Incomplete housing projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Houses in several force account mutual-help projects were not finished because the Bureau and/or HUD did not follow through to ensure that all construction had been completed. When the housing authority considers a mutual-help project to be complete and ready for occupancy, the HUD construction representative, accompanied by Bureau and housing authority representatives, makes a final inspection. When the HUD representative considers the units to be safe and livable, HUD issues an inspection memorandum which identifies any incomplete or unsatisfactory items of work. Existing guidelines are not clear, however, as to which agency is responsible for ensuring completion of these items, and, in many cases, the homes are not finished. The Director, Production Division, HUD, informed us that both the Bureau and

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

Conclusions

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

new housing, continue to live in substandard houses.

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

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

We recommend that the Secretary of HUD and the Secretary of the Interior

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

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

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

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

Agency comments

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

LENGTHY CONSTRUCTION PERIOD

In terms of the construction time and the number of houses built, the force account mutual-help program has not been as successful as other HUD-assisted programs. We compared projects on reservations within three Bureau areas. The force account mutual-help projects, normally consisting

of 10 to 20 units each, took an average 19 months to construct. In contrast the HUD-assisted low-rent and turnkey projects (including turnkey mutual-help projects), each consisting of many more units, took an average 10 months to construct.

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

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

In the three Bureau areas included in our review, the reported construction period for the 40 force account mutual-help projects, involving 686 houses, ranged from 6 months to 44 months and averaged 19 months. Most of these projects involved 10 to 20 units. In contrast the average construction period for the 27 HUD low-rent, turnkey, and turnkey mutual-help projects included in our review was 10 months. The number of units in these 27 projects averaged 44. On the Yakima Reservation, a 30-unit low-rent project was completed in 13 months but the 10-unit force account mutual-help project took 32 months to complete. On the Navajo Reservation the period of construction for 750 units--six turnkey mutual-help, one turnkey low-rent, and 10 conventional low-rent projects--averaged 9.5 months.