the 
former Bennett Freeze area of the reservation that were barred from 
improvements since the 1960s because of a historic land dispute 
between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe (see figure 4).[Footnote 
47] We visited pre-NAHASDA HUD-funded homes and IHBG-funded homes. In 
addition, we visited NHA housing developments that were not being used 
because of issues related to NHA's subcontractors and to land 
ownership (see appendix II for additional information). We also 
visited more successful developments, including college housing and a 
96-unit rental community that used IHBG, USDA, and other funding. On 
the Hopi reservation, we visited a number of sites, including 
traditional villages on two of three mesas (high plateaus with steep 
sides) and an IHBG-funded community building that was intended for 
youth activities. We interviewed the other 21 IHBG recipients by 
telephone. In addition, we interviewed and obtained relevant documents 
from officials in HUD's Office of Native American Programs (ONAP), 
which administers NAHASDA, and interviewed officials at other federal 
agencies whose programs targeted or served Indian tribes and their 
members. These agencies included the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) Rural Development, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the 
Department of the Interior, Indian Health Service (IHS) within the 
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA). We met with VA officials to discuss the 
department's efforts to increase access for Native American veterans 
to assistance under VA's home loan and housing programs. 

Figure 4: Housing in the Former Bennett Freeze Area, Arizona: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

To address the first objective, we asked tribal housing officials 
about challenges they were experiencing and the impact of those 
challenges on their housing efforts. In selecting the non-
representative sample of IHBG recipients we contacted, we asked ONAP 
regional offices for help with identifying tribes in each region that 
were facing certain challenges and NAIHC helped with outreach to 
tribes and TDHEs that self-identified the challenges they were facing. 
The 23 recipients we interviewed included tribes and TDHEs from HUD's 
six ONAP regions that varied in size and the amount of annual NAHASDA 
grant funding.[Footnote 48] We interviewed HUD and other agency 
officials about housing challenges they had identified among Indian 
tribes. We also contacted HUD staff with responsibility for an ongoing 
study on Indian tribes' housing needs to learn more about HUD's 
methodology and timeline for the study. In addition, we used our prior 
work on NAHASDA and other sources to inform this effort. For example, 
we attended NAIHC's 2013 convention, where representatives from NAIHC, 
tribes and TDHEs, and federal agencies provided perspectives on tribal 
housing. Finally, we reviewed budget data from HUD, showing NAHASDA 
recipients' annual IHBG allocations and expenditures through 2013, to 
assess the extent of unexpended recipient balances. On the basis of 
our analysis of the funding data and explanations that HUD provided, 
we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our 
purposes. 

We used a standard set of questions to interview housing officials at 
tribes and TDHEs to ensure that we consistently captured their views 
on various aspects of each of our objectives. We analyzed the results 
of these interviews and related documents to identify the main themes 
and develop summary findings. With a few exceptions, the 23 recipients 
we interviewed responded to all of our questions. To categorize tribal 
housing officials' views throughout this report, we defined modifiers 
to quantify the housing officials' views as follows: 

"most" represents 15 to 19 housing officials, 

"many" represents 10 to 14 housing officials, 

"several" represents 8 to 9 housing officials, 

"some" represents 5 to 7 housing officials, and: 

"a few" represents 2 to 4 housing officials. 

We categorized the challenges that tribal housing officials 
identified, in no particular order, as follows: 

* limited administrative capacity (e.g., new to the program, lack of 
expertise, high staff turnover): 

* lack of basic infrastructure to begin new housing development: 

* internal conflicts between the tribe and TDHE that impact housing 
priorities and investments: 

* conflicting or inflexible federal program requirements when 
combining IHBG and other funds: 

* lack of communication and coordination among federal agencies: 

* tribal ordinances that may impede development: 

* remoteness, climate, or other geographical factors: 

* small IHBG allocation: 

* other (specify): 

To address the second objective, we asked tribal housing officials 
about government actions that they believed could mitigate the 
challenges they described and about actions their tribe or TDHE had 
taken to address these challenges. Because tribal housing officials 
raised concerns about training and technical assistance changes at 
NAIHC's 2013 convention, we also asked for their perspectives on the 
training and technical assistance they received and whether 
interactions with other IHBG recipients had been helpful. We 
considered input from the tribes, federal agencies, and other sources 
and existing knowledge. We analyzed this information to determine what 
actions, if any, could potentially address the challenges identified. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to March 2014 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Navajo Housing Authority: 

Case Study: 

The Navajo Housing Authority (NHA), the Navajo Nation's TDHE, is 
facing pressure to expeditiously use a backlog of unexpended IHBG 
funds totaling nearly $500 million as of July 2013.[Footnote 49] The 
Navajo Nation reservation consists of about 27,000 square miles across 
portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The tribe has an estimated 
300,000 members and 110 communities served under local government 
entities called chapters. A Navajo housing needs assessment conducted 
by NHA from 2008 to 2011 found that 34,000 new housing units were 
needed on the Navajo reservation and an additional 34,000 homes were 
in need of major rehabilitation. However, NHA has experienced 
longstanding administrative challenges. As previously noted, we 
visited NHA to better understand the TDHE's plan to address its large 
IHBG backlog and to observe how grant funds had been spent. We also 
learned more about the circumstances that contributed to the TDHE's 
backlog. 

NHA Faced Challenges Similar to Those Faced by Other Recipients: 

NHA's housing challenges cannot be generalized to all IHBG recipients 
but some challenges appear to be similar to those that other tribes 
and TDHEs we interviewed experienced. However, unlike many tribes and 
TDHEs that experienced one or more similar challenges, NHA experienced 
them all. These challenges included the remote setting of some 
communities and related poor socioeconomic conditions, differing 
requirements for federal agencies, and internal administrative 
difficulties. 

* NHA officials told us that because of their remoteness, Navajo 
communities (which were separated by up to 100 or more miles) had 
little to no basic infrastructure to connect new homes with water, 
power, paved roads, and other services such as broadband for internet 
access. For example, NHA's recent housing needs assessment found that 
50 percent of homes on the reservation had no or incomplete plumbing 
and kitchens. According to NHA officials, remote locations impacted 
the costs of delivering and constructing infrastructure systems. In 
fact, they stated that without combining IHBG and other funds, it was 
difficult to meet community infrastructure needs. They also pointed 
out that the sheer size of the Navajo reservation meant that the 
topography and terrain differed and could impact engineering design 
for housing. 

* Poor socioeconomic conditions on the Navajo reservation have 
persisted while residents' limited incomes are spent off the 
reservation in more urban areas nearby. For example, a Navajo Nation 
2012 study reported that over 80 percent of the Navajo Nation's 
residents purchased their groceries off the reservation, typically in 
towns bordering the reservation.[Footnote 50] In addition, 75 percent 
of them drove at least 50 miles to purchase food, clothing, and 
household items. For example, many travel to Gallup, New Mexico, a 
border town to the Navajo reservation, which has a number of major 
retailers, including a high volume Walmart Supercenter. 

* NHA was challenged by varying requirements when combining IHBG and 
other funding on housing related projects. NHA used multiple programs 
to leverage funding for housing activities, and NHA officials cited 
certain barriers to leveraging IHBG funds, such as having to conduct 
multiple environmental reviews. They also said that because the Navajo 
reservation was located in three states--Arizona, New Mexico, and 
Utah--they had to navigate the qualified allocation plans, funding 
announcements, and relevant timeframes for all three states' low-
income housing tax credit programs.[Footnote 51] The officials noted 
that they had to be knowledgeable about each state's requirements when 
they were combining IHBG and other funds with low-income housing tax 
credits for one of the three states. 

* Administratively, NHA has faced significant challenges in recent 
years. In 2007, there was a change in the TDHE's leadership and a 
subsequent internal assessment determined that internal controls were 
insufficient. According to NHA officials, NHA went through a 
reorganization to address outstanding program violations stemming back 
to the late 1990s and the new Chief Executive Officer inherited a 
backlog of unspent IHBG funds that had accumulated from 1998 to 2007 
and totaled more than $300 million. NHA was also critical of the level 
of support it received from ONAP during this time. In fact, NHA 
officials stated that ONAP issued major deficiency reports that took 
nearly 4 years to resolve but had not been sufficiently involved with 
the TDHE before the crisis. ONAP disagreed that it had provided 
insufficient support to NHA prior to 2007, noting that the regional 
office worked diligently with NHA to provide technical assistance and 
to address the findings. NHA officials explained that it also could be 
difficult for tribal leadership to understand the complexities faced 
by the TDHE as an entity subject to federal requirements and standards 
not faced by other tribal departments. They stated that tribal and 
TDHE priorities related to housing were often different and that 
tribal leadership did not always understand the TDHE's limitations, 
leading to conflict. In June 2013, the Navajo Nation's tribal council 
voted to retain NHA, which has undergone significant reorganization 
since 2007, as the tribe's TDHE, in lieu of replacing it with an as 
yet unformed housing entity. NHA's Chief Executive Officer stated that 
the decision should help in providing stability and continuity for the 
tribe's ongoing housing efforts. 

ONAP stated that NHA's current management had been doing better 
planning and noted that it had taken some time for organizational 
changes to be implemented. ONAP further acknowledged that NHA had a 
difficult task in working with the Navajo Nation's many chapters to 
pursue new development. While obtaining land for new development 
remained a challenge on the Navajo reservation, as we discuss later, 
ONAP suggested that NHA could focus on rehabilitating privately owned 
homes and HUD-funded units. ONAP officials indicated that doing this 
would allow NHA additional time to obtain land for development while 
spending funds that are currently in the pipeline. 

Some Challenges That NHA Faced Were Unique: 

NHA also experienced challenges that appeared to be unique to the 
Navajo Nation's size and structure. For example, 

* NHA officials told us that some Navajo tribal ordinances could 
impede development. For example, they pointed out that NHA provided 
housing programs and services to a large number of chapters, each with 
its own approval processes, and that NHA had to work within the 
timelines for each chapter when IHBG funds were approved and allocated 
for certain projects within a chapter's jurisdiction. In addition, a 
chapter could have its own development challenges that could further 
delay development. Further, while Indian tribes have faced 
longstanding issues pertaining to the status of their lands (such as 
limited interest by banks to offer mortgages because they would 
generally be unable to foreclose on land held in trust), the 
availability of land for housing development on the Navajo reservation 
was a particular issue because each of the Navajo's 110 chapters could 
have different development priorities and were sometimes reluctant to 
make land available for housing.[Footnote 52] Also, according to NHA, 
89 percent of the land was tribal trust or fee land that was 
encumbered by historic grazing permits and leases held by individuals 
and families that received the permits and leases decades ago to graze 
their livestock. Given the size of the reservation, the unavailability 
of land to develop housing appeared to be unique. 

NHA cannot begin development in a community without the buy-in of the 
relevant chapter. The chapter must be willing to withdraw trust land 
for the project, as applicable. NHA officials explained that prior to 
any development on open range, grazing permit holders had to consent 
in writing to the planned project. The officials described grazing 
permit laws as the prime impediment for land availability to develop 
housing and related utility infrastructure across the reservation. 
Grazing permits frequently presented a challenge as permit holders 
were often unwilling to relinquish what they viewed as a cultural 
right to hold land in favor of housing development that they perceived 
as negatively impacting their communities.[Footnote 53] NHA officials 
told us that many of the grazing permit holders no longer had cattle 
or sheep to graze and that they needed to overcome the perception that 
federal tract housing breeds criminal activity. 

According to an NHA official, even with fee simple land, a development 
within the Navajo Nation could take up to 5 years, in part because 
there were nearly 10 departments needing to sign off before a project 
could get off the ground. With other types of land, the official said 
that development could take 7 to 10 years. As an example, he said that 
a nursing home that NHA had been trying to rehabilitate since 2011 
could lose qualified professionals if the project faced further delays. 

* NHA also relied on partnerships with local nonprofit organizations 
to develop housing. The organizations acted as subrecipients of IHBG 
funds and NHA had responsibility for ensuring that they met certain 
criteria. An NHA official with oversight for NHA's partners explained 
that in the past, some subrecipients had issues with compliance, and 
in more serious cases, subrecipients failed to deliver on contracts or 
had operating or building practices that resulted in abandoned 
developments, homeless families, and wasted IHBG funds. For example, 
the NHA official told us that a former subrecipient became defunct and 
left two families that were awaiting major rehab work on their homes 
homeless. He explained that NHA was working with another partner to 
house the families. In another example, around 2004 a development was 
started to build approximately 90 homes that NHA funded with $14.7 
million in IHBG funds provided to an independent nonprofit housing 
provider. After HUD found that the general contractor for the project 
failed to follow appropriate building codes and other requirements, 
the project was discontinued and the homes have remained unoccupied 
and at various stages of completion for almost a decade. Because of 
the extent of vandalism done to the interior and exterior of the units 
and NHA's discovery that the general contractor used substandard 
building materials, NHA officials told us that the homes would be 
demolished (see figure 5). As of February 2014, NHA planned to pursue 
environmental review procedures that were applicable before demolition 
of the units could take place. In addition, NHA cannot plan any new 
development on the site before determining whether the land withdrawal 
process for the initial development has been carried out appropriately. 

Figure 5: Vandalized NHA Development in Shiprock, New Mexico: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 photographs] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

According to NHA officials, in 2002, NHA also funded 36 units in a 
remote area to house teachers for a planned new school. However, the 
school that was planned to replace a smaller facility was never built. 
Additionally, after the subrecipient failed to complete the project, 
NHA infused $2.5 million in 2008 to repair and complete the homes with 
a goal of renting them to low-income members, but as of November 2013 
the homes were unoccupied because of a land ownership issue (see 
figure 6). 

Figure 6: Unoccupied Housing Units Awaiting Resolution of Land 
Ownership Issue, Navajo Reservation: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

NHA Has Taken Steps to Use Existing IHBG Funds: 

NHA had a plan to use the backlog of unexpended IHBG funds while 
providing housing in a manner to address tribal members' concerns and 
be more sustainable in the long-term. In 2012, NHA contracted with an 
architectural and design firm to help address the new housing needs 
identified in its recent study. With input from tribal members across 
the Navajo reservation, the firm helped NHA develop a multiyear 
community master plan. The process of developing the plan involved 
community meetings to engage tribal members in the planning process. 
The meetings took place in various settings on the reservation. 

Representatives from the contracted firm told us that in soliciting 
members' input, they considered cultural living preferences and 
members' existing perceptions about planned housing developments. They 
became aware that members were skeptical of NHA's earlier developments 
in part because they perceived traditional federally funded cluster 
housing developments as breeding crime (see figure 7). A Navajo 
representative of the firm told us that the new project had also 
highlighted the Navajo chapters' responsibility to make land available 
for development if they wished to address the tribe's severe housing 
shortage. 

Figure 7: Examples of Traditional Federally Funded Housing 
Developments, Navajo Reservation: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 photographs] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

According to the firm's representatives, they have planned five 
neighborhood demonstration pilots that will be strategically located 
across the reservation (see figure 8). The hope is that building 
sustainable homes based on community input will give tribal members a 
positive sense for the new neighborhoods. If the result is tribal 
members prioritizing housing and economic development over traditional 
grazing rights, the pilots could help overcome the traditional housing 
versus economic development conundrum. As of January 2014, NHA was 
securing a developer for the first community pilot and working with 
the architectural and design firm to consult with communities and 
stakeholders on two additional pilots. 

Figure 8: Rendering of NHA Contractor's Sustainable Community Concept: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Highlight distant views into the planning; 
Compact mix of uses at center; 
Integrate housing in close proximity to community services; 
Protection of natural drainage in the overall design; 
Rangeland integrated into the core; 
Strategically locate apartments for convenient access; 
Protect and integrate agrarian heritage into planning & design; 
Roads designed with thoughtful care of existing landform, views and 
vegetation; 
Maintain rural character of the community; 
Civic plazas for special events: 
* farmer's market; 
* festivals; 
* celebrations. 

Source: Swaback Partners, pllc (Scottsdale, Arizona) for Navajo 
Housing Authority. 

[End of figure] 

In addition to this planned demonstration, NHA officials told us that 
they had more than 180 projects in various stages of planning, pre-
development, construction, and close-out. Due to limited available 
land and titling issues, NHA had targeted funds to areas where land 
was not an issue. Recent developments included a new housing office 
building, college dormitories, and factory-built homes that were then 
moved to available lots (see figure 9). NHA officials said that they 
expected to be on track with incoming IHBG funds by 2016. Moreover, 
they said that the tribal government might need to revise some of its 
land policies in order to aid future development. 

Figure 9: Recent NHA Housing Projects, Navajo Technical University 
Dormitory and Factory-Built House: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development: 

U.S. Department 0f Housing And Urban Development: 
Office of Public and Indian Housing: 
Washington, DC 20410-5000: 

March 14, 2014: 

Mr. William B. Shear: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Shear: 

As you requested, the Office of Public and Indian Housing, Office of 
Native American Programs (ONAP) has reviewed the draft report on 
Native American Housing (GAO-14-255). It is a generally positive 
report, and will be a very useful document when issued. In response to 
the recommendations included in the draft report, the following 
comments are provided: 

HUD supports the recommendation to develop a coordinated environmental 
review process for all agencies overseeing tribal housing development. 
However, HUD strongly suggests that the effort be initiated by an 
organization like the Council on Environmental Quality, which has the 
power to bring all the parties to the table. For the effort to have a 
chance at success, there must be strong support for the effort from 
the Administration, and, if possible, resources to assist in the work. 

HUD does not agree with the recommendation that a mechanism to seek 
and incorporate recipient feedback on training needs to be created, as 
recommended by GAO, because a fully functioning mechanism already 
exists. HUD requires every technical assistance or training performed 
to include evaluations that provide timely feedback to HUD to ensure 
that grantee's needs are met. Additionally, and to ensure quality, HUD 
also follows up 60 and 120 days after the provision of technical 
assistance to ensure that the technical assistance and trainings met the
grantee's expectations and provided the necessary results. Finally, 
ONAP Area Office and Headquarters staff are available by phone or by 
email to discuss technical assistance and training feedback either 
positive or negative. Thus far, ONAP has received about a half dozen
suggestions from tribes on improvements to the process, and has 
incorporated many of these recommendations. Copies of the evaluations 
and 60- and 120-day follow-ups have been provided to GAO to support 
HUD's position. 

HUD supports the recommendation to collect and disseminate promising 
approaches that recipients have used to address housing challenges. 
HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) developed the 
Sustainable Construction in Indian Country Initiative. The Initiative 
seeks to promote and support sustainable construction practices in 
Native communities, helping tribes to provide their members with 
healthier, more comfortable, and more resource-efficient homes. The 
related website contains best practices, case studies, and videos of 
different sustainable building practices and projects throughout 
Indian Country. HUD will develop a similar r~source on HUD's existing 
CodeTalk website for the purpose of collecting and disseminating 
practices and approaches useful to IHBG recipients, and will also 
link. to PD&R' s website t9 provide a common location for all such 
information. 

In response to the case study on the Navajo Housing Authority (NHA), 
included as Appendix II of the draft report, HUD provides the 
following status. Since October 2011, HUD has been providing direct, 
enhanced oversight and technical assistance to NHA on expending its
Indian Housing Block Grant funds. A Tribal Special Assistance (TSA) 
team was assembled with staff from two ONAP regional offices and 
Headquarters to provide targeted technical assistance to NHA. The TSA 
has worked with NHA to develop an annual expenditure plan, and has
provided specialized technical assistance in the area of Indian 
Housing Plan Development, Annual Performance Plan reporting, and 
audits. The TSA also helped to streamline the accounting and Line of 
Credit Control System (LOCCS) draw down process and other 
administrative functions. The TSA communicates with NHA during a 
monthly status meeting and on an as-needed basis. 

Please contact Jennifer Bullough, Director of Grants Evaluation, 
Office of Native American Programs, at (202) 402-4274, if you have any 
questions. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Rodger J. Boyd: 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs: 

cc:
Sandra B. Henriquez, Assistant Secretary of Public and Indian Housing. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

Department 0f Health & Human Services: 
Office 0f The Secretary: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 
Washington, DC 20201: 

March 14, 2014: 

William B. Shear: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Shear: 

Attached are the Department's comments on the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled, "Native American 
Housing: Additional Actions Needed To Better Support Tribal Efforts" 
(GAO-14-255). 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this report prior 
to publication. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim R. Esquea: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 

Attachment: 

General Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS) 
On The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report Entitled. 
"Native American Housing: Additional Actions Needed To Better Support 
Tribal Efforts" (GAO-14-255): 

HHS appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft report. We 
concur with GAO's recommendation that agencies involved in Native 
American housing programs act on the interagency task force's 
recommendation to implement a coordinated environmental review process. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Indian Health Services (IHS), 
which are the three major funding agencies that provide essential 
sanitation facilities for the American Indian and Alaska Native 
people, have executed interagency agreements or memoranda of 
understanding to streamline the environmental review process for 
jointly funded projects, designating a lead agency when appropriate. 
For joint EPA and IHS projects, IHS is the designated lead agency. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

William B. Shear, (202) 512-8678, shearw@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Andy Finkel (Assistant 
Director), Bernice Benta-Jackson, Emily Chalmers, Jeffery Malcolm, 
John McGrail, Jena Sinkfield, and Andrew Stavisky made key 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Native American Housing: Tribes Generally View Block Grant 
Program as Effective, but Tracking of Infrastructure Plans and 
Investments Needs Improvement, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-326] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 
2010). This report focused on tribes' use of the IHBG program to 
address their communities' affordable housing needs. In the report, we 
highlight the importance of HUD's collecting information on tribes' 
use of grant funds to develop housing-related infrastructure. HUD has 
taken actions to address our recommendations on helping tribes 
identify and address infrastructure deficiencies and report on 
addressing them. 

[2] Conference Report 112-284 accompanied the Consolidated and Further 
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012, Pub. L. No.112-55. 

[3] ONAP regional offices identified tribes and TDHEs facing certain 
challenges and NAIHC helped with outreach to tribes and TDHEs that 
self-identified challenges. The non-representative sample of 23 
recipients included tribes and TDHEs from HUD's six ONAP regions that 
varied in size and amount of annual NAHASDA grant funding. 

[4] These agencies included the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
Rural Development, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the 
Department of the Interior, Indian Health Service (IHS) within the 
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA). We met with VA officials to discuss the 
department's efforts to increase access for Native American veterans 
to assistance under VA's home loan and housing programs. 

[5] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-326]. 

[6] The terms Native American and Indian generally refer to American 
Indians and Alaska Natives. In this report, we use Native American and 
Indian interchangeably. 

[7] Housing Assistance Council, Housing on Native American Lands 
(Washington, D.C.: September 2013). The Housing Assistance Council is 
a nonprofit corporation that supports the development of rural low-
income housing. HUD contributed to the funding for this study. 

[8] HUD officials told us that individuals living with family members 
in overcrowded conditions were considered to be at risk for 
homelessness rather than homeless. The officials added that this 
status prevented these individuals from qualifying for most homeless 
programs. 

[9] The 1937 Act, as amended, created programs to provide decent, 
safe, and sanitary housing for low-income families. Native American 
housing entities did not receive federal housing funds under the 1937 
Act until 1961. 

[10] Title VI of NAHASDA enables HUD to provide a 95-percent loan 
guarantee to private lenders or investors that make loans to NAHASDA 
grant recipients to develop housing and community facilities. A Title 
VI loan is secured by a recipient's pledge of its current and future 
IHBG funds. 

[11] A federal Indian reservation constitutes land that has been 
reserved for a tribe or tribes under treaty or other agreement with 
the United States, executive order, or federal statute or 
administrative action as a permanent tribal homeland. 

[12] In December 1971 the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was 
enacted to resolve longstanding aboriginal land claims and foster 
economic development for Alaska Natives. Among other objectives, the 
act was intended to conform with the economic and social needs of 
Alaska Natives without creating a reservation system. Pub. L. No. 92-
203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971), codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1601-
1629h. 

[13] According to HUD, single-race population figures significantly 
underreport the number of American Indians and Alaska Natives in the 
United States because these counts exclude persons who are Native 
American and another race and identify as such. 

[14] A TDHE is either (1) a former Indian Housing Authority that 
managed Native American housing programs under the 1937 Act that 
continued operations to meet the requirements of NAHASDA or (2) a new 
nontribal government entity authorized by one or more tribes to 
receive grants and provide affordable housing assistance for Native 
Americans under NAHASDA. 

[15] Under specific circumstances, Indian and non-Indian families that 
are not low income and that reside on a reservation or in an Indian 
area are also eligible to receive assistance. 

[16] 5 U.S.C. 561-570a. 

[17] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-326]. For this 
review, we interviewed 12 NAHASDA recipients (two in each of HUD's six 
ONAP regions) and surveyed all tribes and TDHEs that received a grant 
in fiscal year 2008, obtaining a 66 percent response rate. 

[18] We used a standard set of questions to interview housing 
officials at tribes and TDHEs to ensure that we consistently captured 
their views. With a few exceptions, the 23 recipients we interviewed 
responded to all of our questions. To categorize tribal housing 
officials' views throughout this report, we defined modifiers to 
quantify the housing officials' views. For example, "most" represents 
15 to 19 housing officials, "many" represents 10 to 14 housing 
officials, "several" represents 8 to 9 housing officials, and "a few" 
represents 2 to 4 housing officials. 

[19] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-326]. 

[20] Congress enacted the General Allotment Act of 1887, which divided 
some reservation lands among individual Indian tribal members, with 
other lands sold as surplus. The resulting individual allotments made 
to tribal members are commonly referred to as "individual Indian trust 
lands" or "individual allotted lands". Many Indian lands were 
dramatically reduced through various transactions in subsequent years 
and during the allotment period from 1887 to 1934, American Indian 
land holdings in the lower 48 states decreased from 138 million acres 
to 48 million acres, leaving many reservation Indians in poverty. The 
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 halted further allotment of tribal 
lands. Today, under this and other legislation, tribal governments are 
working to consolidate or rebuild their tribal land base. 

[21] See Indian Issues: BIA's Efforts to Impose Time Frames and 
Collect Better Data Should Improve the Processing of Land in Trust 
Applications, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-781] 
(Washington, D.C: July 28, 2006) and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-326]. BIA's process for reviewing 
land in trust applications includes notifying affected state and local 
governments and providing a 30-day comment period for them to submit 
information on potential tax and jurisdictional impacts. 

[22] See GAO, Flood Insurance: Participation of Indian Tribes in 
Federal and Private Programs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-226] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 4, 
2013). 

[23] To consolidate ownership of highly fractionated trust lands, in 
2012 the Department of the Interior created a land buy-back program 
for tribal nations to implement the land consolidation component of 
the Cobell v. Salazar settlement. This settlement resulted from a 
class action lawsuit regarding the U.S. government's trust management 
of more than 300,000 individual American Indian trust accounts. The 
settlement provided for a $1.9 billion fund to be established for the 
Interior Department to purchase and consolidate fractionated interests 
in trust or restricted land. Consolidated parcels will be transferred 
to tribal governments for uses benefiting the tribes. The settlement 
was confirmed by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub. L. 2010, Pub. 
L. 111-291, § 101(c). 

[24] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-326]. Most 
private landholders in the United States hold title to their land in 
fee simple status--that is, they own the land outright, with no 
restrictions, and may mortgage or sell it on their own initiative. 
Modern real estate transactions have become dependent on land as 
collateral and the free transfer of title between parties. NAHASDA 
funds can be used to provide eligible tribal members with down payment 
assistance to purchase a home. 

[25] 77 Fed. Reg. 72440 (December 5, 2012). 

[26] The HEARTH Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-55, authorizes federally 
recognized tribes to develop and implement their own regulations 
governing certain leasing on Indian lands. Upon approval of these 
regulations by the Secretary of the Interior, tribes have the 
authority to process land leases without BIA approval. 

[27] The goal of the Section 184 Loan Guarantee program, which was 
created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, is to 
provide homeownership opportunities to Native Americans living on 
trust or restricted lands or land located in an Indian or Alaska 
Native area. Eligible borrowers include Indian and Alaska Native 
families, Alaska Native Villages, TDHEs, Indian housing authorities, 
and tribes. 

[28] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-326]. 

[29] Should a tribe decline to accept the responsibilities, HUD will 
perform the environmental review. In general, a HUD environmental 
review must be completed for any NAHASDA-assisted activity before a 
recipient may acquire, rehabilitate, convert, lease, repair, or 
construct property. Should a tribe assume environmental review 
responsibilities, no funds may be committed to a grant activity before 
the tribe's completion of the environmental review, HUD's approval of 
the request for release of funds, and certification by a certifying 
officer of the tribe that the tribe, among other things, has fully 
carried out its environmental review responsibilities. 

[30] While this practice, known as leveraging, provides recipients 
with additional funding to meet their housing needs, it can also 
trigger a complicated and costly exercise for them. 

[31] CEQ is part of the Executive Office of the President and 
coordinates federal environmental efforts, working closely with 
agencies and with offices within the White House to develop 
environmental policies and initiatives. 

[32] See GAO, Rural Housing: Changing the Definition of Rural Could 
Improve Eligibility Determinations, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-110] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 3, 
2004). In this report, we suggested that Congress consider taking 
certain actions that could improve consistency in defining 
communities' eligibility for Rural Housing Service programs. A related 
USDA report that primarily focused on programs authorized through the 
Farm Bill--non-housing programs--has as one of its key recommendations 
using a population limit of 50,000 for all non-housing programs 
targeted to rural businesses and communities. 

[33] NAHASDA authorized funds to be appropriated annually through 2012 
to "a national organization representing Native American housing 
interests to provide training and technical assistance to tribal 
housing entities." However, starting in fiscal year 2012, Congress 
changed its appropriation language, and HUD officials told us that 
they changed the way training and technical assistance funds were 
awarded on the basis of the new language. 

[34] Because NAIHC offered training scholarships that were paid for 
using NAHASDA set-aside funds, NAIHC did not expect to continue the 
scholarships as prior set-aside funds were exhausted. 

[35] Under the tenant-based Section 8 program, an assisted household 
pays 30 percent of its adjusted monthly income in rent; the remainder 
of the rent is paid by HUD and is generally equal to the difference 
between (1) the lesser of the unit's gross rent (generally, rent plus 
utilities) or a local "payment standard" and (2) the household's 
payment. 

[36] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-326]. 

[37] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-226]. 

[38] Housing Assistance Council (Washington, D.C.: September 2013). 

[39] Both USDA and BIA stated that the environmental review process 
could be more efficient if CEQ allowed an agency to adopt another 
agency's categorical exclusion. A categorical exclusion is a category 
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment and that have been found to have no 
such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency. Actions that 
fall within a categorical exclusion are exempt from requirements to 
prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. 
See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4. 

[40] Streamlining Preconstruction Paperwork Workgroup as Requested by 
the Infrastructure Task Force to Improve Access to Safe Drinking Water 
and Basic Sanitation in Indian Country, Overview of Tribal Water 
Infrastructure Funding Application Processes and Recommended Paperwork 
Streamlining Opportunities (February 2011). The workgroup compiling 
this report included task force members--the Environmental Protection 
Agency, HUD, USDA, IHS, Interior's Bureau of Reclamation--and the 
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. 

[41] GAO, Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on 
Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-551] (Washington, D.C.: June 3, 
2009). 

[42] GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing 
Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 
2012). 

[43] National Congress of American Indians, Securing Our Futures 
(Washington, D.C.: February 2013). 

[44] HUD has created a best practices document in another area (the 
HUD-VA Supportive Housing Program) that could be used as a model. With 
input from public housing agencies and VA medical centers, HUD shared 
effective strategies and highlighted specific efforts--for example, 
practices that several public housing agencies used to help homeless 
veterans transition to permanent housing. See GAO, Veteran 
Homelessness: VA and HUD Are Working to Improve Data on Supportive 
Housing Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-726] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2012). 

[45] Streamlining Preconstruction Paperwork Workgroup, Overview of 
Tribal Water Infrastructure Funding (February 2011). 

[46] Conference Report 112-284 noted that some tribes and TDHEs had 
not spent block grant funding for several years, resulting in large 
accumulated balances and reduced housing activities on tribal lands. 
The report also noted that almost half of the unexpended balance 
belonged to one tribe. Our analysis of IHBG budget data as of July 
2013 found that the cumulative amount of obligated and unexpended IHBG 
funds totaled more than $1 billion and that NHA contributed 
approximately 42 percent to that balance. 

[47] The Hopi Tribe is located in northeastern Arizona and the Hopi 
reservation is surrounded by the Navajo reservation. The tribes have 
had a longstanding dispute over adjoining land that led to BIA 
imposing a decades-long moratorium on construction and improvements 
for homes existing on the contested land. The area came to be known as 
the Bennett Freeze area after BIA commissioner Robert Bennett, who 
enacted the moratorium in the 1960s. In May 2009, President Obama 
signed a law repealing the Bennett Freeze. In the intervening years, 
the Navajo and Hopi worked together to agree on land division, but the 
area and homes in it remain in extreme disrepair. 

[48] The 23 recipients whom we interviewed received a total of more 
than $160 million in IHBG funds for fiscal year 2013. Individual 
allocations among the 23 recipients ranged from approximately $206,000 
to approximately $82 million. However, some recipients were "umbrella" 
TDHEs serving multiple tribes or villages that received smaller 
individual allocations. 

[49] NHA's balance as of July 2013 included the recipient's fiscal 
year 2013 IHBG allocation of $82 million. As of February 2014, NHA's 
IHBG balance was $384 million. 

[50] Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development, Navajo Economic 
Data Bulletin 001-0212, February 2012. 

[51] State housing finance agencies allocate low-income housing tax 
credits to owners of qualified rental properties who reserve some of 
their units for tenants at or below certain income limits. The owners 
must restrict tenant rents in these units to 30 percent of the income 
limit, adjusted for the number of bedrooms. Once awarded tax credits, 
owners attempt to sell them to investors to obtain funding for their 
projects. Investors then can claim tax credits for 10 years if the 
property continues to comply with program requirements for 15 years. 

[52] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-226]. Even 
tribes with reservations have limited authority over land within the 
reservation boundaries. In addition, lands allotted to individual 
tribal members under the General Allotment Act of 1887, may have 
fractionated ownership because the allotments have been passed down to 
and divided among heirs. Fractionated ownership could require that 
large numbers of heirs holding interest in a parcel of land agree on 
decisions pertaining to the land. Indian General Allotment Act, 24 
Stat. 388 (1887). 

[53] The challenges related to grazing rights on the Navajo 
reservation were separate from challenges that could result from trust 
land parcel disputes on the Navajo reservation and on other Indian 
lands. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]