Mansfield, Ohio Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI)

2006 – 2010

FINAL

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) was conducted in conformance with guidance provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD), Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FH/EO) Division, in order to identify any barriers to fair housing within CDBG jurisdictions of the City of Mansfield, also called the “study area”, “communities” or “participating jurisdictions”. Fair housing laws charge the Secretary of HUD with the responsibility to enforce fair housing statutes and their implementing regulations in the United States. In addition, HUD oversees the distribution of Federal housing and community development program assistance throughout the U.S. and its territories. Many municipalities are entitled to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) Program funding administered by HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development, hereafter referred to as CPD. Each entitled recipient must establish its basic housing and community development priorities, objectives, and specific activities in a Five Year Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan; and then, annually, incrementally lay out programs and activities designed to meet those priorities in an Annual Action Plan. The recipient must also certify, to HUD, as a condition of receiving CDBG and HOME funding, that it will affirmatively further fair housing. Satisfaction of basic Consolidated Plan requirements, including the Certifications, is prerequisite to participation in HUD’s formula entitlement programs. In order to comply with the Fair Housing certification, each recipient is required to analyze housing patterns and practices for any impediments to fair housing, and to develop remedies for any barriers identified. The recipient must then implement, and monitor the implementation of the corrective measures identified. These actions form, in effect, a fair housing planning and implementation cycle, which HUD expects will become the basis of fair housing planning throughout the community. The City of Mansfield previously prepared its first A.I. in 1996, but recognizes the need for a new analysis since demographic, social, and housing conditions change over time. Recognizing the complexity of fair housing issues and the increasing inter-dependence the community agreed to jointly produce what is intended to be a more comprehensive, thorough, and effective assessment of fair housing within the study area than would otherwise be possible. This Analysis provides information pertaining to demographic and housing conditions, fair housing requirements, fair housing safeguards, and impediments to fair housing and recommended corrective actions. Many sources of information were used to compile this document, including the jurisdictions Consolidated Plans; Comprehensive Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs); previous AI’s, comprehensive planning

documents; and a wealth of other information from government and private institutions; and also, of course, from citizens. Most citizens and other public involvement occurred through a public hearing held November 17th, 2004. Invitations were sent by two basic means: first, public notices were published in the Mansfield News Journal. Specific letters of invitation were also sent to representatives of stakeholder organizations, which represent individuals protected under fair housing law. The meeting designed to obtain views on fair housing practices in the communities, occurred at the City of Mansfield, Community Development Office. FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROTECTION AGAINST: Refusing to sell or rent to, deal or negotiate with any person in a covered group. Discriminating by advertising that housing is available only to persons of a certain

race, color, religion, sex, familial status, disability or national origin. Denying that housing is available for inspection, sale or rent when it really is

available. "Blockbusting" for profit, persuading owners to sell or rent housing by telling them

that minority groups are moving into the neighborhood. Denying or making different terms or conditions for home loans by commercial

lenders, such as banks, savings and loan associations and insurance companies. Denying to anyone the use of or participation in any real estate services, such as

brokers' organizations, multiple-listing services or other facilities related to the selling and renting of housing.

Recipients may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, discriminate against anyone on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, disability or familial status.

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended: Prohibits discrimination

in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status or disability. The law also requires HUD to administer its programs in a manner that affirmatively promotes fair housing.

Ohio Fair Housing Law of 1989: Provides rights and remedies substantially equivalent to those found in the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Provides that no person shall be excluded from participation, be denied program benefits or be subjected to discrimination based on race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended: Provides that no person shall be excluded from participation, be denied program benefits, or be subjected to discrimination based on age under any program or activity receiving Federal funds.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended: Provides that no otherwise qualified individual shall, solely because of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation, including employment, be denied program

benefits, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal funds.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing In addition to prohibiting a wide range of discriminatory practices, the Fair Housing Act requires CDBG programs to be administered in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. All CDBG recipients must submit a certification providing assurance that the applicant will administer its CDBG program and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing. When the Mayor signs the certifications of the grant application he/she commits to:

Analyze and address housing needs; Actively promote wider housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race,

color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status or disability; Provide opportunities for racially inclusive housing patterns; and Promote accessible living environments in all aspects of the public and private

housing market. In addition to meeting the certification requirements, a Fair Housing Plan is required to be submitted prior to release of funds. The purpose of the Fair Housing Plan that all CDBG recipients are encourage to develop a comprehensive strategy for creating an environment which fosters non-discrimination, an accessible living environment and the promoting of actions designed to affirmatively further fair housing. The State allows flexibility in selecting specific fair housing activities to be implemented by all CDBG recipients; however, the recipient must undertake one or more activities that reflect local conditions and needs. Fair housing actions should increase housing opportunities and affirmatively promote fair housing throughout the entire housing market at all income levels. These activities may include independent actions by recipients and cooperative ventures with housing-related industries such as mortgage lenders, homebuilders and local nonprofits working in housing.

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Progressive actions to further fair housing with each CDBG project received and are not expected to carry out the same activities with every new grant. Additional suggested activities include:

Display fair housing posters in prominent places. Create a fair housing information center in a centralized area to distribute fair

housing materials to the general public. Conduct meetings with financial institutions, realtors and landlords to discuss the

implications of fair housing and lending practices. Undertake efforts to focus public information activities on specific population

groups known to have suffered from discriminatory practices in the past and groups directly involved in housing-related activities.

Develop a public information program using local newspapers, radio stations, bulletin boards, churches and utility bill mailings to increase community awareness of fair housing requirements.

Develop public information and educational programs promoting fair housing and provide fair housing information to the following types of groups:

Citizen groups concerned with housing issues (fair housing groups, tenant associations, builders, real estate agents/brokers);

Organizations representing specific population groups (minorities, women, senior Citizens, persons with disabilities); and other local organizations (advocacy

groups, unions, voters' leagues). Provide funds or technical assistance and cooperate with fair housing groups,

human relations groups and other organizations interested in facilitating freedom of residence.

Proclaim each April as Fair Housing Month and notify the public of this action. Adopt a Fair Housing Ordinance that is consistent with the Federal and State Fair

Housing Law and notifies the public of this action. Examine land use and zoning policies and practices to determine if they have a

discriminatory effect and, if so, try to remove and prevent those practices. Encourage recipients to use local resources to assess existing public opinion

about the status of fair housing in the community.

Analysis of Impediments The Consolidated Planning regulations at 24 CFR Part 91 requires the City to certify that it will affirmatively further fair housing. The definition of affirmatively furthering fair housing includes conducting an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction. While the State conducts a statewide AI, recipients are strongly encouraged to undertake an AI also. The AI should include:

Identification of impediments to fair housing choice; Actions to address identified impediments; and Actions to maintain a fair housing environment.

Section 2 - Equal Opportunity CDBG recipients must provide equal opportunity to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, age, familial status, disability, national origin, or sex in the administration of their program. The major categories where equal opportunity must be provided are:

Provisions of services, facilities and improvements (program benefit); CDBG-related employment; Contracts; and Housing.

Recipients must assure that all CDBG-funded activities are conducted in a manner, which will not cause discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age or familial status. All activities funded, in whole or in part by the grant, must be implemented in a way that does not exclude participation in, deny the benefits of, or discriminate against persons based on race, religion, color, national origin, disability, age, marital status, familial status or sex.

Residential housing is fundamental to meeting essential needs and pursuing personal, educational, employment or other goals.

Impediments to fair housing: 1) any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap (disability), familial status (the presence of children), national origin, marital status, creed, ancestry, which restrict housing choice.) 2) any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, familial status or national origin or marital status, creed, or ancestry.

A major effort of this study is that affordable housing is linked to fair housing in much the same way that issues of race and class are linked. The reader will therefore find that this analysis assesses barriers to affordability, as well as fair housing issues. This

assertion does not mean that racial and ethnic bigotry and discrimination have ended. They have not and, indeed, remain virulent throughout the community. It does contend, however, that they may be fading and that other forms of discrimination, not based solely on race and ethnicity, are coming to the fore. A second effort, concerns the dynamics of the neighborhood life cycle. Neighborhoods are established, grow and prosper, mature, and then may begin to decline as the physical environment changes (e.g. new and more exciting homes are built, with new and possibly better services offered elsewhere). Mainstream buyers would, under this model, be more likely to choose those opportunities perceived as being more desirable. As the older neighborhood loses its cachet and the “smart” money moves elsewhere, prices may decline, and the neighborhood begins an economic and, possibly a racial or ethnic transition, which results in a re-segregation of the community. This often results little change in the lives of the lower-income or minority residents who moved for an improved quality of life. If this premise is true, it is necessary to address the root(s) of the problem, which may have to do with market dynamics as much as racial and income prejudice. Fair housing would then involve the successful retention of middle-income and non-minority residents in neighborhoods at-risk of downward spiral, every bit as much as opening new housing opportunities for minority and lower-income persons. Minority un-and under-employment remains problematic in the Mansfield area, and those affected still cannot obtain decent and affordable housing. They are ill housed either in,

1) Substandard homes and neighborhoods. This problems are as severe, if not more severe, than those faced in the past; appear to be deeply rooted in many facets of life; and are becoming increasingly intractable. Ultimately, they threaten to permanently divide Americans along class lines strongly influenced by race and, sometimes, by ethnicity.

It also found that growth continues outward from Mansfield and, as a result, is beginning to affect the City of Mansfield. The “Mansfield area continued to decentralize in the 1990’s amid slow or negative growth city wide. Between 1980 and 2000, the City of Mansfield lost population but base on the construction and population of our correctional facility, Richland Correctional that added over 2,400 to our population, shows a slight increase. This study therefore contends that economic segregation is becoming more common and more central to the debate over equality. Consequently, identify impediments and recommendations for corrective action, identifies affordable, as well as fair housing issues. The reader will also find that attention has been devoted to ancillary issues such as educational opportunity, crime, and insurance practices, which, although not directly related to fair housing, certainly affect it in significant ways.

The City of Mansfield has certified to affirmatively further fair housing, and in so doing, conducted an analysis to determine the impediments to fair housing choice in housing and community development programs. The City of Mansfield strongly feels that fair housing and affordable housing are interrelated inasmuch as the groups who most often experience housing discrimination are, largely, the same groups for whom sufficient decent affordable housing is lacking. In Mansfield these groups include the sizable black population that lives below the poverty level, the disabled, families with children, the very low income population (regardless of color), persons who were incarcerated returning back into our community, and the elderly population. In 1989, the City of Mansfield amended the Codified Ordinance with Bill #89-155 to provide additional protected classes and rights under the Fair Housing Law to include Handicap, Martial Status and Familial Status. The protected classes under the local Fair Housing Ordinance include race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, age, handicap, familial status and ancestry. The feeling of the Fair Housing Commission was not just to follow the Federal and State statue, but also to include additional classes to reflect the need of the community to include age and marital status. With changing community lifestyles, the commission felt the need to protect other groups who have in the past also been discriminated against in our community. Under the ordinance, the Fair Housing Officer and seven (7) commission members, (four representatives residing in the City of Mansfield and three residing in Richland County), have responsibilities including:

- Accepting and processing complaints of unlawful fair housing policies and/or practices which may exist;

- Attending meetings and functions held any place within the community at the call of the commission;

- Initiate and undertake on its own motion investigations or practices prohibited under the ordinance;

- Provide educational programs, publications and documentation which in its judgment will effectuate the purposes of the ordinance;

- Function as a go-between to parties to solve the different. - Invoke penalties up to $1,000.00 or imprisonment for no more than six (6)

months, or both; - Subpoena power; - Institute testing program where necessary.

It is the policy of Mansfield’s Fair Housing Commission to investigate all housing discrimination complaints and assist complainants in the filing and completion of necessary complaint. HUD’s 903 form are used to ensure the forwarding of such complaints to HUD and to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC); as well as assisting the complainant in securing private legal assistance so that s/he can take the complaint to court at his/her own expense.

Further, it is the policy of the commission that the Fair Housing Officer will receive all complaints in writing. The complaint form will be the (HUD) form 903, which can be obtained from the Fair Housing Officer. The Fair Housing Officer will provide technical assistance in completing the complaint form(s), which contains the name, address, and telephone number, and other pertinent information of both the complaining party and the respondent. The complaint will also contain any valuable information concerning the unit in question as well as information of all properties, which the owner may own in Mansfield, Richland County. The Fair Housing Officer for the City of Mansfield also has a contractual agreement with the Richland County Regional Planning Commission, the City of Ontario, and the City of Shelby to administer their Fair Housing Programs. The specific functions and duties of the Fair Housing Office are to aid in development of the parameters generally governing the Mansfield-Shelby/Richland County Fair Housing Program through the guidance of the members of The commission, specifically the Fair Housing Officer, on the following:

1. Studying of housing discrimination in Mansfield, and developing a documented plan/approach aimed at overcoming the barrier of discriminating housing practices.

2. Establishing and maintaining an effective program to fight discriminatory housing

practices, utilizing any legal means available.

3. Reviewing cases of alleged housing discrimination in an effort to resolve them.

4. Developing effective mechanisms that educate and inform people about fair housing laws and responsibilities. The forms of assistance are available through the Mansfield-Shelby/Richland County Fair Housing Commission and other concerned agencies.

5. Promotion and public relations.

6. Cooperation with all other concerned agencies in implementing programs that

focus on providing an equal housing opportunity to all citizens (and prospective citizens) of Richland County.

7. Developing a program that assures that all housing practices in Richland County

adhere to Fair Housing regulations and Landlord-Tenant laws. Even with strong awareness and education in Mansfield, discrimination cases in the City average 2-3 discrimination complaints a year. Filings of complaints of discrimination in housing has increased in Richland County as more people of color are moving and interacting in the county, where few minorities have previously lived. Of the four existing

cases, which The Ohio Civil Rights Commission has reviewed over the past two years for both the City of Mansfield and the county as a whole, only one of the families filing a complaint with OCRC was black. The other complaints filed are white tenants or owners who have friends, family members, or tenants who are black maybe the direct cause of the charge but the person filing the case has been white. Impediments and Recommendations: Faced with the fact that discrimination in housing continues in Mansfield, we note the following impediments and make the following recommendations to alleviate the problem: Priority A: Offer strong education efforts to all residents in Mansfield against

various types of discrimination. Strategy 1: Increase the fair housing educational services to provide information to

consumers and providers of housing and housing services in an effort to affirmatively further fair housing.

Strategy 2: Continue work toward removing obstacles to fair housing by collaborating with educators, property owners, social services agencies, as well as enforcement agencies on person’s rights and responsibilities.

Strategy 3: Continue the community efforts against predatory lending. Priority B: To offer every opportunity possible for all persons which are or are

at-risk of becoming homeless. Strategy 1: Develop programs targeting individuals and families “large and small” at-

risk of becoming homeless. Increasing knowledge of the most vulnerable populations could facilitate better targeting of prevention services, including housing counseling, emergency financial assistance, and affordable housing with self-sufficiency supportive services.

Strategy 2: Continue outreach and assessment services targeting the homeless persons who are unable to access or unwilling to accept emergency shelter services. Services may include meeting basic needs for food, crisis counseling.

Strategy 3: Support transitional housing targeting individuals and families in need of a structured living situation combined with necessary supportive services in order to achieve and maintain permanent housing or permanent supportive housing. Transitional housing services specific homeless sub-populations, including persons with mental illness and/or substance abuse problem, duel-diagnosed persons, persons with AIDS, victims of domestic violence and other special needs populations, such as women and children.

Strategy 4: Develop additional and/or alternative resources and strategies to maintain a coordinated system of appropriate accessible housing options programs

and services and enhanced job training and employment so that homeless persons can obtain and maintain permanent housing and self-sufficiency.

Strategy 5: Encourage public information and education to foster community understanding and needed support for homeless programs and special needs housing.

Strategy 6: Monitor the incidence of homelessness annually and assess progress in reducing homelessness.

Strategy 7: Mansfield need for the development of a safe haven home to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing unit for up to three families in need of emergency housing.

Strategy 8: The lack of additional vouchers for Mansfield/Richland County in over ten years.

Employment Characteristics It is understood that a decent income is necessary to provide life’s essentials, including decent, safe and sanitary housing. Adequate income is also essential to gaining access (by virtue of community, neighborhood, or voluntary association) to other facilities and services which provide a high standard of living. Examples would include proximity to, or having easy access to, employment centers; having excellent public schools, which not only educate, but also help individuals make friends through clubs and informal associations; high quality and well-maintained parks and recreational facilities; and excellent libraries and cultural venues. These features create communities that individuals want to live, and remain, in. Higher-income households demand, and receive, these amenities as a matter of course; choosing to live in those communities, which can provide them, and shunning those, which cannot. Some localities therefore prosper while others do not. From a municipal perspective, a strong tax base is indispensable in order to provide desired services and amenities, and in order to attract additional development and affluent residents. Land uses in the study area are demonstrated in the following table. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE Interstate 71 provides direct access into Mansfield is critical to the movement of people and commerce, and both Mansfield and Richland have flourished because of their proximity to them. City: Mansfield, Ohio County: Richland Land Area: 29.9 square miles Total Population 51,600* Median resident age: 36.4 years Median household income: $30,176 Median house value: $73,000

Racial breakdown: White (non-Hispanic) 76.1% Black 19.5 % Two or more races 2.1% Hispanic 1.2% American Indian 1% Mansfield, Ohio is a midsize, blue-collar town situated in the Appalachian hills of north central Ohio. It is approximately fifty minutes north of Columbus and approximately one hour south of Cleveland. Within Mansfield’s city limits, is a combination of both rural and urban areas, with a traditional downtown and well-developed retail areas blending into forest and rolling farmlands. Just minutes east or west are several smaller communities, including many cozy, traditional villages as well as communities that are experiencing population growth and increased economic development. Mansfield was founded in 1808, and was named after the U.S. Surveyor General, Colonel Jared Mansfield. It was a farming community, and played an important role in the growth of the farm machinery industry. The county in which Mansfield is located, Richland County, was so named because of its rich soil. The area was the home of the Mound Builders, Erie, Iroquois, Algonquin, Wyandot, Shawnee and Delaware Indian tribes. Mansfield is the geographic center of Richland County, as well as the county seat. With eight major highways passing through the area, Mansfield is considered the most accessible place for many countywide activities. It is able to sustain major office facilities, theater performances, fairs and concerts. Many cultural and recreational opportunities exist in the community as well. A sound economic base and good living conditions have always been important factors to the Mansfield community. Cooperative efforts between City government and civic organizations, (such as the Richland Economic Development Corporation, the Central City Economic Development Council, the Richland County Regional Planning Commission and the Mansfield-Richland Chamber of Commerce), are aimed at retaining existing industries and encouraging new industrial and residential growth. Educational opportunities in the Mansfield area are continuously expanding. In additional to the public school system, advanced education can be pursued at the Ohio State University of Mansfield and at North-Central State College.

RICHLAND COUNTY POPULATION BY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION

City 1990 Population 2000 Population 17 Township 1990 Population 2000 Population Mansfield 50,628 51,600* Bloomingrove 1,061 1,157 Butler 1,626 1,735 Shelby 9,847 9,821 Franklin 1,713 1,772

Jackson 3,602 3,861 Jefferson 4,258 4,531 Madison 13,286 14,680 7 Villages 1990 Population 2000 Population Mifflin 6,859 6,218 Monroe 2,646 2,656 Bellville 1,568 1,773 Perry 1,272 1,345 Butler 968 921 Plymouth 2,233 2,162 Lexington 4,124 4,165 Sandusky 940 856 Lucas 730 620 Sharon 9,812 9,720 Ontario 4,026 5,303 Springfield 8,460 9,674 Plymouth (part) 1,013 1,852 Troy 6,179 6,449 Shiloh 778 721 Washington 6,474 6,777 Weller 1,462 1,736 Worthington 2,505 2,791 When the 2000 Census was complete, Mansfield’s population figure was initially reported as 49,346. This figure represented a significant decline from the 1990 Census, and caused some concern for Mansfield’s administration, since it put Mansfield below the 50,000 cut-off figure used by most Federal and State grants. Due to the potential effect of this population decline on Mansfield’s current and future funding eligibilities, Mansfield’s Office of Community Development scrutinized the 2000 Census figures to try to confirm whether these figures were correct. It turned out that there was an error in the Census tabulation for Mansfield. The population of one of the two correctional institutions in Mansfield, Richland County Correctional Institution, (RICI), was not included with the City of Mansfield’s figures. When this population figure, numbering 2,254, was added in, the adjusted population figure for the 2000 Census for Mansfield was 51,600. This corrected figure represents a more accurate calculation of the population of Mansfield. This correction also allows current and future grants to continue to be calculated in the “50,000 and over” bracket.

Where most townships and villages have, an increase in their population from a move from Mansfield City which has been seen thought out must urban communities.

Definition of Racially Concentrated Area For this study we consider the five highest racially concentrated area’s with most of its population belonging to one or several readily identifiable racial or ethnic groups. However, in past years, it is safe to point-out; minorities are moving into areas which have historically been segregated. This may result from fair housing legislation; increased opportunity of choice as fringe development continues; or attitudinal shifts (i.e. decreasing opposition to living in racially integrated communities) among the white population. Each has merit. Whatever the reason(s), it is fair to say that minority families have more housing options now than in the past. In the final analysis, Mansfield/Richland County is becoming more open. It must be noted census tract 17 has two correctional institutions located in it and with the high percentage of African Americans in the correctional institutions somewhat change this number. 1990 2000 TRACT PERSONS WHITE BLACK OTHER PERSONS WHITE BLACK OTHER LMI0001 375 262 95 18 387 253 118 16 86.6%0002 533 445 86 2 429 319 92 18 75.3%0003 2566 1010 1533 23 2257 796 1337 124 67.4%0004 3235 2889 314 32 3126 2609 413 104 52.6%0005 4888 4283 542 63 4749 3785 714 250 52.6%0006 5015 3166 1778 71 4515 2513 1762 240 67.7%0007 3697 1669 2002 26 3493 1520 1862 111 73.6%0008 3224 2704 499 21 2996 2398 466 132 63.8%0009 5449 5312 100 37 5038 4859 75 104 40.0%0010 5572 5217 311 44 5738 5096 485 157 47.4%0011 2552 2482 54 16 2493 2352 106 35 38.3%0012 3708 3616 46 46 3564 3342 128 94 26.1%0013 3368 3247 77 44 3332 2980 224 128 30.3%0014 2532 2376 129 27 2455 2157 235 63 46.7%0015 2761 2735 14 12 2605 2513 30 62 60.1%0016 2345 2130 208 7 2129 1921 165 43 57.6%0017 2626 1245 1339 42 4991 2168 2727 96 26.3%0018 4139 3950 150 39 3907 3725 90 92 37.8%0021 8799 8502 149 148 9574 8996 310 268 23.7%

NOTE: Census Tracts include the totals population in a tract where

RACE/ETHNICITY RACIAL CONCENTRATIONS: According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 23.8% of Mansfield=s total population is classified as minority, with 19.6% of this total consisting of African-Americans, the percentage does include Mansfield Correctional prison population. I identified the top five highest census tracts are 1,3,6,7,8,17. Where the above census tracts represent the highest minority tracts they have, similar factors five of the six highest LMI census tracts are also the highest minority populated areas. Within the five highest minority census tract area 61% of the housing condition is classified as in poor condition base on the County Auditors inspection format. Richland County total population over the past ten years had a very small increase but the all minority population increase on the total county count as followed:

White -1% Black 14% Asian 17% Hispanic 37% Other 100%

Where two or more races were not included in the 1990 census the white population was the only race with a decrease number. Unlike the trends throughout our country the minority population has continue to increase with the Hispanic population more than doubling the black population. We also see that minorities throughout the county are moving into all communities, which are a positive sign with stronger minority opportunities, and choice many has chosen to move into the county. With continue strong fair housing and diversity awareness workshops will offer positive viewpoints of communities being more diverse.

1990 POPULATION

White Black Asian Hispanic Other Total

Bloominggrove 1,045 12 1 1 2 1,061

Butler 1,112 1 4 4 1 1,122

Cass 1,610 4 0 0 12 1,626

Franklin 1,657 36 2 2 18 1,713

Jackson 3,535 12 17 17 21 3,602

Jefferson 4,227 2 0 14 15 4,258

Madison 12,844 264 39 42 97 13,286

Mansfield 40,870 9,153 310 294 0 50,627

Mufflin 6,578 236 0 26 19 6,859

Monroe 2,631 9 14 0 8 2,646

Perry 1,265 4 1 1 1 1,272

Plymouth 2,188 2 1 1 41 2,233

Sandusky 923 9 0 0 8 940

Sharon 9,732 12 16 16 36 9,812

Springfield 8,219 106 56 56 23 8,460

Troy 6,092 21 45 45 24 6,179

Washington 6,346 5 31 31 61 6,474

Weller 1,415 35 7 7 2 1,462

Worthington 2,485 4 4 4 8 2,505

Total 114,483 10,469 546 872 397 126,767

90.30% 8.26% 0.44% 0.68% 0.32% 100%

2000 POPULATION

White Black Asian Hispanic Other Total

Bloominggrove 1,128 10 1 7 11 1,157

Butler 1,360 16 1 13 4 1,386

Cass 1,713 0 1 7 14 1,735

Franklin 1,721 28 2 4 17 1,772

Jackson 3,688 106 17 46 4 3,861

Jefferson 4,484 10 8 30 1 4,531

Madison 12,805 1556 42 148 29 14,680

Mansfield 37,885 9,695 311 605 850 *49,346

Mufflin 5,879 230 31 38 40 6,218

Monroe 2,611 17 7 10 11 2,656

Perry 1,331 2 0 4 72 1,265

Plymouth 2,119 1 2 19 47 2,188

Sandusky 835 8 5 3 72 923

Sharon 9,567 9 27 100 29 9,732

Springfield 9,167 248 112 70 1378 8,219

Troy 6,283 64 44 56 355 6,092

Washington 6,566 123 39 24 406 6,346

Weller 1,697 21 1 6 310 1,415

Worthington 2,761 7 5 10 298 2,485

Total 113,600 12,151 656 1,200 3,948 131,555

86.35% 9.23% 0.49% 0.76% 3.17% 100%

*Mansfield total is based on the original census count not the corrected count.

Mansfield’s population is considerably more diverse than the population of Richland County. As of the 2000 census, 23.2% of Mansfield’s population described themselves as persons of color or of Hispanic origin, Asian or Pacific Islanders. African Americans represent 19.6% of Mansfield’s population. The total county racial population in 2000 was 13.65% up from 9.70% in 1990 census count.

2000 Race and Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity

Mansfield

Richland County

Ohio

White, non-Hispanic Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latinos (any race)Others

76.8% 19.6% 0.6% 1.2% 3.5%

88.2% 9.23% 0.5% 0.76% 1.5%

85% 11.5% 1.2% 1.9% 1.6%

Over the past thirty years, the minority primary African American population has moved from the inner city into the surrounding areas of Mansfield and Richland County. In analyzing Mansfield’s reduction in population, it appears that there have been a continued percentage of the white population leaving the area than of minorities. Some possible reasons for the overall population reduction may be job-related relocations, or students going away for college and deciding not to return to the area. Whatever the reason, it appears that since the last Census, many residents decided to move outside of Mansfield into Richland County. The largest minority population are in census tracts 2,3,6,7, and 17. However, census tract 17’s population of minorities is greatly influenced by the two correctional institutions in that tract. The large percentage of blacks residing in those correctional facilities has a great impact on the minority percentage of the entire Census tract, and indeed is statistically significant enough to affect the minority percentage of the City as a whole. For the first time, the 2000 Census allowed respondents to designate two or more races, which complicated the comparison of the racial breakdown to those of prior Census. As future population counts are completed using these new categories for racial designation, we will be better able to analyze trends in the diversity of Mansfield and Richland County.

HOMELESS POPULATION Understanding Homelessness: When we generally think of the homeless, generally we picture people lying next to doorways, lounging in bus stations, sleeping in alleyways, and sitting on park benches. However, in reality, some individuals have college educations, and even PhD has; while some individuals cannot read past the first grade level. Some are mentally ill, addicted to drugs or alcohol; while others may be life-long dedicated Christians who have never used any addictive drug. Many have worked in highly skilled professional jobs, while others cannot remember the last time, they had work. Many are veterans with distinguished service records; but others have been disqualified from the military for various reasons. Many Richland County residents are just one crisis or the lack of one paycheck away from being homeless. Under Federal Law, “homelessness” is defined under the McKinney Act of 1987, which defined homeless to mean:

(1) An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence; and;

(2) An individual who has primary night-time residency that is;

(i) A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);

(ii) An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or

(iii) A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

The following additional definitions are from the Richland County Homeless Coalition:

(iv) Residing in a place not fit for human habitation (v) Living in shared, overcrowded Conditions (as defined by codes) (vi) Having no address, or are on a waiting list for a shelter Although a stereotyped picture exists of the homeless as being primarily mentally ill or drug-addicted, only an estimated 25-30 % of the homeless actually fit those categories.

The National Coalition for the Homeless cites that women with children are the fastest growing group of the homeless. An estimated one-third of the homeless are veterans, who became homeless as a result of a complex set of circumstances that requires people to choose between food, shelter and other basic needs. It will take jobs that pay a living wage, adequate support for those who cannot work, affordable housing, and access to healthcare to alleviate the homelessness problem in Mansfield and Richland County.

Special Needs and Homeless Characteristics: Neither Mansfield nor Richland County appears to have a large numbers of homeless people, but the level of homeless is not visible to notice, although some homeless are found in both communities from time to time. Given the imprecise nature of homeless data, the estimated needs varied significantly between the two communities, and the data was revisited during the development of this Analysis.

Housing Gaps Analysis Chart

Continuum of Care: Housing Gaps Analysis Chart Current Inventory

in 2004 Under Development in 2004

Unmet Need/Gap

Individuals

Beds

Emergency Shelter 237 0

81

Transitional 66 0

20

Permanent Supportive Housing 56 0

5

Total 359 0

106

Persons in Families With Children

Beds

Emergency Shelter 111 0

120

Transitional Housing 97 16

5

Permanent Supportive Housing 0 0

10

Total 208 16

135

Continuum of Care: Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart Part 1: Homeless Population

Sheltered Unsheltered

Total

Emergency Transitional

1. Homeless Individuals

50 37 16

89

2. Homeless Families With Children

12 12 4

27

2a. Persons in Homeless Families With Children

35 37 12

75

Total (lines 1 + 2a)

85 74 28

164

Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations

Sheltered Unsheltered

Total

1. Chronically Homeless

20 14 6

40

2. Severely Mentally Ill

30 43

3. Chronic Substance Abuse

10 34

4. Veterans

3 7

5. Persons with HIV/AIDS

14 2

6. Victims of Domestic Violence

50 3

7. Youth (Under 18 Years of Age)

8 0

Continuum of Care A. Chronic Homelessness Strategy/Goals Current Chronic Homelessness Strategy: Most of the community’s chronically homeless persons present as severely mentally ill or dually diagnosed and revolve between the short term emergency stays in hospitals, mental health institutions and homeless shelters. State mental health laws preclude forced participation in programs, or even acceptance of housing in the infrequent occasions when it becomes available. Typically the resistance occurs, due to the non-compliance with medication regimen, thus creating obdurate behaviors. Much of these perspectives are based on anecdotal reports at the coalition meetings and during the once a year “point-in-time” survey as there is no systemic outreach, and case management project targeted specifically to the chronically homeless population in the community. Those chronically homeless who can be stabilized for even a short time often are unwilling or unable to work. That factor, coupled with the ongoing case management and advocacy in assisting the chronically homeless to qualify for SSI or other income benefits (e.g. veterans), functions to impede their ability to access and retain long-term community housing. It can sometimes take as long as a year to obtain these benefits. The numbers of mentally ill are on the rise due to the sharp reduction in beds at the Massillon Mental Health Hospital, which serves the catchments area within which Richland County is located. Compounding the problem is the upturn in mental health clientele with serious criminal records, which make them extremely problematic to serve by the average homeless provider without specialized services tailored to this population. They tend to arrive in the community on parole with increasing frequency, without resources to access supportive housing. Compared to the investments made in community beds for deinstitutionalized developmentally delayed populations, the level of state support to compensate for lost mental health hospital beds at Massillon and elsewhere lags far behind. This is particularly problematic in the area of permanent supportive housing as there is two-year waiting list to access Section 8 housing. There have been no new vouchers in the community for ten years. This year the County Mental Health Board will bring on line 12 new permanent supportive housing beds for disabled populations; it is expected that most of the beds will be occupied by homeless ands that 75 percent of the homeless will fit the definition of chronically homeless.

Current Chronic Homelessness Strategy

The Richland Coalition has mapped out three interlocking strategies for addressing chronic homelessness: (a) Housing First - Appropriate providers will join together to launch a major effort to expand the numbers and array of transitional and permanent supportive housing units suitable to the needs of the chronically homeless. (b) Early Identification and Interventions to Avert the Descent of “Other” Homeless Single Persons Who Are on The Precipice Of Chronic Homelessness - Included here for early intervention would be single persons who are currently in shelters or on the street and manifest many of the characteristics of the chronically homeless, but do not literally fit the definitional profile. (c) Activation of a Comprehensive Discharge Planning Program - Such an initiative would “catch” discharges before they hit the street or shelters. Prospective discharges from correctional institutions, mental health hospitals and foster care facilities, although not literally homeless at that moment can quickly become candidates for chronic status if allowed to migrate to the street or shelters.

Goal: End Chronic Homelessness

(“What” are you trying to accomplish)

Action Step (“How” are you to go about accomplishing it)

Responsible Person/Organization

(“Who” is responsible for accomplishing it)

Target Dates (mo/yr it will be accomplished)

Goal 1: Pool existing resources, supplemented by State Housing Finance, FHLB, SHP Transitional and Permanent Housing for the Homeless Handicapped and Shelter Plus Care dollar through a coordinated Housing First Initiative of appropriate housing providers resulting in the creation of 20 new units of supportive housing for chronically homeless single individuals from the street.

A) Establish a special task force on chronic homelessness comprised of the agencies which most frequently interact with this population; the Task Force will inventory existing resources which provide opportunities for pooling; it will also study permanent housing models in other communities. B) Coordinate with the design of United Way’s community analysis for questions that can assess characteristic demographics and needs of the area’s chronically homeless. C) Evaluate data from United Way study and apply findings from inventory of resources and study of other models in forging recommendations on program design and funding mix. D) Submit applications for State

A) Executive Committee will appoint a five member Task Force with representation likely drawn from CEDAC, Dayspring, Center for Individual and Family Services, Inc., County Mental Health Board and the County Veterans Services Office. B) United Way Representative on the Coalition. C) Task Force Members

A) September,15, 2004 B) Summer, 2004 (When UW Instrument is being designed. C) January 2005 D) Within Timelines of the

Housing Finance Agency, SHP and Shelter Plus Care applications to fill remaining gaps in the proposed program after pooling of existing resources has occurred.

D) Task Force Members with one serving as a grantee.

2005 Super NOFA

Goal 2: Link 20 chronically homeless and unemployable persons with SSI or other appropriate benefits and place them in supportive housing within 3 months of initial contact.

A) Task Force will examine existing regulations and seek to reconcile or streamline them so that a multi- disciplinary management team, under the Coalition’s auspices can operate in conducting monthly reviews of chronically homeless cases. B) Seek funding for new Coalition position that will lead team members; funds could come from PATH, ESG, United Way, local businesses, state government and/or local foundations. C) Enlist the participation on the Coalition of the local legal services office and recruit private Bar Association members to assist on pro bono basis. D) Employ team leader and operationalize case management system. E) Track and evaluate outcomes and report back to full Coalition and to funding sources.

A) Task Force B) Task Force C) Task Force, local legal services office; at least two members of local Bar Association. D) Task Force E) Task Force

A) December 2004 B) Next grant cycles C) December 2004 D) January 2005, if funding is available. E) April 2005

Goal 3: Develop a comprehensive discharge planning program resulting in prerelease placements of ten discharges who would otherwise become homeless and eventual candidates for chronic homelessness.

A) Establish COC Discharge Planning Task Force and request DOC, state MH, and state foster care agencies to designate liaison to meet with the Task Force.

B) Review existing local protocols and models from other COCs.

C) Draft discharge planning protocols including clearly designated assignments among the parties leading to a MOU.

D) Conduct orientation and training on protocols.

A) Task Force

B) Task Force

C) Task Force

D) Task Force

A) September 2004

B) November 2004

C) February to April 2005

D) September 2005 and ongoing

REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO PERSONS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING In the early 1990's, the City of Mansfield reviewed its land use regulations, zoning code, building code and housing code, and concluded that these local regulations do not impose unreasonable burdens on the development or maintenance of affordable housing. The real barrier is based on a one-to-one continued effort over all most residents are greatly supportive of our fair housing efforts. It is found that the small fraction of the population may have beliefs, which are against the community fair housing efforts. As those beliefs become action against a protective class, they will be held accountable to the letter of the law under the fair housing act. The Community Development Office will continue in its owner-occupied housing rehabilitation program and with its demolition activity, whereby the City’s Building and Codes department demolishes vacant, dilapidated structures, with many of the vacant lots being purchased by the local CDC developers for new and renovated affordable housing sites. Although Mansfield identified no municipal regulations or public policies that created unnecessary barriers to affordable housing, several structural problems in the housing market could be considered institutional barriers to reinvestment in existing housing and new construction: - The inflation of property values in low and minority neighborhoods caused by flipping

of properties has increased property taxes generally in low-income neighborhoods. - The lack of decent housing for persons with very low income tenants 30% and lower

of median income. This is not a barrier because of local requirements but by State and Federal requirements. The lack of Metropolitan Housing voucher, the economy is at a very low point. When addressing low-income persons and households when the country experience economic down-sifts they are the first to be effective and the last to feel the effect of a county economic stability.

- Many low-income tenants have never been educated on the responsibilities of being

a good tenant, having past evictions, criminal histories, and poor credit history. - Where single family housing in low-income neighborhoods is priced well below the

average for the city, we are experiencing a major influx on sub prime mortgagors and investment groups in our community taking advantage of the low income and minority community.

- Properties in low-income areas obtaining loans at 100-125% of the fair appraisal.

- The need for stronger enforcement of codes on vacant and boarded up dwellings throughout the community. Generally, these structures are in low-income neighborhoods, which are one factor those areas, continue to be depressed.

According to a report released by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio (COHHIO), and the National Low income Housing Coalition, low-income workers in Richland County must earn more than twice the federal minimum wage, or $11.23 per hour, if they are to afford rent for the average two-bedroom apartment. According to the report, Richland County’s housing wage for a one-bedroom apartment in Richland County is $9.00 per hour, (or 137% of the minimum wage), the housing wage for a two-bedroom apartment is $11.23 per hour, (or 175% of the minimum wage), and the housing wage for a three-bedroom apartment is $12.58 per hour, (or 218% of the minimum wage). Minimum wage workers in Richland County must work at least 55 hours per week to afford rent for a one-bedroom apartment, 70 hours per week to afford rent for a two-bedroom apartment, and 87 hours per week to afford rent for a three-bedroom apartment.

4/23/2004 Don Mitchell,Ted Stiffler, Gabi Cooney 26

Hours necessary to be worked at minimum wage ($5.15/hr) Hours necessary to be worked at minimum wage ($5.15/hr) to afford marketto afford market--rate housing in Richland Countyrate housing in Richland County

0 20 40 60 80 100

1 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

3 Bedroom

AdditionalHoursneeded

Averageworkweek

L Low-income individuals age 18-59 are in need of transportation to grocery, shopping, and medical appointments. For local transportation, an affordable transportation provider is the city bus service; however, individuals who do not have a regular source of income may be unable to afford a bus ticket or pass if they need to make multiple trips during a month. Bridge The Gap, the Richland County Department of Job and Family Services, and the Richland County Veterans Service Commission are the only resources identified who will provide or arrange transportation to medical and social services appointments. Bridge The Gap also provides transportation to grocery and shopping. Bridge-the-Gap provides free transportation by van to approximately 200 families and individuals a month. The individual or family in need of transportation must be referred to Bridge The Gap by a community agency. The Richland County Veterans Service Commission provides bus tickets to Veterans for local transportation based on need.

Stronger data collecting system for all services related to basic needs

Agency protocols prohibit the free sharing of information has proven to be an obstacle in serving members of Richland county. Clients are frustrated by being required to give the same information to different agencies over and over again are prone to social rage. Additionally, agency productivity is greatly decreased by having to take the time to gather this duplicated information. This also causes difficulty in analyzing program numbers, as it is unclear if there are duplicated data.

As no change is forecast in the immediate future to the minimum wage, and with the continuing spiral of escalating housing and utility costs, the need for temporary financial aid for low to moderate income Richland County residents is projected to continue to skyrocket. According to the preliminary 2000 Census figures, exactly 10.6% of Richland County residents are living at or below the poverty level. Ironically, this is the exact same percentage for the State of Ohio.

For Richland County, this translates into over 13,000 persons (not necessarily households) who are now living at or below poverty.

Low income Richland County residents continue to pay a disproportionate amount of their minimal household income to meet life’s basic needs – often, these households are paying 70 to 80% of their income just for housing and utilities.

Richland County’s homeless issue is not one brought on by a growing transient population. Instead, it is being promulgated and augmented by an ever-widening gap between the “haves” and “have nots” ---those families who are blessed with good health and good jobs, and those who are burdened by minimum wage jobs, poor health with disabilities or other handicaps, and because of lack of education or supportive services, are unable to attain better quality, higher paying jobs. Many of these individuals are also the elderly and/or handicapped, who are living on either inadequate pensions or Social Security income, or who must rely on already hard-pressed local agencies for assistance.

Indeed, with the forecast of even more federal and state budgetary cutbacks in these areas, the burden will continue to fall on local communities to help their own residents attain a decent, safe and sanitary life.

Predatory Lending In 2003, a study was contracted with Center for Urban and Regional Analysis (CURA) at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, culminating in a report jointly written by Community Research Partners, also of Columbus, Ohio. This study was funded through COHHIO. That study focused on flipping schemes in Mansfield, Ohio. The case study illustrated that flipping schemes and vulnerable neighborhoods should be studied together. The Community Development Office for the City of Mansfield believes that properties in low-income neighborhoods have been turning over too quickly and with more rapid price increases than the market warrants. The major focus of the CURA study was to assist in determining whether flipping is occurring and to pinpoint suspect parcels. Deed transfers based on the County Auditor’s records served as a basis for the mathematical and graphical analysis in order to determine whether flipping was happening and to define and assess the number of affected properties. In 2000, Mansfield had a home ownership rate of 57.6 percent, whereas Ohio had a home ownership rate of 69.1 percent. On the other hand, Mansfield had a renter ship rate of 42.4 percent, whereas Ohio had a renter ship rate of 30.9 percent. The variable homeownership rate was used for analyses discussed below.

Figure 1: Mansfield vs. Ohio (2000): Housing Units: Year Structure Built A comprehensive set of data on property transactions in Richland County between 1998 and 2001 was obtained from the Richland County Auditor’s Office. The transaction database provided property address, price and date of sale, and appraised land and building values. Over the total time span, there were 13,059 property transactions in all of Richland County. Using ArcView, the data was reorganized in such a way that there was only one single record per property with all the transactions belonging to that record. A total of 11,170 properties were sold in this 4-year time period. The City of Mansfield accounted for 4,854 parcels and the analysis was focused on these, seen below.

Richland County Number Total property transactions in Adutor’s data file 13,059 Total parcels involved in transactions 11,170 City of Mansfield Number Total property transactions in Auditor’s data file 5,822 Total parcels involved in transactions 4,854

Below shows the number of atypical transactions (both methodologies less duplicated transactions), the minority population, and the total number of housing units and the percentage of people living below the census poverty line in each census tract in the City of Mansfield.

Census Tract

Number of Atypical Transactionsi

Total Number of Housing Units 2000 (1990)ii

Minority Population (%) 1990iii

Percent of People below Census Poverty Line 1990iv

3

24

955 (1,055) 57.52% 41.36%

6

23

2,087 (2,164) 37.67%

28.51%

7

20

1,541 (1,556) 56.13%

35.03%

5

16

2,399 (2,514) 13.28%

19.98%

8

11

1,328 (1,349) 17.60%

25.52%

4

9

1,376 (1,350) 11.22%

23.72%

21.01

6

2,329 (NA) NA NA

10

5

2,662 (2,495) 6.38%

6.51%

14

4

1,302 (1,267) 5.82%

12.15%

12

4

1,772 (1,690) 2.42%

5.06%

15

3

1,049 (1,100) 1.21%

19.11%

2

2

225 (268) 28.37%

41.78%

11

2

1,332 (1,313) 2.70%

10.59%

16

2

908 (887) 2.57%

20.20%

21.02

1

1,896 (NA)

NA

NA

13

1

1,580 (1,553) 4.94%

4.92%

unknown

9

Total

142

Number of Atypical Transactions, Total Number of Housing Units, Minority Population and Percentage of People Living below Census Poverty Line 1990 and 2000 in the City of Mansfield.

Metropolitan Housing Authority: The Mansfield MHA does not own rental housing or provide public housing units. Rather, the MMHA, (which serves all of Richland County, Ohio), assists low-income families through the current Housing Choice Voucher program. Presently, the MMHA provides rental assistance through the HCV program to 1,678 families. The only additional rental vouchers received by the Authority within the past five years have come from opt-out programs, whereby owners of privately subsidized projects have decided to no longer participate in various HUD-funded programs The Mansfield MHA has seen the numbers of those applying for housing help increase dramatically over the past four years. The waiting list figures, outlined in the table below, now reflect a minimum two-year wait for housing assistance.

4/23/2004 Don Mitchell,Ted Stiffler, Gabi Cooney 35

Metropolitan Housing Authority Waiting ListMetropolitan Housing Authority Waiting List

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2000 2001 2002 2003

Another indicator of demand, which is specifically relevant to the low-income population, is the waiting list for assisted housing programs operated by the Mansfield Richland Housing Authority. As of October 2004, there are 1,438 households on the waiting list for Public Housing vouchers with a minimum of two years wait. Applications for Metro vouchers are currently only being taken on Fridays between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.

Currently the only group that receives preference on the waiting list is veterans, but with the high demand for subsidized housing for persons with disabilities, the need to expand this preference should be a priority. Employment Characteristics It is understood that a decent income is necessary to provide life’s essentials, including decent, safe and sanitary housing. Adequate income is also essential to gaining access (by virtue of community, neighborhood, or voluntary association) to other facilities and services which provide a high standard of living. Examples would include proximity to, or having easy access to, employment centers; having excellent public schools, which not only educate, but also help individuals make friends through clubs and informal associations; high quality and well-maintained parks and recreational facilities; and excellent libraries and cultural venues. These features create communities that individuals want to live, and remain in.

The National Low-Income Housing Coalition: Calculates that the minimum-wage worker has to clock 87 hrs. a week to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the Federal standard of 30% of income thus, for many Americans employment provides no guarantee of a roof overhead. Being poor may mean having an illness, an accident or a paycheck away from living on the streets. A 2002 U.S. Conference of Mayors survey of 30 cities found that homeless providers across the country report a 13% increase in requests for assistance. Although a stereotyped picture of the homeless as mentally ill or drug-addicted exists, only an estimated 25-30 % of the homeless fit those categories. The National Coalition for the Homeless cites that women with children are the fastest growing group of the homeless. An estimated one-third of the homeless are veterans, who became homeless because of a complex set of circumstances that required people to choose between food, shelter and other basic needs. It will take jobs that pay a living wage, adequate support for those that cannot work, affordable housing and access to health-care to bring an end to homelessness. Data gathered locally from our Richland County assessment survey mirrors the national data surveys that show the increased number of individuals that are struggling to meet basic needs.

1. 79% of 229 persons surveyed say they are in worse shape financially than they were five years ago.

2. 75% of 483 households surveyed were unable to pay one or more of the

Higher -income households demand, and receive, these amenities as a matter of course; choosing to live in those communities, which can provide them, and shunning those, which cannot. Some localities therefore prosper while others do not. From a municipal perspective, a strong tax base is indispensable in order to provide desired services and amenities, and in order to attract additional development and affluent residents.

following bills in the last year: rent, mortgage, utilities or medical needs.

3. 30% of the 316 surveyed experienced problems buying a home or renting an apartment.

4. 65% of 224 surveyed have lived in Richland County over 11 years, which

dispels the idea that the homeless or impending homeless individuals are transients.

Once further Census figures become available and release by the Census bureau, it will become readily apparent that the need for temporary financial aid in all categories to meet basic needs such as food, shelter and transportation will continue to grow.

LENDING/BANKIG Local lenders over the past three decade has moved out of the inter city where the need continue to be greatly needed. Other than the main banks located downtown, all but one branch remains in the inner city of Mansfield. As shown in the community profiles in census traces map below, tracts 1, 3, 8., and 17, which were classified as our low–income, and highest minority census tracts, tract 1, were only recognized as a positive area because it is in the downtown area. All of the high minority census tract, some common factors seem to be consistent with high minority population, high number of rental units, lack on new housing construction until 1996 with the start of the Tax Credit Projects for low to moderate income households, Income below the median city income, and poor housing conditions. Census tracts 1,3,6,7,8,17 are in areas, which are in need of banking services in their neighborhoods. Predatory Lending practices has capitalize on lenders leaving the inner-city where in the past with banks being present in neighborhoods there was a conformability in knowing the employees of the bank. Many residents which relied on the bank employees to be there on their behalf, now with the branches being located outside the neighborhoods may high risk lenders take use that advantage to masking as the good lender trying to help them with a loan, where they are trying to take the equity out of there homes. Many lenders has open mini branches in grocery stories on the out edges of Mansfield, the need for some banking services in local neighborhoods is one way of deterring high risk lenders from being as successful.

BANK LOCATIONS FROM 1970 - 2000

Complaints The City of Mansfield Office of Housing and Community Development will provide a written response to written complaints from citizens related to the Fair Housing Analysis of Impediments. Where practicable, the City of Mansfield Office of Housing and Community Development will deliver a written response to complainants within 15 working days. Public Hearings Public hearings conducted by the Community Development Office shall be advertised in the local News Journal. This advertisement shall be display ads. Notice of this hearing will be sent to the media, neighborhood groups, local governments including the City of Mansfield, and Richland County agencies, Public Housing Authorities, representatives of non-profits, low-income neighborhood groups, minorities, persons with disabilities, HIV/AIDS advocates, and other interested parties. Hearings will be held at times and places convenient and comfortable for people most affected by the proposed A.I. Plan. Hearings will take place in facilities that can accommodate persons with disabilities. A translator would be provided if requested with prior written request of an individual or organization. Written requests must be made to the City of Mansfield Office of Housing and Community Development a minimum of three days prior to hearing dates. Comment Period Following the release of the draft of the A.I., draft Action Plan, and Substantial Amendments any interested party will be given at least 30 days to comment on the plans and or changes prior to review by the City of Mansfield. All comments received will be considered while preparing the final version for approval by the City of Mansfield, Department of Community Development, and prior to submission to HUD. The City of Mansfield will attach a summary of all comments received to final plans. The Office of Housing and Community Development will respond within 30 days to all written comments from the time of receipt.

COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING Public hearing was head at the Area Aging on Aging November 17, 2004 in which 21persons attended the meeting. A power point presents was presented and the offer of copies of the draft plan. The following comments were made after the presentation:

i. One questions related to residents living at or below 30% of median income if the City of Mansfield or others that can assist them.

Metropolitan Housing Authority generally in the agency which assist this population but like all other Housing Authority their funding is being reduce, the problem with local CDBG/HOME funding is the program need to be funded yearly and the city funding is as well very limited.

ii. The City does assist in funding mental health housing in Mansfield, as well

as technical assistance in other housing programs.

The director of the Mental Health Board stated additional housing maybe need for persons with drug and alcohol problems. Elva Lewis, from HUD stated we should look at opportunities through HUD’s 811 housing which will aid that population.

Staff member of the Health Department talked about her concerns of developing Safe Haven housing for persons with temporary needs with wrap around services for some period of time. Comments continue in what is the City’s plan to help children, which is living in lead housing.

iii. The City is beefing up the lead program in their housing rehabilitation

program; they will also continue to explore lead grant opportunities for the community. The city is also placing funding into new housing which CCED is building; education is a strong focus to educate families related to lead.

The questions were asked if there is any barrier to affordable housing.

Staff member of the homeless shelter, commented about person, which use predatory lending method to rent housing units, which are not fit for human habitation.

iv. Again, education to all residents in how to look for housing, stronger

enforcement to those that takes advantage on the low income, minority, and elderly.

v. Another comment was that many communities have a licensing process

that all property must me inspected for decent, safe, an sanitary every year, or every other year.

CERTIFICATIONS

CERTIFICATIONS In accordance with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the consolidated plan regulations, the jurisdiction certifies that: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing -- The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, which means it will conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this regard. Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan - It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR 24; and it has in effect and is following a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or HOME programs. Drug Free Workplace -- It will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: 1. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture,

distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;

2. Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees

about:

(a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; (c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance

programs; and (d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse

violations occurring in the workplace; 3. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of

the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph 1; 4. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph 1 that, as a

condition of employment under the grant, the employee will -

(a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and

(b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a

criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction;

5. Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice

under subparagraph 4(b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice will include the identification number(s) of each affected grant;

6. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice

under subparagraph 4(b), with respect to any employee who is so convicted -

(a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or

(b) Requiring such employees to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse

assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;

7. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through

implementation of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Anti-Lobbying -- To the best of the jurisdiction's knowledge and belief: 1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of

it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement;

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid

to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; and

3. It will require that the language of paragraph 1 and 2 of this anti-lobbying

certification be included in the award documents for all sub awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients will certify and disclose accordingly.

Authority of Jurisdiction -- The consolidated plan is authorized under State and local law (as applicable) and the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations. Consistency with plan -- The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan. Section 3 -- It will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 135.

___________________________ _________________ Signature/Authorized Official Title Date Lydia J. Reid - Mayor of Mansfield

Specific CDBG Certifications

The Entitlement Community certifies that: Citizen Participation -- It is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 91.105. Community Development Plan -- Its consolidated housing and community development plan identifies community development and housing needs and specifies both short-term and long-term community development objectives that provide decent housing, expand economic opportunities primarily for persons of low and moderate income. (See CFR 24 570.2 and CFR 24 part 570) Following a Plan -- It is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUD. Use of Funds - It has complied with the following criteria: 1. Maximum Feasible Priority. With respect to activities expected to be assisted

with CDBG funds, it certifies that it has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities, which benefit low and moderate-income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. The Action Plan may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available);

2. Overall Benefit. The aggregate use of CDBG funds including section 108

guaranteed loans specified by the grantee consisting of one, two, or three specific consecutive program years), will principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent of the amount is expended for activities that benefit such persons during the designated period;

3. Special Assessments. It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public

improvements assisted with CDBG funds including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements.

However, if CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with CDBG funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds.

The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108, unless CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements financed from other revenue sources. In this case, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. Also, in the case of properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (not low-income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property for public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG funds to cover the assessment. Excessive Force -- it has adopted and is enforcing: 1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies

within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and

2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring

entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction;

Compliance With Anti-discrimination laws -- The grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601-3619), and implementing regulations. Lead-Based Paint -- its notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR *570.608; Compliance with Laws -- it will comply with applicable laws. ___________________________ __________________ Signature/Authorized Official / Title Date Lydia J. Reid – Mayor of Mansfield

OPTIONAL CERTIFICATION CDBG Submit the following certification only when one or more of the activities in the action plan are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency as specified in 24 CFR 570.2088): The grantee hereby certifies that the Annual Plan includes one or more specifically identified CDBG-assisted activities, which are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and other financial resources are not available to meet such needs. ______________________________ ____________________ Signature/Authorized Official Date Lydia J. Reid - Mayor of Mansfield

Specific HOME Certifications The HOME participating jurisdiction certifies that: Tenant Based Rental Assistance -- if the participating jurisdiction intends to provide tenant-based rental assistance: The use of HOME funds for tenant-based rental assistance is an essential element of the participating jurisdiction's consolidated plan for expanding the supply, affordability, and availability of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing. Eligible Activities and Costs -- it is using and will use HOME funds for eligible activities and costs, as described in 24 CFR * 92.205 through 92.209 and that it is not using and will not use HOME funds for prohibited activities, as described in * 92.214. Appropriate Financial Assistance -- before committing any funds to a project, it will evaluate the project in accordance with the guidelines that it adopts for this purpose and will not invest any more HOME funds in combining with other Federal assistance than is necessary to provide affordable housing; ____________________________ ______________________ Signature/Authorized Official Date Lydia J. Reid – Mayor of Mansfield

ESG Certifications The Emergency Shelter Grantee certifies that: Major rehabilitation/conversion -- it will maintain any building for which assistance is used under the ESG program as a shelter for homeless individuals and families for at least 10 years. If the jurisdiction plans to use funds for purposes less than tenant-based rental assistance, the applicant will maintain any building for which assistance is used under the ESG program as a shelter for homeless individuals and families for at least 3 years. Essential Services -- it will provide services or shelter to homeless individuals and families for the period during which the ESG assistance is provided, without regard to a particular site or structure as long as the same general population is served. Renovation -- Any renovation carried out with ESG assistance will be sufficient to ensure that the building involved is safe and sanitary. Supportive Services -- It will assist homeless individuals in obtaining appropriate supportive services, including permanent housing, medical and mental health treatment, counseling, supervision, and other services essential for achieving independent living, and other Federal State, local, and private assistance. Matching Funds -- It will obtain matching amounts required under * 576.71 of this title. Confidentiality -- It will develop and implement procedures to ensure the confidentiality of records pertaining to any individual provided family violence prevention or treatment services under any project assisted under the ESG program, including protection against the release of the address or location of any family violence shelter project except with the written authorization of the person responsible for the operation of that shelter. Homeless Persons Involvement -- to the maximum extent practicable, it will involve, through employment, volunteer services, or otherwise, homeless individuals and families in constructing, renovating, maintaining, operating facilities, and providing services assisted through this program. Consolidated Plan -- it is following a current HUD-approved Consolidated Plan or CHAS. _______________________________ _______________________ Signature/Authorized Official Date Lydia J. Reid – Mayor of Mansfield

HOPWA Certifications The HOPWA grantee certifies that: Activities -- Activities funded under the program will meet urgent needs that are not being met by available public and private sources. Building -- any building or structure assisted under that program will be operated for the purpose specified in the plan: 1. for at least 10 years in the case of assistance involving new construction,

substantial rehabilitation, or acquisition of a facility, 2. for at least 3 years in the case of assistance involving non-substantial

rehabilitation or repair of a building or structure. ___________________________ ___________________ Signature/Authorized Official Date Lydia J. Reid – Mayor of Mansfield

APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING LOBBYING AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS: A. Lobbying Certification This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was place when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification will be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. B. Drug-Free Workplace Certification 1. By signing and/or submitting this application or grant agreement, the

grantee is providing the certification. 2. The certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance is

placed when the agency awards the grant. If it is later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, HUD, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act.

3. Workplaces under grants, for grantees other than individuals, need not

be identified on the certification. If known, they may be identified in the grant application. If the grantee does not identify the workplaces at the time of application, or upon the award, if there is no application, the grantee must keep the identity of the workplace(s) on file in its office and make the information available for Federal inspection. Failure to identify all known workplaces constitutes a violation of the grantee's drug-free workplace requirements.

4. Workplace identifications must include the actual address of buildings (or

parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the grant takes place. Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g., all vehicles of a mass transit authority or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in concert halls or radio stations).

5. If the workplace identified to the agency changes during the performance of the grant, the grantee will inform the agency of the change(s), if it previously identified the workplaces in question (see paragraph three).

6. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the

performance of work done in connection with the specific grant:

Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code)

City of Mansfield, Community Development Department, 30 North Diamond Street, Mansfield, OH 44902

7. Definitions of terms in the Non-procurement Suspension and Debarment

common rule and Drug-Free Workplace common rules apply to this certification. Grantees' attention is called, in particular, to the following definitions from these rules:

"Controlled substance" means a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and as further defined by regulation (21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15);

"Conviction" means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal drug statutes;

"Criminal drug statute" means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance;

"Employee" means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the performance of work under a grant, including: (I) All "direct charge" employees; (ii) all "indirect charge" employee unless their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and (iii) temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the grant and who are on the grantee's payroll. This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the grantee (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the grantee's payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces).