ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
TO
FAIR HOUSING CHOICE

Submitted March 31, 2006

Arizona Department of Housing
1700 West Washington, Suite 210
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602/771‐1000 phone
602/771‐1002 fax
602/771‐1001 TTY
www.housingaz.com

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Purpose
2. Goals
a. Primary Goals
b. Intermediate Goals
3. Methods
4. Conclusions

a. Findings, Impediments, and Plan of Action
II. JURISDICTIONAL BACKGROUND DATA
1. History
a. Racial and Ethnic History of Arizona
b. Fair Housing History
2. Population and Demographics
3. Income/Poverty
4. Employment
5. Housing Profile
6. Minority Concentration Areas
III. EVALUATION OF JURISDICTIONAL CURRENT FAIR HOUSING
LEGAL STATUS
1. Fair Housing Laws and Policies
2. Fair Housing Actions by State of Arizona
3. Reasons for Trends or Patterns
IV. IDENTIFICATION OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
1. Prior AI: Accomplishments
2. Results of the Community Survey
3. Public Sector
a. Zoning and Land Use Codes
b. Neighborhood Revitalization and Affordable Housing
c. Subsidized Housing
d. Public Housing
e. Section 8
f. Downtown Revitalization
g. Property Tax Policies

3

h. Landlord Tenant Policies
i. Building Codes
4. Private Sector: Lending Policies and Practices
a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data
b. Conclusions from the HMDA Analysis

5. Public and Private Sector
a. Public Sector
Fair Housing Enforcement
Education and Outreach Programs
b. Private Sector
V. ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FAIR HOUSING
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES IN THE JURISDICTION
1. State of Arizona Activities
2. Federally Funded Private Enforcement Activities
3. Private Sector Activities
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Action Plan Matrix
ATTACHMENTS
1. Arizona CDBG Communities Not Included in the Jurisdiction of the State
2. Percent Change in Population in Arizona, 1990 to 2000
3. Percent White and Non‐Hispanic in Arizona, 2000
4. Percent Hispanic in Arizona, 2000
5. Percent Hispanic and Non‐White in Arizona, 2000
6. Percent Native American in Arizona, 2000
7. Percent African American in Arizona, 2000
8. Percent Non‐English speaker in Arizona, 2000
9. Median Household Income in Arizona, 1999
10. Percent Below Poverty Level in Arizona, 1999
11. Percent of Homeowners in Arizona, 2000

4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Drafts of this Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) were
prepared by the Southwest Fair Housing Council (SWFHC) under contract to the
Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH). ADOH exercised its right to edit the
final draft and assumes responsibility for its content or omissions.
Recognition for assistance in the development of this document is extended to
the following entities:
•

Arizona Department of Housing Staff for their review of drafts and their
valuable insights, recommendations, and suggestions.

•

The State of Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Division for
the enforcement information and data they provided.

•

HUD FHEO Staff, Region 9, San Francisco for their help in expediting our
FOIA requests.

•

The hundreds of Arizona residents who provided information for this
report either through interviews, surveys or in working with SWFHC over
the last several years.

•

Over 200 public and private agencies and organizations throughout the
state that directly contributed to this analysis or have collaborated with
SWFHC in the past and indirectly provided information through planning
sessions, trainings and events.

•

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) for their
analysis of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data contained in this
document.

•

Lisa Friel of Red Hawk Research for the development of the maps for this
AI.

•

The staff of the Southwest Fair Housing Council for the work they put
into portions of this AI.

Principle Author and Project Manager: Richard Rhey, SWFHC Executive Director

5

I INTRODUCTION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Purpose
In order to carry out the intent of Federal fair housing legislation, the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Fair Housing
and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) division, requires that Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement jurisdictions comply with regulations to
affirmatively further fair housing. This mandate is carried out by the CDBG
jurisdictions, in part, by completing an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
in their jurisdictions. The State of Arizona is a CDBG entitlement jurisdiction and
has authorized the Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH) to conduct this
analysis. HUD requirements for this document include the following:
1) Grantees are required to complete or update an “Analysis of Impediments to
Fair Housing Choice” (AI) pursuant to HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guidebook
every three (3) to five (5) years in coordination with the Consolidated Planning
Process;
2) Grantees are required to use their comprehensive AI study as the basis to
formulate a “Fair Housing Plan” with measurable “actions to be taken to
overcome the effects of any impediments” and take those appropriate actions;
and
3) Grantees are required to maintain records, including their AI study and
records to support actions taken and to be taken in regard to implementing their
Fair Housing Plan.
The last AI was completed and submitted by the Arizona Department of
Commerce in 1996. The Arizona Department of Housing was created in 2002
and the majority of housing programs and functions were transferred to this new
cabinet level agency. This AI will review current information and data available
from a number of sources, identify current impediments to fair housing under
the jurisdiction of the state, evaluate the efficacy of the 1996 Plan of Action, and
develop a new Plan of Action to address current impediments.
This AI is a supporting document to the 2005‐2009 State of Arizona Consolidated
Plan and needs to be reviewed and evaluated within the context of that Plan.
Detailed information regarding barriers to fair housing choice in CDBG‐entitled
communities may be found in the AI prepared by that jurisdiction.
6

Definition of Impediments to Fair Housing:
HUD defines Impediments as follows:
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion,
sex, disability, familial status, or national origin which restricts housing
choices or the availability of housing choice; or
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting
housing choices or the availability of housing choice on the basis of race,
color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.
2. Fair Housing Goals of the State of Arizona
a. Primary Goals:
The primary goals of the State in developing this AI and implementing its Plan of
Action are consistent with HUD objectives in requiring CDBG jurisdictions to
affirmatively further fair housing and include the following:
1. Strive to eliminate all forms of illegal housing discrimination in the State
of Arizona.
2. Actively promote fair housing choice for all persons in Arizona.
3. Provide opportunities for inclusive patterns of housing occupancy
regardless of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, disability, and
national origin.
4. Actively promote housing that is structurally accessible to, and usable by,
all persons, particularly persons with disabilities within Arizona.
5. Foster compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of the Fair
Housing Act in Arizona.
b. Intermediate Goals:
The State of Arizona has established the following intermediate goals to facilitate
achieving the five primary goals identified above:
1. Maintain a firm and continued commitment to the analysis, planning, and
implementation necessary to achieve fair housing goals.
2. Create a comprehensive Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI)
document, and devise a carefully structured plan for addressing
impediments that are firmly grounded in the its conclusions.
3. Take effective actions based on a realistic assessment of available
resources.

7

4. Increase cooperation between public and private agencies in promoting
public awareness of fair housing issues.
5. Educate the public on fair housing issues.
6. Effectively enforce fair housing laws.
7. Increase community awareness and promote equal housing opportunity
and fair housing choices in the community.
3. Methods
This study was prepared by the Southwest Fair Housing Council (SWFHC) on
behalf of the Arizona Department of Housing. SWFHC has had input from and
the cooperation of ADOH staff, public officials, the staff of agencies and non‐
profit service organizations, members of the housing industry and residents
throughout the State of Arizona. Much of the information in this AI was collected
by ADOH in an earlier draft of this document.
General Methodology:
Information was compiled and the study developed by ADOH and SWFHC
staff from the following sources:
1. Reports and studies conducted and provided on a local, state and national
level.
2. The State of Arizona 2005‐2009 Consolidated Plan.
3. Interviews with a wide range of individuals informed on housing issues
and who were located either in non‐metro areas or with agencies whose
service area was statewide. The interviews consisted of both structured
and open ended questions.
4. A survey of over 300 non‐metro residents of the state.
5. Input by residents at community meetings.
6. Newspaper articles and other local publications.
7. Data from public and private agencies including HUD, the State Attorney
General’s Office, Civil Rights Division, and SWFHC.
8. Discussions in the context of training sessions for housing providers by
SWFHC staff.
9. Review, critique, and discussion of drafts with ADOH personnel.

8

4. Conclusions
Findings, Impediments, and Plan of Action
There were a total of nine impediments identified in the development of the
current AI. These impediments were identified by one or more of the types of
evidence that were noted in the methods section immediately prior to this
section. The specifics regarding this evidence are discussed in the body of this
document.
The identification of impediments does not assure their elimination.
Impediments to fair housing can be complex and embedded into the social,
economic and cultural fabric of a community or jurisdiction. There can be
national and global political and economic forces at play that are beyond state or
community level solutions. Attesting to this are the amount of work and
resources expended to eliminate the barriers to fair housing that were identified
in the 1996 Arizona AI. Based upon research and conclusions herein, these
remain as impediments today and are again included in this AI. This does not
suggest that real progress has not been made, but it does demonstrate the extent
and persistent nature of the challenge.
As difficult as it is to eliminate impediments, it is imperative that efforts are
extended to do so. Impediments are to a large extent an artifact of past public
and private policy decisions. How equitable the housing market will be for us,
our children and our families in the future depends upon our ability today to
identify impediments, analyze to understand their nature and basis, and develop
and implement comprehensive plans of action to eliminate them. The results are
then evaluated and the process is repeated. This analysis renews and expands
the efforts of the state to achieve fair housing in Arizona.
These efforts are primarily shared by two state agencies. The Arizona
Department of Housing assumes responsibility for providing outreach and
education activities in the non‐CDBG entitled areas of the state, while the
Arizona Attorney General’s Office assumes responsibility for enforcement.
Impediment #1
Many housing consumers lack knowledge of their fair housing rights, where to go for
information, and how to get help if they believe they or someone they know have
experienced housing discrimination.

9

Based on the community survey, interviews, the experience of staff of public and
private housing agencies, and observations by fair housing enforcement and
education and outreach providers over the last several years, three things are
evidenced. First, housing consumers are not well informed regarding their rights
under FHA. Second, many consumers do not know what housing discrimination
entails and cannot recognize it when it occurs. Third, most housing consumers
do not know where to report housing discrimination, how to file a complaint nor
where to go for help if they encounter discrimination. ADOH also identified this
impediment in the 2005‐2009 Consolidated Plan as an objective that will be
addressed over the next 5 years.1
Action Plan for Impediment #1:
The Plan of Action to eliminate this impediment includes the following:
1. ADOH will continue to fund education and outreach (E&O) throughout
non‐metro Arizona as it has since 1994. ADOH presently contracts with a
fair housing provider to conduct education and outreach throughout the
non‐CDBG entitled areas of the state. This includes (but is not limited to)
the following:
a. Conduct four (4) fair housing workshops targeting housing
consumers in each of the rural 13 counties in Arizona. These
workshops will be offered in Spanish if appropriate. Last year
about 28% of the workshops and presentations were provided
either completely or partially in Spanish.
b. Provide four (4) presentations in each of the 13 rural counties at
sessions sponsored by local organizations.
c. Provide a presence (e.g. staff a table) and distribute fair housing
materials at a minimum of two (2) events in each of the 13 rural
counties (e.g. county fair).
d. Identify and establish a minimum of fifteen (15) sites per rural
county at which fair housing literature will be distributed on an on‐
going basis, and ensure that sufficient materials are always on hand
each 12 month period.
e. Distribute at least 12,000 pieces of fair housing literature in the
rural county service areas annually.
f. Ensure that all training and outreach, including materials, are
offered in English and Spanish.

1

ADOH 2005‐2009 Consolidated Plan, pgs. 11‐12

10

g. Conduct at least two (2) local radio talk shows regarding fair
housing that will be broadcast in each county that has such
capacity.
h. Partner with statewide organizations, local groups, local
governments, fair housing based groups, schools libraries,
disabilities groups, non‐profits, and others to plan and conduct
these activities.
i. Participate in all Arizona Fair Housing Partnership (AFHP)
quarterly meetings.
j. Conduct the above activities out of locally based outreach offices
provided by collaborating agencies in rural counties and including
Benson, Bisbee, Douglas, Flagstaff, Nogales, Safford, Sierra Vista,
and Yuma.
k. ADOH will support and through its E&O subcontractor will
actively participate in activities conducted and sponsored by the
Arizona Fair Housing Partnership (AFHP).
l. ADOH will annually request a proclamation from the Governor
declaring April Fair Housing Month. This proclamation is helpful
in building awareness of Fair Housing throughout the state and
kicks off fair housing activities that are conducted in April.
Impediment #2
Housing providers need to be better informed regarding their responsibilities to comply
with the Federal Fair Housing Act.
This AI investigation, which included interviews, surveys, the results of systemic
testing, and the observations of fair housing providers conducting E&O over the
last several years showed that many real estate agents, property managers,
property owners, media advertising agents, home insurance agents, lenders, and
other providers are not as well informed as they need to be regarding compliance
with fair housing laws. Several problems were evidenced, including the
following:
While fair housing training is available many providers do not obtain the
training or information that can help them.
Some property managers may not account for high staff turnover and
provide training for staff as often as is needed.
Some small property owners may be misinformed and believe they are
exempt from the Fair Housing Act and need to comply.
There are many grey areas between such issues as security, safety, and
liability on one hand and housing rights on the other. Many providers
11

need up‐to‐date information in these areas in order to make better
informed decisions.
Housing providers in rural areas often need to drive long distances at
considerable expense to receive the training they need.
Action Plan to Address Impediment #2
1. ADOH will continue to contract with a state certified provider to conduct
fair housing training to housing providers throughout the non‐metro rural
areas of the state. To overcome the barrier of time and distance for
providers these trainings will take place in the rural areas themselves.
2. ADOH will continue to contract with a provider that is able to offer
continuing education units (CEUs) to real estate agents in non‐metro areas
throughout the state. CEUs provide an effective incentive for agents to
participate in quality fair housing trainings. The current ADOH contract
with SWFHC runs until July 2007 and provides for four (4) fair housing
workshops annually in each county for real estate agents, landlords,
property managers, lenders, housing authority staff, and non‐profit
housing program staff.
3. ADOH will contract with a provider to develop and distribute educational
materials to housing providers. Presently, the current ADOH contract
with SWFHC includes the distribution of 12,000 pieces of literature
annually to both housing providers and consumers.
Impediment #3
There is a need throughout the state for more affordable housing.
Affordable housing is an issue that is interwoven into the economic, political,
social, and cultural fabric of every community in the state. While the reasons for
needing affordable housing can be argued, there is a relationship between
affordable housing and fair housing. Economic, political, and social factors ‐ as
well as many housing policies ‐ both on a state and community level have a
decisive impact on creating or eliminating barriers to fair housing. The
relationship between affordable and fair housing is evidenced, in part, by the
following:
• The availability of affordable housing has a disparate impact on persons
protected under the Fair Housing Act. Demographic, employment, and
income data show that minorities, families with children (including single
parent families), and persons with disabilities are proportionally
overrepresented in low‐income data and are most in need of affordable
housing.
12

•

•

•

Because of the connection between affordable housing and the protected
classes covered by the Fair Housing Act, the term ”affordable” is laden
with inaccurate stereotypes. Thus, affordable housing and the policies
that can make it happen may be opposed by Not In My Back Yard
(NIMBY) groups for a myriad of specious reasons that may obscure the
real intent of critics.
The location of affordable housing is critically important to the financial,
educational, and social well‐being of protected classes. The distance and
accessibility (e.g. public transportation) from affordable housing to
employment, good schools, parks, hospitals, etc. may become fair housing
issues.
The disparate and less favorable provision of public services to affordable
neighborhoods may create safety concerns, lower property values, induce
redlining, and facilitate the deterioration of the neighborhood.

In virtually every interview and survey that SWFHC conducted in the state, the
lack of affordable housing was expressed as the top housing priority.
Action Plan to Address Impediment #3
• ADOH administers a number of programs which directly create
affordable housing. This AI is a component of the Consolidated Planning
process and these programs are described in detail in the 2005‐2009
Consolidated Plan (Con Plan). The reader is referred to that document for
a discussion of the accomplishments of the state in creating affordable
housing. In addition, the Con Plan also presents the strategies that the
State will use to facilitate and support the development of affordable
housing over the next five years.
In addition, ADOH will provide the following:
1. ADOH will direct their E&O provider to include information on the
importance of affordable housing to fair housing in fair housing trainings
and literature.
2. ADOH will conduct the annual “Governor’s Housing Forum.” Last year
the event drew over 300 participants statewide. The following are just a
few examples of the topics at previous breakout sessions:
a. Making the Case for Affordable Housing
b. Challenges Facing Public Housing
c. Non‐profit 101: Fundamentals of the Affordable Housing
Development Process for a Board of Directors
d. Tribal Housing Initiative Update
13

e. The Business Case for Affordable Housing: Why we Need a
Workforce Housing Plan
f. Preserving Affordability: Strategies and New Ideas
Impediment #4
There is a need to improve the process for a fair housing complaint referral in many non‐
metro communities.
Many public and private agencies that work with housing consumers do not
have clear and consistent procedures for reporting or referring people who are
having problems in fair housing. Interviews and past experience by SWFHC in
working with public and private agencies throughout the state for the last 10
years indicated that staff in these agencies reported that they receive few
complaints they could identify as fair housing and are generally unsure of where
to refer people. This indicates that staff members may not be trained well enough
to recognize fair housing issues or understand what constitutes illegal housing
discrimination. If fair housing complaints are not recognized, people do not
receive the help they need or get referred to an agency that can help them. Also,
inquiries, allegations and complaints are often not recorded and the true
prevalence of housing discrimination is obscured. This, in turn, feeds a vicious
cycle. A perception is fostered in residents that nothing happens and follow‐up
does not occur when a complaint is made and this discourages people from
calling or making contact. This Action Plan seeks to break this cycle.
Action Plan to Address Impediment #4
1. ADOH will monitor the referral procedures of all CDBG recipients
through an annual questionnaire. Recipients will identify procedures
used to log contacts, identify the referral agencies, and participate in
training if they lack adequate procedures or the knowledge to implement
them.
2. ADOH will continue to invest its own resources and contract with a
provider to offer training at no cost to the participant.
3. ADOH will enlist a subcontractor to provide printed materials to agencies
listing where complaints can be referred and what components of an
effective referral system entail.

14

Impediment #5
Predatory practices and disparities in lending negatively impact protected classes in non‐
metro Arizona.
There were two areas in home lending that were identified as impediments to
fair housing in Arizona. These were predatory lending and disparities in lending.
a. Predatory Lending:
The terms of home loans, including first mortgages, refinancing and home equity
loans, are not public information and virtually unobtainable, except in rare cases.
However, inferences can be made from interviews, anecdotal accounts,
marketing, allegations, complaints, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
data and foreclosure rates. These indicate that predatory lending is found in
Arizona, as it is nationwide.
Action Plan to Address Impediment #5: Predatory Lending
Predatory lenders can be located anywhere in the country and few are actually
located in Arizona. This compounds the problem of addressing the issue. In
addition, there is neither a federal nor state law prohibiting specific predatory
lending practices. Also, a majority of predatory lenders do not report to the
Federal Reserve and there is little information to monitor and evaluate.
Nonetheless, while enforcement is limited, there is much that can and is being
done in the area of education and outreach. The Action Plan to address
predatory lending includes the following:
1. ADOH will direct the inclusion of information on predatory lending in
fair housing education and outreach materials as well as trainings and
presentations.
2. The annual Governor’s Housing Forum may include sessions on
predatory and abusive lending.
3. ADOH will cooperate with agencies that have responsive predatory
lending education programs, such as American Association of Retired
People (AARP), Fannie Mae, and the “Don’t Borrow Trouble”
campaign sponsored by Freddie Mac. The ADOH E&O provider will
distribute these materials in the trainings, sessions and with the other
fair housing literature statewide.
b. Disparities in Lending Affecting FHA Protected Classes:
SWFHC collaborated with the National Community Reinvestment Coalition
(NCRC) in Washington D.C. to analyze the lending data for the State. The
analysis in this report comes from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
15

reports that most lenders are required to file annually with the Federal Reserve
Bank and includes data from 2004.
The analysis shows a number of concerning disparities. Among them are that
Hispanics and Native Americans received significantly higher proportions of sub
prime loans (loans with higher fees and interest rates and less favorable terms)
than whites virtually everywhere in non‐metro Arizona. Even allowing for
income disparities by comparing all Hispanic and Native American borrowers
with low‐income borrowers these minorities had a significantly higher
proportion of sub‐prime loans. This result suggests that Hispanic and Native
American borrowers are provided less favorable loans in a significant number of
cases.
Action Plan to Address Impediment #5: Disparities in Lending
Using 2004 as a base line, annually review HMDA data to determine trends.
1. Include the issue of sub‐prime lending in E&O to increase the
awareness of consumers, direct them to sources of lending
counseling before procuring a home mortgage, and inform them of
foreclosure counseling if a sub‐prime loan is the cause of default.
Impediment #6
Information gathering and monitoring fair housing performance needs to be improved.
The lack of information or increased difficulty in gathering direct evidence,
including the following issues, were determined to be a significant barrier to fair
housing:
1. Many communities lack a systematic and comprehensive intake and/or
referral process for fair housing complaints.
2. The staff in public and private agencies who deal with the public need to be
trained and re‐trained on a regular basis in order to recognize fair housing
issues and accurately and effectively process, refer, and log housing
allegations.
The gathering of information for this AI made only too clear that critical
information regarding fair housing is not readily available or, in many cases, not
available at all. Further evidence came from surveys and interviews and
feedback in trainings. Because information is often not available the true
prevalence of discrimination is not known. In addition, the documentation
needed for planning, evaluation, reports, and proposals to secure resources to
16

combat discrimination is not available. In all too many cases each time planning
occurs or a proposal or report is drafted the “wheel” needs to be reinvented and
a great deal of time and money is spent trying to put together information that
many times has never been recorded. Planners are then forced to use indirect and
often less persuasive evidence that critics are able to downplay. Accusations that
the evidence does not prove discrimination occurs is less than accurate. The
accumulation of a great deal of less direct evidence, such as racial and ethnic
concentrations, surveys, interviews with informed respondents and feedback
from trainings can provide powerful support for the identification of fair housing
barriers and informed planning to combat these. However, the systemic
collection of information regarding allegations, complaints, processing, and
referrals and the way this information is collected and logged can only improve
data collection and allow reports, proposals and planning to be conducted more
expeditiously.
Action Plan to Address Impediment # 6
ADOH will encourage all CDBG recipients to fill out annual questionnaires that
will provide some of the information discussed here. Other agencies will be
encouraged to complete the questionnaires voluntarily.
Impediment #7
Enforcement needs to be increased in rural areas. In particular, there needs to be greater
focus on border areas, Colonias, and communities surrounding Native American
reservations where discrimination has been shown to be particularly high.
The data that SWFHC collected indicates that there has been insufficient auditing
and monitoring for fair housing compliance by housing providers in non‐metro
areas. This data includes the proportion of testing that has been reported in non‐
metro areas versus metro areas.
Action Plan to Address Impediment #7
In 2003, in response to a HUD priority, SWFHC began to focus testing in border
communities, Colonias, and communities near Native American reservations.
The Southwest Fair Housing Council will continue to conduct this testing and
will report to ADOH annually regarding the nature of the tests and the results.
ADOH and its contractor will, in turn, use this information to plan responsive
E&O activities. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has also opened
numerous satellite offices around the state to help increase their enforcement
efforts.

17

Impediment #8

NIMBYism impedes both fair and affordable housing.
The NIMBY or the “Not in My Backyard” obstruction to affordable housing and
polices that could reduce barriers is noted by HUD as a key impediment to
affordable housing; however, there is such a demand for affordable housing in
rural Arizona that many communities are actually encouraging development.
Nonetheless, there are examples of opposition for multi‐family and higher
density development, primarily in existing neighborhoods. A few communities
have reported that the public hearing process has been used to stop higher‐
density developments that require rezoning, and has delayed other higher‐
density developments that did not require rezoning.
Action Plan to Address Impediment #8
NIMBYism is not an easy issue to deal with since freedom of speech is rightly
valued in our country. However, there are two things that can be done to
respond to people’s expressions of fear regarding affordable housing:
1. ADOH will continue to educate the public about the value of affordable
housing and cost‐effectiveness of higher‐density development. These
issues will be included in trainings and literature.
2. The annual Governor’s Housing Forum will continue to have breakout
sessions that include NIMBY opposition as topics. The purpose of the
breakout sessions is to brainstorm effective strategies for working with
local communities.
Impediment #9
Existing fair housing resources are underutilized.
While funding for fair housing activities is limited and getting scarcer, there are
existing resources that are not being used effectively. Many public and private
organizations that offer fair housing resources to their constituents and the
public are underutilized. A better use of the resources that are available may help
to improve fair housing compliance. This observation is based on interviews,
surveys, feedback from trainings, and phone logs.
The following are actions that could be done to improve the use of resources that
are already available:
1. The E&O provider under contract to ADOH will develop and distribute a
list of fair housing resources organized by interest groups.

18

2. The Arizona Fair Housing Partnership will continue to include this issue
on their agenda and in future activity plans.
3. The E&O provider under contract to ADOH will contact and encourage
organizations to review the information they have provided information
and referral agencies to assure that it is inclusive of any fair housing
activities they offer and up‐to‐date.
II. JURISDICTIONAL BACKGROUND DATA
Historical Background:
Today, Fair Housing is playing out on a stage set by geography, climate, and
history. The understanding of these dynamics helps to understand the current
social, economic, and political vectors.
Geography:
Arizona is divided into two distinct geographical areas. Northern Arizona lies on
the fringe of the Colorado Plateau, an area of dry plains more than 4,000 ft. high
with deep canyons ‐ including the Grand Canyon ‐ carved by the Colorado River.
Along the little Colorado River, which runs northwest through the plateau to join
the large Colorado, lies the Painted Desert, where erosion has left colorful layers
of sediment exposed, and the Petrified Forest National Park, one of the worlds
most extensive areas of petrified wood. South of the Grand Canyon are the San
Francisco Peaks, including Humphrey’s Peak, the highest point (12,655 ft.) in the
state. The southern edge of the Colorado plateau is marked by an escarpment
called Mogollon Rim.
The southern half of the state has desert basins broken up by mountains with
rocky peaks extending northwest to southeast across central Arizona. To the
south the Gila River, a major tributary of the Colorado, flows west across the
entire state. This area has desert plains separated by mountain chains running
north and south; in the west the plains fall to the relatively low altitude of 140ft.
in the region around Yuma.
Although some mountain peaks receive an annual rainfall of more than 30
inches, annually precipitation in most of the state is low. Since the early 20th
century, massive irrigation projects have been built in Arizona’s valleys. The
Roosevelt, Horse Mesa, Mormon Flat, and Stewart Dams irrigate the Salt River
Valley. The Gillespie Dam along the Gila River irrigates the Yuma area. The

19

Coolidge Dam serves the area near Casa Grande in the Southeast. Finally, the
Hoover, Glen Canyon, Davis and Parker, Imperial, and Laguna Dams along the
Colorado serve California as well as Arizona. The Parker Dam feeds the Central
Arizona Project which diverts water to Phoenix via a canal.2
Much of Arizona’s history has been shaped by an inadequate water supply and
competition for this scarce resource.3 The economic and residence patterns today
are largely the result of political battles and policies to harness power and divert
water for agriculture, mining, manufacturing and residential development from
the rivers in or adjacent to Arizona. The battle has been both between power
factions within the state and between states and the disparity of economies in
localities today is largely a reflection of who won and who lost.
Racial and Ethnic History of Arizona
The original residents of Arizona are ancestral to some of the Native American
populations in Arizona today and go back at least 10,000 years. The Spanish
conquest of Mexico in the 16th century and their movement into Arizona in the
17th, along with the development of settlements and missions in the 18th century
created a Hispanic culture in Arizona that was distinct from Native American
culture, and, to an extent, in competition and in conflict with it.
Europeans and Americans trickled into Arizona in the early 1800’s primarily in
search of furs and minerals. As migration increased white Anglo Americans
began to see the cultural, economic and political domination of Arizona as their
“manifest destiny.” The War with Mexico (1846‐48) ended with the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo which ceded all Mexican territory north of the Gila River to
the United States. The Gadsden Purchase in 1853 completed the acquisition of
Mexican territory and formed the present border with Mexico. The strong
Mormon presence in Arizona today began with early Mormon settlements in the
late 1840’s and early 1850’s and a larger migration to what are now Apache and
Navajo Counties in the early 1870’s.
The character of white culture and beliefs prevented an amalgamation and,
instead, asserted a forced cultural assimilation that was resisted by both Hispanic
and Native American populations. The result was cultural and residential
segregation for Hispanics and the establishment of reservations for Native
Americans. The history of white Anglo political, economic and social policies
2
3

www.infoplease.com
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press. 2004

20

based on cultural beliefs and labor imperatives particularly in mining and
agriculture has helped shape the impediments to fair housing that are active in
Arizona today. In addition, communities in the state near reservations have been
zones of fair housing tension between Native Americans and Anglos which is
expressed in increased discrimination.
The tragedy of 9/11 has created new fair housing challenges as a balance is being
sought between security and a fair and equitable immigration policy.4 Migration
into the United States from Mexico has historically been driven by disparities in
economies and the need for labor ever since Arizona was acquired by the United
Sates. However, since 9/11, migration has become a burning issue. Some of the
attitudes being expressed in cases of housing discrimination have been the result
of stereotypes etched by the fear of terrorism and immigration controls and
policies that many believe are not restrictive enough.
African Americans began to move into Arizona on the heels of white control of
Mexican territory. This early migration was small and many came to escape
slavery. In fact, early political and economic incentives for white control of the
Southwest were designed to block the flight of slaves into Mexican territory and
to increase the number of slave states. In 1861 Arizona joined the Confederacy.
As the war ended in 1865, Arizona was declared a territory independent of New
Mexico. After the war there was migration into the state by white southerners
who felt they were either displaced or disenfranchised by Reconstruction in the
south. This helped to establish the politically conservative base which continued
to be bolstered by Mormon settlement and the migration of white collar
Midwesterners in 20th century. The black population in Arizona grew slowly but
significantly over the last quarter of the 19th century primarily because of
employment opportunities in mining, manufacturing and as domestics. By 1900
the African American population of Phoenix had grown to 2.7% of the total
population. In 1901 Arizona law prohibited “the marriage of a person of
Caucasian blood with a Negro or Mongolian” and in 1909 de facto segregation
was codified by the Territorial Legislature by enabling school districts to
segregate on the basis of race and ethnicity. This law remained in force until 1954
when segregation was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the
landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. At that time Arizona
was one of only four states outside of the South permitting segregated schools. In
Jones, Susanne, and Tactaquin, Catherine, 4” Latino Immigration Rights in the Shadow of the
National Security State: Responses to Domestic Preemptive Strikes”. Social Justice vol. 31, Issue1‐
2, 2004.

21

reality segregation had extended not just to schools but to every public venue in
Arizona including restaurants, theaters, hospitals, hotels, swimming pools,
buses, social clubs and housing, for almost a century. Even though segregation
was precluded by law in Arizona after 1954 the racial attitudes on which
segregation was based did not suddenly end and in fact linger to this day.5 In
1992, by referendum, Arizona was the last of the 50 states to declare a holiday to
honor the Civil Rights efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The African American population continued to grow in Arizona, along with
other populations, during and after World War II because of employment
opportunities in war industries and later in manufacturing and the military.
Today, while the African American population in Arizona is about 3.5% of the
total population, it is substantially higher in communities with manufacturing
and military bases like the Phoenix metro area, Yuma, and Fort Huachuca near
Sierra Vista. It is also in these areas that the number of housing discrimination
complaints increase.
In the final analysis, it is important to recognize that social, political and
economic factors provide a context for public and private policy decisions over
the course of Arizona’s history. It is for this reason that the AI is so important.
Invariably it is today’s policy decisions that will define the social landscape and
the state of fair housing in Arizona in the future and for this reason it is
imperative that these be informed decisions.
History of Fair Housing Legislation in Arizona
The Fair Housing Act of 1968 made it illegal to discriminate in the area of
housing because of a person’s race, color, religion, or national origin. Gender, as
a protected class, was added in the 1970s. In 1988, the Fair Housing
Amendments Act added familial status and disability (referred to Handicapped
in FHAA) to the list. The familial status provision protects households with
children under 18 years of age. Disability covers physical and mental disabilities,
including persons with HIV/AIDS, or in recovery from substance abuse. Federal
protection under FHA does not cover discrimination based on age, income,
source of income or sexual orientation, although some local non‐discrimination
statutes or ordinances may.

Governor Janet Napolitano, “Brown V. Board of Education 50tht Anniversary Speech”. ASU,
May 1, 2004. http://www.governor.state.azus/speeches/04_05_01.htm.
5

22

2. Population and Demographics
Statewide Data on Demographics, Income, Poverty, Employment, Housing
Profile and Minority Concentrations
This section shows in narrative and table formats statewide data related to
population, income, poverty, employment, and housing. The information
presented was primarily obtained from the 2000 Census, 2000 HUD CHAS data,
HMDA data, and various studies by ADOH and the Arizona Housing
Commission.
Statewide Demographic Data
During the 1990s, the total population in Arizona increased by 40% (or by
1,465,400 people), from 3,665,228 in 1990 to 5,130,632 in 2000. As of 2004, the total
population is 5,633,997 ‐ an increase of 503,365 persons. Of the total new
population, 84.5% live in the two metropolitan counties of Maricopa and Pima
and the remaining 15.5% in the 13 rural counties. In terms of percentage
population growth in the 1990s, Arizona was the second fastest growing state in
the nation; Nevada was first.
The distribution of state population by race and ethnicity, based on the 2004
Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, is as follows:
ƒ
ƒ

28.1% Hispanic origin.
36.2% minority (according to Population Statistics Unit of the Arizona
Department of Economic Security).
ƒ 77.4% White (Hispanic and Non‐Hispanic White).

23

Further details regarding the population of Arizona are presented in Table 1:

Table 1: Arizona Population by Race and Ethnicity – Year 2004
% of Total
Race or Ethnicity
Number
Population
5,633,997
100%
Total Population
5,503,262

97.7%

One Race
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

White
4,359,283
77.4%
Black or African American
170,057
3.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native
270,662
4.8%
Asian
123,766
2.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
8,065
0.1%
Islander
ƒ Some Other Race
571,429
10.1%
Two or More Races
130,735
2.3%
Hispanic or Latino*
1,584,217
28.1%
Not Hispanic or Latino
4,049,780
71.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004 American Community Survey.
* Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race; Hispanic is not a race, it is an ethnicity.

Population by Age
Many people may think Arizona is a retirement state with a median age in the
40s or 50s; however, that is a myth rather than a reality. According to the 2004
Census Bureau estimates, the median age in Arizona was 34.1 years ‐ lower than
the U.S. median age of 36.2 years.
ƒ

School‐Age Population (Under 18 Years) ‐ Data presented in Table 2 shows
the school age population (under 18 years) in Arizona is 27.4% of the total
population.
ƒ Working‐Age Population (18 to 65 Years) ‐ This population group
comprises 60.0 % of the total population.
ƒ Retirement‐Age Population (65 Years and Over) – As of 2004, 12.6% of the
total state population was 65 years old and over. It is important to note that
almost 6% of the 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.

24

Table 2: Arizona Population by Age – Year 2004
Selected Age Category

Number
5,633,997

% of Total
Population
100%

Total Population
Under 5 Years
451,904
Under 18 Years
1,543,715
18 to 64 Years
3,380,398
65 Years and Over
709,031
65 to 74 Years
394,356
75 to 84 Years
251,822
85 Years and Over
62,853
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004 American Community Survey.

8.0%
27.4%
60.0%
12..6%
7.0%
4.5%
1.1%

3. Income/Poverty
With the rapid economic growth over the last few decades, 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.

25

Table 3: Average Income Indicators for Arizona and U.S. – 2004*
Arizona
U.S.
Average Income Indicator
Median Household Income $41,995
$44,684
Median Family Income
$48,995
$53,692
Per Capita Income
$22,105
$24,020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004 American Community Survey.
* adjusted for inflation.

Lower incomes in Arizona are most likely due to a combination of lower wages,
lower cost of living, lower manufacturing employment, weaker unions, higher
minority concentration, and a highly market‐oriented business environment.
Household Income by Income Category
Arizonans fair better than the U.S. average at the lower income brackets and fall
below the U.S. average at the higher income brackets. For example:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

8.6% of households in Arizona make less than $10,000 per year, as compared
to 9.5% for the U.S.
60.4% of households in Arizona make less than $50,000 per year, as
compared to 58% for the U.S.
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.

26

Table 4: Household Income ‐ 1999
Arizona
U.S.
Number of
% of Total
Number of
% of Total
Households
Households
Households
Households
1,901,625
100.0%
105,539,122
100.0%
163,221
8.6%
10,067,027
9.5%
120,770
6.4%
6,657,228
6.3%
128,205
6.7%
13,536,965
6.3%
270,248
14.2%
13,519,242
13.0%
253,930
13.4%
17,446,272
12.3%
210,511
11.1%
20,540,604
10.6%
365,024
19.2%
10,799,245
19.5%
184,026
9.7%
8,147,826
10.2%
205,690
10.8%
2,322,038
12.3%

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
$40,558
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and ADOH.

$41,994

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

ƒ

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 Whites.
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 Whites.
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 6.7% for Blacks, 11.6% for Whites, and 15.7% for Asians.
This is the only income category where Asians surpass Whites.

27

For further details, please refer to Table 5:
Table 5: Median Household Income by Income Category and by Race or
Ethnicity
Two
Hawaiians
and Other Some or
Not
Total
Native
Pacific Other More
Arizona
Pop
White Black Americans Asian Islanders Race Races Hispanic Hispanic
Less than $10,000
8.6% 7.3% 13.5%
24.2% 11.9%
8.3% 11.0%13.3%
11.6%
7.9%
Less than $15,000
14.9% 13.3% 21.2%
33.9% 16.9%
18.2% 19.1%20.8%
20.0%
13.9%
Less than $20,000
21.7% 19.7% 28.5%
42.6% 22.0%
21.9% 28.5%28.3%
29.2%
20.1%
Less Than $30,000
35.9% 33.4% 44.2%
58.0% 32.8%
34.8% 46.9%44.3%
46.9%
33.6%
Less than $40,000
49.7% 47.1% 58.2%
70.8% 44.3%
51.3% 63.1%59.4%
62.9%
46.9%
Less than $50,000
60.8% 58.2% 68.7%
79.5% 54.0%
64.8% 75.2%70.6%
74.3%
57.9%
Less than $75,000
80.0% 78.1% 85.4%
93.0% 72.6%
82.5% 91.7%87.2%
90.3%
77.8%
Less than $100,000
89.7% 88.4% 93.3%
97.5% 84.3%
93.0% 97.3%95.1%
96.5%
88.2%
More than $100,000
10.3% 11.6% 6.7%
2.5% 15.7%
7.0% 2.7% 4.9%
3.5%
11.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and ADOH.

Poverty by Race and Ethnicity
The 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 Blacks, as compared to 9.9% for White.
Further details on poverty by race and ethnicity are presented in Table 6.

28

Table 6: Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity – Year 2000

Race or Ethnicity

Universe for
Poverty
4,634,191

Number in
Poverty
619,344

% in Poverty
13.4%

Total Population
White
3,549,285
351,871
9.9%
Black or African American
131,182
25,516
19.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native
222,428
81,194
36.5%
Asian
83,221
10,374
12.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
5,435
877
16.1%
Islander
Some Other Race
513,670
125,416
24.4%
Two or More Races
128,970
24,096
18.7%
Hispanic or Latino*
1,116,887
263,929
23.6%
Not Hispanic or Latino
3,517,304
355,415
10.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
* Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race; Hispanic is not a race, it is an ethnicity.

Poverty and Disability
In general, people with a disability have higher incidences of poverty than
people with no disability.
ƒ

ƒ

According to the 2000 Census, 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%
respectively.
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%, respectively.

29

Table 7: Poverty Status in Arizona by Disability Status for the Civilian Non‐
Institutionalized Population, 2000
Number of Disabled
% of Population With
Disability Status by Sex and Age
Persons
Disability Status
Males > 5 years of age with a
458,334
20.1%
disability
Income in 1999 below poverty
73,430
16.0%
level
Income in 1999 at or above
384,904
84.0%
poverty level
Females > 5 years of age with a
440,357
18.7%
disability
Income in 1999 below poverty
83,966
19.1%
level
Income in 1999 at or above
356,391
80.9%
poverty level
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and ADOH.

4. EMPLOYMENT PROFILE

The main economic sectors in Arizona include services, government, and trade.
The single largest economic sector is services, employing more than 1,130,300
people in 2005. Wholesale and retail trade provided 400,000 jobs. Many of these
jobs are directly related to tourism, an industry that injects more than $12 billion
into the economy of Arizona each year.
In 2005, manufacturing accounted for 176,100 jobs ‐ or approximately 7.1% of the
employment statewide ‐ and has historically generated almost 15% of wages and
salaries.
The construction sector, also very important to the economy, accounted for
209,800 jobs or 8.5% of the employment in the state in 2005. This sector has
experienced a substantial increase in construction activity over the past few
years.

30

Table 8: Arizona Employment by Industry – January to October Average: 2005
Employment
Number
405,800
347,800
304,000
272,900
250,700
209,800
176,100
168,500
96,000
90,400
78,100
46,000
20,200
8,800
2,475,100

Percent of Total
Employment
16.4%
14.1%
12.3%
11.0%
10.1%
8.5%
7.1%
6.8%
3.9%
3.7%
3.2%
1.9%
0.8%
0.4%
100.0%

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
Source: DES and ADOH.
Note: Employment data for Agriculture is from ES‐202; all other data from Labor
Force and Non‐Farm Employment.

In terms of urban and rural split, 85.7% of total jobs in 2005 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
more limited when compared to the urban counties. For example, the 2005
unemployment rate in Yuma and Apache Counties were 15.6% and 11.5%,
compared to 4.1% and 4.5% for the two urban counties of Maricopa and Pima.
5. Housing Profile
Single family dwellings are the primary type of housing both in the state of
Arizona and for the U.S. as a whole. Census Bureau’s 2004 data reveals that
64.2% of the total housing units in Arizona are single family homes, 21.9%
multifamily, and about 14% manufactured and other forms of housing.
Comparable numbers for the U.S. are 66.8%, 26.0% and 7.2%, respectively.
Specific numbers and percentages of housing units by housing type are
presented in Table 9.

31

Table 9: Arizona and U.S. Housing Distribution by Housing Type
Arizona
U.S.
Housing Information Indicator
Number
%
Number
Total Number of Units in 2004:
2,458,231 100% 122,671,734
Single Family
1,577,177 64.2% 81,948,803
Multifamily
539,470 21.9% 31,918,520
Manufactured or Mobile Homes
326,318 13.3% 8,717,845
Other Type of Housing
15,266 0.6%
86,566
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s 2004 American Community Survey, and Arizona
Department of Housing.

%
100%
66.8%
26.0%
7.1%
0.1%

Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity
The overall homeownership rates for most minorities are higher in Arizona than
the U.S. average:
Table 10: Arizona and U.S. Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity ‐ 2000
Homeownership Rate
Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity
Arizona
U.S.
All Households
68.0%
66.2%
White Alone
71.3%
71.3%
Black or African American Alone
44.1%
46.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone
61.2%
55.7%
Asian Alone
57.0%
53.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders Alone
46.8%
45.5%
Some Other Race Alone
52.6%
40.4%
Hispanic or Latino (of Any Race)
55.0%
45.7%
Not Hispanic or Latino
70.8%
68.1%
Source: 2000 Census and Census Bureau’s 2004 Homeownership Data.

Housing Quality and Affordability
Housing quality and affordability is measured by the following three criteria:
• Persons or families living in units with physical defects (lacking a
complete kitchen or bath); or
ƒ Persons or families living in overcrowded conditions (greater than
1.01 person/room); or
ƒ Persons or families are cost burdened (paying more than 30% 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:

32

•
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 Table
11.
Table 11: Housing Quality Characteristics
(Number of (% of Total
Housing Quality Characteristics:
Housing
Housing
Units)
Units)
Arizona
Arizona
Lacking Complete Plumbing Facility
21,088
1.1%
Lacking Complete Kitchen Facility
20,999
1.1%
Paying 30% or More for Housing Cost ‐
233,355
22.6%
Owners (Unaffordable)
Paying 30% or More for Rent ‐ Renters
233,793
38.7%
(Unaffordable)
1.1 to 1.5 Persons Per Room
83,298
4.4%
(Overcrowded)
1.51 or More Persons Per Room
80,394
4.2%
(Severely Overcrowded)

(% of Total
Housing
Units)
U.S.
0.6%
0.7%
21.8%
36.8%
3.0%
2.7%

Source: Census 2000, Arizona Department of Economic Security, and ADOH.

Non‐Metropolitan /Rural Arizona Data on Demographics, Income, Poverty,
Employment, and Housing Profile
This section shows in narrative and in table formats data related to population,
income, poverty, employment, and housing for non‐metropolitan Arizona. The
information presented was primarily obtained from the 2000 Census, 2000 HUD
CHAS data, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, and various studies
by the Arizona Department of Housing and Arizona Housing Commission.

33

For the purpose of this study, metropolitan Arizona consists of Maricopa and
Pima Counties and non‐metropolitan (or rural) Arizona 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 rates, higher housing
quality problems, higher concentrations of minority populations, lower job
growth, and lower median household incomes. Specific demographic, economic,
and housing differences between non‐metropolitan and metropolitan areas of
Arizona are presented in Tables 12, 13, and 14.
Population
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

The 2004 estimated non‐metro population of Arizona was 1,378,300,
which is about 70% smaller than total metro population of 4,455,385.
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.
Table 12: Population
Non‐Metropolitan Arizona
1,378,300

Metropolitan Arizona
4,455,385

23.9%

76.1%

23.7%

76.3%

23.6%

76.4%

37.3%
28.2%

31.6%
25.8%

Selected Indicators
2004 Total Population
% of Total State Population
in 1990
% of Total State Population
in 2000
% of Total State Population
in 2004
Total Minority Population
(%)
Hispanic Ethnicity (%)
Source: 2000 Census, DES and ADOH.

34

Income, Poverty, and Unemployment Rate
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
Non‐Metropolitan Arizona
Metropolitan Arizona
Per Capita Income
$15,618
$21,720
Poverty Rate 1999
19.0%
12.4%
% of Arizona Labor Force
(2005)
20.4%
79.6%
Unemployment Rate (2005)
6.9%
4.2%
Source: 2000 Census, DES and ADOH.

Housing and Housing Quality
ƒ In 2000, the homeownership rate in the non‐metro areas of the state
was 72.3% which is significantly higher than the 66.8% for the
metro areas.
ƒ 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.

35

Further details regarding housing quality comparisons are presented in Table 14:
Table 14: Housing and Housing Quality
Selected Indicators
Non‐Metropolitan Arizona
Metropolitan Arizona
Homeownership Rate
(2000)
72.3%
66.8%
Manufactured
Housing/Mobile Homes as
% of Total Housing Units
28.8%
8.5%
% of Homes Lacking
Complete Plumbing Facility
3.3%
0.5%
% of Homes Lacking
Complete Kitchen Facility
2.9%
0.6%
Paying 30% or More for
Housing Cost ‐ Owners
(Unaffordable)
22.0%
22.7%
Paying 30% or More for
Rent ‐ Renters
(Unaffordable)
33.8%
39.8%
1.1 to 1.5 Persons Per Room
(Overcrowded)
5.2%
4.1%
1.51 or More Persons Per
Room (Severely
Overcrowded)
4.9%
4.0%
Source: 2000 Census and ADOH.

1. Minority Concentration Areas
Minority Concentrations and Language by County
The following table shows the percentage of minorities by county and the
percentage of languages other than English spoken at home by people over 5
years of age. This information is valuable in determining the need and focusing
efforts for fair housing services and materials in languages other than English.
Similarly, Map 8 shows the percentage of those who state they either do not
speak English or do not speak it well. The percentages of the three largest racial
and ethnic minorities in Arizona (Hispanic, Native American and African
American) by county are also contained in Maps 3‐6.

36

Table 15: Percentage Minority Population and Language by County
Do not Speak
Population
Percent Minority Percent
English or not
Language Other
well at all
Than English*
Apache
69,423
82.3%
80.5%
12%
Cochise
117,755
39.9%
29.5%
8%
Coconino
116,320
42.4%
28.2%
7%
Gila
51,335
31.1%
18.2%
4%
Graham
33,489
44.8%
23.7%
4%
Greenlee
8,547
46.1%
26%
4%
La Paz
19,715
36.2%
21.6%
7%
Maricopa
3,072,149
33.8%
24.1%
11%
Mohave
155,032
16%
10.7%
4%
Navajo
97,470
57.7%
39.9%
8%
Pima
843,746
38.5%
27.5%
8%
Pinal
179,727
41.2%
25.2%
8%
Santa Cruz
38,381
82.2%
80.5%
25%
Yavapai
167,517
13.4%
9.7%
4%
Yuma
160,026
55.7%
45.5%
17%
Total for Arizona 5,130,623
36.2%
26.6%
5%

* Percentage of persons 5 and over who speak another language other than
English at home
High Minority Census Tracts
Table 16 contains a list of census tracts for the non‐metro counties of Arizona (off
Indian Reservations) that have a minority population concentration ratio of 75%
or higher (or the minority population rate of at least 200% 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 16 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
minority populations also had higher poverty rates. Median family incomes in
these census tracts were at low and moderate levels.
The data presented in Table 15 has been extracted from various data tables made
available by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). The
Council is a formal interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform
37

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.
Table 16: High Minority Concentration Census Tracts in Rural Arizona

County
Cochise
Cochise
Cochise
Cochise
Gila
Pinal
Pinal
Santa
Cruz
Santa
Cruz
Santa
Cruz
Santa
Cruz
Santa
Cruz
Yuma
Yuma
Yuma
Yuma
Yuma
Yuma
Yuma
Yuma
Yuma

White
Population

Census
Tract
Minority
Population

American
Indian
Population

844
600
730
502
380
388
1,670
2,352

2,531
3,452
4,221
6,257
1,183
1,944
7,320
10,523

Hispanic
Population

%
Below
Poverty

Tract
Median
Family
Income

Census
Tract
Income
Level

101
5
23
15
12
123
202
30

2,363
3,416
4,123
6,170
1,145
1,567
6,594
10,288

36.2
33.8
35.4
40.6
25.6
37.1
27.6
14.0

62.8
76.0
71.0
59.3
84.1
57.2
60.2
97.5

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Middle
Moderate
Moderate
Middle

Census
Tract

Census
Tract
Population

6
7
8
9
13
19
20
9961.02

3,375
4,052
4,951
6,759
1,563
2,332
8,990
12,875

Census
Tract
Minority
%
75.0
85.2
85.3
92.6
75.7
83.4
81.4
81.7

9962

4,147

93.3

280

3,867

5

3,815

35.0

68.0

Moderate

9963

7,944

94.5

440

7,504

8

7,442

31.0

62.1

Moderate

9964.01

3,645

95.7

157

3,488

6

3,466

32.3

80.0

Moderate

9964.02

4,999

94.5

276

4,723

19

4,664

38.5

60.1

Moderate

2
3.01
3.02
4.02
7
114.01
115.01
115.02
116

3,926
3,839
4,713
3,563
4,858
8,091
2,705
7,305
5,024

76.9
78.3
85.2
85.8
78.1
99.0
83.1
96.0
98.9

906
832
698
507
1,066
84
457
292
56

3,020
3,007
4,015
3,056
3,792
8,007
2,248
7,013
4,968

75
33
20
26
27
4
475
27
11

2,766
2,768
3,765
2,941
3,567
7,988
1,727
6,939
4,944

17.8
24.5
45.8
29.1
27.4
34.0
40.0
26.4
38.1

96.5
89.7
63.9
86.4
71.3
68.0
70.0
81.0
38.1

Middle
Middle
Moderate
Middle
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Middle
Low

Source: FFIEC and ADOH.

7. Conclusions
The incidence of minority households experiencing housing problems of cost
burden, overcrowding, or substandard conditions is very high. Since the percent
of minorities who are low‐income far exceeds their proportionate numbers in the
general population, minorities suffer disproportionately in terms of their basic
need of adequate, affordable shelter.

38

The highest concentration of racial and ethnic minorities occurs in the four
counties along the border between the United States and Mexico and the three
counties in northern Arizona with sizable Native American Reservations. These
are counties in which evidence indicates housing discrimination is the highest in
rural Arizona. Similarly, Table 16 indicates that 19 of the 21 census tracts that are
the highest in percentages of minorities in rural Arizona are in three of the four
border counties.6
The data indicates that language is also a fair housing issue in Arizona. To a
lesser or greater extent, depending on the area of the state, there is a need for
housing‐related documents, services and ancillary literature to be in Spanish or
another language as well as English. Again, this need is greatest along the border
and near reservations. A failure to provide services and documents in Spanish,
for example, can be disparate treatment under the Fair Housing Act and prevent
individuals with limited English proficiency from knowing the terms of their
housing‐related transaction and being aware of violations of their fair housing
rights.
III. EVALUATION OF JURISDICTIONAL CURRENT FAIR HOUSING
LEGAL STATUS
The Arizona Fair Housing Act (AFHA) of 1991 (ARS § 41.1491) provides the
same substantive protections as the Federal Fair Housing Act; however, it
provides different procedures for the administrative complaint processing. The
Act also amended the Arizona Landlord and Tenant Act to bring it into
compliance with the State Fair Housing Statute.
Because AFHA is essentially the same as the FHA, Arizona law has been
federally designated as “Substantially Equivalent.” As a result, under the
Federal Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contracts with the Arizona Attorney
General’s Civil Rights Division to investigate and rule on fair housing cases on
its behalf. Because of this, virtually all complaints that are submitted to HUD and
originate within Arizona, except for Phoenix, are processed by the AG’s office.
The Phoenix Fair Housing Ordinance is also substantially equivalent to the FHA
and, therefore, the City of Phoenix is also a FHAP. Complaints that originate in
Phoenix are turned over to the City of Phoenix Equal Opportunity Department
Census tracts in Maricopa and Pima Counties were excluded from consideration because these
are urban counties outside of the State’s CDBG jurisdiction.

6

39

Compliance and Enforcement Division for processing. Either FHAP may also
receive and process complaints independent of HUD.
The CDBG jurisdiction of ADOH covers the entire state of Arizona less the 14
independent CDBG entitlement jurisdictions (See Map # 1). These independent
jurisdictions have the responsibility for developing their own AIs and
conducting planning and reporting separate from ADOH. Every effort has been
made to include information relevant only to the jurisdiction of the state in this
AI but in some cases it is not possible. The Action Plan in this AI, however, is
applicable only to the jurisdiction of the state.
Trends and Needs:
Arizona is undergoing extremely rapid population growth. From 1990 to 2000
the population grew from 3,665,228 to 5,130,632, a rate of over 40%. By 2004 the
population increased another 11% and by year 2030 the population is expected to
more than double from year 2000 to over 10,700,000.
This rapid expansion is creating a challenge for communities to create and
sustain affordable housing. Housing markets have been booming and prices
have been going up at a much faster rate than incomes.
As residential land becomes scarcer communities are going to have to make
some tough decisions which will have a very strong impact on fair housing. For
example, can large lot zoning be retained and still make homes affordable for the
workforce that communities depend on? Where will people on fixed incomes,
such as persons with disabilities, live? As the over‐all population grows the
elderly population also increases and, in turn, the number of people with
disabilities, as well.
As fast as the metropolitan areas in Arizona are growing there are rural counties
that are growing at an even faster pace. Mohave, Pinal, Yavapai, and Yuma
counties all exceeded the growth rate of Maricopa County. Three of these have
high minority populations and the fourth, Mohave, has the highest percentage of
persons with disabilities relative to its total population in the state.
In the final analysis it is clear that rural Arizona is changing and as it changes,
the need for fair housing will change. Both the Consolidated Plan and the Plan
of Action presented here present a comprehensive strategy to deal with the
changing needs for fair housing in the state.

40

IV. IDENTIFICATION OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING
1. Previous State of Arizona AI
In 2002, the responsibility for fair housing education and outreach and the
preparation of the AI with its Plan of Action was transferred from the
Department of Commerce (DOC) to the Arizona Department of Housing
(ADOH). Because of this change and the fact that the people responsible for the
AI have left DOC, some of the information about activities prior to 2002 is vague.
ADOH has done its best to address these activities with the information
available.
The State of Arizona Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing submitted in 1996
identified the following Impediments and Action Plan:
1. A lack of knowledge of Fair Housing laws by housing consumers.
a. Distribute public service announcements.
b. Continue to distribute brochure “Hopes, Dreams and Fair Housing.”
2. A lack of knowledge of Fair Housing laws by housing industry
agents, including realtors, builders, landlords, management agents,
lenders and insurers.
a. Focus training on segment of industry identified as most in need of
training.
3. Lack of hard data on the extent of discrimination in the areas of
homeownership, insurance, zoning, and permitting processes.
a. Initiate activities which will result in the study of homeowner
insurance. This will include the State Department of Insurance,
Arizona State University, and the University of Arizona.
b. Approach the Arizona Planning Association and universities to
conduct a study of the effects of zoning on a sample of rural
Arizona communities.
c. Engage the Department of Commerce to provide technical assistance
for rural comprehensive housing planning.
4. Testing of rental, sales, lending and insurance activities is
intermittent and does not usually cover the State outside of Maricopa
and Pima Counties.
a. Meet with FHIPS to prioritize testing. At least one urban and one
rural area will be tested. Funding will be sought.
5. Not‐in‐my‐back‐yard (NIMBY) attitudes concerning housing for low
Income and disabled persons
41

a. Sponsor a meeting to discuss anti NIMBY strategies that have
worked elsewhere.
b. State will require CDBG recipients to advocate for support of
housing to benefit low income.
A summary of fair housing activities conducted in response to the 1996 Plan
includes the following.
Impediment 1
a. Since 2003, SWFHC has distributed over 200 Fair Housing PSAs
and videos produced on behalf of ADOH to media and
organizations. The PSAs and videos concern fair housing in both
the rental and sales market and have been made available in both
English and Spanish.
b. Since 1996, the State has distributed thousands of the brochure
Hopes, Dreams and Fair Housing throughout the state.
c. The State has continually funded a number of organizations to
conduct education and outreach in its CDBG jurisdiction since
1996. In 2003 ADOH revamped its fair housing efforts through a
more focused RFP process that eliminated duplicative investments
in the urban areas of Arizona in favor of a heightened focus in rural
counties. Southwest Fair Housing Council successfully proposed a
comprehensive statewide effort touching all rural counties and
intensively focusing on Impediment 1 and 2 noted above. 7 These
activities are discussed in some detail in Section IV.
Impediment 2
Since 2003, ADOH has contracted with SWFHC to provide E&O
activities. These are discussed in Section IV, Number 4 of this
analysis.
Impediment 3
a. No information is available.
b. No Information is available.

7

State of Arizona Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) FY2004

42

c. ADOH provides technical assistance for planning, including fair
housing, to communities on a regular basis. The E&O provider
under contract to ADOH also works with rural communities to
plan and conduct fair housing programs, trainings, forums, and
events. These activities are contained in the discussion of
impediments #1 and #2 in this AI.
Impediment 4
The Arizona Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division (AG) has continually
conducted fair housing enforcement for the State of Arizona since 1991 when the
Arizona Fair Housing Act was passed. Information regarding this and the
enforcement provided by federally funded private fair housing organizations is
discussed in Section IV.
In 2004, the AG implemented outreach into rural areas through offices staffed by
volunteers who take and refer complaints on a regular basis. The AG presently
has over 25 outreach offices throughout the State.
Impediment 5
a. No information is available.
b. No information is available.
c. In 2004, ADOH conducted the first annual Affordable Housing Forum in
Prescott. An issue at a number of break‐out sessions included NIMBY
impediments to affordable housing. The forum included over 300 participants
from across the State. One goal of the forum was to have participants take the
ideas discussed at the forum back to their home communities to help address
issues that include NIMBYism. The forum will be held again this year with
NIMBYism, again, addressed.
All five of the impediments identified in 1996 remain impediments and the
Action Plan for the 2006 AI proposes several new ways these will be addressed.
2. Results of the Community Survey
Methodology
SWFHC conducted a statewide survey in the non‐metro areas of Arizona that
polled the opinions of 330 residents regarding fair housing and housing
discrimination. The survey was either conducted in‐person or distributed at
community sites which represented a cross section of state residents, including
those that are most at risk of encountering illegal housing discrimination.
43

The survey does not purport to be “scientific.” There was neither the budget nor
the time to develop a survey that would allow the results to claim “statistical
significance” and it is questionable whether such a survey would have been used
if there had been. The important point is that the survey served the purpose for
which it was intended. It collected a range of opinions that help to indicate fair
housing problems in the state and actions that may be needed to address them.
The survey is tightly focused, concise, clear, succinct, user friendly, and
instructive in that participants learn about fair housing in the process of filling
out the survey. It did not require a bevy of statisticians to conduct and process
and the survey can be regularly conducted in order to help monitor the
effectiveness of the Plan of Action. The most important outcome of the survey,
along with the in‐person interviews, was that the contacts and discussions by
SWFHC with community organizations and residents served as a catalyst for an
on‐going concern and awareness for fair housing as well as planning and action
where none had existed.
Further results of the survey findings are as follows:
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents
Race/Ethnicity
White Anglo
Hispanic
African American
Native America
Other
Sex:
Female
Male
Disabled
Housing Status
Own
Rent
Other
Family Status
Children in Family
Household Size
One

53.63%
31.12%
3.03%
5.15%
7.07%
60%
40%
8.48%
50.6%
30%
19.4%
63.33%
18.48%

44

Two
Three
Four
Over 4
No Response
Average Household
Income
Arizona Median
Household Inc.

28.78%
16.66%
10.60%
8.18%
17.3%
$42,314
$40,558

Key Fair Housing Survey Questions and Responses
Question 1: Have you ever encountered any form of discrimination or know
someone who has?
ƒ 27% responded yes.
ƒ 65.5% responded no.
Question 2: Do you feel you are well informed on housing discrimination?
ƒ 47.9% responded yes.
ƒ 26.49% responded somewhat.
ƒ 24.5% responded not enough or no.
Question 3: What would you do if you encountered housing discrimination?
ƒ 5.5% stated they would ignore it.
ƒ 23.6% would tell the person that they believed they were discriminating.
ƒ 57.6% would report it to an agency.
ƒ 13.3% said they did not know what to do.
Question 4: If you reported housing discrimination, whom would you report
it to?
ƒ 19.69% said to Southwest Fair Housing Council.
ƒ 16.06 % said to HUD.
ƒ 11% said to their Housing Authority.
ƒ 7.57% said to the Arizona Department of Housing.
ƒ 4.24% said to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
ƒ 26.96% said various agencies none of which were concerned with
housing discrimination.
ƒ 14.48% said they did not know or did not respond.

45

Question 5: What can be done to prevent housing discrimination?
ƒ 63.5% said more education in Fair Housing.
ƒ 14.84% said more enforcement.
ƒ 21.66% said something else needed to be done.
Question 6: Do you believe housing discrimination is occurring in your
community?
ƒ 43.42% responded yes.
ƒ 20.39% responded it is likely.
ƒ 8.55% said it was not likely.
ƒ 17.76% said no.
Question 7: If you think housing discrimination is occurring, what types do
you think are the largest problems?
Housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex,
family status, or disability is illegal under Federal and State law. The following
situations reflect some type of housing discrimination as reported by
respondents who either encountered discrimination or know someone who has:
“Refusing, discouraging, or charging more to rent an apartment or buy a
home.” This type of discrimination was reported by 27.20% of
respondents.
“Discouraging a person from living where they want to live or steering them
to another apartment complex or neighborhood.” This type of
discrimination was reported by 21.20% of respondents.
“Refusing, discouraging, making it more difficult or charging more or
providing less favorable terms on a home loan to buy, refinance, fix up or
use the equity in a home.” This type of discrimination was reported by
10.61% of respondents.
“Refusing, discouraging or charging more for home insurance.” This type of
discrimination was reported by 5.95% of respondents.
“Refusing to make a reasonable accommodation or allowing a modification
to make an apartment more accessible for person with a disability.” This
type of discrimination was reported by 12.67% of respondents.
“Predatory lending: unfair, misleading and deceptive loan practices.” This
type of discrimination was reported by 9.31% of respondents.
Other, miscellaneous types of discrimination were reported by 13.06% of
respondents.
46

Conclusions:
In reviewing the results of the survey the following are reasonable conclusions:
1. Housing discrimination exists in non‐metro Arizona: About 27% of
respondents to the survey stated they experienced housing discrimination
or knew someone who had. Over 43% of respondents stated that they
believed housing discrimination was occurring in their communities.
Another 20% thought it was likely it was occurring.
2. Respondents believed that the most prevalent forms of housing
discrimination were refusing or discouraging purchase or rental, disparate
costs and fees, or limiting housing opportunity (steering) based on one of
the seven protected classes.
3. Residents are generally not well informed regarding their fair housing
rights and where to go if they encounter discrimination. Nearly one‐
quarter of respondents felt uniformed. Fifty percent felt they were
informed but didn’t know where to go to report housing discrimination or
get help. Over 40% of respondents could not identify a housing entity to
go to and only about 41% correctly identified agencies that took housing
complaints.
4. While the results of the survey indicated both enforcement and education
and outreach are needed in non‐metro areas of Arizona, respondents
overwhelmingly favored E&O over enforcement as a way to prevent
housing discrimination.
In the final analysis it is accurate to say that discrimination directed toward
protected classes is occurring in rural Arizona. Discrimination can be very subtle
and difficult for the average person to recognize. In addition, some members of
protected classes may know they are being discriminated against but do not
know what to do about it or are fearful of retribution should they file a
complaint.

47

2. Public Sector
a. Zoning and Land Use Codes
While ADOH recognizes that zoning may be a fair housing impediment in many
communities, ADOH has no authority over local zoning. The issue needs to be
addressed on a community level. Having said that, the issue of zoning is a topic
of discussion at the Governor’s Housing Forum and is included in fair housing
literature distributed by the E&O provider under contract to ADOH.
b. Neighborhood Revitalization and Affordable Housing
Neighborhood revitalization can lead to gentrification, drive housing prices up,
replace affordable housing with high cost housing, and displace lower income
residents. ADOH is presently funding many communities for neighborhood
revitalization projects. ADOH has not requested reports from grantees regarding
these issues but, in the future, will ask CDBG awardees to address this issue in
their proposals.
c. Subsidized Housing
Other than Section 8, the Low‐Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program is
the largest source of affordable housing for low‐income families and individuals
in Arizona. Since 1996, there have been over 75 projects creating approximately
4,500 low‐ income housing units in non‐metropolitan areas.8
The LIHTC code, Section 42, under which the program is operated by ADOH, is
interpreted and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service under the auspices of
the U.S Department of the Treasury. Each state is allowed a credit ceiling,
depending on population, to provide for the construction of multifamily rental
units in “difficult development areas.” Difficult development areas are defined
as areas that have high construction, land, or utility costs relative to the area’s
median gross income (AMGI). There are currently about 50 census tracts in non‐
metro Arizona that are eligible.
In return for the tax credit, the owners commit to restrict the rent. The rent
restrictions agreed to by the owner remains in effect for at least 15 years and then
the owner(s) are required to enter into agreements to retain the low‐income
character of the building for at least an additional 15 years.9

8
9

Arizona Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit Completed Properties list.
LIHTC Application Form http://www.housingaz.com

48

d/e. Public Housing and Section 8
There are a total of 11 Public Housing Authorities (PHA) that operate within the
CDBG jurisdiction of ADOH. In addition, the ADOH operates the Arizona
Public Housing Authority (APHA). Public and Section 8 housing is limited to
low‐income families and individuals. The decision to provide public housing or a
voucher is made by the PHA based on HUD regulations and in consideration of
annual gross income, citizenship or immigration status, past rental history and
criminal record. APHA also has oversight and monitoring responsibility for 107
subsidized properties, representing over 7,500 units throughout the State of
Arizona. The properties, which receive rental subsidies through the Section 8
program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, offer
affordable housing to households that are below 50% of the area median income.
APHA staff conducts site visits at least once each year to assess compliance with
HUD regulations.
In addition to the tenant‐based Section 8 programs provided by the 11 local
PHAs within the State’s CDBG jurisdiction, APHA provides a tenant‐based
program which is intended to provide Section 8 vouchers to residents in areas
not covered by a local PHA. APHA provides a total of 59 vouchers to two
counties in Arizona ‐ Yavapai which receives 30 vouchers and Graham which
receives 29. Tenant based Section 8 vouchers are portable and although issued by
a local PHA or by APHA, may be used for Section 8 housing anywhere in the
United States under the jurisdiction of a PHA in most cases.
f. Downtown Revitalization
ADOH funds downtown development programs in eligible communities
through CDBG. ADOH, however, has not collected the information that would
allow the impact of this development on fair housing to be determined. This is
addressed in Impediment #6. In the future, ADOH will write this into the CDBG
RFP and require that communities report both the expected impact in their
proposals and the actual impact in their reports.
g. Property Tax Policies
As property values dramatically increased taxes are beginning to become a fair
housing issue in Arizona. As indicated in Section II on demographics, rates of
homeownership do not necessarily coincide with income. Some of the highest
rates of ownership were in areas of lowest median income. There are a number of
possible reasons for this. First, many homeowners in these areas bought their
homes years ago when the price of housing in rural Arizona was low enough
that even low‐income families could purchase homes. Secondly, purchases
49

directly from owners through Contracts for Deed or verbal agreements are
common in rural Arizona. These practices make it much easier to buy a home
than going through a traditional lender. Lastly, a larger number of homes in
rural areas are owner‐occupied and fewer homes are purchased for investment
and then rented.
Nevertheless, for whatever reason, the increase in property values in rural areas
over the last few years has been dramatic. While property values have increased,
tax rates have not changed to accommodate the increase and homeowners are
paying significantly more. Increases have been as much as 20% annually for the
last few years. Property tax increases across the board have a disparate impact on
lower and fixed income owners. While the actual increase may be larger for
higher income households low‐ and fixed‐income households pay a higher
proportion of their income; their discretionary budget is a smaller percentage of
their income and any increase cuts more deeply into it. While exact statistics are
not yet available, there are indications that a greater number of low and fixed
income families (including a proportionally large number of person’s with
disabilities) are either losing their homes, going into default or are on the
precipice of foreclosure, in part, because of increased property tax burdens.
The problem at this point is primarily local and not one that ADOH or State
agencies can easily address.
h. Landlord Tenant Policies
Many fair housing complaints begin as landlord/tenant issues. For example, in
one case SWFHC received a complaint from a Hispanic tenant that a landlord
would not repair an evaporative cooler. It was not until further inquiry that it
became known that the landlord exhibited a pattern of providing less services
based on national origin. In another case a tenant was being evicted for
continually being late in paying the rent. What on its face appeared to be a
landlord tenant issue was in fact fair housing since the tenant was disabled, on
SSI, and did not receive his check each month until after the rent was considered
late. As a fair housing issue, accepting a late payment could be considered a
“reasonable accommodation” based on the tenant’s disability.
Because there is considerable gray area between landlord/tenant and fair housing
issues all public and private agencies that handle housing issues need to be
encouraged to train their staff to recognize the difference and accurately process
or refer clients. Impediment #1 and #4 address this issue.

50

i. Building Codes:
On a local level, inspection is more of an issue than is the language in the actual
codes since virtually all local codes include a reference mandating compliance
with the accessibility standards of the Federal Fair Housing Act. However, in
fact, this is one of the areas of the Fair Housing Act with which there is least
compliance. The problem is not so much in the design but in the construction
and inspection. Statewide, SWFHC has filed over 25 design and construction
complaints and mediated several others in the last five years and has come
across numerous examples where the architectural plans complied with FHA but
the actual construction did not. These errors were missed by the inspectors. As
an example, the placement of environmental controls is a notorious problem.
While six inches in the height of thermostats and electrical plugs goes unnoticed
and seems like a small thing to someone who is not disabled, the variance can
take that unit off the market for someone who uses a wheelchair. There are at
least two things that can be done to reduce non‐compliance and prevent
expensive retrofitting after occupancy and the unit gets tested: contractors,
builders, and property owners to monitor compliance during construction and,
builders, contractors, property owners, and inspectors to receive the training
they need to become informed in the requirements of the Fair Housing Act.
ADOH can facilitate this by continuing to provide E&O and training to these
builders and contractors in trainings and the sessions offered in the Governor’s
Housing Forum.
3. Private Sector: Lending Policies and Practices
NCRC 2004 Home Lending Analysis of Arizona Counties
The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) conducted portfolio
and market share analysis using 2004 HMDA data with the following
specifications: all single‐family lending (ASF or home purchase, home
improvement and refinance loans, combined); conventional and government‐
insured; single family units; owner occupied units; first liens; and in the
following areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•

State of Arizona.
All rural counties in Arizona, as a group.
Cochise, Graham, Greenlee & Santa Cruz, as a group.
La Paz, Mohave, & Yuma, as a group.
Apache and Navajo, as a group.
Coconino and Yavapai, as a group.
51

•

Gila and Pinal, as a group.

For the portfolio share analysis, Table 17, NCRC evaluated the prime and
subprime percent of loans of white borrowers, Hispanic borrowers, Native
American borrowers, low‐ and moderate‐income (LMI) borrowers, middle‐ and
upper‐income borrowers (MUI), and male and female borrowers. Lending
patterns were then compared to the demographics of the counties to illustrate
potential lending disparities.
In the market share analysis, Table 18, NCRC provides the market share percent
figure, which compares the portion of subprime loans made to a particular
borrower group to all loans (prime plus subprime) made to that same borrower
group. The disparity ratio illustrates how much more often lenders made
subprime loans to one borrower group compared to another borrower group. For
example in Table 18 lenders made subprime All Single Family (ASF) loans to
American Indians 2.6 times more often than white non‐Hispanic borrowers.
Prime loans are loans made at prevailing interest rates to borrowers with good
credit histories. Subprime loans, in contrast, are loans with rates higher than
prevailing rates made to borrowers with credit blemishes. The higher rates
compensate lenders for the added risks of lending to borrowers with credit
blemishes. While responsible subprime lending serves credit needs, public
policy concerns arise when certain groups in the population receive a
disproportionate amount of subprime loans. When subprime lending in
traditionally underserved communities occurs, price discrimination and other
predatory and deceptive practices become more likely as residents face fewer
product choices. For this analysis, loans are considered subprime if their price is
reported per the new HMDA regulatory requirements for the 2004 data. The
Federal Reserve Board states that the vast majority of loans with price reporting
were subprime in 2004.
Portfolio Share Analysis
This section will provide a detailed analysis of lending patterns in two counties. It will
then compare the seven regions in terms of lending disparities to Hispanics and Native
Americans.

52

Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, and Santa Cruz

•

While whites made up 67.64% of the households in these counties, lenders
made approximately 61% of all prime, all single family (ASF) loans and 38.6%
of all subprime ASF loans to white borrowers. Comparatively, Hispanics,
which comprised 36.58% of the households in the area, received 32.58% of all
prime ASF loans and 56.71% of all subprime ASF loans. Whites received a
portion of prime loans that was 22.4 percentage points greater than subprime
loans, and Hispanics received a share of subprime loans that was 24.1
percentage points greater than their portion of prime loans. Native
Americans made up 2.62% of the households in these counties and received
1.77% of all the prime ASF loans and 3.57% of all the subprime ASF loans.

•

The majority of prime ASF lending went to middle‐to‐upper income (MUI)
borrowers at 82.26% while only 17.38% prime ASF loans went to low‐ to
moderate income (LMI) borrowers. Similarly, 21.59% of subprime ASF loans
went to LMI borrowers while 78.41% went to MUI borrowers. MUI
households represent 60.90% of all households compared to the 39.10% of
LMI households.

•

Male borrowers received similar proportions of prime and subprime ASF
loans, 57.61% and 53.21%; and females also received similar proportions of
prime and subprime ASF loans, 42.39% and 46.79%. However, males
comprised only 40% of the households while females comprised 60% of the
households. Males received a share of prime loans that was 17.6 percentage
points greater than their share of households. Females obtained a share of
prime loans that was 17.6 percentage points less than their share of the area’s
households.

La Paz, Mohave, and Yuma

•

Whites received 71.15% of all prime ASF loans made to all borrowers. Whites
also received 63.25% subprime loans made to all borrowers though 82.14% of
households were white. While 22.63% of households were Hispanic, lenders
made 32.95% of all subprime ASF loans and 23.59% of prime loans to
Hispanic borrowers. Of the prime ASF loans made, 3.25% were to Native
Americans. However, 5.27% of subprime ASF loans were also made to
Native Americans, who make up 2.54% of households.

•

While 60.77% of households were middle‐to upper income (MUI), lenders
made 82.39% of all ASF prime loans and 79.19% of all subprime ASF loans to
MUI borrowers. Comparatively, 39.23% of all households were low‐to

53

moderate income, but lenders only made 17.61% of prime ASF loans and
20.81% of subprime ASF loans to LMI borrowers.
•

In 2004, 39.95% of all prime ASF loans were made to women, while 40.45% of
all subprime ASF loans were made to women. However, women made up
57.14% of households. Additionally, men received 60.05% of all prime ASF
loans and 59.55% of all subprime ASF loans ‐ yet males comprised only
42.86% of households in 2004.

Comparing Regions by Portfolio Share Indicators
Percent of Hispanic Households Compared to Percent of Subprime Loans
• When comparing the proportion of subprime loans made to Hispanic
borrowers to the percent of Hispanic households, Cochise, Graham,
Greenlee, and Santa Cruz counties performed worst of the seven regions.
Hispanics represent 36.58 % of households but they account for 56.71
percent of all ASF subprime loans which is a difference of 20.13
percentage points. Conversely, the counties of Apache and Navajo
performed best for this indicator as Hispanics represent 5.90% of the
households but they account for 11.87% of all ASF subprime loans, a
difference of only 5.98 percentage points.
Difference in Portion of Prime and Subprime Loans for Hispanics
• Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, and Santa Cruz counties performed the worst
in the seven regions when comparing the percent of subprime loans made
to Hispanic borrowers to the percent of prime loans made to Hispanic
borrowers. Hispanic borrowers account for 56.71% of all ASF subprime
loans while they only account for 32.58% of all ASF prime loans, a
difference of 24.13 percentage points. In contrast, Coconino and Yavapai
Counties performed best for this indicator. Hispanics received 5.23% of
all ASF prime loans while at the same time receiving 10.82% of all ASF
subprime loans, a difference of only 5.59 percentage points.
Percent of Native American Households Compared to Percent of Subprime Loans
• La Paz, Mohave, and Yuma Counties also had the largest percentage point
difference between proportion of subprime loans made to Native
American borrowers and percentage of Native American households.
Native Americans represented 2.54% of households but they received
5.27% of all ASF subprime loans which is a difference of 2.73 percentage
points. In the counties of Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, and Santa Cruz,
54

Native American borrowers comprised 2.62% of households but
accounted for 3.57% of all ASF subprime loans, a disparity of .94
percentage points. Interestingly though, Native Americans in the counties
of Apache and Navajo made up for 52.98% of households but accounted
for 5.19% of all ASF subprime loans and 0.79% of all ASF prime loans.
The very low percentages of loans to Native Americans in Apache and
Navajo counties could be due to tribal trust land restrictions on collateral.
Lenders hesitate to make loans on reservations when they cannot seize
houses when borrowers are in default. Tribes and lenders have started
collaborating on collateral issues.
Difference in Portion of Prime and Subprime Loans for Native Americans
• The counties of Apache and Navajo had the largest percentage point
difference between the percent of subprime loans made to Native
American borrowers and the percent of prime loans made to Native
American borrowers. Native American borrowers received 5.19% of all
ASF subprime loans and only .79% of all ASF prime loans, a difference of
4.41 percentage points. In Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Native
American borrowers accounted for 4.16% of all ASF subprime loans, but
only 1.21% of all ASF prime loans, a difference of 2.95 percentage points.
However, statewide, Native Americans performed best for this indicator.
Native Americans received 1.23% of all ASF prime loans and 2.73% of all
ASF subprime loans, a difference of only 1.51 percentage points.
Market Share Analysis
Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, & Santa Cruz
• In the counties of Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, and Santa Cruz, 10.14 % of
all single family (ASF) loans to whites were subprime compared to 26.44%
and 24.13% of ASF loans to Native Americans and Hispanics, respectively
that were subprime. Thus, Native Americans were 2.61 times more likely
to receive a subprime loan than whites and Hispanics were 2.38 times
more likely to receive a subprime loan than whites (24.13% divided by
10.14%). As well, 16.35% of all ASF loans to MUI borrowers were
subprime in relation to 20.37 % of all ASF loans to LMI borrowers were
subprime. As a result, LMI borrowers were 1.25 times more likely than
MUI borrowers to receive a subprime loan. Lastly, 20.61% of all ASF loans
to females were subprime while 17.85% of all ASF loans to males were
subprime, meaning that females were 1.15 times more likely to receive
subprime loans than males.
55

La Paz, Mohave, & Yuma
• In the counties of La Paz, Mohave, and Yuma, 21.66% of all ASF loans to
Native Americans were subprime compared to 19.45% of all ASF loans to
Hispanics that were subprime. Of all ASF loans to whites, 13.17% were
subprime. These differences in market share illustrate a 1.65 disparity
ratio for Native Americans to whites, and a 1.48 times disparity ratio for
Hispanics to whites. Of all ASF loans to MUI borrowers, 15.91% were
subprime compared to 18.87% of all ASF loans to LMI borrowers were
subprime. Consequently, LMI borrowers were 1.19 times more likely to
receive a subprime loan then MUI borrowers. Also, 17.50% and 17.81% of
all ASF loans to males and females, respectively, were subprime.
Comparing Regions by Market Share Disparities
Native Americans
• In the counties of Apache and Navajo, 52.17% of all ASF loans to Native
Americans were subprime compared to 11.97% of all ASF loans to whites
that were subprime. Native Americans were 4.36 times more likely than
whites to receive a subprime loan (52.17% divided by 11.97%). In
Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Native Americans were 3.12 times more
likely to receive a subprime loan than whites. Conversely, in La Paz,
Mohave, and Yuma Counties, Native Americans were only 1.65 times
more likely to receive a subprime loan than whites.
Hispanics
• Statewide, 25.72% of all ASF loans to Hispanics were subprime compared
to 9.37% of all ASF loans to whites that were subprime. Hispanics were
2.74 times more likely to receive a subprime loan than whites. In Apache
and Navajo Counties, Hispanics were 2.75 times more likely to receive a
subprime loan than whites. In contrast, Hispanics were 1.48 times more
likely to receive a subprime loan than whites in La Paz, Mohave, and
Yuma Counties.
Low‐and Moderate‐Income
• Statewide, 18.33% of all ASF loans to LMI borrowers were subprime loans
while 12% of all ASF loans to MUI borrowers were subprime. LMI
borrowers were 1.53 times more likely to receive a subprime loan than
MUI borrowers. In Apache and Navajo Counties, LMI borrowers were
1.45 times more likely to receive a subprime loan than MUI borrowers.
56

LMI borrowers were just 1.18 times more likely to receive subprime loans
in the counties of Gila and Pinal.
Female
• In the counties of Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, and Santa Cruz, 20.61% of
all ASF loans to females were subprime compared to 17.85% of all ASF
loans to males were subprime. Thus, females were 1.15 times more likely
to receive subprime loans than males. In all other counties, the disparity
ratios between males and females who receive subprime loans were
within .05 percentage points of each other, consequently indicating no real
significance in the differences.

57

Table 17: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data
Arizona All Single-Family Lending Analysis - 2004
Location

Indicators

All

Number
Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Santa Cruz
Total Number of Loans
5,212
Whites
2455
Hispanics
1558
Native Americans
87
LMI Borrowers
869
MUI Borrowers
3932
Male
1300
Female
990
La Paz, Mohave, Yuma
Total Number of Loans
11,310
Whites
6653
Hispanics
2365
Native Americans
337
LMI Borrowers
1887
MUI Borrowers
8519
Male
3045
Female
2033
Apache, Navajo
Total Number of Loans
1,925
Whites
1403
Hispanics
79
Native Americans
23
LMI Borrowers
267
MUI Borrowers
1508
Male
380
Female
338
Coconino/Yavapai
Total Number of Loans
10924
Whites
8090
Hispanics
519
Native Americans
140
LMI Borrowers
1988
MUI Borrowers
7766
Male
2476
Female
2265
Gila,
Pinal
Total Number of Loans
11792
Whites
7365
Hispanics
1478
Native Americans
143
LMI Borrowers
3913
MUI Borrowers
6668
Male
3147
Female
2409
Rural AZ
Total Number of Loans
14918
Whites
9505
Hispanics
2174
Native Americans
191
LMI Borrowers
2283
MUI Borrowers
11506
Male
3822
Female
2866
Arizona
Total Number of Loans
264791
Whites
160726
Hispanics
42081

Percent

Prime

Subprim
e

Number Percent

Number Percent

Prime Demographics
Subprime
Number

Demographic
s - subprime

Percent

100.00%
57.62%
36.31%
2.04%
18.10%
81.90%
56.77%
43.23%

4,374 100.00%
2206 61.01%
1182 32.58%
64
1.77%
692 17.38%
3289 82.62%
1068 57.61%
786 42.39%

838 100.00%
249 38.60%
376 56.71%
23
3.57%
177 21.59%
643 78.41%
232 53.21%
204 46.79%

0.00%
22.40%
-24.13%
-1.80%
-4.20%
4.20%
4.39%
-4.39%

68,968
41614
22506
1613
26968
42000
11735
17604

100.00%
67.64%
36.58%
2.62%
39.10%
60.90%
40.00%
60.00%

0.00%
29.04%
-20.13%
-0.94%
17.52%
-17.52%
-13.21%
13.21%

100.00%
70.00%
24.97%
3.55%
18.13%
81.87%
59.96%
40.04%

9,565 100.00%
5777 71.15%
1905 23.59%
264
3.25%
1531 17.61%
7164 82.39%
2512 60.05%
1671 39.95%

1,745 100.00%
876 63.25%
460 32.95%
73
5.27%
356 20.81%
1355 79.19%
533 59.55%
362 40.45%

0.00%
7.90%
-9.36%
-2.02%
-3.20%
3.20%
0.50%
-0.50%

125,092
93375
25728
2888
49075
76017
21843
29125

100.00%
82.14%
22.63%
2.54%
39.23%
60.77%
42.86%
57.14%

0.00%
18.89%
-10.32%
-2.73%
18.42%
-18.42%
-16.70%
16.70%

100.00%
86.07%
5.04%
1.41%
15.04%
84.96%
52.92%
47.08%

1,632 100.00%
1235 88.28%
53
3.93%
11
0.79%
208 14.00%
1278 86.00%
308 52.20%
282 47.80%

293 100.00%
168 72.73%
26 11.87%
12
5.19%
59 20.42%
230 79.58%
72 56.25%
56 43.75%

0.00%
15.55%
-7.94%
-4.41%
-6.42%
6.42%
-4.05%
4.05%

49,987
20482
2872
25810
23726
26261
8477
14934

100.00%
42.04%
5.90%
52.98%
47.46%
52.54%
36.21%
63.79%

0.00%
-30.68%
-5.98%
47.79%
27.05%
-27.05%
-20.04%
20.04%

100.00%
85.43%
5.74%
1.48%
20.38%
79.62%
52.23%
47.77%

9858 100.00%
7424 86.28%
429
5.23%
104
1.21%
1756 20.05%
7004 79.95%
2188 51.96%
2023 48.04%

1066 100.00%
666 76.99%
90 10.82%
36
4.16%
232 23.34%
762 76.66%
288 54.34%
242 45.66%

0.00%
9.28%
-5.59%
-2.95%
-3.29%
3.29%
-2.38%
2.38%

110455
91033
8035
9027
40066
70389
21376
29302

100.00%
84.61%
7.47%
8.39%
36.27%
63.73%
42.18%
57.82%

0.00%
7.62%
-3.35%
4.23%
12.93%
-12.93%
-12.16%
12.16%

100.00%
75.79%
15.62%
1.47%
36.98%
63.02%
56.64%
43.36%

10028 100.00%
6447 77.73%
1118 13.86%
95
1.15%
3219 36.24%
5663 63.76%
2584 56.82%
1964 43.18%

1764 100.00%
918 64.51%
360 25.81%
48
3.37%
694 40.85%
1005 59.15%
563 55.85%
445 44.15%

0.00%
13.22%
-11.95%
-2.23%
-4.61%
4.61%
0.96%
-0.96%

81578
59193
15518
4745
38719
42859
14251
20520

100.00%
79.47%
20.83%
6.37%
47.46%
52.54%
40.99%
59.01%

0.00%
14.96%
-4.97%
3.00%
6.61%
-6.61%
-14.87%
14.87%

100.00%
75.78%
17.65%
1.52%
16.56%
83.44%
57.15%
42.85%

12559 100.00%
8317 77.77%
1631 15.57%
134
1.25%
1807 15.75%
9667 84.25%
3140 57.39%
2331 42.61%

2359 100.00%
1188 64.29%
543 29.48%
57
3.08%
476 20.56%
1839 79.44%
682 56.04%
535 43.96%

0.00%
13.48%
-13.91%
-1.83%
-4.81%
4.81%
1.35%
-1.35%

210308
139311
34052
31094
87253
123055
37971
54966

100.00%
70.22%
17.16%
15.67%
41.49%
58.51%
40.86%
59.14%

0.00%
5.93%
-12.31%
12.59%
20.93%
-20.93%
-15.18%
15.18%

100.00%
72.33%
19.13%

230331 100.00%
145658 75.03%
31259 16.31%

34460 100.00%
15068 53.66%
10822 38.23%

0.00%
21.38%
-21.92%

1901625
1397040
331850

100.00%
79.75%
18.94%

0.00%
26.09%
-19.28%

58

Native Americans
LMI Borrowers
MUI Borrowers
Male
Female

3147
71610
169739
75568
60329

1.42%
29.67%
70.33%
55.61%
44.39%

2380
58483
149377
63205
51036

59

1.23%
28.14%
71.86%
55.33%
44.67%

767
13127
20362
12363
9293

2.73%
39.20%
60.80%
57.09%
42.91%

-1.51%
-11.06%
11.06%
-1.76%
1.76%

67858
744693
1156932
380113
515611

3.87%
39.16%
60.84%
42.44%
57.56%

1.14%
-0.04%
0.04%
-14.65%
14.65%

Table 18: Arizona All Single‐Family Market Share Lending Analysis (2004)
Applicant
Borrower Income
Race
American
Hispanic or White NonLMI
MUI
Indian/ Alaska Latino
Hispanic
Native
(Ethnicity) (Minority Status)

Gender
Male

Female

State of AZ
Subprime Loans
Total Loans
Market Share %
Disparity Ratio

767
3,147
24.37%
2.60

10,822
42,081
25.72%
2.74

15,068
160,726
9.37%
1.00

13,127
71,610
18.33%
1.53

20,362
169,739
12.00%
1.00

12,363
75,568
16.36%
1.00

9,293
60,329
15.40%
0.94

Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Santa Cruz
Total Loans
Subprime Loans
Market Share %
Disparity Ratio

87
23
26.44%
2.61

1,558
376
24.13%
2.38

2,455
249
10.14%
1.00

869
177
20.37%
1.25

3,932
643
16.35%
1.00

1,300
232
17.85%
1.00

990
204
20.61%
1.15

La Paz, Mohave, Yuma
Total Loans
Subprime Loans
Market Share %
Disparity Ratio

337
73
21.66%
1.65

2,365
460
19.45%
1.48

6,653
876
13.17%
1.00

1,887
356
18.87%
1.19

8,519
1,355
15.91%
1.00

3,045
533
17.50%
1.00

2,033
362
17.81%
1.02

Apache, Navajo
Total Loans
Subprime Loans
Market Share %
Disparity Ratio

23
12
52.17%
4.36

79
26
32.91%
2.75

1,403
168
11.97%
1.00

267
59
22.10%
1.45

1,508
230
15.25%
1.00

380
72
18.95%
1.00

338
56
16.57%
0.87

Coconino/ Yavapai
Total Loans
Subprime Loans
Market Share %
Disparity Ratio

140
36
25.71%
3.12

519
90
17.34%
2.11

8,090
666
8.23%
1.00

1,988
232
11.67%
1.19

7,766
762
9.81%
1.00

2,476
288
11.63%
1.00

2,265
242
10.68%
0.92

Total Loans
Subprime Loans
Market Share %
Disparity Ratio

143
48
33.57%
2.69

1,478
360
24.36%
1.95

7,365
918
12.46%
1.00

3,913
694
17.74%
1.18

6,668
1,005
15.07%
1.00

3,147
563
17.89%
1.00

2,409
445
18.47%
1.03

Total Loans
Subprime Loans
Market Share %
Disparity Ratio

191
57
29.84%
2.39

2,174
543
24.98%
2.00

9,505
1,188
12.50%
1.00

2,283
476
20.85%
1.30

11,506
1,839
15.98%
1.00

3,822
682
17.84%
1.00

2,866
535
18.67%
1.05

Gila,
Pinal

Rural AZ

60

4. Public and Private Sector
a. Fair Housing Enforcement
Data from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office
The Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office (“Division”)
enforces the Arizona Civil Rights Act, including the Fair Housing Act, which
prohibits discrimination in employment, voting, public accommodations and
housing. The Division, through its Compliance and Litigation Sections,
investigates and litigates civil rights complaints. The Division serves as a
“substantially equivalent” enforcement agency through HUD and vigilantly
addresses fair housing issues statewide.
The Division works to increase public awareness of fair housing laws by
providing access to victims of discrimination through the filing of complaints
and litigation, and by promoting community education and dispute resolution
services. The Division will continue to focus on the filing of housing complaints
to increase impact housing litigation and on education and outreach to
vulnerable victims, including disadvantaged groups such as immigrants, seniors,
low income and disabled individuals.
Table 19 below enumerates, by county, the number of charges filed between
September 1990 ‐ November 1995 and September 2000 ‐ November 2005.
It should be noted that approximately one‐half of the population in Arizona
resides in Maricopa County (Phoenix and suburbs) and another one‐third resides
in Pima County (Tucson). These two counties are also where the Division
maintains offices.

61

Table 19: Geographical Location of Housing Complaints Filed
September 1990 ‐ November 1995 and Sept. 1990 – November 2005
No. of Charges Filed
No. of Charges Filed
Sept. 1990 – Nov. 1995
Sept. 2000 – Nov. 2005
County

Community

Maricopa

Phoenix and
suburbs
Tucson
Prescott
Flagstaff
Yuma
Sierra Vista
Payson
Bullhead City

Pima
Yavapai
Coconino
Yuma
Cochise
Gila
Mohave
All Other
Cities

Total

Monthly
Average

Total

Monthly
Average

413
325
9
7
6
3
3
2

6.6
5.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

480
256
13
11
12
3
2
3

7.7
4.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.03
0.05

0

0.0

0

0

The primary alleged bases of current housing complaints involve disability, race,
and national origin. The primary alleged issues are discriminatory refusal to rent;
discriminatory terms, conditions and privileges relating to services and facilities in
rental properties; and discriminatory lending practices.
b. Education and Outreach Programs
Analysis of Education and Outreach Activities Conducted in Non‐Metro Areas
by SWFHC under contract to ADOH 2000‐2005
SWFHC is currently the primary provider to ADOH for fair housing education
and outreach. SWFHC has been conducting education and outreach for the State
since 1993, first for the Department of Commerce and then for ADOH. To
conduct an analysis of the E&O conducted by SWFHC over the course of the last
six years, the state was divided into five areas in order to determine what
activities have been conducted in which regions. The purpose of this analysis is
to help planning in order to direct future E&O on a determination of need
qualified by the intensity of past activities.

62

The Counties of Maricopa and Pima were not included in this analysis since they
are both CDBG jurisdictions independent from the State and thus responsible for
their own E&O activities and AI. Independent CDBG communities outside of
Maricopa and Pima County such as Yuma and Flagstaff were included because
the events and training conducted there will draw large numbers of residents
and providers from the jurisdiction of the state.
While this analysis is concerned with a six year period it is important to consider
that for the first four years of this period SWFHC was contracted by ADOH to
conduct activities only in seven to nine of the most southern counties. In 2003,
SWFHC began to conduct E&O for ADOH covering the entire state less Pima
and Maricopa. While this skews the activities conducted in the southern counties
this is somewhat offset by an increase in focus by SWFHC to the northern
counties. Nevertheless, and despite this caveat, the following analysis is telling.
The five regions of the state SWFHC used for this study and their constituent
counties are as follows:
1. Southeast: Cochise, Santa Cruz, Greenlee, Graham.
2. Western: Yuma, La Paz, Mohave.
3. Northeast: Apache, Navajo.
4. North: Coconino, Yavapai.
5. Central: Gila, Pinal.
The activities conducted by SWFHC were grouped into four categories:
1. Planning Sessions and Meetings
2. Training Workshops
3. Presentations
4. Events
Table #20
Geographic Distribution of Education and Outreach Activities Conducted by SWFHC
under Contract to the State of Arizona since FY 2000

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Total

1
2
12
13
10
4
3
44

Planning
Locations
2
3 4
13 0 0
4
0 2
1
0 1
3
4 5
2
3 16
1
1 13
24 8 37

5
1
2
3
1
1
0
8

Total
16
20
18
23
26
18
121

Training/Workshops
Locations
1
2
3
4
5
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
2
2
4
6
1
5
1
5
11 8
7
7
7
6
2
8
4
22 25 11 22 14

63

Total
2
2
8
18
38
27
95

Presentations
Locations
1
2 3 4
2
1 0 0
1
2 0 1
2
0 0 1
0
0 0 0
9
5 0 0
0
0 1 1
14 8 1 3

5
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Total
3
5
3
0
14
2
27

1
0
7
8
12
3
6
36

Events
Locations
2
3 4
1
0 0
2
0 0
0
0 0
2
0 2
8
1 4
9
6 1
22 7 7

5
1
0
0
1
1
1
4

Total
2
9
8
17
17
23
76

This table allows us to determine that over a six year period the most planning
sessions (36.4%) presentations (51.9%) and events (47.4%) were conducted in the
southeast portion of the state while most trainings were conducted in the
western region (26.3%). This coincides with the statements of interviewees that
border areas and Colonias are high problem areas in terms of housing
discrimination. The high number of trainings in the western area of the state is in
part a result of the rapid increase in the number of new homes constructed in
Yuma and Mojave Counties. SWFHC is a state‐certified real estate training
school for purposes of fair housing and offers three (3) continuing credits to real
estate agents for these three‐hour training classes. State certified continuing
credits are required every two years for the renewal of an Arizona real estate
license. The classes have proven very popular in the western area of the state
since agents might otherwise need to drive to Phoenix to obtain the credits they
need.
The comments that were made by interviewees suggest that in the future more
E&O needs to be conducted in the northwest and in Coconino County in the
north. These are areas of high Native American populations where substantial
numbers look to work and live off the reservation. Over six years less than 10%
of E&O conducted in the state by SWFHC was conducted in the northeast region
‐ although if Coconino County is added in the total increases to closer to 25%.
Nevertheless, an increase in E&O is warranted and in the last few years the
number of contacts SWFHC has made in Apache and Navajo Counties has
grown to the extent that a substantial network has developed to support
increasing and improving E&O.
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has reported a total of approximately 780
fair housing complaints throughout Arizona since 2000. Only 44 of these were
from rural areas outside of Maricopa and Pima Counties. SWFHC has reported a
total of 587 fair housing complaints over the last five years of which 51 were from
rural counties. Many more allegations are received either directly or indirectly
through agency staff, housing agents, public officials, and residents. The
Attorney General’s Office has referred to complaints and allegations as the tip of
the iceberg with fully 99% of fair housing violations going unreported. This
assessment is supported by statements from interviewees, survey respondents,
the number of anecdotal reports, discussions with housing agencies, as well as
hard data that strongly implies the results of discrimination including
demographics and HMDA. The question that is continually asked is why the

64

number of complaints would not reflect the pervasiveness of discrimination that
is evidenced in so many other ways? One answer is that if people are not
adequately informed regarding their fair housing rights and responsibilities, a
clear referral procedure is not available to direct complaints to enforcement
agencies and effective enforcement and monitoring of compliance is not
occurring, complaints will not be filed
Based on the community survey responses, interviews with knowledgeable
informants and the observations that SWFHC has made in working in
communities throughout Arizona for over 10 years, three things are evident.
First, housing consumers are not well informed regarding their fair housing
rights, what housing discrimination entails, where to go to get help if they think
they have encountered housing discrimination and how to file a complaint.
Regarding the survey, over 50% of the respondents stated that they were not
well‐informed about fair housing. In addition, 21 out of the 25 interviewed stated
they did not feel that residents in the community were adequately informed
regarding fair housing. Also about 70% of respondents to the survey stated that
they felt that education was the most effective way to combat housing
discrimination.
Second, until a few years ago, much of the E&O that had been conducted in rural
areas had been spotty and inconsistent with limited follow‐up and, thus, did not
engender the confidence and trust people needed to come forward with
complaints.
Third, the amount and results of enforcement affects whether people believe it
will help them and influences whether they will come forward to complain or,
rather, accept acts of housing discrimination as “fate” and something they cannot
do anything about. In the last few years enforcement has begun to increase the
focus on rural areas.
The premise that more and better fair housing E&O and enforcement empowers
people to complain rather than accept housing discrimination is born out in a
relationship between increased fair housing services on the one hand and
allegations and complaints on the other. In 2000, SWFHC was not conducting
E&O statewide and systemic enforcement was very limited in rural areas. About
52 complaints were received that year. In 2005, after SWFHC had been
conducting E&O statewide for two years under contract to ADOH, the number
of settlements had increased over 400% (from 2 to 9), the complaints received

65

more than tripled (128), and the complaints filed with HUD more than doubled
(52).
While the resources exist, many people do not avail themselves of information
that could help them. Alarmingly, about 45% of rental units that SWFHC has
tested and have been built in the last 15 years are not totally compliant with the
accessibility requirements of FHA. Some of the reasons suggested for the
problems that many property owners or managers have with compliance
indicate that the issues could be addressed by education and outreach.
1. Property management staff may not be adequately trained, nor do some
property owners monitor their management company practices for
compliance with FHA. Exacerbating the problem is the high turnover of
staff. For example, SWFHC had filed three complaints against one
property management company over a two year period (2001‐2003). The
problem was basically that new staff was not promptly trained and as a
result some were consistently and egregiously violating FHA.
2. Some small property owners may be misinformed and believe they are
exempt from FHA and need to comply. For example, a four‐unit dwelling
is only exempt if the owner is living in one of the units and an exemption
does not apply to an owner of a single family dwelling if the seller uses a
realtor’s services to sell their home.
3. There are many gray areas between such issues as security, safety, and
liability on the one hand and housing rights on the other. Today
understanding the distinction is more important than ever; property
managers and owners need training in order to make informed decisions
involving complex issues.
4. Housing providers in rural areas can be poorly informed and not be aware
of the fair housing training resources available to them in their own area.
Some believe they need to drive to Phoenix or Tucson to receive the
training they need and this can result in delays for them and their staff.

66

V. ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FAIR HOUSING
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES IN THE JURISDICTION
1. State of Arizona Activities:
The foremost participant in activities which enforce 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.
The Arizona Department of Housing has also actively worked to further fair
housing by funding activities which provide forums for discussion and
education. The Governor’s Housing Forum, which attracts persons from around
the state involved in housing, provides workshops on fair housing issues. ADOH
has also funded fair housing activities for the past several years. These activities
include the following:
Southwest Fair Housing Council received a two‐year $300,000 contract in
2005 to provide education and training through distribution of materials,
participation in seminars and workshops, and conducting radio talk
shows on fair housing.
Southwest Fair Housing Council received a two‐year $265,000 contract in
2003 to use for education and advocacy programs related to fair housing
in the 13 rural counties of Arizona.
Southwest Fair Housing Council (then the Southern Arizona Housing Center)
received a $48,633 contract in 2002 to further fair housing education in
several central and southeastern Arizona rural counties.
Arizona Fair Housing Center received a $49,225 contract in 2001 to provide
fair housing training in Maricopa, Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo, and
Apache counties.
Community Legal Services received a $27,558 contract in 2000 provides on
fair housing education issues in La Paz, Mohave, and Yuma counties.
The Southwest Fair Housing Council (SWFHC) had been instrumental in
educating consumers and housing providers in Arizona on fair housing laws. As
of June 2005, SWFHC created a fair housing rental and sales videotape for use
with housing consumers. Thus far, 17 DVDs and 45 videotapes have been
distributed to 23 locations throughout Arizona. A pilot program has been
started in Pima County with the Tucson Indian Center and the Section 8 program
whereby TV/VCR units are being placed in public waiting areas where the
videotape created on fair housing will be looped and the message will be shown
67

several times per day. If this pilot works well, SWFHC will consider placing
TV/VCRs throughout Arizona.
SWFHC has provided Section 504 accessibility training in October 2004 to
approximately 240 housing providers including the Navajo Nation Housing
Authority and in May 2005 to Arizona Department of Housing staff; conducted
12, three‐hour continuing educational unit (CEU) classes for 316 realtors
throughout the state; and conducted fair housing workshops for 70 rental
properties, reaching 1,053 rental industry employees along with 47 classified
advertising staff with various Arizona newspapers.
2. Enforcement Activities Conducted by HUD funded Private Fair Housing
Organizations (FHOs)
Testing10:
Testing is an investigative tool to help determine if illegal housing discrimination
is occurring at any particular housing site. A test is structured to control for
socio‐economic characteristics and isolate a protected class characteristic in order
to determine if differences of treatment in the housing market are due to this
characteristic. For example, if an African American male and a white male of
similar age and with the same socio‐economic background are sent to an
apartment site and one is told that there are no apartments available and the
other is shown a number of apartments, this would provide prima fascia
evidence of illegal housing discrimination. In the tables below this result is
referred to as “Supports” (a charge of discrimination). Similarly, the reference
“Does Not Support” indicates that there were no differences of treatment and
“Inconclusive” means that while there may have been differences it was not clear
that they indicated discrimination.
Auditing (testing) is an important component of fair housing enforcement since
it can systematically review compliance by providers according to testing plans
approved by HUD or other funding sources such as CDBG entitlement
jurisdictions. In addition, testing can deter acts of housing discrimination. Either
FHIPs or FHAPs can conduct testing.

10

The information included in this section was obtained from HUD through a FOIA request and
report records from the Southwest Fair Housing Council. Information for the Arizona Fair
Housing Center could not be included because they did not respond to requests for information.

68

The information presented here was provided by HUD in response to Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests by SWFHC. HUD was only able to provide
this information back to 2003. Reports prior to that time were in the process of
being archived in Washington.
Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) Audits Conducted by SWFHC and AFHC
from HUD Records
2003‐2005
Year
Rental
Sales
Lending
Disability
Totals
2003
91
41
33
60
225
2004
202
20
20
99
341
2005**
168
7
9
85
269
Totals
461
68
62
244
835
** The information for 2005 is for three quarters; fourth quarter reports are due 3/31/ 06.

Results of Audits:
The following are the results of systemic testing by the Southwest Fair Housing
Council under contract to HUD from 3/1/2000 to 2/28/2006. The testing was
conducted throughout the State of Arizona but focused on the Metropolitan
Areas of Tucson and Phoenix. A total of 1,288 tests were conducted of which 155
were in rural areas of the State or about 12%.
The Results of Testing in Arizona Conducted by SWFHC from 3/1/2000 to 2/28/2006
Apartment Rental
Basis/Outcome

Race

Supports
Does Not Support
Inconclusive
Totals

37
93
81
211

National
Origin
53
107
115
275

Familial
Status
13
19
21
53

69

Accessibility

Disability

Total

81
56
43
180

27
63
57
147

211 (24.4%)
338 (39%)
317 (36.6%)
866 (100%)

Basis/Outcome
Supports
Does Not Support
Inconclusive
Total

Home Sales
Race
National
Origin
45
32
43
25
56
66
144
123

Total
77 (28.8%)
68 (25.5%)
122 (45.7%)
267 (100%)

Mortgage Lending
Basis/Outcome
Race
National
Origin
Supports
37
10
Does Not Support
19
28
Inconclusive
34
27
Total
90
65

Total
47 (30.3%)
47 (30.3%)
61 (39.4%)
155 (100%)

Conclusions
Overall, the percentage of tests which showed unfavorable differences of
treatment for protected class testers was 26%. The percentages ranged from
about 24% in the rental market to over 30% in home mortgages. In other words,
one out of four individuals who are racial or ethnic minorities or are disabled
(testing for other protected classes are not shown here) can expect to face
discrimination in the housing market. The largest disparity of treatment was in
accessibility (often referred to as the design and construction requirements) for
persons with disabilities. Testing showed that 45% of apartments that were
constructed and occupied after 3/13/1991 were not in compliance with FHA.
The audits provide evidence that housing discrimination exists throughout
Arizona. A second conclusion that can be drawn from the results of testing is that
the level of discrimination is as high as or higher than the national average. This
AI outlines actions to help ensure fair housing choice in Arizona.

70

C. Private Sector Activities
There are a sizable number of fair housing resources offered by private
organizations and agencies either located or operating in Arizona. The following
is a partial list:
The Arizona Fair Housing Partnership
The Arizona Fair Housing Partnership (AFHP) was initiated in 1998 as a
statewide coalition of government agencies, housing industry representatives,
non‐profit organizations, and housing advocates for the following purposes:
1. Provide information to the public and policy officials regarding
fair housing.
2. Sponsor fair housing training for housing professionals
3. Monitor discriminatory practices and recommend actions to
overcome fair housing barriers.
4. Strive to achieve a discrimination free housing market in
Arizona through the Partnership model of public/private
collaboration and cooperation.
5. Recruit entities and individuals to promote equal access to
housing opportunities.
AFHP currently has about 30 members throughout the state and full
membership meetings are held twice annually. The eight‐member Steering
Committee meets every other month and there are several committee and ad hoc
meetings conducted throughout the year.
Since its inception AFHP has facilitated and participated in community‐based
fair housing forums and activities throughout the state. Each April (Fair Housing
Month) the partnership takes the lead in planning and facilitating public events
designed to recognize the importance of full and fair access to housing in
Arizona’s neighborhoods and communities. Below are titles from representative
public events:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

“Fair Housing: Then, Now and Tomorrow…The Changing Face of Housing
Discrimination”
“Fair Housing Summit 2001” – a two‐day statewide conference
“Fair Housing Workshop 2002…Housing Opportunities Made Equal”
“The Impact of the Changing World on the Arizona Housing Community”
“West Valley Fair Housing: Issues And Solutions”

71

ƒ
ƒ

“Fair Housing – Special Issues and Compliance” (three‐hour REALTOR
continuing education class)
“Fair Housing For the Real World: An Advanced Fair Housing Seminar”

In 2003, in collaboration with the Arizona Mortgage Lenders Association
(AMLA), the Partnership co‐sponsored a predatory lending awareness campaign
in cooperation with the Arizona Diamondbacks baseball club. Posters in English
& Spanish warned of the pitfalls of predatory loans.
In 2005, the Partnership collaborated with the Arizona Association of
REALTORS to create a large poster with showing diverse housing consumers;
promoting fair housing and giving contact information for persons who wish to
file fair housing complaints.
In January 2006, the Partnership sponsored a second Fair Housing Legislative
Briefing and Breakfast. The first had been conducted in October 2000.
Plans for 2006 include revising the Partnership’s brochure, securing a dedicated
website and revising and streamlining AFHP’s governance and its meeting and
activity schedule.
The Fair Housing Partnership has proven to be effective in mobilizing the
housing industry and public and private agencies concerned with housing and
conducting fair housing education and outreach activities that have helped to
educate housing providers and consumers. In addition, by creating a venue in
which fair housing agencies and organizations work together for common goals
it has helped to break down barriers of distrust and to build bridges of
communication and cooperation.
ADOH actively supports the Arizona Fair Housing Partnership by requiring its
contractual E&O provider to be a member of AFHP, attend all meetings, and
participate in AFHP events and activities.
Freddie Mac
Freddie Mac is a stockholder‐owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1970
for the purpose of facilitating the supply of funding that mortgage lenders can
make available to homebuyers. It does this primarily by buying mortgages from
lenders, packaging the mortgages into securities and then selling – guaranteed
by Freddie Mac‐ to investors. Mortgage lenders then turn around and use the
proceeds from selling loans to Freddie Mac to fund new mortgages. One reason
72

that Freddie Mac is concerned about the recent increase in predatory lending is
that it impacts on the stability of their securities through defaults and
foreclosures. Freddie Mac currently sponsors the “The Don’t Borrow Trouble”
(DBT) campaign. The campaign is a national education and outreach initiative
that was piloted in Boston in 2000 and because of its success it has expanded to
other communities nationwide, including Arizona. The DBT campaign targets
home mortgage refinancing and home equity loans. These are areas where
predatory lending is prevalent because existing homeowners often have built
substantial equity. DBT is a comprehensive consumer awareness campaign
combining public education and counseling services to help homeowners avoid
lending practices that strip away their homes equity. DBT consists of seed
funding, a bilingual media toolkit, project coordination, marketing, consultant
services and onsite training. For the campaign to be successful it requires
community collaboration, coordination and support. ADOH’s present E&O
subcontractor, SWFHC, offers DBT to rural communities within the State’s
CDBG jurisdiction.
The Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) licenses real estate schools,
instructors and authorizes curriculum. Presently, 90 schools throughout the state
are certified. ADRE also licenses real estate agents and requires agents to attend
at least three‐hours of fair housing continuing education credit every two years.
ADOH’S subcontractor, the Southwest Fair Housing Council, is an ADRE
accredited Real Estate School for purposes of fair housing classes and, thus, is
able to provide credits to real estate agents for the training sessions conducted
throughout the state. Offering credit for trainings in rural areas is an important
component of ADOH’s Fair Housing E&O program.
The Arizona Multihousing Association
The Arizona Multihousing Association (AMA) is a trade association representing
the multihousing rental industry in Arizona. The purpose of AMA is to provide
professional development, improve the image of the rental industry, influence
legislation that affects the rental industry and assist members in operating
financially sound and ethical businesses. AMA represents approximately 1,750
members throughout the state. Among the educational services provided by
AMA are regularly scheduled, in depth, fair housing classes for managers,
leasing agents and maintenance /service staff. AMA will also respond to fair
housing questions by phone, post, or e‐mail from members.

73

Arizona Department of Financial Institutions
The main purpose of the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions (ADFI) is
to “regulate and supervise the financial institutions and enterprises of Arizona
according to the statutes in ways that will not unreasonably impede economic
growth or business activity.” ADFI is statutorily charged with licensing,
supervision, and regulation of state chartered financial institutions and
enterprises. The responsibility is twofold: ensuring the safety and soundness of
State chartered financial entities, as well as compliance with applicable state and
federal laws. The Department also reviews complaints that are filed by
consumers against licensed entities when violations of state law or rules have
been alleged and directs appropriate remedial action if violations are
substantiated. A partial list of the financial entities regulated by ADFI include
state chartered banks and credit unions, savings and loans, mortgage and loan
brokers, money transmitters, and payday loans.
Conclusion
While there are a significant number of organizations that offer fair housing
resources to their constituent providers and consumers it appears that they could
be better coordinated. A better use of the resources that are out there could help
to improve fair housing compliance. This observation is based on interviews,
surveys, feedback from trainings and SWFHC phone logs. SWFHC makes on
average about five referrals a day to organizations that have the resources that
callers are requesting. For example, SWFHC receives calls from landlords across
the state asking for information regarding what are ostensibly landlord tenant
issues but could have fair housing implications. Another example is that despite
that there are over 90 state certified providers across the state that can offer fair
housing in their trainings, some rural real estate agents are unaware of these and
assume they have to wait and drive long distances to a metro area for this
training. The Arizona Department of Real Estate has a complete listing of schools
and their locations are readily available on their website.
The following are actions that can improve the use of resources that are already
available:
• The E&O provider under contract to ADOH will develop and distribute a
list of fair housing resources organized by interest groups.
• AFHP will be asked to include this issue on their agenda and in future
activity plans.
• The E&O provider under contract to ADOH will contact and encourage
organizations to review the information that they provide including

74

referral agencies to assure that it is current and inclusive of any fair
housing activities they offer.

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions of this investigation and analysis are summarized in the
Impediments that are presented in the matrix below. Similarly, the
recommendations are included in the matrix as the Plan of Action. This matrix is
intended to serve as a framework for the annual review and evaluation to be
reported in the CAPER.

75

Action Plan Matrix
IMPEDIMENT
1. Many housing consumers lack
knowledge of their fair housing
rights, where to go for information,
and how to get help if they believe
they or someone they know have
experienced housing discrimination.

ACTION
ADOH will continue to fund education
and outreach throughout non‐metro
Arizona as it has since 1994. The
current E&O scope of work includes
(but is not limited to) the following:
Conduct four (4) fair housing workshops
in each county in Arizona targeting
housing consumers. These workshops
will be offered in Spanish if
appropriate. Last year about 28% of
the workshops and presentation were
provided
either
completely
or
partially in Spanish (English or
Spanish translation).
Provide four (4) presentations in each
county at sessions sponsored by local
organizations.
Provide a presence (e.g. staff a table) and
distribute fair housing materials at a
minimum of two (2) events in each
county.
Identify and establish a minimum of
fifteen (15) sites per county at which
fair housing literature will be
distributed on an on‐going basis, and
ensure that sufficient materials are
always on hand each 12 month
period.
Distribute at least 12,000 pieces of fair
housing literature in the 13 county
service areas annually.
Ensure that all training and outreach,
including materials, are offered in
English and Spanish.
Conduct at least two (2) local radio talk
shows regarding fair housing that will
be broadcast in each county that has
such capacity.

76

Partner with statewide organizations,
local groups, local governments, fair
housing based groups, schools
libraries, disabilities groups, non‐
profits and others to plan and conduct
these activities.
Participate in all Arizona Fair Housing
Partnership quarterly meetings.
Conduct the above activities out of locally
based outreach offices provided by
collaborating agencies in rural
counties and including the following
communities:
Benson,
Bisbee,
Douglas, Flagstaff, Nogales, Safford,
Sierra Vista, and Yuma.
ADOH will support and through its E&O
subcontractor will actively participate
in activities conducted and sponsored
by the Arizona Fair Housing
Partnership (AFHP).
ADOH
will
annually
request
a
proclamation from the Governor
declaring April Fair Housing month.
This proclamation is helpful in
building an awareness of fair housing
throughout the state and kicks off
activities that are conducted in April.

1. (Continued)

77

ADOH will continue to contract with a
state certified provider to conduct Fair
Housing Training to housing
providers throughout the non metro
rural areas of the state. To overcome
the barrier of time and distance for
providers these trainings will take
place in the rural areas themselves.
ADOH will continue to contract with a
provider that is able to offer
Continuing Education Units (CEUs)
to real estate agents in non‐metro
areas throughout the state at no cost
and provide an effective incentive for
agents to participate in quality fair
housing trainings. The ADOH
contract with SWFHC runs until July
2007 and provides for four (4) fair
housing workshops annually in each
county for real estate agents,
landlords, property managers,
lenders, housing authority staff, and
non‐profit housing program staff.
ADOH will contract with a provider to
develop and distribute educational
materials to housing providers.
Presently, the ADOH contract with
SWFHC calls for the distribution of
12,000 pieces of literature annually to
both housing providers and
consumers.

2. Housing providers need to be better
informed regarding their
responsibilities to comply with the
Federal Fair Housing Act.

78

3. There is a need statewide for more
affordable housing.

The role of ADOH in developing affordable
housing is contained in the 2005‐2009 State of
Arizona Consolidated Plan. In addition,
ADOH will provide the following:
1.

2.

ADOH will direct their E&O provider
to include information on the
importance of affordable housing to
fair housing in fair housing trainings
and literature.
ADOH will conduct the annual
Governor’s Housing Forum.

1. ADOH will monitor the referral
procedures of all CDBG recipients
through an annual questionnaire.
Recipients will identify the
procedures they use to log contacts,
identify the referral agencies, and
participate in training if they lack
adequate procedures or the
knowledge to implement them.
2. ADOH will continue to invest its own
resources and contract with a
provider to offer training at no cost to
the participant. ADOH will offer this
training to any agency and encourage
CDBG awardees to obtain it.
3. The ADOH subcontractor will
provide printed materials to agencies
listing where complaints can be
referred and what components of an
effective referral system entail.

4. There is a need to improve the
process for a fair housing complaint
referral in many non‐ metro
communities.

79

5. Predatory practices and disparities
in lending negatively impact
protected classes in non‐metro
Arizona.

6. Information gathering and
monitoring fair housing performance
needs to be improved.

Predatory Lending includes the following:
1.
ADOH will direct the inclusion of
information on predatory lending in
fair housing education and outreach
materials as well as trainings and
presentations.
2.
The annual Governor’s Housing
Forum will include sessions on
predatory and abusive lending.
3.
ADOH will cooperate with agencies
that have predatory lending education
programs, such as AARP, Fannie Mae,
and the “Don’t Borrow Trouble”
campaign sponsored by Freddie Mac.
The ADOH E&O provider will
distribute these materials in the
trainings, sessions and with the other
fair housing literature statewide.
Disparities in Lending includes the
following:
1.
Using 2004 as a base line, ADOH’s
E&O provider will annually review
HMDA data to determine trends and
report these to ADOH.
2.
ADOH will include the issue of sub‐
prime lending in E&O to increase the
awareness of consumers, direct them
to sources of lending counseling before
procuring a home mortgage and
inform them of foreclosure counseling
if a sub prime loan is the cause of
default.
ADOH will require all CDBG recipients to
answer an annual questionnaire that will
provide some of the information discussed
here. Other agencies will be encouraged to
complete the questionnaires voluntarily.

80

7. Enforcement needs to be increased
in rural areas. In particular, there
needs to be greater focus on border
areas, Colonias, and communities
surrounding Native American
reservations where discrimination has
been shown to be particularly high.

In 2003, in response to a HUD priority,
SWFHC began to focus testing in border
communities, Colonias, and communities
near Native American reservations. The
Southwest Fair Housing Council will
continue to conduct this testing and will
report to ADOH annually regarding the
nature of the tests and the results of tests
conducted in all non‐metro Arizona. ADOH
will require this of any E&O contractor.

8. NIMBYism impedes both fair and
affordable housing.

There are many things that can be done to
respond to people’s expressions of fear
regarding affordable housing. These include:
1. Educate the public about the value of
affordable housing and the
importance of strategies to increase
and diversify the housing stock. These
issues will be included in trainings
and literature.
2. The annual Governor’s Housing
Forum will continue to have breakout
sessions that include NIMBY‐
opposition as topics.

81

9. Existing fair housing resources are

underutilized.

The following are actions that can be done to
improve the use of resources that are already
available:
1. The E&O provider under contract to
ADOH will develop and distribute a
list of fair housing resources
organized by interest groups.
2. AFHP will be asked to include this
issue on their agenda and in future
activity plans.
3. The E&O provider under contract to
ADOH will contact and encourage
organizations
to
review
the
information
that
they
provide
including referral agencies to assure
that it is current and inclusive of any
fair housing activities they offer.

82