Nuifc Policy Paper Housing and Homelessness

BUILDING COMMUNITY
BUILDING HOUSING
Policy Paper on Housing & Homelessness | Stella Murray
(National Urban Indian Family Coalition)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................5
BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................6
THE PAST – “Relationships” between American Indians and the U.S.

Government..........................................................................................................................6
THE PRESENT – The Diminishing “Invisible” Minority . . . ............................................8
Definition of “Urban Indian” .................................................................................9
Weighing the Consequences of Rural Indian

Traditions...............................................................................................................10
EXISTING POLICY......................................................................................................................12
WHO – Who Advocates for Urban American Indians? ....................................................12
National Urban Indian Family Coalition..............................................................12
U.S. Federal Government Agencies.......................................................................12
WHAT – What ONAP Programs Apply to Urban American Indians? .............................13
WHERE – Where Do ONAP Programs Receive Funding? ..............................................13
WHEN – If and When Do ONAP Programs Prove Fruitful?............................................16
WHY – Why are Urban Indian-Centered Policies Inexistent? .........................................16
DATA............................................................................................................................................18
WHEN Revisited – The Rotten Fruits of the Federal Government....................................20
Inequalities between “All Men Created Equal” ...................................................22
“Keep Counting” or “Keep Count” on the Federal Government? ......................22
CASE STUDIES............................................................................................................................24
LITTLE EARTH | Minneapolis, MN..................................................................................24
Little Earth’s “Philosophy of Change” and “10 Year Plan” ..........................................25
Community Transformation Plan (CTP): Addressing Current Issues in Urban Areas.....26
Programs: Children-Based....................................................................................28
2
Programs: Youth-Based.........................................................................................28
Programs: Family-Based.......................................................................................29
Programs: Community-Based................................................................................29
NATIVE AMERICAN YOUTH AND FAMILY CENTER | Portland, Oregon....................31
Programs: Children-Based and Youth-Based...................................................................33
Programs: Family-Based and Community-Based.............................................................36
Programs: Housing and Homeownership.........................................................................38
Kah San Shakos Haws...........................................................................................38
Generations Project...............................................................................................39
NATIVE AMERICAN CONNECTIONS | Phoenix, Arizona..............................................40
Behavioral Health..............................................................................................................41
Programs: Children-Based and Youth-Based.......................................................41
Programs: Family-Based and Community-Based.................................................42
Community Development...................................................................................................43
Program: Native American Community Service Center........................................43
Programs: Phoenix Indian School Legacy Project...............................................44
Programs: Housing and Homeownership.........................................................................44
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................48
AMERICAN INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS..........................................................................48
National Urban Indian Family Coalition..............................................................48
AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS........................................................................................49
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............................................49
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights ..........................................................................51
AMERICAN POLITICIANS...............................................................................................55
Bernie Sanders.......................................................................................................55
3
Hillary Clinton.......................................................................................................56
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................58
THE FUTURE - . . . and How to Increase its Visibility.....................................................58
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................59
APPENDICES...............................................................................................................................60
APPENDIX A – Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543........60
APPENDIX B – The Federal Trust Responsibility............................................................79
APPENDIX C – Housing Act of 1937................................................................................82
APPENDIX D – Native American Programs as a Percentage of HUD Appropriation, FY

1998-2004..........................................................................................................................95
APPENDIX E – Unmet Needs in Indian Country, by Agency...........................................96
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The existence of American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) has been known to those
who identify as “White” since the end of the 15th century. In the centuries that followed, the trust
relationship established between the U.S. Federal Government and AI/AN proved to be futile
and unreliable. Due to the inadequate attention given to the Native population, the “invisible”
minority is an appropriate epithet to identify American Indians and Alaska Natives. Today,
AI/AN are visibly seen in increasing numbers in metropolitan areas; however, the attention given
by the U.S. Federal Government is decreasing. As urban Indians struggle to balance a life in
which the possibilities of urban America are endless, rural Native traditions and support for the
construction and maintenance of housing are swiftly coming to an end. American Indian
organizations (e.g. National Urban Indian Family Coalition [NUIFC]) seek to aid these
individuals in striking a balance despite the lack of support provided by the U.S. Federal
Government agencies. In particular, the Office of Native American Programs within the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development does not offer the financial support that urban
Indians ought to receive in order to live a happy, healthy and “home”-ly lifestyle.
Three organizations across the United States have made an effort to right HUD’s wrong:
Little Earth (Minneapolis, MN), Native America Youth and Family Center (Portland, Oregon)
and Native American Connections (Phoenix, Arizona). What is of significance in their approach
is the recognition that BUILDING COMMUNITY precedes BUILDING HOUSING. AI/AN
organizations and predominantly “White” organizations and politicians have begun to recognize
the significance of this approach. Policy recommendations are directed towards to the U.S.
Federal Government and the AI/AN community. The former ought to stay true to its relationship
with the Native population by dedicating the effort, time and money to these much deserved
recipients. The latter ought to stay true to rural Native traditions by dedicating the effort, time
and money to make urban Indians feel at home off reservations. It is by first seeking the
existence of American Indians and Alaska Natives off reservations – and by abiding by the
values of rural Indian culture still present on reservations – that the voice of urban Indians can be
heard. It is by then obtaining the attention of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development that the current issue of housing and homeless can be addressed and put to rest.
5
BACKGROUND
THE PAST – “Relationships” between American Indians and the U.S. Government
“In 1492” is a well-known poem detailing the history of Christopher Columbus, who “In
fourteen hundred ninety-two / […] sailed the ocean blue” (1-2). The couplet is arguably one of
the most well-known pair of poetic lines in the United States. What are less well-known are the
following couplets:
“Indians! Indians!” Columbus cried;
His heart was filled with joyful pride.
But “India” the land was not;
It was the Bahamas, and it was hot.
The Arakawa [sic] natives were very nice;
They gave the sailors food and spice
(“In 1492” 17-22)
The Arawak could not have foreseen the beginning of an end to homeownership. In 1493, Pope
Nicholas V issued a law that granted Spain dominion over the Americas. The promotion of
colonization and exploitation of non-Christian nations set a precedent. Four centuries later, the
U.S. Supreme Court looked towards the practices of European nations to determine how the
nascent country would treat its indigenous people in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) (see Appendix
A) (Alba).
In the 1830s, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
acknowledged tribes as “domestic dependent nations” with self-governing status.1 The former
court case acted as the groundwork for the trust – government-to-government – relationship
between American Indians and the U.S. The three essential elements of the trust relationship are
land, self-governance and social services. The self-governing American Indian tribes
relinquished their land for social services granted by the U.S. federal government.2 The U.S.
Constitution and Supreme Court decisions, treaties and legislation uphold the trust relationship
and hold the federal government accountable – at least, they do on paper (Alba). According to
1
Worcester v. Georgia (1832) formalized in American law a sovereign government-to-government relationship
between the U.S. Government and American Indian tribes (Comenote).
2
In retrospect, the deal between the U.S. Federal Government and the American Indians did not balance out in terms
of housing. By surrendering the millions of acres of lands, American Indians relocated to unfamiliar and
undeveloped regions. The social services did not offer a significant source of support in regards to building
traditional Native housing structures in the middle of nowhere (Alba).
6
the Federal Trust Responsibility (see Appendix B), the Congressional and Executive branches of
the U.S. federal government ensure
1. The protection of Indian trust land and Indian rights to use those lands;
2. The protection of tribal sovereignty and rights of self-governance; and
3. The provision of basic social, medical and educational services for tribal members
(Comenote).
The American Indian Policy Review Commission states, “The purpose behind the trust is and
always has been to ensure the survival and welfare of Indian tribes and people” (Alba).
Despite the reassurances by Congress and the White House, American Indians were
denied their primary means of sustenance and basic civil rights throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th
centuries. To American Indians, civil rights were the collective entitlements for which their
ancestors bargained; however, the segregation of “Indians” and “Coloreds” from “Whites” did
not reflect this point of view.3 Policy of removal and segregation shifted towards one of forced
acculturation during the Termination Era (1946-1965) (Alba). Hundreds of thousands of
American Indians underwent the process of urbanization through relocation. In 1976, the
American Indian Policy Review Commission correlated the significant number of American
Indians relocating to metropolitan areas to the high rates of unemployment and social and
economic issues on reservations. American Indians struggled in the transition to an urban life
due to the lack of necessary support and understanding common to their reservations. 4 On the
contrary, the federal government had reassured these individuals of the opportunity to build new
lives in cities. To ease them into an urban life, the policy provided transportation to a
metropolitan area (Urban Indian America).5
The implicit mission of the Congressional and Executive branches in the years of the
Termination Era was to put an end to the “Indian problem” and to reduce the need for the federal
government to fund services for American Indians on reservations (Urban Indian America).
3
Today, American Indians are entitled to protections and opportunities granted to any racial, ethnic, or religious
group in the United States. However, American Indians have a special status due to being the original inhabitants of
North America and for being a self-governing people (Alba). Irrespective of the entitlements and special status of
American Indians, unequal housing opportunities and the unacceptable standards at which they are held are in
violation of American Indian civil rights. These violations are concrete evidence of the U.S. Federal Government’s
failure to live up to its promises.
4
It is a proven fact that the U.S. Federal Government has initiated programs that rely on block grants to states,
which tend to underpay American Indians. This is in direct violation of the basic tenets of the trust relationship with
the U.S. federal government. In order to receive their fair share, tribes must negotiate. A fair number of American
Indians do not have access at all to these programs due to not meeting specific prerequisites on account of
geographic isolation or due to the complexity of application processes. In particular, urban Indians are the
individuals who struggle the most since programs tend to be directed to the Native population in Indian Country
rather than the significant Native population in urban areas (Alba).
5
The policy had unforeseen consequences for the Native population due to the long distance between the final
destination and the point of origin (i.e. the reservation). The population that later became known as urban Indians
hardly ever had the chance to return to their home reservation and their sense of a specific tribal identity diminished
greatly in time (Urban Indian America).
7
Congress’ explicit mission was to establish treaties with the American Indians in order to satisfy
the requirements of the trust relationship. Since the Termination Era, Congress has passed laws
to augment “Indian self-determination” – Indian Education Act of 1972, Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act of 1978. In spite of the efforts taken by the Congressional branch, the lack of effort
taken by the federal government to provide the necessary resources and infrastructure to tribes
undermines “Indian self-determination” (Alba).6
THE PRESENT – The Diminishing “Invisible” Minority . . .
The responsibility of ensuring “Indian self-determination” in regards to adequate housing

is of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In 1921, the
U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs was granted the authority to provide
housing assistance on reservations. Forty years later, the Housing Act of 1937 (see Appendix C)
was redirected to Indian reservations and the Public Housing Administration (PHA) came into
being.7 Through PHA, tribes had the ability to establish Indian Housing Authorities to apply for
and receive federal housing funds.8 Through collaboration between PHA and BIA, the Mutual
Help Home Ownership Opportunity Program allowed American Indians to move from leasing to
owning single-family homes – an indication of “Indian self-determination”.9 To consolidate the
increasing number of housing programs, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development was created in 1965 (Alba).
Research proves that by fostering “Indian self-determination” and providing tribes with
local control housing funds enable them to better meet the needs of their members. HUD
provides aid in the form of funds for housing construction; funds for maintenance of low-income
rental units; and loan guarantee assistance of ownership.10 Its Indian Home Loan Guarantee
Program (Section 184) has successfully increased homeownership; however, due to inadequate
6
During the Civil Rights Movement, the U.S. Federal Government was aware of the need to establish a
comprehensive Indian policy to acknowledge historical treaties. It could have been met through legislation that
showed support for American Indian self-determination. This course of action would have maintained the federal
protective role of the U.S. Federal Government and increased tribal participation in political matters (Alba).
7
The Housing Act of 1937 was not originally directed towards AI/AN. Its objective was broad: to establish the
United States’ intention to eliminate unsanitary and unsafe housing conditions for poor American families. The fact
that today it is interpreted as directed towards AI/AN, demonstrates a post-World War II shift in federal policy away
from Native self-determination and from a reliable federal trust responsibility (Alba).
8
Public Housing Administration (PHA) is a housing improvement program based on a 1961 task force, which made
the Bureau of Indian Affairs aware of the urgent need for AI/AN housing. Throughout the 1970s, reservation
housing programs struggled financially and administratively. The BIA quickly realized the task of eliminating
housing disparities in Indian Country would be more difficult than had been previously anticipated in the 1960s
(Alba).
9
The Mutual Help Home Ownership Opportunity Program proved to be ineffective to a degree – the poor
economies on reservations prohibited members to pay the cost of monthly payments, utilities and home maintenance
(Alba).
10
Nearly all housing on reservations is provided through U.S. Federal Government-sponsored programs. In fact,
HUD created a separate Native housing program and the Office of the Native American Programs with the passage
of the Indian Housing Act in 1988 (Alba).
8
income or poor credit histories, American Indians struggle to find the means to participate in the
program. Its Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) provides funds
directly to tribes or tribal housing entities; therefore, urban American Indians cannot benefit from
its services. Furthermore, American Indians who – choose or are forced to – leave reservations
tend to not be financially prepared for the higher costs of housing in metropolitan areas. It is for
this reason that HUD may be held ir-responsible in its role. The United States Commission on
Civil Rights points out that, “Housing needs on reservations and tribal lands cannot be met with
the same interventions that HUD uses to meet rental housing or homeownership goals in the
suburbs or inner cities” (Alba).
Definition of “Urban Indian”
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights firmly believes that, “The federal
government must make a strong commitment to address the housing needs of Native
Americans and to expedite the process by which funds reach the people who need them
most.” In fact, housing experts determined that lack of funding is the number one barrier
to adequate housing on and off reservations (Alba). Individuals who live on reservations
and those who live off reservations are the two populations within the broad category of
American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). The latter population possesses a
triplicate citizenship – that of a member of a homeland; a citizen of the United States; and
as the resident of a city (Comenote). As a resident of an urban area, the AI/AN individual
who resides off reservation is an urban Indian. Within the subcategory of urban Indian
are four designations according to the length of residency:
1. Long term resident: An AI/AN residing in an urban area for an

undetermined period of time;
2. Forced resident: An AI/AN forced to relocate to an urban area due to
government policy or to access specialized services;
3. Permanent resident: An AI/AN permanently relocated to an urban area
to build a new life; and
4. Medium and short term visitor: An AI/AN not intending on staying
permanently in an urban area.
According to the National Urban Indian Family Coalition (NUIFC), urban Indians
are “individuals of American Indian and Alaska Native ancestry who may or may not
have direct and/or active ties with a particular tribe, but who identify with and are at least
somewhat active in the Native community in their area”. According to federal laws, an
urban Indian qualifies as such if the individual is of Native descent and is a member of a
federally recognized tribe or has a certain level of Indian blood. Urban Indians reject the
latter form of qualification due to the fact that the criteria of tribal affiliation and
intermarriage are lenient as a result of federal policy (Urban Indian America). As of
2010, 5.2 million United States citizens identify as AI/AN alone or in combination (78%
9
live off reservations) and 2.9 million identify as AI/AN alone (67% live off reservation).
According to the 2010 Census Bureau, the poverty level of the aforementioned
population is greater than that of the general population of the United States – one in four
AI/AN live in poverty (Expert Panel on Homelessness).
Weighing the Consequences of Rural Indian Traditions
Dean Sommer-Pedebone, the Senior Manager of Housing Services for Cook Inlet
Housing Authority in Alaska, states that 85% of the homeless population in Anchorage,
Alaska is Alaska Natives (AN). Sommer-Pedebone explains the reasoning behind this
statistic:
The shift from traditional lifestyles in rural Alaska, where each individual
has a place and is an important component of the community, to urban
settings where ethnic discrimination toward Alaska Natives is apparent in
every setting, leaves many Alaska Natives flustered and distraught. Many
factors – the extreme cost of living, inadequate or substandard housing,
lack of medical care, lack of opportunities for education and employment
– have led numerous Alaska Native people from the home communities to
rural hubs or urban settings.
Alaska Native Joseph S. Arabie affirms that, “We come to the city and don’t understand
the western world, and lose the identity of our Native lifestyle and become a nobody.”
Discrimination is not specific to Alaska Natives; American Indians throughout the United
States are affected. Native American Health Center’s Program and Clinical Director for
Outpatient Health Services, Nelson Jim (Navajo Nation), justifies Arabie’s use of the
term nobody:
... Because Native Americans do not have a specific ‘neighborhood’ or

community in many urban settings ... they are generally very dispersed
through the rest of the larger ethnic and cultural communities, very
invisible to service providers. Thus, they are generally not engaged for
community input, outreach, services, etc (Expert Panel on Homelessness).
Nelson Jim acknowledges miscommunication between service providers and the

American Indians they are serving. “Lack of culturally and linguistically competent staff
often leads poor basic outreach and engagement strategies to effectively and regularly
meet the needs of homeless Native Americans;” however, “Cultural belief and practices
of many Native Americans can lead to homelessness”.11 For example, Maria Yellow
11
Nelson Jim continues by pointing a finger to non-Natives by saying that, “Cultural nuances that are part of such
decisions are very rarely understood, assessed for, or, if they are revealed, addressed with sensitivity.” In other
words, the homelessness faced by many Native Americans is in part due to the cultural insensitivity of non-Natives
(Expert Panel on Homelessness).
10
Horse Brave Heart, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Director of Native American
and Disparities Research at the University of Mexico, explains that non-Indians may
withdraw an offer of housing to an AI/AN due to misunderstanding a Native form of
expression or a tradition (i.e. an unexpected departure to attend a ceremony) (Expert
Panel on Homelessness).
11
EXISTING POLICY
WHO – Who Advocates for Urban American Indians?
National Urban Indian Family Coalition
Reflecting the lack of progress in addressing the current issues at hand, the
number of organizations that are fighting for the cause of American Indians off
reservations is limited. The National Urban Indian Family Coalition (NUIFC), however,
is at the forefront of the battle to raise awareness of traditionally-excluded urban Indian
families. Established in 2003, the NUIFC has been focused on its mission to build a
network of urban Indian organizations that raises the voice of urban American Indians
and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) and preserves the indigenous culture for over a decade. 12 By
the means of the network, cultural identity, education and the prospect of healthy families
serve as short-term effects in the long-term cause to bridge the gap between Native tribal
governments, American Indian institutions and the U.S. Federal Government. To achieve
the goal, the NUIFC conducts research on the conditions of urban Indian living and
grants opportunities to critically needed resources. The former strategy is at the core of its
mission because of the requisite involvement of tribal entities and American Indian
organizations. By sharing data, program models, policy critiques and best practices all
parties involved benefit. Moreover, the goals to
1. integrate urban Indian issues in policy discussion and implementation;

2. build mutual relationships with tribal governments to better the lives of urban
AI/AN;
3. increase awareness of the obstacles in the way of urban Indian families;
4. develop strategies and best practice models to overcome the aforementioned
obstacles; and
5. preserve indigenous culture in urban communities
are nearer in reach (“NUIFC”).
U.S. Federal Government Agencies
Evidence of the trust – government-to-government – relationship between

American Indians and the U.S. Federal Government is shown by six agencies: the
Department of Agriculture; the Department of Education; the Department of Health and
Human Services; the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of
the Interior; and the Department of Justice. These half dozen agencies are those with the
largest expenditures on Native American programs. The Department of Agriculture’s
12
A forum convened by the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation served as the precedent of the National Urban
Indian Family Coalition. The main subject of the forum was the current issues facing urban Indians nationwide
(“NUIFC”).
12
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR); the Department of
Education’s Office of Indian Education (OESE); the Department of Health and Human
Services’ Indian Health Service (IHS); and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) (Alba). The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
Office of Native American Program (ONAP) administers housing and community
development programs. The recipients include American Indian and Alaska Native tribal
entities; Native Hawaiians and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; and Native
American organizations. ONAP’s mission is to make available safe and sanitary
affordable housing to Native Americans; to build communities by improving living
conditions and creating economic opportunities; and to ensure fiscal integrity in
operations (“Indian Housing”).
WHAT – What ONAP Programs Apply to Urban American Indians?
The following programs – specifically designed for Native Americans – are provided by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development: Indian Community Development Block
Grant; Indian Housing Block Grant; Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act; Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program (Section 184); Title VI Loan
Guarantee Program; and Tribal HUD-VASH. Out of the aforementioned half dozen programs,
one is applicable to urban American Indians: the Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program. Under
Section 184, home mortgage loans are effective on and off native lands for the purpose of new
construction, rehabilitation or the purchase of an already existing home. The Office of Loan
Guarantee is self-explanatory in its duty to Native borrowers. Additionally, by encouraging
lenders to serve Native communities, the value of Native American assets; the financial standing
of Native communities; the access to capital for American Indians; and the private funding
opportunities for tribal housing agencies increase (“Indian Housing”).
Instituted under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, the Indian
Home Loan Guarantee Program has since proven to be a success (Alba). As of 31 March 2016,
33,000 loans (more than $5.4 billion in guaranteed funds) have been guaranteed to individuals,
tribes, and Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHE) (“Indian Housing”). According to the
Housing Assistance Council, Section 184 is the most widely used financial product to encourage
private lending on restricted land.13 Irrespective of this statistic, Section 184 does not prove
fruitful to the low-income Native Americans who cannot afford to purchase a home (Alba).
WHERE – Where Do ONAP Programs Receive Funding?
Irrespective of whether or not the Department of Housing and Urban Development

recognizes the limited resources available to urban American Indians and Alaska Natives
(AI/AN) within the Office of Native American Programs, its obligation to provide safe and
13
The Indian Loan Guarantee Program (Section 184) has served as the primary source of mortgage financing for
moderate-income families living on reservations (Alba).
13
sanitary housing to Native Americans in general is not being adequately fulfilled. During the six-
year period between 1998 and 2003, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights calculated that the
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s total budget authority increased by
approximately 62%; its discretionary authority increased by 54%; and funding for Native
American programming increased by 8.8%. These percentages do not take into consideration
inflation; thus, after adjusting for inflation; the percentages change to + 46.5%; + 39.6%; – 1.3%,
respectively. In the final fiscal year of the six-year period (2003), the Department received a
budget of approximately $34 billion – $30.4 billion for discretionary programs. Out of the latter
number, a mere 2.4% ($731 million) was received by Native American programs (see table 1)
(Alba).14
Table 1 – HUD Budget Authority, Discretionary Budget, and Native American Program Funding,
FY 1998-2004 (in millions of dollars) (Alba)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004*

Budget Authority 21,022 26,344 24,324 32,370 35,578 33,966 34,981
Percent change from previous year 25.3% (7.7%) 33.1% 9.9% (4.5%) 1.5%
Constant 2003 dollars** 23,182 28,594 25,738 33,499 36,256 33,966 34,339
Discretionary Authority 19,744 22,163 21,111 28,357 31,428 30,400 31,301
Percent change from previous year 12.3% (4.8%) 34.3% 10.8% (3.3%) 1.3%
Constant 2003 dollars 21,773 24,056 22,338 29,346 32,026 30,400 30,727
Native American Programs 672.0 693.6 693.0 725.4 735.2 731.2 731.1
Percent change from previous year 3.1% (0.1%) 4.7% 1.4% (0.5%) 0
Constant 2003 dollars 741.0 752.2 733.3 750.9 749.6 731.2 717.7
* Estimate based on 2004 budget request.
** To adjust for inflation, the composite deflators used by the Office of Management and Budget and provided in
the 2003 Budget of the United States were used.
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2004, tables 5.2 and 5.4, pp.
95-95, 103-04; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Budget, “Indian and Hawaiian
Appropriation and Disbursements, 1998 through 2003,” submitted via facsimile, Apr. 17, 2003.
The term “received” is key – even though the Department of Housing and Urban
Development acquired appropriations to fund $3.52 billion in grants between 1998 and 2002,
$3.37 billion was actually disbursed to the Native American programs (see table 2). In other
words, approximately $151 million was not received by the programs during the five-year period
(see figure 1). Since the Native American programs are not directly service-driven, the support
provided through grants has not sufficiently addressed the housing needs of the AI/AN
population.15 Senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Daniel Inouye wrote in a letter to the
Senate Committee on the Budget that
14
HUD’s budget devoted to Native American grant programs was originally 3.2% in 1998. The decline in funding
over the period 1998-2003 demonstrates diminishing purchasing power (see Appendix D) (Alba).
15
The fact that money promised to the AI/AN population is not being received indicates the logic of the
population’s status as the “invisible minority.” Even though the origin of the epithet is in the AI/AN’s small number
yet large geographic diaspora, it appears as though HUD literally cannot find the recipients of the funding (Alba).
14
Tribes’ housing needs remain disproportionately high compared with their
housing block grant. As a result, tribal housing entities are only able to maintain
their housing status quo and have had difficulty making headway to addressing
their members’ overall needs” (Alba).
Granted, Senators Campbell and Inouye are addressing the difficulties of TDHEs and their
members; however, urban Indians fall under the category of on reservation TDHE members if
and when the individuals resort to moving back to reservations for a number of reasons. In
calculations based on housing unit waiting lists, these formerly urban Indians are not taken into
consideration; hence, the estimation tends to be underestimated. For example, NAHASDA
facilitated the construction or renovation of approximately 25,000 homes in Indian Country as of
April 2002. The five-digit number is overshadowed by the underestimated immediate need of
200,000 Native American housing units. At that time, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development itself estimated that the current NAHASDA funding would only meet 5% of the
need for housing and that over 230,000 units would still be in need for Native American families
residing in Indian Country (Alba).16 Considering that NAHASDA does not directly benefit urban
American Indians – including those that may revert back to living on reservations due to
unprecedented circumstances –, the issues being raised in metropolitan areas by American
Indians need to be addressed as soon as possible.
Table 2 – Actual Disbursements of Native American/Native Hawaiian Grant Funds, FY 1998-2002

(in millions of dollars) (Alba)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Native American Housing Block Grant 452.9 596.9 643.5 684.0 713.1
Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.0 0.8
Indian Community Development Block Grant 45.4 52.5 49.8 58.2 64.3
Native Hawaiian Block Grant -- -- -- -- --
Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Program -- -- -- -- 0.035
Total 500.3 651.2 694.9 743.2 778.3
Note: Because the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ “A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs In Indian
Country” was drafted midyear 2003, actual disbursements for 2003 were not yet available; numbers are rounded.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Budget, “Indian and Hawaiian
16
The problem of underfunding may be resolved to some degree by a uniform reporting requirement. The U.S.
Federal Government has yet to reinforce one; hence, there are no accurate and comprehensive records of its
expenditures on Native American programs (see “’Keep Counting” or “Keep Count’ on the Federal Government”).
The only method employed is through the annual appropriations bill under the Department of Interior and Related
Agencies, in which the “Federal Funding of Indian Programs” is broadly listed by department. The caveat “to some
degree” is due to the fact that with the need far exceeding the amount of funding that TDHEs are currently – and
may in the future be – receiving, it is only the status quo that can be maintained (Alba).
15
Figure 1 – Comparison of Native American Appropriations and Disbursements, FY 1998-2002
900
778.3
800 743.2
672 693.6 693
700
725.4 735.2
Dollars (in millions)
600 694.9
651.2
500
500.3
400
300
200
100
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Fiscal year
Appropriated amount Disbursed amount
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Budget, “Indian and Hawaiian
WHEN – If and When Do ONAP Programs Prove Fruitful?
Although it is evident that the needs of rural and urban Indians are not adequately being
met, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Native American Programs
has proved to be fruitful to some degree. The Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program (Section
184) assisted approximately 33,000 families over a period of 21 years. In 2015 alone, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development guaranteed 4,198 loans – at an average amount
of $175,820 – to build, buy, rehabilitate and refinance homes for AI/AN families (“Indian
Housing”).
WHY – Why are Urban Indian-Centered Policies Inexistent?
Despite the efforts of the National Urban Indian Family Coalition to raise awareness of
the obstacles overcoming urban Indian families and the aid – albeit limited – of the U.S. Federal
Government Agencies, American Indians and Alaska Natives continue to be overrepresented in
homelessness and underrepresented in home ownership. In 2011 and 2012, a series of eleven
round-table discussions examined the role of housing in depth.17 They arrived at the following
conclusions:
17
The round-table discussions were held in Los Angeles, CA; Oakland/San Francisco, CA; Denver, CO; Chicago,
IL; Minneapolis/St. Paul; MN; Albuquerque, NM; Buffalo, NY; Oklahoma City, OK; Portland, OR; San Antonio,
TX; and Seattle, WA (Making the Invisible Visible).
16
1. The lack of resources negatively serves the high rate of homelessness;
2. There is a connection between the need for supporting housing for Native American
transitions from reservations to cities;
3. Community organization employees served as makeshift transitional housing as they
struggled – and perhaps to no avail – to find community members who would offer to
lend a hand;
4. The lack of access to affordable housing is in part the result of the failure of housing
policies to focus enough – if any – attention on urban Indian communities;
5. The lack of effort working towards fostering home ownership for AI/AN in urban
communities; and
6. The lack of housing and programming for ex-offenders and their families during the
transition to city life (Making the Invisible Visible).
17
DATA
WHEN Revisited – The Rotten Fruits of the Federal Government
As previously mentioned in WHEN– If and When Do ONAP Programs Prove Fruitful?,

Indian Housing’s Office of Native American Programs proved to be successful to some degree in
the lives of American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). However, the degree to which these
instances take place appears to be too few to measure. In fact, by rejecting statistics at face value
to delve deeper into the issues at hand, one may – or may not – be surprised by the reality of the
federal funding of Native American programs, at large. In 1993, the budget authority for these
programs across federal agencies was approximately $5.6 billion. By 2003, the budget authority
had increased by 89% in actual dollars ($10.6 billion) (see figure 2). According to a member of
the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, despite a marked increase in government wide funding
during the turn of the century, the spending power of the Native American programs has declined
– and has been declining for decades!18 The statistic on the budget authority above should be
coupled with that of the entire budget authority. Over a period of ten years, it increased by 46.7%
- $1.47 trillion in 1993 to $21.6 trillion in 2003 (see table 3). The most important fact to be
gleaned is that Native American programs grew at a faster rate than total government spending;
still, these programs represented a mere 0.5% of the federal government’s total spending in 2003
(Alba).
18
The statistics analyzed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights account for inflation over the six year period from
1998 to 2003. In general, several individual programs under the U.S. Federal Government had lost spending power;
however, the IHS – the most significant source of federal spending on Native Americans – makes up a mere 0.5% of
the Department of Health and Human Services budget (Alba).
18
Figure 2: Actual and Constant Government Wide Spending on Native American Programs, FY 1993-2003
(Alba)
12000
10419 10577
9900
10000
10617 10577
8257 10245
7806
Dollars (in millions)
8000 778.3 7290

8473 8737
5970 735.2 8039
5586 5777 5703
6000 6810 7130
6740 6500
4000
2000
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Fiscal year
Actual dollars Constant 2003 dollars

Source: Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills: H.R. Rep. No. 102-116 (1991); H.R.
Rep. No. 103-158 (1993); H.R. Rep. No. 103-551 (1994); H.R. Rep. No. 104-173 (1995); H.R. Rep. No. 104-625
(1996); H.R. Rep. No. 105-163 (1997); H.R. Rep. No. 105-609 (1998); H.R. Rep. No. 106-222 (1999); H.R. Rep.
No. 106-646 (2000); and H.R. Rep. No. 107-564 (2002)
Table 3: DOJ Funding for Native American Programs in Real and Constant 2003 Dollars, FY 1998-2004
(in thousands of dollars) (Alba)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003* 2004**

OJP Activities
Real dollars 28,583 62,963 62,870 64,849 101,009 57,748 50,728
Other DOJ
Real dollars 90,482 118,965 132,147 146,920 157,672 164,604 169,844
Native American Programs
Real dollars 119,065 181,928 195,017 201,769 258,681 222,352 220,572
Note: To adjust for inflation, the composite deflators used by the Office of Management and Budget and provided in
the FY 2004 Budget of the United States were used. Dollar amounts are rounded.
* Enacted amounts.
** Estimate based on President’s budget request.
Sources: U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Budget Staff, “Detailed Federal Funding for
Government-wide Native American Programs,” submitted via facsimile, Apr. 10, 2003; U.S. Department of Justice,
Justice Management Division, Budget Staff, “FY 2004 Detailed Federal Funding for Government-wide Native
American Programs,” submitted via facsimile, Apr. 29, 2003.
19
Due to the exponential growth rate of the AI/AN population compared to the United
States population as a whole, it is clear that the overall spending increases have not yet been
translated to equivalent per capita spending increases. The federal government may argue that
funding for Native American programs in the 2003 fiscal year was $3.1 billion ($1.6 billion with
the adjustment for inflation) more than the 1998 fiscal year; however, the needs of the population
at hand have increased at an exponential rate compared to inflation. The period of 1975-1980
showed that per capita federal spending on AI/AN was higher than that of the general population.
A new trend appeared during the following five years as the expenditures on Native American
programs decreased and those on the general population increased. By 1985, data clearly
demonstrated per capital spending on AI/AN and the general population increasing at different
rates (Alba).
Addressing the Causes and Effects of HUD’s “Unmet Needs”
The difference in the rate of inflation of the federal government budget authority
and that of Native American program funding needs is most notoriously due to issues
arising from years of neglect. The term “unmet needs” covers the portion of “basic
needs” that the government ought to supply to a certain population but does not. In 1999,
AI/AN leaders announced to Congress that the collective unmet needs of the AI/AN
population were estimated at over $899 million. By 2001, Congress and the executive
branch collectively estimated the unmet needs of Native American school facilities
nationwide were $1 billion. In regards to achieving health care parity, it would take
another $1.8 billion. The executive branch took action in 2003 with the President’s
budget request for Native American programs (see table 4); nevertheless, it did not
provide “the resources necessary to effectively address or remedy the longstanding
problems in Indian Country” according to the chair and vice chair of the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee (Alba).
20
Table 4: HUD Budget Authority for Native American Programs, FY 1998-2004 (in millions of dollars)
(Alba)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004*

Native American Housing Block Grant 600.0 620.2 620.0 648.6 648.6 644.8 646.6
NAHASDA Loan Guarantee Program** 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 1.0
Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program 5.0 6.4 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.3 1.0
Indian Community Development Block 67.0 67.0 67.0 70.8 70.0 70.5 72.5
Grant
Native Hawaiian Block Grant -- -- -- -- 9.6 9.5 10.0
Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee -- -- -- -- 1.0 1.0 1.0
Program
Total 672.0 693.6 693.0 725.4 735.2 731.1 731.1
Constant 2003 dollars 741.0 752.8 733.3 750.7 749.2 731.1 717.1
Note: Includes rescissions of 0.22 percent for 2001 and 0.65 percent for 2003; numbers are rounded.
* Estimate based on 2004 budget request.
** Set-aside that comes out of the total Indian housing block grant. Although it is reported separately in
appropriations, it is not included in the totals to avoid duplication.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Budget, “Indian and Hawaiian
Appropriation and Disbursements, 1998 through 2003,” submitted via facsimile, Apr. 17, 2003; U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Summary, appendix B,
<http://www.hud.gov/about/budget/fy04/appendixb.pdf>.
The result of deficient funding levels for Native American programs is poor living
conditions in communities. In fact, the living conditions of no other population in the
United States can match those of the Native communities in terms of persistent, poverty,
poor health, substandard housing and education.19 This reflects the fact that AI/AN often
receive fewer services and less funding than other U.S. populations. The lack of funding
for infrastructure that supports services, programs and product delivery amplifies the
overarching problem of the absence of basic infrastructure. Among the long list of
specific programs (see Appendix E) that are not adequately funded in accordance with
the true costs of delivery or the needs of the AI/AN population is affordable urban
housing. Existing housing structures off and on reservations are substandard. While one
in twenty homes nationwide is considered to be inadequate, two in five on-reservation
homes are designated the same. On-reservation homes lack complete plumbing and
telephone services by 20% and 16%, respectively. Compared to their non-Native
American counterparts, AI/AN tend to wait twice as long for subsidized housing and to
have less access to homeownership resources on account of limited access to credit, land
ownership restrictions, geographic isolation and harsh environmental conditions that
make construction difficult and expensive (Alba).20
19
The inadequacy of the resources provided by the U.S. Federal Government is due to the lack of funding dedicated
to the Native population. As a result, 25% of Native Americans live in poverty (“Empowering Tribal Nations”).
20
An interdependent relationship has been established between accessibility to fair credit and housing for AI/AN
(“Empowering Tribal Nations”).
21
Inequalities between “All Men Created Equal”
The Department of Housing and Urban Development defines housing

affordability as dedicating 30% or less of a household’s income to housing (i.e. rent and
utilities). Irrespective of its definition, nearly half of AI/AN renters pay more than 30% of
their total income toward rent.21 At that rate, it comes as no surprise that urban Indians
are three times more likely to be homeless than non-Indians. According to the Harvard
Project 2004 and the U.S. Census 2000, 69.3% and 30.7% of the White (non-Hispanic)
population are homeowners and renters, respectively. In comparison, a decreased value of
53.3% and an increased value of 46.7% of the AI/AN population are homeowners and
renters, respectively. Even the quality of homes owned reaffirms the inequality between
the White and AI/AN populations. The median value of a home owned by a White
individual is $174,000. That of an AI/AN owner-occupied home is $127,000. In these
homes, the rate at which basic services are lacking is outstanding. The absence of
plumbing facilities is almost twice the rate of non-Indian urban residents; that of kitchen
facilities is twice the rate; and that of telephone services is greater than three times the
rate (“Empowering Tribal Nations”).
Off-reservation populations cited the following as the greatest barriers into getting
into housing: background and credit checks; deposits/down payment requirements; lack
of affordable housing stock; and low income. Although the previous reasons justify the
number of AI/AN residing in metropolitan areas being significantly lower than for other
populations, similar barriers on reservations may attribute to the higher rates of mobility
among urban Indians than non-Indians. From 1985 to 1990, 37% of Native American
families moved to a different home within the same county; 22% moved to a different
county altogether. During the same time period, only 42% of the non-Native American
population moved within and between counties (“Empowering Tribal Nations”).
“Keep Counting” or “Keep Count” on the Federal Government?
The degree of mobility prevalent in the American Indian and Native Alaskan
population is just one of the forms in which instability takes place in the lives of AI/AN.
These individuals could gain the stability that they lack if the federal government paid
greater attention to its jurisdiction of the Native American programs. Due to jurisdictional
overlap, inadequate collaboration and a lack of articulation among government agencies,
inefficiency, service delay and wasted resources take a toll in Native communities. The
duration in which to build and repair homes is lengthened by the overlap in
responsibilities between the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development,
Health and Human Services, Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The lack of
coordination between agencies coupled with inadequate funding complicates the
21
In the extreme, 2% of Indian renters pay more than 50% of their monthly income toward rent (“Empowering
Tribal Nations”).
22
application and distribution processes; however, it is the lack of coordination within
agencies that may need to be paid greater attention. Individual agencies are expected to
report to the Office of Management and Budget the amount of money that is spent
annually on Native American programs. Since there are no guidelines on how the
information should be reported or what must be included, the collection of budget data is
compromised due to the lack of uniformity in reports (Alba).
The lack of a uniform report requirement for Native American program funding is
one example of how the federal government proves to be unsuccessful in its duty to keep
accurate and comprehensive records of its expenditures on Native American programs.
There is no housing organization that collects information on expenditures for Native
American housing compared to public subsidized housing. This is one of many analyses
that ought to be conducted to provide stability in the lives of AI/AN. Other such analyses
may include the construction costs in rural Native areas versus urban centers;
expenditures per housing unit and per resident; and the remaining unmet needs (Alba).
23
CASE STUDIES
Ironically, it was in the midst of the Termination Era that urban Indian centers came into
existence – the Phoenix Indian Center (1947), the Chicago Indian Center (1953), and The
Intertribal Friendship House (1954). Together with the American Indian Movement in the 1960s
and 1970s, organized protests coerced the U.S. federal government to provide funding for
services at 58 urban Indian centers (1970). As a result, an estimated off-reservation population of
150,000 American Indians benefitted. As the number of urban Indian centers has grown, so has
their importance to the lives of urban Indians. For long term, forced and permanent residents,
urban Indian centers grant individuals the opportunity to become knowledgeable about their
indigenous culture and to claim their Indian identity. For medium and short term residents, they
provide a way of sustaining indigenous culture in a context that prevents regular visits to
reservations.
LITTLE EARTH | Minneapolis, MN
Established in 1973, Little Earth is a 9.4-acre, 212-unit HUD-subsidized housing

complex in the East Phillips neighborhood of South Minneapolis. It is the only American-Indian
preference project-based section 8 rental assistance community in the United States. 98% of its
one thousand residents are American Indians that are part of 32 tribes. Since its conception, the
mission of Little Earth has been to create affordable housing; however, Little Earth could hardly
afford to stay open. Within three years, Little Earth struggled with financial and managerial
problems due to substandard construction of units. To address the problems, a new Board of
Directors – whose members were amongst the most prominent American Indian leaders –
incorporated itself as Little Earth of United Tribes. In addition to a restructuring of management,
the Little Earth of United Tribes selected the American Indian Movement (AIM) to take the reins
in managing the property. Less than ten years later, the Little Earth Residents Association
(LERA) came into being as a 501 (c)3 nonprofit organization to “unify a culturally strong and
healthy Little Earth Community, building self esteem and instilling self determination in our
residents”. LERA provided Little Earth residents the means by which to raise concerns. In doing
so, the organization’s core values are continuously reinforced:
1. Reawaken and Strengthen Our Culture

2. Live Respect and Accountability
3. Inform and Empower
4. Expect Education
5. Create Hope in Countless Ways
6. Grow Self-Determination (“Little Earth of United Tribes”)
LERA is just one of four organizations that work together to promote American Indian
self-determination. The second of which is the Little Earth of United Tribes Housing Corporation
(LEUTHC), which is the result of reorganization due to post-1980s and early 1990s struggles.
24
LEUTCH is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization whose mission is “to provide members of the
American Indian community with the opportunity to live cooperatively in attractive and
affordable homes”. LEUTCH is responsible for the operation and maintenance of Little Earth
properties and is in charge of communications within the Little Earth community and with the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. As the units and grounds improved; new
educational and social service programs developed; and the community’s finances restructured
through the late 1990s, the Little Earth Neighborhood Early Learning Center (NELC) came into
being in 1998. The 501(c)3 nonprofit provides “a community owned center [the Neighborhood
Early Learning Center facility] whose leadership is committed to working with the Little Earth
housing community, American Indian families and the Phillips Neighborhood to maintain a
neighborhood facility for culturally based early childhood education”. In partnership with
Hennepin County, NELC provides access to early childhood development programs managed by
non-profit tenants and parenting education and family support services through the Omniciye
program. Nearly ten years later, Little Earth had the means by which to self-manage and control
its properties through the establishment of the Limited Liability Corporation, Little Earth
Management (LEM) (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
Little Earth’s “Philosophy of Change” and “10 Year Plan”
“All Indian people deserve to dream and deserve access to the skills they need to achieve
their dreams”. This statement is the philosophy that the Little Earth of United Tribe lives by.
Little Earth of United Tribes strives to show the urban Indians of Minneapolis the path from
entitlement to empowerment. Dubbed “Philosophy of Change”, it is a four-stage revitalization
process, which encompasses
1. Community stability, in which individuals do not feel inhibited from participation

in community activities;
2. Creating hope in individuals that each one is an agent of change;
3. Fostering growth by providing the tools to take the first step towards change; and
4. Achievement as the indication that the revitalization of a community through
constructive engagement between parties (i.e. community organizations,
governments, foundations, etc.) is a reality (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
In order for the “Philosophy of Change” to take hold as a reality for the community members
of Little Earth, Little Earth of United Tribes enacted the “10 Year Plan”. The 10 Year Plan
targets the most prevalent problems in the community by introducing practical solutions.22 These
proposed solutions are split into four categories:
1. Children (i.e. early childhood education for those 0-5 years old)
22
The underlying intent of the 10 Year Plan is to pave the way for continued growth and instill a sense of hope in
the Little Earth community (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
25
2. Youth (i.e. educational youth development activities for those in kindergarten to
12th grade)
3. Family (i.e. employment opportunities and housing services)
4. Community (i.e. positive community-wide initiatives)
The 10 Year Plan, which began in 2008, comprises three phases. According to the Little Earth of
United Tribes, “Leveraging our initial achievements in Phase 1, we are close to reaching all
goals for Phase 2” (see table 5). Since the beginning of the program, Little Earth has successfully
raised household incomes, education levels, community volunteerism, and safety. 23 Table 5
details the latest status of the goals and progress of the second phase (2011-2013) (“Little Earth
of United Tribes”).
Table 5 – Current Status of 10 Year Plan Goals: Phase 2 (“Little Earth of United Tribes”)
Goal Progress
Children 75% of Little Earth (LE) children enrolled 70% of LE children are enrolled in a pre-school
in a pre-school program program
45% of LE parents enrolled in parent 35% of LE parents are enrolled in parent education
education programs programs
Youth 70% of LE youth will graduate from high 65% of LE youth graduate from high school
school
Family Construction of 10 new homes . . . 5 homes under construction
. . . purchased by LE residents 5 homes in acquisition/planning phase
33% of households will have employment 30% of households have employment income
income
Community 33% of LE households will be engaged in 45% of LE households are engaged in leadership
leadership programs/volunteerism programs/volunteerism
Community Transformation Plan (CTP): Addressing Current Issues in Urban Areas
As previously mentioned, Little Earth is the only American-Indian preference project-

based section 8 rental assistance community in the U.S. Little Earth assists the Minneapolitan
American Indian (AI) population of 25,601; however, the AI population of Denver (CO) and
Phoenix (AZ) reaches 20,786 and 43,724, respectively. The problem at hand is one of three
being addressed by Little Earth. The solution is to look up to Little Earth as a model for regional
expansion. Two additional problems are that of tribal designation and campus expansion. Little
Earth has constantly struggled to obtain funding as a non-tribal and non-profit organization;
hence, the housing complex has a waitlist of 500 individuals. This is due to the fact that most
governmental resources are reserved for federal and state recognized tribal entities. Little Earth
of United Tribes proposes a change to the language and eligibility designations of the allocation
of funds. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, less than a quarter of the U.S. population identified
as Native American (5,200,000) live on reservations. If the funds were allocated to expand its
reach to organizations off reservations, then Little Earth would have the means by which to
23
In the wake of increased safety, crime in the East Phillips neighborhood has decreased by 60% (“Little Earth of
United Tribes”).
26
expand its campus to townhomes with a mixed-use facility. Little Earth of United Tribes has in
mind to provide commercial vendors the opportunity to occupy the first level of an apartment
building to address food desert issues. According to the HUD Policy Development and Research
U.S. Subsidized Households 2008 report, a quarter of Little Earth households derive income
from welfare and 62% have an annual income less than $9,999.24 Of all U.S. HUD households,
9% derive income from welfare and 49% have an annual income less than $9,999 (“Little Earth
of United Tribes”).
A significant statistic from the HUD Policy Development and Research U.S. Subsidized
Households 2008 report is that in the East Phillips neighborhood of South Minneapolis, 42% and
88% of the population live in poverty and are minorities, respectively. These numbers are twice
the rate in communities typically surrounding U.S. HUD housing. 25 To address the
aforementioned issues, Little Earth of United Tribes has implemented a multifaceted poverty
reduction strategy. The core of the Community Transformation Plan (CTP) is the Little Earth
Home Ownership Initiative. The initiative aims to equip emerging homeowners with the
necessary skills to maintain a home. The Little Earth CTP Housing Policy serves as the Little
Earth Home Ownership Initiative’s “partner in crime”. The long-term initiative serves as a public
housing model to replicate in communities nationwide.26 Little Earth of United Tribes recognizes
the requisite of breaking the cycle of poverty in order to support Little Earth residents in their
efforts to live a happier life; hence, the Work Requirement grants access to residents to
volunteer, enroll in workforce training, and take part in educational opportunities. The Work
Requirement fosters community and personal responsibility, all the while reintegrating Little
Earth residents with the metropolitan community at large (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
Traditionally, reservations serve as a sense of place and understanding; on the contrary,

the sense of abandonment and misunderstanding felt by urban Indians contributes to an
overwhelming dependence on public assistance. The Community Transformation Plan seeks to
induce systemic change by initiating the transition from reliance on government programs to
self-determination for the community members of Little Earth. In short, the mission of the CTP
is to raise expectations and promote self-determination in the East Phillips neighborhood via
family-based and multi-service solutions. In order for community members to acquire the
necessary skill sets, economic and social support programs are an essential piece of the CTP
24
98% of Little Earth households receive an income of circa $8,500. 47% of the household heads are unemployed
and 65% of residents are on public assistance. It is interesting to note that 94% of the household heads are women
and 61% are single mothers. This number contrasts greatly to that of all U.S. HUD housing, which is at 38% (“Little
Earth of United Tribes”).
25
As expected, poverty is one of the most difficult hurdles for Little Earth residents to overcome. Due to the rate at
which poverty is affluent at Little Earth, a high percentage of residents have depended on public assistance and
subsidized housing for generations (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
26
Little Earth of United Tribes is itself a model to replicate due to its show of leadership at the forefront of American
Indian migration into urban areas. The most evident demonstration is in the form of its title as the first urban housing
complex with Native preference (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
27
puzzle.27 In fact, the following programs serve as the primary means by which Native solutions
are implemented to address Native problems (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).28
Programs: Children-Based
In partnership with non-profit organizations, Little Earth and the East Phillips
neighborhood access highly-rated preschool programs. The Four Directions Family Center is a
full-day childcare and preschool education for 16-month-olds to 12-year-olds. It is a Hennepin
County Strong Beginning program, National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC) accredited, and has received a Four Star rating from Parent Aware. The mission of the
Four Directions Family Center is to eliminate the barriers that prevent kindergarten readiness and
to empower parents to become involved in the education of their children. Services include a
range of therapies (i.e. occupational, physical, speech, individual play, etc.) and Ojibwe
Language Immersion in order to release trauma from the past and to embrace Native American
culture for the future (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).29
Programs: Youth-Based
Youth Development Programs (YDC) serve as a holistic after-school education center for
youth from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Its five core program areas are
1. Character and leadership development via culturally-specific activities (i.e.

regalia making and drum building);
2. Education and career development via programs to provide youth with “high
yield” activities of hands-on, interactive, critical thinking skills development
experiences (High Yield); to prepare six- to eighteen-year olds to achieve
academic success (Power Hour [“Making Minutes Count”]); and to prepare
twelve- to eighteen-year-olds for the working world (Career Launch);
3. Health and life skills via comprehensive understanding of healthy lifestyles in
order to prevent diabetes (On the T.R.A.I.L.);
4. The arts via programs to expose youth to new creative uses for technology (Club
Tech); to grant the opportunity to ten- to thirteen-year-olds to build and program
an environment-interactive robot (Robo Tech); to introduce digital photography
and picture composition to members of the Little Earth Boys and Girls Club
(Photo Tech); and
5. Sports and recreation.
27
Additionally, economic, educational, social and culturally-specific programs serve as a system of accountability
and set expectations to be met (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
28
The essence of the CTP is empowering Little Earth residents to put an end to generations of isolation and poverty
by initiating a cycle of economic and social revitalization in the community. This quality is visibly seen in the
opportunities and access to services involving education, transportation, the workforce, etc (“Little Earth of United
Tribes”).
29
Through the Ojibwe Language Immersion, students receive instruction in the Ojibwa language and take part in
activities that reflect Native American culture (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
28
The YDC aims to provide academic tutoring, access to technology, and a wide range of activities
in a safe and nurturing environment (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
In order to encourage Native American youth to attend school and overcome innate
generational barriers, the coordinators of School Success strive to provide the guidance and
advocacy requisite of an enriching and empowering educational environment. One means by
which this takes place is through partnerships with the public and charter schools of
Minneapolis. The staff at Wiconi Waste: College Prep are able coordinate resources, monitor
student attendance, assist in interventions and teach Life Skills training by this method. For the
young adults, College Success & Employment Navigation is a program that prepares students for
success in post-secondary education. According to the Little Earth website, there are currently
forty-five Native American students participating in the program. College Success &
Employment Navigation offers assistance in college and scholarship application processes. For
the individuals who choose not to attend a post-secondary education, resources for employment
post-graduation are available (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
Programs: Family-Based
Similar to School Success, the Homeownership Initiative partners with organizations in

order to provide the most for the residents of Little Earth. In particular, these partnerships offer
green jobs and skills training to teach Native Americans how to successfully maintain a home.
Additionally, this initiative aims to forge the path by rebuilding homes near East Phillips, South
Minneapolis. In regards to those residing within these homes, Resident Advocacy offers guidance
in the process of rebuilding positive relationships between family members. Advocates do so by
granting access to needed resources and pro-active preventative strategies to mediate housing
conflicts and to support healthy lifestyles within the family (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
Programs: Community-Based30
The importance of a healthy lifestyle extends beyond the walls of one home; however,
one healthy family may be the catalyst for the transformation of an entire community. Omniciye
– “coming together for a common purpose” in Lakota – focuses on the strengths of each family
in the Little Earth community to empower them towards holistic living. Since Omniciye is
located in the Neighborhood Early Learning Center on Little Earth property, it is able to
immediately offer resources – forms, telephones, computers, fax machines, etc. – and access to
Hennepin County services. One method in which Omniciye supports the residents of Little Earth
is through its Coaching Team. The Team uses the Omniciye Wheel of Wellness, which is based
on the belief that one can achieve one’s goals by living a life with a balanced mind-body-spirit
relationship. Specifically, via the Wheel of Wellness, the Coaching Team
30
One program that is not mentioned in the text is the community farm. The urban farm at Little Earth provides
healthy eating, healthy living and farming education; cooking classes; and physical exercise to residents who
participate (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
29
1. Provides crisis and case management services to promote family wellness (e.g. by
teaching families how to navigate Hennepin Country program services; by connecting
families to culturally-appropriate community resources);
2. Promotes self-determination and community connectedness (e.g. by meeting residents
wherever and whenever is most convenient; by providing residents the space,
language, and options to create goals; by helping members of the community become
cognizant of the value they bring to Little Earth); and
3. Nurtures the capability of the Little Earth community to better their lives (e.g. By
providing the necessary resources for individuals to find a balance between mind,
body, and spirit) (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
Evidently, the focus of the Wheel of Wellness in on each individual. It is the Community
Connector that focuses on the coming together of individuals to form the Little Earth
community. The Community Connector plans, coordinates, organizes, and promotes Little Earth
community events for the benefit of each sector (i.e. youth, elders, families). For example, in
regards to elders, it supports elder advocacy through promoting elder rights; the Elders’ Circle of
Support; and inter-generational opportunities. There are opportunities that target not one specific
sect of the community, but are granted to all members. These include general services, such as
on-site access to public assistance programs administered by Hennepin County. The
opportunities include culturally-specific services, as well. Examples of these services are
immediate counseling, chemical health assessment and referrals, child protection case plans,
Positive Indian Parenting, and Individualized Education Plan development (“Little Earth of
United Tribes”).
Wellbriety is a community-wide initiative that is similar in scope to Omniciye. Its goal is to

promote wellness, sobriety, and drug-free families. In order to achieve it, it takes advantage of
culturally-appropriate activities and educational opportunities for the residents. Wellbriety prides
itself on the following three methods:
1. Circle of Gentlemen: a literal circle of gentlemen that come together to talk about
their experiences of manhood and parenthood for the benefit of themselves and of
others;
2. Communication & Relationship Building: a group of individuals that come
together to talk about their experiences of relationships by making use of healthy
communications skills; and
3. Culturally-Specific Counseling: a walk-in and by-appointment service.
Wellbriety and Omniciye are two means by which the Little Earth community “[comes] together
for a common purpose”. As aforementioned, the importance of a healthy lifestyle extends
beyond the walls of one home. To ensure that the Little Earth community is able to transform for
the better and remain in a positive state of affairs, it encourages the members’ involvement in
safety and volunteering. Little Earth of United Tribes has partnered with Court Watch,
30
Community Court, and the MPD.net database in order to restore a sense of security to the East
Phillips neighborhood. By forging relationships with public safety practitioners, Little Earth has
taken part in an effort to reverse the crime trends of the neighborhood. Beyond the limits of the
neighborhood, Little Earth provides opportunities to volunteer to gain life skills and build human
capital. As the Native American members bring their skills and knowledge outside of the walls
of Little Earth, external volunteers bring theirs within (“Little Earth of United Tribes”).
NATIVE AMERICAN YOUTH AND FAMILY CENTER | Portland, Oregon
With 40,000 American Indians, Portland (Oregon) is the ninth largest urban Indian
community in the United States and the home of NAYA Family Center: Native American Youth
and Family Center.31 Its mission is “to enhance the diverse strengths of our youth and families in
partnership with the community through cultural identity and education”.32 Founded by
volunteers in 1974, NAYA is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization (est. 1994) that plays a role in
the lives of over 10,000 American Indians from over 380 tribal backgrounds each year. 33 Its
success is in part attributed to NAYA abiding by its ten core values:
1. Respect: “We believe in individual responsibility to show love, acceptance, and

kindness to everyone”;
2. Balance: “We value the importance of maintaining the many interrelating parts of
our lives and adapting to bring together old and new ways”;
3. Pride: “We show our pride by honoring our ancestors and our heritage, feeling
good about ourselves and our people, and taking care of each other”;
4. Giving: “We practice the value of generosity by putting the community before the
individual and honoring each other through service and respect”;
5. Community: “We value the interconnection that we have with each other, our
environment, and our shared traditions. We work collectively to honor the needs
of the community rather than the individual in order to create a safer environment
of caring, communication, and respect”;
31
The 40,000 American Indians make up a part of the Native population of Multnomah County. Within the county,
50% of American Indians live in deep poverty; 25% earn less than $24,000 a year; and a second 25% earn less than
$10,000 a year (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
32
Culture is at the heart of each and every action taken and word spoken by Native American Youth and Family
Center. By providing culturally-specific programs and services that steer American Indians towards personal success
through cultural empowerment, NAYA sustains traditions (e.g. respect for the environment, placing the community
before the individual) and increases cultural wealth. If traditions are sustained, the path towards regaining
sovereignty and a high self-esteem will be in sight (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
33
NAYA is a HUD-approved counseling agency, as well (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
31
6. Tradition: “We follow the practice of honoring and passing on our ancestors’
teachings. We believe that all tribes and cultures bring valuable and important
contributions to our community”;
7. Kindness: “We are mindful of how we relate and how our behaviors affect others.
We strive to live in a compassionate, gentle, caring, and trustworthy way toward
one another and our community”;
8. Accountability: “We own our responsibility for our actions and the results of those
actions. We are responsible for how we speak to and relate with each other, and
we admit it when we make mistakes”;
9. Diversity: “We embrace the diversity of our community and practice openness,
pride, and sharing to honor our differences”; and
10. Leadership: “We value and encourage the many kinds of leadership that we can
exhibit. We promote the growth of all of the many positive forms of leadership
that our community exhibits” (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
The traditions ingrained in the past of its Elder volunteers inspirit the present vision of the
future of NAYA Family Center and Portland’s Native community:
 “Our united and connected community celebrates our multicultural and multi-
tribal heritage as a source of strength”;
 “Our healthy community understands the connection between our environment,
our culture, our spirituality and our wellness”;
 “Our economically secure families thrive and live in homes that provide stability
and a place to practice culture and connection to community”; and
 “Our successful businesses support the entire Native community and its
property.”
The aforementioned four affirmations are the hopes and dreams of the Native American Youth
and Family Center for the year 2061. Although the realization of these hopes is determined to be
50 years in the future, NAYA Family Center has been working towards making these dreams a
reality.34 NAYA is led by a board of directors that focuses on making youth-centered, family-
driven, and elder-guided decisions (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
34
To this day, the progress that Native American Youth and Family Center has made is perceptible to politicians
who are in contact with NAYA. Joe Finkbonner, Executive Director of Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
Board, finds NAYA to be “a vital part of addressing the social and educational disparities facing the large and
vulnerable population of Native Americans in Portland.” Paul Lumley, Executive Director of Columbia River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission, shares a similar sentiment that “NAYA serves Portland’s urban Indian population in many
32
Programs: Children-Based and Youth-Based
The role of Native American children and youth to carry on the traditions and cultural
values of their forebears is not an easy one to play. Nevertheless, Native American Youth and
Family Center lends a hand in this feat. This mutually supportive relationship begins at the Early
College Academy (ECA), in which 9th-12th grade students are presented with a hands-on,
culturally-relevant, and student-centered learning community. The ECA Parent Council arranges
monthly meetings to guide the ECA in advocacy efforts. Instilling the ten core values of NAYA
(i.e. Respect, Balance, Pride, Giving, Community, Tradition, Kindness, Accountability, Diversity,
and Leadership) in its mission, Early College Academy aims to create a positive educational
environment that stimulates student empowerment and academic excellence. Among all of the
minorities in Portland, Native American students have the lowest graduation rate; 35 hence,
NAYA designed a culturally-specific curriculum in order for students in need of extra support to
be awarded a high school diploma. And the work of both the students and the organization have
paid off! With each successive year, NAYA’s Early College Academy graduates more students
than the year before (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).36
The increase in graduates with each successive year is indicative of the success that the
Native American Youth and Family Center’s College and Career Services are achieving. The
means by which this achievement is reached is through the offer of services to prepare youth for
college (e.g. post-secondary education exploration, standardized test preparation resources,
admissions and scholarship assistance, educational workshops). One example are scholarships
bestowed upon Early College Academy graduates through partnerships with the Oregon Lottery,
Wells Fargo, United Way and the Richard Twiss Memorial Fund. Beginning with those not old
enough to attend ECA (i.e. 14-21 year olds), Digital Connectors is a program that encourages
youth to explore careers in computer technology and in the digital arts.37 Access to Student
Assistance Programs in Reach of Everyone (ASPIRE) is yet a second program whose audience is
pre- to early teenagers. ASPIRE is a mentoring program that pairs up trained and supportive
adult volunteers with middle school students to aid in the process of developing an academic
vital ways, from our precious youth to our respected Elders. We are blessed to have this resource here, to ensure our
people continue to thrive for generations to come.” Finally, Eddie Sherman, Executive Director of Oregon Native
American Chamber of Commerce, reiterates the words of Lumley by stating that, “NAYA is a critical resource for
every member of Portland’s Native community, from our esteemed elders to our youngest children. Giving to
NAYA is an investment in a healthy and vibrant Native American community in Portland” (“Native American
Youth and Family Center”).
35
Additionally, Native youth are over represented in child welfare, homelessness and incarceration. They tend to
experience high levels of early pregnancy, hunger and preventable illness (“Native American Youth and Family
Center”).
36
Native American Youth and Family Center attributes the success of the ECA with culturally-specific classes,
smaller class sizes and rigorous academics that push students to earn a high school diploma (“Native American
37
Simultaneously, Digital Connectors promotes the use of technology in the Native community by providing
students with a Cisco IT essentials certificate, a digital camera and a Netbook upon completion of the program
(“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
33
plan that extends far beyond high school. One means by which this is achieved is through
College Visits, in which youth attend personalized college tours that provide Native American
youth the opportunity to meet faculty, staff and other students of their ethnic background. As
young adults prepare for what is to come in terms of post-secondary education, the College and
Career Services host College Nights: a drop-in space that serves as an open space for youths (i.e.
less than 24 years old) to offer support in the college process. To increase access to education
and training beyond high school, College Nights offer information on financial aid applications
and admission assistance; post-secondary education exploration). The College and Career
Readiness Program is responsible for specifically conducting formal programming to help youth
and their families file the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) (“Native American
In order to develop the necessary skills for success in (young) adulthood, Sunrise
Education and Skills Training (EAST) is an education- and career-focused program that provides
services to 16-24 year olds - that include work readiness training, one-on-one coaching and
internships – for up to three years. The services are beneficial in a myriad of ways including
distributing credentials and certificates, college tours, financial aid assistance, and post-
secondary education planning. Sunrise East Partners is the youth workforce development at
Native American Youth and Family Center that provide long-term support and guidance to low-
income and/or at-risk youth (16-24 year olds) post-graduation. Once Native American young
adults have reached this stage, the Career Skills Development Program is there to provide
opportunities to participants to acquire skill sets and experiences that will prove fruitful in the
workforce.38 The Career Skills Development Program offers resume and cover letter assistance,
mock interviews, and online resources to access employers as a mere three of their many
services. The Career Skills Development Program is offered to job seekers that are of 16 years of
age or older. Community Works Project is a similar but more selective program. The recipients
of its services must be of 18 years or older and are Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) recipients. Its main function is one-on-one assistance with job search (“Native American
One means by which Native American students can recover from failing a course is
through the Native American Youth and Family Center’s seasonal programming. Summer
Ascend is a free program offered to 10th-12th grade students who are in need of credits in
Language Arts, Global Studies, Physical Education, and Health. Summer Camp Rise is a similar
program that focuses on the subjects of Language and Mathematics. In this program, students
take part in healthy living (in diet and in fitness), forestry education, and Native-American
themed cultural arts projects. For those one year too young to participate in Summer Ascend, 9th
Grade Leaders is another free summer program whose focus is on improving leadership and
academic skills through culturally-relevant experiential education. Their stated goal is to support
38
NAYA asserts that the Career Skills Development Program increases the likelihood of economic success of
American Indians in Portland (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
34
students in the process of obtaining the knowledge that will be useful during their transition from
middle school to high school. Camp Nanich is distinct from the other camps and seasonal
programming due to its participants being of Kindergarten and 1st Grade. This free summer camp
prepares children for elementary school through activities that emphasize literacy, numeracy,
social-emotional skills and cultural identity (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
The emphasis on social-emotional skills and cultural identity are present outside of the
classroom, too. Educational Youth Advocacy Engagement may strive to promote academic
achievement; however, this service helps youth achieve their goals through a Relational
Worldview Model based on four factors: Mind, Body, Spirit, and Context. In addition to
providing homework assistance, Educational Youth Advocacy Engagement provides solutions to
the life issues experienced by youth. There are programs that address these issues more in depth,
as well. S.T.E.P. 2 Respect is a service that addresses the issues of dating and domestic violence,
sexual assault, and stalking within Early College Academy. Its goal is to build a model program
that depends on youth input in order to strengthen school-wide responses to the aforementioned
issues through policies. Outside of the classroom, Gang Outreach is a service in which highly
specialized outreach workers spend time in “gang-involved hot spots” in the surrounding area to
speak with current gang members about educational and job resources. In order to retard the
number of youth that become part of a gang, Gang Prevention is a program that serves 11-15
year olds and provides support to increase school attendance and positive peer relationships.39
Positive peer relationships are reinforced in Culture Night: a service in which community
members reunite over a meal and cultural arts. The cultural arts presented at the Culture Night is
the result of Dance Classes, Regalia-Making Classes, and Culture Classes (“Native American
Youth and Family Center”).40
39
Gang Prevention and Early College Academy are two sources of youth leaders in the Native community. These
leaders come together under the Youth Leadership Council, whose goals are to address issues affecting NAYA
youth; and to provide the youth a voice in important planning and decision-making in NAYA youth programming.
One significant means by which this is accomplished is through the design and production of outreach materials of
important issues that affect their lives (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
40
There is a variety of dance classes offered to young women (e.g. Fancy, Traditional, Jingle). Regalia-Making and
Culture Classes are open to all and strive to teach youth the essential parts of their own culture (e.g. regalia).
Transportation to cultural arts and the Tutoring and Learning Academy is offered to elementary and middle school
students once or twice a week during the academic year. The academy provides educational and one-on-one tutoring
services (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
35
Programs: Family-Based and Community-Based41
Beginning with the youngest members of the community, Chxi San and Head Start are
the two means by which prenatal to five year olds become part of Native American culture. Chxi
San (the couplet in Chinook Wawa for “New Day”) is a community-oriented playgroup for
parents and their children. Its goal is to create a nurturing environment by implementing the
strategies of Positive Indian Parenting; Manipulatives and Village Making (i.e. by promoting
speech and language development); Dramatic Play (i.e. by promoting speech and language
development); Storytelling; Arts & Fine Motor (i.e. by promoting problem solving skills); and
Infant Nest (i.e. by promoting the sensory development of sights, sounds, and textures). Head
Start is a second preschool program that aims to flawlessly integrate Native American cultural
values with the ten Native American Youth and Family Center core values. Its goals are broken
up into four affirmations:
 “We prepare children for school”;

 “We promote economic opportunities for families and communities”’
 “We partner and collaborate”; and
 “We practice inclusiveness” (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
As implicitly mentioned, the role of a parent in the early education of his or her child(ren) is
important; hence, Parents as Teachers is one means by which parents are given the opportunity
to discover the tools and strategies that would best serve them as the first teachers and best
educators of their child(ren).42 As the early childhood home visiting program for the parents of
prenatal-to-three-years-old offspring(s), Parents as Teachers is less culturally-focused than
Positive Indian Parenting. The latter is an 8-week culturally-specific training program for Native
American parents. Through the training program, these adults learn how to apply the values
expressed in traditional Native American child-treating practices to modern-day parenting. In
addition to parenting services, the Native American Youth and Family Center offers foster care
support in order to support youth and their families – whether birth or foster – that are involved
with the state and/or tribal foster care systems. Parents and Respite Provider Recruitment
recruits Native American foster parents and guides them through the Department of Human
Services certification process and beyond. For the needs of the youth in the state and/or foster
care systems, Pathways to Adulthood, an independent living program, strives to provide
41
One series of programs that is not mentioned in the text is that of Community Economic Development. Native
American Youth and Family Center facilitates programs that focus on the economic well-being of its residents (i.e.
continuing education, Individual Development Accounts [IDAs], tax assistance). Financial Wellness is a four-part
workshop series for those who seek assistance in reaching financial goals through culturally-specific curriculum.
Small-business Micro Enterprise invites those who wish for a one-on-one consultation to review and revise business
plan(s) and financial statements; and receive feedback through individual coaching (“Native American Youth and
Family Center”).
42
Parent Involvement is a second service that pushes for greater communication and cooperation within the
household and greater involvement within the schools of children. In order to acquire skills and to set measurable
goals to ensure family stabilization, Parent Involvement employs the Parents Helping Parents curriculum and a one-
on-one advocate, respectively (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
36
assistance to 14-21 year olds and to create a future that is inclusive of Native American culture.
To unite the foster parents and the youth, Sibling and Family Visit Night is an event that sets the
stage for reunions between foster children and sibling(s) and/or family members in general
(“Native American Youth and Family Center”).43
Native Youth and Family Center is aware of the common problems afflicting Native
American families that are detrimental to their health and/or wellbeing. NAYA has therefore
developed programs to promote positive wellbeing. For those who have already suffered from
the consequences of poor health, Community Health Work offers a variety of services to
community members. These services include:
 Bridging cultural mediation between communities and the health care system;
 Providing direct services and administrating health screening tests;
 Educating patients on the importance of a healthy lifestyle and following
recommended medical treatments; and
 Helping patients navigate health care systems.44
Certain NAYA programs choose to focus their energy on one aspect of health. Domestic
Violence Healing Circle provides services that deal with domestic and sexual violence (e.g. crisis
intervention, support groups, educational services).45 As stated on NAYA’s official website,
“The Healing Circle works to reinforce the fact that domestic violence is not, nor ever has been,
a traditional Native American value.” A second program that hones in on a similar issue is
Intimate Partner Violence & Pregnancy Program (IPVP). This program is exclusively for
women for all ages that have been or are currently pregnant and/or have been a victim of abuse
A second issue within the health sphere is that of drug and alcohol abuse – especially in
regards to youth. Hence, Native American Youth and Family Center utilizes a culturally-relevant
harm reduction model that focuses on sober recreational activities to promote prevention and
building life skills for homeless youth. As part of NAYA’s critical services, Rent Well is one
program in which NAYA addresses the issue of housing and homelessness for urban Indians.
Rent Well is a series of classes whose program is to provide assistance to Native Americans who
have found difficulty in renting an apartment or house. In addition to Rent Well, NAYA offers
longer-term housing stability assistance and emergency energy assistance. The issue of
43
In-Home Safety and Reunification Services is a second means by which parents involved with DHS (i.e.
Department of Human Services) are reunited as quickly and as safely as possible with their children. In-Home
Safety providers maintain children in their homes until that point is reached (“Native American Youth and Family
Center”).
44
WIC is the acronym for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. WIC is a
public health program designed to improve the health (i.e. nutrition and behaviors) of targeted, at-risk population.
45
Domestic Violence Healing Circle’s end goal is to raise awareness of domestic and sexual violence by promoting
community strength; and by finding respect and balance in relationships (“Native American Youth and Family
Center”).
37
homelessness is addressed through services such as intensive care management, alcohol and drug
services, educational and employment support services, an on-site clothing closet and food
pantry, and an on-site and mobile screening for shelter and safety services (“Native American
Programs: Housing and Homeownership46
In addition to Rent Well, the Native American Youth and Family Center provides
culturally-specific homeownership coaching programming in order to increase homeownership
opportunities for the Native American community and to decrease the Native American
homeownership gap. As a HUD-approved counseling agency, NAYA has pushed for housing
options to fit the needs of all members of the community. Currently, NAYA has three different
options: Sawash, Kah San Chako Haws, and the Generations Project. Beginning in 2009, Sawash
served as NAYA’s low-income housing units in North Portland. With all 44 units fully occupied,
Kah San Chako Haws began to serve the housing needs of the rest of the community upon the
completion of its construction in 2011. To continue to serve the needs of the growing Native
American community, NAYA is in the process of erecting a proposed intergenerational
community by the name of Generations Project (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
Kah San Shakos Haws
Translated from Chinook as “East House,” Kah San Shakos Haws is a 9-unit,
LEED Gold-certified modular housing development in the Lents neighborhood of
Southeast Portland. It sets a precedent as the first modular housing project in Portland
and one of the first in the United States of America. Named the “Modular Building of the
Week” by the Modular Building Institute, it features studio and one- to two-bedroom
configurations. By being assembled at a factory (and, therefore, by eliminating
unnecessary transportation), Kah San Shakos Haws is an exemplar of affordable and
sustainable housing by reducing its carbon footprint. Upon arrival at the Lents
neighborhood, the units demonstrate a faster construction time and lower environmental
impact in comparison to traditional stick-built construction. In addition to being award-
winning, Kah San Chakos Haws is nationally recognized by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a case study in sustainable construction in
Indian Country (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
46
One sort of Housing and Homeownership service that is not mentioned in the text is NAYA Construction.
Established in September 2010, it is an enterprise solution to provide construction workforce training to the Native
American population in Greater Portland. The proceeds of the service are used for construction internships, in which
interns serve 6-12 months in the program and receive on-the-job training and certification. NAYA Construction
services include construction project management; insulation and weatherization services; door, tile and window
installation services; and landscaping (“Native American Youth and Family Center”).
38
Generations Project
Still within the boundaries of the Lents neighborhood, the Generations Project is
“a place to provide Native American foster youth homes, families, and support to break
the cycle of child welfare removal in our community.”47 Located on a 3.5-acre site of the
former Foster Elementary School, the Generations Project is an intergenerational
community that features 40 units of stable housing, the Early Learning Academy, and the
Long House. The Early Learning Academy provides education to newborns to five-year-
olds. “Long House” is an appropriate description of the community center, which features
a design based on the Northwest Native American Long House. The Long House
provides support to residents in the form of education, family workforce readiness and as
a community health clinic. In tandem with the Early Learning Academy, the Long House
lays the foundation for a center of community that could potentially decrease poverty and
increase health, wellness, and cultural appreciation of the Native American community.
The residents of the Generations Project range from foster children to community elders.
The former is granted the opportunity to connect with adoptive parents in a safe
environment. The latter serve as “adoptive” grandparents and mentors that “age in place”
Former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber deemed The Generations Project an

“Oregon Solutions” project. The State of Oregon Department of Housing and Community
Services funds the project in part through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).
To cover what remains of the project budget (totaling to $22,100,000 when taking into
consideration land, construction, and soft costs), the Native American Youth and Family
Center’s community supporters serve as critical partners in this endeavor. These critical
partners have expressed their avid support for the Generations Project. One such partner
is Bridge Meadows. Executive Director Dr. Derenda Schubert confirms that,
“The leadership of Bridge Meadows supports the Generations project,

because we have already seen that the Native American community has a
great need for intergenerational services and particularly for culturally-
relevant services in this area. The potential for bringing about lasting
improvement in the community and the lives of people of all ages are
undeniable.”
47
The vicious cycle in which Native American youth are involved in is evident in statistics. 1 in 5 Native American
children in Multnomah County is in welfare custody. This rate is 26 times that of White children. The Generations
Project may play a significant role in breaking the cycle. By not being exposed to Native American culture, youth
are more likely to age out of foster care; to experience homelessness; to drop out of high school; to fail in obtaining
a high school diploma; and to experience mental health and wellness issues. One form of exposure is through Family
Nights, in which children, parents, and elders come together to do an activity and share a meal together (“Native
American Youth and Family Center”).
39
Another critical partner is the Portland Public Schools. Superintendent Carole Smith
believes that,
“The Generations project is a clear and thoughtful strategy to implement

the shared vision of a culturally-informed intergenerational community
that will educate and uplift foster children, the Lents neighborhood, and
the local Native American community.”
There are politicians aside from John Kitzhaber that have expressed a positive first
impression of the Generations Project. U.S. Senator Jeff Markley has noted “… the
numerous forms of outreach, support and economic development NAYA is engaged in.”
Irrespective of the positive feedback NAYA has received from sponsors and partners, the
true test comes as the perception of the Generations Project by community members. The
Generations Project appears to pass with flying colors as Ruth Jensen Tlingit attests to it:
“Caring for each other, we learn from and respect one another … from generation to
generation, our elders cherish our youth who in turn honor their elders” (“Native
American Youth and Family Center”).48
NATIVE AMERICAN CONNECTIONS | Phoenix, Arizona
Native American Connections began to change the lives of urban Indians in Arizona in
1972 as a grassroots organization. Since then, it has opened its arms to ten thousand American
Indians (AI) each year through its services at 18 different locations in Central Phoenix. The
values that drive the success of Native American Connections are collaboration, compassion,
empowerment, integrity, family, spirituality, stewardship, teamwork, wellness and volunteerism.
These ten core values are further articulated in the organization’s mission to receive recognition
as “an innovative Native American service and development.” The following affirmations guide
the behavior of Native American Connections. One should note that the first word in each
sentence – “We” – resonates with the inclusive core belief of the organization:
“We offer compassionate behavioral healthcare and support individuals in

recovery;”
“We integrate Native American healing with evidence based practices;”
“We are a leader in developing, building and managing high quality housing
communities.”
“We participate in community efforts to end homelessness;” and
48
Native American Youth and Family Center provides services specifically for elders. One such service is the
provision of congregate meals for seniors and those with disabilities over the age of 55 years old. A specially-
designated room for elders at NAYA has been remodeled thanks to a grant from the Spirit Mountain Community
Fund. In addition, a permanent space has been chosen for potlucks and gatherings; for socializing; and for
exercising.
40
“We champion community development projects that strengthen the Native
American Community and celebrate our rich cultural history” (“Native American
Connections”).
Native American Connections (NAC) prides itself with “Improving the lives of
individuals and families through Native American culturally appropriate behavioral health,
affordable housing, and community development services.” The affirmations above indicate that
behavioral healthcare, ending homelessness, and community development projects are essential
to NAC’s mission to change the lives of thousands of AI in Phoenix, Arizona (“Native American
Connections”).
Behavioral Health
As previously mentioned, 1972 marked the first year of programming conducted by

Native American Connections. Originally, only one program encompassed “programming.” The
program which once lent a helping hand to American Indian (AI) men struggling to recover from
substance abuse, Indian Rehabilitation (the former title of Native American Connections),
expanded in 1978 and established itself in downtown Phoenix, Arizona. At this point in time, it
had been only the fourth agency licensed by the state of Arizona. The year afterwards, Diana
(Dede) Yazzie Devine joined Indian Rehabilitation as CEO and established a residential
substance use treatment and recovery program for women by the name of Guiding Star. Due to
the expansion of the programs throughout the 1980s, 1,500 AI have since benefitted from the
services offered by Indian Rehabilitation/NAC. The benefits reaped by AI have been largely due
in part to the technique of combining evidence-based treatment practices and American Indian
healing and ceremonies employed to treat mental and physical ailments. With the range of
substance use treatment and general mental health services (e.g. psychiatric evaluation,
medication management, counseling, case management, residential treatment for substance use,
co-occurring disorders), NAC is equipped to answer the questions and provide solutions to the
problems of urban Indians (“Native American Connections”).
Programs: Children-Based and Youth-Based
Native American Connections provides solutions to urban Indians of all ages. No AI is

too young or too old to be provided assistance in whatever difficulty they may encounter.
Beginning with newborns to 17 year olds, NAC provides services such as assessments and
evaluations; mental health and cultural awareness events; activities for youth transitioning into
young adulthood; and community-based Child and Family Teams (CFT) and case management.
Transition Age Youth is a program for 16-18 year olds and their families to navigate the
transition into adulthood by honing in on self-sufficient and independence skills. In regards to
case management, High Needs Case Management (HNCM) provides long lasting support
coordination of behavioral health services for children (with a CASII score of at least 4 living) or
families with intense needs. Similar to HNCM, Standing Strong is a 12-week intensive outpatient
41
program for teenagers with a focus on decision-making skills, relapse management and recovery
coaching, and cultural awareness events (“Native American Connections”).
Programs: Family-Based and Community-Based
Intensive outpatient and substance use services go beyond the range of children
and teenagers under the age of 20. As mentioned in Behavioral Health, Indian
Rehabilitation and Guiding Star serve individuals over the age of 20 that experience the
negative effects of substance (ab)use. Indian Rehabilitation is a sweat lodge for men
comprised of 16 individual beds. The 45-day program permits for an individualized
length of stay. Guiding Star – a sweat lodge for women – is a 45-day program with an
individualized length of stay, too. The main difference between the two programs is the
capacity of the latter. Guiding Star provides individual beds for 32 women and 24
dependent children. There are transitional housing at Pendleton Court and specialized
services for pregnant and post-partum women. Patina Wellness Center opened in 2016 to
bring Indian Rehabilitation and Guiding Star to one location. By bringing the two
programs under one roof, Patina Wellness Center provides 70 residential substance abuse
treatment beds and continues to provide specialized services for dependent children,
pregnant and post-partum women. As mentioned beforehand, the integration of evidence-
based practices for substance abuse treatment with American Indian healing and
ceremonies lends to a holistic environment in which patients reap benefits. Such services
are American Indian traditional healing practices and cultural activities; workforce
development activities with access to a business center equipped with computers and a
library; and support services for extended family members (“Native American
Connections”).
In the perspective of NAC administrators, American Indian traditional healing

practices and cultural enhancement activities work in parallel with standard medicinal
practices on the road to long-term recovery. These practices and activities include sweat
lodges and purification, drumming and storytelling, talking circles and Circle of Strength.
Indian Rehabilitation and Guiding Star are two sweat lodges that serve as a sacred space
for AI to ask for guidance or to give thanks. Symbolically, the sweat lodge is the womb
of Mother Earth in which purification takes place. Another possible means of healing is
in talking circles. A “talking stick” in passed around in a circle (in a “sun-wise” direction)
as an invitation for each participant to speak in a safe space. For American Indians whose
situations are not grave enough for rehabilitation in the form of sweat lodges, Intensive
Outpatient Program (IOP) and Standard Outpatient Program (SOP) are at their disposal.
Main features of SOP are Peer Support & Recovery Coaches; Group & Social Support;
and Transition Age Youth (18-21) Support Services & Recovery Coaching. The
importance of peer and social support is evident in Circle of Strength, in which family
members come together in order to lend a helping hand to the close members who are
struggling in their recovery from abuse of any sort. In order to do so, family members
42
learn how to set boundaries and improve communication and problem-solving
techniques. It is by working towards a common goal that Circle of Strength aids members
in addressing conflicts within their own family. Family counseling sessions provide
similar but less intensive services (“Native American Connections”).
Community Development
Native American Connections undertook two major community development projects in

st
the 21 century so far. The first took place in 2005 in collaboration with the Phoenix Indian
Center (PIC) and Native Health. Together the three organizations established the Native
American Community Service Center (NACSC) to give American Indians access to healthcare,
behavioral health services, job assistance, housing and cultural services. A decade later, a joint
collaboration between NAC and Phoenix Indian Center resulted in the completed renovation of
the historical Band Building of the Phoenix Indian School. As a result of the completion, the
Phoenix Indian School Legacy Project could take foot as a cultural gathering place to experience
AI culture and learn about the history of the Phoenix Indian School and Tribal Tourism
opportunities. NACSC and the Phoenix Indian School Legacy Project are two manifestations of
NAC’s intent to preserve and enrich cultural heritage and support the community. NAC
explicitly outlines their intentions as
“Promoting wellness in Native Communities”
“Embracing an entrepreneurial spirit”
“Fostering strategic alliances and partnerships;” and
“Aligning with sustainable building practice” (“Native American Connections”).
Program: Native American Community Service Center
As previously mentioned, Native American Connection, PIC and Native Health

formed a legal partnership in 2005, in order to purchase an 85 K ft2, 6-story office
building in Central Phoenix, Arizona. As articulated on NAC’s official website, “The
vision was to create a geographic center for urban Natives in Greater Phoenix that will
one day be a vibrant tourist destination.” The program of NACSC includes the three
partners, Native Home Capital and People of Color Network. On the top floor of the
office building is a conference room that is available for use by community partners at no
charge. The conference room is available for use by 74 people at a time. Within the space
is a projector, wall screen, computer, VHS/DVD player, microphones, and telephone and
internet access (“Native American Connections”).
43
Programs: Phoenix Indian School Legacy Project
Without Native Health, Native American Connection and PIC signed a Letter of
Understanding with the City of Phoenix (COP) to renovate the music building located in
Steele Indian School Park. The area was formerly the site of the Phoenix Indian School, a
boarding school extant from 1891 to 1990 that served American Indian students under the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Beginning in the 1930s, the Phoenix Indian School functioned
as an elementary school and converted the music building of the Phoenix Indian School
Marching Band. In the year of 1990, COP shut down the elementary school and acquired
the land. The closure of Phoenix Indian School prompted tribal nations and organizations
to send over 20 letters of support to COP to push for the renovation of the vacant music
building. Their mission to bring American Indian presence back to the site soon became
possible. Through a charette process, the AI community decided upon the use of the
space as a gallery dedicated to the history of the boarding school; a conference area to
accommodate 120 individuals; and a commercial kitchen for the use of small businesses
(i.e. catering, food preparation) and for community members (i.e. nutrition courses)
(“Native American Connections”).
Programs: Housing and Homeownership
The final two aspects of Native American Connections’ mission to further community
development are “Cultural and Native Traditional Ceremonies” and “Supporting Regional
Efforts to End Homelessness.” While the former is best associated with NAC’s Behavioral
Health initiative, the latter directly correlates with the principals of NAC’s housing program:
“Building a sense of community among housing residents;”
“Empower residents to become active participants in their communities;”
“Locate properties in safe, central locations, near transportation and other

amenities;”
“Offer on-site services to increase stability and to improve health and wellness;”
and
“Integrate housing with access to behavioral health services.”
NAC shows its support for two initiatives in particular: Valley of the Sun United Way and the
co-development for LaMesita at A New Leaf. In collaboration with the City of Phoenix and
Valley of the Sun United Way, NAC aims to end homelessness in Maricopa County by erecting
1,000 units of permanent supportive housing. Encanto Pointe and Stepping Stone Place – opened
and expanded in 2013, respectively – are two housing developments that show the positive
direction that NAC is moving in. LaMesita, on the other hand, contains 80 units of affordable
44
and permanent supportive housing for families and 30 units for the chronically homeless
(“Native American Connections”).
The history of Native American Connections as a housing provider begins nearly 20

years prior to the opening of Encanto Pointe in 2013. In 1995, NAC opened Whispering Palms as
its first affordable housing community. Its cul-de-sac entry is reassuring for the low-income
families of the 20 affordable apartments in one- to three-bedroom layouts. Four years later – the
same year in which Indian Rehabilitation took on the name of Native American Connections –
Stepping Stone Place first opened to low-income and homeless men and women. Originally
comprising 44 units of single-room occupancy, the 2013 expansion has led to 82 fully-furnished
units (of 54 studio apartments and 28 one-bedroom apartments in a smoke-free environment) and
20 units reserved for individuals with HIV/AIDS. By the end of 2008, NAC managed 232 units
of housing in Central Phoenix. In 2010, NAC acquired HomeBase: a traditional housing and day
resource center for homeless youth. Serving 18-24 year olds, HomeBase is integrated into NAC
behavioral health and housing services. It is comprised of three components:
1. Community Outreach: HomeBase offers physical amenities (e.g. food,

hygienic supplies) and mental and emotional amenities (e.g. connections to
age-appropriate support) in correspondence to the HomeBase Day Resource
Center;
2. HomeBase Day Resource Center: provider of physical amenities (e.g. food,
clothing bank) and mental and emotional amenities (e.g. case management);
and
3. Transitional Living Program (TLP): offers dormitory-style housing for 25
individuals in order to improve educational or work status; to become
responsible for living environment; and to address substance abuse (“Native
American Connections”).
In 2011, Native American Connections opened the first LEED upscale, healthy-living
community. Devine Legacy comprises 65 affordable apartments as urban lofts studios and one-
to three-bedroom layouts. In 2014, Urban Living 2 (UL2) opened with 70 affordable apartments
available in the same layouts as Devine Legacy. Today, NAC manages 459 units of housing at
ten housing communities in Central Phoenix. NAC’s Property Management Team oversees the
operations of all of the communities. As suggested above, there are three general housing options
available to the American Indian community:
1. Affordable Housing: income-based and market rate rentals with programs that
provide on-site support and community activities;49
49
Two affordable housing alternatives in Greater Phoenix are Center Court Apartments and Coral Canyon. The
former comprises 24 affordable apartments in studio and one-bedroom layouts. The latter comprises 69 affordable
apartments in two-, three- and four-bedroom layouts (“Native American Connections”).
45
2. Transitional Housing: housing that meets the needs of individuals
(specifically, 18-24 year-old youth and women in recovery post-residential
substance abuse treatment) who are in dire need of additional support in order
to make a successful transition to permanent housing; and
3. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH): low-income and chronically-homeless
based housing that meets the needs of individuals who are in dire need of
additional support in order to maintain housing stability (“Native American
Connections”).
The NAC Resident Services Team connects residents to on-site or community-based

resources to improve health, wellbeing and housing stability. In addition, the Resident Services
Team coordinates the Resident Empowerment Program, which offers residents the opportunity to
become involved in building a safe environment in each housing community. Every community
offers on-site programs and activities that aim to improve health and wellness; to increase
financial literacy; and to encourage family-member bonding. Partnerships with agencies, too,
play a role in the success of the offered services. Accordance to the organization’s core beliefs
also plays a role; in particular, “We are a leader in developing, building and managing high
quality housing communities.” One way in which NAC has proved itself as a “LEED-er” is by
incorporating LEED Certification Standards in a number of the housing communities.
 Close proximity to public transportation to encourage public-transit use and to

discourage uses that increase regional pollution;
 Secure bicycle storage to discourage the increase of greenhouse gas
emissions;
 High density complexes to minimize the footprint of projects;
 Water conservation via drought-tolerant plants to minimize irrigation
requirements;
 High-efficient pump fixtures to minimize water demand; and
 Energy Star appliances to minimize electricity demand.
Cedar Crossing is comprised of 74 affordable apartments (in studio and one- to three-bedroom
layout configurations) and is a LEED for Homes Platinum project (“Native American
Connections”).
Pendlecourt Court had been previously mentioned in Behavioral Health | Programs:

Family-Based and Community-Based. In regards to services provided to women, Pendleton
Court serves as an independent, recovery living environment for 18 year olds and older homeless
women. The transitional housing is based on a community strength model that aims to instill
self-sufficiency in the women who temporarily reside there. The support to reach this level of
self-sufficiency is provided by live-in Recovery Coaches and the Intensive Outpatient Program
(IOP). Once this level is reached, the possibility of permanent supportive housing is in view.
Native American Connections views this housing option to be a solution to homelessness, in
46
which low-income and chronically-homeless individuals of the metro-Phoenix area live
independently while still having access to cost-effective on-site services. The rents and eligibility
are income-based on 40-60% of the Area Median Income for Maricopa County. Section 8 and
VASH vouchers are welcomed in order to provide individuals the opportunity to increase
housing stability; reduce reliance on expensive public services; and to improve health and
wellbeing through on-site services. The following are housing communities that fall under the
category of PSH:
 Catherine Arms: 28 furnished one-bedroom single level or townhouse-style

apartments;
 Encanto Pointe: 54 fully-furnished one-bedroom apartments for low-income,
chronically homeless individuals and veterans. Section 8 and VASH vouchers are
provided to the latter two categories of residents, respectively;
 Stepping Stone Place; and
 Sunrise Circle: 35 fully-furnished studio and one-bedroom apartments that seek
disabled residents due to serious mental illnesses, substance and/or alcohol abuse.
The apartments are divided between homeless adults (10 units), American Indians
suffering from a serious mental illness (8 units), and chronically homeless
individuals (15 units with Section 8 vouchers) (“Native American Connections”).
Native American Connections is in charge of a housing community that is an exception to

the rule. The Landmark Senior Living is comprised of 52 units of affordable independent senior
living.50 It includes a computer center and recreational and social activities for low-income
seniors (at least 62 years old). The Landmark Senior Living is the product of a transformation of
a vacant four acre parcel in Central Glendale partly financed by the City of Glendale’s
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (“Native American Connections”). It is the joint effort
between organizations – be Native or non-Native – that American Indians are provided the
resources they need in order to live long and prosper in an urban environment. Whether it be in
the Midwest (e.g. Little Earth in Minneapolis, Minnesota), the West (e.g. Native American
Youth and Family Center in Portland, Oregon) or the Southwest (e.g. Native American
Connections in Phoenix, Arizona), the available support systems provide AI the opportunity to
reap benefits despite being in uncharted territory. The aforementioned case studies attest to the
significance of first building communities in order to build a safe and supportive environment for
urban Indians in the form of affordable housing.
50
Carefree on North Central is a second senior living alternative. Those 55 years and older can take advantage of its
36 affordable apartments in one- to two- bedroom layouts and its activities and programs that encourage an active
and healthy lifestyle (“Native American Connections”).
47
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
AMERICAN INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS
National Urban Indian Family Coalition
The National Urban Indian Family Coalition (NUIFC) is one of the only American Indian
(AI) organizations that is honing in on the issue of housing and homelessness for urban AI. As a
result of their efforts, NUIFC has identified areas of improvement in order to address the
aforementioned issue.
 “Significantly increase resources to serve/solve Native homelessness” and “Ensure

urban Native communities have access and are included to housing/homelessness
initiatives” (Making the Invisible Visible)
NUIFC recognizes the importance of providing opportunities and resources to
support low-income and homeless urban Indians. In order to support the Native
individuals NUIFC believes that it is of an utmost importance to support the
continued development of Native Community Development Financial Institutions
(CDFI). The time and money dedicated to support similar initiatives are made
possible by engaging other AI/AN organizations to conduct research. In other words,
a research agenda ought to be established. The 2000 Native American Lending Study
successfully led to the expansion of Native Opportunity Initiatives of the U.S.
Treasury CDFI Funds. NUIFC believes that this growth spurt of CDFI ought to not
occur once; instead, it should be continuous. That being said, continuous growth of
the Native CDFI Network (NCN) ought to be the effect of policy recommendations
on the subject of urban AI housing (Comenote).
 “Support a variety of transitional housing programs/partner with tribes to support
newly relocated families” and “Increase access to housing programs for urban Native
communities at the federal, state, and city levels” (Making the Invisible Visible)
Especially in regards to the federal level, the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) is the primary resource for AI/AN when it comes to
housing. NUIFC believes that there ought to be an Indian community development
block grant through HUD or the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) for
tribal governments and Native nonprofits to build economic capacity and literacy.
Specifically in regards to off-reservation AI/AN, the capacity of Tribal Designated
Housing Entities (TDHE) and tribal governments ought to expand to develop fair
market housing with Indian preference in urban areas (Comenote).
 “Increase efforts to foster home ownership and support technical assistance for
homeowners” and “Increase homeowner’s financial literacy and support for home
improvement” (Making the Invisible Visible)
48
Financial literacy education is one area in which NUIFC believes that it would
be beneficial to dedicate funds. In particular, NUIFC proposes the enactment of a
policy that requires predatory lending institutions or banks to donate to a general fund
specifically designed for this sort of education. A percentage of the fund would be
allocated to tribal governments and Native nonprofit organizations to provide
financial literacy and economic enhancement services. The Native Financial
Education Coalition (NFEC) has demonstrated support for this sort of policy. NFEC
is a collection of local, regional and national organizations and government agencies
with the mission of promoting financial education in Native communities
(Comenote).
AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS
United States Commission on Civil Rights
One suggestion that the National Urban Indian Family Coalition has is to “Explore and
Enact policy recommendations as laid out in the U.S. Civil Rights Commission’s ‘A Quiet Crisis
in Indian Country’.” This paper focuses on the adequacy – and the inadequacy – of federal
funding for programs and services specifically designated for American Indians (AI), Federally
Recognized Indian Tribal Governments and Native American Organizations (Comenote). It
should be noted that the policy paper is titled, “A Quiet Crisis in Indian Country.” That being
said, it comes as no surprise that the recommendations the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are
directed to on-reservation AI/AN rather than off-reservation urban Indians. The introduction to
the section on recommendations attest to it: “If fully implemented will yield a thorough/precise
calculation of unmet needs in Indian Country; increased efficiency and effectiveness in the
delivery of services through goal setting, strategic planning, implementation, coordination,
measurement of outcomes; perennial adequate funding; advancement of Indian nations toward
the goal of independence and self-governance” (Alba). Nevertheless, there are a number of
recommendations that pertain to urban Indians and the role that the U.S. Department’s Housing
and Urban Development plays in improving this area of concern.
 “All agencies that distribute funds for Native American programs should be required
to regularly assess unmet needs for both urban and rural Native individuals. . . . In
addition, each federal agency that administers Native American programs should
specifically and accurately document Native American participation in its programs
and account for all projects and initiatives.” (Alba, Recommendation #2)
 “Federal appropriations must account for costs that are unique to Indian tribes . . .
Overall, more money is needed to support independent enterprise, such as through
guaranteed loans that facilitate home and business ownership, and to provide
incentives for lending institutions, builders, educators, and health management
companies to conduct business on Indian lands. . . . In addition, the unique needs of
non-reservation and urban Native Americans must be assessed, and adequate funding
49
must be provided for programs to serve these individuals. Native Americans are
increasingly leaving reservations, and their way of life, not always by choice but due
to economic hardships. Yet, funding for health, education, housing, job training, and
other critical needs of urban Native Americans is a low priority.” (Alba,
Recommendation #8)
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has taken note that none of the agencies who have
been designated a role in improving the lives of AI/AN (on- or off-reservation) have met their
obligations. Despite plans to reinforce the U.S. Federal Government’s commitment to AI/AN
tribes during the late 1990s, the products and services offered to AI/AN are of a lower quality
than those offered to other American citizens in inequitable access to much-needed programs. It
is only once the U.S. Federal Government is held accountable for its actions and meets its
financial obligations that AI/AN will achieve greater political empowerment and influence in the
political process (Alba). The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recognizes this change that must
take place in order for any progress to be made. Hence, the following recommendations begin to
address this issue:
 “... The federal government must take immediate steps to resolve the disparate living
conditions that plague Indian Country. ... The administration should establish a
bipartisan, action-oriented initiative at the highest level of accountability in the
government ... The goals of the action group should include increasing Native
American participation in government programs; fostering coordination among
federal agencies; improving research and data collection on Native American
populations and subpopulations; and involving the public and private sectors in
improving the well-being of Native Americans.” (Alba, Recommendation #1)
 “The [Indian Health Service’s] Federal Disparity Index assessment has worthy
elements for assessing unmet needs and as such should be replicated by other
agencies. ... Congress should require and review unmet needs analyses annually as a
component of each agency’s budget justification.” (Alba, Recommendation #3)
 “All federal agencies that administer Native American programs ... should be
required to set aside money for infrastructure building that, when coordinated, will
ensure that funds are spent more wisely. ... The contributing agencies should develop
memoranda of understanding and other formal coordination mechanisms that outline
precisely how the money will be spent.” (Alba, Recommendation #4)
 “Federal agencies should avoid instituting across-the-board budget cuts because
Native American programs already make up such a small proportion of agencies’
budgets. ... Rather than reduce funding across the board, agencies must honor the
government’s trust responsibility and the urgent needs of Native Americans. ... In
addition, agencies must prepare budgets that account for the proportionality of Native
American funding. ...” (Alba, Recommendation #5)
50
 “Native American funding programs should be situated within the federal agencies
that have the requisite expertise, but agencies should continually improve processes
for redistributing funds as necessary to other agencies or tribal governments. ... the
Commission recommends that funding for a single purpose be consolidated to reduce
redundancy and clarify accountability.” (Alba, Recommendation #6)
 “... To the extent possible, programs for Native Americans should be managed and
controlled by Native Americans. ... The federal government must determine the most
effective and ethical means of disbursing funds to tribal governments and to directly
assist Native peoples.” (Alba, Recommendation #7)
 “Congress should require ... an analysis of the spending patterns of every federal
agency that supports Native American programs.” (Alba, Recommendation #9)
 “Each agency should have one central office responsible for oversight and
management of Indian funds, and which prepares budgets and analyses that can be
compared and aggregated across agencies.” (Alba, Recommendation #10)
 “The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should develop government wide,
uniform standards for tracking and reporting spending on Native American
programs. ... [Agencies] should be required to maintain comprehensive spending logs
for Indian programs, including actual grant disbursements, number of beneficiaries,
and unfunded programs. Such information will facilitate future short-term and
longitudinal analyses.” (Alba, Recommendation #11)
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
Both the National Urban Indian Family Coalition and the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights pose recommendations that are more or less directed to the U.S. Federal Government. The
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness takes a different approach. The
recommendations proposed by the council focus on what the community can do to improve the
lives of its members. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness proposes the following
recommendations:
 “Increase the supply of affordable housing” and “Seek partners”

Dean Sommer-Pederbone, Senior Manager of Housing Services for Cook
Inlet Housing Authority (Cook Inlet, Alaska), and Nelson Jim, Program and
Clinical Director for Outpatient Behavioral Health Services at the Native
American Health Center (San California, CA), acknowledge the need for
continued support and additional resources for certain federal programs that aid in
the supply of affordable housing. Sommer-Pederbone points out that there is a
less than 2% vacancy rate in Anchorage, Alaska. In addition, Nelson Jim points
out that the Alaska Natives (AN) that are able to locate housing are struggling to
support themselves. There is an established system of tribal vouchers that offer
rental assistance; however, private landlords are demanding rent higher than what
51
the vouchers support. The rise in rent may be attributed to rampant NIMBY (Not
In My Back Yard) -ism. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness believes
that acknowledging the presence of racism is a step in the right direction. From
there, the pride of being an AI/AN can be restored by showing support for the
homeless in finding work, earning a stabilizing income, and mending bonds with
the community at large. It is by reaching out to the community at large that a
strong network of service partners could be established (Expert Panel on
Homelessness).
 “Provide timely access to affordable housing”
In addition to access to affordable housing, Michael Goze (Ho-Chunk,

Chief Executive Officer of the American Indian Community Development
Corporation) and Nelson Jim recognize that access to care is essential, too. Goze
actually finds that by offering outreach on a regular basis to homeless AI/AN
actually saves local, regional and federal funds by reducing the use of emergency
care and lessening the pressure on other services. Care in regards to employment
in Native communities is also a concern. Nelson Jim finds that unemployment is
as high as 80% in some Native communities. That being said, a majority of
AI/AN cannot afford the transportation needed to arrive at appointments, whether
it be regular or an emergency (Expert Panel on Homelessness).
 “Reconsider eligibility requirements for Federal assistance”

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development offers an
Emergency Solutions Grant Program by the name of the HEARTH Act. While its
funding is effective in preventing homelessness, it is only to some extent. The
reason behind this is the caveat that the AI/AN family or sole member must have
“insufficient resources immediately available to attain housing stability” and an
income “below 30 percent of median income for the geographic area.” Those who
benefit from the HEARTH Act are strictly American Indians and Alaska Natives;
however, one issue that has been identified is that housing providers tend to
deviate from honoring Native traditions that allow subsidized housing units to be
occupied by multiple generations or members of extended family. This issue
pertains to housing providers for Native people or for the general public. Nelson
Jim strongly believes that “Data collection instruments and support guidelines
need to be revised to provide the opportunity for Native individuals to identify,
regardless whether they come from a specific tribe, come from a federally
recognized or not federally recognized tribe, they are multi-tribal, they are multi-
racial, or they are American Indian, Alaska Native, First Nation or Indigena
(indigenous person from Mexico/Central American/South America). This is
critical for seeking resources to serve this population and also to bring Native
52
peoples out of invisibility in very diverse urban communities” (Expert Panel on
Homelessness).
 “Offer case management and support in system navigation” and “Provide support
for Veterans”
Case managers are in the form of specialists and peers. The specialists
offer assistance in learning new skills and in accessing employment, housing and
services. In regards to housing, case managers prepare AI/AN to buy or rent
housing and to continue paying for it. This preparation comes in the form of
providing applications to HUD Section 8 housing; providing access to benefits to
which AI/AN are entitled to; and to coordinate wraparound services. Peers serve
as care navigators that strive to strengthen the sense of community and help their
peers access care. By doing so, they themselves strengthen their skill sets through
employment. Case managers and navigators ought to extend their support to
Native veterans to a greater degree. According to Maria Yellow Horse Brave
Heart, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Director of Native American and
Disparities Research at the University of New Mexico (Albuquerque, New
Mexico). AI/AN have the highest per capita enlistment rate of any racial or ethnic
group. Native veterans would find resources to prevent homelessness and to
address behavioral health disorders extremely beneficial. Case managers and
navigators may be the resources that permit Native veterans to reap what they
have sown (Expert Panel on Homelessness).
 “Address barriers to housing” and “Support research and remove barriers to

participation”
There are two barriers that the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
explicitly identifies. The first is in regards to cultural beliefs. It is by making
housing providers aware of AI/AN tribal history, values, and ways of healing that
increase effectiveness. Likewise, by making AI/AN aware of their tribal history is
a way in which they become grounded and set a foundation for healing. Richard
Martel, Program Coordinator for the Native American Talking Circle of the
Colorado Coalition for the Homeless (Denver, CO), points out that by
incorporating Native traditions, AI/AN feel empowered to access resources
offered by supportive agencies. The second barrier is due to felons. Provisions in
relation to “fleeing felons” may bar AI/AN from food stamps or social security.
Those who are suspected of “fleeing felons” or who have been incarcerated or
with drug-related convictions may find it difficult to access public housing.
Landlords may refuse to access Section 8 vouchers as a result. Maria Yellow
Horse Brave Heart finds that qualitative and mixed-methods research with Native
populations accurately capture stories of experience of homelessness. Through
53
these stories, Brave Heart believes that individuals may be able to gain a different
perspective on the pathways to homelessness for each population; the lived
experiences of homelessness; and the best ways to provide assistance. In other
words, such research may be constructive to the Native community – homeowners
or homeless-owners. It should be noted that bureaucratic requirements pose
barriers themselves in involving the AI/AN homeless population in the research
(Expert Panel on Homelessness).
 “Encourage people who lived experience of homelessness to tell their stories and
contribute to programs that serve them” and “Educate providers on historical
trauma”
A “community voice” is key in empowering AI/AN to change their own
lives. Culturally-relevant programs provide the opportunity to tell stories and to
be heard in a respectful manner. One instance of literal show-and-tell is the Native
American Talking Circle in Denver, Colorado. Each week, four talking circles are
held that offers homeless AI/AN the chance to tell stories and to be heard in a
respectful manner in a traditionally-based forum. Two circles are co-ed and nearly
600 participants take part in the Native American Talking Circle. The tenets
further attest to the inclusive aspect of the community:
“Every nation is welcome;”
“All participants can speak freely in confidentiality without fear of

judgment;”
“All participants will offer support and encouragement;” and
“Transcendence is the goal for all.”
Nelson Jim identifies “Central to working with this population, one needs to
understand the very basic importance of community empowerment, community
development, and that it is not individual health and wellness that is the optimal
treatment plan. Native people need to be a part of their community” (Expert Panel
on Homelessness).
Homeless AI/AN and the community are in a win-win situation – the
community gives by supporting the homeless and the homeless gives to the
community and receives self-worth. If the homeless individual is experiencing
trauma or grief, it is the community that can give support to acknowledge and
name the experience, grieve, and move on to augmenting self-worth. Providers,
too, ought to acknowledge historical trauma. Jim asserts that “As a provider, one
needs to understand that developing a sense of ‘relation’ with Native consumers is
critical.” Plus, by working with the community increases the availability of
54
supportive services that the providers could offer to the individuals who need
them the most (Expert Panel on Homelessness).
 “Acknowledge the diversity of healing paths” and “Build life skills while honoring
the tradition of hospitality”
It is essential that providers avoid making assumptions based on ethnicity,
considering that AI/AN practice ceremonies and/or share traditional values that
may differ from one another. However, the values of generosity and hospitality
are inclusive to all Native people. That being said, culturally-sensitive education
program may contribute positively in honoring the aforementioned values and in
developing the skills necessary to support families and their members.
Hospitability is a value that the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
believes is essential in providing unconditional housing. With “wet houses” and
Permanent Supportive Housing, homeless Native populations that abuse
substances would be able to locate housing without first ceasing drinking or using
substances. Michael Goze affirms that by providing housing for a chronic
inebriate is far more cost effective because it avoids the high costs of providing
public services (Expert Panel on Homelessness).
 “Help prevent homelessness by improved oversight for Indian schools”
The U.S. Interagency Council of Homelessness emphasizes the role of the
U.S. Federal Government in ensuring that off-reservation school programs are
culturally respectful and aid in retaining vital connections to traditional values. In
regards to youth, “Ready to Rent” is a program that teaches financial literacy and
prioritizing expenditures. The program provides necessary resources (including
supplies) to homeless youth who are preparing to live on their own. Another
means by which the council believes that homelessness could be prevented is by
maintaining flexible-use emergency resources to youth and to adults. For those on
the verge of losing their home, the resource would provide a buffer or loan to help
the near homeless AI/AN to keep up mortgage payments or to increase their
savings (Expert Panel on Homelessness).
AMERICAN POLITICIANS
Bernie Sanders
Before running as a Democratic Presidential candidate in 2016, Bernie Sanders had paid
attention to the issues facing Native communities. In general, Bernie Sanders was in favor of the
Low Income Solar Act of 2015, which would have proven fruitful to all low-income
communities. The act would have established a loan-and-grant program through the U.S.
Department of Energy to make solar energy more affordable and accessible. An investment of
$200 million would offset the upfront costs for solar energy on community facilities, public
housing and low-income family homes. Once Bernie Sanders had announced that he would run
55
for President, one of his propositions to strengthen Tribal Nations was by “3. Improving
Housing: Bernie will fight for increased local control over the administration and operation of
tribal housing programs. He will also fight for full funding of the Indian Housing Block Grant
Program.” He made public his belief that “It is no secret that Washington faces a serious debt
problem, but last time I checked, it was not because we are spending too much on Indian
housing, healthcare or education” ("Empowering Tribal Nations”).
Hillary Clinton
As the official Democratic Party nominee for the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Hillary
Clinton featured a lengthy list of actions she meant to take as “Hillary Clinton’s Vision of
Building a Brighter Future for Native Americans.” Clinton’s campaign does not hone in on
measures to confront the issue of housing; however, she does address homelessness by
acknowledging the lack of interest of the U.S. Federal Government in the issues confronting
urban Indians. On the official website of Hillary Clinton is the statement that, “She is committed
to strengthening and building on the government-to-government relationship between the United
States and Indian tribes, and believes the United States should fulfill its treaty obligations and
trust responsibilities to Tribal Nations.” As the 45th presidential candidate of the United States of
America, her “Vision” outlines how her words would come to fruition as actions:
 “Ensure Meaningful Tribal Consultation and Empowerment”
Hillary Clinton firmly believes that “Native Americans should be represented in

the federal government to properly reflect their needs and views and will work to
appoint Native Americans to key positions in federal agencies and nominate qualified
judges who understand Tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government
relationship.” Additionally, the role of Clinton would be that as host to the annual
White House Tribal Nations Conference.
 “Protect Tribal Assets and Resources and Resolve Long-standing Disputes”
Hillary Clinton has publicly demonstrated her support for Tribal resources,
sovereignty and sacred sites. To ensure that the U.S. Federal Government
demonstrates a similar support, Clinton envisions Tribal consultations in order to
develop federal policies; to settle litigations over breaches of trust; and to settle
mismanagement claims over trust assets and natural resources. In particular, Clinton
would oversee a joint collaboration between the U.S. Department of the Interior and
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Alaska Native communities to
sustainably protect natural resources, including marine and wildlife.
56
 “Fighting for Native American Veterans”
Hillary Clinton addresses homelessness under the measures addressing Native

American veterans. Specifically, she “will move decisively to end the tragic situation
of veterans living homeless on the streets.” The measures Clinton has in mind are an
integrated health care system run by care coordinators and guaranteed access to
education and the workforce upon their return to home – on or off reservations
(“Growing Together”).
It is significant that Hillary Clinton – 67th U.S. Secretary of State (2009-2013), NY [New
York] Senator (2001-2009), and First Lady of the U.S. (1993-2001) – is fully aware of the U.S.
Federal Government’s role in building up the hope of American Indians and Alaska Natives
(AI/AN)... and potentially breaking down the barriers of the vicious cycle of homelessness. As
the Secretary of State, Clinton showed support for the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous People. The resolution that strengthens the government-to-government relationship
between the U.S. and tribes is the second instance in which Clinton showed support for
legislation that provides tribes greater representation in advisory groups and direct access to
federal grants (“Growing Together”).
57
CONCLUSION
The top three American “politicians” associated with the 2016 United States presidential
election are Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The former two had the interests
of American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) in mind throughout – and prior to – their
presidential campaign. The latter had not – and continues to – show a lack of interest in the
affairs of AI/AN. Out of the three contenders, it is Donald Trump that has been elected to be the
45th President of the United States. Thus, the prospect of the U.S. Federal Government
addressing the issues of housing and homelessness may be far off in the future. The
implementation of policy that provides adequate funding to urban Indians; sets a standard of
accountability in the U.S. Federal Government agencies; and bestowing responsibility of Office
of Native American Programs to Native Americans may have to wait until the election of the 46th
President of the United States.
Nelson Jim, Program and Clinical Director for Outpatient Behavioral Health Services at
the Native American Health Center (San California, CA), is confident that “It is not individual
health and wellness that is the optimal treatment plan. Native people need to be a part of their
community.” To treat urban Indians of the vicious cycle of homelessness, implementation of
“policy” that increases access to resources and to housing programs; offers case management to
children and youth, family and community, elders and veterans; and encourages homeless and
traumatized individuals to express themselves in a safe and supportive environment may be the
miracle medicine to prescribe. Even though the issues of housing and homelessness may not be
addressed by the U.S. Federal Government in the near future, it has already been addressed by
Little Earth (Minneapolis, Minnesota), Native American Youth and Family Center (Portland,
Oregon) and Native American Connections (Phoenix, Arizona).
Their Prescription: BUILDING COMMUNITY prior to BUILDING HOUSING.
58
REFERENCES
Alba, Manuel, and Mireille Zieseniss. A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in
Indian Country. Rep. Ed. Terri A. Dickerson. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights, 2003. Print.
Comenote, Janeen. No Home in Indian Country. Publication. Washington, DC: Poverty & Race
Research Action Council, 2009. Print.
"Empowering Tribal Nations." Bernie Sanders. Bernie. Web. 21 Dec. 2016.
Expert Panel on Homelessness among American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.
Rep. Washington, DC: United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2012. Print.
"Growing Together: Hillary Clinton's Vision for Building a Brighter Future for Native
Americans." Hillary Clinton 2016. Hillary for America. Web. 26 Dec. 2016.
"In 1492." Mama Lisa's World. Lisa Yannucci, 3 Oct. 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2016.
"Indian Housing - HUD's Office of Native American Programs (ONAP)." Indian Housing –
HUD's Office of Native American Programs (ONAP). HUD.GOV - U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Web. 20 Dec. 2016.
"Little Earth of United Tribes." Little Earth of United Tribes. Web. 23 Dec. 2016.
Making the Invisible Visible; A Policy Blueprint from Urban Indian America. Rep. National
Urban Indian Family Coalition, 2016. Print.
"Native American Connections." Home - Native American Connections. Native American
Connections, Inc. Web. 23 Dec. 2016.
"Native American Youth and Family Center." Native American Youth and Family Center. Web.
23 Dec. 2016.
"NUIFC." National Urban Indian Family Coalition. NUIFC. Web. 20 Dec. 2016.
Urban Indian America: The Status of American Indian & Alaska Native Children & Families
Today. Rep. Seattle: National Urban Indian Family Coalition, 2011. Print.
59
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543
A title to lands under grants to private individuals made by Indian tribes or nations northwest of the River Ohio in
1773 and 1775 cannot be recognized in the courts of the United States.
Discovery the original foundation of titles to land on the American continent as between the different European
nations by whom conquests and settlements were made here.
Recognition of the same principle in the wars, negotiations, and treaties between the different European powers.
Adoption of the same principle by the United States.
The exclusive right of the British government to the lands occupied by the Indians has passed to that of the United
States.
Foundation and limitation of the right of conquest.
Application of the principle of the right of conquest to the case of the Indian savages. Nature of the Indian title, as
subordinate to the absolute ultimate title of the government.
Effect of the proclamation of 1763.
Titles in New England under Indian grants.
This was an action of ejectment for lands in the State and District of Illinois, claimed by the plaintiffs under a
purchase and conveyance from the Piankeshaw Indians and by the defendant under a grant from the United States. It
came up on a case stated upon which there was a judgment below for the defendant. The case stated set out the
following facts:
1st. That on 23 May, 1609, James I, King of England, by his letters patent of that date, under the great seal of
England, did erect, form, and establish Robert, Earl of Salisbury, and others, his associates, in the letters patent
named and their successors into a body corporate and politic by the name and style of "The Treasurer and Company
of Adventurers and Planters of the City of London for the first Colony in Virginia," with perpetual succession and
power to make, have, and use a common seal, and did give, grant, and confirm unto this company, and their
successors, under certain reservations and limitations in the letters patent expressed,
"All the lands, countries, and territories situate, lying, and being in that part of North America called Virginia, from
the point of land called Cape or Point Comfort all along the seacoast to the northward two hundred miles, and from
the said Cape or Point Comfort all along the seacoast to the southward two hundred miles, and all that space and
circuit of land lying from the seacoast of the precinct aforesaid up into the land throughout from the sea, west and
northwest, and also all the islands lying within one hundred miles along the coast of both seas of the precinct
aforesaid, with all the soil, grounds, rights, privileges, and appurtenances to these territories belonging and in the
letters patent particularly enumerated," and did grant to this corporation and their successors various powers of
government in the letters patent particularly expressed.
2d. That the place called in these letters patent Cape or Point Comfort is the place now called and known by the
name of Old Point Comfort, on the Chesapeake Bay and Hampton Roads, and that immediately after the granting of
the letters patent, the corporation proceeded under and by virtue of them to take possession of parts of the territory
which they describe and to form settlements, plant a colony, and exercise the powers of government therein, which
colony was called and known by the name of the Colony of Virginia.
60
3d. That at the time of granting these letters patent and of the discovery of the continent of North America by the
Europeans, and during the whole intermediate time, the whole of the territory in the letters patent described, except a
small district on James River, where a settlement of Europeans had previously been made, was held, occupied, and
possessed in full sovereignty by various independent tribes or nations of Indians, who were the sovereigns of their
respective portions of the territory and the absolute owners and proprietors of the soil and who neither
acknowledged nor owed any allegiance or obedience to any European sovereign or state whatever, and that in
making settlements within this territory and in all the other parts of North America where settlements were made
under the authority of the English government or by its subjects, the right of soil was previously obtained by
purchase or conquest from the particular Indian tribe or nation by which the soil was claimed and held, or the
consent of such tribe or nation was secured.
4th. That in the year 1624, this corporation was dissolved by due course of law and all its powers, together with its
rights of soil and jurisdiction under the letters patent in question were revested in the Crown of England, whereupon
the colony became a royal government with the same territorial limits and extent which had been established by the
letters patent, and so continued until it became a free and independent state, except so far as its limits and extent
were altered and curtailed by the Treaty of February 10, 1763, between Great Britain and France and by the letters
patent granted by the King of England for establishing the Colonies of Carolina, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.
5th. That sometime previous to the year 1756, the French government, laying a claim to the country west of the
Alleghany or Appalachian Mountains on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and their branches, took possession of
certain parts of it with the consent of the several tribes or nations of Indians possessing and owning them, and with
the like consent established several military posts and settlements therein, particularly at Kaskaskias, on the River
Kaskaskias, and at Vincennes, on the River Wabash, within the limits of the Colony of Virginia, as described and
established in and by the letters patent of May 23, 1609, and that the government of Great Britain, after complaining
of these establishments as encroachments and remonstrating against them, at length, in the year 1756, took up arms
to resist and repel them, which produced a war between those two nations wherein the Indian tribes inhabiting and
holding the countries northwest of the Ohio and on the Mississippi above the mouth of the Ohio were the allies of
France, and the Indians known by the name of the Six Nations or the Iroquois and their tributaries and allies were
the allies of Great Britain, and that on 10 February, 1763, this war was terminated by a definitive treaty of peace
between Great Britain and France and their allies by which it was stipulated and agreed that the River Mississippi,
from its source to the Iberville, should forever after form the boundary between the dominions of Great Britain and
those of France in that part of North America and between their respective allies there.
6th. That the government of Virginia, at and before the commencement of this war and at all times after it became a
royal government, claimed and exercised jurisdiction, with the knowledge and assent of the government of Great
Britain, in and over the country northwest of the River Ohio and east of the Mississippi as being included within the
bounds and limits described and established for that colony, by the letters patent of May 23, 1609, and that in the
year 1749, a grant of six hundred thousand acres of land within the country northwest of the Ohio and as part of
Virginia was made by the government of Great Britain to some of its subjects by the name and style of the Ohio
Company.
7th. That at and before the commencement of the war in 1756 and during its whole continuance and at the time of
the Treaty of February 10, 1763, the Indian tribes or nations inhabiting the country north and northwest of the Ohio
and east of the Mississippi as far east as the river falling into the Ohio called the Great Miami were called and
known by the name of the Western Confederacy of Indians, and were the allies of France in the war, but not her
subjects, never having been in any manner conquered by her, and held the country in absolute sovereignty as
independent nations, both as to the right of jurisdiction and sovereignty and the right of soil, except a few military
posts and a small territory around each, which they had ceded to France, and she held under them, and among which
were the aforesaid posts of Kaskaskias and Vincennes, and that these Indians, after the treaty, became the allies of
Great Britain, living under her protection as they had before lived under that of France, but were free and
61
independent, owing no allegiance to any foreign power whatever and holding their lands in absolute property, the
territories of the respective tribes being separated from each other and distinguished by certain natural marks and
boundaries to the Indians well known, and each tribe claiming and exercising separate and absolute ownership in
and over its own territory, both as to the right of sovereignty and jurisdiction and the right of soil.
8th. That among the tribes of Indians thus holding and inhabiting the territory north and northwest of the Ohio, east
of the Mississippi, and west of the Great Miami, within the limits of Virginia, as described in the letters patent of
May 23, 1609, were certain independent tribes or nations called the Illinois or Kaskaskias and the Piankeshaw or
Wabash Indians, the first of which consisted of three several tribes united into one and called the Kaskasias, the
Pewarias, and the Cahoquias; that the Illinois owned, held, and inhabited, as their absolute and separate property, a
large tract of country within the last mentioned limits and situated on the Mississippi, Illinois, and Kaskaskias Rivers
and on the Ohio below the mouth of the Wabash, and the Piankeshaws another large tract of country within the same
limits, and as their absolute and separate property, on the Wabash and Ohio Rivers, and that these Indians remained
in the sole and absolute ownership and possession of the country in question until the sales made by them in the
manner herein after set forth.
9th. That on the termination of the war between Great Britain and France, the Illinois Indians, by the name of the
Kaskaskias tribes of Indians, as fully representing all the Illinois tribes then remaining, made a treaty of peace with
Great Britain and a treaty of peace, limits, and amity, under her mediation, with the Six Nations, or Iroquois, and
their allies, then known and distinguished by the name of the Northern Confederacy of Indians, the Illinois being a
part of the confederacy then known and distinguished by the name of the Southern Confederacy, and sometimes by
that of the Western Confederacy.
10th. That on 7 October, 1763, the King of Great Britain made and published a proclamation for the better
regulation of the countries ceded to Great Britain by that treaty, which proclamation is referred to and made part of
the case.
11th. That from time immemorial and always up to the present time, all the Indian tribes or nations of North
America, and especially the Illinois and Piankeshaws and other tribes holding, possessing, and inhabiting the said
countries north and northeast of the Ohio east of the Mississippi and west of the Great Miami held their respective
lands and territories each in common, the individuals of each tribe or nation holding the lands and territories of such
tribe in common with each other, and there being among them no separate property in the soil, and that their sole
method of selling, granting, and conveying their lands, whether to governments or individuals, always has been from
time immemorial and now is for certain chiefs of the tribe selling to represent the whole tribe in every part of the
transaction, to make the contract, and execute the deed, on behalf of the whole tribe, to receive for it the
consideration, whether in money or commodities, or both, and finally to divide such consideration among the
individuals of the tribe, and that the authority of the chiefs so acting for the whole tribe is attested by the presence
and assent of the individuals composing the tribe, or some of them, and by the receipt by the individuals composing
the tribe of their respective shares of the price, and in no other manner.
12th. That on 5 July, 1773, certain chiefs of the Illinois Indians, then jointly representing, acting for, and being duly
authorized by that tribe in the manner explained above, did by their deed poll, duly executed and delivered and
bearing date on that day, at the post of Kaskaskias, then being a British military post, and at a public council there
held by them for and on behalf of the said Illinois nation of Indians with William Murray, of the Illinois country,
merchant, acting for himself and for Moses Franks and Jacob Franks, of London, in Great Britain, David Franks,
John Inglis, Bernard Gratz, Michael Gratz, Alexander Ross, David Sproat, and James Milligan, all of Philadelphia,
in the Province of Pennsylvania; Moses Franks, Andrew Hamilton, William Hamilton, and Edmund Milne of the
same place; Joseph Simons otherwise called Joseph Simon and Levi Andrew Levi of the Town of Lancaster in
Pennsylvania; Thomas Minshall of York County in the same province; Robert Callender and William Thompson, of
Cumberland County in the same province; John Campbell of Pittsburgh in the same province; and George Castles
62
and James Ramsay of the Illinois country, and for a good and valuable consideration in the said deed stated grant,
bargain, sell, alien, lease, enfeoff, and confirm to the said William Murray, Moses Franks, Jacob Franks, David
Franks, John Inglis, Bernard Gratz, Michael Gratz, Alexander Ross, David Sproat, James Milligan, Andrew
Hamilton, William Hamilton, Edmund Milne Joseph Simons, otherwise called Joseph Simon Levi Andrew Levi,
Thomas Minshall, Robert Callender, William Thompson, John Campbell, George Castles, and James Ramsay, their
heirs and assigns forever, in severalty, or to George the Third, then King of Great Britain and Ireland, his heirs and
successors, for the use, benefit, and behoof of the grantees, their heirs and assigns, in severalty, by whichever of
those tenures they might most legally hold, all those two several tracts or parcels of land situated, lying, and being
within the limits of Virginia on the east of the Mississippi, northwest of the Ohio, and west of the Great Miami, and
thus butted and bounded:
Beginning for one of the said tracts on the east side of the Mississippi at the mouth of the Heron Creek, called by the
French the River of Mary, being about a league below the mouth of the Kaskaskias River, and running thence a
northward of east course in a direct line back to the Hilly Plains, about eight leagues more or less; thence the same
course in a direct line to the Crab Tree Plains, about seventeen leagues more or less; thence the same course in a
direct line to a remarkable place known by the name of the Big Buffalo Hoofs, about seventeen leagues more or less;
thence the same course, in a direct line to the Salt Lick Creek, about seven leagues more or less; then crossing the
Salt Lick Creek, about one league below the ancient Shawanese town in an easterly or a little to the north of east
course in a direct line to the River Ohio, about four leagues more or less; then down the Ohio by its several courses
until it empties into the Mississippi, about thirty-five leagues more or less; and then up the Mississippi, by its several
courses, to the place of beginning, about thirty-three leagues more or less; and beginning for the other tract on the
Mississippi at a point directly opposite to the mouth of the Missouri and running up the Mississippi by its several
courses to the mouth of the Illinois, about six leagues more or less; and thence up the Illinois, by its several courses,
to Chicagou or Garlic Creek, about ninety leagues, more or less; thence nearly a northerly course, in a direct line, to
a certain remarkable place, being the ground on which a battle was fought about forty or fifty years before that time
between the Pewaria and Renard Indians, about fifty leagues more or less; thence by the same course in a direct line
to two remarkable hills close together in the middle of a large prairie or plain, about fourteen leagues more or less;
thence a north of east course, in a direct line, to a remarkable spring known by the Indians by the name of "Foggy
Spring," about fourteen leagues more or less; thence the same course in a direct line to a great mountain, to the
northwest of the White Buffalo Plain, about fifteen leagues more or less; and thence nearly a southwest course to the
place of beginning, about forty leagues more or less:
To have and to hold the said two tracts of land, with all and singular their appurtenances, to the grantees, their heirs
and assigns, forever in severalty or to the King, his heirs and successors, to and for the use, benefit, or behoof of the
grantees, their heirs and assigns, forever in severalty, as will more fully appear by the said deed poll, duly executed
under the hands and seals of the grantors and duly recorded at Kaskaskias on 2 September, 1773, in the office of
Vicerault Lemerance, a notary public, duly appointed and authorized. This deed, with the several certificates
annexed to or endorsed on it, was set out at length in the case.
13th. That the consideration in this deed expressed, was of the value of $24,000 current money of the United States
and upwards, and was paid and delivered, at the time of the execution of the deed, by William Murray, one of the
grantees, in behalf of himself and the other grantees, to the Illinois Indians, who freely accepted it and divided it
among themselves; that the conferences in which the sale of these lands was agreed on and made and in which it was
agreed that the deed should be executed were publicly held for the space of a month at the post of Kaskaskias, and
were attended by many individuals of all the tribes of Illinois Indians, besides the chiefs, named as grantors in the
deed; that the whole transaction was open, public, and fair, and the deed fully explained to the grantors and other
Indians by the sworn interpreters of the government and fully understood by the grantors and other Indians before it
was executed; that the several witnesses to the deed and the grantees named in it were such persons and of such
quality and stations, respectively, as they are described to be in the deed, the attestation, and the other endorsements
63
on it; that the grantees did duly authorize William Murray to act for and represent them in the purchase of the lands
and the acceptance of the deed, and that the two tracts or parcels of land which it describes and purports to grant
were then part of the lands held, possessed, and inhabited by the Illinois Indians from time immemorial in the
manner already stated.
14th. That all the persons named as grantees in this deed were, at the time of its execution and long before, subjects
of the Crown of Great Britain and residents of the several places named in the deed as their places of residence, and
that they entered into the land under and by virtue of the deed and became seized as the law requires.
15th. That on 18 October, 1775, Tabac and certain other Indians, all being chiefs of the Piankeshaws and jointly
representing, acting for, and duly authorized by that nation in the manner stated above, did, by their deed poll, duly
executed and bearing date on the day last mentioned at the post of Vincennes, otherwise called post St. Vincent, then
being a British military post, and at a public council there held by them for and on behalf of the Piankeshaw Indians,
with Louis Viviat, of the Illinois country, acting for himself and for the Right Honorable John, Earl of Dunmore,
then Governor of Virginia, the Honorable John Murray, son of the said Earl, Moses Franks and Jacob Franks, of
London, in Great Britain, Thomas Johnson, Jr., and John Davidson, both of Annapolis, in Maryland, William
Russel, Matthew Ridley, Robert Christie, Sr., and Robert Christie, Jr., of Baltimore Town, in the same province,
Peter Compbell, of Piscataway in the same province, William Geddes, of Newtown Chester in the same province,
collector of his Majesty's customs, David Franks and Moses Franks, both of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, William
Murray and Daniel Murray, of the Illinois country, Nicholas St. Martin and Joseph Page, of the same place, Francis
Perthuis, late of Quebec, in Canada, but then of post St. Vincent, and for good and valuable consideration, in the
deed poll mentioned and enumerated, grant, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, release, ratify, and confirm to the said Louis
Viviat and the other persons last mentioned, their heirs and assigns, equally to be divided, or to George III, then
King of Great Britain and Ireland, his heirs and successors, for the use, benefit, and behoof of all the above
mentioned grantees, their heirs and assigns, in severalty, by whichever of those tenures they might most legally hold,
all those two several tracts of land in the deed particularly described situate, lying, and being northwest of the Ohio,
east of the Mississippi, and west of the Great Miami, within the limits of Virginia and on both sides of the
Ouabache, otherwise called the Wabash, which two tracts of land are contained respectively within the following
metes and bounds, courses and distances, that is to say, beginning for one of the said tracts at the mouth of a rivulet
called Riviere du Chat, or Cat River, where it empties itself into the Ouabache or Wabash, by its several courses, to
a place called Point Coupee, about twelve leagues above post St. Vincent, being forty leagues, or thereabouts, in
length, on the said river Ouabache, from the place of beginning, with forty leagues in width or breadth on the east
side, and thirty leagues in breadth or width on the west side of that river, to be continued along from the place of
beginning to Point Coupee. And beginning for the other tract at the mouth of White River where it empties into the
Ouabache, about twelve leagues below post St. Vincent, and running thence down the Ouabache by its several
courses until it empties into the Ohio, being from White River to the Ohio, about fifty-three leagues in length, more
or less, with forty leagues in width or breadth on the east side and thirty in width or breadth on the west side of the
Ouabache, to be continued along from the White River to the Ohio, with all the rights, liberties, privileges,
hereditaments, and appurtenances to the said tract belonging, to have and to hold to the grantees, their heirs and
assigns, forever in severalty or to the King, his heirs and successors, for the use, benefit, and behoof of the grantees,
their heirs and assigns, as will more fully appear by the deed itself, duly executed under the hands and seals of the
grantors, and duly recorded at Kaskaskias, on 5 December, 1775, in the office of Louis Bomer, a notary public, duly
appointed and authorized. This deed, with the several certificates annexed to or endorsed on it, was set out at length.
16th. That the consideration in this deed expressed was of the value of $31,000 current money of the United States
and upwards, and was paid and delivered at the time of the execution of the deed by the grantee, Lewis Viviat, in
behalf of himself and the other grantees, to the Piankeshaw Indians, who freely accepted it and divided it among
themselves; that the conferences in which the sale of these two tracts of land was agreed on and made, and in which
it was agreed that the deed should be executed were publicly held for the space of a month at the post of Vincennes
64
or post St. Vincent, and were attended by many individuals of the Piankeshaw nation of Indians besides the chiefs
named as grantors in the deed; that the whole transaction was open, public, and fair, and the deed fully explained to
the grantors and other Indians by skillful interpreters, and fully understood by them before it was executed; that it
was executed in the presence of the several witnesses by whom it purports to have been attested, and was attested by
them; that the grantees were all subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, and were of such quality, station, and
residence, respectively, as they are described in the deed to be; that the grantees did duly authorize Lewis Viviat to
act for and represent them in the purchase of these two tracts of land and in the acceptance of the deed; that these
tracts of land were then part of the lands held, possessed, and inhabited by the Piankeshaw Indians from time
immemorial, as is stated above; and that the several grantees under this deed entered into the land which it purports
to grant and became seized as the law requires.
17th. That on 6 May, 1776, the Colony of Virginia threw off its dependence on the Crown and government of Great
Britain and declared itself an independent state and government with the limits prescribed and established by the
letters patent of May 23, 1609, as curtailed and restricted by the letters patent establishing the Colonies of
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Carolina and by the Treaty of February 10, 1763, between Great Britain and France,
which limits, so curtailed and restricted, the State of Virginia, by its Constitution and form of government, declared
should be and remain the limits of the state and should bound its western and northwestern extent.
18th. That on 5 October, 1778, the General Assembly of Virginia, having taken by arms the posts of Kaskaskias and
Vincennes, or St. Vincent, from the British forces, by whom they were then held, and driven those forces from the
country northwest of the Ohio, east of the Mississippi, and west of the Great Miami, did, by an act of assembly of
that date, entitled "An act for establishing the County of Illinois and for the more effectual protection and defense
thereof," erect that country, with certain other portions of territory within the limits of the state and northwest of the
Ohio into a county, by the name of the County of Illinois.
19th. That on 29 December, 1783, the State of Virginia, by an act of assembly of that date, authorized their delegates
in the Congress of the United States, or such of them, to the number of three at least, as should be assembled in
Congress on behalf of the state and by proper deeds or instruments in writing under their hands and seals, to convey,
transfer, assign, and make over to the United States, in Congress assembled, for the benefit of the said states, all
right, title, and claim, as well of soil as jurisdiction, which Virginia had to the territory or tract of country within her
limits, as defined and prescribed by the letters patent of May 23, 1609, and lying to the northwest of the Ohio;
subject to certain limitations and conditions in the act prescribed and specified, and that on 1 March, 1784, Thomas
Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, then being four of the delegates of Virginia to the
Congress of the United States, did, by their deed poll, under their hands and seals, in pursuance and execution of the
authority to them given by this act of assembly, convey, transfer, assign, and make over to the United States, in
Congress assembled, for the benefit of the said states, all right, title, and claim, as well of soil as jurisdiction which
that state had to the territory northwest of the Ohio, with the reservations, limitations, and conditions in the act of
assembly prescribed, which cession the United States accepted.
20th. That on 20 July, 1818, the United States, by their officers duly authorized for that purpose did sell, grant, and
convey to the defendant in this action, William McIntosh, all those several tracts or parcels of land, containing
11,560 acres, and butted, bounded, and described, as will fully appear in and by the patent for the said lands, duly
executed, which was set out at length.
21st. That the lands described and granted in and by this patent are situated within the State of Illinois and are
contained within the lines of the last or second of the two tracts described and purporting to be granted and
conveyed to Louis Viviat and others by the deed of October 18, 1775, and that William McIntosh, the defendant,
entered upon these lands under and by virtue of his patent and became possessed thereof before the institution of this
suit.
65
22d. That Thomas Johnson, one of the grantees in and under the deed of October 18, 1775, departed this life on or
about 1 October, 1819, seized of all his undivided part or share of and in the two several tracts of land described and
purporting to be granted and conveyed to him and others by that deed, having first duly made and published his last
will and testament in writing, attested by three credible witnesses, which he left in full force and by which he
devised all his undivided share and part of those two tracts of land to his son, Joshua Johnson and his heirs, and his
grandson, Thomas J. Graham, and his heirs, the lessors of the plaintiff in this action, as tenants in common.
23d. That Joshua Johnson and Thomas J. Graham, the devisees, entered into the two tracts of land last above
mentioned under and by virtue of the will, and became thereof seized as the law requires. That Thomas Johnson, the
grantee and devisor, during his whole life and at the time of his death, was an inhabitant and citizen of the State of
Maryland; that Joshua Johnson and Thomas J. Graham, the lessors of the plaintiff, now are and always have been
citizens of the same state; that the defendant, William McIntosh, now is and at and before the time of bringing this
action was a citizen of the State of Illinois, and that the matter in dispute in this action is of the value of $2,000
current money of the United States and upwards.
24th. And that neither William Murray nor any other of the grantees under the deed of July 5, 1773, nor Louis Viviat
nor any other of the grantees under the deed of October 8, 1775, nor any person for them or any of them ever
obtained or had the actual possession under and by virtue of those deeds or either of them of any part of the lands in
them or either of them described and purporting to be granted, but were prevented by the war of the American
Revolution, which soon after commenced, and by the disputes and troubles which preceded it, from obtaining such
possession, and that since the termination of the war and before it, they have repeatedly and at various times from
the year 1781 till the year 1816 petitioned the Congress of the United States to acknowledge and confirm their title
to those lands under the purchases and deeds in question, but without success.
Judgment being given for the defendant on the case stated, the plaintiffs brought this writ of error.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
The plaintiffs in this cause claim the land in their declaration mentioned under two grants purporting to be made, the
first in 1773 and the last in 1775, by the chiefs of certain Indian tribes constituting the Illinois and the Piankeshaw
nations, and the question is whether this title can be recognized in the courts of the United States?
The facts, as stated in the case agreed, show the authority of the chiefs who executed this conveyance so far as it
could be given by their own people, and likewise show that the particular tribes for whom these chiefs acted were in
rightful possession of the land they sold. The inquiry, therefore, is in a great measure confined to the power of
Indians to give, and of private individuals to receive, a title which can be sustained in the courts of this country.
As the right of society to prescribe those rules by which property may be acquired and preserved is not and cannot
be drawn into question, as the title to lands especially is and must be admitted to depend entirely on the law of the
nation in which they lie, it will be necessary in pursuing this inquiry to examine not singly those principles of
abstract justice which the Creator of all things has impressed on the mind of his creature man and which are
admitted to regulate in a great degree the rights of civilized nations, whose perfect independence is acknowledged,
but those principles also which our own government has adopted in the particular case and given us as the rule for
our decision.
On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so
much of it as they could respectively acquire. Its vast extent offered an ample field to the ambition and enterprise of
all, and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom
the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency. The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in
convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new by bestowing on them
civilization and Christianity in exchange for unlimited independence. But as they were all in pursuit of nearly the
66
same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements and consequent war with each other, to
establish a principle which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all
asserted should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was that discovery gave title to the government
by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made against all other European governments, which title might be
consummated by possession.
The exclusion of all other Europeans necessarily gave to the nation making the discovery the sole right of acquiring
the soil from the natives and establishing settlements upon it. It was a right with which no Europeans could interfere.
It was a right which all asserted for themselves, and to the assertion of which by others all assented.
Those relations which were to exist between the discoverer and the natives were to be regulated by themselves. The
rights thus acquired being exclusive, no other power could interpose between them. In the establishment of these
relations, the rights of the original inhabitants were in no instance entirely disregarded, but were necessarily to a
considerable extent impaired. They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just
claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion; but their rights to complete
sovereignty as independent nations were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own
will to whomsoever they pleased was denied by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave exclusive
title to those who made it.
While the different nations of Europe respected the right of the natives as occupants, they asserted the ultimate
dominion to be in themselves, and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to
grant the soil while yet in possession of the natives. These grants have been understood by all to convey a title to the
grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy.
The history of America from its discovery to the present day proves, we think, the universal recognition of these
principles.
Spain did not rest her title solely on the grant of the Pope. Her discussions respecting boundary, with France, with
Great Britain, and with the United States all show that she placed in on the rights given by discovery. Portugal
sustained her claim to the Brazils by the same title.
France also founded her title to the vast territories she claimed in America on discovery. However conciliatory her
conduct to the natives may have been, she still asserted her right of dominion over a great extent of country not
actually settled by Frenchmen and her exclusive right to acquire and dispose of the soil which remained in the
occupation of Indians. Her monarch claimed all Canada and Acadie as colonies of France at a time when the French
population was very inconsiderable and the Indians occupied almost the whole country. He also claimed Louisiana,
comprehending the immense territories watered by the Mississippi and the rivers which empty into it, by the title of
discovery. The letters patent granted to the Sieur Demonts in 1603, constitute him Lieutenant General, and the
representative of the King in Acadie, which is described as stretching from the 40th to the 46th degree of north
latitude, with authority to extend the power of the French over that country and its inhabitants, to give laws to the
people, to treat with the natives and enforce the observance of treaties, and to parcel out and give title to lands
according to his own judgment.
The states of Holland also made acquisitions in America and sustained their right on the common principle adopted
by all Europe. They allege, as we are told by Smith in his History of New York, that Henry Hudson, who sailed, as
they say, under the orders of their East India Company, discovered the country from the Delaware to the Hudson, up
which he sailed to the 43d degree of north latitude, and this country they claimed under the title acquired by this
voyage. Their first object was commercial, as appears by a grant made to a company of merchants in 1614, but in
1621 the States General made, as we are told by Mr. Smith, a grant of the country to the West India Company by the
name of New Netherlands.
67
The claim of the Dutch was always contested by the English -- not because they questioned the title given by
discovery, but because they insisted on being themselves the rightful claimants under that title. Their pretensions
were finally decided by the sword.
No one of the powers of Europe gave its full assent to this principle more unequivocally than England. The
documents upon this subject are ample and complete. So early as the year 1496, her monarch granted a commission
to the Cabots to discover countries then unknown to Christian people and to take possession of them in the name of
the King of England. Two years afterwards, Cabot proceeded on this voyage and discovered the continent of North
America, along which he sailed as far south as Virginia. To this discovery the English trace their title.
In this first effort made by the English government to acquire territory on this continent we perceive a complete
recognition of the principle which has been mentioned. The right of discovery given by this commission is confined
to countries "then unknown to all Christian people," and of these countries Cabot was empowered to take possession
in the name of the King of England. Thus asserting a right to take possession notwithstanding the occupancy of the
natives, who were heathens, and at the same time admitting the prior title of any Christian people who may have
made a previous discovery.
The same principle continued to be recognized. The charter granted to Sir Humphrey Gilbert in 1578 authorizes him
to discover and take possession of such remote, heathen, and barbarous lands as were not actually possessed by any
Christian prince or people. This charter was afterwards renewed to Sir Walter Raleigh in nearly the same terms.
By the charter of 1606, under which the first permanent English settlement on this continent was made, James I
granted to Sir Thomas Gates and others those territories in America lying on the seacoast between the 34th and 45th
degrees of north latitude and which either belonged to that monarch or were not then possessed by any other
Christian prince or people. The grantees were divided into two companies at their own request. The first or southern
colony was directed to settle between the 34th and 41st degrees of north latitude, and the second or northern colony
between the 38th and 45th degrees.
In 1609, after some expensive and not very successful attempts at settlement had been made, a new and more
enlarged charter was given by the Crown to the first colony, in which the King granted to the "Treasurer and
Company of Adventurers of the City of London for the first colony in Virginia," in absolute property, the lands
extending along the seacoast four hundred miles, and into the land throughout from sea to sea. This charter, which is
a part of the special verdict in this cause, was annulled, so far as respected the rights of the company, by the
judgment of the Court of King's Bench on a writ of quo warranto, but the whole effect allowed to this judgment was
to revest in the Crown the powers of government and the title to the lands within its limits.
At the solicitation of those who held under the grant to the second or northern colony, a new and more enlarged
charter was granted to the Duke of Lenox and others in 1620, who were denominated the Plymouth Company,
conveying to them in absolute property all the lands between the 40th and 48th degrees of north latitude.
Under this patent New England has been in a great measure settled. The company conveyed to Henry Rosewell and
others, in 1627, that territory which is now Massachusetts, and in 1628 a charter of incorporation comprehending the
powers of government was granted to the purchasers.
Great part of New England was granted by this company, which at length divided their remaining lands among
themselves, and in 1635 surrendered their charter to the Crown. A patent was granted to Gorges for Maine, which
was allotted to him in the division of property.
All the grants made by the Plymouth Company, so far as we can learn, have been respected. In pursuance of the
same principle, the King, in 1664, granted to the Duke of York the country of New England as far south as the
Delaware Bay. His Royal Highness transferred New Jersey to Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret.
68
In 1663, the Crown granted to Lord Clarendon and others the country lying between the 36th degree of north
latitude and the River St. Mathes, and in 1666 the proprietors obtained from the Crown a new charter granting to
them that province in the King's dominions in North America which lies from 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude
to the 29th degree, and from the Atlantic ocean to the South sea.
Thus has our whole country been granted by the Crown while in the occupation of the Indians. These grants purport
to convey the soil as well as the right of dominion to the grantees. In those governments which were denominated
royal, where the right to the soil was not vested in individuals, but remained in the Crown or was vested in the
colonial government, the King claimed and exercised the right of granting lands and of dismembering the
government at his will. The grants made out of the two original colonies, after the resumption of their charters by the
Crown, are examples of this. The governments of New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
and a part of Carolina were thus created. In all of them, the soil, at the time the grants were made, was occupied by
the Indians. Yet almost every title within those governments is dependent on these grants. In some instances, the soil
was conveyed by the Crown unaccompanied by the powers of government, as in the case of the northern neck of
Virginia. It has never been objected to this or to any other similar grant that the title as well as possession was in the
Indians when it was made and that it passed nothing on that account.
These various patents cannot be considered as nullities, nor can they be limited to a mere grant of the powers of
government. A charter intended to convey political power only would never contain words expressly granting the
land, the soil, and the waters. Some of them purport to convey the soil alone, and in those cases in which the powers
of government as well as the soil are conveyed to individuals, the Crown has always acknowledged itself to be
bound by the grant. Though the power to dismember regal governments was asserted and exercised, the power to
dismember proprietary governments was not claimed, and in some instances, even after the powers of government
were revested in the Crown, the title of the proprietors to the soil was respected.
Charles II was extremely anxious to acquire the property of Maine, but the grantees sold it to Massachusetts, and he
did not venture to contest the right of that colony to the soil. The Carolinas were originally proprietary governments.
In 1721, a revolution was effected by the people, who shook off their obedience to the proprietors and declared their
dependence immediately on the Crown. The King, however, purchased the title of those who were disposed to sell.
One of them, Lord Carteret, surrendered his interest in the government but retained his title to the soil. That title was
respected till the revolution, when it was forfeited by the laws of war.
Further proofs of the extent to which this principle has been recognized will be found in the history of the wars,
negotiations, and treaties which the different nations claiming territory in America have carried on and held with
each other.
The contests between the cabinets of Versailles and Madrid respecting the territory on the northern coast of the Gulf
of Mexico were fierce and bloody, and continued until the establishment of a Bourbon on the throne of Spain
produced such amicable dispositions in the two Crowns as to suspend or terminate them.
Between France and Great Britain, whose discoveries as well as settlements were nearly contemporaneous, contests
for the country actually covered by the Indians began as soon as their settlements approached each other, and were
continued until finally settled in the year 1763 by the Treaty of Paris.
Each nation had granted and partially settled the country, denominated by the French Acadie, and by the English
Nova Scotia. By the 12th article of the Treaty of Utrecht, made in 1703, his most Christian Majesty ceded to the
Queen of Great Britain "all Nova Scotia or Acadie, with its ancient boundaries." A great part of the ceded territory
was in the possession of the Indians, and the extent of the cession could not be adjusted by the commissioners to
whom it was to be referred.
69
The Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, which was made on the principle of the status ante bellum, did not remove this
subject of controversy. Commissioners for its adjustment were appointed whose very able and elaborate, though
unsuccessful, arguments in favor of the title of their respective sovereigns show how entirely each relied on the title
given by discovery to lands remaining in the possession of Indians.
After the termination of this fruitless discussion, the subject was transferred to Europe and taken up by the cabinets
of Versailles and London. This controversy embraced not only the boundaries of New England, Nova Scotia, and
that part of Canada which adjoined those colonies, but embraced our whole western country also. France contended
not only that the St. Lawrence was to be considered as the center of Canada, but that the Ohio was within that
colony. She founded this claim on discovery and on having used that river for the transportation of troops in a war
with some southern Indians.
This river was comprehended in the chartered limits of Virginia, but though the right of England to a reasonable
extent of country in virtue of her discovery of the seacoast and of the settlements she made on it, was not to be
questioned, her claim of all the lands to the Pacific Ocean because she had discovered the country washed by the
Atlantic, might, without derogating from the principle recognized by all, be deemed extravagant. It interfered, too,
with the claims of France founded on the same principle. She therefore sought to strengthen her original title to the
lands in controversy by insisting that it had been acknowledged by France in the 15th article of the Treaty of
Utrecht. The dispute respecting the construction of that article has no tendency to impair the principle, that discovery
gave a title to lands still remaining in the possession of the Indians. Whichever title prevailed, it was still a title to
lands occupied by the Indians, whose right of occupancy neither controverted and neither had then extinguished.
These conflicting claims produced a long and bloody war which was terminated by the conquest of the whole
country east of the Mississippi. In the treaty of 1763, France ceded and guaranteed to Great Britain all Nova Scotia,
or Acadie, and Canada, with their dependencies, and it was agreed that the boundaries between the territories of the
two nations in America should be irrevocably fixed by a line drawn from the source of the Mississippi, through the
middle of that river and the lakes Maurepas and Ponchartrain, to the sea. This treaty expressly cedes, and has always
been understood to cede, the whole country on the English side of the dividing line between the two nations,
although a great and valuable part of it was occupied by the Indians. Great Britain, on her part, surrendered to
France all her pretensions to the country west of the Mississippi. It has never been supposed that she surrendered
nothing, although she was not in actual possession of a foot of land. She surrendered all right to acquired the
country, and any after attempt to purchase it from the Indians would have been considered and treated as an invasion
of the territories of France.
By the 20th article of the same treaty, Spain ceded Florida, with its dependencies and all the country she claimed
east or southeast of the Mississippi, to Great Britain. Great part of this territory also was in possession of the Indians.
By a secret treaty which was executed about the same time, France ceded Louisiana to Spain, and Spain has since
retroceded the same country to France. At the time both of its cession and retrocession, it was occupied chiefly by
the Indians.
Thus all the nations of Europe who have acquired territory on this continent have asserted in themselves and have
recognized in others the exclusive right of the discoverer to appropriate the lands occupied by the Indians. Have the
American states rejected or adopted this principle?
By the treaty which concluded the war of our revolution, Great Britain relinquished all claim not only to the
government, but to the "propriety and territorial rights of the United States" whose boundaries were fixed in the
second article. By this treaty the powers of government and the right to soil which had previously been in Great
Britain passed definitively to these states. We had before taken possession of them by declaring independence, but
neither the declaration of independence nor the treaty confirming it could give us more than that which we before
70
possessed or to which Great Britain was before entitled. It has never been doubted that either the United States or the
several states had a clear title to all the lands within the boundary lines described in the treaty, subject only to the
Indian right of occupancy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that right was vested in that government which
might constitutionally exercise it.
Virginia, particularly, within whose chartered limits the land in controversy lay, passed an act in the year 1779
declaring her
"exclusive right of preemption from the Indians of all the lands within the limits of her own chartered territory, and
that no person or persons whatsoever have or ever had a right to purchase any lands within the same from any Indian
nation except only persons duly authorized to make such purchase, formerly for the use and benefit of the colony
and lately for the Commonwealth."
The act then proceeds to annul all deeds made by Indians to individuals for the private use of the purchasers.
Without ascribing to this act the power of annulling vested rights or admitting it to countervail the testimony
furnished by the marginal note opposite to the title of the law forbidding purchases from the Indians in the revisals
of the Virginia statutes stating that law to be repealed, it may safely be considered as an unequivocal affirmance on
the part of Virginia of the broad principle which had always been maintained that the exclusive right to purchase
from the Indians resided in the government.
In pursuance of the same idea, Virginia proceeded at the same session to open her land office for the sale of that
country which now constitutes Kentucky, a country every acre of which was then claimed and possessed by Indians,
who maintained their title with as much persevering courage as was ever manifested by any people.
The states, having within their chartered limits different portions of territory covered by Indians, ceded that territory
generally to the United States on conditions expressed in their deeds of cession, which demonstrate the opinion that
they ceded the soil as well as jurisdiction, and that in doing so they granted a productive fund to the government of
the Union. The lands in controversy lay within the chartered limits of Virginia, and were ceded with the whole
country northwest of the River Ohio. This grant contained reservations and stipulations which could only be made
by the owners of the soil, and concluded with a stipulation that
"all the lands in the ceded territory not reserved should be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of
such of the United States as have become or shall become members of the confederation, . . . according to their usual
respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for
that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever."
The ceded territory was occupied by numerous and warlike tribes of Indians, but the exclusive right of the United
States to extinguish their title and to grant the soil has never, we believe, been doubted.
After these states became independent, a controversy subsisted between them and Spain respecting boundary. By the
treaty of 1795, this controversy was adjusted and Spain ceded to the United States the territory in question. This
territory, though claimed by both nations, was chiefly in the actual occupation of Indians.
The magnificent purchase of Louisiana was the purchase from France of a country almost entirely occupied by
numerous tribes of Indians who are in fact independent. Yet any attempt of others to intrude into that country would
be considered as an aggression which would justify war.
Our late acquisitions from Spain are of the same character, and the negotiations which preceded those acquisitions
recognize and elucidate the principle which has been received as the foundation of all European title in America.
71
The United States, then, has unequivocally acceded to that great and broad rule by which its civilized inhabitants
now hold this country. They hold and assert in themselves the title by which it was acquired. They maintain, as all
others have maintained, that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy either by
purchase or by conquest, and gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty as the circumstances of the people
would allow them to exercise.
The power now possessed by the government of the United States to grant lands, resided, while we were colonies, in
the Crown, or its grantees. The validity of the titles given by either has never been questioned in our courts. It has
been exercised uniformly over territory in possession of the Indians. The existence of this power must negative the
existence of any right which may conflict with and control it. An absolute title to lands cannot exist at the same time
in different persons or in different governments. An absolute must be an exclusive title, or at least a title which
excludes all others not compatible with it. All our institutions recognize the absolute title of the Crown, subject only
to the Indian right of occupancy, and recognize the absolute title of the Crown to extinguish that right. This is
incompatible with an absolute and complete title in the Indians.
We will not enter into the controversy whether agriculturists, merchants, and manufacturers have a right on abstract
principles to expel hunters from the territory they possess or to contract their limits. Conquest gives a title which the
courts of the conqueror cannot deny, whatever the private and speculative opinions of individuals may be, respecting
the original justice of the claim which has been successfully asserted. The British government, which was then our
government and whose rights have passed to the United States, asserted title to all the lands occupied by Indians
within the chartered limits of the British colonies. It asserted also a limited sovereignty over them and the exclusive
right of extinguishing the title which occupancy gave to them. These claims have been maintained and established as
far west as the River Mississippi by the sword. The title to a vast portion of the lands we now hold originates in
them. It is not for the courts of this country to question the validity of this title or to sustain one which is
incompatible with it.
Although we do not mean to engage in the defense of those principles which Europeans have applied to Indian title,
they may, we think, find some excuse, if not justification, in the character and habits of the people whose rights have
been wrested from them.
The title by conquest is acquired and maintained by force. The conqueror prescribes its limits. Humanity, however,
acting on public opinion, has established, as a general rule, that the conquered shall not be wantonly oppressed, and
that their condition shall remain as eligible as is compatible with the objects of the conquest. Most usually, they are
incorporated with the victorious nation, and become subjects or citizens of the government with which they are
connected. The new and old members of the society mingle with each other; the distinction between them is
gradually lost, and they make one people. Where this incorporation is practicable, humanity demands and a wise
policy requires that the rights of the conquered to property should remain unimpaired; that the new subjects should
be governed as equitably as the old, and that confidence in their security should gradually banish the painful sense of
being separated from their ancient connections, and united by force to strangers.
When the conquest is complete and the conquered inhabitants can be blended with the conquerors or safely
governed as a distinct people, public opinion, which not even the conqueror can disregard, imposes these restraints
upon him, and he cannot neglect them without injury to his fame and hazard to his power.
But the tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages whose occupation was war and whose
subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest. To leave them in possession of their country was to leave the country
a wilderness; to govern them as a distinct people was impossible because they were as brave and as high spirited as
they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence.
72
What was the inevitable consequence of this state of things? The Europeans were under the necessity either of
abandoning the country and relinquishing their pompous claims to it or of enforcing those claims by the sword, and
by the adoption of principles adapted to the condition of a people with whom it was impossible to mix and who
could not be governed as a distinct society, or of remaining in their neighborhood, and exposing themselves and
their families to the perpetual hazard of being massacred.
Frequent and bloody wars, in which the whites were not always the aggressors, unavoidably ensued. European
policy, numbers, and skill prevailed. As the white population advanced, that of the Indians necessarily receded. The
country in the immediate neighborhood of agriculturists became unfit for them. The game fled into thicker and more
unbroken forests, and the Indians followed. The soil to which the Crown originally claimed title, being no longer
occupied by its ancient inhabitants, was parceled out according to the will of the sovereign power and taken
possession of by persons who claimed immediately from the Crown or mediately through its grantees or deputies.
That law which regulates and ought to regulate in general the relations between the conqueror and conquered was
incapable of application to a people under such circumstances. The resort to some new and different rule better
adapted to the actual state of things was unavoidable. Every rule which can be suggested will be found to be
attended with great difficulty.
However extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest may appear;
if the principle has been asserted in the first instance, and afterwards sustained; if a country has been acquired and
held under it; if the property of the great mass of the community originates in it, it becomes the law of the land and
cannot be questioned. So, too, with respect to the concomitant principle that the Indian inhabitants are to be
considered merely as occupants, to be protected, indeed, while in peace, in the possession of their lands, but to be
deemed incapable of transferring the absolute title to others. However this restriction may be opposed to natural
right, and to the usages of civilized nations, yet if it be indispensable to that system under which the country has
been settled, and be adapted to the actual condition of the two people, it may perhaps be supported by reason, and
certainly cannot be rejected by courts of justice.
This question is not entirely new in this Court. The case of Fletcher v. Peck grew out of a sale made by the State of
Georgia of a large tract of country within the limits of that state, the grant of which was afterwards resumed. The
action was brought by a subpurchaser on the contract of sale, and one of the covenants in the deed was that the State
of Georgia was, at the time of sale, seized in fee of the premises. The real question presented by the issue was
whether the seizin in fee was in the State of Georgia or in the United States. After stating that this controversy
between the several states and the United States had been compromised, the court thought in necessary to notice the
Indian title, which, although entitled to the respect of all courts until it should be legitimately extinguished, was
declared not to be such as to be absolutely repugnant to a seizin in fee on the part of the state.
This opinion conforms precisely to the principle which has been supposed to be recognized by all European
governments from the first settlement of America. The absolute ultimate title has been considered as acquired by
discovery, subject only to the Indian title of occupancy, which title the discoverers possessed the exclusive right of
acquiring. Such a right is no more incompatible with a seizin in fee than a lease for years, and might as effectually
bar an ejectment.
Another view has been taken of this question which deserves to be considered. The title of the Crown, whatever it
might be, could be acquired only by a conveyance from the Crown. If an individual might extinguish the Indian title
for his own benefit, or in other words might purchase it, still he could acquire only that title. Admitting their power
to change their laws or usages so far as to allow an individual to separate a portion of their lands from the common
stock and hold it in severalty, still it is a part of their territory and is held under them by a title dependent on their
laws. The grant derives its efficacy from their will, and if they choose to resume it and make a different disposition
of the land, the courts of the United States cannot interpose for the protection of the title. The person who purchases
73
lands from the Indians within their territory incorporates himself with them so far as respects the property
purchased; holds their title under their protection and subject to their laws. If they annul the grant, we know of no
tribunal which can revise and set aside the proceeding. We know of no principle which can distinguish this case
from a grant made to a native Indian, authorizing him to hold a particular tract of land in severalty.
As such a grant could not separate the Indian from his nation, nor give a title which our courts could distinguish
from the title of his tribe, as it might still be conquered from, or ceded by his tribe, we can perceive no legal
principle which will authorize a court to say that different consequences are attached to this purchase because it was
made by a stranger. By the treaties concluded between the United States and the Indian nations whose title the
plaintiffs claim, the country comprehending the lands in controversy has been ceded to the United States without
any reservation of their title. These nations had been at war with the United States, and had an unquestionable right
to annul any grant they had made to American citizens. Their cession of the country without a reservation of this
land affords a fair presumption that they considered it as of no validity. They ceded to the United States this very
property, after having used it in common with other lands as their own, from the date of their deeds to the time of
cession, and the attempt now made, is to set up their title against that of the United States.
The proclamation issued by the King of Great Britain in 1763 has been considered, and we think with reason, as
constituting an additional objection to the title of the plaintiffs.
By that proclamation, the Crown reserved under its own dominion and protection, for the use of the Indians, "all the
land and territories lying to the westward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the west and
northwest," and strictly forbade all British subjects from making any purchases or settlements whatever or taking
possession of the reserved lands.
It has been contended that in this proclamation, the King transcended his constitutional powers, and the case of
Campbell v. Hall, reported by Cowper, is relied on to support this position.
It is supposed to be a principle of universal law that if an uninhabited country be discovered by a number of

individuals who acknowledge no connection with and owe no allegiance to any government whatever, the country
becomes the property of the discoverers, so far at least as they can use it. They acquire a title in common. The title
of the whole land is in the whole society. It is to be divided and parceled out according to the will of the society,
expressed by the whole body or by that organ which is authorized by the whole to express it.
If the discovery be made and possession of the country be taken under the authority of an existing government,
which is acknowledged by the emigrants, it is supposed to be equally well settled, that the discovery is made for the
whole nation, that the country becomes a part of the nation, and that the vacant soil is to be disposed of by that organ
of the government which has the constitutional power to dispose of the national domains, by that organ in which all
vacant territory is vested by law.
According to the theory of the British Constitution, all vacant lands are vested in the Crown, as representing the
nation, and the exclusive power to grant them is admitted to reside in the Crown as a branch of the royal prerogative.
It has been already shown that this principle was as fully recognized in America as in the Island of Great Britain. All
the lands we hold were originally granted by the Crown, and the establishment of a regal government has never been
considered as impairing its right to grant lands within the chartered limits of such colony. In addition to the proof of
this principle, furnished by the immense grants already mentioned of lands lying within the chartered limits of
Virginia, the continuing right of the Crown to grant lands lying within that colony was always admitted. A title
might be obtained either by making an entry with the surveyor of a county in pursuance of law or by an order of the
governor in council, who was the deputy of the King, or by an immediate grant from the Crown. In Virginia,
therefore, as well as elsewhere in the British dominions, the complete title of the Crown to vacant lands was
acknowledged.
74
So far as respected the authority of the Crown, no distinction was taken between vacant lands and lands occupied by
the Indians. The title, subject only to the right of occupancy by the Indians, was admitted to be in the King, as was
his right to grant that title. The lands, then, to which this proclamation referred were lands which the King had a
right to grant, or to reserve for the Indians.
According to the theory of the British Constitution, the royal prerogative is very extensive so far as respects the
political relations between Great Britain and foreign nations. The peculiar situation of the Indians, necessarily
considered in some respects as a dependent and in some respects as a distinct people occupying a country claimed
by Great Britain, and yet too powerful and brave not to be dreaded as formidable enemies, required that means
should be adopted for the preservation of peace, and that their friendship should be secured by quieting their alarms
for their property. This was to be effected by restraining the encroachments of the whites, and the power to do this
was never, we believe, denied by the colonies to the Crown.
In the case of Campbell v. Hall, that part of the proclamation was determined to be illegal, which imposed a tax on a
conquered province, after a government had been bestowed upon it. The correctness of this decision cannot be
questioned, but its application to the case at bar cannot be admitted. Since the expulsion of the Stuart family, the
power of imposing taxes by proclamation has never been claimed as a branch of regal prerogative, but the powers of
granting, or refusing to grant, vacant lands, and of restraining encroachments on the Indians have always been
asserted and admitted.
The authority of this proclamation, so far as it respected this continent, has never been denied, and the titles it gave
to lands have always been sustained in our courts.
In the argument of this cause, the counsel for the plaintiffs have relied very much on the opinions expressed by men
holding offices of trust, and on various proceedings in America to sustain titles to land derived from the Indians.
The collection of claims to lands lying in the western country made in the 1st volume of the Laws of the United
States has been referred to, but we find nothing in that collection to support the argument. Most of the titles were
derived from persons professing to act under the authority of the government existing at the time, and the two grants
under which the plaintiffs claim are supposed by the person under whose inspection the collection was made to be
void, because forbidden by the royal proclamation of 1763. It is not unworthy of remark that the usual mode adopted
by the Indians for granting lands to individuals has been to reserve them in a treaty or to grant them under the
sanction of the commissioners with whom the treaty was negotiated. The practice in such case to grant to the Crown
for the use of the individual is some evidence of a general understanding that the validity even of such a grant
depended on its receiving the royal sanction.
The controversy between the Colony of Connecticut and the Mohegan Indians depended on the nature and extent of
a grant made by those Indians to the colony; on the nature and extent of the reservations made by the Indians, in
their several deeds and treaties, which were alleged to be recognized by the legitimate authority; and on the violation
by the colony of rights thus reserved and secured. We do not perceive in that case any assertion of the principle that
individuals might obtain a complete and valid title from the Indians.
It has been stated that in the memorial transmitted from the Cabinet of London to that of Versailles, during the
controversy between the two nations respecting boundary which took place in 1755, the Indian right to the soil is
recognized.
But this recognition was made with reference to their character as Indians and for the purpose of showing that they
were fixed to a particular territory. It was made for the purpose of sustaining the claim of His Britannic Majesty to
dominion over them.
75
The opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, Pratt and Yorke, have been adduced to prove that in the opinion
of those great law officers, the Indian grant could convey a title to the soil without a patent emanating from the
Crown. The opinion of those persons would certainly be of great authority on such a question, and we were not a
little surprised when it was read, at the doctrine it seemed to advance. An opinion so contrary to the whole practice
of the Crown and to the uniform opinions given on all other occasions by its great law officers ought to be very
explicit and accompanied by the circumstances under which it was given, and to which it was applied before we can
be assured that it is properly understood. In a pamphlet written for the purpose of asserting the Indian title, styled
"Plain Facts," the same opinion is quoted, and is said to relate to purchases made in the East Indies. It is, of course,
entirely inapplicable to purchases made in America. Chalmers, in whose collection this opinion is found, does not
say to whom it applies, but there is reason to believe that the author of Plain Facts is, in this respect, correct. The
opinion commences thus:
"In respect to such places as have been or shall be acquired by treaty or grant from any of the Indian princes or
governments, your Majesty's letters patent are not necessary."
The words "princes or governments" are usually applied to the East Indians, but not to those of North America. We
speak of their sachems, their warriors, their chiefmen, their nations or tribes, not of their "princes or governments."
The question on which the opinion was given, too, and to which it relates, was whether the King's subjects carry
with them the common law wherever they may form settlements. The opinion is given with a view to this point, and
its object must be kept in mind while construing its expressions.
Much reliance is also placed on the fact, that many tracts are now held in the United States under the Indian title, the
validity of which is not questioned.
Before the importance attached to this fact is conceded, the circumstances under which such grants were obtained,
and such titles are supported, ought to be considered. These lands lie chiefly in the eastern states. It is known that the
Plymouth Company made many extensive grants which, from their ignorance of the country, interfered with each
other. It is also known that Mason to whom New Hampshire, and Gorges, to whom Maine was granted, found great
difficulty in managing such unwieldy property. The country was settled by emigrants, some from Europe, but
chiefly from Massachusetts, who took possession of lands they found unoccupied, and secured themselves in that
possession by the best means in their power. The disturbances in England, and the civil war and revolution which
followed those disturbances, prevented any interference on the part of the mother country, and the proprietors were
unable to maintain their title. In the meantime, Massachusetts claimed the country and governed it. As her claim was
adversary to that of the proprietors, she encouraged the settlement of persons made under her authority, and
encouraged likewise their securing themselves in possession, by purchasing the acquiescence and forbearance of the
Indians. After the restoration of Charles II, Gorges and Mason, when they attempted to establish their title, found
themselves opposed by men who held under Massachusetts and under the Indians. The title of the proprietors was
resisted, and though in some cases compromises were made and in some, the opinion of a court was given ultimately
in their favor, the juries found uniformly against them. They became wearied with the struggle, and sold their
property. The titles held under the Indians were sanctioned by length of possession, but there is no case, so far as we
are informed, of a judicial decision in their favor.
Much reliance has also been placed on a recital contained in the charter of Rhode Island, and on a letter addressed to
the governors of the neighboring colonies, by the King's command, in which some expressions are inserted,
indicating the royal approbation of titles acquired from the Indians.
The charter to Rhode Island recites
"That the said John Clark and others had transplanted themselves into the midst of the Indian nations, and were
seized and possessed, by purchase and consent of the said natives, to their full content, of such lands,"
76
And the letter recites, that
"Thomas Chifflinch and others, having, in the right of Major Asperton, a just propriety in the Narraghanset Country,
in New England, by grants from the native princes of that country, and being desirous to improve it into an English
colony, . . . are yet daily disturbed."
The impression this language might make, if viewed apart from the circumstances under which it was employed,
will be effaced, when considered in connection with those circumstances.
In the year 1635, the Plymouth Company surrendered their charter to the Crown. About the same time, the religious
dissentions of Massachusetts expelled from that colony several societies of individuals, one of which settled in
Rhode Island, on lands purchased from the Indians. They were not within the chartered limits of Massachusetts, and
the English government was too much occupied at home to bestow its attention on this subject. There existed no
authority to arrest their settlement of the country. If they obtained the Indian title, there were none to assert the title
of the Crown. Under these circumstances, the settlement became considerable. Individuals acquired separate
property in lands which they cultivated and improved; a government was established among themselves, and no
power existed in America which could rightfully interfere with it.
On the restoration of Charles II, this small society hastened to acknowledge his authority, and to solicit his
confirmation of their title to the soil, and to jurisdiction over the country. Their solicitations were successful, and a
charter was granted to them, containing the recital which has been mentioned.
It is obvious that this transaction can amount to no acknowledgment that the Indian grant could convey a title
paramount to that of the Crown, or could in itself constitute a complete title. On the contrary, the charter of the
Crown was considered as indispensable to its completion.
It has never been contended that the Indian title amounted to nothing. Their right of possession has never been
questioned. The claim of government extends to the complete ultimate title, charged with this right of possession
and to the exclusive power of acquiring that right. The object of the Crown was to settle the seacoast of America,
and when a portion of it was settled, without violating the rights of others, by persons professing their loyalty, and
soliciting the royal sanction of an act, the consequences of which were ascertained to be beneficial, it would have
been as unwise as ungracious to expel them from their habitations, because they had obtained the Indian title
otherwise than through the agency of government. The very grant of a charter is an assertion of the title of the
Crown, and its words convey the same idea. The country granted is said to be "our island called Rhode Island," and
the charter contains an actual grant of the soil as well as of the powers of government.
The letter was written a few months before the charter was issued, apparently at the request of the agents of the
intended colony, for the sole purpose of preventing the trespasses of neighbors, who were disposed to claim some
authority over them. The King, being willing himself to ratify and confirm their title was, of course, inclined to quiet
them in their possession.
This charter and this letter certainly sanction a previous unauthorized purchase from Indians under the circumstances
attending that particular purchase, but are far from supporting the general proposition, that a title acquired from the
Indians would be valid against a title acquired from the Crown, or without the confirmation of the Crown.
The acts of the several colonial assemblies prohibiting purchases from the Indians have also been relied on as
proving that, independent of such prohibitions, Indian deeds would be valid. But we think this fact, at most,
equivocal. While the existence of such purchases would justify their prohibition, even by colonies which considered
Indian deeds as previously invalid, the fact that such acts have been generally passed, is strong evidence of the
general opinion, that such purchases are opposed by the soundest principles of wisdom and national policy.
77
After bestowing on this subject a degree of attention which was more required by the magnitude of the interest in
litigation, and the able and elaborate arguments of the bar, than by its intrinsic difficulty, the court is decidedly of
opinion, that the plaintiffs do not exhibit a title which can be sustained in the courts of the United States, and that
there is no error in the judgment which was rendered against them in the District Court of Illinois.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
78
APPENDIX B – The Federal Trust Responsibility
Indian nations and the United States government have a sovereign-to-sovereign relationship evidenced by
treaties, agreements, acts of Congress, and court decisions. European nations that explored and came to what is now
the United States asserted exclusive rights to deal with the indigenous nations in matters related to land and
intergovernmental relations. This assertion of authority was largely designed to resolve competition between the
European Nations, and could not affect the status of Indian nations as pre-existing sovereigns. When the United
States Constitution was adopted, the federal government assumed exclusive authority in all matters related to Indian
affairs. Nearly fifty years later, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the “Indian nations had
always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights, as the
undisputed possessors of the soil, from time immemorial.” The Supreme Court in 2004 noted that “at least during
the first century of America's national existence ... Indian affairs were more an aspect of military and foreign policy
than a subject of domestic or municipal law.”
While the earliest treaties reflected a desire for mutual peace and intergovernmental respect, later treaties
and agreements were geared to the United States’ acquisition of land. In return, the United States provided
compensation in various forms. Most important from the Indian perspective were the promises of permanent
homelands, access to natural resources, and recognition of the right to continue to exist as distinct sovereign peoples.
The Supreme Court noted that although the federal government and other had colonized the United States, the law of
nations mandated that the Indian tribes were owed a duty of protection from incursions on tribal governmental
authority and independence within the newly formed nation. These rights were to be safeguarded, and supported, by
the United States, especially from interference by the states. The government-to-government relationship and these
promises of political allegiance remain at the foundation of the federal trust responsibility despite vacillating federal
policies that resulted in removal, allotment of tribal lands, and the associated loss of approximately 90million acres
of tribal land by 1934.
As set out in the leading Indian law treatise, the COHEN HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL
INDIAN LAW:
Understanding history is crucial to understanding doctrinal developments in the field of Indian law. For
example, treaty-making with Indian tribes involved matters of immense scope: The transactions totaled
more than two billion acres, and some individual treaties dealt with land concessions involving tens of
millions of acres. At the same time, treaties included minutiae such as provision of scissors, sugar, needles,
and hoes. Yet, out of the felt needs of the parties to the treaty negotiations there evolved comprehensive
principles that have continued significance to this day. These include the sanctity of Indian title, the
necessary preeminence of federal policy and action, the exclusion of state jurisdiction, the sovereign status
of tribes, and the special trust relationship between Indian tribes and the United States. These principles
endure beyond the four corners of negotiated treaties. When Congress ended treaty making in 1871, these
principles lived on in the “treaty substitutes” that followed in the form of agreements, executive orders, and
statutes. Thus, what is seemingly background becomes the foreground-indeed the basis-for contemporary
judgments.
Although federal policies changed over time from the allotment and assimilation era to outright termination
of the federal-tribal relationship, since 1970 the federal policy is one of Indian self-determination without
termination. This modern policy is backstopped by the federal government’s trust responsibility to Indian nations.
President Nixon’s 1970 address rejecting the forced termination policy described the nature of the federal-tribal
relationship.
79
The policy of forced termination is wrong in my judgment, for a number of reasons. First, the premises on
which it rests are wrong. Termination implies that the Federal government has taken on a trusteeship for
Indian communities as an act of generosity toward a disadvantaged people and that can therefore
discontinue this responsibility on a unilateral basis whenever it sees fit. But the unique status of Indian
tribes does not rest on any premise such as this. The special relationship between Indians and the federal
government is the result of solemn obligations, which have been entered into by the United States
Government. Down through the years, through written treaties and through formal and informal
agreements, our government has made specific commitments to the Indian people. For their part, the
Indians have often surrendered claims to vast tracts of land and have accepted life on government
reservations. In exchange, the government has agreed to provide community services such as health,
education and public safety, services that would presumably allow Indian communities to enjoy a standard
of living comparable to that of other Americans.
The Supreme Court has concluded that the United States “has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest
responsibility and trust.” This general principle is implemented through many federal statutes and programs that
implement past promises and modern policy. These modern programs were developed largely in consultation with
Indian tribes and are intended to promote economic self-sufficiency and the distinct sovereign status of Indian
nations and their people. Specific obligations include the following:
 The Department of the Interior is responsible for managing 56 million surface acres and 57 million acres of
subsurface mineral estates for 384,000 Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts and about 2,900 tribal
accounts (for more than 250 federally recognized tribes). Tribal trust assets include land, water, timber, oil,
gas, and mineral resources.
 On trust lands, the Department manages more than 109,000 leases. For fiscal year 2011, funds from leases,
use permits, land sales, royalties, settlements, and income from financial assets, totaling about $400
million, were collected for about 384,000 open IIM accounts. In FY 2011, about $609 million was
collected for the approximately 2,900 tribal accounts. Collectively, the United States holds approximately
$3.9 billion in trust funds.
 There are currently 156,596 individual Indian land allotments, and one of the major challenges facing the
administration with regard to these allotments is the increasing fractionation among individual owners of
interests in the land. As of early 2012, there are over 4.7 million fractionated interests.
 There are 566 Indian tribes in Alaska and the lower 48 states that are acknowledged by the United States.
Federal policy supports self-determination for these tribes in the exercise of authority over tribal territories
and resources, and a wide variety of roles under many federal statutes and programs.
 The Self-Determination and Self-Governance Statutes provide a way for Indian tribes to assume
management of many federal duties in order to better serve tribal communities.
At times in the past, the trust responsibility was viewed as a demeaning and paternalistic guardian-ward relationship.
That model is unsuited for the modern self determination era, but has not evolved as rapidly as the movement
toward self determination. Thus, the outmoded trust model still influences the performance of the federal
government’s obligations to Indian nations and people in some cases. For example, many federal statutes require
federal approval of the leasing of tribal and individual Indian lands for most purposes. The exercise of this authority
can sometimes be cumbersome if not implemented in a timely fashion. The federal responsibilities, however, can
serve the valuable function of assisting to ensure the appropriate financial return to tribal and individual Indians
from the use of trust assets. While all of the recent Presidential administrations and several acts of Congress call for
extensive consultation with Indian tribes and people in matters affecting Indian interests, there are many situations
where Indian interests are not adequately considered and requests by individual Indian nations and individuals for
action are not accepted. In some cases, this may be due to conflicting obligations imposed on the federal
administration by Congress, or due to Supreme Court rulings that allow the United States to escape liability for
80
alleged mismanagement of tribal trust resources. In some cases the United States is more concerned about
protecting itself from future liability than in effectively executing its trust duties to Indian nations and people.
Federal officials must establish clear protocols for disclosing and minimizing conflicts of interest, which should be
implemented after full consultation with Indian nations. This must go beyond conflicts that meet minimal legal
standards applicable to non-fiduciary relationships and extend to appearances of conflicts of interest that affect tribal
and individual Indian interests in any transaction or actions related to trust assets, or the government-to-government
relationship. It bears emphasizing that this problem was identified in 1970:
The United States Government acts as a legal trustee for the land and water rights of American Indians.
These rights are often of critical economic importance to the Indian people; frequently they are also the
subject of extensive legal dispute. In many of these legal confrontations, the Federal government is faced
with an inherent conflict of interest. The Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General must at the
same time advance both the national interest in the use of land and water rights and the private interests of
Indians in land which the government holds as trustee.
Every trustee has a legal obligation to advance the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust without
reservation and with the highest degree of diligence and skill. Under present conditions, it is often difficult
for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice to fulfill this obligation. No self-respecting
law firm would ever allow itself to represent two opposing clients in one dispute; yet the Federal
government has frequently found itself in precisely that position. There is considerable evidence that the
Indians are the losers when such situations arise. More than that, the credibility of the Federal government
is damaged whenever it appears that such a conflict of interest exists.
It is unacceptable to say that the United States Supreme Court has relaxed the extent of the federal government’s
liability to pay money damages in some cases, and that that line of cases reflects the United States’ duties. Rather,
the United States must reach a higher standard. One way to do that may be by resurrecting the concept of the Indian
Trust Counsel identified in 1970, or through adoption of administrative trust protocols like those appended to this
document.
It is critical that the United States continue to acknowledge its historic legal and moral obligations to Indian
nations to further the sovereign-to-sovereign relationship at the foundation of the many complex dealings that occur
on a regular basis. It must be remembered that he United States would not exist but for the acquisition of tribal
territories that were given in exchange for the continued support and respect of the federal government. The
promises of permanent homelands and recognition of the right to continue to exist as distinct sovereign peoples
impose solemn obligations on all branches of the federal government. Similarly, the United States must work
diligently to fulfill the trust relationship initiated with individual Indians through the allotment process. How those
responsibilities are best administered in particular contexts will be the topic of further work and recommendations
by the Indian Trust Responsibility Reform Commission. The American Indian Policy Review Commission’s
chapter on the trust responsibility is attached as an appendix. Comments on the recommendations of that Report
would be appreciated.
81
APPENDIX C – Housing Act of 1937
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
APPENDIX D – Native American Programs as a Percentage of HUD Appropriations, FY 1998-
2004 (Alba)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Native American programs (in millions of dollars) 672.0 693.6 693.0 725.4 735.2 731.2 731.1
Percent of total budget authority 3.2% 2.6% 2.8% 2.2% 2.1% 2.2% 2.1%
Percent of discretionary authority 3.4% 3.1% 3.3% 2.6% 2.3% 2.4% 2.3%
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2004, tables 5.2 and 5.4, pp.
95-95, 103-04; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Budget, “Indian and Hawaiian
95
APPENDIX E – Unmet Needs in Indian Country, by Agency (Alba)
Department of the Interior

Public safety initiatives
Economic development programs
BIA-funded schools
Tribal priority allocations
Facility construction
Department of Health and Human Services

Health facility construction and renovation
Urban health services
Preventive health
Sanitation services
Health professional training
Department of Housing and Urban Development

Housing construction, maintenance, and renovation
Loan guarantee programs
Emergency funds for unforeseen disasters
Affordable urban housing
Department of Justice
Police services and public safety programs
Juvenile justice programs
Correctional facilities
Tribal courts
Department of Education
School construction and repair
Grants to local education agencies
Tribal colleges and universities
Department of Agriculture
Rural development for Native communities
Food distribution and nutritional services
96

Nuifc Policy Paper Housing and Homelessness

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Nuifc Policy Paper Housing and Homelessness

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BUILDING COMMUNITY

(National Urban Indian Family Coalition)

THE PAST – “Relationships” between American Indians and the U.S.

THE PRESENT – The Diminishing “Invisible” Minority . . . ............................................8

Definition of “Urban Indian” .................................................................................9

Weighing the Consequences of Rural Indian

WHO – Who Advocates for Urban American Indians? ....................................................12

National Urban Indian Family Coalition..............................................................12

U.S. Federal Government Agencies.......................................................................12

WHAT – What ONAP Programs Apply to Urban American Indians? .............................13

WHERE – Where Do ONAP Programs Receive Funding? ..............................................13

WHEN – If and When Do ONAP Programs Prove Fruitful?............................................16

WHY – Why are Urban Indian-Centered Policies Inexistent? .........................................16

WHEN Revisited – The Rotten Fruits of the Federal Government....................................20

Inequalities between “All Men Created Equal” ...................................................22

“Keep Counting” or “Keep Count” on the Federal Government? ......................22

LITTLE EARTH | Minneapolis, MN..................................................................................24

Little Earth’s “Philosophy of Change” and “10 Year Plan” ..........................................25

Community Transformation Plan (CTP): Addressing Current Issues in Urban Areas.....26

NATIVE AMERICAN YOUTH AND FAMILY CENTER | Portland, Oregon....................31

Programs: Children-Based and Youth-Based...................................................................33

Programs: Family-Based and Community-Based.............................................................36

Programs: Housing and Homeownership.........................................................................38

Kah San Shakos Haws...........................................................................................38

NATIVE AMERICAN CONNECTIONS | Phoenix, Arizona..............................................40

Programs: Children-Based and Youth-Based.......................................................41

Programs: Family-Based and Community-Based.................................................42

Program: Native American Community Service Center........................................43

Programs: Phoenix Indian School Legacy Project...............................................44

Programs: Housing and Homeownership.........................................................................44

AMERICAN INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS..........................................................................48

National Urban Indian Family Coalition..............................................................48

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............................................49

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights ..........................................................................51

THE FUTURE - . . . and How to Increase its Visibility.....................................................58

APPENDIX A – Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543........60

APPENDIX B – The Federal Trust Responsibility............................................................79

APPENDIX C – Housing Act of 1937................................................................................82

APPENDIX D – Native American Programs as a Percentage of HUD Appropriation, FY

APPENDIX E – Unmet Needs in Indian Country, by Agency...........................................96

“Indians! Indians!” Columbus cried;

His heart was filled with joyful pride.

But “India” the land was not;

It was the Bahamas, and it was hot.

The Arakawa [sic] natives were very nice;

They gave the sailors food and spice

(“In 1492” 17-22)

THE PRESENT – The Diminishing “Invisible” Minority . . .

The responsibility of ensuring “Indian self-determination” in regards to adequate housing

Definition of “Urban Indian”

1. Long term resident: An AI/AN residing in an urban area for an

Weighing the Consequences of Rural Indian Traditions

... Because Native Americans do not have a specific ‘neighborhood’ or

Nelson Jim acknowledges miscommunication between service providers and the

WHO – Who Advocates for Urban American Indians?

National Urban Indian Family Coalition

1. integrate urban Indian issues in policy discussion and implementation;

are nearer in reach (“NUIFC”).

U.S. Federal Government Agencies

Evidence of the trust – government-to-government – relationship between

WHAT – What ONAP Programs Apply to Urban American Indians?

WHERE – Where Do ONAP Programs Receive Funding?

Irrespective of whether or not the Department of Housing and Urban Development