oversight

Slow Progress in Eliminating Substandard Indian Housing

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-10-12.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

REPORT         TO THE CONGRESS




Slow Progress In Elimi
Substandard Indian Housing
                                   B-? 14868


Department of the Interior
Department of Housing and Urban Development




BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
                     COMPTROLLER      GENERAL     OF   THE      UNITED     STATES
                                    WASHINGTON.    D.C.      20548




    B- 114868




    To the    President      of the Senate  and the
0   Speaker     of the    House of Representatives

             This is our report         on the slow             progress    in eliminating        sub-
    standard     Indian  housing.        The Indian             housing  program        is operated
    under    the Departments          of the Interior             and Housing     and Urban        De-
    velopment.

            Our review  was made pursuant                        to the Budget   and Account-
    ing Act,   1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the                     Accounting    and Auditing    Act
    of 1950 (31 U.S.C.    57).

             Copies     of this report      are being sent to the Director,              Office
    of Management          and Budget;       the Secretaries        of the Interior      and
    Housing     and Urban        Development;         the Director,      Indian   Health     Ser-
    vice,   Department         of Health,     Education,      and Welfare;      and the
    Executive      Director,      National      Council   on Indian     Opportunity.




                                                  Comptroller                   General
                                                  of the United                 States




                           50 TH ANNIVERSARY                 1921-       1971
COMPTROLLER
          GENERAL'S                             SLOWPROGRESSIN ELIMINATINGSUBSTANDARD
REPORT
     TO THECONGRESS                             INDIAN HOUSING
                                                Department of the Interior "3
                                                Department of Housing and Urban Development,?3
                                                B-114868


DIGEST
------

WHYTHEREVIEWWASMADE
       The Indian housing program is operated under the joint             plans of three Gov-
       ernment entities.                             ,-
                                                    C"
   I      --The Bureau of Indian Affairs            in the Department of the Interior.

         --The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
                                     1 <;
       $ --The Indian Health Service in the Department of Health, Education,              and
       /    Welfare.
       The primary programs involved are HUD's low-rent and mutual-help (horne-
       ownership) public housing programs and the Bureau's housing improvement
       program. HUD provides financial   assistance through local tribal  housing
       authorities.  The Bureau provides financial  assistance directly  to Indian
       families.

       In the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, the Congress affirmed
       the national goal that each American family have a decent, safe, and sani-
       tary home by the end of the 1970's.

       The current goal of the Indian housing program is to eliminate substan-
       dard Indian housing on reservations  in the 1970's. The General Accounting
       Office (GAO) made this review to determine whether the rate of progress
       was sufficient to achieve this goal.


FINDINGSANDCONCLUSIONS
       Indian   housing    program   progress

       Progress has been slow. Unless the program is accelerated substantially,
       thousands of Indian families will continue to live under severe hardship
       conditions.  (See pp* 10, 16, and 20.)
       In June 1968 the Bureau estimated  that 68,300 Indian families were liv-
       ing in substandard housing; 2 years later, after construction  of 4,800
       houses and renovation of 5,700, the Bureau estimated that 63,000 families
       still were living in substandard housing.



Tear
--   Sheet                                            1
Bureau and HUD officials    informed GAO that the slow progress in meeting
Indians housing needs was due, in part, to the reluctance of some tribes
to obtain Federal housing assistance.       Bureau officials  also cited delays
in obtaining financing from HUD as contributing       to slow progress.  Other
problems are inadequate identification      of Indian housing needs and inade-
quate design, construction,     and maintenance of houses. (See p0 19 and
chs. 3 and 4.)
HUD's fiscal year 1970 plans called for only 4,500 units to be started,
although an April 1969 agreement with the Departments of the Interior
and Health, Education, and Welfare called for 6,000 units to be started
by HUD in fiscal year 1970. (See p. lg.)

Identification   of housing needs

Housing needs have not been identified         adequately   (see ch. 3) because
the Bureau

  --had not established   guidelines for determining whether existing hous-
     ing units were standard or substandard and, if substandard, whether
     they needed to be renovated or replaced (see p. 22);

  --had classified   newly constructed or renovated houses as standard al-
     though they lacked basic necessities   (see p. 23);

  --had not ensured that inventories         of housing conditions   and needs were
     taken periodically (see p. 24);

  --had not considered family migration,   adjacent off-reservation Indian
     population, housing deterioration,  and family size and income, in
     determining and planning to meet long-term needs (see p. 27).

As a result of suggestions GAOmade during its review, the Bureau has
issued new guidelines with respect to general construction, heating,
plumbing, wiring,   and living space.

~robZems in developing   and operating
h0usin.g projects

Although the program lags primarily   because not enough houses are being
built,   many of the houses that have been built are inadequate because of
defective design or incomplete construction.     For example, new houses on
the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota may have to be condemned as
unsafe for continued occupancy because various design and construction
deficiencies   resulted in cracked or bowed basement walls.

An Indian woman in a new housing unit on the Blackfeet Reservation in
Montana described how she could watch the sunset through cracks in the
walls when it was 40" below zero. As designed, the wall insulation,   the
attic vapor barrier, the wind barrier, and the heating Systems all were
inadequate.



                                         2
I
1        *
I            SomeIndian families    are living in new houses which are incomplete or which
I            lack water and sanitation    facilities, and some new houses are located in
             projects which lack roads and streets.     Other families  have declined to
             move into the new houses without such supporting facilities.      Incomplete
             housing projects resulted from (1) inadequate planning by, and coordination
     I       among, the agencies responsible for ensuring that all facets of the hous-
    II       ing projects were completed within the same time frame and (2) a lack of
             follow-through  by the Bureau and HUD to ensure that projects were completed.
             (See pp. 41 to 53.)

             After new or renovated houses have improved family living conditions,
             there is little activity on the part of the local housing authorities,       HUD,
             or the Bureau to provide assistance to families      having problems in adjust-
             ing to their new living environment.    As a result,    many houses are deteri-
             orating and the planned safe, sanitary,   and decent living environment that
             the houses were designed to provide is being lost.

             Using a checklist developed from HUD maintenance and safety standards, GAO
             inspected 232 new or renovated houses on 22 reservations  and found the
             following types of deficiencies.

               --Heating or ventilation         facilities    in 100 houses needed repair   or ad-
                  justment.

               --Water or plumbing facilities            in 90 houses needed repair.

               --Electrical        facilities   in 90 houses needed repair.

               --Sanitation        facilities   in 30 houses needed repair.

               --Roofs    of 50 houses needed repair.

             The Bureau or housing authority representatives' estimates of the repair
             costs averaged $468 a house and ran as high as $3,500.    (See p. 32.)

             GAOfound a wide variance in the level of home maintenance assistance
             provided by the local tribal  housing authorities and the Bureau. At one
             reservation which had an active maintenance assistance program, the esti-
             mated average cost to correct the maintenance deficiencies  noted during
             GAO's inspection was only $268 compared with the overall average cost of
             $468.    (See    P*   37.)

             At most reservations   visited,   however, home maintenance assistance was
             quite limited.    For example, at one reservation    the housing authority,
             assisted by the Bureau, inspected a 15-unit mutual-help housing project
             in 1967 and identified    several deficiencies.

             At the time of GAO's visit,  however, these deficiencies still  existed and
             some had intensified.   The estimated average cost to repair these units
             was $734. (See p. 37.)
    GAO believes that the mutual-help method of construction--in     which the            '   i
    tribe or individual    Indian participant  furnishes the land and the partici-            ;
    pant contributes    his labor during construction--should  not be encouraged,
    because such projects have been plagued by lengthy construction      periods.             :

    It took an average 19 months to complete 40 mutual-help  projects each                    I
    normally consisting  of 10 to 20 units compared with an average 10 months                 ;
    for other HUD-assisted projects each consisting  of many more units.   (See               ;
    pp* 54 to 57.)

RECOMMENDATIONS
              OR SUGGESTIONS

    The Secretary of the Interior     should direct the Commissioner of Indian Af-
    fairs to (1) require Bureau field officials      to ensure that periodic in-
    ventories of housing conditions are taken using the guidelines       issued by
    the Commissioner in May 1970 and (2) expand the procedures for measuring
    housing needs to include consideration of variable factors, such as family
    migration,  adjacent off-reservation     Indian population, housing deteriora-
    tion, and family size and income, that have an impact on Indian housing
    needs. (See p. 29.)

    The Secretary of HUD and the Secretary of the Interior      should take steps             :
    to ensure (1) that maintenance inspections of federally      assisted housing             :
    on all reservations   are made periodically  and that deficiencies     identi-            I
    fied are corrected on a timely basis and (2) that families       experiencing             i
    difficulties  in adjusting to their new living environment are provided                   I
    with necessary training   in the care and maintenance of their houses. (See               :
    p. 40.)                        l
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I




    The Secretaries    of HUD and the Interior   should also                                  I

      --strengthen    the reviews of housing designs to ensure that housing plans             [
         adequately   consider local climatic conditions,                                         II

      --place increased emphasis on inspections      during    construction   to reduce       [
         construction problems, and                                                               ,I

      --clearly   establish which agency will be responsible for ensuring that
         known construction  defects and incomplete items of construction are
         corrected on a timely basis.   (See p. 54.)
    The Secretary of the Interior should coordinate the activities   of the
    various Federal agencies to ensure that roads and water and sanitation
    facilities  are available as soon as the houses are constructed.   (See
    p. 54.)
    The Secretaries     of HUD and the Interior   should use the mutual-help pro-
    gram only when it is desired strongly by the Indians. The Secretary of
    the Interior    should  also ensure that, where houses are constructed    under
    the mutual-help program, participants       are informed adequately of their
                                                                                ,
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I

                                            4
          duties and responsibilities    and are provided with   sufficient   training,
          supervision, and leadership.     (See p. 58.)


     AGENCY
          ACTIONSANDUNRESOLVED
                            ISSUES
          The Department of the Interior   agreed that substandard reservation     housing
          would not be eliminated   in the 1970's without substantial   acceleration   of
          the program. HUD stated that it planned to review the goals of the Indian
          housing program in connection with the Secretary's    recently established
          goals for homeownership opportunities.     The Department of the Interior    and
          HUD were in general agreement with the report conclusions and recommenda-
          tions and advised GAO of the various actions to improve the program that
          were under consideration.    (See pp. 20, 29, 40, 54, and 58.)


     MTTERSFORCONSIDERATION
                         BY THECONGRESS
          The goal to eliminate substandard Indian housing in the 1970's will             not
          be achieved unless the program is improved and accelerated.




i
I
I
I
I
I

1
I

I    Tear Sheet
I
I
 !
                          Contents
                                                                 Page

DIGEST                                                             1

CBAPTER

  1       INTRODUCTION AND SCOPEOF REVIEW                          6
              Overall perspective                                  7
              Program description                                  8

  2       INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAMPROGRESS                          10
               Effects   of inadequate housing                    16
               Reasons for slow progress                          19
               Conclusions and agency comments                    20

  3       IDENTIFICATION OF HOUSING NEEDS                         21
              Criteria   for identifying      standard and
                 substandard housing                              22
              Need for periodic     inventories      of exist-
                 ing housing conditions                           24
              Need to consider additional         factors   in
                 planning housing programs                        27
              Conclusions                                         28
              Recommendations to the Secretary           of
                 the Interior                                     29
              Agency comments                                     29

   4      PROBLEMSIN DEVELOPING AND OPERATING HOUSING
          PROJECTS                                                31
              Need for an effective   home maintenance
                program                                           31
                   Conclusions                                    40
                   Recommendations to the Secretary    of
                     HUD and the Secretary  of the In-
                     terior                                       40
                   Agency comments                                40
              Need for improvements in design and
                construction   of houses                          41
                   Conclusions                                    53
                   Recommendations to the Secretary    of
                     HUD and the Secretary  of the In-
                     terior                                       54
                   Agency comments                                54
CHARTER                                                            Page

                Lengthy construction  period                        54
                     Conclusions                                    58
                     Recommendations to the Secretary of
                       HUD and the Secretary of the In-
                       terior                                       58
                     Agency comments                                58

APPENDIX

        I   Design and construction     defects and incom-
              plete construction    items at selected res-
              ervations                                             61

   II       Letter  dated February 18, 1971, from the Of-
               fice of the Secretary of the Interior to
               the General Accounting Office                        64

 III        Letter dated February 26, 1971, from the
              Assistant   Secretary-Commissioner, Depart-
              ment of Housing and Urban Development,    to
               the General Accounting Office                        66

   IV       Principal     officials      of the Departments of
               the Interior       and Housing and Urban Devel-
               opment responsible         for the administration
               of activities        discussed in this report        67

                             ABBREVIATIONS

GAO         General   Accounting   Office

            Department   of Housing and Urban Development
COMPTROLLERGENERAL'S                                  SLOW PROGRESS IN ELIMINATING     SUBSTANDARD
REPORTTO THE CONGRESS                                 INDIAN HOUSING
                                                      Department of the Interior
                                                      Department of Housing    and Urban Development
                                                      B-114868


DIGEST
------


WHYTHE REVIEW WASMADE
     The Indian      housing      program        is    operated         under     the    joint      plans      of    three     Gov-
     ernment   entities.

         --The     Bureau   of   Indian     Affairs         in    the    Department          of the Interior.
         --The     Department     of   Housing         and Urban         Development             (HUD).

         --The    Indian    Health     Service         in   the    Department           of Health,          Education,         and
            Welfare.

     The primary    programs    involved      are HUD's low-rent      and mutual-help          (home-
     ownership)    public   housing     programs     and the Bureau's    housing       improvement
     program.     HUD provides     financial      assistance  through    local     tribal      housing
     authorities.       The Bureau provides        financial  assistance      directly       to Indian
     families.

     In the Housing    and Urban Development                       Act of        1968, the Congress     affirmed
     the national   goal that   each American                      family        have a decent,   safe,      and sani-
     tary home by the end of the 1970's.

     The current    goal of the Indian        housing    program     is                    to   eliminate           substan-
     dard Indian    housing  on reservations          in the 1970's.                           The General           Accounting
     Office    (GAO) made this    review    to determine       whether                       the rate of            progress
     was sufficient     to achieve     this   goal.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

     Indian      housing program progress

     Progress       has been slow.       Unless    the program                    is accelerated             substantially,
     thousands       of Indian  families      will    continue                  to live    under          severe    hardship
     conditions.        (See pp 10, 76, and 20,)

     In June 1968 the Bureau estimated          that 68,300      Indian     families       were liv-
     ing in substandard      housing;   2 years    later,  after      construction         of 4,800
     houses and renovation       of 5,700,   the Bureau estimated           that     63,000    families
     still  were living    in substandard      housing.
Rureau and HUD officials    informed GAOthat the slow progress in meeting
Indians housing needs was due, in part, to the reluctance of some tribes
to obtain Federal housing assistance.       Bureau officials  also cited delays
in obtaining financing from !!UD as contributing      to slow progress.  Other
problems are inadequate identification      of Indian housing needs and inade-
quate design, construction,     and maintenance of houses. (See p. 19 and
chs. 3 and 4.)

HUD's fiscal year 1970 plans called for only 4,500 units to be started,
although an April 1969 agreement with the Departments of the Interior
and Health, Education, and Welfare called for 6,000 units to be started
by HUD in fiscal  year 1970. (See p. 19.)

Identification   of housir?g needs

Housing needs have not been identified     adequately   (see ch. 3) because
the Bureau

  --had not established  guidelines for determining whether existing hous-
     ing units were standard or substandard and, if substandard, whether
     they needed to be renovated or replaced (see p. 22);

  --had classified   newly constructed or renovated houses as standard        al-
     though they lacked basic necessities   (see p* 23);
   --had not ensured that inventories    of housing conditions   and needs were
      taken periodically (see p. 24);

   --had not considered family migration,   adjacent off-reservation  Indian
      population, housing deterioration,  and family size and income, in
      determining and planning to meet long-term needs (see p. 27).

As a result of suggestions GAOmade during its review, the Bureau has
issued new guidelines   with respect to general construction, heating,
plumbing, wiring,   and living space.

Problems in developing   and operating
housiw projects
Althouyn the program lags primarily   because not enough houses are being
built,   many of the houses that have been built are inadequate because of
defective design or incomplete construction.     For example, new houses on
the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota may have to be condemned as
unsafe for continued occupancy because various design and construction
deficiencies   resulted in cracked or bowed basement walls.

An Indian woman in a new housing unit on the Blackfeet Reservation in
Montana described how she could watch the sunset through cracks in the
walls when it was 40" below zero. As designed, the wall insulation,   the
attic vapor barrier, the wind barrier, and the heating systems all were
inadequate.
Some Indian        families        are living         in new houses which are incomplete                   or which
lack water and sanitation                 facilities,          and some new houses are located                   in
projects      which lack roads and streets.                      Other families            have declined       to
move into       the new houses without                  such supporting        facilities.          Incomplete
housing      projects       resulted      from (1) inadequate             planning         by, and coordination
among, the agencies              responsible          for ensuring      that     all facets       of the hous-
ing projects         were completed          within        the same time frame and (2) a lack of
follow-through          by the Bureau and HUD to ensure                     that projects        were completed.
(See pp. 41 to 53.)

After   new or renovated      houses have improved             family      living      conditions,
there   is little    activity    on the part of the local                housing       authorities,      HUD,
or the Bureau to provide         assistance        to families        having      problems       in adjust-
ing to their      new living   environment.          As a result,         many houses are deteri-
orating   and the planned      safe,     sanitary,      and decent         living      environment     that
the houses were designed         to provide        is being lost.

Using a checklist  developed      from HUD maintenance     and safety    standard;,                                        GAO
inspected  232 new or renovated       houses on 22 reservations       and found the
following  types of deficiencies.

   --Heating           or ventilation            facilities            in   100 houses      needed       repair    or ad-
      justment.

   --Water        or plumbing           facilities            in   90 houses      needed     repair.

   --Electrical            facilities          in    90 houses           needed repair.
   --Sanitation            facilities          in 30 houses needed repair.
   --Roofs        of    50 houses         needed      repair.

The Bureau or             housing authority representatives'                         estimates     of the repair
costs  averaged            $468 a house and ran as high                        as $3,500.      (See p. 32.)

GAO found a wide variance           in the level      of home maintenance            assistance
provided      by the local   tribal    housing     authorities         and the Bureau.          At one
reservation      which had an active        maintenance        assistance      program,      the esti-
mated average       cost to correct      the maintenance          deficiencies       noted during
GAO's inspection        was only $268 compared with the overall                   average      cost of
$468.       (See P* 37.)

At most reservations        visited,        however,   home maintenance      assistance       was
quite    limited.    For example,         at one reservation       the housing     authority,
assisted      by the Bureau,      inspected      a 15-unit   mutual-help     housing     project
in 1967 and identified          several      deficiencies.
At the time of GAO's visit,    however,                                these deficiencies        still        existed and
some had intensified.     The estimated                                average  cost to      repair        these   units
was $734.    (See p. 37.)
                                                                                                                            u




                                                                   3
    GAO believes     that   the mutual-help         method of construction--in           which the
    tribe  or individual       Indian   participant        furnishes     the land and the partici-
    pant contributes      his labor     during      construction--should          not be encouraged,
    because such projects         have been plagued          by lengthy     construction     periods.

    It took an average     19 months to complete    40 mutual-help   projects    each
   normally  consisting     of 10 to 20 units    compared with an average     10 months
   for other  HUD-assisted     projects each consisting      of many more units.      (See
   pp. 54 to 57.)


RECOMMENDATIONS
            OR SUGGESTIONS

   The Secretary        of the Interior          should       direct    the Commissioner          of Indian       Af-
   fairs     to (1) require        Bureau field         officials       to ensure      that periodic         in-
   ventories      of housing       conditions        are taken using the guidelines                  issued      by
   the Commissioner          in May 1970 and (2) expand the procedures                         for measuring
   housing      needs to include          consideration           of variable     factors,       such as family
   migration,       adjacent     off-reservation            Indian    population,        housing     deteriora-
   tion,     and family      size and income,           that have an impact            on Indian       housing
   needs.       (See p. 29.)

   The Secretary         of HUD and the Secretary           of the Interior      should      take steps
   to ensure       (1) that maintenance         inspections      of federally      assisted       housing
   on all reservations              are made periodically      and that deficiencies            identi-
   fied      are corrected        on a timely   basis and (2) that families              experiencing
   difficulties        in adjusting       to their    new living    environment        are provided
   with necessary          training     in the care and maintenance           of their      houses.       (See
   p. 40.)

   The Secretaries          of   HUD and the       Interior      should     also

      --strengthen        the reviews      of     housing     designs      to ensure      that    housing      plans
          adequately      consider    local       climatic     conditions,

      --place       increased      emphasis   on inspections            during     construction        to reduce
          construction        problems,     and

      --clearly     establish    which agency will       be responsible                  for ensuring        that
          kf,own construction      defects    and incomplete    items               of   construction        are
          corrected    on a timely     basis.    (See p. 54.)

   The Secretary      of the Interior     should    coordinate the activities      of the
   various    Federal    agencies   to ensure    that roads and water     and sanitation
   facilities     are available     as soon as the houses are constructed.             (See
   p. 54.)

   The    Secretaries     of HUD and the Interior                should   use the mutual-help      pro-
   gram    only when it is desired          strongly          by the Indians.      The Secretary      of
   the    Interior    should    also ensure      that,        where houses are constructed         under
   the    mutual-help     program,   participants             are informed    adequately     of their
    duties     and responsibilities         and are provided        with   sufficient      training,
    supervision,      and leadership.          (See p. 58.)


AGENCYACTIONS AND UNRESOLVED
                           ISSUES

    The Department      of the Interior        agreed    that substandard        reservation         housing
    would not be eliminated         in the 1970's        without    substantial        acceleration        of
    the program.       HUD stated     that it planned         to review the goals of the Indian
    housing    program    in connection      with the Secretary's          recently       established
    goals for homeownership         opportunities.           The Department      of the Interior           and
    HUD were in general       agreement      with    the report     conclusions        and recommenda-
    tions   and advised     GAO of the various          actions   to improve        the program       that
    were under consideration.            (See pp. 20, 29, 40, 54, and 58.)


MATTERSFOR CONSIDERATIONBY THE CONGRESS

    The goal to eliminate    substandard             Indian   housing   in the 1970's         will     not
    be achieved unless    the program    is          improved    and accelerated.
                               CHAPTER 1

                INTRODUCTION AND SCOPEOF REVIEW

        The Indian housing program is operated under the joint
plans of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,     Department of the In-
terior;    the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
the Indian Health Service,     Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare.

      The Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1401) established         as
a national    goal that each American family have a decent,
safe, and sanitary      home. The Congress, in the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 1441a), affirmed
the national    goal and stated that it should be met by the
end of the 1970's.       Until 1967 only a limited    housing pro-
gram existed on Indian reservations.        In 1967, however, the
Bureau accelerated      the effort to improve Indian housing and
set as a goal the elimination      of all substandard    Indian
housing.     The current goal of the program is to eliminate
substandard    Indian housing on reservations      in the 1970's.

       Bureau statistics   showed that about 15,000 housing units
were completed on Indian reservations      during fiscal years
1967 through 1970. Our review included housing projects        on
25 reservations     having about 40 percent of the total  housing
units.

        Our review included also an examination        into applicable
Federal laws and Bureau and HUD administrative            policies    and
practices     and an examination of pertinent     records and files.
We also observed and inspected housing units on selected
reservations     and interviewed   the occupants;    tribal     represen-
tatives;     and officials   of the Bureau, HUD, and the tribal
housing authorities.

        Cur review was made at the Bureau and HUD headquarters
in Washington, D.C.; at the HUD regional     offices   in Chicago,
Illinois,     and San Francisco, California; at Bureau area of-
fices in Aberdeen, South Dakota; Billings,      Montana; Phoenix,
Arizona;    Portland,  Oregon; and Window Rock, Arizona;   and at
25 Indian reservations.
OVERALL PERSPECTIVE

      We believe that the accomplishments    of the Indian hous-
ing program should be appraised within     the framework of the
social and economic conditions    on Indian reservations   and of
the problems and factors   encountered by Federal agencies in
administering   assistance programs for Indians.

       The President,    in his July 1970 message to the Congress
on new policies     and goals for American Indians,      pointed out
that Indians were the most deprived and isolated          minority
group in our Nation.       On virtually every scale of measure-
ment --employment,    income,education,  and health--the       condition
of the Indian people ranks lowest.       The President      stated:

      --That unemployment was 10 times the national   average;
         the unemployment rate ran as high as 80 percent on
         some of the poor reservations.

      --That 80 percent of Indian families  living   on reserva-
         tions had incomes which fell below the poverty line;
         the average annual income for such families   was only
         $1,500.

      --That school dropout rates for Indians were twice the
         national average and that the average educational
         level of Indians under Federal supervision  was less
         than 6 school years,

      --That the health of Indian people still        lagged 20 to
         25 years behind that of the general population.          In-
         fant mortality  was nearly 50 percent higher than for
         the population   at large.  The tuberculosis      rate was
         eight times higher than, and the suicide rate was
         twice, that of the general population.        Many infec-
         tious diseases that had all but disappeared amongother
         Americans continued to afflict    the Indian people.

       In testimony before the Subcommittees on Department of
the Interior     and Related Agencies, Senate and House Commit-
tees on Appropriations,      during fiscal   year 1970 and 1971 ap-
propriation     hearings,  Federal officials   stated that some of
the problems or factors      that had an impact on the accomplish-
ments of the Federal assistance       programs were:

                                    7
      --Fear of termination   of the special trustee relation-
         ship with the Federal Government resulted      in hesi-
         tancy on the part of some tribes   to actively    partici-
         pate in Federal programs.

      --Federal  agencies providing   assistance        to Indians
         took a paternalistic  approach.

      --Cultural  patterns of the Indian tribes  differed  from
         those of the dominant culture  of the United States.

PROGRAMDESCRIPTION

       The primary Federal assistance        programs under which ef-
forts have been made to improve housing on Indian reserva-
tions have been HUD's low-rent         and mutual-help     (homeowner-
ship) public housing programs and the Bureau's housing im-
provement program.       HUD provides financial      assistance   through
local tribal     housing authorities,     and the Bureau provides
financial    assistance   directly    to Indian families.

       The tribal    housing authority,      with assistance      from HUD
and the Bureau, plans, designs, and supervises              the construc-
tion of conventional        low-rent   housing.   Also low-rent       hous-
ing is constructed      under the turnkey method, whereby a de-
veloper is responsible         for the design and construction         of a
low-rent    housing project       and upon completion,    the housing
authority    assumes responsibility       for management of the proj-
ect.     The housing is rented to Indian families;            the amount
of the rent is based on family size and income.                 The housing
authority    generally    is responsible     for maintenance of the
low-rent    housing.
        For several years the only HUD-financed homeownership
program available    to Indians on reservations       was a force ac-
count mutual-help    housing program.      Under this program, the
tribe or individual     Indian participant    furnished   the land
and the participant     contributed   his labor during the con-
struction    period.   He obtained an equity in the house through
his labor contribution.

      Recently homeownership also has become available     through
the turnkey III and turnkey mutual-help   methods.   Under turn-
key III,  a developer constructs  the house for the tribal
housing authority    and the Indian family obtains an equity
in the house through monthly payments and through maintenance
of its house.     Under the turnkey mutual-help   method, the In-
dian family participates     in the construction  of the house
under the supervision     of the turnkey developer and generally
is responsible    for maintenance of its house.

     The Bureau's housing improvement program provides both
new and renovated housing for families    when their needs can-
not be met under other programs.    The emphasis of the pro-
gram has been on renovating  and enlarging   existing houses.

       During fiscal years 1967 through 1970, the cost of the
various HUD-financed housing programs and the Bureau's hous-
ing improvement program was about $108 million.    Under these
programs, about 8,000 new housing units were constructed    and
7,000 units were renovated.

       The Indian Health Service generally         provides water and
sanitation    facilities      for new and renovated housing on In-
dian reservations        under its sanitation   facilities  program.
                               CHAPTER2

                 INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAMPROGRESS

       We believe that, considering    the progress in construct-
ing and renovating    houses, as shown in Bureau reports for
fiscal  years 1967 through 1970, and considering       the problems
that have continued to affect     housing construction    and main-
tenance, the Bureau's goal to eliminate       substandard  Indian
housing on reservations     in the 1970's will not be achieved
unless the program is accelerated      substantially.

      The Bureau's criteria   regarding what constitutes stan-
dard housing are that which is decent, safe, and sanitary
and that which meets the minimum housing codes adopted by a
tribe or otherwise applicable     to a locality,

      The charts on pages 11 and 12 show (1) the Bureau's es-
timates of housing needs for fiscal  years 1967-70 and (2) a
comparison of planned with actual construction   and renova-
tion of houses for the same period.

       The living    conditions       of Indian families   in new or ren-
ovated housing units generally            have improved.     (The photo-
graphs on ppO     14  and15are       examples   of unimproved   and new
reservation     housing,)        Our analysis   of the estimated housing
needs and of the actions taken to meet these needs shows,
however, that the impact of these actions on reducing the
number of families        living    in substandard housing has been
offset    by increases      in the total number of Indian families.

      For example, in June 1968 the Bureau estimated that
68,300 Indian families    were living   in substandard housing.
On June 30, 1970, after the construction        of about 4,800
houses and the renovation     of 5,700 houses, the Bureau esti-
mated that 63,000 families     still  were living   in substandard
housing,   The disparity   in these statistics,     as discussed
in chapter 3, is caused, in part, by the Bureau's not having
obtained accurate data on housing needs.

     Assuming that the June 30, 1970, estimate of housing
needs was both accurate and static     and that the same level
of construction  and renovation--about    5,475 units in fiscal


                                    10
  TC         SANDS
 OF          #iLIES
                      FISCAL   YEARS   1987-70


                                                               SANDS
                                                               t&LIES
                                                               100

         9
                                                                  207




76.100




                                                 1969
                                                        1970
::.:
:;;:
:*.:
..*.
cl
 E
 2
 $




       “1.iy
         ‘E<>   ‘.‘.:.‘.‘.:.‘.‘.‘.‘.’
                :::...:.:...:.:.:.::::zg
                :..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:
                 .*.*...*.*...-.......
            5
          0
           -/
year 1970--continues,  it will take about          12 years to satisfy
the housing needs of the 63,000 families           still  living in
substandard housing.

      The June 30 estimate of housing         needs did not consider,
however, the effects      that population     growth, family migra-
tion,  Indian families      living adjacent     to the reservation,
and deterioration      of standard housing     would have on future
housing needs.      The  Bureau estimates     that population     growth
alone will    increase housing needs by       about 1,500 units a
year 9 or  about   18,000 units over the      next 12 years,

       Although the number of housing units constructed           or
renovated usually      is a good indicator    of the progress of 9
housing program,     we  found  instances  where    this was not nec-
essarily    so. For example, Bureau records showed that, at
the Rosebud Reservation       in South Dakota, 400 housing units
financed by HUD were completed during fiscal            year 1969, As
of April 1970, however, 72 of these units had not been oc-
cupied and thus had no impact on reducing the number of In-
dian families   living     in substandard housing,        (See p0 51
for additional    information     on this project.)

       Our review showed that Bureau field        officials    generally
did not use any formal criteria        but relied    on subjective
judgment when determining       whether houses were standard (de-
cent, safe, and sanitary       and met applicable      housing codes).
As a result    of suggestions we made during our review,           in
May 1970 the Bureau issued new guidelines          with respect to
general construction,      heating,   plumbing, wiring,      and living
space.

      In our inspection   of the design and construction  of se-
lected Indian housing projects,     we considered factors simi-
lar to those contained in the Bureau's May 1970 guidelines,
The deficiencies   we noted are listed   in appendix I.

       During our inspections   of Indian houses on several res-
ervations,    we noted instances where recently     constructed   or
renovated housing units were substandard,       but,according   to
Bureau records,     the number of substandard units had been
reduced.     For example, the Bureau renovated and moved 124
Government-surplus     houses onto the Pine Ridge Reservation
and considered the houses as meeting the standards although

                                   13
New       homes      on the    Coeur
d’Alene        Reservation.




Npw home           on   the   Navajo
Reservation.
Interior        of unimproved          home     on the       Naval0     Reservation.




     Interior       of new      home    on    the   Naval0       Reservation.




                                              15
some of these houses were without  plumbing or electricity.
We noted also isolated  instances at other reservations
where units intended for Indian families   were occupied by
non-Indian  families.

EFFECTS OF INADEQUATEHOUSING

       Until the Indian housing goal is achieved, many Indians
may continue to live in an environment which is seriously
detrimental     to their health and well-being.         Testimony by
Indian Health Service officials          before the Subcommittees on
Department of Interior         and Related Agencies, Senate and
House Committees on Appropriations,           during fiscal   year 1970
and 1971 appropriation         hearings revealed that many Indian
families    in substandard housing were living         under atrocious
conditions    that were harmful to their health and safety and
that indirectly      contributed     to social and educational     prob-
lems.

        Indian Health Service officials      testified   also that
many of the deaths and injuries        among younger children      and
youths were associated       with conditions    in crowded and un-
,afe homes. These injuries,         according to the officials,
will    . ..ntinue to increase until   the home environment     is im-
pray '-

        InJi n Health Service officials         testified       further     that
thd ';~fanl. mortality       rate for Indians was about 50 percent
higher than for the general population.                Finally,      they tes-
tifie.3    that infant mortality       during the first       month compared
favorably      with national     experience and that the high inci-
dence of infant deaths occurred between the ages of 1 and
11 months and was associated           with a harsh living         environ-
ment involving      inadequate and crowded housing conditions.

      The Navajo Reservation,     having about 110,000 residents,
has the largest  reservation    population   in the Nation.     Its
13,030 families  in need of standard housing represent         about
20 percent of the overall     Indian housing needs.     An Indian
Health Service report dated April 1, 1970, prepared at the
request of the Navajo Tribe,      stated that mortality    rates for
some diseases were much higher for the Navajo population
than for the general population.        For example, the mortality
rate due to


                                      16
      --meningitis      was 9.4 times higher,
      --gastroenteritis      was 6.9 times higher,
      --tuberculosis      was 3.5 times higher,   and
      --pneumonia was 3.4 times higher.                                          .


       The report pointed out that the Navajo infant mortality
rate per 1,000 live births    was 42, or nearly twice the na-
tional   infant mortality rate of 22.4.   The life expectancy
at birth for the Navajo was 63.2 years compared with
70.5 years for the general population.     A life expectancy
of 63 years was achieved about 25 years ago for the general
population.

      The report stated that many of the diseases for which
rates of incidence were much higher for the Navajo popula-
tion than for the general population         were infectious   dis-
eases associated    with a harsh physical        environment and poor
housing conditions,     such as poor water supply, over crowd-
ing, unsanitary    waste disposal,      and lac'k of insect control.
Improper food preparation     facilities      and a lack of refriger-
ation contributed    to a high incidence of gastrointestinal
disease.

      The report highlighted        the following      housing    conditions
at the Navajo Reservation.

     --26   percent   of the Navajo homes had electricity,

     --21   percent   had running      water   to kitchen     sinks,

     --20 percent had refrigeration            for   perishable    food   sup-
        plies, and

     --15   percent   had flush     toilets.

      A document entitled  'Comprehensive   Demonstration Plan,"
prepared by the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona,     de-
scribed the reservation   housing situation   as follows:

     The deplorable    conditions    of housing exist as a
     result of vicious   reinforcing    cycle of poverty.

     I'*** a home with just a woman and the kids *** a
     father without a job *** walking out because he

                                     17
     can't take it *** sick children     *** angry wife
     *** misery *** leaky roof *** broken windows ***
     no doors *** collapsing  walls ** apathy *** res-
     ignation  *** alcohol *** suicide,"

       In addition  to good health,   other benefits  may be de-
rived,   in part, from better housing.      For example, an annual
report of Indian achievements prepared by the Bureau's
Branch of Credit at the Fort Apache Reservation         in Arizona
contained the following    statement,

     "Families    in new homes have shown more responsibil-
     ity on their jobs, their children      are doing better
     in the schools and most significantly,      misdemeanor
     arrests   have decreased."
REASONSFOR SLOWPROGRESS

       Bureau and HUD officials       informed us that the slow
progress in meeting the housing needs of Indians was due, in
part 9 to the reluctance       of some tribes     to initiate    action
to obtain Federal housing assistance.             Bureau officials      at-
tributed    slow progress also to delays in obtaining            financing
from HUD. Bureau officials         within   the Portland and Aberdeen
areas told us that tribal        leaders at some reservations         had
failed    to take the initiative      in applying for housing proj-
ects.     At some reservations      in the Aberdeen area, tribal
leaders rejected     Bureau suggestions       for obtaining     housing
projects.

      In April 1969 HUD and the Departments of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare and the Interior     agreed to support a pro-
gram to construct    7,000 to 8,000 units,   including    6,000 to
be financed by HUD, during each of fiscal       years 1970 through
1974.   This agreement was intended to be the basis for coor-
dinated planning of Indian housing, as reported         to the Sub-
committee on the Department of the Interior       and Related
Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations,        during fiscal
year 1971 appropriation    hearings.

      Plans of HUD and the Bureau for fiscal    year 1970, how-
ever, did not coincide and did not compiy with the agree-
ment.    The Bureau planned that about 6,000 housing units
to be financed by HUD would be started    in 1970; however,
HUD planned to start only 4,500 units.     Moreover, by April
1970 HUD had a large national    backlog of requests for hous-
ing units and, at that time, was unable to act on any re-
quests for housing.

       As a result,    during fiscal    year 1970, only 4,105 HUD-
assisted units,     rather than the 6,000 units initially
planned, were started       on Indian reservations    and at remote
Alaskan communities,        According to the Director,    Production
Division,    Housing Assistance Administration,       HUD plans to
mske up for this limited       production   by approving the con-
struction     of more than 6,000 housing units during each of
fiscal    years 1972 through 1974.

     Our review revealed other problems that were either
impeding the progress of the housing program or making it

                                    19
difficult    to evaluate the true progress that was being made
to eliminate     substandard Indian housing.        As discussed in
chapter 3, Indian housing needs generally           have not been
identified     adequately.   Also progress has been hindered be-
cause of problems in designing,       constructing,     and maintain-
ing homes. These matters are discussed in chapter 4.

CONCLUSIONSAND AGENCYCOEPEXIS

        The goal of eliminating    substandard Indian housing on
reservations     in the 1970's is based on the construction        of
about 7,000 to 8,000 houses a year, including          6,000 housing
units to be financed by HUD. In view of the progress made
in constructing     or renovating   houses during fiscal     years
1967 through 1970 and of the continuing        problems that affect
housing construction      and maintenance,   we believe that the
elimination     of substandard Indian housing in the 1970's will
not be achieved unless the program is accelerated           substan-
tially.

     Without adequate housing thousands of Indian families
wili  continue to live under severe hardship conditions      that
may lead, directly     or indirectly,   to early deaths, as well
as to lifelong    physical   and mental disabilities.

       In commenting on our draft report by letter         dated Feb-
ruary 18, 1971 (see app. II>, the Department of the Interior
agreed that substandard reservation       housing would not be
eliminated   in the 1970's without     substantial   acceleration
of the program.      HUD informed us by letter     dated February 26,
1971, that it planned to review the goals of the Indian
housing program in connection with the Secretary's           recently
established    goals for homeownership opportunities.          HUD also
anticipated    that more responsive and efficient       program ad-
ministration    would result   from the recent establishment        of
HUD area offices     and the Denver Regional Office.




                                  20
                               CHAPTER3

                 IDENTIFICATION OF HOUSING NEEDS

       The housing needs of American Indians have not been
identified     accurately    and completely because the Bureau
(1) had not established         guidelines    for determining      whether
existing    housing units were standard or substandard and, if
substandard,     whether they needed to be renovated or re-
placed, (2) had classified          newly constructed       or renovated
houses as standard although they lacked basic necessities,
(3) had not ensured that periodic            inventories     of housing
conditions     and needs were taken, and (4) had not considered
family migration,       adjacent off-reservation         Indian popula-
tion,    hausing deterioration,        and family size and income, in
determining     and planning to meet the long-term            needs.

       We believe that, as a result,    the program is being ad-
ministered    without much of the data necessary to plan and
direct a successful     program.  Estimates of total housing
needs should be based on accurate and complete data.               This
would assist management in establishing        realistic      goals,
estimating    the total program costs, selecting         housing assis-
tance programs to meet the specific       needs and desi.res of
the Indians,     and measuring the incremental     progress made
toward the goals.

      The 1969 report by the Special Subcommittee on Indian
Education,  Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
stated that one of the problems in evaluating          the Federal
programs for the American Indian was the extraordinary             in-
adequacy of available    statistical   data.     The report cited
a paper prepared for the Joint Economic Committee of the
Congress, which pointed out that it was literally            impossible
to obtain current and accurate information         on such basic
questions as employment, educational       attainment,     income,
land ownership,   and reservation    population,

      The paper also stated that, without adequate data, a
sound comparison could not be made to determine the increase
or decrease of given problems or the improvement or lack of
improvement in the economy of Indian tribes.    The Subcom-
mittee also reported that the lack of reliable   data meant
that the Congress could not carry out its legislative   over-
sight function.

                                     21
CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING
STANDARDAND SUBSTANDARDHOUSING

        The Bureau's goal of eliminating    substandard Indian
housing on reservations      was prompted by estimates  completed
in 1966, which showed that there were about 57,000 substan-
dard housing units,      of which about 16,000 could be reno-
vated.     These estimates were made in a short period of time
and without the benefit      of guidelines  or criteria for iden-
tifying    standard or s,ubstandard housing.

        In June 1968 the Bureau's Assistant   Commissioner re-
quested that housing inventories     which would identify    stan-
dard and substandard housing and which would categorize
housing as needing renovation     or replacement be prepared
for each reservation,     The Assistant   Commissioner provided
the following    criteria to be ,used when preparing   the inven-
tories.

      "Housing in standard conditions    means housing
      which is decent, safe, and-sanitary    in that it
      meets the minimum standard housing codes adopted
      by the tribe  or otherwise applicable    to the lo-
      cality."

A subsequent inventory     of housing needs was requested in
June 1969.   No additional    guidelines for identifying  or
categorizing  existing   housing were provided at that time,

       In our opinion the general guidelines            provided by the
Assistant    Commissioner were not adequate for determining
whether houses were standard or substandard or for catego-
rizing    substandard houses as needing renovation            or replace-
ment.     We did not find any instances          in which housing codes
were being used to evaluate Indian housing.                Reasons cited
by Portland area Bureau officials            for not using housing
codes were:      (1) codes were quite technical           and were diffi-
cult to apply to existing        structures;      they were applicable
primarily    to new construction       and (2) codes did not provide
any guidelines      or bases for determining         whether a structure
should be renovated or replaced,

      Generally we found that field        officials  had not ,used
any formal criteria   when classifying        houses as standard or
substandard or when determining     whether houses should be ren-
ovated or replaced.     Instead, they normally used subjective
judgment as to what constituted      standard houses. As a re-
s,ult many newly constructed    or renovated houses were classi-
fied as standard although they lacked basic housing necessi-
ties.

       For example, at the Rosebud Reservation,      the Bureau
classified   375 newly constructed     houses as standard although
the houses lacked hot water and adequate heating systems.
The Bureau's Chief of Housing Assistance       informed us that
these houses actually    were substandard and would have to be
reclassified   as substandard.     During our inspection   of
houses and our review of records, we noted that several
houses had been renovated and classified       as standard although
they had basic deficiencies,     such as inadequate heating,
plumbing, or electrical    systems.

      The photographs on the next page show a recently reno-
vated house which the Bureau considers as meeting housing
standards.

      In other cases, new or renovated houses were classified
as standard but the living     conditions  were substandard due
to overcrowding,     On the Rosebud, Pine Ridge, and Cheyenne
River Reservations    in South Dakota, we inspected 83 new or
renovated houses.     Of those houses, 51 did not meet HUD's
minimum criteria   for living    space because an excessive num-
ber of persons were living     in the houses.

        As a result    of our suggestions     during the review,     in
May 1970 the Bureau issued new guidelines             to its field   offi-
cials for classifying        Indian housing.      Under the new guide-
lines a house, to be classifed          as standard, must meet cer-
tain minimum requirements         with respect to general construc-
tion,    heating,   plumbing, wiring,     and living     space.   We be-
lieve that these guidelines,          if properly    implemented, will
provide a more ,uniform.basis         on which to evaluate housing
quality    and determine housing needs,




                                     13
NEED FOR PERIODIC INVENTORIES OF
EXISTING HOUSING CONDITIONS
        The Bureau's estimates        of housing needs, for the most
part, have not been based oninventoriesmade              by the Bureau,
the housing authority,         the tribe,    or other agencies operat-
ing on the reservation.           Only in a few instances,     such as
at the Makah Reservation,          Washington, have inventories        of
existing    housing conditions        been made. These inventories
were made by a contractor          for the tribe and were funded by
a HUD planning grant-          For most other reservations       the hous-
ing needs were determined by desk estimates             based on frag-
mentary data.       Generally     supporting   documentation   for the
estimated    needs was not available.
        For example, in June 1968 Bureau field officials             re-
ported that there were 800 houses on the Yakima Reservation
in Washington.       An inventory      was not taken to arrive      at
this estimate.       During fiscal      year 1969, 22 houses were
constructed,      but at the end of the year the Bureau field
officials    estimated     that there were 1,300 houses on theres-
ervation,     an increase of 500 houses.           The Bureau official
responsible     for housing on the reservation         was unable to
explain why there was an increase of 500 houses and how the
Bureau's estimates       of substandard housing units requiring
renovation     or replacement had been developed.
       At the Pine Ridge Reservation,         the housing inventories
showed that there was an increase of 245 houses between
1966 and 1968 although no houses were constructed            during
that period.      Bureau officials     explained that the 1966 in-
ventory was not accurate.          At the San Carlos Reservation      in
Arizona,    the inventory   statistics    were based on a roadside
count of houses.
       To accurately  determine Indian housing needs, the
Bureau should ensure that its estimates           are based on peri-
odic inventories.      This does not necessarily         mean that the
Bureau would have to take the inventories.            Instead,    the
Bureau should be involved primarily         in providing     technical
assistance   and in coordinating      the efforts    of the various
tribal   and other agencies,      For example, a nationwide         survey
of home environmental     conditionsbythe       Indian Health Ser-
vice is about 50-percent     complete.     The Bureau, at both the
national   and local levels,     however, did little      to coordi-
nate this survey with the Indian Health Service to meet its

                                   24
House on the Muckleshoot     Reservation, Washington,     renovated through the Bureau housing improve-
ment program.    Photo at bottom shows a portion of         the interior of the house. This house, which
the Bureau considered as meeting housing standards,       had smoke and soot damage, had many holes
in the interior walls, and needed a new chimney.      A    nine-member    family lived in the house.
need for accurate and complete data on housing      conditions.
With adequate coordination  the results   of this   survey prob-
ably could fulfill  both agencies'  housing data    needs.




                               26
NEED TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL FACTORS
IN PLANNING HOUSING PROGRAMS

      Other factors   having an impact on determining          Indian
housing needs have not been clearly        identified      and considered
by the Bureau in planning to meet the long-term             needs.
These include    (1) adjacent off-reservation         Indian popula-
tion,  (2) migration   of families,    (3) housing deterioration,
and (4) family size and income.

       Adjacent off-reservation         Indian families          have not been
considered in estimating          Indian housing needs, although
some of these families         want to be served by the housing
program.      For example, at the Swinomish Reservation                  in Wash-
ingtcn,    about four out of 10 families           in the mutual-help
project    previously     lived off the reservation.               Some families
have returned to the Rosebud Reservation                to occupy new hous-
ing.     At the Lummi Reservation        in Washington,          the tribal
chairman stated that many Indians eligible                  for new housing
were living       in nearby off-reservation        communities and had
not been considered in the Bureau's estimate of needs.                       At
the Pine Ridge and Cheyenne Reservations,                 tribal     housing
authority     officials     advised us that, as additional             houses
were constructed,        some families     living    off the reservation
would return and occupy the houses.               Also migration         to and
from the reservation         is not being considered.             We found no
indication     that reliable      data on migration         was available.

      HUD, in developing national   housing goals, estimated
that about 2.2 million   housing units considered    adequate in
1967 would deteriorate   to substandard units and would have
to be replaced by 1977. The Bureau, in projecting        the hous-
ing needs and in setting   its goal to eliminate   substandard
Indian housing, however, did not consider deterioration        of
houses.   We believe that housing deterioration    is a factor
that should be considered.     (See ch. 4 for a detailed    dis-
cussion of home maintenance problems.)

        In formulating     plans to eliminate  substandard housing,
neither      the housing authorities    nor the Bureau has identi-
fied which programs are best suited to the needs of the In-
dian population       in view of such factors   as the Indian fam-
ily's     size and income, desire for homeownership,      and ability
and desire to maintain a house.

                                      27
           The Chief of the Bureau"s Housing Assistance     Division
     told us that the above factors     should be considered in
     estimating    housing needs but that the necessary data was
     not available.

     CONCLUSIONS

             Indian housing needs have not been properly            identified
     because guidelines      have not been established       to assist Bu-
     reau field officials       in determining     and categorizing      hous-
     ingiconditions;      because periodic     inventories   of existing
     housing conditions      generally    have not been taken; and be-
     cause such factors      as adjacent off-reservation         Indian popu-
     lation,     family migration,     family size and income, and house
     deterioration      have not been considered.

             Housing on Indian reservations    can be provided under
     various federally     assisted housing programs.       Some are owner-
     ship programs, while others are rental         programs; some call
     for Indian participation      in the construction,     while others
     do not; and some provide home maintenance services,          while
Cl   othersrequirethe      family to perform needed maintenance.
     HITD's public housing programs require occupants to make
     ,nonthly equity or rent payments; the Bureau's housing im-
     provement program provides grants and does not require           oc-
     cupants to make monthly payments.        Also family income quali-
     fications     differ under each program.

             The existance    of these various programs provides the
     opportunity     to plan housing programs that are best suited
     to meet the specific       needs and desires of Indian families.
     Without adequate data, however, it becomes difficult         for
     the tribal     housing authorities    or the Bureau to develop
     reaiistic    reservation    housing plans.

             If Indian housing needs were accurately      and completely
     identified,     the program could be more effectively     adminis-
     tered, because the Bureau would have data to assist         it in
     adequately answering such pertinent     questions     as:

           --How many families  are or will        be in need of housing
              between now and 1980?



                                        28
     --HOW   many existing houses are standard or substandard?
        Of the substandard houses, how many need to be re-
        placed rather than renovated?

     --Where are the houses most urgently  needed? And how
        should resources be allocated to meet these needs?

     --What specific   housing program or programs        will   best
        meet the reservation   housing needs?

     --To what extent are such factors       as migration    to and
        from a reservation    and structural   deterioration    of
        housing units affecting    program accomplishments?

     --What real progress      is being made to eliminate        substan-
        dard housing?

      The availability     of reliable and complete data on hous-
ing needs would permit development of more realistic      plans
to eliminate    substandard housing and would provide the ba-
sis for appraising     the incremental  progress being made to-
ward accomplishment of the goal.

RECOMMENDATIONSTO THE
SECRETARYOF THE INTERIOR

       We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior          direct
the Commissioner of Indian Affairs       to (1) require      Bureau
field officials    to ensure that periodic      inventories    of hous-
ing conditions    are taken using the guidelines        issued by the
Commissioner in May 1970 and (2) expand the procedures for
measuring housing needs to include consideration            of variable
factors,    such as family migration,     adjacent off-reservation
Indian population,    housing deterioration,       and family size
and income, that have an impact on Indian housing needs.

AGENCYCOMMENTS

      The Department of the Interior,     in commenting on our
draft report,   advised us that annual housing inventories
would be taken and that the Department would utilize      data
obtained from the Indian Health Service and HUD and from
the Bureau's population    statistics.    The Department also
agreed to consider factors      that have an impact on housing

                                  29
       needs and stated that migration  back to the reservation
       should be considered when the reservation   economy improved
       and tended to attract families  back to the reservation.




                                                                      !




., .




                                     30
                                 CHAPTER4

    PROBLEMSIN DEVELOPING AND OPERATINGHOUSING PROJECTS

        Developmental and operational        shortcomings     in the In-
dian housing program have impeded the elimination                of sub-
standard housing and have resulted           in Indian families'        con-
tinuing    to live in substandard housing.           Force account
mutual-help     projects  generally      have been plagued by lengthy
construction     periods,  which resulted       in additional     costs
and in delays in the construction           of follow-on     projects.
In housing considered to have been completed,              numerous de-
sign and construction      defects and incomplete construction
items existed,      which resulted     in additional     costs and in
more rapid deterioration        of the houses.       After houses are
occupied many deteriorate        rapidly    due to a lack of mainte-
nance.

NEED FOR AN EFFECTIVE
HOMEMAINTENANCEPROGRAM

         Large numbers of recently        completed Indian homes are
rapidly      deteriorating     due to a lack of maintenance and to
poor housekeeping.         Although the new or renovated housing
initially       improved the living     conditions    of the Indian fami-
lies,     some families    are having problems adjusting           to their
new living       environment.      There has been little       activity     on
the part of the housing authorities,             HUD, or the Bureau to
identify       and provide assistance      to these families.          As a
result,      in about one third      of the houses which we inspected,
deferred maintenance and poor housekeeping had contributed
to the deterioration          of the home environment to such an ex-
tent that the planned safe, sanitary,              and decent living
environment that the houses were designed to provide was
being lost.         Some houses had improperly       operating     heating,
electrical,       water, and sanitation      systems, and some families
were living       in filth    and around garbage, debris,        and vermin.

       Accompanied by housing authority        or Bureau representa-
tives,    we inspected 232 new or renovated houses on 22 res-
ervations.      For each of these houses, the occupant, as a
potential    homeowner, was primarily      responsible  for mainte-
nance,     Using a checklist     developed from HUD maintenance and
safety standards,     we identified     houses 'having maintenance

                                      31
deficiencies.     Tne housing authority or Bureau representa-
tives estimated    the costs to correct the identified    main-
tenance deficiencies    for 187 of the houses.    The estimated
repair costs for the 187 houses averaged $468 a house and
ran as hi& as $3,500.

      The inspections    revealed numerous deficiencies,     both
of a major and of a minor nature.      Many of the deficiencies
were minor when considered alone but collectively        indicated
a need for maintenance assistance.      We found deficiencies
of the fol.lowing   types.

     --Heating   or ventilation facilities                in 100 houses
        needed repair or adjustment.

     --Water        or plumbing       facilities    in 90 houses needed re-
        pair.

     --Electrical        facilities         in 90 houses needed repair.

     --Sanitation        facilities         in 30 houses needed repair,

     --The exterior   walls of 140 houses needed paint                 or
        stain to prevent deterioration.

     --The      roofs   of 50 houses needed repair.

     --The interior   floors, walls,               or ceilings   of 170 houses
        needed repair or paint.

     --The debris and garbage and other conditions   in and
        around 130 houses were health or safety hazards.

      The following photographs illustrate    some of the main-
tenance and housekeeping conditions     we observed,
Debris and garbage around    a mutual-help    house on the Gila River Reservation,   Ari; Tona.


              ‘. ^ ..’.“T-
              . . .‘.




Mutual-help    houses neat in appearance     and upkeep on thP CoeJr d’Alene    Reset-vat :ion.




                                               33
Mutual-help   house   in ncd   of exterior   paint   on the   Yakima   Reservation.




                                      34
Stagnant   sewage      overflow         from      septic   system    within     close   proximity      of a muilid-help          house   on the
San Carlos    Reservation.




           Part   of toilet   missing          In mutual     help   house     on the    Salt   River   Reservation        in Arizona.
Unclt San bathroom of a house renovated     under the Bureau’s    housing   improvement   program   at the
Muck :leshoot Reservation.




          Kitchen   plumbing   leak in a mutual-help    house on the Salt River Reservation.



                                                       36
        Under the interagency    agreements with HUD, the Bureau
is to provide assistance,       as necessary,    to the 'housing au-
thorities     in conducting maintenance inspections,          to deter-
mine whether 'housekeeping and maintenance are adequate.
In addition,     the agreement for the mutual-help         program pro-
vides that the Bureau endeavor to formulate           training    pro-
grams for mutual-help      program participants,      to obtain the
highest level of competence in the construction             and mainte-
nance of their homes, According to t'he agreements the Bu-
reau is to provide assistance        to the housing aut'norities
through its maintenance-engineering         surveys, occupancy au-
dits,     and management reviews.     HUD subsequently      agreed to
provide this assistance       on a reimbursable    basis.

      We found a wide variance        in the level of home mainte-
nance assistance     provided by the housing authorities         and
the Bureau.     For example. on two projects        at the Nez Perce
Reservation   in Idaho, the housing authority,         with the Bu-
reau's assistance,      had an active maintenance assistance
program which provided for (1) joint          semiannual inspections,
(2) verbal and written        communications of problems identified,
(3) follow-up    inspections,     and (4) advice and instructions
on making repairs,       The results    of these assistance    efforts
were apparent during our inspections          of five houses in t'he
two projects.      The estimated average cost to correct         the
maintenance deficiencies        on this reservation    was only $268
compared with the overall        average cost of $468.      (See
p. 32.)

        At most reservations         visited,   'however, we found that
home maintenance assistance             was quite limited       or nonexistent.
For example, at t'he Salt River Reservation,                 the housing au-
thority,    assisted    by the Bureau, inspected a l5-unit              mutual-
help housing project         in 1967 and identified          several defi-
ciencies.     Little    follow-up       action was taken, however, and,
consequently,      at the time of our visit            to the reservation,
many of these earlier          deficiencies      still   existed and some
had intensified.        The estimated average cost to repair these
units was $734.

      At the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations,     home main-
tenence problems generally  were not routinely    identified     on
HUD-financed projects  because maintenance inspections       were
not being made by the housing authorities     or by the Bureau.

                                      37
Our inspection      of 23 houses in one project    on the Rosebud
Reservation    revealed 19 'houses where defective      stovepipes
had caused severe interior        smoke and soot damage, In ad-
dition,   defective    stovepipes   created a health and safety
hazard.     The photograph on page 43 shows the smoke damage
to one house.

       Reasons generally      cited by housing authority   and Bu-
reau officials     for the Indian families'     maintenance and
housekeeping problems were (1) low or inadequate incomes,
(2) unawareness and lack of exposure to modern home living,
and (3) low priority       given to home maintenance in relation
to the families'      other needs.    During our 'home inspections
we asked the families       for information   on their annual in-
comes. For the 101 families         which provided us with the in-
formation,     the annual income ranged from none to $12,000
and averaged $3,923.

       HUD has been unable to provide the necessary management
assistance      to the housing authorities.      Officials  at HUD's
Chicago Regional Office informed us that no maintenance in-
spections and very little      training     of housing authority  em-
ployees could be accomplished because of the shortage of
staff.     Officials   of HUD's San Francisco Regional Office
also cited shortage of staff as a reason for their limited
management reviews of housing authorities.

       The housing authorities'        and the Bureau's efforts      to
provide home maintenance and housekeeping training              to In-
dian families      have been limited     and sporadic.      The Bureau
has contracted      with the Cooperative      State Extension Ser-
vices in various       States to provide homemaking and 'housekeep-
ing training     for Indian families.        We found, however, that
such home extension services were limited.             For example,
only nine of 20 reservations         in the Bureau's Portland area
which have Bureau- or HUD-assisted housing projects              have
home extension      service.    In addition,    our inquiries    of 59
families   in new or renovated housing on eight reservations
indicated    that only 26 families       had received training     from
anyone, including       the Extension Service agents.

        Both the Bureau and HUD, however, recently     have taken
initial     steps to provide home maintenance training    to In-
dian families.      The Bureau's Portland and Aberdeen Area

                                 38
Offices recently      have developed plans, and each has desig-
nated an official      to establish    home environmental     training
programs on various reservations.          As planned in the Aber-
deen area, the training        programs will use local home leader-
ship aides to provide preoccupancy and postoccupancy train-
ing and assistance       to Indian families.      According to offi-
cials of the Aberdeen area, home visits,           rather than class-
room training,     will be emphasized due to poor attendance at
training   classes.      In June 1970 HUD agreed to finance a
homeownership training       program for a 400-unit      project    on the
Rosebud Reservation.        This was the first     homeownership train-
ing program on Indian reservations          financed by HUD. These
plans and programs, if adequately implemented,            should be a
positive   step toward improving home maintenance.




                                   39
Conclusions
        Many Indian families    are living        in recently      completed
houses that are rapidly       deteriorating         due to a lack of
maintenance and to poor housekeeping.                Although the housing
initially    improved the families'        living     conditions,      little
training    was provided to the families           on how to care for
and maintain their houses to keep them safe, sanitary,                       and
decent.     Due to the absence of adequate home inspections
and management reviews, HUD and Bureau officials                   were un-
aware of the need for strong maintenance training                   programs.
Many families     move into new modern houses from primitive
dwellings without      an increase in their homemaking skills                  or
maintenance knowledge.        For many it is their           first   experi-
ence with modern electrical        and gas utilities           and indoor
plumbing in their houses.
       In the future the Bureau and HUD, in selecting     Indian
families    for the various types of housing,    should consider
both the families'     basic needs and the families'   capability
to maintain     the houses,
Recommendations to the Secretary              of HUD
and the Secretary       of the Interior
        We recommend that the Secretary of HUD and the Secre-
tary of the Interior       take steps to ensure (1) that mainten-
ance inspections      of federally        assisted housing on all res-
ervations     are made periodically         and that deficiencies
identified     are corrected      on a timely basis and (2) that
families    experiencing     difficulties        in adjusting to their
new living     environment are provided with necessary train-
ing in the care and maintenance of their houses.
Agency comments
       In commenting on our draft report,          HUD indicated       that
it believed that management training            grants,   authorized     by
section 904 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1970, might be useful to tribal           housing authorities      in
carrying   out their   responsibilities.         The Secretary's      Home-
ownership Task Force also is considering             the need to pro-
vide family training     on home maintenance.           The Department
of the Interior,     in connnenting on our draft report,           in-
dicated that it felt strongly          that inspections     and follow-
ups were essential     to maintaining       decent housing.       The
Department of the Interior       agreed to cooperate with the
tribal  housing authorities and with HUD in identifying
maintenance problems and providing   training programs.
NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTSIN
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTIONOF HOUSES
       Indian housing financed by the Bureau and HUD should
be designed and constructed       to provide decent, safe, and
sanitary    housing.   Poorly constructed    or renovated houses
exist,    however, due to inadequate design, faulty       construc-
tion,    and incomplete construction.      As a result   (1) sub-
stantial    funds have been or will be required to repair and
complete construction     of the houses and (2) some Indians
are living     in new or revovated houses which do not meet
housing standards.
       Accompanied by housing authority                  or Bureau representa-
tives, we inspected         232 new and renovated housing units on
22 reservations.        (See p. 31.)          Appendix I lists          various
design and construction            deficiencies        which were identified
during these inspections,            such as settling            foundations,    un-
stable floors,      insufficient         insulation,        faulty    wall con-
struction,    undersized heating units,                inadequate roofs,        and
the lack of water and sanitation                facilities.          Some houses
were located in projects            which lacked roads and streets               and
for which site preparation             and drainage were incomplete.
The following      photographs show some of the design and con-
struction    deficiencies        that were identified.




                                         41
Dilaminating,   deteriorating   exterior door due to inadequate    gutters and canopy       on porch   on a Bu-
reau housing    improvement     house on the Quinault   Reservation in Washington.




Rotting facia board under       the roof   due to faulty    design or materials   on a mutual-help house on
the Salt River Reservation.


                                                           42
Interior smoke and soot damage due to the stovepipe’s   being installed   improperly   in a transitional
house on the Rosebud Reservation.




                                              43
Milk cans used to carry water because the indoor water system was inadequate at a transitionai
home on the Rosebud Reservation.     Typical of 59 homes without water on Rosebud Reservation    as
of August 1970.




                                                44
                                                                                                                                              f
               4




No roads    or streets      provided      to   400    turnk+     housts        on the     Rosebud      Reservation.              Photo     at top
taken  in November          1969.      Photo     at   bottom   taken      In     April   1970     when    many        of   the      unimproved
roads  were   impassable.



                                                                   45
Incomplete   site preparation   and drainage   at the mutual-help   project   on the Swillomish   Reservation.




                                                                    Locatlon where drainage tile shown at
     Drainage tile not installed on lot of
                                                                    left should have been installed.   This
     a mutual-help  house on the Swinomish
     Reservation.                                                   dttch IS within close proximity  of the
                                                                    house.


                                                       46
Responsibilities       for   proper   design
and construction

       Both HUD and the Bureau have responsibilities       under in-
teragency agreements for ensuring proper design, construc-
tion,   and completion    of the housing projects.     The Bureau
and HUD developed standard house plans for the force account
mutual-help   program.     For low-rent  and turnkey projects,     an
architect   or developer designs the houses; the Bureau as-
sists the housing authority       and the architect  in the design,
as necessary.     Final review and approval of the designs are
made by HUD. For the housing improvement program, the Bu-
reau is responsible     for proper design and construction      of
units.

       Both HUD and the Bureau have responsibilities                for ensur-
ing also that housing is constructed             in accordance with de-
signs and specifications.           The interagency       agreements for
low-rent    and mutual-help       housing state that,       if adequate
construction      services,    including    overall    superintendence     and
inspection     for quality     of materials     and construction       and for
adherence to specifications,           are not furnished       by the hous-
ing authority,       the Bureau will furnish        them.     The agreements
state also that a HUD construction            representative      shall con-
duct periodic      inspections     of the projects      to ensure proper
construction.

       Providing      the supporting      facilities   for housing projects
is a joint     responsibility        of the Bureau, HUD, and the Indian
Health Service.          For low-rent     and turnkey projects,       roads
are financed by WD as part of the project                 cost.    For
mutual-help      projects     the Bureau usually      agreed to provide
streets   and roads.        Providing water and sanitation          facili-
ties on both HUD-assisted and Bureau housing improvement
projects    is generally        the responsibility     of the Indian
Health Service.          The low-rent     and mutual-help     program guide-
lines provide that the Bureau coordinate               the planning of
housing projects        with the installation        of water and sanita-
tion facilities        provided by the Indian Health Service.               With
regard to construction            of the houses, guidelines      under the
mutual-help      program do not specify which Federal agency is
operationally       responsible      for ensuring that all construction
items are completed.


                                       47
      HUD, in commenting on a draft of this report,    pointed
out that both the Bureau and HUD had some construction      re-
sponsibilities  but that,   in the final  analysis, the Secre-
tary of KUD was responsible    for the acts of his agents
whether they be Bureau or HUD employees.

Inadequately     designed   and constructed      projects

       Many of the projects      included in our review had design
and construction       defects.    Some of the more serious design
defects resulted       from inadequate consideration    of local
climatic    conditions     in the development of housing plans and
specifications.        Some of the more serious construction     de-
fects were not detected because of inadequate construction
inspections.

        The 50-unit    low-rent   project     on the Blackfeet    Reserva-
tion,    completed in January 1966, needs to be renovated to
 correct   design and construction         defects.   A March 1969 HUD
report describing        this project     pointed out that     l- to Z-inch-
thick ice had accumulated in the corners of the inside walls.
One tenant described how she could watch the sunset through
the cracks in the walls when it was 40' below zero.                 This
situation    is attributable,        in part, to the plans' lack of
provision    for design features        that would ensure protection
against the extremes of the Montana climate.               As designed,
the wall insulation,         the attic vapor barrier,      the wind bar-
rier,    and the heating systems all were inadequate.

      The project   also had many construction         defects that had
not been detected because inspections          had been inadequate.
Inadequate construction      inspections     were evidenced by the
45 postconstruction     defects,   requiring     104 corrective  mea-
sures, reported by HUD field officials           to their regional  of-
fice in February 1966.

       According to the housing authority         ,legal counsel, inade-
quate inspections     by the housing authority         and by HUD con-
tributed    to the problem.     In 1967 the housing authority          with-
held from the contractor      $58,000 to correct        defects result-
ing from incomplete     or faulty   construction.        After spending
most of these funds, the housing authority             estimated  that
$229,000 more would be required       to repair the houses.          In
commenting on a draft of this report,          HUD informed us that
funds now were being devoted          to make these units       standard
and adequate.

        In two low-rent   projects    on the Pine Ridge Reservation,
the basement walls were bowed or cracked in many of the
units.     According to housing authority        and Bureau officials,
the units may have to be condemned and other housing may
have to be found for the occupants unless repairs             are made.
A housing authority      construction    inspector   told us that this
problem had been caused by the following           design and con-
struction    defects:    (1) the house design did not provide for
gutters    or downspouts,    (2) either    the house design did not
provide for reinforcement        of the block foundations      with con-
crete columns or steel rods or this work was not accomplished
during construction,      (3) the foundations      were not backfilled
properly,     (4) the exterior     basement walls were not water-
proofed adequately,     and (5) the quantities       of Portland ce-
ment used in the mortar were not sufficient.

      According to the Bureau's Agency Superintendent                  at Pine
Ridge, shortcuts      and improper construction          methods were used
on these projects       and adequate supervision         was not provided
by the HUD construction       representative.          The HUD construction
representative     acted as contracting       officer,      supervisor,    and
inspector.      The tribal   housing authority         estimates    that
$91,000 will be required        to correct    these defects in about
50 units.      At the time of our visit       to the site in May 1970,
the deficiencies      had not been corrected        although the problem
had existed from at least 1966.

       On the Navajo Reservation      320 low-rent   houses con-
structed   of cinder block were not insulated        because the plans
and specifications   did not call for insulation.          These
houses, constructed   from December 1964 to May 1968, have had
heatloss problems.    The housing authority        has requested HUD
to finance an engineering-feasibility         study to determine the
most reasonable solution    to the problems.

      Architects  designed the homes at the Blackfeet,   Pine
Ridge, and Navajo Reservations.     The designs were reviewed
and approved both by the housing authority     and by HUD. The
housing projects   on the Blackfeet  and Pine Ridge Reserva-
tions were started before HUD and the Bureau entered into
the interagency   agreement for low-rent  housing, under which

                                      49
the Bureau has certain  responsibilities       for design and con-
struction.   Some of the projects      at the Navajo Reservation
were started  after the interagency      agreement became effec-
tive.

       The lack of design modifications      also has adversely af-
fected the quality     of some houses.    We found instances         in
which the standard design for mutual-help          houses had been
used without modifications     for local climatic        conditions.
For example, for three mutual-help       projects    at reservations
in Nevada and Arizona,     the standard heating plan was fol-
lowed and, as a result,     undersized heating units were in-
stalled.     The Bureau's Phoenix area housing officer           stated
that this problem had resulted       from not modifying       the stan-
dard plans to provide for local climatic          conditions.

      We also found instances     in which, because of defects
in the design, the same construction       defects had been built
into different     projects.  The design of turnkey and mutual-
help housing on the Rosebud Reservation,        low-rent   housing
on the Cheyenne River Reservation,       and low-rent    housing on
the Fort Peck Reservation      in Montana allowed the snow to
blow in through the exterior      air vents and to accumulate in
the attics.    I-IUD's Chicago Regional Office estimated that
the blowing snow had caused damage of about $7,000 to the
housing at the Cheyenne River Reservation         in 1965.

      Although in 1965 HUD was aware of this attic-vent    de-
fect on the Cheyenne River Reservation,     in 1966 and 1968 it
authorized   the design and construction  of housing at the
Rosebud Reservation    which had the same defect.   These de-
fects indicate    that there is not an adequate system for
modifying   designs to ensure that defects do not recur.
Incomplete   housing   projects

         Some Indian families    are living    in new houses in proj-
ects which are incomplete or which lack water and sanitation
facilities,      and some new houses are located in projects
which lack roads and streets.          Other families    have declined
to move into the new houses without           such supporting  facili-
ties.       Incomplete housing projects     resulted  from (1) inade-
quate planning by, and coordination          among, the agencies re-
sponsible for ensuring that all facets of the housing proj-
ects were completed within         the same time frame and (2) a
lack of follow-through        by the Bureau and HUD to ensure that
projects      were completed.

       At the Rosebud Reservation     in April 1970, 10 force ac-
count mutual-help    houses and 49 turnkey houses did not have
water and sanitation     facilities.     The turnkey houses were
occupied initially    from November 1968 to April 1970.            Of
these 49 turnkey houses, 26 had been occupied and 23 had not.
According to the Bureau's Area Housing Assistance            Officer,
delays in providing     water and sanitation     facilities     were due
largely   to funding problems and difficulties          in coordinating
an acceptable overall      plan whereby the tribe could partici-
pate in the funding through a loan from the Economic Develop-
ment Administration,     Department of Commerce. He said that,
when this plan did not materialize,        other plans had to be
made for funding and completing the project           thruugh the In-
dian Health Service.       The Indian Health Service stated that
the needed sanitation      facilities   would be provided by the
spring or summer of 1971.

       HUD, in commenting on a draft of this report,     stated
that regional-level   coordination   between HUD and other Fed-
eral agencies probably was minimal since the commitment to
build the houses had been made in its central     office    rather
than in the field.    According to HUD this was not a typical
situation   but was a result   of special efforts to provide
immediate housing on the Rosebud Reservation.

       The lack of roads and streets    for housing projects     gen-
erally    resulted  from a lack of coordination   either within
the Bureau or between the Bureau and other agencies involved.
To determine the need for roads and streets       for housing
projects,     the Bureau's roads branch has to coordinate     with

                                   51
the housing branch.     In addition, the roads branch has to
coordinate  with the Federal Highway Administration,     Depart-
ment of Transportation,    to obtain approval and funds.

      At the Navajo Reservation       and at various reservations
within the Phoenix area, the BureauPs roads branch has not
provided roads or streets        in mutual-help   projects  due to
delays in obtaining       housing project    plans and funds because
of the lack of timely coordination         with the Federal Highway
Administration.        The Chief, Branch of Roads, Portland area,
told us that improved streets        had not been provided in the
mutual-help     projects   at the Swinomish and Yakima Reserva-
tions because of inadequate communication and coordination
among the Bureau's roads branch, its housing branch, and
other Federal agencies.

      Also at the Rosebud Reservation,          the lack of adequate
coordination     seemed to be the cause for delays in providing
adequate roads and streets          for the 400-unit    turnkey project.
According to a HUD regional           official, the tribe    initially
had agreed to provide roads and streets            but later had re-
neged on its commitment.           The Bureau's Area Housing Assis-
tance Officer     told us that the Bureau was to assist the
tribe   in providing      adequate access roads or streets          to and
within the project.          In the fall of 1969, we observed that
adequate roads and streets had not been provided.                 According
to Bureau field      officials,     the roads and streets      become im-
passable in the spring.           (See photographs on p. 45.)          In
June 1970 HUD agreed to finance streets            for this project.

        Houses in several force account mutual-help              projects
were not finished       because the Bureau and/or HUD did not fol-
low through to ensure that all construction               had been com-
pleted.      When the housing authority         considers a mutual-help
project    to be complete and ready for occupancy, the HUD con-
struction     representative,     accompanied by Bureau and huusing
authority     representatives,      makes a final     inspection.       When
the HUD representative         considers the units to be safe and
livable,    HUD issues an inspection          memorandum which identi-
fies any incomplete        or ,u.nsatisfactory    items of work.        Exist-
ing guidelines       are not clear, however, as to which agency is
responsible      for ensuring completion        of these items, and, in
many cases, the homes are not finished,               The Director,       Pro-
duction Division,       HUD, informed us that both the Bureau and

                                      52
HUD felt that it was the other's  responsibility.      The Bu-
reau's Chief, Division  of Housing Assistance,    informed us
that a joint  Bureau-HUD plan or agreement on responsibility
was needed.

Conclusions

      Design and construction     deficiencies     and incomplete
construction   items have resulted      in additional    costs and ac-
celerating   deterioration    of houses and have contributed        to
the lessened possibility      of eliminating     substandard housing
in the 1970's.      Further,  some Indians,    although living    in
new housing, continue to live in substandard houses.

      The design and construction   problems     identified   during
our review point out a need to strengthen        reviews of housing
designs and inspections   of construction.       Also a need exists
to improve coordination   among the agencies       involved to en-
sure that all aspects of housing projects        are completed.
Recommendations to the Secretary         of HUD
and the Secretary of the Interior

       We recommend that     the Secretary    of HUD and the Secre-
tary   of the Interior

       --strengthen    the reviews of housing designs to ensure
          that housing plans adequately consider local eli-
          matic conditions,

       --place     increased emphasis on inspections   during con-
          struction     to reduce construction problems, and

       --clearly   establish which agency will be responsible
          for ensuring that known construction   defects and in-
          complete items of construction   are corrected on a
          timely basis.

      We recommend also that the Secretary        of the Interior
coordinate   the activities of the various agencies to ensure
that roads and water and sanitation     facilities      are avail-
able as soon as the houses are constructed.

Agency comments

       In commenting on a draft of this report,            the Depart-
ment of the Interior        agreed that there was a need to
strengthen    reviews of housing design and construction           in-
spections   and to improve interagency         coordination.     HUD
stated that it was aware that certain           breakdowns in the de-
sign and construction        process had occurred and that in the
past its regional      offices     had been advised to be alert      for
such breakdowns.      HUD anticipates      that its newly estab-
lished area and regional         offices  will be more effective       be-
cause of their relative         proximity  to, and knowledge of,
projects   within   their jurisdictions.

LENGTHY CONSTRUCTIONPERIOD

      In terms of the construction     time and the number of
houses built,  the force account mutual-help       program has not
been as successful    as other HUD-assisted programs.      We com-
pared projects   on reservations   within   three Bureau areas.
The force account mutual-help     projects,    normally consisting
of 10 to 20 units each, took an average 19 months to con-
struct.    In contrast   the HUD-assisted  low-rent      and turnkey
projects   (including  turnkey mutual-help    projects),     each
consisting    of many more units,  took an average 10 months to
construct.

        Our analysis of construction           starts    showed that a new
force account mutual-help          project     generally    was not started
until    the previous project        was near completion.         This prac-
tice is in accordance with HUD guidelines                 which point out
that generally       only 10 to 15 units should be constructed
concurrently.        Therefore an extended construction            period
results     in delays not only in a current project              but also in
any planned follow-on         projects.      It results     also in addi-
tional costs for supervising            construction      and for replacing
building     materials    that have been damaged by exposure to
the weather or that have been lost due to theft and vandal-
ism.

       HUD guidelines     suggest that force account mutual-help
projects     be constructed   within  1 year.   Bureau officials    in
the Portland area believe that the l-year period is unrea-
sonable because, under the existing        program framework,    the
participants     have to provide the majority      of the labor.
They indicated,      however, that a l-year period would be rea-
sonable if professional       labor and prefabrication    were used.

       In the three Bureau areas included in our review, the
reported construction        period for the 40 force account
mutual-help     projects,    involving     686 houses, ranged from
6 months to 44 months and averaged 19 months,                  Most of
these projects      involved 10 to 20 units.           In contrast     the
average construction        period for the 27 HUD low-rent,            turn-
key, and turnkey mutual-help           projects    included in our re-
view was 10 months.         The number of units in these 27 proj-
ects averaged 44, On the Yakima Reservation,                  a 30-unit
low-rent    project    was completed in 13 months but the lo-unit
force account mutual-help          project    took 32 months to com-
plete.    On the Navajo Reservation           the period of construc-
tion for 750 units--six         turnkey mutual-help,        one turnkey
low-rent,    and 10 conventional        low-rent    projects--averaged
9.5 months.
       As a result   of the lengthy construction         periods under
the force account mutual-help        program, program benefits
were deferred and costs increased.           For example, at the
Quinault Reservation,      a ZO-unit project       took 31 months to
complete, which delayed the start of a 20-unit               follow-on
project.     Under the mutual-help      program, the Bureau pro-
vides a project    construction    superintendent       who is respon-
sible for supervising      and coordinating       construction      of the
project   from the time construction        starts until       it is com-
pleted.     Using HUD's guideline     of a l-year      construction        pe-
riod, we estimated that, for the mutual-help             projects      in-
cluded in our review, construction          supervision      costs of
$235,000 were incurred       after the l-year period.

       At several projects,     other building    materials   deterio-
rated as a result      of exposure to the weather over the long
construction     period and partially    completed houses were
vandalized    and materials   were stolen.      At the Rosebud Res-
ervation    nearly all the materials     for a force account
mutual-help    house were stolen over a 2-year period.          All
that remained at the time of our inspection           in November
1969 was the foundation,       some weather-ruined     plywood, and
several rafters.

        In February 1970 HUD approved the housing authority's
request for supplemental funds of $19,000 to complete the
50-unit    force account mutual-help      project on the Rosebud
Reservation.      These additional    funds were needed primarily
for replacing     materials   lost through theft,   vandalism,   and
damage from the elements during the extended construction
period.

       The exterior   siding on the 10 force account mutual-
help houses at the Swinomish Reservation        was deteriorating
at the time of our inspection       due, in part, to exposure to
the weather during the lengthy construction         period.      It was
exposed both while awaiting      installation    and while awaiting
painting.     HUD estimated that it would 'cost $10,000 to re-
place the siding.      Also several projects     on reservations     in
the Northwest had been damaged or had lost materials             due to
theft and vandalism.
      According to Bureau and HUD officials,     the extended
construction   periods resulted primarily    from the lack of
Indian participation     in construction.       In our opinion an
inherent weakness in the force account mutual-help           program
is the assumption that the participants          will work continu-
ally on the housing project      until    it is complete and that
they have the technical     competency to do the work assigned
to them.     The future owners --the participants--are       expected
to contribute     about 20 hours of labor a week over a 52-
week period or until     the houses are completed.       Many par-
ticipants,    however, have not worked regularly       on the hous-
ing project    through its completion.

        Factors cited by Bureau and HUD officials              as contrib-
uting to the poor participation           include (1) inadequate ori-
entation     of participants     as to their responsibilities,            (2)
lack of leadership        by the Bureau construction         superinten-
dents in motivating        the participants,       (3) conflicts      between
the construction        schedule and the Indians'       regulx      hours of
employment, and (4) inability           of participants      to do the
skilled    work assigned to them. Another reason cited for
the lengthy construction         period was the reluctance          of the
housing authorities        to remove from the prograrr, on a timely
basis those participants         who were not actively         assisting     in
the construction        of their houses.

       We believe that the Bureau could help to alleviate
some of these causes for poor participation                  by more dili-
gently carrying        out its responsibilities         under the force
account mutual-help         program.      Bureau and J3JD guidelines        for
mutual-help      housing indicate       that the Bureau is to inform
program participants         of their duties and responsibilities,
provide adequate construction             leadership    and supervision,
organize and coordinate           work crews, and ensure that each
participant      contributes      approximately      the same number of
hours.      The Bureau construction          superintendent      is respon-
sible for construction           schedules based on the manpower
available     for each particular         day. He is responsible         also
for all phases of the work, including                supervision    and man-
agement of the labor force,             In addition,      the Bureau is to
endeavor to formulate          training     programs to assist the par-
ticipants     in the construction         of their houses.




                                      57
Conclusions

       The force account mutual-help        program has not been
successful     in providing    large quantities    of new housing for
Indians on a timely basis,          The program has worked well on
only a few reservations.          On the basis of experience,    it
does not seem practicable         to expect that all the conditions
contributing      to the lengthy construction      period for mutual-
help projects       can be eliminated    in most Indian communities.
Therefore we believe that the force account mutual-help
program should be limited         to those reservations   where it is
strongly     desired and where there is reasonable assurance
that the problems associated with the program can be over-
come.

Recommendations to the Secretary         of HUD
and the Secretary of the Interior

       We recommend that the Secretary        of HUD and the Secre-
tary of the Interior      use the force account mutual-help         pro-
gram only when it is desired strongly          by the Indians,     be-
cause it has the least potential        for timely construction
and usually has fewer houses in a project.           We recommend
also that the Secretary       of the Interior    ensure that, where
houses are constructed      under the mutual-help      program, the
participants     are informed adequately of their duties and
responsibilities     and are provided with sufficient        training,
supervision,     and leadership.

Agency comments

      Both HUD and the Department of the Interior,      in com-
menting on the draft of this report,      concurred with our
recommendations   and informed us that field officials     would
be advised to deemphasize force account mutual-help       proj-
ects.   HUD informed us that    it planned to emphasize using
turnkey or competitively    bid projects.
APPENDIXES




  59
                                                                                                  APPENDIX I

                        DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTIONDEFECTS AKD INCOMPLETE
                          CONSTRUCTIONITEMS AT SELECTED RESERVATIONS

                                           Number of units
                          Type of            in project                    Brief    description
        Reservation       project              (note a)                            (note a)
DESIGN DEFECTS:
    Pine Ridge          Low rent              127            Basement walls were either cracked or
                                                             bowed in several units.   Estimated cost
                                                             to repair basements in about 50 units
                                                             and to correct causes was $91,000.
   Pine Ridge           Housing for                          Ceiling  in boiler room collapsed  under
                          elderly             44 (beds)      weight of fuel tank suspended from ceil-
                                                             ing, and undersized   sewer lines caused
                                                             sewer to back up in the kitchen drain.
                                                             Estimated cost to repair boiler room and
                                                             sewer lines was $2,850.
   Rosebud              Mutual help            50            Exterior air vents allow             snow to enter
                        Turnkey               400            and accumulate in attic.
   Cheyenne River       Home for                             Exterior vent permits snow to enter at-
                          elderly                            tic and accumulate and 'us cause water
                                                             damage. Rain gutters were not installed
                                                             on the building.
   Cheyenne River       Low rent               54            Snow blowing into the houses through                 the
                                                             attic vents caused damage of $7,000.
    Navajo              Low rent              320            Cinder block walls which had not been
                                                             insulated  caused heat-loss problems.
    Navajo              Low rent              130            Exterior    stucco walls were cracked.               Es-
                                                             timated    cost to correct was $19,500.
    Salt River          Mutual      help       15            Glass panes in french doors starting
                                                             about 6 inches above the floor,   were
                                                             broken out.   Indications of rot in the
                                                             four corners where the facia boards join
                                                             under the roof show poor design or faulty
                                                             material.
    Hualapai, Arizona   iW.zual help           10            Inadequate or undersized     heating units
    Duck Valley,                                             had to be replaced.     About $6,000 was
      Nevada-Idaho           do.               15            spent to replace the heating units on
    Fort Apache              do.               16            the i&ralapai Reservation.
    Blackfeet           Low rent               50            Absence of design details           and inadequate
                                                             construction      resulted    in:     cracks in the
                                                             outside walls; failure          to install       an ade-
                                                             quate vapor barrier         in the attic to pre-
                                                             vent condensation        from forming in the
                                                             spaceabove       the ceiling;     inadequate       in-
                                                             sulation     which allowed ice and frost to
                                                             form on the inside walls;           installation
                                                             of inadequate heating system in the
                                                             houses; unstable wind barriers              on the
                                                             front porches; and poor landscaping.
                                                             Estimated cost to make units habitable
                                                             amounted to $220,000.
    Fort Peck           Low rent                56           There were design and construction            de-
                                                             fects, including     inadequate     insulation,
                                                             lack of protective      hoods over the lou-
                                                             vers, and installation        of the kitchen
                                                             vents in the ceiling       instead of in the
                                                             walls.   Correcting     these defects and in-
                                                             stalling  an adequate drainage system will
                                                             cost about $43,000.



                                                      61
APPENDIXI


                                         Number of units
                        Type of            in project                  Brief    description
       Reservation      project              (note a)                          (note a)
   Yakima             Mutual     help        10            Sheetrock window casing was deteriorat-
                                                           ing.    Corrective work was estimated at
                                                           $1,250.
   Yakima             Mutual      help       10            Lightweight   composition roofing was not
                                                           adequate.   Estimated cost to install
                                                           heavier roofing was SSOO a unit,     or
                                                           $8,000.
   Svinomish          Mutual      help       10            There were no gutters,  no downspouts,
                                                           and no vent hookup designed for dryers.
                                                           Kitchen range placed in front of a win-
                                                           dow caused a potential  fire hazard be-
                                                           cause of the curtains.
   Quinault           Housing                              There were insufficient    gutters or down-
                        improvement          21            spouts, no porch or canopy roof over
                                                           front and rear doors, and a lack of in-
                                                           terior  doors.   Estimated cost to provide
                                                           these items at time of construction    was
                                                           $6,200.
CONSTRUCTIONDEFECTS:
   Pine Ridge        Low rent               127            Siding was loose, corner trim was missing,
                                                           walls or ceilings were stained due to
                                                           water leaks, and bathroom basins were not
                                                           secured in place.  Estimated cost to re-
                                                           pair was $52,000.
   Pine Ridge         Home for                             The cornices were loose and the roof
                        elderly              44 (beds)     leaked.    Estimated cost to repair was
                                                           $5,900.

   Pine Ridge         HOUSing                              Some foundations     were not level.
                         improvement        124

   Rosebud            Transitional          375            In 22 of the 23 transitional        homes in-
                                                           spected, the exterior    walls     were stained
                                                           improperly.
   Rosebud            Transitional          375            Improperly installed     stove pipes caused
                                                           smoke damage to interior      walls. Esti-
                                                           mated cost to repair was $25 a unit,
                                                           or $0,375.
   Rosebud            a*Y                   400            Sewer lines for 14 of the units were in-
                                                           stalled  at back of houses rather than in
                                                           front where the main sewer is planned.
                                                           This necessitates  reversing  the line for
                                                           each house to hook into the main sewer.
   Cheyenne River     Mzual help             40            In seven of 17 houses inspected,     set-
       Do.            Low rent               54            tling of the foundations    due to inadequate
                                                           compaction of the backfill    caused cracks
                                                           in the walls and separation    of the mop-
                                                           boards and door frames from the floor.
   Navajo             Low rent               50            Since water pipes had not been installed
                                                           in accordance with plans and specifica-
                                                           tions, water pipes froze and broke.
   Fort Peck          Low rent               56            In three of the units,  inadequate drain-
                                                           age system and improper backfilling    of
                                                           the foundations caused the foundations
                                                           and floors to settle and crack.
                                                                                                                APPENDIX I


                                                      Number of units
                               Type of                  in project                       Brief    description
       Reservation             project                    (note a)                               (note a)
    Swinomish                Mutual       help            10                Cabinets did not fit shell or frame of
                                                                            house, closet doors were not hung prop-
                                                                            erly, and floorings  were of different
                                                                            thicknesses.

    Fort Ball,    Idaho      Housing                                        Floors were spongy because house foot-
                               irprsvement                65                ings had been set during winter when
                                                                            ground was frozen.
INCOMPLETECONSTRUCTION:
    Pine Ridge       Low rent                            127                Paved streets were not provided.      Some
    Rosebud          Mutual help                          50                roads become impassable during the win-
        Do.          TUrkey                              400                ter . Estimated cost to comnlete streets,
        Do.          Transitional                        375                driveways,   and drainage on the 400-unit
    Cheyenne River   M&ual help                                             turnkey project   at Rosebud was $1,611.000.
        Lb.          Low rent                             i8                Estimated cost to provide streets and
    Navajo           fimkey-                                                curbing on the lo-unit    Yakima project was
                        Mutual help                      230                $25,000.
    Yakima                  do.                           10
    Swinomish               do.                           10

    Rosebud                  lknkey                      400                As of April 1970, 49 of the turnkey units
       Do.                   Mutual       help            50                and 10 of the mutual help units had no
                                                                            water or sanitary  facilities.

    Rosebud                  Turnkey                     400                Landscaping and backfill   were not com-
                                                                            plete.    Estimated cost to complete was
                                                                            $176,000.
    Pine Ridge               Low   rent                  127                Floors were spongy because            the floor
                                                                            braces had not been nailed            in place on
                                                                            the basement ceilings.
    Rosebud                  b&Y                         400                Foundations had inadequate backfill.            In
       Do.                   Transitional                375                10 turnkey units inspected,        the floors
       Do.                   &rtual help                  50                were spongy because of a failure          to back-
                                                                            fill    the foundation,   which, in turn, had
                                                                            caused the foundation      to settle.       For the
                                                                            transitional      units it is estimated that
                                                                            $112,500 will be required       to finish     back-
                                                                            filling      and grading.
    Yakima                   bWua1 help                   10                Several construction     items, including      in-
                                                                            terior   light fixtures,    exterior painting,
                                                                            and window casings and moldings, were still
                                                                            incomplete    18 months after occupancy.
    Svinomish                tituelhelp                   10                There were several incomplete    construction
                                                                            items, including   finishing  of interior
                                                                            woodwork and drainage.
"The problems    explained    udor        fhe brief     description     do not always pertain       to all      the units   in the
  project.




                                                                      63
 APPENDIXII


              United States Department of the Interior
                             OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
                              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240



Mr. Joseph P. Rother, Jr.
Assistant  Director, Civil Division
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548

Dear Mr. Rother:

The Department has reviewed with interest the GAODraft Report, "Review of
Progress in Meeting the Objectives of the Indian Housing Program,
Department of the Interior,     Department of Housing end Urban Development."
The report lists     certain examples of deficiencies   in funding and occupancy
experiences.     Although important in the overall evaluation,      we do not feel
these examples alone are evidence that the program is misdirected         in its
objectives   to improve Indian Housing. We believe the solutions and use of
subsidized housing program of HUD constitute       the most suitable national
housing program. Most of the Indian people are poor. To house poor people
decently the housing program subsidy was established on a national basis.

We agree with your conclusion concerning the schedule of elimination      of
substandard housing on Indian reservations    will not be achieved without
substantial  acceleration of the program. Because of our reliance on the
national housing program goals and priorities     of HUD and its funding, we
share in having to defer some of our programs for future accomplishment
with other housing needs.

We feel the inclusion   of adjacent off-reservation       population is not an
important factor in determining housing needs. It indicates that many
Indians would return to the reservation      if decent housing existed.        We
feel that jobs and reasonable income sufficient         to support the home and
family are the prime movers of the Indian people in most cases. It has
been our experience that migration back to the reservations            occurs generally
in direct proportion to the availability       of jobs.    It would be important
if jobs and housing could be complementary and occur simultaneously.
Should the economy of a reservation     improve considerably,       the housing
inventory would recognize and reflect     this need. The present inventory
form (copy attached) has recognized all the remaining factors cited by the
GAOand provides columns for their inclusion.          Certainly,    home deterioration
is an important factor.    Although it has been considered in the past, it has
not had the careful consideration   it should.      We will emphasize this factor
when requesting our next inventory.



                                         64
                                                                       APPENDIX II

An annual inventory will be taken using the guidelines        established   in
May 1970. Providing funds are available,        we intend to contract with
qualified  companies or individuals     to obtain inventories   of housing conditions
when necessary.    "In-house" capabilities     will be used where available    and
the housing officers    will be directed to develop, obtain and maintain
accurate data. We have also requested that the Indian Health Service (IHS)
survey, HUD 701 Planning statistics       and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
population figures be obtained and utilized        for the annual housing inventory.

We also feel strongly that proper maintenance inspection and followup are
necessary and essential to maintaining       standard and decent housing.  As
the report recognizes, many of the occupants are of low or inadequate income.
The heavy investment of Federal monies should be protected by adequate
maintenance.      The 1970 Housing Act recognized this need and authorizes funds
for this effort.      The BIA field staff in cooperation with the housing
authorities    can supplement the HUD staff when necessary in making inspection
and identifying     deficiencies.   The responsibility  for providing funds rests
with HUD. Within the availability       of funds, we will continue to supplement
training    programs of the local housing authorities.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs    will be responsible for inspecting &ad identifying
deficiencies   in those houses constructed and renovated under the Housing
Improvement Program. This will be balanced by continued support for home
maintenance and training   programs as well as monetary support in those cases
where required.

We believe that the design and construction     problems identified during
your review point out a need to strengthen reviews of housing design and
inspections of construction.     We also believe that a need exists to improve
coordination   among the agencies involved to assure that all aspects of
housing projects are completed.

We concur in the GAO's recommendation for the force account mutual-help
housing projects and will issue instructions   to the BIA's Area and Agency
Offices that further force account mutual-help projects be discouraged
except where there is a strong desire on the part of the local housing
authorities  for this program and where the local housing authorities  will
indicate assurance that they will make every effort to see that housing is
constructed in a timely manner.

We appreciate   the opportunity   to have commented on this    draft   report.
                                          Sincerely   yours,




 GAOnote:    The inventory   form cited   is not reproduced herein.


                                            65
            APPENDIX III



                             DEPARTMENT             OF     HOUSING         AND         URBAN       DEVELOPMENT

                                          FEDERAL            HOUSING           ADMINISTRATION
                                                          WASHINGTON,          D. C.     20411




ASSISTANT    SECRETARY-COMMISSIONER




                                                                                                            FEB 26 1971




                  Mr. Victor      L. Lowe
                  Associate     Director
                  United    States    General  Accounting                                      Office
                  Washington,       D. C.   20548

                  Dear      Mr.       Lowe:

                  On behalf     of the Secretary,    this   is in response    to your
                  letter    of November 19, 1970, which transmitted          copies   of
                  a proposed      report  .to the Congress    on progress  in meeting
                  the objective       of the Indian  housing    program.

                  We have reviewed       the  proposed  report                                      and are attaching
                  this  Department's       comments for your                                       use in the preparation
                  of the final     report.

                  We appreciate               the        opportunity                   to      comment      on this   impor-
                  tant subject.

                                                                           Sincerely               yours,




                                                          Assi
                                                                 Jp!*&r tant      Secretary-Commissioner

                  Attachment


                 GAO note:             HUD's comments have been considered and in-
                                       corporated in the body of the report.



                                                                          66
                                                  APPENDIXIV

                PRINCIPALOFFICIALS OF THE
              DEPARTMENTS
                       OF THE INTERIORAND
               HOUSINGANDURBANDEVELOPMENT
          RESPONSIBLE
                    FOR THEADMINISTRATION
                                        OF
           ACTIVITIES DISCUSSEDIN THIS REPORT

                                      Tenure of office
                                      From           -To
                DEPARTMENT
                        OF THE INTERIOR
SECRETARYOF THE INTERIOR:
   Rogers C.B. Morton              Jail.   1971    Present
   Fred J. Russell (acting)        Nov.    1970    Dec. 1970
   Walter J. Hickel                Jan.    1969    Nov. 1970
   Stewart L. Udall                Jan.    1961    Jan. 1969
ASSISTANTSECRETARY  OF THE INTERIOR
  (PUBLIC LANDMANAG@MT):
    Harrison Loesch                Apr.    1969    Present
    Vacant                         Jan.    1969    Apr. 1969
    Harry R. Anderson              July    1965    Jan. 1969
COMMISSIONEROF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
   Louis R. Bruce                  Aug.    1969    Present
   T.W. Taylor (acting)            June    1969    Aug. 1969
   Robert L. Bennett               Apr.    1966    %Y 1969
   Philleo Nash                    Sept.   1961    Mar. 1966
        DEPARTMENT
                OF HOUSINGANDURBANDEVELOPMENT
SECRETARY  OF HOUSINGAND URBANDE-
 VELOPMENT   (formerly Administra-
 tor, Housing and HomeFinance
 Agency) :
    George W. Romney               Jan.    1969    Present
    Robert C. Wood                 Jan.    1969    Jan. 1969
    Robert C. Weaver               Feb.    1961    Dec. 1968
APPENDIXIV

                                    Tenure of office
                                    From           To
       DEPARTMENT
               OF HOUSINGAND URBANDEVELOPMEm(con%inued)
ASSISTANTSECRETARY  FORRENEWAL
  ANDHOUSINGMANAGEMJZNT:
    Norman V. Watson (acting)    July   1970   Presen%
    Lawrence M. cox              Mar.   1969   July 1970
    Howard J. Wharton (acting)   Feb,   1969   July 1970
    Don Humel                    July   1966   Feb. 1969
ASSISTANTSECRETARY   FORHOUSING
  PRODUCTION ANDMORTGAGE CREDIT
  ANDFEDERALHOUSINGCOMMISSIONER:
    Eugene A. Gulledge          Nov.    1969   Present




                         68
Copies  of this report are available      from the
U. S. General   Accounting   Office, Room 6417.
441 G Street, N W., Washington,     D.C., 20548.

Copies    are provided  without       charge to Mem-
bers of Congress,      congress iona I commrttee
staff members, Government         officia Is, members
of the press, college     libraries,      faculty mem-
bers and students.     The price to the general
public   is $1 JO a copy.     Orders should be ac-
companied    by cash or check.