ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING REPORT



ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING REPORT FOR LACKAWANNA AND LUZERNE COUNTIESbyRobert I. KehlerResearch and Writing Intern Published by theInstitute for Public Policy and Economic DevelopmentDecember 8, 2015Supervisor: Andrew Chew, Research AnalystKING'S COLLEGE, WILKES UNIVERSITYWILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIAIntroduction?The following report aims to assess the current housing situation in the Pennsylvania counties of Lackawanna and Luzerne. Specifically, this report will focus on accessible and affordable housing. The scope of the report will be to analyze the supply and demand for accessible and affordable housing. The procedure is as follows: the first part will display the housing supply; the second part will counter with the housing demand; and the third part will directly assess both the supply and demand by interpreting and evaluating all previous data. Ultimately, this report hopes to give insight about whether accessible and affordable housing is a problem in Lackawanna and Luzerne counties. ?The geographic parameters of this report are limited to Luzerne and Lackawanna counties. Luzerne County’s cities include Wilkes-Barre, Hazleton, Nanticoke, and Pittston. Lackawanna County’s cities include both Carbondale and Scranton.?Accessible housing can be defined as housing that accommodates a mobility, mental, vision, or hearing disability. These accommodations may include accessible light switches, outlets and thermostats, reinforced bathroom walls, entrance ramps, or enlarged common-use areas.?Affordable housing, according to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, can be defined as any housing unit that does not cost burden its resident. The HUD says: “Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened.”?The research method of this report was research through online sources. General and detailed information was available through reputable websites. The supply statistics are from US Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, subsidized housing programs. The programs featured are as follows: LIHTC, or Low Income Housing Tax Credits; HUD Funded Housing and Privately Owned Subsidized Housing; USDA-RD Multi-Family Housing, or the United States Department of Agriculture-Rural Development; and the National Housing Preservation Database. The demand data was taken from2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate data sets from the United States Census Bureau’s online database. Supply?The United States Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the federal branch of the government that deals with all aspects of housing in the United States. Led by Secretary Julián Castro, the HUD seeks “to create strong, sustainable, and inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.”?The HUD subsidizes a variety of affordable and accessible housing programs. This section will summarize and synthesize the number units available through the following programs: Low-IncomeHousing Tax Credit (LIHTC)HUD Funded Housing and HUD Privately Owned Subsidized HousingUS Department of Agriculture—Rural Agriculture (USDA-RA) Multi-family HousingNational Housing Preservation DatabaseAll data is considered accurate as of August 31, 2014. ?The supply data is as follows:In the totaled federally-assisted properties, there are—at a minimum—13,939 affordable units. There are 6,608 units in Lackawanna County and 7,331 in Luzerne County. Although an unknown number of these units are accessible, there were 104 confirmed accessible units through the LIHTC. Of these, 55 units are located in Lackawanna County and can be classified as follows: 42 support a mobility handicap, 9 support a hearing & vision handicap, and 4 support both hearing & vision and mobility handicaps. The remaining 49 units are located in Luzerne County and can be classified as follows: 27 support a mobility handicap, 12 support a hearing & vision handicap, and 10 support both hearing & vision and mobility handicaps. When totaling properties, there are 101 affordable housing properties in both counties. Of these, 36 properties are located in Lackawanna County, and 65 properties are located in Luzerne County. In Lackawanna County, there are 16 properties that cater to the elderly (65+) and one that caters to the disabled. In Luzerne County, there are 20 properties that cater to the elderly and two that cater to the disabled. ?Shortcoming #1: accessibility. Most properties do not list the number of units that are accessible. For example, the HUD Private Homes program has six total properties in both counties; however, the accessibility of these properties is unavailable. While they might have accessible features, the properties are only considered affordable;research could not confirm their accessibility. This rule is applied to all programs; in short, if accessible features or units were not confirmable, they were only considered affordable housing. ?Shortcoming #2: unit transparency. Some properties did not list their unit quantities. All properties stemming from the HUD Funded Housing / Privately Owned Subsidized Housing and the USDA Multi-family housing programs did not provide a unit quantity. A fewproperties stemming from the LIHTC and National Housing Preservation Database programs did not provide unit quantities either. Demand?All demand data is provided by the US Census Bureau. Yearly, the Bureau produces the American Community Survey which “is an ongoing survey that provides data every year -- giving communities the current information they need to plan investments and services. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are distributed each year.” The following data is based on a four-year assessment period—from 2010 to 2014. ?Interest centers around six key points:Total number of disabled populationBreakdown of disabled population by type of disabilityPercent of disabled with income below the poverty linePercent of total population with income below the poverty linePercent of elderly residents below the poverty line1.2.3.4.5.AnalysisThe most prevalent points of the demand data concern static increases in certain demographics. In order to evaluate the accessible and affordable housing situation in the two counties, it is necessary to not only evaluate the present, but anticipate future developments too. By evaluating each of the above graphs, this section of the analysis focuses on finding patterns and trends in the disabled, elderly, and impoverished populations of both counties, and hypothesizing the future housing needs of both counties. Demand AnalysisTotal Number of Disabled Population in Both Counties over Four YearsSometimes it is best to start at the beginning and most obvious area when beginning to analyze data. In a report about accessible housing, the overall number of disabled residents is a good place to start when first assessing both counties. Figure 1 displays the number of disabled residents in both counties. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 117240255715A telling statistic is that the disabled population has been relatively decreasing for Luzerne County, while the same disabled population has increased from 2012-2013. As seen in Figure 1, Luzerne’s disabled population has been rather stagnant, except for a subtle decrease than is most noticeable from 2010 to 2011 and 2012 to 2013. This is a good sign for Luzerne County as, according to this data, the county will not face a disabled crisis. The scenario is much more complex for Lackawanna County, though.Lackawanna County’s disabled population has been unstable over the past four years. A stagnant 2010 and 2011 dealt was met with a decrease in 2012 and ended with a sharp increase in 2013. According to the data, Lackawanna County—currently—has its largest disabled population it in four years. While consideration can be made for margins of error, Lackawanna County could easily face a problem concerning an increasing disabled population; over four years, its disabled population has increased two out of three times—comparatively, Luzerne County’s has decreased two out of three times. Thus, the drawn conclusion is that Luzerne County’s disabled population has mostly been decreasing over four years, while Lackawanna County’s has mostly been increasing over four years. Luzerne County in a better position for treating and caring for its disabled position, according to the data.Number of Disabled by Type of Disability over Four YearsLackawanna CountyWhen addressing a disabled populations, type of disability displays a unique perspective: a rather ubiquitous demographic is dispersed and categorized. It provides more insight and depth to rather lump demographic because accessible housing is often categorized by accessibility, e.g. vision & hearing or mobility. The US Census’s data recognized six classification of disability: (1) hearing, (2) vision, (3) cognitive, (4) ambulatory, (5) self-care, and (6) independent living. In Figures 2 and 3, the disabled population of both counties was correlated and grouped by the, previously mentioned, six types of disabilities. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 2178117512700In Figure 2, Lackawanna County’s, all ready mentioned, increasing disabled population has been separated and classified. The chart traces the disabilities’ progression over four years in Lackawanna County.First, the hearing-impaired experienced a peak in 2011 and 2012, but has dropped in 2013. The vision-impaired decreased slightly in 2013 after a three year gradual increase. Despite a harsh drop in 2012, the cognitive-impaired have steady risen over four years. After decreasing for three years, the ambulatory-prone have increased harshly in 2013, remaining the most numerous out of all. The self-care population has steadily rose and fallen over the four years; in particular, it rose slightly in 2013. The independent living population sharply rose in 2013, despite stabilizing in 2011 and 2012. In general, the most imperative interpretation of this data is that, out of six types of disabilities, four categories rose and only two decreased in 2013. Also, while self-care individuals increased slightly, the other three types—cognitive, ambulatory, and independent living—rose sharply in 2013. The independent living and cognitive populations are at their highest they have been in four years. The same cannot be said for ambulatory-prone but the population has certainly increased from 2012. In the other hand, the hearing- and vision-impaired populations have both decreased. So, the drawn conclusion is that, according to the data, Lackawanna’s increasing disabled population is, and will be, most prone to cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living disabilities. It is important to recognize where Lackawanna County will need to focus its resources in the future. When it considers accessible housing, the greatest want will be of cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living-assisted housing. Luzerne CountyFigure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 31781175857250In Figure 3, Luzerne County is shown to be quite contrary to Lackawanna County, but the same six type of disabilities are present. The chart traces the progression of disabilities in Luzerne County over four years. First, the hearing-impaired has dropped in 2013, despite gradually rising since 2010. The vision-impaired is similar: although rising since 2010, it fell in 2013 and remains Luzerne County’s smallest disabled population with just over seven thousand individuals. The cognitive-impaired has been rising slowly since 2011, after it dropped from 2010 to 2011. In one of the most striking statistics, the ambulatory-prone population has been steadily decreasing over the past four years—it has been a change of nearly five thousand individuals. The self-care population increased minutely in 2013, after a gradual decrease since 2010. Peaking in 2011, the independent living population has decreased in both 2012 and 2013. In general, while four of Lackawanna County’s increased, four of Luzerne County’s decreased—hearing, vision, ambulatory, and independent living. This is congruent with the notion that Luzerne’s disabled population decreased in 2013, as displayed in Figure 1. Most of the decreases have been subtle, but, to draw attention, the ambulatory population sharply and steadily decreased over the four years which cannot be said for any of the other types. Luzerne County seems to be in an overall better place for the future of its disable population which is, again, decreasing, according to the data. However, Luzerne County will need to address the increase in the cognitive and self-care populations in its future plans for accessible housing. So, the drawn conclusion is that, according to the data, Luzerne County disabled population is decreasing, and it has specifically decreased in the hearing-, vision-impaired, ambulatory, and independent living populations. It should be aware, though, that itscognitive and self-care populations increased in 2013. Thus, when considering both counties, it is important to note the following: the cognitive and self-care populations have increased; while, the hearing and vision-impaired populations have increased. This is significant because while both counties seem to be heading in opposite directions with their disabled populations (Luzerne’s decreasing, Lackawanna’s increasing), they both have experienced similar changes. As a whole, the hearing and vision-impaired populations are declining. Consider then how the two counties should approach the future of accessible housing: it seems that both should be, according to the data, focusing more of their attention on providing for the increasing cognitive and self-care populations, while shifting focus away from the hearing and vision-impaired populations. Percent of 20-64 year-old Disabled Population that is Impoverished over Four YearsFigure 4right0Here marks a change in focus from simply the disabled populations of the counties. While the disabled populations are important in addressing local housing, even more important is the consideration needed for both disabled and handicapped residents. One of the most important charts in the assessment of both counties, it hopes to find a correlation between the disabled and the impoverished populations by determining the percent of disabled population that is impoverished. The distinction is that accessible and affordable housing are two different areas, and accessible-affordable housing is another separate area as well. This chart aims to evaluate that latter category. Figure 4 traces the progression of poverty in the local disabled communities. Data was calculated by totaling the number of disabled which was then divided by the number of disabled who are impoverished. First, Lackawanna County impoverished-disabled has stabilized since 2012; from 2010 to 2011, the percentage jumped over ten percent—a drastic and significant change. Nevertheless, the percentage of impoverished-disabled has risen since 2012 in Lackawanna County. Second, Luzerne County’s percentage has been steadily rising since 2010, just eclipsing thirty percent in 2013. It has risen just under five percent in four years, having stagnated for 2011 and 2012. The drawn conclusions are intriguing: the counties are almost contrary in their progressions. First, Lackawanna County’s impoverished-disabled population is increasing, but it has risen and fallen drastically in the past four years. In particular, the large increase from 2010 to 2011 is intriguing because of its sharp difference: an over ten percent jump. On the other hand, Luzerne County’s progression proves worrying. The percentage has not decreased in four years, and based on the data, it is reasonable to assume that the percentage could increase again in 2014. This means that Luzerne County will not only have the issue of a disabled population, but an impoverished-disabled population. The ways of addressing disabled issues are not the same as those of impoverished-disabled. Thus, both counties, according to the data, are facing an increasing impoverished-disabled population that requires specific needs, accommodations, and solutions. In terms of housing, both counties will have to address their policies and future plans of accessible-affordable housing—to simply accommodate either or will not fulfill the needs of the particular impoverished-disabled population.Percent of Population below the Poverty Level over Four YearsFigure 52867025370205When considering affordable housing, the progression of the impoverished population can help predict the future needs for both counties including any crises that might arise. Figure 5 demonstrates the percentage of the total population, of both counties, that are impoverished. First, Lackawanna County’s impoverished population has been increasing since 2010. It rose only 0.2 percent from 2012 to 2013, indicating some stabilization. For Luzerne County, the impoverished population has stabilized since 2012. It dipped in 2011, but now is at its highest in four years. According to the data, in general, Lackawanna County’s impoverished population appears more threatening since it has not decreased in four years; however, it seems to have stabilized, noting the minute increase from 2012 to 2013. Luzerne County’s impoverished population, despite being the highest in four years, has stabilized from 2012 to 2013. The drawn conclusion is that both counties have a relatively stable impoverished population. In terms of housing, affordable housing should still remain a concern for both counties as fifteen percent of their populations remain impoverished. Most importantly, when considering both Figure 4 and 5, there is an interesting notion: if only about fifteen percent of the total population is impoverished, why then is the percentage much higher for the disable population? Perhaps, both graphs demonstrate that being disabled increases a resident’s chances of being impoverished as well. If there is, in fact, a definite correlation, it could prove imperative when addressing the affordable housing needs because it would allow an easier anticipation of housing needs and supply. Additionally, it would give insight to both local governments when making policies and legislation that addresses the disabled and impoverished populations.However, in order to present such a claim, the reader should be aware that Figure 4 assesses the 20-64 year old demographic, whereas Figure 5 does not. This difference alter the claim’s validity.Percent of Elderly (65+) below the Poverty Line over Four YearsFigure 6right29845Certain housing properties open accept elderly residents. For example, in Luzerne County, the borough of Freeland has the Freeland Senior Apartments, a housing property that only accepts residents that are over the age of 65. When discussing local housing issues, elderly housing is important because it often features many accommodations for the disabled. With this being said, because are there indeed a number of elderly housing properties, it is beneficial to be aware of the how at-risk the elderly population is for poverty. Figure 6 shows the percentage of aged 65+ residents who are impoverished in both counties over four years. First, Lackawanna County’s rate has been steadily increasing since 2010. It has risen four percent over the four years, and now it, obviously, sits at its highest percentage in four years. Second, Luzerne County’s impoverished-elderly population dropped in 2013 after a steady three-year increase since 2010. In general, Lackawanna County’s elderly population is become more impoverished since the past four years. It could face a problem in that a population with an, often, fixed income is becoming more impoverished—with no way of increasing their income. Whereas Luzerne County’s elderly population took a fortunate turn in 2013 after a well-needed drop. It will need to be seen if the rate continues to decrease into 2014. The drawn conclusion is that Lackawanna County will need to address affordable housing for its elderly population. Its population needs not only accessible housing, but, as the data shows, affordable housing as well, considering the rising percentage. Luzerne County is laudable because of its drop in percentage in 2013. Hopefully, the percentage will continue to decrease in the following years. Supply AnalysisOverall, there are 101 total affordable housing properties between the two counties, with Luzerne County having twenty-nine more properties than Lackawanna County. In particular, thirty-six properties, in total, cater to the elderly, which is 35.6 percent of the total amount of properties. This amount seems sufficient. However, insufficient is the number of accessible properties, or disabled properties. There are only three out of the total 101 properties—a percent of 2.9. This is the primary housing problem in the two counties: there are not enough properties that cater to the disabled population.Lackawanna CountyLackawanna County, most importantly, has the most at-risk populations. Its disabled population is rising; it has increasing groups of cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living-impaired residents; its poverty rate amongst disabled residents has recently increased; its overall poverty level has been increasing and has only stabilized recently; and the same goes for its impoverished-elderly population which is also increasing.Essentially, Lackawanna County needs to be concerned about its ubiquitous increase in disabled and impoverished populations. Not only are the populations increasing, the populations themselves are increasing in level of impoverishment. Therefore, Lackawanna County should realize that all of its solutions for accessible housing need to be affordable as well.Luzerne CountyFor Luzerne County, there are many good signs for its future housing concerns: the total number of disabled residents has been steadily declining; four out of six disability categories have declined; its overall impoverished population has stabilized; and the rate of impoverished-elderly residents has dropped. However, one stat appears worrisome: Luzerne County’s disabled population has continually grown more impoverished since 2010. The concern then becomes less about the amount of affordable housing, and more about affordable housing that is accessible as well. Luzerne County has been making great strides with many of its populations, but it has had a disturbing increase in poverty amongst its disabled population. The county needs to continue its progress into 2014 and must its future accessible housing plans to the increasing impoverished population.ConclusionBoth counties are diametric: Luzerne County seems to be in a better position for the future of its affordable and accessible housing needs; this is because many populations are decreasing. Lackawanna County seems to be in the worse position due to its numerous rising populations. The overall suggestion for both counties is to focus on creating more housing properties that cater to the disabled. Perhaps they should work to increase the amount of disabled properties from 2.9 percent to 10 percent. That would mean that out of 101 total affordable housing properties, ten would cater to disabled residents—seven up from the three that are operating now. What is not suggested is separating the disabled population from the impoverished populations. From the past data, there appears to be a correlation between impoverishment and disability: a disabled resident is more at-risk for becoming impoverished than a non-disabled resident. Thus, for both counties, accessible and affordable housing—in the future—need to be discussed, assessed, and anticipated as one.In recent developments, according to the Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS), all new housing developments constructed with Federal assistance “with five or more units must design and construct five percent of the dwelling units, or at least one unit, whichever is greater, to be accessible with mobility disabilities. … An additional two percent of the dwelling units, or at least one unit, whichever is greater, must be accessible for persons with hearing or visual disabilities.”This regulation is a promising for the future of accessible and affordable housing. Although time will tell if both the numerical requirements of the legislation are high enough, and if the future of accessible and affordable housing is optimistic. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download