analysis of impediments to fair housing choice...

ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE FOR MARYLAND NON-ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITIES

MARTIN O’MALLEY ANTHONY G. BROWN RAYMOND A. SKINNER CLARENCE J. SNUGGS GOVERNOR LT. GOVERNOR SECRETARY DEPUTY SECRETARY

APRIL 2010 HARA WRIGHT-SMITH, PH.D., PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

OFFICE OF RESEARCH -- MASSOUD AHMADI, PH.D. DIRECTOR MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

100 COMMUNITY PLACE CROWNSVILLE, MD 21032

410-514-7170 • 1-800-756-0119 TTY: 1-800-735-2258 • FAX: 410-514-7874

Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology.................................................................................................................... 2 Public Participation ....................................................................................................... 2 Jurisdictional Background Data .................................................................................... 3 Minority and Low Income Concentrations.................................................................... 3 Areas of Minority Concentration................................................................................... 4 Areas of Low Income Concentration............................................................................ 6 Housing Problems by Race and Family Status............................................................ 7 Persons with Special Needs ...................................................................................... 16 Persons of Limited English Proficiency ..................................................................... 24 Private Sector Lending Practices ................................................................................ 27 DHCD Lending Practices.............................................................................................. 36 Single Family Program Beneficiaries Review ............................................................ 36 Multifamily Program Beneficiaries Review................................................................. 40 State Housing and Community Development Policies and Practices ..................... 54 Performance on the State’s 1996 Analysis of Impediments ...................................... 54 CDBG......................................................................................................................... 58 HOME Investments Partnership Program.................................................................. 62 Section 8 .................................................................................................................... 64 State Rental Housing Programs ............................................................................... 73 Base Realignment and Closure Plan ......................................................................... 79 Transit-Oriented Development .................................................................................. 80 2009 State Disabilities Plan.......................................................................................... 82 Affordable and Available Housing Units .................................................................... 83 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Survey Analysis............................................ 84 Fair Housing Action Plan ........................................................................................... 113 2010 Actions to Overcome Impediments .................................................................. 117 Consolidated Public Hearing Comments ................................................................. 120

i

ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) broadly defines fair housing choice as the ability of persons with similar incomes to have the same housing choices regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, familial status or disability. Federal fair housing statutes are largely covered by the Fair Housing Act, Housing Amendments Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act. State statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Impediments are actions or omissions that are counter-productive to fair housing choice or that have the effect of restricting housing opportunities based on protected classes. The Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice study was developed to ascertain the extent to which the State of Maryland and DHCD work to ensure fair housing choices are accomplished within federally protected classes. DHCD used numerous data sources in preparing the AI. This included reviewing Census data, HUD data, data from the Maryland Departments of Planning, Health and Mental Hygiene, Disabilities and Aging, reviewing Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, accessing private data, such as RealtyTrac data, and reviewing policies, procedures and data available from programs such as the HOME Investments Partnership Program, Community Development Block Grant Program, Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) and numerous State operate programs such as the Departments own rental housing and homeownership programs, among other sources. In addition, DHCD conducted a review of the policies and procedures possibly affecting fair housing choice. Based on this evaluation, fair housing strategies to overcome any identified impediments were developed for execution in the state’s non-entitlement areas.

MAJOR FINDINGS

The following list identifies five key areas to improve fair housing activities at the State level. 1) Fair housing education; 2) Greater outreach to persons of Limited English Proficiency (LEP); 3) Fair housing choice for persons with disabilities; 4) Working with the federal government to improve data collection on areas such as

mortgage lending and determining housing needs of persons with disabilities; 5) Increasing the supply of affordable and accessible housing.

Fair Housing Action Plan Strategies to Overcome Impediments

Improve Fair Housing Education

Analyses showed both a need and a demand for fair housing education. Over one-third of all respondents to the fair housing survey noted that housing industry representatives and residents alike could benefit from better fair housing education. Some suggestions offered by

1

respondents included educational workshops, seminars, increased testing, and training focusing on fair housing rights and responsibilities. Specific actions DHCD will undertake to address educational needs include, but may not be limited to, the following:

Fair Housing Conferences and Community Housing Fairs Fair Housing Education through public fair housing seminars and town hall meetings Fair Housing Outreach by increasing marketing efforts statewide, conducting training

sessions Provide fair housing training for property managers of DHCD projects to ensure that race

and ethnicity for assisted households (program beneficiaries) are properly classified and documented.

Areas of educational focus should include:

a) Residents’ rights b) Creating ways to eradicate not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) c) Seminars for towns, municipalities, landlords and real estate agents, fair housing

enforcement agencies d) Utilizing effective marketing and outreach approaches to increase general

awareness about fair housing issues (see survey analysis section for a detailed list of respondents’ suggestions.)

Limited English Proficiency

Although most households of LEP reside in entitlement areas, the Department feels that outreach efforts need to be undertaken to ensure that all households across the State are aware of housing choice options available to them. Specific Actions that DHCD will undertake to address persons of LEP includes:

Adding an “En Espanol” link to DHCD’s website to lead persons who are primarily Spanish speakers to MD Housing Search and information on foreclosure prevention efforts.

Translating MMP brochures and information into Spanish, and providing links to this information on our website as documents are translated.

Continuing outreach efforts through Spanish language radio, television, and newspapers.

Continuing written translation on the availability of affordable rental housing in Spanish. Continuing State translator subscription service for persons with limited English speaking

ability. This includes Spanish as well as Chinese, French, Korean, Russian, and Vietnamese, where feasible.

Working with the Department of Human Resources (DHR) in developing its Plan(s) for helping persons of LEP as per State law. DHR is responsible for providing central coordination and technical assistance to State agencies to ensure compliance with State law regarding persons of LEP.

2

Fair Housing Choice for Persons with Disabilities

There should be continued emphasis on seeking housing opportunities to reach disabled populations. Specific Actions should include the following:

• Continued operation of the Homeownership for Persons With Disabilities Program • Providing bonus points under the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) for projects that

provide housing for persons with disabilities • Operating the Bridge Subsidy program, which provides rental assistance to disabled

households as they await Section 8 assistance • Providing housing opportunities for severely disabled persons through programs such as

DHCD Group Home and Special Housing Opportunities Programs. However, there are opportunities that the State will pursue in addition to these efforts: The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) and DHCD collaborated on the State Disabilities Plan for fiscal year 2010 – 2014, and developed a series of goals that they will pursue to create approximately 1,800 new housing opportunities for identified priority populations with a developmental disability or severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI). Although Maryland has tens of thousands of people with disabilities who need assistance with housing costs, the State Disabilities Plan addresses only those with SPMI or a developmental disability. The strategies the State will address include:

• Generating additional rent subsidies during FY 2010-2014 primarily using HUD resources

• Continuing to expand the production of affordable units and the use of existing affordable housing units

• Targeting additional rent subsidies to the highest priority target populations served by the Mental Hygiene Administration (MHA) and by the Developmental Disabilities Administration

• Strengthening planning and advocacy efforts at the local, state, and federal levels and with the private sector to increase affordable housing opportunities

Other goals noted in the State Disabilities Plan include: • DHCD and DHMH will continue efforts to combine Community Bond Program funding

with DHCD funding programs, including the Partnership Rental Housing Program, which is designed to provide housing opportunities for persons with disabilities. DHCD and DHMH will seek to combine funds from the Community Bond Program with Partnership Rental Housing Program funds and other private funds to assist in acquiring 300 affordable units in Baltimore City for homeless individuals with SPMI.

• DHCD and DHMH will pursue replication of the Montgomery County Seneca House

model in at least one additional large jurisdiction such as Baltimore City, Prince George’s County, or Baltimore County.

• DHCD will continue to provide QAP incentives for housing for people with disabilities.

The goal is to target 5 percent of the housing financed by DHCD to people with

3

• DHCD will continue to use the SHOP/Group Home Financing Program to expand

housing opportunities for DHMH targeted populations as housing and financial markets permit. DHMH will take a proactive approach to encourage providers interested in the supportive housing model to seek SHOP/Group Home Financing to serve targeted populations, including coordinating with DHCD in the review and approval of applications that meet MHA and DDA priority outcomes.

• If funded, use funding from the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund to provide

affordable rental housing to disabled households as well as other extremely low-income households who meet the program’s requirements (NOTE: HUD has not drafted regulations for the program at this time.)

Improved Data Collection

One of the most significant difficulties DHCD and other agencies face is actually obtaining an accurate picture of fair housing problems and the needs of individual protected classes. For example, there is no cross link between information on persons with disabilities and legitimate housing needs in the Census data. Specific actions DHCD will undertake to improve data collection include:

• Continue to advocate to Congress that the federal government improve and expand HMDA data to help determine when and if housing discrimination exists.

• As HUD prepares to update data tables, advocate the need to cross reference materials

on the housing needs of individuals with disabilities, which is displayed in the Comprehensive Housing Affordability (CHAS) datasets, with 2010 Census data.

More Affordable and Accessible Housing

The DHCD estimates that from 2010 -2015 Maryland faces an overall net shortage of 130,315 units of affordable and available housing. It is estimated that 28,993 of the all needed units are for persons with disabilities. When compared to the total net unit shortage, family units represent the largest housing shortfall (80,349 or 61.6 percent of all units), and seniors or older adults will experience the smallest shortage – 20,973 or a 16.1 housing shortage. Using existing resources, Maryland has worked diligently to address the housing needs of persons with disabilities, receiving national awards for its efforts. As funding becomes available DHCD plans to continue seeking opportunities to provide affordable housing to the disabled.

OTHER KEY FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS Fair Housing Online Survey Findings Participants provided feedback which included background information on their agencies, discrimination in their communities and fair housing solutions. With the exception of Queen Anne’s County, all of the state’s jurisdictions participated in taking the survey. In fact, 76 respondents primarily operate in entitlement areas while 72 respondents represent non-entitlement jurisdictions.

4

When asked,” what do you think would improve fair housing in your community?” nearly 40 percent of respondents said that better education was needed for both housing industry representatives and to individuals impacted by housing discrimination. Areas of Minority Concentrations Twenty five (25) of 346 census tracts in Maryland’s non-entitlement areas were defined as minority concentrations. This represented a decrease from 38 census tracts identified in the Department’s 1996 Analysis of Impediments study using 1990 census data. The result suggests that the numbers of minority census tracts located in non-entitlement areas are falling. Areas of Low Income Concentrations Thirty one (31) of 346 census tracts in Maryland’s non-entitlement areas were defined as low income concentrations. This represented a decrease from 41 census tracts identified in the Department’s 1996 Analysis of Impediments study using 1990 census data. The result suggests that the numbers of low income census tracts located in non-entitlement areas are falling. DHCD Lending Practices - Single Family Beneficiaries Review The beneficiaries for the single family programs were households that received mortgage financing from the Department toward the purchase of the owner’s home. The Department examined MMP single family program data for FY 2008 and FY 2009 (July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2009). The predominant racial composition of MMP borrowers were White or Caucasian (49.0 percent) and Black or African American (41.8 percent). These two groups combined represented approximately 91 percent of all borrowers. When examining lending patterns by minority groups alone, nearly half of all MMP loans (44.8 percent) were made to minority borrowers. This represents a significant accomplishment for DHCD, considering that Maryland’s minority population represents only one-third or 36.6 percent of total population. Because MMP borrowers choose where they want to live, most borrowers (82 percent) located outside areas of minority concentration. DHCD Lending Practices – Multifamily Program Beneficiaries Review DHCD examined the racial characteristics of 37,056 households living in multi-family housing projects from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. Racial information was not provided for over 13,600 of these households – withheld either by the renters themselves or not provided by property managers. Where data was known:

• Approximately 52 percent - African American/Black households • Approximately 26 percent - Caucasian/White households • Approximately 21 percent – Race reported as “other”

In the latter case, a review of the data indicated at least a portion of these households may have been either Hindi/Indian (which would be classified by the U.S. Census Bureau as Asian) or were possibly of Hispanic ethnicity – also reported as “other” in the data. This suggests the need for fair housing training for project managers of DHCD financed housing to ensure that program beneficiaries are correctly identified in the future. State Housing and Community Development Policies, Practices, and Procedures The State examined policies and procedures that had possible impacts on fair housing choice. This included reviews of individual departmental programs and overall State policies. Fair

5

Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) laws are designed to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, color, sex, age, family/marital status and handicap. Programs and policies examined included:

• CDBG Policies and activities • Home Investment Partnership Program Policies and activities • Section 8 Policies and activities • Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Policies and activities • Reasonable Accommodations Policies • Sate Rental Housing Programs Policies • Base Re-Alignment and Closure • Transportation-Oriented Development • State Disabilities 2009 Plan • Homeownership Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities • Affordable and Available Housing Units (2010 – 2015)

Observation: Based on our review of multi-family projects funded (and denied funding) in the past five years, we only found one project (located in an entitlement jurisdiction) that would have gone forward but did not due to problems with the local resolution, and that project had zoning issues. (That County has also let other affordable multi-family housing projects go forward both before and after that problem with the local resolution.) Otherwise, DHCD has funded over 10,000 multifamily housing units Statewide over the past five years, and has projects underway or in the pipeline in every county in the State.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In addition to the data collection activities noted above, DHCD engaged citizens by conducting a Fair Housing survey, hosted four public hearings on the draft AI, and met with representatives of Fair Housing organizations to address their concerns regarding fair housing issues. First, DHCD administered a fair housing survey to 1,056 individuals and housing-related agencies throughout Maryland to gauge their response on fair housing issues, practices, concerns, and strategies in their communities. DHCD utilized Zoomerang, an online software system, to distribute web-based questionnaires to a selected email distribution list. Second, over 800 announcement letters were mailed statewide, and more than 1,000 emails were sent to nonprofit and for profit housing developers, advocacy groups, local government officials, public housing authorities, chief housing contacts, and private individuals, notifying them about the development of the new AI. These communications also provided information on public hearings, requests for public comment, and information about where to find the draft AI on the DHCD website. Third, draft copies of the AI were sent to regional libraries throughout the State, including a large print version to a library for the blind and physically handicapped. Lastly, the DHCD website (www.dhcd.state.md.us) displayed notice of the draft AI in pdf. format, communicated the dates and times of hearings, as well as opening and closing dates for public comments. Print advertisements were also placed in select newspapers throughout the State.

6

http://www.dhcd.state.md.us/

DHCD Affordable Housing Programs for Low Income and Disabled Households and

Program Accomplishments Related to the Analysis of Impediments Study

PROGRAMS

DHCD is strongly committed to serving the housing needs of people with disabilities, offering an assortment of housing opportunities and financing programs. The Department has received numerous awards as a result of its efforts, including the 2009 Council of State Community Development Agencies (COSCDA) award, as well as recognition from the National Council of State Housing Finance Agencies (NCSHFA). Additionally, working cooperatively with DHMH, DHCD revised its Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) for federal LIHTC and other State resources to provide more housing for persons with disabilities. Housing Programs for Individuals with Disabilities The Homeownership for Individuals with Disabilities Program provides low-interest mortgage loans to eligible disabled homebuyers and homebuyers with a son or daughter (regardless of age – who resides with one of the borrowers and is cared for principally by one of the borrowers). One of the borrowers must have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities (for example, hearing, seeing, speaking, sitting, standing, walking, concentrating, or performing manual tasks). Programs include Group Homes, Disabled Borrowers, Special Housing Opportunities Program, and Group Homes Financing Program. For example, the Group Housing Programs is to help individuals, qualified limited partnerships, and nonprofit organizations to construct or acquire, and/or modify existing housing to serve as a group home or assisted living unit for eligible persons and households with special housing needs. The Department uses both state funds from the Group Home Financing Program and the proceeds from the sale of tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds under the Special Housing Opportunities Program to fund these loans. Partnership Rental Housing Program The Partnership Rental Housing Program provides loans of up to $75,000 per unit for rental housing that will be occupied by households with incomes below 50 percent of the statewide median. There is no limitation on the maximum project amount but Partnership projects tend to include 100 or fewer units. State funds may be used for the development costs of building acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of buildings on site. Projects financed by the program are intended to provide rental housing to individuals and households with incomes sufficient to pay rents in amounts necessary to maintain financial self-sufficiency of the project. Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Maryland administers the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program to support the development of affordable multifamily rental housing. Credits are awarded competitively in conjunction with the State's Rental Housing Program funds and federal HOME funds. Tax credits are allocated in accordance with federal IRS rules and Maryland's Qualified Allocation Plan. Credits are subject to recapture for failure to comply with all IRS and departmental requirements. The 9 percent Tax Credits are awarded on a competitive basis to nonprofit and for-profit sponsors of eligible housing projects. Projects financed with tax-exempt bonds may be eligible for 4 percent Tax Credits outside of the competitive process. The qualified building must remain in compliance with tax credit income restrictions for a minimum of 15 years.

7

Federal HOME Investment Partnership Program The HOME Investment Partnerships Program is a federal program that provides funds to the State and certain local governments to promote affordable housing activities. Maryland’s program is administered by the Community Development Administration (CDA) and a portion of the annual allocation is used in conjunction with existing CDA multifamily and single family programs. A portion of the funds, allocated to an Initiatives Fund, are awarded competitively to stimulate new ideas in housing, initiate pilot programs, and support promising projects. Shelter and Transitional Housing Facilities Grant Program The Shelter and Transitional Housing Facilities Grant Program (STHGP) provides state funded grants to improve or create transitional housing and emergency shelters. The purpose of the program is to reduce homelessness in the State. New construction, acquisition, rehabilitation of housing, and purchase of capital equipment are eligible activities for STHGP grants. Grants must be used for transitional housing and emergency shelters that include supportive services for their residents. Generally, the grants pay up to 50 percent of the project costs and are processed on a first-come, first-served basis. Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) The Section 8 Existing Certificate/Voucher Program is a rental assistance program that subsidizes the rent of lower-income families through the use of federal funds. The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) administers the Section 8 Existing Certificate/Voucher Program in jurisdictions around the state that do not have legislative authority to act as a public housing authority or do not choose to administer a Section 8 program. Rental Allowance Program The Rental Allowance Program is the major state-funded program for assisting very-low income families to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. The program provides rental assistance for up to two years. Multifamily Rental Financing Qualified Allocation Points (QAPs) For-profit and nonprofit organizations, local governments and local housing authorities are eligible to apply for multi-family project funding. Loans may be used for acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, and development costs. Applications are accepted on a competitive basis at designated times during the year. All projects that meet threshold requirements are rated by the staff against the project selection criteria using a 325 point scale, referred to as qualified allocation points (QAPs). The scale measures the extent to which projects promote revitalization efforts, serve public purposes, leverage other funds, produce quality housing and include experienced management teams. All DHCD financed projects are required to take Section 8 in order to assist households at the lowest income levels. In fact, some DHCD voucher holders may be living in DHCD financed housing. DHCD gives bonus points in its Qualified Allocation Plan for providing housing for persons with disabilities, a policy the Department enacted about 5 years ago which has resulted in the financing of thousands of units targeted to persons with disabilities. As mentioned earlier, the Department has received national recognition for its efforts to assist persons with disabilities to obtain affordable housing and achieve fair housing choice.

8

http://www.dhcd.state.md.us/Website/Housing/Default.aspx

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

De-concentration Bonus When operating the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, HUD provides additional, “bonus” vouchers to Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) that are highly successful in having tenants locate outside of areas of low-income concentration. In determining which PHAs receive bonus vouchers, a PHA must show that it has been successful in deconcentrating voucher holders in all of its eligible services areas. DHCD has successfully done this, and been awarded bonus Vouchers by HUD for successfully ensuring that voucher holders are not living in areas of low-income concentration. Multifamily Loans by Area of Minority and Low-Income Concentration The Department examined its multifamily lending patterns against areas of minority and low-income concentration. DHCD lending patterns run parallel to the state’s Smart Growth Priority Funding Act enacted in 1997, which ensures that smart growth is concentrated in both new development and redevelopment areas that have either existing or planned infrastructure to avoid sprawl. Smart growth is characterized by compact, transit-oriented, bicycle-friendly land use, with neighborhood schools, walkable streets, mixed-use development and a wide range of housing choices. Its purpose is to conserve and sustain valuable natural resources through the efficient use of land, water and air; create a sense of community and place; expand transportation, employment, and housing choices; distribute the costs and benefits of development in an equitable manner; and promote public health. Smart growth principles have guided policy making across the nation with a central focus supporting development within designated priority funding areas, brownfields, live near your work, job creation tax credits and rural legacy initiatives. DHCD financed a total of 28 developments using all sources of funding (federal LIHTC, HOME, Bond, and State funds) in the State’s non-entitlement areas over the past five fiscal years (July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2009). Of these, seventeen or 61 percent of the developments were located outside areas of minority concentration and eleven or 39 percent were located in areas of minority or low-income concentration. DHCD examined the location of its projects against areas of low-income concentration. Of the 28 projects undertaken, 20 or 71 percent were located outside of areas of low-income concentration, and 8 projects or 29 percent, were located in areas of low-income concentration. DHCD Single Family Program Beneficiaries The predominant racial composition of MMP borrowers were White or Caucasian (49.0 percent) and Black or African American (41.8 percent). These two groups combined represented approximately 91 percent of all borrowers. Native Hawaiian only and American Indian/Alaska Native only represented the fewest number of borrowers and smallest racial group. When examining lending patterns by minority groups alone, nearly half of all MMP loans (44.8 percent) were made to minority borrowers. This represents a significant accomplishment for DHCD, considering that Maryland’s minority population represents only one-third or 36.6 percent of total population. Assisting Persons With Disabilities DHCD has received numerous awards and honors for its work in assisting households where at least one of the residents has a disability. This includes national Awards from both the Counsel of State Community Development Agencies (COSCDA) and the National Counsel of State

9

Housing Finance Agencies (NCSHA) which have recognized the Department as a national leader in providing fair housing choice to persons with disabilities through its programs such as the Disabled Borrower Program, Bridge Subsidy Program, Group Home Program, Special Housing Opportunities Program, and its multi-family housing development efforts that have provided substantially greater opportunities for persons with disabilities to access rental housing by offering bonus points through its Qualified Allocation Plan to developers who provide housing units for persons with disabilities among other efforts.

Actions to Overcome Impediments

DHCD has experienced numerous successes in providing affordable housing for low income households, which includes providing substantially more units for disabled populations over the past five years. However, housing needs continue to persist. As funding becomes available, DHCD plans to continue seeking opportunities to provide affordable housing and community development for low income households. Working in collaboration with other state agencies, DHCD has identified the following actions to overcome impediments to fair housing.

2010 Actions to Overcome Impediments

Action Problems Addressed Responsible Partners Timeframe

Fair Housing Education/Information

Undertake local fair housing outreach programs that emphasize race, ethnicity, & disability.

Lack of public awareness of fair housing rights & responsibilities

DHCD, HUD, MCHR, Statewide, with emphasis in Non-entitlement communities Ongoing activity

Improve fair housing awareness and build on marketing efforts; specifically targeting residents, realtors, developers, landlords, lenders, insurers, management agents, etc.


DHCD, MCHR, HUD, MAR, MBA Ongoing activity

Sponsor Fair Housing workshops and/or seminars.


DHCD, HUD, MCHR, NAACP, BNI Ongoing activity

Initiate testing for racial discrimination in sales practices & lending; & geographic fair housing testing particularly in Dorchester & Wicomico Counties.

Identification of possible discrimination (see survey results) DHCD and/or MCHR

Ongoing activity as funding becomes available from HUD

Train landlords on new reporting requirements related to fair housing as part of HERA legislation.

Lack of or incorrect data from landlords sometimes impacts the ability to assess fair housing opportunities HUD and DHCD

Awaiting new regulations and Technical Assistance from HUD.

10



LEP Education/Technical Assistance

Encourage local LEP service provision with towns/municipalities, nonprofit organizations, etc.

Ensure information is available for persons of LEP.

Maryland Dept of Human Resources, HUD Ongoing activity

Develop and Implement LEP marketing, outreach, and information.

Ensure persons of LEP have access to DHCD programs.

DHCD, Maryland Dept of Human Resources, HUD Ongoing activity

Add an "En Espanol" link to DHCD's website; continue utilizing oral translator services; & Spanish language media.

Establish a single site of information for persons of LEP . DHCD To be completed by 2010

Utilize State Translator Subscription Service for Persons with limited English speaking ability. This includes Spanish as well as Chinese, French, Korean, Russian, and Vietnamese, if possible

Provide information to persons of LEP, including for those whose primary language is not large enough as a group to translate documents under federal or State requirements.

DHCD, using State Contractor Ongoing activity

Translate DHCD documents as required by federal and State LEP requirements

Ensure opportunities to persons of LEP DHCD As required

Expand Housing Opportunities for Persons With Special Needs

Implement select strategies as outlined in the State Disabilities Plan

Lack of accessible and housing choices for individuals with disabilities. DHMH, DHCD, DHR,

Ongoing activity initiated in 2010 – 2014

Increase rental subsidies

Expand housing opportunities to persons with Special Needs whose incomes are too low to afford low-income housing as they may have incomes below poverty levels

HUD, DHCD, DHMH, DHR

Contingent to federal resources, possible reprogramming of DHMH and DHCD resources - Ongoing activity

Target additional rent subsidies to the highest priority target populations served by MHA & DDA.



Contingent to federal resources. Possible reprogramming of DHMH and DHCD resources - Ongoing activity

11



Reinforce planning & program efforts to increase affordable housing opportunities for people with disabilities.

Housing people with disabilities

DHCD, DHMH, MDoA, MDoD

Ongoing activity, initiate in 2011

Continue to operate DHCD programs that assist persons with Special Needs

Providing full range of housing opportunities to persons with special needs for all disability levels. DHCD

Continue funding/operation of Housing Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Program, bonus point awards for projects which provide more units to households with special needs, continue operating Group Home and SHOP programs, etc.

Access possible new sources of funding to assist persons with Special Needs

Providing additional resources to serve Special Needs Households DHCD, DHMH, HUD

The federal government is currently in the process of substantially redesigning several housing programs for persons with Special Needs, including 811 and 202 programs. Revisions may make programs more effective. Also may make DHCD, DHMH and others eligible for funding.

Data Collection

Advocate with Congress the improvement & expansion of HMDA data

Lack of Fair Housing data which could provide evidence of possible discrimination in lending DHCD Ongoing

Initiate testing for racial discrimination vs. the disabled in rental and/or sales practices in non-entitlement areas

In response to concerns from advocates concerning possible discrimination. DHCD, MCHR, BNI

Starting in 2010. DHCD Office of Fair Practices will solicit RFPs for agencies to conduct testing. Ongoing activity as funds become available

Facilitate opportunities for various forms of testing on discrimination in rental practices; in non-entitlement communities

In response to concerns from advocates concerning possible discrimination. MCHR, BNI

Ongoing activity as funding becomes available

Fair housing training for property managers of DHCD projects to identify demographic/program beneficiary information.

Addressing lack of understanding for data collection on beneficiary race and ethnicity on DHCD financed projects. DHCD

Ongoing Activity. Awaiting new HUD regulations and Technical Assistance as required under HERA legislation.

12


Action Problems Addressed Responsible Partners Timeframe Establish clear documentation that shows fair housing tracking and monitoring have been conducted and report status of review.

Lack of documentation and/or inconsistent reporting of fair housing standards. DHCD

Ongoing Activity; Based on standard program reporting guidelines

Affordable Housing Increase production of affordable housing.

Lack of affordable housing

DHCD, public and private partners

Ongoing activity using existing programs

Access new resources for the production of affordable housing

Lack of affordable housing DHCD

Utilize funding under National Affordable Housing Trust fund to create more affordable rental housing for extremely low-income renters. (NOTE: Program was created, but not funded, by federal government).

Access competitive funding under existing HUD and other programs


DHCD, DHMH, PHAs, nonprofits, other eligible applicants as appropriate

Access new Housing Choice Voucher opportunities as they become available, permanent supportive housing funding under HEARTH act, competitive funding for which DHCD or other agencies are eligible.

Coordinate affordable housing with transportation, jobs

Lack of available affordable housing near transportation, jobs,

DHCD, MDOT, MDE, PHAs, local governments

Better coordinate housing and transportation opportunities through HUD’s new Sustainable Communities Initiative, as well as the State Development Plan, State Housing Plan and State Transportation Plan. Work with PHAs as appropriate on Choice Communities initiative as well.

Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing

Loss of affordable housing which exacerbates housing problems for lower income households

HUD, DHCD, local governments, private partners.

Utilize MacArthur Foundation Grant, State resources to preserve affordable rental housing. Also work with federal government as they develop new housing preservation programs.

13

ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE

Introduction The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) broadly defines fair housing choice as “the ability of persons with similar incomes to have the same housing choices regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, familial status or disability.” The State of Maryland works to ensure fair housing choice for all households that fall within these federally protected classes, and fosters fair housing choice based on sexual orientation. The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) prepares the State’s Consolidated Plan for the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions and receives funding to help finance housing, community development, and homeless assistance in non-entitlement areas. The non-entitlement areas are:

• Allegany County (except the City of Cumberland) • Calvert County • Caroline County • Carroll County • Cecil County • Charles County • Dorchester County • Frederick County (except the City of Frederick) • Garrett County • Kent County • Queen Anne’s County • Saint Mary’s County • Somerset County • Talbot County • Washington County (except the City of Hagerstown) • Wicomico County (except the City of Salisbury) and • Worchester County

As part of the requirements for receiving HUD funds, DHCD is required to complete an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice, and develop fair housing strategies to overcome any identified impediments in the non-entitlement areas. The State’s AI only applies to the jurisdictions stated above. The State’s entitlement jurisdictions - Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s Counties, and the Cities of Annapolis, Baltimore, Bowie, Cumberland, Frederick, Gaithersburg, Hagerstown, and Salisbury – all receive funding directly from HUD and are required to prepare their own AIs. DHCD conducted an extensive data analysis looking at possible impediments to fair housing choice. The Department examined Home Mortgage Disclosure Data (HMDA) and census data to determine differences in housing need based on race, household size, and ethnicity; reviewed data affecting persons identified with Limited English Proficiency (LED); examined its own lending practices including analysis of program beneficiary data; and mapped projects against areas of minority and low-income concentration. DHCD also examined internal policies

14

and procedures that could impact fair housing choice, including an examination of departmental operations. The programs reviewed included the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investments Partnership (HOME), federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programs, and the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. In particular, the Section 8 examination involved analyzing on-site monitoring procedures at apartment complexes the Department has financed, and reviewing fair housing requirements for programs operated by the Department. Additionally, DHCD examined State policies and information of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) and the Maryland Commission on Human Relations (MCHR). Based on the Department’s analysis, it was determined that the State needs to focus its efforts for overcoming possible impediments on five areas: 1) Fair housing education; 2) Greater outreach to persons of Limited English Proficiency; 3) Fair housing choices for persons with disabilities; 4) Working with the federal government to improve data collection on areas such as

mortgage lending and determining housing needs of persons with disabilities; 5) Increasing the supply of affordable and accessible housing. The full scope of the analysis, as well as details regarding how DHCD will work to overcome the impediments is set forth in the pages below.

Methodology DHCD used its own staff and funds to complete the Analysis of Impediments. Both primary and secondary data sources were utilized to conduct the analysis. The process involved consultation with other state agencies, civic participation, and data collection. Specifically, DHCD consulted with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations (which is the lead fair housing agency in Maryland), Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Department of Disabilities, and the Maryland Department of Aging, among others. Secondary data for some aspects of the analysis was obtained from the aforementioned agencies, as well as from the U.S. Census Bureau, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) CHAS Database, the Maryland Department of Planning, RealtyTrac, Public Housing Authorities, Social Security Administration, and the Federal Reserve (2008 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act or HMDA data).

Public Participation

In addition to the data collection activities noted above, DHCD engaged citizens by conducting a Fair Housing survey, hosted four public hearings on the draft AI, and met with representatives of Fair Housing organizations to address their concerns regarding fair housing issues. First, DHCD administered a fair housing survey to 1,056 individuals and housing-related agencies throughout Maryland to gauge their response on fair housing issues, practices, concerns, and strategies in their communities. DHCD utilized Zoomerang, an online software system, to distribute web-based questionnaires to a selected email distribution list. Second, over 800 announcement letters were mailed statewide, and more than 1,000 emails were sent to nonprofit and for profit housing developers, advocacy groups, local government officials, public housing authorities, chief housing contacts, and private individuals, notifying them about the

15

development of the new AI. These communications also provided information on public hearings, requests for public comment, and information about where to find the draft AI on the DHCD website. Third, draft copies of the AI were sent to regional libraries throughout the State, including a large print version to a library for the blind and physically handicapped. Lastly, the DHCD website (www.dhcd.state.md.us) displayed notice of the draft AI in pdf. format, communicated the dates and times of hearings, as well as opening and closing dates for public comments. Print advertisements were also placed in select newspapers throughout the State.

Jurisdictional Background Data

Minority and Low-Income Concentrations In developing the State’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, one of the first items the State reviewed was areas of minority and low-income concentration in the State’s non-entitlement areas. For the State of Maryland, a concentration is defined as a census tract where the percentage of minority or low income households is at least 10 percent greater than the county average as a whole. For example, if a county had a population that was 40 percent African American, an analysis is done of each census tract in that county, and a census tract that was more than 50 percent African American would be deemed to have a minority concentration. Likewise, if a county had an African American population that was 10 percent countywide, then a concentration in that county would occur if over 20 percent of the tract was comprised of African American persons. The same rules applied to concentrations by ethnicity and income. DHCD undertook studies of concentrations for all of the major ethnic groups, including Hispanic populations in the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions. No concentrations by race were found except for black or African-American households. One census tract (ID 955000) in Caroline County had a concentration of persons of Hispanic background (see below). According to 2000 census, Maryland had a population of 5,264,486 people during the period. The population was 64 percent white and 36 percent minority and/or mixed race. The non-entitlement areas of the State had a population of 1,260,096 people in 2000. The population in the non-entitlement communities was 84.9 percent white and 15.1 percent minority and/or mixed race. The minority population in western Maryland was very low, while Somerset County on the Eastern Shore had a minority population of 43.4 percent. Table 1 shows the racial composition of the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions.

Areas of Minority Concentration As shown on Map 1, of the 346 census tracts in Maryland's non-entitlement areas, 25 had minority concentrations of black or African-American households in 2000. This represented a decrease from 38 census tracts identified in the last AI using 1990 data. Twelve of these 25 concentrations were due to institutional populations, such as prisons or a work release facility, residential hospital centers (mental institutions and/or facilities for persons with severe disabilities) - all of which have a greater likelihood to increase minority concentrations (Table 2). State prisons show up as concentrations due to greater probability of high incarceration rates for minorities.

16

http://www.dhcd.state.md.us/

Table 1. Population in State Non-entitlement Jurisdictions

2000 Census Jurisdiction Total

population White alone Black or

African American

alone

American Indian and

Alaska Native alone

Asian alone

Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander

alone

Some other race

alone

Two or more races

Allegany 74,930 69,650 4,006 116 454 0 98 606Calvert 74,563 62,421 9,672 235 655 17 499 1,064Caroline 29,772 24,389 4,442 95 135 2 337 372Carroll 150,897 144,216 3,541 271 1,299 30 340 1,200Cecil 85,951 80,491 3,152 231 564 6 395 1,112Charles 120,546 82,460 31,425 1,114 1,884 22 991 2,650Dorchester 30,674 21,307 8,632 51 259 0 104 321Frederick 195,277 174,293 12,191 466 3,327 45 1,863 3,092Garrett 29,846 29,604 79 27 33 0 29 74Kent 19,197 15,279 3,316 45 100 0 195 262Queen Anne's 40,563 36,081 3,541 99 181 0 245 416St. Mary's 86,211 70,337 11,676 344 1,623 121 415 1,695Somerset 24,747 13,892 10,138 73 220 0 125 299Talbot 33,812 27,771 5,122 36 304 25 337 217Washington 131,923 118,630 10,112 220 1,000 24 492 1,445Wicomico 84,644 61,545 19,613 145 1,746 22 557 1,016Worcester 46,543 37,754 7,608 95 305 6 162 613Total 1,260,096 1,070,120 148,266 3,663 14,089 320 7,184 16,454

Table 2. Census Tracts for Maryland’s Non-entitlement Institutions

County Census Tract Reason for Concentration Allegany 001300 State Prison Allegany 000200 State Prison Calvert 860702 Jail and Work Release Facility Dorchester 970500 Residential Hospital Center Somerset 980101 Historically Black College Somerset 980300 State Prison Somerset 980400 State Prison Washington 009000 State Prison Washington 011000 State Prison Worcester 990300 Residential Hospital Center Worcester 990900 Residential Hospital Center and State Prison Worcester 991100 Residential Hospital Center

17

Of the remaining 13 census tracts where concentrations existed, 3 had a large military presence, and the most probable cause of areas of concentration. The three tracts are located in Saint Mary’s County (995900, 996001 and 996002) which is impacted by the Patuxent Naval Air Station. The Air base population is approximately 16,000 persons, which include providing housing for dependents.

GarrettGarrett

DorchesterDorchester

KentKent

CharlesCharles

CecilCecil

TalbotTalbot

FrederickFrederick

WorcesterWorcester

CarrollCarroll

Saint Mary'sSaint Mary's

AlleganyAllegany

CalvertCalvert

Queen QueenAnne'sAnne's

SomersetSomerset

WicomicoWicomico

WashingtonWashington

CarolineCaroline

Tract ID: 980300 3,186 (54.3%)

Tract ID: 950400 879 (27.5%)

Tract ID: 000200 925 (19.9%)

Tract ID: 980101 3,836 (69.5%)

Tract ID: 955600 1,275 (27.2%)

Tract ID: 850100 2,623 (41.1%)

Tract ID: 995900 2,591 (27.4%)

Tract ID: 991100 2,288 (45.1%)

Tract ID: 850300 753 (36.1%)

Tract ID: 810700 719 (24.1%)

Tract ID: 996002 1,397 (24.2%)

Tract ID: 860702 794 (29.7%)

Tract ID: 970600 1,708 (48.7%)

Tract ID: 850702 5,280 (36.9%)

Tract ID: 990900 1,290 (45.3%)

Tract ID: 010200 4,396 (85.8%)

Tract ID: 990300 1,713 (42.2%)

Tract ID: 001300 1,219 (33.1%)

Tract ID: 011000 5,086 (73.3%)

Tract ID: 960300 1,349 (43.8%)

Tract ID: 996001 1,640 (34.7%)

Tract ID: 850901 1,979 (36.5%)

Tract ID: 970500 2,936 (74.4%)

Tract ID: 980400 64 (66.7%)

Tract ID: 000900 113 (28.0%)

Concentrations of Race by Census Tract1: Black or African American Alone(excluding entitlement areas)

Areas of Minority Concentration2

No ConcentrationEntitlement Areas(data in entitlement areas omitted from analysis)

Allegany Calvert Caroline Carroll Cecil Charles Dorchester Frederick Garrett Kent Queen Anne's Saint Mary's Somerset Talbot Washington Wicomico Worcester Maryland

53,412 74,563 29,772

150,897 85,951

120,546 30,674

142,510 29,846 19,197 40,563 86,211 24,747 33,812 95,236 60,901

46,543 1,125,381

2,918 9,773 4,398 3,433 3,361

31,411 8,708 4,652

128 3,343 3,560

12,003 10,172

5,193 6,525

12,044 7,754 129,376

5.5 13.1 14.8

2.3 3.9

26.1 28.4

3.3 0.4

17.4 8.8

13.9 41.1 15.4

6.9 19.8

16.7 11.5

JurisdictionTotal

PopulationBlack orAfrican

American

PercentBlack orAf. Amer.

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 1, Table P3 - Race

Areas of minority concentration are any census tracts1 where thepercentage of a particular minority is at least 10 percentagepoints greater than the countywide percentage.

2

Census tracts located in both entitlement and non-entitlement areas have been split,so that only data in non-entitlement areas were used to calculate concentration(s).

1

All totals and derived calculations exclude data (i.e. population values)located in entitlement areas.

Map 1. After subtracting out these 15 census tracts where the data was skewed by special circumstances, the State had 10 census tracts with high minority concentrations. Of these, five were located in or on the edge of small towns on the Eastern Shore – Cambridge (tracts 970500 and 970600) in Dorchester County, Easton (tract 960300) in Talbot County, Graysonville (a historically black community in tract 810700) in Queen Anne’s County, and an area outside of Salisbury (tract 010200) in Wicomico County. In primarily rural areas, towns typically have higher numbers of minorities than the surrounding farm areas, so these findings are not surprising. However, in a few census tracts the minority count is significantly higher than the counties’ minority representation as a whole. Notably, the tract outside Salisbury (which is more than 85 percent Black in a county that is less than 20 percent Black) and two tracts in Cambridge also show such patterns. These concentrations may indicate either a past historical pattern of segregation, and/or possible discrimination in these communities. Of the remaining four tracts, one is located in Kent County, and the other three are in Charles County. The Kent County tract barely qualified as a concentration, exceeding the threshold by

18

one tenth of one percent. This area is primarily rural, and it is unclear why a concentration exists. The reason that three Charles County census tracts show up as minority concentrations is somewhat clearer. These tracts are located on the edge of Prince George’s County, one of the nation’s few “predominantly minority” counties, and close to Washington, D.C., a predominantly minority city. The reasons that these concentrations may exist is because economically successful minority families are moving to Charles County, pushing out the boundaries of the adjacent, economically successful minority communities in Prince George’s County. This theory is supported by the fact that while these census tracts show up as having concentrations of minority persons, they do not show up as low-income concentrations. The households are more likely to be African-American, but not more likely to be poor. In addition, population census estimates from the Maryland Department of Planning show that the minority population of Charles County is increasing rapidly, with the percent of minorities living in the county growing 148 percent from 2000 to 2008. Based on current trends, the Census Bureau expects Charles County to shift to a predominantly minority county within the next 10 years. Another possible reason for concentration in two of the tracts (850100 and 850300) could be the presence of the Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center. As noted earlier, military facilities tend to skew concentration data. This facility however is relatively small compared to the population of the County as a whole, so we think that the first scenario of successful African-American households moving to the census tracts closest to Washington D.C. can increase the likelihood for concentrations to exist.

Areas of Low-Income Concentration Low-income households are households with incomes 50 percent or less of the median income. Based on 2000 Census information, there were 31 census tracts with concentrations of low-income persons in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions that year. This was a decrease from 41 census tracts using 1990 census information. Comparing the census tracts with high minority concentrations to high low-income concentrations, the data shows that only seven of the tracts meet both criteria, a very low correlation. Further, of these seven, five are impacted by the same conditions that skewed the minority concentration information. That is, one of the tracts (98010 in Somerset County) had incomes affected by a Historically Black College, one was affected by the prisoner work release program in Calvert County (tract 86072), and three were impacted by hospital centers (tract 955600 in Dorchester County and tracts 990300 and 991100 in Worcester County). The remaining two tracts are the same tracts that had extremely high concentrations of minorities, that is, tract 010200 outside of Salisbury and tract 970500 in Cambridge.

19

GarrettGarrett


KentKent

CharlesCharles

CecilCecil

TalbotTalbot

FrederickFrederick

WorcesterWorcester

CarrollCarroll


AlleganyAllegany

CalvertCalvert

Queen QueenAnne'sAnne's

SomersetSomerset

WicomicoWicomico


CarolineCaroline

Tract ID: 850400 367 (28.6%)

Tract ID: 810200 269 (29.7%)

Tract ID: 980101 902 (52.1%)

Tract ID: 955600 670 (36.1%)

Tract ID: 995801 504 (49.9%)

Tract ID: 991100 675 (34.1%)

Tract ID: 980600 677 (48.7%)

Tract ID: 860703 270 (28.1%)

Tract ID: 752400 734 (27.8%)

Tract ID: 753200 429 (35.9%)

Tract ID: 860701 214 (30.1%)

Tract ID: 001700 850 (40.5%)

Tract ID: 030903 639 (36.1%)

Tract ID: 010200 700 (39.8%)

Tract ID: 990300 520 (33.1%)

Tract ID: 850202 569 (32.1%)

Tract ID: 507801 645 (28.9%)

Tract ID: 030400 910 (46.1%)

Tract ID: 960300 530 (39.3%)

Tract ID: 970500 805 (50.2%)

Tract ID: 860702 300 (34.3%)

Tract ID: 001800 705 (44.8%)

Tract ID: 996001 535 (29.9%)

Tract ID: 850901 844 (41.8%)

Tract ID: 850906 625 (32.3%)

Tract ID: 000500 74 (37.9%)

Tract ID: 000601 15 (30%)

Tract ID: 000500 4 (40%)

Tract ID: 750501 30 (60%)

Tract ID: 750502 24 (28.6%)

Tract ID: 000400 10 (50%)

Concentrations of Low Income by Census Tract1: Occupied Households, Income <=50% HAMFI2(excluding entitlement areas)

Areas of Minority Concentration3

No ConcentrationEntitlement Areas(data in entitlement areas omitted from analysis)


19,749 25,458 11,089 52,499 31,225 41,671 12,709 49,220 11,460 7,669

15,319 30,640 8,356

14,304 33,913 23,004

19,690 407,975

5,743 4,486 2,559 7,712 6,727 7,522 3,674 8,526 3,494 1,756 2,884 5,678 2,890 3,240 5,745 4,590

3,990 81,216

29.1 17.6 23.1 14.7 21.5 18.1 28.9 17.3 30.5 22.9 18.8 18.5 34.6 22.7 16.9 20.0

20.3 19.9

JurisdictionTotal

HouseholdsLow IncomeHouseholds

PercentLow Income

Data Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), CHAS 2000, Table F7 - Tenure by household income in 1999

Areas of minority concentration are any census tracts1 where thepercentage of a particular minority is at least 10 percentagepoints greater than the countywide percentage.

3Occupied households include renter and owner occupied, with householdincomes <=50% of Household Adjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI).

2

All totals and derived calculations exclude data (i.e. household populationvalues) located in entitlement areas.

Census tracts located in both entitlement and non-entitlement areas have been split,so that only data in non-entitlement areas were used to calculate concentration(s).

1

Map 2

Housing Problems by Race and Family Status DHCD also examined housing problems by race and family status. This analysis was conducted using state level data to show the impact of housing problems statewide when examined by household type. It is important to understand when looking at this data that HUD defined housing problems narrowly. HUD data focuses primarily on households with excessive housing costs. Some additional data that HUD provides include households who live in substandard housing, which includes housing that is either overcrowded (more than one person per room) or lacks a complete kitchen or bathroom. However, if a family is, for example, paying both excessive rent and living in overcrowded conditions, their housing problem is only reported as paying excessive rent. The fact that the housing unit also is overcrowded would not be reported. Therefore, the percent of low-income households that had some sort of housing problem refers to HUD’s definition, but does not refer to all the housing problems a family may actually face. It is important to note that our analysis focuses on all households with housing problems, categorized as renter versus owner. For these two groups, the information on persons paying excessive housing costs is important (particularly for families who rent and pay excessive housing costs) – as they are most likely to be subject to homelessness. This is especially true for renters who pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent. For this reason, they are the families that HUD considers to have “worst case housing needs.” The numbers are defined differently for owners – as their excessive housing costs (as defined by the census) are families

20

who are paying not only a first mortgage, but very often other housing costs including, but not limited to, tax deductible property taxes, second mortgages, credit cards, utility costs, and college tuition. Mortgage underwriters do not generally provide mortgages that require payment of more than 28 percent of income. Therefore, when the census reports owner-occupied households paying more than either 30 percent or 50 percent of their income for housing costs, this reflects households that may really have a debt problem rather than a housing problem. It should be noted, however, that in some cases these households may have a legitimate housing problem due to unforeseen circumstances such as loss of income from changes in employment or planned retirement.

Extremely Low-Income Households An extremely low-income household is a household earning 30 percent of median income or less. According to 2000 census, there were about 221,056 extremely low-income households in Maryland. Of these, 37,769 lived in the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions with 69.3 percent who had some sort of housing problem. Just over 67 percent (67.3 percent) of households paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing, and 47.6 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing. The data shows an almost even distribution between the number of extremely low-income renters and owners in the non-entitlement areas. In particular, 18,797 of the households in this group were renters, and 18,972 households lived in owner-occupied housing. For renter occupied households, 68.6 percent of extremely low-income renters had housing problems, with 66.1 percent of them who paid more than 30 percent of their income in rent, and 48.1 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent. For owner occupied households, 69.9 percent had housing problems, with 68.5 percent who paid more than 30 percent of income for housing, and 47.1 percent paid more than 50 percent of income for housing. Extremely Low-Income Renter Households Elderly Households: Based on census data and HUD’s definition of elderly households, Maryland had about 6,000 extremely low-income elderly renter households in its non-entitlement areas in 2000. HUD defines elderly households as households headed by a person aged 62 or older. Just fewer than 60 percent of the elderly renters who earned less than 30 percent of state median income had some sort of housing problem. About 59 percent paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and 39 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent. As noted above, households who pay more than 50 percent income on rent payments are at greater risk of facing homelessness. Therefore, elderly households who paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent would be among households with worst case needs. Small Households: Based on 2000 census, Maryland had about 6,100 extremely low-income “small” renter households in non-entitlement jurisdictions. HUD defines a small family as a household of 2-4 persons. About 74 percent of these households had housing problems. About 71 percent who paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and approximately 52 percent paid more than 50 percent on rent. The 52 percent representation of households, earning less than 30 percent of median income and paying more than 50 percent of their incomes for rent are among those with worse case needs.

Large Households: In 2000, Maryland had about 1,286 “large” renter households at extremely low-income levels in the non-entitlement jurisdictions. HUD defines large families as five or

21

more persons. According to HUD, 84 percent of these households had housing problems. About 77 percent paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and 51 percent paid more than 50 percent for rent. Households paying more than 50 percent of their income for rent would also be among those with worst case needs. Other Households: There are about 5,400 "other" extremely low-income renter households in Maryland. "Other" households include both non-elderly single person households and non-family households. About 69 percent of these households had some sort of housing problem. About 66 percent paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and 53 percent paid more than 50 percent for rent. The 65 percent of "other" extremely low-income households earning less than 30 percent of median income and paying more than 50 percent of their income for rent would be the final group having worst case needs. Extremely-Low-income Homeowners Elderly Homeowners: There were about 10,831 extremely low-income elderly homeowner households in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. Of these households, HUD's data indicates about 66 percent had some sort of housing problem. About 65 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing costs, and about 37 percent paid more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing costs. Small Households: There were about 3,972 extremely low-income small homeowner households in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. Of these, 76 percent had housing problems. About 75 percent of the households paid more than 30 percent of the incomes for housing costs, and about 62 percent paid more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing costs. Large Households; There were about 957 extremely low-income owner-occupied households in Maryland in the year 2000. About 81 percent had housing problems, with about 72 percent of them who paid more than 30 percent of incomes for housing costs, and about 59 percent paid more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing costs. All Other Owner Households: There were about 3,212 "other" extremely low-income owner households in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. About 74 percent of households had housing problems. About 72 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent, and about 59 percent paid more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing costs. Differences by race among extremely low-income households An analysis of differences in housing problems by race between extremely low-income White and African-American households generally shows that there is not a great deal of difference in need between renters and owners or by age or family status across Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions. This is illustrated in Table 3 below. If the statistical difference in housing problems is more than 10 percent between racial groups, then HUD considers the difference significant based on need in a geographic area. For example, if 40 percent of all White households had housing problems, but 51 percent of Black or African-American households had housing problems, then a significant difference in need exists in the African American geographic area. One area of significant difference by race was identified in the “other renters” category, which shows White renters having a need greater than 10 percent than black or African American households. It is unclear why this difference exists. The difference in need between elderly

22

extremely low income renters is nearly 10 percent, but does not meet that threshold. (NOTE: HUD data regarding housing need by race did not distinguish between small and large families, nor did it go into detail about housing problems in terms of excessive rent.)

Table 3. Extremely Low-Income Households – Housing Problems by Race RENTERS White Renter Households Black/African-American Renter

Households Household Type Elderly Family Other Total Elderly Family Other Total Number of Households 4,687 4,328 4,147 13,162 1,158 2,578 980 4,716% With Housing Problems 57.5 76.1 71.9 68.1 67.0 73.3 61.3 69.3

OWNERS White Owner Households Black/African-American Owner Households

Household Type Elderly Family Other Total Elderly Family Other Total Number of Households 9,338 3,869 2,742 15,949 1,512 828 451 2791% With Housing Problems 66.2 77.3 73.6 70.2 65.4 73.7 70.5 68.7

Low-Income Households

Maryland had about 207,310 low-income households in 2000. Low-income households are defined as households earning more than 30 percent of median income, but less than 50 percent of median income. Of these 207,310 households, about 42,376 lived in the state’s non-entitlement jurisdictions. About 54 percent of these households had housing problems, with about 51 percent who paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing, and about 19 percent paid more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing. Very Low-Income Renters Based on 2000 Census figures, Maryland had about 17,013 low-income renter households in non-entitlement jurisdictions. HUD estimates that 59 percent of these households had some sort of housing problem. About 55 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for rent, and 12 percent paid more than 50 percent for rent. Households that paid more than 50 percent of their incomes for rent would be classified as households with worse-case needs. Below is a discussion of housing problems by family type for low-income renter households. Elderly Renters: Of the State's elderly low-income renter households, about 3,856 households reside in the non-entitlement jurisdictions. HUD estimates that 52 percent had housing problems. About 50 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and about 16 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent. Small Related Renter Households: Maryland had about 6,852 small related low-income renter households in the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. About 59 percent of them had housing problems. About 56 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for rent, and about 10 percent paid more than 50 percent of their incomes for rent. Large Related Renter Households: Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions had about 1,667 large related low-income renter households in 2000. HUD estimates about 64 percent had

23

housing problems. About 48 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for rent, and about 6 percent paid more than 50 percent of their incomes for rent. Other Low-Income Renter Households: There were about 4,638 "other" low-income households in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. About 62 percent had some sort of housing problem. Approximately 60 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for rent, and about 15 percent paid more than 50 percent of their incomes for rent. Low-Income Homeowners Of the State's 25,363 low-income homeowner households in non-entitlement jurisdictions, about 51 percent had some sort of housing problem in 2000. About 49 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing, and an estimated 24 percent paid more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing. Elderly Homeowners: There were about 12,421 elderly low-income owner households in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. About 32 percent had some sort of housing problem. Approximately 31 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing costs, and 15 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. Small Households: There were about 7,631 low-income small homeowner households in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. Of these, 67 percent had housing problems. About 66 percent of the households paid more than 30 percent of income for housing costs, and about 31 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. Large Households: There were about 2,361 low-income owner-occupied households in 2000. About 78 percent of them had housing problems, with about 70 percent who had paid more than 30 percent of income for housing costs, and about 33 percent paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. All Other Owner Households: There were about 2,950 "other" low-income owner households in Maryland in 2000. About 65 percent of these households had some sort of housing problem. Approximately 63 percent paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs, and 37 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. Differences by race among extremely low-income households An analysis of differences in housing problems by race between White and African-American households shows that there is little difference in need between renters and owners or by age or family status across the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions. As shown in Table 4 below, there were no significant differences (10 percent or more) in housing needs by race for low-income households.

24

Table 4. Low-Income Households – Housing Problems by Race

RENTERS White Renter Households Black/African-American Renter

Households Household Type Elderly Family Other Total Elderly Family Other Total Number of Households 3,288 5,631 3,416 12,335 433 2,392 971

3,796

Percent With Housing Problems 51.2 59.4 61.2 57.7 57.7 61.1 64.2 61.5

OWNERS White Owner Households Black/African-American Owner

Households Household Type Elderly Family Other Total Elderly Family Other TotalNumber of Households 11,273 8,234 2,498 22,005 933 1,523 318 2,834Percent With Housing Problems 30.7 70.1 63.0 49.1 39.0 65.5 67.3 56.4

Moderate Income Households

Maryland had about 304,113 moderate-income households in 2000. Moderate-income households are defined as those households earning more than 50 percent of median income, but less than 80 percent of median income. Of these 304,113 households, about 64,017 lived in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions. About 40 percent of these households had housing problems, with about 38 percent who paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing, and about 9 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing. Moderate-Income Renters Based on 2000 Census figures, Maryland had about 19,612 moderate-income renter households in the non-entitlement jurisdictions. HUD estimates 25 percent of these households had some sort of housing problem. About 20 percent of them paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and about 2 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent. Below is a discussion of housing problems by family type for moderate-income renter households: Elderly Renters: Of the State's elderly moderate-income renter households, which represents about 2,784 households in the non-entitlement jurisdictions, HUD estimates that 31 percent had housing problems. About 30 percent paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and about 6 percent paid more than 50 percent for rent. Small Related Renter Households: Maryland had about 8,678 small related moderate-income renter households in the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. About 21 percent of them had housing problems. About 17 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and about 1 percent paid more than 50 percent for rent. Large Related Renter Households: Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions had about 1,929 large related moderate-income renter households in 2000. HUD estimates that about 37

25

percent had housing problems. Approximately 8 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent. According to HUD data, none of the households paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent. Other Moderate-Income Renter Households: There were about 6,221 "other" moderate-income renter households in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. About 26 percent had some sort of housing problem. Approximately 27 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and about 2 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent. Moderate-Income Homeowners Of the State's 64,017 moderate-income homeowner households in the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000, about 35 percent had some sort of housing problem. About 32 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing, and an estimated 7 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing. Elderly Homeowners: In 2000, there were about 14,954 elderly moderate-income owner households in non-entitlement jurisdictions. About 20 percent had some sort of housing problem. Approximately 20 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs, and 6 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. Small Households: There were about 18,801 moderate-income small homeowner households in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. Of these, 49 percent had housing problems. About 47 percent of the households paid more than 30 percent of the income for housing costs, and about 11 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. Large Households; There were about 4,754 moderate-income owner-occupied households in Maryland in 2000. About 50 percent of them had housing problems, with about 42 percent of them having paid more than 30 percent of income for housing costs, and about 7 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. All Other Owner Households: There were about 5,896 "other" moderate-income owner households in Maryland in 2000. About 52 percent of these households had some sort of housing problem. This was primarily an issue of costs – about 52 percent paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs, and 13 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. Differences by race among moderate-income households An analysis of differences in housing problems by race between White and African-American moderate-income households shows that there is generally little difference in need between renters and owners, or by age or family status across the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions, with the exception of elderly households. As illustrated in Table 5, the number of moderate-income renter White elderly households with housing problems is more than double that of black/African-American households. While the reason for the latter is unclear, the difference is significant. Otherwise, for all other household types the difference in housing need by race is quite close, showing no significant differences in housing problems.

26

Table 5. Moderate-Income Households – Housing Problems by Race


Households Household Type Elderly Family Other Total Elderly Family Other Total Number of Households 2,457 7,973 4,892 15,322 282 2,035 1,102 3,419Percent With Housing Problems 33.0 22.2 24.5 24.7 15.6 22.0 28.7 23.6


Households Household Type Elderly Family Other Total Elderly Family Other TotalNumber of Households 14,125 20,375 5,285 39,785 799 2,660 533 3,992Percent With Housing Problems 19.7 48.7 52.1 38.9 26.0 50.6 55.3 46.3

Middle and Upper Income Households

Maryland had about 1,248,184 middle and upper-income households in 2000. HUD defines middle-income households as households that earn between 81 and 95 percent of median income. Households earning more than 96 percent of median income fall into HUD’s definition of upper-income households. The group represents about 264,245 households located in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions. About 10 percent of these households had housing problems, with about 9 percent who had paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing, and about 1 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing. (NOTE: HUD did not break out data separately for these two income groups in the 2000 census; therefore they are discussed together.) Middle and Upper Income Renters Based on 2000 Census, Maryland had about 30,014 middle- and upper-income renter households located in non-entitlement jurisdictions. HUD estimates that about 6 percent of these households had some sort of housing problem. About 2 percent of them paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, but less than 1 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent. Below is a discussion of housing problems by family type for moderate-income renter households: Elderly Renters: The state had 3,099 elderly middle- and upper-income renter households in non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. HUD estimates that 8 percent of this group had housing problems. About 7 percent paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and about 3 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent.

27

Small Related Renter Households: Maryland had about 17,310 small related middle- and upper-income renter households in the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. About 4 percent of them had housing problems. About 1.4 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and less than one tenth of 1 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent. Large Related Renter Households: Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions had about 3,273 large related middle- and upper-income renter households in 2000. HUD estimates that about 19 percent had housing problems. About 2 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and about 1 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent. This is the only group that had problems other than rent burdens - issues primarily attributed to either overcrowding or physically substandard units. Other Renter Households: There were about 10,332 "other" middle- and upper-income renter households in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. About 4 percent had some sort of housing problem. Approximately 2 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent, but less than one tenth of 1 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent. Middle- and Upper-Income Homeowners The State had 230,232 moderate-income homeowner households in non-entitlement jurisdictions, with approximately 10 percent having experienced some sort of housing problem. About 9 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing, while an estimated 1 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing. Elderly Homeowners: There were about 36,342 elderly middle- and upper-income owner households in Maryland in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. About 8 percent had some sort of housing problem. These problems were most related to paying excessive rent. An estimated 7.7 percent of these households paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs, and 1.4 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. Small Households: There were about 145,099 middle- and upper-income small homeowner households in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in 2000. Of these, 10.3 percent had housing problems. About 9.8 percent of the households paid more than 30 percent of the income for housing costs, and about nine tenths of one percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. Large Households; There were about 25,371 middle- and upper-income owner-occupied households in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions in the year 2000. About 13.5 percent of them had housing problems, with about 9.2 percent of them who had paid more than 30 percent of income for housing costs, and about 7 tenths of one percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. All Other Owner Households: There were about 23,420 "other" middle- and upper-income owner households in Maryland in 2000. About 17.7 percent of these households had some sort of housing problem. This was primarily an issue of costs. An estimated 17.3 percent paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs, and 2 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs.

28

Differences by race among middle- and upper-income households An analysis of differences in housing problems by race between middle- and upper-income White and black/African-American households shows no significant difference in households with problems by race. This is illustrated in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Middle- and Upper-Income Households – Housing Problems by Race


Households Household Type Elderly Family Other Total Elderly Family Other Total Number of Households 2,737 16,708 8,896 28,341 273 3,018 1,008 4,299Percent With Housing Problems 8.4 4.5 3.5 4.6 2.9 11.5 5.7 9.6


Households Household Type Elderly Family Other Total Elderly Family Other Total Number of Households 34,537 155,510 21,167 211,214 1,449 10,799 1,778 14,026Percent With Housing Problems 7.8 10.4 17.3 10.7 13.0 14.1 21.9 15.0

PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS Special needs populations consist of persons with severe mental illness, persons with developmental disabilities, physically disabled, persons with alcohol and other drug addictions, AIDS and related diseases, and the frail elderly. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene provides a wide array of services to thousands of Marylanders with disabilities, including persons with mental illness, developmental disabilities and HIV/AIDS. Services are typically provided in institutions, nursing homes, group homes, assisted living facilities, transitional housing sites, service recipient’s homes or family homes including foster care. In describing the need for affordable housing for people with disabilities in Maryland, several sources of demographic information including 2000 census data were accessed. These sources included the Social Security Administration, Technical Assistance Collaborative, National Low Income Housing Coalition, and the Governor’s Commission on Housing Policy typology and other sources. According to 2000 census, eighteen percent of Maryland’s population ages 5 and older were identified as having a disability. This is equivalent to 850,620 people. Disability status is self-identified in the census. Persons with disabilities fill out their census forms to report if they have physical, sensory, self-care, or mental disabilities. Mental disabilities are not mental illnesses; rather they are typically learning disabilities such as ADD, problems remembering, etc. Of the 850,620 persons identified with disabilities in 2000, 175,583 lived in the State’s non-entitlement

29

jurisdictions (including those with “mental” disabilities). Of the population whose disability had a significant impact on their physical living conditions, 26,902 persons had a physical disability, 22,646 had a self-care disability and 13, 658 had a sensory disability. Map 3 provides information by census tract on where these individuals live.

GarrettGarrett


KentKent

CharlesCharles

CecilCecil

TalbotTalbot

FrederickFrederick

WorcesterWorcester

CarrollCarroll

SomersetSomerset


AlleganyAllegany

CalvertCalvert

WicomicoWicomico


CarolineCaroline

QueenQueenAnne'sAnne's

Percent of Individuals with a Disability by Census Tract1 for theTotal Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 5 years and over

(excluding entitlement areas)


46,721 68,553 27,570

138,549 79,151

108,881 28,499

131,213 27,509 17,942 37,491 76,604 20,188 31,623 81,721 56,118

43,569 1,021,902

8,782 10,925 5,642

20,411 14,486 18,133 6,532

17,983 5,499 3,687 6,441

11,724 4,985 6,093

14,897 10,209

9,154 175,583

18.8 15.9 20.5 14.7 18.3 16.7 22.9 13.7 20.0 20.5 17.2 15.3 24.7 19.3 18.2 18.2

21.0 17.2

JurisdictionTotal

PopulationPop. with aDisability

Percentw/Disability

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3, Table PCT26 - Sex by Age by Types of Disability for the Civilian Noninstitutionalized population 5 years and over

All totals and derived calculations exclude data (i.e. disability populationvalues) located in entitlement areas.

Census tracts located in both entitlement and non-entitlement areas have been split,so that only data in non-entitlement areas were used to calculate percentages.

1

<= 17.0%, the census tract mean

17.1% - 23.4% (1 SD above mean)

23.5% - 29.8% (2 SD above mean)

29.9% - 36.2% (3 SD above mean)

>= 36.3% (4 SD above mean, 40.8% max. value)Entitlement Areas(data in entitlement areas omitted from analysis)

Map 3.

Persons with Developmental Disabilities A developmental disability is a condition attributable to a mental or physical impairment that results in substantial functional limitations in major life activities and which is likely to continue indefinitely. Examples include autism, blindness, cerebral palsy, deafness epilepsy, mental retardation, and multiple sclerosis.

Persons with Mental Illness

The Mental Hygiene Administration (MHA) of DHMH is responsible for the treatment and rehabilitation of the mentally ill. The MHA plans and develops comprehensive services for the mentally ill, supervises State-run psychiatric facilities for the mentally ill, and provides consultation to State agencies concerning mental health services among other duties.

30

The Mental Hygiene Administration provides housing through Residential Rehabilitation Programs (RRP), Supportive Housing and independent housing efforts on the part of the consumer and providers. Individuals with mental illness are encouraged to access housing through a variety of community resources, to include DHCD, public housing authorities as well as non-profit housing agencies. Supportive and independent housing programs have access to flexible support services to assist eligible individuals in the community.

The Elderly and Frail Elderly The Department of Aging has primary responsibility for looking after the needs of the elderly and frail elderly in Maryland. According to Maryland Department of Aging (MDoA), there are approximately 800,000 Marylanders aged 60 and over in 2000. This represented 15 percent of Maryland’s population. By 2020, the elderly are expected to comprise 23 percent of the State’s population – where the youngest “boomers” will become senior citizens during this period. This is due to the aging baby boomer generation (persons born between 1946 and 1964) entering their senior years. It is anticipated that many baby boomers are expected to live into their mid-80s and beyond, some with multiple chronic illnesses, and are likely to outlive their financial resources.

GarrettGarrett


KentKent

CharlesCharles

CecilCecil

TalbotTalbot

FrederickFrederick

WorcesterWorcester

CarrollCarroll

SomersetSomerset


AlleganyAllegany

CalvertCalvert

WicomicoWicomico


CarolineCaroline


Percent of Individuals with a Disability by Census Tract1 for the ElderlyCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population 65 years and over



8,274 6,321 3,812

15,324 8,445 9,009 5,261

12,509 4,126 3,444 5,012 7,236 3,307 6,599

12,708 7,451

9,058 127,896

3,363 2,281 1,644 6,089 3,306 3,833 2,158 4,673 1,836 1,316 1,679 2,716 1,562 2,358 5,012 3,000

3,373 50,199

40.6 36.1 43.1 39.7 39.1 42.5 41.0 37.4 44.5 38.2 33.5 37.5 47.2 35.7 39.4 40.3

37.2 39.2

Jurisdiction

TotalElderly

PopulationPop. with aDisability

Percent w/aDisability




1


37.1% - 50.6% (1 SD above mean)

50.7% - 64.3% (2 SD above mean)

64.4% - 78.0% (3 SD above mean)

>= 78.1% (4+ SD above mean, 100% max. value)Entitlement Areas(data in entitlement areas omitted from analysis)

Map 4 As part of developing the Consolidated Plan, DHCD analyzed data for elderly populations who were disabled. Based on analysis, there were 50,199 elderly persons in the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions with some sort of disability in 2000. This includes persons with physical, sensory, or self care disabilities, as well as persons with “mental disabilities” which are primarily learning disabilities rather than mental illnesses or diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

31

Where data was available, DHCD broke down information on the elderly with disabilities by disability type. (A note of explanation: In the census, people can report whether they have one or more disabilities, but if they report multiple disabilities, it is not possible to differentiate one type of disability from another). The most common type of disability for elderly persons (where they only reported one) are physical disabilities. Physical disabilities include difficulty walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying objects. There were 12, 304 elderly persons in the non-entitlement areas who had this type of disability in 2000 (Map 5).

GarrettGarrett


KentKent

CharlesCharles

CecilCecil

TalbotTalbot

FrederickFrederick

WorcesterWorcester

CarrollCarroll

SomersetSomerset


AlleganyAllegany

CalvertCalvert

WicomicoWicomico


CarolineCaroline


Percent of Individuals with a Physical Only Disability by Census Tract1 for theElderly Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 65 years and over



8,274 6,321 3,812

15,324 8,445 9,009 5,261

12,509 4,126 3,444 5,012 7,236 3,307 6,599

12,708 7,451

9,058 127,896

711 587 472

1,375 834 997 580

1,128 393 302 462 605 338 592

1,302 861

765 12,304

8.6 9.3

12.4 9.0 9.9

11.1 11.0

9.0 9.5 8.8 9.2 8.4

10.2 9.0

10.2 11.6 8.4 9.6

Jurisdiction

TotalElderly

Population

Pop. with aPhysical Only

Disability

Percent w/aPhysical Only

Disability




1


9.0% - 14.1% (1 SD above mean)

14.2% - 19.3% (2 SD above mean)

19.4% - 24.5% (3 SD above mean)

>= 24.6% (4+ SD above mean, 30.6% max. value)Entitlement Areas(data in entitlement areas omitted from analysis)

Map 5

32

The second most common form of disability for the frail elderly is a self care disability. Self care disabilities are – persons who need assistance with basic daily life, including bathing, feeding, using the bathroom. There were 11,123 elderly households in the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions with this type of disability in 2000.

GarrettGarrett


KentKent

CharlesCharles

CecilCecil

TalbotTalbot

FrederickFrederick

WorcesterWorcester

CarrollCarroll

SomersetSomerset


AlleganyAllegany

CalvertCalvert

WicomicoWicomico


CarolineCaroline


Percent of Individuals with a Self-care Disability by Census Tract1 for theElderly Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 65 years and over



8,274 6,321 3,812

15,324 8,445 9,009 5,261

12,509 4,126 3,444 5,012 7,236 3,307 6,599

12,708 7,451

9,058 127,896

819 505 331

1,445 709 929 443

1,121 423 197 275 639 427 495

1,041 643

681 11,123

9.9 8.0 8.7 9.4 8.4

10.3 8.4 9.0

10.3 5.7 5.5 8.8

12.9 7.5 8.2 8.6

7.5 8.7

Jurisdiction

TotalElderly

Population

Pop. with aSelf-careDisability

Percent w/aSelf-careDisability




1


8.5% - 13.6% (1 SD above mean)

13.7% - 18.9% (2 SD above mean)

19.0% - 24.1% (3 SD above mean)


Map 6

According to 2000 census, there were 5,093 elderly persons with sensory disabilities only in the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions that year. Persons with sensory disabilities are primarily persons who are deaf and/or hard of hearing, blind or severely visually impaired. Map 7 below shows where these households are distributed.

33

GarrettGarrett


KentKent

CharlesCharles

CecilCecil

TalbotTalbot

FrederickFrederick

WorcesterWorcester

CarrollCarroll

SomersetSomerset


AlleganyAllegany

CalvertCalvert

WicomicoWicomico


CarolineCaroline


Percent of Individuals with a Sensory Only Disability by Census Tract1 for theElderly Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 65 years and over



8,274 6,321 3,812

15,324 8,445 9,009 5,261

12,509 4,126 3,444 5,012 7,236 3,307 6,599

12,708 7,451

9,058 127,896

398 200 148 566 346 378 182 481 216 215 145 257 123 240 517 277

404 5,093

4.8 3.2 3.9 3.7 4.1 4.2 3.5 3.8 5.2 6.2 2.9 3.6 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.7

4.5 4.0

Jurisdiction

TotalElderly

Population

Pop. with aSensory Only

Disability

Percent w/aSensory Only

Disability




1


3.9% - 7.1% (1 SD above mean)

7.2% - 10.5% (2 SD above mean)

10.6% - 13.8% (3 SD above mean)


Map 7

The needs of the elderly and frail elderly, depending on their type of ability or disability, are wide ranging. Whether disabled or not, there is a need for affordable rental and ownership housing. In addition, especially for some of those most severely disabled, there is a need for supportive housing and assisted living. Projected Housing Need for Persons with Disabilities – Elderly and Non-Elderly In addition to the census data reported above, DHMH conducted a study of the housing needs of individual with disabilities who had immediate housing needs in the State’s non-entitlement jurisdictions. This information is presented in Table 7.

Table 7. DHMH Housing Needs for Persons With Disabilities – 2005

County Disabled Seniors DisSenior>SSI DisSen<SSI Disabled Dis>SSI Dis<SSI Total

Allegany 126 61 65 102 50 51 228Calvert 69 53 16 105 82 24 174Caroline 42 25 17 52 31 20 94Carroll 187 139 48 196 148 48 383Cecil 120 83 37 176 124 52 296Charles 133 100 33 248 189 59 381Dorchester 57 31 26 57 31 25 114

34

Table 7. DHMH Housing Needs for Persons With Disabilities – 2005

Disabled County Seniors DisSenior>SSI DisSen<SSI Disabled Dis>SSI Dis<SSI TotalFrederick 288 214 74 345 260 85 633Garrett 33 17 16 34 18 16 67Kent 71 45 26 38 24 14 109Queen Anne's 83 62 21 61 45 15 144Somerset 51 26 25 45 22 23 96St. Mary's 181 133 49 172 126 47 353Talbot 139 92 47 60 40 20 199Washington 414 262 153 297 186 111 711Wicomico 234 148 87 192 120 72 426Worcester 151 95 56 78 49 29 229Maryland 2,379 1,586 796 2,258 1,545 4,117 4,637 The need for supportive housing for the disabled is great, extending well beyond the existing resources of the State. Low income people with disabilities have the most difficult time locating affordable housing. For this group, creating affordable and accessible housing at 30 percent of average monthly income, combined with government subsidized rental assistance, is critical to meeting the housing needs of people with disabilities. DHCD is strongly committed to serving the housing needs of people with disabilities, offering numerous housing opportunities and financing programs listed below. As a result of the Department’s efforts, the agency received numerous awards, including the 2009 Council of State Community Development Agencies (COSCDA) award, as well as recognition from the National Council of State Housing Finance Agencies (NCSHFA). Additionally, working cooperatively with DHMH, DHCD revised its Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) for federal LIHTC and other State resources to provide more housing for persons with disabilities. While DHCD’s efforts have been successful in creating substantially more units for disabled households over the past five years, the numbers show that need continues to exist. MD Affordable Housing Trust The Maryland General Assembly created the Maryland Affordable Housing Trust (MAHT) in 1992 to make affordable housing more available throughout the State of Maryland. MAHT promotes affordable housing for households earning less than 50 percent of area or statewide median income by:

• Funding capital costs of rental and ownership housing; • Providing financial assistance for nonprofit-developer capacity building; • Funding supportive services for occupants of affordable housing; and • Funding operating expenses of affordable housing developments.

Housing Programs for Individuals with Disabilities The Homeownership for Individuals with Disabilities Program provides low-interest mortgage loans to eligible disabled homebuyers and homebuyers with a son or daughter (regardless of age – who resides with one of the borrowers and is cared for principally by one of the borrowers). One of the borrowers must have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities (for example, hearing, seeing, speaking, sitting, standing, walking, concentrating, or performing manual tasks). Programs include Group Homes, Disabled

35

Borrowers, Special Housing Opportunities Program, and Group Homes Financing Program. For example, the Group Housing Programs is to help individuals, qualified limited partnerships, and nonprofit organizations to construct or acquire, and/or modify existing housing to serve as a group home or assisted living unit for eligible persons and households with special housing needs. The Department uses both state funds from the Group Home Financing Program and the proceeds from the sale of tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds under the Special Housing Opportunities Program to fund these loans. Partnership Rental Housing Program The Partnership Rental Housing Program provides loans of up to $75,000 per unit for rental housing that will be occupied by households with incomes below 50 percent of the statewide median. There is no limitation on the maximum project amount but Partnership projects tend to include 100 or fewer units. State funds may be used for the development costs of building acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of buildings on site. Projects financed by the program are intended to provide rental housing to individuals and households with incomes sufficient to pay rents in amounts necessary to maintain financial self-sufficiency of the project. Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Maryland administers the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program to support the development of affordable multifamily rental housing. Credits are awarded competitively in conjunction with the State's Rental Housing Program funds and federal HOME funds. Tax credits are allocated in accordance with federal IRS rules and Maryland's Qualified Allocation Plan. Credits are subject to recapture for failure to comply with all IRS and departmental requirements. The 9 percent Tax Credits are awarded on a competitive basis to nonprofit and for-profit sponsors of eligible housing projects. Projects financed with tax-exempt bonds may be eligible for 4 percent Tax Credits outside of the competitive process. The qualified building must remain in compliance with tax credit income restrictions for a minimum of 15 years. Federal HOME Investment Partnership Funds The HOME Investment Partnerships Program is a federal program that provides funds to the State and certain local governments to promote affordable housing activities. Maryland’s program is administered by the Community Development Administration (CDA) and a portion of the annual allocation is used in conjunction with existing CDA multifamily and single family programs. A portion of the funds, allocated to an Initiatives Fund, are awarded competitively to stimulate new ideas in housing, initiate pilot programs, and support promising projects. Shelter and Transitional Housing Facilities Grant Program The Shelter and Transitional Housing Facilities Grant Program (STHGP) provides state funded grants to improve or create transitional housing and emergency shelters. The purpose of the program is to reduce homelessness in the State. New construction, acquisition, rehabilitation of housing, and purchase of capital equipment are eligible activities for STHGP grants. Grants must be used for transitional housing and emergency shelters that include supportive services for their residents. Generally, the grants pay up to 50 percent of the project costs and are processed on a first-come, first-served basis. Rental Assistance Program The Rental Assistance Program is the major state-funded program for assisting very-low income families to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market.

36

Persons of Limited English Proficiency

Persons of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) are defined by the Federal Government as persons who have a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English. Under federal guidelines, persons characterized in the census with LEP are those who do not speak English either very well or not at all. Every federal agency is required to provide guidance for serving persons of LEP under both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order (EO) 13166 issued August 11, 2000. HUD issued its proposed guidance on persons of LEP in 2003 and issued final guidelines on January 22, 2007. In writing its guidance on LEP, HUD states that if an agency receives HUD’s funds, then “Coverage extends to a recipient’s entire program or activity, i.e., to all parts of a recipient’s operations…For example, HUD provides assistance to a state government’s Department of Community Development, which provides funds to a local government to improve a particular public facility. All of the operations of the entire Department of Community Development – not just the particular community and/or facility – are covered.” HUD uses LEP persons as a proxy for potential housing issues by ethnic status. In determining the scope of who should be covered under LEP provisions, HUD developed what it calls the four factor test for recipients of its fund to implement in assessing whether LEP persons have meaningful access to HUD’s services and programs. The test factors are as follows: 1. The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered

by the program or grantee (including persons who would be served or encountered if the persons received adequate education and outreach and the recipient provided sufficient language services);

2. The frequency with which LEP persons come in contact with the program; 3. The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the program to

people’s lives; and 4. The resources available to the recipient and costs associated with creating meaningful

access. Because of difficulty determining the outcome of the LEP four part test, HUD also issued “safe harbors” within which a recipient receiving HUD funding should translate vital materials, undertake the translation of such vital materials, maintain records or provide reports to HUD of such efforts; then the recipient will be found to have made reasonable efforts to provide language assistance. The following safe harbor conditions are as follows: (a) The HUD recipient provides written translations of vital documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes 5 percent or 1,000 whichever is less, of persons eligible to be served or likely to be either affected or encountered, or;

(b) If there are fewer than 50 persons in a language group that reached the 5 percent trigger then the recipient does not translate vital written materials. Instead, provides written notice in the primary language of the LEP language group to receive competent oral interpretation of those written materials, free of cost.

37

Based on completion of either the four factor test or the safe harbor conditions the recipient of HUD funds then develops an implementation plan or language access plan (LAP) to serve LEP persons. HUD identifies five steps in creating a LAP which includes: 1. Identifying the LEP individuals who need language assistance; 2. Identifying information about the ways in which language assistance will be provided to LEP

persons; 3. Implementing a training process of recipient staff to impart an awareness and knowledge

about providing LEP persons with meaningful access; 4. Notifying LEP persons of the language services available to them; and, 5. Implementing a process for evaluating the LAP on an ongoing basis.

State Law In addition to federal guidelines, there is also State law regarding persons of LEP. State law regarding persons of LEP (Section 10-1101 of the Annotated Code of Maryland) state: “it is the policy of the State that State departments, agencies, and programs shall provide equal access to public services for individuals with LEP.” Equal access means “to be informed of, participate in, and benefit from public services offered by a State department, agency, or programs, at a level equal to English proficient individuals.” In addition, the law notes that “program” constitutes all operations of a State department. Under State Law, agencies are required to provide access to “vital documents” which includes all applications, or information materials, notices and complaint forms offered by State departments, agencies and programs. These vital documents need to be translated if 3 percent or more of the population in a local office of an agency’s service area is of LEP. It does not specifically say that written translation is needed. Oral translation services may be offered to provide equal access to agency programs, which includes various methods to provide verbal information and interpretation such as staff interpreters, bilingual staff, telephone interpreter programs, and private interpreter programs. Under State law, the lead agency is assisting persons of LEP in Maryland is the Department of Human Resources, which also is required to provide technical assistance to other State agencies in assisting persons of LEP.

Persons of Limited English Proficiency in Maryland The Office of Research determined the number of persons in Maryland who are of LEP. Based on the 2000 Census (the most recent data available) the Census Bureau identified 622,714 Marylanders, or 11.8 percent of the state population, as speaking 39 different foreign languages with LEP. Our estimation showed that 298,903 of these foreign-speaking individuals (48.0 percent) were renting their place of residence. The analysis focused on renter households because they constitute DHCD’s primary target audience for our first time homebuyer programs or seek affordable rental housing opportunities. In 2000, 53,403 foreign-speaking renter individuals, or 17.9 percent of all non-English speaking renter households, either could not speak English very well or not at all. Using HUD safe harbor limits, identified six foreign-speaking groups who met the minimum requirements were identified, which included Chinese, French, Korean, Russian, Spanish and Vietnamese. Persons in these six language groups need to be reached through the Department’s programs.

38

According to the Office of the Attorney General, “DHCD should have a LEP policy for all programs since there are federal and state requirements…[and that]…DHCD should follow the stricter of the two.” Language assistance can be provided to these households either through written translations of materials or oral translation services. As per the Census data above, Spanish speaking individuals represented the largest number of persons of LEP in Maryland. Based on census figures, more than 90 percent of all Hispanic households (who are the overwhelming majority of Spanish speakers of LEP) live in Maryland’s entitlement areas. Nonetheless, in response to the current foreclosure crisis, DHCD has prepared information on foreclosure assistance in Spanish, and has contracted out counseling services in Spanish targeting entitlement areas with high Hispanic populations. The Department has also prepared, distributed, and had broadcast Spanish language radio and television advertisements geared to helping Hispanic persons with LEP deal with foreclosures, as well as placed advertisements in Spanish language newspapers. The Department’s Maryland Housing Search website also provides assistance to persons of LEP across the State. DHCD’s housing search website, www.mdhousingsearch.org, provides written translation on the availability of affordable rental housing in Spanish, and assistance is available in other languages through translator services. In addition to housing search, the State and DHCD (through the Department of Budget and Management) has had a contract with CRT Services to provide oral translation for other housing and community development programs. Despite finding that the majority of non-English speaking populations are primarily concentrated in entitlement jurisdictions, it is through CRT services that DHCD is able to assist persons of LEP statewide. In fact, an overwhelming number of people who speak French and have limited English proficiency are located in Montgomery County, and individuals who speak Russian largely populate Baltimore City.

Table 8. Number of Renters with English Ability

Language Spoken at Home Very Well Well Not Well or Not at All Total

African languages 13,638 3,122 984 17,744Arabic 3,668 952 399 5,020Armenian 515 145 73 733Chinese 9,742 6,149 4,213 20,104French (incl. Patois, Cajun) 14,735 3,447 2,380 20,562French Creole 2,164 670 393 3,227German 9,238 1,536 648 11,422Greek 3,854 783 507 5,144Gujarathi 1,972 592 321 2,885Hebrew 2,691 347 117 3,155Hindi 4,354 816 297 5,467Hungarian 480 119 59 657Italian 4,672 1,345 605 6,623Japanese 1,735 837 514 3,085Korean 6,336 4,700 4,774 15,810Laotian 190 143 84 417Miao, Hmong 5 4 169 178Mon-Khmer, Cambodian 411 287 46 744

39

http://www.mdhousingsearch.org/

Table 8. Number of Renters with English Ability

Not Well or Language Spoken at Home Very Well Well Not at All Total Navajo 22 2 10 34Other & unspecified 366 105 49 520Other Asian 4,500 1,055 399 5,954Other Indic 3,922 1,054 470 5,446Other Indo-European 2,081 618 232 2,931Other Native North American 231 18 7 256Other Pacific Islands 997 378 124 1,500Other Slavic 1,557 429 156 2,141Other West Germanic 1,200 240 68 1,508Persian 3,806 1,156 774 5,736Polish 2,142 540 238 2,921Portuguese and Portuguese Creole 2,203 817 560 3,579Russian 3,979 2,362 2,100 8,440Scandinavian 937 120 37 1,095Serbo-Croatian 460 150 63 674Spanish and Spanish Creole 58,680 23,641 28,476 110,798Tagalog 6,248 2,278 352 8,878Thai 718 507 190 1,415Urdu 2,750 832 352 3,934Vietnamese 2,682 2,370 2,095 7,148Yiddish 804 149 67 1,019Total 180,685 64,815 53,403 298,903Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development

Private Sector Lending Practices Federal recognition of the importance of residential credit culminated in the mid to late 1970s with the passage of two well known pieces of legislation. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) of 1975 required private lenders to report the number and dollar volume of residential loans at the census tract level. This data allowed people to monitor local investment and disinvestment activity and to identify lenders who were serving their local deposit bases and communities from those who were not. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 made “redlining” illegal by stipulating that lenders had an affirmative obligation to make loans in low and moderate income communities. In brief, CRA required lenders to conduct business in communities that were traditionally objects of redlining and disinvestment, while HMDA provided people with the information to make sure they were doing it. The DHCD Office of Research analyzed 2008 HMDA data obtained from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council to ascertain whether disparities (or possible discrimination) exist in Maryland’s non-entitlement communities. The analysis examined mortgage loan acceptance rates by race, ethnicity and gender. These data contain information on loan applications received by financial institutions and by characteristics of the applicants.

40

The HMDA data selected for this analysis were on the bases of loan type (i.e. conventional loans), loan purpose (purchase of 1-to-4 family homes or refinancing of home purchase or home improvement loans), owner occupancy statue of the loan (properties occupied by the owner), property type (one to four family dwellings), action taken (loans were originated or application was denied), gender of applicant (male or female), ethnicity of applicant (Hispanic or Latino, or Non- Hispanic or Latino), and race of applicant (White or Minority). DHCD used a Z-statistic test to determine possible lending discrimination. The Z-statistics was used to test the hypothesis of the differences in number of households that have received or have been denied loans on the basis of race, gender and ethnicity. However, the implication of the test would only be limited to the conclusions of whether or not there are significant statistical differences between these ratios of zero and 1.96, using a 95 percent confidence level, not whether discrimination existed per se. It is not accurate to assess discrimination on the basis of race, sex or ethnicity on the Z-statistic alone. Other factors that would play a significant role in determining loan acceptance or rejection include, but may not be limited to, debt to income ratio, employment history, income, credit history, down payment, and collateral. A summary of the findings are as: Table 9 shows households who either received or were denied mortgage loans to purchase a home by race of applicant and by county. The test of the differences between two means, which is referred to as the Z-statistics, was significantly different from zero, and hence the hypothesis (defined as no difference between the means of races) can be rejected in three Maryland jurisdictions. The jurisdictions are Baltimore, Charles, and Howard Counties.

Table 9. Households Who Received or Were Denied a Mortgage Loan to Purchase a Home by Race of Applicant

White Minority Number of Loans Number of Loans

County Originated Denied

% Receiving

Loan Originated Denied

% Receiving

Loan

Z

StatisticsAllegany 253 41 86.1% 6 1 85.7% 0.867Anne Arundel 2,203 239 90.2% 321 95 77.2% 1.131Baltimore 2,554 297 89.6% 679 214 76.0% 3.508*

Baltimore City 1,321 183 87.8% 568 370 60.6% 1.722Calvert 282 42 87.0% 26 8 76.5% 0.999Caroline 75 16 82.4% 5 4 55.6% 0.845Carroll 750 73 91.1% 28 7 80.0% 0.963Cecil 369 62 85.6% 22 6 78.6% 0.919Charles 250 38 86.8% 168 65 72.1% 3.649*

Dorchester 50 19 72.5% 11 5 68.8% 0.893Frederick 1,100 113 90.7% 132 27 83.0% 1.124Garrett 100 20 83.3% 0 0 0.0% 0.784Harford 1,173 121 90.6% 121 30 80.1% 1.082Howard 1,447 133 91.6% 585 142 80.5% 2.038*

Kent 75 10 88.2% 5 0 100.0% 0.990Montgomery 3,705 439 89.4% 1,479 374 79.8% 1.963Prince George's 538 162 76.9% 1,324 721 64.7% 1.600

41

Table 9. Households Who Received or Were Denied a Mortgage Loan to Purchase a Home by Race of Applicant



% % Receiving Receiving

Loan Originated Denied Loan

Z

StatisticsQueen Anne's 234 38 86.0% 7 5 58.3% 0.863Somerset 38 10 79.2% 4 7 36.4% 0.732St. Mary's 395 41 90.6% 47 6 88.7% 1.129Talbot 138 21 86.8% 5 5 50.0% 0.873Washington 460 63 88.0% 27 13 67.5% 0.943Wicomico 353 43 89.1% 42 26 61.8% 1.047Worcester 182 36 83.5% 5 3 62.5% 0.822Maryland 18,045 2,260 88.9% 5,617 2,134 72.5% 1.550* Refers to the difference of the mean approval rates is significantly different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. Source: Federally Financed Institutions Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008; DHCD Office of Research Table 10 shows households who either received or were denied mortgage loans for refinancing a home and/or for home improvements by race of applicant and by county. The test of the differences between two means demonstrates that in all Maryland jurisdictions the hypothesis (defined as no difference between the means for refinancing a home and/or home improvements by race of applicant) can be rejected. That is, the Z statistic indicates that there were no jurisdictions with a statistically significant difference in refinancing or home improvement loans by race.

Table 10. Households Who Received or Were Denied a Mortgage Loan To Refinance and/or for Home Improvements, by Race of Applicant



% Receiving

Loan Originated Denied

% Receiving

Loan

Z

StatisticsAllegany 503 347 59.2% 4 20 16.7% 0.235Anne Arundel 5,487 2,066 72.6% 678 703 49.1% 0.679Baltimore 5,839 2,108 73.5% 1,584 1,770 47.2% 0.831Baltimore City 1,653 815 67.0% 1,725 2,411 41.7% 0.095Calvert 1,038 446 69.9% 123 144 46.1% 0.593Caroline 313 214 59.4% 21 42 33.3% 0.230Carroll 2,113 717 74.7% 65 65 50.0% 0.650Cecil 973 471 67.4% 37 51 42.0% 0.476Charles 1,014 422 70.6% 388 531 42.2% 0.707Dorchester 202 140 59.1% 31 90 25.6% 0.017Frederick 2,176 1,066 67.1% 177 225 44.0% 0.490Garrett 258 157 62.2% 1 1 50.0% 0.336Harford 2,703 890 75.2% 238 279 46.0% 0.698Howard 2,439 577 80.9% 746 529 58.5% 1.228

42

Table 10. Households Who Received or Were Denied a Mortgage Loan To Refinance and/or for Home Improvements, by Race of Applicant



% % Receiving Receiving

Loan Originated Denied Loan

Z

StatisticsKent 221 83 72.7% 15 32 31.9% 0.570Montgomery 6,456 2,297 73.8% 2,027 1,669 54.8% 1.010Prince George's 2,080 1,472 58.6% 4,724 5,553 46.0% -0.045Queen Anne's 669 254 72.5% 35 59 37.2% 0.589Somerset 145 132 52.3% 24 74 24.5% -0.276St. Mary's 998 374 72.7% 125 137 47.7% 0.677Talbot 462 138 77.0% 24 33 42.1% 0.699Washington 1,103 700 61.2% 34 51 40.0% 0.309Wicomico 639 453 58.5% 84 228 26.9% 0.070Worcester 459 254 64.4% 34 77 30.6% 0.352Maryland 39,943 16,593 70.7% 12,944 14,774 46.7% 0.795Source: Federally Financed Institutions Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008; DHCD Office of Research Table 11 shows households who either received or were denied mortgage loans to purchase a home by ethnicity of applicant and by county. The test of the differences between two means demonstrates that in all Maryland jurisdictions the Z-statistic was significantly different from zero, and hence the hypothesis (defined as no difference between the means by ethnicity of applicant) can be rejected. In other words, the Z-statistic shows that there appears to be no significant statistical difference in lending based on ethnicity.

Table 11. Households Who Received or Were Denied a Mortgage Loan to Purchase a Home by Ethnicity of Applicant

Hispanic or Latino Non- Hispanic or Latino Number of Loans Number of Loans


% ReceivingLoan Originated Denied

% Receiving Loan

Z

StatisticsAllegany 1 0 100.0% 260 40 86.7% 0.843Anne Arundel 53 11 82.8% 2465 322 88.4% 0.898Baltimore 75 20 78.9% 3163 496 86.4% 0.871Baltimore City 57 26 68.7% 1849 535 77.6% 0.722Calvert 5 1 83.3% 308 48 86.5% 0.861Caroline 0 0 0.0% 80 22 78.4% 0.699Carroll 9 3 75.0% 767 78 90.8% 0.912Cecil 5 0 100.0% 381 69 84.7% 0.829Charles 6 4 60.0% 411 98 80.7% 0.758Dorchester 5 2 71.4% 56 25 69.1% 0.608Frederick 44 18 71.0% 1202 120 90.9% 0.953Garrett 0 0 0.0% 104 20 83.9% 0.793Harford 16 6 72.7% 1274 150 89.5% 0.896Howard 50 13 79.4% 1987 260 88.4% 0.903Kent 1 1 50.0% 79 9 89.8% 0.893

43

Table 11. Households Who Received or Were Denied a Mortgage Loan to Purchase a Home by Ethnicity of Applicant

Hispanic or Latino Non- Hispanic or Latino Number of Loans Number of Loans

Z % Receiving % Receiving

County Originated Denied Loan Originated Denied Loan StatisticsMontgomery 328 129 71.8% 4891 678 87.8% 0.960Prince George's 133 101 56.8% 1757 784 69.1% 0.570Queen Anne's 7 2 77.8% 234 41 85.1% 0.860Somerset 0 1 0.0% 41 17 70.7% 0.522St. Mary's 8 0 100.0% 430 47 90.1% 0.921Talbot 1 0.0% 141 25 84.9% 0.804Washington 15 4 78.9% 468 71 86.8% 0.891Wicomico 8 1 88.9% 385 70 84.6% 0.840Worcester 3 2 60.0% 189 36 84.0% 0.814Maryland 829 346 70.6% 22,922 4,061 84.9% 0.277Source: Federally Financed Institutions Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008; DHCD Office of Research Table 12 shows households who either received or were denied mortgage loans for refinancing a home and/or for home improvements by ethnicity of applicant and by county. The test of the differences between two means demonstrates that in all Maryland jurisdictions the Z-statistic was significantly different from zero, and hence the hypothesis (defined as no difference between the means for refinancing a home and/or home improvements by ethnicity of applicant) can be rejected. That is, the Z test indicates that there was no statistically significant difference in lending by ethnicity when lending to refinance or make improvements to a home.

Table 12. Households Who Received or Were Denied a Mortgage Loan To Refinance and/or for Home Improvements, by Ethnicity of Applicant

Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino Number of Loans Number of Loans



% Receiving Loan

Z

StatisticsAllegany 2 4 33.3% 509 364 58.3% 0.230Anne Arundel 136 167 44.9% 5,991 2,623 69.5% 0.526Baltimore 181 187 49.2% 7,295 3,707 66.3% 0.451Baltimore City 69 80 46.3% 3,341 3,184 51.2% 0.032Calvert 17 11 60.7% 1,144 581 66.3% 0.158Caroline 1 3 25.0% 336 250 57.3% 0.202Carroll 33 22 60.0% 2,145 766 73.7% 0.621Cecil 11 4 73.3% 994 515 65.9% 0.439Charles 23 23 50.0% 1,391 942 59.6% 0.272Dorchester 2 5 28.6% 231 227 50.4% 0.003Frederick 49 131 27.2% 2,323 1,186 66.2% 0.421Garrett 0 0 0.0% 267 158 62.8% 0.351Harford 55 42 56.7% 2,882 1,144 71.6% 0.577Howard 106 67 61.3% 3,092 1,041 74.8% 0.665Kent 1 100.0% 236 115 67.2% 0.466

44

Table 12. Households Who Received or Were Denied a Mortgage Loan To Refinance and/or for Home Improvements, by Ethnicity of Applicant

Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino Number of Loans Number of Loans


% Receiving % Receiving Loan Loan

Z

StatisticsOriginated DeniedMontgomery 794 941 45.8% 7,757 3,105 71.4% 0.618Prince George's 516 851 37.7% 6,354 6,312 50.2% -0.037Queen Anne's 6 5 54.5% 696 307 69.4% 0.518Somerset 1 100.0% 167 204 45.0% -0.137St. Mary's 15 16 48.4% 1,110 499 69.0% 0.510Talbot 5 6 45.5% 479 164 74.5% 0.628Washington 7 24 22.6% 1,122 727 60.7% 0.287Wicomico 8 18 30.8% 714 659 52.0% 0.021Worcester 4 3 57.1% 486 327 59.8% 0.275Maryland 2,042 2,610 43.9% 51,062 29,107 63.7% 0.384Source: Federally Financed Institutions Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008; DHCD Office of Research DHCD also examined lending by sex of applicant. Table 13 shows households who either received or were denied mortgage loans to purchase a home by sex of applicant and by county. The test of the differences between two means demonstrates that the Z-statistic was significantly different from zero, and hence the hypothesis (defined as no difference between the means by sex of applicant) can be rejected in thirteen Maryland jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Baltimore City, Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Kent, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Washington, and Wicomico Counties. In four of the thirteen counties, male primary applicants were denied at a higher rate than female primary applicants. In the other counties, female applicants were more likely to be denied loans. As mentioned earlier in this section, it is not accurate to assess discrimination on the basis of sex, as other factors including credit scores, debt, and collateral may have played a significant role in the acceptance or rejection of a loan application by financial institutions.

Table 13. Households Who Received or Were Denied a Mortgage Loan to Purchase a Home by Sex of Applicant By Sex, 2008

Male Female Number of Loans Number of Loans



% Receiving Loan

Z

StatisticsAllegany 194 26 88.2% 68 18 79.1% 1.727Anne Arundel 1861 223 89.3% 801 127 86.3% 2.172*

Baltimore 2212 351 86.3% 1218 200 85.9% 2.864*

Baltimore City 1147 367 75.8% 862 231 78.9% 4.468*

Calvert 210 28 88.2% 114 23 83.2% 2.840*

Caroline 64 17 79.0% 18 6 75.0% 1.247Carroll 623 59 91.3% 198 27 88.0% 1.725Cecil 298 49 85.9% 103 28 78.6% 1.652Charles 293 67 81.4% 157 42 78.9% 2.466*

Dorchester 50 23 68.5% 14 4 77.8% 0.909Frederick 949 108 89.8% 379 52 87.9% 2.039*

Garrett 81 14 85.3% 25 6 80.6% 1.520

45

Table 13. Households Who Received or Were Denied a Mortgage Loan to Purchase a Home by Sex of Applicant By Sex, 2008




Z

StatisticsOriginated DeniedHarford 916 118 88.6% 434 47 90.2% 2.432*

Howard 1557 192 89.0% 632 103 86.0% 2.038*

Kent 58 5 92.1% 23 6 79.3% 1.998*

Montgomery 3819 557 87.3% 1864 312 85.7% 2.443*

Prince George's 1100 557 66.4% 917 422 68.5% 4.564*

Queen Anne's 183 43 81.0% 64 1 98.5% 1.609Somerset 30 12 71.4% 13 6 68.4% 1.385St. Mary's 345 37 90.3% 124 12 91.2% 1.888Talbot 109 16 87.2% 37 10 78.7% 1.661Washington 360 58 86.1% 149 23 86.6% 2.001*

Wicomico 271 47 85.2% 142 26 84.5% 2.601*

Worcester 156 29 84.3% 51 11 82.3% 1.568Maryland 16,886 3,003 84.9% 8,407 1,743 82.8% 2.397*

* Refers to the difference of the mean approval rates is significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Source: Federally Financed Institutions Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 Table 14 shows households who either received or were denied mortgage loans for refinancing a home and/or home improvements by sex of applicant and by county. The test of the differences between two means demonstrates that in all Maryland jurisdictions the hypothesis (defined as no difference between the means of refinancing a home and/or home improvements by sex) can be rejected. In other words, the Z statistic indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in refinancing loans and home improvement loans by sex of applicant. The analysis provides some evidence that discrimination remains a possible explanation for the observed patterns of lending – especially for race, but other explanations not covered by the available data could also be true. To be certain, better data would be needed to determine if actual discrimination existed.

Table 14. Households Who Received or Were Denied a Mortgage Loan to Refinance and/or for Home Improvements, by Sex of Applicant




% Receiving Loan

Z

StatisticsAllegany 371 262 58.6% 156 123 55.9% 0.555Anne Arundel 4,483 1,826 71.1% 2,147 1,170 64.7% 1.498Baltimore 5,053 2,320 68.5% 2,960 1,916 60.7% 1.772Baltimore City 1,829 1,631 52.9% 1,843 1,895 49.3% 0.552Calvert 901 405 69.0% 363 229 61.3% 1.113Caroline 255 185 58.0% 103 81 56.0% 0.500Carroll 1,734 575 75.1% 586 269 68.5% 1.242Cecil 741 356 67.5% 317 194 62.0% 1.119Charles 969 574 62.8% 569 479 54.3% 1.180

46

Table 14. Households Who Received or Were Denied a Mortgage Loan to Refinance and/or for Home Improvements, by Sex of Applicant




Z

StatisticsOriginated DeniedDorchester 173 149 53.7% 79 105 42.9% -0.019Frederick 1,842 931 66.4% 755 488 60.7% 1.004Garrett 218 122 64.1% 66 45 59.5% 0.687Harford 2,161 794 73.1% 963 480 66.7% 1.494Howard 2,363 724 76.5% 1,084 470 69.8% 1.728Kent 173 77 69.2% 73 45 61.9% 1.181Montgomery 6,098 2,581 70.3% 3,167 1,705 65.0% 1.634Prince George's 3,842 3,857 49.9% 3,713 3,899 48.8% -1.482Queen Anne's 562 212 72.6% 188 121 60.8% 1.083Somerset 117 111 51.3% 58 103 36.0% -0.655St. Mary's 906 348 72.2% 302 204 59.7% 1.056Talbot 357 118 75.2% 149 66 69.3% 1.502Washington 888 542 62.1% 308 266 53.7% 0.604Wicomico 515 431 54.4% 248 286 46.4% 0.151Worcester 381 216 63.8% 151 143 51.4% 0.717Maryland 36932 19347 65.6% 20,348 14,782 57.9% 1.346Source: Federally Financed Institutions Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 Foreclosures and Demographic Trends DHCD also examined foreclosure data in Maryland using data from RealtyTrac. Foreclosures in Maryland are highly concentrated within “Hot Spot” communities like Prince George’s County (63.5 percent African American and 11.3 percent Hispanic). Baltimore City and Prince George’s County, Maryland’s two majority minority jurisdictions, account for 26.3 percent of the state’s population, and about half of the state’s foreclosure events. A foreclosure Hot Spot is defined as a community that had more than ten foreclosure events in the current quarter and recorded a foreclosure concentration ratio of greater than 100. The concentration ratio, in turn, is measured by a foreclosure index. The index measures the extent to which a community’s foreclosure rate exceeds or falls short of the State average foreclosure rate. An index of 100 represents the weighted average foreclosure rate of 101 homeowner households per foreclosure in the fourth quarter of 2009. Foreclosures in Maryland are highly correlated with race, as noted in Table 15 below. The highest intensity of foreclosures impact minority communities – particularly African American populations.

47

Table 15. Property Foreclosures by Race/Ethnicity in Maryland: 2009 Q4

Foreclosure Intensity Category Moderate High Very High Severe Number of Households per Foreclosure (Avg) 173 64 36 25Number of Foreclosures 5,005 6,662 3,078 1,231Percent of Foreclosures 31.3% 41.7% 19.3% 7.7%

Race/Ethnicity of the Communities White 76.1% 54.7% 18.6% 21.7%Minority 23.9% 45.3% 81.4% 78.3% African American 15.1% 35.3% 70.9% 60.2% Hispanic 4.6% 5.6% 7.6% 18.5% Asian 4.7% 4.5% 3.6% 4.7% Other 1.7% 2.3% 3.9% 9.6%Source: RealtyTrac, DHCD Office of Research Property Foreclosures in Maryland, Fourth Quarter 2009 In a testimony before the U.S. Congress on September 23, 2009, Raymond Skinner (Maryland Secretary of Housing and Community Development) indicated that the Department and the state of Maryland has been proactive in addressing communities and populations hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, but data limitations currently prohibit some detailed analysis of mortgage lending activity, including HMDA analysis. The Secretary has asked Congress to assist DHCD’s efforts, stating:

More information is needed about the lending practices in our communities. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA data) helps track bank loans by demographic, location, and amount, but it does not provide the other factors that contribute to the lending rate such as credit score and existing debt. Expanding data requirements is the key to strengthening the use of HMDA data as an enforcement mechanism of fair lending practices.

There has been no formal response received from Committee concerning these elements noted in the testimony. However, DHCD Office of Research conducts monthly and quarterly tracking of Maryland foreclosures. These analyses help to inform the Department’s decisions concerning the state of housing at both the state, county and community level. According to DHCD Property Foreclosures in Maryland Fourth Quarter 2009 report, property foreclosures increased to 16,788 events, up 13.4 percent over the previous quarter and up 67.4 percent above last year. The State’s overall foreclosure rate deteriorated from 157 households per foreclosure in the previous quarter to 138, moving the State’s national ranking from the 12th highest in the third quarter to the 10th highest in the current quarter. Maryland foreclosure concentration rate in the fourth quarter was 6.1 percent above the national average rate. Prince George’s County with 5,116 filings continued to have the largest number of foreclosures in Maryland, accounting for 30.5 percent of all foreclosure activity statewide. Baltimore City with 2,204 foreclosure filings (13.1 percent of the total) had the second highest number of foreclosures. Based on both the HMDA data and the foreclosure data, DHCD believes that discrimination in lending may exit. However, without complete data, it is hard to prove. As part of its efforts to overcome possible impediments to fair housing choice, DHCD will continue to lobby Congress

48

and HUD to improve HMDA data so that discriminatory lending practices can be prosecuted when it exists.

DHCD Lending Practices DHCD examined its own lending practices as well as the individuals’ benefiting from the Department’s programs. This included an examination of overall single family lending activities, and specific lending activity in the state’s non-entitlement areas compared to areas of low-income or minority concentration. DHCD also analyzed the beneficiaries of persons living in multifamily housing the Department financed. The beneficiaries of multi-family projects were the low-income households who live in projects financed with DHCD resources. The Department reviewed projects undertaken in the non-entitlement areas against areas of minority or low-income concentration. This was done for multi-family projects funded with HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds, federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, as well as examining loans for the entire Multi-family portfolio which includes State-funded programs and bond funded programs in addition to the programs listed above.

DHCD Single Family Program Beneficiaries Review DHCD conducted a review of the beneficiaries who reside in both its single family (homeownership) programs and rental housing programs. The beneficiaries for the single family programs were households that received mortgage financing from the Department toward the purchase of the owner’s home. The Community Development Administration Maryland Mortgage Program (MMP) provides low-interest mortgage loans to eligible low and moderate-income homebuyers through private lending institutions throughout the state. The program began in 1980 and is targeted primarily to first-time homebuyers. These resources are funded by tax exempt revenue bonds issued by the Department’s Community Development Administration (CDA). The mortgage payments are used to pay off bond issuance. DHCD single family housing makes provisions for affordable housing in designated areas throughout Maryland. In development of the State’s AI, DHCD examined MMP single family program data for fiscal years 2008 and fiscal year 2009 (July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2009). The analysis focused on this two year period, in part, to show the Department’s lending practices in a period where housing and credit markets have declined nationwide. In addition, the Department’s database changed and it was not possible to reconcile loans more than two years old with more recent loans. Race and Household Characteristics of Borrowers The household size of MMP borrowers range from single or one person to large families consisting of five or more persons. Small size households represent approximately half of all MMP borrowers – equivalent to 2,265 or 50.4 percent of households. Small size households have two to four members. As shown in Chart 1, one person households represent the second largest household size. When examining households by race, White or Caucasian families comprise the majority residing in single family housing in both single person and small size households (Table 16). While large size families maintained the smallest share of all borrowers (170 borrowers), Black

49

or African Americans had more families living in these households with 5 or more members (48 percent).

CHART 1. NUMBER OF LOANS BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE

2058

170

2265

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Single Person Small Family (2 to 4Persons)

Large Family (5+Persons)

Table 16. DHCD Lending - Household Size By Race July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2009

Race

Single Person

( 1 Person) Percent of Total

Small Family (2 to 4 persons)

Percent of Total

Large Family

(5+ persons) Percent of Total

Black or African American 881 43% 917 40% 81 48%White or Caucasian 982 48% 1,146 51% 74 44%Hispanic 4 0% 13 1% 2 1%

Asian 19 1% 33 1% 3 2%

American Indian/Alaska Native Only 5 0% 5 0% 0 0%Native Hawaiian Pl Only 3 0% 5 0% 0 0%

Two or More Races (any other combination) 20 1% 18 1% 4 2%No Race Data 144 7% 128 6% 6 4%Total 2,058 100% 2,265 100% 170 100%Note: Two or more races combined includes: American Indian, American Native, and Black; American Indian, American Native, and White; Black and White; and Other Multiple Races. As illustrated in Table 17, the predominant racial composition of MMP borrowers were White or Caucasian (49.0 percent) and Black or African American (41.8 percent). These two groups combined represented approximately 91 percent of all borrowers. Native Hawaiian only and American Indian/Alaska Native only represented the fewest number of borrowers and smallest racial group. When examining lending patterns by minority groups alone, nearly half of all MMP loans (44.8 percent) were made to minority borrowers. This represents a significant

50

accomplishment for DHCD, considering that Maryland’s minority population represents only one-third or 36.6 percent of total population.

Table 17. DHCD Lending By Race

July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2009 Race Number of Loans Percent of Total

Black or African American 1,879 41.8%White or Caucasian 2,202 49.0%Hispanic 19 0.4%Asian 55 1.2%American Indian/Alaska Native Only 10 0.2%Native Hawaiian Pl Only 8 0.2%Two or More Races (any other combination) 42 0.9%No Race Data Reported 278 6.2%Total 4,493 100.0% Note: Two or more races combined includes: American Indian, American Native, and Black; American Indian, American Native, and White; Black and White; and Other Multiple Races.

Marital Status of Borrowers When examining borrower data by marital status and sex of primary borrower, a fairly equal share of loans were granted to both men and women (Table 18). The distribution represented 2,196 persons or 48.9 percent men, and 2,297 or 51.1 percent women as mortgage holders. Of the 4,493 total loans, unmarried persons outnumber all borrower types (3,248 borrowers) in both the male and female categories.

Table 18. Marital Status by Sex of Primary Borrower July 1, 2007, June 30, 2008

Marital Status, By Sex Number Percent of Total Female Divorced 26 1.1%Female Married 270 11.8%Female Unmarried 1,943 84.6%Female Separated 48 2.1%Female Widowed 10 0.4%Sub-Total 2,297 100.0%Male Divorced 14 0.6%Male Married 856 39.0%Male Unmarried 1,305 59.4%Male Separated 20 0.9%Male Widowed 1 0.0%Sub-Total 2,196 100.0%All Divorced 40 0.9%All Married 1,126 25.1%All Unmarried 3,248 72.3%All Separated 68 1.5%All Widowed 11 0.2%Total 4,493 100.0%

51

Single Family Loans and Areas of Minority and Low-Income Concentration As illustrated by Map 8 below, a total of 843 Maryland Mortgage Program (MMP) single family loans were made in Maryland’s non-entitlement jurisdictions between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009. Persons who utilized funding under MMP choose where they wanted to live. About 18 percent of the loans were located in areas of minority concentration, while approximately 82 percent or 692 loans were located outside of areas of minority concentration.

MAP 8

Map 9 shows the distribution of single family housing loans in Maryland non-entitlement areas based on low-income concentration during the same two year period. One hundred eight MMP borrowers, or about 13 percent of borrowers, purchased homes in areas of low-income concentration. The remaining 87 percent of MMP borrowers, or 735 households, purchased homes outside of areas of low-income concentration.

52

Map 9

DHCD Multifamily Program Beneficiaries Review

DHCD contracts out the reporting of multifamily program beneficiaries with a private contractor. The review consisted of examining the beneficiary status of 37,056 low-income households living in multi-family projects throughout the entire State that received federal or State financing administered by the Department. This included projects such as the Rental Housing Production Program or the Partnership Rental Housing Program, and/or federally funded programs such as the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, HOME Investments Partnership Program, or Tax Exempt Bond financing. DHCD has an inspection schedule for multi-family projects it has financed. Every project is not reviewed on an annual basis; rather units are reviewed based conditions such as source of financing, size of the project and compliance requirements of the individual programs. The 37,056 units examined represent only part of the Department’s entire assisted housing portfolio; therefore, information on beneficiaries is the best available data. Some fields have substantive numbers of “unknowns.” However, the sample was large enough to provide a good representation of the type of households assisted with DHCD financing (see public comments). Multi Family Tenants by Race and Ethnicity Table 19 shows the racial characteristics of 37,056 households living in multi-family housing DHCD projects from the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. Racial information was not provided for over 13,600 of these households – withheld either by the renters themselves or

53

not provided by property managers. Where data was known, approximately 52 percent of assisted households were African American/Black, about 26 percent were Caucasian/White, and just over 21 percent of households assisted had their race reported as “other.” In the latter case, a review of the data indicated at least a portion of these households may have been either Hindi/Indian (which would be classified by the U.S. Census Bureau as Asian) or were possibly of Hispanic ethnicity – also reported as “other” in the data. This suggests the need for fair housing training for project managers of DHCD financed housing to ensure that program beneficiaries are correctly identified in the future.

Table 19. Racial Characteristics of Multifamily Housing Residents Residing in DHCD Financed Developments in FY 2009

Race Number Percent Known Race

American Indian/Alaska Native 31 0.08% 0.13% Asian 158 0.43% 0.68% Black/African American 12,074 32.58% 51.68% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 172 0.46% 0.74% White 6,015 16.23% 25.75% Other 4,913 13.26% 21.03% Unknown 13,693 36.95% Total 37,056 100.00% 100.00% Where known on race 23,363 DHCD also examined the ethnicity (Hispanic versus non-Hispanic) of households residing in development it financed (Table 20). No ethnicity data was reported for the majority of households (almost 72 percent did not report one way or the other). Where known, 7.6 percent of households assisted were of Hispanic ethnicity, 92.4 percent were not.

Table 20. Ethnicity of Multifamily Housing Residents Residing in DHCD Financed Developments in: FY 2009

Ethnicity Number Percent Known

Ethnicity Hispanic 791 2.13% 7.62%Not Hispanic 9,594 25.89% 92.38%Unknown 26,671 71.97% Total 37,056 100.00% 100.00%Where known on ethnicity 10,385 Multifamily Tenants by Sex Of the 37,056 households examined, 29,092 households reported information on the sex of the head of household. Where known, just over 68 percent of all households assisted were headed by females, and just fewer than 32 percent were headed by males (Table 21).

54

Table 21. Sex of Head of Household of Multifamily Housing Residents

Residing in DHCD Financed Developments in FY 2009

Sex of Head of HH Total Percent Sex of Head of HH

Where Known Percent Female 19,838 53.54% 19,838 68.19%Male 9,254 24.97% 9,254 31.81%Unknown 7,964 21.49% Total 37,056 100.00% 29,092 100.00% Multifamily Tenants by Marital Status Table 22 displays data available for 8,394 households by marital status. Single never married female headed households comprised just over half of all households assisted. Single never married male headed households comprised 15 percent of households assisted, and married couples (headed by both male and female headed households) comprised about 14.5 percent of all assisted households. Widowed head of households comprised about 9.3 percent of all households assisted. About 7.5 percent of all heads of households were divorced and about 2.5 percent of all households were separated (equivalent to 10.02 percent combined). The remaining heads of households included same sex couples or persons who classified their martial status as “other.”

Table 22. Marital Status of Head of Household of Multifamily Housing Residents Residing in DHCD Financed Developments in: FY 2009

Marital Status Number Percent Female Divorced 492 5.86%Female Married 258 3.07%Female Other 7 0.08%Female Separated 150 1.79%Female Single 4,270 50.87%Female Same Sex 4 0.05%Female Widowed 677 8.07%Male Divorced 138 1.64%Male Married 962 11.46%Male Other 3 0.04%Male Separated 61 0.73%Male Single 1259 15.00%Male Same Sex 9 0.11%Male Widowed 104 1.24%Total 8,394 100.00%All Single 5,529 65.87%All Married 1,220 14.53%All Divorced/Separated 841 10.02%All Widowed 781 9.30%All Same Sex 13 0.15%All Other 10 0.12%Total 8,394 100.00%

55

Multifamily Tenants by Disability Status Disability status of multifamily tenants was determined by a simple “yes” count. There was no option of replying “not disabled,” so only tenants who said they were disabled counted under the data provided by DHCD’s contractor. A total of 2,386 households were identified as having a disabled head of household, while the remaining households were either not disabled or chose not to respond.

Multi-family Tenants in HOME Funded Units DHCD also examined the beneficiaries of tenants specifically living in multi-family projects that received HOME funding. The Department financed a total of 165 HOME Assisted Units in the past five fiscal years, all of which were located in the State’s non-entitlement areas. DHCD does not use HOME funding in entitlement areas since those jurisdictions receive their own HOME funding. Similar to the larger universe of households assisted in the multi-family portfolio, beneficiary data was not available for all households. Of the 165 units financed, 46 projects are under construction and will remain vacant through completion. Racial data is known for 108 of the remaining 119 occupied units. Of these assisted households, fifty-four or 50 percent were Caucasian/white households, fifty-three or 49 percent were African American/black households, and Asian represented one household or 1 percent. This is somewhat different than DHCD’s portfolio as a whole, but the numbers are not surprising given the State’s allocation of HOME funds targeting rural areas. Rural communities tend to have a significantly lower minority population than some of the State’s urban jurisdictions, including several urban jurisdictions that are predominantly minority. Data was available for 101 units categorized as head of household. Of these units, fifty-six or about 55 percent of the households were elderly; the remaining 45 percent were family households. In terms of household size, sixty-one households or 51 percent of all households assisted were one person households, twenty-nine or 24 percent were two person households, sixteen or 13 percent were three person households, and thirteen or about 11 percent were four or more person households (NOTE: Numbers do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding).

Community Development Block Grant Housing Beneficiaries The Department utilizes the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to primarily invest in capital projects related to community development and infrastructure. Funds can be used in conjunction with other housing efforts including rehabilitation of single family owner occupied housing, and activities that involve connecting housing to water and sewer lines or purchasing land that can be used for the development of affordable housing. The analysis included an examination of the Department’s CDBG housing-related activities funded from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2009. Like HOME, CDBG funds are only used in the State’s non-entitlement areas, as entitlement areas receive their own CDBG funding. During this period, DHCD funded a total of eighteen housing related activities, assisting 501 households using CDBG funds. This included four rental projects totaling 186 units. These projects involved land acquisition for two multifamily housing developments that contained 164 units (104 units and 60 units, respectively). One project helped finance the construction of 16 rent-to-own townhouses, and one project involved acquisition and relocation of six housing units. Other projects financed during this timeframe assisted owner occupied housing;

56

although the land acquisition for the 104 unit apartment complex also involved land acquisition for construction of a 40 unit owner occupied housing complex. Of the 501 households assisted, 278 or about 55 percent were Caucasian/white households, 211 or about 42 percent African American/black, 11 or 2 percent were households classified as “unknown,” and less than 1 percent were “other” (NOTE: numbers do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding). In terms of ethnicity, three households where identified as Hispanic. In lieu of reporting marital status, HUD has CDBG grantees report on how many households assisted are female headed households. Based on information from our grantees, 170 households assisted were headed by single females. The majority of persons assisted with CDBG housing funds were households of low and moderate income. Of the 501 households, 83 or about 19 percent of all households assisted had extremely low-incomes, 199 or about 40 percent were low-income households, 203 or about 41 percent had low to moderate incomes, and 6 or about 1 percent were above moderate income (numbers do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding). Using 99 percent of CDBG funds to benefit persons of low- and moderate-income is substantially better than the federal requirement of 70 percent.

Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers In addition to financing the construction of affordable rental housing, DHCD operates the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program in Allegany, Caroline, Dorchester, Frederick, Garrett, Kent, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico and Worcester Counties. DHCD operates the program on a first-come, first served basis. Based on information as of October 31, 2009, half of all assisted households were Caucasian/White, 49 percent African American/Black, and the remaining 1 percent was all other races. Thirty-eight percent of all households assisted included at least one family member with a disability. HUD does not collect information on households by marital status. Although the profile of families utilizing Housing Choice Vouchers varies somewhat from the profile of households in DHCD financed projects, the differences are not significant given distinctions in both service areas and scope of the programs. As noted above, DHCD financed portfolio includes all areas of the State, including urban entitlement jurisdictions that have “majority minority” status. The service areas for the Housing Choice Voucher program operated by the Department is predominantly rural and their populations have a larger percentage of Caucasian/white residents (as noted earlier in the AI, the population in the State’s non-entitlement areas is 84.9 percent white, compared to 64 percent for the State as a whole.). As with Housing Choice Voucher holders, the difference in disability status is also not surprising. First, DHCD financed housing and the Housing Choice Voucher programs have different income targets. Most DHCD financing programs targets households earning 60 percent of median income or less, typically “workforce housing” where rents can serve lower income households and generate enough rent through underwriting to support debt service on the projects. Housing Choice Vouchers are targeted at households earning less than 30 percent of median income, which includes many disabled households who are unable to pay affordable rents without Section 8 assistance. DHCD needs minimum rent contributions of about $425 per month to meet basic maintenance and operating costs on units, assuming a unit has zero debt service. Most households with disabled persons can only afford about $175 per month,

57

therefore cannot afford housing without additional assistance such as Section 8, which makes up the difference between what the household can pay and the rent. Second, there is a difference in the disability status between households assisted in DHCD financed housing and the DHCD operated Housing Choice Voucher Program. DHCD has been very pro-active in moving persons with disabilities onto the Section 8 waiting list, resulting in disabled households receiving Section 8 assistance. This is accomplished through both the State’s Bridge Subsidy Program (which specifically helps persons with disabilities pay their rents as they wait for Section 8 assistance) and the federally funded Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program (HOPWA). Lastly, all DHCD financed projects are required to take Section 8 in order to assist households at the lowest income levels. In fact, some DHCD voucher holders may be living in DHCD financed housing. DHCD gives bonus points in its Qualified Allocation Plan for providing housing for persons with disabilities, a policy the Department enacted about 5 years ago which has resulted in the financing of thousands of units targeted to persons with disabilities. As mentioned earlier, the Department has received national recognition for its efforts to assist persons with disabilities to obtain affordable housing and achieve fair housing choice. De-concentration Bonus When operating the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, HUD provides additional, “bonus” vouchers to Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) that are highly successful in having tenants locate outside of areas of low-income concentration. In determining which PHAs receive bonus vouchers, a PHA must show that it has been successful in deconcentrating voucher holders in all of its eligible services areas. DHCD has successfully done this, and been awarded bonus Vouchers by HUD for successfully ensuring that voucher holders are not living in areas of low-income concentration.

Multifamily Loans by Area of Minority and Low-Income Concentration In addition to examining the beneficiary status of tenants currently residing in DHCD financed housing, the Department examined its multifamily lending patterns against areas of minority and low-income concentration. DHCD lending patterns run parallel to the state’s Smart Growth Priority Funding Act enacted in 1997, which ensures that smart growth is concentrated in both new development and redevelopment areas that have either existing or planned infrastructure to avoid sprawl. Smart growth is characterized by compact, transit-oriented, bicycle-friendly land use, with neighborhood schools, walkable streets, mixed-use development and a wide range of housing choices. Its purpose is to conserve and sustain valuable natural resources through the efficient use of land, water and air; create a sense of community and place; expand transportation, employment, and housing choices; distribute the costs and benefits of development in an equitable manner; and promote public health. Smart growth principles have guided policy making across the nation with a central focus supporting development within designated priority funding areas, brownfields, live near your work, job creation tax credits and rural legacy initiatives. DHCD financed a total of 28 developments using all sources of funding (federal LIHTC, HOME, Bond, and State funds) in the State’s non-entitlement areas over the past five fiscal years (July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2009). Of these, seventeen or 61 percent of the developments were

58

located outside areas of minority concentration and eleven or 39 percent were located in areas of minority or low-income concentration. The eleven projects are shown in Table 23 below.

Table 23. Multifamily Projects Located in Areas of Minority Concentration July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2009

Cambridge Club Apartments Dorchester Families New Construction Cambridge Commons Dorchester Family New Construction Conifer Village at Cambridge St. Mary’s Elderly New Construction Foxchase Village Apartments St. Mary’s Families Rehabilitation Conifer Foxtail Crossing Dorchester Families New Construction Federalsburg Gardens Caroline Families Rehabilitation Parkside Village Dorchester Families Rehabilitation Cambridge Park Apartments Dorchester Families Rehabilitation Hunting Creek Apartments St. Mary’s Families New Construction Project ECHO Homeless Shelter Calvert Families Replacement Waldorf Astor, LLC Charles Elderly New Construction It is important to note that four of the projects that received DHCD financing were rehabilitation of existing multifamily projects rather than new construction, which did not result in an increase in concentrations. The loans allowed DHCD to improve the existing properties and benefit from higher living standards to residents. Another property, Project Echo, was for the replacement of an existing homeless shelter and transitional housing facility. It was more cost effective to replace the existing project than to expand it. The remaining six projects are all located in State-designated revitalization areas, where the State is targeting investment to improve communities. Some of these concentrations occurred due to the presence of institutional facilities, rather than “real” concentrations of minority populations (as noted earlier in this report). For example, Project Echo located in Calvert County, is a concentration because of the presence of a work release facility within proximity to the housing development. Both Foxchase Village and Hunting Creek are located in the a tract near military bases in St. Mary’s County; and four projects in Dorchester County are in the same census tract as a hospital center.

59

Map 10

DHCD examined the location of its projects against areas of low-income concentration. Of the 28 projects undertaken, 20 or 71 percent were located outside of areas of low-income concentration, and 8 projects or 29 percent, were located in areas of low-income concentration. The eight projects in areas of low-income concentration are listed in Table 24 below.

Table 24. Projects in Areas of Low-Income Concentration July 1, 2004-June 30, 2009

Brunswick House Apartments Frederick Elderly Rehabilitation Charles Landing South Charles Families Rehabilitation Conifer Foxtail Crossing Dorchester Families New Construction Federalsburg Gardens Caroline Families Rehabilitation Parkside Village Dorchester Families Rehabilitation Project ECHO Homeless Shelter Calvert Families Replacement Cambridge Park Dorchester Families Rehabilitation Waldorf Astor, LLC Charles Elderly New Construction

60

Five of these projects were for rehabilitation of existing projects, which improved conditions while not increasing low-income concentrations, and this list also includes a repeat of Project Echo, the replacement of the homeless shelter/transitional housing facility noted above. The remaining projects were located in designated revitalization areas.

Map 11

DHCD did an analysis of projects in areas of minority and low-income concentration by federal funding source. This included examining LIHTC projects as well as HOME funded projects. A total of 19 projects were allocated LIHTC in the past five fiscal years. Of these 19 projects, 11 or 58 percent were located outside of areas of minority concentration, and 8 or 42 percent, were locate in areas of minority concentration. The eight LIHTC projects in areas of minority concentration are shown in Table 25.

Table 25. LIHTC Projects in Areas of Minority Concentration July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2009

Cambridge Commons Dorchester Families New Construction Cambridge Park Apartments Dorchester Families New Construction Conifer Foxtail Crossing Dorchester Families New Construction Conifer Village at Cambridge Dorchester Elderly New Construction Federalsburg Gardens Caroline Families Rehabilitation

61

Hunting Creek Saint Mary's Families Rehabilitation Parkside Village Dorchester Families Rehabilitation Waldorf Astor, LLC Charles Elderly New Construction

Map 12

As noted above, the concentration in Dorchester County is caused by the presence of a State hospital center. Another three projects were rehabilitation projects – all located in designated Smart Growth and/or revitalization areas. DHCD mapped LIHTC projects against areas of low-income concentration. Of the 19 projects, 14 or 74 percent were located outside of areas of low-income concentration. Five projects or 26 percent were in areas of low income concentration (Table 26).

Table 26. LIHTC Projects in Areas of Low-Income Concentration

July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2009 Cambridge Park Apartments Dorchester Families New ConstructionConifer Foxtail Crossing Dorchester Families New ConstructionParkside Village Dorchester Families RehabilitationFederalsburg Gardens Caroline Families RehabilitationWaldorf Astor, LLC Charles Elderly New Construction

62

Map 13

Of the five projects receiving LIHTC in areas of low-income concentration, three projects involved new construction, and two awards were made for rehabilitation projects. It should be noted that the LIHTC program has federal requirements to boost activity in areas of low-income concentration, therefore new construction in areas of low-income concentration are considered positive under federal regulations. DHCD also examined its use of HOME funds in constructing rental projects in the non-entitlement jurisdictions and found the following: Eight multifamily projects were constructed in the non-entitlement areas with HOME funds, four projects or 50 percent, are situated outside of areas of minority concentration, another four namely, Waldorf Astor, Conifer Village, Parkside Village and Federalsburg Gardens were erected in areas of minority concentration. In fact, all above named projects were constructed utilizing multiple DHCD funding sources to finance the projects in order to achieve a range of incomes. Each of the four projects is in designated revitalization areas. Federalsburg Gardens and Parkside Village are rehabilitation projects that would not increase low-income concentrations.

63

Map 14

DHCD looked at these projects against areas of low-income concentration. Of the eight projects, five or 63 percent are located outside areas of low-income concentration and three or 37 percent are inside areas of low-income concentration. Two of the projects located in both areas of minority concentration and areas of low-income concentration – Waldorf-Aster and Parkside Village – are in designated revitalization areas. The third project, Federalsburg Gardens, is the rehabilitation of an existing complex.

64

Map 15

DHCD also examined its use of CDBG funds compared to areas of minority and low-income concentration. As reported earlier in the AI, CDBG funds are typically used for community development and infrastructure activities. The CDBG program undertook 31 projects over the past five fiscal years that could be mapped against areas of low-income and minority concentration. The program undertook substantially more activities than this, but certain projects could not be mapped due to the nature of the activity, which included scattered site activities, planning activities, and projects that have an area-wide benefit. Of the 31 CDBG projects that could be mapped, 22 or 71 percent are outside of areas of minority concentration, and 9 or 29 percent are in areas of minority concentration. Most of these projects are infrastructure projects such as ADA improvements or community facilities. In terms of housing, most assistance is provided as part of single family rehabilitation efforts. However, some CDBG projects work in conjunction with housing development to help promote community revitalization efforts. This is illustrated in the maps below that show the location of CDBG projects in relation to areas of low-income or minority concentration. For example, the “water and sewer project in conjunction with housing” is land acquisition for the aforementioned Yardley Hills project in Saint Mary’s County. The “building construction” project in Caroline County is a community center in support of the multi-family housing rehabilitation project located in Federalsburg.

65

Map 16

The CDBG program is designed to assist households of low and moderate income. As reported earlier in the AI, DHCD was highly successful in targeting its allocation of CDBG funds to persons of low-and moderate income, with over 99 percent of CDBG funding going to households at these income limits, which is substantially higher than the national requirement that 75 percent of CDBG funds assist households at these income levels. Of the 31projects funded in areas of low-income concentration, 23 or seventy-four percent are outside of areas of low-income concentration, and 8 or twenty-six percent, are in areas of low-income concentration. There is some overlap of projects located in both low-income and minority concentrations including the community center in Federalsburg, but all projects are located in designated revitalization areas.

66

Map 17

State Housing and Community Development Policies, Practices and Procedures The State examined policies and procedures that had possible impacts on fair housing choice. This included reviews of individual departmental programs and overall State policies. Performance on the State’s Previous Analysis of Impediments In developing the State’s latest Analysis of Impediments study, advocacy groups requested that the State provide an assessment on what has been achieved and accomplished to address previously cited impediments in the previous AI. The previous AI summarized its findings in a matrix table describing proposed activities. The matrix, shown in Table 27 below, notes activities that should have been accomplished by either DHCD and/or other agencies such as the Maryland Commission on Human Relations, Maryland Department of Disabilities, HUD, and private nonprofit organizations involved in fair housing. The State has generally been quite successful in carrying out the fair housing activities it had proposed in the earlier AI.

67

Table 27. 1996 Analysis of Impediments Accomplishments

Action Problems

Addressed Responsible

Partners

Completed Tasks/Ongoing

Activities Comments Coordination Coordinate development & implementation of Non-entitlement & Entitlement fair housing strategies

Lack of coordination on fair housing issues

DHCD, Non-entitlement communities, Entitlement communities No

HUD indicated in a January 2010 meeting that local jurisdictions should come up with their own areas of concern, needs, etc.

Education/Information

Develop & implement a comprehensive local information campaign on fair housing, emphasizing race & disability.


DHCD, HUD, MCHR, Non-entitlement communities, CHRBs Yes

DHCD established a partnership with Greater Baltimore Community Housing Resource, Inc. in 2000 for the purposes of assisting with Fair Housing Outreach & Education activities, including distributing mailings, e-news on local & national fair housing issues, & hosting a TV show called Neighborhood Beat.

Develop & implement fair housing training for realtors, developers, lenders, insurers, management agents, etc. Same as above

DHCD, MCHR, HUD, MAR, MBA, HBAM, AOBA Yes

DHCD Fair Housing Outreach Events were initiated in 2008. Events have been held in both non-entitlement & entitlement jurisdictions throughout Maryland. The programs target all representatives in the housing industry as well as the general public.

Sponsor an Annual Fair Housing Conference Same as above

HUD, MCHR, DHCD, NAACP, ACLU, BNI Yes

Fair Housing Conferences have been conducted as a regional effort.

Initiate a Statewide "Study Circles" dialogue on race relations

Lack of knowledge & minimization of racial tensions MCHR Yes

Carried out in first year of AI but discontinued with change in federal policy

Promote compliance with CRA laws

Identification of possible lending discrimination DHCD, MBA No

The basis of this strategy originated from comments regarding possible lending discrimination by the private sector. Testing results were not produced to provide a basis to support CRA enforcement. DHCD does not have legal authority to enforce CRA law.

Education/Information Promote local adoption of inclusionary zoning & manufactured housing in residential areas

Lack of affordable housing DHCD, OP Yes

Since 1997, DHCD has worked collaboratively with local jurisdictions in promoting smart growth initiatives.

Increase funding, especially CDBG for local CHRBS

Lack of local advocacy focus and ongoing

DHCD, Non-entitlement communities Yes

Since 2000, DHCD has provided funding to the Greater Baltimore Community Housing Resource Board – a

68


Action Problems


Partners


Activities Comments public education programs

fair housing agency - to carry out fair housing outreach.

Develop an automated Statewide database on assisted rental units, including handicap accessible units

Lack of public information

DHCD, PHAs, Non-entitlement communities, Entitlement communities Yes

Maryland Housing Search was created several years ago, and includes search features for affordable housing units including information on handicapped features, rents, whether projects accept Housing Choice Vouchers, etc. Information is available in English and Spanish, as well as other languages.

Create model "universal design" plans for housing for the disabled

Lack of accessible housing for persons with disabilities

DHCD, Governor's Office on Individuals w/ Disabilities, Center for Independent Living Yes

In 2008, DHCD implemented the “visibility design development review.” The review requires completion of an Affirmative Marketing Plan that includes elements to attract prospective buyers or tenants of all minority and non-minority groups in the housing market area regardless of their race, color, national origin, disability, familial status, religion, or sex.

Analyze private appraisal, sales, advertising, & insurance practices

Identification of possible lending discrimination DHCD Yes

DHCD has analyzed possible discrimination in lending and is working with Congress to help strengthen fair lending laws.

Investigation Adjudicate complaints vs. discriminatory landlords on the Eastern Shore

Identification of 8 incidents of alleged racial discrimination MCHR Yes

Based on descriptions of activities as noted in the MCHR 2004 – 2009 strategic plan (source: MCHR website)


Identification of possible discrimination DHCD Yes

Activity was carried out by MCHR rather than DHCD

Initiate testing for racial discrimination in lending and sales practices in non-entitlement communities

Identification of possible discrimination DHCD Yes

Continue testing for racial discrimination in rental practices in non-entitlement communities

Identification of possible discrimination MCHR Yes

DHCD relied on the results of a 2003 Testing Study conducted by MCHR on disability access in new construction projects. According to their 2006 strategic plan, 60 volunteers were utilized to conduct 25 tests. No testing results were produced.

69


Action Problems


Partners


Activities Comments Continue to monitor CDBG and HOME recipients for compliance with fair housing responsibilities

Possible lack of compliance DHCD Yes

Corrected - DHCD has in place scheduled FHEO Monitoring, Reviews, Record-keeping and other compliance policies that are adhered to.

Local Policies Barriers to Affordable Housing Local zoning regulation and limited financial resources are two barriers which can prohibit the production of affordable housing. First, zoning is the primary system by which counties and municipalities maintain control over the pattern of land development within their borders. Zoning regulations allocate parcels of land to different classifications with certain uses being permitted, while others are proscribed. Zoning practices of counties and localities often have the intended or unintended effect of increasing housing costs, and effectively excluding prospective moderate-income households from locating affordable housing for purchase or rent. Second, a widely recognized, yet difficult to overcome barrier to affordable housing in Maryland is the lack of adequate financial resources. Although nationally recognized for its innovative and effective housing programs, DHCD still has insufficient resources to meet the need for affordable rental and homeownership housing. Like all states, the need for increased revenue for housing has to compete with other legitimate public priorities, such as education, transportation, health and welfare. The fair housing survey obtained input from representatives of local municipalities and towns on local land use and zoning in an effort to capture their perspectives and ascertain ways to address such barriers (see Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Survey Analysis). The survey requested feedback from participants on a series of questions concerning barriers to fair housing in land use and zoning. Key survey findings revealed the following:

• A fairly equal distribution of responses citing that “no barriers” to land use and zoning existed. Therefore, no single pattern stood out in their responses. They stated that, minor barriers were most prevalent in the restrictive covenants, limitations on housing for people with disabilities, and housing for people with low income categories.

• The most highly rated responses were given to the question concerning whether or not

moderate barriers exist in land use and zoning. Many respondents stated that limitations on density of housing have been a barrier; the least of which affects zoning for manufactured housing. The most severe barriers to land use and zoning exists concerning limitations on housing for people with low income.

Local Zoning Zoning can be used as a positive tool in support of cost-effective and efficient design if housing affordability is considered as a part of a jurisdictions’ policy. The use of techniques such as

70

programs for moderately priced dwelling units, zero lot line housing, mixed use zones, viable basic design and performance zoning can help to produce affordable housing. DHCD has established working relationships with local governments through the Department’s multifamily housing and neighborhood revitalization divisions for the purposes of ensuring that rehabilitation and/or construction projects remain consistent with effective land use and maintain optimal benefit the local residents. These practices are reinforced in the Department policies as noted in this report. Conversely, the separation of residential from non-residential uses exacerbates traffic problems since most employees cannot walk to work. Moreover, upper-income residents may bid up the price or rent of housing units that are conveniently located near to places of employment therein forcing lower-income residents to live farther from their places of employment. The State's high priority on rebuilding healthy, diverse communities and eliminating sprawl development is intended to reverse this trend. Zoning regulations prescribing minimum lot sizes minimum setbacks, and other requirements may necessitate the need for larger lots, which drive up the cost of housing and making it less affordable. In addition, zoning is occasionally used to "zone out" manufactured housing, which is an important source of housing for many low- and moderate income-citizens. Zoning regulations also may prohibit the development of ancillary dwelling units, even if such units do not impose a significant cost on other community residents. The State of Maryland has been proactive in working with local government designating affordable housing through legislation such as HB 869 Workforce Housing. Lack of Adequate Financial Resources In Maryland, public (tax revenue) support for affordable housing was initiated in the early 1970s and reached a peak in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since that period DHCD's operating budget has increased only gradually. At the same time, federal resources have been cut or shrinking, especially for programs such as HOME and CDBG which are the primary tools for constructing and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for the low-income individuals. Section 8 resources have also been reduced, making it more difficult for renters to find affordable rental housing. There had been some discussion with advocacy groups that the State’s policy of a local resolution of support for housing projects was a possible barrier to fair housing choice. However, based on our review of multi-family projects funded (and denied funding) in the past five years, we only found one project (located in an entitlement jurisdiction) that would have gone forward but did not due to problems with the local resolution, and that project had zoning issues. (That County has also let other affordable multi-family housing projects go forward both before and after that problem with the local resolution.) Otherwise, DHCD has funded over 10,000 multifamily housing units Statewide over the past five years, and has projects underway or in the pipeline in every county in the State. CDBG projects Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) laws are designed to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, color, sex, age, family/marital status and handicap. Maryland grantees and their CDBG contractors and subrecipients must comply with applicable FHEO provisions. DHCD staff must review grantee, contractor, and sub-recipient compliance in all aspects of CDBG administration and implementation to ensure:

71

1. All CDBG-funded activities are carried out in a manner that will not cause discriminatory

effects; 2. Opportunities exist for equal opportunity in employment and contracting connected with

the CDBG Program, and in access to services; and, 3. Affirmative action is taken to overcome the effects of past discriminatory actions

FHEO laws applicable to the CDBG Program are detailed below. By completing the Title I certification required for receipt of CDBG funds, the State of Maryland assumes a specific legislative mandate to enforce certain Federal provisions. Exhibit E of the Grant Agreement requires the grantee to comply with the applicable Federal civil rights laws and regulations. The relevant rules and regulations include:

• Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964 – provides that no person, on the grounds of race,

color, or national origin, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

• Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (The Fair Housing Act) and Sections 104 and

106 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended – provides for fair housing and prohibits discrimination in the sale, financing or rental of housing, as well as related brokerage services. Grantees must also administer programs and activities relating to housing and urban development in a manner that affirmatively promotes fair housing and furthers the purposes of Title VIII.

• Executive Order 11063, as amended by Executive Order 12259 – directs grantees to

take action necessary to prevent discrimination in the sale, leasing, rental and other disposition of residential property and related facilities (including land to be developed for residential use) provided in whole or in part with Federal loans, grants, contributions and/or advances.

• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended – provides that no

qualified individual shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from program participation, including employment, be denied program benefits or be subjected to discrimination.

• The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 – establishes provisions for assuring

equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living and self-sufficiency of disabled persons relative to employment, benefits and services, accommodations, commercial facilities, and multi-family housing.

• Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended

– provides that no person, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with community development funds made available under Title I of the Act.

• Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended – provides that no person shall be

excluded from participation, denied program benefits, or be subjected to

72

discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with Federal assistance on the basis of age.

• Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended –

provides that, to the maximum extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to lower income persons residing in the project area and contracts be awarded to business concerns that are located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the project area.

• Executive Order 11246 – prohibits discrimination on basis of race, color, sex, religion

or national origin under Federally-assisted construction contracts in excess of $10,000. The contractor must also post this non-discriminatory policy in conspicuous places, in employment advertisements and in labor union collective bargaining agreements.

• Section 402 of the Vietnam Era Veteran Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 –

provides that no person shall be discriminated against because he or she is a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam Era.

In addition to these Federal rules, Maryland has its own provisions regarding prohibition of discrimination: • Maryland Human Rights Commission (Article 49B) – prohibits discrimination in State-

assisted programs relative to employment, housing, contracting, general program policies and benefits.

THE REVIEW PROCESS

To facilitate its review of grantee compliance, DHCD defines the type of FHEO data and documentation to be maintained by the grantee in its record-keeping system. While the type of documentation may vary according to the nature of the CDBG activities being implemented, all grantees should compile and keep track of the following:

• Population demographic data relating to race, ethnic group, sex, age, and head of

household; • Employment data on affirmative action in equal opportunity; • Minority business participation; • Characteristics of program beneficiaries; and, • Actions taken to affirmatively further fair housing.

The CDBG Grant Agreement between DHCD and the grantee specifies some of the records that must be maintained pertaining to documentation of compliance with Civil Rights requirements. Further, the Grant Agreement requires that the following relevant documents must be available for review during project monitoring:

Affirmative Action Strategy Personnel Policies Section 3 Employment Plan EEO-4 and Handicap Workers Demographic Data

73

The grantee must maintain data on those employed under the CDBG program on the prescribed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission form EEO-4. To review grantee compliance, DHCD staff review the grantee’s Affirmative Action Plan, Section 3 plan and other appropriate documentation (personnel policies, employment records, hiring patterns, etc.) that support the grantee’s efforts in these areas. Where data are inadequate, it may be necessary to interview project area residents as well as local minority, women’s and civil rights groups. It is also important to ensure that a grantee has advised contractors and subrecipients of their respective responsibilities and, where appropriate, FHEO posters are prominently displayed on the job site. The FHEO Monitoring and Compliance Review should also be linked to the Project Management/Record-keeping, Procurement, and Labor Standards Monitoring and Compliance reviews. For example, DHCD staff must also ensure that third party contracts (primarily contracts with a value over $10,000) contain appropriate FHEO provisions. Minutes of the pre-construction conference should provide evidence that FHEO compliance was discussed with the contractor. Moreover, DHCD staff shall review evidence that the grantee has monitored third party compliance with these provisions through on-site inspections, employee interviews, review of contracts, etc. IN-HOUSE REVIEW In preparation for the site review, DHCD staff should undertake a review of the grantee’s overall project to determine the following:

• What is the nature of the grantee’s project and which FHEO laws are applicable? • Did the grantee hire new employees? • Who were the anticipated project beneficiaries? • Is a subrecipient responsible for implementing project activities? • Has the grantee awarded any third party contracts?

ON-SITE REVIEW The CDBG Program monitoring should be conducted with the representative(s) of the grantee responsible for ensuring compliance with FHEO requirements. Typical activities that might be conducted as part of the on-site FHEO review include:

• Spot check the grantee’s office to determine that equal employment opportunity and fair housing posters are on display.

• Ask grantee to describe overall efforts to meet FHEO compliance requirements. • Review source documentation (contracts, etc.) in grantee files for evidence of grantee

compliance, or of complaints not previously reported to DHCD staff. • Determine if the CDBG project area is consistent with the geographic area described in

the CDBG application. • Review correspondence, prospective bidders’ lists, phone logs, copies of newspaper

ads, etc., to determine grantee outreach efforts. • Review grantee employment records regarding composition of staff by sex, race,

handicap status, national origin; review hiring, training, promotion and compensation data.

74

• Review copies of grantee site inspection reports to determine the nature and scope of site reviews and the depth of grantee monitoring of third party contractors (file review, payroll review, etc.).

• Review grantee CDBG contracts to determine percentage that meet Section 3 requirements, as well as the percentage of minority- and women-businesses.

• Make site inspection of CDBG activities to determine grantee and third party contractor compliance with FHEO requirements.

HOME Investments Partnership Program In accordance with 24CFR Part 92, Subpart H, 92.351, Affirmative Marketing; Minority Outreach Program, each participating jurisdiction in the HOME Program is required to adopt marketing procedures for affirmatively marketing rental and homebuyer projects containing five or more HOME-assisted housing units. The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) requires owners to take actions to provide information and attract eligible persons in the market area to the available housing without regard to race, color, sex, national origin, religion, familial status or disability. This document is provided to all sponsors of multifamily rental projects following the reservation of HOME funds by the Department as well as to the sponsors’ development team at Kick off Meetings coordinated by DHCD following a funding reservation. The document is also available on the DHCD website as part of the Submission Packages described below. Affirmative Marketing Plan Following the Kick off Meeting, sponsors of multifamily rental projects which have a reservation of HOME funds are required to submit one of the following Submission Packages prior to DHCD providing a commitment of HOME funds or proceeding to Initial Closing on a HOME loan: 1) Viability/Design Development Review Submission Package; or 2) Combined Viability/Commitment Submission Package. The Affirmative Marketing Plan form must be completed as part of the applicable Submission Package. In addition, the package must include the Management Agents’ Work Experience and Marketing Plan. The DHCD HOME Program Manager will review and provide comments to the Affirmative Marketing Plan within 30 days of receipt. Deficiencies in the Affirmative Marketing Plan will be noted and must be corrected prior to Initial Closing of the project’s HOME loan. The Affirmative Marketing Plan should include at least the following elements: 1. Methods for informing the public and potential tenants/owners about federal Fair Housing laws and affirmative marketing policies by:

a. Visiting tenants/owners in buildings selected for rehabilitation (if applicable) and

posting signs regarding the Program in each building project. The HUD Equal Housing Opportunity logo must appear on all postings;

b. Using the Equal Housing Opportunity logo or slogan in press releases and other written communications used in the marketing of all units;

c. Displaying fair housing posters in the sales/rental office or other places where it can be seen by potential tenants/residents.

75

2. Procedures to inform the public about vacant units or upcoming housing opportunities using such resources as:

a. Advertising in the commercial media; b. Placing flyers in the local unemployment center, offices of the local

housing authority, offices of any other local housing counseling agencies and other agencies serving low-income persons;

c. Notifying applicants on the local housing authority's waiting lists about upcoming vacancies.

3. Special outreach procedures to inform and solicit applications from persons otherwise not likely to apply for the housing such as:

a. Announcements in general circulation newspapers and/or ethnic, neighborhood, community, or school newspapers;

b. Posters publicizing the housing placed in grocery stores, job center sites, community centers, schools, etc;

c. Announcements and supportive outreach assistance provided by organizations such as social service agencies, housing counseling agencies, fair housing groups or religious organizations;

d. Use of community organizations run by minorities or those who primarily serve minorities, minority churches, etc.

Technical Assistance At Initial Closing, the obligation to comply with Affirmative Marketing Plan and other HOME requirements is incorporated into the “HOME Regulatory Agreement, Declaration of Covenants and Deed of Trust”. As noted above, a Kick-Off Meeting is held and attended by members of the project development team, the management company and pertinent DHCD staff - including the HOME Program Manager when HOME funds are used. During such meetings, DHCD emphasizes the HOME requirements including the affirmative marketing obligations. At the point where construction has reached the substantial completion stage and before actual lease-up begins, a Pre-Occupancy Meeting is scheduled and coordinated by DHCD’s Division of Credit Assurance. Owners are again reminded of the Affirmative Marketing Plan and the obligation to maintain records to document compliance. Recordkeeping and Monitoring Project sponsors must keep records for the duration of the HOME period of affordability with regard to:

a. The racial, ethnic, and gender characteristics of: (1) Tenants/owners occupying units before rehabilitation; (2) All tenants/owners-occupying units following completion.

b. Activities they undertake to inform the general renter public, specifically: (1) Copies of advertisements placed in the news media; (2) Dates on which the owner contacted other agencies; (3) Dates on which the owner contacted the local housing authority;

c. Activities recipients’ undertake for special outreach; and d. All applicants for tenancy.

76

Asset Management staff from DHCD’s Division of Credit Assurance will complete on-site compliance reviews during the period of project occupancy. As part of that review, the Asset Manager will determine whether the Affirmative Marketing Plan is present, record the goals in the plan and help capture the data on the initial occupants in the project. For each project, the owners will periodically be asked to provide an assessment of their own progress to the DHCD HOME Administrator based on the goals set in the plan. The DHCD HOME Program then makes an overall assessment of affirmative marketing plans to determine if good faith efforts have been made and to determine the results of the efforts overall. DHCD may require corrective actions if it is found that sponsors fail to carry out the required procedures. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to, withholding unallocated funds, requiring the return of unexpended funds, requiring the repayment of expended funds or requiring the return of program income. If, after discussing ways to improve procedures, the project owners or program contractors continue to fail to meet the affirmative marketing requirements, DHCD may also consider disqualifying them from future participation in the HOME Program. Section 8

The Section 8 Program was enacted as part of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which recodified the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The Act and its requirements have been amended from time to time, as they apply to the Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance Program. The Act and requirements are described in and implemented throughout the State’s Administrative Plan.

The Section 8 Rental Assistance Programs are federally funded and administered by the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (MD DHCD) as the Public Housing Authority (PHA) through the Eastern Shore Regional Section 8 Program housing office and the Section 8 offices of the subcontractors. The Eastern Shore Regional Section 8 Program and the Section 8 subcontractors are identified as the Local Housing Agencies (LHAs) throughout the Administrative Plan.

Administration of the Section 8 Program, the functions, and the responsibilities of the PHA is required to be in compliance with all applicable personnel policies, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Section 8 Regulations, and in conjunction with all Federal, State and local Fair Housing laws and regulations. The PHA for purposes of the Section 8 program is the State, which works with LHAs in carrying out the requirements of the Section 8 program.

A. HOUSING AUTHORITY MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the PHA, administered by the LHA, is to promote adequate and affordable housing, economic opportunity and a suitable living environment free from discrimination.

B. LOCAL GOALS [24 CFR 982.1]

The following goals of the PHA are in conjunction with the strategic goals of HUD.

HUD Strategic Goal: Increase the availability of decent, safe and affordable housing.

77

Our goal is to expand the supply of assisted housing. To accomplish our goal of expanding the supply of assisted housing, we will:

1. Apply for additional rental vouchers.

2. Leverage private or other public funds to create additional housing opportunities.

Our goal is to improve the quality of assisted housing. To accomplish our goal of improving the quality of assisted housing, we will:

1. Improve voucher management, using the Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) scores.

2. Increase customer satisfaction.

Our goal is to increase assisted housing choices. To accomplish our goal of increasing assisted housing choices, we will:

1. Provide voucher mobility counseling.

2. Conduct outreach efforts to potential voucher landlords.

HUD Strategic Goal: promote self-sufficiency and asset development of families and individuals.

Our goal is to promote self-sufficiency and asset development of assisted households. To accomplish our goal of promoting self-sufficiency and asset development, we will:

1. Provide or attract supportive services to improve assistance recipients’ employability.

HUD Strategic Goal: ensure Equal Opportunity in Housing for all Americans.

Our goal is to ensure equal opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing. To accomplish our goal of ensuring Equal Opportunity and affirmatively furthering fair housing, we will:

1. Undertake affirmative measures to ensure access to assisted housing regardless of race, color, religion national origin, sex, familial status, and disability.

2. Undertake affirmative measures to ensure accessible housing to persons with all varieties of disabilities regardless of unit size required.

C. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN [24 CFR 982.54]

The purpose of the Administrative Plan is to establish policies for the LHAs to implement the programs in a manner consistent with HUD requirements, local goals and objectives contained in the Administrative Plan. The Housing Choice Voucher Program is in effect as of 10/1/99. Pre-merger Regular Tenancy Contracts, Housing Voucher Contracts, and Over Fair Market Rent Tenancy Contracts will remain in effect until the family’s second re-examination after the merger date or when a new lease is executed, whichever comes first.

78

The PHA, and each LHA, is responsible for complying with all changes in HUD regulations pertaining to these programs. If such changes conflict with this Plan, HUD regulations will have precedence. The original Plan and any changes and the pertinent sections included in the Agency Plan will be distributed to each LHA and a copy will be provided to HUD.

Applicable regulations include:

1. 24 CFR Part 5: General Program Requirements

2. 24 CFR Part 8: Nondiscrimination

3. 24 CFR Part 982: Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance

D. RULES AND REGULATIONS [24 CFR 982.52]

This Administrative Plan is set forth to define the PHA, through the LHAs, local policies for operation of the housing programs in the context of Federal laws and Regulations. All issues related to Section 8 are governed by such Federal regulations, HUD Memos, Notices and guidelines or other applicable laws.

E. TERMINOLOGY

The following terms are used frequently within this Administrative Plan:

The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development is referred to as PHA or Public Housing Authority throughout this document.

The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (MD DHCD) subcontracts administration of Section 8 duties to local entities. These entities are the Local Housing Agencies inclusive of the Maryland DHCD Eastern Shore Regional Program and are referred to as the LHAs within this plan.

The term Family is used interchangeably with Applicant or Participant. Family may also refer to a single person.

Tenant refers to as a participant in terms of the relationship to landlord or project owner.

Landlord and owner are used interchangeably within this plan.

Disability is used in place of the term handicap.

Non-Citizens Rule refers to the regulation restricting assistance to U.S. citizens and eligible immigrants. This regulation was effective June 19, 1995.

The Section 8 Programs are also known as the Regular Tenancy Certificate, Over-Fair Market Rent (Over-FMR) Tenancy (OFTO) and Voucher Programs.

The Voucher Choice Program refers to the merged program effective as of 8/12/99.

HQS refers to the Housing Quality Standards required by regulations and is enhanced by the PHA.

79

Failure to Provide refers to all requirements in the first Family Obligation as described in Chapter 15 of this Plan.

Merger Date refers to October 1, 1999, the effective date of the merging of the Section 8 Certificate and Voucher Program with the Housing Choice Voucher Program.

F. FAIR HOUSING POLICY [24 CFR 982.54(d)(6)]

It is the policy of the PHA and the LHA to comply fully with all Federal, State and local nondiscrimination laws and with the rules and regulations governing Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in housing and employment.

The LHA shall not deny any family or individual the equal opportunity to apply for or receive assistance under the Section 8 Programs on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, creed, national or ethnic origin, age, familial or marital status, disability or sexual orientation.

To further the commitment of full compliance with applicable Civil Rights laws, the LHA will provide Federal/State/local information regarding unlawful discrimination and any recourse available to families who believe they are victims of a discriminatory act. Such information will be made available during the family briefing session. All applicable Fair Housing Information and Discrimination Complaint Forms will be included in the briefing packet and will be available upon request.

All PHA and LHA staff will be required to attend Fair Housing training that stresses the importance of affirmatively providing fair housing and equal opportunities to all families, including making reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities, as a part of the overall commitment to quality customer service. In addition to this training, staff will attend update training sponsored by HUD and other local organizations to remain current with new developments.

Fair Housing posters are posted throughout the PHA and LHA offices, including all lobbies and interview rooms. The equal opportunity logo will be used on all outreach materials.

Individuals with disabilities shall not be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination because the facilities of the PHA/LHA are inaccessible to or unusable by persons with disabilities. Any exceptions are those identified in 24 CFR 8.21 (c)(1), 8.24 (a), 8.25 and 8.31. Display posters and housing information are displayed in locations throughout the PHA and LHA offices in such a manner that they are easily readable from a wheelchair.

The MD Department of Housing and Community Development office and LHA offices are accessible to persons with disabilities. The MD Department of Housing and Community Development office is also accessible to hearing impaired individuals by telephone through the Maryland Relay Service at (800) 375-2258.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS POLICY FOR SECTION 8 HOUSING [24 CFR 700.245(c)(3)]

It is the policy of both DHCD as a PHA and LHA, to be service-oriented in the administration of our housing programs and to demonstrate a high level of professionalism while providing

80

housing services to families in compliance with the Section 8 regulation [24.CFR 700.245 (c)(3)].

A participant with a disability may ask for a specific change to a policy or practice as an accommodation of the disability. The PHA’s policies and practices, as administered by the LHAs, will be designed to provide persons with disabilities reasonable accommodations, upon request, so that they may fully access and utilize the housing program and related services.

The option to request an accommodation will be made public by including notices on LHA forms and letters. This policy is intended to provide persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as individuals without disabilities. This policy is applicable to all situations described in this Administrative Plan. Such situations include a family initiating contact with the LHA; the LHA initially contacting a family at the time of application; or the LHA scheduling appointments of any kind.

To be eligible to request a reasonable accommodation, the individual must certify (if apparent) or verify (if not apparent) that he or she is a person with a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA definition includes:

• A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual;

• A record of such impairment; or

• Being regarded as having such impairment.

Rehabilitated drug users and alcoholics are also covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act; however, a current drug user is not covered. In accordance with section 5.403(a), individuals are not considered disabled for eligibility purposes solely on the basis of any drug or alcohol dependence. Individuals whose drug or alcohol addiction is a material factor to their disability are excluded from the definition. Individuals are considered disabled if disabling mental and physical limitations persist if drug or alcohol abuse discontinued.

Once a persons’ qualified disability status is confirmed, the LHA will require that a competent, professional third party make an assessment. This professional must provide written verification that the individual needs specific accommodations due to a disability and the change is required for that person to have equal access to the housing program.

If the LHA finds that the requested accommodation creates an undue administrative or financial burden, the LHA will deny the request or present an alternate accommodation to meet the needs of the person. An undue administrative burden is one that requires a fundamental alteration of the essential functions of the LHA, such as waiving a family obligation. An undue financial burden is one that poses a severe financial hardship on the LHA to implement the requested accommodation.

The LHA will provide a written decision to the person requesting the accommodation within 14 calendar days of receipt of the request. If a person is denied the accommodation or feels that the alternative accommodation is inadequate, he or she may request an informal hearing with the LHA to review the decision.

81

Reasonable accommodation will be made for a person with a disability that requires an advocate or accessible offices. A designee will be allowed to provide information on behalf of the person, but only with the permission of the person with the disability.

All LHA mailings will be made available in an accessible format upon request, as a reasonable accommodation.

Verification of Disability

The LHA will verify disabilities as outlined in the definitions of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Applying for Admission

All persons who wish to apply for any of the PHA’s programs must submit a written pre-application, as directed in the public notice of the LHA. Applications will be made available in an accessible format for a person with a disability, upon request.

To provide specific accommodation as requested, to persons with disabilities, the information may be mailed to the applicant, also in an accessible format.

The full application is to be completed in the applicant’s own handwriting, at an eligibility appointment. A person may request assistance of accommodation if he or she has a special need due to a disability. The LHA staff will interview applicants and will review the completed application. Verification of disability, as previously described, will be requested at the time of the interview. The application includes specific questions as to whether reasonable accommodations for the applicant are necessary.

H. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS

In determining whether it is feasible to provide translation of documents written in English into other languages, the LHA will consider if resources through local organizations are available to provide translation services to non-English speaking families.

I. MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES (Revised 01/2002)

The PHA operates the Housing Assistance Program with efficiency. The PHA can demonstrate to HUD auditors that the LHAs are using its resources in a manner that reflects its commitment to quality and service. Our policies and practices are consistent with the areas of measurement for the following HUD Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) indicators:

• Selection from the Waiting List • Reasonable Rent • Determination of Adjusted Income • Utility Allowance Schedule • Housing Quality Standards -- Quality Control Inspections • Housing Quality Standards Enforcement • Expanding Housing Opportunities • Fair Market Rent -- Exception Rent & Payment Standards

82

• Annual Re-examinations • Correct Tenant Rent Calculations • Pre-Contract Housing Quality Standards Inspections • Annual Housing Quality Standards Inspections • Lease-Ups • Family Self-Sufficiency Enrollment and Escrow Account Balances • Bonus Indicator Deconcentration

The PHA will perform annual compliance reviews of each LHA. The review will involve selecting a sample of files and records in an unbiased manner, according to the following schedule:

Minimum Number of Files (per LHA) to be Sampled:

• 50 or less 5 • 51 – 600 5, plus 1 for each increment of 50 (or part of 50) over 50 • 601 – 2000 16, plus 1 for each increment of 100 (or part of 100) • Over 2000 30, plus 1 for each increment of 200 (or part of 200) over 2000

A file monitoring worksheet will be completed for each file reviewed. The worksheet includes a review of all indicators recognized by SEMAP. Upon completion of the file reviews the results will be summarized on the rating worksheet and a score will be calculated to determine the LHA rating.

The file monitoring and SEMAP Rating Worksheets are located under Attachment II of the Administrative Plan.

Scoring and performance ratings for each LHA will mirror the HUD guidelines used in SEMAP, as follows:

• High Performer Overall score 90% or more • Standard Performer Overall score 60 – 89% • Troubled Performer Overall score less than 60%

At the end of each annual compliance review, a discussion will be held with the LHA to review any errors found and the overall performance. A written report will be prepared and sent to the LHA requiring corrective actions on the individual errors identified in the report. The LHA must respond to the PHA within 30 days of receipt of the annual compliance review report.

If an LHA is rated as troubled, it will be required to develop and submit an action plan for improvement with its response to the review report. The LHA will also be scheduled for a six-month follow-up review, as opposed to its regularly scheduled annual review, to determine if it has adhered to its action plan and if performance has improved.

J. RECORDS FOR MONITORING PHA PERFORMANCE (Revised 01/2002)

To demonstrate compliance with HUD and other pertinent regulations, the PHA and LHAs will maintain records, reports and other documentation for a specific time period. The time period

83

established is in accordance with HUD requirements and allows an auditor, housing professional or other interested party to follow, monitor and/or assess operational procedures objectively, accurately, and in accordance with SEMAP requirements regarding internal supervisory audits.

LHA supervisory staff will perform monthly internal quality control audits in accordance with the following guidelines:

• 100% of the files for all new admissions • Minimum of 25% of the files for all re-examinations • Minimum of 100% of the files for all claims processed

The LHA Monthly Supervisory Audit Form will be completed upon the review of each participant file and maintained in the LHA office. A copy of the form(s) can be found under Attachment II. During the PHA’s annual monitoring visit, this form will be reviewed to determine if the LHA is complying with the requirement to conduct supervisory audits. Should the LHA experience problems with the audit requirement, the LHA will be required to submit the form to the PHA on a monthly basis.

K. PRIVACY RIGHTS [24 CFR 982.551]

Applicants and participants, including all adults in the households, are required to sign the HUD 9886 Authorization for Release of Information. This document incorporates the Federal Privacy Act Statement and describes the conditions under which HUD/PHA/LHA will release family information to third parties. The PHA’s policy regarding the release of information is for the LHA to do so in accordance with State and local laws, which may restrict the release of family information.

Any and all information regarding the nature or severity of a person's disability must be kept in a separate folder and marked Confidential or it is to be returned to the family member after use. The personal information in this folder must not be released except on an as needed basis, such as cases under consideration for an accommodation. The LHA Section 8 Administrator must approve all requests for access to the information in any confidential folder.

The PHA practices and procedures are administered by the LHA in a manner that safeguards the privacy of applicants and program participants. All applicant and participant files will be stored in a secure location. In addition, the LHA staff will not discuss family information contained in any files, except on an as needed basis for business reasons.

L. FAMILY OUTREACH [24 CFR 982.153(b)(1)]

The LHA will publicize information regarding the availability of housing assistance and related services for very low-income families on a regular basis. For example, when the LHA's waiting list is open, the LHA will publicize the nature of housing assistance and availability for very low-income families in a general-circulation newspaper, minority media, and by other suitable means of publicity.

For those who cannot read, the LHA will distribute fact sheets to and initiate personal contacts with the broadcasting media as well as community service personnel. The LHA will also utilize public service announcements.

84

The LHA will communicate the status of housing availability to other service providers in the community, and advise them of housing eligibility factors and guidelines. They in turn can make proper referrals for housing assistance.

M. OWNER OUTREACH [24 CFR 982.54(d)(5), 982.153(b)(1)]

The LHA makes a concerted effort to keep private owners informed of legislative changes in the tenant-based program, which are designed to make the program more attractive to owners. This effort includes informing owners of applicable legislative changes in program requirements. The LHA encourage owners of decent, safe and sanitary housing units to lease to Section 8 families.

In addition to informing owners of legislative changes, the LHA may conduct periodic meetings with participating owners. These meetings provide an opportunity for the LHA to improve owner relations and to recruit new owners to participate in the tenant-based program. For their respective jurisdictions, the LHA offices will:

• Maintain a list of interested local landlords. • Maintain a list of units available for the Section 8 Program. • Maintain lists of available housing submitted by owners in all neighborhoods within the

LHA’s jurisdiction to ensure greater mobility and housing choice to very low-income households. The lists of owners/units will be provided at briefings and will be available upon request.

• Initiate personal contact with private property owners and managers by conducting formal and informal discussions and meetings.

• Offer printed material to acquaint owners and managers with the opportunities available under the program.

• Actively participate in community-based organizations comprised of private property and apartment owners and managers.

• Actively recruit property owners with property located outside areas of minority and poverty concentration.

• Apply for exception payment standards if the PHA or LHA determines it is necessary to make the program more accessible in the LHA's jurisdiction.

• Encourage program participation by owners of units located outside areas of poverty or minority concentration.

• Periodically evaluate the demographic distribution of assisted families to identify areas within the jurisdiction where owner outreach should be targeted.

The purpose of these activities is to provide more choice and better housing opportunities to families. Interested families and voucher holders are informed of a broad range of areas where they may lease units within the LHA's jurisdiction. They are also given a list of landlords or other parties who are willing to lease units or help families who desire to live outside areas of poverty or minority concentration.

The LHA periodically will also:

• Request the HUD Field Office to furnish a list of HUD-held properties available for rent.

• Develop working relationships with owners and real estate broker associations.

85

• Establish contact with civic, charitable or neighborhood organizations which have an interest in housing for low-income families and public agencies concerned with obtaining housing for displaced families.

• Explain the program, including equal opportunity requirements and nondiscrimination requirements, Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act to real estate agents, landlords, and other groups that have dealings with low-income families or are interested in housing such families.

State Rental Housing Programs

In addition to federal fair housing requirements for the HOME program, DHCD also requires affirmative marketing of projects that use only State funding and/or receive Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. These requirements are part of the uniform application for all rental housing funds. In addition, project sponsors are required to certify fair housing activities as set forth below regarding EEO, Civil Rights, and Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace requirements: Recipients of State funding or LIHTC agree to the following as a condition of receiving funding:

A. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the "Act"), as amended, to the end that, in accordance with Title VI of the Act, no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Applicant-Recipient receives financial or technical assistance from the Department of Housing and Community Development of the State of Maryland. B. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to the end that, in accordance with Title VII of that Act, it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer: 1. to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin; 2. to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. C. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, to the end that, it is the policy of the United States to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States. D. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, as amended (the "Fair Housing Amendments Act"), to the end that it shall be unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms of rental of a dwelling because of familial status except with respect to "housing for older persons" (as defined in the Fair Housing Amendments Act). E. Article 49B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended, which establishes the Maryland Human Relations Commission and prohibits discrimination in employment and residential housing practices.

86

F. State of Maryland Executive Order 01.01.1989.18 relating to drug and alcohol free workplaces for non-State entities, promulgated November 28, 1989. G. The Secretary's Policy Statement on Equal Opportunity, to the end that, the Department shall not knowingly approve grants of financial or technical assistance to recipients who are engaged in discriminatory employment practices. H. The Secretary's Minority Business Enterprise Program which establishes a program to provide opportunities for minority contractors and vendors to participate in Department Programs; and the minority business enterprise plan submitted by or on behalf of Applicant-Recipient as approved by the Department's Equal Opportunity Officer, provided, however, that this Paragraph H shall not apply in the event that a statement is attached hereto from the Applicant-Recipient's equal opportunity officer stating that the general contractor is in compliance with local minority business participation programs or objectives. I. The Community Development Administration's Relocation Policy where applicable. J. All other related applicable Federal and State laws, regulations and rules. VISIBILITY DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DHCD has established a project review process that ensures all major state and federally funded projects are consistent with federal fair housing compliance. The review requires completion of an Affirmative Marketing Plan that includes elements to attract prospective buyers or tenants of all minority and non-minority groups in the housing market area regardless of their race, color, national origin, disability, familial status, religion, or sex. Upon selection and approval of housing development projects, the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development require additional financial and construction information from chosen developers for a “viability review.” The Viability Design Development Review provides a comprehensive outline of information to be submitted by developers after projects are selected for a reservation of funds. The viability review includes submission of a Marketing and Management Plan for all multifamily rental housing projects requiring state loan financing. The State’s management and marketing plan is used to evaluate the reasonableness of proposed operating expenses, rent-up schedule and marketing costs. Affirmative Marketing Plan

Each applicant is required to carry out an affirmative program to attract prospective buyers or tenants of all minority and non-minority groups in the housing market area regardless of their race, color, national origin, disability, familial status, religion, or sex. These protected groups in the housing market area who may be subject to housing discrimination include: White, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, persons with disabilities, families with children, or -- American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander-- where applicable by census data. The applicant shall describe in the AM Plan the proposed activities to be carried out during advance marketing, where applicable, and the initial sales and rent-up period. The affirmative marketing program also should ensure that any group(s) of persons ordinarily not likely to apply for this housing without special outreach, know about the housing, feel welcome to apply and have the opportunity to buy or rent.

87

Applicant and Project Identification. The applicant may obtain census tract location information from local planning agencies, public libraries and other sources of census data.

Type of Affirmative Marketing Plan. Applicants for multifamily housing projects should check both the Project Plan and indicate the status of the AM Plan, e.g. new or update. All Project Plans should indicate the racial composition of the housing market area in which the housing will be (is) located by checking one of the three choices. Direction of Marketing Activity. Indicate which group(s) the applicant believes are least likely to apply for this housing without special outreach. Consider factors such as price or rental of housing, sponsorship of housing, racial/ethnic characteristics of housing market area in which housing will be (is) located, disability or familial status of eligible population, public transportation routes, etc.

Marketing Program. The applicant shall describe the marketing program to be used to attract all segments of the eligible population, especially those groups designated in Part 3 of this AM Plan as least likely to apply. The applicant shall state: the type of media to be used, the names of newspaper/call letters of radio or TV stations; the identity of the circulation or audience of the media identified in the AM Plan (e.g., White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino, persons with disabilities, and families with children) and the size or duration of newspaper advertising or length and frequency of broadcast advertising. Community contacts include individuals or organizations that are well known in the housing market area or the locality, that can influence persons within groups considered least likely to apply. Such contacts may include, but need not be limited to: neighborhood, minority and women’s organizations, grass root faith-based or other community based organizations, labor unions, employers, public and private agencies, disability advocates, schools and individuals who are connected with these organizations and/or are well-known in the community.

Methods for informing the public and potential tenants/owners about federal Fair Housing laws and affirmative marketing policies could include:

a. Visiting tenants/owners in buildings selected for rehabilitation (if applicable) and posting signs regarding the Program in each building project. The HUD Equal Housing Opportunity logo must appear on all postings;

b. Using the Equal Housing Opportunity logo or slogan in press releases and other written communications used in the marketing of all units;

c. Displaying fair housing posters in the sales/rental office or other places where it can be seen by potential tenants/residents.

Procedures to inform the public about vacant units or upcoming housing opportunities could include using such resources as:

a. Advertising in the commercial media; b. Placing flyers in the local unemployment center, offices of the local housing

authority, offices of any other local housing counseling agencies and other agencies serving low-income persons;

c. Notifying applicants on the local housing authority's waiting lists about upcoming vacancies.

88

Review and Update. The applicant assumes full responsibility for the AM Plans implementation and required reviews and updates. HUD may monitor the implementation of this AM Plan at any time and request modification in its format or content, where deemed necessary. Project sponsors must keep records for the duration of the HOME period of affordability with regard to:

a. The racial, ethnic, and gender characteristics of: (1) Tenants/owners occupying units before rehabilitation; (2) All tenants/owners-occupying units following completion.

b. Activities they undertake to inform the general renter public, specifically: (1) Copies of advertisements placed in the news media; (2) Dates on which the owner contacted other agencies; (3) Dates on which the owner contacted the local housing authority;

c. Activities recipients undertake for special outreach; and d. All applicants for tenancy.

ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE DHCD Assurance of Compliance requires that Rental Housing Programs comply with numerous laws or statutes related to fair treatment; namely, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Civil Rights, and Drug and Alcohol Free workplace requirements. These laws include:

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 • The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 • Article 49B of the Annotated Code of Maryland • The State of Maryland Executive Order 01.01.1989.18 • The Secretary of DHCD Policy Statement on Equal Opportunity • The Secretary of DHCD Minority Business Enterprise Program • The Community Development Administration’s Relocation Policy • All other related applicable Federal and State laws, regulations and rules

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Compliance requirements ensure that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Applicant-Recipient receives financial or technical assistance from DHCD.

89

POLICY CHANGES TO ARTICLE 49B Article 49B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended, prohibits discrimination in employment and residential housing practices. Amendments to Article 49B was signed into law by Governor O’Malley which gives Maryland employees the right to sue for alleged acts of discrimination that were previously not actionable. The Maryland Legislature has amended its discrimination statute, Article 49B of the Maryland Code. The change increases the amount of damages awarded and individual employees may bring claims to state court. The Maryland Commission on Human Relations (MCHR) will be able to award up to a maximum of $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorney and expert witness fees. The law formerly limited damages up to three years of back pay. The second part of the amendment enables individual employees to file civil actions claiming jury trials in Maryland’s 24 circuit courts. This allows employees to initiate judicial action 180 days after their original complaint has been filed without any required authorization from the Maryland Commission on Human Relations, as previously restricted in the original law. MARYLAND CODES ADMINISTRATION The Codes Administration within the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development complies with the Accessibility Requirements in Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, and later amendments that included prohibiting discriminatory practices based on disability and familial status. The law provides that a failure to design and construct certain multifamily dwellings to include certain features of accessible design will be regarded as unlawful discrimination. The design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act apply to all new multifamily housing consisting of four or more dwelling units. There have been no new policy changes to Maryland Accessibility Code since February 1995. As a recipient of Community Development Block Grant funds DHCD complies with federal regulation to provide for and encourage citizen participation, particularly by low and moderate income persons, to issue complaints and grievances to the Department. All grievances or complaints are reviewed and shall receive a written response within fifteen working days. ASSET MANAGEMENT REVIEW Asset Management Officers conduct Administrative reviews of projects typically once a year. Fair Housing is one of the elements of this monitoring. The Departmental review largely focused on the Fair Housing Marketing Plan. The Fair Housing Marketing Plan is developed during project underwriting and can be amended, with the approval of DHCD, as necessary to strengthen the Fair Housing performance of the property. The project management is required to maintain a file of invoices for advertising activity and copies of postings, letters and other evidence of contacts with local government, service agencies, etc. These records must demonstrate consistency and full compliance with the marketing plan. The Asset Manager will also verify the posting of required Fair Housing signage and the availability of Fair Housing information.

90

Specific complaints about Fair Housing are handled as they are received. According to the DHCD Director of Multifamily Asset Management, although official complaints are extremely rare they are typically dealt with in collaboration with the appropriate agency charged with addressing fair housing issues. Only one or two fair housing matters have been raised in the past five years and none in the past year. The concerns never reached the level of official complaints, but were resolved by informal mediation.

Reasonable Accommodations Policy

As with Section 8 programs noted earlier in the AI, compliance to the reasonable accommodation policy is service-oriented and demonstrates a high level of professionalism while providing housing services to families. DHCD multifamily rental housing programs follow similar practices. Accommodations for Individuals with Physical Disabilities All projects funded pursuant to the Multifamily Rental Financing Program Guide must ensure that individuals with physical disabilities have priority for occupancy of any units qualified under the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). However, in ensuring that individuals with disabilities receive priority for UFAS qualified housing, owners are not required to disregard occupancy restrictions imposed by any applicable financing program, State or federal law or lease. As such, DHCD offers income targeting bonus points for development projects.

Projects that provide integrated independent housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities receive an additional qualified allocation point (QAP) allocation totaling five maximum points, targeting especially those living on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Supplemental Security Disability Income (SSDI). Some exceptions apply, including transitional housing or other facilities with limits on the term of occupancy or leases by tenants; in addition to properties that are not subject to the Department’s RHF, Tax Credit or MBP use or occupancy restrictions.

To receive points, the units must be made available only to individuals with disabilities and held for individuals with disabilities including SSI/SSDI recipients until the prescribed percentage of resident individuals with disabilities is achieved but no longer than 60 days beyond 80 percent of initial occupancy for new construction projects. Points will be awarded to occupied rehabilitation projects that will market and hold units for individuals with disabilities including those who are income-qualified or SSI/SSDI recipients upon turnover for at least 60 days after vacancy. Points will be awarded based on the percentage of total units within the project whether or not rent- or income-restricted targeted to individuals with disabilities, including those at SSI/SSDI income levels, according to Table 28.

Table 28. Percent of Units for Individuals with Disabilities

10% or more of the proposed units 5 points 8-9% of the units 4 points 6-7% of the units 3 points 4-5% of the units 2 points 1-3% of the units 1 point Less than 1% of the units 0 points

91

http://www.access-board.gov/ufas/ufas-html/ufas.htm

To receive points, an application should include a letter from or a memorandum of understanding or other agreement with an entity that will assist the applicant in marketing the units to individuals with disabilities or special needs. The sponsor also must include with the application a marketing plan for meeting its targeting commitments. Base Realignment and Closure Plan In 2009 DHCD launched a new housing preservation initiative with a $4.5 million award from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation – a private foundation based in Chicago that awards funding support to organizations nationwide for their efforts in the areas of Global Security and Sustainability, Human and Community Development. With the Foundation’s support, DHCD has begun work with Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Cecil, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Prince George’s and St. Mary’s Counties to implement the Maryland BRAC plan. DHCD’s BRAC efforts seek to: 1) improve education and outreach in communities, 2) streamline and simplify the governmental processes involved in financing an affordable housing development, 3) assemble funding resources that enable DHCD to preserve properties that our existing tools cannot reach, and 4) encourage energy conservation and green building as part of preserving homes. A total of $900 million in public and private funds will be invested to preserve and improve an additional 7,500 units of affordable rental housing over a 10 year period, targeting counties affected by Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). Moreover, DHCD plans to preserve affordable rental housing located in the path of growth brought on by the federal Bas Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, which will bring over 225,000 new households to the region beginning in 2011. This process involves awarding QAP points to projects located in the nine BRAC impacted areas. In addition to awarding points for projects defined as family projects and elderly projects (10 points and 5 points, respectively), projects providing housing in these jurisdictions may earn points as follows: Five additional points may be awarded for family housing projects located in school or election districts or census tracts with certain key demographic indicators at rates higher than statewide averages. These indicators include, but may not be limited to:

• Maryland School Assessment (MSA) scores (elementary and secondary) • Employment • Median home sales price • Educational attainment (high school and bachelor’s degree) • Personal income • Voter participation • Homeownership rates

Housing in BRAC Impacted Counties and Housing in Communities with Indicators above Statewide Averages amount to 15 maximum points. Points will be awarded to projects that are in the nine BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) -impacted areas (Baltimore City and Cecil, Harford, Baltimore, Howard, Frederick, Montgomery, Anne Arundel and Prince George’s counties). Projects providing housing in these jurisdictions may earn points as follows:

92

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago

• 10 points for family projects; or • 5 points for elderly projects, but only if a local letter of support includes a statement by

the highest local elected official stating that the proposed project will result in increased availability of affordable housing opportunities for the workforce in the jurisdiction.

Five (5) additional points may be awarded for family housing projects located in school or election districts or census tracts with certain key demographic indicators at rates higher than statewide averages. These indicators include, but are not limited to:

• Maryland School Assessment (MSA) scores (elementary and secondary); • Median home sales prices; • Educational attainment (high school and bachelor’s degrees); • Employment; • Personal income; • Voter participation; and • Homeownership rates.

Transit-Oriented Development In addition to offering QAPs for housing in BRAC impacted areas, DHCD seeks opportunities to integrate affordable housing in Maryland’s transit areas. Two existing initiatives demonstrate activities focused on creating a nexus between housing and transportation: 1) QAPs for Transit-Oriented Development and 2) Sustainable Communities Act of 2010. DHCD issues points to eligible applicants who demonstrate sustainable development, including energy conservation, of their projects near transit. As noted in the 2008 Multifamily Rental Financing Program Guide (which covers the state’s application procedures for multifamily rental housing throughout Maryland) DHCD awards 5 points for a development projects that has densities exceeding 25 units per acre; involves mixed-use or is part of a larger mixed use undertaking; involves good non-motorized transport design (walkability), and is located within 0.5 miles of a mass or public transit or rail station, or within 0.25 miles of a bus depot or bus stop with scheduled service at intervals, at most 30 minutes, between the house of 6:30am and 7:00 pm. Data for housing and transportation has not been obtained due to lack of planning funds administered by the federal government. DHCD will apply for planning grants to track future housing patterns near transit-oriented development.

MARYLAND COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS The Maryland Commission on Human Relations (MCHR) is the State’s Fair Housing enforcement agency, and is the lead agency for fair housing efforts in Maryland. To assist in preparing the AI, DHCD engaged in a number of conversations with MCHR and utilized MCHR web-based reports posted for public record regarding fair housing issues. According to the MCHR 2006 annual report, HUD funding contributed, at least in part, to enabling the organization to recruit over 60 volunteers to conduct testing on disability access in new housing construction. DHCD has attempted unsuccessfully to obtain testing results and

93

report findings. Further, annual report data was examined to identify patterns of housing complaints based on protected class characteristics. As illustrated in Table 29 below, when examined by region, non-entitlement areas had fewer housing complaints over the past three years from 2006 to 2008, than do entitlement areas. Non-entitlement communities which represent 70.8 percent of all Maryland jurisdictions corresponded to only 17.1 percent of total housing complaints statewide. Jurisdictions located in the Western region (Allegany, Frederick, Garrett and Washington Counties) combined reflected the highest rates of housing complaints among all non-entitlement communities during this time period. Frederick and Washington Counties reflected the highest number of complaint cases in Western Maryland. Additionally, the Eastern region had the second highest number of housing complaints during the same period (14), and represented the largest territory of non-entitlement communities. Table 30 shows housing complaints that MCHR received between in a three year period between 2006 and 2008. MCHR’s efforts to address these complaints are undertaken on an ongoing basis. The complaints may be addressed through mediation, legal action, or dismissed if the complaints are not found to be valid. MCHR does not release information on complaints in order to protect the privacy of parties the parties involved, except when cases move to court.

TABLE 29. DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING COMPLAINTS, BY REGION Jurisdiction 2008 2007 2006 Total

West Allegany 2 0 1 3Frederick 3 2 2 7Garrett 0 0 1 1Washington 3 3 1 7

Central Anne Arundel 9 9 9 27Baltimore City 20 12 23 55Baltimore 10 10 19 39Carroll 1 2 3 6Harford 9 4 4 17Howard 12 2 6 20Montgomery 19 22 1 42Prince George's 8 15 18 41

Southern Calvert 0 1 2 3Charles 1 1 4 6St. Mary's 0 1 2 3

Eastern Caroline 0 0 1 1Cecil 1 2 0 3Dorchester 0 0 1 1Kent 0 0 0 0Queen Anne's 0 0 0 0Somerset 0 0 0 0Talbot 2 0 1 3Wicomico 1 1 0 2

94

TABLE 29. DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING COMPLAINTS, BY REGION Jurisdiction 2008 2007 2006 Total Worcester 1 2 1 4Total 102 89 100 291Note: Shaded areas represent non-entitlement jurisdictions Source: Maryland Commission on Human Relations, 2006, 2007, 2008 Annual Reports.

Table 30. Distribution of Housing Complaints by Cause

Race Sex Sexual

Orientation Age Disability Religion National Origin

Familial Status

Marital Status Color Total

FY2008 32 4 0 0 35 3 19 13 4 0 110FY2007 39 5 0 1 38 1 14 6 0 3 107FY2006 36 10 0 0 39 3 10 8 0 0 108Total 107 19 0 1 112 7 43 27 4 3

Source: Maryland Commission on Human Relations, 2006, 2007, 2008 Annual Reports. Note: According to MCHR, cases may be filed on more than one basis; therefore totals may exceed number of charges received.

State Disabilities Plan 2009 The Maryland Department of Disabilities advances the rights and interests of people with disabilities so they may fully participate in their communities. DHCD is part of the Department of Disabilities Policy team to address issues related to people with disabilities. In fulfilling the commitment to providing housing options for people with disabilities DHCD has met the following accomplishments:

• Supported successful legislation to permit local tax credits for homeowners that install accessible features in a home (HB 54).

• Supported successful legislation to modify DHCD Rental Assistance Program for

individuals with disabilities to streamline the existing requirements (HB 231).

• Widely distributed the Maryland Housing Modification Resource Guide to individuals with disabilities who need to modify their homes for accessibility.

• Widely distributed a Guide for Homeownership for individuals with disabilities that

promote the creative use of all available affordable housing programs to expand homeownership.

The Bridge Subsidy Demonstration Program for adults with disabilities was created to provide individuals on waiting lists for permanent housing with short term rental assistance for up to three years. The program reallocates a portion of existing DHCD state funds to the program for recipients of Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The program was fully implemented in fiscal year 2007, and provided an average monthly rental subsidy for $723 to 34 participants in the first full year and a total of 75 participants over the duration of the Pilot Program.

95

Homeownership Opportunities

DHCD operates programs that both assist persons with disabilities purchase homes, or allows persons with disabilities to make modifications to homes they already own. The Homeownership for Individuals with Disabilities Program provides affordable loans (3 to 5 percent) to households where either one of the borrowers or a son or daughter (regardless of age; who resides with one of the borrowers and is cared for principally by one of the borrowers) is disabled. This includes a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities (for example, hearing, seeing, speaking, sitting, standing, walking, concentrating, or performing manual tasks).

The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), in partnership with the Maryland Department of Aging (MDoA), are undertaking a project to promote accessibility related improvements to the homes of seniors. These improvements include, among others, the installation of grab bars and railings, widening of doorways and installation of ramps. Home improvements such as these represent for many older people the key to remaining in their home and maintaining their independence.

The program provides zero percent interest, deferred loans for a term of 30 years to finance accessibility improvements. The program is funded by DHCD under the Maryland Housing Rehabilitation Program (MHRP) and is administered by Special Loan Programs. The program is marketed through the local Area Agencies on Aging.

Affordable and Available Housing Units

As illustrated in Table 31 below, the DHCD estimates that from 2010 -2015 Maryland faces an overall net shortage of 130,315 units of affordable and available housing. It is estimated that 28,993 of the all needed units are for persons with disabilities. When compared to the total net unit shortage, family units represent the largest housing shortfall (80,349 or 61.6 percent of all units), and seniors or older adults will experience the smallest shortage – 20,973 or a 16.1 housing shortage). Using existing resources, Maryland has worked hard to address the housing needs of persons with disabilities, receiving national awards for its efforts. The primary populations of DHMH, individuals with serious and persistent mental illness and those with developmental disabilities, are two populations at extreme poverty levels with social and forensic issues that often limit their access to the “affordable” housing produced by using existing resources. A review of DHCD subsidized multifamily housing inventory shows that of 77,477 total units, only 5,424 or 7 percent of the total inventory are federally financed disabled units.

Table 31. Net Shortage of Affordable and Available Rental Housing in Maryland, 2010 – 2015

Shortage by Household Type Counties Families Senior Disabled Total Allegany 438 267 296 1,001Anne Arundel 7,999 1,956 2,083 12,038

96

http://www.dhcd.state.md.us/Website/Programs/mhrp_sf/Default.aspx

http://www.dhcd.state.md.us/Website/Programs/mhrp_sf/Default.aspx

Baltimore 10,678 4,234 4,759 19,671Baltimore City 1,258 1,341 4,251 6,850Calvert 653 71 207 931Caroline 73 126 112 311Carroll 1,766 349 485 2,600Cecil 1,138 83 332 1,553Charles 1,639 253 469 2,361Dorchester 0 76 112 188Frederick 2,760 725 798 4,283Garrett 0 72 74 146Harford 2,518 562 802 3,882Howard 6,482 733 1,055 8,271Kent 81 137 100 318Montgomery 23,498 5,612 5,858 34,967Prince George's 16,426 2,905 5,151 24,482Queen Anne's 430 26 144 600Somerset 0 98 92 190St. Mary's 1,012 208 343 1,563Talbot 421 171 201 793Washington 649 512 686 1,847Wicomico 124 217 355 696Worcester 306 240 227 773Maryland 80,349 20,973 28,993 130,315 Source: DHCD, Office of Research

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING SURVEY To enhance understanding of community concerns regarding fair housing choice, DHCD administered a fair housing survey designed to gauge fair housing issues, practices, and strategies in communities throughout Maryland. The questionnaire solicited feedback from a diverse group of representatives involved in housing efforts in Maryland. The participating agencies provided their perspectives on the extent to which barriers exist in communities they serve. A total of 1,056 individuals and agencies were solicited regarding fair housing issues, and 149 responses to the survey were received. Survey participants were asked to respond to 21 questions, using Zoomerang, an online survey software system that captured and tabulated responses. The questionnaire is divided into three sections: (1) Background, (2) Discrimination in your community, and (3) Fair Housing Solutions.

BACKGROUND Section One provides background on the agencies and individuals participating in the survey. The purpose is to learn about the respondents, their profession in the housing industry, ascertain their geographic location and service areas, as well as gain a perspective on any incidents of housing discrimination in their communities. As illustrated in Chart 2, the respondents’ best described their organizations as: housing agencies, towns or municipalities,

97

nonprofit and community-based organizations, real estate developers and management firms, lenders and financial services companies, units of county government, legal services firms, a public service institution, and private or independent consulting organizations. When asked, “How they defined their community,” respondents selected counties, neighborhoods, towns, cities, region, or statewide. Together, counties and neighborhoods encompassed the largest share of communities served – representing more than half of all community types (55 percent). Cities and towns combined represented the second largest community type (35 percent). The remaining 10 percent represent organizations that have either a regional or statewide community focus.

HOW WOULD YOU BEST DESCRIBE YOUR ORGANIZATION? BY PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

Chart 2

As shown in Chart 3, the largest single number of respondents were individuals and agencies located in Baltimore city (31 or 21 percent). Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties had the second largest number of respondents (14 or 9 percent and 12 or 8 percent, respectively).

98

PLEASE SELECT THE COUNTY WHERE YOUR ORGANIZATION PRIMARILY OPERATES? BY NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS

CHART 3

As noted in Table 32 below, with the exception of Queen Anne’s County, all of the state’s jurisdictions were represented in the survey. A fairly equal share of respondents located in both non-entitlement and entitlement jurisdictions throughout Maryland provided feedback to survey questions. In fact, 76 respondents primarily operate in entitlement areas while 72 respondents represent non-entitlement jurisdictions.

TABLE 32. PLEASE SELECT THE COUNTY WHERE YOUR ORGANIZATION PRIMARILY OPERATES?

Jurisdiction Number of

Responses Percent of

Total Allegany 8 5%Anne Arundel 7 5%Baltimore city 31 21%Baltimore county 8 5%Calvert 4 3%Caroline 7 5%Carroll 6 4%Charles 2 1%Cecil 5 3%

99

TABLE 32. PLEASE SELECT THE COUNTY WHERE YOUR ORGANIZATION PRIMARILY OPERATES?

Jurisdiction Number of Percent of

Responses Total Dorchester 5 3%Frederick 7 5%Garrett 3 2%Harford 1 1%Howard 3 2%Kent 3 2%Montgomery 14 9%Prince George's 12 8%Queen Anne's 0 0%Somerset 1 1%St. Mary's 3 2%Talbot 3 2%Washington 5 3%Wicomico 7 5%Worcester 3 2%Total 148 99% Note: Numbers may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

Chart 4

100

The majority of all respondents reported that fair housing related to protected class was either better or the same in their communities compared to five years ago – individual totals equal 66 and 61 responses, respectively (Chart 4). Similar patterns emerged in both non-entitlement and entitlement areas. Both indicated that fair housing was better overall compared to five years ago. The remaining 21 respondents noted that they did not know the state of fair housing (12) or that fair housing had gotten worse (9). As illustrated in Table 33 below, entitlement areas reported a slightly higher rating (35). However, conditions reportedly worsened in Dorchester, Wicomico, Baltimore city, Baltimore County, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties.

TABLE 33. RATING FAIR HOUSING Non-Entitlement Jurisdictions Better Same Worse Don't Know Total Allegany 6 1 0 1 8Calvert 2 1 0 1 4Caroline 1 5 0 1 7Carroll 2 4 0 0 6Cecil 2 3 0 0 5Charles 2 0 0 0 2Dorchester 1 2 1 1 5Frederick 4 3 0 0 7Garrett 1 2 0 0 3Kent 2 1 0 0 3Somerset 1 0 0 0 1St. Mary's 1 1 0 1 3Talbot 1 2 0 0 3Washington 3 0 0 2 5Wicomico 2 4 1 0 7Worcester 0 3 0 0 3Sub-Total 31 32 2 7 72Entitlement Jurisdictions Anne Arundel 7 0 0 0 7Baltimore City 12 12 3 4 31Baltimore County 3 3 2 0 8Harford 0 1 0 0 1Howard 2 1 0 0 3Montgomery 5 7 1 1 14Prince George's 6 5 1 0 12Sub-Total 35 29 7 5 76Total Responses 66 61 9 12 148

101

DISCRIMINATION IN YOUR COMMUNITY

Section two below solicits feedback from respondents concerning housing discrimination or unfair treatment in their respective communities. Questions ascertain the extent to which a persons’ ability to secure housing fairly has been impeded by acts or incidents of discrimination based on a variety of protected class characteristics. When asked whether or not respondents were aware of any incidents of discrimination in obtaining housing based on race, disability, gender, color, familial status, national origin, ability to speak English, or sexual orientation, the majority of all respondents (111 or 75 percent) were not aware of any incidents (Chart 5 and Table 34). Disability was the second most observed type of discrimination by number of incidents, showing 18 responses or 12 percent of all responses received.

INCIDENTS OF DISCRIMINATION, BY NUMBER OF ALL RESPONDENTS

Chart 5

102

In fact, race and disability was the most frequently cited reasons respondents’ identified concerning discrimination in both non-entitlement communities and entitlement communities (a combined total of 13 and 18, respectively). Notably, of all protected class categories, disability was the most frequently selected issue across the state as a whole. Each participant was asked to select all choices that apply; therefore, numbers will not round to 100 percent.

Table 34. incidents of Discrimination by protected class

Non

-Ent

itlem

ent

Juris

dict

ions

Rac

e

Rel

igio

n

Dis

abili

ty

Gen

der

Col

or

Fam

ilial

Sta

tus

Nat

iona

l Orig

in

Abi

lity

to S

peak

En

glis

h

Sexu

al

Orie

ntat

ion

Not

aw

are

of

any

inci

dent

s

Tota

l

% o

f Tot

al

Allegany 1 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 6 15 17%

Caroline 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 11 13%

Carroll 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 7%

Cecil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 6%

Charles 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3%

Calvert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 5%

Dorchester 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 7%

Frederick 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 8 9%

Garrett 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3%

Kent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3%

St. Mary's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3%

Somerset 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1%

Talbot 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 5 6%

Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 6%

Wicomico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 8%

Worcester 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3%

Sub-Total 5 0 4 1 3 3 2 3 1 56 88 100%Entitlement Jurisdictions

Anne Arundel 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 10 11%

Baltimore City 4 1 10 0 0 0 1 2 1 19 39 41%

Baltimore County 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 9 10%

Harford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1%

Howard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3%

Montgomery 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 13 19 20%

103

DHCD also gave respondents the opportunity to comment on other incidents of discrimination of protected classes not identified in the survey. As noted their responses below, most non-entitlement jurisdictions responded that they did not have any knowledge or experiences of discrimination in their jurisdictions, while most entitlement jurisdictions indicated that sources of income has been a discriminatory practice in their communities.

OTHER, PLEASE SPECIFY:

COMMENTS IN NON-ENTITLEMENT AREAS COUNTY RESPONSE Caroline: Not in my organization or contacts Carroll: Don’t know of discrimination Cecil: Not aware of any You forgot to put NO as an option Calvert: Not Aware Dorchester: No incidents that we are aware of Frederick: Section 8 voucher Wicomico: Not aware of any incidents Disability, family status, limited English Worcester: Not aware of any Some respondents in the entitlement areas of Baltimore City, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s Counties responded that “sources of income” has been a discriminatory practice in their communities

COMMENTS IN ENTITLEMENT AREAS

COUNTY RESPONSE Anne Arundel: Credit reviews with rentals Baltimore city: Source of income Howard: Income source Montgomery: Source of income Prince George’s: Low income Income source

104

Contrary to respondents’ answers to the question involving “incidents of discrimination” the majority of all respondents reported that they were not aware of anyone in their community experiencing such issues in neither non-entitlement nor entitlement jurisdictions (see graph below represented by the number of respondents).

Chart 6

Table 35 further illustrates similarities in responses of participants by jurisdiction. Of the 115 responses in the not aware category, non-entitlement communities represent 59 or 51 percent and entitlement communities correspond to 56 or 49 percent of those are not familiar with anyone facing housing discrimination.

TABLE 35. ANYONE EXPERIENCING DISCRIMINATION BY NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS Non-

Entitlement Jurisdictions Qa Qb Qc Qd Qe Qf Qg Qh Qi Total

% of Sub-Total

Allegany 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 5 1 11 13%Caroline 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 0 8 10%Carroll 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 7 9%Cecil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 6%Charles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1%Calvert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 5%Dorchester 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 7 9%Frederick 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 0 8 10%Garrett 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 4%Kent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 4%

105

TABLE 35. ANYONE EXPERIENCING DISCRIMINATION BY NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS Non-

Entitlement % of Jurisdictions Qa Qb Qc Qd Qe Qf Qg Qh Qi Total Sub-Total

St. Mary's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 4%Somerset 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1%Talbot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 4%Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 6%Wicomico 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 8 10%Worcester 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 4%Sub-Total 3 1 0 4 1 1 6 59 5 80 100.0%Entitlement Jurisdictions Anne Arundel 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 7 7%Baltimore City 5 1 3 4 5 4 3 21 2 48 49%Baltimore County 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 6 0 9 9%Harford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1%Howard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3%Montgomery 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 12 1 17 18%Prince George's 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 9 0 13 13%Sub-Total 8 1 3 6 9 6 5 56 4 98 100.0%Total Responses 11 2 3 10 10 7 11 115 9 178

Key: Qa: Housing provider, lender or insurance agency refused to rent, sell or deal with a person. Qb: Housing provider falsely denied housing was available. Qc: Read or head discriminatory advertising. Qd: Person was treated differently in the terms of conditions of sale or rental occupancy. Qe: Discrimination in the terms and conditions of home mortgages. Qf: Person was directed to certain neighborhoods by housing providers or lenders. Qg: Persons denied reasonable living accommodations. Qh: Not Aware Qi: Other experience, please specify.

BARRIERS TO FAIR HOUSING

Section Three below involves barriers to fair housing, and seeks feedback from respondents that measure the degree to which fair housing obstacles prohibit persons from obtaining housing in their communities. The ratings were measured using a likert scale ranging from not a barrier, moderate barriers, to severe barriers, and don’t know, for each statement in a construct. This section contains three constructs which measure possible barriers in the areas of (1) fair housing, (2) land use and zoning, and (3) knowledge and awareness. Each construct is displayed in Charts 7, 8 and 9, respectively. An examination of the following fair housing construct revealed the most highly rated patterns as follows (Chart 7):

106

Concentration of affordable housing in certain geographic areas When comparing responses to the statement involving the geographic concentration of affordable housing, 31 percent of all respondents indicated that moderate barriers exist and 26 percent reported having no barriers in their communities. Discrimination in credit and lending practices When comparing responses to the statement involving discrimination in credit and lending practices, 28 percent of all respondents indicated that no barriers to fair housing exist, and 24 percent reported that they do not know whether or not barriers to credit and lending practices exist in their communities. Lack of real estate representation by persons of differing races, ethnicities, disabilities, gender, and sexual orientation. When comparing responses to the statement involving lack of real estate representation by persons of protected classes, nearly half of all responses were between the minor and moderate categories. These categories present the largest share of responses combined equivalent to 46 percent – 23 percent in each category. Additionally, 29 percent of all survey participants reported that there is not a barrier – representing the largest share of single responses to this statement. Lack of housing information translated in other languages When comparing responses to the statement involving lack of housing information translated in other languages, over half the respondents reported that either minor or moderate barriers exist (51 percent). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The following patterns emerged when examining all four statements in the fair housing construct: Not a Barrier to Minor Barriers According to survey responses, on average, fair housing barriers are least likely to exist involving the lack of real estate representation by persons of protected classes and discrimination in credit and lending practices. Some respondents report that the lack of real estate representation by persons of protected class as well as the lack of housing information translated in other languages is considered minor barriers in their communities. Moderate to Severe Barriers When comparing all statements in the construct, the most highly rated moderate barrier exists in the concentration of affordable housing in certain geographic areas. Some note that that the most severe barriers to fair housing also exists in the concentration of affordable housing in certain geographic areas, while the least severe incidents relate to the lack of real estate representation by persons of protected class. The least likely barriers involve discrimination in credit and lending practices.

107

Don’t Know Of all “don’t know” responses in the fair housing construct, most respondents did not know whether or not there is discrimination in credit and lending practices in their communities.

FAIR HOUSING CONSTRUCT, ALL RESPONDENTS BY PERCENT OF TOTAL

Chart 7

An examination of the land use and zoning construct below revealed the most highly rated patterns as follows (Chart 8): Limitations on density of housing When comparing responses to the statement involving limitations on density of housing, 29 percent of all respondents indicated that moderate barriers exist, and 23 percent reported having experienced no barriers to housing density in their communities. Lack of adequate zoning for manufactured housing When comparing responses to the statement involving lack of adequate zoning for manufactured housing, 31 percent of all respondents indicated that they did not know whether or not there is adequate zoning, and 22 percent reported that no barriers exist in their communities. Restrictive covenants by builders, developers, and/or homeowners’ associations.

108

A fairly equal share of responses were received involving restrictive covenants by select housing organizations. Twenty six percent of all participants reported that they did not know whether or not restrictive covenants are barriers in their communities – the largest share of responses in a single category. Other responses were fairly equally divided between no barriers, minor barriers, and moderate barriers (24 percent, 24 percent, and 20 percent, respectively). Limitations on housing for people with disabilities When comparing responses involving limitations on housing for people with disabilities, nearly half the respondents (46 percent) indicated that both moderate and minor barriers exist – 24 percent and 22 percent combined, respectively. Twenty three percent of all respondents reported that no barriers exist regarding housing limitations for people with disabilities. Limitations on housing for people with low income When comparing responses involving limitations on housing for people with low income, 29 percent of all respondents reported that severe barriers exist. Over half (51 percent) of all responses were between moderate and severe – representing the largest share of reported answers. Additionally, a fairly equal share of respondents noted that either minor barriers exist (20 percent) or no barriers exist for people with low income (19 percent). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The following patterns emerged when examining all five statements across the land use and zoning construct: Not a Barrier to Minor Barriers According to survey responses, a fairly equal distribution of responses emerged in the category, “no barriers” to land use and zoning across all statements in the construct. Therefore, no single pattern stood out in this category. Minor barriers were most prevalent in the restrictive covenants, limitations on housing for people with disabilities, and housing for people with low income categories. Moderate to Severe Barriers When comparing all statements in the construct, the most highly rated responses to moderate barriers involved limitations on density of housing; the least of which affects zoning for manufactured housing. Notably, moderate barriers tend to exist more frequently in all areas across the rating scale than they do with any other rating measures. The most severe barriers to land use and zoning exists concerning limitations on housing for people with low income. The least severe barriers in this construct involve restrictive covenants by builders, developers, and/or homeowners’ associations. These patterns perhaps suggest that greater attention should be dedicated to addressing overall land use and zoning as it relates to fair housing practices. Don’t Know Of all “don’t know” responses in the land use and zoning construct, most respondents did not know whether or not there is a lack of adequate zoning for manufactured housing in their communities.

109

LAND USE AND ZONING CONSTRUCT, ALL RESPONDENTS BY PERCENT OF TOTAL

Chart 8

An examination of levels of knowledge and awareness revealed the most highly rated patterns as follows (Chart 9): Residents When comparing responses on the knowledge of residents concerning fair housing laws, the majority (65 percent) indicated that they are somewhat aware. Large property landlords and/or property managers When comparing responses on large property landlords and managers concerning fair housing laws, the majority of all respondents (61 percent) reported that they are very aware of fair housing laws in their communities. Small property landlords When comparing responses on small property landlords, more than half (59 percent) indicated that they are somewhat aware of fair housing laws in their communities. The remaining share of all responses represented a fairly equal distribution between “not aware” and “don’t know.”

110

Real Estate Agents When comparing responses on real estate agents, more than half (51 percent) of all respondents indicated that they are very aware of fair housing laws in their communities. The remaining share represented a fairly equal distribution between “somewhat aware” and “don’t know.” Bankers and Lenders When comparing responses on bankers and lenders, nearly half (49 percent) of all respondents indicated that they are very aware of fair housing laws. Twenty four percent noted that they are somewhat aware, 22 percent did not know whether or not bankers and lenders are knowledgeable or aware, and 5 percent responded that they are not aware of fair housing laws in their communities. Insurance Industry Representatives When comparing responses concerning insurance representatives, a fairly equal rating emerged between somewhat aware, very aware, and don’t know. Appraisers When comparing the ratings on appraisers and their level of knowledge and awareness, more than half (55 percent) of all respondents claimed that they are between somewhat aware and very aware of fair housing laws in their communities. Approximately one-third (36 percent) cited that they did not know whether or not appraisers are knowledgeable on this subject. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The following patterns emerged when examining all seven statements across the knowledge and awareness construct: Not Aware to Somewhat Aware Most survey participants selected small property landlords as the least aware (not aware) of fair housing laws in their communities when compared to other industry representatives in the construct. However, this finding represents a small portion of the overall responses. It must be noted that the majority of small property owners are also likely to be somewhat aware of such laws overall. Somewhat Aware to Very Aware Residents represented the largest share of candidates that are somewhat aware of fair housing laws, while large property owners and property managers were considered very aware when compared to all representatives in this grouping. Don’t Know Of all “don’t know” responses in the knowledge construct, most respondents indicated that they did not know whether or not appraisers, and to a smaller extent, insurance industry representatives are knowledgeable on the subject.

111

The above patterns perhaps suggest that most industry representatives believe that they are knowledgeable and aware of fair housing laws in their communities. Patterns show that respondents were uncertain whether or not appraisers and insurance industry representatives are knowledgeable on the subject. Generally, this finding may mean that fewer survey participants were either appraisers or insurance representatives; therefore, limiting their input to the survey or more testing may be needed to determine the extent to which these groups are knowledgeable and aware of fair housing laws. FAIR HOUSING SOLUTIONS Section Four, Fair Housing Solutions, elicits feedback from respondents’ to determine ways in which fair housing practices can be enhanced to better serve the needs of individuals and families of protected classes. The questions seek to identify areas of concern, organizations best suited to handle identified problems, as well as request suggested ways to fill gaps in service provision. When asked, “have you ever assisted a client with filing a housing discrimination complaint in your community?” the majority of all respondents reported having never assisted clients with filing a housing discrimination complaint (130 of 146 responses, 89 percent). In fact, most respondents, 86.5 percent, claimed that a government entity would be most helpful in dealing with housing discrimination complaints. Federal, state, county, city or the court system were selected choices. Of all choices, about one-third of respondents indicated that county or city governments would be the most helpful in addressing housing complaints. The remaining 20 respondents or 14 percent reported that other entities, apart from governmental organizations, would be best in addressing complaints. They include independent nonprofit organizations that specialize in mitigation or fair housing issues like Baltimore Neighborhoods Incorporated; private advocacy groups or independent unbiased panels with authority to manage and resolve housing complaints; as well as community action councils, or legal aid societies. Some respondents suggested federal entities including HUD’s Fair Housing offices, and state governments as it relates to local laws. Additional suggestions include the ACLU and the Human Rights Commission as most helpful in addressing complaints.

112

KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS CONSTRUCT, ALL RESPONDENTS BY PERCENT OF TOTAL

Chart 9

When asked, “What do you think are the reasons people do not report incidents of housing discrimination?” the most selected choice was due to lack of knowledge (66 percent). Some respondents elected to offer the following explanations for such patterns:

• Apathy and acceptance as status quo • Time and energy required to go through the reporting process • A combination of fear lack of knowledge and support • No follow up • Infrequency of the occurrence which causes people to dismiss the incident • No local authority to resolve issues • Busy with personal housing crisis and feelings of hopelessness • Belief that nothing will be done • Lack of knowledge of rights

Additionally, 27 percent of survey participants indicated that they didn’t know why people do not report incidents of discrimination, but an equal share (26 percent) reported that fear plays a role in such behaviors. Participants were asked to select all choices that apply; therefore, sum will not round to 100 percent of total. Activities are taking place to help educate the public regarding their fair housing rights. Survey results show that education occurs in various ways; including outreach activities, workshops,

113

seminars, and training. Respondents commented that information is disseminated using many advertising vehicles, including print media such as brochures, surveys, newspaper articles and newsletters, door-to-door canvassing with native speakers, internet, mail, television, radio ads, and other written literature. Despite the current methods to educate the public about their fair housing rights, nearly half of survey respondents (45 percent) indicated that the best way of communicating with people in their organizations regarding fair housing is by holding workshops and seminars. Other most selected choices are the internet (29 percent) – specifically the HUD website – local government information sources (26 percent) and conducting training sessions (26 percent). The least effective ways of communicating with people are libraries and direct mailing. In some instances, language barriers prohibit knowledge development and information sharing when reporting housing complaints. According to 71 percent of survey participants, their agencies take reasonable steps to ensure that limited English proficiency (LEP) services are available to the community, specifically non-English speaking individuals. They have translators or interpreters on staff, provide multi-language print materials, partner with local colleges and universities, municipal government support services, and local realtor associations. Technological advancements have enabled organizations to enhance LEP services by installing bilingual telephone services and language lines, as well as offering on-site ESOL classes. Twenty nine percent remarked that they do not take reasonable steps to address LEP for the community – equivalent to 43 individuals or agencies. As Table 36 notes, towns and municipalities, nonprofit organizations, as well as real estate agencies are the least likely to have LEP services.

TABLE 36. LEP SERVICES BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION “No” as a Response Number Town or Municipality 13Non-profit organization 12Real Estate Agency 10Housing Agency 1Local Government 6Private or Independent Contractor 1Total 43

When asked, “What efforts have been made by your jurisdiction, businesses, and other entities to create housing opportunities for lower income citizens?” As shown in Chart 9 below, survey respondents provided the following feedback:

114

EXISTING PRACTICES OFFERED BY RESPONDENTS

35, 24%

29, 20%

28, 19%12, 8%

11, 7%

11, 7%

9, 6%

7, 5%

6, 4%

Aggressive Citizen & CommunityPartnershipsNot Sure or Don't Know

Education

Ordinances

Local Government Support

Little to no efforts have been made

Utilization of Existing Funding Programs

Other

Production of Affordable Housing

Chart 9

115

RESPONSE PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS

• Administration of rental housing programs for low income citizens • Gateway Crossing • Build, acquire and rehabilitate properties for affordable rental and homeownership • We currently have a project that will add 9 houses for low-mod income families • The Town of Union Bridge built a lower income elderly housing complex through funding

from the Maryland Housing and Community Development • We insure that all new housing developments include a certain percentage of affordable

single family dwelling for the low to moderate income families • A group of housing providers meet regularly to update on available services/projects that

provide opportunity in both rental and homeownership • Housing Development Partnerships – Maintaining Current Low-Income Housing with

Rehabilitation work • Construction of moderate income apartment buildings • Development • Better houses • Development & management of low-moderate income housing • We develop affordable housing in the area • development of affordable senior housing, but lack of affordable rental development for

families in this area • Supported low income multi family and senior property development • We develop affordable housing for all • Develop and manage LIHTC housing • Various programs such as Section 8, HOME Program, and CDBG • Section 42 developments which accommodate Section 8 recipients • Increased level of development and rehab of affordable housing • HOPE VI • We have sold three properties to low income families. We just settled on our first Section

8 homeowner. In the spring we will be building 9 low/mod income townhomes • Development of Section 42 housing • Tax Credit Housing • Montgomery County Housing Loan Programs for Transitional Housing and Section 42

Housing. • Our firm builds affordable housing in partnership with the local housing authority • Making vacant housing available for new low income residents • Maryland CDA has sponsored many tax credit properties • Public and subsidized housing, transitional housing • Construction of new housing/rehab of existing housing • Developing more affordable housing • I am aware of many developers and non profits attempting to develop affordable

housing. See comment on 21 as a way to assist • Building a Senior Housing Complex • Our organization has preserved over 1,000 units of affordable housing in Baltimore over

the past 7 years. In recent years the jurisdictional help for creating affordable housing opportunities has greatly diminished

• Purchasing blighted complexes and offering them up for redevelopment

116

ORDINANCES

• Zoning rules/regulations are being modified to encourage development of affordable housing

• Creating zoning regulations to allow for dense residential uses • We have a Housing Authority. Town approved zoning to allow apartments on 2nd floors

of commercial structures • A Planned Neighborhood overlay district ordinance was adopted by the Town Council.

This type of neighborhood includes all components from commercial to all types of residential

• We have an active Housing Rehabilitation Program. Formed an Affordable Housing Task Force. Local Management Board has a Homelessness Committee which addresses housing opportunities. Zoning Code amendments have enabled placement of manufactured housing on more lots

• Improving zoning opportunities for affordable housing • MPDU program • HOPE VI

MPDU ORDINANCE • There is inclusionary zoning laws and a housing trust fund • Creation of the MPDU program and new construction density laws • Mandatory IZ & MPDU Programs

UTILIZATION OF EXISTING FUNDING SOURCES

• Applying for low income housing tax credits to support development of affordable housing for low income persons

• Have applied for new grants to gain funding to assist low income persons with housing • administration of homeownership and settlement expense assistance programs for low

income persons • Maryland state participation in the issuance of Tax Exempt Bonds for rehabilitation of

existing affordable housing has created housing opportunities for lower income citizens • We are a developer based in MD and think that the LIHTC program works well to assist

others • Efforts are pretty much limited to taking applications for HOME funds • Low Income Housing Tax Credits • The LIHTC program • State and federal applications to expand housing assistance programs, especially for

disabled population • We have applied for, and received, Community Development Block Grants for affordable

housing and housing rehab • DHCD partnerships via the CDBG program • Apply for all opportunities through NOFAs, County Commissioners created Housing

Initiative Fund to expand affordable housing • Low income housing tax credit program • We develop affordable housing using, LIHTC and Federal and State historic tax credits • Housing Initiative Fund - local housing trust fund to create and preserve affordable

housing

117

• Our HCD gives a priority and HOME funding to developers who agree to set aside housing for persons with disabilities

• Financial support • Offering low interest financing for the production of such housing • tax credit funding • Apply for State and Federal funding opportunities, creation of local Housing Initiative

Fund (now suspended due to budgetary woes); apply for any and all housing stimulus funds

• Neighborhood Stabilization Program, SELP Funds, Down Payment assistance • Neighborhood Stabilization P Funding • We build affordable housing and endure multiple levels of approvals and funding with

low financial rewards. • Federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program, and the Section 8 Homeownership

Program • Made funding available for development of mid to low income residents • Financing affordable housing • DHCD provides down payment and closing cost assistance and provides financing for

multifamily rental projects through the HOME program. DHCD also provides funding to nonprofit affordable housing providers who acquire, rehabilitate and sell single family homes to low and moderate income persons

• Support using bonds and HOME funds for new affordable housing OTHER

• The entire area of Grantsville Garrett County is loaded with low income housing. In fact in my opinion we have too many low income housing areas. Residents should be required to have random drug testing before they can remain in these facilities. Their money goes to drugs and not paying for the necessities. If they can afford drugs they should be forced to pay regular prices for housing.

• Fair Housing Plan • The Town of Federalsburg is 59.1% lower and median income community. There is a lot

of housing not just in complexes in the town • Pilot agreements • As a part of the Comp Plan, we engage all types of housing choices for community

residents. The County provides programs i.e. payment-in lieu of taxes for certain projects that will provide housing opportunities to low-mod income citizens.

• Annual updates to our Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan • Governments are too small to have their own housing developments, and concentrate

on supporting the efforts of non-profits such as Interfaith Housing Development Corp. in Denton

• Our entire mission and effort is dedicated to this effort • This is our daily business. Funding, encouraging, supporting, building, providing land,

etc. • A great many efforts, but has resulted in a severe concentration of poverty. • Financing, Land use policies, and Workforce Housing Plan • I am an affordable housing developer I could go on forever • loan programs, rental subsidy, housing counseling • Continuous work by Real Estate Agents to find homes for these citizens who are

currently renting, and perhaps, are not aware that they could become owners

118

• The economy is taking care of this problem • As a Low Income Housing Provider, Fair Housing is very important to us. • Our organization builds and manages 16,000 units of affordable housing for the elderly,

families and special needs individuals • We preserve affordable housing • There is a consolidated plan in place and being updated now. I do not have time to

describe specifics, but it is publicly accessible information, so those who are working on this project can read it.

• None. It is entirely up to developers • The City of Annapolis has the largest number of public housing developments for a

community of its size in the country • Support of housing developments • Preservation efforts to retain existing housing • We are a PHA serving low income families • adoption of County strategic workforce housing plan and Comprehensive Plan • We have local government support for our affordable projects • Extensive outreach to community to advertise available programs • Administration of home repair and home replacement programs for low income

homeowners • Responsible lending practices determine everyone's ability to afford housing. Housing

costs in our area reasonably priced CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

• The answer to #13 is that the citizen groups are represented • The local Community Action Agency has made it a part of their mission to provide

income subsidized housing in all areas of the county • Partnership with local organizations resulted in the construction of homes for those with

lower incomes • Partnered with developers to provide low to moderate income housing • We have a landlord association and good relationship with landlords for the section 8

program • Partnerships have been formed to acquire and develop new and redevelop existing

housing communities, as well partnerships have been formed to develop finance tools to expand affordable housing opportunities

LITTLE TO NO EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE

• None that I know of • None - however that is only because there is no "unused" property in our town. • Very little • I am not aware of any efforts • Recent efforts in this jurisdiction are very limited. Land cost make it prohibitive to

establish housing opportunities for low income citizens, forcing them to leave their community or to live in situations that are crowded and or substandard

• None • None. It is entirely up to developers • None that I am aware of

119

• Nothing for very low income people. Lower middle class people have benefitted from some construction using State funds and LIHTCs

• Very little has been done. The emphasis is more on workforce housing or elderly housing. Workforce housing is for citizens with higher incomes than our clients. This county has too great an emphasis on home ownership and not enough on rental housing. Yet the very low and most low income people cannot afford to be homeowners. This emphasis continues even after the housing bubble burst

• None • Very few opportunities because funding is very limited

When asked, “What do you think would improve fair housing in your community?” As shown in Chart 10, survey participants suggested a variety of tools to advance fair housing practices.

SUGGESTIONS OFFERED BY RESPONDENTS

56, 39%

27, 18%15, 10%

8, 5%

9, 6%

5, 3%

6, 4%

13, 9%9, 6%

Better Education

Other

More Affordable andAccessible HousingMore Funding

Not Sure

Nothing should be done

Ordinances

Marketing and Outreach

No Suggestions or Response

Chart 10

SURVEY RESPONSES MARKETING AND OUTREACH

• Media campaign to educate public about their rights • Awareness, aggressive marketing of opportunities • TV announcements • Outreach to the community • Community outreach and education • Mass mail distribution

120

• mass mailing • Community outreach and education • TV and radio ads • Outreach • Flyers/billboards • Outreach • More advertisement. assist concerned parties with options available

MORE AFFORDABLE AND/OR ACCESSIBLE HOUSING

• More affordable structures and limited advertisement on those for sale stating that we are located 20 minutes from Deep Creek Lake. This only drives property costs up and your average person cannot afford a $200,000.00 home

• More rental assistance and closing cost assistance • More housing • More houses • Perhaps more accessible units and 1 bedroom units • Increase affordable housing--easier laws to develop • Greater supply of affordable units • More affordable housing. • More affordable housing A requirement that state and federal funds for housing be

distributed to provide more affordable housing throughout all areas of the county including higher income areas and that their be a more balanced approach that reflects the need for affordable housing for families through the maintenance of existing rental units and the construction of more rental units that rent at an affordable rate. Also, education of landlords about their obligations under FHA and ADA.

• More housing for lower and moderate income families and individuals. • Better administration of the housing voucher program • Improvement of training & monitoring property management staff • Increased availability of affordable housing • More affordable housing • Have moderately-price units and more small rental units available...much of the housing

stock requires too high an income given average income in the area ORDINANCES

• Mandates • Less restrictive zoning and adequate public facilities ordinances • Regulatory reform • A local or statewide ordinance prohibiting discrimination in rental housing on the basis of

source of income, such as a Section 8 voucher • More and stronger Federal legislation • A law prohibiting source of income discrimination; a real commitment to identifying and

correcting the barriers to affordable, accessible, adequately located, habitable housing EDUCATION

• Public Fair Housing Seminars provided by Housing Agencies directly on the communities would provide residents with a better understanding of their rights, and the rights of their neighbors

121

• More training by the state • Education • continued education • Increased awareness of what is discrimination in housing • Expand the Town's ability to provide information on fair housing laws • Continued education for consumers • Education and increasing available low-to mod rental units • Education • Public education • Knowledge • Seminars for landlords and real estate agents • Education • Better education • More education - consider the school system as a vehicle • Seminars using HUD/State best practices • Education of people that live in the community. Affordable resources made available to

assist them to deal with fair housing issues • Continued attention to fair housing issues • More education and training • Information to residents • Education of housing professionals • Knowledgeable enforcement • More information sent to residents • Community education, incentives to local jurisdictions to create housing options for low

and moderate income citizens, improved public transportation efforts • Broadening community acceptance of housing servicing different socio-economic groups • More knowledge of real estate professionals throughout seminars, workshops and

required continuing professional education requirements as well as trainings/seminars and workshops for residents

• Provide resources and counseling to enable residents to move to areas of higher opportunity in the surrounding metropolitan counties

• Increase awareness • Aggressive education of residents with respect to the law of fair housing • Education to all and more low/mod income housing • Expanded outreach and education (e.g. town hall meeting series on affordable housing) • Awareness - creation of affordable units - there are so few • More education • Community housing fairs • Education • Continuing awareness through education via all media outlets, seminars, etc. through

F.C. Human Relations Department • Education and legal consequences for non-compliance • Education • Education • Eradicate NIMBY-ism • Awareness on the part of private landlords • Education • More information

122

• Additional training • More testing, more seminars to property managers • Additional training efforts for all persons working in housing • Public education, easier access to enforcement • Education and enforcement • More awareness by public • Create an education campaign for property owners to increase the knowledge about fair

housing laws through workshops and seminars • More of #19 • Fair Housing Training • Training • Housing Training • Educational • Additional education

NOT SURE OR DON’T KNOW

• Not sure • Not certain there is much room for improvement • Do not know • Not sure • Don't know • Don't know • Do not know • Not Sure • Don't know

OTHER

• Economic upturn • Yes, there is always to improve • The real estate agents and housing complexes continue to inform renters of their rights

when renting. The Town of Federalsburg has just passed and now has a livability code for rental housing and is activity enforcing this new law

• An unbiased survey • The assessments values lowered on residential properties which would lower market

values • More well managed, well maintained rental projects, development of affordable rental

housing • Improve existing housing stock • Communications with landlords having more than 3 rental units • Enforcement • Time • With the economy in the condition it is in, I would believe a temporary cap on rents and

utilities that will not accrue interest or cause further hardship. This should also be extended to families with less than $50,000 per year in income

• Leadership

123

• Fair housing is clearly important and we certainly need to insure it is adequately provided, but I believe we have so over regulated in this area we have actually undermined the very cause we are attempting to advance

• Working with property managers' association • Can't think of anything specific • Unknown, as we are a national organization and the survey appeared to only allow us to

respond as if we are from one community • Do not allow landlords to discriminate against people whose income source is disability

assistance • Taskforce • Stronger enforcement • Joint outreach between Mortgage Bankers and county government on Fair Housing

issues • The lack of moderately-priced housing, rather than discrimination based on one of the

protected classifications, is the problem in Annapolis • Providing more housing opportunities for low income residents, and ensuring that

applicants for housing are treated with dignity and respect • Greater supply • Politicians to wake up and smell the roses and stop looking for what’s in it for them • Universal acceptance of Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers • Increase availability of greater densities near town centers and public transportation

centers • Can not answer at this time. This is the first development here and it is not under

construction at this time NO SUGGESTIONS OR RESPONSE

• No suggestions • No suggestions • No additional suggestions at this time • No suggestions • No additional suggestions • None • None • No suggestions • No suggestions • No suggestions

MORE FUNDING

• More funds available. • More funds for affordable housing • increase in available funding for affordable housing • Funding support, both for administration and for projects, from the State and Federal

level, for effective non-profits such as Interfaith Housing Development Corp • Creating incentives for smaller more affordable housing options • more money for development of new stock or rehab of existing • More money • Increased Section 8 funding

124

• Increased funding NOTHING SHOULD BE DONE

• Nothing needs to be done. It is fair already • We are doing ok • I do not see a problem, we have a diverse community • It is OK. • It seems good

Conclusions

Survey participants were asked to respond to 21 questions, using Zoomerang, an online survey software system that captured and tabulated responses. Participants provided feedback which included background information on their agencies, discrimination in their communities and fair housing solutions. With the exception of Queen Anne’s County, all of the state’s jurisdictions were represented in the survey. In fact, 76 respondents primarily operate in entitlement areas while 72 respondents represent non-entitlement jurisdictions. Most respondents were not aware of any incidents of housing discrimination in their communities in relation to protected class. However, of all protected class categories, disability was the most frequently selected issue across the state as a whole. Fair housing, land use and zoning, and knowledge and awareness factors were measured to determine the extent to which barriers to fair housing prohibit persons from obtaining housing in their communities. The most highly rated responses revealed that the concentration of affordable housing in certain geographic areas were at moderate and severe levels. The least severe cases relate to the lack of real estate representation by persons of protected class, and discrimination in credit and lending practices. When comparing all statements in the land use and zoning construct, the most highly rated responses revealed that severe barriers involve limitations on housing for people with low income. The least severe barriers involve restrictive covenants by builders, developers, and/or homeowners’ associations. When comparing all statements in the knowledge and awareness construct, the most highly rated responses revealed that residents are somewhat aware of fair housing laws, while large property owners and property managers were considered very aware when compared to all representatives in this grouping. Finally, the survey elicits feedback from respondents’ to determine ways in which fair housing practices can be enhanced to better serve the needs of individuals and families of protected classes. When asked, “What efforts have been made by your jurisdiction, businesses, and other entities to create housing opportunities for lower income citizens?” Respondents indicated that evidence of their commitment to creating housing opportunities was demonstrated in the actual production of affordable housing in their respective communities. When asked,” what do you think would improve fair housing in your community?” the most frequently suggested option is to provide better education options to those in the housing industry and to individuals impacted by housing discrimination.

125

Fair Housing Action Plan Strategies to Overcome Impediments

The extensive data review contained in this report revealed important information about efforts DHCD has and should undertake to address fair housing choice. Analyses revealed the following patterns: Census data shows little difference in housing need based on race or ethnicity. Compared to findings in the State’s 1996 Analysis of Impediments study, the number of both racial and low-income concentrations in the State is falling. Further examination of the 1996 AI Plan was conducted to determine the extent to which previously identified impediments had been addressed. The majority of identified impediments have been rectified by either DHCD alone or in collaboration with other agencies. Table 38 details a new 2010 AI Action Plan and provides ways to overcome impediments to fair housing. The 2010 Plan shows current findings and outlines strategies, timelines, and actions to address our findings. Additionally, analysis showed increased concern about fair housing provisions for individuals with disabilities. Most respondents to the fair housing online survey were also concerned with incidents of discrimination for people with disabilities. Other key findings from the survey revealed the majority of participants citing a need for better education as a strategy to improving fair housing in their communities. Lastly, there are some significant data gaps that may indicate problems regarding fair housing choice, but are difficult to determine. Despite success in carrying out most fair housing activities, the State found areas requiring greater attention in providing fair housing choice. They include: 1) improving fair housing education efforts, 2) increasing efforts to assist persons of Limited English Proficiency, 3) ensuring that persons with disabilities have expanded fair housing choice, 4) strengthening federal laws regarding lending practices to make it easier to determine whether or not discrimination in lending exists, and 5) increasing the amount of affordable and accessible housing availability to low income populations. Education: Analyses showed both a need and a demand for fair housing education. As noted earlier in the beneficiary analysis of persons served by DHCD programs, some program managers were unfamiliar with how to classify households assisted by race or ethnicity. Moreover, over one-third of all respondents to the fair housing survey noted that housing industry representatives and residents alike could benefit from better fair housing education. Some suggestions included educational workshops, seminars, increased testing, and training involving fair housing rights and responsibilities. Specific actions DHCD will undertake to address educational needs include, but may not be limited to, the following:

Fair Housing Conferences and Community Housing Fairs Fair Housing Education through public fair housing seminars and town hall meetings Fair Housing Outreach by increasing marketing efforts statewide, conducting training

sessions Direct focus should be dedicated to providing education on subjects including residents’ rights, creating ways to eradicate not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY), seminars for landlords and real estate

126

agents, fair housing enforcement, and increasing a general awareness about fair housing issues (see survey analysis section for a detailed list of respondents’ suggestions). Limited English Proficiency: Although most households of LEP reside in entitlement areas, the Department feels that outreach efforts need to be undertaken to ensure that all households across the State are aware of housing choice options available to them. Specific Actions that DHCD will undertake to address persons of LEP include:

Adding an “En Espanol” link to DHCD’s website to lead persons who are primarily Spanish speakers to MD Housing Search and information on foreclosure prevention efforts.

Translating MMP brochures and information into Spanish, and providing links to this information on our website as documents are translated.

Continuing outreach efforts through Spanish language radio, television, and newspapers (other languages where possible).

Working with the Department of Human Resources (DHR) in developing its Plan(s) for helping persons of LEP as per State law. DHR is responsible for providing central coordination and technical assistance to State agencies to ensure compliance with State law regarding persons of LEP.

Fair Housing Choice for Persons With Disabilities The 1996 AI study prepared by DHCD had little discussion about the needs of persons with disabilities and fair housing choice. Despite limited emphasis on the subject, DHCD has adopted numerous policies and regulations that have improved fair housing choice for disabled persons, running the full spectrum of housing options. That includes operating the Homeownership for Persons With Disabilities Program, providing bonus points under the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) for projects that provide housing for persons with disabilities, operating the Bridge Subsidy program which provides rental assistance to disabled households as they await Section 8 assistance, and providing housing opportunities for severely disabled persons through programs such as our Group Home and Special Housing Opportunities Programs. However, there are opportunities that the State will pursue in addition to these efforts: The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) and DHCD collaborated on the State Disabilities Plan for fiscal year 2010 – 2014, and developed a series of goals that they will pursue to create approximately 1,800 new housing opportunities for identified priority populations with SPMI or a developmental disability. If DHMH is successful in generating these housing opportunities, and the opportunities are targeted to priority populations, it is expected that the Mental Health Association (MHA) and the Development Disabilities Administration of Maryland (DDA) will make significant advances in achieving their desired outcomes. A total of 1,543 rent subsidies are needed to meet the proposed targets. Resources listed in Table 37 will be pursued to provide 1,800 rent subsidies for supportive housing over the next five years: Although Maryland has tens of thousands of people with disabilities who need assistance with housing costs, this plan addresses only those with serious and persistent mental illness (SPMI) or a developmental disability. The strategies the State will focus on include:

127

• Generating additional rent subsidies during FY 2010-2014 primarily using HUD resources;

• Continuing to expand the production of affordable units and the use of existing affordable housing units.

• Targeting additional rent subsidies to the highest priority target populations served by the Mental Hygiene Administration (MHA) and by the Developmental Disabilities Administration.

• Strengthening planning and advocacy efforts at the local, state, and federal levels and with the private sector to increase affordable housing opportunities.

Table 37. Rent Subsidies for Supportive Housing: 2010-2014

Potential Resources FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Total

HUD Project-Based Vouchers -Baltimore City 60 60 60 60 60 300

HUD Mainstream Vouchers 30 30 30 30 30 150

HUD Shelter-Plus-Care 30 30 30 30 30 150

HUD 811 38 40 40 40 40 198

DDA Money Follows the Person 25 25 25 0 0 75

New GF Dual Diagnosis 40 0 0 0 0 40

Redirect GF MHA institutions 0 0 24 0 0 24

Redirect Housing Stipend - General RRP beds 25 25 25 25 36 126

Section 811 PRAC 50 50 50 0 0 150

Statutory Change Community Trust Fund MHA and DDA 0 30 30 30 30 120

New GF Rental Assistance Initiative 250 250 500

Total 308 300 324 475 476 1,833

In addition to the efforts noted above:

• DHCD and DHMH will continue efforts to combine Community Bond Program funding

with DHCD funding programs, including the Partnership Rental Housing Program, to provide housing opportunities for persons with disabilities. Baltimore City has committed to provide 300 project-based Section 8 Vouchers over five years under the Bailey Consent Decree for rental assistance to these 300 individuals. DHCD and DHMH will seek to combine funds from the Community Bond Program with Partnership Rental Housing Program funds and other private funds to assist in acquiring 300 affordable units in Baltimore City for homeless individuals with SPMI.

• DHCD and DHMH will pursue replication of the Montgomery County Seneca House model in at least one additional large jurisdiction such as Baltimore City, Prince George’s County, or Baltimore County.

128

• DHCD will continue to enforce its QAP incentives for housing for people with disabilities. The goal is to target 5 percent of the housing financed by DHCD to people with disabilities, including individuals with SPMI and individuals with developmental disabilities.

• DHCD will continue to use the SHOP/Group Home Financing Program to expand housing opportunities for DHMH targeted populations as housing and financial markets permit. DHMH will take a proactive approach to encourage providers interested in the supportive housing model to seek SHOP/Group Home Financing to serve targeted populations, including coordinating with DHCD in the review and approval of applications that meet MHA and DDA priority outcomes. The current housing and financial market turmoil has limited the effectiveness of this resource because SHOP is funded using tax-exempt bonds. Over time it is expected that the program will be able to return to its role in financing group home opportunities.

If funded, use funding from the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund to provide affordable rental housing to disabled households as well as other extremely low-income households who meet the program’s requirements (NOTE: HUD has not drafted regulations for the program at this time.)

Improved Data Collection One of the most significant difficulties DHCD and other agencies face is actually obtaining an accurate picture of fair housing problems and the needs of individual protected classes. For example, as noted in the discussion on housing needs for individuals with disabilities, there is no cross link between information on persons with disabilities and legitimate housing needs in the Census data. Further, the broad nature of disabilities reported in such areas as “mental disabilities” that includes conditions such as dyslexia (a real problem, but not necessarily a housing problem) along with severe mental illness makes it difficult to make sense of housing needs when the solutions to an individual’s problems may be substantially different based on the nature of the disability. As also noted in the analysis of HMDA data, while we were able to undertake Z statistic analysis, the lack of data for mortgage lending on credit scores, down payment, debt and other information makes it extremely difficult to determine if the differences in lending are legitimate or evidence of discrimination. DHCD’s Secretary testified before the Government Reform Committee of Congress about this very issue earlier this year, requesting Congress to enact legislation that would improve federal data collection efforts in housing lending to order to make in easier to determine if and where housing discrimination exists. Specific actions DHCD will undertake to improve data collection include:

Continue to advocate to Congress that the federal government improve and expand HMDA data to help determine when and if housing discrimination exists.

Advocate to HUD that as they prepare Comprehensive Housing Affordability Data in conjunction with the 2010 Census that they provide cross referenced materials on housing needs of individuals with disabilities.

More Affordable and Accessible Housing The DHCD estimates that from 2010 -2015 Maryland faces an overall net shortage of 130,315 units of affordable and available housing. It is estimated that 28,993 of the all needed units are for persons with disabilities. When compared to the total net unit shortage, family units represent the largest housing shortfall (80,349 or 61.6 percent of all units), and seniors or older adults will experience the smallest shortage – 20,973 or a 16.1 housing shortage). Using

129

existing resources, Maryland has worked hard to address the housing needs of persons with disabilities, receiving national awards for its efforts. As funding becomes available DHCD plans to continue seeking opportunities to provide affordable housing to the disabled. Funding sources that we plan to pursue for assistance include, bond funds, LIHTC, National Housing Trust and competitive grants, as well as new housing choice vouchers. The primary populations of DHMH, individuals with serious and persistent mental illness and those with developmental disabilities, are two populations at extreme poverty levels with social and forensic issues that often limit their access to the “affordable” housing produced by using existing resources. A review of DHCD subsidized multifamily housing inventory shows that of 77,477 total units, only 5,424 or 7 percent of the total inventory are federally financed disabled units. Table 38 represents 2010 actions to overcome impediments to fair housing.

Table 38. 2010 Actions to Overcome Impediments

Action Problems Addressed Responsible

Partners Timeframe

Fair Housing Education/Information

Undertake local fair housing outreach programs that emphasize race, ethnicity, & disability.


DHCD, HUD, MCHR, Statewide, with emphasis in Non-entitlement communities Ongoing activity

Improve fair housing awareness and build on marketing efforts; specifically targeting residents, realtors, developers, landlords, lenders, insurers, management agents, etc.


DHCD, MCHR, HUD, MAR, MBA Ongoing activity

Sponsor Fair Housing workshops and/or seminars.


DHCD, HUD, MCHR, NAACP, BNI Ongoing activity

Initiate testing for racial discrimination in sales practices & lending; & geographic fair housing testing particularly in Dorchester & Wicomico Counties.

Identification of possible discrimination (see survey results) DHCD and/or MCHR

Ongoing activity as funding becomes available from HUD

Train landlords on new reporting requirements related to fair housing as part of HERA legislation.

Lack of or incorrect data from landlords sometimes impacts the ability to assess fair housing opportunities HUD and DHCD

Awaiting new regulations and Technical Assistance from HUD.

LEP Education/Technical Assistance

130



Partners Timeframe

Encourage local LEP service provision with towns/municipalities, nonprofit organizations, etc.

Ensure information is available for persons of LEP .

Maryland Dept of Human Resources, HUD Ongoing activity

Develop and Implement LEP marketing, outreach, and information.

Ensure persons of LEP have access to DHCD programs.

DHCD, Maryland Dept of Human Resources, HUD Ongoing activity

Add an "En Espanol" link to DHCD's website; continue utilizing oral translator services; & Spanish language media.

Establish a single site of information for persons of LEP . DHCD To be completed by 2010

Utilize State Translator Subscription Service for Persons with limited English speaking ability. This includes Spanish (as well as Chinese, French, Korean, Russian, and Vietnamese if possible)

Provide information to persons of LEP, including for those whose primary language is not large enough as a group to translate documents under federal or State requirements.

DHCD, using State Contractor Ongoing activity

Translate DHCD documents as required by federal and State LEP requirements

Ensure opportunities to persons of LEP DHCD As required

Expand Housing Opportunities for Persons With Special Needs

Implement select strategies as outlined in the State Disabilities Plan

Lack of accessible and housing choices for individuals with disabilities. DHMH, DHCD, DHR,

Ongoing activity initiated in 2010 - 2014

Increase rental subsidies



Contingent to federal resources, possible reprogramming of DHMH and DHCD resources - Ongoing activity

Target additional rent subsidies to the highest priority target populations served by MHA & DDA.



Contingent to federal resources. Possible reprogramming of DHMH and DHCD resources - Ongoing activity

131



Partners Timeframe

Reinforce planning & program efforts to increase affordable housing opportunities for people with disabilities.

Housing people with disabilities

DHCD, DHMH, MDoA, MDoD

Ongoing activity, initiate in 2011

Continue to operate DHCD programs that assist persons with Special Needs

Providing full range of housing opportunities to persons with special needs for all disability levels. DHCD

Continue funding/operation of Housing Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Program, bonus point awards for projects which provide more units to households with special needs, continue operating Group Home and SHOP programs, etc.

Access possible new sources of funding to assist persons with Special Needs

Providing additional resources to serve Special Needs Households DHCD, DHMH, HUD

The federal government is currently in the process of substantially redesigning several housing programs for persons with Special Needs, including 811 and 202 programs. Revisions may make programs more effective. Also may make DHCD, DHMH and others eligible for funding.

Data Collection

Advocate with Congress the improvement & expansion of HMDA data

Lack of Fair Housing data which could provide evidence of possible discrimination in lending DHCD Ongoing


In response to concerns from advocates concerning possible discrimination. DHCD, MCHR, BNI

Starting in 2010. DHCD Office of Fair Practices will solicit RFPs for agencies to conduct testing. Ongoing activity as funds become available

Facilitate opportunities for various forms of testing on discrimination in rental practices; in non-entitlement communities

In response to concerns from advocates concerning possible discrimination. MCHR, BNI

Ongoing activity as funding becomes available

Fair housing training for property managers of DHCD projects to identify demographic/program beneficiary information.

Addressing lack of understanding for data collection on beneficiary race and ethnicity on DHCD financed projects. DHCD

Ongoing Activity. Awaiting new HUD regulations and Technical Assistance as required under HERA legislation.

132



Partners Timeframe Establish clear documentation that shows fair housing tracking and monitoring have been conducted and report status of review.

Lack of documentation and/or inconsistent reporting of fair housing standards. DHCD

Ongoing Activity; Based on standard program reporting guidelines

Affordable Housing Increase production of affordable housing.


DHCD, public and private partners

Ongoing activity using existing programs

Access new resources for the production of affordable housing

Lack of affordable housing DHCD

Utilize funding under National Affordable Housing Trust fund to create more affordable rental housing for extremely low-income renters. (NOTE: Program was created, but not funded, by federal government).

Access competitive funding under existing HUD and other programs


DHCD, DHMH, PHAs, nonprofits, other eligible applicants as appropriate

Access new Housing Choice Voucher opportunities as they become available, permanent supportive housing funding under HEARTH act, competitive funding for which DHCD or other agencies are eligible.

Coordinate affordable housing with transportation, jobs

Lack of available affordable housing near transportation, jobs,

DHCD, MDOT, MDE, PHAs, local governments

Better coordinate housing and transportation opportunities through HUD’s new Sustainable Communities Initiative, as well as the State Development Plan, State Housing Plan and State Transportation Plan. Work with PHAs as appropriate on Choice Communities initiative as well.

Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing

Loss of affordable housing which exacerbates housing problems for lower income households

HUD, DHCD, local governments, private partners.

Utilize MacArthur Foundation Grant, State resources to preserve affordable rental housing. Also work with federal government as they develop new housing preservation programs.

Consolidated Public Hearing Comments Comment: A 2006 City of Annapolis, MD study suggests difficulty of families, minorities, and the disabled in using vouchers because landlords refuse to accept voucher holders as renters.

133

Comment: Some counties have local laws barring discrimination in housing based on source of income, including Montgomery and Howard Counties, but renters in other jurisdictions have no such protections. Response: Source of income is not a protected class attribute and would reach beyond the scope of the State’s Analysis of Impediments as required by HUD. Administration of the federal Section 8 program takes into account more than income requirements when considering qualification guidelines. As such, federal Section 8 statute makes participation by landlords strictly voluntary and at their discretion with respect to tenant selection. DHCD is required to follow the Law as stated in our Annual Contributions Contract (ACC); landlords are also required to comply with the Law as stated in the Department’s Housing Assistance Payments contracts. Therefore, outreach to landlords to encourage their participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) is not a fair housing issue as it relates to protected class. However, the State can continue reaching beyond its duties in two ways:

a) Improve outreach in our non-voucher areas – particularly entitlement areas where we exhibit limited focus.

b) Encourage the promotion of fair housing law on the DHCD website, placing relevant links to both sate law and federal law on the site.

Comment: The majority of project-based Section 8, Public Housing, Assisted, and Rental Housing (including LIHTC projects) are located in areas of minority concentration. Response: As noted in the AI, (Multifamily Loans by Area of Minority and Low-Income Concentration), housing projects financed during the fiscal years studied found two trends: 1) more than 70 percent were located outside of areas of minority concentration, and 2) 76 percent were located outside areas of low income concentration. All projects have been undertaken in the State’s Smart Growth geographic areas. Projects completed inside areas of concentration have been tied to community revitalization efforts, as well as within Smart Growth guidelines. Comment: The draft AI provided inadequate opportunities for the public to comment. Response: In developing the AI, DHCD consulted with civil rights groups, housing groups, and individuals through phone calls, emails, and meetings. A new section entitled “Public Participation” was added to the draft AI and provides a detailed description of the numerous ways in which the Department solicited public input. The State’s Analysis of Impediments is designed to address fair housing barriers in Maryland’s non-entitlement (non metro) areas. The entitlement areas (metro areas) which include Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Harford, Howard, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, as well as Baltimore City among others) prepare their own AIs. Therefore, the State acted correctly in holding the majority of its hearings in areas which are under the State’s AI rather than in jurisdictions that are covered by local AIs. The State identified strategic locations across Maryland, including Denton (Queen Anne’s County), Cumberland (Allegany County), Odenton (Calvert County), and the DHCD headquarters located in Crownsville, Maryland. It should be noted that some sections of this document address non-entitlement jurisdictions only, and other sections cover the State as a whole. This is a reflection of the availability of data. Where data is available specific to the non-entitlement areas, or programs that operate solely in the non-entitlement areas, then only

134

those areas are discussed. In some analysis where data is difficult to examine by non-entitlement areas alone, data is then discussed for the State as a whole. Comment: Most of the public hearings held in non-metro areas of the state were scheduled during the work day at times when public attendance would be inconvenient. Response: The State’s Analysis of Impediments is designed to address fair housing barriers in Maryland’s non-entitlement (non metro) areas. The entitlement areas (metro areas) which include Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Harford, Howard, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, as well as Baltimore City among others) prepare their own AIs. The State acted correctly in holding the majority of its hearings in areas which are under the State’s AI rather than in jurisdictions that are covered by local AIs. As such, the State identified strategic locations across Maryland, including Denton (Queen Anne’s County), Cumberland (Allegany County), Odenton (Calvert County), and the DHCD headquarters located in Crownsville, Maryland. Comment: The internet survey conducted by DHCD required respondents to identify a single jurisdiction as the respondent’s area of operation. It did not allow responses from statewide or multi-jurisdictional organizations (except by completing multiple surveys concerning individual jurisdictions). The survey was focused on conditions in individual jurisdictions and did not solicit information regarding statewide conditions or state level practices that potentially constitute impediments to fair housing. Response: As noted in conversations with the ACLU, the purpose of the survey was to drill down to information at the local level. It was also only one of several tools used to prepare the draft AI. The Fair Housing Survey was designed precisely to ascertain county by county responses regarding fair housing issues. The intent was to obtain feedback on issues at the local level that represent impediments. Organizations that have multiple offices and operate statewide were requested to respond for each county. In addition to the survey, DHCD used our analysis of the HMDA data, beneficiary data, Limited English Proficiency Data, and covers a comprehensive examination of policies and procedures at the program level, as well as other methods detailed in the Draft AI. Furthermore, the Analysis of Impediments state policy examination is a separate process to be explored in the 2010 State Consolidated Plan. Comment: There was difficulty in discerning specific impediments to fair housing in the draft Analysis of Impediments, and identification of appropriate actions such as a Fair Housing Action Plan. Response: DHCD agrees that an examination of the 1996 Actions to Overcome Impediments should be conducted. Such actions help to determine whether activities have been undertaken to overcome previously cited impediments. A subsequent review found that the majority of impediments identified in 1996 resulted in policy enhancement and implementation, and increased partnership with external organizations to improve fair housing outreach and testing. Areas that require continued development include:

1) Coordination and development of fair housing strategies 2) Enhance educational tools to include sponsoring an annual fair housing conference 3) Initiate testing in rental housing, lending, and sales practices.

Comment: The AI does not examine whether there are state regulatory policies, practices or procedures that encourage segregation by race and/or exclude affordable housing from non-minority areas.

135

Response: In preparing the State’s AI, the State also examined policies and procedures that had possible impacts on fair housing choice. This included reviews of both individual programs and overall State policies. As noted in the Policies section of the AI, an analysis of the following policies and procedures was conducted: State Lending Practices, State Program Beneficiaries, State operations of HOME, CDBG, LIHTC, and Housing Choice Voucher Programs. This review concludes that state policies and procedures do not show negative impact of that would encourage segregation. Comment: The State is creating concentrated, segregated residential development. Response: We do not agree with a comment that DHCD projects create concentrated and segregated residential development. Given that the number of areas of concentration has fallen and the vast majority of housing financed by DHCD has been outside of areas of concentration, suggests that affordable housing in areas identified for Smart Growth has neither increased minority or low income concentrations and subsequent poverty, nor caused exclusionary patterns that would constitute an impediment to fair housing during the period examined. In fact, a recent study conducted by the Brookings Institute supports this claim. A January 2010 study conducted by Brookings found that by 2008 suburbs were home to the largest and fastest growing poor populations in the county. Most notably, a plurality of the nation’s poor lived in large metropolitan suburbs--including Baltimore, which experienced a significant shift in the number and percent to poor living in the suburbs. The surrounding suburbs in Baltimore’s metropolitan area include Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Queen Anne’s Counties. According to the report, in 2000, 41.1 percent of the poor lived in the suburbs and by 2008 the percent rose to 50.4 percent – a 9.2 percent increase over the eight year period.1 It further notes that areas most impacted by such trends underscore the economic stress in the manufacturing sector over the course of the decade – an unintended consequence that has affected many non-entitlement rural geographies in Maryland. The study measures poverty as the number and proportion of family members and individuals with incomes below the applicable federal poverty threshold, which is based on family size and age. Comment: The AI does not discuss state actions related to BRAC, Transportation, and Foreclosures associated with low income and minority concentrations. Response: The following summaries reflect DHCD activities and involvement with BRAC, Transportation and Foreclosures. This section was added to the AI under “State Housing and Community Development Policies.” Base Realignment and Closure Plan In 2009 DHCD launched a new housing preservation initiative with a $4.5 million award from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation – a private foundation based in Chicago that awards funding support to organizations nationwide for their efforts in the areas of Global Security and Sustainability, Human and Community Development. With the Foundation’s support, DHCD will work with Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Cecil, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Prince George’s and St. Mary’s Counties to implement the Maryland BRAC plan. The strategic framework for DHCD’s BRAC efforts are linked to strategies that seek to accomplish four primarily goals: 1) improve education and outreach in communities, 2) streamline and simplify

1 Garr, E. & Kneebone, E. (January 2010). The Suburbanization of Poverty: Trends in Metropolitan America, 2000 to 2008. Metropolitan Policy Program, Metropolitan Opportunity Series: Metro Area Profile for Baltimore, MD. Washington, DC.

136

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago

the governmental processes involved in financing an affordable housing development, 3) assemble funding resources that enable DHCD to preserve properties that our existing tools cannot reach, and 4) encourage energy conservation and green building as part of preserving homes. A total of $900 million in public and private funds will be invested to preserve and improve an additional 7,500 units of affordable rental housing over a 10 year period, targeting counties affected by Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). DHCD plans to preserve affordable rental housing located in the path of growth brought on by the federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, which will bring over 225,000 new households to the region beginning in 2011. As part of the Multifamily Rental Qualified Allocation Plan, DHCD has documented its intent to target BRAC zones which include implementing a proactive strategy designed to identify and act on preservation opportunities in Maryland. This process involves awarding points to projects located in the nine BRAC impacted areas. In addition to awarding points for projects defined as family projects and elderly projects (10 points and 5 points, respectively), projects providing housing in these jurisdictions may earn points as follows: Five additional points may be awarded for family housing projects located in school or election districts or census tracts with certain key demographic indicators at rates higher than statewide averages. These indicators include, but may not be limited to:

• Maryland School Assessment (MSA) scores (elementary and secondary) • Employment • Median home sales price • Educational attainment (high school and bachelor’s degree) • Personal income • Voter participation • Homeownership rates

Transit-Oriented Development In addition to offering QAPs for housing in BRAC impacted areas, DHCD issues points to eligible applicants who demonstrate sustainable development, including energy conservation, of their projects near transit. As noted in the 2008 Multifamily Rental Financing Program Guide (which covers the state’s application procedures for multifamily rental housing throughout Maryland) DHCD awards 5 points for a development projects that has densities exceeding 25 units per acre; involves mixed-use or is part of a larger mixed use undertaking; involves good non-motorized transport design (walkability), and is located within 0.5 miles of a mass or public transit or rail station, or within 0.25 miles of a bus depot or bus stop with scheduled service at intervals, at most 30 minutes, between the house of 6:30am and 7:00pm. Sustainable Communities Act of 2010 – Proposed Legislation before Maryland General Assembly In June 2009, the Obama Administration announced a new interagency partnership on sustainable communities between the Department of Transportation, Housing and Community Development and the Environmental Protection Agency. An early action by the federal interagency partnership announced a set of Livability Principles to guide future federal investments, policy development, and programs towards the creation of sustainable communities. The federal fiscal 2010 budget submitted funding bills before Congress of $150

137

million towards HUD grants to communities for more integrated regional planning and sustainability projects. To this end, the state of Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development proposed The Sustainable Communities Act of 2010 to the Maryland General Assembly. As part of the state’s Smart, Green, and Growing Initiative, DHCD activities include, but may not limited to, the following: The proposed Act recommends, working in cooperation with other statewide agencies, to create sustainable communities involving both BRAC Revitalization and Incentive Zones and Transportation planning. The agencies include Transportation, Environment, and Planning. The Sustainable Communities Act of 2010 proposes the creation of sustainable communities under DHCD Community Legacy and Neighborhood Business Works Programs. Economic development and transportation are key articles which seek to integrate BRAC Revitalization and Incentive Zones and transportation. As such, Article 5-1304 (Economic Development) cites the following:

a) Within 60 days after a submission date, the Secretary, after receiving a recommendation of the smart growth subcabinet, may designate one or more BRAC Revitalization and Incentive Zones from among the areas described in the applications timely submission.

b) The designation of an area as a BRAC Revitalization and Incentive Zone is effective for 10 years, beginning on the date the first property in the BRAC Revitalization and Incentive Zone becomes a qualified property.

c) The Secretary may not designate more than six BRAC Revitalization and Incentive Zones in a calendar year.

d) A county may not receive more than two BRAC Revitalization and Incentive Zones. e) The precise location and boundaries of a BRAC Revitalization and Incentive Zone may

be determined only on application to and approval by the Secretary. Other elements of the article include factors involving political subdivisions and good faith negotiations. Among involvement of numerous state agencies, this plan also seeks the authorization of the Department of Transportation to exercise certain powers with respect to sustainable communities, as well as requiring the Secretary of the Department of Business and Economic Development to receive a recommendation of the Smart Growth Sub-cabinet priority to designing a BRAC Zone.

Article 2-702 (Transportation, Sustainable Communities) notes, in part, that as part of the nexus to sustainable communities and transportation the Department of Housing and Community Development shall consider sustainable communities as it considers annual revisions under the consolidated transportation program, and bi-annually consult with the smart growth subcabinet on how the Department may work cooperatively to make mutual investments towards creating and supporting sustainable communities across the sate. For the purposes of this article, transit-oriented development means a mix of private or public parking facilities, commercial and residential structures, and uses, improvements, and facilities customarily appurtenant to such facilities and uses that meet the following criteria:

(a) Adjacent to the passenger boarding and alighting location of a planned or existing transit station; or

(b) Property, any part of which is located within one-half mile of the passenger boarding and alighting location of a planned or existing transit station;

138

(c) Is planned to maximize the use of transit, walking, and bicycling by residents and employees, and;

(d) Is designed as a transit-oriented development by the Secretary (in consultation with the Secretaries of Business and Economic Development, General Services, Housing and Community Development, the Environment, and Planning), after considering a recommendation of the Smart Growth subcabinet.

(e) The local government or multicounty agency with land use and planning responsibility for the relevant area.

Comment: The draft AI fails to identify state actions to improve data collection. Response: DHCD has noted in the AI report the need for improved data collection in the Strategies to Overcome Impediments section of the AI. We agree that the draft AI was remiss in mentioning DHCD’s identification and present efforts to address data collection issues. As such, Secretary Skinner’s 2009 testimony to the U.S. Congress concerning the need for federal assistance in data collection, including HMDA data, is documented. Subsequent actions to this testimony will follow. Comment: The draft AI lacks reference to foreclosure crisis and its impact on minority households. Response: In response to this comment, the draft presently includes a section entitled, Foreclosures and Demographic Trends, which provides data concerning the state of Maryland foreclosure crisis as well as its impact on minority populations. Comment: The analysis uses 2000 census data, but not more recent American Community Survey (ACS) data. Response: The AI study uses data from the 2000 census for several reasons: 1) It provides a framework for a complete comparative evaluation of both minority and low income concentrations across all 24 Maryland jurisdictions; 2) It enabled analysis of non-entitlement jurisdictions at the census tract level, providing a clearer picture of patterns and trends within non-entitlement communities. In contrast, ACS data did not offer census level or other detailed information for all counties in Maryland. The ACS data does not provide detailed information for all counties in Maryland, especially detailed housing data for non-entitlement areas, which are the focus of the State’s AI. Some data from the Department of Planning, which is referenced in the document, was used to illustrate demographic shifts in minority populated counties. Comment: The draft AI fails to look at housing problem data in each of the non-entitlement jurisdictions separately. Response: An examination of housing problems by county produces insufficient results with respect to identifying patterns of discrimination across jurisdictions due to population size. Smaller size counties such as Somerset, Kent, Talbot, and Queen Anne’s, where small populations predominantly exist, provide a limited sample size from which to render adequate statistical findings in determining discrimination as an impediment to fair housing. Comment: The draft AI erroneously cites census tract 860702 in Calvert County as an area of minority concentration attributed to the presence of a Veteran’s Home.

139

Response: DHCD re-examined the census data which noted that a substantial population of persons living in group quarters in census tract 860702 is home to both the local jail, as well as several work release facilities for offenders and ex-offenders. This type of facility is more likely to have a substantially higher number of minorities; hence, resulting in a concentration within this geographic area. We agree that the public facility noted in the AI, as a Veteran’s Home, is not correct and has been changed. Comment: The draft AI fails to identify steps that the state could take to require sponsors of LIHTC and other state financed multifamily projects to report civil rights data. The AI suggests that the state has no authority to require such demographic data. To the contrary, federal law now explicitly requires it. DHCD agrees with the ACLU’s comments concerning the newly-legislated authorization to collect recipient demographic data. In the summer of 2008, Congress passed legislation that required Housing Finance Agencies, at the direction of HUD, to gather detailed demographic data on tenants in federal LIHTC projects. The legislation also directed that State agencies shall, to the extent feasible, collect such information through existing reporting processes and in a manner that minimizes burdens on property owners. In addition, the legislation required the Secretary of HUD to establish standards and definitions for the information collected under subsection (a), provide States with technical assistance in establishing systems to compile and submit such information, and, in coordination with other Federal agencies administering housing programs, establish procedures to minimize duplicative reporting requirements for properties assisted under multiple housing programs As of March 2010, HUD has not developed standards, definitions or provided Technical Assistance for any geographic area. As noted in the AI, prior to this legislation, DHCD has been proactive in taking steps to collect beneficiaries’ data, commissioning an outside agency to collect and manage the database. The multifamily beneficiaries review conducted in this report was based on available data collected through our Department’s external resource. DHCD plans to comply with updated regulations once reporting requirements are released by HUD. Comment: The draft AI did not contain any specific actions to address identified racial disparities in mortgage lending where they were found to exist. Analysis of HMDA mortgage data identified certain disparities based on race in Baltimore, Charles and Howard Counties, but sets out no research, investigative, or other follow up actions that will be taken to determine whether the identified disparities are the result of discrimination. Response: We note in the draft AI possible discrimination in lending based on analysis of HMDA data. However, other variables and data that would help to determine whether or not discrimination exists are not attainable. Such variables include credit scores, down payments, debt-to-income, employment history, and collateral. As mentioned in the report, we conducted the analysis on available data. Due to the fact that such variables are missing, we concluded that there was insufficient data with which to determine discrimination. Part of our request to the federal government (which dictates the content of HMDA) is that they provide improved, more complete data. Further investigation is not going to make uncollected data available. That is why we specifically requested the federal government to require more detailed HMDA data and the Secretary of DHCD testified before Congress to solicit their intervention and assistance. Comment: The draft AI does not examine whether there are state regulatory policies, practices or procedures that encourage segregation by race and/or exclude affordable housing from non-minority areas. Similarly, there is no discussion of state actions to overcome NIMBYism or to ameliorate patterns of residential racial segregation. The AI assumes that exclusionary land

140

use policies are purely local in origin and that the state has no authority in this area. However, local jurisdictions have only the land use policies delegated to them by the state. In addition, the state has enacted a variety of growth control and other state-level policies regulating land use. The 1996 AI acknowledged that state land use policies could have an exclusionary effect on affordable housing impact and constitute an impediment to fair housing. The new draft AI is largely silent with respect to land use policies. It does not identify any research or actions that the state might have taken since 1996 to determine that the policies are or are not impediments to fair housing, or to ameliorate their exclusionary impact. Response: As noted in the section entitled, Mulifamily Loans by Area of Minority and Low Income Concentrations, a review of the census data shows the number of concentrations of both minority and low-income households has fallen in the non-entitlement areas. It also discusses the fact that both the number of minority and low-income concentrations has declined significantly since the last AI. In addition, we also note in the AI that affordable rental housing has been built and or is in the pipeline in every county in Maryland, in both non-entitlement and entitlement communities, and there is no evidence that the State policies or procedures such as Smart Growth has had any negative impact on the availability of affordable housing. In addition, in response to a separate email, DHCD examined racial patterns around the Baltimore metro region and found, based on Census estimates from the Maryland Department of Planning, that all counties surrounding the City had substantial growth in their minority populations, both numerically and by percentages of the population, while the number of minorities in the City actually fell. Since the overall population of the City fell, we also examined the data for the percent of the City’s population that is minority compared to the City as a whole, and found based on Census estimates from the Department of Planning that the percent of the City’s population that is minority actually fell as well, i.e. the City is more white/Caucasian than it was in 2000. The data clearly does not support that State policies are resulting in increased minority concentration or lack of choice. Brookings Institution Study In addition to examining racial data, we looked at data on low-income concentrations. An independent 2010 Brookings study examined poverty (and low-income households) in the 95 largest metropolitan areas of the U.S. That study found that Baltimore City/the Baltimore Metropolitan Area was the third most successful jurisdiction in the county in deconcentrating poverty and low-income households. The study focused on poverty households as well as low-income households. In 2008 the suburbs were home to the largest and fastest growing poor populations in Maryland. According to the report, in 2000 41.1 percent of the poor lived in the suburbs and by 2008 the percent rose to 50.4 percent – a 9.2 percent increase over the eight year period. The study also found that the number of households in poverty actually decreased in Baltimore City by over 24,000, while the number of poverty level households in its suburbs increased by almost 21,000. This independent report thus clearly shows that the State’s Smart Growth and housing policies are not resulting in either an increase in poverty or low-income concentrations. Comment: The draft AI identifies areas of minority concentration, but only in the non-entitlement areas. No such analysis is undertaken of the metro areas of the state that contain the bulk of the state’s African American population and ethnic minorities. Response: The State’s efforts are central to non-entitlement areas. However, the AI analysis spans across all jurisdictions and focuses on entitlement areas identified as low-income and

141

142

minority concentration. Each entitlement area is required to prepare its own AIs with discussions of low-income and minority concentrations in their communities, As per earlier communications with the ACLU, there are 15 entitlement jurisdictions in Maryland (including the State) and there is simply no way to coordinate 15 different definitions and data sets in a cogent and reliable manner for results. DHCD disagrees with the commenter’s emphasis on entitlement (metro) areas. Comment: The AI should, but does not, specifically examine and propose ways to address residential segregation, particularly segregation by race. Response: DHCD will undertake education, training, and outreach efforts to address issues of racial segregation. The Department already requires affirmative marketing of assisted projects to reduce segregation, both for its HUD funded and State funded portfolios, which is analyzed every year as part of the Department’s monitoring efforts. In addition, our Contract Administration office also ensures affirmative marketing is being undertaken for projects it oversees (see 2010 Actions to Overcome Impediments Table 38 for details). Comment: The draft AI does not analyze state actions related to transportation that contribute to segregation and the concentration of assisted housing, and block minority access to areas of job growth. Response: We agree that transportation and housing are inextricably linked, and minority groups are disproportionately transit dependent. DHCD's existing transportation-related activities have been added to the AI plan under State Housing and Community Development Policies – BRAC and Transit-Oriented Development. Comment: The draft AI fails to identify steps that the state could take to require sponsors of LIHTC and other state financed multifamily projects to report civil rights data. Inexplicably, the draft AI suggests that the state has no authority to require such demographic data. To the contrary, federal law now explicitly requires it. (HR 3221 2835d) The Department of Housing and Community Development is aware of HR3221 Public Law No: 110-289 enacted on July 30, 2008. According to the Community Development Administration’s Director of Multifamily Rental Housing Programs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has not yet released either standards or technical assistance toward the implementation of the elements contained in the Law – as noted under Section 1313B. DHCD expects to fully comply and meet reporting requirements upon development and release of guidelines and standards.

analysis of impediments to fair housing choice...

Documents