This is in further reponse to your letter of January 22, The following five items respond to each of the five subject areas indentified in your letter.. 1. Development Costs The per unit cost averages given below are for Indian housing * ** Signifies inclusion of Alaskan housing projects constructed under that type of program and production method. The majority of Turnkey development method projects were built in Oklahoma where total development costs are generally lower. 2. Status of Project Pipeline As of January 31, 1980, there were 9,303 dwelling units for which program reservations have been issued, but which have not yet reached the annual contributions contract stage. 3. Project Processing Time from Program Reservation to Construction Start As of November 30, 1979, the average time for an Indian housing project to progress from Program Reservation to Construction Start was 25.1 months. This average is based on a sample of 274 Indian projects which have progressed from Program Reservation to Construction Start since 1974-75. The number compares favorably with an average of 34.1 months (as of October 31, 1979) for non-Indian public housing projects. (Information on award of contract is unavailable.) 4. Operating Subsidies The following provides information on operating subsidy paid to Indian Housing Authorities for their rental and Mutual Help projects. Operating subsidy paid under the Performance Funding System for rental units is provided for Fiscal Years 1974 through 1978. Operating subsidy for Mutual Help is provided for Fiscal Year 1978 only. Data for prior years is not available and data on Fiscal Year 1979 has not yet been received and tabulated. During 1975 and 1976, HUD funded the Management Initiatives for Indian Housing (MIFIH) program to help Indian Housing Authorities improve their management capabilities. Two million dollars were made available to Indian Housing Authorities for this purpose and, except for a few dollars, it has all been expended. No further special funding has been provided for technical assistance. However, HUD field staff members provide technical assistance on a continuous basis within staff limitations. In addition, the current Indian Housing regulation makes provision for special operating subsidy to cover the cost of IHA staff training chargeable to Mutual Help projects. The field restructuring will improve the capacity of HUD field offices to provide a better quality of technical assistance to IHAS in those program areas unique to Indians. I trust this information will be useful to your Subcommittee in the hearings. Sincerely, Lawrence B. Simons Chairman ASHLEY. Next we will hear from Mr. Peake. STATEMENT OF G. RONALD PEAKE, CHIEF, DIVISION OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. PEAKE. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to summarize the statement, if you wish. Chairman ASHLEY. Your full statement will appear in the record and you can proceed with your abbreviated summation. Mr. PEAKE. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to testify today on the past and present involvement of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the improvement of housing conditions of the American Indian people. Our major program in the Bureau of Indian Affairs is the housing improvement program, which is commonly known as HIP. The HIP program started as an outgrowth of a flood disaster relief effort in Montana and California in 1964. Our first appropriations for housing in the Bureau of Indian Affairs appears in the fiscal year 1964 and 1965 budget requests. These requests were for $500,000 for each year. At the same time, we had begun the HIP program, which was to provide for some core housing and do a few repairs. We were also heavily involved with the public housing administration in their initial efforts to start the Indian housing program, especially the mutual help program. These two efforts, were going at once on parallel tracks, and we decided very early that the Bureau of Indian Affairs HIP program would serve the very poor by providing repairs and renovations, mainly, and some new housing in isolated instances where other programs couldn't help. The repair effort was connected early and very quickly with the Indian Health Service effort under Public Law 86-121, I believe, the Indian Sanitations Facilities Act. This program provided for the additions of bathrooms, really providing water and sanitary facilities in Indian areas for the first time. We cooperated with them by building those parts of the bathroom additions or kitchen additions that the Indian Health Service couldn't fund with their moneys. The program quickly evolved into one with five categories, two repair categories, one which repaired houses in nonstandard condition. to provide for the health and safety of the occupants, and the second, to repair houses that were structurally sound and could be saved to a standard condition. The initial effort at new-house building took the other three categories. The third category was to build a transitional house, a house that would be small and nonstandard. We proved very quickly that we could build a smaller house for less money, and that was about it. The fourth category was to provide downpayments for those people that needed some up-front costs at the times where they could get tribal funds, possibly some loan funds in the early days under FHA, and special program 13, and also some from their per capita payments. |