ANALYSIS of IMPEDIMENTS to FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Arizona Department of Housing 1700 W. Washington, Suite 210 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602.771.1000 Phone 602.771.1002 Fax 602.771.1001 TTY This document is available in alternate formats upon request. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Table of Contents Section One: Introduction, Summary of Issues, & Conclusions ................................................... 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................4 Summary of Fair Housing Issues ..............................................................................................................4 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................6 Section Two: Statistical Data on Demographics, Income, Poverty, Employment and Housing . 7 Statewide Demographic Data ......................................................................................................................8 Population by Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................8 Population by Age..........................................................................................................................9 Arizona Income Data .....................................................................................................................9 Household Income by Income Category ..................................................................................10 Household Income by Race and Income Category..................................................................11 Poverty by Race and Ethnicity....................................................................................................11 Poverty and Disability .................................................................................................................12 Statewide Employment Profile .................................................................................................................13 Statewide Housing Profile .........................................................................................................................14 Homeownership by Race and Ethnicity....................................................................................14 Housing Quality and Affordability ...........................................................................................15 Non‐Metropolitan Arizona .......................................................................................................................16 Population ............................................................................................................................................16 Income, Poverty and Unemployment Rate...............................................................................17 Housing and Housing Quality ...................................................................................................17 Non‐Metropolitan Minority Concentration Census Tracts ..................................................18 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data as an Indicator of Discrimination .............................19 The Flagstaff MSA.................................................................................................................20 The Yuma MSA .....................................................................................................................21 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................23 Section Three: Evaluation of the State of Arizona’s Fair Housing Profile ................................. 24 Data From the Arizona Attorney General’s Office ................................................................................25 Data From the Arizona Department of Housing Survey ......................................................................27 Section Four: Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in the State of Arizona . 30 List of Impediments and Action Steps.....................................................................................................32 Section Five: Public and Private Fair Housing Activities ..................................................................34 Federally Funded Activities ......................................................................................................................35 State of Arizona Activities .........................................................................................................................35 Private Sector Activities .............................................................................................................................37 Appendix: Survey of Statewide Fair Housing Advocacy Organizations ........................................ 38 2 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section One INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY OF ISSUES & CONCLUSIONS 3 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section One INTRODUCTION The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), requires that each state conduct an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the State and to outline and take appropriate, effective actions to ameliorate the identified impediments. The HUD definition of “fair housing choice” means the ability of persons, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin, of similar incomes, to have available the same housing choices. This analysis document was prepared by the Arizona Department of Housing, utilizing many sources of information. These sources included: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ The 2000 United States Census. The 1995 ‐ 1996 Consolidated Plans prepared by the State of Arizona, City of Phoenix, Maricopa County Consortium, Tucson/Pima County Consortium and the City of Yuma. The results of a survey of fair housing advocacy groups performed by the Arizona Department of Housing in February 2004. Various reports on the effects of zoning, other land use controls and building controls on fair housing and affordable housing, including a report written by Arizona State University faculty. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data obtained through Internet searches from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) public data sources and reports. Fair housing complaint data supplied by the State Attorney General’s Office. Data on activities underway and recently undertaken which aim to educate persons in protected classes and the various segments of the housing industry, about fair housing and the nature of housing discrimination. Several reports on the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice from other states, such as Georgia, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii and others, were also reviewed, and some important ideas from those reports were utilized in the compilation of data and analysis sections of his report. SUMMARY OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES That housing discrimination is widely practiced throughout the United States and the State of Arizona is no longer discussed in terms of whether discrimination exists, but rather, the nature and extent to which fair housing discrimination exists and persists. The responses to the Survey on Fair Housing Issues conducted by the Arizona Department of Commerce in December 1995 (and contained in the 1997 Analysis of Impediments) confirm that Arizona is plagued by housing discrimination against the seven protected classes of persons. Among the problems cited were: ƒ NIMBY ‐ Not In My Back Yard attitudes against projects that serve lower income (“those people” ‐ shorthand for people of color) and disabled people, and the lack of political will and/or interest to defuse community hostility. ƒ Frequently cited is the 1994 revision of the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act that creates a presumption that occupancy limited to two persons per bedroom is reasonable as a standard for compliance with the Fair Housing Act. 4 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Section One Landlord resistance to accommodating the disabled community, so that disabled renters can easily navigate their units and the grounds of the buildings. Landlords screen callers by their surnames and respond that the unit is already rented. The lending community is described as reluctant to lend in lower income areas, which often are predominantly or heavily minority. Homeowner insurance companies redline low income areas, charge higher rates for insurance, or cancel for any kind of claim. Discrimination is often subtle, sometimes taking the form of discouraging remarks (to families ‐ “ this complex is very quiet”), grouping families or persons of color in one part of a complex, losing paperwork and missing deadlines. Among the issues described in earlier public input sessions were: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ The problem of discrimination is not singular; it is a combination of social and economic factors; it stems from ignorance, prejudice, fears of the impacts of desegregation and change, plus a paralysis and polarization of interest groups. We believe the problems in any affordable housing within Arizona to be complex and interrelated. These problems include lack of industry and consumer education, inadequate enforcement, resources, and socio‐economic factors in the Arizona state markets...some discrimination is not visible, it is generational. There is a lack of knowledge throughout the landlord community regarding the relevant laws. There is also a severe shortage of definite answers to specific questions that arise. Therefore the answers are derived by litigation. We see segregation and fair housing to be two separate issues. In terms of segregation, there are three problems: lack of education, affordability and the lack of effectiveness and integration in existing governmental programs. In terms of fair housing, the primary problem is lack of education from groups on all sides of the issues, including consumers (renters/buyers) sellers (landlords, real estate agents, owners, lenders) and regulatory and nonprofit agencies. Lack of knowledge on the part of housing providers, housing seekers, landlords and tenants, concerning the fair housing laws, the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), state tenant/landlord laws. Historically, these laws only looked at solutions to problems of inaccessibility by “grouping” rather than community approach. Lack of enforcement of laws and lack of networking to identify current affordability and accessible housing. There was consensus among the participants concerning the antidotes to these issues. These included need for more education on what constitutes fair housing violations and to encourage more tolerance of the protected classes, better coordination among advocacy and development agencies and between the public and private sectors, more affordable housing, and more leadership, particularly from elected officials. This conclusion was also supported by data gathered by the Arizona Department of Housing for this Analysis of Impediments. Based on these findings, the Arizona Department of Housing awarded $382,112 in 2002 and 2003 funds to educate people throughout the state in issues related to fair housing. 5 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section One CONCLUSIONS The consensus is that the primary manner in which to fight discrimination is through education ‐ of housing providers and consumers ‐ and to provide vigilant and timely enforcement of the fair housing laws. The remainder of this Analysis of Impediments looks at Arizona’s racial, income and housing demographics, the identified impediments to fair housing that have been discerned by the community and through FHIP funded studies, the ongoing activities to ameliorate or better, to remove impediments, and a list of actions appropriate to the State government. 6 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice SECTION TWO STATISTICAL DATA ON DEMOGRAPHICS, INCOME, POVERTY, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING PROFILE 7 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two This section shows in narrative and table formats data related to population, income, poverty, employment and housing. The data is divided into two broad geographical categories: the state level and non‐metropolitan Arizona. The information presented were primarily obtained from the 2000 Census, 2000 CHAS data made available on the Internet by HUD, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, and various studies by the Arizona Department of Housing and Arizona Housing Commission. STATEWIDE DEMOGRAPHIC DATA During the 1990s, Arizona’s total population increased by 40% (or by 1,465,40 people), from 3,665,228 in 1990 to 5,130,632 in 2000. Of the total new population, 76.9% live in the two metropolitan counties of Maricopa and Pima, and the remaining 22.1% in the 13 rural counties. In terms of percentage population growth in the 1990s, Arizona was the second fastest growing state in the nation, following Nevada. Arizona is a highly urbanized state, with 76.3% of its population residing in the two urban counties of Maricopa and Pima, and the remaining 23.7% in the 13 rural counties. Population by Race and Ethnicity The distribution of state population by race and ethnicity, based on 2000 Census, is as follows: ƒ ƒ ƒ 25.3%, Hispanic Origin. 36.2%, minority (according to Population Statistics Unit of the Arizona Department of Economic Security). 75.5% “White” (Hispanic and Non‐Hispanic White). Further details regarding Arizona’s population is presented in Table 1: Table 1: Arizona Population by Race and Ethnicity – Year 2000: Race or Ethnicity Total Population White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Some Other Race Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino* Not Hispanic or Latino Number 5,130,632 3,873,611 158,873 255,879 92,236 6,733 596,774 146,526 1,295,617 3,835,015 % of Total Population 100% 75.5% 3.1% 5.0% 1.8% 0.1% 11.6% 2.9% 25.3% 74.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. * Persons of Hispanic Origin could be of any race. Hispanic is not a race, it is an ethnicity like Germans, Afghans, or Greeks. 8 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two Population by Age People back east and in the Midwest think that Arizona is a retirement state and median age might be in the 40s or 50s. But that is a myth, rather than a reality. According to Census 2000, median age of population in Arizona was 34.2 years, which is lower than the U.S. median age of 35.3 years. ƒ ƒ ƒ School‐Age Population (Under 18 Years) ‐ Data presented in Table 2 shows that the school age population (Under 18 years) in Arizona is 26.6% of the total population. Working‐Age Population (18 to 65 Years) ‐ This population group comprises 60.3% of the total population. Retirement‐Age Population (65 Years and Over) – As of year 2000, 13% of the total state population was in this age. It is important to know that almost 6% of the state total population is 75 years or older. The number of people in this age category will increase significantly in the next 10 to 20 years, exerting much pressure on public resources allocated for services to this population group. More details are presented in Table 2: Table 2: Arizona Population by Age – Year 2000: Selected Age Category Total Population Under 5 Years Under 18 Years 18 to 64 Years 65 Years and Over 65 to 74 Years 75 to 84 Years 85 Years and Over Number 5,130,632 382,386 1,366,947 309,5846 667,839 363,841 235,473 68,525 % of Total Population 100% 7.5% 26.6% 60.3% 13.0% 7.1% 4.6% 1.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Arizona Income Data With the rapid economic growth over the last 20 to 30 years, people in Arizona are still behind the U.S. in terms of average income. This is true for median household income, median family income and per capita income, as presented in Table 4. The definitions of the three income measures are as follows: ƒ ƒ ƒ Median Household Income – Households, including one person households, incorporate both family income and non‐family income. Many non‐family households consist of either an elderly surviving spouse or a very young adult. Median Family Income – Family refers to the census definition of “householder” and one or more other persons living in the same household who are related by blood, marriage or adoption. This excludes one person households. Income is higher here than in other measures because families typically have more people earning incomes. Per Capita Income – Represents income received by all individuals who live in the area; the aggregate figure is divided by total population, giving per capita personal income. 9 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two Table 3: Average Income Indicators for Arizona and U.S. – 1999 Average Income Indicator Median Household Income Median Family Income Per Capita Income Arizona $40,558 $46,723 $20,275 U.S. $41,994 $50046 $21,857 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Why do people in Arizona have lower incomes than national average? There is no easy answer. Most likely, it is due to a combination of the following factors: lower wages, lower cost of living, lower manufacturing employment, weaker unions, higher minority concentration, and highly market‐oriented business environment. Household Income by Income Category Arizonans are doing better at the lower income brackets and worse at the higher income brackets. For example: ƒ 8.6% of households in Arizona make less than $10,000 per year, as compared to 9.5% for the U.S. ƒ 60.4% of households in Arizona make less than $50,000 per year, as compared to 58% for the U.S. ƒ 10.8% of households in Arizona have incomes in the $100,000 plus range, as compared to 12.9% for the U.S. Further breakdowns on household income by income category are presented in Table 4: Table 4: Household Income ‐ 1999 Household Income Total Households Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Median Household Income Number of Households 1,901,625 163,221 120,770 128,205 270,248 253,930 210,511 365,024 184,026 205,690 Arizona % of Total Households 100.0% 8.6% 6.4% 6.7% 14.2% 13.4% 11.1% 19.2% 9.7% 10.8% U.S. Number of Households 105,539,122 10,067,027 6,657,228 13,536,965 13,519,242 17,446,272 20,540,604 10,799,245 8,147,826 2,322,038 $40,558 % of Total Households 100.0% 9.5% 6.3% 6.3% 13.0% 12.3% 10.6% 19.5% 10.2% 12.3% $41,994 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Arizona Department of Housing. 10 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two Household Income by Race and Income Category Minorities in Arizona comprise a higher share of the lower income households, and a smaller share of the higher income households: ƒ Lowest Income Category ‐ 24.2% of Native Americans, 13.5% of Blacks and close to 12% of Asians and Hispanics are included in the “less than $10,000” income category, as compared to 7.3% for “White”. ƒ Middle to Low Income Categories – 70.8% of Native Americans, 62.9% of Hispanics and 58.2% of Blacks are included in the ”Less than $40,000” income category, compared to 47.1% for “White” ƒ High Income Category – Only 2.5% of Native Americans and 3.5% of Hispanics are included in the income category of “More than $100,000”, as compared to 11.6% for “White” and 15.7% for Asians. This is the only income category, where Asians surpass Whites. For further details, please refer to Table 5: Table 5: Median Household Income by Income Category and by Race or Ethnicity Arizona Total Pop White Less than $10,000 8.6% 7.3% Less than $15,000 14.9% 13.3% Less than $20,000 21.7% 19.7% Less Than $30,000 35.9% 33.4% Less than $40,000 49.7% 47.1% Less than $50,000 60.8% 58.2% Less than $75,000 80.0% 78.1% Less than $100,000 89.7% 88.4% More than $100,000 10.3% 11.6% Native Black Americans 13.5% 21.2% 28.5% 44.2% 58.2% 68.7% 85.4% 93.3% 6.7% 24.2% 33.9% 42.6% 58.0% 70.8% 79.5% 93.0% 97.5% 2.5% Asian Hawaiians and Other Some Two or Pacific Not Other More Islanders Race Races Hispanic Hispanic 11.9% 16.9% 22.0% 32.8% 44.3% 54.0% 72.6% 84.3% 15.7% 8.3% 18.2% 21.9% 34.8% 51.3% 64.8% 82.5% 93.0% 7.0% 11.0% 19.1% 28.5% 46.9% 63.1% 75.2% 91.7% 97.3% 2.7% 13.3% 20.8% 28.3% 44.3% 59.4% 70.6% 87.2% 95.1% 4.9% 11.6% 20.0% 29.2% 46.9% 62.9% 74.3% 90.3% 96.5% 3.5% 7.9% 13.9% 20.1% 33.6% 46.9% 57.9% 77.8% 88.2% 11.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Arizona Department of Housing. Poverty by Race and Ethnicity: Total poverty rate in Arizona is slightly higher than the U.S. average, 13.4% for Arizona versus 12.4% for the U.S. The rate of poverty for minority population in Arizona is significantly higher than the rest of population: 36.5% for “American Indian and Alaska Natives”, 23.6% for “Hispanics” and 19.5% for “African Americans”, as compared to 9.9% for “White”. Further details on poverty by race and ethnicity are presented in Table 6: 11 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two Table 6: Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity – Year 2000 Race or Ethnicity Total Population White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Some Other Race Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino* Not Hispanic or Latino Universe for Poverty 4,634,191 3,549,285 131,182 222,428 83,221 5,435 Number in Poverty 619,344 351,871 25,516 81,194 10,374 877 513,670 128,970 125,416 24,096 24.4% 18.7% 1,116,887 3,517,304 263,929 355,415 23.6% 10.1% % in Poverty 13.4% 9.9% 19.5% 36.5% 12.5% 16.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. * Persons of Hispanic Origin could be of any race. Hispanic is not a race, it is an ethnicity like Germans, Afghans, or Greeks. Poverty and Disability In general, people with disability have higher incidence of poverty than people with no disability: ƒ ƒ According to Census 2000, the percentage of population age 5 and older with disability status in Arizona was 20.1% for males and 18.7% of females. Comparable numbers at the U.S. level were 19.7% and 19.2%. Of the persons with disability, 16.0% of males and 19.1% of females in Arizona were in poverty. Comparable numbers at the U.S. level were 15.3% and 19.7%, in that order. Table 7: Arizona’s Poverty Status by Disability Status for the Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population, 2000 Disability Status by Sex and Age Males > 5 years of age with a disability Income in 1999 below poverty level Income in 1999 at or above poverty level Females > 5 years of age with a disability Income in 1999 below poverty level Income in 1999 at or above poverty level Number of Disabled Persons 458,334 73,430 384904 % of Population With Disability Status 20.1% 16.0% 84.0% 440,357 18.7% 83,966 356,391 19.1% 80.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Arizona Department of Housing 12 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two STATEWIDE EMPLOYMENT PROFILE Arizona’s main economic sectors include services, government and trade. The single largest economic sector is services, employing more than 883,700 people in 2003. Wholesale and retail trade provided more than 368,200 jobs. Many of these jobs are directly related to tourism, an industry that injects more than $12 billion into the state’s economy each year. In 2003, manufacturing accounted for 174,000 jobs, or approximately 7.5 percent of the state’s employment, and has historically generated almost 15 percent of wages and salaries. The construction sector, also very important to Arizona’s economy, accounted for 176,600 jobs or 7.6 percent of the state’s employment in 2003. This sector has experienced a substantial increase in construction activity over the past few years. Table 8: Arizona Employment by Industry – 2003 Government Professional and Business Services Retail Trade Educational and Health Services Leisure and Hospitality Construction Manufacturing Financial Activities Wholesale Trade Other Services Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities Information Agriculture Mining Total Employment Employment Number 393,700 320,000 275,100 246,300 231,500 176,600 174,000 159,300 93,100 85,900 76,600 49,400 20,200 8,000 2,309,700 Percent of Total Employment 17.0% 13.9% 11.9% 10.7% 10.0% 7.6% 7.5% 6.9% 4.0% 3.7% 3.3% 2.1% 0.9% 0.3% 100.0% Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security and Arizona Department of Housing. Note: Employment data for Agriculture is from ES‐202; all other data from Labor Force and Non‐Farm Employment. ƒ ƒ In terms of urban and rural split, 85.7% of total jobs in 2003 were located in the two metro counties of Maricopa and Pima, and the remaining 14.3% in the 13 rural counties. The opportunity for employment in most rural counties is much limited as compared to the urban counties. For example, the unemployment rate in Yuma and Apache counties were 23.1% and 14.1% as compared to 4.9% and 4.3% for the two urban counties of Maricopa and Pima. 13 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two STATEWIDE HOUSING PROFILE Single family is the primary type of housing both in Arizona and for the U.S. as a whole. Census 2000 data reveals that almost 65% of the total housing units in Arizona are single family homes, 20% multifamily and 15% manufactured and other forms of housing. Comparable numbers for the U.S. are 65.9%, 26.3% and 7.8%, in that order. Specific numbers and percentages of housing units by housing type are presented in table 9. Table 9: Arizona and U.S. Housing Distribution by Housing Type Arizona Number 2,189,189 1,375489 483,738 302,575 27,387 U.S. Housing Information Indicator % Number Total Number of Units in 2000: 100% 115,904,641 Single Family 64.8% 76,313,410 Multifamily 20.1% 30,549,393 Manufactured or Mobile Homes 13.8% 8,779,228 Other Type of Housing 1.3% 262,610 Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security and Arizona Department of Housing. % 100% 65.9% 26.3% 7.6% 0.2% Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity The over all homeownership rate and homeownership rates for most minorities are higher in Arizona than the U.S. average: ƒ All households – Arizona 68%, U.S. average 66.2%. ƒ White – Arizona 71.3%, U.S. average 71.3%. ƒ Hispanic ‐ Arizona 55%, U.S. average 45.7%. ƒ American Indians ‐ Arizona 61.2%, U.S. average 55.7%. ƒ Black ‐ Arizona 44.1%, U.S. average 46.3%. Further details on homeownership rates by race and ethnicity are presented in Table 10. 14 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two Table 10: Arizona and U.S. Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity All Households White Alone Black or African American Alone American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders Alone Some Other Race Alone Hispanic or Latino (of Any Race) Not Hispanic or Latino Homeownership Rate Arizona U.S. 68.0% 66.2% 71.3% 71.3% 44.1% 46.3% 61.2% 55.7% 57.0% 53.2% 46.8% 52.6% 55.0% 70.8% 45.5% 40.4% 45.7% 68.1% Source: 2000 Census, Summary File 4. Compiled by: Arizona Department of Housing 3/4/2004 Housing Quality and Affordability Housing quality and affordability is measured by the following three criteria: ƒ ƒ ƒ Persons or families living in units with physical defects (lacking a complete kitchen or bath); or Persons or families living in overcrowded conditions (greater than 1.01 person/room); or Persons or families are cost burdened (paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing, including utilities. Using the above criteria, it is clear that housing quality and affordability problems in Arizona are more severe than the nation as a whole: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ 1.1% of homes in Arizona Lack complete plumbing facility, as compared to only 0.6% nationally. 38.7% of renters in Arizona pay 30% or more of their incomes for rent, as compared to 36.8% nationally. The problem of cost burdened households is widespread and most contributes to the inability of a lower income households to live adequately with their incomes. 4.4% of households in Arizona live in overcrowded conditions as opposed to only 3% nationally. 4.2% of households in Arizona live in severely overcrowded conditions as opposed to only 2.7% nationally. More details on housing quality and affordability criteria are presented in the following table: 15 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two Table 11: Housing Quality Characteristics Housing Quality Characteristics Lacking Complete Plumbing Facility Lacking Complete Kitchen Facility Paying 30% or More for Housing Cost ‐ Owners (Unaffordable) Paying 30% or More for Rent ‐ Renters (Unaffordable) 1.1 to 1.5 Persons Per Room (Overcrowded) 1.51 or More Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrowded) (Number of Housing Units) Arizona 21,088 20,999 233,355 (% of Total Housing Units) Arizona 1.1% 1.1% 22.6% (% of Total Housing Units) U.S. 0.6% 0.7% 21.8% 233,793 38.7% 36.8% 83,298 80,394 4.4% 4.2% 3.0% 2.7% Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security and Arizona Department of Housing. NON‐METROPOLITAN ARIZONA For the purpose of this study, metropolitan Arizona is consisted of Maricopa and Pima Counties and non‐ metropolitan (or rural) Arizona of the remaining 13 counties. In general, the non‐metropolitan area of Arizona is much smaller in terms of population and economic activity. It has higher poverty rate, higher housing quality problems, higher concentration of minorities’ population, lower job growth, and lower median household income. Specific demographic, economic and housing differences between non‐metropolitan and metropolitan areas of Arizona are presented in tables 12, 13 and 14. Population (Table 12): ƒ ƒ ƒ The 2003 estimated non‐metro population of Arizona was 1,322,045, which is about 70% smaller than total metro population of 4,307,825. Minority population comprises 37.3% of the non‐metro areas’ total population, as compared to 31.6% for the metro areas. The share of Hispanic ethnicity as a percent of total population for the non‐metro Arizona is 28.2%, as compared to 25.8% for the metro areas. 16 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two Table 12: Population Selected Indicators 2003 Total Population % of Total State Population in 1990 % of Total State Population in 2000 % of Total State Population in 2003 Total Minority Population (%) Hispanic Ethnicity (%) Non‐Metropolitan Arizona 1,322,045 Metropolitan Arizona 4,307,825 23.9% 76.1% 23.7% 76.3% 23.5% 37.3% 28.2% 76.5% 31.6% 25.8% Source: 2000 Census, and Arizona Department of Housing. Income, Poverty and Unemployment Rate (Table 13): ƒ ƒ ƒ Per capita income in the non‐metro areas of Arizona is significantly lower than metro areas: $15,618 versus $21,720. Poverty rate in the non‐metro areas is much higher than the metro‐areas: 19.0% versus 12.4%. Unemployment rate in the non‐metro areas is 8.9%, which is significantly higher than 4.8% for the metro areas. Table 13: Income, Employment and Unemployment Rate Selected Indicators Per Capita Income Poverty Rate 1999 % of Arizona Labor Force (2003) Unemployment Rate (2003) Non‐Metropolitan Arizona $15,618 19.0% Metropolitan Arizona $21,720 12.4% 19.9% 8.9% 80.1% 4.8% Source: 2000 Census, and Arizona Department of Housing. Housing and Housing Quality (Table 14): ƒ ƒ ƒ Homeownership rate in the non‐metro areas of the state is 72.3%, which is significantly higher than the 66.8% for the metro areas. A sizable portion of the housing in the non‐metro areas of Arizona is comprised of manufactured housing and mobile homes – 28.8%, as compared to only 8.5% for the metro areas. The non‐metro residents have to deal with more housing quality problems than metro residents: o Plumbing Problems – 3.3% versus 0.5 %. o Lack of Complete Kitchen Facilities – 2.9% versus 0.6%. o Overcrowded Conditions – 5.2% to 4.1%, and o Severely Overcrowded Conditions – 4.9% to 4.0% 17 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two Further details regarding housing quality comparisons are presented in Table 14: Table 14: Housing and Housing Quality Selected Indicators Homeownership Rate (2000) Manufactured Housing/Mobile Homes as % of Total Housing Units % of Homes Lacking Complete Plumbing Facility % of Homes Lacking Complete Kitchen Facility Paying 30% or More for Housing Cost ‐ Owners (Unaffordable) Paying 30% or More for Rent ‐ Renters (Unaffordable) 1.1 to 1.5 Persons Per Room (Overcrowded) 1.51 or More Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrowded) Non‐Metropolitan Arizona 72.3% Metropolitan Arizona 66.8% 28.8% 8.5% 3.3% 0.5% 2.9% 0.6% 22.0% 22.7% 33.8% 39.8% 5.2% 4.1% 4.9% 4.0% Source: 2000 Census, and Arizona Department of Housing. Non‐Metropolitan Minority Concentration Census Tracts Table 15 contains a list of census tracts for the non‐metro counties of Arizona (off –Indian Reservations), each having a minority population concentration ratio of 75% or higher (or the minority population rate of at least 200 percent of the state minority population rate of 36.2%). The primary minority group in all of the targeted census tracts is Hispanics. The data presented in Table 15 also reveals that there is a strong relationship between minority population concentration, poverty rate and income. For example, the majority of the selected census tracts with high concentration of minorities’ population also had higher poverty rates. Median family incomes in these census tracts were at low and moderate levels. The data presented in Table 15 have been extracted from the various data tables made available on the Web site of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). The Council is a formal interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform principles, standards, and report forms for the federal examination of financial institutions by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and to make recommendations to promote uniformity in the supervision of financial institutions. 18 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two Table 15: Minority High Concentration Census Tracts Census Tract Code Tract Population Tract White Minority % Population Tract American % Below Hispanic Minority Indian Poverty Population Population Population level County Tract Median Family Income % Tract Income Level Cochise 6 3,375 75.0 844 2,531 101 2,363 36.2 62.8 Moderate Cochise 7 4,052 85.2 600 3,452 5 3,416 33.8 76.0 Moderate Cochise 8 4,951 85.3 730 4,221 23 4,123 35.4 71.0 Moderate Cochise Gila Pinal 9 13 19 6,759 1,563 2,332 92.6 75.7 83.4 502 380 388 6,257 1,183 1,944 15 12 123 6,170 1,145 1,567 40.6 25.6 37.1 59.3 Moderate 84.1 Middle 57.2 Moderate Pinal Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 20 9961.02 9962 9963 9964.01 8,990 12,875 4,147 7,944 3,645 81.4 81.7 93.3 94.5 95.7 1,670 2,352 280 440 157 7,320 10,523 3,867 7,504 3,488 202 30 5 8 6 6,594 10,288 3,815 7,442 3,466 27.6 14.0 35.0 31.0 32.3 60.2 97.5 68.0 62.1 80.0 Moderate Santa Cruz Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma 9964.02 2 3.01 3.02 4.02 4,999 3,926 3,839 4,713 3,563 94.5 76.9 78.3 85.2 85.8 276 906 832 698 507 4,723 3,020 3,007 4,015 3,056 19 75 33 20 26 4,664 2,766 2,768 3,765 2,941 38.5 17.8 24.5 45.8 29.1 60.1 96.5 89.7 63.9 86.4 Moderate Yuma 7 4,858 78.1 1,066 3,792 27 3,567 27.4 71.3 Moderate Yuma 114.01 8,091 99.0 84 8,007 4 7,988 34.0 68.0 Moderate Yuma Yuma Yuma 115.01 115.02 116 2,705 7,305 5,024 83.1 96.0 98.9 457 292 56 2,248 7,013 4,968 475 27 11 1,727 6,939 4,944 40.0 26.4 38.1 70.0 Moderate 81.0 Middle 38.1 Low Middle Moderate Moderate Moderate Middle Middle Moderate Middle Source: FFIEC and Arizona Department of Housing. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data as an Indicator of Discrimination Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data by county is not readily available for rural Arizona counties. Such data is only available for the five Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) of Phoenix‐Mesa MSA, Tucson MSA, Flagstaff, AZ‐UT MSA , Las Vegas, NV‐AZ MSA and Yuma MSA. Although lending data by census tracts is not available for rural counties, we believe that patterns and conclusions concerning lending practices in areas of minority concentration in Yuma and Flagstaff MSAs can be extrapolated to other parts of the State, while still considering circumstances specific to each region. The HMDA data for the two study areas shows disparities in the number of applications submitted, denied and withdrawn or closed. 19 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two The Flagstaff MSA Two groups of census tracts were selected for comparison and analysis purposes. Each group had five census tracts. The census tracts in group1 had much higher poverty and minority concentration rates, than in group 2. The data in Table 16 shows significant differences in the pattern of lending practices, as summarized in the last two columns: ƒ Loan origination or approval rates as a percent of total number of loans (column 8) in group 1 has a range of zero to 54.8%, as compared to 62.3% to 70.3% for group 2. There is a clear pattern indicating that loan origination rates in group 2 were higher than in group 1. ƒ The application denial rates, as a percent of all applications (column 9), is much higher for group 1, than group 2 ‐‐ 23.3% to 87.2% for group 1, compared to 8.8% to 17.3% for group 2. Our conclusion is that at least part of the differences in the loan originations and loan denial rates between group 1 (the high poverty area) and group 2 (the low poverty area) could be associated with discrimination practices in lending. 20 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two Table 16: Flagstaff MSA, 2002 HMDA Data Group 1 Loan Originated CT 3 Approved, Not Accepted App Denied Loan Originated as App Denied as Total Number % of Total % of Total of Number of App Files Closed for Number of Loans Withdrawn Incompleteness Applications Loans 40 47 111 96 56 50 8 8 476 54.8% 23.3% CT 17 261 168 369 45.5% 26.0% CT 22 38 16 52 8 3 117 32.5% 44.4% CT 23 4 19 29 2 0 54 7.4% 53.7% CT 24 0 9 68 1 0 87.2% Total 131 356 117 19 78 1,094 0.0% 471 43.1% 32.5% Average 94.2 26.2 71.2 23.4 3.8 218.8 CT 1 376 44 61 49 5 535 70.3% 11.4% CT 6 625 87 78 88 12 890 70.2% 8.8% CT 7 300 45 70 53 8 476 63.0% 14.7% CT 9 223 39 49 37 10 358 62.3% 13.7% CT 14 555 92 123 95 16 2,079 415.8 307 61.4 381 76.2 322 64.4 ‐ ‐ Group 2 Total Average 51 Flagstaff MSA 6,923 1,120 2,000 1,287 215 Source: FFIEC, 2002 HMDA data, and Arizona Department of Housing. 881 3,140 10.2 628 11,545 63.0% 14.0% 66.2% 12.1% ‐ ‐ 60.0% 17.3% The Yuma MSA Two groups of census tracts were selected for comparison and analysis purposes. Each group had five census tracts. The census tracts in Group1 had much higher poverty and minority concentration rates, than Group 2. The data in table 17 shows significant differences in the pattern of lending practices in the two areas, as summarized in the last two columns of that table: ƒ Loan origination or approval rates as a percent of total number of loans (column 8) has a range of 40.4% to 53.9% in Group 1, as compared to 50.2% to 64.9% in Group 2. There is a clear pattern that loan origination rates in Group 2 were higher than in Group 1. ƒ The application denial rates, as a percent of all applications (column 9), is much higher for Group 1, than Group 2 – 29.4% to 38.2% for Group 1, as compared to 17.3% to 32.4% for Group 2. Our conclusion is that at least part of the differences in the loan originations and loan denial rates between Group 1 (the high poverty area) and Group 2 (the low poverty area) could be associated with discrimination practices in lending. 21 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two Table 17: Yuma MSA, 2002 HMDA Data Files Closed for App Incompleten Total Number of Withdrawn ess Applications 43 6 416 24 2 166 CT 4.02 Loan Originated 168 Approved, Not Accepted 40 App Denied 159 CT 7 67 12 61 CT 114.01 453 70 230 63 24 CT 115.01 184 19 106 48 3 CT 16 82 6 64 36 4 954 147 620 214 Group 1 Total 1,90.8 29.4 CT 2 104 17 CT 6 213 40.4% 38.2% 40.4% 36.7% 840 53.9% 27.4% 360 51.1% 29.4% 192 1,974 42.7% 33.3% 48.3% 31.4% 42.8 7.8 394.8 67 18 1 207 50.2% 32.4% 33 79 43 10 378 56.3% 20.9% CT 11 204 36 105 51 9 405 50.4% 25.9% CT 109 777 110 207 81 22 1,197 64.9% 17.3% CT 111 Total Average 815 124 329 124 22 2,113 422.6 320 64 787 157.4 317 63.4 64 12.8 1414 3,601 720.2 57.6% 58.7% ‐ 23.3% 21.9% ‐ Yuma County 5,521 842 9,962 55.4% 24.8% Average 124 3 9 Loan App Denied Originated as % of as % of Total Total Number Number of Loans of Loans ‐ ‐ Group 2 2,469 934 196 Note: CT 4.02 is CT 4; CT 114.01 is CT 114, and CT 115.01 is CT 115. 22 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Two CONCLUSIONS The correlation between low income and minority status is very high throughout Arizona. The incidence of minority households experiencing housing problems of cost burden, overcrowding or substandard conditions is also very high. However, it can be said that as both minority and non‐minority households move down the income scale, the incidence of housing problems increases dramatically, and appears not to be so much a racial matter as an income matter. Since the percent of minorities who are low income far exceeds their proportionate numbers in the general population, minorities do suffer disproportionately in terms of their basic need of adequate, affordable shelter. It is here where the urgent issues of affordable, standard housing and fair housing intersect, and must be addressed by all sectors involved in housing development. Those agencies—government agencies with funds for affordable housing activities, nonprofits with affordable housing resources, and private sector actors in housing —developers, builders, property owners and managers ‐ must not hide from the harsh realities of real suffering that are hidden behind the statistics in the foregoing paragraphs. Where resources can be allocated to reduce the incidence of housing problems in Arizona, they need to be so allocated, and they should be allocated with the intent of alleviating the disproportionate problems of minority households. 23 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice SECTION THREE EVALUATION OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA’S FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 24 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Three Statistics provided by the Civil Rights Division of the Office of the State Attorney General and anecdotal information provided by FHIP grantees in Arizona and respondents to the February 2004 fair housing survey performed by the Arizona Department of Housing begin to describe the extent and nature of fair housing discrimination in Arizona. The phrase, “begin to describe” is used, because it is widely recognized that most fair housing offenses are not reported, and frequently, victims of discrimination do not understand they are being discriminated against. Because of these circumstances, it is easier to draw conclusions about the nature of discrimination, than it is to draw conclusions concerning the frequency with which discrimination occurs. DATA FROM THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE Table 18 below enumerates, by county, the incidence of the number of charges filed for the September 1990 ‐ November 1995 and September 2000 ‐ April 2004 periods. Contrary to our expectations, there has been a decline in the number of charges filed, both in terms of total and on an annual basis. The reader should be aware that fully half the State’s population resides in Maricopa County (Phoenix and suburbs) and another one‐third reside in Pima County (Tucson). These two counties are also where the Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division maintains offices, and where nonprofit fair housing advocacy agencies, which are FHIP grantees, are active in community education and in handling fair housing complaints. Table 18 ‐ Geographical Location of Housing Complaints Filed September 1990 ‐ November 1995 and Sept. 1990 – April 2004 No. of Files Charged Sept. 1990 – Nov. 1995 County Maricopa Pima Yavapai Coconino Yuma Cochise Gila Mohave All Other Counties Community Phoenix and suburbs Tucson Prescott Flagstaff Yuma Sierra Vista Payson Bullhead City Total Annual No. of Files Charged Sept. 2000 – April 2004 Total Annual 413 325 9 7 6 3 3 2 79.9 62.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.4 259 157 9 7 8 6 2 1 70.6 42.8 2.5 1.9 2.2 1.6 0.5 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Three Tables 19 and 20 display information on the circumstances under which discrimination allegedly occurs and the incidence of discrimination against the various protected classes. Based on the statistics presented below, it is reasonable to conclude that the main issues in complaints pending were related to terms/conditions/privileges relating to services and facilities in rental properties. The primary alleged basis of complaints was related to disability, race and national origin. Table 19 ‐ Alleged Issues in Complaints Pending as of April 30, 2004 ALLEGED ISSUES Number Terms/conditions/privileges relating to rental property % of Total 109 14.8% False representation 29 3.9% Discriminatory refusal to rent 95 12.9% Otherwise deny or make available 87 11.8% Services and facilities related to rental properties 47 6.4% 304 41.3% 1 0.1% 64 8.7% 736 100.0% Terms/conditions/privileges relating to services and facilities in rental properties Retaliation Reasonable accommodations Total Table 20 ‐ Alleged Bases of Complaints Pending as of April 30, 2004 BASIS of COMPLAINT Familial Status Number % of Total 34 6.4% 107 20.1% 91 17.1% 195 36.6% Sex 20 3.8% Mental Handicap 12 2.3% Retaliation Religion 48 9.0% 13 2.4% 13 533 2.4% 100.0% Race National Origin Disability Color Total 26 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Three DATA FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING SURVEY The survey performed by the Arizona Department of Housing in February 2004 (see Appendix) provided useful anecdotal reporting on the extent and nature of discrimination in Arizona. The questions in this survey, and a summary of the responses received are listed below. Question One: What area do you serve? The respondents serve Maricopa, Pima, Coconino, Cochise, Yavapai, Apache and Navajo counties. Question Two: Do you believe that housing in the communities served by your organization is generally available without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status and national origin? ƒ ƒ A number of respondents agreed, not surprisingly, that discrimination does exist in the communities, which they serve. The main types of discrimination identified included discrimination on the basis of disability, followed by race and family size. Question Three: To the extent discrimination does exist, please describe the forms this discrimination takes. ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Discrimination by disability ‐ Respondents described discrimination against the disability community as usually involving a landlord’s unwillingness to make reasonable accommodations for the tenant. Typical complaints fall in the categories of refusal to adapt public spaces, refusal to allow the disabled tenant to make modifications to the unit, and refusal to allow the disabled tenant to have an “assistive” animal. Discrimination by Familial Status, Racial and Ethnicity Basis – Familial status appears to be the most problematic form of discrimination currently occurring, although it often is a disguise for racial discrimination. “...the occupancy standard law passed by the Arizona legislature a few years ago provides an open opportunity for racial discrimination and disparate treatment based on familial status...The law only allows two persons per bedroom, and landlords often preclude large families from renting a two or even three bedroom apartment. Large families are often Hispanic, African American or Asian, who cannot afford to rent three or four bedroom apartments...Hiding behind the law, landlords who may not want to rent to persons of Hispanic, African American or Asian origin can invoke the law and say there are too many people in the family to qualify for the unit.” Lack of political support by for low income housing projects. Multiple respondents cited NIMBY as a major, ongoing problem, and placed part of the blame for its success on the lack of political will on the part of elected officials who need to make permitting and funding decisions. Respondents cited redlining by lenders and insurance companies, and less blatant practices such as losing paperwork, demanding excessive documentation, stalling on the decision, and stipulating terms and conditions that are not imposed on most applicants. Respondents noted that discrimination takes place in renting and purchasing housing, financing and appraisals, and purchasing homeowners insurance. Finally, staff of the Civil Rights Division of the State Attorney General’s Office offered their own 27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Three list of observations of the nature of discrimination in the State, based on their extensive experience in litigating and investigating complaints. o o o o o o Justice courts tend to favor the landlord and the landlord’s attorney, and there is growing suspicion that families and minority households suffer disproportionately at these hearings. Also affecting the renter are the amendments to the Arizona Landlord and Tenant Act allowing nearly summary evictions. Enforcement agencies do not have a presence in rural areas. Relaxation of standards for adult complexes, which will further hurt families trying to rent. CC&R’s in subdivisions that have these rules, allow the owner to exercise rights of first refusal to sell. Non‐English speaking households cannot readily find documents that describe their rights written in their native languages. Question Four: The Fair Housing statutes protect persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status and national origin. Do you find that some of these categories experience discrimination more than others? Which categories? Are there typical ways in which they are discriminated against? ƒ ƒ The consensus to this question, which was discussed under Question Three, is that discrimination against people with disability tops the list of the types of discrimination. The remarks by one respondent is also shared by several others: “Lying about apartment availability, asking for higher deposits, harassment by making racial slurs, telling handicapped people that no apartment is available, while there is apartment for handicapped available”. Question Five: What positive things can you say about the status of racial discrimination in housing in your community? Are there positive trends taking place? ƒ ƒ There has been some success in the area of partnering with industry professionals to reduce housing discrimination. More positive voices and increase in racial mix in various communities. Question Six: What recommendations do you have for actions that would reduce the level and kinds of discrimination in housing? Among the responses were these suggestions: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ More education for landlords and apartment management regarding issues related to discrimination in housing and cultural sensitivity. More education for landlords and managers of subsidized units. Also, better treatment by apartment officials of mentally ill and people with assistive animals. Holding landlords/owners and businesses more accountable to insure fair practices. More education and marketing making people aware of their rights. More education, awareness about their rights, TV commercials, and radio announcements and advertisement that reach renters and landlords. 28 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Section Three Education and campaign for affordable housing. Protection of seniors from noise and drugs. Have examples shown of prosecuted landlords. More education and awareness for people who do discriminate. 29 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice SECTION FOUR IDENTIFICATION OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA 30 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Four We humans seem to have a propensity to make substantial efforts to surround ourselves with people who look like and act like ourselves. We immediately evaluate a person by their looks, we make assumptions, and we fit them into our own categories. Likely, we are genetically “hard‐wired” to discern who is one of “us”, and who is not, and we often assume that people who are different are of questionable character. But the instincts and behaviors which may have served us well tens of thousands of years ago now cause immense hardship, anger, and disrespect as we continually scan our surroundings to decide who is “us” and who is “them”, and then act on that decision in ways that exclude people from our communities, neighborhoods, and apartment buildings. For instance, consider recent data accumulated on the topic of inter‐racial evaluations by the University of Chicago, which was published in the January/February 1996 edition of the Poverty & Race Research Action Council’s bi‐monthly newsletter: “Survey data by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC) confirm that white evaluations of blacks and Latinos are strongly negative, especially when compared to white self‐ratings. Almost one‐third of whites surveyed thought blacks and Latinos were unintelligent, while only one fifth thought they were intelligent. (The rest rated them in a middle category.) By contrast, nearly three‐fifths of whites rated their own racial Group as intelligent, and only 6% rated them as unintelligent. On another question inquiring whether various identity Groups were hard working or lazy, whites again had a high opinion of their own work habits (57% hard working, only 5% lazy), while denigrating Latinos and blacks: for Latinos, whites’ ratings were 26% hard working, 37% lazy; for blacks, whites’ ratings were 18% hard working, 47% lazy. While the NORC survey does not convey a completely negative assessment by whites, it does confirm the widespread feeling among African Americans and Latinos that the white community does not think of them with respect, and that this judgment carries over into behavior.” In an effort to overcome fair housing discrimination and similar disrespectful behavior, we must base our actions on the following question: If a person or family has the ability to pay for a particular dwelling and is willing to live in that dwelling as a good neighbor, then how can that person or family be denied that dwelling, no matter which racial or social class they may come from? Our efforts must be dedicated to reducing the likelihood of that denial happening to the lowest incidence possible, regardless of physical characteristics. The State of Arizona accepts the responsibility to identify impediments and to identify actions to reduce or eliminate those impediments, as appropriate to the State level of government. In that respect, we must, in addition to contemplating actions at the State level, also turn to Arizona Department of Housing CDBG and HOME local government subgrantees to require their support and action to further identify and remove impediments, as a condition of funding. All activities to ameliorate the identified impediments will be undertaken through a partnership of the State, its grantee subrecipients, fair housing advocates, the Arizona Housing Network and others. We now turn to a discussion of the impediments to fair housing choice as they exist in Arizona, and a list of recommended actions to ameliorate these impediments, along with time objectives for implementation. 31 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Four LIST OF IMPEDIMENTS AND ACTION STEPS Impediment Number One: Lack Of Knowledge Of Fair Housing Laws By Housing Consumers Recommendations for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number One: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Send Public Service announcements (PSAs) to local media in all areas receiving funding from Arizona Department of Housing grant programs periodically that cover fair housing issues. Continue to distribute the fair housing brochures on fair housing rights, both in English and Spanish, to all organizations which serve low income, disabled and minority groups. Develop LEP (Limited English Proficiency) Plan that maximizes opportunities for publicizing fair housing protections. Continue to participate in the Arizona Fair Housing Partnership and actively advocate for more rural initiatives. Continue investments in statewide education efforts in all rural counties. Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number One: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ The PSAs and brochures will be circulated to the media periodically, commencing September 2004. Education efforts contract will be re-evaluated and renewed during August 2004. The Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan will be developed and completed by December 2004. Attendance at the Arizona Fair Housing Partnership is an ongoing responsibility of the department. Impediment Number Two: Lack Of Knowledge Of Fair Housing Laws By Housing Industry Agents: Realtors, Builders, Landlords, Management Agents, Lenders And Insurers. Recommendation for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number Two: ƒ Assess the success of ADOH’s fair housing education plan (revamped in 2003) and re-examine the segments of the industry most in need of education and develop a plan to provide training to these groups statewide. Key in this effort will be a continued department commitment to training in all rural counties and training at department compliance events for property managers. Additionally, pending the re-evaluation scheduled for August, the Department will continue to require its education provider to target housing industry agents as well as housing consumers in its overall training offerings. Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number Two – September 2004 – September 2007. ƒ Education efforts contract will be re-evaluated and renewed during August 2004. Impediment Number Three: Lack of Hard Data on the Extent of Discrimination in the Areas of Homebuyer Insurance, Zoning and Permitting Processes Recommendations for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number Three: ƒ ƒ Initiate activities that will result in an empirical study of the availability and terms of homeowner insurance in predominately minority and low income census tracts. Interest by the State Department of Insurance, ASU and/or UofA faculty in designing and performing the analysis will be sought. Approach the Arizona Planning Association and Arizona’s institutions of higher education to seek their commitment to a study of the effects of zoning and permitting on fair housing in a small sample of rural Arizona communities. 32 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ƒ Section Four Arizona Department of Housing will continue to provide technical assistance on how to include meaningful housing elements in rural Arizona comprehensive plans. Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number Three: ƒ Discussions concerning the insurance and zoning studies will commence in September 2004 and studies will be complete by September 2005. Impediment Number Four: Testing Of Rental, Sales, Lending And Insurance Activities Is Intermittent, And Does Not Usually Cover The State Outside Of Maricopa And Pima Counties. Recommendations for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number Four: ƒ Meet with FHIP grantees and other fair housing advocates to determine which aspects of fair housing are the highest priority to test, and which geographic locations are the highest priorities in which to test. At least one urban and one rural area will be identified for testing. The cost of testing will be determined and funding sources will be sought. Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number Four: ƒ Meetings to determine what to test and where to test, and the cost of a testing program will commence in 2005. Funding for testing on priority issues and in priority locations will be sought throughout the four-year duration of this Analysis of Impediments. Impediment Number Five: Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) Attitudes Concerning Housing For Low Income And Disabled Persons. Recommendations for Amelioration or Removal of Impediment Number Five: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Sponsor training for housing and disability community agencies and advocates, staff of local governments, and other interested parties at which anti-NIMBY strategies will be discussed, using models that have worked successfully in Arizona and elsewhere. Ensure that all ADOH-sponsored training includes strategies for housing developers to overcome NIMBY attitudes including information on building public support for affordable housing projects. Undertake, in partnership with the Arizona Housing Commission, a public education campaign about the importance of affordable housing to Arizona community health. Communities which receive CDBG and HOME funds will be advised that, as a result of receiving a grant from Housing Department, the State will require the local government to advocate for and support housing activities which benefit low income persons and persons covered by the fair housing act. A planning process for implementing specific requirements and guidelines for grantees will be undertaken. Implementation Timeframes for Impediment Number Five: ƒ Recipients of 2005 and later year’s CDBG and HOME funds will be advised of the State’s expectations concerning support of fair housing, and the state’s position as an anti–NIMBY advocate. The planning process for the development of specific expectations will take place before the 2005 grant award process and will be continuously revisited during future award years. 33 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice SECTION FIVE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES 34 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Five Both the public and private sectors in Arizona are actively working to remove impediments to fair housing choice. These activities, some of which have been recently undertaken, and others which are ongoing, are discussed below. FEDERALLY FUNDED ACTIVITIES Three Arizona agencies are recipients of Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grants. These agencies are all grateful for the opportunity to obtain and use these grants, which primarily fund the testing of rental, new subdivision sales, and Group home activities. The three FHIP grantees are the Civil Rights Division of the Office of the Arizona Attorney General, the Arizona Fair Housing Center, and the Southern Arizona Housing Center. The activities of these agencies are primarily focused on the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. The agencies are active advocates for fair housing issues, and provide education, mediation and complaint services to the community. All three agencies expect to compete for FHIP funding, if there are new appropriations for the program. STATE OF ARIZONA ACTIVITIES The foremost participant in activities which further fair housing in Arizona is the Office of the Attorney General. The Civil Rights Division has the authority, as a designated “substantially equivalent agency”, to actively investigate and litigate fair housing violations throughout the State. In its recent review of the fair housing enforcement functions of the Civil Rights Division, the Director of the San Francisco HUD Office Fair Housing Enforcement Center, lauded the work of the Attorney General’s staff: “We would also like to take this opportunity to convey our impression that the vast majority of work undertaken by the Arizona Office of the Attorney General ‐ Civil Rights Section/Housing Division during this evaluation period has been of the highest quality...your work reflects a commendable management ethic not to sacrifice the quality of the investigation or the rights or remedies of complainants, for ‘numbers’...We also believe that your agency’s willingness to pursue litigation of cause cases which fail at conciliation puts your agency at the forefront of FHAP agencies monitored by this Region, if not nationally.” The Arizona Department of Housing has also actively worked to further fair housing, by funding activities which provide forums for discussion and education. The Arizona Housing Summit, which attracted persons from around the state involved in housing, provided workshops on fair housing issues. The State has also funded fair housing activities out of the Housing Trust Fund in 2002 and 2003. These activities are listed below: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Southwest Fair Housing Council received $265,000 in 2003 to use for education and advocacy programs related to fair housing in the 13 rural counties of Arizona. Southern Arizona Housing Center received $48,633 in 2002 to further fair housing education in several central and southeastern Arizona rural counties. Arizona Fair Housing Center received $49,225 to provide fair housing training in Maricopa, Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo and Apache and counties Community Legal Services received $19,263 to work on fair housing education issues in La Paz, Mohave and Yuma counties. 35 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Five The Arizona Department of Real Estate has also actively been involved in fair housing, primarily through education of the real estate community. In 1993, the Department sponsored an Affordable and Fair Housing Symposium, which attracted more than six hundred real estate licensees from around the state. The premise of the meeting was that “everyone in the United States should have an equal opportunity to obtain adequate housing” and that real estate licensees must help facilitate this goal, and further to teach real estate licensees about discrimination and the subtle and not‐so‐subtle forms it takes. Many of us remember a presentation at the opening panel discussion by Carol Carpenter, a former Maricopa County Supervisor and an attorney. She vividly described how she was discriminated against as she searched for rental housing for herself and her young daughter. The Symposium then broke into workshops which included sessions on the National Association of Realtor’s Voluntary Affirmative Marketing Agreement, “How to Practice Safe Lending”, how testing is performed, and “Disabilities and the Law: What are Your Responsibilities?” In 1991, the Department of Real Estate, with the active support of the Commerce Department, formed the Joint Committee on Fair Housing. This Group participated in the 1993 Symposium, as well as actively planned and participated in the 1995 Housing Summit. The Joint Committee’s membership included representatives from the Homebuilders, Realtors®, Multihousing, Mortgage Bankers, CHRB, LISC, HUD, RECD, the state Departments of Real Estate, Commerce, Insurance, Banking and the Attorney General’s Office. In 1994, the Committee oversaw the creation of a fair housing poster and brochure, a transit advertising campaign, and the creation of the format and recruitment of presenters for the Housing Summit. Other recent activities included the design and delivery of a six hour fair housing instructor development workshop, which was attended by over 100 persons. At the beginning of 1995, as an outcome of the Arizona Housing Summit, the Joint Committee began to transform into the Arizona Housing Network, which envisions functioning as a neutral body of parties that represent the interests of affordable housing that all sectors of the housing industry could turn to for assistance. The Arizona Housing Network has the mission “to provide responsible public‐private leadership in fair and affordable housing issues through education, research and public outreach in order to enhance our communities”. The Network will function as a statewide body that will work to establish and coordinate local coalitions. The Network will work to be inclusive, seeking statewide representation from the public and private for profit and nonprofit sectors and public entities. The first year goals of the Network are to: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Complete a publication on how to buy a house, sponsor fair housing posters, and pursue 501(c)(3) status. Establish relations with existing local coalitions and incubate new coalitions Sponsor a poster and essay contest with an affordable/fair housing day at the State Capitol. Better coordinate and market existing training programs. Produce an affordable housing newsletter. Participate in the preparation of this Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing. Provide advice on federal, state, and local housing policy, laws, regulations and programs Play an ombudsman, mediation role with public and private organizations. Perform fundraising Elevate public awareness on fair housing and affordable housing issues. 36 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Section Five During the Housing Summit, more than eighty persons from throughout Arizona volunteered to be part of the Housing Network. The levels of energy and commitment, plus a general feeling of enthusiasm, strongly indicate that the network will provide a substantial stimulus for the development of both fair and affordable housing initiatives throughout Arizona. The Department of Real Estate also developed the script and recruited the “actors” for highly regarded fair housing mock trials, which dramatically portrayed fair housing violations. These trials were presented around the state, and were attended by 1,700 persons, most of whom were real estate licensees. The Department believes that the mock trials were the catalyst for a surge in fair housing education throughout Arizona. The Department of Real Estate sponsors many fair housing courses, which are offered over the course of a year. As part of their VAMA agreements, homebuilders, real estate licensees and rental property managers must all receive at least three hours of fair housing training, over a period of two years. The courses offered cover basic fair housing tenets, disability statutes, property management and fair housing, occupancy standards, and fair credit. PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES Both the Arizona Association of Realtors® and the Central Arizona Homebuilders are participants in Voluntary Affirmative Marketing Agreements (VAMA). These agreements have the purpose of acknowledging that fair housing violations do exist, and the housing industry must be educated and vigilant to assure that all persons have equal access to housing. The Realtors® and Homebuilders require the participation of their members in the courses described above, develop and distribute brochures and publications on fair housing issues, monitor advertising for compliance and actively participate in forums and the Arizona Housing Network, which has replaced the Joint Committee on Fair Housing. In closing, the public and private sectors involved in housing in Arizona do actively participate in and support fair housing efforts. As mentioned in many places throughout this document, fair housing’s greatest enemy is ignorance, and the agencies mentioned in this section work hard to dispel myth and ignorance about the protected classes. 37 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice APPENDIX SURVEY OF STATEWIDE FAIR HOUSING ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS 38 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice To: Date: From: Subject: Appendix Affordable Housing & Fair Housing Advocacy Groups in Arizona February 24, 2004 Ondrea, Barber, Technical Assistance Coordinator SURVEY ON FAIR HOUSING ISSUES The Department of Housing is currently in the process of preparing the HUD‐required analysis of impediments to fair housing in Arizona and we need your assistance. Please complete the survey and return it to Ondrea Barber at (602‐771‐1002), no later than Friday March 15, 2004. Your responses to this survey will assist us in documenting existing impediments and will augment statistical data we are collecting and formatting. Please feel free to attach additional comments, if you wish to do so. 1. What is your service area (city, county, etc.)? 2. Do you believe that housing in the communities served by your organization is generally available without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin? 3. To the extent that discrimination does exist, please describe the form(s) this discrimination takes: Some examples include: a. Lack of political support for affordable housing programs and/or fair housing efforts. b. Not in my backyard (NIMBY) on location and/or funding of affordable housing. c. Unavailability of sites suitably zoned for affordable housing, i.e.: manufactured housing, higher densities. d. Other zoning issues, such as requiring large lot sizes, dedicated parcels for parks, schools, churches; expensive amenities, such as tile roofs, expensive facades. e. Unwillingness of local lenders to underwrite mortgage loans and multifamily loans for affordable units and low income households. f. Unwillingness of homeowner insurance companies to underwrite insurance for low‐income households in low income and/or racially impacted neighborhoods. g. Steady stream of complaints about discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. 4. The Fair Housing statutes protect persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status and national origin. Do you find that some of these categories experience discrimination more than others? Which categories? Are there typical ways in which they are discriminated against? 5. What positive things can you say about the status of racial discrimination in housing in your community? Are there positive trends taking place? 6. What recommendations do you have for actions that would reduce the level and kinds of discrimination in housing? . Please attach any additional comments. 39