Hac Publication: Race Place And Housing

Race, Place, and Housing: Housing Conditions in Rural Minority Counties

Housing Assistance Council

2004

December 2004

Housing Assistance Council 1025 Vermont Avenue, NW | Suite 606 | Washington, DC 20005 p 202-842-8600 | f 202-347-3441 | e-mail [email protected] | www.ruralhome.org isbn 1-58064-133-4 This report was prepared by Lance George, Jennifer Pinder, and Theresa Singleton of the Housing Assistance Council (HAC). The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under Cooperative Agreement H-21396 CA with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Ndeye Jackson served as Government Technical Representative. The substance and funding of that work are dedicated to the public. HAC is solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication and such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Government. HAC, founded in 1971, is a nonprofit corporation that supports the development of rural low-income housing nationwide. HAC provides technical housing services, loans from a revolving fund, housing program and policy analysis, research and demonstration projects, and training and information services. HAC is an equal opportunity lender.

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................v Introduction .............................................................................................................................................1 Rural Minority Counties Defined .............................................................................................2 About the Data .................................................................................................................................2 Rural Defined ......................................................................................................................................2 Race and Ethnicity in Rural America ..........................................................................................3 Rural Minority Counties ....................................................................................................................5 RMCs in Perspective ........................................................................................................................5 Poverty in Rural Minority Counties..........................................................................................7 African-American Rural Minority Counties ............................................................................11 Background .........................................................................................................................................11 Housing in African-American Rural Minority Counties ..............................................12 Addressing the Challenge ..........................................................................................................15 Native American Rural Minority Counties .............................................................................17 Background.........................................................................................................................................17 Housing in Native American Rural Minority Counties................................................18 Addressing the Challenge ..........................................................................................................21 Hispanic Rural Minority Counties ..............................................................................................23 Background........................................................................................................................................23 Housing in Hispanic Rural Minority Counties.................................................................25 Addressing the Challenge..........................................................................................................27 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................29 Conclusions and Next Steps .........................................................................................................31 References...............................................................................................................................................32 Endnotes..................................................................................................................................................34 Appendix A: About the Data in This Report ..........................................................................35 Appendix B: Data Tables..................................................................................................................38

Introduction Rural America has often been the stage for the racial and ethnic dramas of this nation’s history (Snipp 1996). It was in the rural South that Emmett Till was brutally slain in an event that helped to spark the Civil Rights Movement. On rural farms across the South and Southwest, Hispanic farmworkers organized to fight for better wages and working conditions. In the 1960s and 1970s, young Native Americans brought national attention to the dire living conditions and discriminatory treatment that defined quality of life for many residents living on reservations. Despite these seminal events, the experiences of rural minorities are often overlooked given their relatively small populations. Moreover, it is often assumed that the conditions that led to these upheavals have been addressed (Yetman 1996). For many rural minorities, specifically those living in communities that have significant minority populations, social and economic conditions continue to lag far behind their white counterparts and urban populations overall (HAC 2002). This harsh fact is most apparent in the housing conditions in which rural minorities continue to live. Data show that housing conditions for minorities in rural areas are often worse than those for rural whites or all households in general (HAC 2002). Rural minorities are more likely to live in substandard and cost-burdened housing, and are more likely to be poor. The geographic isolation and relative segregation of rural minorities living in high minority counties adds an important component to our understanding of the intersections between race, ethnicity, poverty, and housing. The Housing Assistance Council’s (HAC’s) study of housing in rural minority counties (RMCs) utilizes Census and other data sources to examine housing conditions in rural counties with significant minority populations. In addition to identifying rural minority counties and providing data on housing conditions in these areas, the report provides a basis for discussion on the ongoing connection between race and place, and the unique experiences of rural minorities in these communities.

1

Rural Minority Counties Defined 1 This analysis highlights rural areas with relatively substantial and longterm racial and ethnic minority populations. Rural minority counties are those rural counties (defined as explained below) with a specific racial or ethnic minority population of one-third or more in 1980, 1990, and 2000. For example, African-American RMCs are rural counties that have had an African-American population of one-third or more for the past three decades. Given the minority population in rural America (18 percent), the one-third/three-decade criterion is a substantial threshold to meet. This methodology best captures rural communities with significant long-term minority populations and their housing needs. Please note the data presented in this report do not include all rural racial and ethnic minorities, only About the Data populations who reside in the designated Most of the data in this report derive from the 2000 Census of Population RMCs. HAC has identified 304 RMCs. and Housing, Summary Files 1 and 3. Census 2000 was conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of the Census, which collected information on 281.4 million people and 115.9 million housing units across the United States between March and August 2000. Most of the Census 2000 information utilized in this report derives from one of two data sets. The first is Summary File 1, commonly referred to as the “short form,” on which a limited number of questions were asked about every person and every housing unit in the United States. Second, Summary File 3, or “long form” data, provide more detailed information on population and housing characteristics. These data came from a sample of persons (generally one in six) and housing units.

Rural Defined Establishing a definition of rural poses many challenges. In general, rural areas share the common characteristics of comparatively few people living in a geographic area and limited access to large cities and market areas for work or everyday activities. Rurality exists on a continuum, however, and varies based on proximity to a central place, community size, population density, total population, and social and economic factors. Over the years, public agencies and researchers have used combinations of these factors to define rural and to designate geographic areas as rural, including “rural” places as defined by the Census Bureau and Metropolitan Areas delineated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). HAC has devised a county-based designation of urban and rural counties that incorporates both residential patterns, as found in the Census definition, and economic connection patterns, as found in the OMB definition. HAC believes this to be a more precise and inclusive measure of rural character than the Census or OMB definitions can provide alone. Rural, as defined by HAC in this report, includes all counties outside metropolitan areas (i.e., counties that would have been called nonmetro using OMB’s former terminology), as well as metropolitan counties that have no urbanized population as defined by the Census (i.e., metro counties with 100 percent Census-defined rural population). Likewise, urban counties are metropolitan counties with at least some urbanized population. It is extremely important to note that this is not the same definition of rural/urban as devised by the Census Bureau or the metro/nonmetro designation as identified by OMB.

Race and Ethnicity in Rural America Census 2000 revealed the most racially and ethnically diverse nation in our history. Rural areas, however, tend to be more homogenous than the nation as a whole. Nationwide, approximately 69 percent of the population are white and not of Hispanic origin.2 In rural counties, 82 percent of the population are white and nonHispanic. Overall, it is important to note that the comparatively smaller rural minority populations are in part a factor of 20th Century demographic trends such as the migration of African Americans from the rural South to large cities and the tendency of immigrants to settle in urban areas (HAC 1997).

Race and Ethnicity, 2000 Rural

US White 69.1%

Asian 3.6% Hispanic 12.5% Two or More Races 1.6% Native American .7%

White 81.9%

Asian .6% Hispanic 5.3% Two or More Races 1.2% Native American 1.6% African-American 8.5%

African-American 12.0%

Legend

■ White ■ Asian ■ Hispanic ■ Other ■ Native American ■ African-American

3

African Americans3 are the largest minority group in rural America, comprising approximately 9 percent of the rural population. Rural African Americans are more concentrated geographically than other rural minorities overall as nine out of 10 rural African Americans live in the South. However, the rural African-American population outside of the South is growing; between 1990 and 2000 this population grew by 26 percent, a much higher rate than African-American growth in the South. Hispanics make up approximately 5 percent of the rural population, a seemingly small proportion. However, one of the more significant trends in rural America over the last decade was the explosive growth in the Hispanic population. Between 1990 and 2000 the number of rural Hispanics rose by 1.3 million, a 71 percent increase. In fact, onequarter of all rural population growth in the last decade is attributable to Hispanics. Rural Hispanic population growth was particularly high in the upper Midwest and in the deep South, where states like Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and Tennessee all experienced Hispanic growth of over 350 percent. Still, more than half of all rural Hispanics are concentrated in the five states of Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico, and Texas. In fact, approximately one-quarter of all rural Hispanics live in Texas alone. Native Americans, who include American Indians and Alaska Natives, tend to live in rural areas to a greater extent than any other rural minority group; 42 percent of all Native Americans live in rural areas. The spatial location of rural Native Americans is a legacy of historical and political actions, as over one-third of all Native Americans live on Census-designated American Indian/Alaska Native lands. Asians comprise less than 1 percent of all rural persons, and are most heavily concentrated on the West Coast and in Hawaii. The percentages of rural Native Americans and Asians would be slightly higher if respondents who listed multiple races were included (Mikesell 2002). In 2000, the Census tallied persons of two or more races for the first time, allowing respondents to choose from 126 possible racial combinations. In rural areas, approximately 2 percent of the population indicated that they are of two or more races, compared to 2.4 percent nationwide. Most persons of two or more races indicated that they are white in addition to some other racial group. Multi-racial residents in rural areas tend to be younger than the total rural population and they are more likely to live in the West (Grieco and Cassidy 2001). Nearly one-quarter of rural people who report being of two or more races are also Hispanic. About 6 percent of rural Hispanics classify themselves as being of two or more races, compared to 1 percent of non-Hispanics. Housing represents an important component of community resources and fulfills important needs for residents. In addition to providing physical shelter, home values are a vital source of wealth for the millions of Americans who own their homes. An assessment of housing conditions in rural minority counties couched in a discussion of the historical background of each group’s experience with and in rural America provides some illustration of the past, present, and future for each group.

Rural Minority Counties Urban literature has shown with startling clarity the connections between place and race (Squires 1994) and the impacts of segregation on the lives and life chances of urban minorities (Massey and Denton 1993). The isolation of urban ghettos and barrios has been shown to have devastating effects on resident access to essential services, including educational opportunities, financial products, and decent housing (Squires 1994). While not typically represented in the housing segregation literature, life for rural minorities in rural minority counties is comparable to the life of their segregated urban counterparts. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, housing discrimination was declared illegal. It is commonly understood, however, that de facto practices (e.g., white flight, racial steering) have worked to maintain segregation in urban and suburban areas. Common perceptions, fostered in the segregation literature, assume that segregation in the rural South, specifically, ended with the passage of this seminal piece of legislation. However, recent acts of violence against minorities and continued segregation in rural areas contradict these assumptions (Wallace 2002). Tools currently used to measure segregation (e.g., indices of dissimilarity) cannot be applied in wide open rural areas, leading some to assume that rural minorities do not experience segregation. Thus, many have confused large spaces with integrated living patterns. HAC’s analysis of RMCs illustrates a form of rural segregation that perhaps has been hidden and is not very well understood. Similar to urban segregation, rural and small town segregation has both ethnic and class components and has significant impacts on access to important resources, including those related to housing.

RMCs in Perspective RMCs are defined as those rural counties that have sustained a minority population of 33 percent or higher over the last three censuses (i.e., 1980, 1990, and 2000). There are a total of 304 of these traditionally rural minority counties.4 RMCs tend to be concentrated in two specific ways: (1) racially and ethnically and (2) geographically. The minority counties identified are: ■ African-American

counties 200 ■ Asian-American counties 4 ■ Hispanic-American counties 70 ■ Native American counties 29 ■ Combined minority county 1

5

The specific counties are also clustered geographically in regions closely tied to historical dynamics set by past social and economic patterns. As the map below shows, the African-American RMCs are located primarily in the southern Black Belt counties of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, and Virginia. The remaining rural African-American counties are concentrated in the Lower Mississippi Delta states of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Native American RMCs are predominately located in counties with Native American reservations and trust lands in the Midwest plains, the Southwest, and Alaska. Hispanic rural minority counties are predominately located along the U.S.-Mexico border region in Texas and New Mexico and portions of the Southwestern United States.

Rural Minority Counties

Legend County Status ■ Urban Counties ■ Rural–Low Minority Density ■ African American RMCs ■ Native American RMCs ■ Asian RMCs ■ Hispanic RMCs ■ Combined Minority RMC

The four rural minority Asian counties are all located in Hawaii.5 Due to the extremely small number of Asian RMCs and the correspondingly small number of Asian households, this analysis will not include a section detailing social, economic and housing characteristics in these counties. Small sample sizes and outlier factors in these counties produce methodological concerns, which may affect statistical significance and reliability.6 RMCs share integral spatial patterns that determine access to resources and affect overall quality of life for residents. Rural minority counties tend to be more “rural” than rural counties in general. There are 9.5 persons per square mile in rural minority counties as compared to 20.4 in rural counties in general and 79.6 persons per square mile nationally. It is often difficult to provide social services in less dense areas with smaller, more geographically dispersed populations. Greater density affords certain opportunities and represents a resource base from which decisions regarding economic development and service provision are made (HAC 2002). It is also evident that people living in RMCs are more isolated than other rural residents. The Urban and Rural Continuum Codes (also known as the Beale Codes) developed by the United States Department of Agriculture provide a tool for categorizing counties based on population size and adjacency to a metro area. An analysis of the RMCs as they relate to the Urban and Rural Continuum Codes reveals that one-quarter of all RMCs are categorized as either completely rural, less than 2,500 population, adjacent to a metro area or completely rural, less than 2,500 population, not adjacent to a metro area. Forty RMCs fall into the most rural category. It stands to reason that this isolation has an impact on the resources available to these places, including job opportunities and social services.

Poverty in Rural Minority Counties Extremely high poverty rates are the most often shared characteristic among RMC groups. Rural poverty has traditionally been higher than urban poverty (HAC 2002). According to Census 2000, the rural poverty rate was 14.3 percent as compared to 11.8 percent in urban areas. In rural minority counties, poverty is more prevalent; 23.4 percent of all RMC residents are in poverty. With the exception of Asian Americans living in Asian-American RMCs, poverty among the dominant minority group living in each type of rural minority county exceeds 30 percent. Poverty among Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in these Asian counties is much higher than the county rate, however, at 21.9 percent. In each case, the poverty rate for the specific minority group exceeds the overall poverty rate in that type of RMC county by at least 5.5 percentage points, up to over 12 percentage points.

7

Table 1 Poverty in Rural Minority Counties County Type

County Poverty Rate

Poverty Rate for Dominant Minority Group

African-American Rural Minority Counties Asian-American Rural Minority Counties Hispanic Rural Minority Counties Native American Rural Minority Counties All Rural Minority Counties

23.3 12.7 23.7 29.9 23.4

35.6 10.4 30.0 38.5 —

While the numbers above clearly illustrate the existence of poverty in rural minority counties, they do not reveal the entrenched nature of this poverty. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS) defines persistent poverty counties as those that have experienced poverty rates of 20 percent or more from 1960 to 2000. Over 69 percent of the identified rural minority counties are also persistent poverty counties. Rural minority counties comprise over half of all persistent poverty counties.

Persistent Poverty in Rural Minority Counties

Legend ■ States ■ Non-RMC Persistent Poverty Counties ■ RMC Persistent Poverty Counties

9

African-American Rural Minority Counties

Legend Counties ■ African-American RMCs ■ Urban Counties

Background The spatial patterns of African-American residence in rural America can be linked directly to the institution of slavery and the agricultural economy it supported. The first African slaves were brought to the shores of Virginia as early as 1619 to be sold throughout the colonies; however, the larger percentage of slaves were sold to work in the more southern colonies (Yetman 1996). The warm climate and fertile soil of Georgia, North and South Carolina, Virginia, and other Southern states facilitated the cultivation of rice, tobacco, sugar cane, and later cotton. The need for a cheap, large scale labor force created and fostered the institution of slavery in the South for more than 240 years. While slavery would eventually be abolished and the African-American population would begin a “Great Migration” to northern cities and the West, the rural South and the experience of African Americans are inextricably linked. More than a hundred years later, the legacy of slavery can be witnessed in the lives of those bounded by the geography of place. When the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863, less than 8 percent of the African-American population lived in the Northeast or Midwest. Within a decade, the beginnings of the

“Great Migration” led more than 60,000 African-Americans out of the South into Kansas and other parts of the Midwest, including the Oklahoma Indian territories (Library of Congress 2003). Fleeing violence and other forms of oppression, these early African Americans left the rural South in search of social and economic freedom. While approximately 90 percent of all African Americans still resided in the South in 1900, the flow of African Americans from the rural South to northern cities continued almost unabated throughout the 20th Century. Thousands of African Americans left the South to escape sharecropping, worsening economic conditions, and violence. They were drawn to the North by higher wages, better homes, and political rights. The demand for laborers during World War I and the restriction on European immigration also contributed to the migration of African Americans to northern cities. Between 1940 and 1970, continued migration transformed the country’s African-American population from a predominately southern, rural group to a northern, urban one (Library of Congress 2003). During this time, approximately four million African Americans migrated to the North (Rural Migration News 2002).7

11

Overwhelmingly, those African Americans remaining in rural areas reside in the South; nine out of ten rural African Americans live in the southern region. It is no surprise then that the 200 African-American RECs are located primarily in the southern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Most of these counties are clustered in the two regions commonly referred to as the Mississippi Delta and the Black Belt.8 African-American RMCs experience poverty at a significantly higher rate than other rural counties and they tend to be less densely populated than other rural counties. The overall poverty rate in these counties is 23 percent and their AfricanAmerican poverty rate is 36 percent. In African-American RMCs there are 39.9 persons per square mile compared to a national density of 79.6.

Homeownership in African-American RMCs

Housing in African-American Rural Minority Counties

70 60

Percent

There are a total of 1,584,656 occupied housing units in the African-American RMCs. African-American households occupy approximately 698,905 or 44 percent of these housing units. The overall homeownership rate in rural African-American minority counties is 73 percent, comparable to the national rural homeownership rate. The homeownership rate for AfricanAmerican households in these counties is somewhat lower, 65 percent. The African-American homeownership rate in the RMCs is still higher than the homeownership rate for all rural African Americans, and significantly higher than that of African Americans nationwide.

80

50 40 30 20 10 0

US

Legend

■ All Races

Rural

African-American RMCs

■ African American

Manufactured housing9 is one of the fastest growing sources of housing in rural areas, particularly in the southeastern United States, where a majority of the nation’s manufactured homes are located. Most of the housing units in AfricanAmerican minority counties (67 percent) are one-unit detached homes and second most common are manufactured homes, which make up 24 percent of the housing stock. Nationally, African-American households are less likely to live in manufactured homes than their white counterparts; only 4 percent of African-American households occupy manufactured homes. The opposite is the case in African-American rural minority counties, however, where 27 percent of AfricanAmerican households reside in manufactured homes compared to 21 percent of white non-Hispanic households. Homeownership is generally considered to be a positive community and personal asset. While homeownership rates are high in African-American RMCs, housing value must be taken into consideration. Overall housing values in high concentration African-American counties are somewhat lower than the rural median value. The median value of all homes in African-American minority counties is $65,900; the median value of homes owned by African Americans in those counties is significantly lower, however, at $49,400. The disparity between African-American and white home values in these counties is even greater, as the median African-American home value is only two-thirds of the median for units owned by white non-Hispanic households.

As is the case in the nation as a whole, the level of inadequate housing in the Lower Mississippi Delta and the southern Black Belt declined significantly in the past few decades. For example, in 1970 over 60 percent of African-American-occupied units in African-American RMCs lacked adequate plumbing. However, in the year 2000 only 2.3 percent of African-American households in these counties were without plumbing. Despite this dramatic accomplishment, housing quality is still problematic among high concentration African-American counties. The rate of African-American households lacking plumbing in the RMCs is still nearly three times as high as the overall rural rate. Approximately 16,000 African-American households in these counties lack adequate plumbing, and they account for over half of all rural African-Americans lacking plumbing. Crowding is also a problem in high concentration African-American communities of the Lower Mississippi Delta and the southern Black Belt. Approximately 4.8 percent of all households in African-American rural minority counties are crowded, meaning they have more than one person per room. This is somewhat higher than the national rural crowding rate of 3.4 percent. Crowding is significantly more problematic for renters and minorities. At 9.6 percent, the crowding rate among African Americans in the RMCs is nearly three times the national rural rate of 3.4 percent. Furthermore, nearly half (48 percent) of all rural African-American crowded households are located in the African-American RMCs.

Median Home Value $120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

Rural

US

Legend

African-American RMCs

■ US Median Value ■ Rural Median Value ■ Median African-American Value in RMCs ■ Median White Value in RMCs

Inadequate Plumbing, 1970–2000 70 60 Percent of Occupied Units

Homeownership, housing value, and asset retention are heavily dependent on access to mortgage financing. Rural areas generally have fewer conventional banks and financial institutions than urban centers. This is a major factor in the proliferation of subprime lending,10 particularly in rural areas with high minority populations (HAC 2002). Subprime lenders are more active in low-income and minority communities. According to 2000 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, 13.2 percent of reported home loans in rural areas were originated by subprime lenders. In the African-American RMCs, 16.4 percent of all loans were subprime. Manufactured home lending is also significant in the rural AfricanAmerican South, as 20 percent of all originated loans in that region were made by manufactured home lenders compared to 10 percent for all rural areas. While not all subprime loans are predatory in nature, higher fees and aggressive lending practices and terms, in general, can rob an owner of equity and reduce the benefits of owning one’s home.

50 40 30 20 10 0

1970

13

1980

1990

Year

Legend

■ National ■ Rural ■ African Americans in RMCs

2000

Housing affordability has become the most prevalent housing concern in rural America and this is particularly the case in the Delta and Black Belt regions. These areas have relatively high rates of housing cost burden—with cost burden defined as paying greater than 30 percent of monthly income for shelter costs. Twenty-six percent of all households in African-American RMCs are cost-burdened. Affordability problems are more severe for African Americans in these regions and are particularly pervasive among minority renters. Nationwide, 31 percent of rural renters are cost-burdened. But in the African-American RMCs the cost burden rate for African-American renters is nearly 39 percent. Interestingly, the cost burden rate for African-American renters in the RMCs is also higher than the national rent burden level. Likewise, while 18 percent of all rural owners are costburdened, over 30 percent of African-American owners in these minority counties pay too much for housing. Again, this well exceeds the national owner cost burden rate. It is rare that rural cost burden rates exceed the national rate, and this suggests a serious gap in the availability of affordable housing stock in these areas, which is compounded by extremely high poverty rates. As noted above, more than 35 percent of African Americans living in African-American RMCs are poor.

Addressing the Challenge Housing conditions in the African-American RMCs of the Mississippi Delta and the southern Black Belt are in large part attributable to social, political, and economic conditions in the region. These conditions were historically created, sanctioned, and nurtured on the economic exploitation and social isolation of the African-American population (Yetman 1999). Consequently, efforts to address the housing needs of this region will require multilevel approaches that speak to the social, political, and economic infrastructure of these counties. In addition to increased financial resources, the Delta and the southern Black Belt are in need of additional community and organizational capacity to address the interconnected economic and housing needs that affect the region.

African Americans living in RMCs in the Mississippi Delta and the southern Black Belt have significant needs for decent affordable housing and related infrastructure. Persistent poverty and a lack of resources make it difficult to achieve positive changes in the region. One example of efforts to meet these needs is the Delta Compact, an organization that is seeking to address the Delta’s community and economic development needs. It is funded by USDA and is directed by a steering committee comprised of a wide variety of Delta stakeholders. Several public and private organizations have agreed to collaborate through the Compact to promote community and economic development in the region. These organizations have already pledged $40 million in resources and technical assistance to promote the improvement of the Delta (Campbell 2000). Some of the primary objectives of the Delta Compact include identifying and procuring new resources and leveraging existing resources, advocating for change in the Delta, sharing information and data, and creating a leadership network (Delta Compact 1998). Other efforts to improve social and housing conditions in the rural Southeast include initiatives by the Delta Caucus, the Foundation for the Mid South, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, and Mid South Delta LISC.11

15

Native American Rural Minority Counties Background The history of Native Americans in what is now the United States can be traced back more than 30,000 years (Snipp 1996). Native Americans populated various parts of the continent, establishing numerous tribes that celebrated, and sometimes fought over, cultural differences. Native Americans are admired for their deep and abiding connection to the land. Yet, much of their recent history is tied to rural expanses that are marked by decades of poverty, neglect, and exploitation.

Native American Rural Minority Counties

Legend Counties ■ Native American RMCs ■ Urban Counties

When Columbus first reached North America in the late 15th Century, there were between 5 and 6 million Native Americans. Approximately 400 years later, the population had dwindled to 237,000. The numbers of tribes and Native American minority groups were also dramatically reduced, from 1,000 at the time of first European contact to fewer than 600 federally recognized tribes in 2003.12 At the height of their presence in North America, the Native Americans’ land base consisted of over 2 billion acres. By 1871, this decreased dramatically to 155 million acres and by 1997 it was merely 54 million acres (Yetman 1999). These devastating changes resulted from outside forces set into motion by the arrival of European settlers. With the colonists came diseases that Native people were not able to resist and aggression aimed directly at taking their land. These factors laid claim to the lives of millions of Native Americans, as well as much of the land that is integral to their culture.

17

Currently, 39 percent of all Native Americans live in rural areas. The geographic location of most Native Americans was dictated in large part by a series of regulations and laws passed to secure the lands taken by the U.S. government and white settlers. During the 19th and 20th Centuries, a series of acts and treaties established the reservation system and imposed a way of life on many Native Americans. While Native American reservations can be found in many states across the country, they are concentrated in Midwestern and Western states including Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, Montana, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, and Utah. Over 40 percent of all rural Native Americans live in Native American RMCs. Not surprisingly, there is considerable overlap between Native American RMCs and the location of Native American reservations; these counties are also are clustered in the northern High Plains, the Four Corners region in the Southwest, and Alaska. Counties with a high population of Native Americans tend to be thinly settled and far from major population centers. Native American RMCs are extremely rural, with only 1.4 persons per square mile compared to the national rate of 79.6 persons per square mile. Poverty among Native Americans living in RMCs is high (38.5 percent) compared to all rural residents (14.3 percent).

Housing in Native American Rural Minority Counties There are a total of 176,927 occupied housing units in the 29 Native American RMCs; Native Americans occupy approximately 90,339 or 51 percent of them. Homeownership rates are high in Native American RMCs—seven of every ten occupied housing units are owner-occupied. Native American homeownership rates in these areas are comparable at 69.7 percent. This statistic may be misleading, however, due in part to the HUD “Mutual Help” program. In essence, Mutual Help is a leasepurchase program and therefore many persons who occupy mutual help homes do not yet have title to these units; however, the Census Bureau believes that many Mutual Help occupants may have identified themselves as homeowners. If Mutual Help occupants were excluded, the homeownership rate for Native Americans on tribal lands would likely drop significantly (HUD and Urban Institute 1996).

Homeownership in Native American RMCs 80

Percent Homeownership

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

US

Legend

■ All Races

Rural ■ Native American

Native American RMCs

Single-unit detached homes are by far the most widespread type of housing structure in the country as a whole, and this is also the case for Native Americans across the nation. However, the use of manufactured housing units is growing in popularity among Native Americans. Manufactured homes now account for 24 percent of all housing units on Native American lands, more than three times the national rate. Among Native Americans, 23 percent of occupied housing units in the RMCs are manufactured homes. Manufactured homes are often the most feasible form of housing in poor and remote areas, as is the case with many Native American lands. Manufactured homes are also convenient in situations where there are few contractors or developers, building supply stores are distant, and site-built housing is prohibitively expensive (HAC 2002). Cluster housing is one of the main forms of housing on many reservations. Cluster housing is single-unit detached government-assisted rental units, which have for the most part been built in small clusters. Cluster housing was first built by HUD in the 1960s and was meant to provide “modern housing and utilities in a cost-effective manner” (Spitzmiller and Rogerson 2001). Even though residents were accustomed to living on their own pieces of land, perhaps with gardens and animals, many moved into cluster housing to have access to better housing and modern utilities, which were far more difficult to supply outside of the central towns. Currently, cluster housing is often referred to as a “reservation ghetto” (Spitzmiller and Rogerson 2001) complete with drug and crime problems (Kingsley 1996, 138). One long-time resident of cluster housing on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota commented that, “Government houses just tore the families apart. We talk so much about our way of life, the ‘Indian-ness’ in us . . . but we don’t have that when they put us in these cluster homes.” In research conducted by the Urban Institute, Native Americans on tribal lands were asked about their perceptions of the rental housing available to them. The single most reported serious problem was “too close to neighbors,” which was identified by 23 percent of respondents (Spitzmiller and Rogerson 2001).

The lack of financing for affordable homeownership opportunities creates additional barriers on trust lands. For decades, a plethora of legal, socioeconomic, and cultural constraints have severely curtailed the level of residential financing on trust lands. This problem is highlighted in a 1998 General Accounting Office (GAO) report investigating mortgage lending on trust lands. The report found that between 1992 and 1996 a total of only 92 non-governmental, conventional mortgage loans were originated on trust lands. Further, 81 of these were originated for homes for members of just two tribes: the Oneida of northeastern Wisconsin and the Tulalip of northeastern Washington state (GAO 1998).

Shannon County, S.D., home to much of the Pine Ridge Reservation, provides an example of the impact of subprime lending in high concentration Native American counties. During 1999, Shannon County residents applied for a total of 228 mortgage loans. The vast majority of these applicants (177, or nearly 78 percent) applied to subprime or manufactured home lenders,13 while only 22 percent of all applications were processed by lenders classified as mainstream or prime (HAC 2002). Household crowding is one of the most significant problems throughout Native American RMCs. Nationwide, approximately 6 percent of households have more than one person per room and are considered crowded. However, crowding rates among Native American households in RMCs are nearly five times the national rates with 28.9 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives households experiencing crowded conditions. Crowding has implications far beyond the obvious lack of space and privacy. A recent National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC) study links domestic crowding and the substandard housing conditions that often accompany it to increased incidences of tuberculosis, pneumonia, gastrointestinal disorders, head lice, conjunctivitis, hepatitis, and various other infectious diseases that are easily transmitted in crowded spaces. Lower educational attainment among children and social problems like alcoholism, domestic violence, and child abuse and/or neglect are also associated with severely crowded living conditions (NAIHC 2001).

Subprime Lending & Manufactured Housing Lending Percent of Loans Made by Subprime Lenders

An examination of lending patterns among Native Americans reveals that subprime and manufactured home loans are extremely prevalent and Native American borrowers experience a high rate of loan denials. Recent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data show that 42.9 percent of reported home loan applications in Native American RMCs were originated by subprime or manufactured home lenders, compared to 23 percent for all rural areas.

50 45 40 35 30

30.3

25 20 15 10

9.8

4.1 13.5

13.2

US

Rural

5 0

Legend

■ Subprime Loans ■ Subprime Loans

12.6 Native American RMC

■ Manufactured Housing Loans ■ Manufactured Housing Loans

19

Crowding in Native American RMCs 30

25

20

Percent

Another dramatic demonstration of the housing inadequacy that exists in Native American RMCs is the prevalence of units lacking adequate plumbing. Nationwide only 0.6 percent of all households nationwide live in housing units lacking adequate plumbing. However, a staggering 20.7 percent of Native American households residing in RMCs lack adequate plumbing—more than 20 times the national level. High inadequate plumbing rates are prevalent throughout most highly concentrated Native American areas, but are particularly high in Alaska and the Southwest. In concert with, and often as a result of, the poor housing conditions that exist in these highly concentrated Native American areas, housing values there are significantly lower than national and rural median values. The median value of all homes in Native American counties is $66,100, but the median value of homes owned by Native Americans in these counties is only slightly more than half that at $36,800. The disparity between Native American and white homeowners in these counties is even greater as the median home value is $71,300 for white non-Hispanic homeowners.

10

5

0

Rural

US

Legend

■ All Races

Native American RMCs

■ Native Americans

Units Lacking Plumbing 25

20

Percent

Affordability is a more serious issue in some Native American counties than in others. Overall, 18.3 percent of Native American homeowners in high concentration Native American counties are cost-burdened, spending over 30 percent of their households’ income for housing each month. Renters are far more in danger of having affordability problems, as almost one-quarter of Native American renters in the RMCs are costburdened. Despite generally low housing costs in Native American areas, affordability problems also co-exist with high and persistent poverty rates. For example, Ziebach County, S.D., location of the Cheyenne River Sioux reservation, is an extremely poor county with considerable cost burden problems among its population. In this area, as in many Native American minority counties, incomes are so low that many residents cannot afford housing even though costs are much lower than the national average. When incomes and housing prices are both depressed in communities such as these, the quality of housing is also typically low.

15

20.7

15

10 7.8

5 4.4 0.6

0

US

0.8

Rural

Native American

Residence & Race/Ethnicity

Legend

■ US ■ Rural ■ All Native Americans ■ Rural Native Americans ■ Native Americans in RMCs

Addressing the Challenge While housing problems are severe in many Native American RMCs, some progress is being made. The 1996 Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) replaced several separate U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs with a block grant program. With the additional flexibility of the block grant, some tribes have seen positive results using these funds to partner with other programs. Additionally, HUD’s Section 184 program is meant to stimulate access to private financing for Native Americans. Instituted under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Section 184 provides federal government guarantees for loans made by private lenders to Native American families, tribes, or Indian housing entities for construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation of single-family homes. Section 184 is currently the most widely used product to encourage private lending on restricted lands. As of August 31, 2002, $96.5 million in guaranteed Section 184 loans had been made, with 300 loans (worth $45.9 million) made in Alaska alone (NAIHC 2001). The majority of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) housing finance efforts for Native Americans fall under the Rural Housing Service’s Section 502 program, which provides direct homeownership loans for low-income families in rural areas. Because Native Americans tend to live in rural areas, RHS programs are often well suited to their financing needs. RHS loan origination rates among Native Americans are similar to those of other agencies offering federally subsidized housing assistance. In fiscal year 1999, 241 Section 502 direct loans were made to Native American households. Of these, 38 were located on trust lands (USDA 1999). Although there is still much to be done, particularly for those living in the deepest poverty and in the worst housing conditions on Native American lands, the past decade has seen changes that hold the promise of future improvements. Like most high need rural areas, Native American RMCs are in need of additional funding for development and capacity building of local grassroots organizations working to improve housing conditions. These communities also need help in building tribal economies and creating an incentive to build private markets on Native American lands.

21

Hispanic Rural Minority Counties Background Hispanics are the largest and most rapidly growing ethnic group in the nation (HAC 2002). From 1990 to 2000 the Hispanic population increased by 58 percent. This growth was fueled by both increased immigration and high birth rates. While over 90 percent of the U.S. Hispanic population lives in metropolitan areas, Hispanic growth over the last decade was proportionally greater in rural areas. Hispanic residential patterns in rural America are inextricably linked to agriculture. As a major part of the farmworker labor pool, rural Hispanics have made huge contributions to the economy of this nation and have suffered some of the most abject housing conditions.

Hispanic Rural Minority Counties

Legend

23 Counties ■ Hispanic RMCs ■ Urban Counties

Hispanic is an umbrella term referring to people from a variety of nations around the world. Latinos originate from 22 different countries and, while most Hispanics consider themselves white, many are of other races (Larmer 1999). The largest group of Hispanics in the United States is of Mexican descent.14 Today, over 20 million people of Mexican ancestry live in the United States. The history of Mexicans in America is a long and complex one. Between the early 17th and mid 19th Centuries, Spain colonized and Mexico owned large parts of what is now the United States. Through a series of wars and treaties the vast expanse of what is now the Southwestern United States was ceded by Mexico (Yetman 1999). The Mexican-American population in the United States increased through both legal and undocumented immigration. Most of this has occurred throughout the 20th Century and has contributed to the economic development of the Southwest by providing inexpensive labor (Yetman 1999). The region along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, which is characterized by extreme poverty, limited employment, and deplorable health conditions, includes thousands of poor neighborhoods known as colonias (Effland 1996). In 2000, approximately 46 percent of the residents in the border colonias region were Hispanic (HAC 2002).15

The term colonia has its origins in the Spanish word for “neighborhood,” but recently it has come to define a residential development characterized by substandard living conditions. Generally colonias are rural, mostly unincorporated communities located in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas along the U.S.-Mexico border and are characterized by high poverty rates and substandard living conditions. In fact, colonias are defined primarily by what they lack, such as potable drinking water, water and wastewater systems, paved streets, and standard mortgage financing (HAC 1994). While most of the residents in Hispanic RMCs do not live in designated colonias, the vast majority of the nation’s colonias are located in these counties. Parts of the border region serve as the principal home base for workers employed in agriculture and agriculture-related businesses. The Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas and Imperial County, Calif., are home bases for many who travel in the Texas and California migrant streams, respectively (HAC 2001). This reliance on immigrant agricultural labor adds to the stresses on available housing and infrastructure systems, forcing greater numbers of households to reside in colonia communities.

Housing in Hispanic Rural Minority Counties

Historically, Hispanics, particularly those living in the colonias, have demonstrated a strong homeownership ethic. Homeownership rates are higher along the border than nationwide and are comparable to homeownership rates for all rural areas. Overall, 74 percent of all households in high concentration Hispanic counties own their homes. Similarly, 72 percent of Hispanic households in these areas own their homes, significantly higher than the national rural Hispanic homeownership rate of 59 percent and the total U.S. homeownership rate of 67 percent. As is the case in other RMCs, manufactured homes are a significant and growing part of the housing stock in Hispanic rural minority counties. Approximately 20 percent of all occupied housing units in rural Hispanic counties are manufactured homes, compared to 8 percent nationally. Similarly, 21 percent of Hispanic households in the RMCs live in manufactured homes. Nationally, only 6 percent of Hispanic households live in manufactured homes. The New Mexico border area has a particularly high proportion of manufactured homes, which comprise 26 percent of the state’s border region housing stock. Housing and infrastructure development in the colonias is complicated by the “contract for deed” financing mechanism used frequently in the colonias over the last 50 years. Many home purchasers in the colonias have poor or no credit and lack the resources to qualify for traditional bank financing. In many cases, seller financing is their only alternative. Under a contract for deed arrangement, the purchaser obtains no equity in the property and land ownership remains with the seller until the total purchase price, often including a high rate of interest, is paid (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 2002). Unlike deeds of trust, contracts for deed are rarely recorded with a local municipality, making it easy for the developer to reclaim the property. Thus, if the purchaser falls behind in payments, the developer can repossess the land—and any improvements made by the purchaser—without going through a foreclosure process. Despite high homeownership rates among Hispanics in the RMCs, conventional homeownership financing methods are often inaccessible to rural Hispanic residents. Many Hispanics, particularly those in the border colonias area with contracts for deed, find it difficult to secure financing to build a house or make home improvements. Because title does not transfer to the buyer until all payments have been made on the land, an applicant cannot use the property as collateral for a loan. Therefore, conventional financial institutions are reluctant to lend money to improve the property (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 2002).

70

Percent Homeownership

Housing conditions among rural Hispanics in RMCs are deeply impacted by the demographic and economic forces along the U.S.-Mexico border. There are 399,623 occupied housing units in these 70 high Hispanic concentration counties. Hispanic households occupy approximately 221,026, or 55 percent, of these units.

Homeownership in Hispanic RMCs 80

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Rural

US

Hispanic RMC

Residence & Race/Ethnicity

Legend

■ All Races

■ Hispanic

Subprime lenders have, for better or worse, filled some of the lending gap in high concentration Hispanic communities. HMDA data from the year 2000 reveal that 17.8 percent of the reported home loans in Hispanic minority counties were originated by subprime lenders, compared to 13.2 percent for all rural areas. Manufactured home lending is also significant in these counties as 16 percent of all originated loans were made by subprime lenders specializing in manufactured homes. Nationally, the rural share of manufactured home loan originations was 10 percent. Additionally, housing values are much lower in Hispanic RMCs than elsewhere. The median housing value among Hispanics in these Hispanic counties is less than half the national median. The median value of all homes in Hispanic minority counties is $53,800. However, the median value of units owned by Hispanics in these areas is even lower at $47,400. The disparity between Hispanic and white homeowners in these counties is substantial, as the median white non-Hispanic home value there is $81,700. As explained above, the comparatively low value of homes in Hispanic RMCs can in large part be attributed to the issues related to the colonias. While not all Hispanic RMCs are in the colonia region, the majority are home to colonias, which experience significant issues related to home finance, quality, and access to services that reduce home value.

25

Significant housing quality problems plague rural communities with high concentrations of Hispanic households. In many colonia areas, Hispanic residents tend to purchase small lots and construct their own dwellings, using available materials and adding to them when possible. Over 5,000 (2.3 percent) of Hispanic occupied housing units in Hispanic RMCs lack complete plumbing facilities. This is nearly four times the national rate. Further, the problem of inadequate plumbing among rural Hispanics is concentrated in these minority counties, as 41 percent of all rural Hispanics lacking adequate plumbing live in a Hispanic RMC. It must be noted that the level of inadequate plumbing in the border colonias and Southwest declined somewhat in the past few decades. For example, in 1970 over 40 percent of Hispanic-occupied units in these minority counties lacked adequate plumbing compared to just over 2 percent today.

Median Home Value $120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

The housing problems experienced by Hispanics living in Hispanic RMCs extend beyond the physical structure of their homes, as colonia areas generally lack basic infrastructure. According to assessments conducted by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 24 percent of households in Texas’s colonias are not connected to treated water and use untreated water for drinking and cooking. TWDB has estimated a cost of $147.9 million to provide water services to these households. Fortyfour percent of the homes in the colonias have outhouses or cesspools. TWDB has estimated a cost of $80 million to provide indoor plumbing improvements and a cost of $467.3 million to provide wastewater service to the colonias. In addition, TWDB asserts that approximately 44 percent of the homes in the colonias experience flooding problems due to lack of paved streets and drainage problems (HAC 1998).

Crowding is another problem in Hispanic RMCs. The incidence of household crowding for Hispanics in rural minority counties is more than twice the national average; 16 percent of Hispanic households in these high concentration Hispanic counties live in crowded units. Surprisingly, crowding rates among Hispanics in these counties are somewhat lower than among their counterparts nationwide and in rural areas. However, 21 percent of all crowded rural Hispanic households live in these high concentration Hispanic counties.

US

Rural

Hispanic RMCs

Legend

■ US Median Value ■ Rural Median Value ■ Median Hispanic Value in RMCs ■ Median White Value in RMCs

Inadequate Plumbing, 1970–2000 30

25 Percent of Occupied Units

The absence of platting, an expensive process that includes the delineation of property lines, access roads, and curbing, is a major obstacle to infrastructure improvements in the colonias and is also a factor inhibiting their annexation by adjacent incorporated communities. The scattered nature and remote location of a number of colonias also make it difficult and expensive to deliver services and resources comprehensively. There are inherent problems associated with small community size. Construction of wastewater treatment plants for such small communities is generally not economically feasible. Similarly, the extension of water distribution and wastewater collection lines from existing treatment facilities to remote geographical locations tends to be prohibitively expensive (HAC 1998).

0

20

15

10

5

0

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

Legend

■ National ■ Rural ■ Hispanic in Hispanic RMCs

Affordability is also a concern in rural Hispanic counties. Overall, 21.7 percent of Hispanic homeowners in Hispanic counties are cost burdened, meaning they are spending over 30 percent of their households’ income for housing each month. Hispanic renters have even greater affordability problems, as fully 34.2 percent of Hispanic renters in high concentration Hispanic rural areas are cost burdened.

Addressing the Challenge

Crowding in Hispanic RMCs

Hispanics are reshaping the demographics of rural America in many ways. With a median age of just 23, rural Hispanics are much younger than the rural population as a whole. Hispanics also tend to live in larger households and to have higher levels of poverty and lower levels of education than the overall rural population (HAC 2002). Many of these social issues directly impact housing for rural Hispanics. Rural Latinos in high concentration Hispanic counties are more likely to be renters, and they experience inadequate housing at significantly higher rates than all rural households. Low incomes also exacerbate affordability problems, and household crowding is a particular concern.

30

The complex issues that limit quality of life in colonias, including contract for deed financing, lack of water and sewer systems, unpaved roads, and the absence of flood control, make conditions in many border counties comparable to those found in developing countries. Numerous community-led efforts have sought to address the colonias’ needs. Federal, state, and local governments have been spurred by colonia advocates to implement policies and regulations to address the colonia phenomenon and restrict their further growth. Yet these communities continue to exist. In the past ten years, the adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the burgeoning debate on immigration issues have focused increased public attention on the border region. There is renewed commitment on the part of local nonprofits, and the public and private sectors, to tackle the problems along the border jointly.

25

Percent

20

15

10

5

0

Rural

US

Legend

■ All Races

Hispanic RMCs

■ Hispanic

27

Legislation in Texas has sought to curtail the inequities inherent in contracts for deed. In 1995, the Texas state legislature passed the Colonias Fair Land Sales Act, requiring developers to register contracts for deed and counties to keep records of them. It also obligates developers to provide statements of available services, such as water, wastewater, and electricity, and to disclose if a property is located in a floodplain. Developers must provide each property buyer with an annual statement including the amount paid, the amount owed, the number of payments remaining, and the amount paid to taxing authorities on the purchaser’s behalf (Senate Bill 336). While this legislation attempts to remedy many problems arising from contract for deed land sales, new problems have emerged for lowincome colonias residents. Several aspects of the legislation have created a “Catch 22” situation where some residents have been unable to connect to services such as water and electricity until a colonia is fully approved and serviced. Fortunately, the Texas state legislature has committed to rectify this situation (Ward and Carew 2000). Despite the numerous challenges in high concentration Hispanic counties, a number of organizations have taken on the formidable task of addressing the problems faced by these communities. Local nonprofit groups, with strong grassroots support from the communities, have developed and implemented a number of innovative approaches to address the conditions in the colonias and U.S.-Mexican border. Colonia experts almost universally agree that local community-based institutions are the primary vehicle needed for accomplishing the fundamental goal of empowering colonia residents to solve their own problems (Ward and Carew 2000).

Discussion While rural America is generally less racially and ethnically diverse than urban centers or the nation as a whole, specific regions and rural areas like the southern Black Belt and Lower Mississippi Delta, the colonias along the U.S.-Mexico border, and Native American lands have significant concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities. These areas and their minority populations have all experienced decades of pervasively poor economic conditions. Despite their unique histories and geography, the rural minority counties share many of the same poor housing conditions. The commonalities that exist among rural minorities are undoubtedly linked to the troubled economic legacy of the areas in which these communities are located and the poverty that has been sustained there.

Homeownership in the United States symbolizes the American dream to which many households aspire. Owning a home not only provides individual security and prosperity, but also serves as a significant source of wealth and equity for most Americans. In rural areas, as in the nation as a whole, minorities have much lower homeownership rates than whites. At the same time, the level of homeownership for rural minorities is 14 percentage points higher than the level for minorities in urban areas. In rural minority counties, minority homeownership rates are much higher than in other areas and are often above the national homeownership rate. However, many of the positive by-products of affordable homeownership do not accrue for rural minorities in minority counties. Housing values are significantly lower for minorities in these counties than for white, non-Hispanic owners. Furthermore, many minorities have difficulties selling their homes because of their locations (Joint Center 2003). These circumstances greatly limit potential markets and subsequently the asset creation assumed to be inherent in homeownership.

29

An integral component of quality housing and homeownership is access to financing products and services. Rural areas in general have fewer conventional financial institutions, resulting in less competition and increased costs for consumers (HAC 1999). Minorities in rural minority counties have the added constraints of racial targeting by subprime and predatory lenders. The data clearly show that subprime and chattel manufactured home lenders are more prevalent in rural minority counties than either nationally or in rural areas. Lending practices among these institutions significantly increase costs and have been shown to strip equity from borrowers.

In general, housing costs tend to be lower in rural minority counties than in more urbanized locales. Despite this fact, affordability concerns are increasingly prevalent in rural minority counties. Many households, particularly minorities and renters, find it difficult to meet basic housing expenses. Affordability is particularly problematic among African-American households in the Lower Mississippi Delta and southern Black Belt. In the past few decades dramatic progress has been made in improving the quality of housing in rural America, and this is true in rural minority counties as well. Despite this progress, however, housing problems persist, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities. Minorities in rural areas are among the poorest and worst housed groups in the entire nation, with disproportionately high levels of inadequate housing conditions. Non-white and Hispanic rural households are three times more likely to live in substandard housing than non-Hispanic white rural residents. These housing problems are even worse for rural minorities in high concentration minority counties. While much of the discussion about housing problems has moved on to other issues, quality of housing is still very much the key issue for minorities in these areas. Rural minority counties are the last bastion of poor quality housing conditions in this nation. The lack of affordable, quality housing in these counties prevents poor families from moving beyond substandard housing. Like housing quality concerns, household crowding is an often overlooked issue but it is extremely problematic among many minority communities. This is particularly true for Native American and Hispanics residing in rural minority counties. Crowded living conditions are a source of stress for many families and have long been associated with negative social conditions such as crime and strained family relations. In rural areas, crowding is often an invisible form of homelessness as some rural households “double up” with friends or relatives in reaction to adverse economic or social situations, or to escape substandard housing conditions.

While these minority communities and populations share common housing concerns, each also has unique housing problems—such as contract for deed issues among Hispanics in the colonias, and the impact of seasonal housing need for farmworkers. Legal land issues contribute to the intractable housing problems for Native Americans on reservations and trust lands, and housing affordability is extremely problematic for AfricanAmerican households in the Southeast. Organizations and agencies are working to address the needs that exist; however, their efforts reveal a need for increased resources and organizational capacity to resolve these issues.

Conclusions and Next Steps In addition to the specific conditions and factors affecting the RMCs themselves, HAC’s analysis of housing trends in these counties identifies several important conditions regarding rural housing overall. The report ■ illustrates

the acute nature of housing conditions that persist in remote, isolated rural areas;

■ provides

additional evidence on the connection between race and place in this country, specifically as it relates to rural areas; and

■ gives

direction to future inquiries as to the housing conditions of the poorest of the poor in rural areas.

Further, the report encourages additional dialogue and research on the following issues. ■ Rural

segregation: What is it and how can it be measured?

■ Subprime

lending: What is the net impact of subprime lending in rural areas?

■ Immigration:

What will be the impact of increased immigration in rural communities?

■ Community relations: How do multi-racial/ethnic communities build

community and overcome tensions? More research is needed to determine how increasing diversity will affect rural America. It may be that as the country and rural areas become more diverse the disparities between racial and ethnic groups may disappear. It may also be shown that the increasing minority population in rural America may settle near or in the RMCs that have been identified in this study. If the latter holds true, the housing options of these groups will be limited by the factors identified in this report. Continuing efforts to address housing and community development needs in these regions must take the cultural, historical, and economic realities of these communities into account.

31

References Campbell, Art. 2000. “Delta Compact Seeks Collaboration for Change.” Rural Voices. 5/2: 4-7. Conseco. 2002. This statement was made at and as of February 2002. By June 2002, this wording no longer appeared on the company’s websites. Delta Compact. 1998. Building Communities in the Lower Mississippi Delta. [online] Delta Compact [August 2003]. Available from World Wide Web: . Effland, Anne B.W. and Kathleen Kassel. 1996. Hispanics in Rural America: The Influence of Immigration and Language on Economic Well-Being. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 2002. Texas Colonias: A Thumbnail Sketch of the Conditions, Issues, Challenges and Opportunities. [online] Dallas [June 2003]. Available from World Wide Web: . Grieco, Elizabeth M. and Rachel Cassidy. 2001. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: Census 2000 Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Housing Assistance Council. 1994. Taking Stock of Rural Poverty and Housing for the 1990s. Washington, D.C. Housing Assistance Council. 1997. Housing and Welfare Reform: HAC’s 1997 Report on the State of the Nation’s Rural Housing. Washington, D.C. Housing Assistance Council. 1998. The Border Colonias Region: Challenges and Innovative Approaches to Effective Community Development. Washington, D.C. Housing Assistance Council. 1999. Information Sheet: Rural Credit Needs. Washington, D.C. Housing Assistance Council. 2001. No Refuge From the Fields: Findings From a Survey of Farmworker Housing Conditions in the United States. Washington, DC. Housing Assistance Council. 2002. Taking Stock: Rural People, Poverty, and Housing at the Turn of the 21st Century. Washington, D.C. Housing Assistance Council. 2004. Run While You Still Can: Subprime Demand and Predatory Lending in Rural Areas. Washington, D.C. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2003. The State of the Nation’s Housing. Cambridge, Mass. Kingsley, Thomas G. et al. 1996. Assessment of American Indian Housing Needs: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Larmer, Brook. “Latino America.” Newsweek. July 12, 1999: 48–51. Library of Congress. 2003. African American History and Culture. [online] Washington, D.C. [cited August 2003]. Available from World Wide Web: .

Massey, Douglas and Nancy Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Mikesell, James. Senior Economist, USDA Economic Research Service. Interview by Author, October 2, 2002. National American Indian Housing Council. 2001. Too Few Rooms: Residential Crowding in Native American Communities and Alaska Native Villages. Washington, D.C. National American Indian Housing Council. 2004. Press Release. Survey Shows Devastating Effects of Substandard/Crowded Housing on Indian Reservation Children. [online] Washington, D.C. [September 2003]. Available from World Wide Web, . Senate Bill 336, V.T.C.A., Property Code, section 5.061 et seq., section 5.091 et seq. June 1988. Shumway, Mathew J. and Richard H. Jackson. 1995. “Native American Population Patterns,” Geographical Review. 85/2:185-201. Snipp, C. Mathew. 1996. “Understanding Race and Ethnicity in Rural America.” Rural Sociology. 61/1:125-142. Spitzmiller, Jilann and Hank Rogerson. 2001. Homeland (video). Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Extension, Center for Media and Independent Learning. Squires, Gregory D. 1994. Capital and Communities in Black and White: The Intersections of Race, Class, and Uneven Development. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing Service. 1999. “502 Direct Loans Obligated for American Indians & Alaska Natives.” RHS Data. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. “Blacks: Migration.” Rural Migration News. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and The Urban Institute. 1996. Assessment of American Indian Housing Needs and Programs: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1998. Native American Housing: Homeownership Opportunities on Trust Lands Are Limited. Report to the Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate. Washington, D.C. University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Date unknown. Housing Problems in the Lower Mississippi Delta: Report to the Lower Mississippi Delta Commission.

33

Wallace, Barbara C. and Robert T. Carter. 2002. Understanding and Dealing with Violence: A Multicultural Approach. New York: Sage Publications.

Ward, Peter and Jeremiah Carew. 2000. “Tracking Land Ownership in Self-Help Homestead Subdivision in the United States: Case of the Texas ‘Colonias.’” Land Use Policy. 18: 166-178. Yetman, Norman R. 1999. Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Endnotes 1 Because of changes in the questioning concerning two or more races, the Census 2000 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 1990 Census or earlier censuses. Caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the U.S. population over time. 2 Hispanic or Latino is an ethnic origin and not a race. Ethnic origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of a person or a person’s parents or ancestors before his or her arrival in the United States. Ethnicity is the cultural characteristics that connect a group of people to each other. Hispanics may be of any race. Hispanics are compared to racial groups in this report to illustrate the significance of major racial and ethnic groups in the nation. Unless otherwise noted, most racial/ethnic comparisons in this section are mutually exclusive. In other words, in this section Hispanic persons are counted separately and not included in racial groups (i.e., White, African American, Native American, Asian, and Other Race), although Hispanic persons are members of these groups. HAC uses the terms Hispanic and Latino interchangeably. 3 While the Census uses the terms Black or African American for people of African descent (e.g., Caribbean or African immigrants), HAC uses the term African American exclusively throughout this report. 4 Each of the counties meets the 33 percent criterion based on one racial or ethnic group (i.e., African American, Asian American, Native American, or Hispanic). Only one county, Mora County, N.M., has a minority population comprised of more than one group that exceeds one-third of its total population. A list of all rural minority counties is included in Appendix B. 5 The Asian population is defined as any person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes ‘‘Asian Indian,’’ ‘‘Chinese,’’ ‘‘Filipino,’’ ‘‘Korean,’’ ‘‘Japanese,’’ ‘‘Vietnamese,’’ and ‘‘Other Asian.’’ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander means a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as ‘‘Native Hawaiian,’’ ‘‘Guamanian or Chamorro,’’ ‘‘Samoan,’’ and ‘‘Other Pacific Islander.’’ 6 For longitudinal comparability, the 2000 Asian population in this report includes Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians. The data on race in Census 2000 are not directly comparable to those collected in previous censuses. These differences affect comparability and involve the individual categories on the Census 2000 questionnaire. The 1990 category ‘‘Asian and Pacific Islander’’ was separated into two categories, ‘‘Asian’’ and ‘‘Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander,’’ for Census 2000. Accordingly, on the Census 2000 questionnaire, there were seven Asian categories and four Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander categories. The two residual categories, ‘‘Other Asian’’ and ‘‘Other Pacific Islander,’’ replaced the 1990 single category ‘‘Other API.’’ For more information on Asians in rural America we suggest consulting the USDA Economic Research Service’s report on “Asians and Pacific Islanders in Rural and Small-Town America,” found in Linda Swanson, Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Rural Areas: Progress and Stagnation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, No. 731 (Washington, DC, August 1996). 7 Census data reveal that the 35-year trend of African-American migration from the South to the North was reversed in late 1990s as the South gained black migrants from all other regions in the U.S. For more analysis of African-American migration trends, see Frey, William H. 2004. The New Great Migration: Black Americans’ Return to the South, 1965–2000. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 8 The Black Belt refers to the region that stretches through parts of Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas that have higher than average percentages of African-American residents. The Lower Mississippi Delta is defined as 219 counties and parishes in portions of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, Tennessee, and Kentucky. 9 The term mobile home is often used by housing researchers when referring to older manufactured units, particularly those constructed before the 1976 enactment of the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act. This report uses the term manufactured homes exclusively. 10 Subprime loans tend to have higher interest rates and shorter terms than more conventional “prime” loans because these lenders are assumed to make loans to borrowers who are at a higher risk of default. Additionally, a majority of subprime loans are refinancings, which generally carry higher interest rates. Some subprime lenders have implemented “predatory” lending practices. According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, predatory loans are those that 1) charge more in interest and fees than covers the associated risk, 2) contain abusive terms and conditions, 3) do not take into account the borrower’s ability to repay, and/or 4) target women, minorities, and communities of color. For more information on subprime and predatory lending visit, http://www.ncrc.org. 11 For more information on the Delta and ongoing collaborative activities in the region, see Housing Assistance Council, Rural Voices, Spring 2000, Volume 5, No. 2. 12 A complete list of federally recognized tribes is available on the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Native American Programs’ website, http://www.codetalk.fed.us/HUD_ONAP.html 13 In order to classify lenders, HAC used a list of financial institutions, maintained by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that are generally recognized as specializing in subprime lending and the manufactured home market. 14 Puerto Ricans and Cubans also constitute Hispanic groups with a significant presence in the United States; however, few live in rural areas and therefore they are not included in this brief overview. 15 For this analysis, the border colonias region is defined as 66 counties within the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California that are located up to 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico Border. It is not possible to analyze Census data for individual colonias, or for the colonias as a whole, because colonias communities rarely correspond with Census-designated units of geography. Some colonias are only fractions of larger block groups, and others lie between block groups. For example, of the 1,821 colonias identified by the Texas office of the Attorney General, 477 are located within incorporated places; 791 within “Census Designated Places” (CDPs); and 533 are in unincorporated “non place” territory.

Appendix A: About the Data in This Report A majority of the information in this report derives from HAC tabulations of the 2000 Census of Population and Housing public use data sets. Census 2000 was conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of the Census, which collected information on 281.4 million people and 115.9 million housing units across the United States between March and August 2000. Most of the Census 2000 information utilized in this report derives from one of two data sets. The first is Summary File 1, commonly referred to as the “short form,” on which a limited number of questions were asked about every person and every housing unit in the United States. Secondly, Summary File 3 or “long form” data provide more detailed information on population and housing characteristics. These data came from a sample (generally one in six) of persons and housing units. For detailed information about Census 2000 data used in this report please consult the following reports produced by the Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. 2001. Technical Documentation: Summary File 1, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. 2002. Technical Documentation: Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. 2002. Technical Documentation: Demographic Profile 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Geographic Terms and Concepts 1 Establishing a definition of rural poses many challenges. In general, rural areas share the common characteristics of comparatively few people living in a geographic area, and limited access to large cities and market areas for work or everyday-living activities. Rurality exists on a continuum, however, and varies based on proximity to a central place, community size, population density, total population, and social and economic factors. Over the years, public agencies and researchers have used combinations of these factors to define rural and to designate geographic areas as rural. HAC is aware that data users often rely on differing definitions of “rural” and “urban.” Therefore we have provided several traditionally used rural/urban designations for the state and county data in this report. These include the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Metropolitan/Micropolitan status, Census defined urbanized population, and a special HAC designated rural and urban counties status. Given recent changes in the definitions of OMB metropolitan areas and Census defined urban and rural areas, HAC devised a county based designation of urban and rural “counties” which incorporates both residential patterns, as found in the Census definition, and economic connection patterns, as found in the OMB definition, to establish a more precise measure of rural character. As such, rural counties as defined by HAC in this report include all counties outside of a metropolitan area, and metropolitan counties that have no urbanized population. Likewise, urban counties are metropolitan counties with an urbanized population. It is extremely important to note that this is not the same definition of rural/urban devised by the Census Bureau or Metropolitan Areas devised by OMB.

County (or Statistically Equivalent Entity)

35

The primary legal divisions of most states are termed ‘‘counties.’’ In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the statistically equivalent entities are census areas, city and boroughs (as in Juneau City and Borough), a municipality (Anchorage), and organized boroughs. Census areas are delineated cooperatively for data presentation purposes by the state of Alaska and the U.S. Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states; these incorporated places are known as ‘‘independent cities’’ and are treated as equivalent to counties for data presentation purposes. (In some data presentations, they

may be treated as county subdivisions and places.) The District of Columbia has no primary divisions, and the entire area is considered equivalent to a county for data presentation purposes.

Rural Minority Counties Defined This analysis highlights rural areas with relatively substantial and long-term racial and ethnic minority populations. Rural minority counties are those rural counties (defined as explained above) with a specific racial or ethnic minority population of one-third or more in 1980, 1990, and 2000. For example, African-American RMCs are rural counties that have had an African American population of one-third or more for the past three decades. Given the minority population in rural America (18 percent), the onethird/three-decade criterion is a substantial threshold to meet. This methodology best captures rural communities with significant long-term minority populations and their housing needs. Please note the data presented in this report do not include all rural racial and ethnic minorities, only populations who reside in the designated RMCs. HAC has identified 304 RMCs. Because of changes in the questioning of race concerning two or more races, the Census 2000 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 1990 Census or earlier censuses. Caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the U.S. population over time.

Definitions 2 Race. The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. The categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups. The racial classifications used by the Census Bureau adhere to the October 30, 1997, Federal Register Notice entitled, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity” issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These standards govern the categories used to collect and present federal data on race and ethnicity. The OMB requires five minimum categories (White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander) for race. The race categories are described below with a sixth category, “Some other race,” added with OMB approval. In addition to the five race groups, the OMB also states that respondents should be offered the option of selecting one or more races. If an individual could not provide a race response, the race or races of the householder or other household members were assigned by the computer using specific rules of precedence of household relationship. For example, if race was missing for a natural-born child in the household, then either the race or races of the householder, another natural-born child, or the spouse of the householder were assigned. If race was not reported for anyone in the household, the race or races of a householder in a previously processed household were assigned. Minority Population. Minority population in this report is defined as all population that do not classify themselves as white and not of Hispanic origin. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “White” or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish. Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “Black, African Am., or Negro,” or who provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian. American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. It includes people who classify themselves as described below. American Indian. Includes people who indicate their race as “American Indian,” entered the name of an Indian tribe, or report such entries as Canadian Indian, French-American Indian, or Spanish-American Indian.

Alaska Native. Includes written responses of Eskimos, Aleuts, and Alaska Indians as well as entries such as Arctic Slope, Inupiat, Yupik, Alutiiq, Egegik, and Pribilovian. The Alaska tribes are the Alaskan Athabascan, Tlingit, and Haida. The information for Census 2000 is derived from the American Indian Detailed Tribal Classification List for the 1990 census and was expanded to list the individual Alaska Native Villages when provided as a written response for race. Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Korean,” “Japanese,” “Vietnamese,” and “Other Asian.” Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as “Native Hawaiian,” “Guamanian or Chamorro,” “Samoan,” and “Other Pacific Islander.” Some other race. Includes all other responses not included in the “White,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian and Alaska Native,” “Asian,” and the “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander” race categories described above. Respondents providing write-in entries such as multiracial, mixed, interracial, or a Hispanic/Latino group (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban) in the “Some other race” category are included in this category. Two or more races. People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes, by providing multiple write-in responses, or by some combination of check boxes and write-in responses. The race response categories shown on the questionnaire are collapsed into the five minimum race groups identified by the OMB, plus the Census Bureau “Some other race” category. For data product purposes, “Two or more races” refers to combinations of two or more of the following race categories: ■ White ■ Black

or African American Indian and Alaska Native

■ American ■ Asian ■ Native

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander ■ Some other race Hispanic or Latino. People who identify with the terms “Hispanic” or “Latino” are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic or Latino categories listed on the questionnaire—“Mexican,” “Puerto Rican,” or “Cuban”—as well as those who indicate that they are “other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino.” Hispanic is an ethnic origin and not a race. Ethnic origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of a person or person’s parents or ancestors before his or her arrival in the United States. Hispanics may be of any race. Hispanics are compared to other racial groups in this report to illustrate the significance of major racial and ethnic groups in the nation.

37

1 Excerpted from U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Technical Documentation: Summary File 3, 2000 Census of Population and Housing (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002), A-4 to A-24.

2 Excerpted from U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Technical Documentation: Demographic Profile 2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002).

Appendix B: Data Tables Table 1. Rural Minority African American Counties County/State Barbour County, Alabama Bullock County, Alabama Butler County, Alabama Chambers County, Alabama Choctaw County, Alabama Clarke County, Alabama Conecuh County, Alabama Coosa County, Alabama Dallas County, Alabama Greene County, Alabama Hale County, Alabama Lowndes County, Alabama Macon County, Alabama Marengo County, Alabama Monroe County, Alabama Perry County, Alabama Pickens County, Alabama Pike County, Alabama Sumter County, Alabama Wilcox County, Alabama Chicot County, Arkansas Columbia County, Arkansas Dallas County, Arkansas Desha County, Arkansas Lafayette County, Arkansas Lee County, Arkansas Monroe County, Arkansas Ouachita County, Arkansas Phillips County, Arkansas St. Francis County, Arkansas Gadsden County, Florida Hamilton County, Florida Jefferson County, Florida Madison County, Florida Baker County, Georgia Baldwin County, Georgia Brooks County, Georgia Burke County, Georgia Calhoun County, Georgia Clay County, Georgia Crisp County, Georgia Decatur County, Georgia Dooly County, Georgia Early County, Georgia Greene County, Georgia Hancock County, Georgia Jefferson County, Georgia Jenkins County, Georgia Lincoln County, Georgia McDuffie County, Georgia

African-American Population (Percent) 46.7 73.6 41.0 38.3 44.3 43.2 43.8 34.5 63.6 80.6 59.3 73.7 85.3 52.0 40.4 68.8 43.2 37.1 73.5 72.0 54.4 36.3 41.2 46.7 36.7 57.5 39.2 39.0 59.5 49.7 57.7 38.2 38.8 40.7 50.7 43.7 39.7 51.5 60.9 60.9 43.7 40.2 50.0 48.5 44.7 78.1 56.6 40.8 34.6 37.8

County/State

African-American Population (Percent)

McIntosh County, Georgia Macon County, Georgia Marion County, Georgia Meriwether County, Georgia Mitchell County, Georgia Peach County, Georgia Quitman County, Georgia Randolph County, Georgia Screven County, Georgia Stewart County, Georgia Sumter County, Georgia Talbot County, Georgia Taliaferro County, Georgia Taylor County, Georgia Terrell County, Georgia Thomas County, Georgia Turner County, Georgia Twiggs County, Georgia Warren County, Georgia Washington County, Georgia Webster County, Georgia Wilkes County, Georgia Wilkinson County, Georgia Bienville Parish, Louisiana Claiborne Parish, Louisiana Concordia Parish, Louisiana De Soto Parish, Louisiana East Carroll Parish, Louisiana East Feliciana Parish, Louisia Iberville Parish, Louisiana Lincoln Parish, Louisiana Madison Parish, Louisiana Morehouse Parish, Louisiana Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiania Red River Parish, Louisiana Richland Parish, Louisiana St. Helena Parish, Louisiana St. James Parish, Louisiana St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana St. Landry Parish, Louisiana Tensas Parish, Louisiana West Feliciana Parish, Louisiania Somerset County, Maryland Adams County, Mississippi Amite County, Mississippi Attala County, Mississippi Benton County, Mississippi Bolivar County, Mississippi Carroll County, Mississippi

37.1 59.9 34.6 42.5 48.2 45.8 47.1 59.7 45.5 62.0 49.3 62.1 60.8 42.9 61.1 39.2 41.1 44.0 59.7 53.4 47.4 43.4 41.0 44.0 47.6 37.9 42.4 67.5 47.3 49.9 40.1 61.0 43.6 38.9 38.0 41.2 38.2 52.8 49.6 45.2 42.4 55.8 50.7 41.6 53.1 42.9 40.2 37.0 65.5 36.7

County/State

African-American Population (Percent)

Chickasaw County, Mississippi Claiborne County, Mississippi Clarke County, Mississippi Clay County, Mississippi Coahoma County, Mississippi Copiah County, Mississippi Covington County, Mississippi Franklin County, Mississippi Grenada County, Mississippi Holmes County, Mississippi Humphreys County, Mississippi Issaquena County, Mississippi Jasper County, Mississippi Jefferson County, Mississippi Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi Kemper County, Mississippi Leake County, Mississippi Leflore County, Mississippi Lowndes County, Mississippi Marshall County, Mississippi Montgomery County, Mississippi Noxubee County, Mississippi Oktibbeha County, Mississippi Panola County, Mississippi Pike County, Mississippi Quitman County, Mississippi Scott County, Mississippi Sharkey County, Mississippi Sunflower County, Mississippi Tallahatchie County, Mississip Tunica County, Mississippi Walthall County, Mississippi Warren County, Mississippi Washington County, Mississippi Wayne County, Mississippi Wilkinson County, Mississippi Winston County, Mississippi Yalobusha County, Mississippi Yazoo County, Mississippi Anson County, North Carolina Bertie County, North Carolina Bladen County, North Carolina Caswell County, North Carolina Chowan County, North Carolina Gates County, North Carolina Granville County, North Carolina Greene County, North Carolina Halifax County, North Carolina Hertford County, North Carolina Jones County, North Carolina

41.4 84.5 34.9 56.6 69.6 51.2 35.8 36.5 41.1 79.1 71.7 63.1 53.1 86.7 57.7 58.5 37.6 68.1 41.9 50.7 45.1 69.7 37.7 48.6 47.8 69.0 39.2 69.7 70.1 59.7 70.7 44.4 43.5 64.9 38.1 68.5 43.4 38.8 54.2 48.9 62.6 38.2 36.8 37.8 39.6 35.3 41.5 52.9 60.0 36.2

County/State

African-American Population (Percent)

Lenoir County, North Carolina Martin County, North Carolina Northampton County, North Carolina Pasquotank County, North Carolina Scotland County, North Carolina Tyrrell County, North Carolina Vance County, North Carolina Warren County, North Carolina Washington County, North Carolina Wilson County, North Carolina Allendale County, South Carolina Bamberg County, South Carolina Barnwell County, South Carolina Calhoun County, South Carolina Chester County, South Carolina Clarendon County, South Carolina Colleton County, South Carolina Dillon County, South Carolina Fairfield County, South Carolina Georgetown County, South Carolina Hampton County, South Carolina Jasper County, South Carolina Lee County, South Carolina McCormick County, South Carolina Marion County, South Carolina Marlboro County, South Carolina Orangeburg County, South Carolina Williamsburg County, South Carolina Fayette County, Tennessee Hardeman County, Tennessee Haywood County, Tennessee Brunswick County, Virginia Buckingham County, Virginia Caroline County, Virginia Charles City County, Virginia Cumberland County, Virginia Essex County, Virginia Greensville County, Virginia Halifax County, Virginia King and Queen County, Virginia Lunenburg County, Virginia Mecklenburg County, Virginia Northampton County, Virginia Nottoway County, Virginia Prince Edward County, Virginia Southampton County, Virginia Surry County, Virginia Sussex County, Virginia Emporia City, Virginia Franklin City, Virginia

40.7 45.7 59.8 40.6 37.8 39.9 48.7 55.0 49.3 39.7 71.4 62.8 42.9 49.0 38.9 53.4 42.5 45.7 59.4 38.8 55.9 53.0 63.9 54.2 56.6 51.2 61.3 66.6 36.2 41.3 51.3 57.1 39.5 34.9 55.6 37.8 39.5 59.9 38.3 36.1 39.0 39.3 43.5 40.9 36.2 43.1 52.1 62.6 56.4 52.8

39

Table 2. Rural Minority Native American Counties County/State

Native American Population (Percent)

Bethel Census Area, Alaska Dillingham Census Area, Alaska Nome Census Area, Alaska North Slope Borough, Alaska Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchika, Alaska Wade Hampton Census Area, Alaska Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area, Alaska Apache County, Arizona Navajo County, Arizona Big Horn County, Montana Glacier County, Montana Roosevelt County, Montana Thurston County, Nebraska McKinley County, New Mexico Robeson County, North Carolina

85.2 75.2 78.5 73.2 41.7 94.9 73.8 78.0 48.7 61.4 63.3 57.2 52.7 76.7 38.6

County/State Rolette County, North Dakota Sioux County, North Dakota Adair County, Oklahoma Bennett County, South Dakota Buffalo County, South Dakota Corson County, South Dakota Dewey County, South Dakota Jackson County, South Dakota Mellette County, South Dakota Shannon County, South Dakota Todd County, South Dakota Ziebach County, South Dakota San Juan County, Utah Menominee County, Wisconsin

Native American Population (Percent) 74.2 85.4 45.9 55.6 83.0 61.8 75.2 48.7 53.8 95.1 86.8 73.1 56.5 87.9

Housing Assistance Council 2004 Board of Directors

2004 Research Advisory Panel

■ Gideon

■ Calvin

Anders, National Housing Law Project, California ■ Harry J. Bowie, Delta Foundation, Inc., Mississippi ■ Peter Carey, Self-Help Enterprises, Inc., California ■ Amancio Chapa, Jr., La Joya High School, Texas ■ Joe Debro, Trans Bay Engineering & Builders, California ■ Cushing Dolbeare, Housing & Public Policy Consultant, Maryland ■ Sandra Ferniza, Arizona State University, Arizona ■ John Foster, E.B. Advance, P.C., Ohio ■ Scott C. Fergus, Key Bridge Group, Inc., Wisconsin ■ Ninfa R. Gutierrez, Providence Medical Center, Healthy Communities Alliance, Washington ■ Lenin Juarez, Action Gypsum Supply, Texas ■ Lewis Kellom, Homes in Partnership, Florida ■ Richard Lincoln, Irgens Development Partners, LLC, Wisconsin ■ Dave Lollis, Kentucky ■ Arturo Lopez, Coalition of Florida Farmworker Organizations, Florida ■ Moises Loza, Housing Assistance Council, D.C. ■ Twila Martin Kekahbah, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, North Dakota ■ Maria Luisa Mercado, Mercado Law Office, Texas ■ Polly Nichol, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, Vermont ■ William Picotte, Oti Kaga, Inc., South Dakota ■ William Powers, California ■ Pedro Rodriguez, Job Services of Wisconsin, Wisconsin ■ Irene E. Sikelianos, New Mexico ■ Debra D. Singletary, Delmarva Rural Ministries, Inc., Delaware ■ Rebecca Torres-Swanson, Nogales Housing Authority, Arizona ■ Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, U.S. House of Representatives, Mississippi ■ Jose Trevino, Illinois ■ Richard Tucker, D.C. ■ Lauriette West-Hoff, Southern Real Estate Management & Consultants, Inc., North Carolina ■ Peggy Wright, ASU-Delta Studies Center, Arkansas

Beale, USDA Economic Research Service ■ Osvaldo Cardoza, University of Texas, Pan American ■ Peter Carey, Self Help Enterprises ■ Cushing Dolbeare, Housing & Public Policy Consultant ■ Chuck Fluharty, Rural Policy Research Institute ■ Bob Gray, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ■ James H. Carr, Fannie Mae Foundation ■ Karen Hill, Housing and Consumer Education Consultant ■ George McCarthy, Ford Foundation ■ Morton J. Schussheim, Library of Congress ■ Scott Loveridge, Michigan State University ■ Kris Rengert, Fannie Mae Foundation ■ Nicolas Retsinas, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University ■ Michael Stegman, University of North Carolina ■ Peggy Wright, ASU-Delta Studies Center ■ Ann Ziebarth, University of Minnesota

HAC Offices National Office

Southeast Office

1025 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 606 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: 202-842-8600 Fax: 202-347-3441 Email: [email protected]

615 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 1130 Atlanta, Ga. 30308 Tel.: 404-892-4824 Fax: 404-892-1204 E-mail:[email protected]

Western Office

Southwest Office

131 Camino Alto Suite D Mill Valley, Calif. 94941 Tel.: 415-381-1706 Fax: 415-381-0801 E-mail:[email protected]

3939 San Pedro, N.E. Suite C-7 Albuquerque, N.M. 87110 Tel.: 505-883-1003 Fax: 505-883-1005 E-mail:[email protected]

Midwest Office 10920 Ambassador Dr. Suite 220 Kansas City, MO 64153 Tel.: 816-880-0400 Fax: 816-880-0500 E-mail:[email protected]

ISBN 1-58064-133-4