United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Indi.

Native Hawaiian housing and home lands : hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on housing needs of Native Hawaiians, July 3, 1996, Honolulu, HI online

. (page 6 of 34)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on IndiNative Hawaiian housing and home lands : hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on housing needs of Native Hawaiians, July 3, 1996, Honolulu, HI → online text (page 6 of 34)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


land; )Oi>s, other




canl alibrd to use land
for ag/pasioral puipotes



Note: Phone survey data. Weighted total == 1,251 norvresidential teases (some ttave residentiat leases i
well), who were not using the award land for farming or ranching.



Lessees who had residential or agricultural land suited for residence gave another set of
reasons for not having built a house on the land. Those are shown in Figure 4. The
answers were taken from about 1 9 percent of lessees who do not have a house on their
land as yet.



DHHL Beneficiary Study. 1995

•SMS Research 1042 Fort St.. #200, Honolulu. HI 96813 Ph: 808-537-3356 Fax:808-537-2686



Page 10

September, 1995



35



65



Figure 4: Reasons for Not Having a House on Homestead Land



laiMl canl be occupied;
no Infrastructure

cant anord H

no( ready to move yet

just farm there

otfter



I I.



32%



a residential only
aan other



20% 30%



Note: Phone survey data, lessees onJy. Base: Lessees with reskjentiel lou only who have not been able to build
e house on tt>e lartd. Weight totals of 798 restdentiat only leases end 565 cases with agricultural, pastoral, or
muttiple leases.



Many of the lessees have not been able to build homes because the lots do not have the
appropriate access or infrastructure. Other reasons for not having built homes were similar
to those offered by agricultural lessees. They were either unable to move to the land In
their current circumstances, or they were unable to afford to build.

About 2,500 of the total leases were made during the 1980s when many Homestead
Lease Awards were granted through an accelerated award program. The accelerated
program granted Homestead Lease Awards or raw land to lessees regardless of their
qualifications to finance housing or agriculture. The program was intended to maximize
the number of awards. It resulted In granting land without infrastructure or improvements
to applicants without the means to provide them. The present study was designed to shed
some light on what happened to those lessees.

Table 5 shows the number of Homestead Leases that are currently being used by lessees
who were awarded Homestead Lease Awards during the eighties and those who were
awarded Homestead Leases at other times. The latter group includes persons who
received awards in the nineties.



DHHL BaneficiarY Study. 1995

•S*«S Research 1042 Fort St., #200. Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph: 808-537-3356 Fax:808-537-2686



Page 11

Septerr^er, 1995



56



66



Table S: Land Use by Date of Award



UndUse


Award Date |


1 980 through Before 1 980 and
1989 after 1989


Total Leases


Land is in use for either
residence or agricuKure

Land is not in use


34.7 87.2
65.3 12.8


66.9
33 1


Total


2,040 3,233


5,273



Data from the lessee phone curvev. Figures are percentages of the total
weighted to total lessees. Lai^ use as of Febnjary 1995.



The accelerated award program produced a large number of leases that are not currently
being used. In fact, recipients of accelerated awards are almost three times less likely to
be using their land for either housing or agriculture.

The reasons for not using the land differ for lessees who received awards during the
accelerated period and those who received them at other times. The accelerated award
grantees were more likely to have received land on the Big Island, and had slightly lower
incomes. Their reasons for not beginning agriculture were not statistically related to the
Infrastructure Issue. They were more likely to have given financial reasons, and even more
likely to say they weren't ready to start farming yet.

Accelerated award recipients with residential property were less likely to have cited
Infrastructure problems than those who received their awards at other times. They were a
bit more likely to cite financial problems, and again more likely to say they were not ready
to move. Almost 88 percent of these people said they did intend to build on the property -
- a figure slightly higher than for the non-accelerated group. Among those who did not
Intend to build, accelerated grantees were more likely to say they did not know what they
would do with the land, and non-accelerated grantees were more likely to say they would
farm the land or just hold onto it.



DHHL Beneticiarv Study, 199S

•SMS Research 1042 Fort St., *200. Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph: 808-S37-3356 Fax; 808-537-2686



Page 12

September, 1995



?7



67



Condition of the House and Improvements

For many residential lessees who live on homestead land, a house had already been built
when the land was awarded to them (74%). More than half of non-residential lessees
(52%) built the houses themselves. However, non-residential lessees are less satisfied
with the size of the home than their residential counterparts.



Table 6; House


on the Homestead Land














Type of Lease




1


Characteristic


Residential only


Ag, Pastoral, or
combination of any


Total Lessees


niim


nrt




nrr


niim


nrt


Who built the house?














DHHL; it was already there

former owner

me/my family/my builder

someone else

don't know


1,383
134
822
717
148


43.2%

4.2%

25.6%

22.4%

4.6%


57
15
150
51
15


19.9%

5.1%

52.2%

17.8%

5.1%


1,440
149
972
768
163


41.2%

4.3%

27.9%

22.0%

4.7%


Is the house big enough?














need a larger home
about the right size
too big
no response


895

2,198

12

99


27.9%

68.6%

0.4%

3.1%


102

149

5

32


35.4%

51.7%

1.8%

11.1%


997

2,347

17

131


28.6%

67.2%

0.5%

3.8%


Have added rooms

Have made other improvements


604
1,540


20.1%
48.1%


104
184


36.0%
64.0%


708
1,724


20.3%
49.4%


Condition of the house














good

okay, about average
needs fixing up
no data


1,386

603

1,139

76


43.2%

18.8%

35.6%

2.4%


105
67
87
29


36.2%
23.5%
30.2%
10.1%


1,491
670

1,226
105


42.7%

19.2%

35.1%

3.0%


Total Living on DHHL Land


3,204


100%


288


100%


3,492


100%



Note: Phone surwy data, lessees with houses on the land onjy- Weighted by the type and location of the le



Over the years, many lessees made improvements or added rooms to their houses. More
than one-third of them report that the house needs some fixing up. Even though there is
no perfect relationship between the dates of the award and dates on which the houses



DHHL B«n«fici»fY Study. 1995

•SMS Rneorchl 042 Fon St.. f 200. Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph: 808-S37-3356 Fax:808-537-2686



September, 1995



38



68



were built, it may be noted that a majority (58%) of these houses stand on DHHL lots that
were granted before 1970.

APPUCANT POPULATION

As of February 21, 1995, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands had 12,999 individual
applicants in its Homestead Lease Awards waiting list that were contactable*. Our survey
represents the condition, needs, and opinions of these 12,999 applicants.



Types of Appucations

Table 7 shows the types of awards for which the applicants had applied. Note that the
table shows numbers and percents of applicants, rather than applications. Throughout the
analysis we have been focusing on people rather than applications.



Table?: DHHL Applications for Awards, 1995





Type of Application |


Island


Residential Only


Agricultural or Both Residential
Pastoral Only and Agricultural


Total Applicants


O'ahu


2,447


135 1,904


4.486


Hawai'i


1,140


744 2.317


4,201


Maui


843


299 1.365


2,507


Kaua'i


364


174 715


1.253


Moloka'i


143


147 263


553


Total All Islands


4,937


1.499 6.564


12,999



Data from the telephone survey of applicants (n = 1,613). Rgures may not sum cxactiy due to weighting. Data wer
weighted to total applicants with complete identifying information. 'Residential Only" applicants have only one appltcatjor
'Agricultural or Pastoral Only' applicants nr\ay have more than one application, but have not applied on any residential lis
Those in the 'both' category have applied for more than one award, at least one of which is for residential property.



The data changes daily, but there were 18.272 individuals in the DHHL database as of February 21. 1995. As
rwted in the methods section, the surveys could only be based on cases for which there was sufficient information
in the file to contact a beneficiary. Because there was no information upon which to base a comparison, we do not
know a cases with addresses were different from those without addresses. We have chosen to take the 18.272
cases with addresses as the basis for this analysis.



DHHL Beneficiary Study. 1995



ch1042 Fort St., #200, Honolulu. HI 96813 Ph: 808-537-3356 Fax: 808-537-2686



Page 14

September. 1995



39



69



Just over half (51%) of all the applicants have applied on more than one type of award.
The number increases somewhat when we consider applicants who have applied for more
than one award of the same type on different islands*. By far the most frequent type of
duplicate applications are those involving two different types of awards. The focus groups
and conversations we have had with applicants suggests that the most frequent purpose
behind multiple applications is to maximize the chances of receiving an award sooner.
Many told us that they applied for a place they thought was most appropriate for their
families, and also applied on lists that were shorter than others*.

The pattern of applications is different from that shown for leases. Among applicants,
there is a much higher demand for property on Maui, and a lower demand for land on
Moloka'i. Applicants were also more likely to have applied for more than one award than
were the lessees.

An important issue for the management of the applications list Is the current geographic
location of the applicants. Experience at DHHL has shown that applicants who do not live
on the island where awards are available are less likely to qualify for an award than those
on the home island. Table 8 shows the current locations of applicants.



This information is setf-reported. That is, although an individual cannot register for more than one Homestead
L««se Award of the same tvpe on different islands, survey respondents reported that there are such cases.

We have r>ot attempted to ar^aJyze the order of applications because DHHL files do not list them in the order of
importance to the applicant, and the surveys did iK>t ask for motivations for each separate application.

DHHL Beneficiary Study, 1995 Page IS

•SMS Research 1042 Fon St., (200, Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph: 808-S37-3356 Fax: 808-537-2686 September, 1995



40



70



Table 8: County Applied for by Applicants County of Residence



Island of


County of Residence |


O'ahu


Hawaii


Maui Kauai


Outside


Total


Application








Hawaii




O'ahu


3.989


190


52 38


216


4,484


Maui


1,328


65


836 14


266


2,508


Hawaii


1,509


2,259


67 37


329


4.201


Kauai


412


82


14 663


85


1,256


Moloka'i


186


21


277


67


550


Total All Islands


7,424


2.616


1 ,245 752


962


12.999



Data from the telephone survey of applicants (ns 1,613). Figures nuy not sum exactly due to weighting. Data
weighted to total applicants with complete identifying information. Table shows tfie first choice of applicants only.



The nnajority of applicants (62%) have chosen property on the island where they now live.
The data here show only the first choice for an award, but analysis show a very sinnilar
distribution pattern for subsequent choices. O " ahu residents tend to prefer the Neighbor
Islands more, and only 54 percent of them have selected O'ahu as their first choice for an
award. Applicants on other islands were much more likely (88%) to choose their home
island. Applicants who currently reside out of state also tend to prefer islands other than
O'ahu.

Because the O'ahu and out-of-state applicant numbers are so high, and because they both
tend to prefer the Neighbor Islands, large percentages of applicants for Neighbor Island
Homestead Lease Awards are off-island. This is especially true for Maui, where as many
as 78 percent of all applicants are not residents of the County.



DHHL Beneficiary Study. 1995



P"" 16



•SAfS Research 1042 Fort St.. 1200. Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph: 808-S37-33S6 Fax: 808-S37-2686



September, 1995



41



71



TIME ON THE UST

Some applicants have been on the waiting lists for Homestead Lease Awards for very long
periods of time . This issue is of great concern to the staff at DHHL and the applicants
alike. Figure 5 shows the number of applicants for each type of award by the date of
their first application.

Figyrt 5: Initial Application Year and Type





S.000














ama




824


^^li.rsi















J*«










^Hl.2S4




- 1


cs
1 no

1 «'


119


3.1S1




2,186




^^^ Ml 1


^455






before 1970 197


»-79


1*90-84 19SS-89 1990-85



Note: Base is 12,999 applicants on DHHL files, with compieto identification information, as of February, 1995.

The great majority of applicants (83%) have been on the DHHL lists since 1980. About
1 2 percent have been waiting since the seventies, and about four percent have been
waiting longer since before the seventies. Figure 5 also shows the major swell in
applications that accompanied the accelerated awards program in the late eighties.

There appears to be a trend toward multiple applications in the last ten years. About 55
percent of applicants since the accelerated program applied for more than one property.



While ntany applicants have in fact registered for an awa«d, tfta rulaa have avolwd over tinta and since 1972
stringent eligibilitY standards have been enforced, resulting in many applicants not being in compliar>ce with the
application procedures. Merely registering is not equai to beir>g a qualified applicant. Many claims have been made
against the department based on mistaken information or a misunderstanding of the actual application process.



DHHL Beneficiarv Study. 1995



Page 17



•SMS Research 1042 Fort St.. #200. Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph: 808-537-3356 Fax: 808-537-2686



September, 1995



42



72



That compares with about 30 percent of those who applied before 1985. Further analysis
shows that there was also a trend toward more agricultural applications, and for the
applicants who intend to live on the agricultural land but not farm it. That was
accompanied by a greater willingness among newer applicants to accept land without
infrastructure but not without a house already constructed. This may represent a desire
among newer applicants for a rural setting separate from any desire to engage in farming
or ranching.

Further analysis showed that there were no major differences between the financial
qualifications of applicants who were on the list for longer or shorter periods of time.
Newer applicants tended to be more likely to have income near the median for their
counties, and some who have been on the list the longest had greater financial resources
than the more recent applicants. Demographic characteristics were very similar across the
waiting list, with the exception of age. Long-time list members were likely to be older.

Newer members of the list were also more likely to accept housing solutions that were
non-traditional. This was especially true for their willingness to accept a multifamily unit,
and their interest in having DHHL build them.

Somewhat to our surprise, there were very few differences in the way older and newer
members of this list evaluated the performance of DHHL. One may expect to see older
members to be more critical, but both newer and older members gave the department
very similar ratings for overall performance, the friendliness of employees, and their ability
to answer questions and solve problems. There was a slight difference on the issue of the
Department's "ability to get land into the hands of Hawaiians". Very long-term members
of the list were more likely to rate the Department as less effective.

Deferrals

When applicants are offered an award, they have the right to decline that specific award
without losing their ranking on the lists. This process is known as deferral. Table 9
presents survey data on the issue.



DHHL Beneficiary Sludy. 199S Page 18

•SMS Research 1042 ron St., f 200, Honolulu. HI 9S813 Ph: 808-537-3356 Fax: 808-S37-2686 September. 1 995



4^,



73



Table 9: Selection Meetings and Awards Deferrals





Applicants


Number Percent


All Applicants


12,999 100.0


Attended at least one lot selection meeting


2.839 25.0


Defen-ed at least once to wait for a better time or selection


1,504 14.8


Defeoed at least once for financial reasons


656 6.7


Deferred at least once for unknown reasons, or did not qualify


679 3.5



Data from the mailed survey o1 beneficiaries (n= 6,134). here showing applicants who have not yet received an award.
Rgures shown in last column are the percentages of applicants who responded to each question, ar^ do not sum to 100.0.



About 25 percent of applicants on the list who have never received an award have at
some time attended a lot selection meeting*. Attendance would indicate that an award
had been offered, albeit contingent upon qualifications associated with the specific award.
All of those applicants either deferred or were disqualified for the award. Of that number.
46 percent attended more than one meeting, and five percent attended six or more such
meetings.

Of those who attended a meeting, 59 percent deferred at least once because they
preferred to wait for another selection. An additional 27 percent deferred at least once
because they knew themselves to be financially unqualified at the time. The remaining 14
percent either deferred for other reasons, or were found to be financially unqualified for the
award.

The data suggest that at least 25 percent of all applicants currently on the list have
deferred an award at some time. The remainder have not been offered an award. This
situation might be expected of the current first-come-first-served award system, which
works as follows: Applicants who are highest on the list are offered an award. Those who
are qualified and ready to move accept the awards. Those who are less financially
qualified and/or less ready to move to homestead lands defer or are disqualified. They
maintain their place on the lists.



'. automatically



DHHL Beneficiary Study. 1995



Page 19



•5MS Research 1042 Fort St.. 1200, Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph; 808-537-3356 Fax:808-537-2686 September. 1995



44



74



Because their status remain high on the list, at each subsequent offering, those people are
likely to be offered another award, but they may still be unready or unwilling to accept the
award. In other words, current system is set up to create a list that have applicants who
are disproportionately more likely to defer at the top of the lists. The result is a situation
where a few have deferred one or more times, and many have not been offered an award
even though they may be financially or otherwise ready to accept one.



DHHL Boneficiarv Study. 1995 Page 20

«5MS Research 1042 Fort St.. «200, Honolulu. HI 96S13 Ph: 808-537-3356 Fax:808-537-2686 September. 1995



4S



75



HOUSING NEED

We begin this section on the need for housing among the applicant group with a reminder
that the major expectation of those on the lists is that a homestead land award will solve
housing problems. Nearly all current applicants intend to live on their land. Relatively few
intend to farm or ranch, and only a very small percentage will engage in agriculture only.

CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION

Compared with the rest of the United States, Hawai'i has larger household sizes and a
lower ratio of homeowners to renters. Household size has been decreasing in Hawaii and
on the mainland, but as of 1990, Hawaii's average household size was second largest in
the country^.

In this section, beneficiaries' current living situations are reported and compared to the
state's population as a whole. The data show that native Hawaiians live in larger
households, and that they intend to use their Homestead Lease Awards to decrease
household size. It also shows that shelter cost (as a percentage of family income) is lower
for current lessees than for applicants and lower than for the general population.

Household Size

Hawaiians are far more likely than other residents of Hawai " i to live in large households
and in crowded quarters. Data from the 1992 Housing Consortium Study'° show that the
median size of ethnic Hawaiian households was 1 40 percent the average household size in
the state (see Table 10.)



Morgan Quitno Corporation, State Rankings 1993, Lawrence. Kansas: Morgan Quitno Corporation.

^^ A survey of 2,600 Hawaii households for a consortium of public artd private sector agencies interested in

developing affordable housing for Hawaii. It has become a standard source for housing information in the 'Nineties.

OHHL Banefiaarv Study, 1 995 Pane 21

•SA«S Research 1042 Fort St., #200, Honolulu. HI 96813 Ph: 808-537-3356 Fax: 808-637-2686 September. 1995



46



76



In 1992, applicants' households were slightly larger than the average for all ethnic
Hawaiians. Applicant households are now slightly smaller than the 1992 median for all
Hawailans. The decrease in household size has continued since 1985, as shown in Table
11.

Table 10: Current Household Size: Comparison with the State Population



Household Size


DHHL Beneficiaries*


Ethnic Hawaiians
in State of Hawaii**


All Ethnicities
State of Hawai'i"


one


994


5.5%


3,469 8.3%


39,690 11.7%


two


3,485


19.5%


5,053 12.2%


108,517 32.1%


three


3,019


16.9%


6,197 14.9%


65,147 19.3%


four


3,624


20.2%


10.066 24.2%


64,660 19.1%


five


2,728


15.2%


6,621 15.9%


27,318 8.1%


six


1,654


9.2%


3,421 8.2%


12,216 3.6%


seven or more


2,408


13.4%


6,735 16.2%


20,447 6.0%


Total


17,912


100.0%


41.562 100.0%


337,995 100.0%


median




4.4


4.6


3.3



' Mail survev data. Weighted by the type and the location of the awards. Includes both applicants and lessees. Those who

did not supply household size information are excluded from the total.
" Data source: 1992 Housing Policy Consortium Study. Ethnicity for Hawaiians was self-reported as 'Hawaiian or part-





TaWe 11:


Applicants


Current He


usehold Size






Household Size


1995'




1992'




1985^




one to two


3,479


25.2%


1,235


14.2%


594


13.6%


three to four


5,156


37.3%


3,352


38.7%


1,550


35.4%


five to six


3.367


24.4%


2,159


24.9%


1,378


31.4%


seven or more


1,819


13.2%


1,925


22.2%


859


19.6%


Total


13,821


100.0%


8,671


100.0%


4.381


100.0%


median hh size




4.3




4.8




51



1 . Mail survey data. Weighted by the type and the location of the awards sought. Those who did (
information are excluded from the total. Those who are already leasing but waiting for another
total number of applicants here.

2. Data source: 1992 Housing Policy Consortium Study. Weighted by the place of residence.

3. Data source: 1985 Applicant Survey.



DHHL Beneficiary Study. 1995



•5Af5 Research 1042 Fort St.. #200, Honotulu, HI 96813 Ph: 808-537-3356 Fax:808-537-2686



September, 1995



A7



77



Crowding Ratio

Another way to measure housing need is to look at the crowding ratios. The U.S. Census
defines crowding in terms of the number of people per room in a household. A ratio of
1.01 to 1.50 persons per room is considered crowded, and higher ratios are defined as
severely crowded^V The 1992 Housing Consortium Study data show that about one-
quarter of all households in Hawaii are mildly or severely crowded (see Table 12). For
ethnic Hawaiians, 38 percent of households are crowded. An even larger proportion - one
half - of DHHL applicants are living in crowded households. Since applicant household
sizes are similar to the State average, the higher crowding ratio among applicants may
indicate that they are forced to live in smaller units than other Hawaiians. We might also
expect that some applicants look to their awards as a means of escaping crowded homes.





Table 12:


Crowding Ratio




Crowding Ratio


DHHL
Applicants


Ethnic Hawaiians



Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on IndiNative Hawaiian housing and home lands : hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on housing needs of Native Hawaiians, July 3, 1996, Honolulu, HI → online text (page 6 of 34)