This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-719 
entitled 'Alaska Native Villages: Recent Federal Assistance Exceeds $3 
Billion, with Most Provided to Regional Nonprofits' which was released 
on August 2, 2005.

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.

Report to Congressional Addressees and the Alaska Federation of Natives:

August 2005:

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES:

Recent Federal Assistance Exceeded $3 Billion, with Most Provided to 
Regional Nonprofits:

GAO-05-719:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-05-719, a report to congressional addressees and the 
Alaska Federation of Natives.

Why GAO Did This Study:

This report responds to section 112, Division B, of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2004, which directs GAO to review federal 
programs benefiting rural communities in Alaska. After discussions with 
congressional staff, GAO agreed to examine federal programs benefiting 
Alaska Native villages. Specifically, this report (1) provides 
information on the amount of federal assistance provided to Alaska 
Native villages during fiscal years 1998 through 2003, (2) describes 
how selected federal funds have been used to assist Alaska Native 
villages, and (3) provides data on the number and average cost of 
houses built by villages and Alaska Native regional housing 
authorities. 

What GAO Found:

GAO’s analysis of available data indicates that Alaska Native villages 
and regional Native nonprofits—including Native associations, and 
regional health and housing nonprofits—received over $3 billion in 
federal assistance from fiscal years 1998 through 2003. Specifically, 
total federal funding included approximately $483 million to 216 Alaska 
Native villages and about $3 billion to 33 regional Native nonprofits. 
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accounted for 63 
percent of all funding over the period. According to federal and state 
officials, Alaska Native villages also likely benefited from federal 
funding to the state of Alaska and to cities and boroughs that contain 
villages, such as when federal funding is used by municipalities to 
provide water services. Based on data GAO obtained from the state of 
Alaska, during fiscal years 1998 through 2003, the state passed through 
more than $105 million in federal funding to Native villages and 
regional Native nonprofits. 

Based on available information for 13 programs GAO reviewed, federal 
funding was used to provide Alaska Natives with assistance in health 
care, housing, infrastructure, and other areas. For example, according 
to information from HHS, its Tribal Self-Governance Program was used by 
13 regional Native nonprofits, three Native villages, four groups of 
Alaska Native villages, and one statewide Native health care provider 
to provide clinical services at tribally run hospitals and health 
clinics that had over 1 million total visits throughout Alaska in 2002. 
Another program, HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grant, provided funds used 
by villages and regional housing authorities to build, rehabilitate, 
modernize, and operate single-family homes and multifamily housing 
properties. However, the extent of readily available information on how 
funds were used from the 13 programs GAO reviewed varied, in part due 
to different agency reporting requirements.

Results from GAO’s survey of Alaska Native villages and regional 
housing authorities indicated that, during calendar years 1998 through 
2003, responding entities constructed a total of 874 single-family 
units. GAO’s survey indicated that the average cost of units 
constructed by responding entities varied by region and by whether they 
were developed by villages or housing authorities. For example, the 6-
year average regional cost (in 2003 dollars) of all units constructed 
ranged from a low of $138,944 per unit, or $122 per square foot, to a 
high of $305,634 per unit, or $267 per square foot. GAO also found that 
the cost of new housing units developed by housing authorities was 
slightly higher than units developed by Native villages, and that 
regional housing authorities constructed more than three times the 
number of units compared with villages. However, various factors could 
account for differences in the cost and number of units completed among 
regions or between villages and regional housing authorities.

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-719].

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact William B. Shear at (202) 
512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov

[End of Section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received Over $3 
Billion in Federal Funding from 1998 through 2003:

Federal Funds Have Been Used to Provide an Array of Services to Alaska 
Native Villages:

Alaska Native Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Constructed 
More Than 800 and Rehabilitated Almost 3,000 Homes, and the Number and 
Costs of Completed Units Varied across Regions:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Alaska Native Population by Native Village and ANCSA 
Region or Indian Reservation:

Appendix III: Listing of Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits:

Appendix IV: Other Nonprofits That Provided Assistance to Alaska Native 
Villages:

Appendix V: The State of Alaska Passed Through Federal Funding to 
Native Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, Cities, and Boroughs:

Appendix VI: Denali Commission Program Summary:

Appendix VII: Program Summary for the Department of Agriculture:

Appendix VIII: Program Summaries for the Department of Commerce:

Appendix IX: Program Summary for the Department of Education:

Appendix X: Program Summary for the Department of Health and Human 
Services:

Appendix XI: Program Summaries for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development:

Appendix XII: Program Summary for the Department of the Interior:

Appendix XIII: Program Summary for the Department of Justice:

Appendix XIV: Program Summary for the Department of Labor:

Appendix XV: Program Summary for the Department of Transportation:

Appendix XVI: Program Summary for the Environmental Protection Agency:

Appendix XVII: Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Native Villages:

Appendix XVIII: Reproduction of NAHASDA Survey to Tribally Designated 
Housing Entities:

Appendix XIX: Comments from the Department of Commerce:

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

Appendix XXI: Comments from the Department of the Interior:

Appendix XXII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

Tables:

Table 1: List of ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofits:

Table 2: Top Federal Programs, by Agency, Benefiting Native Villages:

Table 3: Top Federal Programs, by Agency, Benefiting Regional Native 
Nonprofits:

Table 4: Primary Purposes for Which Grant Funds from 13 Selected 
Programs Were Recently Used:

Table 5: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed and Rehabilitated 
for Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 
1998-2003:

Table 6: Number of New Units Constructed by Housing Authorities 
Compared with Villages, by Region, Calendar Years 1998-2003:

Table 7: Number of New Units Rehabilitated without Acquisition by 
Housing Authorities Compared with Villages, by Region, Calendar Years 
1998-2003:

Table 8: Average New Construction Costs, Number and Size of Units, 
Regional Housing Authorities and Villages:

Table 9: Number of Regional Housing Authorities and Villages That Were 
Constructing or Rehabilitating Single-Family Units, Calendar Years 1998-
2003:

Table 10: Listing of Alaska Native Villages and the Number of AIAN 
Persons and Enrolled Members, by ANCSA Region or Indian Reservation:

Table 11: ANCSA Regional Nonprofits or Indian Reservation and the 
Corresponding Native Regional Health Care and Housing Nonprofits:

Table 12: Top Federal Programs Providing Funding Passed Through by the 
State of Alaska to Native Villages, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003:

Table 13: Top Federal Programs Providing Funding Passed Through by the 
State of Alaska to Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 1998- 
2003:

Table 14: Yearly Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska to 
Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 1998-
2003:

Table 15: Denali Commission Reporting Requirements:

Table 16: USDA Reporting Requirements for Village Safe Water Funding:

Table 17: Commerce Reporting Requirements for EAA Funding:

Table 18: Commerce Reporting Requirements for Public Works Funding:

Table 19: Education Reporting Requirements for Alaska Native 
Educational Programs Funding:

Table 20: HHS Reporting Requirements for Tribal Self-Governance Funding:

Table 21: HUD Reporting Requirements for ICDBG Funding:

Table 22: HUD Reporting Requirements for IHBG Funding:

Table 23: Percentage of IHBG Funds Used by Activity, Calendar Years 
1998-2003:

Table 24: Allowable Uses of Tribal Self-Governance Program Funding, 
Based on Budget Categories:

Table 25: Justice Reporting Requirements for COPS Funding:

Table 26: Labor Reporting Requirements for Youth Opportunity Grant 
Funding:

Table 27: DOT Reporting Requirements for AIP Funding:

Table 28: EPA Reporting Requirements for IGAP Funding:

Figures:

Figure 1: Location of Alaska Native Villages and ANCSA Regions:

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Funding to Alaska Native Villages and 
Regional Native Nonprofits, by Agency, 1998-2003:

Figure 3: Federal Funding Provided to Villages and Regional Native 
Nonprofits, 1998-2003:

Figure 4: Total Agency Funding to Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits and 
Alaska Native Villages, 1998-2003:

Figure 5: Top Native Village Recipients, by Percentage of Federal 
Funding Received:

Figure 6: Top Regional Native Nonprofits, by Percentage of Federal 
Funding Received:

Figure 7: Growth in Federal Funding to Native Villages and Regional 
Native Nonprofits:

Figure 8: House Built by the Bristol Bay Housing Authority Using IHBG 
and Other Funds:

Figure 9: Percentage of 1999-2004 AIP Projects Used to Assist Alaska 
Native Villages, by Type:

Figure 10: Before and After Upgrade Photos of Kotlik Bulk Fuel 
Facilities:

Figure 11: Head Start Center in Dillingham:

Figure 12: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed by Region for 
Villages and Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003:

Figure 13: Number of Units Rehabilitated (with and without Acquisition) 
by Region for Responding Villages and Housing Authorities, Calendar 
Years 1998-2003:

Figure 14: Annual and Total Number of Units Constructed by Housing 
Authorities and Villages, Calendar Years 1998-2003:

Figure 15: Number of Single-Family Units Modernized by Housing 
Authorities, Calendar Years 1998-2003:

Figure 16: Average Regional New Construction Costs for Housing 
Authorities and Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, Ranked by 
Cost Per Square Foot:

Figure 17: Average Rehabilitation Costs for Regional Housing 
Authorities and Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, by Region, 
for Units That Did Not Require Acquisition:

Figure 18: Housing Authority and Village Rehabilitation Costs for Units 
That Did Not Require Acquisition, by Region, Calendar Years 1998-2003:

Figure 19: Amount of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of 
Alaska to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal 
Years 1998-2003:

Figure 20: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of 
Alaska, by Agency, to Native Villages, State Fiscal Years 1998-2003:

Figure 21: Percentage of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of 
Alaska, by Agency, to Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 
1998-2003:

Figure 22: Trend of Federal Funds Passed Through by the State of Alaska 
to Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, State Fiscal Years 
1998-2003:

Abbreviations:

AHFC: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation:

AIAN: American Indian or Alaska Native:

AIP: Airport Improvement Program:

ANCSA: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act:

ANTHC: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium:

APR: Annual Performance Report:

AVCP: Association of Village Council Presidents:

BEES: Building Energy Efficiency Standard:

BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs:

CEDS: Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy:

CFDA: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance:

CIS: COPS in Schools:

COPS: Community Oriented Policing Services:

DEC: Department of Environmental Conservation:

DOT: Department of Transportation:

DOTPF: Department of Transportation and Public Facilities:

EAA: Economic Adjustment Assistance:

EDA: Economic Development Administration:

EDR: Economic Development Representative:

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:

FAADS: Federal Assistance Award Data System:

GSA: General Services Administration:

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:

IGAP: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program:

IHBG: Indian Housing Block Grants:

IHP: Indian Housing Plan:

IHS: Indian Health Service:

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

OMB: Office of Management and Budget:

ONAP: Office of Native American Programs:

SF: Standard Form:

TANF: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families:

TDHE: Tribally Designated Housing Entity:

UAS: University of Alaska Southeast:

UHP: Universal Hiring Program:

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture:

USDA RD: USDA Rural Development:

[End of Section]

Letter:
August 2, 2005:

The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Chairman:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:

The Honorable Jerry Lewis:
Chairman:
The Honorable David R. Obey:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:

Julie Kitka:
President:
Alaska Federation of Natives:

According to the Census Bureau, about 120,000 people who live in Alaska 
are Native--aboriginal Americans, many of whom reside in rural areas of 
the state long inhabited by their ancestors. For many years, the 
federal government both provided funding to assist Alaska Natives and 
their communities to meet a wide range of social and economic needs-- 
funding that has amounted to millions of dollars annually--and 
administered many of the programs that provided the assistance. 
However, with the passage of certain federal legislation, Native 
villages--entities within the state that are recognized by the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs (BIA) to receive services from the federal 
government--and other Native organizations began to receive more 
responsibility for administering programs that assist their 
communities. Moreover, these entities also began to receive funding 
directly from the federal government to administer the programs. 
Currently, the federal government provides direct financial assistance 
to many of the more than 200 federally recognized Alaska Native 
villages and other Native organizations. In addition, the federal 
government provides financial assistance to the state, which has passed 
through some of these funds to Alaska Native villages. However, 
recently, some federal laws have limited the ability of Alaska Native 
villages to receive direct funding.

This report responds to section 112, Division B, of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2004, which directed us to review federal 
programs benefiting rural Alaska communities. As agreed with your 
staff, we focused our review on federal programs benefiting Alaska 
Native villages. Our report (1) provides information on the amount of 
federal assistance provided to assist Alaska Native villages during 
federal fiscal years 1998 through 2003; (2) describes how selected 
federal funds have been used to assist Alaska Native villages; and (3) 
provides data on the number and average cost of houses built by 
villages and Alaska Native regional housing authorities.

To address these objectives we met with officials of various federal 
agencies, the state of Alaska, boroughs, and cities. In addition, we 
met with representatives of Native villages, regional Native nonprofit 
organizations, and other organizations that assist Alaska Natives. To 
report on the amount of federal funding that has been provided to 
assist Alaska Native villages, we examined data on both funding to over 
200 federally recognized Alaska Native villages and regional Native 
nonprofits, and funding to Native villages that was passed through the 
state of Alaska. We classified as regional Native nonprofits: Native 
associations that were identified in the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act (ANCSA) or the organizations that succeeded them, which, 
throughout this report, we refer to as ANCSA regional nonprofits; 
Native health organizations identified in P.L. 105-83; and Alaska 
regional housing authorities identified by the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development (HUD). To provide information on funding to 
Alaska Native villages, we analyzed data from the Federal Assistance 
Award Data System (FAADS), which identifies recipients of federal 
awards, federal programs for which awards were made, and award amounts. 
To verify the accuracy of our data, we provided federal agencies with 
data on their programs that we obtained from FAADS. Based on agency 
responses, where appropriate, we made adjustments to data we obtained 
from FAADS. To provide information on the amount of federal funding to 
assist Alaska Native villages that was passed through by the state, we 
obtained information from the state of Alaska Department of 
Administration, Division of Finance. To describe how selected federal 
funds were used to assist Alaska Native communities, we selected 13 
major programs from among 11 agencies.[Footnote 1] For each of these 
programs, we met with federal officials and, where appropriate, state, 
local, village and other tribal officials, as well as officials 
representing organizations that primarily serve Alaska Natives. We also 
reviewed program descriptions from the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance (CFDA) and reviewed agency documents on how recipients used 
program funds. To determine the number of housing units completed and 
their costs, we surveyed all villages and regional housing authorities 
that had received HUD funds from the Native American Housing Assistance 
and Self-Determination Act of 1996, as amended (NAHASDA), during fiscal 
years 1998 through 2003. In carrying out our work, we did not conduct 
audit work to assess whether funds were spent in compliance with 
federal regulations, and we did not assess the efficiency or 
effectiveness of how federal funds were distributed or spent. We 
conducted our work from February 2004 to July 2005 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I for a 
detailed description of our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief:

GAO's analysis of available data indicates that Alaska Native villages 
and regional Native nonprofits received over $3 billion in federal 
assistance during the 6-year period of federal fiscal years 1998 
through 2003.[Footnote 2]Based on data from FAADS, which contains 
governmentwide data on federal award assistance transactions, and other 
agency data, total federal funding for the period included 
approximately $483 million to 216 Alaska Native villages and about $3 
billion to 33 regional Native nonprofits--ANCSA regional nonprofits, 
regional health nonprofits, and regional housing authorities. Although 
direct federal funding was provided by 17 federal agencies, the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accounted for 63 percent 
of all funding over the period. Similarly, agencies provided direct 
federal funding through 112 programs to villages and 149 programs to 
regional Native nonprofits, although a small number of these programs 
accounted for most of the federal funding. For example, HUD's Indian 
Housing Block Grant program, which provides funds for housing, 
accounted for 22 percent of all federal funding to Native villages and 
16 percent of all federal funding to regional Native nonprofits during 
the period. Overall, total annual federal funding to villages and 
regional Native nonprofits increased from about $500 million in 1999 to 
about $662 million in 2003--or about 30 percent.[Footnote 3] In 
addition to the federal government directly providing funds to Alaska 
Native villages and regional Native nonprofits, the state of Alaska 
passed through over $105 million in federal funds to Alaska Native 
villages and regional Native nonprofits during a similar period. Also, 
over the period, villages may have benefited from direct funding of 
$224 million to nonprofit organizations that primarily provide 
assistance to Alaska Natives; over $300 million to incorporated cities 
and boroughs that contain villages, such as when villages located in 
these areas receive water and sewer services; and over $7 billion 
provided to the state for transportation, education, health and human 
services, and other assistance.

Federal funds from the 13 programs we reviewed were used to provide 
Alaska Natives with assistance in health care, housing, infrastructure, 
and other areas. For example, according to information from HHS, its 
Tribal Self-Governance Program was used by 13 regional Native 
nonprofits, three Native villages, four groups of Alaska Native 
villages, and one statewide Native health care provider to provide 
clinical services at tribally run hospitals and health clinics that had 
over 1 million total visits throughout Alaska in 2002.[Footnote 4] 
Another program, HUD's Indian Housing Block Grant, provided funds used 
by villages and regional housing authorities to build, rehabilitate, 
modernize, and operate single-family homes and multifamily housing 
properties. In addition to providing funds for carrying out specific 
program activities, most of the programs we reviewed also covered at 
least a portion of grantees' total administrative costs. However, the 
extent of readily available information on how funds were used from the 
13 programs we reviewed varied, in part, due to different agency 
reporting requirements. For example, Interior had only limited 
information on the usage of funding under its Tribal Self-Governance 
Program, in part because the relevant statutory provisions do not 
require grantees to submit the information. On the other hand, the 
Denali Commission--a federal agency established in 1998 to address 
crucial rural Alaska needs, such as energy infrastructure--has specific 
grantee reporting requirements that include, among other things, 
detailed program and financial information.

Results from our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing 
authorities indicated that responding entities constructed a total of 
874 single-family units and rehabilitated a total of 2,990 single- 
family units from calendar year 1998 to 2003.[Footnote 5] The two most 
common units constructed were three-and four-bedroom homes. Over the 
period, 462 three-bedroom and 262 four-bedroom homes were constructed. 
Four of the 12 regions accounted for about 68 percent of the new home 
production, including one that accounted for over 30 percent of the 
production. Also, over the period, Alaska Native regional housing 
authorities constructed more than three times the number of units (666) 
than villages (208). We also found that three regions accounted for 
about 60 percent of the number of units rehabilitated, and that 
regional housing authorities rehabilitated 70 percent of units compared 
with 30 percent rehabilitated by villages. Our analysis of the survey 
data indicated that the average cost of units constructed by responding 
entities varied by region and by whether they were developed by 
villages or housing authorities. For example, the 6-year average 
regional cost (in 2003 dollars) of all units constructed ranged from a 
low of $138,944 per unit, or $122 per square foot, to a high of 
$305,634 per unit, or $267 per square foot. Although housing 
authorities had higher new construction costs than villages, villages 
had higher costs for units that were rehabilitated without acquisition. 
However, various factors could account for differences in the number or 
cost of units completed among regions or between villages and regional 
housing authorities. For example, regional differences in housing 
construction costs may reflect variations in the cost of transporting 
building materials and equipment to remote villages. Also, differences 
in construction costs between regional housing authorities and villages 
may reflect costs housing authorities likely incur when complying with 
Alaska state construction and energy efficiency standards--a condition 
of receiving state funds for housing construction. Villages generally 
do not receive funds from the state for housing construction, and 
although they may construct properties that meet these standards, 
adherence to such standards would typically occur voluntarily.

Background:

In terms of land area, Alaska is the largest U.S. state--more than the 
combined area of the next three largest states: Texas, California, and 
Montana. However, according to the Census Bureau, Alaska is also one of 
the least populated states, with about 630,000 people--of which about 
19 percent, or 120,000, are Alaska Native or American Indian. Over half 
of the state's population is concentrated in the Kenai Peninsula, 
Anchorage, and the Matanuska-Susitna area in south central Alaska. Many 
Alaska Natives, however, live in rural areas of western, northern, and 
interior Alaska long inhabited by their ancestors. Alaska Natives are 
generally divided into six major groupings: Unangan (Aleuts), Alutiiq 
(Pacific Eskimos), Inupiat (Northern Eskimos), Yup'ik (Bering Sea 
Eskimos), Athabascan (Interior Indians), and Tlingit and Haida 
(Southeast Coastal Indians).

A Variety of Entities Facilitates the Provision of Federal Assistance 
to Alaska Native Villages:

A variety of entities facilitates federal assistance to Alaska Native 
villages. For many years, the federal government generally funded and 
administered many of the programs that provided assistance to Alaska 
Natives. However, with the passage of several key pieces of 
legislation, Alaska Native villages and other tribal organizations 
began to take on more responsibility for directly administering 
programs to assist their communities, and began to receive direct 
funding to carry out these tasks. For example, in 1971, Congress passed 
ANCSA, which was intended to resolve Native claims to land in the 
state. Under ANCSA, the Secretary of the Interior divided the state 
into 12 geographic regions so that each would include Natives "having a 
common heritage and sharing common interests." All Natives became 
shareholders in one of 12 regional corporations or in a 13th 
corporation for nonresident Natives. In addition, Natives who resided 
in one of more than 200 villages listed in ANCSA were also enrolled in 
Native village corporations.[Footnote 6] The Bureau of Indian Affairs 
currently recognizes 229 Alaska Native villages as eligible to receive 
federal funds.[Footnote 7] Appendix II contains a listing of Alaska 
Native villages and the number of American Indian and Alaska Native 
(AIAN) persons and enrolled Alaska Native members by:

ANCSA region.[Footnote 8],[Footnote 9] Figure 1 shows the location of 
Alaska Native villages and the 12 ANCSA regions.

Figure 1: Location of Alaska Native Villages and ANCSA Regions:

[See PDF for image]

Note: The regions are identified by the names of their for-profit 
regional corporations.

[End of figure]

In addition to Alaska Native villages, Alaska Natives are also served 
by a number of other Native-controlled regional nonprofit organizations 
that receive federal funding to administer a broad range of services, 
including 12 regional Native associations identified in ANCSA or the 
organizations that succeeded them, which, for the purposes of this 
report, we refer to as ANCSA regional nonprofits, and regional health 
care and housing nonprofits.[Footnote 10] Table 1 provides a list of 
the ANCSA for-profit regional corporations and the corresponding 
regional nonprofit.

Table 1: List of ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofits:

For-profit regional corporation: Ahtna Inc; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Copper River Native Association.

For-profit regional corporation: The Aleut Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association.

For-profit regional corporation: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Arctic Slope Native Association.

For-profit regional corporation: Bering Straits Native Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Kawerak Inc.

For-profit regional corporation: Bristol Bay Native Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Bristol Bay Native Association.

For-profit regional corporation: Calista Corporation; Corresponding 
regional nonprofit: Association of Village Council Presidents.

For-profit regional corporation: Chugach Alaska Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Chugachmiut.

For-profit regional corporation: Cook Inlet Region Inc; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Cook Inlet Tribal Council.

For-profit regional corporation: Doyon Limited; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Tanana Chiefs Conference.

For-profit regional corporation: Koniag Inc; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Kodiak Area Native Association.

For-profit regional corporation: NANA Regional Corporation Inc; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Maniilaq Association.

For-profit regional corporation: Sealaska Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: Central Council of the Tlingit and 
Haida Indian Tribes.

For-profit regional corporation: Thirteenth Regional Corporation; 
Corresponding regional nonprofit: No nonprofit organization.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

Also, nearly all health care that is delivered to Alaska Natives is 
administered by 13 Alaska Native regional health organizations that 
were identified in Public Law 105-83. These entities operate under 
compacting arrangements, which are agreements the Indian Health Service 
(IHS) negotiates with Native villages and other Native 
entities.[Footnote 11] Under the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and 
Educational Assistance Act, as amended, and further through the Tribal 
Self-Governance Act of 1994 and the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments 
of 2000, tribes and tribal organizations were allowed to participate in 
and manage programs that for years had been administered on their 
behalf by the Departments of the Interior and of Health and Human 
Services. Also, prior to NAHASDA, Alaska Natives were served by 14 
regional housing authorities that were authorized by previous federal 
housing laws to provide services for Alaska Natives. NAHASDA further 
expanded the ability of Native villages to directly receive federal 
funding for the purpose of providing services to eligible Alaska 
Natives. The regional housing authorities and Native villages engage in 
a variety of affordable housing activities, including construction, 
rehabilitation, and management.[Footnote 12] See appendix III for a 
list of the ANCSA regional nonprofits, the regional health 
corporations, and the regional housing authorities that operate within 
the 12 ANCSA-defined areas of Alaska.[Footnote 13]

Recent legislation has limited the ability of Native villages to 
directly receive federal funding. Public Law 108-447 temporarily limits 
the ability of IHS from directly funding villages that are already 
located within the area of a Native Alaska regional health facility. 
This restriction was put in place due to congressional concerns about 
the efficiency of providing direct federal funding to Alaska Native 
villages. Also, 25 USC 13f prohibits the provision of certain BIA 
funding to villages with fewer than 25 members; and 25 USC 3651 (note) 
limits which entities can receive certain Department of Justice funds. 
In addition, HUD's fiscal year 2004-2005 appropriations included a 
provision that restricted certain housing funding to only those Alaska 
villages or tribally designated housing entities that had received 
funds in the previous fiscal year.

In addition to the aforementioned Native nonprofits, a variety of other 
nonprofits also facilitate the provision of federal assistance to 
Alaska Native villages. These nonprofits, many of which are also 
controlled by Alaska Natives, provide assistance related to a broad 
range of areas, including justice issues, cultural and environmental 
preservation, and educational and economic advancement. Some of these 
nonprofits operate in one or more regions or on a subregional basis. 
Appendix IV contains a listing of nonprofits other than those discussed 
previously that received federal funding for the purpose of assisting 
Alaska Native villages from 1998 through 2003.

Alaska Native villages also receive federal assistance that is passed 
through by the state or local agencies. For example, federally 
recognized Native villages may be part of communities that are 
incorporated under state law as cities or boroughs. State of Alaska 
data show that 124 Native villages are located within incorporated 
cities. However, these cities provide government services, such as 
water and sanitation, to Native village members that live in their 
jurisdiction, which would otherwise most likely be provided by Native 
villages. Likewise, some villages are located in organized boroughs 
that provide services to villages and cities.[Footnote 14]

In 1998, Congress established the Denali Commission to address crucial 
needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly isolated Alaska Native 
villages. The commission is composed of a federal and a state co-chair 
and representatives from local agencies, as well as Alaska Native 
public and private entities.[Footnote 15] To carry out its work, the 
commission receives an annual federal appropriation and funds that are 
transferred from other federal agencies. The purpose of the commission 
is to (1) deliver the services of the federal government in the most 
cost-effective manner practicable; (2) provide job training and other 
economic development services in rural communities; (3) and, promote 
rural development and provide infrastructure such as water, sewer, and 
communication systems. According to the commission's 2004 annual 
report, rural Alaska communities often face serious challenges to 
maintaining a sufficient energy supply, especially during the state's 
harsh winters. Improving rural Alaska's energy infrastructure has been 
the commission's primary focus since 1999.

Research Shows Improvement in the Social and Economic Condition of 
Alaska Natives, but Some Problems Persist:

Although recent research shows improvement in the social and economic 
condition of Alaska Natives, many problems persist. A 1989 report by 
the University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research 
documented that Alaska Natives were facing a number of social and 
economic crises, such as high incidences of alcohol abuse, suicide, 
homicide, and unemployment.[Footnote 16] The Alaska Natives Commission-
-a federal-state commission--reported similar findings in 1994. The 
commission stated that because of the high rate of unemployment and 
lack of economic opportunities for Alaska Natives, government programs 
for the poor had become the foundation of many village economies. More 
recently, a 2004 report found that conditions for Alaska Natives 
improved in some areas, but that Alaska Natives still faced continuing 
and new disparities.[Footnote 17] For example, the report indicated 
that Alaska Natives have experienced improvements in health, such as 
reductions in tuberculosis, due in part to improvement in water and 
sewer systems; however, Natives continue to face health problems 
related to alcohol abuse and other factors. Similarly, the report 
indicated that Alaska Natives are making economic improvements, but 
continue to have disproportionately high poverty rates compared with 
non-Native Alaskans.

Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received Over $3 
Billion in Federal Funding from 1998 through 2003:

From 1998 through 2003, Alaska Native villages and regional Native 
nonprofits received more than $3 billion in funding from multiple 
federal agencies, with HHS providing the majority of the 
funding.[Footnote 18] Native villages received substantially less 
funding than regional Native nonprofits, although Native villages had 
slightly more diverse sources for funding. Additionally, a small number 
of programs accounted for the majority of funding to villages and 
regional Native nonprofits, and, similarly, a few villages and regional 
Native nonprofits received the majority of federal funding. Combined 
federal funding to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits 
increased from about $512 million in 1999 to about $662 million in 
2003. Alaska Native villages also benefited from federal funding 
provided to nonprofit organizations that primarily provide assistance 
to Alaska Natives, incorporated cities and boroughs that contain Native 
villages, and the state of Alaska. Moreover, during state fiscal years 
1998 through 2003, the state of Alaska passed through more than $105 
million in federal funds to Native villages and regional Native 
nonprofits.[Footnote 19]

Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits Received Over $3 
Billion in Funding from Multiple Federal Agencies, with HHS the Largest 
Single Provider of Funding:

Based on our analysis of information from FAADS, 17 federal agencies 
provided about $3.5 billion in federal funding to Alaska Native 
villages and regional Native nonprofits--ANCSA regional nonprofits, 
regional health nonprofits, and regional housing authorities--from 1998 
through 2003.[Footnote 20] As shown in figure 2, HHS provided 63 
percent of the funding, and HUD, Interior, and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) provided slightly more than 30 percent; thus, 
four agencies accounted for more than 90 percent of all direct federal 
funding to villages and regional Native nonprofits. None of the other 
13 agencies provided more than 1 percent of the total funding to 
villages and regional Native nonprofits.

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Funding to Alaska Native Villages and 
Regional Native Nonprofits, by Agency, 1998-2003:

[See PDF for image]

[A] Other agencies include the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 
National Endowment for the Arts, Institute of Museum and Library 
Services, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, 
Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.

[End of figure]

The federally established Denali Commission, through its federal 
appropriations, also provided assistance to rural Alaska communities, 
including Alaska Native villages. From 1999 through 2003, Denali 
obligated approximately $290 million, but Denali did not report the 
grant amounts to the Census Bureau so that the information could be 
included in FAADS. Denali officials said they were not aware of the 
FAADS reporting requirement until recently.

Native Villages Received Substantially Less Funding Than Regional 
Native Nonprofits, but Native Villages Received Their Funding from More 
Sources:

Of the $3.5 billion provided to Alaska Native villages and regional 
Native nonprofits, as shown in figure 3, federal agencies provided more 
than $483 million (14 percent) in direct federal funding to 216 Alaska 
Native villages and $3 billion (86 percent) to 33 regional Native 
nonprofits from 1998 through 2003.

Figure 3: Federal Funding Provided to Villages and Regional Native 
Nonprofits, 1998-2003:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Although regional Native nonprofits received more funding than Native 
villages, the sources of major funding for villages were slightly more 
diverse than for regional Native nonprofits. Specifically, Native 
villages received direct funding from 16 agencies, with HHS, Interior, 
EPA, and HUD providing about 84 percent. In comparison, regional Native 
nonprofits received funding from 14 federal agencies, with HHS 
accounting for 70 percent of the funding (see figs. 4 and 5).

Figure 4: Total Agency Funding to Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits and 
Alaska Native Villages, 1998-2003:

[See PDF for image]

[A] Other agencies are the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Energy, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, Institute of Museum and Library Services, the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for National and Community 
Service.

[B] Other agencies are the National Endowment for the Arts, Institute 
of Museum and Library Services, Corporation for National and Community 
Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Energy, 
National Science Foundation, and Department of Labor.

[End of figure]

Regional Native nonprofits may receive more funding from HHS than 
villages because regional Native nonprofits include regional health 
organizations that receive funding from IHS to operate major medical 
facilities such as hospitals. Under existing law, some villages are 
restricted from receiving IHS funding in cases where they are located 
in areas that are already served by an Alaska Native regional health 
organization.[Footnote 21]

In contrast, Native villages received more funding from certain 
agencies than regional Native nonprofits. The Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and Transportation (DOT) and EPA all provided more funding to 
villages than to regional Native nonprofits. For example, EPA provided 
$72 million to villages over the period, or over six times the amount 
provided to regional Native nonprofits.

A Small Number of Programs Accounted for the Majority of Funding and a 
Small Number of Both Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits 
Received the Majority of the Funding:

While Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received different 
amounts of funding, with different primary sources of funding, both 
received the majority of their funding from a few programs. For 
example, Native villages received funding from a total of 112 programs; 
however, as shown in table 2, the top programs from nine agencies 
providing the most funding accounted for about 64 percent of the 
funding to all Native villages.

Table 2: Top Federal Programs, by Agency, Benefiting Native Villages:

Agency: HUD; 
Program name (CFDA): Indian Housing Block Grants (14.867);
Total funding: $104,068,580;
Percentage of total funding: 22%.

Agency: EPA;
Program name (CFDA): Indian Environmental General Assistance Program 
(66.926);
Total funding: $63,269,797;
Percentage of total funding: 13%.

Agency: HHS;
Program name (CFDA): Indian Health Service Health Management 
Development Program (93.228)[A];
Total funding: $47,721,221;
Percentage of total funding: 10%.

Agency: Interior;
Program name (CFDA): Tribal Self-Governance (15.022);
Total funding: $45,500,244;
Percentage of total funding: 9%.

Agency: DOT;
Program name (CFDA): Airport Improvement Program (20.106);
Total funding: $17,545,183;
Percentage of total funding: 4%.

Agency: Commerce;
Program name (CFDA): Economic Adjustment Assistance (11.307);
Total funding: $11,705,345;
Percentage of total funding: 2%.

Agency: Justice;
Program name (CFDA): Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing 
Grants (16.710)[B];
Total funding: $9,766,546;
Percentage of total funding: 2%.

Agency: USDA;
Program name (CFDA): Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural 
Communities (10.760);
Total funding: $6,017,480;
Percentage of total funding: 1%.

Agency: Education;
Program name (CFDA): Alaska Native Educational Planning, Curriculum 
Development, Teacher Training, and Recruitment Program (84.320)[C];
Total funding: $1,497,690;
Percentage of total funding: <1%.

Program name (CFDA): 103 other programs;
Total funding: $176,360,205;
Percentage of total funding: 36%.

Agency: Total;
Program name (CFDA): [Empty];
Total funding: $483,452,291;
Percentage of total funding: 100%.

Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1998-2003.

[A] According to HHS officials, the total funding amount also includes 
funding for the Tribal Self-Governance Program (CFDA 93.210) and Indian 
Self-Determination (CFDA 93.441).

[B] Also called Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants.

[C] Starting in 2002, this program was consolidated into CFDA 84.356-- 
Alaska Native Education Program.

[End of table]

Similarly, while regional Native nonprofits received funding from 149 
programs, about 87 percent of the funding came from the nine agencies 
that provided the largest funding (see table 3).

Table 3: Top Federal Programs, by Agency, Benefiting Regional Native 
Nonprofits:

Agency: HHS;
Program name (CFDA): Indian Health Service--Health Management 
Development Program (93.228)[A];
Total funding: $1,841,321,664;
Percentage of total funding: 61%.

Agency: HUD;
Program name (CFDA): Indian Housing Block Grants (14.867);
Total funding: $480,063,494;
Percentage of total funding: 16%.

Agency: Interior;
Program name (CFDA): Tribal Self-Governance (15.022);
Total funding: $245,776,863;
Percentage of total funding: 8%.

Agency: Labor;
Program name (CFDA): Workforce Investment Act (17.255);
Total funding: $18,964,143;
Percentage of total funding: 1%.

Agency: Education;
Program name (CFDA): Rehabilitation Services-- American Indians with 
Disabilities (84.250);
Total funding: %13,310,179;
Percentage of total funding: <1%.

Agency: USDA;
Program name (CFDA): Community Facilities Loans and Grants (10.766);
Total funding: $7,815,357;
Percentage of total funding: <1%.

Agency: EPA;
Program name (CFDA): Indian Environmental General Assistance Program 
(66.926);
Total funding: $7,563,292;
Percentage of total funding: <1%.

Agency: Commerce;
Program name (CFDA): Economic Adjustment Assistance (11.307);
Total funding: $3,628,586;
Percentage of total funding: <1%.

Agency: Justice;
Program name (CFDA): Violence against Women Discretionary Grants for 
Indian Tribal Governments (16.587);
Total funding: $2,066,729;
Percentage of total funding: <1%.

Program name (CFDA): 140 other programs;
Total funding: $385,596,234;
Percentage of total funding: 13%.

Agency: Total;
Program name (CFDA): [Empty];
Total funding: $3,006,106,541;
Percentage of total funding: 100%.

Source: GAO analysis of FAADS and other agency data, 1998-2003.

Notes: Regional Native nonprofits did not receive any funding from the 
Department of Transportation during the period.

[A] According to HHS officials, the total funding amount also includes 
funding for Tribal Self-Governance Program (CFDA 93.210) and Indian 
Self-Determination (CFDA 93.441).

[End of table]

Further, Native villages and regional Native nonprofits received 
funding from some of the same programs, but not always in similar 
amounts. For example, Native villages received about $10 million from 
the Department of Justice's Public Safety Partnership and Community 
Policing Grants and about $6 million from the United States Department 
of Agriculture's (USDA) Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural 
Communities program. Regional Native nonprofits received less than 
$500,000 from the same Justice program and about $1.4 million from the 
same USDA program.

In addition to the concentration of funding among a small number of 
agencies, as shown in figures 5 and 6, relatively few Native villages 
and regional Native nonprofits received more than a third of the 
funding. For example, only 13 out of 216 Native villages received 38 
percent of total federal funding to Native villages. Also, 10 of 33 
regional Native nonprofits received 71 percent of total funding to 
these entities.

Figure 5: Top Native Village Recipients, by Percentage of Federal 
Funding Received:

[See PDF for image]

[A] The Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government includes Arctic 
Village and the Village of Venetie. All three of these entities are 
recognized by BIA. For this analysis, funding for these entities is 
combined.

[B] The Native Village of Gambell and the Native Village of Savoonga, 
both located on St. Lawrence Island, are separate BIA-recognized 
entities; however, because they were recorded in FAADS as joint 
recipients for some funds, we combined them in this analysis.

[End of figure] 

Figure 6: Top Regional Native Nonprofits, by Percentage of Federal 
Funding Received:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Combined Federal Funding to Native Villages and Regional Native 
Nonprofits Increased 29 Percent between 1999 and 2003:

In 2003 constant dollars, annual combined federal funding to Native 
villages and regional Native nonprofits increased 29 percent, from $512 
million in 1999 to $662 million in 2003.[Footnote 22] Combined funding 
to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits increased every year, 
except 2003, peaking in 2002 at $737 million (see fig. 7).

Figure 7: Growth in Federal Funding to Native Villages and Regional 
Native Nonprofits:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The large increase between 2001 and 2002, from $586 million to $737 
million, is primarily attributable to increases in HHS funding to 
Native villages and regional Native nonprofits. HHS funding increased 
from $308 million in 2001 to $475 million in 2002. The decrease in 
funding between 2002 and 2003 is primarily attributable to decreases in 
funding from HHS and Interior.

Finally, direct federal funding to Native villages grew 29 percent, 
from $64 million in 1999 to $83 million in 2003, and the number of 
Native villages receiving funds directly increased 32 percent from 148 
in 1999 to 196 in 2003. Federal direct funding to the 33 regional 
Native nonprofits grew 29 percent from $448 million in 1999 to $579 
million in 2003.

Funding for 1998 is not included in the comparison because not all HHS 
and Interior funding was included in FAADS. According to HHS officials, 
FAADS does not capture the $139 million in federal funds expended by 
HHS in 1998 for it to operate the Alaska Native Medical Center and 
provide sanitation facilities projects.[Footnote 23] Also, according to 
Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not report 1998 funding data 
for inclusion in FAADS.

Alaska Native Villages and Alaska Natives Also Benefited from Federal 
Funding to Other Nonprofit Organizations, Cities, Boroughs, and the 
State of Alaska:

Many Alaska Native villages also benefited from other nonprofits that 
primarily assist Alaska Natives. Also, Native villages located within 
incorporated cities benefited from municipal services, such as sewer 
and water services. In addition, Alaska Native villages and Alaska 
Natives benefited from federal funding to school districts, boroughs, 
and the state, for purposes such as education, transportation, and 
other community services. The state also passed through some federal 
funding it receives to Native villages, cities, and boroughs.

Based on our analysis of FAADS data, 46 nonprofit organizations that 
primarily provide assistance and support to Alaska Natives received 
$224 million during 1998 through 2003. These organizations are a 
diverse group that include: statewide entities, such as the Alaska 
Federation of Natives, considered to be the largest advocacy group 
representing Alaska Natives; the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, 
which supports subsistence activities; the Alaska Native Heritage 
Center, which seeks to promote awareness of Native culture and values; 
and the Council of Athabascan Tribal governments, a subregional Native 
nonprofit that provides health care services to six villages. See 
appendix IV for a list of the nonprofit organizations that primarily 
assist Alaska Natives and that received federal funding from 1998 
through 2003.

Our analysis of FAADS data indicated that 12 federal agencies provided 
incorporated cities that have Native villages within their borders with 
$167 million in federal funding during 1998 through 2003. Overall, 75 
different incorporated cities received some form of federal funding, 
with an average of 32 cities receiving funds in any year.[Footnote 24] 
USDA provided the largest amount of funding to these cities--$88 
million or about half of all funding provided to the cities. More 
specifically, its Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural 
Communities program, provided the largest share of this funding--$55 
million. The Department of Energy provided the next largest share of 
funding to cities--about $26 million over the period. However, most of 
the Department of Energy's funding was from one program--Renewable 
Energy Research and Development program--which accounted for $25 
million to the incorporated cities. In addition, incorporated cities 
with Native villages within their borders received about $22 million 
from the DOT's Airport Improvement Program.

Our analysis of FAADS data also indicates that from 1998 through 2003, 
18 federal agencies provided $161 million to borough governments. DOT 
contributed the largest share of the funding, $53 million. Its Airport 
Improvement Program provided $37 million to boroughs, making it the 
largest program overall. HUD provided the next largest amount of 
funding, $25 million. HUD's Community Development Block Grants program 
provided $18 million to boroughs, making it the second largest program. 
Commerce, USDA, and Education each provided about $16 million to 
boroughs.

Based on our analysis of FAADS data, independent school districts 
received about $674 million from 11 federal agencies. Fifty-six 
different school districts received federal funding, with an average of 
52 school districts funded annually. Education was responsible for 98 
percent of all funding to school districts, about $662 million. More 
specifically, the majority of these funds came from the department's 
formula-based Impact Aid program. Impact Aid provided $481 million in 
financial assistance to school districts where school enrollments or 
availability of revenue are adversely affected by federal activities, 
or where a significant number of children reside on federal (including 
Indian[Footnote 25]) lands.

Finally, our analysis of FAADS data also shows that the state of Alaska 
received about $7 billion in federal funding from 1998 through 
2003.[Footnote 26] The state received about $3 billion from DOT, with 
about $2.3 billion coming from a formula-driven Federal Highway 
Administration program and $662 million from the Airport Improvement 
Program. USDA and Education each provided about $800 million to the 
state, with USDA providing $335 million from the Food Stamp program and 
$95 million from the Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural 
Communities program, and Education providing $122 million for Impact 
Aid program. EPA provided $401 million to the state, which included 
$216 million from its Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special 
Purpose Grants program, which is used primarily to fund the state's 
Village Safe Water program.

In addition to using federal funds to provide general services 
throughout the state, the state of Alaska also passed through some of 
its federal funds to Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, 
cities, and boroughs.[Footnote 27] During the state fiscal period 1998 
through 2003, the state passed through more than $105 million in 
federal funds to Native villages and regional Native nonprofits. This 
funding was provided by 15 federal agencies to Native villages and by 
17 federal agencies to regional Native nonprofits to address health, 
environmental, economic, and other needs. In addition, the state passed 
through $82.5 million to incorporated cities and almost $253 million to 
boroughs with Native villages. See appendix V for more information on 
federal funds the state passed through to villages, regional Native 
nonprofits and other entities.

Federal Funds Have Been Used to Provide an Array of Services to Alaska 
Native Villages:

Federal funds from the 13 programs we reviewed have been used to 
provide an array of services to Alaska Native villages. However, the 
extent of federal agency information on those uses varied widely by 
program. Specifically, funds from these programs were used to provide 
Alaska Natives with assistance in health care, housing, infrastructure, 
and other areas such as education and community development.[Footnote 
28] In addition to providing funds for carrying out specific program 
activities, most of the programs we reviewed also covered at least a 
portion of grantees' total administrative costs. The extent of readily 
available information on how funds from these programs were used 
varied, partly because of different reporting requirements and partly 
due to different efforts to summarize individual grantee data. 
Summaries of the 13 programs we reviewed are contained in appendixes VI 
through XVI.

Alaska Native Villages and Regional Native Nonprofits, and Other State 
and Local Organizations, Used Federal Funding to Provide an Array of 
Services to Their Communities:

Alaska Native Villages, regional Native Nonprofits, and other state and 
local organizations used funds from the 13 programs we reviewed to 
provide an array of services to their communities. Specifically, they 
used funds from these programs to provide assistance related to health 
care, housing, infrastructure, and other areas (see table 4).

Table 4: Primary Purposes for Which Grant Funds from 13 Selected 
Programs Were Recently Used:

Agency: Denali Commission;
Program: Denali Commission (emphasis on energy and health);
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Energy and health care 
infrastructure.

Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural Communities;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Infrastructure.

Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: Economic Adjustment Assistance;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Economic development.

Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: Economic Development--Grants for Public Works and Development 
Facilities;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Economic development.

Agency: Department of Education;
Program: Alaska Native Programs;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Education.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Tribal Self- Governance;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Health care.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Program: Indian Housing Block Grant;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Housing construction and 
rehabilitation.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Program: Indian Community Development Block Grant;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Community development.

Agency: Department of Justice;
Program: Community Oriented Policing Services;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Law enforcement.

Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Tribal Self-Governance;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Community welfare, community 
development.

Agency: Department of Labor;
Program: Youth Opportunity Grants;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Education, job training.

Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Airport Improvement Program;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Transportation infrastructure.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program;
Primary purposes grantees used funds: Capacity building.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

Alaska Regional Native Nonprofits, Villages, and State Agencies Used 
Federal Funding to Provide a Wide Range of Health Care Services to 
Alaska Natives:

Two programs we reviewed provided health care funding for Alaska 
Natives: the Department of Health and Human Services' Tribal Self- 
Governance Program and the Denali Commission's Health Care Program. 
HHS's Indian Health Service (IHS) awards self-governance funding to 13 
regional Native health care nonprofits, three Native villages, one 
statewide Native health care provider, and four groups of between two 
and seven Alaska Native villages, to provide health care services to 
Alaska Natives.[Footnote 29] Under the program, IHS negotiates self- 
governance compacts with these regional Native nonprofits, villages, 
and the statewide Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium[Footnote 30] 
that allow those organizations to assume the management, design and 
implementation of their own health care programs.[Footnote 31] 
According to IHS officials and agency documentation, these 
organizations recently used HHS's Tribal Self-Governance Program 
funding in several areas.[Footnote 32] These include the 
following:[Footnote 33]

* Clinical health services, including hospitals and health clinics, 
dental services, mental health services, and alcohol and substance 
abuse treatment. Collectively, these funds were used to operate 7 
tribal hospitals, 28 tribal health centers, and 176 tribal community 
health aid clinics with about 500 community health aides.

* Contract health services (i.e., health services from private-sector 
providers where specialized health care services were not readily 
available at tribally operated providers). For example, the Alaska 
Native Medical Center in Anchorage--which generally provides treatment 
for serious illness and injury for Alaska Natives from all over Alaska-
-often uses contract health care funds to consult with specialists and 
to provide specialized care such as cardiac or neurological surgery.

* Preventive health services, such as public health nursing, health 
education, and immunization. For example, the Tanana Chiefs Conference 
used tribal self-governance funds to provide a community health 
representative program for patient education.

* Contract support costs (such as general administrative costs incurred 
by grantees).

* Health care facilities, including maintenance, improvement, and 
construction of health care and sanitation facilities. For example, in 
2004, the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium added a small, 
ground-floor room to accommodate a Magnetic Resonance Imaging service.

The majority of the Denali Commission's recent Health Care Program 
funding was used by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services 
and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, a statewide Native 
health care provider, according to Denali Commission documentation. 
These groups used the funding primarily to construct new primary care 
clinics and repair and renovate existing ones, as well as to purchase 
health care equipment, for residents in rural Alaska, including Alaska 
Natives. According to the commission's 2004 annual report, since 1999 
it funded the construction of primary health clinics in 41 communities, 
while projects are under way in 59 other communities across the 
state.[Footnote 34] For example, in 2003, the Alaska Native Tribal 
Health Consortium used a total of $2.7 million from the commission's 
health facilities program to build a health clinic in Toksook Bay (the 
location of the Nunakauyarmiut Tribe). The Denali Commission provides 
funding for other health care needs as well, such as a grant to the 
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services to cover half of the 
$400,000 needed to purchase an ultrasound machine for Sitka.

Native Villages and Tribally Designated Housing Entities Used Federal 
Housing Funding to Construct, Rehabilitate, and Maintain Housing Stock:

HUD's Indian Housing Block Grant program (IHBG) funds housing 
activities conducted by Alaska Native villages or Native regional 
housing nonprofits. This program has the stated intent of recognizing 
the right of tribal self-governance. HUD's IHBG funds can be used in a 
variety of housing-related activities, including housing development, 
assistance to housing developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, and 
planning and administration.[Footnote 35] According to HUD, between 
1998 and 2003, 38 percent of the IHBG funds were used for housing 
development activities, 22 percent were used for modernizing and 
operating current assisted stock, 11 percent were used for planning and 
administration, and 29 percent were used for other housing activities, 
such as housing services, housing management services, crime 
prevention, model activities, and unspent funds. Figure 8 shows a new 
house built in Alaska by the Bristol Bay Housing Authority with IHBG 
and other funds.

Figure 8: House Built by the Bristol Bay Housing Authority Using IHBG 
and Other Funds:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

State Agencies, Native Villages, and Other Agencies Used Federal 
Infrastructure Funding to Address Needs for Water and Waste Disposal 
Systems, Airport Improvements, and Energy:

Three of the 13 programs we reviewed--USDA's Water and Waste Disposal 
System for Rural Communities, DOT's Airport Improvement Program, and 
the Denali Commission's Energy Facilities Program--provided water, 
transportation, and energy infrastructure in Alaska Native communities.

Funding under USDA's Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural 
Communities is used primarily in conjunction with the state of Alaska's 
Village Safe Water program.[Footnote 36] According to USDA officials 
and agency documentation, USDA funds are combined with EPA funds and 25 
percent matching state funds to eliminate the "honey bucket"--a plastic 
5-gallon bucket used as a toilet in some Alaska Native villages--and 
provide communities with water and sewer systems that function in 
Alaska's harsh environment, such as the flush and haul system.[Footnote 
37] From 2000 through 2003, USDA funded 86 Village Safe Water 
projects.[Footnote 38] In the Alaska Native village of Napaskiak, for 
example, USDA provided a $570,300 grant that, when matched with 
$190,200 from the state, is being used to replace all of the remaining 
single-family home honey buckets in the community with the flush and 
haul system.

DOT's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) was used to construct new 
airports and rehabilitate old ones, since many of the Alaska Native 
villages that are not accessible by roads contain an airport runway 
that provides the only year-round access to the village. Most of the 
program's funding goes to Alaska's Department of Transportation and 
Public Facilities, which administers most projects under the 
program.[Footnote 39] AIP officials said that many funds go to 
improving existing airports to bring all airports up to a minimum 
standard, and while airports in the lower 48 states are often on their 
second or third improvement plan, most airports in Alaska are being 
constructed or improved for the first time. Figure 9 below shows the 
310 AIP projects, by type, for the 1999-2004 AIP grants that benefited 
Alaska Native villages.

Figure 9: Percentage of 1999-2004 AIP Projects Used to Assist Alaska 
Native Villages, by Type:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

[End of figure]

AIP provides grants that benefit both Alaska Native villages as well as 
other areas. Federal Aviation Administration officials provided GAO 
with a database of 519 projects in Alaska from 1999-2004. GAO 
categorized 310 of those as benefiting Alaska Native villages, 
including villages located within the boundaries of incorporated 
cities; non-Alaska Natives living in those areas could benefit from 
those projects as well. Additionally, grants that were made to benefit 
airports in larger locations, such as Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks 
were not included, though Alaska Natives living in and traveling to 
those locations could benefit from those projects. Further, 36 of the 
519 projects were labeled as statewide projects without specific 
locations; those projects are not included in the analysis above, and 
likewise could benefit Alaska Natives using those airports. Some of the 
projects in this database have not been completed, as completion of 
some projects can take as long as 4 years.

The Denali Commission's energy program has been used to address issues 
affecting Alaska Natives by focusing on upgrades for bulk fuel tank 
farms and rural power system upgrades. Energy has been the commission's 
primary infrastructure theme since 1999. The first challenge undertaken 
by the commission was the upgrade and consolidation of fuel tanks in 
172 communities identified as health and environmental hazards by the 
U.S. Coast Guard and EPA. According to the commission's 2004 Annual 
Report, the two major recipients of the commission's energy facilities 
funds--the Alaska Energy Authority and Alaska Village Electric 
Cooperative--have upgraded bulk fuel tanks in 64 communities across the 
state, while projects are under way in 70 other communities. For 
example, in 2001, the commission provided about $2.9 million of the 
roughly $3.8 million used by the Alaska Energy Authority to upgrade a 
tank farm in the Alaska Native village of Kotlik (see fig. 10). The new 
tank farm replaced a system that had been cited for violations by the 
U.S. Coast Guard with one that was in full compliance with federal 
regulations. The commission's 2004 annual report also stated that the 
commission has upgraded rural power systems in 13 communities, has 
started construction in 20 others, and is in the planning or design 
phase in an additional 18. These upgrades include adding backup power 
generators and increasing efficiency of existing generators.

Figure 10: Before and After Upgrade Photos of Kotlik Bulk Fuel 
Facilities:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Alaska Native Villages, Regional Native Nonprofits, and Other State and 
Local Entities Used Federal Funding for Social Services, Capacity 
Building, Community Development, Job Training, Native Education, Law 
Enforcement, and Economic Development:

Eight of the 13 programs we reviewed assisted Alaska Natives in areas 
such as social services, capacity building, community development, job 
training, education, law enforcement, and economic development in 
Alaska Native communities.

* Interior's Tribal Self-Governance Program: Twelve Alaska Native 
villages, eight regional Native nonprofits, one group consisting of 
multiple Alaska Native villages and one Indian reservation recently 
used Interior's Tribal Self-Governance Program to fund a variety of 
activities. According to agency officials and documents, these 
activities included:

* tribal government programs, such as funding to allow grantees to 
plan, conduct, consolidate, and administer programs, services, 
functions, and activities for tribal citizens according to priorities 
established by their tribal governments;

* human services programs, such as welfare assistance, child abuse and 
neglect counseling, and disaster assistance programs;

* education programs, such as scholarship grants for Alaska Native 
students attending accredited postsecondary institutions and adult 
education programs;

* public safety and justice, such as using funding for tribal courts 
that enable tribes to establish and maintain their own civil and 
criminal codes in accordance with local tribal customs and traditions;

* community development, such as the Housing Improvement Program, which 
funds repairs and renovations of existing homes and construction of new 
homes, job training and placement programs, or road maintenance 
programs; and:

* resource management, such as programs assisting Alaska Natives in 
managing their forest, mineral, oil, gas, and other land-based 
programs, including fire protection and sacred-site programs.

* EPA's Indian Environmental General Assistance Program: In 2004, 
program funding went to 139 Alaska Native villages and 11 groups of two 
or more tribes that are currently building their capacity to implement 
environmental protection programs, including development of solid and 
hazardous waste programs. According to EPA officials and documentation, 
villages use this "capacity building" funding to hire and train staff 
and purchase office equipment, conduct a review of village programs to 
ensure compliance with federal regulations, develop a strategic 
environmental plan for the village, implement village recycling 
programs, and coordinate environmental efforts with other villages and 
federal and state officials, among other uses. For example, officials 
in Native Village of Goodnews Bay reported to EPA that they used 
program funding to provide the village with environmental education, 
awareness, increased capacity to apply for other grants, and jobs.

* HUD's Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (ICDBG): 
Eighty ICDBG grants were awarded from 1998 through 2003, with all but 
one of those grants going to Alaska Native villages, and one going to a 
joint venture between a village and a regional Native health care 
nonprofit. The projects included 21 health-related facilities (e.g., 
clinics, mental health, and primary care facilities); 35 community 
centers; 17 infrastructure projects (e.g., fuel tanks and water and 
sewer systems); 6 housing-related projects (e.g., housing 
rehabilitation, new construction, and land acquisition for new housing) 
and one imminent threat grant. For example, the Native Villages of Ekuk 
and Curyung used ICDBG grant funds in fiscal year 2002 to construct a 
combined Head Start/Family Resource Center in Dillingham (see fig. 11). 
Each Native village received $500,000 in ICDBG funds and leveraged an 
additional $3.2 million from other sources, excluding the land that was 
donated by the Bristol Bay Native Association, according to program 
documentation. Opened to students in January 2003, the center provides 
Head Start and Early Learning programs and child care to parents 
transitioning from welfare to work. The new center serves 60 children, 
ranging from infants to 12-year-olds, and replaced an old center that 
served only 30 children.

Figure 11: Head Start Center in Dillingham:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

* Labor's Youth Opportunity Grant Program: From 2000-2004, one 
coalition of Alaska Native Villages and regional Native nonprofits used 
approximately $32 million in funding from this program to fund a 
variety of education, job training, and youth development activities. 
The coalition selected Cook Inlet Tribal Council as the lead agency to 
apply for the Youth Opportunity Grant; Cook Inlet provided oversight, 
monitoring, and technical assistance. Cook Inlet subcontracted out the 
operation of most of the program to 11 regional Native nonprofits and 4 
Alaska Native villages. According to agency documentation, about 2,960 
Alaska youth, the vast majority of whom were Alaska Natives, enrolled 
in the YO! Alaska Program's 40 youth centers and participated in 
internships, sports and recreation activities, reading and math 
remediation, community service, high school graduate equivalency degree 
preparation, and other activities.

* Education's Alaska Native Education Program: In 2003, 32 educational 
organizations with experience in developing educational programs for 
Alaska Natives used funds to address the educational needs of Alaska 
Native students, parents, and teachers. The program's enabling 
legislation specifically directs that some funding be used for Alaska 
Native cultural education programs, including a cultural exchange 
program between urban and rural students, dropout prevention programs, 
and parenting programs. Other funds have been used for family literacy 
programs, home instruction for preschool-age Alaska Natives, and to 
increase the educational opportunities of Alaska Native students and 
teachers. For example, the University of Alaska Southeast used an 
approximately $1.6 million grant for four main goals, one of which was 
to recruit and actively mentor Alaska Native high school students for 
the university's Bachelor of Science program.

* Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Alaska Native 
villages have used Justice's COPS program to address village law 
enforcement needs through hiring and training police officers and 
purchasing uniforms and police vehicles. For example, since 1999, the 
COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program was used to hire 35 police officers 
in Alaska Native villages, and provide training and equipment to Native 
villages.

* Commerce's Economic Adjustment Assistance Program: Alaska Native 
villages and regional Native nonprofits have used Economic Adjustment 
Assistance to develop comprehensive economic development strategies 
tailored to villages' specific economic problems and opportunities. 
Since 1999, the program has funded 29 projects. For example, in 2001, 
the Tanana Chiefs Conference was awarded $725,000 for the construction 
of a 20-room hotel with a combination restaurant, lounge, and meeting 
facilities on council-owned property located in the Village of Circle.

* Commerce's Public Works and Economic Development Facilities Program: 
Alaska Native villages and other tribal organizations have used three 
grants from this program since 1999. For example, in 2001, a village 
used $2.3 million to assist with the construction of a complex to house 
a museum, visitor center, and retail and office space.

Most of the Selected Programs Provide Funding for at Least a Portion of 
Grantees' Administrative Fees:

Eleven of the 13 programs we reviewed provided some funding to pay for 
a portion of the total administrative costs associated with the 
programs.[Footnote 40] The majority of these 11 programs provided 
funding for administrative costs as part of the overall grant amount, 
rather than allowing for reimbursement for specific administrative 
costs that grantees incur. Most of these 11 programs had restrictions 
on the amount of administrative funds grantees can use. For example, 
HUD's IHBG program allows grantees to use up to 20 percent of the grant 
amount for total administrative costs. In contrast, Labor's Youth 
Opportunity Grant program does not specifically limit administrative 
costs. However, according to Labor officials, the department negotiates 
with grantees to keep administrative costs low.

Available Information on How Grantees Used Funds from Selected Programs 
Varies, in Part Due to Different Reporting Requirements:

Information on how Alaska Native villages, regional Native nonprofits, 
and other grantees used funds from the 13 programs we reviewed varied 
widely, partially because different programs have different reporting 
requirements and also because agencies summarize program data 
differently.[Footnote 41] For example, the statute governing the 
Department of the Interior's Tribal Self-Governance Program does not 
require that the grantee submit information on how they used program 
funds; however, they can submit such:

information voluntarily.[Footnote 42] Additionally, reporting 
requirements for the other programs we reviewed varied, ranging from 
general information on delivery of services paid for by grant funds to 
detailed information on the financial uses of funds and progress toward 
grant goals. For example, HHS's Tribal Self-Governance Program requires 
that grantees report annually on health status and service delivery in 
their locations, but does not require specific financial reports on how 
funding was used. Conversely, DOT's Airport Improvement Program 
requires that grantees send quarterly performance reports that include 
comparisons between the projects' accomplishments and the goals 
established for the quarter, reasons for not accomplishing planned 
goals in specific cases, and an analysis and explanation of any cost 
overruns.

Additionally, some agencies do more than others to summarize individual 
grantee data on a programwide basis. For example, EPA's Indian 
Environmental General Assistance Program has information in project 
files on each individual grantee's projects, but has not summarized the 
information to show how all program funds have been used. In contrast, 
the Denali Commission collects project information in a Web-based, 
publicly available database that provides detailed financial and 
progress information. The system includes all of the commission's 
grants, and can be queried to produce information by attributes such as 
theme (the underlying subject area of the project, such as energy--bulk 
fuel), community involvement, recipient, and milestone (such as in the 
business plan or construction phase).

Alaska Native Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Constructed 
More Than 800 and Rehabilitated Almost 3,000 Homes, and the Number and 
Costs of Completed Units Varied across Regions:

Results from our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing 
authorities indicated that, from calendar years 1998 through 2003, 
these entities constructed 874 single-family units and rehabilitated 
2,990 single-family units.[Footnote 43] Most of the new units 
constructed were three-and four-bedroom homes, and most of the new 
construction and rehabilitation activity occurred in a few regions. In 
addition, housing authorities constructed more than three times and 
rehabilitated more than twice the number of units than responding 
villages. However, village production of new homes increased steadily, 
while production by regional housing authorities fluctuated. Our 
analysis of survey data also indicated that the average costs of units 
constructed varied by region and by who developed them. Survey results 
also showed that housing authorities had higher new construction costs 
than villages, although villages had higher rehabilitation costs for 
units that did not require acquisition. According to federal, state, 
and local officials, variation in the number and cost of units 
constructed and rehabilitated by region and between housing authorities 
and villages reflect various factors, such as differences in local 
housing goals and objectives and proximity to sources of building 
materials. Also, regional housing authorities modernized 5,211 single- 
family units previously developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 
and developed several multifamily properties. Villages, however, are 
ineligible to receive funding for modernization. Reproductions of our 
surveys are contained in appendixes XVII and XVIII.

Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Completed Construction on 874 
Units and Rehabilitated 2,990 Units from 1998 through 2003:

Based on our survey of Alaska Native villages and regional housing 
authorities, from calendar years 1998 through 2003, villages and 
regional housing authorities completed construction on a total of 874 
single-family units and rehabilitated 2,990 single-family units. As 
shown in table 5, the number of units these entities constructed ranged 
from 104 in 1998 to 199 in 2002. The most common size of newly 
constructed units was a three-bedroom home. Slightly more than half of 
all units constructed were of this type. The second most common units 
were four-bedroom homes, which represented about a third of all units. 
Also, the total number of units rehabilitated by regional housing 
authorities and villages increased, from 253 in 1998 to 628 in 2002.

Table 5: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed and Rehabilitated 
for Villages and Regional Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 
1998-2003:

Bedroom size of unit constructed: 1 bedroom;
1998: 1;
1999: 7;
2000: 4;
2001: 4;
2002: 3;
2003: 3;
Total: 22.

Bedroom size of unit constructed: 2 bedroom;
1998: 7;
1999: 17;
2000: 22;
2001: 21;
2002: 46;
2003: 15;
Total: 128.

Bedroom size of unit constructed: 3 bedroom;
1998: 62;
1999: 64;
2000: 74;
2001: 99;
2002: 87;
2003: 76;
Total: 462.

Bedroom size of unit constructed: 4 bedroom;
1998: 34;
1999: 46;
2000: 43;
2001: 32;
2002: 63;
2003: 44;
Total: 262.

Bedroom size of unit constructed: Total new construction units[A];
1998: 104;
1999: 134;
2000: 143;
2001: 156;
2002: 199;
2003: 138;
Total: 874.

Bedroom size of unit constructed: Total rehabilitated units[B];
1998: 253;
1999: 386;
2000: 610;
2001: 526;
2002: 628;
2003: 587;
Total: 2,990.

Source: GAO.

Notes: Not all of the regional housing authorities and villages 
constructing or rehabilitating units completed units each year.

[A] Twelve regional housing authorities and 31 villages constructed 
units.

[B] Four regional housing authorities and 5 villages rehabilitated 
acquired units, and 10 regional housing authorities and 31 villages 
rehabilitated units that did not require acquisition.

[End of table]

As shown in figure 12, most of the newly constructed units were located 
in only a few regions. Specifically, four of the 12 regions--the 
Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP), Fairbanks Native 
Association, Central Council, and Bristol Bay Native Association-- 
accounted for 590 units--about 68 percent of the new construction. 
Specifically, one region--AVCP--accounted for about 30 percent of the 
production. Three regions, Copper River Native Association, Aleutian 
Pribilof Islands Association, and Kodiak Area Native Association, 
produced few or no new units.

Figure 12: Number of Single-Family Units Constructed by Region for 
Villages and Housing Authorities Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Twelve regional housing authorities and 31 villages constructed 
units, although not all of the regional housing authorities and 
villages completed units each year.

[End of figure]

Similarly, the majority of units that villages and housing authorities 
rehabilitated over the period were located in a few regions. As shown 
in figure 13, three regions--Central Council, Cook Inlet Tribal 
Council, and Bristol Bay Native Association--accounted for almost 60 
percent of all rehabilitated units. In contrast, the Aleutian Pribilof 
Islands Association and Arctic Slope Native Association regions 
completed relatively few or no rehabilitation projects.

Figure 13: Number of Units Rehabilitated (with and without Acquisition) 
by Region for Responding Villages and Housing Authorities, Calendar 
Years 1998-2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Four regional housing authorities and 5 villages rehabilitated 
acquired units, and 10 regional housing authorities and 31 villages 
rehabilitated units that did not require acquisition. Not all of the 
regional housing authorities and villages rehabilitating units 
completed units each year.

[End of figure]

The 2,990 rehabilitated units include 2,920 units that did not require 
purchase before rehabilitation began, and 70 units that housing 
authorities and villages acquired before they were rehabilitated. 
Housing authorities and villages in five regions--AVCP, Bristol Bay 
Native Association, Central Council, Chugachmiut, and Maniilaq 
Association--rehabilitated acquired units. Most of the rehabilitated 
units that required acquisition--47--were completed in the Central 
Council region.

Housing Authorities Constructed More Than Three Times and Rehabilitated 
More Than Two Times the Number of Units Compared with Villages:

Based on our survey, housing authorities constructed more than three 
times the number of new units as villages did. As shown in table 6, 
regional housing authorities constructed 666 units, while villages 
completed 208 units. Both the AVCP housing authority and the 11 
villages within this region completed the most units--173 and 90, 
respectively--compared with housing authorities and villages located in 
other regions. The regional housing authority in Copper River Native 
Association region as well as the responding villages in both the 
Kodiak Island Native Association and Chugachmiut regions completed no 
units.

Table 6: Number of New Units Constructed by Housing Authorities 
Compared with Villages, by Region, Calendar Years 1998-2003:

Region: Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 15;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: No villages responded;
Number of villages responding: No villages responded.

Region: Arctic Slope Native Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 25;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 9;
Number of villages responding: 2.

Region: Association of Village Council Presidents;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 173;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 90;
Number of villages responding: 11.

Region: Bristol Bay Native Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 88;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 14;
Number of villages responding: 2.

Region: Central Council;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 104;
Number of housing authorities responding: 2;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 8;
Number of villages responding: 1.

Region: Chugachmiut;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 58;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 0;
Number of villages responding: 0.

Region: Cook Inlet Tribal Council;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 61;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 12;
Number of villages responding: 3.

Region: Copper River Native Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 0;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: No villages responded;
Number of villages responding: No villages responded.

Region: Fairbanks Native Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 75;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 38;
Number of villages responding: 6.

Region: Kawerak Inc;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 44;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 21;
Number of villages responding: 3.

Region: Kodiak Area Native Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 13;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 0;
Number of villages responding: 0.

Region: Maniilaq Association;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 10;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 16;
Number of villages responding: 3.

Region: Total;
Number of new units constructed by housing authorities: 666;
Number of housing authorities responding: 13;
Number of new units constructed by villages: 208;
Number of villages responding: 31.

Source: GAO.

Note: Not all of the regional housing authorities and villages 
constructing units completed units each year.

[End of table]

Housing authorities rehabilitated more than double the number of units 
compared with responding villages, for both units that did not and did 
require acquisition. As shown in table 7, for units that did not 
require acquisition, housing authorities rehabilitated 2,114 units 
compared with 806 rehabilitated by villages. Almost 70 percent of 
housing authority rehabilitations occurred in three regions--Bristol 
Bay Native Association, Central Council, and Cook Inlet Tribal Council. 
Similarly, villages in four regions--AVCP, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, 
Fairbanks Native Association, and Maniilaq Association--accounted for 
over 70 percent of the units rehabilitated by villages. The regional 
housing authorities rehabilitated more units in all regions except for 
the Arctic Slope Native Association, AVCP, Chugachmiut, and Maniilaq 
Association regions.

Table 7: Number of New Units Rehabilitated without Acquisition by 
Housing Authorities Compared with Villages, by Region, Calendar Years 
1998-2003:

Region: Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 0;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: No villages responded;
Number of villages responding: No villages responded.

Region: Arctic Slope Native Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 0;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 23;
Number of villages responding: 2.

Region: Association of Village Council Presidents;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 0;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 156;
Number of villages responding: 10.

Region: Bristol Bay Native Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 455;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 46;
Number of villages responding: 3.

Region: Central Council;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 550;
Number of housing authorities responding: 2;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 56;
Number of villages responding: 3.

Region: Chugachmiut;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 22;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 69;
Number of villages responding: 1.

Region: Cook Inlet Tribal Council;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 438;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 158;
Number of villages responding: 4.

Region: Copper River Native Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 202;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: No Villages Responded;
Number of villages responding: No Villages Responded.

Region: Fairbanks Native Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 167;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 120;
Number of villages responding: 3.

Region: Kawerak Inc;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 100;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 19;
Number of villages responding: 2.

Region: Kodiak Area Native Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 61;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 19;
Number of villages responding: 1.

Region: Maniilaq Association;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 119;
Number of housing authorities responding: 1;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 140;
Number of villages responding: 2.

Region: Total;
Number of units rehabilitated by housing authorities: 2,114;
Number of housing authorities responding: 13;
Number of units rehabilitated by villages: 806;
Number of villages responding: 31.

Source: GAO.

Note: Not all of the regional housing authorities and villages 
rehabilitating units completed units each year.

[End of table]

Similarly, housing authorities rehabilitated more than double the 
number of the acquired units as villages. Three housing authorities-- 
Bristol Bay Native Association, Central Council, and Chugachmiut-- 
rehabilitated 50 units that required acquisition. The housing 
authorities in Central Council rehabilitated the most acquired units, 
43. Responding villages in three regions--AVCP, Central Council, and 
Maniilaq Association--rehabilitated 20 units that required acquisition. 
Rehabilitations of this type were more evenly spread among the 
responding villages, with Central Council completing 4 units, AVCP 
completing 6 units, and Maniilaq Association completing 10.

Over the period covered by our survey, villages annually increased unit 
construction, while regional housing authority production varied 
annually. Specifically, village production grew more than sevenfold, 
from 7 units in 1998 to 53 units in 2003. Regional housing authority 
production ranged from 97 in 1998 to 149 in 2002, but also fluctuated 
widely over the period (see fig. 14).

Figure 14: Annual and Total Number of Units Constructed by Housing 
Authorities and Villages, Calendar Years 1998-2003:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Regional Housing Authorities Modernized 5,211 Single-Family Units 
Previously Developed under U.S. Housing Act of 1937:

Based on our survey, 13 housing authorities modernized 5,211 single- 
family units previously developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 
1937.[Footnote 44] Villages are ineligible to receive funds for 
modernization activities. AVCP modernized the most units, 1,287. In 
contrast, the housing authorities in the Copper River Native 
Association and the Fairbanks Native Association regions modernized few 
units over the period (see fig. 15).

Figure 15: Number of Single-Family Units Modernized by Housing 
Authorities, Calendar Years 1998-2003:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: Although all 13 regional housing authorities modernized units, 
not all of the regional housing authorities completed those units each 
year.

[A] Two regional housing authorities in Central Council responded to 
this question.

[End of figure]

Regional Housing Authorities Constructed, Rehabilitated, and Modernized 
Multifamily Housing Properties:

Only housing authorities completed new construction, rehabilitation, 
and modernization of multifamily properties (i.e., properties with five 
or more units). From 1998 through 2003, responding regional housing 
authorities constructed six multifamily properties--two by the housing 
authority in the Cook Inlet Tribal Council region, two by the housing 
authority in the Copper River Native Association region, and one each 
in the Aleutian Pribilof Islands and Central Council regions. Average 
property sizes ranged from 6,470 square feet in the Aleutian Pribilof 
Islands Association region to 34,831 square feet in the Cook Inlet 
Tribal Council region.[Footnote 45] Housing authorities also 
rehabilitated four multifamily properties, two of which were acquired. 
The housing authorities in the Bristol Bay Native Association and 
Central Council regions acquired and rehabilitated one multifamily 
property each, and the regional housing authority in the Kawerak Inc. 
region rehabilitated two multifamily properties.

In addition, seven housing authorities modernized 73 multifamily 
properties over the period. Responding housing authorities completed a 
low of 8 multifamily properties in 1999 and a high of 17 properties in 
2003. Housing authorities in seven regions--Arctic Slope Native 
Association, Bristol Bay Native Association, Central Council, 
Chugachmiut, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Copper River Native 
Association, Kodiak Area Native Association--modernized multifamily 
housing. The housing authority in Cook Inlet Tribal Council region 
modernized the most multifamily properties--30.

New Construction and Housing Rehabilitation Costs Varied by Region and 
by Whether Units Were Completed by Villages or Housing Authorities:

Construction and rehabilitation costs varied widely by region, with 
more remote regions generally incurring higher costs. Additionally, 
regional housing authorities had higher construction costs than 
villages. In contrast, villages had higher rehabilitation costs for 
housing units that did not require acquisition. Regional housing 
authority single-family modernization costs also varied by region, and 
multifamily housing costs varied according to the type of housing 
development. In general, housing costs are influenced by factors such 
as transportation, local expertise, terrain, site preparation, and 
required building/energy standards.

Overall, based on our survey results, from 1998 through 2003, the 
average construction cost for all units produced by 31 villages and 12 
housing authorities, was $222,928 per unit or $183 per square foot (in 
2003 dollars). The average unit size was 1,217 square feet. During the 
same time period, the average cost of units rehabilitated by villages 
and housing authorities that did not require acquisition was $46,866 
for major rehabilitation (costing $20,000 or more per unit) and $7,070 
for minor rehabilitation (costing less than $20,000 per unit). The 
average cost of units that were rehabilitated and acquired by villages 
and housing authorities was $87,324 or $79 per square foot.[Footnote 46]

New construction housing costs showed wide variation in eleven regions, 
based on responding regional housing authorities and villages. As shown 
by figure 16, the average combined cost per square foot ranged from 
$122 in Chugachmiut (located in southern Alaska, near Anchorage) to 
$267 in the Arctic Slope (located in the northern most region in 
Alaska). The average size of the units in these two regions was 
similar--1,134 per square feet and 1,142 per square feet, respectively. 
Kodiak Area Native Association region (located southwest of Anchorage) 
had the second highest costs per square foot, and Cook Inlet (Anchorage 
is part of Cook Inlet) had the second lowest cost per unit. These two 
regions also had similar sized units.

Figure 16: Average Regional New Construction Costs for Housing 
Authorities and Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, Ranked by 
Cost Per Square Foot (in 2003 Dollars):

[See PDF for image]

Note: Twelve regional housing authorities and 31 villages constructed 
units. Copper River Native Association region did not report any new 
construction.

[End of figure]

Seattle is a primary source of construction materials for housing in 
Alaska. The Arctic Slope Native Association is the furthest region from 
Seattle and incurs the highest costs for transporting building material 
and equipment. Chugachmiut has lower transportation costs because it is 
closer to Seattle. However, the Kodiak Area Native Association region 
exemplifies how a region relatively close to Seattle can nonetheless 
face unusually high construction costs. According to an official with 
the Kodiak Island Housing Authority, there are several factors that 
have increased the cost of construction on the island, such as remote 
villages along the coast often not having adequate docking facilities 
to offload construction material, requiring special, expensive barges. 
Also, since the Kodiak Area Native Association area is rocky, extensive 
drilling and blasting is required to excavate the housing foundation 
for each unit and for digging trenches for water and sewer lines to the 
housing site. Finally, villages that are close to Kodiak City--the 
largest city in the Kodiak Area Native Association region--have high 
land costs.

As shown in table 8, responding regional housing authorities had higher 
average costs for all units constructed and built larger units than did 
villages. Regional housing authorities' average cost for all units 
constructed was $236,229 per unit or $189 per square foot, compared 
with villages, which had an average cost per unit of $180,338 or $160 
per square foot. However, housing authority square-foot costs remained 
stable over the 6-year period, while village square-foot costs 
fluctuated. For example, from 1999 through 2000, the per-square-foot 
costs for villages decreased by 25 percent from $183 to $138, but 
between 2002 and 2003, the average per-square-foot costs increased 47 
percent from $144 to $212. Moreover, housing authorities built units 
that were on average 433 square feet larger than units villages built 
in 1999 and 246 square feet larger in 2003. However, in 2000, villages 
built slightly larger units than housing authorities.

Table 8: Average New Construction Costs, Number and Size of Units, 
Regional Housing Authorities and Villages:

2003 dollars.

12 regional housing authorities.

Average cost per unit;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: $244,550;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: $227,164;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: $226,554;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: $241,919;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: $226,577;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: $260,864.

Average cost per square foot;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: $188;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: $180;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: $188;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: $192;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: $194;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: $193.

Total number of units;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: 97;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: 119;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: 105;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: 111;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: 149;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: 85.

Average square feet per unit;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,296;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,256;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,205;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,255;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,167;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,350.

Number of responding housing authorities;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: 6;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: 5;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: 6;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: 9;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: 7;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: 7.

31 villages.

Average cost per unit;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: $125,199;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: $150,845;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: $174,761;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: $168,249;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: $154,076;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: $235,007.

Average cost per square foot;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: $102;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: $183;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: $138;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: $142;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: $144;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: $212.

Total number of units;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: 7;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: 15;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: 38;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: 45;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: 50;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: 53.

Average square feet per unit;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,226;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: 823;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,260;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,182;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,068;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: 1,104.

Number of responding villages;
1998: 12 regional housing authorities: 3;
1999: 12 regional housing authorities: 11;
2000: 12 regional housing authorities: 15;
2001: 12 regional housing authorities: 18;
2002: 12 regional housing authorities: 17;
2003: 12 regional housing authorities: 16.

Source: GAO.

Note: One responding regional housing authority and 21 responding 
villages did not report completing any new construction during the 
period.

[End of table]

Similar to new construction costs, the combined average rehabilitation 
cost for units that did not require acquisition varied throughout 
Alaska's regions (see fig. 17). The region that reported the highest 
cost for major rehabilitation was the Arctic Slope Native Association, 
which had an average cost per unit of $93,444, followed by Cook Inlet 
Tribal Council, with an average per unit cost of $66,368. The two 
lowest-cost regions for major rehabilitation were Bristol Bay Native 
Association (southwestern Alaska), with an average per unit cost of 
$30,154, and Kawerak Inc. (northern Alaska), with an average cost per 
unit of $31,056. The highest-cost regions for minor rehabilitation were 
Kawerak Inc., which reported an average per unit cost of $17,671, and 
Kodiak Area Native Association, which reported an average per unit cost 
of $14,471. The lowest-cost regions for minor rehabilitation were 
Copper River Native Association (northeast of Anchorage) and 
Chugachmiut, which reported average per unit costs of $4,239 and 
$5,278, respectively.

Figure 17: Average Rehabilitation Costs for Regional Housing 
Authorities and Villages Combined, Calendar Years 1998-2003, by Region, 
for Units That Did Not Require Acquisition (in 2003 Dollars):

[See PDF for image]

Note: N/A indicates that no data were reported for these fields. Ten 
regional housing authorities and 31 villages rehabilitated units that 
did not require purchase.

[End of figure]

Although villages had higher rehabilitation costs for units that did 
not require acquisition, housing authorities had higher costs for units 
that did require acquisition. For units that did not require 
acquisition, housing authorities had lower costs than villages for 
major and minor rehabilitation. Housing authorities' average cost for 
major rehabilitation was $44,200 per unit, while the village cost was 
$60,516 per unit. However, the average difference between village and 
regional housing authority minor rehabilitation costs was minimal: 
$6,967 vs. $7,301. (See fig. 18.)

Figure 18: Housing Authority and Village Rehabilitation Costs for Units 
That Did Not Require Acquisition, by Region, Calendar Years 1998-2003:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: N/A indicates that no data were reported for these fields.

[A] One housing authority in Central Council completed major 
rehabilitation, and two housing authorities in Central Council 
completed minor rehabilitation.

[End of figure]

Conversely, regional housing authorities had higher average costs for 
units that were rehabilitated and acquired than villages. Over the 6- 
year period, 70 of these units were completed by four housing 
authorities and five villages. The average per unit cost for regional 
housing authorities was $105,849, compared with the average village per 
unit cost of $41,010. One reason for this cost difference may be that 
the regional housing authorities acquired much larger units; they 
averaged 1,281 square feet per unit compared with villages, which 
acquired units about half the size that averaged 634 square feet. 
However, regional housing authority costs per square foot were also 
higher than villages: $82 for regional housing authorities versus $64 
for villages.

Regional Housing Authority Single-Family Modernization Costs Also 
Varied by Region:

The average modernization costs for regional housing authorities varied 
by region. The average per unit costs for major modernization ($20,000 
or more per unit) for all housing authorities was $28,387 per unit and 
for minor modernization (less than $20,000), $10,002 per unit. Twelve 
regional housing authorities completed major modernizations over the 
period. The regional housing authorities in Cook Inlet Tribal Council 
and Kawerak Inc. region had the highest average costs for major 
modernizations, averaging $44,330 and $43,324 per unit, respectively. 
The housing authorities in Association of Village Council Presidents 
and Bristol Bay Native Association regions had the lowest average costs 
for major modernization, averaging $22,795 and $23,643 per unit, 
respectively. Thirteen regional housing authorities completed minor 
modernizations. The housing authority in Kawerak Inc. region had the 
highest average minor modernization costs--$12,425 per unit--and the 
housing authority in the Cook Inlet Tribal Council region had the 
lowest average cost--$2,575 per unit.

Multifamily Housing Costs Varied by Region and Type of Housing 
Development:

As previously noted, only regional housing authorities undertook 
multifamily projects. Although the average multifamily new construction 
cost for the six properties was about $3.8 million per property or $196 
per square foot, per-square-foot costs ranged from $171 for the housing 
authority in the Copper River Native Association region to $219 for the 
housing authority in the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Native Association 
region. Similarly, the only two properties that included rehabilitation 
with acquisition experienced very different costs. For example, one 
small property (5,760 square feet), located in the Bristol Bay Native 
Association region, had a total cost of about $880,270 or $152 per 
square foot, and a large property (54,323 square feet) located in the 
Central Council region, had a total cost of about $5.3 million or $97 
per square foot. Additionally, the two properties that were 
rehabilitated without acquisition (both in the Kawerak Inc. region) 
averaged $50,272 per property. In contrast, the 73 multifamily 
properties that were modernized had an average per property cost of 
$118,082. The average costs ranged from $8,661 per property in the 
Copper River Native Association region to $354,730 per property in 
Kodiak Island Native Association region.

Several Factors May Account for Differences in the Number and Cost of 
Units Constructed and Rehabilitated by Villages and Housing Authorities 
and by Region:

As previously discussed, the number of units constructed and 
rehabilitated over the period varied by whether they were completed by 
villages or housing authorities, and by region. According to federal 
and tribal officials and documentation, the following factors could 
account for these differences:

* Differences in housing goals and objectives. In order to receive 
NAHASDA funding, housing authorities and villages are required to 
submit to HUD a 1-year and 5-year Indian Housing Plan (IHP), which 
outlines the housing goals and objectives for their communities. To 
carry out their plans, housing authorities and villages can determine 
the extent to which they focus their resources on new construction, 
rehabilitation, or other affordable housing activities. For example, 
Bristol Bay Housing Authority outlined in its fiscal year 2003 IHP that 
it would allocate a fixed amount of funds for new construction in 
villages, based on an assessment of needs.

* Differences in the amount of NAHASDA funding. Regional housing 
authorities generally receive considerably larger amounts of annual 
funding compared with villages because regional housing authorities 
receive funding on behalf of villages that have designated them to 
receive their NAHASDA funds, as well as modernization and operating 
funds for units developed under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.[Footnote 
47] Lack of additional funding in some cases limits the affordable 
housing villages can construct or rehabilitate. For example, in fiscal 
year 2003, the housing authority in the Maniilaq Association region 
received about twice the amount of funds of the single-largest amount 
provided to a village in that region. In addition, the amount of 
funding housing authorities and villages receive from the HUD formula 
takes into account Native population of the service area. Some of the 
populations that regional housing authorities serve are considerably 
higher than that of villages, and some regions have higher populations 
than other regions. For example, the total Native population in the 
Cook Inlet Native Association region is more than 10 times that of the 
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association region.

* Differences in the extent to which NAHASDA funds were leveraged. 
Variations in the number of units constructed and rehabilitated may 
reflect the extent to which NAHASDA funds were leveraged. For example, 
according to the Cook Inlet housing authority, it leveraged IHBG funds 
with other sources of funding to complete a recent housing development. 
Cook Inlet housing authority used NAHASDA funds for about 10 percent of 
project costs and leveraged the remaining costs with private mortgages 
and other funding.

Similarly, federal and state housing officials informed us that several 
factors may account for differences in regional construction and 
rehabilitation costs, as well as differences in costs reported by 
villages and housing authorities. These factors include the following:

* Transportation costs: Many Alaska Native villages are in remote 
locations, requiring equipment and building supplies to be transported 
to the construction sites. In general, regions that are farthest from 
Seattle--a major source of building materials--incur higher costs for 
transporting building material and equipment than regions that are 
closer.[Footnote 48]

* Length of construction season: Villages that experience extremely 
cold weather, such as those in the north and the interior of Alaska, 
have short construction seasons. For example, the construction season 
in the Arctic Slope Native Association is usually 2 or 3 months long, 
depending on ice conditions in the Bering Strait and north of the 
Arctic Circle. A short construction season means higher costs due to 
limited barge access to remote communities (with barge access the only 
viable method for moving construction materials and equipment to remote 
villages), less time available for site preparation and actual 
construction, overtime pay for working longer hours each day, and 
climate changes that suddenly stop construction or excavation.

* Using outside expertise: Higher costs are associated with 
transporting, housing and feeding outside construction workers, 
engineers, and housing inspectors. This could be for both regional 
housing authorities and rural Native villages. Larger villages may be 
able to use local construction workers, but smaller, more isolated 
villages with a limited skilled labor pool to choose from may have to 
rely on outside workers with required technical skills (e.g., 
electricians, plumbers, etc.) Many housing authorities rely on outside 
contractors, who usually provide a core crew of their own construction 
workers--supplemented by the local workforce--to construct housing.

* Land costs: Generally, urban areas cost more than rural areas because 
they are closer to utilities and roads and are located in active real 
estate markets in high-density areas. Rural Native villages often 
donate land for housing development, though in many cases they have 
less access to infrastructure.

* Wage costs: The hourly wage rates for new construction and 
rehabilitation of housing vary across Alaska's regions. Generally, 
labor costs are higher in the more remote areas of Alaska, such as the 
north, and lower in the southern areas. For example, under the Davis- 
Bacon Act, carpenters are required to be paid $15.83 (without fringe 
benefits) in the Anchorage area; $25.05 plus $7.80 for fringe benefits 
in the Northern area; and $17.68 (without fringe benefits) in the 
southern area.[Footnote 49] In 2000, NAHASDA was amended to allow 
Native villages to establish tribally determined wage rates for their 
IHBG construction projects instead of using Davis-Bacon wages rates. 
However, according to HUD officials, Davis-Bacon wage rates and 
tribally determined wage rates within the same region are frequently 
similar.

* Type of terrain: Many of the houses in Alaska Native communities, 
particularly in northern and central Alaska, were constructed on 
permafrost--land that is permanently frozen. It generally costs more to 
build on this type of terrain due to the need for specialized 
engineered foundation systems. It also generally costs more to build on 
hilly terrain or rocky soil, such as Kodiak Island in the Kodiak Area 
Native Association region.

* Site preparation: Building or extending roads and installing power, 
water, and sewer lines--both on-site and off-site, particularly in 
rural communities--can be costly. Also, the same type of terrain 
problems mentioned above apply to site preparation.

* Energy efficiency standards: The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation 
(AHFC) requires any recipient of its funds to follow the Building 
Energy Efficiency Standard (BEES). Each regional housing authority 
receives annual funding from AHFC, but the villages do not receive any 
such funds. Therefore, each regional housing authority is required to 
adhere to the BEES for each newly constructed unit whenever they use 
AHFC funding. According to an AHFC official responsible for 
administering the BEES program, there are additional costs associated 
with compliance with the BEES standards, although these costs will vary 
depending on several factors, such as whether an independent inspector 
is required to inspect the housing unit. Villages may also voluntarily 
choose to use some or all of the BEES standards.

* Building code standards: Alaska's Construction Inspection Guidelines 
require each builder to retain an independent, licensed inspector to 
perform each of the inspections set forth in the guidelines. According 
an AHFC official, this could amount to between 5 to 12 inspector site 
visits during the construction period. Since only regional housing 
authorities receive AHFC funds, Native villages are not required to 
follow any state building codes, unless they are located in one of the 
13 municipalities that have adopted building code standards. However, 
similar to the BEES, Native villages may voluntarily choose to use some 
or all of the building code standards.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 
federal co-chair of the Denali Commission and the Secretaries of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing 
and Urban Development, Justice, the Interior, Labor, and 
Transportation, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, as well as the Governor of Alaska. We received technical 
comments from five federal agencies and the state of Alaska that we 
incorporated, as appropriate. The Departments of Commerce and the 
Interior generally agreed with the report and provided written comments 
that are reprinted in appendixes XIX and XXI, respectively. The 
Department of Health and Human Services also provided written comments, 
stating that the GAO draft report did not include its Health Resources 
and Services Administration's Minority AIDS Initiative among the 13 
programs we reviewed. Funding for the administration is included in our 
analysis as part of overall funding for the Department of Health and 
Human Services. In addition, as discussed in the report, the 13 
programs we selected for review generally provided the largest amount 
of funding to Alaska Native villages and regional Native nonprofits 
during fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for their respective agencies. 
Based on our analysis, the Minority AIDS Initiative did not provide the 
largest amount of the department's funding to Alaska Native villages 
and regional Native nonprofits during the period. The Department of 
Health and Human Services' written comments are reprinted in appendix 
XX.

We are sending copies of this report to the federal co-chair of the 
Denali Commission and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, 
Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, 
Justice, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Governor of 
Alaska.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 
(202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 
report are listed in appendix XXII.

Signed by:

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

[End of section]

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

This study's objectives were to (1) provide information on the amount 
of federal assistance to Alaska Native villages during federal fiscal 
years 1998 through 2003; (2) describe how selected federal funds have 
been used to assist Alaska Native villages; and (3) provide data on the 
number and average cost of houses built by villages and Alaska Native 
regional housing authorities. To address these objectives, we met with 
officials of various federal agencies, the state of Alaska, boroughs, 
and cities. In addition, we met with representatives of Native 
villages, regional Native nonprofit organizations, and other 
organizations that primarily focus on Alaska Natives. We also met with 
officials from advocacy groups that represent Alaska Natives, including 
the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, and 
the National Congress of American Indians.

To report on the amount of federal funding that has been provided to 
assist Alaska Native villages, we examined data on both funding to over 
200 federally recognized Alaska Native villages and regional Native 
nonprofits. We classified as regional Native nonprofits the Native 
associations that were identified in the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act (ANCSA) and the organizations that succeeded them, 
which, throughout this report, we refer to as ANCSA Native nonprofits; 
Native health organizations identified in Public Law 105-83; and 
housing authorities identified by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD). To provide information on federal funding to Alaska 
Native villages, we analyzed data from the Federal Assistance Award 
Data System (FAADS), which identifies recipients of federal awards, 
federal programs for which awards were made, and award amounts. The 
analysis sought to isolate funding provided to Alaska Native villages, 
regional Native nonprofits, other nonprofits that primarily focus on 
Alaska Natives, incorporated cities that have villages within their 
borders, boroughs, and the state of Alaska. In providing FAADS data to 
the Census Bureau, each federal agency codes recipients of its federal 
funds into 13 categories. Two of these categories apply to Native 
recipients: Indian tribes and other nonprofit agencies. During 
electronic testing, GAO identified reliability problems with these 
categories. Similar problems were identified by other researchers 
(e.g., University of Alaska Anchorage and the Alaska Legislature 
Legislative Research Service) that have used this data. For example, 
agencies did not consistently apply the recipient codes to the same 
recipients. Therefore, we conducted our own coding of the recipient 
type, and in some cases, recipients were recoded into a new category. 
Specifically, we classified entities as Alaska Native villages based on 
whether they were recognized as such by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA). We classified entities as regional Native nonprofits based on 
whether there were (1) regional Native associations identified in ANCSA 
and the organizations that succeeded them, (2) regional Native health 
organizations identified in Public Law 105-83, or (3) Alaska regional 
housing authorities identified by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. We classified entities as other nonprofits that primarily 
focus on Alaska Natives based our review of published information and 
on consultations with the Denali Commission and the Alaska Federation 
of Natives. In addition, we classified entities as state entities based 
on whether they were state of Alaska agencies or subagencies; boroughs 
based on whether there were recognized Alaska borough governments; 
cities based on whether they were incorporated cities that contain 
Alaska Native villages within their borders; and Independent School 
Districts based on whether they are Alaska public school districts.

Maintained by the Census Bureau, FAADS produces a quarterly file of 
standardized data records on all types of financial assistance awards 
made by federal agencies to all types of recipients during the 
indicated quarter. Each transaction record identifies, by the Catalog 
of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) program code number and name, the 
type and amount of financial assistance, the type and location of the 
recipient, and the geographic place of performance. Also, GAO's FAADS 
analyses uses constant 2003 dollars. We assessed the reliability of the 
FAADS data by (1) performing electronic testing of the required data 
elements for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) comparing 
program totals by fiscal year to similar data from the Single Audit Act 
database, (3) reviewing related documentation, (4) reviewing related 
studies that used FAADS data, and (5) interviewing Census Bureau 
officials knowledgeable about the data. In addition, for 10 federal 
agencies whose programs are focused on in this report, we provided 
agency officials with FAADS program dollar amount totals for all 
entities receiving funds in Alaska, by fiscal year, and asked agencies 
to verify that the totals were correct.[Footnote 50] In cases where 
there was a greater than 10 percent difference between our totals based