Contents

1. Introduction
2. Data and Methods
3. Indigenous Population Growth in Metro America, 2016-2022
4. Key Findings
5. Recommendations
6. Acknowledgments
7. Appendix
8. Related Resources

Introduction

In May 2022, the National Equity Atlas released The Shrinking Geography of Opportunity in Metro America, a report that explored the landscape of housing affordability in the United States by race. The data and analysis illustrated the growing gap in access to affordable housing and opportunity-rich neighborhoods for working-class, Black, and Latinx renters living in the 100 largest US metropolitan areas from 2013 to 2019. A follow-up analysis, released in April 2023, expanded the scope to rental affordability for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) in the same regions, as the immense internal diversity within AAPI communities required deeper levels of data disaggregation.

This analysis, the third and final in our series on the decline of rental affordability in metro America, shifts attention to other communities of color: Indigenous Americans, including American Indians, Alaska Natives, Pacific Islanders from current and former US-occupied territories, and immigrants who are Indigenous peoples in Latin America. Indigenous communities in metro America are often smaller in number than other communities of color and include many mixed-race families, which requires a different data methodology to enumerate Indigenous people more accurately.

Moreover, as the descendants of peoples subject to mass displacement, deterritorialization, and genocide at the hands of the USand other Western powers, Indigenous residents in urban and suburban areas face unique challenges and circumstances that shape opportunities for Indigenous renters across the US. For example, American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) are both racial identities as well as political identities, as some—but not all—AIAN residents are formal citizens of tribal governments. Moreover, some—but not all—tribal governments are legally recognized by the US government. Federal recognition is essential for tribes to exercise their sovereignty, retain control over reservation lands, and receive additional federal funds for housing and other core supports. These distinctions also present challenges to how researchers receive, interpret, and share population data; national datasets like the American Community Survey track respondents’ self-reported racial identity but not whether someone is a citizen of a tribal government.

The intended audience for this analysis is advocates, researchers, and other professionals in the larger housing equity world, in order to highlight Indigenous communities who might be marginalized in discussions about housing justice. The research team at the National Equity Atlas is not comprised of experts on Indigenous communities and institutions, and as such, we did not envision our work as speaking to, or on behalf of, Indigenous communities who are experts on their own circumstances. However, it was important to extend our ongoing series on rental affordability to include Indigenous communities, who are often marginalized in demographic studies and housing justice movements alike. The insights and contexts from this analysis are indebted to the Indigenous leaders and experts across the US whom we consulted, as well as other Indigenous scholars and writers to whom we link or cite. Moreover, the unique history and circumstances facing Indigenous Americans and Pacific Islanders provide the opportunity to examine our own tools of analysis and data collection, and whether they are sufficient to explain the current state of Indigenous renters in the largest US metro areas.

This analysis explores rental affordability trends in 76 of the 100 largest US metros, as there was not sufficient data on median incomes for Indigenous renters in 24 of the metros.¹ By focusing on Native Americans and other Indigenous residents in major metropolitan areas, this analysis spotlights communities that may not fit within common understandings of Indigenous people. Compared to the entire population, Indigenous Americans are less concentrated in metropolitan areas: 53 percent of Indigenous residents in the US live in these 76 metros, compared to 61 percent of all US residents, regardless of race. Many Native American people reside on federally recognized tribal lands, which are predominantly rural, mostly located west of the Mississippi River, and barely overlapping with the parts of the US that make up the largest metros. Only a handful of these metro areas—Albuquerque, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Tulsa, and, to a lesser extent, Seattle—are located near or inside of large sovereign Native territories.

Nonetheless, millions of Indigenous residents do live in the nation’s largest metropolitan regions. For one, metropolitan areas are home to hundreds of tribes and nations who are native to their regions, but are not federally recognized and thus do not have sovereign territory or access to federal tribal funds. Secondly, federal policies and practices spanning multiple centuries have sought to weaken Indigenous sovereignty and/or displace Native peoples into urban areas, such as the 1887 Dawes Act, the mass abduction of Native children into boarding schools, and the Indian Relocation Act of 1956, to name a few. In addition, many more Indigenous people have exercised their self-determination to migrate in search of opportunity.² For instance, as of 2020, more Native Hawaiians live on the US mainland than in the Hawaiian Islands.

Focusing on these urban and suburban Indigenous communities brings their unique challenges and circumstances to light. We begin with an overview of population changes for Indigenous residents in the metros under analysis before exploring our key findings:

1. Ninety-seven percent of neighborhoods were unaffordable for Indigenous renters in the 2010s, even as overall affordability increased slightly.
    
2. About two-thirds (69 percent) of the 26 metros that became more affordable for Indigenous renters also experienced a population decline.
    
3. Even in relatively affordable metro areas, Indigenous renters still face many housing equity concerns, such as housing quality and livability.
    
4. Conventional metrics of neighborhood opportunity fail to capture the enduring legacies of settler colonialism that have shaped life circumstances for many Indigenous peoples in the US.

This analysis uses the same geographies as our previous studies of rental affordability. However, focusing on Indigenous residents leads to different considerations about what we mean by terms like “justice” and “opportunity” in a nation that would not exist without a continent-wide project of settler colonialism.³ What does housing equity look like for Indigenous families given this context? We look to Indigenous advocates and leaders whose struggles for housing justice seek to improve the lives of Native residents specifically, as well as all low-income residents.

Data and Methods

We discuss how we categorize Indigenous people in the data in a separate piece. The topic is particularly layered, as it involves changes and limitations to the US Census Bureau’s coding methods for the American Community Survey, as well as broader social patterns in how individual respondents report their racial, ethnic, and ancestral identity.
 

Indigenous Population Growth in Metro America, 2016-2022

Between 2016 and 2022, the Indigenous population in the 76 metropolitan areas analyzed grew from 4.7 million to over 4.9 million people, a gain of about 230,000. This 4.9 percent growth rate in the Indigenous population in these metros slightly exceeds the population growth rate for all residents in these metro areas, regardless of race (4.8 percent). The overall share of Indigenous residents in these 76 metropolitan areas remained consistent, at 2.4 percent.

At the same time, the Indigenous population living outside of these 76 metropolitan areas decreased from 5.2 million people in 2016 to 4.4 million in 2022—a decline more than three times larger than the population increase in the 76 metros. Consequently, the nationwide Indigenous population fell by half a million people over this six-year span, driving the national share of Indigenous residents down from 3.1 percent to 2.8 percent.⁴ It is unclear what prompted these countervailing population trends between larger metropolitan areas and the rest of the US, but it is notable that American Indian and Alaska Native birth rates have been in steep decline since the mid-2000s.

Notably, the share of Indigenous residents in these metros who also identify as Latinx or Hispanic nearly doubled over this period, from 19 percent in 2016 to 35 percent in 2022. This represents a gain of nearly 850,000 Indigenous Latinx residents. While immigration from Latin America has been on the rise since 2020, it is also likely that changes to how the US Census Bureau categorizes multiracial Latinx respondents have contributed to this population spike. That is, it is possible that the 2016 data undercounted the number of people who identify as both Indigenous and Latinx, and more of those people are being properly counted in the 2022 dataset. We explain the US Census Bureau’s methodological changes in a separate accompanying piece.

These backend methodological changes may help explain why metro areas with large Latinx populations, especially in the West and Southwest, were more likely to see their Indigenous populations grow between 2016 and 2022. A majority (54 percent) of the 76 metro areas actually lost Indigenous residents between 2016 and 2022. However, of the 22 metros within or west of the Rocky Mountains, 20 had an increase in Indigenous residents, while only two—Portland (Oregon) and Honolulu—saw a decline. Population losses were overwhelmingly clustered in the Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast. Metro areas in these non-Western regions with substantial Indigenous population gains also have large Latinx population rates, especially New York City (25 percent Latinx in 2022), Chicago (23 percent), Austin (33 percent), San Antonio (56 percent), Houston (38 percent), Miami (46 percent), and Orlando (32 percent). However, more research is ultimately necessary to determine the factors behind this stark geographic split between areas that gained and lost Indigenous residents.

Key Findings

Ninety-seven percent of neighborhoods were unaffordable for Indigenous renters in the 2010s, even as overall affordability increased slightly.

The 76 US metropolitan areas analyzed have a combined total of 7,917 zip codes. In 2022, median rents in 7,718 of those zip codes (97 percent) were unaffordable for median-income Indigenous renters. Of the 199 zip codes (3 percent) that were affordable for Indigenous renters, nearly three-quarters (144) became newly affordable for Indigenous renters between 2016 and 2022. While there was a small net gain in affordable neighborhoods (2 percent), that increase in affordability pales in comparison to the overwhelming number of zip codes that were unaffordable and remained unaffordable for Indigenous renters in 2016. In 167 neighborhoods (2 percent) across these metros, the median market rent in 2022 was so high that it exceeded 100 percent of the median monthly income for Indigenous renters.

This data also shows that the rental affordability crisis extends beyond median-income Indigenous renters. As of 2022, only 7 percent of households earning the median income for all renters could afford the median market rent in these 7,917 zip codes without becoming rent-burdened, only a slightly higher level of affordability than Indigenous renters. As emphasized in the Recommendations section below, successful solutions to this nationwide Indigenous affordability crisis must balance interventions specific to Indigenous community members with solutions that support all renters regardless of race, ethnicity, or ancestry.

While there was a small net gain in affordable neighborhoods for Indigenous renters across all metropolitan areas, changes within individual metros were somewhat more varied. Of the 76 metros in the sample, just six metros (8 percent) declined in the number of affordable neighborhoods. However, four of those six metro areas lost all of their remaining affordable neighborhoods for Indigenous renters over this timespan. Twenty-six of the 76 metros (34 percent) increased in the number of affordable neighborhoods, with seven of those metros experiencing double-digit percentage increases in affordable neighborhoods. However, the majority of metros (44, or 58 percent) had zero affordable zip codes for median-income Indigenous renters in 2016 and 2022.

As of 2022, many of the metropolitan areas with the highest share of affordable neighborhoods for Indigenous renters were clustered in the lower Midwest and the western part of the South, particularly in Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and western Tennessee. However, in the most affordable metropolitan areas for Indigenous renters—Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Birmingham, and Memphis—only between 20 and 25 percent of neighborhoods have affordable median rents. Meanwhile, metropolitan areas with no affordable neighborhoods make up the majority in every other region of the US, from the West Coast, Southwest, Rockies, and Texas to Florida, the Eastern Seaboard, and the Rust Belt.

About two-thirds (69 percent) of the 26 metros that became more affordable for Indigenous renters also experienced a population decline.

While the Indigenous population shifts and trends in rising or falling affordability do not follow any consistent patterns, it is notable that about two-thirds (69 percent) of the 26 metros that became more affordable for Indigenous renters had declining Indigenous populations between 2016 and 2022. The region of the US with the highest rental affordability includes several metros that experienced the largest declines in Indigenous residents from 2016 to 2022, especially Birmingham, Little Rock, and Memphis.

However, many more of the metros with Indigenous population declines were overwhelmingly, if not completely, unaffordable for Indigenous renters. Therefore, there is no clear trend between metros that gained Indigenous residents and those that became more or less affordable. The 44 metros that remained completely unaffordable for Indigenous renters were split: 20 (45 percent) lost Indigenous residents, while 24 (55 percent) gained Indigenous residents. The six metros that became less affordable were split, with three seeing a decline and three experiencing a population increase in Indigenous residents.

Even in relatively affordable metro areas, Indigenous renters still face many housing equity concerns, such as housing quality and livability.

While rental affordability is a major issue for Indigenous residents across the US, widespread rent burden is just one of many challenges that Indigenous people face around housing equity. Indigenous-serving organizations and experts we consulted with for this analysis highlighted additional challenges:

• Metro areas with high concentrations of Indigenous renters require more robust tenant protection policies. Since only seven US states and Washington, DC have any municipal- or state-level rent stabilization policies, millions of Indigenous renters in metropolitan areas do not have legal protections against large year-over-year rent increases. Higher levels of affordability can also obscure other risks for renters. While metropolitan areas in Missouri and Oklahoma are relatively more affordable for Indigenous residents, neither state has any protections for tenants against landlord retaliation, leaving tenants in those states more vulnerable to harassment.
  
  Ensuring baseline standards for housing quality is crucial as well. A 2017 US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) report noted that American Indian and Alaska Native residents in urban areas are likelier than the general population to live in substandard housing, such as units without adequate kitchens or plumbing. AIAN residents are also more likely to live in overcrowded units, especially when financial constraints push families into homes that are too small for their needs.
   
• Funding opportunities for federally recognized tribes are relatively scarce in urban areas. AIAN communities on reservations and tribal lands, and Native Hawaiians living on Hawaiian home lands trusts, have access to federal housing support through the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA). NAHASDA provides for a series of block grant and affordable housing loan guarantee programs. However, there are no comparable housing funds for tribal citizens living off-reservation in metropolitan areas. Per the 2017 HUD report, tribal governments are allowed to apply NAHASDA funds outside of tribal lands; however, the immediate housing needs for residents on tribal land can make spreading those resources infeasible. In addition, members of federally non-recognized tribes have no access to NAHASDA funds, regardless of location.
   
• American Indian and Alaska Native communities can have higher levels of residential mobility than other groups in metro areas. Many AIAN residents can migrate or cycle between reservations and urban communities. Metropolitan areas can offer Indigenous residents educational, employment, and social opportunities that may not be available on tribal lands. However, financial constraints, familial obligations, or feelings of isolation can compel some Indigenous residents to return to reservation lands. Moreover, AIAN residents who grew up on tribal lands may struggle to navigate urban housing markets and job markets upon moving to a metropolitan area, making a return more likely. Serial migration places additional financial stress on renters and can place Indigenous residents at increased risk of houselessness given the overall lack of resources.

Conventional metrics of neighborhood opportunity fail to capture the deep legacies of settler colonialism that have shaped life circumstances for many Indigenous peoples in the US.

Most of the neighborhoods in the major metropolitan areas that are affordable for median-income Indigenous renters score poorly on metrics that gauge resident well-being and prosperity. Of the 199 affordable zip codes in 2022, three-quarters (75 percent) score as “very low opportunity” on the Child Opportunity Index, which scores neighborhoods based on the presence of high-quality schools, safe streets, clean air, parks, reliable transit, and proximity to jobs, retail, and services. By comparison, zero of the 2,500 “very high opportunity” neighborhoods are affordable for Indigenous renters, and just two of the “high opportunity” neighborhoods are affordable. Those two neighborhoods represent just 1 percent of all zip codes affordable for Indigenous renters across the top US metros, and only 0.1 percent of all high opportunity neighborhoods in the sample.

However, Indigenous-serving organizations and scholars that we spoke to cautioned against an uncritical adoption of these neighborhood opportunity metrics. These indices often rely on measures of educational attainment, community health, and individual wealth, e.g., metrics that normalize or erase the deep histories of Indigenous dispossession and other forms of racist violence that undergird our modern neighborhoods and institutions. For instance, the US’ public college and university systems originated in nationwide federal land grants in the mid-1800s, which required the seizure of Native territories to build academic campuses, and the mass sale of other Native lands to fund the land grant program.

In addition, neighborhood opportunity measurements that use statistical survey data can fail to capture forms of social support, community resources, and culturally affirmative opportunities within marginalized communities. For Indigenous residents embedded within these neighborhood networks, financial access to rental homes in so-called “high opportunity” neighborhoods may not be the most desirable outcome. Given the sordid histories of Indigenous communities being coerced into assimilation, such as through the abduction of children into boarding schools, we should be cautious of inadvertently elevating disproportionately white, more affluent neighborhoods as a universal benchmark for opportunity.

Centering Indigenous agency can help us envision innovative kinds of affordable housing opportunities–not just for Indigenous people, but all residents. In one example, the Squamish Nation in British Columbia has spearheaded a Sen̓áḵw, a large, dense mixed-income development in Vancouver, which can circumvent the city’s zoning restrictions on housing density because it lies on sovereign First Nations land. The housing project promises to preserve housing for low-income Squamish citizens while generating wealth for the Squamish Nation through real estate capital. It is important that our frameworks for housing justice do not depend on predetermined ideas of what opportunity already looks like, at the expense of these groundbreaking efforts to generate entirely new sources of opportunity.

Improving Affordability for Indigenous Renters

Based on our analysis of Indigenous rental affordability and our conversations with Indigenous experts across the country, we recommend the following:

For American Indians and Alaska Natives:

• Ensure that all nations on US territory, regardless of federal recognition, receive adequate housing resources and greater autonomy to leverage federal housing funds. The scope and severity of Indigenous housing precarity and houselessness are inseparable from the history of conquest, genocide, displacement, broken treaties, forcible assimilation, and discrimination that Indigenous peoples across the Americas and Pacific Islands have endured. The US government has a responsibility to repair the financial and psychic wounds that many modern-day Indigenous residents bear from this ancestral legacy. Large, nationwide federal investments in affordable housing development, home renovation, tenant and homebuyer assistance, and other housing programs are an essential component of this repair.
  
  These housing investments must include urban Indigenous communities outside of reservations, as well as the roughly 400 tribes in the US without federal recognition. Non-federally recognized tribes, many of whom occupy metropolitan areas, regularly struggle to obtain vital funding for their tribal citizens, including pandemic recovery supports during the height of COVID-19 and low-income housing programs that are limited to recognized tribal citizens. It is important for all tribes to have access to such life-affirming resources.
  
  Some of the Indigenous-serving organizations and advocates with whom we consulted for this analysis emphasized that spending restrictions on federal housing funds can impede tribal organizations from pursuing housing development that best aligns with Native American needs and cultural practices. For instance, grants that privilege single-family homes and multifamily units for nuclear families are not suitable for the many Indigenous residents who live in multigenerational households, with grandparents and grandchildren living under the same roof. While it has since been rescinded by the second Trump Administration, the Biden Administration’s 2023 executive order on tribal funding was one potential remedy for these spending restrictions. Executive Order 14112 had set new standards for tribal sovereignty and self-determination in the administration of federal resources, and it merits renewal as a strategy for future administrations.

For American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Indigenous Pacific Islanders under US governance:

• Facilitate the rematriation of land in metropolitan areas to the original inhabitants of these areas. The burgeoning Land Back Movement, which spans the continental US and Canada, offers a template for tribal governments to pursue the restoration, or rematriation, of occupied land. Land Back advocates aim to return ownership and stewardship of land parcels to the tribes who originally inhabited that particular area. Successful Land Back efforts have involved tribal leaders purchasing property on their own, as well as land grants and partnerships between tribes and local governments, philanthropic organizations, and/or local advocacy groups. As such, there are many possible strategies for governmental and nongovernmental organizations alike to collaborate with local tribes on Land Back efforts.
  
  Land Back movements often cite the importance of rematriated lands for sustaining tribes’ cultural, linguistic, and ecological practices, and a collective relationship to the land above and beyond seeing land as only a profit-making opportunity. Some initiatives involve innovative approaches to affordable housing needs for tribal members who live on rematriated lands. One recent example is the Wiyot of Humboldt County in Northern California, whose housing developments for youth experiencing houselessness show the immense potential for Land Back efforts to accelerate affordable housing growth, especially for low-income Indigenous residents.
  
  Native Hawaiians and allies have also led a decades-old Hawaiian sovereignty movement, which aims to restore territorial rights, political independence, and cultural autonomy to the original inhabitants of the Hawaiian islands. Unlike AIAN tribes in North America, Native Hawaiians have not had an active government or central organization since the illegal overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani’s constitutional monarchy in 1893. Sovereignty advocates can have different goals: some call for the full restoration of an independent Hawaiian nation, some seek a referendum for Native Hawaiians on whether to remain in the US, and others focus on the rematriation of lands to Native Hawaiians while still under US jurisdiction, or the demilitarization of US armed forces and bases on the islands. Sovereignty advocates stress the relationship between political autonomy, economic opportunity, and cultural and ecological preservation. Sovereignty is not just a matter of legal independence, but the right of self-determination for Native Hawaiians to live on and cultivate the islands in accordance with ancestral lifeways.

For all Indigenous residents, including Indigenous immigrants from Latin America:

• Grow the capacity of the US Census Bureau to collect detailed data on Indigenous populations and community needs. Because Indigenous communities are often small in number compared to other communities of color, Indigenous residents risk becoming invisibilized in demographic surveys and thus excluded from resource programs that rely on this population data. Furthermore, existing national data systems like the American Community Survey tend to undercount Native American populations, especially on reservation lands, and cannot differentiate between Indigenous residents who are active members of tribal communities from people with Indigenous heritage but no ties to tribal networks. More robust and specific data collection practices can equip researchers, public agencies, and private funders with more detailed information on how to meet the needs of tribal communities nationwide.
   
• In communities with substantial Indigenous populations, enhance culturally affirmative housing services as part of a holistic, trauma-informed social safety net. Housing programs and resources that serve Indigenous communities must provide services that recognize the deep financial, medical, and psychological ramifications of colonization, forced displacement, and economic deprivation. Clinical and social services must be grounded in the cultural practices of local communities, and in recognition of the intergenerational trauma brought on by centuries of Indigenous dispossession. Given that many Indigenous residents live far away from their communities and/or have been displaced from their ancestral lands, culturally affirmative care can offer a vital lifeline between individuals in need and broader tribal communities.
  
  A comprehensive social safety net also places affordable housing within the broader continuum of care for people at risk of or experiencing houselessness, given that many low-income Indigenous residents face housing precarity. Shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing programs are an essential component of these service systems.
   
• Explore and invest in nonmarket solutions to affordable housing development, such as Indigenous community land trusts and social housing initiatives. While nationwide expansion of home construction is a critical component of resolving the US’ housing crisis, market-based and supply-side solutions alone are insufficient to address the widespread rise in housing unaffordability. It is essential that we advance nonmarket approaches to housing development, such as nonprofit land trusts and publicly subsidized social housing, with the inclusion of Indigenous people and organizations in planning, programming, and leadership. These housing strategies can align with Indigenous Land Back movements.

For all renters, regardless of race, ethnicity, or tribal affiliation:

• Pursue equitable housing policies that support all tenants, such as rent stabilization, just cause for eviction, and tenant anti-harassment ordinances. While Indigenous residents face distinct challenges around economic equity that demand specific interventions, many of the policy changes that would support Indigenous renters would be beneficial to all low-income renters: policies that facilitate affordable housing development, prevent excessive year-over-year rent increases, and protect tenants from landlord overreach. It is important that housing justice networks and other place-based equity initiatives strive for Indigenous representation and leadership. Multiracial housing justice movements and campaigns can leverage the common interests of many different communities while recognizing the specific experiences and needs of individual communities within these broader coalitions.

Acknowledgments

This analysis would not have been possible without the hard work of many people behind the scenes. Many thanks to Justin Scoggins of the USC Equity Research Institute (ERI) for his expertise on US Census Bureau data, and to Amanda Lawson for copyediting support. We also extend our appreciation to Tram Hoang and Jasmine Rangel of PolicyLink for contributing their expertise on housing justice and renters' rights.

We also would like to offer a special thanks to our partners at the research institutions and Indigenous-serving nonprofit organizations across the US who offered valuable insights and feedback that helped shape our research: Anthony Flores, Sabine Brown, Shiloh Kantz, and Vivian Morris (formerly) at the Oklahoma Policy Institute; Janeen S. Comenote and Rio Fernandes at the National Urban Indian Family Coalition; Hope Craig-Corlew at United American Indian Involvement; Cathy Garcia at the Chainbreaker Collective; Dr. Elizabeth Korver-Glenn at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Department of Sociology; Angela Mooney D'Arcy and Gabriella Lassos at the Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples; Dr. Sofia Locklear at the University of Toronto Mississauga Department of Sociology; Derrick Belgarde and James Lovell at the Chief Seattle Club; Francesca Murnan at the Seattle Indigenous Advisory Council; Preston Parish, formerly with the Washington State Budget and Policy Center; Audrey Powers at the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation; Erik R. Stegman at Native Americans in Philanthropy; and Gavin Thornton, formerly withthe Hawaiʻi Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice.

Back to Top