FHLBank Pittsburgh Housing Needs Assessment 2020-2025 for Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia
November 2020
Pittsburgh
Acknowledgements FHLBank Pittsburgh thanks the many organizations and individuals who informed this report through survey responses, interviews and data. Thank you to: •
FHLBank’s Affordable Housing Advisory Council, Board of Directors, management team, member financial institutions and numerous stakeholders, and
•
Focus group participants who provided input on the housing needs in their respective areas/ fields including:
Larry Swanson
ACTION Housing
Maria Bynum
HUD Wilmington Field Office
Rose Gray
Asociacion Puertorriquenos en Marcha
Karen Speakman
NCALL
Walter Toliver
Nueva Esperanza
Kevin Easterling
Black Heritage Association
Kathy Possinger
PA DCED
Carrie Havas
Brentwood Bank
Julie Fitzpatrick
PA Downtown Center
Rob Nicolella
Catholic Charities
Beth Mcconnell
PACDC
Will Gonzalez
Ceiba
Holly Glauser
PHFA
David Holloman
City of Philadelphia
Spencer Singer
PNC Bank
Mike Carper
Community First Fund
Stephanie Seldin
Rebuilding Together
Julio Guridy
Councilman - City of Allentown
Dina Schlossberg
Regional Housing Legal Services
Joe Schupp
Customers Bank
Joe Yarzebinski
Rural LISC (retired)
Rachel Stucker
DE Housing Alliance
Heather Dieckmann
SSB Bank
Leigh Howard
Diana T. Meyers and Associates
Angela Steele
Stone Sherick
Brandy Nauman
Sussex County
Susan Eliason
DSHA
Ira Goldstein
The Reinvestment Fund
Dave Buches
Eastern Panhandle HFH
Alisa Baratta
Third Street Alliance
Robert W. Harper
Farm Labor Housing
James Rovito
First Citizens Bank
Jessica Gilmore
Veterans Place of Washington Boulevard, Inc.
Michelle Connor
Full Quiver Consulting
Brooke Gawlas
Washington Financial Bank
Rob Hironimus
Fulton Bank
Lisa Werner
WesBanco
Maria Gonzalez
HACE
Lauren Frederick
Senghor Manns
Harrisburg Housing Authority
West Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness
Sarah Lester
Westend Cornerstone
Kevin Smith
HFH Newcastle
Dave Clark
Woodlands Dev Group
Kevin Gilmore
HFH Sussex
Ron Dutton
WSFS Bank
Mike Toledo
Hispanic Center
Tonya Mitchell
Housing Authority of the Co. of Warren
We are proud and grateful to produce this needs assessment which will help shape housing policy and ultimately improve the lives of people in the communities that we serve.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 3
Table of Contents Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................ 3 Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 23 Methodology and Data Sources........................................................................................................... 24 Review of State and Jurisdiction Priorities......................................................................................... 25 Understanding “Affordable” Housing................................................................................................. 31 Housing Challenges............................................................................................................................... 38 Key Findings:................................................................................................................................. 39 Population Changes and Demand........................................................................................................ 49 Stakeholder Engagement...................................................................................................................... 52 Surveys........................................................................................................................................... 52 Focus Groups................................................................................................................................. 54 Equitable Housing................................................................................................................................. 57 Housing Challenges...................................................................................................................... 57 Access to Homeownership........................................................................................................... 61 Addressing the Homeownership Gap – Lending Institutions.................................................... 63 Areas of Opportunity..................................................................................................................... 64 Gentrification................................................................................................................................. 67 Affordable Rental Housing.................................................................................................................... 68 Deeper Affordability...................................................................................................................... 69 Rural Rental Housing.................................................................................................................... 70 Rental Housing for Persons with Disabilities.............................................................................. 74 Workforce Rental Housing............................................................................................................ 76 Difficult to Develop Projects......................................................................................................... 77 Preservation of Affordable Housing............................................................................................ 78
PAGE 4
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table of Contents Homelessness and Those at Risk......................................................................................................... 80 Homelessness................................................................................................................................ 80 At Risk of Homelessness............................................................................................................... 86 Rehabilitation and Preservation........................................................................................................... 91 Unlivable Conditions..................................................................................................................... 92 Flood Risk....................................................................................................................................... 93 Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing................................................................................ 94 Housing for Older Adults...................................................................................................................... 98 Seniors with Housing Instability.................................................................................................. 99 Aging in Place............................................................................................................................... 101 COVID-19 and its Impact on Housing.................................................................................................. 104 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 110 Appendix 1 – Focus Group and Survey Participants......................................................................... 112 Appendix 2: Literature Review, Homeless and Supportive Services............................................... 120
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 5
Executive Summary This study comes at a time of great change and uncertainty in America. In March 2020, the coronavirus spread globally, shuttering schools, businesses and the social and economic support networks many rely on. In the three months following, the country experienced its greatest spike in unemployment on record, from less than 4% in March to more than 11% by June. There were 3.2 million new jobless claims filed from April to June in Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia and one in eight workers are now unemployed.1 Amidst this crisis, widespread protests for police accountability began in May after a video showed George Floyd die while in the custody of Minneapolis police. From May to July, an estimated 15 to 26 million Americans gathered in 550 cities and towns throughout the country for demonstrations that called for an end to systemic racism primarily within policing and the criminal justice system2, but also connected areas including education, healthcare and housing. The information provided in this report, the Housing Needs Assessment for Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, is intended to help FHLBank make informed decisions about affordable housing priorities and guide investment within their district (consisting of Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, herein referred to as “the District”). The information presented here comes during a socioeconomic inflection point as we consider the way we invest in our communities. While the data presented in this study will inform FHLBank leadership of housing challenges,
including key statistics around racial and economic disparity, the persistent housing needs for low-income persons with disabilities and those unable to work, and the growing housing needs for seniors and the working poor, it cannot foresee how FHLBank and its partners will address these needs, knowing that we are entering a new environment, hopefully one of reform and innovation.
Data Sources The information provided in this report is based on data from the U.S. American Community Survey, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Esri and Zillow and a review of local and state housing reports and plans. Additionally, the study incorporates qualitative data derived from an online survey of 289 affordable housing stakeholders and five focus group sessions. In the focus groups, industry leaders described current challenges around urban and suburban affordable housing, rural affordable housing, equity and quality of life issues, homelessness and vulnerable populations, and the banking community. While many low-, moderate- and middleincome families may have housing needs, this study exclusively focuses on households who earn less than 80% of area median income (AMI), which are the targeted households for FHLBank’s Affordable Housing Program. Within the report, households who earn less than 80% of AMI are further categorized by income using HUD definitions, as follows:
1 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2 Larry Buchanan, Quoctrung Bui and Jugal K. Patel, “Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History,” New York Times, July 3, 2020, retrieved July 18, 2020 at www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html
PAGE 6
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Term
Definition
Extremely Low Income
Households earning less than or equal to 30% of AMI
Very Low Income
Households earning more than 30% and less than or equal to 50% of AMI
Low Income
Households earning less than or equal to 80% of AMI
Note: Affordable housing programs may use Low Income and Low and Moderate Income interchangeably for programs targeted to households earning less than 80% of AMI. This income category is defined as Low Income for this report.
Key Findings Low-income households are more likely to experience housing challenges. This includes paying a substantial percentage of their income on housing, leaving little remaining for food, healthcare, transportation and the ability to save, which increases housing insecurity. It also includes living in overcrowded conditions, which is common for large families earning less than 50% of AMI and migrant labor, and living in housing not fit for habitation, which at its extreme can include homes without heat, basic plumbing or a usable kitchen. In the FHLBank District, there are an estimated 1.46 million low-income households experiencing housing challenges, including 677,650 homeowners and 782,197 renters. These figures are based on the most recently available HUD data on housing challenges (published in 2019) and do not represent current needs due to the 2020 economic downturn.
The nonprofit development community cited four key challenges in affordable rental housing development. Developing smaller projects is financially difficult without additional funding, since pre-development costs remain the same regardless of project size, and the lower number of units does not generate sufficient revenue to support debt. It is difficult to compete with larger for-profit developers for 9% LIHTCs due to pre-development costs incurred to complete an application. Building the rental housing most needed – deeply subsidized affordable units, rehabilitation of blighted buildings, single family rental and permanent supportive housing – is complicated. Nonprofit developers need technical assistance/consulting expertise to layer financing and form the partnerships necessary to complete and manage these types of projects. Building affordable rental housing in rural areas is difficult because the rents generated are lower than urban and suburban areas, but development costs are still high. The lack of political support from many local governments in rural communities also creates additional barriers.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
For a complete list of nonprofit organizations and other stakeholders who provided feedback for this study through focus groups and an online survey, see Appendix 1.
PAGE 7
Rental Housing Renters earning less than 50% of AMI have the greatest housing needs among low-income renters and owners. In all counties within the District, there is no place where a household earning less than 50% of AMI can afford rent for a moderately priced one bedroom apartment.3 More than 85% of very low-income renters are “cost burdened,” defined as paying more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, thereby limiting available funds for other necessary costs like food, health care and transportation. And when there are unexpected costs like a medical bill or car payment, very low-income renters may not be able to pay rent, running the risk of evictions. Very low-income renters – those on fixed incomes or earning near minimum wage – are vulnerable to homelessness. Despite this, most new subsidized affordable rental units are not affordable to very low-income households. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program remains the dominant funding source for new apartments, yet most low-income renters earn less than 50% of AMI and cannot afford a tax credit unit.4 This includes working families with low-wage jobs and households on fixed incomes who are unable to work (including many seniors and persons with disabilities). Their needs can be addressed by providing lower rents, increasing the supply of accessible units through new construction and modification of the existing housing stock, and homeless prevention measures for those at risk due to affordability challenges. A fast food worker in Philadelphia would need to earn an additional $21,000 a year to afford an average-priced one-bedroom apartment.5
Rental housing needs also include housing for the homeless and vulnerable populations at risk of homelessness. This can be addressed by providing more permanent supportive rental housing options in partnership with service providers. Individuals who are most vulnerable to homelessness include extremely low-income individuals with cognitive or physical disabilities, those with a history of substance abuse, domestic violence survivors, the formerly incarcerated and unaccompanied youth. In high-priced markets, there is a risk of losing affordable housing stock due to increased housing demand from higher income households. This can be due to gentrification (evidenced in many Philadelphia and Pittsburgh neighborhoods and the coastal communities of Delaware) and the transition of subsidized affordable rental housing shifting into the open market once their affordability contracts expire. An estimated 15,870 affordable rental units are at risk of rent increases due to expiring affordability requirements within the FHLBank District.6 Survey respondents and focus group participants cited the preservation of existing affordable housing as a particular need.
Homeowners Existing low-income homeowners also experience affordability challenges, particularly the working poor and seniors on fixed incomes. The challenges, however, have substantial variations by region. Homeownership is out of reach for most low-income families in highpriced areas, notably the Philadelphia suburbs and southern Delaware, but is increasingly affordable as one moves west, with the lowest priced housing markets in Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
3 HUD Income Limits 2020 for an individual and HUD Fair Market Rent for a One-Bedroom Unit, 2020. 4 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program sets income limits at or below 60 percent of AMI. The vast majority of units funded with LIHTC as the only subsidy are affordable to households earning between 45 percent and 60 percent of AMI. 5 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupation and Wages Data by Metropolitan Area, May 2019, compared with HUD Fair Market Rent, 2020. 6 HUD LIHTC Database and HUD Multi-Family Housing and Section 8 Contracts Database, effective May 12, 2020.
PAGE 8
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
While this presents more homeownership opportunities, it also indicates a declining population and a greater likelihood of blighted homes. Indeed, an estimated 4,000 occupied homes lack plumbing, kitchens or heat, with concentrations in West Virginia and rural areas along Pennsylvania’s southern border.7
Disparity Measures by Race and Ethnicity Homeownership rates among Black and Latino households are disproportionately lower than white households regardless of income. While mortgage denial rates are disproportionately higher in certain areas8 (e.g. the Philadelphia suburbs), the discrepancy is less pronounced in comparison to ownership statistics. A white household earning between 30% and 50% of AMI is almost twice as likely to own than a Hispanic household with the same income and 62% more likely than a Black household with the same income.9 Black and Latino renters and owners are also more likely to experience a steeper cost burden due to housing costs. This is an outcome of lower wages, but also inequalities in housing access. According to equitable housing focus group participants, many minority communities are at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to financial literacy and understanding their legal rights as tenants. This can be exacerbated by racial bias where competition for affordable units is high, landlords may (consciously or subconsciously) prefer white applicants to minority applicants.
Community Lending The homeownership gap between white households and households of color is rooted in systemic racism, but can be mitigated through increasing access to credit, banking institutions and the knowledge for how families can build financial security using their earnings. In the community lending focus group discussion that took place on July 1, 2020, multiple member representatives discussed their challenges with increasing lending activities in low-income Black and Latino neighborhoods and their goal to revise their methods and policies to bridge the gap. The goal extends beyond homeownership and includes commercial lending to local disadvantaged businesses and landlords to spur overall investment. Focus group participants built consensus around their mission to engage with low-income minority communities in a more meaningful way. This can be done by building relationships and trust within the communities and by partnering with other lenders to develop policies that are more effective in increasing homeownership and business growth within Black and Hispanic communities.
Table 1: Low-Income Renters with Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity in the FHLBank District White
Black
Asian
Latino, All Races
38.5%
52.3%
35.1%
57.4%
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
7 5-Year American Community Survey 2018 8 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 2017 9 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data released 2018
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 9
Chart 1: Percentage of Low-Income Homeowners with Housing Challenges in the District, by Race and Ethnicity
16.1%
All Other, Two or More Races
22.4% 28.3%
Latino, All Races 18.9%
Asian African American
26.8%
White
14.9%
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
Chart 2: Homeownership Rates by Race/Ethnicity Among Very Low- and Low-Income Households in the District
0.8 0.7 0.6
68.8% 60% 45.4%
0.5 37%
0.4
41.4% 31%
0.3 0.2 0.1 0
White, Non Hispanic
African American, Non Hispanic
Homeownership Rate, 30%-50% AMI
Hispanic, All Races
Homeownership Rate, 50%-80% AMI
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
PAGE 10
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
COVID-19 and Housing Insecurity According to survey responses, the greatest pending housing threat due to the COVID-19 pandemic is an increased risk of evictions. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which provides financial assistance to newly unemployed people, expired at the end of July 2020. As of early August, Congress is still debating the next response. While some states have enacted varying moratoria on evictions during the crisis, these protections have already expired, or will expire.10 Without a solution, hundreds of thousands of renters are at risk of eviction. The households most at risk are the working poor with limited savings. According to HUD data, there are 512,000 extremely low-income renters within the District, and 21% (109,585 households) are concentrated within the city of Philadelphia. In the homeownership market, government-backed mortgages are in foreclosure forbearance for one year, allowing homeowners to delay mortgage payments until July 2021. Likely, the unemployment rate will still be high next summer, delaying what may be a surge in foreclosures.
The impact of the pandemic has a disproportionately negative impact on Black and Latino communities, particularly among the non-senior population. In the 45-54 age group, Black people are 10 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than their white counterparts. For Latinos, the risk is eight times higher. The increased risks are rooted in economic and health inequalities. Minority communities have less access to health care and higher rates of medical preconditions such as asthma and diabetes, yet they are more likely to be working outside the home.11 This creates a greater share of low-wage earners disproportionately deemed “essential workers” within the retail, food service, manufacturing and agricultural industries. From a housing perspective, when lowwage workers become ill, there are limited safety net programs in place to protect them from economic hardship due to lost wages and increased health care expenses. This may lead to increased rates of evictions and homelessness.
10 Under the CARES Act responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, all states provide 13 additional weeks of federally funded Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Assistance (PEUC) benefits to people who exhaust their regular state benefits, followed by additional weeks of federally funded EB in states with high unemployment (up to 13 or 20 weeks depending on state laws). Under the Act, through the end of this year, some people who exhaust all these benefits, and many others who have lost their jobs for reasons arising from the pandemic but who are not normally eligible for UI in their state, are eligible for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA). Without new legislation, however, no PEUC or PUA benefits will be paid after December 31, 2020. 11 Landrigan PJ, Rauh VA, Galvez MP. Environmental justice and the health of children. Mt Sinai J Med. 2010;77(2):178-187. doi:10.1002/msj.20173
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 11
Map 1: Count of Low-Income Homeowners with Housing Challenges in the District
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
PAGE 12
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Map 2: Percentage of Homeowners who are Low Income with Housing Challenges in the District
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 13
Map 3: Count of Low-Income Renters with Housing Challenges by County
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
PAGE 14
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Map 4: Percentage of Renters who are Low Income with Housing Challenges by County
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 15
Maps 5-7: Examples of High Risk COVID-19 Areas in the FHLBank District: Philadelphia area, West Virginia south of Sussex County, Delaware. Maps convey low-income communities with a concentration of residents who work in the Retail, Health Care, Food Services and Manufacturing Industries using data from American Community Survey five-year 2018 data and Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics 2018 data.
Source: Atria Planning
PAGE 16
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Source: Atria Planning
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 17
Household Growth Over the next five years, the District is forecasted to add approximately 50,000 new renters and 30,000 new homeowners, but growth will not occur in all areas.12 The eastern portion of the District – Delaware, Philadelphia, southcentral Pennsylvania, and northeastern West Virginia near the Maryland border – will be growing, with Delaware leading in growth rate (adding 17,000 households) and
Philadelphia leading in numbers (adding 40,000 households). Recent data suggest Philadelphia will experience a more dramatic population increase due to COVID-19, as more New Yorkers who are now working remotely are leaving the city for less expensive housing markets.13 West Virginia and western Pennsylvania are forecasted to continue population decline, with rural households continuing to move to urban areas.
Table 2: Indicators for Homes in Need of Rehabilitation, Demolition or Reconfiguration State
% Homes <50K
% Homes Built before 1940
% Homes built 1950 to 1980 (high lead risk)
% Homes 1 to 3 Rooms
% Homes 5 BR +
% Homes Vacant
Delaware
8.1%
14.8%
60.0%
12.4%
6.5%
16.5%
Pennsylvania
15.3%
49.2%
49.4%
16.9%
6.3%
16.3%
West Virginia
28.5%
27.8%
46.1%
11.9%
4.6%
23.6%
Source: American Community Survey 2013-2018
Home Repair and Rehabilitation
Photo: Rural home in West Virginia
The survey, state housing plans and focus groups all emphasized the need for home repair and rehabilitation due to aging housing stock and the inability of many low-income families to afford repairs. West Virginia prioritizes lead abatement programs and post-flooding disaster recovery, while Delaware prioritizes rehabilitation of existing homes over new construction. In Pennsylvania, rehabilitation of existing homes, coupled with home counseling and neighborhood investment, has proven successful in revitalizing neighborhoods, to the point where housing prices in certain neighborhoods have increased enough to price out longstanding residents.
12 ESRI Business Analyst 2020 13 Tim Ellis, “Post Pandemic Migration: Expensive Cities Likely As 1 in 4 Newly Remote Employees Expect Work-From-Home to Continue,” May 15, 2020, Redfin online, retrieved July 8, 2020 at https://www.redfin.com/blog/wfh-leaving-new-york-san-francisco/
PAGE 18
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
In areas with declining populations, or where the housing stock’s size and structure no longer meets the demands of modern households, local plans may warrant alternative solutions such as demolition, landbanking and conversion of existing buildings into commercial uses.
housing as a viable affordable housing option, and recommend replacing aged, manufactured homes with traditional built homes, or at a minimum, manufactured housing on owned land with the homes placed on permanent foundations.
There are more than 400,000 mobile homes and manufactured home within the District, comprising 5.6% of all housing stock.14 In rural areas, however, this percentage can reach as high as 35%. Manufactured housing, in general, is an acceptable solution to address rural housing needs, and are built to HUD safety and quality standards. Mobile homes, however, defined as those built before 1976, do not meet HUD’s safety codes, and are known to have leaky roofs, toxic chemical exposure, and poor insulation.
In the District, seniors are less likely to be low income than non-seniors, and therefore experience fewer housing challenges overall.16 Among very low-income seniors (who are disproportionately Black and Latino), however, the percentage who experience cost burden and severe cost burden are greater.17 This is a result of having a fixed income while housing and health care costs increase. According to a study by the Urban Institute, social security comprises 72% of low-income seniors’ earnings.18 The groups with the highest financial instability are low-income homeowners with a mortgage, very lowincome renters and extremely low-income owners without a mortgage.19
Even with manufactured homes built after 1976, normal wear and tear requires ongoing maintenance, and manufactured homes that are placed on rented land depreciate over time like a car or boat, making it unsustainable to invest in major repairs. Therefore, many housing providers opt to replace aged mobile homes rather than make repairs. Most mobile and manufactured homeowners, however, do not own the land, limiting funding options. For example, Fannie Mae and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) require land ownership and permanent foundations to qualify for their home loan programs.15 A mobile home owner renting a pad within a mobile home park could not access these tools. Because of the depreciation and difficulty in longterm maintenance, many affordable housing advocates argue against manufactured
Seniors
According to the survey, state housing plans and focus group outcomes, senior housing needs include: •
affordable rental housing;
•
assistance with home repairs to address deterioration;
•
repairing flood-damaged homes in rural riverine communities;
•
retrofitting existing homes to accommodate for future mobility challenges to stall requiring full-time care in a nursing facility; and
14 5-Year American Community Survey 2018 15 For more information on loans for manufactured housing, see: https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/originating-underwriting/ mortgage-products/manufactured-housing-financing and https://rd.usda.gov/files/RD-SFH-ManufacturedHousingNotes.pdf . 16 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data released 2018. 17 Ibid. 18 Richard W. Johnson, “Housing Costs and Financial Challenges for Low Income Older Adults,” Research Report, Urban Institute, July 2015. 19 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data released 2018.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 19
•
transportation services to socialize with family and friends, make doctor’s appointments and in the current economy, access their place of employment.
Homeless Housing and Prevention There are an estimated 200,000 homeless individuals within the District.20 One in five are children, 40% are women and 46% are
Black (despite comprising only 10% of the population).21 According to subject-matter experts participating in the focus group panel and homeless service providers, solutions for addressing homelessness should emphasize Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), with transitional housing used in a very strategic manner as a stepping stone towards a permanent housing solution. This can be accomplished through new construction, but communities can also utilize vacant housing stock by building relationships with landlords and service providers. Additionally, departments and service providers should work together and share information to create a strategic pathway to housing stability for homeless individuals and families. Agencies and nonprofits who assist with workforce training, transportation services, counseling and senior support may need to be involved to make the transition sustainable. Providing a housing unit alone is not enough.
As one participant noted, the best way to address homelessness is to avoid it happening in the first place.
Homeless prevention services for at-risk households, including the working poor, those struggling with addictions and the formerly incarcerated, were noted as growing segments of the homeless population due to evictions, the opioid crisis and prisoner re-entry, respectively. In 2016, there were 98,000 individuals within the prison system in Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.22 Although there are no estimates on what percentage will be released over the next five years, we see from past studies that formerly incarcerated individuals are 10 times more likely to be homeless than the general population.23
20 Homeless estimates based on the U.S. Department of Education’s 2017-2018 figures of homeless children extrapolated to the general population using the ratio of homeless children to homeless adults in HUD’s 2020 Point in Time survey results. 21 HUD Point in Time Surveys, 2017 - 2019 22 Prison Policy Initiative, www.prisonpolicy.org 23 Lucius Couloute, “Nowhere to Go: Homelessness among formerly incarcerated people,” Prison Policy Initiative, retrieved August 4, 2020 at https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html.
PAGE 20
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Chart 3: Homeless Rates Among Formerly Incarcerated
All
Sex
Al
W
Race or ethnicity
Age
Prior history
Time since release
300 200 100 General Public
21 lf
or
M
om
an
m
er
ly
in
ca
rc
er
en
Bl
ac
k
Hi
W h an ite ic
sp
45
or
35
25 24 4+ 34 and
In
ca
-4
ov
er
un
de
r
In
rc
ca
er
Le
at
rc
ed
ss
er
m
at
or
ed
e
at
ed
on
th
ly
an
2
to
th
an
4 3 2
or
ye ye
ar
ar
on
m
s
s
or
e
ye
ar
s
on
ce
ce
Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html#methodology
Renters who earn less than 30% of AMI experience financial instability and are at a high risk of homelessness. Unforeseen expenses, like car repairs or a medical bill, can mean not making rent that month. Additionally, extremely low-income renters are more vulnerable to evictions and to living in uninhabitable conditions, since the supply of low-cost rental units is low, and many may fear filing complaints without alternative housing options available. Evictions are directly correlated to homelessness, and are a pervasive issue in Delaware, with a filing rate of 16.2%, three times higher than West Virginia or Pennsylvania.24 Another at-risk group of homeless individuals
are youth aging out of foster care. Under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Chafee Foster Care Program provides financial assistance to foster youth between 18 to 21, if they meet specific requirements including attending school or working at least 80 hours a month.25 In 2018, there were 6,150 foster youth in the District receiving independent living assistance.26 This assistance, funded through the Chafee Act, provides housing, education, mentoring and other services to foster youth as they transition into adulthood. However, once the foster child turns 18 years old, this assistance is contingent on attending school or working full-time and maintaining a clean record with law enforcement.
24 Evictions in the District from 2000 to 2016, www.evictionlab.org, retrieved April 16, 2020 25 For more information on the Chafee Program, see: “Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs,” Congressional Research Service, May 29, 2019, retrieved July 22, 2020. 26 Ibid.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 21
Due to higher rates of childhood trauma and behavioral disorders among foster youth, these mandates are challenging to maintain.27 Losing this support network due to an arrest, losing a job or poor academic performance increases the risk of homelessness. And for foster children in Delaware, where foster parents no longer receive support once the child turns 18 years old, high school students may find themselves needing to be selfsufficient.28
Next Steps The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment for Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia is to inform FHLBank of the most pressing affordable housing issues that low-income families and individuals experience in the District. The information provided here is based on quantitative data (numbers and percentages) using the most recent publicly available data effective April 2020, along with purchased data from Esri, survey results, feedback from subject-matter experts and information available in housing-related reports, journals and articles. As a next step, FHLBank will determine how to prioritize its funds, relying on best practices, existing partnerships and innovative tools that are emerging to address the current economic crisis.
27 Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, https://www.aecf.org/work/child-welfare/jim-casey-youth-opportunities-initiative/ and “Older Youth Housing, Financial Literacy and Other Supports,” National Council of State Legislators, April 23, 2020, https://www.ncsl. org/research/human-services/supports-older-youth.aspx 28 See State of Delaware’s Department of Services for Children, Youth and their Families, at: https://kids.delaware.gov/fs/ independent-living.shtml
PAGE 22
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Introduction FHLBank contracted with Atria Planning in March 2020 to conduct a housing needs assessment for Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The purpose of this study is to inform FHLBank’s future policies and programs implemented under their Affordable Housing Program (AHP). FHLBank allocates 10% of its net income each year to fund AHP projects that increase the supply and quality of affordable housing. Funds are targeted to assist individuals and families earning less than 80% of AMI and includes grants for rental housing development, homeownership opportunities, housing solutions for homeless and those at risk and rebuilding disasterimpacted areas. These funds are available to nonprofit and forprofit organizations and are awarded through a competitive process, where proposals are scored using the program’s prescribed scoring criteria. The scoring criteria is established every year to reflect FHLBank’s affordable housing priorities, incentivizing applicants to create and implement projects that best address FHLBank’s prioritized affordable housing needs.
The COVID-19 pandemic – officially recognized globally in March 2020 – swiftly shuttered businesses, schools, stores and services across the country, leading to what has been one of the most dramatic economic downturns in our nation’s history. In the second quarter of 2020, job losses exceeded any period during the Great Recession while GDP declined 9.5%, the greatest quarterly decline on record.29 These are daunting figures translate to suffering throughout our communities. Fear grows over an uneven and uncertain recovery, without clear solutions for how families and businesses will recover. Simultaneously, protests and riots over racial inequality in the justice system, fomented by the Black Lives Matter movement, surge in cities across America. All the while, most residents practice physical distancing to curtail the spread of the virus, isolating in their homes and severing the social networks that many rely on for emotional support, while those that must work outside the home face life-threatening health risks every day. This reality will greatly impact future housing needs, but to what extent is yet unknown.
This 2020 study was written at a unique moment in American history.
29 Rakesh Kochhar, “Unemployment rose higher in three months of COVID-19 than it did in two years of the Great Recession,” Pew Research Center, June 11, 2020, retrieved July 5, 2020 at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/11/unemployment-rosehigher-in-three-months-of-covid-19-than-it-did-in-two-years-of-the-great-recession/.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 23
Methodology and Data Sources This study describes housing challenges and needs using information from a variety of sources. This includes “hard” data – large databases of national data analyzed for Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – and qualitative data found in existing studies and reports. It also includes community input from an online survey administered in May 2020 and five focus group meetings held between June 29 and July 1, 2020. The primary data used for this report comes from the American Community Survey (ACS) 2018 five-year estimates which captures demographic, housing and economic indicators for all areas of the U.S. The study assessed this data for Census Tracts (units of geography totaling 2,500 to 8,000 people); counties, regions and states. The regions were defined using a combination of state agency boundaries and metropolitan statistical area (MSA) boundaries used by the U.S. census. The analysis examines HUD data, primarily the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) datasets from 2018 (which uses ACS five-year 2012-2016 data) that identifies housing challenges by tenure, income, race/ethnicity and household type. Additional datasets used for this report come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the
PAGE 24
Brookings Institute, ESRI Business Analyst and Zillow. This study also incorporates housing needs as described by state and regional housing plans, reports on homelessness and feedback from FHLBank’s stakeholders through surveys and focus group discussions around five subject areas, including: urban and suburban housing needs; rural housing challenges; housing equity by race and ethnicity; the housing and support needs for the homeless; and the challenges with financing affordable rental housing and homeownership. Finally, the study incorporates recent data tracking on the impact of COVID-19 on lowincome families and the housing market. This study emphasizes housing needs of existing low-income households (those who experience cost burden, live in overcrowded or unhealthy living conditions, or are homeless) along with the challenges that limit the ability to address those needs. The study also includes household growth forecasts by region using data from 2019, and highlights areas that may require significant new housing construction to meet demand. The study, however, excludes a formal housing demand model, because 2019 forecasts for housing construction, employment and household are no longer valid in the current COVID-19 landscape.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Review of State and Jurisdiction Priorities States and HUD-entitled jurisdictions (“entitlement communities”) receive federal funds on an annual basis to fund affordable housing and community redevelopment programs. These funds include HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and National Housing Trust funds, which can be used for homeowner repair programs, affordable home
construction and purchases, affordable rental housing, housing for the homeless and neighborhood investments. States and entitlement communities must submit a plan (“Consolidated Plan”) to HUD describing how they intend to use these funds. This study includes a review of the Consolidated Plans for the three states and the cities of Charleston, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, highlighting key investments and/or priority areas below.“
Table 3: Delaware Consolidated Plan, 2015-2019 Delaware
Delaware Consolidated Plan, 2015-2019
Increasing Affordable Homeownership
In 2015, Delaware created $tand By Me, a financial coaching program that promotes financial literacy and general financial readiness. In 2020, Delaware is spending $350 million in state funds, and $600 million through 2024, on homebuyer assistance measures such as down payment and settlement assistance, and a first-time homebuyer tax credit and mortgage assistance.
Rehabilitation of Existing Homes
The state prioritizes rehabilitation over new construction for affordable homeownership, allocating 60%-90% of its CDBG funds and more than a quarter of its HOME funds toward the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing homes.
Converting Public Housing Units
The Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA) owns and manages 408 units of public housing at nine sites; however, cutbacks in funding are a major challenge for long-term maintenance. To address shortfalls, DSHA plans to convert all public housing units into voucher-assisted units using the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD Program) over the next five years.
Homelessness
Along with the National Housing Trust Fund allocation for addressing homelessness, the state has earmarked 15% of its discretionary affordable housing funds toward homeless prevention and assistance.
Increasing Permanent Supportive Housing
In 2013, Delaware was awarded a Section 811 PRA Demo grant to create project-based rental assistance for people with disabilities in integrated settings with supportive services. Since then the program has expanded to over 150 units in its stock. DSHA also requires a 5% set-aside for permanent supportive housing within its Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program.
Living in Place
Delaware provides both CDBG and HOME funds to modify existing homes to make them accessible to persons with disabilities, including seniors who wish to age in place.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 25
Table 4: Pennsylvania Consolidated Plan 2019-2023 Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Consolidated Plan 2019-2023
Increasing Affordable Homeownership
The Commonwealth recognizes the greatest homeownership needs are within the northeastern counties near the New Jersey-New York border, where homeownership is no longer affordable to average-earning families.
Affordable Rental Housing
Rents have increased substantially in much of the state over the past decade, pricing working renters out of many markets. There is a need for more affordable rental housing overall, but particularly within the 35 counties that experienced the greatest rent increases.
Rehabilitation
The state is placing high priority on rehabilitation of single- and multi-unit residences to increase affordable housing. Due to the age of the housing stock in rural areas, non-entitlement areas have more need for homeowner rehabilitation.
Coronavirus
Pennsylvania passed a special amendment to its 2020 Consolidated Plan which creates more flexibility to meet pandemic challenges by removing a funding cap on emergency shelters and a minimum allocation requirement toward rapid rehousing.
Fair Housing
Pennsylvania’s 2018 Fair Housing Plan emphasized a need to increase public awareness on the Fair Housing Act, including regulations, process for filing complaints, landlord and tenant education, and general information.
Homelessness
While homelessness has reportedly decreased nationally, it has increased in Pennsylvania, attributed to multiple factors, notably the increase in housing prices. The Department of Human Services is prioritizing increasing the supply of deeply affordable housing units through partnerships with landlords and local government to mitigate the risk of homelessness.
$373 million
PAGE 26
Pennsylvania receives $373 million in federal funding every five years for affordable housing through HUD, which can be used to support non-entitlement communities, typically rural areas in the state. The Consolidated Plan prioritizes funds through application processes (competitive and non-competitive) and is available to all eligible activities under the respective funding sources.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 5: West Virginia Consolidated Plan 2020-2024onsolidated Plan 2019-2023 West Virginia
West Virginia Consolidated Plan 2020-2024
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
West Virginia has placed the highest priority on upgrading its basic infrastructure, specifically around health and safety measures, allocating 78.5% of its regular CDBG allocation ($44.8 million). This includes healthy drinking water and upgraded sewer systems, so that all residents have access to safe and reliable water and sewage. In addition, the state prioritizes stormwater management to mitigate flood events. Because the state’s topography is so mountainous, there is substantial development along riverbanks where land is flatter and hence more easily developable. These riverine communities are facing increasing flood risk and require planning funds to develop local solutions for improving flood resiliency.
Blight
West Virginia’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan estimates 20,902 buildings need demolition, along with more than 300 vacant and underutilized school buildings; 10,000 acres of Brownfield property also need of remediation. The State identified rehabilitation of blighted properties as a high priority for its communities, allocation 10% of its overall HUD allocation ($6 million).
Disaster Recovery
In 2016, West Virginia experienced widespread flooding which damaged a significant number of homes and revealed further public infrastructure needs. The state received $149.9 million in CDBG-DR funds to aid in rebuilding. Its Action Plan for using these funds prioritizes the repair of owner-occupied homes ($82.3 million); $5.9 million for multi-family housing; $6.5 million for rental assistance; $7.3 million for homelessness; and $12.5 million for economic development.
Rehabilitation/ Lead Paint Abatement
Due to the age of the housing stock, the state has made it a priority to rehabilitate older homes. This includes a more robust campaign to abate lead-based paint, which is prevalent in much of the housing stock.
Broadband
Despite its best efforts, West Virginia continues to struggle to make broadband internet accessible to rural communities. Broadband projects are listed as a high priority for CDBG funding, however, the high cost associated with expanding broadband in rural areas of West Virginia means the state will require additional funding to implement it beyond scattered pilot projects.
Public Spaces
The state is allocating $2 million in CDBG funding to support community efforts to develop and improve public parks and recreational facilities to combat obesity by increasing exercise amenities. CDBG funding for parks also qualifies for matching funds under a partnership with the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 27
Photo: West Virginia
Table 6: West Virginia Consolidated Plan 2020-2024a Consolidated Plan 2019-2023 Charleston, WV
Charleston Consolidated Plan 2015-2019
Affordable Homeownership
Due to the age of Charleston’s housing stock, many rehabilitation projects require costly remediation of lead-based paint and/or asbestos. The city listed housing rehabilitation for owner-occupied units as its top priority.
Affordable Rental Housing
There is a lack of affordable smaller units for individuals living alone, a group which made up 42.7% of Charleston households in 2013. A lack of living wage jobs and more stringent lending practices have led to an increase in rental housing demand, particularly for apartments and other small units.
Public Housing
Charleston’s public housing authority has some of the oldest public housing units in the nation and many require renovation or rehabilitation, as well as maintenance to the grounds, to maintain livability.
Homelessness
The city prioritized wraparound services, emergency shelters and homeless prevention as key needs for addressing homelessness.
Blight/ Rehabilitation
A vast majority (83.2%) of the city’s housing stock is more than 35 years old, and require substantial investment for lead abatement, structural repairs and installing cost-saving upgrades to utility systems.
Annually, Charleston spends approximately $750,000 on affordable housing, $250,000 on public infrastructure, $90,000 on homelessness and $190,000 on neighborhood revitalization.
PAGE 28
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 7: Philadelphia Consolidated Plan 2017-2022a Consolidated Plan 2019-2023 Philadelphia
Philadelphia Consolidated Plan 2017-2022
Affordable Homeownership
Philadelphia is prioritizing homeowner renovations and education by making funds available for home rehabilitation and to counseling services to prevent foreclosures. It has allocated $80 million in CDBG funds annually for home rehabilitation and counseling services.
Affordable Rental Housing
The city recognizes the urgent need for more deeply affordable rental housing because of soaring rents over the past decade, with more than 13,000 households on the wait list for a Housing Choice Voucher.
Opioid Epidemic
Due to the opioid epidemic, housing and treatment opportunities for persons with substance abuse disorders are a growing concern in Philadelphia.
Addressing the Racial Divide
There are a disproportionate number of Black and Latino residents who live in Racially and/or Ethnically-Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) areas. The vast majority (83%) of people experiencing homelessness in Philadelphia are African American and even more (86%) of people served in emergency shelters, transitional housing and safe-haven programs are African American.
Maintaining Public Housing
Philadelphia estimates the backlog of unmet and unfunded capital needs for its public housing communities at greater than $1 billion and growing, while the most recent Capital Fund grants from HUD was only $45 million.
Homelessness and the Racial Divide
Philadelphia has a large racial disparity among its homeless with African Americans accounting for greater than 80% of the homeless population.
Blight/ Rehabilitation
Philadelphia has 40,000 vacant properties which contribute to high crime and low market values. The city has expressed a need to clean and maintain vacant lots and to work with the Philadelphia Land Bank to restore properties to productivity.
$365 million
Philadelphia receives $365 million in CDBG funds, HOME and Housing Trust funds over a five-year period. The Consolidated Plan prioritizes funds through application processes and is available to all eligible activities under the respective funding sources.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 29
Table 9: Pittsburgh Consolidated Plan 2015-2019a Consolidated Plan 2019-2023 Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh Consolidated Plan 2015-2019
Affordable Homeownership
Three needs were highlighted in Pittsburgh’s plan. This includes, firstly, the need for lead-based paint and asbestos abatement since 60% of the homes were built before 1960 and likely contain one or both materials. Secondly, the city identified the need to increase homeownership for minority applicants. And thirdly, the city supports single-family construction including infill housing and rehabilitation of vacant structures.
Neighborhood Revitalization
The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has prioritized the revitalization of the downtown area and the city’s Choice Neighborhood around Larimer Avenue, including mixed-use, mixed-income catalytic development.
Continue to support neighborhood groups
The city’s CDCs and neighborhood organizations are very active throughout Pittsburgh’s neighborhoods and receive a significant portion of CDBG funding for operations and special projects. The city utilizes CDBG funds to support these organizations and their communities.
Disproportionate Impact
Africans Americans are identified as the one group in Pittsburgh disproportionately affected by housing problems and severe housing problems.
Permanent Supportive Housing
In its 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, Pittsburgh identified a lack of affordable housing for disabled individuals as its largest unmet housing need. The city also identified lack of permanent supportive housing for the homeless as another pressing need.
Fair Housing
Pittsburgh has made it a goal to educate all residents about their rights under the Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act and City-County Visibility Program.
$114 million
PAGE 30
Pittsburgh receives approximately $114 million every five years through HUD and Program Income Funds.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Understanding “Affordable” Housing Affordable housing” is a relative measure. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has established a standard on what is “affordable” housing for any household, regardless of income. Considering other necessary expenses like food, health care and transportation, HUD deems that households who pay more than 30% of their income on housing expenses do not have affordable housing and are considered “cost burdened.” For renters, this includes monthly rent and utility costs. For owners, this includes monthly mortgage payments plus taxes and insurance. In real terms, this means an individual earning $30,000 per year would need to spend less than $750 a month on rent to have “affordable” housing. It also means that if an individual earns $100,000 per year and rents an apartment for $3,000 a month, they will not have “affordable” housing ($100,000 divided by 12 months times 30% equals $2,500 per month).
So, who needs affordable housing? The short answer is – everyone. Affordable housing policy and programs tend to use income categories based on HUD definitions relating to area median income (AMI). This is the “middle point” of annual earnings for all families within a given area. To describe affordable housing needs, HUD categorizes households into varying income brackets based on AMI and household size. In most areas of the District, an individual earning $25,000 per year would fall within the 30% to 50% of AMI income bracket and may be described as Very Low Income, while a family of four earning $18,000 per year would fall within the Less than 30% of AMI income bracket, and is described as Extremely Low Income. All households who earn less than 80% of AMI are considered “low income” under HUD’s definition.
Chart 4: How much do you need to earn to afford housing?
How much do you need to earn annually to afford a one-bedroom apartment in … ?
$43,640
$29,120
$31,480
$37,343
Philadelphia
Charleston
Pittsburgh
Dover
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 31
Housing prices vary widely across the U.S. For this reason, some high earners cannot afford housing if they live in high-priced areas (like San Francisco, where the average rent for a one-bedroom unit is over $3,000 per month), whereas other areas are much more affordable. In San Francisco, for example, a household would need to earn at least $120,000 a year to afford an average-priced one-bedroom unit. Yet the median income is $96,000 a year, meaning more than half of all households in San Francisco cannot afford a moderately priced small apartment. Yet in other areas – Pittsburgh for example – the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $767, which is affordable to a household earning roughly 60% of AMI.30
average rents and median home sale prices as a proxy for general prices within a given area. By comparing incomes at the 30%, 50% and 80% of AMI for metro areas within the District with the typical rent for a one-bedroom apartment and the median sales price of a home, we see that renting becomes costprohibitive for those who earn less than 50% of AMI and becomes more affordable to all individuals earning 80% of AMI.31
These variations in pricing reflect housing demand and the cost of building. Housing shortages increase housing prices, and areas with land shortages have higher land costs. New York City, Seattle and San Francisco, for example, are all peninsula cities surrounded by water with little room to grow out, and the prices reflect that. Some areas have higher housing prices due to labor costs. Strong labor unions, wage requirements and competition with other construction activities (large infrastructure projects, for example) increase the overall cost of a new housing development.
An urban-suburban divide: In metropolitan areas like Philadelphia, Allentown and Morgantown, someone earning between 50% and 80% of AMI can afford homeownership in the city, but not in surrounding suburbs. For example, the average sale price in Chester County, Pennsylvania, in 2019 was $333,000.
For all these varying factors, every region’s housing prices are different. The threshold in which free market activity can no longer provide enough quality housing at an affordable price to meet the needs of its residents varies. There are no reliable data sources to measure this, since pricing alone does not convey the condition of the home (and often, low-priced housing is in poor condition). Despite data limitations, we use
There is a wide range of incomes for where homeownership becomes affordable depending on location. (For a list of average home prices by county and income needed to afford purchase, see Table 11.)
High-priced areas: In some smaller cities, someone earning 80% of AMI is priced out of the homeownership market. We see this in Dover, Delaware; State College and Williamsport, Pennsylvania; and Martinsburg, West Virginia. Low-priced areas: Several metro areas indicate that a median-priced home is affordable to someone earning 50% of AMI, likely indicating population decline, a low demand for housing, and higher risk of deteriorating housing stock. This is true in many West Virginia towns (Charleston, Parkersburg and Wheeling) and in the city of Pittsburgh and Wilmington.
30 HUD Fair Market Rent, 2020 31 HUD Income Limits 2020 for an individual, HUD Fair Market Rent for a One-Bedroom Unit, 2020, and Zillow Median Home Sales Price by Metropolitan Area, Q2 2020.
PAGE 32
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 10: Affordable Rents by Income Compared to Fair Market Rent in the District Metro Area
30% AMI
50% AMI
80% AMI
1-Bedroom
2-Bedroom
Dover, DE
$359
$599
$958
$943
$1,102
Philadelphia-CamdenWilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
$508
$846
$1,354
$1,091
$1,321
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA
$411
$685
$1,095
$861
$1,098
Altoona, PA
$341
$569
$909
$654
$817
Erie, PA
$376
$626
$1,001
$642
$828
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA
$446
$744
$1,190
$807
$1,012
Pittsburgh, PA
$436
$726
$1,163
$787
$964
Reading, PA
$414
$689
$1,101
$764
$985
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA
$376
$628
$1,004
$696
$851
State College, PA
$466
$776
$1,243
$908
$1,034
Williamsport, PA
$341
$569
$909
$701
$877
York-Hanover, PA
$433
$720
$1,151
$788
$1,038
Charleston, WV
$320
$533
$853
$728
$886
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH
$319
$518
$829
712
860
Martinsburg, WV
$391
$651
$1,041
$793
$1,007
Morgantown, WV
$389
$648
$1,035
$790
$930
Parkersburg-Vienna, WV
$333
$555
$888
$673
$798
Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH
$343
$570
$913
$579
$733
Wheeling, WV-OH
$363
$604
$965
$611
$790
Winchester, VA-WV
$418
$695
$1,111
$840
$1,101
Source: HUD Income Limits 2020 for a Single-Person Compared to Fair Market Rents for a One- and Two-Bedroom Unit in 2020
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 33
Table 11: Income Needed to Afford an Average-Priced Home by County in the District County
State
Metro Area
2019 average home price
Income Needed
Kent
DE
Dover
$207,562
$56,877
New Castle
DE
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
$233,823
$64,073
Sussex
DE
Salisbury
$277,760
$76,113
Carbon
PA
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
$137,068
$37,560
Lehigh
PA
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
$192,301
$52,695
Northampton
PA
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
$199,787
$54,747
Blair
PA
Altoona
$102,580
$28,110
Columbia
PA
Bloomsburg-Berwick
$142,176
$38,960
Montour
PA
Bloomsburg-Berwick
$166,009
$45,491
McKean
PA
Bradford
$62,678
$17,175
Franklin
PA
Chambersburg-Waynesboro
$163,041
$44,677
Clearfield
PA
DuBois
$90,505
$24,801
Monroe
PA
East Stroudsburg
$154,783
$42,415
Erie
PA
Erie
$116,837
$32,016
Adams
PA
Gettysburg
$195,014
$53,439
Cumberland
PA
Harrisburg-Carlisle
$191,852
$52,572
Dauphin
PA
Harrisburg-Carlisle
$153,913
$42,176
Perry
PA
Harrisburg-Carlisle
$170,572
$46,741
Huntingdon
PA
Huntingdon
$108,751
$29,800
Indiana
PA
Indiana
$114,671
$31,423
Cambria
PA
Johnstown
$68,589
$18,795
Lancaster
PA
Lancaster
$214,434
$58,760
Lebanon
PA
Lebanon
$167,120
$45,795
Union
PA
Lewisburg
$166,710
$45,683
Mifflin
PA
Lewistown
$93,359
$25,583
Clinton
PA
Lock Haven
$126,120
$34,560
Crawford
PA
Meadville
$95,737
$26,234
Bedford
PA
NA
$140,166
$38,409
Cameron
PA
NA
$58,188
$15,945
Clarion
PA
NA
$84,876
$23,258
PAGE 34
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Forest
PA
NA
$77,857
$21,335
Fulton
PA
NA
$117,856
$32,295
Greene
PA
NA
$96,306
$26,390
Jefferson
PA
NA
$75,162
$20,596
Juniata
PA
NA
$146,099
$40,035
Potter
PA
NA
$78,358
$21,472
Sullivan
PA
NA
$129,523
$35,492
Susquehanna
PA
NA
$69,220
$18,968
Tioga
PA
NA
$139,406
$38,201
Wayne
PA
NA
$158,548
$43,446
Lawrence
PA
New Castle
$94,507
$25,897
Pike
PA
New York-Newark-Jersey City
$152,543
$41,801
Venango
PA
Oil City
$76,964
$21,090
Bucks
PA
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
$310,786
$85,163
Chester
PA
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
$333,032
$91,259
Delaware
PA
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
$212,947
$58,353
Montgomery
PA
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
$293,608
$80,456
Philadelphia
PA
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
$165,117
$45,246
Allegheny
PA
Pittsburgh
$151,104
$41,406
Armstrong
PA
Pittsburgh
$97,961
$26,844
Beaver
PA
Pittsburgh
$124,351
$34,075
Butler
PA
Pittsburgh
$237,940
$65,202
Fayette
PA
Pittsburgh
$91,296
$25,017
Washington
PA
Pittsburgh
$153,259
$41,997
Westmoreland
PA
Pittsburgh
$145,736
$39,935
Schuylkill
PA
Pottsville
$71,333
$19,547
Berks
PA
Reading
$169,936
$46,567
Bradford
PA
Sayre
$124,191
$34,031
Lackawanna
PA
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton
$127,317
$34,888
Luzerne
PA
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton
$102,994
$28,223
Wyoming
PA
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton
$157,053
$43,037
Snyder
PA
Selinsgrove
$156,244
$42,815
Somerset
PA
Somerset
$99,076
$27,149
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 35
Elk
PA
St. Marys
$77,146
$21,140
Centre
PA
State College
$227,901
$62,450
Northumberland
PA
Sunbury
$100,373
$27,505
Warren
PA
Warren
$80,980
$22,191
Lycoming
PA
Williamsport
$141,865
$38,875
York
PA
York-Hanover
$171,441
$46,979
Mercer
PA
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman
$113,486
$31,098
Fayette
WV
Beckley
$64,064
$17,555
Raleigh
WV
Beckley
$81,277
$22,272
Mercer
WV
Bluefield
$65,317
$17,898
Boone
WV
Charleston
$55,718
$15,268
Clay
WV
Charleston
$90,797
$24,881
Kanawha
WV
Charleston
$93,165
$25,529
Doddridge
WV
Clarksburg
$61,608
$16,882
Harrison
WV
Clarksburg
$92,666
$25,393
Taylor
WV
Clarksburg
$93,427
$25,601
Mineral
WV
Cumberland
$105,737
$28,975
Randolph
WV
Elkins
$86,372
$23,668
Marion
WV
Fairmont
$96,156
$26,349
Berkeley
WV
Hagerstown-Martinsburg
$173,433
$47,525
Cabell
WV
Huntington-Ashland
$95,838
$26,262
Lincoln
WV
Huntington-Ashland
$68,535
$18,780
Putnam
WV
Huntington-Ashland
$148,794
$40,773
Wayne
WV
Huntington-Ashland
$79,327
$21,738
Logan
WV
Logan
$63,066
$17,282
Monongalia
WV
Morgantown
$176,485
$48,361
Preston
WV
Morgantown
$100,718
$27,599
Barbour
WV
NA
$61,108
$16,745
Braxton
WV
NA
$61,870
$16,954
Calhoun
WV
NA
$56,719
$15,543
Gilmer
WV
NA
$66,535
$18,232
Grant
WV
NA
$105,951
$29,033
Greenbrier
WV
NA
$107,812
$29,543
PAGE 36
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Hardy
WV
NA
$99,808
$27,350
Jackson
WV
NA
$100,306
$27,486
Lewis
WV
NA
$89,131
$24,424
Mingo
WV
NA
$41,025
$11,242
Monroe
WV
NA
$82,590
$22,632
Morgan
WV
NA
$137,580
$37,700
Nicholas
WV
NA
$62,567
$17,145
Pendleton
WV
NA
$89,516
$24,530
Pleasants
WV
NA
$92,944
$25,469
Pocahontas
WV
NA
$80,938
$22,179
Ritchie
WV
NA
$60,125
$16,476
Roane
WV
NA
$73,100
$20,031
Summers
WV
NA
$62,326
$17,079
Tucker
WV
NA
$95,608
$26,199
Tyler
WV
NA
$66,003
$18,086
Upshur
WV
NA
$102,077
$27,972
Webster
WV
NA
$38,338
$10,505
Wetzel
WV
NA
$65,129
$17,847
Wyoming
WV
NA
$35,067
$9,609
Wirt
WV
Parkersburg-Vienna
$58,248
$15,961
Wood
WV
Parkersburg-Vienna
$100,270
$27,477
Mason
WV
Point Pleasant
$72,787
$19,945
Jefferson
WV
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria
$205,930
$56,430
Brooke
WV
Weirton-Steubenville
$78,317
$21,461
Hancock
WV
Weirton-Steubenville
$79,824
$21,874
Marshall
WV
Wheeling
$76,267
$20,899
Ohio
WV
Wheeling
$96,176
$26,355
Hampshire
WV
Winchester
$133,606
$36,611
Source: Zillow 2019 Home Prices and Atria Planning. Assumptions: 4% interest rate, 30-year loan term, 2.5% annual costs for taxes and insurance and no more than 30% of income should be paid for housing costs.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 37
Housing Challenges HUD provides extensive data to help housing providers understand their housing needs through their Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset. These data are published annually using the existing American Community Survey (ACS) data and quantifies the housing challenges families and individuals face based on race/ethnicity, income, tenure and household size. It is based on self-reported survey responses, and although lags behind real-time reporting (the data published in August of 2019 reflects the 2016 five-year ACS data), the detail of the information provides a better understanding of who is struggling to find decent, affordable housing in terms of household type, income, race/ethnicity and other factors.
demand; these families and individuals already live in the community and have a housing unit. It does, however, illustrate the needs for more affordable housing solutions, repair and maintenance needs, and the needs for more diverse housing stock.
We use these data to identify key housing challenges among households living in the District and analyze the information at the Census Tract level and among each state’s regions and counties. (Census Tracts are comparable to neighborhoods in size, comprising roughly 4,000 people.)
HUD also provides another category for “extreme cost burden,” defined as households who pay more than 50% of their pre-tax income on housing. These figures illustrate dire affordable housing needs and indicate the number of households at risk of homelessness among households earning less than 30% of AMI.
The data represented here illustrate the number and percentage of households who experience “housing challenges” where they experience at least one of the following three conditions: •
The household is paying too much for housing (i.e. is cost burdened).
•
The household lives in overcrowded conditions, defined as having more than one person per room.
•
The household lives in inadequate conditions, defined as lacking basic kitchen or plumbing facilities.
It should be noted that the figures illustrated here do not estimate the number of new housing units needed to meet growing
PAGE 38
Cost Burden As previously stated, HUD defines housing cost burden as paying more than 30% of pre-tax household income on housing costs. For renter households, this includes asking rent plus any costs associated with necessary utilities for heat, water and electricity. For homeowners, this includes the mortgage payment (if any), property taxes and home insurance (but not utilities).
Housing Condition The CHAS data includes information on households living in unlivable housing conditions, categorized by income and tenure. The scope of this category is limited to housing units that lack basic kitchen facilities (stove, sink and refrigerator) or basic bathroom facilities (toilet and shower). It does not account for other forms of severe dilapidation. For example, it does not account for homes without heat, leaky roofs, mold or structural deterioration that poses health risks. Hence the figures represent only a portion of homes in unlivable conditions.
Overcrowding Another housing challenge that is often
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
overlooked is the issue of overcrowding. HUD defines overcrowding as a household with more members than rooms (excluding bathrooms). There are varying circumstances that may lead to overcrowding. For example, a large family with a limited income may not be able to afford a single-family home (to rent or buy), and instead must live in a smaller apartment with family members sleeping in the living room. Another example may
be two families living under one roof due to housing costs. Non-family households may also fall in this category, particularly in areas with employment opportunities but limited rental supply. For example, workers in the construction or agriculture industries, particularly undocumented workers, may rent a bed within an already full house. Because this data is self-reported, the true number of overcrowded households is unknown.
KEY FINDINGS:
RENTERS
OWNERS
•
•
Low-income homeowners in suburban areas are more likely to experience housing challenges than in urban areas.
•
Low-income households in rural areas are more likely to be homeowners than renters.
•
Low-income senior homeowners living alone are more likely to experience housing challenges over any other household type.
•
In terms of numbers, individual homeowners comprise the greatest share of homeowner challenges.
•
Extremely low-income homeowners concentrated in rural areas are more likely to live in a home without a kitchen, basic plumbing or heat.
•
Renter households earning less than 50% of AMI experience the greatest cost burden by far. In all regions, more than 80% of renters experience cost burden, and the majority pay more than 50% of their income on housing and are considered “severely cost burdened.” The household type with the greatest number of housing needs are single individuals living alone. This is a growing demographic seen in national trends and calls for more studio and one-bedroom units and/or alternative housing models like cohousing.
•
The household type with the greatest likelihood of housing needs are low-income seniors living alone.
•
Black and Latino renter households are more likely to experience housing challenges regardless of income.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 39
Map 8: Count of Low-Income Homeowners Who Experience Housing Challenges in the District
Source: HUD CHAS using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
PAGE 40
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Map 9: Percentage of Homeowners who are Low Income and Experience Housing Challenges in the District
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 41
Map 10: Count of Low-Income Renters Who Experience Housing Challenges in the District
Source: HUD CHAS using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
PAGE 42
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Map 11: Percentage of Renters who are Low Income and Experience Housing Challenges in the District
Source: HUD CHAS using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 43
Map 12: Count of Severely Cost Burdened Very Low-Income Homeowners in the District
Source: HUD CHAS using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
PAGE 44
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Map 13: Percentage of Homeowners who are Very Low Income and Severely Cost Burdened in the District
Source: HUD CHAS using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 45
Map 14: Count of Severely Cost Burdened Very Low-Income Renters in the District
Source: HUD CHAS using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
PAGE 46
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Map 15: Percentage of Renters who are Very Low Income and Severely Cost Burdened in the District
Source: HUD CHAS using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 47
Describing Housing Needs by Region The District is categorized into 11 regions to convey housing needs in a graphical way for a relatively large geography. The 11 regions include the Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Charleston MSAs. For counties outside of these areas, we use state regions defined by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services and West Virginia’s Bureau of Children and Family Services (both government agencies).32 Map 16: Counties and Regions in the District
Source: HUD CHAS using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
32 Non-MSA regions for Pennsylvania and West Virginia are defined at : https://wvsystemofcare.org/service-map-wvdhhr-bureau-forchildren-families-service-regions/) and https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/04/gov-tom-wolfs-administration-offers-more-details-onreopening-pa.html
PAGE 48
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Population Changes and Demand This study assesses household growth by region over the next five years to provide a rough estimate of future housing demand. These estimates, however, were produced prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and economic recession that followed,
and therefore should be taken with some reservation. Household mobility greatly increases after widespread job losses, as the unemployed may lose their homes and seek employment and other housing options outside of their area.
Table 12: Change in Households, 2020-2025 Renters
Owners
Total
Kent and Sussex Counties, DE
4,570
12,435
17,005
Northcentral PA
1,915
-890
1,025
Northeast PA
6,005
1,267
7,272
Northwest PA
184
-6,732
-6,548
Southcentral PA
10,202
9,641
19,843
Philadelphia MSA
22,519
17,124
39,643
Pittsburgh MSA
6,259
-3399
2,860
Region 1 WV
-346
-1,638
-1,984
Region 3 WV
1,073
7,834
8,907
Region 4 WV
-984
-2,022
-3,006
Charleston MSA
-766
-2,720
-3,486
Total
50,631
30,900
81,531
Source: ESRI Business Analyst 2020
Because this study covers a large geography consisting of more than 20 metro areas, each with their own housing markets, we do not adjust housing demand to account for existing surplus housing units on the market. Therefore, new households may be accommodated by new construction, rehabilitation of existing homes and homes in livable condition currently on the market.
West Virginia Nearly all counties in West Virginia are expected to continue losing households due to an aging population and people leaving
the state. From 2010 to 2018, the state lost 2.6% of its population totaling 47,000 people. The population loss is impacting urban and rural areas, but the difference is striking. In that same period, urban counties lost 1.7% of their population, compared to 4.6% in rural areas. Demographers estimate the southern portion of the state will continue to face the greatest population loss due to declining jobs in the coal industry.33 Region 3, in the northern portion of the state, is the one exception, particularly Berkeley County and the Morgantown area. This is likely due to its accessibility with the larger Washington, D.C., metro area (it is 80 miles from D.C.).
33 Lego, Brian; Deskins, John; Bowen, Eric; Christiadi; Mullett, Dallas; Farnum, Aidan; Gilyard, Shaun; Kaminski, Danielle; and Wagstaff, William, “West Virginia Economic Outlook: 2020-2024” (2019). Bureau of Business & Economic Research. 311. https:// researchrepository.wvu.edu/bureau_be/311
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 49
Chart 5: Population Change in Rural West Virginia
1.0% 0.0% -1.0% -1.7% Urban county population growth
-2.0% -3.0% -4.0%
-4.6% Rural county population growth
-5.0% -6.0%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
Source: WVCBP analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data
Pennsylvania The eastern and central portion of the state is expected to grow over the next five years, with Philadelphia and the southcentral counties, following current trends. According to the ESRI BAO estimates, approximately 60,000 new households will be added to this area, and more than half will be renters. But even in stagnant or declining areas, the renter population will increase. This will be significant for Pittsburgh, where homeowners are expected to decline by 0.5% while renters will increase by 2%. By these estimates, Pittsburgh will be adding 6,259 renters while losing 3,399 homeowners.
PAGE 50
This data, however, is based on current trends, and does not consider unforeseen homeownership opportunities among its existing renting population. In other words, lenders and the building communities are not scripted to plan for the development of 6,000+ new rental units but may consider the demand for homeownership opportunities among its renting population.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Photo: Lewes, Delaware, a high-growth community for retirees
Delaware Outside of Wilmington, Delaware is expected to have strong growth in the coming years as baby boomers continue to relocate to the coastal communities, spurring job growth in the retail, construction and service industries. This growth is expected to increase by 1% for both renters and owners, adding 4,570 renters
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
and 12,435 owners to the Dover area and Sussex County. For all regions of the District, the economic impact of COVID-19 will alter these projections profoundly. Areas with strong tourism (like southern Delaware and southern West Virginia) may experience a greater impact.
PAGE 51
Stakeholder Engagement Data alone does not convey the full picture of housing needs. The information may identify the populations and locations with disproportionate needs, but to gain a better understanding of why these issues persist requires input from the housing providers and funders working in the community. To accomplish this, FHLBank solicitated feedback from its network of organizations working in the affordable housing industry through a) an online survey and b) a series of focus groups, where industry experts discussed housing challenges and opportunities within their respective areas.
PAGE 52
Surveys In the first half of June 2020, FHLBank sent an invitation to 415 stakeholders to complete an online survey of housing needs. Stakeholders included lending institutions, nonprofit developers, local government, supportive service providers, advocates and housing experts who have worked with FHLBank in the past and are currently active in affordable-housing related activities within the District. The survey participation rate was high (70%), representing diversity among organization types and locations. The survey results identified key challenges and needs which helped inform this report. The following are key takeaways.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 53
Focus Groups
•
Urban and suburban affordable housing issues
•
Rural affordable housing issues
•
Housing and supportive services needed for the homeless population and other vulnerable households
•
Equitable housing for minority communities and households
•
Affordable housing challenges from the perspective of lending institutions
departments and homeless service providers. (For a list of participating organizations, see Appendix 1). Prior to the meeting, participants received preliminary housing needs information and instructions for how to prepare for their focus group. They were asked to think of one critical housing need and one potential solution to share with the larger group to engage with other participants and arouse conversation. The focus groups were held virtually using Zoom video conferencing combined with the Mural online meeting facilitation platform. The meetings were recorded, and the discussion was documented in real-time using virtual “post-it” notes that were viewable to all participants.
Participants included industry experts from 44 organizations, including nonprofit developers, community lenders, advocacy groups, public housing authorities, government housing
The outcome of these meetings is summarized here and throughout the document as it pertains to the fundamental housing challenges identified in this report.
From June 29 to July 1, FHLBank’s consulting team facilitated five virtual focus groups around the following topics:
PAGE 54
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 55
PAGE 56
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Equitable Housing Since May 2020, Americans have participated in more than 2,000 protests calling for racial equality in the criminal justice system34, sparking a renewed interest among researchers and advocates to document how racial inequality affects nearly all aspects of life for communities of color, particularly Black and Latino communities. The data presented here uses data sources common for housing needs assessments – notably the HUD CHAS data sets and the U.S. Census’ American Community Survey – combined with more recent research illustrating how Black and Latino households disproportionately experience housing challenges, face significantly higher risks of homelessness and are less likely to build equity through homeownership regardless of income.
by different races and for the Latino population throughout the District. Based on this analysis, we see the following: •
More than half of low-income Black and Latino renters experience housing challenges, at 52.3% and 57.4%, respectively. This is substantially higher than white (38.5%) or Asian (35.1%) renters.
•
Low-income homeowners, in general, are less likely to experience housing challenges than low-income renters. Similarly, there is significant disparity between Black and Latino homeowners who experience housing challenges (26.8% and 28.3%, respectively) compared to white (14.9%) or Asian (18.9%) homeowners.
•
Much of this disparity, however, can be attributed to earnings. A Black or Latino household is more likely to earn less than 50% of AMI compared to white or Asian households.
•
When we analyze housing challenges categorized by the three sub-groups (earning less than 30% of AMI, 30% to 50% of AMI, and 50% to 80% of AMI), the disparity lessens, but is most pronounced among Latino households, who appear to experience disproportionate housing challenges regardless of income.
Housing Challenges The HUD CHAS data documents housing challenges (paying more than 30% of income on housing, living in overcrowded conditions and/or living without basic plumbing or kitchen facilities) categorized by: tenure (renter and homeowner households); income; and race/ethnicity. This report analyzed the most recent data available to document the housing challenges experienced
Table 13: Percentage of Low-Income Homeowners and Renters that Experience Housing Challenges in the District OWNERS <30% AMI 30% - 50% AMI 50% - 80% AMI RENTERS <30% AMI 30% - 50% AMI 50% - 80% AMI
White 75.8% 51.4% 32.1%
Black 72.9% 57.3% 34.0%
Asian 74.9% 63.5% 47.6%
Latino 76.4% 62.3% 42.6%
Other 78.4% 58.0% 45.7%
72.5% 71.0% 38.1%
73.7% 76.4% 38.3%
63.6% 84.4% 46.3%
82.0% 83.3% 42.9%
76.8% 76.3% 43.5%
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data 34 Larry Buchanan, Quoctrung Bui and Jugal K. Patel, “Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History,” New York Times, July 3, 2020, retrieved July 18, 2020 at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 57
Chart 6: Percentage of Low-Income Renters that Experience Housing Challenges by Race and Ethnicity in the District
All
42.5%
Other, Two or More Races
48.1%
Latino, All Races Asian
57.4% 35.1%
African American
52.3%
White
38.5%
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
Chart 7: Percentage of Low-Income Homeowners that Experience Housing Challenges by Race and Ethnicity in the District
All
16.1%
Other, Two or More Races
22.4%
Latino, All Races
28.3%
Asian
18.9%
African American White
26.8% 14.9%
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
PAGE 58
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Chart 8: Low-Income Homeowners with Housing Challenges by Race and Ethnicity in the District as a Percentage of all Households 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%
on
V
st le ar Ch
Re
gi
on
4
W
V W 3 Re
gi
on
1 on Re
gi
bu tts Pi
W
rg
V
h
a hi lp de ila Ph
Ke
nt Co and un S tie uss s, ex D E So ut hc en tr al PA N or th ce nt ra lP A N or th ea st PA N or th w es tP A
0.0%
White
African American
Asian
Hispanic, All Races
Two or More Races, Other Race
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
Chart 9: Low-Income Homeowners with Housing Challenges by Race and Ethnicity in the District
Charleston Region 4 WV Region 3 WV Region 1 WV Pittsburgh Philadelphia Northwest PA Northeast PA Northcentral PA Southcentral PA Kent and Sussex Counties, DE 0
20,000 White
40,000
60,000
African American
80,000 Asian
100,000
120,000
Hispanic, All Races
140,000 Two or More Races, Other Race
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 59
Chart 10: Low-Income Renters with Housing Challenges by Race and Ethnicity in the District as a Percentage of all Households 70.0% 60.0% 50.0%
40.0% 30.0%
20.0% 10.0%
on
V
st le ar Ch
on
4
W
V gi Re
Re
gi
on
3
W
V W 1 on gi
Ke
Re
nt Co and un S tie us s, sex D So E ut hc en tr al PA N or th ce nt ra lP A N or th ea st PA N or th w es tP A Ph ila de lp hi a Pi tts bu rg h
0.0%
White
African American
Asian
Hispanic, All Races
Two or More Races, Other Race
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
Chart 11: Low-Income Renters with Housing Challenges by Race and Ethnicity in the District
Charleston Region 4 WV Region 3 WV Region 1 WV Pittsburgh Philadelphia Northwest PA Northeast PA Northcentral PA Southcentral PA Kent and Sussex Counties, DE 0
20,000
White
40,000
60,000
80,000
African American
100,000
120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000
Asian
Hispanic, All Races
Two or More Races, Other Race
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
PAGE 60
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Access to Homeownership It is well-documented that homeownership rates are substantially lower for minority households (notably Black and Latino households) than for white households.35 HUD and housing advocates have identified this disparity through ongoing research for the past fifty years. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was enacted to address racial discrimination within the home mortgage market, where banks were “redlining” minority neighborhoods (i.e. not lending within predominantly minority communities). The Fair Housing Act made it unlawful to discriminate in the terms, condition or privileges of sale of a dwelling because of race or national origin. Yet despite the law, homeownership rates among Black and Latino families have remained comparable to before the law was enacted, or at times less than the homeownership rates of 1968.36 Indeed, nationally the Black homeownership rate decreased from 1970 to 2018; for Latinos, the rate increased just 1.3%. For white households, the rate increased nearly 10%, from 65.2% to 74.5%.37
Within the District, the overall disparity is striking, with a 30-point difference in homeownership rates between white and Black or Latino households. The disparity can partially be attributable to longstanding income gaps, (which we can assume would lead to lower homeownership rates among Black and Latino households), but the disparity is evident even when controlling for indicators like income and education. Based on mortgage denial rates for low-income applicants, and overall homeownership rates among similar incomes and educational attainment, we see a higher rate of homeownership among white households. As the Urban Institute points out, Black college graduates have a lower homeownership rate (56.4%) than white high school dropouts (60.5%).38 Within the District, low- and very low-income white households still have a 20 to 30 point higher homeownership rate than Black or Latino households.
Table 14: Homeownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity in the District
Homeownership Rate
White
Black
Asian
Hispanic, All Races
74.5%
44.7%
57.4%
41.4%
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
35 Christopher E. Herbert Donald R. Haurin Stuart S. Rosenthal Mark Duda, “Homeownership Gaps Among Low-Income and Minority Borrowers and Neighborhoods,” Abt Associates, Inc., March 2005, retrieved July 18, 2020 at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/ Publications/pdf/HomeownershipGapsAmongLow-IncomeAndMinority.pdf. 36 For more information, see: F. John Devaney, “Tracking the American Dream: 50 Years of Housing History from the U.S. Census,” May 1994, retrieved at: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Publications/pdf/HUD-7775.pdf and Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Economic Research, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/97 37 Ibid. 38 Urban Institute Housing Finance Policy Center, “Black White Homeownership Gap: A Closer Look Across MSAs,” June 2019.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 61
Chart 12: Homeownership Rates by Income in the District
80.0% 68.8%
70.0% 60.0%
59.0%
50.0%
45.4%
41.4%
36.5%
40.0%
31.0%
30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
White, Non Hispanic
African American, Non Hispanic
Homeownership Rate, 30%-50% AMI
Hispanic, All Races
Homeownership Rate, 50%-80% AMI
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
To understand how mortgage denial rates play a role, we examine loan applications and denial rates by race and ethnicity for each county in the District for the most recently available data
(2017 at the time of this study). According to the HMDA data, applicants of all races and ethnicities had a comparable denial rate in most areas, with the following exceptions39:
Table 15: Disparate Mortgage Denial Rates for Latino and Black Mortgage Applicants Latino Applicants
Berks County, PA (8.2% higher) Lehigh County, PA (6.9% higher)
Black Applicants
Pittsburgh (7.8% higher) Philadelphia (18.7% higher) Harrisburg (6.2% higher) Montgomery County, PA (6% higher) Delaware County, PA (12% higher) Sussex County, DE (7.9% higher) Kent County, DE (9.1% higher) New Castle County, DE (10.3% higher)
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2017
39 Analysis compares mortgage applications by race and ethnicity and mortgage rate denials by race and ethnicity for 2017 using Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. Counties with 5% or more discrepancy in mortgage denials for Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American applicants were identified as having a racial disparity.
PAGE 62
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Addressing the Homeownership Gap – Lending Institutions Prior to the 2008 recession, the homeownership rate among Black and Latino households was the highest on record. The collapse of the lending market, however, impacted Black and Latino homeowners the hardest, with foreclosures wiping out advances in minority homeownership
between 2008 and 2015.40 This revealed how communities of color were targets for predatory sub-prime mortgages, furthering distrust toward the banking system.41 Indeed, an estimated 30% of Black Americans in the United States are currently “underbanked,” without basic checking or savings accounts, and those that do have banking accounts pay higher fees relative to income (requiring, on average, to deposit 60% of their paychecks to avoid fees, compared to 28% in white neighborhoods).42
Chart 13: National Homeownership Rates for White, Black and Hispanic Households, 1980 and 2018
69.0%
73.6%
45.4% 42.9%
White, Non-Hispanic
Black
1980
45.4%
46.9%
Latino, All Races
2018
Source: HUD
40 Carlos Garriga, Lowell R. Ricketts, and Don E. Schlagenhauf, “The Homeownership Experience of Minorities During the Great Recession,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, First Quarter 2017, 99(1), pp. 139-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.20955/r.2017.139-67. 41 Steil JP, Albright L, Rugh JS, Massey DS. The Social Structure of Mortgage Discrimination. Hous Stud. 2018;33(5):759-776. doi:10.1 080/02673037.2017.1390076. 42 Aria Florant, JP Julien, Shelley Stewart, Nina Yancy, and Jason Wright, The Case for Accelerating Financial Inclusion in Black Communities, McKinsey & Company, February 25, 2020.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 63
In FHLBank’s focus group dedicated to discussing financing issues, participating banks emphasized the need to address racial disparity within the home mortgage market and business lending within communities of color. One key recommendation discussed by multiple participants is how banks need to develop trust within low-income communities of color by forming and nurturing long-term relationships. Only then can lending institutions make meaningful impact in increasing lending activities within low-income Black and Latino neighborhoods. Following are their recommendations: • Hire community outreach officers to work within communities and build relationships with local nonprofit organizations and churches. •
Participate in neighborhood community events and share information regarding education programs, credit counseling and business loans.
•
Include Spanish-speaking representatives within Latino communities.
•
Encourage residents to become landlords within their communities through multifamily and commercial investment.
•
Provide education programs to develop financial literacy and credit counseling.
Areas of Opportunity Government policies have historically concentrated on low-income minority populations within specific neighborhoods that, over time, have become increasingly less desirable due to government policies and market forces. These initial government policies include redlining (restricting financing for homeownership in minority neighborhoods); investment decisions (planning freeways and train tracks through minority neighborhoods while locating prized
amenities like parks and libraries in wealthier areas); and land-use decisions (zoning minority neighborhoods for environmentally hazardous and nuisance activities). Over the course of 20 to 30 years (roughly 1950 to 1980), minority community areas that were once thriving became increasingly undesirable. They were more likely to have freeways built to subset their neighborhoods, or host nuisance activities like airports and bus depots. They were also more likely to host heavy industry with greater environmental impacts such as sewage treatment plants or chemical manufacturing. There were fewer community assets through public investment. And they increasingly became host to the region’s poorest families, as developers and cities concentrated public housing in these areas. It is well-documented that low-income minority communities experience higher rates of asthma and induced cancer due to environmental hazards in the neighborhood.43 As many of America’s minority communities experienced decline, the middle-class families with the means to move out have increasingly moved to more affluent areas, exacerbating the cycle. Today, many of the country’s urban, historically minority (notably Black) neighborhoods have severe blight, high crime, high poverty and limited neighborhood investment. The United States has acknowledged this issue and the part it has played in its creation. The Federal Housing Administration, founded in 1934, refused to insure mortgages in and near Black neighborhoods, creating the foundation for redlining. Indeed, the Underwriting Manual of the Federal Housing Administration recommended that highways are an effective way to separate Black from white neighborhoods. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 sought to reverse this practice.44
43 Landrigan PJ, Rauh VA, Galvez MP. Environmental justice and the health of children. Mt Sinai J Med. 2010;77(2):178-187. doi:10.1002/ msj.20173 44 Rothstein, Richard. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. First edition. New York; London: Liveright Publishing Corporation, a division of W.W. Norton & Company, 2017.
PAGE 64
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
More recently, the seminal Thomson v. HUD case illustrated how the U.S. government concentrated public housing in Baltimore’s Black neighborhoods, creating one of the most segregated cities in the country. The case was filed in 1995 and went to trial in 2006, with 14,000 plaintiffs of current and former public housing residents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland and the Legal Defense Fund. The federal judge ruled that HUD violated the Fair Housing Act by concentrating the region’s poorest minorities, creating “an island reservation for use as a container for all of the poor of a contiguous region.” The settlement, finalized in 2012, created a list of actions to remedy the issue, including creating housing options in “areas of opportunity” for public housing residents. In this case, areas of opportunity meant middle income suburban communities with better schools and access to jobs.45 In 2015, the U.S. government passed the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule under the Fair Housing Act. The AFFH Rule required states and HUD entitlement communities to directly implement programs and investments that mitigate the issue of concentrated poverty in minority communities. Fair housing violations were no longer limited to intent, but now included outcome or disparate impact. To support the new ruling, HUD provided communities with
an online tool that identified Racially and/ or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) areas. These are neighborhoods where the poverty rate is above 40% or three times higher than the region and the minority population is above 50%. There are 155 Census Tracts in the District that are R/ECAP areas, with nearly half located in Philadelphia.46 The AFFH Rule was officially rescinded in 2020, but the program’s guidelines and tools are still recommended by HUD to address the issue. The manner which the affordable housing community addresses it is up for interpretation based on local conditions. On the one hand, housing investment in low-income minority communities through subsidized housing programs can infuse new capital into a disinvested community as part of an overall revitalization strategy. Too much subsidized housing, however, particularly those targeting families in poverty, may further the issue. Similarly, providing housing opportunities for low-income minority families in “areas of opportunity” (however a community defines it) may provide better access to jobs and schools; however, these areas may be isolating, separating families from the communities they are tied to. Therefore, housing experts recommend a balanced approach that considers overall impact to families and neighborhoods.
45 NAACP Legal Defense Fund case review online, retrieved September 21, 2020 at https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/thompson-vhud/. 46 HUD AFFH Tool and data retrieved September 16, 2020 at https://egis.hud.gov/affht/
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 65
Map 17: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)
Source: HUD
PAGE 66
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Gentrification In the online survey and focus group for Urban and Suburban Housing, neighborhood nonprofits cited gentrification in Philadelphia as a significant concern. This was further discussed in Philadelphia’s Consolidated Plan, where historically minority neighborhoods are losing affordable rental housing as neighborhood conditions improve and professionals move back into the city. The term “gentrification” can be traced back to London in the 1960s to describe the move of “gentry” into low-income urban neighborhoods.47 In the U.S. the term is often used to describe a process in which more affluent (usually white) households move into a low-income neighborhood (usually a neighborhood of color), and through this process, which includes substantial reinvestment in the housing stock and neighborhood improvements, prices increase to the point where existing residents and/or their children and grandchildren can no longer afford to remain in the neighborhood due to increases in rent and home prices. Investing in a distressed neighborhood is generally recommended from a housing policy perspective if it enhances the quality of life for existing residents and increases the longterm sustainability of the neighborhood. The process, however, can displace long-term residents and their future generations when home prices and rents skyrocket as a result. Longstanding residents may have to (or choose to) leave their communities, thereby altering the former culture and people of the neighborhood. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia identified much of south Philadelphia as gentrifying with a loss of affordable rental housing units from 2000 to 2014.48
There is no standardized method for identifying areas that are gentrifying or have already gentrified. Neighborhood indicators may include an average increase in household income, average increase in home value or an increase in new building permits. For this report, we analyzed which lowincome Census Tracts in the District, where the majority of households were Black or Latino, experienced a decline in Black or Latino populations from 2013 to 2018. This data is not conclusive of gentrification but could indicate areas where historically Black or Latino communities are increasing diversity, one early metric of gentrification. Based on this analysis, we see changes in west and northwest Philadelphia, northeastern Pittsburgh and smaller communities in southern Delaware (including Seaford and Georgetown). Although there are no guaranteed safeguards against gentrification, there are policies and programs that can mitigate its impact, including: •
Land banking for future affordable rental housing, development and the construction of for-sale homes.
•
Tax abatements for low-income homeowners, particularly seniors on fixed incomes.
•
Revised zoning laws to permit alternative housing options like tiny homes and prefabricated housing.
•
Streamlined, low-cost permitting processes for affordable housing development.
•
Additional fees for speculative investors and second-home buyers.
47 The Uprooted Project, “Background: Gentrification and Displacement,” University of Texas, retrieved August 22, 2020 at https:// sites.utexas.edu/gentrificationproject/gentrification-and-displacement-in-austin/ 48 Rachel Brown, “Philadelphia Fed Research Measures Impact of Gentrification on Low-Cost Housing Stock,” Federal Home Loan Bank of Philadelphia, December 19, 2016, retrieved July 21, 2020 at https://www.philadelphiafed.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2016/121916.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 67
Affordable Rental Housing According to population growth forecasts provided by ESRI Business Analyst, most regions in the District will see a growing number of renter households from 2020 to 2025, even when the overall number of households declines. This is especially true in urban areas, where the greatest percentage of renters are concentrated (including the large metro areas of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and Charleston in West Virginia), as well as the smaller cities throughout the District. What may be a surprise is that the “rustbelt” cities within the District – areas that declined in population during the 1970s and 1980s as manufacturing operations moved south or overseas – have experienced recent growth, particularly among the renter population. Indeed, areas with the greatest share of
renters (as a percentage of all households) includes Scranton, Allentown, Erie, Harrisburg in Pennsylvania and Morgantown and Huntington in West Virginia. These smaller towns experienced the greatest influx of new households since 2016, particularly Morgantown and Huntington in West Virginia and Erie, Pennsylvania. This can be attributed to new industries and technologies that can utilize the existing manufacturing infrastructure of these communities. Erie, for example, will be home to Shell’s $6 billion ethane “cracker” plant that converts natural gas liquids into polyethylene, a plastic used in packaging and automotive products.49 Based on research and input from FHLBank’s stakeholders, rental housing needs can be summarized as follows. The District needs:
More affordable rental units
The number of renters in the District is expected to increase at a faster rate than homeownership
More variety of affordable rental units
With changing demographics, there is a greater need for smaller units, accessible units, senior units, multi-generational units and alternative solutions including co-housing, permanent supportive housing and cooperatives
Lower-priced rental units
The greatest need is for rental units affordable to households earning less than 50% of AMI
More funding tools and expertise
Focus group and survey participants discussed the difficulty with meeting rental housing needs without additional predevelopment funding and technical expertise to layer financing and develop difficult projects
49 https://news.psu.edu/story/517837/2018/04/24/impact/penn-state-behrend-will-connect-erie-companies-6-billion-energy
PAGE 68
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Deeper Affordability The most significant need for rental housing is for apartments affordable to very low- and extremely low-income households. This is clearly illustrated in the data and reiterated in focus groups, the survey and in state and local housing plans. According to HUD CHAS statistics, 60% of
all extremely low-income renters pay more than half their income on housing, and one in four very low-income renters pay more than half their income on housing (referred to as “severely cost burdened”). This is significantly higher than the percentage of renters earning between 50% and 80% of AMI (low-income renters) who are severely cost burdened (8.6%).
Chart 14: Severely Cost Burdened Low-Income Renter Households by Region in the District
Charleston
70 1,585 4,410
Region 4
544 2,787 10,146 202 1,626
Region 3
6,416 405 2,476
Region 1
10,153 2,117
Pittsburgh
9,292 9,292 405
Philadelphia
30,241 114,216
790
Northwest PA
5,086 17,614
2,073
Northeast PA
810
Northcentral PA
4,023
2,444
Southcentral PA
14,214
39,075
13,424 13,669 39,029
780 2,431 4,605
Delaware PA
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year 2016 American Community Survey data
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 69
Chart 15: Severely Cost Burdened Low-Income Renter Households by District Region as Percentage of Households 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%
ar
le st o
n
4 Ch
gi on Re
gi on
3
I gi on Re
Re
Pi
tts bu
rg
h
ia ila de
lp h
A w th or
N
Ph
st P ea th or N
ce th or
es tP
A
A lP ra nt
tr en hc ut So
N
<30% of AMI
30% - 50% of AMI
50% - 80% of AMI
Ke
nt
an
d
Su
ss
ex
Co
un
tie
al
s, D
PA
E
0.0%
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year 2016 American Community Survey data
Rural Rental Housing Rental housing in rural areas has unique needs distinct from urban and suburban rental markets. According to survey responses and focus group input, the greatest challenge to developing affordable rental housing in rural areas is that subsidized rents are not sufficient to fund development because, overall, incomes are lower. For the LowIncome Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program – the primary vehicle for financing affordable rental housing – rents must fall below 60% of AMI. Because median incomes are higher in metropolitan areas, the 60% threshold is also higher, garnering more cash flow for the proposed development. This issue is alleviated slightly by new regulations under the IRS which allow rural areas to use a standard non-metropolitan median income rate. This policy increases allowable rents in most areas, but it does not fully address the gap. For example, the maximum rent a developer can charge for a
PAGE 70
one-bedroom unit funded through the LIHTC program in Gilmer County, West Virginia is $700 per month, compared to $1,087 per month for a one-bedroom unit in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. For a 50-unit development, that equates to $232,000 less in revenue per year, leaving less cash flow to support debt and operating costs. Development costs for a rural project may also be higher due to workforce shortages and infrastructure needs for sewer and water, which local jurisdictions usually cannot afford to pay. Another issue discussed in the focus group around rural housing is the lack of government or community support for affordable housing development, in general, despite growing needs and deteriorating housing stock. The NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) sentiment has a cost, by delaying projects, wasting time in resources towards pre-development activities like appraisals and design, only to have projects vetoed by local jurisdictions, and/or costing more through additional permitting requirements and fees.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Chart 16: Rural Renters who are Cost Burdened in the District
20%
20%
60%
Cost Burdened
Severely Cost Burdened
No Cost Burdened
Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, using American Community Survey 2016 1-Year Estimates
Funding rental housing becomes even more challenging due to what may appear as a limited market demand. While populations, in general, are declining in rural areas, rental housing demand is increasing in some areas due to increasing financial challenges, where more households are renting rather than purchasing homes, and due to economic growth within some rural areas with fracking activities, distribution centers and agricultural processing plants. Rural areas outside of Morgantown, West
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Virginia, for example, experienced rapid growth in recent years and now have a very high percentage of renters. The limited supply of affordable rental housing in rural areas has a negative impact on economic growth, as employers cannot hire when rental housing is not available in the community. The limited supply also deters landlords from offering competitive rents or maintaining homes. As a result, renters are more likely to live in dilapidated homes and pay excessive rents to do so.
PAGE 71
PAGE 72
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Finally, the capacity of affordable housing developers and contractors is more limited in rural areas due to a smaller workforce and fewer, smaller nonprofit developers. This makes development more challenging where projects require expertise in mixed financing and additional design features that may be required for the LIHTC program.
Photo: Harman, West Virginia
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 73
Rental Housing for Persons with Disabilities Low-income persons with disabilities face additional challenges when looking for a suitable home. Not only must the unit be affordable, but it must also be accessible. This means that public or common areas can be approached, entered, and used by people with disabilities, and the units can accommodate persons with mobility, hearing or vision impairments. Persons with disabilities who are unable to work face extreme challenges in finding accessible housing. To quantify this need, we examine the number of households who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, which are intended to assist persons with disabilities who cannot work and have limited financial resources (extremely low income). According to these data, 366,459 households in the District are extremely low income and unable to work due to a disability. West Virginia has the highest rate of any state at 7.8% of all households. Philadelphia has the highest rate of major cities in the District, with one in 10 households receiving SSI.
The monthly SSI benefit for 2020 is $783 a month for an individual and $1,175 for a couple. For an SSI recipient with no other income to afford rental housing (using HUD’s guidance of paying no more than 30% of income), they would need to pay no more than $235 to $340 a month for housing expenses. Considering this is far less than Fair Market Rent in any market, SSI recipients would likely require rental assistance through vouchers or subsidized housing. Under Section 504 of the Fair Housing Act, developments that contain five or more units and receive federal financial assistance for construction or renovation must have at least one unit, or a minimum of 5% of the dwelling units (whichever is the greater number), accessible to people with physical disabilities and at least one unit or a minimum of 2% of the units (whichever is the greater number) accessible to people with hearing and vision disabilities. According to input from focus group experts, however, on supportive and accessible housing, these requirements are insufficient to meet the need.
Table 16: Households Receiving Supplemental Security Income Households with SSI
% Households with SSI
Delaware
16,162
4.5%
Pennsylvania
292,983
5.8%
Philadelphia
62,369
10.5%
Pittsburgh
29,269
5.4%
West Virginia
57,314
7.8%
Charleston
5,083
6.4%
Source: Five-year American Community Survey 2018
PAGE 74
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Many individuals with disabilities also require supportive services, particularly individuals with mental health issues, addiction disorders and chronic, severe disability. Services may include case management, day programs, medical care and at-home services. There are two primary funding programs that provide housing for persons with disabilities beyond meeting accessibility requirements. For one, states may prioritize projects that provide supportive housing within their LIHTC program. For example, Pennsylvania’s Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) describes how the state will allocate two projects within each funding pool for supportive housing, where at least 15% of units serve the homeless, or “nonhomeless households requiring supportive services including those with mental, physical, sensory or developmental disabilities; persons with substance abuse disorders; persons diagnosed with HIV/AIDs and related diseases; persons being released from incarceration, and other special populations.”50 Additionally, HUD’s 811 Program funds projects that provide supportive housing assistance to very low- and extremely lowincome persons with disabilities. In 2019, HUD reformed and expanded the program, and for the first time in a decade, allocated new funding ($112 million).51 The revised program offers a) interest-free capital advances and operating subsidies to nonprofit developers of affordable housing for persons with disabilities, and b) project rental assistance to state housing agencies. The assistance to the state housing agencies can be applied to new or existing multifamily housing complexes funded through different sources including LIHTCs and HOME projects. The current budget projects an increase to $252 million.52
From the Experts – Supportive Housing and Accessible Housing Recommendations for Persons with Disabilities According to the priorities described in state and local Consolidated Plans and input from FHLBank stakeholders, the following steps would increase rental housing and improve the quality of life for low-income individuals with disabilities: •
Incorporate measures of accessibility into all new affordable rental housing development as a general practice, particularly in ways that do not add significant cost, including incorporating universal design measures.
•
Encourage property owners to allow pets, as many individuals with disabilities rely on pets for emotional and physical support.
•
Educate the building community on how to incorporate accessible and universal design into their building practices.
•
Increase the supply of accessible units by engaging with existing landlords and establishing programs that retrofit existing units so that they are accessible to persons with disabilities.
•
Improve quality of life through job development and convenient transportation.
•
Provide affordable rental housing or rental assistance to people with disabilities reentering from the prison system.
•
Increase funding for rental assistance vouchers.
50 Pennsylvania Qualified Allocation Plan, 2019 – 2020, found at: https://www.phfa.org/mhp/developers/lihtc.aspx 51 See: https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/AG-2020/4-14_Section-811-Supportive-Housing-for-Disabilities-Program.pdf 52 National Housing and Rehabilitation Association, “House Appropriations Committee Passes FY-2021 HUD Funding Measure”, July 8, 2020, retrieved July 31, 2020 at https://www.housingonline.com/2020/07/08/house-appropriations-committee-releases-fy-2021-hudfunding-measure/
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 75
Workforce Rental Housing All too often, policy discussions around affordable housing needs lose sight of the fact that full-time workers in many occupations do not earn enough to afford basic housing, and this impacts long-term economic sustainability. Affordable housing providers attempt to address this gap through subsidized housing programs while workforce development services attempt to address this gap by changing the career paths of low wage earners towards “living wage” jobs. There is a slow but growing trend for cities and counties to enact living wage requirements, but nearly all are concentrated on the west coast.
To understand the affordability issue from a workforce perspective, this analysis compared the average earnings of low-wage workers to Fair Market Rents for all metro areas in the District. Occupation and wage data are from the U.S. Bureau and Labor Statistics for 2019 and Fair Market Rents are published by HUD annually. In Table 17, the figures represent the wage increase needed for workers to afford a moderately priced one-bedroom apartment. Note that nearly all these occupations are considered “essential” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 17: Income Gap to Afford a Moderately Priced One-Bedroom Apartment by Occupation Additional Annual Income Needed for a One-Bedroom Apartment Area
Additional Income Needed for Homeownership
Fast Food Worker
Home Health Aide
Janitor
Cashier
Retail Sales Assembly Nursing ConClerk Worker Assistant struction Worker
$12,330
$8,250
$2,220
$12,250
$8,320
$6,128
$14,278
$918
$7,880
$2,910
$850
$6,900
NA
NA
$4,855
$7,285
$10,870
$3,280
$2,180
$8,310
$1,900
$9,903
$14,473
$9,083
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA
$10,480
$7,470
$4,210
$10,230
$4,050
$11,192
$12,272
$9,492
Lancaster, PA
$13,900
$9,580
$8,770
$11,980
$6,780
$15,561
$17,331
$11,061
Lebanon, PA
$4,100
$2,480
$1,330
$6,640
NA
$6,686
$9,596
$4,086
Philadelphia-CamdenWilmington, PA-NJ-DEMD
$20,270
$17,420
$12,340
$20,400
$12,830
$17,997
$21,397
$2,747
Pittsburgh, PA
$10,020
$5,420
$1,080
NA
$2,890
$283
$7,413
NA
Reading, PA
$8,650
$3,880
$890
$7,910
$1,780
NA
$10,538
NA
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, PA
$7,390
$2,220
NA
$7,110
$1,400
$1,408
$1,908
NA
State College, PA
$15,590
$8,700
$5,620
$14,630
$7,910
$18,588
$21,638
NA
Williamsport, PA
$7,410
$2,970
$2,580
$7,710
$3,840
$5,799
$7,189
NA
York-Hanover, PA
$10,390
$5,110
$2,990
$10,470
$6,220
$6,347
$11,757
$1,667
Charleston, WV
$8,360
$8,090
$4,430
$6,820
$3,510
$26,350
NA
NA
Morgantown, WV
$9,660
$9,690
$2,690
$9,770
$4,680
-$444
$15,556
$8,346
Parkersburg-Vienna, WV
$6,260
$5,880
$1,910
$5,020
$3,370
$28,726
$2,726
NA
Dover, DE
$16,360
$12,550
$9,760
$14,890
$11,440
$13,138
$19,138
$15,338
Allentown-BethlehemEaston, PA-NJ ChambersburgWaynesboro, PA Gettysburg, PA
Source(s): Atria Planning using Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupation and Wage Data by MSA 2018; HUD Fair Market Rent 2020; Zillow Median Sales Price, 2019.
PAGE 76
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Difficult to Develop Projects According to stakeholder input from the focus groups and surveys, some affordable housing needs are more difficult to meet using the current funding tools available for affordable rental housing. The LIHTC program is the primary financing resource for new construction of affordable rental housing. This program was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and administered by the Internal Revenue Service, gives states the equivalent of $8 billion annually to issue tax credits for affordable housing development and substantial rehabilitation.53 For the District, an estimated $410 million in tax credit equity is available for affordable rental housing development annually.
Photo: Susquehanna Homes, a scattered site, infill project in Pittsburgh using LIHTCs and Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) funding. Source: Pittsburgh URA.
Table 18: 2020 LIHTC Allocation by State State
Tax Credit Allocation
Estimated Equity
Delaware
$3,217,500
$30,244,500
Pennsylvania
$35,399,459
$332,754,915
West Virginia
$4,977,324
$46,786,846
Source: Novogradac and Company
LIHTC-funded developments without other subsidies are typically priced near the maximum allowable rents for the program (60% of AMI). To provide less expensive units, a proposed development would need additional subsidy, which is often provided by other federal agencies like HUD or the Department of Human Services. However, projects become increasingly complex to develop as more funding sources are used because each agency has its own set of requirements. Developers must meet these additional requirements (e.g. a more comprehensive environmental review, additional legal costs for loan documents) which increases overall development costs,
thereby deterring for-profit developers to pursue deeper affordability levels unless additional incentives are available. The developers most likely to propose projects with deeper affordability are mission-driven, i.e. nonprofit developers. However, their ability to pay for the pre-development costs necessary to submit a competitive application are limited. Additionally, because soft costs (roughly 30% of overall project costs) remain the same regardless of how many units are being built, the LIHTC program is not wellsuited to fund smaller projects, which are needed in rural areas and to rehabilitate older buildings in the District’s smaller cities.
53 Everett Stamm, “An Overview of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit,” August 11, 2020, retrieved August 23, 2020 at https:// taxfoundation.org/low-income-housing-tax-credit-lihtc/.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 77
According to focus group participants, potential strategies for addressing these challenges include: •
Additional pre-development grants and loans for nonprofit developers.
•
Providing technical assistance and expertise from national experts adept at assisting nonprofits utilize mixed funding sources.
•
Funding from foundations and the private sector to build capacity among nonprofit developers.
•
More flexible funding to develop smaller projects, particularly in rural areas.
Preservation of Affordable Housing As rents in historically affordable neighborhoods rise, preserving existing affordable rental housing becomes critical. With rising construction costs, however, increasing land values and fewer public resources, it has become increasingly difficult to do so. With more than 15,000 subsidized rental units needing rehabilitation in the District54, preserving the existing housing stock will require significant leverage of public investments and a strategic, market-driven, regional approach. Affordable rental housing developed under the LIHTC program has an affordability requirement for 15 years with an optional
Photo: Coral Street Arts House, Philadelphia, a 27-unit historic rehab using LIHTCs, HOME and public housing funds. Developed by New Kensington CDC. Source: apartments.com
renewal of an additional 15 years. Similarly, HUD-funded affordable housing has an affordability requirement of 15 to 20 years. When a development reaches its affordability expiration date, the owner may transition the development to market-rate housing or apply for additional funding for substantial rehabilitation, starting a new affordability requirement period. For subsidized rental housing in high-value areas, the rents at market rate without any subsidy may be more profitable than highly subsidized affordable rental units. According to survey participants, this is a growing concern in the District, particularly in places like Philadelphia where rents have spiked in historically high poverty areas over the past decade.
There are currently more than 15,000 affordable tax credit rental units in the District over 25 years old that have not been substantially rehabilitated. 54 Contract expirations determined using HUD Low Income Housing Database and HUD Multifamily Housing and Section 8 Rental Assistance Database effective August 2020.
PAGE 78
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 19: HUD-Assisted Affordable Rental Housing Units in the District Delaware
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Total
Housing Choice Vouchers
5,523
92,397
15,793
113,713
Project Based Section 8
4,658
61,285
11,100
77,043
Public Housing
2,291
58,891
6,336
67,518
Section 202 (Senior)
387
6,032
368
6,787
Section 811 (Disabled)
327
1,237
342
1,906
Mod Rehab
1,130
164
1,294
S236/BMIR
257
Total
13,186
221,229
257 34,103
268,518
Source: HUD Multifamily Housing and Rental Assistance Database, 2020
Even when affordable housing owners wish to keep the units affordable, they must secure financing to make necessary major updates, which is not guaranteed in a competitive market for tax credits. Currently, Pennsylvania’s 2020 QAP commits to at least
four developments that preserve affordable housing.55 Pennsylvania, however, has an estimated 12,673 affordable rental units due to lose their affordability requirement in the next five years without additional subsidy.
Table 20: Affordable Rental Units with Expiring Affordability Contracts, 2021-2026 Total Units
LIHTC Units
Delaware
1,740
952
Pennsylvania
13,255
12,673
West Virginia
875
798
Total
15,870
14,423
Source: HUD LIHTC Database, 2020
55 Pennsylvania Qualified Allocation Plan, 2019 – 2020, found at: https://www.phfa.org/mhp/developers/lihtc.aspx
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 79
Homelessness and Those at Risk Homelessness is a growing crisis across the U.S. due to rising housing prices, the opioid crisis and the Great Recession, where poverty rates reached 15% in 201556, the highest in 20 years. Although there are multiple causes of homelessness, the number one cause is a lack of affordable housing, followed by unemployment, disabilities and substance abuse.57 The greatest need for affordable housing is among homeless individuals. Individuals and families that are at a higher risk of homelessness include: • Extremely low-income households, particularly single mothers with children; •
Persons with mental illness;
•
Persons with addiction disorders;
•
Persons with disabilities;
•
Extremely low income seniors on fixed incomes;
•
Unaccompanied youth; and
•
Persons transitioning out of institutions (including mental health institutions and prisons).
Based on focus group responses of our subject matter experts, housing alone will not address homelessness. Individuals and families often require a network of systems to create long-term pathways toward selfsufficiency and support. This may require coordination with the criminal justice system, child welfare counseling and behavioral health providers. Service providers in all aspects of support should coordinate services and share information to increase stability among those receiving the services. This requires coordination between housing providers and
other city and state departments, including behavioral health services, the school system, workforce development and the courts. Additionally, the service provider network needs greater integration and tracking abilities to avoid duplication of work and prevent people in need from “falling through the cracks.” In most communities the management systems for homeless services do not provide long-term monitoring of individuals nor do they integrate with other departments. An individual may experience multiple periods of homelessness while also moving in and out of child welfare, mental health facilities and/or the criminal justice system, and in that process may have multiple case managers repetitively collecting information to determine needs.
Homelessness Developing accurate estimates of a homeless population is an impossible task. Many are transient and away from public view, and the data we see is largely centered around homeless individuals who are served by existing programs. There is also a discrepancy in how homeless individuals and families are accounted for, leading to a wide range of estimates. To gain a better understanding of the housing and supportive service needs of homeless individuals and those at risk, this study utilizes the responses of industry experts through an online survey and a focus group discussion conducted on June 30, 2020, (see Appendix 1 for organization participants) and a literature review (see Appendix 2 for consulted reports). HUD utilizes its network of Continuum of Care (CoC) providers to conduct an annual Point in
56 U.S. Census Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015 57 National Alliance to End Homelessness Dashboard, retrieved June 2020 at https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/ homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-dashboards/
PAGE 80
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Time (PIT) survey, where volunteers survey the homeless population within their designated territory one day every January. Surveyors count the population within shelters, transitional housing and homeless individuals they can identify in known encampments or hotspots. Naturally, the count excludes the
unseen homeless on the day of the survey. The homeless who are squatting in abandoned buildings, sleeping in parked cars, living in the woods or in hidden parts of the city are typically not accounted for in the PIT surveys. Based on the PIT surveys, there were 15,517 homeless in the District in 2019.
Table 21: Point in Time Surveys of Homeless Individuals 2009
2014
2019
Homeless Count
In Shelters
Homeless Count
In Shelters
Homeless Count
In Shelters
Delaware
1,130
1,083
901
864
921
826
Pennsylvania
15,096
13,819
15,333
14,301
13,199
11,569
West Virginia
1,667
1,278
2,013
1,583
1,397
1,149
Total
17,893
16,180
18,247
16,748
15,517
13,544
Source: HUD
Table 22: Homeless K-12 Students and 3-4-year-old Children 20152016
20162017
20172018
Delaware
3,227
3,018
3,484
Pennsylvania
23,164
25,109
30,624
West Virginia
9,320
9,024
9,716
Total
35,711
37,151
43,824
Source: U.S. Department of Education
Table 23: Homeless Families and Unaccompanied Children, 2019 Delaware
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Families
1,569
116
79
Unaccompanied Homeless Students
5,408
351
777
Source: National Alliance to End Homelessness Dashboard
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Department of Education (DoE) provides an alternative method for estimating the homeless population using data from the student-age population. Based on this data, nearly 44,000 homeless children were accounted for in the 2017-2018 school year. If we extrapolate the DoE count of homeless children to the homeless youth population identified in the PIT survey, we can estimate a much larger homeless population. The PIT data indicates there were 3,393 children who experienced homelessness in 2019, or 21.9% of the overall count. If we assume DoE’s estimate of homeless children is also 21.9% of the homeless population, then the homeless estimate in the District exceeds 200,000.
Families and Unaccompanied Children The majority of homeless families are single mothers with children living in poverty.58 According to PIT surveys, there were 1,764 homeless families with children and 6,536 unaccompanied homeless children in 2019 within the District. 58 Ibid.
PAGE 81
The percentage of unsheltered families has dramatically decreased, according to recent data, down 40% in Pennsylvania and 50% in West Virginia over the past year. Delaware, on the other hand, increased 3%.
Persons with Disabilities Extremely low-income individuals with mental, physical, or cognitive disabilities are at a disproportionately higher risk of homelessness than those without a disability. As previously noted, there are 366,000 households receiving SSI benefits, which are federal benefits allocated to very low- and extremely low-income persons with disabilities that limit employment. The maximum benefit is less than $800 for an individual, which is insufficient to afford any rent outside of public housing or using a housing choice voucher. According to a 2016 national survey, an estimated 73% of homeless individuals living in permanent supportive housing had a mental health disorder, substance use disorder, or co-occurring mental health and substance use disorder, and more than one in four (27%) had a physical disability.59
Addiction Disorders One of the primary concerns among homeless service providers is how to address homelessness among those with active substance abuse disorders. This was emphasized in the online survey and in the focus group for homelessness. Service providers cited an increased need due to the opioid crisis and persistent substance abuse among chronically homeless. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) estimates that 35% of homeless individuals struggle with
substance abuse, perpetuating the cycle of increased poverty and drug and alcohol use to cope with the challenges this brings.60 There are limited treatment facilities for homeless addicts, and many shelters and transitional housing communities require their residents to pass drug tests before they can qualify for housing.
Veterans There are an estimated 40,000 homeless veterans in the United States, predominantly men (91%) and predominantly African American or Hispanic (45%) despite accounting for only 14% of the overall U.S. population.61 According to the PIT surveys, there are at least 1,059 homeless veterans within Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia (although the actual number far exceeds this figure due to the difficulties in tracking homeless populations). Veterans often struggle with mental health and addiction issues due to post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries, with more than one-third serving in active military combat.62 Therefore, the most successful program to address veteran homeless include community support networks and wraparound services. Additionally, an estimated 1.4 million veterans are at risk of homelessness due to job insecurity and low wages.63 The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) plays an active role in partnering with local organizations to assist homeless veterans, including housing services, health care and financial management assistance of military pensions. Through a partnership between VA and HUD, public housing authorities
59 U.S. Interagency Council on the Homeless, “HOMELESSNESS IN AMERICA: Focus on Chronic Homelessness Among People With Disabilities,” August 2018, https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Homelessness-in-America-Focus-on-chronic.pdf 60 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Current Statistics on the Prevalence and Characteristics of People Experiencing Homelessness in the United States,” July 2011. 61 For more information on veterans’ pensions, see: https://www.va.gov/pension/veterans-pension-rates/ 62 Ruth Igielnik, “Key Findings About America’s Military Vets,” November 7, 2019, Pew Research Center, retrieved July 18, 2020 at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/07/key-findings-about-americas-military-veterans/ 63 National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, http://nchv.org/index.php/news/media/background_and_statistics/
PAGE 82
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
administer housing vouchers to place homeless veterans into permanent housing. From 2008 to 2018, the housing authorities in the tri-state area utilized 3,328 HUDVASH (Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing) vouchers.64 Nationally, there are 110,000 HUD-VASH vouchers available but only 90,000 utilized.65 These 11,000 remaining vouchers could house homeless veterans but remain unused until partners can successfully identify landlords and apartment owners willing to accept them.
Needs for homeless persons and families •
More permanent supportive housing units integrated with transportation and supportive service providers
•
More shelters and Medicaid-covered addiction treatment centers and sober living facilities for homeless individuals with addiction disorders
•
Increased number of case managers who can assist in developing a housing and wellness plan and navigating the network of service providers needed to implement the plan
•
More participation from existing landlords to accept permanent supportive housing vouchers
What Triggers Homelessness? 35%
Loss of Job
15%
Bills higher than Earnings
Needs for those at risk •
Rent subsidies for very low-income renters, including the working poor, persons with disabilities and seniors, who are extremely cost burdened
13%
Evicted by Family Member
11%
Abuse at Home
•
Legal assistance and tenant protection services to avoid evictions and mitigate eviction proceedings
11%
Incarcerated
•
10%
Sick/Disabled/ Mental Issue
Expansion of transitional housing facilities, life coaching and job training for individuals transitioning out of correctional facilities
•
10%
Change in Family Status
Emergency financial assistance for individuals and families who experienced unforeseen expenses like medical bills or car repair
•
Transitional housing for victims of domestic violence and young adults transitioning out of foster care
9%
Drug/Alcohol
64 Ibid. 65 Steve Beynon, “Veteran homelessness reaches 10-year low, but unused housing vouchers could help more vets,” American Legion, January 15, 2020, retrieved May 24, 2020 at https://www.legion.org/homelessveterans/248074/veteran-homelessness-reaches10-year-low-unused-housing-vouchers-could-help#:~:text=The%20HUD%2DVASH%20program%20has,being%20used%20by%20a%20 veteran.&text=A%20roadblock%20with%20vouchers%20for,urban%20areas%2C%20according%20to%20Harris.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 83
Table 24: Homeless Veterans Housed Using HUD-VASH Vouchers, 2008-2018 by Housing Authority PA
Mercer County Housing Authority
5
PA
Franklin Housing Authority
5
PA
Clarion County Housing Authority
5
PA
Washington County Housing Authority
6
PA
Housing Authority of the County of Armstrong
7
PA
Adams County Housing Authority
10
PA
Housing Authority of the County of Montgomery
20
PA
York Housing Authority
23
PA
Housing Auth Co of Lawrence
25
PA
Housing Authority of the City of Meadville
25
PA
Bucks County Housing Authority
26
PA
Housing Authority of Indiana County
29
PA
Scranton Housing Authority
39
PA
Allentown Housing Authority
43
PA
Housing Authority of the County of Blair
58
PA
Housing Authority County of Delaware
80
PA
Pittsburgh Housing Authority
88
PA
Housing Authority of the City of Erie
90
PA
Housing Authority of the County of Butler
100
PA
Housing Authority of the County of Lebanon
150
PA
Wilkes Barre Housing Authority
154
PA
Harrisburg Housing Authority
162
PA
Allegheny County Housing Authority
345
PA
Housing Authority of the County of Chester
394
PA
Philadelphia Housing Authority
801
WV
Housing Authority of Mingo County
5
WV
Parkersburg Housing Authority
7
WV
Grant County Housing Authority
15
WV
Housing Authority of the City of Fairmont
20
WV
Housing Authority of the City of Keyser
20
WV
Housing Authority of the City of Martinsburg
35
WV
Clarksburg/Harrison Housing Authority
45
WV
Charleston/Kanawha Housing Authority
62
WV
Housing Authority of the City of Huntington
100
WV
Housing Authority of Raleigh County
156
WV
Housing Authority of the City of Cheyenne
158
PAGE 84
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Rural Homelessness in rural areas is a unique issue in both tracking the extent of the problem and in addressing it. In contrast to urban areas, which have “clusters” of service providers near homeless concentrations, rural homeless individuals tend to be spread out and more hidden, living in forest encampments, their cars or abandoned homes. And unlike urban areas, there are fewer services like shelters, food banks, health care and job counseling, and they are more dispersed in various towns. Since most homeless individuals presumably do not have a car, accessing these services, or even a job, is extremely difficult. As a result, rural homeless individuals are more likely to remain unaccounted for and are unable to access many of the services available to homeless individuals and families living in urban areas. This also has a negative impact on the funding available to address rural homeless individuals; HUD financial assistance is based on the number of counted homeless individuals in a community through their annual PIT surveys. Since rural homeless individuals are more likely to be unsheltered, the counts will be disproportionately lower in rural areas. According to a 2019 survey, one in three rural households see homelessness as an issue in their community.66 Although homelessness is generally viewed as an urban issue, it is becoming increasingly apparent in rural areas due to the opioid crisis, and now made worse by the economic downturn of 2020.67 The focus group also discussed housing conditions in rural areas, where some homes are so dilapidated they are unlivable and pose significant health risks. Participants noted this is more prevalent among rural seniors living in poverty and those impacted by recent flood events.
Photo: Homeless Camp in Wheeling, West Virginia Source: Eric Ayres, Removal of Homeless Camps Draws Both Ire, Praise, The Intelligencer, April 25, 2020, retrieved September 1, 2020. https://www.theintelligencer.net/news/ top-headlines/2020/04/removal-of-homeless-camps-drawsboth-ire-praise-in-wheeling/
66 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Poll: Four in Ten Rural Americans Report Problems Paying for Medical Bills, Housing, or Food; Majority Optimistic About Having an Impact on Improving Their Communities. May 21, 2019. Retrieved June 16, 2020 at https://www. rwjf.org/en/library/articles-and-news/2019/05/four-in-ten-rural-americans-report-problems-paying-for-medical-bills-housing-or-food. html. 67 Mary Meehan, “Life and Health in Rural America: Unsheltered and Uncounted,” National Public Radio, July 4, 2019.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 85
At Risk of Homelessness According to the panel of subject matter experts in the homeless and supportive services focus group, the best solution to reduce homelessness is to avoid it happening in the first place. The emotional, financial, and physical toll of becoming homeless makes it extremely difficult to reverse. Those without a physical address face more challenges in applying for jobs or keeping their jobs and are more likely to be victim of a violent crime, than those who are in permanent or transitional housing. An estimated 10%-15% of all those who become homeless will be chronically homeless.68 Therefore, the most effective method for addressing homelessness is to avoid it in the first place. Those at risk of homelessness include: • The working poor •
Very low-income persons on fixed incomes, including persons with disabilities
•
Individuals transitioning out of facilities (including a correctional facility or hospital)
•
Youth transitioning out of foster care
According to FHLBank’s focus group for homelessness and permanent supportive housing, the appropriate method for mitigating risk should be tailored to each circumstance and reason for potential homelessness. This requires a more expansive network of case managers and improved service integration. In many cases, chronic homelessness can be avoided if the individual or family in need can receive the support to become self-sufficient. The first step requires case managers to meet with the individual or head of household in need and develop a plan of action, and then reach out to a network of service providers based on their unique situation. This may
include job training, medical care, emergency financial assistance, child protection or legal assistance. For some, it may also include a temporary place of residence until they can afford permanent housing (i.e. transitional housing). Potential Situation
Potential Need
Working poor
Rent subsidies, emergency financial assistance
Evictions
Temporary housing and housing placement services, legal aid
Transitioning from long-term facilities
Transitional housing, education, workforce training
Persons with cognitive disabilities
Permanent supportive housing, mental health services
Victims of domestic violence
Transitional housing, legal aid, employment services
Unaccompanied youth
Transitional housing, children's welfare services
Addiction disorder
Addiction treatment programs, sober living facilities
As noted throughout the report, the greatest housing needs (aside from the currently homeless) are renters earning below 50% of AMI, where 395,000 households in the District currently pay more than half of their earnings on housing expenses. Many of these households have disabilities and are unable to work, receiving between $783 and $1,175 per month (depending on family size) in SSI benefits. Many are also working families whose jobs do not pay living wages. As cited in the Workforce Rental Housing section of this report, the median wages of low-paying
68 U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, “Homeless in America: Focus on Chronic Homelessness for People with Disabilities,” August 2018, retrieved July 14, 2020 at https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Homelessness-in-America-Focus-onchronic.pdf
PAGE 86
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Chart 17: Share of Very Low-Income Renters Paying More than 50% of Earnings on Housing Costs in the District
Region 4 WV - 3% Charleston MSA Kent and Sussex Counties, DE Region 1 WV Region 1 WV - 3%
Southcentral PA - 13% Northcentral PA - 4%
Pittsburgh MSA - 15%
Northeast PA - 13%
Philadelphia MSA - 37%
Northwest PA - 6%
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016
service industry jobs fall substantially short of what is needed to pay rent. This is a significant issue in high-priced rental markets like the Philadelphia region, where a fast food worker or cashier would need to nearly double their earnings to afford a moderately priced onebedroom apartment. These households – the working poor, very low-income seniors and persons with disabilities, are precariously housed and are at risk of homelessness.
State Legislators, children fare far better with the extended provision. Without an extension, they are less likely to graduate high school or find employment, and one in four will enter the criminal justice system within two years.69 According to a metadata review conducted by HUD, youth transitioning out of foster care are more likely to be homeless or precariously housed, living in someone else’s home in a temporary manner.70
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care Another group with potential housing needs are youth aging out of foster care. Under current regulations, states may opt to extend foster care from 18 to 21 years of age, allowing additional time for foster children to remain in homes with foster parents. Of the three states in the District, West Virginia and Pennsylvania extend foster care to age 21, while Delaware does not. According to the National Council of
One in five youths who transition out of foster care at age 18 become homeless.
69 Older Youth Housing, Financial Literacy and Other Supports, National Council of State Legislators, April 23, 2020, retrieved July 14, 2020 at https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/supports-older-youth.aspx. 70 Amy Dworsky Keri-Nicole Dillman M. Robin Dion Brandon Coffee-Borden Miriam Rosenau, “Housing for Youth Aging out of Foster Care, A Review of the Literature and Program Typology,” April 2012, available at: https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/ housingfostercare_literaturereview_0412_v2.pdf
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 87
The John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP), operated under the Department of Health and Human Services, provides financial assistance and mentoring to foster children between the ages of 14 and 21 for independent living, and currently assists 6,444 foster children with rental assistance, tuition, mentorship and career preparation.71 To remain in the program, participating youth must be students or gainfully employed, which presents significant challenges for foster youth who lose their jobs or leave school. They also lose their benefits when they are charged with a misdemeanor offense. Because most foster children have experienced some form of trauma and loss in their lives, they are at a greater risk of physical, emotional and behavioral problems. Experts recommend a Housing First approach combined with counseling, mentorship, workforce development and extended foster care to 21 years of age as the best path forward to ensure they remain
housed and out of the criminal justice system.
Formerly Incarcerated Individuals transitioning out of the criminal justice system are at a very high risk of experiencing homelessness. More than 2% become homeless and 5.7% are housing insecure.72 The ability of prisoners to gain employment once released is difficult. Most places of employment require a background check and do not hire former felons. For long-term prisoners, the digital tools and methods of communication common today will seem foreign, creating an additional obstacle to reenter society. Based on the most recent available data (2010) provided by the Prison Policy Initiative, incarceration rates are substantially higher for Black and Latino individuals, particularly in West Virginia, with rates 12 and seven times higher than white individuals, respectively.
Table 25: Incarceration Rates per 100,000, 2010
Delaware Pennsylvania West Virginia
Incarceration rate: White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
Incarceration rate: Black or African American alone
Incarceration rate: Hispanic or Latino
414 375 622
2,002 3,269 7,360
250 2,001 4,585
Source: Prepared by the Prison Policy Initiative and published at https://www.prisonpolicy.org/data/race_ethnicity_gender_2010.xlsx. Created March 2019.
Table 26: Prison Population, 2016 Incarceration rate: White alone, not Hispanic or Latino Delaware Pennsylvania West Virginia
6,600 82,400 10,100
With limited financial resources, extraordinary barriers to employment and limited life skills for living in today’s age, it is no wonder that the formerly incarcerated are 10 times more likely to be homeless than the general population.73
Source: Danielle Kaeble, Mary Cowhig, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the U.S., 2016, April 26, 2018. 71 For more information on the Chafee Program, see: “Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs,” Congressional Research Service, May 29, 2019, retrieved July 22, 2020. 72 Prison Policy Initiative, retrieved August 15, 2020 at www.prisonpolicy.org 73 Ibid.
PAGE 88
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Prisoner re-entry programs that offer transitional housing or permanent supportive housing for individuals with mental and behavioral health issues, combined with case management, workforce development and life skills training, have proven effective in significantly reducing the rate of reincarceration.74
Evictions
Photo: Philadelphia Reentry Coalition
Many individuals and families are at risk of becoming homeless due to being evicted for being unable to pay rent in each month or violating their lease in any way. Very lowincome families generally live paycheck to paycheck and do not have sufficient income to take on unexpected expenses. Any emergency expense like a medical bill or car repair can render a household unable to pay rent in each month. In states like Delaware, landlords have significant freedom to begin an eviction process, where any amount owed can justify an eviction. Additionally, Delaware landlords are not required to hire an attorney to begin an eviction process, pay a nominal filing fee of $45 (compared to Pennsylvania, which averages $600 to file for an eviction including legal costs) and can evict within five days of notice.75 The ease in which Delaware landlords can evict renters makes it one of the most eviction-prone states in the U.S., with rates more than twice as high as Pennsylvania and 60% higher than West Virginia.
One factor that poses significant challenges to finding rental housing is having an eviction record on file. The demand for decent rental housing that is affordable to households earning less than 50% of AMI far exceeds supply, creating a hypercompetitive market even among low-cost rental units. Potential renters with flags on their rental history move to the bottom of the list for most rental housing applications, leading to homelessness for many of these families. According to research conducted by Evictions Lab, one in 40 renters were evicted between 2000 and 2016, with eviction rates increasing in the early 2000s and remaining relatively consistent to today. In real numbers, this means more than 880,000 renters in the District have a negative record on file, hindering their ability to find affordable rental housing.76
Table 27: Evictions and Eviction Rates by State, 2016 State
Eviction rate
Evictions
Delaware
1.77%
29,257
Pennsylvania
5.10%
5,468
West Virginia
3.52%
8,268
Source: Evictionlab.org, retrieved June 20, 2020
74 Jocelyn Fontaine, “Examining Housing as a Pathway to Successful Reentry: A Demonstration Design Process,” Urban Institute, November 2013. 75 Sarah Mueller, “Advocates Argue Delaware Court Processes to Blame for State’s High Eviction Rates,” Delaware Public Media, May 31, 2019. 76 Evictions in the District from 2000 to 2016, www.evictionlab.org, retrieved April 16, 2020.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 89
The actual figure of renters who have been evicted is presumably higher, as not all landlords move through eviction proceedings. Renters often are not aware of their rights, and when landlords post an eviction notice or inform the tenants they are evicted, the tenants are likely to pack up and leave rather than go to court. While there is no data available to quantify how often this occurs, without possessing the knowledge of their legal rights,
PAGE 90
we can presume many low-income renters are evicted without any court record. Focus group data suggests homelessness is on the rise for many in Philadelphia due to a lack of affordable housing despite individuals being employed. There is a need for legal assistance and advocacy to prevent evictions well as incentives for affordable housing owners to remain in the market.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Rehabilitation and Preservation The District has some of the oldest housing stock in the United States with 17% of housing built before 1940 (compared to 13.5% nationally).77 In older low-income communities, this often means a deteriorating housing stock in need of repair. For communities with declining populations, an older housing stock can also lead to widespread blight and loss in property values. In dire circumstances that disproportionately impact the working poor, seniors and persons with disabilities, it can also mean living in conditions that pose health and safety risks. In the review of statewide housing goals, the housing survey results and the
comments from focus group participants, the rehabilitation of older homes is cited as a top priority, both as a means to address need, and as an opportunity to revitalize existing neighborhoods. The need expands across all regions, including low-income communities of color within urban areas; older mobile home communities; rural housing; and small and mid-sized cities in need of downtown or “Main Street” revitalization. The need also includes the preservation of affordable rental housing, where apartments subsidized by federal programs in the 1990s may begin to increase rents, further limiting the supply of rental units affordable to most low-income renters.
Table 28: Indicators for Homes in Need of Rehabilitation State
% Homes Valued at less than $50,000
% Homes Built Before 1940
% Homes built % Homes Vacant between 1940 and 1979
Delaware
8.1%
14.8%
60.0%
16.5%
Pennsylvania
15.3%
49.2%
49.4%
16.3%
West Virginia
28.5%
27.8%
46.1%
23.6%
Source: Five-year American Community Survey 2018
77 5-Year American Community Survey 2018
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 91
Map 18: Concentration of Households Living in Poor Condition (Lacking Kitchen, Plumbing and / or Heat)
Source: Five-year American Community Survey 2018
Unlivable Conditions There are an estimated 4,000 households in the District living in homes that lack heat, basic plumbing or a functional kitchen.78 This figure only represents the outcome of household surveys conducted by the Census; the true number is probably much higher, since homes in such disrepair are less likely to receive or complete surveys. The areas with the highest concentration are in rural areas of West Virginia, and in Pennsylvania, within rural counties around Erie, Punxsutawney and Altoona.
Additionally, there are thousands of homes that do not meet livability criteria under HUD’s definition of a decent, safe and sanitary home and are therefore “unlivable.” This includes homes that have leaky roofs, mold, rodent infestations and safety hazards like poor electrical wiring and unsettled foundations. Unfortunately, neither the American Community Survey nor HUD collects this information, but according to participants in the rural focus group, many poor households in rural areas are living in homes that are “unlivable.”
78 Ibid.
PAGE 92
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
These households are often senior homeowners or homeowners with disabilities who cannot afford to make necessary repairs to make their homes suitable for habitation. As one focus group participant suggested, these homeowners are effectively “homeless” and squatting in their own homes.
flood events. Some communities, like WilkesBarre in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, have historically experienced repetitive flood loss, but due to climate change and the resulting increase in severe precipitation, more communities are experiencing unprecedented flooding.
Flood Risk
The issue is especially critical for riverine communities in West Virginia and Pennsylvania that are located within the 100year floodplain. An estimated 6.5% of the Pennsylvania population lives within a 100year floodplain79, and in West Virginia, 85% of the flooded homes in the presidentially declared flood disaster of 2016, where 4,500 households claimed flood damage, were located within the 100-year floodplain.80
Another significant need that will likely increase over time is the flood risk of lowincome neighborhoods and the rehabilitation of flood-damaged homes for low-income families. Nearly every community in the District has a neighborhood abutting a flood-prone waterway, and it is a common occurrence for low-income households to be concentrated in low-lying areas more prone to
The 100-year floodplain is a term used to describe areas with a 1% chance of flooding in a given year. Due to a changing climate, areas within a 100-year floodplain are experiencing flooding on a frequent basis, sometimes every year.
Photo: Flooding from the 2016 Flood Event in West Virginia Credit: FEMA
79 Fowler et al. “Flood Mitigation for Pennsylvania’s Rural Communities: Community-Scale Impact of Federal Policies,” Center for Rural Pennsylvania, April 2018. 80 FEMA, “Understanding Flood Dangers in Central West Virginia – Lessons Learned from the 2016 Flood,” https://www.fema.gov/ media-library-data/1541185743622-4dac85e81afe3034a6799d8b5b9df2bf/Region_III_WV_FloodReport.pdf
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 93
The Director of Pennsylvania’s Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) noted that in 2018, 5,206 homes experienced flooding in the state, yet no federal assistance was available because these floods were not designated as national emergencies, but rather the new reality of increasing rainstorms swelling rivers and creeks.81 Without designated federal resources to repair flood-damaged homes, communities must rely on existing, limited funding sources. For communities too small to receive a direct annual allocation of CDBG and HOME funds, these communities must compete for repair funds at the state level. All too often, very low-income homeowners with flood damage remain in their homes, making repairs when possible with the help of charitable organizations and local programs. These homes, however, are health hazards due to mold, leading to respiratory illnesses. The needs of areas with flood risks include repairs of flood-damaged homes in cases where it makes sense. But in many of these instances, the homes will flood again. To mitigate repetitive flood loss, communities will need to consider a combination of relocating families to higher ground and/or implementing resiliency measures like elevation of homes and infrastructure investments for storm management.
Photo: Flooding in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania in the summer of 2018. Credit: Blaine Shahan, Staff Photographer, Lancaster online, retrieved June 26, 2020. https://lancasteronline.com/news/ local/why-did-lancaster-county-have-so-much-floodingthis-summer-video/article_bad2328c-b36b-11e8-8f40a39ca087c4eb.html
Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing Mobile homes and manufactured housing make up a significant share of the housing within the District, totaling 393,730 homes (5.6%).82 They are usually located in rural areas and beach communities and can be placed on the resident’s own land or in a mobile home park. West Virginia has by far the largest share of mobile homes, comprising 23.8% of its housing stock.
Mobile homes and manufactured homes are both factory-built, transportable homes. The fundamental difference is in age; factory-built homes constructed prior to HUD’s 1976 enhanced quality standards are considered “mobile homes” and those built under the improved quality standards after 1976 are “manufactured homes.”
81 David E. Hess, ed. “Over $105.1 Million in Flood Damage Not Covered by Feds in 2018; Int99ense Flooding Events Increasing in Pennsylvania,” Pennsylvania Environmental Digest, February 22, 2019. 82 5-Year American Community Survey 2018
PAGE 94
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A mobile home park is, in most cases, owned by an operator who rents pads out to individuals to place their manufactured home or mobile home on. These units may be occupied by the owner of the unit or rented out to another family. The park owner may also own units they rent out. In nearly all cases, an owner of a mobile or manufactured home within a mobile home park does not own the land. The one exception is when residents of a mobile home park buy out the owner and create a cooperative community.
Photo: Mobile Home Park for sale in Seaford, Delaware, listing from mobilehomeparkstore.com, retrieved July 20, 2020.
In general, manufactured housing provides a viable alternative to stick-built construction for low-income families, providing an opportunity for affordable homeownership and rental housing in rural areas at prices well below traditional construction. However, many affordable housing advocates are opposed to manufactured housing as an affordable housing solution due to due to several fundamental challenges. First, a family has limited access to a traditional home mortgage when they do not own the land. Both Fannie Mae and USDA provide mortgages for manufactured homes, but only if the land is owned and the home is placed on a permanent foundation with necessary infrastructure.83 Second, mobile homes and manufactured homes on rented land are viewed differently by tax assessors and the insurance industry. They are valued like a car or boat and depreciate over time. Insurance benefits, therefore, decrease significantly as the unit ages, and homeowners are not covered for repairs that would normally be covered under traditional insurance. This is a significant issue for any flooded manufactured or mobile homes, where insurance proceeds do not cover repairs.
Photo: Manufactured Housing Community
Third, because the homes are on rented land, homeowners are at risk of the land being sold to developers and repurposed for traditional construction or commercial development. Manufactured housing residents in southern Delaware, which is experiencing high growth, are at a higher risk of displacement. Finally, because the units depreciate, repairing older units is not feasible, as the repair costs often exceed the home value. In the cases where homes are in significant disrepair, replacement is a more viable option. But since manufactured homes in parks do not qualify for traditional mortgages, replacing units is a challenge.
83 For more information on loans for manufactured housing, see: https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/originating-underwriting/ mortgage-products/manufactured-housing-financing and https://rd.usda.gov/files/RD-SFH-ManufacturedHousingNotes.pdf .
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 95
The issue is particularly significant in West Virginia and Sussex County, Delaware, where mobile and manufactured homes comprise 24% and 23% of the housing stock, respectfully. An estimated 32% of West Virginia’s mobile and manufactured homes were built before 1980 and will require replacement in the near future.84 Unfortunately, there are no substantial federal programs that address aging mobile homes.
Nonprofit organizations that work to address this issue either relocate homeowners to a new site in which the land is owned, work with the homeowners and supporting organizations to buy out the mobile home park and create a cooperative, or rely on subsidies to purchase a replacement unit. ROC USA, for example, is a national nonprofit organization that assists mobile home community members purchase the land from the park owner and create a cooperative to sustain long-term affordability.
The 2003 Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act provides several forms of assistance to mobile and manufactured homeowners to preserve long-term affordability. This includes: •
Creating a relocation trust fund to provide relocation assistance to homeowners whose communities are closing;
•
Providing a rental assistance program for seniors and persons with disabilities for the pad in which their homes are placed;
•
Created a conflict resolution network through the Governor’s Advisory Council on Manufactured Housing to intervene when conflicts arise between mobile and manufactured homeowners and the park owners they rent land from; and
•
Established the right of manufactured homeowners to purchase their community if the owner decides to sell the land.
84 Virginia Center for Housing Research, Mobile and Manufactured Homes In Central Appalachia and Alabama: Age, Condition and Need for Replacement, September 2016, retrieved July 10, 2020 at www.prosperitynow.org
PAGE 96
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Map 19: Percentage of Homes that are Mobile Homes or Manufactured Housing in the District
Source: Five-year American Community Survey 2018
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 97
Housing for Older Adults The population of low-income older adults (defined as persons 65 years old and older) will rise significantly over the next decade and affordable housing solutions, both for rental housing and for low-income homeowners, will become increasingly necessary. More than 76 million Americans were born during the Baby Boomer years (1946-1964), more than any other generation in U.S. history.85 Until 2019, this generation comprised the greatest share of the population, and now make up roughly 21% (compared to Millennials at 22%). This large demographic group – currently between the ages of 56 and 74 – will all shift into their senior years over the next decade. According to population forecasts, the District will experience an increase of 540,000 senior households between 2020 and 2030.86
Older adults today have distinctly different life experiences than in 2000 and therefore have unique housing needs. For one, life expectancy is growing, meaning Americans will be living on fixed incomes for a larger percentage of their lifetime.87 Second, older adults are more likely to be working, requiring housing to be conveniently located near job opportunities and public transit.88 Third, low-income older adults are more likely to live in multi-generational housing, and are more likely to be the head of household and sole provider for that household, taking care of their adult children and/or younger grandchildren, which will put additional strain on fixed incomes.89 Finally, senior homeowners today are more likely to have a mortgage than 20 years ago, an impact of the mortgage crisis of 2008, and therefore will have less equity to use for long-term care.90
Table 29: Share of the Population 65 Years and Older State
2010
2020
2030
Delaware
14%
18%
22%
Pennsylvania
15%
18%
22%
West Virginia
16%
21%
24%
Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Demographics Research Group, updated December 2018
85 Richard Fry, “Millennials Now Overtake Baby Boomers as the Largest Generation,” Pew Research Center, April 28, 2020, retrieved May 10, 2020 at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/28/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers-as-americas-largestgeneration/. 86 Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Demographics Research Group, updated December 2018. 87 Ibid. 88 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 89 Gretchen Livingston, “More than one-in-ten U.S. parents are also caring for an adult,” Pew Research Center, November 29, 2018, retrieved May 16, 2020 at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/29/more-than-one-in-ten-u-s-parents-are-also-caring-for-anadult/ 90 J. Michael Collins, Erik Hembre, and Carly Urban, “Exploring the Rise of Mortgage Borrowing Among Older Americans,” Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, May 2018.
PAGE 98
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Chart 18: Distribution of Income Sources by Income (Relative to Poverty Level) for Adults Over 65, 2013 100% 90% 80%
Other
70%
Interest and dividends
60% 50%
Earnings
40%
Pensions
30%
SSI
20%
Social Security
10% 0% % of AMI <125%
125-199% 200-399%
400%+
Richard W. Johnson, “Housing Costs and Financial Challenges for Low-Income Older Adults,” Research Report, Urban Institute, July 2015
Seniors with Housing Instability
low-income seniors, who are at a greater risk of homelessness, foreclosure and living in deteriorating housing conditions.
As the Baby Boomer generation shifts into their older years, their housing needs will rise significantly. Low-income older adults largely rely on social security to survive, comprising 72% of their income.91While housing, utility, construction and health care costs increase beyond inflationary rates, the incomes of seniors on fixed incomes do not. This places a tremendous financial burden on
According to HUD CHAS data, there are 115,000 extremely low-income (i.e. earning less than 30% of AMI) senior renters and 80,000 extremely low-income senior owners in the District who are cost burdened. Among all low-income seniors (those earning less than 80% of AMI), 57% of renters and 41% of owners are cost burdened.
Table 30: Low-Income Senior Renters who are Cost Burdened in the District <30% of AMI
30% - 50% of AMI
50% to 80% of AMI
All Low Income
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Elderly Families
10,098
71.7%
11,442
61.0%
9,617
35.7%
31,157
52.1%
Elderly Living Alone
69,198
61.4%
55,882
62.3%
23,196
41.9%
148,276
57.5%
Total
79,296
62.6%
67,324
62.1%
32,813
39.9%
179,433
56.5%
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
91 Richard W. Johnson, “Housing Costs and Financial Challenges for Low Income Older Adults,” Research Report, Urban Institute, July 2015.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 99
Table 31: Low-Income Senior Homeowners who are Cost Burdened in the District <30% of AMI
30% - 50% of AMI
50% to 80% of AMI
All Low Income
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Elderly Families
28,504
74.4%
34,157
41.6%
39,195
21.3%
101,856
33.5%
Elderly Living Alone
87,094
74.2%
72,024
46.4%
35,180
24.5%
194,298
46.7%
Total
115,598
74.2%
106,181
44.7%
74,375
22.7%
296,154
41.1%
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
Map 20: Count of Low-Income Seniors with Severe Cost Burden (Owners and Renters) in the District
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
PAGE 100
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Map 21: Percentage of Seniors who are Low Income and Severely Cost Burdened in the District
Source: HUD CHAS 2018 using five-year American Community Survey 2016 data
Aging in Place Nearly all adults over the age of 65 (92% to 95%) wish to remain in their homes for as long as possible.92 Planners and housing advocates now use the term “aging in place” to refer to programs and services that allow older residents to live independently in a home they own or rent for as long as possible. This is accomplished through a combination of home retrofitting – where homes are modified to meet the needs of older adults with mobility and accessibility issues – and supportive services that may include transportation to doctor’s appointments, meal delivery services, assistance with housekeeping and other day-
to-day services. These programs are becoming more important as we live longer lives. Through our older years, from 65 and onward, we have a range of housing needs than can potentially span another 20 to 30 years. From a financial and quality of life perspective, programs that allow older adults to remain in their homes and within their communities for as long as possible make sense. According to a study sponsored by HUD, nursing homes cost three times more, on average, than living at home combined with non-institutional long-term care services.93
92 Kathryn Lawler, “Aging in Place: Coordinating Housing and Health Care Providers for America’s Growing Elderly Population,” Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University and Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, October 2001. 93 HUD Policy Development and Research, “Measuring the Costs and Savings of Aging in Place”, Evidence Matters, Fall 2013, retrieved August 12, 2020, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/fall13/highlight2.html..
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 101
PAGE 102
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
In general, most agree that aging in place should include a home that is affordable, physically accessible, with access to reliable transportation and provides the residents with the ability to socialize with others in a community environment. According to focus group participants and a review of local and state housing plans, the housing needs of seniors in the District includes the following: •
Rehabilitation grants to nonprofit organizations to repair homes owned by very low-income seniors who cannot afford to pay contractors and are physically unable to make repairs themselves, with a focus on homes that pose health risks to the residents;
•
An increased supply of affordable rental housing for seniors constructed near neighborhood services and public transit;
•
Modifications of owner-occupied homes incorporating “aging in place” features, including wheelchair ramps, accessible showers and universal design features, to provide a setting in which seniors can remain in their homes when mobility becomes more challenging; and
•
Opportunities for low-income seniors who are the primary caregivers of their grandchildren to move into senior rental housing that is family-friendly.
Photo: Affordable modification of a home to be wheelchairaccessible
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 103
COVID-19 and its Impact on Housing The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 severely impacted America’s economy, resulting in the highest unemployment rate since the 1930s.94 To mitigate the spread of the virus, state and local governments responded by ordering most “non-essential” businesses to close and most social gatherings to be canceled until the infection rate is deemed low enough to end strict social distancing practices. Although state and local governments differ on what is considered an “essential business,” the restrictions have led to widespread closures of stores, restaurants, businesses and schools. And with children attending school virtually from home, more families have had to shift from a two-income household to only one income. The unemployment rate went from less than 4% in March 2020 to 11% by midsummer, the highest quarterly job loss on record.95 Current economic conditions appear more stable than the unemployment rate would indicate due to government relief programs, notably the CARES Act, which provides supplementary income to workers who lost their jobs due to the pandemic, a temporary moratoria on tenant evictions and a mortgage forbearance program for homeowners with federally guaranteed mortgages. However, the eviction moratorium and the expanded federal unemployment benefits ended in July, and as of August 2020 (when this report was written) no supplemental federal assistance has been approved. This may have a disastrous impact to low-income households in the near future without some form of additional
assistance. But regardless of government aid, the pandemic is expected to take a toll on the economy, and the District can expect to see increased foreclosures, evictions and homelessness over the next two years as a result. Note: The information presented here reflects pandemic-related issues, programs and policies effective August 2020, and are subject to change rapidly as the pandemic evolves.
Renters and Evictions Under the CARES Act, landlords are forbidden from evicting tenants for not paying rent while providing subsidies to impacted renters to make monthly payments. This is further supported by state and city moratoria on evictions to halt the virus’ spread under stay at home orders. The safeguards under the CARES Act expired at the end of July, and many local moratoria started expiring in May 2020, without a clear alternative. The National Housing Law Project estimates that 20 to 28 million renters may be evicted in the coming months.96 According to a study published by Urban Footprint, Pennsylvania is one of the top 10 states with the greatest risk of evictions due to the pandemic. The research firm identified areas with severe rent burden and high rates of job loss due to the pandemic to assess risk by county. Within the District, nearly all counties of Pennsylvania and Sussex County, Delaware appear to have the highest risk.97
94 Unemployment rate hit its peak in the U.S. in 1933 at 24.9% and remained above 14% for the remainder of the 1930s. The highest unemployment rate recorded in 2020 was 14.7% in April. Kimberly Amadeo and Somer G. Anderson, “Unemployment Rate by Year Since 1929 Compared to Inflation and GDP,” September 17, 2020, retrieved September 20, 2020 at https://www.thebalance.com/ unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506#:~:text=The%20highest%20rate%20of%20U.S.,1982%20when%20it%20reached%2010.1%25. 95 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 96 National Housing Law Project 97 To view Urban Footprint’s interactive map, see: https://urbanfootprint.com/covid-19/
PAGE 104
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Most significant, government intervention halted what would have been (and may still be) a collapse in the housing market. Through the CARES Act, homeowners who lost their jobs could receive government funds to pay their mortgage notes. This expired July 31. The federal government also provided homeowners with a forbearance option for U.S. backed mortgages until July 2021, resulting in declining foreclosure rates despite a surge in unemployment.
Photo: Homemade signs outside of an apartment building in New York. Credit: Andrew Harnick, AP Photo98
Homeowners and Foreclosures Despite the economic downturn resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, housing prices have increased. This may seem unexpected, but there are several factors at play that caused such a boom in June and July 2020. The ongoing shortage of housing is one factor, and when combined with a flurry of sellers listing their properties in June and July, it created a wave of potential homebuyers entering the market. This was supported by all-time low interest rates and increased savings among those still employed. Additionally, the shift towards remote working allowed many workers in high-priced markets like New York and Washington, D.C., to finally purchase in less expensive markets like Philadelphia and Baltimore.
The housing market of for-sale homes is expected to feel the economic ramifications of the pandemic starting in the fall of 2020.99 CoreLogic, a national real estate market analysis firm, predicts that home prices will fall 6.6% by May 2021.100 The real crisis, however, may come in the summer of 2021, when the forbearance period ends under the CARES Act. The pandemic has accelerated growing economic trends like online shopping and increased automation, which will have profound long-term consequences for the retail and food services sectors. Homeowners who lost their jobs in these sectors are at a higher risk of foreclosure, but the fallout will impact all industries without either rapid economic recovery (which doesn’t seem likely at the time of this report) or additional government aid. We may experience another drop in home prices a year from now comparable to the Great Recession, and like 2008, low-income families who achieved homeownership in the past five years of economic growth, particularly families of color, may again see that taken away.
98 Bryce Covert, “America is Headed for an Unprecedented Wave of Evictions,” The Nation, August 5, 2020, retrieved September 16, 2020 at https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/rent-evictions-homelessness/. 99 Ralph McLaughlin, “June 2020 Hausing Market Forecast,” June 16, 2020, retrieved July 17, 2020 at https://haus.com/resources/ june-2020-hausing-market-forecast 100 Molly Boesel, “Strong Demand Fueled Home Prices Increases in May, but Prices Expected to Fall Over the Year,” July 7, 2020, retrieved July 28, 2020 at https://www.corelogic.com/blog/2020/7/strong-demand-fueled-home-prices-increases-may-but-pricesexpected-fall-over-the-year.aspx
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 105
Chart 19: Risk of Death due to COVID-19 for Blacks and Hispanics Compared to Whites by Age Group 12 White 10
Black Hispanic/Latino
8 6 4 2 0
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
65-74 years
75-84 years
85 years and over
Source: Brookings Institute. Note: The chart compares the rate of death among Black and Hispanic/Latino individuals with white individuals, where the rate of death for whites is 1 (in blue).
Health and Equity Issues Data illustrates how the pandemic is negatively impacting Latino and Black Americans at a much higher rate than the rest of the population. The Brookings Institute analyzed data collected by the Center for Disease Control documenting the age and race/ethnicity of individuals who died from the coronavirus.101 The results of this analysis show striking disparities by race and ethnicity, particularly for patients under 45 years old. For those aged 35 to 44 years old, Black people are 10 times more likely to die than whites, while Hispanic people have a risk that is eight times higher. The increased death rates are attributed to higher rates of infection, higher percentages of pre-existing conditions and unequal access to health care, among other factors. The CDC sites higher rates of infection among minorities largely due to the economy. Whereas white collar workers have greater flexibility to work from home and practice social distancing, jobs in the service industry
and blue-collar positions require going into a place of business and interacting with customers and co-workers, increasing the risk of exposure to the coronavirus. Workers in retail, restaurants, manufacturing and agriculture are therefore more vulnerable to infection, and these positions are disproportionately held by minorities. To identify communities with the greatest risk, we analyzed data for income, access to insurance and concentrations of jobs deemed “essential.” Maps 23 through 25 represent a heat map of areas with a high concentration of low-income households who work within the health care, retail, food service, manufacturing and agriculture industries that also have low access to health care services. We see concentrations in urban areas, particularly northern Philadelphia, and Wilmington, along with smaller towns and rural areas with distribution centers and agricultural processing (southern Delaware).
101 Tiffany Ford, Sarah Reber and Richard V. Reeves, “Race Gaps in COVID-19 Deaths are Even Bigger than they Appear,” Brookings Institute, June 16, 2020, retrieved June 26, 2020 at: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/06/16/race-gaps-in-covid-19-deaths
PAGE 106
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Photo: Food Service During Pandemic, 2020
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 107
Maps 22-24: Examples of High Risk COVID-19 Areas in the FHLBank District: Philadelphia area, West Virginia south of Charleston and Sussex County and Delaware. Maps convey low-income communities with a concentration of residents who work in the Retail, Health Care, Food Services and Manufacturing Industries using data from American Community Survey five-year 2018 data and Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics 2018 data.
Source: Atria Planning
PAGE 108
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Source: Atria Planning
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 109
Conclusion FHLBank’s Housing Needs Assessment for the District describes the most pressing housing challenges for low-income households in Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia as of August 2020. The publication comes at an unusual time, as most data used to inform key findings is pre-pandemic and pre-economic recession/depression of 2020. Although we cannot predict how the COVID-19 pandemic will influence affordable housing needs, we can anticipate that the current situation will get worse before it gets better. We have not yet seen the true ramifications the pandemic will have on the homeownership and rental market, but we have learned from experience (including the collapse of the home mortgage market 14 years ago) that recovery takes time. This means an increase in evictions, foreclosures and homelessness, and a sustained high unemployment rate before economic recovery. The intent of this study is to inform FHLBank’s Board and Affordable Housing Advisory Council on current and anticipated housing needs so that they may shape the policies and programs of their Affordable Housing Program in a way that responds to those needs, either through modifying existing programs, creating new priorities within the program’s funding cycle or potentially introducing new programs where there is a gap. The pandemic has not altered housing needs, but rather exacerbated existing conditions. For the last five to 10 years (depending on location), rents and home prices have escalated while construction and land prices have increased. The families and individuals that struggled to afford housing before the pandemic will continue to struggle. This includes low-wage earners, persons on fixed incomes like seniors and households with disabilities, rural low-income families and the unemployed.
PAGE 110
The data available to estimate housing affordability challenges have long indicated significant needs among households earning less than 50% of AMI. Based on current rents, there are no communities within the District where renters earning at or below this threshold can afford a standard one-bedroom apartment. In real terms, this means fast food workers, janitors, retail workers, cashiers and day care workers, among others, cannot afford renting a standard apartment, even working full-time, while homeownership is out or reach. It also means that low-income persons who are unable to work, due to a disability or age, do not receive enough assistance to rent an apartment, and must compete for subsidized housing in limited supply. This indicates a greater need for lower rents, even among subsidized units, and a preservation of existing rental stock. The renters living paycheck to paycheck, along with individuals transitioning from institutions like foster care or the prison system, are at a substantially higher risk of homelessness. According to the homeless service providers consulted with for this study, the most effective way to address homelessness is to avoid it happening in the first place. This illustrates how homeless prevention services, including rental assistance, job training, legal services and transitional housing are effective at reducing the rate of homelessness. There are individuals, however, who experience frequent homelessness due to mental illness, disabilities and addiction disorders who require permanent supportive housing combined with wraparound services. The District is also home to a very old housing stock. This includes distressed older homes in historic urban areas, disinvested small and mid-sized manufacturing towns and rural housing. In the online survey, focus groups and review of state and community housing
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
plans, the need for rehabilitating older housing stock was a common theme, whether these homes were occupied or not. Some issues that came from this study were not new, but the affordable housing industry is bringing new focus on these matters. This includes the significant gap in homeownership among Black and Latino households, regardless of income or education. Focus group participants on the affordable housing financing session emphasized the need for lenders to become more involved with minority communities to bridge the gap. The study also emphasizes how the Baby Boomer generation – the second largest demographic group – will all transition into their senior years over the next decade, and the housing needs of low-income
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
seniors will need to be addressed in a way that acknowledges significant lifestyle changes. Seniors are living longer, and are more likely to work, take care of their children and grandchildren, and have home mortgages compared to past generations. This emphasizes a need for more versatile solutions for low-income seniors, including aging in place programs, access to public transit, legal protection services and family senior housing. Finally, the study includes a preliminary assessment of what may occur due to the pandemic, emphasizing that more resources are needed to protect renters and homeowners from losing their homes. This comes at a time when municipal and state tax revenues are down, hindering the ability of local and state government to address the pending crisis.
PAGE 111
Appendix 1 – Focus Group and Survey Participants ORGANIZATIONS WHO RECEIVED SURVEYS 1260 Housing Development Corporation 700 Somerset Partners LP A Partnership In Housing A.M. Rodriguez Associates, Inc. Accessible Dreams ACTION-Housing, Inc. Adams County Interfaith Housing Corporation Advanced Living Community Development Corporation Affordable Housing Associates of Dauphin County Allegheny West Foundation Alliance for Building Communities, Inc. Allies & Ross Management and Development Corporation Almost Heaven Habitat for Humanity Asociacion Puertorriquenos en Marcha Aspire Properties, LP Atlas Development Ava Goldman Associates, LLC Bartlett Housing Solutions, Inc. Be Ready Community Development Corporation Berks County Nonprofit Development Corporation Bethlehem Haven Better Homes of Seaford, Inc. CADES CATCH, Inc. Catholic Housing and Community Services Center for Community Action Central Baptist Community Development Corporation Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Central Delaware Housing Collaborative Central PA Community Action, Inc. CHANGE, Inc Charleston Kanawha Housing Authority Charleston Urban Renewal Authority
PAGE 112
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Chester Community Improvement Project* Christian Recovery Aftercare Ministry, Inc. (CRAM) Church Housing Corporation Citadel Federal Credit Union City Mission-Living Stones, Inc. Clarion County Housing and Community Development Corporation Clarksburg-Harrison Regional Housing Authority Coalfield Development Corporation Community Action of South Eastern West Virginia, Inc. Community Basics, Inc. Community Strategies Group Community Ventures Connections CSP, Inc. Cornerstone West Community Development Corporation Covenant House Pennsylvania Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Dairy on Turner Delaware Center for Homeless Veterans, Inc. Delaware State Housing Authority Delaware Valley Development Company Diamond & Associates Diamond State CLT, Inc. Diana T. Myers and Associates, Inc. Dignity Housing DON Enterprises, Inc. East Liberty Development Inc. Eastern West Virginia Community Action Agency, Inc. Edgemoor Revitalization Cooperative Inc. Fairmont Community Development Partnership, Inc. Fairmont Housing Authority Family Services Incorporated Fayette County Community Action Agency, Inc. Fineview Citizens Council Friends Association for Care and Protection of Children Friends Rehabilitation Program, Inc. Full Quiver Consulting Gaudenzia Foundation Inc. Genesis Housing Corporation GKH Consulting Company
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 113
GKH Properties GMA Development Group, LLC Good Neighbors Inc Good Shepherd Rehabilitation Network Good Works, Inc. Greater Shamokin Area Housing Development Corp Habitat for Humanity Blair County Habitat for Humanity of Berks County Habitat for Humanity of Greater Pittsburgh Habitat for Humanity of Kanawha and Putnam County Habitat for Humanity of Montgomery and Delaware Counties Habitat for Humanity of New Castle County Habitat for Humanity Philadelphia Inc HACE Affordable Housing Corporation Harrisburg Housing Authority HDC MidAtlantic Heart 2 Heart Volunteers Inc. Helping Arms, Inc Hill Community Development Corporation Hinton Area Foundation Hispanic Association of Contractors & Enterprises (HACE) Homes Build Hope Hope Rescue Mission of the City of Reading PA Hosanna Industries, Inc. Housing and Neighborhood Development Service Housing Authority of Mingo County Housing Authority of Northumberland County Housing Authority of the City of Erie Housing Authority of the County of Cumberland Housing Development Corporation of Northumberland County Housing Services Alliance Hunt Development Group LLC IDA Community Development Corporation Impact Services Corporation Indiana County Office of Plan & Del Inglis Housing Corporation Innovative Technology Properties Integra Home Counseling, Inc. Interfaith Community Housing of Delaware, Inc.
PAGE 114
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Jewish Family & Children's Service KenCrest Services Keystone Hope Development Corporation Lackawanna County Department of Economic Development Lancaster Area Habitat for Humanity Lawrenceville Corporation Leon N. Weiner & Associates, Inc. Liberty Housing Development Corp Light of Life Ministries Inc Logan County Housing Authority Logan Housing Corporation Lutheran Community at Telford Main Street Hinton, Inc. Marcus Reinvestment Strategies, LLC Mary's Shelter Mature Resources Foundation Maze Group Development McCleary Hill Associates I, LP McKean County Redevelopment & Housing Authority McKean County Redevelopment Authority Methodist Services MidPoint Group of Companies, Inc. Milford Housing Development Corporation Miller Street LP Millsboro Housing for Progress Mission First Housing Development Corporation Mon Valley Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Mon Valley Initiative** Monarch Development Group, LLC Monroe County Council on Aging Mountain Acres Properties INC. Mountain Opportunities Corporation MountainHeart Community Services, Inc. Mt. Vernon Manor Inc. Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc. Muse on 7th National Council on Agricultural Life & Labor Research Fund New Burgh Real Estate New Horizons Development Corporation
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 115
New Kensington Community Development Corporation NewCourtland Elder Services NFS Ministries, Inc./DBA Latrobe Street Mission Nicholas County Empowerment Corporation Northern Cambria Community Development Corporation Northern West Virginia Center for Independent Living Nueva Esperanza Oakland Planning and Development Corporation Operation Better Block, Inc. Opportunity House Paladin Development Pennrose PHL, LLC Pennrose, LLC People's Emergency Center PHI d/b/a Presbyterian Senior Living Philadelphia Arms Townhomes Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation Pittsburgh Hispanic Development Corporation Pittsburgh Housing Development Corp. Port Hope Delaware, Inc. Presbys Inspired Life Preston County Economic Development Authority Project H.O.M.E. QSP Development LLC Ralph A. Falbo, Inc. RCT Advisors Rea of Hope fellowship Home, Inc REAL Life Community Services Rebuilding Together Philadelphia Rebuilding Together Pittsburgh Recovery Point of Huntington, Inc. Redevelopment Authority of Cumberland County Redevelopment Authority of Easton Redevelopment Authority of the City of Allentown Redevelopment Authority of the City of Buster Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittston Redevelopment Authority of the County of Butler Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster Redevelopment Authority of the County of Union
PAGE 116
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Redevelopment Authority of the County of Washington S&A Homes SACA Development Corp. Sacred Heart Housing Inc. Sarah A. Reed Children's Center Self Help Movement Inc. Shaffer Consulting Sherick Project Management, Inc. Southern Appalachian Labor School Southwestern Community Action Council, Inc. St. Ignatius Nursing & Rehab Center Steve Novotny Student-Run Emergency Housing Unit of Philadelphia Sussex County Habitat for Humanity, Inc Task Force on Domestic Violence, "HOPE, Inc." Tharp Community Deveopment, LLC The Allegheny West Foundation The Community at Holy Family Manor The Connecting Link, Inc. The Flats Phase II The Hazelwood Initiative The Maple Corporation The Ministry of Caring, Inc. The Residences at Wood Street Tioga United TLC Work-Based Training Program, Inc. Todmorden Foundation TREK Development Group TRF Development Partners, Inc. Tri-County HDC, Ltd. Union County Housing Authority United Cerebral Palsy of Delaware, Inc. United Neighborhood Community Development Corporation Universal Community Homes Valley Community Housing Corporation Veterans Place of Washington Blvd. Warrior Creek Development Warriors Helping Warriors Inc. Washington City Mission
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 117
Wayne County Housing Authority Waynesburg Prosperous & Beautiful, Inc We Have Your Six, Inc West Philadelphia Real Estate West Virginia Homes Inc. Westmoreland Human Opportunities, Inc. Women In Need, Inc. Women's Community Revitalization Project Wood Township Woodlands Development Group West Virginia Community Builders LLC Wyoming County Recovery Network, Inc. York Habitat for Humanity* Yorktown Community Development Corporation YWCA Lancaster YWCA Wheeling Urban and Suburban Affordable Housing Focus Group Action Housing Delaware State Housing Authority Habitat for Humanity of New Castle County HUD Wilmington Field Office Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency Rebuilding Together Stone Sherick The Reinvestment Fund Westend Cornerstone Rural Affordable Housing Focus Group Eastern Panhandle Habitat for Humanity Farm Labor Housing Full Quiver Consulting Habitat for Humanity Sussex County Housing Authority of the County of Warren National Council on Agricultural Life & Labor Fund Pennsylvania Downtown Center Rural Local Initiatives Support Corporation
PAGE 118
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Woodlands Development Group Homelessness & Supportive Housing Focus Group Catholic Charities Delaware Housing Alliance Diana T. Meyers and Associates HACE Rea of Hope Sussex County Homeless Services Third Street Alliance Veterans Place of Washington Boulevard West Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness Equitable Housing Focus Group Asociacion Puertorriquenos en Marcha Black Heritage Association Ceiba Councilman - City of Allentown Harrisburg Housing Authority Hispanic Center Nueva Esperanza Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations Regional Housing Legal Services Financing Affordable Housing Focus Group Brentwood Bank First Citizens Bank Fulton Bank PNC Bank WesBanco WSFS Bank SSB Bank
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 119
Appendix 2: Literature Review, Homeless and Supportive Services Name of Study
2016-2020 State Plan_on_Aging
Organization Name
PA Dept of Aging
Date of Study
11/01/2016 - 09/30/2020
Subject of Study
To lay out core principles that will guide the operation of the PDA over the course of the next four years
Name of Study
Supportive Housing Needs Assessment for Pennsylvania
Organization Name
Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania
Date of Study
January 26, 2016
Subject of Study
Needs Assessment
Name of Study
Western PA CoC Strategic Plan to Prevent & End Homelessness
Organization Name
Western PA CoC
Date of Study
10/30/17 (5 year plan 2017-1021)
Subject of Study
Defining of mission, goals, desired outcomes, strategies, 1st yr priorities, and area data/demographics
Name of Study
Eastern Pennsylvania Continuum of Care: Five-Year Strategic Plan to Reduce and End Homelessness
Organization Name
Eastern PACoC
Date of Study
6/19/17, updates 6/30/17
Subject of Study
5 yr implementation plan to end homelessness among specific subpopulations (chronic homelessness, Veterans, families w/ children, families with children fleeing domestic abuse and unaccompanied youth.)
Name of Study
Housing Survey of People with Disabilities in Pennsylvania
Organization Name
Diana T. Myers and Associates, Inc. Accessible Dreams, and HANDS
Date of Study
January 2015
Subject of Study
To identify housing needs (through survey) that will inform and expand accessible and affordable housing options for people with disabilities.
Name of Study
Joint finance committee hearing fiscal year 2021 budget (de)
Organization Name
Division of services for aging & adults with physical disabilities, dhs
Date of Study
February 25, 2020
Subject of Study
Fiscal Year 2021 budget request
PAGE 120
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Name of Study
Joint Finance Committee Hearing Fiscal Year 2021 Budget (DE)
Organization Name
Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health (DSAMH)
Date of Study
February 27, 2020
Subject of Study
Accomplishments and FY 2021 GRB
Name of Study
Joint Finance Committee Hearing Fiscal Year 2021 Budget (De)
Organization Name
Division of developmental disabilities services, dhs
Date of Study
February 27, 2020
Subject of Study
FY 2019 accomplishments and FY 2021 GRB for DDDS
Name of Study
Ending Homelessness in Delaware
Organization Name
Delaware Continuum of Care
Date of Study
2017
Subject of Study
Ending and Preventing Homelessness
Name of Study
Opening Doors in WV Plan
Organization Name
The WV Interagency Council on Homelessness
Date of Study
12/2015 -5 year plan 12/15 - 12/20
Subject of Study
Develop/ implement a plan to prevent/end homelessness in WV, improve/increase efficient access to resource, identify group specific needs
Name of Study
Priced Out: The Housing Crisis for People with Disabilities
Organization Name
Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc. & Consortium For Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force
Date of Study
December 2017
Subject of Study
Disabled people on SSI cannot afford rental housing w/o ongoing tenant or project based rental subsidy. The report also highlights negative outcomes — including homelessness, institutionalization, and incarceration — that occur when people with disabilities lack affordable housing and access to critical health treatment and services.
FHLBANK PITTSBURGH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAGE 121
FHLBank Pittsburgh Housing Needs Assessment, 2020-2025 for Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia
November 2020