Government Accountability Office Releases Report on Tribal Housing and Homelessness

By Lucas Eisenberg, NLIHC Policy Intern 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, “Native American Issues: Preliminary Observations on Housing and Homelessness,” following testimony provided in a Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA) hearing on September 16 (see Memo, 9/21). In the hearing, Alicia Puente Cackley, director of financial markets and community investment at GAO, testified on housing and homelessness in Native American communities, sharing preliminary observations on its investigation into 30 federal programs supporting Native communities. These programs target efforts by American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) Tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs). 

GAO Report Summary 

GAO interviewed officials from four federal agencies that provide housing support for Tribal communities—the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Federal Housing Finance Agency, HUD, and Veterans Affairs (VA)—to identify the 30 different housing programs targeting Native people. GAO also sampled 8 Tribes and 4 TDHEs to receive feedback on the program’s outcomes and challenges. To account for the vast geographic distribution of Native communities, GAO surveyed entities from Alaska and at least one entity from each of the four census regions in the contiguous U.S. Officials from the Department of Hawaiian Homelands were also interviewed. On Tribal homelessness, GAO interviewed 19 Tribes, TDHEs, and regional intertribal organizations, focusing on entities potentially taking innovative approaches to addressing homelessness. The GAO also surveyed seven Continuums of Care (CoC), part of HUD’s largest homelessness assistance program. 

The GAO’s preliminary observations found that federal funding primarily went toward the maintenance and operation of Tribal housing. While grant funds partially went to support homelessness programs, this funding was limited after prioritizing preserving existing housing. Additionally, while Tribes and TDHEs have interest in accessing CoC aid, there are many restrictions to using these funds to address homelessness in AI/AN and Native Hawaiian communities. Definitions used to define “homelessness” as considered by CoCs do not encompass overcrowded living conditions common in Tribal communities. Tribes also described the CoC program as complex, and HUD grants CoC funding typically for established projects, disadvantaging Tribal authorities new to the program. 

Federal Housing Grants 

Thirty federal programs provide targeted housing support to Native American communities. The GAO identified that these programs are run by four federal agencies—BIA, USDA, HUD, and VA—along with ten government-sponsored enterprises, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The largest of these grant programs is the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG), which was authorized under the “Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act” (NAHASDA). Tribes and TDHEs can apply for the grant to access funds going toward preserving, maintaining, and constructing new Tribal housing. 

All 12 of the Tribes and TDHEs surveyed reported that IHBG funds were mostly devoted to maintaining existing housing, with a smaller portion dedicated to the construction of new affordable homes. Maintenance centered around replacing aging doors, roofs, and windows, along with internal repairs to HVAC systems. Further, programs such as HUD’s Section 184 program aided Tribal communities with mortgage assistance by guaranteeing insurance to lenders. Some IHBG funds were dedicated to emergency housing assistance and to purchasing shelters or transitional housing for individuals experiencing homelessness, but prioritizing upkeep of existing stock made these efforts limited. COVID-19 relief funds provided resources to start homelessness-focused projects such as overnight emergency shelters. However, these funds are not continuous. 

Continuums of Care (CoC) 

The GAO investigated how Tribes approached HUD’s CoC program. Familiarity remains a large challenge, with one Tribe in Alaska surveyed to be unaware of the program’s existence. While there is potential for CoCs to provide benefits to AI/AN communities and Native Hawaiians, numerous challenges prevent easy access to funding: 

• Tribes and TDHEs often struggle with understanding the CoC program’s requirements. There are multiple steps to join a regional CoC, and the parties surveyed state that the program rules are too complex. 
• CoCs are split into regional areas, and Tribal borders often overlap these CoC boundaries, creating confusion. 
• CoCs grant funding to applicants with past successes and most Tribes and TDHEs have little history with these grants. 
• Tribes have concern with applying for CoC funding when nontribal partners also apply for the same funding, as to create competition. 
• The definition of homelessness for CoC projects does not serve people who are “doubling up,” a common issue in Tribal communities where individuals temporarily move in with others to avoid homelessness. 

Tribes Continue to Serve People Experiencing Homelessness 

Despite these challenges described by the GAO, Tribes and TDHEs continue to aid individuals experiencing homelessness in their communities through local programs. By partnering with local and nontribal service providers, along with financing projects themselves, Tribes have been able to fund different types of homelessness programs. Such initiatives include transitionary programs sheltering individuals for up to 24 months, permanent shelters for disabled individuals, and supportive programs helping with case management and housing searches. 

Read the GAO Report.