“To Live and Thrive” in Massachusetts: Native American Perspectives on Wealth

On January 14, the Boston Foundation hosted an online forum to release the newest report from the Foundation’s research arm, Boston Indicators. The Indicators team worked with researchers at the Institute for New England Native American Studies at UMass Boston to produce “To Live and Thrive” in Massachusetts: Native Perspectives on Wealth. 

The report presents a ground-breaking mixed-methods study highlighting qualitative research—particularly a series of focus groups that engaged Massachusetts residents identifying as Native American from local tribes and other geographic areas—to capture a more comprehensive picture. It offers historical context, quantitative backgrounding data, and reflections from personal experiences with wealth. As Boston Indicators Senior Research Manager Kelly Harrington noted in opening the event, “The findings here won’t fully fill the significant gaps in data on Native American wealth, but it lays the groundwork for future work on the topic.” 

Institute for New England Native American Studies Director J. Cedric Woods offered background to contextualize current conditions. In short, he said, “History matters,” and pointed to just a few policy decisions made by the Commonwealth and their immediate and ongoing impact on Native Peoples. Before the Civil War, the Native people who had survived disease, warfare, theft, and encroachment “had reached precarious but real equilibrium with significant control over collectively held lands,” Woods pointed out. That was upended by the late 19th century Allotment Act that forced collectively held lands to be divided and allotted to individuals who then owned them on a fee simple basis. As individuals could not pay taxes on their allotted land over time, it was seized; people were forced into diaspora and urban areas to survive. Fast forward 100 years or so, the Commonwealth failed to establish a state Indian Housing Authority when the federal government gave it a chance to, thus depriving local residents from Massachusetts tribes of benefits available to local residents whose tribal membership was from other states with a Housing Authority.  

These are just two of the purposeful policies that materially drove conditions for Massachusetts Native American residents today.   

Woods’ UMass Boston colleague, Philip Granberry, Data Analyst at The Gastón Institute, shared where Native Americans fit into the statistics on the conventional “proxies for wealth”: income, homeownership, and business ownership. The 2023 American Community Survey estimates 77,000 people who identify as American Indian alone or in combination with some other race live in the Commonwealth. The ACS showed Native Americans have lower median household incomes than non-Natives and lower levels of homeownership. While they participate in the workforce at higher rates than non-Natives, Native business ownership is more limited and tends to be within lower-income sectors like food service vs. scientific enterprises. These are all material metrics of wealth. The qualitative findings make clear, however, that those are only a part of the picture. 

Senior Research Associate Allison B. Taylor from the UMass Boston Institute for Community Inclusion led the qualitative research. She said, “The findings are broad and deep, with insights into causes and impacts of wealth disparities, as well as thoughtfulness about the nature of wealth.” A few key points include: 

• Native definitions of wealth are more inclusive and values-driven.
• Land is central to native wealth.
• Education is key.
• Structural change is needed. 

The focus group members wrestled with sometimes conflicting pressures regarding wealth’s role in the dominant culture and their Native culture. While several expressed discomfort about acquiring lots of material wealth, most agreed, as Taylor paraphrased: “Culture and community are not just a source of wealth but a form of wealth itself.” 

Boston Indicators’ Harrington moderated a conversation in response to the report with Gail Hill, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs and an Enrolled Tribal Member of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe; and Troy Phillips, Chair and Commissioner of the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs and Subchief and Enrolled Tribal Member of the Hassanamisco Nipmuc Band. They were later rejoined by the researchers as well. 

Both Commissioners appreciated the report for bringing forward relevant information and giving it context. “We do need to repair this relationship with the state,” Hill said. “It’ll be a long process, but we’re up for it.” Phillips affirmed, “This report reflects what I’ve understood since growing up. This effort to surface these ideas will help us do the work we need to thrive.”  

Education emerged as a theme—both to educate policymakers and voters, and even schoolchildren, about local Native American history and culture, and to improve access to educational opportunities for Native American people who may not be familiar with the “system.” As Hill reiterated: “Everybody knows what’s needed—it’s education. Get everyone on the same page to know how to move forward. That’ll prevent the continuation of these harmful policies. If you know what you’re looking out for, you won’t be caught in it. Tribal communities also need to get on the same page and determine what will help us improve our lives.” 

Panelists agreed that this research's qualitative findings helped go beyond the anonymous (and, in some datasets, insufficient) numbers. Taylor said, “When you only look at numbers, you leave out important data. We do need better numbers to show that disparities exist, but to tease out the why and how, we need the qualitative.” 

It might seem challenging to mold policy from qualitative data, or even from concepts like wealth encompassing social and relational assets that involve communities and nature. But Woods dispelled that, and sees a clear path: “Community access to homelands and homewaters is essential to Native health and wealth, and that’s something the state can directly address. It could mitigate the lasting harm of allotment via taxation easement, for example. It could give non–federally recognized tribes access to housing support. A lot could happen, including jumpstarting conversations with tribes.”