As a result of the lengthy construction periods under the force account mutual-help program, program benefits were deferred and costs increased. For example, at the Quinault Reservation, a 20-unit project took 31 months to complete, which delayed the start of a 20-unit follow-on project. Under the mutual-help program, the Bureau provides a project construction superintendent who is responsible for supervising and coordinating construction of the project from the time construction starts until it is completed. Using HUD's guideline of a 1-year construction period, we estimated that, for the mutual-help projects included in our review, construction supervision costs of $235,000 were incurred after the 1-year period. At several projects, other building materials deteriorated as a result of exposure to the weather over the long construction period and partially completed houses were vandalized and materials were stolen. At the Rosebud Reservation nearly all the materials for a force account mutual-help house were stolen over a 2-year period. All that remained at the time of our inspection in November 1969 was the foundation, some weather-ruined plywood, and several rafters. In February 1970 HUD approved the housing authority's request for supplemental funds of $19,000 to complete the 50-unit force account mutual-help project on the Rosebud Reservation. These additional funds were needed primarily for replacing materials lost through theft, vandalism, and damage from the elements during the extended construction period. The exterior siding on the 10 force account mutualhelp houses at the Swinomish Reservation was deteriorating at the time of our inspection due, in part, to exposure to the weather during the lengthy construction period. It was exposed both while awaiting installation and while awaiting painting. HUD estimated that it would cost $10,000 to replace the siding. Also several projects on reservations in the Northwest had been damaged or had lost materials due to theft and vandalism. According to Bureau and HUD officials, the extended construction periods resulted primarily from the lack of Indian participation in construction. In our opinion an inherent weakness in the force account mutual-help program is the assumption that the participants will work continually on the housing project until it is complete and that they have the technical competency to do the work assigned to them. The future owners--the participants--are expected to contribute about 20 hours of labor a week over a 52-* week period or until the houses are completed. Many participants, however, have not worked regularly on the housing project through its completion. Factors cited by Bureau and HUD officials as contributing to the poor participation include (1) inadequate orientation of participants as to their responsibilities, (2) lack of leadership by the Bureau construction superintendents in motivating the participants, (3) conflicts between the construction schedule and the Indians' regular hours of employment, and (4) inability of participants to do the skilled work assigned to them. Another reason cited for the lengthy construction period was the reluctance of the housing authorities to remove from the program on a timely basis those participants who were not actively assisting in the construction of their houses. We believe that the Bureau could help to alleviate some of these causes for poor participation by more diligently carrying out its responsibilities under the force account mutual-help program. Bureau and HUD guidelines for mutual-help housing indicate that the Bureau is to inform program participants of their duties and responsibilities, provide adequate construction leadership and supervision, organize and coordinate work crews, and ensure that each participant contributes approximately the same number of hours. The Bureau construction superintendent is responsible for construction schedules based on the manpower available for each particular day. He is responsible also for all phases of the work, including supervision and management of the labor force. In addition, the Bureau is to endeavor to formulate training programs to assist the participants in the construction of their houses. Conclusions The force account mutual-help program has not been successful in providing large quantities of new housing for Indians on a timely basis. The program has worked well on only a few reservations. On the basis of experience, it does not seem practicable to expect that all the conditions contributing to the lengthy construction period for mutualhelp projects can be eliminated in most Indian communities. Therefore we believe that the force account mutual-help program should be limited to those reservations where it is strongly desired and where there is reasonable assurance that the problems associated with the program can be over come. Recommendations to the Secretary of HUD and the Secretary of the Interior We recommend that the Secretary of HUD and the Secretary of the Interior use the force account mutual-help program only when it is desired strongly by the Indians, because it has the least potential for timely construction and usually has fewer houses in a project. We recommend also that the Secretary of the Interior ensure that, where houses are constructed under the mutual-help program, the participants are informed adequately of their duties and responsibilities and are provided with sufficient training, supervision, and leadership. Agency comments Both HUD and the Department of the Interior, in commenting on the draft of this report, concurred with our recommendations and informed us that field officials would be advised to deemphasize force account mutual-help projects. HUD informed us that it planned to emphasize using turnkey or competitively bid projects. |