Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives

Final Report Presentation:

1

Final Report Presentation: Draft for Comments

July 20, 2016

Nancy PindusTom Kingsley

Diane Levy

Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives

2

Comments:

Housing_needs_report@hud.gov

CONTEXT

� Background

� Today review main findings of “Final Report” focusing on housing needs & programs in tribal areas

� Separate project reports: Interim Report; Urban Areas; Native Hawaiians; Mortgage Lending

� Goal

3

� Goal

� Provide clear, credible, and consistent information that can inform policy in ways that enable Tribes to more effectively use resources to improve housing conditions

� Data Sources – This Report� Secondary sources - mostly U.S. Census products

� Primary data collection in tribal areas: in-person survey of households; phone survey of Tribal/TDHE officials; site visit interviews

FINAL REPORT OUTLINE

� Part 1 - Demographic, Social, Economic

� Population; social conditions; economic conditions; tribal area diversity

� Part 2 – Housing Conditions & Needs

� Conditions nationally; problems & needs in tribal areas;

4

� Conditions nationally; problems & needs in tribal areas; overcrowding & homelessness; homeownership

� Part 3 – Housing Policies & Programs

� Federal housing assistance & NAHASDA; IHBG production & administration; challenges; conclusions

5

AIAN GEOGRAPHIES

� AIAN Counties (526 counties)

� American Indian/Alaska Native Tribal Areas (617 areas)

� Surrounding Counties (480 counties)

Non-AIAN Counties (2,612 counties)

6

� Non-AIAN Counties (2,612 counties)

� Other Metropolitan

� Other Non-metropolitan

Main Findings on

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Main Findings on

7

Significant population growth continues

in tribal areas & surrounding counties

21 33 129

180 560 1,021

1,148

1,012

1,321

1,000

1,200

1,400

AIA

N P

opu

lati

on

(in

th

ou

san

ds)

AIAN Populat ion (in thousands)

8

872 934

506 578

21

111

184

395

-

200

400

600

800

2000 2010 2000 2010

AIA

N P

opu

lati

on

(in

th

ou

san

ds)

Tribal Areas

Mult i-race

AIAN Alone Hispanic

AIAN Alone Non-Hispanic

Surrounding Counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 2000 and 2010

Socio-economic problems for AIAN, typically:

- Worse than for non-Indians everywhere

- Worse in tribal areas than other places

32%Tribal Areas

Poverty Rates, 2006-10

AIAN Population

9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010

18%

26%

22%

28%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Other Non-metropolitan areas

Other Metropolitan areas

Surrounding Counties

United States-- All Races

Socio-economic conditions

Great diversity across tribal areas

10Source: Analysis of 2006-10 American Community Survey Data

Main Findings on

HOUSING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS

Main Findings on

11

Housing problems – standards & sources

� Follow HUD standards

� Physical problems

- Systems deficiencies: plumbing, kitchen, heating, electrical

- Condition

- Overcrowding

� Cost-burden

12

� Cost-burden

� Sources

� Our household survey – a snapshot - all problems but can’t compare across times and places

� Census/ACS – no data on heating, electrical or condition deficiencies, but can make comparisons

Survey results - AIAN housing problems in tribal areas

Problems still much worse than for non-Indians

nationwide (except for electricity, cost-burden)

AIAN in Total

Tribal Areas US

(Hshld.Surv. (AHS-

2013-15) 2013)

FACILITIES PROBLEM

% with problem

INDIVIDUAL HOUSING PROBLEMS

13

FACILITIES PROBLEM

Plumbing 5.6 1.3

Kitchen 6.6 1.7

Electrical 1.1 1.4

Heating 12.0 0.1

CONDITION PROBLEM 8.1 0.8

OVERCROWDED 15.9 2.2

COST BURDEN 37.5 36.1

Source: Household Survey

Note: mutually exclusive categories, individual households can be counted more than once

When indicators are combined:

34% have one or more physical problems

57% have physical or cost problem

AIAN in Total

Tribal Areas US

(Hshld.Surv. (AHS-

2013-15) 2013)

FACILITIES/CONDITION PROBLEMS

Plumbing/Kitchen 10.2 3.0

% with problem

HOUSING PROBLEMS COMBINED

14

Plumbing/Kitchen 10.2 3.0

Other Heating/Electrical/Cond. 13.0 2.0

Subtotal 23.0 5.0

OTHER OVERCROWDED 10.8 2.0

SUBTOTAL - PHYSICAL PROBLEMS 34.0 7.0

COST BURDEN ONLY 22.7 33.0

TOTAL WITH ANY PROBLEM 56.7 40.0

Source: Household Survey

Note: mutually exclusive categories, individual households

can be counted only once

Illustrative estimate: 62,000 new units needed

27,000 to eliminate overcrowding

35,000 to replace other severely inadequate units

Total

Hsehlds Rooms/ Persons/ Over- Severely Total

(000) unit unit crowding inadequate (000)

All households (000) 399 5.3 3.6 27 35 62

New units needed to eliminate

15

Overcrowded but not

severely inadequate 53 4.4 6.5 22 na 22

Overcrowded &

severely inadequate 11 4.1 6.8 5 11 16

Severely inadequate but

not overcrowded 24 5.3 3.0 na 24 24

Others 312 5.6 3.0 na na na

Source: Estimates based on household survey

Census measures (physical problems include plumbing/kitchen & overcrowding) show:

-Improvement in physical problems since 1990

-But still much worse than for non-Indians

16

AIAN cost–burden in tribal areas

Grown modestly, 1990 to 2006-10

And less serious than for non-Indians, 2006-10

17

Housing problems in tribal areas -

Physical problems concentrated in three regions

18

Housing problems - overcrowding

Again, great diversity across tribal areas

19Source: Analysis of 2006-10 American Community Survey Data

Homelessness in tribal areas:Serious, but mostly translates into overcrowding

� Culture supports taking in family members and others who need a place to stay

� All TDHEs say doubling-up occurs; 63% say it is major problem

� Very few say literal homelessness significant

� Household heads recognize the problem but only a minority would ask people to leave

20

minority would ask people to leave

� 39% of all households are extended families; 19% of total said they had more members than can live in unit comfortably

� 17% have members who are there only because they have no place else to go (“doubled up”); only 19% of this group would ask people to leave if they could

� However, 81% of the members of those households would like to move to their own unit if they could

� Estimate of “doubled-up” persons in tribal areas: 42,100 – 84,700

Strong preference for homeownership in tribal areas; not yet adequately addressed

� Homeownership rate in tribal areas already high, but many are renters & almost all want to be owners

� Survey indicates 68% of households were owners 2014-15

� 90% of renters said would prefer to own their home (90% of those said would contribute own labor to do so)

Would-be-owners face barriers

21

� Would-be-owners face barriers

� 9% of renters had applied for mortgage but were denied

� Most common reasons: low credit score (or lack of credit history) & insufficient funds for down payment

� Those who had never applied noted additional barriers: no regular income and no access to a mortgage lender

� 29% said did not know how to buy a home or were unfamiliar with loan application process

Unique challenges to lending in Indian Country are being addressed by Section 184

� The Section 184 Loan program provides lenders with a 100 percent guarantee for mortgages to AIAN borrowers originated on tribal trust land

� Eliminates problem of using tribal trust land as collateral

� Section 184 lending volume has increased dramatically

22

Section 184 lending volume has increased dramatically since 2005

� 88% of loans were on fee-simple land

� Challenges to lending on tribal trust land remain:

� Processing hurdles—environmental reviews and land title reports

� Lenders say tribal lending requires specialized knowledge and long-term commitment of senior management at lender institutions

Main Findings on

NAHASDA – PERFORMANCE AND IMPLICATIONS

Main Findings on

23

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996

NAHASDA

� Earlier HUD housing assistance in tribal areas

� 1937 Act programs – Low Rent & Mutual Help

� 1960s to early 1990s – substantial production

24

� Strong HUD influence, through IHAs

� NAHASDA

� Funds go directly to Tribes that design and operate programs

� Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) allocated by formula

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996

NAHASDA (continued)

� Strengthening tribal influence

� Negotiated Rule Making

� Tribes Prepare Indian Housing Plans (IHPs) and

25

Annual Performance Reports (APRs)

� HUD’s Office of Native American Programs (ONAP)

� Provides TA/Training, other supports

� Strong performance monitoring system

Consistent IHBG funding in nominal $ -

but notable decline in constant $

600

700

800

Amount of IHBG Funds Awarded, 1998 to 2014

26

0

100

200

300

400

500

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

19

98

Do

lla

rs (

in m

illi

on

s)

Year

Constant 1998 Dollars

Nominal Dollars

Source: HUD ONAP LOCCS Report , current as of June 1, 2015.Note: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided an addit ional $504,201,481 in IHBG funding.

IHBG expenditures eroded by inflation

Housing development $/year in 2011-14 about half of 1998-2006 level in constant $

27

Decline in pre-NAHASDA assisted stock -

Mostly due to conveyance of Mutual Help units to

residents

28

Substantial IHBG housing production

Reduction in new construction share in later

years

29

Ratio of HUD assisted units to low income households in tribal areas

- Higher now than in 1990

30

Unassisted vs. Assisted – Quality/Satisfaction

- Differences not statistically significant

- But majority satisfied with assisted housing

Conf. Conf.

Percent Interv. Percent Interv.

HOUSING PROBLEMS

Physical Problems

Facilities/condition 22.4 22.3

Assisted Unassisted

31

Facilities/condition 22.4 22.3

Other Overcrowded 18.6 ±5.4 9.7 ±2.6

Subtotal 40.9 ±8.7 32.0 ±9.7

Cost Burden Only 27 ±9.2 21.8 ±7.0

Total One or More Problems 67.6 ±9.4 53.8 ±6.0

SATISFACTION

Very dissatisfied 5.7 ±3.5 5.0 ±1.6

Dissatisfied 8.8 ±3.8 7.3 ±3.5

Somewhat satisfied 27.1 ±9.4 28.7 ±5.2

Very satisfied 28.8 ±5.9 39.6 ±7.6

Source: Household Survey

Tribes/TDHEs & NAHASDA – Major administrative challenge met

� Large increase in no. of grantees and in share that are tribal offices

� 1995: 187 IHAs administered program for 467 Tribes

� 2014: 363 compliant IHPs for 553 Tribes

� 41% now administered by offices of tribal government - rest are TDHEs (96% of those say they are or had been an IHA)

32

� Tribes/TDHEs functioning reasonably well

� Though some concerns about capacity, ONAP reports general compliance with requirements; entities able to disburse rapidly

� For most, number of full-time staff have remained stable over past 3 years (but 11 of 22 sites visited said were understaffed)

� Most contract out a range of administrative and building-related functions

Tribes/TDHEs & NAHASDA (continued)

� Recognize enhanced flexibility under NAHASDA (e.g., 83% say easier to leverage private funds now)

� While tribal offices & TDHE’s do not call for major overhaul of IHBG regulations, some changes requested:

general administration (58%) & developing new units (50%)

Most would like to offer assistance to families just above

33

� Most would like to offer assistance to families just above eligibility line (who can’t afford decent housing in tribal areas either)

� Do want more training: priorities are building maintenance, information/computer systems, and case management with residents.

Tribes/TDHEs – Still see major unmet need & major challenges

� Virtually all say significant unmet need remains

� 94% report high unmet need for housing assistance

� 87% say need grew over past 3 years; 99% have waiting list

� Critical challenges still to be faced

� Virtually all say inadequate funding is the primary barrier holding them back

34

holding them back

� Report major barriers to development including: high and rapidly increasing development cost (50%); infrastructure development (70%); availability of trained labor (39%); land assembly (30%)

� Suggest biggest challenges in operating rental program: tenants damaging unit (91%), controlling criminal activity (74%), tenants not paying rent on time (65%)

NAHASDA - Conclusions and Implications

� This project not asked to “evaluate” NAHASDA, but it offers findings pertinent to policy

� Overall, NAHASDA appears to be doing what it set out to do

� Administrative/political challenges in transferring power to Tribes have been met over time

Tribes have been able to mount and sustain high levels of new

35

� Tribes have been able to mount and sustain high levels of new production and rehab (higher rates than before)

� No indication of major quality problems or efficiency (cost) problems

� No indication of major corruption problems (strong ONAP monitoring/audit function)

� Many examples of innovations by Tribes

� Tribal officials and local administrators much prefer operations under NAHASDA to the previous system

Conclusions and Implications (continued)

� Opportunities now: more emphasis on leverage and linkage to economic development

� Without expansion of IHBG funds, these are the only effective opportunities to improve results

� Means HUD partnering with others to help Tribes address challenges re infrastructure, complex regulations, rule of law, difficulties in leasing land and accessing capital – priorities suggested for both housing and economic development by

36

suggested for both housing and economic development by Harvard project and others

� Explore new ways to target this assistance to places that need it most (noting diversity of conditions in tribal areas)

� To monitor tribal area conditions in future

� Study like this one (with expensive household survey) can only be done infrequently

� Recommend studies based primarily on ACS and ONAP administrative data every 5 years, and capacity building to support tribal assessments of housing conditions and needs

Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives

37

Comments:Housing_needs_report@hud.gov

Comment period ends August 23

Thank you!

Q & AQ & A

38