Housing in Syracuse OnondagaCounty 2014

HOUSING IN
SYRACUSE & ONONDAGA COUNTY
COMMUNITY
BENCHMARKS
PROGRAM AT SU’s
2014
MAXWELL SCHOOL

Housing in Syracuse and
Onondaga County
2014
Carol Dwyer, Director
Erin Carhart and Emily Pompelia, Project Managers
Researchers
Dennis Bitetti
Jared Bly
Jennifer Bundy
Jeffrey Cleland
Sawyer Cresap
Emma Edwards
Shaki Kar
Nicole Keler
Kelly McElwain
Ashlee Newman
Jenece Reyes
Ivan Rosales-Robles
Caroline Roth
Mackenzie Salmon
Marlei Simon
Bo Stewart
Jonathan Tighe
Jessica Thomas

Acknowledgments
This report would not have been possible without the support of several individuals,
organizations and agencies.
First, thanks are extended to Stephanie Pasquale, deputy commissioner of the Syracuse
Department of Neighborhood and Business Development, for her ongoing guidance, support and
expertise throughout the creation of the report. She was always positive throughout the numerous
interruptions by the research team for clarification of terms, data issues, and much more. Also
providing support are staff members Amanda Mason and Susannah Bartlett.
Liddy Hintz, systems administrator for the Homeless Management Information Systems, and
director of Emergency and Child Welfare Services at the Salvation Army in Syracuse, was a
great resource for collecting and understanding the plight of the homeless and the data that has
been collected by the Housing and Homeless Coalition. She has been the essence of patience
during the many instances of requests for additional data and related information.
Thank you to Paul Driscoll, commissioner of the Department of Neighborhood and Business
Development, and Kerry Quaglia, executive director of Home Headquarters, for taking time to
assist researchers in understanding the complexity of these issues and offering their insight on
the status of the housing market in Syracuse. Emmanuel Carter, associate professor at the State
University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, deserves recognition as
well for his extensive thoughts on the history of credit lending and affordable housing in
Syracuse.
The strong visual element in the report is credited to Syracuse University student Amanda Eedle,
who took every photograph used in the report. Her work enhanced the report by providing a
pictorial explanation of the status of housing in this city to accompany the data. She did all this
without reimbursement or credit.
Helping researchers to demonstrate the need for affordable housing is David Paccone, program
director at the Syracuse Housing Authority, and Kelly Besaw and Tina Cardwell of the
Christopher Community.
Thanks to Susan Grossman, housing program coordinator of the Onondaga County Community
Development Division, and Executive Director Robert DeMore for providing the county’s
annual report and Terri Luckett, project manager at Home Headquarters for providing data
collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.
Thank you to everyone who contributed time, guidance and insight into the creation of this
report.

Table of Contents
Foreword 1
Introduction 4
Property Overview
Methods 8
Findings 9
Lending Practices
Methods 28
Findings 29
Affordable Housing
Methods 44
Findings
Current Housing Market Assessment 47
Affordable Housing Funding Patterns 54
Availability of Affordable Housing 62
Affordable Housing Needs 71
Homeless
Methods 82
Shelter Descriptions 84
Findings 86
Glossary 107
References 111
Appendices
Appendix I Distribution of Home Mortgages by Race
Appendix II Distribution of Home Mortgages by Income Levels
Appendix III Type of Loan Actions
Appendix IV Number of Loans for Home Purchases and Home
Improvements
Appendix V Number and Location of Commercial Banks
Appendix VI Map of Individuals living Below Poverty
Appendix VII Map of CDBG Monies dedicated to Affordable Housing
Appendix VIII HMIS Intake Form

The Experts Speak
By: Jennifer Bundy
A healthy housing market is one of the
foundations of a healthy city.
According to “Out of Reach 2014,’’ a recent
report released by the National Low Income
Housing Coalition, America is facing a new reality
where there are 31 affordable housing units for
every 100 families who need them.
The lack of affordable housing is an obstacle cities
across the nation are grappling with, including in
Syracuse, New York. “There is a severe lack of
affordable housing in Syracuse,” says Kerry
Quaglia, executive director of Home
Headquarters.
Housing in Syracuse is relatively inexpensive
when compared to other parts of the country,
however the average income of a resident living
within the city is low enough that many families
have difficulty finding affordable housing,
Quaglia says.
According to the US Census, the median
household income was $31,459 in 2012 in the city
of Syracuse, with 33.6 percent of the population
living below the poverty line.
“We really have two needs that are diametrically
opposed,” he says. The first is the excess housing
left behind as the city population dropped by more
than one-third from 1950 to today where the
population now hovers around 141,760, according
to US Census data. What remains available is
property that is either vacant, in need of
renovations or unaffordable.
The second is that the housing that is available and
safe to occupy is unaffordable for many of the
residents searching, Quaglia says.
Home Headquarters is a local nonprofit agency
that aims to assist residents in owning or
renovating a home through specific grants and
loans.
“Home Headquarters has found that since the
financial crisis (in 2008) the gap in the market has
shifted from home improvement to home
acquisition,” he says. “Banks are much more
critical in their thinking of extending first
mortgages to let people buy their first home. This
has negatively impacted buyers in the city.”
Following the 2008 mortgage-lending crisis,
Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010,
which raised the mortgage qualifier standards.
According to Quaglia, if banks extend mortgages
to risky applicants that may not be able to meet
their mortgage obligations, the applicant can use
this as a defense to avoid foreclosure.
“These new mortgage qualifiers have given banks
more reason to pause, to ensure the least risk
possible,” Quaglia says. “Ultimately we think that
this is not in the best interest of low- to moderate-
income home buyers.” He adds that traditional
sources of financing from banks or credit unions
are drying up in the Syracuse neighborhoods that
need them the most. Banks have a responsibility to
lend in areas where they accept deposits, but in
certain areas there aren’t enough people that meet
the new requirements to receive loans.
There is a severe lack of
affordable housing in Syracuse.
–Kerry Quaglia
1

“Banks will use this as an excuse to not lend in
certain areas and that hurts consumers,” Quaglia
says. “It is ironic that this consumer law ends up
hurting consumers.”
Lack of access to credit in
certain areas has been an
issue for policymakers
since 1975 when
Congress enacted the
Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA).
This act requires lending
institutions to release
public loan data to ensure
that banks are providing
communities with
adequate credit and investment while also not
discriminating against a particular group or
neighborhood.
The HMDA is the federal government’s solution
to banks not lending in certain areas.
Paul Driscoll, commissioner of the Neighborhood
and Business Development Department in
Syracuse, agrees that affordability is a major
hindrance to residents in need of adequate
housing.
“One-half of the city’s geography are considered
‘Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas’
where 35 percent or more of the housing in those
areas suffer from physical deterioration or
affordability,” says Driscoll, who focuses the
federal funds from the Housing and Urban
Development office to revitalize these areas by
intervening in the short-term to improve the long-
term viability of the area.
The harsh realities of the gaps within the housing
market of Syracuse can be seen every night at one
of the local emergency shelters for the homeless.
Liddy Hintz, systems administrator of the
Homeless Management
Information System
and director of
Emergency and Child
Welfare Services at the
Salvation Army, says
that one of the main
reasons for
homelessness in
Syracuse is that
housing costs are rising
at a higher rate than
wages and assistance funding.
“The men’s shelters run out of beds on a regular
basis,” she says. “Housing stock is sorely needing
improvements.” The city has lost several large
housing projects and has not built any
replacements, which has left many homeless.
According to the Gap and Needs Analysis
conducted by the Housing Homeless Coalition in
2013, Syracuse has seen a 31.4 percent increase of
homeless children using shelter resources since
2010, which can be linked to the 27.6 percent rise
in homeless adults in families.
From 2012 to 2013 there was an increase of 183
individuals receiving Emergency Shelter services
in Onondaga County, according to the analysis.
Stephanie Pasquale, deputy commissioner of the
Syracuse Department of Neighborhoods and
Business Development, says homelessness is one
of the city’s most multifaceted issues.
“Many in our community suffer from multiple
conditions that contribute to their housing status,”
she says. “Many in the field feel there needs to be
a significant increase in truly affordable
permanent housing.”
Many in the field feel there needs to be a
significant increase in truly affordable
permanent housing.
-Stephanie Pasquale
2

Economic stagnation also exasperates other
housing problems in Syracuse, where 60 percent
of the housing units are rental, Driscoll says, citing
data collected in a database known as the City
Parcel File.
“Renters live paycheck to paycheck: they are not
building equity,” he says. “The problem is getting
worse and the people with the means to address
the problem are getting fewer.”
Both Quaglia and Driscoll say they believe owner-
occupant properties improve the health of a
neighborhood because owners are invested in the
quality of their house, street and community.
However, Emmanuel Carter, a professor of the
State University of New York School of
Environmental Science and Forestry and an
expert on housing trends, says the notion that
every person should be a homeowner is a fallacy.
“We need to stop insisting that good citizens are
homeowners. It is a lie that renters are bad for a
community,” he says. “Renters are not bad for
neighborhoods. It is wrong to say poorer people
do not invest in their neighborhoods very well,
they just don’t have the wherewithal to.”
Banks should not be giving out loans to
everybody, especially when those applicants
who are denied most likely do not have good
credit or a steady income. This is not
discriminatory lending, it is the unfortunate fact
that minorities are more likely to live in low-
income neighborhoods where economic
opportunities limit equity, credit and income, he
says.
Carter is very adamant that the problem is not
renter residents, but rather the lack of
accountability of landlords to invest and maintain
their properties. “We need to set firm laws for
landlords to ensure they invest in their properties
to maintain high quality housing in those
neighborhoods.”
The root of the housing crisis in Syracuse can be
traced back to the 1930s, says Carter.
In this post-Depression era, President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt worked to improve the long-
term strength of insurance companies and banks
by creating a mortgage system where long-term
lending became the norm. The federal government
agreed to back loans and mortgages, however, this
quickly became unsustainable and the federal
government realized that there needed to be a
baseline for accepting these loans, Carter says.
The federal Home Owners Loan Corporation was
established and tasked with determining which
neighborhoods in every metropolitan area would
be reasonable to extend mortgage loans to, based
on the condition of the housing and the race of the
residents, he says.
Neighborhoods with high immigrant and minority
populations were identified as “red” or “yellow”
which meant no applicant from this neighborhood
would receive more than 15 percent of federal
backing on their loans, Carter says. This
discriminatory lending policy, known as
’redlining’ was deemed illegal in 1965, but at that
point American society had already self-
segregated itself based on income. “The richest
moved to specific neighborhoods so they could get
loans,” he says. “That left neighborhoods in a
situation where only the have-nots were there.”
Home value is directly related to the worth of the
house next door, which makes homeowners
fearful of a household of lesser means entering the
neighborhood and devaluing property on the entire
street.
“We re-segregated ourselves with a great deal of
energy,” he says. “In 1938 there was a percentage
of low-income residents in every TNT sector, but
you would also have a percentage of moderately
well-off residents in every TNT sector. Now that
is not the truth—we are a divided society.”
3

Introduction
The City of Syracuse is a vibrant community in the heart of Central New York. The city’s rich history
began in the mid-19th century and extends into the modern-day through periods of prosperity, struggle
and transformation.
Syracuse, with a population of 144,703, is the fifth largest city in New York State and the 170th largest
city in America. The city has a relatively young workforce, with a median age of 29 years, compared
to the national median age of 37. A majority of Syracuse residents (57%) identify as white, while 32%
are black or African American (US Census). However, Syracuse has seen a gradual decline in
population for decades, losing one third of its residents since 1950, when the city had a population high
of 222,000. Throughout the early 20th century Syracuse was a hub of economic development with a
strong manufacturing, trade and infrastructure industry presence. Large companies such as General
Electric and Carrier Corporation used to be the largest employers in the city. However, over the past
few decades major companies and industries have relocated outside of Syracuse, taking with them
thousands of jobs. In the mid-20th century, Syracuse transformed into a postindustrial city struggling
to recapture its past economic success. The city faced a stagnated economy, which further exasperated
poverty and community resources (Syracuse Then and Now). Syracuse as the strong economic and
industrial powerhouse is now simply a memory of a bygone era.
The economy has been a persistent problem in the city, which is still recovering from the effects of the
financial crisis and recession of the late 2000s. Similar to many cities in New York State, Syracuse was
hit hard by the economic recession. Over 11,000 jobs were lost from 2008 to 2009 alone, and the job
growth since has been slow, gaining a little over 700 jobs each year (New York State Comptroller’s
Report). The unemployment rate has gradually climbed from 4.9% in 2007 to a high of 8.6% in 2010
(Syracuse Post Standard). Though business development programs and job creation have seen modest
success, the highest paid jobs in the manufacturing sector have not seen equal growth. Currently, the
unemployment rate is 7.6%, which is above the national average of 7.4%. The per capita income is
$18,869 and median household income is $31,459, both of which are significantly below the state and
national averages. Poverty in the city of Syracuse is of particular importance, as about one out of three
residents live below the poverty line (US Census).
In Syracuse, and across the country, the prices of goods, services, and homes all continued to grow
despite the downturn. Inflation rates climbed 14% since 2007, affecting low- and middle-class
consumers who need to make the most of their salaries (TIME Magazine). Home sales declined, taxes
remained steady, and many found the need for affordable housing more pressing than ever. The
demand for quality, affordable units must be widely available to enable the community to support both
new and long-time residents to be successful.
Some housing crises are more severe than others and result in thousands of residents using the
emergency shelter resources in Syracuse. The homeless population has been gradually increasing over
the past decade, pushing emergency housing shelters to capacity (The Post Standard). Syracuse
established The Housing and Homeless Coalition (HHC) to develop a 10-year plan to combat the
persistent homeless population. The HHC targets the local economy to increase job opportunities,
establishes permanent housing for the chronically homeless and works in tandem with local agencies to
4

provide behavioral, health and support services for those most vulnerable in the Syracuse community.
It is hoped that these strategies will transform the homeless services system into a “crisis response
system” to take a proactive stance on homelessness and rapidly place homeless persons into safe,
stable housing (Housing and Homeless Coalition Annual Report, 2012).
While the housing market in Syracuse is relatively inexpensive compared to other cities, a gap still
persists for low-income residents interested in finding affordable housing. As the city moves forward
from the recession, the benefits of affordable housing are more prevalent than ever. The stability an
affordable mortgage or rent provides can significantly affect a child’s development, performance in
school, and health (Center for Housing Policy). Investing in a home gives residents a stake in the
community and increases the amount spent in the local economy and the revenues paid to local
governments. Lack of jobs and affordable housing are leading causes of homelessness in Syracuse
(The Post-Standard).
It is evident that in Syracuse, as well as in all of Onondaga County, housing is an issue affecting every
child, adult, and senior citizen. Housing conditions must be closely monitored to ensure that the needs
of each resident are being met to the extent that resources will allow. Adequate and affordable housing
is a foundational pillar in any city. The lack of access to credit, substandard housing, low
homeownership rate and consistent homeless population all will act as hindrances to Syracuse’s future
success. This report provides information on four key areas surrounding housing to provide additional
information to decision-makers.
To assist readers in understanding the various terms found in this report, a glossary if provided that
starts on P. 107.
Findings in this report portray a picture of properties in Onondaga County, the city of Syracuse and in
some cases, breakdowns by city sectors known as Tomorrow’s Neighborhood Today (TNT). Syracuse
parcels are grouped into eight different TNT areas: Downtown, Eastside, Eastwood, Lakefront,
Northside, Southside, Valley and Westside.
Downtown
The downtown neighborhood is located in the center of the city. Downtown is known for being the
home of popular areas such as Armory Square, Hanover Square, Columbus Circle and Clinton Square.
Parks and open public spaces are also found Downtown.
Eastside
The Eastside of Syracuse embraces diversity, environment and quality development. The core of this
area is Westcott Street, which is known for funky, eclectic restaurants and stores. Thornden Park is
also a feature in this area that many residents enjoy, especially in the summer. Among the Eastside
neighborhoods are University Hill, Bradford Hills, Near Eastside, Outer Comstock, South Campus and
Salt Springs. The area also includes the Syracuse University campus, which provides unique economic
and cultural opportunities.
5

Eastwood
Eastwood is primarily a residential area that consists of one- and two-family homes constructed in the
mid-20th
century. This area has a vibrant business district on James Street. Sunnycrest Park is located
in Eastwood and offers residents a 9-hole golf course and groomed skiing trails in the winter
Lakefront
The Lakefront neighborhood lies along Onondaga Lake and consists of two distinct neighborhoods.
The first being the tightknit Maciejowa neighborhood, which is located on the southern end of the lake
and is home to residents whose families have lived in the Lakefront sector for generations. The other
neighborhood, Franklin Square, is within a former factory district, which has been gentrified into
offices, upscale condominiums and apartments. Lakefront also includes the 2.6 miles of Onondaga
Creekwalk, which extends both north and south from the Inner Harbor.
Northside
Northside is home to Syracuse’s largest immigrant and refugee populations who hail from countries
around the world such as Germany, Laos, Sudan and Bosnia. This sector includes two historical
districts, North Salina Street (also known as “Little Italy”) and Hawley-Green. The city of Syracuse is
attempting to revitalize the business districts in this area to improve community environments and
assist in breaking the cycle of poverty that exists in this area. The Northside includes Washington
Square, the Court-Woodlawn neighborhood and St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center, a major
employer, especially for many immigrants.
Southside
The Southside includes four distinct residential areas known as Southwest, Brighton, Strathmore and
Elmwood. Formerly home to some of the most beautiful homes in Syracuse, the Southwest
neighborhood has recently undergone revitalization to improve the housing quality. Brighton is a
predominantly residential neighborhood located along South Salina Street. Strathmore is primarily a
single-family residential area with 20th
century architecture. Elmwood is a small area in the city that
includes one- and two-family homes in a secluded wooded area in the city. Onondaga, Kirk and
Elmwood parks are beautiful public spaces.
The Valley
Previously owned by the Onondaga Nation, The Valley is now a quiet area of the city. Residents can
enjoy peaceful walks around Webster and Coldbrook Pond. Most community meetings are held in the
historic Bob Cecile Center. This neighborhood also boasts the thriving Valley Plaza Shopping Center
along with other commercial businesses located on Midland Avenue and South Salina Street among
others.
Westside
The Westside is primarily a commercial area and with the bustling Far Westside neighborhood that
includes West Genesse Street. This area also has several open public spaces such as Burnet Park Zoo,
Skiddy, Faldo, and Stone Throwers parks. The Westside also contains the Westcott Reservoir. The two
main neighborhoods in this area are Tipperary Hill and the Near Westside.
http://www.syrgov.net/News_City.aspx
References for all other sources are located on P.111
6

Property Overview
The overview will examine the condition of the housing market in
Syracuse. This section will provide background information on
property issues within the housing market.
7

Methods
Data were provided by the city of Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business
Development. The dataset is comprised of 42,028 properties. Data from the US Census and from
the city of Syracuse TNT website have also been included in this report to assist in the reader’s
knowledge of the geographic locations and profiles of the area to enhance the property overview.
Since data were provided by outside sources, researchers cannot comment on the accuracy of the
data or its collection methods. Researchers have discovered some inconsistencies of which
readers should be aware.
In the data provided, there were multiple indicators for classifying property types. The variables
that most accurately portrayed the data were “Land Use”, “Property Type”, and “Vacant Land.”
However, in the dataset, “Vacant Land” is also used as a variable to classify “Land Use” and
“Property Type.” This classification creates some inconsistencies because there is more than one
indicator of “Vacant Land” in the data. For example, properties classified as “Vacant Land” are
often categorized as “Not Vacant” under “Land Use”, which is contradictory. As a result, these
properties were removed from the dataset prior to conducting the analysis for this report.
Issues of accuracy are also found in missing property information and inconsistent geographic
classification. Not all property information is included in the dataset, and as a result, the
properties with missing information were removed from the analyses. There are also two
properties, listed as being in the Valley, that were found to be incorrectly assigned to this sector.
These properties were removed from this dataset.
8

1. 64% of properties in the city of Syracuse are found on the Northside, Southside and Eastside.
Source: Syracuse City Parcel File, Jan. 21, 2014
Comment
This information was not available for 86 (0.20%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse.
City Properties by TNT Sector
2014
TNT Sector Number Percent
Lakefront 426 1%
Downtown 472 1%
Valley 3,177 8%
Eastwood 4,910 12%
Westside 5,998 14%
Eastside 8,135 19%
Southside 8,870 21%
Northside 9,953 24%
Total 41,941 100%
9

2. 50% or more of structures in each of the TNT sectors were built between 1901 and 1950.
Comments
This information was not available for 4,815 (11%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse.
Downtown and Lakefront are not included in the graph because the numbers are so low.
That information is found in a separate table below.
10

Year Structures were Built
2014
Year Built
TNT Sector
Valley Westside Eastside Eastwood Northside Southside
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1790-1900 177 6% 1,630 33% 454 6% 221 5% 2,728 30% 1,220 16%
1901-50 1,503 50% 2,729 56% 4,567 62% 3,669 78% 5,527 61% 4,809 65%
1951-2000 1,259 43% 456 9% 2,340 31% 798 17% 862 9% 1,287 17%
2001-13 20 1% 88 2% 102 1% 7 0% 34 0% 112 2%
Total 2,959 100% 4,903 100% 7,463 100% 4,695 100% 9,151 100% 7,428 100%
Years Syracuse Structures were Built of TNTs Not
Included in Chart Above
2014
Lakefront Downtown
Year Built Number Percent Number Percent
1790-1900 29 11% 53 15%
1901-1950 68 25% 128 37%
1951-2000 156 59% 159 46%
2001-2013 13 5% 7 2%
Total 266 100% 347 100%
11

3. 92% of properties in Eastwood are classified as residential, compared to 16% in Downtown.
Source: Syracuse City Parcel File, 2013, Jan. 21, 2014
Comments
99 (0.2%) of the 42,027 properties are not identified within a TNT sector, so they are not
included in the analysis. Some property types were condensed into a category titled
“Other” due to the low percentages. The “Other” category consists of the following
property types: cemeteries, community services, industrial, parking, parks, recreation,
religious, schools, and utilities. Single-, two-, and three-family units were condensed into
“Residential” with multiple residence and apartments as well. The commercial grouping
consists of commercial and industrial properties.
12

Land Use by TNT Sector
2014
TNT Area
Property Type
TotalCommercial Residential Other
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Downtown 241 51% 74 16% 158 33% 473 100%
Eastside 680 8% 6,682 82% 773 10% 8,135 100%
Eastwood 161 3% 4,538 92% 211 4% 4,910 100%
Northside 706 7% 8,477 85% 770 8% 9,953 100%
Southside 264 3% 7,049 79% 1,557 18% 8,870 100%
Valley 115 4% 2,831 89% 228 7% 3,174 100%
Westside 512 9% 4,467 74% 1,019 17% 5,998 100%
13

4. 95% of the properties in Syracuse are occupied.
Comment
This information is not available 893 (2%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse.
Property Vacancies
2014
Vacancy Status Number Percent
Occupied 39,235 95%
Vacant 1,899 5%
Total 41,134 100%
14

5. 95% of residential properties in Syracuse are occupied.
Comments
Information is not available for 893 (2%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse. 3,217 are
categorized as “Vacant Land” and removed from the dataset to provide more accurate
results. Some property types have been condensed into a category titled “Other” due to
the low percentages. The “Other” category is not included in the graph above as 100% of
this category is not vacant. The “Other” category consists of the following property types:
cemeteries, community services, industrial, parking, parks, recreation, religious, schools,
and utilities. Single-, two-, and three–family units were condensed into “Residential,”
including multiple residences and apartments.
Vacancy by Land Use
2014
Residential Commercial Other
Vacancy Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Not Vacant 32,233 95% 2,499 94% 1,153 98%
Vacant 1,702 5% 168 6% 27 2%
Total 33,935 100% 2,667 100% 1,180 100%
15

6. 62% of vacant Syracuse properties are located in the Northside and Southside.
Comments
Downtown and Lakefront are not included because of the low numbers of vacant
properties in these sectors. There are 20 Downtown and nine at the Lakefront.
Information on vacancies are not available for 901 (2%) of the 42,027 properties in
Syracuse.
Vacancies by TNT Sector
2014
Eastside 152 8%
Eastwood 75 4%
Northside 549 29%
Southside 619 33%
Valley 94 5%
Westside 381 20%
Total 1,870 100%
4%
5%
8%
20%
29%
33%
Eastwood
Valley
Eastside
Westside
Northside
Southside
Syracuse Vacant Properties by TNT Sector
2014
n=1,870
16

7. 82% of Syracuse properties have owners who have a Syracuse home address.
Comment
Property owner home address data were not available for 120 (0.2%) of the 42,027
properties in Syracuse.
Residency of Property Owner
2014
Area Number Percent
Syracuse 34,294 82%
Outside of Syracuse 7,613 18%
Total 41,907 100%
17

8. 94% of properties in the city of Syracuse have active water service.
Comment
No information is available for 5,033 (12%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse.
Water Service
2014
Number Percent
Active 34,959 94%
Inactive 2,035 6%
Total 36,994 100%
18

9. 84% of properties with inactive water service are residential.
Comments
The sample above only represents properties with inactive water service. Water service
information is not available for 4,947 (12%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse. The
“Other” category consists of the following property types: cemeteries, community
services, industrial, parking, parks, recreation, religious, schools, and utilities. Single-,
two-, and three-family units have been condensed into “Residential,” including multiple
residences and apartments.
Inactive Water Service by Land Use
2014
Inactive Water Service
Land Use Number Percent
Residential 1,713 84%
Commercial 204 10%
Other 118 6%
Total 2,035 100%
19

10. 60% of properties with inactive water service are located on the Northside and Southside.
Comment
Water service information is not available for 4,947 (12%) of the 42,027 properties in
Syracuse.
Inactive Water Service by TNT Sector
2014
Downtown 12 1%
Eastside 158 8%
Eastwood 92 5%
Lakefront 23 1%
Northside 577 28%
Southside 654 32%
Valley 94 5%
Westside 425 21%
Total 2,035 100%
20

11. 87% of properties in Syracuse are not tax delinquent.
Tax Delinquency
2014
Number Percent
Delinquent 5,388 13%
Not Delinquent 36,639 87%
Total 42,027 100%
21

12. More than twice as much is owed in back taxes to the city of Syracuse compared to
Onondaga County for properties located in the city.
Comment
Downtown and Lakefront properties are not included since they respectively account for
only 73 and 41 tax delinquent properties.
Total Tax Amount Owed
2014
Area Amount Percent
Syracuse $45,009,961 70%
Onondaga $19,565,841 30%
Total $64,575,802 100%
22

13. 72% of taxes owed to Onondaga County come from the Southside, Westside and Northside.
Comments
Lakefront is not included in the graph because the amounts are so low that the percentage
is insignificant. TNT identification was not available for $81,344.13 of total taxes owed
to Onondaga County and was removed from the data.
Property Taxes Owed to Onondaga County by TNT Sector
2014
Downtown $1,823,454 9%
Eastside $2,219,769 11%
Eastwood $672,455 3%
Lakefront $90,614 0%
Northside $3,436,745 18%
Southside $6,097,920 31%
Valley $623,238 3%
Westside $4,520,299 23%
Total $19,484,496 100%
23

14. 38% of Syracuse properties that are tax delinquent are located in the Southside.
Comment
36,642 (87%) of the 42,027 properties in Syracuse are not tax delinquent.
Tax Delinquent Properties by TNT Sector
2014
Southside 2,071 38%
Westside 1,151 21%
Northside 995 18%
Eastside 540 10%
Eastwood 271 5%
Valley 243 5%
Downtown 73 1%
Lakefront 41 1%
Total 5,385 100%
24

15. 62% of tax delinquent properties in the Southside have been delinquent for more than five
years, compared to 38% of tax delinquent properties in the Valley.
Comment
Downtown and Lakefront properties are not included since combined they account for
only 100 tax delinquent properties.
25

Tax Delinquency in Years
2014
TNT Sector
1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21+ Total
# % # % # % # % # % # %
Eastside 288 56% 63 12% 68 13% 9 2% 90 17% 518 100%
Eastwood 157 61% 41 16% 34 13% 2 1% 24 9% 258 100%
Northside 540 55% 167 17% 178 18% 22 2% 66 7% 973 100%
Southside 770 38% 356 17% 431 21% 82 4% 404 20% 2,043 100%
Valley 147 62% 35 15% 29 12% 4 2% 21 9% 236 100%
Westside 470 42% 189 17% 223 20% 58 5% 179 16% 1,119 100%
26

Lending Practices
Implementation of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act in 1975 required
lending institutions to report public loan data. This section will provide
information on the accessibility of credit in Onondaga County.
27

Methods
The data used in this report were collected by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination
Council (FFIEC) from information provided by all loan applicants in the United States. For the
purpose of this study, researchers focused their analyses on Onondaga County in 2011, which is
the most current year for which information is available. The data were provided by Home
Headquarters. This research project occurred during the Spring of 2014. Unless otherwise noted,
findings and charts portray data for Onondaga County. The 8,458 loan applicants for 2011 in
Onondaga County are represented in this report.
Data were provided to the researchers from outside sources, and therefore the accuracy of the
data and its collection methods cannot be verified. While researchers have not collected or
entered the data from the loan applications, the information provided is believed to be an
accurate portrayal of lending practices by mortgage loan institutions in Onondaga County.
28

16. 73% of all loan applications in Onondaga County were approved and accepted.
Source: FFIEC
Loan Action in Onondaga County
2011
Loan Action Number Percent
Application Approved But Not Accepted 279 4%
Application Denied 1,095 17%
Application Withdrawn 339 5%
File closed for Incompleteness 68 1%
Loan Approved and Accepted 4,845 73%
Total 6,626 100%
29

17. 63% of applicants who identified as white had their home mortgage loans approved and
accepted.
Source: FFIEC
Loan Approved by Race
2011
Race Number Percent
American Indian or Alaska Native 15 47%
Asian or Pacific Islander 84 60%
Average 62%
Black or African American 150 47%
White 4,338 63%
30

18. The average loan amount approved for mortgage loan applications in Onondaga County, but
outside of the city of Syracuse is $106,386, which is 35% higher than the average amount
approved for city residents.
Source: FFIEC
Comments
983 applications were omitted from the data due to a lack of information provided or
being classified as “not applicable.” Applications classified as “not applicable” were not
filed within the 2011 calendar year. The city of Syracuse is represented by census tracts
1-61.03. The rest of Onondaga County is denoted by census tracts 101-169.02.
Average Loan Amount by Location
2011
Location Loan Amount
City of Syracuse $68,836
Rest of Onondaga County $106,386
31

19. The average home loan approved in Eastside was $150,000, more than twice as high as the
average of home loans approved in the Southside, Northside, or Valley.
Source: FFIEC
32

20. 90% of home mortgage loans in Downtown were used for home purchase, rather than home
improvement.
Source: FFIEC
Comment
See Appendix IV for table.
33

21. 63% of home mortgage loan applicants had an income of $74,000 or less.
Source: FFIEC
Comments
Income information has been rounded to the nearest thousand.
The data listed as Not Available, which represents 786 people was omitted. The response
Not Available was used if the loan was for a multifamily dwelling, no income
information was asked or relied on in the credit decision, or the applicant’s information is
unavailable because the loan has been purchased by an institution (A Guide to HMDA
Reporting, A-6).”
See Appendix II for neighborhood breakdown.
Income of Home Mortgage Loan Applicants
2011
Income Number Percent
$75,000 or More 2,873 37%
$50,000 to $74,000 2,089 27%
$49,000 or Less 2,800 36%
Total 7,762 100%
34

22. Downtown homeowners had the highest average income of home loan applicants at
$101,167, while the Westside had the lowest average income at $44,405.
Source: FFIEC
35

23. Male loan applicants in Onondaga County received an average home purchase loan amount
of $97,956.
Source: FFIEC
Average Loan Amount by Gender
2011
Gender Loan Amount
Male $97,956
Female $77,266
36

24. 29% of home purchase loans are denied based on the applicant’s debt-to-income ratio.
Source: FFIEC
Home Purchase Loan Denial Reason in Onondaga County
2011
Denial Reason Number Percent
Collateral 44 11%
Credit application incomplete 39 10%
Credit history 99 25%
Debt-to-income 115 29%
Employment history 19 5%
Insufficient cash 19 5%
Mortgage insurance denied 12 3%
Other 19 5%
Unverifiable information 31 8%
Total 397 100%
37

25. 42% of home improvement loans are denied based on the applicant’s credit history.
Source: FFIEC
Comments
The reasons “credit application incomplete,” “mortgage insurance denied,” and
“insufficient cash” received zero responses and were therefore omitted from the finding.
FFIEC did not offer a further explanation of the “other” responses.
Home Improvement Loan Denial Reason in Onondaga County
2011
Collateral 40 8%
Credit history 212 42%
Debt to income 142 28%
Employment history 4 1%
Other 15 3%
Unverifiable information 84 18%
Total 497 100%
38

26. 37% of applicants in Onondaga County with an income of less than $50,000 were denied
loans because of their debt-to-income ratio.
Source: FFIEC
Comment
Home Mortgage Loan Denial Reason for Income Level less
than $50,000
2011
Collateral 27 16%
Credit Application Incomplete 13 8%
Credit History 160 34%
Debt-to-Income Ratio 173 37%
Employment History 11 7%
Insufficient Cash 9 6%
Mortgage Insurance Denied 8 5%
Other 51 11%
Unverifiable Information 18 4%
Total 470 100%
39

27. 38% of loan applicants in Onondaga County with an income level between $50,000 and
$74,000 were denied because of their credit history.
Source: FFIEC
Comment
Home Mortgage Loan Denial Reason for Income Level
Between $50,000 to $74,000
2011
Collateral 27 13%
Other 34 17%
Total 205 100%
40

28. 33% of loan applicants in Onondaga County with an income level greater than $75,000 were
denied loans because of their credit history.
Source: FFIEC
Comment
Home Mortgage Loan Denial Reason for Income Level Greater than
$75,000
2011
Collateral 30 14%
Other 28 13%
Total 213 100%
41

29. 60% of home mortgage applicants that who were denied reside in the Northside, Southside,
or Eastside.
Source: FFIEC
Comments
No applicants were denied in Downtown or Lakefront. For this reason these sectors were
no included in the chart.
42

Methods
Data were provided by US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Syracuse
Department of Neighborhood and Business Development. Data were also obtained from the US
Census Bureau. Research conducted occurred during the spring semester of 2014.
The regions analyzed include the city of Syracuse, Syracuse MSA, Onondaga County, and the
cities of Rochester and Buffalo. The counties of Onondaga, Madison and Oswego comprise the
Syracuse Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
There is no central location where all address-level inventory of federally assisted rental housing
data are integrated. Therefore it makes it difficult to get a clear picture of the current stock of
public and affordable housing in a community. Since this report is based on data from multiple
sources there is not a definitive sample population. This prevents an analysis of the
representativeness of the data compared to the target population, low-income individuals and
affordable housing units.
Issues of representativeness first arise in the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) dataset for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Nine of the grantees
awarded CDBG monies allocated by the city of Syracuse were excluded from analysis because
their addresses could not be linked to the Syracuse parcel file for property information. The
CDBG properties that have been analyzed are considered to be a sample of adequate and
affordable housing in Syracuse. However, the data are not representative of all affordable
housing in Syracuse because not every property that might be considered affordable housing in
Syracuse has been the recipient of CDBG funds.
Information on the Moderate Rehabilitation program (Mod Rehab) was not available in the data
provided in the “Picture of Subsidized Households” available through HUD. The lack of data
alters the representativeness of all subsidized housing in Syracuse.
In regards to the HUD data obtained, there are underlying issues with the information. The
American Community Survey (ACS) from which Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS) is now derived, has a smaller sample size than the Decennial Census (which
was the basis of the 2000 CHAS). This means the sample size of information collected by this
survey is not representative of the target population.
Also, the unavailability of current data used in this report may raise concerns about the relevancy
and representativeness of this data. For example, CHAS provided data on homeowner and rental
housing problems may not be an accurate interpretation of the amount of housing problems in
Syracuse in 2014. In addition, the data do not reflect the amount of rental housing problems that
are present after Syracuse began investing, through CDBG, in reducing the housing problems
renters face.
Issues regarding the accuracy of the data analyzed in the report include errors noted in the ACS
in regards to accuracy of CHAS data, inconsistent sources, and rounding error.
44

When analyzed in Excel, housing units were organized into TNT sectors, determined through zip
code information, which do not align perfectly with TNT sectors in all cases. This may have
distorted the accuracy of the analysis.
Further accuracy issues arise when working with multiple data sources. Particularly because
HUD’s “A Picture of Subsidized Households” and the National Housing Preservation Database
report a difference of 1,470 subsidized housing units in Syracuse. For this report, the National
Housing Preservation Database has been used to depict the amount of subsidized housing units in
Syracuse since it is considered to be more comprehensive and has geographic information for all
housing units. While, HUD’s “A Picture of Subsidized Households” was used to examine
demographic and occupancy rates of different subsidized housing programs, which was not
available through the National Housing Preservation Database.
Finally, in a “Picture of Subsidized Households,” only percentages of demographic and
socioeconomic information were available. The lack of a sample size raises questions about the
accuracy of the data provided.
Source Programs
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS): This online tool provides data on
income, housing problems and cost burdens that homeowners and renters face throughout the
country. The information was collected from the US Census Bureau in the American Community
Survey between 2006 and 2010 and is given to HUD to provide information on housing needs in
each community.
Picture of Subsidized Households: This online table generator provides descriptive data on all
subsidized housing programs available in any city. This includes demographic and
socioeconomic information of the recipients, occupancy rates, number of bedrooms, and average
waitlist time for each housing program. This tool provides data on Housing Choice Vouchers,
Public Housing, Mod Rehab, Section 8 NC/SR, Section 236, Multi-Family subsidies. Locations
analyzed using this tool include the cities of Syracuse, Buffalo, and Rochester for 2009-12.
Information on how the data for this HUD program was collected is not available.
Income Limits Documentation System: This tool determines the income an individual or family
must receive to qualify as low income. The income limit for a four- person family in 2014 for
Syracuse was analyzed in this study.
Permit Dataset: The amount of single- and multi-family unit building permits granted in
Onondaga County between 2008 and 2012 were analyzed. Syracuse data were not available
Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business Development
City of Syracuse Consolidated Plan: This report determines the allocation of federal resources
for affordable housing based on socioeconomic and housing conditions of the community. The
section of the city’s budget to improve the quality of affordable housing for program year 39
(May 2013-April 2014) is included in the report.
45

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Dataset: The data includes information on
CDBG monies awarded in the city of Syracuse. This information was collected between 2010
and 2013. The data has been analyzed using MS Excel and mapped using ArcGIS.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan: This plan outlines how the city of Syracuse will address the
community’s housing and community development needs, goals, and objectives, as determined
by the city and citizen input. Information from the plan contained in this report includes the
amount of houses sold in Syracuse and their average selling price between 2003 and 2009, and
the amount of elderly and family public housing, Section 236, and Section 211 housing units in
Syracuse. Information on how these data were collected is unknown.
Community Housing Data
Christopher Community Waitlist Dataset: This dataset provides the numbers of those on the
waitlist for specific housing managed by the Christopher Community along with desired number
of rooms needed and the year to date waiting list turnovers for each property.
Syracuse Housing Authority Waitlist Dataset: This dataset includes the number of rooms desired,
gender, zip code, and application date for Section 8 housing through the Syracuse Housing
Authority. For this report, only applicants that were placed on the waitlist after January 2012
were analyzed.
GIS Data
US Census Bureau: The GIS data used to map demographic information is located in this dataset,
which provides 2010 census information divided by census tract. Some of the CDBG grantees
and locations of subsidized housing was mapped over this information.
The National Housing Preservation Database
The data in the National Housing Preservation Database comes from HUD and the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and includes nine federally subsidized programs. State and
local subsidies are not included in this database. Information on contract expiration dates, loan
maturity dates, recent physical inspection scores, number of units, type of owner and other
property and subsidy characteristics are included to assist users in determining whether or not a
property is at risk of leaving the subsidized housing stock.
COMMENTS ABOUT SOURCE DATA:
It is important to note that data provided by the National Housing Preservation Database were
not included in the datasets provided (suggested) by the city of Syracuse. However, the purpose
of these data were found relevant to the Affordable Housing report once discovered towards the
end of data analysis period.
The database was created in an effort to centralize and effectively preserve resources of public
and affordable housing. If interested, the National Housing Preservation Database welcomes
adding state and local subsidy information to the database for your community in order to make
it more practical to get housing information in communities.
46

Current Housing Market
Assessment
The following findings portray an overview of housing market in Syracuse,
Syracuse MSA, and Onondaga County, examined through the analysis of the
household ownership, income levels, and housing problems. These findings
reflect data previously collected through the US Department of Housing and
Urban Development and US Census.
47

30. The number of single-family homes purchased between 2003 and 2009 has dropped by more
than 23%, while average home prices have gone up 37%.
Source: City of Syracuse Draft Consolidated Plan 2010-14
Single Family Houses Sold
2003-09
Year Number
Average
Price
2003 1,080 $62,800
2004 1,244 $71,833
2005 1,148 $82,153
2006 1,092 $79,636
2007 1,111 $86,443
2008 879 $87,912
2009 827 $86,085
Total 7,381 $79,552
48

31. The number of multi-family homes sold in Syracuse decreased by more than 37% between
2004 and 2009, yet prices only rose by just under 4%.
Source: City of Syracuse Draft Consolidated Plan 2010-14
Multi-family Homes Sold
2004-09
Year Number Dollars
2004 369 $56,368
2005 496 $56,000
2006 480 $71,367
2007 406 $69,408
2008 283 $67,581
2009 231 $58,604
Total 2,265 $63,221
49

32. To qualify as having “extremely low income” in the Syracuse MSA, a four person family
must have an annual income below $20,299.
Syracuse MSA Income Limit Summary
2014
FY Income Limit Category Percent of
Median Dollars
Extremely Low 30% or Below $20,299
Very Low 31%-50% $20,300
Low 51%-80% $33,850
Moderate 81%-100% $54,150
Moderate to High (Median) Above 100% $67,700
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; FY Income Limits Summary
2008-14
Comments
Syracuse MSA includes the areas of Onondaga, Madison, and Oswego County. Income
limit areas are based on FY Fair Market Rent Areas. This income limit applies to a four-
person family.
50

33. Renters in Syracuse report more housing problems than renters in the rest of Onondaga
County.
Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy 2006-10
Comments
Information for 1,415 households in Syracuse and 1,970 households in
Onondaga County are not available and are excluded from the dataset. Severe housing
problems include: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing
facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room, and cost burden above 50% of the family’s
income.
Severe Housing Problems in Syracuse and Onondaga County
2006-10
Syracuse Onondaga County
Owner Renter Owner Renter
One or More Severe
Housing Problems 2,640 11% 11,345 36% 10,860 9% 16,530 27%
No Housing Problems 20,500 89% 20,545 64% 109,785 91% 44,395 73%
Total 23,140 100% 31,890 100% 120,645 100% 60,925 100%
51

34. 57% of Syracuse renters in Syracuse report one or more housing problems.
Comments
Onondaga County are not available and are excluded from the data. A housing problem
is defined as incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, more than one person per room,
or a cost burden greater than 30% of the family’s income. The housing problems are for
both owners and renters.
Housing Problems in Syracuse and Onondaga County
2006-10
One or More Housing
Problems 6,280 27% 18,240 57% 27,980 23% 29,440 48%
No Housing Problems 16,860 73% 13,645 43% 92,660 77% 31,490 52%
Total 23,140 100% 31,885 100% 120,640 100% 60,930 100%
52

35. 57% of renter households in Syracuse with housing problems have extremely low income.
Comments
Onondaga County are not available and are excluded from the data. A housing problem
is defined as incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, more than one person per room,
or a cost burden greater than 30% of the family’s income. The housing problems are for
both owners and renters. This graph only includes housing units that exhibit one or more
housing problems. Refer to finding three for description of income limits.
Income by Household Type Reporting Housing Problems
2006-10
Syracuse Renters
Onondaga County
Renters
Syracuse
Homeowners
Onondaga County
Homeowners
Income Level Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Extremely Low
Income 10,340 57% 14,270 48% 1,155 18% 4,310 15%
Very Low Income 5,180 28% 8,735 30% 1,855 30% 6,175 22%
Low Income 2,110 12% 5,105 17% 1,775 28% 7,480 27%
Moderate Income 380 2% 690 2% 675 11% 4,070 15%
Moderate to High
Income 230 1% 635 2% 825 13% 5,950 21%
Total 18,240 100% 29,440 100% 6,280 100% 27,980 100%
53

Affordable Housing Funding
Patterns
The following findings examine the Syracuse affordable housing market using
investment data made to affordable housing units through Community
Development Block Grants (CDBG). The overall purpose of the CDBG program
is to create viable urban communities by providing low- and moderate-income
persons and areas with adequate housing and a suitable living environment
through home rehabilitation projects. These findings reflect data collected by the
Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business Development.
54

36. The Southside receives the most funding to rehabilitate two-family homes.
55

37. $3,657,220 was awarded to rehabilitate privately owned single-unit homes between 2010 and
2013.
Source: Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business Development
Comments
“Other” includes land that is used for three family residencies (12), apartments (13),
commercial (5), and vacant land (8). Grants were awarded in varying amounts,
accounting for the difference in investments and the amount of units supported.
Investment and Land Use of CDBGs
2010-13
Amount of Units Investment
Land Use Number Percent Dollars Percent
Single Family 580 76% $2,869,911 69%
Two Family 150 20% $989,532 24%
Other 38 5% $314,142 8%
Total 768 100% $4,173,585 100%
56

38. 61% of Community Development Block Grants funding were awarded to Syracuse residents
living in the Southside and Northside TNT sectors.
Comments
Properties in Downtown Syracuse were not awarded any CDBG monies. A map of where
all CDBG monies were awarded by TNT sector is available in the appendix. A $1,000
grant awarded to a property in Lakefront is not shown in the chart or table.
CDBG by TNT Sector
2010-13
Number Percent
Southside $1,587,293 38%
Northside $973,975 23%
Westside $832,654 20%
Eastside $286,256 7%
Eastwood $257,104 6%
Valley $235,303 6%
Total $4,173,585 100%
57

39. The Southside of Syracuse has the largest amount of low to moderate income housing units
receiving Community Development Block Grants.
58

40. 51% of low income housing units supported by CDBG funds are located in the Southside.
Comments
Since some grants support multiple low-income housing units, the number of units
supported is larger than the amount of grants awarded. One low income housing unit
supported in Lakefront was excluded from analysis.
Low Income Housing Units
Supported by CDBG in Syracuse
2010-13
Location Number Percent
Southside 465 51%
Northside 143 16%
Westside 123 14%
Eastside 75 8%
Valley 51 6%
Eastwood 47 5%
Total 905 100%
59

41. 98% of CDBG projects funded between 2010 and 2013 have been completed.
Status of BDBG Projects
2010-13
Type Percent Number
Complete 98% 752
Incomplete 2% 16
Total 100% 768
60

42. Close to $2.7 million has been budgeted by the city of Syracuse for affordable housing in
2013-14.
Source: City of Syracuse Fourth Annual Action Plan Draft 2013-14
Comments
Programs with variables listed as N/A are programs that do not have grant data listed. To
apply for funding between May 2013 and April 2014, applicants were required to apply
for funding to administer specific programs or services that fall under one of four strategy
areas. They are:
1. Provision and maintenance of quality of affordable housing,
2. Services for the housing vulnerable population
3. Services for the special needs population
4. Housing deconstruction and demolition.
The programs above are supported projects included in the 5-Year Strategic Action Plan.
Financial Support for Quality Affordable Housing in Syracuse
2013-14
Program Final Budget Requested Proposed
Butternut St. Residential Home Improvement
Program $20,500 $21,565 N/A
Neighborhood Revitalization and Stabilization
Program $44,400 $165,890 $40,000
Home Access Program $51,200 $65,519 $30,000
Affordable Housing & Community
Revitalization Programs $68,300 N/A N/A
Far Westside/ City of Syracuse Revitalization
Strategy $92,200 $121,500 $82,980
Home Improvement- SHARP $104,200 $116,000 $153,100
Southwest Neighborhood Revitalization and
Stabilization Program $149,300 $776,276 $151,118
Home Improvement- 1% Loan Program $190,400 $156,250 $200,000
Vacant Property Program $265,142
Rental Rehabilitation $307,100 $488,815 $293,140
Homeownership Services- Down payment
Assistance $383,900 $524,270 $400,000
Home Improvement- Urgent Care $1,000,000 $1,580,000 $1,000,000
Total $2,676,642 $2,350,338 $2,350,338
61

Availability of Affordable
Housing
The following findings show the distribution of affordable housing in Syracuse.
The data collected displays subsidizing housing appreciation, occupancy, and
types of subsidized housing programs in Syracuse. A breakdown of adequate
affordable housing units receiving CDBG funding for each TNT sector is also
provided. These findings reflect data previously collected through the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Syracuse Department of
Neighborhood and Business Development, and the National Housing
Preservation Database.
62

43. The Eastside of Syracuse has 2,151 subsidized housing units.
Comments
This map includes Section 236, 202, 811, public housing, home, LIHTC, Housing Choice
Vouchers, RAP, and Rent Supplement Program. For descriptions of the housing
programs please refer to the glossary which begins on p. 107.
63

44. 27% of subsidized housing units in Syracuse are public housing.
Source: National Housing Preservation Database 2014
Comments
Other includes Section 811, HOME, and RAP. For descriptions on housing programs
please refer to the glossary, which begins on p. 107.
Subsidized Housing in Syracuse
2014
Type Number Percent
Public Housing 2,345 27%
Housing Choice Voucher 1,469 17%
Section 236 1,439 17%
Rent Supplement Program 1,182 14%
Section 202 964 11%
LIHTC 786 9%
Other 437 5%
Total 8,622 100%
64

45. There are 326 affordable housing structures in the Southside that received grants to improve
housing facilities.
Comments
Since CDBG funding is generally awarded to landlords to improve the adequacy of the
affordable housing they offer to low income tenants, CDBG grantee locations are
representative of affordable and adequate housing in each area. The numbers in each
neighborhood represent a count of the CDBG grantees there.
65

46. There are 147 affordable housing structures in the Northside that received grants to improve
housing facilities.
Comment
representative of affordable and adequate housing in each area.
66

47. There are 113 affordable housing structures in the Westside that received grants to improve
housing facilities.
Comment
67

48. There are 77 affordable housing structures in the Eastside that received grants to improve
housing facilities.
Comments
68

49. 71% of subsidized housing in Syracuse is for those who are not considered to be elderly or
disabled.
Source: National Housing Preservation Database 2014
Comment
Other represents families and independents that are not elderly or disabled.
Subsidized Housing by Type in Syracuse
2014
Type Number Percent
Elderly and
Disabled 2,541 29%
Other 6,081 71%
Total 8,622 100%
69

50. The total HUD subsidized housing units in Syracuse has decreased proportionally with the
occupancy between 2010 and 2012.
Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; A Picture of
Subsidized Households 2009-12
HUD Subsidized Housing Units in Syracuse
2009-12
Year
Total Housing
Units
Occupied Housing
Units
2009 7,557 6,952
2010 7,636 6,949
2011 7,405 6,813
2012 7,152 6,580
Average 7,438 6,823
70

Affordable Housing Needs
The section starts by examining the needs by housing size within the community
and then analyzes the current house sizes and waitlists for subsidized housing.
The population in each TNT sector is then compared to the location of CDBG
funds to assess need. A map of individuals living below the poverty line in
Syracuse is provided in the appendix for further reference of need. These
findings reflect data obtained from the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business
Development.
71

51. The Southside and Eastside contain the census tracts with the highest average renter-
occupied household size in Syracuse.
Comment
Average household size is used to infer the average number of bedrooms needed by
renters in different TNT sectors of Syracuse.
72

52. 68% of subsidized housing units available in Syracuse have two or fewer bedrooms.
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development; Subsidized Households 2012
Comment
The number of subsidized units available in Syracuse provided by HUD differs from the
National Housing Preservation database (finding 16) by 1,470 units.
Bedrooms Available in Syracuse
Subsidized Housing
2012
Bedrooms Number Percent
One or Less 3,147 44%
Two 1,716 24%
Three or More 2,289 32%
Total 7,152 100%
73

53. 52% of individuals on the waitlists for Christopher Community and the Syracuse Housing
Authority have requested apartments with three or more bedrooms.
Source: Christopher Community; Syracuse Housing Authority
Comments
Syracuse Housing Authority administers public housing for low and moderate income
individuals and Christopher Community oversees Section 8 housing to individuals
earning low to moderate incomes. 178 individuals were on the waitlist for the Syracuse
Housing Authority between 2013 and 2014 and 1,237 individuals were on the
Christopher Community Waitlist as of March 2014.
Waitlist of Christopher Community and SHA
2013-14
Bedrooms Number Percent
One or Less 202 14%
Two 481 34%
Three or More 732 52%
Total 1,415 100%
74

54. 33% of housing subsidies end within the next five years.
Source: National Housing Preservation Database
Comment
Public housing units do not have subsidy end dates.
Subsidy End Date
2014
Date Number Percent
2014-2019 2,868 33%
2020-2024 1,305 15%
After 2025 2,183 25%
No End Date 2,369 27%
Total 8,725 100%
75

55. 51% of Syracuse homeowners had moderate to high incomes in 2006-10, while 60% of
renters had very or extremely low incomes.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2006-2010
Comment
All household incomes are calculated based on the HAMFI index, which stands for HUD
Area Median Family income. Refer to finding three to determine income limits.
Syracuse Household Incomes
2006-10
Income
Owner Renter
Number Percent Number Percent
Extremely low income 1,460 6% 13,135 40%
Very low income 2,705 12% 6,745 20%
Low income 4,490 19% 6,155 19%
Moderate income 2,720 12% 2,655 8%
Moderate to high income 11,875 51% 4,510 14%
Total 23,245 100% 33,200 100%
76

56. The Eastside of Syracuse has the largest population of all the TNT sectors in Syracuse, yet
this location was awarded fewer grants compared to the Southside, Northside, and Westside.
Comments
The disproportionate population residing in the Eastside comes from the Syracuse
University and SUNY-ESF student population. Total undergraduate enrollment of both
universities is 16,241 people, many of whom live in the University Hill neighborhood.
This represents 43% of Eastside’s total population of 37,502.
77

57. 38% of subsidized housing recipients in Syracuse live below the poverty line, compared to
30% of Rochester recipients and 32% of Buffalo recipients.
Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; A Picture of
Subsidized Households 2012
Subsidized Housing Recipients Living in Poverty
2012
All Subsidized
Housing Recipients
Subsidized Housing
Recipients in Poverty
Number Number Percent
Syracuse 7,532 2,862 38%
Buffalo 10,638 3,404 32%
Rochester 15,047 4,514 30%
78

58. 17% of Housing Choice Voucher units are in bedrooms with more than one person per room.
Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; A Picture of Subsidized
Households 2012
Comment
Over-housing is when a bedroom has more than one person per room.
Over-housed Subsidized Housing in Syracuse by Type
2012
Over-housed Not Over-housed
Type Number Percent Number Percent
Housing Choice
Vouchers (N=3,207) 545 17% 2,662 83%
Section 8 NC/SR
(N=847) 85 10% 762 90%
Public Housing
(N=2,340) 187 8% 2,153 92%
Multi-Family (N=313) 6 2% 307 98%
Section 236 (N=391) 0 0% 391 100%
Average 12% 93%
79

59. 56% of renters in Syracuse have moderate to high cost burdens.
Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development: Comprehensive Housing
Comments
Low cost burden represents rent that is less than 30% of the family’s income,
moderate cost burden represents rent that is between 30% and 50% of the family’s
income, and high cost burden represents rent that is above 50% of the family’s income.
Information on cost burden was not available for 125 Syracuse homeowners, 1,340
Syracuse renters, 420 Onondaga County homeowners, and 1,615 Onondaga County
renters.
Cost Burden in Syracuse and Onondaga County
2006-10
Household
Low Cost Burden 17,075 74% 14,190 45% 93,545 78% 32,375 53%
Moderate Cost
Burden 3,645 16% 7,220 23% 17,295 14% 13,395 22%
High Cost Burden 2,390 10% 10,455 33% 9,790 8% 15,115 25%
Total 23,110 100% 31,865 100% 120,630 100% 60,885 100%
80

Homelessness
Between 2010 and 2013 at least 11,568 individuals spent at least one night in a
Syracuse area shelter. This is equivalent to 8% of the city’s population.
This section will provide a better understanding of the “who, where, how and why” of
homelessness in the Syracuse area.
81

Methods
Data were provided by Liddy Hintz, systems administrator for the Homeless Management
Information Systems of Syracuse/Onondaga County (HMIS) and director of Emergency and
Child Welfare Services for the Salvation Army. Due to the large number of records in the system
and the difficulty in downloading and transferring them, researchers received several datasets of
varying sizes and content. All the findings presented in this report were created using the most
comprehensive dataset available.
The majority of variables examined in this report are part of the original dataset received from
the HMIS systems administrator. However, researchers did construct several variables based on
information contained in the dataset. For example, the variables “COUNT” and “COUNTCAT”
show the total number of visits that an individual made to any of the service providers between
2010 and 2013. This variable was developed by counting the number of times that an
individual’s unique ID number was attached to a unique visit. “COUNTY” and “MUNICIP”
respectively show the county or state and the municipality of the individual’s last permanent
address, and were constructed based on the zip code of last permanent address provided in the
dataset. “AGECAT” uses the ages of each individual provided in the dataset to classify
individuals into larger age groups (e.g., “Under 10 years old,” “10 to 19,” etc.).
This dataset contained information from 55,166 unique visits at nine service providers between
2010 and 2013, made by 11,568 unique individuals. While this dataset does not contain every
visit to a service provider, nor every homeless individual in the area, researchers believe that the
information is comprehensive and accurately represents a picture of the homeless population of
Syracuse.
There are several potential sources of inaccurate information in this report. First, it is important
to remember that all information found in the data have been provided by individuals using the
shelter services. A copy of the form used to obtain the information is found in Appendix VIII.
Although the form is completed by shelter employees who have received training in how to
properly conduct the questionnaire, it relies on the information provided by the shelter residents.
Many of these individuals suffer from drug and alcohol addictions, mental illnesses, and other
developmental and physical challenges that may inhibit their ability to provide accurate
information. The potential exists that some individuals may have purposefully provided false
information for fear of facing negative consequences for providing certain information to shelter
employees (e.g. not having a tuberculosis vaccination).
The second potential source of inaccurate data comes from the transfer of information from the
intake forms to the HMIS electronic system by service provider employees. While employees
have received training in how to access the HMIS system and record the data, the possibility of
occasional errors is always present.
82

In some cases, inaccurate data has been recorded. Clear examples of inaccurate information
became apparent as researchers analyzed the data. For example, there are several instances of
individuals who reported being under 18 years of age and also reported being a military veteran.
It is not known if this was reported by the shelter residents or if the error occurred during data
entry. One of the questions asked for the zip code of the respondent’s last permanent address. In
some instances, the numeric values do not match any US zip codes. Again, it is unknown if the
inaccurate information was reported by the residents, or if recording errors were made by shelter
employees. While researchers have identified some inaccurate data, and it is possible that other
undiscovered inaccuracies exist, researchers do not believe that this possibility raises a concern
about the overall accuracy of this study and the subsequent portrayal of the homeless population
in the Syracuse area that is presented.
83

Shelter Descriptions
Catholic Charities:
Dorothy Day House
The Dorothy Day House is an emergency
shelter for women and their children who
are homeless. The shelter is open 24/7 with
20 beds available. The shelter accepts
women of any age, but agencies usually
refer adolescent women to the shelter. Intake
forms are required. The Catholic Charities-
Diocese of Syracuse in Onondaga County
operates the Dorothy Day House.
Catholic Charities: Men’s Shelter
The Emergency Shelter for Men is located at
1071 South Clinton Street in Syracuse.
Catholic Charities operates the shelter for
homeless men over the age of 24. The
Catholic Charities Men’s Shelter’s defining
characteristics is the longstanding open door
policy and will accept anyone who seeks
shelter, regardless of sobriety. There are 101
beds available. The shelter is equipped with
security and offers various resources in
addition to shelter, such as food and
washrooms.
Catholic Charities:
Oxford Apartments
This emergency shelter for homeless men in
Onondaga was closed in September 2013
and merged with Catholic Charities Men’s
Shelter. The shelter operated approximately
20 beds for homeless men regardless of
sobriety. The shelter was moved to South
Clinton Street due to the increased level of
resources available at that location.
DSS Hotel Vouchers
The Department of Social Services offers
vouchers to homeless individuals in
Onondaga County to stay at local motels.
These vouchers can be obtained from social
services, especially when all shelter beds are
occupied at emergency shelters. The
vouchers are used to temporarily assist a
homeless individual for shelter purposes.
The number of vouchers available is not
specified.
Rescue Mission: Emergency Shelter
The Rescue Mission is the largest
emergency shelter in Syracuse, located in
the Mission District of the city. The Rescue
Mission provides a variety of services
including offering shelter, three hot meals a
day, bathrooms, and clothing and over 250
beds for men. The Rescue Mission serves
meals to men, women and children but only
offers overnight stays to men.
84

Salvation Army Emergency Family
Shelter
The Salvation Army Emergency Shelter is
located at 749 Warren Street and operates
24/7 as an emergency crisis center. The
shelter offers 60 beds, 20 cribs and is
available for both men and women. The
shelter aims to provide temporary
emergency housing while also offering
counseling, social work support and on-site
referrals for future assistance resources. The
shelter offers beds, food and assessments of
physical/mental health.
Salvation Army Emergency
Women’s Shelter
The Salvation Army’s Emergency Women’s
Shelter provides temporary assistance and
shelter to women without children living in
Onondaga County. The shelter specifically
offers assistance to women with serious
mental health and psychiatric disabilities.
The shelter offers on-site crisis intervention,
social work support, mental health
counseling and referrals for further
assistance. The shelter operates 24/7 and
contains 15 beds.
Salvation Army Booth House
Booth House is a shelter operated by the
Salvation Army that targets runaway and
homeless youth, typically between the ages
of 13-17. Youth in times of crisis can avail
themselves of resources such as counseling,
programming, shelter and food at Booth
House for up to 60 days. The Booth House
offers two types of emergency shelter, a 15-
bed residential option located at 3624
Midland Avenue and a non-residential
option where at-risk youth are placed with a
“host family” within the county.
Vera House
Vera House is a safe haven for both men and
women who are victims of domestic and
sexual violence. Vera House is available to
individuals in crisis who need temporary
shelter to protect themselves and their
family from abuse. Vera House operates
24/7 at two confidential locations that
together offer 36 beds.
85

60. There was a 29% total increase in shelter resident visits between 2010 and 2013.
Source: NY 505 CoC HMIS, Syracuse/Onondaga County
Comments
This finding shows the total number of times that a person stayed at a shelter. This
finding does not take into account the fact that some shelters allow residents to stay more
than one night.
Number of Visits by Shelter Residents
2010-13
Year Number
2010 10,814
2011 13,628
2012 15,130
2013 15,135
86

61. There was a 29% increase of unique shelter residents that were served by at least one shelter
from 2010 to 2013.
Comment
This finding only includes the number of individual clients served and does not represent
the cumulative number of annual visits by each person.
Unique Shelter Residents Served
2010-13
Year Number
2010 3,022
2011 4,090
2012 4,369
2013 4,263
87

62. There was a 64% increase in the total number of unique shelter residents who are minors that
were served between 2010 and 2013.
Comments
Only shelter residents younger than 18 years old were included in this finding. Eighteen
shelter residents were excluded from this finding because no age was listed.
Unique Shelter Residents Under 18 years old
2010-13
Year Number
2010 399
2011 936
2012 1,068
2013 1,117
88

63. 81% of shelter residents stayed at a shelter five times or less between 2010 and 2013.
Comments
This graph shows the total number of times between 2010 and 2013 that each shelter
resident stayed at a shelter.
Times Shelter Residents Have Stayed at a Shelter
2010-13
Times Stayed
Residents
Number Percent
More than 50 112 1%
21 to 50 367 3%
11 to 20 627 5%
Six to Ten 1,091 9%
Two to Five 4,422 38%
One 4,949 43%
Total 11,568 100%
89

64. 99% of shelter residents who visited a shelter between 50 times or more between 2010 and
2013 were male.
Comments
A total of 18 shelter residents who identify as transgender were not included in this
finding due to small sample size.
Number of Visits of Shelter Residents by Gender
2010-13
Gender
Number of Visits
One Two to Five Six to Ten 11-20 21-50 >50
# % # % # % # % # % # %
Male 2,245 50% 2,468 59% 792 75% 548 88% 350 96% 111 99%
Female 2,490 50% 1,952 41% 298 25% 79 12% 16 4% 1 1%
Total 4,935 100% 4,420 100% 1090 100% 627 100% 366 100% 112 100%
50%
59%
75%
88%
96%
99%
50%
41%
25%
12%
4%
1%
One
(n=4,935)
Two to Five
(n=4,420)
Six to Ten
(n=1,090)
11 to 20
(n=627)
21 to 50
(n=366)
50 or More
(n=112)
Number of Visits of Shelter Residents by Gender
2010-13
Male Female
90

65. 85% of shelter residents report a location in Onondaga County as their last permanent
address.
Comments
Residents provided the zip code of their last permanent address. Aside from those
included in the chart, 785 residents did not respond or provided a nonexistent zip code.
Additionally, 276 residents are not included in this chart because the zip code provided is
shared by Onondaga County and at least one other county, making their location unclear.
Location of Last Permanent Address
2010-13
Location Number Percent
Onondaga County 8,898 85%
New York State (outside of
Onondaga County) 1,083 10%
Out of State 526 5%
Total 10,507 100%
91

66. 10,257 shelter residents report a location in New York State as their last permanent address.
8,898 shelter residents report a location in Onondaga County as their last permanent address.
8,273 residents report a location in Syracuse as their last permanent address.
Top Locations of Last Permanent Address
2010-13
Top Five States
n=10,783
Top Five Counties in
New York State
n=9,701
Top Five Municipalities
in Onondaga County
n=8,898
New York 10,257 Onondaga 8,898 Syracuse 8,273
Florida 58 Oswego 71 Liverpool 246
Pennsylvania 54 Monroe 70 East Syracuse 94
Georgia 49 Oneida 63 Jamesville 81
New Jersey 40 Erie 58 Clay 42
Comments
Residents provided the zip code of their last permanent address. None of the three tables
include the 785 residents who did not respond or who provided a nonexistent zip code. The
center table does not include 556 residents whose zip codes are in more than one county in
New York State, which makes it impossible to determine in which counties they previously
lived.
92

67. 51% of shelter residents are 30 years of age or older, which is slightly higher than the
percentage of all Syracuse residents who are 30 years or older.
Age of Shelter Residents Compared to Age of Syracuse Residents
Age in years
Shelter Residents
2010-13
Syracuse Residents
2010
60 and older 528 5% 21,515 15%
50 to 59 1,524 13% 16,607 11%
40 to 49 1,861 16% 16,693 11%
30 to 39 1,957 17% 16,960 12%
20 to 29 2,375 21% 31,493 22%
10 to 19 1,567 14% 22,687 16%
Under 10 1,740 15% 19,215 13%
Total 11,552 100% 145,170 100%
Source: NY 505 CoC HMIS, Syracuse/Onondaga County; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census,
Table DP-1
Comment
Omitted from the table are 16 shelter residents who did not report their age.
93

68. 53% of shelter residents identify as Black or African American, compared to 29% of all
Syracuse residents.
Race of Shelter Residents Compared to Race of Residents of
Syracuse, New York
Race
Shelter Residents
2010-13
Syracuse Residents
2010
American Indian or
Alaska Native 191 2% 1,606 1%
Asian or Pacific
Islander 104 1% 8,065 6%
Black or African
American 6,070 53% 42,770 29%
White 5,012 44% 81,319 56%
Other/Multi-Racial 93 1% 11,410 8%
Total 11,470 100% 145,170 100%
Source: NY 505 CoC HMIS, Syracuse/Onondaga County; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census,
Tables P5, P8, PCT4, PCT5, PCT8, and PCT11
Comments
Shelter residents were asked for their “primary race.” Omitted from the chart are 93
shelter residents who did not respond, two who refused to answer, and three who
answered “Don’t know.”
94

69. 74% of residents, ages 50-59, are male.
Comments
A total of 18 shelter residents who either identify as transgender or did not indicate a
gender are not included in this finding. A total of 16 shelter residents who did not report
an age are also not included.
Gender of Shelter Residents, by Age
2010-13
Gender
Age in years
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older
# % # % # % # % # % # % # %
Male 897 50% 725 47% 1,100 46% 1,181 60% 1,273 68% 1,125 74% 407 65%
Female 843 50% 836 53% 1,272 54% 775 40% 587 32% 398 26% 121 35%
Total 1,740 100% 1,561 100% 2,372 100% 1,953 100% 1,860 100% 1,523 100% 528 100%
95

70. 58% of shelter residents under the age of 40 identify as black or African American, compared
to 49% of those 40 years and older.
Comments
Omitted from the graph are 388 shelter residents who identify as American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, or another race. In addition, 99 shelter residents
who did not answer when asked about race and/or age, one who refused to answer, and
three who answered “Don’t know” are not included.
Age of Shelter Residents, by Race
2010-13
Race
Under 40 40 and older
Black or African
American 4,207 58% 1,859 49%
White 3,093 42% 1,918 51%
Total 7,300 100% 3,777 100%
96

71. 23% of shelter residents say that conflict in the household is the primary reason they are
homeless.
Comment
The category ‘Other’ includes Mental Health, Loss of Job, No Affordable Housing,
Underemployment/low income, Criminal Activity, Health/Safety, Domestic Violence
Victim, Conflict w/ guardian, Substandard Housing, Medical Condition, Loss of Public
Assistance, Mutual Agreement (Respite), Utility, Shutoff, Loss of Transportation, Loss of
Child Care, and Mortgage Foreclosure. A total of 6,346 shelter residents are not included
because they did not respond. See next page for the breakdown of each category,
including those aggregated under Other.
97

Primary Reason for Homelessness
2010-13
Reason Count Percent
Conflict in the Household 1,222 23%
Eviction 793 15%
Lack of sufficient housing 543 10%
Release From Institution 440 8%
Substance Abuse 369 7%
Domestic Violence Victim 314 6%
Health/Safety 266 5%
Conflict w/ guardian 239 5%
Substandard Housing 162 3%
No Affordable Housing 160 3%
Loss of Job 158 3%
Criminal Activity 154 3%
Mental Health 145 3%
Underemployment/low income 119 2%
Medical Condition 43 1%
Utility Shutoff 34 1%
Mutual Agreement (Respite) 19 0%
Loss of Public Assistance 19 0%
Loss of Transportation 13 0%
Mortgage Foreclosure 7 0%
Loss of Child Care 3 0%
Total 5,222 100%
98

72. 39% of shelter residents whose previous living situation was supported by government
subsidies, listed affordability as their primary reason for homelessness.
Comments
There were 16 responses listed under the variable “Reason for Homelessness”. The data
was aggregated into four groups, which includes the following responses:
1. Affordability
Eviction, Loss of Job, Loss of Public Assistance, No Affordable housing and
Underemployment/low income.
2. Lack of Sufficient Housing
Lack of Sufficient Housing, Substandard Housing, Utility Shutoff
3. Health/Safety
Domestic Violence Victim, Safety/Health, Medical Condition and Mental Health.
4. Other
Conflict in the Household, Criminal Activity and Release from Institution.
Substance Abuse was not aggregated due to the high percentage of responses. 608 shelter
residents whose previous living situation was supported by government subsidies did not
list a primary reason for homelessness. See next page for the complete breakdown.
99

Primary Reason for Homelessness Among Shelter Residents whose
Previous Living Situation was Supported Housing Subsidies
Number Percent
Affordability
Eviction 307 30%
Loss of Job 8 1%
Underemployment/Low Income 9 1%
Subtotal 395 39%
Lack of Sufficient Housing
Lack of Sufficient Housing 108 11%
Subtotal 168 17%
Health/Safety
Health/Safety 65 6%
Mental Health 82 8%
Subtotal 170 17%
Other
Conflict in Household 38 4%
Subtotal 87 9%
Total 1,010 100%
100

73. 69% of shelter residents who listed substance abuse as the primary reason for their
homelessness identified as white.
Comment
This finding does not include nine respondents who identified as American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Other/Multi-Racial because of the small
number.
Substance Abuse by Race
2010-13
Number Percent
Black or African
American 111 31%
White 249 69%
Total 360 100%
101

74. 67% of shelter residents who listed substance abuse as the primary reason for their
homelessness identified as male.
Substance Abuse by Gender
2010-13
Gender Number Percent
Male 248 67%
Female 121 33%
Total 369 100%
102

75. 93% of shelter residents over the age of 18 are not veterans, which is similar to the
percentage of all Syracuse residents over the age of 18 who are not veterans.
Veteran Status of Shelter Residents Compared to Veteran Status of
Syracuse Veterans
Veteran Status
Shelter Residents
2010-13
Syracuse Residents
2012
Non-Veteran 7,942 93% 103,647 94%
Veteran 583 7% 7,094 6%
Total 8,525 100% 110,741 100%
Source: NY 505 CoC HMIS, Syracuse/Onondaga County; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American
Community Survey, Table DP02
Comments
The chart includes only individuals who are 18 years of age or older. Omitted from the
chart are 105 shelter residents who did not answer when asked if they are a veteran, 11
who answered “Don’t know,” and two who refused to answer.
103

76. One out of three shelter residents who are veterans report that affordability is the reason they
are homeless.
Comments
The data were aggregated into four groups, which includes the following responses:
1. Affordability
Eviction, Loss of Job, Loss of Public Assistance, No Affordable housing,
Underemployment/low income and Loss of Transportation
2. Health/Safety
Domestic Violence Victim, Safety/Health, Medical Condition and Mental Health
3. Lack of Sufficient Housing
Lack of Sufficient Housing, Substandard Housing and Utility Shutoff
4. Other
Conflict in the Household, Criminal Activity, Release from Institution, Conflict w/
Guardian and Mutual Agreement (Respite) Substance Abuse
Substance Abuse was not aggregated due to the high percentage of responses.
321 veterans left this question blank and are not included in the finding. See next
page for the breakdown.
104

Reason for Veteran Homelessness
2010-13
Number Percent
Affordability
Eviction 44 16%
Loss of Job 19 7%
Underemployment/Low Income 11 4%
Loss of Transportation 2 1%
Subtotal 87 32%
Lack of Sufficient Housing
Lack of Sufficient Housing 25 9%
Subtotal 31 11%
Health/Safety
Health/Safety 8 3%
Mental Health 12 4%
Subtotal 33 12%
Other
Conflict in Household 63 23%
Conflict w/ Guardian 2 1%
Mutual Agreement (Respite) 2 1%
Subtotal 95 35%
Total 271 100%
105

77. 60% of homeless veterans report having a disability.
Comments
This finding only includes veterans who reported having or not having a disability. Seven
veterans responded that they did not know if they were disabled or refused to answer.
Disability Status of Veteran Shelter Residents
2010-13
Number Percent
Disabled 352 60%
Not Disabled 233 40%
Total 585 100%
Not Disabled
40%
Disabled
60%
Disability Status of Shelter Residents who are Veterans
2010-13
n=585
106

Glossary
Adequate Housing: A housing situation where individuals or families can access adequate
privacy, space, security, lighting, infrastructure and location with regard to basic facilities - all at
a reasonable cost.
Affordable Housing: Housing in which the occupant pay no more than 30 percent of their
income for total housing costs, including utilities.
Apartment: A structure containing multiple units.
Application Approved but not Accepted: The loan application is approved by bank, but not
accepted by the loan applicant
Application Withdrawn: The loan application is withdrawn by the applicant before a decision
is made.
Census Tract: A small statistical subdivision of a county. Census tract data identifies population
and housing statistics about a specific part of an urban area.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): An annual entitlement the City of Syracuse
receives from HUD to be used to benefit low and moderate income persons and areas. The
overall purpose of the CDBG program is to create viable urban communities through providing
low and moderate income persons and areas with adequate housing, a suitable living
environment, and expanded economic opportunities through home rehabilitation projects
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS): A dataset that demonstrates the
number of households in need of housing assistance.
Conventional Loan: Any loan other than FHA, VA, FSA, or RHS loans.
Cost Burden: When monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceed 30% of monthly income.
Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association): Fannie Mae purchases mortgages from
lending institutions in an effort to increase affordable lending activity at those institutions.
FFIEC (Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council): Formal interagency body
empowered to prescribe uniform principles, standards, and report forms for the federal
examination of financial institutions.
FHA-Insured (Federal Housing Administration): A type of mortgage assistance to help
homebuyers who cannot get home loans because they do not qualify for private mortgage
insurance.
107

Freddie Mac- (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) Federally chartered corporation that
purchases residential mortgages and sells to investors providing lenders with funds for new
homebuyers
FSA/RHS-Guaranteed- FSA/RHS stands for Farm Service Agency/Rural Housing Service.
FSA loans are for farmers or ranchers that are unable to obtain credit elsewhere to start,
purchase, sustain, or expand. RSA loans are guaranteed for low and moderate income families
seeking to buy modest, single-family homes in rural areas.
Ginnie Mae- (Government National Mortgage Association) Pools FHA-insured and VA-
guaranteed loans to back securities for private investment and provides funding that may then be
lent to eligible borrowers by lenders.
Grantees: Individuals or families receiving money from the CDBG program in order to improve
their home.
Home Improvement Loan- A home improvement loan is any dwelling-secured loan to be used,
at least in part, for repairing, rehabilitating, remodeling, or improving a dwelling or the real
property on which the dwelling is located.
Home Purchase Loan- A home purchase loan is any loan secured by and made for the purpose
of purchasing a dwelling.
Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8): A federal assisted housing program, administered by
public housing agencies that pays a portion of rent for low income people. The recipient is
responsible for finding their own housing. This program is often referred to as Section 8 because
it is the largest program under Section 8 of the housing act.
Housing Problem: CHAS defines housing problems as a housing unit that is overcrowded, has a
cost burden, and lacks complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.
HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI): This is the median family income calculated by
HUD for each jurisdiction, in order to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits
for HUD programs.
Land Use: defines what the land is used for whether it is for residential housing, commercial
use, industrial use, parking, parks, recreation, religious use, schools, utilities, or if the land is
vacant. It is also referred to as “property type”.
Loan Purpose- Indicates whether the purpose of the loan or application was for home purchase,
home improvement, or refinancing.
Loan Type- Indicates whether the loan granted, applied for, or purchased was conventional,
government-guaranteed, or government-insured. (https://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/glossary.htm)
Low-Income: An individual or family with income that is less than or equal to 80% of the HUD
Area Median Family Income; very low income if their income is less than or equal to 50% of the
HAMFI; and extremely low income if their income is less than or equal to 30% of the HAMFI.
108

Housing in Syracuse OnondagaCounty 2014

Housing in Syracuse OnondagaCounty 2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Housing in Syracuse OnondagaCounty 2014

Similar to Housing in Syracuse OnondagaCounty 2014 (20)

Housing in Syracuse OnondagaCounty 2014