denver region fair housing equity assessment

Denver Region Fair Housing Equity

Assessment

July 1, 2014

Prepared by: BBC Research and Consulting

For: Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)

Table of Contents

DENVER REGION FAIR HOUSING EQUITY ASSESSMENT i

ES. Executive Summary The Story of Fair Housing in the Region .................................................................................. ES–2 How does the Denver region compare with peer regions? .................................................... ES–6 How to Improve Access to Opportunity .................................................................................. ES–6

I. Introduction

Methodology and Geographic Scope ......................................................................................... I–1 HUD Preliminary Analysis of Access to Opportunity .................................................................. I–2 Organization of Report ............................................................................................................... I–3

II. Fair Housing Profile

Summary of Fair Housing Profile Findings ............................................................................... II–29 III. Access to Opportunity

Analysis of Indicators of Opportunity ....................................................................................... III–1 Analysis of Indicators of Access .............................................................................................. III–21 Equitable Access to Opportunity Reports .............................................................................. III–35 Summary of Access to Opportunity Findings ......................................................................... III–47

IV. Fair Housing Issues and Challenges

Fair Housing History ................................................................................................................ IV–1 Current State of Discrimination ............................................................................................... IV–2 Summary of Fair Housing Challenges .................................................................................... IV–16

V. Citizen and Stakeholder Input

Citizen Deliberation Process ..................................................................................................... V–1 Stakeholder Deliberation Process ............................................................................................ V–2 Themes from Citizen and Stakeholder Deliberation ................................................................ V–3 Recommendations from Citizen and Stakeholder Deliberation ............................................... V–8

VI. Conclusions, Recommendations and Next Steps Summary of Needs .................................................................................................................. VI–1 How to Improve Access to Opportunity .................................................................................. VI–4

AA. Appendix A: Analysis of Public Infrastructure Investments Planned Infrastructure Investments ........................................................................................ AA-1

LIST OF FIGURES

DENVER REGION FAIR HOUSING EQUITY ASSESSMENT i

Figure I-1: Disparities in Access to Opportunity, Denver Region, 2013 .............................................. I–3

Figure II-1: Racial and Ethnic Distribution, Denver Region, 2010 ...................................................... II-1







Figure II-8: Change in Minority Population 2000 to 2010, Denver Region, 2010 .............................. II-9

Figure II-9: Proportion of the Population that is Foreign Born by Place of Birth ............................. II-10

Figure II-10: Proportion of Census tract households that are linguistically isolated ....................... II-11

Figure II-11: Population Distribution by Census Tract Majority, Denver Region, 2010 ................... II-12

Figure II-12: Census Tracts with Hispanic Impacted Areas, Denver Region, 2010 ........................... II-15

Figure II-13: Census Tracts with African American Impacted Areas, Denver Region, 2010 ............. II-16

Figure II-14: Census Tracts Greater than 50% Minority Concentration, Denver Region, 2010 ....... II-17

Figure II-15: Residents of RCAPs/ECAPs, 2010 ................................................................................. II-18

Figure II-16: Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, Denver Region, 2010 .............. II-19

Figure II-17: Proportion of Residents Living in RCAPs or ECAPs, Denver Region, 2010 ................... II-20

Figure II-18: Dissimilarity Index, Denver Region, 2000 and 2010 .................................................... II-21

Figure II-19: Dissimilarity Index by County, Denver Region, 2010 ................................................... II-22

Figure II-20: Poverty Rate, Denver Region, 1990, 2000 and 2010 ................................................... II-23

Figure II-21: Proportion of Residents Living in Poverty by Census Tract, Denver Region, 2010 ...... II-25

Figure II-22: Disability Characteristics, Denver Region, 2008-2012 ................................................. II-27

Figure II-23: Proportion of the Population Under Age 65 with a Disability, Denver Region............ II-28

Figure II-24: Proportion of the Population Age 65 and older with a Disability, Denver Region ...... II-29

Figure III-1: School Proficiency Index Scaled to Regional Median, Denver Region, 2012 ................. III-3

LIST OF FIGURES

DENVER REGION FAIR HOUSING EQUITY ASSESSMENT ii

Figure III-2: Job Distribution, Denver Region, 2012 .......................................................................... III-4

Figure III-3: Job Density and Disability, Denver Region, 2012 .......................................................... III-6

Figure III-4: Job Density and Majority Minority, Denver Region, 2012 ............................................. III-7

Figure III-5: Job Accessibility Index, Denver Region, 2012 ................................................................ III-8

Figure III-6: Educational Attainment, Unemployment and Job Training Centers, Denver Region ... III-9

Figure III-7: Educational Attainment and Job Training Centers, Denver Region, 2012 ................... III-10

Figure III-8: Health Care Facilities and Aging Population, Denver Region, 2013 ............................ III-12

Figure III-9: Modified Retail Food Index Scaled to Regional Median, Denver Region, 2012 .......... III-13

Figure III-10: Open Space by Type, Denver Region, 2013 ............................................................... III-14

Figure III-11: Proportion of Families Living in Poverty and Poor Housing Stock, Denver Region ... III-16

Figure III-12: Residential Loan Denials and Majority Minority, Denver Region, 2013 .................... III-18

Figure III-13: Residential Loan Denials and Denver Poor Housing Condition, Denver Region ........ III-19

Figure III-14: Foreclosure Risk by Zip Code, Denver Region, 2013.................................................. III-20

Figure III-15: Rental Units and School Proficiency Index, Denver Region, 2010 ............................. III-22

Figure III-16: Rental Units Priced below $625 per Month .............................................................. III-24

Figure III-17: Rental Units Prices below $1,250 per Month ............................................................ III-25

Figure III-18: Homes Priced/Sold Below $150,000, Denver Region, 2012-2013 ............................. III-27

Figure III-19: Homes Priced/Sold Between $150,000 and $250,000, Denver Region ..................... III-28

Figure III-20: Public Transit and Affordable Housing, Denver Region, 2012-2013.......................... III-31

Figure III-21: Public Transit, Access-a-Ride Service and Future Older Adults, Denver Region........ III-32

Figure III-22: Public Transit, Job Density and Job Training Centers, Denver Region 2013 .............. III-33

Figure III-23: Public Transit Weekday Service Hours, Denver Region, 2014 ................................... III-34

Figure III-24: Adams County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access .............................. III-36

Figure III-25: Arapahoe County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access .......................... III-37

Figure III-26: Boulder County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access ............................. III-38

Figure III-27: Broomfield County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access ....................... III-39

LIST OF FIGURES

DENVER REGION FAIR HOUSING EQUITY ASSESSMENT iii

Figure III-28: Clear Creek County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access ....................... III-40

Figure III-29: Denver County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access .............................. III-41

Figure III-30: Douglas County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access ............................ III-42

Figure III-31: Gilpin County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access ................................ III-43

Figure III-32: Jefferson County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access ........................... III-44

Figure III-33: Southwest Weld County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access ............... III-45

Figure III-34: Diversity, Opportunity, and Access Data for All Counties.......................................... III-46

Figure IV-1: Number of Complaints by Year, Denver Region, 2006-2013 ......................................... IV-7

Figure IV-2: Number of Complaints by County, Denver Region, 2006-2013 .................................... IV-7

Figure IV-3: Basis of All Complaints and the Basis of All Complaints, Denver Region ...................... IV-7

Figure IV-4: Complaint Basis by Year, Denver Region, 2006-2013 .................................................... IV-8

Figure IV-5: Closure Reason for Complaints, Denver Region, 2006-2013 ......................................... IV-8

Figure IV-6: Hate Crimes, Denver Region, 2012 ................................................................................ IV-9

Figure IV-7: Availability of Fair Housing Information, Denver Region, 2014 .................................. IV-15

Figure VI-1: Summary of Diversity, Opportunity and Access, Denver Region .................................. VI-3

DENVER REGION FAIR HOUSING EQUITY ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 1

Executive Summary Fair Housing Equity Assessment

As the Denver region continues to grow and change, it is imperative that thought is given to housing new and existing residents in the context of providing access to opportunity. Ensuring that all residents have better opportunities to grow economically has wide-reaching benefits for the region. To that end, it is important to consider how community assets and challenges are distributed across the region and the extent to which residents are able to make choices in accessing opportunity.

This Executive Summary presents the primary findings from an assessment of fair housing equity in the Denver region. A Fair Housing Equity Assessment, or FHEA, is a required component of the Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI), a $4.5 million planning grant received by DRCOG in partnership with 86 organizations.

The FHEA has two primary areas of focus:

1) An assessment of “access to opportunity” for residents in the region. For this report, under HUD’s guidance, access to opportunity is defined as access to: transit; affordable, quality housing; quality schools, job training facilities and employment; and needed supportive services.1

2) Development of a plan to improve areas where opportunity is lacking and improve the fair housing environment. In this document, this is contained in the Recommendations section.

FHEA differs from other types of fair housing studies. It is important to note the FHEA is different from Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) reports, which are completed by municipalities in the region that receive HUD community development and housing funds directly. The FHEA has a deeper emphasis on access to opportunity; in contrast, AIs, focus more directly on discrimination and other barriers to housing choice. The primary findings from municipal AIs are incorporated into Fair Housing Issues and Challenges section of the FHEA.

FHEA complements Regional Housing Strategy. This FHEA was developed in tandem with a Regional Housing Strategy, or RHS. The RHS examines equity in the provision of housing regionwide—an important part of access to opportunity.

1 A HUD-requirement of FHEAs is an examination of the existence of segregation of residents by race and ethnicity, as well as poverty. As such, this FHEA incorporates a number of HUD-prescribed indicators and maps to examine racial, ethnic and economic segregation in the Denver region.


Limitations of the FHEA. Examining “access to opportunity” is a complicated task, from defining opportunity to employing the correct variables to measure opportunity. The access to opportunity approach is new for HUD and, although HUD has provided a number of indices to SCI grantees to examine opportunity, the data are still being refined.

Similarly, complaint data provided by HUD are limited in that they only reflect residents or organizations that are proactive in combating alleged discrimination and do not account for the full range of potential fair housing violations. Statistically significant fair housing testing is the best measure of fair housing discrimination in a market, but it is expensive to conduct. The Denver region has been without a regionwide, active fair housing organization until recently, when the Metro Denver Fair Housing Center was formed. The fair housing center has conducted some of the first testing in the region in a decade.

Finally, deliberations with representatives of entitlement jurisdictions during the development of the FHEA revealed challenges in understanding and embracing the concept of “access to opportunity.” Viewing fair housing needs through this lens is new to many and will require education and outreach—an effort that begins with this FHEA.

The Story of Fair Housing in the Region The Denver region developed later than many areas of the country and, as such, grew at a time when racial and ethnic discrimination was beginning to be addressed nationally through activism and legislation. Prior this period, Colorado and the City of Denver were pioneers on many civil rights fronts. In 1959, Colorado passed the one of earliest state civil rights laws in the country. In 1947, Denver’s mayor established one of the nations’ first civil rights commissions. The City and County of Denver’s current goal to be a “world class city where everyone matters” demonstrates continued commitment to equity.

Despite this relatively positive history, racial and ethnic separations persist in the region—and it is unclear exactly why. These concentrations are mostly likely not a result of any one factor, but instead a mix of historical settlement patterns (some related to segregation), economic need, housing preferences and community perceptions.

Racial and ethnic concentrations are limited, but do exist. A neighborhood level analysis conducted for this FHEA revealed that residents are much more likely to live near neighbors who share their race and ethnicity. Nearly half of the region’s minority residents live in a racially/ethnically concentrated neighborhood, those where more than 40 percent (or 3 times the region rate) of residents live in poverty and more than 50 percent of residents are non-White, non-Hispanic.2

Racial and ethnic concentrations have economic costs because many are also areas of concentrated poverty, where poverty exceeds 40 percent. About 150,750 residents in the region live in neighborhoods with both racial/ethnic and poverty concentrations. Of these, over half (57%) are in Denver, 20 percent are in Arapahoe County, 19 percent are in Adams County and 4 percent are in Boulder County.

2 RCAPs and ECAPs are HUD defined terms and required of the FHEA.


Why racial/ethnic concentrations exist. A recent report by the Manhattan institute shows that segregation in most American cities has been declining since a peak in the mid-twentieth century, when both government policies and market forces contributed to neighborhood segregation. Policy reform, shifts in racial attitude, gentrification of urban areas and integration of suburbs have all contributed to the overall decline in segregation.3

Comments of residents at the focus groups held for the FHEA suggest that lack of diversity in some areas of the region is due to perceptions of exclusion, in addition to economic factors. Some neighborhoods are viewed as inclusive by residents, while some are not.

Even so, racial concentrations persist in many neighborhoods due to a multitude of reasons including neighborhood history, immigration patterns, economic mobility and actual/perceived racism.

The Denver region has high economic segregation, which restricts opportunity. A statistical examination of segregation in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas conducted by the Pew Research Center, The Rise of Residential Segregation by Income, found the Denver MSA to be the 5th worst of the 30 largest cities in the U.S.4

At the neighborhood level, research has shown that a 40 percent poverty threshold is the point at which an area becomes socially and economically dysfunctional. Conversely, research has shown that areas with up to 14 percent of poverty have no noticeable effect on community opportunity.

The Denver MSA is just second to New York in the share of households earning less than $40,000 who live in a majority low income Census tract.

5

In the Denver region, there are 14 Census tracts (2% of all Census tracts) with poverty rates exceeding 40 percent. About 49,000 residents live in these extreme poverty neighborhoods. two-thirds (64%) of those residents are racial/ethnic minorities.

Discrimination persists in the region. Complaint data, legal cases and fair housing testing results show that the most common reasons for discrimination in the region are disability and race. Recent fair housing testing indicates that discrimination is a significant barrier for African American and Hispanic renters and renters with children.

There were 622 fair housing complaints filed in the region between 2006 and 2013.

The fair housing legal cases resolved in the Denver Region since 2000 mostly involved reasonable accommodations requests or discriminatory behavior based on disability.

A paired testing audit conducted by the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center found that African Americans encountered discrimination 67 percent of the time and Hispanics encountered discrimination 91 percent of the time when searching for housing in

3 https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_66.htm

4 http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/08/01/the-rise-of-residential-segregation-by-income/

5 The Costs of Concentrated Poverty: Neighborhood Property Markets and the Dynamics of Decline.” In Nicolas P. Retsinas and Eric S. Belsky, eds., Revisiting Rental Housing: Policies, Programs, and Priorities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 116–9.


predominantly white areas. Families with children encountered discrimination 73 percent of the time.

Gaps in opportunity exist throughout the region. Gaps in access to opportunity were identified through an analysis of opportunity indicators including school quality, job access, income equality, access to health care and neighborhood investment.6

School quality. Elementary school quality varies widely across the region: more than half of residents in Douglas, Gilpin and Broomfield counties live in neighborhoods with high quality schools but in Adams, Clear Creek, Denver and Weld counties, fewer than one-quarter of residents live in a neighborhood with high quality schools.

Opportunity gaps in the region were found for school quality, job access especially relative to affordable housing, income equality, neighborhood investment and in fair housing information. Specifically:

Minorities and children living in poverty, as well as renters, are much less likely to live near high quality schools than the rest of the region’s population.

Jobs/housing access. There is a large mismatch between affordable homes (priced below $250,000) and job centers in the region. Excluding the relatively small affordable area near the central business district, areas of high job density have no overlap with areas of affordability.

Many of the inner ring suburbs have pockets of very low job accessibility and outer ring suburbs, which are farthest from job centers, tend to have very limited transit access and relatively high transportation costs. While transit does provide access to a number of jobs in the region, there are many communities either not well served by transit or only served during “normal” business hours.

There is also a mismatch between job training resources and areas that are most likely to need those resources—high proportions of unemployed residents and adults with less than a high school degree. Although most job training centers are located on transit lines, the communities needing to access training are not always well connected, especially for after-hours and/or weekend classes.

Income inequality. 49,000 residents live in extremely high poverty neighborhoods (greater than 40%). These areas of high poverty, many of which are occupied by racial and ethnic minorities, are characterized by poor housing condition, below average school quality, high crime and low levels of capital investment.

Neighborhood investment. In the Denver region, racially and ethnically concentrated areas, as well as areas with poor housing stock, tend to have high rejection rates for home purchase and home improvement loans.

6 The opportunity measures chosen are not exhaustive of the many indicators of economic opportunity. These were chosen because they were readily available, recommended by stakeholders and/or provided by HUD.


Gaps in information. The region lacks a coordinated outreach system to educate residents and landlords about their fair housing rights, obligations and responsibilities. Historically, most fair housing organizations in the region have focused on enforcement. The result is that fair housing information is inconsistently available to residents, particularly for those who need it the most.

How to Improve Access to Opportunity Strengthening the economic capacity of residents in the Denver region is a complex effort, requiring a diverse set of strategies and collaboration among counties and cities in the region and other public and private entities.

Because of the many factors involved in increasing opportunity—improving school quality, growing jobs that pay a livable wage, ensuring that residents can live near where they work, providing a range of housing choices to accommodate lifestyle and economic changes—improving access to opportunity must be a coordinated, concerted effort.

DRCOG’s role. DRCOG can play an important role on increasing access to opportunity by strengthening the linkages between affordable housing, educational opportunities, job centers and transit.

To this end, it is recommended that DRCOG:

Recommendation 1. Begin by establishing a joint effort to address opportunity gaps. The first step in addressing the gaps to opportunity is to convene a set of public and private partners interested in working with DRCOG to improve opportunity.

The primary findings from the FHEA could guide a discussion of how each partner could contribute to improving opportunity—as well as how to measure progress. For example, a goal may be to improve the regional distribution of for sale housing units priced less than $350,000 in high opportunity neighborhoods.

Recommendation 2. Require or reward communities that work to improve their affordable housing imbalances. DRCOG could also take on a more direct role in addressing access to opportunity by prescribing concerted efforts to bring affordable and workforce housing into high opportunity areas.

The most successful way to produce geographically-based affordable and workforce housing is through mandates or incentives. To this end, DRCOG could reconsider transportation funding allocation priorities to reward extra points to communities providing a certain proportion of affordable and workforce housing near job centers and/or prioritize transportation projects that are catalysts to revitalization of disadvantaged areas.

Recommendation 3. Support efforts to improve school quality in the region’s core neighborhoods. It is recognized that Boards of Education and school districts have the most direct influence on improving school quality. Yet DRCOG could be a model for other government organizations by dedicating resources, as available, to support educational improvement in disadvantaged areas.


Educational support activities that DRCOG could implement might include: providing grants for instructional supports; supporting non-profits that assist at-risk children; and convene leaders to focus on skill building and job training targeting residents in low opportunity areas.

Recommendation 4. Take a leadership role on improving housing opportunities and transit for persons with disabilities and older adults. To improve access to opportunity for persons with disabilities and older adults—a fast growing population cohort in the region—DRCOG’s efforts should focus on increasing visitable and accessible housing options and access to transit.

Through Area Agency on Aging (AAA) surveys and discussions with residents, DRCOG should explore the demand for expanded and formal rideshare and transit options for persons with disabilities and older adults, particularly older adults in rural areas who lack public transit options.

Other leadership opportunities include: partnering with CDOT, RTD, and local jurisdictions to study the accessibility of major transportation and pedestrian corridors; expanding the reach of DRCOG’s Boomer Bond initiative to include the needs of the disabled; and developing a comprehensive housing resource guide.

Recommendation 5. Launch a fair housing public information campaign and support testing. The region lacks a public information campaign to inform residents about their fair housing rights and responsibilities. Consistent messaging available throughout the region would benefit residents and landlords by increasing awareness of fair housing laws and equalizing access to information. A regional campaign would also avoid duplication of jurisdictional efforts and conserve local resources.7

Additionally, DRCOG could provide direct financial support or provide data and information to complement testing efforts (e.g., mapping services) done by the Metro Denver Fair Housing Center.

Recommendation 6. Provide data and information to help entitlement communities meet their fair housing obligations. All jurisdictions in the region that receive housing and community development funding from HUD are required to conduct an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). DRCOG possess a wealth of data and information that member communities could use to fulfill their future fair housing report obligations. These obligations will change toward the end of 2014 with the pending release of a new HUD template for fair housing.

In addition to supporting data needs DRCOG could partner with entitlement communities to convene fair housing trainings; advise the Metro Denver Fair Housing Center on a fair housing website; and work with partners around the region to build awareness on the issue of fair housing.

7 All jurisdictions that receive HUD block grant funding, either directly or through the state allocation, are required to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). The obligation to AFFH includes fair housing outreach and education efforts.


Next steps. A menu of options for DRCOG has been presented in the above recommendations (more detailed recommendations provided in the full report).

Based on a review of how other regional planning agencies are involved in fair housing, many of these recommendations may be “firsts” for a planning council.

Some of the recommendations may require a shift from the core operations of DRCOG. To that end, before selecting from the menu of recommendations, DRCOG should, in concert with the RHS, determine its desired role in regional fair housing efforts. This role will guide how DRCOG decides to participate in and/or lead fair housing activities in metro Denver.

DENVER REGION FAIR HOUSING EQUITY ASSESSMENT SECTION I, PAGE 1

SECTION I Introduction

This document—the Fair Housing Equity Assessment (FHEA)—is a required component of the Sustainable Communities Initiative grant (SCI). According to HUD, the FHEA is a tool to address “the disparate burdens and benefits experienced by different groups across a region.” The minimum requirements of a FHEA include an assessment of segregated areas, areas of increasing diversity and/or racial and ethnic integration, racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RCAP/ECAPs), access to existing areas of opportunity, major public investments and fair housing issues, services, and activities.

The FHEA is more than an aggregation of community-level Analyses of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AIs). HUD’s recent expansion of FHEAs to include access to opportunity analyses reflects HUD’s priority of improving opportunities for all types of residents in a region—i.e., preventing a zip code from determining a child’s future or an older adult from aging well. According to HUD, “equity and access to opportunity are critical underpinnings of the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program.”

Methodology and Geographic Scope The analysis relies heavily on local data sources and publicly available datasets, listed below, in addition to data provided by HUD specifically for the FHEA. Primary data sources included:

Decennial Census—the full enumeration of households and their demographic characteristics conducted every 10 years. Limited data on housing characteristics is included in the decennial census.

American Community Survey (ACS)—a large annual survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau of a sample of households. This survey asks about household demographic, economic and housing characteristics.

Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data provided by Genesis Group, a local data provider—homes listed and for sale in the Denver region during 2000, 2012 and 2013.

Metro Denver Vacancy & Rent Report, also a local data provider—apartment vacancies and costs.

Rental data from www.coloradohousingsearch.com, which is managed by www.socialserve.com, a nonprofit housing search engine and provider of market research focused on affordable housing.

Data in this study are provided at the county level for the counties included in the Denver region. These include:


Adams County;

Arapahoe County;

Boulder County;

City and County of Broomfield;

Clear Creek County;

City and County of Denver;

Douglas County;

Jefferson County; and

Gilpin County.

A portion of southwest Weld County is also included in the region. As of 2010, 23.5 percent of Weld County’s population was part of the Denver region, based on the population of the Weld County Census tracts that are contained within regional boundaries.1

A note on small area changes. Two of the region’s counties—Clear Creek and Gilpin—had populations of less than 10,000 at the time this report was prepared. In these counties, small fluctuations in demographic, housing or economic conditions can produce large percentage changes. For this reason, numbers, as well as percentages, are presented in many tables, and percent changes are shown as percentage point differences v. percentage growth in numbers.

Preliminary Analysis of Access to Opportunity With the award of the SCI grant, HUD provided DRCOG with a number of data sets to analyze opportunity, one of which compared disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes using an opportunity index.

According to data provided by HUD for the FHEA, minority groups are experiencing a disparity in access to neighborhood opportunity when compared to non-Hispanic whites in the Denver region.2

Higher index values always reflect more favorable characteristics irrespective of the dimension being an asset (e.g., proficient schools) or a stressor (e.g., poverty). The disparities portion of the graphic shows the difference between non-Hispanic whites and minority groups.

Figure I-1 displays the opportunity indices calculated by HUD for the Denver region. Each index reflects a weighted average neighborhood percentile ranking for an opportunity dimension.

As displayed in the figure, minority groups—particularly African Americans and Hispanics—fare worse than non-Hispanic whites in terms of neighborhood poverty, school proficiency, labor market engagement. All racial and ethnic groups have roughly equivalent access to jobs. However, minorities have better transit access than non-Hispanic whites in the region.

1 In this report, aggregate data are shown for the Denver region excluding the Weld County portion and for Weld County overall. Data shown by Census tract include the Weld County tracts that are part of the region.

2 HUD calculates several indices measuring neighborhood characteristics across racial/ethnic groups to determine whether disparities in access to opportunity exist for minorities. Dimensions across which opportunity is measured include poverty, school proficiency, labor market engagement, job access, transit access and health hazards exposure.


Figure I-1. Disparities in Access to Opportunity, Denver Region, 2013

Note: ** indicates that a disparity is statistically significant at the 99% level.

Source: HUD.

Organization of Report The remainder of the report is organized as follows:

Section II provides an overview of protected classes in the region.

Section III contains an initial analysis of access to opportunity in the region.

Section IV reports back the primary findings about fair housing and access to opportunity from the perspective of stakeholders and residents.

Section V contains the findings from the stakeholder and resident consultation processes.

Section VI contains primary findings from the analysis and recommendations for addressing needs.

Appendix A details major public investments and how such investments may improve access to opportunity to low income residents and residents with special needs.

Opportunity Dimensions:

Poverty Index 52 58 37 36 54 44 47School Proficiency Index 47 53 27 30 50 40 38Labor Market Engagement Index 52 58 40 34 56 43 44Job Access Index 50 51 49 49 52 51 49Transit Access Index 45 40 63 57 45 51 51Health Hazards Exposure Index 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Opportunity Dimensions:

Poverty Index 21 ** 23 ** 4 ** 14 ** 11 **School Proficiency Index 26 ** 23 ** 3 ** 14 ** 15 **Labor Market Engagement Index 18 ** 24 ** 3 ** 15 ** 14 **Job Access Index 2 ** 2 -1 ** 0 ** 2 **Transit Access Index -23 ** -17 ** -4 ** -11 ** -11 **Health Hazards Exposure Index 0 0 0 0 0

Access to Opportunity Indices

NHW - African

AmericanNHW -

HispanicNHW - Asian

NHW - Native

American

NHW - Pacific

Islander

Disparities in Access to Opportunity

All Persons

Non-Hispanic white

African American Hispanic Asian

Native American

Pacific Islander

DENVER REGION FAIR HOUSING EQUITY ASSESSMENT SECTION II, PAGE 1

SECTION II Fair Housing Profile

This section sets the context for the Fair Housing Equity Assessment (FHEA) by providing an overview of the presence of protected classes in the region, growth in diversity and areas of concentration of certain protected class. The data and analysis in this section inform the Access to Opportunity analysis.

Race and ethnicity. According to the 2010 Census, about two-thirds of the metro population is non-Hispanic white. Another 22 percent is Hispanic, 5 percent is African American and 4 percent is Asian. Denver and Adams counties have the highest proportion of minorities (48 percent and 47 percent, respectively) while Clear Creek and Gilpin have the lowest (see Figure II-1).

Figure II-1. Racial and Ethnic Distribution, Denver Region, 2010

Note: Racial/ethnic categories are mutually exclusive. “Other minority” includes Native American, Pacific Islanders and “some other race.”

Source: 2010 Census, DRCOG and BBC Research & Consulting.

The following maps (Figures II-2 through II-7) show changes in minority populations over time for the region. Historical trends indicate:

All minority groups experienced faster growth than non-Hispanic whites over the past 30 years—Asians had the highest total growth (475 percent), followed by Hispanics (245 percent) then African Americans (80 percent), while non-Hispanic whites increased by 42 percent.

The Hispanic population is the largest minority group in the region and has historically been concentrated in neighborhoods directly west of downtown Denver, such as Sun Valley. The Highlands and Golden Triangle neighborhoods have also had large Hispanic proportions historically but have recently experienced gentrification and a reduction in the

County

DENVER REGION 2,858,070 67% 33% 22% 5% 4% 1% 2%Adams County 441,603 53% 47% 38% 3% 3% 1% 2%Arapahoe County 572,003 63% 37% 18% 10% 5% 1% 3%Boulder County 294,567 79% 21% 13% 1% 4% 1% 2%Broomfield County 55,889 79% 21% 11% 1% 6% 1% 2%Clear Creek County 9,088 92% 8% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1%Denver County 600,158 52% 48% 32% 10% 3% 1% 2%Douglas County 285,465 85% 15% 7% 1% 4% 0% 2%Gilpin County 5,441 91% 9% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1%Jefferson County 534,543 80% 20% 14% 1% 3% 1% 2%Southwest Weld County 59,313 75% 25% 20% 1% 2% 1% 2%

Other Minority

Percent of Population by Race/Ethnicity

African American

Multi-racial

Non-Hispanic White

Total Minorities

Total Population Hispanic Asian


Hispanic population. Other areas of high Hispanic density have developed in the suburbs immediately north of Denver as well as in Aurora.

Historically, the African American population was concentrated northeast of downtown Denver but there has been a shift of the population to the east and southeast and the population has become less densely clustered. Although there is still a strong presence in north Denver, population densities are half what they were in the 1980s.

The Asian population is more evenly distributed throughout the region than other minority groups, though there is some clustering in the southeast and northwest suburbs.

Areas of increasing or decreasing diversity. Overall, the region increased in diversity between 2000 and 2010 (from 28 percent minority to 33 percent minority). However, changes in diversity were not uniform across neighborhoods.

Figure II-8 shows areas in the region that increased in racial and ethnic diversity between 2000 and 2010, which is the vast majority of Census tracts. Diversity is measured by the proportion of the population that is a racial or ethnic minority: An increase in diversity reflects an increase in the proportion of the Census tract population that is minority between 2000 and 2010. Conversely, a decrease in diversity reflects a decrease in the proportion of the population that is minority (or an increase in the non-Hispanic white population proportion).

The most prominent trend exhibited in the map is movement and/or growth of racial and ethnic minorities in first ring suburbs, coupled with a decline of racial and ethnic minorities in the north side of Denver. This trend is consistent with national growth patterns which show a substantial increase in the share of minorities living in metro-area suburbs throughout the 2000s.1

There was also a decrease in racial/ethnic diversity in southwest Weld County, potentially related to the rapid growth of new housing and residents in the county.

1 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/ 2011/5/04%20census%20ethnicity%20frey/0504_census_ethnicity_frey.pdf



Source: 1960 Census and DRCOG.


Figure II-8. Change in Minority Population 2000 to 2010, Denver Region, 2010

Source: 2000 Census, 2010 Census and DRCOG.


Foreign born. Along with an increase in racial/ethnic diversity, the Denver region has also experienced an increase in the proportion of the population that is foreign born, from 5 percent in 1980 to 12 percent in 2012. Just over half of the region’s foreign born population was born in Latin America, with the largest contingent from Mexico. Figure II-9 displays the foreign born population by place of birth for each county in the Denver region.

Figure II-9. Proportion of the Population that is Foreign Born by Place of Birth, Denver Region, 2012

Note: Denver region total excludes Weld County.

Source: 2008-2012 ACS and BBC Research & Consulting.

Linguistic isolation. The Census Bureau defines “linguistic isolation” as households in which no one age 14 and over speaks English only or speaks English “very well.” Due to language barriers, those households have a much more difficult time accessing services and housing opportunities. Overall, about 4 percent of households in the region are linguistically isolated. Not surprisingly, counties with a higher proportion of minorities, particularly foreign-born minorities, also have higher rates of linguistic isolation. For instance, about 7 percent of Adams County households, 6 percent of Denver households and 5 percent of Arapahoe County households are linguistically isolated.

Figure II-10 displays the proportion of households that are linguistically isolated by Census tract for the Denver region. As indicated by the map, there are a high proportion of linguistically isolated households on the west side of Denver, in the inner ring suburbs just north of Denver and in Aurora.


Figure II-10. Proportion of Census tract households that are linguistically isolated, Denver Region, 2011

Source: 2007-2011 ACS and DRCOG.


Minority concentrations and segregated areas. Analysis of racial and ethnic concentrations is important to determine if minorities have the same access to areas of opportunity—e.g., quality schools, employment, safe neighborhoods—as non-minorities. Racial and ethnic minorities are the focus of this analysis because, historically, they have faced barriers to housing choice more often than non-minorities.

HUD prescribes several methods for analyzing racial and ethnic concentrations, also called “minority impacted areas,” which are discussed on the next page.

In the Denver region as a whole, 67 percent of residents are non-Hispanic white and 33 percent are minorities (22 percent are Hispanic, 5 percent are black and 4 percent are Asian). However, few neighborhoods mirror that composition—residents are more likely to live near neighbors who share their race and ethnicity. Figure II-11 displays where different racial/ethnic groups live by Census tract majority (majority is defined as more than 50 percent of the tract population):

In 2010, Hispanic residents were nearly three times as likely as the average resident to live in a Hispanic majority tract (34 percent of Hispanic residents lived in a Hispanic majority tract, compared to 12 percent of the region’s residents overall).

African American residents were ten times as likely as the average resident to live in an African American majority tract (1.6 percent of African American residents lived in an African American majority tract, compared to 0.1 percent of residents overall).

African Americans were also more likely than all other groups to live in a Census tract with no specific racial/ethnic majority.

Ninety percent of non-Hispanic white residents lived in a Census tract that was majority non-Hispanic white, compared to 49 percent of Hispanic residents and 44 percent of African American residents.

Figure II-11. Population Distribution by Census Tract Majority, Denver Region, 2010

Note: There are no Asian majority Census tracts and there is only one African American majority tract in the Denver metro region. Non-majority

tracts include all tracts in which no specific racial/ethnic group is a majority.



Concentration maps. The maps on the following pages show geographically where residents of different races and ethnicities may be concentrated within the Denver region. These racial and ethnic concentration maps and analysis use HUD’s definition of minority impacted areas:

A “minority area” (also known as a racially/ethnically-impacted area) is any neighborhood or Census tract in which: 1) The percentage of households in a particular racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the percentage of that minority group for the housing market areas; 2) The total percentage of minority persons is at least 20 percentage points higher than the total percentage of all minorities in the housing market areas as a whole; or 3) If a metropolitan area, the total percentage of minority persons exceeds 50 percent of its population.

A “non-minority area” is a neighborhood or Census tract with a greater than 90 percent non-minority population.

A “mixed area” is a neighborhood or Census tract that is not a non-minority or minority area.

The “housing market area” is the region where it is likely that renters and purchasers would be drawn for a particular housing project. Generally the housing market area is the county.

The following analysis includes maps using HUD’s 20 percentage point threshold for individual minority groups and HUD’s 50 percent definition for total minorities. The 20 percentage point threshold is defined by county (racial/ethnic distribution by county is displayed in Figure II-1). The information contained in the maps includes the following:

Individual minority concentrations. Figure II-12 shows Hispanic impacted Census tracts in the region and Figure II-13 shows African American impacted Census tracts in the region. An analysis of Asian impacted Census tracts found none – therefore no map is provided.

Eighty-three Census tracts have a Hispanic concentration, most of which are located in the north and southwest portions of Denver, the inner ring suburbs to the north, east and west of Denver as well as in portions of Longmont, Louisville, Lafayette, Brighton and southwest Weld County. There are 12 African American impacted Census tracts—10 in northeast Denver and two in Aurora.2

Total minority concentrations. Figure II-14 shows Census tracts that are more than 50 percent minority. This includes non-Hispanic residents of all races except for white plus Hispanic or Latino residents of any race.

Tracts that are majority minority (greater than 50% minority) follow a pattern similar to that seen in the Hispanic and African American impacted tracts. Majority minority

2 There are 699 Census tracts in the region.


communities are prevalent in southwest, north and northeast Denver; inner ring suburbs north and east of Denver; as well as in Longmont, Brighton and southwest Weld County.


Figure II-12. Census Tracts with Hispanic Impacted Areas, Denver Region, 2010

Note: This map uses HUD's definition of "racially/ethnically impacted area." A Census tract is "impacted" when the percentages of residents in a particular racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points

higher than the percentage of that minority group for the county overall.



Figure II-13. Census Tracts with African American Impacted Areas, Denver Region, 2010

Note: This map uses HUD's definition of "racially/ethnically impacted area." A Census tract is "impacted" when the percentages of residents in a particular racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points

higher than the percentage of that minority group for the county overall.



Figure II-14. Census Tracts Greater than 50% Minority Concentration, Denver Region, 2010

Note: This map uses HUD's definition of "racially/ethnically impacted area." In an urban area, HUD defines an "impacted" Census tract as one where more than 50 percent of its population is made up of minorities.



Racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty. Areas of racial and ethnic concentration are not, per se, areas lacking opportunity. Many areas that are racially and ethnically concentrated offer high opportunity amenities. It is therefore important to examine racial and ethnic concentrations in the context of other variables: poverty and income diversity, existence of affordable housing, neighborhood safety, and location of community amenities. This section of the report examines racially and ethnically concentrated areas and areas of concentrated poverty. Section III, the Access to Opportunity analysis, examines minority concentrations and access to affordable housing, quality schools, neighborhood conditions and transit.

“Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty,” also known by HUD as RCAPs or ECAPs, are areas in which there are both racial concentrations and high poverty rates. Specifically, they are Census tracts that have family poverty rates exceeding 40 percent or three times the regional poverty rate and are majority minority (minorities account for 50% or more of the total population).3

Altogether, 37 Census tracts in the region are RCAPs/ECAPs; 20 are located in Denver County, 8 are in Adams County, 8 are in Arapahoe County and one is located in Boulder County. Together, these RCAPs/ECAPs represent 5 percent of Census tracts in the region. Among the 150,750 people living in RCAPs/ECAPs, over half (57%) are in Denver, 20 percent are in Arapahoe County, 19 percent are in Adams County and 4 percent are in Boulder County.

Figure II-15 displays the population of RCAPs/ECAPs by county. Geographic locations of RCAPs and ECAPs for the Denver region are shown in Figure II-16.

3 The regional poverty measure is defined by core based statistical area (CBSA) and is 9 percent for all portions of the Denver region, excluding Boulder (7%) and Weld (10%) counties.

Figure II-15. Residents of RCAPs/ECAPs, 2010



Figure II-16. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, Denver Region, 2010



In the region as a whole, African Americans and Hispanics have highest shares of residents living in RCAPs or ECAPs: 13 percent of African Americans and 14 percent of Hispanics live in RCAP/ECAPs, compared to 5 percent of Asians and 6 percent of other minorities. Overall, 5 percent the region’s population lives in RCAPs or ECAPs.

As displayed in Figure IV-17, those proportions differ within each county that contains RCAPs/ECAPs. In Adams County, nearly 20 percent of African Americans live in RCAPs or ECAPs and in Denver County, 28 percent of Hispanic residents live in RCAPs or ECAPs. Denver has the highest proportion of total residents living in RCAPs or ECAPs (14%).

Figure II-17. Proportion of Residents Living in RCAPs or ECAPs, Denver Region, 2010


Dissimilarity index. The dissimilarity index is another measure of racial and ethnic concentration prescribed by HUD. The dissimilarity index is a way to measure evenness in which two separate groups are distributed across geographic units—such as Census tracts—that make up a larger geographic area—such as a county.

The index typically compares the proportion of the total population of a minority group in a Census tract and the proportion of the total number of the majority population (generally non-Hispanic whites) in that same Census tract.

The dissimilarity index is somewhere between 0 and 1. An index near 0 indicates perfect distribution of racial groups across all Census tracts in a region. An index of 1 indicates perfect segregation of racial groups across the region. As an example, one of the most segregated cities for whites and African Americans in the U.S. is Detroit, which has historically had a dissimilarity index exceeding 0.80.


HUD categorizes the dissimilarity index into three ranges that represent the intensity of segregation: less than 0.40 indicates low segregation, between 0.40 and 0.55 indicates moderate segregation and greater than 0.55 indicates high segregation.

HUD’s calculation of the dissimilarity index by race and ethnicity, which was provided to DRCOG for the FHEA, showed a disparity in segregation by race and ethnicity. The comparison of the index between 2000 and 2010 shows very little change in segregation during the past decade.

Figure II-18. Dissimilarity Index, Denver Region, 2000 and 2010

Note: NHW is non-Hispanic white. A dissimilarity index below 0.4 indicates low segregation and a dissimilarity index above 0.55 indicates high

segregation.

Source: HUD and BBC Research & Consulting.

For this analysis, the dissimilarity index was also calculated for individual counties within the Denver region. Figure II-19 shows the dissimilarity index for each county for four racial and ethnic groups:

Total minorities and non-Hispanic whites,

African Americans and non-Hispanic whites,

Asians and non-Hispanic whites, and

Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites.

In interpreting the dissimilarity index, it is important to note that areas without much diversity usually have very low dissimilarity indices, while areas with the greatest diversity have high levels of dissimilarity. Thus, a “low” dissimilarity index is not always a positive if it indicates that racial and ethnic minorities face barriers to entry in a community.


Figure II-19. Dissimilarity Index by County, Denver Region, 2010

Note: NHW is non-Hispanic white. Gilpin County is comprised of only one Census Tract (CT); as such, the dissimilarity index cannot be calculated.

Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting.

Why racial/ethnic concentrations exist. A recent report by the Manhattan institute shows that segregation in most American cities has been declining since a peak in the mid-twentieth century, when both government policies and market forces contributed to neighborhood segregation. Policy reform, shifts in racial attitude, gentrification of urban areas and integration of suburbs have all contributed to the overall decline in segregation.4

Comments of residents at the focus groups held for the FHEA suggest that lack of diversity in some areas of the region is due to perceptions of exclusion, in addition to economic factors. A case in point is Denver’s Stapleton neighborhood, which, much like its predecessor Lowry, has a mix of housing types and was initially relatively affordable. Stapleton borders several concentrated areas and school boundaries that encompass many diverse neighborhoods. The neighborhood is perceived as exclusionary by the residents in North Park Hill who attended focus groups for the FHEA, whereas Lowry is not. This could be a factor of marketing, the current make up of residents or the time period under which the neighborhoods were developed.

Even so, racial concentrations persist in many neighborhoods due to a multitude of reasons including neighborhood history, immigration patterns, economic mobility and actual/perceived racism.

For example, Denver’s Green Valley Ranch was developed as an affordable homebuying option for city employees, when city workers were required to reside in Denver. Because many city workers were racially and ethnically diverse, the neighborhood was diverse from initial development. This has remained the case.

Poverty concentration. According to a recent Pew Research Study, residential income segregation increased substantially in the Denver metro area between 1980 and 2010. By 2010, Denver had the fifth highest residential income segregation among the nation’s 30 largest metro

4 https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_66.htm

County Index Rating Index Rating Index Rating Index Rating

Adams County 0.32 Low 0.36 Low 0.49 Moderate 0.27 LowArapahoe County 0.36 Low 0.41 Moderate 0.47 Moderate 0.30 LowBoulder County 0.28 Low 0.39 Low 0.18 Low 0.30 LowBroomfield County 0.12 Low 0.21 Low 0.19 Low 0.20 LowClear Creek County 0.11 Low 0.18 Low 0.21 Low 0.09 LowDenver County 0.49 Moderate 0.55 High 0.56 High 0.35 LowDouglas County 0.12 Low 0.12 Low 0.17 Low 0.28 LowGilpin CountyJefferson County 0.27 Low 0.32 Low 0.31 Low 0.27 LowSouthwest Weld County 0.28 Low 0.33 Low 0.29 Low 0.24 Low

N/A - only 1 CT

Minority/NHW Dissimilarity Index

Hispanic/NHW Dissimilarity Index

African American/NHW

Dissimilarity IndexAsian/NHW

Dissimilarity Index

N/A - only 1 CT N/A - only 1 CT N/A - only 1 CT


areas.5 Communities with high levels of income segregation also tend to have low rates of upward mobility. Among the largest 100 metros, Denver ranks 40th for upward mobility of below-median income families.6

Twelve percent of Denver region residents are living in poverty. The poverty rate for the region’s children is 16 percent and the rate for older adults is 9 percent. Among the metro counties, poverty is highest in Denver (19 percent) and Adams (14 percent) counties and lowest in Douglas (3 percent) and Broomfield (5 percent) counties. Relatively high poverty in Boulder County (13 percent), in part, reflects low incomes among college students. Figure II-20 displays poverty rates by county in 1990, 2000 and 2010. In most communities, poverty declined between 1990 and 2000 but increased substantially between 2000 and 2010.

Figure II-20. Poverty Rate, Denver Region, 1990, 2000 and 2010

Source:

1990 Census, 2000 Census, 2006-2010 ACS and BBC Research & Consulting.

At the neighborhood level, research has shown that a 40 percent poverty threshold is the point at which an area becomes socially and economically dysfunctional. Conversely, research has shown that areas with up to 14 percent of poverty have no noticeable effect on community


6 http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/


opportunity.7

In the Denver region, there are 14 Census tracts (2 percent of all Census tracts) with poverty rates exceeding 40 percent. About 49,000 residents live in extremely high poverty neighborhoods, where the poverty rate exceeds 40 percent. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of those residents are racial/ethnic minorities.

Figure II-21 shows the poverty rate by Census tract, with a focus on areas that have poverty rates exceeding 40 percent and areas that have poverty rates below 15 percent.

7 The Costs of Concentrated Poverty: Neighborhood Property Markets and the Dynamics of Decline.” In Nicolas P. Retsinas and Eric S. Belsky, eds., Revisiting Rental Housing: Policies, Programs, and Priorities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 116–9.


Figure II-21. Proportion of Residents Living in Poverty by Census Tract, Denver Region, 2010



Persons living with a disability. Segregation remains an important issue for people with disabilities, including physical, developmental, and other disabilities. The Supreme Court’s Olmsted decision, and the substantial legal and policy efforts consistent with it, has begun to address the unnecessary and illegal segregation of people with disabilities.8

In the Denver region, the incidence of disability ranges from 6 percent in Douglas County to 12 percent in Clear Creek County. In the region overall, about 250,000 residents (9 percent of all residents) have some type of disability. Nearly half (47 percent) have an ambulatory difficulty and over one-third (36 percent) have a cognitive difficulty. Figure II-22 displays disability characteristics for the Denver region as a whole and the incidence of disability for each county in the region.

Regulatory barriers on group living arrangements, transit access, housing accessibility and visitability and proximity to health services are just some of the opportunity related issues that people with disabilities face.

Adults older than 65 are much more likely to have a disability than those under 65—33 percent of residents 65 and older have a disability compared to 6 percent of residents under the age of 65. As such, communities with an aging population are likely to see substantial increases in the number of residents with disabilities. If the prevalence of disability remains constant by age, the region will have 237,000 more individuals with disabilities by 2040.

Figure II-23 maps the proportion of residents under age 65 with a disability and Figure II-24 maps the proportion of residents 65 or older with a disability. As indicated by the maps, most neighborhoods with a relatively high proportion of adults under 65 with a disability (green on the map) are located the urban core or inner ring suburbs. Neighborhoods with a high incidence of disability among older adults are more widespread, dispersed throughout the region.

Applying HUD’s 20 percentage point concentration definition to disability status identifies one Census tract in the region that could be considered a disability impacted area. The tract, which has a disability incidence rate of 33 percent, is located in Aurora, just outside of I-225 and northeast of Cherry Creek reservoir (shown as one of the dark green tracts in Figure II-23). The high rate of disability for residents in this tract is likely due to the substantial proportion of older adults living in the tract—74 percent of residents are older adults.9

8 Olmstead v L.C. is a 1999 Supreme Court case related to discrimination against people with mental disabilities. The decision acknowledged that mental illness is a form of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that institutional isolation is a form of discrimination under Title II of the ADA. Implications of the decision include efforts to integrate individuals with mental disabilities into the community at large, rather than living in institutions.

9 The ACS reports a relatively high incidence of disability for the under-65 population of this tract (22%) but the margin of error provided for that statistic is 11 percentage points.


Figure II-22. Disability Characteristics, Denver Region, 2008-2012

Source: 2008-2012 ACS and BBC Research & Consulting.


Figure II-23. Proportion of the Population Under Age 65 with a Disability, Denver Region, 2008-2012



Figure II-24. Proportion of the Population Age 65 and older with a Disability, Denver Region, 2008-2012



Summary of Fair Housing Profile Findings Primary findings of this section are summarized below, organized by topic area:

Racial/ethnic integration. The Denver region as a whole has grown more diverse with minority populations (particularly Asians and Hispanics) increasing much faster than non-Hispanic whites. Gains in racial/ethnic diversity were highest in Adams and Arapahoe counties and lowest in Denver, Gilpin and Clear Creek counties. Even so, a neighborhood level analysis reveals that residents are much more likely to live near neighbors who share their race and ethnicity. Nearly half of the region’s minority residents live in racially/ethnically concentrated neighborhoods.

RCAPs/ECAPs. Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RCAPs/ECAPs) are areas in which there are both racial concentrations and high poverty rates. Five percent the region’s population (150,750 people) lives in RCAPs or ECAPs. Among those, over half (57 percent) live in Denver, 20 percent are in Arapahoe County, 19 percent are in Adams County and 4 percent are in Boulder County.

Income and poverty. According to a recent Pew report, Denver has the 5th highest residential income segregation among the nation’s 30 largest metro areas.10

Disability. About 250,000 people in the Denver region (9 percent of all residents) have some type of disability. Nearly half (47 percent) have an ambulatory difficulty and over one-third (36 percent) have a cognitive difficulty. Eighteen percent are living in poverty. Older adults are much more likely to have a disability than adults under 65—33 percent of residents 65 and older have a disability compared to 6 percent of residents under the age of 65. Assuming disability prevalence by age remains the same, the Denver region will add 237,000 residents with disabilities by 2040 (due to overall population growth and aging of the Baby Boomers).

Twelve percent of Denver region residents are living in poverty, up from 8 percent in 2000. About 50,000 residents live in extremely high poverty neighborhoods (where the poverty rate exceeds 40 percent); nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of those residents are racial/ethnic minorities.


DENVER REGION FAIR HOUSING EQUITY ASSESSMENT SECTION III, PAGE 1

SECTION III Access to Opportunity

As the Denver region continues to grow and change, it is imperative that thought is given to housing new and existing residents in the context of providing access to opportunity. Ensuring that new residents have better opportunities to grow economically has wide-reaching benefits for the region. To that end, it is important to consider how community assets and challenges are distributed across the region and the extent to which residents are able to make choices in accessing opportunity.

This section examines how well the region affords residents access to opportunity through an examination of community indicators including school quality, job access, income equality, health and neighborhood investment. These indicators were evaluated for how well they can be accessed—through regional transportation systems and provision of housing—as well as their equitable distribution, spatially and among different types of residents.

This section builds upon the RHS Housing Analysis and FHEA Fair Housing Analysis and, through analysis of geospatial information and indicators of opportunity, determines where access to opportunity could be improved in the Denver region.

This analysis involves two primary components:

1. Measuring neighborhood opportunity (assets and stressors); and

2. Measuring access to those neighborhoods (inclusivity).

For the purpose of this analysis, “opportunity” means that residents live in areas that are safe, have good schools, have access to jobs and job training, are near suppliers of health services and healthy food, and are free from significant disinvestment or decline. But these areas cannot be exclusive. They must contain a mix of housing prices and types, as well as access to transit, to enable residents employed in many different industries, of different income levels and of different races, ethnicities and cultures to reside within their boundaries. In other words, there must be both “opportunity” and “access.”

Analysis of Indicators of Opportunity Indicators of opportunity are variables that represent important community assets contributing to the overall quality of a neighborhood. The specific measures used to evaluate opportunity for this study are summarized below:

Elementary school quality;

Access to jobs;

Health services;


Poverty;

Community stressors (poor quality housing, residential capital constraints, foreclosure risk); and

Public investments (based on Capital Improvements Plans for large planned projects, as well as major economic development investments).

The following analysis considers each of these opportunity indicators individually and in conjunction with protected class concentrations. Following this discussion of opportunity indicators is an analysis of access with a focus on housing and transit.

Elementary school quality. Improving rates of educational attainment, particularly among low income children and oftentimes, minority populations, is imperative for future economic growth and community stability. The following analysis focuses on elementary schools (as opposed to middle and/or high schools) because the prevailing literature has shown elementary schools to have the most substantial impact on housing choices.

The School Proficiency Index provided by HUD for the FHEA describes the quality of neighborhood elementary schools, as measured by student proficiency in both reading and math. The region wide index reveals substantial disparities in school quality across racial/ethnic groups for the Denver region as a whole.

Specifically—at the Census block group level, about two-thirds of the non-Hispanic white population lives in a neighborhood where elementary school quality is higher than the regional median. As with the non-Hispanic white population, one-third of the minority population lives in a neighborhood where elementary school quality is lower than the regional median.

School quality also varies widely by county: more than half of residents in Douglas, Gilpin and Broomfield counties live in neighborhoods with high quality schools (more than 1.5 times higher than the regional median) but in Adams, Clear Creek, Denver and Weld counties, fewer than one-quarter of residents live in a neighborhood with high quality schools.

Figure III-1 maps the school quality index (scaled to the regional median) for the Denver region. The figure also includes an overlay of neighborhoods with high rates of youth poverty (greater than 40 percent). The map reveals a strong relationship between high youth poverty and low school quality in the region’s core. It also suggests that to access the highest quality schools in the region, residents must locate in neighborhoods with higher transportation costs (see the Housing and Transportation Analysis in the RHS).


Figure III-1. School Proficiency Index Scaled to Regional Median, Denver Region, 2012

Source: HUD and DRCOG.


Job access. Economic opportunity, including employment opportunities, job training centers, educational attainment of residents and unemployment rate, all have an impact on the long-term character and quality of a neighborhood.

As a whole, the Denver region supports about 1.8 million jobs. The City and County of Denver provides the most jobs (29 percent of the region’s total) followed by Arapahoe County (19 percent) and Jefferson County (17 percent). Figure III-2 displays the county distribution of the region’s total jobs, white collar jobs and blue collar jobs. Southwest Weld County, Adams County and Jefferson County all have higher shares of blue collar jobs (construction, extraction, farming, forestry, maintenance, production and service and transportation occupations) than white collar jobs (management, business and financial occupations, sales, office and administrative support occupations).

Figure III-2. Job Distribution, Denver Region, 2012

Source: DRCOG and BBC Research & Consulting.

Figures III-3 and III-4 show the location of all jobs in the region along with overlays of majority minority neighborhoods and areas with a high proportion of working-age persons with a disability.


As demonstrated by the maps, the primary job centers of the Denver region are located in the central business district (downtown Denver), the Denver Tech Center and Boulder. White collar jobs, in particular, tend to be concentrated in those traditional centers while blue collar jobs tend to be more dispersed with some additional concentrations in and around the airport, along the I-70 corridor and in the southwest portions of both Denver and Arapahoe counties (along Santa Fe drive).

As shown in Figure III-3, many residents with disabilities in the region live far from areas with high job densities. This makes access to employment challenging for these residents. On a positive note, racial and ethnic disparities in access to jobs are present but are relatively small, according to HUD’s region wide disparity calculations of the job accessibility index.

Figure III-5 shows a slightly different aspect of job distribution in the region by mapping HUD’s job accessibility index which uses statistical methods to incorporate distance to jobs, number of jobs and competition for those jobs. The region’s primary job centers are still prominent but because the index also incorporates a measure of competition some other areas offering high access to jobs stand out, most notably the neighborhood surrounding DIA. This unique viewpoint also reveals that many of the inner ring suburbs have pockets of very low job accessibility.

Nearly one-quarter of the region’s population (24 percent) live in neighborhoods with a high job accessibility rating. Another one-quarter live in neighborhoods with very low job accessibility.1

It should be noted that while HUD’s index does account for proximity it does not incorporate transit routes or travel times. Economic opportunity and transit will be discussed in more detail in the following section that focuses on access to opportunity areas.

1 A high job accessibility rating means an index value at least 1.5 times the median; a low job accessibility rating means an index value less than half the median.


Figure III-3. Job Density and Disability, Denver Region, 2012



Figure III-4. Job Density and Majority Minority, Denver Region, 2012

Source: DRCOG.


Figure III-5. Job Accessibility Index, Denver Region, 2012

Note: Index values are on a scale from 1 to 100 where 1 indicates very low access to jobs and 100 indicates very high access to jobs.

Source: HUD and DRCOG.


In addition to the location and availability of jobs, a critical component of economic opportunity is human capital and job preparedness. In the Denver region, one of every ten adults (aged 25 or older) has less than a high school degree. In Adams County, that figure is nearly twice as high: 19 percent of adults have less than a high school degree. Adams County also has the highest unemployment rate of the Denver region counties (9.2 percent for 2012). In contrast, only 3 percent of adults in Douglas County have less than a high school degree and unemployment was 6.4 percent in 2012.

Job training resources are particularly important for areas with low educational attainment and high unemployment. Figure III-6 displays the proportion of adults 25 and older with less than a high school degree, along with the unemployment rate and the number of job training centers for each county in the region. The figure also displays the difference between a county’s share of the region’s job training centers and that county’s share of adults with less than a high school degree to evaluate if training centers are located in the areas of greatest need.

As displayed by the graphic, Denver has high proportion of job training resources relative to its population with less than a high school degree but Adams County has a substantial undersupply of job training centers given its relatively high share of the adult population that is likely to need such resources.

Figure III-6. Educational Attainment, Unemployment and Job Training Centers, Denver Region, 2012

Note: The unemployment rate for the Denver region excludes southwest Weld County.

Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, 2008-2012 ACS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BBC Research & Consulting and DRCOG.

The following map (Figure III-7) provides a more detailed spatial analysis of the mismatch between job training center locations and areas with low educational attainment. Job training centers are clustered near downtown Denver—yet neighborhoods with the lowest levels of educational attainment are North Denver and Southwest Adams, Aurora and southwest Denver.

DENVER REGION 90 10% 7.7% 100% 100% 0%Adams County 7 19% 9.2% 8% 27% -19%Arapahoe County 12 9% 7.8% 13% 17% -4%Boulder County 0 6% 6.1% 0% 6% -6%Broomfield County 0 5% 7.1% 0% 1% -1%Clear Creek County 1 5% 7.4% 1% 0% 1%Denver County 53 15% 8.5% 59% 32% 27%Douglas County 0 3% 6.4% 0% 2% -2%Gilpin County 0 6% 6.5% 0% 0% 0%Jefferson County 17 7% 7.6% 19% 12% 6%Southwest Weld County 0 10% n/a 0% 2% -2%

Number of Job Training Centers

(JTC)

Percent of adults with Less than a

High School Degree (LTHS)

Unemployment Rate

Distribution Comparison

County Share of Region's JTCs

County Share of Region's Adults

with LTHS

Percentage Point

Difference


Figure III-7. Educational Attainment and Job Training Centers, Denver Region, 2012

Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, 2008-2012 ACS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and DRCOG.


Community health. Community quality is also impacted by the presence of health care services (mental and physical), a healthy food environment, and parks and recreation spaces.

Health clinics. Proximity to health care facilities is especially important for aging residents, residents with disabilities and for families. The region is expected to have 500,000 more older adults (age 65 and older) in 2040 than in 2010. By 2040, older adults will comprise 19 percent of all residents, compared to 9 percent in 2010. As a result, proximity to health care services is likely to become an increasingly valuable neighborhood characteristic.

Currently, health facilities are reasonably well distributed relative to population density in the region.2

Figure III-8 maps health care facilities including mental health centers, community clinics, hospitals, birth centers, residential care facilities and others. The map also shows the proportion of the population aged 45 to 60—those most likely to need (and value) proximity to health services over the next 20 to 30 years. Although the most densely populated portions of the region have a high prevalence of health facilities, the less densely populated areas with few clinics tend to have some of the highest proportion of future older adults. Those low density areas are also likely to see an increase in the number of people with disabilities (older adults have the highest incidence of disability). Improving opportunity in these areas may include an expansion of health services and/or increasing access to existing health services.

Ninety-eight percent of the region’s population lives within five miles of a health clinic and 95 percent lives within three miles of a health clinic. However, there are portions of the region with very limited proximity to health services, particularly in Clear Creek and Gilpin counties, as well as southwest Weld County.

Healthy food. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes the Modified Retail Food Environment Index which measures the number of healthy and less healthy food retailers in each Census tract. The index essentially represents the proportion of food retailers that are “healthy.” Health food retailers include supermarkets, larger grocery stores and produce stores while less healthy food retailers include fast food restaurants and convenience stores.

Figure III-9 maps the retail food index scaled to the regional median. A comparison of this map to majority minority areas reveals that within the urban core, minority neighborhoods tend to have more limited access to healthy food.

Parks and recreation. Neighborhood parks and recreation opportunities are also neighborhood assets in terms of health. Not only do they offer spaces for physical exercise; green spaces have been shown to provide mental health benefits to residents. Figure III-10 shows that such assets are more prominent in outlying areas of the region.

2 Health facilities data were provided by the Colorado Department of Public Health and include Acute Treatment Units, Ambulatory Surgical Centers, Assisted Living Residences, Birth Centers, Community Mental Health Centers, Community Clinics, Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facilities, Convalescent Centers, End State Renal Disease Facilities, Home and Community Based Services, Home Health Agencies, Hospices, Hospital Units, Intermediate Care Facilities for Intellectually Disabled, Nursing Homes, Outpatient Physical Therapy/Speech Pathology Services, Portable X-Ray Suppliers, Residential Care Facilities for Developmentally Disabled and Rural Health Clinics.


Figure III-8. Health Care Facilities and Aging Population, Denver Region, 2013

Source: CPDHE, 2010 Census and DRCOG.


Figure III-9. Modified Retail Food Index Scaled to Regional Median, Denver Region, 2012

Source: Centers for Disease Control Modified Retail Food Index and DRCOG.


Figure III-10. Open Space by Type, Denver Region, 2013

Source: COMAP, Greenpring and DRCOG.


Poverty and neighborhood factors. The indicators of opportunity discussed thus far (school quality, economic opportunity and health) generally reflect neighborhood assets that increase opportunity. However, there are also neighborhood characteristics that adversely impact opportunity such as poverty, crime, disinvestment and foreclosures.

Poverty. Research has shown that a 40 percent poverty threshold is the point at which an area becomes socially and economically dysfunctional. Conversely, research has shown that areas with less than 14 percent of poverty have no noticeable effect on community opportunity.

Nearly 50,000 residents in the region live in extremely high poverty neighborhoods, where the poverty rate exceeds 40 percent. Racial/ethnic minorities are much more likely to live in those neighborhoods than non-Hispanic whites: 64 percent of high poverty neighborhood residents are minorities. Persons with a disability are only slightly more likely to live in high poverty neighborhoods: 10 percent of high poverty neighborhood residents have a disability compared to 9 percent of the region’s residents.

Poverty is correlated with neighborhood stressors including poor housing condition, below average school quality, high crime and low levels of capital investment. Analysis in the FHEA illustrated a relationship between areas of poverty and minority representation, as well as an overlap between school quality and youth poverty. Figure III-11 compares neighborhoods with high proportions of families living in poverty to substandard housing stock. The map suggests a relationship between high poverty areas and poor housing condition, which can be exacerbated by capital disinvestment, discussed below.


Figure III-11. Proportion of Families Living in Poverty and Poor Housing Stock, Denver Region, 2012



Residential capital constraints. Communities with low and declining property values—those with the highest need for investment—are usually those that have the hardest time getting capital. Lenders, especially after the subprime mortgage crisis, are reluctant to make loans in communities where property values have decreased for fear of not recouping their investment.

One way to assess residential capital investment is through Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data. HMDA datasets contain mortgage loan application records with information on the race, ethnicity, gender and income of the applicant, as well as loan terms. The data are widely used to detect evidence of discrimination in mortgage lending, although analysis of the publicly available data is limited by lack of applicant credit information. In coming years, HMDA data will include information on credit scores, allowing for a more robust analysis of lending practices.

Overall in the region, 12 percent of mortgage loan applications were denied in 2012. Denial rates were almost twice as high for minority applicants (17%) than for non-Hispanic white applicants (9%).

The following two maps measure the extent of residential investment using HMDA data for home purchase and home improvement loan applications. Loan denial rates are shown with majority minority neighborhoods (Figure III-12) and poor housing stock (Figure III-13). Only Census tracts with at least 20 loan applications in 2012 are included. As noted previously information on credit scores was not available for this analysis. In the future when HMDA data include this information a more telling analysis of lending practices will be possible.

As displayed in the maps, majority minority areas, as well as areas with poor housing stock, tend to have high loan rejection rates. These areas have the greatest risk of disinvestment.

Foreclosure risk. Although the national foreclosure crisis has been in remission for the past several years (after peaking in late 2009), many communities—and many households—continue to face the risk of delinquency and foreclosure. In an effort to inform community decisions regarding foreclosure prevention and neighborhood stabilization, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) provides foreclosure risk scores for zip codes by metropolitan area (data are of September 2013). The highest risk zip code in the metro area is assigned a score of 100 and all others are assigned a relative score.

The zip code with the highest risk in the metro area was 80219, in southwest Denver. Other areas of high foreclosure risk include northeast Denver and portions of Aurora and Commerce City. Many of these areas also have a high proportion of minority residents. Figure III-14 displays the LISC foreclosure risk scores for the Denver region.


Figure III-12. Residential Loan Denials and Majority Minority, Denver Region, 2013

Source: 2013 HMDA, 2010 Census and DRCOG.


Figure III-13. Residential Loan Denials and Denver Poor Housing Condition, Denver Region, 2013

Source: 2013 HMDA, 2010 Census and DRCOG.


Figure III-14. Foreclosure Risk by Zip Code, Denver Region, 2013

Source: LISC and DRCOG.


Analysis of Indicators of Access While the opportunity variables discussed previously describe the level of opportunity, or quality, offered by a neighborhood, the following variables describe the level of access (or exclusivity) to high opportunity neighborhoods. Measures of access focus on housing and transit:

Housing affordability (availability and affordability of rentals, location of subsidized units and affordable for-purchase homes); and

Transit (proximity to rail and bus lines, access-a-ride service and transportation costs).

The maps, figures and discussion that follow overlay key opportunity measures with the indicators of access in order to identify areas that have high opportunity but limited access—and vice-versa. Access to opportunity is also compared with protected class distribution to evaluate disparities in access to opportunity for minorities and people with disabilities.

Housing affordability. Communities that offer a balanced mix of housing types, tenure and price-points are the healthiest in terms of providing housing choice and access to opportunity. Communities composed only of higher priced single family homes have a tendency to become homogenous and exclusive, making it difficult for certain types of residents—e.g., older adults who wish to downsize, young professionals who wish to buy a home and start a family, college graduates returning home—to remain part of their community fabric. On the other side of the spectrum, concentrated affordability can also be problematic, as it can lead to community instability and/or disinvestment.

Rental options. Access to opportunity for renters is impacted by both the availability of rental properties and the affordability of those properties. In the region overall, 36 percent of housing units are renter-occupied and 64 percent are owner-occupied. Weld and Douglas Counties have the lowest proportion of renters in the region at 16 and 19 percent, respectively. Denver has the highest at 50 percent.

The distribution of rental units across the region indicates that renters may have a hard time accessing neighborhoods quality housing, access to health food stores and quality elementary schools. For example, neighborhoods with high elementary school proficiency (index value of 85-100 on the following map) have on average 129 rental units compared to 253 rental units in neighborhoods with low school proficiency (index value of 1-21). Figure III-15 shows the distribution of rental units in conjunction with HUD’s school proficiency index.

Due to the concentration of both renters and jobs in the central business district, many renters have relatively high access to employment opportunities. However, outside of downtown Denver there is a spatial mismatch between rental housing—particularly affordable rentals—and job centers. That mismatch is especially pronounced in neighborhoods around the tech center and DIA.


Figure III-15. Rental Units and School Proficiency Index, Denver Region, 2010

Source: 2010 Census, HUD and DRCOG.


Among the region’s rental units, just 14 percent (about 56,000 units) are priced below $625 per month (affordable to households earning less than $25,000 per year). For households earning up to $50,000 per year the rental options increase dramatically—59 percent of the region’s rental units are priced between $625 and $1,250 per month. Rental affordability fluctuates substantially across neighborhoods and counties, as discussed in the RHS.

Figure III-16 displays the distribution of rental units priced below $625 per month (affordable to households earning less than $25,000 per year) and Figure III-17 displays units priced between $625 and $1250 per month (affordable to households earning between $25,000 and $50,000 per year). The barriers to accessing opportunity discussed above for all renters are even more pronounced for low income renters who cannot afford more than $625 per month.

Existence of assisted housing—including public housing, housing choice vouchers and Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments—is another measure of rental affordability that can improve access, particularly to communities where market rate housing prices are high.

Public housing and housing choice vouchers are funded federally, by HUD, and administered at the local level by public housing authorities. These subsidy programs typically serve the lowest income residents and residents with special needs. The LIHTC program directs private capital toward the creation of affordable rental housing by offering developers a tax credit in exchange for the production of affordable rental housing. LIHTC developments include a mix of affordable and market rate housing; the affordable units serve residents earning between 50 and 60 percent of the area median income.

According to the National Housing Preservation Database, there are about 14,300 public housing and housing choice voucher units in the Denver region.3 Another 13,900 units have been developed with the assistance of LIHTC funding, some of which are market rate and some of which have subsidized rents.4

Public housing units and housing choice vouchers are heavily concentrated in the City and County of Denver—two thirds of these types of subsidized units are located in Denver. LIHTC developments are more widely distributed, yet a disproportionately high share located in Denver. In contrast, Arapahoe, Douglas and Jefferson Counties have a disproportionately low share of LIHTC developments.

3 Total excludes Weld County.

4 Total excludes Weld County.


Figure III-16. Rental Units Priced below $625 per Month (Affordable to Households Earning less than $25,000 per year, Denver Region, 2012



Figure III-17. Rental Units Priced below $1,250 per Month (Affordable to Households Earning less than $50,000 per year, Denver Region, 2012



Ownership options. Ownership opportunities can have an even bigger impact on residents’ ability to access high opportunity areas since barriers to entry for ownership are higher than renting and homeowners tend to stay in their communities longer than renters.

Figures III-18 and III-19 show the location of homes below $150,000 and between $150,000 and $250,000, roughly representing options for first time buyers, low income residents and residents hoping to downsize to save on housing costs. As demonstrated in the maps (and discussed in the RHS), the most affordable for-sale housing in the region (homes priced less than $150,000) is found in Aurora. Homes priced between $150,000 and $250,000 are also most prevalent in Aurora, but also can be found on small parcels in central Denver and the northern suburbs.

A comparison of the areas that are affordable to first time homebuyers to opportunity indicators reveal the following trends:

There is a mismatch between affordable homes (priced below $250,000) and job centers in the region (see Figures III-10 and III-22. Excluding the relatively small affordable area near the central business district (which is primarily composed of condos), areas of high job density have no overlap with areas of affordability.

Areas with a high density of home sales below $250,000 tend to have low levels of elementary school quality (see Figure III-1 and III-19).

Areas with a high density of home sales below $150,000 are strongly correlated with high foreclosure risk zip code and, to a lesser extent, residential capital constraints (see Figures III-15, III-16 and III-17).


Figure III-18. Homes Priced/Sold Below $150,000, Denver Region, 2012-2013

Source: Genesis Group and DRCOG.


Figure III-19. Homes Priced/Sold Between $150,000 and $250,000, Denver Region, 2012-2013

Source: Genesis Group and DRCOG.


Transit. Transit access can impact both housing choice and the ability to access opportunity outside of one’s own neighborhood. Transit is particularly important in providing equitable access throughout communities for residents with disabilities, older adults, and low income residents. This portion of the access analysis considers both public transportation as well as transportation costs.

As part of the data provided to DRCOG for the FHEA, HUD produced a transit access index to measure neighborhood-level accessibility to amenities via public transportation. According to HUD’s transit access index, minority populations tend to have slightly higher transit access than non-Hispanic whites in the region. In the region as a whole, about 58 percent of residents live within one-quarter mile of a bus stop and/or within one-half mile of a light rail station. However, there are still many areas within the region with very limited access to transit including many suburban communities and even portions of urban communities.

The Denver Regional Equity Atlas, produced by Reconnecting America and the Piton foundation (version two was developed by DRCOG) took an in-depth look at transit in the Denver region as it relates to demographics, education, employment, health care and housing. Findings from that report include the following:

Completion of the regional transit network will improve access to opportunities for low-income populations [but] even at full build-out, many lower income neighborhoods will remain too far from frequent transit.

The region’s aging population is growing in suburban areas that lack quality access to transit.

Affordable housing is plentiful near transit, but major gaps remain, particularly housing proximal to major job centers. The preservation and creation of affordable housing opportunities near transit stations is a critical issue to ensure transit access remains high for residents living in the region’s affordable housing.

There is a mismatch between major job centers and affordable housing; jobs for low- and middle-skill workers often far from where they live. [However,] FasTracks will improve connections between housing and jobs, especially for many low-income households.

Transportation presents significant barriers to school choice. Many of the region’s highest quality schools are not located near frequent transit. Few preschools or other early childhood care centers are located near transit.

[While] many major health care centers are located near frequent transit, smaller health care centers are not as well-connected to transit.5

5 http://reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/books-and-reports/2012/the-denver-regional-equity-atlas-mapping-opportunity-at-the-regional-scale/


Many of the same findings were evident in the analysis conducted for the Denver region’s FHEA. As a key component of equitable access to opportunity, transit serves two primary functions:

1. Connects people to neighborhoods in which they may choose to live;

2. Connects people to resources and opportunities outside their neighborhood.

Transit and housing choice. To illustrate the impact of transit on housing choice, the following two maps display transit lines along with the populations most likely to rely on transit as their primary form of transportation.

Figure III-20 overlays rail line access with affordable housing (both rental and for-sale). While there are affordable housing options along many rail lines, a substantial proportion of affordable units are located far from these transit lines.

Figure III-21 overlays transit (including bus lines and access-a-ride service) with residents aged 45-60. This demographic represents the aging population that will drive disability incidence over the next 10 to 20 years. Though this population may not currently rely on transit; they are likely to require better transit access in the near future.

Transit and economic opportunity. Figure III-22 maps job density, job training centers and transit. As demonstrated in the map, most job training centers and high density job centers are located on transit routes. However, the transit coverage shown in the map reflects all transit lines regardless of schedule (hours of operation and frequency of service). Figure III-23 shows transit routes according to hours of operation for weekday service. Transit access to jobs becomes much more limited when considering off-peak work hours or weekend employment.

Transit, transportation costs, and other community assets. Many of the opportunity indicators discussed in this report—including high quality schools, safe neighborhoods, few residential capital constraints and low foreclosure risk—are common in the outer ring suburbs of the Denver region. However, these areas are also characterized by very limited (or no) transit access. These areas also have higher non-transit transportation costs. While some households may be able to absorb the higher costs, residents that must rely on transit—either due to disability, age or income—may be unable to access the opportunities offered by those neighborhoods.


Figure III-20. Public Transit and Affordable Housing (Rentals less than $1,250 and Homes less than $250,000), Denver Region, 2012-2013

Source: Genesis Group, 2008-2012 ACS and DRCOG.


Figure III-21. Public Transit, Access-a-Ride Service and Future Older Adults, Denver Region, 2013



Figure III-22. Public Transit, Job Density and Job Training Centers, Denver Region 2013

Source: RTD and DRCOG.


Figure III-23. Public Transit Weekday Service Hours, Denver Region, 2014

Source: RTD and DRCOG.


Equitable Access to Opportunity Measures Thus far, this report section has evaluated access to opportunity in the Denver region overall. The following “Equitable Access to Opportunity Measures” illustrate measures of access and opportunity at the county level.

Consistent with the region-wide analysis, “opportunity” means that residents live in areas that are safe, have good schools, have access to jobs and job training, are near suppliers of health services and healthy food, and are free from significant disinvestment or decline. “Access”—measured by the mix of housing prices and types as well as transit—describes the ability of residents employed in many different industries, of different income levels and of different races, ethnicities and cultures to reside within their boundaries.

Figures III-24 through III-33 summarize access to opportunity for each county in the region through graphical representations of diversity, opportunity and access. County measures are scaled to the region as a whole, such that values equal to one are equal to the county as a whole, values of two are twice that of the region and values of one-half are half that of the region. For example, a value of 2 for poverty means the county has twice the poverty rate of the region overall and a score of 0.5 means the county’s poverty rate is half that of the region.

For indicators of opportunity and access, values are color coded (green and red) to indicate whether the county is performing better or worse than the region as a whole. For opportunity assets and for indicators of access, “better” means “higher” than the region (e.g., higher school quality is preferable). For opportunity stressors, “better” means lower than the region (e.g., lower crime is preferable).

The graphics are not intended to measure counties against an ideal but rather to show the differences among counties in the distribution of assets, stressors and access. Communities with relatively low “opportunity” but relatively high “access” may want to consider strategies for revitalization to improve assets and address stressors. Communities with relatively high opportunity but relatively low access may want to evaluate their housing stock and transit access to create more balanced or inclusive neighborhoods.

Figure III-34 follows the county graphics and presents the underlying data used to create each.


Figure III-24. Adams County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access

Source: BBC Research & Consulting.


Figure III-25. Arapahoe County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access



Figure III-26. Boulder County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access



Figure III-27. Broomfield County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access

Note: No information was available for transportation costs for Broomfield County.



Figure III-28. Clear Creek County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access

Note: No information was available for transportation costs for Clear Creek County.



Figure III-29. Denver County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access



Figure III-30. Douglas County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access



Figure III-31. Gilpin County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access

Note: No information was available for transportation costs for Gilpin County.



Figure III-32. Jefferson County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access



Figure III-33. Southwest Weld County Measures of Diversity, Opportunity, and Access



Figure III-34. Diversity, Opportunity, and Access Data for All Counties

Note: (1) excludes Southwest Weld County because population projections are only available for the county as a whole.

(2) Living within 1/4 mile of a bus stop and/or 1/2 mile of a light rail station. Does not include Access-a-Ride. (3) Includes Section 8 and public housing units.


Total Population, 2010 9,088Total Housing Units, 2010 4,208

County Population as a percent of region in 2010 and 2040 (1) 0%/0%Household Diversity

Percent minority 33% 47% 37% 21% 21% 8% 48% 15% 9% 20% 25%Percent of minorities l iving in a concentrated area 49% 61% 49% 23% 0% 0% 68% 0% 0% 18% 12%Percentage point change in minority population (2000 to 2010) 5% 10% 11% 4% N/A 2% 0% 4% 1% 5% -12%Percent with a disabil ity 9% 9% 9% 7% 8% 12% 10% 6% 11% 9% 9%Percent families 62% 71% 65% 58% 69% 61% 48% 78% 61% 65% 78%Percent seniors 10% 8% 10% 10% 10% 12% 10% 7% 9% 13% 8%

Indicators of Opportunity (Neighborhood Quality)Assets (indicators of positive opportunity)

Percent of population in neighborhoods with high quality schools 29% 7% 28% 34% 59% 0% 3% 86% 62% 42% 5%Percent of population with high job accessibil ity index rating 24% 18% 21% 20% 63% 33% 30% 23% 17% 21% 20%Percent of population within 3 miles of a health facil ity 95% 91% 98% 95% 100% 4% 100% 92% 0% 96% 78%

Stressors (indicators of negative opportunity)Poverty Rate 12% 14% 12% 13% 5% 8% 19% 3% 11% 8% 6%Percent of residents l iving in extreme poverty neighborhoods (>40%) 2% 3% 1% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%Percent of residents l iving in high crime neighborhoods 33% 34% 31% 13% 5% 0% 88% 0% 0% 10% 0%Residential capital constraints (home loan denial rate) 12% 16% 12% 9% 10% 16% 11% 9% 17% 10% 13%

Indicators of Equitable Access (Transit and Housing)

Percent of population with access to public transit (2) 58% 57% 58% 62% 31% 0% 89% 20% 0% 55% 0%Average monthly transportation costs $1,108 $1,141 $1,103 $1,151 N/A N/A $977 $1,221 N/A $1,157 $1,333Percent of housing units that are rentals 36% 34% 36% 37% 28% 23% 50% 19% 23% 29% 16%

Percent of rentals that are subsidized (3) 4% 3% 1% 2% 2% 0% 7% 0% 0% 2% 0%Percent of rentals that are <$625 per month (affordable to HH earning <$25,000 per year)

14% 15% 12% 8% 13% 16% 22% 3% 11% 11% 7%

Percent of rentals between $625 and $1250 per month (affordable to HH earning between $25,000 and $50,000 per year)

59% 62% 64% 57% 50% 74% 57% 48% 61% 62% 55%

Percent of homes valued at < $150,000 15% 26% 17% 9% 7% 16% 19% 3% 3% 10% 20%Percent of homes valued between $150,000 and $250,000 32% 44% 36% 21% 33% 27% 31% 21% 25% 33% 31%

534,543218,160

19%/16%

59,31320,340

2%/N/A

285,465102,018

10%/12%

5,4412,460

0%/0%

55,88921,4142%/2%

600,158263,107

22%/20%

572,003224,011

20%/21%

294,567119,300

11%/10%

2,858,0701,128,782

100%/100%

441,603153,764

16%/18%

DENVER REGION

Adams County

Arapahoe County

Jefferson County

SW Weld County

Boulder County

Broomfield County

Clear Creek County

Denver County

Douglas County

Gilpin County


Summary of Access to Opportunity Findings The primary findings of the region-wide access to opportunity analysis are summarized below:

School quality. Elementary school quality varies widely across the region: more than half of residents in Douglas, Gilpin and Broomfield counties live in neighborhoods with high quality schools but in Adams, Clear Creek, Denver and Weld counties, fewer than one-quarter of residents live in a neighborhood with high quality schools. Minorities and children living in poverty are much less likely to live near high quality schools than the rest of the region’s population. Access to quality schools is limited by affordable housing options and transit options in high performing areas.

Job access. The primary job centers of the Denver region are the central business district, the Denver Tech Center and Boulder. White collar jobs, in particular, tend to be concentrated in those traditional centers while blue collar jobs tend to be more dispersed with some additional concentrations in and around the airport, along the I-70 corridor and along Santa Fe Drive. Racial and ethnic disparities in access to jobs are present but are relatively small. Many of the inner ring suburbs have pockets of very low job accessibility and outer ring suburbs, which are farthest from job centers, tend to have very limited transit access and relatively high transportation costs. Outside downtown Denver there is a significant mismatch between job opportunities and affordable housing (for both renters and owners). While transit does provide access to a number of jobs in the region, there are many communities either not well served by transit or only served during “normal” business hours, making it difficult for residents working nights or weekends to access employment.

There is also a mismatch between job training resources and areas that are most likely to need those resources—high proportions of unemployed residents and adults with less than a high school degree. For example, job training centers are clustered near downtown Denver but neighborhoods with the lowest levels of educational attainment are North Denver and Southwest Adams, Aurora and southwest Denver. Although most job training centers are located on transit lines, the communities needing to access training are not always well connected, especially for after-hours and/or weekend classes.

Income equality. There are about 49,000 residents living in extremely high poverty neighborhoods (greater than 40%, the point at which an area becomes socially and economically dysfunctional). Racial/ethnic minorities are much more likely to live in those neighborhoods than non-Hispanic whites. Areas of high poverty also tend to have other neighborhood stressors such as poor housing condition, below average school quality, high crime and low levels of capital investment.

Prevailing research shows that neighborhoods can absorb up to 14 percent poverty without adverse impact to the community. High poverty Census tracts represent 2 percent of all tracts in the region, whereas very low poverty tracts (less than 14 percent poverty) represent 68 percent of all tracts in the region and house 1.9 million residents. The many low poverty communities in the region could improve access for families wishing to escape high poverty areas by providing more diverse and affordable housing stock without compromising their existing level of opportunity.

Health. Currently, health facilities are reasonably well distributed relative to population density in the region (98% of residents live within 5 miles of a health facility). However, as the suburban population ages, proximity and transit access to smaller, local health clinics will become increasingly


important, as will in-home health services. It should also be noted that while a very high proportion of residents live in close proximity to a health facility, it was beyond the scope of this analysis to evaluate whether residents live near the types of facilities they are most likely to need.

Neighborhood investment. In addition to poverty, characteristics such as crime, disinvestment and foreclosures can diminish the level of opportunity within a neighborhood. Residential investment, in particular, can have a great impact on neighborhoods by providing a catalyst for revitalization. Unfortunately, communities with low and declining property values—those with the highest need for investment—are usually those that have the hardest time getting capital. In the Denver region, majority minority areas as well as areas with poor housing stock tend to have high rejection rates for home purchase and home improvement loans.

The role of transit. Transit access is a critical component of the access analysis because it impacts both housing choice and access to opportunity outside of one’s own neighborhood, particularly for residents who rely exclusively on transit (either due to disability, age or income). There are affordable housing options along many rail lines in the region; however, a substantial proportion of affordable options—particularly affordable ownership opportunities—are located far from transit lines.

Many of the opportunity indicators discussed in this report—including high quality schools, safe neighborhoods, few residential capital constraints and low foreclosure risk—are common in the outer ring suburbs of the Denver region, which have very limited (or no) transit access.

Connection to economic opportunities (jobs and job training centers) can also be difficult. While many of the region’s jobs and training centers are close to transit, there are substantial gaps in connecting workers to those locations. Many residential communities are either not well served by transit or only served during “normal” business hours, making it especially difficult for residents working nights or weekends.

Impact on certain residents. Some aspects of the Access to Opportunity analysis focus on certain types of residents. These residents may face additional challenges finding housing they need or may face historic barriers to housing choice. Research has shown that racial and ethnic minorities have historically lived in areas with disproportionately low access to opportunity resources such as high quality schools, economic opportunity and important community assets.

The access to opportunity analysis in this section found disparities in opportunity among renters, owners and racial and ethnic minorities.

Specifically,

Access to opportunity for renters. The distribution of rental units across the region indicates that renters may have a hard time accessing neighborhoods with quality elementary schools, quality housing stock and access to health food stores. Outside of downtown Denver, there is also a spatial mismatch between rental housing—particularly affordable rentals—and job centers. Assisted rental units (public housing, housing choice vouchers and LIHTC developments) are also inequitably distributed and impact lower income residents’ ability to live in high opportunity areas.

Access to opportunity for owners. Homeownership opportunities are especially important for accessing opportunity because barriers to entry for ownership are higher than renting and


homeowners tend to stay in their communities longer than renters. The ownership analysis, which focused on options for first time homebuyers, low income residents and residents hoping to downsize, indicated a mismatch between affordable homes to buy and job opportunities, school quality, low foreclosure risk and residential capital investment.

Access to opportunity for persons with disabilities. Data on access to opportunity for persons with disabilities were too limited to determine disparities; however, a geospatial analysis suggested challenges in accessing job centers.

Access to opportunity racial/ethnic minorities. Minority groups—particularly African Americans and Hispanics—fare worse than non-Hispanic whites in terms of neighborhood poverty, school proficiency, labor market engagement and, to a lesser extent, job access. However, minorities have better transit access than non-Hispanic whites in the region.

DENVER REGION FAIR HOUSING EQUITY ASSESSMENT SECTION IV, PAGE 1

SECTION IV Fair Housing Issues and Challenges

This section reviews fair housing issues, trends and challenges in the Denver region. The evaluation includes an analysis of fair housing complaints, hate crimes, recent legal cases, availability of fair housing information and testing results. It begins with a brief history of fair housing laws in the region.

Fair Housing History The Denver region developed later than many areas of the country and, as such, grew at a time when racial and ethnic discrimination was beginning to be addressed nationally through activism and legislation. Prior this period, Colorado and the City of Denver were pioneers on many civil rights fronts. In 1959, Colorado passed the one of earliest state civil rights laws in the country. In 1947, Denver’s mayor established one of the nations’ first civil rights commissions. The City and County of Denver’s current goal to be a “world class city where everyone matters” demonstrates continued commitment to equity.

State fair housing law. The State of Colorado has a state law that prohibits housing discrimination (Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 24, Article 34, Part 5 – Housing Practices).1

The Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) maintains formal work-sharing agreements with HUD and, through this relationship, has the authority to investigate and resolve housing discrimination complaints. CCRD has exclusive jurisdiction in situations in which Federal antidiscrimination laws do not apply—e.g., in enforcing cases involving sexual orientation as a basis for housing discrimination and in certain cases of discrimination related to lack of public accommodations and discriminatory advertising.

The state law offers the same protections as the federal Fair Housing Act, in addition to providing protections based on marital status, creed, ancestry and sexual orientation.

2

Fair housing environment. Municipalities in the region that receive HUD community development and housing funds directly have a legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. As such, they have historically been the primary entities engaged in fair housing activities in the region. However, there has traditionally been very little coordinated effort across jurisdictional boundaries and relatively little fair housing activity outside of Fair Housing Month (April).

In 2012, the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center (DMFHC) was established with the support of the National Fair Housing Alliance to be the voice of fair housing in the Denver metro area. The

1 See http://advisorfinancialservices.com/ColoradoCivilRightsStatutes.pdf

2 Beginning in 2012, HUD released new nondiscrimination policies regarding sexual orientation and gender identity that apply to HUD funded programs.


purpose of the DMFHC is to eliminate housing discrimination and promote housing choice through education, advocacy and enforcement of fair housing laws. Though relatively new to the area, the DMFHC is taking a leadership role in fair housing advocacy and filling a gap of investigating discrimination in the area through fair housing testing.

Other local organizations actively involved in Fair Housing issues—particularly legal concerns and fair housing complaint management—include HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Colorado Civil Rights Division, the Colorado Division of Real Estate, the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Colorado Legal Services and the Legal Center for Persons with Disabilities and Older People. Specific contributions and roles of these organizations are incorporated into the remainder of this section where appropriate.

Local Analysis of Impediments review. An Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, or AI, is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandated review of impediments to fair housing choice in the public and private sector. As discussed in the Executive Summary, the FHEA is a different type of fair housing analysis than an AI (AIs focus more directly on discrimination and other barriers to housing choice) but findings from local AIs can help paint a picture of the overarching fair housing challenges in the metro area. A review of jurisdictional AIs in the Denver region revealed the following fair housing concerns common across the region:

There is a lack of fair housing information and awareness in the region;

There is a limited supply of affordable units in the region and many of those that do exist are in poor condition.

NIMBYism (neighborhood opposition to affordable development) is an issue in many communities and can make increasing the affordable housing stock very challenging.

Regulatory barriers to affordable development and the siting of group homes pose another challenge to development and to increasing opportunity for persons with disabilities.

There is a substantial shortage of accessible housing stock for persons with disabilities.

Current State of Discrimination The remainder of this section evaluates the current state of discrimination in the Denver region through an analysis of fair housing complaints, hate crimes, legal cases, fair housing testing, and a review of available fair housing information. A summary of those analyses is included at the end of the section.

Fair housing complaint process. Residents who believe they have experienced discrimination in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) or state fair housing laws may report their complaints to:

HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO);

The Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD);

The Colorado Division of Real Estate (certain transactions);


The Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (CCDC), as qualified;

Colorado Legal Services, the Legal Center for Persons with Disabilities and Older People; or

Local governments.

Victims have one year from the date of the alleged discrimination to file a complaint.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Housing discrimination complaints filed with HUD may be done online3

When HUD receives a complaint, HUD will notify the person who filed the complaint and will normally notify the alleged violator and allow that person to submit a response. The complaint will be investigated to determine whether there has been a violation of the Fair Housing Act.

; by calling toll free at 1-800-669-9777; or by contacting the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in Washington D.C., or the HUD Denver Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

A complaint may be resolved in a number of ways. First, HUD will try to reach an agreement between the two parties involved. A conciliation agreement must protect the filer of the complaint and public interest. If an agreement is signed, HUD will take no further action unless the agreement has been breached. HUD will then recommend that the Attorney General file suit.

If HUD has determined that a state or local agency has the same housing powers (“substantial equivalency”) as HUD, they will refer the complaint to that agency and will notify the complainant of the referral. CCRD is a substantially equivalent local agency (see the CCRD process in the following section). CCRD must begin work on the complaint within 30 days or HUD may take it back.

If during the investigative review and legal processes, CCRD or HUD finds that discrimination has occurred, the case will be heard in an administrative hearing within 120 days, unless either party prefers the case to be heard in Federal district court.

If a person needs immediate help to stop a serious problem that is being caused by a Fair Housing Act violation, HUD may be able to assist as soon as a complaint is filed. HUD may authorize the Attorney General to go to court to seek temporary or preliminary relief, pending the outcome of the complaint, if irreparable harm is likely to occur without HUD's intervention and there is substantial evidence that a violation of the Fair Housing Act occurred.

Colorado Division of Civil Rights (CCRD). The Colorado Civil Rights Division is charged with enforcing the state's anti-discrimination laws in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodation.

Alleged victims must first complete a housing intake packet. The packet is available online4

3 http://www.hud.gov/complaints/housediscrim.cfm.

or may be requested toll free at (800) 262-4845, and includes a housing intake form, a statement of

4 http://www.dora.state.co.us/civil-rights/index.htm


discrimination and an authorization to release information. Once CCRD receives a fully completed intake packet, the housing intake staff will draft a charge of discrimination, which must be signed by the complainant. After CCRD has received a fully executed charge of discrimination, a copy is served promptly on the respondent and the investigative process is initiated. As part of the investigation, the respondent will be asked to provide a written response to the allegation(s). The person filing the complaint will be provided with a copy of the respondent's position statement and will be afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal.

The Division also affords the parties the opportunity to participate in a voluntary mediation conference prior to the initiation of the investigation. If the parties wish to avail themselves of the mediation process they can contact CCRD's representative.

If mediation is not held or is unsuccessful, the case will be assigned to a housing investigator. The investigator will analyze all information related to the case and may request information as needed. After the investigation is complete, the investigator writes a summary report and Letter of Determination.

The Letter of Determination states the facts of the case and provides an analysis of the case. If the preponderance of the evidence supports the allegation of discrimination, a finding of Probable Cause is issued. Conversely, if the evidence does not support the claim, a finding of No Probable Cause is issued. Along with the dismissal of the claim, the person filing the complaint is issued a notice of Right to Sue. A Right to Sue Notice allows the person to proceed in court, if desired.

In a No Probable Cause finding, the complainant has the opportunity to appeal that decision to CCRD.

If a finding of Probable Cause is issued, Colorado law mandates that a conciliation conference be held. A conciliator is assigned to work with both parties to try to resolve the complaint. If successful, a formal agreement with the specifics of the settlement is drafted by the mediator and signed by both parties. If efforts to conciliate the case fail, the Director of the Division may issue a dismissal notice along with a Right to Sue letter, allowing the complainant to proceed to court. In some cases, CCRD may authorize the case for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, with the administrative hearing to begin within 120 days after service of the written notice of hearing and complaint is filed.

In addition to investigative activities, CCRD staff have written educational curriculum on housing discrimination for licensed real estate agents. The staff also assists or provides training materials to relevant entities, such as human relation commissions, apartment associations and/or law firms.

Colorado Division of Real Estate. The Colorado Division of Real Estate takes complaints against real estate brokers, appraisers and/or mortgage brokers. Complaints can be filed online5

5

or complaint packets may be requested by calling the Division at 303-894-2166 or 303 894-2185.

www.dora.state.co.us/real-estate/Complaints/Complaints

http://www.dora.state.co.us/real-estate/Complaints/Complaints�


The Commission receives an average of 1000 written complaints per year against brokers, salespersons, subdivision developers and appraisers. Approximately 15 percent of those result in some form of disciplinary action. The following information regarding investigations is for the benefit of licensees and the public.

The processes for investigating a complaint differ slightly depending on if the complaint involves an appraisal, a broker or a real estate agent.

When a written complaint is received, it is reviewed and assigned to an investigator. The investigator determines the proper respondent(s) based on information on the complaint. Respondents are added or dismissed throughout the course of the investigation as additional information becomes available. A letter, with a copy of the complaint, is sent to the respondent(s), requesting a response within 14 days. At the same time, a letter is mailed to the complainant, acknowledging receipt of the complaint.

The investigator analyzes the complaint, response and pertinent documents to determine possible license law violations. All parties to the complaint, as well as witnesses, are interviewed. The investigator also contacts attorneys, mortgage companies, title company personnel and others who have knowledge of the situation. Additional documents may be sought from county offices and civil courts.

Upon completion of the investigation, the investigator prepares a written report concerning the facts that have been obtained. At that time the complaint may be dismissed on the basis of insufficient evidence of a license law violation or for lack of jurisdiction. If that is the case, all parties to the complaint will receive letters informing them of the disposition.

If, however, the facts obtained appear to indicate a violation of license law, the report is submitted to the appropriate Board or Commission for consideration. At this time, the Board/Commission may vote to dismiss, admonish the respondent(s), or refer the matter to a formal hearing. The Board/Commission has the discretion to summarily suspend the licensee if there appears to be an immediate danger to the public.

If the matter proceeds to a formal hearing, it is held in accordance with Colorado state law(s). After hearing the matter, the Administrative Law Judge makes an Initial Decision, which is forwarded to the parties and the Board/Commission for their review. The Initial Decision includes findings of fact and conclusion of law. The Board/Commission may or may not adopt the Initial Decision. The respondent licensee may file objections to the Board within 30 days after receiving the Initial Decision. After consideration of the Initial Decision and any objections that may be filed, the Board/Commission may vote to adopt the Initial Decision or it may vote to modify the Initial Decision by increasing or decreasing the penalty. The Board/Commission may also vote to remand the Initial Decision for clarification or rehearing.

After the Board has issued its order in the matter, the licensee may appeal the case to the Court of Appeals and, in some instances, appeal again to a higher court.

Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (CCDC). The Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, or CCDC, is dedicated to ensuring the independence, self-reliance and full participation of people with all


types of disabilities in Colorado. CCDC can be contacted online6

Colorado Legal Services/Center for Persons with Disabilities and Older People (Legal Services). Colorado Legal Services and the Center for Persons with Disabilities and Older People provide legal assistance to low income persons and older adults. In addition to various other types of cases, the organizations assist qualifying households with fair housing issues. Their services depend on the potential case, but range from advice from an attorney to legal assistance and representation in court. You may contact Legal Services by either going online (

or the Advocacy Program department can be reached by phone at 303-839-1775, option 2. The CCDC Legal Program brings lawsuits on behalf of CCDC and its members to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other statutes that protect the civil rights of persons with disabilities.

http://www.thelegalcenter.org) or by phoning them at 800-288-1376.

Each organization has established priorities for their cases, which determines the types of cases that are investigated if there is a need to prioritize. The Legal Center prioritizes its fair housing advocacy work to assist Coloradans with disabilities in obtaining affordable, accessible housing. The organization assists people with disabilities that are in jeopardy of losing their housing for reasons related to disability and accessibility, in addition to advocating for the provision of legally required accommodations.

HUD complaint trends. Between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2013, 622 complaints were filed in the Denver region (about 78 complaints per year). Three-quarters of all complaints resulted in a no cause determination, which occurs when HUD determines that there was no evidence of violation of the Fair Housing Act. Denver residents filed the most complaints during that time (243 complaints, 39% of all complaints) followed by Arapahoe County residents (131 complaints, 21% of all complaints). Figure IV-1 displays the number of complaints by year for the Denver region as a whole and Figure IV-2 displays the number of complaints by county between 2006 and 2013.

6 http://www.ccdconline.org.

http://www.thelegalcenter.org/�


Figure IV-1. Number of Complaints by Year, Denver Region, 2006-2013

Source: HUD-Denver FHEO.

Figure IV-2. Number of Complaints by County, Denver Region, 2006-2013

Source: HUD-Denver FHEO.

The primary bases for all complaints filed in the Denver region between 2006 and 2013 were disability (40%) and race (21%). When excluding complaints that were determined by HUD to have “no cause” (no evidence of a Fair Housing Act violation), the top two bases were disability (46%) and national origin (13%). Figure IV-3 displays the basis of all complaints and the basis of all complaints excluding those found to have no cause. Though not shown in the figure, the distribution of complaints by protected class in the Denver region is similar to that of the nation overall.

Figure IV-3. Basis of All Complaints and the Basis of All Complaints Excluding Those Found to Have No Cause, Denver Region, 2006-2013

Source: HUD-Denver FHEO and BBC Research & Consulting.

Between 2006 and 2013, the proportion of complaints filed on the basis of disability has remained relatively consistent. The proportion filed on the basis of race, color or national origin has declined somewhat and the proportion filed on the basis of retaliation has increased. Figure IV-4 shows complaint basis trends over time for the Denver region.


Figure IV-4. Complaint Basis by Year, Denver Region, 2006-2013

Source: HUD-Denver FHEA and BBC Research & Consulting.

As mentioned previously, three-quarters of all complaints resulted in a no cause determination, which occurs when HUD determines that there was no evidence of violation of the Fair Housing Act. Twelve percent of complaints were withdrawn by the complainant after a resolution between parties and another 5 percent resulted in a settlement between the two parties. Figure IV-5 shows the complaint closure reasons for complaints filed between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2013.

Figure IV-5. Closure Reason for Complaints, Denver Region, 2006-2013

Note:

Other category includes: ALJ consent order entered after issuance of charge, closed because trial has begun, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and unable to locate complainant. 30 of the 622 complaints are still “open” and are not included in the total amount of closed complaints.

Source:

HUD-Denver FHEA and BBC Research & Consulting.

Relative to the nation overall, the Denver region has a high proportion of complaints that result in a no cause determination—nationwide, in 2012, 45 percent of complaints resulted in a no cause determination. This is likely due to misinformation and/or a lack of information regarding fair housing law in the region and could be addressed through increasing fair housing awareness and education.

Hate crimes. The Hate Crime Statistics Act, enacted in 1990, requires the Department of Justice to collect data on crimes which “manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, disability or ethnicity” from law enforcement agencies. The data include crimes as reported by local and state agencies and do not reflect actual convictions. The

No cause determination 444 75%Complaint withdrawn by complainant after resolution 73 12%Conciliation/settlement successful 29 5%FHAP judicial consent order 14 2%Complainant failed to cooperate 13 2%Complaint withdrawn by complainant without resolution 10 2%Other 9 2%

PercentNumber


FBI leaves the determination of a hate crime against the protected classes up to the discretion of contributing local law enforcement agencies.

In 2012, 189 hate crimes were reported in Colorado; 105 of those occurred in the Denver region. As shown in Figure IV-30, nearly two-thirds of reported hate crimes in the Denver region were race or ethnicity related incidents. There were no disability related hate crimes reported in the Denver region.

Figure IV-6 also shows the location of reported hate crimes by county. Denver had the highest number of hate crimes reported for the region with 46, followed by Arapahoe County (20) and Boulder County (16).

Figure IV-6. Hate Crimes, Denver Region, 2012

Note: Hate crimes are reported by jurisdiction, not county. The three hate crimes reported by Aurora were assumed to occur in Arapahoe County.

Source: US Federal Bureau of Investigation—Hate Crime Statistics.

Although there were no crimes against persons with disabilities classified as “hate crimes” in 2012, research shows that persons with disabilities—particularly mental disabilities—are more likely to be victims of crime than other residents. These crimes often go unreported or do not reach trial.7

The following examples of recent crimes against members of protected classes in the Denver region illustrate the nature of many hate crimes and crimes on at-risk victims:

In April of 2014, a 30-year-old developmentally disabled man in Boulder was beaten unconscious and later died from his injuries in an attack by two teens during the theft of an Xbox from the man’s apartment. The victim’s family noted in a statement that because of his disability he was “vulnerable, innocent and unable to discern danger.”8

7 http://www.victimsofcrime.org/library/crime-information-and-statistics/crimes-against-persons-with-disabilities

8 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_25514094/boulder-da-victim-beaten-during-xbox-theft-not


In September 2013, two young gay men in Denver were harassed by a group of men yelling gay slurs and assaulted by one of the men from the group. One victim was left with multiple broken bones in his face and several teeth knocked out, requiring reconstructive surgery.9

In March of 2013, a 43-year-old man was assaulted and threatened at gunpoint while being berated with anti-Latino and anti-gay slurs in a public park in South Denver.

10

Recent legal cases. As part of the fair housing analysis, legal cases involving fair housing issues were reviewed to determine significant fair housing issues and trends in the Denver region. Case searches were completed using the National Fair Housing Advocate’s case database and the U.S. Department of Justice’s fair housing database. The legal cases presented in the databases include those that involved a court decision and have been reported to legal reporting services. (Open or ongoing cases would not be represented unless a prior court decision on the case has been made.) Additionally, disputes that are settled through mediation are not included in the reported cases.

The cases summarized below highlight recent (2000 to present) fair housing issues that have been brought to court. The legal cases identified and profiled in this section demonstrate that there is no common application of discrimination when it comes to fair housing. Some of the cases involved rental properties; others, mobile home parks; and others, homeowners’ associations. The type of discriminatory activity ranges from refusing to accommodate disability modifications to refusing to rent to a tenant because of race and familial status. Most the cases involve reasonable accommodations requests or discriminatory behavior based on disability. The cases also demonstrate how difficult it can be for claimants to resolve the fair housing matters without some type of legal intervention and assistance.

9 http://www.denverpost.com/News/ci_24056064/Denver-police-issue-arrest-warrant-in

10 http://www.denverpost.com/News/ci_22962829/Denver-police-ask-public-help-to


Reasonable accommodations/disabilities cases

2012 Adler v. American Home Mtg. Servicing, IncGary Adler's (visiually impaired home-owner) mortgage was sold to American Home Mortgage six years after the home purchase. Adler requested all correspondence from American be in 24-point bold font but the request was denied. A year later, when Adler was applying for a mortgage modifcation, he made the same request; it was refused again. His mortgage modification application was denied and eventually his home was foreclosed.

Adler filed a discrimination suit but the case was dismissed because Adler failed to provide any legal authority supporting his contention that servicing a mortgage originated by another party is a "service" under section 3604 of the Fair Housing Act.

2010 Kerr v. Heather Gardens Association

Sharon Kerr, a hearing impaired resident of a senior living community (Heather Gardens) in Aurora, alleged that she was excluded from active participation in certain events and activities based on her hearing disability. Since the community meetings and events are provided in connection with her dwelling, a refusal to make reasonable accommodations denies Ms. Kerr an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling and violates the Fair Housing Act. The primary issue of the case was the form of accommodation Ms. Kerr required and whether it imposed an undue burden on Heather Gardens. Ms. Kerr claimed that she needed a sign language interpreter or Computer Aided Realtime Translation (CART); the Association maintained that she could participate in certain activities with no accommodation, and at others with the assistance of an amplification system.

The parties reached a settlement which involved changes to Heather Gardens policies regarding the availability of interpreters and other services for hearing impaired persons, including the addition of an annual $12,000 budget for an interpreter or CART to be available at all meetings and recreational activities.

2007 Watts v. Karmichael Family

Doris Watts, a tenant of the Karmichael family, has a disability and complained to the Karmichaels about the sufficiency of a handicapped-reserved parking space (and other matters). The dispute over parking and other issues continued for a year and allegedly led to a deterioration in her relationship with the Karmichaels, such that she was singled out for adverse treatment by them and their staff on the basis of her disability.

Ms. Watts filed a suit against the family alleging that they failed to provide her with a reasonable parking accommodation for her disability and then retaliated against her by declining to renew her lease after she complained about the parking and about lack of snow removal. The Court denied her motion for a temporary restraining order requiring that the Defendants not seek to terminate her tenancy but scheduled a scheduling hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction and other matters.

2001 HUD v. Courthouse Square

Courthouse Square Apartments is a 157-unit apartment complex located in Denver, which is a HUD-assisted project for the elderly and persons with disabilities. Approximately 30 percent of the tenants are non-elderly persons with a disability. The case description is lengthy and details many interactions between Ms. Hymn and the property manager for Courthouse Square Apartments. In general, Courthouse Square Apartments considered Ms. Hymn to be a problem tenant because of her abusiveness towards management staff and other tenants. Management evicted Ms. Hymn because of her behavior and noncompliance with the company’s pet policy (which was found in the case to be inconsistently enforced).

HUD investigated the case and found that reasonable cause existed to believe that discrimination had occurred; however, the Administrative Law Judge who heard the case found in favor of Courthouse Square Apartments, determining that the Complainant had failed to prove that Courthouse Square engaged in discriminatory practices.

2000 United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Aurora

The complainants were a mother and her nine-year-old son. The son was taken hostage in their Section 8 apartment when he was four years old by a man wanted for murder, who ended the police standoff by attempting suicide in the son’s presence. Both mother and son developed post-traumatic stress (PTS) syndrome as a result of the incident. Their therapists urged that they be allowed out of the apartment where the tragedy occurred. The private landlord refused to allow the family out of their lease and refused to relieve the family of the responsibility for the damage caused during the hostage-taking. The Aurora Housing Authority (AHA) refused to transfer them from the project-based program to the certificate program, which had been discontinued, claiming that they were not protected under Title VIII (because the mother and son failed to notify AHA of their disabilities), that the transfer request was not reasonable, and that the private landlord was solely responsible for accommodating the family.

A consent decree was issued against the AHA, which requires that AHA complete training and develop a procedure to handle accommodation requests. The decree also requires on-site monitoring and requires the AHA to notify the federal government whenever they refuse to grant a reasonable accommodation request.


Reasonable accommodations/disabilities cases, continued

Ms. Saville was a tenant at the Boulder Meadows mobile home park and, according to her lease, was responsible for the exterior maintenance of her home on the site. Eight years into her tenancy, Boulder Meadows posted a “notice to quit” on Ms. Saville’s home, asserting her failure to maintain her home and lot. Ms. Saville responded with a letter explaining that she had a medical condition that “slowed her up” when doing physical and mental labor. In response, Boulder Meadows returned her rent check and commenced an unlawful detainer action. Ms. Saville prevailed in the trial; Boulder Meadows appealed.

During the appeal, Ms. Saville advertised free rent in exchange for maintentance work on her home and lot; a former park resident responded and moved in with Ms. Saville. Covenants of the park prohibit anyone other than those listed on the lease from living on the premises and Boulder Meadows initiated eviction proceedings. In response, Ms. Saville requested a reasonable accommodation for her disability and filed a counterclaim alleging that Boulder Meadows failed to reasonably accommodate her disability (violating state and federal fair housing laws).

Ms. Saville won all claims in court and was awarded compensatory and punitive damages of $150,000.

Race-based discrimination and familial status cases

2010 HUD v. Windsor Gardens

Windsor Gardens is a condo community in Denver with approximately 2,700 units. The community marketed itself as a “common interest community” for people age 50 or older and had covenant restrictions that excluded any residents under age 18; however, it did not meet federal qualification for “senior housing.” The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing providers from excluding families with children, unless it qualifies as “senior housing.” As a result, HUD filed a fair housing complaint and conducted an investigation which resulted in a charge of discrimination on the basis of family status against Windsor Gardens.

Soon after the charge, the two parties entered into a consent order, the terms of which dictated that Windsor Gardens pay a civil penalty of $23,000, conduct fair housing training for its staff, and develop policies to ensure that its age restrictions do no violate fair housing law.

2002 May v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

A white woman married to an African-American man with whom she had a child responded to an advertisement for an apartment. The landlord’s property manager showed her the apartment and told her that the landlord did not want children living in the apartment. The prospective tenant and landlord spoke by phone and the landlord agreed to rent to her. They signed a rental agreement and she provided a postdated check as a deposit. Upon learning that her husband was black (the next day), the property manager advised the woman to notify the landlord of her husband's race. She did so by phone. Two days later the landlord retracted his offer to rent the apartment claiming her deposit check bounced. The tenant filed charges of housing discrimination.

The landlord did not answer the complaint nor did he appear at the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the landlord had violated the CFHA and awarded damages of $10,000 to the tenant and her family, and an additional $10,000 civil penalty to the state. The landlord filed a motion to dismiss the decision and although the Colorado Court of Appeals rejected the landlord's claims, it did instruct the ALJ to reverse the award of damages and civil penalty and consider amounts more appropriate for the violation.

2000 Tyler v. RE/MAX

The Federal Fair Housing Act also protects against discrimination that results in protected classes being denied participation in real estate brokerage services. This case involved that type of discrimination. Mr. Tyler was an African-American real estate agent and broker. Mr. Tyler applied to RE/MAX for a franchise, having been informed by a RE/MAX representative at a trade convention that the normal franchise fee had been reduced to $10,000. Mr. Tyler completed the necessary paperwork, visited the corporate office to discuss his application and participated in a site visit. Mr. Tyler’s application for franchise was denied.

Mr. Tyler sued RE/MAX for discrimination; the jury found in favor of Mr. Tyler.


DMFHC fair housing audit results. The Denver Metro Fair Housing Center released a report in February of 2014 detailing a housing audit they conducted examining discrimination in the metro area rental market.11

The study found that racial/ethnic minorities as well as families with children in the Denver metro area face discrimination in the rental market. In the paired testing audit, African Americans encountered discrimination 67 percent of the time and Hispanics encountered discrimination 91 percent of the time when searching for housing in predominantly white areas. Families with children encountered discrimination 73 percent of the time.

The audit used a paired testing approach in which a pair of testers, posing as renters, individually inquire (by phone and/or in person) about the same rental property. The testers are matched such that all qualification characteristics (income, employment, credit history, etc) are the same; the only difference is the protected characteristic (race, ethnicity or family status). The paired testing approach used in the study is particularly helpful in identifying types of differential treatment since discrimination often takes on subtle form.

The most common type of discrimination experienced by African American testers was being provided less information about the rental unit or complex followed by higher priced rent quotes. Among Hispanic testers, the most common types of discrimination were being given less information, told about fewer apartments and not being offered specials. Families with children were most likely to experience discrimination through discouraging statements from the rental agent.

When racial/ethnic minorities and families with children experience this type of discrimination, not only are their rights to housing choice being denied, but they are also being limited in their ability to access associated community characteristics such as quality schools, economic opportunities and other quality of life assets.

Availability of fair housing information. A lack of fair housing information and awareness is a common issue cited in Denver region entitlement communities’ Analyses of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AIs). Public and stakeholder outreach for the FHEA also indicated that fair housing information is limited throughout the region. It is important that all members of a community—residents, community leaders, landlords, HOA board members—correctly understand fair housing laws so they do not intentionally or inadvertently deny a member of a protected class the same housing rights as other community members. It is also critical that residents who feel they may have experienced discrimination be able to access resources to investigate their rights and/or file a complaint.

BBC reviewed county and city websites to assess the availability of fair housing information according to the following criteria listed below. The focus was on county and city websites because, as recipients of HUD funding, these entities have an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing and because they are one of the first places residents look for fair housing information when they think they might have experienced discrimination.

11 Denver Metro Fair Housing Center. “Access Denied: A Report on Rental Housing Discrimination in the Denver Metro Area.” February 2014.


Does the county/city website contain fair housing information?

Is the information available in languages other than English?

Is there a link to HUD or Colorado Civil Rights Division to get more information or file a complaint?

Does the website contain a list of federal as well as state protected classes?

Figure IV-7, on the following page, displays the results from this analysis. Unfortunately, very few city and county websites provide explicit information regarding fair housing or housing discrimination and even fewer provide links to file a complaint.


Figure IV-7. Availability of Fair Housing Information, Denver Region, 2014


Does the county/city website contain fair housing information?

Is the information available in languages other than English?

Is there a link to HUD or Colorado Civil Rights Division to get more information or file a complaint?

Does the website contain a list of federal as well as state protected classes?

Counties

Adams County Not explicitly. Site does contain informationabout CDBG and Housing Assistance programs and a link to the housing authroity page.

Yes (any language - google translater dropdown)

No No

Arapahoe County Yes Yes (any language - google translater dropdown)

Yes Federal only; no reference to state laws

Boulder County Not explicitly. Site does have information on affordable rentals and housing programs.

No No No

Broomfield County Website includes a fair housing page, however, the page has no description and simply lists links to Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, Colorado Division of Civil Rights and HUD.

Yes (any language - google translater dropdown)

Several links are provided under the "Fair Housing" heading but no description is provided. HUD is included in the list of links.

No

Clear Creek County No No No NoDenver County No No No NoDouglas County Yes No Yes YesGilpin County No No No NoJefferson County No Yes (any language - google translater

dropdown)No No

Weld County No No No No

Cities

Aurora Not explicitly. Search results on city site include PDF of AI. Yes (any language - google translater dropdown)

No No

Boulder Not explicitly. Site does contain information on housing programs and provides links to outside resources. Search results for fair housing include PDF of a fair housing brochure (produced by HUD).

Search results for fair housing include a Spanish version of the fair housing brochure PDF (produced by HUD).

No No

Centennial No No No NoCommerce City No No No NoLongmont Yes Yes (Spanish) Yes, including a Colorado Civil Rights Division

video presentation about filing a discrimination charge.

Yes

Thornton Yes No Yes YesWestminster Not explicitly. Site does contain information about CDBG and

Housing Assistance programs. Search results include PDF of AI.No No No


Summary of Fair Housing Challenges The primary findings related to the current state of discrimination in the Denver region are summarized below:

Complaint data, legal cases and fair housing testing results show that the most common reasons for discrimination in the region are disability and race. Recent fair housing testing indicate that discrimination is a significant barrier for African American and Hispanic renters and renters with children.

There were 622 fair housing complaints filed in the region between 2006 and 2013—40 percent were disability-related and 33 percent were race-, color-, or national origin-related.

Fair housing legal cases in the Denver Region (since 2000) include fair housing concerns related to race, family status and disability; most cases involved reasonable accommodations requests or discriminatory behavior based on disability.

A paired testing audit conducted by the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center found that African Americans encountered discrimination 67 percent of the time and Hispanics encountered discrimination 91 percent of the time when searching for housing in predominantly white areas. Families with children encountered discrimination 73 percent of the time.

Very few city and county websites provide explicit information regarding fair housing or housing discrimination and even fewer provide links to file a complaint.

Other fair housing trends identified in jurisdictional AIs include a limited supply of affordable units, poor condition of existing affordable units, a shortage of accessible units, NIMBYism, and regulatory barriers to affordable development and siting of group homes.

DENVER REGION FAIR HOUSING EQUITY ASSESSMENT SECTION V, PAGE 1

SECTION V Citizen and Stakeholder Input

This section discusses the findings from the citizen input processes conducted for the FHEA. The section is organized around the primary themes gathered through the input.

Citizen Deliberation Process Citizens participated in the process through attendance at focus groups held in RCAPs and/or ECAPs in the region during March and April. All focus groups were held at facilities accessible to persons with disabilities and close to fixed route bus stops. A total of 65 adults participated in the discussions.

Locations. Focus groups were held at the Southwest Improvement Council community center in the Westwood neighborhood (Kentucky and Irving streets); the Pauline Robinson Library in north Park Hill (33rd

Recruiting. Xcelente Global led a bilingual recruiting campaign that included door-to-door distribution of flyers promoting the meeting (appended at the end of this section); outreach with nonprofits and the public housing authorities operating in the target neighborhoods; and distribution of flyers at local businesses and community centers.

and Holly); and the Friendly Village of the Rockies (manufactured housing community in Federal Heights).

Incentives. Each participant received $25 in cash, bus tickets, and dinner from a local Mexican restaurant. Xcelente provided bilingual child care at each session.

Bilingual facilitation. Xcelente Global’s principals are both native Spanish speakers. In the Westwood neighborhood, Xcelente facilitated a focus group with Spanish speakers, while BBC facilitated a group with English speakers. All of the participants in the north Park Hill and Federal Heights meetings preferred to speak English.

Turnout. Turnout at the Westwood and north Park Hill focus groups exceeded expectations—20 adults attended the Westwood session, accompanied by seven small children, and 33 adults participated in the north Park Hill focus groups. In Westwood, 15 of the participants were Spanish-dominant, so two focus groups were held simultaneously—one with Spanish speakers and one with English speakers. In north Park Hill, the study team broke the participants into three simultaneous focus group sessions. A total of 12 adults attended the Federal Heights session.

Participant characteristics. All of the participants self-described as very low income. Several had Section 8/Housing Choice Vouchers and several lived in Denver Housing Authority properties. In Westwood, the participants were predominantly renters. In both north Park Hill and Federal Heights, the participants included homeowners as well as renters. A few


participants at each location were homeless and staying with friends while they seek affordable housing. Some of the participants had physical or cognitive disabilities.

20 participants were Hispanic

32 participants were African American

2 participants from the Middle East

11 participants were Caucasian

Lessons learned. The study team attempted to hold a focus group at a library on the Front Range Community College campus. While easily accessible by transit, the location was not in walking distance to the target neighborhood (about 20 blocks away) and was located in a higher income area. Despite the same level of recruiting intensity as the other locations, no participants came to the focus group. We believe that the most effective way to gain participation is to hold the meeting within the neighborhood of interest, as demonstrated by the extremely well attended sessions at the other locations.

Bus tickets were extremely popular with attendees and were valued almost as highly as the $25 incentive.

Stakeholder Deliberation Process Stakeholders were engaged throughout the FHEA process, beginning with the scoping of the research. Initial stakeholder outreach focused on communities that receive direct community development allocations from HUD. Through the early deliberation process DRCOG determined that a FHEA should be completed as part of the SCI effort – the region also had the option to complete a Regional Analysis of Impediments. DRCOG also relied on DRCOG committees (Metro Vision Planning Advisory Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee) for input. DRCOG hosted two meetings of an ad hoc group focused on equity issues in the process to update Metro Vision, the region’s long-range plan for growth and development.

In addition to ongoing communications, meetings and information sessions, BBC facilitated a stakeholder deliberation meeting focused on the findings from the FHEA analysis. Stakeholders had the opportunity to respond to the findings and strategies as well as make further recommendations or refinements to the strategies (discussed below).

In addition to the above, stakeholders knowledgeable about regional equity, housing affordability and the needs of low income and special needs residents were interviewed during the development of the FHEA. These stakeholders represented the following interests:

Affordable housing professionals;

Fair housing agencies;

Housing and land use planners;

Private sector developers;


Providers of housing opportunities for people with disabilities;

Regional homelessness initiatives;

Regional housing authorities; and

Units of local government.

Lessons learned. Although the stakeholders engaged throughout the FHEA are knowledgeable in fields associated with housing, planning, transportation, economic development, health care and other industries, they struggled with discussing the concept of access to opportunity in the context of local and regional planning and its ties to fair housing. We believe that this is due to the newness of “access to opportunity” as a framework for deliberating how the region supports—or creates barriers—for persons of all ages, incomes and abilities to achieve a high quality of life. As leaders, staff and other stakeholders become more familiar with the concept of access to opportunity, we believe future deliberations will yield richer discussions.

Themes from Citizen and Stakeholder Deliberation Both stakeholders and citizens were asked questions—albeit in different ways—about the most pressing housing needs and how to improve access to economic opportunity. The discussions with residents residing in RCAP and ECAP neighborhoods focused more specifically on neighborhood and community needs, while stakeholder discussions addressed regional needs.

Primary findings are described below and organized broadly around the top citizen themes and the top stakeholder themes.

Citizen deliberation themes. Themes from the discussions with residents in RCAP and ECAP neighborhoods included affordability, access to opportunity, transportation, safety, and knowledge of fair housing information.

Scarcity of affordable housing. Participants in all of the discussion groups felt that finding affordable housing in Denver was a challenge.

“A lot of people are forced to move in with family.”

“I have a 21 year old granddaughter, who has a child. Also, a 13 year old granddaughter. I’m looking for something for all of us in the $800 range and I am currently living with a friend.”

“Without DHA (Denver Housing Authority), I would be out on the street.”

“Forest City in Stapleton never built the affordable housing they promised.”

“I was transitioning careers, so didn’t have much money. It was hard to find something that was compatible with my income.”

“There is no way we could have lived anywhere else on both of our salaries.”


“It’s fair to say there is not enough housing for low income.”

Lack of access to opportunity. Lack of access to opportunity, including poor school quality, few economic opportunities, and lack of community amenities, was deliberated in all three discussion groups.

“I would like to know where all the rec centers are. It’s hard to find rec centers that do the whirlpool that would help my husband recuperate. The only thing around here is a Y, and that is for the kids.”

“Kids are coming out not knowing how to read, but they’re getting a C average.”

“I wish there was a supermarket closer to this immediate area.”

“There needs to be more job training. People get out of prison and get no training, so they go back to crime to pay the bills. What else are you supposed to do?”

“We need new business to come here to help generate money in the neighborhood. For example, there was that grocery store close, before gangs burned it down. This Boys & Girls Club looks good, but doesn’t generate much. Plus, the grocery store across the street jacks up prices. We need places that will come in and assist people of color.”

“We need transportation, health care, grocery shopping. There is a nice area around Federal and Mississippi where some businesses could locate. It would be perfect for a grocery store and place where I could get my prescriptions.”

“I used to be able to walk to King Sooper’s and a laundry mat. Those things aren’t around anymore.”

Access to public transportation. Many participants relied solely on public transportation. For most, the system is accessible and gets them where they need to go. Others, specifically those in the Westwood area, are limited by service hours and frequency. Cost is a big issue for most.

“Being in this area is actually very convenient for accessing public transportation.”

“The 11 bus runs minutes apart, but only during peak hours. When the kids get out of school at 3, if they miss that bus they are stuck there for another full hour.”

“I would take the bus, but I have financial problems, so I can’t afford it.”

“There are about six bus stops close to here. So there is great access to public transportation.”

“Transportation is great, too. A bunch of the bus lines run just up the street, so it’s easy to get wherever you need to go.”

Discriminatory rental practices and landlord/tenant disputes. Discriminatory rental practices, including landlords refusing to rent to families with children, and quoting higher rental rates to


people with strong Hispanic accents, were deliberated in all three discussion groups. Refusal to return rental deposits was an issue specifically among Hispanic participants; only one of the Spanish speaking participants had ever gotten a deposit back.

“We were not allowed to rent because we did not speak English and we were not citizens.”

“If you do not speak English, you are subject to a lot of lies”, regardless of whether you are buying or renting. “Prices go up, fees go up, commissions go up, waiting times go up.”

“One time, I called to get a price on a 2-bedroom apartment. They told me it would be $950 per month. I asked a friend who speaks good English to call and confirm that I understood the price properly, and they told her the price was $650. If they hear your accent, prices go up.”

“There is a property close to here and when I applied for an apartment the white owner wanted to meet my grandmother and he called my job. Landlords just try to get as much money as they can. They charge different prices for different people and it doesn’t make any sense.”

“Another time, a tree fell on a house and there was no electricity. The landlord did not want to fix it because the house did not carry proper insurance. All our food went bad.”

Safety. Participants in all three locations had safety concerns, including fear of going out in the evening, harassment by law enforcement (north Park Hill), violence, and drug use in the neighborhood (Federal Heights).

“I won’t walk around at night.”

“I’ve even found needles out there. Homeless people have slept in people’s sheds.”

“People speed through the community when there are children around. People also smoke pot right outside. I have to pick up broken beer bottles so my son can play outside safely.”

Lack of fair housing information. None of the participants were aware of their rights under the Fair Housing Act and did not know where to go for more information or assistance.

Stakeholder deliberation themes. Themes from the discussions with stakeholders included lack of economic opportunities, transportation, and special needs populations.

Economic opportunities for disadvantaged residents. Access to education and job training opportunities were mentioned as the top barriers to opportunity by stakeholders who work with disadvantaged residents and residents in poverty. According to stakeholders, key to successful outcomes are:

Provision of child care and transportation to community colleges and job training centers. The residents with the most success moving to opportunity are those who have been provided with these supports.


“As a region, we need to be encouraging older adults to turn in their keys…through offering easy-to-use alternative types of transportation.”

Mentoring for low income and at-risk children, to help them discover that there are opportunities to achieve beyond what they have been exposed to (at home, in poor performing schools).

Reducing transportation costs. Helping low income residents managing their transportation costs was mentioned often as a way to improve the economic situation of low income households. Low income residents are extremely cost sensitive, much more so than other income groups. Reducing any portion of their household expenses is helpful—and transportation is usually a large part of household costs.

These residents are also more vulnerable than others in their employment situation. Making it easier for these residents to maintain consistent employment (e.g., by reducing their commute time and risk of being late to work) is important.

Expanded transportation solutions. Transportation was top of mind for many stakeholders. Many stakeholders representing suburban communities named transit as a top issue: The limited transit in suburban communities requires low income and moderate income households to own a car, which adds to already tight household budgets. Another top concern—particularly in communities that are expected to age the fastest—is the growing need for alternative forms of transportation with the aging of Baby Boomers.

Stakeholders acknowledge that expanding transit—and therefore, transit oriented development—where it is currently limited is tricky, since transit investment is demand-driven. And, since transit is a scoring provision on Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) applications, areas without transit are not building affordable rental housing.

Urban areas, despite having more access to transit, still have large gaps in transit provision. For example, older adults may not be capable of walking ½ mile to the nearest transit hub. As housing densities increase, transit will need to be expanded so that urban settings can function.

All stakeholders emphasized a need for creating more older adult-friendly developments near transit, as well as providing “training” to older adults to encourage them to use transit. Transit should also accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities who rely on transit for more than work-to-home travel. Transit should be available later in the evening and on weekends to adequately meet their needs.

In sum, stakeholders called for more creative thinking around regional transit provision, especially to serve the growing population of older adults and people with disabilities. Some mentioned innovative ideas such as smaller, transit circulators that can link areas of need within both urban and suburban areas. These circulators could connect older adults, people with disabilities and low income, working households with service and employment centers.

Address needs of special needs residents. Three types of populations were mentioned as having the greatest needs in the region:


“We need to find efficient ways to reach older adults living in suburban and rural areas in the region as they age, providing them with meals, services and accessible transit as needed.”

“Adequately addressing the housing and supportive needs of residents who are homeless and have mental illness and substance abuse challenges benefits the region economically by reducing public safety, incarceration and emergency health care costs.”

Older adults,

Persons experiencing homelessness,

Persons with disabilities.

Older adults. Not only will older adults need better transit accommodations as they age (discussed above), they will also need additional housing options. Region wide, there is a shortage of housing types for older adults wishing to downsize into attached homes and patio

homes that are in walkable areas, near their families, services and health care.

Communities with older adults who are aging in semi-rural and rural environments worry about the costs of reaching older adults with service needs. Delivery of meals, home health care and groceries is much more expensive when older adults live in very low density environments.

Needs of persons who are homeless. Persons experiencing homelessness face a variety of challenges; their complex situations require an “all hands on deck” approach. Better regional coordination—specifically, creation of a single point of entry system— is needed to ensure the most efficient use of resources and the best way to provide the homeless the services they need.

A long term solution to homelessness is only possible with development of more permanent, supportive housing regionwide.

Public housing authorities and nonprofits who serve similar clients need to be trained on how to best work with clients with severe and persistent mental illnesses and clients with the worst case needs. These are some of the most complex clients to serve. The region needs to expand the capacity of housing authorities to meet the needs of more complicated clients through partnerships with mental health providers. Most providers of housing are not well-equipped to manage the challenges our housing the region’s most complicated residents.

Persons with disabilities. Many persons with disabilities are older adults and, as such, share the same challenges with transportation and access to services. Transit may not always run when needed, many buses can’t accommodate more than one wheelchair at a time and areas around bus stops are not always maintained, particularly during winter months. Many suburban parts of the region and rural areas do not have sidewalks, forcing residents using wheelchairs into the streets.


There is a tremendous opportunity to improve major corridors to be pedestrian/bike/ wheelchair friendly.

For non-older adults who have disabilities, finding quality, accessible housing near transit is very difficult. As rents rise, fewer landlords are accepting Section 8 and many of those who do are in older buildings, which are not accessible.

Local regulations to incentivize the development of visitable housing have not produced many units by the private sector, although they have generated funding for housing subsidies. There appears to be a disconnect between need and perceived demand by the development community.

Recommendations from Citizen and Stakeholder Deliberation This section summarizes the strategies and actions stakeholders and citizens recommend for addressing the top regional needs they identified. While not subject matter experts, citizens offered their ideas for solutions to the issues they raised during their deliberations. Although stakeholders were asked to recommend actions for a broad set of entities, almost all preferred to talk about their ideas for partnership opportunities and initiatives spearheaded by DRCOG.

Their suggestions include opportunities for DRCOG to assist with provision of data and information, taking an expanded role in education and outreach, and facilitating efforts to improve regional coordination and planning. Some stakeholders had specific ideas related to funding allocations; these are summarized at the end of the section.

Opportunities for providing data and research. With respect to aiding member communities affirmatively further fair housing, stakeholders and residents recommended that DRCOG provide data and research to support fair housing planning, much like DRCOG serves as a resource for transportation planning.

Provide databases, data analyses and maps to help communities satisfy their obligations to conduct an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI).

Provide communities with information on aging housing stock to use in home rehabilitation program targeting.

Conduct analyses and research that focus on outcomes to improve economic opportunity for low income residents. Support and promote the best programs and policies that improve opportunity for low income residents.

Focus future research on “scenario planning” to demonstrate the economic and environmental costs of varying growth models.

Conduct a comprehensive analysis of child care options for low income households—including those provided by informal networks—in the region relative to the location of affordable housing. More information documenting the link between provision of child care and successful education and job training outcomes for low income households is needed, including a study of the negative impacts on declining funding for Head Start programs.


“We need to be able to react fast [when presented with opportunities to develop affordable housing]—and we have no ability to do so.”

Opportunities for providing information. In addition to original research and creating a data repository, DRCOG could be the regional provider of fair housing and development information, including providing information about affordable housing funding opportunities.

Maintain a fair housing webpage on behalf of the region. Residents now need to consult many different websites to find solutions to their problems and the information is hard to find and inconsistent.

Be the collector and provider of information about pending development, a depository for “what’s coming up in your area.”

Provide information on upcoming funding opportunities for affordable housing. Such information would mobilize resources to get ahead of needs. A good example of how DRCOG can provide information is its latest grant application timeline.

Opportunities for providing training and education. Stakeholders discussed opportunities for DRCOG to serve as a regional trainer on subjects ranging from fair housing to strategies to lower the costs of housing to best practices for urban center development.

Sponsor a comprehensive, metro wide fair housing training. Most jurisdictions conduct small efforts during fair housing month but they have little impact.

Research and hold regular meetings about best practices communities can consider to lower the cost of housing and plan for balanced housing stock. Local governments could use the most guidance with respect to: 1) Expediting the development approval process and 2) Completing area plans, incorporating needed densities consistent with 2040 Metro Vision goals for housing and employment growth in urban centers.

Lead a promotion of best practices for zoning around urban centers. Examine the benefits of different zoning types and how proactive, flexible, zoning can facilitate balanced housing and reduce regulatory burdens.

Partnership and leadership opportunities. DRCOG can be a regional leader to convene municipal leaders and staff, nonprofit organizations and other stakeholders to improve regional planning, discuss strategies for affordable housing funding, helping communities understand their workforce housing needs and helping organizations that have traditionally served low income and special needs populations in the urban core to provide services regionally.

Lead a collaborative effort to improve regional planning. Such an approach is needed to solve many of the existing challenges and opportunities for future, quality development across county lines.

Spearhead an examination of alternative sources of funding for housing development (housing trust fund). Sponsor a “generation of ideas” about new funding sources, potentially partnering with banks and/or the local branch of the Federal Reserve. This


“It needs to be easier—to obtain development approvals, to find zoning, to receive financing—for mixed-income, mixed-use housing. Such developments are the most desirable and stable and are thriving, in demand.”

“Part of community feel is seeing people who you know working in your community.”

discussion/workshop should include a presentation of models that the region could replicate.

Work with communities who need balanced housing to help their leaders understand the economic benefits of providing housing to workforce—reduced impact on roads, less traffic congestion, a nicer place to live and more local investment by residents.

Collaborate with nonprofits to help them grow regionally and provide services to low income households, older adults, persons with disabilities, particularly in suburban areas where poverty is growing and residents are aging more quickly.

Rethinking housing goals. Many stakeholders described a more prescriptive role for DRCOG with respect to housing and transportation. Recommendations included:

Develop targets or thresholds for housing—where to accommodate a variety of housing types—with the overall goal that the region should aspire to accommodate housing for everyone who wants to live and work here. Communities would be rewarded for their efforts contributing to housing balance in the region.

Prioritize funding in areas that support affordable housing, transit and job and education connections. Much more coordination between transit and housing planning around urban centers is needed.

Support or require station area planning that incorporates affordable housing.

Require a “public benefit” component in the form of affordable housing provision for all funded projects by DRCOG and promote for other funding types. An example is Utah’s requirement that redevelopment projects using Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funding incorporate affordable or workforce housing or contribute to the state’s housing trust fund.

DENVER REGION FAIR HOUSING EQUITY ASSESSMENT SECTION VI, PAGE 1

SECTION VI Conclusions, Recommendations and Next Steps

This section contains recommendations for removing housing barriers and improving access to opportunity in the Denver region. It begins with a summary of the top needs identified in the Fair Housing Equity Assessment (FHEA).

The primary research in the FHEA assessed “access to opportunity” in the region. Access to opportunity means that residents of all types can reside in neighborhoods containing the housing and community supports they need. Such community supports include good schools, job opportunities, health care, transportation and safety. Improving opportunity can take the form of increasing access to high opportunity areas and/or increasing community assets (and reducing stressors) in struggling neighborhoods.

The FHEA also examined evidence of discrimination in the region, the existence of segregation and the provision of information about fair housing to residents.

Summary of Needs The gaps identified through the FHEA research can be thought of as two distinct gaps: 1) Gaps in access to opportunity for the region’s residents and 2) Gaps in the existence and provision of fair housing information.

Gaps in opportunity. Gaps in access to opportunity were identified through an analysis of opportunity indicators including school quality, job access, income equality, access to health care and neighborhood investment.1

School quality. Elementary school quality varies widely across the region: more than half of residents in Douglas, Gilpin and Broomfield counties live in neighborhoods with high quality schools but in Adams, Clear Creek, Denver and Weld counties, fewer than one-quarter of residents live in a neighborhood with high quality schools. Minorities and children living in poverty, as well as renters, are much less likely to live near high quality schools than the rest of the region’s population. Access to quality schools is limited by affordable housing options and transit options in high performing areas.

Opportunity gaps in the region include:

Job/housing access. The primary job centers of the Denver region are the central business district, the Denver Tech Center and Boulder. White collar jobs, in particular, tend to be concentrated in those traditional centers while blue collar jobs tend to be more dispersed with some additional concentrations in and around the airport, along the I-70 corridor and along Santa Fe Drive. Many of the inner ring suburbs have pockets of very low

1 The opportunity measures chosen are not exhaustive of the many indicators of economic opportunity. These were chosen because they were readily available, recommended by stakeholders and/or provided by HUD.


job accessibility and outer ring suburbs, which are farthest from job centers, tend to have very limited transit access and relatively high transportation costs. Outside downtown Denver there is a significant mismatch between job opportunities and affordable housing (for both renters and owners). While transit does provide access to a number of jobs in the region, there are many communities either not well served by transit or only served during “normal” business hours, making it difficult for residents working nights or weekends to access employment.

There is also a mismatch between job training resources and areas that are most likely to need those resources—high proportions of unemployed residents and adults with less than a high school degree. For example, job training centers are clustered near downtown Denver but neighborhoods with the lowest levels of educational attainment are North Denver and Southwest Adams, Aurora and southwest Denver. Although most job training centers are located on transit lines, the communities needing to access training are not always well connected, especially for after-hours and/or weekend classes.

Income inequality. There are about 49,000 residents living in extremely high poverty neighborhoods (greater than 40%, the point at which an area becomes socially and economically dysfunctional). Racial/ethnic minorities are much more likely to live in those neighborhoods than non-Hispanic whites. Areas of high poverty also tend to have other neighborhood stressors such as poor housing condition, below average school quality, high crime and low levels of capital investment.

Denver has the fifth highest residential income segregation among the nation’s 30 largest metro areas, according to a recent report conducted by the Pew Research Center.

Prevailing research shows that neighborhoods can absorb up to 14 percent poverty without adverse impact to the community. High poverty Census tracts represent 2 percent of all tracts in the region, whereas very low poverty tracts (less than 14% poverty) represent 68 percent of all tracts in the region and house 1.9 million residents. The many low poverty communities in the region could improve access for families wishing to escape high poverty areas by providing more diverse and affordable housing stock without compromising their existing level of opportunity.

Health care. Currently, health facilities are reasonably well distributed relative to population density in the region (98% of residents live within 5 miles of a health facility). However, as the suburban population ages, proximity and transit access to smaller, local health clinics will become increasingly important, as will in-home health services. It should also be noted that while a very high proportion of residents live in close proximity to a health facility, it was beyond the scope of this analysis to evaluate whether residents live near the types of facilities they are most likely to need.

Neighborhood investment. In addition to poverty, characteristics such as crime, disinvestment and foreclosures can diminish the level of opportunity within a neighborhood. Residential investment, in particular, can have a great impact on neighborhoods by providing a catalyst for revitalization. Unfortunately, communities with low and declining property values—those with the highest need for investment—are


usually those that have the hardest time getting capital. In the Denver region, majority minority areas as well as areas with poor housing stock tend to have high rejection rates for home purchase and home improvement loans. As affordability has declined in the region, these areas are some of the only places left with affordable homes to buy—yet they offer less access to good schools and well-paying jobs.

Figure VI-1 summarizes these key measures of access to opportunity for the region as a whole.

Figure VI-1. Summary of Diversity, Opportunity and Access, Denver Region

Sources:

2000 Census, 2010 Census, 2008-2012 ACS, HMDA, HUD, BBC Research & Consulting and DRCOG.

Gaps in information. The region lacks a coordinated outreach system to educate residents and landlords about their fair housing rights, obligations and responsibilities. Historically, most fair housing organizations in the region have focused on enforcement.

As such, fair housing outreach efforts have fallen on HUD entitlement jurisdictions, as part of their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing choice. But budget and staffing constraints limit the jurisdictions’ capacity to conduct comprehensive, fair housing education and outreach efforts. A review of jurisdictional websites in the region found that few provide explicit information regarding fair housing or housing discrimination and/or links to file a complaint.

Total Population, 2010 2,858,070Total Housing Units, 2010 1,128,782Household Diversity

Percent minority 33%Percent of minorities living in a concentrated area 49%Percentage point change in minority population (2000 to 2010) 5%Percent with a disability 9%Percent families 62%Percent seniors 10%

Indicators of Opportunity (Neighborhood Quality)Assets (indicators of positive opportunity)

Percent of population in neighborhoods with high quality schools 29%Percent of population with high job accessibility index rating 24%Percent of population within 3 miles of a health facility 95%

Stressors (indicators of negative opportunity)Poverty Rate 12%Percent of residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods (>40%) 2%Percent of residents living in high crime neighborhoods 33%Residential capital constraints (home loan denial rate) 12%

Indicators of Equitable Access (Transit and Housing)Percent of population with access to public transit (1) 58%Average monthly transportation costs $1,108Percent of housing units that are rentals 36%Percent of rentals that are subsidized (2) 4%Percent of rentals that are <$625 per month

14%

Percent of rentals between $625 and $1250 per month

59%Percent of homes valued at < $150,000 15%Percent of homes valued between $150,000 and $250,000 32%

DENVER REGION


The result is that fair housing information is inconsistently available to residents, particularly for those who need it the most. Focus groups with residents held for the FHEA found that many Spanish-speaking renters experience discrimination—from being told that children aren’t allowed in units to refusal to return security deposits without reason—and they do not know how to seek help. Many do not have internet access and, as such, are not well-served by fair housing information that is only available online.

How to Improve Access to Opportunity Strengthening the economic capacity of residents in the Denver region is a complex effort, requiring a diverse set of strategies and collaboration among counties and cities in the region and other public and private entities.

Because of the many factors involved in increasing opportunity—improving school quality, growing jobs that pay a livable wage, ensuring that residents can live near where they work, providing a range of housing choices to accommodate lifestyle and economic changes—improving access to opportunity must be a coordinated, concerted effort.

DRCOG’s role. DRCOG can play an important role on increasing access to opportunity by strengthening the linkages between affordable housing, educational opportunities, job centers and transit. As its role as the AAA, DRCOG is also in a unique position to be a catalyst for improving opportunities for older adults and persons with disabilities.

To this end, it is recommended that DRCOG:

Recommendation 1. Begin by establishing a joint effort to address opportunity gaps. The first step in addressing the gaps to opportunity is to convene a set of public and private partners interested in working with DRCOG to improve opportunity. At this meeting, a set of guiding principles for addressing opportunity should be established. These vision statements might include:

Improving economic stability in the Denver region will require a shared commitment

Increasing the opportunity for upward mobility is important for economic growth within the region

Promoting inclusivity and supporting a diverse mix of housing types in the region is an important part of improving opportunity.

The primary findings from the FHEA could guide a discussion of how each partner could contribute to improving opportunity—as well as how to measure progress. For example, a goal may be to improve the regional distribution of for sale housing units priced less than $350,000 in high opportunity neighborhoods. Another may be to begin dialogue with leadership in poor performing schools to determine how the region can help support student growth.

Beyond the first meeting, this joint effort may take the form of a working group or task force that meets quarterly to monitor progress and reports on activities—as well as challenges—in addressing opportunity gaps.


Recommendation 2. Require or reward communities that work to improve their affordable housing imbalances. DRCOG could also take on a more direct role in addressing access to opportunity by prescribing concerted efforts to bring affordable and workforce housing into high opportunity areas.

Very low poverty tracts (less than 14% poverty) represent 68 percent of all tracts in the region and house 1.9 million residents. The many low poverty communities in the region could improve access for families wishing to escape high poverty areas by providing more diverse and affordable housing stock without compromising their existing level of opportunity.

The most successful way to produce geographically-based affordable and workforce housing is through mandates or incentives. To this end, DRCOG could reconsider transportation funding allocation priorities to:

As part of funding scoring, reward extra points to communities providing (or planning to provide) a certain proportion of affordable and workforce housing near employment/job training centers, to underserved populations (e.g., homeless) and/or to address imbalances, as identified in local housing needs assessments.

Prioritize transportation projects that are catalysts to revitalization of disadvantaged areas—for example, projects that enable disadvantaged populations to more easily access community colleges or workforce centers. An example would be connecting residents in Denver Housing Authority’s Mariposa development to Denver Health, food service businesses on Broadway and the Auraria campus. This might also include creation of a circulator to connect low income residents, as well as older adults and persons with disabilities, with job training, service centers and employment (see Next Steps section below).

Best practices. An examination of if and how other councils of government allocate Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) dollars to support housing and equity efforts was beyond the scope of this study. A recent comparative analysis of TIP allocations among various regions found that Atlanta is unique in that, up until a recent modification of the scoring process, it provided “extra consideration” to applicants whose projects were located in Equitable Target Areas, which had significant equity issues and/or had large populations of older adults.2

Recommendation 3. Support efforts to improve school quality in the region’s core neighborhoods. A spatial analysis of good quality schools and transportation costs shows that to access the highest quality schools in the region, residents must locate in neighborhoods with higher transportation costs. Many of these areas offer few affordable housing choices. Strengthening schools in the region’s core neighborhoods not only has long term economic payoffs, but also has the potential to reduce transportation challenges.

2 http://www.ssti.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Final-Sept-2013-Regional-Solicitation-of-Federal-Transportation-Funding.pdf


It is recognized that Boards of Education and school districts have the most direct influence on improving school quality. Yet DRCOG could be a model for other government organizations by dedicating resources, as available, to support educational improvement in disadvantaged areas. This would be similar to the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) in Kansas City’s engagement in efforts to support development of homes for people who are/or at-risk of homelessness.

Educational support activities that DRCOG could implement might include:

As funds allow, provide grants for instructional supports, such as tutoring and afterschool programming, and technology improvements.

Through volunteer efforts of staff and DRCOG leadership, support nonprofits that provide books, computers, supplemental instruction and mentoring to help at-risk children.

Convene a workshop of leaders—businesses, community colleges, nonprofits, faith-based organizations, Chambers of Commerce—to focus on skill building and job training for residents living in low opportunity areas and/or with low levels of educational attainment. This purpose of this workshop would be to build support for and develop ideas to inform a collaborative plan to address employment and self sufficiency challenges in low opportunity areas.

Recommendation 4. Take a leadership role on improving housing opportunities and transit for persons with disabilities and older adults. To improve access to opportunity for persons with disabilities and older adults—a fast growing population cohort in the region—DRCOG’s efforts should focus on increasing visitable and accessible housing options and access to transit.

DRCOG’s actions could include:

Through AAA surveys and discussions with residents, explore the demand for expanded and formal rideshare and transit options for persons with disabilities and older adults, particularly older adults in rural areas who lack public transit options. This might be part of the pilot program recommended in the RHS.

With CDOT, RTD and local governments, study the accessibility of major transportation and pedestrian corridors (e.g., Colfax Avenue, Parker Road) for how well they accommodate persons with disabilities who work/live nearby.

Continue DRCOG’s Boomer Bond initiative. This project could be broadened to include a template for analyzing how well communities provide for persons with disabilities in terms of sidewalk/street accommodation, access to transit and linkages to affordable housing availability. This could also take the form of guidance for developing a model mini-Comprehensive Plan or visioning document for integration of persons with disabilities and older adults into a community.


As part of the Boomer Bond, promote the benefits of visitability and accessibility in housing and encourage best practices in new home construction—e.g., the City of Arvada’s national model ordinance for visitable housing development.

Develop a comprehensive housing resource guide to accessible housing opportunities, in conjunction with DRCOG’s senior resource directory.3

Recommendation 5. Launch a fair housing public information campaign and support testing. The region lacks a public information campaign to inform residents about their fair housing rights and responsibilities. Currently, fair housing outreach is done at the jurisdictional level, but the extent and content varies depending on resources. Consistent messaging available throughout the region would benefit residents and landlords by increasing awareness of fair housing laws and equalizing access to information. A regional campaign would also avoid duplication of jurisdictional efforts and conserve local resources.

Document availability of accessible housing and determine unmet demand in the region. Provide this information to jurisdictions, developers and nonprofits that work with persons with disabilities to provide to their clients.

4

DRCOG currently administers a very impressive social marketing campaign to encourage ride-sharing—http://www3.drcog.org/StopBeingAnSOV/—and could explore a similar, catchy campaign to increase awareness of fair housing rights. Such a campaign should be available in languages other than English, especially Spanish.

In addition, DRCOG could provide direct financial support or provide data and information to complement testing efforts (e.g., mapping services) done by the Metro Denver Fair Housing Center. Initial testing by the Center revealed much higher rates of discrimination than originally thought, and suggests the need for additional information about how communities can work to identify and combat fair housing violations.

Recommendation 6. Provide data and information to help entitlement communities meet their fair housing obligations. All jurisdictions in the region that receive housing and community development funding from HUD are required to conduct an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). These communities are all held to the same obligations and are conducting similar efforts pulling and analyzing data, in addition to undertaking small scale efforts to mitigate fair housing barriers.

DRCOG possess a wealth of data and information that member communities could use to fulfill their future fair housing report obligations. These obligations will change toward the end of 2014 with the pending release of a new HUD template for fair housing.

Recommended activities include:

3 The guide would not be specific to older adults; it would contain housing and resources for persons with disabilities between the ages of 18 and 64, as well as older adults.

4 All jurisdictions that receive HUD block grant funding, either directly or through the state allocation, are required to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). The obligation to AFFH includes fair housing outreach and education efforts.


1) DRCOG could be a central repository of data, maps and analysis would be useful to support entitlement communities in meeting their fair housing obligations. This would go beyond the Equity Atlas by providing communities raw data or data tables. As HUD reveals its requirements for the new fair housing tool, easily accessible databases and maps that communities can use to supplement their fair housing analyses, will be needed.

Best practice—pioneer opportunity! We know of no other centralized resource, other than the data provided by HUD, that can help entitlement communities collect and analyze the data needed for fair housing studies. DRCOG could be a national leader in supporting entitlement communities’ fair housing obligations through this relatively low-cost recommended activity.

2) DRCOG could organize, formal quarterly fair housing trainings, for city staff, HOAs, small landlords5

3) In concert with development of a social marketing campaign, DRCOG could advise the Metro Denver Fair Housing Center on successful development of a fair housing website that individual jurisdictions could link to in lieu of developing their own. The website should be catchy, well-marketed, in languages other than English and contain basic fair housing information accessible to all types of residents (i.e., not contain legal language). A companion brochure should be developed for distribution at community centers, Driver’s License Bureaus, human service offices and similar sites for those residents lacking Internet access.

and residents are needed. The training currently provided by entitlement communities is limited (in some communities, only takes place during April, which is Fair Housing Month) and does not have a consistent approach.

4) DRCOG could also help the Metro Denver Fair Housing Center and member communities explore innovative approaches to building awareness of fair housing. The Random Acts of Kindness Project, based in Denver, may be a possible partner for this effort.

Best practice—innovative approaches. A local theater company in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area has presented theatrical shorts showing fair housing discrimination to churches and synagogues.

The State Division of Housing in Nevada fair housing awareness into elementary schools through drawing contests that culminate in an awards ceremony and paper calendar featuring select works of art demonstrating fair housing choice.

Last but not least, one of the best examples of building awareness is found in Fort Collins. In 2002, the city partnered with a leading developer of affordable and market rate housing, to create the Faces and Places of Affordable Housing poster campaign.6

5 Large property management companies and rental developments generally receive fair housing training through their corporate headquarters.

Working with a community

6 http://www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/faces-places-posters.php?key=affordablehousing/faces-places-posters.php

http://www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/faces-places-posters.php?key=affordablehousing/faces-places-posters.php�


readiness model developed by the Colorado State University’s Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research, the campaign was designed to inform residents that:

1. The unmet need for affordable housing in the community is a problem.

2. This unmet need is a local problem (not some other community’s problem).

3. It is everyone’s problem (at least to some extent).

The award-winning campaign’s purpose was to change residents’ attitudes about the types of people who live in affordable housing and their impression of what affordable housing “projects” look like. The City of Fort Collins partnered with numerous private and nonprofit organizations to distribute more than 3,000 posters throughout the community.

Creating Inclusive Communities in Florida: A Guidebook for Local Elected Officials and Staff on Avoiding and Overcoming NIMBY Syndrome is one of the best examples of an educational tool for informing local elected officials about affordable housing and its role in their community. Ross concisely and clearly defines affordable housing, provides local examples of the types of people who live in affordable housing and reasons for including affordable housing in communities. It also includes a discussion about fair housing. 7

Next steps. A menu of options for DRCOG has been presented in the above recommendations, along with a logical first step—beginning a conversation about improving access to opportunity with public and private partners in the region.

Based on a review of how other regional planning agencies are involved in fair housing, we believe that many of these recommendations would be “firsts” for a planning council. We highlighted one as a “pioneer opportunity” due to the relative ease of implementation and strong match with DRCOG’s current role.

We recognize that some of the recommendations require a shift from the core operations of DRCOG. To that end, before selecting from the menu of recommendations, DRCOG should, in concert with the RHS, determine its desired role in regional fair housing efforts. This role will guide how DRCOG decides to participate in and/or lead fair housing activities in metro Denver.

7 https://www6.miami.edu/cce/Resources/housing/Creating_Inclusive_Communities_in_Florida.pdf

https://www6.miami.edu/cce/Resources/housing/Creating_Inclusive_Communities_in_Florida.pdf�

Fair Housing Equity Assessment

Appendix A: Analysis of Public

Infrastructure Investments

July 1, 2014

DENVER REGION FAIR HOUSING EQUITY ASSESSMENT APPENDIX A, PAGE 1

Analysis of Public Infrastructure Investments

This section meets the HUD-required FHEA component of providing an analysis of major public investments and how such investments may improve access to opportunity to low income residents and residents with special needs.

Planned Infrastructure Investments Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) were examined for the largest government jurisdictions in the region. The major capital investments documented in the CIPs—as well as investment priorities—were analyzed to determine the likelihood that such investments would create opportunities for low income households, facilitate access to opportunity and improve conditions in areas of concentrated poverty. This section summarizes that analysis.

City and County of Denver. The largest unit of government in the metro area, Denver has more funding to dedicate to capital improvements than other municipalities: Discretionary capital projects totaled $8.7 million in 2013. Yet the city also has proportionately higher demands on its infrastructure as a major employment and entertainment center in the region and state.

Priority neighborhood-based, building projects include:

Central Denver Recreation Center, located in central Denver, within close proximity of a large inventory of apartments and along a bus line—$17 million investment

Green Valley Ranch Indoor Pool, located in one of Denver’s most racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods—a $7 million investment

Denver Coliseum/Stock Show facilities modernization, located in a low income neighborhood with significant racial and ethnic diversity—$60 million in improvements needed

Road improvements to Brighton Boulevard, along 56th

The most significant multi-modal infrastructure improvement will support the East Corridor and Gold Lines, a $17 million planned investment. These improvements will support light rail lines from Union Station to Denver International Airport (DIA). Stops are planned for 40

Avenue, on Federal Boulevard and on the Broadway/I-25 interchange, all areas with significant proportions of low income residents.

th

Prioritized park improvements are located mostly in Central Denver and in West Denver, where park and recreation facilities are the oldest. Many of these areas are also areas of Hispanic concentrations.

and Colorado in northeast Park Hill (minority impacted area), in Stapleton and South of Montebello on Peoria (also minority impacted area).


Adams County. Adams County invested $50.4 million in capital projects in 2013. Adams County only budgets for the current year (e.g., 'Year 1') with years 2-through-5 showing what is planned for in the short term, subject to annual appropriations by the Board of County Commissioners. The year 2014 county capital expenditures budget is $17.5 million, $15.2 million of which is provided through special funds.

Major facilities projects include:

Open Space projects, $2.5 million

Front Range Airport capital projects, $3.4 million

Major road and bridge capital improvement projects include:

Rotella Shelters and Parking Lot, $1.2 million

Lowell Blvd Clear Crk to 62nd

60

, $2.0 million th

Steele St. 86

Ave – RTD Federal Station, $2.2 million th to 88th

Streets Program, $5.5 million

, $1.6 million

Washington St. Phase IV, $4.6 million

Adams County is also in the planning stages on several new social initiatives, which will include infrastructure improvement components. The initiatives include:

Local Food Production District and Brighton South Sub-Area Plan. The multi-faceted plan is being created jointly with Adams County Planning & Development, Adams County Parks & Community Resources, and the City of Brighton. A component of the community development plan will include capital improvements. The project is expected to start in 2014 and be adopted as an amendment to the county comprehensive plan in 2015.

Welby Neighborhood Subarea Plan. Adams County Planning & Development commenced this plan in February 2014 as a result of requests from residents of the Welby neighborhood, a majority-minority area and where access to opportunity (schools, jobs) could be improved. The county will partner with University of Colorado at Denver, Adams County Community Development, Adams County Parks & Community Resources, the Welby Heritage Foundation, Community Enterprise/Live Well South Adams County, among others to complete a detailed study to include the following;

Detailed analysis of the area, including inventories of land and its uses, assets and constraints, and existing infrastructure,

Identification of development trends, and

Preparation of a new land use plan.

Preservation of the diverse mix of uses and eclectic character, while mitigating varying use conflicts, is the overarching goal of the plan development.


Jefferson County. Jefferson County adopted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budget for 2013 was $38.4 million. The Jefferson County 2014 – 2018 CIP is a $176.2 million plan, with $43.4 million adopted into the 2014 budget. The major planned projects in the five year plan include the following:

Major planned community based projects include:

Columbine library facility and technology improvements—$1.4 million (not located in a disadvantaged area)

Library IT replacement—$1.1 million

Other library upgrades and maintenance—$3.3 million

Major planned infrastructure improvements and emergency services improvements include:

Rocky Mountain Regional Airport improvements, $24.4 million ($13.1 million in 2014)

Open space land acquisitions, $13.0 million ($6.1 million in 2014)

Clear Creek Canyon Trail improvements, $6.6 million ($3.2 million in 2014)

Trail upgrades and future development throughout the county, $3.8 million

Wastewater system upgrade to Fairmont Outfall, $2.2 million

Human Capital Management System, $2 million

IT Services, $12.2 million to increase infrastructure, capacity, security and service

Facilities & Construction Management (FACM) major maintenance and repair, $5.0 million

Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office (JCSO) vehicle replacement, $6.4 million

Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office (JCSO) major upgrades, replacements and maintenance, $10.4 million

Community Corrections building, $7.0 million

Fleet services replacement in 2014, $23.9 million

Air conditioning upgrades, $3.2 million

Major planned transportation and road/bridge projects include:

Quincy Ave from Kipling to Wadsworth, $6.4 million ($5.9 million in 2014)

Quincy Ave at Alkire and Simms, $3.6 million

Quincy Eldridge to Alkire, $3.6 million

Waterton/Wadsworth intersection, $4.5 million


Safety related projects associated with FASTER (Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery—$8.0 million

McIntyre from 44th to 54th

32

, $3.0 million nd

Evergreen/Conifer - JC73 -Brook Forest –Thimbleberry, $1.6 million

Ave – Eldridge to Alkire, $1.9 million

Evergreen/Conifer - JC73-Buffalo Park- Brook Forest, $1.9 million

Chatfield-Pierce-Kendall, $3.7 million

Compared to Denver and Adams County, Jefferson County’s CIP focuses more on traditional, countywide needs and less on specific, neighborhood-level needs of disadvantaged areas.

Douglas County. Douglas County maintains a five-year Capital Improvement Projects Budget Priorities list. It is updated annually during the standard budgeting process. The 2014 - 2018 priorities list from the 2014 proposed budget book outlines $154.4 million in capital improvement priorities. $37 million is prioritized into 2014. Major budget priorities for the five year period are outlined below.

Major priority transportation, and road/bridge projects include:

Road & Bridges: Contract Maintenance of Condition (Asphalt surface treatments and Concrete), $48.4 million

Hilltop Road Improvements (Legends High School to Singing Hills Road), $8.6 million

Lone Tree SE Light Rail Extension, $6.6 million

County Line Road / I-25 Operational Improvements, $5.6 million

Highlands Ranch Transportation and Rehabilitation, $4.5 million

C-470 Corridor Coalition Improvements, $4 million

Waterton Road Improvements, $3.9 million

University at C-470 Improvements, $3.5 million

Roxborough – US Hwy 85 Southern Connector, $2.3 million

Peoria Street Improvements (widen E-470 to Lincoln), $2.2 million

Major infrastructure priority projects include:

Douglas County Justice Center, $7.5 million

Highland Heritage Regional Park synthetic turf expansion, $3.8 million

Construction of Wildcat Regional Park , Highlands Ranch, $3 million

Construction expansion of Human Services facilities, $2.5 million

Similar to Jefferson County, Douglas County’s CIP focuses more on traditional, countywide needs and less on specific, neighborhood-level needs of disadvantaged areas.


Boulder County. Capital building project expenses and highway / street capital expenditures in 2013 were $33.1 million in Boulder County. The County does have a five year CIP. However, due to the 2013 flood damages, the entire CIP budget is being re-routed to damage mitigation. There is not enough information available at this time as to the location and type of mitigation projects being planned.

Regional Transportation Investments. At the time of this report DRCOG is finalizing project evaluation criteria to select projects for the region’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The project evaluation criteria will be applied to projects requesting Surface Transportation Program (STP-Metro), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), and Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funds.

Several of the recommendations of the FHEA (Section VI) will be considered by the DRCOG Board of Directors – the Board is likely to take action on the project evaluation criteria in July 2014.

Summary of public infrastructure impacts. Other than transportation and repairs caused by recent natural disasters, there are no large scale, major public investments in the near future that will have a major impact on disadvantaged residents (e.g., by providing a large number of jobs in high paying, lower skilled industries). Denver and Adams Counties’ investments will most directly affect disadvantaged residents, by improving opportunity through neighborhood revitalization projects and road improvements.

1290 BROADW AY SUITE 700 DENVER COLORADO 80203-5606 303 -455-1000 FAX 303-480-6790 W WW.DRCOG.ORG

denver region fair housing equity assessment

Documents