Housing Needs of Native Hawaiians: A Report From the Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research Visit PD&R’s website huduser.gov to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD User, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help accessing the information you need. Housing Needs of Native Hawaiians: A Report From the Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs Prepared for: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Poicy Development and Research Washington, D.C. Prepared by: Kristen Corey, Econometrica, Inc. Jennifer Biess, Urban Institute Nancy Pindus, Urban Institute Doray Sitko, Econometrica, Inc. May 2017 Acknowledgments The authors thank the many people in Hawaii, including individuals on the waiting list for a home land lease who participated in the household survey, homestead associations, and other organizational stakeholders who agreed to talk with us. The success of this research depended on their participation and forthright responses. Everyone’s contributions were richer in detail than it was possible to reflect in this report. The State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) was a partner throughout this effort. The authors thank DHHL Director Jobie M.K. Masagatani and Dreana Kalili for providing input to survey questions, assisting in outreach, and facilitating access to DHHL staff and reports. Econometrica, Inc., conducted initial outreach, secondary data analysis, and stakeholder interviews. Their knowledge of Hawaii’s history, geography, and housing market was critical to this report. The authors acknowledge Charles Hanson, who led the Econometrica team, and Richard Hilton, James Hedrick, Priscilla Prunella, and Katie Relihan, who contributed to the study design, analysis, and earlier drafts of this report. NORC at the University of Chicago was responsible for the household survey that provides new information about Hawaiian Homes Commission Act beneficiary households on the waiting list for a Hawaiian home land lease. This complex effort was completed successfully and with cultural sensitivity. The authors thank Carol Hafford (project director), Suzanne Bard (survey director), Steven Pedlow (statistician), Joan Lipiec (field manager), Beth Fisher (survey director and analyst), Eram Khan (survey specialist), Ed Sipulski (production manager), and the Native Hawaiian community field interviewers for the important roles they played in outreach, sampling design, questionnaire development, survey administration, quality control, and analysis. The authors also thank Urban Institute colleagues who contributed to this report. Chris Hayes advised the survey analysis team and provided ongoing technical review. Jasmine Simington and Lily Posey were key contributors to the survey analysis, and Eric Burnstein contributed to the analysis and to earlier drafts of this report. Tom Kingsley served as an advisor and reviewer throughout this study. A panel of experts made valuable contributions to the research design and to this final report. Panel members included Laura R. Appelbaum (FirstPic, Inc.), Kauila Clark (Native Hawaiian Traditional Healing Center), Marvin Jones (Community Services at the Cherokee Nation— retired), Miriam Jorgensen (The University of Arizona and The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development), Patricia Nie (Wells Fargo & Company), Deana K. O’Hara (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], Office of Native American Programs [ONAP]), Don Shircel (Tanana Chiefs Conference), Pamala Silas (National American Indian Housing Council), and Malia Villegas (National Congress of American Indians). Early comments were also provided by Blake Kazama (Tlinglit-Haida Regional Housing Authority- retired) and Peter Morris (National Congress of American Indians). Finally, Elizabeth Rudd and Paul Joice, the study’s government technical representatives from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development and Research, provided excellent guidance and oversight during this research effort. The authors also thank the staff of HUD ONAP and Kaiini Kimo Kaloi and Katrina Durbak of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Native Hawaiian Relations, who provided helpful comments on drafts of the report. Disclaimer The contents of this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government. Preface In response to Congress’s 2009 mandate to assess Native American housing needs, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) commissioned the Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs. The study produced five separate reports that together contain a comprehensive and authoritative body of information on the current state of housing conditions in Native American communities. The report on Native Hawaiians in Hawaii includes a wealth of specific information on housing conditions, including county-level differences, findings on housing and community preferences, and differences between Native Hawaiian households on the Hawaiian home lands and elsewhere in Hawaii. The report’s principal finding is of a significant need for affordable housing among Native Hawaiians, especially among Native Hawaiians waiting for a lease on the Hawaiian home lands. Among households already living on the Hawaiian home lands, nearly all own their own homes and there is a much lower rate of cost burden than among Native Hawaiian households statewide. By contrast, compared with Native Hawaiian households statewide, households on the waiting list for a home lands lease are substantially worse off economically and much more likely to be cost burdened, to be overcrowded, and to lack complete plumbing and kitchens. The assessment also found that many Native Hawaiians strongly prefer housing and communities that support multigenerational and extended family (“ohana”) living and socializing, which is part of traditional Native Hawaiian culture. Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................xi Study Approach and Data Sources .......................................................................................................xii Key Findings .....................................................................................................................................................xiv Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................xviii Section 1. Introduction .......................................................................................1 This Report and the Overall Study .........................................................................................................2 The Structure of This Report ....................................................................................................................3 Section 2. Population Growth and Distribution .............................................5 Historical Perspective ...................................................................................................................................5 Defining Native Hawaiian ............................................................................................................................6 The Total Native Hawaiian Population ...................................................................................................6 Hawaii’s Geography .......................................................................................................................................6 Population Trends by County ....................................................................................................................10 Mobility ...............................................................................................................................................................11 Section 3. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions ........................13 Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................................13 Age Distribution ..............................................................................................................................................13 Household Size ................................................................................................................................................15 Household Type .............................................................................................................................................15 Educational Attainment ...............................................................................................................................16 Labor Force Characteristics .......................................................................................................................17 Income and Poverty ......................................................................................................................................20