EQUITY AND OPPORTUNITY IN
SOUTH FLORIDA
Fair Housing and Equity Assessment +
Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Hous...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. ii
PREPAPRED BY
C A R R A S C O M M U N I T Y I N V E S T M E N T , I N C . ( C C...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. iii
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Executive Summary ................................
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. iv
5| Recommendations ............................................ 58
Fair Housin...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. v
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Over the past three years, Southeast Florida stakeholders hav...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. vi
particularly between the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach MSA and
other par...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. vii
6. Concentrations of poverty are evidenced throughout the region and inhibit
...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. viii
S U M M A R Y B Y C O U N T Y
The counties included in this analysis, listed...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. ix
however, comparable to the rest of the MSA in terms of the concentration of Af...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 1
1| INTRODUCTION
W H Y A N A L Y Z E O P P O R T U N I T Y A N D E Q U I T Y A T...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 2
A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G
The right t...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 3
P R O C E S S A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y
This report is the culminating produc...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 4
Data within this section was collected at both the census tract and county leve...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 5
Table 2: Local AI’s used in RAI
County Entitlement Jurisdiction
INDIAN RIVER CO...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 6
SOCIAL EQUITY ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITY INDEX
OPPORTUNITY INDEX
The opportunity ...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 7
any skewness that may be caused by unequal categorical representation. As it ha...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 8
+ THE REINVESTMENT FUND:
The Reinvestment Fund (TRF), a Philadelphia-based comm...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 9
tracts, such as found in the Treasure Coast counties or the western half of the...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 10
2 | SOUTH FLORIDA CONTEXT
T H E R E G I O N A T A G L A N C E
The Southeast Fl...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 11
Understanding the region at the broadest level, it can be viewed as a pair of ...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 12
A F F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G I N S O U T H E A S T
F L O R I D A
Housing ...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 13
When the Florida House and Senate entered the 2008 session, they were confront...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 14
R A C E , E T H N I C I T Y , + P O V E R T Y
Race and ethnicity represent fun...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 15
Figure 4, Minority and Poverty Concentrations
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 16
3 | MEASURING OPPORTUNITY &
EQUITY
This chapter identifies, explains, and anal...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 17
Figure 5, Social Equity Categories and Corresponding Indicators
OPPORTUNITY
DE...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 18
E C O N O M Y
Indicators addressing income, benefits, and unemployment are sig...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 19
Miami) do not exhibit high per-capita incomes. In Miami-Dade County, for insta...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 20
and the greater Miami region north of SR 27/Okeechobee Road are other localize...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 21
LABOR FORCE
The labor force participation rate is a representation of
the prop...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 22
30 percent of eligible households generally are located in the middle of the u...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 23
D E M O G R A P H I C S
RACE AND ETHNICITY
Segregation is not only a narrative...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 24
A total of 1.21 million African American persons reside in the region, represe...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 25
N E I G H B O R H O O D
Neighborhood indicators in this report revolve around ...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 26
mortgaged or not fully paid for. All other occupied units are classified as "r...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 27
Figure 16, Map of Percent of Owner-Occupied Households
0 20 40 MILES
0% - 25%
...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 28
Regionally, vacancy rates above 30 percent are observed across the entire seve...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 29
median incomes; these are distributed throughout central Broward and Palm Beac...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 30
largest percentage of census tracts containing cost-burdened homeowners are Br...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 31
Figure 19, Comparison of Cost-Burden by Tenure
0% - 20%
20.01% - 40%
40.01% - ...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 32
FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY9
Within SEFLA there are curre...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 33
Various assisted housing units are reserved for
renters in certain income brac...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 34
FAIR HOUSING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS: 2007-2012
This section details fair ho...
© 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 35
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Top 4 Housi...
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
FHEA_FullReport
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

FHEA_FullReport

234

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
234
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "FHEA_FullReport"

  1. 1. EQUITY AND OPPORTUNITY IN SOUTH FLORIDA Fair Housing and Equity Assessment + Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Subject to final review and approval
  2. 2. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. ii PREPAPRED BY C A R R A S C O M M U N I T Y I N V E S T M E N T , I N C . ( C C I , I N C . ) CCI, Inc. is a nationally recognized leader in implementing asset-based strategies for housing and community development. Our professional expertise in affordable housing, fair lending, and economic development includes advisory services in market analysis, strategic planning, and financing. Over the past thirty years, CCI, Inc. has provided planning services to over 200 clients across the country, resulting in over $10 billion of investment in underserved communities. 954.415.2022 | carras@bellsouth.net James Carras, Principal R E S E A R C H T E A M URBAN LINKS CONSULTING Anna McMaster | 619.436.7548 | urbanlinksco@gmail.com URBAN REVITALIZATION STRATEGIES Rebecca Walter & Serge Atherwood | revitalizationsolutions@gmail.com RASHEED SHOTOYO rshotuyo@gmail.com J U N E 2 0 1 4
  3. 3. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. iii T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Executive Summary .............................................. v 1| Introduction ................................................ 1 Why Analyze Opportunity and Equity at the Regional Scale .........................................1 Affirmatively furthering fair housing .............................................................................2 Process and Methodology..............................................................................................3 Regional analysis of impediments (RAI) to fair housing ............3 Social Equity Analysis and Opportunity Index ......................6 2 | South Florida Context ..................................... 10 The Region at a glance ............................................................................................... 10 Affordable Housing in Southeast Florida .................................................................... 12 Race, Ethnicity, + POVERTY........................................................................................ 14 3 | Measuring Opportunity & Equity ............................ 16 ECONOMY ................................................................................................................... 18 Income ...........................................................18 Poverty ..........................................................19 Labor Force ......................................................21 Nutritional Assistance ...........................................21 DEMOGRAPHICS .......................................................................................................... 23 Race and Ethnicity ...............................................23 Linguistic Isolation .............................................24 NEIGHBORHOOD.......................................................................................................... 25 Access to a Super Market .........................................25 Housing Indicators ...............................................25 Fair Housing analysis ............................................32 MOBILITY..................................................................................................................... 43 Access to a vehicle ..............................................43 Commuting ........................................................43 EDUCATION................................................................................................................. 47 Attainment .......................................................47 Rank .............................................................48 Lunch ............................................................49 Minority concentration ...........................................49 OPPORTUNITY INDEX................................................................................................... 50 4 | Deliberation .............................................. 57
  4. 4. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. iv 5| Recommendations ............................................ 58 Fair Housing Equity..................................................................................................... 59 Greater Access to Opportunity .................................................................................. 59 Affordable Housing..................................................................................................... 60 Appendix ...................................................... 61 FHEA Indicators – Definitions and maps ..................................................................... 61 Economic Indicators ..............................................61 Race, Ethnicity and segregation Indicators .......................69 Neighborhood Indicators ..........................................75 mobility .........................................................89 Education ........................................................94 Opportunity Index Indicators .................................................................................... 100 Opportunity Index Maps............................................................................................ 103 Opportunity Index A – Equally weighted Categories ...............103 Opportunity Index B – Equally weighted indicators ...............108 HUD Tri-County (MSA) Opportunity Index ................................................................ 115 RAI Fair housing Data................................................................................................ 119 This report identifies, explains, and analyzes social equity indicators and a derived opportunity index for the seven counties of the Southeast Florida region. It is in furtherance of Fair Housing Equity Assessment (FHEA) requirements of the Seven|50 regional plan being produced by a consortium led by the South Florida and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Councils as a grantee of HUD’s Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Initiative. FHEA requirements mandate that a comprehensive review of housing equity, impediments to fair housing, and community input be undertaken prior to the creation of a Sustainable Communities regional plan. This report summarizes the key findings and recommendations of these elements.
  5. 5. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the past three years, Southeast Florida stakeholders have embarked on a large-scale effort to build a collaborative coalition in order to shape the future of this region. The Southeast Florida Regional Partnership was formed as the guiding force of this effort, which produced a Seven50 Southeast Florida Prosperity Plan, a Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, a Social Equity Analysis and Opportunity Index for the Seven Counties of Southeast Florida, and numerous opportunities for citizen engagement, input, and collaborative visioning for a better South Florida that is inclusive, sustainable, economically competitive, and offers a high quality of life for people in all communities. Social equity can be broadly defined as equal opportunity for all persons. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development defined social equity as “equal opportunity, in a safe and healthy environment”. A popular conceptualization of social equity places it as one of the three fundamental, interlinked factors of sustainability; the other two being environment and economy. Even though there are competing ideas for defining social equity, they all center on concepts of social organization, demography, and (to a lesser extent) culture. In so doing, social equity serves to address how individual persons, households, and communities interact with each other, how fairly each member of society can share in life’s opportunities, and how integrated all persons are, regardless of differentiating variables such as race or education level. This report is the culminating product of two regional fair housing and opportunity analyses, as well as extensive community outreach and input. It is developed in fulfillment of the requirements of Fair Housing Planning for the Seven50 Southeast Florida Prosperity Plan—HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Initiative. The two documents informing the majority of the report include a Regional Analysis of Impediments to fair housing (RAI), which identifies, explains, and analyzes the fair housing milieu in Southeast Florida (SEFLA), and a Fair Housing Equity Assessment (FHEA) that, through an analysis of 33 indicators, identifies areas of high, moderate, and low opportunity at the census tract level. Together, the RAI and FHEA produce a robust body of knowledge informing the current state of social equity and opportunity throughout the region. K E Y F I N D I N G S The fair housing and opportunity analysis reveal a number of significant patterns in the Southeast Florida Region (SEFLA) overall and in each of the seven counties. From the analysis, the following nine findings stand out: 1. The Southeast Florida region demonstrates a distinct geographic economic opportunity schism
  6. 6. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. vi particularly between the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach MSA and other parts of the region The MSA comprises the counties of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami and contains 5.56 million of the 6.1 million persons residing in Southeast Florida. Outside of this MSA are the four remaining counties, each with much smaller populations and lower comparative extents of urban density. This has the effect of making the region a union of two distinct geographies, particularly in light of the stronger social equity performance, in general, of the areas not within this MSA. 2. A significant divide exists based on race between the economic performance of whites and non-whites. Poverty is clearly linked to race and ethnicity throughout the region. While the predominant race throughout the region is white, proportionally there are about half as many white people in poverty in comparison to both African American and Hispanic populations. In economic indicators and employment, Southeast Florida’s white residents are generally in a stronger average position, leading to higher opportunity index performance in those census tracts where Caucasians make up the largest share of the population. 3. Where people live within the region is related to race and ethnicity. Whites make up the majority of the population in the Treasure Coast and Monroe County, plus the higher- income census tracts along the Atlantic Coast throughout the tri-county MSA and the western urban growth boundary in Broward County. African Americans, on the other hand, make up more of the population in the Belle Glade area, central Broward County, and north-central Miami-Dade County (each of these areas also exhibit similar concentrations of low-income census tracts). As for Hispanics, Miami-Dade County is notable for being the only county of the region where they comprise the majority of the population. 4. Housing costs are high for many Southeast Florida residents leading to large gaps in affordability and high portions of cost-burdened households. The region has very high levels of cost-burdened households especially for renters. 60% of renting households, regardless of income, pay more than 30% of their monthly income on housing costs while 46% of households that own pay the same proportion. These households are distributed evenly throughout all 7 counties from Indian River to Monroe. 5. Housing across the region has notable geographic patterns in regards to location, type, and affordability. In the region, there are 1.5 million owner-occupied housing units in comparison to 750,000 renter-occupied units. Spatially, in the urbanized areas of the counties, owner occupied housing is prominent inland in the more suburban areas. Conversely rental opportunities are more common in the eastern and denser portions of the region. Assisted housing units are also highly concentrated: 94% of all units within properties that offer assisted units are assisted. Moreover, while there are 258 Qualified Census Tracts (QTC) for Low- income Housing Tax Credit deals, only 161 of those census tracts contain LIHTC housing units..
  7. 7. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. vii 6. Concentrations of poverty are evidenced throughout the region and inhibit social and economic mobility. There are over 850,000 people below poverty level in the region; this is equal to 13% percent of the total population. This number is higher for the population below age 18, that has 1 out of 5 kids below the poverty line. Single female householders with children are also overrepresented; as a region, one third of all single-female households with children are below poverty level. Miami-Dade has the highest proportion of individuals living in poverty at 17%. 7. The strongest economic performing areas of the region tend to be located in or near a relatively small number of municipalities along the coast or near the urban growth boundary of the South Florida MSA. These include, from north to south, coastal Indian River, Martin, and Palm Beach counties, the census tracts alongside the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge in Palm Beach County, Parkland, western Broward County, Aventura, Coral Gables, Pinecrest, and North Key Largo. Geographically, the extent of high performing areas is outpaced by that of the moderate and low performing areas, even when excluding the region’s westernmost census tracts, which cover a large sector of the region and are mostly unpopulated. 8. Conversely, the weakest economic performing areas of the region tend to be concentrated in Miami-Dade County, west Palm Beach County, and the exurban western end of the Treasure Coast. These areas are characterized by the dominant presence of non-whites, a lower average educational attainment, lower incomes, and greater unemployment. Many of the census tracts in these areas are large in size but small in population; within the urbanized MSAs, the largest weak-performing extent is found in central Miami-Dade County. 9. A significant part of the region experiences moderate performance indicating potentially negative trends particularly if there is continued economic uncertainty and/or natural disasters. These areas deserve additional attention because they can either improve into better performing areas or decline. Most of the land area of the Treasure Coast counties (apart from the coastal census tracts), the middle region of Palm Beach County between Lake Okeechobee and the MSA, and most of Monroe County perform moderately on the opportunity index. Throughout the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach MSA, the distribution of moderate-performing census tracts is mixed, with such tracts equally likely to be found next to higher and lower performing tracts. (This is especially the case in central Palm Beach County, western and coastal Broward County, and the CDPs adjacent to Pinecrest.) What makes moderate performing census tracts significant is their susceptibility to becoming a low performing tract. Small improvements or declines in social equity indicators could spell the difference between weakening into a low performing area or strengthening into a high performer.
  8. 8. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. viii S U M M A R Y B Y C O U N T Y The counties included in this analysis, listed in order from north to south, are: + Indian River, + Martin, + St. Lucie, + Palm Beach + Broward, + Miami-Dade, and + Monroe. Certain trends are observed across the entire region. For instance, most workers commute by car; there is no county that shows a significant deviation from this. The same applies to the incidence of cost-burdened households (owners and renters alike) and the fact that highly educated persons tend to live on the eastern or western urban fringes more than in the middle of the counties. For other factors, the counties show variability, as described below. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY: The region’s northernmost county shares much in common with the other Treasure Coast counties to its south. The population is largely white and native in the English language. Relatively large numbers of seniors live in the county. Unemployment is higher outside of the urbanized east, with the dividing line being I-95. Few census tracts are qualified as low income for QCT designation purposes. ST. LUCIE COUNTY: In demographic composition, St. Lucie has a stronger representation by African Americans and Hispanics in the Fort Pierce area. Otherwise, it is dominantly white and home to a large senior contingent. Similar to the other Treasure Coast counties, St. Lucie qualifies few census tracts for QCT status and its residents largely speak English, but unlike its neighbors to the north and south, this county’s labor force is less college-educated. MARTIN COUNTY: Martin County closely resembles Indian River and St. Lucie in overall demographics, English fluency, and presence of QCT tracts. Additionally, it ranks generally higher in average incomes and registers lower unemployment rates. PALM BEACH COUNTY: Palm Beach is the northernmost county of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (even though not all the county is included in the MSA) and is significantly larger than the Treasure Coast counties combined in census tract count and population. It is more heterogeneous in demographic composition, economic opportunity, and educational attainment than any of its northern neighbors, not least because its land area includes the chronically underperforming Belle Glade area in the west and the consistently strong-performing coast on either side of the MSA corridor. The county has among the highest median incomes but also a higher incidence of overall and family poverty, with a widespread need in the Belle Glade area for SNAP benefits and a low incidence of households with vehicle access. BROWARD COUNTY: Much like Palm Beach County, Broward is a significantly more populated and urbanized than the Treasure Coast and it exhibits wide variability in indicator performance. Demographically, Broward is the most evenly balanced county, with whites not overwhelmingly dominating (as in the northern counties and Monroe) and with the region’s largest population of Asian residents and a large Hispanic contingent in the southwest quadrant. African Americans are largely concentrated in central Broward, an area with poor economic performance, in a parallel with Palm Beach County. A tendency observed here, as the rest of the MSA, is for better-educated persons to reside on either side of the MSA; either along the coast or the urban growth boundary. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY: The region’s largest county by population and census tract count, Miami-Dade bucks the trend demographically by being predominantly Hispanic/Latino, with whites making a small minority of the total population. The county is,
  9. 9. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. ix however, comparable to the rest of the MSA in terms of the concentration of African Americans in its economically poorest census tracts and the tendency of the wealthier and better educated to live either in the west or along the ocean. Miami-Dade underperforms more intensely and widely on economic indicators, with greater need than in Broward or Palm Beach for SNAP benefits and higher rates of poverty. MONROE COUNTY: Overall, Monroe County is a strong performer in many social equity indicators and performs similarly to the Treasure Coast counties, particularly in terms of demographic composition. Its residents have better than average incomes compared to the rest of the region and lower unemployment rates. Notably, Monroe County also shows the highest incidence of vacant housing units (most of which, presumably, are vacation or second homes).
  10. 10. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 1 1| INTRODUCTION W H Y A N A L Y Z E O P P O R T U N I T Y A N D E Q U I T Y A T T H E R E G I O N A L S C A L E Southeast Florida (SEFLA) is a beautifully unique, socially and environmentally diverse region. Over the past three years, a regional planning effort, Seven50, formed with aims to unite the seven counties of SEFLA under a shared vision for 50 years of future development. Ultimately the goal is to ensure prosperity of the region in an increasingly globalized network. The plan takes a holistic vantage by addressing economic, environmental, and social elements in tandem. A point of paramount priority in this process is the elucidation of prosperity. What does prosperity of the region look like for SEFLA? Is it equitable? Is it sustainable? How is it measured? What defines it and at what scale? These questions are greatly informed by analyzing existing conditions of social equity and opportunity. The broad purpose of analyzing opportunity and equity at the regional scale is to increase housing choice through assembling fair housing information and identifying barriers to equal opportunity. More specifically focusing on furthering fair housing on a regional scale gives the region opportunity to understand and thus overcome spatial segregation. Additionally it is an opportunity to secure the cooperation and engagement of important stakeholders whose impact upon fair housing is substantial (jobs, schools, transportation agencies, social service agencies, Government not for Profits, Government Agencies). This report reinforces notions that quality of life derives from multiple interrelated factors of daily living and long-term goal attainment. In the FHEA, an opportunity index was developed to measure the geography of social equity in the region by analyzing 33 community indicators in five categories (demographic, economic, education, neighborhood, and mobility) as a means to properly capture the dynamic nature of social and economic equity. Likewise, the RAI inventoried existing social, economic, and transportation patterns and barriers to affordable housing including unfair lending practices. Together, the results of these studies provide insight into the disparate burdens and benefits experienced by different groups across a region. Social equity contributes significantly to any assessment of fair housing because many of the things that limit housing opportunity stem from social, demographic, and/or economic factors. Ultimately, social equity analysis examines how and why different opportunities exist for people in different places. This report reinforces notions that quality of life derives from multiple interrelated factors of daily living and long-term goal attainment
  11. 11. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 2 A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G The right to fair housing choice is among America’s most basic civil rights as defined by federal, state and local laws and as such it is structurally integral to the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program. These laws are legacy of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibits discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, (and as amended) handicap and family status. Specifically, HUD defines impediments to fair housing choice as: + Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices + Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. All households, regardless of arbitrary factors such as familial status and race are guaranteed equal access to housing opportunities yet disparities in the receipt of these opportunities based in such grounds are still commonplace. The seven-county Southeast Florida Region (SEFLA) is no different in this regard. Sustainable Communities Regional Grantees are required to complete a Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) and recommended to produce a Regional Analysis of Impediments to fair housing (Regional AI) in hopes of addressing these disparities. Although HUD has not released an official definition of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), an official rule is under development. For now, and as outlined in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Fair Housing Planning Guide, recipients of HUD’s housing and community development grants must certify that they will affirmatively further fair housing by: + Conducting an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction; + Take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through the analysis; and + Maintain records reflecting the analysis and actions taken in this regard. This report goes beyond traditional methodology of AFFH, following the standards in the proposed ruling. The revisions of which focus our analysis on four primary goals: 1) improving integrated living patterns and overcoming historic patterns of segregation; 2) reducing racial and ethnic concentrations of poverty; 3) reducing disparities by race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability in access to community assets such as education, transit access, and employment, as well as exposure to environmental health hazards and other stressors that harm a person’s quality of life; and 4) and responding to disproportionate housing needs by protected class.
  12. 12. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 3 P R O C E S S A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y This report is the culminating product of two fair housing and opportunity analyses (undertaken in fulfillment of “affirmatively furthering fair housing” requirements for the HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Initiative), and numerous community outreach events in order to develop recommendations for inclusive growth of the region. The first report is the Seven County Southeast Florida Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing and the second is the Social Equity Analysis and Opportunity Index for the Seven Counties of Southeast Florida (For the requirements of the Fair Housing Equity Analysis (FHEA) of the Seven|50 Southeast Florida Prosperity Plan)1 . The following describes the process and methodology that went into the production of the reports and the corresponding community outreach that followed. REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS (RAI) TO FAIR HOUSING REGIONAL PROFILE This section analyzed background data on the seven-county area to serve as the basis for identifying and contextualizing impediments. Variable chosen related to the degree of segregation and restricted housing by race and ethnicity, and families with children in particular (see Table 1). Variables and data sources were also chosen to parallel as best as possible a dataset compiled by HUD’s office of Policy Development & Research (PD&R). This dataset was intended to provide program participants with data to support this analysis and additional fair housing research. However, the data package provided for SEFLA was incomplete (only data for the three most southern counties was provided -Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe)2 . Table 1, Data Sources for the RAI Regional Background Profile Section Section Variable Data Source DEMOGRAPHICS Population totals and density 2010 Census SF1Age SEGREGATION Race and Ethnicity 2010 Census SF1 HOUSING Tenancy ACS 2006- 2010Cost Burdon POVERTY Family Poverty Rate ACS 2006- 2010Poverty By Race & Ethnicity LABOR AND COMMUTING Unemployment ACS 2006- 2010Labor force Participation Rate Commute Time Commute Mode The majority of data comes from the American Community Survey 2006-2010 estimates. Where census 2010 data is available however it is used in place of ACS data to allay concerns about sampling error. Table 2 lists the specific data source for variables within the Regional Profile section. 1 Both reports, completed by Carras Community Investment, Inc., are available at http://seven50.org/resources/fair-housing-analysis/ 2 This data is summarized in the Appendix under the HUD PD&R Data Package section. Descriptions of their variables and methodology are cited directly from the FHEA 2012 Data Documentation guide provided to all entitlement regions through HUD’s regional planning grant program.
  13. 13. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 4 Data within this section was collected at both the census tract and county level. Given the large area analyzed in this report the majority of information is summarized at a county level. Per the 2010 Census, a total of 1,333 populated census tracts exist across the seven counties of Southeast Florida: 29 in Indian River County, 43 in St. Lucie County, 34 in Martin County, 331 in Palm Beach County, 360 in Broward County, 508 in Miami-Dade County, and 28 in Monroe County. FAIR HOUSING The process creating a Fair Housing Profile included review national and local studies/reports, and data gathered from local agencies and organizations. Major data sources include: The region’s most-recent existing AIs produced by local jurisdictions within SEFLA (see + Table 2: Local AI’s used in RAI) + Florida Housing Data Clearing House (Existing Assisted Housing Inventory) + Data from various state and local Fair Housing Agencies Including: - Florida Commission on Human Relations - Palm Beach County Office of Equal Opportunity - Broward County Office of Equal Opportunity | Civil Rights Division - Miami-Dade Office of Human Rights and Fair Employment Practices LENDING PROFILE Lending data for this section was retrieved from the University of Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse. Racial lending data and overall 2010 lending data by county and for the State of Florida were analyzed to identify disparities and trends in lending patterns by race, ethnicity and by county. The data used for the county lending analysis is original research, due to the fact that the most recent lending data in the existing county-level Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing documents available (Miami-Dade & Broward County) are from the years 2008 & 2009. The data used in this analysis is more recent, from the year 2010. IDENTIFIED IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING To identify Impediments to fair housing choice an examination of already existing analyses of impediments (AIs) for entitlement communities within Southeast Florida was undertaken. Three countywide and twenty-eight municipal-level AIs were consulted in this analysis. Two counties in the region, Martin County & Monroe County, lack entitled communities and information on the impediments to fair housing within these counties are not included within this analysis, though, since the issues pointed out in the other counties and municipalities in the region are largely similar, it is likely that the non-entitled counties experience impediments similar to those discussed in this analysis.
  14. 14. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 5 Table 2: Local AI’s used in RAI County Entitlement Jurisdiction INDIAN RIVER COUNTY æ None ST. LUCIE COUNTY æ City Of Port Saint Lucie æ City Of Fort Pierce MARTIN COUNTY æ None PALM BEACH COUNTY æ City Of Boca Raton æ City Of Boynton Beach æ City Of Deerfield Beach æ City Of Delray Beach æ City Of West Palm Beach æ Town Of Wellington æ Town Of Jupiter BROWARD COUNTY æ Broward County æ City Of Coconut Creek æ City Of Coral Springs æ City Of Hollywood æ City Of Fort Lauderdale æ City Of Lauderhill æ City Of Miramar æ City Of Margate æ City Of Pembroke Pines æ City Of Plantation æ City Of Pompano Beach æ City Of Sunrise æ City Of Tamarac æ City Of Westin æ Town Of Davie MIAMI-DADE COUNTY æ Miami-Dade County æ City Of Miami æ City Of Miami Beach æ City Of Miami Gardens æ City Of North Miami æ City Of Homestead æ City Of Hialeah MONROE COUNTY æ None
  15. 15. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 6 SOCIAL EQUITY ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITY INDEX OPPORTUNITY INDEX The opportunity index in this report is calculated from an aggregation of 14 eligible social equity indicators and converted into a gradated scale that correlates the performance of aggregated indicators to opportunities (that is, opportunities that increase the chances of an individual to succeed, improve themselves, or achieve more). The index is mapped by census tract and gradations range from “very low” to “very high” based on an equal interval classification encompassing the full range of index values. Its purpose is to reveal which areas in Southeast Florida contain strong, weak, and average combinations of opportunity-generating structures and conditions Construction of the opportunity index was a multistep procedure that formulated two versions of opportunity index from the same set of indicators. Data for the region’s 1,333 census tracts were combined and measured on the same scale for true regional evaluation. Indicators were then adjusted to move in same direction to show a positive correlation; as the index number gets larger opportunities expand. No change was necessary for the three indicators already exhibiting a positive relationship. For the 11 indicators revealing an inverse relationship, adjustment was accomplished by subtracting 1 from the statistic to obtain the opposite condition for percent data, or by multiplying by -1 to reverse the direction for interval data. After conversion, all data for each indicator was normalized. Z-scores were calculated for each indicator by subtracting the mean value of the entire data set for each variable from an individual raw score and dividing the difference by the standard deviation. Z-scores allow disparate sets of data to be measured on a common scale—a necessary condition to produce a single index from 14 different indicators. The formula for producing a z-score from a raw score x is: where µ is the mean of the population (total data points) and σ is the standard deviation of the population. The opportunity index was calculated in two iterations. In the first, the average of all z-scores for each of the 14 indicators was calculated for each census tract to derive the index. All 14 indicators are weighted equally in this iteration. In the second, an average z-score for each of the five indicator categories was calculated, whereupon the z- scores were averaged to produce the resultant index. All indicator categories are being weighted equally in this iteration, helping to compensate for any skewness caused by the predominance of indicators of a particular type. (For example, there are five economic indicators in the population but only two for education.) The results for both iterations were mapped by census tract with gradations classified by five equal intervals on a scale of approximately -1 to +1. The quintile divisions are very low (-0.5 or less), low (-0.4999 to -0.001), moderate (0 to 0.4999), high (0.5 to 0.9999), and very high (1 or higher). These divisions do not refer to any nationally recognized or agreed definition of social equity or life opportunity, insofar as such a thing exists, but rather represent the gamut of opportunity available within the region. That is to say, those census tracts with a very high opportunity index rating experience the best combination of life opportunities within Southeast Florida, which may or may not compare equally to very high ranked census tracts from another region in the U.S. studied under methodologically identical conditions. The category-equally-weighted map (Map A) shows the distribution of opportunity as calculated for all five indicator categories weighted evenly, whereas the indicator-equally-weighted map (Map B) shows the distribution as calculated for all 14 social indicators weighted evenly. Categorical equal weighting may be considered more valid than indicator equal weighting because it deemphasizes the ability for a group of related indicators to improperly skew the index in a particular direction. Categorical equal weighting implies that each of the five indicator categories (demographic, economic, education, neighborhood, and transportation) is equally important in the index. However, it also deemphasizes equality within each category; the single demographic indicator in the index (linguistic isolation), for instance, is treated as equivalent to the index’s five economic indicators, which are averaged into a single score for the category. Hence the creation of an indicator-equally-weighted map that counters
  16. 16. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 7 any skewness that may be caused by unequal categorical representation. As it happens, the two maps show similar results. Both Map A and B can be found in the appendix however only Map A is discussed in the body of the report. INDICATORS AND DATA SOURCES The report incorporates findings and analysis of 33 indicators, many of which serve as proxies for closely related phenomena. Each of the indicators is mapped at the regional scale across all seven counties. Twenty-seven of the indicators are derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Three school ranking indicators are derived from the Florida Department of Education. Two HUD indicators address Low-Income Housing Tax Credit units and Qualified Census Tracts. An additional indicator, for supermarket access, is derived from The Reinvestment Fund. Many indicators can inform the analysis of different perspectives. For instance, not having access to a vehicle can directly impact a household’s ability to participate in the labor market and suggest economic hardship if that household is located in a low-income community. For this reason, even though the findings of all indicators are shown individually, the report also examines the relationships between indicators and categories through an “opportunity index” that analyzes the natural affinity that many indicators share with each other. Importantly, this report calls attention to situations of limited or absent social equity as well as situations of high- performing, integrated communities with strong social equity. Areas with middling performance are particularly noted since they represent communities that may join either the stronger-performing or weaker-performing ones. Information about each resource is provided below: + AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY The most extensively used data resource in this report is the American Community Survey’s Five-Year Estimates for the years 2006 to 2010. This is the most recent and comprehensive ACS sampled dataset available. For demographic, economic, social, and housing data, the ACS collects household data for a range of indicators appropriate for a social equity analysis. ACS data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability with a 90 percent margin of error. This margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate, plus and minus the margin of error, contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, ACS estimates are subject to other errors that are not represented in the margin of error. Further information on the accuracy of data is available at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/documentation_main/. + FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: The Florida Department of Education ranks schools statewide within the following categories: elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, combination schools that include high school grade levels, and combination schools that do not include high school grade levels. Schools are ranked by the number of school grade points they received for the 2010-2011 school year. For elementary and middle schools these points are derived from Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) scores. Schools are awarded one point for each percent of students in the school who were enrolled for the full year who score on grade level or higher on the FCAT and make annual learning gains. High schools are graded using the FCAT components described in the grading criteria for elementary and middle schools, plus several non-FCAT components, including graduation rates, accelerated coursework performance, and postsecondary readiness. Further information is available at https://app2.fldoe.org/Ranking/Schools/Default.aspx. + DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD): HUD maintains a database of Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects at http://lihtc.huduser.org/. LIHTC projects are affordable rental housing units financed through a federal tax credit subsidy. The LIHTC program provides a dollar-for-dollar credit against the tax liability of investors who invest in qualified housing projects. HUD also maintains a database of census tracts wherein 50 percent or more of households earn below 60 percent of the area median gross income of the local Metropolitan Statistical Area or county. HUD defines 60 percent of area median gross income as 120 percent of HUD's Very Low Income Limits, which themselves are based on 50 percent of area median family income, adjusted for high cost and low income areas. More information is available at http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/qct.html.
  17. 17. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 8 + THE REINVESTMENT FUND: The Reinvestment Fund (TRF), a Philadelphia-based community development financial institution, provides data on the proximity of households to supermarkets through a Web-based GIS and marketing tool called PolicyMap, which assists policy makers and developers in deciding on market location and accessibility. Data on the supermarket indicator in this report was obtained from Policy Map/TRF. See http://www.trfund.com/TRF-LSA-widget.html for more information. All 33 social indicators are grouped into one of five categories: demographic, economic, education, neighborhood, and mobility3 . These categories organize the reporting of findings. Demographic indicators include race and linguistic isolation. Economic indicators represent income, benefits, and unemployment. Education indicators show levels of educational attainment as well as characteristics of public schools. Neighborhood indicators address aspects of housing and household composition. Lastly, mobility indicators examine vehicle access and commuting patterns. Many indicators can inform the analysis of different perspectives. For instance, not having access to a vehicle can directly impact a household’s ability to participate in the labor market and suggest economic hardship if that household is located in a low-income community. For this reason, even though the findings of all indicators are shown individually, the report also examines the relationships between indicators and categories through an “opportunity index” that analyzes the natural affinity that many indicators share with each other. Importantly, this report calls attention to situations of limited or absent social equity as well as situations of high- performing, integrated communities with strong social equity. Areas with middling performance are particularly noted since they represent communities that may join either the stronger-performing or weaker-performing ones. GEOGRAPHIC SCALE The primary geographic units are the region, the county, and the census tract. Although municipalities are identified as points of reference, they are not considered primary units herein because of the fluid nature of the geography of opportunity. Areas with strong or weak social equity performance frequently cross the jurisdictional boundaries of towns and cities, leaving the traditional “city vs. suburb” distinction increasingly obsolete. This report prefers to use the political boundaries of counties alone, as the county is the most important administrative division below the state and many of the initiatives in the Seven|50 regional plan will be executed under county authority. Data in this report is collected at the census tract level, which is appropriate for two reasons. First, census tracts are generally small in size (usually around 4,000 persons) in metropolitan regions. This allows for a finer level of representation when the data is mapped and allows greater detail to emerge from the spatial patterns. Second, the U.S. Census Bureau collects the full range of demographic, economic, and housing data at this level, so the analysis does not exclude significant indicators. Note that the report makes use of full census tracts instead of partial census tracts for the benefit of increasing the number and variety of indicators that can be used in the opportunity index. Certain indicators, such as Qualified Census Tract status, are only available at the full tract level. Table 3, Composition of the Study Area (2010 Census) COUNTY (NORTH TO SOUTH) AREA (SQ. MILES) POPULATION NUMBER OF POPULATED CENSUS TRACTS Indian River 616.9 138,028 29 St. Lucie 688.1 277,789 43 Martin 752.8 146,318 34 Palm Beach 2,386.3 1,320,134 331 Broward 1,319.6 1,748,066 360 Miami-Dade 2,431.2 2,496,435 508 Monroe 3,737.2 73,090 28 TOTAL 11,932.1 6,199,860 1,333 A caveat about census tracts should be observed when reading the report maps: population distribution and density may not be equal throughout the tract. Uneven distribution is likelier to occur in geographically larger and less urban 3 Changed from “transportation” in the original report
  18. 18. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 9 tracts, such as found in the Treasure Coast counties or the western half of the region. Care should be taken not to conflate large tract size with large population or higher intensity of an indicator. This will be reiterated as appropriate throughout the report.
  19. 19. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 10 2 | SOUTH FLORIDA CONTEXT T H E R E G I O N A T A G L A N C E The Southeast Florida Region is diverse and unique both within the seven counties and in comparison to the other major metropolises across the United States and abroad. As such, we are faced with a variety of both challenges and opportunities. The region consists of seven counties. From north to south these are: + Indian River, + St. Lucie, + Martin, + Palm Beach, + Broward, + Miami-Dade, and + Monroe Within this mega-region, three additional Metropolitan Statistical Areas are encountered: Sebastian-Vero Beach MSA and Port St. Lucie MSA in the north (also known as the “Treasure Coast” and together accounting for the region’s three northernmost counties) and the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach MSA in the south (commonly referred to as the South Florida MSA or MSA throughout this report) (see Figure 1). Clearly, and by all accounts, Southeast Florida is large— with a population of over 6 million there are more people living in these seven counties than in 33 U.S. states. Miami-Dade is the most populous county with nearly 2.5 million residents or about 40% of the total region’s population (see Figure 2). Southeast Florida is also physically large; the driving distance from Sebastian at the north end of Indian River County to Key West in the south end of Monroe County is more than a 300 mile stretch. SOUTHFLORIDA MSA TREASURECOAST Figure 1: 7-County SE Florida Region and sub-regions
  20. 20. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 11 Understanding the region at the broadest level, it can be viewed as a pair of dichotomies: + The first is between the urbanized and undeveloped portions of the region, particularly along the urban growth boundary that separates Miami-Dade and Broward counties from the Everglades. Large parts of Monroe, Miami-Dade, and Broward counties extend into the Everglades ecosystem and its various preserves, parks, and wildlife refuges, where relatively few people live. Further north, in Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River counties, the western half is considerably more rural than the urbanized areas in the east portion of the counties. + The second dichotomy, meanwhile, separates Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties from the neighboring counties to the north and south. These three counties include the Miami-Fort Lauderdale- Pompano Beach MSA, which is significantly more populated and urbanized than the area covered by the other four counties of the Southeast Florida region. All this combines to form a pattern in which the eastern half of the region is populated and urbanized and the western half (with the exception of Belle Glade) is not. Housing and population densities, as a result, are not consistent throughout each county or across the region. Throughout the report, these factors will be identified where appropriate. Figure 2, Population by County, 2010 The region’s current dichotomies coupled with a demographic growth pattern that is mostly driven by people of color and minority backgrounds (particularly Hispanic and Black population growth in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties) puts Southeast Florida at the forefront of broader trends across the Nation. This provides the region with a certain level of competitive edge but also predicates that we must be innovative in developing social and physical infrastructure to support inclusive economic growth, preserve rural areas, and develop cities sustainably. 6,199,860 138,028 277,789 146,318 1,320,134 1,748,066 2,496,435 73,090 7-County SE Florida Region Indian River County St. Lucie County Martin County Palm Beach County Broward County Miami-Dade County Monroe County South East Florida Population Levels, 2010
  21. 21. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 12 A F F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G I N S O U T H E A S T F L O R I D A Housing development and the affordability of what is produced is highly influenced both by public and private forces such as real estate markets, profits, zoning, land use, impact fees, and concurrency requirements. The existence of a regulatory framework is necessary to promote and protect fair housing opportunities. This section summarizes existing fair housing laws and programs at the federal, state, and local level. The 1968 Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination during the sale and rental of housing so that all people in the United States have an increased opportunity to maintain stable and healthy lives for themselves and their families. As amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability and familial status. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and on occasion the U.S. Department of Justice, is responsible for investigating and enforcing violations of the Fair Housing Act. HUD also provides Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) funds annually and on a noncompetitive basis to State and local agencies that enforce fair housing laws substantially equivalent to the Fair Housing Act. The Florida Fair Housing Act4, which closely reiterates the Federal Fair Housing Act, was passed by the Florida Legislature in 1983, and amended in 1989. It declares it illegal to discriminate in the sale, rental, advertising, financing, or brokerage of housing. It goes on further to ensure the accessibility of all new multifamily developments built within Florida. Preceding sections have highlighted that affordable housing options, which are integral to fair housing opportunity, are a problem for SEFLA. The issue of affordable housing has been long debated in Florida and there are a number of programs to fund this initiative. In Florida, Section 163.3177 Fla. Stat. (2000) and Rule 9J-5 of the Florida Administration Code require that each community, county and the State of Florida adopt a housing element in their Comprehensive Plan which must contain standards, plans, and principles to create and preserve safe and healthy affordable housing options. Of these laws the William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act, passed in 1992 is notably important. The act established one of the largest dedicated trust funds for affordable housing. Revenues are generated through a documentary stamp tax, a real estate transfer fee levied when registering a deed or mortgage into public records. The Sadowski Act increased the existing documentary stamp tax by 10 cents per $100 (from 60 cents to 70 cents) for the purposes of funding housing programs in the State. Three years later, the bill reallocated an additional 10 cents to the housing trust. The funds are uniquely tied to the real estate market so that revenues increase as housing prices (and the subsidy required to house Florida’s workforce) increase. The Sadowski Act not only funded existing state housing programs such as the Predevelopment Loan Program (PLP), the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL), and the Homeownership Assistance Program (HAP) but also established several new initiatives, including the Low-Income Emergency Home Repair Program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the HOPE Program, the Florida Affordable Housing Guarantee Program, the Affordable Housing Catalyst Program for Technical Assistance and Training, and the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP). Programs ranged from rental housing, homeownership, special needs, and more recently, disaster relief and workforce housing. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Florida Housing) was designated as the administrator for all of the programs, directing 30 percent of the revenue into a statewide trust and the other 70 percent into a local housing trust. The local funds are distributed to all 67 counties and 48 entitlement cities in the State through the SHIP program. The SHIP program ensures both accountability and flexibility. æ Accountability: In order to receive funding, each local government must adopt a SHIP Plan in accordance with state guidelines and local comprehensive plans.   æ Flexibility: Local jurisdictions are able to direct money towards the specific needs of their community. Locally adopted strategies set-aside funding for extremely low to moderate-income households and support a variety of services, including new construction, rehabilitation, down payment assistance, homebuyer education, and foreclosure prevention.   4 State of Florida, Civil Rights Statutes, Title XLIX, Chapter 760.2
  22. 22. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 13 When the Florida House and Senate entered the 2008 session, they were confronted with a major budget shortfall. The current fiscal year faced over $1 billion deficit, estimates for 2009 were upwards of $3 billion. Legislators were forced to cut programs, limit spending, and search for other sources of revenue. Consequently, the Florida Legislature transferred $250 million from dedicated affordable housing trust funds to general revenue. They also implemented a $243 million cap on existing and future funding for affordable housing. Funds generated through the Sadowski Act above that amount will be automatically deposited into general revenue.   The loss of these revenues drastically cut local housing programs however 2014 marks the highest level of funding since the original budget cuts at nearly 1.8 million for housing programs. This appropriation level represents 75% of the funds estimated to be distributed into the housing trust funds.
  23. 23. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 14 R A C E , E T H N I C I T Y , + P O V E R T Y Race and ethnicity represent fundamental factors in this social equity analysis. Many of the inequalities in our society have strong racial underpinnings that extend in some cases through generations and greatly impact an individual’s propensity to live in poverty. Within the region’s total population of 6.1 million, nearly 4.5 million are white accounting for roughly two thirds of people living here. Meanwhile 20% of the total population is Black and nearly 40% Hispanic. When we look at the race and ethnicity as a percentage to the population living in poverty however, we see a different breakdown: whites still make up the majority (this makes sense given their high presence in SEFLA), but it is a smaller majority, and the opposite can be said for minority Hispanic and African American populations whose portion of the population is greater when looking at poverty (See Figure 3). None of this is particularly surprising – there are countless academic and peer-reviewed studies on the direct relationship between poverty and race or ethnicity. The point to be made here is that the story is no different here in Southeast Florida even though we have a large and growing minority (and in many places a minority-majority) population. This is a perhaps the greatest challenge for our region to overcome. How we address poverty, racial segregation and the links between them has huge and growing impact on the overall health and prosperity of the region. The spatial and geographic patterns of residence by race, ethnicity, and poverty are also troubling. Figure 3, on the following page maps socio-economic segregation by looking at census tracks with concentrations of Black and Hispanic populations compared to areas with poverty about 20% of the total population. The relationship between the variables is quite striking. Nearly every census tract with this level of concentrated poverty is also majority minority (see Figure 4). Race / Ethnicity as a Percentage of All Individuals Living in Poverty Race / Ethnicity as a Percentage of the Total Population 60% 32% 44% 71% 20% 39% White Black or African American Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) Figure 3: Race and Ethnicity as a Percentage of the Total Population compared to as a Percentage of the Total Population living in Poverty
  24. 24. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 15 Figure 4, Minority and Poverty Concentrations
  25. 25. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 16 3 | MEASURING OPPORTUNITY & EQUITY This chapter identifies, explains, and analyzes social equity indicators that were used to derive an opportunity index for the seven county Southeast Florida Region. Social equity (also referred to as simply, equity, in this report) can be broadly defined as equal opportunity for all persons. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development defined social equity as “equal opportunity, in a safe and healthy environment”. A popular conceptualization of social equity places it as one of the three fundamental, interlinked factors of sustainability; the other two being environment and economy. Even though there are competing ideas for defining social equity, they all center on concepts of social organization, demography, and (to a lesser extent) culture. In so doing, social equity serves to address how individual persons, households, and communities interact with each other, how fairly each member of society can share in life’s opportunities, and how integrated all persons are, regardless of differentiating variables such as race or education level. Social equity contributes significantly to any assessment of fair housing because many of the things that limit housing opportunity stem from social, demographic, and/or economic factors. Ultimately, social equity analysis examines how and why different opportunities exist for people in different places. This chapter incorporates findings and analysis of 33 indicators, many of which serve as proxies for closely related phenomena. All 33 social indicators are grouped into one of five categories: demographic, economic, education, neighborhood, and mobility. These categories organize the reporting of findings. Demographic indicators include race and linguistic isolation. Economic indicators represent income, benefits, and unemployment. Education indicators show levels of educational attainment as well as characteristics of public schools. Neighborhood indicators address aspects of housing, household composition, access to health food and fair housing issues. Lastly, mobility indicators examine vehicle access and commuting patterns (see Figure 5). Many indicators can inform the analysis of different perspectives. For instance, not having access to a vehicle can directly impact a household’s ability to participate in the labor market and suggest economic hardship if that household is located in a low-income community. For this reason, even though the findings of all indicators are shown individually, the report also examines the relationships between indicators and categories through an “opportunity index” that analyzes the natural affinity that many indicators share with each other. Importantly, this report calls attention to situations of limited or absent social equity as well as situations of high- performing, integrated communities with strong social equity. Areas with middling performance are particularly noted since they represent communities that may join either the stronger-performing or weaker-performing ones. Social equity can be broadly defined as equal opportunity for all persons.
  26. 26. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 17 Figure 5, Social Equity Categories and Corresponding Indicators OPPORTUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC Race / Ethnicity Linguistic Isolation ECONOMIC Household Income Poverty Unemployment Nutritional Assistance EDUCATION Educational Attainment Public Schools NEIGHBORHOOD Housing Occupancy Household Composition Housing Affordability Gap Housing Cost Burdon Affordable Housing Access to a Supermarket Mobility Commuting Pattern Access to a Vehicle
  27. 27. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 18 E C O N O M Y Indicators addressing income, benefits, and unemployment are significant to social equity analyses, as many of life’s opportunities depend on economic indicators that result in an ability to make a good living. Within this category, income, poverty, unemployment and nutritional assistance are measured. Broadly speaking, Belle Glade, in Palm Beach County, and the wedge between SR 27/Okeechobee Road and I-95 in Miami-Dade County stand apart as areas that underperform on economic indicators. Conversely, the coastal parts of Martin County and north Palm Beach County, plus the western urban growth boundary zone in Broward County, generally outperform on the same indicators. INCOME Region-wide, the average median household income was $49,730 in the 2006-2010 period. The highest median incomes (above $70,000) were located along the coast and the western edge of the urban development boundaries. Along the middle of the metropolitan statistical area, a mix of incomes ranging from $30,000 to $70,000 represents the majority of census tracts. Martin and Monroe counties have no census tracts with median incomes in the lowest mapped category. Martin, Broward, Palm Beach, and Monroe counties each had average median incomes above the regional median, at $53,210, $51,694, $53,242, and $53,281 respectively. Notable concentrations of low-earning households are located, from north to south, in Fort Pierce (St. Lucie County), Belle Glade (Palm Beach County), Pompano Beach (Broward County), and the Miami-Hialeah-Miami Gardens corridor in Miami-Dade County (see Figure 6)5 . The second variable of income that was analyzed is per capita incomes. Regionally, the highest per capita incomes are found almost entirely in the census tracts that line the coast. The lowest are found within the MSA, west Miami-Dade County, and around Lake Okeechobee. There are significantly more tracts earning per capita incomes below $50,000 than above it. The coastal census tracts of Indian River, Martin, and Palm Beach counties are almost entirely within the highest earning bracket (above $75,000), while in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe counties the highest earning tracts are more scattered. Low earning census tracts are primarily located in west of Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, and Miami- Dade counties, with additional tracts arising along the middle of the urbanized corridor from Palm Beach south to Miami. Many of the region’s largest cities (including West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Plantation, Hialeah, and 5 Note: Full maps with key and scale available in appendix for all 33 indicators. Figure 6: Median Household Income with Broward and Miami-Dade Inset, 2010
  28. 28. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 19 Miami) do not exhibit high per-capita incomes. In Miami-Dade County, for instance, the only major cities to have a per capita income above $75,000 are Pinecrest and Coral Gables. In Palm Beach County, only Boca Raton does. POVERTY Poverty indicators show the percentage of individuals or families that are below poverty threshold. The Census Bureau identifies poverty thresholds according to the composition of the household; different types of households (by age and size) have different poverty thresholds. For this report, “Population below poverty level” refers to the sum of all people in families plus the number of unrelated individuals identified as poor. As noted in the previous chapter, poverty6 is a large and looming concern in Southeast Florida. In total there are over 850,000 people below poverty level; this is 14% percent of the total population. For families with children still living at home, the proportion is even higher, at 15%. Perhaps even more striking is the number of children and teenagers below the age of 18 living in poverty: one out of every five. Miami-Dade has the highest proportion of individuals living in poverty at 17%. Furthermore, poverty is clearly linked to race and ethnicity throughout the region. While the predominant race throughout the region is white, proportionally there are about half as many white people in poverty in comparison to both African American and Hispanic populations. Finally, our analysis identifies single female householders with children as especially in need. As a region, one third of all single-female households with children are below poverty level. In St. Lucie County, the proportion reaches it’s highest at 37% and within other counties the lowest this percentage reaches is 27% in Broward. Geographically, individual poverty is a concern in all seven counties. Populations with poverty rates above 30 percent (the highest mapped category) are found in multiple census tracts in all counties but Indian River. All major cities and the entire region around Belle Glade have clusters of census tracts where poverty affects 20 percent or more of residents. Areas with the lowest poverty rates are generally located on the western side of the MSA corridor, particularly Broward and Palm Beach counties, and the eastern third of Martin County. Low poverty is found in most parts of Monroe County, too, except in Key West. In looking at the poverty rate of families with children present, across the region these households tend to be located in the same areas where the overall poverty rate is high. The largest concentrations of poor families are generally located within the MSA. The coastal census tracts in Indian River and St. Lucie counties notably have significantly higher poverty rates for families than for the overall population. Similarly, the I-95 corridor from West Palm Beach south to Pompano Beach is lined by census tracts with poverty rates for households with children above 20 percent. The north end of Fort Lauderdale 6 Poverty indicators show the percentage of individuals or families that are below poverty threshold. The Census Bureau identifies poverty thresholds according to the composition of the household; different types of households (by age and size) have different poverty thresholds. “Population below poverty level” refers to the sum of people in families plus the number of unrelated individuals identified as poor. 14% 8% 23% 16% 14% 13% 19% 13% 16% 32% 15% Population for whom poverty status is determined White Black or African American Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 65 years and over 18 to 64 years Under 18 years Male Females Single Female Mothers with Children or teenagers at home Families with children or teenagers at home Figure 7: Poverty Rates for Various Population Subsets, 2010 13% 14% 10% 12% 12% 17% 11% Figure 8: Poverty Rates by County, 2010 0 20 40 MILES 0% - 10% 10.01% - 20% 20.01% - 30% 30.01% + Percent of Population N
  29. 29. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 20 and the greater Miami region north of SR 27/Okeechobee Road are other localized zones containing a larger share of poor families. Figure 9, Poverty Rates by Census Tract
  30. 30. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 21 LABOR FORCE The labor force participation rate is a representation of the proportion of the area’s population in the labor force. This includes both employed and unemployed (job-seeking) civilians 16 years and over as well as members of the U.S. Armed Forces (people on active duty with the United States Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard). Conversely, those not in the labor force includes all people 16 years old and over who are not accounted for by the labor force participation rate. These are typically students, retired workers, homemakers, institutionalized people and people doing incidental unpaid family work. Of the 7 counties, Broward has the highest labor force participation rate at 68%. Both Martin and Indian River have the lowest at 55%. The region on average has a labor force participation of 60% compared to 65% in the United State. Over the course of the 2006-2010 period, most urbanized parts of the region north of Miami have experienced unemployment rates as high as 9 percent, with certain areas experiencing rates above 12 percent. Because this unemployment indicator represents the average rate over the five-year period from 2006 to 2010, it is not necessarily representative of post- recession trends in joblessness but rather the general tendency of census tracts to have low or high unemployment. Throughout much of the MSA and the three counties to the north, unemployment rates higher than 6 percent have been registered. The highest levels of joblessness (more than 12 percent) are found in only a small number of census tracts throughout the MSA region (Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties) plus Belle Glade, although around them are tracts with moderate levels of unemployment. Central Broward County, the Greater Miami area, and Greater Palm Beach show average unemployment between 6 and 12 percent. Monroe County shows the lowest average joblessness of the seven counties, followed by Martin County. The census tracts directly along the coast and the western urban boundary also feature the lowest joblessness rates. With the exception of Fort Pierce in St. Lucie County, all coastal census tracts have not experienced unemployment rates higher than 6 percent. NUTRITIONAL ASSISTANCE Households are eligible for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits if they meet income and financial resource qualifications, including a gross monthly income not larger than 130 percent of the poverty level income. The majority of households in Southeast Florida do not participate in SNAP. Two counties, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, have concentrations of SNAP- eligible households in the Belle Glade and Greater Miami regions, respectively. In Martin and Monroe counties, no census tracts have more than 10 percent of households on SNAP assistance. Throughout the MSA, areas with 10 to 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100% Indian River County Martin County St. Lucie County Palm Beach County Broward County Miami-Dade County Monroe County 7-County SE Florida In labor force Not in labor force Figure 10, Labor Force Participation Rates 0 20 40 MILES 0% - 6% 6.01% - 9% 9.01% - 12% 12.01% + Average % of Civilian Unemployed N Figure 11, Average % Unemployment
  31. 31. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 22 30 percent of eligible households generally are located in the middle of the urbanized corridor (i.e., away from the coast or the western boundary). Figure 12, Percent of population receiving SNAP benefits in the last 12 months (2010)
  32. 32. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 23 D E M O G R A P H I C S RACE AND ETHNICITY Segregation is not only a narrative of the past but one of the present as well. Clear patterns of segregation persist in all 7 counties and is perhaps the most telling indication of social (in)equity in this analysis. A stark contrast exists between the areas where whites and minorities (particularly African Americans) are each most populous, in that they reflect the inverse of the other. Three primary categories of race and ethnicity are discussed within this section (White, African American, and Hispanic/Latino7 ). These three categories account for the large majority of all persons living in SEFLA. There are 2.42 million white, non-Hispanic persons in the Southeast Florida region, accounting for 39.8 percent of the total regional population of 6.1 million. They are not evenly distributed throughout the region; the northern counties and Monroe County are highly represented, as are the coastal areas along almost the entire length of the region. Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Monroe counties each have predominantly white populations (78.3, 62.8, 81.2, 61.7, and 72.4 percent, respectively). Miami-Dade has the smallest, at 15.9 percent. The majority of census tracts in Martin and Monroe counties are more than 75 percent white. In Palm Beach County, the figure is closer to half, even though almost 62 percent of the county’s residents are white. Miami-Dade County has only one area, in the vicinity of Surfside and Bal Harbour, that over the 2006-2010 period was more than 75 percent white. In Broward County, where the racial mix is generally more balanced than in the other counties, areas that are predominantly white are located almost entirely along the coast and in the City of Parkland. 7 It is important to note, people of Hispanic origin may be any race. This should be kept in mind when comparing race and ethnicity, which is done throughout the report. Someone of Black or White race may also be categorized as Hispanic due to Census methodology. WHITE HISPANIC BLACKPercent of Population 0% - 25% 25.01% - 50% 50.01% - 75% 75%+ Figure 13, Comparison of population by race and/or ethnicity
  33. 33. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 24 A total of 1.21 million African American persons reside in the region, representing 19.6 percent of the total population. There are relatively few areas in the region where they make up more than 75 percent of the local population and outside of these areas their share of the local population is generally less than 25 percent. Their largest penetration is within the three-county MSA and the Belle Glade area on the south edge of Lake Okeechobee. Monroe County is underrepresented by African Americans, at only 6.4 percent of its 2006-2010 average population. None of the county’s census tracts have any concentrations of African American persons. A similar situation is evidenced in Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin counties, although in these northern counties there is a small concentration of African Americans in the vicinity of Fort Pierce. In the MSA, areas where African American persons comprise 75 percent or more of the local population include north Miami-Dade County, central Broward County, and the Belle Glade and West Palm Beach areas in Palm Beach County. Central Broward County and north Miami-Dade County both encompass a number of small municipalities that have historically been African American. These include Lauderdale Lakes and Lauderhill in Broward and Opa-locka and Miami Gardens in Miami-Dade. Hispanics comprise 37.7 percent of the total regional population (2.3 million persons) and the majority of them are concentrated in Miami-Dade County. Above and below Miami-Dade, Hispanics are highly deconcentrated. County and Local Findings: Outside of a moderate concentration in southwest Broward County and central Palm Beach County, Hispanics comprise less than a quarter of almost any census tract outside of Miami-Dade. The western tracts of Indian River and Martin counties do exhibit larger percentages of Hispanics, but these are semirural tracts with relatively small populations. Hispanics and Latinos predominantly reside in Miami-Dade County, with a particular density in and around Hialeah. Smaller aggregations of Hispanic and Latino persons exist in the vicinity of Miramar in Broward County and Lake Worth in Palm Beach County. Hispanics are not represented in a significant way in Monroe or St. Lucie counties. LINGUISTIC ISOLATION In South Florida, linguistic isolation is corollary to the Hispanic/Latino and black races8 , as many people who do not speak English natively or fluently in this region are likely to speak Spanish or Creole instead. Geographically, the majority of the region speaks English well. Most census tracts in which a substantial portion of the population does not (more than 30 percent) are located within the three-county MSA, and in Miami-Dade County in particular. The least linguistically isolated counties are Monroe, St. Lucie, and Palm Beach (with the exception of Belle Glade and West Palm Beach). There are four areas where a large number of residents claim not to speak English very well. From north to south, they are the western half of Indian River County, the Belle Glade and West Palm Beach areas of Palm Beach County, and two sectors of Miami-Dade County that extend northwest from Miami through Hialeah to Miami Gardens (along SR 27/Okeechobee Road and west from Miami to the north boundary of The Hammocks). In these areas, 30 percent or more of the population self-identify as not conversant in English. 8 Note that in this report, African American represents all persons of black ancestry.
  34. 34. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 25 N E I G H B O R H O O D Neighborhood indicators in this report revolve around access to supermarkets and housing issues. Housing is notably a much larger segment of the section and incudes a breakdown of not only occupancy, tenure, household composition, and affordability but also of local fair housing laws, complaints, impediments, and potentially discriminatory practices. This includes analyzing variables by race and ethnicity to understand how various groups are impacted differently in the South Florida region. This section provides particular insight into the structure and—because housing is generally the largest single investment and expenditure of the average household—the financial health of local communities. ACCESS TO A SUPER MARKET There are many ways to define a food desert or to measure access to food. The Reinvestment Fund defines a Limited Supermarket Access (LSA) area as one where the residents must travel significantly farther to reach a supermarket than the “comparatively acceptable” distance traveled by residents in well- served areas. TRF defines “comparatively acceptable” as the distance that residents of well-served areas (block group with incomes greater than 120 percent of the area’s median income) travel to the nearest supermarket. TRF established 13 benchmark classifications and compares areas to those that share similar population density and car-ownership rates. LSA areas range in size and density, with the average LSA area measuring 6.4 square miles and having a population of 9,000. In SEFLA, most census tracts in the region are reasonably close to a supermarket offering fresh and healthful foods. The ones that are not are distributed throughout six of the seven counties (Martin County excluded) and without any particular pattern. The geographic share of Monroe County not located reasonably close to a supermarket is larger than the other counties. Palm Beach County has the largest number of LSA (limited supermarket access) census tracts, with 55 of the region’s 169 qualifying tracts. Miami- Dade County is a close second, with 54, followed by Broward County with 43. Geographically, the largest areas without supermarket proximity are in the middle keys and the vicinity of Sugarloaf Key in Monroe County, Belle Glade and the rural wedge between the Jim Corbett Wildlife Management Area and the Loxahatchee Slough in Palm Beach County, and the vicinity south of Vero Beach between Indian River and St. Lucie counties. HOUSING INDICATORS OCCUPANCY AND TENURE Housing occupancy by tenure relates to neighborhood stability in that high rental turnover tends to lend itself to fluctuating neighborhood conditions which is generally viewed negatively. A housing unit is considered to be owner-occupied if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is 751,424 1,517,837 Figure 15, Household Tenure Neighborhood indicators provide particular insight into the structure and— because housing is generally the largest single investment and expenditure of the average household—the financial health of local communities. 0 20 40 MILES No Data Yes No Proximity to Supermarket Palm Beach County Broward County Miami-Dade County Monroe County Indian River County St. Lucie County Martin County N Figure 14, Proximity to a Supermarket
  35. 35. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 26 mortgaged or not fully paid for. All other occupied units are classified as "renter occupied," including units rented for cash rent and those occupied without payment of cash rent, or vacant. Throughout the region, the vast majority of housing units are owner-occupied. This trend holds true for the white population, but is actually reversed for both Hispanics, African Americans, and lower income households. In the region as a whole, there are 1.5 million owner-occupied housing units in comparison to .75 million renter- occupied units. Spatially, in the urbanized areas of the counties, owner occupied housing is prominent inland in the more suburban areas. Conversely rental opportunities are more common in the eastern and denser portions of the region. The majority of census tracts are owner-occupied for more than three-quarters of housing units. Throughout the MSA, average homeownership rates decline, even through high rates are seen along the coast and western urban boundaries. Generally more census tracts appear with lower owner occupation when approaching the major cities (Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach). Owner occupancy is notably lowest in the downtown centers of three of the region’s largest cities (West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami). Low ownership rates are also seen in Belle Glade. Residential vacancy rate can be used to identify the ability for neighborhoods or districts to absorb new residents. It can also help identify locations with low permanent populations, which can then be correlated to various factors (e.g., whether the neighborhood is a vacation area or losing families because of foreclosure or unemployment). Vacant units may include housing units for rent, second homes occupied only part of the year, and/or foreclosed properties returning to market. Only habitable properties are included.
  36. 36. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 27 Figure 16, Map of Percent of Owner-Occupied Households 0 20 40 MILES 0% - 25% 25.01% - 50% 49.01% - 75% 75.01% + Percent of Housing Units Palm Beach County Broward County Miami-Dade County Monroe County Indian River County St. Lucie County Martin County Prepared By: Carras Community Investment Inc. July 2012 Data Source: ACS 2006 - 2010 5-Year Estimates Note: No data is available for census tracts shaded in gray NEIGHBORHOOD Owner-Occupied Housing Units N
  37. 37. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 28 Regionally, vacancy rates above 30 percent are observed across the entire seven counties, but almost entirely along the coast. (The largest exceptions are the census tracts along Biscayne Bay.) It should be noted that units are counted as vacant if they are habitable and are second homes or available for sale or rent. Notably, every census tract in Monroe County, except for downtown Key West, exhibits a 30 percent or higher vacancy rate. Further inland, small areas with vacancy rates above 20 percent can be found north of Vero Beach, in the vicinity of the St. Lucie County Airport, Dania Beach, north Miami-Dade County, and Homestead. COMPOSITION Single parent households may or may not serve as an indicator of economic disadvantage, although the highest incomes are often found with dual-earning households and the lowest incomes with single parent households. Analyzed alone, single parenthood in this study does not directly indicate hardship. Many single parent households experience no economic hardship and any such determination must be made in relation to other indicators. From Indian River to Miami-Dade counties, single parent households comprise 10 percent or more of households in a substantial number of census tracts. Concentrations of such households are found in the Belle Glade area, from West Palm Beach south to Boynton Beach, and from Parkland south to North Miami. This represents a geographic reach covering much of the three-county MSA. Only a few census tracts register a concentration of single parent households above 30 percent of total households—these are located in the vicinity of West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Kendall. Households with children represent an important indicator when tied with factors such as proximity of schools or family amenities. Across the region, approximately 718,800 households have children (representing a total of 31.7 percent of total households). Census tracts with the largest proportion of such households compared to the overall count are located almost entirely along the western edge of the urban growth boundary in the three-county MSA. The cities of Belle Glade, Parkland, and Weston, and the exurban region west of Miami Lakes, each contain census tracts in which households with children make up more than 60 percent of total local households. Households with seniors represent another important indicator when tied with factors such as proximity of senior services, medical facilities, and transit. Census tracts in which households containing persons 65 years of age or more represent more than 40 percent of total households are found in every county but especially in the northern half of the region (Indian River through Palm Beach counties). Their total number is similar to that of households with children—694,600 households, or 30.6 percent of the total count. Areas with the least number of such households tend to be located on the western side of the MSA corridor (including the cities of Weston, Pembroke Pines, and Miramar) and the downtown districts of Miami and Fort Lauderdale. AFFORDABILITY In looking at affordability two major indicators are used: housing affordability gap (a neighborhood-wide measurement) and housing cost burden (specific to individual households). A housing affordability gap is used to identify neighborhoods with potentially unsustainable housing costs. For owners, this is measured by the relationship between house prices and the median local income. Data for each census tract is derived by comparing three times the median household income to the average home value (as a rule of thumb, to maintain affordability of lending costs, the purchase price of a home should not exceed three times the buyer’s annual household income). If the home value is greater than the multiplied income value, the size of the affordability gap is noted. For renters, affordability gap is measured by the relationship between monthly rent and the median local income. The calculation of this affordability gap involves taking 30 percent of the median household income, dividing it by 12 (for the number of months in a year) and comparing the resulting figure to the median gross rent. If the rent figure is higher than the derived monthly rent payment, an affordability gap exists. (30 percent of the annual income is the rule of thumb for housing costs.) There appears to be an inverse relationship between those areas in the region in which homes are more affordable to rent and less affordable to buy, based on the affordability gap analysis. The affordability gap for homeowners is starkly evident for all seven counties and especially along virtually all census tracts along the coast and the western urban boundary. Almost all of Greater Miami and virtually all of Martin and Monroe counties register a gap of more than $100,000. All but six census tracts along the 300 miles from Key West to Sebastian fall in the highest gap category. A small number of census tracts demonstrate that home prices are within affordable ranges for the local
  38. 38. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 29 median incomes; these are distributed throughout central Broward and Palm Beach counties and a large part of St. Lucie County. Throughout much of the three-county MSA, an affordability gap exists for renting households. The average gap amount is generally less than $500 per month, although in 24 census tracts (including 10 each in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties), the gap amount exceeds $500. Coastal and western urban boundary census tracts largely exhibit no affordability gap. For renting households, Indian River, Martin, and Monroe counties have the best affordability prospects. Housing Cost Burden is measured by taking the cost of housing as a percentage of household income and provides information on the proportion of monthly housing expenses for owners and renters. The information offers an excellent measure of housing affordability and excessive costs. Households spending more than 30 percent of their monthly income on housing costs (mortgages or rent) are considered cost-burdened and may be at risk of economic hardship over time. Figure 17, Cost-Burdened Households by Tenure The region has very high levels of cost-burdened households especially for renters. 60% of renting households, regardless of income, pay more than 30% of their monthly income on housing costs while 46% of household that own pay the same proportion. Renters and owners alike face high cost burdens in the same areas along the coast north of Miami and throughout the three-county MSA, the locations of LIHTC housing projects and QCTs are revealed to match up closely. Spatially, census tracts throughout the entire region show a high percentage of cost-burdened owner- occupying households, distributed evenly from west to east across the three counties of the MSA. Somewhat fewer cost burdened households are located in Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin counties. Notably, Key West has the lowest percentage of burdened households of any major city in the region. The counties with the 8.0% 8.6% 7.3% 15.2% 18.2% 13.6% Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $ Cost-Burdened Households by Income Group, Owner-occupied housing units Renter A disproportionate number of renters are minorities Renters are more- cost burdened than homeowners Thus, a disproportionate number of minorities are cost-burdened Figure 18, Understanding the relationship between race, tenure, and housing cost-burdens
  39. 39. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 30 largest percentage of census tracts containing cost-burdened homeowners are Broward and Miami-Dade. In both of them, the number of census tracts in which 30 percent or more of homeowners spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing approaches two out of five (39.9 percent in Broward and 38.9 percent in Miami-Dade). Local areas in each county, however, show similar patterns, including Vero Beach, Juno Beach, Wellington, Weston, North Bay Village, and Key Largo. In the majority of census tracts across the region, at least 40 percent of renting households spend more than 30 percent of their household income to cover rent payments. Throughout the three-county MSA, 56.5 percent of census tracts with renting households have more than 60 percent of those households spending above the 30 percent threshold. Those census tracts with the lowest share of renters paying above the threshold are not concentrated in any geographic location, instead being rather randomly distributed across all seven counties. Geographically, much of Miami-Dade and Monroe counties experience significant rental cost burdens (60 percent or more of renting households affected), with Broward and Palm Beach counties only somewhat less affected. Very few census tracts anywhere in the region contain renting households whose cost-burden proportion is below 20 percent.
  40. 40. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 31 Figure 19, Comparison of Cost-Burden by Tenure 0% - 20% 20.01% - 40% 40.01% - 60% 60.01% + Percent of Renters COST-BURDENEDRENTERS COST-BURDENEDOWNERS 0% - 10% 10.01% - 20% 20.01% - 30% 30.01% + Percent of Owners
  41. 41. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 32 FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY9 Within SEFLA there are currently 626 properties providing assisted housing units for a total of almost seventy-eight thousand units. These assisted units are highly concentrated: 94% of all units within properties that offer assisted units are assisted. Moreover, while there are 258 Qualified Census Tracts (QTC) for Low-income Housing Tax Credit deals, only 161 of those census tracts contain LIHTC housing units. Local concentrations, featuring contiguous groups of QCTs, are located in and around Belle Glade, West Palm Beach, Pompano Beach, Lauderdale Lakes/Fort Lauderdale, and Miami/Hialeah. When looking at the percent of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Units as a Share of Total Housing Units, across Southeast Florida, the majority of concentrations are located either in the middle of the South Florida MSA corridor or near the largest cities of the non-MSA counties. Figure 20: Assisted Housing Units By County 9 All data within the Existing Assisted Housing Inventory is drawn from the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse 2,856 2,480 1,219 12,652 17,129 40,514 838 77,688Assisted Housing Units
  42. 42. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 33 Various assisted housing units are reserved for renters in certain income brackets. The vast majority of these are for renters in the 55-60% AMI- regionally, there are 44 thousand units designated for this income bracket. For those in the lowest income bracket, and therefore those in the greatest need of housing opportunities designated specifically for them, only 627 units are designated for these renters across the 7-county SEFLA region. 512 of these are in Broward County compared to 40 in Miami-Dade where 17% of the population is below poverty level and zero in Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin Counties. The target population for the vast majority of assisted housing is families followed by elderly peoples, farmworkers, homeless, persons with disabilities, and finally fishers (this is only a target population in Monroe County). All 7 counties have assisted housing targeting families, elderly and farmworkers. St. Lucie County is alone in its lack of any assisted housing targeting persons with disabilities. Finally homeless people are the target populations for assisted housing in only Palm Beach and Miami- Dade. 54% of the region’s assisted housing units have minority tenants; 27% are Black and 26% Hispanic. Miami-Dade has the highest percentage of minority tenants at 91% followed by St. Lucie County at 81% (72% or which are Black). People of Hispanic origin occupy notably none of Indian River’s assisted housing units. Figure 21, Assisted Housing Units by AMI Target and CountyMONROE MIAMI- DADE BROWARD PALM BEACH MARTIN ST. LUCIE INDIAN RIVER INDIAN RIVER < or = 35% AMI 45% - 50% AMI 55% - 60% AMI 65% - 80% AMI > 80% AMI
  43. 43. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 34 FAIR HOUSING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS: 2007-2012 This section details fair housing complaints reported to various authorized Fair Housing Agencies (FHAP) throughout the region. The year that cases are closed in is the year that those complaints are accounted for. Data was collected from various sources: 1) already completed AIs for Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, 2) data compiled by HUD for all seven counties for years 2010-2012 specifically for the purposes of this report, 3) public records requests from the Florida Commission on Human Rights as well as the Palm Beach and Miami-Dade County Offices of Equal Opportunity. It should be noted, that the total number of bases/issues in the housing discrimination complaint tables are not necessarily equal to the total number of individuals that filed complaints because oftentimes, the complaints alleged multiple bases and issues. Similarly, there may be overlap of reports between tables so trends therefore summary of the proportions of the basis for complaints are examined as opposed to total numbers. Furthermore, national studies conducted by HUD provide evidence of a major underreporting of housing discriminations10 . Therefore, the following trends can be used as a tool to begin understanding housing discrimination within SEFLA but should not be interpreted to represent the problem of housing discrimination exhaustively. Housing complaints based on discrimination against disability ranks highest in SEFLA by more than twice as much as racially based complaints which rank second. Disability is, over the 5-year period and for each county, the largest alleged discriminating factor in fair housing complaints (43%). For the region race (17%), national origin (13%), and familial status (11%) follow in ranking which has been consistent over time except for in 2012 when race dipped slightly below national origin (See Figure 117). There is variation of rank across individual counties (see figures 116). Within all counties except Indian River, there was a spike in reported fair housing complaints in 2010. 10 “Do We Know More Now? Trends in Public Knowledge, Support, and Use of Fair Housing Laws,” 2006 Disability is, over the 5-year period and for each county, the largest alleged discriminating factor in fair housing complaints. 17% 0.3% 14% 2% 7% 11% 43% 1% 6%RACE COLOR NATIONAL ORIGIN RELIGION SEX FAMILIAL STATUS DISABILITY AGE OTHER Figure 22, Average Summary Percentage of Housing Complaints for all Cited Agencies, SEFLA, 2007- 2012
  44. 44. © 2014 Carras Community Investment, Inc. 35 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Top 4 Housing Discrimination Complaints between 2007 and 2012 DISABILITY RACE NATIONAL ORIGIN FAMILIAL STATUS Figure 23, Top 4 Ranked Bases for Complaints SEFLA 2007-2012

×