Colorado - Draft Analysis of Impediments To Fair Housing, 2011

8/7/2019 Colorado - Draft Analysis of Impediments To Fair Housing, 2011

1/88

DRAFT

Colorado Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2011- 20151

DRAFT COLORADO ANALYSIS OFIMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSINGColorado Department of Local AffairsReeves Brown, Executive Director

Colorado Department of Human ServicesReggie Bicha, Executive Director

John Hickenlooper, Governor


2/88

DRAFT


I. Introduction and Executive Summary ......................................... 4A. Who Conducted ...................................................................................... 4B. Participants............................................................................................ 4C. Methodology Used................................................................................... 7

Notes on Terminology and Sources ............................................................ 8D. How Funded........................................................................................... 9E. Executive Summary and Conclusions ......................................................... 9

Impediments Found ................................................................................. 9Actions To Address Impediments ............................................................. 11

II. State of Colorado Background Data......................................... 14Demographic Data .................................................................................... 14

Racial and Ethnic Composition ................................................................. 14Language/Cultural Barriers ..................................................................... 24Persons With Disabilities ......................................................................... 26Religious Groups ................................................................................... 30Colorado Households.............................................................................. 34

Income Data ............................................................................................ 36Median Income ..................................................................................... 36Income Distribution ............................................................................... 37

Employment Data ..................................................................................... 39Housing Profile ......................................................................................... 40

Overview.............................................................................................. 40Rental Mismatch Findings ....................................................................... 42Rent Burden ......................................................................................... 43

Other Relevant Data.................................................................................. 45Stakeholder survey results...................................................................... 45General Public Survey Results ................................................................. 52

III. Colorados Current Fair Housing Legal Status........................... 54Summary of Fair Housing Complaints or Compliance reviews .......................... 54

Fair Housing Complaints by Basis............................................................. 55Fair Housing Complaints by Issue ............................................................ 57

Reasons for any trends or patterns.............................................................. 59Other fair housing concerns or problems ...................................................... 59

Homelessness and the Protected Classes .................................................. 59Segregation and Affordable Housing Site Analysis ...................................... 60

IV. Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing .......................... 61Public Sector State Statutes and Regulations .............................................. 61

Building, Occupancy, Health, and Safety statutes ....................................... 61Approval process for construction of housing ............................................. 61Community development and housing activities ......................................... 62Statewide policies that increase segregation or inhibit employment............... 62

Public policies that restrict interdepartmental coordination........................... 63Statewide actions related to the provision and siting of public transportation andsocial services....................................................................................... 63Protected-class representation boards, commissions, and committees........... 63

Private Sector .......................................................................................... 64State banking and insurance laws and regulations...................................... 64State laws and regulations covering the sale of housing .............................. 64


3/88

DRAFT


State laws and regulations covering housing rentals, trust or lease provisions,and conversions of apartments to all-adult ................................................ 65State and local laws that conflict with the accessibility requirements of federallaws. ................................................................................................... 65State and local laws or other policies and practices that have the effect ofrestricting housing choices for persons with disabilities. .............................. 65

Information on financial assistance for accessibility modification of privatehomes ................................................................................................. 66Lending Policies and Practices.................................................................. 66

C. Public and Private Sector........................................................................ 74Evidence of segregated housing conditions in non-entitlement areas, andhousing desegregation plans ................................................................... 74The delivery system for statewide programs providing social services to familieswith children and persons with disabilities. ................................................ 74

V. Current Public and Private Fair Housing Programs And Activities .. 75VI. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................ 79

Impediments Found ............................................................................... 79Actions To Address Impediments ............................................................. 83

Other Actions........................................................................................ 87


4/88

DRAFT


I. Introduction and Executive SummaryWHAT IS FAIR HOUSING?

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended in 1988,

Prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in otherhousing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex,familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legalcustodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the ageof 18), and handicap (disability).

Colorados Fair Housing statutes (C.R.S. 24-34-500 et. seq.) include marital status,creed and ancestry in addition to the federal definitions of persons protected by FairHousing law. It is also illegal to refuse to make reasonable accommodations forpersons with disabilities or to harass or interfere with a person exercising their Fair

Housing rights.The Civil Rights Act, including the Fair Housing Act, grew out of the civil rightsmovement of the 1960s and was particularly directed at relieving the livingconditions that gave rise to the race riots of that era. During the period followingWorld War II, both public and private sector practices had led to the segregation ofminorities (especially African Americans) into ghettos in inner cities, far away fromthe newer housing and job opportunities being created in the suburbs. But thegreater intent of the law was not just to eliminate the practices that created racially-segregated communities, but to provide equal housing opportunity for all Americanswho experienced discrimination. Later legislation led to the addition of families withchildren and people with disabilities as protected classes.

Fair Housing is the process and vehicle for ensuring those protections.

A. Who Conducted

This analysis of impediments was conducted by the Colorado Department of LocalAffairs, Division of Housing (CDOH) and the Colorado Department of HumanServices, Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs (SHHP).

B. ParticipantsPrimary Author: Mary E. Miller, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division ofHousing

Contributing Authors:Susan Niner, Colorado Department of Health and Human Services, SupportiveHousing and Homeless ProgramsLynn Shine, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of HousingRyan McMaken, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing

Research Assistance:Cynthia De Groen, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, State Demographers OfficeAutumn Gold, Manager of Section 8 Programming


5/88

DRAFT


Christopher Roe, Colorado Department of Health and Human Services, SupportiveHousing and Homeless ProgramsTony Hernandez, Director, Department of Local Affairs, Division of Local GovernmentAndy Hill, Sustainability Coordinator, Department of Local Affairs, Division of LocalGovernment

Survey Participants:Mark* Colorado Housing and Finance AuthorityRandy McCall KeyBankCharles Kreiman ICF InternationalMary Anderies Anderies ConsultingHeidi Aggeler BBC Research & ConsultingMike Rinner The Genesis GroupAutumn Dever Upper Arkansas Area Council of GovernmentsZoe Mick South Eastern Colorado Economic DevelopmentAnne-Marie Mokritsky-Martin Colorado Cross Disability CoalitionRuth Pederson Colorado Health Network, Inc.Jenny Wildee Denver OptionsMartha Mason Southwest Center for Independence

Kathryn Garcia Developmental Pathways, Inc.Alison Dawson Disabled Resource ServicesMarcella Young Disabled Resource ServicesRenee' Walker Foothills Gateway, Inc.Jennifer Chase Northern Colorado AIDS ProjectVicky Elliot Mountain Valley Developmental ServicesKim Engell Connections Independent LivingJan Binkley EnvisionMarlene Lovato Developmental Disabilities Resource CenterMichael Block Boulder Shelter for the HomelessDiana Buza The Pinon ProjectCameron Malcolm Colorado Coalition for the Homeless

Les Jones Family HomeSteadRandle Loeb Metro Denver Homeless InitiativeMissy Mish St. Francis CenterDebra MacKillop The Gathering PlaceBobbi Meng Caring Ministries of Morgan CountySr. Karen Bland Grand Valley Catholic OutreachGi Moon Homeward Bound of the Grand ValleyJodi Hartmann Greeley Transitional HouseMary Yendrek Jeffco Action CenterCarleta Schwartz Southeast Colorado Homeless ShelterAnita Deshommes Growing HomeKrista Goddard Stepping Stones of WindsorRachel Helberg Brush Housing Authority

Judy Scandura Colorado Springs Housing AuthorityAndrea Davis Denver Housing AuthorityJo Spotts Housing Authority City of Fort LuptonKatherine Roby Fountain Housing AuthorityLori Rosendahl Grand Junction Housing AuthorityThomas Teixeira Greeley/Weld Housing AuthoritiesJim Sheehan Grand County Housing AuthorityJ. Anthony Mascarenas La Junta Housing Authority


6/88

DRAFT


Theresa Folk Metro West Housing SolutionsBill Lunsford Metro West Housing SolutionsMelanie Gurule Lamar Housing AuthorityDan Burnham Littleton Housing AuthorityKimberly Kamay Littleton Housing AuthorityBonnie Osborn Douglas County Housing Partnership

Moofie A. Miller Housing Authority of the City of LovelandCarol Kemp Montrose County Housing AuthorityTim Heavers Montrose County Housing AuthorityFrank D. Pacheco Pueblo Housing AuthorityK Grosscup Garfield County Housing AuthorityWilliam Herrboldt Sterling Housing AuthorityCindy Barnett Hull Wray Housing AuthorityJanelle Devlin Yuma Housing AuthorityNone given* City of ArvadaJoseph Garcia Manager, City of Aurora, Community

Development DivisionMichelle Allen City of BoulderJan Hamilton City and County of Broomfield HHS

Valorie Jordan City of Colorado SpringsTiffany Colvert El Paso County, COReJean Peeples City and County of DenverLeona Perkins Eagle County Housing & DevelopmentBill Wallace Summit CountyJo Ann Sorensen Clear Creek CountyCarmen Ramriez City of Longmont-Community & Neighborhood

ResourcesDebbie Hughes City of ThorntonTony K. Watson Barvista Building SystemsNick Keller Teton Buildings LLCTara Lifford VFP, Inc.

Kate Behnken San Luis Valley Mental Health CenterGillian* Aurora Mental HealthJean Morrill Mental Health Center Serving Boulder and

Broomfield CountiesLynne Navin Mental Health Center Serving

Boulder and Broomfield CountiesJodi Vaimagalo Community Reach CenterLeslie Parker Community Reach CenterJenni* Axis Health SystemErica Keter Axis Health SystemsKen Kroneberger Jefferson Center for Mental HealthKatie Hasselgren Arapahoe/Douglas Mental Health NetworkKirstin Schelling Centennial Mental Health Center

Eugene Medina Arapahoe HouseRoger Watkins Spanish Peaks Regional Health CenterJohn Hazlehurst Colorado Springs Business JournalRachel Willis San Luis Valley Housing CoalitionTracy Walters Thistle CommunitiesShaylene Kraft Hughes Station LLLCDiana Telford Partners In HousingMichelle Mitchell Colorado Housing Assistance Corp.


7/88

DRAFT


Marvin Kelly Del Norte NDCKristin Delcamp Habitat for Humanity of Metro DenverGetabecha Mekonnen Northeast Denver Housing CenterJoyce Alms-Ransford Rocky Mountain HDC, IncDianna L. Kunz Volunteers of AmericaClark Haggard Housing Solutions for the Southwest

Wendie Robinson Neighbor to NeighborMonie Stites Tri-County Housing & CDCMary Simonson ImagineJulie Simmons Colorado Housing, Inc.Jenny Russell Affordable Housing SolutionsConnie Baker Wolfe Rural Community Assistance CorporationNancy Burke Colorado Apartment AssociationChristopher Stefan Marcus & MillichapDerek Camunez RE/MAX AvenuesSusan Aldretti Jefferson County Association of RealtorsLinda Love Target Realty SolutionsMarta Loachamin Century 21Vicki Hall Springfield West

Paulette St. James Colorado Dept of Human ServicesKim* Colorado Dept. of Human Services-

Supportive Housing & Homeless programsCaitlyn* Colorado Dept. of Human Services-

Supportive Housing & Homeless programsKaryn Mandler Colorado Dept. of Human Services-

Supportive Housing & Homeless programsRyan McMaken Colorado Dept. of Local Affairs,

Division of Housing*Participant did not supply complete name

C. Methodology Used

The State of Colorado used a combination of primary and secondary sources toanalyze current Fair Housing conditions in the state.Primary sources included:

Two surveys made available online, one for those involved in providingaffordable and accessible housing and another for the general public;

2008 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data Reports on Fair Housing Complaint Filings from OFHEO and Colorado Civil

Rights Division.

Secondary sources included: The United State Census American Community Survey, 2005-2009 5-year

Estimates, 2009 1-year Estimates

U.S. Census Population Estimates Colorado demographic projections from the Colorado Demographers office. Discriminatory Predatory Lending in Colorado, Colorado Civil Rights Division,

July, 2009 Housing Mismatch and Rent Burden Information for Rental Housing in

Colorado, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing, April2010

State of Working Colorado 2009, Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute


8/88

DRAFT


DiversityData.org: Profile summaries by Metropolitan Statistical Area fromhttp://diversitydata.sph.harvard.edu

A Step in the Right Direction: 2010 Fair Housing Trends Report, National FairHousing Alliance, May 26, 2010

Housing and Community Grants, GAO Report to Congressional Requestors,September, 2010.

The State of Fair Housing, Annual Report on Fair Housing FY 2009, U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development, July, 2010

Between the Lines: A Question and Answer Guide on Legal Issues inSupportive Housing, Law Offices of Goldfarb & Lipman, Corporation forSupportive Housing, 2001

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase Iand Phase II of the Housing Discrimination Study (HDS), Department ofHousing and Urban Development, 2005

Statistical Report: Fiscal Year 2008, Colorado Dept. of Corrections

Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States, 2000.Collected by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies(ASARB) and distributed by the Association of Religion Data Archives

(www.theARDA.com). What Does It Mean to Have a Disability in Colorado? Six Key Issues, theColorado State Independent Living Council, July 2010

Notes on Terminology and SourcesRacial and Ethnic CategoriesThis report uses the Census Bureaus categories for race and ethnicity. Under thissystem, people are asked to self-identify their race using the following categories:

White Black/African American

American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Some other race Two or more races

Hispanic/Latino is treated as an Ethnicity rather than a racial category, as peoplewith Hispanic ancestry can be of any race.

Households and Families are identified by the race and ethnicity of the head ofhousehold only.

To conserve space where necessary, this document will refer to Black/African

Americans as Black and Hispanic/Latino as Hispanic. The standard abbreviation forAmerican Indian/Alaska Native is AIAN; for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander isNHPI; Some Other Race is SOR.

The American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the U.S. Census Bureaucollects its data by sampling a percentage (1 in 40) of the population on an ongoingbasis rather than everyone. While this provides more current data than thedecennial Census count, the data collected is subject to sampling error. American


9/88

DRAFT


Community Survey estimates are published with their margins of error (MOE) set atthe 90% confidence level in other words we can be 90 percent sure that the rangeestablished by the margin of error contains the true value.

Some subgroups of Colorados population, such as the numbers for NativeHawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders, are so small that the margins of error from

sampling one-fortieth of them are very large, rendering the data unreliable.

Data concerning people with disabilities is not readily available. Because the ACSchanged its questions about people with disabilities during the 2005-2009 timeframe, there are no five-year figures available, and the numbers over shorter periodsalso have greater margins of error. Specific subjects for which there is no availablecensus data include income and employment data. Where possible other sources ofdata have been used instead.

Data from the 2000 Decennial Census has been used in some circumstances wheremore recent data was unavailable during the compilation of this report.

The Census Bureau does not collect information on religious affiliation, although

religion is a protected class. This report has used data from the Association ofStatisticians of American Religious Bodies for the year 2000.

D. How FundedThis analysis was funded from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs 2010 CDBGallocation using existing staff.

E. Executive Summary and Conclusions

Significant Impediments to Fair Housing exist in Colorado. Housing discriminationcan be hard to prove in the absence of formal testing, but can be inferred from other

sources. It is the reflected in the Impediments listed below.By analyzing the most recent available U.S. Census and American CommunitySurvey data, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, surveys of the housing anddisability communities and of the general public in Colorado, Analyses ofImpediments (AIs) from Colorado entitlement areas, reports of Fair Housingcomplaints, and various other reports and documentation, we can discern social andeconomic patterns as well as common concerns.

Division of Housing staff reviewed these source documents, compared the number oftimes that issues were raised in surveys and AIs, and the degree to which hard datasupported those concerns to compile the following list of impediments and proposedactions to address them. The impediments and actions are addressed in more detailat the end of this document.

Impediments Found

Lack of Fair Housing Education and CoordinationReview of survey responses and Analyses of Impediments from entitlement areasindicates that many residents and property managers do not have access toinformation about Fair Housing rights and responsibilities. Most of the following


10/88

DRAFT


impediments appear to be related to lack of knowledge, so this appears to be anunderlying problem.

High Housing Costs Combined with Low Income/WagesSurvey responses, entitlement-area Analyses of Impediments, and Colorado Division

of Housing Rental Housing Mismatch report and American Community Survey datamost frequently name the shortage of affordable units for households with low andvery low incomes. The lack of affordable housing has a disparate impact onBlack/African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, women and people withdisabilities because higher percentages of these protected classes are low income.

However, high housing cost is not, in and of itself, an impediment to Fair Housing. Itis the actions that communities take to limit the types and locations of affordablehousing that can represent impediments to Fair Housing when they cause orexacerbate existing segregation, whether or not that is the communitys intent.

The shortage and cost of housing specifically suited to people with disabilities is anadditional impediment, as is a shortage of apartments with more than threebedrooms, which makes it difficult to house large families who need to rent.

Causes of High Housing Costs Impact Development Fees

Other local planning/zoning and building regulations

Impediments Specific to People with DisabilitiesThis was the largest single source of Fair Housing complaints filed from 2006-2009,accounting for

Lack of appropriate, accessible housing that is also affordable. Failure of landlords/property managers to provide reasonable

accommodations for tenants with disabilities.

Communication issues, especially for people with mental disabilities

Community Resistance to Affordable and Special Needs HousingThe Not in My Back Yard Syndrome is an impediment to fair housing because itdiscourages or may even prevent development of affordable housing that wouldprovide fair housing choice to protected classes. Twelve of the fourteen communitieswhose Analyses of Impediments were reviewed cited this as a major impediment.

Lack of Fair Housing EnforcementThe economic downturn and subsequent reductions in State and Federal revenuehave led to a lack of funding for Fair Housing testing and enforcement. No non-profitorganizations in Colorado have received Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP)funding since 2007. Comments in our survey noted lack of enforcement anddifficulty in assistance when experiencing discrimination. The Colorado Civil RightsDivision is the lead state agency for Fair Housing enforcement.


11/88

DRAFT


Predatory Lending and ForeclosuresA study by the Colorado Civil Rights Division found that minorities, especially Blacksand Latinos, were targeted for subprime mortgage loans and that these groupsconsequently have experienced a disproportionate number of foreclosures.

Language and Cultural IssuesPersons who do not speak English well may be vulnerable to discrimination or unfairacts. Language barriers especially complicate landlord/tenant issues. Coloradospopulation of low-English proficiency Spanish-speakers is 7.3%.

TransportationLack of public transit in many areas of the state as well as lack of affordable housingalong existing transit routes impede fair housing choice. Housing patterns, locationof employment opportunities and public transit are not coordinated so as to enableminorities and low income people to hold a job without having a car. Transportation

is a recurring barrier to service delivery for people with HIV/AIDS outside the DenverMetro Area, as no public transportation exists and the service areas for HOPWAsponsor agencies are very large.

Local Government RegulationsPlanning and zoning, definitions of family, land use plans, development fees,growth management programs and housing design specifications may increase thecost of housing and otherwise create impediments to fair housing choice.

Actions To Address Impediments

Lack of Fair Housing Education and Coordination Host aStatewideFair Housing education event Develop programs to educate landlords & property managers about Fair

Housing, especially as it affects people with disabilities

Additional training for CDOH personnel to improve Technical Assistance tohousing providers and services to the public.

Further development of Fair Housing web page

Promote fair housing education offered by other organizations

Provide information about funding available for Fair Housing (NOFAs) Provide/coordinate training for Fair Housing with other statewide, federal and

nonprofit housing agencies including CCRD, CHFA, Colorado Department ofHuman Services, Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs (SHHP), FannieMae, Freddie Mac, Colorado Coalition for the Homeless (CCH),Colorado AIDSProject statewide disability organizations and other fair housing leaders.


12/88

DRAFT


Ensure that all partners provide webpage links to the Colorado Civil RightsDivision (CCRD) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD), along with information about Fair Housing.

High Housing Costs Combined with Low Income/WagesImpact Development Fees

Work with local governments during the strategic planning process toencourage infrastructure funding methods that do not increase the price ofproducing affordable housing.

Annually, publish Affordable Housing: A Guide for Local Officials as a toolfor local governments in creating affordable housing and reducing regulatorybarriers.

Impediments Specific to People with Disabilities Prioritize the production of homes that are accessible to people with

disabilities.

Continue to ensure that our grantees comply with all Fair Housing regulationsconcerning reasonable accommodation and reasonable modification.

Provide education and technical assistance to public housing authorities,property owners and landlords on Fair Housing for people with disabilities

Provide training for public housing authorities, property owners and landlordson communication issues, especially for people with mental disabilities

Provide incentives to housing developers to exceed Section 504 accessibilityrequirements in the production of housing for persons with disabilities.

Establish a program that can assist landlords in modifying units to meetaccessibility standards in order to increase the supply of accessible units.

Encourage local housing and disability service agencies to conduct tenanttraining programs to increase client knowledge of fair housing rights.

Community Resistance to Affordable and Special Needs Housing Continue to promote awareness of the need for affordable housing in

Colorado communities.

Partner with the Division of Local Government, the Colorado Municipal Leagueand Colorado Counties Incorporated and Housing Developers to promotebest planning practices that involve neighborhoods and the public at thebeginning of the housing development process.

Enhance public education about the community effects of affordable/specialneeds housing through publications, public speaking, involvement in localcomprehensive planning processes

Provide technical assistance to housing developers on working with neighborsto allay unfounded fears about the economic and social effects of affordableand special needs housing.

Lack of Fair Housing Enforcement


13/88

DRAFT


Request that HUD conduct or fund Fair Housing testing

Seek out new sources of funding for testing

Increase access to information and assistance about filing fair housingcomplaints

Language and Cultural Issues Develop a list of Department of Local Affairs employees who are bilingual and

competent to act as interpreters and/or translators Increase outreach to tenants and landlords Analyze needs of Limited English Proficiency persons in Colorado and adopt a

Language Assistance Plan. Translation of Fair Housing information into Spanish languages Offer training to improve the cultural literacy of those dealing directly with

LEP and/or disabled persons. Division of Housing will

Transportation Continue to promote Sustainable Communities, which encompass

transportation and economic opportunity as well as affordable housing.

Encourage the inclusion of public transportation in local governmentcomprehensive plans, or the placement of affordable housing close to servicesin places where public transportation is not economically feasible.

Encourage development of affordable housing in close proximity to publictransit, especially where it provides access to better employmentopportunities.

Local Government Regulations Continue to educate local governments about barriers to affordable and Fair

Housing.

Ensure that local government applicants have Fair Housing Plans in place andthat they enforce them prior to making housing grants or loans.

Perform further research into local government planning and zoning policies,that affect Fair Housing opportunity.


14/88

DRAFT


II. State of Colorado Background DataDemographic DataAccording to the U.S. Census Bureau 2009 population estimates, Colorado ranks

22nd in the nation for total population, with an estimated 5,024,748persons. 50.3%of the population is male, 49.7% is female.

Colorados population grew an average annual rate of 1.7% from 2000 to 2005, 2%from 2005 to 2010 and is expected to grow at an average rate of 1.8% from 2010to 2020 (Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs [DOLA] Office ofDemography, 2008).

Racial and Ethnic CompositionThe 2005-2009 American Community Survey estimates that Colorados population is83.7% White, 3.9% Black or African American, 2.6% Asian, 1.0% American Indianor Alaska Native, 0.1% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 8.7% some

other race or more than one race.

955,664 people of any race, 19.7% of Colorados population, self-identified asHispanic or Latino in ethnicity.

Figure 1, Colorado vs. US Population by EthncityComparison of US and Colorado Populations,

Race and Ethnicity 2009

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

United States Colorado

Percentofpopulation

White, Non-Hispanic

Hispanic or Latino - all

races

Black/African American

Compared to the US as a whole, Colorados population is more White and Hispanic,and contains a much lower percentage of Black/African Americans than the nation.

Denver is the largest city in Colorado with an estimated population of 610,345 in2009 (U.S. Census Bureau population estimate), and the seven-county metro Denverarea of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas and JeffersonCounties has a population of 2,801,318 for the same year.


15/88

DRAFT


The entire Denver metropolitan area is forecast to grow to 3.3 million by 2020, anannual average growth rate of 1.6 percent, slightly lower than the growth rateexpected statewide.

Other major cities in Colorado include Aurora, Boulder, Colorado Springs, FortCollins, Grand Junction, Greeley, Lakewood and Pueblo.

The Western Slope continues to be the fastest growing region in the state with anannual growth rate averaging 2.8 percent between 2005 and 2010 compared to the2.0 percent growth rate statewide.

The North Front Range and Central Mountains are also expected to have aboveaverage growth rates, while the Eastern Plains and San Luis Valley are expected tocontinue growing at rates near 1 percent (similar to the Nation).

In 2000, Colorado had an average of 41.5 persons per square mile while the densityof the United States was 79.6 persons per square mile. The Census Bureauestimates Colorados 2010 density at 48.5 persons per square mile compared to 87.4persons per square mile for the United States.

Minority and Racial ConcentrationsThe following maps and information are based on the 2000 decennial Censusbecause the 2010 Census data was not available while this document was beingprepared. We plan to update this section with that information in an annual updatedocument for 2011.

Data Distortions Created by Correctional FacilitiesWhen looking at the following maps of minority concentrations, be aware that sincemembers of non-white racial groups are disproportionately represented in prisonpopulations, they can distort the apparent presence of their groups in non-urban

areas. In contrast to Colorados general population, state prison inmates are 46%White, 31% Hispanic/Latino, and 20% Black/African American in 2008.

Based on the 2000 Decennial Census for Colorado, there were 30, 136 people incorrectional facilities. 13,751 were non-Hispanic White (45.6%), 6,640 were Blackor African American (22%), and 8,316 were Hispanic (27.6%). State Correctionalfacilities are located in Crowley, Delta, Fremont, Kit Carson, Lincoln and Logancounties.

Black/African AmericanIn the 2000 Census, the Black/African American population in Colorado numbered165,063, or approximately 3.8%. 2005-2009 American Community Survey

estimates put the number at 191,329 ( 2,725), or 3.9%.In 2005, HUD released a report Discrimination in Metropolitan Markets Phase I,based on 2000-2001 paired testing research by the Urban Institute in varioushousing markets nationally, including Denver. The report noted consistent adversetreatment against Black renters in Denver 19.4% of the time, and against potentialBlack homebuyers 19.7% of the time. The most common forms of adverse treatmentwere that Blacks were less likely than whites to be told that similar rental units wereavailable for rent and were less likely to be able to inspect the advertised unit or a


16/88

DRAFT


similar one. They were also less likely to received follow-up contact from the agent.The report revealed a significant decrease in discrimination between 1989 and 2000,but has not been repeated since, so we dont know whether that reduction hascontinued.

Figure 2 Areas of Black/African American Concentration in Colorado, 2000

Most Black/African Americans live in the Denver metropolitan area or in ColoradoSprings. The heavy concentration shown in southwest El Paso County reflects thepresence of military bases in the area. The concentration shown in Fremont county

is due to the presence of a cluster of correctional facilities in Caon City. Otherconcentrations of Black/African Americans in Delta Count, Crowley County, LincolnCounty, Kit Carson County and Logan County also reflect the presence of statecorrectional facilities in low-density population areas.

Hispanic EthnicityThe Hispanic population has a long, rich history in Colorado. In fact, early Spanishexplorations not only mapped and named many Colorado settlements, they also

contributed to our language, religion, custom and culture. The sources ofconcentration of Hispanics in Colorado vary by region. In southern Colorado,especially the San Luis Valley, it is the result of the history of Spanish settlementprior to the time Colorado became a U.S. Territory. In other areas, Hispanics werehistorically recruited as agricultural labor and encouraged to stay. In the past 20years, there has been a lot of immigration as people primarily from Mexico havecome to find work in Colorado in the construction and tourism industries, amongothers.


17/88

DRAFT


Figure 3, Concentrations of Hispanic Population

Southern Colorado and the San Luis Valley:

Spain claimed the area of Colorado south of the Arkansas River and west of a linerunning north from its headwaters in Fremont county to the 41st parallel as SpanishTerritory. While Spanish/Hispanic pioneers attempted to settle in this area, theywere driven back by the Utes, Comanches or Apaches defending their territory.

The land became part of Mexico following the Mexican War of Independence in 1821.The Mexican government tried to secure the northern border by making large landgrants to some of its citizens in return for promises to settle the area and hold itagainst both US citizens and Native Americans.

The Conejos grant covered the area that is now Conejos and Rio Grande counties, aswell as parts of Saguache and Alamosa Counties. The Sangre de Cristo grantroughly approximated what is now Costilla County. The largest land grant, the Vigiland St. Vrain, extended from the Sangre de Cristo mountains east, and included

large portions of Huerfano, Las Animas, Pueblo and Otero counties. Smaller landgrants included parts of Archuleta, Saguache, Pueblo and Las Animas counties.

A map created by the Colorado State Archives shows the location of these grants.


18/88

DRAFT


Figure 4, Mexican Land Grants in Colorado

Key:

Conejos Grant Sangre de Cristo Grant

Luis Baca Grant Tierra Amarilla Grant

Maxwell Grant Vigil and St. Vrain Grant

Nolan Grant

This map coincides closely with concentration of Hispanic population in Southern

Colorado today.These granted lands, however, were not successfully settled until after the UnitedStates acquired them by war with Mexico in 1848. Under the Treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo that ended the war, the U.S. agreed to recognize the property rights ofMexican settlers, and subsequently built forts to protect the area from the NativeAmericans and Hispanic settlers began to come north creating homes, ranches,farms and new towns like San Luis, which dates to 1852, predating the founding ofDenver and the creation of Colorado as a Territory. Some southern Colorado townssuch as San Luis and Antonito retain much of their rich, Spanish history.

Non-Hispanic settlers converged on these areas after the arrival of the rail roads,and the earlier residents had to struggle to retain their ownership of the land.Contrary to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, much of the land was stripped away

from the Hispanic settlers because U.S. courts refused to honor the terms of the landgrants.

This history of Hispanic settlement accounts for the high percentage of people withHispanic ancestry in southern Colorado, especially in Rio Grande, Alamosa, Conejos,Costilla, Huerfano and Las Animas counties. Two particular points of census data(from the 2000 Decennial Census) support this contention.


19/88

DRAFT


1. The great majority of Hispanics in these counties, especially Conejos andCostilla, are native born:

Table 1, Native-Born Hispanics in the San Luis ValleyAlamosa County 91.6%

Conejos 95.8%

Costilla 91.5%

Rio Grande 87.6%

Saguache 72.2%

2. Hispanic people in these counties most often self-identify as Spanish,Spaniard, Spanish-American or other rather than identifying with anotherSpanish-speaking country.

For example, in Conejos County 23.5% of those who claimed Hispanic identityin the 2000 Census said they were specifically of Mexican origin while 76.2%identified as Other Hispanic. Similarly, in Costilla County, 29% said theywere Mexican in origin, while 70.2% said they were Other Hispanic.

These two counties contrast strongly with Colorados overall Hispanicpopulation, where 61.3% of Hispanics claim Mexican ancestry, while only34.1% say they are Other Hispanic.

In sum, the Hispanic concentration in this area does not fit the expected pattern ofsegregation due to the majority population forcing members of a minority to live in asegregated area. In fact, the concentration of Hispanics persists in spite ofdiscriminatory behavior on the part of the non-Hispanic population.

This part of the state has consistently experienced a high rate of poverty relative tothe rest of Colorado. Many steps have been taken to promote economicdevelopment and reduce poverty in the San Luis Valley. Most recently, Monte Vista,in Rio Grande County, was selected by former Governor Ritter as a Sustainable MainStreets Initiative pilot community. As one of four pilot communities in the state forthis initiative, Monte Vista focused on downtown revitalization and restoring historicproperties for re-use, and making the downtown more pedestrian-friendly.

The city received funding to develop a market analysis and leakage study. Theypartnered with a nonprofit group to hire a firm to complete a community analysis(i.e., branding). They are working with CDOT to develop and implement a wayfindingsignage plan. Colorado State University students developed preliminary designdrawings in partnership with community members for two historic buildingrenovations downtown. A nonprofit professional association worked with keycommunity stakeholders to perform a pedestrian safety assessment in the downtownarea (free of charge). Also as part of the initiative, CDOT is working with the city todevelop a plan for highway and streetscape improvements in the downtown corearea. The cooperative agreement allows for traffic flow, safety and pedestrian safety,

and by working together, they have not only improved the resulting project but theyhave reduced total community costs through planning efficiencies.

These are examples of the types of resources brought to bear to help Monte Vistaaddress their priority outcomes, which included revitalizing the downtown, improvingpedestrian safety, and improving energy efficiency.

Finally, as part of the initiative, the Department of Local Affairs applied on behalf onthe pilot communities to the HUD Challenge and DOT TIGER II grant programs. The


20/88

DRAFT


project was awarded joint funding. Monte Vista will receive $94,376 in HUDChallenge funds, and $47,000 in state funds, to develop construction-ready designdrawings for the renovation of an historic building downtown. The city's plan is tocreate affordable housing units upstairs above a retail use on the ground floor. Thisstrategy helps the city address its goals to provide affordable housing, make thedowntown more pedestrian friendly, preserve historic character, and continue to

develop and redevelop sustainably.Between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010, the CDOH provided nearly $7.8million in assistance to counties in the valley, including funds for single-familyrehabilitation, down payment assistance, rental housing, Housing Choice vouchers,assistance for the homeless, and CHDO operating funds to build non-profit capacityin the area.

Only one loan program, a single-family owner-occupied rehabilitation programoperated by the San Luis Valley Housing Coalition and funded through the City ofAlamosa, reported that 53% of its loans were made to Hispanic borrowers, a numberreasonably consistent with the Hispanic population of the area participating in theprogram (Alamosa, Costilla, Conejos, Saguache counties and the town of MonteVista). This program continues to provide rehabilitation loans, with new grants

awarded in 2009 and 2010, but no beneficiary information is available at this time.

All counties in the San Luis Valley are included in the Colorado Office of EconomicDevelopment and International Trades Enhanced Rural Enterprise Zone Program,which provides tax credits to businesses to promote and encourage new job creationin designated economically lagging rural Enterprise Zone counties.

Agricultural Immigrants

Other areas of the state have higher proportions of Hispanics in their populationsbecause they are farming areas where agricultural work has long been performed bythis group.

This is particularly true of Weld and Larimer Counties in the northern part of the

state. In the early part of the 20th century, recruiters went to New Mexico andMexico to recruit agricultural workers. According to one source, 45,000 Hispanicworkers came to Colorado as a result. Most went to work in the sugar beet fields ofWeld and Larimer counties migrating south to north and back each year. In the1920s, employers, especially the Great Western Sugar Company, began buildingcolonies where Mexican and Spanish-American workers could live year round1. Thecompany reasoned that it would save costs in the long run by helping to reducetraining costs and retaining the best workers. The colonies were built on the outskirtsof towns in Weld County, resulting in the segregation of the farm workers from thecommunity at large.

While agricultural immigration dropped off during the 1930s, recruitment beganagain for braceros during the 1940s because of the labor shortage created by

World War II.

Many of the agricultural workers who were recruited and housed put down roots innorthern Colorado, and segregation into specific areas is the result of the originalsettlements created for them.

1 Welds Untold Story,http://www.greeleytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010404/WORLDSAPART/112310252&template=printart, accessed 2/15/2011


21/88

DRAFT


Recent Immigration

The concentration of Hispanics in Eagle and Lake counties in 2000 is more recent inorigin. These are areas of relatively affordable housing for people who work in thevery high-cost resort areas of Vail/Beaver Creek, Aspen, and throughout SummitCounty. While employment by ethnicity data is hard to come by on a county orcensus tract level, it is most likely that these are Hispanic immigrants working in jobsin construction, and resort services such as accommodations, food service, andretail. The location of their housing is related to housing costs and the overallshortage of worker housing in the area.

The full extent of Hispanic immigration, both legal and illegal, is difficult to determinebecause gathering information is complicated by illegal families fear of deportation.According to the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute 2004 study entitled The State ofWorking Immigrants in Colorado:

The majority of the immigrant workers surveyed came to Coloradofrom Mexico to find work as day laborers, and made an average ofabout $15,000 a year, including tips. Most of the workers reported

paying state and federal taxes, yet indicated they did not receivegovernment benefits. For the most part, the workers did not haveindividual or family health care insurance coverage. They paid anaverage of $571 a month in housing costs, and an average of $149 amonth in utility costs. Additionally, well over half of the workersindicated that they send money to their families in their country oforigin, monthly or occasionally.

Latino immigrant families are often large, close-knit, multi-generational households.Size and relatedness of household members are issues in some Coloradojurisdictions. To stem the flow of arrivals, some communities are redefining theconcept of family by limiting the number of people who are allowed to live under oneroof via building codes that limit the number of occupants according to square

footage or by the number of bedrooms. Other communities already have suchpolicies on the books, but do not rigidly enforce those laws. Nonprofit serviceproviders express concern that Spanish-speaking legal and illegal immigrants may betargeted by predatory lenders. A 2006 study published by the Colorado Civil RightsCommission validated that concern.

In its Discrimination in Metropolitan Markets Phase I study HUD found that in theDenver MSA, Hispanics were subjected to adverse treatment 15.1% of the time, andpotential Hispanic homebuyers 19.2% of the time. While no individual measure ofadverse treatment was statistically significant the rental market, prospectiveHispanic homebuyers were less likely to inspect similar homes to the ones that wereadvertised. HUD also studied the Pueblo MSA with regard to discrimination againstHispanics in the real estate market. They found a 28.4% occurrence of adverse

treatment against renters and a 6.6% occurrence against prospective Hispanichomebuyers.

MIGRANT AND SEASONAL WORKERSAccording to the Colorado Department of Labor, Colorado is federally designated as asignificant Migrant and Seasonal Farm Worker (MSFW) state, and the MSFWpopulation is predominantly Spanish speaking. Migrant workers in Colorado oftenwork in rural areas in both agricultural and in service sectors. Migrant farm workers


22/88

DRAFT


fall into two categories: those who come for a growing season (beginning in May)and move on at about the end of October, and those who come to work inagriculture but remain in the state.It is estimated that 30,000 workers travel to

Colorado to participate in agricultural work but do not stay in the state2.

There are six Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers (MSFW) workforce centers in

Colorado: Brighton, Greeley, Lamar, Monte Vista, Delta and Rocky Ford.3

Thesecenters provide employment services to migrant and seasonal farm workers. MSFWoutreach provides a full range of services such as applications, counseling, testing,job training and placement, and referral to supportive services.

Asians and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders According to Discrimination in Metropolitan Markets Phase II, Asians and PacificIslanders face significant levels of discrimination when they search for housing inlarge metropolitan areas nationwide. The study did not, however, perform testing inColorado for Asian Americans.

The map below shows the Asian/Pacific Islander population distribution in Coloradoat the time of the 2000 Census.

Figure 5, Concentrations of Asian Population

2Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Colorado 2005; p. 5 Colorado Department of Public Health andEnvironment3Colorado Department of Labor and Employment 2007


23/88

DRAFT


American Indian/Alaska NativeNative Americans comprise 1% of Colorados total population. There are twofederally recognized tribes in Colorado: the Southern Ute Tribe that inhabits parts ofArchuleta and La Plata Counties, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe located inMontezuma County, portions of northern New Mexico and southeastern Utah.

Figure 6, Concentrations of Native American Population

Southern Ute Tribal membership (population) was 1,365 at the time of the 2000

Census, with about 75% of the Tribal members residing on the reservation4. Theenrollment for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe was 1,968 with the majority of themembers living on the reservation in Towaoc, and a smaller community in WhiteMesa, Utah.Many other Native American tribes are represented in Colorado includingthe Crow,Cheyenne, Arapahoe, Sioux, Ute, Kiowa, Comanche, Apache, Caddo, Navajo, Hopi,Nez Pierce, Shoshoni, Shebits, Kaibab, and Paiute. Census 2000 special tabulationsshow a total of 79,689 persons of American Indian and Alaska Native ancestry residein Colorado. According to A Guide to Colorado Legal Resources for NativeAmericans, more than 21,300 make their homes in the six county, (Adams,Arapahoe, Denver, Jefferson, Boulder and Douglas) metropolitan area. A historicmigratory crossroads for numerous American Indian tribes and a former 1950sBureau of Indian Affairs Voluntary Relocation Center, Denver is often referred to asthe Hub of Indian Country. Unfortunately, the Native American population is one ofthe poorest, if not the poorest, in the state.

According to HUDs 2003 Study, Discrimination In Metropolitan Housing MarketsPhase III Native Americans: findings clearly indicate that discrimination is a

4U.S. Census Bureau, 2005


24/88

DRAFT


serious problem for American Indians searching for housing in metropolitan rentalmarkets, and (sic) rigorous paired testing can and should be expanded for bothresearch and enforcement purposes.

Although homeownership is touted as one of the most important means of buildingpersonal wealth in America, Native American homeownership lags far behind otherracial and ethnic groups. Only 40.7 % of Native Americans living on reservation or

trust land are homeowners, according to a 2002 study by Rutgers University.Language/Cultural Barriers

According to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 7.3 percent of Coloradoresidents speak English less than very well. These people could be considered tohave Limited English Proficiency (LEP). LEP persons are more formally defined asthose who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limitedability to read, write, speak or understand English. Most of the LEP population,255,443 ( 5,219) are Spanish-speaking. Non-entitlement counties where morethan five percent of the population have limited English proficiency are shown in thetable below.

Table 2, Counties In Non-Entitlement Areas With 5% or More Low-English ProficiencySpanish Speakers

County Percent of PopulationEagle 17.2%

Saguache 15.2%Garfield 12.6%

Phillips 12.4%

Prowers 12.0%

Lake 11.3%

Costilla 11.0%

Morgan 10.4%Yuma 10.1%

Kit Carson 10.0%

Alamosa 9.0%

Summit 9.0%

Weld 8.1%

Rio Grande 7.5%

Pitkin 7.0%

Montrose 6.1%

Conejos 5.6%

San Miguel 5.4%

Huerfano 5.1%

Rio Blanco 5.0%

In contrast, 25,693 ( 1,452) people with limited English proficiency speak someother Indo-European language, and 37,417 ( 1,554) speak an Asian or PacificIslander language.


25/88

DRAFT


Improving Access To Services For Persons With Limited EnglishProficiency (LEP)Language for Limited English Proficiency Persons (LEP) can be a barrier to accessingimportant benefits or services, understanding and exercising important rights,complying with applicable responsibilities, or understanding other information

provided about HUD-funded programs. In certain circumstances, failure to ensurethat LEP persons can effectively participate in or benefit from federally assistedprograms and activities may violate the prohibition under Title VI againstdiscrimination on the basis of national origin. This section of the Analysis ofImpediments incorporates the Notice of Guidance to Federal Assistance RecipientsRegarding Title VI Prohibition Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, publishedDecember 19, 2003 in the Federal Register.

The Division of Housing and the Division of Supportive Housing and HomelessPrograms (the Agencies) will take affirmative steps to communicate with people whoneed services or information in a language other than English.

In order to determine the level of access needed by LEP persons, the Agencies willbalance the following four factors:

(1) the number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to beencountered by HUD-funded programs;

(2) the frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with the programs; (3)the nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by theprogram to peoples lives; and

(4) the resources available to the Departments and costs. Balancing these fourfactors will ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to critical services while notimposing undue burdens on the Departments.

Oral Interpretation

In situations in which health, safety, or access to important benefits and services areat stake, the Departments will generally offer, or ensure that LEP persons are offeredthrough other sources, competent interpretation services free of charge.

The Agencies will analyze the various kinds of contacts they have with thepublic to assess language needs and decide what reasonable steps should betaken. Reasonable steps may not be reasonable where the costs imposedsubstantially exceed the benefits.

Where feasible, the Agencies will train and hire bilingual staff to be availableto act as interpreters and translators, will pool resources with other agencies,and will standardize documents. Where feasible and possible, the Agencieswill encourage the use of qualified community volunteers.

Where LEP persons desire, they will be permitted to use, at their ownexpense, an interpreter of their own choosing, in place of or as a supplementto the free language services offered by the Agencies. The interpreter may bea family member or friend.

Written Translation

Translation is the replacement of written text in one language with equivalentwritten text in another language.


26/88

DRAFT


In order to comply with written-translation obligations, the Agencies will take thefollowing steps:

Provide written translations of vital documents for each eligible LEP languagegroup that constitutes 5 percent or 1,000 persons, whichever is less, of thepopulation of persons eligible to be served or likely to be affected orencountered. Translation of other documents, if needed, can be provided

orally; or

If there are fewer than 50 persons in a language group that reaches the 5percent trigger, the Agencies do not translate vital written materials, butprovide written notice in the that groups primary language of the right toreceive competent oral interpretation of those written materials, free of cost.

Implementation Plan

After completing the four-factor analysis and deciding what language assistanceservices are appropriate, the Agencies shall determine whether it is necessary todevelop a written implementation plan to address the identified needs of the LEPpopulations it serves.

If the Agencies determine that it is not necessary to develop a writtenimplementation plan, the absence of a written plan does not obviate theunderlying obligation to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to federallyfunded programs and services.

If it is determined that the Agencies serve very few LEP persons, and theAgencies have very limited resources, they will not develop a written LEPplan, but will consider alternative ways to articulate a plan for providingmeaningful access. Entities having significant contact with LEP persons, suchas schools, grassroots and faith-based organizations, community groups, andgroups working with new immigrants will be contacted for input into theprocess.

If the agencies determine it is appropriate to develop a written LEP plan, thefollowing five steps will be taken: (1) Identifying LEP individuals who needlanguage assistance; (2) identifying language assistance measures; (3)training staff; (4) providing notice to LEP persons; and (5) monitoring andupdating the LEP plan.

Persons With Disabilities

The map below shows the distribution of persons with disabilities in Colorado, withdarker areas highlighting larger concentrations of disabled populations. Parts of ElPaso, Las Animas, Conejos, Montrose and Garfield Counties have the highestconcentration of population with disability by Census block.


27/88

DRAFT


Figure 7, Concentrations of Persons with Disabilities

The 2009 American Community Survey estimates that 638,654 people in Coloradohave a disability, or about 12.7 percent of the population age 5 and over. As manyas 84,545 people, or 1.9 percent of the population age 5 and over, have difficultyperforming self-care activities.

Table 3, Persons with Disabilities by Disability TypeSUBJECT Population #

Personswith a

Disability

Population

% with adisability

STATEPOPULATION

5,024,748 638,654 12.7%

Sensory 240,925 4.79%

Mobility 232,907 4.64%

Cognitive 167,266 3.33%

Self-Care 84,545 1.68%

Leaving theHome

152,065 3.03%

Work

Disability

257,504 5.12%

SOURCE: 2009 American Community Survey


28/88

DRAFT


Table 4, Distribution of Disabled Persons by Age Group in the 2000 CensusAGE GROUP % OF COLORADANS DISABLED

5 TO 17 Years Old 4%

18 to 64 Years Old 8%

65 Years Old and Older 35%

According to American Community Survey in 2009 there were 46,9761 persons inColorado receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and 6,600 on Aid to theNeedy Disabled (AND)2. An analysis of housing data completed in November, 2010by the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Supportive Housing andHomeless Programs estimates that 44,197 of these SSI and AND recipients arealready housed in affordable units. This analysis finds there are still 9,379 personswith disabilities who need affordable housing.

Another study, Priced Out in 2008, Housing Crisis for People with Disabilities foundthat the percentage of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) needed to rent a one-bedroom housing unit in Colorado in 2008 was 102%3.

Many of the homeless population are also disabled: the August 2006 StatewideHomeless Count found that approximately one in five homeless survey respondentsreported mental illness (21.2%) and medical conditions (19.5%). Due to thestigmatizing nature of these questions, it is likely that disabling conditions wereunder-reported. Single persons (71%) and households without children (77%) weremost likely to have at least one of five disabling conditions.

Persons Living With HIV/AIDSAcquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is caused by the HumanImmunodeficiency Virus (HIV) which attacks the immune systems ability to fightinfections. According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,there were 4,816 persons with living with AIDS and 6,208 living with HIV in Coloradoas of September 30, 2010.

Persons with HIV/AIDS are living longer, healthier lives due to research andtreatment advances. The Colorado AIDS Project and its affiliated agencies across thestate provide a range of housing and supportive services to persons living withHIV/AIDS. Affordable housing is a crucial element in helping clients and their familiesachieve meaningful, productive lives. However the number of housing vouchers doesnot meet the needs of the population. In addition, medical and supportive services

are not readily available outside of the Denver metro area and either the client or theagency often must travel a considerable distance for services to be delivered.Lingering fear of HIV/AIDS contagion limits the rental housing available to thispopulation, and requires maintaining the utmost level of confidentiality.

1 The United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 20092 State of Colorado Joint Budget Committee Briefing, November, 20103 Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc; Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Housing Task Force


29/88

DRAFT


Serious Mental IllnessBased on the 2000 Census, the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division ofMental Health estimates that as many as 168,878 adults and children in Coloradomay have a serious emotional disability (SED) or serious mental illness (SMI)4

In 2001, the TriWEST Group performed a study for the Colorado Department ofHuman Services (CDHS) along with an analysis of mental health systems. Theyconcluded that 571 additional Section 8 slots were needed 41 HUD SupportiveHousing slots were needed, 49 Single Room Occupancy Modified Rehab slots, 23homeownership slots and 133 other housing slots were needed. This represents atotal of 817 beds5.

Disabled Senior CitizensAs Colorados baby boom population ages (those born between the years 1946-1964), the need for age-appropriate housing and services that allow aging in placewill increase dramatically. Areas with the highest projected increase in the population

in the over-65 age group include areas of the I-70 corridor and central mountains, aswell as Douglas, Elbert La Plata, San Juan and San Miguel Counties. Lincoln andProwers counties will experience a slight decrease in the population age 65 years andolder during the period.

Larger numbers of frail elderly will require new strategies to ensure that seniors areable to age in place. A 2007 study conducted for the Colorado Division of Housing byCommunity Strategies Institute estimated that 5,111 senior households are rentburdened.

Rehabilitation of units is an important strategy to help meet the housing needs ofseniors. While there are many owner-occupied housing rehab programs, there arefew housing rehab programs for senior or disabled clients who rent units in needimprovements that allow aging in place.

According to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, there are threetypes of assisted living residences in Colorado: private pay, alternative care facilities(assisted living residences that are Medicaid certified) and residential treatmentfacilities for persons with severe and persistent mental illness. There are about 518assisted living residences in Colorado (11/04). Any assisted living residence caringfor 3 or more residents must be licensed. The 2004-2007 State Plan on Agingforecasts a significant growth of Assisted Living Facilities, but a very limited numberof Assisted Living that will accept Medicaid payments.

The 2007-2011 State Plan on Aging forecasts That the number of seniors 85 yearsand older will increase from over 56,000 in 2008 to almost 63,000 in 2011. Thispopulation often has fewer resources and more needs for supportive housing.

4 n. d. Population in Need of Mental Health Services and Public Agencies Service Use in Coloradoretrieved on August 29, 2007 from www.cdhs.state.co.us/dmh/de_pin_estimates_of_need.htm5An Assessment of Community Mental Health Resources)


30/88

DRAFT


Developmentally Disabled IndividualsAccording to Dr. David Braddock, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Coleman Institutefor Cognitive Disabilities at the University of Colorado, in testimony to the ColoradoSenate House Interim Committee on Developmental Disabilities (DD) on July 18,

2007, An estimated 9,000 families in Colorado aged 60+ care for family memberswith DD and over 3,000 persons with ID/DD are on [housing] waiting lists.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report to Congressentitled "Public Housing - Distressed Conditions in Developments for the Elderly andPersons with Disabilities and Strategies Used for Improvement." (GAO-06-163,12/05) in which they found 64 out of 76 housing projects included in their nationalstudy had fewer than five percent of the units that met the accessibility standards forpersons with mobility disabilities.

David Bolin, Executive Director of Center for People with Disabilities (CPWD), reportsthat there are a significant number of persons with developmental disabilities thatwant to leave nursing homes who are unable to do so without supportive funding forhousing and services.

Religious Groups

The U.S. Census does not collect information on religious affiliation in the decennialcensus, making authoritative information difficult to find. However, the Associationof Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (ASARB) collected data on 149 religiousgroups, mostly Christian, with estimates of the number of non-Christian adherentsand makes information for the year 2000 available online at www.theARDA.com.According to their posted data, there were 753, 398 members of protestant Christiandenomination in Colorado 752, 505 Catholic Christians, and 6,196 OrthodoxChristians. They estimate that 2,604,002 people were not affiliated with anyreligion. Their estimated Jewish population for Colorado was 72,000 and the

estimated number of Muslims was 14,855. Seventy-two Buddhist congregations and7 Hindu congregations are reported, but there is no estimate of the number of theiradherents.

Although very few Fair Housing complaints have been filed on the basis of religion,the Division of Housing is concerned that this will be a growing problem, especiallywith Muslim populations, in the near future.

The number of Muslims in Colorado is being studied, but at this time only estimatesexist.

The following maps from ASARB show the relative density of religious groups bycounty in Colorado in 2000. Note that the same color does not represent the samelevel of adherence across all maps.

Protestant Christians were most heavily represented in the counties on the easternborder of the state, while Catholics were most prevalent in the south-central portion.Muslims are concentrated in the most metropolitan/urban areas. Although there areclearly areas of concentration of Jewish people, a specific pattern is not apparent.


31/88

DRAFT


Christian Denominations

Protestant Christians Evangelical Denominations

Key Number of Adherents per 1000 population147 to 309 44 to 74

115 to 146 0 to 42

83 to 114

Protestant Christians - Mainline Denominations

Key Number of Adherents per 1000:89 to 223 36-55

70 to 86 5-36

56 to 69


32/88

DRAFT


Catholic Population Rates of Adherence, 2000

Key Number of Adherents per 1000250 to 853 76 to 112

163 to 242 0 to 60

115 to 161

Figure 8, Rates of Catholic Adherence, 2000Non-Christian ReligionsJewish Population Rates of Adherence, 2000Figure 9, Estimated Rate of Jewish Adherents per 1000 population

Key Values:13 to 692 to 120 to 0


33/88

DRAFT


More recent information on the Jewish population is available in the 2007 MetroDenver/Boulder Jewish Community Studyconducted by Ukeles Associaties, Inc.According to that study, the Jewish population of the Denver/Boulder area hadincreased 33% since the previous study in 1997, totaling 83,900 in the seven-countystudy area, and making it the 16th largest Jewish community in the US.

Muslim Population Rates of Adherence, 2000Figure 10, Estimated Rate of Muslim Adherents by County as of

Key Number per 1000

1 to 14

0 to 0

Information on the number of Muslims in Colorados population consists entirely ofestimates. The total number is estimated to be 14,000 to 15,000.

Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States, 2000. Collected by the Association ofStatisticians of American Religious Bodies (ASARB) and distributed by the Association of Religion Data

Archives (www.theARDA.com).


34/88

DRAFT


Colorado HouseholdsColorados overall number of households was 1,869,276 according to the 2005-20095-year American Community Survey estimate, an increase of 12.7% percent since2000. Female-headed households increased by 13.9 percent, male-headedhouseholds increased by 22.9 percent and non-family households increased 16.1percent for the same time period (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community

Survey [ACS] 3-Year Estimates, Colorado Selected Social Characteristics).

Table 5, Household Characteristics, State of Colorado 2000 and 2008Number ofHouseholds

Household Type 2000 2009 Difference %ChangeFamily Households

Married couple families 858,671 946,419 87,748 10.2%

Female-headed

households 158,979 178,503 19,524 12.3%Male-headed households 66,811 78,663 11,852 17.7%

Subtotal 1,084,461 1,203,585 119,124 11.0%Non-family Households 573,777 665,691 91,914 16.0%

Subtotal 573,777 665,691 91,914 16.0%Total 1,658,238 1,869,276 211,038 12.7%

Source: 2008 American Community Survey, Colorado Selected Social Characteristics

Household Characteristics by RaceTable 6, Household Type by Race or Ethnicity, 2007-2009 American CommunitySurvey

Number or Percentage of HouseholdsHousehold Type

Non-Hispanic

White Hispanic Black AIAN Asian

Family Households 1,461,305 276,970 69,403 17,473 42,688

As % of All Households 62.6% 73.9% 59.9% 64.4% 67.0%

Married couple families 51.6% 49.0% 31.9% 37.2% 54.3%

With children under 18 20.8% 29.4% 15.2% 18.9% 30.9%

Female-headedhouseholds 7.6% 16.6% 22.1% 19.7% 8.7%

With children under 18 4.4% 11.8% 15.5% 14.6% 5.3%Non-family Households 37.4% 26.1% 40.1% 35.6% 33.0%

Note: No data were available for Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander group.


35/88

DRAFT


Other Household Facts from 2005-2009 American Community Survey: Of the 156,089 single-parent households in Colorado, 72.9 percent were

female-headed Grandparents were responsible for grandchildren in 35,392 households 623,912 households contained one or more people under 18 years

347,649 households held one or more people 65 years or older; 137,529people over 65 lived alone.

Female-Headed HouseholdsAccording to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, there were 127,912female-headed families with children under 18. The median income for thesefamilies is $32,807, just 41% of the median income for two-parent families($80,201.) This income puts female-headed families at a disadvantage in findingaffordable housing, since 30% of their monthly median income is $820, whitle theaverage statewide rent in as of the 3rd quarter of 2010 was $871.785.

Female-headed households with children make up a significantly greater proportionof Black, Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native households than White orAsian households. Family income for female-headed households in these groups isbelow $30,000 per year. In this income range, Colorado has only half the number ofaffordable housing units that are needed.

Table 7, Female-Headed Households by Race and EthnicityRace/Ethnicity PercentofFamiliesMedian Family Income

Black 15.5% $27,258

AIAN 14.6% $23,942

Asian 5.3% $39,619

Hispanic 11.8% $21,782White, non-Hispanic 4.4% $40,4532005-2009 American Community Survey, Female-Headed Households with own children under 18

New Household Formation

By 2015, Colorados population aged 25 to 34 years old will increase by more than14 percent over 2010, pushing housing demand higher through the formation of newhouseholds (DOLA, 2008). 2009 estimates show 699,987 persons in this age group,most of whom will choose a life partner and establish a new residence. This trend willlikely spur a need for starter homes and apartments.

5Colorado Multi-Family Housing Vacancy and Rental Survey, Third Quarter 2010, conducted by GordonE. von Stroh, published by Colorado Division of Housing/Apartment Realty Advisors/Pierce-Eislen


36/88

DRAFT


Income Data

Median Income

The 2005-2009 American Community Survey estimates Colorado Median household

income as $56,222. Median income, however, varies greatly by race as well as bygeographic area within the state.

Racial And Ethnic Differences In Median IncomeTable 8, 2005-2009 Colorado Median Incomes by Race and EthnicityRace or Ethnicity Median HouseholdIncome Median Family IncomeAll Races/Ethnicities $56,222 $69,591

Alaska Native/American Indian $40,675 $48,685

Asian $60,996 $70,708

Black/African American $33,354 $46,440

Native Hawaiian or PacificIslander $52,675 $58,102

Hispanic or Latino $38,166 $40,575

White, not Hispanic $61,771 $78,296Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey

As this table shows, African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and NativeHawaiians have median incomes lower than both the overall median and that ofAsians and non-Hispanic Whites. Compared to non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics havea median household income only 61.8% as high. Black households fare even worseat 54%. This economic inequality manifests itself in lack of equal housingopportunity at all levels, from the ability to purchase a single family home to a higherchance of homelessness.

Gender Differences In Median IncomeAccording to the American Community Survey 2005-2009, the median income forwomen aged 16 and over who have wages is 68.8% of the median income for men.

Table 9, 2005-2009 Colorado Median Income by GenderSubject Total Marginof Error Male Marginof Error Female MarginofErrorPopulation 16 yearsand over withearnings

2,831,386 5,793 1,538,680 3,545 1,292,706 4,036

Median Earnings

(Dollars)

30,544 144 36,250 243 24,953 195

2005-2009 American Community Survey, Income for Population 16 Years and Over with Earnings, byGender

Even taking educational attainment into consideration, women consistently havelower median income than men. In fact, the wage gap gets wider with moreeducation beyond the high school level.


37/88

DRAFT


Table 10, Gender Differences in Median Earnings by Educational LevelSubject Total MarginofErrorMale MarginofError

Female Marginof ErrorPopulation 25 years andover with earnings

36,201 165 42,703 268 29,782 216

Less than high schoolgraduate 20,276 308 23,158 448 14,621 431

High school graduate(includes equivalency)

28,928 316 33,923 467 23,259 422

Some college orassociate's degree

34,169 242 41,303 342 27,724 331

Bachelor's degree 46,261 407 57,789 850 37,146 395

Graduate or professionaldegree

59,707 743 75,912 1,071 47,487 660

2005-2009 American Community Survey, Income for Population 25 Years and Over with Earnings, byGender

Income Distribution

By Race and EthnicityA review of the American Community Survey data for household income by race andethnicity indicates a higher percentage of Black and Hispanic households at incomesbelow $35,000, while higher percentages of non-Hispanic White households haveincomes greater than $75,000 per year. This disparity results in a lack of housingopportunity for these two groups because of the inadequate number of homesaffordable for households at the lower income ranges.

Household Income Distribution by Race/Ethnicity

0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%

10.0%12.0%

14.0%16.0%

Lessth

an$10

,000

$10,00

0-$1

4,99

9

$15,00

0-$1

9,99

9

$20,00

0-$2

4,99

9

$25,00

0-$2

9,99

9

$30,00

0-$3

4,99

9

$35,00

0-$3

9,99

9

$40,00

0-$4

4,99

9

$45,00

0-$4

9,99

9

$50,00

0-$5

9,99

9

$60,00

0-$7

4,99

9

$75,00

0-$9

9,99

9

$10

0,00

0-$1

24,999

$12

5,00

0-$1

49,999

$15

0,00

0-$1

99,999

$200

,000

orm

ore

Black Households

White Households

Hispanic HouseholdsFigure 11

The source for the chart in Figure 1 is 2005-2009 American Community Survey, Tables B19001B,B19001H, B19001I. The total number of households by race or ethnic group in this set of estimates is68,737 Black; 271,975 Hispanic; and 1,450,784 non-Hispanic White. There were not enough householdsin other racial categories to display meaningful information.


38/88

DRAFT


Income Distribution By GenderTable 11, Percentage of Workers at Each Income Level By GenderIncome Range Male Margin

of ErrorFemale Margin

of Error

Full-time, year-roundworkers with earnings 991,069 4,710 654,595 3,833

$1 to $9,999 or loss 1.90% 0.1 2.70% 0.1

$10,000 to $14,999 4.10% 0.2 5.40% 0.2

$15,000 to $24,999 11.30% 0.3 16.00% 0.4

$25,000 to $34,999 14.70% 0.3 20.90% 0.3

$35,000 to $49,999 20.40% 0.2 23.70% 0.4

$50,000 to $64,999 15.10% 0.2 13.90% 0.2

$65,000 to $74,999 7.10% 0.2 5.60% 0.2

$75,000 to $99,999 11.10% 0.2 6.40% 0.2

Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Up to $50,000 in income, the percentage of women at each income range is greaterthan the percentage of men; at and above $50,000 the situation is reversed and asmaller percentage of women than men have earnings at that level. A graph of thistable helps to visualize it.

Percentage of Men and Women at Each Income Range

4.10%

11.30%

14.70%

20.40%

11.10%

16.00%

20.90%

23.70%

13.90%

5.60% 6.40%7.10%

15.10%

1.90%

5.40%2.70%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

$1to

$9,99

9orlo

ss

$10,00

0to$14

,999

$15,00

0to$24

,999

$25,00

0to$34

,999

$35,00

0to$49

,999

$50,00

0to$64

,999

$65,00

0to$74

,999

$75,00

0to$99

,999

Men

Women

The result of this income distribution is that more women than men are limited intheir housing choices because of the lack of housing affordable to people with lowerincomes 45% of women earn less than the $40,000 level at which the ratio ofaffordable rental units to households is less than 1:1. The greater number of womenthan men in the lower income ranges also accounts for the fact that female single-parent families are far more likely to live below the poverty line than families headedby males.


39/88

DRAFT


Employment Data

Shown below are unemployment rates from 1996-2010 from the ColoradoDepartment of Labor and Employment. Unemployment rates surged after 9/11 thenshowed a steady recovery until the Great Recession of 2008.

Table 12 Labor Force StatisticsLabor Force Statistics for Colorado Annual Averages 1996-2010

Year Labor Force Employment UnemploymentUnemploymentRate

1996 2,093,184 2,004,741 88,443 4.20

1997 2,150,160 2,080,012 70,148 3.30

1998 2,241,839 2,155,740 86,099 3.85

1999 2,264,105 2,198,147 65,958 2.90

2000 2,364,900 2,300,192 64,798 2.70

2001 2,395,264 2,303,494 91,770 3.80

2002 2,431,203 2,293,229 137,974 5.702003 2,463,161 2,311,998 151,163 6.10

2004 2,510,392 2,370,803 139,589 5.60

2005 2,547,895 2,419,241 128,654 5.00

2006 2,653,333 2,537,289 116,044 4.40

2007 2,695,834 2,591,404 104,430 3.90

2008 2,727,616 2,595,252 132,364 4.90

2009 2,701,026 2,492,540 208,486 7.70

Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment

Persons who are unemployed may receive services, apply for unemployment benefitsand/or conduct a job search at local workforce center (see map).

Map 8


40/88

DRAFT


Colorados November 2010 overall unemployment rate was 8.6%. However, as thetable below demonstrates, unemployment rates vary by race

Colorado - Draft Analysis of Impediments To Fair Housing, 2011

Documents

Transcript of Colorado - Draft Analysis of Impediments To Fair Housing, 2011