Analysis of Impediments DRAFT2010 V4s3.relmanlaw.com.s3.amazonaws.com/database/... · Colorado...

Colorado Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2011- 2015 1

COLORADO ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING

Colorado Department of Local Affairs

Reeves Brown, Executive Director

John W. Hickenlooper, Governor


Colorado Department of Local Affairs 1313 Sherman St., Room 518

Denver, CO 80203 TDD/TTY: 303-866-5300

Advocate Line: 303-866-5326/800-536-4349


I. Introduction and Executive Summary ..........................................5 Notes on Terminology and Sources ..............................................................9

Executive Summary and Conclusions.............................................................10 Impediments Found .................................................................................12 Actions To Address Impediments ...............................................................13

II. State of Colorado Background Data..........................................17 Demographic Data ......................................................................................17

Racial and Ethnic Composition...................................................................17 Language and Cultural Barriers .................................................................27 Persons With Disabilities...........................................................................29 Religious Groups .....................................................................................33 Colorado Households................................................................................37

Income Data ..............................................................................................39 Median Income........................................................................................39 Income Distribution .................................................................................40

Employment Data .......................................................................................42 Housing Profile ...........................................................................................43

Overview................................................................................................43 Rental Mismatch Findings .........................................................................45 Rent Burden ...........................................................................................46

Other Relevant Data....................................................................................48 Stakeholder Survey Results ......................................................................48 General Public Survey Results ...................................................................56

III. Colorado’s Current Fair Housing Legal Status ...........................57 Summary of Fair Housing Complaints or Compliance reviews............................57

Fair Housing Complaints by Basis ..............................................................58 Fair Housing Complaints by Issue ..............................................................60

Reasons for any trends or patterns ...............................................................62 Other fair housing concerns or problems........................................................62

Homelessness and the Protected Classes ....................................................62 Segregation and Affordable Housing Site Analysis........................................63

IV. Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing ...........................64 Public Sector – State Statutes and Regulations ...............................................64

Building, Occupancy, Health, and Safety statutes ........................................64 Approval process for construction of housing...............................................64 Community development and housing activities ..........................................65 Statewide policies that increase segregation or inhibit employment ...............66 Public policies that restrict interdepartmental coordination............................66 Statewide actions related to the provision and siting of public transportation and social services.........................................................................................66 Protected-class representation boards, commissions, and committees............66

Private Sector.............................................................................................68 State Laws and Regulations regarding:.......................................................68 State and local laws or other policies and practices that: ..............................68 Have the effect of restricting housing choices for persons with disabilities.......69 Information on financial assistance for accessibility modification of private homes....................................................................................................70 Lending Policies and Practices ...................................................................70

Public and Private Sector .............................................................................77


Evidence of segregated housing conditions in non-entitlement areas, and housing desegregation plans.....................................................................77 The delivery system for statewide programs providing social services to families with children and persons with disabilities ..................................................77

V. Current Public and Private Fair Housing Programs And Activities...78 VI. Conclusions and Recommendations .........................................82

Impediments Found .................................................................................82 Actions To Address Impediments ...............................................................87 Other Actions ..........................................................................................90

Appendix A – Table of Specific Actions to Address Impediments to Fair Housing ....................................................................................92 Appendix B – Home Modification Programs ....................................97 Appendix C – Colorado Locations Served by Greyhound Bus System.............................................................................................. 102


I. Introduction and Executive Summary I. Introduction and Executive Summary I. Introduction and Executive Summary I. Introduction and Executive Summary

WHAT IS FAIR HOUSING?

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (fair housing Act), as amended in 1988,

“Prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).”

Colorado’s fair housing statute (C.R.S. 24-34-500 et. seq.) include marital status, creed and ancestry in addition to the federal definitions of persons protected by fair housing law. It is also illegal to refuse to make reasonable accommodations or modifications for persons with disabilities, or to harass or interfere with a person exercising their fair housing rights.

The Civil Rights Act, including the fair housing Act, grew out of the civil rights movement of the 1960s and was particularly directed at relieving the living conditions that gave rise to the race riots of that era. During the period following World War II, both public and private sector practices had led to the segregation of minorities (especially African Americans) into ghettos in inner cities, far away from the newer housing and job opportunities being created in the suburbs. But the greater intent of the law was not just to eliminate the practices that created racially-segregated communities, but to provide equal housing opportunity for all Americans who experienced discrimination. Later legislation led to the addition of families with children and people with disabilities as protected classes.

fair housing is the process and vehicle for ensuring those protections.

Purpose

This document was created to meet the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) on the part of the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs and the Department of Human Services. This Analysis of Impediments to fair housing (AI) is required because these state agencies receive federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Analysis of Impediments contains an assessment of the housing status by protected class and private and public sector policies, procedures and practices that may act as barriers to equal housing access.

Who Conducted

This analysis of impediments was conducted by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing (CDOH) and the Colorado Department of Human Services, Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs (SHHP).


Participants

Primary Author: Mary E. Miller, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing Contributing Authors:

Susan Niner, Colorado Department of Health and Human Services, Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs Lynn Shine, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing Ryan McMaken, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing Research Assistance: Cynthia De Groen, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, State Demographer’s Office Autumn Gold, Manager of Section 8 Programming Christopher Roe, Colorado Department of Health and Human Services, Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs Tony Hernandez, Director, Department of Local Affairs, Division of Local Government Andy Hill, Sustainability Coordinator, Department of Local Affairs, Division of Local Government Survey Participants: Mark* Colorado Housing and Finance Authority Randy McCall KeyBank Charles Kreiman ICF International Mary Anderies Anderies Consulting Heidi Aggeler BBC Research & Consulting Mike Rinner The Genesis Group Autumn Dever Upper Arkansas Area Council of Governments Zoe Mick South Eastern Colorado Economic Development Anne-Marie Mokritsky-Martin Colorado Cross Disability Coalition Ruth Pederson Colorado Health Network, Inc. Jenny Wildee Denver Options Martha Mason Southwest Center for Independence Kathryn Garcia Developmental Pathways, Inc. Alison Dawson Disabled Resource Services Marcella Young Disabled Resource Services Renee' Walker Foothills Gateway, Inc. Jennifer Chase Northern Colorado AIDS Project Vicky Elliot Mountain Valley Developmental Services Kim Engell Connections Independent Living Jan Binkley Envision Marlene Lovato Developmental Disabilities Resource Center Michael Block Boulder Shelter for the Homeless Diana Buza The Pinon Project Cameron Malcolm Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Les Jones Family HomeStead Randle Loeb Metro Denver Homeless Initiative Missy Mish St. Francis Center Debra MacKillop The Gathering Place Bobbi Meng Caring Ministries of Morgan County Sr. Karen Bland Grand Valley Catholic Outreach Gi Moon Homeward Bound of the Grand Valley


Jodi Hartmann Greeley Transitional House Mary Yendrek Jeffco Action Center Carleta Schwartz Southeast Colorado Homeless Shelter Anita Deshommes Growing Home Krista Goddard Stepping Stones of Windsor Rachel Helberg Brush Housing Authority Judy Scandura Colorado Springs Housing Authority Andrea Davis Denver Housing Authority Jo Spotts Housing Authority City of Fort Lupton Katherine Roby Fountain Housing Authority Lori Rosendahl Grand Junction Housing Authority Thomas Teixeira Greeley/Weld Housing Authorities Jim Sheehan Grand County Housing Authority J. Anthony Mascarenas La Junta Housing Authority Theresa Folk Metro West Housing Solutions Bill Lunsford Metro West Housing Solutions Melanie Gurule Lamar Housing Authority Dan Burnham Littleton Housing Authority Kimberly Kamay Littleton Housing Authority Bonnie Osborn Douglas County Housing Partnership Moofie A. Miller Housing Authority of the City of Loveland Carol Kemp Montrose County Housing Authority Tim Heavers Montrose County Housing Authority Frank D. Pacheco Pueblo Housing Authority K. Grosscup Garfield County Housing Authority William Herrboldt Sterling Housing Authority Cindy Barnett Hull Wray Housing Authority Janelle Devlin Yuma Housing Authority None given* City of Arvada Joseph Garcia Manager, City of Aurora, Community

Development Division Michelle Allen City of Boulder Jan Hamilton City and County of Broomfield HHS Valorie Jordan City of Colorado Springs Tiffany Colvert El Paso County ReJean Peeples City and County of Denver Leona Perkins Eagle County Housing & Development Bill Wallace Summit County Jo Ann Sorensen Clear Creek County Carmen Ramirez City of Longmont-Community & Neighborhood

Resources Debbie Hughes City of Thornton Tony K. Watson Barvista Building Systems Nick Keller Teton Buildings LLC Tara Lifford VFP, Inc. Kate Behnken San Luis Valley Mental Health Center Gillian* Aurora Mental Health Jean Morrill Mental Health Center Serving Boulder and

Broomfield Counties Lynne Navin Mental Health Center Serving

Boulder and Broomfield Counties Jodi Vaimagalo Community Reach Center


Leslie Parker Community Reach Center Jenni* Axis Health System Erica Keter Axis Health System Ken Kroneberger Jefferson Center for Mental Health Katie Hasselgren Arapahoe/Douglas Mental Health Network Kirstin Schelling Centennial Mental Health Center Eugene Medina Arapahoe House Roger Watkins Spanish Peaks Regional Health Center John Hazlehurst Colorado Springs Business Journal Rachel Willis San Luis Valley Housing Coalition Tracy Walters Thistle Communities Shaylene Kraft Hughes Station LLLC Diana Telford Partners In Housing Michelle Mitchell Colorado Housing Assistance Corporation Marvin Kelly Del Norte NDC Kristin Delcamp Habitat for Humanity of Metro Denver Getabecha Mekonnen Northeast Denver Housing Center Joyce Alms-Ransford Rocky Mountain HDC, Inc. Dianna L. Kunz Volunteers of America Clark Haggard Housing Solutions for the Southwest Wendie Robinson Neighbor to Neighbor Monie Stites Tri-County Housing & CDC Mary Simonson Imagine Julie Simmons Colorado Housing, Inc. Jenny Russell Affordable Housing Solutions Connie Baker Wolfe Rural Community Assistance Corporation Nancy Burke Colorado Apartment Association Christopher Stefan Marcus & Millichap Derek Camunez RE/MAX Avenues Susan Aldretti Jefferson County Association of Realtors Linda Love Target Realty Solutions Marta Loachamin Century 21 Vicki Hall Springfield West Paulette St. James Colorado Dept. of Human Services Kim* Colorado Dept. of Human Services-

Supportive Housing & Homeless programs Caitlyn Dorris Colorado Dept. of Human Services-

Supportive Housing & Homeless programs Karyn Mandler Colorado Dept. of Human Services-

Supportive Housing & Homeless programs Ryan McMaken Colorado Dept. of Local Affairs,

Division of Housing *Participant did not supply complete name

Methodology Used

The State of Colorado used a combination of primary and secondary sources to analyze current fair housing conditions in the state. Primary sources included:

• Two surveys made available online, one for those involved in providing affordable and accessible housing and another for the general public;

• 2008 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data


• Reports on fair housing Complaint Filings from OFHEO and Colorado Civil Rights Division.

Secondary sources included:

• The United States Census American Community Survey, 2005-2009 5-year Estimates, 2007-2009 3-year Estimates and 2009 1-year Estimates

• U.S. Census Population Estimates • Colorado demographic projections from the Colorado Demographer’s office. • Discriminatory Predatory Lending in Colorado, Colorado Civil Rights Division,

July, 2009 • Housing Mismatch and Rent Burden Information for Rental Housing in

Colorado, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing, April 2010

• State of Working Colorado 2009, Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute • DiversityData.org: Profile summaries by Metropolitan Statistical Area from

http://diversitydata.sph.harvard.edu • A Step in the Right Direction: 2010 fair housing Trends Report, National fair

housing Alliance, May 26, 2010 • Housing and Community Grants, GAO Report to Congressional Requestors,

September, 2010. • The State of fair housing, Annual Report on fair housing FY 2009, U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, July, 2010 • Between the Lines: A Question and Answer Guide on Legal Issues in

Supportive Housing, Law Offices of Goldfarb & Lipman, Corporation for Supportive Housing, 2001

• Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase I

and Phase II of the Housing Discrimination Study (HDS), Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2005

• Statistical Report: Fiscal Year 2008, Colorado Dept. of Corrections • Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States, 2000.

Collected by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies

(ASARB) and distributed by the Association of Religion Data Archives

(www.theARDA.com).

• What Does It Mean to Have a Disability in Colorado? Six Key Issues, the Colorado State Independent Living Council, July 2010

Notes on Terminology and Sources

Racial and Ethnic Categories This report uses the Census Bureau’s categories for race and ethnicity. Under this system, people are asked to self-identify their race using the following categories:

• White • Black/African American • American Indian/Alaskan Native • Asian • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander • Some other race • Two or more races

Hispanic/Latino is treated as an Ethnicity rather than a racial category, as people with Hispanic ancestry can be of any race.


Households and families are identified by the race and ethnicity of the head of household only. To conserve space where necessary, this document will refer to Black/African Americans as Black and Hispanic/Latino as Hispanic. The standard abbreviation for American Indian/Alaska Native is AIAN; for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander is NHPI; Some Other Race is SOR. The American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau collects its data by sampling a percentage (1 in 40) of the population on an ongoing basis rather than everyone. While this provides more current data than the Decennial Census count, the data collected is subject to sampling error. American Community Survey estimates are published with their margins of error (MOE) set at the 90% confidence level – in other words we can be 90 percent sure that the range established by the margin of error contains the true value. Some subgroups of Colorado’s population, such as the numbers for Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders, are so small that the margins of error from sampling one-fortieth of them are very large, rendering the data unreliable. Data concerning people with disabilities is not readily available. Because the ACS changed its questions about people with disabilities during the 2005-2009 time frame, there are no five-year figures available, and the numbers over shorter periods also have greater margins of error. Specific subjects for which there is no available census data include income and employment data. Where possible other sources of data have been used instead. In all cases, data used is the most recently available. Unfortunately, this means that information on one topic may not be for the same time period as data for another topic. Data from the 2000 Decennial Census has been used in some circumstances where more recent data was unavailable during the compilation of this report. Our next update of this report will be based more consistently on the 2010 Census, which was not available in time for the preparation of this report. The Census Bureau does not collect information on religious affiliation, although religion is a protected class. This report has used data from the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies for the year 2000.

How Funded

This analysis was funded from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs 2010 CDBG matching funds using existing staff.

Executive Summary and Conclusions

Significant impediments to fair housing exist in Colorado. Housing discrimination can be hard to prove in the absence of formal testing, but can be inferred from other sources. It is reflected in the impediments listed below.

By analyzing the most recent available U.S. Census and American Community Survey data, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, surveys of the housing and


disability communities and of the general public in Colorado, Analyses of Impediments (AIs) from Colorado entitlement areas, reports of fair housing complaints, and various other reports and documentation, we can discern social and economic patterns as well as common concerns.

Division of Housing staff reviewed these source documents, compared the number of times that issues were raised in surveys and AIs, and the degree to which hard data supported those concerns to compile the following list of impediments and proposed actions to address them. The impediments and actions are addressed in more detail at the end of this document.


Impediments Found

Lack of Fair Housing Education and Coordination

Review of survey responses and Analyses of Impediments from entitlement areas indicates that many residents and property managers do not have access to information about fair housing rights and responsibilities. Most of the following impediments appear to be related to lack of knowledge, so this appears to be an underlying problem.

High Housing Costs Combined with Low Income/Wages

Survey responses, entitlement-area Analyses of Impediments, and Colorado Division of Housing Rental Housing Mismatch report and American Community Survey data most frequently name the shortage of affordable units for households with low and very low incomes. The lack of affordable housing has a disparate impact on Black/African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, women and people with disabilities because higher percentages of these protected classes are low income. However, high housing cost is not, in and of itself, an impediment to fair housing. It is the actions that communities take to limit the types and locations of affordable housing that can represent impediments to fair housing when they cause or exacerbate existing segregation, whether or not that is the community’s intent. The shortage and cost of housing specifically suited to people with disabilities is an additional impediment, as is a shortage of apartments with more than three bedrooms, which makes it difficult to house large families who need to rent.

Causes of High Housing Costs

• Impact Development Fees

• Other local planning/zoning and building regulations

Impediments Specific to People with Disabilities

This was the largest single source of fair housing complaints filed from 2006-2009, accounting for nearly half of all filings:

• Lack of appropriate, accessible housing that is also affordable.

• Failure of landlords/property managers to provide reasonable accommodations for tenants with disabilities.

• Communication issues, especially for people with mental disabilities.

Community Resistance to Affordable and Special Needs

Housing

The “Not in My Back Yard Syndrome” is an impediment to fair housing because it discourages or may even prevent development of affordable housing that would provide fair housing choice to protected classes. Twelve of the fourteen communities whose Analyses of Impediments were reviewed cited this as a major impediment.


Lack of Fair Housing Enforcement

The economic downturn and subsequent reductions in State and Federal revenue have led to a lack of funding for fair housing testing and enforcement. No non-profit organizations in Colorado have received fair housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) funding since 2007. Comments in our survey noted lack of enforcement and difficulty in assistance when experiencing discrimination. The Colorado Civil Rights Division is the lead state agency for fair housing enforcement.

Predatory Lending and Foreclosures

A study by the Colorado Civil Rights Division found that minorities, especially Blacks and Latinos, were targeted for subprime mortgage loans and that these groups consequently have experienced a disproportionate number of foreclosures.

Language and Cultural Issues

Persons who do not speak English well may be vulnerable to discrimination or unfair acts. Language barriers especially complicate landlord/tenant issues. Colorado’s population of low-English proficiency Spanish-speakers is 7.3%.

Transportation

Lack of public transit in many areas of the state as well as lack of affordable housing along existing transit routes impede fair housing choice. Housing patterns, location of employment opportunities and public transit are not coordinated so as to enable minorities and low income people to hold a job without having a car.

Local Government Regulations

Planning and zoning, definitions of “family,” land use plans, development fees, growth management programs and housing design specifications may increase the cost of housing and otherwise create impediments to fair housing choice.

Actions To Address Impediments


• Develop programs to educate landlords and property managers about fair housing, especially as it affects people with disabilities.

• Train CDOH staff to improve fair housing Technical Assistance to housing providers and services to the public.

• Further develop the CDOH fair housing web page.

• Promote fair housing education offered by other organizations.

• Provide information about funding available for fair housing (NOFAs).


• Provide or coordinate fair housing training with other statewide, federal and nonprofit housing agencies, statewide disability organizations and other fair housing leaders.

• Ensure that all partners provide webpage links to the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), along with information about fair housing.


• Annually, publish “Affordable Housing: A Guide for Local Officials” as a tool for local governments in creating affordable housing and reducing regulatory barriers.

• Work to use Section 3 requirements more effectively to create jobs and

economic opportunity in low income areas that are receiving federal funds.


• Provide technical assistance to property managers on how to fill accessible units with people who need them.

• Try again to create a program to assist landlords in modifying units to meet accessibility standards in order to increase the supply of accessible units. Look into possible funding sources for these modifications could be Medicaid and/or funds from Section 504 settlements through Colorado Civil Rights Division.

• Encourage local housing and disability service agencies to conduct tenant training programs to increase client knowledge of fair housing rights.

• Combined the administration of all Housing programs under the Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing by transferring administration of housing choice vouchers for people with disabilities from the Department of Human Services.

• DOLA will release key documents in large print versions to make them more accessible.

• Establish an Advisory Board comprised of people with disabilities for the Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs section of DOH.

• DOLA is revising and updating its web site and will meet ADA accessibility standards.

• Include the disability community in projects to Affirmatively Further fair housing.

• Ensure that at least one member of the State Housing Board is a member of the disability community as required under Senate Bill 1183, passed in the most recent legislative session.

• Add information on accessibility requirements to DOH’s Developers’ Toolkit training workshop.

• Encourage the development of housing without steps and with wide hallways and bathroom doors.


Community Resistance to Affordable and Special Needs

Housing

• Continue to promote awareness of the need for affordable housing in Colorado communities.

• Partner with the Division of Local Government, the Colorado Municipal League, Colorado Counties Incorporated and housing developers to promote “best planning practices” that involve neighborhoods and the public at the beginning of the housing development process.

• Enhance public education about the community effects of affordable/special needs housing through publications and public speaking.

• Direct housing developers to Knowledgeplex for information on working with neighbors to allay unfounded fears about the economic and social effects of affordable and special needs housing.


• Request that HUD conduct or fund fair housing testing

• Seek out new sources of funding for testing

• Increase access to information and assistance about filing fair housing complaints


• Develop a list of Department of Local Affairs employees who are bilingual and competent to act as interpreters and/or translators

• Increase outreach to tenants and landlords

• Analyze needs of Limited English Proficiency persons in Colorado and adopt a Language Assistance Plan.

• Offer access to translations of fair housing information into Spanish through web site links to HUD and CCRD.

Transportation

• Continue to promote Sustainable Communities, which encompass transportation and economic opportunity as well as affordable housing.

• Encourage development of affordable housing in close proximity to public transit, especially where it provides access to better employment opportunities.

• Encourage the placement of affordable housing close to services in places where public transportation is not economically feasible.


• Continue to educate local governments about barriers to affordable and fair housing.


• Ensure that local government applicants have Fair Housing Plans in place and that they enforce them prior to making housing grants or loans.

• Perform further research into local government planning and zoning policies that affect fair housing opportunity.


II. II. II. II. State of ColoradoState of ColoradoState of ColoradoState of Colorado Background Data Background Data Background Data Background Data

Demographic Data

According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2009 population estimates, Colorado ranks 22nd in the nation for total population, with an estimated 5,024,748 persons. 50.3% of the population is male, 49.7% is female. Colorado’s population grew an average annual rate of 1.7% from 2000 to 2005, 2% from 2005 to 2010 and is expected to grow at an average rate of 1.8% from 2010 to 2020 (Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs [DOLA] Office of Demography,

2008).

Racial and Ethnic Composition

The 2005-2009 American Community Survey estimates that Colorado’s population is 83.7% White, 3.9% Black or African American, 2.6% Asian, 1.0% American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.1% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 8.7% some other race or more than one race. 955,664 people of any race, 19.7% of Colorado’s population, self-identified as Hispanic or Latino in ethnicity.

Figure 1, Colorado vs. U.S. Population by Ethnicity

Compared to the U.S. as a whole, Colorado’s population is more White and Hispanic, and contains a much lower percentage of Black/African Americans than the nation. Denver is the largest city in Colorado with an estimated population of 610,345 in 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau population estimate), and the seven-county metro Denver area of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties has a population of 2,801,318 for the same year.

Comparison of U.S. and Colorado Populations, Race and Ethnicity 2009

0.00%10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

United States Colorado

Percent of population

White, Non-Hispanic

Hispanic or Latino - all races

Black/African American


The entire Denver metropolitan area is forecast to grow to 3.3 million by 2020, an annual average growth rate of 1.6 percent, slightly lower than the growth rate expected statewide. Other major cities in Colorado include Aurora, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Grand Junction, Greeley, Lakewood and Pueblo. The Western Slope continues to be the fastest growing region in the state with an annual growth rate averaging 2.8 percent between 2005 and 2010 compared to the 2.0 percent growth rate statewide. The North Front Range and Central Mountains are also expected to have above average growth rates, while the Eastern Plains and San Luis Valley are expected to continue growing at rates near 1 percent (similar to the Nation). In 2000, Colorado had an average of 41.5 persons per square mile while the density of the United States was 79.6 persons per square mile. The Census Bureau estimates Colorado’s 2010 density at 48.5 persons per square mile compared to 87.4 persons per square mile for the United States.

Minority and Racial Concentrations

The following maps and information are based on the 2000 Decennial Census because the 2010 Census data was not available while this document was being prepared. We plan to update this section with that information in an annual update document for 2011. Data Distortions Created by Correctional Facilities

When looking at the following maps of minority concentrations, be aware that since members of non-white racial groups are disproportionately represented in prison populations, they can distort the apparent presence of their groups in non-urban areas. In contrast to Colorado’s general population, state prison inmates were 46% White, 31% Hispanic/Latino, and 20% Black/African American in 2008.

Based on the 2000 Decennial Census for Colorado, there were 30,136 people in correctional facilities. 13,751 were non-Hispanic White (45.6%), 6,640 were Black or African American (22%), and 8,316 were Hispanic (27.6%). State Correctional facilities are located in Crowley, Delta, Fremont, Kit Carson, Lincoln and Logan counties.

Black/African American

In the 2000 Census, the Black/African American population in Colorado numbered 165,063, or approximately 3.8%. 2005-2009 American Community Survey estimates put the number at 191,329 (± 2,725), or 3.9%.

In 2005, HUD released a report “Discrimination in Metropolitan Markets Phase I,” based on 2000-2001 paired testing research by the Urban Institute in various housing markets nationally, including Denver. The report noted consistent adverse treatment against Black renters in Denver 19.4% of the time, and against potential Black homebuyers 19.7% of the time. The most common forms of adverse treatment were that Blacks were less likely than whites to be told that similar rental units were available for rent and were less likely to be able to inspect the advertised unit or a


similar one. They were also less likely to receive follow-up contact from the agent. The report revealed a significant decrease in discrimination between 1989 and 2000, but has not been repeated since, so we don’t know whether that reduction has continued.

Figure 2 Areas of Black/African American Concentration in Colorado, 2000

Most Black/African Americans live in the Denver metropolitan area or in Colorado Springs. The heavy concentration shown in southwest El Paso County reflects the presence of military bases in the area. The concentration shown in Fremont county

is due to the presence of a cluster of correctional facilities in Cañon City. Other

concentrations of Black/African Americans in Delta County, Crowley County, Lincoln County, Kit Carson County and Logan County also reflect the presence of state correctional facilities in low-density population areas.

Hispanic Ethnicity

The Hispanic population has a long, rich history in Colorado. In fact, early Spanish explorations not only mapped and named many Colorado settlements, they also contributed to our language, religion, custom and culture. The sources of concentration of Hispanics in Colorado vary by region. In southern Colorado, especially the San Luis Valley, it is the result of the history of Spanish settlement prior to the time Colorado became a U.S. Territory. In other areas, Hispanics were historically recruited as agricultural labor and encouraged to stay. In the past 20 years, there has been a lot of immigration as people primarily from Mexico have come to find work in Colorado in the construction and tourism industries, among others.


Figure 3, Concentrations of Hispanic Population

Southern Colorado and the San Luis Valley:

Spain claimed the area of Colorado south of the Arkansas River and west of a line running north from its headwaters in Fremont county to the 41st parallel as Spanish Territory. While Spanish/Hispanic pioneers attempted to settle in this area, they were driven back by the Utes, Comanches or Apaches defending their territory.

The land became part of Mexico following the Mexican War of Independence in 1821. The Mexican government tried to secure the northern border by making large land grants to some of its citizens in return for promises to settle the area and hold it against both U.S. citizens and Native Americans.

The Conejos grant covered the area that is now Conejos and Rio Grande counties, as well as parts of Saguache and Alamosa Counties. The Sangre de Cristo grant roughly approximated what is now Costilla County. The largest land grant, the Vigil and St. Vrain, extended from the Sangre de Cristo mountains east, and included large portions of Huerfano, Las Animas, Pueblo and Otero counties. Smaller land grants included parts of Archuleta, Saguache, Pueblo and Las Animas counties.

The map below, created by the Colorado State Archives, shows the location of these grants.


Figure 4, Mexican Land Grants in Colorado

Key:

Conejos Grant Sangre de Cristo Grant

Luis Baca Grant Tierra Amarilla Grant

Maxwell Grant Vigil and St. Vrain Grant

Nolan Grant

This map coincides closely with concentration of Hispanic population in Southern Colorado today.

These granted lands, however, were not successfully settled until after the United States acquired them by war with Mexico in 1848. Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the war, the U.S. agreed to recognize the property rights of Mexican settlers, and subsequently built forts to protect the area from the Native Americans. Hispanic settlers began to come north, creating homes, ranches, farms and new towns like San Luis, which dates to 1852, predating both the founding of Denver and the creation of Colorado as a Territory. Some southern Colorado towns such as San Luis and Antonito retain much of their rich Spanish history.

Non-Hispanic settlers converged on these areas after the arrival of the rail roads, and the earlier residents had to struggle to retain their ownership of the land. Contrary to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, much of the land was stripped away from the Hispanic settlers because U.S. courts refused to honor the terms of the land grants.

This history of Hispanic settlement accounts for the high percentage of people with Hispanic ancestry in southern Colorado, especially in Rio Grande, Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Huerfano and Las Animas counties. Two particular points of census data (from the 2000 Decennial Census) support this contention.


1. The great majority of Hispanics in these counties, especially Conejos and Costilla, are native born:

Table 1, Native-Born Hispanics in the San Luis Valley

Alamosa County 91.6%

Conejos County 95.8%

Costilla County 91.5%

Rio Grande County 87.6%

Saguache County 72.2%

2. Hispanic people in these counties most often self-identify as Spanish, Spaniard, Spanish-American or “other” rather than identifying with another Spanish-speaking country.

For example, in Conejos County 23.5% of those who claimed Hispanic identity in the 2000 Census said they were specifically of Mexican origin while 76.2% identified as “Other Hispanic.” Similarly, in Costilla County, 29% said they were Mexican in origin, while 70.2% said they were “Other Hispanic.”

These two counties contrast strongly with Colorado’s overall Hispanic population, where 61.3% of Hispanics claim Mexican ancestry, while only 34.1% say they are “Other Hispanic.”

In sum, the Hispanic concentration in this area does not fit the expected pattern of segregation due to the majority population forcing members of a minority to live in a segregated area. In fact, the concentration of Hispanics persists in spite of discriminatory behavior on the part of the non-Hispanic population.

This part of the state has consistently experienced a high rate of poverty relative to the rest of Colorado. Many steps have been taken to promote economic development and reduce poverty in the San Luis Valley. Most recently, the City of Monte Vista, in Rio Grande County, was selected by former Governor Ritter as a Sustainable Main Streets Initiative pilot community. As one of four pilot communities in the state for this initiative, Monte Vista focused on downtown revitalization and restoring historic properties for re-use, and making the downtown more pedestrian-friendly.

The city received funding to develop a market analysis and leakage study. They partnered with a nonprofit group to hire a firm to complete a community analysis (i.e., branding). They are working with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to develop and implement a wayfinding signage plan. Colorado State University students developed preliminary design drawings in partnership with community members for two historic building renovations downtown. A nonprofit professional association worked with key community stakeholders to perform a pedestrian safety assessment in the downtown area (free of charge). Also as part of the initiative, CDOT is working with the city to develop a plan for highway and streetscape improvements in the downtown core area. The cooperative agreement allows for traffic flow, safety and pedestrian safety, and by working together, they have not only improved the resulting project but they have reduced total community costs through planning efficiencies.

These are examples of the types of resources brought to bear to help Monte Vista address their priority outcomes, which included revitalizing the downtown, improving pedestrian safety, and improving energy efficiency.


Finally, as part of the initiative, the Department of Local Affairs applied on behalf on the pilot communities to the HUD Challenge and DOT TIGER II grant programs. The project was awarded joint funding. Monte Vista will receive $94,376 in HUD Challenge funds, and $47,000 in state funds, to develop construction-ready design drawings for the renovation of an historic building downtown. The city's plan is to create affordable housing units above retail space on the ground floor. This strategy helps the city address its goals to provide affordable housing, make the downtown more pedestrian friendly, preserve historic character, and continue to develop and redevelop sustainably.

Between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010, CDOH provided nearly $7.8 million in assistance to counties in the valley, including funds for single-family rehabilitation, down payment assistance, rental housing, Housing Choice vouchers, assistance for the homeless, and Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) operating funds to build non-profit capacity in the area.

Only one loan program, a single-family owner-occupied rehabilitation program operated by the San Luis Valley Housing Coalition and funded through the City of Alamosa, reported that 53% of its loans were made to Hispanic borrowers, a number reasonably consistent with the Hispanic population of the area participating in the program (Alamosa, Costilla, Conejos, Saguache counties and the town of Monte Vista). This program continues to provide rehabilitation loans, with new grants awarded in 2009 and 2010, but no beneficiary information is available at this time.

All counties in the San Luis Valley are included in the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade’s Enhanced Rural Enterprise Zone Program, which provides tax credits to businesses “to promote and encourage new job creation in designated economically lagging rural Enterprise Zone counties.”

Agricultural Immigrants

Other areas of the state have higher proportions of Hispanics in their populations because they are farming areas where agricultural work has long been performed by this group.

This is particularly true of Weld and Larimer Counties in the northern part of the state. In the early part of the 20th century, recruiters went to New Mexico and Mexico to recruit agricultural workers. According to one source, 45,000 Hispanic workers came to Colorado as a result. Most went to work in the sugar beet fields of Weld and Larimer counties migrating south to north and back each year. In the 1920s, employers, especially the Great Western Sugar Company, began building colonies where Mexican and Spanish-American workers could live year round1. The company reasoned that it would save costs in the long run by helping to reduce training costs and retaining the best workers. The colonies were built on the outskirts of towns in Weld County, resulting in the segregation of the farm workers from the community at large.

While agricultural immigration dropped off during the 1930’s, recruitment began again for farm workers during the 1940s because of the labor shortage created by World War II.

1 Weld’s Untold Story, http://www.greeleytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010404/WORLDSAPART/112310252&template=printart, accessed 2/15/2011


Many of the agricultural workers who were recruited and housed put down roots in northern Colorado, and segregation into specific areas is the result of the original settlements created for them.

Recent Immigration

The concentration of Hispanics in Eagle and Lake counties in 2000 is more recent in origin. These are areas of relatively affordable housing for people who work in the very high-cost resort areas of Vail/Beaver Creek, Aspen, and throughout Summit County. While employment by ethnicity data is hard to come by on a county or census tract level, it is most likely that these are Hispanic immigrants working in jobs in construction, and resort services such as accommodations, food service, and retail. The location of their housing is related to housing costs and the overall shortage of worker housing in the area.

The full extent of Hispanic immigration, both legal and undocumented, is difficult to determine because gathering information is complicated by undocumented families’ fear of deportation. According to the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute 2004 study entitled The State of Working Immigrants in Colorado:

“The majority of the immigrant workers surveyed came to Colorado from Mexico to find work as day laborers, and made an average of about $15,000 a year, including tips. Most of the workers reported paying state and federal taxes, yet indicated they did not receive government benefits. For the most part, the workers did not have individual or family health care insurance coverage. They paid an average of $571 a month in housing costs, and an average of $149 a month in utility costs. Additionally, well over half of the workers indicated that they send money to their families in their country of origin, monthly or occasionally.”

Latino immigrant families are often large, close-knit, multi-generational households. Size and relatedness of household members are issues in some Colorado jurisdictions. To stem the flow of arrivals, some communities are redefining the concept of family by limiting the number of people who are allowed to live under one roof via building codes that limit the number of occupants according to square footage or by the number of bedrooms. Other communities already have such policies on the books, but do not rigidly enforce those laws. Nonprofit service providers express concern that Spanish-speaking legal and undocumented immigrants may be targeted by predatory lenders. A 2006 study published by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission validated that concern.

In its “Discrimination in Metropolitan Markets Phase I” study HUD found that in the Denver Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), Hispanic renters were subjected to adverse treatment 15.1% of the time, and potential Hispanic homebuyers 19.2% of the time. While no individual measure of adverse treatment was statistically significant in the rental market, prospective Hispanic homebuyers were less likely to inspect homes similar to the ones that were advertised. HUD also studied the Pueblo MSA with regard to discrimination against Hispanics in the real estate market. They found a 28.4% occurrence of adverse treatment against renters and a 6.6% occurrence against prospective Hispanic homebuyers.


MIGRANT AND SEASONAL WORKERS

According to the Colorado Department of Labor, Colorado is federally designated as a significant Migrant and Seasonal Farm Worker (MSFW) state, and the MSFW population is predominantly Spanish speaking. Migrant workers in Colorado often work in rural areas in both agricultural and in service sectors. Migrant farm workers fall into two categories: those who come for a growing season (beginning in May) and move on at about the end of October, and those who come to work in agriculture but remain in the state year-round. It is estimated that 30,000 workers travel to Colorado to participate in agricultural work but do not stay in the state after

the season ends2.

There are six Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers (MSFW) workforce centers in

Colorado: Brighton, Greeley, Lamar, Monte Vista, Delta and Rocky Ford. 3 These

centers provide employment services to migrant and seasonal farm workers. MSFW outreach provides a full range of services such as help completing applications, counseling, testing, job training and placement, and referral to supportive services.

Asians and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders

The 2005-2009 ACS found that 2.6% of Colorado’s population is of Asian ancestry, and another 0.1% is of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander descent.

According to Discrimination in Metropolitan Markets Phase II, Asians and Pacific Islanders face significant levels of housing discrimination in the United States. The study did not, however, perform testing in Colorado for Asian Americans.

The map below shows the Asian population distribution in Colorado at the time of the 2000 Census; the NHPI population is too small to map.

Figure 5, Concentrations of Asian Population

2 Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Colorado 2005; p. 5 Colorado Department of Public Health and

Environment 3 Colorado Department of Labor and Employment 2007


American Indian/Alaska Native

Native Americans comprise 1% of Colorado’s total population. There are two federally recognized tribes in Colorado: the Southern Ute Tribe that inhabits parts of Archuleta and La Plata Counties, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe located in Montezuma County, portions of northern New Mexico and southeastern Utah.

Figure 6, Concentrations of Native American Population

Southern Ute Tribal membership (population) was 1,365 at the time of the 2000

Census, with about 75% of the Tribal members residing on the reservation4. The

enrollment for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe was 1,968 with the majority of the members living on the reservation in Towaoc, and a smaller community in White Mesa, Utah.

Many other Native American tribes are represented in Colorado including the Crow, Cheyenne, Arapahoe, Sioux, Ute, Kiowa, Comanche, Apache, Caddo, Navajo, Hopi, Nez Pierce, Shoshoni, Shebits, Kaibab, and Paiute. Census 2000 special tabulations show a total of 79,689 persons of American Indian and Alaska Native ancestry reside in Colorado. According to “A Guide to Colorado Legal Resources for Native Americans, “more than 21,300 make their homes in the six county (Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, Jefferson, Boulder and Douglas) metropolitan area. A historic migratory crossroads for numerous American Indian tribes and a former 1950s Bureau of Indian Affairs ‘Voluntary Relocation Center,’ Denver is often referred to as the ‘Hub of Indian Country.’ Unfortunately, the Native American population is one of the poorest, if not the poorest, in the state.”

According to HUD’s 2003 Study, “Discrimination In Metropolitan Housing Markets

Phase III – Native Americans: “…findings clearly indicate that discrimination is a

4 U.S. Census Bureau, 2005


serious problem for American Indians searching for housing in metropolitan rental markets, and (sic) rigorous paired testing can and should be expanded for both research and enforcement purposes.“

Although homeownership is touted as one of the most important means of building personal wealth in America, Native American homeownership lags far behind other racial and ethnic groups. Nationally, only 40.7 % of Native Americans living on reservation or trust land are homeowners, according to a 2002 study by Rutgers University.

Language and Cultural Barriers

According to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 7.3 percent of Colorado residents speak English “less than very well.” These people could be considered to have Limited English Proficiency (LEP). LEP persons are more formally defined as those who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English. Most of the LEP population, 255,443 (± 5,219) are Spanish-speaking. Non-entitlement counties where more than five percent of the population have limited English proficiency are shown in the table below.

Table 2, Counties In Non-Entitlement Areas With 5% or More Low-English Proficiency Spanish Speakers

County Percent of Population

Eagle 17.2%

Saguache 15.2%

Garfield 12.6%

Phillips 12.4%

Prowers 12.0%

Lake 11.3%

Costilla 11.0%

Morgan 10.4%

Yuma 10.1%

Kit Carson 10.0%

Alamosa 9.0%

Summit 9.0%

Weld 8.1%

Rio Grande 7.5%

Pitkin 7.0%

Montrose 6.1%

Conejos 5.6%

San Miguel 5.4%

Huerfano 5.1%

Rio Blanco 5.0%

In contrast, 25,693 (± 1,452) people with limited English proficiency speak some other Indo-European language, and 37,417 (± 1,554) speak an Asian or Pacific Islander language.


Improving Access To Services For Persons With Limited English

Proficiency (LEP)

For Limited English Proficiency Persons (LEP), language can be a barrier to accessing important benefits or services, understanding and exercising important rights, complying with applicable responsibilities, or understanding other information provided about HUD-funded programs. In certain circumstances, failure to ensure that LEP persons can effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs and activities may violate the prohibition under Title VI against discrimination on the basis of national origin. This section of the Analysis of Impediments incorporates the Notice of Guidance to Federal Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, published December 19, 2003 in the Federal Register.

The Colorado Division of Housing and Division of Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs (the Agencies) will take affirmative steps to communicate with people who need services or information in a language other than English.

In order to determine the level of access needed by LEP persons, the Agencies will balance the following four factors:

(1) the number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by HUD-funded programs;

(2) the frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with the programs;

(3) the nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the program to people’s lives; and

(4) the resources available to the Agencies and costs.

Balancing these four factors will ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to critical services while not imposing undue burdens on the Agencies.

Oral Interpretation

In situations in which health, safety, or access to important benefits and services are at stake, the Departments will generally offer, or ensure that LEP persons are offered through other sources, competent interpretation services free of charge.

The Agencies will analyze the various kinds of contacts they have with the public to assess language needs and decide what reasonable steps should be taken. “Reasonable steps” may not be reasonable where the costs imposed substantially exceed the benefits.

Where feasible, the Agencies will train and hire bilingual staff to be available to act as interpreters and translators, will pool resources with other agencies, and will standardize documents. Where feasible and possible, the Agencies will encourage the use of qualified community volunteers.

Where LEP persons desire, they will be permitted to use, at their own expense, an interpreter of their own choosing, in place of or as a supplement to the free language services offered by the Agencies. The interpreter may be a family member or friend.


Written Translation

Translation is the replacement of written text in one language with equivalent written text in another language.

In order to comply with written-translation obligations, the Agencies will take the following steps:

• Provide written translations of vital documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes 5 percent or 1,000 persons, whichever is less, of the population of persons eligible to be served or likely to be affected or encountered. Translation of other documents, if needed, can be provided orally; or

• If there are fewer than 50 persons in a language group that reaches the 5 percent trigger, the Agencies do not translate vital written materials, but provide written notice in the that group’s primary language of the right to receive competent oral interpretation of those written materials, free of cost.

Implementation Plan

After completing the four-factor analysis and deciding what language assistance services are appropriate, the Agencies shall determine whether it is necessary to develop a written implementation plan to address the identified needs of the LEP populations it serves.

If the Agencies determine that it is not necessary to develop a written implementation plan, the absence of a written plan does not obviate the underlying obligation to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to federally funded programs and services.

If it is determined that the Agencies serve very few LEP persons, and the Agencies have very limited resources, they will not develop a written LEP plan, but will consider alternative ways to articulate a plan for providing meaningful access. Entities having significant contact with LEP persons, such as schools, grassroots and faith-based organizations, community groups, and groups working with new immigrants will be contacted for input into the process.

If the agencies determine it is appropriate to develop a written LEP plan, the following five steps will be taken: (1) Identifying LEP individuals who need language assistance; (2) identifying language assistance measures; (3) training staff; (4) providing notice to LEP persons; and (5) monitoring and updating the LEP plan.

Persons With Disabilities

The map below shows the distribution of persons with disabilities in Colorado, with darker areas highlighting larger concentrations of disabled populations. Parts of El Paso, Las Animas, Conejos, Montrose and Garfield Counties have the highest concentration of population with disability by Census block.


Figure 7, Concentrations of Persons with Disabilities

The 2009 American Community Survey estimates that 638,654 people in Colorado have a disability, or about 12.7 percent of the population age 5 and over. As many as 84,545 people, or 1.9 percent of the population age 5 and over, have difficulty performing self-care activities.

Table 3, Persons with Disabilities by Disability Type

SUBJECT Population # Persons

with a Disability

Population % with a

disability

STATE

POPULATION

5,024,748 638,654 12.7%

Sensory 240,925 4.79%

Mobility 232,907 4.64%

Cognitive 167,266 3.33%

Self-Care 84,545 1.68%

Leaving the Home

152,065 3.03%

Work Disability

257,504 5.12%

SOURCE: 2009 American Community Survey


Table 4, Distribution of Disabled Persons by Age Group in the 2000 Census

AGE GROUP % OF COLORADANS DISABLED

5 TO 17 Years Old 4%

18 to 64 Years Old 8%

65 Years Old and Older 35%

According to American Community Survey in 2009 there were 46,9761 persons in Colorado receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and 6,600 on Aid to the Needy Disabled (AND)2. An analysis of housing data completed in November, 2010 by the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs estimates that 44,197 of these SSI and AND recipients are already housed in affordable units. This analysis finds there are still 9,379 persons with disabilities who need affordable housing.

Another study, “Priced Out in 2008, Housing Crisis for People with Disabilities” found that the percentage of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) needed to rent a one-bedroom housing unit in Colorado in 2008 was 102%3.

Many of the homeless population are also disabled: the August 2006 Statewide Homeless Count found that approximately one in five homeless survey respondents reported mental illness (21.2%) and medical conditions (19.5%). Due to the stigmatizing nature of these questions, it is likely that disabling conditions were under-reported. Single persons (71%) and households without children (77%) were most likely to have at least one of five disabling conditions.

Persons Living With HIV/AIDS

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) which attacks the immune system’s ability to fight infections. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment reported 4,816 persons living with AIDS and 6,208 living with HIV in Colorado as of September 30, 2010.

Persons with HIV/AIDS are living longer, healthier lives due to research and treatment advances. The Colorado AIDS Project and its affiliated agencies across the state provide a range of housing and supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS. Affordable housing is a crucial element in helping clients and their families achieve meaningful, productive lives. However, the number of housing vouchers is not enough to meet the needs of the population. In addition, medical and supportive services are not readily available outside of the Denver metro area and either the client or the agency often must travel a considerable distance for services to be delivered. Lingering fear of HIV/AIDS contagion limits the rental housing available to this population, and requires maintaining the utmost level of confidentiality. 1 The United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 2 State of Colorado Joint Budget Committee Briefing, November, 2010 3 Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc; Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Housing Task Force


Serious Mental Illness

Based on the 2000 Census, the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Mental Health estimates that as many as 168,878 adults and children in Colorado may have a serious emotional disability (SED) or serious mental illness (SMI)4

In 2001, the TriWEST Group performed a study for the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) along with an analysis of mental health systems. They concluded that 571 additional Section 8 slots were needed, 41 HUD Supportive Housing slots were needed, 49 Single Room Occupancy Modified Rehab slots, 23 homeownership slots and 133 other housing slots were needed. This represents a total of 817 beds5.

Disabled Senior Citizens

As Colorado’s “baby boom” population ages (those born between the years 1946-1964), the need for age-appropriate housing and services that allow aging in place will increase dramatically. Areas with the highest projected increase in the population in the over-65 age group include areas of the I-70 corridor and central mountains, as well as Douglas, Elbert La Plata, San Juan and San Miguel Counties. Lincoln and Prowers counties will experience a slight decrease in the population age 65 years and older during the period.

Larger numbers of frail elderly will require new strategies to ensure that seniors are able to age in place. A 2007 study conducted for the Colorado Division of Housing by Community Strategies Institute estimated that 5,111 senior households are rent burdened.

Rehabilitation of units is an important strategy to help meet the housing needs of seniors. While there are many owner-occupied housing rehab programs, there are few housing rehab programs for senior or disabled clients who rent units in need improvements that allow aging in place.

According to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, there are three types of assisted living residences in Colorado: private pay, alternative care facilities (assisted living residences that are Medicaid certified) and residential treatment facilities for persons with severe and persistent mental illness. There are about 518 assisted living residences in Colorado (11/04). Any assisted living residence caring for 3 or more residents must be licensed. The 2004-2007 State Plan on Aging forecasts a significant growth of Assisted Living Facilities, but a very limited number of Assisted Living that will accept Medicaid payments.

The 2007-2011 State Plan on Aging forecasts that the number of seniors 85 years and older will increase from over 56,000 in 2008 to almost 63,000 in 2011. This population often has fewer resources and more needs for supportive housing.

4 n. d. “Population in Need of Mental Health Services and Public Agencies Service Use in Colorado” retrieved on August 29, 2007 from www.cdhs.state.co.us/dmh/de_pin_estimates_of_need.htm 5 An Assessment of Community Mental Health Resources)


Developmentally Disabled Individuals

According to Dr. David Braddock, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities at the University of Colorado, in testimony to the Colorado Senate House Interim Committee on Developmental Disabilities (DD) on July 18, 2007, “An estimated 9,000 families in Colorado aged 60+ care for family members with DD and over 3,000 persons with ID/DD are on [housing] waiting lists.”

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report to Congress entitled "Public Housing - Distressed Conditions in Developments for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities and Strategies Used for Improvement." (GAO-06-163, 12/05) in which they found 64 out of 76 housing projects included in their national study had fewer than five percent of the units that met the accessibility standards for persons with mobility disabilities.

David Bolin, Executive Director of Center for People with Disabilities (CPWD), reports that there are a significant number of persons with developmental disabilities that want to leave nursing homes who are unable to do so without supportive funding for housing and services.

Religious Groups

The U.S. Census does not collect information on religious affiliation in the Decennial census, making authoritative information difficult to find. However, the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (ASARB) collected data on 149 religious groups, mostly Christian, with estimates of the number of non-Christian adherents and makes information for the year 2000 available online at www.theARDA.com. According to their posted data, there were 753, 398 members of protestant Christian denomination in Colorado 752, 505 Catholic Christians, and 6,196 Orthodox Christians. They estimate that 2,604,002 people were not affiliated with any religion. Their estimated Jewish population for Colorado was 72,000 and the estimated number of Muslims was 14,855. Seventy-two Buddhist congregations and 7 Hindu congregations are reported, but there is no estimate of the number of their adherents.

Although very few fair housing complaints have been filed on the basis of religion, the Division of Housing is concerned that this will be a growing problem, especially with Muslim populations, in the near future.

The number of Muslims in Colorado is being studied, but at this time only estimates exist.

The following maps from ASARB show the relative density of religious groups by county in Colorado in 2000. Note that the same color does not represent the same level of adherence across all maps.

Protestant Christians were most heavily represented in the counties on the eastern border of the state, while Catholics were most prevalent in the south-central portion. Muslims are concentrated in the most metropolitan/urban areas. Although there are clearly areas of concentration of Jewish people, a specific pattern is not apparent.


Christian Denominations

Evangelical Protestants

Key Number of Adherents per 1000 population

147 to 309 44 to 74

115 to 146 0 to 42

83 to 114

Mainline Protestants

Key Number of Adherents per 1000:

89 to 223 36-55

70 to 86 5-36

56 to 69


Catholic Population

Key Number of Adherents per 1000

250 to 853 76 to 112

163 to 242 0 to 60

115 to 161

Figure 8, Rates of Catholic Adherence, 2000

Non-Christian Religions

Jewish Population

Figure 9, Estimated Rate of Jewish Adherents per 1000 population

Key

Number of Adherents per 1000

13 to 69 2 to 12 0 to 0


More recent information on the Jewish population is available in the 2007 Metro

Denver/Boulder Jewish Community Study conducted by Ukeles Associaties, Inc. According to that study, the Jewish population of the Denver/Boulder area had increased 33% since the previous study in 1997, totaling 83,900 in the seven-county study area, and making it the 16th largest Jewish community in the US.

Muslim Population – Rates of Adherence, 2000

Figure 10, Estimated Rate of Muslim Adherents by County as of

Key Number of Adherents per 1000

1 to 14

0 to 0

Information on the number of Muslims in Colorado’s population consists entirely of estimates. The total number is estimated to be 14,000 to 15,000.

Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States, 2000. Collected by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (ASARB) and distributed by the Association of Religion Data

Archives (www.theARDA.com).


Colorado Households

Colorado’s overall number of households was 1,869,276 according to the 2005-2009 5-year American Community Survey estimate, an increase of 12.7% percent since 2000. Female-headed households increased by 13.9 percent, male-headed households increased by 22.9 percent and non-family households increased 16.1 percent for the same time period (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community

Survey [ACS] 3-Year Estimates, Colorado Selected Social Characteristics).

Table 5, Household Characteristics, State of Colorado 2000 and 2008

Number of Households

Household Type 2000 2009 Difference %

Change

Family Households

Married couple families 858,671 946,419 87,748 10.2%

Female-headed households 158,979 178,503 19,524 12.3%

Male-headed households 66,811 78,663 11,852 17.7%

Subtotal 1,084,461 1,203,585 119,124 11.0%

Non-family Households

573,777 665,691 91,914 16.0%

Subtotal 573,777 665,691 91,914 16.0%

Total 1,658,238 1,869,276 211,038 12.7%

Source: 2008 American Community Survey, Colorado Selected Social Characteristics

Household Characteristics by Race

Table 6, Household Type by Race or Ethnicity, 2007-2009 American Community Survey

Number or Percentage of Households

Household Type

Non-Hispanic

White Hispanic Black AIAN Asian

Family Households 1,461,305 276,970 69,403 17,473 42,688

As % of All Households 62.6% 73.9% 59.9% 64.4% 67.0%

Married couple families 51.6% 49.0% 31.9% 37.2% 54.3%

With children under 18 20.8% 29.4% 15.2% 18.9% 30.9%

Female-headed households 7.6% 16.6% 22.1% 19.7% 8.7%

With children under 18 4.4% 11.8% 15.5% 14.6% 5.3%

Non-family Households 37.4% 26.1% 40.1% 35.6% 33.0%


Note: No data were available for Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander group. Other Household Facts from 2005-2009 American Community Survey:

• Of the 156,089 single-parent households in Colorado, 72.9 percent were female-headed

• Grandparents were responsible for grandchildren in 35,392 households • 623,912 households contained one or more people under 18 years • 347,649 households held one or more people 65 years or older; 137,529

people over 65 lived alone.

Female-Headed Households

According to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, there were 127,912 female-headed families with children under 18. The median income for these families is $32,807, just 41% of the median income for two-parent families ($80,201.) This income puts female-headed families at a disadvantage in finding affordable housing, since 30% of their monthly median income is $820, while the average statewide rent in as of the 3rd quarter of 2010 was $871.785.

Female-headed households with children make up a significantly greater proportion of Black, Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native households than White or Asian households. Family income for female-headed households in these groups is below $30,000 per year. In this income range, Colorado has only half the number of affordable housing units that are needed.

Table 7, Female-Headed Households by Race and Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity Percent of

Families

Median Family Income (Census)

Black 15.5% $27,258

AIAN 14.6% $23,942

Asian 5.3% $39,619

Hispanic 11.8% $21,782

White, non-Hispanic 4.4% $40,453 2005-2009 American Community Survey, Female-Headed Households with own children under 18

New Household Formation

By 2015, Colorado’s population aged 25 to 34 years old will increase by more than 14 percent over 2010, pushing housing demand higher through the formation of new households (DOLA, 2008). 2009 estimates show 699,987 persons in this age group, most of whom will choose a life partner and establish a new residence. This trend will likely spur a need for starter homes and apartments.

5 Colorado Multi-Family Housing Vacancy and Rental Survey, Third Quarter 2010, conducted by Gordon E. von Stroh, published by Colorado Division of Housing/Apartment Realty Advisors/ Pierce-Eislen


Income Data

Median Income

The 2005-2009 American Community Survey estimates Colorado Median household income as $56,222. Median income, however, varies greatly by race as well as by geographic area within the state.

Racial And Ethnic Differences In Median Income

Table 8, 2005-2009 Colorado Median Incomes by Race and Ethnicity

Race or Ethnicity Median Household Income

Median Family Income

All Races/Ethnicities $56,222 $69,591

Alaska Native/American Indian $40,675 $48,685

Asian $60,996 $70,708

Black/African American $33,354 $46,440

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

$52,675 $58,102

Hispanic or Latino $38,166 $40,575

White, not Hispanic $61,771 $78,296 Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey

As this table shows, African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and Native Hawaiians have median incomes lower than both the overall median and that of Asians and non-Hispanic Whites. Compared to non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics have a median household income only 61.8% as high. Black households fare even worse at 54%. This economic inequality manifests itself in lack of equal housing opportunity at all levels, from the ability to purchase a single family home to a higher chance of homelessness.

Gender Differences In Median Income

According to the American Community Survey 2005-2009, the median income for women aged 16 and over who have wages is 68.8% of the median income for men.

Table 9, 2005-2009 Colorado Median Income by Gender

Subject Total Margin of Error

Male Margin of

Error

Female Margin of

Error Population 16 years and over with earnings

2,831,386 ±5,793 1,538,680 ±3,545 1,292,706 ±4,036

Median Earnings (Dollars)

30,544 ±144 36,250 ±243 24,953 ±195

2005-2009 American Community Survey, Income for Population 16 Years and Over with Earnings, by Gender

Even taking educational attainment into consideration, women consistently have lower median income than men. In fact, the wage gap gets wider with more education beyond the high school level.


Table 10, Gender Differences in Median Earnings by Educational Level

Subject Total Margin

of Error

Male Margin

of Error

Female Margin

of Error

Population 25 years and over with earnings

36,201 ±165 42,703 ±268 29,782 ±216

Less than high school graduate

20,276 ±308 23,158 ±448 14,621 ±431

High school graduate (includes equivalency)

28,928 ±316 33,923 ±467 23,259 ±422

Some college or associate's degree

34,169 ±242 41,303 ±342 27,724 ±331

Bachelor's degree 46,261 ±407 57,789 ±850 37,146 ±395

Graduate or professional degree

59,707 ±743 75,912 ±1,071 47,487 ±660

2005-2009 American Community Survey, Income for Population 25 Years and Over with Earnings, by Gender

Income Distribution

By Race and Ethnicity

A review of the American Community Survey data for household income by race and ethnicity indicates a higher percentage of Black and Hispanic households at incomes below $35,000, while higher percentages of non-Hispanic White households have incomes greater than $75,000 per year. This disparity results in a lack of housing opportunity for these two groups because of the inadequate number of homes affordable for households at the lower income ranges.

Household Income Distribution by Race/Ethnicity

0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%

10.0%12.0%14.0%16.0%

Less

than

$10

,000

$10,0

00-$

14,9

99

$15,0

00-$

19,99

9

$20,0

00-$2

4,999

$25,0

00-$

29,9

99

$30,0

00-$

34,9

99

$35,0

00-$

39,9

99

$40,0

00-$

44,9

99

$45,0

00-$

49,9

99

$50,0

00-$

59,9

99

$60,0

00-$

74,9

99

$75,0

00-$

99,9

99

$100

,000

-$12

4,999

$125

,000

-$14

9,999

$150

,000

-$19

9,999

$200

,000

or m

ore

Black HouseholdsWhite Households

Hispanic Households

Figure 11 The source for the chart in Figure 1 is 2005-2009 American Community Survey, Tables B19001B, B19001H, B19001I. The total number of households by race or ethnic group in this set of estimates is 68,737 Black; 271,975 Hispanic; and 1,450,784 non-Hispanic White. There were not enough households in other racial categories to display meaningful information.


Income Distribution By Gender

Table 11, Percentage of Workers at Each Income Level By Gender

Income Range Male Margin of Error

Female Margin of Error

Full-time, year-round workers with earnings 991,069 ±4,710 654,595 ±3,833

$1 to $9,999 or loss 1.90% ±0.1 2.70% ±0.1

$10,000 to $14,999 4.10% ±0.2 5.40% ±0.2

$15,000 to $24,999 11.30% ±0.3 16.00% ±0.4

$25,000 to $34,999 14.70% ±0.3 20.90% ±0.3

$35,000 to $49,999 20.40% ±0.2 23.70% ±0.4

$50,000 to $64,999 15.10% ±0.2 13.90% ±0.2

$65,000 to $74,999 7.10% ±0.2 5.60% ±0.2

$75,000 to $99,999 11.10% ±0.2 6.40% ±0.2 Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Up to $50,000 in income, the percentage of women at each income range is greater than the percentage of men; at and above $50,000 the situation is reversed and a smaller percentage of women than men have earnings at that level. A graph of this table helps to visualize it.

Percentage of Men and Women at Each Income Range

4.10%

11.30%

14.70%

20.40%

11.10%

16.00%

20.90%23.70%

13.90%

5.60% 6.40%7.10%

15.10%

1.90%

5.40%2.70%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

$1 to

$9,9

99 o

r los

s

$10,

000

to $1

4,999

$15,

000

to $2

4,999

$25,

000

to $3

4,999

$35,

000

to $4

9,999

$50,

000

to $6

4,999

$65,

000

to $7

4,999

$75,

000

to $9

9,999

MenWomen

The result of this income distribution is that more women than men are limited in their housing choices because of the lack of housing affordable to people with lower incomes – 45% of women earn less than the $40,000 level at which the ratio of affordable rental units to households is less than 1:1. The greater number of women than men in the lower income ranges also accounts for the fact that female single-parent families are far more likely to live below the poverty line than families headed by males.


Employment Data

Shown below are unemployment rates from 1996-2010 from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. Unemployment rates surged after 9/11 then showed a steady recovery until the “Great Recession” of 2008.

Table 12 Labor Force Statistics

Labor Force Statistics for Colorado – Annual Averages 1996-2010

Year Labor Force Employment Unemployment

Unemployment Rate

1996 2,093,184 2,004,741 88,443 4.20

1997 2,150,160 2,080,012 70,148 3.30

1998 2,241,839 2,155,740 86,099 3.85

1999 2,264,105 2,198,147 65,958 2.90

2000 2,364,900 2,300,192 64,798 2.70

2001 2,395,264 2,303,494 91,770 3.80

2002 2,431,203 2,293,229 137,974 5.70

2003 2,463,161 2,311,998 151,163 6.10

2004 2,510,392 2,370,803 139,589 5.60

2005 2,547,895 2,419,241 128,654 5.00

2006 2,653,333 2,537,289 116,044 4.40

2007 2,695,834 2,591,404 104,430 3.90

2008 2,727,616 2,595,252 132,364 4.90

2009 2,701,026 2,492,540 208,486 7.70

Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment

Persons who are unemployed may receive services, apply for unemployment benefits and/or conduct a job search at local workforce center (see map).

Map 8


Colorado’s November 2010 overall unemployment rate was 8.6%. However, as the table below demonstrates, unemployment rates vary by race and ethnicity. Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans had rates of unemployment approximately twice as high as non-Hispanic Whites between 2005 and 2009.

Table 13, Unemployment Rate by Race and Ethnicity 2005-2009

RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN

Population 16 years & older

Margin Of Error (±)

Unemployment rate

Margin of Error (±)

White 3,225,457 4,782 5.6% 0.1

Black or African American

138,844 1,518 11.3% 0.8

American Indian and Alaska Native

36,010 1,454 12.3% 1.5

Asian 99,062 991 5.4% 0.6

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

3,908 439 10.9% 4.6

Hispanic or Latino origin (any race)

643,276 867 8.7% 0.3

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino

2,817,998 1,434 5.3% 0.1

Colorado State Demography Office from S2301: Employment Status, Data Set: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Survey: American Community Survey Geographic Area: Colorado

Housing Profile

Overview

Colorado’s more than 1.8 million households include nearly 600,000 renter households. While almost 70 percent of Colorado households are owner occupants, rental housing continues to be an important source of shelter for households at all income levels in Colorado.

Homeownership and rental rates vary by race and ethnicity in Colorado. As the tables below indicate, White non-Hispanic households are far more likely to own the homes they live in than are Hispanics and members of other racial groups.

Table 14, Colorado Homeowner and Renter Households By Race and Ethnicity

Race or Ethnicity Homeowner Households

Renter Households

Total Households

Total Population 1,274,736 594,540 1,869,276

Alaska Native/American Indian 8,017 9,029 17,046

Asian 26,616 15,200 41,816

Black/African American 29,818 38,919 68,737

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

901 746 1,647

Hispanic or Latino 140,306 131,669 271,975

White, not Hispanic 1,058,660 392,124 1,450,784


Housing costs affordable at the different median income levels:

Alaska Native/American Indian Households can afford a total housing cost of $1,017 per month; Black/African American households can afford only $834/month; Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander households $1,317; and Hispanic or Latino households $954. At the same time, both Asian and Non-Hispanic White households can afford monthly housing costs greater than $1,500.

Lower incomes mean that the short supply of affordable housing has a greater impact on these racial and ethnic groups than on Whites and Asians.

Table 15, Colorado Median Incomes by Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSA Median Household Income

Median Family Income

2011 HUD Median Family Income

Boulder $65,040 $88,082 $89,600

Colorado Springs $56,576 $68,964 $70,600

Denver-Aurora $59,932 $74,441 $75,900

Fort Collins/Loveland $54,755 $73,006

$74,900

Grand Junction $50,611 $61,200 $60,100

Greeley $55,795 $64,259 $65,000

Pueblo $40,805 $50,298 $50,700 Sources: 2005-2009 American Community Survey; Dept. of Housing and Urban Development 2011 Median Family Incomes and Income Limits

Median Family Incomes by metropolitan statistical area as calculated by the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are included here for comparison’s sake and because they are used to determine eligibility for federal assistance. HUD bases its calculation on the 2000 Census median family income estimates, updated using 3-Year American Community Survey data, in this case 2006-2008. For more information on how they calculate these estimates, see www.huduser.gov.

Homeowner households have a median income roughly twice that of renters. As of January 1, 2009, the Center for Business and Economic Forecasting found that median owner income in Colorado was $72,905, while the median renter income was $36,310.

These factors combine to create a situation in which Blacks and Hispanics have less opportunity to purchase homes, and so comprise a disproportionate share of renters.

Table 16, Percentage of Colorado Homeowner and Renter Households by

Race and Ethnicity

Race or Ethnicity Homeowner Households

Renter Households

Total Households

Total Population 68.2% 31.8% 1,869,276

Alaska Native/American Indian 47% 53% 17,046

Asian 63.7% 36.3% 41,816

Black/African American 43.4% 56.6% 68,737

NH/PI 54.7% 45.3% 1,647

Hispanic or Latino 51.6% 48.4% 271,975

White, not Hispanic 73% 27% 1,450,784


This disparity is at least partly a function of income. As we have see above (Table 2), all racial and ethnic groups have lower median incomes than non-Hispanic Whites. Consequently, a greater percentage of them fall into the “low-income” category.

Single parent households, disabled households and elderly people on social security are also more likely to be forced into renting instead of homeownership by virtue of their lower incomes.

Among low-income households, rental housing is often the only option, and rental housing continues to be essential to the housing stock for households at the lowest income levels.

The mismatch tables below provide information on the number of rental units available in Colorado to households at different income levels. The tables provide mismatch ratios that show the number of households for each unit available at a given income level.

The rent burden tables show three levels of rent burden and show the total number of rent burdened households and the percentage of all rental households that are rent burdened in 25 counties.

Rental Mismatch Findings

The term “housing mismatch” describes the difference between the number of households at a certain income level, and the number of units affordable to households at that level.

The mismatch in Colorado is largest at the lowest income levels. Statewide, there are 1.9 households for every unit affordable to households earning less than $10,000 per year. There are 2.3 households for every unit affordable to households earning between $10,000 and $15,000 per year.

Table 17, Colorado Statewide Rental Housing Mismatch Table, 2009

Income level in $

Affordable monthly payment in $; based on housing expense as 30% of income

Number of renter households at this income level or below

Number of housing units at this rent level or below

Number of households per unit affordable at this income level

Number of units available per 100 households at this income level

Household income as % of state AMI ($55,276)

Household income as % of state RMI ($32,611)

10,000 250 83,384 44,401 1.9 53 18% 31%

15,000 375 140,530 60,173 2.3 43 27% 46%

20,000 499 190,877 94,224 2.0 49 36% 61%

25,000 624 247,849 166,774 1.5 67 45% 77%

30,000 750 296,781 254,078 1.2 86 54% 92%

35,000 875 344,543 327,290 1.1 95 63% 107%

40,000 999 388,202 397,146 1.0 102 72% 123%

45,000 1125 427,270 441,666 1.0 103 81% 138%

50,000 1250 458,089 441,666 1.0 96 90% 153%

60,000 1500 508,256 490,670 1.0 97 109% 184%

75,000 1875 561,011 524,670 1.1 94 136% 230%

100,000 2499 604,399 563,836 1.1 93 181% 307%


In general, there is approximately one affordable unit for every household earning $35,000 or more, an adequate supply.

In other words, households that earn approximately 60 percent of area median income or more will generally be able to find a rental unit that is affordable to that household. However, for households earning 45 percent of area median income or less, rental housing is much more difficult to find. For households earning incomes below 30 percent of area median income, there are generally two households for every affordable unit.

While only 26.7% of all White, non-Hispanic households have an annual income less than $35,000, 47.5% of Black Households, 45.9% of Hispanic households and 43.6% of Native American households fall below this benchmark. This makes it far more difficult for them to find housing that is affordable at 30% of their household income.

Findings varied from region to region. In the metro Denver area, there were at least 2.4 households for every unit affordable to households making less than $20,000 per year. But in Pueblo, the only income group with a mismatch ratio above 2.0 was households making less than $10,000, which showed a mismatch of 2.1.

In the Mesa County/Garfield County region, there were 1.7 households for every unit affordable to households making less than $10,000, although there were 2.2 households for every affordable unit for households earning between $15,000 and $20,000.

The areas showing the largest mismatches were El Paso County and the Larimer County/Weld County area. In both regions, there were at least 2.9 households for every unit affordable to households making $15,000 or less.

Rent Burden

Rent burdened households are households that pay more than 30 percent of income on housing. This report shows data on households paying 30 percent, 35 percent, and 50 percent of income toward housing.

Overall, the counties that showed the largest rent burdens at all levels were Teller, Eagle, Pueblo, Fremont, Boulder and Larimer Counties. These counties were among the counties with the highest rent burdens in all three categories.

At the 50 percent rent burden level, Teller County topped the list with 35.5 percent of renter households paying more than 50 percent toward housing. Eagle County and Pueblo County both showed a rate of slightly below 31 percent.

At the 35 percent rent burden level, Teller County showed 46.6 percent of renter households paying 35 percent or more of income toward housing. Fremont County showed 47 percent while Eagle County and Pueblo County both showed 45 percent.

At the 30 percent rent burden level, Fremont County topped the list with 63.8 percent of renter households paying 30 percent or more of income toward housing, while Teller, Pueblo and Boulder Counties all showed rent burden rates at 53 percent.

Rent Burdened Households By Race and Ethnicity

Gross rent as a percentage of household income varies by race and ethnicity. The data below, derived from the 2007-2009 American Community Survey 3-year


Estimates for Colorado indicate that the majority of Black, Hispanic and American Indian households that rent pay more than 30% of their income for housing.

Gross Rent as Percentage of Household Income by Race or Ethnicity

0

20

40

60

80

Race or Ethnicity

Per

cen

t o

f R

acia

l Gro

up

Not Cost Burdened<30%

40.6 42.5 45.5 52.0 56.3

Cost Burdened >30% 59.4 57.5 54.5 48.0 43.7

Black Hispanic AIANWhite NH

Asian

Meanwhile, a small majority of Non-Hispanic White and Asian households pay less than 50% of their incomes for rent. When looking at homeowners cost burden by race and ethnic group, the pattern is less pronounced. Small percentages of homeowners overall are cost burdened, but larger percentages of Black and Hispanic households pay more than 30% of their income on housing.


Homeownership Cost as a Percentage of Household Income by Race or Ethnicity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Race or Ethnicity

Per

cen

t o

f R

acia

l or

Eth

nic

Gro

up

Not Cost Burdened<30%

50.7 52.4 58.7 60.9 65.2

Cost Burdened >30% 49.3 47.6 41.3 39.1 34.8

Hispanic Black Asian AIAN White NH

Other Relevant Data

Stakeholder Survey Results

A survey designed to identify impediments to fair housing choice in Colorado was provided to housing providers, advocates and government agencies in November 2010. The purpose of the survey was to gain a more qualitative analysis of the knowledge, experiences, opinions and feelings of stakeholders and other interested parties regarding fair housing in Colorado. A total of 119 responses were received.


The questions shown in each graph correspond to the questions on the survey. In graph #1, below, sixty percent of respondents noted that there were significant impediments/barriers to fair housing in Colorado.

Graph #1Graph #1Graph #1Graph #1

Do you believe that significant impediments/barriers to fair housing Do you believe that significant impediments/barriers to fair housing Do you believe that significant impediments/barriers to fair housing Do you believe that significant impediments/barriers to fair housing

exist in Colorado? exist in Colorado? exist in Colorado? exist in Colorado?

60%

40%Yes

No

Graph #2 on the next page details the specific impediments to fair housing choice identified by respondents. 73% of respondents identified the lack of affordable housing as a major impediment to fair housing choice in Colorado. In addition, 36% of respondents identified the lack of accessible housing as a cause. Almost 60% of respondents noted that unemployment or under-employment was a contributing factor to fair housing issues. Other significant identified factors included:

• Lack of education about rights and responsibilities in fair housing (35.4% of respondents)

• Language and cultural issues (31.9% of respondents)

• Racial bias (19.5% of respondents)



What do you believe to be the main cause, or causes, of impediments to What do you believe to be the main cause, or causes, of impediments to What do you believe to be the main cause, or causes, of impediments to What do you believe to be the main cause, or causes, of impediments to

fair housing choice? select all that apply, but please focus on the main fair housing choice? select all that apply, but please focus on the main fair housing choice? select all that apply, but please focus on the main fair housing choice? select all that apply, but please focus on the main

causes. causes. causes. causes.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

La

ck o

f affo

rda

ble

ho

usin

g

La

ck o

f acce

ssib

le h

ou

sin

g

Le

nd

ing

pra

ctic

es/fo

reclo

su

res

La

ck o

f ed

uca

tion

ab

ou

t

fair h

ou

sin

g rig

hts

an

d

resp

on

sib

ilities

Actio

ns o

f Ho

me

ow

ne

r

Asso

cia

tion

s

La

ng

ua

ge

/cu

ltura

l issu

es

Lo

ca

l reg

ula

tion

s

Ag

e D

iscrim

ina

tion

Ra

cia

l Bia

s

Fe

ar a

nd

mis

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of th

ose

with

dis

ab

ilities

Ina

de

qu

ate

en

forc

em

en

t of

exis

ting

law

s

Em

plo

ym

en

t issu

es- lo

w

wa

ge

s/u

ne

mp

loym

en

t/lack

of jo

b tra

inin

g o

pp

ortu

nitie

s


Graph #3 indicates that slightly more than 32% of respondents indicated that they themselves, or someone whom they know, were restricted from free and equal access to housing in Colorado.


Are you aware of any situation involving yourself and/or someone you Are you aware of any situation involving yourself and/or someone you Are you aware of any situation involving yourself and/or someone you Are you aware of any situation involving yourself and/or someone you

know that appeared to restrict the free and equal access to residential know that appeared to restrict the free and equal access to residential know that appeared to restrict the free and equal access to residential know that appeared to restrict the free and equal access to residential

housing in Colorado? housing in Colorado? housing in Colorado? housing in Colorado?

32.2%

68.6%

Yes

No

Graph #4 details the identified barriers to fair housing as reported by the respondents.

Disability (56.8% of respondents)

Race (21.6% of respondents)

Familial Status (18.9% of respondents)

National Origin (18.9% of respondents)


What basis do you believe that free and equal access to housing What basis do you believe that free and equal access to housing What basis do you believe that free and equal access to housing What basis do you believe that free and equal access to housing

was restricted? was restricted? was restricted? was restricted?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Race Color Religion Gender Disabil ity Familial

Status

National

Origin


In response to question number 5, graphed below, the majority of respondents (80.3%) stated that they knew where to go for assistance with fair housing issues.

Graph #5 Graph #5 Graph #5 Graph #5

Are you aware of where to go to get assistance with Are you aware of where to go to get assistance with Are you aware of where to go to get assistance with Are you aware of where to go to get assistance with

fair housing questions or concerns in Colorado?fair housing questions or concerns in Colorado?fair housing questions or concerns in Colorado?fair housing questions or concerns in Colorado?

80.3%

19.7%

Yes

No

Graph #6 indicates that over 60% of respondents feel that there is not enough outreach and education on fair housing issues in Colorado.


Is there sufficient outreach and education regarding affirmatively Is there sufficient outreach and education regarding affirmatively Is there sufficient outreach and education regarding affirmatively Is there sufficient outreach and education regarding affirmatively

furthering fair housing in Colorado?furthering fair housing in Colorado?furthering fair housing in Colorado?furthering fair housing in Colorado?

59.5%

40.5%

0.0%

Too Little

Right Amount

Too Much

The respondents were asked to comment on additional issues that impact fair housing in Colorado. The largest number of comments concerned the need for education and outreach for all parties involved in fair housing including housing


providers, advocates and consumers. There were also a significant number of comments relating to the need for more affordable housing resources for persons with special needs, enforcement of current housing laws, and advocacy on behalf of persons in need of fair housing protection. Responses received are listed below.

1. These concerns expressed apply to low-income families too, especially single parent families with the mother as the head of household.

2. More needs to be done to expand affordable housing to low-income individuals. The current poor economy is placing a huge responsibility on providers of affordable housing due to limited supply and high demand.

3. I believe each city/county/municipality is unique. I feel that collaboration and coordination between state and local governments could help to reduce barriers. I feel that there should be greater leadership in building inclusive communities free from discrimination.

4. One of the concerns in our area is managers who are notoriously unfair and

invasive of tenants rights.

5. An example of breaching Fair Housing: It is not uncommon to see For Rent ads in our local newspaper that state "No Children, No Pets". This type of practice is infuriating and it appears no agency has taken initiative to stop it.

6. I believe there is not enough information provided to private landlords in terms of education on temporary modifications (ramps, etc.) allowed by law for individuals with disabilities.

7. We need to paint a picture about what a barrier or impediment looks like e.g. requiring only Latino applications to provide proof or residency or request from a disabled individual to prove that can live alone or can go up 2 flights of stairs. There needs to be some sort of Fair Housing education requirement for rental properties and it should be for all staff that have contact with applicants

and tenants. It is vague as to how a family can determine the size of unit they need compared to what property mangers/owners determine for the family.

8. Educating the housing people both private and public.

9. Many apartments are not wheelchair accessible; do not have roll-in showers.

10. I realize that the economics of funding an organization such as the former Denver CHRB are not available at this point, but perhaps if funding were available for additional fair housing educational resources for existing housing organizations, then non-profit organizations could either access those funds or organizations who can provide advocacy staff to educate the public. Realtors are also in need of educational opportunities/resources. Perhaps the local Boards of Realty would be better advocates if these resources were also available to them.

11. Units that are built for accessibility (WC accessible) are often times not rented to residents who require this type of housing. The required number of units often times exceed the applicants on our list requiring these units.


12. Web resources exist, but because of language or other barriers, they are not always accessed by the relevant populations.

13. Lack of timely payment with Sec 8 subsidies to new landlords and landlords that have new Sec 8 tenants from DOH - has angered several landlords who have refused to rent to another sec 8 tenant.

14. One of the huge issues I see around Fair Housing law is that landlords and others get away with violating people's rights because there is not adequate enforcement of the law. Also, it is very very difficult to find attorneys that will take disability rights cases.

15. Agencies that claim to help individuals with Fair Housing issues need to do more. When talking with individuals that have faced fair housing discrimination, they said they were just "blown off" when they faced issues. I actually have heard it with my own ears.

16. Increased awareness and outreach, particularly to outlying communities in Colorado would be very helpful.

17. Become more involved when discrimination is suspected.

18. I think it's the landlords who need further education and outreach.

19. We desperately need housing for people with mental health issues, severe mental illness, people with dual diagnosis, and felons.

20. The only impediment I see as a major issue is the paper process by which we all have to adhere (including the corporately run apartment communities) and the lack of education for landlords and corporate companies alike prohibiting

patients from having the best opportunities to find appropriate housing.

21. Lack of accessible housing prevents many people equal enjoyment and access to housing in their community.

22. More outreach to landlords that have properties available for rent but that might be able to make them accessible to help the physically disabled find

affordable and accessible housing.

23. Maybe our community is not the right one to ask? I know that there are a number of issues that can happen in some place as big as Denver that may never come up out here - 2 very different ways of life! Smaller, farm-type, communities seem to pull together and help each other better than large over-populated ones...i think we have that "decent human being" spirit! Its just the right thing to do - we were all put on this earth for 1 reason - to be good to and help each other as much as we can! Do onto others as you would have done onto you - a great phrase that truly exists in our community!


24. Bumping into housing barriers is an issue I've never faced, so I'm not sure how valid my responses are to your questions. We tend to be more aware of circumstances and situations that directly affect or have affected U.S. in the past.

25. I manufacture remote living quarters for the oil and gas industry for living accommodations at locations. Not a builder of houses in cities.

26. Colorado in general and Denver in particular - as a major city lacks the organizational strength, diversity and accessibility for the affected population to take full advantage of existing laws.

27. Tenants often cannot communicate their issues. Landlords can take advantage of situations for a variety of reasons. Advocacy groups are not always well informed.

28. As I understand it, banks have received federal assistance to help address foreclosure problems that their customers are facing. However, because there is mortgage insurance that will make the bank whole, there is no reason for the

bank to work with the family that is losing their home. If my understanding is correct, the homeowners I know who lost their homes through foreclosure wonder why they were dragged through the process of trying to save their homes when the banks had no motivation to make the program work. It was a useless and frustrating process for them.

29. Need more workshops/trainings on fair housing issues in southwest Colorado.

30. Round tables of people who have been burdened by the lack of affordable housing.

31. There is too much emphasis on reporting and paperwork burdens that are placed on local governments as a result of over reaching, overlapping, and at times conflicted Federal regulations that do not assist those who may need help regarding impediments or barriers to fair housing choice and indeed lead to a waste of public resources. These misdirected, inefficient and wasteful regulations should be eliminated or substantially reduced and simplified and attention placed on having personnel at the Federal level reassigned to directly working with persons and households one on one as needed as and if they encounter barriers to fair housing choice aside from the economic impediments mentioned previously.

32. Too many workshops focus on Fair Housing in terms of rental discrimination. More opportunities to learn in the context of home ownership would be appreciated.

33. On the front range the issue is affordability. Other issues such as race or disability are minor or non-existent in comparison. We need more money for transitional housing and special needs populations. We need to continue and increase the availability of housing tax credits for development of affordable housing projects.

34. There has been a great deal of progress in Colorado in the last 30 years. It always is an educational issue for not only the protected groups but for the general public. Any additional outreach and public information on the topic helps. Clarification of what constitutes rights especially for the disabled population would help.

35. Ask Realtors about their experiences...


General Public Survey Results

The Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing and the Department of Human Services, Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs also posted a fair housing Survey for the general public on our web sites. This survey received only 12 responses, and only 9 completed surveys, not enough for statistically valid results.

However, the 12 who started the survey represented 11 different zip codes from various parts of the state. Two thirds (6) responded that they had not experienced any housing discrimination, while one third had.

Of those 3, all said they had been discriminated against by a landlord or property manager, 33.3% by a mortgage lender, and 66.7% by a government staff person. None reported discrimination by a real estate agent. More than one response was possible.

One third reported that the discrimination occurred at an apartment complex, and two thirds reported that it occurred at a public or subsidized housing project.

They reported the basis for the discriminatory acts as 33.3% color, 66.76% disability, and 100% Familial status. More than one response to this question was possible.

None of those who experienced discrimination reported it. The reasons given were: 66.7%, not sure of rights; 33.3% didn’t know where to report; 33.3% were afraid of retaliation and 100% didn’t think it would make any difference.

Two submitted the following written comments:

“I can’t get a home for me and my son, we are homeless and stay either at a hotel or a friends home , I feel like when I talk to someone about a home they tell me I cant afford it because I get SSI, I can’t apply for housing with the local housing here in Colorado Springs because they tell me they are not taking applications. There is no place for U.S. to live!”

“Denied housing because I have a child, though the rental manager would not say in so many words. Denied housing based on credit, mine is not bad but not great. Denied housing based on income, it costs a fortune for decent housing. Employers don't pay well enough. Self employment leaves a narrow profit margin.”


III. Colorado’sIII. Colorado’sIII. Colorado’sIII. Colorado’s Current Fair Housing Legal Status Current Fair Housing Legal Status Current Fair Housing Legal Status Current Fair Housing Legal Status HUD’s Office of fair housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) are the two agencies that receive complaints regarding housing discrimination in Colorado. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, HUD provided fair housing Complaint information for the period from October 1, 2004 through September 17, 2010. This report did not include identifying information about the complainant, making it impossible to determine how many cases resulted from tests and how many were complaints by individuals.

Summary of Fair Housing Complaints or Compliance

reviews

Data provided by the FHEO showed that 1000 complaints had been filed, of which 923 had been closed. A complaint may include more than one basis and more than one issue, so the total number of complaints will be less than the number of complaints by basis and issue.

A finding of “No Cause” was made in 699 complaints, more than 75% of the total. A “No Cause” finding means that after a thorough investigation, HUD has found that no discrimination has occurred or is about to occur. There were three cases in which discrimination was found as a result of litigation.

The outcomes of all cases are summarized below:

Disposition of Case Number

Case Still Open 77

Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 4

Unable to locate complainant 2

Complainant failed to cooperate 45

Complaint withdrawn by complainant without resolution

10

Closed because trial has begun 1

Conciliation/Settlement successful 69

Complaint withdrawn by Complainant after resolution

76

No Cause Determination 699

FHAP Judicial Consent order 12

Litigation ended – Discrimination Found 3

ALJ Consent Order entered after issuance of charge

2

Total FHEO Complaints 1000

This table shows that 62 of the complaints were closed without resolution, while 162 were resolved.

The Colorado Civil Rights Division provided summary information for the period January 1, 2006 through October 23, 2009. This data revealed that the CCRD had closed 388 complaints, finding probable cause in 25.

A summary of the basis for FHEO reported complaints shows that 243 complaints were on the basis of race, 60 on the basis of gender, 23 on the basis of color, 217 on


Breakdown of Fair Housing Complaints based on Race

8%

80%

9% 3%

White

Black

AIAN

Asian

2006-2010 Colorado Fair Housing Complaints by Basis

18%

4%

2%

16%

44%

2%

6%

1%

7%

Race

Gender

Color

Ethnicity

Disability

Religion

Familial Status

Harassment

Retaliation

ethnicity (Hispanic/Non-Hispanic), 585 on the basis of disability, 26 based on religion, and 83 on familial status. 12 complaints were filed on the basis of harassment and another 95 for retaliation.

Fair Housing Complaints by Basis

Basis is the term the FHEO uses to describe the reason or characteristic that may cause a person or persons to be the object of discrimination. These include the protected classes – race, color, national origin, sex, religion, disability and familial status. Basis also includes sexual harassment and retaliation.

Disability was the basis for 585 complaints filed. 408 of those were based on physical disability. Most complaints cited failure to make reasonable accommodation for physical disabilities.

Other major bases of complaints were Race and National Origin. 194 of 243 complainants on the basis of Race were Black/African American, while 193 of 217 complaints based on National Origin came from Hispanic/Latino complainants. Relatively small numbers of complaints were based on gender, color, religion or familial status.

Complaints based on race

Of the 243 complaints of housing discrimination based on race, the vast majority of complainants , 194, were Black/African American. No other racial group exceeded 10% of the total.


Colorado Fair Housing Complaints by Ethnicity

89%

11%

Hispanic

Not Hisp

Fair Housing Complaints based on Disability

30%

70%

Mental Disabilit

Physical Disability

Complaints based on Gender

34 complaints about discrimination based on gender were from women, 26 from men. Another 12 complaints involved sexual harassment.

Complaints based on National Origin (Ethnicity)

217 complaints were based on ethnicity. Of these, 193 complainants were Hispanic or Latino.

Complaints based on Disability

fair housing complaints based on disability were the largest category of complaint, a total of 585 or 58.5% of the total. Most of these, 408, had to do with physical disabilities. Of the issues that can most readily be identified as applicable to people with disabilities, 205 of these complaints contended a failure to make reasonable accommodation, while 19 were for failure to make a

reasonable modification. 2 complaints alleged non-compliance with design and construction requirements for the handicapped; 1 cited failure to provide “accessible and usable public and common user areas;” and another “failure to provide usable kitchens and bathrooms.”


Fair Housing Complaints by Issue

Issue is the term the FHEO uses to describe the action or type of behavior that constitutes discrimination.

The table below includes only those issues for which there were complaints.

Table 18, Fair Housing Complaints by Issue

Issue Number of Complaints

Discriminatory Refusal to Sell 9

Discriminatory Refusal to negotiate for sale 1

Discriminatory Refusal to Sell and negotiate for sale 4

Discriminatory Refusal to rent 126

Discriminatory Refusal to negotiate for rental 7

Discriminatory Refusal to rent and negotiate for rental 18

Discriminatory advertising, statements and notices 56

Discriminatory advertising - Sale 4

Selective use of Advertisements media or content 7

False denial or representation of availability 2

False denial or representation of availability - sale 2

False denial or representation of availability - rent 3

Discriminatory financing (Inc. RE transactions) 16

Discrimination in making of loans 12

Discrimination in terms/conditions for making loans 12

Discrimination in selling residential real property 3

Discrimination in brokering residential real property 2

Discrimination in appraising residential real property 1

Discriminatory Brokerage service 3

Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities 165

Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities relating to sale 15

Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities relating to rental 106

Discrimination in services and facilities relating to rental 6

Steering 5

Otherwise deny or make housing available 82

Other discriminatory acts 22

Adverse action against an employee 1

Refusing to provide municipal services or property 1

Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, etc.) 80

Using ordinances to discriminate in zoning and land use 1

Non-compliance with design and construction requirements (handicap) 2

Failure to provide accessible and usable public and common user areas 1

Failure to provide usable kitchens and bathrooms 1

Failure to meet reasonable modification 19

Failure to meet reasonable accommodation 205


Failure to meet reasonable accommodation is the most frequently cited form of discrimination, followed by discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges or services and facilities (not specified whether rental or sale), and then by refusal to rent.

Table 19, Fair Housing Complaints by County

Fair Housing Complaints Filed (FHEO)

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

% of Total Complaints

County % of State Pop.

Differen- tial

Adams 10 6 5 8 29 6.87% 8.72% -1.85%

Alamosa 0 1 1 0 2 0.47% 0.31% 0.16%

Arapahoe 17 15 15 12 59 13.98% 11.22% 2.76%

Archuleta 0 1 2 0 3 0.71% 0.26% 0.45%

Boulder 8 7 3 3 21 4.98% 5.94% -0.96%

Broomfield 1 1 1 1 4 0.95% 1.11% -0.16%

Chaffee 0 1 0 0 1 0.24% 0.34% -0.11%

Crowley 0 0 1 0 1 0.24% 0.13% 0.11%

Custer 0 0 0 1 1 0.24% 0.08% 0.16%

Delta 0 0 3 0 3 0.71% 0.63% 0.08%

Denver 29 21 30 11 91 21.56% 12.12% 9.44%

Douglas 7 4 3 1 15 3.55% 5.68% -2.13%

Eagle 1 0 1 2 4 0.95% 1.06% -0.11%

El Paso 10 12 17 12 51 12.09% 12.07% 0.02%

Elbert 0 2 0 0 2 0.47% 0.46% 0.01%

Fremont 4 2 0 1 7 1.66% 0.96% 0.70%

Garfield 1 0 1 0 2 0.47% 1.12% -0.65%

Jefferson 9 9 20 9 47 11.14% 10.80% 0.34%

La Plata 0 2 0 3 5 1.18% 1.02% 0.16%

Lake 0 0 1 1 2 0.47% 0.16% 0.31%

Larimer 5 4 7 4 20 4.74% 5.93% -1.19%

Las Animas 0 2 0 0 2 0.47% 0.32% 0.15%

Logan 0 0 1 0 1 0.24% 0.42% -0.19%

Mesa 2 7 1 1 11 2.61% 2.90% -0.29%

Moffat 3 0 0 0 3 0.71% 0.28% 0.43%

Montrose 0 1 0 2 3 0.71% 0.82% -0.11%

Morgan 1 0 0 0 1 0.24% 0.56% -0.33%

Otero 0 0 0 1 1 0.24% 0.38% -0.14%

Pueblo 2 1 2 3 8 1.90% 3.17% -1.28%

Rio Grande 0 1 0 0 1 0.24% 0.24% 0.00%

Routt 0 1 0 0 1 0.24% 0.47% -0.23%

San Miguel 0 0 1 0 1 0.24% 0.15% 0.08%

Weld 6 12 1 0 19 4.50% 5.06% -0.55%

Total 116 113 117 76 422 Source: Table excerpted from FHEO-Filed-Cases.xls at www.hud.gov on 10/5/2010

This table comes from a different source, but helps to draw a picture of the geography of fair housing complaints. The numbers highlighted in red in the “Differential” column above indicate counties where the percentage of complaints exceeds the county’s percentage of state residents by more than 1%. The number


of fair housing complaints filed in the City and County of Denver is clearly out of proportion to the percentage of the population that resides there. A variety of explanations is possible: (1) residents of Denver are more aware of their rights and therefore more likely to file a complaint; (2) residents of Denver have more access to fair housing advocacy groups (3) discrimination actually occurs more frequently in Denver than in other parts of the state.

Reasons for any trends or patterns

The major trend that stands out after analyzing the list of complaints filed is the high number of filings from people with disabilities, especially those having to do with reasonable accommodation. It is difficult to pin down the reasons for landlords’ or property managers’ failure to make such accommodations. Given the number of comments about the need for further education of both landlords and tenants alike, and the apparent difficulty of finding competent advocacy or support, it is possible that landlords do not understand what is required of them. It is also possible that tenants misunderstand their rights.

Other fair housing concerns or problems

Homelessness and the Protected Classes

Minorities, especially Blacks and Hispanics, and persons with disabilities are more likely to become homeless than white, non-disabled people.

The most recent an statewide homeless count in August 2006 determined that as many as 16,203 persons were homeless on the night of the count, and nearly two-thirds (62.1%) of all homeless persons in Colorado were in households with children. Homeless persons are included in this fair housing assessment since minorities are over-represented in the homeless population, and housing supply for very-low income populations is an impediment.

Compared to the general population in Colorado 2005, minorities were over-represented and whites were underrepresented among Colorado’s homeless. Black/African Americans made up 14% of the homeless population compared to only 4.1% of the general population. Hispanics comprised 24.9% of the homeless population, but 19.6% of the general population. 5.3% of the homeless were Native Americans, while that group made up just 1.1% of the general population. Whites and Asians were under represented among the homeless. The biggest racial and ethnic disparities in homelessness are for American Indians at 4.8 times their prevalence in the general population, and Blacks at 3.41.

Disabled people were also more common among the homeless than in the general population, with 50.9% of the homeless having at least one serious disabling condition. Roughly one in five had a serious mental illness (21.2%) or a serious medical condition (19.5%).

While men made up more than half of the homeless population, the number of female-headed single parent households (1,297) was more than five times as high as the number of male-headed single parent households (250), and both were much higher than the number of two-parent homeless families.

Among reasons given for their homelessness, the cost of housing was second only to loss of employment. For people living close to the margin of self-sufficiency as many


people with disabilities, Blacks, American Indians, and female-headed households are, the cost of housing is a significant factor in keeping any level of housing.

Segregation and Affordable Housing Site Analysis

In February 2009, the Federal Court of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) found that Westchester County had failed to uphold its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. Westchester County’s Analysis of Impediments did not specifically address race-based impediments to fair housing nor specify any way of overcoming obvious racial segregation among various municipalities within the county. The Court found that Westchester County, by failing to consider the racial segregation effects of its funding decisions and by acceding to the resistance of predominantly-White municipalities to construction of affordable housing that could attract minority residents, was not effectively furthering fair housing and was even increasing racial segregation (United States ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Center of

Metro New York, Inc. v. Westchester County, No. 06 Civ. 2860 (DLC), 2009 WL 455269, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009)).

In light of the Westchester County court decision, the Colorado Division of Housing will review its project underwriting processes to ensure that the siting of projects does not exacerbate segregation of protected classes. Staff will look closely at the census tract in which the project lies, especially its minority concentration and poverty rate, then assess whether the proposed project will increase or decrease segregation in that census tract and surrounding community.

In addition, the Division of Housing has historically placed an emphasis on meeting local housing needs and in having local community support for projects it funds. The Westchester decision indicates that grantees of Federal funds, such as the State of Colorado, have a responsibility to confront and even take legal action against local governments that set up regulatory barriers against affordable housing. The Division will assess local planning and zoning regulations for compliance with fair housing requirements and deny funding if those requirements are not met.


IV. Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing IV. Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing IV. Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing IV. Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing

Public Sector – State Statutes and Regulations

Building, Occupancy, Health, and Safety statutes

Division of Housing staff have reviewed state statutes that could affect fair housing opportunity. Colorado generally relies on local governments to adopt building, occupancy, health and safety codes. 51 of Colorado’s 64 counties have adopted such codes and in the 13 that have not, the Division of Housing is responsible for establishing and enforcing code for hotels, motels and multi-family housing. The building code that the State enforces under C.R.S. 24-32-705, is the 2006 International Residential Code, which is compatible with HUD fair housing guidelines.

Approval process for construction of housing

The Colorado Division of Housing examined its Public Housing Authority plans, and its other plans, policies and procedures for compliance with HUD’s requirement to Affirmatively Further fair housing. The Division works proactively to develop and maintain affordable and accessible units and documents our compliance with fair housing requirements.

In underwriting potential affordable housing projects, the Division of Housing considers a standard set of factors. Factors that impact fair housing include: local support for a project, access to public transportation and services, and the number of accessible and visitable units to be created. The review system gives priority to special needs housing. Before a project is closed out, the applying agency must submit a 504 self-certification and a compliance plan, a list of steps to affirmatively further fair housing, an affirmative fair housing marketing plan and a citizen participation plan. The evaluation process includes consideration of the applicant’s administrative experience with fair housing, Section 3 and Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprises.

However, in assessing the externalities of a proposed project, two factors could negatively serve to impede fair housing: consistency with local land use plans and social impact. Local land use plans may contain elements that impede fair housing. A requirement that a project not have “a detrimental social impact” could easily impede fair housing when the local community considers increased diversity to be a negative impact. These elements need to be assessed in a way that requires local land use plans to be fair housing-friendly and that specifically considers increased diversity to be a positive social impact.

An additional factor that may be an impediment is that both the Colorado Division of Housing and the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) consider “readiness to proceed” a key criterion for funding approval. This requirement was created to ensure the timely progress and completion of projects that are funded through federal tax credits and federal grant programs both of which have strict deadlines associated with the timely use of funds. One element of readiness to proceed is approval by local planning and zoning. CHFA’s 2011 LIHTC Allocation plan states, in part, “If the site is not properly zoned, provide evidence that the required change will be in place at the time the carryover application is due (approximately 14 months from the preliminary application date). If the site is zoned properly, provide evidence


that other approvals, such as site plan approval, will be in place at the time the carryover application is due. Projects that are properly zoned at the time of the preliminary application may be given priority in the selection process.”

In practice, this could prevent affordable homes from being built because the local government, which may have a perceived interest in preventing such construction, has the opportunity to block the project in its infancy.

Section 504 and Accessibility

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any program or activity that receives financial assistance from any Federal agency. Section 504 imposes requirements to ensure that “qualified individuals with handicaps” have access to programs and activities that receive Federal funds. With regard to new housing construction (which includes Federal assistance) it also requires that 5% of the dwelling units, or at least one unit, whichever is greater, must be accessible top for persons with mobility disabilities and an additional 2% of the dwelling units, or at least one unit, whichever is greater, must be accessible for persons with hearing or visual disabilities.

Consumer Directed Attendant Support Program

The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF) has developed the Consumer Directed Attendant Support (CDAS) program in 2001 to enable people with disabilities to manage their own attendant services in their own home instead of a nursing facility. The program serves 500 people at a time. In the CDAS program, people hire, train, supervise and fire their own attendants. They can set their own attendant schedules and, to a significant degree, determine what services the attendants provide.

Community development and housing activities

The Colorado Division of Housing (CDOH) enforces federal civil rights regulations governing each program through our application underwriting, contract terms, project performance plan, technical assistance, project close out and monitoring requirements. The Division of Housing loan/grant application requires that all applicants certify that they will affirmatively further fair housing and comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968.

Applicants must also address the requirements for accessible units in their project application, and a public hearing must be conducted to gather public and private comments on the proposed project. The meetings must be handicapped accessible and outreach must be done for non-English speaking residents. Colorado Division of Housing contracts require compliance with all applicable civil rights laws, including Section 504, Section 3 and the Age Discrimination Act. Project performance plans list outreach and affirmative marketing plan requirements. When needed, Division of Housing staff provide technical assistance to a grantee so that they may comply with civil rights requirements. Division of Housing asset managers monitor each project to further ensure civil rights compliance. The Division of Housing Project Close-Out (PCO) requires the reporting of direct benefit activities in order to track those who


have been served with federal/state funding. The PCO also requires the grantee to list in writing the actions they have taken to affirmatively further fair housing.

CDOH maintains monitoring records and project close out data showing that it has reviewed the civil rights performance of each grantee. This documentation is contained in project files and HUD’s IDIS system.

Statewide policies that increase segregation or inhibit

employment

The State of Colorado, and specifically the Department of Local Affairs, have no policies that restrict the provision of housing and community development resources to areas of minority concentration, or policies that inhibit the employment of minority persons and individuals with disabilities.

Public policies that restrict interdepartmental coordination

The State of Colorado, and specifically the Department of Local Affairs have no policies that restrict interdepartmental coordination between other State/ local agencies in providing housing and community development resources to areas of minority concentration or to individuals with disabilities. To the contrary, Colorado State Government has made efforts to increase coordination of the use of housing and community development resources to improve services to minorities and individuals with disabilities.

In 2009-2010, the State of Colorado undertook the Sustainable Main Streets Initiative, a pilot project which brought together the efforts of state, federal, local, nonprofit, foundation and private sector resources to help develop better solutions and outcomes in four communities. The Sustainable Main Streets Initiative leveraged state and other resources to help communities create solutions, innovate and focus efforts in a new, collaborative way to help the towns of Fowler, Monte Vista, and Rifle and the Five Points neighborhood in Denver become sustainable consistent with the principles agreed upon by the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency, but tailored to meet the needs of Colorado.

Statewide actions related to the provision and siting of

public transportation and social services

None of Colorado’s statewide planning, financing, or administrative social actions related to the provision and siting of public transportation and social services inhibit or concentrate affordable housing opportunities for persons with disabilities.

Protected-class representation boards, commissions, and

committees

The composition of state boards and commissions is determined by the state statute that creates the commission. Each one is different, but most require balance between political parties or regions of the state.

Only the State Civil Rights Commission is currently required to include any members of the protected classes. The statute creating the Civil Rights Commission requires the inclusion of at least four people who are members of groups of people who have


been or who might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, marital status, religion or age.

The Colorado state statutes creating the State Housing Board, State Medical Services Board, and State Board of Human Services “encourage” the governor to appoint at least one member who is a person with a disability, a family member of a person with a disability, or a member of an advocacy group for persons with disabilities. Legislation has been proposed in the current session that would require the governor to appoint a least one member of each of these boards who fits that description. This legislation, if passed, would help to ensure fair access to housing, medical services and social services by assuring that people affected by the decisions have a voice in making them.

The Colorado State Banking Board is not required to include a representative of any of the protected classes. This could result in lack of sensitivity to banking practices that would impede fair access to housing

The Colorado Developmental Disabilities Council includes people with disabilities, family members of people with disabilities, and representatives of state agencies, nongovernmental agencies and private nonprofit groups concerned with services for people with disabilities.

The State Emergency Response Commission is made up of the following statutorily required members representing:

• the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division,

• the Department of Local Affairs - Colorado Division of Emergency Management and the Division of Local Government,

• the Department of Public Safety - Fire Safety Division, and

• the Colorado State Patrol.

These representatives are permanent members of the CEPC. The balance of the CEPC is made up of representatives appointed by the Governor and serving a two-year term from the following areas:

• two from affected industries,

• two from local governments,

• two from the public interest or community groups,

• one from the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) community.

No participation by members of the protected classes is specified, which could result in the Commission overlooking emergency response elements that would be needed by low-income minorities or persons with disabilities.

This topic requires additional research to account for all relevant Boards and Commissions.


Private Sector

State Laws and Regulations regarding:

Banking and insurance

A review of state banking and insurance laws and regulations revealed none that should negatively affect fair housing choice within the state. In 2007 the State legislature passed a law (11-102-106, C.R.S.) to protect consumers by regulating the marketing of non-traditional mortgage loans. The State Banking Board promulgated regulations conforming to that law in December, 2007. The intent of the law was to rein in the predatory lending practices that deeply affected the Black and Hispanic communities in Colorado.

At the federal level, the passage and implementation of the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (S.A.F.E. Act) should also serve to curb predatory lending and other abusive lending practices.

Analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) information still indicates that Black and Hispanic mortgage applicants are at a disadvantage in receiving mortgage loans.

The sale of housing

The Colorado Fair Housing Act specifically prohibits engaging in steering, blockbusting, restrictive covenants, and discriminatory housing brokerage services.

Housing rentals, trust or lease provisions, and conversions of

apartments to all-adult

During the 2008 legislative session, Colorado adopted a statewide habitability law that provides minimum life, health and safety standard for rental units in Colorado, which must be met in order for a unit to be considered habitable. It also provides remedies for tenants in cases where the unit is not habitable including termination of the of the rental agreement by the tenant under certain conditions. This law should improve rental housing throughout the state by establishing a minimum level of quality, and serve to further fair housing opportunity by creating clear standards and accountability for both landlords and tenants.

There are no state laws regarding conversions of apartments to all-adult. A review of statutes regarding housing rentals, trust and lease provisions did not reveal any elements that would impede fair housing opportunity.

State and local laws or other policies and practices that:

Conflict with Federal accessibility requirements

Denver and other local governments have banned “pit bulls” and/or other breeds from their jurisdictions. Recently, the Denver City Council refused to create a service-dog waiver to their ban. The case is expected to go to court. Breed-specific bans prevent people with disabilities from keeping both their home and their service animal, thus creating an impediment to fair housing.


Colorado state law permits the medicinal use of marijuana, which is contrary to federal law. Because of this conflict, people with disabilities who use medical marijuana for relief of pain or other symptoms lose their access to federally-subsidized housing

Have the effect of restricting housing choices for persons with

disabilities.

According to a news story in the Denver Post6, regulations that involve a person’s qualifications to receive home care, together with a shortage of suitable housing, result in roughly 3,500 persons with disabilities living in an assisted living facility that would rather live independently. Long-term care in a facility that provides skilled nursing is very expensive, while home care in an affordable accessible apartment costs far less.

Changes have already begun to Colorado’s long term care system since the December Denver Post article. Per the February 24, 2011 press release from the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, the State of Colorado has received a $22 million Federal “Money Follows the Person” grant from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to improve the long-term care system in Colorado. Colorado’s program is called CO-ACTS.

“CO-ACTS is a multi-agency effort. We have been working with the Department of Human Services, the Department of Public Health and Environment, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Local Affairs to ensure that we have the appropriate community-based long term care services and supports in place along with housing and transportation. All of these state agencies are working together to make certain that we have a strong safety-net for those individuals returning to the community,” states Tim Cortez, project director.

“CO-ACTS is the solution for giving clients needing long-term care services independence, choice and dignity,” states Sue Birch, executive director. “In order to support our clients in receiving the care they need in the setting they deserve, we will build upon our existing community-based services and, at the same time, save the state money.”

The Department of Human Services will target individuals in nursing homes and intensive care facilities for the developmentally disabled and psychiatric hospitals. We will recruit clients who have an interest in returning to the community and have the potential, which includes a strong support network – family, friends, and neighbors –and access to the appropriate community supports. The Department’s goal is to transition approximately 500 people or more back to the community over the next five years.

Further research into local codes restricting the location of group homes and facilities that serve people with disabilities is required and will be performed by the Division of Housing

6 Shortage of Living Spaces for Disabled Outside Nursing Homes is Costing Colorado, The Denver Post, December 5, 2010


Information on financial assistance for accessibility

modification of private homes

Thirty-eight organizations in the State of Colorado offer financial assistance for accessibility modification of privately owned housing. These organizations and programs are listed in Appendix B. This list was created by The HERO Alliance, a nonprofit organization that provides education, resources, and assistance for people with disabilities seeking homeownership in Colorado. Information about the programs is not widely known, although readily available to any one with an internet connection. Although assistance is available, dissemination of information about the assistance programs needs improvement.

Lending Policies and Practices

Division of Housing staff reviewed and analyzed Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for applications made in Colorado in 2008, the most recent available. 370,468 loan applications were processed in 2008 by institutions that are required to report through the HMDA system. Of these, 156,446 were for home purchases, 20,652 were for home improvement and 193,370 were for refinancing.

CDOH analyzed only loan applications made for the purchases of a single-family (i.e. 1-4 family) home to be occupied by the owner. There were 129,641 loan applications meeting this description. In addition, only the race, ethnicity or gender of the primary applicant were considered in analyzing the information.

Since HMDA data does not include information on any protected class statuses other than race, ethnicity (national origin), and gender, these are the only categories that can be tested for evidence of discrimination. In addition, since credit scores are not reported in the database it is not possible to eliminate that critical factor in attempting to determine whether fair housing violations are taking place.

2008 HMDA Mortgage Data by Race

Mortgage Applications by Race

In 2008, the number of mortgage applications recorded for Colorado in the HMDA system by race is shown in the following table:

Table 20, Number of Mortgage Applications by Race

Race Number of Applications

White 96,512

Black/African American 2,914

American Indian/Alaska Native 819

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 408

Asian 2,956

Not Provided 11,438

Not Applicable 14,594

The overwhelming majority of loan applications came from white applicants. Because of this huge discrepancy, other tables will be based on percentages of loans within each race. Loan applications where the race was indicated as “not applicable” are those where the loan was purchases by the institution – in other words, the loan was sold from one lender to another.


The percentage of applications from each group approximates their presence in the general population, except that Blacks, who comprise about 4% of the population, appear to have submitted only 2.5% of the mortgage applications from those who provided their race. The true number of Blacks mortgage applications may be obscured, however, because they are included in the “not provided” category. This leaves an open question as to whether Blacks actually apply for home mortgages at a rate consistent with their numbers, or whether they are discouraged from doing so.

Mortgage Loan Denials

The following table shows the percentage of loan applications denied by the banking institutions by race and income category.

Table 21, Mortgage Loan Denials by Race and Income

Income Range White Black AIAN NHPI Asian <= $30K 16% 23% 20% 6% 21%

$31-40K 13% 17% 25% 13% 17%

$41-50K 11% 15% 19% 17% 17%

$51-60K 9% 13% 19% 16% 19%

$61-70K 9% 15% 15% 19% 12%

$71-80K 8% 10% 14% 8% 15%

$81-90K 8% 11% 14% 3% 14%

$91-100K 7% 14% 11% 10% 9%

$101-110K 7% 21% 23% 12% 9%

$111-120K 8% 10% 10% 9% 11%

$121-130K 9% 17% 0% 17% 11%

$131-140K 7% 13% 25% 10% 11%

$141-150K 7% 27% 10% 0% 10%

$151-160K 8% No Apps No Apps 17% 15%

$161-170K 7% 14% 17% 33% 2%

$171-180K 9% 13% No Apps No Apps 12%

$181-190K 9% 11% No Apps No Apps 12%

$191-200K 10% No Apps 14% No Apps 17%

$201-210K 12% 11% No Apps No Apps 12%

>$210K 13% 17% 44% 14% No Apps

Overall denial Rates 10% 15% 19% 12% 14%

As can be seen from this table, the overall denial rate for White applicants is lower than for any other racial group. Native Americans experienced the highest rate of denials, followed by Blacks, Asians, and Pacific Islanders in that order. For Whites, there is a higher rate of denials at income levels below $50,000, then the rate levels off to between 7% and 9%, rising again at income levels over $180,000. If this patterns exists for the other racial categories it is far less clear, probably because the number of applications for each group is so much smaller.

Other Actions

Other actions taken on applications do not show very significant differences across races and the pattern is similar to the “race not provided” category.


Table 22, Actions Taken on Applications, by Race

Action White Black Asian AIAN NHPI Not Provided

Loan Originated 57% 49% 53% 47% 52% 52%

Loan Approved but not accepted

6% 5% 7% 7% 6% 7%

Loan Denied 10% 15% 14% 19% 12% 12%

Application Withdrawn 6% 7% 8% 6% 7% 12%

Closed for Incompleteness

1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1%

Purchased by Institution 20% 22% 16% 17% 21% 15%

There were no applications where preapproval was denied, or that were preapproved but not accepted.

Mortgage Applications by Ethnicity

2008 HMDA data for Colorado were also studied for discrimination against people of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. There were 91,829 applications received from primary borrowers of any race who were not Hispanic, and 12,167 from Hispanic/Latino applicants of any race. Using this racial/ethnic breakdown, applications from Hispanic applicants were twice as likely to be denied as those from Non-Hispanic applicants (18.6% vs. 9%). The ratio remains unchanged if Non-Hispanic applicants are limited to Whites only.

When reasons for denials are analyzed, the only reason that is much higher for Hispanics than Non-Hispanics is credit history.

Figure 12, Reason for Loan Denials by Ethnicity

Source: 2008 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council and Colorado Division of Housing

Reason for Mortgage Loan Denial by Ethnic Group

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

Reason for Denial

Per

cen

t D

enie

d

Hispanic or Latino Non-Hispanic

Hispanic or Latino 21.14% 4.55% 21.32% 10.50% 4.50% 8.74% 8.12% 1.06% 17.78%

Non-Hispanic 20.75% 3.78% 15.71% 15.91% 4.28% 7.82% 13.90% 0.94% 16.49%

Debt to Income

Employment History

Credit History

CollateralInsufficient

CashUnverifiable Information

Incomplete Application

Mortgage Insurance

Other


Loan Denials by Ethnicity and Income

The table below displays the percentage of loan applications that are denied to each ethnic group broken down by household income. The Hispanic loan applicants are much more likely to be denied a mortgage loan at all levels of income. Note that the apparent outlier at the income range of $191,000 – 200,000 reflects a very small number of loan applications, only 2 denials out of 25 applications.

Table 23, Mortgage Loan Denials by Ethnicity and Income

Income Range

% Denied Hispanic

% Denied Non-Hispanic

<= $30K 23% 14%

$31-40K 20% 11%

$41-50K 19% 10%

$51-60K 18% 9%

$61-70K 16% 8%

$71-80K 14% 8%

$81-90K 13% 8%

$91-100K 14% 7%

$101-110K 14% 7%

$111-120K 15% 8%

$121-130K 23% 8%

$131-140K 20% 7%

$141-150K 13% 7%

$151-160K 33% 7%

$161-170K 21% 7%

$171-180K 10% 9%

$181-190K 13% 9%

$191-200K 8% 10%

$201-210K 10% 5%

>$210K 25% 12%

The number of applications at each income level varies by ethnicity in a way that may affect some of the denial rates shown above. The percentage of applications from Hispanics is higher than the application rate for Non-Hispanics at income levels below $80,000 per year; beyond that point there is a higher percentage of Non-Hispanic applicants at every income level.


Figure 13, Percentage of Applications by Income Level and Ethnicity

Actions Taken by Ethnicity

The graph below shows the various actions taken on applications by ethnicity. Hispanics are more likely than Non-Hispanics to withdraw their applications or have them denied by the financial institution, resulting in a lower rate of loan origination.

Action Types by Ethnicity

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Orig

inat

ed

App

rove

d by

not

Acc

epte

d

With

draw

n by

App

lican

t

Clo

sed

for

Inco

mpl

eten

ess

Pre

appr

oval

deni

ed

Pre

appr

oved

but

not

acce

pted

Den

ied

byF

inan

cial

Inst

itutio

n

Pur

chas

ed b

yIn

stitu

tion

Action Type

Per

cen

t o

f E

thni

c G

rou

p

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Overall, the data on mortgage applications and their outcomes for Hispanics suggests that impediments to receiving mortgage loans exist; however, without credit rating data it is not clear that discrimination is occurring.

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

<= $3

0K

$31-

40K

$41-

50K

$51-

60K

$61-

70K

$71-

80K

$81-

90K

$91-

100K

$101

-110

K

$111

-120

K

$121

-130

K

$131

-140

K

$141

-150

K

$151

-160

K

$161

-170

K

$171

-180

K

$181

-190

K

$191

-200

K

$201

-210

K

>$210

K

Income Range

Per

cen

t o

f A

pp

lica

tio

ns

% of Hisp % of Non-Hisp


High Cost Loans, Race and Ethnicity

In the report published by Colorado’s Civil Rights Division on Predatory Lending, the consulting firm BBC Research and Consulting analyzed 2006 HMDA data for evidence that high-cost loans may have been made in a discriminatory manner. Subprime, or high-cost loans are loans made to borrowers who are considered to be at greater risk of defaulting on their loan because of past credit problems, lower income, or other reasons. For the purposes of the study, “subprime” was defined as a loan with an Annual Percentage Rate of more than 3 percentage points above comparable Treasuries for first liens, and 5 percentage points for second liens. This is consistent with the intent of the Federal Reserve in requiring the pricing data.

BBC Consulting analyzed the data geographically, by borrower data, and by lender. In doing so, they found “hotbeds” of subprime lending activity, found that subprime lending was associated with borrower race, ethnicity and income level, and that certain lenders were highly involved in the state’s subprime lending in 2006. The summary of their findings states:

“The HMDA analysis conducted for this study found a strong relationship between minority presence, English as a Second Language and subprime loan activity. It found a smaller relationship between subprime lending and income level. Geographic analysis

At the county level, subprime lending was most active in eastern and south central Colorado. At the metro level, Adams, Weld and Pueblo Counties had subprime loan activity disproportionate to their share of the state’s households. Counties whose minority population was above the state average had the highest proportions of subprime loans.

• In Denver, Census Tracts with high minority populations were much more likely to have high subprime loan activity than Census Tracts with low minority populations.

• Subprime lending activity in the City in 2006 was very active in the western and northeastern portions of the City.

• Areas in Denver with relatively high proportions of households that are “linguistically isolated”—i.e., where no member of the household 14 years and older speaks English very well—also had high subprime loan activity in 2006.

• Subprime lending was also stronger in lower-income areas; however, the relationship between income and subprime lending was less dramatic than that between race/ethnicity and subprime lending. We believe this is due to two factors: 1) High income borrowers represent a good portion of subprime borrowers, and 2) Low income areas have higher proportions of renters and households who are unlikely to qualify for home purchases.

Borrower analysis

African Americans and persons of Hispanic descent in Colorado were twice as likely to get subprime loans than whites or Asians in 2006. This disparity persists across income levels, as shown in Exhibit IV-1 below. The Exhibit shows the disparities of subprime origination by income—the number of times more likely minority borrowers are to receive subprime loans than non-Hispanic, white borrowers with similar incomes.


Exhibit IV-1. Subprime Origination Disparities by Income

Black-white Hispanic-white Income disparity disparity

< $25K 1.31 2.03

$25K-$49K 2.15 2.18

$50K-$74K 2.06 2.06

$75K-$99K 2.24 1.88

$100K+ 2.37 2.04

All incomes 2.14 2.12Source: 2006 HMDA, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council and BBC Research & Consulting.

Our analysis revealed the following overall disparities in 2006: • One in 5 white borrowers got a subprime loan. • One in 2.3 African American borrowers got a subprime loan. • One in 2.23 Hispanic borrowers got a subprime loan. • One in 3.5 multi-race borrowers got a subprime loan.

High-income borrowers represent a significant segment of the subprime market—a surprising finding to us. Borrowers earning more than $100,000 represented about 22 percent of the subprime market compared to 31 percent of the non-subprime market. Lender analysis. Option One, Long Beach and Decision One were the predominantly subprime outfits originating the highest number of subprime loans in Colorado. Their overall share of the subprime market, however, was only about 1 percent each. This is because there were many, many lenders making subprime loans to Colorado borrowers in 2006. The top lenders originated just between and 1 and 3 percent of the total subprime volume in the state. Summary. Our study uncovered large disparities in subprime lending between minority and white borrowers. In 2006, minority borrowers were more than twice as likely as white borrowers to get subprime loans. We also found that subprime loan activity is much higher in areas of the state with high minority populations and persons who speak English as a Second Language. Because of data limitations, we are unable to determine the extent to which minorities and ESL households receive subprime loans because of credit issues. However, if income is a partial proxy for creditworthiness, our analysis provides some evidence of potential discrimination in Colorado mortgage lending. Seventeen percent of white borrowers earning $100,000 and more received subprime loans in 2006, compared to 39 percent of African Americans and 34 percent of Hispanics at the same income level. Therefore, the disparity in subprime lending holds across income levels, suggesting that minority borrowers may be unnecessarily receiving subprime loans compared to white borrowers, all other things being equal.”

These findings indicate racial and ethnic disparities in lending practices that are likely impediments to fair housing.


Mortgage Lending and Gender

2008 HMDA data were also studied to determine whether there were obstacles to home ownership based on gender. Of the 129,188 total loans studied, males were the primary applicant on 76,685 and females on 32,393. 5,528 applicants did not provide gender information. Loan origination and denial rates were very close for both sexes.

Public and Private Sector

Evidence of segregated housing conditions in non-

entitlement areas, and housing desegregation plans

Analysis of 2000 Census data on segregated housing conditions indicates that there are areas of the state in which certain racial or ethnic groups are more concentrated, indicating the presence of segregated housing conditions. See the analyses of areas of minority concentration beginning on page 18. When Division of Housing is able to access and analyze 2010 Census data, we will be able to address specific areas more directly.

The delivery system for statewide programs providing

social services to families with children and persons with

disabilities

The State of Colorado has a state-supervised, county-administered system for the delivery of traditional social services, including programs such as public assistance and child welfare services. This system allows for local control, which enables each community to design and deliver a social services system tailored to the unique needs of its community. In addition, this local control allows for the development of partnerships at the local level between HUD providers, public housing authorities and local social service agencies. This community-by-community placement makes social services more accessible to families with children and persons with disabilities. Services are localized rather than regionalized or located at the state level.


V. Current Public and Private Fair Housing V. Current Public and Private Fair Housing V. Current Public and Private Fair Housing V. Current Public and Private Fair Housing Programs And ActivitiesPrograms And ActivitiesPrograms And ActivitiesPrograms And Activities Lack of funding due to the economic downturn and resulting reductions in tax revenue appears to have dampened fair housing education and enforcement efforts in recent years. HUD’s web site showing FHIP grantees indicates that no Colorado non-profits have received FHIP funding since 2007. When preparing the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan we asked the Colorado Civil Rights Division if they planned to do any fair housing testing, and were told there was no funding available to do so.

Lack of fair housing education and knowledge was noted as a major impediment by both survey respondents and in entitlement-area Analyses of Impediments. The Colorado Civil Rights Division provides fair housing Training classes in Denver four times a year at no charge.

The Department of Local Affairs/Division of Housing co-sponsored fair housing training workshops at four locations around the state in August of 2008 featuring a nationally-recognized expert. The workshops were held in Denver, Grand Junction, Pueblo and Greeley. The workshops were well attended, but additional efforts to inform and educate landlords, property managers, PHA and government employees are badly needed.

RCAC and HUD Region VIII are jointly sponsoring fair housing Training in Cheyenne, Wyoming in April, 2011, a major outreach effort.

Other steps that Division of Housing has taken to further fair housing since the last Analysis of Impediments include:

• The appointment of a Fair Housing Coordinator within the Division of Housing. • Creation of a fair housing page on the Division’s web site containing links to

relevant documents, resources and trainings. • Changes made to our proprietary database to better track fair housing

compliance for projects that we fund. • To help address lack of affordable housing, 23 communities received funding

for Housing Needs Assessments. • To help address high land costs, the Division of Housing has discussed land

donations with local governments and has tracked the number and amount of local government donations of land or contributions to its acquisition. Local governments have donated land or money toward acquisition in 48 projects since January, 2005. The total value of their contributions over that period is $25,522,888.

To address lack of affordable housing for people with disabilities the Division of Housing encourages local housing and disability service agencies to conduct tenant training programs. Specific efforts:

• Division of Housing sponsored Fair Housing workshops conducted by a national expert, Jeff Boyd, in 2008. Workshops were held in Denver, Pueblo, Grand Junction and Greeley. 102 people attended the workshops. The workshops covered The seven protected classes, how Fair Housing affects property access and use by all people including those with disabilities, families and immigrants, ways to help market the property, design leases, contracts and lending, and provide maintenance and services that proactively promote Fair Housing and how Fair Housing affects all types of housing.


• Division of Housing has funded two projects that created housing units for

people with HIV/AIDS: • Juan Diego Apartments, $200,000 21 units (permanent) • Eaton House in Boulder, $35,000 4 units/8 beds (Transitional)

• The Division of Housing has created a web page devoted to Fair Housing

information. (http:\\www.colorado.gov\dola\cdh\fairhousing.htm), with links to it available from the Home page, Landlords, Renters, Local Governments, and Section 8 pages. It includes links to HUD’s Fair Housing web page, to the Colorado Civil Rights Division and other sources of Fair Housing information.

• At this time, Dept. of Human Services, Supportive Housing and Homeless

Programs web site has considerable information on Fair Housing for the disabled, including links to HUD and to CCRD. The FHA has links to HUD’s Fair Housing information. None of the other “partners” listed in section (4) II directly addresses Fair Housing, except that the Colorado AIDS Project (CAP) displays the Fair Housing logo and states CAP’s compliance with Section 504.

To address language and cultural barriers, Division of Housing has taken the following actions:

• Fair Housing posters/flyers are available in Spanish on our web site

• Emergency Shelter Grant agencies are provided with Fair Housing flyers with contact information in both English and Spanish

• NSP 1 Substantial Amendment and all of its revisions have been made available in Spanish as well as English on our web site.

• The notice of Public Hearing was published in Spanish in newspapers.

• Meeting notices for HPRP and NSP were published in Spanish on our web site; HPRP meetings were published in the Denver Post in both English and Spanish.

• The “Puzzle of Homeownership” training on the Division of Housing web site is available in Spanish.


Since 2006, the Department of Local Affairs has made efforts to revitalize known areas of racial segregation and high poverty. The following table lists housing projects undertaken and the 2000 minority and income characteristics of the census tracts where they are located.

Table 24, Division of Housing Project Locations by Census Tract

Project Number County

Census Tract Number

Minority Percentage

Tract to MSA Income

06-060 ADAMS 78.03 81.68 42.38

06-049 ADAMS 78.03 81.68 42.38

07-039 ADAMS 96.04 36.74 69.33

06-014 ADAMS 92.03 35.91 62.87

09-068 ALAMOSA 9816.00 43.55 84.56

06-038 ARAPAHOE 70.16 42.07 75.49

06-029 BOULDER 133.08 21.44 71.86

08-007 BOULDER 133.05 15.51 93.55

10-012 BOULDER 124.01 9.59 76.43

09-059 BOULDER 133.08 21.44 71.86

09-052 BOULDER 135.04 18.70 93.96

07-060G BOULDER 129.06 13.94 94.70

08-045 BOULDER 137.01 5.29 132.41

06-021 CLEAR CREEK 148.00 7.97 80.12

08-073G CONEJOS 9747.00 50.98 71.38

09-040G CUSTER 9801.00 5.82 92.96

08-040G DELTA 9651.00 24.78 80.18

10-020 DENVER 11.01 88.62 48.55

06-028 DENVER 41.05 69.24 NA

06-073 DENVER 14.03 35.70 68.20

07-005C DENVER 4.02 65.83 56.46

07-027 DENVER 26.02 44.22 60.49

09-041 DENVER 9.04 83.23 58.63

08-051 DENVER 24.03 80.85 33.59

10-015 DENVER 42.02 31.26 120.79

07-038 DENVER 28.02 29.65 60.00

07-064C DENVER 15.00 83.03 55.71

07-029 DENVER 27.03 28.38 48.03

07-009 DENVER 24.03 80.85 33.59

10-042 DENVER 24.03 80.85 33.59

07-054 DENVER 16.00 66.55 49.74

06-063 DENVER 42.01 20.35 147.12

07-001 DOUGLAS 141.16 12.31 196.62

08-015 DOUGLAS 141.16 12.31 196.62

10-027 EL PASO 27.00 33.57 62.46

08-005 EL PASO 29.00 51.01 57.16

07-049 EL PASO 22.00 39.26 51.30


Project Number County

Census Tract Number

Minority Percentage

Tract to MSA Income

06-056 FREMONT 9784.00 12.86 96.44

08-052G GRAND 1.00 10.61 116.54

05-059G GRAND 2.00 5.83 126.15

07-003 JEFFERSON 111.00 24.60 75.85

07-013 JEFFERSON 104.02 20.25 56.37

07-070 JEFFERSON 115.50 35.44 67.34

09-060 JEFFERSON 114.00 44.01 51.92

06-062 LA PLATA 9707.02 11.66 112.74

09-044G LA PLATA 9711.00 29.39 92.27

07-044 LARIMER 4.00 19.75 74.20

07-025 LARIMER 10.07 13.08 142.35

10-014 LARIMER 11.07 13.49 105.45

07-006C LARIMER 11.07 13.49 105.45

06-046 MESA 19.00 10.27 112.45

07-040C MESA 12.00 11.50 125.48

08-048G MONTROSE 9663.00 28.15 71.68

06-075C OTERO 9878.00 33.37 98.52

08-027 PUEBLO 9.02 43.55 114.55

10-026 WELD 11.00 18.03 99.93

Source: Colorado Division of Housing proprietary database.

Of fifty-six projects listed above, fourteen were undertaken in census tracts that exceeded the MSA’s median income, and twenty-six in tracts with minority populations below 25%. Twelve of these projects were built in census tracts that are both low minority and high income.

Eight projects in high-minority census tracts (minority percentage greater than 75%) were in entitlement areas in Denver and Adams counties. Eight projects carried out in very low income census tracts (below 50% of MSA median) were also in entitlement areas. Only six projects were located in census tracts that are both high-minority and very low income using 75% minority and 50% of MSA income as the cutoff points.


VI. Conclusions and RecommendVI. Conclusions and RecommendVI. Conclusions and RecommendVI. Conclusions and Recommendationsationsationsations

NOTE: The following list of impediments and ways to address them is preliminary. It has not been reviewed by Department

of Local Affairs management.

Impediments Found


Review of survey responses and entitlement AIs indicates that many residents and property managers do not have access information about fair housing rights and responsibilities. Housing and service agencies’ staff require fair housing training as well as advocate organizations. Nearly 60% of respondents to our survey of affordable housing providers and those who serve the disabled said that the amount of outreach and education about fair housing was inadequate and eleven of those who left comments mentioned lack of education and training. None of those in the general population who felt they had been discriminated against were sure of their rights, nor did they know how to file a complaint.


Survey responses, entitlement-area Analyses of Impediments, and Division of Housing’s Housing Mismatch report and analysis of American Community Survey data show that the greatest barrier to fair housing in Colorado is the relative shortage of affordable units for households with low and very low incomes. High housing costs coupled with low incomes for Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, people with disabilities and women put these protected classes at a major disadvantage in obtaining housing they can afford. Specific shortages of affordable housing for disabled people and for large families were cited in several examples.

Causes of High Housing Costs

• Land Costs

Land costs continue to be an impediment to the production of an adequate supply housing that will promote fair housing choice. This is especially true in resort communities, where there is both great demand for second homes for the wealthy, and where much of the land is unavailable for development because it is owned by the Federal government or is not suitable for housing because of the terrain. Rapidly developing communities in other areas also have high land costs.

• Impact Development Fees

Many local jurisdictions pay for new growth in the community through the use of impact development fees. These fees may include water, wastewater, parks and recreation facilities, fire stations, libraries, and road improvements among other items. These development charges add an additional layer of cost to the expense of creating affordable housing units.

• Other local planning/zoning and building regulations


Other local regulations can add to the cost of housing development, such as growth limits, minimum house or lot sizes, expensive design standards, zoning to exclude multi-family or manufactured housing. Long and complex permitting processes and fees add to developers’ costs and increase the cost of the final housing units.

Causes of Low Income

• Unemployment

According to What Does It Mean to Have A Disability in Colorado?, a majority of Coloradans with disabilities report that their disabilities make working difficult. Only 43.5% of Coloradans with disabilities are employed, compared to 83.8 percent of those without disabilities.7

Blacks, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Hispanics are also far more likely to be unemployed than Whites and Asians, as shown in Table 13, Unemployment Rate by Race and Ethnicity 2005-2009, on page 43.

• Lack of well-paying jobs that do not require high levels of education

Colorado has lost jobs in the extraction industries and construction, especially during the last economic downturn, but that loss is simply the most recent aspect of a trend that has been going on since the 1970s. Technology has reduced the number of people required to perform low-skill work and more jobs have been lost to other countries because of the low wages paid their. This global competition has also put downward pressure on wages paid in the U.S. The creation of numerous well-paying jobs that do not require education beyond high school seems unlikely.

• Lack of educational attainment

Education Attainment data from the American Community Survey 2005-2009 demonstrates that Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans generally attain lower levels of education that Non-Hispanic Whites and Asians as shown in the graph on the next page. Reasons for this phenomenon are beyond the scope of this Analysis, except to the extent that they may reflect the lack of affordable housing near good schools.

7 What Does It Mean to Have a Disability in Colorado? Six Key Issues, A Summary Report from the Colorado State Independent Living Council, July 2010.


Figure 14, Educational Attainment by Race and Ethnicity

Educational Attainment by Race and Ethnicity

0%

20%

40%

60%

Level of Educational Attainment

Per

cen

t o

f R

ace

or

Eth

nic

ity

Black/AAAIANAsianNHOPIHispanicWhite NH

Black/AA 13% 28% 37% 22%

AIAN 20% 31% 33% 16%

Asian 15% 18% 19% 48%

NHOPI 14% 28% 37% 21%

Hispanic 37% 29% 22% 12%

White NH 6% 22% 31% 41%

Less than HS Diploma

High school graduate

Some college or

Assoc.

Bachelor's degree or

Higher

• Affordable housing is located areas too far from sources of good jobs with no public transportation

This phenomenon and the lack of integration of affordable housing, public transportation, and places of employment was mentioned in several Analyses of Impediments.

The lack of affordable housing has a disparate impact on Black/African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, women and people with disabilities because higher percentages of these protected classes are low income. The shortage of housing specifically suited to people with disabilities is an additional impediment, along with a shortage of apartments with more than three bedrooms, which makes it difficult to house large families.


• Lack of appropriate, accessible housing that is also affordable.

Much of Colorado’s housing, especially outside the Denver metropolitan area, was built prior to the fair housing Accessibility Guidelines that went into effect in 1991. Using data from the American Community Survey 2005-2009, roughly 1, 464,000 units were built prior to 1991. This housing is not accessible without modifications.


According to What Does It Mean to Have A Disability in Colorado?, “Newer, accessible, more expensive units are out of the price range of many Coloradans with disabilities, and so is the cost of adapting older units for accessibility.” There is a need for a greater number of accessible units that are also affordable.

Lack of accessible housing was the fourth most-cited impediment to fair housing in our survey of affordable housing providers and those who house the disabled.

• Failure of landlords/property managers to provide reasonable accommodations for tenants with disabilities.

This was the largest single issue behind fair housing complaints filed from 2006-2009, accounting for 205 of the complaints and the primary complaint lodged on the basis of disability. In addition, our survey of affordable housing providers and those who serve the disabled cited disability as the most frequent reason that “free and equal housing was restricted.”

• Communication about disability issues, especially for people with mental disabilities.

Communication issues were mentioned in comments, but are also revealed by CDOH staff experiences in dealing with landlord/tenant issues.

Community Resistance to Affordable and Special Needs Housing

Twelve of the fourteen communities whose Analyses of Impediments were reviewed cited this as a major impediment, and although it was not directly addressed in surveys, “Fear and misunderstanding of those with disabilities” was the third most cited cause of impediments to fair housing choice. The “Not in My Back Yard Syndrome” is an impediment to fair housing because it discourages or may even prevent development of affordable housing that would provide fair housing choice to protected classes. Neighbors often express concern that an influx of low-income or minority households, or people with disabilities will create cultural and language conflicts, cause property values to drop and increase crime and vandalism in their neighborhoods.


The economic downturn and subsequent reductions in State and Federal revenue have led to a lack of funding for fair housing testing. No non-profit organizations in Colorado have received FHIP funding since 2007. It is difficult if not impossible to prove pattern and practice discrimination in the absence of testing. Comments in our survey noted lack of enforcement and difficulty in getting assistance when experiencing discrimination.

Predatory Lending and Foreclosures

A study by the Colorado Civil Rights Division found that minorities, especially Blacks and Latinos, were targeted for subprime and even mortgage loans and that these groups consequently have experienced a disproportionate number of foreclosures. Please see the summary of this study’s findings on page 75.



Persons who do not speak English may be vulnerable to discrimination or unfair acts. Language barriers especially complicate landlord/tenant issues. The Colorado Civil Rights Division study excerpted beginning on page 75 concluded that Low-English Proficiency Spanish speakers were one of the groups targeted by predatory lenders in 2006.

Transportation

Lack of public transit in many areas of the state as well as lack of affordable housing along existing transit routes is an impediment to fair housing. Housing patterns, location of employment opportunities and public transit are not coordinated so as to enable minorities and low income people to hold a job without having a car. Transportation is a recurring barrier to service delivery for people with HIV/AIDS in rural areas of the state where public transportation is not available, and the service areas for HOPWA sponsor agencies are very large, requiring either the client or the service provider to travel long distances by private vehicle.

The area of the state known as the “Front Range” and running from Colorado Springs north to Fort Collins is fairly well connected with bus service.

The Regional Transportation District, centered in Denver, provides bus and light rail transportation to all or parts of eight counties: the City and County of Denver, the City and County of Broomfield, the counties of Boulder and Jefferson, the western portions of Adams and Arapahoe Counties, the northern portion of Douglas County, and small portions of Weld County annexed by Brighton, Longmont and Erie8. The cities of Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Fort Collins and Greeley also have bus service. Regional connecting systems include FREX, which links Colorado Springs to Denver and connects to RTD; the Ute Pass Express which links the town of Divide and other communities along U.S. Highway 24 to Colorado Springs; and FLEX, which links the northern Colorado communities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud and Longmont, where it connects to RTD.

Outside the Front Range, Grand Junction and Durango each have bus systems. The Grand Valley Transit system connects Grand Junction to the towns of Palisade and Fruita. The Durango bus system connects to the RoadRunner system that serves the Southern Ute reservation and the towns of Ignacio and Bayfield. Each system also connects to the Greyhound bus system.

The Greyhound bus system provides service to many smaller communities in Colorado and connects with local bus systems in Colorado Springs, Denver, Durango, Ft. Collins, Grand Junction, Longmont, Pine Junction, and Pueblo. For a complete list of towns served, see Appendix C.

Amtrak provides limited and infrequent train service primarily along the I-70 corridor and across the southeastern part of the state from Trinidad through Lamar and La Junta.

Even with these resources, however, much of the state is unserved by any public transportation option. Because of low population density outside the Front Range public transportation is not economically feasible.

8 RTD 2009/2010 Report to the Region, Regional Transportation District



Planning and zoning, definitions of “family,” land use plans, development fees, growth management programs and housing design specifications may increase the cost of housing and otherwise create impediments to fair housing choice. Zoning in particular, with its emphasis on separation of incompatible uses, may create situations that necessitate driving a car in order to get to work. In some areas of the country, such regulations have been used to deliberately impede fair housing access and desegregation. In most other instances it is not deliberate, but regulations such has minimum lot sizes, or housing design requirements drive up the cost of housing with the result of excluding lower-income households from the community.

Actions To Address Impediments

For a list of concrete actions to be taken and the time frame for each, see Appendix A on page 92.


• Develop a program to educate landlords and property managers about fair housing, especially as it affects people with disabilities

• Additional training for Division of Housing staff to improve Technical Assistance to housing providers and services to the public.

• Continual development of the Division of Housing’s fair housing web page

• Promote fair housing education offered by other organizations through our housing blog, web site, and e-mail

• Provide information about funding available for fair housing (NOFAs) through our housing blog, web site, and e-mail.

• Provide/coordinate training for fair housing with other statewide, federal and nonprofit housing agencies including CCRD, CHFA, Colorado Department of Human Services, Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs (SHHP), Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Colorado Association of Realtors, Colorado Coalition for the Homeless (CCH),Colorado AIDS Project, statewide disability organizations and other fair housing leaders.

• Ensure that all partners provide webpage links to the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), along with information about fair housing.

High Housing Costs Combined with Low Income/Wages:

Address local planning/zoning, building regulations and impact development fees

• Annually, publish “Affordable Housing: A Guide for Local Officials” as a tool for local governments in creating affordable housing and reducing regulatory barriers.


• Use Section 3 requirements more effectively to create jobs and economic opportunity in low income areas that are receiving federal fundsby collaborating with local entitlements to create lists of Section 3 employers, and by developing ways to communicate Section 3 job opportunities to qualified individuals.

Impediments specific to people with disabilities

• Provide technical assistance to property managers on how to fill accessible units with people who need them.

• Try again to create a program to assist landlords in modifying units to meet accessibility standards in order to increase the supply of accessible units. Look into possible funding sources for these modifications could be Medicaid and/or funds from Section 504 settlements through Colorado Civil Rights Division.

• Encourage local housing and disability service agencies to conduct tenant training programs to increase client knowledge of fair housing rights.

• House Bill 1230, passed during the 2011 State Legislative session, combined the administration of all Housing programs under the Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing by transferring administration of housing choice vouchers for people with disabilities from the Department of Human Services. The State believes that this action will save significant administration cost at the state level, enabling the Division of Housing to accomplish three important objectives: (1) pass along administrative funding to local Housing Choice Voucher administrators and allowing them to build their capacity; (2) make funding available to provide training and technical assistance on fair housing issues, particularly those specific to people with disabilities such as reasonable accommodation, reasonable modifications, and accessibility; and (3) improve communication and coordination between public housing authorities and organizations that serve people with disabilities.

• DOLA will release key documents such as the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, Public Housing Agency and Administration plans, and public notices (on our web site only) in large print versions to make them more accessible.

• Establish an Advisory Board comprised of people with disabilities for the Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs section of DOH.

• DOLA is revising and updating its web site and will meet ADA accessibility standards.

• Include the disability community in projects to Affirmatively Further fair housing.

• Ensure that at least one member of the State Housing Board is a member of the disability community as required under Senate Bill 1183, passed in the most recent legislative session.

• Add information on accessibility requirements to DOH’s Developers’ Toolkit training workshop.


• Encourage the development of housing without steps and with wide hallways and bathroom doors.


• Increase efforts to build awareness of the need for affordable housing in Colorado communities through publications, public speaking, participation in affordable housing and special needs advocacy groups, educating legislators, and working with local governments.

• Partner with the Division of Local Government, the Colorado Municipal League and Colorado Counties Incorporated and housing developers to promote “best planning practices” that involve neighborhoods and the public at the beginning of the housing development process.

• Enhance public education about the positive community effects of affordable/special needs housing through publications, public speaking, participation in affordable housing and special needs advocacy groups.

• Provide assistance to housing developers on working with neighbors to allay unfounded fears, by referring them to the fair housing section of the Knowledgeplex web site (www.knowledgeplex.org).


• Request that HUD conduct or fund fair housing testing in Colorado

• Seek out new sources of funding for testing, apply for those for which the Division of Housing is eligible, and pass along information about funding availability to organizations that are eligible through our web site, listserv and blog.

• Increase access to information and assistance about filing fair housing complaints by making this information available on our web site.


• Develop a list of Department of Local Affairs employees who are bilingual and competent to act as interpreters and/or translators.

• Increase outreach to tenants and landlords, both through informational materials person-to-person contact.

• Analyze needs of Limited English Proficiency persons in Colorado and adopt a formal Language Assistance Plan (currently underway)

• Partner with Colorado Civil Rights Division to provide fair housing information in various languages, especially Spanish.

• The Division of Housing will release key documents such as the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, Public Housing Agency Annual and Administrative plans, and public notices in Spanish as well as English.


Transportation

• Continue to promote Sustainable Communities, which encompass transportation and economic opportunity as well as affordable housing.

• Encourage development of affordable housing in close proximity to public transit (transit-oriented development), especially where it provides access to better employment opportunities.

• Encourage the placement of affordable and/or accessible housing close to services in places where public transportation is not economically feasible.

Other Local Government Regulations (not housing-cost

related)

• Continue to educate local governments about barriers to affordable and fair housing.

• Ensure that local government applicants have and enforce Fair Housing Plans. Division of Housing staff will continue to require that local governments have a fair housing plan in place before any new funding to them goes to contract. Asset Managers will continue to include fair housing compliance in their monitoring and project close out processes.

• Perform further research into local government planning and zoning policies, especially those concerning multi-family housing and other rental housing issues such as definitions of “family” or limits on the number of unrelated adults per housing units to ensure that they do not impede access to fair housing.

• Provide Colorado's counties and municipalities with the tools and information needed to implement and benefit from the use of a version of the IBC that is fair housing compliant.

Other Actions

The intention of the Division of Housing is to update this Analysis annually as new data becomes available and in coordination with the Consolidated Plan Annual Action Plan as funding and other resources permit.


Appendix A Appendix A Appendix A Appendix A –––– Table of Specific Actions to Address Table of Specific Actions to Address Table of Specific Actions to Address Table of Specific Actions to Address Impediments to Fair HousingImpediments to Fair HousingImpediments to Fair HousingImpediments to Fair Housing


Action Agency Expected Outcome

Specific Action and Timeline

Develop program to educate landlords & property managers about Fair Housing, especially as it affects people with disabilities.

DOH Fair Housing Coordinator/ Management

Improved compliance resulting in fewer complaints

One training program presented before 3/31/2012.

Provide information on web site and through listserv on Fair Housing training provided by others, and about funding available for Fair Housing (NOFAs).

DOH Fair Housing Coordinator/Web site staff

Higher attendance at training; more applications for FH funding

Ongoing

Train DOH staff to improve fair housing service to the public and technical assistance to housing providers.

DOH Fair Housing Coordinator/ Management

Increased staff awareness resulting in improved provider compliance

One training for staff program presented before 3/31/2012

Further development of Fair Housing web page

DOH Fair Housing Coordinator/Web site staff

Continually improved access to Fair Housing information

Ongoing

Provide/coordinate fair housing training with other statewide, federal and nonprofit housing agencies including CCRD, CHFA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Colorado Coalition for the Homeless (CCH),Colorado AIDS Project, CCDC and other statewide disability organizations, and other fair housing leaders.

DOH Fair Housing Coordinator

Affirmatively further fair housing by helping to improve awareness and compliance.

Partner with other agencies in one statewide or regional fair housing training by July 1, 2012.

Ensure that partners with web sites provide links to the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), along with information about Fair Housing.

DOH Fair Housing Coordinator/Asset Managers

Improve access to fair housing information for tenants and the public.

Ongoing


High Housing Costs Combined with Low Income/Wages:

Action Agency Expected Outcome Specific Actions and Timeline

Annually, publish “Affordable Housing: A Guide for Local Officials” as a tool for local governments in creating affordable housing and reducing regulatory barriers.

DOH Housing Initiatives Coordinator

Keep current AH and FH information available for local governments

Updated version by July 1, 2012

Emphasize job creation under CDBG Section 3 requirements when working with developers to underwrite new projects.

DOH and DLG Housing Development Staff and DLG Regional Managers

Improved job creation for low/mod residents resulting in better access to housing

By July 1, 2012



Provide technical assistance to property managers on how to fill accessible units with people who need them.

DOH Housing Development Specialists and Asset Managers

Increased tenancy by people with disabilities in appropriate units

Develop web training or other program by March 31, 2012.

Create a program to help landlords modify units to meet accessibility standards to Seek possible funding sources for these modifications.

DOH Housing Development Specialists

Increased the supply of accessible units.

One pilot program after July 1, 2012.

Encourage local housing and disability service agencies to conduct tenant training programs to increase client knowledge of fair housing rights.

DOH Asset Managers

Improved tenant understanding of Fair Housing rights.

As part of ongoing monitoring and technical assistance.

Combine administration of all housing voucher programs by transferring administration of HCVs for people with disabilities from Dept. of Human Services to the Division of Housing

DOH Legislature/ Department Managers

Improved delivery of vouchers to people in need, increased capacity of HCV contractors

Make 70% of additional admin money available to contractors beginning 7/1/2012.

Improve accessibility of information from Division of Housing by making key documents available in large print and accessible by screen readers; web site to meet ADA accessibility standards.


Improved access to information about Division of Housing affordable and fair housing efforts; higher citizen participation in processes.

New public notices in large print on web by 12/31/ 2011; ConPlan, CAPER, PHA annual and admin plans available in large print by request by 12/31/2011.




Partner with the Colorado Municipal League and Colorado Counties Incorporated and housing developers to promote “best planning practices” that involve neighborhoods and the public at the beginning of the housing development process.

DOH/DLG Fair Housing Coordinator and CDBG Coordinator

Decreased community resistance

At least one meeting to discuss possibilities.

Enhance public education about the community effects of affordable/special needs housing through publications and public speaking

DOH Housing Initiatives and Research work group/ Management

Decreased community resistance

At least one public speaking engagement;

Direct housing developers to Knowledgeplex.com for information on working with neighbors to allay unfounded fears about the economic and social effects of affordable and special needs housing.

DOH Housing Development Specialists & Web site coordinator

Improved ability for housing providers to respond to community resistance.

On web site by Sept. 30, 2011. Refer staff to site by



Specific Actions and Timeline

Request that HUD conduct or fund Fair Housing testing


Fair housing testing will occur.

Request will be made by 3/31/2012

Seek out new sources of funding for testing


New sources will be found and applied for.

Ongoing

Increase access to information and assistance about filing Fair Housing complaints.


More complaints will result in increased enforcement.

Information already posted on web site, brochures available at front desk.





Develop a list of Department employees who are bilingual and competent to act as interpreters and/or translators


DOLA staff will have more ready access to interpreters when needed.

List developed and distributed on May 11, 2011.

Analyze needs of Limited English Proficiency persons in Colorado and adopt a Language Assistance Plan if the analysis proves it is needed.


Need for a Language Assistance Plan will be determined and plan developed and implemented if needed

By 3/31/2012

Offer access to translations of fair housing information into Spanish and other languages through web site links to HUD and CCRD.

DOH Fair Housing Coordinator/ Web site staff

Information will be readily available to LEP persons.

Web links already provided.

Release key documents in Spanish as well as English.

DOH/DLG Fair Housing Coordinator

Information will be readily available to Spanish speaking LEP persons.

Documents to be available on web in Spanish by 3/31/2011.

Transportation



Continue to promote Sustainable Communities, which encompass transportation, and economic development as well as affordable housing.

DOLA/DOH and DLG staff members

Continued and improved access to transportation from affordable housing

Ongoing

Encourage development of affordable housing in close proximity to public transit, especially where it provides access to better employment opportunities.



Ongoing

Encourage the development of affordable housing close to services and employment in places where public transportation is not economically feasible.



Ongoing





Continue to educate local governments about barriers to affordable and Fair Housing.

DOH Initiatives and Research work group.

Reduction in regulatory barriers to affordable/fair housing.

Updated version of Affordable Housing: A guide for Local Officials by 7/1/2012.

Ensure that local government applicants have Fair Housing Plans in place and that they enforce them.

DOH Housing Development Specialists & Asset Managers

Compliance with AFHMP requirements

Ongoing

Perform further research into local government planning and zoning policies that affect fair housing opportunity

DOH Fair Housing Specialist

Enhanced knowledge of how local policies affect fair access to housing.

Information to be included in 2012 update of AI.


Appendix B Appendix B Appendix B Appendix B –––– Home Modification Programs Home Modification Programs Home Modification Programs Home Modification Programs

Home Repair and Rehabilitation Programs

Many organizations throughout the state offer low interest loans and/or grants for home rehabilitation, emergency repairs, weatherization, or accessibility modifications. Most programs are area-specific and your home must be located within their parameters to be eligible. This information was provided from The HERO Alliance and cannot guarantee eligibility or funding availability. Please contact each organization for more information, eligibility criteria and fund availability vary.

Statewide / Multi-County

Home Builders Foundation www.hbfdenver.org 303-778-1400 ext. 335 1400 South Emerson Street, Denver

Rebuilding Together www.rebuildingtogether.org Denver/ Metro 720-524-0840

Colorado Springs 719-634-4115 [email protected]

Rehabitat www.agingbeautifully.org/volunteers.html 970-219-0212

USDA / RuralDevelopment www.rurdev.usda.gov Local Offices & counties served: Alamosa – 719-589-5661 ext. 4 (Alamosa, Chaffee, Conejos, Costilla, Custer, Fremont, Mineral, Park, Rio Grande, Saguache, Teller) Cortez - 970-565-8416 ext. 4 (Archuleta, Dolores, La Plata, Montezuma, San Juan, San Miguel) Craig - 970-824-3476 ext. 4 (Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt) Delta – 970-874-5735 ext. 4 (Delta, Eagle, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Lake, Mesa, Montrose, Ouray, Pitkin, Summit) Lakewood – 720-544-2903 ext. 4 (Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Clear Creek, Douglas, El Paso, Gilpin, Jefferson, Larimer) Las Animas (719) 456-0120 ext. 4 (Baca, Bent, Crowley, Huefano, Kiowa, Las Animas, Otero, Prowers, Pueblo) Wray - 970-332-3107 ext. 4 (Cheyenne, Elbert, Kit Carson, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld, Yuma)


Statewide / Multi-County, cont.

Veterans Affairs, US Department of www.homeloans.va.gov/sah.htm Specially Adapted Housing Grant / Special Housing Adaptations Grant 1-888-349-7541

Denver Metro

Adams County Housing Authority www.co.adams.co.us 303.453.8500

Arapahoe County Weatherization Division [email protected] Weatherization Services, Insulation/Air Sealing Rebates

303-636-1982mailto:[email protected]

Arvada, City of www.arvada.org Essential Home Repairs Program 720-898-7498 or 720-898-7499

Atlantis Community, Inc. www.atlantiscommunity.net Multifamily Housing Access Program 303-733-9324 or TDD 303-733-0047

Aurora, City of www.auroragov.org Single Family Rehabilitation Loan Program Emergency Single-Family Repair Program Handicap Accessibility Loan Program 303-739-7900

Broomfield Housing Authority www.broomfield.org/housing Housing Rehabilitation Program 303-438-6396

Brothers Redevelopment, Inc. http://brothersredevelopment.org 303-202-6340

Commerce City Housing Authority www.ci.commerce-city.co.us Home Rehabilitation Program 303-289-3698

Del Norte www.delnortendc.org Housing Rehabilitation Program 303-477-4774 or TDD 1-800-659-2656


Denver Metro, cont.

Denver Urban Renewal Authority www.denvergov.org/DURA Single Family Home Rehabilitation Program Emergency Home Repair 303-534-3872

Denver Rental / Homeowner Access Modification Program (RHAMP): Contact: Dawn Russell - 303-733-9324. This program offers real help in the form of wheelchair ramps, porch railings, grab bars, widened doors, raised toilets, and other home modifications that allow for greater independence. RHAMP can help assess the mobility or safety need and develop a plan for the correct home modifications. To qualify you must be a person with a disability and live in the City and County of Denver.

Englewood, City of www.ci.englewood.co.us Home Improvement Loan Program 303-762-2349

Jefferson County Housing Authority www.jcha.org/rehab.htm Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Program 303-422-8600 ext. 114

Littleton, City of www.littletongov.org/housing/rehab.asp Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program 303-991-5301

Westminster, City of www.ci.westminster.co.us Home Rehabilitation Assistance 303-453-8510

Eastern Colorado

Prairie Development Corp. Housing Improvement Program www.prairiedevelopment.com 719-348-5562 or 1-800-825-0208

Southeast Colorado Enterprise Development, Inc. www.seced.net Housing Rehabilitation Program 719-336-3850


Tri-County Housing, Inc. www.ruralisc.org/tch.htm Housing Rehabilitation Program 719-263-5168

Mountain Communities

Upper Arkansas Area Council of Governments www.uaacog.com/houserehab.htm Housing Rehabilitation Program 719-275-4191 ext. 111

Summit County Housing Authority www.summithousing.us/programs.html Rehab Loans 970-423-7043

Northern Colorado

Greeley Urban Renewal Authority www.greeleygov.com/CommunityDevelopment/urbanrenewal.aspx Housing Rehabilitation Program 970-350-9780

Greeley / Weld County Housing Authority www.greeley-weldha.org Home Rehabilitation Loan Program 970-353-7437

Longmont, City of www.ci.longmont.co.us/cdbg/housing/rehab.htm General Repair Program Accessibility Program Emergency Repair Program 303-774-4445

Longs Peak Energy Conservation (LPEC) Weatherization and Home Repair Programs www.co.boulder.co.us/cs/ho/weatherization.htm 720-864-6401

Loveland, City of www.lovelandhsg.org/Housing_Ownership.htm Larimer Home Improvement Program (LaHIP) 970-667-3232

Northeast Colorado Housing, Inc. Home Repair Program 970-542-0955

Volunteers of America - Handyman Program 970-472-9630 Minor home repairs and safety assessments in Larimer County.


Southern Colorado

City of Colorado Springs www.springsgov.com/Page.asp?NavID=1281 Housing Rehabilitation Program 719-385-6877 or 719-385-5985

El Paso County Housing Authority http://adm.elpasoco.com Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Program 719-385-6877

Pueblo Dept. of Housing and Citizen Services www.pueblogov.com Housing Rehabilitation Program 719-553-2850

Western Colorado

Housing Resources of Western Colorado www.housingresourceswc.org Home Rehabilitation Program 970-241-2871 ext. 2

Source: Colorado Department of Human Services


Appendix C Appendix C Appendix C Appendix C –––– Colo Colo Colo Colorado Locations Served by rado Locations Served by rado Locations Served by rado Locations Served by Greyhound Bus SystemGreyhound Bus SystemGreyhound Bus SystemGreyhound Bus System Station Locator (B) Indicates Limited Service Bus Stops

Alamosa Brush Buena Vista Colorado Springs Cortez Craig Delta Denver Denver AAU Brdwy Denver RTD Market Station (B) Denver Union Station (B) Dinosaur Durango Fairplay Fowler (B) Frisco Ft Collins Ft Morgan Glenwood Springs Glenwood Spings Amtrak (B) Granada Granby Grand Junction Grant (B) Greeley Gunnison Hayden Hot Sulphur Sprgs Idaho Springs Jefferson (B) Kremmling La Junta Lamar Las Animas Longmont Milner

Moffat (B) Montrose Pine Junction Poncha Springs Pueblo Rocky Ford Salida Springfield Steamboat Springs Sterling Telluride Trinidad Vail Villa Grove (B) Walsenburg Winter Park

Analysis of Impediments DRAFT2010 V4s3.relmanlaw.com.s3.amazonaws.com/database/... · Colorado...

Documents

Transcript of Analysis of Impediments DRAFT2010 V4s3.relmanlaw.com.s3.amazonaws.com/database/... · Colorado...