housing in syracuse onondagacounty 2014

HOUSING IN

SYRACUSE & ONONDAGA COUNTY

COMMUNITY BENCHMARKS PROGRAM AT SU’s

2014

MAXWELL SCHOOL

Housing in Syracuse and Onondaga County

2014

Carol Dwyer, Director Erin Carhart and Emily Pompelia, Project Managers

Researchers

Dennis Bitetti Jared Bly

Jennifer Bundy Jeffrey Cleland Sawyer Cresap

Emma Edwards Shaki Kar

Nicole Keler Kelly McElwain

Ashlee Newman Jenece Reyes

Ivan Rosales-Robles Caroline Roth

Mackenzie Salmon Marlei Simon

Bo Stewart Jonathan Tighe Jessica Thomas

Acknowledgments This report would not have been possible without the support of several individuals, organizations and agencies.

First, thanks are extended to Stephanie Pasquale, deputy commissioner of the Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business Development, for her ongoing guidance, support and expertise throughout the creation of the report. She was always positive throughout the numerous interruptions by the research team for clarification of terms, data issues, and much more. Also providing support are staff members Amanda Mason and Susannah Bartlett.

Liddy Hintz, systems administrator for the Homeless Management Information Systems, and director of Emergency and Child Welfare Services at the Salvation Army in Syracuse, was a great resource for collecting and understanding the plight of the homeless and the data that has been collected by the Housing and Homeless Coalition. She has been the essence of patience during the many instances of requests for additional data and related information.

Thank you to Paul Driscoll, commissioner of the Department of Neighborhood and Business Development, and Kerry Quaglia, executive director of Home Headquarters, for taking time to assist researchers in understanding the complexity of these issues and offering their insight on the status of the housing market in Syracuse. Emmanuel Carter, associate professor at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, deserves recognition as well for his extensive thoughts on the history of credit lending and affordable housing in Syracuse.

The strong visual element in the report is credited to Syracuse University student Amanda Eedle, who took every photograph used in the report. Her work enhanced the report by providing a pictorial explanation of the status of housing in this city to accompany the data. She did all this without reimbursement or credit.

Helping researchers to demonstrate the need for affordable housing is David Paccone, program director at the Syracuse Housing Authority, and Kelly Besaw and Tina Cardwell of the Christopher Community.

Thanks to Susan Grossman, housing program coordinator of the Onondaga County Community Development Division, and Executive Director Robert DeMore for providing the county’s annual report and Terri Luckett, project manager at Home Headquarters for providing data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

Thank you to everyone who contributed time, guidance and insight into the creation of this report.

Table of Contents Foreword 1 Introduction 4 Property Overview Methods 8 Findings 9 Lending Practices

Methods 28 Findings 29

Affordable Housing Methods 44 Findings Current Housing Market Assessment 47 Affordable Housing Funding Patterns 54 Availability of Affordable Housing 62 Affordable Housing Needs 71

Homeless Methods 82 Shelter Descriptions 84 Findings 86 Glossary 107 References 111 Appendices Appendix I Distribution of Home Mortgages by Race Appendix II Distribution of Home Mortgages by Income Levels Appendix III Type of Loan Actions Appendix IV Number of Loans for Home Purchases and Home Improvements Appendix V Number and Location of Commercial Banks Appendix VI Map of Individuals living Below Poverty Appendix VII Map of CDBG Monies dedicated to Affordable Housing Appendix VIII HMIS Intake Form

The Experts Speak By: Jennifer Bundy A healthy housing market is one of the foundations of a healthy city. According to “Out of Reach 2014,’’ a recent report released by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, America is facing a new reality where there are 31 affordable housing units for every 100 families who need them. The lack of affordable housing is an obstacle cities across the nation are grappling with, including in Syracuse, New York. “There is a severe lack of affordable housing in Syracuse,” says Kerry Quaglia, executive director of Home Headquarters. Housing in Syracuse is relatively inexpensive when compared to other parts of the country, however the average income of a resident living within the city is low enough that many families have difficulty finding affordable housing, Quaglia says. According to the US Census, the median household income was $31,459 in 2012 in the city of Syracuse, with 33.6 percent of the population living below the poverty line. “We really have two needs that are diametrically opposed,” he says. The first is the excess housing left behind as the city population dropped by more than one-third from 1950 to today where the population now hovers around 141,760, according

to US Census data. What remains available is property that is either vacant, in need of renovations or unaffordable. The second is that the housing that is available and safe to occupy is unaffordable for many of the residents searching, Quaglia says. Home Headquarters is a local nonprofit agency that aims to assist residents in owning or renovating a home through specific grants and loans. “Home Headquarters has found that since the financial crisis (in 2008) the gap in the market has shifted from home improvement to home acquisition,” he says. “Banks are much more critical in their thinking of extending first mortgages to let people buy their first home. This has negatively impacted buyers in the city.” Following the 2008 mortgage-lending crisis, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, which raised the mortgage qualifier standards. According to Quaglia, if banks extend mortgages to risky applicants that may not be able to meet their mortgage obligations, the applicant can use this as a defense to avoid foreclosure. “These new mortgage qualifiers have given banks more reason to pause, to ensure the least risk possible,” Quaglia says. “Ultimately we think that this is not in the best interest of low- to moderate-income home buyers.” He adds that traditional sources of financing from banks or credit unions are drying up in the Syracuse neighborhoods that need them the most. Banks have a responsibility to lend in areas where they accept deposits, but in certain areas there aren’t enough people that meet the new requirements to receive loans.

There is a severe lack of affordable housing in Syracuse.

–Kerry Quaglia

1

“Banks will use this as an excuse to not lend in certain areas and that hurts consumers,” Quaglia says. “It is ironic that this consumer law ends up hurting consumers.” Lack of access to credit in certain areas has been an issue for policymakers since 1975 when Congress enacted the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). This act requires lending institutions to release public loan data to ensure that banks are providing communities with adequate credit and investment while also not discriminating against a particular group or neighborhood. The HMDA is the federal government’s solution to banks not lending in certain areas. Paul Driscoll, commissioner of the Neighborhood and Business Development Department in Syracuse, agrees that affordability is a major hindrance to residents in need of adequate housing. “One-half of the city’s geography are considered ‘Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas’ where 35 percent or more of the housing in those areas suffer from physical deterioration or affordability,” says Driscoll, who focuses the federal funds from the Housing and Urban Development office to revitalize these areas by intervening in the short-term to improve the long-term viability of the area.

The harsh realities of the gaps within the housing market of Syracuse can be seen every night at one of the local emergency shelters for the homeless. Liddy Hintz, systems administrator of the

Homeless Management Information System and director of Emergency and Child Welfare Services at the Salvation Army, says that one of the main reasons for homelessness in Syracuse is that housing costs are rising at a higher rate than

wages and assistance funding. “The men’s shelters run out of beds on a regular basis,” she says. “Housing stock is sorely needing improvements.” The city has lost several large housing projects and has not built any replacements, which has left many homeless. According to the Gap and Needs Analysis conducted by the Housing Homeless Coalition in 2013, Syracuse has seen a 31.4 percent increase of homeless children using shelter resources since 2010, which can be linked to the 27.6 percent rise in homeless adults in families. From 2012 to 2013 there was an increase of 183 individuals receiving Emergency Shelter services in Onondaga County, according to the analysis. Stephanie Pasquale, deputy commissioner of the Syracuse Department of Neighborhoods and Business Development, says homelessness is one of the city’s most multifaceted issues. “Many in our community suffer from multiple conditions that contribute to their housing status,” she says. “Many in the field feel there needs to be a significant increase in truly affordable permanent housing.”

Many in the field feel there needs to be a significant increase in truly affordable

permanent housing. -Stephanie Pasquale

2

Economic stagnation also exasperates other housing problems in Syracuse, where 60 percent of the housing units are rental, Driscoll says, citing data collected in a database known as the City Parcel File. “Renters live paycheck to paycheck: they are not building equity,” he says. “The problem is getting worse and the people with the means to address the problem are getting fewer.” Both Quaglia and Driscoll say they believe owner-occupant properties improve the health of a neighborhood because owners are invested in the quality of their house, street and community. However, Emmanuel Carter, a professor of the State University of New York School of Environmental Science and Forestry and an expert on housing trends, says the notion that every person should be a homeowner is a fallacy. “We need to stop insisting that good citizens are homeowners. It is a lie that renters are bad for a community,” he says. “Renters are not bad for neighborhoods. It is wrong to say poorer people do not invest in their neighborhoods very well, they just don’t have the wherewithal to.” Banks should not be giving out loans to everybody, especially when those applicants who are denied most likely do not have good credit or a steady income. This is not discriminatory lending, it is the unfortunate fact that minorities are more likely to live in low-income neighborhoods where economic opportunities limit equity, credit and income, he says. Carter is very adamant that the problem is not renter residents, but rather the lack of accountability of landlords to invest and maintain their properties. “We need to set firm laws for landlords to ensure they invest in their properties to maintain high quality housing in those neighborhoods.”

The root of the housing crisis in Syracuse can be traced back to the 1930s, says Carter. In this post-Depression era, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt worked to improve the long-term strength of insurance companies and banks by creating a mortgage system where long-term lending became the norm. The federal government agreed to back loans and mortgages, however, this quickly became unsustainable and the federal government realized that there needed to be a baseline for accepting these loans, Carter says. The federal Home Owners Loan Corporation was established and tasked with determining which neighborhoods in every metropolitan area would be reasonable to extend mortgage loans to, based on the condition of the housing and the race of the residents, he says. Neighborhoods with high immigrant and minority populations were identified as “red” or “yellow” which meant no applicant from this neighborhood would receive more than 15 percent of federal backing on their loans, Carter says. This discriminatory lending policy, known as ’redlining’ was deemed illegal in 1965, but at that point American society had already self-segregated itself based on income. “The richest moved to specific neighborhoods so they could get loans,” he says. “That left neighborhoods in a situation where only the have-nots were there.” Home value is directly related to the worth of the house next door, which makes homeowners fearful of a household of lesser means entering the neighborhood and devaluing property on the entire street. “We re-segregated ourselves with a great deal of energy,” he says. “In 1938 there was a percentage of low-income residents in every TNT sector, but you would also have a percentage of moderately well-off residents in every TNT sector. Now that is not the truth—we are a divided society.”

3

Introduction The City of Syracuse is a vibrant community in the heart of Central New York. The city’s rich history began in the mid-19th century and extends into the modern-day through periods of prosperity, struggle and transformation. Syracuse, with a population of 144,703, is the fifth largest city in New York State and the 170th largest city in America. The city has a relatively young workforce, with a median age of 29 years, compared to the national median age of 37. A majority of Syracuse residents (57%) identify as white, while 32% are black or African American (US Census). However, Syracuse has seen a gradual decline in population for decades, losing one third of its residents since 1950, when the city had a population high of 222,000. Throughout the early 20th century Syracuse was a hub of economic development with a strong manufacturing, trade and infrastructure industry presence. Large companies such as General Electric and Carrier Corporation used to be the largest employers in the city. However, over the past few decades major companies and industries have relocated outside of Syracuse, taking with them thousands of jobs. In the mid-20th century, Syracuse transformed into a postindustrial city struggling to recapture its past economic success. The city faced a stagnated economy, which further exasperated poverty and community resources (Syracuse Then and Now). Syracuse as the strong economic and industrial powerhouse is now simply a memory of a bygone era. The economy has been a persistent problem in the city, which is still recovering from the effects of the financial crisis and recession of the late 2000s. Similar to many cities in New York State, Syracuse was hit hard by the economic recession. Over 11,000 jobs were lost from 2008 to 2009 alone, and the job growth since has been slow, gaining a little over 700 jobs each year (New York State Comptroller’s Report). The unemployment rate has gradually climbed from 4.9% in 2007 to a high of 8.6% in 2010 (Syracuse Post Standard). Though business development programs and job creation have seen modest success, the highest paid jobs in the manufacturing sector have not seen equal growth. Currently, the unemployment rate is 7.6%, which is above the national average of 7.4%. The per capita income is $18,869 and median household income is $31,459, both of which are significantly below the state and national averages. Poverty in the city of Syracuse is of particular importance, as about one out of three residents live below the poverty line (US Census). In Syracuse, and across the country, the prices of goods, services, and homes all continued to grow despite the downturn. Inflation rates climbed 14% since 2007, affecting low- and middle-class consumers who need to make the most of their salaries (TIME Magazine). Home sales declined, taxes remained steady, and many found the need for affordable housing more pressing than ever. The demand for quality, affordable units must be widely available to enable the community to support both new and long-time residents to be successful. Some housing crises are more severe than others and result in thousands of residents using the emergency shelter resources in Syracuse. The homeless population has been gradually increasing over the past decade, pushing emergency housing shelters to capacity (The Post Standard). Syracuse established The Housing and Homeless Coalition (HHC) to develop a 10-year plan to combat the persistent homeless population. The HHC targets the local economy to increase job opportunities, establishes permanent housing for the chronically homeless and works in tandem with local agencies to

4

provide behavioral, health and support services for those most vulnerable in the Syracuse community. It is hoped that these strategies will transform the homeless services system into a “crisis response system” to take a proactive stance on homelessness and rapidly place homeless persons into safe, stable housing (Housing and Homeless Coalition Annual Report, 2012). While the housing market in Syracuse is relatively inexpensive compared to other cities, a gap still persists for low-income residents interested in finding affordable housing. As the city moves forward from the recession, the benefits of affordable housing are more prevalent than ever. The stability an affordable mortgage or rent provides can significantly affect a child’s development, performance in school, and health (Center for Housing Policy). Investing in a home gives residents a stake in the community and increases the amount spent in the local economy and the revenues paid to local governments. Lack of jobs and affordable housing are leading causes of homelessness in Syracuse (The Post-Standard). It is evident that in Syracuse, as well as in all of Onondaga County, housing is an issue affecting every child, adult, and senior citizen. Housing conditions must be closely monitored to ensure that the needs of each resident are being met to the extent that resources will allow. Adequate and affordable housing is a foundational pillar in any city. The lack of access to credit, substandard housing, low homeownership rate and consistent homeless population all will act as hindrances to Syracuse’s future success. This report provides information on four key areas surrounding housing to provide additional information to decision-makers. To assist readers in understanding the various terms found in this report, a glossary if provided that starts on P. 107. Findings in this report portray a picture of properties in Onondaga County, the city of Syracuse and in some cases, breakdowns by city sectors known as Tomorrow’s Neighborhood Today (TNT). Syracuse parcels are grouped into eight different TNT areas: Downtown, Eastside, Eastwood, Lakefront, Northside, Southside, Valley and Westside. Downtown The downtown neighborhood is located in the center of the city. Downtown is known for being the home of popular areas such as Armory Square, Hanover Square, Columbus Circle and Clinton Square. Parks and open public spaces are also found Downtown.

Eastside

The Eastside of Syracuse embraces diversity, environment and quality development. The core of this area is Westcott Street, which is known for funky, eclectic restaurants and stores. Thornden Park is also a feature in this area that many residents enjoy, especially in the summer. Among the Eastside neighborhoods are University Hill, Bradford Hills, Near Eastside, Outer Comstock, South Campus and Salt Springs. The area also includes the Syracuse University campus, which provides unique economic and cultural opportunities.

5

Eastwood

Eastwood is primarily a residential area that consists of one- and two-family homes constructed in the mid-20th century. This area has a vibrant business district on James Street. Sunnycrest Park is located in Eastwood and offers residents a 9-hole golf course and groomed skiing trails in the winter

Lakefront

The Lakefront neighborhood lies along Onondaga Lake and consists of two distinct neighborhoods. The first being the tightknit Maciejowa neighborhood, which is located on the southern end of the lake and is home to residents whose families have lived in the Lakefront sector for generations. The other neighborhood, Franklin Square, is within a former factory district, which has been gentrified into offices, upscale condominiums and apartments. Lakefront also includes the 2.6 miles of Onondaga Creekwalk, which extends both north and south from the Inner Harbor.

Northside

Northside is home to Syracuse’s largest immigrant and refugee populations who hail from countries around the world such as Germany, Laos, Sudan and Bosnia. This sector includes two historical districts, North Salina Street (also known as “Little Italy”) and Hawley-Green. The city of Syracuse is attempting to revitalize the business districts in this area to improve community environments and assist in breaking the cycle of poverty that exists in this area. The Northside includes Washington Square, the Court-Woodlawn neighborhood and St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center, a major employer, especially for many immigrants.

Southside

The Southside includes four distinct residential areas known as Southwest, Brighton, Strathmore and Elmwood. Formerly home to some of the most beautiful homes in Syracuse, the Southwest neighborhood has recently undergone revitalization to improve the housing quality. Brighton is a predominantly residential neighborhood located along South Salina Street. Strathmore is primarily a single-family residential area with 20th century architecture. Elmwood is a small area in the city that includes one- and two-family homes in a secluded wooded area in the city. Onondaga, Kirk and Elmwood parks are beautiful public spaces.

The Valley

Previously owned by the Onondaga Nation, The Valley is now a quiet area of the city. Residents can enjoy peaceful walks around Webster and Coldbrook Pond. Most community meetings are held in the historic Bob Cecile Center. This neighborhood also boasts the thriving Valley Plaza Shopping Center along with other commercial businesses located on Midland Avenue and South Salina Street among others.

Westside

The Westside is primarily a commercial area and with the bustling Far Westside neighborhood that includes West Genesse Street. This area also has several open public spaces such as Burnet Park Zoo, Skiddy, Faldo, and Stone Throwers parks. The Westside also contains the Westcott Reservoir. The two main neighborhoods in this area are Tipperary Hill and the Near Westside.

http://www.syrgov.net/News_City.aspx

References for all other sources are located on P.111

6

http://www.syrgov.net/News_City.aspx

Property Overview

The overview will examine the condition of the housing market in Syracuse. This section will provide background information on

property issues within the housing market.

7

Methods Data were provided by the city of Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business Development. The dataset is comprised of 42,028 properties. Data from the US Census and from the city of Syracuse TNT website have also been included in this report to assist in the reader’s knowledge of the geographic locations and profiles of the area to enhance the property overview.

Since data were provided by outside sources, researchers cannot comment on the accuracy of the data or its collection methods. Researchers have discovered some inconsistencies of which readers should be aware.

In the data provided, there were multiple indicators for classifying property types. The variables that most accurately portrayed the data were “Land Use”, “Property Type”, and “Vacant Land.” However, in the dataset, “Vacant Land” is also used as a variable to classify “Land Use” and “Property Type.” This classification creates some inconsistencies because there is more than one indicator of “Vacant Land” in the data. For example, properties classified as “Vacant Land” are often categorized as “Not Vacant” under “Land Use”, which is contradictory. As a result, these properties were removed from the dataset prior to conducting the analysis for this report.

Issues of accuracy are also found in missing property information and inconsistent geographic classification. Not all property information is included in the dataset, and as a result, the properties with missing information were removed from the analyses. There are also two properties, listed as being in the Valley, that were found to be incorrectly assigned to this sector. These properties were removed from this dataset.

8

1. 64% of properties in the city of Syracuse are found on the Northside, Southside and Eastside.

Source: Syracuse City Parcel File, Jan. 21, 2014 Comment

This information was not available for 86 (0.20%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse.

City Properties by TNT Sector 2014

TNT Sector Number Percent Lakefront 426 1% Downtown 472 1% Valley 3,177 8% Eastwood 4,910 12% Westside 5,998 14% Eastside 8,135 19% Southside 8,870 21% Northside 9,953 24% Total 41,941 100%

9

2. 50% or more of structures in each of the TNT sectors were built between 1901 and 1950.

Source: Syracuse City Parcel File, Jan. 21, 2014 Comments

This information was not available for 4,815 (11%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse. Downtown and Lakefront are not included in the graph because the numbers are so low. That information is found in a separate table below.

10

Year Structures were Built 2014

Year Built

TNT Sector Valley Westside Eastside Eastwood Northside Southside

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1790-1900 177 6% 1,630 33% 454 6% 221 5% 2,728 30% 1,220 16% 1901-50 1,503 50% 2,729 56% 4,567 62% 3,669 78% 5,527 61% 4,809 65% 1951-2000 1,259 43% 456 9% 2,340 31% 798 17% 862 9% 1,287 17% 2001-13 20 1% 88 2% 102 1% 7 0% 34 0% 112 2% Total 2,959 100% 4,903 100% 7,463 100% 4,695 100% 9,151 100% 7,428 100%

Years Syracuse Structures were Built of TNTs Not Included in Chart Above

2014 Lakefront Downtown

Year Built Number Percent Number Percent 1790-1900 29 11% 53 15% 1901-1950 68 25% 128 37% 1951-2000 156 59% 159 46% 2001-2013 13 5% 7 2% Total 266 100% 347 100%

11

3. 92% of properties in Eastwood are classified as residential, compared to 16% in Downtown.

Source: Syracuse City Parcel File, 2013, Jan. 21, 2014 Comments

99 (0.2%) of the 42,027 properties are not identified within a TNT sector, so they are not included in the analysis. Some property types were condensed into a category titled “Other” due to the low percentages. The “Other” category consists of the following property types: cemeteries, community services, industrial, parking, parks, recreation, religious, schools, and utilities. Single-, two-, and three-family units were condensed into “Residential” with multiple residence and apartments as well. The commercial grouping consists of commercial and industrial properties.

12

Land Use by TNT Sector 2014

TNT Area

Property Type Total Commercial Residential Other

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Downtown 241 51% 74 16% 158 33% 473 100% Eastside 680 8% 6,682 82% 773 10% 8,135 100% Eastwood 161 3% 4,538 92% 211 4% 4,910 100% Northside 706 7% 8,477 85% 770 8% 9,953 100% Southside 264 3% 7,049 79% 1,557 18% 8,870 100% Valley 115 4% 2,831 89% 228 7% 3,174 100% Westside 512 9% 4,467 74% 1,019 17% 5,998 100%

13

4. 95% of the properties in Syracuse are occupied.


This information is not available 893 (2%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse.

Property Vacancies 2014

Vacancy Status Number Percent Occupied 39,235 95% Vacant 1,899 5% Total 41,134 100%

14

5. 95% of residential properties in Syracuse are occupied.


Information is not available for 893 (2%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse. 3,217 are categorized as “Vacant Land” and removed from the dataset to provide more accurate results. Some property types have been condensed into a category titled “Other” due to the low percentages. The “Other” category is not included in the graph above as 100% of this category is not vacant. The “Other” category consists of the following property types: cemeteries, community services, industrial, parking, parks, recreation, religious, schools, and utilities. Single-, two-, and three–family units were condensed into “Residential,” including multiple residences and apartments.

Vacancy by Land Use

2014 Residential Commercial Other Vacancy Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Not Vacant 32,233 95% 2,499 94% 1,153 98% Vacant 1,702 5% 168 6% 27 2% Total 33,935 100% 2,667 100% 1,180 100%

15

6. 62% of vacant Syracuse properties are located in the Northside and Southside.


Downtown and Lakefront are not included because of the low numbers of vacant properties in these sectors. There are 20 Downtown and nine at the Lakefront. Information on vacancies are not available for 901 (2%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse.

Vacancies by TNT Sector 2014

TNT Sector Number Percent Eastside 152 8% Eastwood 75 4% Northside 549 29% Southside 619 33% Valley 94 5% Westside 381 20% Total 1,870 100%

4%

5%

8%

20%

29%

33%

Eastwood

Valley

Eastside

Westside

Northside

Southside

Syracuse Vacant Properties by TNT Sector2014

n=1,870

16

7. 82% of Syracuse properties have owners who have a Syracuse home address.


Property owner home address data were not available for 120 (0.2%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse.

Residency of Property Owner

2014 Area Number Percent

Syracuse 34,294 82% Outside of Syracuse 7,613 18% Total 41,907 100%

17

8. 94% of properties in the city of Syracuse have active water service.


No information is available for 5,033 (12%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse.

Water Service 2014

Number Percent Active 34,959 94% Inactive 2,035 6% Total 36,994 100%

18

9. 84% of properties with inactive water service are residential.


The sample above only represents properties with inactive water service. Water service information is not available for 4,947 (12%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse. The “Other” category consists of the following property types: cemeteries, community services, industrial, parking, parks, recreation, religious, schools, and utilities. Single-, two-, and three-family units have been condensed into “Residential,” including multiple residences and apartments.

Inactive Water Service by Land Use 2014

Inactive Water Service Land Use Number Percent Residential 1,713 84% Commercial 204 10% Other 118 6% Total 2,035 100%

19

10. 60% of properties with inactive water service are located on the Northside and Southside.


Water service information is not available for 4,947 (12%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse.

Inactive Water Service by TNT Sector

2014 TNT Sector Number Percent

Downtown 12 1% Eastside 158 8% Eastwood 92 5% Lakefront 23 1% Northside 577 28% Southside 654 32% Valley 94 5% Westside 425 21% Total 2,035 100%

20

11. 87% of properties in Syracuse are not tax delinquent.

Source: Syracuse City Parcel File, Jan. 21, 2014

Tax Delinquency 2014

Number Percent Delinquent 5,388 13% Not Delinquent 36,639 87% Total 42,027 100%

21

12. More than twice as much is owed in back taxes to the city of Syracuse compared to Onondaga County for properties located in the city.


Downtown and Lakefront properties are not included since they respectively account for only 73 and 41 tax delinquent properties.

Total Tax Amount Owed

2014 Area Amount Percent Syracuse $45,009,961 70% Onondaga $19,565,841 30% Total $64,575,802 100%

22

13. 72% of taxes owed to Onondaga County come from the Southside, Westside and Northside.


Lakefront is not included in the graph because the amounts are so low that the percentage is insignificant. TNT identification was not available for $81,344.13 of total taxes owed to Onondaga County and was removed from the data.

Property Taxes Owed to Onondaga County by TNT Sector 2014

TNT Sector Number Percent Downtown $1,823,454 9% Eastside $2,219,769 11% Eastwood $672,455 3% Lakefront $90,614 0% Northside $3,436,745 18% Southside $6,097,920 31% Valley $623,238 3% Westside $4,520,299 23% Total $19,484,496 100%

23

14. 38% of Syracuse properties that are tax delinquent are located in the Southside.

Source: Syracuse City Parcel File, Jan. 21, 2014 Comment 36,642 (87%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse are not tax delinquent.

Tax Delinquent Properties by TNT Sector 2014

TNT Sector Number Percent Southside 2,071 38% Westside 1,151 21% Northside 995 18% Eastside 540 10% Eastwood 271 5% Valley 243 5% Downtown 73 1% Lakefront 41 1% Total 5,385 100%

24

15. 62% of tax delinquent properties in the Southside have been delinquent for more than five years, compared to 38% of tax delinquent properties in the Valley.


Downtown and Lakefront properties are not included since combined they account for only 100 tax delinquent properties.

25

Tax Delinquency in Years 2014

TNT Sector 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21+ Total

# % # % # % # % # % # % Eastside 288 56% 63 12% 68 13% 9 2% 90 17% 518 100% Eastwood 157 61% 41 16% 34 13% 2 1% 24 9% 258 100% Northside 540 55% 167 17% 178 18% 22 2% 66 7% 973 100% Southside 770 38% 356 17% 431 21% 82 4% 404 20% 2,043 100% Valley 147 62% 35 15% 29 12% 4 2% 21 9% 236 100% Westside 470 42% 189 17% 223 20% 58 5% 179 16% 1,119 100%

26

Lending Practices Implementation of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act in 1975 required lending institutions to report public loan data. This section will provide

information on the accessibility of credit in Onondaga County.

27

Methods The data used in this report were collected by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) from information provided by all loan applicants in the United States. For the purpose of this study, researchers focused their analyses on Onondaga County in 2011, which is the most current year for which information is available. The data were provided by Home Headquarters. This research project occurred during the Spring of 2014. Unless otherwise noted, findings and charts portray data for Onondaga County. The 8,458 loan applicants for 2011 in Onondaga County are represented in this report.

Data were provided to the researchers from outside sources, and therefore the accuracy of the data and its collection methods cannot be verified. While researchers have not collected or entered the data from the loan applications, the information provided is believed to be an accurate portrayal of lending practices by mortgage loan institutions in Onondaga County.

28

16. 73% of all loan applications in Onondaga County were approved and accepted.

Source: FFIEC

Loan Action in Onondaga County

2011 Loan Action Number Percent Application Approved But Not Accepted 279 4% Application Denied 1,095 17% Application Withdrawn 339 5% File closed for Incompleteness 68 1% Loan Approved and Accepted 4,845 73% Total 6,626 100%

29

17. 63% of applicants who identified as white had their home mortgage loans approved and accepted.

Source: FFIEC

Loan Approved by Race 2011

Race Number Percent American Indian or Alaska Native 15 47% Asian or Pacific Islander 84 60% Average 62% Black or African American 150 47% White 4,338 63%

30

18. The average loan amount approved for mortgage loan applications in Onondaga County, but outside of the city of Syracuse is $106,386, which is 35% higher than the average amount approved for city residents.

Source: FFIEC

Comments

983 applications were omitted from the data due to a lack of information provided or being classified as “not applicable.” Applications classified as “not applicable” were not filed within the 2011 calendar year. The city of Syracuse is represented by census tracts 1-61.03. The rest of Onondaga County is denoted by census tracts 101-169.02.

Average Loan Amount by Location 2011

Location Loan Amount City of Syracuse $68,836 Rest of Onondaga County $106,386

31

19. The average home loan approved in Eastside was $150,000, more than twice as high as the average of home loans approved in the Southside, Northside, or Valley.

Source: FFIEC

32

20. 90% of home mortgage loans in Downtown were used for home purchase, rather than home improvement.

Source: FFIEC

Comment

See Appendix IV for table.

33

21. 63% of home mortgage loan applicants had an income of $74,000 or less.

Source: FFIEC

Comments

Income information has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

The data listed as Not Available, which represents 786 people was omitted. The response Not Available was used if the loan was for a multifamily dwelling, no income information was asked or relied on in the credit decision, or the applicant’s information is unavailable because the loan has been purchased by an institution (A Guide to HMDA Reporting, A-6).”

See Appendix II for neighborhood breakdown.

Income of Home Mortgage Loan Applicants 2011

Income Number Percent $75,000 or More 2,873 37% $50,000 to $74,000 2,089 27% $49,000 or Less 2,800 36% Total 7,762 100%

34

22. Downtown homeowners had the highest average income of home loan applicants at $101,167, while the Westside had the lowest average income at $44,405.

Source: FFIEC

35

23. Male loan applicants in Onondaga County received an average home purchase loan amount of $97,956.

Source: FFIEC

Average Loan Amount by Gender 2011

Gender Loan Amount Male $97,956 Female $77,266

36

24. 29% of home purchase loans are denied based on the applicant’s debt-to-income ratio.

Source: FFIEC

Home Purchase Loan Denial Reason in Onondaga County 2011

Denial Reason Number Percent Collateral 44 11% Credit application incomplete 39 10% Credit history 99 25% Debt-to-income 115 29% Employment history 19 5% Insufficient cash 19 5% Mortgage insurance denied 12 3% Other 19 5% Unverifiable information 31 8% Total 397 100%

37

25. 42% of home improvement loans are denied based on the applicant’s credit history.

Source: FFIEC

Comments

The reasons “credit application incomplete,” “mortgage insurance denied,” and “insufficient cash” received zero responses and were therefore omitted from the finding. FFIEC did not offer a further explanation of the “other” responses.

Home Improvement Loan Denial Reason in Onondaga County 2011

Denial Reason Number Percent Collateral 40 8% Credit history 212 42% Debt to income 142 28% Employment history 4 1% Other 15 3% Unverifiable information 84 18% Total 497 100%

38

26. 37% of applicants in Onondaga County with an income of less than $50,000 were denied loans because of their debt-to-income ratio.

Source: FFIEC

Comment

FFIEC did not offer a further explanation of the “other” responses.

Home Mortgage Loan Denial Reason for Income Level less than $50,000

2011 Denial Reason Number Percent

Collateral 27 16% Credit Application Incomplete 13 8% Credit History 160 34% Debt-to-Income Ratio 173 37% Employment History 11 7% Insufficient Cash 9 6% Mortgage Insurance Denied 8 5% Other 51 11% Unverifiable Information 18 4% Total 470 100%

39

27. 38% of loan applicants in Onondaga County with an income level between $50,000 and $74,000 were denied because of their credit history.

Source: FFIEC

Comment


Home Mortgage Loan Denial Reason for Income Level Between $50,000 to $74,000



40

28. 33% of loan applicants in Onondaga County with an income level greater than $75,000 were denied loans because of their credit history.

Source: FFIEC Comment


Home Mortgage Loan Denial Reason for Income Level Greater than $75,000



41

29. 60% of home mortgage applicants that who were denied reside in the Northside, Southside, or Eastside.

Source: FFIEC

Comments

No applicants were denied in Downtown or Lakefront. For this reason these sectors were no included in the chart.

42

Affordable Housing

43

Methods Data were provided by US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business Development. Data were also obtained from the US Census Bureau. Research conducted occurred during the spring semester of 2014.

The regions analyzed include the city of Syracuse, Syracuse MSA, Onondaga County, and the cities of Rochester and Buffalo. The counties of Onondaga, Madison and Oswego comprise the Syracuse Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).

There is no central location where all address-level inventory of federally assisted rental housing data are integrated. Therefore it makes it difficult to get a clear picture of the current stock of public and affordable housing in a community. Since this report is based on data from multiple sources there is not a definitive sample population. This prevents an analysis of the representativeness of the data compared to the target population, low-income individuals and affordable housing units.

Issues of representativeness first arise in the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) dataset for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Nine of the grantees awarded CDBG monies allocated by the city of Syracuse were excluded from analysis because their addresses could not be linked to the Syracuse parcel file for property information. The CDBG properties that have been analyzed are considered to be a sample of adequate and affordable housing in Syracuse. However, the data are not representative of all affordable housing in Syracuse because not every property that might be considered affordable housing in Syracuse has been the recipient of CDBG funds.

Information on the Moderate Rehabilitation program (Mod Rehab) was not available in the data provided in the “Picture of Subsidized Households” available through HUD. The lack of data alters the representativeness of all subsidized housing in Syracuse.

In regards to the HUD data obtained, there are underlying issues with the information. The American Community Survey (ACS) from which Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) is now derived, has a smaller sample size than the Decennial Census (which was the basis of the 2000 CHAS). This means the sample size of information collected by this survey is not representative of the target population.

Also, the unavailability of current data used in this report may raise concerns about the relevancy and representativeness of this data. For example, CHAS provided data on homeowner and rental housing problems may not be an accurate interpretation of the amount of housing problems in Syracuse in 2014. In addition, the data do not reflect the amount of rental housing problems that are present after Syracuse began investing, through CDBG, in reducing the housing problems renters face.

Issues regarding the accuracy of the data analyzed in the report include errors noted in the ACS in regards to accuracy of CHAS data, inconsistent sources, and rounding error.

44

When analyzed in Excel, housing units were organized into TNT sectors, determined through zip code information, which do not align perfectly with TNT sectors in all cases. This may have distorted the accuracy of the analysis.

Further accuracy issues arise when working with multiple data sources. Particularly because HUD’s “A Picture of Subsidized Households” and the National Housing Preservation Database report a difference of 1,470 subsidized housing units in Syracuse. For this report, the National Housing Preservation Database has been used to depict the amount of subsidized housing units in Syracuse since it is considered to be more comprehensive and has geographic information for all housing units. While, HUD’s “A Picture of Subsidized Households” was used to examine demographic and occupancy rates of different subsidized housing programs, which was not available through the National Housing Preservation Database.

Finally, in a “Picture of Subsidized Households,” only percentages of demographic and socioeconomic information were available. The lack of a sample size raises questions about the accuracy of the data provided.

Source Programs

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS): This online tool provides data on income, housing problems and cost burdens that homeowners and renters face throughout the country. The information was collected from the US Census Bureau in the American Community Survey between 2006 and 2010 and is given to HUD to provide information on housing needs in each community.

Picture of Subsidized Households: This online table generator provides descriptive data on all subsidized housing programs available in any city. This includes demographic and socioeconomic information of the recipients, occupancy rates, number of bedrooms, and average waitlist time for each housing program. This tool provides data on Housing Choice Vouchers, Public Housing, Mod Rehab, Section 8 NC/SR, Section 236, Multi-Family subsidies. Locations analyzed using this tool include the cities of Syracuse, Buffalo, and Rochester for 2009-12. Information on how the data for this HUD program was collected is not available.

Income Limits Documentation System: This tool determines the income an individual or family must receive to qualify as low income. The income limit for a four- person family in 2014 for Syracuse was analyzed in this study.

Permit Dataset: The amount of single- and multi-family unit building permits granted in Onondaga County between 2008 and 2012 were analyzed. Syracuse data were not available

Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business Development

City of Syracuse Consolidated Plan: This report determines the allocation of federal resources for affordable housing based on socioeconomic and housing conditions of the community. The section of the city’s budget to improve the quality of affordable housing for program year 39 (May 2013-April 2014) is included in the report.

45

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Dataset: The data includes information on CDBG monies awarded in the city of Syracuse. This information was collected between 2010 and 2013. The data has been analyzed using MS Excel and mapped using ArcGIS.

3-5 Year Strategic Plan: This plan outlines how the city of Syracuse will address the community’s housing and community development needs, goals, and objectives, as determined by the city and citizen input. Information from the plan contained in this report includes the amount of houses sold in Syracuse and their average selling price between 2003 and 2009, and the amount of elderly and family public housing, Section 236, and Section 211 housing units in Syracuse. Information on how these data were collected is unknown.

Community Housing Data

Christopher Community Waitlist Dataset: This dataset provides the numbers of those on the waitlist for specific housing managed by the Christopher Community along with desired number of rooms needed and the year to date waiting list turnovers for each property.

Syracuse Housing Authority Waitlist Dataset: This dataset includes the number of rooms desired, gender, zip code, and application date for Section 8 housing through the Syracuse Housing Authority. For this report, only applicants that were placed on the waitlist after January 2012 were analyzed.

GIS Data

US Census Bureau: The GIS data used to map demographic information is located in this dataset, which provides 2010 census information divided by census tract. Some of the CDBG grantees and locations of subsidized housing was mapped over this information.

The National Housing Preservation Database

The data in the National Housing Preservation Database comes from HUD and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and includes nine federally subsidized programs. State and local subsidies are not included in this database. Information on contract expiration dates, loan maturity dates, recent physical inspection scores, number of units, type of owner and other property and subsidy characteristics are included to assist users in determining whether or not a property is at risk of leaving the subsidized housing stock.

COMMENTS ABOUT SOURCE DATA:

It is important to note that data provided by the National Housing Preservation Database were not included in the datasets provided (suggested) by the city of Syracuse. However, the purpose of these data were found relevant to the Affordable Housing report once discovered towards the end of data analysis period.

The database was created in an effort to centralize and effectively preserve resources of public and affordable housing. If interested, the National Housing Preservation Database welcomes adding state and local subsidy information to the database for your community in order to make it more practical to get housing information in communities.

46

Current Housing Market Assessment

The following findings portray an overview of housing market in Syracuse,

Syracuse MSA, and Onondaga County, examined through the analysis of the household ownership, income levels, and housing problems. These findings reflect data previously collected through the US Department of Housing and

Urban Development and US Census.

47

30. The number of single-family homes purchased between 2003 and 2009 has dropped by more than 23%, while average home prices have gone up 37%.

Source: City of Syracuse Draft Consolidated Plan 2010-14

Single Family Houses Sold 2003-09

Year Number Average

Price 2003 1,080 $62,800 2004 1,244 $71,833 2005 1,148 $82,153 2006 1,092 $79,636 2007 1,111 $86,443 2008 879 $87,912 2009 827 $86,085 Total 7,381 $79,552

48

31. The number of multi-family homes sold in Syracuse decreased by more than 37% between 2004 and 2009, yet prices only rose by just under 4%.

Source: City of Syracuse Draft Consolidated Plan 2010-14

Multi-family Homes Sold 2004-09

Year Number Dollars 2004 369 $56,368 2005 496 $56,000 2006 480 $71,367 2007 406 $69,408 2008 283 $67,581 2009 231 $58,604 Total 2,265 $63,221

49

32. To qualify as having “extremely low income” in the Syracuse MSA, a four person family must have an annual income below $20,299.

Syracuse MSA Income Limit Summary 2014

FY Income Limit Category Percent of Median Dollars

Extremely Low 30% or Below $20,299 Very Low 31%-50% $20,300 Low 51%-80% $33,850 Moderate 81%-100% $54,150 Moderate to High (Median) Above 100% $67,700

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; FY Income Limits Summary 2008-14 Comments

Syracuse MSA includes the areas of Onondaga, Madison, and Oswego County. Income limit areas are based on FY Fair Market Rent Areas. This income limit applies to a four- person family.

50

33. Renters in Syracuse report more housing problems than renters in the rest of Onondaga County.

Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 2006-10 Comments

Information for 1,415 households in Syracuse and 1,970 households in Onondaga County are not available and are excluded from the dataset. Severe housing problems include: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room, and cost burden above 50% of the family’s income.

Severe Housing Problems in Syracuse and Onondaga County 2006-10

Syracuse Onondaga County Owner Renter Owner Renter

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent One or More Severe Housing Problems

2,640 11%

11,345 36%

10,860 9% 16,530 27%

No Housing Problems

20,500 89%

20,545 64%

109,785 91% 44,395 73%

Total

23,140 100%

31,890 100%

120,645 100% 60,925 100%

51

34. 57% of Syracuse renters in Syracuse report one or more housing problems.


Information for 1,415 households in Syracuse and 1,970 households in Onondaga County are not available and are excluded from the data. A housing problem is defined as incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, or a cost burden greater than 30% of the family’s income. The housing problems are for both owners and renters.

Housing Problems in Syracuse and Onondaga County 2006-10


Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent One or More Housing Problems

6,280 27%

18,240 57%

27,980 23%

29,440 48%

No Housing Problems

16,860 73%

13,645 43%

92,660 77%

31,490 52%

Total

23,140 100%

31,885 100%

120,640 100%

60,930 100%

52

35. 57% of renter households in Syracuse with housing problems have extremely low income.


Information for 1,415 households in Syracuse and 1,970 households in Onondaga County are not available and are excluded from the data. A housing problem is defined as incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, or a cost burden greater than 30% of the family’s income. The housing problems are for both owners and renters. This graph only includes housing units that exhibit one or more housing problems. Refer to finding three for description of income limits.

Income by Household Type Reporting Housing Problems 2006-10

Syracuse Renters Onondaga County

Renters Syracuse

Homeowners Onondaga County

Homeowners Income Level Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Extremely Low Income 10,340 57% 14,270 48% 1,155 18% 4,310 15% Very Low Income 5,180 28% 8,735 30% 1,855 30% 6,175 22% Low Income 2,110 12% 5,105 17% 1,775 28% 7,480 27% Moderate Income 380 2% 690 2% 675 11% 4,070 15% Moderate to High Income 230 1% 635 2% 825 13% 5,950 21% Total 18,240 100% 29,440 100% 6,280 100% 27,980 100%

53

Affordable Housing Funding Patterns

The following findings examine the Syracuse affordable housing market using

investment data made to affordable housing units through Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). The overall purpose of the CDBG program is to create viable urban communities by providing low- and moderate-income persons and areas with adequate housing and a suitable living environment

through home rehabilitation projects. These findings reflect data collected by the Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business Development.

54

36. The Southside receives the most funding to rehabilitate two-family homes.

55

37. $3,657,220 was awarded to rehabilitate privately owned single-unit homes between 2010 and 2013.

Source: Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business Development

Comments

“Other” includes land that is used for three family residencies (12), apartments (13), commercial (5), and vacant land (8). Grants were awarded in varying amounts, accounting for the difference in investments and the amount of units supported.

Investment and Land Use of CDBGs 2010-13

Amount of Units Investment Land Use Number Percent Dollars Percent

Single Family 580 76% $2,869,911 69% Two Family 150 20% $989,532 24% Other 38 5% $314,142 8% Total 768 100% $4,173,585 100%

56

38. 61% of Community Development Block Grants funding were awarded to Syracuse residents living in the Southside and Northside TNT sectors.


Comments

Properties in Downtown Syracuse were not awarded any CDBG monies. A map of where all CDBG monies were awarded by TNT sector is available in the appendix. A $1,000 grant awarded to a property in Lakefront is not shown in the chart or table.

CDBG by TNT Sector 2010-13

Number Percent Southside $1,587,293 38% Northside $973,975 23% Westside $832,654 20% Eastside $286,256 7% Eastwood $257,104 6% Valley $235,303 6% Total $4,173,585 100%

57

39. The Southside of Syracuse has the largest amount of low to moderate income housing units receiving Community Development Block Grants.

58

40. 51% of low income housing units supported by CDBG funds are located in the Southside.


Comments

Since some grants support multiple low-income housing units, the number of units supported is larger than the amount of grants awarded. One low income housing unit supported in Lakefront was excluded from analysis.

Low Income Housing Units Supported by CDBG in Syracuse

2010-13 Location Number Percent

Southside 465 51% Northside 143 16% Westside 123 14% Eastside 75 8% Valley 51 6% Eastwood 47 5% Total 905 100%

59

41. 98% of CDBG projects funded between 2010 and 2013 have been completed.


Status of BDBG Projects 2010-13

Type Percent Number Complete 98% 752 Incomplete 2% 16 Total 100% 768

60

42. Close to $2.7 million has been budgeted by the city of Syracuse for affordable housing in 2013-14.

Source: City of Syracuse Fourth Annual Action Plan Draft 2013-14 Comments

Programs with variables listed as N/A are programs that do not have grant data listed. To apply for funding between May 2013 and April 2014, applicants were required to apply for funding to administer specific programs or services that fall under one of four strategy areas. They are: 1. Provision and maintenance of quality of affordable housing, 2. Services for the housing vulnerable population 3. Services for the special needs population 4. Housing deconstruction and demolition. The programs above are supported projects included in the 5-Year Strategic Action Plan.

Financial Support for Quality Affordable Housing in Syracuse 2013-14

Program Final Budget Requested Proposed Butternut St. Residential Home Improvement Program $20,500 $21,565 N/A Neighborhood Revitalization and Stabilization Program $44,400 $165,890 $40,000 Home Access Program $51,200 $65,519 $30,000 Affordable Housing & Community Revitalization Programs $68,300 N/A N/A Far Westside/ City of Syracuse Revitalization Strategy $92,200 $121,500 $82,980 Home Improvement- SHARP $104,200 $116,000 $153,100 Southwest Neighborhood Revitalization and Stabilization Program $149,300 $776,276 $151,118 Home Improvement- 1% Loan Program $190,400 $156,250 $200,000 Vacant Property Program $265,142 Rental Rehabilitation $307,100 $488,815 $293,140 Homeownership Services- Down payment Assistance $383,900 $524,270 $400,000 Home Improvement- Urgent Care $1,000,000 $1,580,000 $1,000,000 Total $2,676,642 $2,350,338 $2,350,338

61

Availability of Affordable Housing

The following findings show the distribution of affordable housing in Syracuse. The data collected displays subsidizing housing appreciation, occupancy, and types of subsidized housing programs in Syracuse. A breakdown of adequate

affordable housing units receiving CDBG funding for each TNT sector is also provided. These findings reflect data previously collected through the US

Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business Development, and the National Housing

Preservation Database.

62

43. The Eastside of Syracuse has 2,151 subsidized housing units.

Comments

This map includes Section 236, 202, 811, public housing, home, LIHTC, Housing Choice Vouchers, RAP, and Rent Supplement Program. For descriptions of the housing programs please refer to the glossary which begins on p. 107.

63

44. 27% of subsidized housing units in Syracuse are public housing.

Source: National Housing Preservation Database 2014

Comments

Other includes Section 811, HOME, and RAP. For descriptions on housing programs please refer to the glossary, which begins on p. 107.

Subsidized Housing in Syracuse 2014

Type Number Percent Public Housing 2,345 27% Housing Choice Voucher 1,469 17% Section 236 1,439 17% Rent Supplement Program 1,182 14% Section 202 964 11% LIHTC 786 9% Other 437 5% Total 8,622 100%

64

45. There are 326 affordable housing structures in the Southside that received grants to improve housing facilities.

Comments Since CDBG funding is generally awarded to landlords to improve the adequacy of the affordable housing they offer to low income tenants, CDBG grantee locations are representative of affordable and adequate housing in each area. The numbers in each neighborhood represent a count of the CDBG grantees there.

65

46. There are 147 affordable housing structures in the Northside that received grants to improve housing facilities.

Comment

Since CDBG funding is generally awarded to landlords to improve the adequacy of the affordable housing they offer to low income tenants, CDBG grantee locations are representative of affordable and adequate housing in each area.

66

47. There are 113 affordable housing structures in the Westside that received grants to improve housing facilities.

Comment

Since CDBG funding is generally awarded to landlords to improve the adequacy of the affordable housing they offer to low income tenants, CDBG grantee locations are representative of affordable and adequate housing in each area.

67

48. There are 77 affordable housing structures in the Eastside that received grants to improve housing facilities.

Comments Since CDBG funding is generally awarded to landlords to improve the adequacy of the affordable housing they offer to low income tenants, CDBG grantee locations are representative of affordable and adequate housing in each area.

68

49. 71% of subsidized housing in Syracuse is for those who are not considered to be elderly or disabled.

Source: National Housing Preservation Database 2014

Comment

Other represents families and independents that are not elderly or disabled.

Subsidized Housing by Type in Syracuse 2014

Type Number Percent Elderly and Disabled 2,541 29% Other 6,081 71% Total 8,622 100%

69

50. The total HUD subsidized housing units in Syracuse has decreased proportionally with the occupancy between 2010 and 2012.

Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; A Picture of Subsidized Households 2009-12

HUD Subsidized Housing Units in Syracuse 2009-12

Year Total Housing

Units Occupied Housing

Units 2009 7,557 6,952 2010 7,636 6,949 2011 7,405 6,813 2012 7,152 6,580 Average 7,438 6,823

70

Affordable Housing Needs

The section starts by examining the needs by housing size within the community and then analyzes the current house sizes and waitlists for subsidized housing. The population in each TNT sector is then compared to the location of CDBG

funds to assess need. A map of individuals living below the poverty line in Syracuse is provided in the appendix for further reference of need. These

findings reflect data obtained from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business

Development.

71

51. The Southside and Eastside contain the census tracts with the highest average renter-occupied household size in Syracuse.

Comment Average household size is used to infer the average number of bedrooms needed by renters in different TNT sectors of Syracuse.

72

52. 68% of subsidized housing units available in Syracuse have two or fewer bedrooms.

Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development; Subsidized Households 2012

Comment

The number of subsidized units available in Syracuse provided by HUD differs from the National Housing Preservation database (finding 16) by 1,470 units.

Bedrooms Available in Syracuse Subsidized Housing

2012 Bedrooms Number Percent

One or Less 3,147 44% Two 1,716 24% Three or More 2,289 32% Total 7,152 100%

73

53. 52% of individuals on the waitlists for Christopher Community and the Syracuse Housing Authority have requested apartments with three or more bedrooms.

Source: Christopher Community; Syracuse Housing Authority

Comments

Syracuse Housing Authority administers public housing for low and moderate income individuals and Christopher Community oversees Section 8 housing to individuals earning low to moderate incomes. 178 individuals were on the waitlist for the Syracuse Housing Authority between 2013 and 2014 and 1,237 individuals were on the Christopher Community Waitlist as of March 2014.

Waitlist of Christopher Community and SHA 2013-14

Bedrooms Number Percent One or Less 202 14% Two 481 34% Three or More 732 52% Total 1,415 100%

74

54. 33% of housing subsidies end within the next five years.

Source: National Housing Preservation Database

Comment Public housing units do not have subsidy end dates.

Subsidy End Date 2014

Date Number Percent 2014-2019 2,868 33% 2020-2024 1,305 15% After 2025 2,183 25% No End Date 2,369 27% Total 8,725 100%

75

55. 51% of Syracuse homeowners had moderate to high incomes in 2006-10, while 60% of renters had very or extremely low incomes.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2006-2010

Comment

All household incomes are calculated based on the HAMFI index, which stands for HUD Area Median Family income. Refer to finding three to determine income limits.

Syracuse Household Incomes 2006-10

Income Owner Renter

Number Percent Number Percent Extremely low income 1,460 6% 13,135 40% Very low income 2,705 12% 6,745 20% Low income 4,490 19% 6,155 19% Moderate income 2,720 12% 2,655 8% Moderate to high income 11,875 51% 4,510 14% Total 23,245 100% 33,200 100%

76

56. The Eastside of Syracuse has the largest population of all the TNT sectors in Syracuse, yet this location was awarded fewer grants compared to the Southside, Northside, and Westside.

Comments

The disproportionate population residing in the Eastside comes from the Syracuse University and SUNY-ESF student population. Total undergraduate enrollment of both universities is 16,241 people, many of whom live in the University Hill neighborhood. This represents 43% of Eastside’s total population of 37,502.

77

57. 38% of subsidized housing recipients in Syracuse live below the poverty line, compared to 30% of Rochester recipients and 32% of Buffalo recipients.

Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; A Picture of Subsidized Households 2012

Subsidized Housing Recipients Living in Poverty 2012

All Subsidized Housing Recipients

Subsidized Housing Recipients in Poverty

Number Number Percent Syracuse 7,532 2,862 38% Buffalo 10,638 3,404 32% Rochester 15,047 4,514 30%

78

58. 17% of Housing Choice Voucher units are in bedrooms with more than one person per room.

Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; A Picture of Subsidized Households 2012 Comment

Over-housing is when a bedroom has more than one person per room.

Over-housed Subsidized Housing in Syracuse by Type 2012

Over-housed Not Over-housed Type Number Percent Number Percent

Housing Choice Vouchers (N=3,207) 545 17% 2,662 83% Section 8 NC/SR (N=847) 85 10% 762 90% Public Housing (N=2,340) 187 8% 2,153 92% Multi-Family (N=313) 6 2% 307 98% Section 236 (N=391) 0 0% 391 100% Average 12% 93%

79

59. 56% of renters in Syracuse have moderate to high cost burdens.

Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 2006-10

Comments

Low cost burden represents rent that is less than 30% of the family’s income, moderate cost burden represents rent that is between 30% and 50% of the family’s income, and high cost burden represents rent that is above 50% of the family’s income. Information on cost burden was not available for 125 Syracuse homeowners, 1,340 Syracuse renters, 420 Onondaga County homeowners, and 1,615 Onondaga County renters.

Cost Burden in Syracuse and Onondaga County 2006-10

Household


Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Low Cost Burden 17,075 74%

14,190 45%

93,545 78%

32,375 53% Moderate Cost Burden 3,645 16%

7,220 23%

17,295 14%

13,395 22%

High Cost Burden 2,390 10%

10,455 33%

9,790 8%

15,115 25%

Total 23,110 100%

31,865 100%

120,630 100%

60,885 100%

80

Homelessness Between 2010 and 2013 at least 11,568 individuals spent at least one night in a

Syracuse area shelter. This is equivalent to 8% of the city’s population.

This section will provide a better understanding of the “who, where, how and why” of homelessness in the Syracuse area.

81

Methods Data were provided by Liddy Hintz, systems administrator for the Homeless Management Information Systems of Syracuse/Onondaga County (HMIS) and director of Emergency and Child Welfare Services for the Salvation Army. Due to the large number of records in the system and the difficulty in downloading and transferring them, researchers received several datasets of varying sizes and content. All the findings presented in this report were created using the most comprehensive dataset available.

The majority of variables examined in this report are part of the original dataset received from the HMIS systems administrator. However, researchers did construct several variables based on information contained in the dataset. For example, the variables “COUNT” and “COUNTCAT” show the total number of visits that an individual made to any of the service providers between 2010 and 2013. This variable was developed by counting the number of times that an individual’s unique ID number was attached to a unique visit. “COUNTY” and “MUNICIP” respectively show the county or state and the municipality of the individual’s last permanent address, and were constructed based on the zip code of last permanent address provided in the dataset. “AGECAT” uses the ages of each individual provided in the dataset to classify individuals into larger age groups (e.g., “Under 10 years old,” “10 to 19,” etc.).

This dataset contained information from 55,166 unique visits at nine service providers between 2010 and 2013, made by 11,568 unique individuals. While this dataset does not contain every visit to a service provider, nor every homeless individual in the area, researchers believe that the information is comprehensive and accurately represents a picture of the homeless population of Syracuse.

There are several potential sources of inaccurate information in this report. First, it is important to remember that all information found in the data have been provided by individuals using the shelter services. A copy of the form used to obtain the information is found in Appendix VIII. Although the form is completed by shelter employees who have received training in how to properly conduct the questionnaire, it relies on the information provided by the shelter residents. Many of these individuals suffer from drug and alcohol addictions, mental illnesses, and other developmental and physical challenges that may inhibit their ability to provide accurate information. The potential exists that some individuals may have purposefully provided false information for fear of facing negative consequences for providing certain information to shelter employees (e.g. not having a tuberculosis vaccination).

The second potential source of inaccurate data comes from the transfer of information from the intake forms to the HMIS electronic system by service provider employees. While employees have received training in how to access the HMIS system and record the data, the possibility of occasional errors is always present.

82

In some cases, inaccurate data has been recorded. Clear examples of inaccurate information became apparent as researchers analyzed the data. For example, there are several instances of individuals who reported being under 18 years of age and also reported being a military veteran.

It is not known if this was reported by the shelter residents or if the error occurred during data entry. One of the questions asked for the zip code of the respondent’s last permanent address. In some instances, the numeric values do not match any US zip codes. Again, it is unknown if the inaccurate information was reported by the residents, or if recording errors were made by shelter employees. While researchers have identified some inaccurate data, and it is possible that other undiscovered inaccuracies exist, researchers do not believe that this possibility raises a concern about the overall accuracy of this study and the subsequent portrayal of the homeless population in the Syracuse area that is presented.

83

Shelter Descriptions

Catholic Charities: Dorothy Day House The Dorothy Day House is an emergency shelter for women and their children who are homeless. The shelter is open 24/7 with 20 beds available. The shelter accepts women of any age, but agencies usually refer adolescent women to the shelter. Intake forms are required. The Catholic Charities- Diocese of Syracuse in Onondaga County operates the Dorothy Day House. Catholic Charities: Men’s Shelter The Emergency Shelter for Men is located at 1071 South Clinton Street in Syracuse. Catholic Charities operates the shelter for homeless men over the age of 24. The Catholic Charities Men’s Shelter’s defining characteristics is the longstanding open door policy and will accept anyone who seeks shelter, regardless of sobriety. There are 101 beds available. The shelter is equipped with security and offers various resources in addition to shelter, such as food and washrooms.

Catholic Charities: Oxford Apartments This emergency shelter for homeless men in Onondaga was closed in September 2013 and merged with Catholic Charities Men’s Shelter. The shelter operated approximately 20 beds for homeless men regardless of sobriety. The shelter was moved to South Clinton Street due to the increased level of resources available at that location. DSS Hotel Vouchers The Department of Social Services offers vouchers to homeless individuals in Onondaga County to stay at local motels. These vouchers can be obtained from social services, especially when all shelter beds are occupied at emergency shelters. The vouchers are used to temporarily assist a homeless individual for shelter purposes. The number of vouchers available is not specified.

Rescue Mission: Emergency Shelter The Rescue Mission is the largest emergency shelter in Syracuse, located in the Mission District of the city. The Rescue Mission provides a variety of services including offering shelter, three hot meals a day, bathrooms, and clothing and over 250 beds for men. The Rescue Mission serves meals to men, women and children but only offers overnight stays to men.

84

Salvation Army Emergency Family Shelter The Salvation Army Emergency Shelter is located at 749 Warren Street and operates 24/7 as an emergency crisis center. The shelter offers 60 beds, 20 cribs and is available for both men and women. The shelter aims to provide temporary emergency housing while also offering counseling, social work support and on-site referrals for future assistance resources. The shelter offers beds, food and assessments of physical/mental health. Salvation Army Emergency Women’s Shelter The Salvation Army’s Emergency Women’s Shelter provides temporary assistance and shelter to women without children living in Onondaga County. The shelter specifically offers assistance to women with serious mental health and psychiatric disabilities. The shelter offers on-site crisis intervention, social work support, mental health counseling and referrals for further assistance. The shelter operates 24/7 and contains 15 beds.

Salvation Army Booth House Booth House is a shelter operated by the Salvation Army that targets runaway and homeless youth, typically between the ages of 13-17. Youth in times of crisis can avail themselves of resources such as counseling, programming, shelter and food at Booth House for up to 60 days. The Booth House offers two types of emergency shelter, a 15-bed residential option located at 3624 Midland Avenue and a non-residential option where at-risk youth are placed with a “host family” within the county.

Vera House Vera House is a safe haven for both men and women who are victims of domestic and sexual violence. Vera House is available to individuals in crisis who need temporary shelter to protect themselves and their family from abuse. Vera House operates 24/7 at two confidential locations that together offer 36 beds.

85

60. There was a 29% total increase in shelter resident visits between 2010 and 2013.

Source: NY 505 CoC HMIS, Syracuse/Onondaga County Comments

This finding shows the total number of times that a person stayed at a shelter. This finding does not take into account the fact that some shelters allow residents to stay more than one night.

Number of Visits by Shelter Residents

2010-13 Year Number

2010 10,814 2011 13,628 2012 15,130 2013 15,135

86

61. There was a 29% increase of unique shelter residents that were served by at least one shelter from 2010 to 2013.

Source: NY 505 CoC HMIS, Syracuse/Onondaga County Comment

This finding only includes the number of individual clients served and does not represent the cumulative number of annual visits by each person.

Unique Shelter Residents Served

2010-13 Year Number

2010 3,022 2011 4,090 2012 4,369 2013 4,263

87

62. There was a 64% increase in the total number of unique shelter residents who are minors that were served between 2010 and 2013.

Source: NY 505 CoC HMIS, Syracuse/Onondaga County

Comments

Only shelter residents younger than 18 years old were included in this finding. Eighteen shelter residents were excluded from this finding because no age was listed.

Unique Shelter Residents Under 18 years old

2010-13 Year Number

2010 399 2011 936 2012 1,068 2013 1,117

88

63. 81% of shelter residents stayed at a shelter five times or less between 2010 and 2013.


This graph shows the total number of times between 2010 and 2013 that each shelter resident stayed at a shelter.

Times Shelter Residents Have Stayed at a Shelter 2010-13

Times Stayed Residents

Number Percent More than 50 112 1% 21 to 50 367 3% 11 to 20 627 5% Six to Ten 1,091 9% Two to Five 4,422 38% One 4,949 43% Total 11,568 100%

89

64. 99% of shelter residents who visited a shelter between 50 times or more between 2010 and 2013 were male.


Comments

A total of 18 shelter residents who identify as transgender were not included in this finding due to small sample size.

Number of Visits of Shelter Residents by Gender 2010-13

Gender

Number of Visits One Two to Five Six to Ten 11-20 21-50 >50

# % # % # % # % # % # %

Male 2,245 50% 2,468 59% 792 75% 548 88% 350 96% 111 99%

Female 2,490 50% 1,952 41% 298 25% 79 12% 16 4% 1 1%

Total 4,935 100% 4,420 100% 1090 100% 627 100% 366 100% 112 100%

50%

59%

75%

88%

96%

99%

50%

41%

25%

12%

4%

1%

One(n=4,935)

Two to Five(n=4,420)

Six to Ten(n=1,090)

11 to 20(n=627)

21 to 50(n=366)

50 or More(n=112)

Number of Visits of Shelter Residents by Gender2010-13

Male Female

90

65. 85% of shelter residents report a location in Onondaga County as their last permanent address.


Residents provided the zip code of their last permanent address. Aside from those included in the chart, 785 residents did not respond or provided a nonexistent zip code. Additionally, 276 residents are not included in this chart because the zip code provided is shared by Onondaga County and at least one other county, making their location unclear.

Location of Last Permanent Address 2010-13

Location Number Percent Onondaga County 8,898 85% New York State (outside of Onondaga County) 1,083 10% Out of State 526 5% Total 10,507 100%

91

66. 10,257 shelter residents report a location in New York State as their last permanent address. 8,898 shelter residents report a location in Onondaga County as their last permanent address. 8,273 residents report a location in Syracuse as their last permanent address.

Top Locations of Last Permanent Address

2010-13

Top Five States n=10,783

Top Five Counties in New York State

n=9,701

Top Five Municipalities in Onondaga County

n=8,898 New York 10,257 Onondaga 8,898 Syracuse 8,273 Florida 58 Oswego 71 Liverpool 246 Pennsylvania 54 Monroe 70 East Syracuse 94 Georgia 49 Oneida 63 Jamesville 81 New Jersey 40 Erie 58 Clay 42


Comments

Residents provided the zip code of their last permanent address. None of the three tables include the 785 residents who did not respond or who provided a nonexistent zip code. The center table does not include 556 residents whose zip codes are in more than one county in New York State, which makes it impossible to determine in which counties they previously lived.

92

67. 51% of shelter residents are 30 years of age or older, which is slightly higher than the percentage of all Syracuse residents who are 30 years or older.

Age of Shelter Residents Compared to Age of Syracuse Residents

Age in years

Shelter Residents 2010-13

Syracuse Residents 2010

Number Percent Number Percent 60 and older 528 5% 21,515 15% 50 to 59 1,524 13% 16,607 11% 40 to 49 1,861 16% 16,693 11% 30 to 39 1,957 17% 16,960 12% 20 to 29 2,375 21% 31,493 22% 10 to 19 1,567 14% 22,687 16% Under 10 1,740 15% 19,215 13% Total 11,552 100% 145,170 100%

Source: NY 505 CoC HMIS, Syracuse/Onondaga County; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Table DP-1

Comment

Omitted from the table are 16 shelter residents who did not report their age.

93

68. 53% of shelter residents identify as Black or African American, compared to 29% of all Syracuse residents.

Race of Shelter Residents Compared to Race of Residents of Syracuse, New York

Race



Number Percent Number Percent American Indian or Alaska Native 191 2% 1,606 1% Asian or Pacific Islander 104 1% 8,065 6% Black or African American 6,070 53% 42,770 29% White 5,012 44% 81,319 56% Other/Multi-Racial 93 1% 11,410 8% Total 11,470 100% 145,170 100%

Source: NY 505 CoC HMIS, Syracuse/Onondaga County; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Tables P5, P8, PCT4, PCT5, PCT8, and PCT11

Comments

Shelter residents were asked for their “primary race.” Omitted from the chart are 93 shelter residents who did not respond, two who refused to answer, and three who answered “Don’t know.”

94

69. 74% of residents, ages 50-59, are male.


A total of 18 shelter residents who either identify as transgender or did not indicate a gender are not included in this finding. A total of 16 shelter residents who did not report an age are also not included.

Gender of Shelter Residents, by Age 2010-13

Gender

Age in years 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older

# % # % # % # % # % # % # %

Male 897 50% 725 47% 1,100 46% 1,181 60% 1,273 68% 1,125 74% 407 65%

Female 843 50% 836 53% 1,272 54% 775 40% 587 32% 398 26% 121 35%

Total 1,740 100% 1,561 100% 2,372 100% 1,953 100% 1,860 100% 1,523 100% 528 100%

95

70. 58% of shelter residents under the age of 40 identify as black or African American, compared to 49% of those 40 years and older.


Comments

Omitted from the graph are 388 shelter residents who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, or another race. In addition, 99 shelter residents who did not answer when asked about race and/or age, one who refused to answer, and three who answered “Don’t know” are not included.

Age of Shelter Residents, by Race 2010-13

Race Under 40 40 and older

Number Percent Number Percent Black or African American 4,207 58% 1,859 49% White 3,093 42% 1,918 51% Total 7,300 100% 3,777 100%

96

71. 23% of shelter residents say that conflict in the household is the primary reason they are homeless.


Comment

The category ‘Other’ includes Mental Health, Loss of Job, No Affordable Housing, Underemployment/low income, Criminal Activity, Health/Safety, Domestic Violence Victim, Conflict w/ guardian, Substandard Housing, Medical Condition, Loss of Public Assistance, Mutual Agreement (Respite), Utility, Shutoff, Loss of Transportation, Loss of Child Care, and Mortgage Foreclosure. A total of 6,346 shelter residents are not included because they did not respond. See next page for the breakdown of each category, including those aggregated under Other.

97

Primary Reason for Homelessness 2010-13

Reason Count Percent Conflict in the Household 1,222 23% Eviction 793 15% Lack of sufficient housing 543 10% Release From Institution 440 8% Substance Abuse 369 7% Domestic Violence Victim 314 6% Health/Safety 266 5% Conflict w/ guardian 239 5% Substandard Housing 162 3% No Affordable Housing 160 3% Loss of Job 158 3% Criminal Activity 154 3% Mental Health 145 3% Underemployment/low income 119 2% Medical Condition 43 1% Utility Shutoff 34 1% Mutual Agreement (Respite) 19 0% Loss of Public Assistance 19 0% Loss of Transportation 13 0% Mortgage Foreclosure 7 0% Loss of Child Care 3 0% Total 5,222 100%

98

72. 39% of shelter residents whose previous living situation was supported by government subsidies, listed affordability as their primary reason for homelessness.


There were 16 responses listed under the variable “Reason for Homelessness”. The data was aggregated into four groups, which includes the following responses: 1. Affordability

Eviction, Loss of Job, Loss of Public Assistance, No Affordable housing and Underemployment/low income.

2. Lack of Sufficient Housing Lack of Sufficient Housing, Substandard Housing, Utility Shutoff

3. Health/Safety Domestic Violence Victim, Safety/Health, Medical Condition and Mental Health.

4. Other Conflict in the Household, Criminal Activity and Release from Institution.

Substance Abuse was not aggregated due to the high percentage of responses. 608 shelter residents whose previous living situation was supported by government subsidies did not list a primary reason for homelessness. See next page for the complete breakdown.

99

Primary Reason for Homelessness Among Shelter Residents whose Previous Living Situation was Supported Housing Subsidies

Number Percent Affordability Eviction 307 30% Loss of Job 8 1% Loss of Public Assistance 17 2% No Affordable Housing 15 1% Underemployment/Low Income 9 1%

Subtotal 395 39% Substance Abuse 190 19% Lack of Sufficient Housing Lack of Sufficient Housing 108 11% Substandard Housing 51 5% Utility Shutoff 9 1%

Subtotal 168 17% Health/Safety Domestic Violence Victim 11 1% Health/Safety 65 6% Medical Condition 12 1% Mental Health 82 8%

Subtotal 170 17% Other Conflict in Household 38 4% Criminal Activity 8 1% Release From Institution 41 4%

Subtotal 87 9% Total 1,010 100%

100

73. 69% of shelter residents who listed substance abuse as the primary reason for their homelessness identified as white.


Comment

This finding does not include nine respondents who identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Other/Multi-Racial because of the small number.

Substance Abuse by Race 2010-13

Number Percent Black or African American 111 31% White 249 69% Total 360 100%

101

74. 67% of shelter residents who listed substance abuse as the primary reason for their homelessness identified as male.


Substance Abuse by Gender 2010-13

Gender Number Percent Male 248 67% Female 121 33% Total 369 100%

102

75. 93% of shelter residents over the age of 18 are not veterans, which is similar to the percentage of all Syracuse residents over the age of 18 who are not veterans.

Veteran Status of Shelter Residents Compared to Veteran Status of Syracuse Veterans

Veteran Status



Number Percent Number Percent Non-Veteran 7,942 93% 103,647 94% Veteran 583 7% 7,094 6% Total 8,525 100% 110,741 100%

Source: NY 505 CoC HMIS, Syracuse/Onondaga County; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey, Table DP02

Comments

The chart includes only individuals who are 18 years of age or older. Omitted from the chart are 105 shelter residents who did not answer when asked if they are a veteran, 11 who answered “Don’t know,” and two who refused to answer.

103

76. One out of three shelter residents who are veterans report that affordability is the reason they are homeless.


Comments

The data were aggregated into four groups, which includes the following responses: 1. Affordability

Eviction, Loss of Job, Loss of Public Assistance, No Affordable housing, Underemployment/low income and Loss of Transportation

2. Health/Safety Domestic Violence Victim, Safety/Health, Medical Condition and Mental Health

3. Lack of Sufficient Housing Lack of Sufficient Housing, Substandard Housing and Utility Shutoff

4. Other Conflict in the Household, Criminal Activity, Release from Institution, Conflict w/ Guardian and Mutual Agreement (Respite) Substance Abuse Substance Abuse was not aggregated due to the high percentage of responses. 321 veterans left this question blank and are not included in the finding. See next page for the breakdown.

104

Reason for Veteran Homelessness 2010-13

Number Percent Affordability Eviction 44 16% Loss of Job 19 7% Loss of Public Assistance 1 0% No Affordable Housing 12 4% Underemployment/Low Income 11 4% Loss of Transportation 2 1%

Subtotal 87 32% Lack of Sufficient Housing Lack of Sufficient Housing 25 9% Substandard Housing 3 1% Utility Shutoff 2 1%

Subtotal 31 11% Health/Safety Domestic Violence Victim 6 2% Health/Safety 8 3% Medical Condition 7 3% Mental Health 12 4%

Subtotal 33 12% Substance Abuse 26 10% Other Conflict in Household 63 23% Criminal Activity 2 1% Release From Institution 24 9% Conflict w/ Guardian 2 1% Mutual Agreement (Respite) 2 1%

Subtotal 95 35% Total 271 100%

105

77. 60% of homeless veterans report having a disability.


Comments

This finding only includes veterans who reported having or not having a disability. Seven veterans responded that they did not know if they were disabled or refused to answer.

Disability Status of Veteran Shelter Residents 2010-13

Number Percent Disabled 352 60% Not Disabled 233 40% Total 585 100%

Not Disabled40%

Disabled60%

Disability Status of Shelter Residents who are Veterans2010-13n=585

106

Glossary Adequate Housing: A housing situation where individuals or families can access adequate privacy, space, security, lighting, infrastructure and location with regard to basic facilities - all at a reasonable cost. Affordable Housing: Housing in which the occupant pay no more than 30 percent of their income for total housing costs, including utilities. Apartment: A structure containing multiple units. Application Approved but not Accepted: The loan application is approved by bank, but not accepted by the loan applicant Application Withdrawn: The loan application is withdrawn by the applicant before a decision is made. Census Tract: A small statistical subdivision of a county. Census tract data identifies population and housing statistics about a specific part of an urban area. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): An annual entitlement the City of Syracuse receives from HUD to be used to benefit low and moderate income persons and areas. The overall purpose of the CDBG program is to create viable urban communities through providing low and moderate income persons and areas with adequate housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities through home rehabilitation projects Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS): A dataset that demonstrates the number of households in need of housing assistance. Conventional Loan: Any loan other than FHA, VA, FSA, or RHS loans. Cost Burden: When monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceed 30% of monthly income. Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association): Fannie Mae purchases mortgages from lending institutions in an effort to increase affordable lending activity at those institutions. FFIEC (Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council): Formal interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform principles, standards, and report forms for the federal examination of financial institutions. FHA-Insured (Federal Housing Administration): A type of mortgage assistance to help homebuyers who cannot get home loans because they do not qualify for private mortgage insurance.

107

Freddie Mac- (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) Federally chartered corporation that purchases residential mortgages and sells to investors providing lenders with funds for new homebuyers FSA/RHS-Guaranteed- FSA/RHS stands for Farm Service Agency/Rural Housing Service. FSA loans are for farmers or ranchers that are unable to obtain credit elsewhere to start, purchase, sustain, or expand. RSA loans are guaranteed for low and moderate income families seeking to buy modest, single-family homes in rural areas. Ginnie Mae- (Government National Mortgage Association) Pools FHA-insured and VA-guaranteed loans to back securities for private investment and provides funding that may then be lent to eligible borrowers by lenders. Grantees: Individuals or families receiving money from the CDBG program in order to improve their home. Home Improvement Loan- A home improvement loan is any dwelling-secured loan to be used, at least in part, for repairing, rehabilitating, remodeling, or improving a dwelling or the real property on which the dwelling is located. Home Purchase Loan- A home purchase loan is any loan secured by and made for the purpose of purchasing a dwelling. Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8): A federal assisted housing program, administered by public housing agencies that pays a portion of rent for low income people. The recipient is responsible for finding their own housing. This program is often referred to as Section 8 because it is the largest program under Section 8 of the housing act. Housing Problem: CHAS defines housing problems as a housing unit that is overcrowded, has a cost burden, and lacks complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI): This is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, in order to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. Land Use: defines what the land is used for whether it is for residential housing, commercial use, industrial use, parking, parks, recreation, religious use, schools, utilities, or if the land is vacant. It is also referred to as “property type”. Loan Purpose- Indicates whether the purpose of the loan or application was for home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing. Loan Type- Indicates whether the loan granted, applied for, or purchased was conventional, government-guaranteed, or government-insured. (https://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/glossary.htm) Low-Income: An individual or family with income that is less than or equal to 80% of the HUD Area Median Family Income; very low income if their income is less than or equal to 50% of the HAMFI; and extremely low income if their income is less than or equal to 30% of the HAMFI.

108

Low-Income: An individual or family with income that is less than or equal to 80% of the HUD Area Median Family Income; very low income if their income is less than or equal to 50% of the HAMFI; and extremely low income if their income is less than or equal to 30% of the HAMFI. Low Income Housing Tax Credit: Provides funding for the development costs of low-income housing by allowing the developer to take a federal tax credit equal to a percentage of the cost incurred for development of the low-income units in rental housing projects. Unlike all other HUD subsidized housing, rent is based on the average median income of the area, instead of being directly tied to the individual’s income. Moderate Rehabilitation: The moderate rehabilitation program provided project-based rental assistance for low income families until 1991. Multi-Family Units: Designed or suitable for the use of several or many families. Multiple Residence: is one parcel with multiple structures. Onondaga County Total Tax Amount Delinquent: is the total amount of property taxes owed to Onondaga County. Origination- The process of preparing, submitting, and evaluating a loan application. Overcrowding: More than 1 person per room. Parcel: is a lot or plot of land that is owned or meant to be owned by some owner or owners. Pre-approval- A lender commits to lend to a potential borrower a fixed loan amount based on a completed loan application, credit reports, debt, savings. Program Year: The year that the grant money was distributed. Public Housing: Government owned housing that is operated by local housing agencies. All beneficiaries must below 80% of the median area income, however these housing agencies can then determine preferences for local populations such as age, income, citizenship, and disability. Rents for residents of public housing are restricted to the highest of 30% of their monthly adjusted income, 10% of their monthly gross income, their welfare shelter allowance, or a local public housing agency established minimum rent of up to $50. Redlining- the practice of denying, or charging more for, services based on race, sex, etc. Residential Housing: is composed of parcels with Apartments, Single family units, two families units, three families units and multiple residences. Section 8 New Construction and Sustainable Rehabilitation (NC/SR): Also known as Project Based Section 8, this program provides originally provided a direct rental subsidy to

109

building owners who housed low-income tenants in newly built or rehabilitated units. Tenants pay 30% of their monthly adjusted income for rent and utilities and HUD pays the owner the difference between the contract rent and the tenant's portion. Section 202: Government program that provides loans with 3% interest rate for the construction, rehabilitation or acquisition of nonprofit housing for low income elderly. Section 221: This program was enacted under the National Housing Act of 1961, which enabled developers to obtain 3% mortgage rates from private lenders. Owners were required to make units available to low income families at HUD-approved rents for the term of their 40-year mortgage. This program was replaced by the Section 236 program in 1968. Section 236: Property owners in this program make mortgage payments that are based on a 1% mortgage interest rate. HUD then provides a subsidy to their lender to cover the difference between 1% and the market interest rate on the property's loan. These property owners must then charge HUD approved rents for low and moderate income families during their 40 year mortgage. Severe Cost Burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceed 50% of monthly income Subsidized Housing: Housing units that receive funding through HUD to ensure that housing is affordable for people with low and moderate income. Syracuse Total Tax Amount Delinquent: is the total amount of taxes owed to the city of Syracuse. Tax Years Delinquent: is the number of years that a property has owed taxes to the city of Syracuse. Type of Purchaser- Identifier of to whom a loan was sold. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): A department responsible for developing and executing policies and programs to improve housing. Vacant: means that a property or parcel is unoccupied. VA-guaranteed- (Veterans Administration) Classification for loans that are eligible for veterans only. Water Service: refers to whether or not the water service at a property is active or inactive. Inactive water service usually indicates that a property is not occupied.

110

References "American FactFinder." American FactFinder. The United States Government, n.d. Web. 07

May 2014.

"Financial Condition Report 2013." New York's Finances. Office of the New York State

Comptroller - Thomas P. DiNapoli, Jan. 2014. Web. 08 May 2014.

Moriarty, Rick. "Unemployment Rate Analysis: Syracuse Doing Better, but Here Are Three

Reasons Not to Celebrate Yet." The Post-Standard. Syracuse.com, 02 Feb. 2014. Web.

08 Mar. 2014.

Mulder, James. "Coalition Unveils 10-year Plan to End Homelessness in Syracuse Area." The

Post-Standard. Syracuse.com, 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 08 May 2014.

"Reports." Gaps and Needs Analysis 2013. Homeless and Housing Coalition of Syracuse and

Onondaga County, 5 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.

Schramm, Henry. "Our History." Our History. Syracuse Then and Now, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2014.

Sivy, Michael. "If There's No Inflation, Why Are Prices Up So Much?" Business Money If

Theres No Inflation Why Are Prices Up So Much Comments. TIME Magazine, 12 Mar.

2013. Web. 08 May 2014.

111

Appendix I

This figure shows the distribution of home mortgage loan applicants by race in the Syracuse TNT sectors.

Race of Home Mortgage Loan Applicants By TNT Sector TNT Race Total

American Indian or Alaska

Native

Asian Black or African

American

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander

White Information Not Provided

Not Applicable

# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %

Downtown 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% 5 0% 0 0% 3 0% 10 1% Westside 0 0% 0 0% 9 1% 0 0% 56 4% 9 1% 10 1% 84 6% Southside 3 0% 0 0% 53 4% 1 0% 148 10% 17 1% 30 2% 252 17% Valley 3 0% 0 0% 43 3% 0 0% 87 6% 5 0% 23 2% 161 11% Eastside 1 0% 8 1% 44 3% 1 0% 227 15% 17 1% 28 2% 326 22% Eastwood 0 0% 2 0% 13 1% 0 0% 188 13% 9 1% 32 2% 244 16% Northside 3 0% 27 2% 40 3% 1 0% 269 18% 19 1% 44 3% 403 27% Lakefront 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0% 0 0% 2 0% 6 0%

Source: As reported by FFIEC

i

Appendix II

This figure shows the distribution of home mortgage loan applicants by income levels in the Syracuse TNT sectors.

Income of Home Mortgage Loan Applicants By TNT Sector TNT Income Total

Less than $49,000 $50,000 to $74,000 Greater than $75,000 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Downtown 1 0% 4 0% 1 0% 6 0% Westside 54 4% 13 1% 7 1% 74 6% Southside 112 9% 50 4% 59 5% 221 17% Valley 95 7% 26 2% 16 1% 137 10% Eastside 112 9% 89 7% 98 8% 299 23% Eastwood 106 8% 58 4% 48 4% 212 16% Northside 219 17% 64 5% 69 5% 352 27% Lakefront 1 0% 0 0% 3 0% 4 0%


ii

Appendix III

This figure shows the types of loan actions for home mortgage loan applicants in the Syracuse TNT sectors.

Loan Action By TNT Sector TNT Loan Action Total

Application Approved But Not Accepted

Application Denied

Application Withdrawn

File Closed For Incompleteness

Loan Approved And Accepted

Loan Purchased By Your

Institution # % # % # % # % # % # % # %

Downtown 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% 6 0% 2 0% 10 1% Westside 2 0% 20 1% 8 1% 2 0% 31 2% 21 1% 84 6% Southside 9 1% 59 4% 15 1% 3 0% 116 8% 50 3% 252 17% Valley 2 0% 42 3% 5 0% 1 0% 73 5% 38 3% 161 11% Eastside 11 1% 39 3% 14 1% 0 0% 195 13% 67 5% 326 22% Eastwood 6 0% 34 2% 7 0% 1 0% 127 9% 69 5% 244 16% Northside 16 1% 65 4% 14 1% 5 0% 217 15% 86 6% 403 27% Lakefront 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0% 1 0% 6 0%


iii

Appendix IV

This figure shows the number of home purchase and home improvement loans in the Syracuse neighborhoods.

Loan Purpose By TNT Sector

TNT

Loan Purpose Total Home Purchase Home Improvement

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Downtown 9 90% 1 10% 10 100% Westside 60 71% 24 29% 84 100% Southside 169 67% 83 33% 252 100% Valley 109 68% 52 32% 161 100% Eastside 254 78% 72 22% 326 100% Eastwood 188 77% 56 23% 244 100% Northside 296 73% 107 27% 403 100% Lakefront 5 83% 1 17% 6 100%


iv

Appendix V

This figure shows the number of commercial banks located in the Syracuse neighborhoods.

Location of Commercial Banks in Syracuse

Neighborhood Number Percent Brighton 2 6% Downtown 14 40% Eastwood 6 17% Far Westside 1 3% Lakefront 1 3% Near Northeast 5 14% North Valley 1 3% Salt Springs 1 3% University Hill 4 11% Total 35 100%


v

Appendix VI

Map of Individuals Living Below the Poverty Line 2000

Srouce

Source: Syracuse SimpliCITY Mapping

vi

Appendix VII

vii

Appendix VIII

HMIS INTAKE FORM – FAMILY

Intake Summary

Intake Date / /

MM DD YYYY

Release of Information (ROI) Signed Yes No

Head of Household (Usually the Female)

First Name

MI

Last Name

Suffix

Alias

Client ID (ServicePoint Assigned) (Ex: Jr, Sr, II, III)

SS# - - Refused Date of Birth / /

MM DD YYYY

Gender

Male Female

Transgender Female to Male

Transgender Male to Female

Date of Birth Type

Full DOB Reported

Approximate or Partial DOB Reported

Refused

Extent of Homelessness

First time homeless

2-3 times homeless

Chronic: 4 times in last 3 years (plus disability)

Chronic: Continuous for 1 year (plus disability)

4 or more times in lifetime: NOT CHRONIC Homeless/

Housing at Risk Primary Reason

Conflict in the Household

Conflict w/guardian Criminal Activity

DV Victim Eviction

Health/Safety

Lack of Sufficient Housing

Loss of Child Care Loss of Job

Loss of Public Assistance

Loss of Transportation

Medical Condition Mental Health

Mortgage Foreclosure

Mutual Agreement (Respite)

No Affordable Housing

Release from Institution

Substance Abuse Substandard Housing

Underemployment/ Low Income

Has Client ever been in

Foster Care Yes No

Is Parent a Juvenile Parent?

Yes No

Utility Shut Off

Income and Benefits

Income Received from

any Source in the Last 30 Days

Yes* If yes, complete below

No

Refused

Non Cash Benefits Received in the Last 30

Days


No

Refused

Sources and Amounts of Income Non-Cash Benefits (Mainstream Resources Received)

Earned Income Unemployment Insurance

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Social Security Disability Income (SSDI)

Veteran’s Disability Payment Private Disability Insurance

Worker’s Compensation TANF

General Public Assistance (GA) Retirement Income from Social Security

Veteran’s Pension Pension from a Former Job

Child Support Alimony/Spousal Support

Other Sources

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

Food Stamps

AHCCCS Health Insurance Program

Medicaid

MEDICARE Health Insurance Program

State Children’s Health Insurance Program

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for WIC

VA Medical Services

TANF Child Care Services

TANF Transportation Services

Other TANF-Funded Services

Section 8, Public Housing or Other Rental Assistance

Other Source

$_______

Disabilities

Disability Type Alcohol Abuse (HUD)

Developmental (HUD)

Drug Abuse (HUD)

Hearing Impaired

HIV/AIDS (HUD)

Mental Health (HUD)

Physical (HUD)

Physical/Medical (HUD)

Does Client have a Disability of Long Duration

Yes

No

Refused

Disability Determination

(in writing)

Yes

No

Refused

Currently Receiving Service or Treatment Yes No Refused

Vision Impaired

Domestic Violence/ Military History (Needs to be answered for ALL Adults)

Victim of Domestic Violence Yes No Refused *U.S. Military Veteran

Yes No Refused

Extent of Domestic Violence

Within the past three months(HUD)

Three to six months ago (HUD)

Six to twelve months ago (HUD)

More than a year ago (HUD)

Refused

Tested for Tuberculosis Yes No

Date Tested / /

MM DD YYYY

Notes related to TB (non-medical)

Education

Highest Level of Education

Obtained

10th Grade (HUD)

11th Grade (HUD)

12th Grade, No Diploma (HUD)

5th or 6th Grade (HUD)

7th or 8th Grade (HUD)

9th Grade (HUD)

College Degree

GED (HUD)

Graduate Degree

High School Diploma (HUD)

No Schooling Completed (HUD)

Nursery School to 4th Grade (HUD)

Post-Secondary School (HUD)

Refused (HUD)

Some College

Some Technical School

Technical School Certification

Currently in School or Working

on any Degree

Yes

No

Refused

Received Vocational Training

Yes

No

Refused

*TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD*

Head of Household ID # Head of Household Name

4. Household Information

Household Type

Couple with no children

Female Single Parent

Foster Parent(s)

Grandparent(s) and Child

Male Single Parent

Non-Custodial Caregiver(s)

Two Parent Family

Other

***Shared Household Data***

(To be ENTERED under ‘Add Household Data’ checking all Household Members)

Race Primary Secondary Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic/Latino

Hispanic/Latino

American Indian/Alaska Native

Asian

Black/African American

Native Hawaiian

/Other Pacific Islander

Refused

White

Refused

Zip Code

(of Last Permanent Address)

Zip Code Quality

Full or Partial Zip code Reported(HUD)

Refused (HUD)

Type of Living Situation

(Night

Prior to Entry into YOUR Program)

Facility

Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with emergency shelter voucher

Foster care home/foster care group home

Hospital (non-psychiatric)

Hotel or motel paid without emergency voucher

Jail, prison, or juvenile detention facility

Other

Owned by client, no housing subsidy

Owned by client, with housing subsidy

Permanent housing for formerly homeless

Place not meant for human habitation

Psychiatric hospital or other psychiatric facility

Refused

Rental by client, no housing subsidy

Rental by client, with VASH subsidy

Rental by client, with other housing subsidy

Safe Haven

Staying in family member’s apartment/house

Staying in friend’s room/apartment/house

Subsidized Housing

Substance abuse treatment facility/detox

Transitional housing for homeless persons

Length of Stay in Previous

Place

One week or less

More than one week, less than one month

One to three months

More than three months,less than one year

On year or longer

Housing Status

Literally Homeless

Imminently losing their housing

Unstably housed/at-risk of losing their

housing

Stably housed

Is Client Homeless? Yes No

Is Client Chronically Homeless?

Yes No

(Person also needs to be disabled)

(including homeless youth)

Household Member #2: First MI Last Name Suffix Alias

Example: (Jr, Sr, II, III)

Relationship to Head of Household

Daughter

Father

Granddaughter

Grandfather

Grandmother

Grandson

Husband

Husband and Father

Mother

Other non-relative

Other relative

Significant other

Son

Step-daughter

Step-son

Unknown

Wife

Wife and Mother

SS# - - Refused Date of Birth __ __/_ __/_ _

MM DD YYYY

Gender

Male Female



Date of Birth Type

Full DOB Reported


Refused

Disabilities

Disability Type

Alcohol Abuse (HUD)

Developmental (HUD)

Drug Abuse (HUD)

Hearing Impaired

HIV/AIDS (HUD)

Mental Health (HUD)

Physical (HUD)


Vision Impaired

Does Client have a Disability of Long

Duration

Yes

No

Refused


(in writing)

Yes

No

Refused


CHILD’S Income and Benefits

Income Received from any Source

in the Last 30 Days


No

Refused

Non Cash Benefits Received in the Last 30

Days


No

Refused



$_ __.00 Food Stamps AHCCCS Health Insurance Program

$_______

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Social Security Disability Income

(SSDI) Veteran’s Disability Payment Private Disability Insurance


General Public Assistance (GA) Retirement Income from Social

Security Veteran’s Pension

Pension from a Former Job Child Support

Alimony/Spousal Support Other Sources

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

Medicaid MEDICARE Health Insurance Program

State Children’s Health Insurance Program Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for WIC

VA Medical Services TANF Child Care Services

TANF Transportation Services Other TANF-Funded Services


Other Source

***For Children ages 5-17 ONLY***

Presently Attending School?

Yes Grade Attending

No

Refused (K-12)

If Enrolled, Type of School

Public School

Parochial or other Private School

Refused

Race

Primary Secondary


Asian


Native Hawaiian\/Other Pacific Islander

Refused

White

Enrollment Difficulties

Residency requirements

Availability of school records

Birth certificates

Legal guardianship requirements

Transportation

Lack of available preschool programs

Immunization requirements

Physical examination records

Refused

Household Member #3+: First MI Last Name Suffix Alias

Example: (Jr, Sr, II, III)

Relationship to Head of Household

Daughter

Father

Granddaughter

Grandfather

Grandmother

Grandson

Husband

Husband and Father

Mother

Other non-relative

Other relative

Significant other

Son

Step-daughter

Step-son

Unknown

Wife

Wife and Mother

SS# - - Refused Date of Birth __ __/_ __/_ _

MM DD YYYY

Gender

Male Female



Date of Birth Type

Full DOB Reported


Refused

Disabilities

Disability Type

Alcohol Abuse (HUD)

Developmental (HUD)

Drug Abuse (HUD)

Hearing Impaired

HIV/AIDS (HUD)

Mental Health (HUD)

Physical (HUD)


Vision Impaired

Does Client have a Disability of Long

Duration

Yes

No

Refused


(in writing)

Yes

No

Refused


CHILD’S Income and Benefits

Income Received from any Source in the Last 30 Days


No

Refused

Non Cash Benefits Received in the Last 30 Days


No

Refused



Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Social Security Disability Income (SSDI)

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

Food Stamps AHCCCS Health Insurance Program

Medicaid MEDICARE Health Insurance Program

$_______

Veteran’s Disability Payment Private Disability Insurance


General Public Assistance (GA) Retirement Income from Social Security

Veteran’s Pension Pension from a Former Job

Child Support Alimony/Spousal Support

Other Sources

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

$_ __.00

State Children’s Health Insurance Program Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for WIC

VA Medical Services TANF Child Care Services

TANF Transportation Services Other TANF-Funded Services


Other Source

***For Children ages 5-17 ONLY***

Presently Attending

School?

Yes Grade Attending

No

Refused (K-12)

If Enrolled, Type of School

Public School

Parochial or other Private School

Refused

Race

Primary Secondary


Asian


Native Hawaiian\/Other Pacific Islander

Refused

White

Enrollment Difficulties

Residency requirements

Availability of school records

Birth certificates

Legal guardianship requirements

Transportation

Lack of available preschool programs

Immunization requirements

Physical examination records

Refused

housing in syracuse onondagacounty 2014

Documents