analysis of impediments - nebraskaopportunity.nebraska.gov/files/crd/plans_reports/ai_final.pdf ·...

State of Nebraska Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Prepared in Support of Nebraska’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan

Plan Year Beginning July 1, 2005

Final Report

Revised May 15, 2005

State of Nebraska Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Prepared in Support of Nebraska’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan

Plan Year Beginning July 1, 2005

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for Nebraska Department of Economic Development

By

Western Economic Services, LLC 212 S.E. 18th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97214 (503) 239-9091

FAX: (503) 239-0236

(Revised May 15, 2005)

Nebraska Department of Economic Development

Table of Contents

Page Executive Summary 1 Section I: Introduction 3

Overview 3 Research Methodology 4 Funding of Study 4

Section II: Background 5

Introduction 5 Population and Age Cohorts 5 Sex 6 Disability Status 6 Race and Ethnicity 7 Labor Force 12 Unemployment 12 Personal Income 13 Per Capita Income 14 Low-Income Concentrations 15 Poverty 17 Housing Values 17 Housing Stock 18 Overcrowding 18 Summary 19

Section III: Federal and State Fair Housing Laws 21

Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 21 Additional Federal Laws 24 Nebraska Fair Housing Act 25

Section IV: Public & Private Fair Housing Programs and Activities 31

The Department of Housing and Urban Development 31 Fair Housing Assistance Program 31 Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission 32 City of Lincoln Commission on Human Rights 33 Omaha Human Relations Department 33 Fair Housing Initiative Program 34 Fair Housing Center and Family Housing Advisory Services 34 High Plains Community Development Corporation 35 Prospective Changes in Nebraska Fair Housing Law 36 Related Studies 36

Nebraska Department of Economic Development i

Section V: Evaluation of Enforcement and Lending Practices 39

2004 Fair Housing Survey 39 HUD Complaint Data 47 Suits Filed by the Department of Justice 51 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data Analysis 52 Summary 62

Section VI: Summary & Actions to be Implemented 65

Summary of Background 65 Public and Private Fair Housing Programs and Activities 66 Evaluation of Enforcement and Lending Practices 66 Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 68 Strategies to Address Impediments 69 Actions to be Implemented 69

References 71 Appendix A: HMDA Tables 73

Appendix B: Demographic Data 81

Nebraska Department of Economic Development ii

Executive Summary

Introduction The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires jurisdictions to complete an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in order to receive funds from HUD’s formula grant programs. The Analysis of Impediments serves as the basis for fair housing planning, provides essential information to policy makers, administrative staff, housing providers, lenders, and fair housing advocates, and assists in building public support for fair housing efforts. The Analysis of Impediments is one of three steps required of the State as part of the Consolidated Plan process and affirmatively furthering fair housing. These are:

Completing an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice;

Taking actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through the analysis; and,

Maintaining records reflecting the analysis and any actions taken. In Nebraska, legal protection is afforded when housing choice is restricted on the basis of color, disability, familial status, national origin, race, religion, or sex. This Analysis of Impediments provides a broad analysis that explores and identifies actions, omissions, and conditions in the State that may have the effect of restricting housing choice for people protected by State and federal fair housing laws.

Impediments to Fair Housing Choice This Analysis of Impediments revealed the following impediments to fair housing choice in the State of Nebraska:

1. There is a general lack of understanding of fair housing law;

2. Violations of fair housing law do occur, particularly in rental markets;

3. Some confusion exists concerning whom to turn to when a violation of fair housing law is alleged to occur, as well as how to access the State’s fair housing complaint system;

4. Areas of the State, outside of Lincoln and Omaha, are underserved by the current housing complaint and enforcement system;

5. Design and construction standards are not adequately understood or consistently implemented;

6. Some minority populations appear to have unusually high home loan denial rates; and,

7. Subprime lenders are offering high home improvement loan amounts for extremely low-income homeowners.

Nebraska Department of Economic Development 1

Strategies to Address Impediments The Nebraska Department of Economic Development has neither the authority to act unilaterally nor the resources necessary to overcome these impediments to fair housing choice. However, the DED plans to take action, addressing the State’s impediments to fair housing through three strategies:

1. Enhance statewide understanding of fair housing law through outreach and education;

2. Enhance consumer understanding of credit markets and the importance of establishing good credit; and,

3. Enhance the efficiency and geographic distribution of the fair housing complaint and enforcement system.

Actions to be Implemented In order to accomplish the three strategies listed above, the DED intends to implement the following actions:

1. Increase exposure and awareness statewide of the HUD fair housing discrimination complaint toll-free numbers (800)-669-9777 and for the hearing impaired, TTY (800) 927-9275 1-(800) 927-9275.

2. Refer people to HUD with allegations of fair housing violations. Also increase awareness of the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC), the Lincoln Human Rights Commission for people in Lincoln, and the Fair Housing Center for people in Omaha;

3. Endorse complaint-based testing by fair housing education and/or enforcement agencies in non-entitled areas of the State;

4. Urge the NEOC to increase enforcement activities in underserved areas of the State, with a focus on areas having the most rapidly growing minority populations, especially Hispanic, Asian, and other new and rising minority populations;

5. Enhance education and outreach activities concerning fair housing law, including education about the fair housing complaint system, as well as design and construction standards;

6. Endorse systemic testing by fair housing education and/or enforcement agencies of new construction testing for design and construction standards compliance;

7. Enhance understanding of credit markets through educational efforts targeted both to housing consumers and providers through partnering organizations including Fannie Mae Nebraska, the NEOC, the Lincoln Human Rights Commission, the Fair Housing Center of Nebraska, the Nebraska Housing Developers Association, the Nebraska Commission on Housing and Homelessness, the State’s Continuums of Care, and other partners who provide educational services in the areas of credit markets to housing consumers and providers; and,

8. Enhance understanding of fair housing law by expanding the role of a fair housing education agency, a fair housing enforcement agency and/or a statewide affordable housing education agency as an information clearinghouse on Nebraska law, design and construction standards, and other resources.


Section I. Introduction

Overview The Fair Housing Act of 1968 made it illegal to discriminate in the area of housing because of a person’s race, color, religion, or national origin. Sex was added as a protected class in the 1970s. In 1988, the Fair Housing Amendments Act added familial status and disability to the list, making a total of seven federally protected classes. Familial status includes parents or legal guardians of minors under the age of 18. Disability covers physical and mental disabilities as well as people with AIDS or alcoholism. Federal housing protection does not cover income or source of income. Provisions to affirmatively further fair housing are components of HUD’s housing and community development programs. These provisions flow from Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Act, which requires the Secretary of HUD to administer HUD’s housing and urban development programs in a manner which affirmatively furthers fair housing. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines impediments to fair housing as:

Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choice; or

Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.

In 1994, HUD published a rule consolidating a number of programs into what is called the Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. The consolidated programs include the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA). All of these formula grant programs currently are funded in Nebraska. As part of the Consolidated Plan, the State of Nebraska is required to submit to HUD certification of affirmatively furthering fair housing, which requires the State to undertake fair housing planning by:

Completing an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice;

Taking actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through the analysis; and,

Maintaining records reflecting the analysis and any actions taken. This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice represents one of Nebraska’s efforts to comply with the HUD requirements.


Research Methodology This Analysis of Impediments represents a comprehensive examination of information. Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis were collected for the period from 1969 through 2003, including the total number of jobs, average earnings per worker, and per capita income. This information was compared with national statistics. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics were collected and analyzed, assessing unemployment rates and the general direction of Nebraska’s economy. The purpose of this data was to ascertain the strength of economic influences in Nebraska’s housing marketplace. The 2000 Census was used to assess a variety of demographic, economic, and housing-related issues, such as race and ethnicity, disability status, low-income concentrations, poverty, housing values, housing conditions, and cost burdens. Housing discrimination complaint records for Nebraska in federal fiscal years 1993 through 2003, released by HUD, were tabulated and analyzed. Additionally, the Department of Justice Web site was reviewed for recent housing discrimination cases brought to litigation. Congress enacted the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) in 1975 and amended it from 1988 to 1991. The Act allows the public to view loan data that can be used to determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing credit needs of their communities and to identify possible discriminatory lending patterns. For this Analysis of Impediments, HMDA data from 1993 to 2002 were analyzed. This involved evaluation of nearly a half million loan applications over the 10-year period. A telephone survey was conducted, along with interviews of representatives from key agencies, including the Assistive Technology Partnership, Chicano Awareness Center, the Fair Housing Center in Omaha, the Lincoln Commission on Human Rights, and the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission. Representatives of Nebraska’s Department of Economic Development prepared a list of 150 prospective respondents for the telephone interviews. Participants in the survey were drawn from a broad array of housing-related professions across Nebraska, reflecting an even geographic balance throughout the State and allowing for qualitative analysis of general views and trends experienced across the State.

Funding of Study This study was funded by the Nebraska Department of Economic Development. The report was prepared by Western Economic Services, LLC, a Portland, Ore., consulting organization that specializes in conducting analysis and research in support of housing and community development planning.


Section II. Background

Introduction The following narrative provides general background information from the 2000 Decennial Census, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. This data provides context to Nebraska’s housing market.

Population and Age Cohorts Nebraska had a Census 2000 population of 1,711,263 people. The State grew by 132,878 people between the 1990 and 2000 Census, an 8.4 percent increase, as compared to a nationwide increase of 13.1 percent over the same period. As shown in Table II.1, below, 29.5 percent of the State’s population was under the age of 20 in 2000, and 28.6 percent of the population was between the ages of 35 and 54 years. In the last decade, the 35 to 54 age group experienced the strongest rate of growth, 29.5 percent. The 25 to 34 age group was the only sector that showed a decrease in population, declining 13.2 percent between 1990 and 2000. The State’s over-65 population increased 4.1 percent overall and, at 13.6 percent of the State’s total population, was 1.2 percent larger than the national average for this age group.

TABLE II.1 NEBRASKA POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

1990 AND 2000 CENSUS Subject 1990 2000 % Change

Sex Male 769,439 843,351 9.6Female 808,946 867,912 7.3

Age Under 20 years 476,250 504,336 5.920 to 24 years 108,649 120,331 10.825 to 34 years 257,208 223,273 -13.235 to 54 years 378,201 489,588 29.555 to 64 years 135,009 141,540 4.865 & over 223,068 232,195 4.1 Male 89,335 95,630 7.1 Female 133,733 136,565 2.1Total Population 1,578,385 1,711,263 8.4

Although Nebraska’s population increased overall between 1990 and 2000, growth varied considerably in different areas of Nebraska. The population increased the most in the eastern portion of the State and declined the most in the north-central area of Nebraska. Sex

The percentage of males and females in Nebraska was closely balanced in 1990 and again in 2000. In 2000, approximately 50.7 percent of the State’s population was female, and 49.3 percent of the State’s population was male. According to 2000 Census data, a higher percentage, 58.8 percent, of the State’s 65-and-over population was female, although this segment of the population grew by just 2.1 percent between 1990 and 2000. This growth rate


was less than a third of the rate seen among males in the 65-and-over age category during the same time period.

Disability Status The 2000 Census found that 250,534 Nebraska citizens, 14.6 percent of the State’s total population, had a disability.1 This was a significantly lower percentage of the total population than the average of 19.3 percent disabled found across the entire United States. Over 56 percent of the disabled people in the State were in their prime working years, from 21 to 64 years of age, as seen in Table II.2, below. An additional 80,401 disabled people were 65 years of age or older.

TABLE II.2 DISABILITY STATUS BY AGE

CENSUS 2000 Age Nebraska 5 to 15 years 13,832 16 to 20 years 13,654 21 to 64 years 142,647 65 years and over 80,401 Total disabled 250,534

Race and Ethnicity The State of Nebraska became significantly more diverse between 1990 and 2000. While the white population increased 3.6 percent over the decade, whites now compose just 89.6 percent of the total population, down from 93.8 percent in 1990. Meanwhile, the State’s racial and ethnic minority populations increased significantly. The Hispanic population increased 155.4 percent over the decade, the American Indian or Alaskan Native (hereafter termed “Native American”) population increased 20.0 percent, and the black population rose 19.4 percent. The number of people who labeled themselves as “some other race” increased dramatically, 206.9 percent, between 1990 and 2000, while the new Census

1 The data on disability status were derived from answers to long-form questionnaire items 16 and 17. Item 16 was a two-part

question asked of a sample of the population five years old and over, asking about the existence of these long-lasting conditions: (a)

blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment (sensory disability), and (b) a condition that substantially limits one or

more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying (physical disability). Item 17 was a four-

part question asking if the individual had a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting six months or more that made it difficult to

perform certain activities. The four categories were: (a) learning, remembering, or concentrating (mental disability); (b) dressing,

bathing, or getting around inside the home (self-care disability); (c) going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor’ s office

(going outside the home disability); and (d) working at a job or business (employment disability). Categories 17a and 17b were

asked of a sample five years old and over; 17c and 17d were asked of a sample 16 years old and over. For data products using the

items individually, these terms are used: sensory disability for 16a, physical disability for 16b, mental disability for 17a, self-care

disability for 17b, going outside the home disability for 17c, and employment disability for 17d. For data products which use a

disability status indicator, individuals were classified as having a disability if any of these three conditions was true: (1) they were

five years old and over and had a response of "yes" to a sensory, physical, mental or self-care disability; (2) they were 16 years old

and over and had a response of "yes" to going outside the home disability; or (3) they were 16 to 64 and had a response of "yes" to

employment disability.


category of “two or more” races included 23,953 people.2 These data are presented in Table II.3, on the following page.

TABLE II.3 NEBRASKA MINORITY POPULATION

1990 AND 2000 CENSUS Race/Ethnicity 1990 Population 2000 Population % Change White 1,480,558 1,533,261 3.6 Black 57,404 68,541 19.4 Native American 12,410 14,896 20.0 Asian 12,422 21,931 76.6 Nat. Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (1) . 836 . Some other Race 15,591 47,845 206.9 Two or More Races . 23,953 . Hispanic 36,969 94,425 155.4 Total population 1,578,385 1,711,263 8.4

(1) 1990: Pacific Islander: Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian, Pacific Islander, not specified. 2000: NH & OPI: Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

Although Nebraska remained substantially less diverse than the nation as a whole, the State’s racial and ethnic diversity increased substantially from 1990 to 2000. With 5.5 percent of the total population, Hispanics formed the State’s largest minority group in 2000, replacing blacks, who formed the largest minority population in 1990 and composed 4.0 percent of the State’s total population in 2000. Across the United States in 2000, Hispanics formed 12.5 percent and blacks composed 12.3 percent of the total population. The State’s 2000 total minority racial concentration by county, as well as the black and Hispanic concentrations, by county, are presented graphically in Diagrams II.1, II.2, and II.3. As shown in Diagram II.1, the State’s minority populations were most highly concentrated in several counties in the eastern portion of the State, including Colfax, Dakota, Douglas, and Thurston counties, with 18.3, 21.2, 19.0, and 54.2 percent, respectively. However, counties in other areas of the State also had relatively high minority concentrations, including Dawson and Hall Counties in the central part of the State, with 17.7 and 11.3 percent respectively, and Scotts Bluff, Sheridan and Box Butte Counties in the western part of the State, with 12.4, 11.9, and 9.2 percent respectively. HUD states that an area’s minority concentration is disproportionately high if it is more than 10 percentage points higher than the jurisdiction’s average minority concentration. Using that threshold, Colfax, Douglas, Dakota, and Thurston had disproportionately high minority concentrations. Thurston’s high minority concentration – Native Americans compose 52 percent of the county’s population – is due largely to the Omaha and Winnebago Indian Reservations. Diagram II.2 shows that Douglas County, with an 11.5 percent concentration of blacks, was the State’s only county with a large share of the black population. Diagram II.3 presents the Hispanic ethnic concentration by county. Here, Colfax, Dakota, and Dawson County had disproportionately high shares of the Hispanic population, with 26.2, 22.6, and 25.4 percent, respectively. These statistics indicate that high concentrations of minority 2 Race data for the 2000 Census are not directly comparable to the 1990 Census. In the 2000 Census, people were able to identify themselves as more than one race; previously, people could indicate only one race. The general positive or negative direction of the change in particular population groups between 1990 and 2000 is likely to be accurate and is used here to point out State trends.


racial and ethnic populations exist in many of the more rural areas of the State. The incidence of fair housing impediments in these areas is, even if not reported, likely to be higher as a result, as new residents to many of these areas are racial and ethnic minorities.


DIAGRAM II.1 NEBRASKA MINORITY CONCENTRATION BY COUNTY

2000 Census


DIAGRAM II.2

NEBRASKA BLACK CONCENTRATION BY COUNTY 2000 Census


DIAGRAM II.3 NEBRASKA HISPANIC CONCENTRATION BY COUNTY

2000 Census


Labor Force

Labor force statistics provide a source of employment data that may be utilized to better understand the status of Nebraska’s economy. These statistics are collected by the Nebraska Department of Labor and Industry under rules established by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). For this data, employment is defined as people either working or looking for work. Between 1990 and 2003, Nebraska’s labor force expanded by 160,716 people, an overall increase of 16.5 percent. During the same time period, employment increased 139,497 people, or 14.9 percent, and is now at an all-time high. As shown in Table II.4, below, the State’s unemployment rate rose to 4.0 percent in 2003, the highest unemployment rate since 1990, and a .4 percent increase over the 2002 rate. Convention suggests that 4.0 percent still represents full employment of the labor force, with those unemployed primarily a transient portion of the total labor force. Hence, Nebraska’s unemployment picture remains positive.

Table II.4 LABOR FORCE STATISTICS, NEBRASKA

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Year Labor Force Employment Unemployment Unemployment Rate 1990 815,318 797,167 18,151 2.2 1991 838,178 814,963 23,215 2.8 1992 843,511 817,959 25,552 3.0 1993 865,506 842,500 23,006 2.7 1994 888,060 862,586 25,474 2.9 1995 909,607 885,547 24,060 2.6 1996 924,310 897,235 27,075 2.9 1997 922,179 898,119 24,060 2.6 1998 935,136 909,901 25,235 2.7 1999 931,859 905,213 26,646 2.9 2000 943,996 915,911 28,085 3.0 2001 952,869 923,481 29,388 3.1 2002 959,217 924,870 34,347 3.6 2003 976,034 936,664 39,370 4.0

Unemployment

As shown in Diagram II.4, on the following page, the national unemployment rate in 2003 was 6.0 percent. The State’s unemployment rate increased each year from 1996 to 2003, and the gap between State and national unemployment rates reached their lowest level in 2000. However, the national unemployment rate rose precipitously in the following three years and in 2003 was a full 2.0 percent above the State’s unemployment rate.


D IAGRAM II.4NEBRASKA AND U.S. UNEMPLOYMENT RATES

2.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.58.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Ye ar

Une

mpl

oym

ent

Rat

e

Nebras ka Unemploy ment Rate U.S . Unemployment Rate

Personal Income

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides income and employment data. The BEA reported that total earnings in Nebraska generally increased after 1969, reaching some $39.4 billion in real dollar terms by 2002.3 With the addition of dividends, interest, and rent payments received (as unearned income sources), the State’s total personal income exceeded $51.2 billion in 2002. Total personal income grew by an average of 2.7 percent per year between 1969 and 2002. While earnings rose an average of 2.3 percent per year, property income (comprising dividends, interest, and rent) rose nearly 3.5 percent per year from 1969 to 2002, surpassing $10 billion in 2002. During the same time period, total employment, defined differently than the BLS as full and part-time jobs, increased more slowly, about 1.6 percent per year. Consequently, average real earnings per job rose steadily, reaching $33,372 in 2002. Unfortunately, real earnings per job in the United States in 2002 were $41,436, $8,064 higher than in Nebraska, even though this was nearly $1,000 less than the gap seen in 2000. Diagram II.5, on the following page, shows the comparison between real earnings per job in Nebraska and the United States between 1969 and 2002.


3 The term “real” is used to indicate that the influences of inflation have been removed, and the values therefore indicate a measure of buying

power over time.

DIAGRAM II.5NEBRAS KA V S U.S . REAL EARNINGS PER JOB

2003 DOLLARS

$22,000$24,000$26,000$28,000$30,000$32,000$34,000$36,000$38,000$40,000$42,000

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

Rea

l A

vera

ge $

Per

Jo

b

Real Average Earnings per job in Nebras ka Real Av erage Earnings per job in U.S.

Per Capita Income

In 2003, Nebraska’s real per capita income, defined as total personal income divided by population, was $30,758, an increase of 3.6 percent from 2002. As seen in Diagram II.6, below, the U.S. per capita income flattened out after 2000, reaching $31,632 in 2003. Nebraska’s per capita income continued its steady, positive growth in Nebraska, and was just $874 less than national norms in 2003.

DIAGR AM II.6 NEBRAS KA V S U.S. REAL PER CAPITA INCOME

2003 DOLLA RS

$12,000$14,000$16,000$18,000$20,000$22,000$24,000$26,000$28,000$30,000$32,000

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03

Rea

l Per

Cap

ita

Inco

me

Nebras ka Per Capita Income U.S. Per Capita Income


Low-Income Concentrations

According to the 2000 Census, the median household income in Nebraska was $39,250, with income levels varying widely across the State. Sarpy County had the State’s highest median household income at $53,804, while Keya Paha County had the lowest median income at $24,911. Table II.5, below, presents household incomes for 2000 in discrete segments, from under $10,000 to $150,000 or more. In all, 99,612, or 15.0 percent, of Nebraska’s households had incomes lower than $15,000. Another 14.8 percent of Nebraska households earned between $15,000 and $24,999.

TABLE II.5 HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME RANGE

CENSUS 2000 Income Range Nebraska Less than $10,000 55,635 $10,000 to $14,999 43,977 $15,000 to $19,999 47,150 $20,000 to $24,999 51,520 $25,000 to $34,999 97,763 $35,000 to $49,999 122,648 $50,000 to $74,999 135,581 $75,000 to $99,999 58,154 $100,000 to $149,999 36,230 $150,000 or more 17,526 Total Households 666,184 Median Household Income 39,250

For this report, extremely low-income households were calculated as those earning $20,000 or less, or approximately half of the median household income of $39,250. Over 146,700 households in the State fall into this extremely low-income category. Diagram II.7, on the following page, shows the percentage of these extremely low-income households in each county in the State. In 2000, the largest concentration of extremely low-income households was found in Keya Paha County, with 63.1 percent, followed closely by nearby Rock and Boyd counties, at 55.3 and 55.0 percent, respectively. The lowest concentrations of households earning less than $20,000 per year were found on the eastern edge of the State, with Sarpy County at 13.2 percent and neighboring Cass County at 19.6 percent. While income is not a protected class under State or federal law, minorities tend to comprise a higher portion of lower-income households. Consequently, these statistics provide further insight into where one might find a higher incidence of impediments to fair housing.


DIAGRAM II.7 NEBRASKA EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME CONCENTRATION

Census 2000


Poverty The Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine poverty status. If a family’s total income is less than that family’s threshold, then that family, and every individual in it, is considered poor. The poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated annually for inflation, using the Consumer Price Index. The official poverty definition counts monetary income earned before taxes and does not include capital gains and non-cash benefits such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps. Poverty is not defined for people in military barracks, institutional group quarters, or for unrelated individuals under the age of 15, such as foster children. These people are excluded from the poverty calculations.4 In 2000, 161,269 people lived in poverty in Nebraska, a poverty rate of 9.7 percent. This rate was significantly lower than the 12.4 percent rate seen in the nation, and 1.4 percent lower than found in the State in 1990. Table II.6, below, shows the number of people in poverty by discrete age segments. Nearly 55,000 people in the State under the age of 18 lived in poverty in 2000.

TABLE II.6 POVERTY STATUS OF THE POPULATION BY AGE

2000 CENSUS Cohort Nebraska Under 5 years 15,946 5 years 3,434 6 to 11 years 18,685 12 to 17 years 16,412 18 to 64 years 89,407 65 to 74 years 6,996 75 years and over 10,389 Total People in Poverty 161,269 Poverty Rate 9.7

Housing Values Housing costs for both homeowner and rental stock in Nebraska are, on average, considerably lower than what is found nationally. Higher home prices may force prospective buyers to have larger down payments, choose less expensive homes, or increase the amount they borrow. The 2000 Census reported that the median gross rent, which includes the estimated costs of utility services the tenant must pay, was $491 per month in Nebraska, $111 less than the U.S. average of $602 per month. Home values also were significantly lower in Nebraska than seen nationally. The median value of a home in Nebraska was $88,000, 26.4 percent lower than in the nation. Both median gross rent and median home value are shown in Table II.7, below.

TABLE II.7 MEDIAN GROSS RENT AND HOME VALUES

SPECIFIC OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS 2000 CENSUS

Area Median Gross Rent Median Home Value Nebraska 491 88,000 United States 602 119,600

4 Information available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html.


Housing Stock The 2000 Census estimated that Nebraska’s housing stock totaled 722,668 units, an increase of 9.4 percent over the 1990 total. Nearly half of all housing had from four to six rooms, and 37 percent had three bedrooms. Of the total units in 2000, 56,484 were vacant, 216,867 were rented, and the remaining 449,317 were owner-occupied. Of the State’s total housing stock, 666,184 units were occupied, a 10.6 percent increase over the 1990 total. The Census found the State’s rental vacancy rate to be 7.6 percent in 2000, down .6 percent from 1990. The State’s homeowner vacancy rate was 1.8 in 2000, an increase of 7.8 percent from 1990. Over one-fourth, 25.3 percent, of the State’s housing stock was built prior to 1940, increasing the probability of lead-based paint hazards, especially for low-income households. Another 18.6 percent of the State’s housing stock was built between 1940 and 1959. Single-family, detached homes made up 71.9 percent of the total housing stock. The greatest increase in a particular type of housing was in dwellings with 20 or more units, which rose by 46.5 percent between 1990 and 2000. The number of single-family, attached units rose 32.6 percent over the decade.

Overcrowding

HUD defines a housing unit that has a housing problem as one in which the householder is overcrowded, lacks complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, or is experiencing a cost burden. A household is defined as living in overcrowded housing conditions if the household has between one and 1.5 people per room. The household is said to have severely overcrowded conditions if there are more than 1.5 people per room. Statewide, the 2000 Census found that 17,963 households encountered some degree of overcrowding. Of these, 63.0 percent were overcrowded renters and 37.0 percent were overcrowded homeowners, as shown in Table II.8, below.

TABLE II.8 INCIDENCE OF OVERCROWDING BY TENURE

2000 CENSUS Nebraska United States Degree of Overcrowding Renters Homeowners Total

% of All Renters

% of All Homeowners

% of All Renters

% of All Homeowners

Overcrowded 6,033 4,432 10,465 2.8 1.0 5.2 1.9 Severely Overcrowded 5,279 2,219 7,498 2.4 .5 5.8 1.2

Total 11,312 6,651 17,963 5.2 1.5 11.0 3.1

In 2000, severely overcrowded conditions occurred disproportionately more often to Nebraska’s renters than to homeowners. Over 7,498 households in the State, including 5,279 renters, lived in extremely overcrowded conditions in 2000; however, on a percentage basis, Nebraska’s overcrowding problem both for renters and homeowners was less severe than the national average.


Although Nebraska’s overcrowding rates in 2000 compared favorably to national rates, overcrowding in the State increased precipitously between 1990 and 2000. Severe overcrowding in the State increased 250.5 percent, and overcrowding increased 44.1 percent. According to Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, the return of overcrowding as a national housing problem is almost entirely due to strong growth in foreign-born households, which are “more likely than the native-born to cope with high housing costs by doubling up.”5 The rising minority population in Nebraska makes it likely that doubling up is occurring in the State, perhaps accounting for the rapid increases in overcrowding and severe overcrowding.

Summary Population. Between 1990 and 2000, Nebraska’s population rose by 132,878 people, reaching 1,711,263 in 2000. The strongest rate of growth in the decade was 29.5 percent in the 35 to 54 age group, and the only population decline was in the 25 to 34 age group. The percentage of males and females in the State remained almost evenly divided from 1990 to 2000. The disabled population in the State was 250,534 people in 2000, 14.6 percent of the total population. Race and Ethnicity. Nebraska became significantly more racially and ethnically diverse between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, the white population composed 89.6 percent of the total population, down from 93.8 percent in 2000. The Hispanic population rose 155.4 percent over the decade, the Asian population increased 76.6 percent, and the black and Native American populations increased 19.4 and 20 percent, respectively. The minority concentrations varied greatly by county, with the highest concentrations found in some rural as well as urban areas. The incidence of impediments to fair housing is likely to be higher in high minority concentration areas. Labor, Income, and Earnings. Nebraska’s labor force expanded by 160,716 people between 1990 and 2003, or 16.5 percent. Employment increased over the same period by 14.9 percent, while unemployment rose to 4.0 percent in 2003, still 2.0 percent below that of the nation. Total employment, including full- and part-time jobs rose an average of 1.6 percent per year between 1969 and 2002. As of 2002, total earnings in the State increased to $39.4 billion in real dollar terms, while total personal income exceeded $51.2 billion. The average real earnings per job in the State increased steadily since 1969, reaching $33,372 in 2002, but was $8,064 less than the national average. Nebraska’s per capita income in 2003 was $30,758, an increase of 3.6 percent over 2002 figures, and just $874 less than the national average. Low-Income and Poverty. The median household income in Nebraska was $39,250 in 2000. Some 146,700 households, or 22.0 percent of the State’s households, earned less than $20,000 in 2000, and 15.0 percent of all households earned less than $15,000. The 2000 Census reported that 161,269 people in the State were in poverty, a poverty rate of 9.7 percent. The extremely low-income concentrations tended to be in the more rural areas of the State, including many of the same areas with the highest minority concentrations.

5The State of the Nation’s Housing: 2004, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2004.


Housing. In 2000, the median gross rent in Nebraska was $491, $111 less than the national average. The median home value in Nebraska, at $88,000, was 26.4 percent lower than in the nation. The State’s housing stock increased 9.4 percent from 1990 to 2000. The greatest increase in housing stock, 46.5 percent, was in the number of dwellings with 20 or more units. The rental vacancy rate in 2000 was 7.6 percent, down .6 percent from 1990, and the homeowner vacancy rate was 1.8 percent, an increase of 7.8 percent. Overcrowding. Statewide, 17,963 households in the State experienced some degree of overcrowding in 2000. The majority of these households, 63.0 percent, were renters. Nebraska’s overcrowding problem increased precipitously between 1990 and 2000. Severe overcrowding rose 250.5 percent, and overcrowding increased 44.1 percent. Despite the increases, overcrowding of both types was less severe both for renters and homeowners in Nebraska as compared to the nation.


Section III. Federal and State Fair Housing Laws

Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is known as the Fair Housing Act. The Act, as amended in 1974 and 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, and disability. These seven classifications are collectively termed federally protected classes. The federal familial status provision protects children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18. Three significant changes to the Fair Housing Act were made recently.6 These changes are described briefly as follows:

1. The Housing for Older People Act of 1995 (HOPA) made several changes to the 55 and older exemption. Since the 1988 Amendments, the Fair Housing Act has exempted from its familial status provisions properties that satisfy the Act's 55 and older housing condition. First, HOPA eliminated the requirement that 55 and older housing have "significant facilities and services" designed for the elderly.

Second, HOPA established a "good faith reliance" immunity from damages for people who in good faith believe that the 55 and older exemption applies to a particular property, if they do not actually know that the property is not eligible for the exemption and if the property formally stated in writing that it qualifies for the exemption.

2. Changes were made in the Act to enhance law enforcement, including making amendments to criminal penalties in section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 for violating the Fair Housing Act.

3. Changes were made to provide incentives for self-testing by lenders for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. See Title II, subtitle D of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, P.L. 104 - 208 (9/30/96).

The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members. The Act in its entirety may be found online at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm. The Fair Housing Act and its amendments refer to a number of prohibited actions. These actions are summarized briefly in the following pages:7 6 Information available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm 7 Ibid.


http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm

In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or disability:

Refuse to rent or sell housing;

Refuse to negotiate for housing;

Make housing unavailable;

Deny a dwelling;

Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling;

Provide different housing services or facilities;

Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental;

For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting); or

Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing.

In Mortgage Lending: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or disability:

Refuse to make a mortgage loan;

Refuse to provide information regarding loans;

Impose different terms or conditions on a loan, such as different interest rates, points, or fees;

Discriminate in appraising property;

Refuse to purchase a loan; or

Set different terms or conditions for purchasing a loan. In Addition: It is illegal for anyone to do the following:

Threaten, coerce, intimidate or interfere with anyone exercising a fair housing right or assisting others who exercise that right; or

Advertise or make any statement that indicates a limitation or preference based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or handicap. This prohibition against discriminatory advertising applies to single-family and owner-occupied housing that is otherwise exempt from the Fair Housing Act.

Additional Protection if You Have a Disability: If you or someone associated with you:

Have a physical or mental disability (including hearing, mobility and visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex and mental retardation) that substantially limits one or more major life activities;

Have a record of such a disability; or

Are regarded as having such a disability,


Your landlord may not:

Refuse to let you make reasonable modifications to your dwelling or common use areas, at your expense, if necessary for the disabled person to use the housing. (Where reasonable, the landlord may permit changes only if you agree to restore the property to its original condition when you move.)

Refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services if necessary for the disabled person to use the housing.

Requirements for New Buildings: In buildings that are ready for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, and have an elevator and four or more units: Public and common areas must be accessible to people with disabilities

Doors and hallways must be wide enough for wheelchairs

All units must have:

a) An accessible route into and through the unit;

b) Accessible light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls;

c) Reinforced bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and,

d) Kitchens and bathrooms that can be used by people in wheelchairs. If a building with four or more units has no elevator and will be ready for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, these standards apply to ground floor units. These requirements for new buildings do not replace any more stringent standards in State or local law. Housing Opportunities for Families: Unless a building or community qualifies as housing for older people, it may not discriminate based on familial status. That is, it may not discriminate against families in which one or more children under the age of 18 live with:

A parent;

A person who has legal custody of the child or children; or,

The designee of the parent or legal custodian, with the parent or custodian's written permission. Familial status protection also applies to pregnant women and anyone securing legal custody of a child under 18.

Housing for older people is exempt from the prohibition against familial status discrimination if:

The HUD Secretary has determined that it is specifically designed for and occupied by elderly people under a Federal, State or local government program; or

It is occupied solely by people who are 62 or older; or

It houses at least one person who is 55 or older in at least 80 percent of the occupied units, and adheres to a policy that demonstrates an intent to house people who are 55 or older.

A transition period permits residents on or before September 13, 1988, to continue living in the housing, regardless of their age, without interfering with the exemption.


Additional Federal Laws Since the 1970s, the federal government has enacted several other laws that are aimed specifically at promoting fair lending practices in the banking and financial services industries. Although the record generally is improving, discriminatory lending practices have not been eliminated entirely. A brief description of federal laws aimed at promoting fair lending follows:

Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA): Passed in 1974, the ECOA prohibits discrimination in lending based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance, or the exercise of any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.8

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA): In 1975, Congress enacted the HMDA, then amended the act from 1988 through 1991. Under the act, financial institutions are required to report the race, sex, and income of mortgage applicants and borrowers by Census tract. Examination of HMDA data can reveal if loans are denied at higher rates for certain races, for example. A substantive analysis of HMDA data for the State of Nebraska is contained in this report.

Community Reinvestment Act (CRA): The CRA was enacted in 1977 to require each federal financial supervisory agency to encourage financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of their entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods within those communities. New regulations went into effect at the beginning of 1996.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Passed in 1990, the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in the provision of goods as well as services, including credit services.

Fair Lending – Best Practices Agreements: HUD has been working with the lending industry to promote these agreements. The agreements represent voluntary efforts to improve individual bank performance in providing homeownership opportunities to minorities and low-income people by eliminating discriminatory barriers.

Detailed information about individual banks is available. All banking institutions in the United States fall under one of the following four federal regulatory agencies: the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve System, the Office of Thrift Supervision, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. No central agency within the State receives reports from the banking regulatory agencies about compliance with fair lending laws. However, such reports are public information and are available from the regulatory agencies themselves or at the individual banks.

8 Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending, The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, April 1993.


Nebraska Fair Housing Act It is the policy of the State of Nebraska that there shall be no discrimination in the acquisition, ownership, possession, or enjoyment of housing throughout the State of Nebraska in accordance with Article I, section 25, of the Constitution of Nebraska. Section 20-318 of the Nebraska Fair Housing Act states that the following are unlawful acts, except as exempted by section 20-322:

1. Refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of or otherwise make unavailable or deny, refuse to show, or refuse to receive and transmit an offer for a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, familial status, or sex;

2. Discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith because of race, color, religion, national origin, familial status, or sex;

3. Make, print, publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, handicap, familial status, or sex or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination;

4. Represent to any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, handicap, familial status, or sex that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available;

5. Cause to be made any written or oral inquiry or record concerning any protected class of a person seeking to purchase, rent, or lease any housing;

6. Include in any transfer, sale, rental, or lease of housing any restrictive covenants or honor or exercise or attempt to honor or exercise any restrictive covenant pertaining to housing;

7. Discharge or demote an employee or agent or discriminate in the compensation of such employee or agent because of such employee's or agent's compliance with the Nebraska Fair Housing Act; and

8. Induce or attempt to induce, for profit, any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or people of a particular race, color, religion, national origin, handicap, familial status, or sex.

Section 20-319 discusses disabled people, prohibited discriminatory practices, design and construction standards and enforcement of the State’s Fair Housing Act, stating that except as exempted by Section 20-322, it shall be unlawful to:

1. Discriminate in the sale or rental of or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of:

a) The buyer or renter;

b) Any person associated with the buyer or renter; or

c) A person residing in or intending to reside in the dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or


2. Discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with a dwelling because of a handicap of:

a) Such person;

b) Any person associated with such person; or

c) A person residing in or intending to reside in the dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available.

3. For purposes of this section, discrimination shall include:

a) A refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by the person if the modifications may be necessary to afford the person full enjoyment of the premises, except that in the case of a rental, the landlord may, when it is reasonable to do so, condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.

b) A refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford the handicapped person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and

c) In connection with the design and construction of covered multifamily dwellings for first occupancy after September 1, 1991, a failure to design and construct the dwellings in such a manner that:

(i) The public use and common use portions of the dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by handicapped people;

(ii) All the doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within the dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by handicapped people in wheelchairs; and

(iii) All premises within the dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design:

d) An accessible route into and through the dwelling;

e) Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations;

f) Reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and

g) Kitchens and bathrooms such that a handicapped person in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space.

4. Compliance with the appropriate requirements of the American National Standards Institute standard for buildings and facilities providing accessibility and usability for physically handicapped people, ANSI A117.1, shall satisfy the requirements of subdivision (2)(c)(iii) of this section.


5. a) If a political subdivision has incorporated into its laws the design and construction requirements set forth in subdivision (2)(c) of this section, compliance with such laws shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements.

b) A political subdivision may review and approve newly constructed covered multifamily dwellings for the purpose of making determinations as to whether the design and construction requirements are met.

c) The commission shall encourage but may not require political subdivisions to include in their existing procedures for the review and approval of newly constructed covered multifamily dwellings determinations as to whether the design and construction of the dwellings are consistent with the design and construction requirements and shall provide technical assistance to political subdivisions and other people to implement the requirements.

d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the commission to review or approve the plans, designs, or construction of all covered multifamily dwellings to determine whether the design and construction of the dwellings are consistent with the design and construction requirements.

6. a) Nothing in subsection (4) of this section shall be construed to affect the authority and responsibility of the commission or a local agency certified pursuant to section 20-332 to receive and process complaints or otherwise engage in enforcement activities under the Nebraska Fair Housing Act.

b) Determinations by the commission or a political subdivision under subdivision (4)(a) or (b) of this section shall not be conclusive in enforcement proceedings under the act.

7. For purposes of this section, covered multifamily dwellings shall mean:

a) Buildings consisting of four or more units if such buildings have one or more elevators; and,

b) Ground floor units in other buildings consisting of four or more units.

8. Nothing in this section shall be construed to invalidate or limit any law of a political subdivision or other jurisdiction in which this section is effective that requires dwellings to be designed and constructed in a manner that affords handicapped people greater access than is required by this section.

9. Nothing in this section shall require that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others.

Section 20-320 covers transactions related to residential real estate and prohibited discriminatory practices, as follows:

1. It shall be unlawful for any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in transactions related to residential real estate to discriminate against any person in making available such a transaction or in the terms or conditions of such a transaction because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.


2. For purposes of this section, transaction related to residential real estate shall mean any of the followings:

a) The making or purchasing of loans or providing other financial assistance:

(i) For purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing, or maintaining a dwelling; or

(ii) Secured by residential real estate; or

b) The selling, brokering, or appraising of residential real property.

3. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person engaged in the business of furnishing appraisals of real property from taking into consideration factors other than race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, or familial status.

Section 20-321 covers multiple listing services, as well as other services, organizations, or facilities and their prohibited discriminatory practices: It shall be unlawful to deny any person access to or membership or participation in any multiple listing service, real estate brokers organization, or other service, organization, or facility relating to the business of selling or renting dwellings or to discriminate against any person in the terms or conditions or such access, membership, or participation on account of race, color, religion, national origin, handicap, familial status, or sex. Section 20-322 includes the exceptions to above sections, including the following:

1. Nothing in the Nebraska Fair Housing Act shall prohibit a religious organization, association, or society or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society from limiting the sale, rental, or occupancy of a dwelling which it owns or operates for other than commercial purposes to people of the same religion or from giving preferences to such people unless membership in such religion is restricted on account of race, color, national origin, handicap, familial status, or sex.

2. Nothing in the act shall prohibit a private club not in fact open to the public, which as an incident to its primary purpose or purposes provides lodgings which it owns or operates for other than commercial purposes, from limiting the rental or occupancy of such lodging to its members or from giving preference to its members.

3. Nothing in the act shall prohibit or limit the right of any person or his or her authorized representative to refuse to rent a room or rooms in his or her own home for any reason or for no reason or to change tenants in his or her own home as often as desired, except that this exception shall not apply to any person who makes available for rental or occupancy more than four sleeping rooms to a person or family within his or her own home.

4. a) Nothing in the act shall limit the applicability of any reasonable local restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling, and nothing in the act regarding familial status shall apply with respect to housing for older people.

b) For purposes of this subsection, housing for older people shall mean housing:


(i) Provided under any state program that the commission determines is specifically designed and operated to assist elderly people as defined in the program;

(ii) Intended for and solely occupied by people sixty-two years of age or older; or

(iii) Intended and operated for occupancy by at least one person fifty-five years of age or older per unit. In determining whether housing qualifies as housing for older people under this subdivision, the commission shall develop regulations which require at least the following factors:

(A) The existence of significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older people or, if the provision of such facilities and services is not practicable, that such housing is necessary to provide important housing opportunities for older people;

(B) That at least eighty percent of the units are occupied by at least one person fifty-five years of age or older per unit; and,

(C) The publication of and adherence to policies and procedures which demonstrate an intent by the owner or manager to provide housing for people fifty-five years of age or older.

c) Housing shall not fail to meet the requirements for housing for older people by reason of:

(i) People residing in the housing as of September 6, 1991, who do not meet the age requirements of subdivision (b)(ii) or (iii) of this subsection if succeeding occupants of the housing meet the age requirements; or,

(ii) Unoccupied units if the units are reserved for occupancy by people who meet the age requirements.

5. Nothing in the act shall prohibit conduct against a person because such person has been

convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in section 28-401.


Section IV. Public & Private Fair Housing Programs and Activities

The Department of Housing and Urban Development The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) oversees, administers, and enforces fair housing law across the nation. In Nebraska, three “substantially equivalent,” or Fair Housing Assistance Programs (FHAPs) also carry out investigative and enforcement functions on behalf of HUD. Under the 1968 Fair Housing Act, private people who believed they had experienced housing discrimination could file a complaint with HUD, and HUD could investigate and conciliate the complaint. The Act had no mechanism for HUD to adjudicate complaints, so HUD had no options for further enforcement if conciliation failed. The 1988 amendments to the Act increased HUD’s enforcement responsibilities and capabilities, so that HUD’s enforcement efforts no longer ended if conciliation was not reached. The 1988 amendments also created a deadline of 100 days for HUD’s investigation and causal determinations to take place. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) of HUD is responsible for administration of fair housing programs and for processing fair housing complaints. The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for litigating on behalf of HUD in select cases of fair housing violations. The regional hub of HUD in Kansas City oversees housing, community development, and fair housing enforcement in Nebraska, as well as in Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. The HUD field office in Omaha serves Iowa and Nebraska. The two offices can be reached at: HUD, Region VII Omaha Field Office Gateway Tower II 10909 Mill Valley Road, Suite 100 400 State Avenue, Room 200 Omaha, NE 68154 Kansas City, Kansas 66101-2406 Phone: 402-492-3100 Phone: 913-551-6958 or 1-800-743-5323

Fair Housing Assistance Program HUD provides Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) grants on a noncompetitive, annual basis to substantially equivalent state and local fair housing enforcement agencies. FHAP grants are given to public, not private, entities. In Nebraska, three agencies receive FHAP funding:

The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission, which is a State agency;

The City of Lincoln Commission on Human Rights, which serves only the City of Lincoln; and,

The Omaha Human Relations Department, which serves only the City of Omaha. At the beginning of an agency's participation in the FHAP, HUD provides a flat amount of funds for capacity building. Following the period of capacity building, HUD provides agencies with funds for complaint processing, administrative costs, special enforcement efforts, training, and other projects designed to enhance the agency's administration and enforcement of fair housing law.


http://www.hud.gov/local/ne/working/omaoffice.cfm



Substantially equivalent agencies are eligible to receive FHAP grants. Substantial equivalency certification takes place when a state or local agency applies for certification and HUD determines that the agency enforces a law that provides rights, procedures, remedies, and judicial review provisions that are substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Housing Act. The FHAP program permits HUD to use the services of substantially equivalent state and local agencies in the enforcement of fair housing laws, and to reimburse those agencies for services that assist HUD in carrying out the spirit and letter of the federal Fair Housing Act. Substantial equivalency certification is thus intended to provide for State or local complaint processing, while assuring that the substantive and procedural strength of the federal Fair Housing Act is not compromised. The closer proximity of state and local agencies to the site of the alleged discrimination is expected to lead to greater efficiency in case processing. Public agencies that receive FHAP funds can become eligible for additional funding that can be used to partner with private fair housing organizations. By drawing on the strengths of private and public fair housing organizations, such partnerships are intended to combine efforts to combat housing discrimination.

Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) is a neutral administrative agency created by statute in 1965 to enforce the public policy of the State against discrimination. The principal function of the NEOC is to receive, investigate, and pass upon charges of unlawful discrimination occurring anywhere within the State of Nebraska in the areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations. In addition to enforcing Nebraska’s Fair Housing Act, the NEOC is authorized to enforce the Nebraska Fair Employment Act, the Age Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Public Accommodations Act. In order to prevent duplicative proceedings, the NEOC also is authorized, by federal statute, to receive and investigate – concurrently with charges filed under the listed State laws – charges alleging violations of certain federal statutes, including the federal Fair Housing Act. The NEOC is partially funded by HUD as a FHAP. The NEOC consists of seven members appointed by the governor to three-year terms. The commission, which may meet and function anywhere in the State, elects one member to serve as chairperson of the commission. The commission appoints the NEOC executive director, who is directly responsible to the commission. The NEOC’s main office is in Lincoln. The organization also has offices in Omaha and Scottsbluff, as listed below: P.O. Box 94934 1313 Farnam on the Mall Lincoln, NE 68509-4934 Omaha, NE 68102-1836 402-471-2024 or 1-800-642-6112 402-595-2028 or 1-800-382-7820 P.O. Box 1500 Scottsbluff, NE 69363-1500 308-632-1340 or 1-800-830-8633


City of Lincoln Commission on Human Rights The Lincoln Commission on Human Rights (LCHR), a FHAP, is charged with the mission of eliminating and preventing all forms of illegal discrimination, and ensuring and fostering equal opportunities for all citizens of the City of Lincoln. The LCHR provides community education and technical assistance to help people know and understand their rights and responsibilities under Title 11 of the Lincoln Municipal Code. The Lincoln Municipal Code, as amended in 1996, makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, national origin, familial status, handicap, ancestry, or marital status. The LCHR seeks to eliminate discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. For allegations of housing discrimination, the LCHR assists clients in filing complaints, and then investigates those complaints. At the conclusion of the investigation, cases are taken before the LCHR commissioners for a decision. If the commissioners find reasonable cause, a formal charge is filed. The parties affected may then elect to decide the matter in a public hearing. The LCHR may be reached at: 440 South 8th Street, Suite 101 Lincoln, NE 68508 Phone: 402-441-8691

Omaha Human Relations Department The Omaha Human Relations Department (OHRD) is a FHAP that is responsible for the investigation, elimination, and prevention of all forms of prohibited discrimination in the City of Omaha. The OHRD enforces the Omaha Municipal Code, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or marital status in connection with employment, housing, and public accommodation. The OHRD conducts education and outreach about fair housing law in the City of Omaha. The OHRD assists clients in filing charges, investigates those charges, and makes causal findings. The OHRD also can perform complaint-based testing. When unlawful discrimination is found, the OHRD tries to resolve the matter through conference, conciliation, or persuasion. If those methods are unsuccessful, the OHRD initiates hearings before the Civil Rights Hearing Board. If no unlawful discrimination is found, the OHRD director administratively dismisses the charge. The OHRD can be contacted at: 1819 Farnam St Suite 502 Omaha NE 68183 Phone: 402-444-5055


Fair Housing Initiative Program The Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) is HUD’s competitive grant program for nonprofit organizations. FHIP grantees may use the funds to investigate allegations of housing discrimination, educate the public and housing industry about housing discrimination laws, and in other ways work to promote fair housing. In the State of Nebraska, the Fair Housing Center and High Plains Community Development Corporation receive FHIP funding. In 2003, the FHIP program awarded the following three types of grants across the nation:

Private Enforcement Initiative (PEI) grants: About $10.2 million was awarded in 12 to 18- month grants of up to approximately $207,000 to assist private, tax-exempt fair housing enforcement organizations in the investigation and enforcement of alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and substantially equivalent State and local fair housing laws.

Education and Outreach Initiative (EOI) grants: About $5.3 million was allocated for one-year grants of up to $100,000 to inform and educate the public about their rights and obligations under federal, state and local fair housing laws. Within that total amount, about $800,000 went to ten groups that focus on the needs of people with disabilities.

Fair Housing Organizations Initiative (FHOI) grants: About $2.1 million was awarded for three-year grants of up to $350,000 per year for projects that serve rural and immigrant populations in underserved areas or where there is no existing fair housing organization.

Fair Housing Center and Family Housing Advisory Services The Fair Housing Center (FHC) was formed in 1994 to provide fair housing services for all of Nebraska, as well as western Iowa. FHC investigates allegations of discrimination in housing, advises clients of their rights concerning fair housing and landlord/tenant law, conducts outreach across the State, and conducts a fair housing testing program that includes complaint-based as well as random tests. The FHC is a part of Family Housing Advisory Services (FHAS), which serves Omaha and Council Bluffs, Iowa. The mission of FHAS is to help people secure and maintain decent, safe, and affordable housing, as well as to strengthen the community through education, counseling, dispute resolution, and advocacy. FHAS receives Private Enforcement Initiative grants from the FHIP program. The 2003 PEI grant was $206,462, a decrease of just under $48,000 from the year prior. The 2003 grant was used in partnership with the NEOC, and faith-based and grassroots community organizations such as St. Vincent de Paul Shelter, Nebraska Aids Project, and the Creighton Law Clinic, for the following activities:

To expand enforcement activities to underserved populations of Nebraska and western Iowa;

To focus on services for people with disabilities, Native Americans, the homeless, and new immigrant populations, especially individuals and families with limited or no English skills; and,

To provide to residents in urban and rural regions of both Iowa and Nebraska services that range from testing, with 60 percent of them based on rental transactions, to investigations


leading to HUD or equivalent agency referrals, if appropriate, and to provide on-site intake at homeless shelters and other facilities.

The Statewide fair housing hotline, provided by the FHC, is 1-800-NOW-FAIR (1-800-669-3247). FHC may be reached by e-mail at [email protected], or at their office: 2505 North 24th Street, Suite 219 Omaha, NE 68110 Phone: 402-934-6675 FHAS may be contacted at the following three offices in Nebraska: Central Offices:

2416 Lake Street 2505 North 24th Street, Suite 219 Omaha, NE 68111 Omaha, NE 68110 Phone: (402) 934-1777 Phone: (402) 934-7921 South Omaha Office:

3605 Q Street Omaha, NE 68107 Phone: (402) 546-1013

High Plains Community Development Corporation High Plains Community Development, a FHIP, is the only comprehensive housing organization for western Nebraska. Because of the comprehensive nature of the organization, High Plains receives regular inquires about fair housing and other general concerns about housing. The communities of northwest Nebraska served by High Plains are small rural cities that are spread far apart. The population of each community ranges from 1,800 to 7,800 people, with large ranches and farms scattered between communities. The northern communities of Dawes and Sheridan Counties border the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations of South Dakota, while the Box Butte and Sioux Counties have large Hispanic and migrant labor populations. In 2003, High Plains received a $58,652 general EOI grant from the FHIP program. High Plains used the funds to target the above populations and to provide fair housing education and outreach to consumers in the rental housing markets. High Plains Community Development can be reached at:

130 East 2nd St. Chadron, NE 69337 Phone: 308-432-4346


mailto:[email protected]

Prospective Changes in Nebraska Fair Housing Law If enacted as scheduled in October 2005, Legislative Bill 625 (LB 625) would change provisions relating to discriminatory housing complaint procedures. Under LB 625, the NEOC would be required to do the following:

Inform parties against whom a fair housing complaint has been filed of the right at any time, upon request, to obtain copies of all information derived from an investigation and copies of any investigative report relating to that investigation; and,

Allow such parties to obtain copies of all information derived from an investigation and copies of any final investigation report relating to that investigation.

The committee amendment 0681 requires that all personal identifying information of testers shall be deleted by the NEOC. The amendment further provides that the NEOC may collect a fee for the actual cost of producing copies of investigative reports. Because LB 625 changes State law pertaining to fair housing, it is under an automatic review by HUD. HUD must determine if the NEOC, given these new enforcement procedures, remains a substantially equivalent agency. If so, there is no anticipated change. However, if HUD finds that the NEOC is no longer a substantially equivalent agency, then the NEOC could lose its FHAP funds, thus altering the enforcement landscape in the State. Because LB 625 is not due to take effect until October 2005, the bill potentially could be revised if HUD does find that the NEOC would no longer be considered a substantially equivalent agency.

Related Studies In November 2000, HUD released results from a study entitled, “Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets.”9 The study, HDS2000, measured the extent of housing discrimination in the United States against people because of their race or color. It was the third nationwide effort sponsored by HUD to measure the amount of discrimination faced by minority home seekers. The report states that “Housing discrimination … raises the costs of the search for housing, creates barriers to homeownership and housing choice, and contributes to the perpetuation of racial and ethnic segregation.”10 Similar HUD-sponsored studies were conducted in 1977 and 1989, and both found significant levels of racial and ethnic discrimination in both rental and sales markets of urban areas nationwide. The 1989 HUD report included testing conducted in Omaha; the 2000 report did not. HDS2000 measured discrimination in 23 metropolitan areas with populations greater than 100,000, using 4,600 tests. The study found that discrimination persists in both rental and sales markets of large metropolitan areas nationwide, but that its incidence generally declined after 1989. The exception is for Hispanic renters, who faced essentially the same incidence of discrimination in 2000 as they did in 1989.

9 Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase I HDS 2000, Final Report, November 2000. Complete report is

available at http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgfin/hds.html. 10 Ibid. 1-1.


In 2002, HUD conducted a nationwide survey of the general public entitled, “How Much Do We Know.”11 This report found that 14 percent of adults, the equivalent of more than 28 million people, said they had experienced housing discrimination at some point in their lifetime. The study found that “few people who believed they had been discriminated against took any action, with most seeing little point in doing so.”12 In their 2004 Fair Housing Trends Report, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) states that discrimination based on national origin is largely underreported, specifically by Latinos, Asian-Americans, and Native Americans. This is due, they state, to “language barriers and other cultural issues which could include immigration status, hesitancy to challenge authority, and a general lack of faith in the justice system.”13 It is possible that the length of time necessary to reach complaint resolution also may deter complainants, as pointed out in the U.S. General Accounting Office’s (GAO) 2004 report, titled “Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD’s Oversight and Management of the Enforcement of the Enforcement Process.” The GAO report found that, although the process improved in recent years, between 1996 and 2003 the median number of days required to complete fair housing complaint investigations was 259 days for HUD’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Offices and 195 days for FHAP agencies. The report did find a higher percentage of investigations completed within the Fair Housing Act’s 100-day mandate.14 The GAO report also identified the following trends between 1996 and 2003:

The number of fair housing complaints filed each year showed a steady increase since 1998. An increasing proportion of complaints alleged discrimination based on disability, and a declining proportion of complaints alleged discrimination based on race. Race was still the most cited basis of housing discrimination over the time period;

FHAP agencies conducted more fair housing investigations than FHEO agencies over the time period. The total number of investigations completed each year increased somewhat after declining in 1997 and 1998; and,

Investigation outcomes changed over the period, with an increasing percentage closed without a finding of reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred. A declining percentage of investigations were resolved by the parties themselves or with help from FHEO or FHAP agencies.

“A Housing Discrimination Study of Hispanic Residents in Hastings, Nebraska” was completed in 2003 by The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC), with funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and assistance from Rodrigo Cantarero, Ph.D.15 The report was based on 34 interviews of Hispanic residents over the age of 18 in Hastings, Nebraska, a sample that made up 9 percent of the total number of Hispanic households in Hastings. The small sample size makes the report’s findings indicative, not definitive.

11 How Much Do We Know?, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Research and Development, 2002.

Results are available at http://www.huduser.org/Publications. 12 Ibid, Executive Summary, x. 13 2004 Fair Housing Trends Report, National Fair Housing Alliance, Pg. 8. Available at www.nationalfairhousing.org. 14 Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD’s Oversight and Management of the Enforcement Process, United States General Accounting

Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, April 2004. 15 A Housing Discrimination Study of Hispanic Residents in Hastings, Nebraska, Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission, May 2003.


Based on the self-definitions provided by the participants, 31.3 percent of participants indicated that they had experienced housing discrimination. Of those who indicated that they had experienced discrimination, 80 percent said they “did nothing about it,” citing reasons such as not wanting problems with immigration papers, wanting to find a place to live, being afraid of not being taken seriously, finding another place to live, and feeling that complaining would not do any good. Participants who rented a house or trailer home were more likely to indicate experiences with housing discrimination. Of those who had lived in Hastings less than five years, 80 percent reported experiencing discriminatory treatment in housing. Of the 34 total participants, 22.6 percent said they had heard of the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission. A series of questions attempted to identify discriminatory actions, rather than relying on participants’ self-definitions of discrimination. In regards to rental discrimination, the Housing Discrimination Study found that 29 percent of the people interviewed had dealt with a landlord who refused to rent to them or to a member of their family. Another 21 percent had dealt with a landlord who had told them or a member of their family that there were no apartments available for families with children, and 20 percent had been told their family was too large for the size of the housing unit. Another 18 percent of participants said they had been told the housing unit they (or a family member) wanted to see was already rented, even though it was still available. The Hastings study also found instances of discrimination among the 67 percent of participants who had themselves or knew of a family member who had purchased or attempted to purchase a housing unit in Nebraska. Half of participants had been denied mortgages or knew of a family member who had been denied a mortgage. Twenty-five percent of participants indicated that race, color, or national origin was used to determine the appraised value of a unit or to influence the sale of a unit. Another six percent of participants indicated they had been “steered” into particular neighborhoods.


Section V. Evaluation of Enforcement and Lending Practices

2004 Fair Housing Survey During the spring of 2004, 88 telephone surveys were completed from an original list of 150 possible respondents. The survey assessed fair housing compliance and perceived impediments to fair housing in Nebraska. Survey respondents included representatives of 10 different employment categories involved in the provision of housing or housing-related services in the State, as seen in Table V.1, below. The greatest numbers of respondents, 32, were State or local government officials. Survey results provide qualitative insights into various issues pertaining to fair housing, as related by 88 people with varying degrees of knowledge and experience relating to fair housing issues.

TABLE V.1 SURVEY RESPONDENT ORGANIZATIONS

2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY Organization Respondents State/local government officials 32 Housing agencies 22 Service providers 17 Engineers/surveyors 4 Attorneys 3 Development corporations 3 Community development 3 Bank officials 2 Accountants 1 Educators 1

Total 88

Understanding of Fair Housing Law. Nebraska law states that it is illegal to make decisions about housing in relation to color, familial status, national origin, race, religion, or sex. One goal of the telephone survey was to assess respondents’ knowledge of State fair housing law. Participants were asked, “Who do you think is protected by fair housing law?” Just 13 of the 88 respondents correctly supplied the full list of protected classes, as shown in Table V.2, below. While a third of the respondents, 30 of the 88, supplied a partial list of the protected classes, 25 respondents thought the law covered “everyone” and 20 respondents didn’t know or gave incorrect responses.

TABLE V.2 UNDERSTANDING OF FAIR HOUSING LAW

2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY Who is protected by fair housing laws? Number Partial list of protected classes 30 Everyone 25 Correctly listed the protected classes 13 Don’t know 10 Landlords and tenants 6 Tenants 4


These results tend to support a finding in HUD’s 2002 “How Much Do We Know” study. That study involved a nationwide survey of 1,100 adults and was intended to determine the degree of knowledge of fair housing law among average American citizens. The survey found “relatively widespread – although not universal – knowledge of some core fair housing law protections and prohibitions dealing with race, religion, and ethnicity.”16

Given that the respondents to the survey were individuals who work in housing-related fields, however, it may be inferred from the responses shown in Table V.2 that the general public has less knowledge of fair housing than respondents to the survey. Consequently, increased outreach and education for housing professionals as well as for the general public is desirable. Another method used to assess respondents’ knowledge and understanding of fair housing law involved asking where they would refer people who believed they were victims of housing discrimination. Responses are provided in Table V.3, below. The most common responses were that victims should be referred to HUD, the NEOC, or the Fair Housing Center, all of which are valid resources that could help victims of housing discrimination process their fair housing allegations.

Table V.3 ADVICE FOR VICTIMS OF HOUSING DISCRIMINATION

2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY Resource Number HUD 20 NEOC 13 Fair Housing Center 10 Don’t know 8 Local attorney 8 Local housing authority 6 State capitol 2 Local government 2 Health and Human Services 2 Department of Justice 2 Dept. of Economic Development 2 City clerk 2 City hall 2 City board 1 High Plains Community Development 1 Housing Developers Association 1 Lincoln Fair Housing 1 Lincoln Human Rights Commission 1 Social services 1 State agency 1 State ombudsman 1 State senator 1

16 How Much Do We Know? United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Research and Development, 2002, vii. Results available at http://www.huduser.org/Publications.


While it is a positive sign that primary resources such as HUD received the most referrals from respondents, the fact that 22 different responses were given by the 88 respondents indicates some confusion or lack of knowledge by many respondents. In addition, of the 18 respondents who listed HUD as the best resource, 12 were housing agents, meaning that few respondents from other employment categories gave that response. Most of the agencies that were named by respondents do not provide direct services to victims of fair housing violations. Referring victims to such agencies therefore could present a constraint or delay to access to the complaint process, and represents a prospective impediment to affirmatively furthering fair housing. Continuing to educate Nebraska citizens about the primary agencies responsible for handling fair housing complaints and questions, as well as adopting a more uniform system for referring individuals to fair housing advocacy organizations, appears appropriate.

Fair Housing Concerns. Table V.4, below, provides responses to seven survey questions designed to explore issues related to fair housing law and its application in Nebraska.

TABLE V.4 FAIR HOUSING CONCERNS – SUMMARY TABLE

2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY

Question Yes No Don't know

Does the fair housing law serve a useful purpose? 88 0 0 Do you have concerns about fair housing? 43 43 2 Are there areas in the State with fair housing problems? 54 0 34 Do you know of unfair housing practices or discrimination? 30 58 0 Are there city, county, or State policies adversely affecting fair housing? 21 53 14 Do you think the State needs to enhance its fair housing law? 32 31 25 Do you see a need for a State fair housing plan? 49 16 23

All of the survey respondents overwhelmingly stated that fair housing law serves a useful purpose, yet nearly half of the respondents also indicated that they have concerns about fair housing. Among the most common concerns expressed by respondents were the following:

Enhanced fair housing instruction and training is needed, particularly on the west side of the State and in rural areas. The education needs to be tailored to address local concerns and to serve the migrant and other minority populations;

The application process for CDBG and HOME grants does not require enough proof of fair housing compliance, resulting in a missed opportunity for education of communities across the State and for motivating communities to enhance their fair housing efforts;

Rental discrimination, particularly by unregulated landlords, is taking place against members of protected classes; 17

Many new and older residences are not in compliance with fair housing design and construction standards and accessibility regulations;

17 Respondents used many different terms to describe landlords whose fair housing practices do not appear to be regulated by the State or other

entities. These terms, including “mom-and-pop landlords” and “private landlords,” are encompassed in the survey results by the term “unregulated landlords.”


Violations of fair housing law are occurring more frequently in small and more rural communities, often because housing providers, government officials, and others do not know that the law applies to them or because they do not understand specifically how it applies to them; and,

Low-income areas are not being investigated enough to assess the full extent of substandard housing and living conditions. State-level partnerships may be needed to provide adequate oversight of the problem.

Thirty-four respondents to the survey said they did not know of specific areas in the State with fair housing problems. Of the 54 respondents who named specific areas with fair housing problems, responses were split between the largest cities, Lincoln and Omaha, and rural areas scattered across the rest of the State. Fifty-eight respondents said they did not personally know of a specific instance involving an unfair housing practice or housing discrimination. Of the 30 respondents who did know of an instance of discrimination, discrimination relating to a failure to rent to minorities was mentioned 16 times. Discrimination against families was mentioned seven times, and failure to accommodate the physically or mentally disabled was mentioned by five respondents. Predatory lending practices were a concern of eight respondents. Fifty-three respondents indicated they did not feel that city, county, or state policies adversely affect fair housing. Of the 21 who indicated knowledge of policies that adversely affect fair housing, eight said discriminatory lending practices were a problem, four indicated improper concentration of low-income projects were an issue, and two respondents mentioned discriminatory insurance practices. More than half of respondents, 49, favored a state fair housing plan. This may, in part, be due to the relatively large percentage of respondents who were government officials or housing agents. Five respondents emphasized that the plan is especially important right now because of Nebraska’s changing demographics and fiscal difficulties. Fostering discussion and partnerships as part of a planning process could help the State manage budget shortfalls and other changes. Among the 16 respondents who said they did not favor a new state fair housing plan, three said limited funds are available in the State, and those funds should be directed elsewhere. Three respondents mentioned frustration with the previous fair housing plan and unfunded mandates that might come from a new plan.

Education. As pointed out in HUD’s “How Much Do We Know” survey, the premise underlying programs that promote awareness of fair housing law is that education is a necessary step towards reducing discrimination. The HUD survey found evidence showing “some association between awareness of the law, recognition of conduct perceived to contradict the law, and willingness to respond to such conduct.”18 In sum, the HUD survey’s results support the need for continued efforts to promote better public understanding of fair housing law.

18 How Much Do We Know? United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Research and Development, 2002, x. Results available at http://www.huduser.org/Publications.


In the 2004 Nebraska survey, 57 respondents said they did not find fair housing law difficult to work with, understand, or follow. Despite their own sense of understanding, however, 67 respondents said that more outreach and education about fair housing still needs to be done, as shown in Table V.5, below.

TABLE V.5 FAIR HOUSING UNDERSTANDING AND EDUCATION

2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY Question Yes No

Don't know

Is the State fair housing law difficult to work with, understand, or follow? 31 57 0 Is there a specific training process about fair housing law? 38 50 0 Is there enough outreach and education about fair housing? 16 67 5

Of the 67 respondents who indicated that there is not enough outreach and education about fair housing, 10 suggested that more education is needed for the migrant population and low-income people in general. Ten respondents, including several government officials, indicated that more education is needed for government officials who currently are not receiving education or training about fair housing law, particularly as it applies at their local level. Respondents suggested improving educational efforts by the League of Municipalities; putting fair housing education on the agenda at city council meetings; and approaching the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee of the State Senate with ideas about how to improve the education of government officials. A difference was revealed in the level of education about fair housing law received by respondents in urban versus rural areas and, more generally, between those on the west side of the State as compared to those on the east side. Three respondents said that people on the west side of the State are unable to attend fair housing training sessions because the sessions are too far away, resulting in high travel and hotel costs as well as too much time away from their local office. Thirteen respondents said that outreach to the western part of the State needs to be improved. Respondents suggested that outreach could be enhanced by improving partnerships between agencies and increasing the number of agencies providing education in the western part of the State. The NEOC is the primary agency responsible for such education at this time. Various respondents suggested expanding the territory of High Plains Community Development, funding that organization to serve a larger territory; funding the Fair Housing Center for increased outreach and education; partnering or consulting with the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO); and increasing the outreach done by the NEOC. Seven respondents said that the grant application process for CDBG and HOME funds should require stronger proof of fair housing compliance. It was suggested that applicants are simply stating that they are in compliance when, in fact, they are not in compliance and therefore should not be considered for funding. Respondents said that failing to investigate the fair housing plans and other requirements of the grant applications results in applicants taking advantage of the system, perpetuates fair housing violations, and undermines State authority. Three respondents indicated concern about the impact of Legislative Bills 724 and 1083, which are anticipated to close several State-run mental facilities and spread residents to communities


across the State. It was suggested that the Nebraska Department of Economic Development or other agencies play a role in educating rural and other communities about fair housing law and about ways to be pro-active in anticipating these new residents, preventing NIMBYism, or a “Not In My Back Yard” attitude, and other problems before they arise. Seven respondents acknowledged the difficulty of educating people about fair housing when the people seemingly do not want to be educated and do not voluntarily show up for training sessions. Educating migrant workers is made even more difficult because of language and cultural barriers, as well as the transient nature of their work. The language barrier was brought up in response to several questions by a dozen respondents who indicated that the State does not have enough translators available and does not have enough material available on the Web or on paper for non-English speakers. These respondents felt that the language barrier posed a significant problem for the State, particularly as the migrant population continues to expand. Respondents said unequivocally that posting signs or handing out generic information – to the migrant population in particular – does not work as a means of education. Targeting the population immediately upon their arrival through nonprofits and other community-based agencies was suggested as a more efficient method. As the migrant population grows, respondents suggested that ensuring that a thorough plan for education and outreach to the population is in place will be essential in preventing fair housing violations. Nine respondents said landlords need more education about fair housing law. Dissatisfaction with the practices of unregulated landlords was indicated by a number of respondents, who frequently said it seemed unfair that the discriminatory actions of these unregulated landlords were undetected and not adequately punished when discovered.

Accessibility. Sixteen respondents described a need for additional education about the nuances and interpretations of fair housing law. In particular, the lack of understanding of various codes relating to accessibility were said to result in violations detected after construction and therefore after such violations could easily be remedied or prevented. These responses indicate a need for specific, detailed educational and training efforts targeted at inspectors, contractors, and others in the building industry, ensuring their full understanding of the State’s interpretation of fair housing law. Greater enforcement of fair housing compliance in architectural design plans also was suggested by two respondents. These respondents suggested that the current lack of a thorough review of design plans leads both to intended and unintended failure to comply with accessibility provisions. Implementing a standard review process by a State agency or organization such as the Assistive Technology Project could be a cost-effective means of preventing violations. One problem mentioned by two respondents related to housing stock built soon after passage of the State’s fair housing law. Some communities did not know the law or did not implement its changes quickly enough, resulting in housing stock that is not in compliance with the law regarding accessibility. These respondents suggested that additional education, along with helping communities update the properties, would be appreciated, in addition to consideration of “grandfathering in” some buildings or granting exceptions. The respondents said currently


they feel resentment and frustration because their sense is that they are being attacked rather than helped. Barriers to Fair Housing. The most frequently cited barrier to fair housing was the aforementioned lack of education about fair housing law, which 55 respondents said has led to unintended violations of the law. Respondents suggested that discrimination and prejudice also are common barriers to compliance with fair housing law, and 38 respondents indicated that NIMBYism is a problem in the State. The fourth most common barrier mentioned by respondents related to the actions of unregulated landlords. Respondents noted concerns with landlords who are not trained in fair housing compliance and do not receive adequate information about fair housing law. Respondents suggested that these unregulated landlords are violating fair housing law, often due to their lack of awareness or knowledge of the law. The aforementioned language barrier and a lack of enforcement of fair housing law were also common responses. The complete list of respondents’ perceived barriers to fair housing are listed in Table V.6, below.

TABLE V.6 PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO FAIR HOUSING

2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY Barriers19 Number Lack of education about fair housing law 55 Discrimination/Prejudice 45 Not in My Backyard (NIMBYism) 38 Actions by unregulated landlords 19 Language barrier 12 Lack of enforcement 11 Don’t know 11 Covert discrimination 9 Land use violations 3 Lack of affordable housing 1 No barriers exist 1 Zoning ordinances 1

Fair Housing Testing. Fair housing tests were first developed by public and private fair housing agencies as a method for determining the validity of fair housing complaints.20 Testing refers to the use of individuals who, without any real intent to rent or purchase a home, apartment, or other dwelling, pose as prospective buyers or renters of real estate for the purpose of gathering information. The information is used to assess whether a housing provider is complying with fair housing laws. By the early 1970s, many fair housing groups were using fair housing testing and presenting evidence from the tests in court. Tests are now conducted across the nation, both randomly and based on complaints. Survey participants were asked whether Nebraska should do more or less fair housing testing. Respondents generally favored fair housing testing. Five respondents suggested that testing should be reduced, as shown in Table V.7, on the following page. A significant number of

19 Multiple responses were counted separately. 20 A National Report Card on Discrimination in America, “The Role of Testing,” by John Yinger. Available at http://www.urban.org.


respondents, however, 35, answered “don’t know” to the question, indicating that they did not know what fair housing testing was, how much testing was currently done, and/or whether more or less testing should be done. Some 38 respondents said that more testing should be done, although the majority of these respondents appeared to favor testing in a fairly ambivalent, “more testing is always good,” manner. These respondents did not say that the State’s level of testing should be increased because of a specific lack of testing; rather, they expressed a philosophical belief in the value of fair housing testing.

TABLE V.7 NEED FOR FAIR HOUSING TESTING

2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY Response Number More 38 Don’t Know 35 Same 10 Less 5

Given the range of responses about the State’s need for fair housing testing, it appears important to educate both the general public and people working in housing-related fields about the testing process in the State. This need is especially apparent given the relatively large number of people in the survey, 35 of 88, who admitted that they knew little if anything about the State’s current testing process.

HUD Complaint Data HUD maintains records of all complaints filed with the agency, including many complaints filed jointly both with HUD and a Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) in the State. The HUD complaint records for the State were examined for federal fiscal years 1993 through 2003. Over the decade, HUD received 1,127 complaints, alleging 1,449 issues, or types of discrimination.21

The number of complaints increased in recent years, including a 41.7 percent increase between 2001 and 2003. Table V.8, on the following page, illustrates the basis for each complaint.

TABLE V.8 HUD HOUSING COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR NEBRASKA BASIS OF COMPLAINTS: FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 1993 THROUGH 2003

Year Race Disability Sex Familial

Status Color Religion RetaliationNational

Origin

Total Basis for

Complaints

Total Number of

Complaints1993 41 16 18 27 . 1 1 16 120 1021994 48 22 25 18 . 1 5 2 121 971995 30 11 12 19 2 1 1 1 77 551996 26 11 8 8 16 . 1 9 79 731997 36 25 19 13 . 1 6 9 109 831998 29 38 7 10 . 1 6 7 98 881999 161 35 4 17 112 . 8 10 347 2202000 26 45 9 20 4 1 7 10 122 1052001 26 32 4 11 4 1 17 10 105 842002 36 26 7 13 2 2 17 26 129 1012003 29 57 10 24 1 1 10 10 142 119Total 488 318 123 180 141 10 79 110 1,449 1,127

21 Because complainants can charge discrimination under more than one protected class, the basis for complaint total is larger than the total number of complaints filed.


In Nebraska, race or ethnicity was the most common basis for complaints, cited in 43.3 percent of total complaints. Disability was a basis for 28.2 percent of complaints, and familial status was cited in 16.0 percent of the complaints. In 2003, HUD received 57 complaints alleging discrimination based on disability, meaning disability was cited in 40.1 percent of the total issues raised in 2003, twice the proportion seen in 2002. Meanwhile, the proportion of complaints alleging discrimination based on race decreased 7.5 percent between 2002 and 2003. These findings reflect national trends. Nationwide, race complaints were the most common type of complaint in 2003, making up 39.4 percent of complaints filed by HUD or FHAPs.22 Complaints alleging discrimination based on disability were the second most common, at 39.0 percent, followed by familial status, the basis for 16.0 percent of all complaints. Nationwide, a primary reason for the increase in complaints alleging discrimination based on disability appears to be an increase in complaints related to reasonable accommodation.23 The General Accounting Office found that the share of complaints alleging failure to make reasonable accommodation or modification rose from less than 1 percent in 1996 to 16.5 percent in 2003.24 Table V.9, on the following page, separates Nebraska’s 1,127 HUD complaints by outcome, or disposition, of the complaint process. A no-cause determination was reached by HUD or a FHAP in 482, or 42.8 percent, of the total complaints. Settlement was reached prior to a causal finding in 322, or 28.6 percent, of the complaints. The high percentage of settlements is common because HUD and FHAPs are required by the Fair Housing Act to try to conciliate all complaints to the extent feasible. Another 122, or 10.8 percent, of the complaints were abandoned due to administrative or other problems. The remaining 222 complaints, or 19.7 percent of the total complaints received between 1993 and 2003, received cause determination and were pursued.25 Of the 222 complaints that received cause determination, dismissal or a finding of no discrimination was the most common outcome, reached in 70.3 percent of the cases with cause determination. In 27 of the 523 cases, discrimination was found and injunctive or other equitable relief, damages, and/or civil penalties were awarded. Settlement was reached sometime after the causal finding in 22 cases. The other 18 cases were open or were missing information on the adjudication decision as of 2003.

22 2004 Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD’s Oversight and Management of the Enforcement Process, United States General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, April 2004. 23 Reasonable accommodation is a term used in federal law, which states that discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of disability includes a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3). 24 Ibid. 25 HUD or FHAP investigators collect evidence in order to determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur. The director of the regional HUD office in Kansas City reviews the results of the investigations and makes a determination of whether reasonable cause exists. With the concurrence of the relevant HUD’s regional counsel, the director issues either a “cause” or “no-cause” determination.


TABLE V.9 HUD HOUSING COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR NEBRASKA BY COUNTY

DISPOSITION OF COMPLAINTS: FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 1993 THROUGH 2003 Cause Determination by HUD or FHAP

Year Total

Complaints

No CauseDetermination

by HUD

AdministrativeProblems or

Complaint Abandoned

SettlementReached

Dismissed or No Discrimination

FoundDiscrimination

Found Post-Cause Settlement

Open or Decision Missing

1993 102 41 26 23 3 9 7 .1994 97 44 11 32 1 9 9 .1995 55 21 7 24 1 2 2 .1996 73 55 7 9 . 2 . .1997 83 50 13 18 1 1 1 .1998 88 38 13 33 1 2 2 11999 220 41 14 32 133 . . .2000 105 43 16 38 5 1 . 22001 84 39 7 24 5 1 . 82002 101 54 5 35 4 . . 32003 119 56 3 54 2 . . 4Total 1,127 482 122 322 156 27 21 18

Each complaint to HUD was made because of one or more perceived issues. Table V.10, below, presents issues raised over the decade in the 434 complaints not specifically found by HUD to be of “no cause” and not dismissed during litigation. Most of the issues, 134, brought forward over the decade related to discrimination in terms, conditions, privileges, services, or facilities. Another 84 involved discriminatory refusal to rent, and 83 issues concerned non-compliance with design and construction requirements. Non-compliance with design and construction requirements, which is generally related to disability issues, showed a surge in activity in 2003 that accounted for 47.0 percent of the total activity in that category over the decade.

TABLE V.10 HUD HOUSING COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR NEBRASKA: SELECTED COMPLAINTS

FREQUENCY OF ISSUES: FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 1993 THROUGH 2003 Discriminatory Actions 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 TotalDiscriminatory terms/conditions/privileges/services and facilities 11 30 17 7 13 15 7 5 8 9 12 134Discriminatory refusal to rent 19 8 10 3 6 7 3 6 5 8 9 84Non-compliance with design and construction requirements (handicap) . . . . . 12 9 14 9 . 39 83Discriminatory terms/conditions/privileges/services and facilities, relating to rental 1 . 1 . . . 4 5 8 2 12 33Discriminatory financing (includes real estate transactions) 1 2 2 . . . 2 2 3 12 . 24Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, etc) 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 . 1 2 5 23Discriminatory advertising, statements and notices . . . . 1 . 7 5 2 . 1 16Failure to permit reasonable modification . . . . . 1 . 4 5 3 1 14Other discriminatory acts 2 2 . . . . . 1 2 . . 7False denial or representation of availability - sale and rental . . . . . . . 2 . 3 . 5Discriminatory terms/conditions/privileges/services and facilities, relating to sale . . . . . . . . . 3 1 4Steering 1 . . . . . . . . 2 . 3Using ordinances to discriminate in zoning and land use . . . . . 1 1 . . . . 2Discriminatory refusal to sell . . 1 . . . . . . . . 1Otherwise deny or make housing available . . . . . . . . . 1 . 1Total 36 49 34 11 21 37 34 44 43 45 80 434


The HUD complaint data also was separated to assess possible differences between the data in Douglas and Lancaster counties, in which the State’s two largest cities of Omaha and Lincoln are located, and the rest of the State. As seen in Table V.11, below, of the 1,127 total complaints, 628, or 55.7 percent, were in either Douglas or Lancaster Counties. The other 499, or 44.3 percent, of the complaints were in the rest of Nebraska. This complaint history is unbalanced, given that the remainder of the State, excluding both Douglas and Lancaster counties, comprises 58.3 percent of the population, but only 44.3 percent of the complaints. This data implies that the non-entitled portions of the State have been underserved.


BASIS OF COMPLAINTS: FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 1993 THROUGH 2003

Race Disability Sex Familial Status Color Religion Retaliation

National Origin

Total Basis of

Complaints

Number of

ComplaintsYear DL R DL R DL R DL R DL R DL R DL R DL R DL R DL R1993 31 10 8 8 9 9 20 7 . . . 1 . 1 2 14 70 50 63 391994 40 8 14 8 17 8 10 8 . . 1 . 4 1 . 2 86 35 65 321995 23 7 6 5 8 4 13 6 2 . . 1 1 . 1 . 54 23 34 211996 20 6 6 5 5 3 6 2 1 15 . . 1 . 1 8 40 39 36 371997 21 15 17 8 12 7 9 4 . . 1 . 3 3 4 5 67 42 52 311998 24 5 24 14 6 1 5 5 . . 1 . 3 3 1 6 64 34 54 341999 22 139 23 12 3 1 8 9 7 105 . . 5 3 8 2 76 271 60 1602000 21 5 23 22 5 4 8 12 3 1 . 1 2 5 4 6 66 56 60 452001 22 4 18 14 2 2 6 5 4 . 1 . 11 6 2 8 66 39 50 342002 34 2 13 13 5 2 9 4 2 . 1 1 14 3 12 14 90 39 70 312003 17 12 46 11 9 1 13 11 1 . 1 . 7 3 7 3 101 41 84 35Total 275 213 198 120 81 42 107 73 20 121 6 4 51 28 42 68 780 669 628 499“D” = Douglas County; “L” = Lancaster County; “R” = Rest of State

When the complaint data was reduced, excluding complaints that were found by HUD to be of “no cause” or that were dismissed during litigation, only 189 of the resulting 489 “effective” complaints occurred outside Douglas and Lancaster Counties.26 In other words, 38.7 percent of all effective complaints occurred in the more rural areas of the State, even though these areas have 58.3 percent of the population. It appears from this data that in addition to being underserved by the complaint process, people in areas outside Douglas and Lancaster counties have had less success in their pursuit of fair housing complaints. This was especially true for complaints based on race, color, and disability. These data are shown in Table V.12, on the following page.

26 The “effective” complaints examined in Table V.12 include 322 settlements, 122 instances in which there were administrative problems or the complaint was abandoned, 27 cases for which discrimination was found, 21 post-cause settlements, and 18 cases that received a causal finding and are still open or are missing information about the adjudication decision. The 122 instances in which there were administrative problems or the complaint was abandoned were assumed to be effective complaints because these complaints may have been valid and problems in the enforcement system may in some cases have led to the abandonment or administrative problems cited.



BASIS OF COMPLAINTS: FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 1993 THROUGH 2003

Race Disability Sex Familial Status Color Religion

Retaliation Origin

Total Basis for

Complaints

Number of

ComplaintsYear DL R DL R DL R R DL R DL R DL R DL R DL R DL R1993 16 4 2 2 6 3 15 5 . . . . . . 12 39 26 35 231994 17 4 6 5 4 4 6 . . 1 . . . . 1 36 20 211995 11 4 2 2 4 3 7 5 2 . 1 1 . . . 27 15 19 141996 5 4 2 1 2 3 1 . . . . 1 . 1 . 9 11 71997 6 5 10 3 7 3 7 2 . . . 3 . . 1 33 14 21 111998 2 19 7 3 1 2 3 . . 1 . 1 2 4 36 19 30 191999 7 7 9 6 1 . 6 8 . . 3 1 . 2 29 25 25 212000 17 7 1 . 3 10 2 1 . . . 3 3 36 26 33 242001 8 3

National

DL.

8 31.

2 13.

10 .3 1

12 2 111 7 . . 3 3 2 . . . 1 1 1 6 26 20 23 17

2002 8 1 5 8 2 2 5 1 . . . 2 . 6 8 28 20 26 172003 5 6 27 2 6 1 7 5 . . . . 5 . 5 1 55 15 46 15Total 105 42 110 51 39 19 62 49 9 2 2 1 17 7 14 38 358 209 300 189Percent Effective 38.2 19.7 55.6 42.5 48.1 45.2 57.9 67.1 45.0 1.7 33.3 25.0 33.3 25.0 33.3 55.9 45.9 31.2 47.8 37.9

.

This data indicates that the Nebraska fair housing enforcement system needs to be enhanced and made more geographically equitable in order to avoid this lack of balance in the future. This is of particular concern given the concentration of minority populations outside of Douglas and Lancaster Counties, and that the cities of Lincoln and Omaha have their own FHAP organizations. Furthermore, because many rural areas have not dealt with more than a small amount of racial and ethnic diversity in the past, recent in-migration patterns will pose new challenges requiring that a solid and equitable fair housing enforcement system be in place.

Suits Filed By the Department of Justice Under the Fair Housing Act, the Department of Justice (DOJ) may bring lawsuits in the following instances:

Where there is reason to believe that a person or entity is engaged in what is termed a "pattern or practice" of discrimination, or where a denial of rights to a group of people raises an issue of general public importance;

Where force or threat of force is used to deny or interfere with fair housing rights, the DOJ may institute criminal proceedings; and,

Where people who believe that they have been victims of an illegal housing practice file a complaint with HUD, or file their own lawsuit in federal or state court. The DOJ brings suits on behalf of individuals based on referrals from HUD.

Recent case law demonstrates the involvement of the DOJ in Nebraska’s fair housing arena. The following two narratives are direct quotations from the DOJ Web site:


http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/housing_crim.htm

US DOJ Fair Housing L

United States v. Savannah Pines, LLC, et al.

On April 30, 2003, the United States District CUnited States v. Savannah Pines, LLC, et al. (Doperators of the Savannah Pines Retirement Cprohibiting tenants who use motorized wheelchthe facility, charging an additional $1000 seculiability insurance; and restricting such people tas a result of the Defendants' enforcement of thwere not able to use the dining facilities and soof their monthly rental fees. The Consent Order requires that the defendantwho use motorized scooters or wheelchairs at Sin accordance with the Fair Housing Act. Undincluding providing free rent for a period of timpenalties, compensating identified victims andOrder will remain in effect for three years. United States v. Koch (D. Neb.)

On October 2, 2003, the United States filed a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case whicHousing Act by sexually harassing female tdefendant, the owner and/or manager of numeroFair Housing Act by sexually harassing femsubjected to severe, pervasive, and unwelcoadvances or touching; conditioning the terms afavors; and threatening and taking steps to evprospective female tenants when they refused or The case was initially referred to the Division by

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDAInformation from the HMDA database for 1information includes residential mortgage leNebraska. The data are considered “raw” loacontain errors or omissions. Additional HMD Table V.13, on the following page, presenbetween 1993 and 2002, separated by loanportion, 50.0 percent, were for refinancing.home purchases.


Exhibit 1 itigation Cited on the DOJ Web site

(D. Neb.)

ourt for the District of Nebraska approved a Consent Order in. Neb.). The complaint alleges that the Defendants, owners andommunity, discriminated against people with disabilities by:airs or scooters from using these devices in common areas ofrity deposit to such people; requiring such people to obtain

o apartments on the first floor. The complaint also alleges thate policy, tenants who used motorized wheelchairs or scootersme of them missed meals for which they were charged as part

s rescind the policies set forth above and ensures that peopleavannah Pines will have full and equal access to the facilitieser the Consent Order, the Defendants will pay over $87,000,e to people who were harmed by its past practices, paying civil providing a settlement fund for other victims. The Consent

complaint (PDF 62KB) in United States v. Koch (D. Neb.), ah alleges that the defendant, John R. Koch violated the Fairenants and prospective tenants. The complaint alleges theus rental properties in the Omaha, Nebraska area, violated the

ale tenants. The complaint alleges his female tenants wereme sexual harassment, including: unwanted verbal sexualnd conditions of women's tenancy on the granting of sexual

ict or taking other adverse action against female tenants and objected to his sexual advances.

Family Housing Advisory Services, Inc. of Omaha.

) Data Analysis 993 through 2002 was collected and analyzed. This nding activities reported by commercial lenders in n account records, and some individual entries may A data is available in Appendix A.

ts the number of total loan applications received purpose. Of the 845,959 applications, the largest Another 37.3 percent of the applications were for

52

TABLE V.13 HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA

NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Year Home

Purchase Home

Improvement Refinance Multi-familyTotal Loan

Applications 1993 20,832 8,459 33,233 165 62,689 1994 20,810 7,753 11,803 122 40,488 1995 22,503 7,700 8,833 111 39,147 1996 26,583 9,803 18,386 206 54,978 1997 32,161 11,654 26,171 210 70,196 1998 38,532 12,876 59,786 290 111,484 1999 40,397 11,990 44,748 259 97,394 2000 38,868 12,612 35,335 166 86,981 2001 36,381 11,257 80,957 281 128,876 2002 39,261 10,538 103,631 296 153,726

Total 316,328 104,642 422,883 2,106 845,959

Owner-Occupied Home Loans. Of the 316,328 loan applications for home purchases between 1993 and 2002, 294,166, or 92.3 percent, were for owner-occupied housing. As shown in Table V.14, below, the greatest number of owner-occupied applications were processed in 2002, an increase of 2,324 applications over the year prior.


HOME PURCHASE LOAN APPLICATIONS NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Year Owner-

OccupiedNot Owner-

OccupiedNot

AvailableMissing Labels

Total Loan Applications

1993 19,817 793 222 0 20,832 1994 19,508 1,123 179 0 20,810 1995 20,190 1,448 865 0 22,503 1996 24,814 1,319 450 0 26,583 1997 30,070 1,394 697 0 32,161 1998 35,716 1,830 986 0 38,532 1999 36,547 1,918 1,932 0 40,397 2000 36,386 1,873 608 1 38,868 2001 34,397 1,909 75 0 36,381 2002 36,721 2,405 135 0 39,261

Total 294,166 16,012 6,149 1 316,328

Owner-occupied home loan applications were presented to conventional lenders, FHA, VA, and Rural Housing or Farm Service Agencies (RHS/RFS), as seen in Table V.15, on the following page. The majority of the applications, 65.4 percent, were handled through conventional lenders. FHA-insured lenders processed 24.2 percent of the applications, the VA managed 9.1 percent, and RHS/RFS processed 1.2 percent of the applications. According to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), lower-income households nationwide rely more heavily on government-backed loans than do higher-income households.27 The low down payment requirements and the ability to finance closing costs make

27 Information available at http://www.ffiec.gov.


FHA and VA loans particularly attractive to lower-income households and first-time homebuyers. Government-backed loans are more common for minority, particularly black and Hispanic, applicants.


OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Year Conventional FHA

InsuredVA

GuaranteedRural Housing or

Farm Service Agency Total1993 11,298 5,505 2,984 30 19,8171994 11,752 5,044 2,616 96 19,5081995 12,828 4,691 2,587 84 20,1901996 15,979 6,023 2,717 95 24,8141997 18,623 8,217 2,812 418 30,0701998 24,243 7,926 3,049 498 35,7161999 24,564 8,678 2,790 515 36,5472000 25,157 8,168 2,496 565 36,3862001 23,113 8,262 2,458 564 34,3972002 24,924 8,823 2,278 696 36,721

Total 192,481 71,337 26,787 3,561 294,166

Table V.16, on the following page, separates the 294,166 loan applications for the purchase of owner-occupied units into six types of actions undertaken by lenders. These actions were as follows:

1. Loan originated: Loan was made by the lending institution;

2. Approved but not accepted: Loan was approved by the lender, but it was not accepted by the applicant;

3. Loan denied: Loan was denied by the lending institution;

4. Withdrawn by applicant: Applicant chose to close the application process early;

5. Closed for incompleteness: Loan application process was closed by the lending institution due to incomplete information; and,

6. Loan purchased by the institution: Previously originated loan was purchased on the secondary market.

Average loan denial rates, which were as high as 21.6 percent in 1999, declined precipitously, falling to 12.1 percent in 2002, the lowest level seen since 1993.



LOAN ACTION TAKEN ON OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Year Loan

Originated

Approved But Not

Accepted Loan

Denied

WithdrawnBy

ApplicantClosed for

Incompleteness

Loan Purchased

by the Institution Total

AverageDenial

Rate1993 11,649 225 1,441 637 59 5,806 19,817 11.0%1994 11,551 291 1,697 840 92 5,036 19,508 12.8%1995 12,431 588 1,890 735 107 4,439 20,190 13.2%1996 14,795 908 2,811 917 81 5,302 24,814 16.0%1997 15,954 1,220 3,305 976 114 8,501 30,070 17.2%1998 19,314 1,638 4,749 1,216 253 8,546 35,716 19.7%1999 19,266 1,519 5,302 1,426 287 8,747 36,547 21.6%2000 19,442 1,714 4,471 1,527 276 8,956 36,386 18.7%2001 18,387 1,404 3,119 1,328 304 9,855 34,397 14.5%2002 20,038 1,520 2,752 1,546 395 10,470 36,721 12.1%

Total 162,827 11,027 31,537 11,148 1,968 75,658 294,166 16.2%

Denial Rates. Diagram V.1, below, shows that denial rates in Nebraska for owner-occupied home purchase loan applications fluctuated considerably between 1993 and 2002. The rates climbed steadily from 1993 through 1999, then fell rapidly from 1999 to 2002. In 2002, the nationwide denial rates for conventional home purchase loans were 14 percent, higher than the rate in Nebraska.

DIAGRAM V.1OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME PURCHASE LOAN APPLICATIONS: DENIAL RATE

NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

22.0%

24.0%

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

As noted in Table V.16, 31,537 owner-occupied home purchase loan applications were denied over the 10-year period. Lenders are not required to report the reason(s) for denials, and therefore many of the records do not contain this data element. The available data are shown in Table V.17, on the following page, which reveals applicant credit history to be the denial reason cited most often over the decade. Debt-to-income ratio was also a prominent reason cited for


denials, indicating that some people in the State are not aware enough of their ability to afford a home, given current underwriting standards. The trend suggests that while some education exists, additional consumer education about credit markets is necessary.


DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES BY DENIAL REASON NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Denial Reason 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalMissing Reason 777 868 1,175 1,845 1,959 2,379 2,386 2,507 1,345 1,057 16,298Credit History 243 311 266 411 693 1,558 1,455 883 778 647 7,245Debt-to-income Ratio 194 245 220 283 303 312 363 328 347 349 2,944Other 74 70 40 66 87 208 288 247 266 251 1,597Credit Application Incomplete 10 12 25 28 52 41 532 215 112 61 1,088Collateral 39 49 49 65 102 95 150 172 125 181 1,027Employment History 62 81 59 54 39 96 59 48 53 59 610Insufficient Cash 31 51 46 44 48 41 51 53 67 77 509Unverifiable Information 7 9 9 14 20 18 17 15 26 68 203Mortgage Insurance Denied 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 2 16

Total 1,441 1,697 1,890 2,811 3,305 4,749 5,302 4,471 3,119 2,752 31,537

The home loan denial rates also were reviewed by types of population and types of lender communities. Denial rates were computed by sex and race of the primary loan applicant. Table V.18, below, shows the denial rates by sex.28 Over the decade, the denial rate for females consistently was higher than the rate for males, including a 3.8 percent disparity in 2002. The greatest disparity was seen in the late 1990s, when denial rates for females were nearly 10 percentage points higher than denial rates for males. Denial rates for both males and females declined steadily after 1999, when they reached respective highs of 16.2 percent for males and 25.8 percent for females.


DENIAL RATES ON HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-O CUPIED HOMES BY SEX CNEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Sex 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalMale 10.1% 11.9% 12.5% 14.5% 15.4% 16.1% 16.2% 13.3% 9.8% 8.6% 13.1%Female 13.1% 15.4% 16.3% 21.1% 22.9% 24.4% 25.8% 19.7% 14.5% 12.4% 19.1%

Total 11.0% 12.8% 13.2% 16.0% 17.2% 19.7% 21.6% 18.7% 14.5% 12.1% 16.2%

Table V.19, on the following page, presents home loan denial data by race during the 1993 to 2002 time period. The Asian or Pacific Islander group (hereafter termed “Asian”), which composed just over 1 percent of the State’s population, had the lowest denial rates in all but two of the years. Whites maintained the next-lowest denial rate, at 13.3 percent overall. The highest overall denial rate, 34.3 percent, was experienced by American Indians/Alaskan Natives (hereafter termed “Native Americans”), although their denial rate declined by 12.5 percent points between 2001 and 2002, sinking below 20 percent for the first time in the decade. Hispanics and blacks also had high denial rates over the time period. The average denial rate for Hispanics was 24.8 percent and the average denial rate for blacks was 22.5 percent. Despite the higher denial 28 Note that the total denial rate in Table V.10 includes records where the sex of the applicant was not provided.


rates, the actual number of originated loans to minorities in the State increased significantly over the decade, as shown in Appendix A.


DENIAL RATES ON HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Race 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalAmerican Indians/Alaskan Natives 21.6% 28.2% 25.4% 46.5% 45.1% 47.5% 37.3% 29.6% 30.0% 17.5% 34.3%Asian or Pacific Islander 12.4% 8.4% 14.3% 13.8% 8.0% 9.3% 9.2% 10.9% 9.4% 6.0% 9.9%Black 28.2% 23.8% 21.5% 26.5% 23.4% 23.4% 26.7% 16.5% 18.6% 18.8% 22.5%Hispanic 22.4% 26.4% 26.5% 27.2% 28.1% 33.1% 29.9% 21.7% 19.5% 17.6% 24.8%White 9.7% 11.7% 12.2% 14.7% 16.0% 16.7% 17.3% 13.7% 9.7% 8.4% 13.3%Other 12.3% 13.6% 14.0% 27.1% 18.6% 23.7% 47.8% 23.7% 13.3% 10.4% 22.8%

Total 11.0% 12.8% 13.2% 16.0% 17.2% 19.7% 21.6% 18.7% 14.5% 12.1% 16.2%

The reasons for loan denials were separated by race. As seen in Table V.20, below, reasons for denials were missing for more than half of Native American and white applicants. Up until Jan. 1, 2003, lenders were not required to request information on applicants’ race, ethnicity, or sex when applications were taken by telephone, which accounts for much of the missing data. HMDA data from 2003 forward should be more complete. Of the denial reasons provided, credit history was the primary reason for loan denials to all racial groups. Debt-to-income ratio was the next most common reason provided. Although this data describes trends in denial rates, the large percentage of missing denial reasons makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions.


DENIAL REASONS BY RACE: NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002 Denial Reason

Native American Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Not Provided

NotAvailable Total

Missing Reason 170 93 323 919 11,821 107 2,830 35 16,298Credit History 55 57 368 482 4,294 66 1,893 30 7,245Debt-to-income Ratio 20 40 144 179 2,077 15 460 9 2,944Other 11 20 51 122 971 17 395 10 1,597Credit Application Incomplete 3 7 22 51 493 16 494 2 1,088Collateral 4 5 29 47 609 5 304 24 1,027Employment History 7 9 33 61 429 4 65 2 610Insufficient Cash 5 13 25 36 342 7 79 2 509Unverifiable Information 0 3 5 17 129 1 48 0 203Mortgage Insurance Denied 0 1 1 3 8 0 1 2 16Total 275 248 1,001 1,917 21,173 238 6,569 116 31,537Percent Missing Denial Reason 61.8% 37.5% 32.3% 47.9% 55.8% 45.0% 43.1% 30.2% 51.7%

Table V.21, on the following page, presents loan denial rates by race, segmented by level of income. Denial rates for Native Americans were highest overall and for incomes from under $15,000 through the $60,000 income level. For those earning over $60,000, blacks and Hispanics were denied most often. In the highest income category, those earning over $75,000 per year, Hispanics were denied 15.0 percent of the time, and the denial rate for blacks was 12.6 percent, as compared to a 4.8 percent denial rate for whites. The extent to which racial and/or ethnic discrimination may account for differences in denial rates cannot be determined solely from the


HMDA data reported by lenders. However, this data suggests that income level is not the only hurdle that the State’s minority population must overcome on their way to homeownership.


DENIAL RATES BY SELECTED INCOME CATEGORIES AND BY RACE NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Race Less than

$15,000$15,000-$30,000

$30,000-$45,000

$45,000-$60,000

$60,000-$75,000

More than $75,000 Total

American Indian/Alaskan Native 65.5% 45.0% 36.9% 25.0% 6.1% 7.6% 34.3%Asian or Pacific Islander 31.7% 13.6% 9.3% 7.7% 6.9% 5.3% 9.9%Black 46.8% 29.3% 21.1% 15.3% 11.6% 12.6% 22.5%Hispanic 40.8% 27.3% 23.0% 21.4% 17.8% 15.0% 24.8%White 44.1% 24.8% 13.9% 8.6% 5.8% 4.8% 13.3%Other 60.5% 39.9% 25.5% 12.3% 9.6% 5.1% 22.8%

Total 46.8% 28.3% 16.9% 10.9% 7.6% 6.1% 16.2%

Loans by Lender Type. The HMDA database of loan applications was analyzed by type of lender, with two types of lenders explicitly identified: manufactured home and subprime. Manufactured home lenders target manufactured home buyers as their primary market, while subprime lenders provide loans to borrowers who tend to have lower credit quality. Both subprime and manufactured home lenders tend to take on higher-risk homebuyers, and the lenders charge the homebuyers higher interest rates, fees, and related charges in exchange for the additional risks they take with their borrowers. Particularly because of the higher interest rates charged by these two types of lenders, the loans they provide are more expensive methods for entering homeownership and accumulating equity. Nationwide, the subprime share of loans surged from under one percent in the early 1990s to six percent of home purchase loans and 10 percent of refinance loans in 2001, growing from a $43 billion market in 1994 to a $385 billion market in 2003.29 Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies states the following concerning the effects of subprime lending:

Subprime borrowers are clearly more vulnerable than prime borrowers to default even when home prices are rising. Complicating matters, subprime lending is heavily concentrated in low-income, predominantly minority communities. Reminiscent of the late 1960s when FHA loan insurance became available in previously redlined communities, the rapid expansion of subprime lending has led to rising defaults in many of these locations. When foreclosures are geographically concentrated they can threaten revitalization efforts as homes that lenders want to unload quickly flood the market.30

For this report, the lenders that were neither manufactured home lenders nor subprime lenders were classified as prime lenders. A comparison of the three lenders’ activities is presented in Table V.22, on the following page.

29 The State of the Nation’s Housing 2004, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 30 Ibid., Pg. 18.



HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES BY LENDER TYPE NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Application Action 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalPrime Lenders

Loan Originated 11,162 11,017 11,873 13,956 14,823 17,855 17,617 17,674 17,242 18,795 152,014Application Denied 1,005 1,053 836 1,128 1,383 2,109 2,581 1,439 1,425 1,658 14,617Denial Rate 8.3% 8.7% 6.6% 7.5% 8.5% 10.6% 12.8% 7.5% 7.6% 8.1% 8.8%

Subprime Lenders Loan Originated 30 64 48 174 390 605 740 1,059 828 1,129 5,067Application Denied 23 21 25 83 115 402 462 773 612 691 3,207Denial Rate 43.4% 24.7% 34.2% 32.3% 22.8% 39.9% 38.4% 42.2% 42.5% 38.0% 38.8%

Manufactured Home Lenders Loan Originated 457 470 510 665 741 854 909 709 317 114 5,746Application Denied 413 623 1,029 1,600 1,807 2,238 2,259 2,259 1,082 403 13,713Denial Rate 47.5% 57.0% 66.9% 70.6% 70.9% 72.4% 71.3% 76.1% 77.3% 77.9% 70.5%

As seen above, prime lenders were the most active over the time period, issuing over 150,000 loans and 1,553 more loans in 2002 than in 2001. Overall denial rates were highest for manufactured home lenders, at 70.5 percent, and lowest for prime lenders, at 8.8 percent. Subprime lenders, the least active of the three types of lenders over the 10-year time period, originated 301 more loans in 2002 than in 2001, an increase of 36.4 percent, but subprime lenders still denied 38.8 percent of loan applications. The number of manufactured home loan applications fell drastically between 2000 and 2002, while the denial rate for manufactured home loans remained above 70 percent after 1996. The peak years for manufactured home applications were 1998 through 2000, when about 3,000 applications were acted on each year. In 2001, just 1,399 applications were processed, and in 2002, 517 applications were processed and just 114 loans were originated. Tables V.23 through V.25 separate the three types of lenders and compare the loan denial rates for each by race and ethnicity. Table V.23, below, shows that since 1996, prime lenders denied whites and Asians at much lower rates than other races. Native Americans had the highest denial rates every year after 1995, although the denial rates fell to a seven-year low in 2002. Over the decade, the denial rates for blacks and Hispanics were 18.4 and 15.5 percent, respectively.


DENIAL RATES ON HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE PRIME LENDERS, NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Race 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalAmerican Indian/Alaskan Native 12.5% 4.3% 8.9% 25.0% 25.4% 30.9% 23.4% 16.4% 18.5% 12.7% 18.9%Asian or Pacific Islander 9.8% 6.1% 9.5% 10.8% 6.6% 6.3% 6.0% 6.7% 8.3% 5.5% 7.3%Black 27.7% 23.2% 19.0% 23.1% 18.4% 18.4% 18.5% 11.8% 11.4% 13.1% 18.4%Hispanic 15.5% 17.7% 14.9% 14.8% 18.0% 19.5% 18.6% 10.4% 15.0% 14.0% 15.5%White 7.3% 7.5% 5.5% 6.4% 7.5% 7.0% 7.4% 5.4% 6.2% 5.9% 6.6%Other 6.8% 5.4% 4.5% 3.3% 12.1% 12.0% 13.8% 6.0% 7.4% 10.2% 8.8%

Total Prime Lenders 8.3% 8.7% 6.6% 7.5% 8.5% 10.6% 12.8% 7.5% 7.6% 8.1% 8.8%


Table V.24, below, shows that the average denial rate for subprime lenders was 38.8 percent over the decade. The denial rate for Native Americans was lowest, at 19.4 percent, while the denial rate for those in the “other” category was the highest, at 64.3 percent. Because there are far fewer loan applications in the subprime market, as compared to the prime and manufactured lender markets, the percentage values shown below do not provide sufficient information from which to draw firm conclusions. Further tables presenting the quantity of loans processed by these and all other lender types are located in Appendix A.


DENIAL RATES ON HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HO ES BY RACE MSUBPRIME LENDERS, NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Race 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalAmerican Indian/Alaskan Native 100.0% . 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0% 3.2% 19.0% 50.0% 50.0% 19.4%Asian or Pacific Islander . 33.3% . 0.0% 0.0% 23.1% 25.0% 50.0% 18.2% 20.0% 27.0%Black 50.0% 30.0% 71.4% 21.1% 16.7% 20.0% 48.7% 27.5% 45.2% 39.5% 34.7%Hispanic . . 60.0% 25.0% 9.5% 39.5% 42.6% 45.5% 38.5% 38.5% 39.7%White 37.5% 25.8% 26.9% 13.3% 12.5% 34.5% 29.1% 38.1% 39.4% 31.6% 32.5%Other 100.0% . . 92.3% 80.0% 75.0% 87.8% 60.0% 23.1% 6.3% 64.3%

Total Subprime Lenders 43.4% 24.7% 34.2% 32.3% 22.8% 39.9% 38.4% 42.2% 42.5% 38.0% 38.8%

Table V.25, below, shows that manufactured home lenders had high denial rates for all races and ethnicities over the decade. Overall, denial rates were highest for blacks, followed closely by Hispanics and Native Americans. Asians and whites had the lowest denial rates over the decade. While denial rates continue to be high, the degree to which manufactured home lenders were utilized was considerably less in 2002 than in prior years. As noted previously, the number of manufactured housing loan applications fell to a new low of 114 in 2002.


DENIAL RATES ON HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE MANUFACTURED HOME LENDERS, NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Race 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalAmerican Indian/Alaskan Native 75.0% 62.5% 84.6% 79.3% 86.2% 81.3% 80.0% 67.7% 100.0% 66.7% 78.6%Asian or Pacific Islander 80.0% 60.0% 78.6% 75.0% 50.0% 61.5% 61.5% 55.6% 50.0% 100.0% 65.1%Black . 100.0% 100.0% 90.5% 81.8% 82.4% 84.4% 84.6% 66.7% 100.0% 84.8%Hispanic 83.3% 87.9% 76.0% 82.1% 85.6% 80.0% 73.6% 78.3% 70.7% 79.3% 79.0%White 42.6% 55.6% 65.6% 69.2% 69.6% 71.3% 70.5% 71.6% 70.4% 73.4% 67.7%Other 60.0% 66.7% 83.3% 75.0% 66.7% 70.0% 73.1% 68.0% 85.7% 100.0% 72.2%

Total Manufactured Home Lenders 47.5% 57.0% 66.9% 70.6% 70.9% 72.4% 71.3% 76.1% 77.3% 77.9% 70.5%

Home Improvement Loans. Data concerning home improvement loans was used to evaluate other prospective problems in the State’s lending markets. Table V.26, on the following page, shows that the vast majority of the 104,642 home improvement loan applications received between 1993 and 2002 were intended for owner-occupied housing units. The numbers of applications for home improvement loans declined by over 2,000 between 2000 and 2002.



HOME IMPROVEMENT LOAN APPLICATIONS NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Year Owner-

OccupiedNot Owner-

OccupiedNot

AvailableTotal Loan

Applications1993 7,965 170 324 8,4591994 7,295 202 256 7,7531995 7,287 163 250 7,7001996 9,154 302 347 9,8031997 11,075 373 206 11,6541998 12,186 509 181 12,8761999 11,458 345 187 11,9902000 11,905 409 298 12,6122001 10,838 405 14 11,2572002 10,069 463 6 10,538

Total 99,232 3,341 2,069 104,642

Of the 99,232 owner-occupied home improvement loan applications in the decade, 56,691 loans were originated, as seen in Table V.27, below. The number of loans originated in 2002 was the lowest since 1995, and the number of loans denied in 2002 was the lowest since 1997. The average denial rate over the decade was 32.6 percent, although the 34.0 percent rate in 2002 was the lowest since 1997.


LOAN ACTION TAKEN ON OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME IMPROVEMENT LOAN APPLICATIONS NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Year Loan

Originated

Approved But not

Accepted Loan

DeniedWithdrawn

By ApplicantClosed for

Incompleteness

Loan Purchased

By Institution Total Average

Denial Rate1993 5,594 224 1,760 284 18 85 7,965 23.9%1994 5,269 367 1,316 303 34 6 7,295 20.0%1995 4,787 354 1,682 409 8 47 7,287 26.0%1996 5,516 553 2,500 430 39 116 9,154 31.2%1997 6,441 1,073 3,041 408 68 44 11,075 32.1%1998 5,988 1,503 3,920 448 84 243 12,186 39.6%1999 5,987 1,270 3,453 587 47 114 11,458 36.6%2000 6,109 1,376 3,736 469 53 162 11,905 37.9%2001 5,570 893 3,265 816 234 60 10,838 37.0%2002 5,430 989 2,800 644 93 113 10,069 34.0%

Total 56,691 8,602 27,473 4,798 678 990 99,232 32.6%

The 56,691 home improvement loans originated in the decade were segmented by income of the loan recipient, as seen in Table V.28, on the following page. The greatest numbers of home improvement loans, 13,309, were provided to those in the $30,000 to $45,000 income category. Over the 10 years, 1,887 loans were issued to households with incomes below $15,000, and another 10,148 loans were provided to those in the $15,000 to $30,000 income bracket.



OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS ORIGINATED BY INCOME NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Year Missing Less than

$15,000 $15,000-$30,000

$30,000-$45,000

$45,000 -$60,000

$60,000-$75,000

More than $75,000 Total

1993 108 315 1,383 1,532 1,080 521 655 5,5941994 103 299 1,218 1,431 1,091 537 590 5,2691995 98 188 1,113 1,244 1,007 549 588 4,7871996 70 176 1,065 1,438 1,212 673 882 5,5161997 81 228 1,258 1,535 1,403 826 1,110 6,4411998 100 177 1,008 1,376 1,302 863 1,162 5,9881999 92 153 839 1,283 1,291 934 1,395 5,9872000 110 126 804 1,247 1,207 943 1,672 6,1092001 110 122 711 1,130 1,200 890 1,407 5,5702002 87 103 749 1,093 1,115 820 1,463 5,430

Total 959 1,887 10,148 13,309 11,908 7,556 10,924 56,691

Table V.29, below, presents the average home improvement loan amount by type of lender and household income. Subprime lenders provided the largest average loans for all but the highest income category. The greater average size of subprime loans is most striking at the lowest income level, where subprime lenders provided average loans of $12,360 to households earning under $15,000 per year. Average subprime loans for these extremely low-income households were $5,368, or 56.6 percent larger than those provided by prime lenders.


OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME IMPROVEMENT: AVERAGE LOAN AMOUNT NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Income Range Prime Subprime MFG Home < $15,000 6,992 12,360 10,406 $15 - $30,000 8,572 13,456 11,960 $30 - $45,000 10,738 15,097 13,306 $45 - $60,000 12,976 18,227 13,972 $60 - $75,000 15,115 19,583 17,922 > $75,000 25,865 24,028 17,203

Subprime loans to households earning between $15,000 and $30,000 were 63.7 percent larger than prime loans to the same income category. Placing low-income homeowners in such significant debt positions places the homeowners at greater risk of foreclosure. Additional education for loan applicants appears necessary.

Summary 2004 Fair Housing Survey. During the spring of 2004, 88 people representing nine employment categories involved in the provision of housing-related services were contacted by telephone to provide qualitative insights into issues pertaining to fair housing. The survey found that less than half of all respondents could give a partial or full list of the State’s protected classes, and 22 different resources were suggested for victims of housing discrimination, indicating a lack of knowledge about proper resources.


Respondents strongly favored increasing education and outreach about fair housing, including targeting the migrant population and increasing outreach to rural areas of the State. Respondents also favored additional education about the nuances and interpretations of fair housing law, particularly for government officials and those in the building and construction industry. Respondents’ most common concerns about fair housing included the following:







The most frequently cited barrier to the provision of fair housing was lack of education about fair housing law. Discrimination and actions by unregulated landlords were also cited as frequent barriers to fair housing. The survey found general support for increased fair housing testing, but many respondents said they did not know if more testing should be done. Complaint Data. Complaint data from HUD was examined for fiscal years 1993 through 2003. Of the 1,127 total complaints received over that time period, the greatest number, 488, related to race, followed by disability and familial status, respectively. In 2003, 119 complaints were received, the most since 1999. The most frequent outcome for the 1,127 complaints was a no cause determination, which occurred in 42.8 percent of the cases. Another 28.6 percent of the cases were settled prior to a cause determination, and 10.8 percent of complaints were abandoned or had administrative problems. A cause determination was made for 19.7 percent of the total complaints, but 70.3 percent of the complaints receiving cause determination were later dismissed or found not to involve discrimination. Most of the issues brought forward to HUD related to discrimination in terms, conditions, or privileges relating to rentals or refusal to rent.




The 1,127 total complaints also were separated to assess differences between the data from Douglas and Lancaster counties, where Lincoln and Omaha are located, and the rest of the State. The results indicated that the non-entitled portions of the State were underserved by the enforcement process, with 44.3 percent of the complaints coming from the non-entitled areas, which compose 58.3 percent of the population in the State.

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data. Information from the HMDA database for the years 1993 through 2002 was collected and analyzed. A total of 845,959 loan applications were completed over the decade. Of the loan applications for home purchases, 92.3 percent were for owner-occupied housing. The majority of the loan applications, 65.4 percent, were handled through conventional lenders. Average denial rates for owner-occupied home loan applications, which were as high as 21.6 percent in 1999, declined precipitously, falling to 12.1 percent in 2002. The most common reasons cited for denial of loans was credit history, followed by debt-to-income ratio. The denial rates for home loan applications were analyzed by types of population and types of lender communities. Both males and females experienced declines in denial rates after 1999, with the denial rate for females falling the most but remaining higher than the denial rate for males. In 2002, Asians and whites had the lowest denial rates, while blacks, at 18.8 percent, had the highest denial rates. In 2002, Hispanics and Native Americans had their loan applications denied 17.6 and 17.5 percent of the time, respectively. Prime lenders originated by far the greatest number of loans and had the lowest average denial rate, which was 8.1 percent in 2002. Subprime lenders had an average denial rate of 38.0 percent in 2002, and manufactured home lenders had an average denial rate of 77.9 percent in 2002, although just 114 loans were originated by manufactured home lenders in that year. All three types of lenders denied most minorities at higher rates than whites, both in 2002 and over the decade as a whole. Between 1993 and 2002, Hispanics earning over $75,000 per year were denied 15.0 percent of the time, more than three times the rate for whites in the same income bracket. Blacks earning over $75,000 per year were denied 12.6 percent of the time, as compared to 4.8 percent for whites in the same income bracket. Although higher loan denial rates for particular groups do not provide enough information to conclude that discriminatory lending practices exist, it does appear that minorities, particularly blacks and Hispanics, are having more difficulty than non-minorities in moving into homeownership in the State. Between 1993 and 2002, 104,642 home improvement loan applications were processed. During the 10-year period, 1,887 home improvement loans were issued to households with incomes less than $15,000, with the average loan amount $12,360 by subprime lenders and $6,992 by prime lenders.


Section VI. Summary & Actions to be Implemented

Summary of Background Population. The State’s population, particularly those between the ages of 35 to 54, is increasing. Between 1990 and 2000, Nebraska’s population rose by 132,878 people, reaching 1,711,263 in 2000. The strongest rate of growth in the decade was 29.5 percent in the 35 to 54 age group. The percentage of males and females remained almost evenly divided from 1990 to 2000. The disabled population was 250,534 people in 2000, 14.6 percent of the total population. Race and Ethnicity. Nebraska became significantly more racially and ethnically diverse between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, the white population composed 89.6 percent of the total population, down from 93.8 percent in 1990. The Hispanic population rose 155.4 percent over the decade, the Asian population increased 76.6 percent, and the black and Native American populations increased 19.4 and 20 percent, respectively. The minority concentrations varied greatly by county. The incidence of fair housing impediments is likely to be higher in high minority concentration areas. Labor, Income, and Earnings. Nebraska’s labor force expanded by 160,716 people between 1990 and 2003, representing a 16.5 percent increase. Employment increased over the same period by 14.9 percent, while unemployment rose to 4.0 percent in 2003, still 2.0 percent below that of the nation. Total employment, including full- and part-time jobs, rose an average of 1.6 percent per year from 1969 to 2002. As of 2002, total earnings in the State had increased to $39.4 billion, in real dollar terms, while total personal income exceeded $51.2 billion. The average real earnings per job in the State increased steadily after 1969, reaching $33,372 in 2002, but was $8,064 less than the national average. Nebraska’s per capita income in 2003 was $30,758, an increase of 3.6 percent over 2002 figures, and just $874 less than the national average. Low-Income and Poverty. The median household income in Nebraska was $39,250 in 2000. Some 146,700 households, or 22.0 percent, of the State’s households earned less than $20,000 in 2000, and 15.0 percent of all households earned less than $15,000. The 2000 Census reported that 161,269 people in the State were in poverty, a poverty rate of 9.7 percent. The extremely low-income concentrations tended to be in the more rural areas of the State, including many of the same areas with the highest minority concentrations. Housing. In 2000, the median gross rent in Nebraska was $491, $111 less than the national average. The median home value in Nebraska, at $88,000, was 26.4 percent lower than in the nation. The State’s housing stock increased 9.4 percent from 1990 to 2000. The greatest increase in housing stock, 46.5 percent, was in the number of dwellings with 20 or more units. The rental vacancy rate in 2000 was 7.6 percent, down .6 percent from 1990, and the homeowner vacancy rate was 1.8 percent, an increase of 7.8 percent. Overcrowding. Statewide, 17,963 households in the State experienced some degree of overcrowding in 2000. The majority of these households, 63.0 percent, were renters. Nebraska’s overcrowding problem increased precipitously between 1990 and 2000. Severe overcrowding rose 250.5 percent, and overcrowding increased 44.1 percent. Despite the


increases, overcrowding of both types was less severe both for renters and homeowners in Nebraska as compared to the nation. Public and Private Fair Housing Programs and Activities The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) oversees, administers, and enforces fair housing law across the nation. In Nebraska, three Fair Housing Assistance Programs (FHAPs) are considered substantially equivalent agencies, and they carry out investigative and enforcement actions along with HUD. The three FHAPs in Nebraska are:

The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission, a State agency;

The City of Lincoln Commission on Human Rights, serving the City of Lincoln; and,

The Omaha Human Relations Department, serving the City of Omaha. Nebraska’s fair housing enforcement system also is served by two Fair Housing Initiative Programs (FHIPs), which are nonprofit organizations that receive FHIP funding from HUD. The State’s two FHIPs are:

The Fair Housing Center, a part of Family Housing Advisory Services; and,

High Plains Community Development Corporation.

Evaluation of Enforcement and Lending Practices 2004 Fair Housing Survey. During the spring of 2004, 88 people representing nine employment categories involved in the provision of housing or housing-related services were contacted by telephone. Survey results provided qualitative insights into various issues pertaining to fair housing. The survey found that less than half of all respondents could give a partial or full list of the State’s protected classes, and 22 different resources were suggested for victims of housing discrimination, indicating a lack of knowledge about the proper resources for victims. This confusion could present a constraint or delay in access to the complaint process. Respondents strongly favored increasing education and outreach about fair housing, including targeting in-need populations such as the migrant population and increasing outreach to rural areas of the State. Respondents also favored additional education about the nuances and interpretations of fair housing law, particularly for government officials and those in the building and construction industry. Respondents’ most common concerns about fair housing included the following:








The most frequently cited barrier to the provision of fair housing was lack of education about fair housing law. Discrimination and actions by unregulated landlords were also cited as frequent barriers to fair housing. The survey found general support for increased fair housing testing, but many respondents said they did not know if more testing should be done. Complaint Data. Fair housing complaint data from HUD was examined for fiscal years 1993 through 2003. Of the 1,127 total complaints received over that time period, the greatest number, 488, related to race, followed by disability and familial status, respectively. In 2003, 119 total complaints were received, the most since 1999. The number of complaints related to disability and familial status nearly doubled between 2002 and 2003. The most frequent outcome for the 1,127 complaints was a no-cause determination, which occurred in 42.8 percent of the cases. Another 28.6 percent of the cases were settled prior to a cause determination, and 10.8 percent of complaints were abandoned or had administrative problems. A cause determination was made for 19.7 percent of the total complaints, but 70.3 percent of these complaints receiving cause determination were later dismissed or found not to involve discrimination. Most of the issues brought forward to HUD related to discrimination in terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities. A discriminatory refusal to rent was cited next most often by complainants. The 1,127 complaints also were separated to assess differences between the data from Douglas and Lancaster counties, where Lincoln and Omaha are located, and the rest of the State. The results indicated that the non-entitled portions of the State have been underserved by the enforcement process, with 44.3 percent of the complaints coming from the non-entitled areas, which compose 58.3 percent of the population in the State.

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data. Information from the HMDA database for the years 1993 through 2002 was collected and analyzed. A total of 845,959 loan applications were completed in the State over the decade. Of the loan applications for home purchases, 92.3 percent were for owner-occupied housing. The majority of the loan applications, 65.4 percent, were handled through conventional lenders.




Average denial rates for owner-occupied home loan applications, which were as high as 21.6 percent in 1999, declined precipitously, falling to 12.1 percent in 2002. The most common reasons cited for denial of loans was credit history, followed by debt-to-income ratio. The denial rates for home loan applications were analyzed by types of population and types of lender communities. Both males and females experienced declines in denial rates after 1999, with the denial rate for females falling the most but remaining higher than the denial rate for males. In 2002, Asians and whites had the lowest denial rates, while blacks, at 18.8 percent, had the highest denial rates. In 2002, Hispanics and Native Americans had their loan applications denied 17.6 and 17.5 percent of the time, respectively. Prime lenders originated by far the greatest number of loans and had the lowest average denial rate, which was 8.1 percent in 2002. Subprime lenders had an average denial rate of 38.0 percent in 2002, and manufactured home lenders had an average denial rate of 77.9 percent in 2002, although just 114 loans were originated by manufactured home lenders in that year. All three types of lenders denied most minorities at higher rates than whites, both in 2002 and over the decade as a whole. Between 1993 and 2002, Hispanics earning over $75,000 per year were denied 15.0 percent of the time, more than three times the rate for whites in the same income bracket. Blacks earning over $75,000 per year were denied 12.6 percent of the time, as compared to 4.8 percent for whites in the same income bracket. Although higher loan denial rates for particular groups do not provide enough information to conclude that discriminatory lending practices exist, it does appear that minorities, particularly blacks and Hispanics, are having more difficulty than non-minorities in moving into homeownership in the State. Between 1993 and 2002, 104,642 home improvement loan applications were processed. During the 10-year period, 1,887 home improvement loans were issued to households with incomes less than $15,000. The average loan amount was $12,360 by subprime lenders and $6,992 by prime lenders.

Impediments to Fair Housing Choice This Analysis of Impediments revealed the following impediments to fair housing choice in the State of Nebraska:

1. There is a general lack of understanding of fair housing law;

2. Violations of fair housing law do occur, particularly in rental markets;

3. Some confusion exists concerning whom to turn to when a violation of fair housing law is alleged to occur, as well as how to access the State’s fair housing complaint system;

4. Areas of the State, outside of Lincoln and Omaha, are underserved by the current housing complaint and enforcement system;

5. Design and construction standards are not adequately understood or consistently implemented;

6. Some minority populations appear to have unusually high home loan denial rates; and,

7. Subprime lenders are offering high home improvement loan amounts for extremely low-income homeowners.


Strategies to Address Impediments The Nebraska Department of Economic Development has neither the authority to act unilaterally nor the resources necessary to overcome these impediments to fair housing choice. However, the DED plans to take action, addressing the State’s impediments to fair housing through three strategies:

1. Enhance statewide understanding of fair housing law through outreach and education;

2. Enhance consumer understanding of credit markets and the importance of establishing good credit; and,

3. Enhance the efficiency and geographic distribution of the fair housing complaint and enforcement system.

Actions to be Implemented In order to accomplish the three strategies listed above, the DED intends to implement the following actions:

1. Refer people with allegations of fair housing violations to the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) in most cases, the Lincoln Human Rights Commission for people in Lincoln, the Fair Housing Center for people in Omaha, and, lastly, HUD;

2. Endorse complaint-based testing orchestrated by the NEOC in non-entitled areas of the State;

3. Urge the NEOC to increase enforcement activities in underserved areas of the State, with a focus on areas having the most rapidly growing minority populations, especially Hispanic, Asian, and other new and rising minority populations;

4. Enhance education and outreach activities concerning fair housing law, including education about the fair housing complaint system, as well as design and construction standards;

5. Urge the NEOC to use systemic testing of new construction testing for design and construction standards compliance;

6. Enhance understanding of credit markets through educational efforts targeted both to housing consumers and providers through partnering organizations including Fannie Mae Nebraska, the NEOC, the Lincoln Human Rights Commission, the Fair Housing Center, the Nebraska Housing Developers Association, the Nebraska Commission on Housing and Homelessness, the State’s Continuums of Care, and other partners who provide educational services in the areas of credit markets to housing consumers and providers; and,

7. Enhance understanding of fair housing law by expanding the role of the NEOC as an information clearinghouse on Nebraska law, design and construction standards, and other resources.


References

Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, April 1993. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase I HDS2000,

Final Report, November 2000. The complete HDS2000 report is available at http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgfin/hds.html.

2004 Fair Housing Trends Report, National Fair Housing Alliance. Available at

http://www.nationalfairhousing.org. Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD’s Oversight and Management of the Enforcement

Process, United States General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, April 2004.

How Much Do We Know? United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office

of Policy Research and Development, 2002. Complete results are available at http://www.huduser.org/Publications.

A National Report Card on Discrimination in America, “The Role of Testing,” by John Yinger.

Available at http://www.urban.org. The State of the Nation’s Housing 2004, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.

Available at http://www.jchs.harvard.edu.


Appendix A: HMDA Tables

TABLE A.1 HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA

ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Race Action Taken 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalLoan Originated 29 28 38 50 53 74 88 56 66 526Application Denied 8 11

American Indian or Alaskan Native

19974415 33 41 48 44 37 24 14

Denial Rate % 21.6% 28.2% 25.4% 46.5% 45.1% 47.5% 37.3% 29.6% 30.0% 17.5%Loan Originated 120 142 174 206 254 283 247 294 315 2267Application Denied 17 13 29 33 22 29 25 36 20 248

Asian or Pacific Islander Denial Rate % 12.4% 8.4% 14.3% 13.8% 8.0% 9.3% 9.2% 10.9% 6.0% 9.9% Loan Originated 242 355 314 300 311 351 374 456 377 3457Black Application Denied 95 111 86 108 95 107 136 90 87 1001 Denial Rate % 28.2% 23.8% 21.5% 26.5% 23.4% 23.4% 26.7% 16.5% 18.8% 22.5% Loan Originated 184 195 305 447 559 622 741 969 840 943Hispanic Application Denied 53 70 110 167 218 308 316 269 204 202 Denial Rate % 22.4% 26.4% 26.5% 27.2% 28.1% 33.1% 29.9% 21.7% 19.5% 17.6% Loan Originated 10,548 10,515 11,229 13,330 14,029 16,510 15,873 15,504 14,522 16,131White Application Denied 1,136 1,396 1,560 2,291 2,677 3,314 3,310 2,454 1,562 1,473 Denial Rate % 9.7% 11.7% 12.2% 14.7% 16.0% 16.7% 17.3% 13.7% 9.7% 8.4% Loan Originated 57 57 43 62 83 87 94 90 111 121Other Application Denied 8 9 7 23 19 27 86 28 17 14 Denial Rate % 12.3% 13.6% 14.0% 27.1% 18.6% 23.7% 47.8% 23.7% 13.3% 10.4%

27534.3%

232 24

9.4% 377 86

18.6% 58051917

24.8%138,19121,17313.3%

805238

22.8%Loan Originated 199 251 313 402 662 1,820 1,986 2,224 1,995 11,228Application Denied 109 85 74 154 230 1,375 1,512 1,192 940 6,569Denial Rate % 35.4% 25.3% 19.1% 27.7% 25.8% 43.0% 43.2% 34.9% 32.0% 36.9%

Loan Originated 270 8 9 10 6 43

1,376Not Provided 898by

Applicant 39.5%32 55 25 90 548

Not Applicable Application Denied 15 2 9 2 3 18 10 45 10 2 116 Denial Rate % 5.3% 20.0% 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 36.0% 18.9% 45.0% 28.6% 17.5% Loan Originated 11,649 11,551 12,431 14,795 15,954 19,314 19,266 19,442 18,387 20,038 162,827Total Application Denied 1,441 1,697 1,890 2,811 3,305 4,749 5,302 4,471 3,119 2,752 31,537 Denial Rate % 11.0% 12.8% 13.2% 16.0% 17.2% 19.7% 21.6% 18.7% 14.5% 12.1% 16.2%

2.2%

TABLE A.2

HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY SEX

NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002 Sex Action Taken 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total Loan Originated 9,395 9,367 10,152 11,968 12,574 14,609 13,799 13,749 12,753 14,011 122,377Male Application Denied 1,056 1,266 1,445 2,024 2,292 2,800 2,668 2,110 1,390 1,324 18,375 Denial Rate % 10.1% 11.9% 12.5% 14.5% 15.4% 16.1% 16.2% 13.3% 9.8% 8.6% 13.1% Loan Originated 1,855 2,026 2,035 2,526 2,887 3,551 3,894 4,031 3,751 4,440 30,996Female Application Denied 280 368 396 676 859 1,149 1,353 989 634 626 7,330 Denial Rate % 13.1% 15.4% 16.3% 21.1% 22.9% 24.4% 25.8% 19.7% 14.5% 12.4% 19.1%

Loan Originated 125 150 233 291 489 1,145 1,551 1,651 1,871 1,542 9,048Application Denied 91 61 37 109 151 783 1,257 1,326 1,086 801 5,702

Not Provided by Applicant Denial Rate % 42.1% 28.9% 13.7% 27.3% 23.6% 40.6% 44.8% 44.5% 36.7% 34.2% 38.7% Loan Originated 274 8 11 10 4 9 22 11 12 45 406Not Applicable Application Denied 14 2 12 2 3 17 24 46 9 1 130 Denial Rate % 4.9% 20.0% 52.2% 16.7% 42.9% 65.4% 52.2% 80.7% 42.9% 2.2% 24.3% Loan Originated 11,649 11,551 12,431 14,795 15,954 19,314 19,266 19,442 18,387 20,038 162,827Total Application Denied 1,441 1,697 1,890 2,811 3,305 4,749 5,302 4,471 3,119 2,752 31,537 Denial Rate % 11.0% 12.8% 13.2% 16.0% 17.2% 19.7% 21.6% 18.7% 14.5% 12.1% 16.2%



DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY DENIAL REASON NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Denial Reason 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalDebt-to-income Ratio 194 245 220 283 303 312 363 328 347 349 2,944Employment History 62 81 59 54 39 96 59 48 53 59 610Credit History 243 311 266 411 693 1,558 1,455 883 778 647 7,245Collateral 39 49 49 65 102 95 150 172 125 181 1,027Insufficient Cash 31 51 46 44 48 41 51 53 67 77 509Unverifiable Information 7 9 9 14 20 18 17 15 26 68 203Credit Application Incomplete 10 12 25 28 52 41 532 215 112 61 1,088Mortgage Insurance Denied 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 2 16Other 74 70 40 66 87 208 288 247 266 251 1,597Missing 777 868 1,175 1,845 1,959 2,379 2,386 2,507 1,345 1,057 16,298Total 1,441 1,697 1,890 2,811 3,305 4,749 5,302 4,471 3,119 2,752 31,537

TABLE A.4

HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS

OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY LENDER TYPE NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Application Action 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalPrime Lenders

Loan Originated 11,162 11,017 11,873 13,956 14,823 17,855 17,617 17,674 17,242 18,795 152,014Application Denied 1,005 1,053 836 1,128 1,383 2,109 2,581 1,439 1,425 1,658 14,617Denial Rate 8.3% 8.7% 6.6% 7.5% 8.5% 10.6% 12.8% 7.5% 7.6% 8.1% 8.8%

Subprime Lenders Loan Originated 30 64 48 174 390 605 740 1,059 828 1,129 5,067Application Denied 23 21 25 83 115 402 462 773 612 691 3,207Denial Rate 43.4% 24.7% 34.2% 32.3% 22.8% 39.9% 38.4% 42.2% 42.5% 38.0% 38.8%

Manufactured Home Lenders Loan Originated 457 470 510 665 741 854 909 709 317 114 5,746Application Denied 413 623 1,029 1,600 1,807 2,238 2,259 2,259 1,082 403 13,713Denial Rate 47.5% 57.0% 66.9% 70.6% 70.9% 72.4% 71.3% 76.1% 77.3% 77.9% 70.5%

TABLE A.5 MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN NEBRASKA

NEW UNITS PLACED IN SERVICE AND AVERAGE PRICES Average Home Price, Nominal Dollars

Units Placed in Service In Nebraska (1,000s) Average Nebraska Average U.S.

Year Single- wide

Double- wide Total

Single- wide

Double- wide Total

Single- wide

Double-wide Total

1994 0.3 0.3 0.6 30,600 46,600 37,800 23,500 42,000 32,800 1995 0.6 0.4 1.0 32,500 44,800 36,900 25,800 44,600 35,300 1996 0.6 0.7 1.3 31,500 48,600 41,100 27,000 46,200 37,200 1997 0.6 0.8 1.4 36,300 50,700 44,400 27,900 48,100 39,800 1998 (S) (S) 0.6 36,300 50,000 47,800 28,800 49,800 41,600 1999 0.2 0.9 1.1 (S) 53,600 49,400 29,300 51,100 43,300 2000 0.2 0.5 0.8 36,800 57,700 51,100 30,200 53,600 46,400 2001 0.2 0.4 0.6 (S) 53,900 52,200 30,400 55,200 48,900 2002 (S) 0.3 0.4 (S) 65,900 55,800 30,800 56,200 51,300 (S) = Suppressed because estimate or complementary estimate based on fewer than five responses.

These values may not sum correctly to the total due to other types of manufactured housing units, such as two story units.



PRIME LENDERS: ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE

NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002 Race Action Taken 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total

Loan Originated 28 22 41 30 44 47 36 61 53 62 424Application Denied 4 1 4 10 15 21 11 12 12 9 99

American Indian or Alaskan Native Denial Rate % 12.5% 4.3% 8.9% 25.0% 25.4% 30.9% 23.4% 16.4% 18.5% 12.7% 18.9%

Loan Originated 119 138 171 199 241 268 236 279 221 311 2,183Application Denied 13 9 18 24 17 18 15 20 20 18 172

Asian or Pacific Islander Denial Rate % 9.8% 6.1% 9.5% 10.8% 6.6% 6.3% 6.0% 6.7% 8.3% 5.5% 7.3% Loan Originated 237 348 312 283 280 305 347 380 325 325 3,142Black Application Denied 91 105 73 85 63 69 79 51 42 49 707 Denial Rate % 27.7% 23.2% 19.0% 23.1% 18.4% 18.4% 18.5% 11.8% 11.4% 13.1% 18.4% Loan Originated 180 190 285 421 523 557 659 866 764 881 5,326Hispanic Application Denied 33 41 50 73 115

14.8% 15.0% 135 151 100 135 144 977

Denial Rate % 15.5% 17.7% 14.9% 18.0% 19.5% 18.6% 10.4% 14.0% 15.5% Loan Originated 10,079 10,015 10,709 12,580 13,057 15,314 14,578 14,368 13,891 15,330 129,921White Application Denied 792 811 625 867 1,056 1,147 1,160 819 917 961 9,155 Denial Rate % 7.3% 7.5% 5.5% 6.4% 7.5% 7.0% 7.4% 5.4% 6.2% 5.9% 6.6% Loan Originated 55 53 42 58 80 81 75 78 100 106 728Other Application Denied 4 3 2 2 11 11 12 5 8 12 70 Denial Rate % 6.8% 5.4% 4.5% 3.3% 12.1% 12.0% 13.8% 6.0% 7.4% 10.2% 8.8%

194 243 304 375 593 1,253 1,646 1,588 1,864 1,690 9,750Application Denied 54 81 55 65 103 704 1,149 389 287 463 3,350

Not Provided by Applicant Denial Rate % 21.8% 25.0% 15.3% 14.8% 14.8% 36.0% 41.1% 19.7% 13.3% 21.5% 25.6% Loan Originated 270 8 9 10 5 30 40 54 24 90 540Not Applicable Application Denied 14 2 9 2 3 4 4 43 4 2 87 Denial Rate % 4.9% 20.0% 50.0% 16.7% 37.5% 11.8% 9.1% 44.3% 14.3% 2.2% 13.9%

Loan Originated 11,162 11,017 11,873 13,956 14,823 17,855 17,617 17,674 17,242 18,795 152,014Total Prime Application Denied 1,005 1,053 836 1,128 1,383 2,109 2,581 1,439 1,425 1,658 14,617 Denial Rate % 8.3% 8.7% 6.6% 7.5% 8.5% 10.6% 12.8% 7.5% 7.6% 8.1% 8.8%

Loan Originated



SUBPRIME LENDERS: ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE

NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002 Race Action Taken 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total

Loan Originated . . 1 2 2 . 30 17 3 3 58Application Denied 1 . . . 1 1 1 4 3 3 14

American Indian or Alaskan Native Denial Rate % 100.0% . 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0% 3.2% 19.0% 50.0% 50.0% 19.4%

Loan Originated . 2 . 4 8 10 6 11 9 4 54Application Denied . 1 . . . 3 2 11 2 1 20

Asian or Pacific Islander Denial Rate % . 33.3% . 0.0% 0.0% 23.1% 25.0% 50.0% 18.2% 20.0% 27.0% Loan Originated 4 7 2 15 25 40 20 74 51 52 290Black Application Denied 4 3 5 4 5 10 19 28 42 34 154 Denial Rate % 50.0% 30.0% 71.4% 21.1% 16.7% 20.0% 48.7% 27.5% 45.2% 39.5% 34.7% Loan Originated . 1 2 6 19 26 31 73 64 56 278Hispanic Application Denied . . 3 2 2 17 23 61 40 35 183 Denial Rate % . . 60.0% 25.0% 9.5% 39.5% 42.6% 45.5% 38.5% 38.5% 39.7% Loan Originated 25 46 38 124 280 410 479 646 495 739 3,282White Application Denied 15 16 14 19 40 216 197 398 322 341 1,578 Denial Rate % 37.5% 25.8% 26.9% 13.3% 12.5% 34.5% 29.1% 38.1% 39.4% 31.6% 32.5% Loan Originated . 1 . 1 1 3 5 4 10 15 40Other Application Denied 1 . . 12 4 9 36 6 3 1 72 Denial Rate % 100.0% . . 92.3% 80.0% 75.0% 87.8% 60.0% 23.1% 6.3% 64.3%

Loan Originated 1 7 5 22 54 114 166 233 196 260 1058Application Denied 2 1 3 46 63 132 178 263 200 276 1164

Not Provided by Applicant Denial Rate % 66.7% 12.5% 37.5% 67.6% 53.8% 53.7% 51.7% 53.0% 50.5% 51.5% 52.4% Loan Originated . . . . 1 2 3 1 . . 7Not Applicable Application Denied . . . . . 14 6 2 . . 22 Denial Rate % . . . . 0.0% 87.5% 66.7% 66.7% . . 75.9%

Loan Originated 30 64 48 174 390 605 740 1,059 828 1,129 5,067Total Subprime Application Denied 23 21 25 83 115 402 462 773 612 691 3,207 Denial Rate % 43.4% 24.7% 34.2% 32.3% 22.8% 39.9% 38.4% 42.2% 42.5% 38.0% 38.8%


TABLE A.8

HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA MANUFACTURED HOME LENDERS: ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS

OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Race Action Taken 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalLoan Originated 1 6 2 6 4 6 8 10 . 1 44Application Denied 3 10 11 23 25 26 32 21 9 2 162

American Indian or Alaskan Native Denial Rate % 75.0% 62.5% 84.6% 79.3% 86.2% 81.3% 80.0% 67.7% 100.0% 66.7% 78.6%

Loan Originated 1 2 3 3 5 5 5 4 2 . 30Application Denied 4 3 11 9 5 8 8 5 2 1 56

Asian or Pacific Islander Denial Rate % 80.0% 60.0% 78.6% 75.0% 50.0% 61.5% 61.5% 55.6% 50.0% 100.0% 65.1% Loan Originated 1 . . 2 6 6 7 2 1 . 25Black Application Denied . 3 8 19 27 28 38 11 2 4 140 Denial Rate % . 100.0% 100.0% 90.5% 81.8% 82.4% 84.4% 84.6% 66.7% 100.0% 84.8% Loan Originated 4 4 18 20 17 39 51 30 12 6 201Hispanic Application Denied 20 29 57 92 101 156 142 108 29 23 757 Denial Rate % 83.3% 87.9% 76.0% 82.1% 85.6% 80.0% 73.6% 78.3% 70.7% 79.3% 79.0% Loan Originated 444 454 482 626 692 786 816 490 136 62 4,988White Application Denied 329 569 921 1,405 1,581 1,951 1,953 1,237 323 171 10,440 Denial Rate % 42.6% 55.6% 65.6% 69.2% 69.6% 71.3% 70.5% 71.6% 70.4% 73.4% 67.7% Loan Originated 2 3 1 3 2 3 14 8 1 . 37Other Application Denied 3 6 5 9 4 7 38 17 6 1 96 Denial Rate % 60.0% 66.7% 83.3% 75.0% 66.7% 70.0% 73.1% 68.0% 85.7% 100.0% 72.2%

Loan Originated 4 1 4 5 15 9 8 165 164 45 420Application Denied 53 3 16 43 64 62 48 860 705 201 2,055

Not Provided by Applicant Denial Rate % 93.0% 75.0% 80.0% 89.6% 81.0% 87.3% 85.7% 83.9% 81.1% 81.7% 83.0% Loan Originated . . . . . . . . 1 . 1

Application Denied 1 . . . . . . . 6 . 7 Denial Rate % 100.0% . . . . . . . 85.7% . 87.5%

Loan Originated 457 470 510 665 741 854 909 709 317 114 5,746Total Application Denied 413 623 1,029 1,600 1,807 2,238 2,259 2,259 1,082 403 13,713 Denial Rate % 47.5% 57.0% 66.9% 70.6% 70.9% 72.4% 71.3% 76.1% 77.3% 77.9% 70.5%

Not Applicable


TABLE A.9

HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA PRIME LENDERS: ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS

OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY SEX NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Sex Action Taken 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total Loan Originated 9,006 8,951 9,747 11,363 11,796 13,614 12,751 12,750 12,155 13,330 115,463Male Application Denied 765 793 645 836 986 1,060 1,031 791 863 888 8,658 Denial Rate % 7.8% 8.1% 6.2% 6.9% 7.7% 7.2% 7.5% 5.8% 6.6% 6.2% 7.0% Loan Originated 1,761 1,914 1,885 2,314 2,576 3,161 3,410 3,538 3,454 4,066 28,079Female Application Denied 189 199 146 235 313 372 429 255 298 329 2,765 Denial Rate % 9.7% 9.4% 7.2% 9.2% 10.8% 10.5% 11.2% 6.7% 7.9% 7.5% 9.0%

Loan Originated 121 144 232 269 447 1,073 1,434 1,376 1,622 1,356 8,074Application Denied 37 59 36 55 81 674 1,117 349 260 440 3,108

Not Provided by Applicant Denial Rate % 23.4% 29.1% 13.4% 17.0% 15.3% 38.6% 43.8% 20.2% 13.8% 24.5% 27.8% Loan Originated 274 8 9 10 4 7 22 10 11 43 398Not Applicable Application Denied 14 2 9 2 3 3 4 44 4 1 86 Denial Rate % 4.9% 20.0% 50.0% 16.7% 42.9% 30.0% 15.4% 81.5% 26.7% 2.3% 17.8%

Loan Originated 11,162 11,017 11,873 13,956 14,823 17,855 17,617 17,674 17,242 18,795 152,014Total Application Denied 1,005 1,053 836 1,128 1,383 2,109 2,581 1,439 1,425 1,658 14,617 Denial Rate % 8.3% 8.7% 6.6% 7.5% 8.5% 10.6% 12.8% 7.5% 7.6% 8.1% 8.8%


SUBPRIME LENDERS: ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY SEX NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Sex Action Taken 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total Loan Originated 27 43 44 132 266 406 457 630 488 629 3,122Male Application Denied 18 15 20 30 58 228 235 398 308 317 1,627 Denial Rate % 40.0% 25.9% 31.3% 18.5% 17.9% 36.0% 34.0% 38.7% 38.7% 33.5% 34.3% Loan Originated 3 15 3 21 93 133 173 292 243 347 1,323Female Application Denied 4 6 5 12 21 83 110 202 162 185 790 Denial Rate % 57.1% 28.6% 62.5% 36.4% 18.4% 38.4% 38.9% 40.9% 40.0% 34.8% 37.4%

Loan Originated . 6 1 21 31 64 110 136 97 151 617Application Denied 1 . . 41 36 77 97 171 140 189 752

Not Provided by Applicant Denial Rate % 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.1% 53.7% 54.6% 46.9% 55.7% 59.1% 55.6% 54.9% Loan Originated . . . . . 2 . 1 . 2 5Not Applicable Application Denied . . . . . 14 20 2 2 . 38 Denial Rate % . . . . . 87.5% 100.0% 66.7% 100.0% 0.0% 88.4%

Loan Originated 30 64 48 174 390 605 740 1,059 828 1,129 5,067Total Application Denied 23 21 25 83 115 402 462 773 612 691 3,207 Denial Rate % 43.4% 24.7% 34.2% 32.3% 22.8% 39.9% 38.4% 42.2% 42.5% 38.0% 38.8%



MANUFACTURED HOME LENDERS: ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY SEX NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

Sex Action Taken 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total Loan Originated 362 373 361 473 512 589 591 369 110 52 3,792Male Application Denied 273 458 780 1,158 1,248 1,512 1,402 921 219 119 8,090 Denial Rate % 43.0% 55.1% 68.4% 71.0% 70.9% 72.0% 70.3% 71.4% 66.6% 69.6% 68.1% Loan Originated 91 97 147 191 218 257 311 201 54 27 1,594Female Application Denied 87 245 429 525 694 814 532 174 112 3,775 Denial Rate % 48.9% 62.7% 62.5% 69.2% 70.7% 73.0% 72.4% 72.6% 76.3% 80.6% 70.3%

Loan Originated 4 . . 1 11 8 7 139 152 35 357Application Denied 53 2 1 13 34 32 43 806 686 172 1,842

Not Provided by Applicant Denial Rate % 93.0% 100.0% 100.0% 92.9% 75.6% 80.0% 86.0% 85.3% 81.9% 83.1% 83.8% Loan Originated . . 2 . . . . . 1 . 3Not Applicable Application Denied . . 3 . . . . . 3 . 6 Denial Rate % . . 60.0% . . . . . 75.0% . 66.7% Loan Originated 457 470 510 665 741 854 909 709 317 114 5,746Total Application Denied 413 623 1,029 1,600 1,807 2,238 2,259 2,259 1,082 403 13,713 Denial Rate % 47.5% 57.0% 66.9% 70.6% 70.9% 72.4% 71.3% 76.1% 77.3% 77.9% 70.5%

163


ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE AND SELECTED INCOME CATEGORIES

NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002 Race Action Taken Missing <$15k $15-30k $30-45k $45-60k $60-75k >$75k Total

Loan Originated 5 19 154 123 90 62 73 526Application Denied 1 36 126 72 30 4 6 275

American Indian or Alaskan Native Denial Rate % 16.7% 65.5% 45.0% 36.9% 25.0% 6.1% 7.6% 34.3%

Loan Originated 42 43 444 689 469 243 337 2,267Application Denied 11 20 70 71 39 18 19 248Asian or

Pacific Islander Denial Rate % 20.8% 31.7% 13.6% 9.3% 7.7% 6.9% 5.3% 9.9% Loan Originated 33 116 967 923 682 349 387 3,457Black Application Denied 27 102 400 247 123 46 56 1,001 Denial Rate % 45.0% 46.8% 29.3% 21.1% 15.3% 11.6% 12.6% 22.5% Loan Originated 64 168 2,390 1,909 762 263 249 5,805Hispanic Application Denied 27 116 897 569 207 57 44 1,917 Denial Rate % 29.7% 40.8% 27.3% 23.0% 21.4% 17.8% 15.0% 24.8% Loan Originated 1,709 2,229 23,760 37,398 30,787 18,090 24,218 138,191White Application Denied 327 1,755 7,816 6,029 2,893 1,120 1,233 21,173 Denial Rate % 16.1% 44.1% 24.8% 13.9% 8.6% 5.8% 4.8% 13.3% Loan Originated 17 15 125 199 178 104 167 805Other Application Denied 19 23 83 68 25 11 9 238 Denial Rate % 52.8% 60.5% 39.9% 25.5% 12.3% 9.6% 5.1% 22.8%

Loan Originated 229 231 1,463 2,522 2,448 1,711 2,624 11,228Application Denied 212 426 2,182 1,808 1,015 459 467 6,569

Not Provided by Applicant Denial Rate % 48.1% 64.8% 59.9% 41.8% 29.3% 21.2% 15.1% 36.9% Loan Originated 290 4 31 67 62 39 55 548Not Applicable Application Denied 31 11 25 22 16 8 3 116 Denial Rate % 9.7% 73.3% 44.6% 24.7% 20.5% 17.0% 5.2% 17.5% Loan Originated 2,389 2,825 29,334 43,830 35,478 20,861 28,110 162,827Total Application Denied 655 2,489 11,599 8,886 4,348 1,723 1,837 31,537 Denial Rate % 21.5% 46.8% 28.3% 16.9% 10.9% 7.6% 6.1% 16.2%


Appendix B: Demographic Data

TABLE B.1

POPULATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY NEBRASKA BY COUNTY, 2000 CENSUS

COUNTY White Black

AmericanIndian or

Alaska Native Asian

Native Hawaiian &

Other Pacific

IslanderSome

Other Race

Two or More

Races TotalHispanic or Latino

Adams 29,451 200 112 498 11 620 259 31,151 1,428Antelope 7,364 4 23 4 0 21 36 7,452 52Arthur 428 0 1 3 1 4 7 444 6Banner 785 1 2 1 0 25 5 819 46Blaine 577 0 3 0 0 0 3 583 1Boone 6,212 3 3 2 2 19 18 6,259 56Box Butte 11,044 45 333 65 1 432 238 12,158 930Boyd 2,411 0 14 4 0 0 9 2,438 2Brown 3,477 1 7 9 1 8 22 3,525 29Buffalo 40,221 232 140 289 13 929 435 42,259 1,970Burt 7,606 14 83 15 2 17 54 7,791 98Butler 8,625 9 11 11 5 71 35 8,767 145Cass 23,821 43 72 85 4 86 223 24,334 355Cedar 9,526 10 19 4 1 17 38 9,615 41Chase 3,979 7 4 7 1 60 10 4,068 139Cherry 5,791 4 200 26 1 20 106 6,148 57Cheyenne 9,470 14 64 39 3 144 96 9,830 438Clay 6,868 12 22 21 0 87 29 7,039 245Colfax 8,533 7 20 21 15 1,664 181 10,441 2,732Cuming 9,783 13 29 20 3 268 87 10,203 559Custer 11,631 8 48 18 0 23 65 11,793 108Dakota 15,968 126 377 624 12 2,615 531 20,253 4,581Dawes 8,457 73 261 28 5 93 143 9,060 220Dawson 20,058 76 164 161 3 3,530 373 24,365 6,178Deuel 2,042 1 8 8 0 24 15 2,098 57Dixon 5,999 2 31 17 0 240 50 6,339 348Dodge 34,678 156 107 183 31 745 260 36,160 1,421Douglas 375,317 53,330 2,809 7,944 250 15,760 8,175 463,585 30,928Dundy 2,222 1 18 11 1 20 19 2,292 74Fillmore 6,485 14 29 4 1 55 46 6,634 110Franklin 3,547 0 10 2 0 3 12 3,574 23Frontier 3,046 3 8 8 0 12 22 3,099 30Furnas 5,229 4 22 12 0 17 40 5,324 61Gage 22,463 73 133 65 7 59 193 22,993 196Garden 2,254 3 6 6 0 12 11 2,292 33Garfield 1,879

3 2,143

Greeley

Hamilton

0 4 1 1 7 10 1,902 19Gosper 2,117 0 5 0 9 9 27Grant 738 0 1 2 0 6 0 747 10

2,658 18 2 2 0 21 13 2,714 23Hall 47,467 195 164 586 73 4,384 665 53,534 7,497

9,255 17 11 21 0 46 53 9,403 107Harlan 3,743 5 4 3 1 6 24 3,786 29Hayes 1,038 2 0 3 0 19 6 1,068 27Hitchcock

Hooker

Johnson Kearney

3,060 3 9 4 0 9 26 3,111 44Holt 11,419 4 33 21 6 27 41 11,551 82

773 0 3 1 0 1 5 783 8Howard 6,481 20 16 6 2 21 21 6,567 66Jefferson 8,201 6 32 14 3 42 35 8,333 109

4,198 5 18 120 1 88 58 4,488 1296,732 11 14 16 1 68 40 6,882 161



TABLE B.1 (Cont.) POPULATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

NEBRASKA BY COUNTY, 2000 CENSUS

COUNTY White Black

AmericanIndian or

Alaska Native Asian

Native Hawaiian &

Other Pacific

IslanderSome

Other Race

Two or More

Races TotalHispanic or Latino

Keith 8,587 7 63 15 0 132 71 8,875 375Keya Paha 977 0 2 0 0 0 4 983 38Kimball 3,966 9 27 4 1 27 55 4,089 136Knox 8,589 8 667 15 4

1,59932,795

3

32 59 9,374 85Lancaster 225,426 7,052 7,162 149 4,225 4,678 250,291 8,437Lincoln 188 175 129 8 918 419 34,632 1,880Logan 763 1 8 0 0 0 2 774 7Loup 704 0 2 1 0 2 712 12McPherson 522 0 0 2 0 9 0 533 8Madison 32,179 330 419 142 11 1,783 362 35,226 3,042Merrick 8,066 18 8 17 1 55 39 8,204 168Morrill 5,096 4 39 12 0 224 65 5,440 549Nance 3,973 0 15 2 0 18 30 4,038 46Nemaha 7,394 27 23 45 3 28 56 7,576 76Nuckolls 5,002 1 3 8 0 27 16 5,057 51Otoe 14,999 44 34 38 5 176 100 15,396 377Pawnee 3,052 0 6 8 0 1 20 3,087 21Perkins 3,126 1 9 7 0 43 14 3,200 74Phelps 9,532 11 27 27 0 77 73 9,747 220Pierce 7,751 6 28 16 2 18 36 7,857 56Platte 29,854 111 90 127 10 1,105 365 31,662 2,072Polk 5,578 1 16 5 0 16 23 5,639 61Red Willow 11,167 18 44 19 2 106 92 11,448 281Richardson 9,116 18

470

91

221 14 0 21 141 9,531 100Rock 1,739 0 8 3 0 1 5 1,756 9Saline 12,872 50 52 236 4 159 13,843 911Sarpy 109,335 5,340 515 2,331 108 2,275 2,691 122,595 5,358Saunders 19,530 21 57 43 1 69 109 19,830 205Scotts Bluff 32,363 98 694 212 15 2,965 604 36,951 6,352Seward 16,174 47 34 48 8 66 119 16,496 179Sheridan 5,461 5 572 9 1 21 129 6,198Sherman 3,268 2 7 8 1 14 18 3,318 34Sioux 1,440 0 2 3 0 17 13 1,475 34Stanton 6,243 27 31 8 0 89 57 6,455 149Thayer 5,976 1 17 7 0 20 34 6,055 61Thomas 725 0 2 0 0 0 2 729 6Thurston 3,282 11 3,731 4 0 55 88 7,171 174Valley 4,561 7 15 5 3 37 19 4,647 75Washington 18,427 63 38 55 21 57 119 18,780 202Wayne 9,534 93 34 34 1 84 71 9,851 146Webster 3,984 6 11 19 3 9 29 4,061 22Wheeler 878 0 2 0 0 5 1 886 5York 14,128 140 42 71 12 93 112 14,598 205Nebraska 1,533,261 68,541 14,896 21,931 836 47,845 23,953 1,711,263 94,425

analysis of impediments - nebraskaopportunity.nebraska.gov/files/crd/plans_reports/ai_final.pdf ·...

Documents