ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 2020.PDF
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
301702 characters
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
2020
Prepared for:
Maricopa Urban County
and the
Maricopa HOME Consortium
Prepared by:
Western Economic Services, LLC
212 SE 18th Avenue
Portland, OR 97214
Phone: (503) 239-9091
Toll Free: (866) 937-9437
Fax: (503) 239-0236
Website: http://www.westernes.com
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Has Your Right to Fair Housing
Been Violated?
If you feel you have experienced discrimination in the housing industry, please contact:
Southwest Fair Housing Council
177 N Church Ave
Suite 1104
Tucson AZ 85701
1-888-624-4611
TTY: (520) 670-0233
http://swfhc.com/contact-us
Arizona Attorney General
2005 N Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-542-5263
CivilRightsInfo@azag.gov
San Francisco Regional Office of FHEO
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
One Samsome Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 489-6524
(800) 347-3739
TTY (415) 436-6594
Civil Rights Complaints: ComplaintsOffice09@hud.gov
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table of Contents
Section I. Executive Summary
1
Section II. Community Participation Process
8
A. Overview
8
B. The 2019 Fair Housing Survey
8
C. Fair Housing Forum
8
D. The Final Public Review Process
9
Section III. Assessment of Past Goals and Actions
10
A. Past Impediments and Actions
10
Section IV. Fair Housing Analysis
14
A. Socio-Economic Overview
14
B. Segregation and Integration
60
C. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
61
D. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
62
E. Disproportionate Housing Needs
75
F. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis
90
G. Disability and Access Analysis
97
H. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, & Resources
105
I. Fair Housing Survey Results
115
J. Municipal Code Review and Code Enforcement
119
Section V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
125
Section VI. Appendices
131
A. Additional Plan Data
131
B. Public Input Data
139
I. Executive Summary
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
1
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Section I. Executive Summary
Overview
Title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, also known as the Fair Housing Act, protects people from
discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability
when they are renting or buying a home, getting a mortgage, seeking housing assistance, or
engaging in other housing related activities. The Act, and subsequent laws reaffirming its principles,
seeks to overcome the legacy of segregation, unequal treatment, and historic lack of access to
housing opportunity. There are several statutes, regulations, and executive orders that apply to fair
housing, including the Fair Housing Act, the Housing Amendments Act, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act.1
It is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act to discriminate against a person in a protected class by:
Refusing to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or
rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color,
religion, sex, familial status, or national origin; discriminating against any person in the terms,
conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities
based on a protected class; representing that a dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or
rental when it is, in fact, available; publishing an advertisement indicating any preference,
limitation, or discrimination against a protected class; or refusing to allow a person with a disability
to make a reasonable modification to the unit at the renter’s own expense.
Lead Agency and Service Area
Maricopa County, led by the Human Services Department, is the lead agency for HOME funding
and is undertaking this Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice along with the Maricopa
HOME Consortium.
The Maricopa County HOME Consortium includes Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Peoria,
Scottsdale, Surprise, and Tempe, as well as the Maricopa Urban County. This includes Buckeye, El
Mirage, Fountain Hills, Gila Bend, Goodyear, Guadalupe, Litchfield Park, Tolleson, Wickenburg,
Youngtown, Unincorporated areas in County. Most of the data presented in this report will be the
entirety of Maricopa County except the HUD entitlements of Phoenix and Mesa. In these
instances, this service area will be called the Maricopa County HOME Consortium. In any
instances when the County as a whole is used, it will be referenced as Maricopa County.
Assessing Fair Housing
Provisions to affirmatively further fair housing are long-standing components of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) housing and community development
programs. These provisions come from Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Act, which requires
that the Secretary of HUD administer federal housing and urban development programs in a
manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.2
Affirmatively furthering fair housing is defined in the Fair Housing Act as taking “meaningful
actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster
1 https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_and_related_law
2 42 U.S.C.3601 et seq.
I. Executive Summary
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected
characteristics”.3 Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing requires that recipients of federal
housing and urban development funds take meaningful actions to address housing disparities, and
fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.4 Furthering fair
housing can involve developing affordable housing, removing barriers to affordable housing
development in high opportunity areas, investing in neighborhood revitalization, preserving and
rehabilitating existing affordable housing units, improving housing access in areas of concentrated
poverty, and improving community assets.
In 1994, HUD published a rule consolidating plans for housing and community development
programs into a single planning process. This action grouped the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Emergency Solutions
Grants (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs into the
Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, which then created a single
application cycle. As a part of the consolidated planning process, and entitlement communities
that receive such funds from HUD are required to submit to HUD certification that they are
affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH).
In July of 2015, HUD released a new AFFH rule which provided a format, a review process, and
content requirements for the newly named “Assessment of Fair Housing,” or AFH.5 The assessment
would now include an evaluation of equity, the distribution of community assets, and access to
opportunity within the community, particularly as it relates to concentrations of poverty among
minority racial and ethnic populations. Areas of opportunity are physical places within
communities that provide things one needs to thrive, including quality employment, high
performing schools, affordable housing, efficient public transportation, safe streets, essential
services, adequate parks, and full-service grocery stores. Areas lacking opportunity, then, have the
opposite of these attributes.
The AFH includes measures of segregation and integration, while also providing some historical
context about how such concentrations became part of the community’s legacy. Together, these
considerations were intended to better inform public investment decisions that would lead to
amelioration or elimination of segregation, enhance access to opportunity, promote equity, and
hence, housing choice. Equitable development requires thinking about equity impacts at the front
end, prior to the investment occurring. That thinking involves analysis of economic, demographic,
and market data to evaluate current issues for citizens who may have previously been marginalized
from the community planning process. All this would be completed by using an online Assessment
Tool.
However, on January 5, 2018, HUD issued a notice that extended the deadline for submission of
an AFH by local government consolidated plan program participants to their next AFH submission
date that falls after October 31, 2020.6 Then, on May 18, 2018, HUD released three notices
regarding the AFFH; one eliminated the January 5, 2018, guidance; a second withdrew the online
Assessment Tool for local government program participants; and, the third noted that the AFFH
certification remains in place. HUD went on to say that the AFFH databases and the AFFH
Assessment Tool guide would remain available for the AI; and, encouraged jurisdictions to use
them, if so desired.
3 § 5.152 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4 § 5.152 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
5 80 FR 42271. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/07/16/2015-17032/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
6 83 FR 683 (January 5, 2018)
I. Executive Summary
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
3
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Hence, the AI process involves a thorough examination of a variety of sources related to housing,
the fair housing delivery system, housing transactions, locations of public housing authorities, areas
having racial and ethnic concentrations of poverty, and access to opportunity. The development of
an AI also includes public input, public meetings to collect input from citizens and interested
parties, distribution of draft reports for citizen review, and formal presentations of findings and
impediments, along with actions to overcome the identified fair housing issues and impediments.
In accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations governing the Consolidated Plan,
Maricopa County certifies that they will affirmatively further fair housing, by taking appropriate
actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the Analysis of Impediments to
Fair Housing Choice and maintaining records that reflect the analysis and actions taken in this
regard.
Socio-Economic Context
While the population in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium is growing, the racial and ethnic
makeup of the area is not changing significantly. There are areas in the HOME Consortium,
however, that do see high concentrations of Hispanic residents, particularly in the more urban
areas. An estimated 4% of the HOME Consortium residents speak Spanish at home, followed by
0.4% speaking Chinese. In 2017, some 22.6% of the population had a high school diploma or
equivalent, another 35.8% have some college, 20.8% have a Bachelor’s Degree, and 11.6% of the
population had a graduate or professional degree.
In 2018, unemployment in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium was at 4.1%, compared to
4.8% for the State of Arizona. This is representative of a total labor force of 1,136,431 people and
1,090,334people employed. Real per capita income in Maricopa County has remained higher than
the state rate in recent years. However, poverty has grown to 11.8%, representing 243,767 persons
living in poverty in the HOME Consortium.
The HOME Consortium experienced a drop-off in housing production during the recent recession,
which has begun to recover. In 2018, there were 16,543 total units produced in the Consortium,
with 12,679 of these being multi-family units. Single family unit production declined beginning in
2008 and has increased slightly since that time. The value of single-family permits, however, has
continued to rise, reaching $289,795 in 2017. Since 2010, the Consortium has seen a slight
decline in the proportion of vacant units, but has experienced a rise in the proportion of vacant
units that are for Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use.
Overview of Findings
As a result of detailed demographic, economic, and housing analysis, along with a range of
activities designed to foster public involvement and feedback, the HOME Consortium has identified
a series of fair housing issues/impediments, and other contributing factors that contribute to the
creation or persistence of those issues.
Table I.1, on the following page, provides a list of the contributing factors that have been identified
as causing these fair housing issues/impediments and prioritizes them according to the following
criteria:
1. High: Factors that have a direct and substantial impact on fair housing choice.
2. Medium: Factors that have a less direct impact on fair housing choice, or that Maricopa
County or the HOME Consortium has limited authority to mandate change.
3. Low: Factors that have a slight or largely indirect impact on fair housing choice, or that
Maricopa County or the HOME Consortium has limited capacity to address.
I. Executive Summary
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
4
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
The Code and Zoning Review found that certain jurisdiction may have limiting definitions of the
word “family,” when limiting the number of persons. This includes Maricopa County, Avondale,
Scottsdale, and Tempe. Most definitions in the codes reviewed had a definition of “disabled” or
“disability” consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Those jurisdictions without
definitions may consider adding a definition or reference to the ADA. Group homes were
permitted in most residentially zoned areas in the HOME Consortium. The County’s
Comprehensive Plan: Vision 2030 identified a lack of incentives for Affordable Housing
development, as well as limitation in the County’s Zoning Ordinances that limits affordable
housing development, including strict land use regulations and limitations on accessory dwelling
units.
Table I.1
Contributing Factors
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
Contributing Factors
Priority
Justification
Insufficient affordable housing in a range
of unit sizes
High
Some 29.4% of households have cost burdens. This is more significant for renter
households, of which 43.4% have cost burdens. This signifies a lack of housing
options that are affordable to a large proportion of the population.
Black or African American, Hispanic, and
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
households with disproportionate rates of
housing problems
High
The average rate of housing problems, according to CHAS data is 30.9% for all
households in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium. Black or African American
households face housing problems at rate of 44.1%, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
households at a rate of 41.2%, and Hispanic households at a rate of 42.4%.
Insufficient accessible affordable housing
High
The number of accessible affordable units may not meet the need of the growing
elderly and disabled population, particularly as the population continues to age.
Some 46.5% of persons aged 75 and older have at least one form of disability. Input
from local service providers asserts that these estimates may be lower than the
actual rate of disability in the HOME Consortium.
Failure to Make Reasonable
Accommodations
High
Disability was the number one fair housing basis for complaints with cause between
2008 and 2017. Failure to make reasonable accommodations accounted for the
largest number of issues for fair housing complaints during this time period.
Lack of fair housing infrastructure
High
The fair housing survey and public input indicated a lack of collaboration among
agencies to support fair housing.
Insufficient fair housing education
High
The fair housing survey and public input indicated a lack of knowledge about fair
housing and a need for education.
Insufficient understanding of credit
High
The fair housing survey and public input indicated an insufficient understanding of
credit needed to access mortgages.
Access to high opportunity areas
Concentrations of poverty
Med
Low poverty index is markedly lower for Black or African American, Native American,
and Hispanic populations than white populations, indicating inequitable access to low
poverty areas. In addition, there are concentrations of poverty in the HOME
Consortium, particularly in areas around, Chandler, and Avondale, as well as in the
southern rural parts of the County.
Moderate to high levels of segregation
Med
Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and “other” racial households
have moderate to high levels of segregation when considered on the whole of the
Maricopa County HOME Consortium. However, there are geographic areas with
concentrations of minority households resulting in R/ECAPs, which tended to be
found in the more urban parts of the County, particularly in areas around Glendale
and Surprise.
Discriminatory patterns in Lending
Med
The mortgage denial rates for Black or African American, Native American, and
Hispanic households are higher than the jurisdiction average according to 2008-2017
HMDA data. However, the disparities in denial rates have been steadily declining
since 2008.
Access to labor market engagement
Med
Black or African American, Native American, and Hispanic households have less
access to labor market engagement as indicated by the Access to Opportunity index.
However, the County and the HOME Consortium has little control over impacting
labor market engagement on a large scale.
Access to School Proficiency
Med
Black or African American, Native American, and Hispanic households have lower
levels of access to proficient schools in the HOME Consortium. However, the County
has little control over impacting access on a large scale.
I. Executive Summary
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
5
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
FAIR HOUSING ISSUES, CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, AND PROPOSED ACHIEVEMENTS
Table I.2, summarizes the fair housing issues/impediments and contributing factors, including metrics, milestones, and a timeframe for
achievements.
Fair Housing Goal
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice/
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue
Recommended Actions
Responsible Agency
Review zoning and municipal
codes for barriers to housing
choice
Moderate to high levels of
segregation
Access to high opportunity
areas
Concentrations of poverty
Discriminatory patterns in
Lending
Segregation
R/ECAPs
Disproportionate
Housing Need
Review zoning for areas with restrictions to housing
development, including minimum lot requirements;
make appropriate amendments every year for the
next five (5) years. Record activities annually.
Review Zoning and Municipal Code for the definition
of the word “family.” Record activities annually.
Maricopa County
HOME Consortium
Discussion: The Code and Zoning Review found that certain jurisdiction may have limiting definitions of the word “family,” when limiting the number of persons. This includes
Maricopa County, Avondale, Scottsdale, and Tempe. The County’s Comprehensive Plan: Vision 2030 identified a lack of incentives for Affordable Housing development, as
well as limitation in the County’s Zoning Ordinances that limits affordable housing development, including strict land use regulations and limitations on accessory dwelling units.
Fair Housing Goal
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice/
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue
Recommended Actions
Responsible Agency
Increase availability of
accessible housing
Insufficient accessible
affordable housing
Failure to Make Reasonable
Accommodations
Disability and
Access
Review development standards for accessible
housing and inclusionary policies for accessible
housing units; continue recommending appropriate
amendments over the next five (5) years. Record
activities annually.
Maricopa County
HOME Consortium
Discussion: The number of accessible affordable units may not meet the need of the growing elderly and disabled population, particularly as the population continues to age.
Some 46.5% of persons aged 75 and older have at least one form of disability. Input from local service providers asserts that these estimates may be lower than the actual
rate of disability in the HOME Consortium.
Disability was the number one fair housing basis for complaints with cause between 2008 and 2017. Failure to make reasonable accommodations accounted for the largest
number of issues for fair housing complaints during this time period.
I. Executive Summary
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
6
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Fair Housing Goal
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice/
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue
Recommended Actions
Responsible Agency
Promote homeownership and
rental opportunities in high
opportunity areas and outside
of R/ECAPs
Insufficient affordable housing
in a range of unit sizes
Black or African American,
Hispanic, and Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
households with
disproportionate rates of
housing problems
Discriminatory patterns in
Lending
Access to high opportunity
areas
Concentrations of poverty
Access to labor market
engagement
Access to School Proficiency
Disparities in Access
to Opportunity
Disproportionate
Housing Needs
Partner with community agencies to provide financial
literacy classes for prospective homebuyers. Record
activities annually.
Review opportunities annually to increase funding
sources for additional low-income housing in high
opportunity areas. Record activities annually.
Continue to promote homeownership opportunities in
high opportunity areas with financial assistance to
homebuyers using HOME funds: 70 households over
five (5) years.
Continue to use CDBG and HOME funds to fund
housing rehabilitation for homeowner and rental
housing:150 residential housing units over five (5)
years.
Maricopa County
HOME Consortium
Discussion: Some 29.4 percent% of households have cost burdens. This is more significant for renter households, of which 43.4 percent% have cost burdens. This signifies
a lack of housing options that are affordable to a large proportion of the population. In addition, racial and ethnic minorities face a disproportionate share of housing problems.
The average rate of housing problems, according to CHAS data is 30.9 percent% for all households in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium. Black or African American
households face housing problems at rate of 44.1 percent%, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander households at a rate of 41.2 percent%, and Hispanic households at a rate of 42.4
percent%. The mortgage denial rates for Black or African American, Native American, and Hispanic households are higher than the jurisdiction average according to 2008-
2017 HMDA data. However, the disparities in denial rates have been steadily declining since 2008.
I. Executive Summary
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
7
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Fair Housing Goal
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice/
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue
Recommended Actions
Responsible Agency
Enhance community services
in R/ECAPs
Access to high opportunity
areas
Concentrations of poverty
Access to labor market
engagement
Access to School Proficiency
Disparities in Access
to Opportunity
Encourage increased public services and public
investment in R/ECAPs and high poverty areas in the
HOME Consortium. Work within the HOME
Consortium to educate members to fund vital
community investments in these areas. Record
activities annually.
Maricopa County
HOME Consortium
Discussion: Black or African American, Native American, and Hispanic households have less access to labor market engagement as indicated by the Access to Opportunity
index. However, the County and the HOME Consortium has little control over impacting labor market engagement on a large scale.
Black or African American, Native American, and Hispanic households have lower levels of access to proficient schools in the HOME Consortium. However, the County has
little control over impacting access on a large scale.
Public input also suggested a lack of transportation leads to inequitable access to housing and service options.
Fair Housing Goal
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice/
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue
Recommended Actions
Responsible Agency
Promote community and
service provider knowledge of
fair housing and ADA laws
Insufficient fair housing
education
Insufficient understanding of
credit
Insufficient fair housing
infrastructure
Discriminatory patterns in
lending
Failure to Make Reasonable
Accommodations
Fair Housing
Enforcement and
Outreach
Continue to promote fair housing education through
workshops. Record activities annually.
Promote outreach and education related to credit for
prospective homebuyers. Record activities annually.
Partner with community agencies to provide financial
literacy classes for prospective homebuyers. Record
activities annually.
Maricopa County
HOME Consortium
Discussion: The fair housing survey and public input indicated a lack of collaboration among agencies to support fair housing, a lack of knowledge about fair housing and a
need for education, and an insufficient understanding of credit needed to access mortgages. In addition, as demonstrated above, racial and ethnic groups have unequal
access to mortgages. Failure to make reasonable accommodations was the number one fair housing complaint in the HOME Consortium.
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
8
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Section II. Community Participation Process
The following section describes the community participation process undertaken for the 2020
Maricopa County HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.
A. OVERVIEW
The outreach process included the 2019 Fair Housing Survey, a Fair Housing Forum, and a public
review meeting.
The Fair Housing Survey was distributed as an internet outreach survey, as well as being made
available as a printed version. As of the date of this document, 129 responses have been received.
The survey was available in both English and Spanish.
The Fair Housing Forum was held on August 29, 2020 in order to gather feedback and input from
members of the public.
The Draft for Public Review AI was made available on February 14, 2020 and a 30-day public input
period was initiated.
A public hearing will be held on February 20, 2020, during the public review period in order to
gather feedback and input on the draft Analysis of Impediments. After the close of the public review
period and inspection of comments received, the final draft was made available to the public in
May 2020.
B. THE 2019 FAIR HOUSING SURVEY
The purpose of the survey, a relatively qualitative component of the AI, was to gather insight into
knowledge, experiences, opinions, and feelings of stakeholders and interested citizens regarding
fair housing as well as to gauge the ability of informed and interested parties to understand and
affirmatively further fair housing. Many individuals and organizations throughout the Maricopa
County HOME Consortium were invited to participate. At the date of this document, some 129
responses were received. A complete set of survey responses can be found in Section IV.I Fair
Housing Survey Results.
C. FAIR HOUSING FORUM
A Fair Housing Forum was held on August 29, 2019. A summary of the comments received during
this meeting is included below. The complete transcript from this meeting is included in the
Appendix.
Need for more Housing Choice Voucher and working with landlords to accept vouchers
Need for incentives for accessibility improvements
Need for increased visitability standards
Credit scores and past evictions are barriers to accessing housing
I. Executive Summary
Maricopa County HO
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
9
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
In addition to the fair housing forum, three additional community meetings were held on August
27, 28, and 29 that discussed housing-related issues. A summary of housing-related comments
received during these meetings is included below. A complete set of transcripts is included in the
Appendix.
Not In My Back Yard mentality (NIMBYism) is a primary barrier to producing affordable
housing
A large number of households lack access to housing that is affordable to them
Transportation is a limiting factor in accessing housing and services
Lack of affordable housing is the number one concern for many households
D. THE FINAL PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
A 30-day public review process was held February 14, 2020 through March 16, 2020. It included
a public review meeting being held during this time. Comments from this meeting will be
summarized below.
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
10
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Section III. Assessment of Past Goals and Actions
An Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for Maricopa County was last completed in
2015. The conclusions drawn from this report are outlined in the following narrative.
A. PAST IMPEDIMENTS AND ACTIONS
A summary of the 2015 Analysis of Impediments are included below:
2015 IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE AND SUGGESTED ACTIONS
2015 Impediment #1: Lack of Accessible Housing/ Housing Discrimination against Persons with
Disabilities
Recommendations:
Specific strategies for the County include:
Review taxation codes and implement tax exemptions for making adaptations to make a
home more accessible for persons with disabilities.
Implement codes regulating that all new construction of multi-family (4 units or more), co-
ops, and conversions must meet Section 504 of the American Disabilities Act (ADA).
Conduct an assessment of accessible housing units and buildings in the region for the
purpose of developing an inventory of accessible housing and providing that information to
the public.
Refer people to the Arizona Statewide Independent Living Council, the Arizona Bridge to
Independent Living, and the Arizona Department of Economic Security for educational
information and brochures.
Enforce current taxation codes allowing for tax relief and abatements for the elderly and
disabled.
Work with local housing organizations to provide a wide variety of housing services,
including services to the disabled.
Meet with design specialists to require and encourage housing designs that consider the
needs of the disabled.
Provide builders and developers with information about the advantages of providing
housing for this market.
2015 Impediment# 2: Lack of Awareness of Fair Housing Laws
Recommendations:
The County should consider reserving a portion of its CDBG public service funds to be awarded as
a competitive Fair Housing Grant to an organization that will carry out a focused fair housing
education programs in the area. As a component of the Fair Housing Grant, the successful applicant
should collaborate with local housing organizations including Community Legal Services,
Southwest Fair Housing Council, The Arizona Fair Housing Partnership, and the Arizona Fair
Housing Center to develop fair housing training curriculum and to coordinate and provide
educational outreach and fair housing training.
III. Assessment of Past Goals and Actions
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
11
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
2015 Impediment #3: Cost of Affordable Housing Limits Housing Choice
Recommendation:
County collaborations should focus on the following goals:
Encourage private developers to construct affordable housing.
Determine locations for the development of affordable housing and work with local non-
profits to acquire land for affordable units.
Continue Homeownership Programs throughout the region, providing homeownership
opportunities to low-and moderate- income persons.
Implement an inclusionary zoning policy aiding in the development of affordable housing.
Continue the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) and HOME
Investment Partnership Funds (HOME) for housing rehabilitation activities to maintain the
regions affordable housing stock.
Work with housing organizations to continue efforts and collaborations on affordable
housing and other fair housing needs.
2015 Impediment #4: Poor Financial History of Potential Homebuyers.
Recommendations
The County should partner with local non-profit and community organizations to implement
financial management programs and identify resources for financial counseling, financial literacy
counseling, and training for residents to learn financial planning skills including what issues impact
credit, finding financial resources, education about fair and non-predatory lending practices, and
making good financial choices. The County should also partner with and encourage local bank and
lending institutions to do outreach and education regarding budgeting, financial literacy, financial
products, and fair lending in areas with heavy racial and ethnic minority and low-income and
poverty concentrations throughout the County. The County should continue to implement
Homeownership Programs and Family Self-Sufficiency programs to assist families with
homeownership opportunities and education and help in obtaining employment allowing low-and
moderate – income persons to become self-sufficient.
2015 Impediment #5 Lack of Transportation Options in Rural Unincorporated Maricopa County.
Recommendations
The County should utilize Community Development Block Grant funds or other local resources to
provide subsidies for a public transportation voucher program, gas voucher program, or taxi
voucher program for unincorporated Maricopa County residents. The County should coordinate
with non-profit organizations providing program related transportation services to encourage
community outreach and to provide informational services and resources regarding transportation
options in unincorporated Maricopa County.
2015 Impediment# 6: Distribution of Resources
Recommendations:
Maricopa County should focus on improving the distribution of resources to adequately cover all
areas of the County. In the future, the County’s strategy for the development of new affordable
III. Assessment of Past Goals and Actions
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
12
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
housing, including identifying target areas where the number of subsidized housing units could be
increased, should focus on areas that beyond RCAP/ECAP areas with limited access to opportunity.
This strategy should be communicated to developers and nonprofit partners, and give funding
priority to projects that align with this goal.
The County should encourage the de-concentration of high area of poverty by expanding where
housing vouchers can be used. To promote this expansion, the County should encourage landlord
acceptance of vouchers by providing information about the program and, potentially, incentives for
participating. The County should also make housing choice voucher holders aware of the
availability of units in other areas of the County, and partner with local nonprofit organizations to
provide additional information or assistance to households who wish to move.
The County should work to ensure that public transit in low-income neighborhoods has routes and
hours that allow access to major business centers, areas with high performing schools, and areas
with accessible park and recreational activities. Public transit hours should be centered around
typical work hours. The County should collaborate with local non-profits to provide services, such
as after school and recreational programming, targeted at youth.
2017-18 FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES
The following actions have been described in the 2017-18 Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER):
2017-18 Maricopa County Fair Housing Accomplishments
Engaged in landlord outreach to local private affordable housing providers during the
implementation of the County’s Tenant Based Rental Assistance program in an effort to
assist individuals experiencing homelessness and are justice engaged with finding safe and
affordable homes;
Representatives from Maricopa County Human Services Department, Maricopa County
Correctional Health Services (CHS), Justice Systems Planning & Information (JSPI), Housing
Authority of Maricopa County (HAMC), and Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care (MMIC),
continued a partnership to reduce recidivism, and connect people experiencing
homelessness, and are justice engaged, to appropriate housing and supportive services. The
partnership's mission is to work hand in hand with supportive services, housing providers,
physical and mental health services, jails, and policy makers to serve justice-involved
homeless individuals and families by connecting them with necessary supports and
housing;
Reviewed existing Spanish language fair housing advertisements for updates, and added
additional Spanish language translations to public notices;
Completed affirmative marketing and fair housing related monitoring for three cities, two
nonprofit organizations, and 9 multi-family rental projects in the period of affordability;
Participated in Fair Housing Month and staff attended the AFHP’s annual event on April 27,
2018 called: ‘Fair Housing Opportunities: 50 Years and Counting!’;
Disseminated fair housing brochures in HSD lobby;
Displayed fair housing posters and notices in HSD lobby;
HSD maintained a referral webpage on the updated Maricopa.gov website that includes
information for citizens seeking to file a housing discrimination complaint, and provides
information about housing discrimination, and how to learn more about their rights under
the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act;
III. Assessment of Past Goals and Actions
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
13
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
HSD provided referrals and information to persons who believe they have been
discriminated as needed;
Arizona Fair Housing Partnership (AFHP) membership; and
Convened regional fair housing planning group for the purposes of implementing fair
housing requirements and engaged in extensive planning prior to the delay of the
requirements;
Staff attended NACCED Conference and attended fair housing training; and
Staff participated NACCED online fair housing case study training.
Maricopa Urban County Responses can be found in the County’s CAPER.
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
14
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Section IV. Fair Housing Analysis
This section presents demographic, economic, and housing information that is drawn from the
2010 Census and American Community Survey (ACS) estimates unless otherwise noted. This
analysis uses ACS Data to analyze a broad range of socio-economic characteristics, including
population growth, race, ethnicity, disability, employment, poverty, and housing trends; these data
are also available by Census tract, and are shown in geographic maps. Ultimately, the information
presented in this section illustrates the underlying conditions that shape housing market behavior
and housing choice in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium.
Lead Agency and Service Area
Maricopa County, led by the Human Services Department, is the lead agency undertaking this
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.
The Maricopa County HOME Consortium includes Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Peoria,
Scottsdale, Surprise, and Tempe, as well as the Maricopa Urban County. This includes Buckeye, El
Mirage, Fountain Hills, Gila Bend, Goodyear, Guadalupe, Litchfield Park, Tolleson, Wickenburg,
Youngtown, Unincorporated areas in County. Most of the data presented in this report will be the
entirety of Maricopa County except the entitlements of Phoenix and Mesa. In these instances, this
service area will be called the Maricopa County HOME Consortium. In any instances when the
County as a whole is used, it will be referenced as Maricopa County.
A. SOCIO-ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
Demographics
Population Estimates
The Census Bureau’s current census estimates indicate that Maricopa County’s population
increased from 3,817,117 in 2010 to 4,307,033 in 2017, or by 12.8%. This compares to a
statewide population change of 9.8% over the period. The number of people from 25 to 34 years
of age increased by 15.3%, and the number of people from 55 to 64 years of age increased by
24.2%. The white population increased by 9.9%, while the Black or African or American
population increased by 28.5%. The Hispanic population increased from 1,128,741 to 1,339,574
people between 2010 and 2017 or by 18.7%. These data are presented in Table IV.1.
Maricopa County is one of the fastest growing areas in the country. In fact, it was the fastest
growing county in the country for the last three years.7 With this continued growth, Maricopa
County will be faced with a variety of challenges, such as housing for the growing population. The
demographic makeup of the County is changing as well. The following narrative will describe the
changes that Maricopa County, and the Maricopa County HOME Consortium in particular, is
seeing.
7 https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/04/18/maricopa-county-fastest-growing-us-census-growth/3506291002/
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
15
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.1
Profile of Population Characteristics
Maricopa County vs. State of Arizona
2010 Census and 2017 Current Census Estimates
Subject
Maricopa County
Arizona
2010 Census
Jul-17
% Change
2010 Census
Jul-17
% Change
Population
3,817,117
4,307,033
12.8%
6,392,017
7,016,270
9.8%
Age
Under 14 years
842,707
866,823
2.9%
1,358,059
1,354,324
-0.3%
15 to 24 years
543,771
575,181
5.8%
904,166
951,609
5.2%
25 to 34 years
541,126
623,763
15.3%
856,693
955,894
11.6%
35 to 44 years
524,598
560,423
6.8%
822,494
858,680
4.4%
45 to 54 years
503,965
547,997
8.7%
842,546
847,764
0.6%
55 to 64 years
398,309
494,530
24.2%
726,228
846,253
16.5%
65 and Over
462,641
638,316
38%
881,831
1,201,746
36.3%
Race
White
3,268,366
3,593,462
9.9%
5,418,483
5,827,866
7.6%
Black/African
American
205,732
264,416
28.5%
280,905
349,944
24.6%
American Indian
and Alaskan Native
99,663
120,742
21.2%
335,278
373,532
11.4%
Asian
140,285
189,415
35%
188,456
247,790
31.5%
Native Hawaiian
or Pacific Islander
10,115
12,224
20.9%
16,112
19,091
18.5%
Two or more races
92,956
126,774
36.4%
152,783
198,047
29.6%
Ethnicity (of any race)
Hispanic or Latino
1,128,741
1,339,574
18.7%
1,895,149
2,202,172
16.2%
The population in the Maricopa County is illustrated below. While the County population
increased to over 4.4 million, the HOME Consortium population increased from 1,932,444 in 2010
to 2,101,763 in 2017, an estimated 8.8% growth during that time.
Diagram IV.1
Population
Maricopa County
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
16
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Census Demographic Data
In the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses, the Census Bureau released several tabulations in
addition to the full SF1 100 percent count data including the one-in-six SF3 sample. These
additional samples, such as the SF3, asked supplementary questions regarding income and
household attributes that were not asked in the 100 percent count. In the 2010 decennial census,
the Census Bureau did not collect additional sample data, such as the SF3, and thus many
important housing and income concepts are not available in the 2010 Census.
To study these important concepts the Census Bureau distributes the American Community Survey
every year to a sample of the population and quantifies the results as one-, three- and five-year
averages. The one-year sample only includes responses from the year the survey was implemented,
while the five-year sample includes responses over a five-year period. Since the five-year estimates
include more responses, the estimates can be tabulated down to the Census tract level, and
considered more robust than the one- or three-year sample estimates.
Population Estimates
Population by race and ethnicity through 2017 is shown in Table IV.2. The White population
represented 81.3% of the population in 2017, compared with the Black or African American
population accounting for 4.6% of the population. The Hispanic population represented 22.5% of
the population in 2017. The HOME Consortium has seen a growth in the proportion of the White
and Black or African American population, although not a significant shift.
Table IV.2
Population by Race and Ethnicity
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 Census & 2017 Five-Year ACS
Race
2010 Census
2017 Five-Year ACS
Population
% of Total
Population
% of Total
White
1,496,232
77.4%
1,708,179
81.3%
Black/African American
81,622
4.2%
95,967
4.6%
American Indian
35,586
1.8%
36,110
1.7%
Asian
78,135
4%
97,166
4.6%
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
3,563
0.2%
3,701
0.2%
Other
172,913
8.9%
89,146
4.2%
Two or More Races
64,393
3.3%
71,494
3.4%
Total
1,932,444
100.0%
2,101,763
100.0%
Non-Hispanic
1,509,333
78.1%
1,629,841
77.5%
Hispanic
423,111
21.9%
471,922
22.5%
The change in race and ethnicity between 2010 and 2017 is shown in Table IV.3. During this
time, the total non-Hispanic population was 1,629,841 persons in 2017. The Hispanic population
was 471,922.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
17
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.3
Population by Race and Ethnicity
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 Census & 2017 Five-Year ACS
Race
2010 Census
2017 Five-Year ACS
Population
% of Total
Population
% of Total
Non-Hispanic
White
1,284,977
85.1%
1,357,545
83.3%
Black/African American
76,601
5.1%
90,859
5.6%
American Indian/Alaska Native
27,566
1.8%
29,553
1.8%
Asian
76,233
5.1%
95,709
5.9%
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
3,136
0.2%
3,220
0.2%
Other
2,711
0.2%
3,398
0.2%
Two or More Races
38,109
2.5%
49,557
3%
Total Non-Hispanic
1,509,333
100.0%
1,629,841
100.0%
Hispanic
White
211,255
49.9%
350,634
74.3%
Black/African American
5,021
1.2%
5,108
1.1%
American Indian/Alaska Native
8,020
1.9%
6,557
1.4%
Asian
1,902
0.4%
1,457
0.3%
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
427
0.1%
481
0.1%
Other
170,202
40.2%
85,748
18.2%
Two or More Races
26,284
6.2%
21,937
4.6%
Total Hispanic
423,111
100.0
471,922
100.0%
Total Population
1,932,444
100.0%
2,101,763
100.0%
The following maps show the distribution of the population by race and ethnicity. These maps will
be used to describe any areas with a disproportionate share of any one racial or ethnic group. A
disproportionate share is defined as having at least ten percentage points higher than the
jurisdiction average. For example, if American Indian households account for 1.0% of the total
population, there would be a disproportionate share if one area saw a rate of 11.0% or more.
As seen in Maps IV.1 and IV.2, the American Indian population, which accounted for 1.8% of the
Maricopa County HOME Consortium population in 2017, saw a disproportionate share of the
population in several locations. These areas tended to be adjacent to the Gila River Indian
Reservation and the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Reservation.
Asian households accounted for 4.6% of the population in 2017. There were several areas with a
disproportionate share of Asian households in both 2010 and 2017, which remained in the same
areas both years. This was seen primarily in and around the City of Chandler.
Black or African American households accounted for 4.6% of the population in the Maricopa
County HOME Consortium in 2017. As seen in Maps IV.5 and IV.6, there were some areas within
the County with a disproportionate share of Black or African American households.
Hispanic households are shown in Maps IV.7 and IV.8 for 2010 and 2017. In both years, there
were several areas with a disproportionate share of Hispanic households. These areas tended to be
in urban areas to the west of Phoenix, including the in the City of Glendale, as well as in the
western section of the County adjacent to the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
18
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.1
2010 Disproportionate Share - American Indian Households
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 Census, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
19
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.2
2017 Disproportionate Share - American Indian Households
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
20
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.3
2010 Disproportionate Share - Asian Households
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 Census, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
21
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.4
2017 Disproportionate Share - Asian Households
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
22
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.5
2010 Disproportionate Share - Black Households
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 Census, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
23
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.6
2017 Disproportionate Share - Black Households
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
24
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.7
2010 Disproportionate Share - Hispanic Households
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 Census, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
25
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.8
2017 Disproportionate Share - Hispanic Households
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
26
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Foreign Born Population and Limited English Proficiency
Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in accordance with Supreme Court precedent in
Lau v. Nichols, recipients of federal financial assistance are required to take reasonable steps to
ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by limited English proficient (LEP)
persons.8 In the context of HUD’s assessment of access to housing, LEP refers to a person’s limited
ability to read, write, speak, or understand English.9
The number of foreign born persons are shown in Table IV.4. An estimated 4.3% of the population
was born in Mexico, 0.9% were born in India, and another 0.7% were born in Canada.
Table IV.4
Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 Five-Year ACS
Number
County
Number of Person
Percent of Total
Population
#1 country of origin
Mexico
89,670
4.3%
#2 country of origin
India
18,645
0.9%
#3 country of origin
Canada
15,591
0.7%
#4 country of origin
Philippines
12,095
0.6%
#5 country of origin
China excluding Hong
Kong and Taiwan
10,124
0.5%
#6 country of origin
Vietnam
9,304
0.4%
#7 country of origin
Korea
4,865
0.2%
#8 country of origin
Germany
4,742
0.2%
#9 country of origin
Iraq
4,561
0.2%
#10 country of origin
England
3,251
0.2%
The languages spoken at home are shown in Table IV.5. An estimated 4% of the population speaks
Spanish at home, followed by 0.4% speaking Chinese.
Table IV.5
Limited English Proficiency and Language Spoken at Home
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 Five-Year ACS
Number
County
Number of Person
Percent of Total
Population
#1 LEP Language
Spanish
78,608
4%
#2 LEP Language
Chinese
7,575
0.4%
#3 LEP Language
Other Indo-European
languages
5,928
0.3%
#4 LEP Language
Vietnamese
5,886
0.3%
#5 LEP Language
Arabic
4,440
0.2%
#6 LEP Language
Other Asian and Pacific
Island languages
4,399
0.2%
#7 LEP Language
Other and unspecified
languages
3,530
0.2%
#8 LEP Language
Tagalog
2,778
0.1%
#9 LEP Language
Russian, Polish, or other
Slavic languages
2,386
0.1%
#10 LEP Language
Korean
2,201
0.1%
8 https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/limited_english_proficiency_0
9 https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/LEPMEMO091516.PDF
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
27
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Education and Employment
Education and employment data, as estimated by the 2017 ACS, is presented in Tables IV.6 and 7.
In 2017, some 968,789 persons were employed and 55,822 were unemployed. This totaled a
labor force of 1,024,611 persons. The unemployment rate for Maricopa County HOME
Consortium was estimated to be 5.4% in 2017.
Table IV.6
Employment, Labor Force and Unemployment
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Employment Status
2017 Five-Year ACS
Employed
968,789
Unemployed
55,822
Labor Force
1,024,611
Unemployment Rate
5.4%
In 2017, 93.4% of households in Maricopa County HOME Consortium had a high school
education or greater.
Table IV.7
High School or Greater Education
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Education Level
Households
High School or Greater
719,609
Total Households
770,843
Percent High School or Above
93.4%
As seen in Table IV.8, some 22.6% of the population had a high school diploma or equivalent,
another 35.8% have some college, 20.8% have a Bachelor’s Degree, and 11.6% of the population
had a graduate or professional degree.
Table IV.8
Educational Attainment
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Education Level
2017 5-year ACS
Percent
Less Than High School
150,057
9.3%
High School or Equivalent
363,397
22.6%
Some College or Associates Degree
576,177
35.8%
Bachelor’s Degree
334,291
20.8%
Graduate or Professional Degree
186,166
11.6%
Total Population Above 18 years
1,610,088
100.0%
Summary
While the population in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium is growing, the racial and ethnic
makeup of the area is not changing significantly. There are areas in the HOME Consortium,
however, that do see high concentrations of Hispanic residents, particularly in the more urban
areas. An estimated 4% of the population speaks Spanish at home, followed by 0.4% speaking
Chinese. In 2017, 22.6% of the population had a high school diploma or equivalent, another
35.8% have some college, 20.8% have a Bachelor’s Degree, and 11.6% of the population had a
graduate or professional degree.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
28
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
ECONOMICS
The following section describes the economic context for the Maricopa County HOME Consortium.
The data presented here is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS). The data from the BEA is only available at the County level and shows the entirety
of Maricopa County. The BLS data presented below is specified for the Maricopa County HOME
Consortium.
Labor Force
Table IV.9, shows labor force statistics for Maricopa County HOME Consortium between 1990 and
2018. The unemployment rate in Maricopa County HOME Consortium was 4.1% in 2018, with
46,097 unemployed persons and 1,136,431 in the labor force. The statewide unemployment rate
in 2018 was 4.8%.
Table IV.9
Labor Force Statistics
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
1990 - 2018 BLS Data
Year
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
Statewide
Unemployment Rate
Unemployment
Employment
Labor Force
Unemployment
Rate
1990
17,081
413,130
430,211
4%
5.3%
1991
20,442
410,165
430,607
4.7%
5.9%
1992
26,255
415,273
441,528
5.9%
7.5%
1993
21,433
436,928
458,361
4.7%
6.4%
1994
20,686
474,000
494,686
4.2%
6.1%
1995
17,536
511,596
529,132
3.3%
5.3%
1996
18,694
532,618
551,312
3.4%
5.6%
1997
15,149
547,823
562,972
2.7%
4.6%
1998
15,016
573,402
588,418
2.6%
4.3%
1999
16,841
594,895
611,736
2.8%
4.4%
2000
19,215
683,579
702,794
2.7%
4%
2001
26,457
712,384
738,841
3.6%
4.8%
2002
37,219
736,811
774,030
4.8%
6.1%
2003
35,836
765,260
801,096
4.5%
5.7%
2004
31,887
799,052
830,939
3.8%
5%
2005
30,620
843,646
874,266
3.5%
4.7%
2006
28,495
888,047
916,542
3.1%
4.2%
2007
26,557
911,566
938,123
2.8%
3.9%
2008
44,712
907,548
952,260
4.7%
6.2%
2009
75,794
872,749
948,543
8%
9.9%
2010
84,322
883,591
967,913
8.7%
10.4%
2011
77,744
882,751
960,495
8.1%
9.5%
2012
66,339
897,411
963,750
6.9%
8.3%
2013
61,524
911,104
972,628
6.3%
7.7%
2014
56,135
948,386
1,004,521
5.6%
6.8%
2015
51,367
987,473
1,038,840
4.9%
6.1%
2016
47,160
1,008,598
1,055,758
4.5%
5.4%
2017
44,787
1,048,522
1,093,309
4.1%
4.9%
2018
46,097
1,090,334
1,136,431
4.1%
4.8%
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
29
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Diagram IV.2 shows the employment and labor force for Maricopa County HOME Consortium. The
difference between the two lines represents the number of unemployed persons. In the most recent
year, employment stood at 1,090,334persons, with the labor force reaching 1,136,431, indicating
there were a total of 46,097unemployed persons
Diagram IV.2
Employment and Labor Force
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
Unemployment
Diagram IV.3 shows the unemployment rate for both the State and Maricopa County HOME
Consortium. During the 1990’s the average rate for Maricopa County HOME Consortium was
3.7%, which compared to 5.5% statewide. Between 2000 and 2010 the unemployment rate had an
average of 4.2%, which compared to 5.5% statewide. Since 2010, the average unemployment rate
was 5.8%. Over the course of the entire period the Maricopa County HOME Consortium had an
average unemployment rate that lower than the State, 4.7% for Maricopa County HOME
Consortium, versus 6.1% statewide.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
30
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Diagram IV.3
Annual Unemployment Rate
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
1990 – 2018 BLS Data
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (B.E.A.) produces regional economic accounts, which provide a
consistent framework for analyzing and comparing individual state and local area economies.
Table IV.10 shows total real earnings by industry for Maricopa County. In the most recent 2017
estimate, the health care and social assistance industry had the largest total real earnings, with total
real earnings reaching $18,626,658,000. Between 2016 and 2017 the farm industry saw the largest
percentage increase, rising by 34% to $506,523,000.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
31
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.10
Real Earnings by Industry
Maricopa County
BEA Table CA-5N Data (1,000’s of 2017 Dollars)
NAICS Categories
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
%
Change
16-17
Farm earnings
225,776
336,734
328,063
378,769
392,431
361,608
377,941
506,523
34
Forestry, fishing, related
activities, and other
53,867
61,812
66,110
63,657
58,490
67,529
64,407
61,919
-3.9
Mining
270,477
273,912
368,066
392,008
522,186
530,749
551,396
602,212
9.2
Utilities
1,256,139
1,274,975
1,209,964
1,234,180
1,227,215
1,280,312
1,379,246
1,383,599
0.3
Construction
6,810,550
6,488,944
6,775,482
7,311,721
7,337,378
7,867,495
8,595,409
9,890,934
15.1
Manufacturing
10,088,407
10,456,651
10,841,468
10,678,046
10,902,925
11,210,495
11,146,055
11,297,663
1.4
Wholesale trade
7,537,961
7,692,025
8,119,564
7,760,830
7,746,049
7,994,076
8,132,086
8,422,470
3.6
Retail trade
8,752,377
9,506,057
9,756,072
9,498,903
10,261,574
10,440,230
10,361,610
10,472,665
1.1
Transportation and
warehousing
3,860,149
3,851,422
4,037,307
3,921,875
4,036,923
4,428,303
4,711,777
5,235,914
11.1
Information
2,512,322
2,518,080
2,744,378
3,177,649
3,635,017
3,717,251
3,877,906
3,659,683
-5.6
Finance and insurance
9,251,677
9,833,069
10,494,558
11,265,865
11,595,894
12,453,641
13,488,745
14,571,635
8
Real estate and rental and
leasing
1,279,485
1,638,963
2,154,716
3,260,087
3,808,734
4,360,624
4,780,393
4,825,130
0.9
Professional and technical
services
10,464,780
10,929,592
11,173,552
11,317,514
11,598,593
12,295,708
12,763,350
13,158,678
3.1
Management of companies
and enterprises
2,319,863
2,373,789
2,633,064
2,949,907
3,154,060
3,170,264
3,225,832
3,392,543
5.2
Administrative and waste
services
8,124,827
8,269,796
8,490,886
9,073,691
9,459,920
9,862,255
10,096,273
10,521,118
4.2
Educational services
2,464,306
2,573,669
2,632,837
2,534,116
2,623,838
2,712,505
2,726,664
2,672,359
-2
Health care and social
assistance
14,742,954
15,168,007
15,358,172
15,670,814
15,999,493
16,758,160
17,627,958
18,626,658
5.7
Arts, entertainment, and
recreation
1,324,854
1,330,404
1,711,347
1,945,992
2,204,376
2,130,603
2,322,943
2,553,912
9.9
Accommodation and food
services
4,361,358
4,562,295
4,834,234
4,995,921
4,847,844
5,080,198
5,236,436
5,770,580
10.2
Other services, except
public administration
4,136,082
4,276,491
4,577,209
4,556,594
4,847,624
4,959,785
5,052,042
5,257,157
4.1
Government and
government enterprises
17,171,369
16,612,973
16,379,269
16,688,646
16,634,477
17,026,174
17,240,026
17,524,915
1.7
Total
117,009,581
120,029,658
124,686,319
128,676,781
132,895,039
138,707,963
143,758,493
150,408,267
4.6
Table IV.11 shows the total employment by industry for the Maricopa County. The most recent
estimates show the health care and social assistance industry was the largest employer in Maricopa
County, with employment reaching 285,335 jobs in 2017. Between 2016 and 2017 the
construction industry saw the largest percentage increase, rising by 6.6% to 147,553 jobs.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
32
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.11
Employment by Industry
Maricopa County
BEA Table CA25 Data
NAICS Categories
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
%
Change
16-17
Farm earnings
6,325
6,210
6,630
6,898
6,621
7,193
7,658
6,856
-10.5
Forestry, fishing, related activities,
and other
2,538
2,571
2,607
2,578
2,716
2,787
2,793
2,655
-4.9
Mining
6,350
5,775
8,249
8,168
7,785
8,059
8,319
8,688
4.4
Utilities
8,191
8,032
8,083
7,945
7,869
8,055
8,525
8,787
3.1
Construction
109,587
111,017
117,433
123,362
125,323
129,080
138,363
147,553
6.6
Manufacturing
112,512
115,157
119,528
120,849
121,743
123,669
124,997
128,557
2.8
Wholesale trade
87,969
88,762
89,233
89,772
89,952
90,357
86,597
87,655
1.2
Retail trade
236,686
239,618
241,515
243,400
256,830
266,428
270,138
274,023
1.4
Transportation and warehousing
64,324
67,828
70,823
71,886
75,352
85,409
97,365
101,602
4.4
Information
34,552
34,991
36,443
40,360
42,534
43,034
43,375
43,093
-0.7
Finance and insurance
156,637
169,057
170,820
177,359
177,294
186,890
197,245
208,932
5.9
Real estate and rental and leasing
140,165
144,203
141,900
143,449
147,475
150,088
153,578
157,950
2.8
Professional and technical services
147,914
149,206
150,249
155,781
159,770
166,665
173,861
178,610
2.7
Management of companies and enterprises
25,173
25,196
26,772
29,045
30,650
33,054
36,879
37,093
0.6
Administrative and waste services
188,442
193,957
199,619
212,434
217,994
223,834
232,544
234,475
0.8
Educational services
51,118
52,665
54,086
53,783
56,084
59,358
59,742
60,455
1.2
Health care and social assistance
221,117
228,897
236,434
242,939
249,923
262,824
273,735
285,335
4.2
Arts, entertainment, and recreation
45,043
45,842
47,743
48,967
52,827
53,544
55,516
57,962
4.4
Accommodation and food services
153,423
158,612
162,123
169,643
176,428
183,883
190,031
196,341
3.3
Other services, except public
administration
104,807
111,370
114,135
116,830
121,754
127,497
127,840
128,737
0.7
Government and government enterprises
226,010
222,445
221,881
223,755
225,523
227,453
228,431
230,948
1.1
Total
2,128,883
2,181,411
2,226,306
2,289,203
2,352,447
2,439,161
2,517,532
2,586,307
2.7
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
33
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.12 shows the real average earnings per job by industry for Maricopa County. These figures
are calculated by dividing the total real earning displayed in Tables IV.10 and IV.11, by industry.
In 2017, the utilities industry had the highest average earnings reaching $157,460. Between 2016
and 2017 the farm industry saw the largest percentage increase, rising by 49.7% to $73,880.
Table IV.12
Real Earnings Per Job by Industry
Maricopa County
BEA Table CA5N and CA25 Data
NAICS Categories
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
%
Change
16-17
Farm earnings
35,696
54,225
49,482
54,910
59,271
50,272
49,352
73,880
49.7
Forestry, fishing, related activities,
and other
21,224
24,042
25,359
24,692
21,535
24,230
23,060
23,322
1.1
Mining
42,595
47,431
44,619
47,993
67,076
65,858
66,282
69,315
4.6
Utilities
153,356
158,737
149,692
155,340
155,956
158,946
161,788
157,460
-2.7
Construction
62,147
58,450
57,697
59,270
58,548
60,951
62,122
67,033
7.9
Manufacturing
89,665
90,803
90,702
88,359
89,557
90,649
89,171
87,881
-1.4
Wholesale trade
85,689
86,659
90,993
86,450
86,113
88,472
93,907
96,087
2.3
Retail trade
36,979
39,672
40,395
39,026
39,955
39,186
38,357
38,218
-0.4
Transportation and warehousing
60,011
56,782
57,006
54,557
53,574
51,848
48,393
51,534
6.5
Information
72,711
71,964
75,306
78,733
85,461
86,379
89,404
84,925
-5
Finance and insurance
59,064
58,164
61,436
63,520
65,405
66,636
68,386
69,743
2
Real estate and rental and leasing
9,128
11,366
15,185
22,726
25,826
29,054
31,127
30,548
-1.9
Professional and technical services
70,749
73,252
74,367
72,650
72,596
73,775
73,411
73,673
0.4
Management of companies and
enterprises
92,157
94,213
98,351
101,563
102,906
95,912
87,471
91,460
4.6
Administrative and waste services
43,116
42,637
42,535
42,713
43,395
44,061
43,417
44,871
3.3
Educational services
48,208
48,869
48,679
47,117
46,784
45,697
45,641
44,204
-3.1
Health care and social assistance
66,675
66,266
64,958
64,505
64,018
63,762
64,398
65,280
1.4
Arts, entertainment, and recreation
29,413
29,022
35,845
39,741
41,728
39,792
41,843
44,062
5.3
Accommodation and food services
28,427
28,764
29,818
29,450
27,478
27,627
27,556
29,391
6.7
Other services, except public
administration
39,464
38,399
40,103
39,002
39,815
38,901
39,518
40,836
3.3
Government and government enterprises
75,976
74,684
73,820
74,584
73,760
74,856
75,471
75,883
0.5
Total
54,963
55,024
56,006
56,210
56,492
56,867
57,103
58,156
1.8
Table IV.13 shows total employment and real personal income for the years of 1969 to 2017. As
can be seen in total real personal income in 2017, comprising all wage and salary earnings,
proprietorship income, dividends, interest, rents, and transfer payments, was $200,722,151,000, a
3.8% change between 2016 and 2017.
Diagram IV.4 shows real average earnings per job for Maricopa County from 1990 to 2017. Over
this period the average earning per job for Maricopa County was $53,059, which was higher than
the statewide average of $50,297 over the same period.
Diagram IV.5 shows real per capita income for the Maricopa County from 1990 to 2017, which is
calculated by dividing total personal income from all sources by population. Per capita income is a
broader measure of wealth than real average earnings per job, which only captures the working
population. Over this period, the real per capita income for Maricopa County was $40,598, which
was higher than the statewide average of $37,089 over the same period.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
34
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.13
Total Employment and Real Personal Income
Maricopa County
BEA Data 1969 Through 2017
Year
1,000s of 2017 Dollars
Per
Capita
Income
Total
Employment
Average
Real Earnings
Per Job
Earnings
Social
Security
Contributions
Residents
Adjustments
Dividends,
Interest,
Rents
Transfer
Payments
Personal
Income
1969
15,702,831
1,045,930
-22,193
3,649,013
1,426,086
19,709,807
20,836
409,651
38,332
1970
16,714,063
1,108,019
-20,300
4,137,144
1,614,022
21,336,909
21,772
430,590
38,819
1971
17,964,804
1,245,579
15
4,469,069
1,831,474
23,019,782
22,429
451,549
39,787
1972
19,979,243
1,474,594
21,616
4,811,338
2,018,867
25,356,470
23,321
493,167
40,511
1973
22,060,894
1,872,360
35,790
5,283,280
2,327,103
27,834,707
24,064
543,094
40,621
1974
22,391,018
1,934,881
18,513
5,688,008
2,629,010
28,791,669
23,648
559,503
40,020
1975
20,758,587
1,798,894
20,399
5,823,136
3,469,863
28,273,092
22,548
541,909
38,306
1976
22,439,106
1,942,054
1,325
6,013,624
3,516,243
30,028,244
23,460
571,481
39,264
1977
24,509,875
2,158,673
-5,663
6,407,960
3,502,224
32,255,723
24,254
623,552
39,307
1978
27,740,348
2,516,284
-15,769
7,157,169
3,648,498
36,013,962
25,930
698,014
39,741
1979
30,853,306
2,917,546
-25,498
7,820,242
3,844,564
39,575,068
27,164
760,016
40,595
1980
32,073,846
3,054,313
-62,950
8,902,940
4,254,112
42,113,634
27,692
788,917
40,655
1981
32,619,373
3,353,738
-31,102
10,183,538
4,592,290
44,010,360
28,104
809,950
40,274
1982
32,308,899
3,377,237
-25,381
10,527,980
4,798,057
44,232,319
27,441
816,619
39,564
1983
34,581,743
3,670,556
-37,942
11,384,502
5,034,672
47,292,419
28,422
864,336
40,009
1984
38,650,305
4,193,072
-47,696
12,589,399
5,243,710
52,242,646
30,077
956,622
40,403
1985
42,412,508
4,683,641
-62,627
13,706,756
5,553,560
56,926,555
31,129
1,040,734
40,752
1986
45,890,752
5,100,545
-44,416
14,624,335
6,036,772
61,406,897
32,227
1,093,882
41,951
1987
48,577,334
5,350,192
-13,555
15,332,862
6,428,634
64,975,083
32,628
1,136,180
42,755
1988
51,057,750
5,787,404
7,303
15,567,107
6,813,434
67,658,189
33,030
1,183,972
43,123
1989
51,174,822
5,948,020
45,270
17,175,340
7,542,076
69,989,487
33,300
1,205,555
42,450
1990
51,964,140
6,214,067
54,532
16,853,150
7,993,857
70,651,612
33,135
1,224,916
42,422
1991
53,010,089
6,369,024
67,317
15,913,383
8,600,766
71,222,531
32,400
1,221,145
43,409
1992
55,802,797
6,644,312
95,327
15,425,204
9,523,881
74,202,897
32,651
1,229,229
45,396
1993
58,781,939
7,005,203
81,610
15,881,968
9,995,522
77,735,836
32,940
1,284,670
45,756
1994
63,719,575
7,606,771
63,048
17,628,913
10,419,788
84,224,554
34,029
1,369,257
46,536
1995
68,761,359
7,884,108
10,198
19,057,544
10,927,573
90,872,566
34,976
1,458,313
47,151
1996
75,074,207
8,770,116
-22,920
20,044,267
11,397,098
97,722,535
36,152
1,562,087
48,060
1997
81,047,601
9,342,976
-168,452
22,168,697
11,675,913
105,380,783
37,568
1,649,120
49,146
1998
89,984,472
10,185,106
-383,711
23,394,833
11,884,315
114,694,804
39,427
1,740,169
51,710
1999
95,618,533
10,801,318
-524,992
23,418,669
12,454,465
120,165,356
39,988
1,806,890
52,919
2000
103,596,335
11,650,271
-810,566
24,983,300
12,925,416
129,044,215
41,732
1,879,111
55,131
2001
103,348,319
11,848,527
-729,830
24,008,105
14,313,278
129,091,346
40,646
1,898,173
54,446
2002
104,499,527
11,969,375
-687,831
24,012,190
15,710,181
131,564,693
40,414
1,909,461
54,727
2003
107,366,057
12,134,749
-682,101
25,114,892
16,816,074
136,480,174
41,004
1,958,673
54,816
2004
115,937,468
12,886,526
-915,653
26,148,237
18,025,132
146,308,658
42,807
2,044,219
56,715
2005
125,088,532
13,776,562
-1,383,872
29,261,568
19,343,389
158,533,054
44,797
2,176,754
57,466
2006
135,700,761
14,719,104
-2,028,665
32,578,614
20,469,311
172,000,917
47,215
2,291,199
59,227
2007
137,010,198
15,066,754
-2,109,541
34,162,972
21,598,111
175,594,986
47,305
2,344,210
58,446
2008
130,257,041
14,740,951
-2,678,144
32,022,017
24,890,604
169,750,567
45,014
2,295,284
56,750
2009
118,210,077
13,784,198
-2,289,209
27,660,527
27,677,882
157,475,080
41,400
2,165,288
54,593
2010
117,009,581
13,749,087
-2,316,983
27,102,354
30,179,574
158,225,439
41,370
2,128,883
54,963
2011
120,029,658
12,508,738
-2,285,314
28,694,094
29,553,961
163,483,661
42,248
2,181,411
55,024
2012
124,686,319
12,784,561
-2,268,586
31,523,102
28,991,667
170,147,940
43,187
2,226,306
56,006
2013
128,676,781
14,805,066
-2,369,935
30,517,507
29,443,637
171,462,925
42,798
2,289,203
56,211
2014
132,895,039
15,124,577
-2,363,708
33,399,969
30,529,848
179,336,571
43,990
2,352,447
56,492
2015
138,707,963
15,884,908
-2,566,004
36,369,966
31,374,068
188,001,085
45,257
2,439,161
56,867
2016
143,758,493
16,437,683
-2,787,484
37,155,860
31,718,795
193,407,983
45,686
2,517,532
57,103
2017
150,408,267
17,145,220
-3,127,153
38,207,610
32,378,647
200,722,151
46,603
2,586,307
58,155
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
35
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Diagram IV.4
Real Average Earnings
Maricopa County
BEA Data 1990 - 2017
Diagram IV.5
Real per Capita Income
Maricopa County
BEA Data 1990 – 2017
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
36
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
The BLS produces the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which reports
monthly data on employment and quarterly data on wages and number of business establishments.
QCEW employment data represent only filled jobs, whether full or part-time, temporary or
permanent, by place of work during the pay period. If data do not meet BLS or State agency
disclosure standards they are displayed as (ND) and not disclosed. Data from this series are from
the period of January 20010through December 2017 and are presented in Table IV.14. Between
2016 and 2017, total annual employment increased from 1,871,953 persons in 2016 to 1,927,372
in 2017, a change of 3%.
Table IV.14
Total Monthly Employment
Maricopa County
BLS QCEW Data, 2001–2018(p)
Period
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Jan
1,591,307
1,602,646
1,643,448
1,684,487
1,732,448
1,783,681
1,842,968
1,893,254
Feb
1,598,838
1,613,327
1,655,920
1,700,870
1,744,031
1,799,497
1,860,905
1,909,372
Mar
1,609,077
1,623,087
1,667,721
1,710,345
1,751,077
1,805,024
1,866,801
1,917,845
Apr
1,618,741
1,635,098
1,668,028
1,714,839
1,756,366
1,814,282
1,874,858
1,927,571
May
1,622,543
1,633,939
1,667,612
1,714,733
1,750,108
1,812,398
1,868,139
1,923,147
Jun
1,567,575
1,593,347
1,636,794
1,680,045
1,717,894
1,777,360
1,830,806
1,893,820
Jul
1,536,268
1,565,296
1,597,133
1,647,285
1,686,812
1,753,699
1,809,040
1,859,721
Aug
1,587,108
1,615,729
1,659,825
1,709,351
1,746,872
1,811,232
1,867,466
1,920,230
Sep
1,597,531
1,637,377
1,675,365
1,721,630
1,757,992
1,825,516
1,887,707
1,939,490
Oct
1,621,019
1,650,892
1,692,264
1,742,325
1,785,306
1,857,202
1,904,107
1,963,983
Nov
1,638,325
1,671,245
1,714,975
1,767,750
1,810,497
1,880,796
1,923,067
1,987,211
Dec
1,644,592
1,677,772
1,722,654
1,774,241
1,823,103
1,884,247
1,927,570
1,992,822
A verage
1,602,744
1,626,646
1,666,812
1,713,992
1,755,209
1,817,078
1,871,953
1,927,372
%
Change
-1.60%
1.50%
2.50%
2.80%
2.40%
3.50%
3%
3%
The QCEW also reports average weekly wages, which represents total compensation paid during the
calendar quarter, regardless of when services were performed. The BLS QCEW data indicated average
weekly wages were $982 in 2016. In 2017, average weekly wages saw an increase of 3.0% over the
prior year, rising to $1,011, or by $29. These data are shown in Table IV.15.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
37
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.15
Average Weekly Wages
Maricopa County
BLS QCEW Data, 2001–2018(p)
Year
First
Quarter
Second
Quarter
Third
Quarter
Fourth
Quarter
Annual
% Change
2001
684
678
671
712
686
2002
691
690
676
728
696
1.5%
2003
697
708
698
757
715
2.7%
2004
734
731
731
801
750
4.9%
2005
744
760
788
818
778
3.7%
2006
821
795
791
857
816
4.9%
2007
855
828
821
874
845
3.6%
2008
865
845
835
893
859
1.7%
2009
854
846
838
927
866
0.8%
2010
846
858
859
937
875
1%
2011
892
882
905
932
903
3.2%
2012
944
905
886
964
925
2.4%
2013
946
919
898
952
929
0.4%
2014
977
931
915
974
950
2.3%
2015
986
948
929
1,016
970
2.1%
2016
971
969
996
993
982
1.2%
2017
1,049
986
987
1,023
1,011
3.0%
Total business establishments reported by the QCEW are displayed in Table IV.16. Between 2016
and 2017, the total number of business establishments in Arizona increased by 2.6%, from 93,915
to 96,333 establishments. The most recent 2017 estimates show there were 98,333 business
establishments in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Table IV.16
Number of Business Establishments
Maricopa County
BLS QCEW Data, 2001–2018(p)
Year
First
Quarter
Second
Quarter
Third
Quarter
Fourth
Quarter
Annual
% Change
2001
73,803
74,701
75,726
77,234
75,366
2002
75,500
76,103
77,139
78,226
76,742
1.8%
2003
79,120
79,767
80,604
81,413
80,226
4.5%
2004
81,627
80,340
80,599
81,482
81,012
1%
2005
82,935
84,066
85,348
87,994
85,086
5%
2006
89,491
91,083
92,675
94,872
92,030
8.2%
2007
95,781
97,875
98,848
100,725
98,307
6.8%
2008
99,427
100,485
101,627
103,227
101,192
2.9%
2009
94,076
94,047
93,945
94,868
94,234
-6.9%
2010
92,623
92,440
93,378
94,639
93,270
-1%
2011
92,510
93,371
94,675
96,180
94,184
1%
2012
94,712
95,055
95,411
94,914
95,023
0.9%
2013
90,950
91,285
91,467
92,988
91,673
-3.5%
2014
92,517
92,840
93,552
94,881
93,448
1.9%
2015
91,674
93,063
94,048
94,941
93,432
0.0%
2016
92,654
93,427
94,210
95,369
93,915
0.5%
2017
94,404
95,638
96,677
98,612
96,333
2.6%
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
38
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Poverty
Poverty is the condition of having insufficient resources or
income. In its extreme form, poverty is a lack of basic human
needs, such as adequate and healthy food, clothing, housing,
water, and health services. According to the Census Bureau’s
Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program, the number
of individuals in poverty decreased from 625,090 in 2010 to
570,402 in 2017, with the poverty rate reaching 13.5% in
2017. This compared to a state poverty rate of 14.9% and a
national rate of 13.4% in 2017. Table IV.17, at right, presents
poverty data for the county.
The rate of poverty for Maricopa County HOME Consortium is
shown in Table IV.18. In 2017, there were an estimated
243,767 people (11.8%) living in poverty, compared to 8.6%
living in poverty in 2000. In 2017, some 10.6% of those in
poverty were under age 6 and 10.3% were 65 or older.
Table IV.18
Poverty by Age
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2000 Census SF3 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Age
2000 Census
2017 Five-Year ACS
Persons in Poverty
% of Total
Persons in Poverty
% of Total
Under 6
13,732
11.9%
25,804
10.6%
6 to 17
22,855
19.8%
49,235
20.2%
18 to 64
67,312
58.4%
143,676
58.9%
65 or Older
11,418
9.9%
25,052
10.3%
Total
115,317
100.0%
243,767
100.0%
Poverty Rate
8.6%
.
11.8%
.
The concentration of poverty is shown in Map IV.9. The highest rates of poverty in the Maricopa
County HOME Consortium are seen in the areas adjacent to the Gila River Indian Reservation and
the Salt River Reservation, as well as in the City of Glendale, and the western rural parts of the
County. Some of these census tracts saw areas with poverty rates that exceeded 38.4%, compared
to a study area poverty rate of 11.8%.
Elderly poverty is shown in Map IV.10. The location of elderly poverty does not correspond with
the location of poverty as a whole. The highest rates of elderly poverty are seen in Tempe,
Scottsdale, Surprise, and the northeastern portion of the rural County.
Summary
In 2018, unemployment in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium was at 4.1%, compared to
4.8% for the State of Arizona. This is representative of a labor force of 1,136,431 people and
1,090,334people employed. Real per capita income in Maricopa County has remained higher than
the state rate in recent years. However, poverty has grown to 11.8%, representing 243,767 persons
living in poverty in the HOME Consortium.
Table IV.17
Persons in Poverty
Maricopa County
2000–2017 SAIPE Estimates
Year
Persons in
Poverty
Poverty Rate
2000
322,120
10.2%
2001
362,057
11.1%
2002
400,631
11.9%
2003
441,835
12.8%
2004
479,545
13.3%
2005
450,439
12.6%
2006
464,168
12.5%
2007
495,505
12.9%
2008
521,208
13.4%
2009
599,393
15.1%
2010
625,090
16.6%
2011
665,193
17.4%
2012
675,704
17.4%
2013
696,086
17.6%
2014
687,643
17.1%
2015
667,637
16.3%
2016
624,923
15%
2017
570,402
13.5%
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
39
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.9
2017 Poverty
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
40
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.10
2017 Elderly Poverty
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
41
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
HOUSING
The Census Bureau estimates that the
total number of housing units increased
by 6.1% in Maricopa County HOME
Consortium between 2010 and 2017,
from 1,639,279 to 1,739,085. This
compared to an estimated 5.5.5%
increase statewide, as shown in Table
IV.19.
Housing Production
The Census Bureau reports building
permit authorizations and “per unit”
valuation of building permits by county
annually. Single-family building permit
authorizations in Maricopa County HOME Consortium increased from 11,813 authorizations in
2017 to 12,679 in 2018.
The real value of single-family building permits increased from $270,406 in 2017 to
$289,795 in 2018. This compares to an increase in permit value statewide, with values rising from
$259,218 in 2017 to $259,708 in 2018. Additional details are given in Table IV.20 as well as in
Diagram IV.6 and Diagram IV.7. As seen below, while single family unit production decreased
beginning in the recession, the value of single-family permits has continued to rise.
Diagram IV.6
Single-Family Permits
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
Census Bureau Data, 1980–2017
Table IV.19
Housing Units
State of Arizona vs. Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2000 and 2018 Census Data and Intercensal Estimates
Subject
Arizona
% Growth
Since
Census
Maricopa
County HOME
Consortium
%
Growth
Since
Census
2000 Census Base
2,188,939
.
1,250,368
.
2010 Census
2,844,526
29.9%
1,639,279
31.1%
July 2011 Estimate
2,860,024
0.5%
1,647,237
0.5%
July 2012 Estimate
2,872,724
1%
1,654,666
0.9%
July 2013 Estimate
2,891,278
1.6%
1,666,239
1.6%
July 2014 Estimate
2,914,141
2.4%
1,681,345
2.6%
July 2015 Estimate
2,937,060
3.3%
1,695,415
3.4%
July 2016 Estimate
2,966,587
4.3%
1,716,195
4.7%
July 2017 Estimate
3,000,043
5.5%
1,739,085
6.1%
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
42
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.20
Building Permits and Valuation
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
Census Bureau Data, 1980–2018
Year
Authorized Construction in Permit Issuing Areas
Per Unit Valuation,
(Real 2017$)
Single-
Family
Duplex
Units
Tri- and
Four-Plex
Multi-Family
Units
Total
Units
Single-Family
Units
Multi-Family
Units
1980
6,653
112
520
2,732
10,017
112,220
53,262
1981
6,282
90
512
1,717
8,601
114,800
43,787
1982
6,618
64
531
2,395
9,608
92,727
60,090
1983
12,542
148
567
8,167
21,424
111,151
54,352
1984
12,471
134
837
12,971
26,413
135,141
59,861
1985
13,884
290
429
9,343
23,946
138,863
65,716
1986
14,511
196
388
7,281
22,376
148,327
60,509
1987
11,202
54
144
4,184
15,584
182,423
104,389
1988
8,757
50
139
3,573
12,519
191,096
108,756
1989
7,153
4
40
902
8,099
187,059
91,826
1990
6,547
6
32
1,071
7,656
188,544
79,289
1991
8,649
6
56
330
9,041
193,555
128,255
1992
11,718
22
174
1,113
13,027
185,817
98,784
1993
14,244
72
163
1,208
15,687
175,495
92,787
1994
18,238
150
270
2,357
21,015
182,486
95,957
1995
18,075
128
253
4,157
22,613
182,318
88,413
1996
19,385
142
138
4,485
24,150
187,405
87,935
1997
21,927
108
202
7,144
29,381
174,632
79,066
1998
24,293
62
179
4,013
28,547
180,150
71,304
1999
25,094
52
166
2,443
27,755
191,217
90,263
2000
22,736
124
438
5,250
28,548
192,433
85,887
2001
24,643
74
240
3,702
28,659
204,258
93,658
2002
25,804
34
155
4,784
30,777
206,491
85,002
2003
29,209
2
263
3,606
33,080
213,647
90,624
2004
32,796
72
380
2,864
36,112
220,276
94,036
2005
28,729
144
264
4,624
33,761
233,624
97,224
2006
17,805
118
771
4,735
23,429
255,067
146,236
2007
12,584
78
420
4,319
17,401
261,760
119,261
2008
6,883
88
135
3,783
10,889
283,858
115,327
2009
4,476
0
4
300
4,780
279,106
183,131
2010
4,017
4
0
500
4,521
267,513
192,695
2011
4,868
16
47
1,041
5,972
266,948
100,631
2012
7,678
78
7
1,071
8,834
270,499
124,904
2013
8,065
58
49
4,159
12,331
290,805
144,074
2014
7,222
108
62
5,057
12,449
311,899
120,757
2015
10,523
102
124
2,198
12,947
304,179
150,836
2016
11,298
158
99
4,518
16,073
304,947
123,734
2017
11,813
84
108
3,880
15,885
270,406
147,803
2018
12,679
98
114
3,652
16,543
289,795
159,271
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
43
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Diagram IV.7
Total Permits by Unit Type
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
Census Bureau Data, 1980–2017
Housing Characteristics
Households by type and tenure are shown in Table IV.21. Family households represented 66.9%
of households, while non-family households accounted for 33.1%. These changed from 67.4 and
32.6%, respectively.
Table IV.21
Household Type by Tenure
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 Census SF1 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Household Type
2010 Census
2017 Five-Year ACS
Households
Households
Households
% of Total
Family Households
493,184
67.4%
515,964
66.9%
Married-Couple Family
378,689
76.8%
399,196
77.4%
Owner-Occupied
311,291
82.2%
316,314
79.2%
Renter-Occupied
67,398
17.8%
82,882
20.8%
Other Family
114,495
23.2%
116,768
22.2%
Male Householder, No Spouse Present
36,379
31.8%
36,370
31.2%
Owner-Occupied
20,353
55.9%
18,793
51.7%
Renter-Occupied
16,026
44.1%
17,577
48.3%
Female Householder, No Spouse Present
78,116
68.2%
80,398
66.9%
Owner-Occupied
40,583
52%
38,509
47.9%
Renter-Occupied
37,533
48%
41,889
52.1%
Non-Family Households
238,219
32.6%
254,879
33.1%
Owner-Occupied
136,792
57.4%
138,912
54.5%
Renter-Occupied
101,427
42.6%
115,967
45.5%
Total
731,403
100.0%
770,843
100.0%
Table IV.22, below, shows housing units by type in 2010 and 2017. In 2010, there were 808,960
housing units, compared with 884,838 in 2017. Single-family units accounted for 75.6% of units
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
44
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
in 2017, compared to 75.6 in 2010. Apartment units accounted for 16.3% in 2017, compared to
15.6% in 2010.
Table IV.22
Housing Units by Type
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Unit Type
2010 Five-Year ACS
2017 Five-Year ACS
Units
% of Total
Units
% of Total
Single-Family
611,853
75.6%
75.6%
Duplex
6,657
0.8%
5,953
0.7%
Tri- or Four-Plex
24,594
3%
25,286
2.9%
Apartment
126,110
15.6%
144,502
16.3%
Mobile Home
38,297
4.7%
39,036
4.4%
Boat, RV, Van, Etc.
1,449
0.2%
1,287
0.1%
Total
808,960
100.0%
884,838
100.0%
Table IV.23 shows housing units by tenure from 2010 to 2017. By 2017, there were 884,838
housing units. An estimated 66.5% were owner-occupied, and 12.9% were vacant.
Table IV.23
Housing Units by Tenure
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 Census & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Tenure
2010 Census
2017 Five-Year ACS
Units
% of Total
Units
% of Total
Occupied Housing Units
731,403
86.3%
770,843
87.1%
Owner-Occupied
509,019
69.6%
512,528
66.5%
Renter-Occupied
222,384
30.4%
258,315
33.5%
Vacant Housing Units
116,554
13.7%
113,995
12.9%
Total Housing Units
847,957
100.0%
884,838
100.0%
The concentration of homeowner households are shown in Map IV.11. The highest rates of
homeownership were seen in the more rural parts of the County, with some areas exceeding 89.2%
homeownership rates. In the more urban parts of the County, homeownership rates were lower
than 69.7%. Renter concentrations were, conversely, higher in more urban areas of the County,
primarily in areas adjacent to the Cities of Phoenix and Mesa. This is shown in Map IV.12.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
45
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.11
2017 Homeowner Households
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
46
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.12
2017 Renter Households
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
47
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Households by income for the 2010 and 2017 5-year ACS are shown in Table IV.24. Households
earning more than $100,000 per year represented 30.2% of households in 2017, compared to 26%
in 2010. Meanwhile, households earning less than $15,000 accounted for 8.9% of households in
2017, compared to 8.6% in 2000.
Table IV.24
Households by Income
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Income
2010 Five-Year ACS
2017 Five-Year ACS
Households
% of Total
Households
% of Total
Less than $15,000
60,210
8.6%
68,439
8.9%
$15,000 to $19,999
27,925
4%
27,792
3.6%
$20,000 to $24,999
30,129
4.3%
31,927
4.1%
$25,000 to $34,999
64,695
9.2%
65,668
8.5%
$35,000 to $49,999
97,127
13.9%
98,372
12.8%
$50,000 to $74,999
139,141
19.9%
141,611
18.4%
$75,000 to $99,999
99,038
14.1%
104,136
13.5%
$100,000 or More
182,126
26%
232,898
30.2%
Total
700,391
100.0%
770,843
100.0%
Table IV.25 shows households by year home built for the 2010 and 2017 5-year ACS data.
Housing units built between 2000 and 2009, account for 29.4% of households in 2010 and 30.7%
of households in 2017. Housing units built in 1939 or earlier represented 0.4% of households in
2017 and 0.4% of households in 2010.
Table IV.25
Households by Year Home Built
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Year Built
2010 Five-Year ACS
2017 Five-Year ACS
Households
% of Total
Households
% of Total
1939 or Earlier
2,718
0.4%
3,152
0.4%
1940 to 1949
4,517
0.6%
4,185
0.5%
1950 to 1959
21,265
3%
20,502
2.7%
1960 to 1969
42,299
6%
43,489
5.6%
1970 to 1979
109,055
15.6%
111,653
14.5%
1980 to 1989
129,539
18.5%
127,500
16.5%
1990 to 1999
185,158
26.4%
186,079
24.1%
2000 to 2009
205,840
29.4%
236,593
30.7%
2010 or Later
.
.
37,690
4.9%
Total
700,391
100.0%
770,843
100.0%
The distribution of unit types by race are shown in Table IV.26. An estimated 78.7% of white
households occupy single-family homes, while 58.8% of Black or African American households do.
Some 14% of White households occupied apartments, while 32.7% of Black or African American
households do. An estimated 73.4% of Asian, and 66.1% of American Indian households occupy
single-family homes.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
48
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.26
Distribution of Units in Structure by Race
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Unit Type
White
Black/African
American
American
Indian
Asian
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islanders
Other
Two or
More Races
Single-Family
78.7%
58.8%
66.1%
73.4%
67%
68.2%
71.3%
Duplex
0.6%
1.3%
1.6%
0.6%
0.3%
0.7%
1.3%
Tri- or Four-Plex
2.5%
5.6%
3.4%
3.8%
2.2%
4.3%
3.4%
Apartment
14%
32.7%
24%
21.3%
24.5%
21.5%
20.9%
Mobile Home
4%
1.6%
4.8%
0.9%
6%
5.2%
2.6%
Boat, RV, Van, Etc.
0.2%
0%
0.2%
0%
0%
0%
0.5%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
The disposition of vacant units between 2010 and 2017 are shown in Table IV.27. An estimated
26.7% of vacant units were for rent in 2010. In addition, some 18.7% of vacant units were for sale.
“Other” vacant units represented 15.5% of vacant units in 2010. “Other” vacant units are not for
sale or rent, or otherwise available to the marketplace. These units may be problematic if
concentrated in certain areas, and may create a “blighting” effect.
By 2017, for rent units accounted for 17.4% of vacant units, while for sale units accounted for
10.7%. “Other” vacant units accounted for 15.1% of vacant units, representing a total of 17,268
“other” vacant units.
Table IV.27
Disposition of Vacant Housing Units
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 Census & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Disposition
2010 Census
2017 Five-Year ACS
Units
% of Total
Units
% of Total
For Rent
31,138
26.7%
19,827
17.4%
For Sale
21,772
18.7%
12,171
10.7%
Rented Not Occupied
1,468
1.3%
3,922
3.4%
Sold Not Occupied
3,620
3.1%
6,306
5.5%
For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use
40,414
34.7%
54,392
47.7%
For Migrant Workers
76
0.1%
109
0.1%
Other Vacant
18,066
15.5%
17,268
15.1%
Total
116,554
100.0%
113,995
100.0%
Vacant for rent units tended to be highest in the central parts of the County, as seen in Map IV.13.
This was similar to vacant for sale housing, as seen in Map IV.14. “Other” vacant housing is shown
for both 2010 and 2017, as seen in Maps IV.15 and IV.16. There was not much shift in the
concentration of “other” vacant housing during that time. “Other” vacant housing units are units
that are not for rent or for sale, and are not otherwise available to the marketplace. This can be
problematic when units are concentrated in one area as they may create a “blighting” effect. This
can also offer an opportunity for the county to concentrate investments for redevelopment. The
areas with the highest “other” vacant units were in some areas of the urban County, as well as in
the western part of the rural County.
Table IV.28, below, shows the number of households in the county by number of bedrooms and
tenure. There were 13,351 rental households with no bedrooms, otherwise known as studio
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
49
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
apartments. Two-bedroom households accounted for 8% of total households in Maricopa County
HOME Consortium. In Maricopa County HOME Consortium, the 308,801 households with three
bedrooms accounted for 26.3% of all households, and there were only 56,679 five-bedroom or
more households, which accounted for 22.2% of all households.
Table IV.28
Households by Number of Bedrooms
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 5-Year ACS Data
Number of
Bedrooms
Tenure
% of Total
Own
Rent
Total
None
1,269
13,351
18,730
100
One
9,682
48,314
71,056
2.1
Two
102,314
86,273
232,937
8
Three
203,599
72,137
308,801
26.3
Four
148,853
32,656
196,635
34.9
Five or more
46,811
5,584
56,679
22.2
Total
770,843
258,315
884,838
100.0
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
50
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.13
2017 Vacant for Rent
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
51
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.14
2017 Vacant for Sale
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
52
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.15
2010 “Other” Vacant
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 Census, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
53
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.16
2017 “Other” Vacant
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
54
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Household mortgage status is reported in Table IV.29. In Maricopa County HOME Consortium
households with a mortgage accounted for 69.3% of all households or 355,360 housing units, and
the remaining 60.1% or 307,951 units had no mortgage. Of those units with a mortgage, 45,531
had either a second mortgage or home equity loan, 1,878 had both a second mortgage and home
equity loan, and 307,951 or 60.1% had no second mortgage or no home equity loan.
Table IV.29
Mortgage Status
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 5-Year ACS Data
Mortgage Status
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
Households
% of Households
Housing units with a mortgage, contract to purchase, or similar debt
355,360
69.3
With either a second mortgage or home equity loan, but not both
45,531
8.9
Second mortgage only
9,850
1.9
Home equity loan only
35,681
7
Both second mortgage and home equity loan
1,878
0.4
No second mortgage and no home equity loan
307,951
60.1
Housing units without a mortgage
157,168
30.7
Total
512,528
100.0%
Home Mortgage Loans
The FFEIC The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) was enacted by Congress in 1975. Data
collected under the HMDA provide a comprehensive portrait of home loan activity, including
information pertaining to home purchase loans, home improvement loans, and refinancing. For the
analysis only owner-occupied originated loans for single-family units were considered. As can be
seen in Table IV.30, of the 126,673 loans in 2017, 73,848 loans were for Home Purchases, 6,210
were for Home Improvement and 46,615 were for refinancing.
Table IV.30
Owner-Occupied Single-Family Home Loans by Loan Type
Maricopa County
2008 – 2017 HMDA Data
Year
Home
Purchase
Home
Improvement
Refinancing
Total
2008
42,075
3,904
41,028
87,007
2009
44,567
1,375
57,653
103,595
2010
40,862
894
45,749
87,505
2011
38,996
1,094
35,840
75,930
2012
39,843
1,526
95,045
136,414
2013
45,852
2,956
74,906
123,714
2014
49,994
3,656
35,243
88,893
2015
59,586
4,523
55,905
120,014
2016
69,147
5,301
70,162
144,610
2017
73,848
6,210
46,615
126,673
Housing Costs
Median home values and median contract rents were both highest in the central and northern
portions of the study area. The median home value exceeded $318,400 in much of the northern
and eastern parts of the County, and in the more urban areas. They were lowest, below $121,500,
in the southern and western parts of the County. A similar pattern was true for median contract
rents. The highest rents exceeded $1,191. The lowest rents were below $702.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
55
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.17
2017 Median Home Value
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
56
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.18
2017 Median Contract Rent
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, Tigerline
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
57
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.31 shows the average loan value by loan type. In 2008, average home purchase loans was
$207,393 in 2012 and $263,112 in 2017. Overall, average loans were $227,323 in 2008 and
$245,131 in 2017.
Table IV.31
Owner-Occupied Single-Family Home Loans by Average Loan Amount
Maricopa County
2008 – 2017 HMDA Data
Year
Home
Purchase
Home
Improvement
Refinancing
Total
2008
$229,744
$107,305
$236,259
$227,323
2009
$178,888
$132,376
$217,294
$199,644
2010
$178,469
$116,960
$212,358
$195,558
2011
$176,250
$86,490
$208,030
$189,957
2012
$207,393
$108,494
$209,537
$207,781
2013
$232,890
$106,552
$202,115
$211,238
2014
$231,558
$102,040
$213,125
$218,923
2015
$241,683
$127,666
$223,055
$228,709
2016
$253,169
$139,948
$234,479
$239,950
2017
$263,112
$140,139
$230,631
$245,131
Table IV.32 shows the total volume of owner-occupied single-family loans. In 2008, the total
volume of home purchase loans was $8,263,175,000 in 2012 and $19,430,320,000 in 2017.
Overall, the total volume of loans was $19,778,652,000 in 2008 and $31,051,467,000 in 2017.
Table IV.32
Total Volume of Owner-Occupied Single-Family Loans
Maricopa County
2008 – 2017 HMDA Data
Year
Home
Purchase
Home
Improvement
Refinancing
Total
2008
$9,666,488,000
$418,918,000
$9,693,246,000
$19,778,652,000
2009
$7,972,492,000
$182,017,000
$12,527,636,000
$20,682,145,000
2010
$7,292,602,000
$104,562,000
$9,715,159,000
$17,112,323,000
2011
$6,873,026,000
$94,620,000
$7,455,805,000
$14,423,451,000
2012
$8,263,175,000
$165,562,000
$19,915,452,000
$28,344,189,000
2013
$10,678,450,000
$314,967,000
$15,139,628,000
$26,133,045,000
2014
$11,576,517,000
$373,059,000
$7,511,176,000
$19,460,752,000
2015
$14,400,930,000
$577,435,000
$12,469,878,000
$27,448,243,000
2016
$17,505,879,000
$741,863,000
$16,451,491,000
$34,699,233,000
2017
$19,430,320,000
$870,261,000
$10,750,886,000
$31,051,467,000
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
58
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
COMMUTING PATTERNS
Table IV.33 shows the place of work by county of residence. In 2010 97.4% of residents worked
within the county they reside with 1.2% working outside their home county. This compares to
97.5% of residents in 2017 who worked within Maricopa County and 1.2% of residents worked
outside Maricopa County but still within the state.
Table IV.33
Place of Work
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 and 2017 5 year ACS data
Place of work
2010 5-year ACS
% of Total
2017 5-year ACS
% of Total
Worked in county of residence
822,191
97.4%
931,308
97.5%
Worked outside county of residence
10,471
1.2%
11,250
1.2%
Worked outside state of residence
11,909
1.4%
12,456
1.3%
Total
844,571
100.0%
955,014
100.0%
Table IV.34 shows the means of transportation to work. In 2017, 77.8% of commuters drove alone
in a car, truck, or van. Only 9.6% carpooled, with an additional 1.4% taking public transportation.
Also, there were 69,747 persons or 7.3% who worked from home.
Table IV.34
Means of Transportation to Work
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 & 2017 5 year ACS data
Means
2010 5-year ACS
% of Total
2017 5-year ACS
% of Total
Car, truck, or van: Drove alone
654,061
77.4%
743,445
77.8%
Car, truck, or van: Carpooled:
94,056
11.1%
91,632
9.6%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab):
12,938
1.5%
13,376
1.4%
Taxicab
533
0.1%
1,143
0.1%
Motorcycle
3,609
0.4%
4,273
0.4%
Bicycle
7,102
0.8%
8,798
0.9%
Walked
13,500
1.6%
13,443
1.4%
Other means
9,140
1.1%
9,157
1%
Worked at home
49,632
5.9%
69,747
7.3%
Total
844,571
100.0%
955,014
100.0%
Table IV.35 shows the breakdown of the means of transportation by housing type. In 2017, 51.2%
of commuters owned their home and commuted alone by car, which compares to 56.5% in 2010.
There were also 255,718 renters who drove alone in 2017 and accounted for 26.9% of the total
commuter population. Commuters who owned their own home and took public transportation
represented 0.5% of the population, which compares to 8,649 renters, or 0.9% taking public
transportation.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
59
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.35
Means Of Transportation To Work By Tenure
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 & 2017 5 year ACS data
Tenure
2010 5-year ACS
% of Total
2017 5-year ACS
% of Total
Car, truck, or van - drove alone:
Owner
475,462
56.5%
486,460
51.2%
Renter
177,163
21.1%
255,718
26.9%
Car, truck, or van - carpooled:
Owner
63,032
7.5%
54,869
5.8%
Renter
30,672
3.6%
36,582
3.9%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab):
Owner
5,155
0.6%
4,349
0.5%
Renter
7,231
0.9%
8,649
0.9%
Walked:
Owner
5,268
0.6%
4,945
0.5%
Renter
7,371
0.9%
6,759
0.7%
Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, or other means:
Owner
11,904
1.4%
12,207
1.3%
Renter
8,233
1%
10,495
1.1%
Worked at home:
Owner
40,499
4.8%
51,807
5.5%
Renter
8,834
1.1%
16,824
1.8%
Total:
840,824
100.0%
949,664
100.0%
Summary
The Maricopa County HOME Consortium experienced a drop-off in housing production during the
recent recession, which has begun to recover. In 2018, there were 16,543 total units produced in
the Consortium, with 12,679 of these being multi-family units. Single-family unit production
declined beginning in 2008 and has increased slightly since that time. The value of single-family
permits, however, has continued to rise, reaching $289,795 in 2017. Since 2010, the Consortium
has seen a slight decline in the proportion of vacant units, but has experienced a rise in the
proportion of vacant units that are for Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
60
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
B. SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION
The “dissimilarity index” provides a quantitative measure of segregation in an area, based on the
demographic composition of smaller geographic units within that area. One way of understanding
the index is that it indicates how evenly two demographic groups are distributed throughout an
area: if the composition of both groups in each geographic unit (e.g., Census tract) is the same as in
the area as a whole (e.g., city), then the dissimilarity index score for that city will be 0. By contrast;
and again, using Census tracts as an example; if one population is clustered entirely within one
Census tract, the dissimilarity index score for the city will be 1. The higher the dissimilarity index
value, the higher the level of segregation in an area.
A Technical Note on the Dissimilarity Index Methodology
The dissimilarity indices included in this study were calculated from data provided by the Census
Bureau according to the following formula:
D𝑗
𝑊𝐵= 100 ∗ 1
2 ∑|𝑊𝑖
𝑊𝑗
−𝐵𝑖
𝐵𝑗
|
𝑁
𝑖=1
Where i indexes a geographic unit, j is the jth jurisdiction, W is group one and B is group two, and
N is the number of geographic units, starting with i, in jurisdiction j.10
This is the formula that HUD uses to calculate dissimilarity index values. In most respects
(including the use of tract-level data available through the Brown Longitudinal Tract Database), the
methodology employed in this study exactly duplicates HUD’s methodology for calculating the
index of dissimilarity.
The principle exception was the decision to use Census tract-level data to calculate dissimilarity
index values through 2010. While HUD uses tract-level data in 1990 and 2000, HUD uses block
group-level data in 2010. The decision to use tract-level data in all years included in this study was
motivated by the fact that the dissimilarity index is sensitive to the geographic base unit from which
it is calculated. Concretely, use of smaller geographic units produces dissimilarity index values that
tend to be higher than those calculated from larger geographic units.11
As a general rule, HUD considers the thresholds appearing in the table below to indicate low,
moderate, and high levels of segregation:
Interpreting the dissimilarity index
Measure
Values
Description
Dissimilarity Index
<40
Low Segregation
[range 0-100]
40-54
Moderate Segregation
>55
High Segregation
Segregation Levels
Diagram IV.8 shows the rate of segregation by race and ethnicity for 2000, 2010, and 2017.
During this time period, Black or African American households have had an increasing level of
10 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data Documentation. HUD. December 2015.
11 Wong, David S. “Spatial Decomposition of Segregation Indices: A Framework Toward Measuring Segregation at Multiple Levels.”
Geographical Analyses, 35:3. The Ohio State University. July 2003. P. 179.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
61
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
segregation, but it has remained low. American Indian households had a high level of segregation
in 2017, which has grown from a low level in 2000. The level of segregation for Asian households
has also increased from 2000 to 2017 but remains a low level of segregation. Native Hawaiian
households increased significantly in terms of segregation, according to the dissimilarity index,
resulting in a high level of segregation in 2017. “Other” race households had a moderate level of
segregation in both 2010 and 2017, seeing a slight decrease in the dissimilarity index between
2010 and 2017. Two or more race households are also seeing a rate of increase in the dissimilarity
index but remain at a low level of segregation.
Diagram IV.8
Dissimilarity Index
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
C. RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY
Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) are Census tracts with relatively high
concentrations of non-white residents living in poverty. Formally, an area is designated an R/ECAP
if two conditions are satisfied: first, the non-white population, whether Hispanic or non-Hispanic,
must account for at least 50% of the Census tract population. Second, the poverty rate in that
Census must exceed a certain threshold, at 40%.
R/ECAPs over Time
The R/ECAPS in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium are illustrated in the maps on the
following pages. The number of R/ECAPs increased from 2010 to 2017. R/ECAPs tended to be
found in the more urban parts of the County, particularly in areas around Glendale and Surprise.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
62
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.19
2010 R/ECAPs
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD AFFH Database, 2017 ACS
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
63
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.20
2017 R/ECAPs
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD AFFH Database, 2017 ACS
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
64
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
D. DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
The following section describes the HUD defined terms of Access to Opportunity. These measures,
as outlined below, describe a set of conditions that may or may not accurately reflect the actual
conditions in the study area. These data are supplemented by local data when available and
ultimately provide only a piece of the total understanding of access to the various opportunities in
the community. They are used as measured to compare geographic trends and levels of access
within the community.
Areas of opportunity are physical places, areas within communities that provide things one needs to
thrive, including quality employment, well performing schools, affordable housing, efficient public
transportation, safe streets, essential services, adequate parks, and full-service grocery stores. Areas
lacking opportunity, then, have the opposite of these attributes. Disparities in access to opportunity
allow comparisons by race and ethnicity if any one group has lower or higher levels of access to
these community assets. HUD expresses several of these community assets through the use of an
index value, with 100 representing total access by all members of the community, and zero
representing no access.
The HUD opportunity indices are access to Low Poverty areas; access to School Proficiency;
characterization of the Labor Market Engagement; residence in relation to Jobs Proximity; Low
Transportation Costs; Transit Trips Index; and a characterization of where you live by an
Environmental Health indicator. For each of these a more formal definition is as follows:
Low Poverty – A measure of the degree of poverty in a neighborhood, at the Census tract level.
School Proficiency - School-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams
to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which
are near lower performing schools.
Jobs Proximity - Quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of
its distance to all job locations within a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA).
Labor Market Engagement - Provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor
market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood
Low Transportation Cost – Estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following
description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for
renters for the region
Transit Trips - Trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-
parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters
Environmental Health - Summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood
level
Diagram IV.9 shows the level of access to opportunities by race and ethnicity. Black or African
American, Hispanic and Native American households have lower access to Low Poverty areas,
compared to other races and ethnicities in the Maricopa HOME Consortium. Black or African
American, Hispanic, and Native American households also have markedly lower access to school
proficiency. Black or African American, Hispanic, and Native American households have lower
access to labor market engagement. There is little variance by race for access to transportation trips
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
65
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
and transportation cost. There is little variance by race or ethnicity to job proximity and
environmental health.
Diagram IV.9
Access to Opportunity
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
LOW POVERTY INDEX
The Low Poverty Index uses rates of family poverty by household (based on the federal poverty
line) to measure exposure to poverty by neighborhood. A higher score is more desirable, generally
indicating less exposure to poverty at the neighborhood level.
The lowest scores were found in the more urban areas of the County, in areas around Avondale and
Chandler, as well as in the southern rural parts of the County.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
66
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.21
Low Poverty
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD AFFH Database
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
67
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
SCHOOL PROFICIENCY INDEX
The School Proficiency Index measures the proficiency of elementary schools in the attendance
area (where this information is available) of individuals sharing a protected characteristic or the
proficiency of elementary schools within 1.5 miles of individuals with a protected characteristic
where attendance boundary data are not available. The values for the School Proficiency Index are
determined by the performance of 4th grade students on state exams.
School Proficiency indices are highest in the northern rural areas of the County, as well as in areas
around Gilbert, Scottsdale, and Surprise. School proficiency ratings were lowest in and around
Avondale and Tempe.
JOBS PROXIMITY INDEX
The Jobs Proximity Index measures the physical distances between place of residence and jobs by
race/ethnicity and is shown in Map IV.23. Job proximity varied widely across the County. As one
would expect, the areas closest to the city centers had the highest job proximity index ratings. Job
Proximity varied widely across the HOME Consortium.
LABOR MARKET ENGAGEMENT INDEX
The Labor Market Engagement Index provides a measure of unemployment rate, labor-force
participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor’s
degree, by neighborhood Map IV.8 shows the labor market engagement for the study area. Areas
around Gilbert, Chandler, Scottsdale, and Tempe had the highest rate of labor market engagement,
above 79 index ratings. Areas in Avondale and Surprise had the lowest labor market engagement
index ratings, as well as some of the more rural parts of the County, with index ratings below 19.
Geographic location did seem to correspond with greater access to jobs and labor market
engagement, with parts of the County having a higher level of labor market engagement than other
areas. In addition, Black or African American, Hispanic, and Native American households have
lower access to labor market engagement in the HOME Consortium. This data does include data
from the Native American reservations in the County.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
68
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.22
School Proficiency
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD AFFH Database
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
69
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.23
Job Proximity
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD AFFH Database
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
70
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.24
Labor Market Engagement
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD AFFH Database
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
71
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
TRANSPORTATION TRIP INDEX
The Transportation Trip Index measures proximity to public transportation by neighborhood. There
was little difference in index rating across racial and ethnic groups. The Transportation Trip Index
measures proximity to public transportation by neighborhood. The Transit Trips Index measures
how often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation. The highest rate of
transit trips were in the more urban parts of the HOME Consortium, while the lowest ratings were
in the more rural parts of the County.
LOW TRANSPORTATION COST INDEX
The Low Transportation Cost Index measures cost of transport and proximity to public
transportation by neighborhood. Transportation Costs saw a similar pattern as with Transit Trips; the
highest transportation cost index ratings were in the more urban parts of the HOME Consortium,
while lower index ratings were in the rural parts of the study area.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INDEX
The Environmental Health Index measures exposure based on EPA estimates of air quality
carcinogenic, respiratory and neurological toxins by neighborhood.
The outer areas, or more rural parts, of the Maricopa County HOME Consortium, had the highest
environmental health index ratings. Areas closer to the city centers had lower index ratings.
PATTERNS IN DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
The degree to which residents had access to low poverty areas, school proficiency, and labor
market engagement differed depending on their race or ethnicity, particularly resulting in lower
index ratings for Black or African American, Native American, and Hispanic households in the
Maricopa County HOME Consortium. Other measures of opportunity (school proficiency, use of
public transit, transportation costs, and environmental quality) did not differ dramatically by race or
ethnicity.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
72
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.25
Transit Trips
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD AFFH Database
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
73
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.26
Transportation Cost
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD AFFH Database
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
74
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.27
Environmental Health
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD AFFH Database
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
75
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
E. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
The Census Bureau collects data on several topics that HUD has identified as “housing problems.”
For the purposes of this report, housing problems include overcrowding, incomplete plumbing or
kitchen facilities, and cost-burden.
Overcrowding
Households are classified as having housing problems if they face overcrowding, incomplete
plumbing or kitchen facilities, or cost burdens. Overcrowding is defined as having from 1.1 to 1.5
people per room per residence, with severe overcrowding defined as having more than 1.5 people
per room. Households with overcrowding are shown in Table IV.38. In 2017, an estimated 2% of
households were overcrowded, and an additional 1.0% were severely overcrowded.
Table IV.38
Overcrowding and Severe Overcrowding
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Data Source
No Overcrowding
Overcrowding
Severe Overcrowding
Total
Households
% of Total
Households
% of Total
Households
% of Total
Owner
2010 Five-Year ACS
493,115
98.6%
5,614
1.1%
1,454
0.3%
500,183
2017 Five-Year ACS
505,255
98.6%
5,678
1.1%
1,595
0.3%
512,528
Renter
2010 Five-Year ACS
190,015
94.9%
7,325
3.7%
2,868
1.4%
200,208
2017 Five-Year ACS
242,841
94%
9,557
3.7%
5,917
2.3%
258,315
Total
2010 Five-Year ACS
683,130
97.5%
12,939
1.8%
4,322
0.6%
700,391
2017 Five-Year ACS
748,096
97%
15,235
2%
7,512
1.0%
770,843
Insufficient Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities
Incomplete plumbing and kitchen facilities are another indicator of potential housing problems.
According to the Census Bureau, a housing unit is classified as lacking complete plumbing facilities
when any of the following are not present: piped hot and cold water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or
shower. Likewise, a unit is categorized as deficient when any of the following are missing from the
kitchen: a sink with piped hot and cold water, a range or cook top and oven, and a refrigerator.
There were a total of 1,980 households with incomplete plumbing facilities in 2017, representing
0.3% of households in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium. This is compared to 0.3% of
households lacking complete plumbing facilities in 2010.
Table IV.39
Households with Incomplete Plumbing Facilities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 and 2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Households
2010 Five-Year ACS
2017 Five-Year ACS
With Complete Plumbing Facilities
698,519
768,863
Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities
1,872
1,980
Total Households
700,391
770,843
Percent Lacking
0.3%
0.3%
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
76
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
There were 4,073 households lacking complete kitchen facilities in 2017, compared to 3,432
households in 2010. There was no significant change from 0.5% of households in 2010 to 0.5% in
2017.
Table IV.40
Households with Incomplete Kitchen Facilities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 and 2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Households
2010 Five-Year ACS
2017 Five-Year
ACS
With Complete Kitchen Facilities
696,959
766,770
Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities
3,432
4,073
Total Households
700,391
770,843
Percent Lacking
0.5%
0.5%
Cost Burdens
Cost burden is defined as gross housing costs that range from 30.0 to 50.0% of gross household
income; severe cost burden is defined as gross housing costs that exceed 50.0% of gross household
income. For homeowners, gross housing costs include property taxes, insurance, energy payments,
water and sewer service, and refuse collection. If the homeowner has a mortgage, the
determination also includes principal and interest payments on the mortgage loan. For renters, this
figure represents monthly rent and selected electricity and natural gas energy charges.
As seen in Table IV.41, in Maricopa County HOME Consortium 16.3% of households had a cost
burden and 13.1% had a severe cost burden. Some 22.4% of renters were cost burdened, and
21.0% were severely cost burdened. Owner-occupied households without a mortgage had a cost
burden rate of 6.2% and a severe cost burden rate of 5.2%. Owner-occupied households with a
mortgage had a cost burden rate of 16.3%, and severe cost burden rate at 10.9%.
Table IV.41
Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden by Tenure
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Data Source
Less Than 30%
31%-50%
Above 50%
Not Computed
Total
Households
% of Total
Households
% of Total
Households
% of Total
Households
% of Total
Owner With a Mortgage
2010 Five-Year ACS
229,716
60.7%
90,390
23.9%
56,560
14.9%
1,796
0.5%
378,462
2017 Five-Year ACS
255,567
71.9%
57,840
16.3%
38,662
10.9%
3,291
0.9%
355,360
Owner Without a Mortgage
2010 Five-Year ACS
106,320
87.3%
8,449
6.9%
5,692
4.7%
1,260
1.0%
121,721
2017 Five-Year ACS
136,450
86.8%
9,703
6.2%
8,179
5.2%
2,836
1.8%
157,168
Renter
2010 Five-Year ACS
93,422
46.7%
49,258
24.6%
45,373
22.7%
12,155
6.1%
200,208
2017 Five-Year ACS
129,213
50.0%
57,917
22.4%
54,275
21.0%
16,910
6.5%
258,315
Total
2010 Five-Year ACS
429,458
61.3%
148,097
21.1%
107,625
15.4%
15,211
2.2%
700,391
2017 Five-Year ACS
521,230
67.6%
125,460
16.3%
101,116
13.1%
23,037
3.0%
770,843
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
77
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Housing Problems by Income
The HUD estimated Median Family Income (MFI) for
Maricopa County was $69,100 in 2018. This compared to
Arizona’s MFI of $64,300. Diagram IV.10, illustrates the
estimated MFI for 2000 through 2018.
As seen in Table IV.43, the most common housing problem
tends to be housing cost burdens. More than 113,605
households have a cost burden and 92,220 have a severe cost
burden. Some 50,980 renter households are impacted by
cost burdens, and 48,325 are impacted by severe cost
burdens. On the other hand, some 62,625 owner-occupied
households have cost burdens, and 43,895 have severe cost
burdens. There are a total of 62,625 owner-occupied and
50,980 renter-occupied households with a cost burden of
greater than 30% and less than 50%. An additional 43,895
owner-occupied 48,325 renter-occupied households had a
cost burden greater than 50% of income.
Diagram IV.10
Estimated Median Family Income
Maricopa County vs. Arizona
HUD Data: 2000 - 2019
Table IV.42
Median Family Income
Maricopa County
2000–2018 HUD MFI
Year
MFI
State of Arizona
MFI
2000
53,100
47,800
2001
54,900
49,700
2002
57,900
51,900
2003
58,300
52,700
2004
58,600
53,300
2005
58,600
53,300
2006
60,100
54,900
2007
59,100
54,400
2008
64,200
58,500
2009
65,900
60,400
2010
66,600
61,500
2011
65,500
60,800
2012
66,400
61,600
2013
62,200
58,800
2014
61,900
57,500
2015
64,000
59,800
2016
62,900
58,700
2017
66,200
61,600
2018
69,100
64,300
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
78
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.43
Housing Problems by Income and Tenure
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data
Housing Problem
$0 to
$21,870
$21,871 to
$36,450
$36,451 to
$58,320
$58,321 to
$72,900
Above
$72,900
Total
Owner-Occupied
Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities
315
195
285
130
785
1,710
Severely Overcrowded with > 1.51 people per
room (and complete kitchen and plumbing)
265
290
455
225
445
1,680
Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room
(and none of the above problems)
695
720
1,100
760
2,115
5,390
Housing cost burden greater that 50% of income
(and none of the above problems)
16,470
11,485
10,020
2,625
3,295
43,895
Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income
(and none of the above problems)
3,700
8,360
18,130
10,800
21,635
62,625
Zero/negative income (and none of the above
problems)
5,755
0
0
0
0
5,755
has none of the 4 housing problems
3,420
14,460
37,850
31,435
288,980
376,145
Total
30,620
35,510
67,840
45,975
317,255
497,200
Renter-Occupied
Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities
940
655
875
300
480
3,250
Severely Overcrowded with > 1.51 people per
room (and complete kitchen and plumbing)
1,750
955
1,355
520
820
5,400
Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room
(and none of the above problems)
2,545
1,920
2,065
945
2,040
9,515
Housing cost burden greater that 50% of income
(and none of the above problems)
25,740
14,895
6,475
490
725
48,325
Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income
(and none of the above problems)
2,055
11,795
24,535
7,175
5,420
50,980
Zero/negative income (and none of the above
problems)
6,440
0
0
0
0
6,440
has none of the 4 housing problems
3,820
3,895
16,605
19,725
89,125
133,170
Total
43,290
34,115
51,910
29,155
98,610
257,080
Total
Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities
1,255
850
1,160
430
1,265
4,960
Severely Overcrowded with > 1.51 people per
room (and complete kitchen and plumbing)
2,015
1,245
1,810
745
1,265
7,080
Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room
(and none of the above problems)
3,240
2,640
3,165
1,705
4,155
14,905
Housing cost burden greater that 50% of income
(and none of the above problems)
42,210
26,380
16,495
3,115
4,020
92,220
Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income
(and none of the above problems)
5,755
20,155
42,665
17,975
27,055
113,605
Zero/negative income (and none of the above
problems)
12,195
0
0
0
0
12,195
has none of the 4 housing problems
7,240
18,355
54,455
51,160
378,105
509,315
Total
73,910
69,625
119,750
75,130
415,865
754,280
Housing Problems by Race and Ethnicity
The following section shows households with housing problems by race/ethnicity. These tables
can be used to determine if there is a disproportionate housing need for any racial or ethnic groups.
If any racial/ethnic group faces housing problems at a rate of ten percentage points or high than the
jurisdiction average, then they have a disproportionate share of housing problems. Housing
problems are defined as any household that has overcrowding, inadequate kitchen or plumbing
facilities, or are cost burdened (pay more than 30% of their income on housing).
The following diagrams illustrate the percentage of households with housing problems by race.
Overall, Black or African American, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander households face a
disproportionate share of housing problems.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
79
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Diagram IV.11
Renter Housing Problems by Race
Diagram IV.12
Owner Housing Problems by Race
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
80
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Diagram IV.13
Total Housing Problems by Race
In Maricopa County HOME Consortium, 3,145 Black or African American homeowner households
face housing problems, 3,965 Asian households, and 19,185 Hispanic homeowner households
face housing problems.
Table IV.44
Percent of Homeowner Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data
Income
Non-Hispanic by Race
Hispanic
(Any Race)
Total
White
Black/
African
American
Asian
American
Indian/
Alaska
Native
Pacific
Islander
Other
Race
With Housing Problems
$0 to $21,870
67.9%
82.4%
72.7%
53.9%
80.0%
77.6%
78.6%
70.0%
$21,871 to $36,450
56.2%
74.5%
71.7%
40.0%
100.0%
80.3%
69.7%
59.3%
$36,451 to $58,320
42.0%
62.2%
46.1%
32.7%
85.7%
49.3%
51.7%
44.2%
$58,321 to $72,900
31.0%
29.5%
37.6%
17.5%
25.0%
22.7%
35.0%
31.6%
Above $72,900
8.9%
11.5%
7.7%
8.4%
7.4%
9.4%
9.2%
8.9%
Total
21.8%
28.1%
21.3%
22.3%
33.0%
23.9%
31.5%
23.2%
Without Housing Problems
$0 to $21,870
11.3%
2.2%
5.1%
30.0%
20.0%
8.6%
11.4%
11.2%
$21,871 to $36,450
43.8%
25.5%
28.3%
60.0%
0.0%
19.7%
30.3%
40.7%
$36,451 to $58,320
58.0%
37.8%
53.9%
67.3%
14.3%
50.7%
48.3%
55.8%
$58,321 to $72,900
69.0%
70.5%
62.4%
82.5%
75.0%
77.3%
65.0%
68.4%
Above $72,900
91.1%
88.5%
92.3%
91.6%
92.6%
90.6%
90.8%
91.1%
Total
76.9%
71.3%
77.3%
75.9%
67.0%
75.1%
67.6%
75.7%
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
81
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.45
Homeowner Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data
Income
Non-Hispanic by Race
Hispanic
(Any
Race)
Total
White
Black/
African
American
Asian
American
Indian
Pacific
Islander
Other
Race
With Housing Problems
$0 to $21,870
15,630
375
855
235
16
315
4,015
21,441
$21,871 to $36,450
15,215
395
825
200
16
305
4,085
21,041
$36,451 to $58,320
21,785
1,170
705
245
60
330
5,710
30,005
$58,321 to $72,900
10,975
410
560
50
5
100
2,440
14,540
Above $72,900
22,945
795
1,020
175
16
385
2,935
28,271
Total
86,550
3,145
3,965
905
113
1,435
19,185
115,298
Total
$0 to $21,870
23,010
455
1,176
436
20
406
5,110
30,613
$21,871 to $36,450
27,050
530
1,150
500
16
380
5,865
35,491
$36,451 to $58,320
51,915
1,880
1,530
750
70
670
11,055
67,870
$58,321 to $72,900
35,370
1,390
1,490
285
20
440
6,975
45,970
Above $72,900
258,810
6,940
13,265
2,080
216
4,100
31,850
317,261
Total
396,155
11,195
18,611
4,051
342
5,996
60,855
497,205
In total, 117,477 households face housing problems in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium.
Of these, some 10,480 Black or African American households, 3,640 Asian households, and
30,730 Hispanic renter households face housing problems.
Table IV.46
Renter Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data
Income
Non-Hispanic by Race
Hispanic
(Any
Race)
Total
White
Black/African
American
Asian
American
Indian
Pacific
Islander
Other
Race
With Housing Problems
$0 to $21,870
16,935
3,140
1,135
910
140
770
9,990
33,020
$21,871 to $36,450
16,250
3,080
795
460
31
620
8,990
30,226
$36,451 to $58,320
21,595
2,860
1,015
775
60
585
8,410
35,300
$58,321 to $72,900
6,220
820
285
21
50
130
1,915
9,441
Above $72,900
6,820
580
410
160
0
95
1,425
9,490
Total
67,820
10,480
3,640
2,326
281
2,200
30,730
117,477
Total
$0 to $21,870
22,875
3,970
2,235
1,271
144
1,050
11,740
43,285
$21,871 to $36,450
18,485
3,400
860
630
56
655
10,050
34,136
$36,451 to $58,320
31,525
3,835
1,520
1,025
80
845
13,080
51,910
$58,321 to $72,900
17,780
2,395
860
621
115
615
6,775
29,161
Above $72,900
69,465
6,095
4,655
1,035
220
1,795
15,345
98,610
Total
160,130
19,695
10,130
4,582
615
4,960
56,990
257,102
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
82
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.47
Percent of Renter Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data
Income
Non-Hispanic by Race
Hispanic
(Any Race)
Total
White
Black/African
American
Asian
American
Indian
Pacific
Islander
Other Race
With Housing Problems
$0 to $21,870
74.0%
79.1%
50.8%
71.6%
97.2%
73.3%
85.1%
76.3%
$21,871 to
$36,450
87.9%
90.6%
92.4%
73.0%
55.4%
94.7%
89.5%
88.5%
$36,451 to
$58,320
68.5%
74.6%
66.8%
75.6%
75.0%
69.2%
64.3%
68.0%
$58,321 to
$72,900
35.0%
34.2%
33.1%
3.4%
43.5%
21.1%
28.3%
32.4%
Above $72,900
9.8%
9.5%
8.8%
15.5%
0.0%
5.3%
9.3%
9.6%
Total
42.4%
53.2%
35.9%
50.8%
45.7%
44.4%
53.9%
45.7%
Without Housing Problems
$0 to $21,870
10.6%
7.6%
6.5%
9.5%
0.0%
7.6%
6.5%
8.8%
$21,871 to
$36,450
12.1%
9.4%
7.6%
27.0%
44.6%
5.3%
10.5%
11.5%
$36,451 to
$58,320
31.5%
25.4%
33.2%
24.4%
25.0%
30.8%
35.7%
32.0%
$58,321 to
$72,900
65.0%
65.8%
66.9%
96.6%
56.5%
78.9%
71.7%
67.6%
Above $72,900
90.2%
90.5%
91.2%
84.5%
100.0%
94.7%
90.7%
90.4%
Total
55.4%
44.1%
54.6%
44.0%
53.7%
51.6%
44.3%
51.8%
Overall, there are 232,775 households with housing problems in Maricopa County HOME
Consortium. This includes 13,625 Black or African American households, 7,605 Asian households,
3,231 American Indian, 394 Pacific Islander, and 3,635 “other” race households with housing
problems. As for ethnicity, there are 49,915 Hispanic households with housing problems. This is
shown in Table IV.48.
Table IV.48
Percent of Total Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data
Income
Non-Hispanic by Race
Hispanic
(Any
Race)
Total
White
Black/African
American
Asian
American
Indian
Pacific
Islander
Other
Race
With Housing Problems
$0 to $21,870
71.0%
79.4%
58.3%
67.1%
95.1%
74.5%
83.1%
73.7%
$21,871 to $36,450
69.1%
88.4%
80.6%
58.4%
65.3%
89.4%
82.2%
73.6%
$36,451 to $58,320
52.0%
70.5%
56.4%
57.5%
80.0%
60.4%
58.5%
54.5%
$58,321 to $72,900
32.4%
32.5%
36.0%
7.8%
40.7%
21.8%
31.7%
31.9%
Above $72,900
9.1%
10.5%
8.0%
10.8%
3.7%
8.1%
9.2%
9.1%
Total
27.8%
44.1%
26.5%
37.4%
41.2%
33.2%
42.4%
30.9%
Without Housing Problems
$0 to $21,870
10.9%
7.0%
6.0%
14.8%
2.4%
7.9%
8.0%
9.8%
$21,871 to $36,450
30.9%
11.6%
19.4%
41.6%
34.7%
10.6%
17.8%
26.4%
$36,451 to $58,320
48.0%
29.5%
43.6%
42.5%
20.0%
39.6%
41.5%
45.5%
$58,321 to $72,900
67.6%
67.5%
64.0%
92.2%
59.3%
78.2%
68.3%
68.1%
Above $72,900
90.9%
89.5%
92.0%
89.2%
96.3%
91.9%
90.8%
90.9%
Total
70.8%
53.9%
69.3%
59.0%
58.4%
64.5%
56.4%
67.5%
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
83
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.49
Total Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data
Income
Non-Hispanic by Race
Hispanic
(Any
Race)
Total
White
Black/African
American
Asian
American
Indian
Pacific
Islander
Other
Race
With Housing Problems
$0 to $21,870
32,565
3,515
1,990
1,145
156
1,085
14,005
54,461
$21,871 to $36,450
31,465
3,475
1,620
660
47
925
13,075
51,267
$36,451 to $58,320
43,380
4,030
1,720
1,020
120
915
14,120
65,305
$58,321 to $72,900
17,195
1,230
845
71
55
230
4,355
23,981
Above $72,900
29,765
1,375
1,430
335
16
480
4,360
37,761
Total
154,370
13,625
7,605
3,231
394
3,635
49,915
232,775
Total
$0 to $21,870
45,885
4,425
3,411
1,707
164
1,456
16,850
73,898
$21,871 to $36,450
45,535
3,930
2,010
1,130
72
1,035
15,915
69,627
$36,451 to $58,320
83,440
5,715
3,050
1,775
150
1,515
24,135
119,780
$58,321 to $72,900
53,150
3,785
2,350
906
135
1,055
13,750
75,131
Above $72,900
328,275
13,035
17,920
3,115
436
5,895
47,195
415,871
Total
556,285
30,890
28,741
8,633
957
10,956
117,845
754,307
The geographic distribution of housing problems is shown in Map IV.28, on the following page. As
Housing problems tend to be concentrated in the more urban areas of the HOME Consortium,
particularly in areas around Avondale and Tempe. These areas have housing problems at a rate
between 52.4 and 74.3%, compared to areas with rates below 23.4% in other parts of the HOME
Consortium. In this map, the definition of “concentration” is any area that sees a disproportionate
share of housing problems, counted as any area that experiences housing problems at a rate at least
ten (10) percentage higher than the area average.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
84
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.28
Housing Problems
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD AFFH Database
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
85
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
ACCESS TO MORTGAGE FINANCE SERVICES
Congress enacted the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act in 1975, permanently authorizing the law in
198812. The Act requires both depository and non-depository lenders to collect and publicly disclose
information about housing-related applications and loans. Under the HMDA, financial institutions
are required to report the race, ethnicity, sex, loan amount, and income of mortgage applicants and
borrowers by Census tract. Institutions must meet a set of reporting criteria. For depository
institutions, these are as follows:
1. The institution must be a bank, credit union, or savings association;
2. The total assets must exceed the coverage threshold;13
3. The institution must have had a home or branch office in a Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA);
4. The institution must have originated or refinanced at least one home purchase loan secured
by a first lien on a one- to four-family dwelling;
5. The institution must be federally insured or regulated; and
6. The mortgage loan must have been insured, guaranteed, or supplemented by a federal agency
or intended for sale to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
For other institutions, including non-depository institutions, the reporting criteria are:
1. The institution must be a for-profit organization;
2. The institution’s home purchase loan originations must equal or exceed 10% of the
institution’s total loan originations, or more than $25 million;
3. The institution must have had a home or branch office in an MSA or have received
applications for, originated, or purchased five or more home purchase loans, home
improvement loans, or refinancing on property located in an MSA in the preceding calendar
year; and
4. The institution must have assets exceeding $10 million or have originated 100 or more home
purchases in the preceding calendar year.
In addition to reporting race and ethnicity data for loan applicants, the HMDA reporting
requirements were modified in response to the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2002
as well as the Home Owner Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). Consequently, loan originations are
now flagged in the data system for three additional attributes:
1. If they are HOEPA loans;
2. Lien status, such as whether secured by a first lien, a subordinate lien, not secured by a lien,
or not applicable (purchased loans); and
3. Presence of high-annual percentage rate loans (HALs), defined as more than three
percentage points for purchases when contrasted with comparable treasury instruments or
five percentage points for refinance loans.
For the purposes of this analysis, these flagged originations will be termed predatory, or at least
predatory in nature. Overall, the data contained within the HMDA reporting guidelines represent
the best and most complete set of information on home loan applications. This report includes
HMDA data from 2008 through 2017, the most recent year for which these data are available.
12 Prior to that year, Congress had to periodically reauthorize the law.
13 Each December, the Federal Reserve announces the threshold for the following year. The asset threshold may change from year to year based
on changes in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
86
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.50 shows the purpose of loan by year for the Maricopa County HOME Consortium from
2008 to 2017. As seen therein, there were over 1,251,500 loans during this time period, of these
556,706 were for home purchases. In 2017, there were 159,866 loans, of which 87,703 were for
home purchases.
Table IV.50
Purpose of Loan by Year
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Purpose
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
Home Purchase
10,982
11,853
11,866
12,923
60,644
63,737
62,274
70,378
164,346
87,703
556,706
Home Improvement
1,850
762
496
473
2,508
4,734
6,034
6,391
14,052
8,294
45,594
Refinancing
18,526
19,252
13,843
10,872
115,537
96,146
49,137
73,126
188,892
63,869
649,200
Total
31,358
31,867
26,205
24,268
178,689
164,617
117,445
149,895
367,290
159,866
1,251,500
Table IV.51 shows the occupancy status for loan applicants. A vast majority of applicants were in
owner-occupied units, accounting for 87.8% between 2008 and 2017, and for 90.2% in 2017
alone.
Table IV.51
Occupancy Status for Applications
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Status
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
Owner-Occupied
27,026
28,618
22,560
19,820
147,706
137,875
103,020
134,385
333,384
144,256
1,098,650
Not Owner-Occupied
4,301
3,200
3,627
4,440
30,784
25,982
14,393
15,383
33,476
15,379
150,965
Not Applicable
31
49
18
8
199
760
32
127
430
231
1,885
Total
31,358
31,867
26,205
24,268
178,689
164,617
117,445
149,895
367,290
159,866
1,251,500
Owner-occupied home purchase loan applications by loan types are shown in Table IV.52.
Between 2008 and 2017, some 52.9% of home loan purchases were conventional loans, 34.1%
were FHA insured, and 12.0% were VA Guaranteed.
Table IV.52
Owner-Occupied Home Purchase Loan Applications by Loan Type
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Loan Type
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
Conventional
4,828
3,740
3,162
3,765
21,529
26,642
27,149
31,266
83,590
50,299
255,970
FHA - Insured
3,601
5,854
5,965
5,538
20,054
19,418
18,765
22,700
44,906
18,309
165,110
VA - Guaranteed
368
532
624
739
5,651
6,711
7,661
8,056
18,136
9,618
58,096
Rural Housing Service or
Farm Service Agency
11
28
21
27
1,004
1,075
1,042
382
604
217
4,411
Total
8,808
10,154
9,772
10,069
48,238
53,846
54,617
62,404
147,236
147,236
483,587
Denial Rates
After the owner-occupied home purchase loan application is submitted, the applicant receives one
of the following status designations:
“Originated,” which indicates that the loan was made by the lending institution;
“Approved but not accepted,” which notes loans approved by the lender but not accepted
by the applicant;
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
87
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
“Application denied by financial institution,” which defines a situation wherein the loan
application failed;
“Application withdrawn by applicant,” which means that the applicant closed the
application process;
“File closed for incompleteness,” which indicates the loan application process was closed
by the institution due to incomplete information; or
“Loan purchased by the institution,” which means that the previously originated loan was
purchased on the secondary market.
As shown in Table IV.53, just over 258,775 home purchase loan applications were originated over
the 2008-2017 period, and 32,138 were denied.
Table IV.53
Loan Applications by Action Taken
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Action
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
Loan Originated
4,185
4,359
4,467
4,614
23,917
27,699
29,600
35,022
81,716
43,196
258,775
Application Approved but
not Accepted
477
344
250
277
1,013
1,086
891
1,029
2,220
1,331
8,918
Application Denied
1,085
850
846
737
3,762
4,093
3,507
4,107
8,838
4,313
32,138
Application Withdrawn by
Applicant
597
523
638
664
3,806
4,247
4,791
5,709
13,732
8,158
42,865
File Closed for
Incompleteness
158
115
117
137
505
826
1,211
811
2,330
1,106
7,316
Loan Purchased by the
Institution
2,305
3,943
3,454
3,639
15,232
15,891
14,612
15,718
38,398
20,331
133,523
Preapproval Request
Denied
0
20
0
1
3
4
5
2
2
8
45
Preapproval Approved but
not Accepted
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
7
Total
8,808
10,154
9,772
10,069
48,238
53,846
54,617
62,404
147,236
78,443
483,587
The most common reason cited in the decision to deny one of these loan applications is related to
the debt-to-income ratio of the prospective homeowner, as shown in Table IV.54. Credit history
and collateral were also commonly given as reasons to deny home purchase loans.
Table IV.54
Loan Applications by Reason for Denial
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Denial Reason
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
Debt-to-Income Ratio
212
158
142
135
714
848
681
838
1,812
881
6,421
Employment History
25
26
24
23
104
110
104
114
260
123
913
Credit History
131
125
108
102
596
692
649
581
1,222
495
4,701
Collateral
185
186
199
143
560
523
327
463
992
552
4,130
Insufficient Cash
37
29
16
21
107
162
92
111
320
162
1,057
Unverifiable Information
67
34
49
20
166
170
122
150
428
274
1,480
Credit Application Incomplete
82
59
105
96
361
493
393
579
982
374
3,524
Mortgage Insurance Denied
9
13
4
3
4
7
3
5
16
4
68
Other
149
102
102
66
292
305
237
245
612
250
2,360
Missing
188
118
97
128
858
783
899
1,021
2,194
1,198
7,484
Total
1,085
850
846
737
3,762
4,093
3,507
4,107
8,838
4,313
32138
Denial rates were observed to differ by race and ethnicity, as shown in Table IV.55. While white
applicants had a denial rate of 10.3 over the period from 2008 through 2017, Black or African
American applicants had a denial rate of 15.9%. American Indian applicants also had a denial rate
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
88
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
higher than the average, at 14.0% versus 11.0% for the whole HOME Consortium. As for ethnicity,
Hispanic applicants had a higher denial rate than non-Hispanic applicants, at 13.4% versus 10.1%.
However, the disparities between racial and ethnic groups has been steadily decreasing since 2008.
Table IV.55
Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity of Applicant
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2004–2017 HMDA Data
Race/Ethnicity
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Average
American Indian
25.5%
22.9%
25.5%
8.1%
20.4%
19.3%
12.3%
10.5%
14.7%
7.1%
14.0%
Asian
21.3%
23.7%
21%
16.4%
14.4%
15.6%
11.8%
11.1%
9.3%
8.3%
11.7%
Black/African
American
30.7%
27%
23.7%
20%
22.4%
17.7%
13.7%
15.4%
14.6%
13.6%
15.9%
Pacific Islander
8%
10.5%
26.3%
31.6%
11.6%
11.9%
14.1%
14.9%
9.2%
11.5%
12%
White
19.4%
15.1%
14.6%
13.3%
12.7%
11.9%
9.9%
9.8%
9.2%
8.4%
10.3%
Not Available
28.2%
20.7%
23%
16%
18.1%
19.2%
16%
15.7%
13.7%
13.6%
15.9%
Not Applicable
0%
%
0%
0%
20%
0%
9.1%
18.2%
0%
0%
4.4%
Average
20.6%
16.3%
15.9%
13.8%
13.6%
12.9%
10.6%
10.5%
9.8%
9.1%
11.0%
Hispanic
30%
19%
19.1%
19.1%
17.9%
15.9%
12.6%
12%
12.3%
11%
13.4%
Non-Hispanic
18.3%
15.3%
14.6%
12.6%
12.4%
11.8%
9.7%
9.7%
8.9%
8.1%
10.1%
As shown in Table IV.56, the denial rate for prospective female homeowners was 11.1%, a half a
percentage point higher than the denial rate for male applicants at 10.6%. Denial rates for male and
female applicants differed considerably by year.
Table IV.56
Denial Rates by Gender of Applicant
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Year
Male
Female
Not
Available
Not
Applicable
Average
2008
20.6%
19.6%
27.9%
0%
20.6%
2009
16.6%
15.6%
18.4%
%
16.3%
2010
15.9%
14.8%
24.6%
0%
15.9%
2011
13.7%
13.5%
16.8%
0%
13.8%
2012
13.2%
13.5%
19.7%
20%
13.6%
2013
12.3%
12.8%
22.3%
0%
12.9%
2014
10.2%
10.5%
18.2%
9.1%
10.6%
2015
10.3%
10.2%
16.6%
10%
10.5%
2016
9.4%
10%
13.7%
7.7%
9.8%
2017
8.5%
9.3%
15.3%
0%
9.1%
Average
10.6%
11.1%
16.8%
5.7%
11%
Predatory Lending
In addition to modifications implemented in 2004 to correctly document loan applicants’ race and
ethnicity, the HMDA reporting requirements were changed in response to the Predatory Lending
Consumer Protection Act of 2002 as well as the Home Owner Equity Protection Act (HOEPA).
Consequently, loan originations are now flagged in the data system for three additional attributes:
1. If they are HOEPA loans;
2. Lien status, such as whether secured by a first lien, a subordinate lien, not secured by a lien,
or not applicable (purchased loans); and
3. Presence of high annual percentage rate (APR) loans (HALs), defined as more than three
percentage points higher than comparable treasury rates for home purchase loans, or five
percentage points higher for refinance loans.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
89
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Home loans are designated as “high-annual percentage rate” loans (HALs) where the annual
percentage rate on the loan exceeds that of a comparable treasury instruments by at least three
percentage points. As shown in Table IV.57, 1,509 loans between 2008 and 2017 were HALs,
accounting for 0.6%. The highest rate of HAL loans was seen in 2008, at 5.9%, which fell to 0.1%
in 2010.
Table IV.57
Originated Owner-Occupied Loans by HAL Status
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Loan Type
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
HAL
247
151
4
15
71
104
250
178
330
159
1,509
Other
3,938
4,208
4,463
4,599
23,846
27,595
29,350
34,844
81,386
43,037
257266
Total
4,185
4,359
4,467
4,614
23,917
27,699
29,600
35,022
81,716
43,196
258,775
Percent HAL
5.9%
3.5%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.8%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.6%
Geographic Distribution of Mortgage Denials
Map IV.28, on the following page, shows mortgage denial rates from 2012 through 2017.
There are some areas in the HOME Consortium where these denial rates are more heavily
concentrated. These include some of the more urban parts of the County, including around
Avondale, as well as in the western rural parts of the County.
Map IV.29 shows HAL rates for 2012 through 2017. While HAL rates were typically low
during this time period, there was a higher rate of HALs in western rural County, as well as
some areas in the more urban part of the County.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
90
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.27
HMDA Mortgage Denials
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2012-2017 HMDA Data
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
91
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.28
HMDA HAL Rates
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2012-2017 HMDA Data
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
92
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
F. PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOUSING ANALYSIS
There are a variety of types and locations of public housing units within the Maricopa County
HOME Consortium. According to HUD’s AFFH data, there are 7,852 total publicly supported units
in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium. Of these, 3,734 are public housing units, 1,493 are
Project Based Section 8, and 1,531 are other HUD Multifamily.
Table IV.58
Residents with Disabilities by Subsidized Housing Type
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD AFFH Raw Database
Program
Total
Units
Total Disabled Units
Public Housing
868
137
Project Based Section 8
1,493
261
Other HUD Multifamily
568
71
Housing Choice Vouchers
4,923
1,207
Total
7,852
1,676
Map IV.30 shows public housing units in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium as of 2018.
Map IV.31 shows Housing Choice Vouchers. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units are
shown in Map IV.32 and Map IV.33 shows other assisted multi-family housing units in the
Consortium.
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The locations of publicly supported housing units are in areas with both high and low access to
opportunity. While publicly supported housing units tended to be located in areas with higher
access to transportation and job proximity, they also tended to be located in areas with lower
school proficiency and with lower access to low poverty areas, as seen in Maps IV.21 and IV.22.
However, the Maricopa County HOME Consortium has no control over the location of publicly
supported housing units in the County.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
93
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.30
Public Housing Units
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, 2017 Tigerline, HUD AFFH Tool
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
94
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.31
Housing Choice Voucher Units
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, 2017 Tigerline, HUD AFFH Tool
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
95
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.32
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Units
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, 2017 Tigerline, HUD AFFH Tool
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
96
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.33
Other HUD Multi-Family Units
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, 2017 Tigerline, HUD AFFH Tool
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
97
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
G. DISABILITY AND ACCESS ANALYSIS
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination based on disability in any
program or activity receiving federal assistance.14 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 prohibits discrimination based on disability by public entities. HUD enforces the housing-
related activities of public entities, including public housing, housing assistance, and housing
referrals.15
Persons with Disabilities
Disability by age, as estimated by the 2017 ACS, is shown in Table IV.59, below. The disability
rate for females was 11.3%, compared to 11.3% for males. The disability rate grew precipitously
higher with age, with 46.5% of those over 75 experiencing a disability.
Table IV.59
Disability by Age
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 Five-Year ACS Data
Age
Male
Female
Total
Disabled
Population
Disability
Rate
Disabled
Population
Disability
Rate
Disabled
Population
Disability
Rate
Under 5
500
0.8%
368
0.6%
868
0.7%
5 to 17
9,615
5.2%
5,696
3.2%
15,311
4.2%
18 to 34
14,007
6%
9,902
4.4%
23,909
5.2%
35 to 64
39,027
10.3%
43,122
10.7%
82,149
10.5%
65 to 74
22,184
23.6%
22,390
20.5%
44,574
21.9%
75 or Older
29,928
45.8%
38,411
47.1%
68,339
46.5%
Total
115,261
11.3%
119,889
11.3%
235,150
11.3%
The number of disabilities by type, as estimated by the 2017 ACS, is shown in Table IV.60. Some
6.2% have an ambulatory disability, 4.8% have an independent living disability, and 2.2% have a
self-care disability. The total in the table below may be greater than the table in Table IV.59
because persons may have more than one disability.
Table IV.60
Total Disabilities Tallied: Aged 5 and Older
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 Five-Year ACS
Disability Type
Population with
Disability
Percent with
Disability
Hearing disability
77,064
3.7%
Vision disability
44,053
2.1%
Cognitive disability
80,319
4.1%
Ambulatory disability
121,716
6.2%
Self-Care disability
43,308
2.2%
Independent living difficulty
76,075
4.8%
14 29 U.S.C. §§794
15 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 – 12165
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
98
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Housing Accessibility
Accessible housing units are located throughout the County. However, many newer housing units
are located outside city center areas. These newer housing units are more likely to have the
mandatory minimum accessibility features.
According to HUD’s AFFH database, 21.3% of publicly supported housing units are accessible.
This exceeds the rate of disability for the general population in the HOME Consortium.
Table IV.61
Residents with Disabilities by Subsidized Housing Type
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD AFFH Raw Database
Program
Total
Units
Total Disabled Units
Public Housing
868
137
Project Based Section 8
1,493
261
Other HUD Multifamily
568
71
Housing Choice Vouchers
4,923
1,207
Total
7,852
1,676
The maps on the following pages show the distribution of households with various disabilities.
There does not appear to be a concentration of households by disability type in any one area of the
Consortium.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
99
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.34
Persons with Ambulatory Disabilities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, 2017 Tigerline, HUD AFFH Tool
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
100
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.35
Persons with Cognitive Disabilities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, 2017 Tigerline, HUD AFFH Tool
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
101
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.36
Persons with Hearing Disabilities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, 2017 Tigerline, HUD AFFH Tool
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
102
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.37
Persons with Independent Living Disabilities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, 2017 Tigerline, HUD AFFH Tool
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
103
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.38
Persons with Self Care Disabilities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, 2017 Tigerline, HUD AFFH Tool
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
104
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Map IV.39
Persons with Vision Disabilities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2017 ACS, 2017 Tigerline, HUD AFFH Tool
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
105
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
H. FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT, OUTREACH CAPACITY, & RESOURCES
FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING LAWS
Federal laws provide the backbone for U.S. fair housing regulations. The following federal and state
rules, regulations, and executive orders inform municipalities and developers of their fair housing
obligations and the rights of protected classes. Many of these statutes were successful in generating
specialized resources, such as data, to aid organizations, government entities, and individuals in
affirmatively furthering fair housing. While some laws have been previously discussed in this
report, a list of laws related to fair housing, as defined on the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development’s (HUD’s) website, is presented below:
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act)16
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, financing, and insuring of housing
on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. In 1988, the act was amended to
include family status and disability as protected classes, which includes children under the age of
18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and persons securing custody of
children under the age of 18. Jurisdictions may add protected classes but are not allowed to
subtract from the seven federally protected classes.17 The Act also contains design and construction
accessibility provisions for certain new multi-family dwellings developed for first occupancy on or
after March 13, 1991.18 On April 30, 2013, HUD and the Department of Justice released a Joint
Statement that provides guidance regarding the persons, entities, and types of housing and related
facilities that are subject to the accessible design and construction requirements of the Act.
It is unlawful under the Act to discriminate against a person in a protected class by: Refusing to sell
or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or
otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex,
familial status, or national origin; discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or
privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities based on a
protected class; representing that a dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when it
is, in fact, available; publishing an advertisement indicating any preference, limitation, or
discrimination against a protected class; or refusing to allow a person with a disability to make a
reasonable modification to the unit at the renter’s own expense.
There are several exceptions to the law. It is legal for developments or buildings for the elderly to
exclude families with children. In addition, single-family homes being sold by the owner of an
owner-occupied 2 family home may be exempt, unless a real estate agency is involved, if they have
advertised in a discriminatory way, or if they have made discriminatory statements. There are no
exemptions for race discrimination because race is covered by other civil rights laws.
The following are examples of Fair Housing Act violations:
1. Making any representation, directly or implicitly, that the presence of anyone in a protected
class in a neighborhood or apartment complex may or will have the effect of lowering
16 42 U.S.C. 3601, et. Seq., as amended in 1988
17 “HUD Fair Housing Laws and Presidential Executive Orders.”
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws
18 “Title VIII: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.”
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/progdesc/title8
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
106
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
property taxes, reduce safety, make the neighborhood and/or schools worse, change the
character of the neighborhood, or change the ability to sell a home.
2. Providing inconsistent, lesser, or unequal service to customers or clients who are members
of a protected class, such as failing to return calls from a buyer agent to avoid presenting a
contract to your seller, avoiding or delaying an appointment for a showing a listing, making
keys unavailable, failing to keep appointments, or refusing maintenance or repairs to an
apartment.
3. Requiring higher standards for a member of a protected class, including asking for more
references or demanding a higher credit rating.
4. Requiring employers to make distinctions on applications, or in the application process,
among protected class members, including marking applications to indicate race, sex, etc.
of applicant or misrepresenting availability for particular protected classes.
5. Advertising in a manner that indicates a preference for a particular class and thereby
excluding protected class members.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and
activities receiving federal financial assistance, including denying assistance, offering unequal aid,
benefits, or services, aiding or perpetuating discrimination by funding agencies that discriminate,
denying planning or advisory board participation, using discriminatory selection or screening
criteria, or perpetuating the discrimination of another recipient based on race, color, or national
origin.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The Act prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance. The concept of “reasonable accommodations” and “reasonable modifications”
was clarified in memos dated May 17, 2004 and March 5, 2008. Reasonable accommodations are
changes in rules, policies, practices, or services so that a person with a disability can participate as
fully in housing activities as someone without a disability. Reasonable modifications are structural
changes made to existing premises, occupied or to be occupied by a person with a disability so
they can fully enjoy the premises.
Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
Section 109 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion in
programs or activities funded from HUD’s Community Development Block Grant Program.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Title II applies to state and local government entities and protects people with disabilities from
discrimination on the basis of disability in services, programs, and activities. HUD enforces Title II
when it relates to state and local public housing, housing assistance, and housing referrals.
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
The Act requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, altered, or leased with certain
federal funds after September 1969 be accessible to and useable by persons with disabilities. The
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
107
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
ABA specifies accessibility standards for ramps, parking, doors, elevators, restrooms, assistive
listening systems, fire alarms, signs, and other accessible building elements and are enforced
through the Department of Defense, HUD, the General Services Administration, and the U.S. Postal
Services.
Age Discrimination Act of 1975
The Age Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities
receiving federal financial assistance, applies to all ages, and may be enforced by the head of any
Federal department or agency by terminating grant funding for those with an express finding on the
record who fail to comply with the Act after reasonable notice. HUD established regulations for
implementation of the Age Discrimination Act for HUD programs.
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex or blindness in education programs or activities
that receive federal financial assistance.19
Violence Against Women Act
VAWA provide housing protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking in many of HUD’s housing programs. VAWA also requires the establishment
of emergency transfer plans for facilitating the emergency relocation of certain tenants who are
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.20
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) of 1975
HMDA requires both depository and non-depository lenders to collect and publicly disclose
information about housing-related applications and loans, including the race, ethnicity, sex, loan
amount, and income of mortgage applicants and borrowers by Census tract. Depository institutions
that meet the following criteria are required to report:
Bank, credit union, or savings association
Total assets must exceed the coverage threshold21
The institution must have had a home or branch office in a Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA)
The institution must have originated or refinanced at least one home purchase loan
secured by a first lien on a one- to four-family dwelling
The institution must be federally insured or regulated
The mortgage loan must have been insured, guaranteed, or supplemented by a federal
agency or intended for sale to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
For other institutions, including non-depository institutions, the reporting criteria are:
1. The institution must be a for-profit organization
2. The institution’s home purchase loan originations must equal or exceed 10% of the
institution’s total loan originations, or more than $25 million
19 “HUD Fair Housing Laws and Presidential Executive Orders.”
20 https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_and_related_law#executive%20orders
21 Each December, the Federal Reserve announces the threshold for the following year. The asset threshold may change from year to year
based on changes in the Consumer price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
108
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
3. The institution must have had a home or branch office in an MSA or have received
applications for, originated, or purchased five or more home purchase loans, home
improvement loans, or refinancing on property located in an MSA in the preceding
calendar year
4. The institution must have assets exceeding $10 million or have originated 100 or more
home purchases in the preceding calendar year
In addition to reporting race and ethnicity data for loan applicants, the HMDA reporting
requirements were modified in response to the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2002
as well as the Home Owner Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). Consequently, loan originations are
now flagged in the data system for three additional attributes:
1. If they are HOEPA loans
2. Lien status, such as whether secured by a first lien, a subordinate lien, not secured by a
lien, or not applicable (purchased loans)
3. Presence of high-annual percentage rate loans (HALs), defined as more than three
percentage points for purchases when contrasted with comparable treasury instruments
or five percentage points for refinance loans
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Executive Order 11063 Equal Opportunity in Housing
Signed by President Kennedy on November 20, 1962, the Order prohibits discrimination based on
race, color, religion, creed, sex, or national origin in the sale, leasing, rental, or other disposition of
properties and facilities owned, operated, or funded by the federal government. The Order also
prohibits discrimination in lending practices that involve loans insured or guaranteed by the federal
government.
Executive Order 12892 Leadership and Coordination of Fair Housing in Federal Programs:
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Signed by President Clinton on January 11, 1994, the Order required federal agencies to
affirmatively further fair housing in the programs and activities with the Secretary of HUD
coordinating the effort, and established the President’s Fair Housing Council, which is chaired by
the Secretary of HUD.
Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-Income Populations
Signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, the order requires federal agencies to practice
environmental justice in its programs, policies, and activities. Specifically, developers and
municipalities using federal funds must evaluate whether or not a project is located in a
neighborhood with a concentration of minority and low-income residents or a neighborhood with
disproportionate adverse environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. If those
conditions are met, viable mitigation measures or alternative project sites must be considered.
Executive Order 13166 Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency
Signed by President Clinton on August 11, 2000, the Order eliminates limited English proficiency
as a barrier to full and meaningful participation in federal programs by requiring federal agencies to
examine the services they provide, identify the need for LEP services, then develop and implement
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
109
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
a system to provide those services. The Department of Justice issued policy guidance which set
forth compliance standards to ensure accessibility to persons with LEP.
Executive Order 13217 Community Based Alternatives for Individuals with Disabilities
Signed by President Bush on June 18, 2001, the Order requires federal agencies to evaluate their
policies and programs to determine if they need to be revised to improve the availability of
community-based living arrangements for persons with disabilities, noting that isolating or
segregating people with disabilities in institutions is a form of disability-based discrimination
prohibited by Title II of the ADA.
Equal Access Rule
In 2016, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development published a final rule in the
Federal Register entitled “Equal Access in Accordance with an Individual’s Gender Identity in
Community Planning and Development Programs” that ensures equal access to persons in
accordance with their gender identity for all Office of Community Planning and Development
Programs.
STATE FAIR HOUSING LAWS AND RESOURCES
Arizona law protects your right to have a place to live and makes it unlawful for any person to
discriminate in connection with housing because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, familial status, or physical or mental disability.
Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office
The mission of the Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office is to enforce civil
rights laws, increase public awareness of civil rights, provide dispute resolution services, and offer
community services throughout the State.22
The Division’s major duty is to enforce state statutes that prohibit discrimination in employment,
voting, public accommodations, disability and housing by investigating and litigating civil rights
complaints. In addition, the Division provides conflict resolution services and mediation programs
statewide, including many court and agency programs.
Phoenix Civil Rights Division
2005 N Central Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2926 (602) 542-5263
TTY (602) 542-5002
(877) 491-5742
TTY (877) 624-8090
Fax: (602) 542-8885
CivilRightsInfo@azag.gov
https://www.azag.gov/civil-rights/fair-housing
Southwest Fair Housing Council
The Southwest Fair Housing Council’s mission is to provide comprehensive services to achieve and
preserve equal access to housing for all people.23 The Southwest Fair Housing Council is a non-
22 https://www.azag.gov/civil-rights
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
110
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
profit, tax-exempt fair housing organization established in 1986. SWFHC is based in Tucson,
Arizona and provides services throughout Arizona.
177 N Church Ave, Suite 1104
Tucson, AZ 85701
1-888-624-4611
(520) 798-1568
TTY: (520) 670-0233
http://swfhc.com/
FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS
Federal Fair Housing Law prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, familial status, or disability. An individual may file a complaint if they feel their rights
have been violated. HUD maintains records of complaints that represent potential and actual
violations of federal housing law.
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) begins its complaint investigation process shortly after
receiving a complaint. A complaint must be filed within one year of the last date of the alleged
discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. Other civil rights authorities allow for complaints to be
filed after one year for good cause, but FHEO recommends filing as soon as possible. Generally,
FHEO will either investigate the complaint or refer the complaint to another agency to investigate.
Throughout the investigation, FHEO will make efforts to help the parties reach an agreement. If the
complaint cannot be resolved voluntarily by an agreement, FHEO may issue findings from the
investigation. If the investigation shows that the law has been violated, HUD or the Department of
Justice may take legal action to enforce the law.
Table IV.62 shows Fair Housing Complaints by basis for the period between 2008 through June,
2019. During this period, there were a total of 778 complaints. The most common complaint was
on the basis of disability, accounting for 342 complaints, or 44% of all complaints. This was
following by race, accounting for 144 complaints, or 18.5% of all complaints.
Table IV.62
Fair Housing Complaints by Basis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD Fair Housing Complaints
Basis
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Total
Disability
30
25
32
34
26
28
22
34
36
32
28
15
342
Race
17
13
11
13
10
9
11
10
13
11
16
10
144
National Origin
19
8
5
7
10
5
7
7
5
4
7
2
86
Familial Status
22
6
6
5
7
2
3
4
7
8
4
2
76
Retaliation
5
4
4
3
7
5
5
9
4
10
9
5
70
Sex
4
2
3
0
6
2
2
2
4
6
3
2
36
Religion
3
0
2
0
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
17
Color
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
7
Total Basis
100
58
63
63
69
52
52
71
70
73
69
38
778
Total Complaints
87
51
48
55
51
45
43
52
58
58
49
27
624
23 http://swfhc.com/swfhc
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
111
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.63 shows Fair Housing complaints by closure during this time period. In 403 of these
complaints, there were no cause determination. In 99 of these complaints, there was successful
settlement/conciliation.
Table IV.63
Fair Housing Complaints by Closure
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD Fair Housing Complaints
Basis
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Total
No cause determination
68
30
35
29
37
36
28
39
37
31
29
6
405
Conciliation/settlement
successful
6
4
6
12
6
6
6
10
14
17
11
1
99
Complaint withdrawn by
complainant after resolution
6
6
4
5
6
2
6
2
2
3
4
0
46
Complainant failed to cooperate
1
3
2
5
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
24
Complaint withdrawn by
complainant without resolution
3
3
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
13
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
1
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
8
Unable to locate complainant
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Fair Housing Assistance
Program (FHAP) judicial
consent order
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Election made to go to court
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Litigation ended - no
discrimination found
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
FHAP judicial dismissal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unable to locate respondent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Closures
87
51
48
55
51
45
42
52
58
57
46
9
601
Total Complaints
87
51
48
55
51
45
43
52
58
58
49
27
624
Table IV.64 below shows Fair Housing complaints by issue. Each fair housing complaint may have
more than one issue associated with it. Therefore, the total number of issues may exceed the total
number of complaints. The most common issue, accounting for 238 issues, was failure to make
reasonable accommodation. This was followed by discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or
services and facilities, accounting for 161 complaints; which was followed by discrimination in
terms/conditions/privileges relating to rental, accounting for 151 complaints.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
112
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.64
Fair Housing Complaints by Issue
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD Fair Housing Complaints
Issue
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Total
Failure to make reasonable accommodation
19
17
16
2
12
22
18
25
26
27
22
10
238
Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities
12
16
14
15
14
17
13
10
18
11
11
10
161
Discrimination in terms/conditions/privileges relating to rental
16
6
10
8
6
10
11
12
23
17
20
12
151
Discriminatory refusal to rent
8
7
10
7
13
8
4
6
4
10
12
4
93
Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, Etc.)
8
7
6
10
11
7
3
7
2
7
13
6
87
Discriminatory advertising, statements and notices
17
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
5
3
1
43
Discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate for rental
5
4
10
4
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
0
38
Otherwise deny or make housing unavailable
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
2
2
11
6
25
Other discriminatory acts
6
4
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
21
Discrimination in terms/conditions/privileges relating to sale
3
1
3
0
6
2
0
2
0
2
1
0
20
Failure to permit reasonable modification
3
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
0
18
Discriminatory financing (includes real estate transactions)
1
0
3
1
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
Discriminatory refusal to negotiate for rental
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
5
0
11
Discriminatory advertisement - rental
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
Discriminatory advertisement - sale
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
Discriminatory refusal to sell
3
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
9
False denial or representation of availability - rental
3
0
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
Discrimination in services and facilities relating to rental
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
8
Discrimination in terms and conditions of membership
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
1
7
Discrimination in the making of loans
0
0
1
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Discriminatory refusal to negotiate for sale
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
4
Discriminatory refusal to sell and negotiate for sale
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Discrimination in the terms/conditions for making loans
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
Discrimination in the purchasing of loans
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
Steering
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
Discrimination in the selling of residential real property
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
Failure to provide accessible and usable public and common user areas
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
False denial or representation of availability - sale
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Non-compliance with design and construction requirements (handicap)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Discrimination in services and facilities relating to sale
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Discriminatory acts under Section 901 (criminal)
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Failure to provide usable kitchens and bathrooms
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
False denial or representation of availability
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Other non-compliance with design and construction requirements
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Redlining
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Refusing to provide municipal services or property
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Restriction of choices relative to a rental
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Using ordinances to discriminate in zoning and land use
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total Issues
138
68
91
79
86
73
59
73
90
88
108
54
1,007
Total Complaints
87
51
48
55
51
45
43
52
58
58
49
27
624
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
113
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
HUD COMPLAINTS WITH CAUSE
Complaints with cause by basis is shown in Table IV.65. The most common complaint with cause
was for disability, accounting for 93 of the 146 total complaints with cause.
Table IV.65
Fair Housing Complaints Found with Cause by Basis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD Fair Housing Complaints
Basis
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Total
Disability
5
8
7
10
8
7
7
10
8
12
11
0
93
National Origin
2
2
1
2
3
0
2
3
2
2
3
0
22
Race
0
2
0
5
2
0
2
0
3
4
2
1
21
Familial Status
4
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
3
3
2
0
18
Retaliation
0
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
4
3
0
15
Sex
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
7
Religion
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Color
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total Basis
12
13
12
19
17
8
13
15
19
27
22
1
178
Total Complaints
with Cause
12
11
10
17
12
8
12
12
16
20
15
1
146
Fair Housing complaints with cause by issue are shown in Table IV.66. The most issue with
complaints with cause was failure to make reasonable accommodation, accounting for 73 issues.
This was followed by discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities,
accounting for 34 issues.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
114
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.66
Fair Housing Complaints Found with Cause by Issue
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
HUD Fair Housing Complaints
Issue
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Total
Failure to make reasonable accommodation
3
6
4
0
5
7
6
9
6
11
10
0
73
Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services
and facilities
1
1
2
6
3
3
4
1
5
4
4
0
34
Discrimination in terms/conditions/privileges relating to
rental
3
0
1
0
0
1
3
2
4
4
6
1
25
Discriminatory refusal to rent
2
1
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
0
23
Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, Etc.)
1
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
5
5
0
19
Discriminatory advertising, statements and notices
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
4
2
0
10
Discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate for rental
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
6
Discriminatory financing (includes real estate transactions)
1
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Failure to permit reasonable modification
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
5
Discriminatory refusal to negotiate for rental
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
4
Discrimination in the making of loans
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Discrimination in terms/conditions/privileges relating to
sale
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Other discriminatory acts
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
Discrimination in terms and conditions of membership
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
Otherwise deny or make housing unavailable
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
Discrimination in services and facilities relating to rental
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
Discrimination in the purchasing of loans
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Discriminatory refusal to negotiate for sale
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Discriminatory advertisement - rental
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Discriminatory advertisement - sale
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Failure to provide accessible and usable public and
common user areas
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Total Issues
16
11
17
21
18
16
14
17
21
37
37
1
226
Total Complaints
12
11
10
17
12
8
12
12
16
20
15
1
146
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
115
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
I. FAIR HOUSING SURVEY RESULTS
The Fair Housing survey has a total of 129 responses. The majority of survey respondents are
homeowners, representing 85 respondents.
Table IV.67
Which of the following describes
your current housing situation?
Maricopa County
Fair Housing Survey
Housing
Total
Homeowner
85
Renter
34
Other
0
Missing
3
Total
129
As seen in Table IV.68, most respondents are either from local or state government, a homeowner’s
association, or property management. Many of those that selected “other,” 29 out of 38
respondents, indicated that their role was renter, homeowner, resident, citizen, or none.
Table IV.68
Role of Respondent
Maricopa County
2019 Fair Housing Survey Data
Primary Role
Total
Appraisal
0
Construction/Development
3
Insurance
3
Law/Legal services
3
Lending/Mortgage industry
1
Local/State government
18
Property management
10
Real Estate Sales/Brokerage
4
Service Provider
7
Landlord
8
Public Housing Authority
1
Homeowners Association
14
Other (please specify)
38
Missing
19
Total
129
When asked how familiar they are with fair housing laws, most respondents indicated they were at
least somewhat familiar.
Table IV.69
How familiar are you with Fair
Housing Laws?
Maricopa County
2019 Fair Housing Survey Data
Familiarity
Total
Not Familiar
22
Somewhat Familiar
65
Very Familiar
31
Other
0
Missing
11
Total
129
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
116
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Most respondents also believed that fair housing laws are useful, accounting for 89 total responses.
Table IV.70
Do you think fair housing laws
serve a useful purpose?
Maricopa County
2019 Fair Housing Survey Data
Response
Total
Yes
89
No
9
Don’t know
20
Other
0
Missing
11
Total
129
Some 36 respondents, or 27.9%, felt that fair housing laws are difficult to understand, while 55
respondents did not.
Table IV.71
Do you think fair housing laws are
difficult to understand or follow?
Maricopa County
2019 Fair Housing Survey Data
Response
Total
Yes
36
No
55
Don’t know
27
Other
0
Missing
11
Total
129
Some 68 respondents, or 52.7%, would know where to file a complaint if they felt their fair
housing rights had been violated, and 50 respondents did not.
Table IV.72
Do you know where you would file a complaint if you
felt that your fair housing rights had been violated?
Maricopa County
2019 Fair Housing Survey Data
Response
Total
Yes
68
No
50
Missing
11
Total
129
Less than half of respondents were aware of any educational activities or training opportunities, and
only 15 were aware of fair housing testing in their community. Some 43 respondents have
participated in fair housing activities or training.
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
117
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table IV.73
Fair Housing Activities
Maricopa County
2019 Fair Housing Survey Data
Question
Yes
No
Missing
Total
Are you aware of any educational activities or training opportunities
available to you to learn about fair housing laws?
42
65
22
129
Have you participated in fair housing activities or training?
43
67
19
129
Are you aware of any fair housing testing of any sort in your
community?
15
95
19
129
Of those that have participated in fair housing training, they were most likely to receive that
training through a seminar with a company or organization, or as a discussion at a meeting.
Table IV.74
If you have received fair housing
training, where or how did you
receive training?
Maricopa County
2019 Fair Housing Survey Data
Training
Total
Through legal consult
10
Online program or webinar
12
Seminar with company or
organization
19
Discussion topic at meeting
17
Respondents were most likely to be aware of impediments to fair housing choice in the private
sector in the rental housing market, followed by the real estate industry. However, the majority of
respondents were not aware of impediments in any of these areas.
Table IV.75
Barriers to Fair Housing in the Private Sector
Maricopa County
2019 Fair Housing Survey Data
Question
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Missing
Total
Are you aware of any impediments to fair housing choice in your community occurring in the following
PRIVATE SECTOR areas?
The rental housing market (Example:
Refusing to rent based on religion or
color.)
12
60
30
27
129
The real estate industry (Example: Only
showing properties to families with
children in certain areas.)
11
58
31
29
129
The mortgage and home lending industry
(Example: Offering higher interest rates
only to women or racial minorities.)
8
58
34
29
129
Housing construction and design fields
(Example: New rental complexes built
with narrow doorways that do not allow
wheelchair accessibility.)
3
60
36
30
129
The home insurance industry (Example:
Limiting policies and coverage for
racial minorities.)
2
61
36
30
129
The home appraisal industry (Example:
Basing home values on the ethnic
composition of neighborhoods.)
4
59
35
31
129
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
118
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
When asked about barriers in the public sector, respondents were most likely to be aware of
barriers that limit access to government services, such as a lack of transportation, employment, or
social services. This was followed by the public housing rental market, and land use policies.
Table IV.76
Barriers to Fair Housing in the Public Sector
Maricopa County
2019 Fair Housing Survey Data
Question
Yes
No
Don’t know
Missing
Total
Are you aware of any impediments to fair housing choice in your community occurring in the following PUBLIC SECTOR
areas?
Barriers that limit access to government services, such as a
lack of transportation, employment, or social services
14
46
30
39
129
The public rental housing market (Example: Refusing to rent
based on religion or color.)
8
55
28
38
129
Land use policies (Example: Policies that concentrate multi-
family housing in limited areas.)
8
47
36
38
129
Occupancy standards or health and safety codes (Example:
Codes being inadequately enforced in communities.)
8
52
31
38
129
Property assessment and tax policies (Example: Lack of tax
incentives for making reasonable accommodations or
modifications for persons with disabilities.)
8
48
34
39
129
Neighborhood or community development policies (Example:
Policies that encourage development in narrowly defined
areas of the community.)
7
45
40
37
129
Any local government actions or regulations in your
community that act as barriers to fair housing choice
4
48
36
41
129
Zoning laws (Example: Laws that restrict placement of group
homes.)
3
50
38
38
129
The permitting process (Example: Not offering written
documents on procedures in alternate languages.)
3
53
35
38
129
Housing construction standards (Example: Lack of or
confusing guidelines for construction of accessible
housing.)
3
51
38
37
129
Publicly constructed housing (Example: New rental
complexes built with narrow doorways that do not allow
wheelchair accessibility.)
2
55
35
37
129
When asked if various factors are happening in Maricopa County, respondents were most likely to
find that lack of access to affordable housing has a significant impact. This is followed by lack of
access to affordable public housing, and lack of access for acceptance of Housing Choice
Vouchers.
Table IV.77
Barriers to Fair Housing in the Public Sector
Maricopa County
2019 Fair Housing Survey Data
Question
Not at all
Slightly
Moderately
Significantly
Don’t know
Is your community affected by lack of access to any of the factors listed below?
Access to affordable housing
17
10
13
35
17
Access to affordable Public Housing
15
8
7
30
29
Access for acceptance of housing choice
vouchers
10
6
6
24
45
Access to public transportation to schools,
work, health care, services
32
18
13
19
9
Access for seniors and/or people with
disabilities to public transportation
25
12
16
18
21
Access to mental health care
25
11
16
12
25
Access to education about fair housing laws
17
11
14
11
37
Access to good nutrition, healthy food, fresh
vegetables, etc.
42
20
13
7
8
Access to health care
48
13
12
4
14
Access to school choice
48
16
6
3
16
Access to proficient Public Schools
48
9
16
3
15
Access to parks, libraries, other public facilities
55
16
11
3
5
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
119
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
In a similar fashion, respondents indicated that a lack of affordable rental housing and a lack of
affordable single-family homes had a significant impact on Maricopa County.
Table IV.78
Community Issues
Maricopa County
2019 Fair Housing Survey Data
Question
Not at all
Slightly
Moderately
Significantly
Don’t know
If you believe these issues are happening in Maricopa County, how much are these issues impacting your community?
Lack of affordable rental housing
11
10
12
39
18
Lack of affordable single-family houses
8
16
13
34
17
Lack of acceptance of housing choice
vouchers
11
5
10
21
42
Concentrations of poverty
20
12
23
20
13
Differences in access to housing
opportunities for people of various
income, races, ethnicity, genders,
family status
28
10
14
18
19
Gentrification and displacement due to
economic pressures
14
17
15
17
29
Challenges for persons with disabilities
16
17
19
16
22
No or limited education about fair
housing laws
17
12
14
13
34
Concentrations of racial or ethnic
minorities
28
14
19
10
16
Lack of housing discrimination
enforcement
25
9
7
9
38
Segregation
27
12
14
4
25
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
120
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
J. MUNICIPAL AND ZONING CODE REVIEW
A review of the Maricopa County’s and the Entitlement Cities in the Consortium’s Zoning and
Municipal Code was conducted in order to review if there are any barriers in the city’s or county’s
regulations that may impede access to housing. The following narrative is a description of any
language or statutes that may act a barrier to fair housing choice.
This review gauged zoning and code regulations that may encourage or limit fair housing choice
within the study area. The Municipal Code was reviewed for definitions of dwelling unit, disability,
and family. The use of the word family, including a strict definition of family, or limiting the
number of people in “family,” may limit housing choices within a jurisdiction. The review
included the allowance of mixed-use and conditional uses, which may increase opportunities for
the development of more affordable housing choices. The review also included any policies that
encourage the development of affordable housing, as well as any policies that promote fair housing
within their communities. The review also sought to ascertain any restrictions to group housing and
housing for seniors, including definitions and where these units may be permitted.
Maricopa County
The County does have a definition of the word “Family,” which is included here:
An individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, and
usual servants, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, or a group
of not more than five (5) persons, who need not be related, living together as a single
housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. (This definition shall also include homes for the
developmentally disabled, defined as persons afflicted with autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy
or mental retardation, as regulated by Arizona Revised Statutes, §36-582.)
Group homes are allowed in residentially zoned areas if less than 10 persons per home. A group
home is defined as:
A dwelling unit shared as their primary residence by minors, handicapped or elderly
persons, living together as a single housekeeping unit, in a long term, family-like
environment in which staff persons provide on-site care, training, or support for the
residents. Such homes or services provided therein shall be licensed by, certified by,
approved by, registered with, funded by or through, or under contract with the State.
(Group homes shall not include homes for the developmentally disabled, defined as
persons afflicted with autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy or mental retardation, as regulated by
Arizona Revised Statutes, §36-582.)
The County’s Comprehensive Plan: Vision 2030 identified a lack of incentives for Affordable
Housing development, as well as limitation in the County’s Zoning Ordinances that limits
affordable housing development, including strict land use regulations and limitations on accessory
dwelling units.24
A summary from the findings of each entitlement community within the Maricopa County HOME
Consortium is also included on the following pages.
24 https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3786/Vision-2030-Maricopa-County-Comprehensive-Plan-PDF
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
121
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Avondale
The City does have a definition for “family:”
One (1) or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all
members are related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption, no such family contains more
than six (6) nontransient unrelated persons, except where disability requires that more than
six (6) unrelated persons reside together. This definition shall not include any society, club,
coterie or organization that is not a recognized religious order nor does it include any
group of individuals whose association is temporary or seasonal or similar to a resort,
boarding house, hotel or whose association is for an anticipated limited duration or for a
determinable period such as a school term.
The City does have a definition for “disability:”
The term “disability” means, with respect to an individual: (A) a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one (1) or more major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment. For
purposes of this definition, a qualified individual with a disability shall not include an
individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the covered entity
acts on the basis of such use, except as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 12210. The term “illegal
use of drugs” means the use of drugs, the possession or distribution of which is unlawful
under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812. Such term does not include the use
of a drug taken under supervision by a licensed health care professional, or other uses
authorized by the Controlled Substances Act or other provisions of Federal law. The term,
disability, shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the definition of disability in the
Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act of 2008.
Group Homes are permitted in all residentially zoned areas. The City’s definition for “Group
Home:”
Housing occupied by unrelated persons who live in a dwelling because of a disability and
may include staff persons, who may or may not be domiciled in the dwelling, who provide
support services, including, but not limited to, domestic, medical, rehabilitation, or other
similar services.
Chandler
The City does have a definition for “family:”
One (1) or more persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.
The City does have a definition for “disability:”
A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one (1) or more major life
activities, a history or record of such an impairment, or the perception by others as
having such an impairment.
Groups home are permitted within all residentially zoned areas with certain restrictions. “Group
homes” are defined as:
A residential dwelling unit for a group of no more than five (5) unrelated non-transient
persons, excluding staff, who do not have a disability, and are not living together as a
single housekeeping unit. Group home facilities may or may not be licensed by the state
or another governmental authority. This definition shall not include group homes for the
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
122
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
developmentally disabled nor adult foster care homes as specifically defined and
provided for by the Arizona Revised Statutes.
Gilbert
The City does not have a definition for “family” or “disabled.”
“Group homes” are permitted in all residentially zoned areas and are defined as:
Group Homes for the Handicapped. A facility licensed or authorized by a governmental
authority having jurisdiction over operations for handicapped persons who reside together
as a single housekeeping unit and who receive care, supervision, or counseling from 1 or
more staff persons. This use includes assisted living homes; homes for the mentally ill,
group care agencies, hospice and similar residential living arrangements for handicapped
persons, but shall not include boarding houses, Nursing Homes, or a Shelter Care Facility
Glendale
The City does not have a definition for “family.”
The City does have a definition for “disabled:”
A person who (1) Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
more of such person's major life activities so that the person is incapable of living
independently; (2) Has a record of having such an impairment; or (3) Is regarded with
having such an impairment. However, disabled shall not include current illegal use of or
addiction to controlled substances (as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled
Substances Act [21 U.S.C. § 802], nor shall it include any person whose residency in a
group home would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or
would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others.
The City does have a definition for “Group Home:”
Group Home for the Disabled: A dwelling shared as their primary residence by at least six
(6) but not more than ten (10) handicapped or disabled persons who are not related to the
owner or manager of the group home for the disabled and who reside together as a single
housekeeping unit, in which staff persons may provide supervision, personal care, meals,
education, participation in community activities, counseling, treatment or therapy for the
residents thereof, and which may be licensed by, certified by, registered with, or otherwise
authorized, funded or regulated, in whole or in part, by an agency of the state or federal
government. This definition shall include homes for the chronically mentally ill, group care
agencies, and similar residential living arrangements for handicapped or disabled persons.
A group home for the disabled does not include adult care homes, nursing homes, shelter
facilities, medical institutional uses, alcoholism or drug treatment centers, or community
correctional facilities. This definition shall not apply to a home for the developmentally
disabled as regulated by A.R.S. § 36-582 to the extent of state preemption of local zoning
regulations.
Peoria
The City does have a definition for “family:”
Family means: 1. An individual or two or more Family Members and usual servants living
together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, or 2. A group of not more than
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
123
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
ten persons who need not be Family Members, living together as a single housekeeping
unit in a dwelling unit.
Group homes are permitted uses with restrictions in Residentially zoned areas. “Group Home” is
defined as:
A single residential dwelling unit shared as their primary residence by not more than ten
qualified handicapped individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit, in which
staff persons provide on‐site care, training or support for the residents. Group homes
include licensed and qualified Adult Residential Care homes pursuant to A.R.S. 36‐448,
Group Foster Homes, Supervisory Care Homes, Adult Foster Care Homes and Adult
supportive Residential Living Centers. Group Homes shall not include boarding houses,
rooming houses or similar enterprises, nursing homes, personal care homes, adult or
juvenile detention facilities, recovery facilities, community residential setting facilities,
group care facilities, adult day care facilities or Residential Development Disability
Facilities regulated pursuant to A.R.S. 36‐582.
Scottsdale
The City does have a definition for “family:”
Family shall mean one (1) to six (6) adults and, if any, their related dependent children
occupying a premise[s] and living as a single housekeeping unit. For purposes of the
Zoning Ordinance, " Family " includes a residential facility as that term is defined in Title
36, Chapter 5.1, Article 2 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, in which persons with
developmental disabilities live and that is licensed, operated, supported or supervised by
the State of Arizona.
The City does have a definition for disability:
Disability means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one (1) or more
major life activities where the person with a disability either has a record of having such
impairment or is regarded as having such impairment. A person with a disability shall not
include any person currently engaging in the illegal use of controlled substances under
Arizona law. The term disability will be interpreted consistent with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Federal Fair Housing Act.
Group home is defined as:
A dwelling shared by more than six (6) adults as their primary residence in which no
supervisory or other care is provided. For purposes of this definition, a person must live
in the dwelling a minimum of thirty (30) consecutive days for this dwelling to be
considered a primary residence.
Surprise
The City does not have a definition for “family” or “disabled.”
Group homes are permitted in residentially zoned areas. “Group home” is defined as:
A single, residential structure having common kitchen facilities occupied by persons
having physical, mental, emotional or social problems and living together for the purpose
of training, observation and/or common support
Tempe
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
124
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
The City does have a definition for “family:”
1. One (1) or more persons related by the 3rd degree of consanguinity, adoption,
marriage or as domestic partners as defined in Section 7-105, and not more than two (2)
additional persons living together in a dwelling unit; or 2. Not more than three (3)
persons who are not related by the 3rd degree of consanguinity, adoption, marriage or as
domestic partners, living together in a dwelling unit.
The City does have a definition for “disability:”
1. Has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one (1) or more of
such person's major life activities; 2. Has a record of having such an impairment; or 3. Is
regarded as having such an impairment. However, "person with disabilities" shall not
include current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance (as defined in
Section 102 of the Controlled Substance Act [21 U.S.C. 802]), nor shall it include any
person whose residency in a group home would constitute a direct threat to the health
or safety of other individuals or would result in substantial physical damage to the
property of others.
Group homes are permitted with special standards or limitation in residentially zoned areas.
“Group home for adult care, persons with disabilities and child shelter” means:
A dwelling shared as a primary residence by adult persons or used as a child shelter, and
including resident staff who live together as a single housekeeping unit in an
environment in which staff persons provide care, education and activities for the
residents; but not including medical institutional uses, alcoholism or drug treatment
centers, community corrections facilities and adult shelter care facilities. This definition
shall not apply to a home for the developmentally disabled as regulated by A.R.S. § 36-
582 to the extent of state preemption of local zoning regulations. For the purpose of this
definition, children are under the age of eighteen (18).
Summary
The Code and Zoning Review found that certain jurisdictions may have limiting definitions of the
word “family,” when limiting the number of persons. This includes Maricopa County, Avondale,
Scottsdale, and Tempe. Most definitions in the codes reviewed had a definition of “disabled” or
“disability” consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Those jurisdictions without
definitions may consider adding a definition or reference to the ADA. Group homes were
permitted in most residentially zoned areas in the HOME Consortium. The County’s
Comprehensive Plan: Vision 2030 identified a lack of incentives for Affordable Housing
development, as well as limitation in the County’s Zoning Ordinances that limits affordable
housing development, including strict land use regulations and limitations on accessory dwelling
units.25
25
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
125
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Section V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
Overview of Findings
As a result of detailed demographic, economic, and housing analysis, along with a range of
activities designed to foster public involvement and feedback, the HOME Consortium has identified
a series of fair housing issues/impediments, and other contributing factors that contribute to the
creation or persistence of those issues.
Table I.1, on the following page, provides a list of the contributing factors that have been identified
as causing these fair housing issues/impediments and prioritizes them according to the following
criteria:
1. High: Factors that have a direct and substantial impact on fair housing choice.
2. Medium: Factors that have a less direct impact on fair housing choice, or that Maricopa
County or the HOME Consortium has limited authority to mandate change.
3. Low: Factors that have a slight or largely indirect impact on fair housing choice, or that
Maricopa County or the HOME Consortium has limited capacity to address.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
The Code and Zoning Review found that certain jurisdiction may have limiting definitions of the
word “family,” when limiting the number of persons. This includes Maricopa County, Avondale,
Scottsdale, and Tempe. Most definitions in the codes reviewed had a definition of “disabled” or
“disability” consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Those jurisdictions without
definitions may consider adding a definition or reference to the ADA. Group homes were
permitted in most residentially zoned areas in the HOME Consortium. The County’s
Comprehensive Plan: Vision 2030 identified a lack of incentives for Affordable Housing
development, as well as limitation in the County’s Zoning Ordinances that limits affordable
housing development, including strict land use regulations and limitations on accessory dwelling
units.
V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
126
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table I.1
Contributing Factors
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
Contributing Factors
Priority
Justification
Insufficient affordable housing in a range
of unit sizes
High
Some 29.4% of households have cost burdens. This is more significant for renter
households, of which 43.4% have cost burdens. This signifies a lack of housing
options that are affordable to a large proportion of the population.
Black or African American, Hispanic, and
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
households with disproportionate rates of
housing problems
High
The average rate of housing problems, according to CHAS data is 30.9% for all
households in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium. Black or African American
households face housing problems at rate of 44.1%, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
households at a rate of 41.2%, and Hispanic households at a rate of 42.4%.
Insufficient accessible affordable housing
High
The number of accessible affordable units may not meet the need of the growing
elderly and disabled population, particularly as the population continues to age.
Some 46.5% of persons aged 75 and older have at least one form of disability. Input
from local service providers asserts that these estimates may be lower than the
actual rate of disability in the HOME Consortium.
Failure to Make Reasonable
Accommodations
High
Disability was the number one fair housing basis for complaints with cause between
2008 and 2017. Failure to make reasonable accommodations accounted for the
largest number of issues for fair housing complaints during this time period.
Lack of fair housing infrastructure
High
The fair housing survey and public input indicated a lack of collaboration among
agencies to support fair housing.
Insufficient fair housing education
High
The fair housing survey and public input indicated a lack of knowledge about fair
housing and a need for education.
Insufficient understanding of credit
High
The fair housing survey and public input indicated an insufficient understanding of
credit needed to access mortgages.
Access to low poverty areas and
concentrations of poverty
Med
Low poverty index is markedly lower for Black or African American, Native American,
and Hispanic populations than white school proficiency, indicating inequitable access
to low poverty areas. In addition, there are concentrations of poverty in the HOME
Consortium, particularly in areas around Chandler and Avondale, as well as in the
southern rural parts of the County.
Access to labor market engagement
Med
Black or African American, Native American, and Hispanic households have less
access to labor market engagement as indicated by the Access to Opportunity index.
However, the County and the HOME Consortium has little control over impacting
labor market engagement on a large scale.
Access to School Proficiency
Med
Black or African American, Native American, and Hispanic households have lower
levels of access to proficient schools in the HOME Consortium. However, the County
has little control over impacting access on a large scale.
Moderate to high levels of segregation
Med
Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and “other” racial households
have moderate to high levels of segregation when considered on the whole of the
Maricopa County HOME Consortium. However, there are geographic areas with
concentrations of minority households resulting in R/ECAPs, which tended to be
found in the more urban parts of the County, particularly in areas around Glendale
and Surprise.
Discriminatory patterns in Lending
Med
The mortgage denial rates for Black or African American, Native American, and
Hispanic households are higher than the jurisdiction average according to 2008-2017
HMDA data. However, the disparities in denial rates have been steadily declining
since 2008.
V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
127
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
FAIR HOUSING ISSUES, CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, AND PROPOSED ACHIEVEMENTS
Table I.2, summarizes the fair housing issues/impediments and contributing factors, including metrics, milestones, and a timeframe for
achievements.
Fair Housing Goal
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice/
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue
Recommended Actions
Responsible Agency
Review zoning and municipal
codes for barriers to housing
choice
Moderate to high levels of
segregation
Access to low poverty areas
and concentrations of poverty
Discriminatory patterns in
Lending
Segregation
R/ECAPs
Disproportionate
Housing Need
Review zoning for areas with restrictions to housing
development, including minimum lot requirements;
make appropriate amendments every year for the
next five (5) years. Record activities annually.
Review Zoning and Municipal Code for the definition
of the word “family.” Record activities annually.
Maricopa County
HOME Consortium
Discussion: The Code and Zoning Review found that certain jurisdiction may have limiting definitions of the word “family,” when limiting the number of persons. This includes
Maricopa County, Avondale, Scottsdale, and Tempe. The County’s Comprehensive Plan: Vision 2030 identified a lack of incentives for Affordable Housing development, as
well as limitation in the County’s Zoning Ordinances that limits affordable housing development, including strict land use regulations and limitations on accessory dwelling units.
Fair Housing Goal
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice/
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue
Recommended Actions
Responsible Agency
Increase availability of
accessible housing
Insufficient accessible
affordable housing
Failure to Make Reasonable
Accommodations
Disability and
Access
Review development standards for accessible
housing and inclusionary policies for accessible
housing units; continue recommending appropriate
amendments over the next five (5) years. Record
activities annually.
Maricopa County
HOME Consortium
Discussion: The number of accessible affordable units may not meet the need of the growing elderly and disabled population, particularly as the population continues to age.
Some 46.5% of persons aged 75 and older have at least one form of disability. Input from local service providers asserts that these estimates may be lower than the actual
rate of disability in the HOME Consortium.
Disability was the number one fair housing basis for complaints with cause between 2008 and 2017. Failure to make reasonable accommodations accounted for the largest
number of issues for fair housing complaints during this time period.
V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
128
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Fair Housing Goal
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice/
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue
Recommended Actions
Responsible Agency
Promote homeownership and
rental opportunities in high
opportunity areas and outside
of R/ECAPs
Insufficient affordable housing
in a range of unit sizes
Black or African American,
Hispanic, and Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
households with
disproportionate rates of
housing problems
Discriminatory patterns in
Lending
Access to low poverty areas
and concentrations of poverty
Access to labor market
engagement
Access to School Proficiency
Disparities in Access
to Opportunity
Disproportionate
Housing Needs
Partner with community agencies to provide financial
literacy classes for prospective homebuyers. Record
activities annually.
Review opportunities annually to increase funding
sources for additional low-income housing in high
opportunity areas. Record activities annually.
Continue to promote homeownership opportunities in
high opportunity areas with financial assistance to
homebuyers using HOME funds: 70 households over
five (5) years.
Continue to use CDBG and HOME funds to fund
housing rehabilitation for homeowner and rental
housing:150 residential housing units over five (5)
years.
Maricopa County
HOME Consortium
Discussion: Some 29.4 percent% of households have cost burdens. This is more significant for renter households, of which 43.4 percent% have cost burdens. This signifies
a lack of housing options that are affordable to a large proportion of the population. In addition, racial and ethnic minorities face a disproportionate share of housing problems.
The average rate of housing problems, according to CHAS data is 30.9 percent% for all households in the Maricopa County HOME Consortium. Black or African American
households face housing problems at rate of 44.1 percent%, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander households at a rate of 41.2 percent%, and Hispanic households at a rate of 42.4
percent%. The mortgage denial rates for Black or African American, Native American, and Hispanic households are higher than the jurisdiction average according to 2008-
2017 HMDA data. However, the disparities in denial rates have been steadily declining since 2008.
V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
129
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Fair Housing Goal
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice/
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue
Recommended Actions
Responsible Agency
Enhance community services
in R/ECAPs
Access to low poverty areas
and concentrations of poverty
Access to labor market
engagement
Access to School Proficiency
Disparities in Access
to Opportunity
Encourage increased public services and public
investment in R/ECAPs and high poverty areas in the
HOME Consortium. Work within the HOME
Consortium to educate members to fund vital
community investments in these areas. Record
activities annually.
Maricopa County
HOME Consortium
Discussion: Black or African American, Native American, and Hispanic households have less access to labor market engagement as indicated by the Access to Opportunity
index. However, the County and the HOME Consortium has little control over impacting labor market engagement on a large scale.
Black or African American, Native American, and Hispanic households have lower levels of access to proficient schools in the HOME Consortium. However, the County has
little control over impacting access on a large scale.
Public input also suggested a lack of transportation leads to inequitable access to housing and service options.
Fair Housing Goal
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice/
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue
Recommended Actions
Responsible Agency
Promote community and
service provider knowledge of
fair housing and ADA laws
Insufficient fair housing
education
Insufficient understanding of
credit
Insufficient fair housing
infrastructure
Discriminatory patterns in
lending
Failure to Make Reasonable
Accommodations
Fair Housing
Enforcement and
Outreach
Continue to promote fair housing education through
workshops. Record activities annually.
Promote outreach and education related to credit for
prospective homebuyers. Record activities annually.
Partner with community agencies to provide financial
literacy classes for prospective homebuyers. Record
activities annually.
Maricopa County
HOME Consortium
Discussion: The fair housing survey and public input indicated a lack of collaboration among agencies to support fair housing, a lack of knowledge about fair housing and a
need for education, and an insufficient understanding of credit needed to access mortgages. In addition, as demonstrated above, racial and ethnic groups have unequal
access to mortgages. Failure to make reasonable accommodations was the number one fair housing complaint in the HOME Consortium.
V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
130
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
131
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Section VI. Appendices
A. ADDITIONAL PLAN DATA
Table VI.1
Loan Applications by Selected Action Taken by Race/Ethnicity of Applicant
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Race
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
American
Indian
Originated
38
37
38
34
109
138
150
221
466
329
1560
Denied
13
11
13
3
28
33
21
26
80
25
253
Denial Rate
25.5%
22.9%
25.5%
8.1%
20.4%
19.3%
12.3%
10.5%
14.7%
7.1%
14%
Asian
Originated
140
171
199
184
1,186
1,327
1,311
1,588
3,546
2,012
11664
Denied
38
53
53
36
199
246
176
198
362
181
1542
Denial Rate
21.3%
23.7%
21%
16.4%
14.4%
15.6%
11.8%
11.1%
9.3%
8.3%
11.7%
Black/African
American
Originated
70
81
74
80
527
668
816
991
2,448
1,448
7203
Denied
31
30
23
20
152
144
130
180
420
227
1357
Denial Rate
30.7%
27%
23.7%
20%
22.4%
17.7%
13.7%
15.4%
14.6%
13.6%
15.9%
Pacific
Islander
Originated
23
17
14
13
107
133
122
160
374
177
1140
Denied
2
2
5
6
14
18
20
28
38
23
156
Denial Rate
8%
10.5%
26.3%
31.6%
11.6%
11.9%
14.1%
14.9%
9.2%
11.5%
12%
White
Originated
3,504
3,674
3,778
3,900
19,916
23,188
25,090
29,474
68,282
35,326
216132
Denied
841
655
644
596
2,910
3,120
2,760
3,194
6,896
3,246
24862
Denial Rate
19.4%
15.1%
14.6%
13.3%
12.7%
11.9%
16%
9.8%
9.2%
8.4%
10.3%
Not
Available
Originated
408
379
362
399
2,068
2,235
2,101
2,579
6,574
3,884
20989
Denied
160
99
108
76
458
532
399
479
1,042
611
3964
Denial Rate
28.2%
20.7%
23%
16%
18.1%
19.2%
16%
15.7%
13.7%
13.6%
15.9%
Not
Applicable
Originated
2
0
2
4
4
10
10
9
26
20
87
Denied
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
4
Denial Rate
0%
%
0%
0%
20%
0%
9.1%
18.2%
0%
0%
4.4%
Total
Originated
4,185
4,359
4,467
4,614
23,917
27,699
29,600
35,022
81,716
43,196
258,775
Denied
1,085
850
846
737
3,762
4,093
3,507
4,107
8,838
4,313
32,138
Denial Rate
20.6%
16.3%
15.9%
13.8%
13.6%
12.9%
10.6%
10.5%
9.8%
9.1%
11%
Hispanic
Originated
474
489
545
562
2,589
3,249
4,003
5,100
12,076
6,416
35503
Denied
203
115
129
133
565
613
579
696
1,686
795
5514
Denial Rate
30%
19%
19.1%
19.1%
17.9%
15.9%
12.6%
12%
12.3%
11%
13.4%
Non-
Hispanic
Originated
3,329
3,506
3,569
3,682
19,332
22,287
23,579
27,462
63,164
33,090
203000
Denied
747
632
610
533
2,743
2,970
2,542
2,957
6,178
2,936
22848
Denial Rate
18.3%
15.3%
14.6%
12.6%
12.4%
11.8%
9.7%
9.7%
8.9%
8.1%
10.1%
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
132
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table VI.2
Loan Applications by Reason for Denial by Race/Ethnicity of Applicant
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Denial Reason
American
Indian
Asian
Black/
African
American
Pacific
Islander
White
Not
Available
Not
Applicable
Total
Hispanic
(Ethnicity)
Debt-to-Income Ratio
55
358
262
35
4881
830
0
6,421
55
Employment History
9
57
24
12
709
102
0
913
9
Credit History
51
146
280
23
3588
612
1
4,701
51
Collateral
25
171
108
20
3249
557
0
4,130
25
Insufficient Cash
9
52
28
4
848
115
1
1,057
9
Unverifiable Information
6
95
48
5
1128
198
0
1,480
6
Credit Application Incomplete
19
194
129
12
2708
462
0
3,524
19
Mortgage Insurance Denied
1
3
6
0
45
13
0
68
1
Other
8
109
90
12
1873
268
0
2,360
8
Missing
70
357
382
33
5,833
807
2
7,484
5,331
Total
253
1542
1357
156
24862
3964
4
32138
5514
% Missing
27.7%
23.2%
28.2%
21.2%
23.5%
20.4%
50%
23.3%
96.7%
Table VI.3
Denial Rates by Gender of Applicant
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Year
Male
Female
Not
Available
Not
Applicable
Average
2008
20.6%
19.6%
27.9%
0%
20.6%
2009
16.6%
15.6%
18.4%
%
16.3%
2010
15.9%
14.8%
24.6%
0%
15.9%
2011
13.7%
13.5%
16.8%
0%
13.8%
2012
13.2%
13.5%
19.7%
20%
13.6%
2013
12.3%
12.8%
22.3%
0%
12.9%
2014
10.2%
10.5%
18.2%
9.1%
10.6%
2015
10.3%
10.2%
16.6%
10%
10.5%
2016
9.4%
10%
13.7%
7.7%
9.8%
2017
8.5%
9.3%
15.3%
0%
9.1%
Average
10.6%
11.1%
16.8%
5.7%
11%
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
133
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table VI.4
Loan Applications by Selected Action Taken by Gender of Applicant
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Gender
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
Male
Originated
2,603
2,617
2,711
2,794
16,254
19,271
20,580
24,100
54,618
28,824
174372
Denied
674
521
513
445
2,471
2,700
2,340
2,753
5,654
2,688
20759
Denial Rate
20.6%
16.6%
15.9%
13.7%
13.2%
12.3%
10.2%
10.3%
9.4%
8.5%
10.6%
Female
Originated
1,399
1,542
1,564
1,633
6,640
7,316
8,019
9,529
23,220
12,326
73188
Denied
341
284
271
255
1,040
1,077
945
1,078
2,570
1,259
9120
Denial Rate
19.6%
15.6%
14.8%
13.5%
13.5%
12.8%
10.5%
10.2%
10%
9.3%
11.1%
Not
Available
Originated
181
200
190
183
1,019
1,101
991
1,384
3,854
2,030
11133
Denied
70
45
62
37
250
316
221
275
612
366
2254
Denial Rate
27.9%
18.4%
24.6%
16.8%
19.7%
22.3%
18.2%
16.6%
13.7%
15.3%
16.8%
Not
Applicable
Originated
2
0
2
4
4
11
10
9
24
16
82
Denied
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
5
Denial Rate
0%
%
0%
0%
20%
0%
9.1%
10%
7.7%
0%
5.7%
Total
Originated
4,185
4,359
4,467
4,614
23,917
27,699
29,600
35,022
81,716
43,196
258,775
Denied
1,085
850
846
737
3,762
4,093
3,507
4,107
8,838
4,313
32,138
Denial Rate
20.6%
16.3%
15.9%
13.8%
13.6%
12.9%
10.6%
10.5%
9.8%
9.1%
11%
Table VI.5
Denial Rates by Income of Applicant
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Income
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
$30,000 or Below
27.1%
23.3%
23.7%
22.5%
22.4%
24.5%
21.7%
21.2%
22.5%
21.1%
22.6%
$30,001–$50,000
20.1%
14%
13.2%
13.5%
13.9%
14.4%
11.1%
11.9%
11.5%
11.2%
12.5%
$50,001–$75,000
18.3%
14.4%
14%
10.6%
13.2%
11.5%
9.8%
9.2%
8.8%
8.3%
9.9%
$75,001–$100,000
19.2%
14.4%
14.4%
9.7%
12%
11.2%
9.1%
9.4%
8.1%
7.8%
9.3%
$100,001–$150,000
17.9%
16.6%
15.7%
10.3%
11.9%
10.6%
9.1%
9.1%
7.9%
7.4%
9.1%
Above $150,000
27.3%
21.5%
17.8%
12.6%
11.5%
11.8%
10.5%
9.9%
9.9%
8.8%
10.6%
Data Missing
22.2%
18.8%
0%
12.5%
11.3%
17.2%
11.2%
15%
11.6%
10.8%
12.9%
Total
20.6%
16.3%
15.9%
13.8%
13.6%
12.9%
10.6%
10.5%
9.8%
9.1%
11%
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
134
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table VI.6
Loan Applications by Income of Applicant: Originated and Denied
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Income
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
$30,000
or Below
Loan Originated
304
615
711
784
2,030
1,784
1,599
1,724
3,198
1,436
14185
Application Denied
113
187
221
228
585
580
443
465
928
385
4135
Denial Rate
27.1%
23.3%
23.7%
22.5%
22.4%
24.5%
21.7%
21.2%
22.5%
21.1%
22.6%
$30,001
–$50,000
Loan Originated
1,130
1,486
1,480
1,406
5,098
5,413
5,640
6,463
14,552
6,971
49639
Application Denied
285
242
226
220
824
907
706
876
1,892
882
7060
Denial Rate
20.1%
14%
13.2%
13.5%
13.9%
14.4%
11.1%
11.9%
11.5%
11.2%
12.5%
$50,001
–$75,000
Loan Originated
1,157
1,062
968
1,038
5,703
6,850
7,730
9,269
22,030
11,671
67478
Application Denied
260
178
157
123
864
893
836
937
2,122
1,057
7427
Denial Rate
18.3%
14.4%
14%
10.6%
13.2%
11.5%
9.8%
9.2%
8.8%
8.3%
9.9%
$75,001
–
$100,
000
Loan Originated
613
517
529
505
4,082
5,113
5,536
6,625
15,790
8,458
47768
Application Denied
146
87
89
54
555
643
551
685
1,392
715
4917
Denial Rate
19.2%
14.4%
14.4%
9.7%
12%
11.2%
9.1%
9.4%
8.1%
7.8%
9.3%
$100,001
–150,000
Loan Originated
541
396
441
506
4,073
4,974
5,425
6,537
15,758
8,456
47107
Application Denied
118
79
82
58
552
589
540
654
1,360
673
4705
Denial Rate
17.9%
16.6%
15.7%
10.3%
11.9%
10.6%
9.1%
9.1%
7.9%
7.4%
9.1%
Above
$150,000
Loan Originated
419
270
328
368
2,876
3,512
3,599
4,336
10,266
6,113
32087
Application Denied
157
74
71
53
375
470
422
478
1,128
590
3818
Denial Rate
27.3%
21.5%
17.8%
12.6%
11.5%
11.8%
10.5%
9.9%
9.9%
8.8%
10.6%
Data
Missing
Loan Originated
21
13
10
7
55
53
71
68
122
91
511
Application Denied
6
3
0
1
7
11
9
12
16
11
76
Denial Rate
22.2%
18.8%
0%
12.5%
11.3%
17.2%
11.2%
15%
11.6%
10.8%
12.9%
Total
Loan Originated
4,185
4,359
4,467
4,614
23,917
27,699
29,600
35,022
81,716
43,196
258,775
Application Denied
1,085
850
846
737
3,762
4,093
3,507
4,107
8,838
4,313
32,138
Denial Rate
20.6%
16.3%
15.9%
13.8%
13.6%
12.9%
10.6%
10.5%
9.8%
9.1%
11%
Table VI.7
Denial Rates of Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income of Applicant
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Race
$30,000
or Below
$30,001
– $50,000
$50,001
–$75,000
$75,001
–$100,000
$100,001
–$150,000
> $150,000
Data
Missing
Average
American Indian
35%
15.2%
14.7%
9.6%
8.7%
7.7%
0%
14%
Asian
28%
13.8%
10.9%
9.2%
8.5%
10.7%
17.4%
11.7%
Black/African
American
29.7%
18.9%
14.5%
13.6%
13.5%
16.5%
26.7%
15.9%
Pacific Islander
25.9%
15.6%
12.7%
9.6%
6.8%
9%
0%
12%
White
21.1%
11.5%
9.2%
8.7%
8.5%
10.2%
12.6%
10.3%
Not Available
32.9%
19.2%
14.9%
13.9%
13.1%
13.2%
12.3%
15.9%
Not Applicable
2.9%
0%
0%
16.7%
0%
20%
0%
4.4%
Average
22.6%
12.5
9.9%
9.3%
9.1%
10.6%
12.9%
11%
Non-Hispanic
23.9%
14
11.1%
11.2%
9.7%
13.3%
13.6%
13.4%
Hispanic
20.9%
11.4
9.1%
8.6%
8.6%
10.2%
13.1%
10.1%
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
135
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table VI.8
Loan Applications by Income and Race/Ethnicity of Applicant: Originated and Denied
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Race
$30,000
or Below
$30,001
– $50,000
$50,001
–$75,000
$75,001
–$100,000
$100,001
–$150,000
> $150,000
Data
Missing
Total
American Indian
Loan Originated
93
339
424
319
264
120
1
1560
Application Denied
50
61
73
34
25
10
0
253
Denial Rate
35%
15.2%
14.7%
9.6%
8.7%
7.7%
0%
14%
Asian
Loan Originated
660
1779
2366
2306
2690
1844
19
11664
Application Denied
257
285
290
235
249
222
4
1542
Denial Rate
28%
13.8%
10.9%
9.2%
8.5%
10.75
17.4%
11.7%
Black/African
American
Loan Originated
265
1356
2173
1535
1277
586
11
7203
Application Denied
112
316
369
241
199
116
4
1357
Denial Rate
29.7%
18.9%
14.5%
13.6%
13.5%
16.5%
26.7%
12%
Pacific Islander
Loan Originated
60
206
338
207
233
91
5
1140
Application Denied
21
38
49
22
17
9
0
156
Denial Rate
25.9%
15.6%
12.7%
9.6%
6.8%
9%
0%
12%
White
Loan Originated
12079
42494
57024
39519
38451
26163
402
216132
Application Denied
3222
5536
5746
3757
3583
2960
58
24862
Denial Rate
21.1%
11.5%
9.2%
8.7%
8.5%
10.2%
12.6%
10.3%
Not Available
Loan Originated
960
3461
5150
3877
4191
3279
71
20989
Application Denied
471
824
900
627
632
500
10
3964
Denial Rate
32.9%
19.2%
14.9%
13.9%
13.1%
13.2%
12.3%
15.9%
Not Applicable
Loan Originated
68
4
3
5
1
4
2
87
Application Denied
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
4
Denial Rate
2.9%
0%
0%
16.7%
0%
20%
0%
4.4%
Total
Loan Originated
14185
49639
67478
47768
47107
32087
511
258,775
Application Denied
4135
7060
7427
4917
4705
3818
76
32,138
Denial Rate
22.6%
12.5%
9.9%
9.3%
9.1%
10.6%
12.9
11%
Hispanic
Loan Originated
3542
11014
10551
5259
3642
1476
19
35503
Application Denied
1114
1791
1322
664
393
227
3
5514
Denial Rate
23.9%
14%
11.1%
11.2%
9.7%
13.3%
13.6%
13.4%
Non-Hispanic
Loan Originated
9697
35378
51973
38709
39412
27405
426
203000
Application Denied
2567
4543
5231
3646
3699
3098
64
22848
Denial Rate
20.9%
11.4%
9.1%
8.6%
8.6%
10.2%
13.1%
10.1%
Table VI.9
Loans by Loan Purpose by High Annual Percentage Loans (HAL) Status
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Loan
Purpose
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
Home
Purchase
HAL
247
151
4
15
71
104
250
178
330
159
1509
Other
3,938
4,208
4,463
4,599
23,846
27,595
29,350
34,844
81,386
43,037
257266
Percent HAL
5.9%
3.5%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.8%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.6%
Home
Improvement
HAL
57
12
8
19
104
195
238
417
940
593
2583
Other
502
161
119
110
767
1,503
1,990
2,340
5,578
3,088
16158
Percent HAL
10.2%
6.9%
6.3%
14.7%
11.9%
11.5%
10.7%
15.1%
14.4%
16.1%
0.6%
Refinancing
HAL
298
179
8
18
115
128
124
93
226
116
1305
Other
5,457
7,574
6,085
4,633
57,543
44,054
20,544
32,801
83,048
27,259
288998
Percent HAL
5.2%
2.3%
0.1%
0.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.6%
Total
HAL
602
342
20
52
290
427
612
688
1,496
868
5397
Other
9,897
11,943
10,667
9,342
82,156
73,152
51,884
69,985
170,012
73,384
562422
Percent HAL
5.7%
2.8%
0.2%
0.6%
0.4%
0.6%
1.2%
1%
0.9%
1.2%
1%
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
136
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table VI.11
Rate of HALs Originated by Race/Ethnicity of Borrower
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Race
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Average
American Indian
13.2%
8.1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0.5%
0.4%
0.6%
0.9%
Asian
5%
1.8%
0%
0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
Black/African
American
10%
2.5%
0%
0%
0%
0.4%
1.1%
0.7%
0.5%
0.1%
0.7%
Pacific Islander
17.4%
5.9%
0%
0%
0%
0.8%
0%
0.6%
0%
0%
0.7%
White
5.5%
3.6%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.9%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.6%
Not Available
7.4%
2.6%
0%
0.5%
0.1%
0.4%
0.8%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
0.7%
Not Applicable
0%
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Average
5.9%
3.5%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.8%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.6%
Hispanic
9.5%
5.1%
0.4%
0.7%
0.1%
0.4%
1.6%
0.7%
0.2%
0.2%
0.8%
Non-Hispanic
5.4%
3.3%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.6%
Table VI.10
HALs Originated by Race of Borrower
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Race
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
American Indian
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
11
Asian
7
3
0
0
1
2
2
2
12
4
29
Black/African
American
7
2
0
0
0
3
9
7
12
2
40
Pacific Islander
4
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
7
White
194
132
4
13
68
89
222
148
274
139
1,144
Not Available
30
10
0
2
2
9
17
19
30
12
119
Not Applicable
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
247
151
4
15
71
104
250
178
330
159
1509
Hispanic
45
25
2
4
3
14
64
38
30
14
28,862
Non-Hispanic
181
116
2
10
67
79
171
123
268
134
168,893
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
137
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table VI.12
Loans by HAL Status by Race/Ethnicity of Borrower
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Race
Loan Type
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
American
Indian
HAL
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
11
Other
33
34
38
34
109
138
150
220
464
327
1,220
Percent HAL
13.2%
8.1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0.5%
0.4%
0.6%
0.9%
Asian
HAL
7
3
0
0
1
2
2
2
12
4
29
Other
133
168
199
184
1,185
1,325
1,309
1,586
3,534
2,008
9,623
Percent HAL
5%
1.8%
0%
0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
Black/
African
Americ
an
HAL
7
2
0
0
0
3
9
7
12
2
40
Other
63
79
74
80
527
665
807
984
2,436
1,446
5,715
Percent HAL
10%
2.5%
0%
0%
0%
0.4%
1.1%
0.7%
0.5%
0.1%
0.7%
Pacific
Islande
r
HAL
4
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
7
Other
19
16
14
13
107
132
122
159
374
177
956
Percent HAL
17.4%
5.9%
0%
0%
0%
0.8%
0%
0.6%
0%
0%
0.7%
White
HAL
194
132
4
13
68
89
222
148
274
139
1,144
Other
3,310
3,542
3,774
3,887
19,848
23,099
24,868
29,326
68,008
35,187
179,662
Percent HAL
5.5%
3.6%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.9%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.6%
Not
Available
HAL
30
10
0
2
2
9
17
19
30
12
119
Other
378
369
362
397
2,066
2,226
2,084
2,560
6,544
3,872
5,715
Percent HAL
7.4%
2.6%
0%
0.5%
0.1%
0.4%
0.8%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
0.7%
Not
Applicable
HAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
2
0
2
4
4
10
10
9
26
20
67
Percent HAL
0%
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Total
HAL
247
151
4
15
71
104
250
178
330
159
1509
Other
3,938
4,208
4,463
4,599
23,846
27,595
29,350
34,844
81,386
43,037
257266
Percent HAL
5.9%
3.5%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.8%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.6%
Hispanic
HAL
45
25
2
4
3
14
64
38
30
14
28,862
Other
429
464
543
558
2,586
3,235
3,939
5,062
12,046
6,402
225
Percent HAL
9.5%
5.1%
0.4%
0.7%
0.1%
0.4%
1.6%
0.7%
0.2%
0.2%
0.8%
Non-
Hispanic
HAL
181
116
2
10
67
79
171
123
268
134
168,893
Other
3,148
3,390
3,567
3,672
19,265
22,208
23,408
27,339
62,896
32,956
1,017
Percent HAL
5.4%
3.3%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.6%
Table VI.13
Rates of HALs by Income of Borrower
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Income
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Average
$30,000 or Below
7.6%
3.6%
0.1%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
1.6%
0.5%
1.1%
0.5%
1.1%
$30,001–$50,000
7.6%
4.8%
0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
1.4%
0.7%
0.2%
0.2%
0.8%
$50,001–$75,000
4.4%
3.1%
0.1%
0.5%
0.2%
0.3%
1.2%
0.6%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
$75,001–$100,000
7.2%
2.3%
0.2%
0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
$100,00–150,000
3.5%
1.5%
0%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.6%
0.4%
0.5%
Above $150,000
5.5%
2.2%
0.3%
0%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
1%
1.1%
1.1%
1%
Data Missing
4.8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0.2%
Average
5.9%
3.5%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.8%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.6%
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
138
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Table VI.14
Loans by HAL Status by Income of Borrower
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2008–2017 HMDA Data
Income
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
$30,000
or Below
HAL
23
22
1
5
12
7
25
9
34
7
138
Other
281
593
710
779
2,018
1,777
1,574
1,715
3,164
1,429
12,611
Percent HAL
7.6%
3.6%
0.1%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
1.6%
0.5%
1.1%
0.5%
1.1%
$30,001
–$50,000
HAL
86
72
0
3
7
11
80
45
26
12
330
Other
1,044
1,414
1,480
1,403
5,091
5,402
5,560
6,418
14,526
6,959
42,338
Percent HAL
7.6%
4.8%
0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
1.4%
0.7%
0.2%
0.2%
0.8%
$50,001
–$75,000
HAL
51
33
1
5
12
20
90
51
34
18
297
Other
1,106
1,029
967
1,033
5,691
6,830
7,640
9,218
21,996
11,653
55,510
Percent HAL
4.4%
3.1%
0.1%
0.5%
0.2%
0.3%
1.2%
0.6%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
$75,001
–
$100,
000
HAL
44
12
1
0
6
16
13
12
32
22
136
Other
569
505
528
505
4,076
5,097
5,523
6,613
15,758
8,436
39,174
Percent HAL
7.2%
2.3%
0.2%
0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
$100,001
–150,000
HAL
19
6
0
2
15
25
22
19
88
35
196
Other
522
390
441
504
4,058
4,949
5,403
6,518
15,670
8,421
38,455
Percent HAL
3.5%
1.5%
0%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.6%
0.4%
0.5%
Above
$150,000
HAL
23
6
1
0
19
25
20
42
116
65
252
Other
396
264
327
368
2,857
3,487
3,579
4,294
10,150
6,048
25,722
Percent HAL
5.5%
2.2%
0.3%
0%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
1%
1.1%
1.1%
1%
Data
Missing
HAL
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Other
20
13
10
7
55
53
71
68
122
91
510
Percent HAL
4.8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0.2%
Total
Other
247
151
4
15
71
104
250
178
330
159
1509
HAL
3,938
4,208
4,463
4,599
23,846
27,595
29,350
34,844
81,386
43,037
257266
Percent HAL
5.9%
3.5%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.8%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.6%
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
139
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
B. PUBLIC INPUT DATA
Maricopa County 8/29/19
Presentation
Comment: What was other?
Presenter: Anyone who doesn’t identify as these, any of these races would identify as other. These
are self-reported in Census data and American Community Survey data. So, if you don’t identify as
black, American Indian, Native Alaskan, Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander, you would
identify as other race.
Comment: The Native American Reservations are included in this data too, right?
Presenter: Yes.
Comment: Do you have this data with Phoenix and Mesa and just extracted it or do you just don’t
have this data?
Presenter: We probably have the data from Phoenix and Mesa, but we extracted it, but we do not
have it in this form. If that is what your question is. We have the raw data.
Comment: Phoenix will be doing an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing this year as well
They haven’t selected their consultant yet as far as I know.
Comment: I assume Mesa as well.
Comment: Mesa as well.
Presentation
Comment: Can you leave that one up? I am just trying to figure out, where are you?
Comment: Does this include Section 8?
Presenter: This map does not, but there will be subsequent maps that do.
Comment: I know Maricopa County’s Housing Authority has converted its units to RAD. Would
there be other public?
Presenter: So, HUDs database has not quite caught up with the transaction to RAD. So, we don’t
have that data.
Comment: So, they would still be located and still coming up here.
Presenter: Yes.
Comment: I see that Buckeye and we have property in Buckeye.
Presenter: Most likely be considered an apart of this public housing map.
Comment: Okay.
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
140
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Presentation
Comment: What are Housing Choice Vouchers?
Presenter: Section 8 vouchers.
Comment: Those are the same thing.
Presentation
Comment: Income bias.
Presenter: Income bias.
Comment: If we could get that past the legislation and landlords couldn’t hold that against them.
Just refusing without even…
Comment: I would also say justice involvement as particularly with sex offenders.
Comment: I think Mesa was the last one holding onto crime free and I don’t think they have
changed that since. I don’t know if you know any communities that still hanging onto that. I know a
lot of completes still hold onto that you still have to be 12/13 years past your last conviction before
you can rent an apartment. That is a challenge.
Presenter: Any other comments or questions?
Comment: Just representing Ability 360 and we talked before I think about better educating some
of the fair housing landlords, education and enforcement. I had a landlord from an apartment call
me just this last week asking if we would put up flashing lights for a person that was deaf or hearing
impaired and so I think that education and knowledge of quite what they do in enforcing what they
do. I think having more of the housing choice vouchers and then really working with landlords to
accept those vouchers. People are getting vouchers and then they are looking towards the landlords
and they are not accepting them because you can get more for fair market value. So, upstreaming
the voucher program would be lovely. We would like to see people increasing the home
modification partnerships because when again access into the housing. We are saying about 60.2%
as we are aging out as we all are. I will be there very shortly and just having either in the beginning
with home modifications to widen doors and put in ramps and even roll-in showers. Some part of
the complexes will let us do that but then you have, and they say they want it retrofitted back. That
makes no sense. If you get a free roll-in shower. Keep it or rent it to somebody else that needs it. I
don’t care if it is a senior or a young person with a disability. They want to go back and take out
grab bars. We need things to be different and provide incentives for accessibility up front which is a
lot less costly. It is not even that costly to retrofit, but in the new construction provide incentives to
the builders. At least have what we have some visitability city ordinance. He did it which we are
very excited about. We will work with any city, any public housing project, any place on
visitability city ordinance. Where you have a zero step, so you don’t have to bother with a ramp.
People call me for a ramp. They can’t even get in their house safely. Wide doors and visibility and
having at least one bathroom on the main floor that you can get in and use. Visiting somebody and
you can’t use the bathroom is very common. Those things we look at as very easily can be
improved and how to eliminate those barriers for Ability 360.
Presenter: Any other comments or questions?
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
141
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Comment: So, when we get calls that they are being evicting for whatever and usually not paying
rent and they have lost their job and so they are always looking for low-income housing and now it
seems these days that they do a credit score. So, if you are in the tank you have about minimal or
no chance of getting in some places to even rent or even be considered for renting. So that is a
struggle for at least the people that we get at the front desk. They don’t have a deposit and they
don’t have a job. So that alone having no income is obviously a huge barrier.
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
142
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Maricopa County 8/27/19
Presentation
Comment: Just to be clear you have taken Phoenix and Mesa out of these numbers.
Presenter: I am saying Maricopa County, but anything that says Maricopa County Home
Consortium takes out Mesa and Phoenix. There are a couple numbers as we go back where it is
countywide, like the homeless numbers were countywide and then some of the economic was
countywide.
Comment: Explain what the Consortium is and what the County is.
Presenter: The County is in a Home Consortium which means these cities that are listed under the
Home Consortium, their HOIME funds are controlled by the County and these cities participate in
this plan with the County. The whole of this plan also includes Maricopa Urban County which
includes these unincorporated areas. So, most of this data that we are looking at includes
everything except Phoenix and Mesa because they receive their own HUD funds. Is that clear to
you?
Comment: Yes.
Presentation
Comment: I noticed that that big green area is the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Reservation. Is
the Reservation included in all of the data we have seen so far as well?
Presenter: Yes.
Presentation
Comment: Less reported.
Presenter: It is not that it is less reported, it is just not as prominent in the community, 1 to 2
percent of households will have those issues, cost burdens are more common.
Presentation
Comment: So, I work for Care First Health Plan which is one of the access programs and my
department basically contracts social service agencies that address the social determinates of health.
Housing is huge. Homelessness, education, employment and all of those that contribute to a
person’s wellbeing. Our health plan has a housing specialist that does primarily with the homeless
population. Specifically, around the campus area and for us having about 380,000 members, we
have a very high amount of homelessness, homeless members. That is homeless in shelters, that is
homeless on the street, and that is homeless couch surfing and all of those other definitions that fall
under that. That is the biggest problem right now that we are seeing is affordable housing and
homelessness. I go to multiple west valley meetings, resource center meetings, and everybody is
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
143
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
talking about the same thing. How do we help the homeless numbers come down; what are we
doing about affordable housing because there is not literally, and I use myself as an example. My
mortgage is $1,300, my son’s 500 square foot studio is $1,139. So that was his option and he
chooses to do that and to live there, but for the problem person that is not making 50, 60, 70,000
dollars plus, for those people that are earning minimum wage and having to work 2 or 3 jobs at a
time, what do they do? Aside from multiple families living together and having latchkey kids
because mom has to go to work so there are so many different factors involved that you can’t just
address the homelessness or the housing without looking at the rest of the problems. Really when I
worked at Sunnyslope for several years, a majority of my clients were homeless, and they chose to
be homeless. So, there is that factor as well. You chose to stay on the streets, and you chose to be
without shelter, without a home, resources are there, and they don’t want to take advantage of that.
I would like to see kind of like human resource center on the westside of town. I heard they are
starting around October I believe, but I think we need a little bit more than that because it is a 20-
mile hike down to the campus to try to get an ID. You can’t work unless you have an ID. Where
are you going to eat at, where are you going to take a shower so you can go to the interview. So,
there are multiple facets involved and right now it is ridiculous that the housing costs and there is
no affordable housing for anybody.
Presenter: Thank you.
Comment: One of the changes we made at the county in the last year is all of the money, all of our
Community Development Block Grant money that we can possibly spend on homelessness,
because HUD limits how much you can spend on contrition activities verse public services, we
have put all of that money into that. Do we are funding that and I am excited about that, but I think
we are definitely seeing, and she can speak to that, but we are seeing homelessness in these
suburban areas grow at a really really high rate.
Comment: Burger King is experiencing homelessness.
Comment: I know El Mirage has a problem and it seems like it is a really growing problem and
especially out here.
Comment: El Mirage is working with Sunrise in the health program. We are one of the partners and
there is four communities that are working together and working with Sunrise as a good we are
trying to work together.
Comment: Understanding isn’t going to end it, but at least it will get folks engaged and connected
to services, but definitely affordable housing I think is at the top of the list.
Comment: It is and it is really sad though because you what we call the working poor and it
doesn’t matter how many hours that they put in, if there is multiple mouths to feed at home that
$900 or $1,000 rent it is going to take two or three jobs to cover. They go all the time away from
your household and taking care of your children. It is just a snowball effect.
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
144
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Comment: Can we go back to that slide that had the rates of new construction for single family and
rental units. I thought that was really interesting. It is not nearly, and this county has grown so fast
and to see that we are not even at 2004 levels. That is really telling.
Comment: How was Mesa selected in the distribution of funds. They get their own.
Comment: They are a large enough community and high enough rates of poverty that they receive
their own allocations of these funds. I definitely would have expected that, but I thought we would
have been higher at this point now.
Comment: There is so much commercial construction that has taken it away.
Presenter: This is a similar trend that I have seen in other communities in the country is that I
haven’t seen very many of any communities that have recovered their housing production since the
recession.
Comment: We lost a lot of contractors and building costs are so high now it is hard to build a
$200,000 home. It is hard to. Looking for something affordable and that is 150 to 200,000 dollars
and it costs so much to build now that many builders are not able to cover costs.
Presenter: I think part of this piece of the puzzle that exacerbates the problem is that the housing
stock in the county is so much newer. A lot of the times older housing can because that affordable
housing stock. It can sell for cheaper and you can rehabilitate it and it can be that affordable
housing stock, but there is not a lot of older units in the county.
Comment: Also 10 years of just different group of kids are now adults who are willing to live in
(Not Discernable).
Presenter: Any other comments or questions?
Presentation
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
145
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Maricopa County 8/28/19
Presentation
Comment: Not a bad thing in a way.
Presentation
Comment: What is the seasonal, recreational, occasional?
Presenter: You have something you rent out for vacation use and things like that. It might not be
occupied year-round, but it is available at some point during the year for rentals or recreation or
vacation and things like that.
Presentation
Comment: Fountain Hills.
Comment: Yes.
Comment: Phoenix and then Gilbert or that is Mesa. Are you saying the red is Mesa?
Presenter: This white area is Mesa.
Comment: Oh….
Presenter: Because it is not a part of the study. This white area is Phoenix.
Comment: So, south of Mesa is what like Gilbert?
Comment: Chandler.
Comment: Chandler/Gilbert.
Comment: So, I am thinking that that one up there must have Fountain Hills.
Comment: It is huge.
Presenter: Is this what we are talking about?
Comment: Yes.
Presenter: That is one Census tract.
Comment: I think that this town Fountain Hill, which is very senior area, but its dos have all those
mountains.
Comment: Is Paradise Valley considered part of Phoenix?
Comment: Yes.
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
146
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Comment: Well, no because they wanted to be a part of the urban county at one point.
(Crosstalk)
Comment: This is Paradise Valley.
(Crosstalk)
Comment: This is the Phoenix Country Club, because it is own and not a part of the City of
Phoenix.
Comment: No, serious?
Comment: Is this right here Grand?
(Crosstalk)
Presenter: This is just rents period.
(Crosstalk)
Map Discussion
Presentation
Comment: I would like to know what is causing that.
Map Discussion
Comment: If that is Tolleson, for 45-52 percent have housing problems.
Presenter: Most likely the majority of them would have cost burdens.
Comment: That doesn’t surprise me.
Presentation
Comment: For me I would like to go back and see the Tolleson piece, but I know it is just not
about Tolleson. I think a lot of the story is countywide, but Tolleson has some things about this
community that are maybe a little different. It is a smaller town and it is multigenerational, but
people are having a hard time staying here, finding homes. The one trend that is very different
about Tolleson is there is some newer housing, but there is a lot of older housing. So pre 70s
housings. Maybe not old for the east coast but old for here. I am working with folks with homes
from the 1920s to the 1960s and trying to do repairs and that is a challenge. Definitely talking to
other folks who work in other areas of the city, renters are having a really hard time and families
are having a really hard time finding affordable homes. If you are trying to buy it is definitely going
out to qualify which is not what we…anyway but…I don’t work with those who are experiencing
homelessness, but I know a few folks who are living in their vehicles in the summer here which is
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
147
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
crazy. The office and to help house folks at a local hotel in certain situations. I feel like there is a
good and definitely a good reflection. I just don’t think I am speak for everybody.
Comment: We are also going to take her comments from earlier about the senior population.
Services and house burdens.
Comment: I think there is just not enough senior housing in this community. What is so great about
Tolleson is we have a lot of centralized services. So, we have a great senior center and meals for
folks, and we help with utilities though other programs and stuff. The City puts up a lot of funds to
help folks with additional services and there is transportation for folks that live here, but it is very
difficult for people and the seniors who don’t own their homes and to find affordable rentals or
places where they can have other services that they really need. Some wrap around services would
be helpful as they get older. I know folks in the home repair programs that we run that are dealing
with a lot of elderly that are disabled and we are trying to provide some in-home modifications so
that they can stay in their home and be safe. That is challenge. Some of them have houses that you
really can’t modify as much as they would like to be able to modify them. It is not structural
feasible. I know that the Director of the Senior Center is going to be sending in the survey. I just
spoke with him a little while ago to do that. He has worked here for four years and goes out to folks
with Meals on Wheels and be able to talk a lot more about the needs of folks in the community.
One of the more important feedback we could get as far at the people he talks too in the area. I
would love to have access to this if that is possible.
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
148
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Maricopa County 8/29/19
Presentation
Comment: At our table we are wondering why Phoenix and Mesa are pulled out of some things,
but in other things. We don’t understand that.
Presenter: So anytime that data allows us to pull that out we take that out, because this plan and
those funds will not go into Phoenix and Mesa. The economic data that I just showed you is only
available at the county level so we can’t pull out Phoenix and Mesa because the way that the data
is collected is only at the county level.
Comment: Phoenix and Mesa do their own plans. So all the rest of the cities that are under the lead
agency in Maricopa County we have to work together to put ours in and then each year we will put
out individual plans for our community, but Phoenix and Mesa receive their funds independently
so they do this on their own.
Comment: Thank you.
Comment: You said all together do you break it down for city or town?
Presenter: It depends on how the Point-In-Time count was completed. We can probably break that
down by each city.
Comment: Every city has a Point-In-Time count. That is actually people out there and it is just used
in every report. So those that participated.
Comment: I was just wondering how many homeless people there are in Gilbert.
Comment: So, in Gilbert two years ago it was four and last year it was two. We do know that that is
a one day count though and you go out at 5 in the morning and you finish by noon. We there is a
lot more transitional that move back and forth. We know that there is probably chronically
homeless at this rate that is closer to 10, but we only we able to count 2 that morning. We have a
lot more that qualify through the school system that are doubling up, but that is not the definition of
the homeless for the count. I can talk to you a little bit more later.
Presentation
(Map Explanation)
Comment: So, related to the seniors then where is Sun City in relation. Is that the purple area on
the very top?
Comment: That line is heading out that way. That is Grant Avenue and that is Sun City out there
when you are up in the green.
Comment: Can you go to the previous one.
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
149
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Presentation
Comment: What areas are those?
Presenter: With the highest rates?
Comment: Yes.
Comment: Would you like to give some context here?
(Map Explanation)
Comment: Is this available to see online?
Comment: We haven’t posted it online, but people who came to our meetings the previous two
nights and not as nearly as many we sent it out to them as well. It is hard to really take all of this in
at once. We would be happy to send it out tomorrow.
Comment: Thank you.
Comment: (Not Discernable)
Presentation
Comment: It is hard to tell from the colors if there are any duplexes or triplexes.
Comment: They are very small.
Presenter: There are these little slivers in between like a little white line and a little purple line. The
production of those is meniscal compared to the rest.
Presentation
Comment: There is a lot of media right now about Air B&B and BRBO and some of those others. Is
that considered for seasonal recreational/occasional?
Presenter: Yes, anything like that would be considered under that.
Comment: So, there is a huge amount of change in that.
Presenter: We see 13 percentage point increase over seven years. So, the 2017 ACS data is a
rolling average so when the 2020 Census comes out you may even see that number being higher
than what it is showing here.
Comment: That number is also for people who have second homes here.
Comment: Right.
Comment: That is quite a number as well.
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
150
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Presentation
Comment: Large purple at the top and this map is by Census tract and that is Fountain Hills. That is
one tract. It is just a very large tract.
Presentation
Comment: Do you include and when you say the rents, does that include seasonal rents? They are
much higher than.
Presenter: The rent data that is pulled is from the Census data. It depends on when that would be
taken. So, it is just a snapshot of what is happening currently. So that was a question that I can get
back to you about.
Presentation
Comment: Are those cost burdens broken down by age by chance.
Presenter: I don’t think that they are broken down by age category, but we do have them by
income level and by race.
Comment: (Not Discernible) in our neighborhood and there are people on a wait list for five years
and they are not being able due to the scale of veterans here. I had a lady that was a Vietnam Vet
had cancer and she raised her amount that she received monthly and they gave her a 30 day notice
to move out because she wasn’t because she wasn’t prepared and she just went over the amount
and they were going to keep her off. (Not Discernible) because there isn’t housing available for
people who are in that category. So, they are going to go and live with family members they are
having to find places where they can live their life. So, it is a problem (Not Discernable) That is a
problem for us with senior housing that is affordable for multi persons and not just that and I am
not seeing that in Gilbert.
Comment: Lack of affordable housing options are pervasive. I mean throughout not only Maricopa
County but Mesa, Phoenix, our state, the nation does especially for people who are in some of the
deeper levels of poverty like you said people with a trauma or a disability and can no longer
sustain. I think absolutely is a number one priority.
Comment: What I would love to see in my community is there is homeless and these homeless is
just not and these people are not just and these people are and they are people who have drug
problems and addition to that they are just homeless and I see that quite often. They are living in
our community. There needs to be some type of service that can get them into a place where they
get jobs and are able to live and contribute to society rather than living in the parks or the streets.
They are killing people and they pull out a knife. I have seen that with one woman, and she lived.
Comment: The problem is that families are overlooked all of the time. So, it is not a representative
sample of how many people are homeless in our community. In effect I just got a call yesterday
from one of the homeless liaisons in Gilbert where there is a family of two kids sleeping in a car.
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
151
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
We only have enough emergency shelters, we don’t have enough transitional shelter, there is no
place to put everybody.
Comment: We have an overabundance of builders building.
Comment: But not in an affordable way.
Comment: That is what I am saying. That is a start finding out how we can do something about
that.
Comment: Building apartments because people are moving there, and I know the housing thing
and a lot of people don’t want to buy because of what happened to their parents 10 years ago. So,
they are out of the market and they are renting, and they are paying an astronomical amount of
money for rents. These builders that come here and build maybe there are some standard that we
have to meet in our city to be able to house everybody’s needs instead of just one. It is because
they are making money on those people that are moving here and those people are eventually
going to buy houses. If there was a way that they measure that and make it standardized or
something.
Comment: In regard to condos verses apartments. They are totally two different people who buy a
condo and an apartment regarding of what you do that to lessen the burden as they age, and they
are getting loans so that they are able to buy condos. Gilbert is not seeing that trend. They are
seeing apartments because that is where they make their money. So, a condo is affordable housing
they can get into and to buy a house because they will never buy a house in Gilbert when they
first. It is very typical for a first-time buyer to buy in Gilbert. So that is what I am seeing, and Oak
Property in Gilbert and they can make a deal with a developer that they can develop their condos
and they have the ability to sell those condos to people that can afford. They are (Not Discernable).
Comment: So, I was in the business one time and decades ago we explored. It was before the
Department of Housing, it was the Department of Commerce I believe, but we floated the idea of
laws that would require developers to set aside a certain percentage of units for lower income. So
just trying for renters. It does two things. It starts to build your capacity for affordable housing and
also integrates lower income families with higher income families that then sort of set higher norms
and that kind of support. In the years past Arizona housing market wasn’t as inflated as it is today.
The numbers are in pencil. I get the performance and I get that it has to be a profit. I can’t help but
wonder as we are seeing the cost of rental units escalate when do we get to that point when we can
do some of that creative thinking and kind of social responsibility. I put that out there.
Presenter: Thank you.
Comment: Along with what you were saying there are several low-income apartments in this
community, and I have helped people find these locations, but after a year the rent keeps going up
and each year it goes up again. People end back up at square one. So, rental cap on that or I don’t
know if something like that can be done? At least in a certain amount of time. One year really is not
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
152
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
enough time for people to get back on their feet, but I feel like two years is a pretty good amount of
time before they get a rental raise or something. So…
Comment: Another thing that we are seeing is a lot of landlords now are putting in and they will
not cover any maintenance at all unless it is fire or flood. So, you are looking at low-income people
who are below the poverty line and barely making it and paying over 30 percent of their income
and something breaks down like the kitchen or bathroom and none of the landlords will fix it.
Comment: So, somebody is not doing their job, because they have to. Those people have to be
held to the standards, because if people don’t have bathrooms that is a problem.
Comment: We have private landlords in our community that are writing it into the leases and then
the people are taking the leases and signing them.
Comment: They should not be signing them.
Comment: But if you are low-income and you are desperate for a place to rent that is why it is
happening.
Comment: They are getting taken advantage of.
Comment: It is true.
Comment: Predatory renting.
Comment: I would like to be on that committee.
Comment: The population that I serve is the seriously mentally ill and particularly the ones that
cannot advocate for themselves and they are incapacitated, and they do not have a family member
that can advocate, but I do help a lot of families as well. So, what we are seeing is high eviction
rates for this population, because they are not getting the adequate support. They may act out
because of symptoms of their mental illness and the landlord is like that is our ticket to get them out
of here. Also, the continuum of care for this population is really a triage. It treat, street, repeat. We
need more flexible housing options and some long term options where and it is much more
affordable to have like say a group home with four or five individuals there with a staff member
there verses trying to put everybody in an apartment which the rates are going through the roof and
we can’t really do that. So, we need to look at this maybe a smaller population, but if you look
around in every city this is the population, we are seeing very visible on the streets. Also, what I
have learned and what I have heard in working with Access and we are working on this issue right
now is that there are housing vouchers and I don’t know if this is true, but there is not capacity.
Again, landlords with our prosperity and increase in income they are redoing their apartments and
they want high they want to make money. Everybody wants to make money. So, there is just a lot
of a lot against this population and I think that they get overlooked a lot, yet they are the ones that
our county is spending money whether it is jails or booking or police or tragedy. The families are
living in crisis and they cannot take care of them anymore in their home. It is too difficult. There is
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
153
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
loose of income there with those families. So again, smaller population but they are using up huge
amount of our resources because we are not prioritizing and focusing on them.
Comment: I don’t see why the funds can’t be aligned to rehab houses that are dilapidated where it
is not an emergency or whether it is not the air conditioner or an emergency repair where they
actually have funds to rehab. According to her they had a like a lean type thing in order to receive
funds. To me you are not serving anybody if all you are doing is fixing the air conditioning or the
plumbing when the whole house is dilapidated and sooner or later it will be in bad condition. That
is one of the things and in addition to that we have a drainage problem. They are going to be taking
care of and every year they ask, or I ask, and the drainage problems are not being taken care of. My
Spanish speaking neighbor is so concerned with all the mosquitoes constantly and it is a health and
safety problem. Lots of things can happen when you don’t and so it is kind of unfortunate.
Comment: Is only set to rehabilitate houses or (Not Discernible)
Presenter: The types of funding could be used for that, but it depends on how the county prioritizes
their funding. There is only so much, and it only goes so far. So, part of this process is deciding
what properties the county is going to set for this. I appreciate the comments and the input in this
process.
Comment: When I look at this and a problem that we see everyday is I look at the kids that are
impacted by all of this. The stresses that happen in family where they can’t afford the bills and
maybe they are not getting as much at work. Is if we could find a place for the kids are safe and
being taking care of then the parents and maybe fed then the parents are able to deal with a little
bit more or if it having to pick up a second job to pay the bills or having to worry about the kids.
That is a part of all of this, and it also teaches the kids a work ethic so hopefully they do not end up
in that cycle.
Comment: The Boys and Girls Clubs do they and I know there one in the community maybe they
need more (Not Discernable)
Comment: we are constantly getting phone calls about it, but facilities in communities for
affordable after school and non-school funded care and it is the parents are coming in and asking
for more and more financial assistance, because they can’t afford regular daycare programs because
the amount they receive.
Comment: I will say that we are seeing more and more family living in hotels because they just
can’t afford the utility deposit, the security deposit and they are getting charged higher because they
have had evictions. So, we have a whole generation of kids growing up in motels, which is not
stable because they are not making it to school on time and they have no descent place to play and
no other friends in the neighborhood to get involved with.
Comment: Is it easier to get a motel voucher than a housing voucher?
Comment: No, they can pay with their weekly check the weekly rate.
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
154
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Comment: So, they are not on vouchers they are just choosing…
Comment: That is their only choice.
(Crosstalk)
Comment: It is way cheaper…
Comment: In some ways.
Comment: Depending on what time of the year and they get busy in the wintertime and the rates
go up, but they are living paycheck to paycheck. They don’t have enough money to get the rent.
Presenter: What do you think that the county is doing well? Are there any programs or efforts that
are already in progress that could be improved?
Comment: We have a new facility that allows people dental care, but it only allows children. The
seniors are not able to go to the dental and receive services. So, the seniors that are living in the
community and I know one, three that just talked to me about this. So, I don’t understand why the
children are receiving the dental care when the people and the elderly and the people who cannot
afford it who are elderly do not receive that care. To me that is not really taking care of the aspects
of the community. I think that program should include seniors. It costs a lot more to go to the
dentist when you are older then when you are younger.
Comment: I think something that the county is well is they collaborate now.
Comment: The County also has a really robust home repair program for low-income houses which
can keep people safely housed in the long run.
Comment: They have been investing in affordable housing.
Comment: They also do a great job. It doesn’t affect homelessness housing so much, it is a support
with the community services, like road improvement or sewer improvements and those kinds of
infrastructure in residents throughout the county that are major.
Presenter: Any other comments or questions?
Presentation
Comment: I work for a non-profit here in Gilbert and we serve the addiction community. So, we
have one house for single moms with kids, but we do have a waiting list and the need is great.
Moms can’t afford to live on their own and this home allows them to keep their kids, but we need
more homes like this. We can’t afford another one at this time.
Comment: (Not Discernable) we really see that families need places to live.
Presenter: Any other comments or questions?
VI. Appendices
Maricopa County HOME Consortium
2020 Maricopa County HOME Consortium
155
Final Report
Analysis of Impediments
April 21, 2020
Comment: I do think that I agree with all of these comments. I see the same thing, but also just with
the seriously mentally ill I think we tend to because of Not In My Backyard we tend to put them in
situations where they, we set them up to fail and there is no hope for them to have a life with
dignity. So, I think we need to look at are we being fair and equitable. We are not setting them up
to succeed and putting these houses and where we put, and they usually get the bottom of the
barrel. So that is all.
Comment: That is what we were talking about over here. We want to help, but we will help you
from here. We don’t want that home in our neighborhood. It is that. (Not Discernable)
Comment: I would suggest that funding be proportionate to attendance at these meetings.
Comment: I thought the presentation was very informative and helpful very succinctly put together.
I appreciate that.