S TATE O F A R I ZO NA CONSOLIDATED PLAN 2010-2014 MAY 14, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1 Leading With Solutions .......................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Navigating the Consolidated Plan ......................................................................................................... 1 Income Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 1 Funding Resources ................................................................................................................................ 2 Public Participation ............................................................................................................................... 3 The State of the State ............................................................................................................................. 4 Summary of Primary Housing Needs ................................................................................................... 4 Summary of 2010-2014 Arizona Strategic Plan Priorities ....................................................................... 6 Additional Consolidated Plan Information ........................................................................................... 7 Comments.............................................................................................................................................. 7 HUD Approval....................................................................................................................................... 7 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 8 What is the Consolidated Plan? ............................................................................................................. 8 Lead Agency .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Income Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 8 Available Funding Resources ................................................................................................................ 9 Consultation ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Sources of Data ..................................................................................................................................... 13 II. SUMMARY OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ........................................................................... 15 Summary of Citizen Participation Process ........................................................................................... 15 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS....................................................................................................... 17 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Demographic Profile ............................................................................................................................ 19 Special Needs Populations ................................................................................................................... 30 Housing Market Profile ........................................................................................................................ 42 Housing Costs and Affordability .......................................................................................................... 47 Public and Assisted Housing ............................................................................................................... 53 Barriers to Affordable Housing ............................................................................................................ 54 Housing and Community Development Needs ................................................................................... 55 Fair Housing......................................................................................................................................... 57 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 i TABLE OF CONTENTS IV. STRATEGIC PLAN........................................................................................................... 61 ADOH Investment Criteria.................................................................................................................. 61 Availability of Resources ...................................................................................................................... 61 Priority Needs determination .............................................................................................................. 61 Priorities, Programs, and Goals ........................................................................................................... 62 Methods of Distribution (MOD) ......................................................................................................... 68 Consolidated Plan Implementation ..................................................................................................... 73 Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing .......................................................................................... 73 Obstacles to Meeting Underserved Needs .......................................................................................... 74 Institutional Coordination ................................................................................................................... 77 Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................................................... 80 APPENDIX A – INCOME LIMITS .......................................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B – CDBG ENTITLEMENT JURISDICTIONS ........................................................ B-1 APPENDIX C – CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN ................................................................... C-1 APPENDIX D – PUBLIC MEETING NEEDS SUMMARY .........................................................D-1 APPENDIX E - PUBLIC COMMENT AND RESPONSE ........................................................... E-1 APPENDIX F – COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY ..................................................................... F-1 APPENDIX G – RACIAL AND ETHNIC CONCENTRATION MAPS ...........................................G-1 APPENDIX H – LOW-INCOME AREA MAPS ........................................................................H-1 APPENDIX I – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICE PROVIDERS ................................................. I-1 APPENDIX J – HOMELESSNESS RESOURCES ................................................................... J-1 APPENDIX K – LEAD POISONING RISK INDEX .................................................................... K-1 APPENDIX L – HUD TABLES .............................................................................................. L-1 ii Arizona Department of Housing • May 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES Figure A COG Regions......................................................................................................................... 18 Figure B Foreclosure Actions to Housing Units .................................................................................. 51 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Income Definitions .................................................................................................................. 9 Table 2 Population Change by County, 2000–2009 ............................................................................. 20 Table 3 Population by Age, 2000–2008 ................................................................................................ 21 Table 4 Senior Population by County .................................................................................................. 22 Table 5 Youth Population by County .................................................................................................. 23 Table 6 Occupations of Arizona Residents, 2008 ................................................................................ 26 Table 7 Industry Employment Average Annual Growth Rate, 2008-2010 ........................................... 26 Table 8 Labor Force and Unemployment by County, 2009 Average................................................... 27 Table 9 Race/Ethnicity for Arizona and by COG ............................................................................... 28 Table 10 Population in Low-Income Areas by County, 2009 .............................................................. 29 Table 11 Continuum of Care: Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart (HUD Table 1A)..... 40 Table 12 Continuum of Care Housing Gap Analysis Chart, 2009 (HUD Table 1A) ........................... 41 Table 13 Housing Types by County, 2008 ........................................................................................... 42 Table 14 Household Tenure, 2008 ....................................................................................................... 43 Table 15 Reason for Unit Vacancy by County, 2008 ............................................................................ 44 Table 16 Age of Housing, 2008 ............................................................................................................ 45 Table 17 Age of Housing by COG, 2008 .............................................................................................. 45 Table 18 Lead Hazard Estimates, State of Arizona ............................................................................. 46 Table 19 Overcrowding by COG.......................................................................................................... 47 Table 20 Owners by Income Level, 2009 ............................................................................................. 48 Table 21 Affordable Mortgages by Income Category – Apache County ............................................. 48 Table 22 Affordable Mortgages by Income Category – Maricopa County.......................................... 48 Table 23 Median Sales Price by County, 2006 and 2009 ...................................................................... 49 Table 24 Summary Housing Problems for Owners, 2009.................................................................... 50 Table 24 Renters by Income Level, 2009 ............................................................................................. 51 Table 25 Fair Market Rents by County, 2009 ...................................................................................... 52 Table 25 Summary Housing Problems – Renter, 2009 ........................................................................ 53 Table L-1 Priority Housing Needs (HUD Table 2A) ........................................................................ L-1 Table L-2 Priorities for Special Needs Population (HUD Table 1A and 2A) ................................... L-1 Table L-3 Priority Housing Activities/Investment Plan (HUD Table 2A) ...................................... L-2 Table L-4 Priority Community Development Needs and Objectives (HUD Table 2B)................... L-2 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEADING WITH SOLUTIONS “The Arizona Department of Housing provides housing and community revitalization to benefit the people of Arizona.” The Consolidated Plan is a document required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to be submitted by all jurisdictions that directly receive HUD formula funds. The Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH) is the state agency responsible for developing the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. The goal of the Plan is to create a five-year strategy that identifies priorities and resources for affordable housing and community development projects and services. PURPOSE The Consolidated Plan determines priorities, establishes strategic goals, and allocates resources for the HUD funded programs administered by the state of Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH), namely: the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) and the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program administered by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES). NAVIGATING THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN The required elements of the state's Consolidated Plan include: • Introduction – the basics about Consolidated Plans and a listing of resources used in the development of this Plan; • Summary of the citizen participation process; • An assessment of housing and community development needs for the five-year period of 2010 to 2014, including an analysis of the Arizona’s economic conditions and housing market; and • A discussion of the state's strategies, priority needs, and objectives for housing and community development activities. Additional information may be found in several appendices. INCOME DEFINITIONS The primary goal of the Consolidated Plan is to address the needs of low-income households. Income limits are determined by HUD based on a percentage of the area median income, and adjusted for household size. This document uses the following income limits: • Low-income refers to households earning at or below 80 percent of the area median income. • Very low-income refers to households earning at or below 50 percent of the area median income. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Extremely low-income refers to households earning at or below 30 percent of the area median income. FUNDING RESOURCES The state administers a range of federal grant and loan funds, as well as uses state funds, to address affordable housing and community development needs in Arizona. Primary federal funding programs include: • Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). This grant funds projects and programs related to affordable housing, community services, and neighborhood improvement. The range of potential uses is very wide. ADOH distributes CDBG funds to rural county and municipal governments each year. • HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). The HOME program funds acquisition and/or rehabilitation of housing, new housing construction, and rehabilitation of housing for ownership and rental opportunities. ADOH distributes HOME funds each year for use on eligible projects statewide. • Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). HOPWA funds housing assistance and supportive services to persons with HIV or AIDS. ADOH works with local government and nonprofit partners to serve residents outside of Phoenix and Tucson. • Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). This program funds basic shelter and essential supportive services for homeless persons, as well as homelessness prevention efforts. Shelter and support are provided by nonprofit service providers, while community action agencies work to prevent homelessness. ESG is managed by the Department of Economic Security. Other funding for affordable housing and community development includes: 2 • State Housing Trust Fund (HTF). Funds are available to assist with acquisition and rehabilitation or new construction of owner-occupied housing, rental housing, and emergency shelter units, as well as a range of other affordable housing-related activities. While the Housing Trust Fund was capped in FY2010 at $10.5 million annually, in federal FY2010 the state only expects to have approximately $4 million available for new activities due to sweeps enacted by the legislature to balance the state’s general fund. • Shelter Plus Care Program/Supportive Housing Program. These two programs funds permanent supportive housing for homeless persons and are paired with social services funding from other sources. ADOH expects to administer $10.7 million in federal FY2010. • Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. ADOH administers this federal tax credit that funds lowincome rental housing development. The state receives approximately $14 million in tax credit authority annually, which has an approximate market value of $100 million over ten years. The market value of the tax credits depends on the syndication price of the tax credits, which fluctuates with the market. • Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. The Arizona Housing Finance Authority administers this first-time homebuyer tax credit program, along with down payment and closing cost assistance. Nonprofit organizations administer the credit certificates in rural areas. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Mortgage Revenue Bond Program. The Arizona Housing Finance Authority issues singlefamily mortgage revenue bonds for the 13 rural counties. • Economic Stimulus Programs. ADOH administers several stimulus/recovery funds such as National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program, Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program, Tax Credit Assistance Program, and LowIncome Housing Tax Credit Exchange Program. In the summer of 2010 ADOH expects to launch a $125.1 million foreclosure relief program funded through the U.S. Treasury. The value of all these programs combined exceeds $200 million. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PUBLIC MEETINGS ADOH actively solicited participation of residents, community stakeholders, and other local governments/agencies in identifying housing and community development needs in Arizona and prioritizing the expenditure of CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG funds. ADOH conducted public meetings to gain public input at locations accessible to persons with disabilities. A Spanish translator was available in all the meetings. In four public meetings and two conference calls, residents, local officials, social service providers, commission members, and others provided feedback of housing, homeless, and community needs. A brief presentation on the state’s demographics was followed by a focus group discussion on community needs. COMMUNITY SURVEY ADOH also conducted an online and paper community needs survey that asked a number of questions related to housing, community facilities, homeless, public services, special needs housing, public assets, and economic development. Respondents were asked about the challenges they saw Arizona facing over the next five years. CONSULTATIONS ADOH conducted an extensive outreach and community input consolidated planning process in order to assess the needs for affordable housing and community development services, programs and projects throughout the state of Arizona. The assessment was based on an analysis of demographic, economic, housing stock and funding trends for the state. State agency representatives, regional Councils of Government (COGs), community-based services organizations, tribes, private sector organizations and non-profit organizations were consulted in order to secure a broad spectrum of views as to the priority housing and community development needs through surveys, community meetings and interviews. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE STATE OF THE STATE On February 14, 2012, Arizona will celebrate 100 years as the 48th state in the Union, and as such is still a relatively new, undeveloped state in many respects. Today, Arizona produces a majority of the country’s copper and become known for the manufacturing of electrical, aeronautical, and communications-based products. Much of the state also relies heavily on tourism as an industry. In the past decade or more, Arizona has experienced significant growth in residential construction to accommodate a growing population. As a result of the reliance on tourism and the building industry, the economic recession experienced nationwide has been especially felt in Arizona. The State of Arizona experienced substantial changes in its population and economic conditions over this past decade, including: • The State’s population of 6,683,129 in 2009 was an increase of 30 percent since 2000. Population is expected to continue to grow, but not at the higher rates projected just a few years ago due to the economic downturn. • Over two-thirds of the people live in urban areas. Five million people reside in the Phoenix and Tucson areas. • Some areas are growing much faster than others. Pinal County’s population grew by 98 percent since 2000, while Greenlee County grew by less than two percent. • Youth age 19 and under made up 29 percent of the population, as of 2008. • Seniors (age 65 and over) were 13 percent of the state’s population in 2008. Of those over 60, the fastest growing age group is persons over 85 years. The senior group is projected to represent up to 14.3 percent of the population by 2014 – the last year of this Consolidated Plan, and as much as 20 percent by 2020. • The recession has heavily impacted the state’s primary job generation industries: tourism and construction. Unemployment in late 2009 rose to 9.1 percent and Arizona fell to 49th in job growth compared to other states. • Unemployment in rural counties was higher than in urban areas, with some counties seeing rates in the high teens at the end of 2009. • Arizona is racially and ethnically diverse. Hispanics/Latinos comprised in 2008 almost 30 percent of the state population, and a much higher percentage in some southern counties. Native Americans represented 4.1 percent of the population statewide, and up to 27 percent in the Northern Arizona Council of Governments region. SUMMARY OF PRIMARY HOUSING NEEDS Homeownership Affordability – The Community Needs Assessment provides data indicating that even with housing prices falling by up to 50 percent between 2006 and 2009, opportunities to purchase a home in Arizona remain out of reach for a significant percentage of low-income households, especially for very lowincome households. In Arizona, more than half of low-income homeowners experienced some form of housing problem. While they represent a significant portion of Arizona’s workforce, less than 30 percent of low-income households are homeowners. 4 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Foreclosures – As of early 2010, Arizona was second in the nation in home foreclosure levels. There were 120,855 area foreclosures as of January 2010 and 1 in every 126 housing units had received a foreclosure filing. The economic recession and housing crisis has severely impacted Arizonans, especially low-income households. Rental Housing Affordability – The situation in 2010 for low-income renters is somewhat better than for owners. While over 54 percent of renters have problems with affording housing, the state has adequate rental housing and it is generally affordable to low-income households and above. However, Arizona generally lacks rental housing that is affordable to very low-income households. Securing safe, decent, and affordable rental housing for several special needs groups remains a challenge. Seniors and Youth – As the state’s middle-aged and senior populations grow older, senior housing, assisted care, long-term-care housing, and supportive services will be in demand to meet increasing senior needs. Similarly, as the state’s youth population increases and ages, jobs at livable income and affordable starter homes will be needed. Female-Headed Households – Roughly 40 percent of female-headed families with children live in poverty, a total of about 173,000 households. Single-parent households, including female-headed households, have special needs for housing and related support services, including day care, education, parenting help, recreation activities, and public transportation in close proximity to jobs and affordable housing. Low-Income Households – Over 42 percent of Arizona residents were low-income in 2009. Households with low incomes, and especially those very low- and extremely low-income households have the most difficult time securing affordable housing in Arizona. Even considering the recent sharp decline in housing prices, homeownership is not affordable to many low-income households in the state. Some of reasons are lack of sufficient income, high rates of unemployment, insufficient credit, and lack of funds for down payments. Special Needs Housing – Many special needs groups, particularly the elderly, persons with disabilities, and large families, have difficulty securing adequate and affordable housing in most counties served by ADOH. These populations also need additional social services, especially in rural areas. Other nonhomeless special needs groups include persons with HIV/AIDS, persons with severe mental illness and persons suffering from substance abuse. Homeless Persons – There remains a substantial need for a range of housing options and support services for people who are homeless and at risk of becoming homeless. The January 2009 statewide homeless count recorded over 14,000 homeless persons, over 6,000 of them unsheltered. The economic recession is placing an additional burden on the state’s resources to provide housing and support services. Homeless persons and at risk homeless persons have a significant need for prevention services, emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. Age of Housing Stock – Over a third of the existing housing stock in Arizona (more than half a million residential structures) is over thirty years old. A significant portion of those units suffer from deferred maintenance and upkeep and are in need of repair and rehabilitation in order to preserve and extend their useful life. Lead-Based Paint Hazards – Lead-based paint in residential units can pose severe health risks to children. Arizona requires public health agencies to identify children at risk of lead poisoning and mandates that all children up to six years of age be evaluated. An estimated 111,000 low-income owneroccupied housing units and 121,000 low-income rental units may contain lead-based paint hazards. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY OF 2010-2014 ARIZONA STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES For the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan period, ADOH determined several priorities, listed below, to guide funding decisions. Each of the priorities is equally important to ensuring quality of life for low-income households over the next five years. HOUSING PRIORITIES Priority 1: Expand the supply of affordable rental housing for very low-income and extremely low-income households. Emphasize projects that assist families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Priority 2: Preserve and improve the long-term life of existing affordable rental and owner-occupied housing stock. Priority 3: Expand homeownership opportunities for low-income homebuyers in areas of the state where median home prices are beyond the reach of low-income households. Priority 4: Ensure that all households in the state have adequate access to fair housing resources. HOMELESS PRIORITIES Priority 5: Encourage a range of services to help people move from homelessness to permanent housing and maintain independent living. Priority 6: Increase the number of transitional and permanent supportive housing units for the homeless. Priority 7: Offer services and funding to help prevent people from becoming homeless. SPECIAL NEEDS PRIORITIES Priority 8: Increase and preserve the supply of affordable housing available to the elderly, disabled, and large families. Priority 9: Improve housing accessibility and safety (existing and new). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES Priority 10: Improve infrastructure and physical environments to promote sustainable and accessible communities. Priority 11: Ensure a variety of public facilities are available to meet the recreational, human development, and service needs of low-income households and priority populations. Priority 12: Encourage job training and employment opportunities. 6 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ADDITIONAL CONSOLIDATED PLAN INFORMATION The 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan also includes detailed information about: • Method of distributing funding to recipients • Anti-poverty strategy • Plan implementation by ADOH • Lead-based paint hazard reduction actions • Actions to remove barriers to affordable housing • Institutional cooperation • Obstacles to meeting underserved needs • Governor’s 2010 Planning Initiative, and • Gaps in the delivery system and public housing • ADOH’s Monitoring Program COMMENTS The final version of the Consolidated Plan includes a summary of comments received during the public hearings and comment period, and ADOH's response to these comments. The public comment period was held from April 1, 2010 through April 30, 2010. HUD APPROVAL The Arizona 2010 – 2014 Consolidated Plan will be submitted to HUD prior to the deadline of May 15, 2010. It will include the HUD required signed certifications and federal application for assistance forms for each of the four HUD formula programs administered by ADOH. HUD has until the beginning of the program year on July 1, 2010, to comment on the Consolidated Plan. Once the Consolidated Plan is approved by HUD, an official version will be available on the ADOH website at www.housingaz.com or upon request at: Arizona Department of Housing 1110 W. Washington Street, Suite 310 Phoenix, AZ 85007 PHONE: 602.771.1000 TTY: 602.771.1001 FAX: 602.771.1002 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 7 I. INTRODUCTION The Consolidated Plan is a five-year plan required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in order to receive federal housing and community development funding. This section provides information on the contents of the Consolidated Plan, community involvement in the Plan, and a listing of resources used in the development of the Plan. WHAT IS THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN? The Consolidated Plan serves as a comprehensive strategy to address the needs of low-income residents of Arizona. The Plan contains two main components: • Community Needs Assessment. This section describes in detail the needs of Arizona’s lowincome population over the next five years. Needs are determined through collection of demographic data, such as the Census and the American Community Survey, and through consultations with social service agencies and the public. • Strategic Plan. This section takes the information collected on needs and identifies priorities for the next five years. It also discusses what resources should be devoted to meeting priority needs, how those resources will be distributed, and goals for each type of proposed activity. LEAD AGENCY The Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH) is the lead agency overseeing the development and implementation of the Consolidated Plan. ADOH is a cabinet-level state agency, established in October 2002. ADOH works closely with the Arizona Housing Finance Authority. These two entities share a common goal of creating affordable housing in Arizona communities. ADOH is responsible for the administration of the State’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (referred to as “HOME”), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding. The Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) is responsible for Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funding. In addition, ADOH administers numerous other federal resources as well as the State Housing Trust Fund, which are discussed elsewhere in this document. INCOME DEFINITIONS Throughout the Consolidated Plan, there are many references to income levels. Income is the most important factor affecting a household’s ability to access housing and services. For purposes of the Consolidated Plan, HUD defines income levels that are based on the area median income (AMI). The AMI is adjusted based on household size, but is commonly quoted for a four-person household. HUD updates income limits for each county annually. Refer to Appendix A – Income Limits for a full list of all Arizona counties’ income limits for 2009. HUD’s income definitions differ by program. Table 1 shows income definitions for CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (commonly referred to as “Section 8”). For the purposes of this Plan, the Section 8 definitions are used: 8 • Low-income refers to households earning at or below 80 percent of the AMI. • Very low-income refers to households earning at or below 50 percent of the AMI. • Extremely low-income refers to households earning at or below 30 percent of the AMI. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 I. INTRODUCTION Table 1 Income Definitions Income Level CDBG HOME HOPWA* Section 8 Extremely low Undefined Undefined Undefined 30% AMI or below Very low Undefined 50% AMI or below Undefined 31% to 50% AMI Low 50% AMI or below Up to 80% AMI Up to 80% AMI 51% to 80% AMI Moderate 51% to 80% AMI Undefined Undefined Undefined Above moderate 81% AMI or above Undefined Undefined Undefined * HOPWA beneficiaries are persons diagnosed with AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) or tested to be seropositive for HIV (human immunodeficiency virus). The resident family household or single individual must also be low-income. The ESG program does not provide income definitions, but provides funding for services and facilities to assist homeless individuals or families. Homeless persons are presumed to be low-income. AVAILABLE FUNDING RESOURCES The Consolidated Plan covers primarily federal funding sources received through HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development. However, the Plan must also consider other state and local funding sources to address low-income housing and community development needs that may be available over the five-year planning period. A short description of funding sources, both federal and nonfederal, follows. FEDERAL SOURCES (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The CDBG program was initiated by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The primary CDBG objectives relate to the provision of decent housing, suitable living environments, and economic opportunities for low-income persons. CDBG funds must meet one of the following three broad national objectives: provide benefit to low-income persons, prevent or eliminate slums and blight, or meet an urgent community development need. Larger jurisdictions receive CDBG funds directly from HUD and are called entitlement jurisdictions. In Arizona, Phoenix, Tucson, and several other cities with populations above 50,000 persons receive CDBG funds directly from HUD. A full list can be found in Appendix B – CDBG Entitlement Jurisdictions. ADOH receives the balance of CDBG funds for the state and distributes the funds to rural county and municipal governments, excluding the entitlement communities of Flagstaff, Prescott and Yuma. Funds are used to address a variety of housing and community development needs. HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) The HOME program was created as part of the 1990 Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act and offers funds for the development and rehabilitation of rental and ownership housing affordable to lowincome households. Common activities include acquisition/rehabilitation of housing, housing construction, and rehabilitation of housing for homeownership and rental opportunities. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 9 I. INTRODUCTION ADOH distributes HOME funds to units of local government, public housing authorities, nonprofit and forprofit housing developers, and tribal organizations. Such allocations may be utilized anywhere in the state, including in those larger jurisdictions that receive HOME funds directly from HUD. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) The HOPWA program provides housing assistance and related supportive services to persons who have been diagnosed with HIV or AIDS. In Arizona, funding is passed through Mohave County and Northland Cares which provides rental subsidies and social services to participating households. HUD provides HOPWA funds directly to Phoenix and Tucson, so ADOH’s funds are used primarily outside those jurisdictions. Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) The ESG program offers funding for providing homeless persons with basic shelter and essential supportive services and for homelessness prevention efforts. The Arizona Department of Economic Security manages the ESG funds. ADOH expects to receive about $886,000 in ESG funds in 2010. These funds are awarded to homeless services providers through a competitive process. The homeless prevention funding is allocated noncompetitively to community action agencies according to a formula based on poverty levels and unemployment. Funds are periodically distributed to transitional housing services as well. Some jurisdictions within Arizona receive ESG funding directly from HUD. Beginning in FFY 2010 or 2011 the Emergency Shelter Grant will be replaced with the Emergency Solutions Grant. The new ESG will be a combination of the old ESG and Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing (HPRP) with the emphasis being on prevention. Income requirements for the new ESG prevention funding will be 30 percent of AMI. OTHER FUNDING SOURCES Other key federal and nonfederal funding sources that may be available to serve housing and community development needs identified in the Consolidated Plan are described below. State Housing Trust Fund (HTF) The HTF finances a variety of affordable housing activities statewide, particularly in the rural areas of the state. In the past, the HTF has been used for acquisition and rehabilitation or new construction of owneroccupied housing, rental housing, and emergency shelter units. The HTF has also funded first-time homebuyer assistance, housing counseling, homelessness prevention, shelter operations, emergency repairs, planning and pre-development for affordable housing, and fair housing education. Between 1989 and 2008, the HTF received 55 percent of the state’s unclaimed property fund, which amounted to about $30 million in 2008. The State Legislature capped the HTF at $10.5 million a year in 2009 and, due to the state budget deficit, has already swept $6 million of that amount in federal FY2010 to balance the state budget. Over the course of the next five years ADOH expects to receive up to $10.5 million a year from this resource, although as long as the state budget continues to experience a deficit it is very likely to realize reductions below this amount. Shelter Plus Care Program/Supportive Housing Program These funds originate from HUD as a result of the McKinney-Vento Act and are applied for annually and received on a competitive basis. The Shelter Plus Care Program (S+C) provides permanent supportive housing through rental subsidies for homeless individuals and families and requires grantees to provide social services. The Supportive Housing Program (SHP) provides leasing, operating, and supportive services funding primarily for permanent housing, but some transitional housing units are grandfathered in and allowed to renew. 10 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 I. INTRODUCTION ADOH, in coordination with the Continuum of Care that covers 13 rural counties, applies for funds on behalf of several local projects each year. From the 2008 application process, ADOH expects to administer 23 SHP grants and three S+C programs in rural areas, along with four urban S+C grants in the Maricopa and Pima County Continuums of Care. The combined amount of these grants is expected to be just over $10.7 million. The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act, enacted in 2009, will streamline some of the requirements and provide for some changes in the way SPC and SHP grants are administered as well. ADOH anticipates becoming a consolidated applicant and a unified funding agency under the HEARTH act. HUD will be releasing comments on the HEARTH act during calendar year 2010. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) ADOH administers the LIHTC program in Arizona pursuant to U.S. Internal Revenue Service codes. A lowincome housing tax credit is a federal tax credit that may be sold to investors to finance the development of affordable rental housing. Tax credits that are allocated to a development are claimed in equal amounts for a 10year period. The rental property utilizing the credit must remain in compliance with the program guidelines and rent restriction requirements for a period of at least 30 years. ADOH has an annual allocation round to promote the development of affordable rental housing for lowincome individuals and families in the State of Arizona. Since tax credits are awarded on a competitive basis, ADOH encourages targeting the units to income levels lower than the federally established maximum income limits. The state of Arizona receives approximately $14 million in tax credits a year, with a 10-year market value of approximately $100 million, depending on the investment price received for the credit. Program requirements are published, typically on an annual basis, in the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), which is document required by the U.S. Treasury/Internal Revenue Service. Private Activity Bonds The Arizona Department of Commerce is responsible for allocating the state allocation for Private Activity Bonds. The Arizona Department of Commerce administers private activity bond volume that is cap financed through tax‐exempt bonds. Those low-income housing projects financed with tax-exempt bonds are eligible for four percent tax credits if they meet the minimum requirements and adhere to regulations set forth in the Qualified Allocation Plan. ADOH reviews the application for private activity bonds with four percent LowIncome Housing Tax Credits. In the urban counties of the state (Maricopa and Pima counties), bonds must be issued by one of the local urban Industrial Development Authorities (IDA). In rural counties, the State may issue bonds through the Arizona Housing Finance Authority or any of the local rural IDAs. Arizona Public Housing Authority There are two Section 8 programs administered through the Arizona Public Housing Authority (“Arizona PHA”): project-based rental assistance and the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The Arizona PHA has oversight and monitoring responsibilities for 114 project-based rental assistance subsidized properties, representing over 7,900 units throughout the state of Arizona. The properties, which receive rental subsidies through HUD’s Section 8 program, offer affordable housing to households that are at or below 50 percent of the area median income. The Arizona PHA also serves as the Public Housing Authority for Yavapai County, administering 124 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, including a small number of vouchers set-aside for veterans. In addition, the PHA also administers approximately 50 “portable” vouchers at any one time, which are vouchers that originated at another PHA, with the tenants relocating to Yavapai County. The Housing Authority makes monthly rental subsidy payments to rental property owners on behalf of the voucher holders, who must be very low-income households. The amount of the subsidy is the difference between a participating tenant’s contribution (30 percent of their income) and the total rent amount. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 11 I. INTRODUCTION The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program The Arizona Housing Finance Authority implements a first-time homebuyer program that provides homeownership assistance to low- and moderate-income households. The program has two components: a tax credit and a down payment or closing cost assistance component. The MCC program operates as a federal income tax credit, which reduces the borrower’s income taxes and in effect creates additional net income for the borrower. The MCC Plus Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance Program offers five percent of the purchase price, which can be used for down payment or closing costs. This program is administered through a network of nonprofit agencies throughout rural Arizona and is available in all areas of Arizona outside of Maricopa and Pima counties. Mortgage Revenue Bond Program The Arizona Housing Finance Authority annually issues single-family mortgage revenue bonds in order to offer low-interest mortgages to low-income households in the 13 rural counties of Arizona. The authority also has the ability to issue multifamily bonds for the financing of affordable rental housing. The Mortgage Revenue Bond Program provides an attractive 30-year fixed-rate mortgage for homebuyers who qualify for eligible Federal Housing Administration, Veterans Administration, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac conventional loans. Down payment assistance of up to five percent of the purchase price of the home may also be available. Other Economic Stimulus Programs ADOH currently administers several economic stimulus programs, including the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program, Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program, Tax Credit Assistance Program, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Exchange Program, Community Development Block Grant – Recovery Program and a TARP funded mortgage foreclosure program which will begin in the summer of 2010. These programs provided limited availability funding to the State in order to deal with a range of issues related to the economic downturn, including increases in foreclosed homes and unemployment, as well as the falling value of tax credits. CONSOLIDATED PLAN PROCESS The Consolidated Plan must be submitted to HUD no later than May 15, 2010. The Consolidated Plan is due every five years and provides a general guideline for spending funds over the period it covers. The implementing document for the Consolidated Plan is the annual Action Plan. The Action Plan serves as the yearly budget for federal programs and describes how funds will be allocated each year to address the needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. The Action Plan must be submitted to HUD each year by May 15. A key part of the Consolidated Plan effort is evaluating performance in meeting community needs. To this end, ADOH provides an accounting of how it spent its funds to meet priority needs each year in the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). This report is submitted to HUD 90 days after the conclusion of each fiscal year, on September 30. 12 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 I. INTRODUCTION CONSULTATION ADOH is involved on a continual basis in numerous planning efforts with other state agencies and departments; local, regional, and county governments; housing and social service providers; businesses; and citizens. The planning bodies responsible for these efforts often consist of members that are recipients of ADOH funding or share in some respect ADOH’s mission to address housing and community development needs for low-income and special needs populations throughout the state. The main products of these planning efforts are: • • • • Current and accurate identification and prioritization of needs; Establishment of objectives; Development of funding distribution methodology; and Development of policy. These planning bodies include the following: • • • • • Arizona Commission on Homelessness and Housing Rural Continuum of Care Arizona Housing Commission Arizona Housing Finance Authority Councils of Governments in Arizona Other state agency partners that were consulted include: • • Arizona Department of Economic Security Arizona Department of Health Services/Behavioral Health Services SOURCES OF DATA In preparing this Consolidated Plan, many data sources were consulted, including demographic data sources as well as many special studies and reports prepared by state agencies or nonprofits. A comprehensive listing is shown below. • American Community Survey (ACS) 2006–2008, U.S Census Bureau. ACS data is obtained from a nationwide survey on demographic, social, economic, and housing information conditions. The number of surveys conducted in a given year may be too few to be considered a representative sample, so the data is aggregated into a three-year period to provide a more accurate picture. Unless otherwise noted, all ACS data cited is from the 2006-2008 estimates. Some of the data are not provided for counties with populations under 20,000 persons, such as Greenlee, or counties where the sample size for a particular variable was not large enough to make a reasonably accurate estimate. • 2000 Decennial Census, U.S. Census Bureau. The U.S. Constitution provided for a census of the population every 10 years. The 2000 Census contains comprehensive information for describing the demographic and housing characteristics. As this data is now 10 years old and may not accurately reflect economic conditions in the nation and particularly in Arizona, in most instances more recent data has been utilized for this Consolidated Plan. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 • Arizona Department of Commerce. The Arizona Department of Commerce provides population estimates for Arizona’s counties, incorporated places, and the balance of counties. Estimates from July 2009 are included in this Plan. The Department also runs the Arizona Workforce Informer, which provides a variety of data on the state’s workforce, including unemployment rates and industry forecasts. • Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). ESRI provides modeling and mapping resources, including population and other data projections. • Arizona Department of Economic Security. Resources used included the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2010–2014. • US Bureau of Labor Statistics. This agency provides information on employment in different economic sectors and unemployment rates. • Current Status of Homelessness in Arizona: 18th Annual Report, December 2009. This was prepared by the Homeless Coordination Office, Division of Aging and Adult Services Community Services Unit. • Arizona Commission on Homelessness and Housing (formerly Arizona Interagency and Community Council on Homelessness). The commission’s purpose is to guide the development and implementation of the State’s plan to end homelessness for Arizonans. • ADOH. Various reports prepared by ADOH provided data for this Plan, including the 2009 Annual Report, State of Housing in Arizona 2009, Housing Trust Fund Fact Sheet, and CDBG Application Handbook (January 2009). • Arizona Department of Health Services. Information was provided on adult care facilities, alcohol and substance abuse, and HIV/AIDS. • Arizona Crime Victims Services Department. Information on domestic violence service providers was included in this Plan. • HUD data sets. HUD provided data Community Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) datasets, estimates of low-income populations, and other resources as cited in the document. • RealtyTrac. This company provides data on real estate transactions. • University of Arizona, Eller College of Management, Housing Market Report 2009. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 II. SUMMARY OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION SUMMARY OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS ADOH encouraged and solicited the participation of residents, community stakeholders, and other local governments/agencies in the process of identifying housing and community development needs in Arizona and prioritizing the expenditure of CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG funds. ADOH complied with the terms of the Citizen Participation Plan (please see Appendix C – Citizen Participation Plan). PUBLIC MEETINGS ADOH conducted a series of public meetings to gain public input. All public meetings were conducted at places that are accessible to persons with disabilities. A Spanish translator was available in all the meetings. There were four public meetings and two conference calls in which residents, local officials, social service providers, commission members, and others provided feedback of housing, homeless, and community needs. Each meeting focused on the needs of the particular area of the state. A brief presentation on the state’s demographics was followed by a focus group discussion on community needs. All meetings were open to the public. Refer to Appendix D – Public Meeting Needs Summary for a detailed report of public responses and priority needs. Below is a brief summary of all the public meetings and public outreach efforts. Meeting Flagstaff – Northern Arizona Region Regional forum with a focus on the planning process and a discussion of community needs and priority of needs. Encouraged participation in online survey. Lake Havasu – Western Arizona Region Regional forum with a focus on the planning process and a discussion of community needs and priority of needs. Encouraged participation in online survey. Sierra Vista – Southern Arizona Region Regional forum with a focus on the planning process and a discussion of community needs and priority of needs. Encouraged participation in online survey. Phoenix – Central Arizona Region – Governor’s Annual Housing Conference State-wide forum with a focus on the planning process and a discussion of community needs and priority of needs. Encouraged participation in online survey. Discussed needs for human services and needs of special needs populations, seniors, and the disabled. Conference Call Flagstaff – Northern Arizona Region Discussed regional needs and priorities over the next five years. Conference call offered online polling to get perspective Date & Time Facility Public Outreach Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:00–3:00 pm City of Flagstaff Council Chambers 211 W. Aspen Avenue Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Email blast to over 1,200 individuals, personal invitations, phone calls, posted on ADOH website Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:00–3:00 pm Aquatic Center Building 100 Park Avenue Room #155 Lake Havasu, AZ 86403 Email blast to over 1,200 individuals, personal invitations, phone calls, posted on ADOH website Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:00–2:00 pm City Hall 1011 N. Coronado Dr. Sierra Vista, AZ 85635 Email blast to over 1,200 individuals, personal invitations, phone calls, posted on ADOH website Wednesday, September 15, 2009 1:30–2:45 pm The Buttes Marriott Resort 2000 Westcourt Way Tempe, AZ 85282 Email blast to over 1,200 individuals, 100 flyers distributed, personal invitations, phone calls, posted on ADOH website Conference call Email blast, phone calls, posted on ADOH website August 18, 2009 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 15 II. SUMMARY OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Meeting from all attendees. Conference Call Sierra Vista – Southern Arizona Region Discussed regional needs and priorities over the next five years. Conference call offered online polling to get perspective from all attendees. Date & Time August 19, 2009 Public Comment Period 2010–2014 Consolidated Plan and 2010 Annual Action Plan April 1, 2010 to May 1, 2010 Public Hearing Held meeting to receive comments on draft Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. April 20, 2010 1:00–3:00 p.m. Facility Conference call Public Outreach Email blast, phone calls, posted on ADOH website Email blast to interested parties, notice published in one newspaper with general circulation throughout Arizona, posted on ADOH website Public notice published in one newspaper of general circulation and posted on ADOH website PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARING A draft of the 2010–2014 Consolidation Plan was provided for a 30-day comment period from April 1, 2010 to May 1, 2010. A public hearing was conducted on April 20, 2010. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Arizona Republic newspaper by April 1, 2010. Two public comments were received at the public hearing and during the 30-day comment period. Public comments and responses are shown in Appendix E – Public Comment and Response. NEEDS SURVEY A housing and community needs survey was available from August 1, 2009 to November 6, 2009. ADOH posted the survey on their website, issued a press release calling residents to take the survey, and sent email blasts to housing service providers, local governments, and the public. The survey was also available in Spanish and in hard copy form at ADOH office. The survey asked a number of questions related to housing, community facilities, homeless, public services, special needs housing, public assets, and economic development. Respondents were also asked about the challenges they saw Arizona facing over the next five years. In total, the survey received 213 responses. A detailed report on the conclusions of the Community Needs Survey is provided in Appendix F – Community Needs Survey. 16 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS This section of the State of Arizona 2010–2014 Consolidated Plan contains a community profile that addresses physical, social, economic, and demographic trends. This section identifies housing needs, especially for low-income households, and serves as the basis for determining the housing and community development needs and strategies for the State of Arizona. A description of the characteristics of the housing market, including supply, demand, condition, cost of housing, and special needs housing, is included in this section. METHODOLOGY Between 2000 and 2010, economic conditions changed dramatically in the nation and in Arizona, moving from fast-paced economic expansion to an extended recession. As such, while a Consolidated Plan would normally include data from the U.S. Decennial Census, the 2000 Census data no longer provides an accurate depiction of current demographic trends. For this Consolidated Plan, the most recent reliable data is used and comes from a wide range of federal, state, and regional sources. Where relevant, changes between 2000 and 2009 are shown with 2000 Census data and available recent data. Only when more recent data is not available is 2000 Census data used. Data is analyzed specifically for the State of Arizona, where applicable, and then further broken down by Council of Government (COG) regions and by counties. A COG is a public organization encompassing one or more counties and their cities as a regional community. Each COG serves the local governments and the citizens in its region. The purpose of a COG is to foster a regional focus by emphasizing long-range planning and coordination of services and activities. The state is divided into the six COG regions as listed and shown on the map (see Figure A). The six COG regions are as follows: • • Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG) o Gila County o Pinal County Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) o • • Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) o Yavapai County o Coconino County o Navajo County o Apache County Pima Association of Governments (PAG) o • Maricopa County Pima County SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization (SEAGO) Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 17 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS • o Graham County o Greenlee County o Cochise County o Santa Cruz County Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG) o Yuma County o La Paz County o Mohave County Figure A COG Regions 18 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS BACKGROUND The State of Arizona has a colorful history that includes diverse people, sweeping landscapes, and historic events that defined the Old West. For much of the 20th century, most of Arizona’s economy and its communities revolved around mining and agriculture. On February 14, 2012, Arizona will celebrate 100 years as the 48th state in the Union, and as such is still a relatively new, undeveloped state in many respects. Today, Arizona still produces a majority of the country’s copper but has also become known for the manufacturing of electrical, aeronautical, and communications-based products. Much of the state also relies heavily on tourism as an industry. In the past decade or more, Arizona has experienced significant growth in residential construction to accommodate a growing population. As a result of the reliance on tourism and the building industry, the economic recession experienced nationwide has been especially felt in Arizona. Over the last ten years, Arizona has experienced some dramatic changes. In 2009, the State’s population was estimated to be just under 6.7 million people, an increase of more than 25 percent since 2000. More than three-quarters of the state’s total population lives in urban areas. About 5 million people reside in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. Arizona’s growth is expected to continue, albeit at a much slower rate. In early 2010, the unemployment rate hovered near 10 percent, Arizona led the nation at second in its foreclosure rate, and the heyday of the construction industry leading the state’s economy is past. Arizona’s state budget has suffered significantly with historic budget and service reductions. In the past two years alone, ADOH has contributed more than $50 million in housing funds to assist with the state’s General Fund budget deficit. Most significant of those losses is the permanent loss of funding to the state’s Housing Trust Fund. The Housing Trust Fund was once funded at 55 percent of unclaimed property proceeds (which provided about $30 million annually), but the fund has now been capped at $10.5 million per year and could be further reduced if the economy does not improve. Arizona still continues to deal with housing and community development issues brought about by unprecedented growth since 2000, as well as emerging issues like high foreclosure rates. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE The demographic profile provides detailed information on the population, age, and racial/ethnic composition of the State of Arizona, as well as anticipated future changes. Information on employment trends is also included in this section. STATEWIDE POPULATION Arizona’s population was estimated at 6,683,129, according to the Arizona Department of Commerce population estimates (July 2009). Arizona’s population growth rate has varied widely with the economic cycle, but averaged growth of close to three percent per year. However, since 2006, Arizona’s population growth has slowed to less than the average annual rate. Arizona’s total population is overwhelmingly situated in urban areas. About 81 percent of Arizona residents live in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas (ACS, 2006-2008). POPULATION BY COUNTY The greatest population change between 2000 and 2009 occurred in Pinal County, which had an increase in population of 98 percent. Six other counties saw population increases of greater than 20 percent during the Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 19 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS same period (U.S. Census, Arizona Department of Commerce). Greenlee County had the smallest total population percentage change (1.6 percent). Table 2 shows each county’s population in 2000 and 2009, and the rate of growth between those two years. Table 2 Population Change by County, 2000–2009 Area Arizona 2000 Population 5,130,632 La Paz County Mohave County Yuma County WACOG Total 19,715 155,032 160,026 334,773 Maricopa County MAG Total 3,072,149 3,072,149 2009 Population 6,683,129 WACOG 21,616 206,763 205,940 434,319 MAG 4,023,331 4,023,331 Percentage Change 30.3% 9.6% 33.4% 28.7% 29.7% 31.0% 31.0% NACOG Apache County Coconino County Navajo County Yavapai County NACOG Total 69,423 116,320 97,470 167,517 450,730 76,668 136,735 115,420 228,494 557,317 10.4% 17.6% 18.4% 36.4% 23.6% 57,204 356,303 413,507 11.4% 98.2% 79.0% 1,018,012 1,018,012 20.7% 20.7% 140,263 39,792 8,688 47,900 236,643 19.1% 18.8% 1.6% 24.8% 19.4% CAAG Gila County Pinal County CAAG Total 51,335 179,727 231,062 PAG Pima County PAG Total 843,746 843,746 SEAGO Cochise County Graham County Greenlee County Santa Cruz County SEAGO Total 117,755 33,489 8,547 38,381 198,172 Source: 2000: U.S. Census (SF3) 2009: Arizona Department of Commerce – Population Statistics Unit (Population Estimates for Arizona’s Counties, Incorporated Places and Balance of County) AGE Age distribution is an important factor in predicting current and future housing and social service needs. Two primary populations of interest are youth (age 19 and under) and seniors (age 65 and older). These populations tend to have higher housing and social service needs than middle-aged adults. 20 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS As of 2008, youth made up 29 percent of the state’s population and seniors comprised 13 percent (ACS). Arizona’s percentage share of each remained similar from 2000 to 2008. Please see Table 3 for 2000 and 2008 populations by age. The largest segment of the state’s population was middle-aged adults. The median age in Arizona was 34.2 in 2000, rose to 35.0 years in 2008, and is projected to be 36.2 by 2014 (U.S. Census, ACS, Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)). This indicates an aging population. By 2014, 15.3 percent of Arizona residents will be age 65 or older (ESRI). By 2020, an estimated 20 percent of Arizona’s population will be over 60 years of age, compared to 17 percent in 2003. For those over the age of 60, the fastest-growing age group is persons over 85 years of age (Arizona Department of Economic Security, Five-Year Strategic Plan FY 2010–2014). The 2000s saw a significant increase in population for many age groups, with a more than 50 percent increase in persons aged 55–59 and 85 and over. Because the percentage share of each age group remained relatively static, the growth in these populations can largely be attributed to the growth of Arizona’s population overall. Given the significant economic downtown of the last few years, projections of population trends may not be reliable at this time. However, it does seem evident that as the state’s middle-aged and senior populations grow older, senior housing, assisted care, long-term-care housing, and supportive services will be in demand to meet increasing senior needs. Similarly, as the state’s youth population increases and ages, there will need to be an emphasis on youth services and affordable starter homes. Table 3 Population by Age, 2000–2008 Age 2000 Population Percentage Share 2008 Population Percentage Share Percentage Change 2000 to 2008 Under 5 377,908 7.4% 500,031 7.9% 32.3% 5–9 394,937 7.7% 453,626 7.2% 14.8% 10–14 378,451 7.4% 447,354 7.1% 18.2% 15–19 360,694 7.0% 436,007 6.9% 20.8% 20–24 362,458 7.1% 424,896 6.7% 17.2% 25–34 739,977 14.4% 912,910 14.4% 23.3% 35–44 783,041 15.3% 863,838 13.6% 17.0% 45–54 626,685 12.2% 824,021 13.0% 31.4% 55–59 236,416 4.6% 355,325 5.6% 50.2% 60–64 202,458 3.9% 300,211 4.7% 48.2% 65–74 365,677 7.1% 423,403 6.7% 15.7% 75–84 234,025 4.6% 300,118 4.7% 28.2% 85+ 67,905 1.3% 102,212 1.6% 50.5% Total Population 5,130,632 6,343,952 Source: 2000: US Census (SF3, Table P8) 2008: 2006-2008 American Community Survey (ACS) Note: The 2008 population estimate is derived from the 2006–2008 ACS data, which is different from the 2009 Arizona Department of Commerce estimates used in Table 2. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 21 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS SENIOR POPULATION Of Arizona’s counties, Maricopa County had the highest number of seniors, primarily because Maricopa County was by far the largest county in the state. However, seniors represented a larger proportion of the population in other areas. The county with the highest proportion of seniors was La Paz County, where seniors make up 32 percent of its total population, followed by Yavapai County (22 percent) and Gila County (21 percent). Table 4 provides a breakdown of total senior population and percentage by county. Counties with the highest proportion of seniors face an increased need for senior housing and social services. Table 4 Senior Population by County Total Population of Seniors Percentage of Population Apache 7,524 10.8% Cochise 21,756 17.0% Coconino 10,086 7.9% Gila 11,158 21.5% Graham 4,480 12.8% 841 9.8% 6,408 32.0% Maricopa 433,127 11.2% Mohave 41,122 21.1% Navajo 13,123 11.8% Pima 147,995 14.9% Pinal 40,216 13.5% Santa Cruz 5,355 12.6% Yavapai 47,796 22.6% Yuma 34,853 18.4% ARIZONA 825,733 13.0% County Greenlee* La Paz Source: 2006–2008 American Community Survey (ACS) Note: Data for Greenlee County was unavailable from ACS due to the county’s population size of less than 20,000 persons; therefore the 2000 Census was used for this county. 22 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS YOUTH POPULATION A little less than a third of Arizona’s population was youth age 19 and under. As with seniors, Maricopa County had the highest number of youth, a factor of its large total population. The counties with the highest proportion of youth were Greenlee (34 percent), Apache (31 percent), Santa Cruz (31 percent), and Navajo (30 percent). As a result of the higher proportion of youth in these counties, youth services may be a higher priority, as would ensuring an adequate number of housing units sized appropriately for families with children. Table 5 Youth Population by County Total Population of Youth Percentage of Population Apache 21,813 31.3% Cochise 31,056 24.3% Coconino 32,905 25.9% Gila 12,011 23.2% Greenlee* 2,876 33.6% Graham 9,244 26.5% La Paz 3,690 18.4% Maricopa 1,057,733 27.4% Mohave 43,361 22.2% Navajo 33,707 30.4% Pima 236,865 23.8% Pinal 77,038 25.8% Santa Cruz 13,066 30.8% Yavapai 42,330 20.0% Yuma 54,041 28.5% 1,670,983 26.3% County ARIZONA Source: 2006–2008 American Community Survey (ACS) Note: Data for Greenlee County was unavailable from ACS due to the county’s population size of less than 20,000 persons; therefore 2000 Census data was used for this county. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 23 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS HOUSEHOLD PROFILE The type, size, and composition of households can affect housing and service needs. A household is made up of all persons who occupy the housing unit. Occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. Family households are those in which the householder is related to at least one other member of the household by birth, marriage, or adoption. Across the state, most households comprise at least two people. The remaining households are non-family households of two or more persons or single-person households. In 2008, Arizona had 2,250,241 total households, and this is projected to increase to 2,744,881 households in 2014 (ACS, ESRI). In 2008, the average household size in Arizona was 2.77 persons (ACS). • 27.2 percent (614,007) were single-person households, a 3 percent increase from 2000 to 2008. • 72.7 percent (1,636,234) were two or more person households, a 3 percent decrease from 2000 to 2008. Of the total households with two or more persons: • 24 o 65.9 percent (1,483,518) were family households. o 34.0 percent (766,723) were non-family households. Of the 1,483,518 total households with two or more persons: o 74.6 percent are married-couple families. Of the married-couple families, 41.6 percent have children under age 18. o 25.3 percent are single-parent families (both male-headed and female-headed). From 2000 to 2008, there was a 2.9 percent increase in the number of single-parent households. • 58.8 percent (220,869) are single-parent families with children under age of 18. • The majority of the single-parent households are female. o Households with one or more persons 65 years and over make up 24.9 percent (560,537) of all households. • 35.7 percent are one-person households. • 64.2 percent are households made up of two or more persons. • Of all seniors, 7.2 percent are males living alone and 17 percent are females living alone. • A little more than two percent of seniors live in institutional settings (such as nursing homes). • About three percent of senior households (17,713) have one or more grandchild living with them for whom they are responsible. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Female-Headed Households • Single-parent households are likely to have special needs for housing. Some of the considerations for a single-parent household include the need to have day care, recreation activities, and access to public transportation in close proximity to housing. Generally, women earn less than men in comparable occupations and therefore may need additional assistance. • Of Arizona’s 376,200 single-parent households, 69.5 percent are female-headed households (ACS). • About 40 percent of female-headed families with children live in poverty. Housing and Social Service Needs The household profile data shows that about one-quarter of family households are headed by a single-parent. Single-parent households tend to be lower-income than two-parent households. As a result, they are likely to encounter more difficulty affording housing, childcare, and other expenses, and may benefit from additional affordable housing opportunities and social service programs, including childcare. The high percentage of female-headed households with children living in poverty suggests a need for additional resources for this particular population. Potential opportunities include job training or education, childcare assistance, food assistance, and affordable housing. Seniors living alone also comprise a sizable population. As they age, they may benefit from supportive services that help them to stay in their homes. Seniors who live alone typically live on one income, and therefore may experience difficulty finding adequate affordable housing. EDUCATION PROFILE Education level plays a critical role in determining the income level of a household. Based on the 2006–2008 ACS data, the education level of residents 25 years or older was as follows: • 24.4 percent of residents have attended some college but have no degree. • 23.9 percent had obtained an associate or bachelor’s degree. • 9.2 percent had earned a master’s, professional school, or doctorate degree. • 26.1 earned a high school diploma or equivalent. • 16.3 percent have a 12th grade education or less. Educational attainment does not differ significantly between men and women. EMPLOYMENT TRENDS In September 2009, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics issued a report of states with statistically significant employment changes from August 2008 to August 2009, as seasonally adjusted. Over that year, nonfarm employment decreased in 49 states. Overall, Arizona was one of the states that had the largest year-over-year percentage decreases (-7.4 percent). Arizona’s unemployment rate during the same period increased from 5.9 percent to 9.1 percent. Job growth trends have not been positive: in 2006, Arizona was ranked second in the nation for job growth, in 2007 fell to 22nd, and in 2008 was ranked 47th. In 2009, Arizona fell to 49th in job growth compared to other states. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 25 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS According to ACS data taken from the 2006-2008 period, over 2.8 million Arizona residents aged 16 and older were in the labor force. Table 6 shows the types of occupations held by Arizona residents, of which nearly 60 percent were employed in managerial/professional and sales and office occupations. Construction, extraction, and maintenance employees made up almost 12 percent of the labor force. Table 6 Occupations of Arizona Residents, 2008 Occupation Category Number Percentage Managerial/Professional 941,755 32.9% Service Occupations 520,304 18.2% Sales and Office Occupations 772,564 27.0% Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 14,530 0.5% Construction, Extraction & Maintenance Occupations 337,310 11.8% Production, Transportation, & Material Moving 273,749 9.6% 2,860,212 100.0% Total Employed Persons Source: 2006–2008 American Community Survey (ACS) According to the Arizona Workforce Informer, Arizona’s unemployment rate was 9.2 percent (seasonally adjusted) in January 2010, a 2.0 percent increase over the rate in January 2009. Arizona’s unemployment rate was slightly lower than the national average of 9.7 percent in January 2010. Yuma County had the highest unemployment rate of 27.0 percent (largely due to seasonal employment), followed by Mohave County (9.9 percent) and Yavapai County (9.3 percent). Arizona experienced significant housing value declines between 2005 and 2009. These declines caused a financial crisis and significant setback to Arizona’s economy, for which housing construction was a significant economic driver between 2001 are 2006. According to the Arizona Department of Commerce’s Workforce Forecast for the 2009-2010 period, about 195,800 nonfarm jobs (7.5 percent of all jobs) will be lost in 2009 and 2010. Most of the job losses were anticipated to happen in 2009. Table 7 shows a projection of Arizona sector employment average year-over-year change. Construction jobs have had the most significant decline and that trend is expected to continue. The only sector showing growth in 2009 and 2010 is education and health services. Table 7 Industry Employment Average Annual Growth Rate, 2008-2010 2008 Actual 2009 Forecast 2010 Forecast TOTAL NONFARM -2.1% -6.8% -0.7% Manufacturing -4.0% -6.4% -2.5% Natural Resources/ Mining 17.4% -15.4% -3.2% Construction -16.5% -26.6% -8.4% Trade/Transportation/Utilities -2.4% -7.6% 0.3% Sector 26 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS 2008 Actual 2009 Forecast 2010 Forecast Information -0.9% -6.8% -4.1% Financial Activities -4.2% -4.4% -1.0% -4.4% -11.1% 0.0% Education and Health Services 4.6% 0.2% 1.8% Leisure and Hospitality -1.5% -4.7% -0.8% Other Services 1.1% -6.0% -1.0% Government 3.0% -1.1% -0.6% Sector Professional Services and Business Source: Arizona Workforce Forecast, Arizona Department of Commerce, October 2009 Comparing the labor force population and unemployment rates for Arizona counties, as shown below in Table 8, Yuma and Greenlee have the highest rates of unemployment (both greater than 17 percent). Unemployment rates are average rates for a year, and therefore are not subject to seasonal adjustment. Cochise and Coconino counties have the lowest unemployment rates (below 8 percent). Unemployment rates are significantly higher in most rural areas than in Phoenix and Tucson metro areas. Table 8 Labor Force and Unemployment by County, 2009 Average Persons in Labor Force Persons Employed Unemployment Rate Apache 23,000 19,625 14.6% Cochise 63,225 58,575 7.4% Coconino 75,500 69,700 7.7% Gila 23,325 20,900 10.4% Graham 15,200 13,075 14.0% Greenlee 4,400 3,650 17.4% La Paz 7,775 7,050 9.1% 1,978,900 1,815,000 8.3% Mohave 92,100 82,500 10.4% Navajo 41,200 35,375 14.1% Pima 489,200 448,700 8.3% Pinal 124,425 110,275 11.4% Santa Cruz 18,425 15,725 14.6% Yavapai 99,200 89,800 9.5% Yuma 86,700 68,200 21.2% 3,142,575 2,858,150 9.1% County Maricopa ARIZONA Source: Arizona Workforce Informer, Arizona Department of Commerce, 2009 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 27 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS RACE/ETHNICITY Race and ethnicity play an important role in planning for housing and community development in the state. Different cultures may have different preferences that affect the type of housing needed. The racial/ethnic breakdown within regions may also affect the type of services that are needed. Arizona has a diverse racial and ethnic population. Over one-quarter of the state’s population (29.5 percent) is Hispanic or Latino, while the majority of Arizona’s population is white (58.9 percent). The most significant non-white subgroups in Arizona are American Indian/Alaskan Native (4.1 percent), Black or African American (3.4 percent), and Asian (2.3 percent). Table 9 shows the racial/ethnic breakdown for each COG and for the state. The information presented for each COG is its individual racial/ethnic breakdown and is not a percentage of the total state number. Table 9 Race/Ethnicity for Arizona and by COG Arizona WACOG MAG NACOG CAAG PAG SEAGO Number of Persons Percentage Share Percentage Share Percentage Share Percentage Share Percentage Share Percentage Share Percentage Share 3,734,983 58.9% 60.4% 59.5% 58.8% 59.5% 57.5% 50.4% Black or African American 213,996 3.4% 1.2% 4.1% 0.8% 2.9% 3.1% 2.9% American Indian and Alaska Native 262,372 4.1% 1.7% 1.6% 26.9% 6.5% 2.5% 3.0% Asian 145,208 2.3% 0.9% 2.8% 0.7% 1.2% 2.3% 1.2% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 8,940 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% Some other race 10,615 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Two or more races 92,640 1.5% 1.9% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.9% Hispanic persons (all races) 1,871,654 29.5% 33.7% 30.3% 11.1% 27.9% 32.7% 40.4% TOTAL 6,340,408 100% 404,304 3,862,036 519,271 350,809 994,244 209,744 Race/Ethnicity White Source: 2006–2008 American Community Survey (ACS). Note: Data for Greenlee, Santa Cruz, and La Paz counties was unavailable from ACS and therefore 2000 Census data was used for these counties. The majority of persons of Hispanic descent resided in the SEAGO region. Within that region, Santa Cruz County had the highest percentage of Hispanic persons, with 80.9 percent Hispanic persons. However, Cochise County had the highest number of Hispanic persons (40,165 Hispanic persons). The majority of persons of African American or Black descent resided in the MAG (4.1 percent) and PAG (3.1 percent) regions. The majority of persons of American Indian and Alaskan Native descent resided in the NACOG region (26.9 percent). Within that region, both the highest number and the highest proportion of American Indian and 28 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Alaskan Native persons resided in Apache County, with a total of 51,055 persons or 73.2 percent of the County population. Geographic Concentrations of Racial and Ethnic Subpopulations A racial or ethnic concentration is considered to exist when a racial or ethnic group’s percentage in a certain area is greater than that of the group’s overall population percentage in the community. For the State of Arizona, a high concentration is considered to exist when the group’s population in an area is at least 10 percentage points higher than the group’s percentage representation in the state as a whole. For a visible representation of racial and ethnic concentrations by county, refer to Appendix G – Racial and Ethnic Concentration Maps. A short summary of the conclusions for each County is presented in the Appendix. Areas of highest minority concentrations were along Arizona’s border with Mexico and on Arizona’s 22 Native American reservations. Minorities other than Hispanics and Native Americans were rarely found to be concentrated. LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Most federally funded housing and community development programs are made available to eligible low-income households. Low-income as defined in this Plan means households with annual incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), adjusted for household size. Annually, HUD updates these income limits for each county in the nation (see Appendix A – Income Limits). Areas of the state that are primarily residential and consist of at least 51 percent low-income households are considered to be low-income areas. Overall, 42.4 percent of Arizona’s residents were estimated to be low-income in 2009. Almost 75 percent of the state’s low-income residents lived in Maricopa and Pima counties, as shown in Table 10. However, the proportion of low-income persons in these counties is less than the state average. Apache, Mohave, and Pinal counties have the highest percentage of low-income residents, all above 51 percent. Greenlee and Yavapai counties have the lowest percentage of low-income residents. Data on low-income populations is available at the Maps in Appendix H – Low-Income Area Maps depict the areas in each county that have at least 51 percent low-income populations. Table 10 Population in Low-Income Areas by County, 2009 Number Percentage of Low-Income Persons in County Percentage of State Total Apache 39,655 58.2% 2.6% Cochise 45,772 40.8% 1.6% Coconino 49,540 43.8% 2.5% Gila 21,091 41.8% 0.6% Graham 13,876 45.9% 0.3% Greenlee 3,058 35.9% 0.1% La Paz 9,491 48.8% 0.2% Maricopa 1,230,699 40.7% 58.4% Mohave 86,521 56.2% 4.9% Navajo 46,810 49.2% 2.2% County Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 29 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Number Percentage of Low-Income Persons in County Percentage of State Total Pima 344,743 42.0% 16.5% Pinal 88,316 53.7% 4.9% Santa Cruz 18,391 48.2% 0.8% Yavapai 63,932 39.0% 1.4% Yuma 64,567 41.9% 2.8% County ARIZONA 2,126,462 Source: HUD, Low and Moderate Income Summary Data, 2009. POVERTY LEVELS AMONGST RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUPS According to the 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 14.3 percent of Arizona residents earned a household income below the federal poverty level. Two racial/ethnic groups carried a disproportionately higher percentage of persons living below the poverty level when compared to the total population. According to the ACS data, approximately 22.8 percent of the Hispanic/Latino population is living in poverty. The second population group with a disproportionate percentage of persons living below the poverty level is American Indian and Alaskan Native group. Approximately 32.1 percent of American Indian and Alaskan Natives in Arizona are living with household incomes below the federal poverty level. Other racial groups that exceeded the state average for persons living in poverty are Black/African American at 20.2 percent and persons indicated as “Some Other Race,” who have just under 21.0 percent of the population group living in poverty. The White and Asian population groups recorded a poverty rate of approximately 12.0 percent. SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Special needs populations may have difficulty finding housing or require specialized services to access housing and/or assistance to maintain their quality of life. Due to their circumstances, these population groups are statistically more likely to have low-incomes. Special needs groups recognized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) include the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, persons with substance abuse problems, persons experiencing homelessness, victims of domestic violence, and persons with HIV/AIDS. ELDERLY AND FRAIL ELDERLY There are many facilities throughout Arizona that offer supportive housing and services to elderly and frail elderly persons. These facilities can provide services that help meet the physical, mental and spiritual needs of adults 65 years or over. In addition to such supportive services, facilities can offer affordable housing opportunities to elderly persons who may or may not require additional services. The need for such housing opportunities and facilities providing services is growing Arizona’s elderly resident population is one of the fastest growing sub-populations in the State. • 30 In 2008, Arizona had a total of 825,733 elderly residents (ages 65 and older), representing 13 percent of the total population (ACS). There was a high correlation between age and disability. The state’s overall proportion of seniors with disabilities (frail elderly) was 39.7 percent. The percentage of seniors with a disability for individual counties was close to the statewide percentage (within 5 percentage points), except in Apache County where 63.0 percent of seniors were disabled, Greenlee County (52.3 percent), and Navajo County (50.2 percent). Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS • Of all the disabilities tallied in the state in 2006 (the most recent year for which ACS disability data was available), elderly persons reported the following types of disabilities: • 16 percent had a sensory disability. • 29 percent had a physical disability. • 11 percent had a mental disability. • 9 percent had a self-care disability. • 6 percent had a go-outside-home disability. • Elderly households made up a total of 494,795 (22 percent of all households). Of elderly households, 83.6 percent owned their homes and 16.3 percent rented, as of 2008 (ACS). • About 8.4 percent of elderly persons live at or below the poverty level. Female seniors are somewhat more likely to suffer from poverty than male seniors. • In September 2009, there were 1,932 licensed assisted living facilities and 138 licensed nursing and skilled nursing facilities in the state (Arizona Department of Health Services, Division of Licensing Services). • Many elderly persons live on fixed incomes, such as Social Security or pensions, and may have difficulty affording housing. This is especially true for seniors below or near the poverty level. Additional housing and facilities are needed to meet the needs of low-income seniors. • The percentage of elderly persons with a disability is high, more than one third of all seniors. Additionally, many disabled persons report more than one disability. The frail elderly are in need of supportive service programs to allow them to stay in their homes. They also need accessible housing resources, including rental housing and programs to assist them with making accessibility modifications to their homes. PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Persons who live with physical, developmental or mental disabilities often need supportive housing and related services on a frequent or continuous basis. Within Arizona, there are numerous facilities and programs that help meet such needs by offering supportive services to persons living with disabilities. These facilities can offer specific supportive services and programs that deal with education, employment, housing, treatment and social interaction. Services offered by most of the facilities that work with persons with disabilities within Arizona are designed to help the individuals live life and develop to their fullest potential. Accessible services and facilities are growing in demand throughout the state as the number of individuals living with disabilities is on the rise. • Of Arizona residents aged five years and older, 796,382 persons had a disability in 2006, the most recent year for which detailed disability data is available (ACS). • Of Arizona’s population, 14.2 percent reported one or more disabilities. Going-outside-home disabilities were the most common, followed by physical disabilities and employment disabilities. Below are the percentage of the state’s population aged five years and older reporting various types of disabilities: Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 31 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS o 9.3 percent had a disability that prevented them from going outside the home. o 9.1 percent had a physical disability. o 6.4 percent had a disability that affected employment. o 5.3 percent had a mental disability. o 4.3 percent of the population had a sensory disability. o 2.7 percent had a self-care disability. • The percentage of persons suffering from disabilities is likely to rise as middle-aged adults (“baby boomers”) age and encounter health problems. • As of July 2008, Arizona residents included approximately 75,392 adults with general mental health/substance abuse disabilities and 36,813 adults with a serious mental illness (Arizona Department of Health Services). The Arizona Department of Health Services, Division of Behavioral Health Services, provides a delivery system of behavioral health services to persons who have special needs due to the serious nature of their behavioral health disorder. One such group is persons with serious mental illness. Without receiving appropriate care, these persons are at high risk for further deterioration of their physical and mental condition, increased hospitalizations, and potential homelessness and incarceration. • With nearly 800,000 persons in Arizona living with some form of disability, the number of person with unmet needs and the gap in available supportive services as grown over the last five years. More specifically, persons with developmental disabilities have a projected housing and services gap of 67,569 persons and people living with a physical disability have an estimated services gap of approximately 103,249 persons. • Disabled persons tend to be lower-income and have a need for affordable and accessible housing. Throughout the state, there are too few units to accommodate disabled persons, especially those with accessibility needs. Accessible housing is less common in rural areas, especially those where the majority of housing stock is more than 20 years old. • The primary needs for disabled persons are affordable and accessible housing, as well as supportive services to help maintain quality of life. Accessibility improvements in public and private spaces are also needed. Affordable health care located in their communities is also a priority for this population. LARGE FAMILIES A large family is defined as a household with five or more persons. A unit suitable for a large family should have at least three bedrooms to avoid an overcrowding situation, which is defined as no more than one person per room (excluding kitchens, bathrooms, and hallways). Large households are considered a special needs group due to their potential difficulty locating and affording adequately sized housing. Overcrowding is a concern for this group because overcrowded units tend to deteriorate more quickly and have a greater number of health and safety issues. • 32 Arizona households with five or more persons made up 11.3 percent (255,050) of all households (ACS). Most counties had a similar proportion of large households compared to the statewide percentage. However, Navajo (20.2 percent), Santa Cruz (16.4 percent), Apache (16.2 percent), Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Graham (16.0 percent), and Yuma (15.3 percent) counties had significantly higher proportions of large households compared to the state as a whole. • Of those households with five or more persons, most counties had more owner-occupied than renter-occupied households, roughly in proportion to the statewide percentages, with 171,300 (67.2 percent) owner-occupied and 83,750 (32.8 percent) renter-occupied. However, in Apache and Santa Cruz counties, 75 percent of large family households owned their homes. Housing Available to Large Families Among all occupied housing units in Arizona, 11 percent had one bedroom, 27 percent had two bedrooms, 39 percent had three bedrooms, and 18 percent had four bedrooms (ACS). Larger units were more likely to be owner-occupied. Among owner-occupied housing units, 21.7 percent had two bedrooms, 45.6 percent had three bedrooms, and 22.7 percent had four bedrooms. Among renter-occupied housing units, 25.6 percent had one bedroom, 38.2 percent had two bedrooms, 24.1 percent had three bedrooms, and 7.2 percent had four bedrooms. To accommodate a large family, a unit should have at least three bedrooms. There were approximately 1,361,877 housing units with three or more bedrooms and 255,050 households of five or more persons. While there was not a shortage of adequately sized units for owner-occupied housing, there does appear to be a slight need for rental housing appropriate for households with seven or more persons, which would be a unit with five or more bedrooms, to avoid overcrowded conditions. • A unit-to-household comparison reveals the need for larger rental units for families with seven or more persons. There are 46,390 five-person renter households and 171,993 three-bedroom rentals (assuming two common rooms plus three bedrooms equals five rooms), 21,831 six-person renter households and 51,776 four-bedroom rentals, and 15,529 seven-person households and 8,171 units with five or more bedrooms. Although there are more large rental units available than there are large families, not all large rental units are occupied by large families. Very large renter households (seven or more persons) require more rental units with five or more bedrooms. • The majority of larger rental units rent at market rate. Market-rate rents for larger units are likely to be unaffordable to low-income large families. Owner-occupied (for-sale) housing is available in a range of prices and sizes throughout the state; however, there is a correlation between number of bedrooms and price, with larger units typically being more expensive. In addition to the need for larger and more affordable rental units, low-income large families are likely to benefit from programs that help make larger for-sale units affordable to them. ALCOHOL/SUBSTANCE ABUSE Alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities offer individuals programs to reach independence from their substance abuse. The facilities often provide housing and transitional services independency and selfsufficiency. Facilities that offer such supportive services will also focus on identifying any underlying disorders or conditions that may lead to or foster the substance abuse. Complete recovery and absolute independence are the goals for alcohol and drug treatment facilities. The services offered by such facilities are growing in demand as the number of persons living in Arizona who suffer from alcohol/substance abuse is growing. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 33 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Alcohol Abuse According to the Alcohol Abuse Vital Statistics tables compiled by the Arizona Department of Health Services, 15,466 persons visited the emergency room for alcohol abuse in 2008. A large percentage of the total emergency room visits for alcohol abuse occurred in Maricopa (42.5 percent) and Pima (22.9 percent) counties. Excluding these two counties, residents of Coconino (24.7 percent), Navajo (15.2 percent), Yavapai (12.7 percent), and Pinal (12.0 percent) counties make up the majority of emergency room visits for alcohol abuse. Overall, 24,892 persons were discharged from inpatient care for alcohol abuse-related illnesses. Maricopa and Pima counties also show the highest percentage share of alcohol abuse-related inpatient discharges. When those two counties are excluded, Pinal (20.4 percent), Mohave (15.3 percent), Yavapai (12.8 percent), and Navajo (10.1 percent) counties had the highest shares of inpatient discharges for alcohol abuse. Drug Abuse Again excluding Maricopa and Pima counties, Pinal (27.1 percent), Mohave (16.9 percent), Yavapai (12.3 percent), and Yuma (8.8 percent) counties had the highest incidences of inpatient discharges related to drug abuse in 2008 (Arizona Department of Health Services). Among all persons visiting the emergency room for drug abuse, 20.6 percent occurred in Pinal County, 13.9 percent in Cochise, 13.0 percent in Yavapai, and 11.7 percent in Mohave County. Excluding the counties of Maricopa and Pima, Pinal County had the highest percentage share of alcohol and drug abuse-related inpatient discharges as well as the highest percentage of people visiting the emergency room for drug abuse. Substance Abuse Treatment Programs In December 2009, the Arizona Department of Health Services’ Division of Behavioral Health Services (DBHS) conducted an assessment of its substance abuse treatment programs. During state fiscal year 2009, approximately $128.5 million was spent providing treatment for over 69,000 adults and children enrolled with DBHS for substance abuse or dependence conditions. DBHS data indicates that: • Nearly 94 percent of those in the substance abuse treatment population were adults. • Approximately 40 percent of all substance abuse treatment recipients were located in Maricopa County. • Of all substance abuse treatment recipients, 44 percent were self-referrals, meaning they decided to enroll on their own or on the recommendation of friends or family. • Nearly 19 percent of individuals treated for substance abuse had a co-occurring serious mental illness (such as schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder), while 26 percent had a co-occurring general mental health disorder (such as mild to moderate depression). • Alcohol was noted as a primary substance for 39 percent of all consumers; however, marijuana was listed as the primary substance for 73 percent of children and adolescents in treatment. In fiscal year 2009, DBHS reported significant improvements in substance abuse treatment capacity and service innovations, including: 34 • Increasing access to and use of child and adolescent substance abuse treatment in Maricopa County. • Enhancing the monitoring of substance abuse treatment service utilization. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS • Coordinating with other state agencies to promote substance abuse treatment throughout the state. • Increasing the use of evidence-based practices in substance abuse treatment delivery. DHBS noted improvements in five monitored outcome domains: employment, housing, criminal activity, abstinence from alcohol, and abstinence from other drugs. Employment for this population increased by 2 percent, while the number of consumers being arrest-free increased by 4.7 percent at discharge. Additionally, those consumers reporting living in a stable housing environment increased by 0.5 percent, and abstinence from alcohol and drug use increased by 4.2 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. One of the areas of improvement in substance abuse treatment that had the smallest increase in success was stable housing environment. Access to stable housing for persons leaving substance abuse treatment is a need. Current service gap estimates place persons who suffer from drug or alcohol abuse are facing a housing and supportive services gap of 72,294 persons. PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS Treatment and support services for persons with HIV/AIDS typically revolve around the physical and emotional condition of the individuals. Supportive facilities often provide persons living with HIV/AIDS with services or programs that foster wellness, behavioral health, education, and clinical trials. The current facilities in Arizona designed to provide such supportive services cannot meet the need of persons living with HIV/AIDS in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has tracked the emergence and demographics of HIV and AIDS infections in the state since 1981, when the first case was reported. The following information was taken from the Office of HIV/AIDS 2006 and 2009 Annual Reports, unless otherwise noted. • Since HIV/AIDS was first reported, 19,414 cases of HIV infection were reported to the ADHS and 19,179 were confirmed cases. Most of these (15,480) were emergent in Arizona, meaning they were new infections. A little more than 7,500 of persons infected have died (2006). The 2009 Annual Report indicates that new cases of HIV/AIDS are declining. • As of 2009, the state had an estimated 6,983 persons living with HIV, and 6,439 with AIDS. This is a prevalence rate of about 212 of every 100,000 persons. An increase in prevalence over a five-year period was largely due to the improved quality of treatment options available, which extend the lives of some people with HIV. • Within the next five years, it is likely that the population living with AIDS will surpass the population diagnosed with HIV but not AIDS. • About 85 percent of HIV/AIDS cases and 82 percent of emergent infections occur in urban counties, which have 76 percent of the state’s population. Of the rural counties, only Pinal experienced an increase in HIV/AIDS incidence. Pinal County also has the highest rate of infection among the rural counties. This is primarily due to the fact that Pinal County has several correctional facilities, many of which house prisoners from outside the area. • The incidence of HIV/AIDS cases was reflective of the racial and ethnic makeup of the state with the exception of non-Hispanic blacks, who experience infection at a much higher rate than other ethnic groups (632 cases per 100,000 persons). Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 35 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS • Two groups carry the highest risk of HIV infection: non-Hispanic black women and prisoners in the state Department of Corrections. In 2006, HIV infection among non-Hispanic black women was 17 times greater than the rate among white non-Hispanic women. Trend data suggested emergent rates among these women may be rising. Reported rates for prisoners were four times the state average. • Although treatments options for both HIV and AIDS have significantly improved in recent years, persons living with HIV/AIDS still have many special needs. Persons with AIDS are likely to need more medical care, supportive services, and housing resources than those with HIV. The Arizona Department of Health Services funds several programs run by local agencies to help persons with HIV/AIDS, including outpatient medical care, drug co-pay assistance, home health care, mental health services, substance abuse services, nutritional counseling, and case management. • As the population living with AIDS outpaces those living with HIV, needs include affordable housing that is accessible to transportation, medical care, and social service agencies. Although the rural areas do not have most of the cases of HIV/AIDS, serving persons in those areas may require additional coordination. • According to the Arizona Department of Health Services 2009 HIV Unmet Needs Estimates, Arizona facilities and programs are delivering services to approximately 8,250 persons living with HIV/AIDS. With more than 13,000 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Arizona, there is an unmet need or gap in services of an estimated 5,172 persons. VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior that includes the use or threat of violence and intimidation for the purpose of gaining power and control over another person. Violence is characterized by physical abuse, sexual abuse, economic abuse, isolation, emotional abuse, control, or verbal abuse. Victims of domestic violence have special housing needs since they are in critical need of immediate housing and support services. There are many service providers for victims of domestic violence in Arizona. According to the State of Arizona Crime Victims Services Department, there are over 40 service providers focusing on domestic violence-related issues throughout the state. Please see Appendix I – Domestic Violence Service Providers for a complete listing. The Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence (AzCADV) is the only statewide legal advocacy information hotline for victims and survivors of domestic violence. The AzCADV provides referral links to agencies that provide safety, shelter, support, legal advocacy, and information to help victims of domestic violence and their children transition from their violent situations into safe homes. According to AzCADV, domestic violence-related deaths declined from 106 in 2000 to 83 in 2004, before rising again the following year and increasing steadily through 2008 when there were 126 deaths. As of September 21, 2009, 84 deaths related to domestic violence had been recorded in 2009. In 2008, the Governor’s Commission for the Prevention of Violence against Women compiled statistics from police departments across the state. In that year, they found that there were 52,140 police reports generated due to a domestic violence offense or violation of an order of protection. Of those, 20,958 resulted in arrests at the scene. Victims of domestic violence are well-served by the current service providers, which are located throughout the state in both urban and rural counties. However, additional resources may be needed in rural areas where the nearest facility may be an hour or more away. 36 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS NON-HOMELESS SPECIAL NEEDS SUMMARY Over the last five years, Arizona as seen an increase in the total non-homeless special needs population as the general population has grown. This increase in persons with special needs has delivered an increase in demand for housing and other supportive services. Table L-2 in Appendix L presents the most recent population needs and the estimated gap in supportive housing and services. HOMELESS PERSONS Definition Homelessness affects many people from all social, economic, and racial backgrounds. A homeless person is defined by the McKinney-Vento Act as “a person who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence and has a primary night-time residency that is: (1) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations, such as congregate shelters, transitional housing, or welfare hotels; (2) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or (3) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, such as street sidewalks, abandoned buildings, parks, and subway tunnels.” This definition is used for federal programs, while the Arizona Transitional Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) definition may be used for state and local programs. That definition states that homeless means that “the participant has no permanent place of residence where a lease or mortgage agreement between the participant and the owner exists.” The causes of homelessness include loss of employment, mental illness, substance abuse, a health crisis, domestic violence, foreclosure, or loss of familial support. Individuals or families that are homeless have a variety of special needs, including emergency shelter, counseling, job training, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing, among others. 2009 Homeless Count The 18th Annual Report on the Current Status of Homelessness in Arizona (2009) provides detailed count information for the state’s homeless persons. The data in the report is primarily from the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s (DES) annual point-in-time shelter counts of emergency shelter and transitional housing populations and from a point-in-time count of unsheltered persons. The most recent statewide street and shelter point-in-time homeless count was done on January 27, 2009. This survey recorded 6,355 persons without shelter, 4,080 persons in emergency shelters, 4,390 persons in transitional housing, 627 unsheltered homeless children, and 2,664 sheltered homeless children. The greatest need for any homeless individual or family is permanent housing with supportive services. The following information on sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations was provided by the 18th Annual Report on the Current Status of Homelessness in Arizona (2009). Unsheltered Homeless • In 2009, 46 percent of unsheltered persons (street count) were counted in Maricopa County, 22 percent in Pima County, and 32 percent in rural counties. • In 2009, of the total 6,355 unsheltered persons statewide, 89 percent were single individuals (69 percent were single adult males), and children and adults in families represented 11 percent of all unsheltered persons. There were a total of 324 unaccompanied youth, primarily in Maricopa, Pima, and Mohave counties. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 37 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS o In 2009, of the 2,064 homeless persons in the rural counties, Mohave (28.6 percent) and Yavapai (26.6 percent) have the highest population of unsheltered homeless persons in 2009, behind Maricopa and Pima counties. Sheltered Homeless • In 2009, a total of 12,573 persons were counted in emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. • In 2009, 8,470 persons were counted as sheltered homeless persons throughout Arizona, including only those in emergency and transitional facilities, and another 4,103 were counted as permanent supportive housing residents (which does not count as “homeless” under the federal definition). • Of those counted, 51 percent were single adults, 30 percent were children (in families), 17 percent were adults in families, and less than 1 percent were youth on their own. Generally, characteristics of persons in the shelter count were unchanged from the previous year. • Children accounted for almost one-third of all persons reported in emergency and transitional housing. • In 2009, of the sheltered homeless persons counted, including only those in emergency and transitional facilities, 59 percent were in Maricopa County, 27 percent were in Pima County, and the remaining 14 percent were in the rural counties of Arizona. • In 2009, 538 persons were chronically homeless were reported in emergency shelters representing 22 percent of single adults in emergency shelters. Fifty (50) percent of the chronically homeless were in Maricopa County. • In 2009, 14 percent of sheltered homeless adults were military veterans. • In 2009, 20 percent of sheltered homeless persons were in the shelter due to domestic violence or abuse. • Of 5,806 homeless adults and unaccompanied youth in emergency shelter, 36 percent reported experiencing substance abuse problems, and 19 percent suffered from serious mental illness. Chronically Homeless HUD defines a chronically homeless person as an individual or family who is homeless and lives or resides in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter; has been homeless and living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter continuously for at least 1 year or on at least four separate occasions in the last 3 years; and has an adult head of household (or a minor head of household if no adult is present in the household) with a diagnosable substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability, post traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from a brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability, including the co-occurrence of 2 or more of those conditions • There were 440 adults chronically homeless counted in emergency shelters, and another 1,348 unsheltered persons were reported as chronically homeless in Maricopa and Pima counties. In the rural counties (balance of the state), there were 346 persons who were chronically homeless unsheltered and 98 sheltered. 38 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS • Of the 538 chronically homeless sheltered people across the state, 50 percent were in Maricopa County, 32 percent were in Pima County, and 18 percent were in the remaining 13 counties of the state. • Statewide, chronically homeless persons represented 22 percent of single adults in emergency shelters and 32 percent of unsheltered adults, a combined 29 percent of unaccompanied homeless adults. Rural Homelessness ADOH leads the Rural Arizona Continuum of Care (CoC) and is the grantee for the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) project, as well as for other federal homeless programs, such as Shelter Plus Care and the Supportive Housing Program. The Rural Arizona CoC covers all Arizona counties, excluding the urban counties of Maricopa and Pima. All HUD project sponsors and state funded emergency or transitional shelters are required to utilize HMIS, which is a computerized data collection application designed to capture client-level information over time on the characteristics and service needs of homeless persons. High rates of unemployment due to declining industries and areas with high economic growth and higher housing prices often produce high incidences of rural homelessness. Nationally, the number of people experiencing homelessness who were counted in rural or mostly rural Continuums of Care account for 7 percent of the total number of homeless people in the United States, while almost 77 percent of people experiencing homelessness were counted in urban CoCs. In Arizona, the Rural Arizona Continuum of Care point-in-time survey in January 2009 reported a total of 2,094 unsheltered homeless persons, almost one-third of the total statewide street count. Furthermore, the point-in-time shelter count showed 14 percent (1,172) of all those in emergency shelter and transitional housing were sheltered in rural areas. The combined balanced of the state street and shelter count was 22 percent of the 2009 statewide point-in-time survey total. Homeless Youth According to Arizona’s HMIS data collection, 5,415 children under the age of 18 and 1,269 youth ages 18 to 21 experienced homelessness and obtained access to services through nonprofit agencies throughout the state. • Maricopa County homeless services providers assisted 3,681 children under the age of 18 and 742 ages 18 to 21. Pima County nonprofits served 885 children under the age of 18 and 205 youth ages 18 to 21. • Rural providers assisted 839 children under the age of 18 and 322 youth ages 18 to 21. An increasing number of children and youth experience homelessness in Arizona. Compared to the same period in 2008, there was an 18 percent increase in homeless children (pre-kindergarten through 12th grade) during 2009. In order to combat youth homelessness and address their needs, the Arizona Committee on Youth Homelessness was created in March of 2008, and the committee had 50 participants as of 2009. Homeless Seniors In 2009, Arizona’s point-in-time shelter survey counted 296 persons over the age of 65 in emergency shelters and transitional housing. ADOH showed a total of 789 persons 62 and older served by homeless service providers reporting through the Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS). It was reported in 2009 that homelessness in older Arizona residents is a result of poverty and declining availability of affordable housing. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 39 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Domestic Violence Twenty (20) percent of all adults in emergency shelters and transitional housing indicated that domestic violence was a major reason for homelessness. Of the adults experiencing domestic violence, 60 percent were housed in emergency shelters and 40 percent in transitional housing. The majority of the domestic violence victims were sheltered in Maricopa County (59 percent) and Pima County (14 percent), with 27 percent in the balance of the state. Domestic violence shelter beds represent 18 percent of emergency shelter beds reported in Arizona. Summary Table 11 summarizes the results of the point-in-time survey by families with children, single persons, and families without children. It also includes a breakdown of homeless subpopulations. There is insufficient local data to report on the extent of homelessness amongst racial/ethnic groups within Arizona. Table 11 Continuum of Care: Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart (HUD Table 1A) Sheltered Part 1: Homeless Population Emergency Transitional Total Unsheltered Total 478 766 1,244 155 1,399 1. Number of Persons in Families with Children 1,568 2,489 4,057 687 4,744 2. Number of Single Individuals and Persons in Households without Children 2,512 1,901 4,413 5,668 10,008 (Add Lines Numbered 1 & 2 Total Persons) 4,080 4,390 9,714 6,355 14,752 Number of Families with Children (Family Households): Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations Sheltered Unsheltered Total a. Chronically Homeless 538 1,694 2,232 b. Seriously Mentally Ill 1,092 c. Chronic Substance Abuse 2,037 d. Veterans 835 e. Persons with HIV/AIDS 70 f. Victims of Domestic Violence g. Unaccompanied Youth (Under 18) 1,181 63 Source: 18th Annual Report on the Current Status of Homelessness in Arizona, December 2009; HUD Application Annual Pointin-Time Shelter Count. Note: Sheltered homeless subpopulations (Part 2) include only homeless in emergency shelter and transitional housing. Persons in permanent supportive housing are not shown. 40 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Homelessness Resources In the Rural Arizona Continuum of Care in 2009, there were approximately 29 non-domestic violence shelters, up to 31 domestic violence shelters, 27 non-domestic violence transitional housing providers, 9 domestic violence transitional housing providers, and 20 permanent supportive housing providers (Arizona Department of Housing). For a listing of available shelters and resources, please see Appendix J – Homelessness Resources. Homeless Needs In spite of achievement made by homeless service providers and homeless individuals availing themselves of Arizona’s network of service, there is still an unmet need of beds and services. Overall, the unmet need for beds for homeless individuals is 10,070 and the unmet need for beds for homeless persons in families with children is 7,269 beds (see Table 12). Table 12 Continuum of Care Housing Gap Analysis Chart, 2009 (HUD Table 1A) Current Inventory Unmet Need/ Gap Emergency Shelter 1,994 3,098 Transitional Housing 1,667 2,292 Permanent Supportive Housing 2,534 4,680 Total 6,195 10,070 Individuals Beds Persons in Families with Children Beds Emergency Shelter 2,017 2,805 Transitional Housing 3,356 2,603 Permanent Supportive Housing 1,337 1,861 Total 6,710 7,269 th Source:18 Annual Report on the Current Status of Homelessness in Arizona, December 2009; HUD Application Housing Inventory Summary for State Continuum of Care Table Homelessness service providers are available throughout many of the 15 counties. However, many of Arizona’s counties are geographically very large, and homeless resources are potentially more than two hours away for some households. Per the 18th Annual Report on the Current Status of Homelessness in Arizona (2009), domestic violence infrastructure is well developed in the rural areas, but there is a lack of homeless service provider infrastructure. There are few homeless shelters in rural areas, so individuals and families that are experiencing homelessness are less likely to have access to shelter. The primary homeless needs are continuing to expand resources to serve homeless persons and families, including increasing emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. The need for permanent supportive housing is especially high. Homeless persons in rural areas may be more difficult to identify, but they have a high need for convenient social services and shelters. Addressing the changing circumstances of homelessness will be a challenge over the next five years, as increasing numbers of families with children and seniors face homelessness. Developing rapid re housing, housing first, and prevention services will be critical to reduce the number of persons and families falling into homelessness. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 41 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS HOUSING MARKET PROFILE Arizona saw its housing market rapidly expand in the early to mid-2000s, then quickly decline between 2008 and 2010. As of 2010, housing permits in Arizona are down 92.3 percent, which is significantly higher than the national 75.3 percent decline in housing permits. Arizona’s housing market has seen a significant amount of negative economic news recently, including a record number of foreclosures, a consumer credit crunch, households that are overextended with high debt, unemployment rates hovering around 9 percent, loss of home equity, and many homeowners “underwater” in their mortgages. Arizona is experiencing an extremely slow recovery in housing resells and new home sales. During the writing of this Plan, the housing market showed some signs of improvement. The University of Arizona, Eller College of Management reported an uptick in housing permits in the fourth quarter of 2009. Although housing prices have declined in recent years, housing is still not affordable for many Arizona residents. Arizona’s general economy and employment has declined significantly. Affordable housing continues to be a major need for low-income households. The following discussion identifies housing characteristics, trends, and needs across the state. HOUSING TYPES IN ARIZONA Detached single-family homes are the primary housing type throughout the state. The housing stock comprised 50 percent or more single-family homes in most areas of the state, with a low percentage of attached single-family homes and a higher percentage of mobile homes (see Table 13). La Paz County was the exception, with the lowest percentage of detached homes (37.3 percent), the lowest percentage of multifamily homes (3.3 percent), and the highest percentages of mobile homes (49.2 percent) and of buses, RVs, vans, etc. (8.7 percent). These percentages may indicate the presence of a higher proportion of potentially mobile households that likely comprise lower-income persons. Table 13 Housing Types by County, 2008 42 Detached Attached Multifamily (2–4 units) Multifamily (5+ units) Mobile Home Other State of Arizona 62.8% 5.2% 4.9% 15.5% 11.1% 0.5% Apache 72.8% 1.3% 4.5% 0.7% 20.7% 0.0% Cochise 63.5% 3.1% 3.4% 8.5% 20.4% 1.1% Coconino 60.4% 4.6% 5.7% 13.4% 15.8% 0.1% Gila 69.8% 0.7% 2.6% 2.6% 24.2% 0.2% Graham 63.9% 0.6% 2.8% 5.2% 26.8% 0.7% Greenlee* 66.8% 1.6% 2.6% 1.3% 26.1% 1.5% La Paz* 37.3% 1.4% 0.8% 2.5% 49.2% 8.7% Maricopa 64.4% 5.5% 5.2% 19.2% 5.4% 0.2% Mohave 58.9% 2.4% 4.4% 5.9% 27.5% 0.9% Navajo 68.7% 1.7% 3.7% 2.6% 22.7% 0.5% Pima 58.4% 8.3% 4.7% 17.6% 10.8% 0.3% Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Detached Attached Multifamily (2–4 units) Multifamily (5+ units) Mobile Home Other Pinal 66.0% 1.4% 3.5% 5.1% 22.9% 1.0% Santa Cruz 67.8% 4.8% 12.6% 7.3% 7.4% 0.0% Yavapai 64.7% 3.2% 6.2% 5.8% 19.8% 0.3% Yuma 47.3% 3.1% 3.8% 9.1% 32.5% 4.3% Source: 2006–2008 American Community Survey (ACS); 2000 US Census Note: Data for Greenlee and La Paz counties was unavailable from ACS and therefore 2000 Census data was used for these counties. “Other” category is bus, RV, van, etc. HOUSING TENURE AND VACANCY RATE Housing tenure is when inhabitants occupy a housing unit, either by renting or owning it. According to 20062008 ACS data, Arizona had 2,250,241 occupied housing units. Statewide, almost 68 percent of units were owner-occupied and approximately 32 percent were renter-occupied. Table 14 shows the differences in tenure between counties. Apache (76.6 percent) and Gila (76.2 percent) counties have the highest proportion of owneroccupied households, and Greenlee County has the lowest proportion of owner-occupied households. Table 14 Household Tenure, 2008 Owner Renter Apache 76.6% 23.3% Cochise 69.7% 30.3% Coconino 62.0% 38.0% Gila 76.2% 23.8% Graham 66.2% 33.8% Greenlee* 51.0% 49.0% La Paz 75.9% 24.1% Maricopa 68.1% 31.9% Mojave 69.0% 31.0% Navajo 70.4% 29.6% Pima 65.8% 34.2% Pinal 74.5% 25.5% Santa Cruz 73.0% 27.0% Yavapai 70.9% 29.1% Yuma 70.1% 29.9% Source: 2006–2008 American Community Survey (ACS) Note: Data for Greenlee County was unavailable from ACS due to the county’s population size of less than 20,000 persons; therefore 2000 Census data was used for this county. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 43 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Across the state, 417,579 units were vacant according to ACS estimates produced from 2006 to 2008. Out of all vacant units in a county, the percentages that are vacant for various reasons are shown in Table 15. Of Arizona’s total vacant units, about 33 percent were vacant because they were for rent/sale and about 40 percent were vacant because they are for seasonal or recreational use. Arizona overall has a higher than average percentage of units for seasonal/recreational use, but certain counties (La Paz, Gila, Coconino, and Navajo) had especially high proportions of units vacant for seasonal/recreational use. Table 15 Reason for Unit Vacancy by County, 2008 For Rent For Sale Rented or Sold, Not Occupied For Seasonal, Recreational For Migrant Workers Other Apache* 4.1% 3.9% 0.7% 63.0% 0.0% 28.3% Cochise 19.1% 11.3% 4.1% 28.3% 0.3% 36.5% Coconino 5.8% 5.7% 3.9% 77.0% 0.1% 7.5% Gila 3.0% 4.7% 1.9% 77.7% 1.0% 11.6% Graham* 26.9% 22.8% 5.9% 21.6% 2.8% 19.9% Greenlee* 28.1% 11.8% 17.2% 22.0% 0.0% 20.9% La Paz* 4.8% 4.2% 0.9% 80.5% 0.5% 9.2% Maricopa 25.7% 18.6% 11.1% 29.4% 0.1% 15.1% Mohave 8.7% 13.5% 4.4% 60.4% 0.0% 12.9% Navajo 2.4% 3.7% 0.2% 69.4% 0.0% 24.3% Pima 24.8% 14.4% 12.4% 27.0% 0.1% 21.3% Pinal 10.5% 20.1% 8.3% 36.0% 1.5% 23.6% Santa Cruz 32.1% 11.5% 22.1% 26.6% 0.1% 7.7% Yavapai 8.6% 10.9% 6.7% 52.6% 0.2% 20.9% Yuma 12.1% 4.9% 7.5% 59.9% 1.6% 14.1% ARIZONA 18.7% 14.3% 8.8% 39.6% 0.2% 18.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2006–2008 American Community Survey (ACS). Note: Data for the following geographic areas—Apache, Greenlee, Graham, and La Paz counties—cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. ACS 2006–2008 data was not available; therefore, 2000 Census data was used for these counties. AGE AND CONDITION Assessing the age and condition of housing can help to develop appropriate strategies and policies to maintain adequate housing stock. Declining housing conditions can weaken property values and serve as a barrier to reinvestment. Without regular maintenance and replacement of systems, residential structures usually have signs of deterioration within 30 years. Major systems such as plumbing, electrical, and roofing are most likely to be in need of repair. Approximately 63 percent of housing units in Arizona were built since 1980 (see Table 16). If regular maintenance has occurred since the unit was built, then the 30-year deterioration period may be extended, but structures that are older than 70 years are assumed to have reached the end of their useful life. Only 1.7 percent of Arizona’s housing is more than 70 years old. 44 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Table 16 Age of Housing, 2008 Date Housing Unit Built Percentage Before 1939 1.7% Between 1940 and 1959 8.3% Between 1960 and 1979 27.4% Between 1980 and 1999 41.5% 2000 and Later 21.2% Source: 2006–2008 American Community Survey (ACS Note: Data for Greenlee County comes from the 2000 Census. By COG Region Table 17 shows an assessment of the age of housing stock in each of the regions of the state by Council of Governments (COG). Out of their total housing stock, the CAAG, WACOG, and MAG regions had the highest proportions of newer housing. All regions had at least one-quarter of their housing as more than 30 years old, indicating a need for housing rehabilitation in all regions. Table 17 Age of Housing by COG, 2008 WACOG MAG NACOG CAAG PAG SEAGO Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Before 1939 0.8% 0.9% 2.9% 2.4% 2.4% 9.4% Between 1940 and 1959 5.1% 7.8% 6.0% 7.7% 12.7% 11.4% Between 1960 and 1979 25.3% 27.1% 28.1% 18.5% 31.6% 29.7% Between 1980 and 1999 47.5% 42.1% 47.3% 34.4% 37.3% 33.1% 2000 and Later 21.2% 22.0% 15.7% 37.1% 16.0% 16.4% TOTAL (Units) 202,889 1,536,471 250,118 167,029 421,325 89,967 Date Housing Unit Built Source: 2006–2008 American Community Survey (ACS). Note: Data for Greenlee County (in the WACOG region) comes from the 2000 Census, because the County is too small to obtain an accurate estimate from ACS. LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARDS Lead-based paint in residential units can pose severe health risks to children. Arizona requires public health agencies to identify children at risk of lead poisoning and mandates that all children up to six years of age be evaluated. The majority of housing units in Arizona were built since 1980 and are presumed to have no risk for lead-based hazards. HUD provides a general formula to estimate the potential presence of lead-based paint (LBP) in housing units built prior to 1979, when lead-based paint was banned. It is estimated that 110,662 lowincome owner-occupied housing units and 120,948 low-income renter housing units may contain lead-based paint. Statewide, a total of 231,610 households are at risk. These estimates for the state are shown in Table 18. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 45 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Table 18 Lead Hazard Estimates, State of Arizona Presumed % LBP Total Structures Presumed LBP Structures 2000 and later 0% 342,039 -- 1980–1999 0% 640,629 -- 1960–1979 62% 406,679 252,141 1940–1959 80% 127,298 101,838 1939 or earlier 90% 20,689 18,620 Year built Owner-occupied Total owner-occupied presumed LBP (a) 372,599 Percentage owner-occupied households at or below 80% AMI (b) 29.7% Total at-risk owner-occupied households (a*b) 110,662 Renter-occupied 2000 and later 0% 126,285 -- 1980–1999 0% 288,001 -- 1960–1979 62% 216,028 133,937 1940–1959 80% 66,910 53,528 1939 or earlier 90% 15,683 14,115 Total renter-occupied presumed LBP (c) Percentage renter-occupied households at or below 80% AMI (d) 201,580 60.0% Total at-risk renter-occupied households (c*d) 120,948 Total at-risk households 231,610 Source: 2006–2008 American Community Survey (ACS); 2009 CHAS Housing Problems Tables from HUD The 2003 Arizona Department of Health report on childhood lead poisoning reported 163 children with lead poisoning in 2001. Lead-based paint in older homes continues to be a significant source of lead poisoning for children in Arizona. Older homes are more likely to contain lead-based paint that can be a source of lead poisoning. Homes built before 1960 are the most likely to be a potential source for lead poisoning. Home remedies and take-home exposure are other lead sources that were identified during environmental investigations. The Lead Poisoning Screening Coalition was organized in Arizona using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publication, “Screening Young Children for Lead Poisoning: Guidance for State and Local Public Health Officials.” The coalition was directed to examine the prevalence and risk factors for lead poisoning in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services and the Childhood Lead Poisoning Screening Coalition selected a policy that recommends a geographic targeted lead screening approach that focuses lead blood testing resources on Arizona children who are at higher risk for lead poisoning. 46 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Lead Testing Resources All children covered by the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System should be tested according to the Medicaid requirements. All children living in targeted ZIP codes should have a blood lead test at 12 and 24 months of age. Children aged 36 to 72 months should be tested if they have not been previously tested. For children not living in a targeted ZIP code area, health-care providers should conduct an individual risk evaluation in order to determine whether those children are at increased risk of having an elevated blood lead level. The Arizona Department of Health Services and the Coalition used available lead poisoning prevalence rates and pre-1960 housing data for each ZIP code to develop a Lead Poisoning Risk Index for each ZIP code in Arizona (see Appendix K – Lead Poisoning Risk Index). OVERCROWDING Overcrowding is defined by the Census as more than one person per room, excluding kitchens, bathrooms, and hallways. Overcrowding is not particularly high across the state. For the state as a whole, renter households (7.8 percent) experience overcrowding at a much higher rate than owner households (2.8 percent). The area with the highest rate of overcrowding for renter households is the CAAG region with 9.5 percent, while the NACOG region has the highest rate of overcrowding for owner households with 6 percent. NACOG also has the highest overall rate of overcrowding for all households at 6.5 percent. Table 19 Overcrowding by COG Arizona WACOG MAG NACOG CAAG PAG SEAGO Percentage Owner Overcrowded 2.8% 4.5% 2.4% 6.0% 2.5% 2.2% 2.7% Percentage Renter Overcrowded 7.8% 9.2% 8.0% 7.6% 9.5% 6.5% 7.4% Percentage All Households Overcrowded 4.4% 5.9% 4.2% 6.5% 4.2% 3.7% 4.2% Source: 2006–2008 American Community Survey (ACS) Note: Data for Greenlee County (WACOG region) comes from the 2000 Census. HOUSING COSTS AND AFFORDABILITY OWNERSHIP HOUSING During the housing boom of the mid-2000s, Arizona experienced a swell in new homes and homeownership. As the total number of owner housing units grew to over 1.5 million and prices reached peaks in 2006, ownership for low-income households became increasing difficult. As a result, more than 70 percent of the total owner households are non-low-income households (see Table 20). Less than 30 percent of owner households are low-income. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 47 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Table 20 Owners by Income Level, 2009 Income Category Number of Owner Households Percentage of All Owner Households Extremely low (≤30% AMI) 98,740 6.5% Very low (>30–50% AMI) 127,470 8.4% Low (>50–80% AMI) 225,585 14.8% Moderate and above (>80% AMI) 1,068,240 70.3% Total 1,520,035 100.0% Source: HUD, 2009 CHAS Data Home Prices and Affordability For much of the 2000s, the median home price had been increasing faster than income. From 2000 to 2008, the median sales price of a home in Arizona increased by 70.7 percent, while during the same period median family income only increased 7.5 percent (Arizona Department of Housing, 2009 Arizona Housing Market at a Glance). Tables 21 and 22 demonstrate the purchasing power of a certain income groups for Apache County and Maricopa County. For each income level, the home mortgage a four-person household at the top of that income level could afford is shown. Apache County was selected because it had the lowest median income in the state, while Maricopa County had the highest median income. Table 21 Affordable Mortgages by Income Category – Apache County Income Category Income Limit Available for P&I Affordable Mortgage Very Low (50% AMI) $21,850 $446 $61,964 Low (80% AMI) $34,950 $774 $107,504 Median (100% AMI) $43,700 $993 $137,890 Moderate (120% AMI) $52,450 $1,212 $168,255 Source: HUD FY 2009 Income Limits Assumptions based on 30% housing debt ratio, no other debts, fixed taxes, and insurance at $1,200 per year, 6.5% interest rate on a 30-year amortized loan. Table 22 Affordable Mortgages by Income Category – Maricopa County Income Category Income Limit Available for P&I Affordable Mortgage Very Low (50% AMI) $32,950 $673 $93,415 Low (80% AMI) $52,700 $1,168 $162,242 Median (100% AMI) $65,900 $1,497 $207,894 Moderate (120% AMI) $79,100 $1,828 $253,851 Source: HUD FY 2009 Income Limits Assumptions based on 30% housing debt ratio, no other debts, fixed taxes, and insurance at $1,800 per year, 6.5% interest rate on a 30-year amortized loan. 48 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Median home sales prices for each county, for December 2006 and December 2009, are shown in Table 23 to illustrate the price declines. December 2006 was chosen because housing prices at that time were representative of the market highs. December 2009 median homes prices in rural Arizona ranged from $69,000 in Santa Cruz County to $458,000 in Coconino County. Table 23 Median Sales Price by County, 2006 and 2009 County December 2006 December 2009 Apache $394,400 $119,380 Cochise $218,408 $77,000 Coconino $542,243 $458,171 Gila $329,595 $269,749 Graham $112,500 $163,000 Greenlee n/a $153,000 La Paz $167,688 $161,364 Maricopa $342,621 $176,065 Mohave $284,900 $158,892 Navajo $269,282 $240,638 Pima $140,445 $137,539 Pinal $224,516 $113,280 Santa Cruz $217,500 $69,900 Yavapai $322,390 $221,422 Yuma $308,393 $83,450 Source: Multiple list service (MLS) database, median sales prices for the counties and MLS 2006 median sales price. Between December 2006 and December 2009, Arizona’s home values plummeted from a statewide median of about $280,000 to under $140,000 (RealtyTrac). The average sales price fell from about $250,000 to about $185,000 in the same time period, dropping to around $160,000 in June 2009 before rising slightly. Some areas, like Coconino and Gila counties, have maintained high housing prices, but prices have fallen in almost every county. The positive side of the housing market fall was that many low-income households saw housing prices in their region drop to levels they could afford. However, in several counties, including Coconino, Gila, Navajo, and Yavapai, homeownership remained beyond the reach of most low-income households. Very low-income households are still unable to purchase a median-priced home in Arizona without financial subsidy in every county. Even though housing prices have declined, ownership housing is not affordable to many Arizona residents. Arizona residents are faced with higher unemployment, increased foreclosure rates, and an overall decline in Arizona’s general economy. Consequently, there is a need for affordable housing for low-income residents that may have lost their homes or are unable to afford housing due to under-employment, particularly for the very low-income residents. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 49 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Cost Burden According to HUD, a household which pays more than 30 percent of its gross household income on housing is defined as having a housing cost burden (overpayment). Households spending more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing are considered to have a severe cost burden. Overpayment is a concern for low-income households since they may be forced to live in overcrowded situations or have to cut other necessary expenditures, such as health care, in order to afford housing. The HUD definition of housing cost includes not only monthly rent and mortgage payments but an estimate of utility costs. Table 24 provides a summary of housing problems among Arizona’s owner households. Less than 19 percent of non-low-income households experienced any form of housing problem, while 49 percent of lowincome, 61.4 percent of very low-income, and 84.9 percent of extremely-low income owner households experienced some form of housing problem. Only 2.5 percent of above-moderate income owner households experienced a cost burden of greater than 50 percent, while 62.2 percent of extremely-low income households experienced the same level of cost burden. These trends identify a growing need for programs, funding, and other supportive services to help low-income households address affordability and other housing problems. Table 24 Summary Housing Problems for Owners, 2009 Percentage Owner Households with Housing Problems Income Category Cost Burden >30% Cost Burden >50% Any Housing Problem Extremely low (≤ 30% AMI) 75.5% 62.2% 84.9% Very low (>30–50% AMI) 54.5% 32.5% 61.4% Low (>50–80% AMI) 43.1% 16.3% 49.2% Moderate and above (>80% AMI) 16.6% 2.5% 18.9% All households 27.6% 11.0% 31.2% Source: HUD, 2009 CHAS Data Foreclosure Activity As of early 2010, Arizona is second in the nation in home foreclosure levels (RealtyTrac, February 2010). A four percent month-over-month increase in foreclosure activity boosted Arizona’s foreclosure rate to second highest among the states in January. There were 120,855 area foreclosures as of January 2010 and 1 in every 126 housing units received a foreclosure filing (RealtyTrac, March 2010). Figure 2 depicts foreclosure actions filed for housing units by county with darker shading representing the highest rates of foreclosure. Maricopa, Mohave, and Pinal County have the highest foreclosure rate where up to 1 in 48 units are in the foreclosure process. Apache County and the northeastern part of Graham County have the lowest foreclosure rates. 50 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Figure B Foreclosure Actions to Housing Units RENTAL HOUSING There are 695,725 total renter households within Arizona that represent approximately 31 percent of all households. Within the renter households, 60 percent fall into low-income categories (see Table 24). There reflects a continued need for increased affordable rental housing opportunities for Arizona’s lower income households. Table 24 Renters by Income Level, 2009 Number Percentage of All Renter Households Extremely low (≤30% AMI) 136,645 19.6% Very low (>30–50% AMI) 121,035 17.4% Low (>50–80% AMI) 157,845 22.7% Moderate and above (>80% AMI) 280,200 40.3% TOTAL 695,725 100% Income Category Source: HUD, 2009 CHAS Data Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 51 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Rents and Affordability In Arizona, the 2009 fair market rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment was $782, which includes an allocation for utility costs. In order to afford this rent without paying more than 30 percent of income for housing, a household must earn at least $2,600 monthly, or $31,200 annually. Assuming a workweek of 40 hours, this level of income translates into a housing wage of $15.03. In Arizona, a minimum-wage worker earns an hourly wage of $7.25. Therefore, in order to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment, a minimum-wage earner must work approximately 83 hours per week, or a household must include more than two minimum-wage earners working 40 hours per week in order to make the two-bedroom FMR affordable. Monthly Supplemental Security Income payments (usually received for a disability) for an individual were $637 in Arizona in 2008. If that represents an individual’s sole source of income, $191 in monthly rent would be considered affordable, while the FMR for a one-bedroom was $676 in 2008. Table 25 represents fair market rents for each county, as published by HUD. Fair market rents include an estimated utility cost. Table 25 Fair Market Rents by County, 2009 Fair Market Rent by Bedroom Size County 1 2 3 4 Apache $502 $593 $822 $1,042 Cochise $557 $699 $965 $1,186 Coconino $924 $1,044 $1,343 $1,693 Gila $615 $809 $1,111 $1,144 Graham $587 $657 $908 $1,045 Greenlee $554 $695 $918 $1,004 La Paz $560 $672 $951 $979 Maricopa $727 $877 $1,277 $1,495 Mohave $640 $746 $1,032 $1,151 Navajo $489 $522 $689 $928 Pima $579 $743 $1,070 $1,131 Pinal $727 $877 $1,277 $1,495 Santa Cruz $575 $729 $1,063 $1,094 Yavapai $668 $844 $1,230 $1,267 Yuma $642 $767 $1,088 $1,333 Source: HUD, 2009 As a comparative analysis, in 2008, to afford a rental at the two-bedroom FMR, a renter household had to be at 109 percent of the estimated median renter household income, which was $33,681. In 2008, the median income rent was $743 per month. The affordable rent for the median-income renter for the state was $788 per month. About 54 percent of renters are unable to afford the two-bedroom fair market rent. Based on this data, it can be concluded that many renter households have problems affording housing units of sufficient size for their families. Very low-income and extremely low-income renter households will have even greater affordability challenges. 52 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Cost Burden Table 25 captures a recent summary of housing problems experienced by renter households. Low-income households faced increased cost burdens and other housing problems. Only 19 percent of non-low-income households experienced any form of housing problem, but 60 percent of low-income renters and 94 percent of extremely low-income renters faced a housing problem. When looking at cost burdens specifically, just 13.4 percent of non-low-income households experienced a cost burden, while nearly 81 percent of extremelylow income households experienced one. Table 25 Summary Housing Problems – Renter, 2009 Percentage Renter Households With Housing Problems Income Category Cost Burden >30% Cost Burden >50% Any Housing Problem Extremely low (≤30% AMI) 80.8% 73.6% 93.9% Very low (>30–50% AMI) 75.4% 36.7% 89.3% Low (>50–80% AMI) 50.9% 12.4% 60.2% Moderate and above (>80% AMI) 13.4% 5.3% 18.6% All households 22.3% 21.3% 48.6% Source: HUD, 2009 CHAS Data In summary, the state has adequate rental housing and it is generally affordable to low-income households and above. Arizona generally lacks rental housing that is affordable to very low-income and extremely lowincome households. The unmet need of affordable housing for small-related, large-related, elderly and other households living at or below 50 percent of area median income remain high or medium level priorities as these households are frequently experiencing a cost burden or some other form of housing problem 75 percent or more of the time. Table L-1 in Appendix L provides greater detail for the unmet needs of Arizona’s extremely low- and very low-income households. PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING Operated by the Arizona Department of Housing, the Arizona Public Housing Authority administers approximately 124 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers in Yavapai County, with approximately 50 additional “portable” vouchers being administered by the PHA at any one time. The Public Housing Authority also has oversight and monitoring responsibilities for 114 Section 8 project-based properties throughout the state, under a competitively procured contract with HUD. The Arizona Public Housing Authority (PHA) does not own or manage any public housing. Therefore, the authority does not have a strategy to revitalize or restore any public housing units nor to improve the management and operations of such public housing. However, the PHA will strive to continue to provide the same services to the same number of individuals and families even though financial resources are increasingly scarce. Application would be made for additional vouchers should they be made available. The PHA received a “high” performance score from HUD as a result of their 2009 Section 8 Management Assessment Program review. ADOH does provide multiple sources of funding to develop and support thousands of assisted housing units every year. For fiscal year 2009, the Department assisted 34 housing units with federal HOME funds, 12,302 housing units with state Housing Trust Funds, 1,080 housing units with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 53 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS 1,582 units with HOPWA subsidies. At this time, the only anticipated reduction in assisted units and inventory for fiscal year 2010 would occur as a result of the severe reduction in Housing Trust Funds. Other public and assisted housing efforts and inventories are not anticipated to experience notable reductions over the next fiscal year. BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING Barriers to affordable housing are created by market, infrastructure, environmental, and governmental factors. Barriers may result in housing that is not affordable to low-income households or an inadequate supply of housing. Some potential barriers or constraints to the development of affordable housing that ADOH identified are as follows: URBAN AREAS • Availability of financing • Limited funding • High land cost/availability of land • Impact/development fees • Zoning • Design guidelines • Lack of infrastructure NON-URBAN AREAS • Limited funding • Wage gap • Lack of employment opportunities • Lack of infrastructure • Availability of financing • Lack of local capacity • High land cost/availability of land In addition, ADOH and the Arizona Housing Commission recommended in the publication “Affordable Incentives to Affordable Housing Task Force” (June 2005) premises that could assist in the increase of affordable housing. Listed in the publication were barriers and incentives, which were sent to the Governor in order to improve the housing environment for more hard-working Arizonans. The recommendations encourage new partnerships. The recommendations for the barriers and incentives section include: 54 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS 1) Improve procedures at the local level to reduce housing costs, such as processing time, development process, development standards, financial requirements, and market considerations. 2) Identify strategies for greater collaboration among state agencies, such as the Departments of Housing, Commerce, Transportation, Land, and Corrections, around land use and housing development. 3) Establish consistent methods locally to determine development/impact fees so that builders can plan for the cost of fees at the development stage. The feasibility report can be found at ADOH website; the report is called “Economic Feasibility of Select Strategic Recommendations Pertaining to Housing Access and Affordability, October 2007.” HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS Housing and community development needs for affordable housing, public facilities, infrastructure improvement, public services, and economic development are described in this section. The following community needs were determined as the result of the needs assessment process. This process consisted of an analysis of the community setting, including housing and population characteristics, consultations with local service providers and other state agencies, ADOH staff meetings, public workshops, and an online survey. While all of the needs listed below are important, limited resources are available to fund all of these activities. During consultation, public meetings, conference calls, and the online survey, the following needs were captured: RENTAL HOUSING NEEDS • Preservation and rehabilitation of existing rental units • Energy efficiency • Rental housing for the elderly • Rental assistance • Rental units for larger families HOMEOWNERSHIP NEEDS • Rehabilitation and repair of existing affordable single-family homes • Energy efficiency • Modifications for persons with disabilities • Homebuyer assistance • Lead-based paint screening and abatement Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 55 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS • Youth centers • Community or neighborhood centers • Crisis facilities • Child-care centers • Senior facilities PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS • Water/wastewater treatment • Neighborhood revitalization • Improve transit options • Green development • Street improvements • Downtown revitalization PUBLIC SERVICE NEEDS • Substance abuse treatment programs • Housing counseling • Mental and health services ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS • Job training and education • Job development/creations • Small-business loans HOMELESS NEEDS 56 • Housing placement • Mental health care Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS • Case management • Transitional housing • Emergency housing OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS • Housing for persons with serious mental illness • Assisted living (senior housing) • Housing for persons with drug/alcohol addictions FAIR HOUSING Fair housing is crucial to ensuring that persons of like income levels have equal access to housing. HUD requires that jurisdictions receiving federal funds commit to affirmatively further fair housing. A key part of achieving this goal is the preparation of an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). Southwest Fair Housing Council completed the AI for the State of Arizona in 2010. ADOH takes an active role in the education and training of housing providers to ensure awareness of fair housing laws. ADOH has a Special Needs/Fair Housing Specialist who provides public education and workshops for fair housing issues. Fair housing training and workshops are provided throughout the State of Arizona. At least four fair housing workshops are conducted within each of the 13 rural counties in Arizona per year, with at least two workshops per year in Pima and Maricopa counties. Half of the fair housing workshops are geared toward housing professionals, such as site managers, property owners, leasing agents, lenders, and housing authority staff. However, the workshops are open to anyone that would like to attend. Impediments to Fair Housing The AI identified the following impediments to fair housing: 1. Illegal housing discrimination is occurring in non-metro counties in Arizona. It is difficult to determine the prevalence of housing discrimination, but the AI found evidence that housing discrimination is occurring in rural Arizona. Although the State Attorney General’s Office handles fair housing enforcement, ADOH will continue to address housing discrimination predominately through education and outreach. 2. Many housing consumers are unaware of their fair housing rights and available fair housing resources; and housing discrimination often goes unreported and unresolved. The survey results and the experience of education and outreach providers throughout Arizona show that an unacceptably high number of Arizonans are currently unaware of their fair housing rights and available fair housing resources. 3. Many housing providers illegally discriminate because of inadequate knowledge and understanding of their responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 57 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS Many real estate agents, property managers, property owners, media advertising agents, home insurance agents, lenders and other providers need to better understand their responsibility to comply with fair housing laws. Many providers (a) do not obtain free fair housing training; (b) experience considerable expenses to receive fair housing training; (c) have high staff turnover; (d) mistakenly believe they do not need to comply with the Fair Housing Act; and/or (d) lack up-to-date information. 4. Many public and private agencies in non-metro Arizona lack effective fair housing referral procedures. Many public and private agencies do not have clear and consistent procedures for referring people with fair housing problems. This creates an impediment to fair housing because many people in rural areas who contact a local an agency for fair housing assistance do not get the information they need or receive misinformation. In addition, inquiries, allegations and complaints are often not logged and the true prevalence of housing discrimination is obscured. 5. Disparities in lending and predatory lending practices are impediments to fair housing choice in Arizona. The AI found among others, the following: • Minorities with similar or better qualifications than non-minorities continue to experience higher rates of loan denials and higher rates of subprime loans from lenders; • Subprime lending targeted minorities prior to the collapse of the housing market in 2007; • Subprime borrowers have been hardest hit by the impact of the market collapse; and • Foreclosure rescue and mortgage modification scammers are targeting minorities and people with limited English proficiency (LEP). 6. “Not in my Backyard” (NIMBYism) can obstruct plans and policies to provide affordable housing and special needs housing that serves protected classes. It is not unusual for residents to coordinate attendance at public hearings and council meetings to express opposition to such things as affordable housing, group homes and/or transitional housing. Freedom of speech is valued in our country and cannot be restricted or prohibited in most circumstances, so the only viable response is targeted education and outreach to market the advantages of fair housing to residents. 7. The lack of affordable housing throughout the state has a disparate negative impact on Fair Housing Act protected classes. Further, the lack of fair housing planning in federally funded affordable housing developments fails to address the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing. Demographic, employment, and income data show that minorities, families with children (including single-parent families), and persons with disabilities are proportionally overrepresented in lowincome data and are most in need of affordable housing. The AI also identified the following: • 58 The term “affordable” to some has become a metaphor for housing for minorities, families with children and persons with disabilities and is laden with inaccurate stereotypes. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 III. COMMUNITY NEEDS • The accessibility of affordable housing to public transportation, employment, good schools and other amenities is critically important to the financial, educational and social well-being of protected classes. • 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. 8. On-going data gathering from CDBG sub recipients will need to improve to meet evolving AI requirements. The ability of CDBG jurisdictions to plan for fair housing, collect information, organize information, monitor performance, evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of plans and report on outcomes have improved. To meet expanding and accelerating needs, ADOH will need to do more in the future to stay ahead of the curve. Actions to Address Fair Housing Impediments The AI addresses these impediments to fair housing and recommends actions to address these impediments in greater detail. In general, ADOH has identified several opportunities to reduce and/or eliminate fair housing impediments including, but not limited to, the following: • Educate housing consumers to make them more aware of housing discrimination and where to go for help. • Identify and establish sites in each rural county where fair housing literature will be distributed on an on-going basis (English and Spanish), and ensure the materials are maintained and the sites are kept stocked. • Conduct fair housing training to housing providers throughout the rural areas of the state; continue to fund fair housing referral training at no cost to public and private agencies. • Collaborate with organizations to co-sponsor trainings for people at risk of foreclosure, and promote counseling efforts to people wanting a loan modification. • Require that information on predatory and abusive lending practices be included in the education and outreach materials that are distributed throughout the state. • Provide public hearings throughout the state to provide residents an opportunity to learn about the benefits of affordable housing and diversity in neighborhoods and express their concerns regarding affordable housing projects. • Train grant recipients to recognize housing discrimination and then to refer them to agencies that can help them remedy the issue. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 59 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN The Strategic Plan outlines how the Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH) will address the state’s housing and community development needs over the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan period. The goals for Arizona are built upon the priority needs identified by the low-income communities in the various regions of the state, housing and related service providers, and other stakeholders from meetings, community workshops, surveys and interviews. ADOH INVESTMENT CRITERIA To guide the focus of activities more specifically over the next five years, ADOH has established five primary housing and community development investment criteria: 1) Invest in rural areas that have limited funding opportunities. 2) Invest in projects that expand availability of decent, safe, and affordable housing, where the need for funds and the demand for the project design are demonstrated. 3) Invest in the types of projects identified as high priorities in the Plan. 4) Invest in areas in decline and neighborhoods that lack amenities and basic improvements needed to provide families with suitable living environments. 5) Invest in smart, sustainable housing and community development projects and leverage and/or recycle resources, where possible. AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES The Strategic Plan focuses on those affordable housing and community development activities that can be funded by the federal and state sources available to ADOH over the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan period. Those programs (and their anticipated annual allocations) are likely to include: • • • • CDBG ( around $13.2 million) HOME (about $8.8 million) ESG (about $890,000) HOPWA (approximately $220,000) Overall, ADOH expects to receive almost $110 million in HUD housing and community development funding over the next five years. ADOH also has a number of other funding federal and state funding sources that will be available, each of which is described in detail in the Introduction section of this Plan. PRIORITY NEEDS DETERMINATION Key factors affecting the determination of the five-year priorities included (1) the types of target-income households with greatest need for assistance; (2) those activities that will best address their needs; and (3) the limited amount of funding available to meet those needs. The priority ranking system for housing and community development needs is as follows: • High Priority: Activities assigned high priority are expected to be funded during the five-year period. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 61 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN • Medium Priority: As funds are available, activities that are designated medium priority are expected to be funded. • Low Priority: Activities assigned a low priority are not expected to be funded during the five-year period. • No Such Need: ADOH has determined that there is no need for these activities in the community. Funding will not be provided, and applications by other agencies will not be supported. The discussion of priority needs is grouped into four major categories: • Housing • Homelessness • Special needs • Non-housing community development PRIORITIES, PROGRAMS, AND GOALS The discussion of each basic need is further divided into a statement of need, one or more priorities, programs to address the needs, and five-year goals. Achievement of five-year goals is dependent on the availability of federal, state, and private resources. Additional information on priority needs and goals can be found in Appendix L – HUD-Required Tables. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Statement of Need The need for affordable housing was a predominant theme throughout demographic analysis, public meetings, the online survey, and consultations with local governments and service providers. Almost every type of affordable housing was mentioned, from rental subsidies to new construction to down payment assistance. The housing market profile indicated a high need for rental housing, especially for extremely low- and very low-income households. Renter households in these income ranges face extraordinary challenges paying for housing and securing decent, safe, and sanitary housing. Minimum wage earners, who work in many of Arizona’s service occupations, need to work more than 83 hours per week to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the fair market rent. The elderly, disabled, and large families were special needs groups inadequately served by existing affordable housing resources. Owners faced somewhat fewer challenges than renters, but about half of low-income households faced a cost burden or other housing problem, and the percentage only increased for very low- and extremely low-income households. While recent changes in the housing market have had the effect of making ownership opportunities available to many low-income households without subsidy, significant difficulties still exist for very low- and extremely low-income households. Some areas of the state, such as Coconino and Gila counties, still have median housing prices that are well outside the range of affordability for low-income households. Housing rehabilitation, both for owner and renter units, was also identified as a high need. Ten percent of the state’s housing stock is now more than 70 years old, the age at which housing is assumed to need replacement. Throughout the state, it was estimated that over 230,000 households faced a lead hazard risk. 62 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN Housing Priorities Priority 1: Expand the supply of affordable rental housing for very low-income and extremely low-income households. When possible, emphasize projects that assist families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Priority 2: Preserve and improve the long-term life of existing affordable rental and owner-occupied housing stock. Priority 3: Expand homeownership opportunities for low-income homebuyers in areas of the state where median home prices are beyond the reach of low-income households. Priority 4: Ensure that all households in the state have adequate access to fair housing resources. Housing Programs and Goals The following housing programs will address the priority needs of low-income households. ADOH may carry out programs directly, or grant funds to local or regional governments to carry out programs. Affordable Housing Development Through this program, ADOH will assist eligible nonprofit and for-profit housing builders with financial subsidies for the development of rental properties affordable to low-income households. The program will be implemented through the State Housing Fund, which combines HOME funds and the State Housing Trust Fund into a single housing program called the State Housing Fund. Funds are made available for the development of affordable permanent and transitional rental housing units through a competitive application process. Financed units must comply with long-term income restrictions and rent limits. Funding: State Housing Fund, HOME, LIHTC, HTF, and leveraged funds Five-Year Goal: 5,000 new affordable rental units Responsibility: • 250 units (5 percent) – planned for extremely-low-income households • 3,500 units (70 percent) – planned for low-income households • 1,250 units (25 percent) – planned for moderate-income households ADOH staff, nonprofit and for-profit developers Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program This program will fund comprehensive rehabilitation of housing owned and occupied by low-income homeowners. The program will focus on bringing each unit into compliance with local, state, and federal building codes, and will also abate lead-based paint as necessary. Low-interest and/or deferred loans will be provided to qualifying low-income homeowners. Funding: CDBG, HOME Five-Year Goal: 250 owner-occupied units rehabilitated Responsibility: COGs, local governments Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 63 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN Minor Home Repair Program The minor home repair program will fund minor repairs to correct health and safety hazards in low-income owner-occupied housing. Eligible repairs will include accessibility improvements for disabled persons. The program is an inexpensive and efficient way to preserve the habitability of affordable housing stock, including mobile homes. Funding: CDBG Five-Year Goal: 100 owner-occupied units rehabilitated or improved Responsibility: COGs, local governments Fair Housing Services ADOH will work to ensure equal access and opportunity to housing resources throughout the state. ADOH will partner with fair housing service providers in order to offer education and outreach to property owners, tenants, and the general public. As needed, ADOH will coordinate with the Attorney General’s Office, which investigates complaints related to fair housing issues. Funding: Housing Trust Fund Responsibility: ADOH; Attorney General; nonprofit fair housing agency HOMELESSNESS Statement of Need The needs of homeless or near-homeless persons were a concern of many participants in public meetings. Although the state has made great strides in counting and assisting homeless persons in the last five to ten years, this group still has some of the highest needs of all special needs groups. The needs of homeless persons were generally related to housing or social services. Arizona lacks adequate housing resources for its homeless population. The unmet need for housing is greater than the amount of housing currently available. The state needs over 10,000 additional housing units for homeless individuals and more than 7,000 units for homeless families with children. Housing resources needed include emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. The greatest need for individuals is permanent supportive housing, while the greatest need for families is emergency shelter. During the point-in-time count in 2009, there were about 14,000 homeless persons counted, about 6,000 of them unsheltered. About a third of unsheltered homeless persons were living in rural counties, but only about 14 percent of sheltered persons were found in rural counties. This indicates a significant need for additional housing resources in rural areas. Social services, including case management and mental health/substance abuse treatment, are also high needs for homeless persons. Substantial funding is devoted to meeting these needs, including state homeless funds, Social Services Block Grants, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Community Service Block Grants. Homelessness prevention appears to be a growing concern. High foreclosure rates coupled with high unemployment mean that both owners and renters of foreclosed units may become homeless. Some funds, such as through the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program, have recently begun to address homelessness prevention. 64 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN Homelessness Priorities Priority 5: Encourage a range of services to help people move from homelessness to permanent housing and maintain independent living. Priority 6: Increase the number of transitional and permanent supportive housing units for the homeless. Priority 7: Offer services and funding to help prevent people from becoming homeless. Homelessness Programs and Goals The following programs will address the priority needs of homeless persons and families. ADOH and DES, the agency that administers the state’s homeless funds, may carry out programs directly or grant funds to nonprofit agencies to carry out programs. Affordable Housing Development For a full description of this program, please see the above “Housing Programs” section. The State Housing Fund will be available to fund a variety of affordable rental housing, including new transitional or permanent supportive housing units. Funds may be available for land acquisition and construction. It also addresses the need to provide permanent affordable housing for low-income formerly homeless households. Homelessness Prevention Program This program focuses on assisting households in imminent danger of losing their homes by providing case management and other services to help them secure or maintain stable housing. Funding: ESG Five-Year Goal: 22,000 persons assisted Responsibility: DES Homeless Services Under the broad category of homeless services, DES will work directly and with nonprofit partner agencies to provide funding for a number of services needed by homeless persons, such as case management, health services, and outreach. Funding will also be provided to assist with shelter maintenance and operations. Funding: ESG Five-Year Goal: 64,000 persons assisted Responsibility: DES SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING Statement of Need Special needs groups include the elderly, disabled, large families, persons with alcohol/drug problems, persons with HIV/AIDS, and victims of domestic violence. All of these populations were noted to have distinct challenges in obtaining housing and social services. The difficulties in securing housing are Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 65 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN predominant throughout the state, but the need for services tends to be more prevalent in rural areas, where travel is more complicated. Elderly were the most frequently mentioned special needs group during public meetings. Most attendees felt that housing programs were needed for elderly homeowners and renters, including new rental housing construction, assisted living facilities, and assistance to make units accessible. A high priority service for the elderly was transportation, and this was a major concern in rural areas. Disabled persons’ needs were similar to those of the elderly. There was a focus on construction of accessible rental units, and on housing rehabilitation programs that would make accessibility improvements for existing homes. Infrastructure improvements to make public spaces more accessible, local health care resources, and transportation options are also considered high-priority for disabled persons. While there is generally enough housing available for large families, very low- and extremely low-income households have difficulty affording many of these units, since larger units are generally more expensive. Persons with alcohol/drug problems, persons with HIV/AIDS, and victims of domestic violence generally have a wide range of services available to them, but these services are more difficult to access for rural residents. Additional coordination is needed to allow rural residents access to the full range of options that exist in urban areas. Special Needs Priorities Priority 8: Increase and preserve the supply of affordable housing available to the elderly, disabled, and large families. Priority 9: Improve housing accessibility and safety (existing and new). Special Needs Programs and Goals The following programs will address the priority needs of special needs populations. ADOH may carry out programs directly or grant funds to nonprofit agencies to carry out programs. Affordable Housing Development For a full description of this program, please see the above “Housing Programs” section. The State Housing Fund will be available to fund a variety of affordable rental housing, including rental housing for special needs groups like the elderly and large families. A goal of this program is to provide a certain percentage of all units built as accessible to disabled persons. Any units produced with federal funds that are designed to be accessible to persons with disabilities must meet affirmative marketing requirements. Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program For a full description of this program, please see the above “Housing Programs” section. This program will fund a range of rehabilitation activities that benefit special needs groups, such as accessibility accommodations for the disabled or room additions to alleviate overcrowding in large family households. Minor Home Repair Program For a full description of this program, please see the above “Housing Programs” section. This program will fund minor improvements that are needed to correct health and safety hazards. A key goal of this program is to provide accessibility modifications for disabled households. 66 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN Social Service Program Support ADOH will allow jurisdictions to apply for a limited amount of social services funding on an annual basis. Funds may be used to support social service activities that benefit primarily low-income households. Some activities will benefit special needs populations. ADOH will also work with local and state partners to coordinate effective housing and support services. Funding: CDBG Five-Year Goal: 300 persons assisted Responsibility: ADOH, COGs, nonprofits NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Statement of Need The need for public facilities and infrastructure improvements was primarily identified through feedback received at the public meetings and on the online survey. Each region of the state, as well as each local jurisdiction, has specific needs for facilities and infrastructure. These needs are best defined in plans submitted by COGs and local governments. However, some common themes emerged. Public facility needs that were frequently mentioned were crisis facilities, youth centers, senior centers, and parks. Necessary infrastructure improvements included sustainability upgrades, as well as water/sewer lines and facilities, which were noted as high priorities. Sidewalk and street improvements, downtown revitalization, and accessibility improvement programs were medium priorities. Investment in infrastructure improvements is likely to result in the creation of short-term jobs, and long-term benefit and the basis for expanded economic opportunities in Arizona’s rural communities. Community Development Priorities Priority 10: Improve infrastructure and physical environments to promote sustainable and accessible communities. Priority 11: Ensure a variety of public facilities are available to meet the recreational, human development, and service needs of low-income households and priority populations. Priority 12: Encourage job training and employment opportunities. ADOH Community Development and Revitalization Programs .Through its Community Development and Revitalization division, ADOH provides State and Small Cities CDBG funds for eligible programs and projects in communities located in the 13 rural counties in the state, excluding the entitlement communities of Flagstaff, Prescott and Yuma. High and medium priority community development and revitalization projects will be assisted with CDBG funding ADOH allocates funding in a variety of ways. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 67 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN Infrastructure Improvements ADOH will provide funding for a range of infrastructure improvement activities that will directly benefit lowincome areas throughout the state. Priority infrastructure activities will be water/sewer improvements, accessibility improvements, sustainability upgrades, sidewalk and street improvements, and downtown revitalization. Funding: CDBG Five-Year Goal: 25 projects completed Responsibility: ADOH, COGs, local governments Public Facility Improvements ADOH will fund public facility construction or improvements when the need for the improvements is welldocumented and the population to be served is primarily low-income. ADOH staff will closely review the need for each proposed activity. Funding: CDBG Five-Year Goal: 25 projects completed Responsibility: ADOH, COGs, local governments METHODS OF DISTRIBUTION (MOD) ADOH spends relatively little money directly on projects, mainly providing grants or loans to local governments and nonprofits. This section describes how the state will allocate CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds. The method of distribution for each source is generally described, with further detail about the annual process available in the Action Plan for the applicable fiscal year. CDBG METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION The total amount of CDBG funds anticipated to be available on an annual basis is about $12 million. The CDBG funds are divided into five categories: administration, technical assistance, Colonias, Regional Account, and State Special Projects. Each allocation has a different method of distribution. Administration Allocation ADOH will set aside two percent of its annual allocation plus $100,000 for program administration. ADOH must provide a non-federal match for the two percent. These include “hard” match funds, i.e. state funds used to pay salaries and other operating expenses of the CDBG program and “in-kind” or “soft” match funds which represent staff time devoted to the CDBG program by individuals whose salaries are paid from nonfederal sources. Technical Assistance Allocation ADOH will set aside one percent of the annual CDBG award for technical assistance to local governments and nonprofit program recipients. 68 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN Colonias Allocation According to Section 916 of the Cranston-Gonzalez Act of 1990, a “colonia” is any identifiable community that: 1) Is located within 150 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico, except within any standard metropolitan statistical area that has a population exceeding 1,000,000; and 2) Is designated by the state or county in which it is located as colonia; 3) Is determined to be a colonia on the basis of objective criteria, including the lack of potable water supply, lack of adequate sewage systems, and lack of decent, safe, and sanitary housing; and 4) Was in existence and generally recognized as a colonia before the enactment of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. Federal law required that ADOH establish an annual set-aside for activities benefiting the residents of colonias. In accordance with direction from HUD, the State will set aside 10 percent of the allocation on an annual basis for colonias. Colonias funding will be distributed through a competitive application process. ADOH will issue a funding notice once every two years to solicit colonias eligible projects located in colonias. All cities, towns, counties, and tribal reservations that contain either geographically defined neighborhoods or unincorporated communities designated as colonias and that are eligible to receive CDBG funding thru ADOH are eligible to apply for these funds. Water/sewer, infrastructure, and housing activities will be considered eligible colonias projects. An application for colonias funds will not affect a jurisdiction’s eligibility for other CDBG funding. Regional Account Allocation Eighty-five (85) percent of the remaining amount of CDBG funds after allocations to administration, technical assistance, and the colonias set aside will be distributed into the Regional Account (RA). These funds will be used for housing projects or projects that address a high- or medium-priority community development need. (These needs can be found in Appendix L.) Primary activities include housing rehabilitation, public facilities, public services and public improvement activities, and economic development. The RA is first divided into four sub-accounts, one for each of the non-metropolitan COG areas: CAAG, NACOG, SEAGO, and WACOG. To determine the amount of CDBG funding allocated to each COG’s sub account, the state uses a formula based on population and persons in poverty. The COG sub-accounts are determined by 1) multiplying the percentage of the total population of each COG by 30 percent; 2) multiplying the percentage of the total poverty population of COG by 70 percent; and 3) adding the products of the two. RA funds are ultimately distributed annually to non-metropolitan cities, towns, and counties in Arizona excluding the entitlement communities of Flagstaff, Prescott and Yuma. ADOH works with each regional COG to develop a regional Method of Distribution (MOD) each year and forwards the MOD to ADOH for approval. The MOD determines which communities will receive funding each year and how much will be received. Some COG member communities within certain regions take turns getting funded (forgoing funding one year for higher amounts the next year) while others distribute the funds evenly every year. ADOH has the final authority to determine the MOD for the state. After the MOD is determined, local governments complete applications for funding and route them through the COG to ADOH. The COG reviews each application for completeness, priority project selection, and assists the community with rectifying any application deficiencies. The COGs have no discretion to reject applications and must forward all applications to the state. Only those communities identified as eligible to Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 69 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN receive funding in the current year MOD may submit an application, so no comparative analysis is necessary. Each COG will establish its own application procedures (letters of intent, etc.) and submission deadline for the compilation of applications to be forwarded to ADOH. ADOH will attempt to review and make final award determinations for each application submitted within 90 days of receipt of all outstanding application issues. At the time of application each CDBG application amount must equal the allocation amount of the community then the highest priority project will be funded. Actual award of CDBG funds is contingent upon an application that is eligible, meets all application review thresholds, and is a state priority project. State Special Projects Allocation Fifteen (15) percent of the CDBG funds remaining after allocations to administration, technical assistance, and the colonias set aside will be distributed into the State Special Projects Account (SSP). The SSP funds are competitively awarded. ADOH will release a Notice of Funding Availability to solicit applications from eligible jurisdictions. Applications for funding are competitively rated and ranked.. • All communities eligible to receive funding from the state CDBG program are eligible to apply. No more than 2 applications are allowed from the same community and they must be listed in priority. All first priority applications will be reviewed with subsequent priority applications reviewed if sufficient funding is available. The highest scoring applications for projects meeting a high priority need as established in Appendix J (Table J-4) of the FY2010-2014 Consolidated Plan will be awarded prior to awarding projects of lesser priority until funding is exhausted. • The competitive scoring criteria are based on the following concepts: project need, per capita benefit, effectiveness, cost reasonableness, project readiness, leveraged funds, past performance, capacity, and potential for direct/indirect benefits stemming from the project. Threshold Requirements There are certain threshold requirements for projects under any source of CDBG funding. These include meeting one of three national objectives: • Benefit to low-income persons. • Prevent or eliminate slums or blight. • Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because of existing conditions that pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available to meet such needs. • All proposed activities must also be eligible under CDBG regulations. • At least 70 percent of CDBG funds must be spent on activities that meet the low-income benefit national objective. Activities justified on the basis of slum/blight or urgent need are funded on a first-notified, first-funded basis up to a maximum of 30 percent of CDBG funds. CDBG Redistribution of Funds ADOH will distribute any unused funds, recaptured funds, disallowed costs from prior contracts, and program income not retained by the grantees. Funds will be redistributed to the SSP in the following cases: 70 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN • Unused funds. Funds are considered unused in the event that a jurisdiction fails to submit an application for some or all of its RA set-aside funds, or if an application does not meet threshold requirements. • Recapture. Recaptured funds are funds removed from a contract due to non-compliance or nonperformance. De-obligation occurs when a project is completed using less CDBG funding than anticipated and leaving an unexpended balance, a loan is repaid, an activity was changed or cancelled (for reasons other than performance) resulting in excess funding, or program income is received that is not programmed for use. In the event of a deobligation, jurisdictions with positive performance records may roll the funds into an existing or new contract of the same funding year if they can be put under contract within 60 days and used quickly. If these conditions are not met, the funds will be redistributed to the SSP. CDBG Award Process All funded applications will be processed through, and incorporated by reference in, an ADOH Funding Agreement. The Agreement will contain information about the terms and special conditions of the award. HOME METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION HOME funding is available to jurisdictions statewide through an application process. ADOH releases information on an annual basis describing the specific activities and amount of funding available for rental and homeownership housing development, including Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) activities. Applications that meet threshold, scoring, and underwriting will advance to a funding committee for final review and recommendation. The actual geographic distribution of resources will be based on the number of applications received. Specific guidance is available in the State Housing Fund Summary and Application Guide released annually. Ten percent of the HOME funds will be utilized by ADOH for administration of the program. CHDO Method of Distribution 15 percent of the HOME funds received will be set aside for CHDO projects. The HOME CHDO distributions are made through an application process and must meet the HOME CHDO regulations. CHDO funding will be provided as loans. HOME Application Process The State will make available owner-occupied housing rehabilitation funds through a competitive application process. Notification of funds availability for HOME funds will be announced. The majority, if not all, of the HOME funds set-aside for rental development are expected to be utilized as gap financing in projects that are successful in securing a competitive Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) allocation. Any remaining funds may be made available through a competitive process. If CHDO funds remain available, a NOFA strictly for CHDO projects may be released. ADOH will not utilize HOME resources for tenant-based rental assistance or for homeownership assistance in the form of down payment/closing cost or equity contributions. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 71 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN Other HOME Policies HOME Match The HOME program match liability is 25 percent (statutory requirement) of actual project expenditures during the program year, approximately $2.2 million in 2010. The State currently has sufficient match that was carried over from previous years to meet its 2010 matching requirements. As needed, the State will supplement this with match funding from various sources. HOME Resale and Recapture Provisions As outlined 24 CFR 92.254 of the HOME rule, there are provisions of resale or recapture. ADOH has chosen to use the recapture provision for HOME and/or matching funds to assist eligible homebuyers. ESG METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION The ESG program method of distribution includes three primary activities: administration, shelter improvements and operations, and homelessness prevention. Administration The Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) takes five percent of the grant award for administrative costs. Shelter Improvements and Operations The DES will award contracts every five years through a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process. Proposals will be reviewed by a panel comprised of internal staff and external members. Proposals will be assessed using the rating system published in each RFP. The rating system may include service methodology, experience and expertise, cost, and other factors deemed relevant. Homelessness Prevention ESG prevention funding will be allocated through contracts with community action agencies that are designated by law to receive all DES funding non‐competitively. The funding will be allocated to the community action agencies providing services in rural counties. The allocation formula distributes 90 percent of the funds based on percentage of persons at or below 125 percent of poverty level and distributes 10 percent of the funds based on unemployment rates. Other Periodically, funds will be distributed through intergovernmental agreements with local governments for prevention and transitional housing services. By these means, the broadest coverage is ensured throughout the state. HOPWA The HOPWA allocation is divided into two parts: administration and program activities. Administration A total of 10 percent of the grant award will be used for administration. Three percent will be used by ADOH and seven percent will be used by project sponsors. 72 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN Program Activities The remaining 90 percent of the grant award will be spent on direct service provision. ADOH will contract with nonprofit organizations to administer the HOPWA program within the thirteen rural counties. Contracts with nonprofits will be reviewed periodically, with additional proposals solicited as necessary. CONSOLIDATED PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ADOH is a department of the Arizona state government. ADOH is headed by a Director and Deputy Director under which five administrators oversee programs, operations, and intergovernmental coordination. The activities prescribed in the Plan are implemented by governmental, nonprofit, and for-profit entities under contract with ADOH. Contracts are awarded based on the ability of an entity to demonstrate the capacity to undertake eligible activities through a written proposal process. ADOH works in conjunction with four councils of government to develop a plan for the targeting and distribution of funds throughout the state. REMOVING BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADOH is committed to removing or reducing barriers to affordable housing whenever possible. The Arizona Housing Commission has recommended the following policies and actions to address barriers; ADOH has taken action on some and continues to examine the feasibility of others. • Provide professional education and technical assistance to local governments to address barriers to housing affordability. ADOH now maintains a Technical Assistance Unit with three full-time staff who travel throughout the state to provide technical assistance upon request or as targeted according to need. One of these individuals specializes in tribal housing concerns. • Undertake a comprehensive and systematic review of zoning and subdivision ordinances, building codes and related development control ordinances, and administrative procedures to identify and remove excessive, duplicative, or unnecessary barriers to housing affordability. ADOH’s Community and Government Relations Administrator continues to monitor relevant local and state actions. • Review agency administrative procedures to identify and remove unnecessary barriers to housing affordability. As the state’s affordable housing policy leader, ADOH routinely and systematically evaluates the impacts of processes and decisions to ensure barriers are broken down, not created. • Identify and disseminate innovative solutions to housing affordability barriers used successfully by other states, including the promotion of alternative building materials and methods, land banking, and planning and zoning reservations for affordable development. “The Arizona Affordable Housing Profile,” jointly published by the Arizona Department of Housing and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2002, suggests additional strategies to overcome barriers. For the urban areas (Maricopa and Pima counties), the study recommends: • Educating the public on affordable housing programs and the need for more affordable housing; • Reducing development and impact fees for affordable housing; • Offering incentives to encourage infill affordable housing development; Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 73 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN • Increasing the amount of small-lot single-family and multifamily development through less restrictive zoning; and • Creating joint efforts to develop affordable housing by local government and private business. For the nonurban areas (the remainder of the state), the study recommends: • Promoting the development of new employment opportunities; • Increasing the flexibility and amount of private financing for affordable housing; • Upgrading and improving community infrastructure to promote affordable housing development; and • Rehabilitating the existing affordable housing stock. • Although some strategies could be applied statewide, stakeholders in the urban areas tend to suggest higher-density development while those in the nonurban areas are more focused on economic development and job creation. OBSTACLES TO MEETING UNDERSERVED NEEDS There are several obstacles Arizona will face in implementing the five-year strategies. The limited amount of funds available to meet the many needs of Arizona residents is possibly the most significant barrier. Recent federal and state cutbacks in social services programs will limit the amount of assistance that can be provided over the next five years. There remain a number of significant obstacles to meeting underserved needs in Arizona.: 74 • Rapid population growth. • Inadequate funding to acquire and rehabilitate all existing housing units in need of repair. • Lack of knowledge of social services and service providers in Arizona for low-income residents. • Lack of funding to address the huge amount of unmet need that exists for affordable housing, infrastructure and facility improvements, and social services. • Absence of service providers: the geographically expansive service areas in rural Arizona make it nearly impossible for providers to maintain a consistent, physical presence in most communities; this is further complicated by the limited ability of many low-income residents to travel for services. • Lack of capacity in existing agencies: many service providers experience higher than average attrition rates among their employees; recruitment and retention of staff continues to be a challenge. • Lack of consensus: stakeholders within a particular jurisdiction often do not agree on priority needs and this can lead to little action. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN GAPS IN THE DELIVERY SYSTEM The effectiveness of implementing activities by contracting with outside agencies is dependent upon the capacity of the agencies conducting the activities and the expertise of ADOH staff in administering the contracts. Effective and professional administration of contracts by ADOH is a strength in the delivery system. Each contract is assigned a program specialist to oversee the progress and distribute funding. The program specialist is the one point of contact for the implementing agency. Gaps in the delivery exist in implementation. Many small city and county governments in the most rural parts of the state do not have sufficient staff and/or expertise to undertake the activities prescribed in this Consolidated Plan. In many rural parts of the state, there is also a lack of nonprofit and for-profit entities with the type of development and service delivery experience to undertake the activities prescribed in the Plan. GAPS IN PUBLIC HOUSING While ADOH and the Arizona Public Housing Authority (PHA) do not own or manage any public housing, the PHA has monitoring and compliance oversight of approximately 114 federally-financed properties (through a competitively awarded contract from HUD) and 124 Housing Choice Vouchers (formerly known as Section 8). ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY ADOH will implement efforts designed to reduce number of families living in poverty through the following actions: (a) addressing the needs engendered by poverty; (b) increasing the supply and availability of decent, safe, and affordable housing necessary for low income families; and (c) increasing the effectiveness of existing programs through better collaboration and increased efficiency of implementation. While ADOH is focused on the provision of affordable housing and needed community development programs and projects, especially in rural areas of Arizona, ADOH works with and encourages job retention, training, and creation through programs of other state agencies, such as the Department of Commerce, and local jurisdictions. With nearly 700,000 persons living in poverty in Arizona, according to the 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates data, ADOH plans to provide assistance to nearly 70,000 persons over the next five years through multiple programs to help them step out of poverty. Additionally, ADOH has established strong partnerships with the Arizona Department of Economic Security, the Community Services Administration, the Family Assistance Administration, the Aging and Adult Administration, the Arizona Early Intervention Program, the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the Arizona Department of Veteran’s Affairs, and the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth, and Families. Through collaborative efforts with such effective organizations and agencies, ADOH will deliver a positive step forward in reducing the number of families living at the poverty level in Arizona. Below are more detailed descriptions of the partnering agencies and the services they provide toward the helping persons and families step out of poverty. • Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) - DES was established by the State Legislature in July 1972 by combining the Employment Security Commission, the State Department of Public Welfare, the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, the State Office of Economic Opportunity, the Apprenticeship Council and the State Office of Manpower Planning. The State Department of Mental Retardation joined the Department in 1974. The purpose in creating the Department was to provide an integration of direct services to people in such a way as to reduce duplication of administrative efforts, services and expenditures. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 75 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN 76 • Community Services Administration (CSA) - The CSA funds networks of provider agencies to assist low-income Arizona residents to move through and out of crisis situations and toward selfsufficiency. They partner with provider agencies to plan and develop programs and services, encourage services integration whenever possible, and mobilize resources. Community agencies and funded networks serve as advocates for low-income households, hungry families, victims of domestic violence, refugees, and homeless individuals and families. The CSA awards approximately $50 million from various federal and state funding sources to over 120 contractors across the state to administer a variety of social services. • Family Assistance Administration - The Family Assistance Administration promotes the safety, well-being, and self-sufficiency of children, adults, and families by helping individuals and families achieve independence and self-sufficiency through temporary assistance in meeting their immediate basic needs. The FAA provides cash assistance and food stamps to eligible participants, determines eligibility for Medical Assistance, and refers participants to other departmental and community resources for assistance. • Aging and Adult Administration - The Aging and Adult Administration provides information and services to seniors within Arizona through Adult Protective Services, Benefits Counseling, Long Term Care Ombudsman, Program Legal Services Assistance, and the Older Workers Program/Title V. Each of these services assists in accomplishing the administration's number one goal to provide opportunities for keeping vulnerable adults and older persons in their homes and communities. • Arizona Early Intervention Program (AzEIP) - AzEIP is a statewide system of supports and services for families of children, birth to three, with disabilities or developmental delays. • Arizona Department of Health Services (DHS) - DHS’ strategic priorities include responding to Arizona’s increasing older population and their health needs, reducing the rates of injury, being prepared to respond to emergencies that threaten the health of Arizona’s residents, and improving the system for serving persons with behavioral health problems. • Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) - AHCCCS is Arizona’s Medicaid program, designed to deliver quality health care under cutting-edge concepts of managed care. AHCCCS contracts with health plans and other program contractors, paying them a monthly “capitation” amount prospectively for each enrolled member. AHCCCS receives federal, state and county funds to operate, plus some monies from Arizona’s tobacco tax. Eligibility is not performed under one roof, but by various agencies, depending on the category. For example, pregnant women, families and children generally enter AHCCCS by way of the Department of Economic Security. State-only categories such as the Medically Needy generally come from the various counties. The blind, aged or disabled who receive Supplemental Security Income enter through the Social Security Administration. Each eligibility group has its own income and resource criteria. • Arizona Department of Veterans’ Services - Veterans’ Services provides a network of Veterans Benefits Counselors (VBC's) who give information, counsel and assistance to veterans, their dependents and survivors in matters pertaining to federal and state benefits earned by honorable service in the armed forces of the United States. Veteran Benefits Counselors travel to all fifteen counties of the state. Veterans Benefits Counselors help process compensation and pension applications, appeal VA decisions, file for survivors death benefits, apply for aid and attendance and housebound benefits, certification of claim documents, request for military service records, upgrade military discharges, apply for special veteran license plates, provide information on general state benefits and assist with other questions about veteran benefits and entitlements. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN • Governor’s Office for Children, Youth, and Families - The Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) serves the mission of the Governor by fostering and enhancing collaborative relationships across state systems and communities in an effort to ensure the well being of Arizona’s children and families. The GOCYF seeks to develop and influence public policy in efforts focused on coordinating and creating a more comprehensive system of services, and works to secure resources that will provide sustainable and positive impacts for Arizona children, families and communities. LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION STRATEGY ADOH has adopted long-term goals to promote affordable housing and community development. These goals, as applied to lead-based paint hazards, became ADOH’s lead-based paint strategy. Arizona’s strategy objectives are: • Collaborate with local cities and counties to reduce housing-related lead-based paint hazards, especially for low-income families and children. • Review jurisdictions’ residential rehabilitation guidelines to ensure they include a risk assessment for lead-based paint assessment being part of every home inspection. • Refer families with children to the Arizona Department of Health Services, Office of Environmental Health Services, for blood testing if lead-based paint is found in units proposed for rehabilitation. • Collaborate with the Arizona Department of Health Services, which maintains the lead exposure registry for Arizona. The program develops lead poisoning prevention programs, investigates cases with elevated blood lead levels, and conducts educational outreach activities. In recent years, ADOH has undertaken a wide range of activities to address the problem of lead-based paint in the housing stock. The Arizona Lead Poisoning Screening Coalition and the Arizona Department of Health Services recommends screening children six years of age and younger according to the Childhood Lead Poisoning Targeted Screening Plan. These steps will hopefully prove important in assuring the longterm health and stability of lower-income children who are living in substandard housing. INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION ADOH is committed to continuing its participation and coordination with federal, state, county, and local agencies, as well as with the private and nonprofit sectors, to serve the needs of low-income individuals and families in the community. In particular, ADOH will continue to work in close coordination with the local communities and counties regarding infrastructure improvements and the provision of services. ADOH will also work with local governments, nonprofits, and the private sector to address housing needs. With firm partnerships established with the Arizona Department of Economic Security, the Community Services Administration, the Family Assistance Administration, the Arizona Early Intervention Program, the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Arizona Department of Veteran’s Affairs, the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth, and Families, dozens of local not-for-profit service providers, multiple Councils of Governments and other community stakeholder organizations, this alliance will move forward toward reducing the number of homeless, chronically homeless, and persons living in poverty. These agencies will focus on improving communication and coordination to deliver more effective and efficient services, Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 77 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN programs and outreach regarding the needs of persons living in and close to homelessness. Furthermore, ADOH will support improving data collection and sharing amongst the multiple agencies to encourage increased knowledge and outreach among multiple service areas and population needs. NONPROFIT AGENCIES ADOH provides funding to nonprofit agencies located throughout Arizona that serve low-income households. These nonprofits provide assistance for affordable low-income housing and special needs and homeless populations. PRIVATE SECTOR The private sector is an important collaborator in the services and programs associated with the Consolidated Plan. The private sector brings additional resources and expertise that can be used to supplement existing services or fill gaps in the system. Lenders, affordable housing developers, business and economic development organizations, and private service providers offer a variety of assistance to residents such as health care, small-business assistance, home loan programs, and assisted housing, among others. TRIBAL COMMUNITIES The State of Arizona has 22 federally recognized tribes located within the conformed boundaries of the state. The tribes within Arizona are vastly different from one another and are recognized as self-governing entities that regulate laws under their respective tribal jurisdictions. Tribes in Arizona vary in size from the largest federally recognized tribe, Navajo Nation, which is located in four states that include Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado, and totals 16 million acres and 280,000 in population. The smallest tribe in Arizona is the Tonto Apache located in Payson with a current land base of 75 acres and a population of 122. Within Arizona, 16 tribes currently receive a formula-driven grant known as the Indian Housing Block Grant for development and maintenance of existing housing. The formula-driven grant was enacted in 1996 and is based on various factors that include population, poverty, current assisted stock, and overcrowding conditions. These funds are received on an annual basis to the tribe or tribal-designated housing entity and can be used for a number of activities. ARIZONA PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY ADOH operates the Arizona Public Housing Authority (PHA). Information derived from operating the PHA provides an accurate and recent view of public housing needs and trends for which planning efforts can be designed to address. The responsibilities entail administering a Housing Choice Voucher program for Yavapai County. The Housing Choice Voucher program provides rental subsidy payments for approximately 89 very low-income households. The Arizona PHA also has a competitively-awarded contract to operate the Section 8 project-based program throughout the state, which entails administering approximately 111 HUDsubsidized rental properties. Through this program, participating properties are subsidized, allowing very lowincome tenants to pay only 30 percent of their incomes toward rent. 78 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN ROLE OF ADOH AND COGS IN THE CDBG PROGRAM Role of ADOH Since 1982, the State of Arizona has administered the CDBG program. ADOH will administer the CDBG program on behalf of non‐entitlement communities (all cities and towns in Arizona except the cities of Flagstaff, Prescott, and Yuma, and all counties except for Maricopa and Pima counties and the incorporated communities within their jurisdictions). As the administrator of the CDBG program, ADOH performs the following functions: • Prepares the program design; • Prepares all application and grant implementation materials; • Approves the MOD, which is developed by each council of governments; • Renders technical assistance to all applicants and grantees as requested, in cooperation with the four nonmetropolitan COGs; • Distributes funds through contracts with recipients and administers the contracts; • Manages the distribution of CDBG funds; • Evaluates and determines funding of SSP applications; • Evaluates and determines funding of Colonias applications; • Authorizes final funding approval for all applications from the Regional Account; • Monitors all grantees to ensure compliance with state and federal regulatory requirements; and • Provides application workshops, pre‐application reviews, and implementation workshops as needed. The State of Arizona has a partnership with the rural regional councils of government in Arizona to provide both technical and administrative assistance to CDBG grantee communities. Role of COGs The COGs perform the following functions. • Recommend an annual MOD for funds within its region, thereby enabling local units of government to guide the distribution of resources within their respective COG regions. • Offer expertise in CDBG program administration and contract with local governments to assist with application preparation and contract administration. • Provide technical assistance to the recipient communities within their respective region. Technical assistance services provided by the COG include, but are not limited to: o Attending meetings/training sessions/conferences to remain current on CDBG program regulations. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 79 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN o Developing technical assistance materials or training sessions for local governments and nonprofits, and conducting one-on-one technical assistance sessions. o Preparing materials to assist local governments and nonprofit entities to apply for and implement CDBG-funded projects. o Preparing and presenting workshops and training relating to CDBG eligible activities and requirements, including those pertaining to affirmatively furthering fair housing. o Publicizing existing CDBG-related TA materials and training to local governments and nonprofits. o Assisting ADOH with coordinating technical assistance visits to assist communities while they are developing CDBG application concepts. GOVERNOR’S 2020 PLANNING INITIATIVE ADOH was given the responsibility of developing the housing component of the Governor’s 2020 Planning Initiative. The Aging 2020 Plan is being developed in response to demographic trends forecasting increasing numbers of senior citizens who will live longer and have more demands for services. ADOH has developed a housing plan that provides more opportunities for affordable housing linked to improved medical and social services which will allow seniors to live productive independent lives longer in their life cycles. The housing component was developed in conjunction with Arizona COGs’ Area Agency on Aging departments, the Arizona Association of Retired Persons, and citizen input. MONITORING PLAN ADOH has developed a monitoring system to ensure that the activities carried out in furtherance of the Consolidated Plan are done in a timely manner in accordance with the federal monitoring requirements and all other applicable laws, regulations, policies, and sound management and accounting practices. ADOH views monitoring as an opportunity to provide ongoing technical assistance and support to help its local government and nonprofit partners reach project goals, reach Consolidated Plan goals, and improve service. ADOH conducts three types of monitoring to ensure the success of Consolidated Plan projects and activities: project monitoring, Consolidated Plan monitoring, and long-term monitoring. Project Monitoring Project monitoring consists of staff being assigned one or more projects to monitor and periodically report on the progress of each project. Project monitoring includes desk reviews and on-site monitoring. Once a project is awarded, there is ongoing assessment to ensure the activities and transactions undertaken by the recipient are allowable within laws, regulations, and policies that govern the program. Throughout the contract period, recipients must submit regular reporting. The reports update staff regarding the recipient’s progress and collect federally mandated reporting information such as matching contributions, contracts let to minority and womenowned businesses, section 3 and statistics on any relocations. Occasionally, additional documentation is required of recipients with the goal of enabling staff to provide in-house oversight (“desk monitoring”). Recipients have a contract set-up meeting with staff to go over the expectations and requirements of the contract. Repeat recipients who have demonstrated good capacity for project delivery and expenditure may not require a contract set up meeting. Throughout the contract period, staff is available to meet with the recipients as necessary. In addition to desk review of documentation such as progress reports, procurement 80 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN procedures, Environmental Review Records etc., staff typically schedules at least one site visit for each recipient on an annual basis. However, for some CDBG projects it is unnecessary to perform more than one on-site monitoring due to the scope of the project (i.e. purchase of fire equipment or public service activities such as staffing salaries for a domestic violence shelter, etc.). Staff will also conduct an on-site monitoring visit as part of a contract close-out. The on-site visit consists of a one- or two-day visit to the recipient agency to review records, inspect the project’s progress in completing required activities, and meet with staff responsible for the project. On-site monitoring visits include the following components: entrance/exit conferences, documentation/file review, and viewing of the project (as applicable). Within 30 days of an on-site monitoring visit, staff will provide written monitoring comments to the recipient in the form of a follow-up letter. The letter includes, at a minimum, the date of review and those present during the review, results of the monitoring (satisfactory performance, concern, or finding), a statement describing the basis for each conclusion, instructions on what the recipient must do to address any area of concern or finding, and a deadline by which the recipient must respond. In extreme cases of noncompliance, staff must determine that an additional on-site monitoring visit is necessary before an issue can be adequately resolved. Staff will work with recipients to the greatest extent possible to come to a satisfactory resolution in areas where recipients are in noncompliance or when on-site monitoring visits have resulted in findings. Deadlines are set by which recipients are expected to bring their program/project into compliance. Should ADOH exhaust all possible avenues to bring a recipient’s contract into compliance, the matter may be determined to be an “unresolved issue.” Any recipient with an unresolved issue may be barred from receiving further funding. Consolidated Plan Monitoring ADOH understands that monitoring the Consolidated Plan and its annual activities must be carried out regularly to ensure that statutory and regulatory requirements are being met and that, where appropriate, information being submitted to HUD is correct and complete. The objectives of Consolidated Plan monitoring are: • To assure that subrecipients are carrying out their activity as described. • To assure that subrecipients are implementing the activity in a timely manner. • To assure that subrecipients are assessing costs to the activity which are eligible under CDBG regulations and the contract. • To assure that subrecipients are conforming with other applicable laws, regulations, and terms of the agreement. • To assure that the activity is operating in a manner that minimizes the opportunity for fraud, waste, and mismanagement. • To assure that subrecipients have the capacity to carry out the approved activity. • To assure that subrecipients are carrying out their activity as described. ADOH continually carries out and refines monitoring procedures to ensure progress toward the specified goals and objectives of the projects, as well as ensuring long-term compliance with all applicable program regulations and statutes. Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 81 IV. STRATEGIC PLAN Long-Term Monitoring Some projects, such as rental housing projects, require monitoring after the activity is completed. ADOH holds owners of state-assisted housing responsible for compliance with applicable state and federal regulations throughout the compliance period, which ranges from 5 to 20 years depending on the project. Desk review and on-site monitoring provide an ongoing assessment to assure that housing units assisted are being utilized in accordance with all laws, regulations, and policies that govern the program. Throughout the compliance period, property owners or managers must complete and submit an annual report on the status of the state-assisted units and property. Outright failure to comply with the reporting requirements of the program will result in an unresolved compliance issue and will prohibit owners from receiving future dollars until the property is brought into compliance. In addition to reviewing the yearly report, staff will schedule on-site monitoring visits as necessary. The focus of the on-site monitoring is to determine compliance with tenant income eligibility requirements, maximum allowable rental rates, physical property standards, and affirmative fair marketing laws. Staff will work with property owners to the greatest extent possible to come to a satisfactory resolution in areas where recipients are in noncompliance or when on-site monitoring visits have resulted in findings. Deadlines are set by which recipients are expected to bring their program/project into compliance. Should ADOH exhaust all possible avenues to bring a recipient’s contract into compliance, the matter may be determined to be an “unresolved issue.” Any recipient with an unresolved issue may be barred from receiving further funding. 82 Arizona Department of Housing – Consolidated Plan 2010–2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX A – INCOME LIMITS Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 A-1 APPENDIX A – INCOME LIMITS A-2 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX B – CDBG ENTITLEMENT JURISDICTIONS CDBG entitlement jurisdictions generally have populations greater than 50,000. Entitlements may be cities, counties, or city/county partnerships (known as consortiums). In the 2010-11 fiscal year, Arizona’s entitlement jurisdictions include: Avondale Chandler Flagstaff Gilbert Glendale Maricopa County Mesa Peoria Phoenix Pima County Prescott Scottsdale Surprise Tempe Tucson Yuma Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 B-1 APPENDIX C – CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN I. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION A. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN The Citizen Participation Plan is designed to facilitate and encourage public participation in the Consolidated Plan process. In particular, the Citizen Participation Plan seeks to encourage the involvement of low-income persons. B. CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND ANNUAL ACTION PLAN The Consolidated Plan is a five-year plan that identifies the needs of low-income persons and areas of the state of Arizona and sets forth a five-year strategy to address those needs, primarily utilizing federal housing and community development funds. The Annual Action Plan identifies the specific needs to be addressed with that funding each year based on the priorities established in the Consolidated Plan’s five-year strategy. 1. Preparation In order to identify the needs of low-income persons and areas of the state of Arizona, priorities must be set in order to decide which of the identified needs should get the highest priority for funding. In order to solicit community input, which is essential to determining these needs and priorities, ADOH will: Consult with local public agencies that assist low-income persons and areas, including ADOH staff, state and federal agencies, local governments, and regional Councils of Government (COGs). Consult with private agencies, including local nonprofit service providers and advocates such as the local public housing agency, health agencies, homeless service providers, nonprofit housing developers, social service agencies (including those focusing on services to children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS, persons with substance abuse problems, etc.). Publicly notice and conduct one or more public meetings to solicit input on needs and priorities. Develop an assessment of needs in the State of Arizona as well as a strategic plan to address those needs. Publicly notice a 30-day review and comment period where a complete draft of the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan will be made available to the public. Conduct a public hearing prior to adoption of the Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plan. 2. Adoption As noted above, the Arizona Department of Housing will provide several opportunities for citizen involvement in the Consolidated Plan process prior to adoption. These include: Published notice of a public meeting in the Arizona Republic and local newspapers, and on the State’s website (www.housingaz.com) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. A public meeting on needs and priorities for the Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan. A public notice announcing the 30-day review and comment period and public hearing for the Draft Consolidated Plan and/or Draft Annual Action Plan. The notice will list the locations where the Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 C-1 APPENDIX C – CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN document(s) will be available for review, and the notice will be posted prior to the start of the comment period. The Draft Consolidated Plan and/or Draft Annual Action Plan will be available at the ADOH offices and on the ADOH website. Copies of the documents will be mailed upon request. The Draft Consolidated Plan and/or Draft Annual Action Plan will be made accessible to persons with disabilities upon request. In addition, a reasonable number of free copies will be provided to citizens or groups requesting copies of the document(s). A public hearing before the adoption of the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan will be held. In preparing the Final Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan, careful consideration will be given to all comments and views expressed by the public, whether given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing during the review and comment period. The final documents will have a section that presents all comments and explains why any comments were not accepted. At the end of the 30-day comment period, the Department of Housing will consider approval of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. 3. Amendments The Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan will be amended whenever there is a change in one of the priorities presented on the HUD-required Priority Table; a change in the use of money to an activity not mentioned in the final Annual Action Plan; or a change in the purpose, location, scope, or beneficiaries of an activity (described more fully later). The public will be notified whenever there is a “substantial” amendment as defined below: A change in the use of CDBG funding, of more than 35 percent of the total state allocation amount, from one activity to another (i.e., “reprogramming” of CDBG funds). Funding of an activity type not described in the Annual Action Plan. Changing the priorities contained in the Five-Year Strategic Plan of the Consolidated Plan. There must be reasonable notice of a proposed substantial amendment so that residents of the affected areas of the state will have an opportunity to review it and comment on it. Notice will be made according to the procedures described herein with the addition of the following procedures specifically for substantial amendments: There will be 7 days advance notice of the availability of a proposed substantial amendment prior to a public hearing. A written description of the proposed substantial amendment will be made available to the public at the locations indicated in this Citizen Participation Plan. There will be a public hearing regarding the proposed substantial amendment after a 30 day public review period. The final substantial amendment will have a section that presents all comments, plus explanations why any comments were not accepted. C-2 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX C – CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN C. CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT Every year, the ADOH must submit to HUD a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) within 90 days of the close of the program year. In general, the CAPER must describe how funds were actually used and the extent to which these funds were used for activities that benefited low-income people. There will be 7 days advance notice of the availability of the CAPER prior to a public hearing. There will be a public hearing regarding the proposed substantial amendment after a 15 day public review period. The final CAPER will have a section that presents all comments, plus explanations why any comments were not accepted. II. PUBLIC NOTICE A. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS There shall be advance public notice once a federally required document is available, such as the Proposed Annual Action Plan or Five-Year Consolidated Plan, any proposed substantial amendment(s) to the Action Plan or Consolidated Plan, and the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). Public notice requirements are laid out in the previous section. B. FORMS OF PUBLIC NOTICE ADOH staff will ensure adequate advance notice of all public meetings and hearings. Adequate noticing will include: Printing notices in newspapers representative of the state’s population and geography at least 7 days prior to the public meetings and hearings. Posting notices at the State Capitol. Posting notices on ADOH website (www.housingaz.com/). III. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings are required by law in order to obtain the public’s views and to provide the public with the Arizona Department of Housing’s responses to public questions and proposals. The law requires public hearings at all stages of the process, including at least a public hearing about community needs, a public hearing to review proposed uses of funds, and a public hearing to assess how funds were spent during the previous program year. Public hearings will be held only after there has been adequate notice as described in the Public Notice part of this Citizen Participation Plan, including a display advertisement in the ADOH lobby 7 days prior to the public hearing. Public hearings will usually be held in the evening at a time convenient to most residents, especially those who might benefit from the use of funds. Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 C-3 APPENDIX C – CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Public hearings may be held at the ADOH offices or other State of Arizona office locations, or other locations throughout the state, all of which are accessible by public transportation. Public hearings may be held at these locations; however, the final approval and adoption of the Annual Action Plan, Five-Year Strategic Plan, and CAPER will be conducted at the ADOH offices. All of these locations are accessible to people with disabilities, and provisions will be made for people with disabilities when requests are made at least five working days prior to a hearing. Translators will also be provided for people who do not speak English when requests are made at least five working days prior to a hearing. IV. PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION As required by law, the Arizona Department of Housing will provide the public with reasonable and timely access to information and records relating to the data or content of the Consolidated Plan, as well as the proposed, actual, and past use of funds covered by this Citizen Participation Plan. ADOH staff will also provide reasonable public access to records about any uses of these funds during the previous five years. Also, as required by law, ADOH will provide the public with reasonable and timely access to local meetings relating to the proposed or actual use of funds (such as Arizona Housing Commission, Arizona Finance Authority, and other committee and commission meetings). A. CONSOLIDATED PLAN DOCUMENTS Consolidated Plan documents may include the Annual Action Plans, the Five-Year Consolidated Plan, and Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER), as well as substantial amendments to the Annual Action Plan, the Five-Year Strategic Plan, Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports, or the Citizen Participation Plan. B. AVAILABILITY OF CONSOLIDATED PLAN DOCUMENTS In the interest of encouraging public participation, copies of Consolidated Plan documents will be provided to the public at no cost and within one week of a request. These materials will be available in a form accessible to persons with disabilities, when requested. C. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS Consolidated Plan documents will also be available at the following locations during their respective review periods: Arizona Department of Housing (1110 W. Washington Street, Suite 310, Phoenix, AZ 85007; Phone: 602-771-1000; TTY: 602-771-1001, Fax: 602-771-1002) Copies of the final and draft versions of the documents are also available at the ADOH offices. V. COMMENT AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES ADOH will provide a period of at least 30 days to receive comments on the draft Consolidated Plan and on any substantial amendments. The 30-day period may start on the date the document is available to the public. ADOH must also provide public notice regarding the availability of documents and the dates of the 30-day comment period. For performance reports, ADOH will provide at least 15 days to receive public comments. C-4 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX C – CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN ADOH will consider all comments received. ADOH will respond to all complaints, in writing, within 15 days. All comments and responses will be attached to each document. VI. ACCOMMODATION OF PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ADOH complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will make accommodations for persons with special needs. Public hearings and the review of Consolidated Plan documents will be held at the ADOH office, which is accessible to people with disabilities. Additional provisions will be made for people with disabilities when requests are made at least five working days prior to a hearing. Translators will also be provided for people who do not speak English when requests are made at least five working days prior to a hearing. Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 C-5 APPENDIX D – PUBLIC MEETING NEEDS SUMMARY The Arizona Department of Housing coordinated four regional public workshops, two Web conference calls, a statewide community needs survey, stakeholder interviews, and phone consultations to gather input on community assets, needs, and priorities. The workshops were held around the state in the cities of Flagstaff, Lake Havasu, Sierra Vista, and Phoenix to encourage participation by local government representatives and the public in all regions. Representatives from many community-oriented groups, local jurisdictions, and members of the public were invited to attend the workshops. Spanish translation was available at each workshop. OUTREACH Substantial advertising was completed to encourage involvement by service providers, local and county governments, state agencies, and citizens. Dissemination of information to inform the public of community needs was conducted by e-mail, postings on the ADOH website, press releases, personal invitations sent to persons on the state contact database, and phone calls. At each of the four public meetings, a brief presentation was given on the CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG programs and the Consolidated Plan process. Public meeting attendees were asked to describe their region’s needs as they relate to housing (rental, homeownership, temporary, and transitional), special needs populations, public facilities, economic development, and social services. Each topic was discussed to ensure that all participants had a chance to share their opinions, and the feedback received shaped the meeting discussion. During the discussion, participants frequently elaborated on various needs. ASSETS Workshop participants identified what they considered the best things about Arizona. Some common things mentioned were cultural diversity, high-quality public facilities, and the dedication and variety of community groups that provide services to residents. GENERAL NEEDS Public meeting participants identified needs in the community. Many of the attendees were involved in providing housing and social services to their community’s residents and were able to provide a diverse perspective on community needs over the next five years. The four public meetings that were held were largely devoted to fostering a dynamic discussion between participants. Participants were encouraged to elaborate on their perception of the state and local needs over the next five years, and they also were invited to make suggestions on how ADOH might address those needs. Many common themes emerged throughout the workshops, and they are discussed below. HOUSING Affordable housing was the need expressed by the greatest number of participants, and needs for both ownership and rental housing were expressed. Participants noted a special need for affordable rental housing for very low-income households. A range of housing sizes is needed, from studio units to large-family units that will accommodate the growing trend of multigenerational living. Many participants focused on the need for education of homeowners throughout the community. Education is needed to dispel myths about affordable housing, to provide information on tenants’ rights in a bilingual format, and to ensure that homebuyers are adequately prepared for the responsibilities of homeownership. Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 D-1 APPENDIX D – PUBLIC MEETING NEEDS SUMMARY Certain groups may have difficulty finding housing in Arizona. One concern was that transitional housing is needed in the northern region of the state, and there is also a need for more rental housing in the southern part of the state. A common concern was for seniors, who may be burdened by loss in home equity or may have difficulty finding units that are accessible. Seniors may also have trouble making accessibility modifications to their units. The growing need for affordable and accessible senior housing cannot be ignored. Opinions varied on the density of housing that should be constructed. Several participants noted the need for more land for affordable housing development, especially as land prices continue to rise. Some participants felt that density maximums were prohibitive to building affordable housing, which often must be built at higher density in order to be financially feasible. Other participants felt that concentration of affordable housing was a problem and that affordable housing should be spread throughout communities and regions whenever possible. Finally, ensuring the quality of housing was a priority. Suggestions indicated a need for health and safety repairs to owner-occupied housing to reduce the number of homes that have deficiencies and improve the quality of existing housing stock. PUBLIC FACILITIES Many participants felt that facilities could be better utilized, especially with increased connection to public transit options. A few people wanted to see facilities integrated into affordable housing projects in order to provide more access for residents. Some felt the communities should encourage environmentally friendly design for new public buildings. Other public facilities needs mentioned include a space for public meetings that could be booked by any resident and a need to repair and improve wastewater facilities and roads. PUBLIC SERVICES Many participants were passionate about the need for additional public services, especially youth services and adult education. One common theme of the discussion on public services was a need to integrate services into the places people live and to connect all facets of community development in order to better support communities. Further coordination between agencies may be needed to ensure that all residents are aware of the variety of services currently available. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Workshop participants noted primary needs to increase economic opportunity in the state: employment training and revitalization. Both are needed to ensure a vibrant and economically diverse community, and connecting local residents to job opportunities is key to spending funds effectively. A variety of types of employment training were mentioned. Employment training for teens and young adults should focus on helping to develop interviewing and personnel skills, as well as computer and technical skills. Mentoring programs may also be a valuable resource for youth. For adults, needs include computer literacy training, general education programs, and small-business assistance. Many new small-business owners could benefit from financial and computer education, as well as information on health codes, building codes, etc. Most employment development opportunities should be offered in both Spanish and English. D-2 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX D – PUBLIC MEETING NEEDS SUMMARY NEEDS BY REGION NORTHERN ARIZONA REGION – NACOG The northern Arizona region comprises Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo, and Apache counties. This region of the state has over 250,000 housing units serving a population of about 557,000. This region has a high percentage of homeowners, and also has mostly newer housing stock, with 63 percent of all residential structures built since 1980. Coconino County has the highest median home sales price as of December 2009. There are two entitlement communities in this region (Flagstaff and Prescott) for the purposes of allocating CDBG funding. Housing Rental housing need in Navajo County Transitional housing need in Coconino County Senior housing in Coconino County Affordable housing for large families (three or more bedrooms) Affordable housing for single individuals Single-family homeowner repair (health and safety) Public Facilities Community centers for youth Neighborhood associations address infrastructure issues Community centers (general) Emergency shelter need in Winslow Public Infrastructure Replacement of existing roads Waste water/sewer facilities Public Services Youth services Teen recreation, enrichment, and mentoring programs Outreach and preventative programs for “tweens” Affordable child care Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 D-3 APPENDIX D – PUBLIC MEETING NEEDS SUMMARY Parenting skills training Mental health services Substance abuse treatment Adult education (ESL) More policing Transportation Operating funds for emergency shelters Economic Development Small-business development assistance Employment opportunities (youth and adult) Job training for special needs and persons released from prison Jobs (general) Commercial development Increase tourism General Better service coordination Improved communication between consumers and providers of services Making sure funding is available for rural parts of the state Better communication and partnerships Priority Needs At the end of the session participants were asked to prioritize the needs. The following are their priorities: Rental housing Infrastructure to support newly developed housing Home and emergency repair Provide services for long-term care (homeless, special needs) D-4 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX D – PUBLIC MEETING NEEDS SUMMARY Transitional housing Emergency shelter Leverage funds with other communities Regional solutions Additional subsidies for rental foreclosures Subsidies of low-income rentals Infrastructure – transportation WESTERN ARIZONA REGION – WACOG The western Arizona region includes La Paz, Mohave, and Yuma counties. This region has approximately 434,000 people and 203,000 housing units. La Paz County has the largest proportion of mobile homes, when compared to the other counties in the state. The WACOG region has the greatest percentage of newer housing (69 percent) of all COGs in the state. In the WACOG region, the City of Yuma is considered an entitlement community for purposes of receiving CDBG funding from HUD. ADOH provides CDBG funding to all other cities and counties. Housing Permanent housing Transitional housing Family emergency shelters Rental rehabilitation – ADA compliance funding Homeownership rehabilitation HOME funds for tenant-based rental assistance Rental housing – larger units Assistance with buying foreclosures available, but also need funds to rehabilitate Substandard housing – help for damaged units Public Facilities Senior center More funding for services outside city limits Community centers Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 D-5 APPENDIX D – PUBLIC MEETING NEEDS SUMMARY Rehabilitation of existing facilities Public Infrastructure General infrastructure improvements Concerns over loss of state infrastructure funds Public Services Need transitional housing with services Homeless services Unemployment services Disabled persons services Economic Development Job creation Solar energy projects for Mohave County Tax incentives for energy efficiency projects Alternative fuel Some community resistance to change No funding of economic development with CDBG Priority Needs At the end of the session participants were asked to prioritize the needs. The following are their priorities: Transitional housing for low-income families Rental housing development for larger families and low-income families Rental rehabilitation Homeless shelters Housing for disabled families or individuals Emergency shelters for families Mobile home unit replacement D-6 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX D – PUBLIC MEETING NEEDS SUMMARY Rental subsidies for very low-income households Eviction prevention Job creation SOUTHERN REGION – SEAGO The southern Arizona region includes Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, and Santa Cruz counties. This region has about 236,000 people and approximately 90,000 housing units. Housing Affordable rental housing in Sierra Vista, Fort Huachuca, Safford (especially for military families), and Douglas Need a range of housing options Special needs housing Accessible housing for disabled persons Retiree housing Transitional housing Homeless housing LIHTC development need to allow flexibility of rental rates to adjust to market conditions Rehabilitation of single-family homes Abandoned subdivision in Graham County Student housing Vacant homes – dilapidated communities Very low-income housing Public Facilities Fire station and substation Limited resources in Cochise County Public Infrastructure Joint city/county – unincorporated area efforts Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 D-7 APPENDIX D – PUBLIC MEETING NEEDS SUMMARY Public Services Unemployment services Services for disabled persons Domestic violence counseling Mental health services Public transportation Economic Development Job development General Look at gap analysis in each community Central information dissemination – need coordinated No coordinated housing plans Foreclosures a problem More funding to do the work – whole project, not partial funding Greatest needs – rather than small distribution Priority Needs At the end of the session participants were asked to prioritize the needs. The following are their priorities: Homeownership development/rehabilitation Rental housing development/rehabilitation Low- to moderate-income affordable housing Single-family development (in Wilcox no housing built in two years) Program flexibility – foreclosure Infrastructure improvements Homeowner repair Disseminate information of available resources Rental subsidies for very low-income households Public transportation D-8 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX D – PUBLIC MEETING NEEDS SUMMARY MARICOPA, PIMA, AND CENTRAL COUNTY REGION S – MAG, PAG, AND CAAG Maricopa County is the most populous county in the state. This county has more than half of the state’s residents and has a wide variety of housing options for every income level. The majority of the units are detached, with the highest percentage of multifamily structures and the lowest percentage of mobile home inventory. The majority of residential structures were built since 1980. This region has a number of municipalities that are considered entitlement communities by the federal government. These entitlement communities receive CDBG and sometimes HOME funds from HUD to address local housing and community development needs. In addition to the county itself, the cities of Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Surprise, and Tempe all received direct allocations of federal funding. Pima County has over one million residents and is the second most populous county in the state. There are 421,000 housing units. Pima County and the City of Tucson are federal government entitlement communities and receive grant funds directly from HUD. The Central Arizona region includes Gila and Pinal counties. This region has over 413,000 people and 167,000 housing units. Pinal County was Arizona’s fastest growing county between 2000 and 2009. The entire region has a large percentage of single-family homes and a large number of mobile homes, yet has a relatively low proportion of multifamily housing. Please note the needs identified during the public workshop in Phoenix were in conjunction with the statewide Governor’s Housing Forum. Some of the needs in this section may relate to needs in places other than Maricopa County, Pima, Gila, or Pinal counties. If specified, the city or town referenced is in parentheses. Housing Aging of rental housing stock Eviction prevention Workforce housing Bridge gap of homeless into permanent housing Bridge the gap of rental vacancies with housing low-income households Homebuyer counseling Preservation of existing housing Rental subsidies Homeowner/rental rehabilitation Sustainable communities Preservation of existing housing affordability Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 D-9 APPENDIX D – PUBLIC MEETING NEEDS SUMMARY Larger units for families Down payment assistance Transitional housing (Yuma) Rental housing (Marana) Senior housing Veteran housing Housing for single women Youth aging out of foster care Housing for institutional releases Public Facilities Public facilities, general Public facilities (Nogales) Public Infrastructure Improve existing infrastructure Public Services Homeless services Support services – need nonprofit model Veterans’ services Economic Development Job creation General Need for predictability of funding process Rights of rental tenants and owners – need stability of renters Monitoring of foreclosures Foreclosures impacting communities Consumer education on available programs D-10 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX D – PUBLIC MEETING NEEDS SUMMARY Capacity Legislature understanding of Housing Trust Fund Education for the legislature and those that can make change Improved methods of allocation Work together as a whole state Improve collaboration relationships for tribal communities Fair housing training for special needs Priority Needs At the end of the session participants were asked to prioritize the needs. The following are their priorities: Preservation of housing Rehabilitation of single-family/rental Restore Housing Trust Fund Economic development, specifically job creation Increase collaboration as a state and with tribal entities Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 D-11 APPENDIX E – PUBLIC COMMENT AND RESPONSE ADOH received two public comments during the month-long public review period. Below is a summary of comments and responses. Comment #1 This comment was submitted anonymously. Several specific comments are summarized below. Comment: There are conflicts between priority needs listed in the needs assessment and the strategic plan sections. Specifically, these related to parks and recreational facilities, and water/sewer/solid waste facilities. Response: The listing of needs as shown in the needs assessment covers those topics that were most frequently occurring throughout public participation opportunities. It is not an exhaustive list of every need mentioned. Comment: The Strategic Plan fails to state what priority youth/senior centers, community centers, and parks are. Response: The Strategic Plan is broad, and more specific information is available in the HUD tables (Appendix J). The HUD tables show senior centers as a medium priority, community centers/social service centers as a low priority. Depending on the type of improvement, parks may be considered under various categories. Comment: There is some conflict between the text in the Strategic Plan and the HUD tables, related to the priority of water/wastewater, accessibility, sustainability upgrades, sidewalk/street improvements, and downtown revitalization. Response: This has been corrected. The HUD table priorities are correct. Accessibility is considered “other facility improvements,” and downtown revitalization is shown under the “Neighborhood Revitalization and Redevelopment” category. Comment: Are the priorities in the HUD tables HUD’s priorities or ADOH’s priorities? Response: They are ADOH’s priorities. Comment #2 This comment was submitted by Drew John, Chairman of the Graham County Board of Supervisors. Comment: Graham County officials are writing this letter in reference to changes being proposed in the Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH) 5-Year Consolidated Plan and the 2010 Annual Action Plan regarding the Community Development Block Grant( CDBG) program. Graham County is in the SEAGO region and has worked successfully with SEAGO staff and other area local government representatives on the CDBG program. CDBG program remains one of the few federal resources that effectively assists rural areas accomplish various infrastructure improvements that best serve our citizenry. It has come to our attention, however, that the State or federal officials are again considering changes to the CDBG program that will further hinder our efforts at the local level to use these federal resources for the good of our residents. The recommendation takes an additional ten percent (10%) from the Regional Account allotments that are already relatively low to fund small mostly rural local governments in order to add funding for the Colonias programs seems unfair and unduly onerous on the rural areas of Arizona. Graham County officials would like to see any funding for the Colonias program come from the State Sepcial Projects (SSP) funds and the Regional Account allotments be maintained at the same level that they are now funded. Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 E-1 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY Additionally, the listing of priority activities has removed the parks and recreational facilities, hereby effectively eliminating these types of projects. Graham County has in the past and currently is making improvements to the County Park that will provide well needed soccer fields and other recreational opportunities important to our children and citizens. Rural areas typically do not have the resources available to make the kinds of improvements which our residents find important. The CDBG program has historically provided some of the resources which rural areas have relies upon to make improvements important to our people and communities. For these reasons, Graham County would respectfully request that you not reduce the amount of funds available to the Regional Account allotments nor limit the ability to improve parks and recreation facilities for those qualifying entities so that local governments can effectively provide the infrastructure improvements and amenities our citizenry seek from their elected officials. Response: Thank you for your comments on the Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH) FY 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. We appreciate your close review of the document, and are happy to have the opportunity to clarify our funding strategy. Your concerns centered on two main areas: the colonias set aside allocation and lack of parks and recreational facilities as a priority need. Colonias Set Aside The 10% Colonias set aside requirement was established by Section 916 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (the Act) and has always been a part of the State’s CDBG program. In 2008 and 2009, the State’s colonias set aside program was audited by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and their Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The findings of those audits cited the State for delivering the colonias set aside inappropriately through the regional method of distribution and said that method of delivery did not allow the State to prove it funded projects for the neediest colonias. In response to those audit findings and in order to be in compliance with HUD OIG and the Act, ADOH has established a 10% competitive colonias set aside. Counties, communities, and tribal lands that contain colonias actually have access to 10% more funding than the remainder of the state due to the colonias set aside. Regional planning is recommended so that those projects which are eligible for colonias funding can access those funds and free up the amounts they would have accessed through the regional allocation for distribution to the rest of the region. Parks and Recreational Facilities As part of the Consolidated Plan process, the State held several public meetings in four locations around Arizona and conducted an online survey, in addition to offering other opportunities for public input. Those meetings and the survey focused on identifying the needs of communities. Many types of needs were indicated, but overwhelmingly needs indicated centered on water and sewer infrastructure, general infrastructure improvements, and housing. Based on this public input and the collection of demographic and community data, the State set its priorities for funding. Again, we appreciate your comments on the Consolidated Plan. E-2 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX F – COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY A housing and community needs survey was available online from August 1, 2009, to November 6, 2009. ADOH posted the survey on their website, issued a press release calling residents to take the survey, and sent email blasts to housing service providers, local governments, and the public. The survey was also available in Spanish and in hard copy form at ADOH office. The survey asked a number of questions related to housing, community facilities, homeless, public services, special needs housing, public assets, and economic development. Respondents were also asked about the challenges they saw Arizona facing over the next five years. SURVEY RESPONDENTS Online survey questions and in-person consultations help form an assessment of community needs throughout the state. The following is a summary of stakeholder survey participants: A total of 213 people responded to the survey. Of the respondents: 35 percent were concerned citizens. 18 percent were nonprofit service providers. 16 percent were municipal agencies or departments. 7 percent were county agencies or departments. 2 percent were public housing organizations. SERVICES PROVIDED BY RESPONDENTS Of the service providers who responded to the survey, 86 percent indicated that they serve a specific area of the state. About 42 percent said they served mostly urban areas and 58 percent served rural areas. The following clients are served by survey respondents: Client Percentage Seniors 71.4% Babies/Toddlers/Pre-school (0 to 4) 29.4% Children (5 to 12) 34.5% Teenagers (13 to 19) 38.7% Young Adults (20 to 24) 53.8% Homeless 42.0% Persons with Disabilities 68.1% English as a Second Language Population 36.1% Victims of Domestic Violence 38.7% Veterans 42.9% Other (please specify) 41.2% Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 F-1 APPENDIX F – COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY The following geographic areas are served by survey respondents: Geographic Area Percentage Mohave County 18.1% La Paz County 9.5% Yuma County 17.2% Coconino County 14.7% Yavapai County 19.8% Maricopa County 29.3% Pinal County 16.4% Pima County 24.1% Navajo County 22.4% Apache County 13.8% Gila County 12.9% Greenlee County 6.9% Graham County 8.6% Cochise County 8.6% Santa Cruz County 10.3% Other (please specify) 7.8% The following services are provided by survey respondents: Services F-2 Percentage Mental Health Services 15.6% Substance Abuse Treatment 10.4% Housing 69.8% Employment Training 20.8% HIV/AIDS 7.3% Senior Services 26.0% Babies/Toddlers/Preschool (0 to 4) 13.5% Children (5 to 12) 15.6% Teenagers (13 to 19) 20.8% Young Adults (20 to 24) 24.0% Other (please specify) 35.4% Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX F – COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY Identified Needs The online survey and phone consultations with staff and local service providers identified the following needs with moderate to critical demand: RENTAL HOUSING Housing for special needs populations: large families, disabled, elderly Energy efficiency Preservation of existing units Section 8 rental assistance Rehabilitation assistance Housing for persons with mental illness Assisted living Housing for persons with drug/alcohol addiction HOMEOWNERSHIP Modifications for disabled persons Energy efficiency Affordable new construction Rehabilitation assistance Down payment and closing cost assistance Homelessness Housing placement Mental health care Case management Transitional housing (men and women) Emergency housing (men and women) Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 F-3 APPENDIX F – COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY PUBLIC FACILITIES/INFRASTRUCTURE Community/neighborhood centers Crisis facilities Youth centers Neighborhood revitalization Green development Street improvements PUBLIC SERVICES Improved transit options Substance abuse Housing counseling Employment training Mental and clinical health services ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Job training and education Small business loans Job development/creation F-4 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX G – RACIAL AND ETHNIC CONCENTRATION MAPS The maps on the following pages show areas of racial and ethnic concentration for each county in the State of Arizona based on 2000 U.S. Census data, which is the most recent data on race/ethnicity available at the block group level. An area of “concentration” is defined as a census block group with a representation of a racial/ethnic group that is 10 percentage points or more greater than group's overall percentage in the state. Whites, ethnic groups representing less than 10 percent of the state’s population, and persons identified as “other race” are not shown. Figure 1 – Apache County. Apache County’s area is 11,174 square miles. Apache County is the longest county in the country, 211 miles from the Utah border to just south of Alpine. The Apache and Navajo Indian reservations cover more than 65.4 percent of the county, and 25 percent of the state’s Native Americans live here. Approximately 21 percent is public land and 13.2 percent is privately owned. All of Apache County is an Enterprise Zone. The main population centers are Window Rock and Fort Defiance in the South, Ganado in the center and Chinle in the north, with many small towns in between. Much of Apache County had a high concentration of American Indians/Alaska Natives (15% or greater). These are areas are in the north and south of the county. Figure 2 – Cochise County. Cochise County is 6,219 square miles. Cochise County is located at the southeastern corner of the state. Some of the cities and towns in the county include Bisbee, which is a popular artist community and tourist destination, and Benson, which is near the gateway to Kartchner Caverns State Park. Some 30 miles south are the thriving communities of Sierra Vista, the largest city in the county, and Huachuca City. Both are economic neighbors of Fort Huachuca, one of the largest civilian employers in southern Arizona. Douglas, once dependent upon mining and agriculture, has developed a manufacturing base because of its location on the U.S.-Mexico border. All of Cochise County has been designated as an Enterprise Zone, except the southwest corner of the county. Cochise is one of only three counties in Arizona without an Indian reservation. Individual and corporate ownership account for 40 percent of the land; the state of Arizona, 35 percent; the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, 22 percent; and other public lands comprise the remaining 4 percent. Within Cochise County there is a high concentration of Hispanic or Latinos in the northeast corner and central and southeast parts of the county. Black or African Americans concentrations are located in and surrounding Sierra Vista. Figure 3 – Coconino County. Coconino County lies in the central region of northern Arizona. With 18,661 square miles, Coconino is the second largest county in the United States and the largest in Arizona, but is one of the most sparsely populated. Indian reservations comprise 46 percent of the land of the county and are home to the Navajo, Hopi, Paiute, Havasupai, and Hualapai tribes. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management control 32 percent of the land, the state of Arizona owns 9.5 percent, other public lands comprise 6.8 percent, and the remaining 13.3 percent is owned by individuals or corporations. The central corridor of Coconino County has been designated as an Enterprise Zone, as well as the central corridor of the City of Flagstaff. The northeastern section of Coconino County and south of Interstate 40 is an area of high concentration of American Indians or Alaska Natives with the majority of this area encompassing the Navajo Nation. Another area of high concentration of American Indian or Alaska Native residents is near the Grand Canyon Village. An area southwest of Williams is an area of high concentration of Hispanics or Latinos. Figure 4 – Gila County. Gila County covers 4,796 square miles and is a source of great mineral wealth. The Globe Mining District, originally located on the San Carlos Indian Reservation, was reallocated to Gila County. Portions of Gila County including parts of Payson, Hayden, and Winkelman have been designated as an Enterprise Zone. The U.S. Forest Service owns 56 percent of the land in Gila County. Approximately 38 percent belongs to the Apache Tribe. Individuals and corporations own two percent of the land; the U.S. Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • January 2010 G-1 APPENDIX G – RACIAL AND ETHNIC CONCENTRATION MAPS Bureau of Land Management, two percent; and the state of Arizona, one percent of the land; and other public lands comprise the remaining one percent. Most of the eastern portion of the county has high concentrations of American Indians or Alaska Natives, with the Apache tribe lands encompassing this region. The eastern portion of Gila County borders Navajo County. Areas south of US Highway 60 and east of US Highway 70 have high concentrations of Hispanics or Latinos. Figure 5 – Graham County. Graham County covers 4,630 square miles. The San Carlos Indian Reservation covers approximately one-third of the land. Approximately 9.9 percent belongs individuals and corporations, 38 percent the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 18 percent the state of Arizona, and 36 percent is Indian reservation. All of Graham County is an Enterprise Zone. A majority of the county has high concentrations of American Indians or Alaska Natives, and Blacks or African Americans. Figure 6 – Greenlee County. Greenlee County covers 1,837 square miles. The vast majority of land is government-owned. The U.S. Forest Service controls 63.5 percent; the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 13.6 percent; the state of Arizona, 14.8 percent; and individual or corporate ownership, only 8.1 percent. All of Greenlee County is an Enterprise Zone. A majority of the county has high concentrations of Hispanics or Latinos. Figure 7 – La Paz County. La Paz County encompasses 4,518 square miles and has 30 square miles of water. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management controls 58.3 percent of the land; the state of Arizona, 8.8 percent; other public lands, 19.5 percent; and 5.3 percent of the land is owned privately or by corporations. The Colorado River Indian Tribe owns 8.1 percent of the land. The majority of the eastern portion of the county has high concentrations of American Indians or Alaska Natives, as well as the western portion of the county where the Colorado River Indian tribe is situated. There is a high concentrations of Hispanics or Latinos in between Interstate 40 to the south and Interstate 10 to the north. Figure 8 – Maricopa County. More than half of the state’s population resides in Maricopa County, which includes the cities of Phoenix, Mesa, Glendale, Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, Peoria, and Gilbert. This metropolitan area is the state’s major center of political and economic activity. Maricopa County measures 9,222 square miles. Twenty-nine percent of this area is owned individually or by corporations, and 28 percent is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The U.S. Forest Service and the State of Arizona each control 11 percent of the county, and an additional 16 percent is owned publicly. Almost 5 percent is Indian reservation land. Parts of 11 jurisdictions in western Maricopa County are designated Enterprise Zones as well as central and southern areas in the City of Phoenix. The cities of Tempe, Chandler, and Mesa each have an Enterprise Zone in the central part of the city. Throughout the County, there are numerous concentrations of American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic or Latino, and Black or African-American residents. Figure 9 – Mohave County. Mohave County is 13,479 square miles. The Colorado River and two manmade lakes (Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu), mining, and the railroad are important to the county’s economy. Part of Mohave County and all of Colorado City are designated Enterprise Zones. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land management own 55.2 percent of the land; Indian reservations, 6.7 percent; the state of Arizona, 6.6 percent; individual or corporate, 17.2 percent; and other public lands, 14.3 percent. G-2 Arizona Department of Housing • May 2010 APPENDIX G – RACIAL AND ETHNIC CONCENTRATION MAPS There are high concentrations of American Indians or Alaska Natives in the northern and southern portion of the county. Also, there are concentrations of Hispanics or Latinos in the central parts of the county. Figure 10 – Navajo County. Navajo County is 9,959 square miles and divided into two distinct parts by the Mogollon Rim. The high country in the northern part of the county is arid and desert-like with empty mesas and smaller plateaus. The southern part is a rugged mountain area and heavily wooded with piñon juniper and ponderosa pine. Farther south is the Hopi Indian Reservation, which is completely surrounded by the Navajo Reservation. Almost 55 percent of Navajo County is Indian reservation land. Individual and corporate ownership accounts for 30 percent, the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management together control 9 percent, and the state of Arizona owns 6 percent. All of Navajo County is an Enterprise Zone. Almost the entire county is comprised of high concentrations of American Indians or Alaska Natives. There is a very small section of the western part of the county just south of US 180 that has high concentration of Hispanics or Latinos and further south of that area there is a high concentration of Blacks or African Americans. Figure 11 – Pima County. Pima County covers 9,184 square miles. The San Xavier, Pascua Yaqui, and Tohono O’odham reservations together account for ownership of 42.1 percent of land located in Pima County. The state of Arizona owns 14.9 percent; the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, 12.1 percent; other public lands, 17.1 percent; and individual or corporate ownership, 13.8 percent. Pima County has an Enterprise Zone that includes all of South Tucson, central Tucson, portions of Marana, Sahuarita, parts of Pima County and parts of the Tohono O’Odham and Pasqua Yaqui Indian Reservations. Tucson has grown to be the second largest city in Arizona. The Tohono O’Odham is located in the southwestern part of the region which has a large area of concentration of American Indian or Alaska Native concentrations. South, southwest of Tucson, and east of Sahuarita is a large concentration of Hispanics or Latinos. There is a high concentration of Black or African American residents and Asians in the county. Figure 12 – Pinal County. Pinal County encompasses 5,374 square miles. Pinal County has two distinct regions. The eastern portion is characterized by mountains with elevations to 6,000 feet and copper mining. The western area is primarily low desert valleys and irrigated agriculture. The communities of Mammoth, Oracle, San Manuel, and Kearny have traditionally been active in copper mining, smelting, milling and refining. Arizona City, Eloy, Maricopa, Picacho, Red Rock and Stanfield have agriculture based-economies. Apache Junction, Arizona City, Coolidge, Eloy, and particularly Casa Grande have diversified their economic base to include manufacturing, trade, and services. This expansion and diversification has been facilitated by their location in the major growth corridor between Phoenix and Tucson near the junction of I-10 and I-8, except for Apache Junction, which is to the east of burgeoning Mesa. Most of the southern three-fourths of Pinal County and a small area in Apache Junction are designated as Enterprise Zones. The state of Arizona is the county’s largest landholder with 35 percent; followed by individuals and corporations, 22 percent; Indian reservations, 23 percent; the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, 14 percent; and the remaining 6 percent is other public land. A majority of the county has a high concentration of Hispanic or Latino residents. The northwestern portion of the county has high concentration of Asians and there is a concentration in the southeastern portion as well. Southwest of Florence and south of casa Grande just west of the Interstate 10 there is a high concentration of Blacks or African Americans. Figure 13 – Santa Cruz County. Santa Cruz County is Arizona’s smallest county in area, encompassing only 1,236 square miles. There are strong commercial, religious, and cultural ties between Nogales, Arizona, and its sister city across the border, Nogales, Sonora. It serves as one of the major gateways between the U.S. and Mexico. All of Santa Cruz County is an Enterprise Zone. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • January 2010 G-3 APPENDIX G – RACIAL AND ETHNIC CONCENTRATION MAPS Management own 54.6 percent of the land; the state of Arizona, 7.8 percent; and individual or corporate ownership, 37.5 percent. The southern part of this region has a high concentration of Hispanic or Latino residents. Figure 14 – Yavapai County. Yavapai County has experienced tremendous growth in recent years. Some unincorporated areas in Yavapai County and the central area in the City of Prescott have been designated as an Enterprise Zone. In addition, parts of Chino Valley, Camp Verde, and Prescott Valley have been designated as an Enterprise Zone. The U.S. Forest Service owns 38 percent of the land in Yavapai County, including portions of Prescott, Tonto, and Coconino national forests, while the state of Arizona owns an additional 24.6 percent. Twenty-five percent is individually or corporately owned, and 11.6 percent is the property of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The Yavapai Indian Reservation and public lands each occupy less than 0.5 percent of the county. The majority of this region has an American Indian or Alaska Native concentration where the Yavapai Indian community is located. Figure 15 – Yuma County. Yuma County is 5,519 square miles is desert land accented by rugged mountains. The valley regions, however, contain an abundance of arable land, which is irrigated with Colorado River water. Agriculture, tourism, military and government are the county’s principal industries. During the winter months, the population grows considerably with part-time residents. All of Yuma County is an Enterprise Zone. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management accounts for 42 percent of land ownership; Indian reservations, less than 0.5 percent; the state of Arizona, 5 percent; individual or corporate, 13 percent; and other public lands, 40 percent. There are high concentrations of American Indian or Alaska Native residents in the northern and southern portion of the county. Also, there are concentrations of Hispanics or Latinos in the central parts of the county. There is a high concentration of Black or African American residents in the southeast corner of the county. G-4 Arizona Department of Housing • May 2010 T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\APACHE RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS 2.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 9:43:43 AM Glen Canyon National Rec Area 163 £ ¤ Mesa Verde National Park Ute Mountain Indian Reservation Southern Ute Indian Reservation 160 191 £ ¤ £ ¤ 550 £ ¤ 491 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Arizona Farmington Farmington 64 £ ¤ 98 V U 191 £ ¤ 550 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ V U 371 160 £ ¤ Navajo Indian Reservation 191 £ ¤ 491 £ ¤ Canyon de Chelly Natl Monument Chaco Culture Natl Hist Park Hopi Indian Reservation V U 264 V U 57 Hopi Indian Reservation 191 £ ¤ Navajo Indian Reservation V U 264 V U 264 V U 371 Red Red Rocks Rocks State State Park Park Gallup 40 § ¦ ¨ 191 £ ¤ 77 V U Bluewater Bluewater Lake Lake State State Park Park 602 V U V U 87 Petrified Forest National Park 40 § ¦ ¨ Zuni Indian Reservation El Morro Nationall Monument 53 V U Winslow Ramah Navajo Indian Reservation El Malpais National Monument 191 £ ¤ V U 87 V U 377 117 V U 36 V U 180 £ ¤ V U 601 60 £ ¤ 260 V U 60 £ ¤ 60 £ ¤ V U 288 V U 260 V U 32 180 £ ¤ V U 12 Fort Apache Indian Reservation 60 £ ¤ Tonto National Monument 60 £ ¤ San Carlos Indian Reservation 77 A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that 77 in the State (10%). group's overall percentage V U Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 0 MILES 10 ´ 180 £ ¤ Legend County Boundary 70 £ ¤ V U 10 V U 163 78 V U 188 V U V U 78 Gila Cliff Dwellings Natl Mon Census Block Group Tribal Boundaries 191 £ ¤ 35 V U 191 ¤ American Indian£ or Alaska Native Concentrations (15% or Greater) 191 £ ¤ Silver City Figure 1 Apache County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\COCHISE RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 9:37:22 AM ( ! ( ! San Carlos Indian Reservation Bylas San Carlos Indian Reservation ( ! ( ! Morenci ( ! ( ! Clifton ( ! Eden ( ! Central Thatcher Safford ( ! ( ! ( ! V U 77 ( ! 191 £ ¤ Fort Thomas 70 £ ¤ Arizona 180 £ ¤ ( ! 191 £ ¤ Solomon Swift Trail Junction 191 £ ¤ San Manuel 70 £ ¤ Coronado National Forest ( ! Tanque Verde ( ! Willcox V U 186 ( ! ( ! ( ! Saguaro National Park ( ! Bowie Cochise 10 § ¦ ¨ San Simon Fort Bowie Natl Hist Site ( ! Chiricahua National Monument 10 § ¦ ¨ ( ! 9 U Benson V 90 ! ( ( ! V U Pearce 191 £ ¤ Sonoita V U 82 ( ! ( ! ( ! Whetstone ( ! Elgin Elfrida 80 V U Sierra Sierra Vista Vista Sierra Vista Southeast !( Hereford ( ! 92 V U Coronado National Mem ( ! Bisbee Naco Pirtleville Douglas ( ! Mexico Legend County Boundary Census Block Group Tribal Boundaries A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 6 0 MILES 6 ´ Black or African American Concentrations (13% or Greater) Hispanic or Latino Concentrations (35% or Greater) Figure 2 Cochise County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\COCONINO RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 1/8/2010 @ 10:56:49 AM 63 V U Dixie National Forest 15 § ¦ ¨ VU U V 9 St. St. George George Zion National Park V U 17 9 V U 9 V U 9 Glen Canyon National Rec Area 59 V A r i zU ona 89 £ ¤ 389 U V V U 389 Kaibab Indian Reservation V U 389 V U 98 Navajo Indian Reservation 89 160 £ ¤ £ ¤ Grand Canyon National Park 160 £ ¤ Havasupai Indian Reservation V U 264 Hopi Indian Reservation 180 £ ¤ 264 V U Hopi Indian Reservation Hualapai Indian Reservation 264 V U V U 64 180 £ ¤ Wupatki National Monument 89 £ ¤ V U 66 Sunset Crater National Mon V U 64 40 § ¦ ¨ V U 99 487 V Flagstaff Walnut Canyon Natl Mon U 40 § ¦ ¨ 89 £ ¤ V U 89A V U 487 89A V U 89A 99 V U 169 V U V U 87 179 260 69 96 V U V U Camp Verde Indian Reservation Yavapai Indian Reservation £ ¤ 87 V Cottonwood-Verde Village U V U Prescott Valley Prescott Prescott 93 V U V U Red Red Rock Rock State State Park Park Tuzigoot National Monument Winslow FT FT Verde Verde State State Historic Historic Park Park V U 260 17 § ¦ ¨ 89 £ ¤ V U 87 69 V U 93 £ ¤ 260 V U Payson V U 87 89 £ ¤ V U 87 V U 71 § ¦ Legend ¨ Fort Apache Indian Reservation 17 60 £ ¤ 60 £ ¤ 74 V U A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). 9 0 MILES 9 ´ Peoria Sun City West Surprise Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development V U 303 County Boundary New River 74 74 74 101 288 Census Block Group VTribal Boundaries U V U U V V U 87 V U V U 87 V U 188 American Indian or Alaska Native Concentrations (15% or Greater) Scottsdale U Hispanic or Latino ConcentrationsTonto V U U V V (35% or Greater) National Monument Fort McDowell Indian Reservation Phoenix U V U Fountain Hills V V U V U 101 101 51 101 88 288 Figure 3 Coconino County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\GILA RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 9:52:32 AM Winslow 17 § ¦ ¨ V U 77 V U 89A 40 § ¦ ¨ 180 £ ¤ Red Red Rock Rock State State Park Park A r§ i17z o n a U ¦ ¨ 487 V Petrified Forest National Park V U 87 377 V U Montezuma Castle Natl Monument V U 87 V U 260 Payson 60 £ ¤ V U 87 V U 288 Fort Apache Indian Reservation 60 £ ¤ V U 87 Scottsdale V U 188 Tonto National Monument Fort McDowell Indian Reservation Fountain Hills Salt River Indian Reservation Mesa V U 88 Usery Usery Mountain Mountain Rec Rec Area Area Lost Lost Dutchman Dutchman State State Park Park Gilbert Apache Junction 60 £ ¤ 60 £ ¤ Chandler San Carlos Indian Reservation 60 £ ¤ 70 £ ¤ V U 77 Gila River Indian Reservation Florence 10 § ¦ ¨ Casa Grande Ruins Natl Mon Casa Grande 8 § ¦ ¨ V U 79 10 § ¦ ¨ Legend County Boundary Census Block Group Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation Picacho Picacho Peak Peak State State Park Park A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 6 0 MILES 6 ´ 77 V U Tribal Boundaries Hispanic or Latino Concentrations (35% or Greater) VAmerican Indian or Alaska Native Concentrations (15% or Greater) U 77 Coronado National Forest Oro Valley Catalina State Park Catalina State Park Figure 4 Gila County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\GRAHAM RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 9:57:47 AM ( ! ( ! Pinedale 180 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Arizona ( ! Show Low ( ! Vernon 60 £ ¤ Pinetop-Lakeside 60 £ ¤ ( ! McNary ( ! Cibecue V U 260 ( ! 60 £ ¤ Eagar 180 £ ¤ Greer Fort Apache Indian Reservation ( ! Whiteriver Canyon Day!( ( ! Alpine East Fork ( ! 60 £ ¤ 12 V U 180 £ ¤ 191 £ ¤ V U 78 ( ! ( ! San Carlos ( ! Glenwood San Carlos Indian Reservation Peridot 70 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Bylas V U 77 ( ! Fort Thomas Morenci ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Clifton ( ! 191 £ ¤ Eden Dudleyville ( ! Central Thatcher Safford ( ! ( ! ( ! 77 V U ( ! ( ! ( ! San Manuel 191 £ ¤ Solomon Swift Trail Junction 191 £ ¤ 70 £ ¤ ( ! Coronado National Forest 10 § ¦ ¨ Tanque Verde ( ! 186 ( ! Tucson ( ! ( ! Vail 10 § ¦ ¨ 90 ( ! ( ! Cochise ( ! Benson A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). 0 ( ! MILES 6 ( ! ´ Chiricahua National Monument 80 V U Census Block Group Pearce V U 9 Tribal Boundaries ( ! American Indian or Alaska Native Concentrations (15% or Greater) Black or African American Concentrations (13% or Greater) Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 6 San Simon Fort Bowie Natl Hist Site Legend County Boundary V U ( ! ( ! V U ( ! Bowie Willcox 191 £ ¤ Saguaro National Park ( ! ( ! ( ! Figure 5 Graham County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\GREENLEE RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 10:08:49 AM ( ! ( ! Pinedale 180 £ ¤ ( ! Show Low ( ! 60 £ ¤ 60 £ ¤ Pinetop-Lakeside Arizona 60 £ ¤ ( ! Vernon ( ! McNary ( ! V U 260 ( ! ( ! Eagar V U 32 180 £ ¤ Greer Whiteriver Canyon Day!( ( ! Alpine V U 12 East Fork ( ! V U 78 191 £ ¤ 78 V U ( ! ( ! Glenwood 180 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Bylas 70 Fort Thomas £ ¤ ( ! ( ! ( ! Morenci ( ! Clifton ( ! Buckhorn 191 £ ¤ Eden ( ! Central Thatcher Safford ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! 191 £ ¤ Solomon Swift Trail Junction 191 £ ¤ 70 £ ¤ 90 V U V U 90 ( ! ( ! ( ! 10 § ¦ ¨ Willcox ( ! 186 San Simon Cochise Legend 10 § ¦ ¨ 191 £ ¤ ( ! 0 MILES 6 ´ 80 9 V U Census Block Group Pearce Tribal Boundaries Hispanic or Latino Concentrations (35% or Greater) Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 6 V U County Boundary A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). ( ! 10 Fort Bowie Natl Hist Site Chiricahua National Monument ( ! Lordsburg § ¦ ¨ V U ( ! Bowie ( ! Figure 6 Graham County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\LA PAZ RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 10:13:03 AM ( ! Topock 40 93 £ ¤ § ¦ ¨ ( ! Arizona ( ! Wikieup Desert Hills 93 £ ¤ Lake Lake Havasu Havasu City City ( ! 93 £ ¤ Lake Lake Havasu Havasu State State Park Park Cattail Cattail Cove Cove State State Park Park ( ! Parker Strip Buckskin Buckskin Mountain Mountain State State Park Park V U 62 Bluewater Earp ( ! 95 £ ¤ ! ( ( ! Big River Bluewater ( ! ( ! Alamo Alamo Lake Lake State State Park Park Parker Poston V U 95 ( ! Bouse ( ! V U 72 ( ! ( ! Blythe 10 § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! 60 £ ¤ Ehrenberg Wenden Salome 10 § ¦ ¨ East Blythe Palo Verde 78 V U ( ! ( ! Cibola 95 £ ¤ Legend 8 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Winterhaven County Boundary Roll ( ! Census Block Group 8 Tribal Boundaries Tacna Fortuna Fortuna Foothills Foothills A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that Somerton group's!( overall percentage in the State (10%). Yuma Gadsden Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( ! 5 0 ( ! MILES 5 ´ § ¦ ¨ American Indian or Alaska Native Concentrations (15% or Greater) ( ! Hispanic or Latino Concentrations (35% or Greater) Figure 7 La Paz County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category (! ! ( ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\MARICOPA RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 10:18:39 AM ( ! 89A ( ! ( ! Arizona 93 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Chino Valley V U Yavapai Indian Reservation V U 96 ( ! V U 96 ( ! 260 V U ( ! 93 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! ( ! Yarnell Congress Cordes Lakes ( ! Payson 71 ( ! ( ! V U 74 Peoria 303 Buckeye 74 ( ! Phoenix ( ! ( ! ( ! Tonopah Gisela Young ( ! ( ! 288 188 Fort McDowell Tonto National Monument V U 88 Usery Usery Mountain Mountain Rec Rec Area Area Apache Junction V U 88 ( ! Arlington ( ! £ ¤ V U V U 87 Fort McDowell Indian Reservation ( ! 85 Tonto Basin V U Salt River Indian Reservation ( ! ( ! 260 Cave Creek Scottsdale V U ( ! ( ! V U ( ! ( ! ( ! 87 V U New River Morristown Wittmann 10 Black Canyon City ( ! V U Sun Valley Wickenburg 60 £ ¤ § ¦ ¨ Pine Crown King ( ! 60 £ ¤ ( ! Peeples Valley V U ( ! 260 Strawberry 89 £ ¤ Aguila V U Mayer ( ! 87 Rimrock Montezuma 169 Spring Valley V U ( ! ( Lake ! V U ( ! ( ! 487 Camp Verde Indian Reservation Camp Verde ( ! FT Dewey FT Verde Verde State State Historic Historic Park Park Kirkland!( Wilhoit 89 £ ¤ V U Cornville Cottonwood-Verde Village ( ! 69 97 17 § ¦ ¨ 179 ( ! V U V U Munds Park V U ( ! Prescott Valley Bagdad Sedona Red Red Rock Rock State State Park Park Big Park Clarkdale ( ! Cottonwood ( ! 89A Williamson ( ! ( ! V U 89 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Gila River Indian Reservation ( ! ( ! Gold Camp ( ! ( ! Queen Creek ( ! Top-of-the-World 60 Queen Valley ( ! ( ! £ ¤ ( ! Superior ( ! 587 V U V U 238 V U 347 ( ! Sacaton Maricopa 10 ( ! V U 177 Santan 79 V U V U 87 § ¦U ¨ V Blackwater Florence ( ! Maricopa Indian Reservation Ak-Chin Village ( ! Coolidge ( ! 238 Casa Grande Ruins Natl Mon! ( Valley Farms Gila Bend Indian Reservation ( ! 187 V U V U 347 Stanfield ( ! 8 § ¦ ¨ V U 387 V U 84 Casa Grande ( ! V V U U V U Chuichu V EloyU U V 287 87 84 ( ! ( 50! ( ! 87 ( ! 79 V U Picacho Picacho Picacho Peak Peak State State Park Park Red Rock ( ! V U 77 ( ! 8 § ¦ ¨ Avra Valley ( ! V U 85 ( ! ( ! ( ! Marana Santa Rosa ( ! ( ! 86 Legend Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation Organ Pipe Cactus National Mon ( ! Lukeville Cortaro Picture Rocks 77 V Tucson U Tucson Estates 210 V U ( ! V U 86 Valencia West Pisinemo Census Block Group Tribal Boundaries U 86 V V U 86 ( 19! § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! County Boundary ( ! ( ! ( ! Tortolita Casas Adobes Saguaro National Park V U Catalina Oro Valley Three Points San Xavier Indian Reservation ( ! 286 V U Sells Summit ( ! East Sahuarita ( ! Asian Concentrations (12% or Greater) ( ! Green Valley 19 § ¦ ¨ Topawa ( ! Black or African American Concentrations (13% or Greater) 286 V U American Indian or Alaska Native Concentrations (15% or Greater) A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 8 0 MILES 8 ´ Hispanic or Latino Concentrations (35% or Greater) ( ! Amado Tubac 289 V U Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Concentrations (10.1% or Higher) ( ! 289 V U Tumacacori-Carmen ( ! ( ! Figure 8 ( ! ! ( Maricopa County - Racial Group Concentrations ( ! by Census Block and Race Category ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\MOHAVE RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 10:29:06 AM ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Washington ! Zion National Park Santa Clara 59 V U St. St. George George 89 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Arizona 15 § ¦ ¨ V U 168 93 £ ¤ ( ! 170 V U Moapa Moapa Valley ( ! Colorado City ( ! Littlefield ( ! V U 389 Mesquite ( ! Bunkerville Kanab Kaibab ( ! V U 78 ( ! 15 § ¦ ¨ Logandale VOverton U 12! ( Valley Valley of of Fire Fire State State Park Park V U 40 V Las Vegas Dunes Natl Rec Area U V U V U 604 Sunrise Manor 167 147 Lake Mead Whitney 515 § ¦ ¨ V U 166 Henderson Lake Mead Natl Recreation Area ( ! Grand Canyon National Park Meadview ( ! Supai ( ! ( ! Boulder City 165 V U 93 £ ¤ Lake Mead Natl Rec Area ( ! ( ! Dolan Springs Peach Springs Searchlight ( ! ( ! ( ! 66 V U Chloride Cal-Nev-Ari ( ! New Kingman-Butler V U 68 V U 163 Bullhead Bullhead City City 95 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! 40 § ¦ ¨ Golden Valley Kingman ( ! Laughlin Seligman ( ! Ash Fork Oatman U Mesquite Creek V 95 ! ( 89 £ ¤ Mohave Valley ( ! ( ! 40 § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! Arizona Village ( ! Needles Yucca 93 ( ! £ ¤ Topock ( ! V U 95 ( ! Paulden Chino Valley Wikieup ( ! ( ! V U 95 ( ! ( ! Desert Hills ( ! Williamson Prescott Valley Bagdad Prescott Prescott Lake Lake Havasu Havasu City City ( ! ( ! 96 V U Lake Lake Havasu Havasu State State Park Park ( ! ( ! Cattail Cattail Cove Cove State State Park Park 95 £ ¤ ( ! V U Bluewater Earp 95 ( ! ( ! 89 £ ¤ Parker Strip Buckskin Buckskin Mountain Mountain State State Park Park Alamo Alamo Lake Lake State State Park Park ( ! Poston ( ! Legend Parker V U ( ! Census Block Group Bouse Blythe Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 0 8 MILES ( ! ´ ( ! Peeples Valley Yarnell Crown King Congress ( ! 71 V U ( ! ( ! Wickenburg Aguila ( ! Tribal Boundaries 60 £ ¤ 60 £ ¤ Wenden Hispanic Salome or Latino Concentrations (35% or Greater) ( ! A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). ( ! 89 £ ¤ County Boundary 72 95 8 ( ! ( ! V U ( ! ( ! 93 £ ¤ Big River ! ( Kirkland!( Wilhoit ( ! ( ! Morristown V U 74 Wittmann Peoria American Indian or Alaska Native Concentrations (15% or Greater) ( ! 72 V U Surprise Figure 9 ( ! ( ! Mohave County - Racial Group Concentrations ( ! ( ! by Census Block and Race Category ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\NAVAJO RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 10:35:46 AM ( ! Glen Canyon National Rec Area 89 £ ¤ ( ! 163 £ ¤ Navajo Mountain ( ! ( ! ( ! 160 £ ¤ Red Mesa 160 £ ¤ ( ! Beclabito Dennehotso 160 Arizona ( ! 191 £ ¤ Oljato-Monument Valley Page ( 98 ! Lechee V U ( ! Halchita ( ! 160 ( ! £ ¤ Bitter Springs V U 98 ( ! 89 £ ¤ ( ! Kaibito ( ! £ ¤ ( ! Kayenta ( ! Rock Point Shonto Tonalea 160 £ ¤ ( ! 191 £ ¤ Chilchinbito ( ! ( ! Round Rock Rough Rock ( ! ( ! Many Farms ( ! 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon National Park ( ! Lukachukai Tsaile 191 £ ¤ VMoenkopi U (64 ! 2 ( ! ( ! Chinle ( ! Canyon de Chelly Natl Monument Pinon ( ! V U 264 180 £ ¤ V U 264 ( ! Kykotsmovi Village Hotevilla-Bacavi 264 Polacca ( ! Cameron ( ! U V VU U V 191 £ ¤ V V U U Jeddito V U V U ( ! 264 ! First Mesa 264 ( ( ! 2! 64( £ ¤ 264! ( ( ! Steamboat § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! Greasewood ( ! 77 Houck 40 § ¦ ¨ V U 87 89A V U ( ! Sedona V U 99 Petrified Forest National Park Winslow Munds Park ( ! 487 V U 17 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Winslow West ( ! V U 61 Joseph City ( ! Holbrook 99 Big Park V U 87 179 191 £ ¤ 180 £ ¤ V U V U ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! 264 V U Kachina Village Mountainaire ( ! ( ! V U 191 £ ¤ Dilkon Leupp Flagstaff Walnut Canyon Natl Mon 89A 90 ( ! Navajo County Bellemont V U V U Window Rock!( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! 87 Sunset Crater National Mon ( ! Fort Defiance V U 180 £ ¤ 40 ( ! Burnside Ganado ( ! ( ! Wupatki National Monument ( ! Sawmill!( Nazlini 2! 64 ( 77 89 ( ! ( ! Woodruff ( ! Cottonwood-Verde Village ( ! Rimrock Montezuma V U 260 377 V U ( ! ( Lake ! ( ! ! ( ( ! V U 260 ( ! ( ! ( ! Strawberry ( ! V U 87 ( ! V U 277 Heber ( ! Overgaard V U ( 260 ! ( ! ( ! Payson ( ! V U Pinedale ( ! ( ! Snowflake Taylor ( ! ( ! ( ! Cibecue V U 87 New River ( ! 188 ( ! Legend ( ! 60 £ ¤ ( ! Whiteriver Canyon Day!( ( ! 273 Alpine 60 £ ¤ County Boundary Fort McDowell Census Block Group ( ! Tonto National Monument 191 £ ¤ Black or African American Concentrations (13% or Greater) Usery Usery Mountain Mountain Rec Rec Area Area Lost Dutchman State Park Lost Dutchman State Park Claypool Mesa ( ! American Indian or Alaska Native Concentrations (15% or Greater) Central Heights-Midland City !( Apache Junction Guadalupe Gilbert Hispanic ( ! Chandler or U V V U Top-of-the-World 77 Gold Camp ( ! Latino Concentrations (35% or Greater) Queen Valley Superior ( ! ( ! Queen Creek ( ! ( ! ( ! Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 77 MILES ( ! 9 V U 170 ( ! San Carlos A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). Peridot 70 £ ¤ ( ! Figure 10 ( ! Navajo County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category ( ! ( ! 0 ( ! East Fork Tribal Boundaries 9 ( ! V U V U Paradise Valley Tempe 180 £ ¤ Greer 261 260 73 60 £ ¤ ( ! Fountain Hills ( ! Eagar ( ! V U V U Scottsdale 60 £ ¤ McNary 73 Tonto Basin 180 £ ¤ Pinetop-Lakeside V U Cave Creek Phoenix Vernon Show Low V U V U St. Johns 77 288 V U ( ! 61 ( ! Young Concho V U ( ! Gisela ( ! Clay Springs ( ! Sun Valley 260 180 £ ¤ 77 V U Camp Verde ´ ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! 89 £ ¤ V U 71 Fort Apache Indian Reservation New River 74 V U Wittmann 303 El Mirage Waddell Youngtown Litchfield Park Tonopah Tolleson 10 § ¦ ¨ 85 £ ¤ Tonto Basin Goodyear Avondale Phoenix Salt River Indian Reservation 88 Mesa Apache Junction Tempe Guadalupe Chandler U V V U 84 Claypool Gold Camp 60 £ ¤ Gilbert 347 8 V U Usery Usery Mountain Mountain Rec Rec Area Area 236 V U V U 177 Sacaton V U V U 87 77 V U 177 Valley Farms Coolidge V U Stanfield Casa Grande V U 387 V U 77 Dudleyville 287 Chuichu 50 Eloy 84 Picacho V U V U 79 V U V U 77 Oracle Picacho Picacho Peak Peak State State Park Park Red Rock San Manuel V U 76 V U 77 Avra Valley V U T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\PIMA RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 3/9/2010 @ 3:56:12 PM 85 Catalina Catalina State State Park Park Oro Valley Santa Rosa V U 86 Coronado National Forest Tucson Saguaro National Park V U 86 Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation Organ Pipe Cactus National Mon Lukeville Peridot 70 £ ¤ V U Blackwater Florence 238 San Carlos 170 V U San Carlos Indian Reservation VU U V 87 Globe 60 £ ¤ Queen Valley Superior Maricopa Indian Reservation Ak-Chin Village § ¦ ¨ 60 £ ¤ Fort McDowell Indian Reservation Fort McDowell Tonto National Monument Fountain Hills Maricopa 8 188 87 Scottsdale Gila River Indian Reservation 587 § ¦ ¨ 288 V U V U Sun Lakes Gila Bend Indian Reservation V U Cave Creek Peoria Sun City City Glendale V Surprise Sun U Buckeye Arlington Cibecue § ¦ ¨ 60 £ ¤ Morristown Arizona Young 17 Wickenburg 60 £ ¤ Gisela Black Canyon City Pisinemo V U 86 V U 86 San Xavier Indian Reservation East Sahuarita Sells 10 Corona de Tucson § ¦ ¨ V U 83 Green Valley Topawa 19 § ¦ ¨ V U 286 Amado 289 Sasabe 90 V U Sonoita Tubac V U Benson Tumacacori-Carmen V U 82 Rio Rico Northeast Rio Rico Rio Rico Southwest 289 V U Nogales V U 83 Whetstone Elgin Sierra Sierra Vista Vista Sierra Vista Southeast Coronado National Mem Mexico Gu lf of Legend nia or lif Ca County Boundary Census Block Group Tribal Boundaries Asian Concentrations (12% or Greater) Black or African American Concentrations (13% or Greater) A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 10 0 MILES 10 ´ American Indian or Alaska Native Concentrations (15% or Greater) Hispanic or Latino Concentrations (35% or Greater) Figure 11 Pima County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category ( ! ( ! ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\PINAL RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 8:44:28 AM ( ! V U 87 ( ! Sun Valley ( ! 17 § ¦ ¨ ( ! V U Gisela ( ! Young Fort Apache Indian Reservation!( Cibecue V U 288 ( ! 17 § ¦ ¨ ( ! V U 87 Scottsdale 101 V V U U 101 Glendale ( ! 60 £ ¤ V U 188 Tonto National Monument Fort McDowell ( ! Fort McDowell Indian Reservation Phoenix 60 £ ¤ Phoenix Mountains Preserve Salt River Indian Reservation § ¦ ¨ Mesa Tempe ( Guadalupe ! V U 88 Usery Usery Mountain Mountain Rec Rec Area Area Lost Lost Dutchman Dutchman State State Park Park Tolleson 10 ( ! Tonto Basin Cave Creek Peoria ( ! ( ! Black Canyon City Arizona ( ! ( ! 87 60 £ ¤ Gilbert ( ! ( ! Gold Camp ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Maricopa Indian Reservation Ak-Chin Village 60 £ ¤ Queen Valley 60 £ ¤ Queen Creek ( ! Peridot ( ! San Carlos Indian Reservation V U 77 Sacaton ( ! Blackwater Casa Grande Ruins Natl Mon Coolidge ( ! ( ! Valley Farms ( ! 10 § ¦ ¨ ( ! San Carlos ( ! 70 £ ¤ Superior Santan Maricopa Globe ( ! Sun Lakes Gila River Indian Reservation ( ! Central Heights-Midland City!( Chandler ( ! Claypool ( ! Stanfield Dudleyville 8 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Chuichu ( ! 79 V U Eloy ( ! Arizona City ( ! V U 77 Picacho Picacho Picacho Peak Peak State State Park Park ( ! ( ! Oracle Red Rock ( ! San Manuel 10 § ¦ ¨ V U 77 ( ! ( ! Avra Valley ( ! ( ! Marana ( ! ( ! Santa Rosa ( ! Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation Tortolita Catalina Catalina State State Park Park Coronado National Forest Cortaro Casas Adobes Picture Rocks Tucson Estates ( ! Catalina Foothills South Tucson Tucson ( ! Legend ( ! Valencia West Three Points ( ! ( ! San Xavier Indian Reservation County Boundary ( ! ( ! ( ! 86 ( ! Tribal Boundaries Sells ( ! Topawa V U 286 A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). MILES 6 East Sahuarita ( ! Corona de Tucson ( ! Asian Concentrations (12% or Greater) American Indian or Alaska Native Concentrations (15% or Greater) Black or African American Concentrations (13% or Greater) Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 0 § ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨ ( ! Vail 19 Hispanic or Latino Concentrations (35% or Greater) ( ! 6 19 Saguaro National Park Summit Census Block Group V U Littletown ( ! Amado Sonoita V U 82 ( ! ( ! Figure 12 ( ! Pinal County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category ( ! ( ! ´ ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\SANTA CRUZ RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 9:48:07 AM ( ! ( ! Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation § ¦ ¨ Tucson Estates ( ! Arizona South Tucson Saguaro National Park Tucson Drexel Drexel Heights Heights ( ! Tanque Verde Coronado National Forest 10 Valencia West Drexel-Alvernon ( ! Littletown ( ! V U 86 Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation ( ! Three Points San Xavier Indian Reservation ( ! Summit ( ! ( ! 19 § ¦ ¨ East Sahuarita ( ! Vail 10 § ¦ ¨ Corona de Tucson ( ! V U 286 Green Valley ( ! Whetstone Amado ( ! ( ! Sonoita ( ! ( ! Elgin Tubac V U 82 ( ! Tumacacori-Carmen Sierra Sierra Vista Vista Rio Rico Northwest Patagonia Lake State Park Rio Rico Northeast Rio Rico Patagonia Lake State Park ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Rio Rico Southwest Sierra Vista Southeast 289 V U Nogales Mexico Legend County Boundary A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 3.5 0 MILES 3.5 ´ Census Block Group Hispanic or Latino Concentrations (35% or Greater) Figure 13 Santa Cruz County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\YAVAPAI RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 9:09:10 AM ( ! Havasupai Indian Reservation ( ! Tusayan 180 £ ¤ Grand Canyon National Park Navajo Indian Reservation ( ! Hualapai Indian Reservation Arizona 180 £ ¤ Wupatki National Monument ( ! V U 64 ( ! Sunset Crater National Mon Seligman 40 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Ash Fork ( ! Williams ( ! Parks ( ! 89 £ ¤ Bellemont 40 § ¦ ¨ Flagstaff Kachina Village Mountainaire ( ! ( ! 89 £ ¤ V U 487 89A V U ( ! ( ! Munds Park Paulden V U 89A ( ! Sedona Red Red Rock Rock State State Park Park Big Park Clarkdale Chino Valley ( ! ( ! Tuzigoot National Monument Cottonwood ( ! ( ! ( ! Williamson Cornville Cottonwood-Verde Village ( ! Lake Montezuma!( Prescott Valley Bagdad ( ! Camp Verde Indian Reservation Yavapai Indian Reservation Prescott Prescott Camp Verde ( ! FT FT Verde Verde State State Historic Historic Park Park Dewey Humboldt ( ! 93 £ ¤ Rimrock ( ! V U 69 ( ! V U 96 Kirkland ( ! 89 £ ¤ ( ! Wilhoit ( ! Spring Valley ( ! 17 § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! 93 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Strawberry ( ! Pine Mayer ( ! Cordes Lakes Peeples Valley Yarnell ( ! ( ! Congress Crown King 89 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Aguila ( ! 60 £ ¤ 17 § ¦ ¨ Wickenburg 60 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Black Canyon City New River Morristown ( ! ( ! ( ! Wittmann ( ! Cave Creek V U 87 Peoria Legend Sun City West Surprise ( ! El Mirage County!(Boundary Buckeye ( ! ( ! 0 MILES 6 ´ ( ! Census Block Group Waddell Goodyear ( ! ( ! Scottsdale Fort McDowell !(Indian Reservation Phoenix Fountain Hills Salt River Indian Reservation V U 88 Mountain Rec American Indian or Alaska Native ConcentrationsUsery (15% or Greater) Usery Mountain Rec Area Area Tolleson 10 § ¦ ¨ Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 6 Sun Sun City CityYoungtown Park Tribal!( Litchfield Boundaries Tonopah A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). Glendale 87 V U Avondale ( ! Mesa Tempe Apache Junction Figure 14 ( ! ( ! Yavapai County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category ( ! ( ! ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\RACIAL_CONCENTRATIONS\ALTERNATIVE\YUMA RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 11:07:45 AM ! Wenden ( Colorado River Indian Reservation V U 95 95 £ ¤ Blythe ¦ ¨ A§ rizona 10 ( ! ( ! 72 V U ( ! Salome 60 £ ¤ ( ! Ehrenberg 10 § ¦ ¨ East Blythe Palo Verde V U 78 ( ! Cibola 95 £ ¤ Fort Yuma Indian Reservation 8 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Yuma County Winterhaven ( ! ( ! Fortuna Fortuna Foothills Foothills ( ! ( ! ( ! Somerton Cocopah Indian Reservation Gadsden Roll Tacna 8 § ¦ ¨ Yuma San Luis Usery Usery Mountain Mountain Rec Rec Area Area Mexico Legend County Boundary Census Block Group Tribal Boundaries Black or African American Concentrations (13% or Greater) A concentration is defined as a census block group with a greater percentage than that group's overall percentage in the State (10%). Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 5 0 MILES 5 ´ American Indian or Alaska Native Concentrations (15% or Greater) Hispanic or Latino Concentrations (35% or Greater) Figure 15 Yuma County - Racial Group Concentrations by Census Block and Race Category APPENDIX H – LOW-INCOME AREA MAPS A low- and moderate- income area is defined as a census block group where 51 percent or more of all households earn 80 percent or less of the area median income. Figure 16 – Apache County. The majority of census block groups in Apache County fall within the definition of a low-income area. Thirty-six out of 54 block groups have at least 51 percent of households earning 80 percent or less of the area median income. The population in these low-income areas comprises 66 percent of the county’s total population. The presence of the Apache and Navajo Indian reservations in the County has a positive correlation with the high percentage of low-income persons. Figure 17 – Cochise County. Approximately 27 percent of Cochise County’s population lives in a lowincome area. Most of the eastern half of the county falls within the definition of a low-income area. A few block groups in the southwestern portion of the county near Sierra Vista are also low-income areas. Altogether approximately one-third of the County’s block groups are designated as low-income areas. Figure 18 – Coconino County. A large portion of the land area of Coconino County is within a low-income area (38 percent) but approximately 40 percent of the County total population lives in these areas. Some of the low- and moderate- income areas in the County are located in and around the City of Flagstaff but the majority of the block groups are in the rural areas in the northern section of the County and in parts of the central portion not immediately surrounding Flagstaff. Figure 19 – Gila County. A large portion of the county’s western and southern sections are home to a large proportion of low-income households. There are a few low-income in the southeastern section of the county as well. The population in these areas represents a fair portion of the county’s population with nearly 11,000 persons, which represents 21 percent of the county’s total population. Figure 20 – Graham County. Of the 27 block groups, five are considered low-income areas in Graham County. These block groups are clustered primarily in the northern region of the county. The population is these low-income areas comprise approximately 20 percent of Graham County’s total population. Figure 21 – Greenlee County. Greenlee County is comprised of eight block groups; only two or 25 percent qualify as low-income areas. Within these two block groups, which are situated northeast of Clifton and near Duncan, 22 percent of the county’s population resides. Figure 22 – La Paz County. La Paz County is comprised of 23 block groups, eight of which qualify as lowincome areas. In these areas, nearly half (48 percent) of the County’s total population resides. These areas are geographically concentrated in the northern, northwestern, and western sections of the County. Figure 23 – Maricopa County. Maricopa County has the largest population in the state but does not have the highest proportion of persons living in low-income areas. Geographically, these areas are present throughout the state with concentrations in the Phoenix-Tempe metropolitan area and also on the outer edges of the County’s eastern, southern, and western boundaries. There are areas between these outer-most areas and the metropolitan area that are not low-income areas. Approximately one third of the County’s block groups are designated as low-income areas, with approximately 34 percent of the County’s total population living in these areas. Figure 24 – Mohave County. Nearly 60 percent of Mohave County’s total population resides in low-income areas. About 65 percent of the County’s block groups are designated as low-income areas and they are spread throughout the County. Most of the rural areas of the County are in these areas and some of the block groups in the communities are as well. Figure 25 – Navajo County. Nearly half (42 percent) of block groups in Navajo County are low-income areas. These areas are home to approximately 40 percent of the County’s total population. Almost the entire Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • January 2010 H-1 APPENDIX H – LOW-INCOME AREA MAPS northern half of the County is a low-income area with only a few small areas excluded. Most of the southern portion is not a low-income area but the very south edges of the County are also designated as one of these areas. Figure 26 – Pima County. Geographically, Pima County’s low-income areas are comprised of 42 percent of the County’s total block groups. There are concentrations of these areas in the City of Tucson and immediately southwest of the city and also east and southeast of the city. Otherwise the areas immediately bordering the Tucson metropolitan area are not low-income areas. However the remainder of the state is within these areas. These areas are home to approximately 37 percent of the County’s total population. Figure 27 – Pinal County. Low-income areas in Pinal County are spread throughout the County and are comprised of 68 of the 116 block groups in the County. Approximately 54 percent of the County’s total population lives in these low-income areas. Figure 28 – Santa Cruz County. While 35 percent of the County’s block groups are low-income areas, they are concentrated around the community of Nogales in the south central part of the County and along the Mexican border. Approximately 39 percent of the County’s population resides in this area. Figure 29 – Yavapai County. Low-income areas in Yavapai County are concentrated in the northwest corner, southwest corner, west central border, and smaller areas near Prescott and near the Clarkdale/Cottonwood area. These areas comprise 21 percent of all the County’s block groups and are home to approximately 20 percent of its total population. Figure 30 – Yuma County. Approximately 27 percent Yuma County residents live in low-income areas. These areas, which are comprised of 26 of the 98 block groups in the County, are found throughout the County. The primary concentration of these areas occurs in the northern and northeastern sections of the County and also southwest of the City of Yuma and bordering Mexico. H-2 Arizona Department of Housing • May 2010 ( ! ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\APACHE.MXD - 3/9/2010 @ 4:23:40 PM ( ! ( Mexican ! Glen Canyon National Rec Area ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Hat (163 ! £ ¤ Navajo Mountain ( ! 41 Oljato-Monument Valley ( ! ( ! Teec Nos Pos Dennehotso ( ! Beclabito 160 £ ¤ 98 V U ( ! ( ! La Plata 574 170 Flora Vista!( Shiprock ( ! 64 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Waterflow !( Rock Point ( ! 170 U Farmington V Farmington V U ! ( ( ! 371 ( ! Ojo Amarillo!( Chilchinbito ( ! ( ! Huerfano Round Rock ( ! Rough Rock 160 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Many Farms ( ! Lukachukai ( ! Sanostee ( ! V U 371 Tsaile ( ! Crystal Newcomb 491 £ ¤ Navajo Indian Reservation Chinle Canyon de Chelly Natl Monument ( Sheep ! ( ! Pinon ( ! ( ! Napi HQ Shonto ( ! Marvel V V U U 491 £ ¤ ( ! Kayenta ( ! 160 £ ¤ Red Mesa ( ! ( ! V U V U 191 £ ¤ Arizona Ute Mountain Indian Reservation 140 Southern Ute Indian Reservation V U 134 ( ! Springs Naschitti Chaco Culture Natl Hist Park ( ! Hopi Indian Reservation V U 264 ( ! Hotevilla-Bacavi ( ! ( ! Polacca 264 Keams Canyon Shongopovi !( ( ! ! ( ( ! ( First Mesa ! Second Mesa Jeddito Kykotsmovi Village Nazlini ( ! Sawmill!( Navajo ( ! V U ( ! Navajo Indian Reservation ( ! Steamboat ( ! Burnside ( ! Ganado ( ! 264 V U Window Rock ( ! ( ! V U 87 ( ! Nakaibito ( ! Tse Bonito V U 57 ( ! Rock Springs!( Crownpoint Twin Lakes ( ! Yah-Ta-Hey ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Fort Defiance Tohatchi Greasewood ( ! Mentmore ( ! Gallup 40 § ¦ ¨ 77 ( ! Houck 602 ( ! 99 40 Petrified Forest National Park V U 53 ( ! Joseph City ( ! 377 V U 277 El Malpais National Monument V U Woodruff ( ! ( ! Snowflake Taylor ( ! 77 V U Overgaard Concho ( ! Fence Lake St. Johns 117 V U 191 V U 603 V U 180 £ ¤ 61 60 £ ¤ 260 ( ! ( ! Show Low ( ! Young ( ! V U Vernon Pinetop-Lakeside ( ! ( ! McNary Cibecue ( ! V Greer U 260 ( ! 288 Eagar V U 32 261 V U V U 273 Fort Apache Indian Reservation 73 V U Whiteriver ( ! Canyon Day!( ( ! V U 12 ( ! East Fork Alpine 180 £ ¤ ( ! 60 £ ¤ V U 12 Legend 78 V U County Boundary 288 V U V U 188 Census Block Group 191 £ ¤ San Carlos Indian Reservation Tribal Boundaries 188 A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group ( ! ( ! where 51% of70!(all households had an income of 80% or Top-of-the-World 170 ( San Carlos 2000. ( less of the area median income in! ! V U £ ¤ 9 MILES ´ ( ! Glenwood Figure 16 Low- Income Areas for Apache County ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! 78 V U 77 Peridot ( ! Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 0 VLow-Income Area U 78 V U V U 9 V U 601 V U Clay Springs U Pinedale V 260 V U ( ! ( ! 77 ( ! ( ! El Morro Nationall Monument Pinehill V U ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! 36 180 £ ¤ V U Heber Zuni Indian Reservation 191 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Black Rock Ramah Ramah Navajo Indian Reservation 99 87 ( ! ( ! Holbrook V U V U ( ! Zuni Pueblo!( Winslow West Winslow ( ! Thoreau Bluewater Bluewater Lake Lake State State Park Park V U V U § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! V U Leupp 371 ( ! 191 £ ¤ Dilkon V U Rehoboth ( ! Church Rock Fort Wingate ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\COCHISE.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 12:59:24 PM ( ! San Carlos Indian Reservation ( ! Central Thatcher Safford ( ! ( ! ( ! 191 £ ¤ Solomon 70 £ ¤ Arizona ( ! Swift Trail Junction 191 £ ¤ 10 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Bowie Willcox ( ! V U 186 Saguaro National Park ( ! ( ! San Simon Fort Bowie Natl Hist Site Cochise Chiricahua National Monument 10 § ¦ ¨ Benson 90 ( ! V U ( ! V U 9 Pearce 191 £ ¤ V U 82 ( ! ( ! ( ! Whetstone ( ! Elgin Elfrida Sierra Sierra Vista Vista V U 80 Sierra Vista Southeast ( ! Hereford ( ! V U Bisbee 92 Coronado National Mem ( ! Naco Pirtleville Douglas ( ! Mexico Legend County Boundary Census Block Group A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group where 51% of all households had an income of 80% or less of the area median income in 2000. Tribal Boundaries Low-Income Area Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 5 0 MILES 5 ´ Figure 17 Low-Income Areas for Cochise County ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\COCONINO.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 1:11:42 PM ( ! 148 Dixie National Forest ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! V U ( ! 12 V V Bryce CanyonU U National Park 63 V U 14 276 V U Kodachrome Kodachrome Basin Basin State State Park Park Halls Crossing ( ! Glen Canyon National Rec Area Pine Valley Zion National Park A rLaiVerkin zona Hurricane!( Washington ( ! ( ! 89 £ ¤ St. St. George George ( ! Colorado City ( ! Navajo Mountain Kanab ( ! Kaibab Kaibab Indian Reservation 389 V U Page ! 98 ( Lechee V U ( ! ( ! ( ! Bitter Springs 98 V U ( ! Kaibito Navajo Indian Reservation Tonalea 89 £ ¤ Shonto ( ! Grand Canyon National Park 160 £ ¤ Havasupai Indian Reservation ( ! ( ! Tuba City Moenkopi Supai ( ! ( ! Grand Canyon Village ( ! Tusayan ( ! Hopi Indian Reservation 180 £ ¤ Hopi Indian Reservation V U 264 Hualapai Indian Reservation ( ! Hotevilla-Bacavi ( ! Cameron ( ! Kykotsmovi Village V U 264 ( ! 89 £ ¤ ( ! ! ( ( ! V U 64 ( ! 180 £ ¤ Peach Springs Wupatki National Monument 64 V U V U 66 ( ! 89 £ ¤ Sunset Crater National Mon Seligman ( ! 40 § ¦ ¨ Williams 64 ( ! V§ U 40 ¦ ¨ Ash Fork ( ! Parks ( ! ( ! ( ! Bellemont Leupp 99 V U Flagstaff Walnut Canyon Natl Mon Kachina Village Mountainaire (! ! ( ( ! 89 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! ( ! V U 89A ( ! Paulden ( ! V U 89A ! ( Chino Valley Yavapai Indian Reservation 96 £ ¤ Humboldt!( Cottonwood-Verde Village V U 260 ( ! V U 169 V Mayer U 69 89 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! £ ¤ Spring Valley ( ! ( ! ( ! Peeples Valley Yarnell Congress ( ! ( ! ( ! 0 MILES 9 ´ 87 ( ! ( ! Overgaard ( ! Payson Black Canyon City V U 87 ( ! 87 Phoenix ( ! ( ! Cave Creek Gisela Legend 51 ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! 188 87 Scottsdale Tonto Basin V U V U ( ! Young V U 288 ( ! Census Block Group Tribal Boundaries Low-Income Area Fort McDowell Indian Reservation V U ( ! 260 County Boundary V U New River Wittmann Peoria V U V U 17 Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Surprise 9 260! ( V U § ¦ ¨ Morristown A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group where 51% of all households had an income of 80% or less of the area median income in 2000. ( ! V U Strawberry Crown King Wickenburg 60 £ ¤ 260 V U 17 § ¦ ¨ Cordes Lakes ( ! ( ! 87 ( ! 71 60 £ ¤ V U Sun Valley 260 V U Aguila 99 Rimrock Montezuma ( ! 89 £ ¤ ( ! V U ( ! ( Lake ! ( ! ( ! 93 487 Camp Verde Indian Reservation Camp Verde ( ! FT Dewey FT Verde Verde State State Historic Historic Park Park ( ! Kirkland V U Sedona ( ! Prescott Prescott V U 93 ( ! V U Williamson V U Prescott Valley Bagdad Munds Park Red Red Rock Rock State State Park Park Clarkdale ( ! ( ! 179 Cottonwood Cornville ( ! 89A ( ! Winslow West Winslow Figure 18 Low-Income Areas for Coconino County ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\GILA.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 1:20:05 PM ( ! ( ! ( ! V U 89A Winslow V U 77 40 § ¦ ¨ Munds Park ( ! Joseph City ( ! Holbrook Sedona ( ! ( ! 180 £ ¤ Big Park 17 ¦ ¨ A r§ i z o n aU 487 V V U 87 ( ! Rimrock Montezuma Woodruff V U 377 ( ! ( Lake ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Strawberry Pine ( ! Heber ( ! V U 87 ( ! ( ! Overgaard ( ! Payson Payson ( ! V U Sun Valley Taylor Clay Springs ( ! 260 Snowflake Pinedale ( ! Show Low ( ! Pinetop-Lakeside ( ! ( ! V U 87 Gisela ( ! Young 60 £ ¤ ( ! 288 V U ( ! ( ! Cibecue Fort Apache Indian Reservation Tonto Basin ( ! Whiteriver Canyon Day ( ! East Fork ( ! ( ! V U 87 Scottsdale V U 188 ( ! Tonto National Monument Fort McDowell Fountain Hills Salt River Indian Reservation 88 V U Usery Usery Mountain Mountain Rec Rec Area Area Lost Lost Dutchman Dutchman State State Park Park Mesa Apache Junction 60 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! ( ! Gold Camp Gilbert ( ! ( ! ( ! Central Heights-Midland City!( ( ! Chandler Claypool Queen Valley ( ! Queen Creek Globe Top-of-the-World ( ! Superior San Carlos ( ! San Carlos Indian Reservation Peridot 70 £ ¤ ( ! V U 77 ( ! ( ! Sacaton ( ! Gila River Indian Reservation ( ! Blackwater Bylas Fort Thomas Florence ( ! Casa Grande Ruins Natl Mon Coolidge ( ! ( ! Valley Farms Eden ( ! ( ! Casa Grande ( ! Dudleyville ( ! 8 § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! Chuichu ( ! V U 79 Eloy Arizona City ( ! ( ! V U 77 Picacho 10 § ¦ ¨ Picacho Picacho Peak Peak State State Park Park ( ! ( ! Red Rock 0 MILES 6 ´ 77 ( ! Avra Valley ( ! Tortolita ( ! ( ! San Manuel Catalina Oro Valley Catalina State Park Source: O'odham U.S. Census, U.S. Department Tohono Indian Reservationof Housing and Urban Development 6 Legend V U ( ! A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group where 51% of all households had an income of 80% or less of the area median income in 2000. ( ! Oracle ( ! Catalina State Park Coronado National Forest County Boundary Census Block Group Tribal Boundaries Low-Income Area Figure 19 Low-Income Areas for Gila County ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\GRAHAM.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 1:25:59 PM ( ! ( ! 180 £ ¤ Cibecue V U 260 ( ! Greer Arizona Fort Apache Indian Reservation ( ! ( ! Whiteriver Canyon Day !( ( ! Alpine East Fork V U 77 ( ! ( ! San Carlos 70 £ ¤ 180 £ ¤ 191 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! San Carlos Indian Reservation Peridot ( ! Bylas ( ! Fort Thomas ( ! Morenci ( ! ( ! Clifton Eden ( ! ( ! Central Thatcher Safford ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! 191 £ ¤ Solomon Swift Trail Junction 191 £ ¤ ( ! Coronado National Forest ( ! ( ! 186 V U 10 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Cochise ( ! San Simon Legend Fort Bowie Natl Hist Site County Boundary Census Block Group 191 £ ¤ Tribal Boundaries Chiricahua National Monument A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group where 51% of all households 90 had an income of 80% or less of the area median income in 2000. Low-Income Area V U ( ! 10 § ¦ ¨ Willcox Saguaro National Park ( ! Bowie Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( ! 5 0 MILES 5 ´ ( ! ( ! Figure 20 Low-Income Areas for Graham County T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\GREENLEE.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 1:31:03 PM ( Pinetop-Lakeside ! ( ! McNary ( ! Eagar 180 £ ¤ V U 260 ( ! Greer V U 32 Arizona ( ! ( ! Fort Apache Indian Reservation Whiteriver Canyon Day !( ( ! Alpine 12 V U East Fork 191 £ ¤ V U 78 V U 78 180 £ ¤ Glenwood San Carlos Indian Reservation ( ! ( ! ( ! Fort Thomas ( ! Morenci ( ! 70 £ ¤ ( ! Clifton ( ! Buckhorn Eden ( ! Central Thatcher Safford ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! 191 £ ¤ Solomon Swift Trail Junction 191 £ ¤ 70 £ ¤ V U 90 V U 90 ( ! ( ! Willcox 186 § ¦ ¨ 0 MILES Legend 5 ´ County Boundary Fort Bowie Natl Hist Site 80 V U ( ! Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 5 § ¦ ¨ San Simon 191 £ ¤ A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group where 51% of all households had an income of 80% or less of the area median income in 2000. ( ! Lordsburg 10 ( ! V U 10 ( ! Bowie Chiricahua National Monument Census Block Group Tribal Boundaries Low-Income Area V U 9 Figure 21 Low-Income Areas for Greenlee County T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\LAPAZCOUNTY.MXD - 11/6/2009 @ 1:48:32 PM ( Topock ! ( ! Wikieup V U 95 ( ! Arizona Desert Hills 93 £ ¤ ( ! Lake Lake Havasu Havasu City City Chemehuevi Indian Reservation Lake Lake Havasu Havasu State State Park Park Cattail Cattail Cove Cove State State Park Park ( ! Parker Strip Buckskin Buckskin Mountain Mountain State State Park Park Bluewater Earp ( ! 95 £ ¤ ! ( ( ! Big River Alamo Alamo Lake Lake State State Park Park Bluewater V U 62 ( ! Poston Colorado River Indian Reservation ( ! Parker V U 95 ( ! Bouse ( ! V U 72 Salome ( ! Blythe 10 § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! 60 £ ¤ ( ! Wenden Ehrenberg East Blythe 10 § ¦ ¨ 78 VPalo Verde U ( ! ( ! 95 £ ¤ Cibola Legend Fort Yuma Indian Reservation 8 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Winterhaven ( ! Fortuna Fortuna Foothills Foothills A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group Somerton where ( 51% of all households had an income of 80% or ! Cocopah Reservation less ofIndian the area median income in 2000. Gadsden Yuma ( ! Roll ( ! County Boundary Tacna 8 § ¦ ¨ Census Block Group Tribal Boundaries Low-Income Area Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 5 ( ! 0 MILES 5 ´ Figure 22 Low-Income Areas for La Paz County ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\MOHAVE.MXD - 11/9/2009 @ 12:09:08 PM ( ! ( ! Veyo 317 U V V U 317 ( ! Dixie National Forest V U 18 Snow Snow Canyon Canyon State State Park Park 15 Ivins Paiute Indian Reservation!( ( 9! Santa Clara Washington § ¦ ¨ V U 17 ( ! La Verkin Zion National Park V U ( ! 9 V U 89 £ ¤ ( ! V U 59 Arizona ( ! ( ! Colorado City ( ! Littlefield Kanab Kaibab Kaibab Indian Reservation ( ! 93 £ ¤ V U 168 ( ! ( ! V U 170 Moapa Moapa Valley V U 389 Mesquite ( ! Bunkerville ( ! V U 78 ( ! 15 § ¦ ¨ Logandale VOverton U 12! ( Moapa River Indian Reservation Valley Valley of of Fire Fire State State Park Park 40 V U North Las Vegas ( ! V U 167 147 V U Lake Mead Havasupai Indian Reservation V U U V 146 166 Henderson 515 § ¦ ¨ Lake Mead Natl Recreation Area 93 £ ¤ ( ! Grand Canyon National Park Meadview ( ! Supai ( ! ( ! Boulder City V U 165 95 Lake Mead Natl Rec Area £ ¤ ( ! ( ! 93 £ ¤ Hualapai Indian Reservation Dolan Springs Peach Springs 66 V U Searchlight ( ! ( ! ( ! Chloride Cal-Nev-Ari ( ! New Kingman-Butler 68 V U V U 163 ( ! ( ! Seligman Golden Valley Kingman Laughlin ( ! Ash Fork 40 § ¦ ¨ 40 § ¦ ¨ Oatman Fort Mojave Indian Reservation !( Mesquite Creek V U 95 ! ( ( ! Mojave Ranch Estates!( 89 £ ¤ Willow Valley Mohave Valley Arizona Village ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Needles Yucca ( ! Paulden 93 £ ¤ 95 ! ( V U ( ! Chino Valley Wikieup ( ! ( ! V U 95 ( ! Desert Hills ( ! Williamson Prescott Valley Bagdad Yavapai Indian Reservation ( ! Chemehuevi Indian Reservation ( ! V U 96 Lake Lake Havasu Havasu State State Park Park ( ! Cattail Cattail Cove Cove State State Park Park 95 £ ¤ ( ! Parker Strip Buckskin Buckskin Mountain Mountain State State Park Park Bluewater Earp ( ( ! ! Big River V U 95 Alamo Alamo Lake Lake State State Park Park V U 62 ( ! 95 V U 71 ( ! 72 V U ( ! Bouse ( ! Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 0 ´ 8 MILES Aguila Wilhoit ( ! ( ! 60 £ ¤ ( ! Peeples Valley Yarnell Crown King Congress 89 £ ¤ V U Colorado River Indian Reservation Parker ( ! County Boundary ( ! ( ! A Low-Income Area is defined asPoston a census block group ( ! where 51% of all households had an income of 80% or less of the area median income in 2000. 89 £ ¤ Legend 93 £ ¤ ( ! 8 Kirkland ( ! Census Block Group Tribal Boundaries ( ! Low-Income Area Wickenburg ( ! 60 £ ¤ Figure 24 Low-Income Areas for Mohave County ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\MARICOPA.MXD - 11/9/2009 @ 11:49:35 AM ( ! V U 89 £ ¤ ( ! Arizona 93 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ ( ! Paulden ( ! ( ! ( ! Chino Valley Williamson Dead Dead Horse Horse Ranch Ranch State State Park Park ( ! ( ! V U 96 97 V U ( ! ( ! Cornville 260 V U Dewey Kirkland!( Wilhoit Rimrock Montezuma ( ! ( Lake ! 169 260 V U 69 ( ! 87 487 V Mayer U ( ! V U V U Camp Verde ( ! FT FT Verde Verde State State Historic Historic Park Park V U ( ! 96 179 V U Prescott Valley Camp Verde Indian Reservation ( ! V U Sedona Cottonwood-Verde Village ( ! 89A Prescott Prescott Munds Park Red Red Rock Rock State State Park Park Clarkdale V U Bagdad ( ! 89A ( ! Spring Valley Strawberry 87 ( ! VPine U ( ! ( ! 93 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Yarnell Congress ( ! Payson 17 § ¦ ¨ V U 71 ( ! ( ! 260 ( ! Crown King 89 £ ¤ Aguila V U Peeples Valley Black Canyon City ( ! 87 V U Gisela Young ( ! Wickenburg ( ! 60 £ ¤ 60 £ ¤ ( ! Morristown New River V U 74 ( ! ( ! ( ! Wittmann Peoria ( ! (74 ! V U Tonto Basin V U 288 V U 87 V U 188 Scottsdale ( ! ( ! 10 § ¦ ¨ Buckeye ( ! Tonopah Phoenix ( ! Waddell ( ! Fort McDowell Tonto National Monument Fort McDowell Indian Reservation ( ! Phoenix Mountains Preserve Salt River Indian Reservation ( ! V U 288 V U 88 Usery Usery Mountain Mountain Rec Rec Area Area Lost Dutchman Dutchman State State Park Park 88 Lost ( ! V U ( ! ( ! ( ! Arlington Tempe ( ! ( ! Goodyear ( ! Gila River Indian Reservation ( ! 2! (36 V U 347 Gila Bend Indian Reservation 85 V U V U 8 177 ( ! 347 § ¦ ¨ V U Sacaton Maricopa Florence V U V U V U Superior 79 87 Blackwater 187 ( ! Maricopa Indian Reservation Ak-Chin Village ( ! 287 ( ! 238 Casa Grande Ruins Natl Mon! ( Coolidge ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! V U V Santan U U V ( ! Queen Valley 60 £ ¤ V U Sun Lakes 587 85 £ ¤ Gold Camp ( ! Top-of-the-World V Casa Grande U V U 387 ( ! ( ! 287 84 V U 8 § ¦ ¨ Chuichu ( ! 79 ( ! ( ! ( ! V U Picacho 10 § ¦ ¨ Picacho Picacho Peak Peak State State Park Park Red Rock ( ! V U 77 ( ! Catalina Avra Valley ( ! V U 85 ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Marana Santa Rosa Oro Valley ( ! Cortaro Casas Adobes ( ! Flowing Wells ( ! Saguaro National Park V U 86 ( ! Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation V U 86 V U 86 ( ! Pisinemo ( ! ( ! V U 86 ( ! 286 U V Legend Sells ( ! 286 MILES ´ Three Points ( ! ( ! 19 East Sahuarita 289 ( ! 19 § ¦ ¨ Tubac Low-Income Areas ( ! V U 289 Tumacacori-Carmen ( ! ( ! Figure ( ! ! ( 23 ( ! Low-Income Areas for Maricopa County ( ! ( ! § ¦ ¨ Amado V U ( ! Summit ( ! Tribal Boundaries Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 8 Drexel Heights ( ! Drexel Heights Census Block Group V U A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group where 51% of all households had an income of 80% or less of the area median income in 2000. 0 ( ! Green Valley County Boundary Topawa Mexico 8 77 San Xavier Indian Reservation Organ Pipe Cactus National Mon Lukeville V U Tucson Estates ( ! ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\NAVAJO.MXD - 11/9/2009 @ 12:04:26 PM ( ! 261 VMexican Hat U ( ! 163 £ ¤ ( ! 89 £ ¤ ( ! Navajo Mountain ( ! 160 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Bitter Springs 98 V U ( ! ( ! ( ! Red Mesa Census Block Group Teec Nos Pos Tribal Boundaries Kaibito ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! 191 £ ¤ Chilchinbito ( ! ( ! Round Rock Rough Rock ( ! ( ! Many Farms 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon National Park ( ! ( ! Sanostee ( ! Lukachukai ( ! Tuba City Moenkopi Tsaile ( ! Chinle ( ! Canyon de Chelly Natl Monument Pinon ( ! Crystal Hopi Indian Reservation 264 V U 264 ( ! V U 134 ( ! ( ! V U 180 £ ¤ ( ! Rock Point Shonto ( ! Beclabito Low-Income Area Dennehotso Kayenta Tonalea ( ! 41 ( ! ( ! Navajo Indian Reservation V U County Boundary Oljato-Monument Valley Vr i z o n a AU ( ! V U Ute Mountain Indian Reservation Halchita Page ( 98 ! Lechee ( ! Aneth 262 Legend ( ! Glen Canyon National Rec Area ( ! Tselakai Dezza ( ! ( ! Cameron ( ! Hotevilla-Bacavi 264 Polacca ( ! 264 Keams Canyon Hopi Indian Reservation Second Mesa U V V Shongopovi U VU 89 £ ¤ V U ( ! 264 ( ! ! ( 264 Nazlini ( ! ( ! ( ! V U 264 ( ! ( ! Navajo Indian Reservation Steamboat ( ! Burnside ( ! Ganado ( ! Nakaibito ( ! Fort Defiance 264 264 V U U V V U ( ! ( ! 87 Tse Bonito Wupatki National Monument ( ! Sunset Crater National Mon ( ! Greasewood ( ! ( ! Rock Springs ( ! V U 118 V U 77 Leupp 264 264 ( ! Gallup 191 £ ¤ Dilkon ( ! ( ! V U V U ( ! Sawmill!( Navajo ( ! Houck 40 § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! V U 87 Flagstaff V Flagstaff U 99 V U 40 § ¦ ¨ 487 Mountainaire Kachina Village Petrified Forest National Park (! ! ( 89A ( ! 17 ( ! ( ! ( ! 487 Holbrook Ramah Navajo Indian Reservation 99 87 V U ( ! Woodruff V U 377 Rimrock 180 £ ¤ V U 77 ( ! V U 260 ( ! Strawberry ( ! ( ! ( ! Pine V U Overgaard V U 260 V U 260 V U 260 Payson 277 Heber ( ! V U 87 ( ! ( ! Snowflake ( ! Pinedale ( ! Concho ( ! St. Johns 61 V U ( ! Gisela ( ! Show Low ( ! Vernon V Pinetop-Lakeside U ( ! Young ( ! ( ! ( ! Fort McDowell 88 Gilbert Source: 9 San Carlos Indian Reservation ( ! 0 MILES ( ! 188 ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Development ! U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban ( ! 9 180 £ ¤ 60 £ ¤ 88 202 88 ´ ( ! Alpine 191 £ ¤ VA Low-Income U Lost State Area is Park defined as a census block group Lost Dutchman Dutchman State Park where 51%U of all households had an income of 80% or V Mesa V Globe U less of the area median income in 2000. V Gold Camp U V Apache U Top-of-the-World U V Junction 202 ( ! ( ! V U Salt River Indian Reservation V U East Fork Tonto National Monument Scottsdale ( ! Canyon Day!( ( ! 188 V U ( ! Whiteriver ( ! V U 73 73 Eagar 273 V U V U 60 £ ¤ Greer 261 260 V U 87 ( ! V U Fort Apache Indian Reservation Tonto Basin McNary Cibecue 288 V U 191 77 73 ( ! V U V U Clay Springs ( ! ( ! Taylor Payson ( ! ( ! V U Big Park ( ! Joseph City ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! 53 ( ! V U Sedona Zuni Pueblo V U Winslow Winslow Munds Park § ¦ ¨ ( ! Winslow West ( ! V U Zuni Indian Reservation ( ! 77 V U 170 ( ! V U 159 San Carlos Glenwood ( ! Figure 25 Low-Income Areas for Navajo County ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\PIMA2.MXD - 11/9/2009 @ 12:48:28 PM ( ! ( ! Congress ( ! 89 £ ¤ V U 71 ( ! 60 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! ( ! Wenden ( ! ( ! Young ( ! ( ! 74 V U Wittmann V U 74 Peoria ( ! ( ! V U ( ! Tonopah El Mirage ( ! Waddell !( Youngtown V U 303 10 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Litchfield Park ( ! Tolleson Cave Creek V U 51 V U 87 Fort McDowell ( ! 87 V U VUsery U Mountain Rec Usery Mountain Rec Area Area Mesa Tempe!( Guadalupe 60 £ ¤ 87 £ ¤ ( ! V U 188 V U 347 ( ! Maricopa ( ! 87 Maricopa Indian Reservation!( Ak-Chin Village ( ! 8 § ¦ ¨ 79 177 287 ( ! Dudleyville 87 79 V U ( ! 85 Picacho Picacho Peak Peak State State Park Park Red Rock V U 77 ( ! ( ! Avra Valley Ajo ( ! ( ! ( ! Marana Santa Rosa ( ! ( ! Organ Pipe Cactus National Mon 85 £ ¤ Lukeville ! ( ( ! Three Points San Xavier Indian Reservation ( ! V U 86 ( ! ( ! Summit Sells ( ! San Manuel V U 76 Catalina ( ! ( ! Pisinemo ( ! Cortaro Coronado National Forest ( ! Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation ( ! Oracle Tucson 86 V U ( ! Tortolita Catalina Catalina State State Park Park ( ! ( ! Peridot ( ! V U ( ! ( ! 77 ( ! 84 ( ! 50 ( ! 70 £ ¤ 287 UU V V § ¦ U ¨ V Chuichu V Eloy Picacho U 8 ( ! San Carlos V U Coolidge ( ! ( ! Valley Farms 387 84 V U 79 U V V V Blackwater U U V U V U ( ! ! Globe ( ( ! Top-of-the-World ( ! V U 2! (36 ( 87 ! 238 Stanfield V U VSacaton U ( ! V U Claypool Gold Camp Queen Valley Superior Sun Lakes Gila River Indian Reservation Santan ( ! ( ! 60 £ ¤ V U ( ! Chandler 85 Gila Bend Indian Reservation 88 202 U Gilbert V 238 Tonto National Monument Fort McDowell Indian Reservation V U ( ! Arlington 288 188 V Phoenix Salt RiverU Indian Reservation 85 V U Tonto Basin V U Scottsdale Glendale 101 Buckeye Cibecue Fort Apache Indian Reservation § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! Gisela 17 Wickenburg ( ! ( ! Black Canyon City 60 £ ¤ Morristown Arizona ( ! ( ! Crown King ( ! Saguaro National Park ( ! Vail East Sahuarita ( ! Corona de Tucson 10 § ¦ ¨ ( ! V U 83 Topawa 19 § ¦ ¨ V U 286 ( Amado ! ( ! ( ! Tubac ( ! Tumacacori-Carmen 82 V U ( ! ( ! Sasabe Rio Rico Northwest ( ! (! ! ( Rio Rico Southwest V U 289 Sonoita Whetstone Elgin ( ! V U 83 Rio Rico ( ! ( ! Gu Mexico f lf o a rni lifo Ca Legend County Boundary Census Block Group A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group where 51% of all households had an income of 80% or less of the area median income in 2000. Tribal Boundaries Low-Income Area Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 10 0 MILES 10 ´ Figure 26 Low-Income Areas for Pinal County ( ! ( ! ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\PINAL.MXD - 11/9/2009 @ 12:56:42 PM ( ! ( ! Sun Valley ( ! ( ! Black Canyon City Arizona ( ! ( ! Young Fort Apache Indian Reservation!( Cibecue V U 288 ( ! 17 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Peoria 60 £ ¤ 188 V U V U 87 Glendale ( ! 17 § ¦ ¨ 60 £ ¤ Scottsdale 101 V U Tonto National Monument Fort McDowell ( ! Fort McDowell Indian Reservation Phoenix Phoenix Mountains Preserve 88 V U Salt River Indian Reservation ( ! Usery Usery Mountain Mountain Rec Rec Area Area Lost Lost Dutchman Dutchman State State Park Park Tolleson 10 ( ! Tonto Basin Cave Creek ( ! ( ! Gisela § ¦ ¨ Mesa Tempe ( ! Guadalupe Gilbert ( ! ( ! Gold Camp Chandler ( ! Gila River Indian Reservation ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Maricopa Indian Reservation Ak-Chin Village Queen Valley ( ! Queen Creek Globe ( ! 70 £ ¤ Peridot ( ! San Carlos Indian Reservation Superior V U 77 Sacaton ( ! Blackwater Casa Grande Ruins Natl Mon Coolidge ( ! ( ! Valley Farms ( ! 10 § ¦ ¨ ( ! San Carlos Top-of-the-World Santan Maricopa ( ! Central Heights-Midland City!( ( ! Sun Lakes Claypool ( ! Stanfield Dudleyville 8 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Chuichu ( ! 79 V U Eloy ( ! Arizona City ( ! V U 77 Picacho Picacho Picacho Peak Peak State State Park Park ( ! ( ! Oracle Red Rock ( ! San Manuel V U 77 ( ! ( ! Avra Valley ( ! ( ! Marana ( ! ( ! Santa Rosa ( ! Tortolita Catalina Catalina State State Park Park Coronado National Forest Cortaro Casas Adobes Picture Rocks Catalina Foothills Tucson Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation ( ! Tucson Estates ( ! ( ! South Tucson Valencia West ( ! ( ! 19 Three Points Summit ( ! San Xavier Indian Reservation § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! V U 86 ( ! Sells ( ! Topawa 286 Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development MILES 6 10 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Vail Legend East Sahuarita ( ! Corona de Tucson Tribal Boundaries ( ! Amado Low-Income Area Sonoita V U 82 ( ! ( ! Figure 27 Low-Income Areas for Pinal County ( ! ´ ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Census Block Group V U A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group where 51% of all households had an income of 80% or less of the area median income in 2000. 0 Saguaro National Park County Boundary ( ! 6 Littletown ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\SANTA CRUZ.MXD - 11/9/2009 @ 1:01:00 PM ( ! ( ! Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation Drexel Drexel Heights Heights ( ! ( ! Valencia West Saguaro National Park Drexel-Alvernon ( ! Littletown Tucson V U 86 A r i zThree o nPoints a ( ! San Xavier Indian Reservation ( ! Summit ( ! Vail 10 § ¦ ¨ ( ! East Sahuarita ( ! Corona de Tucson 19 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Amado ( ! Sonoita ( ! ( ! Tubac V U 82 ( ! Sierra Sierra Vista Vista Tumacacori-Carmen ( ! Elgin Rio Rico Northwest Rio Rico Northeast Rio Rico ( ! ( ! Patagonia Patagonia Lake Lake State State Park Park ( ! Rio Rico Southwest V U 289 Mexico Legend County Boundary Census Block Group A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group where 51% of all households had an income of 80% or less of the area median income in 2000. Tribal Boundaries Low-Income Area Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 3 0 MILES 3 ´ Figure 28 Low-Income Areas for Santa Cruz County ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\YAVAPAI.MXD - 11/9/2009 @ 1:07:09 PM ( ! Havasupai Indian Reservation ( ! Tusayan 180 £ ¤ 180 £ ¤ Grand Canyon National Park Cameron Navajo Indian Reservation Hualapai Indian Reservation Arizona ( ! Wupatki National Monument ( ! V U 64 ( ! 89 £ ¤ Sunset Crater National Mon 180 £ ¤ Seligman ( ! 40 § ¦ ¨ Ash Fork ( ! Williams ( ! Parks ( ! Bellemont 40 § ¦ ¨ Flagstaff Kachina Village Mountainaire ( ! 17 ( ! § ¦ ¨ V U 487 89A V U ( ! ( ! Paulden ( ! Sedona Red Red Rock Rock State State Park Park Big Park 89 £ ¤ Clarkdale Chino Valley ( ! ( ! Tuzigoot National Monument Cottonwood ( ! Munds Park ( ! Williamson 89A V U ( ! ( ! Cornville Lake Montezuma!( Rimrock ( ! ( ! Bagdad Camp Verde Indian Reservation Prescott Prescott Yavapai Indian Reservation Dewey Humboldt ( ! 93 £ ¤ Camp Verde ( ! FT FT Verde Verde State State Historic Historic Park Park V U 69 ( ! V U 96 ( ! Kirkland ( ! Wilhoit ( ! Spring Valley ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Strawberry ( ! Pine Mayer ( ! Cordes Lakes Peeples Valley Yarnell ( ! ( ! Congress Crown King 89 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! Aguila ( ! 60 £ ¤ ( ! Black Canyon City Wickenburg ( ! Morristown 17 § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! ( ! Wittmann ( ! Cave Creek Peoria 60 £ ¤ ( ! Buckeye 10 ( ! Tonopah 0 MILES 6 ´ 10 § ¦ ¨ ( ! ( ! Waddell ( ! ( ! Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 6 Sun Sun City CityYoungtown ( ! § ¦ ¨ ( ! A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group where 51% of all households had an income of 80% or less of the area median income in 2000. Glendale El Mirage 87 87 V U Legend Scottsdale County Boundary Fort McDowell ( ! Fort McDowell Indian Reservation Phoenix Census Block Group Tribal Boundaries Salt River Indian Reservation Litchfield Park ( ! V U Low-Income Area Usery Usery Mountain Mountain Rec Rec Area Area Tolleson V U 88 Mesa Tempe ( ! Figure 29 Low-Income Areas for Yavapai County ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! T:\_GIS\OTHERSTATES\ARIZONA\MXD\CONSOLIDATED_PLAN\TARGET_INCOME_GROUPS\YUMA.MXD - 11/9/2009 @ 2:06:07 PM ( ! Colorado River Indian Reservation 95 ( ! ( ! Salome 60 £ ¤ ( ! ( ! 72 V U 95 £ ¤ A§ r10i z o n a ¦ ¨ V U Wenden Ehrenberg 10 § ¦ ¨ East Blythe Palo Verde V U 78 ( ! Cibola 95 £ ¤ Fort Yuma Indian Reservation 8 § ¦ ¨ ( ! Winterhaven ( ! ( ! Fortuna Fortuna Foothills Foothills ( ! ( ! ( ! Somerton Cocopah Indian Reservation Gadsden Roll Tacna 8 § ¦ ¨ Yuma San Luis Usery Usery Mountain Mountain Rec Rec Area Area Mexico Legend County Boundary Census Block Group A Low-Income Area is defined as a census block group where 51% of all households had an income of 80% or less of the area median income in 2000. Tribal Boundaries Low-Income Area Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 5 0 MILES 5 ´ Figure 30 Low-Income Areas for Yuma County APPENDIX I – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESOURCES STATEWIDE RESOURCES National 24 hr Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233 & 1-800-787-3224 (TDD) National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline: 1-866-331-9474 or 1-866-331-8453 TTY National Sexual Assault Hotline-RAINN: 1-800-656-HOPE (4673) Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence Tel: 1-602-279-2900, 1-800-782-6400 & TTY: 1-602-279-7270 RESOURCES BY JURISDICTION City Provider Name Phone Number Ajo Domestic Violence Advocacy Program 520-387-5628 *Apache Junction Community Alliance Against Family Abuse 877/480 982-0196 *Bullhead City WestCare AZ /Safe House of Bullhead City 928-763-7233 *Casa Grande Against Abuse 520-836-0858/ 602-258-0935 Casa Grande Horizon Human Services (formerly BHACA) 520-836-1688/ 866-495-6735 Casa Grande Pinal County DV Coalition 520-836-1239 *Chandler My Sister's Place 480-821-1024 Chandler Pathways 480-821-1024 *Chinle ADABI 928-674-8314 / 877-698-0899 *Cottonwood Verde Valley Sanctuary 928-634-2511/ 800-930-7233 Douglas Domestic Violence Advocacy Program 520-364-3285 ext. 324 *Douglas House of Hope 520-364-2465 / 800-516-0119 *Flagstaff Northland Family Help Center 928-527-1900 / 877-634-2723 Flagstaff Victim/Witness Services for Coconino County 928-779-6163 Fort Defiance Division of Social Services DINE Nation 928-729-4013 Glendale West Valley Advocacy Center 623-930-3720 *Glendale New Leaf’s Faith House 623-939-6798 *Globe Horizon Human Services-Gila County Safehome 928-402-0648 *Green Valley Genesis House (Hands of a Friend) 520-648-3589 *Goodyear New Life Center 623-932-4404 / 800-799-7739 Guadalupe Centro de Amistad, Incorporado 480-839-2926 Holbrook Domestic Violence Advocacy Program 928-524-2851 ext. 231 *Kayenta Tohdenasshai Shelter/ Kayenta DV Task Force 928-697-8591/ 877-697-8591 Keams Canyon Hopi Guidance Center 928-737-2586/ Crisis Line 928-738-1115 *Kingman Kingman Aid to Abused People 928-753-4242 928-753-6222 Crisis Line Kingman Sarah’s House 928-718-5522 / 928-757-8103 *Lk Havasu Lake Havasu Interagency Council 928-453-5800 / 928-855-8877 Lk Havasu Lake Havasu City Salvation Army 928-680-3678 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 I-1 APPENDIX I – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESOURCES City I-2 Provider Name Phone Number Mesa Center Against Family Violence 480-644-4075 Mesa House of Refuge-East 480-988-9242 *Mesa New Leaf’s Autumn House 480-835-5555 Mesa New Leaf’s DV STOP 800-799-7739 Mesa Save The Family 480-898-0228 Nogales Crossroads Rescue Mission 520-287-5828 *Nogales “Our House/Nuestra Casa” 520-287-2107 Nogales Domestic Violence Advocacy Program 520-229-7326 Nogales SEABHS: Free of Violence/Libre de Violencia 520-281-9189/ Crisis Line 520-287-4030/ Main Line Nogales Santa Cruz Family Guidance Center 520-287-4960 *Page Page Regional Domestic Violence Services 928-645-5300 *Parker Colorado River Regional Crisis Shelter 928-669-0107 / 888-499-0911 *Payson Time Out, Inc. 928-472-8007 *Peoria Harmony House 623-486-1212 Main Line 480-306-0990 Crisis Line *Peoria Hands of Hope 480-225-5298 Phoenix AzCADV & Legal Advocacy Hotline 602-279-2900 / 800-782-6400 Phoenix Area Agency on Aging, Region One 602-264-2255 Phoenix AZ Sexual Assault Network 480-831-1986 Phoenix Casa (Sexual Assault) 602-254-6400 *Phoenix Chrysalis 602-944-4999 Phoenix Community Information & Referral 602-263-8856 Phoenix Community Legal Services 602-258-3434 / 800-852-9075 Phoenix CONTACS Shelter Hotline (Maricopa County Only) 602-263-8900 / 800-799-7739 *Phoenix DeColores 602-269-1515 Phoenix Dignity House (Prostituted Women) 602-258-2785 Diversion House 602-224-5457 Residential House 602-909-0540 Outreach 24 hrs. *Phoenix DOVES (Domestic Older Victims Empower & Safety 602-264-4357 / 888-264-2258 Phoenix Family Advocacy Center 602-534-2120/ 888-246-0303 Phoenix Governor’s Division for Prevention of Family Violence 602-542-1773 *Phoenix Salvation Army’s Elim House 602-267-4111 / 888-267-0197 Phoenix Shelter Without Walls (JFCS) 602-256-0528 *Phoenix Sojourner 602-244-0089 Phoenix Sundance Lodge 602-870-3891 *Phoenix UMOM Shelter 602-957-1903/ 866-640-8666 *Pinetop White Mountain Safe House 928-367-6017 / 800-224-1315 *Prescott Stepping Stones 928-445-4673 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX I – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESOURCES City Provider Name Phone Number Prescott Valley Yavapai Family Advocacy Center 928-775-0669 Sacaton Gila River Drug & Alcohol Abuse Center 602-258-7714 *Safford Mt. Graham Safe House 928-348-9104 / 888-269-9104 Safford Southeastern AZ Behavioral Health Services 928-428-4550 San Carlos San Carlos Tribal Social Services 928-475-2313 *Scottsdale Chrysalis 480-481-0402 Scottsdale Salt River Pima/ Maricopa Social Services 480-850-8484 Scottsdale Family Advocacy Center 480-312-6300 Sedona Verde Valley Sanctuary, Inc. / Legal Program 928-639-2079 *Sells Tohono O’odham Nation Domestic Violence Program 520-383-6200 Main Line 866-666-4889 Crisis Line *Sierra Vista Forgach House 520-458-9096 *Surprise Eve’s Place 623-537-5380 Springerville Domestic Violence Advocacy Program 928-333-0127 *St. Johns New Hope Ranch 877-974-4673/928-337-5060 Tempe Empact-Suicide Prevention Center 480-784-1514 Main Line 480-784-1500 Crisis Line Tucson Administration of Resources and Choices Crisis Line 520-566-1919 *Tucson Emerge! 888-428-0101English/ 877-472-1717 Spanish Tucson Indian Health Service, San Xavier Health Service 520-295-2405 Tucson Jewish Family and Children’s Service 520-795-0300 ext. 224 Tucson Southern Arizona Child & Family Advocacy Center 520-319-5511 / 520-991-4771 Tucson Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc. 520-623-9465 / 800-248-6789 Tucson Wingspan (GLBT Program) Anti-Violence Project 520-624-0348 / 800-553-9387 Whiteriver Apache Behavioral Health Center 928-338-4811 Window Rock DNA People’s Legal Services 928-871-4151 Winslow Alice’s Place 928-289-3003/ 888-531-7233 Yuma Amberly’s Place 928-373-0849 Yuma The Excel Group 928-341-0335 / 888-239-2353 *Yuma Safe House Shelter * Signifies Shelter or Safehome Program 928-782-0077 / 877-440-0550 Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence 301 E. Bethany Home Road Suite C-194, Phoenix, AZ 85012 Tel: (602)-279-2900 or (800) 782-6400 TTY: (602) 279-7270, Fax (602) 279-2980 Email: acadv@azcadv.org Website: www.azcadv.org Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 I-3 APPENDIX J – HOMELESSNESS RESOURCES ARIZONA HOMELESSNESS RESOURCES COMMUNITY PARTNERS ADOH has a number of existing resources and community partners throughout the state concerned with homeless issues in Arizona. Some of the partner agencies are as follows: Arizona Department of Commerce – The Legacy Partnership Pilot Community Reentry Program with ADES; www.adc.state.az.com Arizona Department of Commerce; www.azcommerce.com Arizona Department of Economic Security – Homeless Coordination Office, Community Action Programs, Domestic Violence Intervention; www.azdes.gov/programs/homelessness/default.asp Arizona Department of Education- Education for Homeless Children and Youth; www.ade.state.az.us/asd/homeless Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services; www.azdhs.gov/bhs Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections; www.juvenile.state.az.us Arizona Department of Veteran Services; www.azdvs.gov Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System; www.ahccs.state.az.us Arizona Supreme Court; www.supreme.state.az.us/azsupreme Governor’s Information Technology Agency; www.gita.state.az.us Governor’s Interagency & Community Council on Homelessness; www.housingaz.com/ICCH Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; www.governor.state.az.us HOMELESS SERVICE PROVIDERS Furthermore, a number of statewide organizations assist with homeless individuals and families. The Arizona agencies that provide services are: The Association of Arizona Food Banks www.asfoodbanks.org Arizona Coalition of Domestic Violence www.azcadv.org Arizona Coalition to End Homelessness www.azceh.org Arizona Community Action Association www.azcaa.org Arizona Housing Alliance www.azhousingalliance.org Basic Needs Coalition in Arizona www.azceh.org Children’s Action Alliance www.azchildren.org Ecumenical Chaplaincy for the Homeless www.azhomeless.org Interfaith Coalition for the Homeless www.ichtucson.org Protecting Arizona Family Coalition www.pafcoalition.org Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 J-1 APPENDIX K – LEAD POISONING INDEX LEAD POISONING RISK INDEX The following table displays the results of the ZIP codes considered at high risk for instances of lead poisoning. Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 K-1 APPENDIX L – HUD TABLES Table L-1 Priority Housing Needs (HUD Table 2A) Household Type Small Related Large Related Renter Elderly All Other Owner Income Level Priority 0–30% High 31–50% Medium 51–80% Low 0–30% High 31–50% High 51–80% Medium 0–30% High 31–50% High 51–80% High 0–30% High 31–50% Medium 51–80% Low 0–30% Low 31–50% Medium 51–80% High Table L-2 Priorities for Special Needs Population (HUD Table 1A and 2A) Special Needs Subpopulation Priority Unmet Need Elderly High 536,726 Frail Elderly High 278,643 Persons with Alcohol/Other Drug Abuse Medium 75,392 Victims of Domestic Violence Medium 20,958 High 6,355 Medium 297,241 Physically Disabled High 408,285 Severe Mental Illness High 36,813 Female-Headed Households Medium 183,021 Persons with HIV/AIDS Medium 10,066 High 127,525 Homeless/At Risk Developmentally Disabled Large Families Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 L-1 APPENDIX L – HUD TABLES Table L-3 Priority Housing Activities/Investment Plan (HUD Table 2A) Housing Activities Priority Acquisition of existing rental units Low Production of new rental units Low Rehabilitation of existing rental units CDBG Medium Rental assistance Low Acquisition of existing owner units Low Production of new owner units Low Rehabilitation of existing owner units High Homeownership assistance Low Acquisition of existing rental units HOME HOPWA Medium Production of new rental units High Rehabilitation of existing rental units High Rental assistance Low Acquisition of existing owner units Low Production of new owner units Low Rehabilitation of existing owner units High Homeownership assistance Low Rental assistance Medium Short-term rent/mortgage/utility payments Medium Facility-based housing development Medium Facility-based housing operations Medium Supportive services High Table L-4 Priority Community Development Needs and Objectives (HUD Table 2B) Activity Priority Five-Year Goal Water system improvements High 7 projects Wastewater system improvements High 7 projects Solid waste disposal facilities and equipment Low - Medium 4 projects High 5 projects Public Facilities and Improvements Road/street improvements Flood and drainage improvements L-2 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 APPENDIX L – HUD TABLES Activity Other facility improvements Fire and Police Protection Facilities Priority Five-Year Goal Medium 2 projects High Fire/police station construction Medium 1 project Fire trucks Medium 2 projects Firefighting equipment Medium 2 projects Low - Medium 2 projects Low - Food banks Medium 1 project Physical or psychological disabilities facilities Medium 1 project High 3 projects Medium 1 project Child care Low - Health care Medium 2 projects Public safety services Medium 2 projects Fair housing activities High 5 projects Services for seniors High 3 projects Services for homeless persons High 3 projects Equipment used in the provision of any of the above services High 3 projects Emergency assistance (utility, rent, mortgage) not to exceed a single 3 month period High 5 projects Large-print books, tapes, and audio visual for adults with severe disabilities Low - Lead hazard screening High 3 projects Owner-occupied housing rehabilitation High 15 projects Rental housing rehabilitation High 10 projects Public housing rehabilitation and modernization Low - Homeownership assistance (DPA, closings costs, counseling, interest rate write downs, etc.) Low N/A (funding for this activity has been swept to balance state budget) Community/Supportive Housing Facilities Libraries Senior centers Social service centers Homeless facilities Supportive housing facilities (DV shelters, halfway houses, housing for disaster victims, hospitals, etc.) Public Services Housing Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010 L-3 APPENDIX L – HUD TABLES Activity Priority Five-Year Goal Construction of new housing by a CBDO Low - Lead-based paint evaluation or reduction High 5 projects Direct assistance to for-profits (businesses) Medium 1 project Economic development services Medium 1 project Micro-enterprise assistance (businesses) Medium 1 project Historic preservation Medium 2 projects Acquisition, disposition, clearance, or demolition of real property (specific criteria apply) Medium 1 project Low - High 5 projects Medium 3 projects Housing plans and other such functional plans in certain areas (land use, transportation, historic preservation etc.) High 5 projects Neighborhood revitalization strategy High 5 projects Medium 2 projects Economic Development (tied to job creation or retention) Neighborhood Revitalization and Redevelopment Commercial/industrial rehabilitation (if qualifies under historic preservation) Planning and Capacity Building Comprehensive Plans Community development plans Policy, planning, management, and capacity building activities L-4 Arizona Department of Housing - Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 • May 2010