FY 2000 INDIAN HOUSING
Appendix 5:
FY 2000 IHDEP Grant Application
Summary Sheet
Budget Input Data Sheet
Score Sheets
Scoring Instructions
FY 2000 INDIAN HOUSING
DRUG ELIMINATION PROGRAM (IHDEP) SCORE SHEET
OFFICE OF NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY SHEET
Tribe/TDHE Name__________________________________
Tribal Code (if any)_________________________________
AONAP Code_____________________________________
Funds Requested: $___________
Projected Funds Approved $_________
Factor 1: _________________ Max 20 points
Factor 2: _________________ Max 30 points
Factor 3: _________________ Max 35 points
Factor 4: _________________ Max 10 points
Factor 5: _________________ Max 10 points
Grand Total Score: ______________________
Maximum Points Possible: 105
___________________________________________ ______________
ONAP-National Review Center Reviewer Signature Date
__________________________________________ _______________
Team Leader Signature Date
__________________________________________ _______________
ONAP-National Review Center Administrator Signature Date
__________________________________________ _______________
AONAP-GA Signature Date
Appendix 5
BUDGET DATA INPUT SHEET
FY 2000 IHDEP
Instructions:
This sheet is to be completed using information from the SF-424A, Budget Information, with Budget Narrative and supporting documentation found in the FY 2000 Application Kit.
AONAPs shall complete the third column (funds requested) and submit completed score sheets for each application.
The ONAP-National Review Center (NRC) staff will complete the fourth column (ONAP-NRC approved amount) once Factors 2, 3, 4, and 5 have been scored, and ineligible activities and/or costs have been identified.
Sections 2 and 3 of the Budget Input Sheet identify ineligible activities or costs and special conditions if the application is funded. To the extent AONAPs identify ineligible activities/costs and/or special conditions during the rating of Factor 1 shall be noted on this form. ONAP-NRC staff will add to ineligible activities and special conditions as necessary, upon completion of reviewing Factors 2, 3, 4 and 5.
BUDGET DATA INPUT SHEET
FY 2000 IHDEP
SECTION 1
TRIBE/TDHE NAME:__________________________________________
TRIBAL CODE (if any) _________________________________________
ITEM ACTIVITY FUNDS ONAP-NATIONAL
REQUESTED REVIEW CENTER
APPROVED AMT
9110 Reimbursement $___________ $__________
of Law Enforce-
ment
TOTAL 9110 BLI FUNDING $___________ $___________
9120 Employment of
Security Personnel $___________ $ ____________
Tribal employed
security guards $___________ $ ____________
Contracted security
guards $ ___________ $ ____________
Tribal Police Dept. $ ___________ $ ____________
TOTAL 9120 BLI FUNDING $___________ $ __________
9130 Employment of
Investigators $___________ $___________
9140 Voluntary Tenant
Patrols $___________ $____________
9150 Physical
Improvements $_________ $____________
PROGRAMS TO REDUCE ILLEGAL DRUGS
9160 Drug Prevention $__________ $ ____________
9170 Drug Intervention $__________ $_____________
9180 Drug Treatment $__________ $_____________
GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
9190 Other Program
Costs $____________ $______________
TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED
$____________ $______________
If applicable, total funding after
adjustments listed in Section 2 $____________ $______________
____________________________________ ______________
AONAP-GA Signature Date
____________________________________ ______________
ONAP-National Review Center Administrator Signature Date
BUDGET DATA INPUT SHEET
SECTION 2
INELIGIBLE IHDEP ACTIVITIES
TRIBE/TDHE NAME:__________________________________________
TRIBAL CODE ________________________________________________
List any ineligible items by activity and cost objective from budget and deduct from the requested funding amount. All deductions must be justified with comment by the scorer and verified by the AONAP-National Review Center Administrator.
INELIGIBLE
ACTIVITY/COST:____________________________________________
Amount:______________________
Page #:________________________
Justification:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
INELIGIBLE
ACTIVITY/COST:____________________________________________
Amount:______________________
Page #:________________________
Justification:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BUDGET DATA INPUT SHEET
SECTION 3
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
If applicable, Special Conditions to Grant Agreement (Form HUD-1044 completed by ONAP-NRC and AONAP staff)
TRIBE/TDHE NAME:__________________________________________
TRIBAL CODE:_______________________________________________
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
APPENDIX 5
FY 2000 IHDEP SCORING FACTORS
FACTOR 1
(to be completed by AONAPs)
APPLICANT NAME:__________________________________________
TRIBE/TDHE CODE:__________________________________________
DATE OF REVIEW: __________________________________________
CAPACITY OF THE APPLICANT AND
RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE
MAXIMUM POINTS: 20
This factor addresses the extent to which the applicant has the capacity, the proper organizational experiences and resources to implement the proposed activities in a timely and effective manner. It is divided into two sub-factors and scores as follows:
1. The knowledge and experience of staff in managing grants
(10 points maximum) __________
2. Past performance in administering Drug Elimination grants
and/or other Federal, state or local grants of similar size and
complexity during the last (3) years (10 points maximum) __________
TOTAL (20 points maximum) __________
A detailed description of each sub-factor follows. After they have been individually rated, write in the scores above, then total.
____________________________________ ______________
AONAP-Reviewer Signature Date
____________________________________ ______________
AONAP-GA Signature Date
Factor 1
1. KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF STAFF IN MANAGING GRANTS (10 POINTS)
Reviewers should consider physical inspections, monitoring/evaluation records, audit records, narrative and financial status reports prepared by the grantee, complaints from citizens/contractors and LOCCS reports. When making comments please indicate the Tab and/or page number in the application containing the information on which comments and score are based.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Pages#
Points Assigned:_________
Factor 1
2. PAST PERFORMANCE IN ADMINISTERING DRUG ELIMINATION GRANTS AND/OR OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GRANTS (10 POINTS)
Consider the applicant’s past experience/ability to track drug-related crime, screening/lease procedures, success in implementing planned activities, success in achieving program goals/objectives, timely drawdown of funds, timely submission of required reports and audit compliance.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Pages#
Points Assigned:_________
FY 2000 IHDEP SCORING FACTORS
FACTOR 2
(to be completed by ONAP-NRC Reviewers)
APPLICANT NAME:__________________________________________
TRIBE/TDHE CODE:__________________________________________
DATE OF REVIEW: __________________________________________
NEED/EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
MAXIMUM POINTS: 30
This factor examines the extent to which there is a need for funding the proposed program activities to address a documented problem in the applicant’s targeted area (i.e. the degree of the severity of the drug-related crime problem in the project proposed for funding). It is divided into two sub-factors. Reviewers please note: up to a total of 5 points will be awarded if substantial information is provided as to why Objective Crime data could not be obtained. Please score accordingly:
1. Objective Crime Data relevant to target area
(15 points maximum) __________
(a) Substantial information has been provided as to why Objective Crime Data could not be obtained (5 points maximum) __________
2. Other data supporting the extent of drug and drug-related
crime (15 points maximum) __________
TOTAL (30 points maximum) __________
A detailed description of each sub-factor follows. After they have been individually rated, write in the scores above, then total.
________________________________________ __________
ONAP-National Review Center Reviewer Signature Date
________________________________________ __________
AONAP-GA Signature Date
Factor 2
1. OBJECTIVE CRIME DATA (15 POINTS)
Reviewers shall consider submission of verifiable (not anecdotal) records. Where appropriate, statistics should be reported both in real numbers and as an annual percentage of the residents in each development (e.g. 20 arrests in a two-year period for distribution of heroin in a development with 100 residents reflects a 20% occurrence rate). Refer to type and quality of data, as described below, when assigning points.
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
_____(11-15 points) Applicant provides the best objective data to clearly outline the problem, thoroughly documents crime statistics by listing types of crime by Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Parts 1 and 2 standards, clearly defines drug activity, including where and to whom it is sold and how drug markets operate.
_____(6-10 points) Applicant outlines or analyzes with some objective data the nature and frequency of crime, includes some crime statistics, lists drug-related and other crime and their nature and frequency, and defines the who, where, and how of drug activity.
_____(0-5 points) Applicant provides little or no evidence of objective crime data, crime statistics by type of crime, or description of drug activities.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
Factor 2
1(a). OBJECTIVE CRIME DATA (5 POINTS)
Reviewers shall consider submission of substantial information that has been provided as to why Objective Crime Data could not be obtained; the efforts being made to obtain it; what efforts will be made during the grant period to begin obtaining the data; and an explanation of how the applicant plans to measure how grant activities will result in reducing drug-related crime in the targeted developments and what will be used as a baseline.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
Factor 2
OTHER DATA SUPPORTING THE EXTENT OF DRUG AND DRUG-RELATED CRIME (15 POINTS)
To the extent objective as described above may not be available, or to complement that data, applicant must use data from other verifiable sources that have a direct bearing on drug-related crime in developments proposed for assistance under this program. However, if other relevant information is to be used in place of objective data, the application must indicate reasons why objective data could not be obtained and what efforts were made to obtain it, and will be made during the grant period to begin obtaining the data and an explanation of how the applicant plans to measure how grant activities will result in reducing drug-related crime in the targeted developments and what will be used as a baseline.
Other data may include surveys of residents and staff in targeted developments, research/government studies, vandalism costs, information from schools, health providers, residents, and government officials; school drop-out rate and level of absenteeism for youth as it relates to drug-related crime; the number of lease terminations or evictions for drug-related crime at targeted developments; the number of emergency room admissions for drug use or that result from drug-related crime; the number of police calls for service from tribe/TDHE developments (e.g. domestic violence, calls, drug distribution complaints, gang activity) and verifiable opinions/observations of individuals having direct knowledge of drug-related crime and nature and frequency of problems in developments proposed for assistance.
Factor 2
2. OTHER DATA SUPPORTING THE EXTENT OF DRUG AND DRUG-RELATED CRIME (15 POINTS) (continued)
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
______ (11-15 points) Applicant includes other documentation as described above to complement objective data or thoroughly and reasonably explains why such documentation could not be obtained, what efforts were made to obtain it and will be made to obtain it in the future; other data submitted clearly describes the nature and frequency of crime, and has a direct bearing on drug-related crime in the development proposed for assistance.
______ (6-10 points) Applicant includes some of the other documentation as described above, includes other documentation which partially describes the nature and frequency of crime and/or types of crime including drug-related and other crimes; and/or provides drug activity by whom it is being sold to, where and how it is sold, and how drug markets are operating.
______ (0-5 points) Applicant provides little or no evidence of additional supporting documentation as described above.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
FY 2000 IHDEP SCORING FACTORS
FACTOR 3
(to be completed by ONAP-NRC Reviewers)
APPLICANT NAME:__________________________________________
TRIBE/TDHE CODE:__________________________________________
DATE OF REVIEW: __________________________________________
SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH/QUALITY OF PLAN
MAXIMUM POINTS: 35
This factor addresses the quality and effectiveness of the applicant’s proposed plan by determining if there are tangible benefits.
1. The strength of the plan to address the drug-related
crime problem
(a) The extent to which the applicant has stated
(i) Performance goals that will measure program outcomes and
ii) The actual baseline data which will establish a starting point
for how outcomes will be measured and expected results;
what performance measurement system currently exists
for providing information on established outcome goals
(7 points maximum) __________
b) The extent to which the applicant has designed major
activities to meet measurable goals and objectives for
drug related crime reduction (7 points maximum) __________
c. (c) The extent to which the applicant has defined specific,
d. measurable program goals (7 points maximum) __________
d) The rationale for your proposed activities and methods used
including evidence that proposed activities have been effective
(7 points maximum) __________
e) Evidence of existing youth programs and activities to
reduce substance abuse among youth
(7 points maximum) _________
TOTAL: (35 points maximum) _________
A detailed description of each sub-factor follows. After they have been individually rated, write in the scores above, then total.
________________________________________ __________
ONAP-National Review Center Reviewer Signature Date
________________________________________ __________
AONAP-GA Signature Date
Factor 3
1. STRENGTH OF THE PLAN—Section 1(a)(i) and (ii)
Reviewers shall consider the quality of the applicants’ plan to address the drug-related crime problem, the problems associated with drug related crime in the developments proposed for funding, the resources allocated, and how well the proposed activities fit with the plan. (7 points)
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
_____(5-7 points) the applicant clearly demonstrated a capability to effectively and efficiently address the drug-related crime problem and the problems associated with drug-related crime in developments proposed for funding, allocate resources, and fit proposed activities with the plan. Applicant has included performance goals to measure program outcomes and baseline data. Applicant showed evidence that a performance measurement system exists for providing information to HUD on progress made in achieving outcome goals.
____(1-4 points) the applicant demonstrated fair ability to effectively and efficiently address the drug-related crime problem and the problems associated with drug-related crime in developments proposed for funding, allocate resources, and fit proposed activities with the plan. Applicant has included some performance goals to measure program outcomes and baseline data. Applicant showed some evidence that a performance measurement system exists for providing information to HUD on progress made in achieving outcome goals.
____ (0 points) the applicant demonstrated no ability to address the drug-related crime problem and the problems associated with drug-related crime in developments proposed for funding, allocate resources, and fit proposed activities with the plan. Applicant has not included performance goals to measure program outcomes and baseline data. Applicant showed no evidence that a performance measurement system exists for providing information to HUD on progress made in achieving outcome goals.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
Factor 3
2. ACTIVITIES: MEASURABLE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Section 1(b)
Reviewers shall consider the extent to which the applicant has designed major activities to meet measurable goals and objectives for drug-related crime reduction. Reviewers shall also determine whether the outcomes include accomplishments, results in targeted area. The goals must be objective, quantifiable, and/or qualitative so that at the end of the 24-month grant term one can determine if the activities were effective. (7 points)
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
____(5-7 points) Applicant has clearly designed major activities to meet measurable goals and objectives for drug-related crime reduction. Outcomes include accomplishments, results in targeted area. The goals are objective, quantifiable, and/or qualitative.
____(1-4 points) Applicant has designed some major activities to meet measurable goals and objectives for drug-related crime reduction. Outcomes include accomplishments, results in targeted area. The goals are somewhat objective, quantifiable, and/or qualitative.
_____(0 points) the applicant provided no documentation that major activities are designed to meet measurable goals and objectives for drug-related crime reduction. Outcomes do not include accomplishments, results in targeted area. The goals are not objective, quantifiable, and/or qualitative.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
Factor 3
2. CRIME REDUCTION: MEASUARABLE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Section 1(c) (7 points maximum)
Reviewers shall score based on the extent to which the applicant has defined specific crime reduction goals that are measurable. For example, a goal of, “reducing part 1 reported homicides or Part II drug abuse, etc. by 5% in development X by the end of the 24-month grant period based on measurements against the baseline year crime selection rate in the targeted development X as stated in the application” is measurable and specific.
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
____(5-7 points) Applicant clearly defines specific crime reduction goals that are measurable against the baseline year crime selection rate, as stated in the application.
____(1-4 points) Applicant provides some examples of crime reduction goals that are measurable against the baseline year crime selection rate, as stated in the application.
_____(0 points) Applicant did not provide specific crime reduction goals that are measurable against the baseline year crime selection rate, as stated in the application.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
Factor 3
4. RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED ACTIVITIES Section 1(d)
Reviewers will consider the rationale for proposed activities and methods used, including evidence that proposed activities have been effective in similar circumstances in controlling drug-related crime. (7 points)
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
____(5-7 points) Applicant clearly demonstrates that the proposed activities have been effective in similar circumstances.
____(1-4 points) Applicant provides some evidence and documentation that proposed programs have been effective in similar situations in controlling drug-related crime.
_____(0 points) Applicant provides no evidence that the proposed programs have been effective in similar situations in controlling drug-related crime.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
Factor 3
5. EVIDENCE OF EXISTING YOUTH PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES THAT REDUCE SUBSTANCE ABUSE AMONG YOUTH AND OTHER PROGRAMS (7 points maximum)
Reviewers must consider evidence provided by the applicant of existing youth programs and activities to reduce substance abuse among youth in the tribal community.
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
____(5-7 points) Applicant clearly demonstrates/provides evidence that youth programs and activities that reduce substance abuse among youth, aftercare services, social services, programs to reduce delinquency, gang prevention, academic improvement programs, counseling and conflict resolution, have been coordinated in the tribal community.
____(1-4 points) the applicant provides some evidence and documentation that youth programs and activities that reduce substance abuse among youth, aftercare services, social services, programs to reduce delinquency, gang prevention, academic improvement programs, counseling and conflict resolution, have been coordinated in the tribal community.
_____(0 points) Applicant provides little or no evidence and documentation that youth programs and activities that reduce substance abuse among youth, aftercare services, social services, programs to reduce delinquency, gang prevention, academic improvement programs, counseling and conflict resolution, have been coordinated in the tribal community.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
FY 2000 IHDEP SCORING FACTORS
FACTOR 4
(to be completed by ONAP-NRC Reviewer)
APPLICANT NAME:__________________________________________
TRIBE/TDHE CODE:__________________________________________
DATE OF REVIEW: __________________________________________
LEVERAGING RESOURCES
SUPPORT OF RESIDENTS, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND THE COMMUNITY IN PLANNING
AND IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES: 10 POINTS
This factor addresses the applicant’s ability to secure community and government resources that can be combined with HUD’s program resources to achieve program purposes.
1. Evidence of firm commitment (3 points maximum) _________
2. Leveraging of resources including
a) Role of residents and community in planning (2 points
maximum) _________
b) Evidence of community involvement and plans for on-going
Involvement in plan planning and implementation. (2 points
maximum) _________
c) Extent to which local law enforcement obligations have been
met (3 points maximum) __________
________________________________________ __________
ONAP-National Review Center Reviewer Signature Date
________________________________________ __________
AONAP-GA Signature Date
Factor 4
1. EVIDENCE OF FIRM COMMITMENT—(3 points maximum)
Reviewers shall determine the extent to which the application demonstrates the existence of written commitment for the above resources; describes partnership in other governmental anti-drug related crime efforts; and/or successful coordination of its law enforcement with other governmental law enforcement agencies.
The applicant shall provide written evidence of firm commitment of funding, staff, or in-kind resources, partnership agreements, and on-going or planned cooperative efforts with law enforcement agencies, local, State, tribal or national entities who have committed services through a memoranda of understanding (MOU), or memorandum of agreements (MOA) to participate. Such commitments must be signed by an official of the organization legally able to make commitments for the organization.
The evidence of commitment must include organization name, resources, and responsibilities of each participant to increase the effectiveness of the proposed program activities. The signed written agreement may be contingent upon an applicant receiving a grant award.
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
______(3 points) Applicant clearly documents firm, written commitments; MOAs/MOUs include organization name and resources; and the applicant clearly describes other partnerships and successful coordination of law enforcement and other activities.
_______(1-2 points) Applicant provides some documentation, written commitments; MOAs/MOUs include organization name and resources; and the applicant adequately describes other partnerships and successful coordination of law enforcement and other activities.
________(0 points) Applicant provided no documentation, or written commitments; MOAs/MOUs do not exist or are not signed; did not include organization name and resources; and the applicant did not describe other partnerships and successful coordination of law enforcement and other activities.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
Factor 4
2a. LEVERAGING RESOURCES—Role of Residents and Community (2 points maximum)
Reviewers shall consider the extent to which these initiatives are used to leverage resources from the tribe/TDHE community and are part of a comprehensive plan and performance measures outlines in rating factor 3: Soundness of Approach—Quality of the plan. The applicant must describe the role of residents and community leaders and organizations in planning the activities described in the application
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
______(2 points) Applicant clearly described and provided documentation of what role residents played in the targeted developments, applicable community leaders and organizations, law enforcement and what role they will have in implementing such activities
______(1 point) applicant adequately described and provided some documentation of what role residents played in the targeted developments, applicable community leaders and organizations, law enforcement and what role they will have in implementing such activities
_______(0 points) applicant did not describe or provide documentation of what role residents played in the targeted developments, applicable community leaders and organizations, law enforcement and what role they will have in implementing such activities
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
Factor 4
2b. LEVERAGING RESOURCES—Evidence of Community Involvement and Plans to Continue (2 points maximum)
Applicant shall provide written evidence of the extent to which community representatives were involved in the design and implementation of the plan and will continue to be involved during the implementation of proposed activities.
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
______(2 points) Applicant clearly describes and includes a discussion and written evidence (i.e. resident comments, community meeting minutes) of the extent to which community representatives and tribal, local, State and Federal Government officials, including law enforcement were actively involved in the design and implementation of the plan and will continue to be involved.
______(1 point) Applicant adequately provides one of the following: a discussion or written evidence (i.e. resident comments, community meeting minutes) of the extent to which community representatives and tribal, local, State and Federal Governmental officials, including law enforcement were actively involved in plan design and implementation plan and will continue to be involved.
_______(0 points) applicant did not describe or provide discussion or written evidence (i.e. comments form residents, minutes from community meetings) of the extent to which community representatives and tribal, local, State and Federal Government officials, including law enforcement were actively involved in the design and implementation of the plan and will continue to be involved.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page
Points Assigned:_________
Factor 4
2c LEVERAGING RESOURCES—Law Enforcement Obligations (3 points maximum)
Reviewers shall consider the extent to which the relevant governmental jurisdiction has met its local law enforcement obligations under the Cooperation Agreement. Applicant must describe baseline services being provided to the developments proposed for assistance.
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
______(3 points) Applicant clearly demonstrates and provides evidence that relevant governmental jurisdiction has met the local law enforcement obligations under the Cooperation Agreement. Applicant has provided a description of baseline services being provided to the developments proposed for assistance.
_______(1-2 points) Applicant adequately demonstrates and provides some evidence that relevant governmental jurisdiction has met the local law enforcement obligations under the Cooperation Agreement. Applicant provides some description of baseline services being provided to the developments proposed for assistance.
_______(0 points) Applicant has not demonstrated or provided any evidence that relevant governmental jurisdiction has met the local law enforcement obligations under the Cooperation Agreement. Applicant does not describe baseline services being provided to the developments proposed for assistance.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
FY 2000 IHDEP SCORING FACTORS
FACTOR 5
(to be completed by ONAP-NRC Reviewers)
APPLICANT NAME:__________________________________________
TRIBE/TDHE CODE:__________________________________________
DATE OF REVIEW: __________________________________________
COMPREHENSIVENESS AND COORDINATION
MAXIMUM POINTS: 10
This factor examines the extent to which the applicant has coordinated activities with other known organizations, and is working toward addressing a need in a holistic and comprehensive manner through linkages with other activities in your community. It is divided into three sub-factors and scores as follows:
1. Demonstration of existing coordination with area
groups and organizations. (4 points maximum) __________
2. Participation in tribe/TDHE’s IHBG and coordination of
activities with IHP plan (3 points maximum) __________
3. Steps taken to develop a) other HUD-funded and b)
Federal, State, or local linkages to promote
comprehensive solutions. (3 points maximum) __________
TOTAL (10 points maximum) __________
A detailed description of each sub-factor follows. After they have been individually rated, write in the scores above, then total.
________________________________________ __________
ONAP-National Review Center Reviewer Signature Date
________________________________________ __________
AONAP-GA Signature Date
Factor 5
1. DEMONSTRATION OF EXISTING COORDINATION WITH AREA GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS—(4 points maximum)
Reviewers shall consider the extent to which the applicant demonstrates the coordination of proposed activities with those of other groups or organizations prior to submission of application in order to best complement, support, and address community needs identified in Factor 2.
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
_____ (3-4 points) Applicant clearly demonstrates existing and well-developed coordination of activities with area organizations and groups, which complement, support, and address community needs. The applicant describes and includes MOUs and MOAs that are or will be in place after award.
_____(1-2 points) Applicant adequately demonstrates some existing coordination of activities with area organizations and groups, which complement, support, and address community needs. The applicant describes and includes MOUs and MOAs that are or will be in place after award.
_____(0 points) Applicant does not demonstrate any coordination of activities with area organizations or groups. Applicant does not include or describe MOUs or MOAs.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
Factor 5
2. PARTICIPATION IN TRIBE/TDHE’S IHBG AND COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES WITH IHP PLAN—(3 points maximum)
The reviewer will score based on the extent to which the applicant demonstrates steps taken to participate in the tribe/TDHE’s Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) process and proves that proposed activities reflect the priorities, needs, concerns, and goals of crime prevention and safety in the Indian Housing Plan.
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
_____(2-3 points) Applicant clearly demonstrates the steps taken to participate in the tribe/TDHE’s IHBG process and proves that proposed activities are consistent with the priorities, needs, concerns, and goals of crime prevention and safety in the community’s Indian Housing Plan.
____(1 point) Applicant adequately demonstrates the steps taken to participate in the tribe/TDHE’s IHBG process and proves that proposed activities are consistent with the priorities, needs, concerns, and goals of crime prevention and safety in the community’s Indian Housing Plan.
_____(0 points) Applicant does not demonstrate or has not taken steps to participate in the tribe/TDHE’s IHBG process. Applicant does not prove that proposed activities are consistent with the priorities, needs, concerns, and goals of crime prevention and safety in the community’s IHP.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
Factor 5
3. STEPS TAKEN TO DEVELOP FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER HUD LINKAGES TO PROMOTE COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTIONS—(3 Points Maximum)
Reviewer shall score based on the extent to which the applicant demonstrates the specific steps taken to develop linkages to coordinate comprehensive solutions through meetings, information networks, planning processes or other mechanisms with a) other HUD-funded projects/activities outside the scope of those covered by the IHP; and b) other Federal State, or locally funded activities, including those proposed, or on-going that will sustain a comprehensive system to address the needs of the community.
Choose and assign points to one of the following categories:
_____(2-3 points) Applicant clearly demonstrates specific steps taken to develop linkages to coordinate comprehensive solutions with other HUD-funded projects/activities outside the scope of those covered by the IHP; and other Federal State, or locally funded activities, including those proposed, or on-going that will sustain a comprehensive system to address the needs of the community. Steps taken may include meetings, information networks, planning processes or other mechanisms.
_____(1 point) Applicant adequately demonstrates steps taken to develop linkages to coordinate comprehensive solutions with other HUD-funded projects/activities outside the scope of the IHP; or other Federal State, or locally funded activities.
_____(0 points) Applicant does not demonstrate or has not taken steps to develop linkages with other HUD-funded projects/activities outside the scope of those covered by the IHP; or other Federal State, or locally funded activities.
STRENGTHS Tab/Page#
WEAKNESSES Tab/Page#
Points Assigned:_________
APPENDIX: 5
“HIGH,” "MEDIUM," AND "LOW" SCORING GUIDANCE
Instructions
For FY 2000 IHDEP AONAP And ONAP-National Review Center
Grant Application Reviewers
SELECTIVE CRITERIA RATING FACTORS 1 THROUGH 5
Recommended Reviewer "HIGH," "MEDIUM," "LOW," Point Distribution
Below is a guide given to each reviewer to help illustrate the scoring criteria for selective criteria 1 through 5 of the IHDEP grant application. The criterion is broken into three different point categories on what would constitute a "High", "Medium", and "Low" score. In reviewing an application, if reviewers find that it does not fall neatly into one of these categories, based on the text provided, refer to the FY 2000 IHDEP NOFA for complete scoring selective criteria.
FIRST SELECTIVE CRITERION
CAPACITY OF THE APPLICANT AND RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE—Maximum Allowable Points: 20
Subfactor 1 - Knowledge and experience of the staff and administrative capability to manage grants of this size: 10 points
High Points (8-10)
The applicant clearly demonstrated and provided evidence that their staff has significant experience and administrative capability to manage grants of this size and type. This includes reviewer consideration of physical inspections, monitoring/evaluation records, audit records, narrative and financial status reports prepared by the grantee, complaints from citizens/contractors and LOCCS reports. The applicant has also demonstrated fiscal amendment capacity and provided evidence of administrative support and organizational lines of authority.
Medium Points (7- 4)
The applicant demonstrated satisfactory or fair ability to effectively manage their grants from HUD and other State, local, Federal agencies and experience of staff is adequate. Some fiscal management capacity.
Low Points (3-0)
The applicant demonstrated a lack of ability to effectively manage their grants from HUD or other State, local, Federal agencies and experience of staff is insufficient.
Subfactor 2- Past performance in administering Drug Elimination grants and/or other Federal, State, local grants of similar size and complexity during the last three years: 10 points
High Points (11-15)
The applicant has an extensive performance history in administering DEP grants and/or other Federal, State or local grants of similar size and complexity during the last three years. The applicant has discussed/provided evidence of successfully implementing planned activities, achieving program goals, submitting required reports, timely drawdown of funds and no unresolved findings exist.
Medium Points (10-6)
The applicant has some performance history in administering DEP grants and/or other Federal, State or local grants of similar size and complexity during the last three years. The applicant has discussed/provided some evidence of successfully implementing planned activities, achieving program goals, submitting required reports, timely drawdown of funds and no unresolved findings exist.
Low Points (5-0)
The applicant demonstrated a lack of ability to effectively manage their grants from HUD or other State, local, Federal agencies. The applicant does not have a strong performance history in administering DEP grants, in implementing planned activities, achieving program goals, submitting required reports, timely drawdown of funds and unresolved findings exist.
SECOND SELECTIVE CRITERION.
NEED/EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM—Maximum Allowable Points: 30
Subfactor 1 - Objective Crime Data relevant to target area: 15 points
High Points (11-15)
The applicant has thoroughly documented and clearly demonstrated the need and the extent of the problem in their proposed target area (i.e., the degree of the severity and nature of the drug-related crime problem in the project proposed for funding). The statistical data provided by the applicant is specific to the targeted site. The applicant has included the most current and specific Part I and relevant Part II crime data available from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting system or the local law enforcement’s crime statistics. See NOFA page 30508, Rating Factor 2 for description of Part I and II crimes.
Medium Points (10-6)
The applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily and fairly the need and extent of the problem in their proposed target area (i.e., the degree of the severity of the drug-related crime problem in the project proposed for funding). The data provided by the applicant is not current and specific Part I and relevant Part II crime data available from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting system or is tribe/TDHE-wide data versus for the targeted development(s) for assistance.
Low Points (5-0)
The applicant has not demonstrated the need or the extent of the problem in their proposed target area (i.e., the degree of the severity of the drug-related crime problem in the project proposed for funding). The data provided by the applicant is not current and specific Part I and relevant Part II crime data available from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting system or is tribe/TDHE-wide data versus for the targeted development(s) for assistance.
* Note Reviewers: 5 points will be awarded if substantial information is provided as to why Objective Crime Data could not be obtained; the efforts being made to obtain it; what efforts will be made during the grant period to begin obtaining the data; and an explanation of how the applicant plans to measure how grant activities will result in reducing drug-related crime in the targeted developments and what will be used as a baseline.
Subfactor 2: Other Data Supporting The Extent Of Drug And Drug-Related Crime—15 points
High Points (11-15)
The applicant has thoroughly documented and clearly demonstrated in their proposed plan the problem in their proposed target area and has identified supporting data indicating the extent of drugs and drug-related crime problems in the developments proposed for assistance in their program. The applicant has included examples of data such as surveys of residents and staff in their targeted area about drugs and drug-related crime or on-site reviews to determine drug/crime activity; government or scholarly studies or other research in the past year that analyze drug-related crime activity; annual vandalism costs to the targeted development; information from schools, health service providers, residents and Federal, State, local and tribal officials; the school dropout rate and level of absenteeism; the number of lease terminations or evictions for drug-related crime at the targeted development; the number of emergency room admissions for drug use that result from drug-related crime; the number of police calls for service from the tribe/TDHE development(s).
Medium Points (10-6)
The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated in their plan the problem in their proposed target area and has identified supporting data indicating the extent of drugs and drug-related crime problems in the developments proposed for assistance in their program. The applicant has include some but not all of the following examples of data such as surveys of residents and staff in their targeted area about drugs and drug-related crime or on-site reviews to determine drug/crime activity; government or scholarly studies or other research in the past year that analyze drug-related crime activity; annual vandalism costs to the targeted development; information from schools, health service providers, residents and Federal, State, local and tribal officials; the school dropout rate and level of absenteeism; the number of lease terminations or evictions for drug-related crime at the targeted development; the number of emergency room admissions for drug use that result from drug-related crime; the number of police calls for service from the tribe/TDHE development(s).
Low Points (5-0)
The applicant has not demonstrated in their proposed plan the problem in their proposed target area and has not identified supporting data indicating the extent of drugs and drug-related crime problems in the developments proposed for assistance in their program. The applicant has not included any of the following examples of data such as surveys of residents and staff in their targeted area about drugs and drug-related crime or on-site reviews to determine drug/crime activity; government or scholarly studies or other research in the past year that analyze drug-related crime activity; annual vandalism costs to the targeted development; information from schools, health service providers, residents and Federal, State, local and tribal officials; the school dropout rate and level of absenteeism; the number of lease terminations or evictions for drug-related crime at the targeted development; the number of emergency room admissions for drug use that result from drug-related crime; the number of police calls for service from the tribe/TDHE development(s).
THIRD SELECTIVE CRITERION
THE SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH (QUALITY OF THE PLAN)—Maximum Allowable Points: 35 Points
Subfactor 3-A, SECTION V(B)(Rating Factor 3)(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the IHDEP NOFA: Maximum total points: 7
High Points (5-7)
The applicant clearly demonstrated a capability to effectively and efficiently address the drug-related crime problem, the problems associated with drug-related crime in developments proposed for funding, allocate resources, and fit the proposed activities with the plan. Applicant has included performance goals to measure program outcomes and baseline data. Applicant has stated what performance measurement system exists for providing information to HUD on progress made in achieving outcome goals.
Medium Points (1-4)
The applicant demonstrated satisfactory or fair ability to effectively and efficiently address the drug-related crime problem, the problems associated with drug-related crime in developments proposed for funding, the resources allocated, and how well the proposed activities fit with the plan. Applicant has included some performance goals to measure program outcomes and baseline data. Applicant showed some evidence that a performance measurement system exists for providing information to HUD on progress made in achieving outcome goals.
Low Points (0)
The applicant did not document or efficiently address the drug-related crime problem, the problems associated with drug-related crime in developments proposed for funding, the resources allocated, and how well the proposed activities fit with the plan. Applicant has not included performance goals to measure program outcomes and baseline data. Applicant showed no evidence that a performance measurement system exists for providing information to HUD on progress made in achieving outcome goals.
Subfactor 3-B, SECTION V(B) Rating Factor 3 (1)(b) of the IHDEP NOFA. Maximum Total Points: 7
High Points (5-7)
The applicant has clearly documented and designed major activities to meet measurable goals and objectives for drug related crime reduction. Outcomes include accomplishments, results in targeted area. The goals are objective, quantifiable, and/or qualitative.
Medium Points (1-4)
The applicant has provided some evidence and documented that they have designed major activities to meet measurable goals and objectives for drug related crime reduction. The applicant has some outcomes which may include accomplishments, results in targeted area.
Low Points (0)
The applicant did not provide evidence or document that they have designed major activities to meet measurable goals and objectives for drug related crime reduction. The applicant does not have outcomes which may include accomplishments, results in targeted area and the goals are not objective, quantifiable, and/or qualitative.
Subfactor 3-C, SECTION V(B), Rating Factor 3 (1)(c) of the IHDEP NOFA. Maximum Total Points: 7
High points (5-7)
Applicant has clearly defined specific crime reduction goals that are measurable against the baseline year crime selection rate as stated in the application.
Medium Points (1-4)
Applicant provided some examples of crime reduction goals that are measurable against the baseline year crime selection rate as stated in the application.
Low Points (0)
Applicant did not provide specific crime reduction goals that are measurable against the baseline year crime selection rate as stated in the application.
Subfactor 3-D, SECTION V(B) Rating Factor 3 (1)(d) of the IHDEP NOFA - Maximum points: 7
High points(5-7)
Applicant clearly documents the rationale for proposed activities. Applicant demonstrates that the proposed activities have been effective in similar circumstances in controlling drug-related crimes.
Medium Points (1-4)
Applicant provides some evidence and rationale for proposed activities. Applicant demonstrates that the proposed activities have been effective in similar circumstances in controlling drug-related crimes.
Low points (0)
Applicant did not provide evidence or rationale for proposed activities. Applicant demonstrates that the proposed activities have been effective in similar circumstances in controlling drug-related crimes.
SUBFACTOR 3-E, SECTION V(B) Rating Factor 3 (1)(e) of the IHDEP NOFA. Maximum points:7
High Points (5-7)
Applicant clearly demonstrates/provides evidence that youth programs and activities that reduce substance abuse among youth, aftercare services, social services, programs to reduce delinquency, gang prevention, academic improvement programs, counseling and conflict resolution, have been coordinated in the tribal community.
Medium Points (1-4)
Applicant provides some evidence and documentation that youth programs and activities that reduce substance abuse among youth, aftercare services, social services, programs to reduce delinquency, gang prevention, academic improvement programs, counseling and conflict resolution, have been coordinated in the tribal community.
Low Points (0)
Applicant provides little or no evidence and documentation that youth programs and activities that reduce substance abuse among youth, aftercare services, social services, programs to reduce delinquency, gang prevention, academic improvement programs, counseling and conflict resolution, have been coordinated in the tribal community.
FOURTH SELECTIVE CRITERION.
LEVERAGING RESOURCES
Subfactor 1—Proof Of Firm Commitments
Maximum Allowable Points: 3
High Points (3)
Applicant clearly demonstrated and provided firm, written commitments of funding, staff, or in-kind resources, partnership agreements, and on-going or planned cooperative efforts. The MOAs/MOUs included organization name and resources.The applicant clearly described other partnerships, resident involvement and successful coordination of law enforcement and other activities.
Medium Points (1-2)
Applicant provided satisfactory documentation, written commitments; some of the following were provided: MOAs/MOUs include organization name and resources; description of other partnerships, resident involvement and coordination of law enforcement and other activities.
Low Points (0)
Applicant did not provide any written commitments. MOAs/MOUs do not exist or are not signed; did not include organization name and resources; and the applicant did not describe other partnerships resident involvement and successful coordination of law enforcement and other activities.
Subfactor 2a—Residents, The Local Government And The Community Role In Planning The Proposed Activities.
Maximum Allowable Points: 2
High Points (2)
Applicant clearly demonstrated and provided documentation of role residents, community leaders and organizations, law enforcement played in the targeted developments, and what role they will have in implementing such activities
Medium Points (1)
Applicant provided satisfactory documentation of role residents, community leaders and organizations, law enforcement played in the targeted developments, and what role they will have in implementing such activities.
Low Points (0)
Applicant did not provide documentation of role residents, community leaders and organizations, law enforcement played in the targeted developments, and what role they will have in implementing such activities.
Subfactor 2b—Proof Of Resident, Local Government And Community Support In Planning And Implementing The Proposed Activities.
Maximum Allowable Points: 2
High Points (2)
Applicant clearly demonstrated and provided discussion and written evidence (i.e. resident comments, community meeting minutes) of the extent to which community representatives and tribal, local, State and Federal Government officials, including law enforcement were actively involved in the design and implementation of the plan and will continue to be involved.
Medium Points (1)
Applicant provided satisfactory documentation of one of the following: a discussion or written evidence (i.e. resident comments, community meeting minutes) of the extent to which community representatives and tribal, local, State and Federal Governmental officials, including law enforcement were actively involved in plan design and implementation plan and will continue to be involved.
Low Points (0)
Applicant did not describe or provide discussion or written evidence (i.e. comments form residents, minutes from community meetings) of the extent to which community representatives and tribal, local, State and Federal Government officials, including law enforcement were actively involved in the design and implementation of the plan and will continue to be involved.
Subfactor 2c—Law Enforcement Obligations
Maximum Allowable Points:3
High Points (3)
Applicant clearly demonstrates and provides evidence that relevant governmental jurisdiction has met the local law enforcement obligations under the Cooperation Agreement. Applicant has provided a description of baseline services being provided to the developments proposed for assistance.
Medium Points (1-2)
Applicant provided satisfactory evidence that relevant governmental jurisdiction has met the local law enforcement obligations under the Cooperation Agreement. Applicant provides some description of baseline services being provided to the developments proposed for assistance.
Low Points (0)
Applicant did not demonstrate or provide any evidence that relevant governmental jurisdiction has met the local law enforcement obligations under the Cooperation Agreement. Applicant does not describe baseline services being provided to the developments proposed for assistance.
FIFTH SELECTIVE CRITERION
COMPREHENSIVENESS AND COORDINATION
MAXIMUM POINTS: 10
Subfactor 1—Demonstration Of Existing Coordination With Area Groups And Organizations—(4 points maximum)
High Points (3-4)
Applicant clearly demonstrates existing and well-developed coordination of activities with area organizations and groups, which complement, support, and address community needs. The applicant describes and includes MOUs and MOAs that are or will be in place after award.
Medium Points (1-2)
Applicant adequately demonstrates some existing coordination of activities with area organizations and groups, which complement, support, and address community needs. The applicant describes and includes MOUs and MOAs that are or will be in place after award.
Low Points (0 )
Applicant does not demonstrate any coordination of activities with area organizations or groups. Applicant does not include or describe MOUs or MOAs.
Subfactor 2. Participation In Tribe/TDHE’s IHBG And Coordination Of Activities With IHP Plan—(3 points maximum)
High Points (2-3)
Applicant clearly demonstrates the steps taken to participate in the community’s IHBG process and proves that proposed activities are consistent with the priorities, needs, concerns, and goals of crime prevention and safety in the community’s Indian Housing Plan.
Medium Points (1)
Applicant adequately demonstrates the steps taken to participate in the community’s IHBG process and proves that proposed activities are consistent with the priorities, needs, concerns, and goals of crime prevention and safety in the community’s Indian Housing Plan.
Low Points (0 )
Applicant does not demonstrate or has not taken steps to participate in the community’s IHBG process. Applicant does not prove that proposed activities are consistent with the priorities, needs, concerns, and goals of crime prevention and safety in the community’s Indian Housing Plan.
Subfactor 3. Steps Taken To Develop Federal, State, Local Or Other HUD Linkages To Promote Comprehensive Solutions—(3 Points Maximum)
High Points (2-3)
Applicant clearly demonstrates specific steps taken to develop linkages to coordinate comprehensive solutions with other HUD-funded projects/activities outside the scope of those covered by the IHP; and other Federal State, or locally funded activities, including those proposed, or on-going that will sustain a comprehensive system to address the needs of the community. Steps taken may include meetings, information networks, planning processes or other mechanisms.
Medium Points (1)
Applicant adequately demonstrates steps taken to develop linkages to coordinate comprehensive solutions with other HUD-funded projects/activities outside the scope of the IHP; or other Federal State, or locally funded activities.
Low Points (0)
Applicant does not demonstrate or has not taken steps to develop linkages with other HUD-funded projects/activities outside the scope of those covered by the IHP; or other Federal State, or locally funded activities.
Appendix 6:
Formula Current Assisted Stock By Tribe
Current Assisted Stock By Tribe (FY 2000 Final)
|Office |Tribe |MH |LR |TK3 |FY00 fin |Adjustment | |
|ALASKA |Afognak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Ahtna Native Regional Corporation |62 |67 |0 |129 | |129 |
|ALASKA |Akhiok |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Akiachak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Akiak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Akutan |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Alakanuk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Alatna |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Aleknagik |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Aleutian Regional Corp. |262 |51 |0 |313 | |313 |
|ALASKA |Algaaciq (St. Mary's) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Allakaket |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Ambler |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Anaktuvuk Pass |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Andreafski |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Angoon |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Aniak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Annette Island (Metlakakla) |104 |56 |0 |160 | |160 |
|ALASKA |Anvik |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Arctic Slope Native Regional Corp. |378 |71 |0 |449 | |449 |
|ALASKA |Arctic Village |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Atka |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Atmautluak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Atqasuk (Atkasook) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Baranof Island Regional Corporation |67 |20 |0 |87 | |87 |
|ALASKA |Barrow |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Beaver |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Belkofski |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Bering Straits Native Regional Corp. |537 |44 |0 |581 | |581 |
|ALASKA |Bill Moore's Slough |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Birch Creek |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Brevig Mission |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Bristol Bay Native Regional Corp. |349 |57 |0 |406 |-20 |386 |
|ALASKA |Buckland |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Calista Native Regional Corporation |1,306 |32 |0 |1,338 | |1,338 |
|ALASKA |Cantwell |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chalkyitsik |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chanega |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chefornak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chevak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chickaloon |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chignik |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chignik Lagoon |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chignik Lake |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chilkat |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chilkoot |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chistochina |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chitina |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chuatbaluk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Chugach Native Regional Corporation |167 |69 |0 |236 | |236 |
|ALASKA |Chuloonawick |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Circle |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Clark's Point |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Cook Inlet Native Regional Corporation |246 |267 |0 |513 | |513 |
|ALASKA |Council |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Craig |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Crooked Creek |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Curyung |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Deering |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Dot Lake |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Douglas |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Doyon Native Regional Corporation |513 |21 |0 |534 | |534 |
|ALASKA |Eagle |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Eek |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Egegik |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Eklutna |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Ekuk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Ekwok |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Elim |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Emmonak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Evansville (Bettles Field) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Eyak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |False Pass |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Fort Yukon |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Gakona |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Galena |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Gambell |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Georgetown |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Golovin (Chinik) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Goodnews Bay |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Grayling |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Gulkana |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Hamilton |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Healy Lake |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Holy Cross |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Hoonah |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Hooper Bay |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Hughes |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Huslia |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Hydaburg |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Igiugig |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Iliamna |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Inalik (Diomede) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Ivanoff Bay |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kaguyak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kake |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kaktovik (Barter Island) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kalskag |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kaltag |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kanatak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Karluk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kasigluk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kassan |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kenaitze |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Ketchikan |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kiana |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |King Cove |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |King Island |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kipnuk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kivalina |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Klawock |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kluti Kaah (Copper Center) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Knik |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kobuk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kokhanok |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Koliganek |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kongiganak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Koniag Native Regional Corporation |201 |107 |0 |308 | |308 |
|ALASKA |Kotlik |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kotzebue |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Koyuk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Koyukuk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kwethluk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kwigillingok |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Kwinhagak (Quinhagak) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Larsen Bay |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Lesnoi (Woody Island) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Levelock |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Lime |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Lower.Kalskag |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Manley Hot Springs |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Manokotak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Marshall |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Mary's Igloo |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |McGrath |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Mekoryuk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Mentasta |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Minto |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Mountain Village |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Naknek |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |NANA Native Regional Corporation |370 |83 |0 |453 | |453 |
|ALASKA |Nanwelek (English Bay) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Napaimute |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Napakiak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Napaskiak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Nelson Lagoon |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Nenana |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |New Stuyahok |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Newhalen |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Newtok |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Nightmute |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Nikolai |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Nikolski |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Ninilchik |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Noatuk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Nome |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Nondalton |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Noorvik |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Northway |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Nuiqsut |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Nulato |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Nunapitchuk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Ohogamiut |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Old Harbor |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Orutsararmuit (Bethel) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Oscarville |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Ouzinkie |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Paimiut |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Pauloff Village |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Pedro Bay |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Perryville |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Petersburg |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Pilot Point |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Pilot Station |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Pitka's Point |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Platinum |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Point Hope |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Point Lay |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Port Graham |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Port Heiden |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Port Lions |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Portage Creek |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Qagan Tayagungin (Sand Point) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Qawalangin (Unalaska) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Rampart |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Red Devil |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Ruby |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Russian Mission (Yukon) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Saint George |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Saint Michael |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Saint Paul |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Salamatoff |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Savoonga |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Saxman |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Scammon Bay |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Selawik |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Seldovia |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Shageluk |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Shaktoolik |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Sheldon's Point |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Shishmaref |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Shungnak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Skagway |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Sleetmute |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Solomon |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |South Naknek |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Stebbins |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Stevens |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Stoney River |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Takotna |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Tanacross |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Tanana |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Tatitlek |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Tazlina |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Telida |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Teller |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Tetlin |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Tlingit and Haida |433 |179 |0 |612 | |612 |
|ALASKA |Togiak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Toksook Bay |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Tuluksak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Tuntutuliak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Tununak |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Twin Hills |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Tyonek |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Ugashik |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Umkumiute |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Unalakleet |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Unga |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Venetie |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Wainwright |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Wales |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |White Mountain |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Wrangell |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|ALASKA |Yakutat |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Aroostook Band of Micmac |0 |66 |0 |66 | |66 |
|CHICAGO |Bad River Band |24 |167 |12 |203 | |203 |
|CHICAGO |Bay Mills Indian Community |135 |70 |0 |205 | |205 |
|CHICAGO |Boise Forte Band of Minnesota Chippewa |22 |42 |30 |94 | |94 |
|CHICAGO |Catawba Indian Tribe |40 |34 |0 |74 | |74 |
|CHICAGO |Cayuga Nation |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Coharie State Tribe |0 |20 |0 |20 | |20 |
|CHICAGO |Eastern Cherokee |796 |125 |0 |921 | |921 |
|CHICAGO |Fond Du Lac Band of Minnesota Chippewa |86 |224 |20 |330 | |330 |
|CHICAGO |Forest County Potawatami |52 |7 |0 |59 | |59 |
|CHICAGO |Grand Portage Band of Minn. Chippewa |28 |13 |0 |41 | |41 |
|CHICAGO |Grand Traverse Band |0 |60 |0 |60 | |60 |
|CHICAGO |Gun Lake Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Haliwa-Saponi State Tribe |0 |30 |0 |30 | |30 |
|CHICAGO |Hannahville Community |0 |15 |0 |15 | |15 |
|CHICAGO |Ho-Chunk Nation |26 |152 |0 |178 | |178 |
|CHICAGO |Houlton Band of Maliseets |15 |75 |0 |90 | |90 |
|CHICAGO |Huron Band of Potawatomi |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Keweenaw Bay Indian Community |15 |252 |0 |267 | |267 |
|CHICAGO |Lac Courte Oreilles |120 |316 |16 |452 | |452 |
|CHICAGO |Lac Du Flambeau Band |133 |193 |1 |327 | |327 |
|CHICAGO |Lac Vieux Desert Band |8 |35 |0 |43 | |43 |
|CHICAGO |Leech Lake Band of Minnesota Chippewa |157 |313 |0 |470 | |470 |
|CHICAGO |Little River Band of Ottawa |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Little Traverse Bay Band |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Lower Sioux |0 |32 |0 |32 | |32 |
|CHICAGO |Lumbee State Tribe |0 |204 |0 |204 | |204 |
|CHICAGO |Menominee Indian Tribe |196 |290 |0 |486 | |486 |
|CHICAGO |Miccosukee Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Mille Lacs Band of Minnesota Chippewa |20 |115 |0 |135 | |135 |
|CHICAGO |Mississippi Choctaw Tribe |564 |303 |0 |867 | |867 |
|CHICAGO |MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians |0 |50 |0 |50 | |50 |
|CHICAGO |Narragansett Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Oneida Nation of New York |0 |30 |0 |30 | |30 |
|CHICAGO |Oneida Tribe |139 |189 |0 |328 | |328 |
|CHICAGO |Onondaga Nation |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Passamaquody Indian Tribe |45 |93 |25 |163 | |163 |
|CHICAGO |Penobscot Tribe |10 |52 |61 |123 | |123 |
|CHICAGO |Pleasant Point |77 |36 |50 |163 | |163 |
|CHICAGO |Poarch Band of Creek Indians |100 |105 |0 |205 | |205 |
|CHICAGO |Pokagon Band of Potawatomi |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Prairie Island Sioux |0 |24 |0 |24 | |24 |
|CHICAGO |Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippe |18 |115 |8 |141 | |141 |
|CHICAGO |Red Lake Band of Chippewa |175 |297 |5 |477 | |477 |
|CHICAGO |Sac & Fox Tribe |0 |20 |0 |20 | |20 |
|CHICAGO |Saginaw Chippewa |44 |72 |0 |116 | |116 |
|CHICAGO |Saint Croix Chippewa |32 |174 |7 |213 | |213 |
|CHICAGO |Sault Ste. Marie Tribe |34 |398 |0 |432 | |432 |
|CHICAGO |Seminole Tribe |301 |166 |0 |467 | |467 |
|CHICAGO |Seneca Nation of New York |5 |211 |95 |311 | |311 |
|CHICAGO |Shakopee Sioux |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Sokagoan Chippewa Tribe |11 |121 |0 |132 | |132 |
|CHICAGO |St. Regis Mohawk Tribe |206 |50 |0 |256 | |256 |
|CHICAGO |Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe |36 |26 |34 |96 | |96 |
|CHICAGO |Tonawanda Band of Senecas |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Tuscarora Nation |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Upper Sioux Indian Community |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Waccamaw Siouan State Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|CHICAGO |Wampanoag Tribe |0 |18 |0 |18 | |18 |
|CHICAGO |White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa |107 |243 |18 |368 | |368 |
|DENVER |Blackfeet Tribe |553 |604 |0 |1,157 | |1,157 |
|DENVER |Cheyenne River Sioux |256 |594 |51 |901 | |901 |
|DENVER |Crow Creek Sioux |148 |218 |0 |366 | |366 |
|DENVER |Crow Tribe |320 |183 |75 |578 | |578 |
|DENVER |Devils Lake Sioux |110 |328 |33 |471 | |471 |
|DENVER |Flandreau Santee Sioux |36 |50 |0 |86 | |86 |
|DENVER |Fort Belknap Indian Community |378 |249 |0 |627 | |627 |
|DENVER |Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux |484 |542 |55 |1,081 | |1,081 |
|DENVER |Ft. Berthold Affiliated Tribes |265 |409 |0 |674 | |674 |
|DENVER |Goshute Reservation |4 |8 |0 |12 | |12 |
|DENVER |Lower Brule Sioux |84 |153 |20 |257 | |257 |
|DENVER |Northern Arapahoe |221 |166 |0 |387 | |387 |
|DENVER |Northern Cheyenne |527 |233 |0 |760 |-9 |751 |
|DENVER |NW Band of Shoshone Nation |0 |13 |0 |13 | |13 |
|DENVER |Oglala Sioux of Pine Ridge Reservation |512 |1,011 |0 |1,523 | |1,523 |
|DENVER |Omaha Tribe |93 |200 |0 |293 | |293 |
|DENVER |Ponca Tribe of Nebraska |35 |38 |0 |73 | |73 |
|DENVER |Rocky Boy Chippewa-Cree |241 |274 |0 |515 | |515 |
|DENVER |Rosebud Sioux |300 |861 |0 |1,161 | |1,161 |
|DENVER |Salish and Kootenai Tribes |245 |414 |0 |659 | |659 |
|DENVER |Santee Sioux Tribe |50 |101 |0 |151 | |151 |
|DENVER |Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reser |157 |136 |0 |293 | |293 |
|DENVER |Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux |153 |538 |0 |691 | |691 |
|DENVER |Skull Valley Band of Goshute |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|DENVER |Southern Ute Tribe |97 |111 |0 |208 | |208 |
|DENVER |Standing Rock Sioux |284 |597 |37 |918 | |918 |
|DENVER |Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa |682 |842 |15 |1,539 |-13 |1,526 |
|DENVER |Uintah & Ouray Ute Indian Tribe |126 |109 |0 |235 | |235 |
|DENVER |Utah Paiute Tribe |30 |138 |0 |168 | |168 |
|DENVER |Ute Mountain Tribe |165 |150 |0 |315 | |315 |
|DENVER |Winnebago Tribe |44 |184 |0 |228 | |228 |
|DENVER |Yankton Sioux |62 |251 |0 |313 | |313 |
|OKLAHOMA |Absentee-Shawnee |532 |195 |0 |727 | |727 |
|OKLAHOMA |Alabama-Coushatta |107 |0 |0 |107 | |107 |
|OKLAHOMA |Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Apache Tribe |104 |0 |0 |104 | |104 |
|OKLAHOMA |Caddo Tribe |186 |20 |0 |206 |-184 |22 |
|OKLAHOMA |Cherokee Nation |2,098 |994 |0 |3,092 | |3,092 |
|OKLAHOMA |Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes |269 |0 |0 |269 | |269 |
|OKLAHOMA |Chickasaw |1,048 |754 |0 |1,802 | |1,802 |
|OKLAHOMA |Chitimacha Tribe |58 |0 |0 |58 | |58 |
|OKLAHOMA |Choctaw Nation |1,984 |146 |0 |2,130 | |2,130 |
|OKLAHOMA |Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe |0 |25 |0 |25 | |25 |
|OKLAHOMA |Comanche Tribe |414 |140 |0 |554 | |554 |
|OKLAHOMA |Coushatta Tribe |16 |0 |0 |16 | |16 |
|OKLAHOMA |Delaware Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Delaware Tribe of Indians (Eastern) |132 |77 |0 |209 | |209 |
|OKLAHOMA |Eastern Shawnee Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Fort Sill Apache Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska |72 |46 |0 |118 |-38 |80 |
|OKLAHOMA |Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Jena Band of Choctaw |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Kaw Tribe |107 |0 |0 |107 | |107 |
|OKLAHOMA |Kialegee Tribal Town |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Kickapoo Tribe |85 |75 |0 |160 | |160 |
|OKLAHOMA |Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Kiowa Tribe |151 |0 |0 |151 | |151 |
|OKLAHOMA |Miami Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Modoc Tribe |0 |15 |0 |15 | |15 |
|OKLAHOMA |Muskogee (Creek) Nation |1,518 |328 |0 |1,846 |-239 |1,607 |
|OKLAHOMA |Osage Tribe |364 |0 |0 |364 | |364 |
|OKLAHOMA |Otoe-Missouria Tribe |70 |50 |0 |120 |-70 |50 |
|OKLAHOMA |Ottawa Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Pawnee Tribe |43 |25 |0 |68 | |68 |
|OKLAHOMA |Peoria Tribe |309 |123 |0 |432 | |432 |
|OKLAHOMA |Ponca Tribe |162 |40 |0 |202 | |202 |
|OKLAHOMA |Prairie Band of Potawatomi |65 |30 |0 |95 | |95 |
|OKLAHOMA |Quapaw Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Sac and Fox of Missouri |19 |20 |0 |39 | |39 |
|OKLAHOMA |Sac and Fox Tribe |343 |45 |0 |388 | |388 |
|OKLAHOMA |Seminole Nation |106 |26 |0 |132 | |132 |
|OKLAHOMA |Seneca-Cayuga |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Texas Band of Kickapoo Indians |0 |20 |0 |20 | |20 |
|OKLAHOMA |Thlopthlocco Tribal Town |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Tonkawa Tribe |35 |50 |0 |85 | |85 |
|OKLAHOMA |Tunica-Biloxi Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |United Keetoowah |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|OKLAHOMA |Wichita Tribe |59 |40 |0 |99 | |99 |
|OKLAHOMA |Wyandotte |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Acoma Pueblo |131 |0 |0 |131 | |131 |
|PHOENIX |Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Ak-Chin Papago |0 |32 |0 |32 | |32 |
|PHOENIX |Alturas Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Auburn Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Augustine Band of Cahuilla |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Barona Group of Capitan Grande |53 |0 |0 |53 | |53 |
|PHOENIX |Berry Creek Rancheria |17 |23 |0 |40 | |40 |
|PHOENIX |Big Lagoon Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Big Pine Band |91 |20 |0 |111 | |111 |
|PHOENIX |Big Sandy Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Big Valley Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Blue Lake Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony |0 |21 |0 |21 | |21 |
|PHOENIX |Buena Vista Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Cabazon Band |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Cahuilla Band |13 |0 |0 |13 | |13 |
|PHOENIX |Campo Band |22 |33 |0 |55 | |55 |
|PHOENIX |Cedarville Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Chemehuevi |40 |45 |0 |85 | |85 |
|PHOENIX |Chicken Ranch Rancheria |0 |2 |0 |2 | |2 |
|PHOENIX |Chico Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Cloverdale Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Cochiti Pueblo |28 |0 |0 |28 | |28 |
|PHOENIX |Cocopah Tribe |32 |75 |0 |107 | |107 |
|PHOENIX |Cold Springs Rancheria |7 |30 |0 |37 | |37 |
|PHOENIX |Colorado River Indian Tribes |200 |225 |0 |425 | |425 |
|PHOENIX |Colusa Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Cortina Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Coyote Valley Band |0 |30 |0 |30 | |30 |
|PHOENIX |Cuyapaipe Community |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Death Valley Timba-Sha |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Dry Creek Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute |111 |64 |0 |175 | |175 |
|PHOENIX |Duckwater Shoshone |8 |18 |0 |26 | |26 |
|PHOENIX |Elk Valley Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Ely Shoshone |10 |28 |0 |38 | |38 |
|PHOENIX |Enterprise Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Fallon Paiute-Shoshone |112 |57 |0 |169 | |169 |
|PHOENIX |Fort Bidwell |35 |6 |0 |41 | |41 |
|PHOENIX |Fort Independence |11 |1 |0 |12 | |12 |
|PHOENIX |Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Fort McDowell Mohave Apache |35 |15 |0 |50 | |50 |
|PHOENIX |Fort Mojave Tribe |56 |128 |0 |184 | |184 |
|PHOENIX |Gila River |361 |686 |8 |1,055 | |1,055 |
|PHOENIX |Greenville Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Grindstone Rancheria |14 |31 |0 |45 | |45 |
|PHOENIX |Guidiville Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Havasupai |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Hoopa Valley |183 |51 |0 |234 | |234 |
|PHOENIX |Hopi |335 |20 |0 |355 | |355 |
|PHOENIX |Hopland Rancheria |0 |20 |0 |20 | |20 |
|PHOENIX |Hualapai |163 |135 |0 |298 | |298 |
|PHOENIX |Inaja Band |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Ione Band of Miwok Indians |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Isleta Pueblo |91 |0 |0 |91 | |91 |
|PHOENIX |Jackson Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Jamul Indian Village |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Jemez Pueblo |60 |0 |0 |60 | |60 |
|PHOENIX |Jicarilla Reservation |100 |138 |0 |238 | |238 |
|PHOENIX |Kaibab Band of Paiute |33 |25 |0 |58 | |58 |
|PHOENIX |Karuk |5 |95 |0 |100 | |100 |
|PHOENIX |La Jolla Band |54 |2 |0 |56 | |56 |
|PHOENIX |La Posta Band |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Laguna Pueblo |194 |39 |0 |233 | |233 |
|PHOENIX |Las Vegas Colony |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Laytonville Rancheria |2 |31 |0 |33 | |33 |
|PHOENIX |Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone |40 |10 |0 |50 | |50 |
|PHOENIX |Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Lovelock Colony |4 |0 |0 |4 | |4 |
|PHOENIX |Lytton Rancheria of California |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Manchester Point Arena Rancheria |11 |38 |0 |49 | |49 |
|PHOENIX |Manzanita Band |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Mesa Grande Band |0 |22 |0 |22 | |22 |
|PHOENIX |Mescalero Reservation |35 |311 |0 |346 | |346 |
|PHOENIX |Middletown Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Moapa Band of Paiute |10 |39 |0 |49 | |49 |
|PHOENIX |Mooretown Rancheria |10 |40 |0 |50 | |50 |
|PHOENIX |Morongo Band of Cahuilla |91 |0 |0 |91 | |91 |
|PHOENIX |Nambe Pueblo |108 |0 |0 |108 | |108 |
|PHOENIX |Navajo Nation |4,007 |3,439 |0 |7,446 | |7,446 |
|PHOENIX |North Fork Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Paiute-Shoshone of Bishop Colony |158 |65 |0 |223 | |223 |
|PHOENIX |Pala Bank |89 |12 |0 |101 |-27 |74 |
|PHOENIX |Pascua Yaqui Tribe |380 |383 |0 |763 | |763 |
|PHOENIX |Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indian |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Pauma Band |19 |0 |0 |19 | |19 |
|PHOENIX |Payson Tonto Apache |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Pechanga Band |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Picayune Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Picuris Pueblo |27 |0 |0 |27 | |27 |
|PHOENIX |Pinoleville Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Pit River Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Pojoaque Pueblo |42 |0 |0 |42 | |42 |
|PHOENIX |Potter Valley Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Pyramid Lake Paiute |205 |58 |0 |263 | |263 |
|PHOENIX |Quartz Valley Reservation |0 |1 |0 |1 | |1 |
|PHOENIX |Quechan Tribe |207 |79 |0 |286 | |286 |
|PHOENIX |Ramona Band |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Redding Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Redwood Valley Rancheria |16 |9 |0 |25 | |25 |
|PHOENIX |Reno-Sparks Colony |122 |78 |0 |200 | |200 |
|PHOENIX |Resighini Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Rincon Reservation |82 |15 |0 |97 | |97 |
|PHOENIX |Robinson Rancheria |30 |11 |0 |41 | |41 |
|PHOENIX |Rohnerville Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Round Valley Reservation |63 |51 |0 |114 | |114 |
|PHOENIX |Rumsey Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Salt River PIma-Maricopa |318 |153 |0 |471 | |471 |
|PHOENIX |San Carlos Apache |464 |424 |0 |888 | |888 |
|PHOENIX |San Felipe Pueblo |10 |0 |0 |10 | |10 |
|PHOENIX |San Ildefonso Pueblo |105 |0 |0 |105 | |105 |
|PHOENIX |San Juan Pueblo |133 |10 |0 |143 | |143 |
|PHOENIX |San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |San Manuel Band |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |San Pasqual Band |54 |10 |0 |64 | |64 |
|PHOENIX |San Rosa Band of Cahuilla |5 |0 |0 |5 | |5 |
|PHOENIX |San Ysabel Reservation |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Sandia Pueblo |33 |1 |0 |34 | |34 |
|PHOENIX |Santa Ana Pueblo |22 |0 |0 |22 | |22 |
|PHOENIX |Santa Clara Pueblo |130 |0 |0 |130 | |130 |
|PHOENIX |Santa Rosa Rancheria |2 |43 |0 |45 | |45 |
|PHOENIX |Santa Ynez Band of Chumash |45 |22 |0 |67 | |67 |
|PHOENIX |Santo Domingo Pueblo |41 |32 |0 |73 | |73 |
|PHOENIX |Scotts Valley (Pomo) |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Sheep Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Sherwood Valley Rancheria |16 |19 |0 |35 | |35 |
|PHOENIX |Shingle Springs Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Smith River Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Soboba Band |85 |8 |0 |93 | |93 |
|PHOENIX |Stewarts Point Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Sulphur Bank Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Summit Lake Paiute Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Susanville Rancheria |53 |31 |0 |84 | |84 |
|PHOENIX |Sycuan Band |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Table Bluff Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Table Mountain Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Taos Pueblo |159 |0 |0 |159 | |159 |
|PHOENIX |Te-Moak |223 |59 |0 |282 | |282 |
|PHOENIX |Tesuque Pueblo |32 |0 |0 |32 | |32 |
|PHOENIX |Tohono O'Odham Nation |811 |122 |0 |933 | |933 |
|PHOENIX |Torres-Martinez Band of Cahuilla |26 |11 |0 |37 | |37 |
|PHOENIX |Trinidad Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Tule River Indian Tribe |50 |7 |0 |57 | |57 |
|PHOENIX |Tulomne Rancheria |14 |7 |0 |21 | |21 |
|PHOENIX |Twenty Nine Palms Band |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Upper Lake Rancheria |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Utu Utu Gwaiti Paiute |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Viejas Group of Capitan Grande |42 |12 |0 |54 | |54 |
|PHOENIX |Walker River Paiute Tribe |128 |46 |0 |174 | |174 |
|PHOENIX |Washoe Tribe |150 |80 |0 |230 | |230 |
|PHOENIX |White Mountain Apache (Fort Apache) |800 |448 |0 |1,248 | |1,248 |
|PHOENIX |Winnemucca Colony |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Yavapai-Apache (Camp Verde) |68 |83 |0 |151 | |151 |
|PHOENIX |Yavapai-Prescott |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Yerington Paiute Tribe |54 |15 |0 |69 | |69 |
|PHOENIX |Yomba Shoshone Tribe |0 |22 |0 |22 | |22 |
|PHOENIX |Ysleta Del Sur |136 |0 |0 |136 | |136 |
|PHOENIX |Yurok Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|PHOENIX |Zia Pueblo |45 |0 |0 |45 | |45 |
|PHOENIX |Zuni Tribe |431 |167 |45 |643 | |643 |
|SEATTLE |Burns-Paiute Colony |18 |0 |0 |18 | |18 |
|SEATTLE |Chehalis Confederated Tribes |25 |54 |0 |79 | |79 |
|SEATTLE |Coeur D'Alene Tribe |138 |86 |0 |224 | |224 |
|SEATTLE |Colville Confederated Tribes |178 |262 |0 |440 | |440 |
|SEATTLE |Coos Bay Confederated Tribes |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|SEATTLE |Coquille Indian Tribe |20 |51 |0 |71 | |71 |
|SEATTLE |Cowlitz Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|SEATTLE |Fort Hall Shoshone-Bannock |191 |94 |0 |285 | |285 |
|SEATTLE |Grand Ronde Confederated Tribes |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|SEATTLE |Hoh Indian Tribe |19 |0 |0 |19 | |19 |
|SEATTLE |Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|SEATTLE |Kalispel Indian Community |21 |0 |0 |21 | |21 |
|SEATTLE |Klamath Indian Tribe |5 |31 |0 |36 | |36 |
|SEATTLE |Kootenai Tribe |25 |0 |0 |25 | |25 |
|SEATTLE |Lower Elwha Tribal Community |103 |0 |0 |103 |10 |113 |
|SEATTLE |Lummi Tribe |132 |199 |0 |331 | |331 |
|SEATTLE |Makah Indian Tribe |204 |42 |0 |246 | |246 |
|SEATTLE |Muckleshoot Indian Tribe |0 |40 |0 |40 | |40 |
|SEATTLE |Nez Perce Tribe |197 |90 |0 |287 | |287 |
|SEATTLE |Nisqually Indian Community |92 |0 |0 |92 | |92 |
|SEATTLE |Nooksack Tribe |114 |7 |0 |121 | |121 |
|SEATTLE |Port Gamble Indian Community |20 |35 |0 |55 | |55 |
|SEATTLE |Puyallup Tribe |43 |27 |0 |70 | |70 |
|SEATTLE |Quileute Tribe |62 |3 |0 |65 | |65 |
|SEATTLE |Quinault Tribe |74 |50 |0 |124 | |124 |
|SEATTLE |Samish Nation |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |
|SEATTLE |Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe |20 |0 |0 |20 | |20 |
|SEATTLE |Shoalwater Bay Tribe |13 |0 |0 |13 | |13 |
|SEATTLE |Siletz Confederated Tribes |54 |51 |0 |105 | |105 |
|SEATTLE |Skokomish Indian Tribe |74 |0 |0 |74 | |74 |
|SEATTLE |Spokane Tribe |185 |106 |0 |291 | |291 |
|SEATTLE |Squaxin Island Tribe |65 |19 |0 |84 | |84 |
|SEATTLE |Stillaguamish Tribe |30 |0 |0 |30 | |30 |
|SEATTLE |Suquamish Tribal Council |63 |9 |0 |72 | |72 |
|SEATTLE |Swinomish Indians |20 |79 |6 |105 | |105 |
|SEATTLE |Tulalip Tribes |132 |158 |0 |290 | |290 |
|SEATTLE |Umatilla Confederated Tribes |92 |130 |0 |222 | |222 |
|SEATTLE |Upper Skagit Tribe |50 |26 |0 |76 | |76 |
|SEATTLE |Warm Springs Confederated Tribes |103 |100 |0 |203 | |203 |
|SEATTLE |Yakima Indian Nation |411 |272 |0 |683 | |683 |
| | | | | |73,053 |-590 | |
Appendix 7:
IHDEP Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
May 11, 2000
Appendix 8:
Amendment to IHDEP NOFA,
June 9, 2000
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- impact aid indian lands property claimed form ms word
- comanche nation oklahoma colorado
- iowa department of human rights we grow opportunity
- fy 2000 indian housing
- astronomy unit developed by karen peterson and catherine
- little bighorn battlefield national monument
- home indian affairs
- meth in indian country a call to action
Related searches
- airborne school dates fy 19
- fy 2019 federal budget
- baltimore city employee salaries fy 2018
- baltimore city salaries fy 2018
- airborne school fy 19 dates
- ranger school fy 19 dates
- fy 19 dates govt
- baltimore city employee salaries fy 2017
- sfas class dates fy 19
- military fy dates
- fy 19 calendar
- income tax calculator for fy 2019 20