Docstoc

A. Native Americans and Alaska Natives - FTP Directory Listing

Document Sample
A. Native Americans and Alaska Natives - FTP Directory Listing Powered By Docstoc
					PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
URBAN INSTITUTE




ASSESSMENT OF NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE
     AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS



       Volume 1: Technical and Management Proposal




                                          1
       PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
       URBAN INSTITUTE




TABLE OF CONTENTS



I. INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL HIGHLIGHTS ................................................ 666
A. The Project Team ....................................................................................................... 6
B. Highlights of Our Approach ..................................................................................... 888
C. Organization of the Technical Proposal ............................................................ 101010

II. BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM ...................... 121212
A. Overview and History of United States Indian Policy ........................................ 121212
         A.1. Native Americans and Alaska Natives ................................................ 121212
         A.2. Native Hawaiians ................................................................................ 161616
B. Housing Problems, Needs and Programs ......................................................... 212121
         B.1. Native Americans and Alaska Natives ................................................ 212121
                 B.1.a. Housing Problems and Needs ................................................. 212121
                 B.1.b. Housing Programs and Policy ................................................. 282828
         B.2. Native Hawaiians ................................................................................ 383838
                 B.2.a. Housing Problems and Needs ................................................. 393939
                 B.2.b. Housing Programs and Policy ................................................. 424242

III. RESEARCH APPROACH ................................................................................ 444444
A. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 444444
B. Native Americans and Alaska Natives .............................................................. 484848
         B.1. Approach to Research on Demographic and Socio-Economic
         Trends and on Housing Conditions and Needs .......................................... 484848
         B.2. Approach to Research on Housing Policy and Programs: Main
         Housing Policy/Program Operations........................................................... 585858
         B.3. Lending and Homeownership.............................................................. 626262


                                                                2
      PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
      URBAN INSTITUTE




C. Native Hawaiians .............................................................................................. 626262
         C.1. Approach to Research on Housing Conditions and Needs, and
         Policies and Programs ................................................................................ 626262

IV. DATA COLLECTION....................................................................................... 646464
A. Native Americans and Alaska Natives .............................................................. 646464
         A.1. Household Survey and Enumerator Observations .............................. 676767
                A.1.a. Sample .................................................................................... 676767
                A.1.b. Household Survey Content and Instrumentation ..................... 737373
                A.1.c. Enumerator Observations ........................................................ 747474
                A.1.d. Pretesting ................................................................................ 747474
                A.1.e. Interviewer Recruitment and Training ...................................... 757575
                A.1. f. Outreach .................................................................................. 767676
                A. 1.g. Field Work Plan for Conducting the Household Survey ......... 808079
                A.1.h. Quality Control ......................................................................... 838382
                A.1.i. Data Preparation and Processing ............................................. 838383
         A.2. National Telephone Survey with TDHE Officials ................................. 858584
         A.3. Lender survey ..................................................................................... 868685
         A. 4. In-person Interviews with TDHE Officials, Tribal Leaders and
         Program Staff ............................................................................................. 878786
         A. 5. Urban Case Studies and Telephone Interviews with Urban Indian
         Community Center and Public Housing Agency Staff................................. 909089
B. Native Hawaiians .............................................................................................. 929291
                B.2.a. Site Visit................................................................................... 949493
                B.2.b. Telephone Interviews............................................................... 969695




                                                              3
       PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
       URBAN INSTITUTE




V. CORPORATE CAPABILITIES, AND QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
OF THE PROJECT TEAM .................................................................................... 989897
A. Institutional Capabilities .................................................................................... 989897
B. Capacity of the Principal Investigator (PI) ..................................................... 10010099
C. Capacity of the Proposed Project Manager ................................................ 102102101
D. Capacity of the Proposed Staff ................................................................... 103103103
         D.1. Urban Institute Staff ...................................................................... 104104103
         D.2. Econometrica Staff........................................................................ 110110109
         D.3. National Opinion Research Center (NORC) Staff ......................... 116116116
         D.4. Support Services International (SSI) Staff .................................... 120120118
         D.5. Consultants ................................................................................... 122122120

VI. PAST PERFORMANCE ............................................................................ 126126124
A. Past Performance Project Descriptions ...................................................... 126126124
         A.1. Urban Institute – Additional Project Descriptions .......................... 129129127
         A.2. Econometrica Project Descriptions ............................................... 131131129
         A.3. NORC Project Descriptions ........................................................... 133133131
         A.4. SSI Project Descriptions................................................................ 135135133

VII. THE SCOPE OF WORK: PRELIMINARY MANAGEMENT AND WORK
PLAN .............................................................................................................. 137137135
A. Management Structure and Project Monitoring........................................... 137137135
B. Subcontractor and Consultant Management and Project Coordination ...... 140140138
C. Our Approach to Tasks in the Scope of Work (SOW) ................................. 141141139
D. Proposed Allocation of Resources and Project Schedule ........................... 156156153

APPENDIX A – RESUMES
APPENDIX B – PAST PERFORMANCES
APPENDIX C - REFERENCES


                                                               4
       PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
       URBAN INSTITUTE




                                                   LIST OF EXHIBITS


Exhibit 1. HUD ONAP Regions, Area Office Locations and Service Areas ........... 313131

Exhibit 2. Conceptual Framework for Assessment of Native American, Alaska Native
and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs .................................................................... 444444

Exhibit 3. Summary of Research Questions and Data Collection for Native Americans
and Alaska Natives................................................................................................ 656565

Exhibit 4. Illustrative Confidence Interval Calculations .......................................... 707070

Exhibit 5. Summary of Research Questions and Data Collection for Native Hawaiians
.............................................................................................................................. 939392

Exhibit 6. Skills Matrix by staff ......................................................................... 125125123

Exhibit 7. Organizational Chart........................................................................ 138138136

Exhibit 8. Project Staffing Hours by Task ........................................................ 157157154

Exhibit 9. Project Timeline ............................................................................... 158158155




                                                                   5
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




I. INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL HIGHLIGHTS

      The Urban Institute (“Institute”) is pleased to respond to RFQ R-CHI-01055,           Comment [KSP1]: Tim – please review
issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—                       outline notations in txt and ToC for
                                                                                            spacing (c.1 vs a. 5.a)
Assessment of Native American, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs,
[SIN Codes 874-1, Consulting Services and 874-3, Survey Services].

       Much has changed since the Institute’s seminal Assessment of Indian Housing
Needs and Programs and companion report (Housing Problems and Needs of Native
Hawaiians) were published by HUD in 1996. Accordingly, there is a great deal to be
learned about the contemporary housing needs and conditions of Native Americans,
Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian people. This includes the effects of post-1996
federal government policies and programs as well as of subsequent economic,
demographic and geographic trends on housing outcomes.

        To acquire and assess this information, we have assembled a superb team that
draws on the substantial knowledge and experience gained while conducting our prior
studies, maintains continuity between the previous and current efforts, and also adds
significant new data sources, methods, and members. The new data sources and
methods reflect more recent advances in social science and demographic research that
have, in many cases, been spearheaded by the Institute and its team partners. As this
proposal will demonstrate, we offer exceptional capacity to work with HUD to
conceptualize the research in an appropriate fashion, rigorously implement it, and
manage this major project in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

A. The Project Team

       The primary challenge of the assessment requested by HUD to understand and
document the housing conditions and needs of a very diverse population living in almost
every conceivable environment. This requires having a project team that combines
substantive knowledge and cultural sensitivity with logistics management and
adherence to rigorous research standards. The Institute’s project team carefully and
thoughtfully builds on the lessons we learned while doing our 1996 study as well as on


                                               6
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




subsequent work we have completed—i.e., surveys of hard-to-reach populations,
working with diverse cultures and governance structures, and implementing complex
research plans.

       We are fortunate to have Tom Kingsley, who directed our 1996 study, as our
proposed Principal Investigator for this new project. In addition, several key advisors on
our previous study, including C. Matthew Snipp and Karl Eschbach, will continue to
work with us. Likewise, should we receive this award, the Native American Indian
Housing Council (NAHIC) has again agreed to work closely with us as they did on the
1996 study. Two new consultants have been added to our team. The first is David
Listokin, a housing and land development specialist who was the director of the only
comprehensive study of American Indian Alaska Native (AIAN) housing conditions and
policies since the completion of our own 1996 study (2006, Housing and Economic
Development in Indian Country). The second is Ken Temkin, a specialist in community
development and housing finance issues.

       Our team includes senior Institute staff with extensive experience managing
complex research projects, assessing housing programs and policy, and conducting
research in Indian Country. In addition, three subcontractors that have worked closely
with the Institute on other major studies add important strengths and capacity to our
team:

         NORC at the University of Chicago is a premier survey research
          organization, with direct and recent experience surveying Native Americans
          and Alaska Natives that will offer a rigorous yet practical approach to
          conducting the household survey and other primary data collection.

         Econometrica, Inc. has specialized expertise in Native Hawaiian housing
          programs and housing conditions, the Indian Community Development Block
          Grant (ICDBG), and HUD programs and policy more broadly.

         Support Services International, Inc. (SSI) is a Native American-owned firm
          that has studied Indian housing, economic development, health, and social
          services. Its President, Walter Hillabrant, will serve as a key advisor on all
          aspects of the project—particularly important where we interact with AIAN

                                               7
    PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
    URBAN INSTITUTE




          tribes and housing officials and interpret new data in the context of cultural
          and other factors affecting change in Indian Country.

We have identified a very strong pool of potential Expert Panel members (see Section
VII, Task 3), which we will discuss with HUD in the first month of the contract.

B. Highlights of Our Approach

       Our research approach refines, strengthens and updates our 1996 study and
includes important new additions. Below are highlights of our approach, which are
discussed in more detail in subsequent sections of this proposal.

         In addition to our expertise in studying AIAN and Native Hawaiian
          populations, the Institute team brings a cultural awareness and
          sensitivity to conducting research on Tribal lands, which we intend to
          incorporate into every aspect of our research. The Institute and all of its
          subcontractors have done research involving AIAN and Native Hawaiian
          populations. Our approach reflects an awareness of the challenges to this
          work as well as a sensitivity to, and respect for, tribal sovereignty and cultural
          competence. Based on our experience, we have appropriately included
          additional time prior to data collection to obtain tribal Institutional Review
          Board (IRB) approval for the research, which we know to be required by some
          tribes and takes time to negotiate. We recognize the importance to this
          research of relationship building—including working with groups such as
          NAIHC, tribal leaders, and our Expert Panel. Several of our proposed staff
          have developed relationships with key tribal contacts through prior work in
          Indian Country. And, finally, we intend to hold our Expert Panel meetings not
          at the Institute’s offices but, instead, at the National Museum of the American
          Indian as a way to demonstrate our respect for the populations that will be
          discussed and studied.

         We propose a field research approach that is grounded in economic
          development and socioeconomic conditions in Indian Country. The
          RFQ correctly recognizes the importance of current social and economic
          conditions (and changes since 1996). Members of our research team have
          been studying a range of topics in Indian Country—including economic

                                              8
PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
URBAN INSTITUTE




     development (Pindus, Hillabrant), employment (Pindus, Hillabrant), food
     assistance (Pindus, Levy, Hillabrant), housing discrimination (Levy), health
     (Hillabrant, NORC), and child welfare (Hillabrant, Hafford)—on an ongoing
     basis since 1996. Knowledge of the relevant programs and conditions will be
     incorporated in field interview protocols. Econometrica provides some
     specialized expertise in Mr. Charles Hanson, who has extensive experience
     working with the Native Hawaiian community, and Mr. Wayne Mundy, who
     was formerly Director of ONAP’s Alaska Area Office.

    We propose an expanded data analysis to assess the socioeconomic
     and housing needs of AIAN populations. The Institute has extensive
     experience using 2000 Census data and the American Community Survey
     (ACS). Moreover, in the past 10 years, the Institute has assembled a number
     of other national data files on conditions in all metropolitan areas and
     counties—for example, data on mortgage lending and small-area
     employment. We have the data to examine trends in social, economic and
     housing conditions in all AIAN counties with a much richer array of indicators
     than was available in the mid-1990s.

    We propose a substantially expanded household sample and, based on
     direct experience, use of appropriate methods to increase survey
     participation. There are limitations to what we can learn about housing
     conditions from secondary data sources, so a substantial household survey is
     also necessary to assess housing needs. Taking this point seriously, our
     approach expands the number of tribal sites from 36 in 1996 to 60, and the
     number of survey responses to from 720 in 1996 to 1,900. This, in
     conjunction with procedures to ensure high rates of response, will greatly
     advance the state of knowledge. We propose that NORC will conduct the
     household survey, and it is fortuitous that NORC is currently working with the
     U.S. Census Bureau to evaluate efforts to reach hard-to-enumerate
     populations—including tribal communities. Because of NORC’s recent
     experience in conducting surveys in Indian Country, we anticipate much more
     rigorous and effective primary data collection than was possible in the 1996
     study. In addition to welcoming information from HUD’s upcoming tribal
     consultations, our approach will emphasize extensive outreach via telephone
     and in-person meetings prior to data collection to develop collaborative


                                          9
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




          relationships with tribal partners at each site and thereby encourage tribal
          cooperation and participation—which is absolutely essential for successfully
          collecting data in Indian Country. NORC also plans to hire tribal members to
          administer the household survey, which will ensure a greater tribal role in the
          research effort.

         We possess in-depth knowledge of the current housing crisis, its impact
          on vulnerable populations, and programmatic responses—based on our
          portfolio of research. The Institute’s recent research finds that the effects of
          the foreclosure crisis vary dramatically across the country. Understanding the
          sources of these variations is critical to shaping appropriate programmatic
          responses. The Institute’s extensive work monitoring the foreclosure crisis
          and its impact on communities places us in a unique position to be able to
          assess the housing needs in AIAN communities at this point in time.

         We propose a broadened lender survey that goes beyond what was
          done in 1996 to assess the effects of recent changes in the housing
          market. Also building on our knowledge of the foreclosure crisis, our
          proposed lender survey will include questions about the impact of real estate
          market declines and, where applicable, changes to delinquency and
          foreclosure rates. The lender sample will include 80 lenders with a presence
          in 40 tribal areas, more than double the 36 interviews (one in each focus tribal
          area) in the 1996 study.


C. Organization of the Technical Proposal

       The remainder of our Technical Proposal is as follows. Section II demonstrates
our understanding of the research problems to be addressed. Section III outlines our
research approach. Please note we have reordered the discussion of the research
topics, as listed in the RFQ, to correspond better to the analytic logic of our proposed
research. Hence, discussion of demography, geography, and economy, as well as of
housing issues, which establishes the base understanding of conditions and needs, is
discussed section III-B prior to, and as a basis for assessing the impacts of NAHASDA
and issues associated with the IHBG formula—discussed in Section III-C.



                                               10
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       Our data collection process is found in Section IV. Section V presents our
corporate capabilities and a staffing plan, and provides the qualifications of the project
team. Past performance information can be found in Section VI, and a Preliminary
Management and Work Plan is offered in Section VII. In addition, there are three
appendices: Resumes of Proposed Staff (Appendix A), Past Performances (Appendix
B), and References (Appendix C). Cost is addressed separately in our Business
Proposal.




                                               11
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




II. BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM

      This section summarizes the history of United States policy related to Native
Americans and then discusses, sequentially, the housing needs of, and federal housing
programs for, AIAN and Native Hawaiian populations.

A. Overview and History of United States Indian Policy

       Housing policy and housing conditions in Indian Country are inextricably linked to
the unique legal, historical, and cultural context that governs and influences the
relationship between American Indian and Alaska Native governments and Native
Hawaiian populations, and the United States.

        The legal status of tribes creates opportunities and challenges for housing and
economic development. Historical events disrupted or destroyed many traditional tribal
homes and economies, and the legacy of these events continues to reverberate through
tribal economies. Cultural values, norms, and expectations exert a strong influence on
tribal housing, economic development and social service programs. The federal
government has promoted the development of safe, affordable housing, home
ownership, and economic development in Indian Country through specific programs and
legislation as well as through support of Indian self-determination and self-governance.
This section considers key principles of Indian law, special legal provisions for Alaska
Native villages and tribes, and Native Hawaiian history, as well as summarizes historical
and cultural considerations that provide a backdrop for carrying out the research
subsequently proposed.


A.1. Native Americans and Alaska Natives
        The legal status of tribes and Alaska Native villages affects how their economies
relate to other governments (federal, state, county, and local) as well as how they
interact with private-sector businesses. Legal status is reflected in treaties, legislation,
and administrative and judicial decisions. Collectively, such treaties, statutes, and
administrative and judicial decisions are often referred to as “Indian law.” The following


                                               12
       PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
       URBAN INSTITUTE




seven principles of Indian law are critical to Indian Country and generally apply to
Alaska Native villages as well:

             The primacy of the federal government in Indian affairs
             The plenary power of Congress
             The trust relationship
             Tribal sovereignty
             Tribal reserved rights
             Canons of construction of Indian law, and
             Indian self-determination and self-governance (American Indian Research
              Institute 1998).

Each of these sometimes contradictory principles is discussed below.

        Federal primacy in Indian affairs. One of the first principles of Indian law is the
primacy of the federal government in Indian affairs. After the establishment of the
United States, relations with Indian tribes became the prerogative of the federal
government.1 Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution, known as the “Indian
commerce clause,” says, “Congress shall have Power . . . to regulate Commerce with
foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” The Indian
Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, known as the “Nonintercourse Act,” brought Indian
affairs under exclusive federal control by: regulating commercial trade with Indians;
establishing penalties for violations of the law by traders; specifying provisions for
crimes committed against Indians in Indian Country; and prohibiting the sale of Indian
land without federal approval.

       Federal primacy in Indian affairs has important implications, including the
following:




1
 Prior to the establishment of the United States, Indian tribes negotiated treaties with colonial representatives of the
British, Dutch, and Spanish Crowns.


                                                             13
      PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
      URBAN INSTITUTE




             States generally cannot levy sales or other taxes on commerce
              occurring on Indian reservations. Avoidance of state taxes can serve
              as an incentive for businesses to locate on a reservation; however, to the
              degree that tribes levy their own taxes on businesses, the tax-avoidance
              incentive is mitigated.

             American Indians residing on reservations are generally not subject
              to state income taxes. This can serve as an incentive for employed
              tribal members to maintain a residence on the reservation and can
              increase their net income.

             Disputes between tribes and states, between tribal and state
              chartered corporations, and between state residents and tribal
              businesses generally cannot be adjudicated by state courts. Such
              disputes fall under the purview of tribal or federal courts.

       Plenary power of Congress. Pursuant to its plenary powers, Congress may
abrogate or modify any tribal right or privilege established by treaty, statute, or other
document. Subject only to the Constitution, Congress can advance, limit or control
much of Indian commerce and related affairs. Indian self-determination, self-
governance and commerce are ultimately subject to the control of Congress.2 In
exercising its plenary powers, Congress has granted federal recognition to some tribes
and has terminated the recognition of others.

        Trust relationship. Tribes are regarded as “domestic dependent nations.” The
relationship of these nations to the United States “resembles that of a ward to his
guardian.”3 Under this principle, the United States, often through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the Interior, serves as a trustee for each tribe.
Sometimes there is tension or conflict between the roles and responsibilities of the
United States as a trustee and other principles of Indian law, such as tribal sovereignty,
reserved rights, and self-determination. One effect of the trust relationship is that tribes

2
 See United States Code; Title 25, Chapter 21, Section 1901. Supreme Court decisions have supported
Congressional control over Indian affairs—see Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez; 436 U.S. 49 (1978), and Lone Wolf v.
Hitchcock; 187 U.S. 553 (1903).
3
 This principle has been developed primarily in decisions of the Supreme Court, such as Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
30 US (5 Pet.) 1,8 L. Ed25 (1831) and Worchester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515 (1832).


                                                          14
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




and tribal members cannot mortgage reservation land, because, while the tribe owns
the land, it is also held in trust by the United States for current and future tribal
members. Without such mortgages, it is difficult to obtain loans needed to finance
home construction and business development.

        Tribal sovereignty. Tribal governments are sovereign within tribal (reservation)
territory and, thus, are not subject to state or any other laws, other than federal laws,
without the consent of Congress. The exercise of tribal sovereignty affects commerce
in Indian Country in several ways: individuals or businesses are generally precluded
from suing a tribe or a tribal business in state courts and, sometimes, in federal courts;
tribes can charter corporations and create their own commercial codes; and tribes can
levy taxes on individuals and businesses residing or operating on a reservation.

       Tribal reserved rights. The rights of the tribes, as prior and continuing
sovereigns, to land, self-government, and other domains exist inherently rather than as
grants from the United States. This principle, together with the canons of construction
(discussed below), tends to help tribes exercise their sovereignty despite resistance
from governments (federal, state, county, regional, or local), businesses or individuals.

       Canons of construction of Indian law. In a number of decisions over time,
federal courts have come to interpret written documents (such as treaties, statutes, and
executive orders) as being developed to benefit tribes—to be construed broadly in
determining the existence of Indian rights but narrowly when considering the abrogation
or elimination of those rights (Blurton 1999). For the most part, the canons of
construction have benefited tribes in disputes with the federal and state governments
pertaining to the exercise of tribal sovereignty.

       Indian self-determination and self-governance. Since the 1970s, federal
policy has supported Indian self-determination and self-governance, promoting a
“government-to-government” relationship between the United States and tribes.
Federal support of Indian self-determination and self-governance includes the
enactment of statutes by Congress and the implementation of programs, regulations
and initiatives by most federal departments and agencies, all promoting Indian self-



                                               15
         PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
         URBAN INSTITUTE




determination—such as PL 104-330, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self
Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) (Hillabrant, Earp, Rhoades, and Pindus 2004).

Special Circumstances Pertaining to Alaska Native Villages and Tribes in Alaska

        Passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971 radically
changed the way the United States deals with Indian tribes and Native villages in
Alaska, and dramatically affected the path of economic development for Alaska Natives.
What is now Alaska is the aboriginal home of several Indian tribes and many Alaska
Native groups, including Athabascan Indians, Aleuts, and Inuit (called Eskimo by
some).4 Before 1971, the United States dealt with Indians and Native groups in Alaska
in a fashion similar to that used with Indian tribes in the lower 48 states: through
treaties, legislation, and executive orders. ANCSA extinguished native land claims to
almost all of Alaska in exchange for about one-ninth of the state’s land plus $962.5
million in compensation. By conveying Native land title to 12 regional and 200 local
village corporations chartered under Alaska state law, ANCSA changed the relationship
between Natives and the land from one of co-ownership of shared lands to one of
corporate shareholding (that is, land ownership based on a corporate model). After
ANCSA, Native villages serve members and Native village corporations, and Native
regional corporations serve shareholders.5 The shareholders of these corporations are
limited to Alaska Natives. The 12 Native corporations and Native village corporations
operate very differently from most Native villages and Indian tribes. They have
stockholders, own substantial liquid assets, and are governed by a board of directors
(Hillabrant, Earp, Rhoades, and Pindus 2004).


A.2. Native Hawaiians
      Native Hawaiians are not members of a separate, federally recognized entity but
do maintain a formal relationship with the state of Hawaii. Native Hawaiians lived under

4
    The Inuit include the Inupiat and Yupik peoples.
5
 There are 12 regions in Alaska, each with a Native corporation created by ANCSA. A thirteenth regional Native
corporation was created for Alaska Natives who had left the state and were not shareholders in one of the 12 regional
corporations.


                                                           16
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




a monarchy until 1893. In 1898 Hawaii was annexed, becoming a U.S. territory by
means of joint resolution, called the Newlands Resolution. In 2009 the U.S. Supreme
Court held in State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs that Hawaii ceded all public,
government and crown lands to the U.S. in “absolute fee;” however, indigenous
Hawaiian people have never formally relinquished their claims of inherent sovereignty
as a people or over their national lands.

       The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 set aside about 200,000 acres of
land in trust for homestead development by Native Hawaiians. These areas, Hawaiian
home lands (HHLs), are held in trust by the state and managed by the Department of
Hawaiian Homelands—a cabinet-level Department of the state. The Act defined the
population eligible to reside on Hawaiian home lands as those Native Hawaiians with at
least 50 percent Hawaiian blood and their successors or assignees of less than 50
percent Hawaiian blood. The Sec. 247 statute and 24CFR 203.43i(c)(3) further
established that the original lessee of a homestead lease must have 50 percent
Hawaiian blood and successor lessees or assignees must have 25 percent Hawaiian
blood. In 1970, the state created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), both a
government agency and a trust, to assist Native Hawaiians. OHA operates economic
development, education, health and human services, land, and natural resource
programs (CDFI Fund 2001).

A.3. Summary—History of United States Indian Policy                                         Comment [KSP2]: Tim – I added this
                                                                                            because from here forward does not
       The scope of tribal sovereignty has expanded and contracted in accordance with       just refer to hawaiians, but it needs to
                                                                                            be added to the Table of Contents
theories and interpretations of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. In recent years,
the Court has sought to restrict tribal authority over nonmembers except under certain
extraordinary situations or in cases where nonmembers have explicitly or implicitly
consented. With respect to Indian housing development, tribes possess some of the
same attributes as states. They provide government services to members, enact laws,
and enjoy immunity from suit (Pierson 2010).

Impact of Historical Events




                                               17
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




        European colonization of the Americas, wars, and subsequent policies of the
United States resulted in loss of tribal land and population, disruption of tribal
economies, and increased tribal dependency on the federal government. The legacy for
tribes includes economic costs associated with the loss of land and natural resources,
complicated patterns of land ownership, and a distrust of outsiders with respect to tribal
commerce.

       Conflict with the American colonies and subsequently with the United States had
many negative consequences for Indian tribes and Native villages. Population loss due
to war, starvation, and disease caused more than 100 tribes to cease to exist. Many
surviving tribes were forced to leave their homelands and were restricted to
reservations. These losses made many tribes dependent on the federal government for
food, shelter, health services, education, and welfare (Sturtevant 1907).

        Federal “assimilation” policy, which attempted to terminate reservations and
induce Indians to abandon their languages, religions and cultures, and adopt the ways
of European Americans, dealt another blow to tribes in the latter part of the 19th
century. The effects of the General Allotment Act of 1887, also known as the Dawes
Act, are still apparent on reservations today. The Dawes Act authorized the BIA to allot
parcels of reservation land to individual Indians. Each Indian’s allotment was to remain
in trust (exempt from state laws and taxation) for 25 years. Portions of the reservation
that were not allotted were declared “surplus land” and opened to non-Indians for
homesteading. Tribes were compensated for whatever land was sold. The Dawes Act
had serious effects:

       Land owned by tribes fell from 138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million
        acres in 1934. The economic cost associated with the loss of these lands
        and associated mineral and riparian rights is staggering. If tribes retained
        these lands today, their economies might be strikingly different.

       Many tribal areas now have a “checkerboard” pattern of land
        ownership—land parcels are owned by a tribe, individual Indians, and




                                               18
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




           non-Indians. This makes it difficult to govern and manage housing and
           economic development activities on reservations.6

        Tribal landholdings in the Indian Territory were broken up. In 1889,
         former Indian lands were opened to settlement—starting with the
         “Oklahoma land rush.” For example, the Citizen Potawatomi Nation lost its
         reservation as a result of the Dawes Act.

       In planning and executing current development efforts that relate to allotted
land, a tribe faces problems similar to those of other governments in trying to
promote development and the general welfare of its citizens while respecting the
rights and desires of individual property owners.

Cultural and Contemporary Factors
        The circumstances of contemporary AIAN communities reflect both the historical
legacy of violence, subjugation, disease, land seizure, and economic deprivation and a
remarkable resilience. Distinct tribal nations are built upon dozens of cultural lineages
that have persevered—bound together by ties of family, language, history and cultural
heritage (Kingsley et al. 1996). Effective research in AIAN communities requires
cultural competence and sensitivity to traditional values, taking into account definitions
and expectations of behavior within the community. Key contextual and cultural factors
that affect housing needs and conditions and that will shape the research we propose to
undertake include the following:

           Diversity. Over 560 Native nations and tribal entities exist in the United
            States, constituting distinct cultural as well as political groups. Inter- and
            intra-tribal diversity among AIANs can affect service delivery as well as
            research designs in Indian Country (Caldwell et al. 2005).

           Mistrust. In his study of housing and economic development in Indian
            country, Listokin (2006) found that the bureaucracies and decision makers
            involved in governance and housing and economic development are viewed


6
 The Dawes Act was not enforced on every reservation, so some reservations do not have checkerboard
land ownership.


                                                  19
PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
URBAN INSTITUTE




     as suspect. The BIA is subject to much criticism and has a spotty history in
     serving Native Americans and Indian country. Similarly, the CDFI Fund, in its
     Native American lending study, reported that a historical absence of trust
     between tribes and banks presents barriers to private financing (2001).

    Harsh, primarily rural conditions. Indian territory, reservations, and the
     other areas set aside for American Indian containment were deliberately
     located far from existing settlement concentrations, often in the harshest and
     most remote settings. The American Indian population is far more rural than
     the overall population: according to the 2000 Census, 43 percent of American
     Indians reside in rural areas as compared to 20 percent of the total population
     (Listokin 2006).

    Different forms of family and household. In some AIAN communities,
     extended family is defined as a network of relationships as distinct from one’s
     clan or tribe. Different interpretations of extended family can affect living
     arrangements, especially where high rates of morbidity and mortality may
     result in the death or loss of a custodial parent or guardian. Growing up in
     several different extended family households may be considered evidence of
     a strong support network rather than a sign of instability (Caldwell et al.
     2005).

    Different views of wealth and sharing. The Native American Lending Study
     (CDFI 2001) found that there were important cultural differences between
     non-AIAN bankers and investors and AIAN institutions. The non-AIAN
     banking and investor culture values profit and the accumulation of assets.
     Determination of credit worthiness is based upon objective measures of
     accumulated wealth, income stream, and credit history. Native American and
     Native Hawaiian participants in the study indicated that they are more likely to
     consider the borrower’s character and the relationship between the lender
     and the borrower in lending decisions. Tribes have found that relationship-
     based underwriting practices are effective. Furthermore, relationships are
     built on interdependence and resource sharing.

    A greater tribal role in research. In the last two decades, tribes, Native
     villages, and consortia have taken an increasingly active role in challenging,
     as well as generating, research and program evaluation. These entities seek

                                          20
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




          opportunities to influence research agencies and to exercise the power to
          reject unwanted research on their lands and with their people. The
          emergence of research requirements by IRBs has supported the influence of
          tribes on research conducted in their communities. Tribes are concerned not
          only with informed consent and the need to present information in a
          participant’s primary language, but also with promotion of collaborative,
          participatory research models (Caldwell et al. 2005).

       Our understanding of this legal, historical, and cultural context and its
implications for assessing housing needs and conditions is incorporated in the proposal
sections that follow.

B. Housing Problems, Needs and Programs

This section discusses the housing needs of Native Americans and Alaska Natives and
then outlines the federal programs available for housing development and assistance in
tribal areas and for AIAN households. It then describes the housing conditions of Native
Hawaiians and programs specifically tailored for Hawaiian Home Lands and
households.

B.1. Native Americans and Alaska Natives
      B.1.a. Housing Problems and Needs
       As stated in the RFQ, this assessment is intended to meet the Congressional
mandate for a new study of the housing problems and needs of AIAN and Native
Hawaiian populations. Our main objective, therefore, is to understand the housing
needs of these communities and quantify the problems they face. Given the historical
context and ongoing challenges described in the section above, the fact that AIAN
households have severe housing problems is not surprising. For example, from the
household survey in our 1996 study, we found that 40 percent of Tribal Area
households lived in units that are were overcrowded or hadve one or more serious
physical problems, compared to 5.9 percent of the general population. More recently,
Listokin (2006) reported that 25 percent of Indian area families lived in substandard
housing units in 1999. The issue warrants recognition as a high national priority.


                                               21
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




        The research must start by updating data on these problems and needs.
Understanding them in a way that is sufficient to guide policy, however, requires much
more. We must also update our knowledge about the social, economic and physical
forces that drive changes in housing needs. Furthermore, we must recognize that, in
Indian Country, the answers will be remarkably diverse. The economic and societal
drivers, as well as housing outcomes, will be quite different in different types of
settlements (e.g., tribal areas, urban and suburban areas, etc.) and even those patterns
will vary significantly in different regions. And, in all of this, information will have to be
collected on subjective factors (how, for example, AIAN families feel about their current
circumstances and their futures) as well as objective measures.

       Beyond the above, a challenge faced in this assessment is to gain insight into the
dynamics of change. What are recent trends in AIAN housing problems and needs (and
also population growth, family structure, employment, etc.) in each of the different
locations and types of settlement? Then, what does our understanding of the trends
and forces behind them say about possible future directions? One key analysis we see
as essential involves examination of the changed market contexts that have resulted
from the nation’s recent housing crisis: what are the likely effects of that crisis in Indian
Country?

       A first step must be to define the housing conditions to be assessed and
determine the thresholds at which those conditions are considered inadequate.
Previous research has clearly outlined the standard categories of measurement that
apply generally as well as to AIAN populations (Kingsley et. al. 1996): (See Exhibit 2,
Conceptual Framework for Assessment of Native American, Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiians, for a list of housing needs.)

          Affordability: No matter what the physical condition of housing, households
           should be able to pay for their housing without straining their budgets for
           other essential items such as food and medical care. Housing analysts and
           government programs have used the standard that households should not
           pay more than 30 percent of their incomes on total housing costs.




                                                22
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




         Overcrowding: While the threshold is subjective, households should have
          adequate space given the number of people in a unit. A standard measure for
          overcrowding is more than 1.0 persons per room.

         Housing facilities: Households should have access to basic utilities and
          facilities, such as electricity, plumbing and a kitchen.

         Housing conditions: The physical conditions of a housing unit must be
          considered to determine if the unit is of adequate quality. This aspect has is
          been the most difficult to measure, butand has includesd such items as leaky
          roofs, rodent infestation, or holes in the floor.

        Another set of factors related to housing needs involves personal preferences as
for to type and location of housing. For families with children, the quality of local
schools may be a factor, for example. Households may make decisions based on the
quality and quantity of services and amenities offered in the nearby area, such as retail
and grocery stores. Households may choose to reside in a home beyond their means
to live in an area with more and better services and a higher quality of life.

       Beyond generic indicators of housing need, we recognize that Native Americans
and Alaska Natives may have culturally specific viewpoints about what is “adequate”
housing. For example, the negative drawbacks of impact of overcrowded housing may
be balanced against the value of having multiple generations living together. Likewise,
aside from the condition of a stand-alone housing unit, it may be important to have
housing that is appropriate to the environment or has easy access to community areas.

Key Issues in Assessing Housing Needs

To understand housing needs, we need to explore several topical areas that affect the
level and types of problems that Native Americans and Alaska Natives face.

       Housing stock and prices. The aAmount and type of housing stock available
are two factors that affect among the indicators of housing need. Overall housing
supply may affect prices or mobility rates. Newer housing, for example, may have
fewer physical problems than older housing but lack larger units—contributing to higher
overcrowding rates. As of 2000, the median year built of housing in Indian Country was


                                               23
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




1979, and tribal areas had more single-family homes than the U.S. as a whole (74% vs.
67%) (Listokin 2006). Beyond physical characteristics, rents and home prices affect
the affordability of units.

       Socio-economic characteristics. Policymakers need to know more than just
about housing problems; interactions between housing and socio-economic
characteristics are critical. For example, housing requirements depend on the size and
type of family. To determine the affordability of housing, one must compare the rent or
mortgage amount to household income. And the educational levels and earning
potential of the workers in a household will drive the ability to pay for housing.

        Diversity in settlement types and geographies. Diversity was mentioned
earlier as a key cultural factor in the Native American and Alaska Natives communities.
National indicators of housing need tell a broad story of Native American housing but
mask serious differences among geographic areas. Perhaps the most important
contribution of the Institute’s previous research on Native American housing was to
highlight how housing experiences varied depending on where people lived.
Governance, cultural context, and land use of areas vary and affect the housing needs
of residents. Native Americans living in tribal areas generally have more housing
challenges than those living in metropolitan areas but, even among tribal areas, the
level of household problems differed widely. For example, 21.6 percent of the
households lived in overcrowded units in the Navajo Nation Reservation and Trust
Land, compared to only 2.5 percent in the Creek Tribal Area in Oklahoma (U.S. Census
Bureau 2009).

        Tribal areas are just part of the Native American story, since only about one-third
of Native American households lived in tribal areas in 2000 (Listokin 2006). In some
instances, surrounding counties offer more economic opportunities, better housing
quality, or a wider array of amenities than reservations. Living in urban areas is
associated with may also create a different set of housing problems than those in the
tribal areas. At the most extreme of housing needs is homelessness. Nationally, about
47,300 homeless American Indians lived in emergency or transitional shelters in 2009—
27,500 homeless individuals and 19,700the remainder in families. Three-quarters of the
sheltered population were in central cities (HUD 2010a).

                                               24
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       Broader housing and economic market context. Finally, understanding the
policy challenges related to Native American housing needs requires review of the
larger economic and housing market contexts in which tribal areas and households are
embedded. One measure of economic strength is the level and trend of private
employment overall, but the industry mix of employers also matters. In particular,
gaming plays an important role in some tribal areas. A regression analysis by Listokin
(2006) revealed that the presence of gaming was significantly associated with increased
levels of tribal income and employment levels, all else being equal. As another
example, a high level of cost burden for Native Americans in urban areas can be
interpreted differently depending on whether it is caused by the low earnings of Native
Americans or by rising housing costs for all households across a metropolitan area.

        Context is also critical for assessing what policy and program solutions could
realistically alleviate housing problems. An area with a weak housing market or
languishing regional economy is less likely to draw private investment in new building,
for example. Or, housing voucher holders may have difficulty locating a unit in a
metropolitan area with a tight rental market, even if the subsidy ostensibly makes the
housing affordable. Additionally, research has shown that American Indian renters face
significant levels of discrimination in the housing market, which limits housing choices
and increases the cost of a housing search (Turner and Ross 2003).

       Homeownership and lending. There are many barriers to home ownership in
Indian Country. Consequently, this key component of wealth creation has been little
used by Native families. As of 2008, only 55 percent of Native American and Alaska
Native households in the U.S. owned their own homes, well below the rate of 73 percent
for non-Hispanic white households (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).

        Given house prices, mortgage requirements, and the incomes of Native
Americans living on Indian Land, analyses of the potential lending market on Indian
Land suggests that many more mortgages could be originated than currently are
(Listokin 2006). Yet, origination volume remains low. Mortgage lending to any
traditionally underserved market is challenging for a variety of reasons. Prospective
homeowners are likely to have limited experience dealing with mainstream financial
institutions as well as limited incomes, assets and credit histories (Listokin and Wyly

                                               25
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




2000). While this may be common to many types of lower-income households,
originating mortgages on Indian Land includes unique challenges relating to the legal
status of lands in tribal areas. As discussed in Section II, tTribal trust land may not be
encumbered without the approval of the U.S. Department of the Interior acting as
trustee for tribes, and tribal land may not be sold except with the consent of Congress.
Thus, a lender cannot foreclose and sell mortgaged land. In addition, the remote
locations of tribal areas inhibit development of an infrastructure, such as lending
institution branches and loan servicers that support mortgage lending. Likewise, a lack
of cultural understanding by mainstream lenders of Native American attitudes towards
credit, particularly when used for land transactions, likely depresses homeownership.

        Finally, issues related to lenders’ discrimination against Native American
mortgage applicants cannot be discounted (CDFI 2001). Recognition of the extent and
effect of predatory lending practices is fairly recent. According to data analyzed by
NAIHC and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), subprime and
manufactured home lenders accounted for nearly 20 percent of conventional home
purchase loans originated in 2001 to Native Americans. This share was just about twice
the share of such loans originated to whites, and the disparity continued through 2005
(First Nations Development Institute). Officials on Indian Reservations, in response to a
2003 survey, indicated that the higher level of subprime lending to Native Americans
partly resulted from predatory and discriminatory practices of lenders that serve
Reservations, particularly manufactured home lenders (National American Indian
Housing Council and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition 2004). As survey
of attendees of a 2007 conference convened by NAIHC indicated predatory lending is a
significant concern across Indian Country: 73 percent of the 140 respondents at the
conference reported that predatory lending was either “a big problem” or “somewhat of
a problem” in their communities (National American Indian Housing Council and the
National Community Reinvestment Coalition 2004).

        Recent recession and housing downturn. Measuring changes in Native
American housing needs stemming from the current housing downturn and foreclosure
crisis poses special challenges. Tribal areas may have been somewhat sheltered from
some of the fallout i sincef they did not experience the price run-ups that contributed to


                                               26
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




the housing market collapse in many high-priced metropolitan areas. However, a recent
report documented that Native Americans may be disproportionately suffering during
the recession. For example, the unemployment rate for American Indians living in the
West spiked to 18.7 percent in the first half of 2009, from only 6.4 percent in the second
half of 2007 (Austin 2010).

       Compounding any income decline or loss of employment, Native American
homeowners who bought or refinanced their homes during the subprime lending era
may have mortgages with onerous terms. According to HMDA data, $17.5 billion in
mortgages was originated to Native people in 2008 (American Indians, Alaska Natives,
Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders), down from $53.7 billion in 2005 (Fogarty
2010). One of the reasons for this decline was that Native Americans received a
disproportionately large share of high cost loans during the housing boom years. For
example, 37 percent of home purchase loans to Native Americans in 2005 were high
cost compared to 18 percent for non-Hispanic white borrowers. These loans became
unavailable after the secondary market for such mortgages collapsed in 2008.

       Geographically detailed data on recent conditions for Native Americans and
Alaska Natives will be sparse. The anticipated American Community Survey data and
special tabulations will be the average of surveys collected from 2005 to 2009 and, thus,
will combine boom and bust years. Other national annual data related to housing, such
as the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), has known coverage problems in rural
areas. This reinforces the importance of the tribal area household surveys and site visits
and the urban area case studies for gathering information on the current housing and
economic situation of Native Americans.

Determinants of Housing Needs

       One research question posed by HUD in the RFQ involves the particular
conditions that lead to housing problems for Native Americans and Alaska Natives;
having solid answers to this query can inform the design and implementation of
interventions to improve those conditions.




                                               27
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




        While the mix of causes may differ from place to place, we can point to several
factors that generally contribute to housing problems—following from the key issues
identified above. Housing need, in part, reflects deficiencies in the physical housing
stock, such as substandard accommodations or smaller housing units. Some
challenges are associated with the populations served. Underserved communities and
populations have very high poverty rates, possess little education, have very low-
incomes, and frequently are in poor health. For example, housing cost burden may be
higher in the Cherokee Tribal Area in Oklahoma since 19 percent of the population lives
below poverty in 2008 compared to 13 percent in the U.S. as a whole. Professional
advancement in the Cherokee Navajo Nation Tribal Area Tribal Area may be hindered
by the fact that only 16 5.8 percent of adults completed a bachelor’s degree as of 2008,
compared to 28 percent nationally (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).

        Beyond the more visible and obvious causes of housing problems, housing
supply in tribal areas may be restricted by local regulations, lack of adequate
infrastructure for new housing, or being in a remote location without a market that is
attractive to investors. Finally, organizations in some tribal areas may lack expertise for
developing and initiating housing projects or access to financing. The qualitative and
quantitative methods outlined in our proposed research design (Section III) will shed
light on this question and give a sense of the mix of causes underlying the housing
problems of Native Americans.

       B.1.b. Housing Programs and Policy
       In response to the housing needs of AIAN populations and tribal areas overall,
the federal government administers an array of programs to improve housing
conditions. Presented below are the details, funding and specific activities of HUD’s
programs as well as mention of programs administered by other federal agencies thato
assist AIAN households and communities.

       Prior to NAHASDA, Native Americans received HUD assistance for affordable
housing based on the 1937 Housing Act (HUD 2009). Through this authority, housing
assistance was provided through development and modernization grants, operating
subsidies, and Section 8 rental assistance. Special categorical programs were


                                               28
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




specifically targeted to AIAN populations – the Mutual Help program and the Indian
Rental program – but these were criticized along a number of dimensions, including that
their operation was overly regulated and did not allow sufficient discretion to local tribal
officials in design and implementation (see Kingsley, et al. 1996).

        NAHASDA. The Institute’s Assessment of American Indian Housing Needs and
Programs discussed the problems with the then existing federal housing policies in
Indian Country and reviewed major options. Prominent among them was a block grant
approach that would better coordinate assistance to Native American tribes and do so in
a manner that allowed for self-determination. NAHASDA, which followed that type of
approach, was passed by Congress in 1996 (NAIHC 2004). It incorporated
consolidated the major programs that served Native Americans into a single block grant
program (the IHBG program) and also created the Title VI program. IHBG is a formula
grant program that provides funding for affordable housing activities to Native American
tribes or tribally designated housing entities (TDHE). The formula used to allocate IHBG
funds has two components: Need and Formula Current Assisted Stock. The Need
component is based on population, income, and housing conditions. The Formula
Current Assisted Stock component reflects housing developed under the United States
Housing Act (the predecessor of the IHBG program) that is owned and/or operated by
IHBG recipients, and provides funds for ongoing operation of the housing.

        Title VI of NAHSDA authorized HUD to guarantee notes and other obligations
issued by Indian tribes, TDHEs with tribal approval, or a limited number of state-
recognized tribes that were funded under the 1937 Act—for the purpose of financing
affordable housing activities. Proceeds from guaranteed loans or other obligations may
be used for modernization or rehabilitation of existing 1937 Housing Act homes,
development of new affordable housing, and model housing activities. The guarantee
covers 95 percent of the outstanding principal balance and accrued interest due on the
loan. The maximum Title VI commitment is the amount of a tribe’s current NAHASDA
block grant less the amount required to maintain current assisted stock, multiplied by
five (Pierson 2010).

       Through the IHBG and Title VI programs, NAHASDA intended to accomplish the
following statutory objectives:

                                               29
       PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
       URBAN INSTITUTE




               Assist and promote affordable housing activities to develop, maintain, and
                operate affordable housing in safe and healthy environments on Indian
                reservations and in other Indian areas for occupancy by low-income Indian
                families;

               Ensure better access to private mortgage markets for Indian tribes and their
                members and promote self-sufficiency of Indian tribes and their members;

               Coordinate activities to provide housing for Indian tribes and their members
                with federal, state, and local activities to further economic and community
                development for Indian tribes and their members;

               Plan for and integrate infrastructure resources with housing development for
                Indian tribes; and

               Promote the development of private capital markets in Indian country for the
                benefit of Indian communities.

       Those eligible for NAHASDA-funded assistance are low-income Indian families
whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the area median income and who reside
on a reservation or in an Indian area. NAHASDA requires that dwelling units be
occupied, owned, leased, purchased, or constructed by low-income families and that
they remain affordable for the remaining useful life of the property.

Eligible activities:                                            Approaches to homeownership and rental assistance:

    Indian housing assistance—i.e. modernization or               Homeownership units for purchase or lease-purchase
     operating assistance for 1937 Act units;                       through new construction, acquisition (for example,
                                                                    purchase of existing units), rehabilitation, or acquisition
    Housing development—including the acquisition, new             and rehabilitation;
     construction, and reconstruction or rehabilitation of
     affordable housing;                                           Rental units through:

    Housing services—including housing counseling and
                                                                    -      new construction, acquisition (for example,
     assistance to owners, tenants, and contractors involved
                                                                           purchase of existing units), rehabilitation, or
     in eligible housing activities;
                                                                           acquisition and rehabilitation
    Housing management services for affordable housing—
     including loan processing, inspections, and tenant             -      conversion of existing structures or demolition
     selection;                                                            and replacement of existing structures;

    Crime prevention and community safety;                        Homeownership assistance through acquisition (for
                                                                    example, down payment or closing cost assistance to
    Model activities—which provide creative approaches to          the homebuyer) or acquisition and rehabilitation; and
     solving affordable housing problems; and
                                                                   Tenant-based rental assistance (residents pay up to 30
    Reserve accounts—for administrative and planning               percent of their income).
     activities related to affordable housing.
                                                               30

                                                                
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




      Since enactment of NAHASDA, several legislative and regulatory changes have
occurred, including creation of the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program (in
2000) and use of grant funds for housing-related community development activities.

        HUD’s administration of NAHASDA. NAHASDA is administered by HUD’s
Office of Native American Programs (ONAP), part of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Public and Indian Housing (PIH). ONAP administers the Indian
Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) and Section 184 Indian Home Loan
Guarantee programs. Both ONAP’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. and its Denver
office direct the administration of the IHBG program on a national level. Six regional
offices administer grants on the local level. They are divided into two divisions: Grants
Management, which provides funding, technical assistance, and project support to
grantees; and Grants Evaluation, which reviews grantees’ performance and initiates
enforcement procedures when necessary.

       The following table shows the locations and service area coverage of each of
ONAP’s regional offices. Our sampling strategy described in Section IV, and the one
used in the 1996 study, begins with these 6 regions.

Exhibit 1. HUD ONAP Regions, Area Office Locations and Service Areas
 ONAP         ONAP
 Region       Area Office Location                           ONAP Service Area
 Alaska       Anchorage, Alaska             Alaska
                                            Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
                                            Ohio, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine,
 Eastern                                    Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
              Chicago, Illinois
 Woodlands                                  Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky,
                                            Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
                                            Alabama, Mississippi, Florida
 Northern                                   Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana, South
              Denver, Colorado
 Plains                                     Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
 Northwest    Seattle, Washington           Washington, Oregon, Idaho
 Southern                                   Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana,
              Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
 Plains                                     Missouri
              Phoenix, Arizona and          Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, West Texas
 Southwest
              Albuquerque, New Mexico
 Source: Econometrica, Inc. Evaluation of the Indian Community Development Block Grant Program
 Volume I—Summary Results & Observations, 2006.


                                                  31
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       NAHASDA changed HUD’s role and involvement in Native American housing.
Previously, HUD had greater involvement in the development of housing projects while
also managing multiple programs that served Native Americans. Several of the
programs were competitive, and HUD reviewed and scored project proposals for those
programs, awarded grants to the highest-ranked projects, and distributed funds through
the other noncompetitive (formula-based) programs. Under the competitive programs,
HUD had greater influence over how funds were spent.

       Under NAHASDA, HUD plays a more administrative role in delivering housing
benefits to Native Americans and providing funding through a single, tribally negotiated
grant allocation formula. HUD’s role is to (1) provide grants, loan guarantees and
technical assistance to Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages for the development and
operation of low-income housing in Indian areas; (2) conduct oversight by ensuring that
reporting requirements are met and by monitoring grant recipients onsite; and (3)
enforce remedies for noncompliant grant recipients.

         To receive their grant distribution, grantees must submit an Indian Housing Plan
(IHP) for each program year. In the IHP, grantees identify their affordable housing
needs and describe the housing activities they plan to pursue to address those needs.
At the end of the program year, grantees also must submit an Annual Performance
Report (APR) that outlines actual accomplishments and, if federal fiscal year
expenditures are $500,000 or more, the results of an independent audit. HUD is
modifying its reporting process and plans to implement a combined IHP and APR with
several revisions in fiscal year 2011. In addition to reporting, grantees must follow
requirements for environmental reviews, procurement and labor standards, family
eligibility, and accounting for program income.

        As part of its oversight, HUD also conducts periodic onsite monitoring visits with
grantees using a risk-based approach to select which grantees it will visit each year.
Risk factors include grant size and the amount of time since a grantee’s last visit. In
fiscal year 2009, ONAP completed 60 onsite monitoring visits with NAHASDA grantees
nationwide. Additionally, HUD has enforcement procedures for grantees found to be

                                               32
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




noncompliant with program requirements. Enforcement procedures involve issuing (1) a
letter of warning, (2) a notice of intent to impose remedies if there is continued
noncompliance, and (3) imposition of remedies, which includes the option of a hearing
before a hearing officer. Enforcement can be discontinued at any time if a grantee
corrects the violation prior to the imposition of remedies.

        NAHASDA’s first appropriation in fiscal year 1998 was $592 million, and average
funding per year was approximately $633 million between 1998 and 2009. For fiscal
year 2009, the program’s appropriation was $621 million. HoweverW, when accounting
for inflation, the funding hasconstant dollars have generally decreased since the
enactment of NAHASDA. The highest level of funding in constant (2009) dollars was
$779 million in 1998, and the lowest was $621 million in 2009 (GAO 2010).

        The GAO reports that, based on surveys of and interviews with NAHASDA
grantees, most grantees view NAHASDA as an effective low-income housing program
primarily because NAHASDA recognizes tribal self-determination, which allows tribes to
tailor their use of funds to specific needs of their communities. For example, a GAO
survey respondent wrote that each tribe has unique housing needs influenced by their
specific cultures, economic conditions, and physical environments and that NAHASDA
has been a drastic improvement because it allows tribes the flexibility to meet those
needs. Another respondent wrote that although the funding levels have effectively
dropped with NAHASDA, the program provides tribes greater flexibility in how they
spend the grant, allowing for a more effective use of the limited funding. Moreover, the
GAO reported that both HUD and grantees agreed that the opportunity to leverage grant
funds to secure funds from other sources allows grantees to better address their
affordable housing needs (GAO 2010).

       IHBG Formula—Definition and Issues. IHBG grants made under NAHASDA
are allocated to eligible grantees using a formula that has two components: Current
Assisted Stock and Need. The Current Assisted Stock is based on the number of
housing units developed under the United States Housing Act (the predecessor of the
IHBG program) that is owned and/or operated by IHBG recipients. The Need
component uses seven variables: (1) very low-income households; (2) low-income
households; (3) population (American Indians and Alaska Natives); (4) extremely low-

                                               33
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




income households; (5) number of low-income households in excess of available
housing; (6) households with housing costs that exceed 50 percent of income; (7)
households that are in overcrowded units or lack plumbing or kitchen facilities.

       The Need component is calculated with American Indian and Alaska Native
(AIAN) population data as measured in by the 2000 U.S. CensusDecennial Census data
andas adjusted by Indian Health Service data on AIAN births and deaths. The Census
data used are for all AIAN households within a tribe’s formula (geographic) area, and
the Census attempts to count all housing units and all persons residing in those units.
HUD has procedures for a tribe’s formula area to be corrected and for a tribe to
challenge its population (Total Resident Service Area Indian Population – TRSAIP) or
household data. If tribes meet specific conditions, HUD also will use tribal enrollment
data in lieu of population data to determine IHBG allocations. In challenging the
TSRAIP data used in computing a tribe’s Need component, HUD uses data collected
and published annually by the BIA – the number of AIAN persons residing within a
particular tribe’s Service Area as defined by the BIA. In some cases, the population
data for a tribe’s formula area is greater than its enrollment. In general, for those cases,
HUD does not allow population data to exceed twice the tribe’s enrollment (GAO 2010).

        Grantees interviewed by the GAO identified limitations in the grant allocation
formula as a particular challenge with the IHBG program. These respondents told the
GAO that they believe the allocation formula is either based on inaccurate data (for
example, enrollment numbers or area construction costs) or does not consider certain
key factors, such as a lack of land to develop housing. In calculating a grantee’s annual
allocation, the formula considers such factors as fair market rent and total development
cost for a grantee’s local area. However, the formula does not take into account whether
a tribe has buildable land to use for housing development in the calculation of total
development cost or as a separate factor. The housing director of one small grantee
visited by the GAO that did not own trust land reported to the GAO that they had to first
allocate grant funds to purchase land for any new development. Similarly, of the 201
survey respondents that provided an opinion specifically on the grant allocation formula,
159 grantees (or nearly 80 percent) said the formula could be improved. And, of those
survey respondents that checked certain problems with utilizing NAHASDA, 46 percent


                                               34
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




of respondents said that the formula is based on inaccurate data, and 64 percent said
that it does not consider certain factors such as properly accounting for construction
costs or the cost of purchasing land for development (GAO 2010).

        ICDBG. Authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended, the ICDBG program assists eligible grantees with developing viable
communities—mainly by funding housing and economic development activities
principally for persons of low- and moderate-income. An eligible applicant includes any
Indian tribe, band, or nation or Alaska Native village recognized by the Federal
government. In some cases, tribal organizations may submit applications on behalf of
eligible tribes when one or more eligible tribes authorize the organization to do so under
concurring resolutions.

        The ICDBG program regulations (24 CFR Part 1003) define two categories of
grants: single-purpose and imminent threat. Single-purpose grants are competitive and
awarded through an annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process. Imminent-
threat grants are awarded on a first-come-first-served basis and are intended to resolve
non-recurring or unusual problems posing an immediate threat to the public health or
safety to an entire area rather than an individual. Eligible applicants are federally
recognized Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages, Village and Regional Corporations
established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and certain other tribal
organizations (Econometrica, Inc. 2006). ICDBG grants typically fund public use
buildings and other forms of community infrastructure such as water or sewer lines.
Funded structures include community centers, health clinics, buildings for fire and/or
police departments, and community activity/sports centers. Use of the funds is limited
to building construction and does not cover any program delivery costs or materials.

        Section 184. To promote mortgage lending on Indian Land, HUD administers
the Section 184 program. Established in 1992, Section 184 allows lenders to receive a
100 percent guarantee from HUD for loans to Native Americans to buy an existing home
(as is or including rehab), build a new home, rehab a property, or refinance their loan.
In FY 2009 the program provided endorsements for 2,401 loans, with the average loan
size of $165,000) (Public and Indian Housing; Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund,
Section 184).

                                               35
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       Section 184 requires that a lease be established for the land. The mortgage is
associated only with the improvements on the parcel, thereby addressing the problem
that reservation land is held in trust (Housing Assistance Council, 2006). Due to lower
incomes and lack of wealth among Native Americans, Section 184 mortgages are
underwritten with flexible guidelines and require low down payments (2.25 percent loans
over $50,000 or 1.25 percent for smaller loans), no monthly mortgage insurance; and a
one-time, 1 percent loan guarantee fee that can be added to the loan.

       Other HUD Programs. Housing and community development projects on Indian
lands can also be supported by the following HUD programs (Pierson 2010):
         The recently created Rural Innovation Fund, which sets aside $25 million
          from the CDBG program for grants to tribes, state housing finance agencies,
          state community and/or economic development agencies, local rural
          nonprofits, and community development corporations. The funds are to
          address the problems of concentrated rural housing distress and community
          poverty. Out of the total $25 million appropriated, $5 million is reserved “to
          promote economic development and entrepreneurship for federally
          recognized Indian tribes, through activities including the capitalization of
          revolving loan programs and business planning and development” and for
          “technical assistance to increase capacity through training and outreach
          activities.”

         The Section 202 Elderly Housing program, under which HUD provides
          capital advances for new construction, rehabilitation or acquisition of housing
          for occupancy, for at least 40 years, by very low-income elderly persons. The
          capital advances bear no interest and need not be repaid if program
          requirements are met. In addition, project rental assistance covers the
          difference between tenants’ contributions toward rent, not to exceed 30
          percent of income, and project operating expenses. Project rental assistance
          may also be used to provide supportive services. Funds may not be used for
          nursing homes, medical facilities, or community centers. Section 202 has
          rarely been used on Indian Land because tribal governments and TDHEs are
          not eligible applicants. Several tribes in recent years have, however, teamed

                                               36
    PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
    URBAN INSTITUTE




          with nonprofits to meet the needs of tribal elders. In order to access the
          program, a tribe must grant a long-term lease to a nonprofit
          developer/applicant.

         The Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
          program, under which HUD provides interest-free capital advances to
          nonprofit sponsors to finance acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of
          rental housing that provides supportive services for persons with disabilities.
          Examples of supportive housing are condominiums units, independent living
          projects, and group homes. The advance does not have to be repaid as long
          as the housing remains available for very low-income persons with disabilities
          for at least 40 years. The program also provides project rental assistance,
          which covers the difference between the HUD-approved operating costs of
          the project and the tenants’ contribution toward rent, usually 30 percent of
          adjusted income. The initial term of the project rental assistance contract is
          five years and can be renewed if funds are available. The program is limited
          to very low-income households whose income does not exceed 50 percent of
          the AMI.

         The Section 203(k) program is the Department's primary program for the
          rehabilitation and repair of single family properties. This program is intended
          for cases where the borrower wants to purchase a home that needs
          renovations. Under this program, the borrower can get just one mortgage
          loan to finance both the acquisition and the rehabilitation of the property.
          FHA-approved lending institutions submit applications to have the property
          appraised and have the buyer's credit approved, and then the lenders fund
          the mortgage loans which the Department insures.

In addition to these programs, Native Americans may use individual household
assistance outside of tribal lands. As of 2008, there were 5,900 Native
American/Alaska Native households in public housing, 9,900 AIAN households in
privately-owned subsidized housing, and 14,300 AIAN households using Housing
Choice Vouchers (HUD 2010b).


                                              37
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       Other Federal Programs. In addition to the above HUD programs, housing and
community development activities are also supported by other programs, including
(Pierson 2010):
         The BIA Housing Improvement Program (HIP)

         The Indian Health Service Housing Sanitation program

         The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program

         A number of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development
          programs

         Federal Home Loan Bank Programs including the Affordable Housing
          Program (AHP) Subsidy, the Community Investment Program, and Down
          Payment Assistance Set-Aside Programs

         Tax exempt bonds

         State housing programs under the Federal HOME Program

         U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs programs

       While not uniquely tailored to Indian Country, these programs provide borrowers
with access to affordable credit to purchase homes, support the construction of
affordable rental buildings, and fund other housing assistance to tribal areas and Native
American and Alaska Native households. Federal Agencies have also partnered with
ONAP and the BIA in efforts to improve the mortgage-lending process on Indian Lands
and to provide resources that will better explain the process for accessing a mortgage
on tribal lands (Edwards et al. 2009).


B.2. Native Hawaiians
      The legal status of Hawaiian lands is different from that of tribes. In 1898 Hawaii
was annexed, becoming a US territory by means of joint resolution, called the Newlands


                                               38
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Resolution. In 2009 the supreme court held in State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian
Affairs that Hawaii ceded all public, government and crown lands to the US in “absolute
fee;” however, indigenous Hawaiian people have never formally relinquished their
claims of inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands.

       The unique history, culture, and residential patterns of Native Hawaiians have
resulted in housing conditions and policies distinct from those described above for
Native Americans and Alaskan Natives. Below is a summary of Native Hawaiian
housing needs, and federal and state housing programs related to them.

      B.2.a. Housing Problems and Needs
      As of 2008, about 438,000 people nationally identified themselves as Native
Hawaiian, either alone or in combinations with other races (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).
Studies funded by DHHL and HUD describe persistent and severe needs for Native
Hawaiians. For instance, our 1996 study found that nearly half of Native Hawaiian
households experienced some kind of housing problem (Mikelsons and Eschbach
1996). Some of the major challenges in housing for Native Hawaiians are
overcrowding, lack of housing stock, affordability, and structural quality.

       Overcrowding is considered the major issue in housing for Native Hawaiians
caused by problems of affordability and availability. The 1996 HUD study estimated
that 28 percent of Native Hawaiian households suffered from overcrowding (Mikelsons
and Eschbach 1996). The problem persists today. Although not directly comparable
with the figures from the 1996 study, American Community Survey data show that 14
percent of Native Hawaiians living in Hawaii were overcrowded in 2008, well above the
rate for all state residents (8.4 percent).

       Lack of available housing also is a serious problem. As a group, Native
Hawaiians have a higher burden of most housing problems than non-natives in Hawaii
and the U.S. population as a whole (Mikelsons and Eschbach 1996, SMS Research and
Marketing Services 2009a, SMS Research and Marketing Services 2009b). A part of
this problem is that HHLs are mostly located on the outer islands of Hawaii, Maui,
Molokai, and Kauai, whereas the demand appears to be greater on the main island of


                                               39
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Oahu. The amount of HHL land area on Oahu in 2003 represented 5 percent of the
HHL inventory, but more than half of HHL residential leases are on this island (DHHL
2005). In addition, the poor quality and remote location limits the amount of land that is
suitable for development and carries higher costs for infrastructural development. As a
result, a minority of Native Hawaiian households (about 6 percent) reside on HHLs
(DHHL 2005, U.S. Census Bureau 2009).

       Homeownership rates in Hawaii are generally lower than in the U.S. as a whole.
While the national homeownership rate was 67 percent in 2008, Hawaii’s rate was only
59 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). Homeownership rates for Native Hawaiians
residing in urban areas are especially low. As of 2003, only 38 percent of Native
Hawaiians owned their home in urban Honolulu, compared to 48 percent of non-Native
Hawaiians. This difference is also obvious in other areas of the state where 51 percent
of urban Native Hawaiians owned homes compared to 60 percent of non-Native
Hawaiians (DHHL 2005).

       Hawaii is one of the most expensive places to live in the United States in terms of
housing. For example, in March 2010, the median sales price for a single family house
in Honolulu was $621,200, up from $598,300 in March 2009 (National Association of
Realtors 2010). Despite high costs for housing, wages are not commensurate, making
housing affordability a major issue for residents. This is reflected in data on housing
needs of low-income Native Hawaiian households (those making less than 80 percent
of area median income). Among these households, 68 percent experienced some kind
of housing problem, such as affordability, overcrowding, availability, and/or structural
quality. This was more than double the burden on native Hawaiian households overall
(27 percent). For households making less than 50 percent of area median income, the
needs were even higher, with nearly 75 percent experiencing one or more of these
housing problems (Mikelsons and Eschbach 1996). Homelessness is also a problem;
Native Hawaiians account for 37 percent of the state’s homeless population, although
they are only 19 percent of the population (Hawaii H.O.M.E Project 2010, U.S. Census
Bureau 2009). An estimated 4,400 to 5,600 Native Hawaiians are homeless at some
point during each year.



                                               40
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       Native Hawaiian households are more likely to be very low-income than non-
Native Hawaiian households. In Hawaii, approximately 27 percent of all Native
Hawaiian households have incomes less than 50 percent of the state median whereas
only 23 percent of non-Native Hawaiian households have incomes below this level
(DHHL 2005). This disparity holds for both renters and owners. Over 40 percent of
Native Hawaiian renter households have incomes less than 50 percent of the area
median compared to 36 percent of non-Native households (DHHL 2005). Owner
households on Hawaiian home lands are among the poorest of Native Hawaiian
households, with approximately 25 percent having income lower than 50 percent of the
area median. In contrast, only 14 percent of all native Hawaiian owner households are
below this level (DHHL 2005).

       In addition, Native Hawaiians are more likely to live in older housing, whether
rented or owned. Approximately 30 percent of Native Hawaiians reside in units built
before 1960 compared to 26 percent of the non-Native Hawaiian population (DHHL
2005). For Native Hawaiians in urban Honolulu, the difference is even more severe with
45 percent of Native Hawaiians residing in units built before 1960 compared to 29
percent for non-Native Hawaiians (DHHL 2005). As of 2008, an estimated 40 percent of
HHL lessees reported that their current unit required repair work (about 3,200 units).
About one-quarter pf those needing repair reported severe problems, needing structural
or plumbing and electrical repairs (SMS Research & Marketing Services 2009).

        As noted earlier, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is the cabinet agency
assigned to manage the Hawaiian home lands for the benefit of Native Hawaiian
population. This organization is responsible for managing effectively Hawaiian home
lands, including development of raw land for use by qualified applicants and awarding
long-term land leases, in order to develop sustainable, healthy communities. The
Department uses many of the programs mentioned below to help Native Hawaiians
build, purchase, and rehabilitate homes on these lands.

       As part of their work in understanding the needs and interests of beneficiaries,
DHHL has periodically funded beneficiary surveys, including of those already awarded a
lease and living on a homestead as well those who applied for a land lease and
remained on a waiting list. These studies can provide good information on the needs

                                               41
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




and characteristics of these beneficiaries, but it does not tell a complete story of the
housing needs for the Native Hawaiian population as a whole, which would include
Hawaiian residents not living or applying to live on homestead lands as well as the 45
percent of Native Hawaiians living outside of the State of Hawaii. Far less is known
about this population, and the research design will need to examine the housing needs
of this group as well.

      B.2.b. Housing Programs and Policy
      In addition to the availability of Hawaiian Homelands described in Section II,
several programs improve access to housing for native Hawaiians on HHLs and
throughout Hawaii. These include:

         HUD’s Section 184A Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Program
          provides eligible Native Hawaiian families with greater access to private
          mortgage resources by guaranteeing loans for single family housing located
          on Hawaiian Home Lands. Native Hawaiians eligible to reside on Hawaiian
          home lands, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of Hawaiian
          Affairs, and nonprofit developing affordable housing for Native Hawaiians are
          all eligible to participate in the Section 184A program. In 2010, HUD expects
          to provide loan guarantees for $41 million in mortgage funds.

         The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program (NHHBG) allocates
          funds through which DHHL supports the development, maintenance, and
          operation of affordable housing for low-income (less than 80% of the median
          income in the area) Native Hawaiians eligible to reside on Hawaiian Home
          Lands. In 2009, HNNBG awarded approximately $10 million to DHHL which
          assisted 49 homeowners.

         The Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) 247 loan program provides
          mortgage insurance to Native Hawaiians living on HHL, in order to help the
          DHHL work with its beneficiaries to preserve their homes. In order to receive
          funds, a claim can be filed only if there is written notification to DHHL of the



                                               42
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




          mortgage default, the default remains uncured after 6 months, and by
          assignment of the insured mortgage to HUD.

         The state Home Ownership Assistance Program (HOAP) addresses
          barriers that Native Hawaiians may face in achieving or maintaining
          homeownership, specifically financial literacy services, job training and
          placement, and addiction treatment services. HOAP programs include
          homebuyer education and case management, Bankruptcy Counseling, Post-
          Homeownership Counseling and Lease Cancellation Prevention, Career
          Development Class, and Addiction Treatment Services (Hawaii.gov). HOAP
          collaborates with several different service providers in the area to provide
          these services.

       The general housing development and assistance programs by HUD and other
federal agencies mentioned in the AIAN housing programs section, above, are also
available to assist Native Hawaiians. Together, these programs serve many Native
Hawaiians, yet the hardship indicators cited at the earlier demonstrate the persistent
and severe housing needs exceed the current levels of assistance.




                                               43
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




III. RESEARCH APPROACH

A. Introduction

       PD&R plays a key role in contributing to the broader understanding of trends in
the nation’s housing markets, including affordability, housing needs, and
homeownership. PD&R has funded several studies on these topics for low-income and
minority families, but there is limited updated quantifiable information on Native
Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.

Exhibit 2. Conceptual Framework for Assessment of Native American, Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs

                                       Conceptual Framework for Assessment of Native American,
                                          Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs




           Factors Determining Housing Need                                        Federal Responses to Housing Needs
                                                         NATIVE AMERICAN
                    Historical and Legal                  ALASKA NATIVE
                           Context                       NATIVE HAWAIIAN                       Federal Policy and
                                                          HOUSING NEEDS                     Programs (e.g. BIA, HIS,
                                                                                             RHS, VA, Fannie Mae,
                                                                                                 Freddie Mac)

             Cultural Context                                  Supply


      Demographic and                                       Affordability
                                                                                                            HUD Policy
       Socio-economic
       Characteristics
                                                         Conditions / Quality

              Geography and
               Infrastructure                             Home Ownership
                                                                                              HUD Programs and
                                                                                            Program Implementation
                     Economic / Housing
                          Market                        Cultural Compatibility




                                                                44
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       Our proposed research approach is based on the conceptual framework
presented in Exhibit 2. We view housing needs and conditions as the main driver of this
study and the critical information needed to maintain an appropriate and effective
federal response. Factors that determine housing need include: historical and legal
context, cultural context, demographic and socio-economic characteristics, geography
and infrastructure, and the overall economic and housing market.

       As described throughout this proposal, we will use quantitative and qualitative
methods and multiple data sources to assess these factors and update previous
estimates. Understanding these factors is critical, but cannot substitute for learning
about and observing actual conditions on the ground through the eyes of researchers,
program administrators, and residents. Federal programs and policies have been
developed in response to housing needs and conditions, and there have been
substantial programmatic changes since 1996. As the circular arrows suggest, this is a
dynamic system—socio-demographic and contextual factors affect housing conditions;
federal programs respond; and this, in turn, has an effect on socioeconomic conditions
(housing affordability, for example), infrastructure, and housing conditions. Changes in
contextual factors and in housing conditions lead to adjustments in the federal
response, such as changes in the grant structure, funding formula, or policies facilitating
home ownership.

        With this conceptual framework to guide us, we will first conduct background
research to assure that our information is up-to-date and that our planned data
collection efforts do not duplicate existing work. We will review relevant, extant research
literature published since 1996 about Native Americans, Alaska Natives and Native
Hawaiians (see Section VI, Task 6.2). The review will cover topics such as population
and housing characteristics, housing needs, implementation of housing assistance
programs, barriers to program participation, and land use issues. We will also convene
an Expert Panel (see Section VI, Task 3), and conduct a series of background
telephone interviews with a range of national and regional housing experts and officials
(see Section VI, Task 6.3). Interviewees will include individuals from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (Office of Public and Indian Housing, Office of Native
American Programs), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, Rural Housing


                                               45
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Services, Veterans’ Affairs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, National American Indian
Housing Council (NAIHC), the U.S. Census Bureau, and any others suggested by the
Expert Panel or the project GTR.

        The research approach must be sensitive to the diverse cultures of the tribes we
will be visiting both because field data collection is such an important part of this study
and because housing choices and assessment of housing conditions are subjective and
personal. Required sensitivity includes awareness of varying styles of living (such as the
need for housing that can accommodate multigenerational family units) and culturally
compatible housing, which will vary by tribe (such as houses that blend with the
environment, hearths or fireplaces, and access to communal space). We will be guests
on tribal land, and it is important that we follow procedures established by each tribe for
reviewing research protocols, scheduling visits, and conducting the household survey
and other field-based research.

        An important aspect of our research approach is the identification of the most
appropriate geographic boundaries to use in order to be sensitive to the diversity of
living conditions and context described in Section II. The tribal community is not a
standard unit of data collection for most federal data sources, so any analysis requires
the careful construction of consistent geographic areas to describe economic and social
trends in tribal communities. From our experience with the 1996 assessment, we have
expertise in dealing with the various geographic boundary types, such as tribal areas,
census tracts and zip codes, and the rapid advances in Geographic Information
Systems will facilitate more frequent use of maps in displaying the findings and cross-
referencing different geographic areas. Beyond the legal classifications of tribal areas,
the 1996 report suggested a typology of areas based on internal resources, integration
with broader economy, and institutional and cultural factors (Near Urban, Remote,
Alaska), and divided those groups further by population size, share of Native population,
and the level of employment in the private for-profit and self-employed sector. While the
typology should be updated and tested using more current data, we expect grouping the
tribal areas in this way is still a useful way to examine the nature and severity of housing
needs.



                                               46
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       The work will entail a substantial program to assemble data. First, we will obtain
and utilize secondary information from a variety of sources (including a sizeable number
of relevant data files from the U.S. Bureau of the Census and from other government
agencies, as well as physical reports and documents).

      The most important component of our primary data collection will involve visits to
a sampled 60 individual AIAN tribal areas, where we will conduct:
          A major, carefully thought through, household survey that will employ an
            interviewer-present, paper-and-pencil-instrument (PAPI) methodology
            (sample of 1,900 households in total). The surveys will be conducted by a
            tribal member.
          Enumerator “walk through” observations of housing conditions (same
            1,900 sampled units) and observations on location and neighborhood
            conditions, and
          In-person interviews with TDHE officials, tribal leaders, and program staff
            on tribal lands.

      Other primary data collection will include:
             Telephone interviews with a national sample of around 200 TDHEs
             A survey of lenders, also conducted by telephone (total sample of 80)
             Urban case studies that include site visits (with in-person interviews in five
              urban settings)
             Telephone interviews with staff at Urban Indian Community Centers and
              with Public Housing Agency (PHA) officials in urban communities that
              serve significant numbers of Native Americans
             A site visit to Hawaii, involving an active program of interviews and other
              data collection

       In summary, our research approach, described in the following subsections, is
grounded in a conceptual framework, builds on existing knowledge and consultations
with experts, and is sensitive to tribal culture and research procedures.




                                               47
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




B. Native Americans and Alaska Natives

B.1. Approach to Research on Demographic and Socio-Economic Trends and on
Housing Conditions and Needs
       This section describes our approach to addressing the research questions from
the RFP related to: (1) demographic, geographic, and economic characteristics and (2)
housing conditions of Native Americans and Alaska Natives. While this section focuses
on the AIAN population, the research questions and secondary data sources also apply
to our research approach for Native Hawaiians. We will incorporate our analysis of
secondary data along with the literature review mentioned above into an Interim Report
(see Task 8 in Section VII). These findings will also be incorporated into the Final
Report (Task 12). Given that there is a full year between the Interim and Final Reports,
we will review our initial secondary data analysis at the time of the final analysis and
update any secondary sources or literature as appropriate.




                                               48
    PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
    URBAN INSTITUTE




        Demography, Geography and Economy
        -   What is the extent of population growth (change) since the previous study?
        -   What kinds of diversity in living and economic conditions are observed using the 2000 Census and 2010 (ACS) data?
            How does this compare to what was observed in the 1996 report, which used the 1990 Census data?
        -   What are the current social and economic conditions for the population (age, household composition, education,
            employment, poverty, etc?) How have they changed over time?
        -   What kind of diversity in living conditions exists across the tribal areas? Where do most AIAN and Native Hawaiian
            people live? On reservations, near-reservations, in Hawaiian Home Lands, central cities, suburbs, etc? How has this
            changed over time?
        -   What kinds of economic diversity exist across tribal areas? What are the major industries that employ people in and near
            tribal areas? How do they differ across tribal areas? In urban areas? How has this changed over time?
        -   How do housing and socio-economic conditions vary by the presence of gaming? How important is this industry
            compared to other economic activities? How has this changed over time?
        Housing Issues
        -   Are housing problems as severe as the 1990 Census data indicate? Have living conditions improved or worsened?
        -   What are the major housing problems and needs for AIAN people and Native Hawaiians, especially on reservations and
            in near-reservation areas? What are the issues for those living in urban areas? What are the levels of rent/cost burden?
            How does housing quality vary across different geographies?
        -   What are the issues and conditions that lead to greater housing needs in Indian Country? Is it due to remote locations?
            High levels of poverty? Lack of capacity or problems with infrastructure? What kinds of infrastructure challenges are
            particular to Indian Country? What is the role of interagency dependency?
        -   What are the appropriate standards for housing needs and problems? Should they go beyond those defined by the
            Census?
        -   What types of housing structures are prevalent in tribal areas? What are the constraints on building types? Is it remote
            location, lack of resources, environmental issues or some combination?
        -   What type of land use issues and practices exist in tribal areas? How do these contribute to housing supply?
        -   What proportion of units are rental vs. homeownership? Does this have implications for housing quality?



       Based on our experience in housing needs analysis, we propose taking
advantage of primary and secondary data sources that together will allow us to produce
an accurate portrait of housing needs of Native Americans, Alaska Natives and Native
Hawaiians. Section IV details our primary data collection supporting this component of
the study, including a household survey and enumerator observations of housing
conditions; in-person and telephone interviews with tribal officials; and urban case
studies and telephone interviews. Secondary data sources, which are discussed below,
include the Decennial Census and ACS; HUD administrative data; and supplemental
secondary data.

                                                                    49
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




        The Decennial Census and American Community Survey will form the
cornerstone of our analysis. Based on the Decennial Census 2000, the American
Indian and Alaska Native Summary File (AIANSF) sample file contains data on the
nation, regions, divisions, states, metropolitan areas, American Indian and Alaska
Native areas, and Hawaiian home lands. With 213 population tables and 110 housing
tables, this is the richest source of data on American Indian demographics, household
income and employment, housing markets, and housing problems. In Spring 2011, the
2010 Decennial Census will provide core information on household type, age,
race/ethnicity, and housing tenure, but none of the more detailed information contained
in the 2000 census.

      In the mid 1990’s, the Census Bureau responded to the growing need for more
frequently released data and began the development of the American Community
Survey as a replacement for the Decennial Census long-form. Data for the single-year
estimates are already available for the Creek OTSA, Lumbee, and United Houma
Nation. In late 2010, the ACS will release the five-year estimates for areas under
20,000 in population, and the RFP also refers to special tabulations that will be available
in May 2010, presumably similar to the file in 2000.

    Demographic               Social                Economic                Housing
                                                                         Characteristics
  - Population           - Disability         - Household               - Stock (size,
  growth & spatial                            income and                structure type)
                         - Educational
  patterns                                    poverty
                         attainment                                     - Tenure
  - Age, household                            - Employment
  composition                                                           - Presence of
                                              - Health                  plumbing and
  - Single-race vs.                           insurance                 kitchen facilities
  multiple races
                                              - Major industries        - Housing costs
                                              and occupations           relative to income



       One documented weakness of the Decennial Census 2000 is the undercount of
Native Americans outside of the tribal areas (0.88 percent in 2000) (U.S. Census
Bureau 2003). While there has been no parallel analysis of the American Community
Survey, this is a concern for that dataset too, particularly because of its smaller sample

                                               50
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




size. Discussions with the Census Bureau officials will include questions about this
issue. Another concern for ascertaining the trends in American Indian population is the
fact that race is self-identified and individuals’ choices may change over time (see
Kingsley, et al et al. 1996). While these two issues existed at the time of the 1996
study, a further complication was introduced beginning with the Census 2000, when
respondents could choose up to six races. Nationally, 2.4 million people chose AIAN
alone, while another 2.1 million chose AIAN in combination with one or more other
races. How we categorize the population with multiple races will be one question to
bring to the advisory panel in determining the total American Indian population count,
and examination of the differences will relate to the IHBG formula analysis described in
the next section. However, the cross-tabulations with more detailed characteristics
have less flexibility since they only include those individuals or householders who chose
only Native American, Alaskan Native or Hawaiian.

       Annually released five-year ACS data will represent a historic milestone in small-
area data, but the interpretation will be more difficult than the point-in-time data. First,
the ACS sample size is considerably smaller than the 2000 long form (1 in 9 for the five-
year estimates compared to 1 in 6 in 2000), making it more difficult to determine if
differences among races or among geographic areas are statistically significant. No
matter when the new ACS data set is first released, researchers would have to struggle
with the appropriate use of the indicators, particularly on how to reliably compare the
new five-year period estimate with the point-in-time 2000 census long-form. The fact
that the estimates will be an average of surveys collected monthly from 2005 to 2009
introduces additional complications, since the figures will span both the period of
economic expansion and the recent recession. While this will be an improvement over
the ten year old figures, the economic measures on income and employment in
particular will be outdated.

        Household surveys in tribal areas will fill critical shortcomings in the Census
data, both in currency and substance (see Section IV for survey implementation details).
First, knowing the current housing and economic situation of the tribal residents will help
to update the ACS data and ascertain how residents are faring during the recession.
The surveys also can include questions about individuals’ housing plans in the short-


                                               51
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




and long-term, which will help policymakers forecast changes in residential patterns and
preferences.

       Another rationale for the household survey is that many aspects of American
Indian housing needs, such as housing conditions and quality of facilities, are not
available from any existing data sources. Also, the housing need measures described
in Section II are subjective and not tailored to different cultural norms. The RFP calls for
an exploration of the appropriate standards for measuring American Indian housing
needs, and residents’ perspectives about their housing problems may suggest
measures beyond those readily available in national data sets.

       A final benefit of the household survey will be to validate findings from the
American Community Survey; therefore, the direct comparison of ACS and household
survey is essential. Although the two surveys cover different time periods, viewing the
results of the survey and the ACS side-by-side on indicators of affordability,
overcrowding, and presence of facilities will help us assess how well the American
Community Survey is capturing these measures of need.

        In Section IV we describe the sampling and primary data collection strategy in
detail, but we note here that the household survey can only deliver the benefits above if
the implementation is significantly improved from the 1996 survey.




                                               52
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       The 1996 survey covered a wide range of topics:

            Topics                                        Definition
                                 Presence and functioning of plumbing, sewer systems,
Housing Unit Characteristics
                                 cooking facilities, electricity, and heating systems
Perceived Housing Quality and    Resident’s attitude toward their lot and unit size, storage
Problems                         space, roads, neighborhood quality
Housing Preferences              Structure type and size, proximity to social networks
                                 Ease of access to services, importance of services if
Access to Services
                                 resident were moving
                                 Tenancy status and preferences, future plans, barriers to
Preferences for Homeownership
                                 homeownership
Reasons for Living on or         Past, current, and planned residency, attitudes toward
Outside Indian Land              residency
Attitudes toward IHA Housing,
Tribal Housing, and other        Awareness, participation, attitudes toward the programs
Housing Programs
Household Characteristics and    Description of occupants, inclination to move out, current
Housing Costs                    housing costs, past and current purchase prices



       Given the current recession and housing crisis, new topics may include mortgage
lending and housing impacts from recent changes in employment and income.

       Enumerator direct observations were included as part of the household survey
design in the 1996 assessment. It is essential that these be included again. In addition
to the questions for the householder, the survey included housing type and conditions
as observed by the enumerator. The items collected included basic property
information (structure type, lot size, and outbuildings) and also details about the homes’
exteriors (materials and conditions). Most importantly, the enumerators objectively
documented five individual interior conditions for all units and four additional ones for
public areas of multifamily buildings, based on measures from the American Housing
Survey.

       We will also expand the instrument so that enumerators characterize and rate the
area immediately surrounding each sampled housing unit, whether the unit is in a
remote location or in a settlement. We will develop an instrument that will be



                                                 53
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




informative and reliable and meet what we understand to be HUD’s intent in calling for a
“windshield survey.”

       Supplemental secondary data sources are a low-cost way to gain contextual
information about Native Americans in and outside of tribal areas, particularly for more
recent years. Since the original study in 1996, the federal government has made great
strides in releasing a variety of administrative data for local areas. These sets will play
an important role in providing data reflecting more current economic and housing
conditions, given the five-year time period of the American Community Survey.

       The Urban Institute has extensive experience with all of these data sets. In
2002, the Fannie Mae Foundation asked the Urban Institute to assemble, clean, and
streamline a sizeable number of national datasets to be placed on its then-new
DataPlace Website; UI has continued to update all of these files annually (even after
DataPlace itself closed). This existing set of data files will be integrated into the
research design and present great value to the government. Files relevant for
addressing questions related to housing, economic and social conditions are listed
below.




Housing
         Building permits: The U.S. Census Bureau collects data on new privately owned
housing units authorized by building permits for permit-issuing jurisdictions (places and
counties). The data files, released monthly, include the number of buildings and housing units
authorized and the estimated construction cost. While this may not comprehensively cover
tribal areas, it can give some insight into broader housing market prospects where data is
available. Most recent data: May 2010
         A Picture of Subsidized Housing (APSH): APSH describes the 5 million households
living in HUD-subsidized housing in the United States. From APSH, we can calculate the share
of Native Americans living in public or privately owned subsidized housing, as well as the share
using Housing Choice Vouchers down to the census tract level. This will be an important




                                                 54
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




source of assisted housing information for Native Americans living outside of tribal areas. Most
recent data: 2008.
        Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC): The LIHTC database contains information
on nearly 31,251 projects and over 1,843,000 housing units placed in service between 1987 and
2007. Created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the LIHTC program gives State and local
LIHTC-allocating agencies the equivalent of nearly $8 billion in annual budget authority to issue
tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing targeted to
lower-income households. The database includes project address, number of units and low-
income units, number of bedrooms, year the credit was allocated, year the project was placed in
service, type of project and credit provided, and other sources of project financing. Listokin
(2006) provides a good model for analyzing the patterns of the use of LIHTC in producing
affordable housing in tribal areas. Most recent data: 2007.
         Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA): HMDA requires certain mortgage lending
institutions to disclose data about loan applications and approvals. Data collected under HMDA
are used to help determine whether lending institutions are meeting the housing credit needs of
their communities; to help public officials target community development investment; and to help
regulators enforce fair lending laws. The data include individual loan application records,
including property census tract, loan amounts, approval or denial status, whether a loan had a
high interest rate, and borrower and lender characteristics. UI had reconfigured pre-2003
HMDA data (initially published using 1990 census tracts) to 2000-defined census tracts, so we
can provide trend analysis on the home purchase opportunities for Native Americans. HMDA
also provides key information about high cost lending. The comprehensive HMDA analysis in
Listokin (2006) describes the limitations of HMDA in rural areas, which we will take into account
in the analysis design. Most recent data: 2008.
        Lender Processing Services, Inc (LPS): LPS Applied Analytics’ (formerly known as
McDash Analytics) database covers more than 40 million active first mortgages and five million
second mortgages, spanning the spectrum of agency, non-agency and portfolio products. The
company offers data at the loan level and summary files for geographies such as ZIP codes and
counties. This database contains more than 80 loan attributes, including product type detail,
geographic detail down to ZIP level, ARM detail, FICO, document type, property value,
occupancy type, property type, loan purpose and loan size. The Urban Institute has experience
in using this file to track foreclosure inventory and mortgage delinquencies at the ZIP code-level
as part of the Foreclosure-Response.org website (with the Center for Housing Policy and LISC)
and at the loan-level as part of the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling (NFMC) program
evaluation. While the data are not available by race, we can identify the zip codes in the tribal
areas to tabulate information and explore acquiring this data for the key areas. Most recent
data: June 2010.


                                                 55
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




        USPS vacancy data: For the past two years, HUD has aggregated quarterly data from
the United States Postal Service (USPS) on the number of total, vacant, and long-term vacant
residential addresses by census tract. While this data has some weaknesses in rural areas, it
provides a very current snapshot of neighborhood housing markets in areas where the data is
reliable. Most recent data: June 2010.

Demographic, economic and social conditions
        Tribal Resident Service Area Indian Population (TRSAIP): TRSAIP represents the
number of AIAN persons residing within its Service Area as defined by the BIA, and includes
both members of the particular tribe and members of other tribes. TRSAIP data are collected by
the BIA and are published annually. HUD uses TRSAIP as certified by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) in allocating Needs data among tribes that share Formula Areas, unless the tribes
agree to an alternative method of allocation. Like much Indian Country data, the timeliness,
quality, and validity of the BIA TRSAIP data have been challenged by some (Hillabrant, Earp
and Rhoades 2004). We will assess the current and potential impact of the TRSAIP data in the
context of the evaluation of the IHBG formula.
        Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS): The LAUS program produces monthly
and annual employment, unemployment, and labor force data for Census regions and divisions,
States, counties, metropolitan areas, and many cities, by place of residence. Given the
importance of tracking recent trends as the country comes out of the recession, LAUS can
provide important economic context for counties encompassing tribal areas. Most recent data:
May 2010
        Native Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI): The CDFI Fund
directly invests in, supports, and trains CDFIs that provide loans, investments, financial
services, and technical assistance to underserved populations and in low-income or
economically distressed communities. Through its New Markets Tax Credit Program, the CDFI
Fund provides allocations of tax credits to Community Development Entities, which enable them
to attract investment from the private sector and reinvest funds in low-income communities.
Many native CDFI-supported projects involve housing components. The fund reports each year
data on loans, investments, and other measures of business/economic development in Indian
Country. Analyses of these data will inform our assessment of economic/social circumstances
in Indian Country.
        County/Zip Business Patterns: The U.S. Census Bureau’s Business Patterns series is
produced annually and provides county and zip-code level economic data by industry. The
series is useful for studying the economic activity of small areas; analyzing economic changes


                                                56
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




over time; and benchmarking statistical series, surveys, and databases between economic
censuses. The Business Patterns series provides information on number of establishments and
employment. While not as recent as the LAUS data, it does give detailed breakdown of
employment by industry. Most recent data: 2007
        Local Employment Dynamics (LED): The LED program publishes two data products
that can help describe the broader economic picture of tribal areas. The Quarterly Workforce
Indicators (QWI) reports on total employment, net job flows, job creation, turnover, and average
monthly earnings for counties. The Worker and Resident Characteristics’ data describes the
income range and major industry at the block group level, in addition to worker flows - where
workers are employed in relation to where they live. Most recent data: 2009Q3 (QWI), 2008
(Origin-Destination).
         National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core Public School data:
NCES conducts an annual survey of state education agencies to obtain data for every public
elementary and secondary school, which it then compiles and publishes as the Common Core
of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey (CCD). The CCD has two main
purposes: 1) to provide an official listing of public elementary and secondary schools and school
districts in the nation as a basis for samples for other NCES surveys; and 2) to provide basic
descriptive statistics on public elementary and secondary schools. Mostly derived from
administrative records, data cover school characteristics such as student-teacher ratio, and
federal Title I funding eligibility, and also provide information on enrolled student characteristics,
including race/ethnicity, free/reduced price lunch eligibility, migrant status, and gender. This file
can show the characteristics of the schools (such as free/reduced lunch, enrollment trends, etc.)
in tribal areas or those with high shares of AIAN students. Most recent data: 2008




       Telephone and in-person interviews with tribal officials(See Section IV)
Questions relevant to this section of the research on demographic and socio-economic
trends and housing conditions also will be addressed through interviews with Tribal
Leaders, Indian Housing Officials and other key informants (both the TDHE telephone
surveys and the in-person surveys conducted during the site visits). It will be extremely
helpful to know the perceptions of these individuals related to economic and other
circumstances that will determine the future well-being of the tribe overall, as well as


                                                   57
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




about housing issues per se (current levels and trends in conditions). Access to these
perceptions, as well as the objective measures we obtain from other primary and
secondary sources, will provide a rich basis for our assessment of current policies and
potentials for the future.

        Urban Case Studies and Telephone Interviews. Parallel to the tribal
interviews above, the five case studies and telephone interviews in 25 metropolitan
areas will provide information about the housing needs of Native Americans and Alaska
Natives living outside of tribal lands and about the federal housing assistance programs
available to them.


B.2. Approach to Research on Housing Policy and Programs: Main Housing
Policy/Program Operations
       This section describes our approach for answering the research questions stated
in the RFP related to: (1) federal issues / NAHASDA, (2) IHBG formula issues, and (3)
housing issues the demographics, socio-economic characteristics, and housing
conditions of Native Americans and Alaska Natives.




                                               58
    PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
    URBAN INSTITUTE




             Federal issues/Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of
     1996 (NAHASDA)

     -   What are the implications of this change [from categorical to block grant funding] on the current housing stock and living
         conditions of AIAN people in the areas covered by NAHASDA?
     -   What effect has the funding change has had on the housing needs and quality in areas served by NAHASDA and IHBG.
         For example, has the new funding strategy created new opportunities for leveraging of financial services?
     -   What has been the effect on housing needs since the implementation of NAHASDA? Are as many families served? Are
         housing conditions, in terms of quality, crowding, and affordability similar in HUD (or other) assisted units after
         NAHASDA?
     -   Describe all HUD and other federal housing programs serving tribal people. To the extent data are available, describe the
         changes in how these programs serve AIAN and Native Hawaiian people since the 1996 report.
                Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) Formula Issues

     -   Could a new, more consistent, summary level be constructed using ACS data that would describe all areas that receive
         IHBG funding? Is there a better, more systematic way of dealing with geographies that are claimed by two or more tribes
         (overlapping tribes)?
     -   Are the formula calculations accurately measuring housing need?
          -     What are the implications for counts of AIAN and Native Hawaiian people who are multiple races?
          -     How are the Census data collected? What are the Census staff approaches to accurately collecting data on the
                AIAN and Native Hawaiian populations?
                Housing Issues

     -   Compare housing problems in assisted vs. unassisted units. What portion of the population is receiving federal housing
         assistance? In particular, how many people are served by HUD assistance? Are there quality differences between
         assisted and unassisted units?
     -   How have HUD (or other) programs that make mortgage financing more available (such as Section 184, the Indian Home
         Loan Guarantee Program), affected rates of homeownership? Are these programs being used well and are they
         effective? Are banks more willing to lend to people on reservations? Generally, what kind of credit is available?
     -   Has lending been reduced due to the current financial crisis? Overall, how have tribal areas fared during the mortgage
         crisis? Are on-reservation markets sheltered to some extent? How are households responding to collapsing markets and
         underwater mortgages – if there are indeed problems in tribal areas?



As discussed earlier, NAHASDA was implemented to better coordinate assistance to
Native American tribes and to do so in a manner that allowed for self-determination
(National American Indian Housing Council 2004). One of the main objectives of this
research project is to document the impact of NAHASDA on the ability of grantees to
meet the housing and community development needs of their communities. Because it
created a single block grant (the IHBG program) and required that grantees complete
annual plans that describe their proposed used of IHBG funds, NAHASDA allowed


                                                                      59
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




tribes to target their activities for locally-defined needs. Moreover, the program also
allowed recipients to leverage funds with other financing sources to meet Tribes’
housing and infrastructure needs. According to a recent GAO report, such leveraging is
necessary because IHBG funding alone is not sufficient to address tribal communities’
affordable housing needs (GAO2010).

Federal Housing Assistance to Native American and Alaska Native Households

       We will provide a description of the HUD and other federal housing programs
serving tribal people and how many families are being assisted using HUD
administrative data, as well as other data that is available from BIA, IHS, RHS, Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. Using data from “A Picture of Subsidized Housing,” we will also
be able to describe how many Native Americans are receiving assistance through public
housing, project-based subsidies, or Housing Choice vouchers in non-tribal areas as of
2008 (the latest date currently available). The household survey will provide
information on the perceived and observed quality of assisted versus unassisted
housing, as well as peoples’ attitudes toward IHA Housing, Tribal Housing, and other
Housing Programs. The telephone and in-person interviews with TDHE officials will
also give some insights into local program activities and their views on the quality of
assisted versus unassisted housing.

       Analyzing the effect of NAHASDA on housing conditions and the ability to
leverage grant funds. GAO’s methodology to assess NAHASDA’s impact (including
greater use of leveraging) combines interviews with HUD officials and tribal
representatives along with reviews of IHPs and APRs (GAO 2010). Our proposed
approach to analyze NAHASDA’s impact will use a similar methodology (interviewing
HUD officials, tribal representatives and other stakeholders), but also use the analyses
described above of census data and other measures of housing, economic and social
conditions of Native Americans to document how conditions have changed from the
previous Urban Institute report.

       The quantitative analysis that will use 2000 and 2010 census data and 2005-
2009 ACS data will allow us to report on changes in housing quality and conditions for
Native Americans and Alaska Natives, both on and off tribal areas. These documented

                                               60
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




changes, however, will obviously not be solely the result of NAHASDA, as other factors
influence housing conditions. Therefore, through the telephone and in-person
interviews with officials, we will ask questions about the contribution of NAHASDA to
changes in housing conditions for Native Americans (see Section IV for details). In
addition, we will use information provided by the Expert Panel about the effects of
NAHASDA on housing conditions in Indian land. This will allow us to determine the
causal linkage between the observed changes, as measured by changes in objectively
measured housing characteristics, and the changes in the method in which grantees
received funding under NAHASDA.

        One of the objectives of NAHASDA was to facilitate leveraging of block grant
funds with other sources of financing. According to the GAO report, IHBG grantees are
able to leverage their block grant funds with other sources (such as Section 184
mortgages) to meet the affordable housing needs of their communities (GAO 2010). In
our analysis of NAHASDA’s effect on the ability of grantees to leverage funds, we will
explore using information derived from the IHPs and APRs in the 40 sampled areas
where we will be conducting site visits as well as the household surveys. These reports
detail the sources of financing used to support affordable housing development, and will
allow us to document and analyze changes in the sources and amounts of leveraged
funds used in conjunction with IHBG grants. As part of the background interviews with
regional ONAP staff, we will solicit input regarding the potential use of IHP and APR
data. The quality of the reportsIHPs and APRs may not allow us to use the information
for all areas, but we expect they will provide useful performance information in many
cases.

        Issues related to the IHBG formula. Our research project will investigate the
extent to which the formula used to determine IHBG grants accurately reflects housing
conditions within the grantees’ area, and explore potential changes to the data used in
the formula. In particular, through interviews with members of our proposed panel of
experts, Census officials, and HUD officials, we will examine whether or not more
consistent summary data could be constructed using ACS data that describe all areas
that receive IHBG funding. In addition, through interviews with these key informants, we
will determine if there is a better, more systematic way of dealing with geographies that


                                               61
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




are claimed by two or more tribes. In addition, we will compare the results of our
household survey to our analyses of Census data to determine the accuracy of the
Census data in estimating need. And, because respondents were allowed to list more
than one race in the 2000 Census, we will examine the implications for counts of people
included in the Need formula.


B.3. Lending and Homeownership
        Having conducted a study of lenders in conjunction with the 1996 assessment of
American Indian housing needs as well as a plethora of more recent research related to
the effects of the current economic downturn on housing and homeownership, the
Urban Institute team is solidly positioned to reassess the nature and impacts of both
longstanding and contemporary lending issues pertaining to Indian Land. Information
for this reevaluation will come from a replication of the lender survey and analysis of
other relevant data pertaining to lending and homeownership on Indian Land.

       Given the continued problems associated with mortgage lending on Indian Land,
we will supplement our analyses of loan information from HMDA, loan performance from
LPS (described above) and interviews with Tribal officials, with a lender survey
(described in Section IV) using a methodology similar to that employed in the 1996
Urban Institute survey. We propose to assess the extent of current lending activity and
learn more about both the opportunities and the barriers likely to affect the growth of
such activity in the future. In addition to the topics that were included in the 1996 study,
our survey will include questions about the impact of real estate market declines and
changes to the delinquency and foreclosure rates (if applicable) for loans originated for
properties located in Indian country.

C. Native Hawaiians


C.1. Approach to Research on Housing Conditions and Needs, and Policies and
Programs




                                               62
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       The purpose of this component of the study is to update a 1996 study of the
housing problems and needs of Native Hawaiians. The research questions about the
demographics and socioeconomic status listed above for AIAN populations will also be
explored for Native Hawaiians. The approach proposed combines secondary data
analysis, a site visit, and telephone interviews to answer questions about the conditions
in Native Hawaiians live, their housing problems and needs, and their use of HUD and
other federal housing assistance programs.

       Secondary data collection will provide information that will be used to describe
the characteristics of the Native Hawaiian population, the broader housing context, and
housing needs and problems, along with variation across context or population and
changes over time. In addition to the national data described above in the AIAN
research section, we will explore obtaining other secondary data available from the
Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

        Qualitative data collection will provide additional insights on the characteristics,
context, and housing needs and problems of the Native Hawaiian population. Section
IV details the proposed site visit to Oahu and one other Hawaiian island, which includes
in-person interviews with stakeholders and service providers and focus groups with
homestead representatives. In addition, we will conduct 20-30 interviews with experts
in Hawaii and on the mainland on Native Hawaiian housing conditions and needs.
These methods will provide information on barriers to homeownership and program
implementation, areas of opportunity for improvement or change, processes and
effectiveness of HUD and other federal housing assistance programs, the range and
characteristics of other available programs, the impacts of the financial crisis on housing
problems and needs, and differences in housing problems and needs across contexts.
Visits to Hawaiian Homelands communities will also provide an opportunity to observe
housing conditions.




                                               63
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




IV. DATA COLLECTION

       As is clear from the description of our Research Approach (Section III), no
comprehensive data source exists that speaks to the full range of interests that the RFQ
addresses. Secondary data sources only supply a subset of the indicators that a
housing needs assessment requires. To understand fully the housing needs in tribal
areas, including residents’ own perspectives on their housing challenges, the project
requires primary data collection that will capture the experiences of residents, tribal
housing program officials, and tribal leaders—from their points of view. In this section,
we first describe our proposed data collection activities related to the AIAN population
and then discuss our data collection plans related to Native Hawaiians.

A. Native Americans and Alaska Natives

       As noted earlier, primary data collection activities to assess the housing
conditions and needs of Native Americans and Alaska Natives include the following:

          A major, carefully developed, in-person household survey that will employ a
           paper-and-pencil-instrument (PAPI) methodology; interviewers will include
           tribal members
          Enumerator “walk through” observations of housing conditions and
           “windshield surveys” when enumerator observations are not possible
          A national telephone survey of TDHE officials
          A telephone survey of lenders
          In-person interviews with TDHE officials, tribal leaders, and program staff on
           tribal lands
          Urban case studies that include site visits and in-person interviews
          Telephone interviews with staff at Urban Indian Community Centers and with
           Public Housing Agency (PHA) officials in urban communities that serve
           significant numbers of Native Americans

      Exhibit 3 summarizes how these data collection activities will be used in
combination with secondary data analysis to address the study questions.

                                               64
           PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
           URBAN INSTITUTE


   Exhibit 3. Summary of Research Questions and Data Collection for Native Americans and Alaska Natives
   *Research Questions taken from pages 30-33 of RFQ R-CHI-01055

                                                                                          DATA SOURCES AND RESPONDENTS
                                                                                     Primary Data                                                       Secondary Data
Research Questions and Data                 Household    Enumerator/      Telephone Surveys        In-Person Interviews           Telephone      Decennial    HUD      Other
Collection Topics                            Survey      Walkthrough                                                              Interviews:   Census and   Admin     Admin
                                                                          TDHEs      Lenders    TDHE Officials,   Urban Indian       Urban       American     Data      Data
                                                                                                Tribal Leaders,    Community         Indian     Community
                                                                                                 Program Staff    Center, PHA,    Community       Survey
                                                                                                                  and Program     Center and
                                                                                                                      Staff        PHA Staff

Sample Size                                 1900 total    1900 total        200          80      5-12 Per Site    5-12 Per Site      25                 Not Applicable
Scope                                       60 Tribal      60 tribal      National    40 tribal 40 Tribal areas   5 Case Study     National               National
                                              Areas         areas         sample        areas                        Cities        Sample
                                                                              Federal Issues/NAHASDA
Implications of NAHASDA on current                                           X                         X
housing stock and living conditions
Effects of funding change on housing                                         X           X             X                                                       X
needs and quality, on leveraging
opportunities
Effects of NAHASDA on housing                   X             X              X           X                                                                     X
needs--# served, quality, crowding,
affordability
HUD and other federal housing                                                X           X             X               X              X                        X
programs serving tribal people
                                                                  Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) Formula Issues
Service areas and improved ways of                                           X                        X                                             X          X
addressing geographies claimed by
overlapping tribes
Accuracy of formula calculation sin             X                                                                                                   X
measuring housing need
Implication of multiple race reporting in                                                                                                           X          X
Census
Census data collection process                                                                     X                                                X
                                                                         Demography, Geography, Economy
Population growth since 1996 study                                          X                                                                       X
Diversity in living and economic                                            X                      X                   X              X             X          X



                                                                    65
           PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
           URBAN INSTITUTE


                                                                                      DATA SOURCES AND RESPONDENTS
                                                                                 Primary Data                                                          Secondary Data
Research Questions and Data               Household    Enumerator/    Telephone Surveys        In-Person Interviews              Telephone      Decennial    HUD      Other
Collection Topics                          Survey      Walkthrough                                                               Interviews:   Census and   Admin     Admin
                                                                      TDHEs        Lenders     TDHE Officials,   Urban Indian       Urban       American     Data      Data
                                                                                               Tribal Leaders,    Community         Indian     Community
                                                                                                Program Staff    Center, PHA,    Community       Survey
                                                                                                                 and Program     Center and
                                                                                                                     Staff        PHA Staff

Sample Size                               1900 total    1900 total      200          80         5-12 Per Site    5-12 Per Site      25                 Not Applicable
Scope                                     60 Tribal      60 tribal    National     40 tribal   40 Tribal areas   5 Case Study     National               National
                                            Areas         areas       sample        areas                           Cities        Sample
conditions-changes over time
Social and economic conditions                X             X            X                           X                X              X             X          X
Diversity in living conditions across         X             X            X                           X                X                            X
tribal areas
Economic diversity across tribal                                         X                           X                                             X                    X
areas/major industries and employers
Effects of gaming                             X                          X                           X                                                                  X

                                                                                 Housing Issues
Changes in living conditions since            X             X            X                           X                X              X             X          X
1990 Census
Major housing problems and needs              X             X            X                           X                X              X             X


Issues and conditions leading to              X                          X                           X
greater housing needs
Appropriate standards for housing             X             X            X                           X                                             X          X
needs and problems
Types of housing structures; constraint       X             X            X                           X
on building types
Land use issues and practices                                            X            X              X
Assisted vs. unassisted unites                X             X            X                           X                                                        X
Rental s ownership                            X             X            X            X                                                                       X         X
Lending issues and the current                                           X            X              X                                                                  X
financial crisis




                                                                 66
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




A.1. Household Survey and Enumerator Observations
        Our previous discussion of the use of census and other secondary data to
assess socio-demographic and housing conditions established the importance of the
household survey. This section describes our proposed sample size and selection
criteria, and then explains our plan for successful field implementation of the survey.
Following a description of the sample and household survey, we describe each of the
other field data collection components.

      A.1.a. Sample
        We propose to use a multistage probability sample design to produce reliable
estimates of housing and related conditions across Indian Country. In brief, the design
calls for proportional stratification by region and size. Within each stratum, tribal
programs will be selected using probability proportionate to size (PPS).

       We propose a much larger sample of tribal sites than we used in our 1996
survey, enabling us to better capture diversity across Indian Country. The sample
design, along with an increase of sample sites to 60 and an increase in sample size to
1,900 households, will yield reliable measures of housing need and conditions such as
overcrowding, homelessness, adequacy of infrastructure (e.g., sanitation, electricity),
types of financing available and used, and rent burden/cost—as well as information on
factors likely to be associated with variations in these measures.

        For consistency and comparability purposes, and be able to assess change over
time, we intend to stratify tribal areas by region using the same nine regions utilized in
our 1996 study. In 1996 the regions were defined, initially, by using HUD’s six Field
Office of Native American Programs (FONAP) designations. However, three of the six
(those headquartered in Chicago, Oklahoma City, and Phoenix) were too
heterogeneous; each, therefore, was split into two sub-regions—yielding the following
nine regions: (1) North Central; (2) Eastern; (3) Oklahoma; (4) South Central; (5) Plains;
(6) Arizona-New Mexico; (7) California-Nevada; (8) Pacific Northwest; and (9) Alaska.




                                               67
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




         Within each region, we plan to implicitly stratify by size of tribal area, excluding
tribal areas with fewer than 250 AIAN households. We propose to exclude small sites
because they account for such a small share of the overall AIAN population living on
tribal land, and we want to ensure that our 60-site clusters provide as much coverage
and diversity as possible. Using data from Census 2000, this sampling strategy covers
over 97 percent of the AIAN population in tribal areas. In Alaska, the strategy covers
just over 80 percent of the population; however, this should not negatively affect our
estimates as the sampling procedure is intended to obtain national estimates rather
than estimates for Alaska Natives alone. Size will be determined using Census 2000
counts of American Indian “race alone or in combination with other races” measure.
This ensures that the tribal areas sampled for the survey will be spread throughout the
distribution of size for each region, with larger areas having a higher probability of
inclusion into the sample.

        While we will fix the number of site clusters at 60, NORC’s extensive data
collection experience in Indian Country suggests that we be concerned about levels of
non- participation at the tribal level—regardless of the efforts we intend to make to
encourage participation. Such instances can arise from limited tribal capacity to host
researchers, inability to identify tribal partners to help to collect data, tribal events that
are incompatible with the data-collection schedule, or difficulties gaining approval from
tribal IRBs. Through our experience on other projects in tribal areas, we are very aware
that there are wide disparities in the qualifications and capabilities of tribal
administrative personnel. Also, administrative personnel at smaller tribes often have
multiple responsibilities and, thus, a limited amount of time to respond to information
requests. For this reason, we plan to oversample tribal areas. Our approach to
oversampling balances the need to maintain quality control over sample size with the
importance of avoiding convenience sampling—which we believe undermines the
credibility of survey results. This is critical because the sample size (number of
interviews) could swing by 10, 20 or 30 percent, depending on the number of reluctant
tribal sites that cannot be encouraged to participate—representing a large risk to the
government investment in this survey.




                                                68
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




      We will select 60 sites and also “reserve samples” that are in waiting to replace
non-respondent sites so we reach the target of 60 sites. For planning and budgeting
purposes, we propose to select a reserve sample of 30 tribal areas. This number is
based on the Institute’s experience with the 1996 study as well as NORC’s more recent
experience surveying tribal communities for the U.S. Census Bureau.

        The 60 sites and 30 alternate sites will be contacted at the start of the survey
effort and informed of their status. Pre-data collection planning will be initiated with both
groups but we will be very clear that intensive efforts will be made to obtain the
participation of the 60 sites before replacing any of them with a reserve site. This is a
very important point because selecting the first 60 that agree to participate among the
90, without regard to sample or reserve status, would amount to convenience sampling.

        For the household survey, we will oversample 2,375 addresses to obtain 1,900
interviews across the 60 tribes, with the goal of achieving an 80 percent response rate
(an average of 32 AIAN respondents in each tribal area).

        Our sample is designed to produce national estimates of AIAN and associated
households in tribal areas. One complication is that the four largest tribal areas
(Navajo, Cherokee, Creek, and Lumbee) are quite large: Based on the 2000 census,
they accounted for 42 percent of the total AIAN and associated persons in tribal areas.
Allocation of the sample strictly in proportion to population would lead to interviewing
over 40 percent of the sample in these four areas. We believe such heavy interviewing
in these four areas is neither feasible nor a good use of resources. Instead, we propose
to interview only twice as many persons in these large areas as are interviewed in other
areas and then weight any national estimates to account for this disproportionately low
sampling rate. This weighting will reduce the precision of any national estimates but
this is unavoidable as it would be inappropriate to exclude the largest tribes from the
survey. We intend to do analyses of the survey data that exclude the largest tribal
areas, which will provide more precise estimates for small- and medium-sized tribes.

       To get a better sense of the likely precision of a national estimate, we have
calculated expected confidence interval using several clustering scenarios—that is,
characteristics within tribal areas that are more similar than those across tribes. Below

                                               69
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




are projected confidence intervals using all tribal areas and, then, excluding the four
largest (60,000 or over).

Exhibit 4. Illustrative Confidence Interval Calculations
                                                      Clustering
                                Moderate              Fairly high               High
 All Sites                       45.5 - 54.5            44.4 - 55.6        43.5 - 56.5
 Excluding Large Sites            46.2 - 53.8            45.3 - 54.7       44.5 - 55.5

        Sampling for other primary data-collection efforts. The sample of 60 tribal
sites will also form the basis for the sampling that will be drawn for (a) in-person
interviews with tribal leaders and staff, (b) a national telephone survey of TDHE officials,
and (c) a lender survey. And, we will conduct site visits that include interviews with
TDHE officials, tribal leaders and housing program staff at 40 of the 60 tribal sites. The
40 will be randomly selected from the sample of 60 sites, thereby ensuring coverage
across regions and tribal size categories.

         Sampling will also be required for the telephone survey of TDHE officials
because, since NAHASDA, there are many more grantees (over 540) than the 181 IHAs
that we surveyed by telephone for the 1996 study. Current NAHASDA grantees include
both TDHEs and tribally operated housing programs. We will use the same sample
stratification strategy, by region, as described above for sampling and surveying
TDHEs—planning on drawing a sample of 200. We will use the lists (with names and
contact information) posted on HUD’s website as the basis for sampling. We propose to
draw a simple stratified random sample with a goal of reflecting average NAHASDA
grantee experience. For areas that have many grantees with small service populations
(e.g., Alaska with over 200 small Native Villages, and California with many small
Rancherias), we will work with Alaska Regional Corporations and grantees that serve
groups of Rancherias to draw the sample—but the samples will not be purposive. This
strategy, however, may result in a separate, parallel analysis specifically for areas
where groupings are necessary.




                                                70
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       For the lender survey, we will select a random sample of private mortgage
lending institutions that have a presence in each of the 40 areas selected for the visits.
(Further details of sample for the lender survey are provided later in this section.)

        We expect that this sampling plan will be revised or further refined in Task 4,
Research Design, incorporating information and suggestions gleaned from the seven
consultations planned by HUD, input from our Expert Panel, and more recent data that
may become available from the Census subject to specific access protocols. It is
extremely important that that both HUD and the research team remain flexible with
respect to the sampling design as well as data-collection procedures in order agree on a
final design that facilitates cooperation for all of the data-collection components of this
study.

      Address-based sampling to create a sampling frame for the household
survey. Our experience suggests that obtaining lists of household addresses on tribal
lands will be challenging. We propose three methods for gathering this critical
information. Our approach is informed by NORC’s recent experience with the 2010
Census Integrated Communications Campaign (2010 Census ICC), in which nearly 60
percent of the tribes did not have postal addresses for tribal residents within the
reservation or on tribal lands.

        Using standard address-based sampling procedures, we will begin by requesting
USPS address lists for the 60 tribal areas selected for the study as well as for the 30
alternate sites. However, we anticipate that many households may not have a
registered address; instead, they will use post office boxes and not appear on the lists.
During the pre-fieldwork phase of the study, in which we propose to conduct outreach to
gain the cooperation of tribes and native corporations (see description in Section A.
1.e), we will also request a list of household addresses from those entities. For areas in
which USPS, tribal, and corporation address lists are unavailable, we will undertake a
traditional listing process—with our field employees listing every housing unit in selected
census blocks.

      Our best estimate is that at least 40 percent of tribal household addresses will
need to be obtained through the listing process. We will request formal permission from

                                               71
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




tribal or Native Corporation officials to engage in this process. It will involve in-person
enumeration with a two-person team conducting a thorough sweep of the tribal areas to
account for the locations and addresses of all dwellings. We estimate that we will have
to conduct listing at 24 sites. Using our prior experience to guide our procedures for the
household survey, this activity will be staffed by the designated field interviewer and a
field manager (with one serving as the driver), and is expected to last up to five days.
We anticipate that some tribes will provide maps of the tribal lands or native villages to
use as a guide. For example, during the 2010 Census ICC project, staff at one tribal
natural resources department provided a map, studied NORC’s maps, and provided
information about where houses were located in a very sparsely populated mountain
area. During the pretest, we will explore the use of alternative methodologies, including
geographic information tools such as Google maps, to verify the address lists developed
for the sampling frame.

        Compiling the information to develop the sampling frame will involve a three step-
process. First, each tribal area will be partitioned into tracts (based on postal address
files) or “segments” of housing units (based on Census block-level data). Five to ten
segments will be selected for each tribal area to allow for approximately 30 interviews
per tribal area. Next, the listing sheets and maps will be generated. This activity
involves preparing the listing sheets (i.e., making changes to the listing sheet generation
program, generating listing sheets, and conducting quality control), editing the listing
sheets and conducting quality control both before and after data entry, making the
listing maps, and printing and binding of listing sheets and maps. After the listing of
segments is complete, data entry of the listing sheets will occur. Meanwhile, geocoding
will be done to assign the appropriate postal addresses to our selected tracts. The
combination of these two processes will result in a comprehensive file of household
addresses for sampling. Specialized software will be used to allocate the proposed
sample of 2,375 potential respondents across the segments within the 60 tribes.
 Systematic sampling will be used to select household units within a segment.

       These activities will be overseen by a Survey Methodologist working with a team
of research assistants. The level of effort proposed for this survey is based on NORC’s
experience with doing listings in four tribal areas for the 2010 Census ICC project. To


                                               72
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




give a sense of the scope of this effort, it culminated in: 5,000 lines entered; listing of
800 blocks; printing and binding 4,000 pages of listing sheets; and printing and binding
1,700 maps. We have appropriately scaled up these efforts by a factor of six in order to
estimate the level of effort for constructing the sampling frame for the household survey.

       A.1.b. Household Survey Content and Instrumentation
        For purposes of consistency and continuity, we propose adapting the household
survey instrument we developed for our 1996 study. The household survey used in that
study consisted primarily of a series of close-ended questions. It obtained respondent
perceptions regarding: housing unit characteristics; perceived housing quality and
problems; housing preferences; access to services; preferences for homeownership;
reasons for living on/off Indian land; attitudes toward government-funded housing;
attitudes toward tribal housing programs; opinions about other housing programs; and
housing characteristics and housing costs. Several questions on the instrument were
open-ended, requiring post-survey qualitative coding.

      We anticipate some modifications to the instrument pending consultation with
PD&R and our Expert Panel. For example, with the block granting of funds under
NAHASDA, residents may not be able to distinguish between the various housing
programs they were able to recognize in the earlier survey.

        Decisions regarding the most appropriate mode of data collection for any survey
must take into consideration the population of interest, the characteristics of the sample,
the types of questions asked and the question topic, the desired response rate, costs,
and time. For the household survey, our experience recommends constructing and
reproducing a Paper and Pencil Instrument (PAPI) in conjunction with an on-site
interviewer. There are multiple advantages for using this approach. It generally yields
the highest cooperation and lowest refusal rates and allows for longer, more complex
interviews with high response quality. It takes advantage of the interviewer presence,
reduces the potential for respondents giving socially desirable responses, and is more
culturally sensitive. Given the challenges of collecting data in remote tribal locations
with limited Internet access, use of computer-assisted methods would not be feasible
and would require extensive in-person training, equipment, and technical support.


                                               73
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Although PAPI administration typically involves a longer data collection period, we
believe that it is the most feasible method for obtaining accurate enumerator
observations and reliable household responses.

       A.1.c. Enumerator Observations
        The household survey will include an independent assessment (referred to as the
enumerator observation) of the physical characteristics of housing units, conducted by
the field interviewer. It will focus on exterior characteristics and conditions as well as
interior conditions. The 15-item Enumerator Observation developed for our 1996 study
collected information through a checklist related to housing exterior (type of structure,
exterior materials, roof, condition, and access; quality of public areas of multi-family
structures (light fixtures, steps, railings, elevator) as well as interior conditions (exposed
wiring, holes, cracks, paint, vermin). Most of the items were closed-ended, using
“Yes/No” response or scaled ratings, while some items called for open-ended
responses. These items were defined explicitly to support ratings of housing quality and
equipment adequacy consistent with those used in the American Housing Survey. We
intend to review the instrument and make adjustments as needed to assure it still
matches AHS procedures and to meet others objectives as might be suggested by
PD&R or our Expert Panel.

       A.1.d. Pretesting
        Pretesting exercises will examine both the content of the surveys and the
accuracy and usability of all instruments. We will check for problems associated with
the formal aspects of the surveys (such as unclear item wording, missing response
categories, incorrect routing logic) as well as other issues. The wording and the content
of the survey will be thoroughly tested through formal, cognitive interviewing to assess
whether or not potential respondents understand the questions, have trouble answering
the questions, or feel uncomfortable or embarrassed about answering the questions.
The field-testing will also determine the length of time for survey administration, which
will be necessary to estimate for OMB clearance.

       Pre-testing will seek to replicate the conditions of the actual fieldwork to the
extent feasible. The study team recommends use of the “walkthrough” inspection of

                                               74
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




dwellings as the optimal means for assessing housing conditions and quality, and to
ensure reliability between enumerator observations and respondent perceptions. To
ensure the viability of the walkthrough strategy, we will elicit potential barriers and
concerns about conducting the interview in a respondent’s home during the pre-testing
phase. While the questions generally concern housing conditions and assistance, we
must also be sensitive to the that fact that discussion of reasons for living on or off
Indians lands, as well as mapping family relationships, may be emotionally charged
topics for some respondents to address—given tribal experiences with forced
repatriation, removal of children to boarding schools, and tribal termination and
restoration. Thus, pre-testing will: provide insights into potential situations where field
interviewers may need scripts for probing to redirect respondents and where interview
length may increase; ensure that the instrument and its administration are culturally
sensitive to diverse tribal populations; and ascertain whether some questions may be
deemed invasive or disrespectful (e.g., asking an elder who is the head of household
his or her age).

       A.1.e. Interviewer Recruitment and Training
        We will staff the household survey with field interviewers who will be supported
by five geographically dispersed field managers, applying what we know to be
successful and proven recruiting techniques to staffing open interviewer positions.
Recruiting for the household survey poses unique requirements, and we propose to hire
tribal members to administer the interviews at each site. We will recruit, train, and hire
60 local field interviewers to work with the selected tribes and will also recruit 60 back-
up interviewers.

        During the pre-fieldwork phase (described below), where we will conduct
outreach and seek to gain cooperation from the sampled tribes, we will explore tribal
and local employment resources to find suitable candidates. Field operations regional
managers will work closely with the sampled tribes and with tribal colleges and
organizations to identify potential candidates. As each interviewer will conduct about 32
interviews, we plan to staff one field interviewer per tribe. We anticipate the need for
flexible staffing in the event of turnover or to serve as a back-up in case of emergencies.
Persons interested in interviewer positions will apply on-line through NORC’s website or

                                               75
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




submit a paper application if there is limited on-line access. Screening of potential
candidates will occur on the telephone, but hiring will be done in-person. This is
important, as training will occur remotely and it is important to establish a solid working
relationship. Based on recent recruiting experience with the 2010 Census ICC project,
we do not anticipate having difficulty attracting qualified interviewing staff.

        All interviewers will be required to complete an extensive orientation and general
training session focused on basic interviewing techniques. For this study we will
develop customized training for field interviewers to administer the Household Surveys.
All training will be conducted on the phone. This was a successful method for
personalized training for the 2010 Census ICC project and it will also minimize project
costs. Field interviewers will be required to complete the following training activities.
New interviewers will complete a six hour General Training which includes an overview
of survey research, interviewing techniques (e.g., techniques for gaining cooperation,
PAPI administration, tracking sample strategies), and administrative topics. All
interviewers will complete a four hour home study, and a six hour project briefing. The
project briefing will include the project goals and the tasks the interviewers are expected
to complete (e.g., quality review checks of completed PAPI questionnaires). Each
interviewer will also be required to complete a two hour certification mock interview with
their Field Manager. They must demonstrate the ability to administer the agreed-upon
sampling procedure, the screen and survey instruments, and an understanding of their
responsibilities toward confidentiality. After passing the certification they will be ready to
interview. Trainees not passing the certification will be given additional targeted
retraining to address deficiencies and may attempt to pass the certification a second
time.

       A.1. f. Outreach
        Prior to conducting fieldwork with in tribal areas, we will engage in an intensive
period of pre-field activity. During this stage we will begin by developing draft materials
and submitting them to PD&R for approval. Development will include: respondent-
based material such as advance letters, promotional and refusal aversion material;
interviewer recruiting materials; interviewer training and administrative materials,
including interviewer manuals, self-study workbooks and job aids for telephone and field

                                               76
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




staff, and training materials such as mock interview scripts and interviewer certification
checklists. All respondent material will be tailored appropriately to address the sampled
tribal populations. Additional materials will also be produced, including introductory
cards for field interviewers.

         While awaiting OMB clearance, we propose to conduct extensive outreach with
the tribes selected for the survey. Our approach is to build on the series of seven Tribal
Consultations conducted by ONAP in advance of the research effort. The consultations
will introduce the study to tribal leaders and provide an opportunity for HUD staff to
receive input that will inform the research design and build support for the research
study. From our prior experiences conducting research in Indian County, we are
respectful of tribal sovereignty and sensitive to the need to develop relationships, build
rapport, and establish effective communication protocols with tribal leaders and
members of the study team. We are aware that many tribal populations have an
historical wariness to participating in federally-sponsored research initiatives and may
be reluctant to participate in the current effort as well (Caldwell et al. 2005).

      Our individualized strategy for outreach and engagement is described below.
We will, of course, welcome additional input from PD&R and our Expert Panel with
respect to developing and implementing this strategy to ensure effective communication
and cooperation.

          We will send advance informational materials to the tribes. To
           familiarize tribal leaders and elders with the HUD study and the study
           team—especially NORC, which will be fielding the household survey—we
           will develop a suite of materials for dissemination. This will include a cover
           letter that introduces the team, a brochure about NORC, a fact sheet about
           the study that is suitable for reproducing in tribal newsletters or posting on
           tribal websites, selected NORC reports or briefs, and endorsement letters.
           The materials will also provide information about details that need to be
           discussed and negotiated prior to launching the survey, as detailed below.

          We will make initial contact with the tribes. We will contact tribes by
           email or phone to identify the appropriate person to whom materials should

                                               77
PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
URBAN INSTITUTE




      be sent. We will then place a follow-up call to ensure that the material was
      delivered and arrange for a conference call with tribal leaders. Several
      members of the Institute’s team have long-standing relationships with a
      number of tribes, and we anticipate that this will facilitate initial contact and
      cooperation.

     We will make outreach telephone calls. The survey team will arrange and
      conduct calls or webinar conferences with each tribe. During these calls,
      team members will cover a number of topics: the study methodology; access
      to reservation or tribal lands; methods for obtaining address lists of tribal
      residents; respecting confidentiality; procedures for hiring of tribal members
      to conduct the field interviews; appointment of a tribal liaison (if desired) to
      facilitate contact with the study team and field interviewers; tribal IRB
      procedures; the topics of the interview questions; potential barriers and
      concerns to data collection in tribal households; optimal timing for data
      collection; tribal protocols and etiquette to observe while visiting; use of the
      information; how findings will be conveyed to the study sponsor and back to
      the community. We will draft a memorandum that details the tribally specific
      protocol for field interviewers to observe and provide tribal leaders with a
      copy for their reference. The NORC team will keep detailed records of our
      outreach and communication efforts to ensure common understanding of
      agreed-upon procedures.

     We will identify and follow tribal IRB procedures. One key task we will
      accomplish through the telephone outreach is to understand the
      requirements of each tribal IRB. Over the past decade, tribes—as sovereign
      nations—have heightened their stewardship and oversight of research
      conducted on tribal lands to ensure that research enhances community well-
      being and protects the community from harmful research (NCAI, 2009: 18).
      Efforts include development of Institutional Review Boards; culturally-specific
      guidelines for conducting research; assessment checklists to guide the
      review of research protocols according to tribal community values; tribal
      research codes; policies for data sharing; and requirements for community


                                          78
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




           consultation. Expectations regarding reciprocity in the research process
           have also been put forth by tribes, expressly stating that researchers have
           an ethical obligation to help build the tribe’s own research capacity by relying
           on tribal members to serve as part of the research team and by using
           community-based participatory research methods that will build capacity to
           conduct research in the future (NCAI, 2009: 23). A number of tribes have
           issued guidelines on conducting research in Indian Country, such as
           providing suggestions to sensitive researchers to local culture, traditions,
           lifestyles, and research priorities, as well as detailing researchers’
           responsibility and accountability to the tribe and its people (e.g.,
           communication and coordination with tribal leaders, negotiation to
           participate, sharing results, protecting participant and tribal identity, etc).

          We will make on-site visits. As we have learned from our prior
           experience, in some cases it will be necessary to go on site to meet with
           tribal officials and engage in face-to-face discussion on the topics noted
           above. We may also be asked to make a presentation in person before a
           Tribal Council, the tribal IRB, a research review committee, or the
           community. We intend to do so in a manner most conducive to the concerns
           of each tribe. We will produce a set of PowerPoint slides or talking points
           that conveys key information about the study and the study team, and will
           tailor these materials, as needed. During the visits, we will also share
           information about the types of questions asked during the household
           interview. We will circulate copies of the Household Survey instrument, if
           requested, but will ask that they be returned at the conclusion of the
           meeting.

       We recognize that time will be needed for internal communication and decision-
making with each sampled tribe. Therefore we anticipate that outreach will be an
extended process involving engagement, communication and, sometimes,
renegotiation. At the conclusion of the data collection period, we will send a letter to
each participating tribe to thank them for their participation—after consulting with PD&R
as to the appropriate content of the letter.


                                               79
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




      While implementing this targeted outreach strategy, we propose to engage in a
more general outreach effort. To this end, we will invite Indian organizations, such as
the National Congress of American Indians, National American Indian Housing Council,
National Urban Indian Family Coalition and others to share information with their
members in order to facilitate awareness of the study.

      A. 1.g. Field Work Plan for Conducting the Household Survey
        Field interviews will be conducted with a sample of households at 60 sites (where
interviewers will also observe housing conditions) to obtain direct information on
housing problems; housing, tenure, and location preferences; and reactions to
government housing programs.

        Our approach to the household survey is based on our team’s prior experience in
conducting fieldwork with American Indian tribes and Alaskan Natives. It is also
informed by best practices in conducting research with tribal populations. A key
element of our approach is the recognition of tribal sovereignty and the need to obtain
consensus regarding data collection procedures, including access to tribal lands,
permission to interview, and the timing of the data collection. Suggestions such as
appointing a tribal liaison to serve as intermediary between the tribe and the study team
will serve to ensure consistent communication. Hiring of a tribal member to conduct the
household survey will ensure that the administration of the interview will occur in a
culturally competent manner, and will also demonstrate our commitment to capacity
building and reciprocity in the research process (LaFrance2004).

      Our approach to conducting fieldwork is grounded in five principles of cultural
competence while working with American Indian and Alaskan Native communities
(Cross, Bazron, Dennis, & Isaacs 1989). These are:

      1. Awareness, accepting and valuing of cultural differences
      2. Awareness of one’s own culture and values
      3. Understanding the range of dynamics that results from the interaction
         between people of different cultures



                                               80
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




      4. Developing cultural knowledge of the particular community served or to
         access cultural brokers who may have that knowledge
      5. Having the ability to adapt individual interventions, programs, and policies (to
         include data collection procedures) to fit the cultural context of the community.


        Even while adhering to these principles, we anticipate some challenges to data
collection based on our knowledge of, and experience with, tribal communities. For
example, turnover in the field interviewer position is anticipated. However, as we will
have recruited and trained an alternate field interview administrator, we will be well-
positioned to maintain continuity in data collection. Agreements and arrangements
regarding the fieldwork itself may shift due to changes in leadership resulting from a
tribal election. Thus there may be adjustments to agreed-upon protocols and the need
to renegotiate the terms of our approach. Data collection may occur at a slower pace,
as community events, obligations or cultural rhythms may take precedence over survey
administration (Running Wolf, Soler, Manteuffel, Sondheimer, Santiago & Erickson
2004).

         The household survey will be administered in the respondent’s home in order to
facilitate collection of enumerator observations regarding housing and environmental
conditions. In the event that a respondent does not wish to be interviewed in his/her
home, we will conduct the interview in a location of the respondent’s choice.

        As noted during the discussion of pre-testing, we recommended using a "walk-
through" of the dwelling to assess housing conditions. We propose to include a
“windshield” survey of housing conditions only if the interview was not conducted in the
respondent’s dwelling. Conducting a windshield survey while driving through the
community would allow for observations of the housing exterior such as the type of
structure, exterior materials, roof, condition, and access; as well as the environmental
conditions of public areas of multi-family structures, to include light fixtures, steps,
railings, elevators. However, the windshield approach would miss interior conditions
such as exposed wiring, holes, cracks, paint, and vermin. Our strategy would be to
make the windshield approach known to the tribe during the pre-fieldwork outreach
phase as the fallback option for isolated cases. We would request permission from the


                                               81
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




tribe to ensure that conducting the windshield survey is allowable and to respect any
limitations that are imposed on interviewer activity or access on tribal lands.

        We recommend a nominal monetary incentive of $20 for respondents to
participate in interviews. In work with the 2010 Census ICC project, NORC found that
use of an incentive facilitated the timing of the in-person interview, as it prevented the
need for field interviewers to go back to the household to gain cooperation. Also, use of
an incentive would be interpreted as a gesture of goodwill to compensate respondents
for their time and cooperation. We will work closely with PD&R to develop this or
another incentive plan that meets with OMB’s approval.

        After receiving certification at training, our interviewers will begin contacting
sampled households to determine eligibility and complete interviews. Prior to the first
contact by the field interviewers, we will mail or hand deliver (for those with post office
boxes) advance letters to all sampled households and will – assuming this information is
contained in the sample file – send special advance letters to multi-unit buildings that
may require additional effort to gain access. Advance materials will include a toll-free
line for respondents to call for more information.

       Interviewers will record each attempt to contact a household. Interviewers will
vary their contact attempts to the selected households across the most probable times
of contact. Persistent non-contact households will be discussed with field managers;
the resulting discussion will generate a new approach. Similarly, the interactions for
resistant cases will be discussed and a strategy prepared. Copies of the instrument will
be mailed to the field interviewers for in-person administration.

         During a successful contact at the respondent’s dwelling, the field interviewers
will introduce themselves and the survey and attempt to schedule an interview or
conduct one. During the interview, the interviewer will administer the PAPI instrument
and collect observations on housing conditions through the “walkthrough.” Field
interviewers will provide the incentive to the respondent. Interviewers will ship
completed forms on a weekly basis to a central office, where they will be logged.




                                               82
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       A.1.h. Quality Control
       Field managers will be tasked with routine monitoring of field interviews and will
provide regular feedback to the interviewers. Weekly memoranda and job aids will be
circulated as needed to interviewer workstations for a sustained emphasis on training.
Field Managers will have responsibility for meeting remotely with their interviewers at
least once a week to provide coaching and reinforce project protocols. In addition,
online training material and exercises will be made available electronically for field staff
to reference throughout the data collection period. Quality controls include cost and
production monitoring, tracking sample targets, and adjusting projections, staffing and
strategies as needed throughout the scheduled data collection.

        Ensuring quality work by interviewers begins with the selection of interviewers
and continues throughout data collection. Most importantly, quality is ensured through
ongoing evaluation of the interviewers’ work and an effective feedback and remedial
training processes. A toll-free hotline will be established so that respondents can
contact NORC directly with any questions or concerns. In addition, we will complete a
thorough review of the first two completed interviews by each interviewer; will continue
to verify 20 percent of each interviewer’s work throughout the field period; and will
perform a periodic recheck of interviews for each interviewer. Evaluating the quality of
work is important, but having a method for delivering feedback and corrective remedies
is essential to ensuring continued high quality data collection. In order to provide quick
feedback to the field on the quality and completeness of the PAPI questionnaires, each
questionnaire will undergo a scan edit by a trained edit clerk upon receipt. In this
process, clerks will review the document for missing items, proper recording of
responses, errors in following skip patterns, legibility, and so forth. This feedback will be
recorded on a PAPI Scan Edit Form and e-mailed to the relevant field manager on a
daily basis. Field managers will relay these findings to the interviewers and conduct
retraining as necessary.

       A.1.i. Data Preparation and Processing
      All data preparation and retrieval activities will be housed at NORC’s Telephone
Survey and Support Operations (TSSO) center for editing and data entry. Project staff
members at the TSSO will be responsible for the mail out of project materials, receipt of

                                               83
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




completed questionnaires, completing scan edits for missing items, data entry of all
PAPI questionnaires, re-contacting field interviewers in cases of missing critical items,
validation interviews, and follow other accepted survey practices for quality control. The
TSSO will also be responsible for maintaining production records and providing weekly
and cumulative statistics to the project manager. Prior to the start of data collection, the
Institute team will provide PD&R with a complete set of specifications and procedures
for the receipt, editing, and data capture for the household and TDHE surveys
(discussed below), including detailed quality control procedures for each of these
activities. To maintain data security, all data files will be hosted on secure servers. The
team will also outline the retrieval procedures for the rare event where a questionnaire
is missing significant data; we will go back to the field interviewer and request that the
missing data be supplied through a follow-up interview. Upon approval of these
specifications and procedures, a TSSO supervisor will train staff members in the
specific procedures required by the questionnaires and work will commence on receipt
of the first set of forms.

        At the close of data collection, the study team will reconcile cases collected from
each mode (i.e., PAPI and telephone), ensuring that each case is represented only
once and that key operational data are clearly coded (for example, date of interview,
mode of interview, and provider cluster). In the first phase, the team will prepare
analysis files of all survey data, including cleaning and preliminary file construction for
the household survey. Initial cleaning steps will include: renaming variables, examining
outliers, uniformly documenting reserved codes and skip logic, and deleting
unnecessary variables. With an eye toward developing a public-use file (PUF), cleaning
may include creation of supplemental IDs that cannot be identified directly in PUF.

       Ensuring the correctness and completeness of the collected data is an important
step in preparing final data files. Periodically during the data collection period, we will
sort and categorize the open-ended and other/specify responses captured in the
instruments. We will recode responses into the existing response frame and, when
appropriate, create new response categories. Building on the data editing requirements
provided by PD&R, we will implement SAS software that allows us to iteratively
implement and adjust the data.


                                               84
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




A.2. National Telephone Survey with TDHE Officials
       Telephone interviews will be conducted with officials of 200 TDHEs nationally, as
described earlier in the sampling section. The purpose of this telephone survey is to
obtain comprehensive information on institutional characteristics, program activity, and
performance. This telephone survey will be fielded and managed by NORC.

        For the interviews with the TDHEs, we will adapt the survey instrument that was
used in the 1996 study. That survey gathered information on institutional characteristics,
HUD and tribal housing programs administered, funding sources, and performance.
Contextual information is gathered on tribal governance, ordinances, and population
characteristics that inform housing policies and program activities. During our meetings
with PD&R and the Expert Panel we will review the instrument and request feedback on
its continued relevance. We will also update the instrument as needed to reflect any
changes in HUD programs and terminology pursuant to the implementation of the
Native American Housing and Assistance and Self-Determination Act in 1996. For
example, there are many more grantees than the 181 IHAs we surveyed by telephone
for the 1996 study, and they include both TDHEs and tribally operated housing
programs. During these discussions with HUD, we will also consider any needed
additional questions or enhancements that would reflect policy and programmatic
changes over time.

        We will work closely with PD&R throughout the process of questionnaire
development for the TDHE survey, including efforts to identify new items as needed. We
will seek comment from PD&R on all questionnaire drafts and will incorporate feedback
in our revisions. We will develop all questionnaires, consent forms, supporting materials
necessary for the preparation of the justification statement required for OMB clearance.

        Pre-testing of the TDHE survey will be conducted using a NORC field
interviewer. Two interviews will be conducted by telephone. We will discuss with PD&R
whether it would be more desirable to conduct the interview with former TDHE officials
in order not to impose bias on the imminent data collection. We anticipate an interview
length of 30 to 45 minutes; pre-testing will provide a more precise estimate.



                                               85
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       Because the proposed method for the 200 TDHE telephone surveys will be a
decentralized data collection, NORC will use its current staff. Fortunately, NORC has
excellent interviewers in the field that do telephone work remotely; thus there will not be
a need to recruit and hire new staff. Three interviewers will conduct about 65 interviews
each. This team is a select, highly professional group whom NORC has cultivated for
special assignments that require flexible scheduling so that telephone interviews are
pre-arranged and conducted at the respondents’ convenience (e.g., interviews with
medical doctors at 6:00 am). NORC provides these interviewers with a private line to
conduct this work, and hands-free headsets enable surveyors to mark the responses.
No audiotapes will be used.

       We will mail all sampled respondents a customized advance letter packet prior to
the start of data collection (re-mailing the letter is often necessary). The content will
present the study’s purposes generally and provide examples of the types of questions
to be answered as well as the approximate amount of time to complete the interview.
The interviewers will contact each respondent to set up an appointment at a convenient
time. Once the interview is completed, the interviewers will return completed
questionnaire forms to NORC’s TSSO center for editing and data entry.


A.3. Lender survey
        As in our 1996 study, we will select a random sample of private mortgage lending
institutions in each of the 40 areas included for on-site study. We will develop a
sampling frame from lists of branch SAlF-insured and FDIC-insured institutions. From
this frame, we will select two branch institutions and contact by telephone a branch loan
officer of the selected institution or a knowledgeable official, such as a CRA officer, and
so we will have a total of 80 surveys.

       In an initial call, we will explain the purpose of the study and ask if the lender’s
representative would prefer to complete the survey over the telephone (using CATI) or
online. (Both approaches are consistent with OMB’s preference for using advanced
technology for conducting surveys—especially, in this instance, of businesses). If the
lender’s representative prefers the online mode, we will provide him/her with a web link


                                               86
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




and also send the lender’s representative a link via email. We have used web-based
surveys on numerous other projects, and found that in some instances they provide
respondents with more flexibility than a telephone survey: respondents can choose their
own time to answer the questions and complete the survey in multiple sittings, if
desired. Using both telephone and online modes increases the likelihood of obtaining a
high response rate. As with other surveys, we will monitor the number of surveys
completed and send multiple email reminders or make follow-up phone calls to improve
the rate of response.

        Using the responses to the survey, we propose to prepare an analysis that
identifies the extent to which challenges have changed over time, and the effect of
recent housing market conditions on originating mortgages on properties located in
Indian country. These survey results will supplement the lending origination and
performance data that will be analyzed with HMDA and LPS data, along with
information about lending issues provided by Tribal leaders in their interviews. The
combination of these analyses will present a comprehensive analysis of the mortgage
lending environment for Native Americans.

A. 4. In-person Interviews with TDHE Officials, Tribal Leaders and Program Staff
        Once the representative sample of reservations and other tribal areas has been
selected, we will identify and contact tribal leaders and local TDHE officials to discuss
the study and to request in-person interviews with them and other appropriate tribal and
TDHE staff. These contacts will be coordinated with the pre-data collection work that will
occur for the household survey, described above. We propose to visit 40 sites for the
on-site interviews. Each site will be visited by a two-person research team that will
conduct interviews and observations over the course of two days. These visits will be
coordinated with the visits for the household surveys to: minimize the burden to the
tribes created by multiple field data collection visits; and generate an interest and
enthusiasm in participating in the study by focusing attention on one visit.

        Through extensive, semi-structured interviews, we will collect qualitative data on
local institutional arrangements, particularly as they relate to housing, housing
problems, implementation of housing programs, and experience with and attitudes

                                               87
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




about federal housing programs and how conditions and attitudes may have changed
since NAHASDA. These data will supplement the household survey data, provide local
perspectives on topics addressed in interviews with national and regional housing
experts and officials carried out as part of our background and research design work,
and provide more in-depth qualitative information than the national telephone survey of
TDHE officials.

       In-person interviews with TDHE and other housing officials. We propose that
these interviews will focus primarily on program implementation and administration
issues, particularly changes since NAHASDA. However, the interview guides will
include key questions relevant to housing needs assessment, affordability, home
ownership, and factors influencing location choice among Native Americans.

        We expect each interview to take two hours to conduct, and that we will need to
speak to more than one individual in each housing agency to obtain complete answers
to all our questions. The interview guide will be quite structured, but will also include
many open-ended discussion questions. Narrative reports will be prepared following
each site visit.

       In-person interviews with Tribal and community leaders. We also propose to
conduct in-person interviews with selected tribal and community leaders. These in-
depth interviews will cover a wide range of issues relating to local housing conditions
and needs, affordability, household mobility, effect of changes in the way HUD funds
housing assistance for AIAN people, use of other HUD assistance (such as ICDBG and
Section 184), use of other federal housing programs, and coordination with federal,
state, and tribal organizations, including economic development and infrastructure
improvement.

      Both groups of interviews will include questions about the community and overall
housing conditions and preferences, such as:

         What special or unique housing problems do Native Americans in this
          community face?



                                               88
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




         Are conventional U.S. standards of physical adequacy, affordability, crowding
          applicable to this community? If not, how should they be adapted?

         What preferences do Native Americans in this community have with regard to
          housing type, size, and densities?

         What are attitudes in this community toward homeownership, and what factors
          influence homeownership rates here?

         What factors influence Native American decisions about whether to live in public
          or Indian housing, or in this community generally?

         Do housing conditions discourage (or encourage) Native Americans from living
          here?

         Does access to jobs discourage (or encourage) Native Americans from living
          here?

         How has NHASDA changed housing program operations and has it affected
          housing conditions, availability, or affordability?

      Examples of additional questions we will ask tribal TDHE officials and housing
program staff include the following:

         How has your organization’s role changed since NAHASDA?

         How are block grant funds allocated among eligible activities?

         What administrative, market, site, or other problems issues do TDHEs have in
          bringing units online?

         What are the household characteristics, the maintenance abilities, and the
          number and types of counseling programs available for home ownership?

         What factors and management techniques, including the number and quality of
          units produced, have been successful?

         Do TDHEs target special population needs (such as elderly, disabled) in
          determining the mixture of owned/rental units?


                                               89
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




         For Native Americans living outside of Native American communities ("off-
          reservation"), what kind of and what degree of assistance is provided by
          environment, and what is the availability of private housing stock by location?

         How do the physical characteristics of various types of housing units reflect the
          cultural and lifestyle preferences of Native Americans in this community?

         What are the types, characteristics and turnover rates of program beneficiaries,
          and how have these factors changed over time?

         How have local economic conditions for the tribe and in surrounding areas
          affected housing need, maintenance of existing housing, and housing
          development?


A. 5. Urban Case Studies and Telephone Interviews with Urban Indian Community
Center and Public Housing Agency Staff
         The number of AIAN people residing in metropolitan areas has been steadily
increasing (NUIFC 2009). The Scope of Work calls for an examination of housing
needs, conditions and prospects related to AIAN people living in metropolitan areas that
are not part of or near a reservation. The previous study identified 25 such urban
communities. Researchers conducted interviews with staff from Public Housing
Authorities and Indian Community Centers that serve metro areas with significant
enclaves of Native American households and conducted three case studies. We
propose a similar effort for this study, increasing the number of case studies from three
to five.

       Selection of communities for the telephone interviews and for the urban case
studies will be determined after analyzing Census data and consulting with the GTR and
other HUD staff. Using Census and ACS data, we will chart growth rates of cities with
the highest concentrations of AIAN and native Hawaiian populations and with rapid
growth of AIAN and native Hawaiian populations. For planning and budgeting purposes,
we assume 25 metropolitan areas for the urban area telephone interviews. From the
sample of communities selected these interviews, we will select five sites for additional
fieldwork. Sites will be as diverse as possible within the limitations posed by such a


                                               90
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




small sample. Beyond growth rate and AIAN population size, other site selection
considerations can include geographic location, size of the metro area, and strength of
the local housing market.

       While acknowledging the uniqueness of AIAN housing circumstances in each
metro area, we will collect data systematically through interviews and the collection of
any relevant print materials. Once sites are selected, researchers will begin by
contacting the local Indian Community Center (ICC) to explain the purpose of the study
request a site visit, and identify potential site visit dates.

        Researchers will conduct in-person interviews with a range of stakeholders who
will be selected based on discussions with local ICC or PHA staff and Expert Panel
members. Semi-structured interviews will be used to explore a range of issues with
each interviewee. Researchers also will request or look for relevant documents. These
might include documents related to housing programs serving AIAN people, brochures
on housing rights that target AIAN people, media reports related to housing needs of
AIAN people, or other documents identified as important during the Expert Panel
meeting. Case study research will be carried out over the course of three days per site
by two researchers.

      The semi-structured telephone interviews with ICC and PHA staff will last
approximately one hour. Based on our previous study, it is possible that PHA staff will
not have sufficient knowledge or data on Native American clients and might have no
programs that target this population.

       In addition to the ICC and PHA staff interviews, researchers will interview staff
members from HUD headquarters and regional field offices that serve the selected
metropolitan areas by telephone to ask about the provision of federal housing programs
to urban Native Americans.




                                               91
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




B. Native Hawaiians

       The study of Native Hawaiian housing needs and conditions will include primary
data collection through a site visit to Hawaii (in-person stakeholder interviews and focus
groups) ad telephone interviews with experts on Native Hawaiian Housing issues.

        Primary data collection proposed is qualitative in nature and will provide
additional insights on the characteristics, context, and housing needs and problems of
the Native Hawaiian population. The proposed site visit, focus groups, and telephone
interviews with experts will also provide information on barriers to homeownership and
program implementation, areas of opportunity for improvement or change, processes
and effectiveness and of HUD and other federal housing assistance programs, factors
in use of housing assistance programs, the range and characteristics of other available
programs, the impacts of the financial crisis on housing problems and needs, and
differences in housing problems and needs across contexts. Visits to Hawaiian
Homelands communities will also provide an opportunity to observe housing conditions.

      Exhibit 5 summarizes how these data collection activities will be used in
combination with secondary data analysis to address the study questions.




                                               92
        PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
        URBAN INSTITUTE


Exhibit 5. Summary of Research Questions and Data Collection for Native Hawaiians
*Research Questions taken from pages 30-33 of RFQ R-CHI-01055
                                                   DATA SOURCES AND RESPONDENTS
                                            Primary Data                        Secondary Data
Research Questions and Data      Telephone            Site visits        Decennial       HUD      Other
Collection Topics                Interviews                             Census and      Admin     Admin
                                    with       In-Person         Focus   American        Data      Data
                                  Experts      Interviews       Groups  Community
                                                                          Survey
Size                               20-30        5-10 per           3-4           Not Applicable
                                                   site         groups
                                                                  of 4
Scope                             National/     2 islands           2          National/Statewide
                                 Statewide                      islands
                                                 NAHASDA
HUD and other federal
housing programs serving             X             X                       X            X          X
native people
                                         Indian Housing Block Grant
Implication of multiple race
                                     X             X
reporting in Census
                                   Demography, Geography, Economy
Population growth since 1996
                                                                           X
study
Diversity in living and
economic conditions-changes                                                X
over time
Social and economic
                                     X             X           X           X
conditions
Diversity in living conditions
                                     X                                     X
across areas
Economic diversity across
tribal areas/major industries        X             X
and employers
                                              Housing Issues
Changes in living conditions
                                     X             X           X
since 1990 Census
Major housing problems and
                                     X             X           X
needs
Issues and conditions leading
                                     X             X           X
to greater housing needs
Appropriate standards for
                                     X             X           X
housing needs and problems
Types of housing structures;
                                     X             X                       X
constraint on building types
Land use issues and
                                     X             X           X
practices
Assisted vs. unassisted units        X             X                       X            X
Rental vs. ownership                 X             X                       X            X
Lending issues and the
                                     X             X
current financial crisis



                                                          93
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




      B.2.a. Site Visit
        The fieldwork component will include one visit to Hawaii. Because we do not
anticipate this fieldwork to require OMB approval, we plan to conduct the visit as soon
as possible after the HUD consultation in Hawaii. This visit will be conducted on two
islands in Hawaii over a 4-5 day period. One island will be Oahu and the other island
will be selected in consultation with PD&R. The visit will begin on the island of Oahu.
The first day will be dedicated to discussions with DHHL and HUD field office staff and
other identified stakeholders. As part of the site visit planning, we will consult PD&R
and DHHL and HUD field office staff about potential staff and other stakeholders to be
interviewed. The primary mode of data and information collection will be a series of
interviews that address:

         Issues relating to greater needs or problems for Native Hawaiians
         Characteristics of populations served and not served by housing assistance
          programs
         Social and cultural aspects of housing and land use, including household size
          preferences
         Native Hawaiian attitudes toward HUD and other housing assistance
          programs
         Applicability of standards for measuring housing-related issues for Native
          Hawaiians
         Processes involved in participation in assistance programs
         Barriers to use of assistance programs
         Effectiveness of assistance programs in meeting needs
         Approaches to housing problems that have worked
         Impacts of recent changes in programs or new programs and the financial
          crisis
         Suggestions for policy or program improvements




                                               94
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




        The second and third days of the visit will include additional discussions with
DHHL and HUD staff as needed and visits to DHHL homestead communities and other
identified sites across the island of Oahu. These sites will be chosen in consultation
with DHHL and HUD staff during site visit planning and will include rural and urban
communities, as well as newer and older communities. The community visits will be
focused on making observations about the type, quality, location, and other features of
DHHL housing communities.

        To the extent possible, small focus groups and informal conversations will be
held with homestead community association representatives or members to identify the
issues Native Hawaiians consider most important in their housing situations and
choices. Focus group discussions will be guided toward issues including: housing
problems in local communities, barriers to and opportunities for improvement,
effectiveness of and barriers to use of assistance programs, housing assistance needs,
and Native Hawaiian household size and housing preferences and other social and
cultural aspects of housing. The team will look to DHHL and HUD staff and community
association representatives for guidance on identifying and recruiting HHL residents or
other populations for the focus groups.

       The fourth and fifth days will be spent on the second island conducting a similar
set of discussions with DHHL or HUD staff and other stakeholders and observations of
local housing communities. Participants and sites will be chosen consultation with
DHHL and HUD staff during site visit planning.

       The site visit will be conducted by three to four Econometrica team members,
including at least one senior research staff member. Site visit planning will include
several steps:

         Contact the designated DHHL and HUD staff to identify potential dates for the
          visit, discussion participants, and homestead communities. Coordinate
          activities with all participants.
         Arrange staff travel and accommodations. Finalize the agenda at least one
          week before the meeting time.
         Conduct the site visit.

                                               95
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




          Follow up with “thank you” letters to people who gave their time to participate
           in the interviews.

       Following preliminary analysis of the secondary data and site visit data, follow-up
discussions with DHHL and HUD staff who participated in the site visit will be held to fill
in any identified gaps in information and provide feedback and additional insights on the
findings of the study to date.

       B.2.b. Telephone Interviews
       Interviews will be conducted with 20-30 experts on Native Hawaiian housing
issues and conditions to gain insights on the current housing situation, problems,
barriers, opportunities, and needs. Interviews will be 1-2 hours long, conducted by
telephone. The issues addressed in these interviews will be similar to the issues
addressed in the site visit interviews (as listed above), but abbreviated.

       In addition, these interviews will allow the opportunity to explore issues in
housing for Native Hawaiians not residing on Hawaiian homelands, including those on
the mainland. Specifically, these interviews will also identify any unique housing needs,
barriers or opportunities for these populations.

       The list of informants for the interviews will be developed in consultation with the
GTR, through discussions with local contacts, and through the initial literature review
and environmental scan. These informants will likely include housing assistance
program staff, lenders, community leaders, academic experts, and/or community health
program staff. The list will also include experts on housing issues and conditions for
Native Hawaiians in the islands as well as on the mainland U.S. An approach for
contacting and inviting potential informants will be developed with guidance from the
GTR. Suggestions for the list of informants include staff of some of the following
organizations and programs:
          Alu Like, Inc., a non-profit that runs a financial literacy program
          Consumer Credit Counseling Services of Hawaii
          Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation
          Legal Aid Society of Hawaii, providing housing counseling services

                                                96
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




         Nanakuli Housing Corporation, providing homebuyer education
         Hawaii H.O.M.E. Project.
         Self-Help Housing Corporation of Hawaii
         U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, local Rural Development program
         U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs local program
         Hawaii Homeownership Center
         Honolulu Habitat for Humanity
         Pacific Housing Assistance Corporation
         Local Housing Authority
         City or County government agencies
         Hawaiian Civic Clubs in the States of Alaska, California, Illinois, Nevada,
          Utah, Virginia, Washington and Tennessee.

        Findings from all data collection components of the Native Hawaiian case study
will be synthesized for a comprehensive report on housing conditions and needs of
Native Hawaiians.




                                               97
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




V. CORPORATE CAPABILITIES, AND QUALIFICATIONS AND
EXPERIENCE OF THE PROJECT TEAM

       The Institute team includes: Urban Institute, as prime contractor, three
subcontractors—Econometrica, Inc., National Opinion Research Center (NORC), and
Support Services International (SSI)—and consultants, all of which will report directly to
the Urban Institute. The Institute has successfully worked with subcontractor team
members on other HUD contracts. These professional relationships and cooperative
experience provide the basis for an effective, efficient team. Collectively, our team
brings experience managing projects of this type and scope and conducting social
science research, and specific knowledge of Native American issues

A. Institutional Capabilities

       Urban Institute prides itself on producing policy-oriented research that is
objective, based in evidence, and reliable. As with all of its research, the Institute has
no “agenda” with respect to Native Indian, Alaskan or Hawaiian policy other than an
interest in seeking to understand what the housing needs are for these specific groups,
and the policies that work and work best. Toward that end, the Institute’s proposed
research team combines outstanding, relevant research skills, substantive knowledge of
Native Indian, Alaskan and Hawaiian-focused programs, and a dedication to discovering
both what the housing needs are, and what programs have been effective in addressing
these issues. In assembling the team, we paid particular attention to the substantive,
methodological, and budgetary challenges inherent in this project, and to our previous
experience in addressing such challenges.

       Econometrica, Inc. located in Bethesda, Maryland, is a small business engaged
in research and management consulting since 1998. Econometrica has been involved
in complex, high-profile contracts for a wide variety of federal agencies including HUD,
the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the Department of
Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the



                                               98
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Corporation for National and Community
Service.

        Support Services International (SSI) is an American Indian-owned
firm certified as an SDB by the Small Business Administration. Founded in
1979, SSI provides consulting services in the areas of housing, business and
economic development, health, education, and welfare. Its areas of expertise
include: program evaluation and policy analysis, policy review, development and analysis,
and survey and evaluation research. SSI has successfully performed over 100 major
projects for federal agencies; which have consisted of both qualitative and quantitative
research, quasi-experiments, process, impact and outcome evaluations, and data
collection (survey-based, telephone, mail and in-person interviews), analysis and
reporting.

        The National Opinion Research Center (NORC), founded in 1941, is a public
policy and social science research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago.
NORC has offices in Chicago, Illinois, and Bethesda, Maryland, as well as a field
operations staff around the country. Since its inception, NORC has been a leader in the
advancement of survey methods for quantitative data collection. NORC’s experience
ranges from small studies to larger longitudinal and cross-sectional studies, and
includes multiple data collection modes. Key capacities include: survey instrument
development; sample design and weighting; in-person interviewing; telephone
interviewing; web and mail surveys; data preparation; data management and storage;
applied statistical analysis; data enclaves and management of sensitive data. NORC
excels at obtaining high-quality data and achieving high response rates from
populations sometimes hard-to-reach or hard to survey, and fielding surveys regarding
sensitive topics. NORC's investment in institutional support procedures facilitates the
management and stable execution of complex projects.

       NORC’s highly trained in-person interviewing staff of approximately 1,400
individuals—from around the country and a wide variety of backgrounds—support high
completion rates across a spectrum of target populations and communities. For every
survey, interviewers receive project-specific training and detailed instruction materials.


                                               99
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




NORC’s maintains a state-of-the-art telephone survey and support center and can offer
respondents multiple options for survey completion (e.g., paper, Web, and telephone).

       Because of the high volume of data NORC receives or collects, analyzes, and
delivers to clients, it has focused on advanced methodologies in collecting, storing,
processing, and disseminating vast amounts of data. NORC employs a number of
database experts, from data programmers and analysts to DBAs and Data Architects,
who work in conjunction with the Application Systems Development team to provide
robust data services capabilities to support the application systems environment.
NORC’s Information Technology (IT) staff includes programmers, systems analysts, and
data processing managers. This group provides programming design and applications
support to all survey projects, including designing, implementing, and supporting
systems for computer-assisted data collection, data entry, ongoing project reporting,
preparation of final data files, code book preparation, and production of documentation
deliverables.

B. Capacity of the Principal Investigator (PI)

        G. Thomas (Tom) Kingsley served as Principal Investigator for our Assessment
of Indian Housing Needs and Programs in the mid-1990s (UI#06349 - the model for
much of the work called for in the current RFQ) and he is proposed to serve as Principal
Investigator again for this project. Mr. Kingsley is a recognized expert on housing,
urban policy, and governance issues and he is the author of numerous publications in
those fields. In the 1990s, he served for over a decade as Director of the Institute’s
Center for Public Finance and Housing where he bore overall responsibility for all of the
Institute’s research contracts with HUD.

       Mr. Kingsley has a strong and consistent reputation for the effective management
of large and complex research projects. In the 1980s and 1990s, he directly managed
several research efforts for PD&R and others, including the predecessor for this project.
In the 1970s, he served as the Director for the major housing voucher experiment
operated by the Rand Corporation for PD&R. In the past 10 years, he has been P.I. for




                                               100
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




several projects that are relevant to the work called for under this RFQ (UI internal
project numbers in parentheses):

          Coordinating the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP) - 34
           city initiative to further the development of advanced data systems for policy
           analysis and community building in U.S. cities – for multiple funders (Kingsley
           and Pettit, forthcoming—UI#07401)

          Conducting research on conditions and trends in the neighborhoods and
           metropolitan areas that are a part of Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Making
           Connections Initiative (Hendey and Kingsley 2009 – UI#07253 and 07249).

          Analyzing nation-wide data on changes in the concentration of poverty and
           other aspects of neighborhood change in America in the 1990s (Kingsley and
           Pettit, 2002, 2003 and 2007 – for the Rockefeller Foundation – UI#07093)

          Conducting research on the operation of the HOPE VI program and drawing
           lessons for HUD’s broader public housing program (Kingsley, et al et al. 2003
           – UI#07483)

          Working with LISC to analyze national datasets with neighborhood data on
           foreclosure risk and market strength and examine their potential use in
           strategic planning for neighborhood stabilization. Being tested in four NNIP
           cities (Atlanta, Baltimore, Louisville, and Providence – for the Annie E. Casey
           Foundation—UA#07508-002)

          Conducting research on neighborhood change in 14 cities and providing other
           support as a part of the evaluations of LISC’s New Communities and
           Sustainable Communities Initiatives (for the MacArthur Foundation -
           UI#08320)

       On other recent projects, he has been the lead author on monograph reviewing
past research on the impacts of foreclosures on families and neighborhoods (Kingsley,
Smith and Price 2009 – for the Open Society Institute) and the author of a book chapter


                                               101
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




on “Policies to Cope with Foreclosures and their Effects on Neighborhoods” (Kingsley
forthcoming).

      Mr. Kingsley previously served as Director of the Rand Corporation's Housing
and Urban Policy Program, and as Assistant Administrator for the New York City
Housing and Development Administration, where he was responsible for the agency's
budget and policy analysis functions. He has also taught on the faculties of the graduate
urban planning programs at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of
Southern California.

        Serving as Principal Investigator, Mr. Kingsley will oversee all technical and
substantive aspects of project; monitor progress and expenditures; mobilize additional
staff or technical resources as needed; ensure all products meet HUD’s objectives and
UI’s high standards of quality; and lead HUD briefings and advisory group meetings. A
majority of his efforts will be dedicated to the expert panel convening, both the interim
and final report writing, and data analysis. An estimated 13% of his overall work time will
be allocated toward this project over a two and a half year period.

C. Capacity of the Proposed Project Manager

        Nancy Pindus, MBA, CPA, will serve as Project Manager. Ms. Pindus is a
Senior Fellow in the Metropolitan Housing and Communities policy center at the Urban
Institute and has been with the Urban Institute for almost 20 years. Ms. Pindus is an
experienced policy researcher and project manager, specializing in program evaluation,
organizational behavior, cost analysis, and service delivery. From April 2009 through
June 2010, she served as Acting Center Director. Ms. Pindus brings to this project
outstanding management skills and experience studying service delivery on
reservations.

      Ms. Pindus co-directs a four-year evaluation of the New Markets Tax Credit
(NMTC) Program that includes administrative data analysis, surveys, and in-depth
telephone interviews. This evaluation for the CDFI Fund builds on previous analytic and
design work on the NMTC that she also co-directed. Her current work also addresses
the use of alternative financial services, such as a project for the U.S. Department of

                                               102
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Treasury involving interviews with lenders and tax preparers about refund anticipation
loans and refund anticipation checks.

       The proposed project would continue a long and productive collaboration
between Dr. Hillabrant and Ms. Pindus in conducting research in Indian country. From
1998 until 2004, they led the tribal component of the National Welfare to Work
Evaluation and together produced four reports for the evaluation. They reviewed early
implementation of Welfare to Work grants by tribes and designed evaluations
addressing tribal TANF operations and economic development. This work involved
working with a panel of tribal leaders and representatives of national Native American
organizations, and telephone and on-site interviews with tribal program administrators
and tribal elected officials. Pindus and Hillabrant examined and described federal
programs and initiatives for a sample of eight tribes and two Alaska Native Corporations
as well as the challenges confronted by tribes/Native corporations in pursuing tribal
business and economic development and the promising approaches they are
developing to minimize or overcome these challenges. For a recent study of food
assistance on Indian reservations, Ms. Pindus, Dr. Hillabrant, and Ms. Levy (a proposed
team leader for this project) interviewed tribal food distribution program administrators
and conducted focus groups with Native American food assistance recipients. Ms.
Pindus earned an MBA from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania and is a
CPA, licensed in Maryland.

        As Project Manager, Ms. Pindus will be the primary point of contact between UI
and HUD. She will be responsible for day-to-day operations and logistics; maintain
monthly reporting; oversee staffing, subcontracting, site set-up and operations; and
assess any risks/threats to project implementation. She will also participate in site
visits, data analysis and final report writing. Over the two and a half year period, she will
spend about 15% of her time on this project.

D. Capacity of the Proposed Staff

       Appendix A includes a list of resumes for members of the research team.




                                               103
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




D.1. Urban Institute Staff
        Martin D. Abravanel is a Senior Research Associate with over 30 years of
experience at the Urban Institute and HUD conducting research, program evaluations,
and performance measurement studies related to low-income housing and urban
revitalization policy—with an emphasis on field and survey research methods. He is
currently Co-Principal Investigator of an evaluation (for the CDFI Fund at the
Department of the Treasury) of the New Markets Tax Credit program, which permits
taxpayers to receive a credit against federal income taxes for investments that direct
capital to, and result in the creation of jobs and material improvement in the lives of ,
residents of low-income communities. Working with Econometrica, he is currently a
principal in an evaluation (for HUD) of the Section 108 Loan Guarantee program. He is
also directing a series of national surveys of HUD’s key program implementation
partners. He and his colleagues have recently completed an extensive review of the
literature on approaches to evaluating community and economic development programs
intended to stabilize, revitalize, and sustain communities and neighborhoods.
Previously, Dr. Abravanel was Project Director of an assessment (for HUD) of CDBG-
related economic development lending activities involving public-sector loans to private-
sector businesses; directed surveys of national trends in public knowledge, support and
use of fair housing law; prepared a survey research guide for the use of non-profit
organizations interested in surveying their clients about outcomes; evaluated lessons for
HUD’s Public Housing program derived from experience with the HOPE VI program;
studied the extent, nature, and impacts of economic development lending involving
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; and directed a series of
stakeholder forums relating to HUD’s strategic planning objectives related to CDBG.
 From 1979 to 1997, Dr. Abravanel directed PD&R’s Division of Policy Studies where he
supervised an in-house team of senior social science research analysts who studied
and prepared reports on HUD’s housing, community development and fair housing
policies and programs.

       Dr. Abravanel will co-manage the Research Design, Analysis and Support team,
with a specific emphasis on the housing policy and programs aspect. A great deal of his
time will be spent conducting the lender survey, analyzing data, and writing the final


                                               104
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




report but he will also assist with the expert panel convening and research design. An
estimated 13 percent of his time will be spent on this project.

        Kassie Dumlao is a Research Assistant with the Metropolitan Housing and
Communities Policy Center. Since coming to the Urban Institute, Ms. Dumlao has co-
authored a proposed performance measurement system for HUD’s new Choice
Neighborhood Initiative, conducted field interviews for a study on the sustainability of
HOPE VI redevelopments, and contributed to the literature review of the New Markets
Tax Credit (NMTC) program and Inclusionary Zoning Ms. Dumlao is currently working
an overlap study of HUD’s Section 108 Loan Guaranty program and preparing for an
extensive data collection process for the NMTC which includes qualitative telephone
interviews. She is also on the team studying the costs and benefits of inclusionary
zoning, where she will provide assistance with data analysis and site visits. Additionally,
she has contributed to the data collection and analysis portion of the Washington Area
Women’s Foundation’s 2010 Portrait Project, summarizing data on the state of women
and girls across various indicators, including demographics, economic security,
education and labor force participation, and works supports. Ms. Dumlao is proficient in
Microsoft Office, specifically Excel, Word, PowerPoint and Publisher and has
experience with SAS, QSR NVIVO, and Adobe software (InDesign, Illustrator, and
Photoshop). She has gained technical experience with various datasets, including the
Census Bureau, American Community Survey, and the National Center for Education
Statistics.

        Ms. Dumlao will support the secondary data collection and analysis work. She
will also be a part of the site visit team and involved with data analysis. She will be
dedicating 13 percent of her time to this project.

       Diane Levy, Senior Research Associate at the Urban Institute, has extensive
experience studying neighborhood change and the impact of such change on current
and former neighborhood residents. She directed the qualitative research component of
UI’s multi-site HOPE VI Panel Study and served as the Project Director of the panel
study in Chicago. Ms. Levy led the final phase of the related Chicago Process Study
(CPS), which examined the development flow and neighborhood impact of the
redevelopment of two public housing developments in the mid-south area of the city.

                                               105
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Since joining the Institute in 1998, Ms. Levy has studied the impact of community
development corporations on neighborhood change, public housing desegregation
efforts, and housing discrimination in the rental and sales markets. She was a member
of the field implementation team for the HUD-sponsored Housing Discrimination Study
2000 (HDS2000), a multi-phased paired-testing project that included a study of housing
discrimination against American Indians. Ms. Levy worked with Ms. Pindus and Dr.
Hillabrant on a recently completed study of food assistance on Indian reservations. In
addition to working on site selection and the preparation of fieldwork protocols, Ms. Levy
interviewed tribal food distribution program administrators and conducted focus groups
with Native American food assistance recipients. Currently, she is PI for a HUD-funded
study of the benefits and costs of inclusionary zoning programs. Ms. Levy holds
advanced degrees in Cultural Anthropology and City Planning.

       Ms. Levy will oversee the data collection team and serve as the site visit team
leader. She will also assist with the urban case study site visits and help analyze data
and prepare the final report. She is obligating 18 percent of her overall work time
towards this project.

        Chris Narducci is a Research Associate with the Metropolitan Housing and
Communities Policy Center. While at the Urban Institute, Mr. Narducci has worked on a
wide range of projects, including a study of voucher mobility programs and regional
consolidation of public housing authorities for which he conducted extensive phone
interviews with local housing administrators. He is also working on an analysis of
housing, economic, and environmental indicators for the Institute’s DC Neighborhood
Report. Mr. Narducci is currently part of a team examining the characteristics of
sustainable and inclusive communities in an effort to inform multiple programs at the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development. He is writing SAS programming to
analyze indicators measuring the opportunity and sustainability of neighborhoods in the
Cleveland and Phoenix metropolitan areas. In the past, Mr. Narducci’s research has
focused on affordable housing policy and community economic development. While at
New York University’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, he assisted
with several projects including the annual State of New York City’s Housing and
Neighborhoods report. Mr. Narducci also coauthored a white paper on affordable


                                               106
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




housing policy and development in New York City, which looked at the city’s
inclusionary zoning process. As a policy analyst for the Institute for Children and
Poverty, he analyzed and reported on a large-scale public opinion poll of New York City
residents on poverty and family homelessness. Mr. Narducci has also written several
articles related to affordable housing development and tenants rights for City Limits
Weekly, a New York City urban affairs newsletter. In completing his graduate capstone
project, Mr. Narducci led a team of graduate candidates researching a neighborhood
economic revitalization plan, which utilized a survey instrument to assess resident
opinions. Mr. Narducci has gained technical experience with Census, ACS, HMDA,
foreclosure, education, labor, and business establishment datasets. Mr. Narducci has
also designed, implemented, and analyzed the results from survey instruments. He is
proficient with the following software programs: SAS, SPSS, ArcGIS mapping software,
and Excel.

       Mr. Narducci will play a major role in conducting site visits in both tribal and
urban areas. He will support the preparation of the interim report in addition to analyzing
data obtained through our data collection process. About 17 percent of his overall work
time will be spent towards this effort.

       Kathryn L.S. Pettit is a senior research associate in the Metropolitan Housing
and Communities Policy Center at the Urban Institute whose work focuses on
measuring and understanding neighborhood change. She is a recognized expert on
local and national data systems useful in housing and urban development research and
program development (with a particular emphasis in recent years on parcel-based
systems with data pertaining to real estate and foreclosure) and in database
management. She serves as the co-director of the National Neighborhood Indicators
Partnership (NNIP), a collaborative effort by the Urban Institute and local partners to
further the development and use of neighborhood-level information systems in local
policymaking and community building. She previously led the Institute’s work on
providing data and analytic content for DataPlace, a national web-based resource for
small-area indicators (http://beta.dataplace.org). She is currently contributing to three
research projects about foreclosures: a NNIP three-city study about the effects of
foreclosures on children; analysis and technical assistance about the impact of the


                                               107
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




foreclosure crisis in the Washington, D.C. region; and content development for
Foreclosure-response.org, a web site providing information about foreclosure effects,
case studies of local policies, and neighborhood-level mortgage data to support
decision-making.

       Ms. Pettit will co-manage the Research Design, Analysis and Support team with
Mr. Abravanel. As part of that team, she will lead the demographics, socio-economic
and housing conditions and needs work. A large part of her role will be preparing the
interim and final report and analyzing data collected through the primary data collection
process. An estimate of 15 percent of her time will go towards this project.

        Robin Smith, an experienced manager of field data collection, has managed
multiple off-site research efforts, conducted hundreds of interviews domestically and
internationally, lead field research teams, case studies and study tours, and facilitated
focus groups. Ms. Smith served as Deputy Project Director of the Urban Institute's
evaluation of the Community Development Block Grant Program which included field
research in 61 U.S. cities and more than a thousand mail and telephone surveys. As
Project Director, Ms. Smith conducted a study (including all field work) of persons in four
cities relocating from public housing communities demolished under the HOPE VI
Program and directed an early assessment of the Welfare to Work Housing Voucher
program. A seasoned evaluator, she has research experience on multiple HUD
programs including CDBG, FHIP, HOME, HOPE VI, HOPE II, Moving to Work,
Neighborhood Networks, SHOP and UDAG. Her most recent publication is “Monitoring
Success in Choice Neighborhoods: A Proposed Approach to Performance
Measurement.”

       Ms. Smith will lead the urban case studies field work and surveys. She will also
help facilitate the lender survey and support data analysis and final report writing. About
9 percent of her overall work time will be dedicated to this project.

       Ashley Williams is a Research Assistant with the Metropolitan Housing and
Communities Policy Center. Ms. Williams has contributed to research projects in the
areas of community and economic development, housing, and performance
measurement. Ms. Williams is currently assisting on an evaluation of the New Markets

                                               108
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Tax Credit program which will consist of numerous qualitative interviews and data
collection. She also works with NeighborhoodInfoDC using DC Recorder of Deeds
foreclosure data to provide weekly updates on foreclosure activity to local housing
counseling agencies. She also provides technical assistance to the Sustainable
Communities project by manipulating several national datasets to provide a
metropolitan context for local sites. In fall 2009, she conducted interviews and
contributed to a study for the National Park Service and the Center for Park
Management focusing on performance measurement at park agencies. Ms. Williams is
also proficient with Microsoft Office and has experience with SAS, Geographic
Information Systems software, Checkbox, Adobe Photoshop and InDesign. Through
her research, she has gained technical experience with several large datasets such as
the Census, American Community Survey. In addition to her research, Ms. Williams
serves as the Director of Operations for the Urban Institute’s Summer Academy for
Public Policy Analysis and Research. Under this role she supervises the Program
Associate and serves as a liaison to the students. Her primary responsibilities include
facilitating effective internal and external working relationships, program
design/development, implementation, marketing, coordination of daily activities, and
budget monitoring. Prior to joining the Urban Institute, Ms. Williams interned with Urban
Strategies in St. Louis, MO. While there, she researched the financing of New Markets
Tax Credits projects and on transit oriented developments. She also assisted with a
homeownership initiative at a HOPEVI site and conducted qualitative interviews with
residents of a DC Public Housing development.

        Ms. Williams will play a major role in the collection and analysis of primary and
secondary data. She will also be largely involved with preparing and cleaning the data
files. About 20 percent of her time will be set aside for this work.

       Doug Wissoker is a labor economist focusing on health and labor policy research,
with expertise in statistical and survey methods. He serves as an internal consultant at
the Urban Institute on a variety of analytic and sample design issues. In this role, Dr.
Wissoker designed the samples for a recent survey of public school districts and private
schools in those districts for the Department of Education and for a World-Bank
sponsored survey of coastal fishing households in Sierra Leone. In his health policy


                                               109
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




research, he is currently studying the Medicare payment classification systems for
Skilled Nursing Facilities and home health agencies. In his labor-related research, he
analyzed the effects of working for a temporary agency using propensity score matching
and discrimination in entry-level employment using paired testers. He has taught
trainings on “Practical Statistics” and “Regression for Policy Research” as part of
USAID-sponsored projects to develop capacity in Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Azerbaijan and modules on sampling and regression analysis at George Washington
University.

        Dr. Wissoker will play the leading role of the sampling and site selection portion
of the Research Design, Analysis and Support team. Some of his work will also include
assisting in the data collection plan and primary data analysis. Two percent of his time
will be spent towards this effort.


D.2. Econometrica Staff
       Harold Bunce, Senior Staff Associate, has more than 30 years of experience in
research, policy analysis and development, and management at the federal government
level. He served in senior positions at HUD, including Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Economic Affairs in the Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Economist,
Director of the Financial Institutions Regulations Division, and Director of the Housing
Finance Division. His expertise encompasses many areas of housing and finance,
including primary and secondary mortgage markets and institutions (e.g., FHA, GSEs),
homeownership determinants, mortgage foreclosures and mortgage scorecards, and
subprime and predatory lending. He has managed numerous data-collection efforts and
housing finance studies and produced many papers and reports. As Chief Economist at
HUD, Dr. Bunce supervised a staff of 65 economists while managing a research and
data budget of more than $25 million annually and an active in-house research and
policy staff. As the Department’s expert on economic and housing issues, Dr. Bunce
advised the HUD Secretary and coordinated with other federal agencies on major
housing policy issues. Dr. Bunce’s many accomplishments include producing national
housing market databases such as the American Housing Survey, Fair Market Rents,
and HUD Income Limits, and developing the foreclosure-based mortgage scorecard that


                                               110
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




FHA uses to screen mortgage applicants for creditworthiness. Dr. Bunce received a
B.A. in Economics from the University of North Carolina and a Ph.D. in Economics from
Indiana University.

       Dr. Bunce will oversee the Housing Policy and Programs work of the Research
Design, Analysis and Support team. He will help primarily with field work, but also
provide assistance with data analysis, report writing and post-report briefings. He will
allocate about 5 percent of his time toward this work.

        Kristen M. Corey is a cultural anthropologist specializing in Pacific Islander
populations. She has conducted extensive fieldwork on Rarotonga in the Cook Islands
on issues related to food habits, health, and economic development. Dr. Corey is
currently a Senior Staff Associate at Econometrica. She has 10 years of experience in
health research, program evaluation, and project management. Her experience spans
the range of activities in research and evaluation, including project design, survey
development, online survey administration, conducting interviews and focus groups,
data management, qualitative and quantitative data analysis, and research writing. She
has worked on a broad range of health care issues, including chronic diseases,
workplace health, health disparities, performance measurement, and culturally
appropriate messaging for underserved/special populations. Dr. Corey’s recent work
includes a project with the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services involving the
collection and analysis of data from contractors to assess the impacts of CMS-funded
efforts on health disparities. In addition, Dr. Corey’s work includes a series of projects
for the Office of Minority Health to develop and implement a uniform dataset for use by
OMH grantees in progress reporting and OMH staff and leadership in performance
measurement and program planning. As part of this effort, she conducted site visits,
interviews, and surveys with grantees to assess data availability and organizational
reporting processes, gaps, and capacity. She played a central role in the analysis of
this information and the construction of uniform data categories. Following the
development of the dataset, as Deputy Project Director and, later, Project Director, Dr.
Corey provided training and technical assistance to OMH grantees and staff on the use
of the system and general data collection and evaluation issues. In addition, she



                                               111
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




worked with OMH on a project to develop a strategic planning framework for the agency
and evaluation guidance for the agency and its grantees.

       Dr. Corey will assist with the secondary data collection and analysis; however, a
large part of her work will also include facilitating site visits and data analysis. About 13
percent of her time will be spent on this work.

       Chuck Hanson, Senior Staff Associate, is a Project Manager and Project
Director and assists Econometrica with a variety of a projects, including analytical and
modeling projects, particularly in the areas of housing and federal budget policy. He
has supported the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in a
variety of policy development and program evaluation issues related to public housing,
including an assessment of the residual value of public housing conversion properties,
an evaluation of the Indian Community Development Block Grant program, an
evaluation of the Mark-to-Market restructuring program, and numerous others. On
behalf of HUD, he also worked with the Housing Authority of New Orleans to improve its
performance and transition to project-based budgeting and asset-management. He led
Econometrica’s work supporting a Front-End Risk Assessment, in which HUD’s risks
associated with the sale of certain subsidized mortgage loans were documented and
assessed. He co-led Econometrica’s support of the Katrina Disaster Housing
Assistance Program, which provided temporary rental assistance to families impacted
by Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Hanson has more than 20 years of experience supporting
government agencies in resolving management and budget issues, and his career has
spanned both the executive and legislative branches, as well as the private sector. His
experience includes specific expertise in housing finance, Federal Housing
Administration single- and multifamily insurance programs, financial analysis, program
and policy development, budget planning and presentation, operational assessment,
and federal credit reform analysis. Mr. Hanson holds a B.S. in Mathematics from the
University of Oregon and a Master of Public Policy from the University of Michigan.

       Mr. Hanson will serve as the leader on this project’s Native Hawaiian research.
He will oversee the technical and substantive part of this work, including secondary data
analysis; and contribute to writing both the interim and final report. About 7 percent of
his time will be set aside for this work.

                                               112
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




        Richard Hilton, Senior Staff Associate, has more than 25 years of experience
providing professional support services to public- and private-sector clients. Dr. Hilton’s
primary areas of expertise are survey research design and implementation, program
evaluations, qualitative research methods, training design and implementation, and
group facilitation. He has directed projects for eight Federal departments, including the
U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services,
Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs. Dr.
Hilton has extensive “hands-on” experience at all levels of Federal program
implementation, having worked with Federal, State, and local staff in more than 300
communities in 41 States. He currently serves as a senior researcher under two Task
Order contracts on behalf of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, including
(1) developing an inventory of health care data collection initiatives to inform
practitioners, policymakers, and the public; and (2) creating a national framework for
quality measurement. He also recently served as a senior researcher on the first
independent assessment of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
Indian Community Development Block Grant program. Dr. Hilton holds a B.A. in
Political Science and an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Southern California,
and a Ph.D. in Economic History from the University of Michigan.

       Dr. Hilton will provide support in many facets of this project. A large part of his
work will include conducting site visits as well as secondary data collection and
analysis. He will also help with both the interim and final report writing and post-report
briefings. Nearly 15 percent of his time will go towards this effort.

        Kathryn Langwell, Senior Staff Associate, has more than 30 years of
experience in conducting research, demonstrations, and evaluations related to health
care issues, including design and implementation of qualitative research studies,
research syntheses, survey design and methodology, and analysis of large survey
databases. Ms. Langwell has extensive experience with quality measurement and
performance improvement research. As a Principal Investigator, she has conducted a
wide range of literature syntheses and program evaluations to support successful
program outcomes, often focused on the role of financial and access barriers in creating
racial/ethnic health disparities, particularly for American Indians. She is currently the


                                               113
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Principal Investigator on a project for the Indian Health Service that is looking at the
performance of regional Tribal Epidemiology Centers in meeting the health needs of
Native Americans. She recently completed a study under the auspices of the Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality entitled, “Creating a National Framework for
Quality Measurement,” and she is currently serving as Principal Investigator for the
companion study, “What Health Care Data are Collected and Available to Inform
Policymakers, Clinicians, and Consumers?” Previously, she was the Principal
Investigator for a project to assess the Future of Performance Measurement for the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. On behalf of CMS, she directed a study
of barriers to and strategies to increase American Indian eligibility and enrollment in
Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and Medicare. Prior to
joining Econometrica, she held positions at Mathematica Policy Research, Project
HOPE’s Center for Health Affairs, and served as Deputy Assistant Director for Health at
the Congressional Budget Office. She holds a Master’s degree in Economics and a
Bachelor’s degree in Social Sciences and Communication from the University of
Southern California.

       Ms. Langwell will help facilitate site visits as well as support primary and
secondary data analysis work. She will also participate in the expert panel convening
and interim report writing. About 5 percent of her time will go towards this work.

        Wayne Mundy, Senior Staff Associate, has more than 25 years of experience in
areas related to housing issues focusing on Native Americans and Alaska Natives. He
served for five years as Administrator of HUD’s Office of Native American Programs
(ONAP), responsible for the funding, oversight, and monitoring of the HUD/ONAP
American Indian and Alaska Native housing and related services for all of Alaska. He
developed strategies to ensure that federal government responsibilities are met in a
timely manner for the review of grant applications, awarding of grant funds, monitoring
of issued grants, and enforcement of problem grants. Mr. Mundy administered
approximately $100 million in annual formal block grant funding for housing and related
activities and approximately $5 million to $7 million in annual Indian Community
Development Grant funding. Previous positions held by Mr. Mundy include Executive
Director of the Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority, Real Estate Loan Manager for


                                               114
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




the Denali Alaskan Federal Credit Union, Director of the Housing Management
Department for the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, and Deputy Director of the
Alaska State Housing Authority. Mr. Mundy currently assists Econometrica in providing
financial technical assistance to the Fort Belknap Indian Community to enhance the
community’s ability to implement and manage HUD programs. Mr. Mundy attended the
University of Alaska and has passed numerous courses conducted by the American
Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. He is a Certified Public Housing Manager with the
National Association of Housing Redevelopment Organization.

       Mr. Mundy will serve as a key advisor for all of the work on this project. He will
play a role in conducting site visits, but he will also help with the analysis of both primary
and secondary data. He is expecting about 9 percent of his time to go towards this
work.

       Alexander Thackeray, Staff Associate, assists Econometrica with projects
involving economic and statistical analysis, data collection and analysis, technical
assistance and training, and program evaluation. On behalf of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Mr. Thackeray is currently: (1) a member of a
team of subject matter experts providing technical assistance to Public Housing
Authorities (PHAs) transitioning to asset management; (2) conducting reviews of
applications for HUD’s Capital Fund Finance Program and related programs; and (3)
handling data collection and analysis activities for an evaluation of the Section 108 loan
guarantee program. As part of the latter project, he participated in visits to Section 108
project sites and interviews with Field Office personnel. Recently, Mr. Thackeray
completed an impact evaluation of the Maritime Administration’s Maritime Security
Program. He also supported the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services with
extensive analysis, documentation, and evaluation of data collected through the
Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program. In the area of regulatory analysis, he has
conducted a small-entity impact analysis for the Department of Homeland Security and
cost-benefit analyses for the Department of Transportation. Previous projects include
testing the Office of Management and Budget’s revised Credit Subsidy Calculator;
synthesizing 12 distinct datasets to construct a database used to create a Community
Needs Index for HUD; and providing technical assistance for the Housing Authority of


                                               115
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




New Orleans in making the transition to an asset management model. Prior to joining
Econometrica, Mr. Thackeray taught macroeconomics as a university teaching assistant
and taught high school algebra and geometry. He is proficient with the statistical
software Stata, SAS, R, and TSP; Microsoft Office; Adobe Acrobat Professional; and
Web programming languages, including HTML, ColdFusion, and SQL. Mr. Thackeray
received a B.A. in Mathematics and Economics from Denison University and an M.A. in
Economics, with a concentration in Econometrics, from the University of Maryland.

        Mr. Thackery will be apart of the site visit team as well as the secondary data
collection and analysis team. He will also contribute to the writing of both the interim and
final report. Nearly 9 percent of his time will go into this work.
       Joyce Wilker, Senior Staff Associate, assists Econometrica’s clients with
analysis related to loan portfolios, underwriting, lending risk, financial statements, small
business impacts, and associated matters. As a commercial loan officer for over 20
years, most recently at the senior vice president level, she brings real-world skills in
credit analysis, lending functions, financial operations, and customer service to
analyzing or developing programs that involve financial or economic development
aspects. As a financial analyst, Ms. Wilker is currently reviewing applications from
public housing authorities for large-scale capital financing under the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s Capital Fund program. She earned a B.A. in
Economics, magna cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania.

       Ms. Wilker will provide assistance with the final report writing and the post-report
briefing but will also participate in site visits and data analysis. About 5 percent of her
time will go into this project.


D.3. National Opinion Research Center (NORC) Staff
        Suzanne Bard is a Survey Director II in NORC’s Economics, Labor and
Population Studies division. She joined NORC in 1977 and has had extensive
experience in many facets of large-scale data collection, to include managing data
collection, assisting with complex, multi-instrument data deliveries, and coordinating
field staffing and communications. From 2000 until 2009 Suzanne was the Associate


                                               116
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Director of Field Operations at NORC. Besides data collection management her
expertise also includes project quality control, training, and working with special
populations. Ms. Bard has led the field data collection efforts for several major national
studies to include the 2010 Census Integrated Communications Campaign Program
Evaluation, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97 and NLSY79), and the
General Social Survey. As the Data Collection Task Leader for the 2010 Census
project, Ms. Bard planned and oversaw the data collection efforts which included
American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian samples. She worked with the
tribal councils of several Native American/Native Alaskan tribes to gain permission to
interview on the reservations. Other activities included presentations before the tribal
councils, hiring of Native American interviewers and working with the interviewing staff
during the field period. Under her direction Native Hawaiians were also hired for the
sample in Hawaii and she conducted outreach to Native Hawaiian organizations to
inform them of the project and to facilitate the hiring of interviewing staff.

        Ms. Bard will serve as the Field Manager for the Household Survey and the
Survey of Housing Officials. She will provide oversight of all field data collection
activities. She will also conduct outreach with the tribes and conduct site visits. An
estimated 54 percent of her time will support this work.

        Chet Bowie, is a Senior Vice President and Director of Economics, Labor and
Population Studies at NORC. Mr. Bowie is a senior executive experienced in designing
and conducting large-scale, national household, establishment, and educational
institution surveys; combining administrative data with survey data for policy relevant
research; and conducting survey research in areas such as interviewing methods,
questionnaire design, and survey automation. He has expertise in solving client
business problems, meeting challenging goals, producing desired results, and
developing intimate customer relationships. As a former Census Bureau Division
Director, he directed a division of 240 technical staff (survey statisticians and
information technology specialists) responsible for the negotiation, development,
collection methods, and compilation of survey data for Federal, state, and private
reimbursable customers.



                                               117
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




        Chet Bowie will serve as the NORC Corporate Monitor at no cost to the project.
He will meet weekly with Carol Hafford and Suzanne Bard to monitor data collection
activities, costs, and deliverables.


         Carol Hafford is a Senior Research Scientist in NORC’s Economics, Labor and
Population Studies division. Dr. Hafford is an applied anthropologist with 18 years
experience conducting research and evaluations on federal, state, and tribal social
service programs. Her areas of expertise include use of advanced qualitative methods
and cultural competency in evaluation and human service delivery. Prior to joining
NORC in 2010, she managed multi-year, multi-site studies and conducted fieldwork with
vulnerable populations in diverse communities. Dr. Hafford was recently the project
director for a cross-site evaluation of ten Tribal TANF/Child Welfare Coordination
programs, funded by the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family
Assistance, which focused on coordinating tribal social services to better serve
American Indian and Alaska Native families at-risk of involvement with child protective
services. She also conducted field data collection for the Implementation of Promoting
Safe and Stable Families by Indian Tribes for ACF’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, which examined use of title IV-B, subpart 2 funds to provide
culturally-competent and integrated services to strengthen families. For these projects,
she conducted outreach to tribal communities to negotiate on-site data collection,
developed interview protocols, obtained OMB clearance, and led site visits to interview
tribal leaders, elders, program staff, and community members. While at the Corporation
for National and Community Service, Dr. Hafford managed national level surveys and
studies for AmeriCorps programs. Earlier, Dr. Hafford worked onsite at HUD’s Office of
Community Planning and Development providing technical assistance and support to
the Office of Executive Services on the implementation of the Integrated Disbursement
and Information System (IDIS) for the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA programs and
annual grantee performance reporting. Dr. Hafford received her Ph.D. from Columbia
University.
      Dr. Hafford will serve as the Task Leader for Household Survey and TDHE
Telephone Survey. She will serve as NORC’s project manager and provide
management oversight of all NORC data collection activities. She will also conduct

                                               118
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




outreach with the tribes and conduct site visits. Located at NORC’s Bethesda, MD
office, she will serve as the project liaison to the Urban Institute, dedicating about 42
percent of her time towards this work.

       Steven Pedlow is a Senior Survey Statistician in NORC’s Statistics and
Methodology Department. Mr. Pedlow has a wide-ranging statistical knowledge and
experience with an emphasis in imputation. He is currently leading the sampling and
analysis tasks for the 2010 Census Integrated Communication Program Evaluation for
the U.S. Census Bureau, which is using address-based sampling. One of the
oversamples he designed was for the American Indian and Alaska Native population.
He has also led the sample design and monitoring of the 2004, 2007, and 2010 Surveys
of Consumer Finances (SCF), sponsored by the Federal Reserve Board. He has led the
hot-deck imputation tasks for the National Science Foundation’s Survey of Doctorate
Recipients, the Department of Energy’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey, and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Immunization Survey.
He has also performed or led multiple imputation efforts for the last two rounds of each
of the CDC’s National Survey of Children’s Health and National Survey of Children with
Special Health Care Needs. He has worked on the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth 1997 (NLSY97) project since its inception in 1996, which has included sampling,
monitoring, and weighting. He helped develop improved weights for NLSY97 based on
cumulating cases rather than combining samples, investigated variance estimation for
ordered categorical data for NLSY97, and investigated outlier weights for the Racial and
Ethnic Approaches to Community Health: 2010 project, sponsored by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. Mr. Pedlow holds a master’s degree in statistics from
the University of Chicago.

      Steven Pedlow will serve as a Sampling Statistician and provide guidance on the
sampling plan for the Household Survey and the Telephone Survey. He will provide 3
percent of his time for this work.




                                               119
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




D.4. Support Services International (SSI) Staff
       Judy Earp has over 20 years experience in conducting research and evaluation
in Indian Country in the areas of housing, education, behavioral health, and economic
development. This has involved data collection and analysis and reporting of results.
She has served as Project Manager for numerous SSI projects. In this capacity, she
has worked directly with stakeholders in tribal communities in identifying experts to
serve on Advisory Panels, recruiting participants for data collection efforts, and
identifying best approaches for the task at hand. Ms. Earp has also served as a Senior
Research Associate on many SSI projects including: Regional and National ONAP
Housing Summits (HUD/ONAP); Treatment Outcomes of American Indian and Alaska
Native Women receiving substance abuse treatment at IHS-funded programs (IHS);
Assessment of the Financial Health of Institutions Supported by Title III and Title V of
the Higher Education Act (DED); Training-the-Trainer - Prevention and Treatment of
Child Abuse and Neglect in Indian Country (IHS); and An Assessment of the Quality of
Life for American Indian and Alaska Native Youth.

        Ms. Earp will participate in the expert panel convening and provide assistance
with secondary data collection. She will also help with the tribal and urban data
collection work. An estimate of 10 percent of her time will go towards this project.

       Alana Fields is a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma. She has previous
experience working for Indian country and is able to apply her knowledge to all SSI
native affairs. As a Research Assistant she will be collecting data and reporting it
according to proper standards. Alana has been in contact with a number of Tribal
agencies in regards to collecting data for research projects, as well as collecting
estimates for travel accommodations and making meeting arrangements. In addition,
she Alana will also be responsible for the day-to-day administrative support for all
aspects of the study. She performs similar duties for other studies and projects in
Indian housing, social services, and economic development.

        Ms. Fields will help conduct site visits in both tribal and urban areas. She will also
participate in the expert panel convening and secondary data collection. About 3
percent of her time will be dedicated towards this project.


                                               120
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




        Walter Hillabrant (enrolled in the Citizen Potawatomi Nation) is a psychologist
with over 30 years experience in Indian country working in the areas of program
evaluation, policy analysis, and applied research. Since 1979, Walter has served as
President of Support Services International (SSI), an Indian-owned consulting firm that
provides consulting services to federal agencies, tribes, and tribal consortia in
developing, evaluating, and improving programs. Mr. Hillabrant has been the principle
investigator of national evaluations and studies of for the Departments of Labor,
Education, Health and Human Services, and Transportation. He has served as an
expert witness in statistics and research methods for the Departments of Justice,
Education, and Health and Human Services. Relevant projects directed by Walter
include: Regional and National ONAP Housing Summits (HUD); Technical assistance to
tribes in maximizing IHBG funding (12 tribes); Business and economic development
services for tribes (5 tribes, NAC); Factors Affecting the Unsubsidized Placement of
Enrollees: A Study of the SCSEP Grantee (DOL/ETA); Treatment outcomes of
American Indian and Alaska Native Women receiving substance abuse treatment at
IHS-funded programs (IHS/ASPE); Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Program (DHHS);
A study of family strengths and family violence in Indian country (IHS); and Evaluation
of the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Program (USED/RSA). Mr. Hillabrant
is a managing director and co-founder of Native American Capital, LLC (NAC)
www.nativeamericancapital.com which raises and deploys investment capital in Indian
country to promote business and economic development. He is a board member and
Treasurer of the National Indian Youth Leadership Project (NIYLP), President of the DC
Psychological Association, and C-4 Recovery Solutions (the convener of the Cape Cod
Symposium on Addictive Disorders).

      Mr. Hillabrant will contribute as a Senior Advisor. He will play a large role in
conducting site visits. He will also provide assistance in analyzing both the primary and
secondary data and the final report writing. He is obligating about 16 percent of his time
towards this work.




                                               121
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




D.5. Consultants
        Karl Eschbach is a sociologist and demographer. He is Professor and Director
of Population Research at the University of Texas Medical Branch in the Departments of
Internal Medicine and Preventive Medicine and Community Health. He received his
doctorate in sociology from Harvard University and completed a post-doctoral
traineeship in demography at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Dr. Eschbach's
research specialties are in the demography of racial and ethnic populations, with
particular focus on American Indians/Alaska Natives and Latinos, and in socio-
economic and health disparities pertaining to minority populations. Dr. Eschbach served
as State Demographer of the State of Texas 2008-2010, by appointment of the
Governor of Texas. He currently directs a project of a National Cancer Institute-funded
Center on Population Health and health Disparities that focuses on geographical
variation in morbidity, mortality and health care access. Dr. Eschbach is nationally
recognized as an expert in the demography of American Indian populations.

      Dr. Eschbach will support the preparation of the research design and analysis of
secondary data. He will also participate in the expert panel convening. He will spend
about 2 percent of his time on this work.

       David Listokin has been a professor of urban planning at the Rutgers University
Center for Urban Policy Research since the early 1970s. His areas of specialization
include housing, land use, and development impact assessment. He has done
extensive research and writing on historic preservation for the National Parks Service,
the Twentieth Century Fund, the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the National Trust
for Historic Preservation, and the World Monuments Fund. Among his publications on
preservation are Landmarks Preservation and the Property Tax, Living Cities, and
“Preservation and Growth Management.” A three-year research study directed by Dr.
Listokin for the New Jersey State Department of Community Affairs contributed to state
adoption of a Rehabilitation Subcode, the first in the nation. For the states of New
Jersey, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and Texas, he has conducted studies identifying the
economic benefits of historic preservation and heritage tourism. He has conducted
research for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Fannie Mae
Foundation (Native American housing and economic development) on expanding

                                               122
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




housing and homeownership opportunity. Dr. Listokin teaches graduate historic
preservation and housing classes at Rutgers and Cornell Universities, and was a
visiting professor at Harvard University. He has an M.C.R.P. and Ph.D. in urban
planning from Rutgers University.

       Dr. Listokin will serve as a Senior Advisor for this project. The majority of his
assistance will be towards both primary and secondary data analysis as well as report
writing. He will be dedicating about 5 percent of his time for this project.

         Kenneth Temkin, Kenneth Temkin, M.B.A., Ph.D. is the principal and founder of
Temkin Associates. Dr. Temkin has over fifteen years of experience in working on
program evaluations and economic analyses for a wide variety of public, private and
non-profit clients. In particular, Dr. Temkin has extensive experience in analyzing
programs to increase mortgage lending within underserved markets. He recently
completed a study of mortgage lending by CDFIs and shared equity programs that
facilitate sustainable homeownership for lower income families. Prior to establishing
Temkin Associates, Dr. Temkin was a Financial Specialist at Kormendi\Gardner
Partners (“KGP”). In this role Dr. Temkin had substantive responsibility for projects
related to the disposition of government assets, including HUD held subsidized
multifamily loans and real property disposed of through the GSA’s Federal Asset Sales
real property initiative. In addition, at KGP Dr. Temkin worked on engagements related
to the development of new secondary markets for HUD economic development loans,
the SBA role in facilitating the securitization of conventional small business loans and
the privatization and sale of real property under the Air Force’s housing privatization
initiative. Before joining KGP, Dr. Temkin was a Senior Research Associate at Urban
Institute, where he led the Urban Institute’s housing finance research practice. In that
role he directed projects related to secondary markets for CRA affordable loan
portfolios, the participation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in secondary markets for
subprime and affordable mortgage loans and the effect of secondary market
underwriting guidelines on credit availability. He earned his Ph.D. in City and Regional
Planning from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1996 after earning an
M.B.A. from Baruch College and a B.S. from New York University.



                                               123
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       Dr. Temkin will help oversee the Housing Policy and Programs work, and also
serve as the leader for the lender survey. His other contributions will include data
analysis and report writing for the final report. About 6 percent of this time will be put
towards this effort.




                                               124
      SSI
      NORC




      J. Earp
      K. Pettit




      S. Bard
      D. Levy




      J. Wilker
      R. Smith




      R. Hilton




      A. Fields
      K. Corey
      H. Bunce
      N. Pindus




      K. Temkin
      W. Mundy




      S. Pedlow
      C. Hafford




      D. Listokin
      K. Dumlao




      A. Williams




      C. Hanson
      T. Kingsley




      K. Langwell
      D. Wissoker
      C. Narducci




      A. Thackery




      K. Eschbach
      W. Hillabrant
      M. Abravanel




      Consultants
      Econometrica
      Urban Institute




      X
              X
              X
              X
                      X
                          X
                          X
                                      X
                                      X
                                      X
                                      X
                                      X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                                                          Litera
                                                                                                   ture R
                                                                                                            eview
                                                                                                                     /Synth




      X
              X
                      X
                      X
                                      X
                                      X
                                      X
                                      X
                                      X
                                                          X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                                                      X
                                                                                          Resea                             esis
                                                                                                   rc h De
                                                                                                             s ign




      X
              X
                  X
                      X
                      X
                      X
                              X
                                      X
                                      X
                                                  X
                                                          X
                                                              X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                                      X
                                                                                          Surve
                                                                                                y     Resea
                                                                                                               rch M
                                                                                                                       ethod
                                                                                          Data C                               s




      X
              X
                  X
                      X
                      X
                              X
                              X
                              X
                              X
                              X
                              X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                                      X
                                                                                                     oll ecti
                                                                                          Areas               on in
                                                                                                                     R em o
                                                                                                  /Cas e
                                                                                                             Studie          te
                                                                                                                     s




      X
              X
                  X
                      X
                      X
                              X
                              X
                              X
                              X
                                                  X
                                                          X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                                          Interv
                                                                                                  iew an
                                                                                                             d Surv
                                                                                                                     ey D a

                                                                                                                                                                                                      URBAN INSTITUTE
                                                                                          D em o                              ta Ana
                                                                                                   graph                             ly sis




      X
              X
                  X
                      X
                      X
                              X
                                      X
                                                      X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                                              X
                                                                              X
                                                                              X
                                                                                          D em o            ic (So
                                                                                                   graph            cio-ec
                                                                                                                           onom
                                                                                          Analy             ic, and                ic),
                                                                                                  sis                 Ec ono
                                                                                                                               mic
                                                                                          Housin




      X
                          X
                                  X
                                          X
                                          X
                                                      X
                                                              X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                                      X
                                                                                                     g Mark
                                                                                          C ond                et, Ne
                                                                                                 itions                eds a
                                                                                                           Analy               nd
                                                                                                                   sis




      X
                      X
                      X
                              X
                                          X
                                                      X
                                                          X
                                                              X
                                                                                          Samp
                                                                                                  li ng an

                                                                                                                                                                  Exhibit 6. Skills Matrix by staff
                                                                                                             d Stati
                                                                                                                      stical




      X
              X
              X
              X
                      X
                      X
                          X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                                  X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                                  X
                                                                                          T elep                              metho
                                                                                                  hone
                                                                                                           Interv                    ds
                                                                                                                   iewing




      X
      X
      X
              X
                  X
                      X
                      X
                          X
                          X
                          X
                          X
                          X
                          X
                          X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                                          F ield
                                                                                                 Interv
                                                                                                           iewing
                                                                                                                    /Site V
                                                                                          Consu                              isits




      X
              X
              X
              X
                      X
                      X
                      X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                                      X
                                                          X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                                      X
                                                                                                   ltati
                                                                                          Expert ons with
                                                                                                   s/Con
                                                                                                             vening
                                                                                                                       Expert




      X
      X
      X
              X
              X
              X
                      X
                      X
                          X
                          X
                          X
                          X
                          X
                          X
                          X
                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                          X
                                                                                          R epo                                  Panels
                                                                                                 rt Writi
                                                                                                            ng
                                                                                                                                              Technical Skills




125
      X
      X
      X
              X
                      X
                      X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                                          X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                                      X
                                                                                          Briefin
                                                                                                   gs
                                                                                          M ana




      X
              X
                  X
                      X
                      X
                                      X
                                      X
                                      X
                                                      X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                                      X
                                                                                                 ging
                                                                                          Resea Large, Co
                                                                                                  rc h Pro        mplex
                                                                                                            jects
                                                                                          H om e
                                                                                                 ow n




      X
      X
      X
              X
                  X
                      X
                              X
                              X
                                          X
                                          X
                                                      X
                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                                          Poli cy ership and
                                                                                                  —                Hous in
                                                                                          Home Including B                   g
                                                                                                 ow ne             arr iers
                                                                                                        rship               to
                                                                                          Mortg




      X
      X
      X
              X
                          X
                                  X
                                              X
                                                      X
                                                          X
                                                              X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                                      X

                                                                                                 age L
                                                                                          F inan        end
                                                                                                 ce/Ho ing/Housin
                                                                                                        us ing            g
                                                                                                                Econo
                                                                                          Housin                        mic s




          X
          X
              X
                  X
                      X
                      X
                              X
                              X
                                          X
                                          X
                                                                          X
                                                                          X



                                                                                                   g Iss u
                                                                                          C om m           es
                                                                                                  unitie of AIAN/NH
                                                                                                         s
                                                                                          Econo




          X
          X
              X
                  X
                      X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                                                  X
                                                                              X




                                                                                                mic
                                                                                          AIAN/N and Servic
                                                                                                   H C om          e Iss u
                                                                                                           munit           es in
                                                                                          HUD                    ies




          X
          X
              X
                  X
                      X
                              X
                              X
                                          X
                                          X
                                                                              X




                                                                                               Progra
                                                                                          AIAN/N        ms Se
                                                                                                   H/Blo       rving
                                                                                                         ck Gra
                                                                                                                nts
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS




          X
          X
              X
                      X
                                  X
                                          X
                                          X
                                                                              X




                                                                                          Other
                                                                                                Hou
                                                                                          AIAN/N s ing Assis
                                                                                                   H              tance
                                                                                                                          for
                                                                                          AIAN/N
                                                                                                   H
                                                                                                                                              Subject Knowledge




          X
          X
              X
              X
              X
                      X
                      X
                      X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                                                  X
                                                                              X




                                                                                          Cultura His tory, Go
                                                                                                  l Conte          v erna
                                                                                                           xt             nce, a
                                                                                                                                 nd




          X
          X
              X
                      X
                      X
                      X
                                  X
                                  X
                                  X
                                                                      X
                                                                              X




                                                                                          Censu
                                                                                                 s Data
                                                                                                          for AIA
                                                                                                                  N/NH
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




VI. PAST PERFORMANCE

       The Urban Institute has a more than 40-year history of conducting high quality
research and evaluation, as evidenced through sponsor satisfaction and repeated
assignments from a wide range of funders including U.S. government agencies, U.S.
and international foundations, the World Bank, state and local governments, and foreign
governments. Publicly available work produced by the Institute is frequently featured in
major newspapers, journals, magazines, and other media, and receives high marks for
scholarly excellence, policy relevance, and quality of data and policy analysis. Our
proposed study builds on the Institute’s record of research on housing quality and
access, housing market strength, and policy issues pertaining to the AIAN and NH
communities.

      We highlight below Urban Institute work relevant to the proposed project,
beginning with five studies completed in the past five years (see Appendix B for full
project details). In addition, we include descriptions of projects conducted by our
subcontracting partners. Projects included here were selected to represent our team’s
substantive expertise in the areas of AIAN/NH issues and housing policy,
methodological and analytical skills in both quantitative and qualitative research, and
management capabilities for projects of similar type and scope as proposed for this new
effort.

A. Past Performance Project Descriptions

        Tribal Food Assistance: The Roles of the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations and the Food Stamp Program. (2006 – 2009) U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food and Nutrition Research Program.
The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) has been an officially
authorized alternative to the Food Stamp Program (FSP) since 1977, providing
participants in 22 states with a monthly package of commodities in place of FSP
electronic benefits. To participate, a household must either live on an Indian reservation,
or live near a reservation and contain at least one enrolled member of an American
Indian or Alaska Native tribe. Households cannot participate in both FDPIR and FSP in

                                               126
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




the same month, so those who are eligible for both programs must choose between
them. In FY 2006, average monthly enrollment in FDPIR was approximately 90,000. In
consultation with tribal, state, regional, and federal administrators, the project team
explored the roles of the two programs in food assistance on and near Indian
reservations by comparing FDPIR and FSP with regard to eligibility, participation,
administration, and possible effects on health and nutrition. The information will be
useful to USDA, Congress, and tribal governments in understanding reasons for
declines in FDPIR participation and ways that the two programs can work together, and
with other food assistance programs on reservations, to meet food assistance needs.

        Foreclosure Prevention and Neighborhood Stabilization in the Washington,
D.C. (2009 – 2010) Fannie Mae Foundation. This grant supports the work of
NeighborhoodInfo DC to continue to track housing market conditions in Washington,
D.C., and the Washington region. Through the quarterly District of Columbia Housing
Monitor report, we track basic housing market indicators for the city, including home
sales volume, median sales prices, and real estate market listings. We have added
detailed indicators of foreclosure activity as well, including foreclosure inventory, new
foreclosure starts, foreclosure sales, and distressed sales. These data are being used
by city government officials and nonprofit organizations to track and respond to the
growing local foreclosure problem. In addition, the new grant for 2010 is intended to
support and expand our foreclosure tracking work in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan
area.

        New Markets Tax Credit Program Evaluation. (2007– 2011) U.S.
Department of Treasury. The purpose of the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC)
program is to attract private-sector capital to low-income communities for economic and
community development purposes. The program provides credits to private investors
through specialized Community Development Entities (CDEs); they offer a 39 percent
cumulative tax reduction (to be used over a seven-year period) as the investment
incentive. The CDEs use the proceeds to broker deals which finance projects, create or
retain jobs, or otherwise generate economic growth through both direct and spin-off
investments of various sorts. The Institute is conducting a comprehensive evaluation of
the program for the CDFI Fund. This is a four-year effort that includes an extensive


                                               127
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




literature review, interviews with program stakeholders, development of an analytic
typology, quantitative analysis of administrative data, surveys of local officials and
Qualified Active Low Income Community Businesses (QALICBs), and extensive
quantitative and qualitative information collection on a large sample of NMTC projects.
The evaluation is addressing program investment trends, the role of NMTCs and extent
to which NMTC investment is needed, project-specific outputs and outcomes, and
broader community level outcomes.

        Surveys/Making Connections. (2001 – 2010) Annie E. Casey Foundation. To
support strategic planning and evaluation of its Making Connection’s Initiative, the Annie
E. Casey Foundation contracted with NORC and the Urban Institute to design, conduct,
and manages an ambitious panel survey of households living in the initiative’s target
neighborhoods. The survey covers a wide array of outcomes of interest to the
foundation, including employment and economic well-being, utilization of and
satisfaction with formal helping services, informal social networks, civic engagement,
and collective efficacy, perceptions and attitudes about neighborhood quality, and child
well-being. The Institute’s role is to lead the design of the survey questions, support
NORC in fielding the survey by acting as liaison with local community-based partners,
assist local partners in using the survey data effectively, and conduct research using
survey data.

        HOPE VI — In-depth Assessment of Family and Neighborhood
Outcomes.(1999 – 2008) HUD; MacArthur Foundation; Annie E. Casey Foundation;
Rockefeller Foundation; Fannie Mae Foundation; Chicago Community Trust; Ford
Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. This study assessed the impact of the
HOPE VI program on the lives of residents who lived in public housing developments
prior to the initiation of HOPE VI redevelopment activities. Started in 1993, HOPE VI
provides flexible resources to transform the nation’s most severely distressed public
housing developments through the provision of services, improvements in management,
and redevelopment of the housing stock. However, in many HOPE VI developments,
not all of the original residents return after the transformation is complete. Through
tracking, surveying and interviewing techniques, this study examined the locational,



                                               128
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




housing, financial, health, and other outcomes for original residents affected by HOPE
VI.


A.1. Urban Institute – Additional Project Descriptions
       Assessment of American Indian Housing Needs and Programs; Housing
Problems and Needs of Native Hawaiians. (1993 – 1996) HUD. This study was
designed to evaluate the housing problems and needs of American Indians and Alaska
Natives as well as the effectiveness of HUD's Indian housing programs. The project
included a study of Native Hawaiian housing needs. The key objectives of this adjunct
study were to assess the housing problems and needs of Native Hawaiians given the
particular housing conditions and market circumstances that exist in Hawaii.

        Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase III – Native
Americans. (2002 – 2003) HUD. This study used a rigorous paired testing
methodology, in which two individuals—one minority and the other white—pose as
otherwise identical homeseekers and visit real estate or rental agents to inquire about
the availability of advertised housing units. HDS2000, the third national paired-testing
study sponsored by HUD, measured patterns of racial and ethnic discrimination in urban
housing markets. HUD’s goals for the study include rigorous measures of change in
adverse treatment against blacks and Hispanics nationwide, site-specific estimates of
adverse treatment for major metropolitan areas and selected states, and new measures
of adverse treatment against Asians and Pacific Islanders, American Indians, and
persons with disabilities. Phase III extended the paired testing methodology to provide
the first rigorous estimates of the incidence and forms of discrimination American
Indians face when they search for housing in metropolitan areas.

        National Neighborhood Indicators Project. (2002 – 2010) Annie E. Casey
Foundation. The National Neighborhood Indicators Project (NNIP) is a collaborative
effort by the Institute and 35 local partners to further the development and use of
neighborhood information systems in policy making and community building. NNIP
partners have built (or are building) advanced information systems with integrated and
recurrently updated information on neighborhood conditions in their cities. They have


                                               129
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




overcome the resistance of major public agencies to sharing administrative data and,
because of dramatic cost reductions made possible through new information
technologies, they have shown that such systems can be operated on an ongoing basis
at a level that can be locally self-sustaining. Perhaps more important, however, is the
way they use their data. NNIP partners operate very differently from traditional planners
and researchers. Their theme is democratizing information. They concentrate on
facilitating the direct practical use of data by city and community leaders, rather than
preparing independent research reports on their own. And all have adopted as a
primary purpose using information to build the capacities of institutions and residents in
distressed urban neighborhoods. Long-term NNIP activities include: (1) developing
tools to advancing the use of information in community capacity building; (2) using
information to enhance local policy making; (3) assembling data from across partner
systems and other national information sources and analyzing the data to provide
understanding of how inner-city neighborhoods are changing nationally; and (4)
disseminating findings and helping institutions in other cities develop similar systems
and capacities.

       Housing in the Nation’s Capital, including Foreclosures in the Nation’s
Capital Brief. (2009) Federal National Mortgage Association. Published since 2002,
Housing in the Nation’s Capital is an annual series on current and emerging housing
trends in the District of Columbia and the Washington region. The goal is to supply the
region with the facts needed to inform an ongoing dialogue among policymakers,
housing professionals, and the public about the housing challenges facing our area.
The 2009 report focused on the impact of the foreclosure crisis on the region, examining
the level and trends of foreclosures, outlining potential secondary effects for families
and neighborhoods, and looking towards the future of the region’s housing market.

       The National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program. (1998 –
2002) HHS, ASPE (Prime Contractor, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.). This project
evaluated the effectiveness of welfare-to-work (WtW) initiatives, including those
undertaken by formula and competitive grantees and by American Indian and Alaska
Native tribal organizations. The Institute partnered with the prime on all aspects of the
evaluation and led the process/implementation component. The four main components


                                               130
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




of the evaluation were: A Descriptive Assessment of All WtW Grantees; In-Depth Impact
and Cost-Effectiveness Study; In-Depth Process and Implementation Study; and,
Evaluation of Tribal Welfare-to-Work Programs.


A.2. Econometrica Project Descriptions
       Section 108 Program Evaluation. (2009 – 2011) HUD. Econometrica is
conducting an evaluation of HUD’s Section 108 loan guarantee program. The key
elements of Econometrica’s approach to performing this evaluation include: (1)
developing a database of information from existing HUD files and Section 108 program
managers that can be used to analyze project benefits and outcomes; (2) gathering
detailed information from Section 108 project managers and other local officials about
the program’s historical operations and whether it has filled any unique project financing
gaps; (3) conducting site visits to ten Section 108 grantees to explore the
redevelopment context, financing methods, and benefits realized; and (4) developing
performance measures that could be used to more accurately and systematically
determine Section 108 benefits and results. The evaluation culminates with a
comprehensive, publishable report produced by Econometrica.

       Evaluation of the Indian Community Development Block Grant Program.
(2004 – 2006) HUD. Econometrica completed a comprehensive evaluation of HUD’s
Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) program. The evaluation’s
research methodology provided evaluative data (from an outcome as well as an output
perspective) of past ICDBG grants in Native American and Alaska Native communities.
The research methodology was sufficiently rigorous to provide results that were
representative of the entire program. We assumed that to achieve this result the study
team needed to analyze data from a multi-year timeframe. Impact measures included
the effect grant-funded projects had on the economic viability of reservation
communities and the success of the ICDBG program in providing decent housing and a
suitable living environment for low- and moderate-income persons on reservations. The
research design incorporated a combination of secondary analysis of existing data
sources as well as strategies for collection of primary data. Our data collection efforts



                                               131
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




included on-site visits to nine grantees and one consortium of tribes, located primarily in
the western United States.

       Financial Technical Assistance for the Fort Belknap Indian Community.
(2010) HUD, ONAP. Econometrica is providing technical assistance to the Fort
Belknap Indian Community pertaining to the administration of HUD’s Mutual Help
housing program on the Fort Belknap Reservation (Montana). Approximately 217
Reservation households across 13 housing sites are currently participating in Mutual
Help, a program that helps low-income Indian families become homeowners. Recently,
HUD’s Northern Plains Office of Native American Programs (NPONAP) learned that
FBIC lacks sufficient program data to complete required Annual Statements.
Econometrica is working with the Fort Belknap Housing Department (FBHD) to make
program records current, educate staff members on Federal regulations, and enhance
the department’s ability to successfully administer the program in the future. After
Econometrica examines current Mutual Help operations through an exploratory visit, the
team is then conducting two interactive training sessions with housing personnel.
Econometrica is composing reports after each visit, culminating in a consolidated final
report that includes findings, recommendations for further NPONAP support, and a
Guidebook for FBHD.

        Research to Develop a Community Needs Index. (2006 – 2007) HUD.
Econometrica was tasked with developing a Community Needs Index (CNI) to compare
cities on community needs and to track the progress of individual cities in alleviating
their community needs. Since 1976, HUD has used data primarily from the U.S. Census
Bureau to rank cities on an index of community development need. These need indices
could be updated only every 10 years, as they relied heavily on census data. With the
advent of the American Community Survey (ACS) and other data sources that are
updated more frequently, the goal is to develop a CNI that allows HUD to assess
community needs annually and track changes in community needs over time. The
purpose of our study was to identify data that could be used in producing such an index,
acquire those data, use the data to develop a defensible index of need, and document
the process so that it can be replicated with ACS and other annual data. The CNI
developed in this study will be used to compare conditions among cities with a


                                               132
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




population of 65,000 or more, and to determine whether cities are improving or getting
worse from year to year.

       Tribal Epidemiology Centers Assessment. (2009 – 2010) Indian Health
Service. Econometrica is evaluating the success, limitations, and needs of the national
Tribal Epidemiology Center (TEC) program for the Indian Health Service (IHS), Division
of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention (DEDP) at Albuquerque, New Mexico. DEDP
has responsibility for overseeing and guiding 12 TECs that serve Indian Country.
Econometrica’s assessment consists of three main components: (1) Develop a historical
and current profile of each TEC; (2) assess each TEC’s success in achieving DEDP’s
requirements as stipulated in the Cooperative Agreement Funding Announcement and
in achieving specific goals and objectives identified in each submitted Work Plan; and
(3) assess each TEC’s progress in developing as a public health entity, using the Local
Public Health System Performance Assessment Instrument developed by the National
Public Health Performance Standards Program (NPHPSP). Site visits have been
conducted at each of the 12 centers. As part of our evaluation we are developing an
Assessment Tool that focuses on IHS requirements of TECs; the specific Work Plan
goals and objectives of each TEC; and challenges, limitations, and strategies for future
changes in the TEC program to enhance its effectiveness. A final comprehensive
assessment report will be submitted to IHS in October 2010.


A.3. NORC Project Descriptions
       2010 Census Integrated Communications Program Evaluation. (2009 –
ongoing)US Census Bureau. The goal of the 2010 Census Integrated Communications
Campaign (2010 Census ICC) is to ensure that everyone, especially the hard to
enumerate, is reached. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the impact of the
Census Bureau’s significant investment in mass media advertising, targeted media
outreach to specific populations, national and local partnerships, grassroots marketing,
school-based programs, and special events and to determine whether this investment
was justified by such outcomes as reduced non-response follow-up burden, reduced
differential undercount, and increased cooperation with enumerators. NORC is
conducting hybrid (cross-sectional/longitudinal) surveys with address-based probability


                                               133
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




samples of households, oversampling minority populations and other target segments.
The study includes a number of tribal communities, in which data collection is carried
out in-person.

        Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) US Risk
Factor Survey. (2001 – ongoing) Centers for Disease Control. REACH 2010 is the
cornerstone of CDC's efforts to eliminate racial and ethnic health disparities in areas
such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, adult immunization, and breast and cervical
cancer. The CDC supports 40 grantee partners that establish community-based
programs and culturally-appropriate interventions to eliminate health disparities among
the following racial and ethnic groups: African Americans, American Indians,
Hispanics/Latinos, Asian Americans, Alaska Natives, and Pacific Islanders. NORC is
conducting annual REACH US Risk Factor surveys in 28 of the communities to provide
CDC and its grantees with quantitative data to help determine which interventions work
most effectively in improving health among members of their communities. A
community outreach coordinator hired by NORC works with each of the communities,
including Tribal Councils, to sustain engagement with the longitudinal survey effort.

      Testing Sexual Violence Definitions and Recommended Data Elements in
Three Different Racial/Ethnic Minority Communities. (Ongoing) Centers for Disease
Control. On behalf of the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
NORC is undertaking this three year study that builds on findings about violence against
women in minority communities which emerged from the National Violence against
Women (NVAW) Survey conducted in 1995-96. NORC is working in conjunction with an
Alaska Native management firm to conduct cognitive interviewing of American Indians
and Alaska Natives, along with African Americans and Hispanics, to support the
development of three unique questionnaires to collect data on the definitions and
prevalence rates of sexual violence victimization. NORC is also conducting 600 in-
person interviews with women in these populations.

        Gates Millennium Scholars (GMS) Tracking and Longitudinal Study.
(Ongoing) Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The GMS initiative will allocate one
billion dollars over twenty years, starting in 1999, to provide scholarships and leadership
opportunities for approximately 20,000 high-achieving, low-income African American,

                                               134
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Asian American, Hispanic American, and Native American students to attend the
undergraduate and graduate institutions of their choice. The primary purpose of the
survey-based GMS Tracking and Longitudinal Study is to analyze the long- and short-
term effects of the program on scholars’ academic, professional, and civic lives.
Secondarily, the proposed research will inform the educational community about
strategies to improve the educational attainment and achievement of students of color.

        Resident Relocation Survey. (2002 – 2010) John D and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation. Over a period of 15 years, the Chicago Housing Authority
(CHA) is replacing or rehabilitating substandard public housing developments as part of
the city of Chicago's Plan for Transformation. During the Transformation, the CHA is
assisting displaced leaseholders in finding housing in the private market or in other
public housing units, building new mixed-income developments, and facilitating
relocation into the new mixed-income communities. The Resident Relocation Survey
reports on the relocation experiences of current and former leaseholders of the CHA.
Since 2002 NORC has tracked and conducted in-person interviews with a sample of
two cohorts of leaseholders.

A.4. SSI Project Descriptions
       HUD/ONAP National and Regional Indian Housing Summits. (2003 –
2005)HUD, ONAP. This project involved planning and conducting six regional housing
summits in the HUD regions of Alaska, southwest, northwest, southern plains, northern
plains, and eastern woodlands. The purpose of each regional summit was to identify
and prioritize housing needs of regional tribes and tribal communities and to develop
strategies and action plans for addressing the needs. The outcomes of the six regional
summits were used as an agenda and format for planning and conducting the National
Indian Housing Summit in Nevada in September 2005. The National Summit had over
800 participants as well as a trade show related to Indian housing issues. Six Advisory
Groups were established to guide the development of presentations for each of the
housing topics on the agenda.

     Protecting Our Children: Train-the-Trainer/Child Abuse and Neglect
(CAAN) Prevention and Treatment. (2006 – 2008) DHHS/Indian Health Service,

                                               135
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Division of Behavioral Health, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Provide training
and technical to tribal and Indian Health Service social service and mental health staff in
the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect. This involved multi-site
training to a cross section of tribal staff including mental health providers, social
workers, head start staff, tribal police, community organizers, community health
representatives, child health advocates, juvenile justice representatives, foster parent
program representatives, etc. Trainees were recruited through direct communication
with tribal divisions of behavioral health, law enforcement, and family services. A
brochure was developed and disseminated to all participating tribes and participants.

       Provision of Technical Assistance to IHBG Grantees. (2007 - ongoing)
Tribes, Tribal Housing Authorities, and TDHES that have HUD IHBG Grants. This
project involves review and analysis of need and other components of the client’s IHBG
allocation formula. The technical support provided is designed to maximize the level of
funding to which the tribe is entitled.

         Addressing Informational Asymmetries in Indian Country by Exploring
Tribal Finance and Tribal Law Enforcement. (Ongoing) Subcontractor to Native
American Capital (NAC). The purpose of the study is to collect information from staff at
tribal financial, legal and other departments to gain an understanding of the situation
faced by tribes seeking to issue bonds as part of their economic development efforts.
Work involves examining barriers confronting tribes’ entry into private capital markets
and the factors that add unfair costs to bonds issued by tribes.

       Cross-Site Evaluation of SAMHSA’s Project LAUNCH. (Ongoing)
Subcontractor to Abt Associates. SSI is participating in all aspects of the project include
in study design, data collection and analysis, and report writing. The study involves
coordination with ongoing single site evaluations. Grantees participate in SAMHSA’s
Project LAUNCH-- a nationwide initiative designed to improve the health, education,
and welfare of low income children. Grantees include counties, states, consortia, and
Indian tribes.




                                               136
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




VII. THE SCOPE OF WORK: PRELIMINARY MANAGEMENT AND
WORK PLAN

        This section presents our plan for managing the project and our approach to
each of the tasks in the Scope of Work. Together, these comprise the Preliminary
Management and Work Plan (PMWP), which will be refined in the first task of this
project. The PMWP addresses the activities that will be a part of each task, how the
effort will be accomplished, and how these activities relate to the overall allocation of
staff resources (allocation of budget resources is addressed separately in the business
quotation).

      Section A describes the team’s management structure and project monitoring.
Section B discusses The Institute’s approach to subcontractor and consultant
management. Section C describes our approach to each task in the Statement of Work,
and Section D presents our proposed allocation of resources and the project schedule.

A. Management Structure and Project Monitoring

       Accomplishing a project with multiple concurrent data collection efforts that
requires cultural sensitivity and collaborative relationships calls for a strong and
experienced management team supported by the appropriate organizational structure.
The organization of the management team is presented in Exhibit 7. G. Thomas
Kingsley, Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute will serve as the Principal Investigator.
Due to the complexity of the project, we have also designated a Project Manager,
Nancy Pindus. Mr. Kingsley and Ms. Pindus have worked together at the Urban Institute
for over 20 years, and have both directed the Center on Metropolitan Housing and
Communities at different times. Their combined experience and tenure at the Institute
will ensure that this contract receives the priority and organizational resources that it
needs to proceed as planned and meet HUD’s goals. Our organizational structure
provides for separate and strong leadership for each of the data collection components
as well as a research design and analysis team that draws from a range of areas of
expertise.



                                               137
    PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
    URBAN INSTITUTE



Exhibit 7. Organizational Chart




                                               138
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       Project Monitoring/Progress Reports
        Once the work begins, the Project Manager will prepare monthly progress reports
that summarize work completed in relation to the identified project milestones and
identifies potential problems as appropriate. Progress reports will summarize the status
of all project activities, including major events during the reporting period,
accomplishments, problems encountered and proposed solutions, and plans for the
upcoming month. Monthly reports are an efficient way to keep abreast of project
progress and to identify and communicate potential problems at an early stage so that
solutions can be quickly devised.

        For budget control, the Institute uses the JAMIS management information
system, which provides on-line, real-time access to project accounts for authorized
individuals. Principal Investigators and Project Managers can check the budget status
of their projects at any time, compare actual expenditure data with the estimated
expenditures planned for the period, and adjust expenditure estimates for future months
to reflect the progress of the work.

       The Principal Investigator has overall responsibility for the acceptability and
quality of all final reports and deliverables to assure that they meet PD&R’s needs and
the Institute’s quality standards. With effective project planning and monitoring, and
regular communication with PD&R, the deliverables and reports should contain no
surprises. Draft outlines of final reports will be provided for review by the GTR so that
there will be agreement on the structure, content and length of each report before it is
actually written.

       The Institute also has a formal procedure for reviewing research products before
release. For each report subject to review, the Principal Investigator and Center
Director establish standards and procedures for review and select an independent
reviewer. Draft final reports under this contract will be reviewed by the Mr. Kingsley, the
Principal Investigator and by other appropriate senior researchers at the Urban Institute
and its subcontractors to ensure that the drafts meet high technical and editorial
standards.



                                               139
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




         Formal procedures alone, however, cannot build quality. Communications are
facilitated by our collegial working style, the conduct of regular group meetings for all
active staff on a project and more frequent one-on-one meetings with the task leaders
and the Principal Investigator. When a difficult issue arises on a project, knowledgeable
colleagues are available to confer on it. Indeed, extensive review and critique come
from the informal exchange of drafts and ideas. This commitment to the quality and
integrity of Institute products will ensure that work completed for PD&R will meet the
highest professional standards, both in terms of the quality of the research and the
efficiency with which it is conducted.

B. Subcontractor and Consultant Management and Project Coordination

       For this project, we have highly qualified partners with excellent performance
records. If awarded this contract, the Institute will negotiate specific subcontracts with
NORC, Econometrica, and Support Services International (an Indian-owned business),
as well as consulting agreements with Karl Eschbach, David Listokin, and Kenneth
Temkin. The Institute has successfully worked with each of these subcontractors and
consultants on other work. These professional relationships and cooperative experience
are the basis for an effective, efficient team.

        Subcontracts are drawn up and executed by the Institute’s Director of Contracts.
Management of the subcontractor’s performance, however, is the responsibility of the
Principal Investigator. This includes meeting internal dates for project deliverables and
review of all written study products produced by the subcontractor. The Principal
Investigator must approve all invoices submitted by the subcontractor before payment
will be processed.

       Consultant contracts are managed within each research center in coordination
with the Institute’s Human Resources department. Each consulting agreement includes
a specific scope of work approved by the Principal Investigator. As with subcontractor
invoices, the Principal Investigator must approve all invoices submitted by consultants
before payment will be processed.




                                               140
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       With these procedures in place, Mr. Kingsley and Ms. Pindus will assume full
responsibility for ensuring that subcontractors and consultants are fully integrated into
the project team and thoroughly responsive to the project requirements as direction set
by PD&R. Mr. Kingsley will regularly contact the designated subcontractor coordinators
to review staff assignments, project execution, client satisfaction, and financial
performance.

                                                                                              Comment [np3]: Key staff should be
C. Our Approach to Tasks in the Scope of Work (SOW)                                           listed for each task –check the staff
                                                                                              hours by task table to make sure it is
       Task 1: Orientation. Key members of the Urban Institute’s research team                at least roughly consistent with names
(including key subcontractors) will meet with the GTR and other PD&R staff at HUD             here.

Headquarters within one week of project initiation to establish a common understanding
of the project’s objectives and of the SOW and other matters pertinent to accomplishing
the work effectively on schedule and within the allocated budget.

Key staff: Kingsley, Pindus, Hillabrant, Pettit, Abravanel, Levy, Hafford, Hanson

        Deliverable: Project Orientation Meeting
            o Due Date: within 1 week of award

        Task 2: Management Plan. Following the meeting, the research team will
develop a Final Management and Work Plan (FMWP) that outlines in detail how we
propose to accomplish each project task. It will build on this PMWP but then be modified
and expanded consistent with conversations with HUD officials at orientation. It will fully
detail the allocation of staff and budget resources; provide an updated schedule;
document any clarifications or changes reported at the orientation meeting; and define
more specifically the roles and task responsibilities for each staff member. Indeed, the
plan will include a comprehensive narrative of the overall expected flow of the work and
how each task will be accomplished (all to be explicitly related to the allocation of staff
and other resources). As part of this task, NORC will begin preparing a detailed plan for
the execution of the Household and TDHE surveys.
       We understand that the FMWP may be updated during the course of the study as
directed by the GTR. We expect to work closely with the GTR as the work proceeds to

                                               141
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




make formal modifications as needed to assure that the FMWP reflects jointly agreed
plans for the work as any changes are made.

Key staff: Kingsley, Pindus, Hillabrant, Pettit, Abravanel, Levy, Hafford, Hanson

       Deliverable: Draft Management and Work Plan
           o Due Date: 2 weeks after project initiation
       Deliverable: Final Management and Work Plan
           o Due Date: 6 weeks after project initiation

        Task 3: Expert Panel. The expert panel will consist of a group of scholars and
AIAN representatives selected in consultation with HUD. We propose a total of four
meetings of the panel over the course of the contract. The first meeting will provide an
opportunity for us to solicit input regarding the project’s research design. This meeting
will be a one-day meeting in Washington, DC to be held at the National Museum of the
American Indian. The following meeting will allow for guidance and feedback regarding
sampling and data collection instruments. Since this will occur less than three months
after the first meeting, it will be conducted via teleconference. In the third meeting we
will present our interim report findings on the results of secondary source analysis. In
the fourth meeting, we will offer an initial presentation on final research findings and
analysis to solicit the panel’s substantive comments and suggestions to guide us in the
preparation of the final report. The third and fourth meetings will also be held in
Washington, DC.

      SSI will be responsible for all logistics concerning the Expert Panel and
organizing the panel meetings. SSI has considerable experience organizing such
meetings, including planning and conducting six regional housing summits for
HUD/ONAP.
       For planning and budgeting purposes, we have proposed an eight-member
expert panel, including two members from federal agencies and six members who will
have to travel to Washington, DC for the meetings.




                                               142
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




      Because identification and selection of Expert Panel members will need to be
accomplished quickly, we have included a preliminary list of candidates here for initial
consideration by HUD:
      Expert Panel Recommendations:

      Laura R. Applebaum, PhD.
      Senior Research Associate
      Centers at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center

      Sandy Asato
      NAHASDA Coordinator
      Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands

      Eddie F. Brown, DSW
      Director, American Indian Studies
      American Indian Studies
      Arizona State University

      Thomas Cody
      Navajo Legislative Analyst, Navajo Nation

      Stephen Cornell, PhD*
      Director, Udall Center for Studies
      Co-director of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development
      University of Arizona

      Sarah L. Hicks, PhD
      Director of Policy and Programs and NCAI Policy Research Center
      National Congress of American Indians

      Marvin Jones
      Executive Director of Community Services at the Cherokee Nation



                                               143
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




      Miriam Jorgensen, MPP, PhD
      Research Director, Native Nations Institute, also
      Research Director, Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development

      Dr. Blake Kazama
      President and CEO
      Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority

      Patricia Nie
      Community Development Officer
      Wells Fargo

      Dr. Madan Poudel
      Director of the Navajo Nation’s Division of Health

      Don Shircel
      Director
      Client Development
      Tanana Chiefs Conference

      C. Matthew Snipp, PhD*
      Professor of Humanities and Social Science and
      Director, Center for Comparative Studies of Race and Ethnicity

      *Indicates Expert panel member on 1996 Urban Institute Indian housing study
Key staff: Kingsley, Pindus, Hillabrant

       Deliverable: Final list of expert panel members submitted to HUD
           o Due Date: week 1 (at the time of the Project Orientation Meeting)
       Deliverable: Panel meetings conducted.
           o Due Dates: We plan to hold the first meeting in week 6. Dates for
               subsequent meetings will be finalized in the FMWP but we anticipate



                                               144
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




                 holding them in weeks 14, 43, and 100, consistent with the roles we
                 believe they should play as noted above

        Task 4: Research Design. The starting points for this task will be the preliminary
research design offered in this proposal and feedback received from HUD in the
Orientation and from our Expert Panel in our first meeting with them in week 4. We
believe the basic design offered here (Section III of this proposal) is likely to hold up well
as we more carefully consider the realities of implementation. The work in this task, then,
will be related to thinking through sound ways to detail the design’s components rather
than looking for major alternatives.

      The research design will begin with a more thorough explanation and elaboration of
the conceptual framework presented in Section III. The design will then be presented in
detail, giving substantial weight to information gathered during the seven consultations
with tribal leaders facilitated by ONAP. In this task, we expect to prepare more thorough
descriptions of all aspects of the research including use of secondary data and all primary
data collection. The description of our sampling plan will be considerably more detailed.
The research design will also include specification as to when, where and how the data
collection will take place along with a timetable for, and description of, our plans for pre-
testing and revising instruments. We will also describe the approaches and methods we
plan to employ in analyzing the data and presenting results. A major theme will be our
approach to assessing the impact of NAHASDA on the population it serves.

Key staff: Kingsley, Pindus, Pettit, Abravanel, Wissoker, Levy, Listokin, Temkin,
Hafford, Hilton, Hillabrant

        Deliverable: Draft Research Design
            o Due Date: within 10 weeks of contract award
        Deliverable: Final Research Design
            o Due Date: within 14 weeks of contract award




                                               145
       PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
       URBAN INSTITUTE




         Task 5: Data Collection and Analysis Plan. This is a critical task. It must take
the more generally defined elements of the research design and translate them into
tightly defined but workable specifications for data collection and analysis, consistent
will all objectives of this RFQ. This task will include the following components:
       Analysis plan – will describe how all data will be analyzed and presented in
        reports. The description will cover all analytic approaches and specific
        methodologies consistent with the final research design (see preliminary plan in
        Section III). It will also specify how data will be presented in reports and briefings
        in more detail than presented in the research design.
       Data requirements – will specify all data that will be used in the research from all
        sources. This will include all data from the census and other secondary sources
        (specifically including new data files now being assembled by the Institute as
        noted in Section III). It will also include full specification of all data we expect to
        obtain from primary data collection.
       Data collection plan – will provide a detailed description of the process for
        assembling all data from secondary sources and will include all specific forms,
        guides, and instruments to be used in collecting primary data. It will also offer
        complete plans for appropriate training of all field staff who will participate in the
        data collection process. This will include plans for training AIAN associates who
        will assist in managing the data collection work in tribal areas and complete plans
        for training interviewer/enumerators who will implement the household survey.
        This section will also specify plans for pre-testing all data collection instruments,
        which will include plans for pre-tests of alternative methodologies.
       Field work plan – will provide the overall plan and schedule for visits to the 60
        sites and detailed protocols for collecting data on site: interviews with key
        informants, data to be derived from records, and data from other public sources.
       Sampling plan – will include the detailed, final sampling pan, revised based on
        review of our research design in task 4.
       Data processing plan – will include plans for obtaining, storing and processing all
        regularized datasets. All database files will be fully documented and developed


                                                 146
       PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
       URBAN INSTITUTE




        consistent with hardware/software adopted by HUD and with guidelines obtained
        from the GTR. Documentation related to the accuracy of data will be provided
        and systems to validate data accuracy will be developed and applied as
        appropriate.
       OMB clearance package –The team will prepare and submit a draft OMB
        clearance package and will revise it as necessary in response to comments. As
        per specifications in the RFQ, we will develop the draft package and then submit it
        to HUD. After responding to comments, we will prepare a final package for
        submission. This task will require our team members to follow the movement of
        this package closely after it has been submitted and be prepared to take action in
        response to reviewer requests as needed.


Key staff: Kingsley, Pindus, Pettit, Abravanel, Levy, Wissoker, Temkin, Hafford, Hilton,
Hillabrant

         Deliverable: (1) Draft Data Collection and Analysis Plan, (2) Draft OMB
          Package
             o Due Date: within 18 weeks of contract award
         Deliverable: (1) Final Data Collection and Analysis Plan, (2) Final OMB
          Package
             o Due Date: within 22 weeks of contract award

        Task 6: Data Collection: Secondary Data and Field Preparation. This task
encompasses secondary data collection and a literature review of HUD policies,
programs and operations relevant to AIAN and Native Hawaiians. In addition, this task
will include several field activities that can be undertaken prior to receiving OMB
approval. More details about each effort are listed below.
        Task 6.1: Secondary Data
      Under this task, we will assemble: 1) the relevant Census 2000, Census 2010,
and American Community Survey data; 2) the supplementary administrative data files
mentioned in Section III.B; 3) any HUD programmatic files that are available; and 4) any


                                                 147
    PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
    URBAN INSTITUTE




other data from federal agencies (BIA, HIS, RHS, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac). This data
assembly effort will include AIAN and Native Hawaiian populations. Under this task we
will also decide on the standard geographies we will use and develop any necessary
geographic crosswalks.




                                              148
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Key Staff: Kingsley, Pettit, Narducci

        Deliverable: Complete secondary data collection
            o Due Date: 32 weeks after contract award

   Task 6.2: Literature Review

       We will review existing literature and reports about Native Americans and Alaska
Natives since 1996 as well as research on Native Hawaiians. We have already made a
substantial start on this work in preparing this proposal, as indicated in Appendix C,
references. The literature review pertaining to Native Americans and Alaska Natives will
inform the field work and synthesis of findings and will be incorporated in the Interim
Report (Task 8). The literature review on Native Hawaiians will guide the field work for
that study component and will be incorporated in the stand-alone report prepared on
Native Hawaiian Housing Needs and conditions.

Key Staff: Pindus, Levy, Listokin, Narducci, Hilton

   Task 6.3: Discussions with Key Stakeholders

        In addition to obtaining input from our Expert Panel and project consultants, we
will conduct interviews with key stakeholders, such as housing experts, regional
officials, and staff from federal agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau, to better
understand program implementation and policy issues. We expect to conduct 10-12
such interviews, in-person for those in Washington, DC and by telephone for other
stakeholders. The information from stakeholder interviews will further inform our data
collection and analysis. A summary of insights gleaned from the interviews will be
included in the Interim Report (Task 8)

Key Staff: Pindus, Abravanel, Levy




                                               149
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




       Task 6.4: Field Data Collection Preparation


        Preparing for successful field data collection includes intensive outreach with
tribes and training of staff and tribal partners. These activities will be conducted while
awaiting OMB approval. Outreach activities, described in Section IV, will inform tribes
of the all of the data collection components, obtain approval from tribes for the
participation in the study, and develop partnerships for participation of tribal members
as interviewers and enumerators for the household survey. Outreach activities will be
coordinated by NORC and the Urban Institute and field visits required as part of this
effort will include staff from NORC, The Urban Institute, and SSI.

         Senior data collection staff will also be trained for on-site interviews with tribal
officials and program staff and for the urban case studies. The training session for the site
visits will include a detailed discussion of the objectives of the study; the structure and
purpose of Native American housing assistance programs; results of the pretests of
instruments; and a detailed discussion of the interview guides that will be used in the data
collection. The training will also include role-playing sessions in small groups using the
interview guide.
Key Staff: Pindus, Levy, Bard, Hafford, Hillabrant

        Task 7: Analysis: Secondary Data. Under this task, we will first prepare, clean
and document the data files, consistent with the research design and with the
requirements under Task 13 (submitting data files to HUD). We will perform the analysis
for AIAN and Native Hawaiian populations on demographic trends, socio-economic and
housing conditions, regional housing and economic contexts, and on specific housing
needs and problems. As part of this task we will also use Census and ACS data to
identify metropolitan areas with significant AI populations that are not near or part of
reservation lands. This list will serve as the sample from which sites will be selected for
the Urban Case Study component of the study.
Key Staff: Pettit, Hilton
        Deliverable: Complete secondary data analysis


                                               150
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




              o Due Date: within 42 weeks of contract award

        Task 8: Interim Report and Briefing. The team will produce a report of
publishable quality that will cover the analysis of secondary data along with an updated
review of the literature and issues identified by our Expert Panel and key stakeholders.
The report will describe demographic, socioeconomic, and housing trends and discuss
the implications for AIAN and Native Hawaiian housing needs. The findings will provide
useful background information for the field work, and will be incorporated as appropriate
into the final reports (Task 12). The Interim Report will include a separate section on
Native Hawaiians that can be incorporated into a stand-alone report at the end of the
project. We will first submit a draft to HUD, meet for an interim briefing to solicit feedback
on preliminary findings, and then complete a final Interim Report that responds to
reviewers’ comments.
Key Staff: Kingsley, Pettit, Corey, Hilton
        Deliverable: Draft Interim Report
            o Due Date: 47 weeks after contract award
        Deliverable: Final Interim Report
            o Due Date: 52 weeks after contract award


        Task 9: Data Collection: Primary Data. This task encompasses the primary
data collection efforts, which will begin upon notification of OMB approval. Details of each
of these data collection activities were provided in Section IV. As described below, the
staffing and management of each component has been designed to facilitate concurrent
data collection activities within the scheduled time for this task.

       Task 9.1: Household Survey and Enumerator Observations

       Interviewers that are trained and certified by NORC will contact sampled
households to determine eligibility and complete interviews, following the procedures
described in Section IV.




                                               151
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




        For field interviewer labor we estimate an average of 8 hours per interview to
account for preparation, in-person interview time, drive to/from the site (and in remote
areas), and follow-up administrative activities associated with case processing
(photocopying, mailing, etc). Based on prior experience we have estimated that of the
1,900 cases 50 percent will require 8 hours of effort; 25 percent will require 6 hours of
effort; and 25 percent will require 10 hours of effort. This may include re-visits to
households that cannot complete the interview on the first visit due to respondent not
available, refusal, no one home, etc.

Key Staff: Bard, Hafford

        Deliverable: Complete administration of household survey
            o Due Date: 93 weeks after contract award

       Task 9.2: National Telephone Survey with TDHE Officials

       The telephone survey of 200 TDHE officials will be conducted by a staff of three
experienced telephone interviewers on NORC’s staff. The detailed procedures for this
data collection are described in Section VI.

Key Staff: Bard, NORC telephone interviewers

        Deliverable: Complete surveys with TDHE officials
            o Due Date: 93 weeks after contract award

       Task 9.3: Lender Survey

      The lender survey will be conducted by Urban Institute and Econometrica
researchers under the direction of Ken Temkin. Respondents will be offered the option of
completing the survey on-line or over the telephone using CATI.

Key Staff: Temkin, Bunce



                                               152
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




        Deliverable: Complete lender surveys
            o Due Date: 93 weeks after contract award

       9.4.: In-Person Interviews with TDHE Officials, Tribal Leaders, and Program
       Staff

        The in-depth interviews at tribal sites will be conducted by experienced two-person
site visit teams composed of staff from the Urban Institute and each of its subcontractors.
These visits will be coordinated with the timing of the field interviews to minimize disruption
at the sites.

Key Staff: Levy, Hafford, Hillabrant

        Deliverable: Complete all field interviews
            o Due Date: 93 weeks after contract award

       Task 9.5: Urban Case Studies and Telephone interviews with Urban Indian
       Community Center and Public Housing Agency Staff

       The urban case studies will be conducted by experienced researchers from the
Urban Institute and SSI. We plan to complete three-day visits to each of five sites. We will
also conduct interviews via telephone with Indian Community Center and Public Housing
Authority officials in 25 additional metro areas that have high concentrations of AIAN
and/or Native Hawaiian residents.

Key staff: Smith, Narducci, Hillabrant

        Deliverable: Complete all case-study data collection activities
            o Due Date: 93 weeks after contract award

       Task 9.6: Native Hawaiian Study




                                                153
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




        The site visit to Hawaii will be conducted on two islands over a four to five day
period. One island will be Oahu and the other island will be selected in consultation
with the GTR. Fieldwork will include interviews with DHHL and HUD field office staff,
HHL community members, and other identified stakeholders identified during site-visit
planning. Focus groups with HHL community association representatives and members
will be conducted to the extent possible. The site visit will be conducted by three to four
Econometrica team members, at least one of whom will be a senior researcher.

Key Staff: Hilton, Corey

        Deliverable: Complete all field data collection
            o Due Date: 93 weeks after contract award

       Task 10: Analysis. Under this task, we will first prepare, clean and document the
data from the household and telephone surveys and HUD administrative systems,
consistent with the data collection plan (Task 5) and with the requirements under Task 13
(submitting data files to HUD). Qualitative data also will be documented and prepared for
analysis in accordance with plans developed under Task 5. Analysis of all quantitative
and qualitative data will be conducted consistent with the approved research design and
data analysis plan. Lead analysts will work in close contact with each other to ensure
findings from the numerous data collection efforts are clearly documented and understood
by the full team to support report writing efforts.

Key Staff: Kingsley, Abravanel, Pindus, Levy, Pettit, Smith, Narducci, Dumlao, Williams,
Bunce, Wilker, Hafford, Pedlow

        Deliverable: Complete all data analysis
            o Due Date: 105 weeks after contract award

      Task 11: Briefing. The research team will present their findings and analysis to
HUD. The briefing will include time for discussion, allowing the team to solicit
comments and suggestions from HUD staff that be taken into consideration as
researchers prepare the final report.

                                               154
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




Key Staff: Kingsley, Abravanel, Pindus, Levy, Pettit, Hanson, Hilton, Hillabrant, Bard,
Hafford

        Deliverable: Briefing and Briefing materials
            o Due Date: on or about 100 weeks after contract award

       Task 12: Final Reports. The team will produce report of publishable quality
based on the analysis of results in all substantive areas. Separate reports will be
produced for findings related to AIAN and for Native Hawaiian housing needs. Both
reports report will include findings from secondary data analysis, literature reviews, and
from analysis of all primary data collection efforts. For the both the AIAN and Hawaiian
report, the project team will submit a first draft of the final report. A second draft will be
submitted after the team responds to reviewers’ comments. After one additional round
of comments, the team will prepare and submit the final report. Submission of the two
reports will be staggered, as indicated in the Due Dates below and the project schedule
(Section D)

Key Staff: Kingsley, Abravanel, Pindus, Levy, Pettit, Hilton, Hillabrant, Hafford

        Deliverable: First draft of Final Report
            o Due Date: 109 weeks after contract award
        Deliverable: Second draft of Final Report and First draft of Native Hawaiian
         Report
            o Due Date: 115 weeks after contract award
        Deliverable: Final Report and Second draft of Native Hawaiian Report
            o Due Date: 122 weeks after contract award
        Deliverable: Final Native Hawaiian Report
            o Due Date: 129 weeks after contract award

     Task 13: Data Files. Data files will be well structured and documented in a
manner consistent with HUD’s expectations and the data collection plan that will be



                                               155
     PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
     URBAN INSTITUTE




prepared under Task 5. Researchers will prepare the final set of data files after
carefully reviewing comments from HUD staff.
Key Staff: Pettit, Williams, Corey, Hafford
        Deliverable: Draft data files.
            o Due Date: 115 weeks after contract award
        Deliverable: Final Data files
            o Due Date: 122 weeks after contract award

             Task 14: Post Report Briefings. The research team will present research
findings to PD&R and other HUD staff at up to two briefings after submission of the final
project reports. Briefings will cover findings from all components of the study. These
meetings will take place at HUD headquarters or in another Washington, DC location.

Key Staff: Kingsley, Abravanel, Pindus, Levy, Pettit, Hanson, Hilton, Hillabrant, Bard,
Hafford

        Deliverable: Post report briefings and materials
            o Due Date: Between weeks 122 and 135 of contract (materials delivered
                5 business days before briefings)


D. Proposed Allocation of Resources and Project Schedule

In this section, we present our proposed allocation of resources by task. Exhibit 8
shows the hours proposed for each research team member by task as well as the
percent of time this project represents relative to each member’s work load during the
course of the study. The proposed project timeline is shown in Exhibit 9.




                                               156
              PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
              URBAN INSTITUTE




Exhibit 8. Project Staffing Hours by Task
                                                                                                                    Task




                                                                                                 tion -


                                                                                                 tion -




                                                                                                  n gs
                                                                                                 tion


                                                                                                 tion


                                                                                                 tio n
                                                                                                lan




                                                                                           Briefi
                                                                                           ollec


                                                                                           ollec




                                                                                           ollec


                                                                                           ollec
                                                                                               n




                                                                      one S ta Collec
                                                                                         on P
                                                                                          s ign
                                                                                        t Pla




                                                                                            ta


                                                                                            ta
                                                               ction nd ary D a


                                                                                   ry D a


                                                                                   ep ort
                                                                                  ata C


                                                                                  ata C




                                                                                  ata C


                                                                                  ata C




                                                                                  epo rt



                                                                                 e port
                                                                                  h De
                                                                                        l




                                                                                                                                                                                      ct
                                                                                urvey
                                                                                 llec ti
                                                                                 men
                                                                               Pa ne




                                                                                      s




                                                                                 ile s




                                                                                                                                                                                pro je
                                                                                  on




                                                                              tu die




                                                                                 is
                                                        TDH : Field Da
                                                                          rim R
                                                        Analy Sec ond a




                                                                                g
                                                                        entati




                                                                        se arc




                                                        HH S : Fie ld D


                                                        Triba : Fie ld D




                                                        Urba : Fie ld D


                                                        Le nd : Fie ld D




                                                                       in al R
                                                                        ta C o




                                                                       o st-R
                                                                        n age




                                                                        ata F
                                                                       n alys

                                                                       rie fin
                                                                       v is its




                                                                       rv ey
                                                                       pert




                                                                      se S




                                                                                                                                                                                 for
                                                                       co




                                                                8: Inte




                                                                      rs
                                                                2: Ma
                                                                1: Ori




                                                                13: D
                                                                4: R e

                                                                5: D a




                                                                10: A

                                                                11: B




                                                                14: P
                                                                urvey
                                                                6: Se




                                                                12: F
                                                                3: Ex




                                                               er Su




                                                                                                                                                                          effort
                                                               l s ite




                                                              l Hou
                                                              E Ph


                                                               n Ca
                                                                sis


                                                                9a


                                                                9b




                                                                9d


                                                                9e
                                                                9c
                                                                7:
                                                        Co lle
                                                      Tas k

                                                              Tas k

                                                        Tas k

                                                        Tas k

                                                        Tas k

                                                        Tas k


                                                        Tas k


                                                        Tas k

                                                        Tas k


                                                        Tas k


                                                        Tas k


                                                        Tas k


                                                        Tas k


                                                        Tas k

                                                        Tas k

                                                        Tas k

                                                        Tas k

                                                        Tas k

                                                        Tota


                                                                                                                                                                         % of
Name              Position
Urban Institute
M. Abravanel      Senior Research Associate             6     16      76   64    40    80     40    40    0    0     40       0   80     80   32   80    8   32   714    13.22%
K. Dumlao         Research Assistant                    0      0      36    0    80    80    120     0    0   240     0       0   0     120   16    0    0   16   708    13.11%
T. Kingsley       Senior Research Associate             6     24      68   40    40    40     40    64   24    48    24      24   24     80   32   80    0   32   690    12.78%
D. Levy           Senior Research Associate             4     16      60   40    80    80      0     0    0   352     0      72   0     120   32   80   24   32   992    18.37%
C. Narducci       Research Associate II                 0      0      36   40    40    64      0   160    0   288     0     136   0     120    8    0   24    0   916    16.96%
K. Pettit         Senior Research Associate             4     16      76   64    40    80     96   120    0    0      0       0   0     120   32   80   32   32   792    14.67%
N. Pindus         Senior Research Associate             6     24      84   64    40    64     16    40   24    96    24      40   24     80   32   80   24   32   794    14.70%
R. Smith          Senior Research Associate             0      0      36   24    40    40      0     0    0    20     0     136   40     80    8   40    0    0   464     8.59%
A. Williams       Research Assistant                    0      8      36    0    80    96    200    80    8   192     0      80   64    160    0   40   64   16   1124   20.81%
D. Wissoker       Senior Research Associate             0      0       0   40    24     0      0     8    8    0      0       0   0      16    0    8    0    0   104     1.93%
Econometrica
H. Bunce          Senior Staff Associate II             0      0       0    0     0      0     0    0                120                80     0   40    0   40   280     5.19%
K. Corey          Staff Associate I                     0      0       0   24    24    120   100   80                208                40     0   40   16   40   692    12.81%
C. Hanson         Project Manager                       4      4       0    8     8     40   140   40                 16                8     12   40    0   40   360     6.67%
R. Hilton         Senior Staff Associate II             0      4      20   24    24    100   160   80                208                40    12   60    0   60   792    14.67%
K. Langwell       Senior Staff Associate II             0      0      20    8     8     40    16   24                160                16     0    0    0    0   292     5.41%
W. Mundy          Senior Staff Associate II             0      0       0   16    16     80    80   24                208                40     0    0    0    0   464     8.59%
A. Thackery       Staff Associate II                    0      0       0    0     0    120   100   40                120                40     0   40    8   40   508     9.41%
J. Wilker         Senior Staff Associate II             0      0       0    0     0      0     0    0                120                80     0   40    0   40   280     5.19%
NORC
S. Bard           Survey Director II                    4      0      60   128   120   720    0     0                1860                0    12    0    0   24   2928 54.22%
C. Hafford        Senior Research Scientist             4     16      60   128   225   720    0     0                 794               180   12   60   16   24   2239 41.46%
S. Pedlow         Senior Statistician                   0      0      60    20    0     0     0     0                  0                 80    0    0    0    0   160 2.96%
SSI
J. Earp           Senior Research Associate             0      0      92    0     0    154    0     4    0    224     0      72    0     0    4     8   0     0   558    10.33%
A. Fields         Research Assistant                    0      0      48    0     0     20    0     0    0     56     0      24    0     0    0     0   0     0   148     2.74%
W. Hillabrant     Technical Advisor                     2      4      56   64    64    200   16    12    0    224     0     136    0     0    8    72   0    16   874    16.19%
Consultants

                  Director/Professor, University of
K. Eschbach       Texas Medical Branch                  0      0      24   16     0     0    24    16    0     0      0      0     0     0    0    8    0    0     88    1.63%
                  Co-Director/Professor II, Rutgers
D. Listokin       University                            0      0      24   16     0     0    64    80    0     0      0      0     24   64    0     8   0     0   280    5.19%
K. Temkin         Principal, Temkin Associates          0      0      24   16    24     0     0     0    0     0     16      0    120   40    8    48   0    16   312    5.78%

Total number of hours / 5400 (135 weeks x 40 hours/week) = Percent of effort for overall project




                                                                                                    157
    PROPOSAL TO ASSESS NATIVE AMERICAN, ALASKA NATIVE, AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING NEEDS
    URBAN INSTITUTE



Exhibit 9. Project Timeline




                                                                                           Legend

                                                                                                    = Task with definite start and end dates

                                                                                                            = Possible dates for a task

                                                                                             = Deadline for draft

                                                                                             = Deadline for final

                                                                                              = Next task starts when this task ends




                                              158

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:11/20/2012
language:Unknown
pages:158