Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
Encyclopedia
The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 was passed to simplify and reorganize the system of providing housing assistance to Native American communities to help improve the unsatisfactory conditions of infrastructure in Indian Country
. The legislation proposed to accomplish this reform by reducing the regulatory strictures that burdened tribes attempting to use their housing grants, and created a new program division of the Department of Housing and Urban Development that combined several previously used programs into one block operation committed to the task of tribal housing. The legislation has been reauthorized and amended several times in its 12 year history.
.
On April 29, 1994, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released a new policy statement, emphasizing their intent to strengthen the unique government-to-government relationship between the U.S. and federally recognized Native American tribes and Alaska Native villages by encompassing Indian affairs as part of their sphere of responsibility. Traditionally, issues concerning Native Americans are addressed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the U.S. Department of the Interior, but the American Indian and Alaska Native 1994 Policy Statement sought to expand HUD's mission to include a special responsibility to Indian tribes.
The memorandum was the basis for NAHASDA, as the new power of Housing and Urban Development in Indian affairs necessetated the creation of Grant and Support Programs specifically for the use of American Indian and Alaska Native groups who previously used the broad-based and varied programs created by the United States Housing Act. NAHASDA consolidated the programs previously available to tribal groups into the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG), and also authorized Title IV loan programs for use by American Indian tribes.
In 2000, the legislation was expanded to allow Title VIII loans for housing and infrastructure purposes by Native Hawaiians. The authorization prompted some non-indigenous Hawaiians to file suit against the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) in the case Arakaki v. Lingle. The plaintiffs claimed that the authorization of HUD grant money for sole use of indigenous people was in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. On April 16, 2007, the District Court ruled in favor of the OHA, claiming that the authorization of grants to the OHA did not constitute any harm to the plaintiffs, setting a president for the constitutionality of supplying funds to Native groups for them to use as they see fit.
To receive grants through this program both a one and a five year plan are required. Together they must include a mission statement, list of goals and objectives, an activities plan, a statement of needs, financial resources, and of affordable housing resources, and a certification of compliance. Once funds have been awarded grantees must meet a standard of wages, comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, keep rents at or below 30% of the residents monthly adjusted income, set eligibility requirements for admission, and secure a management that efficiently maintains and operates the units.
Keeping with all of the regulations, any profits made from the development of the affordable housing must be used for further development of similar housing operated under NAHASDA. Funds may also be invested, but annual reports and audits are in place to ensure that grant money is being used to invest in the promotion of self-sufficiency and housing in Indian communities. Yearly reports must be submitted by the tribes along with the government’s review. The amount of outstanding obligations for NAHASDA can not exceed $2,000,000,000. If a recipient fails to meet the requirements and abide by the regulations the recipient can be replaced. The initial allocation of funds is decided by a formula used to determine need. When first administered in 1997, this amount could not be less than any funds received during the fiscal year of 1996.
Included in NAHASDA are tenant rights to notification of eviction and just cause for eviction. Drug use is listed and the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990 is cited.
Since the purpose of the act was to increase Native American’s power of self-determination, tribes were permitted to use Indian Housing Block Grants for a wide range of purposes. With regard to improving the housing supply, grant money was used to rehabilitate existing housing units and construct new units. According to a GAO study, “During fiscal years 2003 through 2008, NAHASDA grantees collectively used IHBG funds to build 8,130 homeownership and 5,011 rental units; acquire 3,811 homeownership and 800 rental units; and rehabilitate 27,422 homeownership and 5,289 rental units” (14). With regard to alleviating poverty and making housing more affordable for Native Americans, tribes could use grants for various housing assistance programs. For example, the same GAO study reports that “in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, approximately 50 percent of grantees used IHBG funds to provide tenant based rental assistance; more than 50 percent used IHBG funds to provide housing or financial literacy counseling; and approximately 30 percent used IHBG funds to provide down payment assistance” (16).
NAHASDA has also had a positive impact as a mechanism for improving relations between the federal and tribal governments. A GAO survey found that the act and its implementation were well regarded among Native Americans: 89.7% of respondents held positive views toward the effectiveness of NAHASDA, while less than 10% felt it was not an improvement over the previous Indian housing programs (34). The most highly regarded aspect of the plan was the level of discretion afforded to the tribes to determine their own needs. The act recognized that the same policies HUD applied to providing public housing in poor, urban neighborhoods might not be effective on rural, Native American reservations; NAHASDA also “simplified the [application] process for federal housing money and reduced friction with housing authorities seen in earlier programs” (Corteylou 465). The widely perceived success of the program and its broad political support led to its reauthorization in 2001 and 2008.
Early in its existence, there was many a complaint from tribes claiming that Housing and Urban Development was not allotting proper funds for the creation of infrastructure such as roads and bridges, forcing tribes to build homes in a row-housing style in large groups. The issue has largely been addressed, and it is now much easier to apply grant money to the creation of infrastructure to connect remote homes to other areas in a given reservation.
The Indian Housing Block Grant has garnered criticism from those outside Indian country who claim that some funds being distributed through the IHBG are being used for purposes not intended for by NAHASDA. Within the first four years of the program, over $4.2 million dollars in IHBG money were used by Indian tribes for the creation of smoke shops, selling tax-free tobacco at rather high profit margins. The use of resources alarmed not only those who saw it as a use of tax-payer dollars for creation of private businesses, but also by anti-tobacco groups who believed the use of HUD funds for smoke shops displayed governmental promotion of tobacco.
Indian Country
Indian country is a term used to describe the many self-governing Native American communities throughout the United States. This usage is reflected in many places, both legal and colloquial...
. The legislation proposed to accomplish this reform by reducing the regulatory strictures that burdened tribes attempting to use their housing grants, and created a new program division of the Department of Housing and Urban Development that combined several previously used programs into one block operation committed to the task of tribal housing. The legislation has been reauthorized and amended several times in its 12 year history.
History
For more Information, please see Native American Self-DeterminationNative American self-determination
Native American self-determination refers to the social movements, legislation, and beliefs by which the tribes in the United States exercise self-governance and decision making on issues that affect their own people...
.
On April 29, 1994, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released a new policy statement, emphasizing their intent to strengthen the unique government-to-government relationship between the U.S. and federally recognized Native American tribes and Alaska Native villages by encompassing Indian affairs as part of their sphere of responsibility. Traditionally, issues concerning Native Americans are addressed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is an agency of the federal government of the United States within the US Department of the Interior. It is responsible for the administration and management of of land held in trust by the United States for Native Americans in the United States, Native American...
and the U.S. Department of the Interior, but the American Indian and Alaska Native 1994 Policy Statement sought to expand HUD's mission to include a special responsibility to Indian tribes.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s policy to promote the general welfare by meeting the national goal of providing decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing for lower income families is complemented by this special Indian policy.
The memorandum was the basis for NAHASDA, as the new power of Housing and Urban Development in Indian affairs necessetated the creation of Grant and Support Programs specifically for the use of American Indian and Alaska Native groups who previously used the broad-based and varied programs created by the United States Housing Act. NAHASDA consolidated the programs previously available to tribal groups into the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG), and also authorized Title IV loan programs for use by American Indian tribes.
In 2000, the legislation was expanded to allow Title VIII loans for housing and infrastructure purposes by Native Hawaiians. The authorization prompted some non-indigenous Hawaiians to file suit against the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) in the case Arakaki v. Lingle. The plaintiffs claimed that the authorization of HUD grant money for sole use of indigenous people was in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. On April 16, 2007, the District Court ruled in favor of the OHA, claiming that the authorization of grants to the OHA did not constitute any harm to the plaintiffs, setting a president for the constitutionality of supplying funds to Native groups for them to use as they see fit.
Summary
NAHASDA was written into law October 26, 1996 in regard to the federal government’s responsibility to promote the “general welfare*NAHASDA Actual Legislation” of the country. This piece of legislation was meant to recognize the unique relationship and history of the United States and the sovereign American Indian nations, and was intended to address the acute need of affordable housing on tribal lands for low income people and families. Creating a transition from funding and regulation under the United States Housing Act of 1937, NAHASDA was designed to assist in the development of housing, housing services, housing management services, and crime prevention and safety activities in Indian communities. These actions are meant to align with the objectives of assisting and promoting affordable housing on tribal land, offering tribal members better access to private mortgage markets, matching development to surrounding areas and promoting private capital markets Indian Country "to allow such markets to operate and grow, thereby benefiting Indian communities*NAHASDA Actual Legislation."To receive grants through this program both a one and a five year plan are required. Together they must include a mission statement, list of goals and objectives, an activities plan, a statement of needs, financial resources, and of affordable housing resources, and a certification of compliance. Once funds have been awarded grantees must meet a standard of wages, comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, keep rents at or below 30% of the residents monthly adjusted income, set eligibility requirements for admission, and secure a management that efficiently maintains and operates the units.
Keeping with all of the regulations, any profits made from the development of the affordable housing must be used for further development of similar housing operated under NAHASDA. Funds may also be invested, but annual reports and audits are in place to ensure that grant money is being used to invest in the promotion of self-sufficiency and housing in Indian communities. Yearly reports must be submitted by the tribes along with the government’s review. The amount of outstanding obligations for NAHASDA can not exceed $2,000,000,000. If a recipient fails to meet the requirements and abide by the regulations the recipient can be replaced. The initial allocation of funds is decided by a formula used to determine need. When first administered in 1997, this amount could not be less than any funds received during the fiscal year of 1996.
Included in NAHASDA are tenant rights to notification of eviction and just cause for eviction. Drug use is listed and the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990 is cited.
Impact and Implementation
Made effective October 1, 1997 (cite), NAHASDA distributed $550 million (Cortelyou 452) in grants of its allocated $592 million (GAO 8) within its first year; 97 percent of tribal housing entities met the first housing plan submission deadline of July 1, 1998 (Cortelyou 452). NAHASDA doubled the number of tribes receiving grants compared to the previous collection of HUD grants it replaced (GAO 10) and tripled the number of housing units developed or planned by Native Americans per year compared to the yearly average developed under the 1937 Housing Act (Cortelyou 452).Since the purpose of the act was to increase Native American’s power of self-determination, tribes were permitted to use Indian Housing Block Grants for a wide range of purposes. With regard to improving the housing supply, grant money was used to rehabilitate existing housing units and construct new units. According to a GAO study, “During fiscal years 2003 through 2008, NAHASDA grantees collectively used IHBG funds to build 8,130 homeownership and 5,011 rental units; acquire 3,811 homeownership and 800 rental units; and rehabilitate 27,422 homeownership and 5,289 rental units” (14). With regard to alleviating poverty and making housing more affordable for Native Americans, tribes could use grants for various housing assistance programs. For example, the same GAO study reports that “in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, approximately 50 percent of grantees used IHBG funds to provide tenant based rental assistance; more than 50 percent used IHBG funds to provide housing or financial literacy counseling; and approximately 30 percent used IHBG funds to provide down payment assistance” (16).
NAHASDA has also had a positive impact as a mechanism for improving relations between the federal and tribal governments. A GAO survey found that the act and its implementation were well regarded among Native Americans: 89.7% of respondents held positive views toward the effectiveness of NAHASDA, while less than 10% felt it was not an improvement over the previous Indian housing programs (34). The most highly regarded aspect of the plan was the level of discretion afforded to the tribes to determine their own needs. The act recognized that the same policies HUD applied to providing public housing in poor, urban neighborhoods might not be effective on rural, Native American reservations; NAHASDA also “simplified the [application] process for federal housing money and reduced friction with housing authorities seen in earlier programs” (Corteylou 465). The widely perceived success of the program and its broad political support led to its reauthorization in 2001 and 2008.
Criticisms
As is often the case with programs involving the government-to-government relationship between the U.S. and American Indian tribes, there has been much debate over the application of NAHASDA and the IHBG. Those within Indian Country claim the U.S. government is simply too restrictive, and many on the outside see HUD as being too permissive of the ways in which tribes utilize IHBG money.Early in its existence, there was many a complaint from tribes claiming that Housing and Urban Development was not allotting proper funds for the creation of infrastructure such as roads and bridges, forcing tribes to build homes in a row-housing style in large groups. The issue has largely been addressed, and it is now much easier to apply grant money to the creation of infrastructure to connect remote homes to other areas in a given reservation.
The Indian Housing Block Grant has garnered criticism from those outside Indian country who claim that some funds being distributed through the IHBG are being used for purposes not intended for by NAHASDA. Within the first four years of the program, over $4.2 million dollars in IHBG money were used by Indian tribes for the creation of smoke shops, selling tax-free tobacco at rather high profit margins. The use of resources alarmed not only those who saw it as a use of tax-payer dollars for creation of private businesses, but also by anti-tobacco groups who believed the use of HUD funds for smoke shops displayed governmental promotion of tobacco.