.
The Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA):
Background and Funding
Katie Jones
Analyst in Housing Policy
December 1, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43307
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Summary
Native Americans living in tribal areas experience some of the poorest housing conditions in the
United States. Native Americans in tribal areas are several times more likely to live in housing
that is physically substandard or overcrowded than the U.S. population as a whole. They are also
more likely to live in poverty than the general population, further contributing to housing
problems. In addition, a number of issues, such as the legal status of tribal land, pose unique
barriers to housing for many people living in tribal areas.
In light of these poor housing conditions, and the federal government’s trust responsibility to
Native American tribes, Congress has provided funding for Native American housing programs
for several decades. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of
1996 (NAHASDA) reorganized the previous system of housing assistance for Native Americans
and replaced it with a single block grant program, the Native American Housing Block Grant
(NAHBG).
Through the NAHBG, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) distributes
formula funding to Native American tribes and Alaska Native Villages, or to organizations the
tribes have designated to administer the funding (known as tribally designated housing entities
(TDHEs)). Tribes and TDHEs, in turn, use the funding for a range of affordable housing activities
to benefit low-income tribal households. These activities include developing new housing for
rental or homeownership, maintaining or operating existing housing units, providing
infrastructure, and offering housing-related services.
In addition to the NAHBG, NAHASDA also authorizes a loan guarantee program to help tribes
obtain private financing for housing activities (the Title VI Loan Guarantee program) and
authorizes funding for training and technical assistance. An amendment to NAHASDA in 2000
established the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant (NHHBG) program to provide housing
assistance for Native Hawaiians similar to the assistance provided under the NAHBG.
The authorization for NAHASDA programs, other than the Native Hawaiian Housing Block
Grant, expired at the end of FY2013. (The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program has
not been reauthorized since its initial authorization expired at the end of FY2005, although
Congress has continued to appropriate funding for the program.) In the 113th Congress, bills to
reauthorize NAHASDA programs through FY2018 have been introduced in both the Senate (S.
1352) and the House (H.R. 4329 and H.R. 4277). S. 1352 was reported out of the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee and discharged from the Senate Banking Committee, while H.R. 4329 was
ordered to be reported out of the House Financial Services Committee. In addition to
reauthorizing NAHASDA programs, the bills would make some changes to NAHBG
requirements and address certain other housing issues facing Native Americans living in tribal
areas. While the bills reported out of the House and Senate committees are similar in some
respects, they differ from each other in several ways.
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background on Native American Housing Issues ........................................................................... 1
The Federal Government’s Relationship with Tribes ................................................................ 2
Legal Status of Tribal Land ....................................................................................................... 3
Housing Conditions in Tribal Areas .......................................................................................... 4
Brief History of Native American Housing Programs ..................................................................... 5
The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 ............................ 8
Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Negotiated Rulemaking ............................................................................................................. 9
Native American Housing Block Grants ................................................................................... 9
Indian Housing Plans ........................................................................................................ 10
Funding Formula ............................................................................................................... 10
Eligible Activities .............................................................................................................. 14
Income and Affordability Requirements ........................................................................... 15
Selected Other Program Requirements ............................................................................. 17
Oversight ........................................................................................................................... 18
Title VI Loan Guarantee Program ........................................................................................... 19
Technical Assistance ................................................................................................................ 20
Housing Assistance for Native Hawaiians ............................................................................... 20
Background ....................................................................................................................... 20
Eligible Activities .............................................................................................................. 21
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Reauthorization .................................................. 22
NAHASDA Reauthorization Efforts in the 113th Congress ..................................................... 23
NAHASDA Funding ...................................................................................................................... 25
Appropriations ......................................................................................................................... 26
Native American Housing Block Grants Account ............................................................. 26
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants Account ............................................................. 29
Tribes’ Uses of NAHBG Funds ............................................................................................... 30
Units Assisted .................................................................................................................... 30
Homeownership vs. Rental Units ...................................................................................... 32
FY2014 NAHBG Grants Made to Tribes ................................................................................ 33
Figures
Figure 1. Percentage of NAHBG Funding Used for Each Category of Eligible Activities ........... 15
Figure 2. Units Built, Acquired, and Rehabilitated with NAHBG Funds ...................................... 31
Figure 3. Homeownership and Rental Units Developed with NAHBG Funds.............................. 32
Figure 4. Number of FY2014 NAHBGs Within Certain Dollar Ranges ....................................... 34
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Tables
Table 1. Annual Appropriations for the Native American Housing Block Grant Account,
FY2003-FY2014 ......................................................................................................................... 26
Table 2. Annual Appropriations for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Account,
FY2002-FY2014 ......................................................................................................................... 29
Appendixes
Appendix. Census Data in the NAHBG Formula .......................................................................... 36
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 39
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Introduction
Native Americans living on reservations or other tribal lands are more likely to experience poor
housing conditions, such as living in housing that is physically substandard or overcrowded, than
the population as a whole. One reason for this is that a disproportionate number of Native
Americans are low-income, making it difficult to afford suitable housing. Additionally, Native
Americans who live on reservations or in other tribal areas face housing issues that do not
generally apply to the rest of the country, such as the legal status of trust land and the implications
that has for mortgage lending.
Recognizing the singular challenges in providing affordable housing for Native Americans in
tribal areas, and the need for such housing, in the 1960s the federal government began to
implement specific housing programs for Native Americans that were separate from other
affordable housing programs. Questions about whether these programs were meeting their goals,
and whether they were running efficiently, persisted for several decades. In 1996, Congress
passed the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA). The
law reorganized several existing federal housing assistance programs for Native Americans into a
single block grant program. In addition to providing funding for affordable housing for Native
Americans, the law focused on self-determination for tribes, giving tribes broad authority to
choose how to use the affordable housing funds they receive under NAHASDA.
The block grant program authorized under NAHASDA provides funding to tribes and Alaska
Native villages for affordable housing activities that benefit low-income Native Americans living
in tribal areas. A separate block grant program, established later by an amendment to NAHASDA,
makes funding available for housing for low-income Native Hawaiians who are eligible to live on
the Hawaiian Home Lands. NAHASDA also authorizes a loan guarantee program to help tribes
and Alaska Native villages access financing for affordable housing activities, and authorizes
funding for training and technical assistance.
This report provides some brief background on Native American housing issues and the system of
federal housing assistance for Native Americans prior to NAHASDA. It then describes the
programs authorized by NAHASDA: the Native American Housing Block Grant, the Title VI
Loan Guarantee Program, and the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant, as well as funding for
training and technical assistance. It concludes with a discussion of historical funding for
NAHASDA programs and tribes’ uses of NAHASDA funds.
A Note About Terminology
Throughout this report, the term “Native American” is meant to include both American Indians and Alaska Natives. It
does not include Native Hawaiians. The term “tribes” is generally used to mean Native American tribes and Alaska
Native villages that are recognized by the federal government. The term “tribal land” is used to refer to land that is
under the jurisdiction of a federally recognized tribe, such as reservations or other trust land.
Background on Native American Housing Issues
The federal government currently recognizes over 550 Native American tribes and Alaska Native
villages across the United States. These tribes and Alaska Native villages vary widely in terms of
size, population, geography, history, and culture. The size and surroundings of tribes’ reservations
and other tribal lands are also very different. For example, some reservations are very large while
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
others are quite small—the largest is over 16 million acres, while the smallest reservations
encompass fewer than 1,000 acres—and some tribes do not have reservations at all.1 Many
reservations are located in remote rural areas, while some are located closer to urban areas.
According to the U.S. Census, more than 5 million individuals identified as American Indian or
Alaska Natives (AIAN) in 2010.2 Of this number, nearly 3 million individuals identified
themselves solely as American Indians or Alaska Natives, while an additional 2 million identified
as AIAN in combination with another race.3 Not everyone who identifies as AIAN is a member of
a federally recognized tribe or Alaska Native village. Some individuals who identify as AIAN
may not be formally enrolled members of any tribe, and some may be enrolled members of state-
recognized tribes or other tribes not formally recognized by the federal government. Furthermore,
many people who identify as AIAN do not live on reservations or in other tribal areas. Of those
who identified as AIAN alone, about one-third lived in tribal areas (such as on reservations or on
off-reservation trust lands) in 2010, according to the Census.4
This report addresses certain housing programs for members of federally recognized tribes and
Alaska Native villages who are living on tribal lands or in other areas where a tribe is responsible
for providing housing. Native Americans who live in non-tribal areas, such as cities, are eligible
for the same federal housing programs as the rest of the population.5 Certain issues impact
housing and housing programs in tribal areas differently than the rest of the country. The special
nature of the relationship between the federal government and federally recognized tribes has
implications for Native American housing and housing programs. Furthermore, the restricted
legal status of tribal lands has implications for financing housing in these areas. Finally, while
economic conditions and the quality of the housing stock vary by tribe, housing conditions in
tribal areas generally tend to be worse than in other areas.
The Federal Government’s Relationship with Tribes
The federal government’s relationship with federally recognized tribes is unique in several ways.
For one thing, federally recognized tribes are sovereign nations, and the relationship between the
federal government and tribes is a government-to-government relationship. Tribes are entitled to
govern their own affairs, including deciding tribal membership and leadership, and tribal areas
are governed by tribal law.
Furthermore, the federal government has a long-standing trust responsibility to members of
federally recognized Native American tribes, meaning that it has a responsibility to provide for
certain needs of tribes and tribal members. This trust responsibility was first established through
1 Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/index.htm.
2 U.S. Census Bureau, The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010, 2010 Census Briefs, issued January
2012, p. 1, http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf.
3 Beginning with the 2000 Census, respondents have had the option of identifying with more than one race.
4 U.S. Census Bureau, The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010, 2010 Census Briefs, issued January
2012, p. 12, http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf. Not only American Indians and Alaska
Natives live in tribal areas. According to the Census, nearly three-quarters of those living in American Indian areas did
not identify as American Indian or Alaska Native, and over two-thirds of those living in Alaska Native villages did not
identify as American Indian or Alaska Native (see pp. 13-14 of the Census Brief).
5 For more information on federal housing programs available to the general population, see CRS Report RL34591,
Overview of Federal Housing Assistance Programs and Policy.
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
treaties between the federal government and individual tribes; under these treaties, tribes
generally ceded land to the federal government in exchange for protection and certain annuities,
personnel, goods, and services. Over time, the federal government’s trust responsibility to tribes
has been affirmed through laws, court decisions, and executive orders, and has been the basis for
a number of federal programs that provide funds or services specifically to Native American tribal
members.
At times, the federal government’s responsibility to provide certain services to tribes and the
tribes’ right to govern their own affairs can appear to be conflicting. Tribal leaders have expressed
concerns that having federal agencies administer funding that is provided to tribes, and making
most of the decisions about how such funding is used, undermines tribal sovereignty and impedes
the ability of tribes to develop the capacity and resources needed to administer their own affairs.
In light of these concerns, federal policy towards Native Americans began to shift towards the
concept of self-determination beginning in the 1970s.
Self-determination recognizes the sovereignty of tribes and aims to give tribes authority over their
own affairs. In 1975, Congress enacted the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act (P.L. 93-638), providing tribes with the authority to contract to provide services otherwise
provided by the federal government and to administer their own education programs. It
represented the first major shift towards self-determination in federal programs for Native
Americans. Self-determination has continued to be a cornerstone of federal Indian policy since
that time, with the government providing funds for many social programs to tribes while allowing
tribes greater discretion in how they implement those programs.
Legal Status of Tribal Land
The legal status of tribal land poses some distinctive challenges for housing for Native
Americans. Most tribal land is held in trust or otherwise restricted in some way.6 When land is
held in trust, it means that the federal government holds the title to the land for the benefit of an
individual (“individual trust land”) or a tribe (“tribal trust land”). Both tribal and individual trust
lands are subject to restrictions on alienation and encumbrance—that is, trust land generally
cannot be transferred, leased, or have a lien or claim placed against it without the approval of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). When land is held in restricted fee status, rather than in trust, an
individual or tribe holds the title to the land, but the land still cannot be alienated or encumbered
without the BIA’s approval.
These restrictions on trust and restricted lands raise issues for mortgage lending because the land
generally cannot be used as collateral for a mortgage. Banks are unwilling to offer mortgage loans
(either for households to purchase a home or for developers to build housing) where they will not
be able to take title to the land if the borrower does not repay the mortgage as promised.
Because of the restrictions on mortgaging trust land, many loans on trust lands involve long-term
leases of the land, with the leasehold interest acting as the collateral for the loan since the
ownership interest in the land cannot be transferred. For example, an individual might obtain a
50-year leasehold interest in the land, and obtain a mortgage using that leasehold interest and the
6 According to the BIA, the federal government holds over 56 million acres of land in trust for Native American tribes
or individuals, and there are about 326 federal Indian reservations or communities across the United States. See U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
home as collateral. This has provided a model for lending on lands that have legal restrictions to
being mortgaged. However, leases on tribal lands also generally require the BIA’s approval. The
process of obtaining the BIA’s approval to obtain a long-term lease of trust land can make it more
complicated and time-consuming to take out a mortgage.7
Another factor that can pose obstacles to mortgage lending is that tribal lands are subject to tribal
laws, rather than state or federal laws. This includes laws governing foreclosure and eviction
procedures if someone who took out a loan fails to pay it back as promised. This can contribute to
banks being unwilling to offer loans on tribal lands, because banks might be uncertain about tribal
laws or have concerns that some tribes do not have sufficient foreclosure or eviction laws in
place. Together, these factors can limit the availability of private financing in tribal areas, either
for individuals to purchase homes or for developers to access capital to increase the supply of
adequate housing.
Housing Conditions in Tribal Areas
Housing conditions on tribal lands vary widely. However, in general, the housing problems of
Native Americans living on tribal lands tend to be particularly severe compared to the rest of the
country. Historically, Native Americans on tribal lands have been more likely than the general
population to live in housing that is overcrowded and/or physically substandard, and this
continues to be the case today.
Many issues contribute to poor housing conditions in tribal areas. Lack of economic development
and economic opportunity contributes to substandard housing; Native Americans living on tribal
lands are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty as the general population,8 making it difficult for
many families to afford safe, affordable housing or leading to overcrowding.9 The issues raised by
the legal status of trust land can make it difficult for tribes or individuals to obtain capital to
finance affordable housing in tribal areas. Furthermore, the remoteness of some reservations can
make it difficult or expensive to obtain building materials or find qualified labor, raising the cost
of housing construction.
In the years prior to the enactment of NAHASDA, several studies detailed the generally poor
condition of housing on tribal lands. In 1989, Congress established the National Commission on
American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian housing, which released its final report in
late 1993.10 It described a persistent need for decent housing on tribal lands and identified barriers
to the provision of such housing. In 1996, just before NAHASDA was enacted, the Urban
Institute completed a study for HUD on Native American housing needs and the progress of
7 The Helping Expedite and Advance Tribal Homeownership Act (the HEARTH Act, P.L. 112-151), enacted on July
30, 2012, granted tribes the right to take over the lease approval functions that have been performed by the BIA under
certain circumstances.
8 The Housing Assistance Council, Housing in Native American Lands, January 2012, http://www.ruralhome.org/
storage/documents/nativeamerinfosheet2.pdf.
9 Definitions of overcrowding vary, but a common definition is a home where there is more than one person per room
living in the home. For example, see the definition used in HUD’s “Worst Case Housing Needs 2009 Report to
Congress,” February 2011, p. 63, http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/worstcase_HsgNeeds09.pdf.
10 Building the Future: A Blueprint for Change: “By Our Homes You Will Know Us: Final Report of the National
Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing,” 1992, available at
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/pur1.32754063631521.
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
existing housing programs in meeting those needs.11 It found that 28% of Native Americans on
reservations or in other tribal areas were living in housing that lacked plumbing or kitchen
facilities or was overcrowded, and that overall about 40% of Native Americans living in tribal
areas were experiencing inadequate housing conditions.12
Since NAHASDA took effect in FY1998, tribes indicate that the law has had a positive impact on
their ability to address housing needs in tribal areas.13 However, poor housing conditions remain
much more prevalent in tribal areas than in the country as a whole, and some tribes experience
particularly severe conditions. According to an analysis of 2010 Census data by the Housing
Assistance Council, a non-profit organization focused on rural housing issues, 5% of housing
units on tribal lands lack complete plumbing facilities, and 5% lack complete kitchen facilities,
compared to less than 1% of housing units nationally that lack each of these features. Eight
percent of housing units on tribal lands are overcrowded, compared to 3% nationally.14 Tribal
officials, policy makers, and others routinely describe extremely poor housing conditions that
many tribes experience.15
In light of the special trust relationship between the federal government and tribes, the specific
issues that affect housing on tribal lands, and the poor housing conditions in these areas, the
federal government has established several programs that directly target housing on Native
American lands over the last several decades. The next section of this report provides a brief
overview of the evolution of federal housing programs for Native Americans, leading up to the
reorganization of Native American housing programs into the system that is in place today.
Brief History of Native American Housing Programs
The federal government has had a long-standing policy of promoting access to decent and
affordable housing for all Americans. The Housing Act of 1949 included a goal of “a decent home
and a suitable living environment for every American family.”16 However, Native Americans
living on reservations or other tribal lands generally had little access to the affordable housing
11 HUD has contracted with the Urban Institute to perform a congressionally mandated updated study on Native
American housing needs. An interim report was released in March 2014, and the final report is expected in December
2014. For more information on the study, which was required by S.Rept. 111-69, see U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, “Assessment of Native American, Alaska Native,
and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs,” http://www.huduser.org/portal/native_american_assessment/home.html.
12 Kingsley et al., Assessment of American Indian Housing Needs and Programs: Final Report, prepared for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research by The Urban Institute,
May 1996, p. xii, http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/Hud%207159_1.pdf.
13 For example, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Native American Housing: Tribes Generally View Block
Grant Program as Effective, but Tracking of Infrastructure Plans and Investments Needs Improvement, GAO-10-326,
February 2010, p. 34, http://www.gao.gov/assets/310/301157.pdf, indicating that most tribes say that NAHASDA has
had a positive impact on their ability to address housing needs.
14 Housing Assistance Council, “Housing in Native American Lands,” January 2012, http://www.ruralhome.org/
storage/documents/nativeamerinfosheet2.pdf.
15 For example, see the written testimonies of several housing officials representing different tribes at an April 2013
hearing before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, describing housing that lacks basic facilities, is in a state of
substantial disrepair, subject to extreme crowding, and generally inadequate to meet the demand. Copies of the
witnesses’ written testimony can be found at http://www.indian.senate.gov/hearing/oversight-hearing-identifying-
barriers-indian-housing-development-and-finding-solutions.
16 P.L. 81-171.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
programs established by the federal government until the early 1960s. At that time, the
government began to recognize that Native Americans largely lacked access to existing affordable
housing programs and took steps to provide affordable housing funding explicitly for Native
Americans.
In 1961, tribal governments were first recognized as eligible to receive funding under the public
housing program, which had been established by the Housing Act of 1937 and was administered
by the Public Housing Administration. This recognition allowed tribes to establish Indian housing
authorities (IHAs), similar to public housing authorities (PHAs), to administer federal housing
assistance programs authorized under the 1937 law.17 In 1962, the Public Housing Administration
established the Mutual Help Homeownership Opportunity Program to provide funds to IHAs to
help Native Americans achieve home ownership through a lease-purchase program.18 Both the
public housing program and the Mutual Help program were administered by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) after that department was established in 1965, and these
two programs provided the bulk of housing assistance to Native Americans until NAHASDA
reorganized the federal government’s Native American housing programs into today’s block grant
system.
Also in 1965, the Bureau of American Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the Interior
established the Housing Improvement Program (HIP). Through HIP, the BIA provides grants to
assist the least well-off Native Americans with repairing severely inadequate housing. The BIA
was authorized to establish various assistance programs for Native Americans by the Snyder Act
of 1921. However, while it used this authority to establish other types of programs for Native
Americans, it did not create specific housing programs for Native Americans until it created HIP.
In the mid-1970s, the government began to recognize that simply extending existing programs to
tribal areas was not always effective, given some of the unique circumstances related to housing
on tribal lands. Despite the availability of a number of affordable housing programs in tribal
areas, poor housing conditions in tribal areas persisted. In 1978, a report from the General
Accounting Office (GAO) noted that, despite the fact that HUD, BIA, and the Farmers Home
Administration administered several programs that could provide affordable housing for Native
Americans, these programs had “not been effective in providing the number of units necessary to
keep pace with the increasing need for decent, safe, and sanitary Indian housing.”19 The report
17 For more information on the public housing program, see CRS Report R41654, Introduction to Public Housing.
Although IHAs also became eligible to participate in the Section 8 program, which was established in the 1970s and is
also administered by PHAs, there was generally little IHA participation in the Section 8 program as of the early 1990s.
For more information on IHAs and Section 8, see U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of
Policy Development and Research, “Feasibility of Expanded Use of Section 8 Vouchers by Indian Housing
Authorities,” March 1992, http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/HUD-006004.pdf. For more information on the
Section 8 program in general, see CRS Report RL32284, An Overview of the Section 8 Housing Programs: Housing
Choice Vouchers and Project-Based Rental Assistance.
18 The Mutual Help Homeownership Opportunity Program was initially established administratively, and was codified
in law in 1988. Under the program, as codified, an IHA leased a home to a family for a period of up to 25 years. The
family made an initial minimum contribution of $1,500 in cash, labor, or land toward the cost of the home, and then
made monthly payments of 15-30% of its adjusted income, which were deposited into an equity account. Families were
also responsible for necessary home repairs and maintenance. When a family had enough money in its equity account,
it could purchase its home. No new funding has been appropriated for the Mutual Help program since NAHASDA
went into effect, but existing contracts remain in effect. For more information, see HUD’s website at
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/programdescription/muthelp.
19 GAO, “Substandard Indian Housing Increases Despite Federal Efforts – A Change Is Needed,” March 31, 1978, p. i,
http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/122005.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
noted that HUD’s programs were generally designed for more urban areas, and tended to be less
effective on reservations located in more rural areas.
Federal agencies began to make efforts to make housing programs more targeted to the specific
circumstances of Native Americans living in tribal areas. Around this time, HUD created a
separate Office of Indian Housing20 to administer the agency’s Native American housing
programs, which were previously operated as part of the public housing program.21 In 1976,
regulations governing Native American housing assistance were published separately from the
public housing regulations.
Federal efforts to improve housing conditions in tribal areas continued during the 1980s and early
1990s. In 1983, Congress authorized a program to allow the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) to insure home mortgages made on tribal lands. This program was intended to address
issues related to the lack of availability of mortgage credit on tribal lands and to encourage
lenders to offer mortgages in these areas. In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Housing Act of
1988 (P.L. 100-358), which separated Native American housing assistance from the existing
public housing program in law and specified that future amendments to the public housing
program would not apply to the Native American program (although existing requirements of the
public housing program did continue to apply). The law also codified the Mutual Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program. In 1992, Congress authorized another loan guarantee
program, the Section 184 program, to encourage mortgage lending on tribal lands by allowing
HUD to guarantee certain home mortgages in tribal areas.
By the early 1990s, tribes were eligible to receive funding through at least 14 HUD programs,
each of which had its own eligibility criteria and program requirements.22 These included
programs specifically for tribes, such as Mutual Help, the Indian public housing program, and
programs to provide loan guarantees on tribal lands such as the Section 184 program. It also
included other, broader HUD programs for which tribes were eligible to receive funds, often
through a set-aside of funding from the larger program. However, taken together, these programs
were generally seen as inadequate to address the persistent housing needs and unique
circumstances of Native Americans living on tribal lands.23 Furthermore, these programs
generally did not recognize the principle of tribal self-determination.
20 Today, HUD’s Native American programs are administered by the Office of Native American Programs (ONAP)
within the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH).
21 Kingsley, Thomas G. et al., Assessment of American Indian Housing Needs and Programs: Final Report, prepared
for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research by the Urban
Institute Center for Public Finance and Housing, May 1996, p. 102, http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/
Hud%207159_1.pdf.
22 U.S. General Accounting Office, Native American Housing: Information on HUD’s Funding of Indian Housing
Programs, GAO/RCED-99-16, November 1998, p. 4, http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/226638.pdf. Other HUD
programs for which tribes were eligible to receive funds included the HOME Investment Partnerships Program and
Emergency Shelter Grants.
23 For example, at a hearing on NAHASDA before the legislation was enacted, Representative Doug Bereuter, the Vice
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the House Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, said, “ ... the programs ... that are designed for the Country at large don’t often work well for the
Indian community, and we want to adapt or create new programs as necessary to meet the housing needs of Native
Americans.... ”. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing
and Community Opportunity, The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, 104th
Cong., 2nd sess., February 27, 1996 (Washington: GPO, 1996).
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996
In 1996, Congress enacted the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
(P.L. 104-330). The law represented a major reorganization of federal Native American housing
assistance, consolidating most of the federal housing funding that previously had been provided
to tribes under HUD programs into a single block grant that provides funds to eligible tribes
based on a formula.24
Purpose
President Clinton signed NAHASDA into law on October 26, 1996, and it took effect on October
1, 1997 (the beginning of FY1998). The congressional findings recognized the federal
government’s unique relationship with tribes and its responsibility to ensure access to affordable,
decent homes for Native Americans, while at the same time recognizing the rights of tribal self-
governance and self-determination.25
The centerpiece of NAHASDA was a reorganization of most of the existing federal housing
assistance for Native Americans into a single block grant program, the Native American Housing
Block Grant (NAHBG). (This block grant is sometimes also referred to as the Indian Housing
Block Grant, or IHBG.) NAHASDA removed the ability of IHAs to receive funds through most
other HUD programs, and instead authorized tribes to receive block grant funds that could be
used for a broad range of affordable housing activities. Specifically, NAHASDA eliminated
tribes’ ability to receive funds under programs authorized by the Housing Act of 1937, as
amended, such as the public housing program, Section 8, and Mutual Help. It also eliminated
tribes’ ability to receive funds through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program block grant,
homelessness assistance programs, and the Youthbuild program (which has since been transferred
from HUD to the Department of Labor).26 Tribes were given the flexibility to choose how to use
the funds provided under the new block grant program to meet their housing needs within the
parameters set by the law.
NAHASDA also established a loan guarantee program to help tribes obtain private financing for
affordable housing activities, and authorized funding for technical assistance. In 2000, the law
was amended to add a block grant providing housing assistance for Native Hawaiians.
NAHASDA has been amended several times since it was enacted, and has been reauthorized
twice, in 2002 (P.L. 107-292) and 2008 (P.L. 110-411). Its most recent authorization expired at
the end of FY2013. During the 113th Congress, reauthorization bills have been introduced in both
24 Certain housing programs were not consolidated into the block grant and continue to provide housing assistance to
tribes today. Programs that continue to provide assistance to tribes include the Section 184 Indian Home Loan
Guarantee Program, FHA’s Section 248 program, and the Indian Community Development Block Grant Program
(ICDBG) within HUD, as well as the Housing Improvement Program administered by BIA.
25 The findings are codified at 25 U.S.C. 4101.
26 An amendment to NAHASDA in 2008 clarified that, although tribes are no longer eligible for formula grants under
the HOME program, they are allowed to apply for HOME funds from states or localities that participate in the program.
As described in footnote 24, there are certain federal housing programs outside of NAHASDA for which tribes remain
eligible today.
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
the House (H.R. 4329 and H.R. 4277) and the Senate (S. 1352). Both H.R. 4329 and S. 1352 have
been reported out of committee.
The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant has not been reauthorized since its original
authorization expired in FY2005, but Congress has continued to provide funding for the program
in annual appropriations acts.
Negotiated Rulemaking
NAHASDA requires that regulations implementing the statute must be issued through a
negotiated rulemaking process.27 Negotiated rulemaking means that the process of developing
regulations to implement the statute includes groups and individuals with a stake in the outcome
of the regulations, as well as the federal agency tasked with implementing the law.28 In the case of
NAHASDA, negotiated rulemaking means that regulations are developed through a process that
includes tribal representatives as well as representatives of HUD.
Amendments to NAHASDA have clarified that negotiated rulemaking must also be used to
develop any regulations required by amendments to the statute. HUD is required to establish a
negotiated rulemaking committee within 180 days of the enactment of any laws reauthorizing
NAHASDA to develop any proposed regulations that may be required.29
Native American Housing Block Grants
The Native American Housing Block Grant program is the centerpiece of NAHASDA and the
largest dedicated source of federal funding for Native American housing. Through the NAHBG,
HUD provides funding to federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages.30 In
addition, five state-recognized tribes that had contracts with HUD to receive funding under the
pre-NAHASDA housing programs authorized by the Housing Act of 1937 are also eligible
recipients of NAHBG funds. (Native Hawaiians are not included in the NAHASDA definition of
Native Americans. Rather, Native Hawaiians are eligible for a separate housing program
authorized by an amendment to NAHASDA, discussed in the “Housing Assistance for Native
Hawaiians” section of this report.)
Each year, Congress appropriates funding for the NAHBG to HUD, which then distributes
formula-based grants to eligible tribes and Alaska Native villages, or to organizations that tribes
27 25 U.S.C. 4116(b)(2).
28 For more information on the concept of negotiated rulemaking in general, see CRS Report RL32240, The Federal
Rulemaking Process: An Overview.
29 See 25 U.S.C. 4116(b)(2). This provision was added in the 2008 reauthorization of NAHASDA, and applied to that
reauthorization and any subsequent laws to reauthorize NAHASDA.
30 NAHASDA defines federally recognized tribes to be “any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community of Indians, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or
established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, that is recognized as eligible for the special programs
and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975.” See 25 U.S.C. 4103. There are currently 566 federally
recognized tribes and Alaska Native villages. See Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, “Indian Entities
Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” 78 Federal Register 26384-26389,
May 6, 2013, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-06/pdf/2013-10649.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
have identified to administer their grants (known as tribally designated housing entities, or
TDHEs).31 TDHEs can be Indian Housing Authorities that administered previous housing
programs for tribes, or they can be tribal departments or nonprofit entities. A single TDHE can be
designated to administer the NAHBG for one or more tribes. Tribes and TDHEs that receive
NAHBG funds are referred to as recipients.
Indian Housing Plans
In order to receive NAHBG funds, a tribe or its TDHE must submit an annual Indian Housing
Plan (IHP) and have it approved by HUD. The IHP describes the tribe’s affordable housing needs
and its planned affordable housing activities for the next one-year period. These plans include
descriptions of the activities that the tribe plans to fund with the NAHBG, estimates of the
number of housing units or households that will be assisted and the amount of funding that will
be spent on each activity, and requests for HUD approval of any necessary waivers of NAHBG
requirements, among other things.32 The IHP must be submitted to HUD at least 75 days before
the beginning of the tribal program year.
While the IHP is required to be submitted and approved by HUD before a tribe can receive
NAHBG funding, tribes are also required to submit an Annual Performance Report (APR) to
HUD after the program year detailing the actual activities that the tribe funded with NAHBG
funds that year. Recently, HUD combined the IHP with APR. Now, tribes or TDHEs submit the
IHP portion of the form prior to the beginning of the program year, and then submit the APR
portion after the program year ends.33
Funding Formula
The NAHASDA statute directed the Secretary of HUD to establish a formula for the distribution
of NAHBG funds based on several factors. These factors include the number of housing units
developed under pre-NAHASDA housing programs that continue to be operated by a tribe;
poverty measures; and the number of members of federally recognized tribes (or the five state-
recognized tribes that are eligible for NAHASDA) that are living in the tribe’s formula area. The
actual formula is set out in regulations, which were developed through the negotiated rulemaking
between the tribes and HUD.34 It is based on two broad parameters: formula current assisted stock
31 HUD’s Native American housing programs are administered by its Office of Native American Programs (ONAP),
which is part of its Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH). ONAP has offices in six regions: Alaska, the Northwest,
the Southwest, the Northern Plains, the Southern Plains, and the Eastern Woodlands. More information on the regional
ONAP offices, including contact information, is available on HUD’s website at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?
src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/codetalk/aboutonap.
32 Previously, tribes were also required to submit a five-year housing plan to HUD. Congress removed this requirement
when it reauthorized NAHASDA in 2008.
33 The combined IHP/APR form is available on HUD’s website at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/codetalk/onap/guidance.
34 The NAHASDA regulations specified that the funding formula should be reviewed within five years of the
regulations being issued (24 C.F.R. §1000.306). HUD convened a negotiated rulemaking committee and issued a new
final rule in relation to the formula in April 2007 (see Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA); Revisions to the Indian Housing Block Grant
Program Formula,” 72 Federal Register 20018-20028, April 20, 2007, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-04-20/
pdf/E7-7470.pdf). The negotiated rulemaking committee chose to interpret the requirement to review the formula
within five years to mean that the formula should again be reviewed within five years of the updated formula final rule
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
(FCAS), which measures the pre-NAHASDA housing stock developed under the 1937 Housing
Act programs that the tribe continues to operate, and housing need. The two main components of
the formula are also adjusted by additional factors intended to reflect costs in the local area. For
example, the formula is adjusted to reflect either fair market rents in the area or the amount of
operating subsidy a tribe received to operate its public housing units developed under the Housing
Act of 1937. It also takes into account the “total development cost,” which is the cost of building
a “moderately designed” house in the area based on the average of at least two nationally
recognized residential construction cost indices.35 The formula is also adjusted to ensure that each
tribe receives a certain minimum amount of funding.36
A tribe receives NAHBG funds based on the FCAS and need within its formula area, which is
defined as reservations, trust land, and other tribal areas where the tribe has responsibility for
providing housing.37 A tribe can request that additional areas be added to its formula area. To do
this, the tribe must show that it has an agreement with the governing entity of the area to provide
housing services in the area, and that it either (1) could exercise court jurisdiction or (2) is
providing substantial housing services in the area and will continue to do so.38 A tribe’s formula
area for the purposes of the NAHBG might differ from the area that is included as part of a tribe’s
service area for the purposes of other programs.
Formula Current Assisted Stock
As described earlier in this report, prior to the enactment of NAHASDA, tribes received federal
housing assistance through HUD programs that had been authorized under the Housing Act of
1937. These included the Mutual Help program and the public housing assistance provided to
IHAs. Although tribes no longer receive funding or develop new units under these programs, they
continue to operate and maintain units that were built under the Housing Act of 1937. Therefore,
in order to provide tribes with funds to continue to maintain and operate these units, part of the
formula for distributing NAHBG funding is based on the number of housing units that were
(...continued)
being promulgated. HUD announced the finalized membership for a negotiated rulemaking committee to again review
the funding formula in July 2013, and the first meeting took place at the end of August 2013 (see Department of
Housing and Urban Development, “Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996:
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Membership and First Meeting,” 78 Federal Register 45903-45905, July 30, 2013,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-30/pdf/2013-18176.pdf).
35 See 24 C.F.R. §1000.320 and §1000.325.
36 Under the FCAS component of the formula, the regulations provide for an adjustment to a tribe’s allocation if the
tribe would be provided less funding for operating and maintaining FCAS units than the tribe’s IHA had received for
operating subsidy and modernization costs for public housing in FY1996. Furthermore, under the need component of
the formula, the regulations specify that each tribe shall receive a minimum allocation of 0.007826% of the available
appropriations, after set-asides, as long as the tribe receives less than $200,000 under the FCAS part of the formula for
that fiscal year and can demonstrate the presence of households at or below 80% of median income. See 24 C.F.R.
§1000.328 and 24 C.F.R. §1000.340.
37 Specifically, the regulations define formula areas to include “(i) Reservations for federally recognized Indian tribes,
as defined by the U.S. Census; (ii) Trust lands; (iii) Department of the Interior Near-Reservation Service Areas; (iv)
Former Indian Reservation Areas in Oklahoma Indian Areas, as defined by the U.S. Census as Oklahoma Tribal
Statistical Areas (OTSAs); (v) Congressionally Mandated Service Areas; (vi) State Tribal Areas as defined by the U.S.
Census as State Designated American Indian Statistical Areas (SDAISAs); (vii) Tribal Designated Statistical Areas
(TDSAs); (viii) California Tribal Jurisdictional Areas established or reestablished by federal court judgment; and (ix)
Alaska formula areas.” See 24 C.F.R.§1000.302.
38 24 C.F.R. §1000.302.
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
developed by the tribe under these 1937 Housing Act programs and continue to be owned or
operated by the tribe today. Section 8 units are also included in this part of the formula if the tribe
continues to provide rental assistance similar to the Section 8 program. Altogether, the number of
housing units assisted under these programs that continue to be operated by a tribe is referred to
as formula current assisted stock.39
The tribe is responsible for continuing to operate and maintain units developed under the 1937 act
programs for as long as they remain in existence or until a homeowner unit is conveyed to the
occupant. Therefore, the purpose of the FCAS component of the formula is to provide funds for
both an operating subsidy and a modernization allocation for tribes to operate and maintain these
units. Tribes report changes to their FCAS to HUD each year. Tribes might stop operating units
funded under these old programs when a homeowner takes possession of a lease-purchase unit or
when an older unit is demolished, for example.40 According to HUD, about half of tribes eligible
for formula allocations under NAHASDA have FCAS.41
Need
After the FCAS component of the formula is calculated, the remaining NAHBG funds are
distributed based on need within a tribe’s formula area. The need portion of the formula takes into
account the Native American population, the income characteristics of the population, and the
state of the housing stock in a tribe’s formula area. More specifically, the need component of the
formula is made up of the following seven factors, with the weight each factor is given in
parentheses:42
• The number of American Indian or Alaska Native households which are
overcrowded or lack either kitchen or plumbing facilities (25%);
• The number of American Indian or Alaska Native households which have a
housing cost burden greater than 50% of annual income (22%);
• Housing shortage, defined as the number of American Indian or Alaska Native
households with an annual income less than or equal to 80% of median income,43
minus current assisted stock and housing units developed under NAHASDA
(15%);
• The number of American Indian or Alaska Native households with annual
incomes less than or equal to 30% of median income (13%);
39 For the purposes of the formula, the number of FCAS units operated by the tribe is multiplied by an operating
subsidy to arrive at a grant amount for the tribe.
40 The 2008 NAHASDA reauthorization (P.L. 110-411) amended the law to make some exceptions to the
circumstances under which a tribe can no longer count a unit as part of its FCAS. Specifically, a 1937 Act unit that is
demolished and would otherwise be removed from the FCAS can continue to be counted if it is rebuilt within one year,
and a homeownership unit that reaches the end of its lease period and should be conveyed to a homeowner can continue
to be counted as FCAS if it cannot be conveyed for reasons beyond the control of the tribe (such as title issues or other
legal impediments). See 25 U.S.C. 4152(b)(1).
41 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FY2015 Budget Justifications, p. L-3, http://portal.hud.gov/
hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=FY15CJ_NAT_AM_HG_BLK_GRNTS.pdf.
42 The need component of the formula is described in regulations at 24 C.F.R. §1000.324.
43 The regulations specify that the median income for a Native American area is the greater of the median income in the
applicable county or the median income in the U.S. as a whole. See 24 C.F.R. §1000.10.
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
• The number of American Indian or Alaska Native households (11%);44
• The number of American Indian or Alaska Native households with annual
incomes between 30% and 50% of median income (7%); and
• The number of American Indian or Alaska Native households with annual
incomes between 50% and 80% of median income (7%).
Each participating tribe receives an allocation of funding based on the formula current assisted
housing stock and need in its formula area.45
Tribes can challenge most of the data used by HUD in determining formula allocations, including
the population estimate (the number of Native Americans living in the formula area) and what
HUD refers to as the household variables (the number of households in different situations).
Tribes can challenge the data by submitting other data that they feel more accurately represent the
tribe’s housing needs. The data must be collected in a way that is consistent across tribes, and
must be acceptable to HUD. Examples that HUD gives of the types of data that might be used to
challenge Census data are administrative data, such as tribal enrollment figures or data from the
Indian Health Service (IHS), or a survey that is conducted by the tribe.46
The NAHASDA regulations, developed pursuant to negotiated rulemaking between HUD and the
tribes, specify that the data used to calculate the need portion of the formula should be data that
are “collected in a uniform manner that can be confirmed and verified for all AIAN households
and persons living in an identified area.”47 The regulations also specified that, initially, U.S.
Census data would be used. HUD has continued to use Census data to calculate the need portion
of the formula. Some tribes have argued that Census data are not the most accurate source to use
for calculating the NAHBG formula because they include anyone who identifies as American
Indian or Alaska Native, not just members of federally recognized tribes (the population that is
eligible for NAHASDA). Other tribes have maintained that Census data are the most reliable
source of data that are collected uniformly across tribes and should continue to be used.
Furthermore, since the Census began to allow respondents to identify as belonging to more than
one race in 2000, there has been disagreement over whether the “single-race” or “multi-race”
Census data should be used to count the number of Native Americans living in an area for the
purposes of the formula. Since FY2006, annual appropriations acts have directed HUD to
calculate the formula both ways for each tribe—that is, once using only the number of people
who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native alone, and once including the total number
who identify as Native American or Alaska Native whether alone or in combination with another
44 Because members of multiple tribes might live in a given tribe’s formula area, the number of American Indian and
Alaska Native households in the area can be greater than a tribe’s enrolled membership. The NAHASDA regulations
specify that the number of Native Americans living in the formula area that are counted for the purposes of the formula
cannot exceed twice the tribe’s enrollment. This cap is intended to ensure that funds are distributed fairly among tribes.
If the number of Native Americans in the area exceeds twice the tribal enrollment, the tribe must show that it is
providing housing services to a substantial number of non-tribal members in order to include non-tribal members above
the cap in the population data for the purposes of the formula. See 24 C.F.R. §1000.302.
45 HUD publishes data showing each tribe’s need and FCAS on its NAHBG formula webpage at http://portal.hud.gov/
hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/codetalk/onap/ihbgformula.
46 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Challenging U.S. Decennial Census Data: Guidelines for the
Indian Housing Block Grant Formula, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_8614.pdf.
47 24 C.F.R. §1000.330(a).
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
race—and to award each tribe the larger of the two grant amounts. For more details on the use of
Census data in the NAHBG formula, and the debate over the use of single-race or multi-race data,
see Appendix.
Eligible Activities
Tribes can use NAHBG funds for a wide range of affordable housing activities. In most cases, the
housing assisted with NAHBG funds must benefit low-income members of federally recognized
tribes (or members of the small number of state-recognized tribes that are eligible for
NAHASDA). Tribes can give preference to their own tribal members, as opposed to members of
other federally recognized tribes living in their formula areas, if they indicate such a preference in
their IHP.
NAHBG funds can be used to develop, operate, maintain, or support affordable housing,
including both rental housing and homeownership housing, as well as to provide associated
infrastructure and services. The NAHASDA statute identifies six broad categories of activities for
which NAHBG funds can be used:
• Indian Housing Assistance: Funds can be used to provide maintenance or
operating assistance for housing that was developed under the programs
authorized by the Housing Act of 1937 prior to NAHASDA.
• Development: Funds can be used to acquire, construct, reconstruct, or rehabilitate
affordable housing. Among other things, this category allows funds to be used for
infrastructure and utilities.
• Housing Services: Funds can be used for services for residents, including housing
counseling, support for resident organizations, and services that promote
residents’ self-sufficiency.
• Housing Management Services: Funds can be used for services related to the
management of affordable housing, such as processing loans, performing
inspections, selecting tenants, and providing maintenance or operating assistance
for housing that was developed using NAHBG funds.48
• Crime Prevention and Safety: Funds can be used for safety, security, and law
enforcement activities related to protecting residents of affordable housing.
• Model Activities: Funds can be used for model programs that are consistent with
the purposes of NAHASDA and are approved by the Secretary of HUD.
The regulations limit the amount of funds that can be used for administrative expenses to 20% of
the annual grant amount.49 If a tribe intends to use more than 20% of a grant amount on
administrative expenses, it must get approval from HUD. Eligible administrative expenses
include costs such as program administration, data collection, and, if the tribe chooses, staff and
48 Prior to the 2008 NAHASDA reauthorization, use of funds for maintenance or operating assistance for NAHASDA-
assisted units was considered a model activity, rather than a housing management service, and therefore tribes were
required to obtain approval from HUD before they could use funds for this purpose. The 2008 reauthorization act
specified that maintenance and operating assistance for NAHASDA-assisted units was an eligible use of funds under
the category of housing management services.
49 24 C.F.R. §1000.238.
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
overhead costs. Tribes can also put up to a certain amount of funds into reserve accounts to
accumulate funds for planning and administrative activities.50
Figure 1 shows the percentage of total NAHBG expenditures between FY2008 and FY2013 that
were used for each eligible activity under NAHASDA. The largest percentages of expenditures
were for Indian housing assistance, defined as the operation and maintenance of pre-NAHASDA
housing units (37%), and for housing development (31%), followed by administrative expenses
(15%). The other categories of eligible activities each represented less than 10% of expenditures.
Since this represents expenditures, rather than number of units assisted, it is possible that the
smaller percentage of funds expended on many eligible activities partly reflects the lower cost of
these activities as compared to developing or operating affordable housing.
Figure 1. Percentage of NAHBG Funding Used for Each Category of
Eligible Activities
FY2008-FY2013
Source: Figure created by CRS based on data included in HUD’s FY2015 Budget Justifications.
Notes: Figure shows the percentage of expenditures between FY2008-FY2013 for each activity.
Income and Affordability Requirements
NAHBG funds are intended to provide affordable housing to low-income tribal members.
Therefore, the statute and regulations include several provisions related to ensuring that housing
assisted with NAHBG funds is and remains affordable to this population.
Low-Income Benefit
For the most part, housing funded through the NAHBG must benefit tribal families that are living
on reservations or in other tribal areas and qualify as low-income. (Low-income is defined as
50 25 U.S.C. 4132.
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
having an income that is no higher than 80% of the area median income.)51 In providing
affordable housing, tribes can choose to give preference to members of their own tribe as long as
they include such a preference in their Indian Housing Plans.52
Although housing funded through the NAHBG is generally intended for low-income Native
American families, exceptions can be made for both Native American and non-Native American
families who do not meet the income requirements but are considered “essential” to the well-
being of the area, such as medical professionals or law enforcement officers. Since some tribal
areas have a lack of housing for such professionals, NAHBG funds can be used to provide
housing for both Native American and non-Native American essential families.53 A tribe can also
use NAHBG funds to assist households that are not low-income if it obtains HUD’s approval and
if there is a need for housing for such households that cannot otherwise be met.
Maximum Rent
Households living in NAHBG-assisted housing may not be charged more than 30% of their
adjusted income for rent or homebuyer payments (such as in a lease-to-purchase program), if
applicable.54 Tribes or TDHEs are responsible for having written policies related to rents and
homebuyer payments and methods for determining such payments. The statute does not specify a
minimum rent, but tribes are free to set a minimum rent if they choose to do so (as long as no
household is required to pay more than 30% of its adjusted income). Tribes can also charge more
than 30% in rent to non-low-income households assisted with NAHBG funds.55
The 30% maximum rent rule is common in many other affordable housing programs.56 However,
some tribes have argued that the 30% rule is too restrictive, and that tribes should be allowed to
set their own maximum rents.57 These tribes say that the ability to charge higher rents could allow
them to more easily pay for the costs of maintaining and operating NAHBG-assisted units (such
as paying for repairs, utilities, and general maintenance). Without being able to charge higher
rents, tribes may have to use more of their NAHBG funds to cover the costs of operating existing
units or find other funds that can be used for this purpose. Using more NAHBG funds to operate
existing units reduces the amount of funds available for other uses, such as developing new units.
51 The regulations specify that the median income for a Native American area is the greater of the median income in the
applicable county or the median income in the U.S. as a whole. HUD determines income limits for various family sizes
each year. HUD’s FY2014 guidance to tribes and TDHEs on the income limits is at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/
documents/huddoc?id=2014-01IncomeLimits.pdf, and HUD’s published income limits for FY2014 are available at
http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il14/index.html. The statute also authorizes the Secretary of HUD to make
exceptions to the 80% of area median income limit, and to set limits that are either higher or lower for a given area, if
doing so is deemed necessary to account for construction costs or unusually high or low family incomes in an area.
52 25 U.S.C. 4131(b)(5).
53 25 U.S.C. 4131(b)(3).
54 25 U.S.C. 4133(a)(2).
55 24 C.F.R. §1000.130.
56 Setting the maximum rent at 30% of family income is often referred to as the “Brooke rule” or “Brooke rents.” The
rule is common in several federal affordable housing programs, such as the public housing program, and the rule
applied in pre-NAHASDA housing programs as well.
57 For example, see the written testimony of Annette Bryan, Executive Director of the Puyallup Nation Housing
Authority, at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on “Identifying Barriers to Indian Housing
Development and Finding Solutions,” April 10, 2013, available at http://www.indian.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?
hearingID=0f0f12d1001eaeade561f3c04023640e.
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Tribes have also noted that it is administratively burdensome to certify tenants’ incomes to ensure
that the 30% rule is being met. Finally, some tribes say that allowing tribes to charge higher rents
is a tribal self-determination issue, arguing that decisions about maximum rents should be left up
to tribes rather than prescribed in law or set by HUD.
Those who support the 30% maximum rent rule believe that it is important for ensuring that
housing is affordable to those with the lowest incomes, and are concerned about the possible
effect on affordability of NAHBG-assisted housing if tribes were allowed to set rents that exceed
30% of income.
Affordability Period
Housing assisted with NAHBG funds must remain affordable for “the remaining useful life of the
property.”58 The 2008 law that reauthorized NAHASDA specified that this long-term affordability
requirement does not apply to households that subsequently take ownership of homeownership
units assisted under NAHASDA.59
Currently, the affordability period applies regardless of the amount of NAHBG funds expended
on a unit, unless a homeowner subsequently takes possession of the unit. This includes units
where relatively small amounts of NAHBG funds are used, such as funding to make relatively
minor repairs to a property, although tribes can choose to set a nominal affordability period for
units that have small investments of NAHASDA funds.60 Some tribes have proposed adding an
exception to having to set any kind of affordability period for privately owned units that use less
than a certain amount in NAHBG funds.61
Selected Other Program Requirements
NAHBG-funded activities are also subject to other federal requirements, including environmental
review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and requirements to
pay workers on NAHBG-assisted projects a prevailing wage under the Davis-Bacon Act.
NAHASDA allows tribes to carry out environmental reviews on their own, as long as they
comply with HUD requirements, or to have HUD carry out the environmental reviews. For
prevailing wage requirements, NAHASDA provides an exception to the Davis Bacon requirement
if contracts include a requirement to pay a tribally determined prevailing wage, allowing tribes to
set their own tribal wage standards rather than using the Davis-Bacon prevailing wages that apply
to other federally funded projects.
58 25 U.S.C. 4135(a)(2).
59 25 U.S.C. 4135(c), as added by P.L. 110-411. The law also provides exceptions to the affordability period in the case
of foreclosure, subject to certain restrictions.
60 See HUD’s Office of Native American Programs, “Useful Life and Binding Commitments,” program guidance No.
2013-06(R), May 10, 2013, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=2013-06USEFULLIFE.PDF.
61 For example, see the National American Indian Housing Council’s Section-by-Section Analysis NAIHC Discussion
Draft, detailing its proposed changes to NAHASDA, http://www.naihc.net/uploads/nahasda/NAHASDA-Section-by-
Section-Summary_061813-final.pdf, and the prepared statement of Russell Sossamon, Executive Director, Choctaw
Nation Housing Authority, Oversight Hearing on Identifying Barriers to Indian Housing Development and Finding
Solutions before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, April 10, 2013, p. 11, http://www.indian.senate.gov/hearings/
loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=13224.
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Sometimes, a project that uses NAHASDA funds might also use funding from another federal
agency, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the BIA. These agencies might
have somewhat different rules for carrying out the requirements of cross-cutting federal laws,
such as environmental reviews and prevailing wage requirements. For example, different
agencies have different requirements for carrying out environmental reviews, meaning that tribes
might have to carry out multiple reviews if they use multiple funding sources.
Some tribes have argued that the different requirements under different federal programs make it
more difficult to combine funding from multiple sources to use for affordable housing activities.
They argue that these duplicative or conflicting requirements are burdensome and costly, making
it more complicated to combine funding sources and reducing the amount of funds available for
housing when more funds have to be used to comply with multiple agencies’ different
requirements for complying with the same federal law. These tribes have advocated allowing
tribes to adopt their own standards for complying with cross-cutting laws or for streamlining
federal requirements. For example, some have suggested that meeting HUD’s standards for
certain requirements, such as environmental reviews, should satisfy other federal agencies’
requirements as well when multiple funding sources are used in a NAHASDA-assisted project.62
Oversight
The NAHASDA statute and regulations include a number of provisions related to the oversight of
NAHBG funds. These provisions include both HUD’s oversight of the recipients of NAHBG
funds, and recipients’ oversight of the activities that they fund with NAHBG grants.
HUD Oversight of Recipients
NAHASDA requires recipients to submit performance reports to HUD each fiscal year describing
the specific activities for which NAHBG funds were used and how they related to the housing
needs set forth in the IHP.63 These reports are known as annual performance reports (APRs), and,
as noted earlier in this report, HUD has recently redesigned the report to combine it with the IHP.
NAHASDA also provides several steps that HUD can take if a recipient of NAHBG funds is not
complying with the requirements of the program. If HUD finds, “after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing,” that a tribe has substantially not complied with NAHASDA
requirements,64 then HUD is to take one of several actions, including terminating assistance to the
tribe, reducing payments by the amount of funds that were not spent properly, limiting funds to
the tribe, or, in certain cases, replacing the TDHE.65 Certain notice and hearing requirements
62 For example, such a provision is included in a 2013 discussion draft for NAHASDA reauthorization circulated by the
National American Indian Housing Council, a non-profit organization that represents the housing interests of Native
Americans and Native Hawaiians and whose members include tribes, Alaska Native Villages, and the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands. A section-by-section analysis of the National American Indian Housing Council’s discussion
draft is available on its website at http://www.naihc.net/uploads/nahasda/NAHASDA-Section-by-Section-
Summary_061813-final.pdf, with environmental review requirements discussed in Section 104.
63 25 U.S.C. 4164.
64 The 2008 reauthorization of NAHASDA added language specifying that a tribe’s failure to properly report changes
in its formula current assisted stock to HUD is not, by itself, considered substantial noncompliance for the purpose of
this section. See 25 U.S.C. 4161(a)(2).
65 25 U.S.C. 4161.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
apply. The Secretary also has the authority to refer a case to the Attorney General for a civil
action. For less serious instances of noncompliance, HUD can provide technical assistance to the
tribe to ensure that funds are expended in compliance with the requirements of the law.
Any funds that HUD recaptures as a result of a recipient not complying with NAHASDA
requirements are added to the NAHBG funds to be distributed to tribes the following fiscal year.
Recipient Oversight of Grantees
Recipients of NAHASDA funds (i.e., tribes and TDHEs) are required to ensure that grantees (for
example, owners or developers of affordable housing) use the funds in ways that comply with the
program requirements. NAHASDA requires recipients to have enforceable agreements with
owners of housing assisted with NAHASDA funds to ensure long-term compliance and establish
remedies for non-compliance, and to monitor housing activities under NAHASDA at least
annually, including onsite inspections.66
Title VI Loan Guarantee Program
As was described earlier in this report, the legal status of trust lands can make it difficult to obtain
traditional financing for building or purchasing housing in tribal areas. This can impact not only
individuals seeking mortgages to purchase homes, but also tribes seeking loan funds to build
housing or other types of buildings.
NAHASDA authorized a loan guarantee program to help tribes obtain financing for affordable
housing activities under Title VI of the act, and the program is referred to as the Title VI Loan
Guarantee Program. Under the Title VI program, HUD guarantees loans made by private lenders
to tribes that receive Native American Housing Block Grants to help them fund affordable
housing activities. Individual tribal members are not eligible for Title VI loan guarantees.
The same affordable housing activities that are eligible uses of NAHBG funds are eligible under
Title VI. The tribe pledges future NAHBG amounts as collateral for the loan. If the tribe defaults
on the loan, HUD will repay the lender 95% of the remaining principal and interest amount it is
owed.
HUD receives an appropriation each year to cover the costs of the program. In recent years,
Congress has appropriated about $2 million per year to cover the costs of these loan guarantees.
Annual appropriations acts also include a limit on the dollar amount of loans that HUD can insure
under the program in a given year. In FY2013, HUD was authorized to guarantee up to $18
million in loans under this program.
As of June 2013, HUD had guaranteed a total of 74 loans totaling nearly $190 million since the
program began, including six new loans totaling nearly $19.5 million in FY2013.67
66 25 U.S.C. 4163.
67 HUD FY2015 Congressional Budget Justification, p. L-8, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=
FY15CJ_NAT_AM_HG_BLK_GRNTS.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Technical Assistance
NAHASDA also authorizes funding for training and technical assistance. Under Section 703 of
NAHASDA, Congress authorizes funding for “a national organization representing Native
American housing interests” to provide training and technical assistance to IHAs and TDHEs.
Congress has provided funding for training and technical assistance for an organization
representing Native American housing interests in annual appropriations acts, and this funding
has traditionally been awarded to the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC).68
Since FY2012, appropriations acts have provided funding for “national or regional organizations
representing Native American housing interests,” and Congress has indicated that it expects HUD
to award these funds competitively.69 Therefore, in recent years, HUD awarded this funding to
additional organizations as well as the NAIHC.70
Congress has also traditionally set aside additional funding within the NAHBG account for HUD
to provide training and technical assistance related to the inspection of NAHASDA-assisted
housing, various contract expenses, and housing oversight and management.
In FY2013, Congress provided $2 million for HUD to provide technical assistance and $2 million
for national and regional intermediaries representing Native American housing interests (such as
the NAIHC).
Housing Assistance for Native Hawaiians
Background
In 2000, Congress amended NAHASDA to add Title VIII, which provides for housing assistance
for Native Hawaiians.71 Title VIII establishes the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant
(NHHBG) program, which is similar to the Native American Housing Block Grant program.72
However, unlike the NAHBG, the only eligible recipient of funds under the NHHBG is the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), an agency of the state government of Hawaii.73
68 The National American Indian Housing Council is a national non-profit organization that represents Native
Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians living in tribal communities, Alaska Native Villages, and on the
Hawaiian home lands, respectively. Its members include tribes, TDHEs, and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.
For more information, see the NAIHC’s website at http://www.naihc.net/.
69 The conference report accompanying the FY2012 appropriations act, P.L. 112-55, specified that it expected these
funds to be distributed through a competitive process.
70 HUD’s Notice of Funding availability announcing a competition for these and other training and technical assistance
funds is available at http://archives.hud.gov/funding/2012/onap-tta-nofa.pdf. HUD announced the FY2012 technical
assistance funding awards in a press release in February 2013, available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
press/press_releases_media_advisories/2013/HUDNo.13-025.
71 Title VIII was added to NAHASDA by the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (P.L.
106-569). That law also amended the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to add a new loan guarantee
program for Native Hawaiians seeking to buy homes on Hawaiian home lands. That program, known as the Section
184a program, is similar to a loan guarantee program for Native Americans living on tribal lands known as the Section
184 program.
72 The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program is codified at 25 U.S.C. 4221, and regulations governing the
program are at 24 C.F.R. Part 1006.
73 For more information on the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, see its website at http://dhhl.hawaii.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
The DHHL, in turn, can provide funds to local organizations to carry out housing activities. Like
tribes and TDHEs under the NHBG program, the DHHL must submit a housing plan for HUD’s
approval prior to receiving funds.
NHHBG funds must be used for affordable housing activities that benefit low-income Native
Hawaiians who are eligible to live on the Hawaiian home lands. Native Hawaiians are defined as
citizens of the United States who are descended from the aboriginal Hawaiian people. The
Hawaiian home lands are lands that were set aside under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
of 1920 to be used to provide homesteads for Native Hawaiians. The lands are administered by
the DHHL, which provides 99-year homestead leases to eligible Native Hawaiian applicants.74
Those who obtain leases can then build or purchase a home on the land.
Native Hawaiians have some of the most severe housing needs, with nearly 20% of Native
Hawaiians in Hawaii living in poverty and nearly 30% living in overcrowded conditions.75
Furthermore, Hawaii has some of the highest housing costs in the nation, and the Hawaiian home
lands tend to be located in rural areas and often include difficult terrain that presents challenges
for building. All of these factors contribute to a shortage of affordable housing that is available to
Native Hawaiians, particularly on the Hawaiian home lands. According to HUD, DHHL estimates
that there are fewer than 9,000 Native Hawaiian households that currently hold homestead leases
on the Hawaiian home lands, over 26,000 households on the waiting list for leases to reside on
the Hawaiian home lands, and over 32,000 households that could apply to reside on the Hawaiian
home lands. DHHL estimates that there are over 34,000 households in total that may be eligible
for assistance under the NHHBG—that is, Native Hawaiians eligible to reside on the Hawaiian
home lands who are also low-income.76
Eligible Activities
Eligible activities under the NHHBG are similar to the eligible activities under the NAHBG, and
include the development of affordable housing, including new construction, rehabilitation, or
acquisition; providing infrastructure; offering support services and housing management services;
crime prevention activities; developing community facilities that serve low-income Native
Hawaiian residents of affordable housing; and model activities approved by HUD. In recent
years, HUD has allowed the DHHL to use up to 20% of its grant amount for administrative
expenses.77
74 Lessees pay $1 per year for the homestead lease. Applicants can choose leases for residential, agricultural, or pastoral
purposes. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 specified that, to be eligible for a lease on the Hawaiian
Home Lands, an applicant must show that he or she has a Native Hawaiian blood quantum of at least 50%. For more
information, see the DHHL website at http://dhhl.hawaii.gov/applications/applying-for-hawaiian-home-lands/.
75 HUD FY2014 Budget Justifications, p. N-1, citing American Community Survey data. The FY2014 HUD Budget
Justification is available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/cfo/reports/2014/main_toc.
76 HUD FY2015 Budget Justifications, p. N-3.
77 Previously, HUD had limited the amount that the DHHL could use for administrative and planning expenses to 5%.
However, since late 2008, HUD has allowed up to 20% of grant amounts to be used for administrative expenses. See
the FY2013 Native Hawaiian Housing Plan, p. 31, and HUD’s FY2014 Budget Justifications, p. N-6. For the previous
policy limiting administrative expenses to 5% of grant amounts, see U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Office of Native American Programs, Program Guidance NHHBG 2008-01, “Eligible Affordable
Housing Activities and Administrative Expenses,” June 2, 2008, available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=
/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/codetalk/onap/nhhbgprogram/guidance.
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
The NHHBG can be used for both rental and homeownership housing. However, the DHHL has
historically used its NHHBG funding for homeownership housing or related activities (such as
providing infrastructure or offering housing counseling), and has generally not used funding for
rental housing. This appears to be due to the fact that the Hawaiian home lands were originally set
aside for homesteading purposes, and that there are currently a large number of families on the
wait list to receive a homestead lease on the Hawaiian home lands, some of whom have been on
the list for years or even decades. The DHHL has traditionally used NHHBG funding to assist
with constructing or rehabilitating single-family homes on the Hawaiian home lands, or to
provide assistance with financing the purchase or repair of such homes.78 Between 2008 and
2012, NHHBG funds were used to build, acquire, or substantially rehabilitate about 340 homes
and to provide counseling or other services to over 1,000 households.79 The DHHL aims to use
NHHBG funds to assist about 65 families per year with building, acquiring, or substantially
rehabilitating a home.80
Like the NAHBG, housing funded through the NHHBG must remain affordable to low-income
Native Hawaiians for the remaining useful life of the property, and residents of the housing
cannot be asked to pay more than 30% of their adjusted income towards rent or homebuyer
payments.
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Reauthorization
The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program was originally authorized through FY2005.
It has not been reauthorized since then, although Congress has continued to provide funding for
the program in annual appropriations acts. Some policy makers have opposed the reauthorization
of the NHHBG due, in part, to a larger debate about the relationship between the federal
government and Native Hawaiians. Unlike federally recognized tribes, which are sovereign
nations with a government-to-government relationship with the United States, Native Hawaiians
are not recognized by the federal government as a separate political entity. Therefore, some policy
makers have argued that programs that solely benefit Native Hawaiians, such as the NHHBG,
could be construed to be based on race, a constitutionally suspect basis, and could therefore
potentially be deemed to be unconstitutional.81 They also express concerns that such programs
may appear to confer a political status similar to that of tribes on Native Hawaiians.
Policy makers who support reauthorizing the NHHBG have argued that the federal government
should be responsible for providing certain kinds of assistance to Native Hawaiians, similar to the
assistance it provides to Native Americans, based on the history of the United States’ relationship
with Hawaii.82 They also cite the need for affordable housing on the Native Hawaiian home lands
78 Specific types of activities that are funded by NHHBG funds are described in the DHHL’s Native Hawaiian Housing
Plans and Annual Performance Reports, available at http://dhhl.hawaii.gov/nahasda/nahasda-publications/.
79 HUD FY2014 Budget Justifications, p. N-4.
80 HUD FY2014 Budget Justifications, p. N-12.
81 For example, see remarks of Representative Lynn Westmoreland, speaking against reauthorization of the NHHBG in
2007, arguing “ ... Native Hawaiians share none of the unique characteristics possessed by recognized tribes in this
country ... Native Hawaiians have never exercised inherent sovereignty as a native indigenous people, and our
Constitution seeks to eliminate racial separation, not promote it.... ” See Rep. Westmoreland, “Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007,” House debate, Congressional Record,
September 6, 2007, p. H10187.
82 For example, see the remarks of then-Representative Mazie Hirono, speaking in support of the program, arguing that
“Congress has an obligation to Native Hawaiians, whose sovereign government was overthrown with the aid of the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
and issues related to the legal status of the Native Hawaiian home lands that are similar to those
on tribal lands.83
In the 113th Congress, bills have been introduced in the House and the Senate (H.R. 231 and S.
640, respectively) that would reauthorize the NHHBG. Similar bills were introduced in previous
Congresses, but were not enacted into law. A NAHASDA reauthorization bill that has been
reported out of committee in the Senate (S. 1352) would also reauthorize the NHHBG, as would a
NAHASDA reauthorization bill that has been introduced in the House but has not been
considered by committee (H.R. 4277). A NAHASDA reauthorization bill that has been reported
out of committee in the House (H.R. 4329) would not reauthorize the program. However, an
amended version of H.R. 4329 posted on the House Rules Committee website for floor
consideration the week of December 1, 2014 would reauthorize the program through FY2019.84
NAHASDA Reauthorization Efforts in the 113th Congress
The authorization for most NAHASDA programs expired at the end of FY2013. (As noted in the
prior section, the authorization for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant expired at the end
of FY2005.) During the 113th Congress, reauthorization bills have been considered in both
chambers. In the Senate, S. 1352, introduced by Senator Cantwell, was reported out of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs and discharged from the Senate Banking Committee. In the House,
two NAHASDA reauthorization bills were introduced. H.R. 4329, introduced by Representative
Pearce, was reported out of the House Financial Services Committee. The second reauthorization
bill introduced in the House, H.R. 4277, was introduced by Representative Young and has not
been taken up by the committee.
All three bills include some similar provisions but also differ in many ways. The following
describes how the two bills that have been considered by the relevant committees (S. 1352 and
H.R. 4329), as reported out of committee, compare in certain areas.
Program Reauthorizations
Both S. 1352 and H.R. 4329 would reauthorize the NAHBG through FY2018. H.R. 4329 would
authorize $650 million per year, while S. 1352 would continue current language authorizing such
sums as may be necessary. S. 1352 would also reauthorize funding for training and technical
assistance for any fiscal year that funds are appropriated for the Native American Housing Block
Grant.
(...continued)
United States military under the direction of the U.S. minister. Congress has demonstrated this special relationship by
enacting over 150 laws specifically benefitting Native Hawaiians since 1900. None ... have ever been successfully
challenged as unconstitutional.” See Rep. Hirono, “Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Reauthorization Act of 2007,” House debate, Congressional Record, September 6, 2007, p. H10187.
83 For example, see the remarks of Delegate Eni Faleomavaega, speaking in support of the program, arguing that “ ...
the tremendous needs of the Native Hawaiians is exactly the same as the situation with the Native American
community ... All the social and economic problems that we are faced with for our Native American community is
exactly the situation that we are faced with our Native Hawaiian people.” See Del. Faleomavaega, “Hawaiian
Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007,” House debate, Congressional Record, March 21, 2007, p. H2771.
84 See Title VIII of the bill posted on the House Rules Committee website at http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/
20141201/HR4329_SUS_1_xml.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
S. 1352 would reauthorize the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant through FY2018, while
H.R. 4329 would not. However, an amended version of H.R. 4329 posted on the House Rules
Committee website for floor consideration the week of December 1, 2014 would reauthorize the
program.85 (The NHHBG authorization expired in FY2005, but Congress has continued to
appropriate funding for the program.) Neither bill includes provisions related to the Title VI Loan
Guarantee program.
H.R. 4329 would also reauthorize the Section 184 program through which HUD guarantees
certain mortgage loans in tribal areas, while S. 1352 would not. Section 184 is authorized under
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 rather than under NAHASDA.86 An
amended version of H.R. 4329 posted on the House Rules Committee website for floor
consideration the week of December 1, 2014 would also reauthorize the Section 184A program, a
similar program for Native Hawaiians.87
Changes to Program Requirements
Both bills include provisions addressing certain NAHBG requirements. For example, both
contain language related to streamlining environmental review requirements when multiple
sources of federal funds are used; amending affordability restrictions related to certain uses of
NAHASDA funds; providing that NAHASDA lease termination requirements must apply in
projects that use multiple sources of federal funds; and addressing when tribes can exceed the
prescribed limit on the cost of NAHASDA-assisted housing (known as “total development cost”).
While the bills sometimes make the same or similar changes to these requirements, in other cases
they differ in how they address these issues.
While S. 1352 includes a few provisions related to issues not addressed in H.R. 4329, H.R. 4329
includes several provisions not contemplated in S. 1352. Among other things, H.R. 4329 would
exempt tribes from complying with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968, which requires efforts to hire low-income area residents for jobs and contracts that are
generated by federal housing funding. It would also exempt tribes from a requirement that tenants
in NAHASDA-assisted housing pay no more than 30% of their incomes towards rent if a tribe has
a written policy addressing maximum rents.
H.R. 4329 would also allow tribes to use Indian Health Service (IHS) sanitation facilities funding
in conjunction with new HUD-assisted housing. Annual appropriations laws funding the IHS
typically include a provision prohibiting use of the funding for this purpose. Even if the provision
in H.R. 4329 became law, it could be superseded if a provision prohibiting such a use of funds
was included in future enacted appropriations laws.
85 See Title VIII of the bill posted on the House Rules Committee website at http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/
20141201/HR4329_SUS_1_xml.pdf.
86 For more information on the Section 184 program, see HUD’s website at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/homeownership/184.
87 See Title VIII of the bill posted on the House Rules Committee website at http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/
20141201/HR4329_SUS_1_xml.pdf. For more information on the Section 184A program, see HUD’s website at
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/codetalk/onap/program184a.
Congressional Research Service
24
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
New Program Authorizations
Both bills would authorize a program to provide rental assistance to Native American veterans
who are homeless or at risk of homelessness modeled on the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supported
Housing (HUD-VASH) program administered by HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs.88
S. 1352 would allow up to 5% of HUD-VASH funds to be transferred to such a program; H.R.
4329 would require it.
H.R. 4329 would also authorize a demonstration program intended to increase private financing
for tribal housing development. Under certain conditions, tribes could elect to partner with a
private investor to address their affordable housing needs. Rather than using their NAHBG
allocations to directly carry out affordable housing activities, the tribes would use their
allocations in certain ways to support the private development of affordable housing. Certain
NAHASDA requirements would not apply to participating tribes.
Cherokee Freedmen Provisions
When NAHASDA was last reauthorized, in 2008, Congress included language prohibiting the
Cherokee Nation from receiving NAHASDA funding unless (1) a specific injunction in tribal
litigation on the Cherokee Freedmen dispute remained in effect during litigation or (2) there was
a settlement to the litigation. The tribal litigation has since ended, and the injunction remained in
place throughout, presumably removing any restrictions on the Cherokee receiving funding. S.
1352 would repeal the language since its conditions appear to have been fulfilled. H.R. 4329
would continue the language but update it to reference a similar injunction in ongoing federal
litigation, meaning that the Cherokee Nation could only receive NAHASDA funding if the federal
injunction remained in place for the duration of the federal litigation or if a settlement was
reached.
Unspent Block Grant Funds
In recent years, Congress has expressed concern that a few tribes have large balances of
unexpended NAHASDA funds. H.R. 4329 would reduce the formula allocation for a tribe in any
fiscal year that it has unspent NAHBG funds equal to more than three times its expected
allocation. Tribes with allocations under $5 million would be exempted.
NAHASDA Funding
This section describes annual appropriations levels for NAHASDA programs and describes some
of the ways in which tribes have used their funding under NAHASDA.
88 For more information on HUD-VASH, see CRS Report RL34024, Veterans and Homelessness, Veterans and
Homelessness, by Libby Perl.
Congressional Research Service
25
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Appropriations
Each year, Congress appropriates funding to HUD for NAHASDA programs during the annual
appropriations process. Funding for NAHASDA programs is appropriated to two accounts: the
Native American Housing Block Grants account and the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant
account.
Native American Housing Block Grants Account
Funding for all NAHASDA programs, except for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant, is
appropriated to the Native American Housing Block Grants account. NAHBGs themselves make
up the bulk of the funding each year, but the account also includes funding to cover the costs of
the Title VI Loan Guarantee Program and funding for training and technical assistance. In
addition, appropriations laws include a limit on the dollar amount of loans that HUD can insure
under the Title VI program during the fiscal year.
Since the account was first funded, in nominal (non-inflation-adjusted) terms, total funding has
ranged from a low of $600 million (in FY1998, the first year of funding) to a high of $700 million
(in FY2010), with appropriations in most years falling somewhere in between. Table 1 shows the
funding level for each program funded within the NAHBG account, as well as overall account-
level funding, for each year from FY2003 to FY2014.89
Table 1. Annual Appropriations for the Native American Housing Block Grant
Account, FY2003-FY2014
$ in millions
Native
National
American
American
Housing Block
Title VI Loan
Technical
Indian Housing
Fiscal Year
Grants
Guaranteesa
Assistance
Councilb
Total
2003
$636 $2 $4 $2
$645c
2004
$639 $2 $4 $2
$650c
2005 $611 $2d $4 $2 $622c
2006
$616 $2 $4 $1 $624
2007 $617 $2
$4
— $624
2008 $620 $0.5 $2
$2 $624
2009
$635 $2 $4 $4
$645e
2010
$690 $2 $4 $4 $700
2011
$639 $2 $4 $3 $649
2012 $644 $2
$2
$2f $650
2013g $610 $2
$2
$2f $616
2014
$643 $2 $2 $3 $650
89 Total account-level funding for the NAHBG account in the years prior to FY2003 was as follows: $600 million in
FY1998, $620 million in FY1999, $620 million in FY2000, $649 million in FY2001, and $649 million in FY2002.
Congressional Research Service
26
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Source: Table created by CRS based on HUD budget documents.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding, or because of transfers to the Working Capital Fund in certain
years (see table note c.). Al appropriations figures are post-rescission and do not include any supplemental
funding. Figures are not adjusted for inflation, Appropriations acts general y do not specify the amount of funding
for block grants, but specify the overall account amount and set-asides; the block grant amounts in the table are
calculated by subtracting the set-aside amounts from the account’s overall funding level.
a. The appropriations shown for Title VI loan guarantees are the subsidy costs needed to cover the costs of
expected loan defaults after accounting for program fee income. In FY2012, the $2 million in credit subsidy
supported an allowable level of up to $20 million in guaranteed loans.
b. NAHASDA authorizes funding for a national organization that represents Native American housing
interests to provide training and technical assistance to tribes. In practice, this funding has historically been
awarded to the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC). However, see table note f. for
information about FY2012 funding.
c. Totals for FY2001-FY2005 include amounts ranging from $0.5 million to $3 million that were to be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of information technology
systems.
d. In FY2005, $21 million in unused credit subsidy for the Title VI program was rescinded. This rescinded
amount is not reflected in the table. Including the rescinded credit subsidy, the budget authority for the
Title VI program in FY2005 was negative $19 million (that is, the $2 million of new credit subsidy provided
in that fiscal year minus the $21 million rescinded), and the budget authority for the overall account was
$601 million.
e. Total does not include supplemental funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA, P.L. 111-5).
f.
The FY2012 HUD appropriations law (P.L. 112-55) provided $2 mil ion in funding for national or regional
organizations representing Native American housing interests to provide training and technical assistance,
and the accompanying conference report indicated that HUD should distribute the funds competitively. The
funding was distributed to several organizations, including the NAIHC. This was a departure from previous
appropriations laws that provided funding only for a national organization representing Native American
housing interests, which traditional y went to the NAIHC. The FY2013 and FY2014 HUD appropriations
laws included the same language directing funding to national or regional organizations representing Native
American housing interests.
g. FY2013 numbers are post-sequestration and are taken from FY2012 enacted, FY2013, and FY2014 President’s
Budget funding table prepared by HUD.
Unexpended Balances of NAHASDA Funds
In recent years, Congress has expressed concern over the amounts of funds that have been
awarded to tribes under NAHASDA but remain unexpended.90 The amount of unexpended funds
has been as high as nearly $1 billion.91 However, both HUD and tribal groups have noted that a
small number of tribes are responsible for most of the unexpended funds, while most tribes spend
90 For example, in the conference report that accompanied the FY2012 HUD appropriations law, Congress called it
“unconscionable” that some tribes have not spent large balances of NAHBG funds despite the need for housing in tribal
areas. See U.S. Congress, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Programs for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012, and for Other Purposes, Conference Report to Accompany
H.R. 2112, 112th Cong., 1st sess., November 14, 2011, Report 112-284 (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 315-316,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt284/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt284.pdf.
91 In the conference report accompanying the FY2012 appropriations law, the conferees noted that there had been
nearly $1 billion in unexpended NAHBG funds at the beginning of FY2011.
Congressional Research Service
27
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
their funds quickly.92 HUD reports that, as of January 2013, nearly 94% of all NAHBG funds
allocated between the program’s inception in FY1998 and FY2011 had been disbursed.93
Multiple reasons have been put forward to explain the unexpended fund balances. These include
lack of capacity and staff turnover at some tribal housing authorities, the fact that it can take
several years to complete the construction of new housing, and additional difficulties in
constructing housing stemming from the economic downturn or the short building seasons that
some tribes face. Some tribes that receive smaller allocations of funds might need to save several
years’ worth of funds before they have accumulated enough to undertake certain types of projects,
such as new construction.94 Some tribes also say that the balance of unexpended funds is due to
HUD not providing funds to tribes in a timely manner or being slow to approve waivers or
approvals related to NAHBG-funded projects, and delays by the BIA in approving leases on trust
lands.95 HUD has said that it is providing additional technical assistance to tribes with large
balances of unexpended funds and working with the tribes to help them spend their funds in a
more timely fashion.96
In response to concerns over unexpended funds, Congress has begun including deadlines for the
obligation of NAHBG funds in annual appropriations laws, beginning with the FY2012
appropriations law. For example, Congress specified that the funding that it made available for
FY2012 would remain available for obligation by HUD until the end of FY2016.97 Funds are
generally considered to be obligated when they are committed to a specific project or activity,
such as when a contract is signed.
In general, funds have to be expended no later than five years after the end of the obligation
period.98 Therefore, including an obligation deadline in appropriations acts limits the amount of
time that tribes have to expend funds before they revert to Treasury. Previously, appropriations
laws specified that funds would remain available until expended, meaning that there was no
deadline for tribes to expend their funds. Congress has also begun directing HUD to notify tribes
of their allocation amounts within 60 days of the appropriations law being enacted.
Congress and the Administration have also been considering additional provisions that would
reduce grant amounts for tribes that have large amounts of unexpended funds under certain
92 The Navajo Nation, in particular, has accounted for about half of unexpended funds. Despite the housing needs of the
Navajo Nation, capacity issues and other concerns have led to a slow spend out of NAHBG funds. The Navajo Nation
also consistently receives the largest NAHBG formula grant amount because it is the largest tribe and because of the
extent of its housing needs.
93 HUD FY2014 Budget Justifications, p. L-12, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=
NAHSINGBLOCKGRANTS.pdf.
94 HUD FY2014 budget justifications, p. L-12.
95 For example, see the National American Indian Housing Coalition’s letter to the Honorable Maria Cantwell,
Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Re: Responses to Questions to Complete the Record for the
Hearing Entitled “Identifying Barriers to Indian Housing Development and Finding Solutions” (April 10, 2013), May
24, 2013, pp. 4-5.
96 HUD FY2014 budget justifications, p. L-12, and written testimony of the Honorable Sandra Henriquez, Assistant
Secretary of Public and Indian Housing for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, before the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs, July 31, 2013, p. 4, http://www.indian.senate.gov/hearings/loader.cfm?csModule=
security/getfile&pageid=13706.
97 See P.L. 112-55.
98 31 U.S.C. 1552(a).
Congressional Research Service
28
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
circumstances. The President’s FY2015 budget request proposed that tribes with undisbursed
funds equal to over three times their formula allocation would have their grant amount for the
fiscal year reduced commensurately.99 This proposal would not apply to tribes whose formula
allocation is less than $5 million. The FY2015 HUD appropriations bill passed by the House
(H.R. 4745) included this provision, and a similar provision was included in the NAHASDA
reauthorization legislation considered by the House Financial Services Committee (H.R. 4329), as
amended during markup.100 To date, no such provision has been enacted into law.
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants Account
Table 2 shows the annual funding levels for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program
in each year since it was first funded in FY2002.101 Prior to FY2006, NHHBG funding was
appropriated within the Community Development Fund account within HUD. Since FY2006,
NHHBG funding has been appropriated in its own account.
The NHHBG account generally includes a set-aside of funds to be used for training and technical
assistance, and this amount has been relatively steady over the years. In FY2013, the $12 million
appropriated to the account included about $284,000 for technical assistance.102 In FY2014, $10
million was appropriated to the account, including $300,000 for training and technical
assistance.103
Table 2. Annual Appropriations for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant
Account, FY2002-FY2014
$ in millions
Fiscal Year
Amount
2002 $10
2003 $10
2004 $9
2005 $9
2006 $9
2007 $9
2008 $9
2009 $10
99 FY2015 HUD Budget Justifications, p. L-18.
100 This provision was included in the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4329 that was ordered to be
reported by the House Financial Services Committee. The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is
available on the committee’s website at http://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-113hr-hr4329-p000588-
amdt-001.pdf.
101 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “HUD Assistant Secretary Liu Unveils Two New Programs
to Provide Affordable Housing to Native Hawaiians,” press release, June 13, 2002, http://archives.hud.gov/news/2002/
pr02-064.cfm. A list of the amount awarded to each recipient is available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/
huddoc?id=2013IHBGGrantChart.pdf.
102 HUD’s FY2014 Budget Justifications, p. N-13, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=
NATIVEHIHSGBLOCKGRANTS.pdf.
103 P.L. 113-76
Congressional Research Service
29
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Fiscal Year
Amount
2010 $13
2011 $13
2012 $13
2013 $12
2014 $10
Source: Table created by CRS based on HUD and congressional budget documents. The FY2013 number is
post-sequestration and is taken from FY2012 enacted, FY2013, and FY2014 President’s Budget funding table
prepared by HUD.
Notes: All figures are post-rescission and do not include any supplemental funding. Figures are not adjusted for
inflation. The NHHBG first received funding in FY2002. Prior to FY2006, funding for the NHHBG was
appropriated as a set-aside within the Community Development Fund account. Beginning in FY2006, funding for
the NHHBG was appropriated within its own account.
Tribes’ Uses of NAHBG Funds
As described, tribes can use NAHBG funds for a wide variety of affordable housing activities that
benefit low-income tribal members. In general, tribes rehabilitate more units with NAHBG funds
than they build or acquire, and tribes are more likely to use funds for homeownership housing
than for rental housing.
Units Assisted
Between FY2008 and FY2013, HUD reports that a total of nearly 40,000 units of housing were
built, acquired, or rehabilitated using NAHBG funds.104 On average, tribes used NAHBG funds to
build, acquire, or rehabilitate between 5,000 and 8,000 units per year. As Figure 2 shows,
rehabilitation of housing units is more common than building or acquiring units. In FY2013,
about 1,500 units were built or acquired using NAHBG funds, compared to nearly 4,000 units
rehabilitated.
104 HUD FY2015 Budget Justifications, p. L-16.
Congressional Research Service
30
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Figure 2. Units Built, Acquired, and Rehabilitated with NAHBG Funds
FY2008-FY2013
Source: Figure created by CRS based on data in HUD’s FY2015 budget justification, p. L-16.
HUD estimates that over 100,000 housing units have been built, acquired, or rehabilitated with
NAHBG funds since the program began. Of this total, over 35,000 units have been built or
acquired, and almost 68,000 have been substantially rehabilitated.105 Until recently, HUD did not
systematically collect information on the number of units that benefited from NAHBG funds in
ways other than construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation, such as through the use of rental
assistance or down payment assistance programs.106 HUD has begun collecting more data on
other eligible activities with a revised IHP/APR form that it began using in FY2012, suggesting
that more data on these uses of NAHBG funds might be available in the future.107
A 2009 evaluation of the NAHBG program conducted for HUD provided some estimates on the
number of households or units that were assisted through other types of activities over the course
of a single year. The evaluation estimated, on the basis of interviews with selected tribes, that
tribes had used NAHBG funds to assist a total of about 1,000 households with down payment
assistance, about 8,500 households through various rental assistance programs, and about 5,000
households with emergency assistance with making rent, mortgage, or utility payments during the
most recent program year (for most tribes, 2007). Tribes had also provided ongoing maintenance
or operating assistance during the year to about 5,000 rental units that had been developed using
NAHBG funds.108
105 Ibid.
106 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Native American Housing: Tribes Generally View Block Grant Program as
Effective, but Tracking of Infrastructure Plans and Investments Needs Improvement, GAO-10-326, February 2010, p.
13, http://www.gao.gov/assets/310/301157.pdf.
107 The combined IHP/APR form is available on HUD’s website at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/codetalk/onap/guidance, and includes sections on output measures for a
variety of types of housing assistance.
108 ACKCO, Inc. and Abt Associates, Inc., Indian Housing Block Grant Evaluation Final Report, prepared for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, p. 26.
Congressional Research Service
31
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
In addition to developing and maintaining new units and providing other types of housing
assistance, tribes also currently continue to maintain about 31,000 existing low-rent public
housing units and about 14,500 Mutual Help units that were developed prior to NAHASDA.109
Homeownership vs. Rental Units
In general, many tribes choose to use NAHASDA funds to develop more new homeownership
units rather than rental units.110 For example, GAO found that, between FY2003 and FY2008,
tribes used NAHBG funds to build, acquire, or rehabilitate nearly four times as many
homeownership units as rental units. Specifically, as Figure 3 shows, tribes assisted 40,000
homeownership units using NAHBG funds during this time period, compared to just over 10,000
rental units.111
One reason that tribes give for assisting more homeownership units than rental units is the
ongoing cost to tribes of maintaining and operating rental units built with NAHASDA funds.
Ongoing maintenance of rental units is expensive for tribes and TDHEs, while the maintenance
and other costs of homeownership housing become the responsibility of the homeowner rather
than remaining the responsibility of the tribe.112
Figure 3. Homeownership and Rental Units Developed with NAHBG Funds
Total Number of Units Developed between FY2003-FY2008
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Homeownership
Rental
Built
Acquired
Rehabilitated
Source: Figure created by CRS based on HUD data included in U.S. Government Accountability Office, Native
American Housing: Tribes Generally View Block Grant Program as Effective, but Tracking of Infrastructure Plans
and Investments Needs Improvement, GAO-10-326, February 2010, p. 13, http://www.gao.gov/assets/310/
301157.pdf.
109 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FY2014 IHBG Estimate Current Assisted Stock,
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=fy14estfcas.pdf.
110 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FY2014 Budget Justification, p. L-15, http://portal.hud.gov/
hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=NAHSINGBLOCKGRANTS.pdf.
111 GAO, February 2010 report, p. 14.
112 GAO February 2010 report, p. 15.
Congressional Research Service
32
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Notes: Figures include units built, acquired, or rehabilitated using NAHBG funds, but not other forms of rental
or homeownership assistance (such as rental vouchers or down payment assistance programs).
FY2014 NAHBG Grants Made to Tribes
Every federally recognized tribe and the five state-recognized tribes that were grandfathered in
under NAHASDA are eligible to receive a formula allocation of NAHBG funds. Each year, HUD
runs the NAHBG formula to determine how much each tribe is eligible to receive under the
formula (a tribe’s formula allocation).113 However, the number and size of grants actually made
can differ from the number and size of these formula allocations for several reasons. For one
thing, a TDHE can administer funding for more than one tribe, so multiple tribes’ formula
allocations may be combined into one grant to a TDHE. Furthermore, some tribes that are eligible
for formula allocations may not receive a grant in a given year. This could occur because a tribe
has elected not to take its formula allocation, because it did not submit an Indian Housing Plan or
that plan was not approved by HUD, or for other reasons.
In FY2014, grants totaling $638 million in NAHBG funds were awarded to 363 recipients (tribes
and TDHEs). Together, these recipients represented over 550 tribes and Alaska Native villages.114
The amounts of the individual grants ranged from just over $50,000 (several tribes) to nearly $74
million (the Navajo Housing Authority). The $74 million awarded to the Navajo Housing
Authority was two and a half times as large as the next highest grant amount (nearly $29 million
to the Cherokee Nation).
The mean grant amount was nearly $1.8 million, while the median grant was nearly $619,000.115
Nearly 160 recipients received grants of less than $500,000; of these, almost 50 received
allocations of less than $100,000. About 140 recipients received grants of more than $1 million;
of these, almost 25 had grant amounts of more than $5 million, and 9 had grants of more than $10
million.116 Figure 4 summarizes how many of the 363 grants made to tribes and TDHEs in
FY2014 fell within certain ranges.
113 Spreadsheets showing each tribe’s formula allocation for the fiscal year are available on HUD’s website at
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/codetalk/onap/ihbgformula.
Formula allocations may differ from actual grant amounts for the reasons described in the text.
114 These figures are based on data provided to CRS by HUD.
115 The mean and median formula allocation amounts are lower than the mean and median grant amounts. This is
because some tribes’ formula allocations are combined into one larger grant to a single TDHE. The mean formula
allocation for FY2014 was $1.1 million and the median formula allocation was $279,000.
116 Some of these grants are for a single tribe, while others are for a TDHE that administers the NAHBG for multiple
tribes. For example, the two largest grants, to the Navajo Housing Authority and the Cherokee Nation, respectively,
were made to individual tribes and represent those tribes’ formula allocations. The third largest grant, made to the
AVCP Regional Housing Authority in Alaska, represents the formula allocations for the 51 tribes that have designated
that entity as their TDHE.
Congressional Research Service
33
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Figure 4. Number of FY2014 NAHBGs Within Certain Dollar Ranges
Source: Figure created by CRS based on data provided by HUD.
Notes: Figure shows the number of grants made under the NAHBG program. A grant can be one tribe’s
formula allocation, or it can be several tribes’ formula allocations combined into a single grant to one TDHE
that has been designated by multiple tribes. Therefore, some larger grants can be made up of multiple
tribes’ smaller formula allocations. Some tribes that are eligible for formula allocations may not receive a
grant in a given year for the reasons described in the text.
Tribes can leverage their NAHBG funds—that is, use the funds they receive through the program
to attract additional funds from other sources—or otherwise combine NAHBG funds with other
funding streams to develop affordable housing. The Title VI program is an example of leveraging,
because it allows tribes to use their NAHBG funds to help them obtain additional financing from
private sources. Leveraging of HUD funding was allowed prior to NAHASDA, but was not
common, and some tribes have identified the ability to leverage funds as a major benefit of
NAHASDA.117 However, HUD has suggested that the ability of some tribes to leverage Title VI
funds is limited because tribes can only borrow up to five times the need portion of their NAHBG
formula allocations.118
Leveraging or otherwise combining funds from multiple sources might be particularly important
for tribes who receive relatively small grants under the NAHBG, since those grants alone might
not be enough to undertake some larger-scale housing projects. For example, a tribe that receives
an allocation of $50,000 is unlikely to be able to construct or acquire new housing units with its
NAHBG funding alone, and may have to focus on other, lower-cost affordable housing activities
unless it is able to combine its NAHBG funding with funding from other sources. However,
smaller tribes might be less likely than larger tribes to have the capacity to seek out or administer
funding from additional sources.
Other sources of funds available to tribes can include other federal programs, as well as state,
local, tribal, or private funds. Some examples of other federal sources of funding for housing
might include other HUD programs, the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) administered by
the Department of the Treasury, or housing programs administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). Tribes might also be able to access funding for related projects, such as
117 GAO February 2010 report, p. 22.
118 HUD, FY2015 Budget Justifications, p. L-8, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=
FY15CJ_NAT_AM_HG_BLK_GRNTS.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
34
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
infrastructure needed to support housing development, from agencies including the BIA, USDA,
or the Indian Health Service (IHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS).119
While combining funds from multiple sources can make it easier for tribes to address a wider
range of housing needs, it also means that tribes have to comply with multiple programs’
requirements. Sometimes, these requirements might be duplicative, and in some cases the
requirements of different programs might not be compatible. This can lead to challenges for tribes
in leveraging NAHBG funding, including additional expense or time devoted to complying with
multiple programs’ requirements.
119 For many years, Congress has stipulated in annual appropriations acts that funding for sanitation facilities
appropriated to the Indian Health Service (IHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services may not be used
to construct sanitation facilities for new homes that are funded through HUD programs. (Although IHS is part of the
Department of Health and Human Services, it is traditionally funded through the annual appropriations acts for the
Department of the Interior.) The provision reflects a view that HUD funds should be used to provide infrastructure for
HUD-assisted housing, while IHS infrastructure funding should be available to provide needed infrastructure to
existing homes and homes funded through other agencies’ programs.
Congressional Research Service
35
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
Appendix. Census Data in the NAHBG Formula
Data from the decennial Census are used for many aspects of the NAHBG formula. Some issues
have arisen related to the use of these data to calculate formula allocations. First, some tribes have
argued that other sources, such as tribal enrollment or survey data, would more accurately
identify the population that NAHASDA is intended to serve than the Census data. Second, since
2000, the Census has allowed respondents to identify themselves as belonging to more than one
race, leading to questions about whether the NAHBG formula should take into account only those
who identify solely as American Indians or Alaska Natives, or those who also identify as
American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with another race.
This appendix provides a brief overview of these two issues. In general, tribes have indicated that
they wish to come to a consensus about formula issues among themselves through the negotiated
rulemaking procedure, rather than having HUD or Congress make decisions on how to handle
these issues.120 Tribes have previously discussed these issues in negotiated rulemaking, but have
not come to a consensus regarding any changes to date.121
Using Census Data to Calculate the Need Portion of the Formula
The NAHASDA regulations, as agreed upon in negotiated rulemaking, specify that the data
source used to calculate the need portion of the formula must be data that are “collected in a
uniform manner and that can be confirmed and verified for all AIAN [American Indian and
Alaska Native] households and persons living in an identified area.”122 The regulations also
specify that, initially, the data source used would be decennial Census data. HUD has continued
to use Census data to calculate the need portion of the formula grant amounts for the NAHBG,
including data on the number of American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) households.
There has been disagreement among tribes on whether Census data are the best data for HUD to
use to allocate NAHBG funding. Some tribes believe that it is the most uniform, verifiable source
of data available, and therefore is the fairest way to allocate funding among tribes. Other tribes,
however, argue that Census data may not be representative of the population that NAHASDA is
meant to serve.
NAHASDA provides funds to tribes to provide affordable housing to people who are members of
federally recognized (or a small number of state-recognized) tribes and are living in a tribe’s
120 For example, see the National American Indian Housing Council, “A Resolution Supporting Immediate
Reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act,” Resolution #2013-02,
stating that the “NAIHC’s consensus-based position on NAHASDA reauthorization does not propose to change the
Indian Housing Block Grant funding allocation formula, recognizing that any change to the funding allocation formula
should be negotiated openly and on a government-to-government basis through a negotiated rulemaking process.” See
http://www.naihc.net/uploads/resolutions/2013/Resolution-2013-02-FINAL.pdf.
121 Negotiated rulemaking on the NAHBG formula held in 2003-2004 included discussions on both of these formula
issues, but the negotiated rulemaking committee did not reach a consensus on any changes related to these issues. See
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act (NAHASDA); Revisions to the Indian Housing Block Grant Program Formula,” 70 Federal Register 9496,
February 25, 2005.
122 24 C.F.R. §1000.330.
Congressional Research Service
36
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
formula area.123 However, the Census counts include anyone who identifies as American Indian or
Alaska Native, whether or not they are enrolled members of such a tribe. Some of the people who
identify as AIAN in the Census might not be enrolled tribal members at all, or they might be
members of tribes that are not eligible under NAHASDA (such as state-recognized tribes, or
Canadian or South American tribes). Therefore, some tribes have argued that Census data do not
provide an accurate count of the tribal population, as opposed to the overall AIAN population,
and have suggested that tribes should have the option of using alternative data sources that better
reflect the population that NAHASDA is intended to serve. They also argue that using the
reported AIAN numbers in the Census rather than data that count enrolled tribal members
effectively distributes NAHBG funds based on the number of people who identify with a specific
racial group rather than based on their political status as tribal members.
Some possible alternative data sources that could be used include tribal enrollment data, tribal
censuses, or data collected by other federal agencies. Many tribes have argued that one or more of
these sources might more accurately reflect the tribal population. Furthermore, tribes have
pointed out that, as sovereign nations, they choose the conditions of tribal membership; therefore,
they argue that they should be allowed to choose the best data to measure their own tribal
populations.124
Other tribes have opposed using data sources other than the Census, arguing that the Census data
are the only available data that are collected in a “uniform” and “verifiable” manner across tribes,
as required by the regulations.125 These tribes argue that existing alternative data sources each
have drawbacks. For example, some data might not be collected by all tribes, or the data that are
produced might not be standardized or verified across tribes.126 These tribes argue that it would be
expensive and burdensome to require all tribes to adopt a single new data source, particularly if it
required tribes to begin collecting data that they do not collect currently.127 They also argue that it
would be cumbersome to allow tribes to each choose different data sources to use, and that this
approach could lead to delays in funds being awarded while HUD verified the accuracy of many
different data sources.
123 The definition of “Indian” under NAHASDA is “any person who is a member of an Indian tribe,” and the definition
of “Indian tribe” is limited to federally recognized tribes or state-recognized tribes that received funding under the
Housing Act of 1937 within the five years before NAHASDA was enacted.
124 For example, see “Supplemental Comments of the Cheyenne River Housing Authority in Response to HUD Notice
Concerning the Use of Census Data in the IHBG Program,” April 23, 2007, Docket No. FR-5055-N-02, available at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=HUD-2006-0362-0092, arguing that “The decennial census data is an
inadequate data set for HUD to use in determining the number of tribal members within NAHASDA formula areas
because the census fails to distinguish recognized tribal members who are entitled to receive NAHASDA funds from
self-identifying non-tribal members who are not entitled to receive these funds. The census specifically disregards the
unique political status of recognized tribes and its use in the formula process is fundamentally flawed.”
125 For example, see Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act (NAHASDA); Revisions to the Indian Housing Block Grant Program Formula,” 70 Federal
Register 9496, February 25, 2005, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-02-25/pdf/05-3642.pdf.
126 For example, see Building Research Council, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Report on Alternative
Data Sources,” February 1, 2001, http://archives.hud.gov/offices/pih/codetalk/rulemaking/2003/2003junalternative.pdf,
identifying strengths and weaknesses of certain existing alternative data sources.
127 For example, see the written testimony of the Honorable Waldo Walker, Chairman of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada
and California, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, hearing on “Legislative Hearing on Discussion Draft Legislation
to Amend and Reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act,” July 19, 2007,
http://www.indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Walker071907.pdf. The testimony supports the right of each tribe to choose
the data source it wants to use, but opposes a universal data collection system on the grounds that it would be extremely
burdensome for small tribes.
Congressional Research Service
37
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
The 2008 reauthorization of NAHASDA included a provision directing the Secretary of HUD to
contract with an organization to carry out a study of data sources, including sources other than the
Census, that could be used to evaluate Native American housing needs for the purposes of the
formula.128 The law authorized appropriations to carry out the study, but no funds have been
appropriated, and the study has not been carried out.
“Single-Race” and “Multi-Race” Census Data
Beginning in 2000, Census respondents have had the option of identifying themselves as
belonging to more than one race. The NAHASDA statute and regulations do not specify whether
HUD should use data related only to the number of individuals who identify solely as American
Indian or Alaska Native (“single-race data”), or if it should also include the number who identify
as American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with another race (“multi-race data”).
For the FY2004 formula allocations, HUD chose to use the total number of individuals who
identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, regardless of whether they also identified with
another race. HUD said that it made this decision because it believed it to be the most inclusive of
all Native Americans living in a tribe’s formula area.129 However, many tribes disagreed with both
this decision itself and with HUD’s decision to use the multi-race data without consulting tribes
through negotiated rulemaking or a notice and comment period. Since FY2006, annual
appropriations acts have directed HUD to calculate the formula both ways for each tribe—that is,
using the single-race data and the multi-race data—and to award each tribe the larger of the two
grant amounts.
Tribes have not reached a consensus about the single-race and multi-race data through negotiated
rulemaking. In 2006, at Congress’s direction, HUD solicited comments on its use of multi-race
data in the NAHBG formula. Many tribes argued against using the multi-race data, maintaining
that the single-race data are a better approximation of the tribal population that NAHASDA is
intended to serve. These tribes raised concerns that those who identify as AIAN under the multi-
race data might be less likely to be enrolled tribal members or less likely to live on reservations,
and that using the multi-race data could therefore shift NAHASDA funding away from tribal
members living on traditional reservations towards tribes that have more urban areas included in
their formula areas.130
Although many tribes are in favor of using the single-race data, there are some tribes that favor
using the multi-race data. These tribes argue that there are tribal members who identify as
belonging to multiple races, and that using only the single-race data would therefore exclude
128 25 U.S.C. 4152(a)(2), as added by P.L. 110-411.
129 Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Use of Census Data in the IHBG Program; Notice,” 71 Federal
Register 74748-74749, December 12, 2006.
130 For example, the Navajo Housing Authority commented that “ ... the problem is that the multi-race data includes
many people who are ineligible for NAHASDA funds, therefore allocating funds for people who will never be using
the program” and that the use of multi-race data “resulted in a massive shift of resources from areas with populations
that largely self-identify as AIAN alone (which tend to be rural reservation lands) to areas including populations that
largely self-identify as AIAN in combination with other races (which tend to be urban, non-reservation areas).” See the
comment submitted by Aneva Yazzie of the Navajo Housing Authority at http://federal.eregulations.us/rulemaking/
document/HUD-2006-0362-0001.
Congressional Research Service
38
c11173008
.
NAHASDA: Background and Funding
these tribal members. These tribes argue that using the multi-race data is a better reflection of the
total population that they serve.131
Author Contact Information
Katie Jones
Analyst in Housing Policy
kmjones@crs.loc.gov, 7-4162
131 For example, see comments submitted by the Cherokee Nation, the Oneida Housing Authority, the Seminole Nation
of Oklahoma, and the Ketchikan Indian Community at http://federal.eregulations.us/rulemaking/document/HUD-2006-
0362-0001.
Congressional Research Service
39
c11173008