City of Anderson

Mayor Kris Ockomon

Community Development Department

ANDERSON HOUSING NEEDS

ASSESSMENT 2010

Prepared by Indiana Association for Community Economic

Development (IACED)

Lisa A. Archey & Jessica Love

2105 N. Meridian Street Suite 102 Indianapolis, IN 46202

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and Context 3

Purpose Research and Data Survey Methodologies Financing Project Area Description History

4 5

6

Market Overview 8

Introduction Population Housing by Type, Size, Condition, Occupancy and Tenure Housing Costs and Values Cost of Living Index Housing Cost Burden Economic Indicators Households by Type Geographic Mobility

10

11

12 13

Trends and Recommendations to Meet Housing Needs 14

Improving Housing Affordability Improving Housing Conditions Improving Availability to Targeted Populations Improving Partnerships Improving Availability of Local Housing Funds

Improving Non-Housing Components of Community

20 24 30 31 32

Appendices 36

Appendix A: Providers Survey Results Appendix B: Businesses Survey Results Appendix C: Residents Survey Results Appendix D: Windshield Survey Results Appendix E: Windshield Survey Maps

37 40 43 50 51

3

INTRODUCTION and CONTEXT PURPOSE Housing may be the single most important element in any community. Housing stock is the largest long-term asset in most towns, cities and counties. Since residential development is usually the predominant user of urban land, taxes on housing constitute a principal source of local government revenue. Housing can be a major expenditure for local government entities and housing definitely represents the largest purchase made by many individuals and families. For those who rent or lease, housing usually represents their largest monthly expenditure. As an industry, housing represents a major portion of the economic life of any community. Housing needs assessments (HNA) are studies that address the housing needs of a particular geographic area. Housing needs can be roughly defined as the number and type of housing units required to accommodate a population at a given housing occupancy level. Determining and addressing the housing needs of a community is a crucial part of state and local planning because housing needs assessments determine areas in which supply of adequate housing is failing to meet demand. The Indiana Association for Community Economic Development (IACED) prepared a housing needs assessment for the City of Anderson to address the issues described above and to provide a tool that will allow the City to improve the housing options for its neighborhoods. Therefore, the purpose of this housing needs assessment is to serve as a reference point for all those interested in providing safe, decent and affordable housing in the City of Anderson. Anderson‘s Community Development Department wishes to utilize this assessment to serve as a comprehensive report to more effectively plan and allocate resources, leverage funds and develop additional affordable housing. The Community Development Department will specifically use the information to prioritize funding for community development projects, including income targeting, location, bedroom size and type of activity including new construction and acquisition and rehabilitation. In addition, the study will allow the City to address the identified impediments to affordable housing. IACED has developed key strategies and recommendations for guiding and achieving local housing initiatives. The scope of the assessment involves a number of elements that are integral to completing this comprehensive strategy. The report will be widely shared and distributed to encourage public-private partnerships and community discussions on long-term planning objectives and to fund specific housing, neighborhood infrastructure and mixed-use economic development projects. The document will assist multiple groups in Anderson by providing: 1) an examination of housing affordability for present and future residents; 2) housing data for use by social service agencies, advocacy groups, government leaders, developers, appraisers and bankers; 3) documentation for housing funding requests, and 4) community information to support local planners in long-term development decisions. RESEARCH AND DATA The housing needs for Anderson have been identified through data analysis, research, surveys and community input. On March 12, 2010, IACED with assistance from the City of Anderson convened a stakeholder meeting with housing and other service providers. The goal of this meeting was to identify local housing priorities and the overall needs and service areas that would affect Anderson. Fourteen participants representing housing producers, housing funders, and health and human service providers, focused on critical needs to serve those with housing challenges and more generally Anderson's low-

4

income residents. The purpose of the stakeholder meeting was to provide a forum for open communication and to provide additional clarity on issues raised in surveys conducted by IACED. IACED conducted surveys of local providers, businesses and residents, and a windshield survey in the City‘s Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA), to gather pertinent data. This housing needs assessment is also based on the most recent national and state data available pertaining to Anderson households and housing stock. The most frequent source is the U.S. Census Bureau‘s American Community Survey (ACS) and 2000 decennial Census. The availability of the annual American Community Survey improves the accuracy of the housing needs assessment, allowing the use of more up-to-date information about Anderson households. IACED also utilized the same data analyzed by The Reinvestment Foundation (TRF). The source of data on rental units, gross rent, cost burden and vacancy are from the 2000 decennial U.S. Census, Summary File 3, as compiled by TRF. Estimates and projections of tenure, incomes, household composition and housing stock are provided to TRF by Claritas, Inc. for 2009 and 2014. The source of data on population trends, racial characteristics, age distribution, incomes, foreign born population, households, housing type, tenure and employment are from the 2000 decennial U.S. Census, Summary File 3, as analyzed by TRF. The availability of annual estimates affects many findings described in this housing needs assessment. These include the total number of owner and renter households, the number of owners and renters who likely lack affordable housing due to high housing cost burdens and the level of new rental and owner home construction activity that is likely needed to accommodate population growth. The housing needs for the City of Anderson have been identified through the following resources:

Key informants meetings

Stakeholder surveys

Windshield survey

2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates (U.S. Census data analysis)

The Reinvestment Fund PolicyMap

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2010 Regional Projections and Database

Indiana Business Research Center, Housing

Sperling‘s Best Places

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC)

Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority (IHCDA)

City-Data.com

Anderson Library

Anderson Housing Authority (AHA)

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

SURVEY METHODOLOGIES IACED developed three comprehensive written surveys to gain insight into perceptions of the community housing climate and local economic conditions from three different stakeholder perspectives, those of providers, businesses and residents. Surveys were available online through Survey Monkey for all respondents, and hard copy surveys were also distributed to solicit responses from residents that might not have computer access or consider themselves computer savvy. After all of the surveys were collected, IACED reviewed, tabulated and in some instances charted the results and summarized the responses.

5

Responses to the surveys identified issues pertaining to housing, access to employment and other economic factors and provided a foundation on which to build additional research inquiries and formulate recommendations. The provider survey respondents consisted of affordable housing and social service organizations that are considered first responders to the community‘s neediest residents. They provide clothing, shelter, food, medical and social welfare support to the residents and possess a broad sense and understanding of the city‘s low and moderate income needs. They address the housing, health and education needs of the residents. A list of local providers was developed by IACED and the City, and input was directly solicited from those organizations. Provider agencies that acted as key informants to this assessment include: Chris Allen, Pathstone; Beth Crum, Community Hospital; Karl Graddy, Habitat for Humanity of Anderson; Beth Harpe, Community LTC; Cherilyn Horning, Dove Habor; Jacqueline Johnson, St. John‘s Health Access; Mary Jo Lee, Alternatives, Inc.; Heidi Mench, Alternatives, Inc.; Erica Moffitt, Dove Harbor; Cindy Mummert, Anderson Housing Authority; Jerry Price, Aspire Indiana; Scott Richards, The Christian Center; Shayne Tacket, The Christian Center; and Megan Velasquez, Life Stream Services. A targeted approach was also utilized to solicit responses from businesses in Anderson. IACED was provided a list of businesses from which the City desired responses. Survey questions helped identify issues that impact local employees and employers, with several questions specifically related to housing. IACED conducted a mass marketing and distribution of the resident survey. The survey was advertised on the websites of the City of Anderson and the Anderson public library, as well as the City‘s Facebook page. Marketing posters, as well as survey hardcopies with return envelopes with prepaid postage, were provided to and distributed by the workforce development office, city utilities department, City Hall information desk, Geater Community Center, Anderson Urban League, Anderson Mall, as well as direct mailings to 125 local churches and Head Start (mailed to all parents of participating children). A windshield survey was also conducted during the week of April 8, 2010 in Anderson‘s Neighborhood NRSA. The survey was conducted by a senior staff with over 30 years of housing development experience. The results of the survey revealed there are approximately 1,200 structures in the target area. Each structure and/or lot was visually inspected using a seven point standard ranging from ―nothing serious‖ to ―requires boarding/unsafe building‖ and indicating whether rehabilitation should be considered and how many repairs are needed. All survey results are included in the Appendix. FINANCING This study was commissioned and funded by the City of Anderson Department of Housing and Community Development. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION Anderson is a city in Madison County, Indiana, and is part of the Indianapolis metropolitan area. The city is the county seat of Madison County and the principal city of the Anderson, Indiana, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which encompasses Madison County. Anderson‘s 2000 Census population is 59,734. According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 40.2 square miles (104.0 km²), of which 40.0 square miles (103.7 km²) of it is land and 0.1 square miles (0.3 km²) of it (0.27%) is water.

6

Positioned in the heart of the Midwest, Anderson is located in Central Indiana on the I-69 corridor, just north of the Indianapolis metropolitan area. Anderson benefits from a strategic interstate and highway access system. Twenty miles south is the I-465 freeway hub, connecting interstates in seven directions, including I-65, I-70 and I-74. Interstate 70 is also only 15 to 20 minutes away on State Roads 9 and 109. State Roads 32, 67 and 9 connect to Anderson.

HISTORY According to the City of Anderson website, the city is named for Chief William Anderson. The settlers coming into Anderson referred to the village as "Anderson Town." The Moravian Missionaries called it "The Heathen Town Four Miles Away." Later it was known as "Andersontown‖. In 1844 the name was shortened by the Indiana legislature to "Anderson‖.1 On March 31, 1887 natural gas was discovered in Anderson. With this discovery several industries located in Anderson. The result was a ballooning population. In the 20th century, there was no industry more important to Anderson than the auto industry. An early automobile pioneer, John W. Lambert, located his Buckeye Manufacturing Works in Anderson and for several years built the Lambert automobile. In all, 17 different types of automobiles were manufactured in Anderson, all before 1920. Since the 1920s, the auto parts industry has employed more residents of Anderson than any other industry. The Commercial Club was the forerunner of the present Chamber of Commerce. This club persuaded the Remy Brothers to stay in Anderson – when other businesses left because the natural gas ran out – and convinced others to locate in Anderson. In 1915-1916, GM incorporated as General Motors Corp; the company acquired and absorbed Remy Electric and rival Dayton Engineering Laboratories (Delco) into Delco-Remy. According to The New York Times, General Motors once had so many plants in Anderson, manufacturing plant schedules were staggered so the city streets would not be clogged with traffic.2 General Motors and automotive parts manufacturing employment reached its peak in the city in the early 1970s. At GM's peak,

1 Information available online at: http://www.cityofanderson.com/history.aspx 2 Chapman, Mary. New York Times. (2009, March 4) Piecemeal Recovery Fills Void in a Former G.M. Town, available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/business/05anderson.html

7

one of every three people in Anderson worked for GM. Then, in response to foreign competition, GM began dispersing its production and employment from its Anderson plants to distant locations with lower labor costs and divesting itself of its former divisions. These actions produced a dramatic reduction in the number of local GM/automotive jobs. In 1999, General Motors sold Delphi, its last Anderson subsidiary, to Guide Corporation, ending its 80-year involvement in the local economy. The majority of the automotive plants stand vacant today, which has caused an outflow of population and high rates of abandoned and foreclosed homes, as well as bankruptcies and predatory lending. Manufacturing is not the only industry that has contributed to Anderson's growth. In 1906, in partnership with the Church of God, Gospel Trumpet Publishing Company started providing religious training in the area. The classes and ministerial preparation were organized into Anderson College in 1925. With continuous increases in enrollment, Anderson College became Anderson University in 1986. Anderson University is a private Christian university of 2,700 undergraduate and graduate students and one of the largest employers in the city. As of the 2000 Census, Anderson was the ninth largest city in Indiana with a population of 59,734.3

3 U.S. Census Bureau .(2005, July ) Table 4: Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places in Indiana, Listed Alphabetically: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005

8

MARKET OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION Staff from IACED analyzed population and household characteristics to better determine the demographic and socioeconomic makeup of Anderson, as well as to determine the potential demand for housing. Some indicators weigh more heavily than others, but all are key in determining the overall need for additional housing. Evaluating population and growth will help the City of Anderson understand where the market is growing or declining and by how much, in turn allowing city government to make informed decisions on how best to provide for its residents. Analyzing age provides insight into demand for age-specific housing. Per capita income and household income measures, combined with other income variables, help to determine the overall demand for housing and at which price points. Generally, lower income households purchase lower valued homes and vice-versa. Households tend to purchase houses, and individuals tend to rent; household size provides occupancy averages. Evaluating households and household size provides a true measure of housing need. Households are measured in addition to population, due to the fact that growth trends in one do not necessarily correlate, or translate, directly to the other. POPULATION As of 2009, Anderson was home to an estimated 56,756 people, which reflects a 4.82 percent decrease since 2000. Anderson's population is projected to continue to shrink and total 55,537 by 2014.4

POPULATION TRENDS

Population 2000 2009 2014 Projected Change 2009 to 2014 (%)

City of Anderson 59,636 56,756 55,537 -2.15%

Madison County 133,358 131,202 130,711 -0.37%

Indiana 6,080,485 6,402,310 6,599,222 3.08%

Source: The Reinvestment Foundation, PolicyMap

Source: The Reinvestment Foundation, PolicyMap

4 The Reinvestment Fund. (2010, September). PolicyMap. Current Report: Community Profile Report of City: Anderson

9

Anderson residents are composed of the racial and ethnic demographics shown in the charts below, with the predominating races being White (80.37%) and African-American (15.35%). While these two races have decreased in number since 2000, and are projected to further decrease in number by 2014, they will also decrease as a percentage of the whole population. Between 2009 and 2014, the White population in Anderson is expected to decrease by 3.19 percent, and the African American population decrease is projected at 0.46 percent. The fastest growing racial groups are Asians (projected to increase by 13.72% from 2009 to 2014) and those reporting more than one race. The number of Hispanics is projected to increase by 18.57 percent between 2009 and 2014. The compound annual rate of growth for the Hispanic population was 5.80 percent between 2000 and 2009.5 As such, Anderson‘s population is expected to become more diverse in upcoming years.

RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Race 2000 2009 2014 Percent of Total Population in 2009

Percent of Indiana Population in 2009

White 49,011 45,613 44,158 80.37% 85.37%

African American 8,846 8,714 8,674 15.35% 8.97%

Asian 290 408 464 0.72% 1.39%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

55 6 4 0.01% 0.04%

American Indian or Alaskan Native

229 201 211 0.35% 0.30%

Some Other Race 506 730 836 1.29% 2.33%

Two or More Races 699 1,084 1,190 1.91% 1.61%

Ethnicity 2000 2009 2014 Percent of Total Population in 2009

Percent of Indiana Population in 2009

Hispanic 1,157 1,922 2,279 3.39% 5.18%

Source: The Reinvestment Foundation, Policy Map

According to the U.S. Census 2006-2008 American Community Survey, the majority of persons in Anderson are between the ages of 25 and 54 (39%), similar to the county‘s and state‘s percentages of 41 and 42 percent, respectively. As a result, the median age in Anderson is 38.3, which is two years older than the statewide median age of 36.3. According to PolicyMap, Anderson‘s aging population (65 and older), at 17.35 percent of residents, is disproportionate to that of the state at 12.85 percent.

Source: The Reinvestment Foundation, Policy Map

5 Ibid.

AGE DISTRIBUTION

Age Number of People in Age Group (Anderson)

Percent of People in Age Group (Anderson)

Percent of People in Age Group (Indiana)

Under 5 3,682 6.49% 6.9%

Under 18 12,985 22.88% 24.78%

Working Age (18-64) 33,921 59.77% 62.37%

Aging (65+) 9,850 17.35% 12.85%

10

Source: PolicyMap

HOUSING BY TYPE, SIZE, AGE, CONDITION AND OCCUPANCY PolicyMap estimates that Anderson had 27,421 total housing units in 2009; 83.58 percent of the housing units were occupied and 16.43 percent were vacant in the second quarter of 2010, according to data collected by the U.S. Postal Service.6 A windshield survey conducted by IACED revealed multiple pockets and several blocks of vacant and deserted housing stock. The city‘s housing stock composition estimated for 2009 is 69.25 percent single-family units; 9.4 percent attached units (condos) and duplexes; and 21.35 percent multifamily housing units. Also in 2009, an estimated 15,457 households (64.32%) owned their home – a number projected to decrease to 15,153 households by 2014.7 This may further impact vacancy rates, as rentals in Anderson have significantly higher vacancy rates (12.4%) than homeowners (3.2%).

Over 36 percent (36.9%) of housing units are renter-occupied.8 The city has an older housing stock, with 24.5 percent built in 1939 or earlier. In fact, 68.3 percent of the housing stock in Anderson is at least 50 years old (77.6% built over 40 years ago). Just over one percent (1.35%) of the city‘s total housing stock has been built since 2005. This data reveals an aging and depleting housing without adequate replacement. Also, Anderson has a median of 5.0 total rooms per unit (compared to 5.5 in county and 5.6 in state) with 75.5 percent of the housing units having two or three bedrooms. Less than one percent of housing units are deemed inadequate on the basis of lacking complete plumbing facilities (0.4%), lacking complete kitchen facilities (0.5%) and number of occupants per room (0.8% have 1.01 or more persons per room).9 HOUSING COSTS AND VALUES Anderson‘s median value of owner-occupied units is $75,300 with 72.2 percent of the units being valued between $50,000 and $149,999 and 19.6 percent valued at less than $50,000. Less than 10 percent (8.2%) of the owner-occupied housing is valued at or above $150,000 in Anderson, whereas 35.8 percent of the state‘s owner-occupied units are valued at or above $150,000. Units with mortgages comprise 64.7 percent

6 The Reinvestment Fund. (2010, September). PolicyMap. Current Report: Community Profile Report of City: Anderson 7 Ibid. 8 U.S. Census. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Anderson city, Indiana, Selected Housing Characteristics: 2006-2008. 9 Ibid.

HOUSING TYPE

2009 Housing Stock

Number of Units

Percent of Units

City (Anderson) 27,421

Single-family detached homes 18,990 69.25%

Single-family attached homes 962 3.51%

2-unit homes and duplexes 1,615 5.89%

Units in small apartment buildings 3,575 13.04%

Units in large apartment buildings 796 2.9%

Mobile homes or manufactured housing 1,478 5.39%

Other types 5 0.02%

County (Madison) 57,928

Single-family detached homes 44,831 77.39%

Single-family attached homes 1,209 2.09%

2-unit homes and duplexes 2,580 4.45%

Units in small apartment buildings 4,708 8.13%

Units in large apartment buildings 1,077 1.86%

Mobile homes or manufactured housing 3,513 6.06%

Other types 10 0.02%

State (Indiana) 2,761,229

Single-family detached homes 1,973,135 71.46%

Single-family attached homes 81,045 2.94%

2-unit homes and duplexes 87,447 3.17%

Units in small apartment buildings 373,155 13.51%

Units in large apartment buildings 59,744 2.16%

Mobile homes or manufactured housing 184,609 6.69%

Other types 2,094 0.08%

11

Source: 2006-2008 American Community Survey Estimates

of owner-occupied housing in the city. Anderson‘s median monthly housing cost for units with a mortgage is $917 and without a mortgage is $356. The median gross rent for Anderson is $628.10 See the chart below for breakdown of selected monthly costs.

Source: 2006-2008 American Community Survey

COST OF LIVING INDEX BestPlaces.net develops an index of affordability for cities in the United States. This index is based on public information, consumer preferences, and a proprietary methodology. The index is the average of all participating places read as a percentage of the average for all places. An amount below 100 means Anderson is cheaper than the US average and an index above 100 means Anderson, IN is more expensive. BestPlaces.net's cost of living index shows the city of Source: Sperling’s Best Places Anderson is a very affordable place to live and work. HOUSING COST BURDEN Despite its ranking on the affordability index, housing costs for 36.8 percent of housing units (renter and owner-occupied) in Anderson total more than 30 percent of the household income, which indicates a cost burden. An estimated 57.3 percent of renters are spending more than 30 percent of their household income on rent. This ratio of cost-burdened renters is substantially greater than that experienced in Madison County and statewide, where 52.1 and 47.0 percent of renters are cost-burdened, respectively. Also, an estimated 33.2

10 Ibid.

SELECTED MONTHLY COSTS

Anderson % of total

Anderson % of

total Anderson % of

total

Housing units with a mortgage

9,664 Housing units without a mortgage

5,277 Occupied units

paying rent 8,340

Less than $300 21 0.2% Less than $100 18 0.3% Less than $200 343 4.1%

$300 to $499 624 6.5% $100 to $199 409 7.8% $200 to $299 462 5.5%

$500 to $699 1,379 14.3% $200 to $299 1,263 23.9% $300 to $499 1,850 21.9%

$700 to $999 3,821 39.5% $300 to $399 1,449 27.5% $500 to $749 3,353 39.8%

$1,000 to $1,499 2,829 29.3% $400 or more 2,138 40.5% $750 to $999 1,756 20.8%

$1,500 to $1,999 718 7.4% $1,000 to $1,499 496 5.9%

$2,000 or more 272 2.8% $1,500 or more 170 2.0%

No rent paid 294

Median (dollars) $917 Median (dollars) $356 Median (dollars) $628

COST OF LIVING INDEX

Community Average Salary

Cost of Living Index*

Anderson, IN $29,929 68.72

Chicago, IL $55,070 126.45

Dayton, OH $31,852 73.14

Ft. Wayne, IN $32,486 74.59

Indianapolis, IN $32,668 75.01

Owensboro, KY $32,021 73.52

GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME (GRAPI)

Number of Units

Percent of Units

Occupied units paying rent (excluding units where GRAPI cannot be computed)

8,198

Less than 15.0 % 1,271 15.5%

15.0 to 19.9 % 674 8.2%

20.0 to 24.9 % 824 10.1%

25.0 to 29.9 % 736 9.0%

30.0 to 34.9 % 826 10.1%

35.0 % or more 3,867 47.2%

Not computed (includes those not paying rent) 526

12

Source: 2006-2008 American Community Survey

percent of Anderson homeowners with a mortgage are spending more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs, compared to 27.9 percent of homeowners in the county and 27.2 percent of homeowners statewide. Even 13.1 percent of owner-occupied units without mortgages in Anderson have housing costs above 30 percent of the household income.11 Since an estimated 34.23 percent of households in Anderson rented their home in 2010,12 and the greatest cost-burden is experienced by the city‘s renters (57.3% are cost-burdened), a rental housing challenge is looming in Anderson. According to 2000 Census statistics, 22.04 percent of cost-burdened renters were over age 65 (persons who typically have fixed incomes), and 80.05 percent of cost-burdened renters earned less than $20,000.13 Thus, the cost-burden issues in Anderson are likely attributed less to the actual cost of renting or owning (when compared to other cities) and more to the low incomes that are prevalent in the community. This would explain the contrast between the positive rating on the ―Cost of Living Index‖ and the high percentage of cost-burdened residents living in Anderson. ECONOMIC INDICATORS According to PolicyMap estimates for 2009, the median household income for Anderson was $35,891, compared to a state median income of $48,089. Likewise, the median family income for Anderson was estimated to be $43,103, compared to $58,725 for the state. In 2009, 67.08 percent of households in Anderson had an annual income of less than $50,000, compared to 52.04 percent of households statewide. In fact, 33.89 percent of households in Anderson had an annual income of less than $25,000 in 2009. With unemployment on the rise in Anderson, these income levels are unlikely to positively change in the immediate future. From January through June 2010, Anderson‘s unemployment rate has ranged between 11.7 percent at its lowest (April) to 13 percent at its peak (June). Contrastingly, the highest unemployment rates in the county and state during this period were 11.9 percent (Feb and March) and 10.7 (Feb and March), respectively.14 As a result of these low incomes and high unemployment rates, 21 percent of Anderson‘s residents were in poverty in 2006-2008. During that period, nine percent of people age 65 years and older were below the poverty level, compared to 33 percent of related children under 18 being in poverty. Seventeen (17) percent

11 Ibid. 12 The Reinvestment Fund. (2010, October). PolicyMap. Current Report: Rental Housing Report of City: Anderson 13 Ibid. 14 The Reinvestment Fund. (2010, September). PolicyMap. Current Report: Community Profile Report of City: Anderson

SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD

INCOME (SMOCAPI)

Number of Units

Percent of Units

Housing units with a mortgage (excluding units where SMOCAPI cannot be computed)

9,611

Less than 20.0 % 3,702 38.5%

20.0 to 24.9 % 1,385 14.4%

25.0 to 29.9 % 1,331 13.8%

30.0 to 34.9 % 1,094 11.4%

35.0 % or more 2,099 21.8%

Not computed 53

Housing unit without a mortgage (excluding units where SMOCAPI cannot be computed)

5,265

Less than 10.0 % 1,870 35.5%

10.0 to 14.9 % 1,132 21.5%

15.0 to 19.9 % 772 14.7%

20.0 to 24.9 % 460 8.7%

25.0 to 29.9 % 343 6.5%

30.0 to 34.9 % 177 3.4%

35.0 % or more 511 9.7%

Not computed 12

13

of all families, and 43 percent of families with a female householder and no husband present, had incomes below the poverty level. The high percentage of children in poverty is likely largely linked to the noted extraordinary ratio of female-headed households in poverty.15 HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE The 2009 household composition estimates for Anderson includes a total of 24,031 households. Of that number, married couples with children comprise 16.12 percent of households; 24.92 percent of households with children are considered to have single (14.15%) or single female (10.77%) householders.‖ Other households‖ comprise the majority of households in Anderson at 58.97 percent; 14,597 families are included in the total household count for 2009. The average household size was 2.26.The individual, and especially the combined, ratios of ―single with children‖ and ―single female with children‖ households in Anderson are larger than those of the county and state; the combined ratio, as noted previously, for Anderson is 24.92 percent, compared to 19.39 percent in Madison County and 17.89 percent in Indiana.16 According to 2006-2008 estimates, households with one or more persons under 18 years old total 29.3 percent of all households; households with one or more persons age 65 and over total 28.3 percent of all households. Thus, the majority of households are occupied by either the youngest or oldest age groups in the city, which means both demographics must be considered in housing decisions. In fact, of the grandparents in Anderson who live with grandkids under age 18 (1,334 grandparents), 68.9 percent are considered ―responsible for grandchildren‖. Comparatively, in the county 58.7 percent and in the state 50.6 percent of grandparents who live with their grandkids are considered responsible for them.17 GEOGRAPHIC MOBILITY In 2006-2008, 76.0 percent of the population (age one or older) in Anderson was living in the same residence one year earlier. Of those who moved within the past year, 17.8 percent had relocated from another residence within Madison County, and 6.0 percent had moved from another county (3.6% from a county within Indiana and 2.4% from another state). New residents from abroad totaled 0.2 percent of Anderson‘s population during that period. 18 Data estimates from 2006-2008 indicate that no vehicle is available for professional or personal activities for 11.8 percent of the occupied households. Of those that have their own transportation, 43.2 percent of households have only one vehicle available to them.19 The average one-way commute to work takes Anderson residents 23.8 minutes, with 76.3 percent of commuters driving their own car alone and 15.2 percent carpooling with others. Others take public transportation (0.3%), walk (2.6%), work from home (2.9%) or have other means of getting to and from work (2.7%).20

15 U.S. Census. American Community Survey. Anderson city, Indiana, Selected Economic Characteristics: 2006-2008. 16 The Reinvestment Fund. (2010, September). PolicyMap. Current Report: Community Profile Report of City: Anderson 17 U.S. Census. American Community Survey. Anderson city, Indiana, Madison County, Indiana and Indiana, Selected Social Characteristics: 2006-2008. 18 Ibid. 19 U.S. Census. American Community Survey. Anderson city, Indiana, Madison County, Indiana and Indiana, Selected Housing Characteristics: 2006-2008. 20 U.S. Census. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Anderson city, Indiana, Selected Economic Characteristics: 2006-2008.

14

TRENDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO MEET HOUSING NEEDS

In order to address housing needs in Anderson, the recommendations listed below are being presented for consideration. These recommendations are consistent with those identified in Anderson‘s consolidated plan. This section also addresses housing trends and considerations for responding to the trends. Please note that, although there is repeated reference to ―the current economy‖, it is believed that the recommendations based on the current economy are relevant through the next several years if not beyond, as there will be many responses to the current economy (from altering general perceptions about housing to regulatory changes) that will continue to impact housing indefinitely. As such, the references to ―the current economy‖ should not be considered short-sighted, but rather as a point-in-time impetus for paradigm shifts. To eliminate the housing needs in Anderson, the City should focus on 1) improving the affordability of housing to encourage the acquisition and retention of homes, 2) maintaining and enhancing the conditions of homes and neighborhoods and 3) increasing availability of housing for persons of targeted populations and various income levels. The development of additional and stronger partnerships will better enable the City to accomplish these objectives. This report also addresses concerns that are not housing-specific, but do impact household budgets and therefore housing decisions. IMPROVING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY According to the survey of Anderson residents conducted by IACED, the cost of housing is considered the primary barrier to housing choice; 58.41 percent of respondents said they consider housing cost a barrier.21 As such, the issue of housing affordability must be addressed with great fervor in Anderson. This issue affects the spectrum of households, from those who are potential homebuyers and renters to current homeowners. Based upon American Community Survey results, a significant percentage of Anderson residents are paying more than 30 percent on housing. This is largely due to the fact that the variety of housing type and price-point in good condition in Anderson is lacking, causing households to choose housing that creates a cost burden. High household utility costs are also contributing to the high cost burden. Of those households with a mortgage, 33.2 percent are cost burdened. Further, as many as 13.1 percent of households with housing units with no mortgage are paying more than 30 percent on housing;22 this indicates a significant low-to-moderate income population, including the noted growing aging population, in conjunction with high utility costs. Due to the extreme downturn in Anderson‘s economy in recent years, the lack of housing affordability and jobs is contributing to a dwindling population and even homelessness for many who do not relocate. Renters A significant need for assistance to renters, and for rental unit improvements, exists in Anderson. In fact, IACED‘s survey of businesses in Anderson indicated that they believe ―entry-level professionals‖ have the greatest difficulty locating housing;23 and based on 2009 HUD Income Limits, a 1-person household making $35,900 or less per year fit into the 51 to 80 percent of the median family income bracket (moderate income) in Anderson.24 With that, 57.3 percent of Anderson renters are paying 30 percent or more toward rental housing costs.25 So with more than half of the City‘s population of renters experiencing a housing cost burden, a more comprehensive approach must be taken to addressing the lack of affordable rental

21 IACED. (2010) Anderson Resident Survey Results. Question 8. See Appendix. 22 U.S. Census. American Community Survey. Anderson city, Indiana, Selected Housing Characteristics: 2006-2008. 23 IACED. (2010) Anderson Business Survey Results. Question 8. See Appendix. 24 Community Development Department, City of Anderson. (2009, November). City of Anderson 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan 25 U.S. Census. American Community Survey. Anderson city, Indiana, Selected Housing Characteristics: 2006-2008.

15

housing. As such, the City should consider broadening its perspective of who is included in the low- to moderate-income category and market the program accordingly. The widespread nature of residents experiencing a cost burden needs to be increasingly communicated to potential funders of the City‘s programs and to potential donors to local housing partners. For those in the ―very low‖ and ―extremely low‖ categories, conditions are even more dire. According to the public housing authority plan for Anderson, 334 families (785 persons) are on the waiting list for Section 8 vouchers, and 809 families (1,822 persons) are on the waiting list for public housing. Approximately 95.51 percent of families on the public housing waiting list are considered ―extremely low income‖ (30% or below area median income), 2.99 percent are ―very low income‖ (50% of AMI) and 1.36 percent are ―low income‖ (80% of AMI). Similarly, 91.47 percent of families on the public housing waiting list are considered ―extremely low income‖, 7.17 percent are ―very low income‖ and 1.36 percent are ―low income‖. Of those on the waiting list, 280 of the 334 (83.8%) families waiting for Section 8 vouchers are female-headed households; 591 of the 809 families (73.1%) waiting for public housing are also female-headed.26 To specifically aid the renter in covering monthly housing costs, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) would offset rent, utility costs, security deposits, and/or utility deposits to enable renters to rent market-rate units. The City‘s HOME dollars can be utilized to provide this subsidy. While the City has partnered with Alternatives, Inc. to provide TBRA each year for five years to five women (25 total) at risk of homelessness, a wider distribution of rental assistance would be beneficial. This recommendation is not meant to suggest that the current TBRA priority related to at-risk women should be dropped, just expanded. In fact, while poverty is growing within many demographic categories nationally, it appears to be growing more rapidly among single-mother households and among children. As noted in The Feminization of Poverty, and various other resources, trends in the structure of the family unit, the economy and changes in the provision of public benefits have created a situation where women, especially single-mothers and children, are more likely to find themselves impoverished when compared to other demographic groups. (See chart below, showing national poverty trends from 1966-2009.)27 The current figures are only worse for single-mothers in Anderson. According to the 2005-2009 ACS estimates for Anderson, 46.4 percent of female householders, no husband present, with children under age 18 are below the poverty level; worse still, of female householders, no husband present, with children under age 5, 62.3 percent are below poverty.28 Social observers suggest holistic and comprehensive approaches will be needed to address these populations and that housing will be one consideration among many. Expanding governmental programs – such as insurance assistance, housing assistance, and tax credits for women and their children – are an important first step in addressing the feminization of poverty, but innovative public policies that provide women a chance to increase their skills conducive to employment in a knowledge-based economy is just as critical.29

26 Anderson Housing Authority (IN006). (2010, January). Five (5) Year/Annual Agency Plan: 2010-2015. 27 Information available online at: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/the-shifting-demographics-of-poverty/ 28 U.S. Census. American Community Survey. Anderson city, Indiana, Selected Economic Characteristics: 2005-2009. 29 Thibos, Megan, Danielle Lavin-Loucks, and Marcus Martin. The Feminization of Poverty. Dallas: J. McDonald Williams Institute, May 2007.

16

Another effort to improve housing affordability for renters is the provision of energy efficient rental housing. The City of Anderson should adopt a green building standard for all housing programs and follow the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards or another standard which would result in the reduction of utilities and energy costs. The City of Indianapolis partnered with hundredyear Consulting in 2007 to create green building guidelines for Indianapolis‘ Department of Metropolitan Development HOME Investment Partnership Program. Indianapolis‘ Green HOME program was designed to encourage affordable housing developers and builders to construct high-performing, climate-specific, code-compliant homes.30 Homes that are built to this standard would see lower utility bills and would, therefore, not have to rely on TBRA. In tandem with the adoption of green building standards for new construction, the City of Anderson should encourage landlords to take advantage of its 50/50 grant program to make energy efficiency a priority for rental rehabilitation projects. As a result, rental housing that is in otherwise good condition will be benefit the renter by being more affordable and benefit the landlord who will be able to tout the lower utility costs of their unit. The City may need to modify its program to include a loan guarantee program component as an incentive for banks to provide financing for the 50 percent match needed by landlords to participate. Anderson could also consider another incentive that rewards building owners and developers for integrating sustainable design techniques and practices into building projects by discounting permit fees associated with a project. The Indianapolis Green Building Incentive Program offers up to a 50 percent rebate off permit fees for construction that meets the City‘s sustainability guidelines.31 Prospective Homebuyers According to IACED‘s survey of residents, their greatest barriers to owning a home in Anderson are coming up with a down payment (21.17% of respondents) and having a poor credit history (19.37%).32 These responses are in sync with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) research regarding minority groups that experience multiple barriers to homeownership. HUD's analysis identified five significant barriers that prevent minority families from becoming homeowners, including ―lack of capital for the down payment and closing costs, often the single greatest barrier to homeownership; lack of access to credit and poor credit histories, which means more minority families are rejected for a mortgage loan or given loans with high interest rates; lack of understanding and information about the home-buying process, especially for families for whom English is a second language; regulatory burdens imposed on the production of housing - zoning, land development and site planning, building codes - and when barriers are intentional through the "Not In My Back Yard" syndrome; and illegal housing discrimination.‖33 The noted affordability concerns are even greater barriers in the current economy. While the cost of housing has become more affordable due to the soft real estate market and lower interest rates, the increased scrutiny of lenders and regulators have led to more stringent underwriting practices, increased complexity with regard to credit checks and the elimination of many mortgage products that made credit more readily available preceding the current economic difficulties. According to calculations by James Wilcox of the University of California Berkeley, who developed a formula to more comprehensively measuring underwriting standards and fluctuations in those standards, underwriting practices were increasingly less stringent from 2000-2006; then underwriting tightened dramatically throughout 2007 as the economy entered a recession in fourth quarter 2007. The calculations showed that prior to the 2007 there were increasingly high loan-to-value rates when second mortgages at origination were taken into

30 Information available online at: http://hundredyear.web.officelive.com/default.aspx 31 Information available online at: http://www.sustainindy.org/green-building-incentive.cfm 32 IACED. (2010) Anderson Resident Survey Results. Question 7. See Appendix. 33 Information available online at: http://archives.hud.gov/news/2002/pr02-065.cfm

17

consideration (i.e., 80/20 loans or similar small down payments loan structuring, which Wilcox calls combined loan to value CLTV – See chart to right)34, decreasing levels/quality of documentation required from borrowers (See chart below)35, and an increasing number of surveyed banks indicating they had loosened their standards (likely to compete with the rising number of non-bank sub-prime competitors – See chart on following page)36. Also pertinent are the volume of loans originated, which increased dramatically from 1996 to 2006, versus a trend of fewer loans originated in 2008 than 2007.37 The charts depict the noted changes in the CLTV at origination, the amount and quality of loan documentation required and the reported tightening of underwriting standards over the years. (Note: Figure numbers for the charts, i.e. 4a, 4b, 6, reflect those from Wilcox‘s report.) The renewed scrutiny of the financial services market could create a ―pendulum effect‖ in which the government may move from being too lax in its oversight to too stringent. Many mortgage finance experts are concerned that the severity of oversight will limit the availability of financing to a degree that prevents the economy from moving toward recovery.38 According to analysis by Zillow Mortgage Marketplace, nearly one-third of Americans are unlikely to qualify for a mortgage due to poor credit scores. Approximately 29.3 percent of Americans have a credit score of less than 620; according to the report, even with a down payment of 15 to 25 percent, these individuals are unlikely to be able to obtain a mortgage. Instead, it is the 47 percent of Americans with credit scores greater than 720 who are most likely to qualify for the current low interest rates mortgages.39 The end result is a widening of the ―homeownership gap‖ between low-income families/those with poor credit and those of the middle- and upper-classes/those with better credit.

34 Wilcox, James A. (2009, June). Underwriting, Mortgage Lending, and House Prices: 1996-2008. University of California Berkeley. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Debra Schwartz of the MacArthur Foundation cited in a Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago publication 39 Tuttle, Brad. (2010, September). Report: Nearly 1/3 of Americans 'Highly Unlikely' to Qualify for a Mortgage. TIME.com

18

In the current economy, lower income households have found it increasingly difficult to obtain mortgage financing. This group was more often targeted for bad loan products from unscrupulous lenders prior to the real estate bust; now this group is struggling to obtain a mortgage at any price. To address the down payments and poor credit issues impacting potential lower income buyers, the City should consider providing down payment assistance and partner with an agency to provide credit counseling. To encourage homeownership when banks are unwilling to take risky loans and to prevent predatory lending, the City should also consider creating a program that is a hybrid of homeownership, such as lease-to-purchase arrangements and cooperatives. If the City works with a nonprofit or experienced developer in developing a plan, managing and operating such programs, it could create an environment more conducive to residents being able to build assets. Also, if administered as a City program, the renter/purchaser would have a protected environment to pursue this option, without the added fear of dealing with corrupt renters/sellers looking to repossess their home. Homeownership education would be an important complement to this hybrid program. Homeownership education has been found to have a substantial positive impact on the sustainability of homeownership by reducing the rate of mortgage delinquency. A large-scale study by Freddie Mac found that borrowers receiving pre-purchase counseling had a 19 percent lower rate of 90-day delinquency than borrowers who did not receive counseling.40 Likewise, a 2002 Ohio State University study showed that counseling – both pre- and post-purchase – reduced default by 50 percent.41 This is important because averting foreclosure not only benefits the homeowner, but is also less costly. An evaluation of Minnesota‘s Family Housing Fund found that a foreclosure prevention program – consisting of post-purchase counseling and financial assistance costing an average of $3,300 per client – enabled nearly 60 percent of homeowners to reinstate their mortgages while saving significantly more than it cost. The estimated savings to Minnesota insurers, lenders and neighborhoods was more than three times the program‘s cost.42 Homeowners The significant housing cost burden on Anderson homeowners not only impacts the deference of maintenance, but it also puts homeowners in the position to opt to go without utilities or utilize utilities so minimally to make them affordable (endangering their lives in extreme weather conditions); and it can

40 Hirad, A., and Zorn, P. (2001). “A Little Knowledge Is A Good Thing: Empirical Evidence Of The Effectiveness Of Pre-Purchase Homeownership Counseling.” Symposium conducted at the Joint Center for Housing Studies, November 14-15, 2000, Harvard University. 41 Hartarska, V., Gonzalez-Vega, C., and Dobos, D. (2002) Credit Counseling and the Incidence of Default on Housing Loans by Low-Income Households. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University. 42 Family Housing Fund. (1998). Cost Effectiveness of Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention: Summary of Findings. Minneapolis, MN.

19

ultimately result in foreclosure. Utility assistance is often all that is needed to prevent these extreme situations where there is not a loss of income. As such, the City should continue its efforts to meet this need and seek to expand it to preserve homeownership wherever possible. According to research conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, in 2010 Indiana ranks 13 th among the fifty states and fourth among its surrounding states (behind Michigan: 3rd, Illinois: 4th, Ohio: 8th; and ahead of Kentucky: 36th) in the total number of foreclosures YTD. As a percentage of total owner-occupied units, Indiana also ranks fourth among itself and the surrounding states. According to a December 2010 report by the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority (IHCDA) regarding the Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network (IFPN), the number one reason an IFPN client is in financial trouble is due to loss of income (59%). Of IFPN‘s current clients, Madison County has the sixth largest constituency (comprises 2.87% of all IFPN clients) statewide; the number of Madison County IFPN clients ranks below Marion (19.21%), Lake, Allen, St. Joseph and Hamilton (3.78%) Counties, in that order, and just above Elkhart County (2.83%).43 Since foreclosures are primarily due to job/income loss or other immediate or unplanned circumstances, such as a health crisis or divorce, which HUD refers to as ―trigger events‖,44 foreclosure often affects individuals who are unfamiliar with the local social services arena. As such, individuals find themselves for the first time affected by an inability to pay their housing costs and do not know where to turn. Through the IACED survey of residents, it became clear that additional marketing of foreclosure prevention counseling is needed. Although the resident survey indicated that 43.84 percent of respondents knew someone 30, 60 or 90 days behind on their mortgage payments,45 only 7.69 percent knew about the 1-877-GET-HOPE foreclosure hotline available through IFPN.46 Anderson residents would greatly benefit from knowing that the program has been established to alert the borrower of their right to a settlement conference; assist borrowers with financial management and budgeting; oversee the settlement conference process and help determine the most viable long-term housing option for the client; assist the borrower and lender with information collection; prepare the client for settlement conferences; and act as an advocate and advisor for and on behalf of the client with the lender. Thus, a more widespread awareness campaign marketed to residents of all economic backgrounds in Anderson could improve the outcomes for those facing the potential of foreclosure, which has impact citywide. Also, with the predominance of foreclosures in the current economy, communities are increasingly being impacted by disenchanted mortgage holders, who are resentful of what the prevalence of foreclosures has done to their neighborhood‘s overall appeal. This is especially true of persons who owe more on their mortgage than the house is currently worth, as a result of the housing bust, and are choosing foreclosure over paying for a home in a dwindling housing market. They are opting to preserve their cash with hopes of starting fresh after recovering from the foreclosure. Foreclosure counseling and small rehabilitation grants/loans would improve the perspective of these homeowners, especially since rehab work would improve the overall value of their homes. Ideas for small rehabilitation grants/loans can be taken from the Building & Housing program for the City of Evanston, Illinois, which has several housing loans and grants to meet the various needs of its residents. Through Evanston‘s One to Three Owner-Occupied Unit Loans program, the City offers several smaller, activity-specific loans/grants, including a Garage Demolition

43 IHCDA. (2010, December). Overview of the IFPN to date and information on The Program Moving Forward 44 Dunn, Brittany. (2010, March). HUD Addresses Root Causes of Foreclosure Crisis. DS News (formerly REO News) 45 IACED. (2010) Anderson Resident Survey Results. Question 10. See Appendix. 46 IACED. (2010) Anderson Resident Survey Results. Question 12. See Appendix.

20

Program with a maximum loan of $8,000 to demolish a garage that presents a safety concern and build back a proper parking pad; a Diseased/Damaged Tree Program that loans up to $6,000 to eliminate diseased trees that are a safety concern; and a Self Help Exterior Paint Program that grants up to $400 for supplies and materials to paint one-, two- or three-family households or up to $600 for materials and supplies for multifamily structures. Also, while Evanston ranks health and safety, incipient code violations, and energy conservation as its top three residential rehabilitation priorities for its Housing Rehab Loans & Grants program, there is an allowance for general property improvements to be provided after the first three categories of improvements have been completed. Examples of allowable general property improvements include landscaping and sump pumps.47 Anderson could consider incorporating any or all of these programs or priorities into its housing program or simply use these ideas to catalyze thinking about other programs that would reenergize the City‘s existing homeowners. IMPROVING HOUSING CONDITIONS With respect to the provision of decent and safe housing in Anderson, trained and untrained observers alike see a need for major improvement. The IACED resident survey revealed that the condition of housing in Anderson is considered the second greatest barrier to housing choice; 42.52 percent considered it a barrier.48 Also, 61.79 percent of resident respondents said Anderson‘s housing is not in good condition.49 In the windshield survey area, it was determined that 75 percent of the housing stock in the targeted area is in need of rehabilitation.50 The IACED survey also revealed through respondent comments a preference for rehabilitation over new construction. A number of factors contribute to a community that sees widespread concerns regarding housing stock conditions. A significant change in the economy, i.e. closures of large employers, impacts not only those that lose their jobs, but can create a defensive mindset that further cripples the economy by causing persons otherwise unaffected by a downturned economy to react as if they too were in desperate need of asset protection. This causes persons to not spend money on ―unnecessary‖ expenditures, which often means home repairs. With that, some choose to sit back and see what happens to their neighborhood and reconsider planned home improvements to ensure they are not enhancing their home beyond current market conditions, i.e. immediate return on investment. However, this sense of fear – when better conceived – can prompt homeowners who were planning to purchase a new home to not relocate and instead make improvements to their current home. Through this approach, a more positive outcome emerges (housing conditions improvement) than that resulting from those who completely paralyze their market engagement. Aside from market/economy-reactionary spending, housing often deteriorates due to sprawl. As upwardly mobile families move away from the city center, subsequent owners/occupiers often have less financial means and consequently do not keep the home in its previous condition. Numerous other factors negatively affect housing conditions as well. Predatory borrowing and lending are other causes of poorly maintained homes; homebuyers are financed for larger loans than they can reasonably afford for the duration of the loan and become too ―house poor‖ to maintain their homes. Low income areas are believed to be especially impacted by predatory lending practices that result in increased housing costs. For instance, in the Anderson windshield survey area, 48.84 percent of loans originated in the area were ―high-cost loans‖ in 2008, according to PolicyMap, compared to 11.81 percent of loans

47Information available online at: http://www.cityofevanston.org/building-housing/ 48 IACED. (2010) Anderson Resident Survey Results. Question 8. See Appendix. 49 IACED. (2010) Anderson Resident Survey Results. Question 14. See Appendix. 50 IACED. (2010) Anderson Windshield Survey Results. See Appendix.

21

across Indiana.51 Having higher cost loans places more of a housing cost burden on the homeowner, resulting in their having fewer resources for making housing improvements/maintenance. Also, lack of civic and social engagement results in apathetic homeowners. Without a sense of community, homeowners often are without an incentive to improve their homes for the overall good of their neighborhood. Most of these issues can be remedied by the provision of financial assistance, education and/or neighborhood pride campaigns. New federal regulations are also in place to minimize predatory lending activities. Another means of ensuring improved housing conditions is for the City to update its housing codes and standards and develop better methods of enforcement.

Renters When asked through the IACED resident survey to state if ―it is difficult for people I know to find suitable apartments ‗to rent‘‖, 51.66 percent of respondents said ―yes.‖52 Likewise, when asked whether it is ―difficult for people [the respondent] know[s] to find suitable ‗homes to rent‘‖, 62.38 percent answered ―yes.‖53 Also, several survey respondents indicated that if existing homes in poor condition in Anderson were rehabbed, there would be an adequate supply of rental housing in the city without new construction. Based on IACED‘s observations, rehabbing existing homes in the windshield survey area that need major and minor repairs and those deemed ―vacant and boarded (rehabable)‖ would make a significant impact upon the community. With rehab efforts combined with new construction, the City could see a marked change in its overall housing stock. The City currently has an underutilized landlord program where the City provides 50 percent grant for needed repairs. As noted previously, landlords are currently reporting they cannot get financing. The City should consider modifications of its current grant program and add a loan guarantee program component as an incentive for banks to return to the financing rentals. Also, to prevent housing from getting to the severely dilapidated condition that many homes in the NRSA have reached, the City should consider strengthening its code enforcement capabilities. One suggestion is to decrease the amount of time given to homeowners to make repairs or demolish unstable structures. There may also be a lack of knowledge by renters of their rights related to safe and decent housing. ―Know Your Rights‖ education would be valuable to renters and potential renters. Prospective Homebuyers Anderson residents also consider it ―difficult for people … to find suitable homes ‗to buy‘‖; 57.62 percent of IACED resident survey responders indicated such.54 This contributes to individuals/families looking elsewhere for housing, or contributes to a larger pool of renters who are unwilling to buy homes in Anderson in their current conditions. As a result, the inability to find suitable homes to buy creates transience in the population that would not otherwise be there. This is a dangerous predicament for a community that is already experiencing population loss. The City should make a concerted effort to acquire and rehabilitation homes for resale to low to moderate income residents. Better code enforcement citywide

51 In PolicyMap, a loan is considered high-cost when a rate spread is reported. A loan rate spread is the difference between the annual percentage rate (APR) on the loan and the treasury security yield as of the loan origination date. Rate spreads are only reported by financial institutions if the APR is three or more percentage points higher for a first lien loan, or five or more percentage points higher for a second lien loan. A loan is considered to be of markedly higher cost than a typical loan if the rate spread is three or more percentage points. 52 IACED. (2010) Anderson Resident Survey Results. Question 18. See Appendix. 53 IACED. (2010) Anderson Resident Survey Results. Question 19. See Appendix. 54 IACED. (2010) Anderson Resident Survey Results. Question 17. See Appendix.

22

upon current homeowners would positively impact the housing stock and increase the availability of decent homes for purchase for all income levels in Anderson. Also, expanding the City‘s involvement with Habitat for Humanity (HFH) is an important component to benefit LMI families, as it not only encourages homeownership, but also teaches valuable principles related to one‘s personal investment in their home‘s condition. The ―sweat equity‖ concept does not end at the acquisition phase of homeownership, but continues on into encouraging home maintenance. Anderson‘s Habitat should seek to organize a Habitat Women Build event to engage women in home construction while helping bridge the gap of homeownership by females.55 Homeowners As noted previously, 33.2 percent of households with a mortgage and 13.1 percent of households with no mortgage in Anderson are paying more than 30 percent on housing.56 As a result, the housing cost burden directly results in deferred home maintenance. Not only is it important for homeowners to have a lower cost burden, but it is also important that rehabilitations take place before a home is unsalvageable. The primary means for addressing this need is through owner-occupied rehab. The City should continue to focus on the target area for this activity, as it was determined through the IACED windshield survey of the area that 75 percent of the 1,200 homes in the area need repair.57 Low to moderate income levels significantly impact a homeowner‘s ability to rehabilitate their home. These debilitating economic conditions are often linked to demographics of a neighborhood or community, such as an aging population. While individuals living longer is a national trend, projections indicate this trend will especially impact Anderson and its housing needs. In 2005, 37 million Americans were older than 65; and by 2050, that number is expected to be between 81 and 87 million individuals.58 The total population of Anderson is expected to increase by 2040, but of all age groups evaluated (ages 24 and under, 25-44, 45-64, 65 and over), every age group is projected to decrease in number except the 65 and older group, which is expected to rise by approximately 11,500 persons, up from 16.3 percent of the population to 24.5 percent.59 Aging, and the desire to age in place, will be a growing consideration for housing producers. Accommodating aging populations with home modifications – including bathroom grab-bar and accessible no-step entrances – will be important, as will site selection for access to health services, groceries, pharmacies and transportation. Additionally, many aging Americans are now the primary or secondary caregiver of grandchildren. Statewide, 50.6 percent of grandparents who live with grandchildren under 18 years old are ―responsible for grandchildren‖; in Anderson, that figure is 68.9 percent.60 Thus, meeting the needs of these individuals will require different approaches than those to accommodate ‗empty nesters‘. Building location-efficient housing that meets the diverse needs of an aging population will be one of the driving trends in the housing market for the future.61 The City should consider making ‗aging in place‘ a funding priority, as was done by IHCDA in 2010 for affordable housing projects. Those looking to age in place who are responsible for their grandchildren are not the only demographic scenario altering traditional (i.e., parent/children) households. Various trends are resulting in doubling-up. A recent study by the Pew Research Center indicated the number of multigenerational family households, or

55 Information available online at: http://www.habitat.org/wb/default.aspx 56 U.S. Census. American Community Survey. Anderson city, Indiana, Selected Housing Characteristics: 2006-2008. 57 IACED. (2010) Anderson Windshield Survey Results. See Appendix. 58 Marron, John. (2010, October) Housing Trends: IACED Fall 2010 Board Retreat planning document. 59 Woods & Pool Economics, Inc. (2009). 2010 State Profile, Anderson, IN 60 U.S. Census. American Community Survey. Anderson city, Indiana, Selected Social Characteristics: 2006-2008. 61 Marron, John. (2010, October) Housing Trends: IACED Fall 2010 Board Retreat planning document.

23

households containing at least two adult generations, increased by 33 percent between 1980 and 2008.62 Households that are unwilling or unable to pay what the market is demanding of their income be spent on housing costs are increasingly deciding to move in with family members or friends. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition‘s Out of Reach 2010 report, ―Recent HUD data shows a 25% increase from 2005 to 2009 in the percentage of movers who joined an existing household, or ‗doubled up.‘‖63 In addition to high unemployment and rising foreclosures contributing to this trend, some increase is attributed to demographic and cultural shifts, such as a rising median age of marriage and a larger immigrant population.64 The United States as a whole, and Indiana to a lesser degree, is becoming increasingly multicultural. According to Pew research, the U.S. Hispanic population will more than triple between 2005 and 2050 (from 42 million to 128 million).65 Also, nine percent of the U.S. population is expected to be of Asian descent by 2050.66 According to Policy Map‘s projections, between 2009 and 2014, the white population in Anderson will decrease by 3.19 percent and the African-American population will decrease by less than one percent (0.46%) while the Asian population will rise by 13.73 percent and the local Hispanic population will increase by 18.57 percent.67 With growing Hispanic and Asian populations in Anderson and evidence of increasing non-traditional households, these cultural patterns must be considered when developing new approaches to housing, including the City‘s involvement in maintaining and improving the conditions of owner-occupied housing to accommodate multigenerational households. Targeted Approaches to Addressing Windshield Survey Area, Citywide Vacancy Issues With regard to the NRSA, the City of Anderson has largely addressed the abandoned structures in the area through demolition. However, the windshield survey revealed that more demolition, in combination with acquisition/rehab, is needed to rid the area of its vacant dilapidated housing. While it is certainly not the only way to address the housing revitalization of the target area, one approach would be to tackle the worst problems first. This is being suggested for two reasons: one, it will immediately affect the neighborhood and residents living in or near the most dilapidated structures and two, it could inspire residents with only minor repairs needed to utilize their own resources to address their housing issues, rather than public funds. Since there are relatively few vacant and boarded homes that cannot be rehabbed (1% of target area structures)68, they can be addressed quickly. To eliminate these homes from the neighborhood will make a big impact and can be done rather inexpensively; so the enforcement process that enables demolition should begin immediately. The City should also address the ―Unboarded and Unsafe‖ structures (2%)69 promptly; for those homes where code enforcement has not begun, the City should initiate homeowner contact and start the process. The 25 percent of occupied homes that are considered to have two or more major repairs needed immediately should also be considered a priority, to keep residents in their homes. Then once 50 percent of these ―Major Repairs Needed Immediately‖ homes are completed, the City can widen its focus to begin simultaneously addressing the vacant and boarded homes where rehabilitation is possible and start addressing those homes with ―two or more minor repairs‖ that will soon fall into the ―two

62 Taylor, P. et al. (2010, March). The Return of the Multi-Generational Family Household. A Social & Demographic Trends Report. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. 63 Collinson, R. & Winter, B. (2010, January). U.S. rental housing characteristics: supply, vacancy, and affordability. HUD PD&R Working Paper 10-01. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 64 Taylor, P. et al. (2010, March). The Return of the Multi-Generational Family Household. A Social & Demographic Trends Report. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. 65 Marron, John. (2010, October) Housing Trends: IACED Fall 2010 Board Retreat planning document. 66 Ibid. 67 TRF Policy Map, Current Report: Community Profile Report of City: Anderson 68 IACED. (2010) Anderson Windshield Survey Results. See Appendix. 69 Ibid.

24

or more major repairs‖ category; this pattern can be continued until all housing is addressed in this area. This approach should prevent the loss of additional homes to demolition, as well as limit the number of homes that enter into the have ―two or more major repairs needed immediately‖ category. The City of Anderson should also consider modeling the Abandoned Housing Initiative of the City of Indianapolis in addressing vacancies/abandoned properties citywide, including the windshield survey area. Through the initiative, Indianapolis created a comprehensive inventory of information on potentially unsafe vacant housing. The inventory includes an assessment of site conditions, existing structures and occupancy status. The initiative also enables the city to coordinate the tracking of vacant houses with law enforcement, create a Top Twenty-Five List of most problematic vacant and abandoned properties, explore potential funding opportunities to rehabilitate houses and position the Indy Land Bank to hold the properties. Since the inception of the program in 2003, Indianapolis has upgraded this system through the IndyStat Initiative, which can update vacancy/abandoned property information with real-time information. However, Indianapolis is constantly making changes to its process to ultimately have a comprehensive, publicly accessible geographic information system that tracks vacancy changes through automated database entry methods to minimize the amount of manual data entry required for updates. Indianapolis is following the model of the Neighborhood Information System in Philadelphia. The focus of the Indianapolis program is to provide information, mitigation, containment and redevelopment of abandoned properties in Marion County. The initiative can also serve as a guide to the City of Anderson with regard to strengthening the legal tools available for enforcement and acquisition.70 As a result of 2006 statutory amendments to the Indiana Code pertaining to abandoned property, signed into law as HEA 1102, every county in the state has enhanced tools to deal with abandoned properties in their jurisdiction. The statutory changes amend the Unsafe Building Law, property tax collection and enforcement, and redevelopment laws. Specific changes related to pre-tax sale code enforcement of the Unsafe Building Law include increased and multiple civil penalties for violations, the ability to collect the civil penalties as special assessments which allows them to be included on property tax bills, and the ability to require performance bonds from noncompliant owners as a condition for allowing additional time to bring a property into compliance. Related to improving the efficiency of the tax sale process, the following changes were made: one tax sale per year (rather than two) will be conducted, properties that are not sold in the annual tax sale are transferred to the county executive (rather than the county), the tax sale process is shortened by six months for vacant or abandoned properties with tax or special assessment delinquencies, nonresidential and vacant properties may now be certified to the expedited tax sale, and Unsafe Building Law violators are barred from purchasing property through the tax sale. Lastly, property redevelopment options have been expanded to allow for the establishment of land banks and multiple disposition options for all counties in the state.71 IMPROVING HOUSING AVAILABILITY TO TARGETED POPULATIONS Nationally, homeownership is being deemphasized in the housing arena, with a growing understanding that homeownership is not necessarily appropriate for all individuals and families, especially in the current economy and in light of increasing foreclosure rates. However, the availability of affordable rentals is extremely lacking nationwide, especially for extremely low income (ELI) persons, or those earning 30 percent or less of their area‘s median family income. According to Out of Reach 2010, 71 percent of

70 Franklin, Sherron. (2009, February). Abandoned Properties: Our Action Plan. Indianapolis Mayor‘s Office 71 Radice, Gina. (2006, September). A Guide for Policy Makers and Practitioners - Abandoned Property in Indiana: Legal, Practical, and Policy Effects of 2006 Statutory Amendments. Mind‘s Eye Company

25

extremely low income households spent more than half of their income on rent.72 Noted in that same document is the fact that ELI renter households are the only income group facing a complete shortage of affordable housing units; there are only 6.1 million affordable units compared to 9.2 million ELI renters. Worse still, if only the apartments that are both affordable and available are counted, this number drops to 3.4 million units for all ELI renter households (deficit of 5.8 million units). 73 In addition to these trends, there is also a growing likelihood that federally subsidized and public housing will be converted to market-rate housing or demolished due to condition issues. According to NLIHC, over the last 10 years approximately 350,000 privately owned, assisted housing units have been lost, and nearly 900,000 units have Project-based Section 8 contracts set to expire before 201474. The loss of these units during the same time period that the economy will likely be recovering could be extremely detrimental, as landlords will be increasing eager to up-market these units as the economy bounces back. Also, public housing complexes are being lost nationwide as well. Since the mid-1990s, approximately 200,000 public housing units have been demolished, and only 50,000 have been replaced with new public housing units.75 This shortage of housing for low income families is being exacerbated by the fact that wages are decreasing, unemployment remains high and the rents that low income people are paying is continuing to go up whilst more households are entering the rental market.76 There is also a decrease in rental property available, as a result of default by the owner. According to Out of Reach, an estimated 40 percent of foreclosures displace renter households.77 As a result of these economic realities, more families are experiencing homelessness. More than 650,000 homeless people resided in the U.S. in 2008. In individuals, nationwide homelessness rates remained largely the same from 2007 to 2008, but homelessness in families increased by nine percent during that time; and the figures for both homeless individuals and homeless families were more substantial in principal cities than in rural and suburban areas.78 In Madison County (data not available by city), the rise in the number of homeless persons and the percentage of homeless families from 2009 to 2010 far exceeded the national figures for 2007 to 2008. Based upon extrapolations of data from Homeless Point-In-Time Counts conducted by IHCDA on January 29, 2009 and January 27, 2010, the number of homeless persons in Madison County almost tripled during that time period (from 124 to 335) while the number of homeless persons in families rose by 568% (from 28 to 159). As a result, in 2010 families comprised 47.5 percent (159 out of 335 persons counted) of Madison County‘s overall homeless population, a 25 percent increase from the previous ratio of 22.4 percent (28 out of 124 persons counted).79

72 Statistics from NLIHC tabulations of the 2008 American Community Survey PUMS housing file. 73 Pelletiere, D. (2009, November). Preliminary assessment of American Community Survey data shows housing affordability

gap worsened for lowest income households from 2007 to 2008. Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition. 74 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010, April), The Preservation Guide: Federal Housing and Homelessness Plans: Potential Tools in the Affordable Housing Preservation Toolbox 75 Ibid. 76 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010, June), Out of Reach: Renters in the Great Recession, the Crisis Continues 77 Ibid. 78 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2009, July). The 2008 annual homeless assessment report to Congress. Washington, DC: HUD. 79 The Point-in-Time Count data collected and provided by the IHCDA is broken down for each County in the Continuum of Care (CoC) for 2009, whereas the 2010 Point-in-Time Count data is provided summarily by CoC Region. Therefore, it was necessary to apply the percentage of Region 6 CoC‘s homeless population located in Madison County (50.6%) from 2009 to the 2010 Region 6 (100%) data. For example, the 2010 Region 6 data indicates there were 663 homeless persons counted, of which 315 were part of a family. As such, 315 and 663 were multiplied by 50.6% to arrive at a total of 335 homeless persons in Madison

26

To address chronic homelessness, there is a growing public funding trend toward providing permanent supportive housing instead of building shelters. This trend is meant to address homelessness issues in a more comprehensive manner, often considered a solution to the problem rather than a quick fix, because beneficiaries receive counseling and other medical/social assistance to address the root cause of their homelessness. Research indicates that those with greater underlying causes for their homelessness either remain in the system or return repeatedly to the system, rather than remain housed like those placed in permanent supportive housing. Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is also less costly than housing the tenants in jails, mental health facilities and hospitals, which is often where they otherwise reside. A study conducted in Seattle tracked acute service use of 95 homeless chronic public inebriates who were placed in permanent supported housing; after one year in PSH, it was found that there was a 41 percent drop in Medicaid charges, 19 percent drop in EMS paramedic intervention and 42 percent fewer days in jail, yielding a net monthly savings of $2,449 per person.80 Likewise, another study that examined the acute care services utilized by approximately 5,000 persons place in PSH found that 95 percent of the supported housing costs were offset by acute service reductions, with 89 percent of the reductions due to declines in inpatient medical expenditures. This resulted in the number of Medicaid reimbursed inpatient days declining by more than 40 percent within two years and a corresponding decrease of $4.5 million billed to Medicaid.81 In order to capitalize on funding, providers in Anderson may have to amend their approach to addressing the chronically homeless. Approaches to ending homelessness will also change as a result of implementation of amendments to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance programs, the funding streams to address homelessness, through the Homeless Emergency and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009. Programmatic changes related to these funding sources will be aimed at expanding eligibility to include families and children and giving greater flexibility and resources for homeless prevention. For example, Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), formerly known as Emergency Shelter Grants, will no longer address homelessness prevention just by paying rent and utility bills; ESG will now allow for expanded supportive services, including employment, health, drug abuse and education services, as well as family support services for homeless youth, domestic violence victim services and mental health services. The program will also expand coverage to persons at risk of being homeless within 90 days of leaving a hospital (previously 30 days) and those who will be evicted or leaving an institution within 14 days (previously 7 days). Solutions-oriented programs that address the needs of the whole person or families in a more proactive way will be a common theme amongst all HEARTH-related changes being enacted in 2011.

Also, while it may be difficult for the City and its residents to see beyond the current state of affairs of its rising homelessness rates and the potential for decreased subsidized housing, Anderson also has a need for more moderate and high income housing options. The City cannot overlook these needs, although they understandably cannot be the City‘s primary concern at this time, or it may lose these income populations altogether through relocation. As such, planning efforts should include maintaining and attracting individuals and families that fit in these income brackets and developers that will design developments

County in 2010, of which 159 were in families (47.5%). Likewise, the 2009 data indicating whether a person was in a family was summary Region 6 CoC data (22.4% were in a family, 77.6% were not); as such, those percentages were applied to the total number of homeless persons counted in Madison County in 2009 (124) to determine that 28 persons were in a family and 96 were not. 80 Culhane, Dennis P., Thomas Byrne. (2010, March). Ending Chronic Homelessness: Cost-Effective Opportunities for Interagency Collaboration. A White Paper commissioned by the New York State Office of Mental Health and the New York City Department of Homeless Services. University of Pennsylvania. 81 Ibid.

27

around moderate and high income demands. To accommodate this need in areas where there is also a significant desire for more affordable, decent housing, communities are increasingly seeing mixed income developments. These developments are more attractive to non-residential developers because they bring in higher earners that are believed to generate higher revenues for commercial development. As a result, residents in mixed income developments are often better served by local businesses that want to locate nearby. As a result, mixed-income housing is often a win-win.

Rentals for Low-Income Persons (Including Low, Very Low and Extremely Low Income) The economic losses in Anderson in recent years have been such that the likelihood of current subsidized housing being converted to market-rate or luxury rentals is fairly minimal, since there currently is limited demand in the City for this type of housing. However, the loss of subsidized housing due to issues with their conditions not being maintained because the rent is so low is a potential threat to the lowest income residents of Anderson. Also, although the trend is to not develop new public housing units, the City should acknowledge the value that existing public housing provides to residents and do everything it can to ensure that the current units are preserved, with the understanding that preserving existing public housing is more affordable than providing new assisted housing units. Because the demand for subsidized housing is so high in Anderson, the housing authority would be unable to produce the volume of Section 8 housing needed to accommodate the population currently occupying the public housing units. Thus, the City should be proactive in ensuring that the existing privately-owned and public housing units are preserved. NLIHC‘s April 2010 The Preservation Guide provides a step-by-step guide for developing a database, or ―preservation catalog,‖ for monitoring units that are available to low-income households and what factors threaten the affordability of each project.82 While labor intensive in its setup, the database largely can be maintained on a quarterly basis (one resource has monthly updates) without much effort. This could prove to be a valuable tool for the City to ensure continuity in the provision of subsidized housing. In addition to preserving subsidized housing, a significant need exists for more affordable housing to be provided in Anderson. The Anderson Housing Authority 5-year plan indicated that 1,143 families are on a waiting list for some sort of subsidized housing; of that number 92.65 percent (1,059 families) are extremely low income. The majority of persons on the Section 8 and public housing waiting lists are one-, two- or three-person families, indicating a need for more one- and two-bedroom homes for those who qualify for assistance; but the average number of days on the waiting list is longest for families of five or more persons (an average of 1,869 days for families of eight or more on the Section 8 list, with the next highest average on that list at 1,176 days for 5-person families), indicating a need for additional homes with three or more bedrooms as well.83 While the number of households who need three- and four-bedroom homes (households of five or more persons) is smaller than those needing one- and two-bedroom homes (households of one to four persons), the larger households are less likely to find affordable housing, as evidenced by the amount of time spent on the waiting list. The provision of more affordable apartment and single family rentals in good condition are likely the best option for the majority of those on the waiting list and are needed in all sizes. Based on volume of need, the focus should be on one- and two-bedroom homes. According to The Reinvestment Fund Policy Map calculations for the windshield survey area, 52.76 percent of households rented their home in 2010; and according to U.S. Census figures, 50.51 percent of rentals

82 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010, April), The Preservation Guide: Federal Housing and Homelessness Plans: Potential Tools in the Affordable Housing Preservation Toolbox 83 Anderson Housing Authority (IN006). (2010, January). Five (5) Year/Annual Agency Plan: 2010-2015.

28

were zero- or one-bedroom units. The majority of the remaining rentals were two-bedroom units (32.46%), with 17.04 percent of rentals in the windshield area having three or more bedrooms.84 These numbers significantly differ from county and statewide figures that indicate a predominance of two-bedroom units (43.69% and 42.74%, respectively) as well as a greater percentage of three- or more-bedroom units (23.32% and 22.31%, respectively).85 Policy Map indicated the rate of zero or one-bedroom units citywide (35.75%) in Anderson is higher than the rates in the county and state (32.99% and 34.95%, respectively); and the percent of two-bedroom units is lower in Anderson (42.34%) than across the county and state (43.69% and 42.74%), albeit not as drastic as in the windshield area.86 The City should seek to remedy this disparity citywide and in the windshield survey area. Emergency Shelters and Permanent Supportive Housing for the Homeless At this time in Anderson, the greatest homeless services need identified through IACED‘s provider survey was for emergency shelters. The resident survey also indicated that 26.02 percent of respondents consider emergency shelters the City‘s greatest housing need at this time.87 Furthermore, 62.63 percent of respondents noted there is a housing need for the homeless population, and 54.55 percent specified the need for emergency shelters.88 Especially in light of the current economy, the City is seeing more homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness. Based on the City‘s own point-in-time count, there was a 45 percent increase in homeless individuals on the street on October 9, 2009 compared to a count done on January 29, 2009.89 In addition to the sheer number of additional homeless persons, the growing number of whole families impacted by homelessness is of special concern in Anderson at this time; it is believed that the majority of Madison County‘s estimated 159 persons (out of 335 counted) in homeless families actually reside in Anderson, the principle city of the Anderson, IN MSA.90 The City‘s participation in the Region Six Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP), as well as its involvement in renovating a former fire station to house families impacted by fires, is commendable. However, the HPRP program funded with stimulus funds, will expire once funds are exhausted (anticipated to end in 2011); and the fire house is one unit specified for use upon the incidence of a fire. The City should consider the stimulus award to have bought it time to make plans to address the whole family homeless concern through its partners on a more permanent basis. Otherwise, some of these individuals will face homelessness again upon the funding‘s expiration; and there will likely be others who fall into this category in the future. Also the City‘s cooperation with Alternatives, Inc. to develop a tenant-based rental assistance program to support domestic violence victims when Alternatives, Inc.‘s 15 units of transitional housing are filled is of vital importance. Efforts to expand the emergency shelter and acquire additional transitional housing should also be considered. Sheltering Wings, a domestic violence shelter in Danville, Indiana, may be able to provide some guidance regarding fundraising for an expansion. Sheltering Wings has a no-debt philosophy, and yet is implementing a multi-million dollar expansion of its shelter at this time with funds raised through a capital campaign. By expanding the size of the shelter and the number of transitional housing options of Alternatives, Inc., women who need it would have the option to stay longer, rather than going to transitional housing or permanent housing before ready simply because of occupancy issues.

84 The Reinvestment Fund. (2010, October). PolicyMap. Current Report: Rental Housing Report of Custom Region: Anderson Windshield Area 85 Ibid. 86 The Reinvestment Fund. (2010, October). PolicyMap. Current Report: Rental Housing Report of City: Anderson 87 IACED. (2010) Anderson Resident Survey Results. Question 20. See Appendix. 88 IACED. (2010) Anderson Resident Survey Results. Question 22. See Appendix. 89 Community Development Department, City of Anderson. (2009, November). City of Anderson 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan 90 IHCDA (2010). Region 6 Continuum of Care Point in Time Count: 01/27/10

29

Mixed-Income Housing for High-, Moderate- and Low-Income Persons The IACED surveys produced various comments regarding the need for additional housing in Anderson. Comments ranged from requests for ―nicer residential areas for higher paid individuals‖ to requests for ―subdivisions for residents with a bachelors degree and beyond‖ to ―low-cost student housing‖ to comments that there is ―not enough good houses available for low income families‖ and there is a ―need [for] more housing for the elderly.‖ There were also multiple comments regarding the need for housing for those who earn too much for public assistance, but not enough to cover their bills.91 The range in these responses only serves to confirm what the data suggests: There is a broad need in Anderson for more housing in good condition for persons of all income levels. As a result, the City should begin considering mixed-income development activities. While the market may not exist to tackle this effort at this time, the City should begin looking at its opportunities in this housing arena. The tenets guiding mixed-income development are to 1) provide quality housing to all income levels while 2) desegregating poverty. However, according to HUD, ―For a mixed-income project to be financially viable and retain its mixed-income nature over time, it must succeed in the marketplace and cannot be based on the fact that some units are subsidized.‖92 Simply stated, the development must be designed and maintained to attract market-rate renters/buyers; and there must be an adequate supply of market-rate renters/buyers available to support the development. In fact, it is suggested that for mixed-income development, market expectations must be met in equal or better fashion than the competition. The HUD report also suggests that when considering this option, the City should evaluate the location of the proposed development and its proximity to transportation, shopping, employment; design, landscaping and attractiveness (i.e., curb appeal); amenities (i.e., appliances, garages); and maintenance of the facilities and grounds. There should also be special consideration given to ensure that any potential stigma is minimized (i.e., low-income units should not be identifiable to passersby). Based upon a report produced by NeighborWorks America, there are a number of different ways to successfully develop and implement a mixed-income project. Projects can range from scattered site, single family homes to one-, two- and three-bedroom apartment complexes; mixed-income development can involve new construction, acquisition and rehabilitation, or refinancing to enable the affordable housing component. Mixed-income developments are often funded by utilizing Low Income Housing Tax Credits, along with other funding combinations, including funds from the CDBG program, Section 108 Program, Historic Tax Credits, tax exempt bonds, private debt, private equity and HOME funds. But the report suggests, no matter how widely the developments vary, what is seen in all successful mixed-income projects are seven strategies, including: Strategy 1: Build Financing for a Healthy Operating Budget; Strategy 2: Align Neighborhood and Target Markets; Strategy 3: Aim for Curb Appeal Above Market Niche; Strategy 4: Demand Asset Managers be Attentive and Proactive; Strategy 5: Sharpen Leasing Practices to Capture Market-Rate Renters; Strategy 6: Adjust Marketing Strategies Continually ; and Strategy 7: Match Amenities and Services to Target Markets.93

91 IACED. (2010) Anderson Resident Survey Results and Anderson Business Survey Results. See Appendix. 92 Community Planning and Development. (2003). Mixed-Income Housing and the HOME Program. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development. 93 NeighborWorks America. (2006, June). Seven Strategies for Successfully Marketing and Stabilizing the

Occupancy of Mixed-Income/Mixed- Race Properties.

30

IMPROVING PARTNERSHIPS A comprehensive approach is required to properly address the housing needs of a community. A collaborative, multifaceted, broad-based approach allows for creative solutions to be developed via coordination of city agencies, departments, community nonprofit organizations and residents. In order to establish healthy neighborhoods, the City must seek to involve citizens in planning and implementation of plans for their neighborhoods and not focus solely on housing. For instance, establishing the current NRSA was an important first step for remedying the decline of that area of Anderson. However, the City should constantly seek to have residents guiding the plan of action for their neighborhood‘s future and directing public sector services. The strategy must involve participation, collaboration and consensus of the community, area stakeholders and city staff. The plan should address housing, commercial, industrial, infrastructure and land use issues. Implementation of the strategy should include plans for continuing resident engagement, role definition for residents and implementation responsibilities for the private and non-profit sectors and residents, since what is often missing from revitalization strategies is the responsibility of citizens to take a stake in seeing any of the action items completed by identifying residents or committed organizations as responsible parties. Municipalities that have embraced the comprehensive community development philosophy maximize resources through the coordination of public services, private sector initiative and strong non-profit partnership. Existing organizational partnerships the city should pursue strengthening are with the Anderson Housing Authority to address the multiple year waiting lists for rental assistance, Pathstone who has been a partner in the city‘s homeownership programs, Alternatives, Inc. to expand the emergency shelter, transitional housing and TBRA program, and Habitat for Humanity (HFH) to construct new housing and repair and rehabilitate existing homes. The City should encourage the Anderson HFH to look at reorganizing itself around the changing Habitat for Humanity International (HFHI) goals, which incorporate comprehensive community development strategies, to more fully meet local needs. The new community development initiative of HFHI is called the Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI) and is still under development. HFH International currently has 163 affiliates from 40 states participating in NRI.94 HFHI recently solicited a request for proposals (RFP) to have the new initiative evaluated so that HFHI can better execute NRI amongst all affiliates; the RFP will especially focus on how Habitat can better promote community development, since that aspect of NRI is not a core competency of HFH. According to the November 2010 RFP, ―At its most basic level, NRI has two main components: Increasing an affiliate‘s toolbox of housing products that can transform a neighborhood [and] Emphasizing the vital role of community development in revitalizing neighborhoods.‖ Through NRI, HFHI is introducing new housing products that affiliates are being encouraged to adopt, including new construction built to a minimum of energy star standards, rehabilitated homes – particularly on foreclosed properties – and repairs. Through the repair program, Habitat will be able to partner with existing homeowners in the neighborhoods where they are working. With regard to the second component, HFHI is using NRI ―to help affiliates move from building individual homes with individual families, to partnering with neighborhoods in projects through a holistic approach — joining residents, nonprofits, businesses, local governments and communities of faith to create and implement a shared vision of revitalization.‖95

94 Habitat for Humanity International. (2010, June). Habitat for Humanity International announces affiliates selected to participate in Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative. 95 Habitat for Humanity International. (November 30, 2010) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL for Community Development

consulting services

31

A good example of a HFH program in Indiana that is implementing comprehensive community development strategies is the neighborhood revitalization project well underway through the Evansville HFH. The City should encourage the Anderson HFH to look into the Glenwood Community Development Initiative of the Evansville HFH, in which the HFH has been implementing a comprehensive neighborhood stabilization and improvement plan that was developed through active community involvement. In fact, as a result of the effort, a new community development corporation has been formed to further implement changes proposed for the Glenwood neighborhood of Evansville. Also, because of its pioneering in implementing community development strategies on its own, the Evansville HFH was selected in November 2010 to participate in HFHI‘s NRI program and is the only Indiana city included in the initiative. In addition to contacting the Evansville HFH for guidance, the Anderson HFH can contact HFHI regarding participating in NRI; HFHI has expanded its construction department to specifically provide information, training and technical assistance to affiliates looking to expand their housing products through NRI.96 The local Habitat organization could also mobilize the HFH Women Build program that is not being utilized in Anderson and a HFH rehabilitation program called A Brush with Kindness (ABWK). ABWK partners with under-resourced families, helping them to repair and renovate so they can continue to live in a safe, decent home and is one of the new tools available through the NRI. The Evansville HFH holds Women Build events, and several Indiana communities have ABWK affiliates that the Anderson Habitat could model, including Indianapolis, Lafayette, Elkhart County, Lawrence County, Jefferson County and Brown County. By having a more community-engaged HFH, the City could tap into a different group of affordable housing advocates than traditional community development avenues can offer.97 New and additional partners are also needed in Anderson. Specifically, Anderson needs additional qualified nonprofits or community housing development organizations (CHDOs), like Pathstone-Indiana, to assist in creating and maintaining affordable housing. These nonprofits can receive project-based assistance from IHCDA and the City to fund housing projects. In Anderson, these organizations will need to be more than developers; property management is needed as well. Lastly, the City should work with local banks to develop loan guarantees and/or interest subsidy programs to assist current homeowners in maintaining their aging properties. IMPROVING AVAILABILITY OF LOCAL HOUSING FUNDS Indiana law (IC 5-20-5-15.5) enables local units of government to establish housing trust funds (HTF) to generate dollars to address local housing needs by passing a resolution to do so and designating a department or agency to administer the fund. A local government‘s planning or community development offices are a natural fit for program administration, as are regional planning commissions and community foundations. The law requires that an Advisory Committee be established by the eligible entity and meet specific representation requirements. The statute provides a number of ways to generate local affordable housing funds, including payment in lieu of taxes (prescribed in IC 36-1-8-14.2), gifts or grants, investment income, document recording fees (prescribed in IC 36-2-7-10) and funds from other sources approved by the governing body, such as gambling proceeds or local taxes. The funds can be used to provide assistance to individuals and families with incomes below 80 percent of the county‘s median income to enable the purchase or lease of residential unit; make grants, loans and loan guarantees to develop, rehabilitate or finance affordable housing to benefit those persons; provide technical assistance to nonprofit affordable housing developers; and pay expenses associated with administering the funds. It should be

96 Information available online at: http://www.evansvillehabitat.org/current/glenwood.php 97 Information available online at: http://www.habitat.org/getinv/brush_with_kindness.aspx?print=true

32

noted that to make the document recording fee option for fund generation profitable, it may be necessary to establish one countywide HTF to generate funds for more than one unit of government.98 IACED developed a guide for establishing a local HTF and a companion handout offering policy and procedure considerations for operating the fund, both of which are available upon request. IMPROVING NON-HOUSING COMPONENTS OF COMMUNITY Although outside the scope of this housing needs assessment, it should be noted that transportation, economic development and education were cited by survey respondents as areas needing improvement in Anderson. With a growing trend toward employing comprehensive community development strategies, it is believed that all concerns shared by residents should be addressed and not just housing issues. As such, this section is provided to help the City approach community development in a more holistic manner. Transportation Concerns The cost of transportation is already significantly impacting the bottom line of household budgets. As a result, transportation impacts affordable housing and the overall concept of affordability. The Center for Neighborhood Technology recently studied metropolitan areas nationwide and compared the traditional notion of affordability – housing-specific costs below 30 percent of gross household income – with a definition of affordability that combines the cost of transportation and housing and considers a household ‗cost burdened‘ when that cost exceeds 45 percent of household income. The blue areas on the maps below shows concentrations of cost burdened households in and around Anderson. The map on the left indicates cost-burdening with the traditional view of affordability while the one on the right shows the region to be substantially more cost-burdened when transportation is considered.99 Traditional Definition Definition Including Transportation

In light of the fact that residents have indicated dissatisfaction with the current level of service provided by the City of Anderson Transit System (CATS)100, the City needs to look at making changes now to be ready for rider volume increases as transportation costs rise. Comments from residents indicated that the hours

98 IACED. (2007). Establishing a Local Housing Trust Fund in Indiana. 99 Information available online at: http://htaindex.cnt.org/ 100 IACED. (2010) Anderson Provider Survey Results. Question 2; Anderson Resident Survey Results. Question 8. See Appendix; City of Anderson 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan

33

the bus system runs needs to be expanded, particularly to accommodate those using public transit to get to and from work. The City should also encourage more companies to participate in Central Indiana Commuter Services, a participant in the Central Indiana Regional Transportation Authority that serves Madison County with carpool options. This free service will also make travel more affordable for workers while providing tax incentive to participating businesses.101 According to the American Community Survey, 11.8 percent of Anderson residents do not have a vehicle available to get to and from work;102 and according to the business needs survey, 12 percent of respondents indicated persons were not hired or left their employment last year because they lacked transportation.103 With that, the number of persons with vehicles who choose to use them less regularly will likely increase if transportation costs continue to rise, especially if the economy and availability of good-paying jobs does not increase in Anderson. Environmental Concerns Also, if the cost of fuel grows at or beyond expectations, high performance building, weatherization and energy efficiency are likely to be significant considerations in housing decisions. Households of all income levels will create a greater demand for smaller, tighter homes with energy efficient appliances. However, because of the expense associated with energy efficiency, unassisted low-income persons will likely only be able to afford homes that have greater energy-related carrying costs, which will then create a greater need for energy-related rehab funding. Likewise, if developers attempt to reduce the lifetime carrying costs of affordable housing by adding energy efficient appliances and making other upgrades, higher construction costs could result in fewer units being built if grant funding does not increase to accommodate the higher front-end costs to the developer.104 Location-efficiency (locating housing close to services, jobs, mass transit and recreation) and the size of housing are likely to be significantly impacted by state and federal energy concerns and changes in the energy industry. As the cost of gasoline rises, location-efficient housing will become more appealing. This would mean housing would become denser and more likely to be located within walking distance of transit that connects residents to jobs and services or within walking and biking distance of the jobs and services. However, housing that fits this profile would likely be more expensive than non-location efficient housing. At the local level, heightened awareness of environmental concerns is likely to result in SmartGrowth considerations being integrated into existing land use controls.105 Concern for the environment and its relationship to costs are also likely to drive horizontal and vertical intergovernmental cooperation, as evidenced by the federal government‘s Sustainable Communities agenda. Much of this conversation at the federal level has focused on the integration of housing, transportation and environmental policies around the built environment. Six principles of livability, including transportation, housing, economic competitiveness, support for existing places, coordination and leverage, and valuing communities, are the framework for federal agencies working together. One initiative developed with these principles is the HUD‘s Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program administered by HUD‘s Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities. According to HUD‘s website, the mission of the office is ―to create strong, sustainable communities by connecting

101 Information available online at: http://www.327ride.net/index.php?category=2_employer_services 102 U.S. Census. American Community Survey. Anderson city, Indiana, Selected Housing Characteristics: 2006-2008. 103 IACED. (2010) Anderson Business Survey Results. Question 6. See Appendix. 104 Marron, John. (2010, October) Housing Trends: IACED Fall 2010 Board Retreat planning document. 105 Ibid.

34

housing to jobs, fostering local innovation and helping to build a clean energy economy.‖ The new grant program will provide a total of $100 million to a wide variety of multijurisdictional and multi-sector partnerships at the regional level to nonprofit and philanthropic organizations. The program will make funds available to foster reform and reduce barriers at the local level to achieve affordable, economically vital and sustainable communities. Grants will be designed to encourage regions and local jurisdictions to build their capacity to plan for integration of economic development, land use, transportation and water infrastructure investments, and to combine workforce development with transit-oriented development.106 Economic Development Concerns As a result of the current recession, the creation and retention of jobs is a national issue with major implications for the unemployed in each impacted locality. As noted in the June 2010 Out of Reach, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the number of unemployed persons at the beginning of the recession (December 2007) was 7.7 million, creating an unemployment rate of five percent. By December 2009, both the number of unemployed and the unemployment rate had doubled to 15.3 million and 10 percent, respectively. The addition of so many persons newly added to the unemployment rolls has only increased competition for jobs, resulting in an increasing number of long-term unemployed persons. The number of people unemployed for 27 weeks or longer more than doubled from December 2008 to December 2009, increasing that figure from 2.6 million (22%) to 6.1 million (40%). Further complicating matters, population groups that historically have high proportions of low income households are also seeing the highest unemployment rates: minorities (15.8% for African Americans and 12.4% for Hispanics), people with disabilities (13.8%), and those without a high school diploma (15.6%).107 These populations have been hit so dramatically by the downturned economy due to the loss of jobs in industries that traditionally do not require higher education, such as manufacturing and construction. Anderson has been impacted by these job losses for many years. The City‘s historical lack of industry diversity, i.e. reliance on automotive manufacturing, has served a painful blow to its economic base. From 1999 to 2009, Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicates Madison County saw continual decreases in employment opportunities, which led to ever-increasing unemployment rates and fewer individuals in the overall labor force (either because they moved away or gave up looking for a job). The annual unemployment rates for Madison County have been continually higher than the statewide rates; Madison‘s unemployment rate went from 3.1 percent to 10.7 percent during the 10-year period.108 Linked to these job losses have been significant sector-specific decreases in employment opportunities, particularly in the manufacturing sector. From 2005 to 2009, the number of manufacturing jobs in Madison County decreased by 43.87 percent (from 6,513 to 3,656). No other sector had losses comparable to that seen in manufacturing; the next highest sector employment decreases, in terms of actual number of jobs, were the 583 retail trade jobs lost in Madison County, down from 5,526 to 4,943 (10.55% change).109 Often in hard financial times, people work multiple jobs or increase the number of persons providing income to the family; however, in a recession, finding even one job per household can be difficult. Nationwide, the number of persons holding multiple jobs decreased from 7.7 million in February 2009 to 7.2 million in February 2010.110 With increased competition to locate new employers, Anderson now has even more working against it in terms of the potential for new economic development opportunities. While the Corporation for

106 Information available online at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/sustainable_housing_communities 107 Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010, March). The employment situation: February 2010. U.S. Department of Labor. 108 Indiana Department of Workforce Development. (2010, September). Hoosiers by the Numbers. 109 Ibid. 110 Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010, March). The employment situation: February 2010. U.S. Department of Labor.

35

Economic Development has had success in retooling the economic development tactics employed for recruiting companies to Anderson, there is still clearly a need for more jobs and higher-paying jobs. In small-town America, observers have often seen the young and talented relocate to what social and economic theorist Richard Florida would call ―Creative Centers‖ while rural areas retain those who are more likely to be unskilled, low-income laborers.111 Access to meaningful and fulfilling employment is increasingly an issue in smaller communities and is intensifying the flight of young talent; many young small-town Americans who would like to return to their hometowns do not do so because the needed employment opportunities are not available there. Thus, smaller communities that create a quality of life that can attract talent and employers will likely be far more successful in creating a geography of demand than those that are unable to do so. Bend, Oregon and Dubuque, Iowa are model cities with respect to creating a quality of life that attracts and retains top talent to a small or mid-sized city.112 To create a greater geography of demand in Anderson, the Anderson/Madison County Corporation for Economic Development (CED) would benefit from hiring additional staff. Several Indiana economic development organizations that represent counties with populations smaller than Madison County (County population: approx. 130,500), have more staff than the CED. Examples include Jennings County Economic Development (County population: approx. 28,000), which has three staff members; Miami County Economic Development Authority (County population: approx. 36,000) with five staff members; and Hendricks County Economic Development Partnership (County population: approx. 128,000), which has a staff of three and significantly more sponsors noted on its website. It may be necessary for existing companies to contribute more to the CED to enable this; but if they are looking to provide a better quality of life for their employees and to stabilize the community, greater recruitment efforts must be employed. Also, the perspective should be that any economic development that occurs in and near Madison County helps each municipality in Madison County. With that, the CED should be very deliberate about who is hired to join the staff; additional staffing at the CED will not benefit the City of Anderson unless the CED hires an experienced economic developer with a regional perspective. The CED should also consider the best sites to lure companies based on proximity to where employees might reside. Geography of demand will have significant implications on the future of the housing industry; and the housing decisions made today will ultimately contribute to whether the City is able to attract talent and employment long-term, which will determine the overall fate of the community.

111 This designation is, by no means, encompassing of all rural residents. 112 Bend, Oregon and Dubuque, Iowa are among those small to mid-size cities that lack major universities yet have been successful in creating an attractive quality of life that attracts talent (Bend has grown exponentially over the past few censuses, mostly attributable to young adults with college degrees) and employers (Dubuque attracted IBM and other companies).

36

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Provider Survey Results APPENDIX B: Business Survey Results APPENDIX C: Resident Survey Results APPENDIX D: Windshield Survey Results APPENDIX E: Windshield Survey Maps

37

APPENDIX A: PROVIDER SURVEY RESULTS Fourteen providers completed an electronic survey consisting of questions about the different needs of the community, specifically for low and moderate income residents over the next three years. The needs identified were housing, public services and facilities, infrastructure, economic development, community facilities, homeless services and special needs. In each question, respondents ranked choices from 1 to 4, with 1 representing the greatest need/priority and 4 being the lowest priority. The results are as follows:

Q1. Rank Housing Needs of the City over the next 3 years, specifically for low- to moderate-income residents.

Needs Ranking

Rental Housing Assistance 1.70

Increased Affordability 1.81

Homeownership Assistance 2.08

Residential Rehabilitation 2.11

Energy Improvements 2.19

Creation of More Housing 2.54

Lead-Based Paint Hazards 2.71

Historical Preservation 2.96

The providers ranked rental housing assistance as the greatest need in Anderson, followed by increasing affordability and homeownership assistance, and with residential rehabilitation and energy improvements rounding out the top five. The providers revealed that one of the greatest challenges in housing has been utility costs. This cost impacts renters the most and is a major contributing factor to the majority of renters paying over 30 percent of their income in housing costs.

Q2: Rank Public Services & Facilities Needs of the City over the next 3 years specifically for low- to moderate-income residents.

Needs Ranking

Transportation Services 1.78

Crime Prevention 1.84

Child Care Services 1.89

Youth Services 2.04

Health Services & Facilities 2.12

Fair Housing Education 2.35

Fire Stations & Equipment 2.61

The providers ranked public transportation as the top public services and facilities need in Anderson, with crime prevention and childcare services ranking second and third.

Q3. Rank Infrastructure Needs of the City over the next 3 years, specifically for low- to moderate-income residents.

Needs Ranking

Street Improvements 1.96

Flood Control & Drainage 2.31

Sidewalk & Curb Improvements 2.38

Landscaping & Beautification 2.65

Street improvements were ranked as being the greatest infrastructure need, with flood control and drainage and curb and sidewalk improvements following.

38

Q4. Rank Economic Development Needs of the City over the next 3 years, specifically for low- to moderate-income residents.

Needs Ranking

Job Creation 1.41

Job Training & Placement 1.44

Business Expansion/Loans 2.27

Commercial Rehabilitation 2.35

Providers indicated the greatest economic development need affecting low- to moderate-income residents is job creation, followed by training and placement. During the providers‘ key informant meeting, there was discussion that economic development should be the primary focus of assisting the residents of Anderson.

Q5. Rank Community Facilities Needs of the City over the next 3 years, specifically for low- to moderate-income residents.

Needs Ranking

Neighborhood & Community Centers 1.88

Parks and Recreational Facilities 2.00

Removal of Architectural Barriers 2.58

Neighborhood & community center facilities ranked high with all providers as the primary community facilities need. Developing sites where community members can connect will help them organize themselves to address crime prevention and youth development concerns.

Q6. Rank Homeless Services Needs of the City over the next 3 years, specifically for low- to moderate-income residents.

Needs Ranking

Emergency Shelter 1.70

Self-sufficiency & Prevention 1.81

Permanent Supportive Housing 1.85

Transitional Housing 1.93

The number one homeless services need identified by providers is for more emergency shelters.

Q7. Rank Special Needs of the City over the next 3 years, specifically for low- to moderate-income residents.

Needs Ranking

Facilities & Services for Victims of Domestic Violence 1.80

Facilities & Services for Abused and Neglected Children 1.81

Facilities & Services for Residents of Public Housing 2.00

Facilities & Services for Persons with Physical or Developmental Disabilities 2.08

Facilities & Services for Persons with Mental Disabilities 2.12

Facilities & Services for Seniors 2.17

Facilities & Services for Persons with Alcohol/ Drug Abuse 2.24

Facilities & Services for Injured Soldiers & Veterans 2.25

Facilities & Services for Racial and Ethnic Populations 2.46

Facilities & Services for Ex-Offenders 2.50

Facilities & Services for Persons with HIV/AIDS & their families 2.58

Facilities & Services Agricultural Workers 3.04

The greatest special needs identified by providers in Anderson are facilities and services for abused and neglected women and children. The next most pressing special need is to increase the availability of public housing or access to decent, safe, energy-efficient affordable rental housing.

39

In addition to the written survey, IACED conducted a key informant meeting of providers on March 12, 2010 at Alternatives, Inc., offices in Anderson. Fourteen providers were in attendance, representing 11 different organizations. They provided the following key information:

Clients don‘t meet credit/income qualifications for homeownership and affordable rental programs

Clients have a lack of financial resources

The majority of the community‘s homeless persons are doubled up in housing and are not living on the streets, which makes them difficult to count

Since HUD does not consider individuals that are doubled up to be homeless, organizations do not receive HUD funding to serve them

Organizations are suffering from federal and state funding cuts

Job loss is a huge problem for many Anderson residents

High utility rates make housing not affordable to very low-income individuals

Several housed individuals are living without utilities due to the cost

Older housing stock is in need of major rehab

Most programs count entire household income, which makes it hard for elderly individuals with adult children living with them to qualify for various programs

Emergency shelter and transitional housing is needed for ―whole‖ families (two parents and kids)

Permanent supportive housing for all populations is needed to help move clients from transitional to permanent housing

The majority of low-income clients need one comprehensive bill (rent, utilities, etc.) to increase the likelihood that their housing costs are paid every month

Transitional housing for women with substance abuse is needed

The hoops that organizations have to jump through to receive state and federal funding is a major deterrent to organizations accessing these types of funding

40

APPENDIX B: BUSINESS SURVEY RESULTS Forty-one businesses operating in the City of Anderson responded to the business survey. The questions ranged from length of operation and hiring issues to housing availability. The results are summarized below:

Q1. What type of business?

Type of Business Percent of Total

Retail sales (grocery, sporting, foods, etc.) 10%

Financing/Banking 8%

Advertising 5%

Lodging/Hotel 5%

Commercial/Personal services (auto repair, dry cleaner, salon, etc.) 3%

Arts & Entertainment 3%

Government, Transportation, Public Utilities 3%

Other (please specify)** 26%

** Other specified:

Business Consulting

Design and Marketing

Doctor of Chiropractic

Design and Marketing

Software Development

Tattooing

Non-Profit

Steel Warehouse/Fabrication

Restaurant

Q2. How long has this business been operating in the City of Anderson?

Length of Operations Percent of Total

Less than 2 years 10.3%

2 to 5 years 12.8%

6-10 years 10.3%

More than 10 years 66.7%

Q3. Please indicate approximately how many workers you employ at your location in the City of Anderson?

Worker Average Total

Full-time worker 32.69 1,275

Part-time work 7.03 239

Total worker 20.17 706

Q4. How does the number of employees you have today compare to the number of employees you had 3 years ago?

Number of Employees Percent of Total

No change 35.9%

Fewer employees today than 3 years ago 30.8%

More employees today than 3 years ago 23.1%

N/A, not in business 3 years ago 12.8%

41

Q5. How has the ability to recruit and retain qualified employees changed for your business over the past 3 years?

Recruitment of Employees Percent of Total

Stayed about the same 47.4%

Declined/ gotten harder 26.3%

Improved/gotten easier 7.9%

Don‘t know/not applicable 18.4%

Q8. To what extent do your employees have difficulty locating housing in the areas?

Worker No Difficulty Minor Difficulty Moderate Difficulty Major Difficulty

Seasonal worker 12 3 1 1

Retail/service 13 4 2 0

General/labor/service 13 5 2 0

Office support staff 18 6 0 0

Entry-level professionals 13 9 1 1

Mid-management 17 4 1 2

Upper-management 17 4 3 3

The responding businesses indicated entry-level professionals have the most difficulty locating housing. The survey results also indicate that the City needs to address mid- to upper-management housing needs.

Q6. How many people, in your estimation, were not hired or left your employment last year because they: (Select all that apply)

Reason for Employee Leaving Percent of Total

Found cost of living in the city too high 0.0%

Lacked housing 4.0%

Lacked day care 4.0%

Failed a drug test 8.0%

Lacked transportation 12.0%

Other (please specify)** 80.0%

** Other specified:

2 not qualified and 1 a homemaker

Too many tattoos and piercings

50 at least, because of county laws

Laid off

Spouse lost job; No benefits

Not qualified

Typical turn over in real estate sales

Downsizing

Lacked job skills

Lacked moral values

None left, didn't hire

Selected an area of employment with better HS grad rates and ISTEP scores; they want to provide a healthier, educational lifestyle for their family

2 – contract ended

Q7. Do you feel that the availability of affordable housing for the workforce in the City of Anderson is?

Impact of Affordable Housing Availability Percent of Total

Not a problem 42.9%

One of the city‘s lesser problems 34.3%

A moderate problem 11.4%

One of the more serious problems 8.6%

The most critical problem in the city 2.9%

42

Q9. What type of housing do you feel is most needed in the City of Anderson?

Housing Type Needed Percent of Total

Single Family 42.4%

Townhouse/Complex 24.2%

Apartment 12.1%

Condo 6.1%

Temporary housing facility 6.1%

Room without kitchen 0.0%

Mobile home 0.0%

Other (please specify)** 33.3%

** Other specified:

None

None. Too many vacancies now!

Not sure

Nicer residential areas for higher paid individuals

Newer single family housing stock

Don‘t know

Newer housing stock

None

Subdivisions for residents with bachelors degree and beyond

Release felons/sex offenders struggling with income

Low cost student housing

Q10. Does your business provide employees with any of the following work commute options?

Work Commute Options Offered Percent of Total

Telecommuting opportunities 35.3%

On-site company vehicle for employee errands 29.4%

Travel stipend (travel time compensation, etc) 11.8%

Car and/or van pooling 5.9%

Bus/Shuttle service (operated by your business) 5.9%

Other (please specify)** 47.1%

**Other specified:

None

Company provided transportation for sales, engineering, etc.

I will pick up if needed

Q11. Do you assist with housing for any of your employees?

Percent of Total

No 96.2%

Yes (please specify)** 3.8%

** Assistance specified:

We offer an apartment at a very low rate as temporary housing

43

APPENDIX C: RESIDENT SURVEY RESULTS IACED received survey responses from 237 residents. The survey consisted of questions ranging from householder and income issues to challenges in renting and buying a home. The following is a summary of responses from those residents.

Q1. Which of the following categories best describes your household at this time?

Household Type Percent of Total

Adult couple 26.61 %

Two parents with children 25.75 %

Single parent with children 20.60 %

I live alone 19.74 %

More than 1 family/couple live here 7.30 %

Q2. What type of home do you live in?

Housing Type Percent of Total

Single family house 72.96 %

Apartment 22.75 %

Duplex 2.58 %

Mobile home 1.72 %

Q3. Do you own or rent your dwelling?

Type of Occupant Percent of Total

Own 52.16 %

Rent 44.40 %

Rent to buy/lease to purchase 3.45 %

Q4. How long have you lived in your present dwelling?

Period of Occupancy Percent of Total

Less than 1 year 27.47 %

1 to 3 years 20.17 %

3 to 5 years 12.45 %

5 to 7 years 6.87 %

7 to 10 years 8.58 %

10 to 15 years 8.15 %

15 to 20 years 5.15 %

Over 20 years 12.02 %

Q5. What is your amount of monthly rent or mortgage?

Monthly Housing Cost Percent of Total

Under $200 2.58 %

$201 - $300 7.30 %

$301 - $400 9.44 %

$401 - $500 22.32 %

$501 - $600 18.45 %

$601 - $750 13.30 %

$751 - $1,000 8.15 %

Over $1,000 5.58 %

44

Q6. What is your annual household income?

Annual Household Income Percent of Total

Below $12,000 19.05 %

$12,000 to $18,000 10.39 %

$18,001 to $25,000 12.12 %

$25,001 to $30,000 10.82 %

$30,001 to $40,000 7.79 %

$40,001 to $50,000 13.41 %

Over $50,000 26.40 %

Q7. What is the greatest barrier to owning a home in your community?

Type of Barrier Percent of Total

Coming up with a down payment 21.17 %

Poor credit history 19.37 %

Condition of affordable housing 14.86 %

Lack of affordable housing 9.01 %

Location of affordable housing 7.66 %

Not applicable 19.82 %

Other (please specify)** 8.11 %

**Other Specified:

Property taxes

Resale value

No jobs. People can't make mortgage payments.

Lack of QUALITY housing

Lack of community planning (insecurity due to lack of foresight by community leaders, or at the very least, their inability to share a vision for long term success)

Housing with acreage

Risk of owning a home in a declining market.

School system

I don't know

Lack of affordable housing, location of affordable housing, poor credit history

Credit, location; lack of affordable housing

I don't even have a job

High taxes

No answer

Finding a job and keeping it

No answer

Taxes

Do not intend to move - cost factor

45

Q8. Identify any barriers to housing choice in your community? (Select all that apply)

Type of Barrier Percent of Total

Cost of housing 58.41 %

Poor condition of house/unit 42.52 %

Utility costs 38.79 %

Distance to employment 20.09 %

Public transportation 9.81 %

Housing discrimination 5.61 %

Lack of accessibility for physically disabled 4.67 %

Age restricted housing 2.80 %

Other (please specify)** 13.08 %

**Other Specified:

Appearance of neighborhood

No personal barriers.

Taxes for undeveloped properties

Tax rate

Again, lack of funds to pay for homes

Not applicable

Don't know

Over-priced

Poor employment

High school location in community

Lack of choices in the 125-155,000 price range

Historical commission

Lack of decent jobs

Good schools for children (NOTED by three different respondents)

Anderson is no longer ideal for raising a family

Location

Not enough good houses available for low income families

Condition of affordable housing

Need more housing for the elderly

I don't have anything

Employment

No barriers, but unable to sell our home

None

Q9. What types of housing assistance have you needed or used in the past year? (Select all that apply)

Type of Assistance Percent of Total

Utility assistance 26.32 %

Homeowner repair 15.79 %

Rental assistance 15.20 %

Subsidized housing 11.11 %

Emergency shelter 8.77 %

Mortgage assistance 7.02 %

Senior apartments 2.34 %

Assisted living 0.58 %

Accessibility renovations 0.00 %

Other (please specify) 40.35 %

**Other Specified:

None (Noted by 61 different respondents)

Small loan

Applied for assistance but still waiting

Property tax abatement

Need HUD and can‘t get in

Dove Harbor

Budget plans for utilities

Taxes are crazy

46

Q10. I or someone I know is behind on mortgage payments by:

Number of Days Behind Percent of Total

90 days or more 21.92 %

60 days 11.87 %

30 days 10.05 %

Not applicable 56.16 %

Q11. It is difficult to find agencies that provide foreclosure counseling.

Percent of Total

Yes 24.77 %

No 8.11 %

Don‘t know 67.12 %

Q12. I know about the 1-877 Hope hotline.

Percent of Total

Yes 7.69 %

No 92.31 %

Q13. What year was your home or building built (estimate)?

Year Constructed Percent of Total

Before 1950 34.29 %

1951 to 1970 31.90 %

1971 to 1980 12.86 %

1981 to 1990 8.57 %

1991 to 2000 6.19 %

After 2000 6.19 %

Q14. The housing in this community (City of Anderson) is in good condition.

Percent of Total

Yes 18.40 %

No 61.79 %

Don‘t know 19.81 %

Q15. There is enough housing in this community to meet the demand.

Percent of Total

Yes 40.56 %

No 29.72 %

Don‘t know 29.72 %

Q16. Many homes and/or apartments in this community are overcrowded. (Too many people living in one dwelling).

Percent of Total

Yes 38.86 %

No 16.11 %

Don‘t know 45.02 %

47

Q17. It is difficult for people I know to find suitable homes “to buy”?

Percent of Total

Yes 57.62%

No 18.57 %

Don‘t know 23.81 %

Q18. It is difficult for people I know to find suitable apartments “to rent”?

Percent of Total

Yes 51.66 %

No 23.22 %

Don‘t know 25.12 %

Q19. Is it difficult for people I know to find suitable “homes to rent?”

Percent of Total

Yes 62.38 %

No 16.67 %

Don‘t know 20.95 %

Q20. In your opinion, which of the following housing types are needed the most in your area?

Type of Housing Needed Percent of Total

Single family homes 38.78 %

Emergency shelters 26.02 %

Apartments/Rental 23.47 %

Senior housing 7.65 %

Group homes for physically disabled 4.08 %

Other (please specify)**

**Other Specified:

None - please fill the empty ones before building more!

Larger single family homes - 3 to 4 Bedrooms

Transitional housing programs

Extensive repairs to the existing structures

To increase home value, vacant buildings must be torn down

For all ages

Single family homes near the downtown that aren't run down or near abandoned buildings

Too many empty units

Quality housing options

Nice low income rentals

More affordable single family homes that have included utilities or go by your income

If the buildings were fixed up and started rent at a lower price, then the city would have plenty of places to rent or buy

It cost more for a small apartment/house in this town than a large apartment/house in any college town and they are also run down more

All the other types of housing

There are plenty that are in good condition

Single person housing

48

The lower the rating average noted above, the higher the type of assistance was ranked in terms of importance. Thus, rental assistance was ranked as the most important need, followed by assistance for the homeless population and homeownership assistance.

Q22. There is a housing need for the following special populations in my community: (Check all that apply.)

Special Population Percent of Total

Homeless 62.63 %

Emergency shelters 54.55 %

Transitional housing (up to 24 months) 43.94 %

Victims of physical or sexual abuse 38.89 %

Elderly 33.33 %

Physically or mentally handicapped 22.73 %

Developmentally challenged 16.67 %

Persons with HIV/AIDS 8.08 %

Other (please specify)** 7.07 %

**Other Specified:

Don‘t know

No answer

Low income (Noted twice)

Not sure what is available at this time

Students

Recently released DOC offenders (re-entry)

There are places for all these populations in the community.

People who pay too much in property taxes

I am not in one of these special populations so I'm not aware of their plight

Q21. Please rank the importance of the following housing programs in Anderson.

Type of Assistance Most

Important Very

Important Important

Somewhat Important

Not Very Important

Least Important

N/A Rating Average

Rental assistance 53 25 29 18 18 18 9 2.86

Homeless population 26 26 21 17 12 9 9 2.91

Homeownership assistance

30 24 22 18 9 13 10 2.92

Low-income population

26 31 23 13 9 15 4 2.94

Victim assistance 22 23 20 8 18 14 22 3.18

Elderly population 14 18 18 26 20 10 6 3.47

Disabled population 5 27 36 23 13 16 16 3.5

49

Q23. There is a need for the following supportive services for the special needs populations in this community: (Check all that apply)

Type of Service Percent of Total

Job training 50.98 %

Transportation 50.00 %

Healthcare 49.51 %

Home repair assistance 48.04 %

Rental assistance 47.55 %

Child/Adult day care 44.12 %

Meals 40.69 %

Substance abuse treatment 27.45 %

Other (please specify)** 4.41 %

**Other Specified:

Jobs for felons (Noted by two respondents)

None

Don't know the current availability of these things

Don't know

Recreation programs

Hispanic services. Mental health services/providers for Hispanics

Commuter service to Indianapolis, Education

I do not need any of these special needs so I'm unaware of the current availability

Q24. To your knowledge, which group(s) of people in your community have the greatest “UNMET" housing need? (Check all that apply)

Group Percent of Total

Low income 74.13 %

Single families 42.79 %

Moderate income 32.84 %

Elderly 26.87 %

Special needs 25.87 %

Urban populations 21.89 %

Rural populations 6.97 %

Higher income 3.48 %

Other (please specify) 4.98 %

**Other Specified:

I'm choosing elderly and special needs only because this seems most logical, not because I know for certain for our community

There's an overabundance of HUD/Sect. 8 housing

I feel as though there is a real lack of moderate income housing in the downtown portions of our city

It seems to be high income (8th St mansions) vs. low income (historical homes falling down)

People who work but make too much to quality for any benefits.....the working poor

Homeless people need to be self-reliant

Unemployed and unemployable populations

Those who earn just too much for assistance and not enough to cover the bills

Hispanics

50

APPENDIX D: WINDSHIELD SURVEY RESULTS Each structure (1,167 total) and/or lot in Anderson‘s windshield survey area was visually inspected using a seven point standard. The windshield survey was conducted in Anderson‘s NRSA, which is located within Census Tracts 3, 4, 5, 119 and 120; the physical boundaries of the windshield survey area are shown in the map below. The inspection judgment values are summarized as follows: 1) No Repairs Needed (22%); 2) Minor Repairs Needed/Consider Rehab (40%); 3) Major Repairs Needed/Rehab Immediately (25%); 4) Vacant & Boarded/Rehab (10%); 5) Unsafe for Living/Vacant & Boarded (1%); 6) Unsafe for Living/Requires Boarding (2%) and 7) Vacant Lot (35 counted*). (*Note: The number of vacant lots could not be accurately counted, as a visual inspection could not always determine whether one or two lots existed.) Thus, the survey revealed that 75 percent of the housing stock in the windshield survey area is in need of rehabilitation. The breakdown of the severity is 40 percent of the units have two or more minor repairs, 25 percent of the units are in need of two or more major repairs and 10 percent of the units are vacant – with some boarded – and have potential for rehabilitation. A general location map showing the boundaries of windshield survey area is shown below.

Maps on the following pages depict an overview, as well as individual concentrations, of each housing condition found in the windshield survey area. IACED has on file a listing of all inspected houses identified by address.

51

APPENDIX E: WINDSHIELD SURVEY MAPS

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59